Over the weekend, the New York Times “Ethicist” wrote a rather controversial post defending the ethics of illegally downloading an e-book when you own the hardcover.
The Ethicist writes:
Your subsequent downloading is akin to buying a CD, then copying it to your iPod. Buying a book or a piece of music should be regarded as a license to enjoy it on any platform. Sadly, the anachronistic conventions of bookselling and copyright law lag the technology. Thus you’ve violated the publishing company’s legal right to control the distribution of its intellectual property, but you’ve done no harm or so little as to meet my threshold of acceptability.
Aside from being quite surprised that Ethicists are in the habit of encouraging people to break the law, I found this to be an astounding and irresponsible response.
It’s one thing for an Ethicist to remind a reader that they are within their ethical (and though I’m not a lawyer, likely legal) rights to create their own e-book by scanning their book into a computer strictly for personal and not-for-profit use. This is the proper CD-ripping analogy. It’s taking something you own and converting it to another format through your own time and effort, whether that’s making an electronic file or taking a book apart to wallpaper your house.
The fact is, buying a hardcover (or CD or DVD or paperback) does not grant someone the right to own a work in all platforms in perpetuity. I mean, this: “Buying a book or a piece of music should be regarded as a license to enjoy it on any platform” is an extraordinarily sweeping opinion. Any platform? Should we get the paperback for free when we buy the hardcover? Should we be able to get into the movie for free when we own the paperback? Those are just different platforms, right? Should I have shoplifted the DVDs when I switched over from my VHS collection? What exactly are we talking about here?
An e-book is a fundamentally different product than a hardcover – it’s searchable, it’s electronic, it’s portable, it doesn’t weigh anything. It allows you to do things that you can’t do with a hardcover. Not everyone obviously thinks it’s an improvement, but I think we can all agree that it’s a different product. They may be the same words, but it most definitely is not the same thing.
It may seem like it’s a trivial distinction to make when the resulting file from scanning yourself vs. pirating a book is potentially almost the same, but that’s where the line between ethical/legal and unethical/illegal is drawn for a reason. In the first version, you’re adding the value yourself through your own effort (just as taking notes in your own margins adds a form of value). By downloading a file illegally you’re misappropriating that added value from the only people (the publisher and author and e-booksellers) who are legally and ethically entitled to profit from it. That’s why we have copyright law. That’s where we’ve chosen to draw the line.
This is all completely setting aside the question of whether publishers should bundle hardcovers and e-books for sale – lots of people have expressed a desire for a situation where you, say, pay $2 or $4 or however much more for a hardcover and get the e-book for free. It’s a great idea! I suspect the fact that isn’t yet possible for most books is because of the logistical challenges involved, but it’s one that I hope publishers will continue to explore (see Joseph Selby’s comment for more background, and Mayowa points out that B&N has announced they would experiment with bundling).
But the fact that it’s not yet possible as a matter of course doesn’t then justify theft – I mean, I personally think it’s a great idea for supermarkets to sell peanut butter and jelly together for a discount, but if my local supermarket doesn’t do this it doesn’t mean I get to shoplift the jelly.
This is also setting aside the justifications people come up with when it comes to piracy – that people buy more when they pirate, that piracy does not necessarily equal loss of sale, that stealing a digital product is not the same thing as stealing a tangible object etc. etc. Look: we live in a society where the seller gets to determine the terms of sale. If it really is financially advantageous to allow things to be readily available for free or very cheaply or unencumbered with DRM let the sellers (the publishers and the authors and booksellers) make that decision. If it’s better financially for the parties involved, let the market move in that direction. Support the companies who have policies you like with your dollars, not through illegal activity.
The electronic era is full of possibility as well as potential downfalls, and I think we need to get past the idea that an electronic format is value-less relative to print. It has value. It is a different product. You can add that value yourself by converting something you bought, or you can pay for a new file.
If you’re stealing that value by downloading someone else’s e-book illegally: it’s copyright infringement.
It really is a matter of ethics. Oh. Also the law.
