The ethics of "free" e-books

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lari,

Nay matey, it be copyright infringement, aaarrrrgggh!

You misapprehend my statement. I don't argue doing that today wouldn't be copyright infringement. I'm saying allowing free or cheap digitial copies with hardback purchases makes sense to discourage piracy. It would be with the consent of copyright holders and as such, not copyright infringment.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Lari,

You misapprehend my statement. I don't argue doing that today wouldn't be copyright infringement. I'm saying allowing free or cheap digitial copies with hardback purchases makes sense to discourage piracy. It would be with the consent of copyright holders and as such, not copyright infringment.

Nay, matey, I direct ye to solo's post about 'piracy' on the page aft a this'n.

But yes, I am in complete agreement that offering a discounted or free ebook would be good.

[TrackerNeil]

There are a lot of very complex considerations here. If you lower your e-book price, for example, do you undermine your own hardcover market and risk destroying your core business? There seems to be this (to me) slightly strange perception that publishers are idiots and know nothing about their own business. Might it be possible that they actually know a bit more about pricing their own product than people who basically know nothing about publishing at all...? Just sayin.

Totally. Whenever we have indie v.s tradpub debates, I notice that tradpubs are pretty much assumed to know all about what's quality and what isn't. However, when it comes to selling ebooks, the tradpubs are assumed to be drooling idiots who have no idea how to run a business. I don't understand it.

I also don't understand what world pro-torrenters are working towards. I assume that they, like me, want a library full of books, and a Netflix full of movies, but if we're all torrenting stuff and not paying for it, how do they expect all this art to be available? Or do the pro-torrenters count on some people to pay while they themselves free-ride?

SSE only arguments is: author don't get money per EVERY copy. I say, DOESN'T MATTER!

I just try to say if Internet is demolish and forbidden for all people, people will IGNORE any kind of copy available. But I believe piracy works like promotion, once you like it enough, you'll buy it.

Well, that's an assumption, and we'll never know for certain if it bears out in most cases. In my view, when in doubt, pay for the damned book. It's good for the publishers, the authors, the booksellers and, I think, the readers. How nice that there's a simple solution that benefits everyone!

[Proudfeet]

SSE only arguments is: author don't get money per EVERY copy. I say, DOESN'T MATTER!

I just try to say if Internet is demolish and forbidden for all people, people will IGNORE any kind of copy available. But I believe piracy works like promotion, once you like it enough, you'll buy it.

Haha, not true. If piracy is well established and accepted, it will just be seen as another avenue for getting content. Why pay money when you can get it for free?

I do believe that the estimated loss from sales is highly inflated, but it is just as dishonest to claim that it is equivalent to promotions which are calculated costs. While it may attract customers who otherwise would not have made the purchase, it also results in loss of sales. The extent of both are hard to determine, but it is important to note that the company has no control over pirated copies while they have control over their promotions.

[Shryke]

Totally. Whenever we have indie v.s tradpub debates, I notice that tradpubs are pretty much assumed to know all about what's quality and what isn't. However, when it comes to selling ebooks, the tradpubs are assumed to be drooling idiots who have no idea how to run a business. I don't understand it.

I also don't understand what world pro-torrenters are working towards. I assume that they, like me, want a library full of books, and a Netflix full of movies, but if we're all torrenting stuff and not paying for it, how do they expect all this art to be available? Or do the pro-torrenters count on some people to pay while they themselves free-ride?

My impression is that they don't really care.

From your experience, the arguments in this very long thread, other discussions I've seen, when it comes down to it the arguments seem to be smokescreens for people wanting shit but not wanting to have to pay what is being charged for it.

When you are saying "eBooks cost too much", you are making an argument about the publishing market. When you then tack on "and that's why I pirate", you are making an excuse for your actions.

[Lady Winter Rose]

Why pay money when you can get it for free?

Because you want real thing? Why buy books when there's library? Music industry, film industry, etc... they all make more money than before and they sell more than before. They done promotions since people started to sell those things. Conclusion - it's not because of promotion.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

When you are saying "eBooks cost too much", you are making an argument about the publishing market. When you then tack on "and that's why I pirate", you are making an excuse for your actions.

And what about when I or many of the others have said, " I already own the content." Seriously, explain to me how pirating the content I already own is any different from me scanning the pages of my book, then converting it to epub? I own the physical book, as long as I don't distribute it for profit, who am I hurting?

[Proudfeet]

Because you want real thing? Why buy books when there's library? Music industry, film industry, etc... they all make more money than before and they sell more than before. They done promotions since people started to sell those things. Conclusion - it's not because of promotion.

A pirated digital copy is as real as a legitimate one. You buy books because of convenience.

I'll take your word for it that the music industry is doing better than before, but note that people are wealthier now and they have a bigger market as a result. The market will shrink if piracy is an accepted alternative. Claiming the extra sales from piracy but not the loss of sales is just as dishonest as saying that all downloads are lost sales.

Also movies at theatres are a largely different experience from movies at home and are not comparable products.

[Lady Winter Rose]

Well, read/buy ratio isn't always in favor of publisher/author. But I don't believe it causes harm.

[sologdin]

And what about when I or many of the others have said, " I already own the content." Seriously, explain to me how pirating the content I already own is any different from me scanning the pages of my book, then converting it to epub? I own the physical book, as long as I don't distribute it for profit, who am I hurting?

book buyer does not own the content in any meaningful way, but rather owns a tangible object that contains a copy of the content, over which content typical book buyer possesses none of the rights in section 106 of the US copyright act.

