Tools Don't Make Pirates. Unreasonable Barriers Make Pirates
from the misplaced-blame dept
Last month's launch of Amazon's e-book reader, Kindle, has people talking about ebooks again, with some questioning whether or not the potential popularity of the reader combined with the ease of viewing unauthorized ebooks on it would lead to an increase in e-book "piracy." Reader Carolyn writes in to point to a terrific rant about how this assertion is misplaced. The writer, Kassia Krozser, notes that it's not the Kindle's fault that people will use unauthorized content -- it's the fault of publishers for making it inconvenient for people to do what they want with content. It's the same thing that we said when JK Rowling refused to offer the Harry Potter books as ebooks out a fear of unauthorized copies getting out. That's ridiculous of course. In doing so, you guarantee that the only digital copies are unauthorized, even if someone wanted to pay for them. It's this thinking that helped screw up the recording industry as well. If the industry had recognized early on how Napster showed how people wanted to consume music, they could have offered a compelling solution that people would have paid for. Instead, they resisted and fought it, and now the problem is much worse. The problem isn't with the device, but with publishers not giving people the content in a format they want. As Krozser says (and we used for the headline of this post): "Devices don't make pirates. Unreasonable barriers make pirates."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But what a lot of people want to do is use the content without paying for it, that doesn't seem to be the fault of the publishers to me. Making it significantly easier for people to illegally obtain the book doesn't seem that smart, especially, as you've noted on here several times, there doesn't seem to be that much of a market for ebooks anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Care to prove that statement? Many people do not want to use THE LIMITED AND RESTRICTED CONTENT that the publishers offer. They do want UNLIMITED/UNRESTRICTED content, however. You are comparing apples and oranges here, which makes for rather unconvincing argument in defense of publishers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The reason .mp3 sharing became wildly popular was not the public's desire for free music - it was a combination of reasons including:
1. Reluctance to purchase cds when there are only 1 or 2 good songs on them.
2. The desire to have music in a much more portable format.
The success of iTunes and others who sell individual songs should certainly show that people are willing to pay for what they want - just that they are unwilling to pay for what they don't!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pirates
It is that simple.
If you do not agree, do not purchase it. It never ceases to amaze me that such a simple concept is so difficult to fathom. Enough blame to the producers for placing barriers or making decisions for the material they own, blame the people who are too lazy or cheap to simply abide by the sellers terms and BUY IT THEMSELVES.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pirates
True, just because you CAN get the content for free doesn't mean you should. It is a matter of right or wrong and since it is easy to download content you do not pay for, most people do the wrong thing.
If there was a store on the honor system, no employees or security cameras around, just self-checkout machines I bet more people would be inclined to "forget" to scan items and just take them.
And I know there is the argument that some MP3's and movie files out there are legit, but come on. We all know that most of the content being traded on P2P websites is copyrighted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pirates
I contacted a band in England about buying their first cd, since I couldn't find it anywhere, and they sent me a link with the album in it and said give it to whoever you want. My favorite band, Bomb the Music Industry!, gives away all of their music for, free and the guy's label, "Quote Unquote Records," has a half dozen bands that do the same.
Most musicians see the link between freely distributed music and increased merch sales and increased attendance. It's becoming a popular way for unknown authors and Film makers to get known too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pirates
I don't blame the producer, I just think they're stupid for denying themselves sales in the name of ineffective protection.
Also, the sellers terms, and the true legal terms regarding the use of material are often very different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pirates
Last option, don't buy or pirate the content period.
So what if it is restricted? To be legal about it, by a CD player or go to iTunes. You seem to be saying because you don't like the other options presented to you, you will pirate. You have other LEGAL options, but choose to do it illegally for "unrestricted" files, which is a new concept created by the digital age.
If the publisher doesn't want to make the files unrestricted, that is their right. It is their content. It is not your right to say you want it unrestricted and therefore must pirate. It is not your content. If you really don't want restrictions, then don't own the content at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pira
My point was that while it's within their rights to force those three options on me, it's also really stupid. They should take advantage of the absurdly low cost of bandwidth to make lossless tracks available for twice what the bandwidth costs, and use their advertising departments to design better shirts, use the money they spend on DRM to design an open tour listing website that doesn't suck and create an alternative to Ticketmaster that doesn't put a $7 dollar surcharge on a 10 dollar ticket.
If you treat your customers like thieves, why should they behave any different?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pira
Right there. That's the main problem to this whole 'pirate' thing. Before Napster went down, you were allowed to rip music from your CDs onto your computer. You were allowed to make mix CDs. These CDs, and the tracks on your computer, worked anywhere your CD player could and in the same quality.
Good luck getting anything legally that does the same. The RIAA doesn't want you to make mix tapes anymore, something that's been done since tapes were AROUND. Hell I've made them since I was 6, they aren't hard to make. And that was with actual TAPES, which was more annoying to make the mixes on.
Also, 98% or so of all the music you CAN download legally (mind you, some music isn't available online as scary a thought as that is at this point in time, but its still 'illegal' to get them from online despite that) will only play on a limited basis with usually sub-par quality.
This is what the term "unreasonable barriers" means. If they wanted to sell their stuff in digital format, make it the best way I can get it. Oh, they're trying alright. They're trying to make it illegal to change the format of the music even, so you can't make your CD into pure digital. That way they can sell the same goods for more, and charge what they are now for yet crappier goods.
