# Great Article on Book Piracy



## Russ (Jun 24, 2016)

I wanted to stand up and applaud after I read this article.


Dear Broke Reader: Your Sense of Entitlement is Killing Me | Sarah Madison Fiction


----------



## ThinkerX (Jun 26, 2016)

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 (Jun 26, 2016)

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 (Jun 27, 2016)

skip.knox said:


> 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 (Jun 27, 2016)

skip.knox said:


> 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 (Jun 27, 2016)

ThinkerX said:


> 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 (Jun 27, 2016)

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:


----------



## ThinkerX (Jun 27, 2016)

Russ said:


> 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 (Jun 28, 2016)

ThinkerX said:


> 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.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Jun 28, 2016)

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 (Jun 28, 2016)

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 (Jun 28, 2016)

skip.knox said:


> 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 (Jun 29, 2016)

Russ said:


> 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 (Jun 29, 2016)

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 Â£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 Â£thousands, it turned out I only spend about Â£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.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Jun 29, 2016)

La Volpe said:


> 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 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 (Jun 30, 2016)

Brian Scott Allen said:


> 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?


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Jun 30, 2016)

La Volpe said:


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



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.


----------



## skip.knox (Jun 30, 2016)

Gee, Russ, all property is theft, didn't you know?


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Jun 30, 2016)

I think we all know who the biggest pirate in the world is. Martin, he even stole Tolkien's R.R.

Source:


----------



## Heliotrope (Jun 30, 2016)

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.


----------



## La Volpe (Jun 30, 2016)

Brian Scott Allen said:


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



If you got the item for free, it still has an intrinsic value, even if it's just the materials it's made of, or a personal or sentimental value. Ergo, when it's stolen, you lose either the monetary value of what it was worth (say, a toaster that was gifted to you), or you lose the item that you held dear (say, you late grandfather's handkerchief).

But I can't imagine you'd be angry if someone brought a duplicator and copied your gift toaster. You'd still have the original. Ergo, the loss, whether it be financial or sentimental et al, is still the issue.

So yes, you can steal a fallen leaf from someone's yard, but could that really be regarded in the same light as stealing a lawnmower?



> 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.



Let's run this scenario with Bob and Fred again. Fred buys an ebook. He reads the ebook, and enjoys it so much that he recommends the book to Bob. So he copies the ebook file and emails it to Bob. Bob reads the book (that Fred is no longer reading). Let's add James here too. Bob finishes the book, and emails it to James. James reads it (while neither Bob or Fred is reading it). After that, it is not copied again.

So following your assertions, none of the three did any pirating? Or are you saying that lending (or giving) a book to a friend is like piracy, but is excusable?




> 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.



I want to agree, but the way you're saying this doesn't sit right. You say that piracy should be treated as theft, and then directly after that, you say that it should be treated by different standards.

I don't think we should be lumping theft and piracy together. They are different things with different consequences.




Brian Scott Allen said:


> I think we all know who the biggest pirate in the world is. Martin, he even stole Tolkien's R.R.
> 
> Source:
> -snip-



That was hilarious.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Jun 30, 2016)

La Volpe said:


> If you got the item for free, it still has an intrinsic value, even if it's just the materials it's made of, or a personal or sentimental value. Ergo, when it's stolen, you lose either the monetary value of what it was worth (say, a toaster that was gifted to you), or you lose the item that you held dear (say, you late grandfather's handkerchief).
> 
> But I can't imagine you'd be angry if someone brought a duplicator and copied your gift toaster. You'd still have the original. Ergo, the loss, whether it be financial or sentimental et al, is still the issue.



Would I be mad? No, but the rights involved are different. Taking of my physical thing is something from copying it. My right is not involved, the maker of the toaster right is another story. If I was a toaster maker and I figured out some guy was copying my toasters I would be upset and that would be at the very least a tort if not a crime. Although what crime I don't rightly know. Certainly violation of various patents and copyright laws, which are or can be criminal offenses.



La Volpe said:


> Let's run this scenario with Bob and Fred again. Fred buys an ebook. He reads the ebook, and enjoys it so much that he recommends the book to Bob. So he copies the ebook file and emails it to Bob. Bob reads the book (that Fred is no longer reading). Let's add James here too. Bob finishes the book, and emails it to James. James reads it (while neither Bob or Fred is reading it). After that, it is not copied again.
> 
> So following your assertions, none of the three did any pirating? Or are you saying that lending (or giving) a book to a friend is like piracy, but is excusable?



