Paper Books vs. Electronic

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3city,

Most people still read paper books. As that changes the problem of illegal download will become more, not less, problematic.

[3CityApache]

Ser Scot

Yes, but it will always (or at least in the foreseeable future) remain only a margin, as the paper books wouldn't vanish. So I am able to imagine a situation where the author makes money mostly (or even only) on selling paper copies, and considers downloading a kind of investment in potential increase of its sales (in which case he would probably have to count on the fact, that his book is good enough for a reader who downloaded it to want having a paper copy anyway. Which, as a matter of fact, is often the case, I believe).

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3city,

Perhaps. I have no desire to own an eReader. But I fear that as digital media predominates authors will find their ability to make a living impinged more and more by the ease of copying aforded by digital media. I hope I'm wrong but I will say this those who argue there is nothing wrong with copying over digital media are creating an environment were it is easier for my feared eventuality to come about.

[Errant Bard]

Sure, let's say hypothetical person wouldn't have bought book anyway. But what does it matter? Said person is still reading the book. Meaning that whether he or she would have bought it or not, they are still enjoying the fruits of GRRM's, or Neil Gaiman's or TrackerNeil's labors with no benefit to any of them.

What about it? What is the goal of literature, for you?

As I see it, it's both to share your stories with the maximum of people and to get a bit of money. Your moral grandstanding would prevent either of these goals to be met, now, and even in the future (as Gaiman says, how many started reading their favourite author by buying one of his books?)

Personally, I'm in favour of full access to culture to anyone, even those who cannot afford it. It's not a loss, as they would not have paid either way, but that way their lives are enriched.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

EB,

Are writers wrong to want to be paid for their work or to make a living via their writing? If writers have no right to restrict copying of their work how do they make a living once digital media is the primary means of publication?

[Mr. E]

What about it? What is the goal of literature, for you?

As I see it, it's both to share your stories with the maximum of people and to get a bit of money. Your moral grandstanding would prevent either of these goals to be met, now, and even in the future (as Gaiman says, how many started reading their favourite author by buying one of his books?)

Personally, I'm in favour of full access to culture to anyone, even those who cannot afford it. It's not a loss, as they would not have paid either way, but that way their lives are enriched.

I'm really not disagreeing with you on this Errant Bard; but, again, it's still theft. The person who steals food to feed his dying children is still stealing, justified or not.

Not to mention that the kind of society you're talking about simply doesn't exist. It's not The Dispossesed. We live in a money-based economic system. So while Neil Gaiman is going to be okay with some pirating, TrackerNeil might just not be. Which means TrackerNeil might have to get another job; which means his writing time is restricted, which means that he can't get his stories out to the maximum amount of people anyway.

I mean you use the words "moral grandstanding..." but honestly, what do you call what you're doing? Everything should be free and open! Who cares if the writers die slightly above the poverty line, at least more people are getting enriched! It's a nice thought, but untimately untenable. Remember, the Stephen King's or the world are not what's at stake here. It's the romance novelist who sells 5000 copies per book that's really getting the shaft.

[Shryke]

What about it? What is the goal of literature, for you?

As I see it, it's both to share your stories with the maximum of people and to get a bit of money. Your moral grandstanding would prevent either of these goals to be met, now, and even in the future (as Gaiman says, how many started reading their favourite author by buying one of his books?)

Personally, I'm in favour of full access to culture to anyone, even those who cannot afford it. It's not a loss, as they would not have paid either way, but that way their lives are enriched.

It's also to produce more stories.

Which requires making enough money selling those stories that you can spend your time making more.

[Errant Bard]

but, again, it's still theft.

No it's not. And it's not only semantics: theft has implications downloading has not, and insisting on using a term bringing up those implications makes dealing with the issue more complicated and stupid than it should be. Not to mention the sloppery slope of manicheism.

Not to mention that the kind of society you're talking about simply doesn't exist. It's not The Dispossesed. We live in a money-based economic system. So while Neil Gaiman is going to be okay with some pirating, TrackerNeil might just not be. Which means TrackerNeil might have to get another job; which means his writing time is restricted, which means that he can't get his stories out to the maximum amount of people anyway.

