Library books vs. torrented ebooks

[Errant Bard]

So, my worry is not that a small number of sociopaths will pirate an author's works; or that genuinely penniless students will do so; or obsessives with more downloaded books than they will ever read in their lifetimes will add my book to their endless collections...

No, my worry is that people of good conscience will be convinced that downloading a writer's hard work and paying nothing for it (to the writer), is a harmless, victimless activity. "Information wants to be free" will pardon, even bless what they do. Or maybe it'll be a case of "duping is not stealing" or "let's stick it to the man".

So, what do you make of the various studies (first google hits) showing that statistically, those who download a lot buy a lot? It pretty much challenges the idea of a division between those who download and don't buy and those who buy and don't download.

This is not a situation I need to try very hard to imagine, because I already know dozens of people who think I'm an idiot for spending money on DVD box-sets and CDs. Many of them rave about "The Wire" and "Rome" and "A Game of Thrones", but none have any intention of buying the second series for themselves. I know. I've argued with them about it. They're actually good people who simply see nothing wrong in what they're doing or, at least, refuse to examine it too closely.

Do they buy anything at all? From everything I've read and seen around me, an internet connection is not related to a cut in entertainment spending (there was another study linked on the board about that, can't find it now), but anyway, do they spend less on entertainment than before and would they have bought the DVDs before? I feel that is the only relevant question, as in my experience, those who watch whole series pirated would before just have watched them on TV, or not at all, and all in all, they would have bought as much or less... The share of entertainment spending in their budget doesn't change, even though they consume more entertainment than before. I cannot see that as a loss, it was never to be a gain. Meanwhile, series they watch are better known, you really feel that effect, with the best series actually being distributed more, due to public awareness. The focus is shifted on things they really liked.

In that perspective, duping is definitely not stealing. It's advertising.

But on the other hand, we can make it work differently: adopt the HBO/BBC model, have people pay a fee first, then download what they want.

If history teaches us anything it's that they will :P It's the entire business model for selling bottled water after all.

My point, really. Of course those who buy bottled water actually pay twice for water, once for tap, once for bottled.

assuming the publishers are not stupid (admittedly not neccessarily guaranteed) prices would likely drop to the degree where the vast majority would be willing to pay simply for the convenience.

They actually are fucking idiots, at least in France: e-books are planned to cost more than paper releases... because of the DRM costs (or so they say). It's a riot. I understand that most costs don't change (editing, advertising, and random administrative tasks), but this, here, is ridiculous. The only perceptible effect is that people buy less ebooks than they would have.

But as Peadar mentions above, it's not true for everywhere. The doorstopper size of ADWD, plus a price half that of hardback may actually be reasons for me to switch to digital reading. I only need DRM-free files. Damn that book, you could bludgeon someone to death with it.

[TheKassi]

Actually, if we are going to go into the 'it is unethical because it is illegal' argument (Law of course being the very worst foundation for ethics. Ethics should be the foundation for law, not the other way around. Ignoring that is how you get government sanctioned atrocity and bigotry.) duplicating content is not strictly illegal, even absent consent. The folks who make TV programs lost that legal argument when broadcaster pushed their boundaries and won. The general argument was despite their objections, the folks who make TV programs were benefiting.

So that argument isn't absent precedent.

I still however believe the entire system is a convoluted mess of arbitrary silliness from an ethical stand point. If you download a book from some website with the intent that if it proves worthy of finishing you will purchase it from a store I would consider you ethically superior to someone who reads a book in the book store but never purchases it. (which many major bookstores allow, because they sell coffee to such folk.) I would similarly rank someone who per-orders a novel and then downloads a early leaked copy off of some website above someone who uses the library as their primary source of entertainment.

To me, supporting an entertainer is far more important then scrupulously adhering to only the legal methods of mooching. If you enjoy something buy it. It is the only way new content of that particular niche is going to be produced. If your not buying it, you are not contributing to the cycle of new content. I don't much care what method you use to consume content absent payment. Null is null.

