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.
Amy-
No, to me it's more than a library conversion issue. I guess I don't understand why it's okay to download an e-book because of expedience. If you love print because it's print why do you then need and are entitled to the electronic version when you want convenience? Especially when the person in this example knew about the potential device compatibility problem going in? And especially when the actual number of titles in a library you'd want to convert is so small?
I'm just not understanding these distinctions. When does it become okay to download it illegally?
john-
See, I actually think the needle has moved from mass acceptance of piracy in the Napster era to a more niche core audience who still wants to justify it – IMHO most people now don't really see piracy as an ethically ok to do even when they still do it. I don't have any numbers to back this up and maybe it just has to do with my peers getting older and moving on, but while I agree that it's time to think of more revenue streams, I don't think people who are anti-piracy should take a c'est la vie attitude about it. I still think there's a right or wrong issue and that piracy should be stigmatized. Even if we accept it as a fact of life Ethicists shouldn't go around saying it's okay.
@Nathan:
I do think it's an age and economic thing. My old friends who have homes and careers don't pirate. My friends who have lost their job or have low paying jobs pirate. I guess they figure they have nothing to lose if they're caught.
anon-
I think there's probably something to that.
Nathan,
I agree that the Ethicist shouldn't condone piracy. And, like you, I don't have real numbers backing whether piracy is waxing or waning. In either case, though, piracy was accepted to the point of nearly bankrupting the traditional music industry, and I worry that the same will happen in publishing once e-books really take off. In the case of music, artists can still make a fair amount of money from concerts, but writers don't even have that to fall back on.
In any event, I hope like the rest of us here that the writers come out whole. We've got it tough enough already!
JT Shea said: "Or wallpapering your house with the Kama Sutra." As an erotic romance author you just gave me one of the best mental images ever! Thanks!
I find the last few comments really interesting. I recently bought the hardcover version of a new novel by one of my favorite authors. Realizing that I was going to be attending a convention where it would be easier to bring only a Kindle rather than paperbacks or hardcovers, I purchased Kindle versions of that book and a couple of other books that I already owned in paperback or hardcover. Since they looked like exceptionally good books, I thought it a good thing that the authors would receive extra royalties from my purchase; and I felt that I was paying for the convenience, kind of like when you pay extra for the atmosphere and service in a good restaurant. From some of the comments here, it sounds like many people might not realize that authors get paid royalties for legally purchased eBook versions of their books, often 30% or more of the purchase price (compared to 10% for paperback or hardcover). In high school and college, I worked as a waitress – a tough job, and I now always tip well for good service. Maybe it’s one of those things where you have to work a certain job – waitress or struggling writer – to fully realize how much the tips or royalties mean to the person doing the hard work.
Points well taken, Marilyn. Whether we agree with Nathan or the Ethicist, though, we have to be prepared for the fact that many people will go one step farther than the Ethicist and download illegally without having paid for any hard copy. It's happened in music and likely will happen in publishing too. It's illegal, unethical – and unavoidable. I just don't want to see publishers drag their feet in coming up with alternative revenue models, hoping that people behave ethically, while meanwhile the industry and writers' livelihoods collapse around them.
Technology has made the world of ethics an even more difficult slope to climb.
Darn you Nathan! I could've gotten in to the movie sequils of the Harry Potter, Twilight and Percy Jackson films. Not to mention Darren Shan. Of course we still don't know if Percy & Darren are getting sequils like Harry or if they'll be forgotten like Lyra, but admission would've been free cuase I own the books!
Way to go Nathan! Strong, true points!
Books aren't as easy to convert, and I'm pretty sure that's where the "it's okay if I've bought a copy" thoughts come in.
If I buy a CD, it's easy to take the tracks from the CD and convert them to mp3. It can be done on any computer or laptop.
Even if I have old VCR tapes, those can be converted to digital with a DVD burner and a cable.
But, there's not an "easy" way for John Q. Bookreader to take a novel off his shelf, plug it in and have it converted into e-book format. There's no bridge there. To do that, you'd either have to physically scan or type each page.
Going in search of an e-book download is faster and simpler and creates that missing bridge between old and new.
What really annoys me, though, are sites where someone will upload HUNDREDS of books at a time. They know it's not right, and the sites say that if someone finds copyrighted material they'll take it down, but some of these people go to extremes to camouflage their links so they don't show in searches.