Video of Randy Cohen, "The Ethicist", talking about how he has no background in ethics but was chosen over people with credentials in ethics to become "The Ethicist" for the The New York Times: Video.
andrewdugas-
I definitely agree that this question is really difficult to decouple from issues involving DRM and the nature of what exactly you are buying when you are buying an e-book. If, as you say, when you buy an e-book you're just buying the right to view the material and it's so locked down you can't do much with it, why should you have to pay for it when you've already bought the right to view the content with the hardcover?
I'm somewhat sympathetic to that argument, and agree that hardcovers and e-books should be bundled in such a way that acknowledges that the consumer has paid for both and discounts accordingly.
I'm just not sure about the essential argument that buying the hardcover by nature grants you the e-book as well. People may well feel that because there's not a "fair" option available it justifies coming up with a gray area solution. I wouldn't condemn for making that choice, but I wouldn't put an "ethical" stamp of approval on it either.
@ Nathan – the baseball bat analogy might work if the guy took his own wood to the Louisville Slugger plant and used all their proprietary knowledge to "make" his bats?
🙂
… has he.. raped small children? Beaten a pensioner to death for £7.50? Nope. He's "illegally downloaded" a book, a book he already has bought and paid for… come on, people, get a grip.
Gneocide, rape, these things are crimes… downloading a book, a few tunes now and then? it's hardly on the same scale, is it?
If the people who make e-books/make money from selling you tracks online DON'T want you to "steal" their stuff, then they should have the sense or the foresight to incorporate "read-only/non-copy" type elements to their products. If they can't or won't do this, then "tough on them". It's not as if doing this is impossible.
I don't write books so I can make money- I write books because I enjoy writing books. Most people who make music, and enjoy it, and aren't part of the corporate enterprise machine, don't mind people illegally downloading their tracks if it means- these "criminals" become fans, they come to the concerts and buy the merchandise, etc…
All the whiners are whining because they think what they're seling is worth more than it actually is… suck it up!
sam-
If there's one thing I think everyone here can agree upon it's that pirating is not the equivalent of genocide or rape. I wasn't aware that was up for debate, but if it was: I'm on your side, pal.
stephen-
Resisting making a baseball joke like foul ball or home run. Barely.
Whoa. Were you in my brain? I just posted very similar thoughts here: https://reneesweet.livejournal.com/136153.html.
Well said. 🙂
Lol, Sam, that's pretty odd logic. Someone punching you in the face is probably not the same as genocide either, but, you know, I doubt you'd enjoy it. Unless you're in a Fight Club or something. In which case you'll probably enjoy sucking it up.
Nick, the printing and distribution and paper and storage and disposal costs of a $10 plain text paper book are about $4, making the digital file about $6 plus bandwidth and digitizing costs, say $7.
I worked in electronic publishing for a decade (on the technical side), and though I'm no longer in the industry, I'm worried by the missteps I'm seeing.
I hope the publishing industry is looking at Steam.
It's an electronic distribution service for computer games. It has largely solved the problems associated with electronic distribution–piracy, DRM frustration, consumers feeling ripped off, etc.
Steam involves the customer owning the product forever, being able to install it on any device (and any number of devices simultaneously), and never having to re-buy it.
It also involves some highly restrictive DRM that allows you to use the product on only one device at a time.
I hate DRM, but I accept DRM on my Steam games (and prefer buying from Steam than from anywhere else, even if the Steam version is not discounted from retail) because what they offer is so compelling. I own the game forever! I can install it anywhere and on anything! I can even let a friend play it–though while my friend is playing, I can't use my Steam games myself. (This restriction is 100% fair.)
Steam has turned this DRM-hater into an eager, satisfied, and loyal customer. I wish the publishing industry would come up with something equivalent. Realistically, a Steam-for-books isn't feasible until e-readers are better and cheaper. But I hope that's the direction the industry is heading in. I don't think it will get far trying to persuade readers to buy the same book twice at full retail price.
AndrewDugas,
Some interesting points there, but I disagree with an element of it, namely that buying an ebook is solely a purchase of content, as opposed to a hardcover (which is a containter and content). Because the people trying to sell their copy of an ebook are not actually trying to sell their book. The book is not erased off their reader and given to someone else. It's copied. They then sell that copy. Or a thousand copies. That's very different. That's a copyright violation. It's no different than me taking a copy of Harry Potter and copying it out a thousand times and selling it on the street.
