Yes but this also takes money away from the author, who put in a ton of work to make that book. It's not as simple as claiming the piracy is 'ethical' just because it circumvents the publisher

I buy books and music by writing the author and asking them how to pay directly. This ofcourse only works with very small authors so I'm not buying much any more. Reading and watching movies I do from the local library.

Do you think that the editor, cover art designer, potentially illustrator etc. don’t deserve to get paid?

I know at least one author that refuses “out-of-band payments” for that reason.

And this is to say nothing about advance payments where the publisher is taking the risk of a book not selling, and the author gets paid regardless, which can be a big thing for small authors too.

I think the idea is that by hurting sales of DRM-ed books relative to DRM-free books, and by increasing the piracy problem only for DRM-ed books, you make it more attractive for publishers to sell DRM-free books, and for authors to apply pressure to their publishers in that direction. Of course, you have to put your money where your mouth is by actually buying books from DRM-free publishers (like Baen and Tor).

So we should ban libraries, book scanning, and used book sales too?

No, because the book was still bought in the first place. In all your examples someone still bought a book which helped ensure the creators of it got paid.

Using piracy from the beginning ensures nobody gets paid.

The book that was scanned and shared with others, was also bought in the first place. Piracy sites are just decentralized libraries.

Yes, but these secondary markets have been fine because they still require a large primary market.

A library can only lend as many copies as it purchases. Someone selling their copy can only sell the copy they purchased. These secondaries are constrained by the primary.

Your talking about one person buying a single copy and then distributing it for free in perpetuity. This secondary is not constrained by the primary.

> Piracy is more ethical than buying DRM media.

Only if you sent $$ to the author/s.

And the editor, illustrator and promoters as well.

And don't forget to send a larger chunk money to other new prospective authors that you don't know and that haven't even sold a single copy of their book (or maybe not even finished it yet)!

> Problem with this is it means you are giving money to providers that sell with DRM

Indeed. And also do not underestimate the cost of adding DRM to media. Don't know about ebooks, but for streaming media I would estimate about half the engineering time spent designing, building and maintaining video work flows is somehow related to CENC, CBCS, Widevine, Playready, Fairplay and the whole ecosystem of third party consultancy around this.

For larger platforms these investments are worthwhile, but I don't think it's a coincidence that smaller audio shops and podcasts generally avoid DRM for streaming audio (where margins are smaller than Live/On demand video streaming).

How is it more ethical if you don't pay for the product and no money goes to the author? Writers always say that preorders and direct purchases really matter. Of course DRM is bad, but why is piracy ethical in this case?

Its ethical as you dont contribute to bad incentives which is the lock down of information behind DRM. Profits motives come after such considerations.

We have been living millenia without DRM protection of books so I would wager the justification of their necessity is dubious at best.

Does the author pay every person they got all their ideas from ? We are talking about very complex one to many relationships that are practically unaccountable.

Piracy gives the same amount to the author as borrowing from a friend or from the library. It is just more efficient.

I 100% always pay for books available without DRM such as from No Starch Press. I encourage any authors reading to consider similarly ethical publishers.

> Piracy is more ethical than buying DRM media.

Not buying it nor download it illegally would be the ethical stance.

Illegality is not an absolute value so it had no place in a discussion about ethics. Many laws are ethically wrong.

Then let's just call it "acquiring the book in a way that you don't know if the people involved in creating the book would consent to, but have a lot of evidence to suspect that they actually don't".

From the author's perspective the latter is better (possible word of mouth sales and authoes generally like the idea of people reading and enjoying their writing), so not sure how that works out ethically.

If it's better for them, I suggest asking for permission first, I'm sure they'll be positive to the idea.

How would you prove you weren't going to buy it?

That's the crucial difference between choosing what you think is right and using an external source, you have access to your thoughts while they don't.

A lot of the bands I follow openly support people pirating their music at shows, because those people are ticket and merch buying fans.

Some bands have been scolded and threatened by their publishers for said public voice, and instead choose silence as they could be sued by their producers/publishers.

Creators I have contacted about DRM almost never reply. Likely for similar contractual reasons. They can only legally respond with scolding or silence.

I did have one artist I contacted reply once. They were Christian and all but said I would go to hell for sharing copies of someone elses work.

I asked how they felt about Jesus replicating and freely sharing someone else's bread and fish. They never replied again.

So are public libraries just as "unethical"?

Public libraries typically don’t publish without permission from publishers or authors, there is a difference there.

So libraries are unethical too? Borrowing a paper book from friends?

Libraries get the books from distributors and have licenses for lending them. I’d say that is perfectly ethical.

In my country, you have a legal right to share copies to close friends. I think that’s ethical, but I don’t think it’s ethical when people mass download someone’s work without paying them when they were charging for it.

Piracy vs. not buying it vs. not downloading it are morally equivalent. The actual ethical stance here is whether or not you're paying for DRM; once you've committed to not doing that, whether or not you choose to pirate it at that point is morally neutral because the effect on the author (and publisher et al.) is the same.

I wish I can just donate to authors whose books I'm pirating without paying Amazon.