Word thieves II
First, check out this moronic video from some group called questioncopyright.org. It runs only a minute, though it seems longer.
This has helped me understand the file-stealing crowd. I thought they were sociopaths or merely morally bankrupt. But this video makes it clear that they suffer from an incapacity for critical thinking, and these lines from the song (written by someone named Nina Paley) make the case:
If I steal your bicycle, you’ll have to take the bus.
But if I just copy it, there’s one for each of us.
Copy a bicycle? You mean like, scan it? Or download it? If you copy my bike, you’ll have to work. And even before you copy the bike, you’ll have to learn: how to weld, how to use tools. And then (get the smelling salts ready) you’ll have to buy (what a concept) the metal tubing and tires and gears and spend time assembling them maybe even thinking about how to arrange the gears. You might have to sweat, you might get your hands dirty.
And you know what? In the end, you will have created something where there was nothing before. It won’t be a copy. It will be yours. Then maybe all the clones with all their stolen discs and books at the end of the video won’t look so cute.
Sharing ideas with everyone
That’s why copying is fuuuuuuun!
Yeah. Tons o’ fun when what’s being copied is the result of someone else’s sweat and the source of their livelihood.
If you need a succinct refresher on what copyright is and isn’t, go here.
Every time I bring this up I hear, “Look at the Grateful Dead – they let people record them live and share the tapes and it only increased attendance at their shows.”
Apples and oranges. The Dead’s revenues came from their tours, not their records. Those so-called bootlegs (they can’t be real bootlegs if they’re sanctioned) advertised their concerts, which were not free. You had to pay to see the Dead live. (That was not intentional. Okay, maybe a little.)
An author’s published work, on the other hand, is his concert. Giving away a free excerpt might draw people in, but if he doesn’t make the sale, he doesn’t eat. Of course newbie (or talentless) authors with no prospect of sales might offer free downloads of their work in the hope of gaining an audience for their later work, but it’s their work so they can choose to do what they wish with it.
“A torrent download of a book isn’t necessarily a lost sale.”
Really? I hear this ad nauseam. Don’t know about you, but I’ve yet to open my email and find an offer for free downloads of any author’s work. I’ve downloaded my own work from pirate sites to see what kind of quality they were offering (mostly .txt files) but I had to go looking for them. I had to Google/Bing the sites, then I had to search out my titles within those sites.
So it’s clear to me that you can’t make an illegal download of a book unless you make a specific search. And you don’t go searching unless you’re interested. If you were interested enough to engage in that process and were unable to find a freebie, chances seem pretty good you’d fork over a few bucks for a single title.
So yeah, it’s a lost sale. Maybe not 100%, but can we go maybe 75%? With three million downloads from these four sites alone – 4shared, scribd, wattpad, and docstoc – and even more from rapidshare, the biggest offender (source), we’re talking serious theft.
“The pirated downloads will introduce people to your work and generate more sales.”
This is the most naive. People act in patterns. People who steal without repercussions will continue to steal. (Thief is the proper word – because they know damn well they’ve no right to what they’re taking.) If you steal The Tomb and like it, are you going to run to Amazon and pay for Legacies and Conspiracies and the others? Are you going to pay even the measly $2.99 pricetag I’ve put on old titles I’ve uploaded myself when just about every freaking word I’ve ever written is available for free download? I don’t know about your planet, but that’s not about to happen on mine.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Thanks, Paul, for articulating and illuminating.
Paul, I understand your outrage. However the mediums are changing. DRM is simply not feasible because it only restricts those who purchase the title and want to use it on multiple sources. See a recent discussion on true/slant here:
http://trueslant.com/fruzsinaeordogh/2010/05/03/does-steam-care-more-about-pirates-than-its-customers/
I was recently frustrated with a video I bought off a website and after more than a month the vendor agreed to a refund because their restrictions prevented me from watching it even though I “owned” it.
Unfortunately a person with a computer and a little knowledge of the internet has the tools to copy everything. The internet is the death of privacy for everyone.
But I thinks this begs the bigger question: are ideas of intellectual property rights defendable or are we trying to guard the fort with water pistols? The world is evolving and so must our concept of the business model and rights to undefensible property.
After all, many southerners still lament about losing the civil war but it doesn’t change the circumstances nor the after-effect of the loss.
I realize piracy is a fact of life. The second-raters are everywhere and they have their fair share of apologists. But racism is a fact of life too. Does that mean I should accept it?
In response to another comment. See in context »But racism is a fact of life too. Does that mean I should accept it?
Oh, for God’s sake. You’re just ridiculous.
In response to another comment. See in context »“DRM is simply not feasible because it only restricts those who purchase the title and want to use it on multiple sources.”
This completely bogus logic irritates me more than anything. DRM has nothing to do with people engaging in the wholesale stealing of other people’s work. If a digital item is only available in a DRM-protected format, then that’s what’s being offered by the owner. You as the consumer have two choices: buy it or don’t buy it. Stealing a non-DRM protected version is not, repeat NOT a valid option. Owners of product have the right to distribute and charge for their products as they see fit. If consumers reject them by not buying, then that’s the free market in action.
“The world is evolving and so must our concept of the business model and rights to undefensible property.”
More completely bogus logic. Millions of people are stealing content, so the businesses must change. This is so obscene it really gets to the heart of Wilson’s comment in the blog. The thieves simply “suffer from an incapacity for critical thinking”. If we all decide to steal appliances from appliance stores, does Best Buy have to find a new business model? Perhaps they can sell Best Buy t-shirts or something. Maybe they can sell wall space to adverisers.
In the end, all the bogus and completely indefensible reasons digital thieves espouse are simply cover for their continued desire to engage in wholesale theft. There are people who have stolen hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of goods, all while people who stole a $300 tv off the wall are in prison. Digital thieves should have some shame, but I’ve determined long ago that they are completely shameless.
In response to another comment. See in context »What exkiodexian said! And very well, thanks.
In response to another comment. See in context »I finally understand what pirates may be hinting at when they tell authors that we must evolve, and adapt and give away our work free… and still make money.
I think the piratical business model is to cut out editors and publishers entirely. Authors should upload novels directly to file-sharing sites that pay uploaders a commission for every download that takes place.
That might seem to be a win-win. MegaUpload or Ziddu or whatever pays the author according to how many people download the file. No one pays for the novel as such (so it doesn’t matter if it is “dreck”).
It’s too bad for the editors and publishers, of course. It’s also too bad for the author who is not visited first.
Basically, it would be another Ponzi scheme, because the hosting sites aren’t going to pay for every visitor, just for every unique visitor.
Therefore, he who gets in first, might make something, but it wouldn’t work out well for latecomers, and it wouldn’t work out in the long term.
In response to another comment. See in context »This is one of the most important blogs any reader of fiction who also wishes to be a moral person can read (and I do believe that includes most of us, including at least some of the people who are currently stealing fiction.) To the extent that it encourages downloading commercially-offered novels for free, the video Dr. Wilson cites is straight out of the novel 1984. Remember “War is Peace?” “Love is Hate?” How about “Stealing is not stealing?” We’re there, folks.
