"If you can afford an ebook reader, you can afford ebook prices"

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by scveteran

Sorry, but IMO the guys who are pirating the files ARE the bad guys. I also know better than to believe the stuff you are selling about all publishers being the bad guys. There are some that are bad apples, but there are others that are honest business people.

I also disagree with the idea that some here espouse about all corporations being evil. The vast majority of corporations are legitimate businesses that follow the law and do things honestly and above board. Many of them also give large sums of money to charity.

In what way are they the bad guys? If they feel the current copyright laws unjust then disobeying such a law may be unlawful but not immoral however morality being subjective let's consider other points. Harm, at what point does piracy cause harm, to what extent is that harm and who is harmed?

I'd find it hard to argue that a book still in print has value to seller and buyer. However I fail to see harm in a copy being received by someone who would have never purchased the book to begin with. If I'm given a dead tree copy of the romance novel I'm not going to read it, the author and publisher gained from the sale but if it was not bought for me they would not have. If i download the same book and never read it again there was no harm, no lost sale. If i were to read the dead tree version given to me (highly unlikely!) and then decided I liked it I might account for future sales, a gain for the publisher and perhaps even the author though they're still unlikely to ever have royalties exceeding their advance. If it were the ebook version I read, there's still the possibility of future sales but no original sale I would have in essence gotten a promotional copy but without author consent, still no direct harm since there was no way I was going to buy that book it's like a library copy but for some reason I'd still have it, immoral most likely, unlawful yes, direct harm none.

Next, we have the case of a book no longer in print. Direct harm zero it was not available to begin with there was no sale to be made. Future harm possible, there could be a reprint or an ebook release however old publishing contracts didn't assign electronic rights so an ebook won't be forthcoming and then then only harm would be if a reprint of the paper edition were released and not bought.

Or do you come from the position that all copying is wrong? The riaa argued that ripping your cds to put on your ipod was not fair use or that burning an extra copy of a cd to put in your car was not fair use. If you come from that school of thought then there's probably zero chance to reason with you. In recent years those arguments got slapped down, I can find a citation if you need it but I don't have one at hand and would have to dig it up. I'll for the moment assume you believe in fair use and ask what is the moral difference between scanning a book and downloading it form someone who did the work for me, assuming they're making that offer free of charge? The end result is the same only many hours of work have been saved. Would you object to proofreading someone else's scan and returning it to them?


The rest... Corporations are amoral, their purpose is profit, nothing wrong with profit but all but the most mercenary of us place limits on what we would do to profit. Not so with corporations even google with their motto of don't be evil censor Chinese search results, peep into people's windows and take photos, disregard and kind of privacy for their users and themselves violate copyright protections (citations available on request). In the US they're allowed to disregard campaign final laws that restrict individuals and spend with abandon to advance their interests in Washington and most importantly for this debate engage in hollywood accounting to deprive artists of earned royalties.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by scveteran

I disagree with you on this. Many people would purchase the book if they had not pirated it already.

I have to disagree with you. Most people don't have the money to buy every random book that might be interesting, if they didn't pirate more people might use the public library, which is a good thing certainly. Libraries rock, not just for reading but for research. But library reads don't necessarily translate to increased sales. Would everyone buy more music if radio stations were abolished or would they just listen to the collections they already have of things they like. There's no reason to think of every download as a lost sale any more than ever used book sale is a lost new sale. I buy used books by the bag full a new paperback costs what i spend on 20 used books (I hit the thrift stores and book fares $0.25-$0.50 is what most of my used books cost). Do you honestly think I'd go out and buy 20 books at $10 a pop on a whim?

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by scveteran

I have never suggested any such strategy for dealing with the problem and would not agree with the idea. However you are way off base with the accusations that the publishers would get most of the money. The truth is that ASCAP is a similar type of organization and passes all but 11.3% that it collects to the musicians. So I have to assume a literary version would do about the same.

How much money has the RIAA passed on to artists from its court victories against people who share music? I'll give you a hint it starts with a Z and it isn't zillion.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by delphidb96

I suppose you could make it mandatory that anyone who purchases a device capable of reading an ebook be forced to pay a generic, monthly or yearly, license fee comparable to the cost of the average number of ebooks a person might read. This would be expensive for those, such as myself, who have ten ereading devices - but what the hell, it's for the authors! (Naturally, despite no real cost on their parts, the publishers woul get the lion's share of this money, with most of the rest going to the government agencies managing this, At least the authors would get 1%-3% of this 'recovery fee'.)

What I don't understand is *who* these 'others' are? Clearly you do not mean the retailers, agents, publishers or authors. Do you mean pirates are 'stealing' from the disabled, poor or children?



Derek

Are you serious? So some politicians decide which authors (presumably those that are either left or right wing, depending on who is in government) get these funds? Sorry, I would rather decide directly who gets my money.

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by scveteran

I disagree with you on this. Many people would purchase the book if they had not pirated it already.

Okay, you disagree. Then why are there so many people who pirate? I mean, so many pirated titles *are* available for sale... Of course, it could be that all these 'pirates' haven't heard of Amazon, Fictionwise, Ereader, BooksOnBoard... or maybe they *have* and they just don't care. In the face of all those polls and studies, I believe the latter.

I have never suggested any such strategy for dealing with the problem and would not agree with the idea. However you are way off base with the accusations that the publishers would get most of the money. The truth is that ASCAP is a similar type of organization and passes all but 11.3% that it collects to the musicians. So I have to assume a literary version would do about the same.

Assume all you want. I will assume a more pessimistic view until they prove otherwise. If you are right, I'll be *pleasantly* surprised - and well-prepared if not. On the other hand, if *I* guess closer to the truth, you'll be surprised - and not pleasantly at all.

Of course I am talking about the agents, retailers, etc. They deserve to earn a living whether you like them or not.

As I'm working on being a published author, I have *NO* objections to agents, publishers or retailers. I just believe that far too high a portion of e-book revenue is diverted away from the average author.

Derek

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Are you serious? So some politicians decide which authors (presumably those that are either left or right wing, depending on who is in government) get these funds? Sorry, I would rather decide directly who gets my money.

Actually, I was extrapolating from an example described in Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged". I grant that even the basic vision in the book has not come to pass, but it might if current anti-'piracy' rhetoric sways the politicians.

Derek

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by scveteran

You also have come up with the idea that that these items have no retail value at all. That is simply wrong. I challenge you to show any law that says these items have no retail value.

Not available for sale = no retail value. Harry Potter ebooks have no retail price on which to base prosecution. There is no such thing as "$2500 worth of Harry Potter ebooks."

It could be argued that each ebook is worth the price of a pbook--but would that be hardcover retail, paperback retail, or the price of a used paperback? If it could be proved that Pirate X uploaded "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" to 10 other computers, there's still no standard for how much financial gain those people have gotten.

(I'm aware that there are some systems to get around this. However, as the law is written, it can be argued that if there's no legit digital version, and no plans for one, there's no financial harm to the publisher in releasing digital copies.)

[Iphinome]

Elfwreck if I were a judge I might after reviewing laws and precident to confirm it probably assign the value at the retail price of the paperback as being the closest equivalent. No doubt the publishers would try to claim the max statutory damages they could get in a civil case but I doubt that would fly in a criminal case still I'd give 7-2 odds they'd try it.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

they have to listen if we change their market

Snerk. No, they'll just blame piiiracy.