I think an ebook has a container, it's simply not a solid one. It's a single copy digital container. Do with it what you want. But if you copy it… it's a copy. That's not yours to distribute.
Just my take
I'm a midlist author, and I routinely find sites where my book has been downloaded in the tens of thousands of times. It is not only heart-breaking but nerve-wracking, as well–what if my publisher sees how many sales they're not making?
The fact is, downloading an illegal scan of a book is bad because it raises online awareness that the property is available. Woe betide the author who earns the dubious honor of being found on the "most downloaded" list.
I agree that removing the stigma from this issue is the most dangerous thing that can be done. Already, I get completely slammed by self-righteous downloaders if I dare mention in certain venues that people don't have the right to read my book without paying for it.
One of the most common arguments I hear is that "people who pirate don't buy books anyway." I find it hard to believe that out of 30,000 people who wanted to read my book, some number of them wouldn't have bought it. As for the rest of them, I'd still rather they find something else to read.
Another common argument is that piracy expands your reader base. My reply to that is that these aren't exactly the readers every author dreams of. Yay! People who are get their books by stealing have stolen my book! Maybe they'll steal the next one, too. Lucky me.
I really shouldn't read your blog right before dinner, Nathan. Now I desperately want a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, and we've got Easter leftovers to work through.
Perhaps this will all lead to a shift in consumerism. We were happy enough to re-buy some of our old VHS tapes in DVD, but then when Blu-Ray came along, my husband and I agreed that we'd only buy new movies in Blu-Ray. When I eventually get an e-book reader, I'll probably do the same, or at least think long and hard before replacing each book. The rapid shifts in technology are probably encouraging piracy, too — people frustrated with a new format emerging every few years decide that they still want to embrace the new and shiny, but feel ripped off at having to pay for it each time. Eventually, something has to give.
To qoute from the original question that started it all:
"Unfortunately, the electronic version was not yet available. The publisher apparently withheld it to encourage people to buy the more expensive hardcover. So I did, all 1,074 pages, more than three and a half pounds. Then I found a pirated version online, downloaded it to my e-reader."
The "Ethicist" wasn't saying that pirating was completely OK, but he did make the case that if you're paying for something, and then enjoying it in the format you want, you aren't utterly morally bankrupt.
There are several questions to answer here:
Do authors and publishers deserve compensation for their work?
The ethicist says yes.
Do they have the right to decide how that work will be enjoyed?
The ethicist says no.
You can argue with him on that second question, but for Nathan to imply that the ethicist was making the case that artist deserve no compensation is a dishonest representation of the ethicist's position.
There are a host of other issues as well.
Is the reader buying the words, or their means of transmission?
Truthfully, you're always pay for both.
Yes, royalty rates differ on hardcover and ebooks. Doesn't that mean that by delaying the release of ebooks, and keeping only hardcover books available, the publisher is to some degree stealing from the author?
Or if an author makes more on a hardcover, didn't the hardcover-buyer-ebook-pirate actually put more money in the pocket of the author?
In either case, the end result was either more favorable for the author, or less favorable because of the publishers actions, and you can't really hold either against the buyer-come-pirate.
Does this encourage piracy in general?
Well yeah, it sure does. But if you're going to blame the "pirate"-who-still-spent-money for encouraging piracy, then isn't the publisher (who wanted to exclude the author from sales in a higher royaly format and therefore "stole" from the author) also eligible for some blame?
Maybe this issue is black and white, and maybe pretending that this issue is as simple as buying a hardcover copy and then stealing a paperback copy is stupid.
And if you want my not so humble opinion, any artist–writer, painter, musician, composer, etc–only has one thing to truly fear: obscurity.
There are a lot of much easier ways to make money than to write, and if you find it "hurtful" that someone was so eager to read what you had to say that they rushed out and paid more for your words in a format that they didn't want, and hunted around for a place where those words were in a format that they did prefer, then you should have your head examined.
Anyone who believes otherwise is clearly confused as to the difference between commerce and art.
Buyer's who then get something in another format aren't totally ethically pure.