Can there be a difference between copying and stealing? Obviously. But we all know that the difference does not and cannot ever include copying a work of fiction that is for sale so that you can read it without paying for it.
There is a warm, traditional bond between most readers and the authors they enjoy. This practice is threatening that bond. It makes me wonder, as I sit down to work each day, whether someone is going to simply steal what I am spending so much of myself to produce. It can take years to create a good novel. (Anyone who thinks it’s simple, and therefore it should be free, I encourage to try it.) To those who download F. Paul Wilson’s work for free (or mine or anyone else’s), be sure you understand that this practice threatens the future existence of novels. I’m pretty sure F. Paul Wilson isn’t going to write them for free, nor will I, nor will the vast majority of other professional novelists.
The way to stop this disturbing practice is by public education, insisting that things be called by their right names. Everyone needs to understand the dynamic here and refuse to accept the sophistries and alibis some folks use so they can steal creative work, leave the creator unpaid for his work, and not feel lousy about doing it. Downloading for free a novel that an author and publisher have offered for sale is stealing. Being able to get away with it does not mean it is not stealing.
Finally, I am also a reader. I love the novels of my favorite authors, one of whom is F. Paul Wilson. I’m going on record here and now that I will never take the work of the authors I love (or even the ones I simply like well enough to read
) without paying for it. Join me in promising that to yourself. The only way you will not feel better about yourself is if you said goodbye to your conscience somewhere along the way.
<I.But we all know that the difference does not and cannot ever include copying a work of fiction that is for sale so that you can read it without paying for it.
Why? What am I buying when I buy a book?
Am I buying a collection of wood fibers, or am I buying the ephemeral content of the book? If it’s the first, then how can I be said to be stealing when I download it? You have all the collections of wood fibers you had before I downloaded anything; I’ve taken nothing from you except the opportunity to sell me a specific bundle of wood fibers, but I might not have bought it anyway, in which case you’ve lost nothing.
If it’s the second – it’s the ephemeral content represented by the words on the physical paper that is for sale, and the paper comes for free like the wrapper on a candy bar – then why are my options so limited? If I own the words when I buy them, how come I can’t load them onto my Kindle for free? Why do I have to buy the book again if I decide I want it in paperback, or large print, and why is it more expensive in hardback? Why don’t I get a free copy when the words are updated or revised?
What you guys really want is to define a new kind of property that is nominally “sold”, but you still get to own it and tell the buyers what they can do with it and what they can’t.
I’m sorry but that’s not a form of property that I can recognize. And the idea that you can stake some kind of claim on sales that are only hypothetical in the first place is just relentlessly stupid.
To the extent that it encourages downloading commercially-offered novels for free, the video Dr. Wilson cites is straight out of the novel 1984. Remember “War is Peace?” “Love is Hate?”
Well, now, wait a minute. Aren’t you stealing? Did you pay the estate of George Orwell for those words? Did you pay them rent for remembering them for all this time? Why aren’t you stealing every time you remember the plot of 1984 or tell it to someone else? Now that you’ve told me the meaning of 1984, do I really need to go pay anybody money for a copy? And, therefore, haven’t you stolen from the estate of George Orwell?
Isn’t there a point where the very concept of owning an idea gets pretty stupid?
In response to another comment. See in context »Ideas can’t be copyrighted. And there’s what’s known as fair use. What’s “relentlessly stupid” is comparing copying paid-for content for personal use on different platforms to worldwide distribution of copies of entire books.
The legal term may be “infringement,” but we both know what’s happening. You think that because you’re not sneaking out of a store with a book under your coat, it’s not stealing, but it is.
If you appropriate the fruit of someone else’s labor (physical or intellectual) without their permission and without compensating them, you are stealing.
In response to another comment. See in context »You think that because you’re not sneaking out of a store with a book under your coat, it’s not stealing, but it is.
No, I think that because you have exactly the same amount of books both before and after I download it, it’s not stealing. And it’s not!
To steal from you I have to take something from you. If you have everything you had before, then I can’t have taken anything, and if I took nothing, then it wasn’t stealing.
Stealing is when you lose your property. What you’re saying is that you’ve lost property that is mine – the money you might have made off me. But that’s not your money, it’s mine, therefore I can’t have stolen it from you.
If you appropriate the fruit of someone else’s labor (physical or intellectual) without their permission and without compensating them, you are stealing.
But again – appropriate means “take”. I’ve taken nothing, because you have everything you started with.
In response to another comment. See in context »Justin,
If you purchase an e-book, you do not own the content, you own the right to read the content.
The author retains, always, the right to control the reproduction and distribution of the novel.
When you make a copy, you “reproduce” the novel. If you upload it to a sharing site, or burn a copy and sell it on EBay, you “distribute” it.
The intellectual property in a novel is not the title, or the plot, or the idea… it is the author’s individual and unique expression of the idea. It’s the difference in the way they tell the story from the way you or anyone else would tell it.
If you want to retell “1984″ entirely in your own words, you are free to do so. So is Paul.
In response to another comment. See in context »First off, I’d like to assert that I’m not a troll, just someone who only signed up for a posting account on T/S today. Never felt like commenting on a post before now.
Anyway, on to my actual comment; As much as it’s very likely that people who download your work from torrents will never buy a single copy of anything, I feel I’m an exception. My roommate passed me a flash a drive last year with The Tomb, Legacies, and Conspiracies on it, and I read them, unashamed.
Rather than go to my roommate and ask him, “Hey, man, can you download All The Rage and Hosts? (Assuming I had known the titles, but you get the idea), I got off shift at work, went down the local bookseller’s, and I bought myself copies of Conspiracies through By The Sword. So… while it is simplistic to think that no download is a lost sale, sometimes the downloaded copies of books LEAD to sales.
Also, thanks for a ridiculous number of hours of entertainment. I’m curious, as well, as to where you and the community here stand on used book sales, as to me it seems at least a little similar in nature. (This is probably due to my complete lack of information on how the used book market really operates, though.)
Here’s how I look at used books, Thomas: A book in an object. If you buy it, you own the book. You can resell it, burn it, give it to a friend. You gained ownership of the object – but you did not gain ownership of the intellectual content between its covers. That remains the author’s property. That’s what that little (c) means. The copyright – the right to copy – is retained by the author.
Same with a library. The library paid for the copy and it’s their right to lend it to as many people as they wish. But just the copies they bought. Not copies they Xeroxed from the original.
In response to another comment. See in context »This is exactly the problem with existing copyright laws – they were designed around physical objects. If I buy a digital copy of the book, shouldn’t I have the same rights as I would if I bought a dead tree book? If I do have the same rights, how far do they go? Can I loan my digital copy to one friend, five, ten, a hundred? If it is permissible for me to loan a digital book to a friend, does that make my friend a pirate? Where do we draw the line?
The video you used is silly, and makes an incorrect analogy between a physical item and a digital item. However, the beliefs of the authoring group are (somewhat) sound. Current copyright laws are absolutely insufficient in dealing with digital rights. The modern world is a whole new ballgame. Creators really need to get away from the outdated idea that they should make money on every single copy that is produced. That is no longer a reasonable expectation.