It's costing them a whole lot of money and effort to do it that way rather than just sell the goods at the BEST quality I can get them 'illegally'. The majority of people WILL pay for it if the price is fair for the goods. Charging as much or more than a CD (which is already possibly overpriced, though I doubt by much) for material that is less functional is stupid. Your consumers will revolt. And they are. They're choosing to 'steal' it rather than just go without it though. It's not costing them as much as they think it is, but there are SOME lost profits there. A fraction of what they claim, but it IS there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pira
What bothers me is that, as far as much music is concerned, there is no way to preview the content before you decide. THAT is my issue... I download music to determine whether or not it is worth my money and if it is I buy the CD... if it isn't I get rid of the files I downloaded.
I'm not out to avoid paying - I just want to make informed purchases. My budget can't support me buying something because it "looked cool" or "everyone else likes it"...
I just want a fair chance to hear the music before I buy...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pirates
"'unrestricted' files, which is a new concept created by the digital age."
Huh? Up until the digital age, ALL content was unrestricted. No DRM was present to restrict LP owners from recording the content to a tape. VHS had some restriction on some movies with Macrovision. However, because it relied on what was essentially a defect of old VCRs, it was easily remedied with a noise filter.
"If the publisher doesn't want to make the files unrestricted, that is their right."
Wrong. It is not their right to tell me what I can and can't do with content I have legally purchased. Fair use and right of first sale are legally protected in copyright law. If I own a DVD, it is illegal to make a copy because of the DMCA, but it is NOT illegal to download a copy. It is only illegal to redistribute (upload) that copy to others. Would you also say it is "wrong" for me to make a backup copy of a DVD I own because the studio did not want me to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pirates
Look at where we are with HD Material, first the consumer must figure out which player to buy because only one is likely to survive, then the consumer must spend $500 or more for a player to play 1080p.
But buyer beware, it's quite possible the HD ready TV you bought is not HD compatible because it doesn't support HDCP, don't worry you can watch a downgraded version.
And please do not try to circumvent the copy protection even if you legally purchased the Media that is against copyright and the DMCA.
Now please run out to the store and purchase/rent an HD movie because it's impossible to get a legal copy on line.
Or we can do it the pirate way
Download and watch
You know at one time we had prohibition which made criminals out of a lot of people, I don't see this as much different
Pirating the better choice!© The Inquirer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pirates
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pirates
That is exactly what is going on here. In the end, people want music for free. They can argue all they want about not getting it in the format that they want or whatever, but in the end if they TRULY wanted the content AND wanted to pay for it, they would. I have never pirated a song, I still buy all my favorite songs and cds. And I still get to enjoy my music while being a contributing citizen to society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pira
If I made chairs, the demand for and quality of my chairs would determine my profits. And if someone wsa caught stealing them, they would be prosecuted. Simple.
Should be the same story with IP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT M
It always resorts to that with these people who believe they have the right to anything.
You have proven my point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO N
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT M
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT M
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ahh, the chair argument
Should be the same story with IP.
ahh the chair argument. convenient how you ignore half the argument.
if i make a chair and you take it, i am missing a chair. if i want to use or sell a chair i either have to get that chair back or make a new one and incur the same costs i incurred making the first chair.
an unauthorized copy of my chair means i am not missing a chair, but now you have a chair as well. the people who buy chairs from me can still buy chairs from me. you have something, yet i have lost nothing but maybe a potential sale.
it's a maybe because i can't prove it was a lost sale, and you can't prove that it isn't.
remember, not making money is not losing money, just like standing still is not moving backwards.
if i sell chairs for $10, and i have sold 10 chairs, then i have grossed $100. if you sell your copy of my chair for $5, i still have $100. your $5 didn't reach in to my pocket and take $10.
the point of the chair argument is that either IP is the same as physical property or it's not. i can't have it both ways where you owe me money and go to jail, and you can't have it both ways, where you take my stuff and sell it and i have no recourse.
if ip is the same as real property, then unauthorized copies are stealing (jail time) and if i buy your IP legally, then i can do what i want with it regardless of what you want... like with chairs.
if ip is not the same as physical propery, then you can distribute it under your terms and unauthorized copies are sometimes fair use and sometimes illegal (civil suit), but never stolen (criminal suit), like with MP3s.
IP is a complex issue. over simplifying a complex issue means that you are trying to pull a fast one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pira
I would love to buy high-quality DRM free MP3 files. But there is no legal way to do that. Buying a CD and ripping the tracks to MP3 is also illegal(in Australia anyway). So I have no legal way of doing it. My only option if to buy lower-quality DRM-protected files, then using the very time-consuming task of transferring them to my MP3 player, as you can't use the quick drag-and-drop method for DRM files. I've e-mailed music publishers before asking how I can buy them, the reply is I can't. I've downloaded music before, emailed a publisher telling them I have and offered to pay the cost. The reply I get is that they won't accept payment and ordered me to delete what I downloaded immediately.
It's their own fault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pirates
And when do I get to tell the seller my terms? Like how I want every track of the CD to be great. Like how I can rip tracks to my home network for personal use. Or that if I damage my disc I can get it replaced for the cost of the CD (appx a nickel). When do they have to abide by MY terms, hmm?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pirates
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pirates
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pirates
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pirates
uhh, they don't purchase it, that the crux of the issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pirates
It is that simple."
Except for all the other points your ignoring and bypassing in order to make a statement that is designed solely to make people who are against the DRM scheme look like 'the bad guys.'
Stop defending people who want it so that if you buy a CD you, the OWNER, can NOT rip it to a digital format and play it on your iPod. They wan't you to buy the SAME THING so that they make more money. They did it before with CDs and tapes, they wan't to do it again. It's just greed, nothing more.
The reason the CD worked well was because it played on ANY CD-Player. The only real problem (hence the phrase "unreasonable barriers") is that the recording industry doesn't like that. DRM is designed specifically so that your CD WONT WORK on any CD-Player. It will only work on ones THEY approve of (usually overpriced, and of sub-par quality with only the fact it plays CD X on it as a redemption point).
