Pirated digital books

Discussion in 'Electronic Publishing' started by GingerCoffee, Jun 28, 2015.

  1. Selbbin

    Selbbin The Moderating Cat Staff Contributor Contest Winner 2023

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,160
    Likes Received:
    4,243
    Location:
    Australia
    Yes, I realize all of that. Yes, libraries pay for that copy that gets read 20 times, I acknowledged that. Do you understand that my point is that people who boast they don't pirate still read for free, justifying the same action because the library is legal. They still paid nothing. The copyright holder still gets nothing for every subsequent read of their work after the first one. Someone can't hold the moral high-ground with me if they lambast pirates yet read books for free, especially if they can afford it. That is not healthy for the writer, no matter what side-trip argument you want to take to distract from the point.
     
  2. Steerpike

    Steerpike Felis amatus Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    13,984
    Likes Received:
    8,557
    Location:
    California, US
    You must have missed my last post in this thread that tells how much libraries spend on acquisitions. It's not an insignificant amount.

    And any book can be read by others once an initial purchase has been made. You can give it away, lend it to friends, sell it to a used bookstore etc.
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2015
    BayView likes this.
  3. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15,262
    Likes Received:
    13,084
    Libraries aren't a side trip, they're part of the book landscape. They have been forever. (Edited to add: OK, the cavemen didn't have libraries, but they are a pretty fundamental part of American culture, for many decades.) They're not some whacky new concept. They existed as part of the landscape when copyright laws were being amended, and when some of them were being written.

    You are assuming that the landscape assumes that every book is bought by one and only one reader. But that's not the landscape. Saying that the author should be paid for every new reader is not fundamentally different from saying that Chevrolet should be paid when one of their cars is sold to a new owner. Used cars have been part of the landscape, and selling your car is not stealing from Chevy. Libraries have been part of the landscape and borrowing a book from the library is not stealing from the author.

    And why do you assume that sales to libraries are not a deliberate and conscious choice on the part of the publishers and authors?

    Let's say that Publisher A doesn't want their books to be sold to libraries. Let's say that they reject orders by libraries, and order their distributors to do the same. I think that it's not unlikely that they could achieve that, and that doing so would result in very, very few of their books being sold to libraries.

    Would that be enough for you? Or would you insist that Publisher B, who WANTS the library sales, and Publisher B's authors, who also want them, should also be deprived of those library sales?
     
  4. Selbbin

    Selbbin The Moderating Cat Staff Contributor Contest Winner 2023

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,160
    Likes Received:
    4,243
    Location:
    Australia
    oh ffs.
     
  5. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15,262
    Likes Received:
    13,084
    I find this unpersuasive.
     
  6. Selbbin

    Selbbin The Moderating Cat Staff Contributor Contest Winner 2023

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,160
    Likes Received:
    4,243
    Location:
    Australia
    That's because I've stated my opinion. Clearly. I'm done.
     
  7. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15,262
    Likes Received:
    13,084
    I am quite seriously curious as to whether you would prevent Publisher B from selling their first-release fiction books to libraries.
     
  8. BayView

    BayView Huh. Interesting. Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    10,462
    Likes Received:
    11,689
    Authors and publishers consent to the relationship with libraries; they don't consent to the relationship with pirates.

    Assuming authors and publishers are working on a more-or-less rational basis, this means they feel the relationship with libraries benefits them, and don't feel the relationship with pirates benefits them.

    Equating libraries with piracy is like equating consensual BDSM with abusive relationships. The behaviour may look the same from the outside, but it's very different on the inside.
     
  9. daemon

    daemon Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2014
    Messages:
    1,357
    Likes Received:
    978
    How many is "several"?

    The thing about books is that they satisfy demand in two different ways:

    Demand-then-awareness: the demand exists before the reader is aware of the book. This model of demand satisfaction is most common with tutorials: you want to teach yourself to play the piano, so you go to the library and look for piano tutorial books.

    If you are a library user, then under this model, the measure of success of libraries as a whole for you is:
    out of the amount of niches you tried to fill with library books:
    the amount you successfully filled.

    Awareness-then-demand: the reader's awareness of the book creates demand for the book. This model of demand satisfaction is most common with:

    1. classic literature: you are taking a class that requires you to read a book, or you have heard about a book for years and you finally decide to read it because you want to understand your own culture better or because the idea of reading it has grown on you or something.

