Confessions of a Book Pirate

[Mr. Dalliard]

I think the key things to bear in mind when discussing this issue are:

You must not conflate law with morality.
Copyright infringement does not equal theft.

[asjogren]

RandolphLaLonde,

Congratulations on your success as an author on SmashWords. I agree with all the rights you claim. And I think SmashWords is headed in a direction the entire industry ought to consider.

I will likely read one of your free books first, and if I like it purchase the next in the series. This is exactly like "Soul Identity" and "Soul Intent". The first was free and IMMEDIATELY upon finishing, I bought the second.

I am actually surprised that your books were found on "pirate" sites - and disappointed.

I like that on SmashWords:
- I can get any or all eBook formats
- there are no geographical issues
- most of the prices are between a used paperback and a new paperback
- the author gets a significant portion of each sale
- the author controls the process
- I can sample the book before buying

Copyright and Patent are extremely important concepts. We need them. Too much of our society and our economy are dependent on these concepts to ignore piracy. What we may argue is the duration and how comprehensive are the rights. Perhaps we need regulations to protect authors from the most abusive behaviors of publishers and distributors.

If you have published via the mainstream press, I would love to hear your views on the publishing business.

[kennyc]

I think the thing to remember is that just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you should. Like murder for example.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I think the thing to remember is that just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you should. Like murder for example.

For God's sake, are you seriously comparing murder with copyright infringement? Gods preserve us from this insanity!

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

no this is where you are marking a difference that doesn't exist. it doesn't matter that its a digital file versus a printed form, you don't have permission to take it and you don't have permission to give it away to the multitudes because it's not yours.

Would it be right if you stole the book from a store, made a thousand paper copies, returned the book and then distributed the copies on the street corner?

no of course not and that is what is being done when pirating digital copies.

No, again, your analogy falls flat. Take a look to the left of this post, that picture there of Terry Jones in Monty Python's Flying Circus. I use that as an avatar, but I have no permission from anybody to use that image, none at all, and it would be an impossibility to gain permission to use that image as an avatar - logistically it could not, and will never be enforced. Every single time you view this page, or anybody else, they download that image and the images of anybody else who uses an avatar that they do not own copyright upon. You, yourself now have a copy of that image on your hard-drive, without any permission given, granted or sought.

Your analogy might work if you said that everybody walking past the store and looking in through the window then magically had a paper copy of the book when they returned home waiting for them, or in their purse. But again it would be nowhere near the truth of the digital. Real-world analogies don't work when you compare them to the digital world and they never will.

But lets say we go back to the physical world for a moment. If I buy a book who do I ask permission from to loan that book to a friend? Whose permission is needed for me to give that book away, or sell it on? The average amount of times a paper book is read without payment is 6 times. That's 6 times people don't pay for it. Your 'permission' based world doesn't actually exist whether you look at it digitally or physically.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

No, again, your analogy falls flat. Take a look to the left of this post, that picture there of Terry Jones in Monty Python's Flying Circus. I use that as an avatar, but I have no permission from anybody to use that image, none at all, and it would be an impossibility to gain permission to use that image as an avatar - logistically it could not, and will never be enforced. ..

Doesn't make it right. Just cause you can.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Doesn't make it right. Just cause you can.

Are you being deliberately obtuse now? Because you're not actually making any arguments or points any longer. What is that even supposed to mean in relation to what you quoted?

[Dulin's Books]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

But lets say we go back to the physical world for a moment. If I buy a book who do I ask permission from to loan that book to a friend? Whose permission is needed for me to give that book away, or sell it on? The average amount of times a paper book is read without payment is 6 times. That's 6 times people don't pay for it. Your 'permission' based world doesn't actually exist whether you look at it digitally or physically.

Well in the USA the permission is given but the first sale doctrine in the Copyright Law in 1976 but first recognized in 1908 by the US Supreme Court. It holds true for software. but of course you knew that so I don't understand your argument here.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Are you being deliberately obtuse now? Because you're not actually making any arguments or points any longer. What is that even supposed to mean in relation to what you quoted?

Seems quite clear to me and probably anyone reading this. Just take a bit of reading comprehension.

[HansTWN]

Moejoe, there are very good examples of similar situations in the physical world. Someone creates a perfect rose and gets a patent for it. You take a seed, grow it, then clone it and give away the seeds by the thousands. Then you return one seed to the original grower. That seed you return is, of course, as perfect a copy of the original as any digital copy of a book is.

Have you hurt anyone? Did those that accepted seeds from you do anything wrong?

