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

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

OK, so it's legal for them to sell it, but not necessarily legal for someone in western Europe or the US to buy it?

Correct. Does not this site function in the same way? There are thing not legal for you to download that are legal for me to download, and vice-versa... (and things that are not legal for either of us to download, but not for Canadians....)

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

OK, so it's legal for them to sell it, but not necessarily legal for someone in western Europe or the US to buy it?

It is probably legal to buy it. It should be the downloading of it that can be problematic.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by kennyc

The format thing is another issue. If you purchase the paper back does that entitle you to a hardback at reduced pricing?

No, but you can make your own. If you want to take the paper back that you purchased and make your own hardback for personal use, that should be legal (and is in many places).

If you choose to purchase the digital version that does not necessarily entitle you to a paper version or vice versa.

They're not obligated to supply you with a different format, but you should be able to make/obtain your own.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

No, but you can make your own. If you want to take the paper back that you purchased and make your own hardback for personal use, that should be legal (and is in many places).

I don't know of anywhere that rebinding your own book is not legal - do you?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don't know of anywhere that rebinding your own book is not legal - do you?

No, I don't. But I can't say for sure that it's legal everywhere, so decided to play it safe. I figured if I stated it as an absolute, somebody would point out that in TimbukTu there's an anti-book binding law.

[Happ]

The issue about DRM, ebooks, emusic and the like is not going anywhere interesting unless people in the industry realize they are not dealing with it the right way. However, activists for piracy, non-DRM, etc., are not making it any easier because they are using these issues to push for a social and political revolution, and have no regard whatsoever for the problem of how to pay authors; they just want to use without paying.

Some middle ground is possible. The industry could come together and realize that DRM, iTunes- and Kindle-like solutions are not fair to the honest user. They could stop that nonsense and invest heavily in informing people about the importance of paying for your music and books. Make global ads with high-profile authors saying thanks to the people who buy their music and books. And at the same time take down the dark web, filesharers, warez sites, you name it. Something like this might work.

Why is it not done? Pirates do not want it because their livelihood and raison d’être would cease to exist. The industry is too afraid that no one would buy any e-book or e-music if they could just ask a friend to give it them without any risks. And so we go on like this.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Happ

The issue about DRM, ebooks, emusic and the like is not going anywhere interesting unless people in the industry realize they are not dealing with it the right way. However, activists for piracy, non-DRM, etc., are not making it any easier because they are using these issues to push for a social and political revolution, and have no regard whatsoever for the problem of how to pay authors; they just want to use without paying.

There's a difference between anti-DRM and anti-Copyright. It's possible to get rid of overly restrictive DRM (which goes beyond copyright enforcement) without throwing out copyright itself.

Some middle ground is possible. The industry could come together and realize that DRM, iTunes- and Kindle-like solutions are not fair to the honest user.

They could. But you're assuming that the industry WANTS to be fair to honest users.

Why is it not done? Pirates do not want it because their livelihood and raison d’être would cease to exist. The industry is too afraid that no one would buy any e-book or e-music if they could just ask a friend to give it them without any risks. And so we go on like this.

It works both ways. The industry isn't exactly innocent in this either.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

No, I don't. But I can't say for sure that it's legal everywhere, so decided to play it safe. I figured if I stated it as an absolute, somebody would point out that in TimbukTu there's an anti-book binding law.

Yes. That's exactly why I'm going to do my best to not argue silly stuff here and be sure to carefully state my opinions.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Happ

... Make global ads with high-profile authors saying thanks to the people who buy their music and books. ...

There is some of that going on. I've seen ads on TV I believe and definitely have seen them in some of the music/songwriter magazines I subscribe to.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Yes. That's exactly why I'm going to do my best to not argue silly stuff here and be sure to carefully state my opinions.

But arguing silly stuff is half the fun.

[Happ]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

There's a difference between anti-DRM and anti-Copyright. It's possible to get rid of overly restrictive DRM (which goes beyond copyright enforcement) without throwing out copyright itself.

Well put. Yes there is a huge difference. And anti-copyright movements are not helping either. On the contrary they are making it worse. Radicals never help making a better world; they just make it more difficult to build a better world, step by careful step.

One can certainly argue that copyright for 70 years after the demise of the author is too much. Hell, I would argue that copyright makes sense only as long as the author is alive. If he is worried about his heirs, go buy them some ISAs or something. But to ban copyright altogether is the sort of madness that helps us not an inch to get to a better world.

Originally Posted by Shaggy

They could. But you're assuming that the industry WANTS to be fair to honest users.

