Confessions of a Book Pirate

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Pardoz

5-6 readers per physical book has been the accepted industry rule of thumb for years (long before ebooks came along). Not sure where the figure originated or if it's based on anything more than a WAG, though.

I've heard of it before. Know of any sources that claim it? Like, articles about publishers where they mention using that as a rule of thumb to gauge market interest or number of suspected readers?

I want to put together a nice rant about one of the big problems with ebooks--no convenient way to give one to a friend when you're done--and it'd help to have *any* confirmation that publishers know very well that 1purchase=1reader has never been the expected norm.

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by Demented

I've been wondering about the semantic wording of the copy right laws. Technically it's perfectly legal for me to copy a DRM'd(or non-drm'd) work that I own and put it in as many places as I want on my computers or storage devices. So copying a copyrighted work isn't illegal, it is distributing the work that is illegal. Reading a copyrighted work that I don't own can't be illegal because we're allowed to do that every time we walk into a book store or using a friends copy of the work. So how can downloading a copyrighted file and reading it be 'illegal'. Shouldn't the act of distributing the file be the only illegal action?

The word copyright predates eBooks and electronic documents by hundreds of years. It originally was used to refer to the ability to either manually copy text or later to use a copy machine to make copies of test and refers to the limits to these tasks as well as the ability of the copyright owner to be able to license copies of their works.

What you are talking about is particular to the ability to make a backup copy of an electronic file which is fairly new in the grand scheme of things and it not covered specifically by copyright but rather a court ruling in the USA and is not a universal right but depends on where you live in the world.

Copyright on the other hand is a pretty much recognized legal right throughout the civilized world although the interpretation and length of protection differs from country to country.

Dale

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by Demented

I've been wondering about the semantic wording of the copy right laws. Technically it's perfectly legal for me to copy a DRM'd(or non-drm'd) work that I own and put it in as many places as I want on my computers or storage devices. So copying a copyrighted work isn't illegal, it is distributing the work that is illegal. Reading a copyrighted work that I don't own can't be illegal because we're allowed to do that every time we walk into a book store or using a friends copy of the work. So how can downloading a copyrighted file and reading it be 'illegal'. Shouldn't the act of distributing the file be the only illegal action?

First, there's quite a bit of the new possibilities that haven't been tested in court-so everybody who's saying "yes, it's legal" or "no, it's illegal" is voicing their opinion only. (That includes me.) For instance, reading a web site involves making a copy-but that's been ruled legal because it's (supposedly) a temporary copy only.

Second, much of the difference of opinion stems from a conflict in the law. Copyright law (interpreted by court cases) generally allows you to 'media-shift' a copy you own, for your own use-not for distribution. But the DMCA declares that it's illegal to circumvent copy-protection such as DRM, which makes it illegal to do something that copyright law says it's legal to do. Conflict-which law takes precedence?

As far as I know, that question has yet to be answered by the court system, so again, different people have different opinions. (I will note that other parts of the DMCA have been ruled unconstitutional however.)

So, does that answer your question about why it's both legal & illegal to make a copy, whether your distribute it or not?

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by troymc

I agree. It's difficult to find the middle-ground in such a polarized discussion. Even if the polarization is based on a false dichotomy.... when the argument is polarized, the feeling is that you have to be on one side or the other. And, those on the margins end up being pushed towards or willingly moving to one pole or the other even if it doesn't really represent their true position.

Well-said! (And welcome to Mobileread!)

Originally Posted by DaleDe

The word copyright predates eBooks and electronic documents by hundreds of years. It originally was used to refer to the ability to either manually copy text or later to use a copy machine to make copies of test and refers to the limits to these tasks as well as the ability of the copyright owner to be able to license copies of their works.

Is that right? The Statute of Anne dates to approximately 1709, well after the introduction of movable type in Europe (1436-1450). I wasn't aware that copyright had ever been used to refer to manual copies.

[BooksForABuck]

Regarding geographical issues,
Authors assign geographic rights to publishers. A publisher with, say, North American rights, has paid for those rights. If a publisher selling out of, say, India with India-only rights were to sell in the US, he'd essentially be selling something he didn't own. In contrast, if a corporation goes to Mexico and hires Mexican workers, he's buying something that the sellers legally own. As consumers, of course, we are free to look for that 'made in the USA' label. It isn't the same, however, when it comes to rights-based sales.

