E-Book Piracy: The Publishing Industry's Next Epic Saga?

[neilmarr]

"I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart." Anne Frank's diary. Neil

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Nathan Campos

As I've already said, all things have two or more sides.
eBook piracy is illegal

Depends on the definition of "piracy." Not arguing with the general concept, just pointing out that "piracy" is not a legal term, and some forms of what's commonly called "piracy" may turn out to be legal.

The recent Sony v Tenenbaum ruling said, "a defendant who used the new file-sharing networks in the technological interregnum before digital media could be purchased legally, but who later shifted to paid outlets, might also be able to rely on the defense"--indicating that unauthorized filesharing in cases where no legit digital version exists, might be legal.

and is bad for the autors,

Unproven. There's been no research that shows that unauthorized ebook-sharing lowers sales. (Or raises them, except for a few author's anecdotal experiences, which generally lean towards "extra free ebooks increase print sales somewhat.")

[DawnFalcon]

Elfwreck - Well, it's not actually binding or even persuasive given the verdict, and it's unlikely to go further given the change of tactics to pushing for further legislation to offload the cost of enforcement onto the government and other industries.

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by Nathan Campos

As I've already said, all things have two or more sides.
eBook piracy is illegal and is bad for the autors, but at the other side, make people read more. What is a very good thing, but now, the governs need to make laws and fiscalize this actions much more to make a floating point where the autor and the guy that download books illegaly are beneficiated.

Putting books that have a low price

Ebook piracy is not necessarily bad for the authors. No, I'm not saying that the author gains income from the piracy of a specific title by a person, but rather that the reader may discover that the author's works are of sufficient interest to warrant *purchase* of other titles by that author. To be specific, and in interest of full disclosure, *I* have discovered at least twenty authors by reason of stumbling across one or two of their titles on the darknet. These authors are now ones I routinely purchase from eReader, Fictionwise and Amazon.

I'd go so far as to say that being able to 'darknet' unknown works has freed me to experiment with authors in genres I had never considered reading in the days before widespread ebook availability.

Derek

[msundman]

Lots of talk about property rights here without actually saying how it relates to ebooks.. I assume most of you understand that copyright weakens natural property rights, but I just thought I'd point it out in case it's unclear to someone.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by msundman

Lots of talk about property rights here without actually saying how it relates to ebooks.. I assume most of you understand that copyright weakens natural property rights, but I just thought I'd point it out in case it's unclear to someone.

For those of us who do not understand... would you please explain that to us?

Then be so good as to explain how "natural property rights" equates to e-books.

[msundman]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

For those of us who do not understand... would you please explain that to us?

Copyright is defining what people are forbidden to do with their property, i.e. copyright is an incursion into natural property rights.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Then be so good as to explain how "natural property rights" equates to e-books.

Umm.. they don't.
(However, copyright is obviously closely related to e-books.)

[tompe]

Originally Posted by msundman

Copyright is defining what people are forbidden to do with their property, i.e. copyright is an incursion into natural property rights.

No it does not since ideas are not property.

And how do you define "natural property rights"? How are they different from "property rights"?

[msundman]

Originally Posted by tompe

No it does not since ideas are not property.

Re-read what I wrote. (I have never implied that ideas are property.)

Originally Posted by tompe

And how do you define "natural property rights"? How are they different from "property rights"?

I mean "natural property" (or "material property") as opposed to "artificial property" (such as immaterial "property").

[David Derrico]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

"My deduction..."

See, this is the sort of data you need, because it informs your own marketing efforts..

Absolutely, it is very difficult to know where to spend time and money on marketing efforts, and it's important to try to figure out what is and isn't successful. I also listen with open ears to the experiences of other authors wherever I can find them. I'm trying to get better at this marketing thing...

For the record, sales through my own website have perked up a bit in the past couple of days (though I'm still selling more through Amazon), probably mainly through this thread! Thanks for giving a new author a try, I do appreciate it and hope you enjoy the novels!

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by msundman

Lots of talk about property rights here without actually saying how it relates to ebooks.. I assume most of you understand that copyright weakens natural property rights, but I just thought I'd point it out in case it's unclear to someone.

Copyright limits natural (an odd word, that) property rights--just like laws against gun usage in city limits, or laws against dumping toxic chemicals, or laws about noise levels. All of those limit how you can use your legally-owned property.

We have plenty of laws that say "for [X] type of property, the following uses are forbidden." These can include burning it, putting it underground (even on your own land), making some noises with it, displaying it in public (certain magazines come to mind), sharing it with children, driving it without a license, and so on. We've decided, as as society, that some property uses should be restricted to keep us all safe and healthy. Or safer and healthier, anyway.

