Kindle e-Book piracy accelerates - from CNET

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Farhad

Piracy? Why use such corpo-speak?

“Piracy”

Publishers often refer to copying they don't approve of as “piracy.” In this way, they imply that it is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnapping and murdering the people on them. Based on such propaganda, they have procured laws in most of the world to forbid copying in most (or sometimes all) circumstances. (They are still pressuring to make these prohibitions more complete.)

If you don't believe that copying not approved by the publisher is just like kidnapping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word “piracy” to describe it. Neutral terms such as “unauthorized copying” (or “prohibited copying” for the situation where it is illegal) are available for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as “sharing information with your neighbor.”

Source: gnu.org

To be fair, most of the people who download unauthorised copies also call it piracy.

[NVash]

Anyone ever think that piracy could be due to the fact that things are horrible these days? I remember I was reading an article on Yahoo a month or two ago that said music sales had dropped. In the comments many people mentioned that most music is horrible these days and no one wants to pay for it. Could that possibly be the same for books? Just a guess.

[Farhad]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

To be fair, most of the people who download unauthorised copies also call it piracy.

True, but that is the problem: we - those who like to share information with our neighbors - are conditioned to accept a terminology and, therefore, an interpretation which ONLY the publishers benefit from (neither the authors, nor the readers benefit from copyrighting books, music, or movies). I posted that quote here not to argue with anybody, but as a reminder that "piracy" is such a "framed" expression that it makes any dissenting view doupleplusbadcrimethink.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by MovieBird

As I noted in my previous post, did you just gloss over the destructive bit?

No, I'm not saying that compressed audio is identical to uncompressed. I'm saying that the vast majority of people don't care.

The audiophiles may prefer SACD and HD Digital Radio, but most people can't tell the difference.

Originally Posted by MovieBird

As far as FLAC, you do realize the only reason you have ever heard of it is because of pirates adopting it as a high quality transfer medium?

Why would that matter? Most people heard of any form of digital audio because of Napster rather than eMusic.

The fact is that lossless simply is not commercially viable. Technically there isn't anything to prevent Apple or Amazon or anyone else from offering lossless downloads at a higher price. They don't, because people don't want it.

Originally Posted by MovieBird

Yes, you can find shitty versions of music on the Pirate Bay. Try looking at a music specific tracker....

Yes, let's ignore the way most people actually operate.


I'll see if I can find a study to either correct or support my opinions on why people pirate, but there are several structural issues with such studies. 1) They'd have to be recent, to reflect changes in the industry accurately. 2) Some people recognize that infringement is not strictly legal and may not give honest answers. 3) Those who are willing to answer may just be rationalizing their actions, and this would be very difficult to detect via surveys. 4) The issue is highly partisan, so almost any study that doesn't give you the Answer You Want will be disregarded for whatever flaws you can drum up.

Without that particular evidence, though, I feel very comfortable in my opinion that "audio quality" is not holding people back from audio downloads. The list of reasons why people can justify piracy is getting smaller and smaller, yet the practice still persists, and recording sales are still falling.

I do not fall into the "piracy means doom" set on this basis. I can only state that to me, it is obvious that piracy certainly is not 100% positive, can clearly have a negative impact, and that so far offering convenient, DRM-free, clean and consistent content from multiple vendors doesn't appear to significantly alter piracy rates.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by NVash

Anyone ever think that piracy could be due to the fact that things are horrible these days...? many people mentioned that most music is horrible these days and no one wants to pay for it.

Pop music has been "horrible" for decades now, depending on who you ask. IMO this is a canard.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

This one from 2010 confirms the trend of increasing profits despite increased piracy....

Yes... in the UK only, and because live music revenues in the UK rose. On the rest of the planet, live music revenues actually fell in 2010: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...t-sales-plunge

And at least part of that is because ticket prices went up by almost 4%.

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

How would you explain this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4718249.stm

Seriously? That's 5 years old. Heck, 1/3 of the survey participants didn't own a portable digital audio player at the time.

Better yet, the article opines that offering "more compelling options" will improve the situation. So far, that doesn't seem to be the case.

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/01/boo...-drm-data.html

Useful, but as the article itself points out, "The results are not emblematic of publishing overall.... We just don't have enough data."

Mind you, I do believe there are multiple reasons for these drops in sales -- global recession, the loss of format-upgrade revenues. But as I've been saying, a) I don't see yet that offering a convenient DRM-free alternative reduces piracy rates, and b) I don't see the basis for a belief that piracy is completely harmless or purely beneficial.

[NVash]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Pop music has been "horrible" for decades now, depending on who you ask. IMO this is a canard.

Im not talking about Pop. Im talking music period. Most of the genres are horrible these days. The radio isnt even worth listening to anymore. The same way you said Pop is horrible I could say Romance is bad. We could do this all day. I just thought that maybe this may account for some lost sales with books just as it did with music.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

To be fair, most of the people who download unauthorised copies also call it piracy.

I'd call it piracy when those unauthorized copies are sold and profit someone other than the creator. Like someone's self-published version of Mary Stewart's Arthurian saga that was being sold on Amazon for $10.

[kovidgoyal]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

And what, exactly, do you base this on?