If you type in something like "Harry Potter" or "Rowling", you'd get nothing, but if you know what to look for and type in "purple track shoe novel", or whatever stupid phrase the person used, you get the whole series.
I know someone who has a long running series out who discovered their books on 4shared a while back and the number of downloads totaled over $1200 in sales (had those been purchases). Did the people who downloaded those buy the physical books as well? I have no idea (but I'd bet on "no") What I do know is that that's a house payment!
Nathan, I completely agree with what you said. Buying a paper version of a book doesn't give you the right to downlead an e-version for free.Like in the oreo cookie example (which really makes it quite clear), it amounts to plain stealing. And at the expense of publishers, of course, but of writers too.
NOT FAIR!
This said, I regret that publishers will not consider allowing people who have bought a paper version to download an e-version AT A DISCOUNT. That would be really helpful and probably cut back on piracy temptations.
I for one regret that I bought certain books in e-version. I liked them so much that I would have loved to obtain a paper version as well because (a) paper is easier to consult and use as reference and (b) it's easier to lend to friends. But of course I hesitate to pay twice for the same product…Regardless of platform, it IS after all the same product. Can't publishers bend a little and come forward with a discount if I can prove to them I recently bought their paper book? It should be easy to keep track of purchases in this digital age…
The people who have agreed that's it's okay to download from a pirate site just because they've purchased the print book don't fully understand what authors and publishers are going through right now with piracy in a general sense. There are many people downloading entire libraries from pirate sites whether they buy the print book or not. This is not just about making an honest print book purchase and feeling entitled to a free e-book (as bad as that is), as if e-books were nothing of significance. There's a broad concept of e-books in general that people are missing and I think that's because e-books are still so new to so many people. They don't take them seriously and think of them as something less than print books. But in a few years when print books are selling less than e-books this is only going to become more serious.
And, I know for a fact that authors and publishers are concentrating on going after the pirates as well as the people who download from the pirates. We have names, we're lobbying the FBI, and we're beginning to expose the readers who have been stealing the books. In author circles, this is a huge topic and it's not going to disappear. Like it or not, this is a criminal offense.
A few years ago smokers were ordering cigarettes online at a fraction of the cost. And then there was a huge bust in NY harbor where the government confiscated an entire shipment. All the people who made internet orders were tracked and forced to pay the taxes or face criminal punishment. And I truly believe this is what's going to happen to people downloading and stealing books for free.
If I saw AVATAR in IMAX 3-D, should I pay a lesser ticket price if I see it a second time at that same theater?
What if the second time is not IMAX, not 3-D, or at a different theater?
This is a dangerous form of consumer entitlement where people feel that they are owed products and services rather than feeling obligated to pay for products and services.
And while it does not compare to horrendous crimes like rape and genocide, or even large-scale financial crimes a la Bernie Madoff or Enron, it is still a crime.
If you steal $1 from me I probably won't make a big deal about it. But if 10,000 people each steal $1 from me, I'm going to be pretty upset.
First up, it is the job of ethicists not to be bound by what is or is not considered good form, and what is legal – it is their job to point out when, in their opinion, and why, the law is an ass.
I think you're bag on, though, to point out the flaw in the analogy – the plain fact of the mater is that not only is it a different product, but different people were involved in production, and they need to be reimbursed. Unless you hike hardcover prices and refuse to sell hardcovers unbundled, there is nop way to divide up the two revenue streams in order to provide suitable recompense, or work out what an appropriate per piece going rate is.
As an aside, on the question of free, I 100% agree with what you say here:
"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."
As an author who gives his work away for free for business reasons, that's the case I've been making for a long time – that the publishing industry should get off my back telling me I have no right to give my own work away free, and let the market decide whether or not I've got it totally wrong.
The publisher Baen already bundles DRM-free CD's in hard backs. These CDs contain previous e-books in the series (if applicable) and other books by the same author.
In addition to that, you can buy any e-book from the Baen already formatted to fit your reading device. DRM-Free, of course.
If that wasn't enough… Baen also offers free e-books for download. These are usually the first book or three in a series so the reader doesn't have to worry if they like the series before they start investing time and money in it.
Here's the kicker though. 1)Baen only publishes Science fiction and fantasy. 2)They also trust their customers not to steal or pirate unduly. 3)The late Jim Baen (who started the company) and Toni Weisskopf (who now owns it) both realize the writer's worst enemy is lack of readership. Pirates kinda-sorta act like free-lance advertisers, using word of mouth to boost paying readership.
