Open Source culture to blame for e-book piracy!

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by cian

So you don't have a moral object to file-sharing, you have a legal objection. Which was the only point I was making. Logically it follows from this that if the law on libraries was changed s.t. they were no longer legal, you'd object to them also. Right?

You just love putting words in peoples mouth and then arguing from that don't you?

Please provide a quote or link to any place I said either;
a: I don't have a moral objection to file-sharing or;
b: I have a legal objection to file-sharing.

As I never said either of the above it in no way "logically follows" that I would object to libraries if the law was changed to make them illegal.

As I said in my above post, my point is not about moral rights, legal rights or any other such thing.

My point(which was directed to someone else entirely btw) was about the argument used to justify file-sharing being invalid for the reasons I gave. That is it.

All the rest you have assumed, guessed at, completely made up and used faulty logic apparently based on things I never posted to extrapolate yet further erroneous interpretations.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[cian]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

As I never said either of the above it in no way "logically follows" that I would object to libraries if the law was changed to make them illegal.

You said:

If file-sharing of copyrighted works is deemed to be legal in the future I have no problem with that at all.

Which implies that your problem with file-sharing of files is its illegality, right? So in a highly unlikely scenario where libraries were no longer licensed/legal/whatever, you would be object to them because of the illegality, right? I'm not trying to trap you, though rereading it I can see that it might seem that way. I was just trying in a rather convoluted fashion to clarify the point.

Anyway I wasn't trying to piss you off, and we seem to be talking at cross purposes, so I'll drop it. Apologies.

[DawnFalcon]

Oh yes, on a certain theme I enumerated before:

[Krystian Galaj]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Not at the level needed to sustain and advance society.

That depends of which works we speak. If you mean only the works which currently are only sold, like DVD movies, paper books etc, then yes, those will probably be produced much less. However, I believe the time when those works were the main force behind sustaining and advancing society is long gone. People are spending much time on the Internet, discussing issues on forums, blogs, finding new interests and friends - those are the activities which advance society now. There are millions of people who devote their time - for free - to work with others on some big goal, big site, big resource of information - they're called digital sharecroppers lately. Do you think discussions we have on MobileRead are worth absolutely nothing, compared to knowledge we gain from books (and we read much more than average person who browses the Net)? All our input, all our time spent in all those Net places is given for free.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Oh yes, on a certain theme I enumerated before:

Well, digital piracy, copying protected works and distributing or downloading them for free, means authors have to work like slaves, for free. So?

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

That depends of which works we speak. If you mean only the works which currently are only sold, like DVD movies, paper books etc, then yes, those will probably be produced much less. However, I believe the time when those works were the main force behind sustaining and advancing society is long gone. People are spending much time on the Internet, discussing issues on forums, blogs, finding new interests and friends - those are the activities which advance society now. There are millions of people who devote their time - for free - to work with others on some big goal, big site, big resource of information - they're called digital sharecroppers lately. Do you think discussions we have on MobileRead are worth absolutely nothing, compared to knowledge we gain from books (and we read much more than average person who browses the Net)? All our input, all our time spent in all those Net places is given for free.

I think you're onto something there. Our whole entertainment is shifting from individually created to group created culture. We don't think of Forums or Facebook as entertainment because we've been using other forms for so long, but why not? They're just as, and probably more entertaining than TV.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Well, digital piracy, copying protected works and distributing or downloading them for free, means authors have to work like slaves, for free. So?

So don't use the term "piracy".

And free, lol. Go look up CLV. And the reasons why the highest CLV customers in the music industry are also some of the highest unauthorised downloaders.

When the book industry, on the other hand, often goes to great lengths to ensure that even ebooks in the same series can't be all got in the same way for the same platforms...

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

So don't use the term "piracy".

And free, lol. Go look up CLV. And the reasons why the highest CLV customers in the music industry are also some of the highest unauthorised downloaders.

When the book industry, on the other hand, often goes to great lengths to ensure that even ebooks in the same series can't be all got in the same way for the same platforms...

For music piracy is less of a problem, since a lot of money can be made on concerts. Ticket prices have gone through the roof, artists get plenty from TV deals, etc. But which author can make good money on a lecture and book signing tour, or do commercials and shows?

[DawnFalcon]

That's always said, but the economics are completely unconvincing, especially because of the rate at which digital sales have grown, and the revenue going direct to artists from various sources has risen. Again, the best customers are also among the biggest downloaders. And I don't mean "they go to concerts", I mean "they buy tracks and albums".

