Previous Entry | Next Entry

Hines: Wrong on Piracy, Wrong on Batman

Snoopy

The title is a reference to this Shortpacked strip, and probably made no sense to anyone else.  But it amused me, so I kept it.

I received a great deal of feedback on last week’s post about book piracy.  My thanks to everyone who jumped into the discussion.  While I still believe much of what I wrote to be true, I also find that some of my assumptions were either overly broad or flat-out wrong.

Legality: I was going to start out by saying at least we can all agree that downloading copyrighted books without permission is illegal, right?  But maybe not.  While it’s illegal under U.S. law, Corinne Duyvis was kind enough to translate copyright law in the Netherlands, which gives broader allowance to make copies for home use.  The uploading/file-sharing part appears to be illegal, and you can only download small portions of books … except for “works of which you can reasonably assume that no new copies will be sold to third parties in whichever form possible.”

In other words, downloading out-of-print (which is not the same as out of copyright) books in the Netherlands is currently legal if those books don’t look like they’ll be coming back into print.  Thus blowing away my “simple and obvious” assumption.  Oops.

Americentrism: Another friend messaged me privately to ask who my audience was for my piracy post, which was a tactful way of pointing out that I seemed to be assuming everyone downloading illegally had convenient, cheap, legal alternatives.

I started up a very informal survey in the comments.  Take a book that costs $7.99 in the U.S., or $8.99 in Canada.  In Australia, that same book might sell for about $20.  Another commenter said SF/F paperbacks in Ireland generally run about 25 Euro, or roughly $35 U.S.  And these aren’t generally considered to be poor or third world nations.

Does the fact that something is expensive mean it’s okay to steal it?  No … but it makes me less willing to level an across-the-board charge of dickishness.  If you’re sitting at home with your high-end computer and smartphone and are downloading because you’re too lazy to go to a nearby library or too cheap to shell out $8 to buy the damn book, then the charge stands.  If you’re living in Malaysia and a book costs as much as eight meals?  Maybe not…

Marina on Dreamwidth takes this a step further, asking “I’d like to see how many of these authors who complain about their books being ‘pirated’ would still have the libraries they do if every paperback cost them 25$+ and took weeks to acquire.”  She goes on to say, “the places where ebook … ~piracy~ is most widespread are not developed, Anglophone countries, and there are reasons for that.”

I wish I had a source for that last claim.  I follow the logic of why readers in less developed countries might be more likely to download books and other media, but I’m not sure I accept the claim that piracy is most widespread in those countries.  It could be — I don’t know.  I just want more info and haven’t yet been able to find it.

The publishing industry has problems to address, no argument there.  A number of people expressed frustration at the way regional limitations prevent them from being able to legally buy e-books.  While I somewhat understand the basis for regional sales/publishing restrictions, I also recognize how frustrating it is that someone from the U.S. can click and buy an e-book in 30 seconds, while someone in another country can go to the exact same website, click the exact same links, and be denied.

Deconstructing the Western Foundation of Intellectual Copyright Law: Colorblue has another good post which points out various abuses of copyright law, and goes on to challenge the entire western foundation and assumptions behind intellectual property.  As an author currently working within that intellectual property system, this was a challenging read, one I’m still processing.

Links: Tobias Buckell has a long, thoughtful piracy post today.  He does a nice job of addressing various arguments for and against piracy, and I’m hard-pressed to argue with most of his conclusions.  In addition, Charles Tan and Fantasyecho both did link roundups of the discussion, which are worth checking out.

I’m still sorting this out.  I do think that for people like me, piracy is pretty much a dick move.  But of course, I’m privileged as hell.

Does that mean it’s all right for someone to pirate my books if they’re poor, or if they’re in a country where it’s harder to get books or where books are too expensive?  I don’t know.  But I’m not convinced they’re doing me much harm, if any, and I’m no longer comfortable with across-the-board condemnation.

Your thoughts?

Mirrored from Jim C. Hines.

Tags:

Comments

( 98 comments — Leave a comment )
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
stormsdotter
Jan. 27th, 2011 02:46 pm (UTC)
Does this mean you're revising your opinion on the Batman vs. Talia debate? :)

Sorry, I couldn't resist. Thanks for posting, this is all absolutely fascinating.
jimhines
Jan. 27th, 2011 03:07 pm (UTC)
Heck no!!!

