Is ebook piracy on the rise?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

With all due respect, you cannot use the extension of copyright terms by Disney et al (which we all agree is abusive) as an excuse to justify illegal copying of current books (which would be in copyright in ANY country, since the author is still alive). It is just plain WRONG to read a book without paying the author, who's worked damned hard to write that book. Not just illegal but plain WRONG. Everyone deserves to be paid for their work if that work is used by someone.

According to what ethical system? Are you using some utilitarism or some rights based system? Itfutilitarism then I do not understand your conclusion so could you explain it?

[kacir]

Originally Posted by gollu

One very important thing that's missing from the discussion is :Where does the piracy becomes a major problem?
If we open any survey, it'll rank China as a N1 world pirate, Eastern Europe/ex USSR republics and India next.
Why do those countries lead in piracy? It's simple, because residents have low income, some places as low as $200-$300. Yet, compared to US for example, most of the goods have higher prices (oil, cars, electronics, clothes, etc). So how do people there survive? They use intelligence property at all levels for free, including ebooks.
There's no chance people in 3rd world countries will pay $10 for a book.
So generally - Yes, there are places that piracy in general and ebook piracy in specific will be on the rise for the next few decades...

Also do not forget that Americans are complaining about the price of gasoline rising to 5$/gallon. What a tragedy! Yet in my country we have been paying more than 7.5$/gallon for YERAS. And my income is a fraction of what somebody on my position would get in the USA.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by jakewastaken

I don't think anyone is claiming piracy isn't wrong. Can we stop harping on the words right and wrong. They are meaningless in this discussion. Life isn't fair. People break rules; they break the law. You're never going to get them to feel bad about it.

The people reading illicit material are not waiting for your acceptance. There is no sense of entitlement. It's much more likely that people have problems with authority or just don't give a rats ass about legality. They don't feel they have the right to break the law, they just DO it.

"Is piracy moral?" and "Is piracy on the rise?" are two distinctly different questions.

Sorry, but right and wrong are at the very heart of the debate. It is only by making the people who currently feel that they have some "right" to read books without paying for them realise that they are taking money away from the authors (whose work they presumably enjoy) and are doing wrong by them that one has any chance of changing their behaviour. Saying it's "illegal" is meaningless.

Can you - as a self-confessed pirate - explain why you don't believe that you are doing wrong and why, if you DO consider it to be wrong, you do it? (Or if you don't consider it to be wrong, why you don't?). I'd be genuinely interested to know how you morally justify your actions. As I've said before, I have no issues at all with downloading if you buy the paper book to compensate the author, but I don't see how anyone can morally justify downloading without either buying the eBook (if available) or the pBook (if not).

[acidzebra]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It is only by making the people who currently feel that they have some "right" to read books without paying for them realise that they are taking money away from the authors (whose work they presumably enjoy) and are doing wrong by them that one has any chance of changing their behaviour. Saying it's "illegal" is meaningless.

Are you Jack Valenti's brother by any chance?

testimony given at the 1982 trial of home recording of copyrighted works:
"I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone."

Anyway, see my earlier argument regarding a library card and format shifting, and the argument about phantom profits, and the argument about the difference between content, content providers, and content creators.

Wagging your finger like that doesn't help the argument, makes you look like a reactionary old fart, and a hypocrite to boot. Unless you are that one guy that has never touched a piece of pirated media in any format in his life.

[moz]

Originally Posted by jakewastaken

II'm sure I'm in the minority of people who both pirate and have an a hardware reader. I also buy tons of books. My apartment is filled to the freaking brim with books.

The question is not how many pbooks you have, but how many of them you paid the authors for. If you buy a book second hand that's no better than piracy. If you buy it from a discount bin the author probably doesn't get a cent, so that's no better than piracy either. And libraries, ha, libraries pay a token fee that overwhelmingly goes to the more popular authors and pretend that this legitimates their wholesale theft of the authors' intellectual property.

The only honest way to buy a book is a first run, full price hardback.

Anything else is stealing.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by acidzebra

Wagging your finger like that doesn't help the argument, makes you look like a reactionary old fart, and a hypocrite to boot. Unless you are that one guy that has never touched a piece of pirated media in any format in his life.

I make no claims never to have touched a piece of pirated media. What I do very firmly state is that I would never download a book that I hadn't bought a paper version of because, in my personal code of ethics, it would be wrong to do so - if you read a book, you should pay the author. There's nothing hypocritical in taking a moral stance on the matter, and nor does taking such a stance make one an "old fart" unless you are suggesting that today's younger generation has no morals - something which I'd be very loath to believe.

[acidzebra]

Originally Posted by moz

The question is not how many pbooks you have, but how many of them you paid the authors for. If you buy a book second hand that's no better than piracy. If you buy it from a discount bin the author probably doesn't get a cent, so that's no better than piracy either.

The only honest way to buy a book is a first run, full price hardback.

Anything else is stealing.

