Could the Kindle spark book piracy?

[bingle]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

"Fair use" isn't really a law... it's an official dodge used for convenience (to give the authorities the excuse to not have to chase down every petty criminal it knows about).

Whoa. Hold on there. You're correct in stating that "Fair Use" isn't a law. It's a principle that allows exception to normal copyright law. It is NOT, however, an "excuse". The classic fair use exemptions relate to reviewers quoting a work, excerpting a work for educational purposes, critiquing a work, and parodying a work. People acting in this way are not "petty criminals" who just happen to get away with it because the law turns a blind eye. While many authors would disagree, a book critic who tears apart a passage from a work is not a criminal. Neither is a teacher who shows a video clip to his whole class. Neither is a television writer who parodies a bit of popular culture.

Your desire to look upon everyone who copies any part of a work as a criminal past redemption has made you paint a whole class of citizens with a black brush indeed.

(Edit: here's a page that explains fair use in a more complete way: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyrigh...view/chapter9/)

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Fact is, if someone scanned that book and made it available, for free or at a charge, and that file was not authorized by the creator, it is not your right to have it. It is your right to make it for yourself. So make it yourself, but don't take it for free from someone who shouldn't be giving it to you. If that's not morally clear, I don't know what is.

What does "shouldn't be giving it to you" mean? I refuse to accept that if it is legal to give it to me that they shouldn't be doing it in the meaning that I do something morally wrong if I accept it.

How it can be clear that a legal action should be obviously morally wrong it beyond me and how you can think that is extremely strange.

[Penforhire]

Steve, why use the example of downloading from iTunes, a commercial entity? Try any P2P network. They host a server, while not strictly legal in itself, that provides me a MP3 for a CD I own. Guess what? I'm clean-and-legal. Goes back to how bits have no memory. It does not matter that some scum-of-the-Earth posted it. If I have legal use of it then the transaction is clean and even ethical on my end.

No, iTunes will not provide me that free converted file. Though I could argue that since their software includes a ripping package that they DO in fact provide me that service for free.

On a side note, I once needed a book that was out of print and not available. It was factory repair manual for a rare motorcycle. Before purchasing a xerox copy from a fellow owner I contacted the manufacturer, still in existence, and got their permission. That is one way to deal with the out-of-print question. I expect most copyright holders would permit e-version access, assuming they had zero expectation to bring the publication back to market.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Okay, I'm going to just try to hit everything relevant here, then leave for the night. I have other things to do. So:

Originally Posted by tompe

I really do not get your resoning. Theft is problematic with electronic copies so it is bad to use these terms.

There's nothing problematic about an illegally obtained (that is to say, not authorized by the copyright owner) copy of a copywritten work, whether it is in print or electronic form.

Originally Posted by tompe

You seem to say that you consider people whose action is "fair use" to be criminals (morally) and that it is a pity that the authorities does not track them down.

By the letter of the law, yes. However, I believe in "fair use," which means for your own use. Not to share.

Originally Posted by tompe

The original scenario was that you owned the paper version of the content and then you got one copy from a friend and the friend only gave one electronic copy to you and to nobody else. The copy was obtained by scanning the book. Why do you not consider it theft if you scan your own book?

You didn't say YOU scanned YOUR book... you said HE scanned HIS book. And gave a COPY to you. That violates "fair use."

Originally Posted by Alisa

Firstly, I would appreciate if you would make some attempt at being civil.

You have no idea.

Originally Posted by Alisa

Secondly, I am not compensating the original person who scanned the book because they're not asking me to. They have a right to set the price of their labor. If they choose to set that at $0, then that's fine by me.

However, they do not have the right to scan a book copywritten in someone else's name, and give you a copy, if they weren't specifically authorized to do so by the copyright holder. It's immaterial what they charge... they didn't have the right to do it in the first place.

Originally Posted by Alisa

Thirdly, yes I actually would pay for the ebook if it became available. Please don't accuse me of being a liar. It's incredibly offensive.

So is insulting my intelligence (not that that's stopped anyone else around here...)