Publishers who structure their business model so as to confound the buyers wishes, and diminish the authors wallets, aren't totally ethically pure.
And "artist" more concerned with commerce than with creating art, aren't totally ethically pure either.
I usually come to Nathan's blog for a balanced, forward-thinking view of publishing. It may surprise you how shocked I was to read his response – and all of the agreements on this thread.
What are publishers selling? Are they selling paper and ink? Or are they selling content?
The reason readers don't expect to get the DVD for free is because the content is different in the movie version of a book. You see the actors' faces. You see the sets. Some of the lines are different. You hear music. This is all content, and it is all different than the text-only version you read in the book.
The reason readers think they have the right to the ebook if they own the hardcover is because the content is the same. Yes, it's the same. Preach all you want about how expensive it is to format, etc., but to the reader, it looks the same. It reads the same. The same content goes into the brain.
This is what publishing has yet to recognize. You can try to fight it, and you can argue about the author's right to be paid for his blood, sweat, and tears; but in the reader's mind the author has already been paid. What you want readers to do is to pay twice for the same content. And then you become the bad guy.
I don't think you're going to be able to convince them otherwise.
Anon 5:01 –
And "artist" more concerned with commerce than with creating art, aren't totally ethically pure either.
Most of the greatest art in history was created on commission. So if I'm as ethically bankrupt as Mozart, Michelangelo, etc., I guess that's a cross I will learn to bear.
Writing is a profession, not a not-for-profit venture. Trust me, there is nothing so magical about being an author that one should be expected to starve in order to earn the job title.
The video of The Ethicist talking about how he received that job without any background in ethics, over people who did have credentials in ethics, is quite illuminating. He even mentions how working on the David Letterman show probably gave him important training in ethics. We’ve talked many times before on this blog about the “democratization” of literature. We do tend in this society to shy away from experts and true intellectual debate. If we’re comfortable with the publishing of dumbed-down books whenever they sell in huge quantities and make a lot of money, is it really so surprising that The New York Times hired someone who might attract more readers than a person with a Ph.D. in Ethics who might sound stuffy to readers? Ironically, this is another ethical question.
"Most of the greatest art in history was created on commission. So if I'm as ethically bankrupt as Mozart, Michelangelo, etc., I guess that's a cross I will learn to bear.
"Writing is a profession, not a not-for-profit venture. Trust me, there is nothing so magical about being an author that one should be expected to starve in order to earn the job title."
I didn't say you should starve, or bear crosses. If there's nothing magical about what you do, and you are a professional and not an artist, there's nothing wrong with that.
There are difference between then and now, mainly the fact that publishers are businesses motivated by profit and the patrons that supported Michelangelo were not.
But again you miss my essential point. This isn't a black or white issue. It's more complex.
Or perhaps it is black and white for you, all paycheck and no artistry.
If your books sell well, more power to you. But if you put as little passion into them as you claim to, I think I'd probably prefer to read something else.
Wow. There sure are a lot of nasty anons out and about today. I wonder if the topic hit too close to home.
Anon 5:07,
That's sort of funny. But good for me! I bought a hardcover the other day. So I'm just gonna waltz back and take all the paperbacks too. Same content! The words are the same! I checked! Christmas is coming early this year. For the whole family! I hope they all like the book, though.
One little ipod (after you've legitimately purchased both items) is one thing, but handing the copied CD to two and three hundred (possibly more) without them paying for it is entirely another.
G.
anon@5:07-
I agree with you that publishers are in the content delivery business. But the format of that content varies tremendously. A hardcover is not a trade paperback is not a mass market paperback is not an audiobook is not a leather bound edition is not a movie tie-in edition is not an illustrated version is not an e-book. Buying in one of those formats doesn't get you any of the others for free, and I don't see why e-books should be different.
Cory, because someone expects to be paid for something doesn't automatically mean they do it without passion or care.
Since you brought it up, I will take the opportunity to say that I do, indeed, feel passionately about my work. So do many people in many other professions who also like to be able to pay their bills at the end of the day.
And no, it's not a black and white issue. I don't believe I said otherwise. Or that I said anything to provoke a personal attack.
