My journey into the darknet

[jabberwock_11]

I don't believe that the publishing industry owes me personally anything, but it should be beholden to its authors and its customers to provide what it claims as its territory.

It harms the authors a great deal more to hold out on publishing back catalogues of books and to take a flippant attitude toward the publishing of current books in all available formats than the use of the darknet ever could. Most of us only went to alternate sources because the legitimate ones were lacking. A good portion of us download ebooks versions of books that we already own. We are not asking for a revolution, just some common sense.

The example of Baen, in establishing their free library, should point to the fact that when you make things easier to access you INCREASE your readership and sales rather than decrease it. As I have said, word of mouth publicity is an amazing force.

I am a freelance writer myself and have struggled to make enough dough writing to pay the utility bills, so I do understand how difficult it is to make anything resembling good money as a writer. I have written articles and short stories for years and even worked as a playwrite for an independent house for a while. I have never considered making writing my full time profession because there simply was not enough money or stability in it, but the rise of on line markets and epublishing has actually increased both my income and my target audience. If an independent freelancer can see the value in this, then I am not sure why large corporations and otherwise educated folks can not.

The bottom line is this: there is a whole lot of wrong to spread around and none of us are angles, hell even the removal of DRM is illegal in many places, but we still do it with little to no concern for the moral/legal implications. The only way things change is by forcing those who have a vested interest in the status quo to change their attitudes. Is my downloading an otherwise unavailable copy of a book that I already own earth shattering protest? Nope, I just wanted to read the book on my ebook reader, but if I can use my annoyance at having no better alternative to help beat some common sense into folks then all the better.

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

Acrobat does a lousy job of exporting to TXT and RTF. The trick I've found is to run the PDF through Finereader and let it "OCR" it (never mind that it is already text) then save it from Finereader in whatever document format you want, with more flexibility on the output.

I'll have to try that one. Of course, that means scavenging a copy of Finereader...

Derek

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by TGS

If I understand correctly there might be three sorts of material from that get downloaded from the Darknet in descending order of naughtiness*:

I think that it's more nuanced than this one (availability) dimension. For example, it matters to many people whether they have already paid for a paper copy. Another question is how old the material is and whether the author is still living. Lots of things contribute to how people feel about whether it's OK to copy something.

This seems to amount to the the argument that if someone exercises their rights in a way that I don't like there might be a rational moral position which would give some moral warrant to me negating their rights.

I don't think that's right. My point was that if you view copyright as a mechanism for society to grant certain benefits on a temporary basis, so as to encourage the creation of new material etc., it makes no sense to support copyright being used to keep that material from people.

You might be right on this - but if you are I don't see how we separate 1 and 2 from 3 - some rights-holder who wants me to pay £130 for a copy of an academic book may well be exercising their rights in a way that I don't like, and if we accept the argument that the exercise of rights in ways we don't like justifies the negation of those rights, then I would be justified in downloading it from the Darknet. If the book could have been had for £10 I would have happily paid it, but it's ridiculous to charge me £130. There's no way I can afford £130 so I'm going to have it away from some file hosting site if I can find it.

If something is priced so crazily high that very few can afford it, people may well take the same view (i.e. that material is being withheld rather than encouraged, so that the copyright holder is in breach of the "social contract" if you will). Of course, people have different views of what is crazy.

You might argue that the exercising of rights which results in a book costing £130 has, in itself, a different moral status from the exercise of rights that results in a book not being available, and that, therefore, how we respond to those exercising of rights can justifiably be different. But you would have to argue this, I don't think it's self-evident.

One might argue that - for some content, £130 might be reasonable.

In any case, my main point was a reaction to your put-down of those making their darknet confessions. I wasn't stating my position, but saying that one could reasonably take such a position. Personally, I'm not sure what the best balance is between rights for copyright-holders and rights for the pubic, but it seems significantly over-balanced towards coprorate copyright-holders at the moment.

[Zipr]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

If something is priced so crazily high that very few can afford it, people may well take the same view (i.e. that material is being withheld rather than encouraged, so that the copyright holder is in breach of the "social contract" if you will).

