# Are Kindles actually worth it without pirating ebooks?



## lanfearl (Jul 28, 2010)

I'm not going to get into specifics here because I know it's against the TOS. However, If I couldn't download ebooks I wouldn't purchase a kindle... that's where my savings comes in.

Buying books from the amazon store is extremely expensive...

How many books does it take to recoup the cost? Because some older books are twice as expensive on the kindle as they are to buy them used...

Just some thoughts.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

lanfearl said:


> I'm not going to get into specifics here because I know it's against the TOS. However, If I couldn't download ebooks I wouldn't purchase a kindle... that's where my savings comes in.
> 
> Buying books from the amazon store is extremely expensive...
> 
> ...


The next question is: How do the authors and publishers recoup the cost of books if everyone pirates them?


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Yesterday's post at "I love My Kindle" blog addressed this. . http://ilmk.wordpress.com/2010/08/19/will-a-kindle-save-you-money/

Bottom line: it really depends on your reading habits. If you MUST have current best sellers, yeah, you're not going to save much. Backlists are generally priced like paperbacks, but, again, that depends on what author you're specifically looking for. Some not-very-old but not current books do seem rather overpriced.

BUT, there are a TON of public domain titles that are free, another TON that are low priced -- they've been better formatted and/or collected into a single volume, and here on KindleBoards we have a third TON of independently published books, most of which are very good quality for a very reasonable price. Check out the Book Bazaar!


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Well, speaking only for myself, nothing would make it worth my while to pirate ebooks.  

However, the average price of the books I have on my Kindle, all legal, was $2.34 the last time I checked.  So yes, the Kindle has paid for itself.  I have twelve years of reading material on my Kindle at one book a week.  Even if I decide half of them are not worth reading, that's still six years...

Betsy


----------



## Addie (Jun 10, 2009)

I think it's a YMMV type of thing. For me, the vast majority of e-books I've saved to my "To Buy" list are cheaper than their physical version. Also, there are a ton of free books available. 

But for me, I never bought the Kindle because I wanted to save money. I bought the Kindle because: I got tired of hauling books on trips, finishing them all off and having to run out to find a bookstore with an English-language section. I got tired of having to carry boxes of books when I moved. I got tired of the clutter. I got tired of carrying ridiculously heavy books with me when running errands because I knew at some point I would be waiting in long lines.

For me, the Kindle is the literate version of my iPod. I didn't buy the iPod to save money on music. I bought it for its convenience.


----------



## davem2bits (Feb 2, 2009)

Perhaps an ereader that would allow you to borrow ebooks from a public library would make more sense for you.  I think the Nook and Sony's ereaders support this.


----------



## geko29 (Dec 23, 2008)

I actually keep track of this.  The 281 books I've purchased have cost a total of $486.08, or an average of $1.73.  That's a savings of $2,127.54 off the lowest print price of those same books (where the book is available in print;  If not I used the "suggested digital list price" which is much lower than the print price would be, reducing the savings), or an average savings of $7.57 per book.  So there's absolutely huge savings to be (and has been) had.

But some of those were freebies, and I won't necessarily read all of them, you say?  I've read 106 of those books, and that subset cost me $387.14, or an average of $3.65 per book.  I've saved $701.98 off the lowest print price of those same books, or an average of $6.62 per book.

The savings has quite literally paid for my K1, my upcoming K3, my cases and all my accessories, and still left me with money in my pocket.  Plus, I've been introduced to a ton of great new major and indie authors and read quite a few fantastic books that I never would have had I stuck to print-only.  That enjoyment is worth well more than the little I've spent.


----------



## drenee (Nov 11, 2008)

For me personally, I bought my K for the ease of getting books.  Pirating would take effort and, more importantly time.  And as Jeff pointed out, ultimately money from the author's pockets.  
deb


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

Here's my question to you- Does having an iPod make sense if you can't pirate music.

There are a lot of free ebooks, 99 cent ebooks, 2.99 ebooks.  Decide what you want to pay, you'll find stuff at your price level.


----------



## Tuttle (Jun 10, 2010)

When you take into account the free books, I've easily spent less than $1 average per book - even ignoring public domain books. I have definitely saved more than the $370 or so that my kindle had cost for the reading material on the kindle. 


Also, take into account whether you'll use the basic web at all. Personally, if there's a reason I need to send an email, should check my email, have something to look up on wikipedia, or such, and don't have a wifi connection for my laptop. If you have a different cellular network connection, then this saving is nothing, but for me personally, despite my kindle being from May 2009, I have more than recooped the cost of my kindle on web browsing costs alone (and I don't use it as a web browsing device just a device that can browse the web.).

Basic question, what are you reading? Do you want to read best sellers or books that are written by self publishing authors? Do you want to read contemporary fiction, or military science fiction? Do you read currently published books or public domain books? 

There is also whether getting a kindle is about saving money or not for you. There are many reasons beyond saving money to have an ebook reader - truthfully saving money is not a reason I generally see.  Do you only want it to save money or is that a nice side effect?


----------



## hera (Mar 25, 2009)

Jeff said:


> The next question is: How do the authors and publishers recoup the cost of books if everyone pirates them?


Any why will authors take the time to polish their books for publication? Some things will still be written, but I don't think there will be the incentive to put in the time necessary for quality works.

I have saved $185.33 purchasing 80 books since I got my K2 (I've kept track of every purchase in excel). That is not including the free books from Amazon, Gutenberg, Baen, etc. It also doesn't include the books by independent authors that were only available in ebook format.

eBooks have gotten a little more expensive since the agency model was implemented, but I am betting that is a blip, and prices will decrease some in the next year or so.


----------



## kindlegrl81 (Jan 19, 2010)

Well in my case I didn't buy my kindle to save money (Though I have actually saved some money).  

I bought it so I didn't have to carry around multiple books (I'm a really fast reader), so I don't have to buy anymore book shelves (I love to re-read so I don't get rid of my books) and so I can download a book in 60 seconds and not have to go to the store or wait for a book to ship.

These features make a kindle extremely worth it to me but YMMV.


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

I didn't buy my Kindle to save money, either. I got all of my reading materials from the library for the decade prior to getting a Kindle. To make purchasing books less fiscally painful, I try not to buy books that are more than $6. If I want a book that is more, I wait until I get a swagbucks $5 Amazon gift certificate, and then use that to buy books I want that are in the $10 range.


----------



## vermontcathy (Feb 18, 2009)

I'll just add that it helps if you have a good friend or relative (or two) who share your kindle account with, and split the cost of books with. I bought my mom a kindle and then got her hooked on the outlander series, then bought the last 4 books in the series for us.


----------



## Kathy (Nov 5, 2008)

I'm another one that didn't buy the Kindle to save money. I travel lot and love that I don't have to carry multiple books with me.  I also live in a 2 bedroom condo and was running out of space for more books. I also agree that it is way to much work to pirate a book.


----------



## lanfearl (Jul 28, 2010)

vermontcathy said:


> I'll just add that it helps if you have a good friend or relative (or two) who share your kindle account with, and split the cost of books with. I bought my mom a kindle and then got her hooked on the outlander series, then bought the last 4 books in the series for us.


Isn't this the equivalent of pirating?

Good thoughts guys. Thanks for taking the time to answer.

I don't really think 9/10's of the self published 2.99 special kindle ebooks are worth reading. So I factor that out of my personal decision.

Definitely correct about the public domain books, because I was forced in high school to read them and I just bought expensive versions at at BnM store.

I wonder if some of your savings figures are based on MSRP prices or Barnes and Noble pricing with a significant markup. I haven't seen too many ebooks on Amazon that the price of the Used + shipping is higher than an ebook

Thanks again for the conversation guys.


----------



## davem2bits (Feb 2, 2009)

vermontcathy said:


> I'll just add that it helps if you have a good friend or relative (or two) who share your kindle account with, and split the cost of books with. I bought my mom a kindle and then got her hooked on the outlander series, then bought the last 4 books in the series for us.





lanfearl said:


> Isn't this the equivalent of pirating?


No, Kindle ebooks have always be sharable on at most five Kindles registered on the same Amazon account. Amazon and the publishers depend on us Kindle owners being afraid of some other reader ripping us off, rather than using their system for our benefit.


----------



## CaroleC (Apr 19, 2010)

I didn't buy a Kindle to save money.   It's not a savings, it's an expenditure (of $259 in March, $379 or something in July, and $189 in August). 

If I wanted to save money on books, I would use the library, or buy DTB's for a nickel or a dime at booksales and garage sales.

I *DID* buy a Kindle to read the books that I want to read in a format that is easier on my eyes. Amazon is where those books are. I have bought the books that appeal to me the most, regardless of price, and still my average is only a little over $5/book. That savings is icing on the cake, to me.

Only one book was too expensive for me to buy it on the spot, and that is Atlas Shrugged. I don't want to read it THAT much so I am waiting for it to cost less than $15 some day. Otherwise, I'll pass on that one.

Although I mostly read non-fiction, the fiction that I choose to read is almost always public domain and free.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

davem2bits said:


> No, Kindle ebooks have always be sharable on at most five Kindles registered on the same Amazon account. Amazon and the publishers depend on us Kindle owners being afraid of some other reader ripping us off, rather than using their system for our benefit.


Exactly! It's not pirating: it's a feature of the Kindle account. . . . . .


----------



## CoolMom1960 (Mar 16, 2009)

To quote one of my friends "I am a book/reading" whore.  I don't care where I am, I will read, in line at the grocery store, waiting rooms, waiting in line to pick son up from school.  Did I buy to save money?  That would be a laugh because my husband would say NO.  I probably spend more money on books now that I did buying DTB.  I live in a small town, our library sucks.  A book my sister had downloaded from overdrive wasn't available in my county library overdrive! Talk about disappointment.

It's also a bit of a privacy issue.  I don't want people judging me on what I am reading.  I have pretty broad tastes, the book just has to pass the 50 page test. I have had more people interrupt and ask "is that a good book? or what is that about" while reading a dead tree book than my kindle.  Generally they just ask "Is that one of those Kindles I've heard so much about".


----------



## SusanCassidy (Nov 9, 2008)

CaroleC said:


> I *DID* buy a Kindle to read the books that I want to read in a format that is easier on my eyes.


Double ditto on that!!! Much easier on my bad eyesight, and also, the comment someone else made about having to carry extra books around, in case you finish the one you're on now.


----------



## Julia (Jul 30, 2010)

I feel like I've already recouped the cost through the free books that Amazon puts out. In fact that was my main motivation in getting one since I have 70+ books right now and all but a couple were free. They even occasionally put out a bestseller on the free list, I got The Girl with the Dragon Tatoo that way.


----------



## luvmy4brats (Nov 9, 2008)

I share my account with my mom and two oldest daughters. Soon I will be adding my best friend and sister to my account. It's like our own private little library and we split the cost. (We have over 600 books on the account) 

I definitely did not buy the Kindle to save money. Only to give myself a more convenient way to read books.


