The $15 Boycott: Will you be participating?

[bwaldron]

Originally Posted by guyanonymous

You're right. We don't have to buy them.

Unless we want to read, expand our minds, our perspectives, and be entertained.

If I had to, I could happily do that for my (hopefully many!) remaining years solely with the versions of public domain works available here at Mobileread (in better crafted editions that most ebooks from major publishers) and elsewhere, along with material from publishers that get it (like Baen) and from self-published authors.

[Pardoz]

Originally Posted by TallMomof2

Why should I believe that MacMillan will actually lower prices. I've been looking at backlist ebooks and comparing prices of the ebook at Fictionwise to the cheapest new pbook I can order from Amazon.

Sue Grafton's L is for Lawless is going to be pretty hard to beat here. E-book: $30. New hardcover, direct from the publisher: $27. New paperback: $6.99. Cheapest pbook you can find on Amazon: $.01.

[MrBlueSky]

Originally Posted by cmdahler

It's truly pitiful to see how people who grew up with the internet paradigm of file sharing have become so amoral about theft. This post from MrBlueSky is a perfect example of the attitude so many younger, internet-oriented people take: if it's not a tangible object, then it must not really be stealing. When there is no inner sense of right and wrong taught by parents who actually give a crap about their kids' moral development, the attitude of MrBlueSky is basically what you get as a result: "if I can't get caught, it must not be wrong." Or the old standby: "Everyone else is doing it, so it must be ok."

If MrBlueSky had spent a couple of years or more writing his own book only to see it linked around on various illegal torrent or Usenet groups, I'll bet he'd have a bit of a different attitude...

Y'know, I’ve dipped in and out of these forums for a couple of months now, because of the variety of views that get expressed here on the topic of books, book-reading, e-readers — yes, and book writing, publishing and marketing too.

Most of the debates are interesting, some are stimulating and the technical forums tend to be of excellent and knowledgeable quality. Having said that, this latest brouhaha between Macmillan et. al. and Amazon appears to have brought out an element of intellectual dishonesty in some quarters.

On a forum such as this, in which the subject matter implicitly encompasses the manipulation of the written word and how it is manifest in the expression of ideas, accuracy of thought projection should have a greater emphasis, more so than in many other forums. I would have expected that WHICH descriptive words are used, HOW they are contextualised and in having due regard to their literal MEANING when deployed would carry more weight than is currently being evidenced here. Apparently not.

I have been careful not to use antagonistic language myself (mostly?), nor to disparage others expressing well-entrenched beliefs. But I cant’t let it pass unchallenged when such words such as ’thief, theft, steal and stolen’ are (seemingly) used in an innocuous fashion when it is apparent that they must quite categorically be seen as being used as an element of propaganda. I know too, that the free opinion of a bar-room lawyers is worth exactly what you pay for it, but really folks, if you don’t know even the basics of how copyright legislation works in real life, your really should not attempt to write you own book before you find out. You’ll save yourself a world of heartache and anguish.

If I had been told on more than one occasion, by more than one person, in more than one thread, that the word(s) I had been using were being used in the wrong context for the subject under discussion, I would always try to educate myself as to the correct terminology before continuing. Simply shifting a legal narrative into a moral setting while arguing the same legal point of view is being rather disingenuous to say the least. There again, If I'm presuming too much intelligence, I do apologise for suspecting a hidden agenda.

And btw, while the monopoly hoarders are trying to bring the whole weight of the LAW down on my sorry little head for my minor infringements, I don’t particularly want then trying to save my SOUL at the same time, thank you very much

Haven’t we always been at war with Eastasia?


Oh, and cmdahler, you presume far too much. Most people ARE taught right from wrong at an early age. Most children, as the develop ARE taught the ethics and morality of the culture they are brought up in. But sooner or later, each and every person uses the greatest gift they are born with for themselves — their brains. Once you learn to think for yourself, your whole world knows no boundaries.

