• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Great Article on Book Piracy

ThinkerX

Myth Weaver
hmmm...

1 - the web is overrun with free stories and fan fictions of all sorts, ranging from utterly horrible to pretty good.

2 - In my poorer days, I bought a lot of books from used bookstores, often for literal spare change. As in thousands of books - no exaggeration. These days, more prosperous, I tend to order through Amazon. Most recent order was 10 books (still waiting on a couple) for a price tag of $120. Quality is hit or miss. Couple of my recent acquisitions are probably going to end up in the used bookshop in a few weeks.

3 - Writing is hard. Conception. Characters. Plot. And making oneself tap away on the dang tale for an hour or so every day. Took me sixty-five days to finish just the 45,000 word rough draft of my last story. And most of us here probably have multiple unfinished stories on our computers that will never see another reader.

4 - In conjunction with the above...the odd free short for promotional purposes is fine, especially if the story is unlikely to sell anyhow. But entire free novels? You get what you pay for.
 

skip.knox

toujours gai, archie
Moderator
The writer of the post is obviously passionate about the topic, but she is generalizing from her own experience to derive universal law. The world she describes is one that has existed for a couple hundred years, tops. For two thousand years, the market was different. Yet, people still wrote. Things are lost, but things are gained as well. But mostly it read as damnit I should be making more money than this.
 

ThinkerX

Myth Weaver
The writer of the post is obviously passionate about the topic, but she is generalizing from her own experience to derive universal law. The world she describes is one that has existed for a couple hundred years, tops. For two thousand years, the market was different. Yet, people still wrote. Things are lost, but things are gained as well. But mostly it read as damnit I should be making more money than this.

Nowhere near the expert you are, Skip, but until, call it a few hundred years ago, what we now term 'plagiarism' was seen as ethical, even honorable. Quite a few tomes known only from quotations in other works.
 

Russ

Istar
The writer of the post is obviously passionate about the topic, but she is generalizing from her own experience to derive universal law. The world she describes is one that has existed for a couple hundred years, tops. For two thousand years, the market was different. Yet, people still wrote. Things are lost, but things are gained as well. But mostly it read as damnit I should be making more money than this.

I read it as a response to the many intellectual vapid excuses we see around for theft of intellectual property.

She points out, quite effectively, that the theft of certain types of intellectual property does not just harm large faceless companies but has real impact on the lifestyle of real people. The world of type and click has insulated many thieves from the consequences of their actions. But thieves they remain and there are real world negative impacts for their theft on people who work hard for a living.

The market was different for two thousands years or so. It was harder for most of those years to steal or distribute books at all. Many books were written for wealthy patrons or small student bodies and thus the public got no potential access to them at all. The profit or living earned by authors in years before the printing press did not lie in either mass reproduction or mass distribution and sales. Literacy rates were far lower.

The world she describes is one that might only have existed for about three decades, but it is the one we live in.
 

Russ

Istar
Nowhere near the expert you are, Skip, but until, call it a few hundred years ago, what we now term 'plagiarism' was seen as ethical, even honorable. Quite a few tomes known only from quotations in other works.


Do you see this as a similar phenomena to what the article is discussing?
 

La Volpe

Sage
Piracy is a tricky subject.

The people who pirate a book wouldn't have bought it. You're not losing a sale. You're not losing a physical item. In the end, it's not costing you anything other than the fact that someone is reading your book without having paid for it. In essence, it's no different than Person A borrowing a book from Person B and reading it, all without paying the author for a second copy.

There is a lot of fine details here, and as a whole, piracy has to be watched to avoid it spiralling out of control. It could very easily end up in a bad place.

But, to worry about piracy of your books isn't doing you any good. Those are not lost sales, able to have given you tomorrow's dinner. In fact, you might be discovered by a reader who will then proceed to buy your other books.

Long story short, the article is making the issue seem a lot more cut and dry than it really is. As a counter-point to assist in discussion, here is a video of Neil Gaiman talking about piracy of his books:

 
Last edited by a moderator:

ThinkerX

Myth Weaver
Do you see this as a similar phenomena to what the article is discussing?

Yes. Somebody thought enough of those books to copy often lengthy sections without the authors consent. (And often, the author was long dead to boot.) By todays standards that might be real close to piracy. By the standards in effect then, it was a compliment of sorts.
 

Russ

Istar
Yes. Somebody thought enough of those books to copy often lengthy sections without the authors consent. (And often, the author was long dead to boot.) By todays standards that might be real close to piracy. By the standards in effect then, it was a compliment of sorts.