You add those greed induced thoughts to the others, such as not being able to lend a friend a CD or make "mix tapes" (you've been able to do that for years and no one complained until recently, in some states they CAN'T try to force that due to some 'revoke' clauses that prevent it) or just the bull-headedness in not providing something in a format "because it will get stolen" (wrong term to use on their part) when some one else will just convert it and give it away for free.
They want to reduce the quality of their own goods, and charge you the same price, because there isn't really anywhere else to go for the same kind of good. This is more true in regards to books/movies than music. With music you can usually get a good alternative locally if you live near a metropolis.
There are several industries that are having problems adjusting to the digital world. This is unfortunate as they are actually causing a lot of problems, some with long reaching consequences, that will take a long while to clean up. It is getting to the point that even mainstream financial papers are realizing it as well.
I just wish idiots like poster #1 would stop spewing that crap. Its obvious to the people he's attacking that he hasn't done enough research into it, and all it does is keep an outdated business model (which means 'a method of doing business' since I swear some people must not know) afloat a little longer, giving it time to cause yet more problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pirates
They wan't you to buy the SAME THING so that they make more money. They did it before with CDs and tapes, they wan't to do it again. It's just greed, nothing more.
Exactly, if you want the new format, you have to pay for it. It has been that way UNTIL digital came along, and now it's okay? No, it is illegal.
It is unfortunate instead of embracing digital content, they are fighting it, but in a few years they will have to accept it. Until the meantime, follow the laws and quit justifying to the world that you are in the right. Your a criminal if you download pirated content plain and simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pira
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pirates
The paying for new formats used to work kind of okay before, because content was pretty much tied to physical media, which is limited and costs significant money to produce, transport and store. Content is basically free now (in the not attached sense) and forces people to reconsider what exactly is it that content dealers sell; content or physical media? Not surprisingly, they've decided they sell whatever is most convenient for them in a given situation, but it is now evident to people that this is not a fair approach for the consumer. Thing is, the consumer can now also strike back and play dirty too. Play fair, and most people will play fair too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pira
If you bought a potato peeler that said on the package, "Use of this potato peeler to peel apples is prohibited" would you go out and buy the exact same peeler labeled as an apple peeler?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pirates
However inconvenient, or unreasonable my business model and content delivery methods are, they are mine.
Breaking the agreement is not right because you do not agree with it. It's theft, pure and simple, and if that makes me an idiot, so be it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pira
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT M
Right. That model would be the "I'll download it for free" model. Thus proving that which you disagree with: unreasonable barriers create pirates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO N
This is no different.
This form of theft denys the owner of the content the monitary benefit for the user having taken advantage of it. Like it or not, you are buying the right to use the content within the terms.
Go to another source for different content if you do not like the terms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unreasonable Barriers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unreasonable Barri
but i DO want to tell people. i want everyone to see my work and give me tons of money with no criticism. i want to be rich and famous, and i only want to work a few months out of the year.
oh woe is me that you pirate bastards have taken my dreams away!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pirates
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pirates
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pirates
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pirates
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hell, I wish everyone had this attitude about everything. Think about it, then everything would be free. Free land, free products, the only thing that would have real value would be guns, because that is where all this would lead. You can only "own" what you can keep others from taking from you. I think I would do well in that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Smart Will Always Prevail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pirates are not respecting a given law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pirates are not respecting a given law
What makes them decide to break that law is the same thing that makes someone decide to steal a TV. They have no respect for what does not belong to them.
Simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pirates are not respecting a given law
The digital age has set content free from physical media. It's a double-edged sword for content creators, but it's here to stay. It's up for them to decide if they'll bleed themselves to death trying to blunt the inconvenient edge or if they'll just learn to use the whole thing to their advantage.
Maybe it's not fair for them to have to adapt to the new circumstances, but neither is it that a lot of people can't afford stuff while others swim in it. Live with it or perish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How much am I paid?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How much am I paid?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How much am I paid?
Pirating will always exist but whats happening here is thats its growing out of control because what I am willing to pay for doesn't exist.
I know it doesn't make it right but your are part of the cause and effect
For instance I have cable TV with an On Demand feature that I pay for (love Dexter) so I can actually go in and watch a show anytime I want and pay no extra and yet I will download the show and watch it from my PC because it's more convenient.
Technically what I've done is Illegal, but if I go buy a book copy it and read the copy who's been harmed?
I may have broken a law but to me it's not even close to being immoral.
Gruesome
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How much am I paid?
If I want to read your work, I will. I will borrow from the library or buy paper book from amazon or pirate a portable ebook, as I require it. I would love to pay you for your work via legit channels, but if there is no way to do that, then I won't. But at least give me a paypal link on your homepage so I can send you some compensation directly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How much am I paid?
Daniel Dafoe was able to overcome this, in 1701. He used it to help catapault himself into superstardom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How much am I paid?
