Library books vs. torrented ebooks

[ants]

Except its already been pointed out that reading a physical book to multiple people is a breach of copyright.

[Padreic]

Yes. What about it? (I had not answered because I don't, honestly, see the point or the implications of your question, beside the oens I adressed in my previous post)

The point is this: You are advocating a system where people can download ebooks for free from an official source. The number of downloads for each book is counted, and the government hands out tax-money according to number of downloads.

The only real difference between this system and the one we currently have is that the book costs (auther payment, publishing etc.) is not distributed according to individual use, so that those who read more pay more, but simply follows whatever system of taxation is in place. In your system, the auther is still being paid per e-book copy, and that money still comes from other people; its just that the people paying for it are not the people using it.

[Errant Bard]

Yes, indeed. But the author is paid, there's no piracy, and everyone has full access to any book they want.

I think you make the same mistake as Shryke, gauging price per book read: this would be more akin to a library subscription: the library buys the books (on taxpayer money, isn't it? and not everyone goes in libraries) and the public gets a library registration to read the books. It's not about which library regular reads the most books to make him pay more taxes.

@TheKassi: it's not about abolishing copyright, far from it, it's about making digital copies work within the boundaries of copyright laws.

[Shryke]

So your point Errant Bard is you want to completely replace the bookstore with a government funded pay-per-use bookstore? Books would now just be bought from the government and payed for through taxes?

Go back and read the posts you have quoted. In them is an example of how multiple people can enjoy one physical copy of a book simultaneously. That alone eliminates the distinction you are attempting to draw. Leaving it out doesn't change anything.

You mean reading a book aloud to a book? Violation of copyright.

[Padreic]

it's about making digital copies work within the boundaries of copyright laws.

Okay, so a government-paid distribution system would accomplish this because since one does not have to pay ordering an ebook the official channels, there's no reason for piracy. And then the government hands out tax-money.

That system probably does what you want it to do. There is one huge drawback though: How is the government to decide how much money to put into the book-market in absolute terms? It might be clear that author X gets 10x as much as author Y, but how much is that? If there's no individual cost associated with ordering an e-book, the overall usage of that service does not tell you how much value users (i.e. taxpayers) put on it compared to other goods. On the other hand, there is no natural limit for how much money to put into the system: The more money is overall available, the more people can be full-time authors.

[dreamcatcher]

I have a bit of a moral code regarding book piracy. Well, stronger than my other moral codes, anyway. I only illegally download an e-book once I've bought a physical copy, or when I'm planning to buy one to read the first chapter or two and decide if it's worth my money. Or when it's a reaaaally expensive textbook.

I download it because it's easier to use the search function. I don't have an e-reader.

Yes, it's not very moral, but hey, I illegally download all my films, music, and programmes. So books have it good in my house.

All of the authors I read are either filthy rich or dead. I also live in a country where books are 3x as expensive as in the UK or the US, and our minimal wages are several times lower. Films come to cinema with a several month delay, or they don't screen them at all (I'm looking at you, Scream 4!). I would also have to sell my soul to afford various dictionaries and computer programs I need for my uni.

Didn't Lady Gaga state that she doesn't care about piracy because she gets enough money from her concerts, and that if any other famous music artist tells you otherwise, they're lying?

[Spring Bass]

Didn't Lady Gaga state that she doesn't care about piracy because she gets enough money from her concerts, and that if any other famous music artist tells you otherwise, they're lying?

It depends on the artist, but that's the case for most of them. Of course, most musicians don't make a lot of money off of concerts.

[TheKassi]

@TheKassi: it's not about abolishing copyright, far from it, it's about making digital copies work within the boundaries of copyright laws.

I think I am missing something. How is copyright law preserved if it becomes legal to make unlimited copies of content? Do you mean piracy would still be considered legal, people however would have access to digital content on government website subsidized by tax dollars?

You mean reading a book aloud to a book? Violation of copyright.

