eBook Pirates Are Relatively Old and Wealthy, Study Finds - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=Chryseus;52000321]Certainly they should be paid, but there are many ways to go about doing this, such as government / non-profit funding, physical copies, donations, ensuring they get a fair cut from publishers, etc. And yes I've repaid a number of authors by buying physical copies.[/QUOTE] Government isn't really willing to fund stuff. Non-profit funding is also questionable. Physical copies greatly lose their value if their digital counterpart is legal and 100% free. Donations are also really weak. If writing books is more than a hobby, donations are a no go. You can't get a fair cut from publisher if your starting fee is nothing. Government is the only option but government is not willing to pay. The best option is to just sell the books then. Write to your representative and demand free education. Until then it cannot be free and high quality at the same time. [editline]23rd March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;52000364]depends, if there's books in the library I actually wonder if there's much a problem from pirating it you "steal" from the author whenever you go to the library[/QUOTE] A library is not the same. Don't even try to compare libraries to piracy. Totally different beasts.

[QUOTE=rndgenerator;52000370]A library is not the same. Don't even try to compare libraries to piracy. Totally different beasts.[/QUOTE] well why not? you're still not giving money to the author, while at the same time you are still consuming their content [quote]Physical copies greatly lose their value if their digital counterpart is legal and 100% free.[/quote] to be honest if the primary goal of a book being written was to make the author money, I tend to distrust the book the vast majority of (decent) books that have been written haven't been written in order to make money also it is /never/ wrong to pirate any book from a dead author in my view

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52000402]well why not? you're still not giving money to the author, while at the same time you are still consuming their content [/QUOTE] Libraries have a limited supply.The books they have were bought at least once(unless gifted which is not the point) A digital copy is infinite. It is also why you are allowed to share videogame DVDs but sharing digital ones is not a thing. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;52000402] to be honest if the primary goal of a book being written was to make the author money, I tend to distrust the book [/QUOTE] I agree but I don't see how this is relevant. If you don't trust the book don't touch it. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;52000402] the vast majority of (decent) books that have been written haven't been written in order to make money [/QUOTE] Are they free? If not, why? If they were written not for money but are also not free, that doesn't make sense. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;52000402] also it is /never/ wrong to pirate any book from a dead author in my view[/QUOTE] Agreed

[QUOTE=rndgenerator;52000421]Libraries have a limited supply.The books they have were bought at least once(unless gifted which is not the point). A digital copy is infinite. It is also why you are allowed to share videogame DVDs but sharing digital ones is not a thing.[/quote] they're lent out for free an unlimited number of times, and libraries typically stock enough copies for everybody who comes if I went to a library and made a copy of the book there and took that copy home, is that wrong? [quote]Are they free? If not, why? If they were written not for money but are also not free, that doesn't make sense.[/quote] most of the cost comes from making the books, distributing them, advertising them, etc. very little of it even goes to the author in the end the vast majority of books written don't even make their authors much money (if at all), as only a small handful sell enough copies that it breaks even for the publisher (and thus they continue to stock the book and publish more from the author) and in turn can support a person

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52000443]they're lent out for free an unlimited number of times, and libraries typically stock enough copies for everybody who comes [/QUOTE] And? It's still 1 physical item that needs to be taken from a physical spot. Rules change a lot on the internet and for a good reason. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;52000443] if I went to a library and made a copy of the book there and took that copy home, is that wrong? [/QUOTE]It is, both legally and morally. Will anyone do anything about it? No. Is it kinda shitty to do? I'd say yeah. If the material in the book is that worthy to you, either lend it out for longer or buy a copy for yourself. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;52000443] most of the cost comes from making the books, distributing them, advertising them, etc. very little of it even goes to the author in the end [/QUOTE]What about digital copies? They take just a tiny bit of bandwidth and storage space. If it is not about money, why not release it digitally for free? If you blame publishers, why even use one? Just self publish to amazon or whatever. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;52000443] the vast majority of books written don't even make their authors much money (if at all), as only a small handful sell enough copies that it breaks even for the publisher (and thus they continue to stock the book and publish more from the author) and in turn can support a person[/QUOTE] Same argument, if there is no profit in selling books, why not offer digital versions for free?