Originally Posted by bingle

Whoa. Hold on there. You're correct in stating that "Fair Use" isn't a law. It's a principle that allows exception to normal copyright law. It is NOT, however, an "excuse". The classic fair use exemptions relate to reviewers quoting a work, excerpting a work for educational purposes, critiquing a work, and parodying a work.

Yes, I am aware of that. We were discussing "fair use" as it is applied to making full copies of a copywritten work, for personal use. I did not mean to imply that "fair use" as it applies to the areas you mentioned, is an "excuse." I did mean to imply that it was applied to media copying later, and that was as an excuse to avoid prosecuting everyone who owned a tape recorder or VCR.

Originally Posted by tompe

What does "shouldn't be giving it to you" mean? I refuse to accept that if it is legal to give it to me that they shouldn't be doing it in the meaning that I do something morally wrong if I accept it.

I have stated more times than I care to recount, that the point here is that anyone who makes a copy of a copywritten work, to do anything with other than "fair use," has to have the express permission of the copyright holder first. It is not right for someone else to scan and OCR a copy of a JKR book to give (or sell) to you, morally or legally. Nor is it right for you to create a JKR e-book and do anything with it except read it yourself. That is "fair use."

If they have JKR's permission to resell her books as e-books, fine... buy one. If she says it's okay for people to create e-books of her books and give them away, fine... take one. If they do not have permission, they are violating her copyright, and if you take one of those e-books, you are morally and legally wrong.

Originally Posted by Penforhire

Steve, why use the example of downloading from iTunes, a commercial entity? Try any P2P network. They host a server, while not strictly legal in itself, that provides me a MP3 for a CD I own. Guess what? I'm clean-and-legal. Goes back to how bits have no memory. It does not matter that some scum-of-the-Earth posted it. If I have legal use of it then the transaction is clean and even ethical on my end.

Not even close. To use your own words:

"They host a server, while not strictly legal in itself"

That's because they have violated copyright laws in obtaining those files... they are illegal. If you download them, you are downloading illegally-obtained files. If you know that in advance, that means you're in the wrong. You are NOT clean-and-legal, you are an accomplice in theft.

One last thing: I'd like to draw everyone's attention to the poll of this thread. It might interest you to know that the voters for the first choice are outnumbered by 4-1 by the voters of the other 2 choices. Even in this thread, honesty wins the day.

Well... this has been fun! I'm going to dinner. Hasta luego!

[igorsk]

I think what we need for out of print books is compulsory license. I.e., it should be legal to sell/give away copies of an OOP book if you pay some royalty to the copyright holder.

[Alisa]

Steve,

I never insulted your intelligence. I posted an honest question and got an astoundingly insulting response. Other people may have been mean to you but that doesn't mean you have to dump on people who are trying to be civilized.

[bingle]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

One last thing: I'd like to draw everyone's attention to the poll of this thread. It might interest you to know that the voters for the first choice are outnumbered by 4-1 by the voters of the other 2 choices. Even in this thread, honesty wins the day.

Err... The poll is not about whether the respondents feel that piracy is moral, or whether they themselves pirate. The only thing the answers tell you is that people feel that piracy rates won't change. I don't know why you feel like this question has to be framed in these black or white, honest or dishonest, evil or good terms. There's a lot of shades of gray in copyright law, and certainly in the morality of intellectual property rights.

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by jasonkchapman

I was in complete agreement up until this one. There may be reasons for a book being out of print other than publisher neglect, like a limited edition chapbook, for instance. Also, the point at which a book goes out of print is generally when, in current contracts, the author can regain publishing rights to the work. That would be the exact wrong time to force an end of copyright protection.

I don't think society gains anything from an OOP cutoff that it doesn't already get from a fixed (shorter-than-now) span of time.

You might be right about that last. I certainly wouldn't want to deny an author a chance to re-negotiate rights. But I think authors that don't renegotiate rights, say, for 5 years or something, might be effectively abandoning their franchise. I'd support a compulsory license style compensation at that point, but not the continued abandonment of the work altogether.