Is this real life, or is this fantasy? You know that is the lot of the majority of authors, pirated or not? If pirating Trackerneil becomes substantial enough to matter, it will mean that he's selling enough to sustain himself already.

I mean you use the words "moral grandstanding..." but honestly, what do you call what you're doing? Everything should be free and open! Who cares if the writers die slightly above the poverty line, at least more people are getting enriched!

I like my moral grandstanding more than yours, and I never said authors should not be paid, I only said that people who cannot pay yet download their work are not a loss for them but a potential benefit. I prefer to tolerate what goes in the right direction, with no actual harm done.

I think that you are delusional to think that without downloading those writers would not die "slightly above the poverty line". There are more books published now than ever before in human history, and on top of that there are now the self-published like Trackerneil (iirc, correct me if I'm wrong), meanwhile everyone's budget is shrinking (I heard there was some sort of financial crisis going on). Surely the maths are easy to do? Only the exceptional and lucky will get through, and those will die rich.

It's also to produce more stories.

Which requires making enough money selling those stories that you can spend your time making more.

Huh, yes? Not sure what you disagree with.

[Shryke]

Huh, yes? Not sure what you disagree with.

That fact that you are completely ignoring this part of the equation. Which is actually the most important part since it's the sole reason IP law exists in the first place.

And because you are ignoring it, you are missing how this situation conflicts with that goal. (ie - free distribution makes it tougher to produce ... stuff)

It's not just about getting what art we have into people's hands, it's about making sure more of it gets made.

[TrackerNeil]

So while Neil Gaiman is going to be okay with some pirating, TrackerNeil might just not be. Which means TrackerNeil might have to get another job; which means his writing time is restricted, which means that he can't get his stories out to the maximum amount of people anyway.

It's interesting how a determination to avoid paying for the artistic endeavors of others has gone from stealing to illegal downloading to the Key to Success.

What I don't get is why anyone has a problem just paying for art. If I see a book I like, whether by an author known or unknown to me, I want to pay for it, so that the author writes more books and provides me more hours of entertainment, for which I will pay more money. It's a delightful notion, really, and I'm disappointed that some are resistant to it. It's sad.

It can be argued, and I think fairly, that ebooks should cost less, in exchange for the more-limited ownership. However, I don't think anyone should expect to own an ebook in the same way as a paper book, just as I don't expect that $10 I shelled out for a movie to get me the DVD as well.

Edited to add: Yes, Errant, your assumption is correct; my novel is self-published. In the past nine months I have come to learn that the term "indie author" has all the cachet of "leper" and "child molester." Believe me, if I thought theft would boost my sales, I'd be chucking .mobi files at every torrent site I could find. It's interesting to note that I already gave away more than a thousand free Kindle books last summer and have yet to see the boom in sales that illegal downloading seems to bring. Maybe the thrill of stealing is what makes people want to buy?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

EB,

Is this real life, or is this fantasy? You know that is the lot of the majority of authors, pirated or not? If pirating Trackerneil becomes substantial enough to matter, it will mean that he's selling enough to sustain himself already.

Upon what do you base that conclusion? You haven't addressed the implications of priacy when digital media is the primary means of publication.

[Mr. E]

No it's not. And it's not only semantics: theft has implications downloading has not, and insisting on using a term bringing up those implications makes dealing with the issue more complicated and stupid than it should be. Not to mention the sloppery slope of manicheism.

EB, there is only one person here insisting on a term to obfuscate actual meaning. It's not theft, it's downloading. It's not theft, it's borrowing. It's not theft, it's creative appropriation.

Is this real life, or is this fantasy? You know that is the lot of the majority of authors, pirated or not? If pirating Trackerneil becomes substantial enough to matter, it will mean that he's selling enough to sustain himself already.

I don't see how you can make this statement in the increasing digital world of media. Ninja'd by ser scot.

I like my moral grandstanding more than yours, and I never said authors should not be paid, I only said that people who cannot pay yet download their work are not a loss for them but a potential benefit. I prefer to tolerate what goes in the right direction, with no actual harm done.

For the fifth time, I AGREE with you here. The difference is you are denying the essential illegality of the action.