Quoting someone is a little different than mass producing their work and then selling off exact copies is it not? IF the author is long dead (say someone in 1600 quoting Bede or some such) it is not much like what we are seeing today.


Perhaps, most importantly, it was highly unlikely to have any impact on the author's livelihood or quality of life, especially if he was dead.
 
I'm with her and Russ on this. It is theft. There are damages. And it is an entirely different scenario from what we had historically. It is also very different from being loaned a book. The ability to wholesale copy from the Internet is too dangerous and too pervasive, and with respect to Gaiman, I find the notion that piracy as a victimless crime and actually a good thing to be repugnant. It is a blatant violation of domestic and international law. It is a violation of the rule of law and I, quite frankly, will not stand for it. There is a thing called the local library, use it. Many even have e-books available through services like overdrive.
 

skip.knox

toujours gai, archie
Moderator
Piracy of books or music or games is not a parallel with the old practice of quoting without attribution. The difference, as has been noted, is that the author was not trying to pass off the other work as his own (except in the case of forgery, a different issue) in order to make money.

The reason why I made the historical reference, other than as a manifestation of a professional malady, was to say that authors did not always make a living by selling books. As with other artists, they either had independent income or had a patron. I'm not saying that system was better. I make the observation to point out that the economic realities of creating art have changed over the centuries and, perhaps, we are at the edge of another such change. It may well be that in another hundred years the book industry will be a historical curiosity. This will be painful for the generations who endure the process.

This article's author, and she is one among many, speak as if the current system is not only eternal but morally imperative. I hear her pain. I'm trying to break into the system myself. But I dispute both axioms. I can demonstrate the system has not been eternal, and we can at least suppose that some future system may turn out to be better. Not likely; most likely it will merely be different, with new winners and new losers.

As for the theft angle, we can look to the music business, where this has been argued in depth for twenty years or so. I leave it to the individual to draw their own conclusions. There's plenty of room for everyone!
 

Russ

Istar
This article's author, and she is one among many, speak as if the current system is not only eternal but morally imperative. I hear her pain. I'm trying to break into the system myself. But I dispute both axioms. I can demonstrate the system has not been eternal, and we can at least suppose that some future system may turn out to be better. Not likely; most likely it will merely be different, with new winners and new losers.

I don't think she suggests that the system is eternal, but there is a moral dimension.

For me there is both a moral and legal dimension.

The idea of intellectual property is now more important than ever, and if the world is to maintain some sort of standard of living, the things we create with our mind must maintain value because, simply put, the economy is moving towards more and more people making their living with ideas or "content" than ever before, and hopefully less and less people making $1.00 an hour sewing shoes in a sweat shop.

Even if you are not stealing a physical thing, you are stealing the valuable fruits of their labour. That remains theft, as long as you accept the idea of intellectual property. The idea that mass distributed books or art can be charged for is one of the ways it gets so widely disseminated and has democratized the spread of literature through economies of scale etc. But they are still based on the premise that intellectual property is property. If you abandon the idea of intellectual property you create some very significant economic problems that don't really help the common man or art at all. If you take away the value from art, less people, and less talented people will be want to engaged in creating it.

I have no problem if Mr. Gaiman doesn't want to pursue his intellectual property rights, or wants to give away his books. Giving away a book can be effectively a loss leader.

But, if your store decides to give away say chocolate bars for free for a month, that does not give license for people to come into my store and shop lift chocolate bars in my store.

It may well be that the book industry will be gone in another hundred years, but until we abandon the idea of intellectual property, stealing intellectual property remains as much theft as stealing other types of property.
 

La Volpe

Sage
It may well be that the book industry will be gone in another hundred years, but until we abandon the idea of intellectual property, stealing intellectual property remains as much theft as stealing other types of property.

I think it's very important to make a distinction between theft and piracy. Contrary to popular belief, piracy is NOT the same thing as theft. Theft results in a gain for the thief and a loss for the victim. Piracy results in a gain for the pirate and NO loss for the victim (I would wager that far less than 1% of pirates, upon not being able to pirate, will buy said media).

This doesn't make piracy legal or moral, but it's important that the distinction be made, since the consequences differ.

The idea of intellectual property is now more important than ever, and if the world is to maintain some sort of standard of living, the things we create with our mind must maintain value because, simply put, the economy is moving towards more and more people making their living with ideas or "content" than ever before, and hopefully less and less people making $1.00 an hour sewing shoes in a sweat shop.

