Could the Kindle spark book piracy?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by nekokami

Format shifting is legal in the US with regards to music, and by extension, probably books as well.

It's not that clear-cut. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

[wgrimm]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Why didn't you just buy the eBook version in the first place? You would have saved $20, and had something that was more convenient to carry around.

I'm a little unclear about why you say that you are being "required" to repurchase it; nobody is going to force you to do so. All you have to do is make the decision as to whether having the eBook is worth $49 to you. If it is, buy it, if it isn't, don't. Is is "ethical" to take the eBook without paying for it? Personally I'd say not. Is it legal? Absolutely not!

There was no e-book version at the time I purchased the paper version. I might have considered buying it, even though it is published in a DRM'd .pdf format. Thanks to the "pirates," I can now grab a copy in .chm, which is easy to put on a reader. I am a paying customer, but all thye publisher has done is make things difficult and expensive for me, and forces me to deal with a crappy DRM scheme if I want to legally purchase their e-book. No wonder the ebook market is thriving.....

Now, I AM being required to repurchase the book if I want to have it in an e-format. Force me to do so? No, of course not. But, since I already own the p-book, at least according to US law, I CAN legally have an e-book format- what the heck is the difference whether I scan it in myself or download it from the net? Like a music cd- if I own it, I can have it in mp3 format. And ethically, I think I am justified also. Look at it this way- if I was a bad guy, a horrible "ebook pirate," I would have just grabbed an un-DRMd pirate copy of the book, period. No cash in for the publisher. As it stands, the publisher already got my $70- no way am I going to be a sap and send him $50 more. If that's what he expects, he will lose my business altogether.

[wgrimm]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Why didn't you just buy the eBook version in the first place? You would have saved $20, and had something that was more convenient to carry around.

Look, I wouldn't mind paying, say, $5 for an e-book copy of a paper book I own, given that the ebook is not DRMd. But as a consumer, I am not going to support any idiot schemes that require crappy DRM or allow a publisher to rip me off.

Furthermore, I am very surprised that no one mentions library services in these discussions- like Safari from O'Reilly. I have belonged to several of these over the years and- if I wanted- could have copied all of the books they have. Aren't these a huige source for piracy?

When one considers digital media, given the fact that it costs nothing to produce a new copy, some of the old economic rules have to be reconsidered.
It seems that producers want to keep only the old rules that benefit them. For example, the customer must pay almost paper book prices for the e-book, but he does not have the right to return or resell the e-book. The reality of the digital marketplace is that you have sunk costs (the costs required to actually produce the work) and you have extremely minimal dfistribution costs- you don't have to buy paper and ink, etc. You aren't offering a tangible physical product, so your prices should go down. But greed steps in at this point, and the publisher thinks- hey, I can increase profit per copy sold tremewndously, because I have just eliminated raw resource cost, transportation cost, etc. The reality of this situation is that market forces will drive prices down and, in the end, publishers distributing electronically will probably make about the same amount per work as they do
under the old system.

And hopefully books might get better as a result. Publishers should realize that, with today's digital technology, the ONLY real function they serve is as a filtering mechanism- to keep the real crap off of our electronic bookshelves. I think we'll see more authors going off on their own, sans publisher, once they are established in the e-market....

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by wgrimm

There was no e-book version at the time I purchased the paper version.

I see the issue now!

But, since I already own the p-book, at least according to US law, I CAN legally have an e-book format

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.

- what the heck is the difference whether I scan it in myself or download it from the net?

Because the version that's on the net is illegal. Creating a legal version yourself is an entirely different thing from download an illegal one.

Like a music cd- if I own it, I can have it in mp3 format. And ethically, I think I am justified also. Look at it this way- if I was a bad guy, a horrible "ebook pirate," I would have just grabbed an un-DRMd pirate copy of the book, period. No cash in for the publisher. As it stands, the publisher already got my $70- no way am I going to be a sap and send him $50 more. If that's what he expects, he will lose my business altogether.

I completely appreciate your point of view and I'd feel annoyed if I were in the same boat. However, I wouldn't download the illegal version. That's just my personal perspective.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by wgrimm

When one considers digital media, given the fact that it costs nothing to produce a new copy, some of the old economic rules have to be reconsidered.
It seems that producers want to keep only the old rules that benefit them. For example, the customer must pay almost paper book prices for the e-book, but he does not have the right to return or resell the e-book. The reality of the digital marketplace is that you have sunk costs (the costs required to actually produce the work) and you have extremely minimal dfistribution costs- you don't have to buy paper and ink, etc. You aren't offering a tangible physical product, so your prices should go down.

In the case you quote, an $80 pBook being offered as a $50 eBook, that seems like a pretty reasonable pricing structure to me; the $30 difference is a fair representation of the fact that the publisher has no printing or distribution costs.

You can't expect a publisher to lower the price of e-Book because it has no resale value, however. The publisher doesn't receive back any of the value, after all, when the paper book is resold.