[QUOTE=rndgenerator;51999903]Ebook DRM is such a shitfest too.[/QUOTE] Yeah. Good luck reading anything from Amazon on your shiny new Nook.

Textbooks makes sense, because being forced to buy a brand new $400 book for a 3 month course is highway robbery.

[QUOTE=Stopper;51999535]I don't know why you're getting hung on entitlement. It's about convenience! It says so in the article and I absolutely understand it. It takes literally 30 seconds to go on TPB, type the name of the book you want and have it downloaded. The entire process. Unfortunately, unlike movies, music and games, there's hardly a way to make getting ebooks more convenient than this. Maybe some sort of e-library where you subscribe monthly and have access to [I]all[/I] the books, instead of the (sometimes) ridiculous prices online.[/QUOTE] Some places don't have a good book store, I know my town doesn't. They don't carry a lot of titles on-hand and if you want one you usually have to order it.

[QUOTE=rndgenerator;52000496]And? It's still 1 physical item that needs to be taken from a physical spot. Rules change a lot on the internet and for a good reason. It is, both legally and morally. Will anyone do anything about it? No. Is it kinda shitty to do? I'd say yeah. If the material in the book is that worthy to you, either lend it out for longer or buy a copy for yourself.[/quote] uhh many libraries for most of history have permitted people to make copies of the materials there i know that it's certainly legal here, as long as it's only for private study or some noncommercial uses. additionally, disabled people can make copies freely the additional fact about libraries is that you can still borrow books and read them for no charge at all as much as you like - most libraries keep multiple copies so that there's enough for interested readers, and it's common to allow people to extend their loans or to "reborrow" the book shortly afterwards [quote]What about digital copies? They take just a tiny bit of bandwidth and storage space. If it is not about money, why not release it digitally for free? If you blame publishers, why even use one? Just self publish to amazon or whatever. Same argument, if there is no profit in selling books, why not offer digital versions for free?[/QUOTE] a lot of authors do actually (or they pick the lowest possible price) you also have to remember that digital distribution hasn't been around for long - there's a massive amount of work that was created say 100 years ago but the copyright hasn't run out yet for some inane reason

I mostly read public domain stuff but DRM completely puts me off from buying ebooks. Ineffective DRM does nothing but make things harder for actual paying customers.

Where I live my biggest issue is not having a way to buy shit online besides crédito/debit card. I literally have the cash, but it's hard to find libraries and book stores with shit I want, so I need to buy it from the US and pray to god that nobody steals it on the way.