4) Encouraging readers to make digital copies to share with their friends has paid off. Baen's e-book driven back list is large and still selling paper books for the company.
@ anon 4/5 7:05
"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?"
Ummmmm, yes. You need to pay twice. The same way you need to pay twice to see the same film content twice in the theater. Or a stage play. Or the DVD content if you've seen the movie in the theater.
Nathan, You ask "Should we be able to get into the movie for free when we own the paperback?"
I have done just that exact same thing, legally, as recently as a few weeks ago.
If I buy a copy of Hamlet, do I have the right to watch a free performance of it at the nearest park?
Yes, I do, so long as those putting on the performance are doing it for free.
I have a legal copy of the play in one format, and if it is being offered through another distribution channel free of charge, I have the right to see it there as well.
In fact, I don't need to own any sort of copy of Hamlet to go watch a free performance of it.
I saw a movie at a theater a couple weeks ago, and I happen to own the DVD for that movie, and I didn't have to pay to see the movie, and it was all legal.
That's where all of your "I have it in this format so I can steal it in this format" arguments break down.
Now, if the actors dont have the right to perform it, then they may be breaking the law, but I most certainly am not.
Downloading an illegal copy of it certainly is illegal, though, but I think you're anger at the downloader is misplaced. He at least bought a hardcover copy.
And when I went to see that movie I happened to have complementary tickets, otherwise I would have had to pay, or break the law and sneak in.
But all of your analogies fail for the simple reason that they assign all the blame to the downloader.
If you want to be berate the person offering the pirated copy, your argument has some merit. But instead you attack the paying customer and reader.
Please pick your battles with more care than the music industry did.
The website offering the pirated material for free is probably still profiting off of advertising. They are most certainly behaving unethically, and I too condemn what they do, but for the love of god, in this day and age, when there are so many different ways to spend our money and our free time, let us not attack those who still choose to read.
Let's face it, he most likely would have downloaded the book no matter what. At least he recognized the author and publisher's right to compensation enough to buy the hardcover.
cory-
That was quite a display of analogical gymnastics you just put on there. But listen, I agree with you that in the order of piracy, someone who buys a new hardcover and then pirates the e-book is pretty low on the totem pole of piracy evil, and I'm not going to advocate calling the federal marshals to raid someone's house over it. Doesn't mean it's not theft, doesn't make it right.
In your free Shakespeare in the Park analogy, publishers ain't giving away e-books for free in the park. You're not partaking of something meant to be free when you pirate an e-book that's for sale. You've climbed a tree to watch a performance you should have paid for. I'm not saying someone should chop down the tree with you in it, but just because you can attend a paid performance somewhere in the country doesn't mean you get into every theater for free.
It's fascinating to me how people find ways to justify theft.
Why can't they just be honest about it?
@Ink – I fully agree, no one should be able to make copies and distribute them, as you say. But what if I delete my copy after sending it to my friend? Now it's no different than trading or lending a hardcover, but illegal nonethelss.
More surprisingly, it seems funny that they haven't figured out a simple technical solution to this problem. Some computer applications are "keyed" to prevent unlawful use by more than the number of licensed users.
andrewdugas-
Because when you buy a hardcover you're not buying the right to e-mail it to a friend. While admittedly the e-book landscape has different systems, most Kindle books can be shared with up to (I believe six) users and Nook has the share with a friend function. Some have no DRM at all. If you want to send a book electronically to a friend buy the e-book!
andrewdugas-
Oh, nevermind, I think you were referring only to e-books. Still, my point stands that there are legal ways of doing it.
I'm not trying to justify theft, I'm saying this should be put in perspective.
When your customer base becomes your enemy, your business model is flawed, but then again, the publishing industry's business model has been flawed since Thor Power Tools v the IRS.
Personally, I don't really care for eBooks; I like my mashed wood pulp and ink, and I like the 20 feet of wall space I have dedicated to books that I've read. I'm a bit anachronistic and a bit of a late adopter. I don't even own an iPod.
But eBooks are a reality, and I think there are lessons to be learned here. To start with, if this guy was willing to pay $24 for a hardcover book, he probably would have payed $30 for a hardcover+ebook bundle. And secondly, if legal ebooks aren't available, you can pretty much bet that illegal ones will be.
We've seen these roads traveled down before. What's the publishing equivalent of iTunes or Hulu? Can kindle or the iPad replicate those successes?