There are also alternate revenue sources which books can tap. Look at Baen's eARC's. They have a very low overhead (they're the unproofed galleys!), costing basically the fairly minimal cost to push out onto their platform and they're typically over twice the price of the final ebook...which they don't even include!

Let's not even go into how some very potentially embarrassing universe continuity errors have been caught online in the snippet/eARC stage (character ages in Crown of Slaves comes to mind!)

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

That's always said, but the economics are completely unconvincing, especially because of the rate at which digital sales have grown, and the revenue going direct to artists from various sources has risen. Again, the best customers are also among the biggest downloaders. And I don't mean "they go to concerts", I mean "they buy tracks and albums".

There are also alternate revenue sources which books can tap. Look at Baen's eARC's. They have a very low overhead (they're the unproofed galleys!), costing basically the fairly minimal cost to push out onto their platform and they're typically over twice the price of the final ebook...which they don't even include!

Let's not even go into how some very potentially embarrassing universe continuity errors have been caught online in the snippet/eARC stage (character ages in Crown of Slaves comes to mind!)

Don't get me wrong, I am all for Baen's business model; meaning no DRM (pretty much useless, anyway). I just think authors deserve to be paid for their work rather than survive on government handouts. For those who don't want to pay for their books -- there are so many great legal freebies out there to keep you busy for a life time.

And yes, that music downloads are thriving makes me optimistic that the "all works in digital forms should be free" crowd is a small minority, albeit a significant and vocal one.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by cian

Which implies

No, what you infer from the comment is different to what it implies. I did not imply anything. I wrote something specific.

Originally Posted by cian

that your problem with file-sharing

My post and point had nothing to do with any "problem" with file-sharing. Which is why I specifically did not go into any "problem" I may or may not have with it.

My post and point was that the argument put forward by schex86 for why he/she has no problem with file-sharing is completely flawed.

Originally Posted by cian

of files is its illegality, right?

Once you take the above two facts into consideration I am sure you will see that the legality or otherwise of file-sharing has nothing to do with my post or point. Therefore whether or not your assertion is "right" is completely irrelevant.

I only mentioned the legality or otherwise of file-sharing as a direct response to and in order to correct your erroneous guess that I would not want to see file-sharing made legal in the future. I only mentioned the legality or otherwise of libraries as a direct response to and in order to correct your erroneous assertion that I would have a problem with libraries if they were made illegal in the future.

Originally Posted by cian

So in a highly unlikely scenario where libraries were no longer licensed/legal/whatever, you would be object to them because of the illegality, right?

Taking the above 3 statements of mine into consideration I am sure you will see that your assertion;
a: has nothing whatsoever to do with my post or point;
b: is based on your own assumptions about my attitude towards both file-sharing and libraries and not on anything I have personally posted and;
c: is completely erroneous.

Originally Posted by cian

I'm not trying to trap you, though rereading it I can see that it might seem that way.

Whether you were trying to "trap" me or not is beside the point.

What you were doing was misinterpreting my post and point(perhaps my fault for not being clearer), making numerous assumptions and guesses about my attitude towards both file-sharing and libraries and claiming I had made assertions I had not.(all of which is your doing.)

Originally Posted by cian

Anyway I wasn't trying to piss you off, and we seem to be talking at cross purposes, so I'll drop it. Apologies.

You have not pissed me off. I simply don't accept people claiming I am saying something I am not and seek to rectify the misrepresentation whenever it occurs.

Apology accepted.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Piracy is stealing. It is unethical, immoral, and illegal. A crook’s a crook, and a low-life’s a low-life. Theiving, criminally-minded scum are the reason the rest of us are forced to contend with the evils of DRM.

The purpose of DRM is not to deal with pirates. Pirates break DRM for breakfast. They laugh at DRM.

The purpose of DRM is to erase the fair use rights of the non-pirating public under the copyright law. Rights that are clearly ours under the copyright law are foreclosed through the back door of DRM, because DRM keeps us from exercising them.

For instance, you have a clear right under copyright law to move media from one environment (television) to tape (VCR.) But DRM can prevent it. You have a clear right to take a Kindle book and move it to your Sony to read it. But DRM prevents you from doing so. If you are a teacher, you have a clear right to take a chapter from a DRM protected ebook, and distribute it to your students to read on their computers. But DRM prevents you from doing it.