I'm saying it is excusable because of the various reasons that differentiate the situations. Loaning a physical book is limited in duration and intensity. Making a copy and giving it to a friend is much closer to piracy, but so minimal that I personally wouldn't do much about it. Still though, it is wrong since now there are two things out there instead of one, and I personally wouldn't do it, but that is more of a moral thing for me. But those two situations are orders of magnitude different from making a copy and uploading it to a pirating site where a potentially unlimited number of people, those who would and would not have bought the book, can come on and get the book for free.



La Volpe said:


> I don't think we should be lumping theft and piracy together. They are different things with different consequences.



There are many different kinds of theft. Larceny, embezzlement, robbery, larceny by trick, false pretenses, forgery, and on and on it goes. Each one is judged by a different standard. Often turning on something as minuscule as whether title was transferred or mere possession. The common similarity is that someone has a loss of some kind, either in possession of a tangible object (things like a computer or a bike or a car or gasoline) or of some loss of actual money. Piracy, harms two interests 1) the interest to control how copies of your work are distributed through legal means. 2) monetary loss because at least some person would have bought the book but for being able to pirate it. This is why I say theft of intellectual property, which piracy is, needs to be controlled by some different but analogous standards to theft of tangible personal property. So we agree that piracy is not theft in the sense that it is stealing personal tangible property. But, it is theft of intellectual property, which is just as wrong.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Jun 30, 2016)

La Volpe said:


> That was hilarious.



I love ERB. One of my favorites is Shakespeare v. Dr. Seuss. Julia Childs v. Gordon Ramsey is fantastic. And James Bond v Austin Powers is great.


----------



## La Volpe (Jul 1, 2016)

Brian Scott Allen said:


> Would I be mad? No, but the rights involved are different. Taking of my physical thing is something from copying it. My right is not involved, the maker of the toaster right is another story. If I was a toaster maker and I figured out some guy was copying my toasters I would be upset and that would be at the very least a tort if not a crime. Although what crime I don't rightly know. Certainly violation of various patents and copyright laws, which are or can be criminal offenses.



Fair point, though I only brought up the toaster duplication to show that stealing something the victim got for free is different than pirating (i.e. copying) something the victim got for free. Swap the toaster in my example with the grandfather's handkerchief, and we have the same point without the patent issues.

Also, I can't even imagine what a copyright and patent nightmare it would be if duplicators became a common thing (and we might not even be that far off, what with 3D printers and all).



> I'm saying it is excusable because of the various reasons that differentiate the situations. Loaning a physical book is limited in duration and intensity.



So one can excuse piracy when it is limited in duration and intensity? It becomes a slippery slope when a person can excuse some piracy but not others. Then I might ask, is it okay to excuse a person who copies a piece of media only once, and never again?



> Making a copy and giving it to a friend is much closer to piracy, but so minimal that I personally wouldn't do much about it. Still though, it is wrong since now there are two things out there instead of one, and I personally wouldn't do it, but that is more of a moral thing for me.



If I understand correctly, you're saying that the problem is only serious when the items/media are duplicated? But the same end result happens, whether or there is more than one item, or one item is passed around: people are consuming the media without paying for it.



> But those two situations are orders of magnitude different from making a copy and uploading it to a pirating site where a potentially unlimited number of people, those who would and would not have bought the book, can come on and get the book for free.



The one difference, as you mentioned above, is intensity. Or rather, the _potential_ for intensity. If the situation happens like my example with Fred, Bob and James, then the intensity is not more than that of a loaned book. So can we really define piracy by the _potential_ for the intensity that would make it worse than book loaning?

If we do, then we're essentially punishing some people for an act that they're not committing (Fred, Bob and James), while letting others doing the exact same thing (loaning a book) off the hook.

Also, some of the pirates would have bought the book otherwise, but others wouldn't have. So now we're also pinning the actual loss (the people who would have bought the book, but instead pirated it) on both groups.



> There are many different kinds of theft. Larceny, embezzlement, robbery, larceny by trick, false pretenses, forgery, and on and on it goes. Each one is judged by a different standard. Often turning on something as minuscule as whether title was transferred or mere possession.



I think we agree on this part, and we're only butting heads on semantics. For me, theft is not the same as robbery, for example. There is a degree of difference between the two that make it impossible for me to classify them as the same thing.



> The common similarity is that someone has a loss of some kind, either in possession of a tangible object (things like a computer or a bike or a car or gasoline) or of some loss of actual money. Piracy, harms two interests 1) the interest to control how copies of your work are distributed through legal means. 2) monetary loss because at least some person would have bought the book but for being able to pirate it.