And please be assured I'm on no moral high horse. There was a time that I downloaded music illegally and for free. Limewire anyone? I'm not trying to condemn people who do this. I don't think it's some great evil. But it doesn't mean it's not unethical; what I did as a young buck, downloading rips of music, was illegal and unethical and denying profits to the bands whose songs I was taking. Doesn't make me a bad person, probably made me a fan of bands, as you say, but it's still theft.

think that you are delusional to think that without downloading those writers would not die "slightly above the poverty line". There are more books published now than ever before in human history, and on top of that there are now the self-published like Trackerneil (iirc, correct me if I'm wrong), meanwhile everyone's budget is shrinking (I heard there was some sort of financial crisis going on).

Okay...so you're saying that since a lot of writers can't live off their writing alone, then they don't deserve to be paid for their labor? I mean...really? You wouldn't say that about anything else, would you?

Surely the maths are easy to do?

Er...42?

[Errant Bard]

That fact that you are completely ignoring this part of the equation. Which is actually the most important part since it's the sole reason IP law exists in the first place.

I'm not ignoring it. I'm talking of a specific case where the defendant could not have paid, so the financing of IP is moot to begin with. And I never argued for free distribution, maybe I was not clear? Well, if I was not, as I said in a previous post, the idea is more of a tolerance because experience shows (Gaiman's at least) that such stuff doesn't hurt authors.

What I don't get is why anyone has a problem just paying for art.

In the originator of the discussion's case a lot of other, it's mainyl because they either don't earn any money or have to devote what they earn to basic needs. It's not rocket science. People don't have problem paying for art. In fact a lot of "art" pieces go for very obscene prices.

However, I don't think anyone should expect to own an ebook in the same way as a paper book, just as I don't expect that $10 I shelled out for a movie to get me the DVD as well.

What if I want to own that book? Contrary to cinema, I own all the material needed.

It's interesting to note that I already gave away more than a thousand free Kindle books last summer and have yet to see the boom in sales that illegal downloading seems to bring. Maybe the thrill of stealing is what makes people want to buy?

Heh, publicity never meant that people would automatically buy. Remember I am arguing that a download is not a loss, but maybe a benefit, not automatically a benefit.

Let's turn this around: you gave a thousand free books. Do you expect to have sold more if you had not? What did it cost you to "lose" those copies?

Upon what do you base that conclusion? You haven't addressed the implications of priacy when digital media is the primary means of publication.

Stuff like http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/gallery/10-most-pirated-movies-all-time-271457 or iTunes, it's all over the place. I admit I have no serious study on hand, but then again nobody here has.

I believe I touched rapidly on piracy when digital media is the primary means of publication when I talked of MS-DOS 6.2. Most pirated OS ever. Didn't prevent microsoft from becoming what it is.

EB, there is only one person here insisting on a term to obfuscate actual meaning. It's not theft, it's downloading. It's not theft, it's borrowing. It's not theft, it's creative appropriation.

Yes, and there is a reason for it.

By the way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

I don't see how you can make this statement in the increasing digital world of media. Ninja'd by ser scot.

I don't see why I cannot.

For the fifth time, I AGREE with you here. The difference is you are denying the essential illegality of the action.

For something like five times too, I'm not denying the illegality of the action. Is it ambiguous when I say "tolerate"?

But it doesn't mean it's not unethical; what I did as a young buck, downloading rips of music, was illegal and unethical and denying profits to the bands whose songs I was taking. Doesn't make me a bad person, probably made me a fan of bands, as you say, but it's still theft.

It is unethical, it denies bands money you would have had available to spend on them and it is not theft.

Okay...so you're saying that since a lot of writers can't live off their writing alone, then they don't deserve to be paid for their labor? I mean...really? You wouldn't say that about anything else, would you?

Huh? They deserve living the high life, all of them, but most will not, being a writer never paid and pays even less now, it's the simple reality. Managing to successfully block downloading would not change that, it was already like that before downloading.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

EB,

I really hope you're right. Because if you're wrong in 50 years we're going to see a lot fewer books published, at least on the fiction side of the spectrum.