Open source software developers are a great example of a group that can simultaneously create free and for-profit products. Most of their code is given freely, with only the stipulation that they are credited inside the code. They can also decide to sell code snippets/programs and they frequently accept donations for code that is given freely. They are a clever bunch that believes strongly in the concept of free information sharing, and more industries should consider following their example.
In response to another comment. See in context »glois8
That’s why the Digital Millennium Copyright Act was written.
Check it out. Go to the copyright office loc.gov
In response to another comment. See in context »DMCA and DRM are just extensions of the same outdated modes of thinking. They really don’t help the creator or the end user.
We need to get away from the entire line of thought that each instance of an item should be used only once and paid for every time. Authors have never expected to be paid for every single time a person reads a book (schools, libraries, lending) but if the book is digital, they should be paid every time? Why?
You claim that loaning a paper book out is okay because some person will retain the actual physical copy of that book, but if 50 people read that same book doesn’t that still constitute 49 lost sales to the author? If I have the right to share a paper book that I purchased, why do I not have the right to share a digital book that I purchased? I can share it as long as I don’t copy it? If I send the original file to my friend and don’t keep a copy, it’s okay to share/distribute this way?
In response to another comment. See in context »With a physical book, only one person can have it at one time.
Too few people understand that when you give or lend or sell a paperback to someone else, you don’t still have it.
With an e-book, you cannot give it to someone else unless you create a copy that you did not pay for, unless you hand over your ebook reader as well… in which case, that’s fine.
In response to another comment. See in context »I remember seeing that video a couple of weeks ago on “The Agenda with Steve Paiken”, and I gotta agree that the argument is weak and misses the point against “copying.”
Colbert’s argument (from your previous column) doesn’t make sense. If someone takes a book out of your house, you no longer have it. If someone downloads one of your books, you still have your copy.
With that, can we dispense with the “downloading = theft” misinformation campaign? Theft is what happens when someone deprives someone else of their physical property. The reason why there are intellectual property laws is because physical property laws don’t apply to IP.
Every download is not a lost sale – unless you believe that people who download thousands of MP3s, movies or e-books would have the money to make all of those purchases. Just because someone would take something for free doesn’t mean they would pay for it, and assuming that all – or even most – downloads are lost sales is a falacy.
People WILL buy what they can get for free. Cory Doctorow and Trent (Nine Inch Nails) Reznor have been proving this for years. Admittedly not everyone will buy what they can get for free, but suggesting that no one will buy what they can get for free (see the comment section of your previous column) is ignoring reality.
Typically, it’s simply because people want to support creators they like. Occasionally, a you’ll get a creator like Trent Reznor, who provides incentives to consumers who make purchases through his website.
This is the exact opposite of “the beatings will continue until morale improves” mentality that the movie industry has taken. Rather than encourage people to purchase DVDs with extra content, they offer stripped-down, movie only DVDs at the standard DVD price and charge nearly double for content that used to be available at the standard DVD price (and then they wonder why they’re losing sales to Redbox & Netflix).
If you think this contradicts my comments about Trent Reznor, allow me to explain. You can download his music (the “stripped down CD” content) for free, or you can pay roughly the price of a standard CD for a CD plus some extra content (with additional extra content available at increasing price points). This is hardly what the movie companies are doing.
This has nothing to do with whether or not these creators are authorizing downloads of their content and everything to do with the mistaken belief that “people won’t download what they can get for free”.
It’s ironic that you suggested (again, in your previous column, I just read both today) that people who make content available online should “stick to public domain titles… and leave the work of living, working writers alone,” since this is the first year – due to legislation purchased by media companies – that NOTHING has entered the public domain.
What does a copyright term of “life + 70 years” have to do with protecting “living, working writers”? Copyright wasn’t established to provide a retirement plan for creators or their great-grandchildren. It was established to provide an incentive for creators to continue creating. As more people become aware of how legislation is being purchased to undermine the reason copyright laws were created, more people will disrespect copyright law.
And why shouldn’t they, when there are holding companies like Conan Properties International using trademark to prevent Conan from being used by the public, despite the fact that Robert E. Howard died in 1936 (suggesting that Conan should have entered the public domain in 2006). As more incidents like this come up, be prepared for more people to regard copyright laws as anachronisms that should be ignored until they’re re-written.
Maybe it’s just the lawyer in me, but I have a problem using the word “theft” in this context. I don’t agree with the purpose of the video or the agenda of those behind it, but I think the conceptual issue they’re trying to exploit is genuine. Copyright infringement as it normally occurs is a somewhat different animal than theft. I would offer the term, “misappropriation.” That simply refers to the acquisition of something wrongfully. Why does it matter? Because to persuade others you need to make sure your argument isn’t vulnerable to such an attack, and that means ensuring your terminology is precise. The fact is, a misappropriated copy of something doesn’t necessarily deprive the owner of anything. It might mean a lost sale, or it might not. I’m not saying that doesn’t make it wrong or that it shouldn’t be illegal, simply that the nature of it forces it outside the parameters of what most people envision when they think of that word. If we’re going to win this battle, we should be more circumspect than to dismiss this sort of logic. It has teeth, and will resonate with a large portion of the general public. And–most importantly–it’s not necessary. Copyright infringement under most circumstances is tantamount to theft, but it doesn’t neatly fall within that definition. Hence my suggestion we use the more accurate–or, at least, less inaccurate–term.
There are circumstances where copyright infringement is probably more aptly described as theft. If I were to submit a manuscript, and a publisher were to decide they would like to publish it, but credit it to another author and pretend they never heard of me, that would probably be theft. Lesser cases of piracy I think are more suitably labeled misappropriation for the reasons stated above.
Incidentally, I browsed the website of those people behind the video. They clearly are opposed to copyright laws. But what I don’t get is, they seem to embrace an argument that a “new model” of author marketing of works can offer a livable income free from the traditional structure of the publishing industry and copyright law, and tout examples of artists who’ve managed to “thrive” freely sharing their work. My question is, what’s to stop anyone from utilizing that model now? No author is constrained by copyright law. Any writer is free to offer a general license to the world for anyone to copy and distribute his or her work. The people on that site seem to think they need to do away with copyright laws or significantly reform them for this to work, but if it’s such a good idea, I don’t see why. Maybe I’m missing something.
I certainly agree that the video is moronic. Here’s a non-moronic explanation:
“Patents, in particular, are specially interesting from our point of view because they provide so clear an illustration of how it is necessary in all such instances not to apply a ready-made formula but to go back to the rationale of the market system and to decide for each class what the precise rights are to be which the government ought to protect. This is a task at least as much for economists as for lawyers. Perhaps it is not a waste of your time if I illustrate which have in mind by quoting a rather well-known decision in which an American judge argued that “as to the suggestion that competitors were excluded from the use of the patent we answer that such exclusion may be said to have been the very essence of the right conferred by the patent” and adds “as it is the privilege of any owner of property to use it or not to use it without any question of motive.” (Continental Bag Co. v. Eastetn Bag Co., 210 U.S. 405 (1909). It is this last statement which seems to me to be significant for the way in which a mechanical extension of the property concept by lawyers has done so much to create undesirable and harmful privilege”
Friedrich von Hayek
Dr. Wilson (I’d love to call you Paul, but I don’t think we’re on a first name basis here), I am about 99% in agreement with you, except I’m not sure where the distinction lies with used book selling/trading/sharing. Full disclosure: I’m playing Devil’s Advocate…I actually think there is nothing wrong with used book selling/sharing/trading, but I’m not sure I feel you’ve made the distinction strongly enough.