Maybe if we explain to everyone that stealing ebooks is wrong, they'll stop doing it. Though in a country where more than 15,000 people are murdered every year, I somehow doubt that our stern disapproval of intellectual property theft is going to do all that much.
cory-
I agree with your post, especially that the best deterrent is making e-books readily available. On the matter of ethics, I think there's a middle ground between taking a devil-may-care attitude to piracy and going overboard and treating it with more seriousness than it deserves, particularly areas like this one that are just a tick over from what I'd call ethical, even if it's not fully blown awful.
I guess I'm more optimistic that if people are conscious that these are not big ole mean anonymous corporations who are being affected by piracy but actual real people and authors in an industry in transition. Still think there's value in drawing an ethical line in the sand, but I agree that there's a responsibility there to not go overboard.
The supermarket does sell peanut butter and jelly together. It's called Goober and it is the most disgusting thing you will ever put on a piece of bread.
So Nathan, I gotta ask: As an agent, if someone pitched you a book where the sole motivation for the characters was to operate within the bounds of what is allowed by law, do you think you'd want to agent that book?
As a writer, have your characters ever done what you wanted them to, just because you wanted them to? Or have you had to find some way to motivate them?
Shouldn't our approach to selling books be at least as realistic as our fiction is?
cory-
Ha. Well, no one breaks the law in my novel, but they do break the universe. You can get into plenty of trouble without breaking the law.
I guess I'd ask you the reverse. Would you want everyone around you behaving like characters in novels?
So no, I don't think what we read should reflect our buying choices. Being ethical is boring, but that doesn't mean we should discard it.
Dude, Cory, just stop with the analogies. You went overboard with that one. It didn't even make sense.
In a lot of ways you're right. I for one agree that publishers should e-books at the same time as the hardcover, and bundling sounds like a good idea too. I will never agree that illegally downloading material is ethical.
We know where you stand. Just let it go.
Excellent post, excellent points. Thanks for waving the banner for those whose livelihood is attached to the royalties for these creative works, no matter the format. I'm intrigued by the bundling idea…
"I'm not saying someone should chop down the tree with you in it…"
(but if they do, they could make a baseball bat out of it!)
😉
The phrase I could sum the whole pro and con arguments up with is the old folks.
Penny wise and pound foolish.
People go nuts chasing nickels dimes and quarters never realizing that customer loyalty is more valuable than a mountain of gold diamonds or silver.
My example is Sony.
I bought a 600$ elaborate DVD recorder
that still records from cable television just fine. The down side is that new DVD's are now purposely not supported. When I rent a movie from Netflix it won't play on my top of the line DVD recorder.
LEGACY.
That's the key word.
When Kindle or IPad starts deciding your book and its encryption coding is compromised "long enough" and they switch to a new format for your old Kindle or IPad to make sure that thousand of new titles are not pirated onto market before the release date.
Also authors shall have legacy books that aren't supported by subsequent editions of the encryption and presentation software codes.
So sooner or later the same writer who
promoted strict procedure in copying law and forms shall lose sales when the company doesn't update them to the same code.
I am a pirate and I have been pirated many times. It's about the ideas that are channeled through the art form called "Writing". Let the corporate writer wanna bees count the pennies and keep writing so the poor buggers have something to distract themselves form their corporate induced misery.
It isn't capitalism that sucks its unbridled greed and personal disrespect for consumers and a lack of a code of honor on both sides of the fence that makes for a toxic environment.
As example; there are many places that sell modified DVD recorder that strip all embedded code and most of them pride themselves on their Better Business Bureau rating. These places also sell transfer devices to strip code. So what it all adds up to is the real heart of defeating the various levels of the "Cult of Personality" culture we live in and delivering hard won hard fought truthfully inspired stories to any one kind enough to spend their most precious asset; their own time and energy reviewing and trying to absorb what you have postulate should be considered as art.
Most of the best books are already public property and available on project Guttenberg. I learned from getting stiffed by software makers its best to break the law test the product and then pay the slimey rats if it actually delivers as promised.
I pirate first then I pay the honest
person their honest wage as stated.
Anon-addendum
None of the above reflects on Nathan.
He runs a clean site and boards and obviously doesn't assault people with
the pornographic level of advertising
that makes many if not most sites malignant to the process of acquiring
worthwhile information that's usable and retainable.
Cory, William Shakespeare's works have never been copyrighted.
Nathan, you mean there's no law against breaking the universe? Great! I can't wait for the weekend!
