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

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by issybird

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.

The one minor "fly in the ointment" is that the Stanford database (as you said) only lists book copyright renewals, and not items published in magazines, so one needs to look elsewhere (eg the Library of Congress copyright renewal database) for those. (I know you know this - I just wanted to clarify it for the benefit of others!)

If it's an author you've heard of, my first stop would always be PG. If it's not there, the odds are it's not in the US public domain.

[GlennD]

I must admit there's a limit to the due diligence I'm willing to do on these. Certainly if I'm aware of piracy then I'll be careful - two popular authors I can think of who have been affected are Mary Steward and David Eddings. Expecting customers to not only research copyright status but also to be aware of what contracts authors and publishers may have signed is unreasonable, in my opinion. That expectation should be on those who hope to gain from the sales - the book seller, publisher and author.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

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?

E.E. (Doc) Smith is the most obvious. I think his books up through the First Lensman are in PD and can be found at PG. If you look on Amazon, you see a number of Complete Lensman compilations for $1. I also see a number of Lester Del Rey books.

I also noticed that Zelazny's Lord Of Light has reappeared in Apple's Books store. It list his son Trent as the co-author, which lead me to hope that maybe it's legit. On the other hand, the listed publisher has a somewhat suspect reputation and it's not in the Amazon store. All the legit Zelazny books are listed with the private Zelazny publishing company.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by GlennD

I must admit there's a limit to the due diligence I'm willing to do on these. Certainly if I'm aware of piracy then I'll be careful - two popular authors I can think of who have been affected are Mary Steward and David Eddings. Expecting customers to not only research copyright status but also to be aware of what contracts authors and publishers may have signed is unreasonable, in my opinion. That expectation should be on those who hope to gain from the sales - the book seller, publisher and author.

This is, of course, the point I'm trying to make. Copyright holders who wish to protect their copyright have to do their due diligence. I'll cut them some slack on the lesser known ebook stores that pretty much allow anyone to upload a book, but I would expect any author to monitor Amazon and Apple. The flip side is that I would expect that Amazon and Apple would put black list certain people who do this once they are made aware of the issue by the copyright holder.

I wouldn't expect the end customer to be responsible for doing this level of due diligence. Like Harry T, I'll check PG to see if the book is there for older works.

But, of course, that begs the question of what harm is done? Obviously, it's a violation of copyright, but I'm not really a rules are rules and must be obeyed sort of guy. I've found that most rules are rules people tend to be a bit selective in the rules they think must be obeyed anyway, so the question goes back to, if it's an orphaned work, when it's difficult to determine the copyright holder, the author has been dead for a while and no one seems to be actively publishing the book, who is harmed? That can be a fairly important legal question.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

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.

I'm not sure what you qualify as "this type of stuff," although I'd love to know precisely what you mean by that--are you a lawyer? An executive? A CEO? What, exactly?....but I've spent 30 years in international development and business, as a Sr. Veep, with companies ranging from Japan to Australia--to New Zealand, the US, Mexico, Carribean countries, Europe, etc., and I've never had any problems understanding anyone. Ever. I've run business development deal closings for 5-star hotel projects that used 6 lawfirms, 3 main insurers, 3 coinsurers, 8 banks, of which half were international, and their lawfirms, and somehow, closed all those deals with no delays or issues. I've written and read, and to this day, 30 years later, retained 225-page lease, development and construction/contracting documents--and I could still tell you what page the provision about X is on, and where to find the attornment clauses. But you think that somehow, I can't keep up with you???? Is that right?

You took several positions. First, you posited a scenario in which some pirate's cookery inspired 6 other people to run out and buy a book, and wanted to know if that would mean that the pirate was a benefactor to the author--and then insisted, when I asked you the same question about whether or not the bank thief was a benefactor of the bank, that you didn't mean that the pirate was doing a "good thing." I'm still waiting to hear why you came up with that scenario, if that wasn't your take. What's the point of that hypothetical, if you are NOT trying to come up with a scenario in which piracy is good?

Then you asserted, flatly, that not only is copyright a "complete gift" but that:

It is also known that copyright presents a cost to the overall economy so private and public investment suffers, as does public expenditure (e.g. on health, to use an emotive example ) - this is the case in my own country, it has been analyzed by Government and its choice has been to remain at the cheapest convention choice of Life+50.

(underscore emphasis added)

And, in response to that, I asked you, politely, for the citations for that statement of "fact." In response, you've come back, relayed a story about how New Zealand was entering into a Trade Deal, in which, apparently, the duration of copyright was also being discussed; the US withdrew from that deal (what that has to do with any of this, only God knows); that the analyses to which you have referred (apparently) had to do with the TRADE portion, and it seems, had nothing whatsoever to do with copyright--and when I ask you about this--because surely, that's not what you actually meant--and ask you to specifically cite the portions of the analysis, that discussion a) copyright and investment, b) how copyright deleteriously affects investment, c) how copyright is a "cost" to the economy, and d) how investment suffers--your response is to imply that I'm stupid?