I don’t give a damn what everybody else may or may not be doing. I plough my own furrow.

My ‘attitude’ therefore, is not based on the ASSUMPTION that I can’t get caught, but rather that my actions are solidly grounded in the indisputable FACT that if I do, I cannot be prosecuted for THEFT. That, I am sure you will find if you look hard enough, is the salient point.

Thank you for for expressing your concern anyway, but I assure you that there is nothing wrong with my morals or my ethics at all; if you really must criticise me for something — try my values instead.

[jmaloney]

Originally Posted by Pardoz

Sue Grafton's L is for Lawless is going to be pretty hard to beat here. E-book: $30. New hardcover, direct from the publisher: $27. New paperback: $6.99. Cheapest pbook you can find on Amazon: $.01.

The $30 price seems to be incorrect there. Every other place (including Macmillan!) has the "List Price" as $14.00. Fictionwise itself even has it listed in another format at $14.00. The $30.00 price seems to be a listing error on Fictionwise's end.

[Pardoz]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

So it's completely premature to castigate Macmillan because their new plan will price the ebook editions of new release paperbacks at $15, or even all new releases at $15, when that's not what they are on record of saying.

...just what they're on the record as doing. I agree, a proven track record is a far less useful predictor of future behaviour than a press release.

[MrBlueSky]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Ho Hum. Yes it is!

Period!

Ha, Ha, +1 Mod. Funny.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by MrBlueSky

Y'know, ...

I don’t give a damn what everybody else may or may not be doing. I plough my own furrow.
...
.... there is nothing wrong with my morals or my ethics at all; if you really must criticise me for something — try my values instead.

See this is the issue. You should give a damn. You are part of society, you are consuming the products of society, you should be part of that society, you should help it to be better. As far as morals and ethics, they are defined only within the context of a society and if your morals and ethics don't match then by the perspective of that society your morals are wrong.

This is the fundamental conflict in being human - individual needs, wants, behavior verses social needs, wants, behavior because we are both individuals and members of our society and species.

[guyanonymous]

MrBlueSky (not to be abreviated to Mr.B.S. )...

I agree with you.

Argue morality (completely subjective) or legality. The two are not the same thing. And how one values each varies from person to person. Both change with time and both influence each other.

[guyanonymous]

Originally Posted by kennyc

...as far as morals and ethics, they are defined only within the context of a society and if your morals and ethics don't match then by the perspective of that society your morals are wrong.

Or by the perspective of that MrBlueSky, society's morals are wrong. Society doesn't always have it right kennyc as what is considered 'moral' changes and is varied across time, location, and culture. Hmm...that's not a good use of the word "right" as it too implies correctness in a moral way.

If morality was something measurable then it would be something that had greater validity in arguments. It represents an ideal (of an individual or group at a certain time or place). What was right and wrong when you were a child (It's not fair that I don't get to stay up late like adults) can be very different when viewed from a different context (being that adult who sees the world differently).

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by kennyc

See this is the issue. You should give a damn. You are part of society, you are consuming the products of society, you should be part of that society, you should help it to be better. As far as morals and ethics, they are defined only within the context of a society and if your morals and ethics don't match then by the perspective of that society your morals are wrong.

No they're not. We are NOT a society. We are individuals who happen to live next to each other! My morals are my own - *I* own them!

This is the fundamental conflict in being human - individual needs, wants, behavior verses social needs, wants, behavior because we are both individuals and members of our society and species.

Yeah, and there's always someone who wants to upset the apple-cart by putting the needy-needs of the many over the rights and needs of the individual. We call them 'socialists'.

Derek

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by guyanonymous

Or by the perspective of that MrBlueSky, society's morals are wrong. ....

No, morals cannot be defined by an individual. Morals do not exist outside of the society that holds them.

