Is ebook piracy on the rise?

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by cstross

That's very problematic.

If your proposal was adopted in law, unscrupulous publishers would have an active incentive to time-bomb their reversion clause boilerplate. Because? If a book goes into the public domain, the publisher can then roll the presses without paying the author a penny. And they're the folks who are in the best position to profit from a book's initial sales and then keep it out of print for five years. (Then re-issue it and make roughly double their initial profit, at the expense of the author.)

Sorry, I had written about this more extensively elsewhere, and didn't fill in the details here. What I really mean is that the rights should automatically revert to the author after a period of time being out of print, and then, after an additional period of time being out of print, the book should fall into the public domain. I'd give the author more time to get the book back into print than the publisher, because they might need to either find another publisher or decide to self-publish. But at this point, even self-publishing when a book has already been published should be a pretty good strategy for an author, using ebooks, POD, or a combination. I'm somewhat hesitant to buy self-published books, because generally I think books benefit from the attention of a good editor, but a book that has already been through the editing process and has some market recognition should sell reasonably well.

What do you think? You're in a better position than I to know how this might really play out. I'm just a wannabe with a stack of rejection slips.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Tracking the actual traffic content will prove what? A ratio of unauthorized downloads to authorized downloads? (Assuming that there are authorized downloads for certain works.) It won't prove that the downloads are actual lost sales, as there would be no way to show that said downloader would have bought the download anyway.

True... as I said, even accurate data will only allow you to infer a relationship. There's no way to say, with any absolute certainty, that this illicit download is a substitute for that legal download.

So, in the long run, it's probably pointless to try. Instead, producers should be trying to create scenarios that can deal with the vagueness of the numbers, infer profits from specific marketing methods, and largely ignore all but the most significant theft losses.

Mediums like television work from these inferred data now... even with Nielsen ratings and cable boxes, much of the "direct correlation" figures used by networks to state how many people watch this, or buy a product because of that commercial, is sheer estimation... cause and effect, but with no concrete link between them. "This show is popular (by our guesses), and when we advertise product X during that show, there is an increase in purchases... therefore there is a link." American television (and radio) advertising is based on these estimates, and are satisfied with the fact that the results seem to support their conjectures, and an entire industry is run on supposition.

Much like a car engine's hydraulic transmission, which transmits motion from engine to wheels without a solid connection, e-book producers will have to use what data is available to work out the fluidic connection between marketing and profits, and settle for the best result that fluidity will allow.

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

And the only people who can act now are the publishers and the authors. Particularlly the publishers, and they aren't doing anything constructive.

Yes, the ball is in their court... they are dribbling in-place, instead of moving the ball into play... and eventually, if they don't get going, the clock will run out on them.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Jellby

... or ... if you buy a 2nd class train/plane ticket and then find out that there are many/some/a few 1st class seats free, do you change seat and go to 1st class? Do you think it should be allowed? Would it be fair? (I'm talking only of changing seat, not of benefitting from 1st class meals or whatever).

It would be fair for the transportation line to decide that "coach" passengers could sit in an empty 1st class seat, if available... it is their choice to make. (It would also be their choice to offer the seat, if you were willing to pay extra for it.) The point is, it is not up to the passenger to determine that. Even if the seat is empty, if it is something you did not pay for, you have no right to expect access to it. Unless there is a 1st class seat for every "coach" traveler, allowing just anyone who feels appropriately deserving to take a better seat will be unfair to somebody else who couldn't get a better seat.

Think of the concept of the "baker's dozen': A baker can give an extra pastry to a customer, for free, in order to make that customer happy and encourage future purchases. The baker has the right to offer it, and they would do so only out of charity or magnanimosity, not out of any sense of duty to give someone something they didn't pay for. But the customer has no right to expect extra, nor to deny payment, or throw a rock through the baker's window, in punishment for not receiving extra. The customer does have the right to shop elsewhere, or to not buy pastries at all, and it is up to the baker to care one way or the other.

[Razza]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

Before you use the library argument you should realize that the Library does not just go down to a store and buy a book to put in the library as you seem to suppose. Libraries pay an extra fee and in some cases I believe they may actually pay based on use. They are very particular about new books although as the books age there is not nearly as much of an issue. No longer published, etc.

Dale

Uhm, just wondering where you got the impression that library's pay extra fees for books? I work as a librarian in the US and we have purchasing contracts with publishers and distributor that actually get books below the costs you would find them in stores because we have major purchasing power, and there are certainly no fees applied based on usage that I am aware of.

*Edited: I see that others have already chimed into clarify this issue, sorry for posting before finishing reading the thread :-)

[axel77]

Originally Posted by rhadin

The questions are: What is a reasonable price? Who determines it? What factors are included? What weight is each given? Does the market agree? etc.

The questions if the market agrees is just that what has been said. The higher the pricer the higher the impulse to "steal", that is the higher market participators fall out of it. Its actually part of the "market" in a broader sense.

Depends I personally am not sorry for the multi-millionaires have some dollar less, especially in the music industry. Its different in the movie-industry where the production of a movie does cost a lot.