If I may venture into hypothetical absurdity for a moment, let’s consider this situation:
Let’s say when “Fatal Error” comes out (can’t wait, by the way, but alas, I will have to), 2500 people buy the book (I realize it will be many more than that, but bear with me).
Then, let’s say that those 2500 people post their book on paperbackswap.com, and for the next three years, each copy gets sent to a new Paperbackswap member at a rate of once per week.
So, over a period of three years (156 weeks), each of the 2500 copies makes its way into 156 separate homes, so that a total of 390,000 people read the book when only 2500 copies were purchased.
How does this not equate to taking money out of your pocket? As I see it, you’ve lost the money you would have made for the sale of 387,500 additional copies of the book. I don’t know what you make for each copy sold (nor do I want or need to), but I can’t imagine that is a trivial amount.
Again, as I said, this is an exercise in severe exaggeration, but I’m sure you can see my point.
How does this not equate to taking money out of your pocket?
Because the money wasn’t ever in his pocket. It’s in the pockets of the people who didn’t buy his book – that’s where it started, and that’s where it stayed. So how can he be said to have lost it if it was never his?
In response to another comment. See in context »You’re missing my point. My point was to simply ask Dr. Wilson to distinguish between used book sharing/selling/trading and piracy. I just wasn’t convinced that he had made a substantial enough distinction.
And, it seems to me that almost everyone here who is arguing against Dr. Wilson is relying almost solely on semantics. This isn’t a semantic issue. Dr. Wilson wants to use thief. You object to it on a semantic basis. Fine.
Let’s broaden it. Instead of “thief” let’s just use “criminal”.
Let me give you an example here: let’s say someone uses your personal information and SSN to buy a car in your name. Now, the money they “stole” from you was never TECHNICALLY in your pocket but your on the hook for it. They didn’t physically reach into your pocket and remove money. Nor was the money that they used to buy the car, but we don’t have a problem calling them “identity thieves”. Is it really theft? I don’t know…maybe the appropriate term is fraud, but who cares? It’s criminal behvior no matter what word you use to describe it.
In response to another comment. See in context »It’s criminal because I’m going to be harmed by your act of fraud. Wilson isn’t harmed in any sense by the book downloaders except hypothetically – they’re not going to spend the money that he wanted to try to convince them to spend.
In response to another comment. See in context »But, there’s no e-book piracy in your Devil’s Advocacy!
Here. Fatal Error comes out as a paperback. 2500 people buy the book on release day.
One of them scans it within twenty minutes of purchasing it, and posts it on a file sharing site and posts the link on his favorite pirate site.
Within the hour, several thousand people see the link. One pirate goes to the new book page, and clicks the “Share This On Twitter” promo.
Some of his 2,000 Twitter followers see the link and retweet.
The first pirate follows the original link to the file sharing site. It has a Share This functionality, too. So he clicks again, and shares the fact that this free book is here with all his Facebook friends… and their friends.
Google picks it up. Now, anyone surfing Google can follow the trail and pick up a free copy of Fatal Error.
Because it is on Google, a Yahoo Group known for sharing “free” ebooks snags the link, and shares it with a couple of thousand freebie lovers many of whom honestly believe that “Fatal Error” is a Public Domain book.
This is still release day! Paul still has only one misguided fan who bought the book and shared it. The other 2499 purchasers haven’t finished reading it yet.
Meanwhile, the pirate site frequenter downloads the book, creates what they call a mirror, and uploads it, and copies of it, to five or six other file sharing sites.
The next day, Paul gets a Google Alert and learns that Fatal Error is on a pirate site. By that time, who knows how many people have read it without paying, and who knows how many copies of his book have been uploaded to various file sharing sites and pirate sites.
Some sites will refuse to disable the links. Some links he’ll never find, because pirates know they are doing wrong, and they’ll disguise the title of the book.
Meanwhile, someone else snags the download, burns it onto 10 CDs along with some other Wilson works, describes it as “My Private Wilson Library” and sells it on an auction site or three… for money.
Another enterprising lawbreaker adds it to their collection on a blog, and sells it. Real money is lost, because real people do pay (albeit $5.00 for a collection of 5 novels) to read the bootlegged copies.
And let’s not forget Kindle. For every copy sold as a Kindle, up to six people (if 6 people share a Kindle account) can read a copy of that one ebook.
Moreover, there is nothing to stop them (as I understand it) copying their kindle book onto their desktop and from there uploading it to their own favorite file sharing/storing sites.
Also, Kindle users can download Paul’s book from a pirate site, use Kindle to convert it into an audio book, and even if Paul has signed an audio book contract with a different publisher… that’s too bad as well.
Paul’s editor expected Paul to make a list. 200,000 copies of this brilliant book were printed.
Bafflingly, over half those copies are returned to the warehouses. Paul’s publisher loses a bundle. Paul never earns enough royalties to cover his advance. Paul is not offered a decent advance next time.
That’s how writers suffer.
In response to another comment. See in context »Actually, as an engineer, I protest that all the stuff about buying metal tubing and putting in sweat-equity is beside the point: the original bike designer may have put a lot of effort into finding just the right tubing sizes to minimize weight and have just enough strength.
That’s an example of a hundred other design decisions that each required an expensive experiment in terms of buying parts, MAKING parts, and assembling and testing for perhaps hundreds of hours.
A 747 may take billions to design and test, but even a humble bike may take tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of dollars to design. More effort, with respect, than an author may put into a novel. So just copying the *design* of the bike may be a larger monetary crime than book piracy.
(Ask any American firm that’s seen cheap Chinese copies of an expensive engineered product appear on the market a few weeks after their first sale to China.)
One disagreement, though. I have to agree that not every download is a lost sale. As I posted in a previous discussion about this, I was curious enough about this phenomenon to download one file – But what a file; an archive thing containing hundreds of books within, including practically every Heinlein.
Now, I already own every Heinlein, many of them in multiple copies (hardback, softcover, illustrated, unexpurgated versions) and yet it was the Heinlein that made me pick that file.
You see, electronic versions suck to read, IMHO, but they have the priceless plus of being searchable. Increasingly valuable as one gets older and can remember the quote, but not where from.
A suggestion: provide a service: an FPW web site where one can type in a few words and be told the book name and chapter number. If I had that, I’d really have no excuse to download anything.
Electronic versions are simply an add-on to me, after I’ve bought the book.
So, please, don’t look at the download numbers and count each as a lost sale. It’s very unlikely.
