I have found numerous pirated ebooks for free online. Please tell me the benefits of

[darryl]

Originally Posted by DNSB

I think it is past time to end this discussion. Your disingenuous statements that theft can be beneficial are hard to understand as being promulgated by someone with sufficient intelligence to type a semi-comprehensible message. Do you really think that many book thieves are posting positive Amazon or other reviews? Are bragging about this great book they liberated? As for ordering a replacement copy? The book was stolen and not processed through the inventory system. Under normal circumstances, why would a order for more copies be placed because of that theft when the store would not be aware it is missing until the next inventory check cycle. Thomas Paine was right.

I think you are getting a bit carried away here David. Steve and I disagree far more than we agree, but I do not find his messages semi-comprehensible or ingenuous, nor do I question his intelligence. I think we all agree that stealing paper books is wrong. However, this does not mean that it has the potential to benefit no one but the thief. Steve cited some circumstances where theft can benefit the author, at the expense of the publisher and/or the bookshop. This in no way makes such theft morally or ethically justified. It is simple reality.

[Thasaidon]

Unfortunately this thread now seems to be generating more heat than light, which is a shame because some interesting points have been made.

I have mentioned before that individuals, groups within a society and societies can have very different philosophical underpinnings and will consider their view of things to be "correct" and other societies' view of things to be wrong. In each case these are usually genuinely held deep seated beliefs.

This being the case the only sensible thing to do is to, is acknowledge the differences and "agree to differ".

[Thasaidon]

Originally Posted by darryl

I think you are getting a bit carried away here David. Steve and I disagree far more than we agree, but I do not find his messages semi-comprehensible or ingenuous, nor do I question his intelligence. I think we all agree that stealing paper books is wrong. However, this does not mean that it has the potential to benefit no one but the thief. Steve cited some circumstances where theft can benefit the author, at the expense of the publisher and/or the bookshop. This in no way makes such theft morally or ethically justified. It is simple reality.

Well said as usual.

[John F]

Originally Posted by barryem

...

Theft to me is a zero sum kind of thing. I steal your wallet and I have it now and you don't. There's only one wallet. If we're in class and I peek over your shoulder to copy your answer I've done something wrong but I haven't taken anything from you. Unless we get caught and you get the blame.

...

If grading is done on a curve, haven't you lowered the other person's grade (assuming the other person was originally going to get a higher grade?).

[ekbell]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

In the U.S. at least, ereaderiq.com helps with that. You just list the books you want and when they go on sale, it emails you.

They also serve the Canada and the U.K. (just click on the flag)

[AnotherCat]

@Hitch: As I said before I am not going to carry on any discussion about the core matters that I raised, it is clear from your responses that you have very little idea of what I am talking about.

But in order to clarify my mention of the Government here actually placing a cost on increasing the copyright period from +50 to +70 and from which you seem to be assuming in the following quote that this was some specific standalone look at copyright and that in your view such an analysis would be corrupted to be unfavorable to "copyrights, patents and monopolies" and so dismissed as of no value. You said:

Originally Posted by Hitch

...Even the facts that you mentioned, in your prior post, about how your government argues that somehow, copyright costs society money and investment--those are all hypotheses, with pretty much zero factual backup. (Those whitepaper arguments are usually trying to conflate--on purpose--copyrights, patents, and monopolies. After all, how many investment funding opportunities are you aware of, dealing with copyrights, really? And what would those copyrights be "stifling," if you were an investor????)...

In fact analysis was performed as part of a wide study of the implications of all the trade gains and losses on the economy arising out of a negotiated multi-country trade agreement - in that agreement, as part of the negotiations, NZ under USA pressure committed to increasing its copyright period to +70 years. So, as most of us would expect (but not you, apparently), any responsible government does an analysis of the expected consequences to the economy of the changing tariffs, trade volumes, etc. arising out of the overall agreement; that analysis was across the likes of agriculture and horticulture, manufacturing, services, etc. and, of course, included the agreed to increase in the copyright period. The outcome was an overall net gain to the economy, but among the few substantive costs to the economy (few, because NZ is basically a tariff free country) was that for the copyright period increase.