[TrackerNeil]

Whenever I get into a discussion like this, I like to ask the pro-illegal-download proponents this: What's the world you're aiming for? What do you want to see happen?

[Mr. E]

Huh? They deserve living the high life, all of them, but most will not, being a writer never paid and pays even less now, it's the simple reality. Managing to successfully block downloading would not change that, it was already like that before downloading.

This doesn't mean something shouldn't be done about it.

By the way: http://en.wikipedia....ntum_ad_populum

I know, right. 9 out of 10 illegal downloaders don't believe what they're doing is theft. If only they'd read this article, they'd realize the problems with their logic. :P

Whenever I get into a discussion like this, I like to ask the pro-illegal-download proponents this: What's the world you're aiming for? What do you want to see happen?

Honest to God, they want a society like Le Guin elaborates upon in The Dispossessed.

[Errant Bard]

I really hope you're right. Because if you're wrong in 50 years we're going to see a lot fewer books published, at least on the fiction side of the spectrum.

I hope I am, too, what can you really do other than that?

Because either way, we've got no way to prevent it from happening.

Whenever I get into a discussion like this, I like to ask the pro-illegal-download proponents this: What's the world you're aiming for? What do you want to see happen?

Who are the pro-illegal download proponents in this thread? I'm curious.

For the record, arguing that, to take a (very flawed, but heh, maybe it'll get the message across) analogy used upthread, someone stealing food to give to a starving kid does more good than harm is not being pro-theft.

Anyway, there is no contest: The Culture.

This doesn't mean something shouldn't be done about it.

Absolutely. But what? What are the implications of whatever we decide to do, and how effective do you envision it to be? It needs to be thought about.

I know that in previous threads, one of the most discussed option was to make downloading legal in exchange for a global taxe, redistributed to content creators. Was not really popular. DRM was another option, but it's even less popular, as it is basically useless.

The actual authors and publishing world actors always seemed to me to reject any proposition but to be out of ideas themselves, leaving them only righteous anger to contemplate their impending (in their mind) doom.

I know, right. 9 out of 10 illegal downloaders don't believe what they're doing is theft. If only they'd read this article, they'd realize the problems with their logic. :P

Ah, come on, you could not expect to imply my reasons were invalid by the fact I was the only one to bring them up here, without having argumentum ad populum mentioned to you.

[ErinacchiLove]

I'm not buying an electronic book unless 100% necessary. It's not a freaking book! Book has leaves, does an electronic book have them? No. It doesn't feel the same. Call me old fashioned, but that's me. I love good old books.

[TrackerNeil]

Anyway, there is no contest: The Culture.

I'm not sure how not paying artists for their work will bring about a post-scarcity society, but if you figure out a way sign me up. I'll put my work on every torrent site you can name, plus a few others.

[Mr. E]

Absolutely. But what? What are the implications of whatever we decide to do, and how effective do you envision it to be? It needs to be thought about.

I know that in previous threads, one of the most discussed option was to make downloading legal in exchange for a global taxe, redistributed to content creators. Was not really popular. DRM was another option, but it's even less popular, as it is basically useless.

The actual authors and publishing world actors always seemed to me to reject any proposition but to be out of ideas themselves, leaving them only righteous anger to contemplate their impending (in their mind) doom.

I'm gonna rock your socks off and say that I actually agree that nothing's going to curb it completely. By "do something about it," though, I more mean that it shouldn't just be allowed to go unchecked. When an obvious case comes up, you shut it down, that kind of thing. Like with napster.

It's like homelessness, or any other social ill. You're never going to completely solve it. You're not. However...that doesn't mean you shouldn't keep trying. And in the trying you just might keep the levels of whatever it is low.

As for really combatting it? The best way is actually to provide more outlets. Honest people are going to pay for stuff as long as its convenient. See Itunes for a reason the amount of music piracy has sort of declined. Make it convenient, and make it worthwhile and I do think people will pay for the whatever.

Ah, come on, you could not expect to imply my reasons were invalid by the fact I was the only one to bring them up here, without having argumentum ad populum mentioned to you.

Oh, I was actually only talking about you and me when I said "only one here."

Wait, there are other people on this board?

Wait...