I do hope that was sarcasm. It is hard to tell sometimes.
EDIT: Okay, I'm going with sarcasm

Originally Posted by HarryT

I make no claims never to have touched a piece of pirated media. What I do very firmly state is that I would never download a book that I hadn't bought a paper version of because, in my personal code of ethics, it would be wrong to do so

Wait, did you just say you are okay with and have used other forms of piracy, as long as it isn't books? And just because my personal code of ethics might not match yours, I'm the one that must be wrong? Skating on thin ice, there. Maybe I don't have morals by your standards. Looking at the state and the history of the world when I got here (which was presumably after you), I would say that the moral codes and priorities of the people that came before me must have been pretty screwy.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by acidzebra

Wait, did you just say you are okay with and have used other forms of piracy, as long as it isn't books?

No, I didn't say that. My CD and DVD collections are 100% legal. I freely admit to having broken British law by ripping the CDs which I've bought to my iPod, however.

And just because my personal code of ethics might not match yours, I'm the one that must be wrong?

Certainly not - I make no claims whatsoever to be "in the right". I am, however, very interested to know how people who do consider it right to read books without compensating the author morally justify it. Do they not consider the author's work to be worth paying for?

Maybe I don't have morals by your standards. Looking at the state and the history of the world when I got here (which was presumably after you), I would say that the moral codes and priorities of the "elders" must have been pretty screwy.

I refuse to be held accountable for the state of the world. It would have been a lot better if I'd been running it .

[moz]

Originally Posted by acidzebra

I do hope that was sarcasm.

Of course, I'm just repeating what HarryT says without the obscurationist waffle that he tries to weave around his nonsense. At least Steve Jordan can write clearly enouh to make his special pleading blatantly obvious.

My actual practice is different - I rarely buy pbooks and the ones I do are roughly 50% taxpayer funded due to the silly tax laws we have here. But I buy ebooks and I end money to various people who produce things that I like. I also send messages to the ones who won't accept my money explaining why i think they're behaving foolishly. On the whole though, I consume at least 75% of my media in ways that are not legally sanctioned, and I suspect the actual number is higher than that. But then, almost everyone I know does likewise... it's just so hard to fully comply with the law.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by moz

Of course, I'm just repeating what HarryT says without the obscurationist waffle that he tries to weave around his nonsense.

How very sad that you consider the viewpoint that "it's wrong not to pay authors for the books that you read" to be "nonsense" . Do you get paid for the work that you do or do you rely on voluntary contributions?

[Olympus]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

I see e-books as being more akin to broadcasts of a television program: While not a tangible object, per se, it still represents a specific, copywritten and protected work, and those who access them are still limited by law to what they are allowed to do with them--for instance, I cannot tape an episode of "Lost," then charge people to come to a private venue and watch those episodes, nor to make multiple copies of that tape and give them away, even for free... those uses are, by U.S. definition, illegal.

Now you are hitting a nerve with me. As you compare e-books with episodes: I am allowed to record the episode, lend the vhs-tape to relatives & family (without charging an admission fee), transform the vhs-tape to DVD or DivX, remove / fast forward commercials .

As most broadcasted tv-shows become legally available on DVD after each tv-season, does that make the privately created recordings (and transformations) suddenly illegal???

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Olympus

Now you are hitting a nerve with me. As you compare e-books with episodes: I am allowed to record the episode, lend the vhs-tape to relatives & family (without charging an admission fee), transform the vhs-tape to DVD or DivX, remove / fast forward commercials .

As most broadcasted tv-shows become legally available on DVD after each tv-season, does that make the privately created recordings (and transformations) suddenly illegal???

I don't know if it's different where you live, but in the UK you're only allowed to record TV programmes for the purpose of "time shifting", not permanent storage. It's also not legal to share video/DVD's recorded off-air with anyone, unlike commercially-bought DVDs, which can be shared.

[acidzebra]

Harry, leaving aside the concept of ownership for a moment (because I have a hard time imagining that I "own" a string of 1s and 0s - I don't think it translates well to the digital domain), imagine the following:

I have a library card and I go out and lend a book, then proceed to download the same text from the internet and read that on my sony instead of reading the physical book, after which I delete the ebook and return the book to the library.

Now would you perceive my action as morally right or morally wrong?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by acidzebra

I have a library card and I go out and lend a book, then proceed to download the same text from the internet and read that on my sony instead of reading the physical book, after which I delete the ebook and return the book to the library.

Now would you perceive my action as morally right or morally wrong?

I'd have no issues with that, because the author has been compensated for the book you've read, and nobody else can read that copy at the same time that you are.

[acidzebra]

Okay, great (and IMHO reasonable) but do you think the content owners would agree with that? Because I'm pretty sure they would scream bloody murder. Note that the content owners are not necessarily the content creators.

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'd have no issues with that, because the author has been compensated for the book you've read, and nobody else can read that copy at the same time that you are.

Why is the uniqueness or exclusive of the copy important? The entire point of the digital age is that scarcity as found in physical objects doesn't exist any longer.

What I am getting at, if we could find a way to notify the library of the books we're "virtually loaning", and they pay out the authors based on usage, and all this is covered by my library card and the taxes which pay for the library, who stands to lose?

It is not us or our morals that are broken, it is the content management and delivery system.