Piracy may, indeed, be stealing. I tend to agree with you on that, but I have some reservations when I consider Cory Doctorow's observation that artists operate in their technological environment, and the technological environment of the 21st century has, at its core, free and open copying. That's how the internet works.

It is entirely possible that the concept of "piracy" is obsolete under our emerging technological conditions. In a world where water is hard to find, it could be a crime to fill your canteen. In a world where it rains all the time, the concept of a canteen makes little sense.

But don't kid yourself. We would have DRM even if every person in the world refused to pirate.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Well, digital piracy, copying protected works and distributing or downloading them for free, means authors have to work like slaves, for free. So?

Are you quite sure about that? The economics might not work the way you think they do, at least for authors. They've certainly changed for musicians. Ask Radiohead.

Cory Doctorow distributes his books for free in digital format, at the same time he is selling pbooks through normal publishers. He distributes audiobooks without DRM. He points out that the problem for most authors is not that pirates or anyone else steal their books, but rather, that people don't know about their books.

Perhaps every "pirated" book is actually a kind of advertisement for the author. Perhaps readers, or at least enough readers, are willing to reward authors for writing, by paying for books they can get for free. Perhaps the correlation you are assuming, that every "pirated book" is a lost sale, is wrong. Perhaps pirating increases sales by increasing the potential audience.

I've thought that if I were an author, I might regard the pirate sites as one of my reseller sites. I'd put my website in every book, asking that if the reader enjoyed the book, go to the website & drop a few bucks in my tip jar. And on my website, I'd link to PayPal, and when someone dropped me some pennies, I'd link them to the pirate sites, saving myself for having to store the ebook on my own site, at my own expense, paying for the downloading bandwidth.

=====================

"Your old road is rapidly aging
please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand
for the times, they are a changin'"

- Bob Dylan

[Guns4Hire]

Originally Posted by Harmon

The purpose of DRM is not to deal with pirates. Pirates break DRM for breakfast. They laugh at DRM.

The purpose of DRM is to erase the fair use rights of the non-pirating public under the copyright law. Rights that are clearly ours under the copyright law are foreclosed through the back door of DRM, because DRM keeps us from exercising them.

For instance, you have a clear right under copyright law to move media from one environment (television) to tape (VCR.) But DRM can prevent it. You have a clear right to take a Kindle book and move it to your Sony to read it. But DRM prevents you from doing so. If you are a teacher, you have a clear right to take a chapter from a DRM protected ebook, and distribute it to your students to read on their computers. But DRM prevents you from doing it.

Piracy may, indeed, be stealing. I tend to agree with you on that, but I have some reservations when I consider Cory Doctorow's observation that artists operate in their technological environment, and the technological environment of the 21st century has, at its core, free and open copying. That's how the internet works.

It is entirely possible that the concept of "piracy" is obsolete under our emerging technological conditions. In a world where water is hard to find, it could be a crime to fill your canteen. In a world where it rains all the time, the concept of a canteen makes little sense.

But don't kid yourself. We would have DRM even if every person in the world refused to pirate.

Ding ding ding we have a winner. Best post in the thread.

DRM has absolutely zero to do with piracy.

I've thought that if I were an author, I might regard the pirate sites as one of my reseller sites. I'd put my website in every book, asking that if the reader enjoyed the book, go to the website & drop a few bucks in my tip jar. And on my website, I'd link to PayPal, and when someone dropped me some pennies, I'd link them to the pirate sites, saving myself for having to store the ebook on my own site, at my own expense, paying for the downloading bandwidth.

You keep making all this sense you are going to kill the thread.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Harmon

I've thought that if I were an author, I might regard the pirate sites as one of my reseller sites. I'd put my website in every book, asking that if the reader enjoyed the book, go to the website & drop a few bucks in my tip jar. And on my website, I'd link to PayPal, and when someone dropped me some pennies, I'd link them to the pirate sites, saving myself for having to store the ebook on my own site, at my own expense, paying for the downloading bandwidth.

What happens if your readers get a virus? Are you liable, since you received money?

I agree, pirate sites COULD make great advertisements. But only for unknown, struggling artists. Then again, usually pirate sites will not carry the most obscure authors, but rather those that are selling quite well.

But it does make sense to give your early works away for free, to build up a readership, a reputation.