Could the Kindle spark book piracy?

[mdibella]

I just don't get it, really. I don't buy books for the purpose of having many piles of bound paper bricks all over my house. I buy the content. The paper is merely a delivery mechanism.

Mr Jordan is, I think, going to have a difficult time convincing the iPod generation that the physical format of purchased content is any more meaningful than the box my iPod came in. I unpacked my iPod and tossed the box in my recycle bin.

We're approaching a time when people will be able to recycle those piles of books (my husband will be so happy, he keeps tripping over the durn things) after transforming the content into something that can be stored on a hard drive and tossed in a drawer.

In that context, it is difficult for me to understand the need to repurchase the content I've already paid for just because I can't easily get it out of the 'box' it came in.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by mdibella

In that context, it is difficult for me to understand the need to repurchase the content I've already paid for just because I can't easily get it out of the 'box' it came in.

Again, because the content you downloaded is not the same item as the content you bought in the store (as proven by the fact that you can play one without touching the other). They are two distinct entities, and you are required to pay for both.

People have a hard time accepting speed limits, too. However, when car accidents and deaths result, people decide to accept police action, ie, ticketing speeders, in the name of public safety.

People also have a hard time accepting having to pay for something they want. But when they realize that anarchy helps society not a bit, they accept the fact that things should be paid for, for the sake of an ethical society.

You can keep arguing for free stuff and anarchy all you want, but the fact is that the rest of society has already voted you down. Get used to paying for stuff.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I wouldn't be so sure about that; read the "Fair Use" article I posted a link to previously. Of course, in practical terms, nobody is going to prosecute you for scanning a book that you've bought for your own personal use, but it's not clear at all that this constitutes "fair use". Scanning a small portion of the book would, but the whole thing? That's far from clear.

The fourth factor measures the effect that the allegedly infringing use has had on the copyright owner's ability to exploit his original work.

The pbook was purchased. The ebook is in PDF. The ebook may not be useful at all. No portable readers can handle DRM PDF. So the publisher by format limiting is making it possibly impossible to legally obtain an ebook copy. Now, if it was self converted to an ebook no effect on the author would happen. If it was downloaded from a copy someone else made, no effect on the author since the illegal copy might not be usable anyway. Now, if the legal ebook copy was one that 100% could be used, then downloading would be wrong. But in this case, the tower of ebable has done a disservice. Now, if we were to get ebooks and pbooks released on the same day, this issue of "I bought the pbook because of no ebook edition and then the ebook came out which is what I wanted" would not be an issue. What we need is if an ebook is due to come out of a given title then I think there should be someplace to go look to see if that is true. Maybe on the publisher's website. I know for a fact, I can go to Simon & Schuster's website and look up a newly printed book and I can find out if an ebook is out or going to come out. But do most publishers do this? Not at all. That is part of the problem. People feel cheated. They feel they were not given a choice. That the information that an ebook edition was due to be released after the pbook was was withheld. That's unfair practices. Then the publisher has the audacity to demand you pay for the ebook after you have already paid for the pbook based on the publisher's fauly lack of information. If the information was there from the start, it would give consumers the ability to make an informed decision. But they don't all do that. They just do what they do and the consumer be dammed. Well, in this case, morally, I don't see an issue to find an ebook copy since the publisher withheld information that allows the consumer to make an informed choice.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

I think piracy will increase, now that so many textbooks are available.

Which age group has the largest concentration of pirates? college students
What do they spend $400 to $800 on each semester? textbooks
If an illegal copy is known to be available, how likely is it that the average student will get it?

To be honest, I don't see any of the portable readers to be good enough for textbooks. So I don't think that will matter. What I see if people grabbing an ebook textbook, trying it, finding it's not good enough and then going to go get the print edition.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

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).

Do you really mean that it is morally wrong of me to get a scanned electronic copy (that a friend has scanned) from a friend of a book I own a paper copy of? It is definitely not illegal where I am living.

[mdibella]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Again, because the content you downloaded is not the same item as the content you bought in the store (as proven by the fact that you can play one without touching the other). They are two distinct entities, and you are required to pay for both.

How do you figure that? As near as I can tell, they are identical. Using the iPod analogy again, I can play my CDs without having to touch them, too.

The thing I 'touch' when I read a physical book is paper, nothing more than a delivery mechanism for the content. If that weren't true, I would not have to buy more than one book, ever. I'd have a book and not need any more, because they'd all be the same. (and oh, what a happy hubby I would have...). When I buy a book, I am not buying the paper and ink, I am buying a license to read and enjoy the content.

