Pirated digital books

Comment no. 100: Best comment on the thread.

 

I came a bit late to this thread, but have been reading through it. Lots of really important issues to consider—and no black-and-white answers.

Some of the arguments focus on whether or not it's okay for readers to read books they haven't personally paid for (via libraries, or a book some friend lends them.) Other arguments center on the right to re-sell used copies of books. Other arguments seem to be concerned over an author getting a fair price for a book when it's bought for 99p (or some other trivial price) from a legitimate digital site. And so on.

I don't know what the answers are to these issues, because they are all grey areas for me. However, I do have a problem with somebody stealing a book (paying nothing for it) and then re-selling it via a piracy site, and getting paid for it. I think people who use these sites to obtain popular books cheaply are in the wrong ...never mind the people who run the sites for profit.

I was intrigued by @Stacy C 's post on this thread, where she discussed the idea of changing the ways that creative people get paid. While she didn't have any actual solutions worked out for the publishing industry, I think her basic idea is well worth considering. Her example, of how the wedding photography industry has changed in response to digital processing and availability, was an eye-opener.

In the meantime, I try to be as moral about these issues as I possibly can. I love the idea of used bookstores re-selling old, otherwise unavailable books. (What else would happen to them? They'd get thrown away. Horrible waste.) However, I am very careful NOT to buy a book from them (either online or in person) that is still in print. In other words, if there is still a way to give authors money for a new copy of their book, I do it. There is the argument that people who can't afford a new copy would simply not buy the book at all, and I take that on board. Fair enough. If the choice is between not reading the book at all and buying a cheap, used copy, then I'm willing to accept the grey area has value. But if I can afford the new copy, I do pay. It's just a moral stance for me.

As for libraries ...I don't use them any more. Not for any moral reason—but just because getting to and from ours is neither convenient for me nor particularly worthwhile. Our library has become a lending agent for DVDs and CDs more than a library for books. Their book collection is pretty poor, focusing mostly on genre books, and I find the noise level inside the place is just too much for me. Loud, piped in pop music really isn't what I go to a library for. So I don't go. Yes, I'm ducking the issue. However, publishers DO agree for their books to be put in libraries, so I think that's a very pale grey area.

I would NEVER download any music for free. I do copy CDs I own for my own personal use in my iPod Shuffle, and don't see that as a copy infringement. This doesn't affect what I own or what I paid for it. It only affects how I listen to it. I wouldn't buy a separate CD for every CD player I own, would I? This amounts to the same thing. I'm listening to a CD I paid for on my iPod. I don't see a moral tangle in this.

This issue of digital dissemination of created material isn't going to go away. Nor is the issue of 'second use.' (Paying for something, using it for a while then passing it on for free.) I think we all need to discuss it and come to some moral conclusion about it ourselves, while the publishers, retailers, authors and musicians wrangle over the legalities. We can't put the toothpaste back in the tube here, can we? Hopefully any discussion will be about the issues themselves and not the personalities conducting the discussion, though.

 

Along the same lines as libraries providing a service for people to read books. Should radio stations stop playing new music? Libraries provide an easy access for people to discover authors that they would never otherwise encounter.

It is a double edged sword in a way. The author could argue that they are losing out on sales because their book is available for free at a library. Or they could understand that without the libraries, a lot less people would ever read their work and their sales would reduce (in some cases substantially) if libraries did not buy their books.

 

You just responded to a sweeping claim by citing yourself as a counterexample... and then by making another sweeping claim (not to mention a bold prediction) that opened yourself up to the same kind of response you just gave.

 

STARTING AGAIN!
I've sat here for 2-and-a-bit hours, writing a thesis, and having re-read what I had written so far, decided to summarize and condense. Chalk one up to the usefullness of editing! (And yes, this is the cut-down version! )

OK - Personal opinion only!

Technology develops, and will only continue to do so.