This is only partially true. The content is only yours so long as you never, ever tell anyone else. Once you do, it no longer belongs to just you. It's like a secret, only one person can keep a secret. I do believe that an artist/author/musician should be payed for the work they did. However, I don't believe someone should be payed for their entire life for one thing that they did. If I build a house, I don't get payed for the rest of my life for building that house. My children don't get payed for the rest of their lives for my building that house. Why should someone that takes a photo, writes a book, sings a song get that when no one else does? People get paid for the work that they DO, not what they have DONE. Copyright has been completely perverted and I am getting very close to telling every artist/author/musician that they can go to H, E, double hockey sticks for being greedy prigs. I already just about feel that way about corporations. That being said, I don't download.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
say 50 people will get the book in electronic form, but are willing to pay for it (if it is available as e-format, or pirate if not)
and say 100 people want the book for free.
so that's 200 people who want the book. as it stands they will only get profits from 50 of those people, but 200 copies would be out. so the publisher makes 1/4 of the profit they should have.
now, they offer the e-version
they have 100 people who bought it legally, they'd increase profits by 100%.
but the kicker is now, how many more people will grab it because it's available for free? how much does the 100 freebie group grow?
now, i believe the point is moot because either way, they wouldn't have purchased it in the first place. so is it worth it to alienate your consumer base for the priceline? or suck it up and deal with illegal activities in order to increease sales?
but then again, i don't have a business degree and thus have no clue what i'm talking about
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Get the book months early, get to see it in close to a raw form. Then buy the finished copy when it's released.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TheDock22 is dorpus' little brother.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TheDock22 is dorpus' little brother.
And when they decide to change their business model I will be very very happy with their decision, but until then you are trying to justify breaking the law.
Of course, it stems from the fact that they are unwilling to admit that they will have to live with lower profits. Boohoo, cry me a river. Many other industries survived lower profit margins just fine by adapting, not saying "do it our way or don't do it at all!"
I agree with that. They could capitalize on other aspects of the business to make up the lost profits, but in the end nobody wants to take a pay cut when they are used to the money. What if your boss came up to you and said you would be getting a $5000 decrease in pay because of their new business model.
And you also got the wrong gender, just so you know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: TheDock22 is dorpus' little brother.
shaw's law: “The reasonable man conforms himself to his society. The unreasonable man seeks to make his society conform to his needs. Therefore, all social change and all betterment trace to the unreasonable man.”
if we kowtow to the industry, the industry won't change. better the old media falls hard and fast so this mess gets fixed sooner rather than later.
What if your boss came up to you and said you would be getting a $5000 decrease in pay because of their new business model.
do what any red blooded american would do: find another job. this isn't soviet russia, you can change jobs when you get a better deal, or when your current deal goes bad.
it's called competition, the entrepreneurial spirit, it's innovation. it's what america is all about.
the world changed. it does that from time to time. you can change with it, or you can go broke trying to fight it. either way, content is free now, regardless of what the law and your bottom line say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: TheDock22 is dorpus' little brother.
No, I insist on assuming you are a male. Can't have women getting that stupid.
And no one is justifying breaking the law. It's being pointed out again and again that trying to create laws for protection of existing system rather than changing business model is useless. You can cry about it being unlawful all you want, it still happens. For a supposedly capitalistic country, it is amazing that companies expect so much support from the government and legal system. Lenin would've been proud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: TheDock22 is dorpus' little brother.
I would be very unhappy and switch jobs. Thanks for proving my point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
e-book readers and piracy
My kids still like some of the shareware DOS games I got ~ 15 years ago - we play them using DosBox.
I buy books frequently (my wife is not happy about this), but I typically buy them used at a fraction of the list price. The publishers are clearly trying to abolish the resale market. BAD IDEA, they will also reduce their customer base on the longer run.
I am interested in a e-book reader, but only in one that can handle standard open formats, as I like to read material from Project Guttenberg, the open library projects, and scientific papers from open sources.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone already does it right.
They understand the market and they understand that the easier you make it for people to purchase your product (I flat refuse to use the work 'consume' for anything not edible), the more people will purchase your product.
Eric Flint, one of the minds behind their e-book venture, has a great editorial on the topic and why it works. He has also published numbers proving that the more relaxed they are about fair use and distribution of their e-book versions the more sales of the paper versions goes up.
Here's a link to his editorial: http://baens-universe.com/articles/The_Pig-in-a-Poke_Factor
Read it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Someone already does it right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RTT
or have the profits from 200 books sold legally and 500 illegal copies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RTT
or have the profits from 200 books sold legally and 500 illegal copies?
That is a silly argument. It is HIS content. He should be entitled to the profits from every copy there is out there with 0 illegal copies. That is the thing with digital content, you can too easily copy something which should be bought. You can't photocopy full books, why should you be able to make a digital copy?
If you want your friend to read the book, then give up your copy of the file until they are done with it. It is the act of copying so that both people can read the book that is illegal. That is why giving a physical book to your friend to enjoy is not illegal. The industry is complaining over the amount of copies out there that aren't paid for, not the number of people who have read the book without paying for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what are you really paying for?
The truth is that the industry wants to have its cake and eat it too. They want you to pay for whatever is the most convenient for them in any given situation, even multiple times if they can manage. I'm sure they would make people pay for reading/listening to stuff borrowed from friends if they could get away with it. And it's not fair, especially if you consider the inflated, greedy prices they tag on the stuff. Of course, it's probably not fair either if I download it without paying either, but when it comes to being on the giving or receiving end of an unfair deal, guess which one people will choose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: RTT
People can and do. Just google there is even guides to do it. I know myself have made digital copies of several books I own, put the original book in safe storage, and read the digital version as to not damage the book itself (broken binding ect). It takes time and if you're not willing to read through the copied version there will be a few mistakes if you choose to put it in a text editable format, but you can rip strait to PDF as a picture with perfection. Stop kidding yourself saying these things don't happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: RTT
he should also get access to good health care, a good education, 8 hours of sleep every night, a vacation to tahiti, free popcorn at the movies, and a pony.
what he's going to get is what everyone else gets: practically nothing. you know what, he'll be lucky to get even that. welcome to real life, the bathroom's down the hall and on the left.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No e-book for me
When I pay for a book, I know that I can scribble in it, sell it, give it away and even loan it. There is no EULA with a book because it is not a license that you are paying for, not yet anyway.
