Downloaded books cost how much?

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Sorry, but the fact that it happens doesn't make it "right" or "acceptable". Using someone else's intellectual property without paying for it is just plain WRONG. Perhaps you'd feel differently if that's how you made your living.

When it comes to what is right and what is wrong, the line between is different for different people.

The problem is that due to the changing of copyright law, and this lawyer-created concept of "intellectual property" (how can someone own an idea or a thought?), people have less respect for such laws.

You see, most people follow laws not because they might get punished for breaking them, but because they believe that the law is right. When people believe that the law is wrong, they simply don't follow it.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

When people believe that the law is wrong, they simply don't follow it.

Tell me, why do you believe that the law is wrong when it says "you musn't download a book that you haven't bought"?

If I spend a year writing a book, don't you think that I have the right to earn money when people read it?

[RWood]

The jails have a lot of people in them that ignored laws they thought were wrong.

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Tell me, why do you believe that the law is wrong when it says "you musn't download a book that you haven't bought"?

You've taken the misguided stand that "breaking the law" = "wrong".

Sometimes the law is in the wrong. That's why we have court systems.

Originally Posted by HarryT

If I spend a year writing a book, don't you think that I have the right to earn money when people read it?

Again, you have mistaken "downloading" with "stealing". If I have a paper copy of Harry Potter 7 on my desk that I legally purchased, how can downloading the eBook version be "stealing"? The author has received payment.

[Cthulhu]

Downloading a file that the originator did not wish you to have or did not release to others is INDEED STEALING! Taking something without their permission is theft. Theft is not only against the law--as a basic concept in every nation on earth--but it is seen as ethically and morally wrong, according to every religion and set of cultural mores.
Indeed, the notion of intellectual "property" is a nebulous discussion, and some lend more gravity to the concept of thought ownership than others, but the fact remains that thinking and creating require effort and energy, for which a person or person deserves renumeration.
Defying an unjust law may be morally laudable, but no less illegal. Taking someone's else's twinkie because it will not be missed is no less immoral.

To take your own example, The author of Harry Potter has expressly stated that she does not want electronic copies of her works. If you download a copy of said book, it may not be illegal or immoral, but you are most certainly showing yourself to be a petulant, argumentative person who cares not a jot for other's opinions.


Defame the rules all you wish, clamour in the streets for change, but obey the rules, and be not surprised when you are punished for breaking them.

[ricdiogo]

Originally Posted by RWood

The jails have a lot of people in them that ignored laws they thought were wrong.

Indeed. Ignoratia juris neminem excusat (The ignorance doesn't excuse anyone) is a basic principle in a state governed by the rule of law.

Originally Posted by rlauzon

The problem is that due to the changing of copyright law, and this lawyer-created concept of "intellectual property" (how can someone own an idea or a thought?)

Oh but you _do_ own ideas or thoughts! In an argument you probably often say "THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAYD!!" Or, if you write a post at this forum but someone else claims the authorship of it you will certainly say "IT WAS ME WHO WROTE THAT!", or, quite frequently "I'd already said that before."

Originally Posted by rlauzon

If I have a paper copy of Harry Potter 7 on my desk that I legally purchased, how can downloading the eBook version be "stealing"? The author has received payment.

It is stealing. If you are at a physical bookshop and you pay one copy of the book but you hide the other one in your jacket aren't you stealing? If you left the book alone, someone else could buy it and that other person would be paying the author's rights. But since you have stolen it, that copy will not serve to pay the author. Same happens if you download a book: you have paid the book in your desk but you haven't paid the author for having that extra copy you downloaded (which by the way is an illegal copy since the author did not give any permission for having it uploaded in the first place).
The point here isn't if you have purchased anything or not. The point here is that you don't have the author's permission and they have the right to do whatever they want with it (for instance, they have the right not to allow it being uploaded to the Internet because they fear that can drop their sellings or, simply, because they only want to see the words they have written printed in yellow recycled paper.)

I have to say, however, that I believe authors will very soon have to change all their copyright models and find ways of giving their books for free while still being paid by someone else but the final consumer. That will be one of the great revolutions of the next decade.

[silkpag]

Originally Posted by ricdiogo

It is stealing. If you are at a physical bookshop and you pay one copy of the book but you hide the other one in your jacket aren't you stealing? If you left the book alone, someone else could buy it and that other person would be paying the author's rights. But since you have stolen it, that copy will not serve to pay the author. Same happens if you download a book: you have paid the book in your desk but you haven't paid the author for having that extra copy you downloaded (which by the way is an illegal copy since the author did not give any permission for having it uploaded in the first place).

No, it is infringement. Namely, an infringement upon the exclusive right of a content creator to make copies, nothing more nothing less. And if you want further clarification, I have a lengthy document from a U.S. District Court Judge ruling that I had, indeed, infringed 535 of someone else's copyrights that I can show you.