    2. bestsellers: everyone is raving about a new book, they have gotten you interested, and you want to read it while it is still fresh.

    If you are a library user, then under this model, the measure of success of libraries as a whole for you is:
    out of the amount of exact titles you decided you wanted to read, and then decided to look for at a library:
    the amount you found.

    The key difference between these two models is that with demand-then-awareness, books are replaceable. If you do not read one tutorial book, then that is probably okay because you can find another book that teaches you the same thing. But with awareness-then-demand, books are irreplaceable. Reading Gardening in Ten Days might be a substitute for reading Gardening for Dummies, but reading Julius Caesar is not a substitute for reading Hamlet.

    However, the two models have something in common: sometimes, recency is essential.

    With demand-then-awareness, sometimes it only takes a few years for knowledge to become outdated. A good example of this is programming tutorials.

    With awareness-then-demand, it is a given fact that many of the books people have decided they want to read happen to be new releases. The question is: if a library is the only way you are able or willing to acquire a book, then how long is too long to wait? Think about the books you have read and imagine if, for any given book, you had to wait five years to read it.

    Ultimately, if libraries exist to serve readers (which they should and they do), then they are kind of defeating their own purpose if they make readers wait so long to read a book that it becomes outdated, irrelevant, or uninteresting.
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2015
  10. Selbbin

    Selbbin The Moderating Cat Staff Contributor Contest Winner 2023

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,160
    Likes Received:
    4,243
    Location:
    Australia

    If only there was a place where you could buy those books... but alas I can only dream of such utopia...
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2015
  11. Void

    Void Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2014
    Messages:
    302
    Likes Received:
    231
    As interesting as this whole argument is, is there any verifiable evidence that libraries significantly impact the income of authors? Because if not, it's all guess work, and I'll have to regard this as little more than a witch hunt until I see proof that there's even a problem to be solved.
    The issue of piracy overall is far more complicated and nuanced than 1 pirated download = 1 lost sale. There's the still unanswered question of how many of those people would have actually bought the product if a free version wasn't available, plus some content creators have pointed out that pirated versions do at least still raise awareness of the product even if they don't directly contribute money. While this is by no means an excuse for piracy, I'm just saying the problem isn't as extensive as a lot of companies would have you believe; companies who often use piracy to excuse and justify their own shitty business practices.

    Not to mention the fact that libraries don't operate the same way as piracy. If someone loans a book that copy is only temporarily available to the loanee, and can't be shared with anyone else until it is returned. With piracy, the pirate receives a free copy of the book that they are able to keep indefinitely, and an indefinite number other people are able to do the same regardless of how many have already got the book.

    Just out of curiosity, if loaning a book from a library is more or less equivalent to piracy, does this same logic apply if you read a book one of your family members has already bought? If not, why?
     
  12. Selbbin

    Selbbin The Moderating Cat Staff Contributor Contest Winner 2023

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,160
    Likes Received:
    4,243
    Location:
    Australia
    Not that I'm aware of, which is why it's just an opinion and not, and never has been, stated as fact.
     
  13. Gawler

    Gawler Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2014
    Messages:
    298
    Likes Received:
    155
    Location:
    Australia via Hawaii via Australia via England
    Although this is no longer the case with the internet. As a child my dad took me to the library once a week. Because of this I developed a love of reading. Without this experience I would never have bought as many books as I have over my lifetime. In my case it has been to the benefit of a large number of authors.
     
    BayView likes this.
  14. terobi

    terobi Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2015
    Messages:
    339
    Likes Received:
    253
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    As far as I'm aware, libraries do actually pay writers a fee for stocking and lending out their books - at least in the UK.

    Here's an interview with Horrible Histories author Terry Deary on why he wants to shut down libraries, and here's the response of basically every other British author.
     
  15. psychotick

    psychotick Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,526
    Likes Received:
    477
    Location:
    Rotorua, New Zealand
    Hi,

    Personally I love that some of my books are in libraries. It's an ego stroke for me and I feel I'm doing my part to promote literacy among the text generation. And yeah whether borrowers have to pay to read my books is an irrelevance. I have enough paying customers.

    The difference between a library and a pirate is a simple one. If I didn't want my books to be available through libraries, I would simply not tick those boxes in my publication process and libraries would not be able to purchase them. Pirates on the other hand don't respect my right as an author to make money by selling or not selling my works. They steal it. It's sort of a fundamental difference.

