Stealing Trek Literature

[Thrawn]

I'm thunderstruck. Because it's easier to steal a digital version of a book than to purchase a digital or physical version, that makes it all right for somebody to steal? First of all, I can't even grant your premise. How much effort does it take to walk into a bookstore, pick up a book, and buy it? Forget even traveling to a bookstore; how difficult is it to order a physical or digital book from Amazon, or Barnes & Noble, or any other of the myriad online booksellers?

You know what? I was a poor college student once. It never occurred to me to use my economic situation as a rationale for stealing entertainment.

You overwhelmingly misunderstood me. I didn't say it was in ANY WAY RIGHT. I said it was understandable, as in, I can see why someone would A) decide to do that, and B) still think they were in the right, instead of resorting to "I like to steal!" as a motivation. That doesn't make it ACTUALLY right.

My point was not a moral argument, it was a practical one. What can companies do to diminish piracy? Make it less appealing to pirate. Right now, a lot of people pirate because it's easier and better.

Like: Say you want an e-book of something, but the e-book doesn't exist. But a free, easy to obtain, illegal one does. YES, it's MORALLY WRONG TO STEAL IT. I never said otherwise. But is it all that hard to believe that people would?

Or, to restate my earlier example: Say I want a blu-ray, or otherwise high definition, copy of my favorite movie. Even if I buy a Blu-Ray player, my monitor won't be recognized as compliant with the DRM scheme, and so despite owning the technology AND content 100% legitimately, I still can't play it. But I can get the same thing for free, and it actually works! No, I didn't pirate - like you, I morally believe it's unacceptable. But I think that the movie companies that complain about piracy all the time would probably have less of an issue with it if they just made it easier to enjoy it legitimately. Like the music industry, which seems to have won; you don't hear much about music piracy these days.

 

[David R. George III]

^ My bad for misunderstanding your point. While I grant you that the situation of which you speak does occur and can be a singular motivation to pirate, I also believe that more often than not, the people who do engage in piracy do so simply because they can, and because they do not wish to pay for what they steal.

 

[BillJ]

^ Bill, I'm not defending any company's marketing or production policies. I'm not suggesting that book publishers shouldn't include digital backup copies. I am simply saying that none of that justifies stealing.

And the truth is that some booksellers, such as Amazon, allow buyers to download their digital book again for free if they lose their first copy. How easy is that? A free digital backup without even having to do anything.

I think that customer mindset has shifted to the point that their is the expectation of a digital back-up being available to pretty much everything they purchase nowadays, right or wrong. If that back-up isn't available through official means, they'll go the backdoor route.

Personally, I think it would be advantageous to publishers to offer digital copies to even the dead-tree edition books. If people have access to a digital copy then they don't have a reason to go onto bit-torrent or other means to procure it. Fewer people on bit-torrent, the slower it goes and the more difficult it is to get what you want.

Just sayin'.

 

[Therin of Andor]

...I also believe that more often than not, the people who do engage in piracy do so simply because they can, and because they do not wish to pay for what they steal.

Not to mention that mere days after the release of hardcopy versions of Myriad Universes: Shattered Light, we are expected to swallow that people were honestly trawling the Internet looking for a free downloadable digital version of that book, just in case the book got lost before they had even cracked the spine.

The hunger to have the latest item immediately, and for the best possible price, ie. free, and in a way that will deny the authors the opportunity of making anything out of the transaction, is sad. Then the person then devours, in a few hours, what took the writer months to create.

(Now, that comes from someone who also loves to have the latest ST item immediately, even if I don't end up getting around to reading it straight away - but I am also used to paying up to triple the US cover price, and I made sure I was in a secure career that would enable me to feed my reading and collecting habits for as long as possible. I also chose not to drive a car, so it's probably my hypothetical petrol money that buys my ST books and collectibles.)

 

[Thrawn]

^ My bad for misunderstanding your point. While I grant you that the situation of which you speak does occur and can be a singular motivation to pirate, I also believe that more often than not, the people who do engage in piracy do so simply because they can, and because they do not wish to pay for what they steal.

It's no problem; heated topics like this, misunderstandings happen all the time.

My counterargument to your assumption, though, would be again the music industry. Wired even had an article last month titled "The Age Of Music Piracy Is Officially Over". Googling "movie piracy" results in many, many articles about crackdowns, the phenomenon being on the rise, etc. Googling "music piracy" doesn't. (Granted, not exactly scientific, but still.)