Take the Film (or, Movie)/TV and Music industries, and a business model that has been used for decades: The initial release onto ownable media (CD/DVD/Blu-Ray) is sold at a premium price - after a period of time, the price is dropped to a lower model - later still, as popularity for purchase declines, it is dropped further still. (This is a basic model, not including promos, etc.)
Some years back, when the media was on vinyl, cassette and video cassette, someone had the bright idea of creating a lending library (think BlockBuster, et al.), where the new releases were able to be borrowed at a fraction of the sale price. These items were then returned after a short time. This continued into CD/DVD, and even Blu-Ray, but was eventually superseded by digital, or delivery services, and by the further development of technology. There are still services like this (Love FILM, for one), but they are slowly dying out with the introduction of faster Internet connections and digital on-demand services. As these connections become faster, and more reliable, it could even be that physical content may decline completely (though I doubt books would ever completely die, who knows what future new generations will think of them, being brought up online?).

But still today, I find that the main principle is often used, or misused. Initially hike the price, then lower it later. Although there are sound financial reasons for this, to an extent (covering initial cost of product and labour, etc.), I believe that it only helps to maintain the piracy ethos. With the improvement of technology, it is not only easy to copy this material, it is only becoming easier! A quick search in google will give you all the step-by-step instructions, and no doubt video-based ones, too, on how to do almost any form of digital piracy you can think of.

So how do we move forward, and try to limit the piracy?
-I say limit, as I do not believe it will ever be possible to eradicate (and in some ways, don't think it should be - I would certainly have bought books many less books by new authors, had I not been able to borrow an initial book from friends, libraries, or second-hand/charity shops, to see if I liked them!).-

Going back to the BlockBuster model, I can't see why we couldn't generate revenue from an updated version of it's initial model. With the uptake of devices such as the Kindles and Kobos of the world, even mobile phones and Tablets, there is the ability to lend books. It is perfectly possible to have a book self-destruct from a device, after a given period, or number of reads, due to the need for the device to connect to the central system and validate the material - i.e. Amazon allow Amazon Prime users to borrow books. Once they have read it, or decided that they do not wish to read it any more, the content is removed and no longer able to be read on the device.
Doing something similar, is a way I see to potentially move forward. Rather than create a free library, if the publishing houses were to create a model where you could purchase a book by a particular author, where you were allowed to read it once before it was removed from the device, and where you could do so at a fraction of the print, or permanent download price, then I personally see a potential. It wouldn't remove the ability for pirates to copy the material, but could reduce the number of people that would go looking for it, as it is just so much easier to go download an official copy. This, along with thoughts of viruses, the fact that software is now in play for industries, that search for sites which have illegal downloads, etc. could possibly limit the ease with which it is possible to find and download pirated content, along with reducing the desire. There will always be those who will copy, or obtain copies for free, no matter what is done, this is not going to change for who knows how far into the future. Only a true Utopian society could see that removed, and we all know how likely that is to happen with human nature involved - LOL.

It may seem like such a model would bring less profit, but if it were to increase the amount of readers, and incentivise a percentage of the current pirate readers, or even change the way people think of digital content, then it could create a larger number of sales. Even at less profit per sale, enough sales still adds up to healthy profit. And digital content, once created, has many fewer overheads. It has the additional potential benefit of opening up the book to more readers, through the lower cost, meaning they may be more willing to try new authors.

Those who want to buy the physical book, or wish to purchase the book for life, should be taken into account, too. But I think this model has potential, what do you guys think?

P.S. Amazon see a potential market in a slightly similar model, with their Kindle Unlimited service, which although similar to Audible (now owned by Amazon anyway), but includes text versions of books, too. You pay a monthly fee, and can listen to, or read books from a pool of 700,000 books, and it's growing. So there is potential there, I believe

Hope I didn't ramble too much!

 

Libraries seem a reasonable way to me to provide access to literature for people who can't afford to buy new books. I could say the same about used book stores. I'm disturbed by the notion that borrowing a book from a friend is seen as 'piracy'. An author has the right to be rewarded for his/her labors. I'm not sure he/she has the 'right' to the maximum possible number of sales.

Agreed, but that's an obvious crime. No gray area there.

I hadn't thought about only buying used books that are out of print. I'll have to ponder that one.

 

I don't think used bookstore are a gray area, either. They're clearly legal, at least in the U.S. There's no problem buying from them whether the book is in print or not.

 

I'm sure you're right, I think @jannert was referring to the ethical question, if any.