I seems to me that authors would have a lot more objections to things like public libraries, which share the content by lending out the physical container. You don't get any money from the additional readership. At least I am buying my books, every one of them. If I want to download the content so I can discard the container (which takes up a lot of space if you have enough of them), I do not see how that is in any way unfair to the author.

Mind you, I say I would discard (recycle, actually) the books, not sell them. I will readily agree that if I sold the book (or even gave it away), it would be wrong for me to hang onto an electronic copy of the content.

[Bierius]

I voted 'yes'. My reasoning...

I see it like this. Increase the number of e-reader devices and you will increase the total number of pirated ebook downloads.

However, this is in absolute numbers only! In my opinion the kindle will drastically decrease the proportion of pirated ebooks downloaded vs legal downloads. As a whole the publishing industry and authors will benefit greatly from devices such as the kindle. Well, providing they allow customers based outside of the US to give them their money.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Well, in this case, morally, I don't see an issue to find an ebook copy since the publisher withheld information that allows the consumer to make an informed choice.

Though it would be nice for a publisher to tell its customers everything they're going to do in advance, they are under no obligation to do so... any more than your corner grocery is obligated to tell you about a hamburger sale before it happens. So, if you buy hamburger today, and tomorrow it goes on sale... oh, well.

Originally Posted by tompe

Do you really mean that it is morally wrong of me to get a scanned electronic copy (that a friend has scanned) from a friend of a book I own a paper copy of? It is definitely not illegal where I am living.

Since I consider an e-book as valid and substantial a copy as a printed book, to me, that means you obtained two copies of a book, and only paid for one. I would consider that morally wrong. Of course, if Sweden has passed laws that say that is OK, then feel free to do what is legal for you. (Obviously, if I don't agree with that law, I would avoid moving to Sweden.)

Originally Posted by mdibella

How do you figure that? As near as I can tell, they are identical. Using the iPod analogy again, I can play my CDs without having to touch them, too.

Two paperbacks are identical. But you are not entitled to one for free, just because you bought the other. Does iTunes let you have MP3s for free because you own the CD? Nope.

Again, my opinion is that an e-book is just as substantial as a printed book. It is an instance of a concept, as a paperback is an instance, a hardback is an instance, a stone tablet is an instance, and a movie is an instance. You should pay for each instance. The amount of trouble it took (or did not take) to create that instance is immaterial to the consumer. You are free to debate or accept the price, but ultimately it is the creator that sets the price. Your legal, moral and ethical choice is limited to buying it or not. Taking it for free because it's easy is not a moral or ethical argument. But it is a legal argument, if your country (like Sweden) says you can.

In the U.S., the law says you can't.

[Nate the great]

I have a hypothetical situation for you, Steve. Let's say I bought an ebook from you. I download it, and copy it to my ebook reader.

I now have two copies, one on my PC and the other on the reader. Should I pay you for the second copy?

Why can't the same principle apply for a pbook and an ebook? If the content has been paid for, why does the consumer have to buy it a second time?



The problem, as I see it, is that CDs and MP3s have changed how some people look at electronic content. A CD is little different from a collection of MP3s. If someone owns the one, they will not pay for the second because they can get it so easily. This viewpoint has bled into the ebook market.

[wgrimm]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

People also have a hard time accepting having to pay for something they want. But when they realize that anarchy helps society not a bit, they accept the fact that things should be paid for, for the sake of an ethical society.

You can keep arguing for free stuff and anarchy all you want, but the fact is that the rest of society has already voted you down. Get used to paying for stuff.

I don't agree with this. We all buy alot of things and don't have a hard time doing so. I think people DO have a hard time paying for stuff when they believe that they are being blatantly ripped off. That's one of the reasons for the success of the Ipod- people could convert their music to Ipod format, easily. My guess is if this were not possible, and they were forced to re-buy all of the music they wanted to listen to, that they would have been pretty upset and the Ipod wouldn't have been the success it is.

[wgrimm]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

I have a hypothetical situation for you, Steve. Let's say I bought an ebook from you. I download it, and copy it to my ebook reader.

I now have two copies, one on my PC and the other on the reader. Should I pay you for the second copy?

Why can't the same principle apply for a pbook and an ebook? If the content has been paid for, why does the consumer have to buy it a second time?

And this is the crux of the matter. The ipod has been so successful because you are not forced to buy content again for the device, if you already own it. Hey, I'll pay for content, and have for years. But I absolutely refuse to pay for the same content more than one time. It's unfair, and it is lining the pockets of a few entities at my expense.

I own alot of ebooks bought at ereader. I re-read alot of them over time. I absolutely refuse to EVER buy one of these books in a different e-format.