----------



## Melonhead (Jan 1, 2010)

> I also agree that it is way to much work to pirate a book.


I read that it can be done faster than buying an ebook, but I tried it once just to see, and I never did get it. I suck at pirating, LOL.

Good thing for me I didn't have my heart set on it!


----------



## Dan (Jul 30, 2010)

CaroleC said:


> I *DID* buy a Kindle to read the books that I want to read in a format that is easier on my eyes.


THIS is the main reason I bought a K3. The offshoot of this is that it will get me reading again. I honestly have not read a book since I left high school some &^ years ago. And now with my eyesight I'll be able to tailor my reading experience to my comfort level, i.e. bigger fonts, etc.


----------



## hera (Mar 25, 2009)

lanfearl said:


> I wonder if some of your savings figures are based on MSRP prices or Barnes and Noble pricing with a significant markup. I haven't seen too many ebooks on Amazon that the price of the Used + shipping is higher than an ebook


Since I don't buy used books online unless the book is out-of-print, I used Amazon's lowest price for the comparison. For example, if Amazon's ebook price was $5.04, Amazon's paperback price was $7.99, and Amazon's hardback price was $5.49, the savings calculated was $0.45.

Like others, it was the advantages of an ereader that got me to purchase the Kindle. Keeping track of the savings was to see how often I could justify purchasing a new Kindle. 

Have you considered one of the ereaders that allows you to borrow ebooks from the public library? If cost is an issue, the nook or the Kobe might be a better fit.


----------



## Linjeakel (Mar 17, 2010)

I'm surprised that you only see a Kindle as being something to help you save money, rather than just another, often more practical and convenient way to read books. 

If money is tight, then library books are the way to go but even if you buy a Nook or Sony so you can borrow ebooks, you still have the cost of buying the reader, whereas you could borrow paper books without that outlay.

I don't think an ereader is ever going to save you money, that's not what it's intended for.


----------



## lanfearl (Jul 28, 2010)

Linjeakel said:


> I don't think an ereader if ever going to save you money, that's not what it's intended for.


It already has.

I just pirate everything.


----------



## Kathy (Nov 5, 2008)

lanfearl said:


> Isn't this the equivalent of pirating?


Not at all. That was the main reason that I settled on the Kindle. I share an account with 2 of my daughters, my sister and my niece. We have about 375 books altogether. I would say that 40% of them are free books or books less than $2.00. Sharing has been a great way of staying connected with a common interest that all of us grew up with. One of my daughters lives in Baton Rouge (she uses her iPhone), my other daughter is in the Houston area and so is my sister and niece. I live in Florida and we have had a wonderful time reading new authors and sharing views on books. We all seem to like the same authors and sharing the costs of books has been wonderful. I will confess that I buy the most, but everyone has been wonderful about sharing costs.


----------



## Linjeakel (Mar 17, 2010)

lanfearl said:


> It already has.
> 
> I just pirate everything.


Which of course is the reason the rest of us who buy our books have to pay so much for them. Thanks.


----------



## akpak (Mar 5, 2009)

lanfearl said:


> I don't really think 9/10's of the self published 2.99 special kindle ebooks are worth reading. So I factor that out of my personal decision.


How do you know this until you've read some of them? In my opinion, 9/10s of ALL published books aren't worth reading.

Another way the Kindle can *save* you money buying books: Samples. By being able to sample a book before I purchase (which yes, I could do in a BnM store), my buying decisions are more informed.

I'm another who didn't necessarily buy to save money, but Amazon's decision (less impact now after the agency model fiasco) to price eBooks significantly less than the print counterparts got me to finally pull the trigger.

Of course, no argument is going to sway the "pirate" argument... Since there's "only" ethical reasons keeping anyone from getting everything for "free."

So let me ask you this: Are you willing to pay for content that you enjoy, in an effort to support the artists? This applies to books, music, movies... Anything.

If you answer "no," then why even bother asking your question?


----------



## masquedbunny (Jul 18, 2010)

I read a lot of fanfiction. Before I bought a Kindle, I had to read most of it at the computer--which is A LOT of time staring at a screen and many instances of red itchy eyes. On a Kindle, I can access many fanfiction sites any time I want and read as many stories as I want through a much more comfortable medium. That's hours upon hours of free entertainment. No pirating required. Also, there are all the the books with a dead copyright that you can get completely free. Factor in the convenience, and I'd say, yes, Kindles are actually worth it without breaking the law.


----------



## Vegas_Asian (Nov 2, 2008)

Like the others said, it depends on ur what books you are looking for.

Since I am a full time student and all. I mainly stick to bargain and free books. Found myself reading and enjoying books I wouldn't have read beyond my kindle


----------



## stormmaster (Jun 12, 2010)

masquedbunny said:


> I read a lot of fanfiction. Before I bought a Kindle, I had to read most of it at the computer--which is A LOT of time staring at a screen and many instances of red itchy eyes. On a Kindle, I can access many fanfiction sites any time I want and read as many stories as I want through a much more comfortable medium. That's hours upon hours of free entertainment. No pirating required.


I'm in the same boat. I mostly read fanfiction, and those are all free to begin with. A little legwork, and you can have that on the Kindle, free and legal. I have bought a few books from Amazon, more than I thought, and the convenience is a big reason for it. Even if you do not spend a dime on buying books, there is plenty of free and legal material available.


----------



## drenee (Nov 11, 2008)

lanfearl said:


> It already has.
> 
> I just pirate everything.


I have to say that your post bothers me. I do not like people trying to take my work (I'm not an author) without paying me. It's stealing. Therefore, I would never take something I had not paid for. If my work had been taken over the years I would not have been able to feed and clothe my children. Authors have to make a living too.

deb


----------



## blefever (Jul 29, 2010)

lanfearl said:


> I'm not going to get into specifics here because I know it's against the TOS. However, If I couldn't download ebooks I wouldn't purchase a kindle... that's where my savings comes in.
> 
> Buying books from the amazon store is extremely expensive...
> 
> ...


Your question creates a rather ominous image of you in my mind. But then I'm probably wrong (again).


----------



## Boston (Nov 7, 2008)

I kind of understand where the OP is coming from.

For a long time, I wanted a Sony ebook reader..but despite the benefits, I couldn't justify it with the cost of eBooks. The $9.99 ebook pricing was how I justified splurging on my K1. *That being said, prices of the Kindle have dropped to the point where I could easily justify buying one today for the convenience, ease of reading, etc. *

Since publisher pricing came to play, I am reluctantly back to buying DTBs when the total cost is significantly cheaper than the ebook price. This is about 50% of the time, especially if I wait. Where I buy 10-12 books a month, my spending on books is not insignificant and the savings matters. I do find I have to discipline myself so the DTBs don't pile up unread as ebooks are much more convenient and easier to read.

My mother also has a Kindle on my account, so we share...but I can't use that to justify the cost difference as we can (and do) share paper books as well (not to mention with others who don't own Kindles).


----------



## drenee (Nov 11, 2008)

See, I can't understand where the OP is coming from.  If I want a free book I go to the LIBRARY.  Free books every day.
deb


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

I don't understand it either.  Cars are expensive, too; it doesn't mean it's ok to steal one...as someone who creates copyrighted works, it hits home for me, too. I can't condone copying copyrighted material just because one can with minimal risk...

Betsy


----------



## Boston (Nov 7, 2008)

Ok..I must've misinterpreted the original post.  

I didn't read it as a justification for pirating so much as whether one could justify the cost of buying a Kindle given that most commercial ebooks are more expensive than he/she can get in paper.   

To clarify my point was that it would've been harder for me to justify buying my original Kindle if ebook prices were what they are today.   Not to condone pirating to justify the cost of Kindle. 

(And I justified buying a used Sony to supplement my Kindle so I could get free ebooks from the library)


----------



## drenee (Nov 11, 2008)

Boston, I agree.  I got a K1 way back when and the amount of books I got for free or a low price was ridiculous.  A lot of those books are 9.99 and above now.  Thank goodness I had one-klickitis at the time and got a bunch of them back then.  
deb


----------



## CharlaBrady (Aug 19, 2010)

Pirating books is just very sad. Unlike musicians who often write a song within hours, authors often spend years penning novels. They pour their heart and soul into their books and many never make much off of it. Pirating is illegal for a reason. It is plain theft.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

100% worth it to me, and I never pirate anything--no books, movies, music, video games etc.  If I can't afford it, I do without it, or check it out from the library etc.

That's said, I do ok for myself so I can pretty much buy any book, movie etc. I want to own.  But even if I was stone broke, the Kindle (or another e-reader) would still be worth it to me as there are tens of thousands (if not more) free, public domain books out there to read.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks,

I know there are strong feelings about some of the statements in this thread. However, we do not allow name calling here on KindleBoards. I have every confidence that all of you can express your feelings about the topic without resorting to it.

Thanks.

Betsy
KB Moderator


----------



## lanfearl (Jul 28, 2010)

I'm a younger lad and the difference between borrowing a book from the library and downloading it from a website are pretty hazy in my mind. I'm not saying they are identical. But if I can go to the library and get practically any book I want/need and keep it for weeks for free, why can't I download it from a website and then just delete it when I'm done.

And justifying music piracy but not book piracy on account of "musicians take a few hours to write a song" is not very good logic at all. Musicians practice for years and spend months creating albums. Then they are mastered and produced by professional engineers. That's probably as many man hours as a novel.


----------



## MLPMom (Nov 27, 2009)

lanfearl said:


> I'm a younger lad and the difference between borrowing a book from the library and downloading it from a website are pretty hazy in my mind. I'm not saying they are identical. But if I can go to the library and get practically any book I want/need and keep it for weeks for free, why can't I download it from a website and then just delete it when I'm done.
> 
> And justifying music piracy but not book piracy on account of "musicians take a few hours to write a song" is not very good logic at all. Musicians practice for years and spend months creating albums. Then they are mastered and produced by professional engineers. That's probably as many man hours as a novel.


But libraries still have to pay to have those books in their possession so that you can borrow them. They didn't steal them.

And what about Indie authors that don't have their books in libraries? If you pirated a copy of their book then based on your above reasoning of libraries, wouldn't that be stealing? How do you justify that?

I'm sorry, but you are on a forum of dedicated book lovers AND AUTHORS, I don't think you are going to get very many people to see your line of reasoning and have them agree with you. There are members here who make a living writing books and _selling_ them. Stealing copies of their books is like taking money out of their pockets. Just because you can borrow books from a library doesn't mean you can justify pirating books. I don't care how old or young you are.


----------



## CoolMom1960 (Mar 16, 2009)

In my mind pirating is stealing.  STEALING is wrong on both moral and ethical levels.  This is just an indication on how far society has fallen.  There is no shame in anything anymore.