Please refer to: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moral

[TallMomof2]

Originally Posted by HarryT

$15 seems an eminently reasonable price to me for a new release - it's a heck of a lot cheaper than the price of UK hardbacks, and only a little more expensive than paperbacks (standard UK price for a paperback is about $11-13). Of course, the price should drop once the paperback is released, but I'd have no issue with paying $15 for a new release that I wanted to read. If you think of the number of hours a book takes to read, it's an extremely cheap form of entertainment whether it costs $10 or $15.

From your perspective $15 is reasonable but I can walk into Costco and purchase many new releases at $15 and a little change for a hardback book. Wal-Mart and their warehouse store, Sam's Club, is the same. Target also steeply discounts new releases. Here in the US $15 for ebook versions of the hardback is not a deal.

[guyanonymous]

mor⋅al
  /ˈmɔrəl, ˈmɒr-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [mawr-uhl, mor-] Show IPA
–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
5. conforming to the rules of right conduct (opposed to immoral ): a moral man.
6. virtuous in sexual matters; chaste.
7. of, pertaining to, or acting on the mind, feelings, will, or character: moral support.
8. resting upon convincing grounds of probability; virtual: a moral certainty.
–noun
9. the moral teaching or practical lesson contained in a fable, tale, experience, etc.
10. the embodiment or type of something.
11. morals, principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct.

I must be blind. I'm missing the part of the definition (again arbitrary based on context, since definitions and word usage changes) about them being defined by society.

Who had the measurably correct morals: New World Cultures in the 1500s or Old World Cultures? What about during the times of slavery in the US (and no, my morals do not even rometley condone slavery) where that majority of society condoned such actions...were those who were slaves or fought slavery immoral because they fought against greater society's laws?

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by cmdahler

A civil offense is a criminal act. You may want to hang a label on it that sounds nicer, but a criminal is someone who violates the law. When you exceed the speed limit, you are technically a criminal at that point.

The speed limit is not civil law; it's part of criminal law.

The difference:

The STATE prosecutes criminal law. If you break it, you are assumed to have harmed society-in-general, and the court cases are in the form of [government entity] vs [defendantname].

INDIVIDUALS prosecute civil law. If you break civil law, you have only harmed someone if they care about it, and the court cases are in the form of [plaintiffname] vs [defendantname].

Violation of civil law is considered to be not a problem unless the damaged party cares to bring it up. For example, if I contractually hire you to paint my roof on Saturday, and you don't show up on Saturday because it was raining, I could sue you. Or I could say, meh, Sunday is fine for me too, and not sue you. If I pick Option 1, you may owe me for the cost of getting a replacement painter *and* the stress of not having my house painted in time for my Sunday brunch with my boss, *and* the cost of filing the case--but in neither case are you a "criminal" for breaking the contract.

Violating copyright law is a crime.

Only in some, very limited, situations. (The RIAA would *love* for copyright infringement to be a crime; they could stop spending money on lawyers & demand that the government prosecute those cases.)

You may try to rationalize it by saying your situation is different, yadda, yadda: just the meaningless noise of someone trying to justify themselves.

There's a difference between "people should use accurate terminology to discuss this topic" and "this civil violation is acceptable behavior." Admittedly, both are being argued by some people--but not all. Plenty of people despise copyright infringement, but don't try to confuse the issue by calling it "theft."

Plenty of people hate graffiti, and some people think it's "urban art." Calling it "theft" or "rape of buildings" would be ridiculous, and wouldn't help stop it.

Call it by what it is, legally, and argue what's wrong with that; don't waste time trying to convince people it's some entirely different act that we all agree is wrong to begin with.

And drop the "morals" debates. I'm supposed to believe that three months ago, it was immoral to share Raymond Chandler ebooks in Canada, but now it's become moral? What morality is tied to the calendar like that?

[guyanonymous]

And if we want to stick to your dictionary definition, I can pull out a few aspects from that page that support the changing nature of morality...

Here's one for example:
Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.