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

And yet again you conflate atoms with bits.

I suggest you re-read the posts in context. Ubkizz is suggesting that IP is a new idea (he's incorrect, copyright is hundreds of years old) and that artists survived just fine without IP laws in the past (which is true, but largely because art wasn't/isn't mass-produced like books). It's also worth noting that one of Mozart's sources of income was -- surprise! -- publishing his compositions. In fact, that was his major source of income later in his life.

Separately, the types of "copying" he referred to is not blocked by copyright laws. I can walk into an art gallery and make a copy of an artwork for my own private use; I can also be directly inspired and influenced by a work, within the scope of copyright. It's rare -- and I might add, pretty much a contemporary phenomenon -- for an painter to engage in such blatant and unauthorized appropriations that they run afoul of copyright law.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

A copied painting is only discouraged because of the uniqueness and scarcity of the original object.

A forged object is discouraged (to put it mildly) because it is typically used for fraudulent purposes. Scarcity has nothing to do with it; you can still forge etchings, lithos, prints, even books.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

It is worth ZERO because it is infinitely copiable, there is no scarcity in reproducing this object.

"Value" is not necessarily linked to "scarcity." E.g. in Q4 2009 alone, Apple made $1.1 billion in revenues from the department that includes the iTunes store -- which sells infinitely copyable, DRM-free MP3's. Go figure.

[Guns4Hire]

You know I have a friend from High School (22 years ago) that I am still in touch with. We are both avid readers (then and now). We would buy books and then swap them back and forth. One of my favorite series was bought by him, Riftwar Saga and was borrowed by me. One of his all time favorite books was Battlefield Earth which I bought and he borrowed from me. Anyway enough of the back story.

We haven't seen each other since High School but we stay in contact via email and facebook. He went the downloading and torrent (besides what he considers his favorites which he buys - pbooks) route and I continued to buy books and then buy ebooks. So while for the most part the Author's and Publisher's aren't making any money off him. They are making a ton off of me. Since I buy everything he recommends (always have, always will) he has never steered me wrong. And he has never ever said to me to go download 123 from XYZ site. So he doesn't promote it (at least to me).

So he passes recommendations on to me (which a lot I have never heard of) and then I pass it on to my brothers and sisters (2 brothers and 2 sisters) and they all end up buying these books as well (we have very similar taste lol). One of my brothers is in a local Sci Fi book club they read 2 books a month and meet once a week. And he passes on these recommendations and the 13 members go out and buy this book. I also pass it on to about 10 other friends of mine and at least half of them go out and buy what my friend originally recommended to me. So quite a bit of revenue is being generated by this friend of mine the pirate. And I have to wonder without his recommendations if I would of ever stumbled onto these books. I mean sure I would of ended up buying something but it might not of been these gems my friend recommended. Its hard to know which series of books to get interested by just reading the jacket. Some series is 10 books deep. Who wants to decide to read a series that big just to find out after the 4th book that the series isn't for you. So you have just invested 40 dollars into this series and find out its ugh. Recommendations by friends is the way to go. Finding the one or two friends that has the same taste in books that you have. Then you latch on to em and ride him/her for life lol.

I sure wonder how much revenue actually gets generated by these pirates in the long run. And then I wonder how much is actually lost by piracy. There is no easy answers. How much 'HARM' is there? Is there 'HARM' in the long run?

I am not condoning piracy, I just try to look at it realistically. Digital piracy is here and it won't be stopped. Never happen. Making and calling it a moral issue won't change it. Author's and Publisher's have to compete against piracy (they do it now whether they want to or not) wishing it wasn't there or hoping it goes away wont change anything.

Pirates have friends and pirates make recommendations. There is revenue there, not just loss. Food for thought maybe.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Have you hurt anyone? Did those that accepted seeds from you do anything wrong?

Patents on organisms are far more evil than copyrights on books-- anyone who copies and gives away patented organisms is a hero to humanity. Hell no, the people who accepted the seeds did nothing wrong. If that destroys individuals or companies that attempt to patent organisms, VERY VERY GOOD!

[Solicitous]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

Good article. I definitely agree with 'pirate' that the 'loss due to piracy' figures are inflated

I agree too, but one big niggling question I have in the back of my mind when I read about piracy in general is...how do these companies that report on piracy establish the number of files pirated? Something tells me some of those figures are just made up.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by Solicitous

Something tells me some of those figures are just made up.

In some cases, at least, it is active fraud. See:

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/06/03...pyright-l.html