I feel I'm entitled to any format for free and that it's the ethical obligation of society to make this special exception because Cutsauce Peckwater said I'm cool.
Copyright law exists to encourage innovation, by means of establishing intellectual property rights. It protects the creators right to be compensated for their efforts. Like all rights in society this right must be balanced against other rights. In the US copyright is not absolute, there are explicit laws covering "Fair Use" (allowing for use in journalism and educational settings) and "First Used Doctrine" (which allows things like library's and video rental stores to operate).
The creator's right to his or her work is not a moral absolute, and I'll prove it to you.
Can we agree that a human life is more important than convenience?
If that is a moral absolute, if it is always true that a human life is more important than convenience, then why, as a society, have we agreed to trade between 2,000 and 4,000 lives each year so that we can all get to work a little bit faster each day.
The number of fatalities per passenger mile increases by about 28% when you increase the speed limit from 55 to 65 MPH, and a National Academy of Sciences study found that the 55 mph limit saved between 2,000 and 4,000 lives each year.
So given that we do not live in a society of moral absolutes, what are you really worried about?
How about making sure those responsible for making the book are financially compensated.
What would you find acceptable? How about if he bought two hardcover copies and threw one away after downloading the eBook version? Is that OK? Three copies? Four?
Or should he just not buy it at all? He wants an eBook version, there's no eBook version available for legal purchase, so he's out of luck? End of story.
If he can't do it legally, he can't do it at all, no matter how hard he tries to compensate those involved in making it. Is that it?
Author loses, publisher loses, reader loses. That's your solution?
I don't believe that downloading an ebook version of a book for which you own a hardcover copy is the moral equivalent of stealing a DVD, and I don't believe driving 65 MPH is the moral equivalent of murder, and neither do you.
What is the real issue?
You've said you're standing up for artists, and their right to compensation, but if the reader's desire to read the book convinced him to go out and buy it in hardcover (because no legal eBook was available), and then download a pirate eBook copy, then didn't the author and publisher get as much compensation as possible? (The hardcover book was probably the only, and most expensive, version available.)
Didn't the publisher get exactly what they wanted, more hardcover sales?
If you truly believe in an author's absolute right to control who does what with their work, then you should be protesting the existence of libraries. Libraries not only deprive an author of potential sales, they do so at taxpayer expense. As a society we've decided libraries are a moral good, despite their potentially adverse effect on authors.
Do you really fail to see that in life there is the need to compromise between competing moral goods? Do you really want to lower the speed limit to 55 MPH? (That, at least, is a life and death issue, rather that just a matter of money.)
I'm incredibly lucky. I have many options. I can buy books whenever I want. I don't hurt for money and I don't begrudge giving the author their due coin.
I don't think people with the means to buy eBooks would bother pirating them, book consumption patterns are very different than music consumption.
(I'll make an exception for college textbooks, those publishers should be terrified of eBook versions, but that's the perfect storm of compulsory need, lack of disposable income, and technological know-how.)
If this disrespect for your intellectual property rights still offends you, as a matter of principle, go to your local library and smack around those ingrate five-year-olds with their government funded library cards of pure evil.
anon-
A lot to respond to, so I'll just choose a couple:
You've said you're standing up for artists, and their right to compensation, but if the reader's desire to read the book convinced him to go out and buy it in hardcover (because no legal eBook was available), and then download a pirate eBook copy, then didn't the author and publisher get as much compensation as possible? (The hardcover book was probably the only, and most expensive, version available.)
This really boils down to the "all platforms" argument. Pay for it once and you should get it everywhere. What I'm saying is that if you buy a hardcover you don't then get the right to it in e-book form no more than you get the right to it in paperback or mass market. If a book is available in hardcover and the paperback edition isn't available, you don't then get to go by a pirated paperback edition off the street and call it ethical.
If you truly believe in an author's absolute right to control who does what with their work, then you should be protesting the existence of libraries
Libraries buy their books. They are an important market for the publishing industry, especially for things like literary fiction. Libraries are part of the book market, not an exception to it. I would still encourage people who truly want to support authors to buy new books when they can afford them, but it doesn't mean that someone who goes to the library is subverting the system. Your condescension on this point is unbecoming.
My opinion boils down to this: Buying a hardcover does not grant you immunity from ever having to buy the same book in another form ever again. If you want another edition you can make it yourself out of the one you bought or you should pay for it.
