- I'm sending a message to publishers that physical books are in demand (not the case)
- I have to deal with the physical book (giving it away to a charity shop is probably the solution, but it's still hassle)
- It doesn't solve the problem - publishers still think everything is good. Only by depriving the publishers of revenue until they start respecting their customers can we solve this.
And I think my attitude is a lot less entitled than the publisher's. If I pay for something, I should own it, not have it subject to the publisher's whims. The attitude that they can disrespect their customers and keep control of the book even after it has been purchased is more than entitled. It should be illegal.
If a store’s prices are too high, do you feel entitled to shoplift because it sends them a message?
The world operates on contracts, and we are all free to decline to do business with companies we dislike or who ask more than we think their product is worth.
Agree to terms or don’t, but I have a hard time seeing “I’m going to take what they’re offering but not pay what they’re asking” as some kind of noble stand.
> If a store’s prices are too high, do you feel entitled to shoplift because it sends them a message?
Digital assets cannot be compared to physical goods. A physical good that is shoplifted not only misses out on the sale, but must be restocked at the shop’s expense in order to capture the next sale. Digital piracy does not create any additional burden to a business’s expenses. This will never be a valid line of logic.
> If a store’s prices are too high, do you feel entitled to shoplift because it sends them a message?
That's not a great comparison. The problem in this instance isn't a high price, it's a lack of access. If they offered ebooks drm free with a X% unlock fee or something then you'd have a point.
> Why? I was told that using the product without paying for it was a righteous form of protest against outrageous terms.
That has nothing to do with it being a good or bad analogy.
> How would that not apply to shoplifting because the price is too high or the return policy too short or whatever?
What is "that" in this statement? I'm not saying the word "theft" isn't valid, I'm saying the circumstances are different enough that equating the two is a poor basis to reason from.
Shoplifting removes an item from the store's posession and is theft. Copying an ebook doesn't remove any copies the publisher has, which is why it's not theft.
Are you ok with me taking nude pictures of your family and than maybe also make them available for everyone else? It wouldn't be a theft, because you would still have originals.
The point isn't "it's ok", the point is "it's different", so drawing a line between the two is pointless. The nuances of copyright and IP in general don't apply to a bottle of Sprite on the shelf of a 7Eleven.
It's fine if you think what they are doing is wrong. The government shares your opinion.
Additionally, this argument here is even worse, because the laws you'd be violating in this instance have nothing to do with IP or theft, but rather privacy.
It's not theft, but I doubt people would be ok with that for other reasons. Depending on the laws there might be criminal charges for doing so, or a civil suit.
I am kinda doing both. There are books I want to own. Some I own in both formats.
There may be a reduction and I am kinda starting to warm up to my reader's ability to add multiple bookmarks to quotable quotes/interesting concepts/neat scripts, but I am not sure parent is right.
Maybe it depends on locale? If anyone has good data on that, it is likely to be Amazon.
Strictly speaking, there's nothing stopping anyone from making a website listing authors of books and how to pay them. And strictly speaking, there's nothing stopping pirate sites from taking said website and embedding the relevant author donation info next to a torrent/DL of the book they wrote.
Publishers wouldn't be able to take down the list website, as it's perfectly legal to send authors money. Publishers wouldn't be able to take down the pirate sites either, because they've already been trying for decades and can't win the whack-a-mole.
I like Peter Watts' approach with Blindsight. He directly provides a variety of DRM-free (including plain old HTML!) versions of it and has licensed it under Creative Commons, and he accepts donations to the "Niblet Memorial Kibble Fund": https://rifters.com/real/Blindsight.htm
I had thought he decided to distribute this way specifically as a response to how much publishers kept from commercial sales, but I can't seem to dredge up a source confirming that at the moment.
I mean it doesn't sound like you are doing anything to do what you say you would like to do though?
Generally if I say I would like to do something but I can't be bothered it's because I don't actually care about it at all and I'm just saying that as part of my complicated get away routine.
I believe what you probably really mean is you would be ok with rewarding the authors if it was convenient and met your requirements. Then you wouldn't pirate and the author would be paid as part of your purchasing in the way you wanted.
on edit: sorry, I see it wasn't you that made the original comment, and you were just pointing it out.