[Galactus]

Do they buy anything at all? From everything I've read and seen around me, an internet connection is not related to a cut in entertainment spending (there was another study linked on the board about that, can't find it now), but anyway, do they spend less on entertainment than before and would they have bought the DVDs before? I feel that is the only relevant question, as in my experience, those who watch whole series pirated would before just have watched them on TV, or not at all, and all in all, they would have bought as much or less... The share of entertainment spending in their budget doesn't change, even though they consume more entertainment than before. I cannot see that as a loss, it was never to be a gain. Meanwhile, series they watch are better known, you really feel that effect, with the best series actually being distributed more, due to public awareness. The focus is shifted on things they really liked.

In general piracy probably doesen't affect your entertainment budget. It's probably going to remain fixed. However, it might affect hat you spend it on.

[Shryke]

In general piracy probably doesen't affect your entertainment budget. It's probably going to remain fixed. However, it might affect hat you spend it on.

Yeah, generally piracy seems a way to expand your entertainment "spending" without paying any more money.

Basically if you want a Bluray and a CD and you can't afford both, you just buy the Bluray and pirate the CD.

[Deedles]

Personally, I do feel that piracy is theft - be it of music, film or books. I want my favourite authors to earn money by selling their ware - so they can continue to write it. I buy in hardback - even though I dislike that medium - as I know that's a way to ensure that the author gets as much as possible. Having said that, I buy paper back when I don't know the author, or am trying something out, or it's something I like, but don't love.

I did torrent Game of Thrones. I feel conflicted by that. I did try to get Sky in the apartment, but it's not available in my area. I will be buying the box set.

[Errant Bard]

Basically if you want a Bluray and a CD and you can't afford both, you just buy the Bluray and pirate the CD.

You seem to imply there's something bad with that, what is it?

[TheKassi]

You seem to imply there's something bad with that, what is it?

Like every other career, entertainers invest their time not simply because they enjoy it, but because they expect a return on their investment. If you can not afford both a CD and a movie, and decided to purchase a movie and download the CD, it is akin to your employer saying they can not afford to pay you and Cindy for the past two weeks, so they are only paying Cindy.

What reason do you have to complain? Nothing is being taken from you. A tangible item isn't removed from your possession, the only thing that is happening is that they unwilling to compensate you for the time you invested, so they are choosing not to.

[Shryke]

You seem to imply there's something bad with that, what is it?

How am I implying anything?

I was simlpy agreeing with Galactus's point: that pirating doesn't cause a lowering in entertainment spending because that's not why people do it. People pirate to expand their entertainment "purchases" without spending anymore money.

Secondly, are you saying you don't think there's anything wrong with pirating?

[Errant Bard]

How am I implying anything?

You seemed to be, you, were not, it's cool. It was just a question.

Secondly, are you saying you don't think there's anything wrong with pirating?

What reason do you have to complain? Nothing is being taken from you. A tangible item isn't removed from your possession, the only thing that is happening is that they unwilling to compensate you for the time you invested, so they are choosing not to.

No, I don't think there is anything wrong in a case were the choice would be either:

1. not buy
   
2. pirate
   

Either way the creator is not receiving one penny, but in the second case, the consumer might have loved what he pirated and buy it next time. Not in the first case, where he'll get whatever other thing is hyped when he has money again. This is the failure of the argument asserting each pirated copy is a loss: it assumes consumers don't already spend all their money, that they would buy, that they can buy what they pirate. I've never seen anything more of a fallacy so widely accepted.

[Shryke]

No, I don't think there is anything wrong in a case were the choice would be either:

1. not buy
   
2. pirate
   

Either way the creator is not receiving one penny, but in the second case, the consumer might have loved what he pirated and buy it next time. Not in the first case, where he'll get whatever other thing is hyped when he has money again. This is the failure of the argument asserting each pirated copy is a loss: it assumes consumers don't already spend all their money, that they would buy, that they can buy what they pirate. I've never seen anything more of a fallacy so widely accepted.

It's not a fallacy though. You are drastically oversimplifying the situation.