Better known as the Photoshop Theory.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by TGS

If I understand correctly there might be three sorts of material from that get downloaded from the Darknet in descending order of naughtiness*:

1. Material that is available in a variety of media and or formats but the individual wants to get if for nothing if they can
2. Material that is available in a variety of media and/or formats, but the individual wants it in a different media and/or format
3. Material that is not currently available - new or second-hand - in any format

Pretty much everything's available second-hand at some price or another. The issue is with content not available new, in a way that would let publishers earn money from it.

Or perhaps #3 should be split into two:
3a--Material not available new, and secondhand copies are rare collectibles that tend to be priced very high
3b--Material not available new, but widely & cheaply available second-hand.

I'm not sure which would be more "naughty" as a torrent download. On the one hand, wide availability of 2ndhand copies leads to the concept, "just *buy* one, and do the work of digitizing it yourself!" On the other, those copies also lead to a justification of, "nobody's losing any money if I download this."

Hm. Which is more reprehensible--downloading Alvin Fernald, Superweasel, or the Azoetia?

[GhostHawk]

Wife came home last night all excited, had just bought the latest James Patterson Maximum Ride book "Fang", I go hmmm, cool, walk into the office, 10 min later I'm walking out with it loaded in my Jetbook, .rtf format (my fav) going "this looks pretty good honey!"

"No WAY" errr, well, emm, "yeah way"!

I could have read her copy, author got paid, I prefer to read mine on the Jetbook.

Darknet has its place.

When publishers start putting backlist Ebooks 5 years or so out of print for sale at reasonable prices 1 -3 $ who will take the time to pirate? When that day comes I'll have to adapt or change, but I don't see that day coming anytime soon.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Hm. Which is more reprehensible--downloading Alvin Fernald, Superweasel, or the Azoetia?

Interesting point - now we have to make a distinction between a "tome" and a "book" - where tome refers to the physical aspect of the object, whilst book refers to the ideational, artistic or informational aspect of the object. I'm guessing that the value of Superweasel mostly resides in its tome aspect - there aren't many physical, original copies and that scarcity is what gives it its value. I'm guessing the Azoetia contains information that is valuable in itself because it tells you how to make gold out of baked beans or something, and so its value lies in it's book aspect. Downloading a dodgy copy of Superweasel would not be downloading a copy of the tome, but downloading a dodgy copy of the Azoetia would be downloading a copy of the book - so that would be naughtier because downloading it gives you what you shouldn't have. So, a rough heuristic for determining naughtiness of downloading a particular item might be n= (br - tr) x ap where "n" is naughtiness, "br" is book ratio, or the degree to which a object accrues its value in virtue of its book aspect (on a scale yet to be specified), "tr" is tome ratio or the degree to which a object accrues its value in virtue of its tome aspect (on a scale yet to be specified) and "ap" is asking price for the item. There now - we can all work out just how naughty we have been, and more importantly, how naughty we would be if we were to nab that missing seventh volume in the series that we just can't get anywhere else.

[GlennD]

Originally Posted by GhostHawk

When publishers start putting backlist Ebooks 5 years or so out of print for sale at reasonable prices 1 -3 $ who will take the time to pirate?

I think you've hit the nail on the head. The "Darknet" is somewhat risky to search (malware/viruses), has mixed results and requires at least a little technical knowledge. In a perfect world, where every work by every author never went "out of print" (what's the term for ebooks? ), most people are going to choose to go straight to the source and pay for an easily findable, reliably well-formatted copy. It's worked with music already, and I think the same will apply with books.

Many of my college friends had huge collections of music they'd downloaded or traded for. Once they had incomes they started buying their music. There will always be some folks who download free copies, just like there will always be shoplifters. But overall if the publishers make the experience an easy and economical one, most readers will choose to buy their books.

[Desertway]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

My point is that there is a rational moral position that one could adopt in support of using the darknets to obtain material that nobody is prepared to sell you. We can debate whether that position is the best one to adopt or not, but I think it unreasonable to belittle it as childish, or as craving justification for known naughtiness.

