Massive wave of ebook piracy?

[kevinp]

Originally Posted by NVash

Said computer crashes. You get a new one in which Word is no longer licensed. Because of that you cannot read said e-book. You do not have the $400 or so dollars to purchase Microsoft Office so it looks like that e-book is trash now. Good old DRM, aint it great?

Pardon me for interrupting this argument, but... just to set the record straight...

You don't need Word to install and register the MS Reader program. I see the point you're trying to make though and I agree. I don't like having my purchases tied to any one piece of hardware that's GOING to die eventually.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

Xenophon, I understand your position regarding living authors, but what is your position regarding deceased authors?

Hmmm... The best way I have to explain that is to try a wee thought experiment or two.

First: Let's consider an successful author late in life -- old enough that she is essentially certain that the copyright on her next book will last far longer than her remaining lifespan. (Yeah, I realize that there's an issue with the current length of copyright... but just work with me for a moment.) Our hypothetical author has a good track record of writing books that are consistent sellers for years and years, so she sees a fair likelihood that royalties on the next book will continue well beyond her death. Now, she must decide: "Do I write that next book (and spend less time with my grandchildren), or do I skip the book (and have more time for the grandchildren)?" (fill in other activities to your heart's content, of course) Knowing that the income will continue after her death may somewhat increase the value of writing that next book. After all, that continuing royalty stream can be considered as an asset; it can be left to the grandchildren, or her favorite charity -- "Save the gay, baby nuclear whales for Christ" (for example). But the value (today) of directing that asset to the person/charity/institution/usage of her choice depends on the likelihood that it may actually bring in some income. After all, no income from the book after her death means no present value to directing its disposition today. It seems to me that, from a societal point of view, having that income stream after death fulfills the main legitimate goal of copyright: to encourage authors and other creators to produce more works, rather than fewer. (IMHO, your mileage may vary, subject to Consitutional restrictions where applicable, etc.)

Second: The traditional "widows and orphans" version. Jane Bigauthor writes a best selling book, but is tragically hit by a truck and killed before it hits the stands. If we pay for books by dead authors, there can (perhaps) be an income stream for her poor crippled widower husband who is left raising the quintuplets with no income of his own... (cue the sob-story music at this point).

Third: Income from the works of a dead author may provide a financial incentive for a publisher to keep the work available in the market. Indeed, it _would_ do so for eBooks (given the low marginal cost of keeping them on a server). This one hasn't worked so well for Dead Tree Books (at least in the US), but one can imagine a system that would encourage it.

Now that we're done with the thought experiments, and have returned to the real world, I must note that my personal position is that life+70 is way, waaaaay too long for a standard copyright duration. I also think that requiring occasional copyright renewal for published works would be a fine way of getting them into the public domain more quickly -- once the value decreases to the point of the work being "orphaned," why not let it move to PD status fairly quickly. On the other hand, that particular clock should only start ticking after publication -- otherwise it'd be too easy to lose control of one's own private writings (letters, diaries, journals, etc.).

So get out there and lobby your congresscritters (or MPs, legislators of whatever stripe, dictators, strongmen, thugs, etc.) to bring the duration of copyright back to a semblance of sanity, and to add inexpensive-but-required occasional registration for published works. And also encourage your pals to pay the the works they consume. A sane system would work to the benefit of all!

Xenophon

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

That would only be relevant if it was a choice between downloading or paying. The choice is really about downloading or not downloading. If your book is downloaded you might gain a reader that you wouldn't otherwise have, but that in itself is a pretty slim chance because you would be in competition with every other book they downloaded. If they do read it they might give it a good review or recommend it to someone else, or they might buy something else you have written. If not, they won't. So everything to gain, nothing to lose.

Huh? (I've bolded the part I don't get, here.)

I don't think I said anything about downloading vs. not downloading. Rather, I wrote about why it's in your own best interest to see that the authors get paid -- regardless of how you got the book. Send a check care of their agent. Paypal them some money! I don't care how... although actually buying the eBook -- when possible -- encourages their publisher to take a risk on the next book, and to make more ebooks, and all sorts of other stuff that we'd all presumably like to see.

If it was worth your time to read, it was worth your money to pay for (IMHO). Even if you just get it out of the library, it still serves to encourage the library to purchase the author's next book. There are plenty of authors who would love to go full-time. Most could triple or quadruple their output if they did. Paying for what you like sends a strong market signal -- I want more of this! Use the market to your advantage. This is one place where money talks far, far louder than any other thing most individuals can do.

Xenophon

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by kevinp

Pardon me for interrupting this argument, but... just to set the record straight...

You don't need Word to install and register the MS Reader program. I see the point you're trying to make though and I agree. I don't like having my purchases tied to any one piece of hardware that's GOING to die eventually.

Not to mention that Microsoft Office Home and Student normally sells for $150in the US but often goes on sale for much less (I purchased 2007 on sale for only $80 a couple of years ago).