Books, movies, and media in general has moved into a bizarre pattern. Gone are the days of owning a library (or even visiting a library), and welcome to the days of quick reads and easy access. I don't believe myself to be an old-timer, at the age of 35, but my outlook on books is unique. I believe in owning and re-reading my books. I have a collection of books numbering in the thousands.
I think that naivety is to blame here. Already people can resell their books and movies without the author or publisher seeing a dime, and now people want more for free. This instant gratification is abhorrent to artists throughout the world. Years are spent in the creation of a book or a movie and the essence of it is quickly discarded as soon as the last page or credit has passed. Only other fellow artists truly understand this pain and frustration.
These loopholes are killing the artists (who make very little to begin with). I am a strong supporter of the artists themselves, and not the concept of getting as much as I can for as little as I have to spend. I also support entrepreneurs and mom and pop shops. I think that this new generation may start to get fed up with disposable ideas and merchandise soon, and start to see that quality is always better than quantity. Which ultimately leads to saving money anyways.
My opinion is buying a book does not grant you immunity from ever having to buy the same book in another form ever again, except as an ebook.
Ebook, as in a text document, containing the exact words of the version that you have purchased.
It does not entitle you to other material forms of the book, because you must pay for the material to create it, as well as transportation, marketing, etc.
It does not entitle you to a movie rendition, because it is not the same content.
It does not entitle you to a formatted ebook, unless it is the same format as the version you have purchased, and only if the version is not derived from a paid version.
The baseball bat analogy does not work, because you are not stealing the baseball bat, you are receiving a baseball bat from somebody who is willing to "carve" baseball bats for free. Whether or not he has the right to "carve", or if he even "carved" them at all, is a different matter. Carving another baseball bat yourself for yourself is an example of "fair use", and receiving one from someone who is carving them for free would still be fair use in the sense that you are paying someone a sum of $0 to copy an object for your own use.
If you are buying a ticket for a movie or play, you are buying the right to a one-time uninterrupted consumption of the material provided, at the date agreed upon. You are not purchasing the right to the consumption, but a limited right to consumption.
(Although that could be applied to books as well, as the right to the consumption of content in the media form provided, though with my baseball bat analogy, it would fall under "fair use".)
You cannot steal the DVD of something you have the VHS of, as you are stealing material, transportation, marketing, etc., as well as the cost to do the transferring, as well as possible touch ups and special features, especially with blu-ray.
You are allowed to transfer it yourself for yourself, as it falls under "fair use", which takes away all of the above criteria.
And Oreos. Great analogy.
However, when you purchase Oreos, you are purchasing the "Oreo" itself, which is a one-time enjoyment of Oreo, which may be divided into as many pieces as you wish, as long as the sum of the pieces does not exceed the initial Oreo. It does not entitle you to the unlimited consumption of the feeling that Oreos provide, but the physical medium that is consumed once the feeling is experienced.
I think the main argument is what you actually purchase when you buy a book. Do you purchase the book as a physical entity? Then you "fair use" should not apply, as you did not purchase the use of the content. I believe that purchasing the book gives you the right to consume the contents of the book, which allows you to pay people to reproduce it as long as you are the only one who will be using the reproduction.
But I still say that the ebooks should only be available to people who have purchased the books, and anyone who makes it available to people who did not purchase the book should be fined.
anon-
See, while I think you make some good points, I think your comment betrays an opinion that e-books are essentially valueless. You're making one distinction for print books, in part because of infrastructure costs and physical printing, whereas an e-book is just electrons. But e-books have infrastructure costs. Not only does e-book revenue go toward paying the authors and publishing infrastructure (editors, production, etc.), but you're depriving legal e-book vendors of infrastructure costs as well. You may not be "stealing" a physical object, but that object only costs a few dollars to make. All the other costs are still there with e-books.
And I also don't believe you are paying simply for the reading experience when you buy a print book. You're buying a physical object. When you pass that print book onto someone else you don't retain the right to read the book. You aren't entitled to read it in perpetuity if the print book breaks down. If your book breaks down you have to buy another one. Nothing in buying a print book entitles you to perpetual text rights.
Ironically, when you buy e-books you are buying pretty much perpetual text rights. If you bought a Kindle book you can now read it on your iPad, and you have access to it in perpetuity. But when books evolve again and they're beamed directly to your head in a hundred years I'll bet you still have to pay to legally convert your e-book library.