I doubt you would have accused Nathan of being passionless, and it's a known fact that he works for commissions paid by large corporate publishers.
I agree with you, but find it fascinating to watch ethics attempt to keep pace with modern technology and science. Our world is changing faster than it ever has (in human memory, anyway.) If I were twenty, I'd go back to grad school or law school to study ethics.
". . . we need to get past the idea that an electronic format is value-less relative to print."
Well said. Unfortunately, some people don't understand intangibles.
Okay, that probably came out snarkier than I intended, but I just thought it was funny. I'd have the most kickass garage sale if the logic of owning one gives you the right to own all the others for free. I'd be writing cardboard signs all day.
This really speaks to our society's sense of entitlement. What kind of society do we have when keeping the law has nothing to do with morals or ethics? I'm NOT sorry, that's messed.
I can tolerate the point-of-view that publishers should give more for the customer's money. We all want more, more, more. But I draw the line at the idea that illegally downloading is ethical. If it were ethical then it wouldn't be illegal.
Ethical
–adjective
1.
pertaining to or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct.
2.
being in accordance with the rules or standards for right conduct or practice, esp. the standards of a profession
What's legal is not always ethical, but what is ethical will always be legal. If we've lost sight of that, we've got bigger problems than piracy.
I decided that, since the discussion of a certain popular book series comes up so often in writers’ groups, I should read those books. I bought the first two books in the series in paperback. I read them and intensely disliked those books, on so many levels, and cannot believe the huge amount of grammatical errors and repetitious wording; but I decided that I should still read the entire series as a kind of sociological study, since the books are so damn popular. I bought the next two books in the series on Kindle, and then decided that I should probably have all four books available on Kindle, in case I wanted to look up an earlier part of the story. So, as unpleasant as I found it, I paid for the Kindle version of the two books I already owned in paperback. I can’t imagine treating an author any other way. If an author offers their books for sale in multiple formats and I decide for whatever reason that I want more than one format, I feel that I should pay for all the formats. That's certainly how I'd like to be treated. Even if I hate the author’s writing and can’t believe that they were ever published, the fact is they are published and that’s how they’re earning a living.
I have, on occasion, purchased both the paperback and eBook versions of a book by an author I know, when I want the book in paperback but the author receives a larger royalty on the eBook version. I’ve also on occasion bought extra paperback copies of novels and given away all but one copy. I like supporting authors. It makes me feel good.
Anonymous 5.01 pm, the remedy for an author's obscurity is not piracy.
Does this theory work in reverse? If I buy an E-book and down load it on my Kindle can I get a hard cover for free?
I know a publisher who found a woman offering copies of his publishing company's eBooks on eBay. He told her she needed to cease and desist. She became furious, saying that she bought one copy of each title and was entitled to do whatever she wanted with it, including sell extra copies. Obviously, she was wrong, since that's actually illegal.
Liesl said:
"What's legal is not always ethical, but what is ethical will always be legal."
Actually, I think that what is ethical isn’t always legal. Oftentimes history will fix its mistakes, but many times unethical treatment of others is institutionalized and made into law.
Hope I haven’t posted too many comments today. Two of my favorite topics to discuss are Ethics and Psychology.
As an expert in the field of ethics, I found your blog well thought out. My only additional question is, What makes something ethical in the first place? That makes a big difference in whether someone sees the quandary you've posed as ethical or not. I suspect that whatever answer people give reveals as much about what they believe to be true about life as whether you are right or not. Thanks for raising the issue – and hopefully raising the bar.
An Author,
I'm sure Nathan works far too hard for what little he gets paid. And most authors get paid far too little for the work that goes into their novels.
I simply wanted to point out how ridiculous it is to be "hurt" by the idea that someone might buy a hardcover copy of your book, then download a digital copy to read while on vacation.
Really? Hurt? If you only care that someone pays for a specific format, and don't care at all that they care enough to read it, then go write textbooks and technical manuals.
If a writer wants to be read, they must write something someone somewhere will pay for. So yeah, every author is a commercial author.
But hopefully money isn't the only reason you write, and I really hope it isn't the primary reason you write. (Because it simply doesn't pay that well for all but the most incredibly talented of writers.)