(And I got the pictures -- love 'em, and will be linking soon :-)
(no subject) - stormsdotter - Jan. 27th, 2011 05:24 pm (UTC) - Expand
suricattus
Jan. 27th, 2011 02:55 pm (UTC)
some thoughts:

I've made the offer, publicly and more than once, that anyone who can't get hold of a copy of one of my books, due those situations, should contact me, and I'd make it happen, rather than d/l an illegal copy. To date, not a single person has contacted me to take advantage of that offer. This makes me wonder about who is actually requesting and downloading my books -- are they really eager, deprived fans? [since, if they could reach a bittottent site, they should be able to find me directly online, as well]

On the financial side: books are expensive in many countries not because the publisher charges too much, but because the government taxes them at such a high rate. In Europe, I am told, ebooks are taxed at the rate of software, not books. That needs to be addressed, to even start solving the cost problem.

While I'm deeply sympathetic to the difficulties of getting books in some locations (see 1st para), I am uncomfortable with the "it's too expensive/hard to acquire" arguments because that seems to be saying "if it's difficult we shouldn't have to pay," which can so easily be extrapolated to cover pretty much anything. Slippery slope.


[and that's not even getting to the "fewer sales = dead career" argument, because most people just go on to the next author available, and don't even notice the corpses. Sad but true.]

Edited at 2011-01-27 03:01 pm (UTC)
jimhines
Jan. 27th, 2011 03:11 pm (UTC)
I agree with you that "expensive" doesn't necessarily justify theft. On the other hand, I'm much more likely to write off some entitled U.S. kid downloading books while texting on his iPhone and playing his Wii as a dick than I would someone having to budget for a month to be able to afford a new paperback.

A lot of what I'm thinking about here are problems that I don't know how to fix. And of course, most are problems that authors have no power to fix.

Toby's post discusses whether piracy actually leads to fewer sales, and he argues that from what he's seen, the overall impact of piracy is close to neutral.
(no subject) - akiko - Jan. 27th, 2011 03:18 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - jimhines - Jan. 27th, 2011 03:23 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - akiko - Jan. 27th, 2011 03:28 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - zornhau - Jan. 27th, 2011 03:28 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - tinylegacies - Jan. 27th, 2011 04:21 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - sylvanstargazer - Jan. 27th, 2011 03:36 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - joycemocha - Jan. 27th, 2011 05:18 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - longstrider - Jan. 28th, 2011 04:50 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - mrs_norris_mous - Jan. 27th, 2011 05:31 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - eefster - Jan. 27th, 2011 07:54 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - ankewehner - Jan. 31st, 2011 05:13 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - socchan - Jan. 27th, 2011 07:45 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - suricattus - Jan. 27th, 2011 07:51 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - dsmoen - Jan. 28th, 2011 02:51 am (UTC) - Expand
saya22
Jan. 27th, 2011 02:57 pm (UTC)
I'm from Malaysia and I can totally back up that statement on the high cost of books in our country. An average mass market paperback costs around RM32-35. If you're really penny pinching you can go to a cheap food stall and buy paratha bread and iced tea for RM3, and even then it would not make for a satisfying meal. Added the fact that our politicians are corrupted and kept raising the price of gas, sugar and flour, average working class Malaysians are really struggling right now. So yes, books in Malaysia are expensive, and hardcovers laughably so (RM109 for adult paperback!).
saya22
Jan. 27th, 2011 03:01 pm (UTC)
Sorry, that would be RM109 for adult HARDCOVERS.
sylvanstargazer
Jan. 27th, 2011 03:14 pm (UTC)
I appreciate that you can see a distinction between "for people like me" and "in all cases." Copyright lets art turn into business, but we as a society have given something up in return.

As a younger reader, it is sometimes hard to understand the sheer personal entitlement authors exude about downloads, especially when so many are pro-library and have probably bought used books themselves. It seems like the medium is the important thing. I can't imagine any of them looking at a full card in the back of a library book and saying "how dare these 50 people borrow the book instead of buying it! And enabled by my tax dollars!"

My dad's an author and kind of flipped out when he realized how many people were downloading his book. I passive-aggressively downloaded it (I had free author copies of anyway) and said, "there, see? Not a lost sale." In hindsight, I probably should have waited a week or two first...
jimhines
Jan. 27th, 2011 03:19 pm (UTC)
The comparison to libraries and used book sales doesn't work.

1. A physical book is a finite resource. The library buys the book (and the author gets paid), and it can only be borrowed by one person at a time. Likewise, a used book can be resold, but only to one person at a time. Whereas a file can be downloaded an infinite number of times.

2. In many countries (not the U.S.), authors are paid each year based on how frequently their books were checked out from libraries.

The argument just doesn't hold up.
(no subject) - cathshaffer - Jan. 27th, 2011 03:30 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - sylvanstargazer - Jan. 27th, 2011 03:40 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - cathshaffer - Jan. 27th, 2011 03:41 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - joycemocha - Jan. 27th, 2011 05:22 pm (UTC) - Expand
law_nerd
Jan. 27th, 2011 03:14 pm (UTC)
One small bit of law and one of anec-data towards the argument that the countries where most piracy is happening "are not developed, Anglophone countries, and there are reasons for that."

