Pirated digital books

You think valuing the time and talent required to produce a quality product (as opposed to only valuing the raw, physical materials) is emotional? (not asking rhetorically - I'm interested in understanding your pov).

 

And that type of thing goes all the way back to the days of the Commodore 64 and the first software pirates.

There was a small but vocal group of (initially) UNIX programmers who believed all software should be free. And they managed to convince a lot of people this was fair. Eventually, a few of the more morally-upright of this crowd started the Free Software Foundation in 1985 and everybody thought the fight was over.

But it was just the beginning. Somewhere along that road to morality, a bunch of disgruntled programmers decided that creating work-alike software for free wasn't enough, especially in light of how the software giants of the day slapped everyone and their dog with law suits each time a free application appeared that used the same alphabet. (Seriously, it was that bad. As an example, Bill Gates was so busy serving everyone with trumped-up copyright infringement suits during the 1980s, it took him nearly a decade and a half to become the first software billionaire. Meanwhile, he was infringing on everyone else, turning all the lawyers in his dad's law firm into multi-multi-millionaires.)

These disgruntled (and now rogue) programmers focused on breaking copy protection which only served to give evil scientists the world over an even worse reputation than they already had and made us all afraid of smart people.

And copy protection breakers begot stronger encryption to the point where every floppy drive attached to every Commodore 64 in the land felt the brunt of this battle. Copy protection routines resorted to banging the drive heads against their stops over and over again for some ungodly reason and it broke people's drives. The public got pissed and sided with the rogue programmers (although we still feared them down deep in our hearts which just shows how powerful corporate propaganda can be).

Then came the Software Police. Rumours flew around UseNet (the precursor to the Internet) that the government actually allowed Microsoft to form a type of brown-shirt brigade who could force their way into people's homes and confiscate their software collections. Some said this was the right thing to do because those collections were all pirated. Others claimed it was wrong because: civil rights. And Microsoft was apparently grabbing legitimate copies right along with the pirated stuff, even legal copies of software from other companies (which most believed was their way of forcing people to buy Microsoft brand replacements). Still others said the whole thing was just another example of corporate propaganda. No one, to this day, really knows the truth of the matter or whether these Microsoft brown-shirt brigades ever existed. Anyone who does know isn't talking.

After a while, the corporations replaced copy protection with serial numbers, followed by authorization codes, then endless 'security' updates. Who's going to settle for software infected with malware if the company is handing out free protection via updates every few months? And who's really behind all these malware attacks anyway?

Finally, they came up with the security system to beat all pirates, Cortana and Siri! You can't make a move without them running home to momma and tattling. So everyone's fallen into line and the corporations are all happy... that was the objective all along, wasn't it?

And now the software giants finally know the truth, a truth that was spoken way back in 1985 by Richard Stallman: shadow loses have never been a threat to software companies.

If only they'd listened back then, they could have saved us all a lot of broken drive heads and saved themselves from the Godless indulgence of wealth. (sigh)

But what does all this have to do with pirating e-books?

Well, the story goes on...

When people realized they couldn't collect software anymore because it was too well protected (by the late 1990s, it was an addiction although it has yet to be given a catchy name even to this day) they turned to collecting data files. The first of those were music files, but it was all MIDI stuff, so no one really cared. But into the populace was born a hankering for the real thing, the original music by the original bands! So, when MP3s arrived on the scene, the collecting fervor was on once again.

Then when computers were finally fast enough to edit video, people discovered that movies and TV shows could be stored and played back digitally, too. And the collecting started all over again.

A few years later, when books went 'e,' it started once again. And, just so this little diatribe doesn't end on a depressing note, the end is in sight! Yes, it really is!

Because soon those software billionaires will replace us all with robots and we'll be free to do all the creating we want, all day long (and into the night if that's your bent). And the best part? Those robots, when they're finally gifted with The Three Laws, will rise up and conquer the billionaires on our behalf and the world will finally be safe from the greedy and power-hungry.