Your definition of loss seems too wide to me. If you cast the net too wide, you risk including most every crime. E.g. a murderer would be classified as a thief because he "stole" the victim's life, or "stole" the victim from the loved ones. And we can't classify a thief and a murderer under the same name, because their crimes are not the same, and the consequences of those crimes are not the same.



> This is why I say theft of intellectual property, which piracy is, needs to be controlled by some different but analogous standards to theft of tangible personal property. So we agree that piracy is not theft in the sense that it is stealing personal tangible property. But, it is theft of intellectual property, which is just as wrong.



I agree that piracy needs to be controlled. I'm saying that it can't just be lumped as theft and treated as such (which I think we both agree on). It is a complicated issue that needs to be carefully studied and understood.

The way I feel about piracy is the same way I feel about salami slicing (not cutting up meat, but rather the crime of stealing little bits of money, say 1 cent, from millions of people). I struggle to come up with a proper judgement on it because of its nature. One person doing it will do little to no harm. But the moment we stop condemning it, a lot of people will start doing it, which creates a massive issue. So the harm, I think, lies in the numbers of people doing it.

Ergo, I have no idea how to judge something like that, since if I were to judge it by the potential intensity it could have, I would be judging people who are not creating that intensity, or who are only a part of the massive whole. On their own, each person is not doing harm (or much harm), so I find it difficult to condemn the individual.

-----



> I love ERB. One of my favorites is Shakespeare v. Dr. Seuss. Julia Childs v. Gordon Ramsey is fantastic. And James Bond v Austin Powers is great.



Ha! I'll definitely have to go listen to those.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Jul 2, 2016)

When this discussion opened, and I read the original article, I had a single opinion on the matter: if someone copies and distributes someone else's book, it's wrong. Whether they do it for "art should be free" reasons or not. I mean, to me, an author has the right to decide unilaterally, whether their work is free or should be bought. 

But the thing about book borrowing has brought up a subject we talked about years ago on this forum. Used books. Someone was talking about used books deserving royalties be paid to the writers. Hm...well, I used to frequent used bookstores in my small town in Missouri. A lot. It's the only place I bought books, really. When I lived in Wisconsin, I bought tons of books from a thrift store. More than I could ever read. And no author got paid for those books I bought for $.25 sometimes, but mostly $1. Anyways, so when I went to the used bookstore, they paid 1/4 cover price for used books, and only charged 1/2 cover price for you to buy used books. It was awesome!!! I got paid MORE for my used books than I paid for them from the thrift store, and then I got new (used) books, cheap! But that whole time, for years, I never actually paid an author. I never thought of that. I wasn't stealing books, but I wasn't supporting my favorite writers, either, looking back. 

Thanks for this whole discussion. It's really eye-opening. I still buy most of my books in paperback, used, on Amazon, so I guess I'm still not paying authors...sort of shitty of me. For years I had no qualms about watching PPV fights for free online, because it wasn't worth the money to view them. I watched them because I really felt like the fighters didn't see the PPV money anyways, and Dana White didn't need to get any richer off the backs of his fighters.  Sorry, fighters. I like you. I hate him. 

Anyways, but I bought a photograph of a sunset from a photographer. It was $45. To some folks, that probably seems an incredible waste. I could have gone online, found a photo I liked in public domain, printed it, and framed it. But I was supporting someone I liked, someone I wanted to support. So I paid him, and the photo is something special to me. I didn't have to go to Yellowstone to take it, it has HIS emotion and care in it. But I could have gotten it for free, if I wanted to.

With used books, I bought them first because I was a young person and didn't have a ton of money. Later, I suppose I kept doing it because I sort of like the crap shoot of seeing what's in the thrift store. Bear with me here, because I promise it makes sense. When I go to a store, I don't read inside the books at all. I just knock about 5-10 into my cart, based on the cover, and then I pay for them. Later, when I'm bored, I open one of my "grab bag" finds, and see if I like it. If I do, I read it and keep it. If I don't, I donate it back to the thrift store. And the main reason I do that, is because I don't have to sift through anything and make decisions. That probably sounds weird. All I'm saying, is that the shelves are full of best-sellers. There's probably some garbage, too, but mostly, I find good books that other people just don't keep forever on shelves like my dad does. So I get to find them all in one place, rather than have to pick things for myself on bookshelves at B&N. Maybe it's because that's how I've always read. When I wanted a book, I'd go to my dad's shelves, and pick something to read. I never actually decided what I wanted on my own. Now that I'm old...I guess I'm still letting people who donate books show me what they liked. 