Similarly, I have an audiophile friend who has thousands of rock albums and CDs – but also downloaded MP3 versions because those were made by guys very good at picking all the best MP3 settings, expertise he doesn’t have. He regards an MP3 player as about the quality of AM radio (to him, a deadly insult) but he does occasionally want a portable copy for vacations. Again, it’s an add-on value to copyrighted materials he purchased legitimately.
Another watches certain TV shows religiously and buys the DVDs the day they go on sale. But rather than miss an episode, he’ll download it next day if he misses, or when on vacation. So the crime there is hard for me to find as well, given the certainty of the eventual DVD purchase.
Here’s the problem in a nutshell, Dr. W: Many of those downloaders are crooks of a sort. (I reserve the word “thief” for a guy who steals your original MS, but “copyright infringer” is awkward…) But some of them are your most loyal fans who are after an add-on value to an existing purchase.
I admit it’s a head-scratcher.
Absolutely spot-on article. The basic fact is that if you take something that isn’t yours, it’s stealing. If people want to steal, that is their decision – but stealing is generally considered morally wrong for a reason: it damages society.
I disagree with about 90% of this. Unfortunately, I don’t have the time to get into it. However, please get in touch with Cory Doctrow or Lawrence Lessig if you really want an intelligent representation of the other side of your ideas.
If Cory Doctrow wishes to give away his novels, bless his independently wealthy heart.
But, that does not give him any moral authority to impose his wishes on other authors who choose not to give their work away.
In response to another comment. See in context »Of course you do. You’re a digital thief, and digital thieves always have some half-assed philosophy about why what they’re doing is not stealing.
Let’s see if you (or Cory Doctrow or Lawrence Lessig) can understand this basic logic. If I write an ebook and make it available online for a fee, you either pay that fee or you don’t read the ebook. End of discussion. Your pseudo-revolutionary online diatribes don’t give you license to illegally download the ebook and then bore us to death with second rate collegiate monologues about “new models” or “a brave new world”.
Again – someone offers product for a fee and you steal it, you’re a thief. End-of-debate.
In response to another comment. See in context »Just sic Repairman Jack on these people, and be done with it.
So interesting to watch people who don’t write for a living defend their “right” to use the fruits of our labor — and, oh yeah, our skill/talent/discipline/experience — in any way they see fit, because….? Because anyone who defends the basic principle of “you want it, you pay for it” is a de facto dinosaur.
Not.
Try this with any other product or service — and you will actually be arrested for, and charged with, theft.
All the chestpuffing doesn’t resolve the basic issue: people who create value (whether an engineer who designs a terrific bike or its components) rely on those skills *for their income.* For professional writers, writing, and protecting that work, is not some cute little fun hobby, a garage band or dressing up in vintage clothing and doing re-enactments on the weekends so we can feel like a Civil War soldier. American culture so fetishizes Corporate World or free-spirited inventors who think it’s cool to share their toys, that many simply don’t even understand what it means to make a living as a writer.
Our words have financial value; our agents and publishers earn profits from them! That value has to be protected.
Paul is a professional writer. So am I. If you are, also, and have something lucid to say about how we are all going to protect our intellectual property — and the income it produces — terrific!
Beyond that, it’s all opinion and insult. We have mortgages and car payments and groceries to buy. We are able to do so, if we are lucky and talented and hardworking — in part — *because* we are smart and careful and have paid lawyers and agents to help us delineate and protect our rights, while Google is trying to strip them away every single day.
If Paul is pissed, he’s got plenty of very good reasons why he’s pissed.
Well said, Caitlin!
In response to another comment. See in context »Try this with any other product or service — and you will actually be arrested for, and charged with, theft.
Because you will actually have stolen something. It’s being argued that that’s simply not the case, here. Maybe you don’t like the consequences of that argument for your employment prospects, but that doesn’t strike me as a sufficient basis to call something “theft.” The world doesn’t owe writers a living, and neither does the law.
In response to another comment. See in context »Disclosure:
1. I do hope to make a living as a writer at some point in my life. 2. I did make a living running a record label for few years that was impacted pretty substantially by file sharing.
“Because anyone who defends the basic principle of “you want it, you pay for it” is a de facto dinosaur.”
No this doesn’t make you a dionsaur, and I’m sorry if what I posted earlier came across as implying that. However, it’s 2010, and wishing for the world to go back to a nicer/safer time where there were neither e-book readers nor BitTorrent is not useful. So, what does make you a dinosaur is that you don’t see this as inevitable, nor do you fully accept that the economic impact file sharing will have can’t be slowed in the slightest. There is no point in arguing the equitability of copyright between producers/consumers or the morality of file shareres; the reality is what it is, and to get hysterical about it, to sue everyone you can, will only lead to losing more revenue than is necessary, ala the record labels in the last decade.
“Try this with any other product or service — and you will actually be arrested for, and charged with, theft.”
No, this is wrong. It’s unfortunate that Paul chose a stupid and inarticulate video as a representation of the other side of his argument, rather than something well articulated by a Doctrow/Lessig type. So, to give a brief lesson in my poor understanding of common law, “in the common law, theft is usually defined as the unauthorised taking or use of someone else’s property with the intent to deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.”
http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Theft.htm
So, in file sharing, as no one is deprived of use, it is not theft. Copyright infringement, yes; theft, no. You might view this as symmantics, but these are two very different sections of law.
Google is not trying to strip away your rights. The toothpaste is already out of the tube, the genie is out of the bottle; what Google Books did is provide, what I think is the best solution for 2010. And (maybe begrudgingly) The Authors Guild and the Assoc of American Publishers agrees with this, as they settled sometime last year. And, thank God, as with the benefit of the history lesson regarding what file sharing did to the record labels, choosing a path different from the litigous one the RIAA took, gives authors the best path to retaining the most revenue that they possibly can.
http://books.google.com/googlebooks/agreement/
There’s a lot wrong with copyright law, and the DMCA doesn’t fix much, especially since the government doesn’t enforce the law.
Meanwhile, authors are in a difficult position because if we don’t make reasonable attempts to assert our copyright when it is violated, our rights are weakened.
In response to another comment. See in context »Google and the Universities scanned books that they had no right to scan, and created ebooks that did not exist before.
Now, Google is barred from selling any ebooks if the author objects.
Some copyright infringement is worse than theft.
If an author retains her ebook rights because she hopes to license her ebook rights at some future date for more than print royalty rates, she suffers very real losses if some pirate scans her print book and creates an ebook and gives it away.
In response to another comment. See in context »Argue against the idea that copying is not theft as you will but you are mistaken to dismiss the argument so cavalierly. It is basically the same argument made by Thomas Jefferson in his letter to Isaac McPherson. As Jefferson puts it in his elegant metaphor:
“He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.”
Your argument about the skills and effort that go into making a bicycle are completely irrelevant as copyrights have never been granted on that basis but only upon claim of originality however it occurred and without regard to the quality of the result.
I understand that as an author you have a feeling of entitlement on this issue based on your investments of effort and skill but you should have known better than to meet a strictly logical anti-copyright argument with what is really only an emotional appeal.
“He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.”
That is an elegant red herring.
