Hines: Wrong on Piracy, Wrong on Batman
The title is a reference to this Shortpacked strip, and probably made no sense to anyone else. But it amused me, so I kept it.
I received a great deal of feedback on last week’s post about book piracy. My thanks to everyone who jumped into the discussion. While I still believe much of what I wrote to be true, I also find that some of my assumptions were either overly broad or flat-out wrong.
Legality: I was going to start out by saying at least we can all agree that downloading copyrighted books without permission is illegal, right? But maybe not. While it’s illegal under U.S. law, Corinne Duyvis was kind enough to translate copyright law in the Netherlands, which gives broader allowance to make copies for home use. The uploading/file-sharing part appears to be illegal, and you can only download small portions of books … except for “works of which you can reasonably assume that no new copies will be sold to third parties in whichever form possible.”
In other words, downloading out-of-print (which is not the same as out of copyright) books in the Netherlands is currently legal if those books don’t look like they’ll be coming back into print. Thus blowing away my “simple and obvious” assumption. Oops.
Americentrism: Another friend messaged me privately to ask who my audience was for my piracy post, which was a tactful way of pointing out that I seemed to be assuming everyone downloading illegally had convenient, cheap, legal alternatives.
I started up a very informal survey in the comments. Take a book that costs $7.99 in the U.S., or $8.99 in Canada. In Australia, that same book might sell for about $20. Another commenter said SF/F paperbacks in Ireland generally run about 25 Euro, or roughly $35 U.S. And these aren’t generally considered to be poor or third world nations.
Does the fact that something is expensive mean it’s okay to steal it? No … but it makes me less willing to level an across-the-board charge of dickishness. If you’re sitting at home with your high-end computer and smartphone and are downloading because you’re too lazy to go to a nearby library or too cheap to shell out $8 to buy the damn book, then the charge stands. If you’re living in Malaysia and a book costs as much as eight meals? Maybe not…
Marina on Dreamwidth takes this a step further, asking “I’d like to see how many of these authors who complain about their books being ‘pirated’ would still have the libraries they do if every paperback cost them 25$+ and took weeks to acquire.” She goes on to say, “the places where ebook … ~piracy~ is most widespread are not developed, Anglophone countries, and there are reasons for that.”
I wish I had a source for that last claim. I follow the logic of why readers in less developed countries might be more likely to download books and other media, but I’m not sure I accept the claim that piracy is most widespread in those countries. It could be — I don’t know. I just want more info and haven’t yet been able to find it.
The publishing industry has problems to address, no argument there. A number of people expressed frustration at the way regional limitations prevent them from being able to legally buy e-books. While I somewhat understand the basis for regional sales/publishing restrictions, I also recognize how frustrating it is that someone from the U.S. can click and buy an e-book in 30 seconds, while someone in another country can go to the exact same website, click the exact same links, and be denied.
Deconstructing the Western Foundation of Intellectual Copyright Law: Colorblue has another good post which points out various abuses of copyright law, and goes on to challenge the entire western foundation and assumptions behind intellectual property. As an author currently working within that intellectual property system, this was a challenging read, one I’m still processing.
Links: Tobias Buckell has a long, thoughtful piracy post today. He does a nice job of addressing various arguments for and against piracy, and I’m hard-pressed to argue with most of his conclusions. In addition, Charles Tan and Fantasyecho both did link roundups of the discussion, which are worth checking out.
I’m still sorting this out. I do think that for people like me, piracy is pretty much a dick move. But of course, I’m privileged as hell.
Does that mean it’s all right for someone to pirate my books if they’re poor, or if they’re in a country where it’s harder to get books or where books are too expensive? I don’t know. But I’m not convinced they’re doing me much harm, if any, and I’m no longer comfortable with across-the-board condemnation.
Your thoughts?
Scott Raun
January 27, 2011 @ 9:51 am
Have you seen the Thomas Macaulay speeches, from when the Brits were first hammering out copyright? There are copies at http://baen.com/library/palaver4.htm if you haven’t.
The short version – copyright is a monopoly. We grant the short-term monopoly because it actually increases the public good – creators get compensated, so they can continue to live and create. It replaced artist patronage.
I hate the argument. I see both sides of the argument. I want a third solution – I want us to get back to why copyright was created in the first place, and see if we can find a different solution to the problem.
UnravThreads (Was Dwagginz)
January 27, 2011 @ 10:17 am
Your second point reminds me of one visit to the Jobcentre I had (Basically it’s the UK’s unemployment office thing). There was a bloke there complaining to the staff that he wasn’t getting his money because of something that was his own fault, and was going on about how he ‘needed the money’. His phone kept ringing, and I’m pretty damn sure it was an iPhone 4G. Amazing, really.
I think the money issue is often a bit of a joke. Chances are if you’re going to be pirating an eBook or music, then you have a computer, so you really can’t be *that* hard up. Even then, it’s just this entitlement people have – They see something and they want it, so they’ll pirate it. If we were talking loafs of bread, maybe we could understand and sympathise, but we’re talking non-essential things that aren’t needed. There’s thousands of legally free books out there, thousands of legally free tracks. There’s hundreds, if not thousands, of places to buy these items second hand if you’re really that hard up for cash (Or tight fisted).
I think trying to stop piracy is a fool’s errand. It’s existed for hundreds, if not thousands, of years in one form or another, and will likely exist for the same amount of time again. As I said in one of your previous posts, if the publishers really want to try and reclaim some of the money, then incentives need to be given to the purchaser. Should it have to be that way? I’d be lying if I said yes, but I think that’s sadly the way the world works.