----------



## drenee (Nov 11, 2008)

Just because books are on the internet and easily accessible does not mean it's okay to download them.  
deb


----------



## Nicolas (Apr 25, 2010)

lanfearl said:


> I'm a younger lad and the difference between borrowing a book from the library and downloading it from a website are pretty hazy in my mind. I'm not saying they are identical. But if I can go to the library and get practically any book I want/need and keep it for weeks for free, why can't I download it from a website and then just delete it when I'm done.
> 
> And justifying music piracy but not book piracy on account of "musicians take a few hours to write a song" is not very good logic at all. Musicians practice for years and spend months creating albums. Then they are mastered and produced by professional engineers. That's probably as many man hours as a novel.


Some libraries pay for the books, some get it free in order to preserve general knowledge. You pay to use the library (mostly), right? So, by this analogue, is it okay to steal a car just because you can rent one as well?


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

The content of a book, CD, DVD or whatever, belongs to the copyright holder. The copyright holder grants permission to use the content under certain conditions. Let me try to make it simpler:

I have given the books that I write to many libraries. I also have boxes of those books in my office. Anyone is welcome to check out the library books. If they break into my office and take one, even if they intend to burn it after they've read it, that's theft. What's the difference?


----------



## lanfearl (Jul 28, 2010)

Just for the record I'm not upset by anyone's opinion...


However piracy is NOT stealing. Piracy is copyright infringement. 


If I broke into your house and took your copy of Harry Potter, then I stole it from you.  If there was nothing to begin with then I didn't steal it, I made a copy of it and yours is still intact.... and that's the US law. so.


----------



## intinst (Dec 23, 2008)

Still a crime, however you use semantics.


----------



## drenee (Nov 11, 2008)

Splitting hairs?


----------



## lanfearl (Jul 28, 2010)

drenee said:


> Splitting hairs?


Nope. It's a pretty important part of the Digital millennium copyright act.

It's a huge thing in the music industry right now. Stealing is a criminal act, copyright infringment is civil.


----------



## intinst (Dec 23, 2008)

Still a crime.


----------



## drenee (Nov 11, 2008)

It's still infringement.  Still NOT right.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Okay. That's enough. I'm sending for Scarlet.


----------



## drenee (Nov 11, 2008)

The reigning meanie queenie.....yikes.
deb


----------



## MAGreen (Jan 5, 2009)

Is not! 
Is too!
Is not!
Is too!
Is not! 
Is too!
Is not!
Is too!

MOOOOOOOM!!!


----------



## lanfearl (Jul 28, 2010)

intinst said:


> Still a crime.


I'm not debating that at all. Never said it wasn't.


----------



## 4Katie (Jun 27, 2009)

I'm curious... Do you feel differently if you 'pirate' an eBook that isn't available legally, especially if you've already purchased the DTB?


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

Jeff said:


> Okay. That's enough. I'm sending for Scarlet.





drenee said:


> The reigning meanie queenie.....yikes.
> deb


Okay, since my name's been mentioned. Here's my take. If an artist offers something for free, it's fine. But if someone is trying to sell something (music, books, DVD's, WHATEVER), copying it without buying is wrong. This is whether you download it, scan a hard copy or use an old fashioned copy machine.

To use our OP's example, if he breaks into my house (which is a crime whether or not you take anything), copies my copy of a book, he's claiming no one is stolen from. WRONG! This is a crime of ommission, not a crime of commission, because you are stealing against future earnings of the author. That's what royalities are. Libraries pay for books. Authors get a royalty for that. There's a difference between lending a book and getting a copy for free that you keep for ever. You borrow from the library and then RETURN it. You don't keep it (even the OP would admit that would be stealing, I think).

As has been said, just because something is available on the net, doesn't mean it was legally obtained there. We all know that ebooks have been pulled off our kindles when amazon found that the seller didn't have the rights to sell.

Oh, and if thinking that it's not stealing, but rather copy right infrigment and that makes it okay, just proves how much our laws need to be update.

And think of it this way. Put yourself in the author's shoes. You want someone taking from you? If you want to give it away fine, but don't assume that others do.


----------



## Boston (Nov 7, 2008)

While there are those who disagree in the concept, there are *intellectual* property laws. It's because of arguments like this that they exist separately from physical property laws.

I'm not a lawyer but by definition to steal is:



> 1 a : to take or appropriate *without right* or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully <stole a car> b : to take away by force or unjust means <they've stolen our liberty> c : to take surreptitiously* or without permission *<steal a kiss> d : *to appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share *: make oneself the focus of <steal the show>


I see may quite a few characteristics of pirating that meet this definition.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

MLPMom said:


> But libraries still have to pay to have those books in their possession so that you can borrow them. They didn't steal them.


Yep plus we're paying for the library through our taxes.

Also a difference is that only one person can borrow that copy of a book at a time. Vs. having a pirated e-book file online where an unlimited number of people can download it and read it at the same time. So you have an unpaid for copy of something getting distributed around to an unlimited number of people who can read it at the same time. So authors/publishers stand to lose more potential sales from that one pirated file than they do one copy of a book bought or donated to a library and checked out by one person at a time.

As for copyright infringement vs. theft--it's partly semantics, but the act is different so I'm fine with using different terms. But the law needs to evolve as we move further into the digital age and more to primarily having digital rather than physical products in some industries. Piracy should be dealt with as a crime, rather than left to civil courts and absurdly disproportionate fines. Treat someone that pirated 3 albums or books etc. in criminal court with similar severity as someone who shoplifted 3 cds of the same music etc. Don't leave it to the RIAA to sue offenders for gigantic fines wildly disproportionate to the harm done by their act.


----------



## Leslie (Apr 7, 2008)

I read an interesting comment once where someone was comparing pirated books to pirated music. When someone illegally downloads a copy of a book, the author has lost the revenue that would have come from the sale (royalty). When someone illegally downloads a song, the performer of that song has also lost revenue.

With music, the performer has the opportunity to generate new revenue by performing that song--in a concert, on TV, or wherever. An author, however, does not have that revenue stream available to him/her. Basically, the only way the author can make money is through the sale of the book (yes, I am excluding the obvious, getting a movie deal or selling lunchboxes with the character on the box...I am trying to keep this to the issue of the content).

*I am not saying that it's okay to pirate music. It's not. * I just thought it was an interesting point that musicians do have a way to continue to make money off a song beyond sales of that song on a CD, but authors are really limited to one revenue stream--selling the book.

L


----------



## Boston (Nov 7, 2008)

And I'm not above it all.

I would say we all use to some degree our own moral compass to justify the boundaries.   

For example, when I want to share a musical artist that is relatively unknown with a close friend. I have been known to (on rare occasion) give a friend a copy saying "listen but if you like it, please buy it"  It's wrong but my intent is to grow their fan base so I don't feel bad about doing it.  But just because I justify it in my mind doesn't make it necessarily right (so don't flame me).


----------



## lanfearl (Jul 28, 2010)

Leslie said:


> I read an interesting comment once where someone was comparing pirated books to pirated music. When someone illegally downloads a copy of a book, the author has lost the revenue that would have come from the sale (royalty). When someone illegally downloads a song, the performer of that song has also lost revenue.


The only thing I disagree with is that the majority of the time, the ebooks I pirate I would never have purchased in the first place . Every single ebook I pirate is NOT a lost purchase.

And another 1/2 of the ebooks I pirate are ones I already own.

I have quite a collection of books.

None of this makes it right. I understand that.


----------



## Michael Crane (Jul 22, 2010)

scarlet said:


> Here's my question to you- Does having an iPod make sense if you can't pirate music.


Brilliant point!  Couldn't agree more.

As for me, I LOVE my Kindle. It's even come down in price quite a bit, too. It really depends on your reading habits, as it's been said on here. I would always buy a ton of books and never have the space for them. Now, that is no longer an issue.

And, I can't explain it, but it's easier on my eyes than reading a physical book. Yes, I LOVE the look and feel of a physical book, but ever since I've begun to read on the Kindle, I haven't gone back.

More books are being made to be available for the Kindle on a daily basis. Just because a certain work is not available yet, doesn't mean it won't be in the near future.


----------



## Boston (Nov 7, 2008)

Funny..I was writing my post about music while Leslie was posting hers..it wasn't a response..i just type slow


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

lanfearl said:


> The only thing I disagree with is that the majority of the time, the ebooks I pirate I would never have purchased in the first place . Every single ebook I pirate is NOT a lost purchase.


This mystifies me; if you didn't want it bad enough to have possibly bought it, why pirate it?

Betsy


----------



## intinst (Dec 23, 2008)

My thought is, if you know it's a crime to pirate the books, why worry about buying a an e-reader. Might as well just steal one.


----------



## lanfearl (Jul 28, 2010)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> This mystifies me; if you didn't want it bad enough to have possibly bought it, why pirate it?
> 
> Betsy


Because I could pirate the entire libraries worth of books in a few days and then just randomly pick one to read. ebooks are really small in filesize.

I think it's quite funny that in the thread everyone is coming out pretty strongly against me, and yet some of you have pmed me asking for links on how to pirate...

hmm..


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> This mystifies me; if you didn't want it bad enough to have possibly bought it, why pirate it?
> 
> Betsy


That's what I was wondering.

Amazon lets you sample books for free, so why not sample and then decide to buy. Work within the system, not subvert it.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> This mystifies me; if you didn't want it bad enough to have possibly bought it, why pirate it?
> 
> Betsy


That's a piracy justification that I've heard many times and always been baffled.

My time is more valuable than money. A book, album, movie etc. I'm not willing to spend a little money to own is also going to be something I don't deem worthy of spending my precious time reading, listening to, watching etc. Being able to get it free doesn't change that.


----------



## lanfearl (Jul 28, 2010)

Michael Crane said:


> Brilliant point!  Couldn't agree more.


Having an iPod would not make sense for me if I couldn't pirate music and/or have friends burn me cd's. Every single college student I have ever met shares music which is copyright infringement.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

lanfearl said:


> Having an iPod would not make sense for me if I couldn't pirate music and/or have friends burn me cd's. Every single college student I have ever met shares music which is copyright infringement.


Lanfearl, two points. One, just because "everyone" does it doesn't make it right. Two, you're on a forum for readers and authors. If you think piracy is going to go over well here, you need to rethink.


----------



## Leslie (Apr 7, 2008)

We had an article floating around here once--an interview with a book pirate who had stolen thousands of books. He readily admitted he wasn't much of a reader, never intended to read 99% of the books he stole, and would never have bought them in the first place. He stole for the thrill of stealing. I think for a lot of these ebook pirates, what they do is a version of kleptomania.

L


----------



## intinst (Dec 23, 2008)

lanfearl said:


> I think it's quite funny that in the thread everyone is coming out pretty strongly against me, and yet some of you have pmed me asking for links on how to pirate...
> 
> hmm..


I think it is sad that that you are using the fact that you may have seduced a few people in to duplicating your crime to justify yourself.


----------



## KayakerNC (Oct 7, 2009)

scarlet said:


> **snip** We all know that ebooks have been pulled off our kindles when amazon found that the seller didn't have the rights to sell.


So....if we made a backup copy of an e-book to our computer and then Amazon pulled that book off our Kindles.....we are guilty of piracy?