Rob Preece
BooksForABuck.com

[nekokami]

These days I'm not sure that kind of contract makes sense. The books sold in the US are usually printed in China or India anyway, and people from all over the world can discover and purchase books online. Perhaps authors (or agents) ought to be thinking about selling electronic rights only as a worldwide block.

[asjogren]

"A publisher with, say, North American rights, has paid for those rights. If a publisher selling out of, say, India with India-only rights were to sell in the US, he'd essentially be selling something he didn't own."

Yet, I can travel and buy a book where the publisher has no rights to sell in my home country.

Why is it OK when I travel physically, and not via the Internet? The Industry is trying to force fit an archaic model. And in doing so, making customers angry and foregoing sales. It is STUPID.

If the industry still wants to partition the marketplace, then LANGUAGE is the most appropriate delineation. And even then, I think it is a mistake.

[Dulin's Books]

Originally Posted by asjogren

Why is it OK when I travel physically, and not via the Internet? The Industry is trying to force fit an archaic model. And in doing so, making customers angry and foregoing sales. It is STUPID.

It's to protect jobs for resellers et al in the respective countries/regions. If there were no geographic restrictions then ebook sellers in countries where it is expensive to do business would go out of business from competition by those in other countries where the cost of business is less.

[Mitchll]

All this is blather....there is no justification for theft of a literary work, whether it is the failure to return a book to the library, or walking out of the store with a book under your coat.

On the other hand, claiming 9,000,000 or some equally absurd or uncheckable number of ebooks being pirated as a denial of income to authors or publishers is equally absurd. These hardworking folks gain no further compensation when I buy a used book or borrow a book from a friend or library. It's just that ebooks are easier to lend or recirculate.

That's no less progress than the printing press allowing multi copies of "rare" or "sacred" texts done by monks on scrolls.

[Demented]

What I'm asking is in what law does it state that it is illegal for me to download or read a copyrighted work that I haven't purchased. People do it all the time by loaning books or watching other peoples DVD's. I understand that it illegal to distribute copyrighted works, but in the act of downloading a book from a file share or whatever, what law am I breaking. Even if you break it down on a purely physical level. The distributor is sending me the bytes and I am saving them. At no point am I 'cloning' the file. As far as I know, the only prosecutions have been targeted at people who made files available for download, not the actual consumer side of the equation. In fact, I've had the publisher give away non-drm'd copies of books such as Elantris with no prohibition on distribution, yet the book is still under copyright and I have no 'receipt'.

[Kirtai]

Originally Posted by Guns4Hire

So quite a bit of revenue is being generated by this friend of mine the pirate. And I have to wonder without his recommendations if I would of ever stumbled onto these books.

This reminds me of Eric Flints writings on how the biggest threat to authors isn't piracy, it's obscurity.

[asjogren]

"If there were no geographic restrictions then ebook sellers in countries where it is expensive to do business would go out of business from competition by those in other countries where the cost of business is less."

That would be OK if we had
1) Protected the jobs of the textile industry
2) Protected the jobs of the manufacturing industry
3) Protected the jobs of the Call Center industry
4) Protected the jobs of the software industry

But, of course we did not. And I am certain I missed a number of jobs that big business off shored to save wages, taxes, and regulations.

Should the eBook industry be special? If business actively plays the global market, why can't customers?

[Guns4Hire]

Originally Posted by Kirtai

This reminds me of Eric Flints writings on how the biggest threat to authors isn't piracy, it's obscurity.

Yeah Eric Flint has a pretty unique look on it. He definitely has a forward thinking view. And why not. To just continue like its not going on or to rage against it isn't going to change anything (look at the RIAA they are worse off than than before). These publishers and authors have to compete with it (they do it now) so why not change the game.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Pardoz

5-6 readers per physical book has been the accepted industry rule of thumb for years (long before ebooks came along). Not sure where the figure originated or if it's based on anything more than a WAG, though.

Just as a funny side note.....

Here in Australia the term "WAG" refers to "Wives And Girlfriends".

So when I read your post for the first time I thought you meant the figured originated from some wife or girlfriend of a publisher!

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

Hmm, so if I *can* steal your car it's OK to do so?

That is one argument against piracy I just can't get behind. If I steal your car, you are deprived of the use of it. If I copy your ebook, you still have it, still can sell it, still can do what ever you want with it, you just did not make any money off me.

The other question is, of each pirated copy of something, would that have been a sale otherwise?