Nick Matthews
January 27, 2011 @ 10:21 am
Very interesting post.
While I wasn’t specifically thinking about piracy, the whole not available outside of the US thing kind of bugs me. I was trying to download several public domain science fiction books from the Amazon Kindle Store (HG Wells, Jules Verne, etc), which were available for free in the US, while these particular editions of the books were unavailable in Canada.
While there are other editions of these classic works available in Canada, these particular free versions were out of my reach. Just kind of strange.
Jim C. Hines
January 27, 2011 @ 10:32 am
It’s definitely frustrating. The regional restrictions on e-books is one of the areas that I don’t completely understand, and unfortunately, it’s one of many problems that authors have little power to address. I’m hoping and trusting that publishing will continue to work to fix some of this, but in the meantime, yeah … frustrating indeed.
Jim C. Hines
January 27, 2011 @ 10:34 am
I haven’t seen those, thank you! And yes, understanding the history and the why of copyright is a good thing. I need to do more work in that area myself.
D. Moonfire
January 27, 2011 @ 10:34 am
I would not be surprised if the types of piracy changed based on the two areas. For the US, I could see piracy of books for “try before I buy” or simply a format shift. Where books are outlandishly priced ($30 for a novel? Ouch.), I could see piracy just to get a copy. There would be stealing for the sake of stealing in both cases, but there isn’t a really good breakdown of the types of piracy.
I consider piracy to be part of producing goods. When ebooks weren’t nearly as common, you could still find a text copy of books because someone took the effort to hand-type it in (or use a OCR scanner). That’s been going on for years (I remember seeing some in the 80’s) and we’ve still produce books at a good enough rate that people are able to live off of it. Now, ebooks are probably become more pirated since we have proper files now, but I still consider it part of business. (Most of my beliefs come down to what 2D Boy, Gratuitous Space Battles, and many other indie game writers have ended up as a conclusion.)
In that end, I would find out how to lower the threshold of legitimacy so it becomes easier to get a book legally. Putting ebooks in other countries for half that price might impact piracy rates, but unfortunately, we don’t have any way of identifying the actual piracy rate before making changes like that and still getting useful data out of it. It ends up being intuition and best guessing.
Of course, you are more likely to be pirated if you are a) good, b) famous, c) successful. Obviously, I’m not really in any of those categories so any piracy that goes on doesn’t really cause me trouble.
Anke
January 27, 2011 @ 10:49 am
The really glaring problem I see is that copyright lasts 70 years after the death of the creator. THAT really isn’t about protecting the interests of the creator anymore, but about letting companies milk properties as long as possible.
Jim C. Hines
January 27, 2011 @ 10:51 am
If I die today, do my wife and kids have the right to continue to earn an income based on my work? When should that right end?
D. Moonfire
January 27, 2011 @ 10:55 am
I asked my wife is she would let me limit my copyright to 14 years after I died. That was some years ago and I bring it up as something important to me. And I even told her that if I was successful, she would could lose out on a lot of money.
She said it was okay. Then told me to make enough money while I was living so she didn’t have to worry about it.
Anke
January 27, 2011 @ 10:59 am
Ooooh, I love that Dutch law! I know one miniseries of comics that will never be reprinted ever again because of disagreements between the publisher/creators of the setting, and the creative team of that one series… Or there’s Once More With Footnotes. I mean, HOW can you produce a compilation of a world-bestselling author and let it drop out of print almost immediately?
Fun fact on the general topic of “mis-used” copyright laws: Mein Kampf cannot currently be reprinted in Germany because the State of Bavaria claims copyrights owned by Hitler became their property when his estate was seized.
Anke
January 27, 2011 @ 11:12 am
The minimum would be for any already singed contracts to be honoured.
Suggestion for tops: How about 20 years, that’s “no matter how young the child, they’ll be past the age of majority then”.
Jim C. Hines
January 27, 2011 @ 11:20 am
I like that logic.
Scott Raun
January 27, 2011 @ 11:24 am
I’ll ask the flip side question that Macauley came up with to that one – if you die, and your literary heirs don’t like your work, should they be allowed to keep it out of print for 70 years?
I know a real world case where that’s going to happen. If you want any John M. Ford, pick it up ASAP, from wherever you can. He didn’t make a will, so his literary heirs are either his parents or sibling, and they don’t approve of ‘that sci-fi stuff’. After the current contracts expire, and until they no longer have control, it’s all going to be out of print.
Looked at from society’s point-of-view, which is the greater good? That a small number of people get support, or that society loose access to a body of work for years?
Macauley proposed life or 42 years, whichever was longer. I’d be willing to look at the 42 years number – my opinion is that the income should last long enough for the survivors to become self-supporting, which I would put at about 20 years after death.
Jim C. Hines
January 27, 2011 @ 3:15 pm
Interesting question, and at a minimum, one that emphasizes the need for writers and other creators to prepare a will that covers these issues. (Something I need to do myself!)
Anke
January 27, 2011 @ 3:58 pm
Not that I, not being much of a family person, would have thought of without you asking the question.
Stacy Whitman
January 27, 2011 @ 7:43 pm
Has anyone in all these conversations addressed that most publishers would LOVE to sell the book everywhere, but sometimes agents insist on breaking up territorial rights–sometimes they even already have foreign-rights deals in place. So in *some* instances, publishers can’t legally sell a book in certain territories even if they wanted to. That’s why so many publishers are trying to acquire World Rights nowadays–among other reasons, so that they can sell the e-book in all territories without having to worry about that. It’s not always a publisher’s fault–it’s an ecosystem of breaking up rights, pitting publisher and agent in competition sometimes over who will get a slice of the foreign rights pie (the author always gets a slice, but if the agent sells it the author often gets a bigger piece, of course).
