Do you pirate books and why?

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by WritePR

Many times an author's work means so much to their heirs that they want to keep control of it. Sometimes not, and then it goes into the public domain.

I agree with many of your previous points, but not with your support of the extension of the Copyright Act. It seems to me that the extension of copyright in the U.S. has more to do with corporations and intellectual property than honoring the rights of artists' descendants.

I agree strenuously (oof!) with your comments about writing not being easy and would add this:

Ideally, writing should never be so carefree that a person can spew drafts bleary-eyed without bothering to go over the style and content to make them as perfect as possible, all of which can take an immense amount of time. There's a reason so many more great poets have had day jobs than great novelists, and part of it is that poets are able to perfect shorter work over long stretches of time, sometimes reworking the same set of poems for a decade or more.

But even in that case, we're leaving something out: The amount of time it takes to develop the mastery shown in a poem or work of fiction. Sometimes it isn't just that one work which takes time. It's also a matter of the time taken in previous work to reach the point of development at which the most important work is written. Some writers haven't the time or capacity to reach that point without being paid as they go along. (Late Beckett without early Beckett, for example.)

Many of us don't require that kind of refinement from the books we read, and certain markets and writers aren't known for mandating it. But when people insist that careful writing is always unnecessary or overworked, that's anti-intellectual snobbery. It's also a completely impractical assumption to make about writing which might not (or might!) appeal to one's own tastes.

I've seen people complain about a short work of fiction costing as much as a long one, but effort can't be judged solely on length. I have no problem with Kindle Singles that are a bit short. I do, however, dislike paying for work that is so shoddily written it probably took less time to write or prepare than for the reader to unpack the malapropisms and dangling modifiers.

One example (from someone's rejected manuscript, which later became a pricey and self-published novel): "He didn't need a microscope to see the pattern on his shirt because he had microscopic eyes."

(And by the way: The pattern was on another character's shirt!)

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by WritePR

The rights to their work were part of their estate. Just like heirs would be entitled to income generated from an inherited business, rental property, or patent, they are entitled to income generated from those inherited rights if they chose to sell them or continue the deceased's contract with a publisher. Many times an author's work means so much to their heirs that they want to keep control of it. Sometimes not, and then it goes into the public domain.

If I inherit a business, I have to be able to keep it profitable, or it will die.
If I inherit a house, I have to keep it in good shape, or it will lose its market value.
If I inherit a flock of sheeps, I have to feed them, or they will die.
If I inherit money, I have to invest it, or it will lose its value.

But if my grandfather wrote "happy birthday" I'd be a millionaire without having to work one single day of my life. Thanks to what is described as an "incentive to produce more".

I'm sorry, but it's a revenue from an advantageous position definitely unfair and contrary to every liberal principle of free market and capitalism. And I have no moral issues against the ones who "pirate" books by long dead authors.

[Soldim]

Originally Posted by Format C:

And in most countries such download is illegal.

Is it? Where I live it isn't illegal, and I know of a couple of other countries where it isn't illegal. I also know of a couple of countries where indeed it is explicitly forbidden. Most countries, as far as I am aware, have way bigger problems to worry about than people downloading copyrighted material, and hence lagging legislation clarifying the situation.

[Soldim]

Originally Posted by WritePR

People that refuse to buy the paper version OR the electronic version and download it from some torrent site instead are stealing, period.

No, they are not. Neither in the legals sense of stealing, nor in the moral sense.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by KindleChickie

I don't pirate. I would no more illegally download digital content than I would shoplift.

+1

[crossi]

I haven't though I have been tempted by some books that either aren't available as ebooks or not available in my location. For the ones that are just overpriced I'm willing to wait until sales and hopefully prices drop.

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by Format C:

If I inherit a business, I have to be able to keep it profitable, or it will die.
If I inherit a house, I have to keep it in good shape, or it will lose its market value.
If I inherit a flock of sheeps, I have to feed them, or they will die.
If I inherit money, I have to invest it, or it will lose its value.

But if my grandfather wrote "happy birthday" I'd be a millionaire without having to work one single day of my life. Thanks to what is described as an "incentive to produce more".

I'm sorry, but it's a revenue from an advantageous position definitely unfair and contrary to every liberal principle of free market and capitalism. And I have no moral issues against the ones who "pirate" books by long dead authors.

I agree. Which is why I am currently figuring out the best way to have my owned IP released into the public domain upon my death, if not before. Granted, the stuff that I actually retain the rights to can probably be represented by a jar of pennies at this point (my most valuable work up to now was work-for-hire, so I don't retain those rights), but that's irrelevant. This isn't some sort of moral stand, it simply comes down to the fact that copyright protection gives me the right to control my work. If I'm dead, I'm no longer in control of anything. It's not like passing on control of a business, not at all.

If I'm lucky enough to make a ton of money from my work while I'm alive, and assuming I haven't spent it all, then whatever is left will be passed on according to my wishes. That is sufficient. To go beyond that seems, to me, to stretch the intent of copyright too much.

[WritePR]

Originally Posted by Soldim

No, they are not. Neither in the legals sense of stealing, nor in the moral sense.

YES THEY ARE. In every sense of the word! Period. They are stealing income from the people who created that book, game, movie, album, or software they downloaded ILLEGALLY because they think they are entitled to not have to pay for like everyone else, especially if they then let others download their stolen book, movie, album, or game.

Tell an actor, musician, or software developer you refuse to pay for their hard work and are going to download it off a torrent somewhere and they'll tell you the same thing.

Your disrespect for people who create books, music, games and other forms of entertainment is disgusting. I bet you wouldn't want to work for free!