I may draw an exaggerated analogy here. But when you feel your goverment oppresses you, does this give you the right to violate all laws, and throw them over? Was the Boston teaparty right to violate U.K. law by throwing the tea into the sea? Just they personally felt being treated unfairly?

Especially in the music industry the production side of the market is highly "lobbilised", taking serious influence in the law making production, while the consumer side has it very difficult to create lobby of the same strength to have an equillibrum of forces here on the legal lawmaking stuff. And especially in contries where 3rd party lobbies have a bigger inpakt on the state, you on which side the copyright moves (see U.S.). So yes, I can understand when somebody rather downloads instead of buys as form of protest. I mean in the high peek in the 1990ies it was 40$ for an album, where actual production costs for the medium is less than 1$? Seriously. And yes prices did drop, and yes piracy *did* a major factor in that, without that Im sure we'd still pay this or more in the shop.

[cstross]

Originally Posted by garygibsonsf

My conclusion: there is no threat.

I agree.

My editors -- I think -- agree (although trying to get them to admit it is like pulling teeth).

Unfortunately their directors disagree. And the further away they are from the actual day-to-day business, the more they disagree and the more capacity they have for throwing spanners in works, etc.

As for authors, I think there's a generation gap in perceptions: those aged over 40 are very likely to worry about "piracy" (except in the case of those who have been on the net since before they started selling novels), while the younger folks are mostly looking to leverage free distribution over the internet to boost their sales.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by garygibsonsf

Unless I've managed to miss it, nobody really seems to be talking about the actual relationship between free downloading of books and its effect of sales; ie, is there any evidence that downloading of ebooks is negatively affecting the purchase of the paper variety?

It hasn't been discussed in this thread, but it has been discussed elsewhere in threads related to the need for DRM.

The problem is that it's impossible to measure. Even if you know how many books get illegally downloaded (and how do you find out?), you haven't learned anything useful. What you need to know is how many electronic copies get downloaded, and read instead of buying a legitimate copy of the book, in paper or electronic format. If you know a verifiable of determining that, you've got a whole new lucrative career to get into.

The question has come up before in discussions of the use of DRM on ebooks, and whether DRM prevents piracy and whether it's necessary at all.

My own feeling is no and no. DRM schemes tend to be broken almost immediately, and people with the savvy to download an illegal copy will likely have the savvy to crack protected books

Agreed, most darknet copies are awful. I've seen them, wouldn't try to read them as is, and can't be bothered to do the work required to get them into any form I'd consider readable. I value my time too highly, and it's cheaper viewed that way to just buy the book.

I concur: it's not a threat.
______
Dennis

[cstross]

Incidentally, I'm going to drop out of this discussion soon -- I'm at worldcon, and I can't spend all my time in front of a hot keyboard

As for darknet copies, and use thereof: my publishers officially disapprove, but my personal opinion is: if you don't like the DRM'd copies of my books that they publish, I have no problem whatsoever with readers downloading a darknet copy if they also buy a paperback -- either file it or give it to a friend or something, I don't care, as long as one way or the other they've paid for it. My take on that kind of use is that it's equivalent to buying a CD and ripping it to your iPod; it's functionally equivalent to format shifting, and there's a whole body of case law to the effect that format shifting is legal.

Ideally I'd like to see publishers print some sort of one-time download code in the back of my books so that purchasers can download an e-copy, but the chances of getting them to start doing that any time this century are slim ...

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by cstross

I agree.

My editors -- I think -- agree (although trying to get them to admit it is like pulling teeth).

They might admit it, privately, over drinks. They won't admit it any place where it might get back to their directors. They want to keep their jobs.

Unfortunately their directors disagree. And the further away they are from the actual day-to-day business, the more they disagree and the more capacity they have for throwing spanners in works, etc.

Yes.

As for authors, I think there's a generation gap in perceptions: those aged over 40 are very likely to worry about "piracy" (except in the case of those who have been on the net since before they started selling novels), while the younger folks are mostly looking to leverage free distribution over the internet to boost their sales.

I think of the author who brought suit (aided by a writer's organization) against Google, because he was unhappy with their policy of trying to digitize books and make them available on line. I thought he had his head stuffed up his fundament -- the exposure he would get from having his work available for web searches is something he ought to be willing to kill for, not rail against.

I wonder whether a lot of this has nothing to do with the facts on the ground, and everything to do with unconscious attitudes about the world.

One set of folks seems to start from the assumption that the general public are all a bunch of dirty so-and-sos who will rip them off given any opportunity, and Measures Must Be Taken to prevent it. My immediate question for such folks is "Why do you make that assumption? Is it because it's what you would do, and you assume everyone else is just like you?" (I'm certain the response would be a variant of "Oh, no! Iwould never do that! But everyone else would!" This is the "I'm OK, you're not OK!" mindset. It's pernicious, arguably neurotic, and ultimately self-defeating, but all too common.)

