- I'm sending a message to publishers that physical books are in demand (not the case)

- I have to deal with the physical book (giving it away to a charity shop is probably the solution, but it's still hassle)

- It doesn't solve the problem - publishers still think everything is good. Only by depriving the publishers of revenue until they start respecting their customers can we solve this.

And I think my attitude is a lot less entitled than the publisher's. If I pay for something, I should own it, not have it subject to the publisher's whims. The attitude that they can disrespect their customers and keep control of the book even after it has been purchased is more than entitled. It should be illegal.

That doesn't count as a mention?

Publishers wouldn't be able to take down the list website, as it's perfectly legal to send authors money. Publishers wouldn't be able to take down the pirate sites either, because they've already been trying for decades and can't win the whack-a-mole.

I had thought he decided to distribute this way specifically as a response to how much publishers kept from commercial sales, but I can't seem to dredge up a source confirming that at the moment.

Generally if I say I would like to do something but I can't be bothered it's because I don't actually care about it at all and I'm just saying that as part of my complicated get away routine.

I believe what you probably really mean is you would be ok with rewarding the authors if it was convenient and met your requirements. Then you wouldn't pirate and the author would be paid as part of your purchasing in the way you wanted.

on edit: sorry, I see it wasn't you that made the original comment, and you were just pointing it out.

There are plenty of authors choosing to publish their work DRM-free.

Most authors want to write and be recognized, so they get picked up for more writing contracts. Piracy is really the publisher's problem.

Yeah, hence the physical book. I agree with the other person that this is very morally questionable

Bullshit. While I agree with your point of view otherwise, this attitude is indefensible. To validate your "piracy," you have the simple option of paying for the physical book in order to provide the author at least a pittance. But your objection to that is that you might imply demand for physical books? Are you fucking kidding? Supporting physical books is A PUBLIC SERVICE. Because the fact is that many people DO prefer physical books, for the very reasons that you're railing against. They can't be taken away. If people don't demand them, they will disappear and we'll all be subject to yet another rental scam. That includes YOU.

WTF dude. You lost a lot of us right there, and need to re-think your value system.

I'm fine with my values, they make sense to me and I believe if everyone followed the same values we'd end up with a better world.

Furthermore, it doesn't matter if they're "obsolete." In the case we're replying to, they provide a non-revokable mechanism to reward the author if you decide to "pirate" the E-book. Complaining that it sends a misleading signal that physical books are still in demand is a weak, ridiculous excuse for stealing.

Authors either need to sell something people want or get pirated.

It seems very obvious there is no moral or ethical justification for copyright/DRM or any other way of giving control over the replication of information. The author has at best only a legal right to money, and often bad law needs to be fought with civil disobedience (which is perfectly morally justifiable).

If an author/creator wants to get paid by people who disagree with DRM and the "licensing" of books/content they need to offer something for the money that those people want, or accept and attract donations.

I haven't pirated lately because there's enough great content I can get on reasonable terms. But if I'm put in a situation where the publisher says "my way or the highway", I'm gonna go option C every single time, and feel no remorse whatsoever.

You’re complaining about the terms they offer, not the product. If you’re not clear on that point, it’s no wonder the position is so garbled.

Maybe the author doesn’t want to get paid by people who dislike DRM. That doesn’t give anyone the right to take their content without paying. The principled answer is to refuse to read works from these authors.

> Maybe the author doesn’t want to get paid by people who dislike DRM.

That’s fine and as I stated those people shouldn’t / won’t pay them.

> That doesn’t give anyone the right to take their content without paying.

This is exactly what my original comment addressed and you ignored:

I contend that there is absolutely no moral or ethical problem with copying information and no valid moral or ethical basis for giving creators exclusive rights or “ownership” of their creations, when they can be copied without depriving existing holders of the information, or giving anyone special/exclusive rights to profit from information.

I can see an argument for preventing corporate entities from profiting from any information or content they didn’t create, but not when it comes to people’s ability to freely copy and share.

The principled answer is to support and fund people and tools that enable piracy and free information sharing, to the detriment of “rights holders”.