So, for a start, there was no focused analysis of the costs and benefits of copyright for the sake of any agenda other than contributing to determining what the expected overall outcome on the nations economy would be from the trade agreement. The copyright period was going to be changed regardless and the legislation was written ready to be enacted for the impending start date of the trade agreement. Also, due to a lot of interest from business, economists, quasi government and other stake holders, including anti-free trade activists, this whole analysis across all industries was released to the public - as far as I am aware there has been no particular criticism of it (in fact, the only dismissal out of hand of it that I have heard comes from you, who I would assume has never seen the report or even knew of its existence until I mentioned it).

Then at the eleventh hour the USA pulled out of ratifying the trade agreement, subsequent to which the remaining countries have regrouped and entered into essentially the same agreement and that came into force just a few days ago on 30 December. As a result of the USA pulling out the pressure on NZ to increase its copyright period disappeared and so there was no need nor economic desire to increase it.

If in the analysis there was to be any malicious conflation of the benefits of copyright extension by Government in its report to suit an agenda, as you are claiming there is, it would because of the circumstances actually be contrary to the Government's interest. That because the Government would hope to be seen in the best light by the electorate (many of whom expressed anti-free trade views) by having the net gain to the economy appear as positive as possible. It would also hope for its own self satisfaction to get a positive looking outcome of analysis of the agreement it had committed to. So in the case of any malicious doctoring of the analysis in order to meet an agenda, the analysis would misrepresent the contribution of the copyright period as being a benefit, not a cost.

You asked me the likes of "After all, how many investment funding opportunities are you aware of, dealing with copyrights, really?" (I like your dismissive use of "really"). Well I do not know of any, not that I would likely have paid the required attention to see them. However, that is of no consequence as again you do not understand what was being said. I said that the costs were to the nation's economy and that a cost to the economy stifles investment in it. A nation's economy is all the concerns and resources of the nation which its prosperity relies on. So it nothing to do with investment in copyrights except to the very small place that investment in them might take place within the overwhelmingly larger rest of the whole economy.

[UncleIvor]

I'll bite.

Sharing copies of an electronic publication is, as far the author is concerned, very little different from stealing the dead tree version from a bookstore.

However, I find the idea that copyright should extend 70years after the death of the author bizarre. It should die with him.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

@Hitch: As I said before I am not going to carry on any discussion about the core matters that I raised, it is clear from your responses that you have very little idea of what I am talking about.

Why would you assume that? Simply because I don't agree with it?

But in order to clarify my mention of the Government here actually placing a cost on increasing the copyright period from +50 to +70 and from which you seem to be assuming in the following quote that this was some specific standalone look at copyright and that in your view such an analysis would be corrupted to be unfavorable to "copyrights, patents and monopolies" and so dismissed as of no value.

Because, other than arguments based entirely on the presumed rights of the public (and an assigned "value" of that) to access previously copyrighted materials, I have yet to see a whitepaper that actually has a real, quantifiable "cost" associated with it that has some sort of deleterious effect upon "government." And I still see absolutely no indicia of how copyright could affect investment of any kind.

In fact analysis was performed as part of a wide study of the implications of all the trade gains and losses on the economy arising out of a negotiated multi-country trade agreement - in that agreement, as part of the negotiations, NZ under USA pressure committed to increasing its copyright period to +70 years. So, as most of us would expect (but not you, apparently), any responsible government does an analysis of the expected consequences to the economy of the changing tariffs, trade volumes, etc. arising out of the overall agreement; that analysis was across the likes of agriculture and horticulture, manufacturing, services, etc. and, of course, included the agreed to increase in the copyright period. The outcome was an overall net gain to the economy, but among the few substantive costs to the economy (few, because NZ is basically a tariff free country) was that for the copyright period increase.

Can you clarify how the "cost" to the government--of copyright, alone--was calculated or derived? Do they mean the administrative costs, of managing copyright registrations, or...what? If you're saying that NZ came up with some analysis if how entering into, or not entering into, a TRADE agreement was assessed, that's one thing, but lumping the copyright portion into it, and attempting to then assign costs to it, as if it's a tangible product that has typical investment, etc. seems...let's just say, it's a Gumby Stretch.

So, for a start, there was no focused analysis of the costs and benefits of copyright for the sake of any agenda other than contributing to determining what the expected overall outcome on the nations economy would be from the trade agreement. The copyright period was going to be changed regardless and the legislation was written ready to be enacted for the impending start date of the trade agreement. Also, due to a lot of interest from business, economists, quasi government and other stake holders, including anti-free trade activists, this whole analysis across all industries was released to the public - as far as I am aware there has been no particular criticism of it (in fact, the only dismissal out of hand of it that I have heard comes from you, who I would assume has never seen the report or even knew of its existence until I mentioned it).