[maxiart]

Originally Posted by WritePR

YES THEY ARE. In every sense of the word! Period. They are stealing income from the people who created that book, game, movie, album, or software they downloaded ILLEGALLY because they think they are entitled to not have to pay for like everyone else, especially if they then let others download their stolen book, movie, album, or game.

Tell an actor, musician, or software developer you refuse to pay for their hard work and are going to download it off a torrent somewhere and they'll tell you the same thing.

Your disrespect for people who create books, music, games and other forms of entertainment is disgusting. I bet you wouldn't want to work for free!

You do know not all actors, software developers, musicians and writers agree with you, right?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by WritePR

YES THEY ARE. In every sense of the word! Period. They are stealing income from the people who created that book, game, movie, album, or software they downloaded ILLEGALLY because they think they are entitled to not have to pay for like everyone else, especially if they then let others download their stolen book, movie, album, or game.

Tell an actor, musician, or software developer you refuse to pay for their hard work and are going to download it off a torrent somewhere and they'll tell you the same thing.

Your disrespect for people who create books, music, games and other forms of entertainment is disgusting. I bet you wouldn't want to work for free!

Of course an author have to work for free if nobody want to by the book. So it seems to me to be a lot of entitlement in your opinion since you seem to say that if you do a thing you are entitled to be payed. It sounds like you believe that at least.

And downloading something illegally is called copyright infringement. Calling it stealing is usually done by people that would like to misrepresent the real arguments.

Remember also that the normal case is that you can copy anything. Copyright is an artificial restriction on that that was introduced to stimulate creation. It was not introduced because there was som right or entitlement for authors to get paid.

[Soldim]

Originally Posted by WritePR

YES THEY ARE. In every sense of the word! Period.

All caps, and writing periods are not very convincing arguments. Legally, copyright infringement is not stealing in any legislation I know of. No amount of rhetoric will change that.

They are stealing income from the people who created that book, game, movie, album, or software they downloaded ILLEGALLY

Again, all caps don't make a statement more convincing. Like I mentioned, where I live downloading copyrighted material is not illegal.

They are stealing income from the people who created that book, game, movie, album, or software they downloaded ILLEGALLY because they think they are entitled to not have to pay for like everyone else, especially if they then let others download their stolen book, movie, album, or game.

Not purchasing something is not quite equivalent of 'stealing income' from teh seller.

Tell an actor, musician, or software developer you refuse to pay for their hard work and are going to download it off a torrent somewhere and they'll tell you the same thing.

Even if they do tell me so, it doesn't make their statements correct. Furthermore, I know of quite a few creators that do not agree with your point of view.

Your disrespect for people who create books, music, games and other forms of entertainment is disgusting.

Do you really consider it helpful to qualify those who have different opinions then yours as disgusting? Personally, I do not think that kind of attitude and statements result in a fruitful exchange of idea's in a forum like this. An easy example I can give in this regard are the works of James Joyce; I have tremendous respect for him as an author but didn't have any moral problems while downloading his complete works from MR last week.

I bet you wouldn't want to work for free!

I do between 10 and 20 hours of volunteer work per week -- it's very fulfilling.

[WritePR]

Originally Posted by Soldim

Is it? Where I live it isn't illegal, and I know of a couple of other countries where it isn't illegal. I also know of a couple of countries where indeed it is explicitly forbidden. Most countries, as far as I am aware, have way bigger problems to worry about than people downloading copyrighted material, and hence lagging legislation clarifying the situation.

Well things are different here in the US. It's against the law.

[WritePR]

Originally Posted by tompe

Of course an author have to work for free if nobody want to by the book. So it seems to me to be a lot of entitlement in your opinion since you seem to say that if you do a thing you are entitled to be payed. It sounds like you believe that at least.

And downloading something illegally is called copyright infringement. Calling it stealing is usually done by people that would like to misrepresent the real arguments.

Remember also that the normal case is that you can copy anything. Copyright is an artificial restriction on that that was introduced to stimulate creation. It was not introduced because there was som right or entitlement for authors to get paid.

No, distributing something that isn't yours, or copying someone else's work is copyright infringement. Taking something that costs money and refusing to pay for it is STEALING.

Authors do deserve to get paid. We have bills to pay and need to eat just like you.

[WritePR]

Originally Posted by Soldim

I do between 10 and 20 hours of volunteer work per week -- it's very fulfilling.

And I'm sure you have a job that gives you a paycheck and allows you to have a roof over your head and food on your table and would probably object if your boss told you he'd like you to continue doing that job but wasn't going to pay you anymore.

[spindlegirl]

I have respect for authors who don't want to see their work end up on pirate bay, etc....

But often I see that as being the main scapegoat for why an author has a hard time earning a living from their work. Even before e-books, I rarely bought books at full price. Too expensive for me. I always borrowed from the library, or bought at yard sales, and a brand new book was a luxury. Much like I was a long time radio fan of many many bands, but only bought a fraction of the albums.

These days hundreds of new books are published every week. So many books, so many high prices and simply not enough time/money to consume it all. Most of the time, THAT is the real reason that people aren't lining up in droves to buy buy buy... not piracy. Piracy is an easy scapegoat, but only represents a small fraction of "non buyers"). There are thousands of books/songs/movies, people will never buy even if they don't pirate them. They simply go without.

I don't think I could ever choose authoring for a living. For me it's too much of a gamble. I couldn't write something and then assume that it will make money just because I wrote it. I'd choose a living similar to a friend of mine, writing in real time as a columnist or something. I've never pursued that as a profession, but when I die, people can have my short stories released into the public domain