It is not easy to argue morality in this venue. I'm not going to try and develop my moral position from certain first premises, or talk about when piracy becomes civil disobedience (which would require the determination that the publisher's current behavior is immoral). We could argue forever.

I'll just say that it is not my experience that most of the material available via the DarkNet is "orphaned" or no longer available by any other means. Much of the books, music, movies, etc, that can be downloaded gratis can also be purchased. And most of the people downloading simply prefer not to pay.

People want what they want, in whatever form they want it. And they want it now. For free.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by Desertway

It is not easy to argue morality in this venue. I'm not going to try and develop my moral position from certain first premises. We could argue forever. I'll just say that it not my experience that most of the material available via the DarkNet is "orphaned" or no longer available by any other means. Much of the books, music, movies, etc, that can be downloaded gratis can also be purchased.

I'm sure that you're right in that much of what is available on the darknet is not orphaned. The most common frustration on this thread and elsewhere seems to relate to either orphaned or otherwise unavailable books (e.g. geo), however.

I'm not trying to argue for a particular morality - I'm not sure that you can argue such things from first principles in any convincing way. My point was simply that one could reasonably take a view that by sitting on content, publishers gave up any rights that society had granted them to exclusive copyright (because they weren't making copies available, which was the deal).

One could also reasonably argue that, having given someone a right, you ought to allow them to exercise it however they saw fit. If they want to make no copies, or charge £1,000,000 each - that's their business until the copyright expires. If copyright was, say, 10 years, I would probably take this view.

With current copyright set at, effectively, "forever", corporate greed and weak government has broken the system, so that the public get nothing in return. It is perhaps unsurprising that many are responding by giving up on their side of the bargain as well - and copying whatever they please. My preferred solution would be a new contract that both sides would be prepared to stick to - but I can't think of any practical way to achieve such a thing. In the absence of that, making good quality, easy to use, cheap copies available seems the only way that copyright holders are likely to make any money.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

In any case, my main point was a reaction to your put-down of those making their darknet confessions. I wasn't stating my position, but saying that one could reasonably take such a position. Personally, I'm not sure what the best balance is between rights for copyright-holders and rights for the pubic, but it seems significantly over-balanced towards coprorate copyright-holders at the moment.

It wasn't really (in intention at least), a put down of people making confessions, rather a reaction to the moral gulf that people create between their (self)-justified Darknet activities and the activities of those apparent moral derelicts whose justification for using the Darknet might be different. The way the discourse is constructed it's as if the difference between the two types of activities is analogous to the difference between forgetting to pay your bus fare and systematically and maliciously defrauding your dear old gran out of her life's savings. It's not. None of it is that important - if any of it really made an impact on corporate copyright holders it would have been stopped.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by TGS

None of it is that important - if any of it really made an impact on corporate copyright holders it would have been stopped.

I agree that the ebook business is still pretty small, but do you think that it would necessarily be stopped if it made an impact on corporate copyright holders? Corporate copyright holders haven't got their own way as far as music is concerned. They continue to make attempts to stop piracy, but I'm not cinvinced that they can succeed.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by TGS

Interesting point - now we have to make a distinction between a "tome" and a "book" - where tome refers to the physical aspect of the object, whilst book refers to the ideational, artistic or informational aspect of the object. I'm guessing that the value of Superweasel mostly resides in its tome aspect - there aren't many physical, original copies and that scarcity is what gives it its value.

"Scarcity" is a relative term, here; dozens of copies are available for pennies (plus shipping) a Amazon & other used book sellers. It's out of print, with no plans of reprints, but not obscure. There's some value in the specific text, but overall it's fairly interchangeable with (1) the other books in the series and (2) any number of other young adult novels with modern-day young-teen-hero characters.

I'm guessing the Azoetia contains information that is valuable in itself because it tells you how to make gold out of baked beans or something, and so its value lies in it's book aspect.