Why wouldn’t they? Ah, I know — because they are EVIL. This is exactly the sort of nonsense that is not helpful at all.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Happ

Well put. Yes there is a huge difference. And anti-copyright movements are not helping either. On the contrary they are making it worse. Radicals never help making a better world; they just make it more difficult to build a better world, step by careful step.

I see very few actual "radicals" though. Most of the time when people talk about changing copyright, they're talking about reform, not getting rid of it completely.

Why wouldn’t they? Ah, I know — because they are EVIL. This is exactly the sort of nonsense that is not helpful at all.

It's no more nonsense than claiming pirates are the only ones being EVIL.

The only thing a company "wants" is to make money. Being fair has nothing to do with it (nor does being "EVIL"), as long as it doesn't cost them sales. Few companies are going to give up profits in order to be "nice" to customers. If they can make more money by being fair, then they'll do so. If they can make more money by being unfair, then they'll do that as well.

Copyright is supposed to be a balance between the public and the artists. Both "pirates" and "the industry" want to shift that balance closer to their side. Assuming that the industry isn't trying to do that is a bit naive, IMO. Neither side is without blame.

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by Happ

Well put. Yes there is a huge difference. And anti-copyright movements are not helping either. On the contrary they are making it worse. Radicals never help making a better world; they just make it more difficult to build a better world, step by careful step.

One can certainly argue that copyright for 70 years after the demise of the author is too much. Hell, I would argue that copyright makes sense only as long as the author is alive. If he is worried about his heirs, go buy them some ISAs or something. But to ban copyright altogether is the sort of madness that helps us not an inch to get to a better world.

Agree about banning it entirely, but simple 'solutions' should be checked for flaws before proposing them. Consider the 'Confederacy of Dunces'. IIRC the author died before it was even published-so should be copyright have been limited to his lifetime only? Then there's the story I heard about somebody who invented a portable radio for use by spies during World War II. He patented that, but patents (unlike copyrights) aren't renewable-and his expired before any civilian use was developed. So, according to the story, this guy was the 'father' of the cell phone but never received a dime in royalty payments for the use of his invention. I'm not sure how the details might work, but I'd probably be in favor on a copyright term based on something other than time. (In terms of time, the copyright would last indefinitely-which isn't what I mean at all, making it more complicated to explain.) Right now (my ideas vary from day to day) I'm thinking that maybe we should set a 'reasonable' return to be made from a work, allowing the copyright to remain in force until that amount is reached.

Originally Posted by Happ

Why wouldn’t they? Ah, I know — because they are EVIL. This is exactly the sort of nonsense that is not helpful at all.

Isn't it? The assertion, in most cases, isn't that the publishers' primary interest is to be unfair, but rather that fairness doesn't enter into their consideration at all. IMO, that is, in fact, EVIL. Also probably true. And pointing that out is helpful-if that is the case. Can you show that it isn't?

OTOH, can we show that it is? Note that in both cases I said 'show'. I don't mean 'prove' because that depends on the standards you require for proof. I'm asking which sides have evidence to support their views. The evidence that publishers aren't concerned about fairness is, IMO, the way in which they hamper fair use by imposing DRM that locks the buyer to a particular format or device. Do you have evidence showing that they are concerned about fairness? (Note that I'm asking for evidence of publishers in general-specific ones, with Baen being frequently mentioned, don't use DRM and are therefore arguably concerned about fairness.)

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Happ

And at the same time take down the dark web, filesharers, warez sites, you name it. Something like this might work.

I think you've got some odd ideas about how the internet works. Gonna work on taking down sneakernet after that?

Why is it not done? Pirates do not want it because their livelihood and raison d’être would cease to exist.

"Livelihood?" Are you under the impression people are making a living at filesharing?

Most of the "pirates" want digital information to work like physically-bound information: here's this thing I liked; I bet you'd like it too; take a look. The fact that they don't have to lose their copy to share one is a nifty feature--but if it didn't work that way, there'd still be plenty of filesharing. If the only way to share a file was to remove it from the original location when it moved to a new one, there'd still be networks of people sharing files, only with more complicated arrangements for when-and-who gets the file next.

And the publishers would still be freaking out about people getting access to content without paying for it, because they've never acknowledged that the vast majority of reading is *not* done with new, royalty-triggering books. That borrowed, remaindered and secondhand books are most of what gets read.

If publishers want to fight piracy, they need to figure out how to allow ebook sharing & resales. (And that won't "stop" piracy, but it'll remove the majority of the motivation for it.)

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

If publishers want to fight piracy

I don't think they can, and they probably know this.

they need to figure out how to allow ebook sharing & resales.

This is what they really want to fight. Sharing and resale are both competition to new book sales.