Why would a publisher allow content to be distributed via ebook? I see that as a potential liability. The consumer will not be happy when (not if) the ebook is no longer supported. If the consumer really wants that content, they will have to buy it again. I believe similar occurrances have already happened, more than once.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about the converse? Is that ok too? If you don't want to pay what the content creater charges, don't pirate the content?
You are breaking the law, you are doing something that is just plain wrong. You can justify it all you want, but you are wrong. All this other bullshit of "free brings in more revenue" or "I can't use my purchase the way I want to" are all just justifications. Do your ends justify the means? I guess so. You must all be republicans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The only REAL laws are that of physics and even those bend to slight degrees(yay quantum world). The rest of your "laws" and "morals" are ideal fluff fabricated by someone at some point in time.
If you want to benefit yourself, you make your customers happy. Some where along the line business models went from "the customer is right" and "treat the customer with respect" to "the customer is a thief and doesn't deserver what we created yet we(the creators) deserver their money". Now, there will ALWAYS be a small percentage of people who will take but MOST will give back. The real people they need to crack down on aren't college students who make somewhere between $0-$8k per year, but people who mass produce copies of stuff or businesses too cheap to purchase their own stuff.
A true law/idea is one that is reflected in the real world. If you create a law that people don't abide by then that law is wrong. If you develop a business model that people don't like, then YOU are the one who is wrong, not the people. Remember, a business needs people to live, not the other way around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TheDock22
the questions isn't about right or wrong. and it's a valid point.
remember, content works both ways. content is created, but then content is viewed/used.
RTT can make all the content he wants, but if no one wants it, he's still at a loss.
In an ideal world, both content makers and content users would be satisfied. the maker will have the profits from 100% of the collection, and the content users will have said content delivered to them in a legal way.
unfortunately this is not the case. the content creators want to restrict what the consumers can have. but in the end, the content users will win. why? there are more users than there are creators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TheDock22
Ah but it is about right or wrong. The content creator has the right to distribute their content anyway they want and the content user has the right to user that content in the scope of the agreement they make with the content creator when they purchase the content. No more, no less. If the content user is unhappy, then they shouldn't have access to the content. Pirating should not be an alternative.
RTT can make all the content he wants, but if no one wants it, he's still at a loss.
But in your example, people DO want it. 500 more people WANT the content, but since they are "unhappy" with the terms they decide to pirate it illegal and still have the content. If they want it, they should buy it.
In an ideal world, both content makers and content users would be satisfied. the maker will have the profits from 100% of the collection, and the content users will have said content delivered to them in a legal way.
That would be nice. I would like to be able to do what I want with the digital content I buy. It is still not an excuse for pirating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: TheDock22
An extreme example is that your eBook is converted into light which is received by your eyes and stored *illegally* in your brain. You do not have the *right* to store that eBook in any other format than the encrypted one provided. OMG, this sound likes a stupid law, who would expect people to not store what they read in their brain. Well by your reasoning, no matter how stupid/unpractical a law is, law is law and creators have rights.
Better yet, prove scientifically these *rights* you talk about. The only real way to prove these is what benefits society the most and I fail to see how restricting content has any social benefit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: TheDock22
Get real with this social benefit stuff, I create content to make money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No one would like it; however...
Let's say - a new guy was brought in where you work. He can do the job that you did for $5000.00 less. But not only that he can also:
*Give customers a choice in what products they want - no longer do the customers get stuck with the 'package deals' that contain a bunch of useless junk they don't really want.
*Reduce production costs while at the same time, offering the customer your product in a variety of formats. This allows customers with various restrictions to still use the product, or simply caters to their desire.
*Allows the customer to utilize their new devices with your product. No longer would the customer's have to use the old, worn out methods of using your product.
I'm SURE if the publisher for the book, music, movie - Whatever, found a vendor who did a job BETTER and CHEAPER, they would hop on it right away.
Now why isn't the customer given that choice?
Simple: Because they don't CARE about the customer, only about squeezing every dime from them.
But you know what?
That's ok, soon - a company will come along that DOES give the customer a choice. Once they take off, the others better watch out. (other companies have done just that - Microsoft, Google, Toyota... etc)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the reason people illegally download copyrighted software is simply the purchased content is restricted, why is illegally downloading games so popular?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another take on the piracy issue
When you boost a car, lift a cd, steal a book, you have deprived someone of a physical item that has costs of manufacture and attainment associated with it. That value of that item has been removed from that person.
In the electronic world, the cost to 'manufacture' a single e-book, mp3 or even a pdf is as close to zero as you can get.
What I mean is that the cost to produce, including advances to the authors, marketing, etc, one single pdf of a book is not substantially or even measurably lower than productin one million copies of that pdf.
What that does is create an entirely new economic model. If I publish a book online that sells 1,000 copies. I then find that it's floating through all the irc channels, news groups, p2p networks and websites for free, I have still lost nothing material.
Losing potential sales is a marketing issue, not a legal one. A potential sale does not exist. It is an idea a concept a, dare I say it, potentiality. I can not deposit potential sales dollars, only actual ones.
Nor has piracy of my pdf cost me a single actual dollar of material costs. It has deprived me of nothing.
Seeing my pdf on the nets gives me something I can't purchase for any reasonable price, wide spread attention among a fairly intelligent and nearly impossible demographic to advertise to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another take on the piracy issue
And "potential sales" really do mean nothing. Even if the content weren't available to pirate, that doesn't mean the so called "pirates" in question would have gone out of their way to purchase it in the first place.
