Book piracy: two perspectives

[charmingmonstrs]

The Millions interviews a book pirate:
Perhaps if readers were more confident that the majority of the money went to the author, people would feel more guilty about depriving the author of payment. I think most of the filesharing community feels that the record industry is a vestigal organ that will slowly fall off and die I dont know to what

Comments

[marthaness]

Wow, I've got to second the library suggestion. >:[[ Often people are shocked by the amount of free resources my library offers when I begin explaining it to them. I mean besides the basic common-sense things like BOOKS.

[lightcastle]

So a devil's advocate question.

What is the difference between me reading it on a pirated electronic copy and reading it on a library loan?

On a more serious note, the business model is mostly dead. Money was being made by controlling distribution, and distribution can no longer be controlled. How to make a new business model that pays people for their writing (or music) is the question.

[marthaness]

The library purchased the material and has the permission of publishing houses to loan it to library patrons, so I think that's better than reading a pirated electronic copy (from which no financial benefit goes to the originators of the material).

Maybe I'm partial to libraries because I work in one. But I'm also one of those curmudgeons who doesn't steal download anything, so that can't help my sympathies towards book pirates.

[lightcastle]

I'm terribly fond of libraries myself. (and librarians, who in my experience are quite awesome)

The question really is one of distribution, however. I'm not sure how we're going to get around the instant copying problem. Some artists are in better situations than others, of course. (Musicians, who can still do live performances.)

But yeah, this is going to be a problem. I mean, copyright law was originally an attempt to balance this idea that everyone should have access to ideas with paying the people who come up with them. We just need to find a new balance (which is easier said than done).

[hermdelica]

I just wanted to point out (without being confrontational) that while musicians do have the advantage of being able to play live, each live show incurs its own costs - rehearsal space rental for instance. And with what people are willing to pay in cover these days, it can end up being just another way to lose money.

[lightcastle]

Oh, I know (having dated musicians and having had my sister release two albums).

But that is an infrastructure that exists as compared to say "touring around doing readings" for authors. (Which I've seen proposed as the way authors are supposed to make money in the future.)

[marthaness]

Until people realize that art is worth paying for, I think most copyright laws passed are really just band-aids.

[lightcastle]

Well, then that's the free market solution. Art is only worth it if someone will pay for it.

[twiin]

Right, but the library already has the book and paid for it. If the library has my book, what tangible or functional difference is there to me if you download it, vs you taking it out from the library?

[twiin]

...or to rephrase, how is taking a book out from a library functionally different from downloading a book, aside from the fact that by downloading a book you're keeping the library copy available for other readers?

[marthaness]

But no matter how many people borrow the book from a library, that doesn't change the fact that the library does pay for that book initially-- unlike book pirates who steal the book and then distribute it for free.

[twiin]

While that is true, it doesn't answer my question. If your library has my book, what measurable difference is there to me if you download it vs you taking it out from your library?

[marthaness]

I say paying for the book once is better than paying for it never.

[twiin]

While that is also true, it still doesn't answer the question.

If you're going to point to two behaviours -- checking out a book vs downloading a book instead -- and say that one of them is 'better' than the other, presumably there should be some measurable and virtuous difference between the two activities.

If the library has purchased my book, and someone decides to download it instead of taking the bus to go check it out, what is the measurable difference that makes that choice the less-moral choice?

[marthaness]

There is a measurable financial difference: when a person borrows a book from the library, they're getting the book from a source that paid for that book. Some amount of that money goes to the originators of the book. Plus, when the book wears out from too many loans, the library purchases a replacement copy of said book, once again to the the originators' benefit.

As for the moral difference, stealing is stealing-- no matter how vociferous the downloader's rationalizations are. I do believe art is worth money and an artist should get financial compensation for his hard work and passion.

I don't think downloaders are evil, but when people download books from pirating sites, no one benefits except the downloaders themselves. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that sounds selfish.

Btw I'm totally ready for you to say I STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION lol

[twiin]

Right, but that library copy has already been paid for - it has been paid for regardless of if someone takes it out or downloads it.

(...and someone downloading my book is copyright infringement, not theft. It would be theft if they were selling downloads of my book.)