----------



## CoolMom1960 (Mar 16, 2009)

lanfearl said:


> Because I could pirate the entire libraries worth of books in a few days and then just randomly pick one to read. ebooks are really small in filesize.


_Just because you can doesn't mean you should._ So how about you, open your hard drive up so we can access EVERYTHING on it like a server and take whatever we want off of it? Including personal photos, financial information etc?


----------



## lanfearl (Jul 28, 2010)

intinst said:


> I think it is sad that that you are using the fact that you may have seduced a few people in to duplicating your crime to justify yourself.


I haven't shared with any of them and I don't plan to. There is no justification here. Just in the thread everyone is taking the moral high road. but when they can pm me so that no one sees. It's just interesting. No justification.

And yes I realize that just because "everyone does it", that doesn't make it right. I just literally have never met anyone who was unwilling to burn someone a cd or receive a copied cd. Not one person that I can recall. That's a pretty big sample size.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

KayakerNC said:


> So....if we made a backup copy of an e-book to our computer and then Amazon pulled that book off our Kindles.....we are guilty of piracy?


No, you're the unwitting victim of receiving pirated goods.


----------



## lanfearl (Jul 28, 2010)

CoolMom1960 said:


> _Just because you can doesn't mean you should._


They were asking for a very specific answer to why someone would pirate something they wouldn't have purchased in the first place. I already realize everyone here doesn't think I should. I was just responding to their direct question.


----------



## Boston (Nov 7, 2008)

mooshie78 said:


> My time is more valuable than money. A book, album, movie etc. I'm not willing to spend a little money to own is also going to be something I don't deem worthy of spending my precious time reading, listening to, watching etc. Being able to get it free doesn't change that.


Funny, I was thinking the same...I don't even bother downloading many of the legally free books. If its something I know I won't ever read, I skip it.

I have pirated a couple of books where the author has stated he/she has no intent on making it available electronically. Although its technically "wrong", I justify it by buying a copy of the DTB at the same time.

But on the other hand, giving away/buying a used DTB denies an author income..but I do that too. That is part of the free market they are part of.

Again, we all use our own moral compass to justify things every day. But as others have mentioned, one isn't going to find big support on a forum full of authors and their supporters.


----------



## hdsport82 (Aug 9, 2010)

lanfearl said:


> Having an iPod would not make sense for me if I couldn't pirate music and/or have friends burn me cd's. Every single college student I have ever met shares music which is copyright infringement.


and even if they didn't they'd probably be breaking our (British) copyright law by ripping their own CD's on their iPods. I don't condone piracy but nor am I going to lie to say I've never done it.

I download TV shows (such as the Daily Show) because I can get it just after broadcast rather than waiting for it to be broadcast in the UK just as with F1 I used to keep an archive of races I'd record off air (on to VHS then latterly DVD) now I save time by just downloading the race.

Also I'm with you that people do not seem to be able to work out the legal (if not moral) difference between a criminal and a civil matter.


----------



## Boston (Nov 7, 2008)

lanfearl said:


> Because I could pirate the entire libraries worth of books in a few days and then just randomly pick one to read.


Why not walk into a book store and pick one to buy 

That's like justifying something because you don't want to wait in line...convenience isn't a justification for outright theft.


----------



## CoolMom1960 (Mar 16, 2009)

lanfearl said:


> They were asking for a very specific answer to why someone would pirate something they wouldn't have purchased in the first place. I already realize everyone here doesn't think I should. I was just responding to their direct question.


but apparently you have a problem with opening up your hard drive for all to have a look see and take what they want from you?


----------



## lanfearl (Jul 28, 2010)

CoolMom1960 said:


> but apparently you have a problem with opening up your hard drive for all to have a look see and take what they want from you?


Your example didn't make sense so I thought I wouldn't respond to it.

I'm not stealing bank account information or personal photographs from authors. If an author wanted access to my writing or the songs that I have made, certainly I would let him have them.


----------



## lanfearl (Jul 28, 2010)

Boston said:


> Why not walk into a book store and pick one to buy
> 
> That's like justifying something because you don't want to wait in line...convenience isn't a justification for outright theft.


We already established it isn't theft. Copyright infringement.

And I wasn't condoning my actions once again. The specific question was

"Why download books that you wouldn't buy?"

And I responded directly by saying
"Books take up virtually no file space, they are combined into huge download packs already, and so that is how I end up with a ton of books I wouldn't read"

Zero justification. 100 percent explanation.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

hdsport82 said:


> and even if they didn't they'd probably be breaking our (British) copyright law by ripping their own CD's on their iPods. I don't condone piracy but nor am I going to lie to say I've never done it.


Yeah, it's absurd that some countries have that law. I have over 5,000 MP3s--all have been paid for. 99% ripped from CDs I own (and still possess) which is legal in the US.



> Also I'm with you that people do not seem to be able to work out the legal (if not moral) difference between a criminal and a civil matter.


There's definitely the legal difference, though as I said I think piracy needs to move from civil to criminal court. Both to adapt to the digital age, and to get away from the absurd law suit penalties being handed out in civil court that are wildly disproportionate to the value of the goods pirated.

Morally there's also differences of course. Going into a store and stealing a paper book is morally worse than downloading a e-book illegally as you've not only cost the author/publisher a potential sale, but deprived the store owner of a product they bought to sell in their store. Both are wrong, but there are more shades of wrong than just black and white.


----------



## hdsport82 (Aug 9, 2010)

lanfearl said:


> We already established it isn't theft. Copyright infringement.


Just came to me there was a BBC Radio 4 show a week or two back discussing this very thing (including having a poet on for her perspective). Unfortunately it's not available to listen again to anymore, although I do have a MP3 copy now of course that's not technically legal either but as a licence fee payer I don't feel that bad about it!


----------



## Boston (Nov 7, 2008)

lanfearl said:


> Zero justification. 100 percent explanation.


Now I am really confused...if you aren't trying to justify or condone...and not asking if the Kindle is worth it without pirating...what is the point of this long running thready?


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Boston said:


> Now I am really confused...if you aren't trying to justify or condone...and not asking if the Kindle is worth it without pirating...what is the point of this long running thready?


Just to stir up crap. No much other reason to post a thread like this on a site full of authors and readers. The site needs an ignore user feature.


----------



## lanfearl (Jul 28, 2010)

Boston said:


> Now I am really confused...if you aren't trying to justify or condone...and not asking if the Kindle is worth it without pirating...what is the point of this long running thready?


I'm following the thread pretty closely so that might be why people are getting lost.

The conversation we're having now was about me explaining one specific subset of how I end up with ebooks I don't intend to read.

The larger broad conversation was basically my way of saying 
"the price of a kindle only works for me because I don't pay for any of the books"

I'm actually upset that mooshie thinks I created this thread to stir things up. I was not try to stir things up at all, and the thread has been very civil. I was just curious what made you justify the purchase when you weren't saving money. I'm not really sure why you are so "outraged" by someone who has a different opinion than you, that you'd like to ignore me in the forum.

It's been a good discussion.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

I just have zero respect for people who pirate things, and thus I tend to throw pirates on ignore.

In any case, there are tons of reasons to buy something other than saving money.  I'm not some starving college student, I make decent money and that's not a big concern of mine.

I bought an e-reader as I seldom re-read books, and thus don't like having paper books clutter up the house.  And I don't like hassling with libraries limited selections and due dates etc.  That's why I went to e-books.  Nothing to do with saving money.  Books are cheap in paper or e-book formats.


----------



## Basilius (Feb 20, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> There's definitely the legal difference, though as I said I think piracy needs to move from civil to criminal court. Both to adapt to the digital age, and to get away from the absurd law suit penalties being handed out in civil court that are wildly disproportionate to the value of the goods pirated.


My understanding is that copyright infringement for commercial gain is a criminal offense. Infringement for no commercial gain is a civil offense. And, IMO, that distinction needs to remain.

The entire body of intellectual property law, of which copyright infringement is part, is very difficult to deal with because there is no analogue in the natural world. It is entirely artificially constructed rules around the concept of owning an idea. A concept that was foreign to humanity for thousands of years until there was money to be made in "owning" that idea.

What, in actual effect, is the difference between someone buying a book, reading it, and lending it to their friend, and sharing an electronic copy of the same book on a peer-to-peer network? The author is not paid for that second read. A library isn't tracking it. The end effect is the same. Someone else read that book without the author being notified or compensated in any way.

Humans have a natural tendency to share things they enjoy. Teenagers even more so. Just go look at all the recommendation threads on this board. How many of those recommendations would have involved a physical lending of a book if the circumstances allowed? A great number, I'm sure. In this digital age, peer-to-peer file sharing is the exact same thing. People sharing things.

There have been some interesting studies of late coming to conclusions that strict intellectual property laws severely hamper cultural progress. And the constant lengthening of copyright terms is just making it worse. That said, we have to work within the laws as they currently exist. I just happen to be of the opinion that the entire body of copyright law needs to be overhauled. That will never happen as long as there's large media conglomerates with huge lobbying budgets making sure the laws keep their business models in place.

And, sadly, the actual artists are caught in the middle.


----------



## Boston (Nov 7, 2008)

lanfearl said:


> It's been a good discussion.


While I haven't been following it as closely as you, it doesn't appear like a good discussion unless its to stir things up.



> I was just curious what made you justify the purchase when you weren't saving money.


I thought this was your question but when it veered off topic, you didn't try to correct the perception that it was about justifying piracy or condoning your actions...even when I posted that might not be what you were asking.

Keep in mind this is from the perspective of someone who has tried to at least see where you are coming from on this entire thread... it just seems the longer and more off the original topic this goes like you are baiting people.

(Not saying its intentional..only you know that...but just how it looks)


----------



## lanfearl (Jul 28, 2010)

Boston said:


> Keep in mind this is from the perspective of someone who has tried to at least see where you are coming from on this entire thread... it just seems the longer and more off the original topic this goes like you are baiting people.
> 
> (Not saying its intentional..only you know that...but just how it looks)


My first two posts on the thread were about money issues with ereaders. This took us all the way to page 2, where I admitted to pirating ebooks.

I haven't baited anyone. I explained how hazy copyright laws can be for college age kids (and they really are...) . I gave examples of this like friends burning each other cd's. Then we discussed the difference between theft and copyright infringement, which is an important part of this discussion.

I'm really not sure how anything I said was mean or wrong . It certainly stirred people up towards their own convictions.. But that's a good thing?


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Basilius said:


> The entire body of intellectual property law, of which copyright infringement is part, is very difficult to deal with because there is no analogue in the natural world. It is entirely artificially constructed rules around the concept of owning an idea. A concept that was foreign to humanity for thousands of years until there was money to be made in "owning" that idea.


It's a tricky area for sure, and one that needs ironed out, revision and a lot of clarification as we move into the digital age. At the same time, fair use laws need updating for the digital age as well. Both content creators/publishers AND us legitimate purchasers of digital content need our rights protected.