1) Not every country is a signatory of the Conventions and treaties that make copyright protection reciprocal (the Berne Convention and various WIPO treaties). Often the US pressures countries into signing (must protect the Mouse), but it's not part of the cultural basis and will take time to become such (if it ever does).

2) My parents worked as librarians in the international development field and lived in South East Asia for a large part of my youth. I remember their initial surprise, and gradual acceptance of the fact that at most bookshops one could purchase "Book" for lots and lots of money, or "Neatly bound, photocopy of book" for a price that was accessible to folk who were earning local salaries. Mostly they bought "Book" 'cause they could. But sometimes someone else had already purchased the only original the bookshop had ordered. So, yes, their home library included photocopies of books too. Where that is *standard*, the idea of "piracy" of intellectual property being a bad thing, is not going to be an easily accepted one.

Not saying that copying e-books is right or wrong in some grand moral sense ... but it's certainly not illegal everywhere, and if people believe that the only reason it has become illegal in their country is that the US threatened embargoes if they didn't change their own legal system to match ... that's not going to make them suddenly fond of western intellectual property regimes.
jimhines
Jan. 27th, 2011 03:21 pm (UTC)
Good information, and thank you.

I wonder if we could just write a law that said "Fine, keep your damn Mouse, but let the rest of us revise copyright law to something a bit more reasonable, 'kay?"
funwithrage
Jan. 27th, 2011 03:17 pm (UTC)
Most of my download-rather-than-library excursions have been because I want something to read at work. Just saying. ;)

That said, as I mentioned in the previous post, I'll absolutely pay for anything where I can conveniently do so. And that's been more of a thing for video games or music than books, honestly, because I *do* have the library offline, and Gutenberg and Baen online.
woodburner
Jan. 27th, 2011 03:24 pm (UTC)
Well, it's not like every American who dls instead of going to the library is simply "lazy". There are plenty of reasons libraries might not be nearly as accessible as the internet - transportation, location, health problems, etc. And libraries haven't been that great about getting in on the ebook thing, so if you NEED an ebook...

Edited at 2011-01-27 03:24 pm (UTC)
tinylegacies
Jan. 27th, 2011 03:26 pm (UTC)
I wish I had a source for that last claim. I follow the logic of why readers in less developed countries might be more likely to download books and other media, but I’m not sure I accept the claim that piracy is most widespread in those countries. It could be — I don’t know. I just want more info and haven’t yet been able to find it.

That was pretty much my thought too. I know plenty of people who download copious amounts of ebooks who live right here in the USA.

Though I do wish there were easier legal ways to share e-books. My mom and I trade books frequently and since I got my Kindle we haven't been able to. I'm planning to buy her a Kindle but the options for lending books are still really limited.
jimhines
Jan. 27th, 2011 03:37 pm (UTC)
E-books are still new, and it's going to be messy for a while longer while we try to standardize how the things are going to work. We're seeing a few more lending options, and I suspect those will continue to improve and standardize.

(Sigh. Had a different browser open and was logged out before.)
(no subject) - tinylegacies - Jan. 27th, 2011 03:50 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - temporus - Jan. 28th, 2011 04:23 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - tinylegacies - Jan. 28th, 2011 04:48 pm (UTC) - Expand
sartorias
Jan. 27th, 2011 03:31 pm (UTC)
I've been staying out of this debate for the very reasons you lay out so cogently here: it only appeared a black and white deal to us in the US. There are so many ramifications, as you and Tobias and others are pointing out.

What I see is that publishing is being forced into rapid change just as the advent of print rapidly changed society, and dragged behind it notions of privacy (and privilege, which for purposes of this discussion, I define as 'access'). The same thing is happening now, with the e-revolution.
jimhines
Jan. 27th, 2011 03:42 pm (UTC)
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes."