    By the way the online library catalogue where you can see which of your books are held in which libraries is called Worldcat - you can google it.

    Cheers, Greg.
     
  16. Selbbin

    Selbbin The Moderating Cat Staff Contributor Contest Winner 2023

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,160
    Likes Received:
    4,243
    Location:
    Australia
    Just wondering. Did you need the latest and greatest for this to happen? Did you require only the current best-sellers? Some people put forward that without the very newest books, libraries are useless.
     
  17. plothog

    plothog Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2013
    Messages:
    650
    Likes Received:
    537
    Location:
    England
    One of the differences between a library book and a pirated book, is you don't get to keep the library book. I have purchased books that I had previously read from the library when I was younger.
    I'm not sure I'd have that incentive if I read pirated books.

    It's normal for it to be legal to lend things or sell them second hand, but illegal to distribute copies.

    The same can be said of Rolex watches.
     
  18. Steerpike

    Steerpike Felis amatus Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    13,984
    Likes Received:
    8,557
    Location:
    California, US
    Yes, it is normal that the intellectual property rights in a single physical item be exhausted on the first sale of that item. The atempted analogy between libraries and piracy is simply a bad one for the many reasons set forth in this thread.
     
  19. Gawler

    Gawler Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2014
    Messages:
    298
    Likes Received:
    155
    Location:
    Australia via Hawaii via Australia via England
    I never went for the latest and greatest. Admittedly I am talking over 50 years ago when people did not all rush out and buy like today. It was the classics, like Verne, Dickens, Wells and London that got me started. While there is a demand for new releases, to say libraries are useless without them is wrong.
     
  20. Selbbin

    Selbbin The Moderating Cat Staff Contributor Contest Winner 2023

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,160
    Likes Received:
    4,243
    Location:
    Australia
    Exactly. But some people here have given the impression that's what they believe.
     
  21. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15,262
    Likes Received:
    13,084
    Well, that's certainly not what I said, so I assume that you refer to someone else.

    Edited to offer your original policy proposal, for context:

    I certainly DO feel that a library that contains nothing but public domain material, given that very little has entered the public domain for many decades, is essentially useless.

    Edited again to add more context. Later in the thread you modified to:

    Then, later

    There was no resolution of why fiction authors, and only fiction authors, should get special protection for their initial profits. Or what to do about authors who make much of their profit FROM libraries.
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2015
  22. Selbbin

    Selbbin The Moderating Cat Staff Contributor Contest Winner 2023

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,160
    Likes Received:
    4,243
    Location:
    Australia

    Because I'm not trying to establish international policy on library usage. I'm trying to establish that I believe it's a copout when someone who is not okay with pirating is okay with reading for entertainment from libraries for free rather than paying for the experience. Either way the Author or copyright holder gets nothing for them to read it (except in England and other territories where per use rights are paid, like music, which is a great idea), despite the argument that libraries pay for copies. Saying it's legal or the library paid for it is a copout, simply because the reader does nothing to contribute while taking pleasure (potentially) from the experience. Libraries pay for one read, essentially. The 'per use' rights payment would be really good everywhere, however.

    If you want to read someone's work you should pay for it, unless they have determined you don't need to. Simple. None of this library moral copout bullshit.
     
  23. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15,262
    Likes Received:
    13,084
    But you're behaving as if libraries, and the ability to loan books or pass them on to new owners, are new. They're not new. That has always been part of the nature of books. So people who use libraries aren't suddenly pirating books; you are suddenly applying "piracy" to a way that books have always been used. You aren't protecting a right to profit that has always been held by the author; you are trying to create a new right to profit that never existed before.

    You act like people are suddenly stealing, but you're actually redefining a long-existing activity AS stealing. Why should authors suddenly be entitled to protections and profits that they were never entitled to before?
     
  24. Selbbin

    Selbbin The Moderating Cat Staff Contributor Contest Winner 2023

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,160
    Likes Received:
    4,243
    Location:
    Australia
    Are you really that concerned about my opinion? I'm flattered, but fuck...
     
  25. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15,262
    Likes Received:
    13,084
    I'm that concerned about copyright becoming a tighter and tighter straitjacket on creativity. As copyright holders get more and more rights that they never had before, and as the penalties for challenging those rights get more and more frightening, we are a population in danger of slow intellectual starvation. Libraries are one of the strongest safeguards against that starvation. A free society, a thinking society, a creative society, needs libraries.
     
    Jack Asher likes this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice