Open Source culture to blame for e-book piracy!

[Zorz]

I personally believe that information should be free for those who want it. Libraries were created in support for this. Information should not be held and restricted by the wealthy and trying to do so is oppression.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with pirating a book, just like any other true intellectual. Its similar but relate able situation is to that in universities. Lets say a student sits in on a class in which he has not registered to take. Implying that he has not paid to take the class. I have never met a professor who will kick a student out of a lecture, who was not registered. The reason being, is they the professors love to spread information.



I feel pirating a book is not actual theft mainly because the book could have been rented or read at a Library.

[pwarren]

Goddamnit, downloading a book you haven't paid for is not theft, it's copyright infringement, which has a completely different process in the justice system.

(IANAL but I have paid for advice, this is not your advice, pay your own lawyer)

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by LlamaZorz

I personally believe that information should be free for those who want it. Libraries were created in support for this. Information should not be held and restricted by the wealthy and trying to do so is oppression.

Libraries aren't free. I pay about $100 a year in property taxes for my local library. That book you borrow or read in the library, is paid for through those property taxes, and in turn pay the author's royalties, the publisher and distributor salaries along with the librarian's salary. I don't know who you think are wealthy oppressors, but it's certain not authors (with very few best-selling exceptions), not the editors, and probably not even the publishers. You're just rationalizing, and not even very well.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by LlamaZorz

I personally believe that information should be free for those who want it. Libraries were created in support for this. Information should not be held and restricted by the wealthy and trying to do so is oppression.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with pirating a book, just like any other true intellectual. Its similar but relate able situation is to that in universities. Lets say a student sits in on a class in which he has not registered to take. Implying that he has not paid to take the class. I have never met a professor who will kick a student out of a lecture, who was not registered. The reason being, is they the professors love to spread information.



I feel pirating a book is not actual theft mainly because the book could have been rented or read at a Library.

So may I suggest you work for free, too? I can rent a car like yours, why not just take yours instead? Why should you get paid when others don't? I really don't get why people are so greedy. If information is free, what about all the work, money, and effort that went into getting that information? Defending their "right" to take what they want regardless of how much it hurts others.

If you can get it at a library, then get it at a library and stay clean.

[Zorz]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

Libraries aren't free. I pay about $100 a year in property taxes for my local library. That book you borrow or read in the library, is paid for through those property taxes, and in turn pay the author's royalties, the publisher and distributor salaries along with the librarian's salary. I don't know who you think are wealthy oppressors, but it's certain not authors (with very few best-selling exceptions), not the editors, and probably not even the publishers. You're just rationalizing, and not even very well.

Funding for Libraries depends on the locality. In the locations you are referring to, you seem to think people need to pay property taxes to take advantage of the services of the library. That is simply not true, as anybody whether homeless, moneyless or rich may rent or read the same book. Many locations do not pay for libraries via taxes and instead run them via donations, or via large estates.

Libraries dont even pay near the full MSRP for a book, as they buy directly from a library distributor. Though the actually value or impact of that one book is drastically higher than the book bought at Borders.

If people can go to a library to read a book tax independent, then there is absolutely no difference than downloading a book online and reading it.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by LlamaZorz

If people can go to a library to read a book tax independent, then there is absolutely no difference than downloading a book online and reading it.

You are right, financially there is no difference for the copyright owners. But for you there is. When you rent from the library you have used a public service, when you download without paying you have infringed someone's copyright, in other words "stolen".

Whether a friend gives you 5 bucks or you hit him over the head and take his money, the financial end result is still the same for both parties. But morally it is not the same.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by LlamaZorz

I personally believe that information should be free for those who want it. Libraries were created in support for this. Information should not be held and restricted by the wealthy and trying to do so is oppression.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with pirating a book, just like any other true intellectual. Its similar but relate able situation is to that in universities. Lets say a student sits in on a class in which he has not registered to take. Implying that he has not paid to take the class. I have never met a professor who will kick a student out of a lecture, who was not registered. The reason being, is they the professors love to spread information.



I feel pirating a book is not actual theft mainly because the book could have been rented or read at a Library.

One of my NY resolutions was to stay out of pointless debates about piracy but.......

What a load of hogwash!

Firstly, the old "information wants to be free" argument is getting tiresome. There is a big difference between people wishing to learn, seeking information to better themselves or their society or whatever and someone wanting to read the latest best seller without paying for it. I'm all for free education. It is one the great things about Australia.(though it is no longer totally free but only highly subsidised.)

If you don't want to pay for what you read then go to the library. Your rationlisation that there is no difference between copyright infringement and library lending is utter BS and you know it. Once you start turning up to work and telling your boss you don't want to be paid then I might take your argument seriously.

As for pirating..........

Some people want free stuff. Simple. All the rationalisations in the world wont change that and nothing any author or publisher does will stop it.