" I'm sending a message to publishers that physical books are in demand (not the case)"
Bullshit. While I agree with your point of view otherwise, this attitude is indefensible. To validate your "piracy," you have the simple option of paying for the physical book in order to provide the author at least a pittance. But your objection to that is that you might imply demand for physical books? Are you fucking kidding? Supporting physical books is A PUBLIC SERVICE. Because the fact is that many people DO prefer physical books, for the very reasons that you're railing against. They can't be taken away. If people don't demand them, they will disappear and we'll all be subject to yet another rental scam. That includes YOU.
WTF dude. You lost a lot of us right there, and need to re-think your value system.
Authors either need to sell something people want or get pirated.
It seems very obvious there is no moral or ethical justification for copyright/DRM or any other way of giving control over the replication of information. The author has at best only a legal right to money, and often bad law needs to be fought with civil disobedience (which is perfectly morally justifiable).
If an author/creator wants to get paid by people who disagree with DRM and the "licensing" of books/content they need to offer something for the money that those people want, or accept and attract donations.
Exactly. I hate it when people pretend the question is not on the table. The author+publisher chimaera has made a conscious decision to give me the finger. Well, fsck you too!
I haven't pirated lately because there's enough great content I can get on reasonable terms. But if I'm put in a situation where the publisher says "my way or the highway", I'm gonna go option C every single time, and feel no remorse whatsoever.
How is piracy not proof that people want the product?
You’re complaining about the terms they offer, not the product. If you’re not clear on that point, it’s no wonder the position is so garbled.
Maybe the author doesn’t want to get paid by people who dislike DRM. That doesn’t give anyone the right to take their content without paying. The principled answer is to refuse to read works from these authors.
The product is the totality of what you pay for, not just the content of the book unless the terms of the transaction give you full rights to the content of the book with no strings.
> Maybe the author doesn’t want to get paid by people who dislike DRM.
That’s fine and as I stated those people shouldn’t / won’t pay them.
> That doesn’t give anyone the right to take their content without paying.
This is exactly what my original comment addressed and you ignored:
I contend that there is absolutely no moral or ethical problem with copying information and no valid moral or ethical basis for giving creators exclusive rights or “ownership” of their creations, when they can be copied without depriving existing holders of the information, or giving anyone special/exclusive rights to profit from information.
I can see an argument for preventing corporate entities from profiting from any information or content they didn’t create, but not when it comes to people’s ability to freely copy and share.
The principled answer is to support and fund people and tools that enable piracy and free information sharing, to the detriment of “rights holders”.
Fair enough. It’s an extremist view but more principled than I gave you credit for.
But it’s also totally disconnected from DRM. Presumably you wouldn’t pay for non-DRM ebooks either, or at least see no “moral or ethical” issue with someone so declines to do so.
And I hope you’re also on the side of AI training as fair use that does not require permission or payment?
The only time I wanted physical books obsolete was in college, because I hated carrying 10lb of textbooks in my bag. I've had a full bookshelf for a decade since then and can't imagine a world where I have thumb through a stupid Kindle menu to see my collection.
I have the reverse. I used to have around 2000 physical books. Every time I moved (and I moved a lot) I'd pack them all up into boxes, move those stupidly heavy boxes, unpack them all. I'd almost never read them. They were just expensive wallpaper. Now I have thousands of ebooks on my hard drive and I carry them all with me when I wander the planet.
That's like saying bicycles are obsolete and we can move on.
Furthermore, it doesn't matter if they're "obsolete." In the case we're replying to, they provide a non-revokable mechanism to reward the author if you decide to "pirate" the E-book. Complaining that it sends a misleading signal that physical books are still in demand is a weak, ridiculous excuse for stealing.
When you "buy" a Kindle book, for instance, you click "Buy It Now" not "Rent It Now". The implication is that you are buying it to own, not renting it. Not a good comparison to renting a car.
Also when renting a car, I pay a fraction of its retail cost. Charging me the whole cost as a clearly marked "sale" and then renting the item to me is what's going on here, and it has to stop.
- I'm sending a message to publishers that physical books are in demand (not the case)
- I have to deal with the physical book (giving it away to a charity shop is probably the solution, but it's still hassle)
- It doesn't solve the problem - publishers still think everything is good. Only by depriving the publishers of revenue until they start respecting their customers can we solve this.
And I think my attitude is a lot less entitled than the publisher's. If I pay for something, I should own it, not have it subject to the publisher's whims. The attitude that they can disrespect their customers and keep control of the book even after it has been purchased is more than entitled. It should be illegal.