Could the Kindle spark book piracy?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by bingle

So, you're drawing a distinction between someone performing the action of copying for themselves, and having a company do it for them. What is the relevant moral principle that you see in play here, the essential difference that makes that line?

I do not see the reason either. Especially for your example number 5 were I assume the company distributing all the files have the right to do it to the persons that have bought the material (but the buyer has no expicit contractual right to download a copy). It is very hard to see why the downloading in that case should be morally different from making your own copy.

[Panurge]

This is probably a dead issue by now in the conversation, but "piracy" is a word that originally was used to refer to the unauthorized reproduction of books as early as the 18th century. It referred to printers (publishers), especially in Holland, who printed editions of books that could not be regulated because they were outside their countries of origin. The author, of course, was not compensated. Pirating also occurred within the same same country in which the book originated. The most notorious in the first half of the 18th century was Edmund Curll. Sometimes authors could use "pirates" to their advantage. When Alexander Pope and Jonathan Swift decided to publish their correspondence but were hesitant to do so because they thought it might seem immodest, they simply "leaked" copies to Curll, who obliging brought out "incorrect copies," thus making it imperative that the authors issue correct editions. So back then, even pirates had their uses.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by Panurge

This is probably a dead issue by now in the conversation, but "piracy" is a word that originally was used to refer to the unauthorized reproduction of books as early as the 18th century. It referred to printers (publishers), especially in Holland, who printed editions of books that could not be regulated because they were outside their countries of origin. The author, of course, was not compensated. Pirating also occurred within the same same country in which the book originated. The most notorious in the first half of the 18th century was Edmund Curll. Sometimes authors could use "pirates" to their advantage. When Alexander Pope and Jonathan Swift decided to publish their correspondence but were hesitant to do so because they thought it might seem immodest, they simply "leaked" copies to Curll, who obliging brought out "incorrect copies," thus making it imperative that the authors issue correct editions. So back then, even pirates had their uses.

Can you provide a source for this? With all due respect, this sounds like something Big Content made up to justify its use of the word. If it's not, then it would be a very interesting historical footnote.

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Can you provide a source for this? With all due respect, this sounds like something Big Content made up to justify its use of the word. If it's not, then it would be a very interesting historical footnote.

According to Wikipedia, the term "piracy" is applied to creative works in the Berne Copyright Convention:

"See Berne Copyright Convention, 1886: "Pirated works may be seized on importation into those countries of the Union where the original work enjoys legal protection." (Art. 12)."

But I would still argue the Big Content applied the term to make the unauthorized use of works appear worse. After all, Berne was the start of Copyright Maximalism.

[voldav]

hi, everybody

[Penforhire]

Bingle, I've tried to get Steve to express this distinction in other threads without success. I suspect our ethics just differ but we're at least on the same page. I would refine your example situation slightly.

If the company who provides you the e-version (MP3 or e-book) is paid to provide you that conversion then I'd agree with Steve that something a bit unethical happens. But if they provide it at no tangible benefit to themselves then I step fully over to what I assume is your view, no harm done (legal and ethical).

At the heart of the matter, my self-scanned bits (after OCR correction) are not any different than your self-scanned bits of the same text. The concept of "blood money" does not apply here.

[catsittingstill]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

If you'd ordered a book that turned out to be an ugly hardback, you wouldn't consider it okay to walk into the bookstore or library and just take a paperback copy for free. (And neither would the store or library. Ask them.) To balance out the cost, you'd return one and use the refund to buy the other.

Hey! You can *do* this? Cool! I'd be happy to return some of the paper books I bought and use the refund to buy e-books. Where do I go to sign up?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by tompe

I do not see the reason either. Especially for your example number 5 were I assume the company distributing all the files have the right to do it to the persons that have bought the material (but the buyer has no expicit contractual right to download a copy). It is very hard to see why the downloading in that case should be morally different from making your own copy.

I think the issue there is the fact that, given the state of the market, you can't always "assume" the company in example 5 actually has the right to copy or distribute those files. Because it is so potentially easy for those files to be "leaked out," the creators (like JKR) often don't grant that right to anyone, or grant it only to a select few (mostly DRM'd distributors).

This is the overriding legal/ethical issue here, the concern that these copies will be out of the creators' control without their permission. That's the reason for these laws, and my personal stance on them. It's also up to the law to decide whether this needs to change, and amend the law to take a different stance with digital copies. Obviously, re: the RIAA vs Thomas case, they won't be doing that anytime soon.

It is up to the company copying and distributing files to prove that they have legal permission, which they can only obtain from the creator. Even if they are doing it for free, they need to demonstrate that they are doing it with permission. Otherwise, they (and you) can be contributing to releasing unauthorized copies, which is wrong.

Obviously, it's up to you to care one way or the other. But if that company is shown to have acted without permission, they are liable for copyright infringement. If a copy you obtained from them gets out, you are liable.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by catsittingstill

Hey! You can *do* this? Cool! I'd be happy to return some of the paper books I bought and use the refund to buy e-books. Where do I go to sign up?

So far, the only you're going to be able to do that is to take your p-book back to the store for a refund, then go buy your e-book (probably) elsewhere.

Here's an idea: An e-book site that will accept your print book, mailed to them, and credit your e-book purchase for it! Then they can resell the print book. Now there's a service!

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Here's an idea: An e-book site that will accept your print book, mailed to them, and credit your e-book purchase for it! Then they can resell the print book. Now there's a service!

It's a great idea. But what if the print book isn't available as a legal ebook? That's the case with most of my collection, sadly.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by nekokami

It's a great idea. But what if the print book isn't available as a legal ebook? That's the case with most of my collection, sadly.

One just has to accept it as an unfortunate fact and live with it. With my pBooks, I prefer to buy hardbacks. Some of my favourite books are not available in HB.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by nekokami

It's a great idea. But what if the print book isn't available as a legal ebook? That's the case with most of my collection, sadly.

Well, I never said the idea was perfect! Yes, it only works for books that are available as e-books... everyone else is out of luck.

Maybe, someday, a company will work out a way to take in a print book and directly convert it to an e-book for a reasonable price (and with due authorization from the original publisher--I'd bet the publisher would make them return or pulp the print book afterward!). Most likely, though, you'd be better off doing it yourself.

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Maybe, someday, a company will work out a way to take in a print book and directly convert it to an e-book for a reasonable price (and with due authorization from the original publisher--I'd bet the publisher would make them return or pulp the print book afterward!). Most likely, though, you'd be better off doing it yourself.

I wish somebody would! I think a central operation for this would have efficiencies (being able to use one scan for multiple customers) that would make it an improvement over doing it yourself.

It would be nice if the publishers would also let the company sell ebooks outright after they'd scanned them-- with an appropriate cut to the publisher and author, of course. That could make the operation worthwhile from a business standpoint, as well as dramatically increasing the size of the ebook catalog and reducing the appeal of the darknet.

[JSWolf]

What about the people who purchase some ebooks and pirate the rest?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by RWood

As more people have ebook readers, more will look for free sources. The rise of piracy will be a direct result.

One thing that will help this issue is some not knowing how to convert. Some of the ebooks being a real mess, and some being in a format that one cannot properly convert. I've seen some of the mess out there and it can really be that bad. If you want a good read, a lot of the books will have to be purchased or you'll be sitting with the pbook verifying the ebook.