Library books vs. torrented ebooks

[TerraPrime]

No, it's really not like that. At all.

If you want to still use a hammer comparison, it's like taking one second to carve and head an exact copy of the hammer, leaving the original where it was, nailing whatever you have to nail, and then putting the copied hammer back next to the original hammer, because now there are two hammers where there were one.

Seriously, think about it.

Fine.

So do you have the ethical rights to make copies of things you find useful without purchasing that item?

[TerraPrime]

Sure. We're one of the first cultures in the history of the world to say (legislate) that you don't.

Well, then we're in fundamental disagreement.

Glad we cleared that up. :)

[TerraPrime]

Let me ask you then: are we better off for this? Are people's lives better for making sure that information is as restricted as the market will bear?

I don't think so, at all.

Information, or entertainment?

I might cede ground on information, such as news items, or even political commentaries. But A Dance with Dragon? That's entertainment, and no public good is served to allow piracy of that book.

[TerraPrime]

How about drug patents?

Are we working under the capitalist system, or not?

If we are, then the company who develops the drug should be allowed to profit from it. Protecting their right to manufacture it exclusively seems to be most direct route, but I'm open to suggestions. I know enough about the IP laws to know that it's a huge mess. The current way we do things doesn't seem to be ideal (has it ever?), so I'm open to seeing some changes.

But it's not just about pharmaceuticals, of course. Anything of value, be it drugs, electronic gadgets, software, require labor and cost in the development stages. How do we plan to compensate the people who took the risks in developing these products, if not by protecting their right to be the exclusive party who can sell it? Or to put another way, how do we make information free without removing the incentive to generate new information?

[Serious Callers Only]

Nah, you seem to think people who pirate would buy all the books if they were denied piracy.

I'd say, 98% of the cases, this is false.

First, it is entertainment, not life-saving drugs, poor people would do without.

For those who have the money to spend, they likely already do - many studies from software pirates show that many of those that pirate the most, also are in the "buy the most" population.

[Spring Bass]

Information, or entertainment?

I might cede ground on information, such as news items, or even political commentaries. But A Dance with Dragon? That's entertainment, and no public good is served to allow piracy of that book.

The burden of proof is on those who would set up and enforce copyright to prove that it's in the public good, not the people violating copyright. Enforcement has very real costs to the public, costs that are only morally justifiable if copyright is actually serving the role it was intended to (to promote the arts and sciences).

In practice, I think copyright does promote the arts . . . provided the time limit is appropriate. The length of time that we currently give copyright and trademark rights-holders is ridiculous - you could cut copyright back to 50 years, and I doubt it would seriously reduce the incentive to create new works.

[Shryke]

It is justified for libraries to have limited copies of a certain book, because the book is a physical object, created from paper, ink and a printing press. Resources are wasted in the process, the library has to give up space to store it, the book itself depreciates over time and may have to be replaced with a fresh copy and finally, as a physical object, it can be salvaged for some physical worth (e.g. burn to produce heat in the event of an ice age ...).

Neither of this is applicable to ebooks. Any price put on ebooks is 100% profit for the author and distributors.

Um ... no it's not. Do ebooks not get edited or advertised or written or anything in your mind? Because they are electronic they just magically appear from the aether?

The only cost savings for the publisher in ebooks is in printing and printing isn't even close to a large cost in the publishing industry. Most analyses I've seen peg it at about 10%.

Now, if we had online libraries, which worked the same way real libraries do, with the exception that each existing book can be lent to an indefinite number of users at any one time ...

We would destroy the publishing industry. Good plan. Who needs books.

[Shryke]

Let me ask you then: are we better off for this? Are people's lives better for making sure that information is as restricted as the market will bear?

I don't think so, at all.

Wait, you don't think the ability of, say, oh I don't know, GRRM to actually write for a living because he can make money off it makes our lives better? Really?

The burden of proof is on those who would set up and enforce copyright to prove that it's in the public good, not the people violating copyright. Enforcement has very real costs to the public, costs that are only morally justifiable if copyright is actually serving the role it was intended to (to promote the arts and sciences).

In practice, I think copyright does promote the arts . . . provided the time limit is appropriate. The length of time that we currently give copyright and trademark rights-holders is ridiculous - you could cut copyright back to 50 years, and I doubt it would seriously reduce the incentive to create new works.

Good. Then go pirate 50 year old books.

[Serious Callers Only]

I expect the situation to get worse - i think software piracy is the new war on drugs that Washington is preparing, the only thing that saves it is there is less money for them siphon.

It will get worse because every first world economy is moving to the tertiary sector almost exclusively.

No skin off my nose, i use linux anyway, long live strict copyright enforcement.

[Shryke]

I don't really see the difference between doing this and, say, subsidizing artists.

Between what and what?

