E-Book Piracy: The Publishing Industry's Next Epic Saga?

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Well-said, Happ. Yes, this is an economics issue... economics is the exact reason copyright was invented... and any changes or revisions to copyright law will always be intended to maximize its economic potential, not to weaken it. After all, we are talking about things that people do not have to buy or use to survive, they are life-optional products. There is no logical reason to deny their creators the opportunity to profit, as long as the public has the choice to simply not buy.



True: Movie-makers spend millions on a movie, expecting it to make it back in box-office sales; the bigger the budget, the bigger the effort to get you to the theatre to see it. But as more people enjoy movies at home and stop going to the theatres, we can expect that movies will begin to drop in price as they cannot have their costs recouped in theatre sales... or that DVD prices will increase to make up the difference. The DVD ads will make up for the rest of the cost.

I agree, ad-subsidization is the future of mass-market e-book sales, either directly attached to the e-book, or displayed in the sales portals. Concerns about said ads being "obtrusive" are, I think, justified, but people have already demonstrated that they will put up with a lot for cheap and free content.

Think of the last DVD you bought that forced you to watch at least 1 preview or ad before allowing you to go to the main content... how many people take those DVDs back to the store, or publicly malign the sellers, because of it? And how many just watch the previews?

No, ads are rarely popular. Neither are flu shots. But they provide a service with very small down-sides, so they will always be with us.

Tell me that the next time some publisher sells 40,000 copies of a paperback and somehow manages to calculate the author (who may well have received $5,000 in advance money) still owes far too much to receive any royalties.

But then, when you figure that a hefty chunk of every book's price goes to the retail stores or the distributors, it's no wonder publishers are loathe to shell out a higher percentage to the average author.

It's authors what do all the perspiration and birthing and they're the most aggrieved in the whole 'piracy' chain.

Derek

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Well-said, Happ. Yes, this is an economics issue... economics is the exact reason copyright was invented...

Again, not quite correct. The first modern copyright law, the Statute of Anne, explicitly stated it's has two purposes - one economic, and the other to encourage creativity. It's changed over time, certainly, but please don't state it was originally entirely an economic issue!


"There's a reason why copyright has lasted for as long as it has"

Sure, because mistakes were made and it became possible to reassign copyright (rather than just certain rights, and yes I know this varies in different media), hence creating corporations holding large amounts of copyright material and which they then defend because of its economic value.


Ralph Sir Edward - Heck, you're seeing the organised face now. Simply dismissing them is a bad mistake.

The Pirate Party's are growing very rapidly - the original Swedish one is not the third largest party-by-membership, their youth organisation is the largest in Sweden (of *any* youth organisation), they have 2 MEP's (of Sweden's 20) after taking 7% of the vote and are widely expected to take quite a few seats in Sweden's 2010 elections.

Sure, they're the leading edge but especially in Germany they're not far behind - they captured 2% of the national vote in this years Elections, have a parliamentary seat and several seats on regional councils.

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by tompe

You know that that is not the reason copyright was created. It was created as something unwanted but maybe necessary that should stimulate creating creation in a way that all the bad effects was as small as possible. If some other method can be found to stimulate creatin than that could be used instead.

Creativity happens! I know, I'm sitting here staring at my manuscript and letting the plot boil (more like low simmer right this moment) in my brain as I comment. I've yet to see a dime on any of the three novels I'm birthing, and yet I've got a file of other ideas queueing up for their shot at stardom. I can't STOP having ideas.

Making money on those ideas... That's an entirely different proposition.

Derek

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Again, not quite correct. The first modern copyright law, the Statute of Anne, explicitly stated it's has two purposes - one economic, and the other to encourage creativity. It's changed over time, certainly, but please don't state it was originally entirely an economic issue!

Do you think "encouraging creativity" is only good for bragging rights? Creativity is intended to provide society a new creation, for the betterment of society, and that is considered to be an (ultimately) economic benefit.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

And whose fault is that? It's yours and mine, because we did not vote honest people into office, we did not vote into law regulations that would prevent corporations and lobbyists from influencing government, and we allowed Congress to build itself a house of impermeable luxury that guaranteed they wouldn't suffer for anything either during or ever after their tenure.

We voted for any liar that said they'd lower taxes, and let them do the rest. This is what we got. You can't blame the bull for crashing through your china shop, when you let them in...

I'm beginning to really like this guy....jus' sayin'

[msundman]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Before the copyright system [...]

That copyright "won" over those archaic systems is really not any merit to speak of, especially not in the world of today. I see no way those could form the basis for the claim that copyright has "been proven over time to work better than any other method for stimulating creation", at least not in the context of whether copyright is good or not now (as opposed to in the far past).

[hidari]

Lazy Scott- Sorry, but this is a weak reason, being an author is a privilege not a right. A writer should be happy to even have a creative job.

p. 49:
Quote:
“ … authors … are seldom able to make any considerable addition to their fortunes by the sale of their works, but are often so poorly indemnified for their labour, as to be obliged to give up the execution of noble and useful designs.”

