The $15 Boycott: Will you be participating?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Pardoz

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.

Thank you for that.

I got an email earlier today from the SFWA secretary vigorously defending MacMillan.....amazing!

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Alisa

So with MacMillan and probably HarperCollins moving to the agency model and forcing a higher retail price, a lot of folks are saying they won't buy. I suppose people's choices may change if all the big publishers go this route, but as it stands today, what are your plans?

I rarely am willing to pay more than $30 for a book. I have to really want the book to pay that much for it. However, I will usually spend $10 or less on the chance that I might like it. I suppose this works out to the proposition that I'm willing to spend $30 to get a good book to read, and I figure that if I have to spend all 30 on one book, I'd better be darn sure I'll read it. This calls for deliberation. OTOH, my experience is that I'm willing to spend that same 30 on three books, figuring that I'll like one of them for sure, and might not finish the other two. I am more likely to buy these books on impulse.

So my plans aren't changing, just my opportunities. If the publishers were to go to $30 ebooks, I'd buy fewer - mainly ones I'm confident I'd finish. If they went to $10 ebooks, I'd buy more - but I wouldn't necessarily finish them all.

I'm not entirely sure how I'll deal with $15 books. I won't exactly boycott them, but I think they fall on the deliberation side for me, rather than the impulse side. So for the time being, I'm pretty sure to buy fewer books at what seems to be the emerging price structure.

But I remember some things. I remember when paperback books crossed the $3 barrier, and then the $5 barrier, and how I felt like I'd stop buying them at those prices. But eventually, I didn't.

With the emergence of the iPad, I suspect that I'll be paying more attention to the opportunity to share books with my family. I'll be more likely to buy at $15 if I know that someone else in my family would be interested in reading the book.

This is because there are six of us, and at least three of us will have Pads, five of us have iPhones, and all six of us have Macs. Plus one has a Kindle. eBook sharing will drive the effective prices down, for us, which is why sharing will become more important in my calculations.

[jmaloney]

Originally Posted by Pardoz

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.

Well, yes, Lynn Abbey is an author, and she's against what Macmillan's doing, but, if you read her posts, you'll see she's ALSO against what Amazon's doing. That's exactly what Lemurion was saying: they may or may not support Macmillan, but I haven't seen a single author who supported Amazon. Some, like Lynn, are against both.

[MrBlueSky]

Originally Posted by cmdahler

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

Yes, and a fine piece of legislation it is too.

It certainly does have a certain deterrent effect in that backwater called the USA for people who live there and want to UPLOAD copyright encumbered material in that country — but it does not make one iota of difference to the people who continue to DOWNLOAD it. It's carry on regardless for them.

The rest of the world continues to spin on its axis. Move along people — nothing to see here.

[kennyc]

Oh I think there's plenty to see. Clearly 13 pages in this thread alone. Hee-Hee.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by cmdahler

Semantics. If you get caught, you can get prosecuted period, because you are engaged in illegal activity.

But you can't be prosecuted for theft.

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.

The *philosophical* difference is that, when you take a book off the shelves, nobody else has it. When it's distributed by torrents, nobody's lost their chance to read it. That's the core difference between the acts.

Theft takes something away from someone else. Copying doesn't. Copying can still cause harm... just like punching someone can cause harm, and "steal" his ability to work, but it's not prosecuted as theft.

[CyGuy]

I can see people having an issue with a flat rate for all eBooks, a tiered pricing structure makes sense. Charging $10 as the flat rate is way too much anyway. I personally don't have a problem with a tiered pricing structure. In fact, here is a suggestion:
All eBooks should be priced a flat 10% of the paper book price. If a paper book costs $20, the eBook should be $2.

[MrBlueSky]

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).

No, I'm afraid it's not just a matter of semantics. I never said that I couldn't get prosecuted if I were to be caught, I said that I couldn't get prosecuted for THEFT.

Even under your NET Act of 1997, you would still be being prosecuted for COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, albeit under criminal jurisprudence not civil, but not prosecuted for theft. And that is because there IS a fundamental difference between the two. The act specifically distinguishes between infringement, counterfeiting and trafficking.

I realise you may not like it, but copyright infringement is not theft. End of story.


[In general] I may or may not be a cheap bastard but thats a whole different story.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by cmdahler

Violating copyright law is a crime. You may try to rationalize it by saying your situation is different, yadda, yadda: just the meaningless noise of someone trying to justify themselves. No, you haven't killed anyone, yes, it may help sales for the author, yes, the publishing houses charge too much, yes, the law ought to be changed, etc., etc. I've heard it all over in the music file sharing community. Talk to the hand. It's all just rationalization. It's still violating the law, so it's still a criminal act.

My sense of it is that consumers are not violating copyright, so much as they are (1) circumventing DRM and (2) space-shifting books from the paper world to the digital world.