This has turned into an interesting look at my own psychology. I'm really moved by this new understanding of how I choose what to read. You know...this might have been what led me to be a writer. I wanted something different...so I wrote it. Wow.


----------



## Russ (Jul 3, 2016)

I am getting a lot out of the discussion in this thread.

I look at it on kind of two levels.  On an abstract level, intellectual property is just that, property, and as we move into the digital age more and more it is becoming more important than ever for people's livelihood.  It is a hard mental shift to make, it is easy to think of a "thing" (a chair, or a car) as being property and thus worthy of protection but it is equally important to think about how ideas or expressions of ideas have commercial value and need to be respected.  You can also think of it as reducing the scarcity of an item can lower or destroy it's value.

On a practical level, with used books in particular the "harm" appears to be pretty small and not a concern of any of the authors I have jawed about this subject with.  With a used book, the author has gotten their $2 or whatever out of it and it might be passed along, on average, to a couple or three people, in a very inefficient way.  Some harm, maybe, but not much.  Now with piracy, you might sell one book and get your three bucks and the next thing you know thousands of copies are being distributed, potentially all over the world completely outside of your control.  The magnitude of the individual act is so much larger and potentially so much more destructive.

I really like the practical moral dimension CM imports into the argument.  I am at a place in my life where I can and do think about the moral and larger implications of my actions.  I am quite lucky to be in such a position.  So I try to make purchasing/reading choices keeping the authors/creators in mind to be fair to them, at least as much to be fair to me.

For instance, if I like a writer and I want to read their work I will almost always pre-order a copy of their next book, usually in hardcover, even if the writer is a friend of mine and I know they are going to give me a copy.  Why?  Because I support what they do and I feel that I should do whatever I can to contribute to their success if I want them to be able to keep doing what they are doing.  I often feel grateful that person X is out there writing such amazing stuff for me to enjoy and I want to pay them back in a fair way for the enjoyment they are giving me.

Now many people are not in a position to act that way, but I think it only fair that you consider how your actions impact on other people before you take them.


----------



## psychotick (Jul 7, 2016)

Hi,

I agree with the writer - and on a very practical level. About six months ago I ran across a site that was giving away my books - specifically The Arcanist - happily, and in one month they'd managed to give away 1600 copies of it. (That's about five grand to me in one month.) Now I know most of those people would not have bought my book. But some of them might have if they liked it. Or they might have bought someone else's book, and pirates of other books might have bought mine in turn. The point is that those who might have bought it wouldn't simply because they could get it for free - so why should they pay?!

Now here's the thing. I'm a rich author right? Not hardly. I work hard at my writing and following a car crash and injury I no longer have another income. I do a lot better than most in earning from my writing but still am nowhere near as affluent as I once was. So the argument that writers can afford it is crap for me as it is in most cases.

The people who support piracy often think of themselves as some sort of Robin Hood. The truth is the opposite. They are stealing from those who make damned little money - certainly less than average - and giving it to those who have the money to buy the products but would rather spend it on something else. These pirates are the Sherriffs of Nottingham!

Next - art should be free. Bullshit! Maybe you can argue that Picasso etc is too dear, but what you're actually arguing is that artists shouldn't be able to make a living from their work. So pick your favourite artist, writer, musician, actor etc etc, and try sending them a letter explaining to them how they should do their art for free and have a "real job" fortheir income. Then ask them how many books they'll be writing. concerts they'll be giving, films they'll be making. The answer is of course damned few. If I work all day to make money, I simply don't have time to write. Payment for what I write is how I survive.

The poor readers can't afford my works?! Really?! I price competatively. You can get most of my ebooks for the price of a cup of coffee. Paper costs more of course. But you can also go to your library or join Kindle Unlimited and save more money. So how many people do you imagine are actually out there who can't afford my books? Damned few! And lets be honest, those people who steal my books aren't exactly stealing bread because they're starving. Chances are they have enough money to have a computer or ereader - unless they stole them too - and some form of internet connection. The reality is that they aren't pirating because they're hard up - they simply don't want to pay.

And yes, piracy is theft. I've bought two pirated dvd programs in my entire life, and the only reason I did it was because the shows were old and weren't available any other way and I desperately wanted to see them. I'm not proud of it. When the shows finally did come out on dvd, I bought them and threw my pirated versions away. Money's tight, but no matter what I am not a thief.

Cheers, Greg.


----------