You ARE talking about the TPP, right? The Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade deal? Do you mean the copyright period accession, about which, mind you, the National Interest Analysis, (downloaded from the New Zealand Foreign Affairs & Trade office) dated 25 January 2016 stated:

Under "Advantages and disadvantages to New Zealand of WCT entering into force and not entering into force for New Zealand":

"New Zealand already substantially complies with the WCT so the new obligations it would place on New Zealand would not create direct disadvantages."

AND, under that same provision:

"New Zealand creators and distributors also enjoy these rights in most key markets as a matter of practice. Acceding to the WCT would, however, provide additional assurance that the rights New Zealand creators and distributors of content currently enjoy would not be removed."

AND, speaking of "costs":

The costs to New Zealand of compliance with the treaty

"The Government would be required to fund a delegate to attend the WCT Assembly, which meet in ordinary session once every 2 years in Geneva, Switzerland. The WCT Assembly takes place at the same time as the WIPO General Assemblies that a New Zealand representative already attends, so in practice there would not be any extra cost in attending the WCT Assembly. (This was also considered as part of the TPP National Interest Analysis.)"

(underscore emphasis added)

Hmmmmm....let's see. No discussion whatsoever about "investment" or investment being diminished, or suffering. No discussion whatsoever of additional "costs" to the economy. No discussion about how public expenditure would suffer, either, from this increased term. In fact, the paper seems to state--and I'm sure you're going to tell me I'm too stupid to understand THIS, too--that the benefits outweigh any non-existent costs--the COST being the "requirement" that you send a DELEGATE to the WCT assembly. WOW, yeah, you're right, that's a HUGE cost to the economy, sending that delegate, but, hey, you already send one!

Or, is it another trade deal, that was proposed, in which copyright terms were being discussed, that the US pulled out of, that you meant?


Hitch

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

E.E. (Doc) Smith is the most obvious. I think his books up through the First Lensman are in PD and can be found at PG. If you look on Amazon, you see a number of Complete Lensman compilations for $1. I also see a number of Lester Del Rey books.

I also noticed that Zelazny's Lord Of Light has reappeared in Apple's Books store. It list his son Trent as the co-author, which lead me to hope that maybe it's legit. On the other hand, the listed publisher has a somewhat suspect reputation and it's not in the Amazon store. All the legit Zelazny books are listed with the private Zelazny publishing company.

Smith posed a problem. He is PD in Life + 50, under copyright under life +70, and mostly still under copyright in the US. First Lensman was not renewed, plus most of his shorter works. Nor was his collaboration with E. Evelyn Smith renewed. Also the First two skylarks were not renewed.

So most of his works are still under copyright, and most of those omnibus edition are copyright infringements - at least in the US. I haver no clue who is handling the estate these days. His daughter is dead. . .

(The Skylark 0f Space is a very thorny copyright problem. There are three versions of it. The 1926 version is PD (copyright not renewed). The 1947 version is unknown. The 1958 version (which is what most readers here would think of as The Skylark of Space) is still under copyright.

[GlennD]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Smith posed a problem. He is PD in Life + 50, under copyright under life +70, and mostly still under copyright in the US. First Lensman was not renewed, plus most of his shorter works. Nor was his collaboration with E. Evelyn Smith renewed. Also the First two skylarks were not renewed.

So most of his works are still under copyright, and most of those omnibus edition are copyright infringements - at least in the US. I haver no clue who is handling the estate these days. His daughter is dead. . .

(The Skylark 0f Space is a very thorny copyright problem. There are three versions of it. The 1926 version is PD (copyright not renewed). The 1947 version is unknown. The 1958 version (which is what most readers here would think of as The Skylark of Space) is still under copyright.

I believe that several of his books (Skylark of Space being one, I think Triplanetary is another) were originally published as magazine serials, and the serials are no longer under copyright...but the novels are. If you grab the PG version of Skylark, hang on to your paper copy of the novel, they're different.

This is HarryT's 'fly in the ointment'.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Smith posed a problem. He is PD in Life + 50, under copyright under life +70, and mostly still under copyright in the US. First Lensman was not renewed, plus most of his shorter works. Nor was his collaboration with E. Evelyn Smith renewed. Also the First two skylarks were not renewed.

So most of his works are still under copyright, and most of those omnibus edition are copyright infringements - at least in the US. I haver no clue who is handling the estate these days. His daughter is dead. . .

(The Skylark 0f Space is a very thorny copyright problem. There are three versions of it. The 1926 version is PD (copyright not renewed). The 1947 version is unknown. The 1958 version (which is what most readers here would think of as The Skylark of Space) is still under copyright.

Once again, that's pretty much my point. So, what harm is done? It's obvious whomever the copyright holder is, is making no effort to defend the copyright or for that matter publish the books. Unless a copyright holder steps forward, those books are orphaned works.

Most people seem to agree that orphaned works is the big flaw in copyright law. It appears to me that the way things work now, the practical effect is that orphaned works are treated as PD, thought the legal liability exists if a copyright holder appears.

[peaceridge]

Going away from the copyright issue for a moment and back to pirating: I was at a campground discussing this very issue. A couple of people had comments that I haven’t seen discussed here. The question is at what point the ebook is ethically/morally pirated?

One person evidently wanted bragging rights on how many books he had in his library and said he download a lot of pirated ebooks, but never read the majority of them. So, is the reading of the book the pirating, or the downloading.

Another said that when trying new authors, she downloaded pirated copies, read part of them to assure herself it was enjoyable, trashed those she didn’t like and bought those she did like. So is this piracy? (Regardless of whether she had no library with copies, nor Amazon with excerpts, nor a local bookstore that she could peruse, begs the question – also of whether she actually bought the copy when she said she did.)

So is it pirated at the moment of downloading, or at the moment of reading (as I think someone on here implied)?

[Apache]

Originally Posted by peaceridge

Going away from the copyright issue for a moment and back to pirating: I was at a campground discussing this very issue. A couple of people had comments that I haven’t seen discussed here. The question is at what point the ebook is ethically/morally pirated?

One person evidently wanted bragging rights on how many books he had in his library and said he download a lot of pirated ebooks, but never read the majority of them. So, is the reading of the book the pirating, or the downloading.

Another said that when trying new authors, she downloaded pirated copies, read part of them to assure herself it was enjoyable, trashed those she didn’t like and bought those she did like. So is this piracy? (Regardless of whether she had no library with copies, nor Amazon with excerpts, nor a local bookstore that she could peruse, begs the question – also of whether she actually bought the copy when she said she did.)

So is it pirated at the moment of downloading, or at the moment of reading (as I think someone on here implied)?

1) Is breaking into a store and not staling something a crime? Yes it is although it is considered breaking and entering and not stealing.

2) Same thing. Breaking into a bookstore to browse after hours so you can come back later and buy the books you like is still a crime.
Apache

[peaceridge]

Good point. Even if not the same legally as B&E.

Originally Posted by Apache

1) Is breaking into a store and not staling something a crime? Yes it is although it is considered breaking and entering and not stealing.

2) Same thing. Breaking into a bookstore to browse after hours so you can come back later and buy the books you like is still a crime.
Apache

[Apache]

Originally Posted by peaceridge

Good point. Even if not the same legally as B&E.

Morally though they are the same thing.
Apache

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Apache

Morally though they are the same thing.
Apache

Most dishonest people try to justify their dishonesty, in my experience. It's never just "I steal books", but "I steal books, and here's why it's OK for me to do so...". Of course it nearly always boils down to a misguided sense of "entitlement": that it's OK to take any digital content they want without paying for it.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Apache

2) Same thing. Breaking into a bookstore to browse after hours so you can come back later and buy the books you like is still a crime.

Fun fact: When I used to work at B&N, one night when I closed I was locked in! Browsing a closed book store isn't so fun when the alarm is going off.

[barryem]

Originally Posted by peaceridge

Another said that when trying new authors, she downloaded pirated copies, read part of them to assure herself it was enjoyable, trashed those she didn’t like and bought those she did like. So is this piracy?

At least in the case of Kindle books it's easier to download a sample to try it out. I do that all the time. I probably buy about half the books I sample.

A long time ago, when programs were expensive and I found myself wasting a lot of money buying programs that turned out not to be useful for me, I started getting pirate copies of programs to try them out. If I found the program useful I bought it. No exceptions. If I didn't find it useful I deleted it. It rarely took more than a couple of hours to decide and often just a few minutes.

I began doing this after a year of carefully counting my software purchases. That year I spent about $2,000 on programs, having bought a new, more powerful computer. I actually used less than half of those. So I decided to do something about it.

Immoral? Maybe. Very, very practical. And another benefit was that I ended up with useful programs I might not have taken a chance on due to their high prices. I was making pretty good money. I was a programmer with a better than average job. I could afford the $2,000. But why waste money!

By the way, one of those programs I tried was Truespace, a rather expensive 3D animation program (although not as expensive as it's competitors) that I never would have bought without trying first. I had a lot of fun with that program and I bought every version starting with 1.1 all the way through the final version years later when Microsoft bought the company and shut it down. I probably spent a couple of thousand just on that program. It was probably the program that I enjoyed more than any program I've ever owned. Once, in their forum I mentioned how I got started with the program. I made some people in that forum pretty unhappy.

Am I justifying my theft? I paid for it. Even if piracy was theft I don't feel the least bit bad about it. The only losers were the guys making software I couldn't use.

Anyone who thinks this was evil might make a good protagonist in a novel. Or maybe not the protagonist.

Barry