Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Scott de Montevideo!

Don’t pirate books, just don’t

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, lady narcissa said:

Also the library pays for the book and tracks how many times it is lent out. This information is conveyed to the publisher who includes these numbers is their decision whether to continue with an author or series. I think I remember reading with ebooks and libraries that they are allowed only so many downloads per purchase by a publisher and once it's been borrowed that many times the library has to repurchase the ebook. I suppose that's similar in some ways to a physical library book getting too worn out and the library purchasing a fresh copy.

I wondered why some audio ebooks had disappeared from my libraries online catalog. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been hot topic in Serbian literary circles for quite some time. In a country where no one gives a damn about piracy, how can you stop pirating the books? Well, you can't. The response to that was "People need to buy things". And it gave some results. When the biggest Serbian published announced that they will stop translating and printing sequels of "Malazan Book of the Fallen", all fantasy FB groups and their members have been called upon. People agreed that they should buy the books and the sales increased. Only a month ago "Bonehunters" saw the light of Serbian day :D 

For fantasy enthusiasts, it all comes down to this. Pirating the books became almost unacceptable due to the number of pirated copies. If you want to read the sequel, you have to buy the copy. Simple math, but in a country where said "Bonehunters" represent 15% of monthly income, it also needs a lot of convincing.

That said, I really hate pirating the books. I five copies of Harry Potter books in three languages and even though JK Rowling has more money than she objectively needs, I don't care. I support the local writers, fantasy geeks who are trying to become new Tolkien or Martin. I don't care whether author is rich or poor. I care about books. :wub:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going backpacking and needed to pack light, so bit the bullet and got a kindle. I pirated a few books, but only ones I already owned the physical copies of. How is this generally seen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't it fall into the private copy category?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Darth Richard II said:

Uh, is that even a real thing? Seriously question.

Depends on the country legislation, but it was judged right enough (or impossible enough to regulate) to be a thing in my country, see Exceptions paragraph here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Darth Richard II said:

Uh, is that even a real thing? Seriously question.

It is in the UK. Here you're legally entitled (as long as it's for private use) to make an MP3 copy of a CD, or make a backup of of a DVD or Bluray. Not sure if books are excluded from this, but I see no reason why they should be.

 

Edited by Spockydog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I'd love for there to be a system where you could get an ecopy of a book you already own, for a quarter the price or something.

Or just include it with a new copy, kind of like how they include a digital download version of movies with a Blu-Ray/DVD to add to your electronic library.

Edited by Eriksen's New Mascot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eriksen's New Mascot said:

I'd love for there to be a system where you could get an ecopy of a book you already own, for a quarter the price or something.

Or just include it with a new copy, kind of like how they include a digital download version of movies with a Blu-Ray/DVD to add to your electronic library.

This would be a nightmare. Easy on paper, then you get to the point where you need proof the guy requesting an ebook truly owns the physical copy. Not a technical hurdle but a specification problem.

Why not an ebook copy with a physical book? Because you are then actually selling two copies for the price of one. The recipient can resell the book while keeping the ebook. It can be done but I venture that it would mean the publisher would be ready for a loss of sales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The tricky thing about the piracy debate is that it's one of those things like rolling through a stop sign, where most people do it at some point under some circumstances, and most of those who do will still admit that it's wrong. I believe in supporting artists and writers, but if TWoW or something similar happens to drop while I'm in China next year, I don't plan on missing it due to a lack of legal availability. I know a lot of people who stream audiobooks on youtube, and pat themselves on the back for having also gone out and bought a physical copy of the book. That's great to do, but it's still taking money out of the pockets of the people who made the audio recording, which drives the prices of audiobooks up, which cements the monopoly that companies like Amazon are able to gain over the marketplace. I know a lot of students who pirate digital textbooks. It's bad to do, ad very bad if everyone does it all the time, but it's also something most of us have done at some point or another.

I'll also point out two things. 1) If it weren't for piracy, services like Netflix and Kindle Unlimited wouldn't exist. 2) I've met a lot of poor teenagers who are veracious readers, and are only able to read as widely as they do because they aren't paying for all of the books that they read.