Also, I believe there is a way to read .lit files in the free Open Office Suite

And yes, I am aware it is irrelevant to the argument. I just hate to see unsupported and inaccurate "facts" being thrown around.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by NVash

I dont know, seems youre more than willing to call out the pirates and even resort to name calling but cant at least admit that the publishers are wrong as well. Thats quite a double standard you have there.

How are the publisher's wrong? It's their product and they're free to sell it any way they wish.

The biggest problem with DRM, the Agency Model, and geographic restrictions is that people willingly accept these restrictions by purchasing books under them. No one twists their arms to do so, yet they buy anyway. If they don't like these conditions, then why do they buy? Purchasing just enables the publishers to continue carry on with business as usual. They have no incentive to change.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by NVash

See thats the main problem Im having here. We can agree to disagree that piracy is wrong. Let me put out an example where I would argue its right.

- You check out a book from the library. Its great, you enjoy it but dont finish it in time and end up returning it.
- You buy that e-book. Its a LIT file that runs perfectly on your computer because Word is licensed and everything is good.
- Said computer crashes. You get a new one in which Word is no longer licensed. Because of that you cannot read said e-book. You do not have the $400 or so dollars to purchase Microsoft Office so it looks like that e-book is trash now. Good old DRM, aint it great?

Tell me, what would you do? From your strong moral stance Id assume youd go purchase this e-book somewhere else or just buy the actual paperback. Problem is not everyone has that kind of money. You already paid once and weve established how exorbitant the prices are. You want to go out and pay that again for the same book, knock yourself out. Im pretty sure most people wont and would either give up the book, go back to the library or try to find it somewhere for dirt cheap if not free.

I know, same old argument.

I counter with you have the same old argument as well. The same tired argument. To you the publishers can do whatever they want whenever they want because its their right. Good enough, okay. But what about us? Do we not speak with our money? Can we not say that we think their practices are unfair and make no sense most of the time? I guess none of that matters, they make the rules and we can only deal with it and give them our money. Cant say I agree with that philosophy.

And you still havent answered. So what if the pirates are wrong. Who cares about that anymore? Why not try to stop the very reason they are pirates to begin with? I know some will pirate no matter what, but some things brought up are very good points. The only answer Im seeing is 'They have the right to do whatever they want'. So then the people dont have the right to decide to not purchase the same book over and over again because of some stupid DRM? People dont have the right to decide to not purchase e-books at all because the prices are crazy and just pick them up at the library or somewhere for cheap? I dont know, seems youre more than willing to call out the pirates and even resort to name calling but cant at least admit that the publishers are wrong as well. Thats quite a double standard you have there.

What double standard? I've stated many times I do not approve of DRM. I've also stated many times I do not buy books with DRM. That is tacit approval of what is, at best, a despicable practice.

If people are foolish enough to buy a book with DRM, then find they are unable to read it later because they changed readers, the DRM scheme is abandoned by the publisher, or whatever, they are out of luck. They could try appealing to the publisher but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for positive results. However, that would not exonerate piracy. Two wrongs do not make a right.

If you do not like DRM or you cannot afford a book, don't buy it. Neither excuses stealing. Not being able to read a certain book is not a matter of life and death, especially when there are plenty of legal alternatives. Your argument is just another lame rationalization. I almost wish I was back in college again. My Psych classes would have had a field day with the rationalizations I've seen on these forums.

[thrawn_aj]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

If people are foolish enough to buy a book with DRM, then find they are unable to read it later because they changed readers, the DRM scheme is abandoned by the publisher, or whatever, they are out of luck. They could try appealing to the publisher but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for positive results. However, that would not exonerate piracy. Two wrongs do not make a right.

If you do not like DRM or you cannot afford a book, don't buy it. Neither excuses stealing.

So, breaking DRM on a book you've purchased is now considered stealing? Damn, I hate it when ol' Webster revises his dictionary without consulting me .
1. I've paid the seller full price
2. I've not distributed the book to anyone else.
3. I simply chose to ignore the seller's fine print in the contract that I should only read the book while standing on my head, juggling 2 mice and a hamster.
4. The seller has not lost any profits or merchandise by my breaking DRM on a book I now own.

Doesn't seem to match any definition of stealing or immorality I know of. *sigh* Perhaps I'm just an ebul man whose moral compass needs re-magnetization .

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by thrawn_aj

3. I simply chose to ignore the seller's fine print in the contract that I should only read the book while standing on my head, juggling 2 mice and a hamster.

There's your downfall. If you don't like these terms, then don't buy the book.

[Ken Maltby]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

What double standard? I've stated many times I do not approve of DRM. I've also stated many times I do not buy books with DRM. That is tacit approval of what is, at best, a despicable practice.

If people are foolish enough to buy a book with DRM, then find they are unable to read it later because they changed readers, the DRM scheme is abandoned by the publisher, or whatever, they are out of luck. They could try appealing to the publisher but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for positive results. However, that would not exonerate piracy. Two wrongs do not make a right.

If you do not like DRM or you cannot afford a book, don't buy it. Neither excuses stealing. Not being able to read a certain book is not a matter of life and death, especially when there are plenty of legal alternatives. Your argument is just another lame rationalization. I almost wish I was back in college again. My Psych classes would have had a field day with the rationalizations I've seen on these forums.

