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

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

Shaggy, I think the issue with selling a book without a cover (rebound or not) lies in the assumption that the book was most likely not purchased in the first place. Which, given the current culture (in the US, at least), has good odds of being true. The question is, how defensible is prosecution (if somebody prosecuted on this) based on an assumption rather than proof.

Where this comes from is in retailers disposing of unsold books. In theory, they are supposed to rip the covers off the book and mail the covers back to the Publisher as proof that the books were destroyed and not sold. The policy is to prevent them from then selling the books anyway, and falsely reporting them as destroyed.

This has nothing to do with an end customer selling a used book, whether or not it has a cover.

In some jurisdictions (and the US seems to be gradually turning into one of these) it would be up to the seller to prove that he'd bought the book.

Theoretically we still live in an "innocent until proven guilty" society, but you're right, that doesn't quite mean what it used to.

In this example though, there is no case. There's no law that I know of which has anything do with with selling a book without a cover. It's a policy in place as part of the contracts between a publisher and a retailer, but has nothing to do with individual customers or selling used books.

[msundman]

Originally Posted by tompe

But you are not distributing a copy of the physical book you bought.

Huh? I might. Whether the book I bought was in electronic format or written on paper is irrelevant - any which way I am forbidden from entering the information on sheets of paper and then distribute those sheets.

Originally Posted by tompe

copyright limits what you do with ideas and from that follows from your statement that ideas are property.

No, it does not. I'm not sure whether you're making wrong inductions or are confusing implication with equivalence, but something wrong is certainly happening in your reasoning. I can't tell exactly what is wrong since you have given me so little information, but maybe I could be of help if you describe your reasoning more thoroughly and with as few external references (such as some undefined reference to "your statement") as possible.

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Where this comes from is in retailers disposing of unsold books. In theory, they are supposed to rip the covers off the book and mail the covers back to the Publisher as proof that the books were destroyed and not sold. The policy is to prevent them from then selling the books anyway, and falsely reporting them as destroyed.

I think you're right-that's a scenario I overlooked. But I still suspect that the majority of paperbacks 'in circulation' with missing covers are, in fact, ones that were illegally sold. And something I just realized is that we're actually getting away from the issue. Whether the book was originally sold with or without a cover, there's no crime in rebinding & reselling it. The crime, if such exists, is in the original sale-and is committed (IMO) by the seller, not by the buyer. (Or by the thief if it's stolen. And as I said, ruling differ about whether or not it's theft if it's 'stolen' from the trash. So I'd probably prefer to drop that scenario-it's just too unclear how it would be decided.)

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

Whether the book was originally sold with or without a cover, there's no crime in rebinding & reselling it.

Agreed. The important part, which is relevant to the discussion, is that you should (and usually do) have the same rights with eBooks. If you buy the pBook, then you can legally make an eBook from it. You can also sell it, as long as you are not keeping the original.

The publisher/retailer is not obligated to supply you with an eBook, but you have the right to make your own if you really want to.

[Happ]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

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.

This is why I started by stating that the issue here is just economics. All else is a rhetoric and a waste of time. File sharing would not be economically a problem if you could only do it the way you lend a book to a friend: one at a time. Once you can ‘share’ your files with millions of people that then do not have to buy them, you have a problem: how to pay the authors if no one will pay them? And how can anyone argue that it is fair for 10% of people to pay for the other 80% to use?

This is why the analogies very common in these discussions with the lending of books or televisions or whatever are irrelevant.

The problem with file sharers is that they have no clue as how to pay authors, how to make activities like writing software, music or books profitable enough so that you can make a living out of that. The model they have in mind is their own: someone working someplace else and then at weekends doing something creative.

BTW, you certainly cannot take down the darkweb, but you can limit it and you can campaign against it. Likewise, you cannot put a stop to robbery, but you can do everything possible to discourage it.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Happ

This is why I started by stating that the issue here is just economics. All else is a rhetoric and a waste of time. File sharing would not be economically a problem if you could only do it the way you lend a book to a friend: one at a time.

B&N came up with a way to do this--and promptly crippled it. And gave publishers the option not to participate.

The ebook publishers are not seeking ways to allow file transfers; they want every purchase to be limited to one user. I'd take the anti-privacy arguments more seriously if I saw publishers working to offer legal alternatives.

Once you can ‘share’ your files with millions of people that then do not have to buy them, you have a problem: how to pay the authors if no one will pay them?