I credit this with rapid, comprehensive, trivially easy to use services that make obtaining digital music substantially easier and more convenient through legitimate means than illegitimate ones. eBooks aren't quite there yet; as easy to use as Amazon is, it lacks a lot of books, foreign release schedules vary, and DRM is annoying to the right kind of person.

 

[JD]

How much effort does it take to walk into a bookstore, pick up a book, and buy it? Forget even traveling to a bookstore; how difficult is it to order a physical or digital book from Amazon, or Barnes & Noble, or any other of the myriad online booksellers?

Not to mention the fact that with a Nook (and I'm assuming a Kindle) it takes less than 30 seconds to buy a book and start reading it. And you can do it anywhere with WiFi, so if you have wireless internet like me, you don't even need to get off of your couch. And if you get the 3G Nook you don't even need the internet, you just need a cellphone signal. I don't think it could possibly any easier.
Personally, I don't understand this obsession with a digital backup, movies and music and books have excised for centuries without digital backups, and people survived fine. Yeah, it is nice, but I don't really see where it is so vital that people would feel they have to steal to get one. To me it's a luxury, and a treat the few times it happens. I understand that occasionally unexpected things happen, but there are plenty of other precautions you can take without having to resort to stealing. If you don't want to lose a book, then don't set it down somewhere where you may forget it, if you don't want it to get wet, then don't read it near water. The same goes for movies, just be careful. It's that simple. Now, I won't deny that there are several movies I spent more money to get the digital backup, like I said before, I like it, but not so much that I'll steal. And no matter how you try to justify it, downloading anything for free that itsn't being offered by a legitimate store or the publisher is stealing, whether you payed for another one or not. This isn't some kind of two for one deal.

 

[Technobuilder]

The more ubiquitous something becomes, the more people get used to the idea of it.

Who among us in this day and age would buy a car that didn't come with air conditioning for example? (It was a luxury item that has now become a standard.)

Many of the counterarguments (not for piracy itself but for why piracy could be on the rise) involve the idea of digital copies of physical media.

All Pocket Books (or S&S) has to do is invalidate the counterpoint(s).

Baen has been giving readers digital copies of their books for years, and the idea behind it has been to allow new readers to catch up and enjoy their extensive back catalog so that when a new release comes out in a long running series, they can buy new books with confidence.

Now I'm not saying that Pocket Books should give away E-books without a purchase, as Baen is a specialized publisher in a specialized sub-genre of fiction, but seriously, if the best argument for online piracy is making a digital copy, then just offer a digital copy of every dead-tree book sold. Create reasons for consumers to buy your products and methods for them to do so easily and by and large they will.

We're moving into a future where eventually all books will have to be digitized anyways, so why not take the lead and do something that cuts the legs out from under online pirates while at the same time provides a loyal customer base with a legitmate benefit from purchasing.

As long as the product itself is better than what's available to someone who might pirate (for one or many of the reasons people here have been discussing) then they should buy the better product. (If those reasons were actually their reasons in the first place, correct?)

We're not going to stop online piracy... it's just never going to happen. What the publishers need to realize is that they can minimize online piracy. Potential consumers minds can be changed, they just need a reason to change them.

If all of those criteria are met and still people pirate, then you're looking at a situation where those people probably wouldn't of bought your product in the first place. Despite their interest in it. (It's not right, but there's not much to be done about it except fight back with innovation and improvements that outstrip what makes something worth pirating in the first place.

All of us here, who have chimed in on either side of this particular debate have said piracy is morally wrong. So in essence we're not arguing whether piracy is morally wrong, we're arguing whether it being morally wrong is enough to keep people from pirating in the first place. Many of the posters here have said that it clearly isn't.

As a result I'm just saying that the industry should be looking at things they could do to reduce piracy significantly by focusing not on the pirates, but the people who download the pirated stuff in the first place.
A shift of strategy if you will. Don't attack them, convert them. It'll pay dividends down the road.

Thanks for your time.

 

[LaBarre]

I'm not disagreeing with Scott, as I think my post made clear. I feel very sorry that this has occurred. But he isn't alone here. For at least 10 years, people generating artistic content (music, theatre, film, gaming etc) have had their works purloined day in and out via the internet. In the medium term, there is no stopping this because the law is so far behind the reality.

It's a tidal wave at the moment, and all of it rushing against the lone person standing at the shore calling out "I've got copyright."

That's the context for the use of the word "foolish."

To give you an RL example of this, have you noticed how many of the avatars used by contributors to this very thread breach copyright?