You are comparing ideas (which cannot be copyrighted) with an author’s unique expression of an idea (which can be copyrighted).
The idea in a Romance novel is “Boy meets girl… Girl rejects boy for whatever reason… Boy changes. Girl changes her mind. They live happily ever after.”
In response to another comment. See in context »Although Jefferson used the word “idea” it can be seen from the context that he was mainly concerned with patents. More importantly, the argument generalizes easily. Substitute “a story” for “idea” and “amusement” for “instruction” and the argument is basically unchanged except that it now applies to literature rather than invention.
The essential point is that infringement of “intellectual property” of any form is distinguishable from theft of physical property by the fact that the owner is not deprived of that which is said to be stolen. This is also the argument made in the video and Mr. Wilson never comes to grips with it — addressing other issues such as loss of the creator’s income instead.
In response to another comment. See in context »So, with all the arguments here for the right of people to download books for free, my thought is this:
If you want to continue reading books by your favorite author, what is the author’s incentive to continue writing if their income from doing so steadily wanes? And if anyone says “They should do it for ______________” and that blank contains anything buy “for the income”, then try stepping into the real world. Professional authors do what they do to earn a living. Expecting them to continue doing what they do in the face of decreasing compensation is is absurd. I mean, how many of you would keep working a job where, every year, you received a cut in pay? Anyone, anyone?
And expecting authors to do it for the “art” of it, or whatever, is about as naive as the young married couple who says they “don’t need money” because they can “live on love”. Well, love doesn’t pay the mortgage.
So, for all those of you “forward-thinking” indviduals on here who espouse the idea that this is somehow acceptable behavior that is merely Zeitgeist, I pose a simple question:
What is to stop the professional authors of the world, be it 10, 50 or 200 years from now, from going all John Galt on the world and just refusing to write?
Or is that where we are actually headed?
I don’t think the point is that people have the “right” to download for free, it’s that they have the ability. If I purchase a book for my Nook or Kindle, I get it in one format. If I download a book from a torrent site, I get a selection of formats- and can read that same book on my Nook, Kindle, computer, phone, whatever.
The propietary formats of ebook readers, and attidtues of the publishing industry are encouraging people to pirate. There are four new release books that I cannot get on my Kindle, but I could steal them without a problem. The only incentive I have for NOT stealing the book is my morality. Logically, it makes sense to steal it.
The music industry has found a way to offer quality. inexpensive, accessible music and has effectively halted music piracy. The publishing industry needs to do the same. If you offer people a reason to buy and not steal, most of them will. If you make it hard to buy the product, they will steal it. Piracy can’t be fought on moral grounds, it has to be logical. The publishing industry needs to get creative, and quickly.
*Absolutely not defending piracy, just explaining it
In response to another comment. See in context »Are you quite certain that the music industry “has effectively halted music piracy”?
If so, why is there “free” music on so many pirate sites and file sharing sites?
If it is not a problem, why was there the furor over Double D’s “Don’t Copy That – 2″ on YouTube last year? And why is there a million dollar reward being offered? It’s not just for bootlegged movies, is it?
Part of the music model seems to be to tolerate piracy (same mindset as those who would solve illegal immigration by giving all illegal immigrants legal status, IMHO).
I know of an author who use a band’s hit tune for her book video without asking permission. The band contacted her, and said they were cool with it.
Music, as someone else has already said, is not the same as a book. The more often you hear a tune, the more likely you are to buy it or to buy rock concert tickets.
Most people only read a book once, and authors don’t give novel-reading concerts.
In response to another comment. See in context »Rowena, Caitlyn, and tisafire, bravo and thank you for knocking down with such simple power and logical clarity the “angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin” arguments/alibis of those who would use semantics to try and befog what is really a simple matter. Pragmatically speaking, all the semantic bloviating in the world won’t change the fact that neither you, nor I, nor Paul, nor any other of the professional novelists out there will continue to write novels if we are not paid enough to make worthwhile the very significant effort it takes. To the extent that people who would have it otherwise like and enjoy professional quality novels, they are trying to play “52-pickup” with their own deck. Throw those cards on the floor, tell your favorite authors to pick them up, and see what happens.
Again, Paul, thanks for speaking out on this issue.
Pragmatically speaking, all the semantic bloviating in the world won’t change the fact that neither you, nor I, nor Paul, nor any other of the professional novelists out there will continue to write novels if we are not paid enough to make worthwhile the very significant effort it takes.
Oh, come on. Nobody becomes a novelist for the money. Novelists as a whole are pretty universal about that; it’s only a lucky few who achieve any kind of financial success with their novel writing.
And if you’re not doing it for the money, it’s pretty clear you won’t stop doing it if the money dries up.
In response to another comment. See in context »“Oh, come on. Nobody becomes a novelist for the money. Novelists as a whole are pretty universal about that; it’s only a lucky few who achieve any kind of financial success with their novel writing.”
Seriously? That may be the most hopelessly ignorant thing I’ve ever seen on here so far. Professional novelists are just that…professionals. It doesn’t matter how they got there, whether by stroke of luck or pure, artistic genius, they are professionals. They do it FOR THE MONEY.
Just because I love my job doesn’t mean that I’m going to do it for free. And to expect me to do so is beyond foolishness.
Yes, I understand that most novelists don’t end up making it professionally…the odds are against them. However, most don’t try to make a living out of it until they have sold their first novel. An aspiring novelist is writing while working another job. If they sell a novel, then they might do it full time. But make no mistake…they do it FOR THE MONEY. It also just so happens that they love what they do. Don’t think for one second that it somehow means that they should just disseminate their work freely for the love of the art. That is a crock of BS.
I mean, they can if they really want to, but that’s their choice.
In response to another comment. See in context »Just because advances in technology have made it easier to commit a crime, we are supposed to ignore those criminal acts or even legalize them?
Seriously? That may be the most hopelessly ignorant thing I’ve ever seen on here so far.
Is it? Let’s look at what actual writers have to say.
Sci-fi novelist John Scalzi: “It’s possible to make a good amount of money as a writer. Most writers don’t. You should assume, strictly for business purposes, that you won’t, or at the very least, won’t for a very long time.”
Travel writer Tim Leffel: “Some people make a living as a travel writer. They are a very small minority…a writer getting a $30,000 fee for putting a new guidebook together would spend close to a year of his or her life on the project and end up making about $6 per hour after expenses.”
About Stephen King: ” “The truth is, Stephen King is rich because he never set out to be rich,” says Susan Moldow of Scribner. “If the money mattered to him, it wouldn’t be there.”"
Economics writer Barry Ritholtz: “So, my pay scale for writing what has been called the best reviewed book on the bailouts is a little better than the current minimum wage. And a few other writers tell me how lucky I am, that very often, its a break even proposition or worse.”
And so on. Writers are pretty open about how stupid it is to try to be a writer for the money. I mean, that’s a nearly universal attitude in the writing community, it’s in every writer’s almanac and industry guide; it’s covered in every journalism class; every rich and famous writer has a story about how they didn’t get into it for the money, they just got lucky to be so richly rewarded for something they do, anyway.