And I suspect folks like the author who filed suit against Google are operating from wounded vanity rather than fear of piracy. I get a sense that the real reason for their upset is "They didn't come to me and beg my permission!" I suppose I can see it, but Google will impose whatever restrictions on viewing of your digitized content you prefer. However, you have to tell them. There are enough rights holders (authors, agents, estates, etc.) that it's not feasible for Google to identify and contact them all and request permissions, if they want the project completed in anyone's lifetime.
______
Dennis

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by cstross

Incidentally, I'm going to drop out of this discussion soon -- I'm at worldcon, and I can't spend all my time in front of a hot keyboard

Well, we hope Denvention is going well enough that you wouldn't find it prefereable to hang out here instead.
______
Dennis
Who has been at a few cons where he was more interested in booting the laptop and participating in on-line discussions than in the activities of the con...

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Razza

Uhm, just wondering where you got the impression that library's pay extra fees for books? I work as a librarian in the US and we have purchasing contracts with publishers and distributor that actually get books below the costs you would find them in stores because we have major purchasing power, and there are certainly no fees applied based on usage that I am aware of.

*Edited: I see that others have already chimed into clarify this issue, sorry for posting before finishing reading the thread :-)

Don't be. It's always good to have clarification from someone with first hand knowledge, who can post from actual experience.

Expect questions at various points on exactly how libraries in the US do handle various things.
______
Dennis

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

One set of folks seems to start from the assumption that the general public are all a bunch of dirty so-and-sos who will rip them off given any opportunity, and Measures Must Be Taken to prevent it. My immediate question for such folks is "Why do you make that assumption? Is it because it's what you would do, and you assume everyone else is just like you?" (I'm certain the response would be a variant of "Oh, no! Iwould never do that! But everyone else would!" This is the "I'm OK, you're not OK!" mindset. It's pernicious, arguably neurotic, and ultimately self-defeating, but all too common.)

Well, as there actually is a "darknet," providing evidence of people actively ripping producers off, I think there's a legitimate reason for people to have that concern. It's not entirely neurotic when you can see it's really happening (though it may be neurotic to assume it is too big and pervasive to stop). And despite an innate desire for optimism, the fact is that people overall will take what they want if given the chance and the belief that they'll get away with it... it's just a fact of human nature. It's why "free giveaways" work as well as they do.

On the other hand, though the "darknet" may be free, it is not always easy to find what you want, and the quality often sucks. If a product is available legally that is of good quality, reasonably priced, and easy to obtain, the need for and impact of a "darknet" is subsequently reduced. And as soon as the market perceives there is such an entity (the "iTunes of e-books"), we'll see less of a "darknet" and related activity. Kindle-type services are a good start, and given more e-book reader features, it should get better.

[acidzebra]

"Darknet" is a popular term on this board I've noticed, but I don't quite follow the way it is used here. If I had to define the term, I would go for something like a private virtual network where users connect only to people they trust - a private net within the net. While most people here seem to refer to open p2p like bittorrent, or news downloads from alt.binaries.ebooks and the like.

So what is it, regular p2p or private dark and shady VPN where mass illicit trading in ebooks is going on? And if it is the second, why hasn't anyone told me?

[slayda]

Originally Posted by axel77

The questions if the market agrees is just that what has been said. The higher the pricer the higher the impulse to "steal", that is the higher market participators fall out of it. Its actually part of the "market" in a broader sense.

Depends I personally am not sorry for the multi-millionaires have some dollar less, especially in the music industry. Its different in the movie-industry where the production of a movie does cost a lot.

I may draw an exaggerated analogy here. But when you feel your goverment oppresses you, does this give you the right to violate all laws, and throw them over? Was the Boston teaparty right to violate U.K. law by throwing the tea into the sea? Just they personally felt being treated unfairly?

Especially in the music industry the production side of the market is highly "lobbilised", taking serious influence in the law making production, while the consumer side has it very difficult to create lobby of the same strength to have an equillibrum of forces here on the legal lawmaking stuff. And especially in contries where 3rd party lobbies have a bigger inpakt on the state, you on which side the copyright moves (see U.S.). So yes, I can understand when somebody rather downloads instead of buys as form of protest. I mean in the high peek in the 1990ies it was 40$ for an album, where actual production costs for the medium is less than 1$? Seriously. And yes prices did drop, and yes piracy *did* a major factor in that, without that Im sure we'd still pay this or more in the shop.

When you win a "revolution" you're a patriot but when you lose, you're just a criminal.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by acidzebra

"Darknet" is a popular term on this board I've noticed, but I don't quite follow the way it is used here. If I had to define the term, I would go for something like a private virtual network where users connect only to people they trust - a private net within the net. While most people here seem to refer to open p2p like bittorrent, or news downloads from alt.binaries.ebooks and the like.

So what is it, regular p2p or private dark and shady VPN where mass illicit trading in ebooks is going on? And if it is the second, why hasn't anyone told me?

On this site, it's shorthand (gee, who remembers shorthand?) for any readily available, unauthorized source of electronic materials, particularly e-books. Private networks are lumped in as well, not because they are readily available, but because also contain unauthorized content. Darknet seemed to be a handy term, but you are free to coin another....