[karaddin]

I know enough about the IP laws to know that it's a huge mess. The current way we do things doesn't seem to be ideal (has it ever?), so I'm open to seeing some changes.

The IP laws in general are a indeed a huge mess, and have not been adequately kept up to date with technology. The protectionist response from the film industry etc trying to avoid adapting has led to what Wisest Bass is talking about where the rights last far too long.

Patents in particular are the biggest issue though, particularly pertaining to software. This can be seen in the growing shit storm around Android and Apple, which looks like it might bring things to a head and motivate reform.

[Inigima]

The problem with Solmyr's formulation is that it is incomplete. Printing and distribution costs are only part of the costs. You need editors and other staff, for example. And there needs to be profit potential or no one will want to be in the industry. And ebook distribution costs are vanishingly small, but they are nonzero.

Terra's making some good points. The counterarguments aren't nearly as persuasive.

I'd like to point people to Jaron Lanier's excellent You Are Not A Gadget. Which is available in ebook form, incidentally.

To me the big problems with the ebook industry are collusion, price fixing, and asinine region controls. Not the desire to be paid.

[Shryke]

The IP laws in general are a indeed a huge mess, and have not been adequately kept up to date with technology. The protectionist response from the film industry etc trying to avoid adapting has led to what Wisest Bass is talking about where the rights last far too long.

Patents in particular are the biggest issue though, particularly pertaining to software. This can be seen in the growing shit storm around Android and Apple, which looks like it might bring things to a head and motivate reform.

Oh yeah, the implementation of the system right now is a fucking disaster.

But the idea is not only a good one, it's becoming more and more necessary as the modern world moves into a much more information based economy.

[Maltaran]

The problem with Solmyr's formulation is that it is incomplete. Printing and distribution costs are only part of the costs. You need editors and other staff, for example. And there needs to be profit potential or no one will want to be in the industry. And ebook distribution costs are vanishingly small, but they are nonzero.

Plus (in the UK at least) for purposes of VAT, ebooks are not classed as books (which are zero-rated) but as software (which attracts the full 20% VAT rate).

[Shryke]

IP law is all that is propping up a failing publishing industry. It's more or less subsidized by ridiculous notions like, "You are not allowed to copy your mp3s and give them to your family" or "You can only take out an ebook if nobody else wants it".

The only useful part of our current IP law regime, Fair Use, is being threatened right now by the same group of morons who can't create a business model that would make money off of ebooks.

I brought up artists because I don't see it as much different from paying painters to create works of art that go into warehouses.

ETA: Look, I get it. Writers and musicians should be able to make money off their product. The answer is not to prop up, say, UMC, through ludicrous laws that give dead people reign over your mp3s.

Then what is the answer?

Because that money in, say, publishing doesn't just support artists. It supports the entire structure that finds, nurtures, improves and advertises those artists so they can be better and make more money.

Of course IP law is all that's "propping up" the publishing industry. The publishing industry is an industry that exclusive manufactures intellectual property. Like, duh.

IP law has many many good uses. That's why it exists. It serves the public good in many cases. The problem is many parts of it have been distorted to turn it against the public good for personal profit (fuck you very much Disney). Those are the things that need to be curtailed.

And it's not just IP really. The entire patent system and other such things need a massive massive overhaul. But they don't need to go away.

[Dornish]

Good. Then go pirate 50 year old books.

Are you saying The Lord of the Rings is fair game? I think it absolutely should be public domain, but it isn't.

[Shryke]

Are you saying The Lord of the Rings is fair game? I think it absolutely should be public domain, but it isn't.

Fair game in what sense?

Legally? No, it's still under copyright afaik.

Ethically? Much greyer area. Personally I don't see how keeping something like LOTR out of the public domain is serving the public good in any way.

[Dornish]

Fair game in what sense?

Legally? No, it's still under copyright afaik.

Ethically? Much greyer area. Personally I don't see how keeping something like LOTR out of the public domain is serving the public good in any way.

If the answer to legally and ethically are different, does that not make the law unethical?

Further, if the chance of prosecution for breaking a law is near zero doesn't legality become an irrelevant question?

[Lord of Oop North]

look, here's how it is. pirating that book is like hitting up some no-name dealer in the middle of don bookleone's hood. the library is the big boss. head honcho. don bookleone. head of the cartel of le livros. you hit up that no-name pusher and you're cutting into his cheese. dude has the right ot fuck you up. i expect library enforcers to break your knees with a bag of books in 2 days the hence. luck dude.

[Maltaran]

Are you saying The Lord of the Rings is fair game? I think it absolutely should be public domain, but it isn't.

Copyright is generally X years from the author's death, not date of publication (X being usually either 50 or 70, depending on which country you're in). Tolkien died in 1973, so there's still another decade at least until LOTR is public domain.