So what’s the incentive for a writer to write if they’re not getting paid by literally every person who reads their book? Why, it’s the same incentive they had to write the book – the love of writing, the love of storytelling. It was never about the money in the first place – according to almost every single writer.
I’m unsure what argument is being made here. That it is unreasonable for a writer to expect payment for their work because the likelihood of making a livable wage as an author is remarkably slim? And if so, this justifies piracy/theft/copying–or whatever buzz word is being bandied about to describe obtaining something without paying for it?
I must be missing the meaning there somewhere.
In response to another comment. See in context »That it is unreasonable for a writer to expect payment for their work because the likelihood of making a livable wage as an author is remarkably slim?
Predominantly, I’m making two arguments – one, that writers are not so entitled to being paid by literally every single person who reads their novel that they have any right to restrict the platforms on which I read their material, or the agreements to communicate, lend, or transfer a work I paid for to other persons; and two, that the argument that writers will have no incentive to write if they can’t enact draconian restrictions on the behavior of their readers is inherently ridiculous, because money can’t reasonably be one of the incentives of writing now, and you can’t lose an incentive that isn’t present in the first place.
I didn’t think it was that hard to follow along. Writers should probably be paid for their work. Does that mean that I have to pay literally every single writer whose words I read? No one has yet been able to successfully defend that idea.
In response to another comment. See in context »This is a very hot topic, and I engage people in conversations about this subject frequently.. It is amazing to me to hear some of the opinions. I agree with everything F Paul W, and Caitlin Kelley say about this, and that has been my opinion since ALL of this downloading phenomenon started.
I hear people say things like “It’s on the internet so it’s free” or the “Every download is not a lost sale” argument. It’s all personal justification for an individual to tell himself “I’m a good person and not stealing” in my opinion.
There are many struggling artists that need every nickel of revenue that their hard work has produced. Whether you are struggling or not doesn’t make any difference either. An author could be the richest guy in the world. What he produces is his to sell or give away by his own choosing. Nobody has a right to take whatever they want unabated. Here’s the bottom line for me:
If I’m possessing an artist’s or author’s work, or listening to an artists music via by possession – I WANT TO PAY FOR IT, I want the the artist to be compensated – I want this person to be paid so that they can provide for themselves and family – AND most importantly – so that they can continue to create more great work. They deserve to be paid!
It’s only free if F Paul gives it to you – It is not yours in the first place, therefore it is not your right to TAKE it. PERIOD. EXCLAMATION POINT.
They deserve to be paid!
Do they? What if the work wasn’t any good? Does just your experience of reading it obligate you to pay, if the work was in fact unrewarding and not worth your time?
In that case isn’t the author stealing from you?
It is not yours in the first place, therefore it is not your right to TAKE it.
Funny, but that’s what I’ve been saying about my money – it’s mine, not Paul’s, and he has no right to take it or expect me to give it to him. Therefore me keeping it can’t be considered “stealing” in any sense.
Maybe I’ll decide to reward writers whose works I enjoy, but that’s a different thing than simply paying list price for literally every book I read, since that enriches the author of the book regardless of whether I enjoyed it or want them to continue writing.
In response to another comment. See in context »“”Do they? What if the work wasn’t any good? Does just your experience of reading it obligate you to pay, if the work was in fact unrewarding and not worth your time?”"
ABSOLUTELY They deserve to be paid because I made a conscious choice to buy it. – You see.. I always pay for something first, I don’t take things because I think their mine. If I don’t like the work, I don’t finish it, and never purchase that authors work again – Simple – Same thing with music – Buy the CD / purchase the download – don’t like it? Toss it, and that artist into my reject pile.
“”Funny, but that’s what I’ve been saying about my money – it’s mine, not Paul’s, and he has no right to take it or expect me to give it to him. Therefore me keeping it can’t be considered “stealing” in any sense.”"
Your money IS your money – Spend it as you choose – just don’t steal.
In response to another comment. See in context »ABSOLUTELY They deserve to be paid because I made a conscious choice to buy it.
Are writers paid to write, or are they paid to sell?
I always pay for something first
Really? How does that work at a restaurant, for instance? Does the staff look at you funny when you ask them to bring you the check before you’ve even ordered?
Your money IS your money – Spend it as you choose – just don’t steal.
As we’ve already determined, it’s “stealing” when you take something from someone else. To take something is to mean that they don’t have it any more; if they still have it, nothing was taken, thus, no stealing occurred.
In response to another comment. See in context »Justin,
Your restaurant analogy doesn’t hold water – That’s way out of the scope of this argument.
WE didn’t determine anything – you determined something on your own that I had no part of.
Keep trying –
Dennis
In response to another comment. See in context »Dear Justin,
There are many instances where you pay in advance for entertainment, and take your chances whether or not you will be satisfied.
You do not get your money back at the ball park or speedway if you are unhappy with your team’s performance.
Comcast won’t give me a refund if I don’t like the movies I watch… etc etc.
In response to another comment. See in context »Well-articulated stupidity is still stupidity. It just sounds better.
Says it all better than I can.
http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2010/05/piracy-again.html
Paul, it is great to see someone looking at the piracy issue from a rational perspective, and one in favor of authors’ rights. I read all your comments over at JA Konrath’s blog too. Way to go for taking a stand! I did so earlier but grew tired of hearing the same old piracy excuses.
I’ve also blogged on this issue and I invite your to drop by my blog and add your thoughts.
http://www.cherylktardif.blogspot.com
Support an Author, Buy a Book!
Cheryl Kaye Tardif,
Canaidan suspense author and anti-piracy advocate
http://www.cherylktardif.com
Excellent article, Paul. Seems that pirates don’t realize that if artists don’t get paid for their work, they won’t continue to produce art. The earlier commenter who said it’s a changing world misses the point that most artists (including writers like us) have changed with the times by allowing their work to be downloaded–through retail sites like Amazon (Kindle). What more can we do?
Excellent article; one of the best, most concise I’ve ever read on the topic. I can’t really contribute to the discussion; all the intelligent arguments have already been made. But as a fan (and avid purchaser) of F Paul’s work, I can only submit this absurd scenario…
“Hello, Mr. Wilson, it’s so nice to finally meet you in person. Yes, I’m having loads of fun at this convention. Anyway, I’m a huge fan of your work. Could I bother you for an autograph? Here is my USB flash drive. It has text files of every one of your Repairman Jack series that I downloaded; they’re really great. Do you mind just signing along the side of it, right there?”
Yes, it is stealing. If you like F Paul Wilson’s work, turn off your computer, get off your butt and go buy a book.
Thank you for your work, Mr. Wilson. My collection is 40 books and counting.