Either that or there'll be an alien invasion and they'll save us from the billionaires.

 

Is that so?

 

Public library?

 

Is an anagram of Piracy Rib Bull, just saying.

 

Well.. yeah, what you said is totally nonsensical.
Ebook versions of any book are the same value as the paper book when it comes down to straight economics.
Sure, one might prefer a paper book over an ebook, but that doesn't change the value of the contents inside.

Where do you think public libraries get books from? Off the streets from some guy in a car?

Libraries get donations from publishers and book stores and have licenses to distribute X amount in digital form (For the fancier libraries). All those books and whatnot have been, in one way or another, been paid for.

 

A rapidly declining institution, where I am. In that instance they didn't have the books I wanted; they often don't, unfortunately. Please don't take what I said to mean I condone book piracy, I don't mean it that way at all. I shouldn't have done it and was only explaining why I did it, not justifying it. And I was kinda joking saying I might do it again

 

I understand that you were mostly joking, but check into interlibrary loan. I'd bet that you can get the books you want--not immediately, but both free and legally.

 

That's what I thought. It's like buying a tree and expecting a master carpenter to turn it into a cabinet for you free of charge.

@ChickenFreak I will look into that, thank you.

 

Hardly. I'll explain it to you, so try to follow.

I pointed out that, as a society, we have made a determination that this is morally acceptable, and therefore is it legal. You went from that to a bunch of unrelated laws, assuming erroneously that if there is one case in which something is made lawful it must be true that everything that is legal was made legal for the same reason. That's a logical fallacy, and furthermore not what I said. You either failed to read my post properly, or else intentionally set up an argument I didn't make because you couldn't devise a response that was on point.

In the case of the First Sale doctrine, which is the reason you can sell a second-hand book (and, really, it makes no sense whatsoever to prohibit such sales), the doctrine arose out of courts of equity, which historically are basically about fairness. The courts construed the Copyright Act at the time, and also the nature and purpose of copyright (which the government doesn't have to provide at all if it wishes not to), and looked generally at restraints on alienation (the presumption against these is also rooted in fairness).

In this particular case, ideas of fairness, and what is right (i.e. morality) are things that were actually taken into account in the formation of this judicial doctrine, which was eventually codified into the U.S. code in 1976.

Nothing in the above, nor anything in my prior posts, states or implies that because the First Sale doctrine is in place at least in part due to a determination of what is "right," that all laws therefore must be in existence for the same reason. You made that straw man up in your own head to have something to argue about.

If you can't follow the above, then I can't help you. It's a pretty simple distinction. Let's see if you can stay on point instead of making up fantasies in your own head to argue against.

 

@Kingtype

Software (and people are trying to head this way with things like ebooks) presents an interesting situation, because while you own the physical DVD that you purchase, the information on it is being licensed. There are issues around how something like the first sale doctrine applies in that case. Also, when you're using the software, you're making copies of it and people have argued that you are therefore infringing copyright law (which doesn't allow for making copies under something like the first sale doctrine). There are new cases coming frequently that are attempting to adapt older principles of copyright law, as well as other areas of the law, to a changing digital environment. For example, cases around ebooks and libraries.

But the first sale doctrine, as it applies to individual physical copies is still going strong. In the law few years the Supreme Court has held that even individual physical copies bought abroad and resold in the U.S. are covered under the First Sale Doctrine.

 

No, no it isn't.

It's like paying the same price for a picture of a tree as the tree itself.

 

Yes. This is fairly self-evident, it seems to me. Particularly from the point of view of an author. I don't know many authors who are willing to steal from other authors, but there must be some. Similarly, I know a fair number of musicians who aren't willing to download pirated CDs for the same reason.

 

You did not just take that seriously...

 

It's as if I said "Pizza pan" is an anagram of "Nazi zapp" and you took it seriously.

 

Well, to take this analogy forward...
1. If it were a really nice photo of a tree I may well pay more for it than for the tree itself because I'd have more use for it. I can hang a picture above my sofa, can't do that with a great stonking tree can I?

