The $15 Boycott: Will you be participating?

[TallMomof2]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

Most of those books are either used or remaindered. Authors don't get paid for them, and they don't count toward the sales numbers that determine whether they get to publish the next book.

They still get hurt.

No, new books. Used are even more of a bargain but I only looked at new books so that it would be a fairer comparison.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by TallMomof2

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.

I thought you had to drive to everything in the US. It ought to cost time and money to get to the shops.

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by tompe

I thought you had to drive to everything in the US. It ought to cost time and money to get to the shops.

That's true! So true! However, there's always Amazon and UPS delivery! Oh wait! That's right, MacM is trying to kill Amazon!

Derek

[Pardoz]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

Whether an author agrees with Macmillan's proposal or not, authors are rallying against Amazon

Well, yes, both John Scalzi and Charles Stross are authors, and they're passing the hand-cream back and forth as they rally against the Evil Amazon Empire, so 'authors' are rallying.

For a change in perspective, Lynn Abbey (who's been playing this game for a lot longer) has a rather different take on the latest Macmillan PR piece here.

Interesting read.

[llreader]

Originally Posted by cmdahler

Oh, well, if it's only been since 1976, that's completely different. I suppose a law needs to be on the books for a solid hundred years or so before it really matters, right?

Leaving aside the fact that most of the planet is not in the US (Mobile Read isn't), laws must stand the test of time and constitutionality in the US. I am sure you are aware of the case of Dowling v. United States (1985), because you seem so knowledgeable about copyright law, nine years after this law was passed, in which the Supreme Court had some very specific things to say about copyright, theft, and the law:

interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: ... 'an infringer of the copyright.' ...

The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over the copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use. While one may colloquially link infringement with some general notion of wrongful appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.
—Dowling v. United States , 473 U.S. 207, pp. 217–218

I hope, since you are so obsessed with US law, that you will make an effort to understand what they were trying to say the next time you are tempted to call copying theft. I am sure you will realize the error of your ways.

[cmdahler]

Originally Posted by MrBlueSky

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.

Semantics. If you get caught, you can get prosecuted period, because you are engaged in illegal activity. That is the salient fact. Call it what you will, there is no fundamental, philosophical difference between walking into B&N and shoplifting out a book and downloading a torrent. Arguing anything else is just rationalizing an attempt to circumvent the rules of society for your own convenience (i.e., you [in general, not you in particular] are a cheap bastard and just want a free book).

[guyanonymous]

Originally Posted by cmdahler

Semantics. If you get caught, you can get prosecuted period, because you are engaged in illegal activity. That is the salient fact. Call it what you will, there is no fundamental, philosophical difference between walking into B&N and shoplifting out a book and downloading a torrent. Arguing anything else is just rationalizing an attempt to circumvent the rules of society for your own convenience (i.e., you [in general, not you in particular] are a cheap bastard and just want a free book).

The courts (in most countries) respectfully disagree.

[TallMomof2]

Originally Posted by tompe

I thought you had to drive to everything in the US. It ought to cost time and money to get to the shops.

We don't have to drive everywhere but I generally plan my trips so that the cost of driving is only a small cost. Costco is a twice a month trip for me of 8 miles roundtrip. Personally, I rarely make special trips just for one item.

I can walk up to the local supermarket and purchase many new release hardcovers for about $16.

There are plenty of places online that one can purchase new hardbacks for close to the same as a $14.99 ebook. Of course if I really want to save money I can wait for the book through the library or even buy used.

[cmdahler]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

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.)

NET Act of 1997 makes copyright infringement, even with no monetary gain, a crime. The RIAA didn't pursue criminal cases because the standard of proof is so much higher in criminal court - civil court standards are far lower.

[guyanonymous]

Even here in the frozen north (Canada), I've switched to ordering books via Indigo.ca or Amazon.ca. I just wait until I have $35 (I think that's the amount) worth of orders and shipping becomes free. And for that $35 I get more value than I do at local book stores (and pay lower taxes). There are two independent bookstores in town, Bolen Books and Munroe's. I've found that the staff there, while friendly, and their selection more diverse than the local big-box Chapters, rarely know about the books I'm after and usually have to order them anyway - at a higher price than I get via the two website stores mentioned above. Plus, I have to pay for parking downtown at one, and deal with a mall environment for the other.

The online retailers better meet my needs for convenience and price.

[cmdahler]

Originally Posted by llreader

Leaving aside the fact that most of the planet is not in the US (Mobile Read isn't), laws must stand the test of time and constitutionality in the US. I am sure you are aware of the case of Dowling v. United States (1985), because you seem so knowledgeable about copyright law, nine years after this law was passed, in which the Supreme Court had some very specific things to say about copyright, theft, and the law:

And then there was the NET Act of 1997...

[guyanonymous]

Originally Posted by cmdahler

NET Act of 1997 makes copyright infringement, even with no monetary gain, a crime. The RIAA didn't pursue criminal cases because the standard of proof is so much higher in criminal court - civil court standards are far lower.

Have you noticed how they keep trying to buy out/off individuals who's court cases aren't/don't go the way they hope, all in the effort to prevent precedent setting cases from being established. Case in point, the latest $millions judgment reduced to $54000 on appeal, that is again being appealed because they found the initial judgment unconstitutional? Last I heard they were telling her they'd settle for $25000 or so, IF she'd settle it all out of court. They are afraid of any of these cases making it to the supremes - because what they are doing essentially comes down as extortion. We'll do this unless you pay us.

[llreader]

Originally Posted by cmdahler

And then there was the NET Act of 1997...

Ok, if it makes you feel better, you are right, copyright infringement has been considered a crime in the US only, since 1976, although the SC has stated clearly that unauthorized copying is not theft. I know of no other place where copyright infringement for personal use is punishable under criminal law.

So, you are free to say that residents of the US who make unauthorized copies are committing a crime, but they are not committing theft, no matter where they live, and saying so is incorrect.

I don't live in the US, nor do many people on this forum.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by 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.

Or we could discuss the price of eggs in China.

You continue to try and move off topic, I'm not playing.

I'm not here to argue or prove anything to you.

If you take something of mine without my permission, you are a thief.

I think all of society can agree on that. Therefore your morals are corrupt.

[KenFisher]

I have already had a top price that I would pay for a book, whether it was an ebook or paper. That price is usually different based on the author and my interest in the book. I have several books on my wish list at Fictionwise that I will only purchase after it gets to the price I have set. I will refuse to pay more than a mass-market paperback for any ebook.

If I have to wait for an ebook I will either wait or not buy it at all. I have enough ebooks on my reading list already that will allow me to wait for the prices to drop into my price range.

Ken