So in all the blaming I’ve seen (not here–other posts saying “why don’t publishers do what the customer wants?”, “you lost a sale!” etc., such as the post on Twitter to the author that started this latest discussion), there are legal problems and other complications that mean that they can’t always do what the customer wants, though they’d love to.
I’d love to see solid numbers on where piracy is biggest, too. I’d wager that China would be a big part of it, given that so much scanlation is done by Chinese manga readers who speak English and much of the world’s counterfeit movies/bags/software/whathaveyou originates there and Russia.
Tweets that mention Jim C. Hines » Hines: Wrong on Piracy, Wrong on Batman -- Topsy.com
January 27, 2011 @ 9:23 pm
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Karen Lord and adrian, Jim C. Hines. Jim C. Hines said: New Post: Hines: Wrong on Piracy, Wrong on Batman http://bit.ly/gf8ONY […]
steve davidson
January 28, 2011 @ 7:56 am
FYI: I’ve been prompted to do more research and thinking on these subjects by yourself, Doctorow, Buckell & etc. and in doing some research I ran into the anglo-centric issues, particularly regarding the first sale doctrine (I’m trying to wrestle a defensible position regarding piracy, used books and related subjects together); in France (and one presumes former colonies sharing the legal system), there is a different approach to the first sale doctrine (which allows used books to be sold without paying the author anything) – but not for books, for art: ‘droit de suite’ mandates a portion of the re-sale of art goes to the artist; here in the US, there is a similar law in California regarding art.
I was kind of pleased (and surprised) to find legal systems that didn’t embrace first sale in its entirety.
Going far-afield from the original subject: I wonder if the recording industry’s honeymoon with new delivery mediums isn’t a response to first sale (perhaps one of the reasons why you have to keep on buying the same album over and over)….
And back on subject (mostly): some European library systems (I believe) pay a fee to authors they stock, compensating the author for the free reads (wholesale vs retail sales) (some try to conflate library’s “free” with piracy’s “free”).
Just some observations.
Anke
January 28, 2011 @ 9:01 am
I wonder how feasible requiring people to pay money for used book sales to authors would be. For shops/online traders who sell them commercially I guess it might make sense, but would it be a) practical and b) justified for people selling a handful of used books on a flea market?
I read up a bit on the fees-from-library-use. In Germany that’s 3-4 euro-cents paid to an organisation that distributes the money they don’t need to pay for their own overhead to authors according to some key.
They also get money for stuff used or usable to copy books and the like – €12,50 per scanner or laser printer, €13,65 per PC – though I guess they share the latter with music and video-oriented organisations.
Interesting, that. And kinda amusing, given that I could count on my fingers how often I have used my scanner for something that was not my own personal work.
steve davidson
January 28, 2011 @ 9:10 am
Oh, I wasn’t addressing feasibility – merely the fact that there are different takes on the subject.
It would be possible to implement something like it as part of an annual blanket fee (inventory on hand times X) that would be pooled and re-distributed in some arcane fashion. Amazon would be paying a lot….
D. Moonfire
January 28, 2011 @ 10:59 am
I would suspect that Amazon would crush any attempts at that. 🙂 And they’ll pay their Lobby Drones enough to ensure it. However, if it was just for organizations that lend, it might be something that could be done but probably would be an uphill climb since most libraries barely survive now. If they had to pay for it, I could easily see most smaller town libraries simply folding up.
I would love to see publishers accept direct money for a specific book and have it trickle down to the author as contractually proper. Kind of like Jim’s previous discussion about why you shouldn’t give money directly to the author (the tip jar), but something that would let someone drop $1-2 dollars for used books they really like. And then, the author would get their y%, the artist their x%, etc.
steve davidson
January 28, 2011 @ 11:18 am
Agreed.
I’ve got a problem with the whole used book thing; I’m looking to pick the brains of someone who is VERY familiar with the publisher-distributor-retailer details (specifically as it relates to returns and credits) – because of late I am getting an awful lot of “used” books that look like they just came out of the shipping box from the printer.
In essence (to lob a grenade in here) I have suspicions that “somehow” not all returns are returned and that those same non-returns are being sold as ‘used’ – similar to the ‘returning the cover for credit’ scam that was taking place in the 70s(?).
(Think about how that affects sales, careers, royalties & etc. if something like that were happening)
Jim C. Hines
January 28, 2011 @ 11:24 am
Steve,
I’m not sure how that would work. Basically, you’re talking about theft. Could be an employee taking books out to be stripped and returned, who then pockets the books and resells them. In that case, both the publisher and the author get paid for those books, though the bookstore gets screwed.
I suppose someone could be intercepting the books earlier in the distribution process, but basically, once the books are shipped, publisher and author are supposed to get paid for all of those books, minus returns. If the books vanish into used bookstores, then there are no returns.
So while it would be scammy, it wouldn’t be hurting authors or royalties.
It’s very possible there are other aspects to the scenario you’re proposing, and I’m always open to hearing from folks who know more about the industry than I do.
Gerry Allen
January 28, 2011 @ 4:06 pm
As a salaryman myself, my earnings end at my termination. This means if I die while still working, my family gets nothing from my work. How come others still retain income after death?
Jim C. Hines
January 28, 2011 @ 4:11 pm
Probably something to do with the fact that people keep buying an author’s books after s/he dies?
D. Moonfire
January 28, 2011 @ 4:13 pm
People will buy the software I wrote long after I’m dead. Actually, I think it is more of matter of Work For Hire verses creating your own work. You don’t own stuff you do For Hire, and that includes most wage slave’s efforts.