I used the above example for a reason. Why does the CD get pirated and not the Bluray?

The answer is simple: the CD is easier to pirate

The CD, by being more piratable, loses the sale. Every pirated copy is a loss compared to that same copy with strong enough protection to stop that pirating (usually by making it annoying enough that people pirate something else instead, although not necessarily)

[Errant Bard]

Every pirated copy is a loss compared to that same copy with strong enough protection to stop that pirating

Not really, since there would always be a loss (ie, only one of your two items would get bought, anyway, since people's budget is, in the end, not extensible) This is where the fallacy lies. In global terms, the entertainment industry loses nothing due to internet (cue studies that show entertainment spending diminishing equally in houses with internet and houses without).

ETA: And for the CD/BLUray example, I call bullshit. When you say "pirating" nowadays, it means downloading, not buying the original media and making copies. (which is something of a paradox.) So getting the latest stuff that was originally on Bluray or stuff that was on CD has strictly the same difficulty for 99% of the consumers, in the end it always ends on digital devices with hard drives. The choice is made by content.

For the ones buying the original and distributing it, cracking BLurays is about as simple as making toast. (I frequent some sharing sites, and when stuff in higher quality is released, you find it online about one day after, tops)

[Shryke]

Not really, since there would always be a loss (ie, only one of your two items would get bought, anyway, since people's budget is, in the end, not extensible) This is where the fallacy lies. In global terms, the entertainment industry loses nothing due to internet (cue studies that show entertainment spending diminishing equally in houses with internet and houses without).

Why are you looking at it globally? It's not like the artists pool money. Pirating is a loss for the person who's work is easier to get compared to the person who's work is harder to get. It's also a loss vs other forms of entertainment where this sort of thing doesn't even make sense. (ie - going to the movies vs buying a dvd)

Just because people's budgets aren't infinitely extendable doesn't mean they aren't malleable. Pirating a loss of a sale because the potential customer reallocates their budget towards other forms of entertainment instead. Just because they are spending the same amount overall doesn't mean they are spending it on the same shit.

The only fallacy here is you acting as if "The Entertainment Industry" is some sort of organized monolithic corporate entity.

ETA: And for the CD/BLUray example, I call bullshit. When you say "pirating" nowadays, it means downloading, not buying the original media and making copies. (which is something of a paradox.) So getting the latest stuff that was originally on Bluray or stuff that was on CD has strictly the same difficulty for 99% of the consumers, in the end it always ends on digital devices with hard drives. The choice is made by content.

For the ones buying the original and distributing it, cracking BLurays is about as simple as making toast. (I frequent some sharing sites, and when stuff in higher quality is released, you find it online about one day after, tops)

No, not at all.

A downloaded copy of, say, a movie on your computer is not functionally equivalent to having a dvd/bluray copy of said movie.

A pirated and bought version of an album are indistinguishable.

Some things are easier to pirate then others because they are more interchangeable with their legal counterpart.

[TheKassi]

No, I don't think there is anything wrong in a case were the choice would be either:

1. not buy
   
2. pirate
   

Either way the creator is not receiving one penny, but in the second case, the consumer might have loved what he pirated and buy it next time. Not in the first case, where he'll get whatever other thing is hyped when he has money again. This is the failure of the argument asserting each pirated copy is a loss: it assumes consumers don't already spend all their money, that they would buy, that they can buy what they pirate. I've never seen anything more of a fallacy so widely accepted.

Apply the same argument to you and your employer. Their choice would be to either not pay you for the work you have preformed, or not have you preform the work at all. If they however have you come in and work, they might love the job you do, and be hyped to pay you next pay period.

Lets say employers did this on a the scale piracy, and other methods of mooching, is practiced. Arguing the economy is bad and they can not afford to pay everyone, but they would solve unemployment by putting everyone to work and selectively choosing not to pay them. This would allow them to see who was truly worthy of putting on the payroll, and then pay the people that preformed the best. The people they didn't pay however wouldn't be missing out, as they would have the opportunity to improve their performance, and eventually become worthy of a paycheck. They would be advertizing the quality of the services they can provide.

