What are your views on illegal copying?

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Well yes, but sometimes trolls are in the eye to the beholder as well, just like pirates, thieves or file copiers...

Oh it's that time again is it?

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

It looks to me that the majority support the idea that once you have paid for a work, it's reasonable not to be expected to (have to) pay again for a different format.

...Why do you think I refuse to buy DRM'ed ebooks?

[kazbates]

3 Points:

I'll go out on a limb and say that I have absolutely no idea what would be the best way to compensate authors and publishers except that perhaps the royalty system may have become outdated.

I get frustrated with people who think it's okay to take advantage of someone because they are "rich" or are part of a "big corporation". What if the ebook was created and published by an unknown author and an independent publisher? Should we avoid pirating thier product because they aren't "rich" and "big"? Constantly blaming the rich and big corporations for the woes of the world is just too easy.

Geo Restrictions are flat out wrong and could easily be considered censorship.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

What have I learned from this poll?
e. Threads about piracy create loads of replies
f. They say the same thing again and again

Yep.

I don't think it's pointless to keep discussing it, because there are always new readers at the site, and discussing how people's beliefs about piracy, file-sharing and legalities of copyright relate to different circumstances & hypotheticals is (potentially) useful. But it does often come down to the same handful of core beliefs clashing against each other.

I warn people I direct to Mobileread to watch out for the piracy/copyright discussions, 'cos we have a lot of very well-practiced arguments here, and newcomers could wind up feeling attacked from several directions at once.

[dsvick]

Originally Posted by delphidb96

O! M! G! I have *GOT* to go to CafePress and make me one of them.

You can't, Ben clearly had the idea first and you going off and creating a bumper sticker of said intellectual idea is clearly an illegal act that is morally and ethically reprehensible as well as stealing food from Ben, his children, their children, and the small goat on the hill as well. My god man, have you learned nothing from this thread?

[yekim54]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

8. It's OK to copy a book if I think that the author is rich
9. It's OK to copy a book from mainstream publishers

I voted for 8 and 9 because they have the fewest votes at the moment.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Pardoz

I don't get why people think that copying a book is really any different than buying a used copy. It's still a lost sale for the publisher, and you still get to experience the content without paying the author.

Because a used copy means the original owner no longer has a copy.

With an e-book, one can strip the DRM, keep their copy and pass it on too as many people as they like. One used copy can only go to so many people before someone keeps it personally, tosses it in the trash etc.

For ebook I think we DO need a system where someone can sell or give away their ebook license that removes it form their machine(s) and transfers it to someone else.

The issue is to keep a person from buying an e-book, stripping DRM and throwing it on a torrent site where it gets to thousands of people as people download it, throw it on their own torrent sites, send it to friends etc.

If you buy something, you should be able to loan it, sell it, give it away etc. But you can't be able to loan it, sell it, or give it away while keeping a copy for yourself. That's the issue that you don't get with a physical book. If I loan a physical book, I don't have a copy while a friend is borrowing it. If I sell it or give it away, it's gone and I have to buy another one if I want it in the future. That's the way e-books should be too--but it's much harder to ensure/enforce.

[theducks]

Hey folks
If you can, find a copy of the "Borland (software) No-Nonsence License Statment" and read it. It is from a Huge Intellectual Property developer who "got it"

"You must treat this software just like a book..." .."used in one place at a time"

Unfortunately, I can not post it here because there is a "copyright" on it

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by dsvick

You can't, Ben clearly had the idea first and you going off and creating a bumper sticker of said intellectual idea is clearly an illegal act that is morally and ethically reprehensible as well as stealing food from Ben, his children, their children, and the small goat on the hill as well. My god man, have you learned nothing from this thread?

Ahhhh... But *my* version will have cute cherubs, unicorns, care-bears and sharing rainbows on it!

Derek

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by theducks

Hey folks
If you can, find a copy of the "Borland (software) No-Nonsence License Statment" and read it. It is from a Huge Intellectual Property developer who "got it"

"You must treat this software just like a book..." .."used in one place at a time"

Unfortunately, I can not post it here because there is a "copyright" on it

Oh right. That company that got bought out by and ruined by Inprise. Yeah... Another casualty of the war on reason.

Derek

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by theducks

"You must treat this software just like a book..."

Well, I wouldn't use it then. Heck, I miss out on one author in a shared universe which I read because he puts a restrictive 1-copy-only licence on his stories.

Unless it can go into the normal backup sequence, it ain't going on my PC. I don't have time to track down everywhere some poxy software wants to stick itself and exclude it all.

[nikkie]

I buy eBooks all the time, even though they are almost all DRMd and it makes me feel sick inside because I know I'm throwing my money in a hole, BUT...

<politics>I'm pretty sure Ben Franklin would agree with the last option. Libraries are available to the public to decrease the knowledge gap between people of varying advantage levels, whether geographic or socio-economic. It is a huge part of what makes first world nations places where people can move between classes, because they can educate themselves out of lower classes if they want. (<rant>Or at least that's the rhetoric they teach in our schools these days. I've yet to determine if it's really possible. So far I'm 25 and it's promising, but getting somewhat bleaker due to tax laws on middle class citizens. And greedy corporations in general. </rant>) Anyway, libraries ARE socialist, but in a very capitalist way.</politics>

On the OTHER hand, I do believe the author/editor has EVERY right to determine the licensing and pricing of their works. I don't think the publisher has ANY right to determine pricing or licensing for eBooks unless they offer useful and significant marketing. If I was an author right now, I would honestly use the publisher for all the publicity I could get, and then drop them like a rock when my books got enough positive reviews for new readers to know they are quality.

My hope is that in the future, most works will be Creative Commons and the author will specify exactly what copy rights they would like users to have, and that most authors will be liberal about it.

EBooks and software distribution are very similar problems, and software is turning into a solved problem. They both take a lot of time and effort to get right, and can be very easily pirated. I think the Apple App Store (and Steam) show quite clearly that "free" and "cheap" are excellent business models because people are much more likely to part with "a buck" than "twenty-five dollars".

The future looks good. Less pirating. More authors getting paid. And more legitimate and free data transfer.

[lene1949]

Originally Posted by yekim54

I voted for 8 and 9 because they have the fewest votes at the moment.

Love it!

[NightGeometry]

I voted for getting a dodgy copy when a legitimate one isn't available (not at all, and not to me due to geographical restrictions).

One variation I find interesting is that when someone lends me a book, I will often go find an ebook version, and read that. I also copy the electronic file for my partner, fo books I think she will like. In neither case do I destroy my e copy when 'appropriate', though I think I probably should.

This then brings us to the case of - a friend loans me a book, I like it, I buy others by the same author, but probably not the one I have already read. The author / publisher / retailer make more money off of me than if i had not borrowed the original. This is the same in p- or ebook format.

For some authors I have gone and bought the book I have already read. My reasoning for this has nothing to do with wanting an official copy, or even in making sure the author gets paid (although both of them give me warm fuzzy feelings). It is more to do with sending a clear indication to the retailer & publisher that this is work I like, and that they find/stock more authors like this.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by kazbates

I get frustrated with people who think it's okay to take advantage of someone because they are "rich" or are part of a "big corporation". What if the ebook was created and published by an unknown author and an independent publisher? Should we avoid pirating thier product because they aren't "rich" and "big"? Constantly blaming the rich and big corporations for the woes of the world is just too easy.

I put those options in to gauge opinion, and you'll be glaad to see that >90% of people (including me) agree with this.