And yet Baen makes a profit on ebooks. I suspect their entire collection is available in torrents--but they still make money. Most people *want* to pay for perceived value; they're just not willing to give up privacy and accept limitations on use in order to get that value.

And how can anyone argue that it is fair for 10% of people to pay for the other 80% to use?

But that's how books have always worked. Maybe not 10/80... but grade schools buy books that get used by several years' worth of students, libraries buy books for dozens of people to read; people loan books to friends and give them away when they're done. The majority of reading is not done by the original purchaser.

Do you believe every book should be read by exactly one person, and then destroyed? Do you think most authors would prefer that?

The problem with file sharers is that they have no clue as how to pay authors, how to make activities like writing software, music or books profitable enough so that you can make a living out of that. The model they have in mind is their own: someone working someplace else and then at weekends doing something creative.

When technology changes, how to make a living as a creative artist changes. There are photographers who lost their livelihoods when digital cameras became the norm.

I suspect we'll see a lot more paid serials--here's a chapter for free; throw some money in the PayPal and when it reaches a certain level, the author releases the next chapter. And yes, that means people who didn't pay get access to the book.

Linux distributions continue to make money, despite being open-source and freely available. Exclusive control of copies is not the only way to pay creators. I don't know what methods we can come up with that work with the internet--but some methods will be found. Some creators will make a living at their crafts, and some won't. It may be a different mix than currently manage it.

BTW, you certainly cannot take down the darkweb, but you can limit it and you can campaign against it. Likewise, you cannot put a stop to robbery, but you can do everything possible to discourage it.

But the darknet, unlike robbery, is not illegal. Some illegal activity takes place there, and plenty of legal activity as well. People seeking privacy are not always committing crimes. The torrent networks are used to distribute albums and movies with the blessings of the creators, who don't want to host them on their own servers, as well as bootleg songs and ebooks.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by msundman

No, it does not. I'm not sure whether you're making wrong inductions or are confusing implication with equivalence, but something wrong is certainly happening in your reasoning.

No, I do not think so. What I tried to do was to show that your original statement:

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

is wrong if read as a definition of what copyright is. Copyright also forbid what you can do with the content of your memory which I do not consider to be property in the meaning you used the word.

[msundman]

Originally Posted by Happ

The problem with file sharers is that they have no clue as how to pay authors, how to make activities like writing software, music or books profitable enough so that you can make a living out of that. The model they have in mind is their own: someone working someplace else and then at weekends doing something creative.

This is evidently false. If you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about then you shouldn't make such absolute statements. (And no, I'm not a google-substitute, so don't ask me to provide you with models suggested by file sharers. However, just to prove that your statement is false I'll give you one: A tax system that distributes the collected money (non-linearly) according to popularity measured one way or another.)

[tompe]

Originally Posted by msundman

This is evidently false. If you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about then you shouldn't make such absolute statements. (And no, I'm not a google-substitute, so don't ask me to provide you with models suggested by file sharers. However, just to prove that your statement is false I'll give you one: A tax system that distributes the collected money (non-linearly) according to popularity measured one way or another.)

I agree with all you wrote here. I wonder if it is possible to measure popularity or quality or something else to be used as a basis for paying creators. But I suppose you have to measure the opinion of people that actually have read a book for example so it might be hard to implement.

[msundman]

Originally Posted by tompe

No, I do not think so. What I tried to do was to show that your original statement:

is wrong if read as a definition of what copyright is. Copyright also forbid what you can do with the content of your memory which I do not consider to be property in the meaning you used the word.

I was correct, you made an invalid logical induction. It was not a definition of copyright. Specifically, I did not say that copyright is only defining what people are forbidden to do with their property. (Copyright certainly also limits things that are not (natural) property, and I'm fully aware of this fact, so I would never say otherwise.)

[Happ]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

But that's how books have always worked. Maybe not 10/80... but grade schools buy books that get used by several years' worth of students, libraries buy books for dozens of people to read; people loan books to friends and give them away when they're done. The majority of reading is not done by the original purchaser.

You are right. But look at the differences. I can read a book from the local public library. But I have to go there, and the book is not always in good condition. Then, I have to take it back. With digital goods the copy is as good as the original -- and always shiny new. Once you have a copy for free, why buy another one? Answer: to pay the author. So if we want a system where people can download e-books without DRM and pay for them when they can get exactly the same for free, you have to educate people for the importance of paying. That *might* work. Just might. Alas, neither the industry nor the pirates are educating the public.