I stand second to no one in my regard for Dr. Wilson’s creative output, which I believe is inarguably his, save for such rights to it as he has legally extended. I also think the worldview as regards such intellectual property is undergoing a paradigm shift such as we have never seen, and I do not know whether rigorous respect for ownership of such ‘intangible’ creative work will withstand that change. A central issue here is that a significant percentage of those violating creators’ intellectual property rights do *not* view what they are doing as stealing the creators’ work; they aren’t plagiarizing it, they aren’t denying the creators credit. They are simply replicating the created work for their own consumption. When creators defend their right to control such replication, a frequent aspect of their defense involves remuneration; it is absolutely valid, but it rings materialistic and hollow to an entire generation for whom easy replication of content has become the norm. For many, the only way to personalize the loss would be for they themselves to be so creatively victimized, and that isn’t likely to happen to a significant enough percentage to stem the tide. When a significant percentage of a society ceases believing something is wrong–and within a generation, that could be a majority, on this issue, especially when the advancing rapid-prototyping technology makes replicating *things* as easy as replicating creative works is, now–it may cease to *be* wrong, legally. I hope it does not come to that, as the devaluation of genuine creative genius would be a likely consequence…but I foresee it.
Outrider,
Your analysis is superb. Please may I quote you?
I suspect that pirates do all they can to enhance the appearance that their views are mainstream.
However, look at the outrage whenever Facebook errs. There (on Facebook) is a significant percentage of the population which may or may not believe that sharing ebooks is wrong, but they demonstrably do take it very personally when their content is “shared” without their permission.
It would be quite easy by way of demonstration to visit a pirate site, copy a few pirates’ discussions, and publish that content.
A major newspaper ought to do it, possibly with the permission of the authorities.
In response to another comment. See in context »Of course you may. I think that is implicit in a public post like this but, given the context, I very much appreciate the courtesy of your request
In response to another comment. See in context »Thank you, Outrider.
In response to another comment. See in context »I am amazed at the level of ignorance, the lack of education and the verbal excusitis that pirates suffer from–not to mention their sheer stupidity. Their “defense” of their illegal actions and constant excuses for taking what does not belong to me are mind-boggling.
There are copyright warnings in nearly every printed book and ebook file. The copyright notice is there for a reason. To alert people that infringing on authors’ copyrights is illegal and wrong. For those of you not intelligent enough to understand the meaning of “illegal”, it means IT’S A CRIME. In fact, it’s a CRIME TO COPY & DISTRIBUTE SOMEONE ELSE’S COPYRIGHT PROTECTED
WORK WITHOUT THE AUTHOR’S PERMISSION.
Got it? Comprende? Understand yet?
Or are you just completely dense?
For those foolish enough to argue: “It’s not “theft”…blah, blah, blah… let’s look at it this way…
You copy a book without the author’s permission, either by scanning it or creating copies or allowing unlimited downloads (which creates copies, again for those who aren’t smart enough to figure this out). You’ve now ILLEGALLY copied someone else’s work.
Then you share this illegally copied work on a file sharing or pirate site. This is called illegal distribution. Copyright notices clearly prohibit you from doing this in most books. So unless you can’t read…
In many countries, this can lead to legal action, including fines and imprisonment.
So enough with the excuses. Suck it up and grow some balls and call a spade a spade. You’re involved in illegal activity. A crime by our current laws. And that’s all that matters. Until copyright laws change and allow you do copy or distribute other people’s works, you ARE committing a crime. End of story.
End of stupid excuses. We’ve heard them all.
And for those who think authors should write for free, you’re beyond ridiculous. A writer may dream of publishing book after book because it’s her passion, but for the majority, the only way we can do this is to make a half-decent income. When you illegally distribute our works, you devalue the work itself, the author, and you jeopardize their chances of ever getting another publishing contract.
The excuse of not having enough formats is also a joke. There are multiple ebook retailers selling ebooks in all kinds of formats. Smashwords sells them in many formats.
The excuse of books being over priced is equally as stupid. Look around online, people. Many authors will legally give their books away to you. So will publishers.
Many ebooks are under $5. Many others are under $2. What, you can’t afford $2??? Really?
There is only one reason for piracy: GREED!
Cheryl Kaye Tardif,
author
If this goes on. . . .
I’m not a writer, but I have been involved in manufacturing for decades, and I see a parallel here.
Let’s say that I spend a year or more designing and perfecting some sort of mechanical gizmo. I came up with an idea and spent a portion of my life turning that idea into physical form. I then license its production to someone else — for a fee. A “cut of the take,” so to speak.
The “cut of the take” from the sale of this gizmo is what pays for the time, trouble, and the effort it took me to create it. And that “cut of the take,” that commission (or royalty) is what pays for my idea as well.
Now . . . let’s say that someone bought one of these gizmo’s and began to produce it, and sell it himself.
He did not come up with the idea, nor did he go through the trouble of turning that idea into physical form, and of developing and perfecting that idea.
He just bought one and copied it.
If that sort of thing became common-place, it would ultimately destroy any incentive to create.
Why go devote effort, time, and trouble, to create something if it is of no benefit to you?
Sure there’s an ego factor involved, (look what I did!) but how much would that count if you couldn’t pay your bills with the result?
It’s exactly the same when it comes to writing.
And to Paul, and Steve, I only buy used books when they’re out of print and I can’t find new ones. I don’t even go to libraries.
It’s the sale of your books which pays for the necessities and luxuries of your lives, (and encourages you to continue writing) and I — for one — would feel like I was cheating you if I (somehow) were to deny you that.
And to Ben Liebovitz: The “law” not withstanding, COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IS THEFT!
I’m coming upon this argument late, so apologies.
I do not agree with pirating. It is copy-right infringement, & semantics aside, that results in theft in a lot of cases.
That said, I do think that the digital age has brought us to a place where we need to rethink our rights management.
F. Paul Wilson, one of my fave authors, said he had no problem with a person buying a book, & then sharing that physical purchase with others, as the buyer had purchased that right. In that sense, is where the library defense comes into misguided being.
With a physical book, I could conceivably loan it to (let’s say) 10 people. Factor in that friend who invariably drops it in the tub.
Now, with the entrance of digital mediums, that number multiplies significantly. And truly, the only thing minimizing that distribution level is the ephemeral idea of ownership now. That, & the moral sensibilities of said owner(s). I share books with friends all the time, & they likewise with me. Some I enjoy so much I must have my own copy, others not so.
I personally feel that digital ownership is the same, though sharing with others is incredibly eased. I would draw the line at posting it on a sharing site. That would be infringement to me, though I realize that, by law, emailing it to my brother would be as well.
So… I only share with my 10 “chosen ones,” but turns out one of them isn’t so respectful as I.
I bring this up because this is how I relate to this issue.
I saw all the pirates justifying, the authors pleading…
It seems to me that a ship has sailed… Piracy is a fact. I support authors, & want them to continue writing, & not just for the sake of their art. I don’t think sharing sites are right, but they will pop up.
I’ll keep paying for books, but a greater portion will be digital. It’s just better for the planet, the smell of pages aside.
Fight the piracy, but that doesn’t mean all sharing.
Have you all seen the recent 9th Circuit Court ruling that suggests electronic “sales” are not sales but licenses?
Eminem may have made a breakthrough.
http://ereads.com/2010/10/when-is-e-royalty-not-a-royalty-when-9th-circuit-court-says-so.html
I don’t imagine that a new definition would change deliberate piracy, but it might be helpful for modifying COICA to be more reasonable.