Scott Raun
January 28, 2011 @ 11:18 pm
If you own the company that owns the software, your heirs would get money. But you’d be taking a chance on the business tanking and you getting nothing.
It’s a risk vs. reward situation – as work-for-hire, you don’t have any residual rights. That’s the same as the authors of, say, the Star Trek books, or a writer for a magazine or newspaper. In general, they get more up-front in return for nothing afterwards.
The independent writer gets less up-front, but has the possible up-side later on.
Jim C. Hines
January 28, 2011 @ 11:21 pm
I think it basically comes down to ownership. If you own something, don’t you have the right to pass it to your heirs? If I write a Trek book, then contractually, I don’t own that work. I sign it over to Paramount. But for my original work? Those books are mine, with some rights licensed out to publishers.
Scott Raun
January 28, 2011 @ 11:35 pm
I know one way this can happen – and I know it happens for hard-covers.
B&N returns N cases of a novel to the publisher. Publisher is going to pulp them – it’s not worth it to them to store the books. Independent Bookseller says “I can make enough money selling these, and I have storage space that will otherwise sit empty”, and buys them for a small fraction of cover price from the publisher – AIUI, what the recycler would give the publisher, plus shipping, maybe plus a small fee. The publisher gets to treat them as pulped, the bookseller gets to sell them for whatever he can get. Admittedly, the author gets screwed – these are officially “returned” copies, they were supposedly pulped.
Talk to Greg at Dreamhaven Books – he does it for some SF author’s hard-backs. I am told by a local author that he pays them for their signature, so they are getting some compensation from him. If Greg isn’t available, but Alice is, she can talk to you about it too. They’ve been small press publishers and booksellers for … a couple of decades? They’re intimately acquainted with the SF publishing business from start to finish.
Mary
January 31, 2011 @ 10:16 am
First let me say that I admire your writing and your levelheaded position, and I’m about to be honest, so please don’t attack with too much ferocity.
I am a pirate. I don’t think it is theft, and for myself, for the reasons I will explain, I feel absolutely no guilt.
I regularly pirate tv, sometimes film, and occasionally but much more so in the past, music. Most of the tv I pirate is not available yet in this country. Most of the rest is.
Why don’t I think it’s theft? For the same reason I wouldn’t consider a car-duplicating gun theft. (Full disclosure: If you hand me a car duplicator I would use it.) Theft in my eyes (and it is merely a matter of semantics) involves taking something from someone. If I copy something I have not taken anything from anyone. It may be immoral in other ways (for example, copying someone’s work in a capitalist scarcity economy denies them the moral right to profit from their work), but it simply isn’t theft. Neither is vandalism. Neither is corporate espionage that finds out trade secrets. They may be wrong for perfectly valid reasons but they’re still not theft. And calling them ‘theft’ smacks of calling something a ‘serious’ ‘bad’ word to get them onside with fear and moral equivalence where there is none. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcJtk6_6lgs – I can’t preview so I hope that’s right)
Given that I could see it as being immoral in other ways, why do I do it? Because I know, myself, though I could not prove it to you, that I buy more than ever when pirating. I never used to buy music, except the occasional thing I heard on the radio, (which I didn’t listen to often) or at friends’ houses. Then I grabbed a shedload of music over my uni network and my knowledge and taste expanded exponentially and I began buying much more. These days I barely download any at all, and my purchases have dried up.
The only reason I know any anime is due to the relentless efforts of fansubbers, and my piracy has increased my purchases from nothing to numerous.
Ditto for films. Especially foreign films. Take for example ‘Beat’ Takeshi, I’ve got most of his films. I wouldn’t even have heard of them if I hadn’t pirated ‘Brother’. Now I own it, and most of his back catalogue.
TV is an exception, I only ever buy my very favourites, so most of the crap I watch gets screwed. This may make me even less popular than the rest of this post, but I just can’t get worked up about this. If Charlie Sheen can afford to punch one less hooker because I didn’t buy his shitty show I couldn’t give a crap. But I wouldn’t be buying that anyway, so they actually lose nothing. But there’s so much! that I would never have seen and bought without piracy – Arrested Development, Firefly, Middleman (I will buy this the very second I can get a copy in this shitty country) etc etc etc.
So, now I’ve chimed in, in a lengthy way, and bored or infuriated people, and I’m not even sure what my point was. Maybe just that a) I don’t think it’s theft, and though it’s been said several times that it is, I think my position is defensible. Lots of things that hurt people aren’t theft. Copying isn’t theft. b) I felt like giving the perspective of an unrepentant pirate who at least knows for herself that she is not hurting the industry. This speaks to nothing about the collective actions of piracy and the effect that may have on the industry as a whole.
p.s. just in case everyone doesn’t hate me already, I don’t believe in intellectual property. Except as a necessary fantasy.
This is a seperate argument from anything I’ve said above so please try not to conflate them… But in a post scarcity society there will be no capitalism-created need to earn a living, and the only thing that will matter is correct attribution and plagiarism (defined for simplicity here as: claiming you created something someone else created). Beyond that if I write a book about “Harry Potter and the Snake of Snackiness”, JK loses nothing, unless mine is the better book, and then like competing versions of “Robin Hood” or “Aladdin” the most popular or lasting version will live on and the other sink into obscurity. No one starves. This modern fiction that you “own” the “ideas” that you “came up with first”, is rejected as a fantasy necessary for the upkeep of artists in a capitalist system.