The self evident fact that a copy without DRM is superior to a copy with DRM in terms of functionality and long term use. Therefore the existence of DRM encourages piracy by providing a motivation to remove the artificial restrictions imposed by it.

Now do note that I am not claiming that if there was no DRM there would be no piracy, but I am claiming that if there was no DRM there would be less piracy.

[Namekuseijin]

Originally Posted by NVash

Anyone ever think that piracy could be due to the fact that things are horrible these days? I remember I was reading an article on Yahoo a month or two ago that said music sales had dropped. In the comments many people mentioned that most music is horrible these days and no one wants to pay for it. Could that possibly be the same for books? Just a guess.

BTW, here in Brazil it's common to find people selling pirate CDs and DVDs in the streets. It provides sustenance for poor folks who find it easier to just live like lazy bums selling stolen goods instead of studying hard to try to change their lives, but I digress.

The point is: I never ever saw classical music recordings in these open shops. I also don't see classic movies, Casablanca, Jean Renoir, Hitchcock etc. And of course, no Shakespeare and such. There's plenty of metal noise, hip-rap and other urban screams from lowlifes, and plenty of hollywood blockbull and porn. It's part of our industrialized society to crave for trash.

Which is too bad because classical music recordings are really expensive.

[NVash]

You bring up another good point. I see many people selling pirated CDs and DVDs on the streets, subways, bus, you name it. Why doesnt anyone ever say anything about them? Im not trying to go off topic, Im just wondering. Everyones always complaining about the pirates. Were aware piracy is a problem, fair enough. Why not go after people selling your stuff for cheap on the streets? Or better yet, drop your prices so that the people cant sell it. If they street vendor wants $10 and you want $5 really, the only thing itll boil down to is convenience. With the Kindle its very convenient but we have the problem of so high a price.

Do they factor in the fact that some people may opt to instead buy the book used on the Amazon Marketplace for a fraction of the cost? No, of course not.

[Grimm]

Originally Posted by queentess

The article is worth visiting just to see the Pirate Kindle picture.

Best part of this entire thread, lol.

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by NVash

I see many people selling pirated CDs and DVDs on the streets, subways, bus, you name it. Why doesnt anyone ever say anything about them?

What's there to say? I mean, it's like those guys selling fake Rolexes, Gucci bags, you name it. If you know where to go to you can find that stuff in any city of this world. You don't have to go there, you don't have to buy, but would you actually tell those guys "Excuse me, what you're doing here is illegal"? I for one wouldn't.

Why not go after people selling your stuff for cheap on the streets?

Police does occasionally make an attempt, but surely you can imagine that in most cities they have bigger fish to fry.

Or better yet, drop your prices so that the people cant sell it.

You can't outprice a pirate, no way. They have essentially zero cost, i.e. pure profit.

With the Kindle its very convenient but we have the problem of so high a price.

Convenience and availability are of the utmost importance, yes.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

The self evident fact that a copy without DRM is superior to a copy with DRM in terms of functionality and long term use....

Please re-read my full post.

The belief that "DRM incites piracy" is contradicted by the rise of DRM-free commercial services accompanied by no changes in piracy rates.

Again: Apple, Amazon, eMusic and others have offered DRM-free music for about 2 years now, yet people still pirate those tracks. Radiohead offers a 320k MP3 or a CD-quality WAV file straight from their website, yet it's right there in the torrents.

For example, O'Reilly does not use DRM, and I can download a torrent of 352 O'Reilly books in, oh, 30 minutes.

O'Reilly believes that the lost sales are a better option than paying for advertising and marketing. They may well be correct (though they state they don't have enough evidence to definitively extend this beyond their own audience). As a result, there isn't much strong evidence to suggest that the piracy rates are actually lower specifically because O'Reilly chose not to use DRM.

There are other examples, including Radiohead's "In Rainbows." (Yeah, those guys again. ) They released the album independently, without DRM, and for whatever price the downloader wanted to pay -- including nothing. Yet it was still downloaded illegally (or if you prefer, "infringingly") over 500,000 times via P2P in its first week. It's still unclear if that cost them sales, but it is quite clear that merely offering DRM-free content is not sufficient to discourage people from pirating.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

The self evident fact that a copy without DRM is superior to a copy with DRM in terms of functionality and long term use. Therefore the existence of DRM encourages piracy by providing a motivation to remove the artificial restrictions imposed by it.

Now do note that I am not claiming that if there was no DRM there would be no piracy, but I am claiming that if there was no DRM there would be less piracy.

When did the music industry give up on DRM? It might be interesting to see if there was a spike in profits that year or not. I don't think DRM drives piracy that much, myself. To most people it is invisible until they change their device. By that time they will have spent a fair amount of money on music they are no longer able to listen to. That would be more likely to send people back to CD shops than pirate sites.

With music, piracy had a good 10 year headstart on legal downloads. That would have been long enough to have an entire generation of consumers grow up knowing nothing but free downloads.

Ebooks have also had a 10 year headstart, but the demographic is a lot older so it's unlikely there will be anyone who has never bought a book in their life. So even if they only ever buy second hand books, they will still be used to paying for at least some of them. So the idea of paying for digital content won't be comletely alien.