2. I don't think anyone has suggested it's unreasonable to charge more for a print book than an ebook (I assume that's the point you're making? Correct me if I'm wrong). For an ebook you pay for the story. For a print book you pay for the story + the material costs etc. But still in both cases the story (ie the content) has worth.

You know, if you actually tried to elaborate on your viewpoint instead of being vague and deflective, I'd be really interested to read it. I like discussing things with people I disagree with.

 

Print costs are a tiny, tiny part of the cost of producing a book. Human resource and marketing make up the vast majority of costs, and they're the same whether it's paper or electronic.

I know it feels intuitively that an ebook should be worth less than paper, but the numbers don't stack up that way.

 

From what I've read, publishers says that about 8% the cost of a print book is directed toward the costs of making the book. So you're still paying mostly for the content, though not exclusively. With e-books, you're still paying something toward preparation, delivery, etc., though it seems that this would be less than the cost of making a print book - it's just not a significant difference.

 

Everyone does.

I don't think the story has material/economic worth. You can't buy words or the right to read certain words, in my opinion.

 

@King Arthur

Look man, from one younger guy to another.

I think you should probably stop trying to justify illegally downloading books. I mean I'm no saint....I admit and I have pirated before. Now with me (Not to justify it, still not good) I've only ever illegally downloaded things that weren't readily available in the west.

There have been a couple Japanese works of fiction I've really wanted to read. I simply read them through the only means I could but at the time I have to much respect for creator to not keep good. So just this year a lot of them actually started getting translated. So, I been buying them cause I loved the works and I feel the authors have earned my money....I just couldn't pay them yet at first . But dude, come on unless you're unable to read the work legally for some reason or another then you don't need to be pirating stuff.

I appreciate you prefer physical copies of things it seems (so do I) but downloading ebooks without paying is still theft.

You can try to call it something else or disguise it with philosophy but it is stealing. In fact as far as I'm concerned you owe a sort of debt to pretty much everything you ever illegally downloaded but that's just my own personal belief. You obviously don't have to go that far with it but still theft is wrong and you shouldn't do it.

Now with all that said.

I do hope that if you ever come across a book I write and like it that you'll buy in physical instead of just illegally downloading it. If you enjoy it enough.

 

Some sort of debt? That's ridiculous.

 

Okay, I know this is a mistake but what the heck!

I put a lot of effort in making my words come out just as right as I can and if someone tells me that they have no worth, than this is a slap in the face.

Any work of art is a thing of the mind, words as much as music, as much as paintings, you name it. The artist gave up a whole lot of his time to make it. It is HIS CHOICE if he wants compensation. Some people love making art so much - and are so good at it - that they can do it all day, their whole life long. To give other people joy. To give YOU joy. And you are not willing to acknowledge their work with something which will help them make more joy. We are not talking huge amounts of money here, don't forget this. A book costs about $10 (if it is expansive). It would only cost you a bit of comfort, a pack of cigarettes, a cocktail in a bar. Do you say honestly that the words you read are not as valuable as that? Why do you bother to read them then?

I think this discussion would be really better placed in the 'Debate Room'.

 

Probably not worth arguing with someone who already feels entitled to your labor.

 

"Have no material/economic worth"
"Have no worth"

Am I the only one who sees the issue there?
Please don't make me say things I didn't say, thanks.

An expensive book is £25-50, higher for a scholarly book.

 

Well that's my own code like I said.

Hence why I said you obviously don't have to or wouldn't do that but that's how I handled the stuff I downloaded. I read it illegally via fan translations and have started buying them up as they started coming out in English because I feel I owed the author money (plus I enjoy the works)

My own personal code.

One I don't expect others to follow who have downloaded things. I apologize if I came off that way, didn't mean to write it as such. I see I kinda wrote it harshly in previous post. Nonetheless my reasoning still stands that pirating no matter how one justifies is theft and its wrong or at the least not a good thing to practice in.