I mean, what’s the point of venturing a potentially hated opinion if you don’t keep digging with other opinions? Right?
p.p.s I did not sleep last night. I have no internal quality controls functioning apart from the one going, Warning: You have no internal quality controls functioning – But it’s ok. Everything you say is great. Look! It’s passing all internal quality tests. Relax.
So apologies in advance.
p.p.p.s I have never pirated, nor read, any of your books. I have read some free Cory Doctorow and was not entirely convinced. Other books I’ve downloaded have mostly been out of copywright and I have followed up on authors I liked.
steve davidson
January 31, 2011 @ 10:54 am
ummmm….yah.
So then a publisher that prints pirate copies of a book, for which they pay no advance or royalties is justified in selling their copies because they haven’t taken anything from the author? They just made a “copy”?
Supposed you hand me a “person-duplicator” and I make copies of you. I send them off to work, pocket all of their earnings and let them starve to death. But that’s okay cause their only copies and I didn’t take anything from you.
If I made a copy of whatever it is you do for a living and offered it to your employer for half of what they pay you, and you’re out of a job (competition, you know), would that be okay because I only made a copy and didn’t take anything from you? (I didn’t take anything – your employer took away your job, not me.)
The whole problem with your arguments are that we are living in the now, where a set of real rules and mores and laws do apply RIGHT NOW; shifting the argument to some imagined future may let you feel comfortable with your choices, but they don’t change how your actions are viewed by the majority NOW.
Mary
January 31, 2011 @ 11:40 am
Not bothered how their viewed by the majority, only the facts of the matter:
“So then a publisher that prints pirate copies of a book, for which they pay no advance or royalties is justified in selling their copies because they haven’t taken anything from the author? They just made a “copy”?”
No. But neither have they stolen from him.
“Supposed you hand me a “person-duplicator” and I make copies of you. I send them off to work, pocket all of their earnings and let them starve to death. But that’s okay cause their only copies and I didn’t take anything from you.”
Yes. Not theft from me. Murder of my copies.
“If I made a copy of whatever it is you do for a living and offered it to your employer for half of what they pay you, and you’re out of a job (competition, you know), would that be okay because I only made a copy and didn’t take anything from you? (I didn’t take anything – your employer took away your job, not me.)”
Indeed, still not theft. Almost exactly the same as piracy in a capitalist system (assuming you never buy anything legitimate, which as I said isn’t true at least for me), and falls under this sentence in my post: “It may be immoral in other ways (for example, copying [someone] in a capitalist scarcity economy denies them the moral right to profit from their work)”
“The whole problem with your arguments are that we are living in the now, where a set of real rules and mores and laws do apply RIGHT NOW;”
Nope. Thanks for the reply, but none of the arguments relate to the future except the one right at the end that explicitly says it’s talking about a post-scarcity economy.
Mary
January 31, 2011 @ 11:40 am
Sorry, “they’re”, I mean
Jim C. Hines
January 31, 2011 @ 11:44 am
Mary,
Do you believe that as an author I deserve to be paid for my work?
I’ll link you to http://jimhines.livejournal.com/551156.html?thread=14025716#t14025716 for one lawyer’s debunking of the rationalization that this isn’t theft.
-Jim
steve davidson
January 31, 2011 @ 12:17 pm
Jim,
Mary is trying to shift the debate to safe ground for her, wherein we are all just waiting for the post scarcity-economy to arrive and meanwhile, she’s helping it arrive through judicious application of theft.
Of course if we all live in a Star Trek future, these issues will be moot.
Note to self: We do not live in a Star Trek future.
There are THREE takes on the current situation vis-a-vis IP, copytheft & etc.
1. an individual who scrupulously follows the current enacted law/rules for the country that they are a resident of (as well as those that may apply when the individual occupies other jurisdictions
2. an individual who scrupulously flaunts the currently enacted laws (&c)
3. an individual picks and chooses the subject and degree to which they will follow the enacted law of the….
In all cases, someone can be working to change the current regime, while still observing their chosen approach.
I note that the number of people in the world who are demonstrably opting for #s 1 and 2 are virtually non-existent.
I also note that societal norms are often at odds with current law – which is where the rub arises. The majority (who?) pay at least lip service to the notion that theft/denial of service/denial of opportunity are wrong.
(Just for fun: if you sell a ms to a publisher and then give copies away to friends and family, are you, the author, “stealing”?)
Some folks are at least honest with themselves by opting for camp #2.
Some aren’t
Jim C. Hines
January 31, 2011 @ 12:24 pm
Just for fun: if you sell a ms to a publisher and then give copies away to friends and family, are you, the author, “stealing”?
Ooh, fun! Do you mean giving away some of my author copies, or printing/e-mailing copies on my own and bypassing the publisher?
steve davidson
January 31, 2011 @ 12:27 pm
I mean turn the debate on its head a bit: if you’ve sold the book (and assume total, irrevocable world-wide rights covering every possible delivery medium including sky-writing), once the contract is signed, they’ve got the rights to put the book out there.
If you take your original ms down to the library and make ten copies and hand them out to friends and family….?
And afterwards, find a new agent cause the current one seems to be too friendly with the publisher….
Jim C. Hines
January 31, 2011 @ 12:32 pm
Technically speaking, I do think you’d be in violation of your contract.
Take it a step further, and it gets a little more clear. I sell my book to my publisher, receive my nice advance, then turn around and self-publish the book.
I’d need to re-read my contract and double-check with an agent or attorney to be 100% sure though.
And yes, definitely fire that agent!
steve davidson
January 31, 2011 @ 12:41 pm
obviously, I was begging the question to make the point: it is actually possible for someone to have ownership of something but not be able to control its destiny.