> What, in actual effect, is the difference between someone buying a book, reading it, and lending it to their friend, and sharing an electronic copy of the same book on a peer-to-peer network? The author is not paid for that second read. A library isn't tracking it. The end effect is the same. Someone else read that book without the author being notified or compensated in any way.


Well the obvious differences are as follows:

1. I lend a paper book, I don't have it on my shelf and can't enjoy it while my friend has borrowed it.
2. On top of this, only one friend can borrow the book. I upload an illegal copy of an e-book and an unlimited number of people can download it and read it at the same time. All while I keep my copy.

So the difference is in scale. It's not insurmountable in e-books. Take the Nook lending scheme for instance. They could build lending and resell systems into DRM where you can lend to one person at a time and loose access to the e-book on your account until you get it back from the friend etc.



> Humans have a natural tendency to share things they enjoy. Teenagers even more so. Just go look at all the recommendation threads on this board. How many of those recommendations would have involved a physical lending of a book if the circumstances allowed? A great number, I'm sure. In this digital age, peer-to-peer file sharing is the exact same thing. People sharing things.


True. But again the problem in the age of file sharing is one of scale. Many more sales can be lost through sharing files online with an unlimited number of people than in the old days of lending books, or burning a CD for one friend etc. etc.

My guess is that eventually when broadband is more reliable and is in every corner of the developed world (a LONG time off still) we'll see most digital content only accessible from servers (instant streaming) and not have digital files for sale. Rampant piracy will lead publishers to take that kind of draconian route I fear.


----------



## PharaohsVizier (May 6, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> There's definitely the legal difference, though as I said I think piracy needs to move from civil to criminal court. Both to adapt to the digital age, and to get away from the absurd law suit penalties being handed out in civil court that are wildly disproportionate to the value of the goods pirated.


No... Just no... Perhaps through the eyes of eBook piracy these laws make sense and we should move towards that direction, but digital copyright movements are so hugely manipulated by big music/movie/gaming companies that the laws just don't make sense. While I think there needs to be a lot more regulation, so far nothing seems to make sense. They can't monitor it properly, the one poor sap that does get caught has his life completely ruined.

EDIT: And I have to agree with the OP here in that the books I pirate, I wouldn't have read otherwise. I don't pirate a lot of books, so many are available free that I can't imagine myself ever finishing the collections out there, but once in a while I pirate a book. The way I see it, I would have borrowed it from the library or just not have read it. As horrible as it may seem, I do buy books, and I do buy the books if they are good. I'm fairly guilt free when it comes to eBook pirating, I think I feel significantly more guilty about software piracy. XD


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

PharaohsVizier said:


> No... Just no... Perhaps through the eyes of eBook piracy these laws make sense and we should move towards that direction, but digital copyright movements are so hugely manipulated by big music/movie/gaming companies that the laws just don't make sense. While I think there needs to be a lot more regulation, so far nothing seems to make sense. They can't monitor it properly, the one poor sap that does get caught has his life completely ruined.


As we move into the digital age we'll see a lot more self publishing. So it's not just the "evil" corporations--though I think they need their rights protected.

And moving to a criminal matter would lessen the problem of "poor saps" having their life ruined. Make most copyright infringement minor misdemeanors with penalties par (or even less) with traffic tickets. Just a small fine (say the MSRP of the content plus 10-20%). Rather than now where someone college kid has a 1000 mp3s and gets hit with a huge 6 figure fine in civil court.

But yes, monitoring it is the trickiest part. But that's just another thing that has to evolve as we enter the internet age. Law enforcement has to evolve to be able to police internet crime.

And again, fair use laws need clarified and updated so legitimate owners of digital content can lend files and do all the things they could with the physical version of the content. So it's not all about updating laws to protect authors, publishers etc., but also updating the laws to protect consumer's rights.


----------



## RobertK (Aug 2, 2010)

"They can't monitor it properly, the one poor sap that does get caught has his life completely ruined."

That 'one guy' that gets caught isn't a poor sap. If he's pirating and gets caught, he's getting his just due. Those that get away with it are getting off unjustly. Just because you can't catch everyone doesn't mean that the few that get caught are being treated unfairly.

Edit: I could have sworn I posted before. Was my post deleted for some reason? Or did I just not hit reply?


----------



## Sassafrazzled (Mar 14, 2010)

Personally I think piracy can be but it's always particularly serious. For starters what most people are talking about here isn't actually illegal everywhere. Where I am for instance it isn't illegal for me to download material, just to distribute it. The European courts have been pretty unwilling to criminalize something that is so widespread and generally small scale. There are also gray areas most people (aside from the publishers/producers of course) are a bit wishy washy on. How big a deal is it to crack the DRM on something you bought when you are doing it for your own private use? You want to read a book on your kindle that you already own as a dtb, is it equally shady to download content you have technically already paid for? Is downloading a TV show just as bad as pirating a movie? What if it's something that actually plays on a channel you pay for but just not at the right times? There are lots of situations that just don't pass the test of feeling "wrong" to most people even if some license somewhere says it is.

For what it's worth I don't have any pirated ebooks. Amazon's purchase system is so convenient and there are so many decent free or cheap books out there to keep me busy between my occasional higher price purchases that I've never really been tempted. But in general I wish the entertainment industry would spend less time and money suing people and more developing systems for giving us access to material that are so easy as to make piracy seem like the more annoying route. They are turning themselves into the bad guys and making people feel almost justified in downloading things at times.

Oh, and for what it's worth, my answer to the original question is yes. Books here are so expensive that the Kindle could easily pay for itself even if I just bought new releases at 12 bucks a pop.


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

RobertK said:


> Edit: I could have sworn I posted before. Was my post deleted for some reason? Or did I just not hit reply?


Nope, none of the moderators deleted any post with your name on it.... Perhaps a posting hiccup.


----------



## Basilius (Feb 20, 2010)

Bunknee said:


> Personally I think piracy can be but it's always particularly serious. For starters what most people are talking about here isn't actually illegal everywhere. Where I am for instance it isn't illegal for me to download material, just to distribute it. The European courts have been pretty unwilling to criminalize something that is so widespread and generally small scale. There are also gray areas most people (aside from the publishers/producers of course) are a bit wishy washy on. How big a deal is it to crack the DRM on something you bought when you are doing it for your own private use? You want to read a book on your kindle that you already own as a dtb, is it equally shady to download content you have technically already paid for? Is downloading a TV show just as bad as pirating a movie? What if it's something that actually plays on a channel you pay for but just not at the right times? There are lots of situations that just don't pass the test of feeling "wrong" to most people even if some license somewhere says it is.


This illustrates the effects of intellectual property laws being completely artificial constructs with no basis in the natural world. The laws and enforcement feel capricious and random. Is it wrong to download a TV show you had on your DVR, but was erased when a cable-company installed update trashed the contents of your DVR? What determines the law - the act or the content? Why? Who decides this, and on what basis? Does the artist have a say? Ever? Why is it different in one country compared to another?

Oh, and if you think it's bad now, just go look up ACTA.


----------



## PharaohsVizier (May 6, 2010)

RobertK said:


> That 'one guy' that gets caught isn't a poor sap. If he's pirating and gets caught, he's getting his just due. Those that get away with it are getting off unjustly. Just because you can't catch everyone doesn't mean that the few that get caught are being treated unfairly.


I'm not sure I agree with that. Theoretically yes, true enough, you pirate, you get caught, you get punished, pretty fair. But it's how it is handled. Some of these people are fined hundreds of thousands of dollars. Some guy got jail time for releasing a game on the internet early. These are scare tactics rather than fair laws. You make the punishment strict, and no one will do it. However, they just can't control the internet, so the scare tactic is pretty much useless.


----------



## RobertK (Aug 2, 2010)

pidgeon92 said:


> Nope, none of the moderators deleted any post with your name on it.... Perhaps a posting hiccup.


That was my guess. Or rather, I think I typed a reply and just didn't submit it.



PharaohsVizier said:


> I'm not sure I agree with that. Theoretically yes, true enough, you pirate, you get caught, you get punished, pretty fair. But it's how it is handled. Some of these people are fined hundreds of thousands of dollars. Some guy got jail time for releasing a game on the internet early. These are scare tactics rather than fair laws. You make the punishment strict, and no one will do it. However, they just can't control the internet, so the scare tactic is pretty much useless.


So the guy still wouldn't be a poor sap. You might argue that the punishments are too harsh, but that's sort of the nature of the problem. It's a crime that's easy enough to do and difficult to get caught doing. Punishments not only serve to make just the actions of a criminal, but to act as a deterrent for others. Sure, I think some of the punishments might be too strong, but these people are breaking laws with no regard for others, so my sympathy is lessened. The law could use some work (understatement of the year) but if people would simply act morally, we'd have much less of a problem. The responsibility for the sad shape of the current scenario is largely on the shoulders of the thieves, not the defensive measures taken to protect property.


----------



## originalgrissel (Mar 5, 2010)

Reading the thread something occured to me. Prior to my Kindle I used to buy a lot of books at used book stores and I have on occastion purchased CDs and (back before CDs) records & tapes at used record stores. And, while that is not exactly the same thing as simply downloading the copyrighted material off of the internet without permission, it still allows consumers to buy the product without the copyright holder recieving any payment from the sale. Also, it keep consumers that otherwise might have purchased a new copy of said book/CD/Record/DVD had they not been able to buy it at a discount at the used store. Doesn't that impact the future sales of copyright owners income as well? I'm not advocating piracy by any means, but it really doesn't seem like that the situations are that different and it never occured to me before really.  

Additionally, when I was growing up (and today) they sold radios that had built-in tape decks so you could record things off the radio. Now, as a teenager I had stacks of tapes that were nothing but ecclectic mixes of whatever I was listening to on the radio at the time. And, while the artists that performed the songs on my tape were getting royalties from their songs being played on the radio they were not getting one from all those kids that (like me) might have potentially bought their singles or albums if they could not have just recorded it off the air for free. So, if we purchase a book or a CD or a DVD and once we are done with it we loan it to someone else (who might have potentially bought it themselves had we not) or resell it to a used Book/Record/DVD store and make money off it ourselves aren't we just as guilty of cutting into copyright holders' earnings as someone that makes a copy of a movie they bought & loans it to a friend or copies their CD collection to their computer and lets their friends take what they want for free?


----------



## hdsport82 (Aug 9, 2010)

originalgrissel said:


> Additionally, when I was growing up (and today) they sold radios that had built-in tape decks so you could record things off the radio. Now, as a teenager I had stacks of tapes that were nothing but ecclectic mixes of whatever I was listening to on the radio at the time. And, while the artists that performed the songs on my tape were getting royalties from their songs being played on the radio they were not getting one from all those kids that (like me) might have potentially bought their singles or albums if they could not have just recorded it off the air for free.


remember 'home taping is killing music' or so the industry would of had you believe  now it's internet piracy.

EDIT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Taping_Is_Killing_Music (for those not in the UK who might not be aware of it).


----------



## Tuttle (Jun 10, 2010)

lanfearl said:


> Having an iPod would not make sense for me if I couldn't pirate music and/or have friends burn me cd's. Every single college student I have ever met shares music which is copyright infringement.