Sometimes people aren't willing to pay for something since they feel they don't really want it or need it, but if it's freely available, they'll download it on a whim.
At present, I don't have either the funds to purchase or even access all the material I want, but the day I do I'm pretty sure I'll want to have a nice collection or games and DVDs all with their boxes and booklets and all that good stuff that online 'copying' can't provide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another take on the piracy issue
So since you don't have money, you will pirate it. Nice alternative. I'm glad to see morals go out the window when money is scarce, but maybe that is the way it always is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Another take on the piracy issue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Another take on the piracy issue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Another take on the piracy issue
money changes everything sweetheart. when you don't have it all you can think about is getting it, when you have it all you can think about is getting more, and when you have a lot of it all you can think about is keeping others from getting yours. there are no morals when it comes to money.
the people who are willing to pay will pay, the people who are not willing to pay won't pay. in the words of the great philosophers RunDMC: "it's like that, and that's the way it is."
the consumers of the world have spelled out in lurid detail what they want and the price they are willing to pay for it, and the media companies have said firmly "we use our content to exploit you for money, and we will continue to do so." how's that for moral?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Another take on the piracy issue
Yes, that is the way it generally is. When people don't have money, they will steal food, clothing, whatever. Not everyone will do this, but the ones that don't will not live and therefore don't reproduce. Humans have been selected for this type of behavior. Why do you seem so surprised at it?
People really need to think about these things instead of ASSuming that every person has enough money at every time in the history of the world. IF that were true, why were there slaves and oppressed people all throughout human history? Please think before you spout out such cluelessness.
In case you think pirating is your point, let me point something out. When you have no money for basics, then it becomes much easier to steal other things as well as the basics. Get a clue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ban all DRM, put jail time in for people who steal content. Forget fines, jail time.
All of those that steal for convenience or better usage would be fine with that, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So with identity theft, do they actually steal your body?
If copyright violation isn't criminal, how can you go to jail for it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It all starts with an idea, for both. This idea is then written down and examined. If it is decided that the idea is marketable it is then re-examined for flaws and improvements. This idea is then made physical in the form of a test model. For a car this means a few prototypes for safety, performance, and aesthetic testing. For a book it means that hardcopies are produced for proof reading, editing, and revision. The results of the tests are then examined and the idea is once again tested for marketability. If all tests are succesful then the idea is made physical in large amounts and shipped out.
There is no difference in what is actually created and marketed, an idea. The ideas have to be made physical to be sold, but it's still the idea that is marketed.
A customer is then enticed to go to the market and purchase the car and book. Money is exchanged and the customer is then encourage to take his/her new aquisitions home and enjoy them. Here is where the real divergences come into play. A car cannot be "copied" easily, books and electronic media can. That is not the only problem though. It is perfectley legal for the customer to build an exact replica of the car, as long as the customer does not claim that it is his/her design. In fact, it is perfectly legal to build an exact replica of a car and sell it. The same cannot be said about a book. Some would claim that it's because of the economics of the situation, that meaning it is very expensive, both monetarily and labor, to replicate a car while it is relatively easy to replicate a book and so the books market get's saturated, stealing money from the original creator. I disagree. Lets look at another physical item for a minute. Flashlights. Flashlights are very handy and inexpensive items. They are also very easy to replicate. All you need is a length of pipe, a reflective piece of metal, a couple of springs, a lightbulb, and some batteries. Sounds like a lot of material, but it is actually far less expensive than is needed to replicate a book. To replicate the book, as done in this day, you need a copy machine, ink, paper, and a binder. Either way, you will end up spending as much, or more, to obtain the materials. The money is not lost or stolen, it is simply channeled into another market.
So why do people buy flashlights rather than just make copies? One of the reasons is the packaging. When you buy a flashlight you don't have to buy batteries, lightbulbs, replacement parts or any number of the myriad goods and services you have to purchase with most types of intellectual properties. You can if you want, but you don't HAVE to. That is a big issue. People don't want to be forced to buy something they don't want, and they shouldn't have to. Another reason is supply and demand. Often enough the companies producing the intellectual properties do not keep up with demand. It is not uncommon to see hordes of people waiting in lines for the newest programs, games, movies, and books. The companies need to quit forcing scarcity on the market. Yes, they can get more from some, but in the end they will get less from most. After all, why wait in line two days for something when you can have your buddy make a copy in ten minutes.
Now let's look at the nature of intellectual property. Nothing can be used interactively without a physical element, nothing. Therefore creating a subset for intellectual property is a fallacy in of it's self. I cannot read a story without printed copies, nor can I hear or see it without auditory or visual components. The same can be said of the flashlight. I cannot use the idea of lighting up a darkened area without a physical light.
Another arguement is that a flashlight is a flashlight no matter who sells it, where as every piece of intellectual property is unique unto itself. This, too, is a fallacy. Flashlights differ just as much as any piece of intellectual property. There are red ones and blue ones, big ones and little ones, battery powered and muscle powered. It's the idea that is the same, to light a darkened area. This is true of intellectual property as well. Let's go back to the book. The idea is one of two things, to read for knowledge or to read for entertainment. Everything else is secondary, just as with our flashlights. You have fiction and non-fiction, fantasy and western, big ones and little one, hard-backed and soft-backed.
In the end, there is no difference in physical and intellectual property, and therefore should be no differences in how ownership and marketing of it is seen under the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But under US law neither of these is allowed
Gruesome
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not exactly.
A novel is not paper, it is not printing, it is not words, it is a unique story delivered in that particular physical or digital medium.
A flashlight is a device that, regardless of it's color, shape, power source, or other detail, serves only the purpose of giving light. ANY device that serves that purpose can be used in it's place.