And I agree, contracts bear looking at closely these days as things change so fast that it is entirely possible for unanticipated loopholes to creep in.
If you could telepathically distribute your writing (and had a way to receive compensation), you WOULDN’T be violating the terms of your contract by using it (perhaps the intent, but certainly not the letter).
When I finish developing telepathic publishing, I’ll give you a holler.
Jim C. Hines
January 31, 2011 @ 12:45 pm
Actually, I’m not as sure now that I rethink it. The contract is usually very specific about what rights the publisher is licensing. For example, they take hardcover, trade paperback, and mass market rights.
I don’t know where “printed out on my home printer” falls in that clause, if it’s a right the publisher has licensed or if it’s something I theoretically retain…
Mary
January 31, 2011 @ 6:24 pm
“Mary is trying to shift the debate to safe ground for her, wherein we are all just waiting for the post scarcity-economy to arrive and meanwhile, she’s helping it arrive through judicious application of theft.”
No. I refer you back to my two previous posts, specifically:
“none of the arguments relate to the future except the one right at the end that explicitly says it’s talking about a post-scarcity economy.”
and right before I mentioned post-scarcity at all:
“This is a seperate argument from anything I’ve said above so please try not to conflate them”
The previous arguments were, as indicated, completely seperate from that argument.
“she’s helping it arrive through judicious application of theft”
This is an absurd mischaracterisation of my post. I said that I don’t feel guilty about piracy because it has caused me personally to buy more things. That is all.
Mary
January 31, 2011 @ 7:09 pm
Sorry, keep screwing up the tags. I still haven’t slept.
“Mary,
Do you believe that as an author I deserve to be paid for my work?
I’ll link you to http://jimhines.livejournal.com/551156.html?thread=14025716#t14025716 for one lawyer’s debunking of the rationalization that this isn’t theft.
-Jim”
Yes. In a capitalist scarcity economy it is immoral to deprive someone of the ability to profit from their work.*
Thanks for the link it was very informative, I wasn’t talking about the legal definition though, merely a semantic difference. The legal definition just refers to the law, and if the law said it wasn’t theft that could be changed, then it would be theft. The only thing referring to the law tells you is what the law defines it as. That has no bearing on it’s semantic meaning except as it influences how people use the word.
If nothing has been stolen from you, then a theft has not occurred. If I duplicate your car I have not stolen anything from you.
If they have taken your property or your money in whatever form, they have stolen. If they deprive you of the ability to earn from your own work they are harming you and it is wrong, but it isn’t theft unless they take something from you.
“Theft of potential future earnings” could be used, but that makes assaulting a model and breaking his nose “theft and assault”. And ruining magic tricks might be theft from magicians.
But like I said, it’s semantic, there is no “correct” definition of theft, the language evolves as it is used. That doesn’t mean you can’t advocate for the definition you find most useful.
I don’t rationalise that it isn’t theft, I don’t think it is theft. That’s not a rationalisation, that’s a difference of opinion.
I still think it is potentially morally wrong, but the reason I’m fine with it for myself (i.e. what you might more reasonably consider ‘a rationalisation’) is the reason I gave above. If you’re buying less then you’re harming the authors, if you’re not then they’re getting more money and the only harm you’d be doing is if you go and tell them that you’re doing it and it upsets them.
Which I am not doing here, because like I said, I’ve never pirated any of your stuff. Nor will I in the future. But I won’t get to read any of it unless someone I know lends me a copy, or something I hear intrigues me enough to go to the library, which is fairly unlikely (Most people I know don’t read much fantasy and I already have enough books I’ve paid for or are out of copyright to avoid the need to find a library and sign up. War and Peace for starters. I hear it’s very good.). This is your preferred option and I’d be a dick to go against that and rub it in your face. So I definitely won’t pirate any of your stuff.
But in this case I lose out because I miss out on your books, and you lose out on a sale (I’m assuming I’d definitely like them, that only seems polite on your own site, other authors would only lose out on a potential sale)
So behind people’s backs, I’m sorry to say, I’d still pirate a book or author to see if I like it, and if I do I’ll buy it. If I don’t, then I may well not finish it, and it’s no different to borrowing it from a friend, or not even reading it at all. It costs them nothing if a no sale like me is caused by me not reading their book, or pirating it and deciding I don’t like it.
I am open to being persuaded this is unethical though. I’ve re-evaluated my position several times in response to cogent arguments about this area from friends and some people I know in publishing.
…….(Area for seperate points below. Please do not mix)……………..
* In a seperate point, totally unrelated to the above discussion, because I think the speculation is interesting:
I don’t think in a post scarcity economy you deserve to be paid for your work, at least more than once. Not morally at least, the moral imperative to pay you disappearing with the scarcity.
If you want to write and keep it to yourself, that’s your right. If someone will pay you for your writing, that’s great. After that it’s up to the only two owners of your book what they do with it. (That also leaves you with full ability to distribute, unless you have voluntarily agreed to delete your only copy)
The only thing we will need to protect is attribution rights. No one will starve because they aren’t the ones distributing their books. And if wealth is still possible to gain, then the authors who will prosper will be those with the most generous fans, and that will be the new economy.
END OF SEPERATE AND UNRELATED SPECULATION
Ebook discussions flying under the radar | Infotropism
February 1, 2011 @ 11:46 am
[…] Authors who publicly changed their minds as a result of the discussion: Karen Healey, Jim Hines. […]
Mary
February 2, 2011 @ 5:36 am
Tl;Dr? Ok, fair enough I’ll just assume you capitulate to my point that it definitely isn’t theft and that by doing it I’m benefitting you and all other creators of media.
