Piracy Experiment - Page 26

Maggie Leung · 02-03-2011, 01:15 PM

If you're saying there are people who will do things just because they can get away with it, I think that goes without saying.

Your curiosity seems to be based on looking for wiggle room. It doesn't matter what I think about sharing, because people will do what they want. I can decide only for myself what I think is right vs. wrong.

MrsJoseph · 02-03-2011, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by queentess

Wait... isn't it the publisher's job to screw the author?

Exactly! Somewhere someone is supposed to be bent over a barrel and...

MrsJoseph · 02-03-2011, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bucsie

Yeas, this I'd love to see. Probably the contracts with the publishers forbid it, but if possible it would make an interesting experiment.

THIS!!! I would love love love this! There are sooo many authors that I'm dying to get into their backlist. Just thinking about it makes me slightly giddy.

Belle2Be · 02-03-2011, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggie Leung

If you're saying there are people who will do things just because they can get away with it, I think that goes without saying.

Your curiosity seems to be based on looking for wiggle room. It doesn't matter what I think about sharing, because people will do what they want. I can decide only for myself what I think is right vs. wrong.

Why is it that you will easily judge others because any piracy in your mind is stealing, but when asked to clarify what the gray area is or where the lines are drawn, you refuse to answer?

Maggie Leung · 02-03-2011, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belle2Be

Why is it that you will easily judge others because any piracy in your mind is stealing, but when asked to clarify what the gray area is or where the lines are drawn, you refuse to answer?

I'm not judging you or anyone else. I'm stating my reason for not taking what doesn't belong to me. For me, if I didn't pay for it or get it free with permission, I'm stealing. If content came with an author's permission to share, I have no problem sharing it. In practical use, though, I don't like to share books.

mr ploppy · 02-03-2011, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlmwrite

Simply because digital files are available on the internet and therefore aren't tangible objects don't mean they should be taken any more than taking the physical copy from a store is ok.

People have copied tangible items without permission for hundreds of years. Calling it "theft" is a fairly new phenomena, most likely coming about as part of entertainment industry propaganda.

Before home taping killed the music industry in the 1970s, it was just called home taping. When video recorders came along and killed the film industry in the 1980s, that was also called home taping. Perhaps if they had called it "theft" instead both of those industries would have survived to this day?

Duiker · 02-03-2011, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggie Leung

If you're saying there are people who will do things just because they can get away with it, I think that goes without saying.

Your curiosity seems to be based on looking for wiggle room. It doesn't matter what I think about sharing, because people will do what they want. I can decide only for myself what I think is right vs. wrong.

Right, people will do it, so the best way to deal with it is to make people want to do it less.
I don't need "wiggle room". Like you, I live by a set of morals and I sleep fine at night.

Duiker · 02-03-2011, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bucsie

Yeas, this I'd love to see. Probably the contracts with the publishers forbid it, but if possible it would make an interesting experiment.

In my mind once an author becomes well established by using a publisher to reach people all he/she would need to do is wait for his or her contract with the publisher to run out then hire a good editor and start their own site.

mr ploppy · 02-03-2011, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggie Leung

I do not need to live in an ideal world to respect other people's choices. If I use a book without an author's permission, I'm actively violating his choice. It comes down to each user choosing whether to violate an author's choice.

And a lot of people choose to download them for free. Nothing anyone says or does is ever going to change that. So you can either say "Oh no I'm losing £10billion per day" and cry over it, have them removed so that people will read someone else's book instead, or you can turn it to your advantage. The writer is free to choose which option they take. Changing the way the world works isn't really a viable option.

Maggie Leung · 02-03-2011, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duiker

Right, people will do it, so the best way to deal with it is to make people want to do it less.
I don't need "wiggle room". Like you, I live by a set of morals and I sleep fine at night.

How you sleep (or how I sleep) is important to us only individually. I'm in no position to decide what's right for other people.

About dealing with piracy: Agreed on authors and publishers needing to find a way to protect their interests. ... Someone can break into my house and take my stuff, so I try to protect myself. But it doesn't change the fact that they shouldn't take my stuff.

mr ploppy · 02-03-2011, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggie Leung

So you're saying the reader gets to decide what's a fair price,

Pretty much just like it always has been with books. You don't want to pay hardback prices, wait for the paperback or get it from the library. You don't want to pay paperback prices, wait until it is available second hand. You don't want to pay second hand prices, wait until you find it at a jumble sale.

Now people have another choice that doesn't involve any waiting. A sliding price scale that reduces over time would help, but I can't really see that ever happening.

But writers who have wrestled back their rights from greedy publishers and released them themselves at half the price the publishers were charging have reported greatly increased sales figures. They would also be making a lot more per copy sold too, so the way forward would probably be to get rid of all the hangers on that leech from writers. Or at least the ones that aren't essential.

bucsie · 02-03-2011, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duiker

In my mind once an author becomes well established by using a publisher to reach people all he/she would need to do is wait for his or her contract with the publisher to run out then hire a good editor and start their own site.