Let's start with DRM. DRM is a conspiracy of large media companies against consumers. It is intended and has the effect of robbing consumers of their traditional rights of fair use under copyright law. In fact, I think it is fair to say that DRM itself, as a practical matter, allows the copyright owner to violate fair use, which is part of copyright, and that in the book world, publishers are using it to do exactly that. Therefore, it little bothers me when people get DRMed books off the darknet. It is publishers who are, in effect, breaking the law, not consumers.

As for space-shifting, I believe that a lot of people are simply acquiring books in digital format which they either already have in paper form, or which are not available in digital form through ordinary channels.

In the former case, the customer is entitled to have a fair use electronic copy of a book he already owns. No copyright law, or DRM law, makes it illegal to acquire such a copy. The situation would be the same, even if a digital version of the book were already available. (See the first sentence of this paragraph.)

In the latter case, things are a little dicier. But it seems to me that the publisher has the opportunity to make a digital edition available, and if he decides not to do so, it must be because there is no money in it for him. Therefore, I question whether the publisher is being hurt by the customer getting a digital copy off of the darknet. I would not feel this way if a digital copy were available for purchase.

The plain fact of the matter is that copyright law does not contemplate the digital environment, and our lawmakers have not seen fit to address the situation except by buying into DRM. And if you read the DMCA closely, it becomes clear that the law does not punish the ultimate consumer of the ebook if DRM is violated. It punishes everyone BUT the ultimate consumer. That is, the DMCA does not change copyright law. And as I understand copyright law, if you make a copy of a book and give it to me, you violate the law, but I don't.

So in my view, your premise, which seems to be that the acquisition by the consumer of a digital copy of an ebook from someone other than the owner of the copyright is a criminal act on the part of the consumer, is simply wrong.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by MrBlueSky

....

I realise you may not like it, but copyright infringement is not theft. End of story.


....

semantics.

It's against the law, it's amoral, it's wrong.

End of story.

[cmdahler]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

The *philosophical* difference is that, when you take a book off the shelves, nobody else has it. When it's distributed by torrents, nobody's lost their chance to read it. That's the core difference between the acts.

Theft takes something away from someone else. Copying doesn't. Copying can still cause harm... just like punching someone can cause harm, and "steal" his ability to work, but it's not prosecuted as theft.

I suppose, in the selfishness that is increasingly the hallmark of thought in this day and age, you never stopped to consider in the midst of your rationalization that the author might perhaps care about the lost royalties from this "it doesn't hurt anyone" scheme. You are focusing on the reading public, as though they are the ones who even matter, as though, when an author spends months or years creating a work, that the public has some kind of God-given right to read it. That's complete and utter horse manure. If I write a book and you want to read it, you can pay me what I want for it or you can do without. I couldn't care less if you want to move along rather than paying the fee, but I would care very much if you replied that you had no intention of paying me for the privilege of reading my work and instead would just go illegally copy it from someone else. Sugarcoat it however you want in an attempt to justify it, but when you illegally copy or distribute a copyrighted work that you would have otherwise had to pay for, then you are indeed stealing from the author for your own convenience.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Harmon

...

So in my view, your premise, which seems to be that the acquisition by the consumer of a digital copy of an ebook from someone other than the owner of the copyright is a criminal act on the part of the consumer, is simply wrong.

I believe everything you said above is correct in a legal sense. I also despise DRM and think it violates my right to backup and view the product in the manner I desire on the display device I prefer. But I also believe that authors should be compensated fairly for my purchase of the book. And I do purchase legally all the books I own and read.


Where this whole discussion gets me going is when someone knowingly acquires a book illegally (i.e. without purchasing it through the normal channels). They fully well know that it is not right, that the author owns the rights and makes a living from selling the books. They KNOW they are doing wrong, yet they make up reasons and excuses to support their behavior. To me this is clearly morally wrong. To take something from someone else without their permission is theft. They know they are wrong, yet they use every excuse in the book to justify it. What has the world come to?

[Harmon]

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.

Yep, that's right. Here in Texas (not to be confused with the rest of the country, spelt Taxes) my garage is so far away from my house that I have to drive to get to it.

Oh, wait, I do live in Taxes - aka Chicago. The bus stops three doors from my apartment. So why do I have a car? It must be in order to have an opportunity to spend time and money to get to the shops, because the bus sure is cheaper and faster. Well, cheaper, anyway.

Nope. I have a car because the bus doesn't get me to Hot Doug's fast enough. http://www.hotdougs.com/specials.htm

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Yep, that's right. Here in Texas (not to be confused with the rest of the country, spelt Taxes) ...

[fugazied]

The thing that annoys me most about this situation is that publishers with DRM seem to be heading in the direction that we lease books at the same cost that we previously bought paperbooks.

Do we ever really own Books with DRM, where the book seller or publisher can recall the work? Most of the time now we don't have the ability to lend ebooks or re-sell ebooks as we used to with print. For this massive reduction in the rights granted when buying a book they want to charge us the same price (and for an ephemeral object with is usually a few megabytes and can be stored/transmitted for about 4000-5000% less cost than a printed book).

The publishing industry needs a massive slap in the face, we won't pay the same for print media as we will for electronic, especially when we receive so much less.