First off, this thread is not about legality, it is about ethics. Regardless of the legality of the issue, reading a book aloud to an audience is generally considered perfectly acceptable behavior in our society. If anything, it is often viewed as behavior you would desire in others. Good parents read their kids bed time stories. Teachers read books to students. Hospital volunteers read to the sick. Librarians conduct readings for groups all the time. Heck when I was twelve I engaged in court mandated 'community service' by reading to the blind.

Second off, I am pretty sure you are wrong, at least in my country. While I do not think your argument has much merit, would you mind demonstrating it's accuracy? I haven't really researched the issue myself, but public schools and libraries, both government institutions, do it all day long.

[Errant Bard]

So your point Errant Bard is you want to completely replace the bookstore with a government funded pay-per-use bookstore? Books would now just be bought from the government and payed for through taxes?

It's not so simple, as we can see in a case of video rental, or music platforms (though the models are a bit different): it doesn't kill cinema or radios to have what they sell similarly almost freely copiable and accessible.

But yeah, other than that, digital distribution of books would end being done by tax-funded platforms. And I refuse to call that a bookstore: it would do nothing against physical books, and you yourself seem pretty set against not calling it a library.

That system probably does what you want it to do. There is one huge drawback though: How is the government to decide how much money to put into the book-market in absolute terms? It might be clear that author X gets 10x as much as author Y, but how much is that? If there's no individual cost associated with ordering an e-book, the overall usage of that service does not tell you how much value users (i.e. taxpayers) put on it compared to other goods. On the other hand, there is no natural limit for how much money to put into the system: The more money is overall available, the more people can be full-time authors.

That's a good question. I don't know. But on the other hand, how do publishers, currently, determine how much a book costs? There has to be someone fixing the prices. I say those things can be hammered out between author unions and government representatives, taking into account download projections, costs and planned equivalence with how much an author gets right now from each book.

I think I am missing something. How is copyright law preserved if it becomes legal to make unlimited copies of content? Do you mean piracy would still be considered legal, people however would have access to digital content on government website subsidized by tax dollars?

Piracy would still be considered illegal, yes, that's the definition of piracy. It's just modifying an entry on what piracy is.

I mean, reading a book in front of an audience is a copyright breach, but screening a movie is not. Why? because you can count the attendee and bill according to the number with the movie. Same thing here.

Let's not lose from view that copyright law, at the core, is a system made so that :

1. 
   
2. Other creators would not simply copy and reuse, but be original (stimulating creativity)
   
3. Creators are paid justly for the use made of their creation
   

No contradiction with that here.

[TheKassi]

Piracy would still be considered illegal, yes, that's the definition of piracy. It's just modifying an entry on what piracy is.

I mean, reading a book in front of an audience is a copyright breach, but screening a movie is not. Why? because you can count the attendee and bill according to the number with the movie. Same thing here.

Let's not lose from view that copyright law, at the core, is a system made so that :

1. 
   
2. Other creators would not simply copy and reuse, but be original (stimulating creativity)
   
3. Creators are paid justly for the use made of their creation
   

No contradiction with that here.

First of all, I really do not think reading a book aloud violates copyright law. I don't think libraries and schools could exist in their current form if it did. Sure, I can see arguing that if you charge people to listen to you conduct the read, that is a different story. Private parties however?

As for the ethics of such things, is there anyone out there that honestly believes they have a moral obligation to leave a party if someone puts on music they don't own? I do believe that people have a responsibility to patronize entertainers they enjoy, regardless of regional law, but I do not see how someone denigrates communal enjoyment of copyrighted media. How would reading to a group of people be different then throwing a party with the music pumping, or having a movie night?

As for the merits of such a system, unless the government is subsidizing fiction at it's current retail price, I would argue that you are effectively killing private industry sales. Who is going to pay thirty bucks for a new release when they can downloaded it for free and allow the government to pay the author ten to twenty percent of that.