I think that if it ever came to a place where piracy is so rampant that artists are unable to make enough sales to live, the model would simply change. In fact, we might be close to changing the model already. A lot of people, especially cartoonists, make a living while giving away their work for free (Howard Tayler, for example). With the rise of Patreon, Kickstarter et al, this becomes a distinct possibility. Where artists are paid by people who want to see them produce more art, and who gladly contribute to the production thereof.

If the reader/listeners/etc. make the connection that art will stop coming once the artist isn't getting paid, I'm pretty sure they would step in as much as they can.

Note that this can only work for piracy and not for theft. Since the victim of piracy does not lose money when something is pirated, the patrons will keep him creating while the people pirating the media will not drive him into debt.

This might not be the solution, but the point is that rampant piracy will not result in loss of artists, but rather a paradigm shift.
 

Holoman

Troubadour
I have to admit, I was once one of the entitled crew and for about 10 years I didn't pay a penny to watch films, read books or watch my favourite TV shows. It wasn't that I couldn't afford it, it's just that it's so easy to get things for free, you are almost a mug if you actually pay for things. That's how me and most people tbh view it.

But at some point, I realised that it was stealing and I wouldn't steal something from a shop, so why did I think it was ok to do it digitally, just because no one could see me doing it? I stopped ignoring the truth, that it's theft and is wrong.

The assertion that piracy leads to "no loss" for the victim is just completely irrelevant to the morality of the action. I can tell you as a former 'pirate' that if I hadn't pirated I would have bought, probably not everything I pirated, but certainly some things. In fact before I pirated, before the days of the net, I bought CDs, DVDs, books and much more. When I pirated I literally bought nothing. There is a financial loss.

Now I buy everything, and I save money by bargain hunting. I have a big collection of Blurays that I rarely pay more than £3 for. Second hand ones on Amazon are very cheap. With kindle books I just use a price tracker website to see if the price is reasonable or not, I try to get the best price but I still pay for it if I want to read it. Also BookBub provides me enough free books that I dont have to buy anything and I can still read a lot.

Not to mention that we now have video streaming online, online Blu-ray rentals, Kindle unlimited, and of course, libraries! You can record films and shows so easily from TV now using a set top box.

At the end of the day, when I stopped stealing things and bought them, I thought I had been saving £thousands, it turned out I only spend about £10 a month on films and books because I just bargain hunt. Of course I don't get to read and watch everything right now like I used to, I have to wait a bit, but that's not such a big deal when you get used to it.
 
Last edited:
I think it's very important to make a distinction between theft and piracy. Contrary to popular belief, piracy is NOT the same thing as theft. Theft results in a gain for the thief and a loss for the victim. Piracy results in a gain for the pirate and NO loss for the victim (I would wager that far less than 1% of pirates, upon not being able to pirate, will buy said media).

This doesn't make piracy legal or moral, but it's important that the distinction be made, since the consequences differ.



I think that if it ever came to a place where piracy is so rampant that artists are unable to make enough sales to live, the model would simply change. In fact, we might be close to changing the model already. A lot of people, especially cartoonists, make a living while giving away their work for free (Howard Tayler, for example). With the rise of Patreon, Kickstarter et al, this becomes a distinct possibility. Where artists are paid by people who want to see them produce more art, and who gladly contribute to the production thereof.

If the reader/listeners/etc. make the connection that art will stop coming once the artist isn't getting paid, I'm pretty sure they would step in as much as they can.

Note that this can only work for piracy and not for theft. Since the victim of piracy does not lose money when something is pirated, the patrons will keep him creating while the people pirating the media will not drive him into debt.

This might not be the solution, but the point is that rampant piracy will not result in loss of artists, but rather a paradigm shift.

The assertion in that last paragraph is speculative and conclusory. There is no credible evidence that supports that line of thinking.

As for the assertion that there isn't harm to the victim you are incorrect. First, pirating harms the victim's right of controlling how their work is distributed. This is a trespass upon one's intellectual property rights. Second, even if most pirates wouldn't have bought the book doesn't mean there isn't harm because at least some pirates would have bought the book but for being able to pirate it. That is a loss to one's right to payment. So this is clearly a theft.
 

La Volpe

Sage
The assertion in that last paragraph is speculative and conclusory. There is no credible evidence that supports that line of thinking.

Ah, yes, apologies. I meant the last line simply as my opinion of the matter, not a factual statement.