I think rather than the over-simplified "just don't" this conversation should be framed around exercising responsible and ethical use of this technology, supporting artists, and making literacy and material available to as many people as possible.

TLDR:

Piracy is like having sex as a teenager, and "just don't" is the Abstinence Only approach to birth control. I mean yeah, don't, but if you do (and we all know you will), be responsible.

Edited by Let's Get Kraken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/7/2018 at 8:37 AM, Darth Richard II said:

 Bad.

It's interesting then, because I think it's legal for music. I first illegally downloaded music when I had my CDs stolen, I looked it up and people reckoned, though it hadn't been tested it a court, if you have purchased music you can restore it digitally without breaking the law. 

I guess the argument with books is that an e-book is fundamentally different to the same physical book. 

I'm reading quite a lot at the moment, all from the library (I'm in that fix when you can't return a book without leaving with two more). I really don't have much money to spare- it's worth emphasising that for a lot of people, it isn't "buy book new or get them another way", it's "don't read or get books another way". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm with music my thought was that the copy made always has to be sourced from the copy you own. (Which is my you can backup a rom of a game yourself but not download a different backup) I agree the whole thing is mindlessly complex and stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/7/2018 at 9:41 AM, Errant Bard said:

Doesn't it fall into the private copy category?

Depending on jurisdiction, no. For example that used to be the interpretation in the Netherlands (more for other media then books), but legislation has been tweaked to exclude downloads after a European court intervened.

1 hour ago, Darth Richard II said:

Hmm with music my thought was that the copy made always has to be sourced from the copy you own. (Which is my you can backup a rom of a game yourself but not download a different backup) I agree the whole thing is mindlessly complex and stupid.

Dutch law used to be (and probably still is) that you are allowed to make a copy from a source you have access to. It basically protects people making copies in libraries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Darth Richard II said:

Hmm with music my thought was that the copy made always has to be sourced from the copy you own. (Which is my you can backup a rom of a game yourself but not download a different backup) I agree the whole thing is mindlessly complex and stupid.

I mean, the legality might be dodgy, I think the point was more no prosecutor would ever try it when 99% of pirates don't already own the thing. Morally, I feel it's pretty legit, I would feel pretty comfortable explaining that to a band member, I think most would be fine with it. Same as me telling GRRM that I own a shitload of his books, but I couldn't carry all ASOIAF around Asia, or afford to buy them all again, so I whacked them on a tablet. 

It's like that rule in relationships- if you wouldn't be comfortable telling your partner about doing something, you probably shouldn't be doing it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know with digital music in the US you used to be able to download and share a file for 24 hours provided you then deleted it, I believe under the fair use doctrine.  I have a friend who launched his music journalism career by putting songs up on his blog for 24 hours along with a review starting back in the late 90s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, larrytheimp said:

I know with digital music in the US you used to be able to download and share a file for 24 hours provided you then deleted it, I believe under the fair use doctrine.  I have a friend who launched his music journalism career by putting songs up on his blog for 24 hours along with a review starting back in the late 90s.

I'm almost positive that was never actually true. It's like the thing you see on some software piracy sites about you have to delete it after 24 hours and its perfectly OK, but I know for a fact, at least regarding software, that that is 100 percent not true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

I'm almost positive that was never actually true. It's like the thing you see on some software piracy sites about you have to delete it after 24 hours and its perfectly OK, but I know for a fact, at least regarding software, that that is 100 percent not true.

Huh.  That could certainly be the case.  That was how he always explained it to me , but maybe it was just that from the artist and publisher's perspective it was free advertising so not worth pursuing.  

ETA: *summon intellectual property lawyer or solo*

Edited by larrytheimp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I'm pretty sure the 24 hours thing is one of the internet urban myths. I actually know a copyright lawyer in RL i should bug him to look into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Darth Richard II said:

Yeah I'm pretty sure the 24 hours thing is one of the internet urban myths. I actually know a copyright lawyer in RL i should bug him to look into it.

Some quick googling shows me that you are 100% correct, it's been challenged in courts as 'fair use' but has never held up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×