How long do you think such would go on before the average citizen became a rioter?

Either you have a responsibility to pay people when you consume the fruits of their labor, or you don't. That is all there really is to it. If you do not have the responsibility to pay those who produce product, then how do you claim the people who produce product have a responsibility to pay their employees?

[Errant Bard]

Just because people's budgets aren't infinitely extendable doesn't mean they aren't malleable. Pirating a loss of a sale because the potential customer reallocates their budget towards other forms of entertainment instead. Just because they are spending the same amount overall doesn't mean they are spending it on the same shit.

The only fallacy here is you acting as if "The Entertainment Industry" is some sort of organized monolithic corporate entity.

For the purpose of our argument, it is, because it deals with reallocation of resources, and someone will always "lose" a sale. You seem to jockey for the poor guy that loses a sale, but I don't see you cheering for the guy who gains the sale.

Sure, on the micro level, it means one(several) artists/companies are funded instead of others. But as it pertains to the idea that a download=a loss, it's wrong: if you look at it from that statistical level, the reallocations smooth themselves out. When you have one pool of water, there is no water lost when you pour the water in another pool.

A downloaded copy of, say, a movie on your computer is not functionally equivalent to having a dvd/bluray copy of said movie.

A pirated and bought version of an album are indistinguishable.

Some things are easier to pirate then others because they are more interchangeable with their legal counterpart.

I honestly don't understand what you're saying here. In both cases, if you want to have a real equivalent, you have to put it on the original support, but that's as easily done in either case, the only thing that changes is the size of the files.

Meanwhile, everything produced lately has been fitted with a hard drive.

[Errant Bard]

Apply the same argument to you and your employer. Their choice would be to either not pay you for the work you have preformed, or not have you preform the work at all. If they however have you come in and work, they might love the job you do, and by hyped to pay you next pay period.

Clients are not employers. Unless you mean to include in your comparison that I work for a bout ten millions employers, of those some may not be able to pay me.

And for the rest, I can imagine it better than you think, I work in software development: http://www.extropia.com/tutorials/misc/opensourcebiz.html

[TheKassi]

Clients are not employers. Unless you mean to include in your comparison that I work for a bout ten millions employers, of those some may not be able to pay me.

And for the rest, I can imagine it better than you think, I work in software development: http://www.extropia.com/tutorials/misc/opensourcebiz.html

Just like Foghorn Leghorn, I put the second half of that post in there for just such an emergency. While I am unsure, I doubt you would consider a nation an ethical place if it allowed employers to simply choose not to pay their employees as often as consumers choose not to pay entertainers. I also believe if they tried, the reaction of citizenry would be rather violent.

[Shryke]

For the purpose of our argument, it is, because it deals with reallocation of resources, and someone will always "lose" a sale. You seem to jockey for the poor guy that loses a sale, but I don't see you cheering for the guy who gains the sale.

Sure, on the micro level, it means one(several) artists/companies are funded instead of others. But as it pertains to the idea that a download=a loss, it's wrong: if you look at it from that statistical level, the reallocations smooth themselves out. When you have one pool of water, there is no water lost when you pour the water in another pool.

Yes, but the question is again why are you trying to treat "Entertainment" as monolithic. Why are you looking at the extreme macro level? What purpose does it serve here? What insight is gained?

At the level that matters, piracy is a reallocation from more piratable things to less pirateable things. It is a lost sale for whole fucking industries, let alone individual artists.

How is people reallocating their money from books to, say, going to the theatre not a loss for the publishing industry? Why does it matter to them that it's a gain for the theatre industry?

It isn't and it doesn't. Again, this idea only works if you make the silly assumption that "Entertainment" is some sort of monolithic industry. The theatre industry is not gonna start cutting checks to publishers to make up for the lost sales.

I honestly don't understand what you're saying here. In both cases, if you want to have a real equivalent, you have to put it on the original support, but that's as easily done in either case, the only thing that changes is the size of the files.