I don't know if I agree about limited edition chapbooks. I've never been a fan of artificially imposed scarcity. If I get an electronic version of such a chapbook, it's not going to reduce the value of the limited edition print, which was probably signed or at least numbered.

In thinking about the ethics entailed in the legal system(s), I think a distinction needs to be made between protecting the rights of the author to be compensated for their work, and protecting the ability of the author to attempt to manipulate value through scarcity. I believe the first is critical, and will continue to be in the digital era. However, I think the second is going to go by the wayside. Comparisons to apples or cars or whatever are irrelevant (until they can be reproduced digitally). The market pressure of an environment in which digital works can be reproduced essentially for free is going to make the scarcity technique of manipulating value unworkable. Perhaps our task is to distinguish between these two aspects of current law and custom and make sure we don't lose author compensation as scarcity manipulation becomes extinct.

[jasonkchapman]

Originally Posted by nekokami

I don't know if I agree about limited edition chapbooks. I've never been a fan of artificially imposed scarcity. If I get an electronic version of such a chapbook, it's not going to reduce the value of the limited edition print, which was probably signed or at least numbered.

You're right. It was a bad example in that it's back to conflating the value of the container vs. the value of the content.

One problem with an OOP/abandonment cutoff, though, will be one of definition. The rights holder's loophole is simply to put the work with a POD house like lulu.com. It would be technically available and rights holders would "park" properties there to keep them active even if they weren't keeping them actively marketed.

That's one of the definitions being wrangled over now in author-publisher contracts. Publishers can technically keep rights from reverting to authors via the OOP clause indefinitely even if they don't plan to promote the work.

[wgrimm]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Okay, how's this:

• How many people believe that purchasing a hardback book gives them the right to take a paperback copy of the same book for free?
• How many people do not see a parallel relationship between hardback and paperback books, and paperback and e-books?
• Bonus: How many people believe iTunes will allow you to take an MP3 file for free because you already own the CD?

(Your MP3 example does not fit this situation: Ripping it yourself from the CD you own is not the same as getting it from someone else. If you want to argue that point, scan and OCR the book yourself. And don't send a copy of the e-book to anybody.)

IMHO, this is splitting hairs. To refute the list:
1. Hardback and paperback- we are talking physical objects here, not electronic files. This argument is nonsensical when applied to hardback vs. electronic files.
2. Any parallel relationship existing really isn't the [point here- what is in question is whether or not the consumer should be forced to pay again for a book in electronic format that he owns in paper format. If the consumer DOES acquire or make such an electronic copy, the publisher is only out money if it can be proven that the consumer would have otherwise BOUGHT that electronic copy.
3. The bonus question- has no bearing whatsoever on the legality or morality of this issue. Itunes is a pay media service, and they aren't going to let nayone take anything for free...This isn't proving any points about morality or legality. Itunes does, however, provide you with the functionality to rip cd's and to make all the backup copies of purchased content that you want. In addition, you can play these files on "5 authorized devices." That's kind of like saying "You can give this content away to 4 friends," isn't it? Shouldn't this be construed as copyright infringement? But Itunes is making a buck here, so no one is raising this issue.

Services exist that will "format shift" and back up electronic media that you give them. So, is it permissible to pay THEM to make a backup copy? Would it be permissible to have a friend make a backup copy of the media you own, to give to you?

The entire controversy here seems to be- are we, as consumers, going to have to pay one time for content or many times for the same content. Irregardless of the morality of any stance, one thing is certain- the market is going to be a whole lot smaller for ANY media if the consumer is required to pay multiple times for the same content.

If publishers take a relaxed stance on format-shifting, the market will be much larger for ebooks. If their approach is clouded by greed, and they try to make consumers pay again for an electronic version of the book they already own in paper form, most consumers will probably tell them to piss off, and the market for electronic versions will be very small.

[wgrimm]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Fact is, if someone scanned that book and made it available, for free or at a charge, and that file was not authorized by the creator, it is not your right to have it. It is your right to make it for yourself. So make it yourself, but don't take it for free from someone who shouldn't be giving it to you. If that's not morally clear, I don't know what is.