Hmm... removing the DRM is not "piracy" or stealing. In fact people can
only remove the DRM from the e-books that they have purchased. Only a
very experienced cryptologist with a good deal of time and resources can
remove the DRM from a file that someone else has purchased.

Those who do not buy e-books that are infected with DRM, are to be
commended for the service they do for us all, by actually providing the
disincentive to those applying the DRM.

Luck;
Ken

[GA Russell]

Xenophon, it seems to me that your cases of the author-late-in-life and the widows and orphans fund fail not because they are not logical, but because the author receives only a small percentage of the sale price, with the retailer and publisher retaining most of the cash.

I believe that the defense of copyright is a moral one, and that the argument for it is weak if it is based upon sympathy for someone who is not the primary beneficiary.

Let me suggest this solution. It would be possible for Congress to pass a law that calls for an end to the publisher's monopoly (as public domain would) upon the death of the author, but would nevertheless require the heirs to receive a stated percentage of whatever gross income any publisher receives from the publication of the work.

This would allow publishers to enter the field and publish works currently overpriced or not in print, and would allow heirs to receive part of the cash, if any, that was being exchanged for the work.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by thrawn_aj

So, breaking DRM on a book you've purchased is now considered stealing? Damn, I hate it when ol' Webster revises his dictionary without consulting me .
1. I've paid the seller full price
2. I've not distributed the book to anyone else.
3. I simply chose to ignore the seller's fine print in the contract that I should only read the book while standing on my head, juggling 2 mice and a hamster.
4. The seller has not lost any profits or merchandise by my breaking DRM on a book I now own.

Doesn't seem to match any definition of stealing or immorality I know of. *sigh* Perhaps I'm just an ebul man whose moral compass needs re-magnetization .

I never said that breaking DRM was stealing. It's a violation of the DMCA. either way, it would still come under law breaking.

1. So what?
2. Immaterial.
3. Do so at your own risk. There are certains terms that are legally unenforceable and others that are.
4. More lame rationalizing. If something is specifically againt the law, all the rationalizing in the world will not change that nor exonerate you. Only corrective legislation or a judicial decision can do that.

Again, you neither need nor are entitled to a copy of a book unless you are willing to meet the seller's terms. If you do not wish or cannot afford to do so, don't buy or steal the book.

[John F]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

...

Also, I believe there is a way to read .lit files in the free Open Office Suite

And yes, I am aware it is irrelevant to the argument. I just hate to see unsupported and inaccurate "facts" being thrown around.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by Ken Maltby

Hmm... removing the DRM is not "piracy" or stealing. In fact people can
only remove the DRM from the e-books that they have purchased. Only a
very experienced cryptologist with a good deal of time and resources can
remove the DRM from a file that someone else has purchased.

Those who do not buy e-books that are infected with DRM, are to be
commended for the service they do for us all, by actually providing the
disincentive to those applying the DRM.

Luck;
Ken

I never meant to say removing DRM is stealing. It is, however, a violation of the DMCA in most cases.

Btw, since I'm one of those who will not buy DRM infected books, thank you.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

Xenophon, it seems to me that your cases of the author-late-in-life and the widows and orphans fund fail not because they are not logical, but because the author receives only a small percentage of the sale price, with the retailer and publisher retaining most of the cash.

What percentage goes to which entity varies all over the map. Consider the variance between the author who signed a truly stupid "screw-em-like-the-big-record-labels-do" contract (on one end), and the self-published-so-I-get-all-the-dough author on the other. The moral issue remains the same in all cases (IMHO).

Originally Posted by GA Russell

I believe that the defense of copyright is a moral one, and that the argument for it is weak if it is based upon sympathy for someone who is not the primary beneficiary.

Sympathy? I s'pose. I'm really intending, however, to argue on the basis of my self-interest, your self-interest, the author's self-interest and the hypothetical "self-interest" of "society" (whoever that is). The fact that the revenue stream continues for some period after the author's death increases the present value of producing additional works. Plain and simple.

Originally Posted by GA Russell

Let me suggest this solution. It would be possible for Congress to pass a law that calls for an end to the publisher's monopoly (as public domain would) upon the death of the author, but would nevertheless require the heirs to receive a stated percentage of whatever gross income any publisher receives from the publication of the work.

This would allow publishers to enter the field and publish works currently overpriced or not in print, and would allow heirs to receive part of the cash, if any, that was being exchanged for the work.

A change along those lines could be made to work. I note, however, that this is no different from the statutory mandatory licensing that we see in the US for broadcasting a song on the radio (for example). The broadcaster need not ask permission, but must pay a fixed fee per use.

My approach was to suggest moving works into PD more quickly, by letting a registration requirement stand in as a proxy for continued commercial interest. If it has commercial value, the copyright owner will pay a modest fee to maintain the copyright. If they don't, it becomes PD now rather than decades from now.

Xenophon

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by John F

And the cause of your mirth is?