Everyone deserves to get paid for their work, so why aren't we discussing how to make that happen? I'm not of the defeatist opinion that these advances in technology can only impoverish writers.
Or we could attack readers for finding new ways to use all this new technology, after all it worked out so well when the music industry attacked their customer base.
More than half the people in these comments are demonizing a paying customer for downloading a book in a format in which he couldn't buy it.
If you pick this as your fight, then even if you win, you lose.
By simplifying things it becomes good guys vs bad guys, and nobody really wins. Hyperbole is unhelpful.
And, you did imply that it was black or white. You implied that you and the Mozarts, Michelangelos, and Christs bearing crosses just like you were being put upon by the evil paying customers lining your pocket in a manner not consistent with the business model by which you wish to have your pockets lined.
See how unhelpful that is?
Don't exaggerate my position and I won't exaggerate yours.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution; Congress shall have Power . . .
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
In other words, fostering creativity by giving artists exclusive rights to their creations for a limited time.
_Exclusive_ is the key word. No one has a right to decide they are the exception to the law.
"Where there is no law, but every man does what is right in his own eyes, there is the least of real liberty." — Henry M. Robert _Robert's Rules of Order_
However, copyright law attempts to balance the individual with the public good by fostering a competitive and as freely accessible access to intellectual property as commercial forces allow.
In other words, the public good trumps individual good in Fair Use situations. But even Fair Use has limtitations.
For example, unauthorized copying of short stories for study purposes in academic settings violates copyright law. Although not well-known by students, and in some cases faculty, course packets of copyrighted material are authorized copies hired from a copy shop that pays royalty fees to a registered copy clearinghouse.
The Ethicist seems to favor the public good over the individual good. That's wrong-way logic because it invariably diminishes the public good by taking away profit incentives for artists to surpass what's come before. The world would be a darker place if the individual good was ignored.
@Nathan 5:39. You're right – and yet nobody I know would ever dream of paying for another copy of a book they already own just to have it in another format.
I think the issue is as Liz points out: ethics trying to keep up with technology that has changed more in the past thirty years than in the previous hundred. It's an interesting time, to be sure.
I agree that "the Ethicist" got this wrong. The analogy of buying the hardcover and then going and taking a paperback version off the shelf is a good one for explaining why it is wrong. Plus, in some situations, the companies invested in the hardcover aren't going to match those invested in the electronic format version. So, somebody's work is likely going unpaid.
One point I've seen argued here is really bothering me. So, as a regular reader but first time commenter, here goes:
Last I checked, no one is being "forced" to buy music, books,movies or whatever the heck they think they are entitled to at whatever cost they are willing to spend. If the industry wants to keep spending the money to upgrade the technology and subsequently make my current Beta/VHS/DVD/Blue Tooth etc obsolete, it sucks for me, yes. But I still have a CHOICE not to continue with their game.
As far as I am concerned, illegal is illegal, period. Breaking the law is unethical. And convenience is NEVER an excuse.
Aimee
This isn't an entitlement issue. If it were, you could flip it around:
Why does the publisher feel entitled to be paid twice for the same content?
In fact, we could rephrase the dilemma this way. Which is MORE unethical?
1. Downloading, for personal use, an e-book version of the book one paid for in hardcover?
–or–
2. Forcing a reader to pay full retail price multiple times for the same content?
The readership of this blog is mostly authors, aspiring authors, and publishing industry insiders; thus it's going to be highly skewed towards answer #1. But in other places, you're going to find that a lot of people think it's #2.
I don't think the DVD analogy flies. There was a long time lag between DVDs replacing videotapes, and BlueRay replacing DVDs. It's one thing to buy a DVD of the same movie 10 years after you bought it in VHS. It would be quite another if the publisher of the DVD required you to buy, TODAY, one version that works on your home DVD player and another that works on your portable DVD player. That's the more applicable analogy to this publishing industry situation.
The internet has given more power to consumers. In some ways it's good, in some ways it's bad. The bad part is that piracy has done serious damage to some industries (for example, in computer games it has led many game developers to develop only for consoles, not for PCs, because console games are harder to pirate. Fortunately, Steam is turning that trend around).