And that is can be universally agreed that Steve Davidson is a worthless creep who enjoys mocking people’s arguments but is so astoundingly stupid that he doesn’t understand the words “unrelated argument” and so astoundingly bad mannered that he doesn’t like to apologise when caught out doing the above, in black and white, with quotes to prove it.
Jim C. Hines
February 2, 2011 @ 1:44 pm
Mary,
Name-calling is one of the few things here that will lead to moderation of comments, including comments being deleted and individual commenters being banned, if necessary.
Re: your assumptions, you’re welcome to assume whatever you like. You could also assume that while I do my best to keep up with comments, between here an LiveJournal I get several hundred responses to this sort of post, and am unable to immediately answer every last one.
Debate and discussion is welcome. Insults and name-calling, not so much. Don’t do it again.
-Jim
Jim C. Hines
February 2, 2011 @ 1:55 pm
“But like I said, it’s semantic, there is no “correct” definition of theft, the language evolves as it is used. That doesn’t mean you can’t advocate for the definition you find most useful.”
I.e., words mean whatever you want them to mean, and further discussion with you on this is a waste of time.
“But I won’t get to read any of it unless someone I know lends me a copy, or something I hear intrigues me enough to go to the library, which is fairly unlikely…”
That’s your choice. If you’re unwilling to pay for books, unwilling to make a trip to the library, unwilling to read the legitimate samples and free fiction many authors post online, then that’s of course your right.
If you’re implying that you’re hurting me because I’m missing out on a sale to you, well, I can live with that. The overall impact of piracy seems to be pretty neutral (see the discussion on Toby’s site). So … yeah. I’m not going to lose any sleep over your unwillingness to check out my stuff.
“I am open to being persuaded this is unethical though.”
Based on your comments here, I’m not convinced this is true.
Mary
February 2, 2011 @ 2:28 pm
Sorry, worthless creep was over the line. My criticism of his reply to me stands though.
You’re right, I was hasty in assuming that you weren’t going to reply, and my sarcasm was uncalled for. I’m sure you’re very busy. I started that sentence intending to summarise my Tl;Dr but had re-read Steve’s replies just before and a little of my irritation spilled over into my tone.
“I.e., words mean whatever you want them to mean, and further discussion with you on this is a waste of time.”
No. Words mean what they are understood to mean. An interesting read is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics
Words are signifiers and what they stand for are denotata. There are dictionary definitions, and there is popular usage, niche usage and private usage. That’s how language evolves. People use words in different ways, and when niche usage becomes popular usage and the original usage falls out of favour, the meaning of the word changes. The way Awful went from “Fills you with awe” to the modern negative definition.
I admitted right at the beginning this was a matter of semantics.
“If you’re unwilling to pay for books, unwilling to make a trip to the library, unwilling to read the legitimate samples and free fiction many authors post online, then that’s of course your right.
If you’re implying that you’re hurting me because I’m missing out on a sale to you, well, I can live with that.”
I’m willing to pay for books that are a known quantity or a safe bet. I read legitimate freebies and then don’t need to pirate those authors.
Apart from any free samples you may give out, yes, you do lose out, assuming that I would like what you write. If I wouldn’t then you lose nothing either way. And that’s what I’m saying, if we weren’t talking about this you wouldn’t know but you would gain more if I pirate so I’m ok with the morality of me personally pirating, because I would be more worried about harming authors than simply doing something they don’t like.
If, as you say, the effect of piracy en masse is neutral then I’m neutral about it too.
““I am open to being persuaded this is unethical though.””
“Based on your comments here, I’m not convinced this is true.
Yeah. I responded perfectly civilly to Steve, addressing each part of what he said, then he was pointlessly sarcastic, failed to comprehend the sentence: “This is a seperate argument from anything I’ve said above so please try not to conflate them” and when called on it vanished into the aether. So I was a bit over-snippy in reply. That does not mean I am unwilling to change my mind if given a reasonable argument that actually addresses what I said.
Jim C. Hines
February 2, 2011 @ 3:49 pm
“I’m willing to pay for books that are a known quantity or a safe bet. I read legitimate freebies and then don’t need to pirate those authors. Apart from any free samples you may give out, yes, you do lose out, assuming that I would like what you write.”
Given that sample chapters of all of my books are so easily available, along with the free short fiction on the left sidebar every time you come back to respond here, I’m still confused as to why you’re trying to say you won’t get to read any of my work, or that I’m potentially losing sales as a result of your choice not to read pirated copies.
Mary
February 2, 2011 @ 4:14 pm
You won’t, I haven’t looked around your site, but if you have samples then you’re someone I won’t need to pirate.
steve davidson
February 2, 2011 @ 5:48 pm
Steve is not commenting out of respect to Jim and in the hopes that the – ahem – discussion here will eventually die off.
Mary
February 3, 2011 @ 5:59 am
Or perhaps Steve is not commenting because he’s embarrased by his failure to read a simple sentence, his choice to respond sarcastically and his personal failure to man up and apologise for his mistake.
But Jim has asked us not to resort to insults so if that’s all you’ve got perhaps it’s better you don’t say anything at all.
If you need a lesson in how to apologise gracefully see above where I apologised for insulting you and being sarcastic to Jim.
Twyla Naythias Fox
February 13, 2011 @ 4:42 pm
Just throwing a few things out for consideration:
On one hand, I can fully understand the issues of enforcing Copyrights and Trademarks – one needs look no further than their medicine cabinet. Aspirin was a brand name and, due to a lack of vigilance, became a generic descriptor.