However, you can not acquire any other 'device' that tells that story except the intellectual property of that author telling that story.
The value of the IP is it's uniqueness. Sure there are other stories out there. There may even be other tellings of a similar story, but a specific authored piece is unique in and of itself, and only it can fill the need in the consumer for that particular 'job'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I Paid For It ... It's Mine to Do Whatever I Wa
If I buy a book/CD/movie/ or whatever, once I read/view it, I can give it to somebody else ... for FREE. It's mine I paid for that copy, and the person I gave it to can in turn can pass it on, make copy, do what ever.
If a library buys a book and 100 people lend it and read it, would that be a form of piracy??? Only one licensed copy paid for yet a lot read it. Same for CDs, DVDs, and so on.
What do these writers and the industry expect ... sorry, but this will always go on.
One other item, regarding the bullshit "license agreement" on soft items ... notice that you are to agree only AFTER you buy the item. Will they give you your money back if you don't agree after you have bought the item ... hardly. If one had to sign the agreement BEFORE money changed hands, there would be far fewer sales, so the producers won't do it. As far as I am concerned, those after-sale agreements don't mean crap to me. If producers want us to respect that make us sign BEFORE we buy or just shut up about people pirating their items. Once I buy it, it's mine and I'll do what I want with my copy ... if you don't like it, don't sell it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I Agree with Bragg
Company X WANTED to make 2 million. Company X totals that as a LOSS of a million! I don't get it. How is not making as much profit as you wanted considered a loss?!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I Agree with Bragg
The music/movie/etc industry looks at supposed levels of non authorized digital distribution (piracy is another term I balk at using here for reasons not germaine to this specific discussion) and either assume that each of those copies would have been a sale, and therefore is a 'loss' or they take some percentage and assume a loss there.
In dealing with physical items, that is true. If someone steals a cd from the store, that store is still financially out the cost to replace the cd and could, realistically, count the loss profit from the sale.
With non-physical items, you have lost not one single dime's worth or real property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I Agree with Bragg
Company X WANTED to make 2 million. Company X totals that as a LOSS of a million! I don't get it. How is not making as much profit as you wanted considered a loss?!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I Agree with Bragg
MBA's in the 80's decided that a business doesn't just need to make money, it needs to make lots of money.
so, not making money is the same as losing money.
in the 90's the stock price became the only metric the media uses for a company's value, so now a business needs to make lots and lots of money.
so, making lots of money is the same as losing money.
it's pretty simple actually, you just have to turn off that part of your brain that makes sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Previous Agreements Null and Void.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 78
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
but here's the problem, people aren't arguing about the same things.
doc/rtt are arguing that's it's illegal, everyone else is arguing that they don't want to be illegal, they want legal means to obtain said property in the format they wish.
but i gotta ask doc/rtt this, do you always obey the speed limits, and if you don't, do you turn yourself in, asking for a ticket/fine?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I also pay my taxes and do not cheat at cards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Speed limits and safety is an entirely different argument. Take it offline and I"d love to hash it out with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All Previous Agreements (and Limits) Null and Void
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apples and Oranges
When I buy something, I buy it, I don't agree to terms and conditions.
If I agree to pay for a license, then I will follow conditions regarding the use of the product.
Since when is music licensed, and not purchased? The same goes for ebooks. There is a big difference between the two models.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
however due to the nature of physics, i highly doubt it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is a waste
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is a waste
www.webscriptions.net
If you want it handed to you further, read this essay by one of the authors on webscriptions:
http://baens-universe.com/articles/The_Economics_of_Writing
He includes 10 years of hard numbers that prove my points.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is a waste
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please tell me that you are you kidding
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
in the end the human race is nothing more than a blob of chemicals trying to extract energy as it flows through a system. ask the universe if it cares about our laws and rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
War On Piracy
What would a War On War consist of?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: War On Piracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Make People PAY?
Is actually making people PAY for what they want "UNREASONABLE"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Make People PAY?
I buy 15 CDs by my favorite artists, rip them all to my computer, select the songs I want for this trip, and burn them to a CD.
This is illegal.
There is literally NO OTHER WAY for me to obtain the CD I want, so how is "making me pay for what I want" reasonable when it's not even being offered?
Further:
I get to my destination and my friend hears the CD I'm playing. My friend is totally unfamiliar with these artists, so I let him copy the CD to his hard drive, and assure him that these songs are representative of the artists' work.
This is illegal.
This is also the only real exposure my friend has to these musicians at this point, and, because I'm not a complete doof, each of these tracks on my CD is properly labeled in the properties portion of the file. Artist, song, album, etc.
My friend goes out and buys, say, 10 CDs from his favorite 10 artists on the mix CD I loaned him.
Would someone PLEASE explain to me in what way I was 1) 'unreasonable', 2) 'stealing', or 3) being 'immoral'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
but how can you take a statement such as
without having the same skepticism?
but the question is why do people think they are entitled to something, especially for nothing? (this goes both ways, to the pirates and to the "content creators")
i'm a programmer. does this whole Copyright law mean that everytime my software make a profit i should get a cut? no.
but look at the song Happy Birthday. someone owns that song. anytime it's played, that person is due money. crazy huh?
lets put it this way. i create a product . I can sell once, or i can sell many times because it is a piece of intellectual property. now does it stand to reason that every time is used, i deserve payment?
Consider that is usable on then the person i sold to duplicated and placed on it. should i still get a cut, even though i sold .
well it comes down to how was sold. why should a piece of software be sold differently than a piece of music?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you are coding for an organization, that is completely different than coding for yourself for a product you intend to market or release in some form. But when you do, it should be up to you as to how you license/sell it. If you make the wrong choices, perhaps no one will be interested. But that should not give anyone the right to simply steal it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
free stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Next New Medium
again and again and again, for the same thing.
