Massive wave of ebook piracy?

[crich70]

True. It reminds me of the old quote,"The only thing needed for evil to prevail is that good men do nothing."
Sometimes right and easy are mutually exclusive. Very little is black and white in this world. It's wrong to kill for example, but if you are facing someone meaning you physical harm you have the right to defend yourself, even if it means the other person dies in the process. Of course that's an extreme example I think, but some ethical decisions are hard to resolve.

Originally Posted by Piper_

History abounds with examples that prove the folly in claiming something to be immoral or unethical simply because it is illegal.

I would hate to think anyone believed it was immoral to help a slave escape, to harbor a Jew, for our Founding Fathers to rebel, to walk backwards eating ice cream, or for a woman to have more than six BOBs.

Laws are made and revoked by politicians, often under the influence of immoral, self-interested lobbies. They vary between countries, including copyright and DMCA laws.

Determining what is ethical requires much deeper thought than looking up the current statutes.

[GreenMonkey]

Originally Posted by Xanthe

Nice duck of the question regarding how law-abiding the people here who are taking others to task, are in their own lives regarding laws that are commonly broken.

You see, the error you keep making is that you see my explanation and those of others as "rationalizations" because they don't agree with your particular POV regarding ethics and the law. So they must be a "rationalization" for lawbreaking because they are not part of the ethics of the particular group you surround yourself with.

I would posit that an argument could just as easily be made against what you post by saying that your statements are just a "rationalization" of why you do not question rules and regulations that are seemingly not made, and are not being used, for the benefit of the greater good - and are instead implying "it is a law and it must be obeyed otherwise the social fabric of the nation will disintegrate". If one's primary POV is "question authority", then just because a law has been passed doesn't mean that it is a good law or that it should even be obeyed. And a law about copyright violations should not even be compared to rape, murder, house-breaking, whatever; to do so is just making a facile argument.

Classic Lawful Good vs Chaotic Good argument there for anyone else with D&D experience

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

What duck? It simply doesn't matter if the accusers aren't perfect. If something is wrong, it is wrong. By your reasoning, a person arrested for murder could get off because the arresting officer cheated on his income taxes. Trying to fob off the guilt to someone else because they aren't perfect isn't going to cut it.

Your arguments are classic textbook rationalization. When you live in a society, you have to live by the rules of society whether you like it or not and whether you think the rule is right, wrong or too insignificant to matter. To do anything else will lead to anarchy. If you can't accept the rules of the society, then either expect to have to pay the consequences for breaking the rules or leave.

See? Classic lawful good argument. You must obey the law to maintain order, or chaos results. Law is for the good of society. If it is wrong, you should work within its bounds to get it changed (not outside of the law).

I tend to think you should do what is right, whether that fits the laws of society or not. I'm more concerned with the ethics and less concerned with the law.

[eGeezer]

This all kinda reminds me of Mr. George Bernard Shaw's "Reasonable Man".

Usually, all any one ever quotes is:

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself", thereby slamming the target a a person who isn't a team player and just doesn't play well with others.

However, the rest of the quote, "Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man" changes the view completely.

While not all "unreasonable men" turn out on the side of good, the notion of thumbing one's nose at the stupidity of the publishing industry is really a matter of personal viewpoint.

While it is doubtful all (if any) pirates are doing so for any noble purpose, I personally don't view stripping DRM by otherwise normal folk as much criminal action as just making a statement.

To me, "piracy" is when one profits from their plundering and pillaging.

Just my humble unreasonable opinion.

[TGS]

Many years ago, when one could smoke everywhere, I would be really careful about where I smoked so that it didn't upset anyone or spoil their meal or just make their environment unpleasant. Then the non-smoking lobby got the wind in their sails and started demanding their right to a smoke-free environment and getting in my face about smoking. They pushed it further and further so that now, I couldn't give a monkey's toss about whether my smoking spoils their meal or makes their environment uncomfortable. What's all this got to do with copyright infringement - well mostly I think about what I'm doing, I know when something I'm doing might be a bit dodgy and, by and large I pay my dues and keep my nose clean. But I'm beginning to feel about copyright infringement as I do about smoking - the harder the "it's just plain wrong and is a very bad thing and will result in the collapse of society and all we hold dear if we allow it to go on unchecked" brigade bang on about I find myself thinking, in the immortal word of Catherine Tate - am I bovvered? Childish? Maybe, but I prefer to think of it as young at heart

[Richey79]

A pretty poor analogy. Passive smoking has the potential to cause catastrophic damage to the health of others in society. Those others have the right to be able to go out without having such harm inflicted upon them.