[QUOTE=rndgenerator;52000496]And? It's still 1 physical item that needs to be taken from a physical spot. Rules change a lot on the internet and for a good reason. It is, both legally and morally. Will anyone do anything about it? No. Is it kinda shitty to do? I'd say yeah. If the material in the book is that worthy to you, either lend it out for longer or buy a copy for yourself. What about digital copies? They take just a tiny bit of bandwidth and storage space. If it is not about money, why not release it digitally for free? If you blame publishers, why even use one? Just self publish to amazon or whatever. Same argument, if there is no profit in selling books, why not offer digital versions for free?[/QUOTE] A bit of a historical perspective. During the golden age of Great Britain in the 19th century, books costed a fortune and was only available to exist in rich people's homes. Even though some of them favorably lent books to the common folk. The publishers became anxious and desperate, while they loudly screamed and exerted pressure onto the British parliament to make a law that would forbid people to read books that they never paid for. They even tried to ban public libraries before they even existed. [I]"Reading books without paying for it, is just like stealing the bread right from their children's mouths!"[/I] However, Parliament considered that the reading was positive for the whole community in order to contribute to social and systematic development, so they ignored the publishers' doomsday prophecies, and decided that public libraries would be legal and public for any ones' use. Whether it was good or bad for the publishers' business, it was important for the country that even ordinary people learned to read, so they were ready for the new age requirements. It existed for the advantage of society to create equal conditions, to establish public libraries, available to rich and poor alike. Copyright monopolists collapsed when they heard this: [I]"You can not let people read books for free! Not a single book will ever be sold again! No one will be able to support themselves in their writing! No writer will ever write even one book if this law goes through!" [/I] But the Parliament in the 19th century was much wiser than today, and saw the copyright monopolists outrage for what it was. Parliament took a clear position for universal access to knowledge and culture was more important to society than the copyright monopoly, and so, in 1849, they adopted the law on the introduction of public libraries in the UK. The first public library was opened in 1850 --- and which we already know since then not a single book has ever been written...? Or was it the copyright monopolists' laments that said nothing will ever be created without a strong monopoly, which is just as false as it in today’s modern times. The conflict between the copyright industry and citizens is virtually identical to that which took place when the printing press was introduced in the 15th century, and the Catholic Church declared war against people who by themselves sought knowledge. In both cases, it is not really about religion or law, but on the very same principle that people are people, and that powerful people are using their power to keep it, any methods necessary to achieve their goals. Because whoever has the knowledge, is a threat to their control of information. What is interesting here is that the copyright defenders are acting like religious fundamentalists. The course is not religious in the true sense of the word. But they react as if the copyright was a religious belief, as if it is something that can not be questioned, with an emotional and aggressive spirit and call reformists pirates, thieves, free freeloaders etc. In another time and in another place they would have said 'heretics'. Facts and figures that illustrate the situation and point to a solution and yet no welcome it, but instead aggressively rejected and ignored by copyright fundamentalists. There are some observations can be made based on this. Firstly, people are people and will always be people, and the sky is blue, and grass is green. All this has happened before and will happen again, because the copyright formulas has been reformed several times, over and over again, but yet we’re not allowed to do it anymore because the [I]"It’s stealing!"[/I] mentality, which is very shortsighted because the topic is far more complex than we thought it was, because it reaches out to several major topics that inflicts upon our society daily. The printing press (modern times: the Internet) was a revolutionary technology that threatened the control over the information that the Catholic Church had used and manipulated to their will, to reach their agenda; for centuries. When the old power structures realized that their power were in danger of slipping out of their hands or eroded out of existence, they fought in every way possible, no matter the cost, because the monetary system is far more valuable than human lives and society as a whole, according to their actions. And although the technology won at last, which it always does, the former monopolist community succeeded to cause indirect collateral damage to the society. One day physical copies will disappear, just as every piece of technological gimmick, that moves over to the next; the digitized world. Just as any other business/people, they must adapt and customize their form of marketing to fill the needs of their consumer base, simply because improving the service platform with great neutrality in a global access, makes it more appealing at all fronts. And people who love culture and knowledge will always contribute to it, if not: how would we even be possible to stop it? Remove the Internet? Laws don't stop information that is inevitable free. The only thing we can do is to adapt, because regulations has never worked, and will never work. This is a hard truth about piracy... no matter if it causes damage to the industry or not, we can not stop it by force, instead we must provide something better. Personally I never bought books that costed over $20, but I sure did buy the cheaper ones now when I'm aiming for my master in criminology. Fun fact: In Sweden we have increased the amount of book sales and visitors to the public libraries after 10 years of decline, even though people rely more on digital tools each day. And to this day we must set our mind at ease, and prioritize the designated threat, to stop this vandalism that threatens our social development; and ask ourselves: is piracy wrong, or are there more important factors to accommodate? And if so, for what prize? tl;dr there are priorities: Educated population, or money?

ever since I've had a regular pay check I've always made an effort to pay for shit like this after years of not being able to afford dick

[QUOTE=The bird Man;52001783]stuff tl;dr there are priorities: Educated population, or money?[/QUOTE] So how about... instead of pirating... government funds books and their creation process? Authors win, people win, everyone wins, no? If all 1st world governments butted into create a fund for educational material the world would be a wonderful place, wouldn't it?

[QUOTE=The bird Man;52001783]And to this day we must set our mind at ease, and prioritize the designated threat, to stop this vandalism that threatens our social development; and ask ourselves: is piracy wrong[/QUOTE] I'm going to say yes, because equating libraries to piracy is an [I]enormous[/I] false equivalency. The existence of libraries doesn't completely eliminate publisher profits (piracy does), nor does the existence of libraries eliminate the incentives of legitimate purchase (piracy does). My local library has paid for every book in their collection, and I've bought books I wanted to own for myself after reading at the library. In contrast piracy earns the publisher nothing, and literally the only reason I would have to buy a copy after pirating would be my own sense of morals- while there is ample evidence that people drastically underestimate the amount of work invested by others in a product, undercutting donations as a viable business model. Maybe that's the direction the industry will have to take as piracy of books grows. I think that's pretty shitty, and your implication that it's good because it represents the inevitable progress of technology is fallacious. [quote]The conflict between the copyright industry and citizens is virtually identical[/quote] Bullshit. The Catholic Church wasn't just protecting their own works, they were opposed to technology that would give the people the same abilities as them. You're free to go print your own books and distribute them online, it's stealing someone else's work that's currently being opposed. You cannot draw an equivalence between the Catholic Church protecting its sociopolitical control over the distribution of information and creative industries protecting their capitalistic source of income. Apples and oranges. The right to control the production of the things you personally make is a staple of our society. Piracy threatens that. The printing press didn't. The printing press threatened exclusionary control over the right to disseminate information, which is an entirely separate issue and one which has generally been resolved in favor of the populace. If as a society we should decide that allowing unlicensed reproduction results in net societal benefits, then I can support that- but such a system will need to provide for the well-being of the people who create that content in the first place, and we might end up going full circle to artists living off the stipends of patrons. Giving them nothing is exploitative, because our economy is not currently built to sustain such a model, and unless or until that change takes place, copyright is the means by which creators earn a living. [quote]and that powerful people are using their power to keep it[/quote] And all those normal people who make games, or music, or books, and have had to turn to the digital equivalent of busking to earn anything- fuck 'em, they don't exist, right? Giving us a history lesson about the printing press doesn't make the analogy any more valid. Pointing out that technological progress is inevitable doesn't implicitly mean the change is a positive one. The fact that society will need to deal with piracy one way or another does not equate to piracy being a good thing.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52000364]depends, if there's books in the library I actually wonder if there's much a problem from pirating it you "steal" from the author whenever you go to the library[/QUOTE] I don't know how it is in the UK, but here in Denmark you get paid a certain amount per page, adjusted for genre and so on. It's not complete peanuts either. And obviously the library bought the book in the first place, probably in quite large numbers because you need to spread them out geographically and have multiple copies if there's more than one person wanting loan one at a time. It's [I]quite[/I] different to be honest.

Tbh I pirate ebooks but only because I'd rather spend the money getting the physical copy, which is what I always do. I like having a physical library that friends can see when they visit. If I like an author and a book, I will happily purchase the paperback straight after I finish reading the ebook so I can add it to my collection. Maybe that's what a lot of other pirates do as well? Only reason I use ebooks is because it's so much easier and more discreet to whip my phone out and read, than it is to open my bag, get the book out, and fumble with the pages. Then when I wanna stop reading, I can just close the app and it's gone. It makes reading in bed at night a lot easier too, reading a book lying in bed strains your arms so much.

Not surprising. My dad's old and pretty wealthy and he pirates a ton of e-books.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;51999753]I think that might be just your resentment of those that are wealthy. Rich people do not feel themselves entitled to free stuff.[/QUOTE] actually, there's a handful of studies showing that wealth is correlated to a lack of ethical impulse, leading wealthy to be more inclined to steal. [URL="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-wealth-reduces-compassion/"]here's an article from scientific american, with links to the studies.[/URL]

[QUOTE=1239the;52009675]actually, there's a handful of studies showing that wealth is correlated to a lack of ethical impulse, leading wealthy to be more inclined to steal. [URL="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-wealth-reduces-compassion/"]here's an article from scientific american, with links to the studies.[/URL][/QUOTE] That could be a causal reversion. Remember that many people at the top positions are more likely to be found to be sociopaths or just manipulative. So...