But it’s also totally disconnected from DRM. Presumably you wouldn’t pay for non-DRM ebooks either, or at least see no “moral or ethical” issue with someone so declines to do so.

And I hope you’re also on the side of AI training as fair use that does not require permission or payment?

They are in demand of course, just not by you.

https://torrentfreak.com/piracy-can-boost-digital-music-sale...

You cannot eat the cake and have it too

Since when? There may be a reduction in demand but bookshops where I live are full of customers.

I only buy physical copies—actual black atoms on white paper aren't as ephemeral as digital copies, neither are they subject the DRM nonsense.

There may be a reduction and I am kinda starting to warm up to my reader's ability to add multiple bookmarks to quotable quotes/interesting concepts/neat scripts, but I am not sure parent is right.

Maybe it depends on locale? If anyone has good data on that, it is likely to be Amazon.

The world operates on contracts, and we are all free to decline to do business with companies we dislike or who ask more than we think their product is worth.

Agree to terms or don’t, but I have a hard time seeing “I’m going to take what they’re offering but not pay what they’re asking” as some kind of noble stand.

Digital assets cannot be compared to physical goods. A physical good that is shoplifted not only misses out on the sale, but must be restocked at the shop’s expense in order to capture the next sale. Digital piracy does not create any additional burden to a business’s expenses. This will never be a valid line of logic.

That's not a great comparison. The problem in this instance isn't a high price, it's a lack of access. If they offered ebooks drm free with a X% unlock fee or something then you'd have a point.

How would that not apply to shoplifting because the price is too high or the return policy too short or whatever?

It's fine if you think what they are doing is wrong. The government shares your opinion.

Additionally, this argument here is even worse, because the laws you'd be violating in this instance have nothing to do with IP or theft, but rather privacy.

But you wouldn't be charged with theft.

That has nothing to do with it being a good or bad analogy.

> How would that not apply to shoplifting because the price is too high or the return policy too short or whatever?

What is "that" in this statement? I'm not saying the word "theft" isn't valid, I'm saying the circumstances are different enough that equating the two is a poor basis to reason from.

If a book was excessively expensive for people, they wouldn't steal it. They'd get it from the library, Xerox it and bind the photocopies .

Copying a pdf is just the digital equivalent.

Do you believe then same thing when renting a car?

When I want to read a book, I usually prefer a physical copy (and I am willing to pay for it, if I do not merely want to read it for a few hours at the library (if the library has a copy)); sometimes it is helpful to have it on the computer too, and in that case I would only accept non-DRM files, and possibly even piracy. However, some books might be difficult to find, or maybe I only want one page, etc.

I've got cash, plenty of people around me don't and I don't begrudge their piracy. I pay, see below, when I was young and broke I pirated everything. I'm surrounded by people for whom a US minimum wage would be a stonking income, why shouldn't they pirate?

The big issue for me personally is shipping. I live outside the US and EU, and it's a real problem getting books out. I often pay more for shipping than I do for the books themselves, and I have to wait up to a month, and there's the ridiculousness of getting a book shipped across the US/EU, then to my third country.

My approach is that I pirate freely and happily, without a shred of guilt. Most of the books on my reader only get read up through the first few chapters, some I'll finish completely.

I do however like books, real books. If I'm getting into an author I've pirated, I'll then buy some of their other stuff, and I buy frequently.

This comes back to the old thing with music pirates being the biggest spenders on music. A classic case, I think.

So please, leave your moralizing out of this. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to pirate, much of it ending up with money in author and publishers pockets.

Hmm, tough choice... not :)

there are valid reasons to pirate books sometimes but at the end of the day, someone has to pay something into the system to keep books getting published

I believe authors deserve to be rewarded proportionally to the quality of their work, I also believe good publishers can add a lot of value to an author's work, and even more I believe that DRM-Free publishers have shown it's possible to base their core business model on being more convenient than piracy. I buy a book, it's mine to use on my devices, no string sttached.

The hubris of some companies make them refuse to see the reality of the market, and instead stubbornly push for wider copyright laws, harsher punishment, DRM, and higher walls for their gardens.