I agree with you - it would be very nice, with books like this, if the publisher were to allow purchasers of the pBook to download the eBook for a nominal sum. Many of the programming books I've bought lately have come with a CD containing an eBook version included with the pBook.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by wgrimm

Thanks to the "pirates," I can now grab a copy in .chm, which is easy to put on a reader. I am a paying customer...

No, clearly, you're not, if you're downloading stuff from pirates.

Originally Posted by wgrimm

Now, I AM being required to repurchase the book if I want to have it in an e-format. Force me to do so? No, of course not. But, since I already own the p-book, at least according to US law, I CAN legally have an e-book format- what the heck is the difference whether I scan it in myself or download it from the net?

An e-book is still a distinct product, as separate from a printed book as a hardback is separate from a paperback, and a CD is separate from a cassette tape. You have no right to take one because you already own the other. You can legally make a copy from the material you own, for yourself, and only you, to use. That's as far as legality goes.

Originally Posted by wgrimm

Like a music cd- if I own it, I can have it in mp3 format. And ethically, I think I am justified also.

You are "justified" to make a copy from the material you own, for yourself, in another format. You are not "justified" to take someone else's copy, any more than you are justified to walk into a bookstore and steal a paperback because you already own the hardback. You are also not "justified" to take your copy and give it to others without compensating the original creator/publisher (which, based on your comments, I suppose we can assume you do).

Just because it's easy, doesn't make it right, or "justified." What part of this isn't sinking in?

[wgrimm]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Because the version that's on the net is illegal. Creating a legal version yourself is an entirely different thing from download an illegal one.

This is where our perspectives part ways. Given 2 files that are identical, how can one be inherently legal and the other inherently illegal? Consider, if a person is taken to court, and convicted based on the prosecutions' allegations that he possessed an "illegal file,", well, what happens when the case is appealed because the prosecution had actually used a "legal" copy of the file that the defendant possessed as evidence? Silly, isn't it? A difference which makes no difference isn't much of a difference. If I have in my possession 2 identically sized .chm files that are scanned copies of a paper book, the only difference between them that 1 was downloaded from the net and one produced by me, how can one or the other be inherently legal or illegal?

Any argument denoting such is fallacious because substituting one file with the other leaves you with the same result- you possess the same file. No, what we should be looking at here is a licensing issue.

[wgrimm]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

No, clearly, you're not, if you're downloading stuff from pirates.



An e-book is still a distinct product, as separate from a printed book as a hardback is separate from a paperback, and a CD is separate from a cassette tape. You have no right to take one because you already own the other. You can legally make a copy from the material you own, for yourself, and only you, to use. That's as far as legality goes.



You are "justified" to make a copy from the material you own, for yourself, in another format. You are not "justified" to take someone else's copy, any more than you are justified to walk into a bookstore and steal a paperback because you already own the hardback. You are also not "justified" to take your copy and give it to others without compensating the original creator/publisher (which, based on your comments, I suppose we can assume you do).

Just because it's easy, doesn't make it right, or "justified." What part of this isn't sinking in?

Here is what isn't sinking in- take 2 files, both .chm files containing content from a paper book, both with the same name, content, and date stamp. I created one, I downloaded the other. Assume I delete one of the copies, and can't remember which one I currently possess, the one I created or the one downloaded from the net- am I breaking the law? Prove I own an "illegal copy". What is your evidence- the file whose source cannot be determined? Now, is my argument starting to sink in?

We are talking licensing here- if I own a paper book, I have already paid for the content. If I can rip a music cd, seems I should be able to rip a book. And if I rip a book thjat I own and my file cannot be distinguished from a "pirated" file available on the net, well, has any wrongdoinmg been committed?

If publisher's think most consumers are going to buy separate copies of books so they can be read on their readers, they are wrong. What's the next step in restrictive licensing- buying 2 paper copies of the book, so that one can be read on days Mon-Fri, and the other only on the weekends? The key factor here is that an ebook costs almost ZERO to produce- why should people have to pay for ebook content that they have already paid one time for?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by wgrimm

Given 2 files that are identical, how can one be inherently legal and the other inherently illegal?

You're still using semantics to cloud the issue. Identicality isn't the issue. I can hold a paperback in one hand, and an identical paperback in the other hand, but if one was stolen, or created by someone who didn't own the content, that one is "illegal," and all appropriate laws apply.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by wgrimm

Here is what isn't sinking in- take 2 files, both .chm files containing content from a paper book, both with the same name, content, and date stamp. I created one, I downloaded the other. Assume I delete one of the copies, and can't remember which one I currently possess, the one I created or the one downloaded from the net- am I breaking the law? Prove I own an "illegal copy". What is your evidence- the file whose source cannot be determined? Now, is my argument starting to sink in?

Sorry, no, it's not.

To use an analogy, there's a big "black market" in the UK with people buying alcohol and cigarettes from France, where the taxes on these particular goods are much lower than here in the UK, and then re-selling them here. If I buy a bottle of Bell's whisky that someone has brought from France then I'm breaking the law in buying a bottle of whisky that hasn't had UK taxes paid on it. It doesn't matter that it's an identical bottle of whisky to the one that I could buy in my local supermarket and that, if I stood the two side by side, I couldn't tell which was which. One came from a legal source, the other from an illegal one.

If publisher's think most consumers are going to buy separate copies of books so they can be read on their readers, they are wrong. What's the next step in restrictive licensing- buying 2 paper copies of the book, so that one can be read on days Mon-Fri, and the other only on the weekends? The key factor here is that an ebook costs almost ZERO to produce- why should people have to pay for ebook content that they have already paid one time for?

Sorry - I've done both; rebought e-Books that I have paper versions of (I've just bought an eBook version of Philip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy, despite having it as a hardback already) and bought multiple paper versions of books, for all sorts of different reasons. I don't believe that I'm an idiot (although some may disagree, of course). I'm sure that I'm not alone in having done both these things.

[jasonkchapman]

Originally Posted by wgrimm

Consider, if a person is taken to court, and convicted based on the prosecutions' allegations that he possessed an "illegal file,", well, what happens when the case is appealed because the prosecution had actually used a "legal" copy of the file that the defendant possessed as evidence?

You're assuming that the case is based on the file. What if the case isn't about possessing an illegal file? What if the case is about illegally obtaining the file? It's similar to the fact that stolen money isn't "illegal" money. The means of acquisition is what's in question.

[wgrimm]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

You're still using semantics to cloud the issue. Identicality isn't the issue. I can hold a paperback in one hand, and an identical paperback in the other hand, but if one was stolen, or created by someone who didn't own the content, that one is "illegal," and all appropriate laws apply.

Your argument is wrong because you are comparing physical objects with digital files. Digital files can be copied infinitely, at almost zero cost per copy. In the case of the paperback, it costs money to produce, and raw materials. If one is stolen, somebody has lost some money.

With a digital file, if I own a copy of the content in paper format, has anyone lost money no matter how I otained it? No, certainly not. If publishers want the ebook market to take off, they had better lighten up some. When I buy an ebook and lose the rights to resell and other rights that I have with a paper book, and I pay almost the same price for the ebook as for the pbook, well, it's not a very good deal.

Look at all of the advantages the publisher is gaining- the ability to distribute books at almost zero cost (not including sunk costs required to produce the book), the ability to publish in multiple language markets at reduced costs, the ability to keep ALL of the titles he sells "in print," all the time. If e-books are going to sell well, the consumers want some perks too.

We aren't talking physical objects, but rather "digital objects." If I bought a license to use M$ CrapOS 98, does it matter whether I load it onto a machine from the distro disk, or from a borrowed disk, or from a set of files across a network? No, it doesn't.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by wgrimm

Your argument is wrong because you are comparing physical objects with digital files. Digital files can be copied infinitely, at almost zero cost per copy. In the case of the paperback, it costs money to produce, and raw materials. If one is stolen, somebody has lost some money.

But the SOURCE that you download from can still be illegal; that's the point. A copyrighted MP3 file on a bittorrent server is illegal, regardless of whether or not either the poster or the downloader owns the CD that song is from.

[wgrimm]

Originally Posted by jasonkchapman

You're assuming that the case is based on the file. What if the case isn't about possessing an illegal file? What if the case is about illegally obtaining the file? It's similar to the fact that stolen money isn't "illegal" money. The means of acquisition is what's in question.

Stolen money is indeed "illegal" money, because someone has lost property, they have suffered financial loss. The means of acquisition is part of the crime, but they key factor is LOSS OF PROPERTY. In the case of an ebook, nobody has lost any property if someone that already owns that content in the form of a pbook, even if he acquires the files over the net.

We're talking licensing here- if I own a copy of Windows OS, it is not so much that I own the physical distro disk as it is that I have paid for the right to use the software. I have licensed it. It doesn't matter if I install it from the original distro cd, or from an .iso image downloaded from the net, or from a friend's cd. MS doesn't care, as long as you bought that license. So why should book publishers?

Ethics? I thionk the bigger factor here are market forces, and consumer demand. And these are working to force the price of information, whether ebooks or movies or music, down. It's a trend that won't stop.

[wgrimm]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But the SOURCE that you download from can still be illegal; that's the point. A copyrighted MP3 file on a bittorrent server is illegal, regardless of whether or not either the poster or the downloader owns the CD that song is from.

Perhaps in Britain. But here, no. Prove that the mp3 I had is illegal, while I am waving my 100% legally purchased cd in front of you. How will you prove that I didn't create the mp3 myself?

Actually, I don't use mp3s, only lossless formats, but let's just assume for the case of argument. The traditional rules are changing, whether publishers like it or not. The big gain for the actual producers of content that I see is the potential to pull in vastly more income. If authors play their cards right, I think they can greatly reduce what the middlemen now keep for their own.