Given that you are talking about a TRADE agreement, of which, presumably, the copyright portion was some miniscule portion, why would anyone interested in trade even pay attention to it? It sounds like a housekeeping matter. I mean, let's have a real discussion of how copyright affects the NZ economy, or how the difference in copyright effective and expiration dates would affect your economy. Or INVESTMENT, which was your initial comment, right? That longer copyright periods had a deleterious effect upon investment, correct?

I don't think I'm asking for much, here. You took several positions--among them that copyright is an "outright gift," if memory serves. Among them, you asserted that:

It is also known that copyright presents a cost to the overall economy so private and public investment suffers...

(italic emphasis added)

...so I am asking nothing more than actual, factual data that substantiates that statement. Not a study or whitepaper in which the period of copyright is lumped in, with a trade agreement dealing with material goods, and presumptions and assumptions about that--which would obviously have pretty much nothing to do with whether or not COPYRIGHT causes private or public investment to "suffer."

Then at the eleventh hour the USA pulled out of ratifying the trade agreement, subsequent to which the remaining countries have regrouped and entered into essentially the same agreement and that came into force just a few days ago on 30 December. As a result of the USA pulling out the pressure on NZ to increase its copyright period disappeared and so there was no need nor economic desire to increase it.

OK, so--this agreement, then, has nothing to do with copyright any longer, and the analysis thereof has nothing to do with it, either, right?

If in the analysis there was to be any malicious conflation of the benefits of copyright extension by Government in its report to suit an agenda, as you are claiming there is, it would because of the circumstances actually be contrary to the Government's interest. That because the Government would hope to be seen in the best light by the electorate (many of whom expressed anti-free trade views) by having the net gain to the economy appear as positive as possible. It would also hope for its own self satisfaction to get a positive looking outcome of analysis of the agreement it had committed to. So in the case of any malicious doctoring of the analysis in order to meet an agenda, the analysis would misrepresent the contribution of the copyright period as being a benefit, not a cost.

I'm still awaiting any citations or quotes, from the study, that deal with copyright, rather than the trade portion? Am I the only one wondering why on earth the calculations about free trade items--which most certainly would have effects on investment etc.--are being cited for copyright, which probably does not? Can you cite the relevant passages, in the study, that you paraphrased? Where you said that copyright stifles investment? That the longer term further affected it? And the cost to the government/economy, too, please?

You asked me the likes of "After all, how many investment funding opportunities are you aware of, dealing with copyrights, really?" (I like your dismissive use of "really"). Well I do not know of any, not that I would likely have paid the required attention to see them. However, that is of no consequence as again you do not understand what was being said. I said that the costs were to the nation's economy and that a cost to the economy stifles investment in it.

Yes, but thus far, your assertion that the copyright period somehow contributes to that is merely, apparently, your opinion. You said that these costs, stifling, etc., "were known," so I'm simply asking for the data that supports that.

A nation's economy is all the concerns and resources of the nation which its prosperity relies on. So it nothing to do with investment in copyrights except to the very small place that investment in them might take place within the overwhelmingly larger rest of the whole economy.

Right--which is what I believe I said, more or less, in the beginning. Investment, inasmuch as it occurs, around copyright, would certainly cease to exist, if copyright ceased to exist, as by definition, investment means, putting one's money into something with the expectation of a profit. Certainly, nobody would publish books, sans the existence of copyright. I'm fairly sure that nobody would argue that, at least, not anyone residing in the real world.

Your entire argument about this, from the "investment" comment, has been that copyright stifles investment; that the longer periods stifle both public and private investment; your source for this comment seems to come from a much larger trade agreement, (which means physical and tangible goods) that had pretty much almost NOTHING to do with copyright, (other than extending the period, mostly a housekeeping item, it seems) and in fact, now, has nothing to do with it at all, as you yourself have indicated.

I am, then, completely at a loss to see what your argument now is. Perhaps you can clarify it by posting the relevant portions of the analysis of the previous trade-agreement, that actually dealt DIRECTLY with copyright, that substantiates the positions you cited. Because in this post, you seem to be saying that the analysis you were talking about had to do with trade, and physical items and materials--and not copyright at all.