The only theft of intellectual property that has ever occurred has been the theft of the public domain by rent-seekers and their paid-for legislators, coupled with a repackaging by corporate attorneys of what is entirely a civil matter (infringement) into a criminal act (stealing.) Know the difference.

Back to the original point of the thread, anybody noticed that Harlequin, in a bid to take share from Ellora's Cave and Samhain, has slashed prices on ebooks? Publishers haven't competed on price since the '60s, so given the prevalence of smutty themes in the paid-for ebook market, it's kinda interesting that our neighbors to the north are taking this route, even when you think of what the Loonie's done to the dollar this past year.

Disclaimer, one of my sites sells smutty ebooks for $1, with quantity discounts; however it has not a single title featuring either vampires or the Regency Period, so I'm on the sidelines watching this one.

High prices do equal high margins... and high margins attract competitors... prices will go lower.

[ricdiogo]

Originally Posted by silkpag

No, it is infringement.

Oh I didn't want to get into legal concepts here. I was just trying to explain some common-sense. Have to say however, that several EU states rule illegal downloads as criminal matter, sanctioned with imprisonment.

[BooksForABuck]

I've never understood the distinction between 'stealing' and 'infringement' to be especially useful or actionable. In either case, you're violating the law. It used to be that copyright violation was civil but I believe digital violation is criminalized--so you go to jail in either case.

The notion that you don't take anything material from an author when you download because there is nothing physical involved is an interesting philosophical case, but again, I don't think it's relevant to the law. I also don't think it's relevant to morals. I mean, suppose you stole the formula for Coke. Coke still has its formula, so you could argue they hadn't lost anything. Same case for drugs or whatever.

If you want to argue that creators of intangible goods don't deserve any rewards because their creations don't take physical form, again, you might be able to make an ethical case--but it's a case that framers of the US Constitution considered and rejected (again, not saying they were right).

As both an author and a publisher, I have strong feelings that, lets say someone downloads my book and then sells it to ten other people, there's something wrong even though the original customer really did pay for my book. Whether it's moral to steal/infringe on an eBook because you already have the paper is something you need to wrestle with in your own value system. Clearly it isn't consistent with the law.

In terms of Harlequin's price reduction--their cheap eBooks seem to be short stories/novellas. So that's not a competitive price reduction, but it is an entry into a new category--one that really hasn't done well lately. But they do seem to be one of the few mega-publishers who systematically offers (slightly) lower pricing on eBooks than on pBooks which, if you remember, was the origin of this whole thread.

(Lots of small publishers, including me, offer lower eBook pricing but the megaPublishers are too afraid of the bookstores and the traditional sales structure).

Rob Preece
Publisher, www.BooksForABuck.com

[HarryT]

Rob,

As an author and an avid reader myself, I agree 100% with every word that you say. Thank you for expressing it so cogently.

[JSWolf]

Morally, I don't think it's wrong to download an ebook if you have the dead tree edition. Legally, it's probably wrong. If I was to download HP7 as an ebook but I also bought the dead tree version, I would be ok with that.

Now, I know I can go to my library, place a reserve on HP7, when it's my time, read and and not have paid for it. If I was to download the ebook and read that, the author makes the same nothing as if I went to the library to get the book to read. Still having the ebook is illegal even if the author makes the same nothing.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Morally, I don't think it's wrong to download an ebook if you have the dead tree edition. Legally, it's probably wrong. If I was to download HP7 as an ebook but I also bought the dead tree version, I would be ok with that.

How about if there were a commercially available eBook? Would you buy that if you'd previously bought a paperbook version, or would you feel "morally justified" in downloading that without paying for it?

Now, I know I can go to my library, place a reserve on HP7, when it's my time, read and and not have paid for it. If I was to download the ebook and read that, the author makes the same nothing as if I went to the library to get the book to read. Still having the ebook is illegal even if the author makes the same nothing.

At the risk of repeating myself, it is a completely false analogy to compare borrowing a book from a library to downloading it from the internet. Firstly, every library from which someone borrows a book has bought that book, perhaps several copies of it. This HP eBook was created from photographs of a illegally-obtained manuscript which nobody paid for. It's a totally different situation. Secondly, in the UK at least, authors get paid for library loans on the basis of how many of their books are borrowed by libraries, nationwide, over the course of a year. Not a vast amount, but popular authors get a few thousand $.

[HeffeD]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

You've taken the misguided stand that "breaking the law" = "wrong".

Sometimes the law is in the wrong. That's why we have court systems.



Again, you have mistaken "downloading" with "stealing". If I have a paper copy of Harry Potter 7 on my desk that I legally purchased, how can downloading the eBook version be "stealing"? The author has received payment.