The good part is that consumers, with their increasing power, have forced businesses to abandon some unfair practices. Years ago, if I heard a song on the radio I loved, I would have had to buy an entire album to get that song. That would be okay if the other songs were equally good. But you guys know how it really was. There would be one or two good songs on the album, and the rest would be crap. The music industry knew it could get away with selling you those crap songs, because they were bundled with the one good song, which you couldn't buy separately.
Did the music industry change that practice out of the goodness of their hearts? No, they changed it because consumers were saying NUH-UH to their business model in droves.
In a world where consumers have increasing power to reject unfair business practices, companies are increasingly on the hook to give their customers a fair deal. Making your customers buy the same content twice is not a fair deal.
anon-
The lag time between the invention of books and the invention of e-books was 650 years. I think the industry has earned a little patience and understanding with one format change per half millennium.
And by the way, no one is making anyone do anything. If you like e-books you can buy just one format. If you like print books you can buy just one format. If you want both I don't think it's unreasonable to expect someone to pay for both, any more than if they wanted two print books.
Cory, thanks for your clarification.
I think you misunderstood me. I meant that being in the art-for-pay business among the company of such men as Mozart and Michelangelo was a burden I was willing to bear. Not that I see the work itself as a cross.
Like many other published (and yet-to-be-published) writers, I did this for many years before anyone offered me a check for it. And I do quite a bit of it for its own sake (i.e., free), outside of the publishing marketplace.
What's funny is that I don't find the specific instance in question as galling as many people here do. The person presumably didn't download a rights-protected ebook without paying–he downloaded a pirated copy. So he's not stealing directly from a specific person or company. It's not like he hacked a Kindle copy without paying.
I personally believe that downloading books illegally is harmful to authors for reasons mentioned above; but if somebody is going to do it, yes, please, make it someone who bought the book already.
And yes, I stand by the comment "hurtful." The same way it hurts when somebody steals a bike out of your open garage or a Netflix envelope out of your mailbox.
Maybe if the download numbers were in the hundreds instead of the 10,000s, I wouldn't be worried so much about my allocated percentage. But 30,000 legal sales would put me in a different league as an author, and one can't help but feel the pinch at the loss of that. It's the realization that people don't know–and if they do know, they don't care.
I'm curious if the NYT article will have the same impact as the findings in the Milgram experiment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
Do people need someone to guide their morale compass? Since this NYT writer is telling people it's okay to steal content, then will people use this writer as morale compass to pirate.
Will this writer's article move people's morale compass, so that they think piracy is okay if they all ready bought a hardcopy?
If you want both I don't think it's unreasonable to expect someone to pay for both, any more than if they wanted two print books.
That's fundamentally where we disagree. I do think it's unreasonable. If I buy a song, I expect to be able to play it on my computer, in my car, and on my iPod. It would be unreasonable to expect me to buy a separate version for each device. Similarly, it is unreasonable to expect me to buy a separate copy of a novel for my iPad (if I had one) when I already bought the hardback–especially if I'm asked to pay full price both times. (A discounted rate, accounting for the fact that the author/editor/copyeditor/proofer/etc have already had their cut, would be more fair.)
Of course, the only reason this is such a problem is that the formats (print vs. ebook) are so different, and involve slightly different production costs. When e-books are more the norm and print is on its way out, this will be less of an issue.
But the freedom of the customer to put the book on any device of their choosing will always be an issue.
anon-
I agree that the electronic ideal is reading your e-book wherever you want to read it, and Amazon is pretty much there. I guess I'm just having trouble understanding why buying a paper book necessarily entitles someone to read it on an electronic device.
I mean, no one likes paying to convert their libraries, whether it's movies, music, or books, but that precedent was established long, long ago. I agree that the ideal is some sort of discount or bundling, but I don't think a consumer's dislike necessarily creates an entitlement to a change in format that the consumer didn't pay for (unless of course, as I mentioned, the consumer wants to produce the conversion themselves).
Anon at 7:55 "Making your customers buy the same content twice is not a fair deal."
I must respectfully disagree, because we all do it everyday, at the grocery store, at the gas pump etc. etc.