After all, that's what it's all about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no. it's when people want something, and will pay for it, yet it isn't made available to them. is that unreasonable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ride the logic train. Choo-choo!
After all, those selfsame shows are sold on DVD.
Of course, they were given away for free by the networks initially for advertising revenue.
So is there a meaningful difference between recording and downloading a TV series?
Oh yeah, the DVD publisher paid for the license, so it's ok for them to give me a copy.
But I didn't pay for it directly, so it NOT ok for me to give a copy to my friend.
Oh yeah, I DID play for it directly when I bought a $50 DVD set that cost the publisher about $5.00 to produce, so I guess the IP is mine now, right?
Oh, I guess not. Becasue they said so.
Yeah, that makes sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: Not Exactly by Scott Bragg
A story is a device that, regardless of it's genre, length, plot, or other details, entertains. ANY story that entertains can be used in it's place.
However, you cannot obtain another flashlight of that name and brand except from that name and brand.
Your arguement is flawed because you fail to take into account the complexities of the flashlight. Whether those complexities matter to you or not is not an issue, they do exist. Do you want a story about space battles? I can name twenty authors who write great space battles. Do you want a flashlight that also functions as a roadside flare? I can find at least three major manufacturers of them. Yes, nobody tells the same exact story as Terry Goodkind's "Sword of Truth" series, but then, nobody offers the same exact flashlight as Maglite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It doesn't work that way
It is that simple.
If you do not agree, do not purchase it. It never ceases to amaze me that such a simple concept is so difficult to fathom"
For many items the terms and conditions of the purchase are inside the product, and not on the outside packaging(especially for software). If you go home, open the product, read the terms and decide you don't agree with them; retail outlets will not accept the product back because it's been open.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stop throwing Chairs
Protecting the "secret" by using lawyers and the law when the horse has already bolted from the stable is not going to change the final outcome.
On to the subject of piracy actually affecting sales. I pulled this from the EMI Annual Report 2007:
(quote)
Utada Hikaru also performed phenomenally in digital format, with the Flavor of Life track selling 4.4m ring tunes in the financial year, which continues to sell strongly. Overall, digital revenue showed an increase of 69% in the year, with mobile continuing to represent the majority of total digital sales. Digital revenues represented 19.6% of total revenue in Japan.
(end of quote)
I focus on Utada because I am familiar with her. She's also a mega-star, in Japan, so it's a little unfair focusing on her. Maybe it's because the U.S. is so technologically backward, but it seems a little early to say the digital world is killing music, if 20% of your sales are digital, and you're pretty much not bankrupt. From the above example, if record labels focussed on digital distribution, instead of trying to shift physical disks, then maybe they'd lose less money.
They'd certainly save a ton of money by not having to press and ship physical disks. I am sure the same would hold for books. If you could ship a cheap e-book reader (not Kindle) and release relatively inexpensive e-books into the channel, then all this talk of piracy would be sidelined by the wonder and joy of selling books to previously unreachable people (try translating your books into Chinese).
Yes, I know, there'd be a ton of thieves just going around downloading Terry Pratchett and Larry Niven from BitTorrent. Well, yeah, piracy will always be with us. It's kinda like fleas on a dog. Sure, you can get rid of them for a while, with regular cleaning, but you aren't going to wipe out the whole species. Would you rather open up your market to 10 million legitimate downloads at $1 a book, or a million torrents for which you receive nothing? Keep in mind that the pirates probably won't be buying your book, no matter what price you set.
So, I don't have a dog in this fight. Do I think piracy is immoral? Does it matter what I think? Will my thinking that piracy is bad get rid of the pirates? Will it bring Tinkerbell back to life? No? Well, then I'd better start dealing with a world in which content is free, if I'm willing to take the time and effort to free it. What the companies distributing this tripe need to understand is this: I will not pay you to restrict me. Cost needs to translate directly into convenience. If cost == DRM, then default is piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Terms of service for books.
Once I buy a copy of your book, or an audio version. "IT IS MINE". If I choose, I can read the last chapter first, (perhaps I hate suspense), or I can re-read chapters I like, or skip dull parts. I can take my tapes, copy them to MP3, and listen to them on my IPod. As long as I have paid the Publisher/Author for the work (note: I did not claim a right to get a copy of the work for free), it is up to me how I consume them. For example, I can not hold books much anymore, (this is why I prefer audio-books). But I still own thousands of books I paid the author/publisher for. I see no reason I should not scan a book (or download a scanned copy, someone else has offered me freely), of a work I have already paid money for, so that a text to speech program (I paid money for) can read the books to me. I see no "moral" issue in this, and any law that states differently is a bad law, which should be fixed. People like to claim "Intellectual Property" rights (I disagree with Property, but that is another discussion), well I paid for the "Intellectual" part once. A second copy "for my personal use" should be my right to produce for myself (and no, I am not implying that a second copy is free for the taking from a store, or that an commercial audio-book is free, because I have a paper copy, actors need to eat). Basically I paid the author for the words, the publisher for the paper/printing/binding, the actor for the performance. That should be enough. As long as the original is in my possession, and I do not share copies with others, it should not matter in the least, even if I reproduce the book a thousand times. I have "stolen" nothing.
I would truly like to see someone, reasonably and logically, challenge this perspective. Explain to me how for example I am stealing something, by scanning a copy of a book I own, for my personal reading through a Text to Speech program. I can see no reason this should either be against the law, or in any way depriving someone else their just compensation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]