As for the assertion that there isn't harm to the victim you are incorrect. First, pirating harms the victim's right of controlling how their work is distributed. This is a trespass upon one's intellectual property rights. Second, even if most pirates wouldn't have bought the book doesn't mean there isn't harm because at least some pirates would have bought the book but for being able to pirate it. That is a loss to one's right to payment. So this is clearly a theft.

I see what you're getting at. Perhaps I should expand my statement of no loss to the victim.

Again, I am not saying that piracy is moral or legal; I'm saying that it is not the same thing as theft.

If you have a physical item that is stolen, you are directly losing a financial asset. You've put money into that particular item, so it represents a certain amount of money (not the sale price, but the cost price). So if someone steals this item, you are losing money equal to the cost price of the item.

If you have a digital item that is pirated, you are not directly losing a financial asset. You've put money into making the 'original', while the item that the pirate is stealing is a 'copy' that does not cost you anything to produce. I.e. the cost price of the copy is zero (not the sale price). So if someone copies from the original, you are not losing money directly.

What you are losing is potential money. You have no way of knowing whether or not you've lost a sale when someone pirates a book. Perhaps there are more people out there who would buy something if they cannot pirate it, but it would probably still be in the minority. So most of the copies aren't even costing you potential money.

The other thing you mentioned is the right to how their work is distributed. But this is clearly different from theft, isn't it? It seems like a whole different discussion.

As a final note, apply your second paragraph to a situation where Bob borrows a book from Fred. Bob is now taking away the author's right of controlling how the work is distributed. And let's say Bob is a big fan of the author. If he hadn't been able to borrow the book, he would have bought it. But Fred happily lends it to him, so he doesn't. So that is a loss to the author's right to payment.

Does this make Bob a pirate (or a thief), and therefore liable to be persecuted and/or prosecuted?
 
Ah, yes, apologies. I meant the last line simply as my opinion of the matter, not a factual statement.



I see what you're getting at. Perhaps I should expand my statement of no loss to the victim.

Again, I am not saying that piracy is moral or legal; I'm saying that it is not the same thing as theft.

If you have a physical item that is stolen, you are directly losing a financial asset. You've put money into that particular item, so it represents a certain amount of money (not the sale price, but the cost price). So if someone steals this item, you are losing money equal to the cost price of the item.

If you have a digital item that is pirated, you are not directly losing a financial asset. You've put money into making the 'original', while the item that the pirate is stealing is a 'copy' that does not cost you anything to produce. I.e. the cost price of the copy is zero (not the sale price). So if someone copies from the original, you are not losing money directly.

What you are losing is potential money. You have no way of knowing whether or not you've lost a sale when someone pirates a book. Perhaps there are more people out there who would buy something if they cannot pirate it, but it would probably still be in the minority. So most of the copies aren't even costing you potential money.

The other thing you mentioned is the right to how their work is distributed. But this is clearly different from theft, isn't it? It seems like a whole different discussion.

As a final note, apply your second paragraph to a situation where Bob borrows a book from Fred. Bob is now taking away the author's right of controlling how the work is distributed. And let's say Bob is a big fan of the author. If he hadn't been able to borrow the book, he would have bought it. But Fred happily lends it to him, so he doesn't. So that is a loss to the author's right to payment.

Does this make Bob a pirate (or a thief), and therefore liable to be persecuted and/or prosecuted?

You seem to basing loss on cost. But that doesn't really work because one can steal something acquired for free.

As for the example at the end, that turns on the question of what can be done with a "copy." A lawfully obtained copy can be distributed freely. But here's the primary difference between physical and digital that breaks down the analogy. When there is a physical copy that can generally only be read by one person at a time. And can only be given to a fairly limited number of people before the book becomes readable. However, with a digital copy, that can be distributed to an unlimited number of people for an unlimited duration. The potential for harm is much greater. This is why distribution of a digital copy is theft, perhaps not under the common law definition, but the potential to harm is so great that it should be treated as a theft. Certainly not by the same standards as theft of personal property, but as a theft of intellectual property.
 

Heliotrope

Staff
Article Team
Regarding ^^^ this is actually true. I'm not sure if anyone else notices it, I feel like I'm the only one, but, for example, Margaret Attwood had a book come out years ago called The Blind Assassin, which had a substory about an assassin who was, yep, blind, on purpose. The group of assassins made their followers go blind as a way of heightening their other senses and so they could work better in the dark.

I was also reading another book on British History called Sarum, and in this book one of the Lords had a daughter who had caught a skin disease which left her totally scared and hideous...

Etc, etc, etc... the list goes on.
 
Top