Some others have legitimate concerns about DRM, pricing, geo-restrictions etc and use this to justify pirating. Maybe when all that stuff changes and goes away they will decide to pay or maybe they will have become used to free stuff and choose not to pay. That is when their character will be tested and the truth behind their claims will come to the fore. Again, nothing any author or publisher does will change it.

Then there are the rest who will pay for what they want. The authors and publishers will continue to add in the "costs of piracy"(for want of a better term) and these people will continue to subsidise those who want free stuff. That is the way it is with any industry. The payers pay a premium to cover what the thieves steal.(copyright infringers in this case...not thieves)

My 2 cents anyway.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[HansTWN]

PKFFW, unfortunately these guys need to hear it again and again... That they are still looking to justify such behavior is a sign that they may still feel the guilt. A good sign.

My guess is that we will wind up in the Google world with our books all free and infested with ads on every second page. Either that or people will wake up to the fact that they are actually shooting themselves in the foot. They save a few bucks and society loses, they lose their future opportunities for work, for income, for enjoyment. Someone, somewhere always has to pay.

You don't want to pay anything? Just go for the library, free classics, free offerings on many sites.

[m-reader]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

PKFFW, unfortunately these guys need to hear it again and again... That they are still looking to justify such behavior is a sign that they may still feel the guilt. A good sign.

My guess is that we will wind up in the Google world with our books all free and infested with ads on every second page. Either that or people will wake up to the fact that they are actually shooting themselves in the foot. They save a few bucks and society loses, they lose their future opportunities for work, for income, for enjoyment. Someone, somewhere always has to pay.

You don't want to pay anything? Just go for the library, free classics, free offerings on many sites.

"Piracy" is also a product of the success of technology. Everything is available NOW - Instant Gratification! Can't be bothered going to cinema to watch a movie, I'll download it. Can't be bothered going to the library - I'll download a pirated book.
Mind you, as somebody already pointed out in this thread, most of these "downloads" never gets utilised. For example, people download crappy movie cam-job rip, watch it for 30 seconds and give up.
Similarly with books - people go and download them. But how many of these books are actually read?
I honestly do not believe that e-book piracy represents a big threat to publishing industry. Of course, it's wrong, but I doubt Steven King will have to start looking for a second job any time soon.

I think the two driving forces will force some sort of middle-of-the-road solution: Technology and market. Technology already has solutions, market wants to buy stuff - the only remaining actor to wake up and smell the roses is the publishing industry.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

You are right, financially there is no difference for the copyright owners. But for you there is. When you rent from the library you have used a public service, when you download without paying you have infringed someone's copyright, in other words "stolen".

Whether a friend gives you 5 bucks or you hit him over the head and take his money, the financial end result is still the same for both parties. But morally it is not the same.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

So may I suggest you work for free, too? I can rent a car like yours, why not just take yours instead? Why should you get paid when others don't? I really don't get why people are so greedy. If information is free, what about all the work, money, and effort that went into getting that information? Defending their "right" to take what they want regardless of how much it hurts others.

I do not understand why people are so greedy that they want to destroy the public domain commons by using absurd copyright laws.

Your argument are broken because you do not take into consideration that copying is virtually free and nobody get deprived of use when we copy.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

PKFFW, unfortunately these guys need to hear it again and again... That they are still looking to justify such behavior is a sign that they may still feel the guilt. A good sign.

Or that you need to repeat this kind of arguments can be a sign that you are really unsure about your own arguments. Who knows.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

I do not understand why people are so greedy that they want to destroy the public domain commons by using absurd copyright laws.

Your argument are broken because you do not take into consideration that copying is virtually free and nobody get deprived of use when we copy.

And what will be the incentive for anyone to write books, or to make £100m movies, if everybody copies them for free? If you want new books to read, or new movies to watch, you have to be prepared to pay for them, regardless of whether it's technically possible to obtain them without paying for them. To rely on other people paying, while you take them for free, is just selfish.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

PKFFW, unfortunately these guys need to hear it again and again... That they are still looking to justify such behavior is a sign that they may still feel the guilt. A good sign.

Nope. All you're doing is preaching, and you're turning away people on the margins to the darknets.

The answer is quite simple - stop treating customers like criminals. iTunes (well, thanks to EMI but still), O'Rilley, Baen

How many ****** times does a working business model need to be ******* well demonstrated before people get with the ****** plot? Why does every single industry need to go through the same pain and permanently drive a good proportion of their customers into a situation where they will never buy from them again first?



Let's not go into the current situation where the entertainment industry is trying to cost the tech industry several times its entire yearly revenue* to ineffectually flail at darknets. Anyone would think they hadn't read the Microsoft darknet paper...

(*At which point I start questioning the economic basis for new art, because it isn't worth it...)

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

And what will be the incentive for anyone to write books, or to make £100m movies, if everybody copies them for free?

Whatever incentive that works with the current situation. That you cannot think of an incentive is really no argument that there do not exist a good incentive.