If the government is paying full retail price, then that would put the government on the hook for billions of dollars. People go crazy when they can download media for free. Just look at what happened when napster first came out.

[Errant Bard]

As for the merits of such a system, unless the government is subsidizing fiction at it's current retail price, I would argue that you are effectively killing private industry sales.

Digital sales, yeah. And what's the problem with that? This is what a change of model means: it's not "let's keep how everything worked before".

[Shryke]

It's not so simple, as we can see in a case of video rental, or music platforms (though the models are a bit different): it doesn't kill cinema or radios to have what they sell similarly almost freely copiable and accessible.

Not near as much. Copying DVDs and the like is a pain in the ass. As is recording music off the radio.

Books are a text file. (well, a fancied up one) There is no simpler format.

The only thing holding it back is eReader penetration and I don't see that being a factor for that long.

But yeah, other than that, digital distribution of books would end being done by tax-funded platforms. And I refuse to call that a bookstore: it would do nothing against physical books, and you yourself seem pretty set against not calling it a library.

Of course I wouldn't call it a library. A library implies a loan. This concept doesn't even make sense with a file. How are you going to make them give it back?

It's a bookstore. A store where you buy books. What else do you call a place where you go and permanently acquire a work of literature for a fee, albeit one payed by someone else.

[Shryke]

Digital sales, yeah. And what's the problem with that? This is what a change of model means: it's not "let's keep how everything worked before".

The problem is the question of whether your proposed model can replace the funding provided by the current market. Or are you going to gut the publishing market like a hog.

[Shryke]

First off, this thread is not about legality, it is about ethics. Regardless of the legality of the issue, reading a book aloud to an audience is generally considered perfectly acceptable behavior in our society. If anything, it is often viewed as behavior you would desire in others. Good parents read their kids bed time stories. Teachers read books to students. Hospital volunteers read to the sick. Librarians conduct readings for groups all the time. Heck when I was twelve I engaged in court mandated 'community service' by reading to the blind.

Ok, sure. If you want to ignore the legal argument, we can circle back to the huge barriers involved in this process that prevent it from actually impacting the sale or distribution of books. Shit, this behavior doesn't even impact the use of libraries.

The idea that you can save money or decrease sales or whatever by having one person buy the book and just read it to a bunch of other people is ludicrous. Might as well talk of leprechauns. This shit don't happen.

[Inigima]

Didn't Lady Gaga state that she doesn't care about piracy because she gets enough money from her concerts, and that if any other famous music artist tells you otherwise, they're lying?

I believe that Lady Gaga gets plenty of money from her concerts. I don't believe that every recording artist has the concert attendance to live off of.

[Errant Bard]

The only thing holding it back is eReader penetration and I don't see that being a factor for that long.

True, but you realize it is the exact reason why the model has to evolve? Because you seem to imply that it would work alright with the current model, that is utterly at odds with the argument that books are so easy to share.

In essence, the choice, the practical choice, (we'll forgo the police state solution) is between :

1. 
   
2. People easily downloading books, and not paying anything, because it's so easy with books, and e-readers users will be technology aware.
   
3. People easily downloading books, but the publishing industry still getting paid for this.
   
   

Of course I wouldn't call it a library. A library implies a loan. This concept doesn't even make sense with a file. How are you going to make them give it back?

Like fuck it implies a loan, in a situation were copy is implied.

See: the baen free library, the New York public library or the Toronto public library, among the first hits google returned.

You really think that the fact that it was a loan is relevant, in any case? How many people actually reread books, that you know? What does it change? (I see you arguing from here that people could buy the books afterwards, but... in our model, they would have actually already paid a price corresponding to that, indirectly, and the library costs would go down, at the same time)

It's a bookstore. A store where you buy books. What else do you call a place where you go and permanently acquire a work of literature for a fee, albeit one payed by someone else.