I just graduated last May. I have yet to find a job - having just gone from "poor college student" to "poor recent graduate."

Unless I have copies of other people's music which I am unaware of, the closest to "shared music" I have, is mp3s my boyfriend bought legally, and then put on my computer as well as his so that he could listen from my computer. Every piece of music on my computer is legal.

As for books. Personally I find it ethical to download copies of books which you already own a new copy of when they are not available as an ebook, and then only as an individual book. If it is not something you own, then it is not something to download a copy of.

The only other situation that I can see being possibly ethical is "I'm looking for this book to read because it has been recommended to me repetitively, it is not in any libraries in the state, it is out of print, and there are no ebooks available. I want to buy a copy, but cannot handle buying an unknown used book because if it picked up the wrong scents that could have a major effect on me." In that case, if as soon as a copy which you can handle buying is available, then buy it immediately.

Legality matters, but the ethics personally matter to me more. However, downloading books that you wouldn't have bought is not an excuse that makes it ethical, nor is justifying because you could borrow the books at the library. This is my personal view.

An example without any goods transferred or lost, rather than comparing to theft of books.
A company puts out an open wifi access point which they charge for access to, because it is their connection. They redirect traffic until you purchase the ability to browse the web that day. However, because the people who were in charge of that were unaware of a work around they left a tiny hole open. Is it ethical to use this company's network without paying for it when that is exactly what they are charging for?


----------



## lanfearl (Jul 28, 2010)

Tuttle said:


> I just graduated last May. I have yet to find a job - having just gone from "poor college student" to "poor recent graduate."
> I have, is mp3s my boyfriend bought legally, and then put on my computer as well as his so that he could listen from my computer. Every piece of music on my computer is legal.


You realize what you just said doesn't make sense. Those mp3's don't belong to your boyfriend. He can't make copies for you. He owns a license to listen to them on his computer/iPod. You have committed a crime.


----------



## Tuttle (Jun 10, 2010)

lanfearl said:


> You realize what you just said doesn't make sense. Those mp3's don't belong to your boyfriend. He can't make copies for you. He owns a license to listen to them on his computer/iPod. You have committed a crime.


Actually, no, he owns the mp3s. There are places other than iTunes to get music. He specifically had gotten them from a service which makes it such that he /owns/ them, not licenses them. They were DRM free from the beginning and explicitly such that he could put them on multiple devices from the beginning, and such that even if he canceled the service he would still own the music. Also, he didn't make copies for me, he made copies for himself, it just happened that they sit on my computer - my computer has better speakers than his does and thus makes a better alarm clock for us.


----------



## lanfearl (Jul 28, 2010)

Tuttle said:


> Actually, no, he owns the mp3s. There are places other than iTunes to get music. He specifically had gotten them from a service which makes it such that he /owns/ them, not licenses them. They were DRM free from the beginning and explicitly such that he could put them on multiple devices from the beginning, and such that even if he canceled the service he would still own the music. Also, he didn't make copies for me, he made copies for himself, it just happened that they sit on my computer - my computer has better speakers than his does and thus makes a better alarm clock for us.


Services like this exist all over the place. Most of them based in foreign countries where laws are different.

Your boyfriend purchased the song and was allowed to put them on multiple devices. the laws atleast in the US do not allow you to have a copy of that while he has one at the same time.


----------



## Cloysterpete (Aug 21, 2010)

The publishers could kill off 90% of e-book piracy if they actually wise.d up and priced the books sensibly, and by that I believe any indie book should be $2.99 and any new bestseller should come out at max $7.99 dropping to $5.99 or less after it's been available a year.

At that price they would sell literally millions upon millions more than they do now, indie authors make more money now with one sale of a $2.99 e-book than one sale of a $27 hardcover and selling publisher titles in the millions at $3-$6 means that all the editors and staff of the publishers can also survive and make a living, if only one of them was brave enough to actually try it........

Because at the moment they are setting the outrageous prices of the e-book copies in an attempt to recoup the costs of publishing the physical book, either that or they are putting up artificially high prices in order to slow the take-up of e-book because they are scared that they will lose so many of their top authors to indie e-publishing via kindle etc when it five years time it has lost all the idiot stigma that is currently attached to indie publishers.

Singling one example out I wonder how many copies Crown have sold of Scott Sigler book Ancestor?, with the [email protected]$16 and the e-book at $14, both with the same list price.

Why do I believe that price would kill off the majority of piracy? well because people will always look for the quick & easy way, the effort free way. One of the big Kindle selling points is you can connect to the kindle store and be reading a new book released that day in under a minute, I love how I don't even need a pc for the Kindle, I don't know about you but my free time is valuable to me, I want to spend it reading not farting about pirating books.

If I have to go to the hassle of logging onto the pc, finding an illegal download of the exact book your looking via torrent or whatever, making sure it's properly formatted in .mobi and not some pdf/doc/txt/epub etc, plugging in the kindle and transffering it etc, well I dunno about you but that's gonna take me half an hour of my free time, so if I can pay $3-$7 to save all that time and hassle then I will, I know I certainly wouldn't like to go through that hassle each time a new book I want is released......but if the books are gonna be priced in the $10-$16 range then that's not pocket change anymore and I can see where the OP is coming from.

Also piracy won't be the death of anything people have been saying that for years about music and movies, what the publishers have to get through their skulls is that one illegal download does not equate one lost sale, plus a lot of authors have admitted receiving e-mails from people who downloaded some of their books then went out and bought the latest releases, so piracy isn't 100% negative like most people would like you to believe. Some authors (such as JA Konrath) actually don't give a rats arse about people pirating their work, it's all exposure and gets people reading their books, if they like them some will buy them in the future.

Personally speaking I pirate books where the publishers are trying to rip me off, if they are going to be idiots and sell Stephen King's short little novella UR (been out ages!) for more than his latest book the thousand page epic Under the Dome than I'm going to (and have) hunt out a pirate download of it. Until publishers try a sensible pricing structure then piracy will continue because there are thousands of people who are unwilling (or simply cannot afford) to pay the current ridiculous publishers pricing.

_--- edited. no swearing, please_


----------



## Tuttle (Jun 10, 2010)

lanfearl said:


> Services like this exist all over the place. Most of them based in foreign countries where laws are different.
> 
> Your boyfriend purchased the song and was allowed to put them on multiple devices. the laws atleast in the US do not allow you to have a copy of that while he has one at the same time.


And /I/ still don't have a copy. There is a copy on my computer - that does not make it /my copy/. My boyfriend has an account on my computer, my boyfriend uses my computer, has put his music on my computer, because I have better speakers for /him/ to listen to /his/ music wit, and because he didn't have space to store it on his computer.

Say you were married, and you each had a laptop. If the husband buys music, and puts it on his wife's laptop because it is more convenient for him, then has he broken the law? The only difference is the fact that I have not legally bound myself to him.

I also had explicitly been talking about the differences between legality and ethicalness in my post. If this is illegal, then it is still ethical for me, and mass pirating ebooks is still not.

--
Also, this is irrelevant for the point I was making. Can you actually answer my question about circumventing being asked to pay for network? I was just pointing out that, no, us people who despite being college students don't pirate music exist, while the rest of my post was the main content - splitting the question between legal and ethical.


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

Basilius said:


> My understanding is that copyright infringement for commercial gain is a criminal offense. Infringement for no commercial gain is a civil offense. And, IMO, that distinction needs to remain.
> 
> The entire body of intellectual property law, of which copyright infringement is part, is very difficult to deal with because there is no analogue in the natural world. It is entirely artificially constructed rules around the concept of owning an idea. A concept that was foreign to humanity for thousands of years until there was money to be made in "owning" that idea.
> 
> ...


Very well said!


----------



## Leslie (Apr 7, 2008)

Tuttle said:


> Say you were married, and you each had a laptop. If the husband buys music, and puts it on his wife's laptop because it is more convenient for him, then has he broken the law? The only difference is the fact that I have not legally bound myself to him.


Actually, there is probably a provision for married couple with respect to this. Not necessarily music _per se_, but a provision relevant to owning something and what rights a member of a couple has to the other person's property. According to the GAO, there are there are 1,138 statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges -- provisions that are not available to singles and unmarried couples. I'd get on a certain soapbox here but I don't want to hijack this thread on that issue.



> I also had explicitly been talking about the differences between legality and ethicalness in my post. If this is illegal, then it is still ethical for me, and mass pirating ebooks is still not.


Legal and ethical are dissimilar concepts and really can't be argued together. If you commit a crime and land in a court of law because you did so, your argument that you did what you did because it was ethical is not going to stand up as a defense. Physician assisted suicide proponent Jack Kevorkian believes that his actions in helping terminally patients end their lives was ethical but he was still convicted of a crime and went to prison.

L


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

Regarding the multiple computer thing, at least for amazon books, you can have them on multiple devices under one account, so if you share an account but both kindles are there, you can have it on both.  

This is one of the differences between digital media and hard copies that needs to be addressed better.


----------



## Tuttle (Jun 10, 2010)

On the music - yes, there are differences with married couples. I still stick by, it is not my music, it is his music, which is only on my machine because he put it there so that he could access it (its on my machine because our backup server is dead and we don't have the money necessary to replace the hard drive). However, this is irrelevant to the conversation - the entire point I was trying to make was "if you're trying to say that its okay because everyone does this, first off, not everyone does it, and second off its not acceptable anyways"



Leslie said:


> Legal and ethical are dissimilar concepts and really can't be argued together. If you commit a crime and land in a court of law because you did so, your argument that you did what you did because it was ethical is not going to stand up as a defense.


Oh absolutely. Legality is an important question. However, I brought up ethics because there is no question whether it is /legal/ to pirate ebooks. It is necessarily illegal. However, because people have different ideas of what are acceptable, I wanted the original poster's views on the ethics of pirating. Why is it acceptable. How does it compare to the ethics of related things, rather than the legality. It's hard to have a discussion about the legality, and it seemed like the discussion was trying to combine the two and I wanted to separate them out. We can't have a discussion over whether it is legal if everyone knows that it is illegal, we can have a discussion of the ethics however, and that seemed to match closer to what the original poster was going for.


----------



## PharaohsVizier (May 6, 2010)

It's funny you question some of our "justifications", and yet you are trying so hard to justify music piracy...


----------



## originalgrissel (Mar 5, 2010)

hdsport82 said:


> remember 'home taping is killing music' or so the industry would of had you believe  now it's internet piracy.
> 
> EDIT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Taping_Is_Killing_Music (for those not in the UK who might not be aware of it).


And yet, corporations (such as Sony/Sanyo/Poineer/JVC/Etc) were never restricted from producing the means by which that "taping" could occur. Fines jail time were never imposed on those caught taping from the radio. Those people were never served with legal notices & sued in court. The same companies that were producing and still produce (to this day) the technology to accomplish taping something from the radio are stil making money selling that technology, it's just that now consumers have found a way to do it more efficiently by using peer-to-peer music sharing sites. In the end it's all about how much money the fat cats running the RIAA and the big publishing houses can line their pockets with and the musicians and writers are the ones who reap the least amount of monetary reward for their own hard work. Sad.