 

Me too. I don't think it's an ethical question. The patent, trademark, and copyright systems are public policy determinations, not moral ones. In fact, a primary purpose underlying all of them is public benefit. If you look at the Constitutional authority for the patent and copyright systems in the U.S., they're there to promote progress in science and the useful arts - in other words, they exist in the first place in large part to benefit the public. That's one reason early copyright terms were only 14 years. It's not a moral issue as to whether a book can be resold, it's purely a public policy determination.

 

You're not part of the community, so it's understandable that you would think this, but I need to correct you. For the vast majority of pirates the idea of making money from downloads is beyond taboo. It's disgusting to them. Sites like The Pirate Bay are kept in business with advertising, but charge absolutely nothing for downloads. Even sites with a gateway don't charge users to make an account.

And while there are "sponsored" search results that do lead to pay downloads, they are nearly all scams, and are seen as pariahs on these sites.

Well let's take your position to it's logical conclusion. If I own a book, and I want to read it on my digital reader, is it okay to scan the book into my computer and make a .epub? After all I own the content, I payed for it, why should I pay for it again. It's my property to do what I want with.

Now, what's the difference between scanning the book that I own into my computer, and downloading that book off of a torrent site? The net result is the same. I have the digital copy of the book I own, and the only difference is that someone else has done the onerous work of scanning the book. (There are companies that you can send a book to and they will scan the whole thing onto a file, but most of them need to destroy the book to do this.)

And now, what's the difference between doing all of those things with a book that I lost? I lent it to someone and they never gave it back. I still payed for the book, shouldn't the information still be mine? And once that information is mine, and I can do with it what I wish, can I lend it to other people?

I can lend you a book, and you can give the book back to me, and then we both have the information. Why can't I share the book with you, and keep the information? What has changed in that instance? Should there be a limit on the number of people I can share a book with? What if all of my friends want to read the book, but they can't afford to pay for it. I can lend each of them the book, or I could share it with all of them. Normally I could just pass the book around, but if the information is mine and I can do what I want with it, sharing it with people should be within my prevue.

I'm not getting any money for sharing the book, at what point does it become "too much sharing"?

 

@Jack Asher

The difference between scanning your own .epub and getting it off a torrent site is that your own .epub is only available to you, who purchased the book, and not to everyone in the world.

If you lose a book, no you don't have a right to another copy. You bought that physical copy. Under copyright law, at least in the U.S., you can resell it, tear it up and make a collage out of it, loan it to a friend, or whatever. But if it is lost, you can't go to Barnes & Noble and say 'Hey, I need another copy. I lost mine." Your rights as the buyer are tied up in the physical copy you bought, not the text. The text still belongs to the author (or other copyright holder). Digital media has introduced a degree of gray area because digital copies of a work are unlike physical copies, but the idea that you have a right to the text itself, to do whatever you want, just because you bought a copy of it is erroneous, and if it were true we wouldn't need a copyright system because that viewpoint undermines the whole thing.

 

Then if I make an .epub and then loose my book, do I have to delete my digital copy?

 

Like I said, digital media makes things a gray area. I suspect content owners would argue that making the epub is not permissible. My view on it is that it should be considered fine to make the epub for your own use, and if you lose the physical copy you can keep the epub, but you can't distribute it (even in ways you would a physical book, much less by putting it on a torrent site).

I look at it like burning a CD I have to put on my iPod. If the CD is lost or gets scratched up, I can keep in on my iPod, but I can't upload all the songs to a torrent site for someone else to download them.

 

I have always operated on the policy that in the similar situation where I have loaded my CDs into, say, iTunes, I can't then pass those CDs onto someone else but keep the music in iTunes so, approximately, yes. In my opinion.

 

I wouldn't say so, no. I also burned all my music CDs to mp3, but if the original discs were lost in a house fire, I wouldn't feel obligated to delete the digital files.

 

Well, your points are all well taken. There are so many grey areas here it's beginning to look like a Scottish summer.

You said:

I have no problem with any of that. Why? Because you bought the initial book. As you say, if you've bought the initial book, who cares how you choose to read it, or who has done the job of transferring the book to a digital format? The problem comes if you didn't actually buy the book. If your torrent site allows anybody to download a book, without checking whether or not that person actually owns a physical copy of that book, this is entering a grey area for me.