A sharing platform. It's dishonest to qualify that kind of platform as a bookstore, as it occults the fact that checking something out does not diminish the platform's stock, and that anyone has the right to walk in an read, the fee is not for buying books, it's to have access to the share.

And it doesn't sell anything. It gives access to.

The problem is the question of whether your proposed model can replace the funding provided by the current market. Or are you going to gut the publishing market like a hog.

Both. Some parts of the industry will be gutted anyhow, and it will be worse if nothing is done. It's good for some parts to be gutted anyhow.

I admit, I hold a public service, free access of the public to books, author remuneration, and forestalling of piracy in higher regard than corporate income.

[kungtotte]

It depends on the artist, but that's the case for most of them. Of course, most musicians don't make a lot of money off of concerts.

Generally speaking if you're the kind of artist that sells enough concert tickets to make touring worth-while, you will always make more money off of live shows than record sales, because the profit-breakdown is much better there.

If anything, it is often viewed as behavior you would desire in others. Good parents read their kids bed time stories. Teachers read books to students. Hospital volunteers read to the sick. Librarians conduct readings for groups all the time. Heck when I was twelve I engaged in court mandated 'community service' by reading to the blind.

Reading to a few individuals, such as reading to your kids, or to the blind or sick, is not the same as reading for a group. The cut-off is different depending on where you are, in Sweden it's around ten people I believe, but there is a cut-off. When the group you are reading to (or showing movies/TV/playing music for) gets large enough you are infringing copyright unless you make some sort of compensation to the copyright-holder.

Libraries do this already, which is why they can hold readings without problem, and also why they can lend books to people. Also movie theatres don't just go out and buy a DVD and then show it for their audiences, they pay a fee in order to show the movie.

You should understand how copyright law works first before you try to change anything about it.

[TheKassi]

Digital sales, yeah. And what's the problem with that? This is what a change of model means: it's not "let's keep how everything worked before".

Digital sales are where all media is heading, and heading quickly. This is only going to happen faster if you subsidize digital sales with tax dollars. If you gut private sales in that area, you are gutting the private sales period. If you are funneling the majority of sales to government subsidized websites, the pricing becomes extremely important.

Slashing the revenue generated from book sales by 80% has very serious implications. Matching the retail price loads billions of dollars onto an already stressed federal budget. Neither seems desirable.

Ok, sure. If you want to ignore the legal argument, we can circle back to the huge barriers involved in this process that prevent it from actually impacting the sale or distribution of books. Shit, this behavior doesn't even impact the use of libraries.

The idea that you can save money or decrease sales or whatever by having one person buy the book and just read it to a bunch of other people is ludicrous. Might as well talk of leprechauns. This shit don't happen.

I will take that a as no, you are not willing to demonstrate the accuracy of your claim that reading a book aloud is illegal? That said, the rest of your post has nothing to do with ethics.

Reading to a few individuals, such as reading to your kids, or to the blind or sick, is not the same as reading for a group. The cut-off is different depending on where you are, in Sweden it's around ten people I believe, but there is a cut-off. When the group you are reading to (or showing movies/TV/playing music for) gets large enough you are infringing copyright unless you make some sort of compensation to the copyright-holder.

Libraries do this already, which is why they can hold readings without problem, and also why they can lend books to people. Also movie theatres don't just go out and buy a DVD and then show it for their audiences, they pay a fee in order to show the movie.

You should understand how copyright law works first before you try to change anything about it.

First off, I am not talking about changing copyright law. I am saying the ethical lines drawn in this particular area are drawn arbitrarily. I think going into the ins and outs of copyright law is kind of a waste of time, as it is unlikely that many understand their own regional copyright laws, much less international. As example, you think there is a cut off, but don't know what it is, believing somewhere around ten sounds right. The folks using the 'well the law says' argument also seem unwilling to actually look into what the law is in their region, much less other people's.