I think you're dead-on that a lot of the problem is technology changing faster than publishing can adapt. And I do trust that publishing will eventually get there -- after all, it's a business. The publishers that don't adapt will go belly up, and those that do will continue. But it makes things rather messy right now.
(no subject) - suricattus - Jan. 27th, 2011 03:49 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - temporus - Jan. 28th, 2011 04:27 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - jimhines - Jan. 28th, 2011 04:49 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - sartorias - Jan. 27th, 2011 03:56 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - jimhines - Jan. 27th, 2011 03:59 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - sartorias - Jan. 27th, 2011 04:04 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - mrs_norris_mous - Jan. 27th, 2011 05:37 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - dsmoen - Jan. 28th, 2011 02:59 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - princejvstin - Jan. 27th, 2011 06:38 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - jimhines - Jan. 27th, 2011 06:43 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - princejvstin - Jan. 27th, 2011 06:53 pm (UTC) - Expand
cathshaffer
Jan. 27th, 2011 03:37 pm (UTC)
Since you are a U.S. author writing in American English for a U.S. market, I think it's pretty bogus for anyone to ding you for not taking into account the economics in Timbuktu. It is probably fair to point out that an American author's books might be difficult to obtain in, say, Malaysia, but that is also true of a Malaysian author's books in America, and doesn't really say anything about the right or wrong of downloading a pirated copy. It is probably not worth it to worry about piracy in countries where your book has no distribution, and fans should probably guess that the author would rather have them reading for free than not at all, without needing a written blessing from the author for downloading an illegal copy (which has to be done on a machine costing hundreds of dollars anyway).
jimhines
Jan. 27th, 2011 03:43 pm (UTC)
Eh. I was the one making all-encompassing statements about how piracy was a dick move. I think it's fair to point out that I'm condemning everyone based on a limited perspective.

I do agree that a lot of this stuff isn't worth stressing about, and that most downloaded books don't represent lost sales, especially when your books aren't even available in a given locale.
xtricks
Jan. 27th, 2011 03:49 pm (UTC)
There is also the issue of when copyright becomes politcal -- or participates in the political. For some countries, imports of things like books and movies are heavily controlled for political reasons. China might ban your books because they talk about ... individual freedom too much or something. Or another country might ban any books/movies that include queer conetent, leaving queers in that country with nothing but condemnation and giving them no sense that it's different anywhere else. While this is not, technically, a copyright issue, and the ability to get illegal downloads in those situations is also limited to somewhat privledged folks in those countries -- pirated books might be the only way to get those items, at any price.

Also, have you checked out Baen books? A few years ago, anyway, they had a essay on their website as to why the 'gave' away books for free. They found it increased the sales of certian books and series (it wasn't a blanket truth). If they still have that info up, you might want to take a look.
jimhines
Jan. 27th, 2011 03:54 pm (UTC)
Good point re: banning/censorship and piracy as a means of bypassing it.

I've been following Baen's experiments with e-books. Like I said in another comment, I love what they've done, and while I don't think everything has been a perfect success, I wish more publishers would follow their lead in trying different things and not playing it quite so conservatively.
(no subject) - xtricks - Jan. 27th, 2011 09:29 pm (UTC) - Expand
eefster
Jan. 27th, 2011 03:58 pm (UTC)
Just to be clear, since I forgot to mention it in the other comment: the 25 EUR I would normally pay for a new SF/F book is for trade paperback, not mmpb. Since we don't generally get hardback versions of books*, I imagine that some of the inflated cost is for the same reason(s), such as an "early read" privilege, recouping / subsidizing less-well-selling or later printings, and so on. However, yes, current "on sale" mmpbs from Eason are 8 Euro a pop, with more in the 12-15 range.

*Sometimes we do. Towers of Midnight is available in hardback at ~26 EUR and the trade paperback is listed at ~22.

Which, as suricattus points out, doesn't justify copyright infringement, but it's really something that I think publishers and resellers should be willing to keep in mind as they deal with the new publishing forms and delivery means.
cepetit.myopenid.com
Jan. 27th, 2011 04:44 pm (UTC)
More Bad Logic Blues
I'd like to point out two problems:

(1) Virtually every objection to Our Gracious Host's position on copyright/piracy/downloads has resulted from one, or both, of two factors:
* Commercial protectionism NOT caused by the author, but by the combination of nationalism and the opacity of the publishing industry
* Exceptions at the margins of intellectual property (such as "Colorblue"'s problems with the treatment of what IP scholars call "traditional knowledge")

And so, since the system is admittedly imperfect, the critics propose eliminating it, but...

(2) Nobody proposes a system that would/might arguably fulfill the same purpose as intellectual property (in US constitutional terms, "promote progress in the sciences and useful arts"; in European terms, the translation means just about the same thing; in East Asia, the LEGAL basis is quoted from the US Constitution where it exists at all) -- or considers the extreme costs and dislocations that would be caused by a transition from the Status Quo to the Utopian Ideal, or considers flaws in the Utopian Ideal.

