eBook piracy, how common is it?

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Over

Just a thought... Books, movies and music should be like in a restaurant. We only pay in the end, and if there's a problem with the food, we don't pay.

it's a great idea. They did it at Sundance, I think, a few years back, I'll try and find the link. The film was shown and if you liked it, you paid afterward.

[Over]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You honestly believe that people today don't have any morals or ethics?

I didn't say they don't have it. People just, usually, don't care too much about it. Not enough to really understand what's ethic and moral. Usually people just follow their "gut". What feels right to them. That's different from ethic/moral.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

Well, look at AIG and similar incidents in other countries. Obviously moral or ethics had nothing to do with how people acted.

I don't think that one can necessarily quote greed in business as an example of a general decline in the moral standards of society. There have been greedy businesses as long as there have been businesses. Look at, for example, Standard Oil in the US in the 1920s, whose behaviour led to the introduction of the US's "anti-trust" laws.

[cerement]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You honestly believe that people today don't have any morals or ethics?

What are the morals and ethics of a company like EA that, through their direct actions, creates the very pirates they seek to stop? What are the morals and ethics of a company like Sony that destroys their customers' computers? Do companies like this DESERVE our "due diligence"?

[sirbruce]

Moral and ethics are about intentions, not results of actions.

[DuneSoldier]

Originally Posted by tompe

I think use of DRM is highly immoral and I cannot support that by buying something with DRM. To me it is more immoral to support DRM then download something from darknet. That is because supporting DRM is conservative and hinder developments and support a very limited public domain totally against in the ideas that was the basis for copyright.

Downloading from the "Darknet" is still immoral. If you don't support DRM, don't buy the material. Write a letter/email to the publisher explain why, and that they lost a sale. Illegal downloading tells them to be more restrictive (even though it doesn't work) to try and force you to buy it with DRM.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by DuneSoldier

Downloading from the "Darknet" is still immoral. If you don't support DRM, don't buy the material. Write a letter/email to the publisher explain why, and that they lost a sale. Illegal downloading tells them to be more restrictive (even though it doesn't work) to try and force you to buy it with DRM.

Morality is a shifting and ever changing concept. The people who download see nothing 'immoral' in their actions, they on the other hand see the actions of the companies who force DRM and restrictions as 'immoral'. Who decides? Society? Well, if society is a measure, then soon enough the moral choice might be downloading.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

I understand the costs of file-sharing quite well. Aside from posting articles that can also be refuted, you’ve basically backed up your opinion based on your own personal feelings regarding the free flow of information. Feelings and opinions that, though may work quite well for you, do not work quite as well for those whose responsibilities include not only themselves, but a mortgage and family as well. The post in which you detailed your view regarding everyone just sort of sharing everything sound like the writing of someone who has very few real responsibilities outside of feeding him or herself.

Going even further than that, I also respect criminals for stealing my wallet because they have families (or addictions) to feed...
In other words, I'm not required to care about other people, whether you call me narcissistic or not. But sure, put people who don't care about others in neat little boxes, like "hippy" and "irresponsible adolescent". I'm sure it helps you feel better.

How is it exactly that you "understand" the cost of piracy, when there are almost no real numbers out there on the effects? Gut feelings? I have yet to see any reliable figures from the **AA (the multibillion figures they spout regularly tend to run all over the map depending on whether you ask them, the IFPI, or yet another sponsored study.), so I'm really curious.

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

If you truly believe a large majority of file-sharers live by some ethical code (which, in itself is a fallacy if what is being sharing is copyrighted, despite the relative size of the share circle) or download illegally because they simply cannot stomach the current industry business model, well, I have several bridges for sale that might just be of interest to you. Despite what we may wish or choose to believe, the real world does not function on hugs and kisses and goodwill, consumers of commercially available digital media should reward their favorite authors, musicians and artists by helping them sustain themselves so that they may continue to do so.

I love fallacies. Really. Which is why it pains me to see you type "illegal". downloading copyrighted works (games/software excluded) is legal in a fair number of countries around the world, including most or all of the EU. This is because current law compares it to making copies in libraries. You are allowed to photocopy books, after all. Apart from scale and ease, downloading is no different. [uploading being another matter]

I’m not a fan of the publishing or music industry, but to try to justify illegal behavior, regardless of its economic impact, simply because one finds them distasteful strikes me as violently immature and irresponsible.

Again the big words. Violently immature, irresponsible, illegal.. And all that even though I've yet to see you support any of those adjectives.
In point of fact, it's not illegal, it's not "regardless of economic impact," (that is, if there was no impact, there would be no laws, and that goes both ways. Secondly the actual impact is wholly unknown, especially in the case of book downloads) and most of all, how in the devil's name is it "immature" to oppose things you disagree with in a lawful way?
"Illegal" is a legal term, not a moral one, and if you privately prefer to conflate the two, that's fine, but don't try to stack the deck with them to make your point. It's lame.

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by tompe

What I wrote was not a justfication for any behavour. I did not say that downloading from darknet was morally right.

But you offered it as a morally superior alternative to purchasing DRM protected material.

Here’s a little fact, given that our lives are finite. we don’t actually “own” anything, up to and including ourselves. At best, nature has allotted us each a brief period of time in which to experience existence, when that time is up, we die, and all the stuff we’ve accumulated stays here. We may pass it on to future generations, but they in turn will expire as well – as will the planet and every recorded human achievement. Why get so hung up on ownership?

But while we’re here, just like anyone else who provides a service, the artists who create and charge for their art deserve to be compensated – DRM or no DRM.

I’ve asked the following question numerous times and I’ve yet to receive a response, if all the middlemen standing between the artist and their customers were removed, so that art was sold directly to the public via the artists website, would it prevent people from visiting file-sharing networks? I keep hearing that DRM is evil, and in some ways, I agree, but I’ve yet to hear how removing it would drastically alter the illegal downloading of copyrighted materials.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

I’ve asked the following question numerous times and I’ve yet to receive a response, if all the middlemen standing between the artist and their customers were removed, so that art was sold directly to the public via the artists website, would it prevent people from visiting file-sharing networks? I keep hearing that DRM is evil, and in some ways, I agree, but I’ve yet to hear how removing it would drastically alter the illegal downloading of copyrighted materials.

Have a look at indie bands or artists, and see how much fan loyalty they inspire. They're about the only artists I would even consider buying CDs from (after listening to them first).
That said, most contemporary music bores me anyway, so my opinion matters little to their bottom lines.

OTOH, if I find a book I like I'm actually fairly likely to buy a hardcover (from amazon) at some time, as I have at least some respect for author. The effort most musicians put in doesn't really impress me, seeing how almost nothing bears repeated listening to me; similarly for authors, if I consider a book rereadable I will generally buy it, otherwise not. That said, since I'm currently mostly reading dead romantic Russians atm, the only people benefiting from that are the translators (specifically, Pevear&Volokhonsky).
Anyway, the only thing that will motivate me to buy anything is if it isn't instantly consumed, and single use.
And since the latter description seems to cover most contemporary music, I don't really care what happens to the companies producing it, nor the interchangeable musicians singing the lyrics that were produced for them.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

But you offered it as a morally superior alternative to purchasing DRM protected material.

No he didn't. He did not promote downloading as an alternative. What he said was DRM is bad, and downloading is also bad. He was just comparing the relative "badness". Nowhere did he suggest downloading was an alternative if you do not like DRM.

[Good Old Neon]

Have a look at indie bands or artists, and see how much fan loyalty they inspire. They're about the only artists I would even consider buying CDs from (after listening to them first).
That said, most contemporary music bores me anyway, so my opinion matters little to their bottom lines.

I’ve been an indie music fan for over twenty years, visit any file-sharing site, and you’re just as likely to find, say, Fugazi or Superchunk or The Jesus Lizard as you are to find Justin Timberlake or Coldplay or JZ.

I don't really care what happens to the companies producing it, nor the interchangeable musicians singing the lyrics that were produced for them.

I was going to respond to your other reply, but after reading this, really, what’s the point?

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

No he didn't. He did not promote downloading as an alternative. What he said was DRM is bad, and downloading is also bad. He was just comparing the relative "badness". Nowhere did he suggest downloading was an alternative if you do not like DRM.

You're correct - my apologies, tompe.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

I’ve asked the following question numerous times and I’ve yet to receive a response, if all the middlemen standing between the artist and their customers were removed, so that art was sold directly to the public via the artists website, would it prevent people from visiting file-sharing networks? I keep hearing that DRM is evil, and in some ways, I agree, but I’ve yet to hear how removing it would drastically alter the illegal downloading of copyrighted materials.

Nothing will completely eliminate file sharing. However, I would think that direct sales from the artist would decrease it. I am assuming that the artists could offer a significantly lower price (and still make more profit for the artist) than the current sales model.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

No he didn't. He did not promote downloading as an alternative. What he said was DRM is bad, and downloading is also bad. He was just comparing the relative "badness". Nowhere did he suggest downloading was an alternative if you do not like DRM.

Exactly. The consequence is that if I decide to do something I condider morally wrong I try to minimize the wrongness and download from the darknet instead of buying something with DRM.

But having said that. I am not sure that downloading from the darknet is morally wrong from a consequence ethic standpoint. It can be the case that there are laws that we are morally obliged to break to force a change in society.