Copyright is one of those. It says, you may not use this legally-owned property in some ways. If you own a table, you can make & sell a copy of it; if you own a book, you may not. This limitation is supposed to encourage authors & artists to widely release their creations. It works... the problem is balancing the time period for blocking people's property rights against the encouragement factor.

I agree that copyright lengths should be a *lot* shorter. I don't agree that it should be abolished, or that there's anything inherently wrong with limiting people's use of their own property.

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Copyright limits natural (an odd word, that) property rights--just like laws against gun usage in city limits, or laws against dumping toxic chemicals, or laws about noise levels. All of those limit how you can use your legally-owned property.

We have plenty of laws that say "for [X] type of property, the following uses are forbidden." These can include burning it, putting it underground (even on your own land), making some noises with it, displaying it in public (certain magazines come to mind), sharing it with children, driving it without a license, and so on. We've decided, as as society, that some property uses should be restricted to keep us all safe and healthy. Or safer and healthier, anyway.

Copyright is one of those. It says, you may not use this legally-owned property in some ways. If you own a table, you can make & sell a copy of it; if you own a book, you may not. This limitation is supposed to encourage authors & artists to widely release their creations. It works... the problem is balancing the time period for blocking people's property rights against the encouragement factor.

I agree that copyright lengths should be a *lot* shorter. I don't agree that it should be abolished, or that there's anything inherently wrong with limiting people's use of their own property.

Yes, it is sadly true that we've foolishly chosen to limit certain rights. Most of these are along the lines of 'it's better for a person to be raped, robbed or murdered than be given the reasonable chance of self-protection'. Bushwah! This is just another distraction to hide the ultimate goals of the police-statists.

And you're wrong. We do NOT have a natural right to drive an automobile. We DO have a natural right to buy one-presuming we have the money for it. One is a right (right of ownership of personal property) and one is a privilege ( privilege to operate said vehicle on public roads). Note that one can start a car and run it around one's private property without a valid driver's license.

Derek

[brecklundin]

But Ian Fried, the vice president of Amazon Kindle, has stated that Kindle consumers don't mind its DRM.

No this is the result of forced compliance...kinda like the IRS. What good would it do to complain about DRM when buying a Kindle? In fact if the person was even aware of the whole DRM issue they would have made the decision to either compromise for whatever their reasons or bought another device. It is nothing more than that...it's not acceptance, I am willing to bet it's simply a case of those who bought a Kindle are unaware there are other options or even what would happen should the ever sell or lose their Kindle, no more access to their books other than something like Kindle Desktop Reader software (or is it Kindle PC? I forget the name...)

whenever I buy a Kindle book, the only reason is to jailbreak it and read on other devices. But I make a conscious decision to buy a Kindle book knowing the potential problems if I happen to get Topaz formatted book (yeah, I know how to spot them as a rule...but expect that to changes as time goes on) My decision is acceptance of the way things are, it is not an endorsement of lack of concern.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

The recent Sony v Tenenbaum ruling said, "a defendant who used the new file-sharing networks in the technological interregnum before digital media could be purchased legally, but who later shifted to paid outlets, might also be able to rely on the defense"--indicating that unauthorized filesharing in cases where no legit digital version exists, might be legal.

And yet the gentleman involved was found guilty, was he not?

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by delphidb96

Yes, it is sadly true that we've foolishly chosen to limit certain rights. Most of these are along the lines of 'it's better for a person to be raped, robbed or murdered than be given the reasonable chance of self-protection'. Bushwah! This is just another distraction to hide the ultimate goals of the police-statists.

Hogwash.

I know of no western country that limits ones right to defend themselves beyond the very reasonable limitation of "reasonable force".

Originally Posted by delphidb96

And you're wrong. We do NOT have a natural right to drive an automobile. We DO have a natural right to buy one-presuming we have the money for it. One is a right (right of ownership of personal property) and one is a privilege ( privilege to operate said vehicle on public roads). Note that one can start a car and run it around one's private property without a valid driver's license.

Derek

I don't know about the states but here in Australia one does have this right(the bold section) but with it comes certain responsibilities. For example, you will still be held responsible for any damage or injuries that may occur if you cause an accident. Even if you injure someone who was found to be on your property illegally.

On a side note, I always find it interesting that when "rights" are discussed there is very little discussion regarding the responsibilites that generally come along with the rights. I wonder why that is?

Cheers,
PKFFW