Hitch

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by Hitch

...I am, then, completely at a loss to see what your argument now is...

I know, reading your posts it seems to me that you have become very confused.

I have spent years doing this type of stuff for a living in a number of countries and the people I deal with have no difficulties at all in understanding me, so I can only draw my own conclusions as to why you have a difficulty.

However, I will not be using my time poorly by engaging with you again.

[barryem]

Originally Posted by John F

If grading is done on a curve, haven't you lowered the other person's grade (assuming the other person was originally going to get a higher grade?).

That's true so let's restrict my example to classes where no curve is involved.

Barry

[barryem]

Originally Posted by UncleIvor

I find the idea that copyright should extend 70years after the death of the author bizarre. It should die with him.

If I recall correctly the original copyright period in the U.S. was 14 years. Even that seems overly long to me. Copyright was never intended to be ownership. It's simply a chance for a creator to have a head start at a chance to profit from his creation. When the vast majority of books are out of print in a few months, at least with paper books, going out of print for some period should end copyright and in those few cases where it stays in print longer it should still have a fixed term.

Now with ebooks that gets a lot more complex but a reasonable fixed term should still apply.

If a home builder builds a home for you, how long do his royalties continue? Why doesn't he get the same benefits as a writer?

Yes I realize this is very complex stuff but it's important stuff and I think this has been a worthwhile discussion. We haven't decided anything or convinced anyone and we probably never will but if we all try to understand one another's points of view and the flaws in our own points of view maybe someday things will improve.

Wait! I meant the flaws in your points of view, of course. Not mine!

Barry

[pwalker8]

Just to diverge a bit, one thing that I've noticed is that more and more of the older orphaned works are appearing in the Amazon Kindle store. After reading a different thread about national science fiction day and Issac Asimov, I did a few quick queries on some of the other golden age SF authors. Several of the authors have a number of books out there for a buck, which I'm willing to wager are not exactly authorized. My guess is that some people will throw scanned books up. Since Amazon will only take down if the copyright holder asks them to or people start complaining about the quality, the orphaned works tend to stay up.

So the two questions that occur to me is how can anyone tell if they are pirate or not? Amazon is a legit ebook store and most simply assume that anything for sale there is legit. It could simply be that some of those golden age works fell into public domain. The second question is if it's an orphaned work and no one is actively defending the copyright, what is the harm?

I actually went to a fair amount of effort to determine if ebooks versions of Roger Zelazny and Mary Stewart books were not authorized. Both are well known authors with active literary estates, but it wasn't straight forward to determine that they were actually unauthorized.

[Greg Anos]

A few short stories fell into the public domain (per author) because of copyrights not being renewed. You see collections of those on Amazon. Check the contents. You will usually see the same stories, over and over. . .

Out of curiosity, could you name some of those authors?

[issybird]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

So the two questions that occur to me is how can anyone tell if they are pirate or not? Amazon is a legit ebook store and most simply assume that anything for sale there is legit. It could simply be that some of those golden age works fell into public domain. The second question is if it's an orphaned work and no one is actively defending the copyright, what is the harm?

Part of this is easy. You can check the Stanford Copyright Renewal Database to see if books published between 1924 and 1963 had their copyrights renewed; if not, they're public domain and it's open season. For well-known authors, it's also pretty obvious when something's a bootleg issue. Mary Stewart, for example, was a clearcut case.

For obscurer authors whose copyrights were renewed, I think you have to go by clues. Does the cover image match the publisher? Can you look inside and see if the copyright info matches? Is the cover image a scanned photo of a physical book? I'm sure there are other clues.

As for your second question, I don't like to reward thieves. Moreover, by providing a market for bootleg copies, you encourage further piracy. There are a lot of books in the world and it's hard to make a case that you absolutely must read a particular book, legalities be damned.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Several of the authors have a number of books out there for a buck, which I'm willing to wager are not exactly authorized. My guess is that some people will throw scanned books up. Since Amazon will only take down if the copyright holder asks them to or people start complaining about the quality, the orphaned works tend to stay up.

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Out of curiosity, could you name some of those authors?

Here's at least one, discussed in another thread: The Whip Hand by W. Franklin Sanders (likely by Charles Willeford)

I can't say for sure this is an orphaned work uploaded under dubious circumstances, but it sure looks like it. if nothing else, I doubt the publisher has permission to re-use that original Gold Medal cover.