I view it like this:
If I go to the grocery store and buy a package of oreos – I am buying the content that is CONTAINED within a PARTICULAR PACKAGE, not the exclusive right to all oreo packages put out for the next millennium. I therefore, cannot GO BACK and demand more packages of oreos -bigger, smaller, or the now more CONVENIENT to go size, whatever -just because I bought some before and it CONTAINS THE SAME CONTENT. Personally, I don't think it makes a difference whether you are selling your idea put into WORDS and packaged to be sold in hardcover, paperback, ebook etc OR your freakin' chocolate cookies packaged to be sold in boxes or plastic containers. As the consumer, you're only entitled to the content contained within the package you purchased.
BTW, I am NOT an author – purely a consumer (but of books, not oreos:)
Aimee
I'm a little baffled by the comments saying that because they wish publishers would bundle formats and think that would be a more fair practice, they're entitled to change the publishers' terms by stealing content. I wish you would give my your book; it seems fair to me. So I will take it.
I do have to admit to feeling sympathy for obtaining pirated content that's not in print–in fact, I did once send $18 to a woman in England for a DVD of a very old BBC show that wasn't available for sale, which she'd recorded off her TV. I would have been just as happy to send my money to the BBC instead, if they'd been selling copies. (The joke was on me when it turned out to be a lousy production.) But I wouldn't think that having already owned a copy of that show would have entitled me to another copy, free.
Also, I think legality is at best a *minimum* standard of what is ethical. I heard a really great quote on this at church recently:
"There is a great risk in justifying what we do individually and professionally on the basis of what is ‘legal’ rather than what is ‘right.’ . . . The philosophy that what is legal is also right will rob us of what is highest and best in our nature. What conduct is actually legal is, in many instances, way below the standards of a civilized society.” -James E. Faust
Here's one more: "“Policemen and laws can never replace customs, traditions and moral values as a means for regulating human behavior. At best, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society. Our increased reliance on laws to regulate behavior is a measure of how uncivilized we’ve become.” -Walter Williams
This is an extraordinarily well articulated essay. Thanks for posting it. I wish you'd post it on Huffington Post also, and have others read it–there is so much nonsense sometimes in the Times. (Like the mad, bad Stanley Fish, an EX-academic who left in a huff, serve as the voice of academia in the op-ed pages.) I feel like you explained exactly the difference.
Nathan, I think you and I are envisioning different scenarios.
The one I'm envisioning is John buys a hardback even though an e-book is available, because he love the print format. But then he has to go out of town, and he hasn't had a chance to read it. He wants to load it onto his iPhone for the trip–gotta travel light–but to do that he either has to buy a second copy of the book or illicitly download it. In that case, I don't have an objection to his downloading it. I don't think the publisher or author has in any way been ripped off. John is simply compensating for a device incompatibility problem.
I think the scenario you're envisioning is John wanting to convert his entire library of print books, which he's been amassing for 30 years, to e-books. That I would have more of a problem with. I guess I feel like after you've owned a book for 10, 20, 30 years, you've gotten your money's worth from the initial purchase–especially if you still want to read it after all that time!
I've done the VHS to Laserdisc library conversion for my movie library, and then the Laserdisc to DVD conversion. What struck me, both times, was how few movies I actually needed to re-buy. Most of them I had no interest in ever buying again. I questioned why I bought them in the first place. The small handful I bought in multiple formats were movies I loved so much that I didn't mind paying for them twice or even three times. They'd earned it.
Ironically, this story doesn't have a happy ending for the film industry. I got so tired of my movies becoming unusable due to format changes that I decided to stop buying them at all. Now I just rent anything I want off netflix. Let netflix do the library upgrading!
Tough issue, but I come out with Amy, CS and the Ethicist on this one. I accept Nathan's arguments, and yet I'd feel no guilt over downloading the e-book if I had already bought the physical version. An increasing number of people already feel this way about music. Regardless of whether we on this blog feel it is ethical, we have to come to terms with the fact that society has gradually become more accepting of the piracy of electronic media, and alternative revenue models (advertising, monthly subscription fees to online libraries, etc) need to be adopted quickly before publishing revenues collapse the same way record company revenues have.