If someone downloads a film, piece of music, book or comic to decide whether or not it is worth purchase, it has not been proven that this action causes harm to any other members of society.

This cannot be refuted with the proof of a properly conducted study at this time. Despite all the funding of anti-piracy organisations, they have not been able to sponsor a single study that shows any lost sales as a result of file-sharing.

[Krystian Galaj]

Originally Posted by crich70

People wouldn't go into their local bookstore and try to walk out with a 'free' copy of a book classic or not

No, but would you have similar approach to someone going a local bookstore (possibly with a reading room), picking up a book, copying the text from it by hand and pen to blank sheets of paper, then putting the book back in its place, and leaving with the text on the paper sheets?

[TGS]

Originally Posted by Richey79

A pretty poor analogy.

Only of you look for the wrong analogous relationship between the two situations - which is not to be found in comparing "the harm" done by passive smoking with "the harm" done by copyright violation.

[Sil_liS]

I don't think that the transition from p-books to e-books, meaning that p-books will eventually disappear, is necessarily a positive thing. And I say this because I like p-books.
I would like to propose a solution:
Sell ebooks as only text (meaning without the cover) with the money from the purchase going only to the author. Sell the cover separately with the money going to both publisher and author, based on a contract. Then the cover can either be:
1. in digital format, to go with the book
2. as a souvenir (like a postcard)
3. a cover for the ereader (the author/publisher can show support for a brand of ereaders)
4. an actual book cover. I left this for last because this is what I would like to have: the option that if I like the book, I could go to a printer, print the contents of the book, and have it attached to the nice cover. Then you could also have the book printed in different font sizes, depending on eye-sight. Also, this could work for anybody who is concerned about not having anything to read at candle light in the post-apocalyptic world, after an EMP hits.

The main reason why I think that this could work is because there are many people who think that only the author deserves money, and like this they could buy only the book. Then there are the people who like to buy anything that is connected to their favorite author, so they could buy anything that the publishers make, most likely at ridiculously high prices. Then they can make the books really cheap, and without any geo restrictions, and keep the restrictions for the covers. And it would also be easier for the publishers to determine if a new author would be profitable, based on how many books they sell.

And to anybody who thinks that in such a case people would only buy the book and not the cover, think about this: if a publisher would print a small book with favorite quotes from the twilight books, how many of the women that have already seen the films, and read the books, would buy it without a second thought, regardless of the price?

[crich70]

No I wouldn't compare the two, because it would take a fairly long time for them to copy any sizable amount of the text by hand. Not to mention the writer's cramp they'd end up with. There is a difference between noting down the author's name/book title for future reference (which would be far easier than trying to copy a whole book) and trying to walk out with a whole copy of a book without having paid for it first. Besides that I imagine most book stores (if they have a reading room) would be on the look out for someone hanging round for hrs daily and copying out text by hand.

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

No, but would you have similar approach to someone going a local bookstore (possibly with a reading room), picking up a book, copying the text from it by hand and pen to blank sheets of paper, then putting the book back in its place, and leaving with the text on the paper sheets?

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Richey79

This cannot be refuted with the proof of a properly conducted study at this time. Despite all the funding of anti-piracy organisations, they have not been able to sponsor a single study that shows any lost sales as a result of file-sharing.

Are you seriously arguing that file-sharing has never caused any lost sales? That everyone who file-shares would have either never purchased the item in the first place, or will later pay for it?

I mean, sure it's true that *not every* file share results in a lost sale - but that's a far cry from denying that there are any lost sales. Of course there are, and it's not even that hard to find people to admit it.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

No, but would you have similar approach to someone going a local bookstore (possibly with a reading room), picking up a book, copying the text from it by hand and pen to blank sheets of paper, then putting the book back in its place, and leaving with the text on the paper sheets?

It would be more like them reading the book in the shop, or in their local library.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Are you seriously arguing that file-sharing has never caused any lost sales? That everyone who file-shares would have either never purchased the item in the first place, or will later pay for it?

I mean, sure it's true that *not every* file share results in a lost sale - but that's a far cry from denying that there are any lost sales. Of course there are, and it's not even that hard to find people to admit it.

Independent research has shown that people who download unauthorised content buy more legitimate content than people who don't. So rather than being responsible for "lost" sales, it seems it is actually responsible for increased sales. Anecdotal evidence from a few writers who have looked at their sales figures rather than just having a foot stamping fit about it would appear to back this up.