In terms of ethics, reading something aloud to another individual, or group of individuals, constitutes multiple people enjoying a single copy of one novel simultaneously. If the only ethical way to enjoy a novel is individually, because simultaneous enjoyment of one purchased copy constitutes theft, then the nature and size of the group is irrelevant. All parties must own the content, or it is stealing.

I mean really. Why would it be ethical for me to put in a DVD for a movie night with 4-9 friends, and then loan that movie to a 10th friend who intends to do something similar, but unethical for me to invite all those people at once? If I throw a party and plan to have fifteen people come over, why is it I have an ethical obligation to make sure only ten are standing withing hearing range of the speakers at one time? How is a novel any different then a movie or song?

I can think of no better word then arbitrary to describe such limitations.

[Shryke]

True, but you realize it is the exact reason why the model has to evolve? Because you seem to imply that it would work alright with the current model, that is utterly at odds with the argument that books are so easy to share.

In essence, the choice, the practical choice, (we'll forgo the police state solution) is between :

1. 
   
2. People easily downloading books, and not paying anything, because it's so easy with books, and e-readers users will be technology aware.
   
3. People easily downloading books, but the publishing industry still getting paid for this.
   
   

Like fuck it implies a loan, in a situation were copy is implied.

See: the baen free library, the New York public library or the Toronto public library, among the first hits google returned.

You really think that the fact that it was a loan is relevant, in any case? How many people actually reread books, that you know? What does it change? (I see you arguing from here that people could buy the books afterwards, but... in our model, they would have actually already paid a price corresponding to that, indirectly, and the library costs would go down, at the same time)

A sharing platform. It's dishonest to qualify that kind of platform as a bookstore, as it occults the fact that checking something out does not diminish the platform's stock, and that anyone has the right to walk in an read, the fee is not for buying books, it's to have access to the share.

And it doesn't sell anything. It gives access to.

Gives access to permanently. That's a sale.

The library model is built on loans. On the idea that a library is not a perfect substitute for a bookstore. And the reason it's not is because you can't keep the book. You can only borrow it for a short amount of time and only so long as no one else has it.

Once you enter the digital domain fully, these concepts are no longer relevant and a library becomes a perfect substitute for a bookstore. It becomes a bookstore. Just one where the government is footing the bill instead of you.

Again, the only thing maintaining the illusion right now is the lack of eReader penetration and whatever DRM schemes they've cooked up for it. (fyi, at least browsing through the TPL site you linked, you do have to "return" the eBook. I didn't bother to check the others, but they might have a similar scheme.)

Both. Some parts of the industry will be gutted anyhow, and it will be worse if nothing is done. It's good for some parts to be gutted anyhow.

I admit, I hold a public service, free access of the public to books, author remuneration, and forestalling of piracy in higher regard than corporate income.

It's not about corporate income. It's about books. I like books. I'm sure you do to, considering you post here.

And if you like books, you want them to continue to be made and that means you need to funnel enough money to the publishing industry to support the entire structure that makes creating books possible. Which means whatever proposed business model you are suggesting needs to take that into account.

Maybe you don't give a shit about, say, GRRM being able to continue to write for a living, but I sure as fuck do. And the reason he and a million other authors can do that is because they are part of an industry that makes enough money to support them.

[Shryke]

I will take that a as no, you are not willing to demonstrate the accuracy of your claim that reading a book aloud is illegal? That said, the rest of your post has nothing to do with ethics.

It has as much to do with ethics as anything you are posting.

You made the argument that reading aloud was the same as distributing a copy of an eBook to all your friends, hence eBooks don't change anything.

Here:

Go back and read the posts you have quoted. In them is an example of how multiple people can enjoy one physical copy of a book simultaneously. That alone eliminates the distinction you are attempting to draw. Leaving it out doesn't change anything.

This is a terrible attempt to draw an equivalency for the very reasons I pointed out.

Reading aloud is not a substitute for buying or borrowing a book and never has been.

And your whole point was built on this silly idea.