BTW, note that free sometimes is very expensive. One should not forget that. Say you have a great idea for an email client. You develop it for a year on your spare time. Then, what? Nothing. Unless you can use that to be hired by some giant corporation like Google or Microsoft or Mozilla, there is nothing you can do as an independent author because you would have to compete with free products like Thunderbird and Live Mail. How can you compete with that? You cannot.

So our digital El Dorado is turning out to be very much like our undigital life: you may be very creative, but in order to make a television show, because no one pays for that directly, you need a big corporation behind you, and that means lots of ads and lots of lies and lots of controls in place. There goes the dream that once was the Internet: a digital medium that would empower the independent author, bypassing the big corporations. And if you look carefully you will see that book publishers and the music industry however evil they may be, paid pronto to their authors and made it possible for them to live off their creativity, entirely financed by those who bought their music and books. This was the fairest system ever concocted to finance authors. Unfortunately, it is something that will never happen with e-music or e-books and will tend to disappear even when it comes to software.

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by Happ

This is why I started by stating that the issue here is just economics. All else is a rhetoric and a waste of time. File sharing would not be economically a problem if you could only do it the way you lend a book to a friend: one at a time. Once you can ‘share’ your files with millions of people that then do not have to buy them, you have a problem: how to pay the authors if no one will pay them? And how can anyone argue that it is fair for 10% of people to pay for the other 80% to use?

And yet I've routinely loaned two, three, four, even twenty books to a friend - at one time! No probbie, mate. When he got done with a few, he'd give them back. And *MOST* people who 'share ebook files' do so to one or two friends. Of course, there's nothing to prevent their friends from sharing said files with one or two friends, and them with one or two friends, etc., ad nauseum. But MOST people share one or two times and that's it.

Further, as I and others have pointed out, so often a shared ebook leads to the recipient buying other titles! It's called, are you ready for this?, word-of-mouth advertising! I tell you how wonderful the author is and I give you a copy of one of his ebooks and when you're done, you are hooked so you buy MORE of his ebooks.

And then there's the fact that at least ONE publisher has made quite a go of literally GIVING AWAY ebook versions of its books. That would be BAEN. Yes, they operate the Free Library of specifically released-as-free ebook titles from their lists - and we're not talking junk here, we're talking first or second books within a series. They also have released CDs of ebooks, bundled into the hardcovers of new novels, that pertain to either the author or the series in question - and they specifically state on the CDs that it is perfectly all right to burn additional copies of the CDs to give away to friends - just that the CDs nor the ebooks on them can be re-sold.

I realize that this goes counter to your arguments, but the facts are the facts and your consistent ignoring of them won't make these inconvenient facts disappear.

This is why the analogies very common in these discussions with the lending of books or televisions or whatever are irrelevant.

The problem with file sharers is that they have no clue as how to pay authors, how to make activities like writing software, music or books profitable enough so that you can make a living out of that. The model they have in mind is their own: someone working someplace else and then at weekends doing something creative.

Yeah. Right. It's called Paypal. Works just fine. In fact, after reading on here some posts by David Derrico, I went to his site and bought his "Right Ascension" in ebook format. Why? Because I wanted to reward him for stepping up and releasing it as an ebook.

What's more important is that he has chosen to release his ebooks directly, which means the money I spent went completely to him! (Minus any ISP fees and all that) I wonder why he hasn't (Are you reading this Dave?) jacked the price up a bit; I think $0.99 is too low. He should at least be charging $3.99, and I wouldn't feel cheated if he charged $6.99.

And yet I've downloaded, just today, five different titles from five authors I've never read before, from the darknet. Why? Because I'm not sure I want to read more of their books. If I like the stories I've 'pirated', I'll add them to my Fictionwise, Amazon and eReader wish lists.

BTW, you certainly cannot take down the darkweb, but you can limit it and you can campaign against it. Likewise, you cannot put a stop to robbery, but you can do everything possible to discourage it.

I urge people to go to the darknet for older books (those not already PD but which the publishers won't re-release and won't issue as ebooks). It's a great way for a person to sample authors to determine if those authors should be added to the "I gotta buy their ebooks" list.

There's this one author, Landis, whose book "Home to Avalon" probably will never be released in ebook format, so I keep scanning for decent copies to create my own. I've tried finding not-ready-to-disintegrate paper editions, but I've not found any that I'd be willing to shell out $20, $50 or more for. Which is one reason why I'll keep going darknet myself. BTW, I'm downloading five new purchases from Fictionwise this evening when they become available. That's $23+ made from me. Sure, I could wait a week or so and darknet them, but the publishers involved have chosen to release in ebook format. So I reward them by shoving money their way.