Intellectual property is very much like democracy, from Winston Churchill's perspective: It is the worst system of managing ideas... except for all of the others that have been mooted to date. The three obvious models that have been proposed (and all of the others that I'm aware of are variations thereupon) have some really obvious flaws, too:
(a) Medieval/Renaissance European patronage of "artists" and "scientists" -- yeah, we really want all of the arts and sciences to be censored by some existing power elite, whether it be "private" benefactors, religious authorities, or government actors. To name one obvious example, do you think that CSNY ("Chicago", "Ohio"), Stravinsky, or Pasternak would have been "approved" contemporaneously?
(b) No property right at all -- meaning that only those who are independently wealthy, and/or ALREADY successful at getting donations or whatever, and/or working only in their spare time from other lucrative ways of making a living, will create much art. Sure, there might be a few starving artists out there, but I'm not wishing that on Our Gracious Host's kids!
(c) Government or other subsidy per piece, instead of per actor -- which manages to combine all of the problems of (a) and (b) with almost none of their purported advantages. The CSNY and Pasternak examples under (a) above are even more relevant, as are those of Natalia Gorbanevskaya, J. Robert Oppenheimer, and Alan Turing.
zornhau
Jan. 27th, 2011 07:47 pm (UTC)
Re: More Bad Logic Blues
I made an almost identical argument a while back: http://zornhau.livejournal.com/tag/creative%20ecosystem

"In a future of free-range information, people who will consistently produce music and literature will fall into the following categories:

Sponsored – Yes, all that freedom-loving piracy effectively hands over the creative world to the agenda-pushing hand of big business and government. (I'm afraid that a Public Lending Rights model of siphoning off an Internet tariff, sniffing downloads, and handing out dosh accordingly still hands over control to government).

Rich – Nice to know that leisured young men and women will be able to hole up in daddy's summer house to push out darling tales of mystery and romance.

Crazy – Enough said.
Re: More Bad Logic Blues - xtricks - Jan. 27th, 2011 09:33 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: More Bad Logic Blues - zornhau - Jan. 27th, 2011 10:10 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: More Bad Logic Blues - snakeling - Jan. 28th, 2011 03:03 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: More Bad Logic Blues - zornhau - Jan. 28th, 2011 09:18 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: More Bad Logic Blues - snakeling - Jan. 28th, 2011 10:11 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: More Bad Logic Blues - zornhau - Jan. 28th, 2011 10:53 am (UTC) - Expand
dulcinbradbury
Jan. 27th, 2011 04:57 pm (UTC)
I'd like to point out a whole OTHER area that hasn't been brought up.

I do research in some pretty obscure areas. As such, I run into out-of-print (or out-of-stock) books regularly. They are nearly impossible to track down, and, wildly expensive to find used.

In many cases, even if you find a publisher willing to take on an out-of-print book, they can't do it because they cannot find the copyright holder. Meanwhile, publishers with no intention to reprint a book will list the book as out-of-stock, because they'd lose their rights to publish it as soon as it's formally out-of-print.

Because of the length of copyright (author's life +70), there's a lot of potential to lose works entirely because no one can legally make or circulate copies. (And it's not profitable enough to create interest in publishing it legally. Or it might be profitable, but, they can't find the copyright holder.)
sarraceniaceae
Jan. 27th, 2011 05:14 pm (UTC)
I admit to having complicated feelings on this. On the one hand, my general attitude is that if something is not being sold to a particular market, and the only way someone who lives in that particular market can get it is to import it at ridiculous expense... I'm not going to argue if they decide to get it illegally.

If the publisher wants to sell to them, then they should work to make that a reasonable proposition. And I understand that rights are complicated, and it's not always going to be simple, but I also think it's something that they need to do. I am basically extremely unsympathetic when it comes to businesses losing out on revenue when they haven't done anything right to pursue it. And, yes, I like authors, but...publishing is still a business.

On the other hand, I'm an anime/manga fan, who's seen what this kind of attitude left unchecked for years can do to an industry, and I'm very much not in favor of the results. I don't like the attitude of unchecked entitlement towards the artistic product of another country because it's not specifically made for them. And reading some of the posts...it's the same damn thing in a different context. Same justifications, same complete lack of care about the author and their context, same entitlement, same everything.

I'll grant that that I do feel more sympathy for someone in Malaysia who can't afford a book costing a week's worth of meals than an American teenager who can't afford a manga set costing a weeks' worth of meals (and yes, I once skipped lunch for a week to buy a three manga boxed set, so I'd say the cost comparison is actually surprisingly apt), but...it's very, very similar.
barbarienne
Jan. 27th, 2011 05:51 pm (UTC)
My objection to piracy boils down to this:

The creator of something owns the rights to say who gets to see it, and when, and for how much.

I think it's incumbent on creators (and the people they license rights to, i.e. publishers) to make their work available as broadly and as reasonably priced as possible.

I really hope that regional blocks will disappear--that's just odious and stupid if a publisher has defined regional rights. The more common distributions are North America to USA publishers, and Europe to British publishers. (USA and Brit publishers fight over AUS/NZ these days.) Then the rest of the world is either chopped up between Brit and USA publishers, or given all to one.

There are variations--books published in England first often are released in Canada by the British publisher, not the USA publisher.

I wonder how much of it depends on the reach of the publisher? I'm starting to think more and more that the idea of World English rights is not a bad one, if the contract includes a clause that the e-book will be downloadable without regional restriction.
suricattus
Jan. 27th, 2011 07:59 pm (UTC)
Then the rest of the world is either chopped up between Brit and USA publishers, or given all to one.

Actually, that's not quite correct. Foreign sales are often held by the agent and sold to regional publishers (either in English or for translation rights). Unfortunately, those regional publishers are buying less, these days...

if I can remember offhand the most common rights categories, from my days marking up contracts...

World rights (all languages - publisher resells)
World English rights
US CAN Open Market (English)
US CAN ("North America") (or UK/Commonwealth countries, or AUS, etc)

And yes - in the electronic age I can see a push toward more World English rights being sold, rather than a region. It would certainly simplify selling the books. Now, to figure out how to get publishers to pay fair dollar to the creators.... (as long as we're dreaming...)



Edited at 2011-01-27 08:02 pm (UTC)
(no subject) - amberdine - Jan. 27th, 2011 09:36 pm (UTC) - Expand
blpurdom
Jan. 27th, 2011 10:13 pm (UTC)
In other words, downloading out-of-print (which is not the same as out of copyright) books in the Netherlands is currently legal if those books don’t look like they’ll be coming back into print.

Depends on their definition of "print" (or "look"). If they mean actual, physical, printed books on paper only, that's one thing. But my father-in-law's out-of-print SF novels are now available on Fictionwise.com and he has been making sales over there, plus creating his own ebooks of other works to which he has regained the rights so he can sell them on the Barnes & Noble website for those who want to download them from there. So if an author has downloadable versions of his writing for sale and he is earning money from that, I believe those should count as works that have come back into "print", even though it is electronic print, and therefore such works shouldn't fall under this guideline, IMNSHO.

In fact, it's the "look" part that's probably the shakiest part of the above passage, since there is now the potential for virtually all previously-published works still under copyright to be turned into electronic versions that can make money for the original author, so assuming that ANY of these works will not be treated in this way is exactly that, an assumption, which is rarely a good thing to go on when doing something that is on shaky ground, legally.

In other words, these days a vigilant author should probably make certain that his or her works are available perpetually in electronic form if he or she doesn't want someone else to claim that they're fair game for free downloading. It just seems like the safe way to go. And I hope that if someone brings to the Dutch authorities information about a so-called "out-of-print" work being back in print (even electronic print) they will cut off the availability of free electronic versions.

Does that mean it’s all right for someone to pirate my books if they’re poor, or if they’re in a country where it’s harder to get books or where books are too expensive?

When it comes to your books, that's probably your call, in part, but I assume your publisher and agent may also have two or three cents to put into a discussion about that, so it may not be solely your call, depending on what legal documents you signed concerning the work in question.
valarltd
Jan. 27th, 2011 10:52 pm (UTC)
Got that morning google alert telling us that our newest book is being stolen less than three days after it went live... It costs $1.95. Do not tell me the average internet user/ebook reader cannot pony up $2.

That news is seriously demoralizing my co-author, to the point she doesn't even WANT to tell stories any more.

I miss her.

I miss the days when people would at least let us have a month of sales before stealing the stuff.

Don't talk to me about pricing. People will steal a $1.99 short where $1.50 is going to charity.

Don't give me BS about Americancentrism and regional availability. I write in English for a mostly US/Canada/Australian audience (I have a French and an Italian fan that I know of) Those in areas where my ebooks are not available have been told often that they can simply email me for a freebie. I am very generous, especially with my backlist.

Do NOT talk to me about privilege and appropriation while people are taking money out of my wallet. Yes, it's money I use for print copies of my books and promotional materials and not money I need for living. But it is STILL my money, repayment for the time out of my life that I spent creating the story.

I make my living through hard physical labor. My boss thinks my work is worth $15/hour. It takes 100 hours, MINIMUM to write a novel. By standard measurement, that novel is worth $1500 or more. I have invested my life in my writing. No one has the right to steal that.

This rant brought to you by the partnership of Brooks and Sparrow, which is rapidly being hacked apart by pirates.

Edited at 2011-01-27 11:04 pm (UTC)
jimhines
Jan. 27th, 2011 11:46 pm (UTC)
Less than three days, eh? Lucky you. Most authors don't get that long.

I'm sorry to hear your coauthor is so demoralized s/he is considering choosing not to write anymore. You might direct them to Tobias Buckell's blog post, linked from mine. He does a nice job of getting past the emotional gut-punch and presenting some facts and arguments about the issue, including the line about pirates are taking money out of your pocket.

Beyond that, you're obviously angry, and spent a lot of time telling me not to talk to you about things. So I won't.
(no subject) - valarltd - Jan. 28th, 2011 12:05 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - jimhines - Jan. 28th, 2011 12:09 am (UTC) - Expand
paulwoodlin
Jan. 27th, 2011 11:48 pm (UTC)
Theft is as old as property. Yes, it's wrong, but based upon these posts its at a tolerable level. I think most authors need to face the fact that they will never get rich off their books. Most will never get to quit their day job. I will probably be teaching and writing my whole life, and probably making more money off the teaching. Piracy bites that dream on the ass.

We need to face the fact that the Internet might do to the arts what machines did to agriculture: make it so productive that it becomes less and less profitable. Most farmers and ranchers survive via government subsidies. The best case future is that eventually all modes of production become so productive that no one can make a profit, in which case we either get Asimov's robot future and most humans become lazy and act like they are bumming around a soap opera, or a "Star Trek" future in which we are freed to become what we wish, even better and more productive. Personally, I'd keep an eye on Japan; they passed us by in robotics a long time ago.

(Anonymous)
Jan. 28th, 2011 02:06 am (UTC)
neither theft nor piracy
Just to be clear - violation of copyright is a crime and arguably deprives the copyright holder of income. BUT!

It's not theft - it is not depriving someone of property with intent.

It's not piracy - a term coined by those who would equate copyright violation with rape, murder, and theft.

In an earlier post Jim objected to the term 'sharing' though it is indeed sharing, just not sharing that Jim likes.

This post is not in defense of copyright violation or those who do so. But there is an important distinction here.
cepetit.myopenid.com
Jan. 28th, 2011 04:10 pm (UTC)
Re: neither theft nor piracy
I'm objecting to this anonymous post on grounds of bad linguistics.

(1) Sorry, but six centuries of law (both common and civil, and for that matter including Japan and China) disagree with the assertion that depriving someone of an opportunity that is assigned to them by law is not "theft"... and notice, too, that this particular assertion depends upon "property" meaning "something tangible." Under this logic, embezzlement doesn't constitute "depriving someone of property with intent," either.

(2) Since John Locke called it "piracy" during the debates, starting in 1694, that eventually led up to the first modern copyright statute (Statute of Anne, 1710), I don't think this facile comparison bears much weight. It is, instead, self-interested retconning.

In a way, it's rather ironic in that restricting the term "pirate" to "violent denizens of the high seas" was a political invention of the East and West India Companies in efforts to allow unrestricted (and preemptive) use of force in defense of their commercial interests, beginning in the early eighteenth century.

(3) Conversely, it's "sharing" that Anonymous does like, so that's somehow a privileged position? Although both meanings of the word are perfectly valid, redefining someone else's valid use of a word to a differing use is both sloppy and somewhat intellectually dishonest, as Dr Johnson implied with the aphorism "'Freedom' is the choice between working and starving." (And understanding what he was getting at requires reading Pepys's diaries and quite a bit of background in Augustan England, the Glorious Revolution, and so on.)

* * *

In short, whether the post was "in defense of copyright violation or those who do" or not, it merely retreads some of the easily refuted arguments often offered by those very defenders. Methinks the poster doth protest too much.
Re: neither theft nor piracy - temporus - Jan. 28th, 2011 04:58 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: neither theft nor piracy - jimhines - Jan. 31st, 2011 05:12 pm (UTC) - Expand
framlingem
Jan. 28th, 2011 03:11 am (UTC)
I'm curious what your stance on independently-produced ebooks (as opposed to self-published) is; I've downloaded a few books which aren't being produced in ebook format by their publishers, which have been made into ebooks by individuals. In all cases, I own these books in hardcopy, and downloaded them for academic purposes, because I'm studying these books and there's nothing to compare with searchable text for classroom discussion purposes. It saves masses of time trying to read the little notes I've written on postits, and helps me find passages that I remember but didn't think to mark. I'd have bought an ebook over the harcopy thing in an instant (except for the ones I'd owned for years and was fortunate enough to discover on the syllabi) if it had been available.