[Ankh]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Are you seriously arguing that file-sharing has never caused any lost sales? That everyone who file-shares would have either never purchased the item in the first place, or will later pay for it?

I mean, sure it's true that *not every* file share results in a lost sale - but that's a far cry from denying that there are any lost sales. Of course there are, and it's not even that hard to find people to admit it.

I am not so certain. The logical origin of that "lost sale" theory is that demand exists and has to be satisfied either by piracy or by purchase.

Despite what most of MR users think and say , books do not fall into category of basic sustenance, the goods, like food, that we have to buy, come hell or high water. Firstly, an urge to read certain title can be satisfied later on (when the book hits the shelves of the local public library), secondly, there is an abundance of reading material (not to mention Calibre's ability to capture web content into ebook format).

Every ebook reader owner here complains about very long TBR lists. I believe that practically for every edition the benefits of demand creation (those who read pirated material still recommend), outweigh the benefits of control of the illegal distribution.

[Xanthe]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

What duck? It simply doesn't matter if the accusers aren't perfect. If something is wrong, it is wrong. By your reasoning, a person arrested for murder could get off because the arresting officer cheated on his income taxes. Trying to fob off the guilt to someone else because they aren't perfect isn't going to cut it.

Your arguments are classic textbook rationalization. When you live in a society, you have to live by the rules of society whether you like it or not and whether you think the rule is right, wrong or too insignificant to matter. To do anything else will lead to anarchy. If you can't accept the rules of the society, then either expect to have to pay the consequences for breaking the rules or leave.

My point regarding the duck was "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" or, if you prefer, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", or any other stone-throwing saying. Bottom line is that unless the people chastising others have never broken a law in their lives, then they have no basis for passing judgement on others. I was not "fobbing off guilt"; I was trying to make the point that people should look to their own lives first to see if they are as law-abiding as they want others to be, and if they aren't, why do they think that their words should be given any import, much less followed?

And again with the "rationalization" line. However did I guess that it would turn up again?

We shouldn't become so straight-laced as a society that anyone who disagrees with a law is immediately viewed as leading society into anarchy. That kind of thinking will destroy democracy, because it presumes that all laws are in the best interest of the public good - which we all well know that is not always the case. Besides, a little anarchy every now and then is a good thing. Shakes things up, makes people think a little more deeply, knocks their sense of certainty for a loop.

You didn't really paraphrase the old "America -love it or leave it" argument, did you?

[Xanthe]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Are you seriously arguing that file-sharing has never caused any lost sales? That everyone who file-shares would have either never purchased the item in the first place, or will later pay for it?

I mean, sure it's true that *not every* file share results in a lost sale - but that's a far cry from denying that there are any lost sales. Of course there are, and it's not even that hard to find people to admit it.

It would be really interesting to find out how much file-sharing has actually increased sales for some authors. A judiciously-placed share can actually create interest in authors whose books are no longer being actively pushed by their publishers, or who have been marketed as a narrow genre. I've seen it happen, and I've seen the comments of people who say, "I've never heard of that author before", and the author has already had, say, five or ten books published. And then from never having heard of that author, I start seeing his/her paperbacks on the New Releases table at Borders. Or authors who have been published for years and years in paperback version only (I'm talking about you, Romance Writers) who finally start getting hardcover book deals and greater "legitimate" recognition, after their fans have created and uploaded ebook versions of their paperbacks and brought them wider recognition.

I'm sure that for authors like Rowling or Patterson, they see any fileshare as a lost sale. But for Joe Obscurewriter or Jane Obscurewriter who've been self-publishing and can't seem to get that coveted three-book deal, the chance of their book going viral, with the word-of-mouth something like that generates, it might be worth some initial lost sales.

I have some favorite books by authors who only published one-to-three books and then seemingly disappeared off the face of the earth (I'm assuming they went back to their day jobs when the writing gig never paid off). Their books are OOP now, so unless someone learns about them and is willing to make the effort to search out a used book, they will fade into obscurity. But I bet if I had the means and the desire to create an ebook of their works, put it up on the P2P nets, I could create new interest in those authors. (Let me just say here that I have neither the hardware needed nor the desire to tear apart my books to create such an ebook.) In this example, what would the author be losing? They're no longer earning anything from book sales, no publisher is banging on their door. If word-of-mouth can be generated for them and interest in their books stimulated, their books might go back into print. Frankly, if I was such an author, I would be putting up my own books, taking the chance on some future lost sales just to generate some current sales.