When I spoke about missing the boat, I have in mind the sheer ubiquity of this no-man's-land we find ourselves in. We might talk about Rosa Parks until our faces turn blue, but increasingly the fact is that younger people see no correlation between their history book and real life injustice, and in this I think they are correct when they take up an image from the industry and refashion it into something of their own or otherwise play.

Quite often, this new world works in favour of the studios and publishers.

Theft?

Absolutely.

And.......................what?.

For me, I like the feel of a good solid book in my cold hard fingers. At least you can rely upon one more person from whom your deserved royalties are due - but I'm a dwindling part of the community. So, while it's entirely understandable, Scott, your gripe should more properly be directed at TPTB, because that's where the solutions (if any) will come from.

 

[Scott Pearson]

At least you can rely upon one more person from whom your deserved royalties are due - but I'm a dwindling part of the community. So, while it's entirely understandable, Scott, your gripe should more properly be directed at TPTB, because that's where the solutions (if any) will come from.

If the fans don't understand that what they're doing is wrong (I think they already know it's illegal), then it should be explained to them. That's why I started the thread here, to make it clear to the fans where the writers stand on this. If even a single fan reads this thread and stops downloading pirated material, then that's a good thing.

And I also reported the pirated file to Simon & Schuster, which is probably the reason the file was pulled from the site. It's possible, however, that this thread got back to the poster or site and got them to pull the file.

I have won one small battle in a big war, and maybe got some people to think a little bit more about what they're doing when they download illegally.

I'm at a loss as to why you still want to characterize any of my actions, which got the right result, as foolish. It's like you're endeavoring to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

[LaBarre]

Scott,

I applaud you for doing everything you can to combat this. However, you do realise that closure of one site means bugger all in today's world, don't you?

I don't do emoticons so will refrain from responding in kind, but I can assure you that I take absolutely no joy in characterising your response (and not just yours, but any other holder of copyright in this day and age) as foolish, because nothing - once posted to the internet is ever totally deleted. In your own case, and I'm no tech head but even I can manage to access a cached post, and to recover a site lost on first preview.

The win you've one is a pyrrhic victory. You can't win this particular war with rearguard action - it's gotta be pre-emptive, hence my point about working with TPTB, by which I mean working with TPTB BEFORE you publish.

 

[JarodRussell]

I just borrowed a book from a friend. For free. Basically I am hurting the book sales right now.

Well, ANYONE who doesn't buy the book is hurting sales, whether they want to read it or not.

Lending is normal social interaction and can spread the word in ways that might not happen otherwise. You could just have easily gotten it from a library. Writers have no problem with that. At the end of the day, essentially, one license was sold for the book and there's still just one book. In other words, what Therin and Mack said.

See, the thing is, I have never bought a book after I borrowed it. I just read it and give it back, and when I want to read it again (which doesn't happen often), I borrow it again.

It could very well be that like you lose 50% of sales because of that behavior, since you do only sell one license and not two.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

I just borrowed a book from a friend. For free. Basically I am hurting the book sales right now.

Well, ANYONE who doesn't buy the book is hurting sales, whether they want to read it or not.

More specifically, anyone who doesn't buy the book new. Buying the book used or remaindered doesn't help the authors earn out their royalties and doesn't tell Pocket which concepts are supported by the marketplace.

People who buy remaindered or used aren't always doing it to save a buck, though. There are authors whose work I will only buy used or remaindered, because I'm unwilling to support or uncomfortable to approve of their work financially. Maybe these authors in question are jackholes. Maybe they're lousy writers. It's a choice, and I freely admit that, in some cases, there's a punitive aspect to that choice.

 

[Scott Pearson]

Scott,

I applaud you for doing everything you can to combat this. However, you do realise that closure of one site means bugger all in today's world, don't you?

I don't do emoticons so will refrain from responding in kind, but I can assure you that I take absolutely no joy in characterising your response (and not just yours, but any other holder of copyright in this day and age) as foolish, because nothing - once posted to the internet is ever totally deleted. In your own case, and I'm no tech head but even I can manage to access a cached post, and to recover a site lost on first preview.

The win you've one is a pyrrhic victory. You can't win this particular war with rearguard action - it's gotta be pre-emptive, hence my point about working with TPTB, by which I mean working with TPTB BEFORE you publish.

Good grief, you are one bleak mofo, which I say good-naturedly, because I'm not exactly known for being happy-go-lucky myself! I am not naive about the scale of my victory, which is miniscule in the big picture.