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

And whose fault is that? It's yours and mine, because we did not vote honest people into office, we did not vote into law regulations that would prevent corporations and lobbyists from influencing government, and we allowed Congress to build itself a house of impermeable luxury that guaranteed they wouldn't suffer for anything either during or ever after their tenure.

We voted for any liar that said they'd lower taxes, and let them do the rest. This is what we got. You can't blame the bull for crashing through your china shop, when you let them in...

If I have the choice of Gene "Mr.Clean" Latrine or John "The Louse" Outhouse, even in the primaries, and a media who deliberately dodges corruption of politicians who views they like, explain to me how I am supposed to get honest politicians elected?

<Karma bump for the first person to post where those names came from>

As to any liar who promises to lower taxes, the media and the MAFIAA have been consistently and strongly for the party wanting to raise taxes and pass all sorts of freedom limiting laws....

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Do you think "encouraging creativity" is only good for bragging rights? Creativity is intended to provide society a new creation, for the betterment of society, and that is considered to be an (ultimately) economic benefit.

Only if you take the value that there is no inherent value in the arts and creative disciplines. Equating the betterment of society with purely economic aims is... very American (no offence, but it is). Certainly not in English society at the time of the Statute of Anne.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Only if you take the value that there is no inherent value in the arts and creative disciplines. Equating the betterment of society with purely economic aims is... very American (no offence, but it is). Certainly not in English society at the time of the Statute of Anne.

Yeah, ri-ight. Because, after all, no one's ever cared a thing about goofy ideas like "economy" except... Americans.

But that's understandable. After all, Americans invented money. It was Ben Franklin's idea. Then he told John Adams, and he went and invented the bank. And from then on, we introduced the entire planet to the concept of making more money, primarily by stealing it from those who were weaker than us. Absolutely nothing has value in America, unless it's economic value. And we're sooo frustrated that the rest of you countries haven't figured out how to properly waste your money like we do... heck, you can't even give it a proper name!

So.

Now that we've got the pointless copyright-debating and nationality-bashing out of the way, maybe you could get back to the topic at hand...

[DawnFalcon]

That is the topic at hand. Quite apart from your revealing little rant there showing your politics nicely, it's entirely to the point that you've not managed to disprove my contention.

If you were right, then why would the Statute of Anne mention encouraging creativity separately from it's economic rationale? Oh right, it wouldn't, and hence it's a separate aim of the legislation (which is perfectly understandable given the society of the day, as well).

While moral rights per-se come from civil and not common rights systems, you can see it's influence, along with the French droit d'auteur in the wording and aims of and of the nearly-two-centuries later Berne Convention - which America only signed up to late and with reservations.

[Krystian Galaj]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Not at all. Maximizing the economic potential, both for the creator, and for the people who will benefit from the existence and use of the creation, is the point of copyright. Having a valuable creation available to be purchased and used is considered (in the long view) to be of economic benefit to the public.

This idea assumes, of course, that the public "benefits" from being able to read Harry Potter or watch a Disney DVD. It does not assume that the public has been "disadvantaged" because they had to pay for the product... supposedly, the enjoyment from the product should equal (or surpass) the cost of the product, making the net transaction positive, or advantageous. Whether it does, or not, is a marketing issue.

(text marked bold)

That would imply that with all the orphan works still covered by copyright but not printed and not available to the public for years, and authors like J. K. Rowling using the fact that they have copyright to keep the books away from e-readers, copyright is currently harmful to the public?

Perhaps there should be some addition to the copyright law that would make the copyright owner lose the copyright, if he tried to use this right to make work unavailable to the public.

[LDBoblo]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Equating the betterment of society with purely economic aims is... very American (no offence, but it is). Certainly not in English society at the time of the Statute of Anne.

It's also quite famously Chinese, even before the USA was of any consequence to the world. In fact, economy has had this kind of role in a great many older societies, only superficially masked with altruism to make it more digestible.

Not talking about Statute of Anne, but attributing financial obsession with America is a bit unfair, and quite untrue.

[kacir]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Copyright was created in order to guarantee a creator a financial benefit from his or her creation for a set period of time, in order to give them the financial incentive to create in the first place (instead of blowing it off and continuing to till their fields), and to benefit society with their creations. No more and no less.

Copyright was created to protect guy with a printing press from another guy with a printing press.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

Perhaps there should be some addition to the copyright law that would make the copyright owner lose the copyright, if he tried to use this right to make work unavailable to the public.

You are saying that you believe that everything which is written should be "made available" to the public? So if I want to write (let's say) a private diary, and keep it to myself, I should lose my copyright through doing so?

That seems the most extraordinary suggestion to me. There is no "right of access" to a copyrighted work; if I chose to write something and keep it to myself, that is my absolute right (until 70 years after my death).