(this argument makes more sense as benjamin's position in 'the work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction,' which doesn't address ownership at all. the copy disseminates the content much less expensively than the original might, which democratizes the content, and which original retains its value only by virtue of being the original for acopy that one already knows &c&c. i doubt that benjamin would suggest that copies should be free, however.)

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

LWR,

Well, read/buy ratio isn't always in favor of publisher/author. But I don't believe it causes harm.

If the "read/buy" ratio isn't always in favor of the author (due to piracy) how, pray tell, is it "not causeing harm". Those assertions are contradictory and don't make sense particularly for an author with only one published work.

[Lady Winter Rose]

LWR,

If the "read/buy" ratio isn't always in favor of the author (due to piracy) how, pray tell, is it "not causeing harm". Those assertions are contradictory and don't make sense particularly for an author with only one published work.

How borrow/buy ratio works for author if you can borrow his work from library?

[Joe Abercrombie]

And what about when I or many of the others have said, " I already own the content." Seriously, explain to me how pirating the content I already own is any different from me scanning the pages of my book, then converting it to epub?

Technically I don't think it's any different, both would be violations of copyright. When you buy a book you buy that copy. You do not typically buy the right to make more copies. That right belongs to the copyright holder (usually the author), and is granted under licence to a publisher for certain agreed upon formats and territories.

I own the physical book, as long as I don't distribute it for profit, who am I hurting?

This is a good question, and of course it's vastly preferable to writers and publishers that you pay for a book in one format than that you pay for it in none. Perhaps it is reasonable that you should have the right to both, but that isn't actually what you paid for, any more than buying a cinema ticket grants you the rights to download and watch that film on your iPad.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

LWR,

So, you're going to stick to the false equilency of piracy to libraries? If you pirate a book do you receive a fine if your return the book late? Are there any limits on the number of copies of a book that can be pirated at a given time the way that there are limits on the number of books that can be loaned by a library? Not to mention the fact that the library has to purchase a copy of the book before they can then make the book available to loan. Not so with torrent sites. They can copy for free and then distribute copies ad infinitum.

Libraries and piracy are not the same thing.

[TrackerNeil]

When you are saying "eBooks cost too much", you are making an argument about the publishing market. When you then tack on "and that's why I pirate", you are making an excuse for your actions.

I think that sums it up pretty well. I was surprised, but oddly gratified, when over at one of the torrent sites, a user told me flat-out that his "cultural development" was more important than my "profit motive." At least that guy wasn't making up lame excuses for stealing; he was flat-out saying that he just didn't care about anything but his own prerogatives. You have to admire the honesty, if nothing else.

This is a good question, and of course it's vastly preferable to writers and publishers that you pay for a book in one format than that you pay for it in none. Perhaps it is reasonable that you should have the right to both, but that isn't actually what you paid for, any more than buying a cinema ticket grants you the rights to download and watch that film on your iPad.

Yeah, this argument was made way, way upthread, and as far as I know it didn't change anyone's opinion. I feel the same way, just as I don't feel that my purchase of Beauty and the Beat in vinyl in 1982 entitled me to a free copy of every single version of that record (cassette, 8-track, CD, .mp3) until the end of time.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

I am not advocating books for free, never pay for anything pirating. I just feel that a book is a book. There is only one way to experience a book, by reading it, regardless if its physical or digital. As others have said, going to the cinema, is for the experience, your surroundings. I see the authors side to this I do. But, as a consumer, I can't wrap my head around purchasing the same books twice so I have it in both digital and physical. I don't go and download every physical book I own, only if its a story that I enjoy immensely. Now, I have bought ebooks, then bought the physical book also, because I want it to pass down to family. In my case, I don't feel I've hurt anyone.

I mean, I can easily scan the book, convert to epub, and have that for my use. Its just not with the trouble when its setting on the internet. Mr. Abercrombie said it best, the publishers know what their doing to maximize profit, regardless of what format it is. We're not gonna break any new ground here.

[Gertrude]

Tangent -

The non-rivalrous good argument always falls flat with me because it assumes (to use game theory terminology) a one-shot game vs an indefinitely iterated game. Google prisoners dilemma and indefinitely iterated prisoners dilemma if you want an intuitively easy to grasp example of the concepts.

Now that your av is missing, I wasn't sure that was you. Then I read this part of the post which left me with no doubts :p Miss your face.

[unJon]

Tangent -

Now that your av is missing, I wasn't sure that was you. Then I read this part of the post which left me with no doubts :p Miss your face.

Hi Gert! Yeah don't know what happened with my av and been too lazy to fix.

[MisterOJ]

Yeah, this argument was made way, way upthread, and as far as I know it didn't change anyone's opinion. I feel the same way, just as I don't feel that my purchase of Beauty and the Beat in vinyl in 1982 entitled me to a free copy of every single version of that record (cassette, 8-track, CD, .mp3) until the end of time.

There are devices that allow a person to transfer audio recordings from LPs or cassettes and make them digital. Would you have a problem with someone who did such a thing?

How about making mix tapes? Ever do that back in the day?

Or how about format shifting existing ebooks? When Sand by Hugh Howey came out about a year ago, it was only available through Amazon. I wanted to read it, but I do all my reading on a Barnes & Noble Nook. The Kindle formatted files won't work on a Nook, so I bought the ebook, stripped the DRM, converted the file to an epub, loaded it on my Nook and read it. I broke the law by doing so. Is that wrong? I don't think so.

[sologdin]

that last hypothetical is salient. i've routinely photocopied entire books from the library when those books are out of print. if publisher can't be troubled to yaknow sell the text, i take that as a constructive waiver of the copyright.