While music, movies, books, and anything else which can be transmitted and duplicated electronically differ from Trademarks, the principle remains the same. Should they fail to enforce recognition of ownership, everyone ends up losing. Intellectual properties represent a tremendous investment by their creators, and they deserve compensation for their time and efforts.
Myself, I admit to downloading a lot of stuff (mostly movies). And let’s be honest with ourselves – the trend is as old as civilization; only the means have changed. Most of us who were around before computers really took off well remember making mix-tapes for our friends. Back then, the recording industry tended to turn a blind eye because of quality issues. Only when MP3s hit the scene (along with Napster) did they start making an uproar. eBooks (by whatever name) are much the same in nature.
I’m pretty eclectic in my tastes and have never been much of a social butterfly, so it’s pretty hit-or-miss for me to discover something I actually enjoy. My first exposure to Jim’s writing was a pirated copy of Goblin Quest – I would never have even heard of him without it.
But guess what?
I fell in love with Jig. That pirated copy of one book led me to buying my own copies of all three Goblin books, plus his Princess books (the three that are out; I’ll be getting Snow Queen when it’s available).
Of the several hundred books and thousands of movies I own (all legit; some multiple copies), there are very few I would have even known about without “piracy”. While I know I can hardly be counted as ‘typical’, I doubt I’m unique in this regard.
Like it or not, word-of-mouth is the strongest advertising any product (book or otherwise) can ever receive. Some authors actually consider it “a sign that they’ve truly made it” when they discover that their work is being “pirated” – people don’t upload anything they don’t feel merits sharing.
In ye olden days (and on occasion today), that word-of-mouth involved person A lending their copy to person B saying “you’ve got to read this”. Of course, this means person A does without for an indefinite period of time. IDEALLY, person A would buy an extra copy – though countless factors obstruct this approach.
In this modern age of online “social networking”, passing around physical copies of a book is beyond difficult. eBooks, on the other hand, are readily distributable. Before eBooks, it was PDFs, OCRs, or other methods of scanning.
This ease of distribution, admittedly, comes with the liability of ease of duplication – the catch-22 of the whole affair. Numerous forms of encryption and other “digital security” have been tried over the years – even as far back as the nefarious ENIGMA code used by the Germans in WWII – and ALL of them have been broken.
As my grandfather so aptly put it, “Locks only keep the honest people out.” And, as Janet Kagan noted in her novel Uhura’s Song, “If a song isn’t sung, it dies.”
I’m a writer myself (unsung, though I may be as yet), and find myself torn between these two camps. As much as I’d love to earn a living by the sole virtue of my writing, just the knowledge that copies of my works “propagate out of control” offers something that money can never buy – a touch of immortality.
We all know of William Shakespeare, and he will probably be known for as long as mankind exists (on this planet or elsewhere). Piers Anthony, J.R.R. Tolkien, Homer, Isaac Asimov, Leo Tolstoy, Faulkner, Mark Twain… Even if we’ve never actually read their works, we know their names.
There used to be a web site that collected Budweiser’s “Real Men of Genius” commercials. Most of us know that commercials (normally) only get heard when airtime is paid for. There’s no question as to who ‘owns’ them, and this site was offering publicity for which they would normally have to pay for free! But, no – Budweiser slit their own wrists by demanding these be taken down. C’est la vie.
Then there is also the issue of resellers – “used book stores”, as applies to writing in particular. Books changing hands countless times whereby NO ONE involved in producing them in the first place gains anything.
The author (as well as agent(s) and publisher(s)) only gets paid for the very first time a particular book is sold – when it was ‘new’. Do subsequent sales constitute ‘piracy’?
I know a lot of people who only buy used books – not as a matter of ‘theft’, but because it’s cheaper (usually half the cover price or less). “Well,” the authors/publishers say, “it garners exposure which can lead to sales where we do receive payment.”
How is piracy all that different?
Anke
February 14, 2011 @ 3:47 am
Aspirin was a brand name and, due to a lack of vigilance, became a generic descriptor.
Uh, no. It lost its trademark status in the USA and some other countries as part of the Treaty of Versailles. Part of reparations for WWI.
Twyla Naythias Fox
February 14, 2011 @ 1:38 pm
That’s a slight misnomer, Anke, particularly as the US never ratified the Treaty of Versailles.
In early 20th-century America, copy-cat products of all sorts flooded the market; some such as Koka-Kola tried to skirt infringement with misspellings, while others didn’t even try to hide it. Even before war broke out in mid-1914, Bayer had already lagged behind in defending its patents and trademarks.
In 1915, Bayer entered into a secret deal with Thomas Edison for phenol (a key component in manufacturing aspirin), providing them with the necessary funds to combat the widespread infringement. But, only a few months in, an anti-German newspaper blew the lid off this scandal. It was a perfectly legal arrangement – the US was still neutral and openly trading with Germany at the time – but a huge embarrassment in light of growing anti-German sentiment.
Shortly after the US became involved in The Great War, A. Mitchell Palmer (aptd by Woodrow Wilson) seized all of Bayer AG’s US holdings (including patents, trademarks, and several shell companies) – then sold them to Neuralgyline Co (which became Sterling Drug) for $5.3 million. However, by that time, aspirin had already fallen prey to genericization and forever lost its trademark status in the US.
Note: WikiPedia is an excellent resource, but hardly authoritative.
Guest Post: Writing on the High Seas
March 25, 2011 @ 2:36 pm
[…] he could quote me in regards to some words I’d written about piracy recently in regards to an article he wrote. “Even better,” said I, “I’ve been slowly working away at an […]