But I still don't understand how you can say "I applaud you for doing everything you can to combat this" while also dismissing any significance at all to what I've done to combat this and calling me and my fellow writers foolish for fighting the thievery of our intellectual property. It's kind of like calling someone a fool for going to the doctor because we're all going to die in the end anyway. And then adding, with a condescending pat on the back, "But go ahead, have fun with your little doctor ploy."

The slipperiness of digital files and the intractibility of internet pirates is no reason for writers to roll over and submit without a fight. We are fools only if we don't acknowledge the whack-a-mole nature of this uphill battle. Sure, the avowed downloader will still find another source to steal from me, but with the miniscule effort of filling out a web form at Simon & Schuster I've forced the thieves to at least have to dig a little deeper. And maybe, just maybe, someone on the fence about the issue will fall off in the right direction.

Meanwhile, legitimate sales of e-books are on the rise, in some measures eclipsing hard copy, which shows that lots of people are embracing the new model and paying for nonphysical copies, just as the music world turned around from rampant piracy to legally buying music online. There will always be people who steal, but standing up to them and calling them out is never foolish. (Well, unless they have a gun pointed at you.)

 

[Scott Pearson]

See, the thing is, I have never bought a book after I borrowed it. I just read it and give it back, and when I want to read it again (which doesn't happen often), I borrow it again.

It could very well be that like you lose 50% of sales because of that behavior, since you do only sell one license and not two.

There's nothing wrong or illegal about borrowing things though. Sure, I don't get a sale, but you haven't stolen a copy of the book, either in print or electronically. You're in a twilight zone of a hypothetical sale, and if I worried about those I'd go insane. The electronic pirate or old-school shoplifter, however, by stealing something, becomes a tangible lost sale, something I should have gotten credit for. That's the stuff that really digs at a writer.

 

[Greg Cox]

Exactly. I don't think any writer in their "write" mind worries about libraries, used bookstores, yard sales, and people loaning a dog-eared copy of THE EUGENICS WARS to their second cousin (who may or may not get around to returning it). Like I said before, the books were paid for once. What happens next is none of my business--unless somebody xeroxes every page, binds them together, and starts selling homemade copies of THE EUGENICS WARS on eBay. Then you're definitely abusing the privilege, and competing directly with the actual book . . . .

 

[Thrawn]

^ The difficulty comes from the fact that there's no way to replicate that experience digitally. You can either use DRM etc so that when one person buys it, they are the only person that can ever read that copy, and it can't be lent or borrowed or resold... OR you don't use DRM, and then one person can infinitely copy theirs, put it online, etc, and infinite people can read it. It's unclear how best to bridge that gap.

 

[Greg Cox]

Indeed. There are practical limits to how many relatives you can loan an old paperback to. But posting an electronic file on-line means you've just "loaned" the book to everyone who has a connection to the internet!

I'm not enough of a techie to know how you finesse this, but I can't blame Scott for being upset and wanting to do something about it.

 

[AN_D_K]

I can't remember if it's been mentioned already but amazon are going to allow you to lend your ebooks out for 14 days. So you don't have it until they're done with it.

So it's nice to see things that are being done. along with that a kindle account can be on 6 devices so your household can all use it. It just makes piracy that little bit more pointless. It won't get any more sales but it does cause less support for the piracy.

Talking about stopping torrents, I did a bit of research on how available they are and saw David Mack posting on one saying something like "oi! You're stealing my work!" .. I think it's worth keeping that torrent up as a message than having it removed. Bravo.

 

[garoo1980]

I can't remember if it's been mentioned already but amazon are going to allow you to lend your ebooks out for 14 days. So you don't have it until they're done with it.

So it's nice to see things that are being done. along with that a kindle account can be on 6 devices so your household can all use it. It just makes piracy that little bit more pointless. It won't get any more sales but it does cause less support for the piracy.

Talking about stopping torrents, I did a bit of research on how available they are and saw David Mack posting on one saying something like "oi! You're stealing my work!" .. I think it's worth keeping that torrent up as a message than having it removed. Bravo.

Indeed. With developments like that there will shortly be no reason to pirate, other than the obvious cost savings. But as has been mentioned plenty of times before, nothing's cheaper than stealing!

I wish there was some way of pressuring S&S to let libraries buy ebooks though. That ticks me off. Nothing can be done I guess, but still

 

[David R. George III]

The win you've one is a pyrrhic victory.

Pyrrhic? Really? Pyrrhic? To quote William Goldman's Vizzini in The Princess Bride: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."