----------



## Tuttle (Jun 10, 2010)

PharaohsVizier said:


> It's funny you question some of our "justifications", and yet you are trying so hard to justify music piracy...


Give me one reason why I am trying to justify music piracy.

My only argument, is that my boyfriend putting music on my computer only so that he can listening not to give me a copy, because it is the only way he can listen to the music which he paid for, is not piracy. I don't listen to his music, I don't own his music, I am not planning on keeping his music. The server is unbootable, we don't have enough money to buy a new hard drive for it, and this means the computer he generally plays his music from is unusable. Thus, he put his music on my machine because he cannot store it on his machine. This is not me copying his music for my own use - it is my boyfriend taking advantage of the fact that he has an account on my computer, which he has physical access to, where I allow him to store his own data. 
Your logic seems to me to suggest that the work he did for his job earlier this summer, which he did on my computer because it was a better tool for the job than his, is my data rather than his, because it is on the computer which I own. Just because it is my computer, doesn't make it my data. Just because it is my computer, doesn't mean it is my music, it is only my boyfriend using my computer like he would an mp3 player with speakers - it just happens that I'll also be browsing the web at the same time.

And can people please stop accusing me of piracy instead of actually discussing the topic at hand. I'm sorry that I mentioned things that people view as wrong. I shouldn't have tried to make the point that despite the fact that everyone pirating doesn't make it acceptable, not everyone pirates. What I personally do however is irrelevant to the discussion about ebooks. If you care about me personally. I have free ebooks on my kindle - free LEGAL ebooks. Since I can't afford mainstream books I read self published books, the books that are free on amazon, and the books baen has put online for free. Monetarily the kindle has allowed me to read more while I'm in the "I don't know if I have enough money to be continuing to eat in a month and a half", without piracy being part of the picture.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Tuttle said:


> Actually, no, he owns the mp3s. There are places other than iTunes to get music. He specifically had gotten them from a service which makes it such that he /owns/ them, not licenses them. They were DRM free from the beginning and explicitly such that he could put them on multiple devices from the beginning, and such that even if he canceled the service he would still own the music. Also, he didn't make copies for me, he made copies for himself, it just happened that they sit on my computer - my computer has better speakers than his does and thus makes a better alarm clock for us.


Even iTunes is DRM free now. DRM is pretty much dead in the music industry.


----------



## Tuttle (Jun 10, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> Even iTunes is DRM free now. DRM is pretty much dead in the music industry.


The statement was made because the music is from before iTunes was DRM free .
However, yes, DRM being dead in the music industry is definitely good for both the music industry and the consumers. I hope the same happens in the ebook industry, but the penalties to the author for pirating books can be more extreme while the benefits are the same. However, it does seem that it is almost always worth it for authors to give out free legal copies of a book of theirs because of getting people interested in their writing.

I do still request that rather than talking about whether or not my boyfriend using my computer while he has physical access is piracy going back to talking about ebooks, why kindles are worth it both monetarily and not without piracy, and the ethics of piracy when it comes to ebooks.


----------



## firedawn (Feb 5, 2010)

To respond to the original topic... I have sometimes resorted to pirating (especially of the e-book is over $9.99 since the whole price raising earlier this year), but it's bizarre that the OP can even try to justify his own actions while trying to take the middle road and say that it's not SO bad, even though it's not right either. He's not saying it's right.. but he keeps saying everyone shares music so what's the difference? 

The answer is this: there is no difference. It's still wrong. The times that I have done it, it was wrong. There's nothing excusable or justifiable about it. 

Just because you do it doesn't make it right. It's still against the law. I don't understand why people have trouble understanding this. How can people honestly be so self-centered that they will argue with others about something as simple and clear cut as this just based on human behavior? If I hit you in the face and I excused it by saying other people do it to me all the time so even though it's not exactly right you shouldn't take it so personally/seriously, you would still be offended. 

This whole thread and the OP's posts in it.. I can't even. 

Agh, can't compute.


----------



## lanfearl (Jul 28, 2010)

I have said about five times in this thread that I don't justify any of my actions. 

I said "college kids pirate music.. this is why copyright laws are hazy for me"


What you said is

"i pirate ebooks occasionally because the price is so high"

we are exactly the same.
no moral high road for you today.


----------



## firedawn (Feb 5, 2010)

No one here is trying to take the moral high road. No one here is saying they've never done wrong. The times I have done it I have been wrong. I'm just saying that at least I have a clear cut view of what is legal and not legal whereas you, as you've said yourself, still seems to have a disproportionately hazy view of it.

It's bizarre to me, hat's all I was commenting on. I never said I'm taking the moral high ground so please stop putting words in my mouth, proverbially speaking (in case you're going to pick on my semantics there too). 

There's no such thing as a moral high road here. There is right. And there is wrong. I'm just saying we're just as wrong as each other but I don't know why you insist on judging everyone else in this thread for being tempted by the same thing you do. Can't compute.


----------



## robins777 (Aug 10, 2010)

We all know that piracy by downloading copying of books, MP3 and movies is wrong but why is it only the downloading/copying side of piracy mentioned. Many people have a dvd/hard disk recorder on which they record shows film etc. from TV. This is legal for to do for time shift viewing but how many people delete these recording once they have been watch them. Surely it is illegal to keep them after they have been watched or as some people do transfer them to dvd, isn't this another type of piracy. People lend each other books, cd's and dvd's etc which again I am sure is illegal as well. 

I am not condoning piracy in any way but just saying that almost everybody has done or still do at least one of the above thing mention above without thinking twice about it. 

Also what about people on this site who have book covers or other objects like a Kindle as their picture and also display book they have read etc at the bottom of their reply, I know this doesn't deprive the copyright holder of royalty payments etc. but isn't this is technically illegal unless you have the owners permision to do so.

Piracy is a very thorny subject and and what we need is proper legislation so we know what is legally permissable and what is not and this need to be global. In the UK you can't transfer a cd to you computer or MP3 player, or make a backup copy, of it without breaking the law. Book publishers could help buy supplying a digital version of the books either free or for a small price to go with the paper copy as per growing trend with DVD's which have digital copies with supplied them.


----------



## Boston (Nov 7, 2008)

I don't buy the college kids argument. Just because a lot of people break a law, that in itself doesn't make it hazy (look at how many speeding tickets are given out each day).

Why wasn't this thread titled "Is the cost of a Kindle still worth it given the cost of ebooks over paper?".  I still question if the intent wasn't to stir the larger debate and we are all just feeding into it.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Boston said:


> I don't buy the college kids argument. Just because a lot of people break a law, that in itself doesn't make it hazy (look at how many speeding tickets are given out each day).


Yeah, there's no haziness. Just declining morals as more people do it and more people start being able to rationalize and justify doing something wrong.


----------



## amafan (Aug 11, 2010)

I've been reading this thread for a couple of days wanting to reply but waiting until I could express myself properly.  

I know a few authors and I know the agony they go through giving birth to a new literary creation.  Between editor's paranoia about plagiarism, writing quality, and deadlines, and the truly crappy economic reality of the publishing business, it's wonder to me anyone wants to author a book any more.  Only top selling authors can garner enough sales to justify the work.  Then you ask if its OK to steal it.  No. No. A thousand times NO!

If current works are too much for your budget, then the library beckons.  If you insist on e-books, there is so much free material that is released to the public domain its just incredible. Do like I did and enjoy the classics.  H.G. Wells, Mark Twain, Jane Austen, and many, many others await your eager discovery.  For new works budget for it, just like anything else in life that's worth having.


----------



## CoolMom1960 (Mar 16, 2009)

amafan said:


> I've been reading this thread for a couple of days wanting to reply but waiting until I could express myself properly.
> 
> I know a few authors and I know the agony they go through giving birth to a new literary creation. Between editor's paranoia about plagiarism, writing quality, and deadlines, and the truly crappy economic reality of the publishing business, it's wonder to me anyone wants to author a book any more. Only top selling authors can garner enough sales to justify the work. Then you ask if its OK to steal it. No. No. A thousand times NO!
> 
> If current works are too much for your budget, then the library beckons. If you insist on e-books, there is so much free material that is released to the public domain its just incredible. Do like I did and enjoy the classics. H.G. Wells, Mark Twain, Jane Austen, and many, many others await your eager discovery. For new works budget for it, just like anything else in life that's worth having.


Rock on amafan! There is no justification for pirating any type of work.


----------



## Shastastan (Oct 28, 2009)

SusanCassidy said:


> Double ditto on that!!! Much easier on my bad eyesight, and also, the comment someone else made about having to carry extra books around, in case you finish the one you're on now.


Another ditto from me. Pirating is a matter of conscience. Were you able to pay for your dvd player by getting $1 rentals? If cost is your main criteria, you are definitely better off getting your reading materials at the library, used book stores, and/or garage sales.

Even though I have gotten some promotional freebies from major authors, I ended up buying some of their other books and probably spent more $ than I would have otherwise. . Reading is so enjoyable that I don't mind though.


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

I'll start with the subject title "Are Kindles actually worth it without pirating ebooks?"

My answer to that is yes. For me it was never about saving money, it was about reading books that were not Harry Potter or part of The Wheel of Time series. I still don't read as much as I'd like to but I do read significantly more than I had, and I've read books that I have no doubts that I wouldn't have read otherwise.

As far as pirating ebooks, I had considered that as an option at one point, but I'm just not comfortable with it. A couple of my first attempts resulted in virus warnings and then when I got something that seemed good to go I found that I needed to download a particular piece of software in order to get it to work. This particular piece of software would effectively make me a sharer and I'm so not okay with that.

Besides, pirating ebooks doesn't offer me much, I don't finish books fast enough to save much money, and I actually find that having to pay for books helps me filter out the books that I'm not truly interested in from the books that I'm truly interested in.

As far as pirating movies. I have netflix, have hardly ever used their streaming service, have taken about a week or so to get around to watching the last four or so blu-ray rentals from them (I got The Spirit two Friday's ago and still haven't watched it), so it would be completely pointless.

I used to pirate music but honestly, it was way too expensive 'cause when I like something I have to buy it, so I ended up buying more than I should have, it did give me a nice collection though. Nowadays, when I'm interested in buying new music CD's I use myspace and youtube to check out the recommendations that I've gotten, works out rather well.


----------



## PharaohsVizier (May 6, 2010)

firedawn said:


> I don't understand why people have trouble understanding this. How can people honestly be so self-centered that they will argue with others about something as simple and clear cut as this just based on human behavior? If I hit you in the face and I excused it by saying other people do it to me all the time so even though it's not exactly right you shouldn't take it so personally/seriously, you would still be offended.


It isn't simple and far from clear cut. Even in your example, it is far from clear cut, it only seems that way because you have an extremely skewed perception of it. If everyone does it, it makes it alright. I assume you would be offended by the slap in the face because it hurts, but can you think of any other widely spread action that hurts but is accepted? I think if you look hard enough, there's plenty. Siblings wrestling each other when they meet, guys headbutting each other, some people even give high fives that kind of hurt. Once it is widely widely widely used, it seems more acceptable than ever. I think digital piracy is rampant enough to make it acceptable in the eyes of many.


----------



## amafan (Aug 11, 2010)

PharaohsVizier said:


> It isn't simple and far from clear cut. Even in your example, it is far from clear cut, it only seems that way because you have an extremely skewed perception of it. If everyone does it, it makes it alright. I assume you would be offended by the slap in the face because it hurts, but can you think of any other widely spread action that hurts but is accepted? I think if you look hard enough, there's plenty. Siblings wrestling each other when they meet, guys headbutting each other, some people even give high fives that kind of hurt. Once it is widely widely widely used, it seems more acceptable than ever. I think digital piracy is rampant enough to make it acceptable in the eyes of many.


Another example of how amoral we've become as a society. Digital piracy hurts people. Just becuase you can't see the people you hurt it doesn't make that fact go away.


----------



## hera (Mar 25, 2009)

PharaohsVizier said:


> It isn't simple and far from clear cut. Even in your example, it is far from clear cut, it only seems that way because you have an extremely skewed perception of it. If everyone does it, it makes it alright. I assume you would be offended by the slap in the face because it hurts, but can you think of any other widely spread action that hurts but is accepted? I think if you look hard enough, there's plenty. Siblings wrestling each other when they meet, guys headbutting each other, some people even give high fives that kind of hurt. Once it is widely widely widely used, it seems more acceptable than ever. I think digital piracy is rampant enough to make it acceptable in the eyes of many.


Just because my brother and I wrestle (legally downloading free books & music), doesn't give me the right to punch my boyfriend (pirating books & music). There is a significant difference between consensual and non-consensual behaviors, even if they are superficially similar.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

amafan said:


> Another example of how amoral we've become as a society. Digital piracy hurts people. Just becuase you can't see the people you hurt it doesn't make that fact go away.


Absolutely. People lack empathy and the ability to put themselves in other's shoes. They just want what they want write now and as cheap as possible--preferably free.

Hence all the rationalizations for illegal downloading being fine--they get what they want, everyone is doing etc. etc. so they don't think of the author and publisher that don't get a dime. Or they come up with more excuses like they wouldn't have bought it anyway etc. etc.

Drives me nuts.


----------



## originalgrissel (Mar 5, 2010)

robins777 said:


> We all know that piracy by downloading copying of books, MP3 and movies is wrong but why is it only the downloading/copying side of piracy mentioned. Many people have a dvd/hard disk recorder on which they record shows film etc. from TV. This is legal for to do for time shift viewing but how many people delete these recording once they have been watch them. Surely it is illegal to keep them after they have been watched or as some people do transfer them to dvd, isn't this another type of piracy. People lend each other books, cd's and dvd's etc which again I am sure is illegal as well....
> 
> Piracy is a very thorny subject and and what we need is proper legislation so we know what is legally permissible and what is not and this need to be global. In the UK you can't transfer a cd to you computer or MP3 player, or make a backup copy, of it without breaking the law. Book publishers could help buy supplying a digital version of the books either free or for a small price to go with the paper copy as per growing trend with DVD's which have digital copies with supplied them.


I'm not sure if you are basing all your assumptions on UK copyright law or not but in the US we have a clause in our copyright laws that protects "fair use" by consumers. That means that it is perfectly legal for me to record shows aired on television (pay channels & network alike) and keep the recording indefinitely to watch in my home. Likewise it is legally permissible for me to make digital backup copies of my digital media that I own (CDs) as long as they are for my personal use and are not distributed or used for profit under the fair use policy. And while it had always been legal to make a back up copy of DVDs you owned for your own personal use the Digital Millennium Copyright Act made it illegal to break the DRM encryption that most DVDs contain. A court case in 2009 clarified things basically saying that backing up your dvds for personal use did fall under fair use and that making & producing tools to break DRM was what was illegal, not necessarily the backing up. And, in July of this year the courts further found that artists such as video remixers (and those making non-commercial films which sample other films for the purposes of commentary & parody) were not bound by the clause in the DMCA which prohibited consumers from breaking the DRM that is contained in DVDs as long as they were doing so for the purposes of creating an artistic derivative work. So, I don't think anyone is going to get arrested for keeping copies of old Seinfeld episodes that they recorded from the air.

More info about ripping can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripping

And the Electronic Frontier Foundation is a FONT of info about US copyright law/litigation: http://www.eff.org/


----------



## PharaohsVizier (May 6, 2010)

Morality is not black and white, and is debated far and wide. It is very hard to deem what is right and what is wrong. I am not saying that digital piracy is great and we should all start stealing music and books, but I think you are all very mistaken if you slap on a label on it. Even the worst criminal activities may be deemed correct in the eyes of many. There's a reason laws differ so much from country to country, that cultures often have completely different ethic codes, what you believe is wrong may not be the case for another.



amafan said:


> Another example of how amoral we've become as a society. Digital piracy hurts people. Just becuase you can't see the people you hurt it doesn't make that fact go away.


I'm playing the devil's advocate here because more or less we should pay for what we use, however you can slap that label on pretty much anything in life. Living in a society that can afford a Kindle and a computer to chat on these boards, you are pretty much stepping on a whole bunch of people to live life as you do now.



hera said:


> Just because my brother and I wrestle (legally downloading free books & music), doesn't give me the right to punch my boyfriend (pirating books & music). There is a significant difference between consensual and non-consensual behaviors, even if they are superficially similar.


Okay, what about annoying aunts that pinch your cheeks? I HATE that, hardly consensual, but widely accepted.



mooshie78 said:


> Absolutely. People lack empathy and the ability to put themselves in other's shoes. They just want what they want write now and as cheap as possible--preferably free.


Arguing about morality is a big waste of time. People don't lack the empathy, rather, you can twist this argument in any way you want. Morality is largely based on point of view and scope. Anyone that argues for piracy and isn't simply stating oh I want to steal to save myself some money is essentially putting themselves in someone else's shoes. Just because you picked the view of the author doesn't necessarily make everyone else's opinion wrong.


----------



## amafan (Aug 11, 2010)

PharaohsVizier said:


> Morality is not black and white, and is debated far and wide. It is very hard to deem what is right and what is wrong. I am not saying that digital piracy is great and we should all start stealing music and books, but I think you are all very mistaken if you slap on a label on it. Even the worst criminal activities may be deemed correct in the eyes of many. There's a reason laws differ so much from country to country, that cultures often have completely different ethic codes, what you believe is wrong may not be the case for another.
> 
> I'm playing the devil's advocate here because more or less we should pay for what we use, however you can slap that label on pretty much anything in life. Living in a society that can afford a Kindle and a computer to chat on these boards, you are pretty much stepping on a whole bunch of people to live life as you do now.
> 
> ...


Sayeth "The Pirate". If you are content to live with pirates you become one. All your POV becomes that of the pirate.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

I don't know why, but a quote from Hook has come into my mind.  When Jack describes to Granny Wendy what Peter does, Wendy replies, "so, Peter, you have become a pirate."


----------



## PharaohsVizier (May 6, 2010)

amafan said:


> Sayeth "The Pirate". If you are content to live with pirates you become one. All your POV becomes that of the pirate.


No point in having an intelligent discussion if you aren't going to take anything seriously.


----------



## amafan (Aug 11, 2010)

PharaohsVizier said:


> No point in having an intelligent discussion if you aren't going to take anything seriously.


Exactly my point. Try pirating some books on ethics. You might begin to understand the lack of ethical logic in your argument. Ethics is nothing more than finding absolute good. 'Do unto others...' is probably the best place to start as its the ethical statement most people know. Tell me how pirating digital media is how you would like to be treated if the pirate role was reversed based on that statement.

And don't worry about the fact that its in the Bible. That statement has been the central point in every major religion and society since Civilization began. For good reason.


----------



## amafan (Aug 11, 2010)

'First do no harm ...'  Hippocratic Oath is another good example.


----------



## PharaohsVizier (May 6, 2010)

amafan said:


> 'First do no harm ...' Hippocratic Oath is another good example.


One word: consequentialism.


----------



## DD (Nov 9, 2008)

PharaohsVizier said:


> I'm playing the devil's advocate here because more or less we should pay for what we use, however you can slap that label on pretty much anything in life. Living in a society that can afford a Kindle and a computer to chat on these boards, you are pretty much stepping on a whole bunch of people to live life as you do now.


How can you assume that because we own a Kindle and a computer, we have 'stepped on' people to get them? That is a pretty wild assumption. As many others have, my husband and I have worked hard all our lives to be where we are now financially. I've never 'stepped on' anyone in my life and have come to own everything I own honestly and morally.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks. . . . . .judging by the last bunch of posts, we're getting into something really close to 'personal attacks' here which, as you know, is not permitted on KindleBoards.

I would suggest that the topic has run it's course. . .so, let's put it to bed, shall we?  People do have strong opinions, and minds are not likely to be changed by further discussion.

Thank you.


----------



## Shastastan (Oct 28, 2009)

Ann in Arlington said:


> Folks. . . . . .judging by the last bunch of posts, we're getting into something really close to 'personal attacks' here which, as you know, is not permitted on KindleBoards.
> 
> I would suggest that the topic has run it's course. . .so, let's put it to bed, shall we? People do have strong opinions, and minds are not likely to be changed by further discussion.
> 
> Thank you.


Thanks, Ann. I was just bragging about this forum on another (music) forum the other day about how we don't do personal attacks here. I'm on here just for Kindle and book stuff.


----------



## Basilius (Feb 20, 2010)

amafan said:


> Exactly my point. Try pirating some books on ethics. You might begin to understand the lack of ethical logic in your argument. Ethics is nothing more than finding absolute good. 'Do unto others...' is probably the best place to start as its the ethical statement most people know. Tell me how pirating digital media is how you would like to be treated if the pirate role was reversed based on that statement.


You know that the idea of legally-protected intellectual property is ~200 years old, right? And the biggest proponents of legally-protected intellectual property are corporations. The most ethically-challenged entities on the planet. The currently obnoxious long-term copyright durations are, in effect, corporations stealing from the public domain.

In my opinion, much of the file sharing is targeted at the publisher, not the artist. If authors would set up a "tip jar" sort of device on their websites and acknowledge the fact that sharing is going to happen, I bet they'd make more money than they do now by actively fighting it. It's a losing battle.


----------



## Prazzie (Oct 25, 2009)

It is with some reservation that I rekindle this thread, as it were, but I came across an article today that I found relevant to this discussion.

It is about Lewis Hyde's new book, "Common as Air", which deals with copyright law. Having read the extract, it seems far more interesting than the topic sounds.


----------



## Keyser Soze (Apr 24, 2009)

Well if nothing else, this thread has been a very interesting read.  Thanks for helping my day go by a little faster!


----------