Not only does e-book revenue go toward paying the authors and publishing infrastructure (editors, production, etc.), but you're depriving legal e-book vendors of infrastructure costs as well.
That's why I chose to incorporate the fact that the ebook that you download must NOT have been made by a publisher who wishes to sell the ebook. Publishers who sell ebooks pay infrastructure costs, but those who type the ebook up themselves for free do not want pay for their infrastructure.
If you're downloading a publisher's ebook, then you should still pay for the infrastructure.
(This is still assuming you have rights to the consumption of the book.)
And I also don't believe you are paying simply for the reading experience when you buy a print book.
I must say that you are right here. If you lose the book, you no longer have the right to the content. But if you have a backup, you still have the right to the content. And you are legally allowed to use third-party services to backup your book. So you are legally allowed to download the ebook (just the text, nothing else), as a third-party backup service. Ethically, I'm not so sure.
Ironically, when you buy e-books you are buying pretty much perpetual text rights.
Unless Amazon finds out that it doesn't have the rights, and deletes it from your devices.;) And when they beam it to your head, if you can find someone who's willing to convert it for free, then you're allowed to do it. But everyone will still want the leatherbound tomes anyways. Because nothing can replace them.
Libraries buy their books. They are an important market for the publishing industry, especially for things like literary fiction. Libraries are part of the book market, not an exception to it. I would still encourage people who truly want to support authors to buy new books when they can afford them, but it doesn't mean that someone who goes to the library is subverting the system. Your condescension on this point is unbecoming.
People who buy a hardcover because there is no way to buy an ebook still buy their books. They are an important market for the publishing industry, especially since no ebook is available. They are part of the book market, not an exception to it. I would still encourage people who truly want to support authors to buy the ebook versions when they become available, but it doesn't mean that someone who goes to trouble of buying the harcover in place of the ebook is subverting the system. Your condescension on this point is unbecoming.
I couldn't agree more, Nathan. I realize that we're trying to navigate our way through a lot of gray areas, but the Ethicist's advice really stunned me. It's a slippery slope.
Ethics is always a difficult concept. It requires not only knowing the current law but also what the law could be: And the law is not always, as it is established, what is best. But often it is. Against all one's ideas. The law seems often too religious. Right now, I am most concerned w/what lies outside of current custom: could I insert a passage of Chopin or Mozart etc into a novel into an e-book?????
Anonymous, I think I love you.
Artists and employees: pick your battles more carefully.
I stopped reading The Ethicist when he told an employee who found child porn on his boss's computer not to turn him in. His rationale was "Even if your boss were acquitted of criminal charges, the accusation itself imperils his job, his reputation and the company. If convicted, he faces years in prison… Since you have no reason to believe your boss has had improper contact with children, you should not subject him to such ferocious repercussions for looking at forbidden pictures."
Anyone who can make such an argument does not deserve to be in print. This only further illustrates the point.
Just came across this post today. I know it is a bit old but it made me think, so here is my two penn'orth. I may incorporate it in a post on my own site:
I think the current hysteria over free downloads of intellectual property is getting a little out of hand. Whatever the morality of it, as perceived by present-day standards, it is clearly quite disingenuous to equate copying intellectual property with stealing material property. If I steal your vehicle I prevent you from using it. If I copy your pop song I do not. There is a significant difference.
The argument is then presented that I am stealing from you the money that I should have paid you for it. But if I would not buy it anyway, due to greed, laziness or penury, then you are not being deprived of that theoretical sum of money.
There is increasing evidence that many who download intellectual property without paying for it then go on to buy associated merchandise – tee-shirts, higher quality recordings, live shows, other works by that author and so on. The likelihood of vicious lawsuits, disconnection from the internet and public floggings encouraging people to do this is probably fairly low. The offer of free digital downloads is more likely to create a warm, let-me-get-my-wallet glow in a prospective buyer's heart.
I recently described the attitude of the music business to free downloaders as being like a guerilla war, in which the most basic golden rule is to 'win the hearts and minds of the people'. The music moguls have failed catastrophically to observe this, and will suffer greatly for it. The book world should try to avoid doing the same.
It is beginning to seem to me that the very concept of paying for most immaterial objects is going to vanish. They will become loss leaders, adverts, tasters, encouragement to buy the associated material possessions such as tee-shirts, posters, paper books, branded MP3 players and so on. My neighbour writes and illustrates childrens' books and she tells me that most of her income derives not from her books directly but from lectures, school visits and such. I believe the same is true of successful musicians, with live shows and merchandise.