Copying CAN lead to abuse, but that doesn't mean it always leads to abuse. It's a really new technology, and I think it needs discussions like this to bring the issue to the fore and make us think about how we use it. And as for sharing ...well, when does that become abuse? When somebody gets paid for the share? (Piracy? Used booksellers?) Or when a free share reaches a certain number of people? I don't know. It's all pretty nebulous at the moment.

I certainly give away printed books if I have no intention of reading them again—to friends, to libraries, and to thrift stores where they will be sold again. I have also been known to give away CDs I don't like (although I don't give away the ones I've copied to my iPod.) The author or musician only gets paid once, but several people may get the benefit of that one sale. So ...that's a grey area in itself. I admit that.

However, this kind of physical chain-link 'sharing' has been done for yonks. It's no worse (from an owner's point of view) than giving away your old jacket when you don't want it any more. You simply avoid wasting it, by throwing it in the bin instead. You can pass around a book or a CD to a few other people, and that's more or less expected. BUT when you put a book or CD's contents online, you share them with the entire online world, unless checks are built into the system of sharing. It's not the act of unpaid sharing, but the sheer NUMBER of potential unpaid shares that has created this online sharing controversy.

Online sharing is part of our new technological world, like it or not. We can't stop it without taking draconian steps that impinge on freedom. So we have to find a way to deal with it, in an ethical sense. Otherwise artists and authors will never get reasonably paid for their work.

The maker of the jacket only gets paid once for the product they made, so they don't care what you do with it after you buy it. Authors and musicians, on the other hand, make their money from ongoing sales. In other words, artists make the product only once, get paid very little when they sell it to a publisher or producer, but expect to get the bulk of their income from how many times the product gets sold. This income is now under threat from the online sharing world, because the product can now be consumed by thousands of people who have never paid for it at all.

That's why I liked @Stacy C 's idea about HOW (and at what point in the process) the creators of things like books and music get paid. Don't know how that would play out, but it's an idea worth considering.

 

Those are good ideas which could be implemented in the very near future. I do object to the idea that a book I 'buy' via Kindle or other e-Reader will disappear after a time, though. Maybe this could be solved by offering the book at a low price for the initial read. Then if I like it and want to keep it, I could pay an extra (reasonable) fee (part of which goes to the author) to keep it from being deleted? Where there is a will, there's a way....

 

Hi Jack,

Don't know where you sit on this divide, but in my view whether a pirate makes money by selling my books or not is irrelevant to me. If they give my books away for free it does not in some way make them ethical. In fact whether they feel outraged by others making money off their crimes strikes me as farcical. They're still thieves. How would you feel if someone wandered into your house, stole your possiessions and then started giving them away on the street instead of taking them to a pawn shop? Would you magically feel better and no longer be out of pocket?

Theft is theft.

If pirates want to be ethical they would take my books, and pay me for every copy they either gave away or sold. But they aren't going to do that are they! So they can take their ethical high ground and stick it where the sun don't shine!

Cheers, Greg.

 

Theft is theft, and piracy is piracy. Pirating books is not the same as someone burgling your house. A better analogy would be if I were having a garage sale to sell my possessions but some wizard appeared and began creating an indefinite number of duplicates of all my possessions and giving them away, thus, removing incentive for people to purchase them from me. A much more cumbersome and contrived analogy, I know, but the theft analogy just doesn't hold up.
If anything you are out a sale, but piracy isn't theft. That doesn't make it right, nor does it make it not a crime, but lumping two very different crimes together is at best misguided, and at worst, disingenuous.

 

Not paying someone for their services would be more of a breach of contract than theft. As for the first point, it very much is. If someone was able to perfectly duplicate my car at no cost and drive away with it then I see no reason to care. Piracy is a separate crime altogether.

 

It's not about who invested time into it, it's about the fact that pirates aren't taking the original copy away. I've said this before and I'll say it again, that isn't a justification for piracy. I'm not defending piracy, I'm simply saying piracy and theft are two similar but ultimately separate things ...

... and no, I don't really care if one particular government files it under theft. I'm talking about concept of theft and stealing itself, not the legal implementation, since law varies between country to country and time period to time period.