IMHO, we will see some sanity in the ebook market coming from overseas at first. Rumour is that CHina is looking to replace paper texts with etexts. The textbook market is where I see this sanity emerging. Ebooks can be great, they can have alot of beneficial effects. But if the publishers cling to their old model, and expect us to pay almost the same price for an ebook as a pbook, while at the same time depriving us our rights (right to resell, etc.), then there won't be an ebook market of consequence. Consumers, as an entity, aren't this stupid.

Ipod's success? Well, if you buy a music cd, you can convert it to Ipod or anything else you want, again and again. You can make a backup of the cd on hard drive so you have a good copy if your cd is scratched. You pay for content one time, and can use it on different devices that you own. For $15 or $20 for a cd, that's fair.

And here is what some book publishers tell us- you spend $24 for my hardcover edition, you must spend $20 for an electronic version ofr your palmpilot. And if you buy a kindle, baby, shell out more cash to read on that. And if the Kindle disappears ever, and you still want to read the book you have already purchased, shell out more cash for a new format.

Given that the population that regularly buys books is a much smaller one than that which regularly buys music, well, this doesn't seem to be a strategy that will lead to market success.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by mdibella

I just don't get it, really. I don't buy books for the purpose of having many piles of bound paper bricks all over my house. I buy the content. The paper is merely a delivery mechanism.

Exactly... and you've already had it delivered once. Does asking for another one to be delivered mean that second delivery should be free?

It's clear to me that many of you simply consider an e-book (and, by extention, an MP3) to be essentially worthless, because it's not on paper (or disc), and therefore, it should be free for all. You also don't consider an e-book (or MP3) to be the equal of a printed book or CD, despite repeatedly saying that they are "the same" in content. Obviously, I don't consider that a practical, sensible, logical or ethical argument, and I'd like to point out that while you all are trying to convince me that I am wrong, you have made little headway in convincing me that you are right.

So: Explain to me how something that is "essentially content," and is considered worth something in one format, is worth nothing in an electronic format.

Explain to me why the production cost of a piece of content dictates the worth of that content, and how it impacts the compensation due to the creator.

Explain why it is a consumer's business what a creator pays to produce something.

Explain why it is okay for someone who is not connected to a creator, and does not know the creator's wishes, to reproduce that creator's work and resell it or give it away.

Explain why it is okay for someone who does not like a creator to reproduce that creator's work and resell it or give it away to spite them.

Explain why a creator should not have any say in how their creation is produced, or what it costs.

And finally, explain how it is right to take something for free, because you are not satisfied with something's cost or format.

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by wgrimm

Given that the population that regularly buys books is a much smaller one than that which regularly buys music, well, this doesn't seem to be a strategy that will lead to market success.

And that's the crux of this whole "piracy" matter.

For literally hundreds of years, customers have been able to pay and own a copy of some content. We pay for a book and we own that book - forever - and can read that book again and again - forever.

The content owners (not necessarily authors) have never liked this. They do not want consumers to ever own a copy. They want consumers to pay every time they want to enjoy the content. They only want consumers to rent content.

[brecklundin]

hmmm...to me this is a simply issue...it is fine to have a personal backup of any electronic content one has licensed. But there is no reason someone should be allowed an electronic copy of a book simply because one has the hard-copy on a shelf. Electronic copies are just a different edition of a book, as in hardback vs. paperback. But making a scanned copy of a hard-copy book as a personal backup might seem be fine to most of us...but really since one is changing the delivery system of the content, the author & parasites...errr, I mean...publishers, should have a valid complaint. But a photocopy as a backup should be fine, but likely much more expensive then just buying a new copy if ours is destroyed.

I bet if authors retained the e-rights to their works then made the content directly available at a reasonable price most of us would be happy to pay for the e-version even if we own the hard copy of our favs.

One problem is there is so much content with no current e-versions or even the hope of e-versions anytime in the near future. For me personally that is a problem as I can no longer hold books (or anything else) in my hands for more then a few moments at a time...hence I am a HUGE fan of the ebook options and increasing the selection of both devices and content...

We should all SUPPORT the authors efforts to get ebook versions out there for all of their works...and also be compensated for that edition of their works.

Beyond that all I really read here are circular arguments.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Since I consider an e-book as valid and substantial a copy as a printed book, to me, that means you obtained two copies of a book, and only paid for one. I would consider that morally wrong. Of course, if Sweden has passed laws that say that is OK, then feel free to do what is legal for you. (Obviously, if I don't agree with that law, I would avoid moving to Sweden.)

Well, you said previously that it was morally OK if you scanned the book yourself. But here you seem to contradict that or? What I do not get is the difference between doing the scan yourself or just copying your friends scan.

The laws i am referring to are the same laws that makes it legal to copy a music CD and give it to friends and family. And you cannot say that you have thousands of friends and use that law.