Meanwhile, everything produced lately has been fitted with a hard drive.

I don't see what's so hard here.

Downloading a bunch of MP3s is fast, easy and fits exactly into how people listen to music. It's exactly the same as legal options like iTunes and actually easier then other legal options like CDs because someone already did the "work" of ripping it for you.

Downloading a movie, it does not magically turn into a DVD or a bluray in full HD or whatever that I can pop into my player and watch on my TV.

One of these 2 things is not interchangeable

[Galactus]

Yes, but the question is again why are you trying to treat "Entertainment" as monolithic. Why are you looking at the extreme macro level? What purpose does it serve here? What insight is gained?

At the level that matters, piracy is a reallocation from more piratable things to less pirateable things. It is a lost sale for whole fucking industries, let alone individual artists.

How is people reallocating their money from books to, say, going to the theatre not a loss for the publishing industry? Why does it matter to them that it's a gain for the theatre industry?

It isn't and it doesn't. Again, this idea only works if you make the silly assumption that "Entertainment" is some sort of monolithic industry. The theatre industry is not gonna start cutting checks to publishers to make up for the lost sales.

It depends a bit on who you're talking about, but I don't think it even works like that. (it might, but it's not my experience) it's rather that people will buy the stuff they would buy anyway. (say, that DVD of Star Wars or the latest Call of Duty or whatever) and then pirate similar stuff anyway (say, they'll download the new Conan movie when it comes out)

It' generally not a choice between buying and piracy (because when you want to buy stuff the entire "I own this in a real physical sense and can stick it in my bookshelf" thing is generally what makes you buy it) but between piracy and not buying it.

There's AFAIK no indication that pirates spend their money on nonpirateable goods to any higher extent. Rather they'll buy as much as they can afford and pirate the rest. You might be able to squeeze out some mariginal sales there, but I suspect it's rathr small (and overshadowed by the follow-up sales, or people buying stuff they've already pirated, which isn'tthat uncommon in my experience)

[TheKassi]

I don't see what's so hard here.

Downloading a bunch of MP3s is fast, easy and fits exactly into how people listen to music. It's exactly the same as legal options like iTunes and actually easier then other legal options like CDs because someone already did the "work" of ripping it for you.

Downloading a movie, it does not magically turn into a DVD or a bluray in full HD or whatever that I can pop into my player and watch on my TV.

One of these 2 things is not interchangeable

You do not need a DVD player or a DVD to watch a downloaded movie onto your TV. These days there are programs that will allow you to stream media on your computer to a mobile device across the country. Getting it to your TV is old hat. If I remember right, that ability was one of the perks of vista.

[Errant Bard]

It isn't and it doesn't. Again, this idea only works if you make the silly assumption that "Entertainment" is some sort of monolithic industry. The theatre industry is not gonna start cutting checks to publishers to make up for the lost sales.

What Galactus said (really, people you know who pirate go more to the theatre?,) but also:

If people don't buy whatever else because they want to buy that CD, are the publishers going to cut a check making up for the lost sales? No of course. You are steering the point away from the origin of that debate, which was that a household income was not extensible: once it's spent, it's spent, and not paying for something, beyond that, is what happens, no matter if it's not watched, or watched.

Yes, some people lose out, and some gain from it, that's what reallocation does. All these guys deserve money, only there's not enough for all.

Downloading a bunch of MP3s is fast, easy and fits exactly into how people listen to music. It's exactly the same as legal options like iTunes and actually easier then other legal options like CDs because someone already did the "work" of ripping it for you.

Downloading a movie, it does not magically turn into a DVD or a bluray in full HD or whatever that I can pop into my player and watch on my TV.

One of these 2 things is not interchangeable

Yeah, right, plugging an hdmi cable from laptop to tv (or XBox 360/PS3/other media players, if you want), and hitting the "play" button is magical. Give me a break.

Incidentally, a mp3 collection doesn't transform itself magically into a CD or whatever, that you can pop into you cd player and listen in your living room.