Make gold, fight demons, conquer the astral planes, control deities for fun and profit, that kind of thing. Theoretically. (I have yet to meet an insanely wealthy or politically powerful owner of the Azoetia, so I rather doubt some of its implied claims.) It claims to contain mystical secrets of great power, and all that, so yes, the value is in the text.

Downloading a dodgy copy of Superweasel would not be downloading a copy of the tome, but downloading a dodgy copy of the Azoetia would be downloading a copy of the book - so that would be naughtier because downloading it gives you what you shouldn't have.

OTOH, the legal case for downloading the Azoetia may be stronger. Inasmuch as a main purpose of copyright is to allow the copyright owner to profit from it, and Azoetia is much, much less likely to be reprinted or released as a legit ebook, the claim can be made that downloads of it aren't causing any harm.

In the recent Sony v Tenenbaum ruling, judge Gertner said,

"…a defendant who used the new file-sharing networks in the technological interregnum before digital media could be purchased legally, but who later shifted to paid outlets, might also be able to rely on the defense."

And in The Wind Done Gone case, Marcus' concurring opinion said,

"The law grants copyright holders a powerful monopoly in their expressive works. It should not also afford them windfall damages for the publication of the sorts of works that they themselves would never publish, or worse, grant them a power of indirect censorship."

So we've got two judges who've said something like, if the copyright owner isn't going to touch a particular market, it might be available for others. And in the case of these two books, the Alvin Fernald stands a much better chance (imho) of being re-released in paper or being released as an ebook at some point.

Azoetia was published by a small independent press in a limited number of collector's copies. Author is deceased, and demand for the book is limited to relatively wealthy occultists--of which there are admittedly plenty, but that market pales in comparison to the market for "young adult books I remember fondly from my childhood and wish to inflict on my children."

So, a rough heuristic for determining naughtiness of downloading a particular item might be n= (br - tr) x ap where "n" is naughtiness, "br" is book ratio, or the degree to which a object accrues its value in virtue of its book aspect (on a scale yet to be specified), "tr" is tome ratio or the degree to which a object accrues its value in virtue of its tome aspect (on a scale yet to be specified) and "ap" is asking price for the item. There now - we can all work out just how naughty we have been, and more importantly, how naughty we would be if we were to nab that missing seventh volume in the series that we just can't get anywhere else.

DO NOT TRY TO CONFUSE ME WITH YOUR MATHS. I WILL CONTINUE TO CALCULATE EBOOK NAUGHTINESS BY HOW MANY TIMES KENNYC SAYS THE WORD "THEFT" IN A THREAD WHERE IT'S MENTIONED.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

I agree that the ebook business is still pretty small, but do you think that it would necessarily be stopped if it made an impact on corporate copyright holders? Corporate copyright holders haven't got their own way as far as music is concerned. They continue to make attempts to stop piracy, but I'm not cinvinced that they can succeed.

It depends what you mean by succeed. If you mean music copyright holders haven't managed to stop the unauthorized copying and distribution of the material they hold rights to, then they haven't succeeded. But if you mean, are those copyright holders making money out of digital content and its distribution, then I reckon they are very successful. As for their attempts to stop piracy - yeah, I guess it would be nice and they have to make a show of trying, because not to make such a show is effectively to condone it, and how do you hang on to all those people who are willing to pay £7.99 for an album if you don't condemn those who get it for nothing. But really, what you are calling piracy is pretty irrelevant in its real effect on their business.

The same I suspect will be true of electronically distributed books. Once the publishers develop a business model that focuses on those who are willing to buy and the fuss about those who are willing to get the stuff from elsewhere dies down, publishers will start making money off it.

In the retail industry they call it wastage, (well, it's not even that in the case of electronic goods), they put a security guard on the door and a tag on anything worth over fifty quid. It reduces it a bit but no retailer has a serious strategy to achieve zero wastage. It's just not that important - apart from to those who think it signals the end of civilization as we know it - but retailers have got better things to do, selling stuff to people who want to buy it.

[Ben Thornton]

We're agreeing now.

You aren't Kenny in disguise by any chance?