Are you saying that the commercial services that offer backups/format shifiting are operating illegally? To my knowledge, these services- and we have several in my city- have never been charged with copyright infringement. If this were illegal, wouldn''t publishers be suing them out of business?

And if this type of service isn't illegal, well, is it okay to make an electronic copy of a book you own IF you pay someone to do it?

[wgrimm]

Originally Posted by mdibella

We simply disagree on what is fair. Legality is, I think, on my side, at least in the US.

Oh, and Amazon appears to agree with me too, since any ebook purchased can be downloaded at any future time, for free, and put on up to 6 different Kindles (that one actually makes me frown a bit). You agreed to this as well when you offered your own material for sale in the Kindle Bookstore.

Purchase it once, own it forever, that seems to work for them as well as it does me.

I agree 100%. The Amazon approach, like the Itunes approach to use on multiple devices, makes me chuckle. "You can infringe this copyright by giving it way, but only to 4 or 5 people." <G> Ah, yes, moral and ethical imperatives. Cold hard cash seems to modify these quite easily......

[wgrimm]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

You'll change your story in a year or so when the Kindle fails in the marketplace and you are left with no way to download your eBooks. Remember what Amazon did to readers who paid for PDFs they sold? Do you remember what they did to the people who paid for downloadable videos?

Yes I do, having bought DRMd content from them, in pdf and also .lit. Try to return the stuff, even with good reason. Try to exchange for paper products, they'll tell you no. Having been burned by Amazon, I will never buy a Kindle (which is going to crash and burn anways), and I stopped buying from them altogether several years ago.

[wgrimm]

Originally Posted by jackdavid

"Right?" I don't feel it's necessarily right or wrong. Most of the time, I would NEVER have bought that book in the first place (I generally only read hardback books that interest me). The author loses no money when I read an ebook, but, in the case of an author I've never read, gains a new fan IF the book is good and the possibility that I will buy one of his or her other books. I can't tell you how many times I have recommended a great book to other people who go out and BUY that book, thus giving the author money. So my "piracy" has in fact helped that author. And don't forget, there are some people who could have never bought the book in the first place because they don't have the money.

I won't even argue the legality or morality of pirating copyrighted works. I think you have made some good poinjts in regard to "piracy." Isn't it interesting that M$ is where they are today because of piracy! Widespread piracy made Win 3.1 the most widely used OS in the world, alloowing M$ to become the monster it is now......

[wgrimm]

There are clear differences between digital and physical objects, which probably accounts for the lax attitudes of many regarding "piracy."

Software, movies, ebooks have one thing in common- most associated costs are sunk costs. One you have the product, it costs nothing or close to nothing to make as many copies of it as you want. This is not true of physical objects.

Back your pickup truck up to the publisher's warehouse and fill it up with hardback books, and you cause the publisher a definite loss. Not just a loss in terms of lost sales, but a loss in terms of the raw materials required to produce the books (which exist over and above ther sunk costs). To replace these books, the publisher must spend more money.

Now, if an individual steals an e-book from a publisher, what loss does that cause? Loss of a sale? Only if the thief would have otherwise bought that book. Any real dollar losses? No, because it took no raw materials to create the ebook. And the publisher can replace that ebook for free. Furthermore, the theft didn't affect sunk costs at all. So, we have a situation here where theft of an electronic object, at most, can cause loss of one sale. The3 "stolen" book is easily replaced- for free.

It would appear to me that lending libraries are doing far more damage to publishersw. So why does almost everyone respect public libraries? Aren't they evil, don't they cause publishers to lose money every time a book is lent? So why have publishers been able to remain going concerns over the years with this great library evil blocking their ability to earn profit? I mean, to be fair, shouldn't we close libraries? Shouldn't we force all of those evil citizens who are currently reading for free to fork over the full price for each book they read? This would be fair, wouldn't it? It would stop the libraries from inflicting needlesss agony and unethical loss on those poor publishers......