Ohhh, but how moral is that? They make a name based on that publisher's work and fame.
And a stunt like this may mean bye-bye DTB releases. You have to be really BIG to dare such a move.

Maggie Leung · 02-03-2011, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Pretty much just like it always has been with books. You don't want to pay hardback prices, wait for the paperback or get it from the library. You don't want to pay paperback prices, wait until it is available second hand. You don't want to pay second hand prices, wait until you find it at a jumble sale.

Now people have another choice that doesn't involve any waiting. A sliding price scale that reduces over time would help, but I can't really see that ever happening.

But writers who have wrestled back their rights from greedy publishers and released them themselves at half the price the publishers were charging have reported greatly increased sales figures. They would also be making a lot more per copy sold too, so the way forward would probably be to get rid of all the hangers on that leech from writers. Or at least the ones that aren't essential.

Yes, it's clear that it's easier than ever for readers to disregard authors' right to distribute their work as they wish. Digital content is much easier to take without permission.

Duiker · 02-03-2011, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggie Leung

How you sleep (or how I sleep) is important to us only individually. I'm in no position to decide what's right for other people.

About dealing with piracy: Agreed on authors and publishers needing to find a way to protect their interests. ... Someone can break into my house and take my stuff, so I try to protect myself. But it doesn't change the fact that they shouldn't take my stuff.

Now take that idea of the stuff in your house, but put it on the street with an over inflated price tag and see what happens.

GA Russell · 02-03-2011, 01:46 PM

It occurs to me that we are missing the boat by talking about payment to authors. I think that piracy should be defined as downloading a file without permission.

It was fairly recently that I learned here that authors do not receive royalties for remaindered books. It is very possible that the majority of books I have purchased in the last thirty years have been remainders. Should I avoid remainders in the future because the authors receive no royalties? Is buying a remainder unethical for that reason?

No, we have permission to buy the remainder. Permission from whom? Well, the author I guess. But he was unlikely to have the power to negotiate otherwise with his publisher.

Permission from the publisher? Certainly. But I think that the Sonny Bono Act of 1978 shows that the industry does not have the moral standing to determine what our morality should be.

And what of the deceased? Everyone in the world considers death to be an important event. So why should an author have the power to give permission for a time after his death? For example, in Canada the estate can withhold permission for fifty years. We have no trouble downloading without permission a file of a man dead fifty-one years, but it is immoral to download one of a man dead forty-nine years? It seems to me that the date that changes things should be the date of death.

But let us get back to the idea of permission. Sometimes authors allow their books to be downloaded for free. See Baen. With their permission, it's not pirating. The failure to pay is not what pirating is all about. It is disobeying the wishes of the permission-giver.

So then one must ask, Do I care whether I have someone's permission?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Anti-Piracy group wants to ban you from talking about piracy	Nate the great	News	39	06-06-2012 05:20 AM
PRS-600 End of the experiment	ChristopherTD	Sony Reader	23	02-28-2010 09:51 AM
DRM experiment	sanders	News	27	04-25-2008 12:59 PM

02-03-2011, 01:15 PM	#376
Maggie Leung Wizard Posts: 1,449 Karma: 58383 Join Date: Jul 2009 Device: Kindle, iPad	If you're saying there are people who will do things just because they can get away with it, I think that goes without saying. Your curiosity seems to be based on looking for wiggle room. It doesn't matter what I think about sharing, because people will do what they want. I can decide only for myself what I think is right vs. wrong.

02-03-2011, 01:46 PM	#390
GA Russell Ticats win 4th straight Posts: 7,694 Karma: 31487351 Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Raleigh, NC Device: Paperwhite, Kindles 10 & 4 and jetBook Lite	It occurs to me that we are missing the boat by talking about payment to authors. I think that piracy should be defined as downloading a file without permission. It was fairly recently that I learned here that authors do not receive royalties for remaindered books. It is very possible that the majority of books I have purchased in the last thirty years have been remainders. Should I avoid remainders in the future because the authors receive no royalties? Is buying a remainder unethical for that reason? No, we have permission to buy the remainder. Permission from whom? Well, the author I guess. But he was unlikely to have the power to negotiate otherwise with his publisher. Permission from the publisher? Certainly. But I think that the Sonny Bono Act of 1978 shows that the industry does not have the moral standing to determine what our morality should be. And what of the deceased? Everyone in the world considers death to be an important event. So why should an author have the power to give permission for a time after his death? For example, in Canada the estate can withhold permission for fifty years. We have no trouble downloading without permission a file of a man dead fifty-one years, but it is immoral to download one of a man dead forty-nine years? It seems to me that the date that changes things should be the date of death. But let us get back to the idea of permission. Sometimes authors allow their books to be downloaded for free. See Baen. With their permission, it's not pirating. The failure to pay is not what pirating is all about. It is disobeying the wishes of the permission-giver. So then one must ask, Do I care whether I have someone's permission?

Advert

Advert