In the meantime there will be much heartache as we all try to cope with the tremendous changes going on, not only the material, practical ones, but also the immaterial, moral ones. For morality, surely, is simply about not harming others. And if a free download does not harm the author then it cannot be immoral. If it can be made to benefit the author then it will benefit everyone.
The Digital Revolution has released a magical genie from her bottle and we must not try to push her back in just because she challenges our concepts of the acceptable norm.
sleepyjohn-
I understand that stealing a physical good and depriving someone of a sale is not the same thing. At the same time, depriving someone of revenue they have rightly earned is still a form of theft. I really don't buy that oh well, it's just digital and so we should just all get used to not paying for anything. The time authors and editors and e-booksellers put into an e-book are not "immaterial." Just because you're receiving it in the form of electrons instead of paper doesn't mean that you should get it for free.
One free download from someone who wasn't going to buy a book anyway may not harm the author that much. A culture where people think they don't have to pay for anything most definitely harms authors.
Nathan,
I am not promoting a culture in which people feel they never have to pay for anything, but one in which an artist's material returns for his endeavours (eg money) does not necessarily come directly from selling digital copies of them. We need to look at this in a different way to the sale of material objects, because it is different. I did use 'immaterial' as in 'Having no material body or form', not as 'inconsequential'.
It is interesting that in a recent study of free downloading (one of the rare ones not actually controlled by the music industry) it was discovered that the motivation was rarely to save money. Top of the list was convenience. Free stuff is just easier to get and use than the DRM-crippled 'only allowed to use 4 times in one room on a Thursday' products. https://7-books.net/pirate-party-is-shape-of-things-to-come/
If someone has paid a huge sum for a CD, they feel they should be allowed to listen to it on the beach or in a plane without having to drag along their household music system and a generator. So I think the idea mooted by a number here of bundling an e-book download with paper books is a good one, and the sort of move that would certainly begin to 'win the hearts and minds of the people', so cretinously discarded by the music barons. If people see the publishing industry reaching out to accommodate them, they will probably reciprocate.
I have no pat answers in the longer term, although I am attracted to the simple idea of a small 'media tax' on our internet connections which is shared out among artists according to the number of recorded downloads. Others can work out the details, but it does seem to me to have much the pros and cons of the BBC TV licence, which has worked OK for many years. If you don't pay, you don't connect, and you get nothing; but having connected everything becomes very simple – help yourself to what you want; extra charge for premium content perhaps.
Anyway, I hope there is some food for thought here. I shall seriously consider attaching a complimentary PDF to every email acknowledging payment for a paper book. If someone has bought my book and wants to take it and ten others on a long journey, why should I expect him to drag along a suitcase full of squashed pine trees? It is the story that he has bought, after all.
I'm an avid reader and so read a lot of author/literary blogs, and must say that I am disheartened by the every penny, not matter what, bottom line taken here and many other sites I read. I agree with the earlier poster who said that the fighting for every nickle and dime, at the cost of alienating customers, is a huge mistake. At a time when many, many people download illegal ebooks with no intention of ever paying the authors a single cent, the reader in the original Ethicist post did all he could, given what was available, to pay the author. And yet he is still attacked by many here as a pariah. Instead of saying – look, this guy wants to pay his fair share, most folks are probably like him, let's work with these well-intentioned readers and give them the paying options they want, there is still such a huge undercurrent, here and at most literary blogs, that any reader who doesn't want to go along happily with the limitations set by publishers is a BAD PERSON, that they are as evil as folks uploading hundreds of ebook files for sharing online. Yes, Nathan, you made the distinction between levels of piracy, but your overall tone for the length of this discussion leans much more toward anyone operating outside the status quo being terrible.
I go to a lot of reader blogs, too, and I can tell you that this attitude is turning people into pirates as fast as anything that technology can come up with. Many readers are struggling to do the right thing, they WANT authors to get money for their works, and they come up with ideas like the Ethicist reader did because it is the best they can do. To be bashed by authors, agents, publishers and other readers as no better than the pirates who pay NOTHING, EVER is enough to send many in that direction. Might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb, right?
Anon-
Like I said, I don't think anyone should go busting down doors over situations like this one. At the end of the day this is pretty mild. But I still don't think this is ethical, nor do I think that me saying it's not ethically justified is going to drive people to go pirate more just to spite me. This is what this is coming to?