And that's another thing, I *DO* consider *buying* ebooks a reward to the publishers to encourage them to release ebook versions of their backlists. And I consider it completely fair to punish those publishers who consistently refuse to release certain authors' books in ebook by darknetting those ebooks.

Derek

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by Happ

You are right. But look at the differences. I can read a book from the local public library. But I have to go there, and the book is not always in good condition. Then, I have to take it back. With digital goods the copy is as good as the original -- and always shiny new. Once you have a copy for free, why buy another one? Answer: to pay the author. So if we want a system where people can download e-books without DRM and pay for them when they can get exactly the same for free, you have to educate people for the importance of paying. That *might* work. Just might. Alas, neither the industry nor the pirates are educating the public.

Bullpucky! People already know to buy when they can - and they know that buying means their authors will feel motivated to finish the next books in the series. However, I have a spin on your library thing. That, for so many people, in essence, is what darknetting an ebook is. It's 'checking out' an author for the first time. If the author's work 'clicks' with the reader, the reader then searches for his books on the commercial sites, just as he would at a bookstore rather than have to wait for the (one or few) copies of the newer books to be available for checking out.

BTW, note that free sometimes is very expensive. One should not forget that. Say you have a great idea for an email client. You develop it for a year on your spare time. Then, what? Nothing. Unless you can use that to be hired by some giant corporation like Google or Microsoft or Mozilla, there is nothing you can do as an independent author because you would have to compete with free products like Thunderbird and Live Mail. How can you compete with that? You cannot.

O cry me a river! What a bunch of malarky! People routinely create new apps that go head-to-head with apps created by large corporations and routinely succeed. I note that my favorite word-processor creator (Atlantis) is still in business and still adding value-added-features to Atlantis - such as the ability to directly create ePub ebooks from within. And he does this on a $35-per-copy registration fee!

So our digital El Dorado is turning out to be very much like our undigital life: you may be very creative, but in order to make a television show, because no one pays for that directly, you need a big corporation behind you, and that means lots of ads and lots of lies and lots of controls in place. There goes the dream that once was the Internet: a digital medium that would empower the independent author, bypassing the big corporations. And if you look carefully you will see that book publishers and the music industry however evil they may be, paid pronto to their authors and made it possible for them to live off their creativity, entirely financed by those who bought their music and books. This was the fairest system ever concocted to finance authors. Unfortunately, it is something that will never happen with e-music or e-books and will tend to disappear even when it comes to software.

[Happ]

Originally Posted by msundman

A tax system that distributes the collected money (non-linearly) according to popularity measured one way or another.)

Sorry to forget about that nasty solution. I know about the paper published by some professor about it, years ago.

A system like that might work. Just might. But it would not be as fair to authors as paying them directly. Download is not the same as use. And unless you want to put spyware in people’s ebooks and emusic and software, to track usage instead of just downloading, you would be paying the wrong money to the wrong people. Thus, the tax system takes away the consumer’s power. I am not supporting writers whose books I do not read. With the tax system I would, like it or not.

Furthermore, a tax system would have to be levied by the state. How is that better or more liberating or more just than people choosing what they read and paying the authors they choose? To me it seems one more Big Corporation solution, reminding me of what a famous Russian politician once commented: communism is the supreme form of capitalism in which the state is the sole Big Monopolist.

[calvin-c]

this is getting a little too 'out there' for me, but I'll correct a couple of statements before I go elsewhere. 1) with many 'local public libraries' you don't need to go there to get a book. An early example of that was the Bookmobile-although that didn't actually bring the library to your house as more recent 'books by mail' library programs do. (Not all libraries have these programs. But they are available, if you look for them.) And I don't know of any library that doesn't 'retire' a copy when it's no longer in good condition. although your definition of 'good' might be more stringent than the general public's. If the book is frequently borrowed, the library will replace that 'retired' copy when funds are available.

And the second point, that downloading isn't the same as use, just doesn't make sense, unless you're downloading things to be used by other people. Of course sometimes you download something you intend to use-but then never get around to doing it. In that case the creator is just as entitled to payment as if you'd used it. Unless the site has a 'return' mechanism, and few items you can download do. (IMO it's like going to the store & buying something. Doesn't matter whether or not you actually use it, unless you return it-unused-you still need to pay for it.)