Wow! Do you think about some of these concepts before you type them? I believe I know who is the misguided one here...

Even in the vaguest interpretation of "fair use" laws, downloading an illegally distributed product simply because you happen to own a legal copy doesn't hold up. So you're saying if I purchase a car, I can have someone steal another one for me and I'm covered legally? I didn't "steal" anything... Somebody else did... The dealer still got their money from me, how could obtaining another "copy" through illegal channels be wrong? Just try to explain that to any judge...

I also find your argument of "value to the author" entertaining. Do you honestly believe that there is any business that does not pass "value to the originator" on to the consumer? Pure delusion... You can guarantee that any costs incurred in production of anything makes it's way downstream. The originator of the concept needs some specialized equipment? That goes under the umbrella of research and development. Yes, the specialized equipment has absolutely no value whatsoever to the end user, but it's necessary in creating the product, so the consumer is definitely going to pay for it. Any other method of thinking is simply naive.

Such equipment a cost of doing business? Absolutely not. If a business does not make money, it does not continue to exist. Every little cost a company incurs to produce something has to be paid for. Businesses exist to make money. Nobody can simply continue to pay for expenses out of pocket as a cost of doing business. That only lasts until you either go bankrupt or bleed your investors dry. Remember, the investors are in it to make money as well. You can count on the producer of any product including any "cost of doing business" as part of their fee. Sure, they may not include the total cost of a specialized item in a single purchase, but you can guarantee their base fee goes up as a whole.

It's a mind numbingly simply concept. Any business that can not overcome the "cost" associated with said business fails to be a business for very long.

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by HeffeD

Even in the vaguest interpretation of "fair use" laws, downloading an illegally distributed product simply because you happen to own a legal copy doesn't hold up.

Not true.

Under Fair Use, I may make a copy of my legally purchased media, under certain conditions. It's completely legal for me to create an eBook from my pBook. What's not legal under Fair Use is for me to distribute that copy.

So instead of spending all the time and energy, I simply download the eBook. The end result is the same. Therefore it's legal under Fair Use.

Originally Posted by HeffeD

So you're saying if I purchase a car, I can have someone steal another one for me and I'm covered legally?

As soon as you bring a physical object into the argument, your argument becomes invalid.

Nothing is being stolen. The person who bought the book still has the book. The person who wrote the book is still getting paid and still owns the book.

Legally speaking, copyright violation is not stealing.

Originally Posted by HeffeD

I also find your argument of "value to the author" entertaining. Do you honestly believe that there is any business that does not pass "value to the originator" on to the consumer?

You need to learn more about business. Just because something costs more doesn't mean that the consumer pays more.

But you missed my point: Just because there is a cost doesn't mean that it should be passed on to the customer.

As we have pointed out time and time again: eBooks that are priced at the same levels as pBooks simply don't sell well. Suckers only have so much money and when they've spent it, they don't buy more.

We know that eBooks simply do not have the same costs as pBooks. eBooks are significantly cheaper to produce. Therefore the price of eBooks should reflect that.

[ricdiogo]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

Just because something costs more doesn't mean that the consumer pays more.

Absolutely agree. Actually I do believe that the only way the industry can survive in the future is by providing the final consumer with free content.
The only reasons why people still prefer p-books to e-books today are:
--tradition/habits ("I love the smell of the paper");
--reference ("I love having them in my library so I can come back to them later")
--mistrust ("I'm not sure if I can read today's files in my computer 20 years from now")
--portability ("p-books are portable, e-books have to be read in my PC")
--e-reading devices high price ("Even if e.book reading devices were cheap and I could find them in every shop").
This all together makes e-books market limited to:
--geeks
--fans
--average income/rich people
--lazy people who prefer buying online than going to a bookstore
--pirats
E-book sellers use all of this in their favour. The market is so faithful that they can tag products with the prices they want. Also, p-publishers always have a physical product to sell where they can get money from. E-publishers however only have digital, easy to pirate products. So they also raise prices in order to compensate this because they know a simple hacker can overlap all DRMs.

However I believe that all of this is about to change when ebook reading devices get actually produced in mass for lower prices. Only _really_ extravagant or traditional people will still buy p-books (p-books are for the year 2025 as typewriter machines are for the 2000's).
Now, if everyone as a ebook reading device why will they buy an ebook if they can get them for free in P2P networks?
--Because they are loyal citizens, defenders of the Law and copyright?
--Because they trust more in e-books sold by e-publishers (better layouts, made by professionals, etc?)
I DON'T THINK SO...
Everyone is going to want everything for free. And authors/publishers have to find a new paradigm. Maybe supporting e-books with advertisement, maybe giving them away and allowing people to make donations (some authors already do this)... What I'm sure is that the market will have to change and only the more creative publishers/authors in giving away their products for free will survive.