On a related subject, my ideal would be that when I pay hostage-market prices for a textbook (last semester, eighty dollars for a paperback book of public-domain texts) I get a useable electronic edition along with it. I did have a Physics text that included an access code to an online copy (not a downloadable one), but the interface was so clunky and so slow (itook about a minute per page turn), that it simply didn't function for learning.
jimhines
Jan. 28th, 2011 03:17 am (UTC)
When you say "independently produced," do you mean books that have been scanned and uploaded without permission of the author or publisher?
(no subject) - framlingem - Jan. 28th, 2011 03:23 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - jimhines - Jan. 28th, 2011 03:03 pm (UTC) - Expand
finnyb
Jan. 28th, 2011 05:39 am (UTC)
A number of people expressed frustration at the way regional limitations prevent them from being able to legally buy e-books.

This also holds true for audiobooks, sometimes. For example, in the States and Canada, the Harry Potter audios are read by Jim Dale. In the UK they're read by Stephen Fry. Now I, personally, prefer Stephen Fry as a narrator (which is not to say that Jim Dale does a bad job, as he doesn't). However, because I live in Canada, I can't get the Harry Potter audios that he's read, because the publisher won't allow them to be sold over here--I have to go with the ones Jim Dale read, simply because I live in the "wrong" country. Most annoying.
temporus
Jan. 28th, 2011 04:03 pm (UTC)
My only problem with the portion of the discussion that says that books in countries like Malaysia might cost as much as 7-8 meals, is that the cost of meals can be highly variable. I mean, one could easily make the cost of a US mass market paperback cost as much as 90 meals in the US. (Easy, take the $8.99 price of a mmpb and define a meal as a single packet of Ramen noodles which generally can be had for $.10 give or take.)

I like what the comparison is trying to do. I think though, that the highly variable nature of the cost of food, as well as the variance in what a typical meal might be like for any segment of the population, nevermind the world when looked at from a country by country basis, makes it a hard comparison to appropriately parse.

None of that makes the argument in itself invalid. However, if we could produce a chart which shows a number of factors, I think it would give us all a better picture of the state of the price of books worldwide. Average price of a book, average income (per month or per year) average cost of a meal, etc. I think it's a case where a well made graph or chart would give a cleaner example of the issue.
longstrider
Jan. 28th, 2011 04:12 pm (UTC)
What do you feel is the difference between downloading an unauthorized copy to read a book once, which you never intent to read again and going and checking it out of the library? In both cases someone bought a copy of the book (barring someone at a publisher leaking the printing files or scanning an ARC) and others are reading that singular copy.

What do you feel is the difference between companies like Overdrive, which provide electronic copies of books (audio or ebook) to libraries for checkout, and downloading the files? In theory you are only able to read the book during your checkout period and the library system is limited in the number of people (see the middle of the page, Number of Copies & Available Copies) who can have a title checked out simultaneously. However, they openly acknowledge that that lockout does not affect the file if it is transfered to another device. I've still got most (all?) of the audio files from Graveyard Book by Gaiman sitting on my hard drive and on an mp3 player from when I checked it out two years ago.
jimhines
Jan. 28th, 2011 04:30 pm (UTC)
Re: your second point, you're saying that while there are rules to limit your access to the loaned book, people can choose to violate those rules and steal it for themselves?
(no subject) - longstrider - Jan. 28th, 2011 05:09 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - longstrider - Jan. 28th, 2011 06:16 pm (UTC) - Expand
cheesebk
Feb. 1st, 2011 02:01 pm (UTC)
I think that it's likely - though I have no numbers to base this assumption on - that most e-piracy is done by people who actually COULD afford the books. They just don't want to. Because they think they are being very stealthy and supersmart and generally don't think about how they hurt authors and publishers with it.

Personally, I think that e-books are almost always the same price (or nearly the same price) as the paperback or hardcover-version might still be a sore spot for many people, but I assume it's not the main reason for e-piracy.
E-book pricing still doesn't quite compute for me, since there is no cost for paper and print, so therefore the price should be lower. But, as we all know, it's an old discussion and I don't want to rekindle it now, to what purpose?
I buy a lot of e-books for my sony-reader rather than steal them (I wouldn't even know how to go about that and I'm rather glad to remain ignorant on that).
Why? Because I appreciate the work that goes into the book. I respect the writer and everyone else who is involved into making the book enjoyable for me and hell, if everyone just stole what he/she desired, then how is ANYbody going to make an honest living?
I think that an adult usually is aware if he/she is doing something criminal or not. E-book piracy, just as illegal music or movie downloads is theft.
The very same people who practice e-piracy would probably NEVER go into a shop and try to steal anything. It's just so much cleaner and more distanced via the internet and chances you get caught are low. It seems that a lot of people operate on the dubious moral code of: If they can't catch me, it's fine.
Sad, but unfortunately, often true.
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
( 98 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

Snoopy
jimhines
Jim C. Hines
Website

My Books

Tags

Latest Month

December 2014
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow