Oh the irony...

[Tony1988]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

And now we're having a meta-argument about the arguments provoked by ebooks.

Correct and also The issue was pirating and I just found it funny that for the majority of 3 pages people discussed the use of a word....lol ..

[haertig]

Originally Posted by Tony1988

No worries about finagling on your computer All day because you are worried that someone may take away a book you will most likely never read more than once.

Maybe that is/was your reason for "finagling all day on your computer". Because "you were worried that someone may take away a book". But you can't assign your reason as the reason of others.

It's just entertainment for some of us. Like participating in these forums. What do we actually accomplish by participating? Shouldn't we just be reading instead?

For that matter, why do I pull out my telescope and look at the stars? Why do I "finagle with the thing?" What a waste of time. [ As if I have more pressing things to do a 2:00am ]

Don't discount entertainment as the primary reason for doing something.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Well so do I. But I only use them ironically.

Spoiler:

How's that for staying on topic?

It's so hard to resist a smooth operator like you, Doug. ;-)

Hitch

[GlennD]

Originally Posted by Raphi'Elohim

It looks like it is based in China and I think the Russians are in on it too. The Chinese would theoretically have a political motive to weaken the American economy this way as $300 million is significant.

US trade in 2016 (the latest numbers on Wiki....) was almost $5 trillion. $300 million is a drop in the bucket.

And usually when book companies are talking about losses, they're estimating by the number of downloads. That's legit, from their point of view, but they didn't actually lose that amount in sales. The vast majority of pirates are not selective, they're downloading ebooks en masse and aren't reading most of them. They certainly would not be buying all of those books if downloads weren't available. The actual loss to the book industry is a lot less than the $300 million.

None of that, of course, makes piracy any more right (or moral?).

[Question Mark]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

If it is legally wrong, it should be considered morally wrong as well.

Hmmm, I wonder about that...

One can steal information. As such, there are laws surrounding intellectual property rights etc.

Some people engage in the theft and distribution of information for a greater good. Other people do it for financial gain. And some people simply abide by the law even when they might be able to prevent great harm from occurring.

Now, if one were to become aware of a government or corporation's plans which would have a significant and adverse effect on humanity, would it be immoral to "steal" that information and disperse it for the greater good? What about simply doing nothing? Would that be moral?

However, in the case of Good e-Reader, they certainly seem to have engaged in some immoral and unethical behaviour in terms of profiting from the sale of pirated books. So for them to be expressing outrage about it without coming clean about their own history is really quite hypocritical.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by leebase

If I steal, it is immoral. If you steal, it is immoral. It matters not whether you or I steal. Stealing is immoral. If either of us are hypocrites for saying “stealing books is immoral”....it would not change the truth that stealing is immoral.

I think it also depends on the reason though. I mean no one has to steal a car for example. A car makes it easier to get around from place to place but you don't usually suffer greatly if you don't have one. On the other hand what if a person has no $ and they can't get help for some reason with things like food? Is it more immoral to starve a child or to steal food in order to feed said child? Granted usually it's more likely to be a 'want' rather than a 'need' situation but it's also easy to talk about it being wrong to steal when you have your basic necessities provided for. As for the OP's mentioning of how people wouldn't steal a book from a store so why is it acceptable to steal the ebook, the parallel isn't exact. I mean the store isn't likely to come to your home and take back paper books that you have bought. In theory at least Amazon, Sony, etc. could reclaim the ebooks that a buyer has purchased without warning because they are considered to be licensed not sold. And that leads me to a question, "Is it Moral or Immoral to sell a ebook to someone and then (for some reason) nullify said sale for any or no reason?" That's what the sellers could do at any time should they so desire. Or what if they decided that books which the average customer has purchased should be treated like those sold to libraries? They can be read a certain # of times or within a given time span and then the license ends. Something like that has happened to me in the past. I put a ebook on hold to read and before it got to my turn to borrow it the book was withdrawn because the licence expired. Is that moral?

[crich70]

Originally Posted by GlennD

US trade in 2016 (the latest numbers on Wiki....) was almost $5 trillion. $300 million is a drop in the bucket.

And usually when book companies are talking about losses, they're estimating by the number of downloads. That's legit, from their point of view, but they didn't actually lose that amount in sales. The vast majority of pirates are not selective, they're downloading ebooks en masse and aren't reading most of them. They certainly would not be buying all of those books if downloads weren't available. The actual loss to the book industry is a lot less than the $300 million.

None of that, of course, makes piracy any more right (or moral?).

And what about those people who buy an ebook when it's on sale or being offered for free for a few days? Is the author/publisher losing anything by those sales or no? Granted there are those who pirate books, but just as you can't claim that a book is a loss because people buy and don't read a book right away I don't think you can legitimately say it's a loss when people buy a book that is offered (by the publisher) for free for a limited time. I mean you may buy (book title) by (author's name) when it's offered free and not read it right away and then later find that you like the author's work and so he/she makes back the $ he/she didn't get from the one offered for free as a result of additional sales.

[Raphi'Elohim]

Originally Posted by GlennD

US trade in 2016 (the latest numbers on Wiki....) was almost $5 trillion. $300 million is a drop in the bucket.

True but the 300 million , in conjunction, with other economic moves by China can be significant that is why Trump is putting tarrifs on China I think.

Originally Posted by GlenD

And usually when book companies are talking about losses, they're estimating by the number of downloads. That's legit, from their point of view, but they didn't actually lose that amount in sales. The vast majority of pirates are not selective, they're downloading ebooks en masse and aren't reading most of them. They certainly would not be buying all of those books if downloads weren't available. The actual loss to the book industry is a lot less than the $300 million.

True and also I am not arguing for or against piracy I more or less find it as inevitable so book publishers need to find another complentary way to make money. For instance, Linux is given away for free but big corporations , like Redhat, make money as service vendors offer technical support. Also, many android apps are free but put commerical advertising within them. What eBook publishers would do I am not sure but there has to be an innovative angle somewhere. The pirates are already doing the advertising angle among others.

There is a book called "The Inevitable: the 12 technological Innovations that Will Shape Our Future" by Wired magazine editor Kevin Kelly

Chapter 6 is called 'Sharing' and although it does not mention eBooks specifically but it does make it inevitable.

Originally Posted by GlenD

None of that, of course, makes piracy any more right (or moral?).

Like I said it does not really matter if it is immoral or moral as it is inevitable. The hacker idea that all information should be free has obviously been baked into internet culture as a whole now.

[Raphi'Elohim]

Also, what about a person who has bought a physical version of the book then gave it away to a used book store then pirated the book in eBook format. Is that stealing ? It does not seem to be stealing. Anyway, it is pointless to talk about this (see my post above ^) as eBook piracy is inevitable so the real discussion is how can eBooks make money ? As obviously Linux is free and corporations still make money on it. Also, Wikipedia is free etc.. etc..

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Raphi'Elohim

Also, what about a person who has bought a physical version of the book then gave it away to a used book store then pirated the book in eBook format. Is that stealing ? It does not seem to be stealing.

Wow, that's even a step further than those who think that owning the physical copy entitles them to a free digital copy. So there's a get out of jail free card on pirated versions of any physical book I've ever owned? Whee! Time to get cracking.

[Raphi'Elohim]

Originally Posted by issybird

Wow, that's even a step further than those who think that owning the physical copy entitles them to a free digital copy. So there's a get out of jail free card on pirated versions of any physical book I've ever owned? Whee! Time to get cracking.

Well, first of all it seems to me Amazon could make ebooks cheaper as it is extremely cheap to make copies of ebooks because computers are good at iterations and are general purpose machines.

However, I think our use cases are different since you read fiction and I read non-fiction especially when it comes to technology. I will give you an example. In the tech field 16 years is an eternity and there is a book called Code Reading : the OpenSource Perspective by Diomidis Spinellis that was published in 2003. The physical book on Barnes and Noble is more expensive than the ebook version which is absurd especially if I owned the physical copy beforehand once. Even on Amazon the ebook is only 3 dollars cheaper which is crazy.

For instance, on Amazon the cost is $46.60 for the paperback and the ebook is $43.11. That is crazy talk.

This is even crazier talk on Barnes and Noble (which ecosystem I use primarily) :

The physical copy is $49.53 and the ebook copy is $52.49

That is insane !

I think they charge higher prices because these books are technical in nature and not very popular because of that. However, the larger issue is brought into stark relief here with these kinds of books. Amazon, Kobo and Barnes and Noble can afford to make ebooks cheaper because the process of generating new books on a computer is extremely cheap and simple compared to manufacturing physical paper books. They are basically ripping people off.

[issybird]

^^

Jeebus, you love to theorize out of your fundament. You know nothing at all about my reading habits and yet you feel confident characterizing them. In fact, just so you know, I read roughly half fiction and half nonfiction, history of the serious or academic variety.

Briefly, price of ebooks has nothing at all to do with either the legality or morality of piracy. Which isn't either legal or moral, since it seems necessary to spell it out for you. As with any other good, if an ebook is too pricey for you, don't buy it. It's very easy. Moreover, and this bit I'm saying as a mod, advocacy of piracy is not condoned at MR, so don't.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Raphi'Elohim

Amazon, Kobo and Barnes and Noble can afford to make ebooks cheaper...

No they can't, because they don't set the prices of the books, the publishers do.

[DiapDealer]

The IGA could afford to sell my milk cheaper. The lawn-care guy could afford to mow my lawn for a buck less. The car dealer could have afforded to give me a better price on my car. Aside from the fact that Amazon can't choose to sell Big-5 published books for any less than they do, what was the point? That businesses are somehow obligated to operate on the absolute slimmest margins possible? That consumers are somehow entitled to buy whatever they desire for whatever price they deem reasonable?

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Raphi'Elohim

Well, first of all it seems to me Amazon could make ebooks cheaper as it is extremely cheap to make copies of ebooks because computers are good at iterations and are general purpose machines.

(snippage)

I think they charge higher prices because these books are technical in nature and not very popular because of that. However, the larger issue is brought into stark relief here with these kinds of books. Amazon, Kobo and Barnes and Noble can afford to make ebooks cheaper because the process of generating new books on a computer is extremely cheap and simple compared to manufacturing physical paper books. They are basically ripping people off.

Using your argument, I should be able to buy my own copy of the Avengers:Endgame movie for a nickel, right? Because computer copies of digital products are cheap and easy to make? Regardless of the cost of producing it in the first place?

Extremely complex books are very expensive to create as eBooks. It's not like a DIY romance novel--type in Word, apply styles, upload and kablammo, you have a serviceable, if not outstanding, eBook. You start talking about a "Yadda-yadda for Dummies" book or a complex non-fiction book or textbook and the production of the ebook alone--never mind the print layout--can and does cost thousands. Surely you expect that the publisher is entitled to recover his costs? What, should he charge the first buyer $2K and then sell the rest at a quarter?

The only way publishers can afford to put out books like that is by estimating the sales and amortizing their costs (and any hopeful profit) over the number of approximated sales. The expense of copying the files plays into it not at all, I'd assume.

And as Issy rightly states, the stores (Amazon, B&N, etc.) have almost nothing to do with pricing. It's set by the retailers and yes, of course, we all remember the fight way back when between Amazon and the BPHs, but it was Amazon that was on the side of making them cheaper.

As she also says--you don't like the pricing, don't buy them, right? Like any other product.

Hitch