A morality question about pirate eBooks

In a NY Times article today, it is mentioned that there is an uptick of circulation at libraries. Jim Rettig, president of the American Library Association and university librarian at the University of Richmond, said, “people are discovering that you don’t have to spend anything to read a book if you have a library card.”

Well here’s a morality question for the world. If it’s OK to read a book for free by going to the library, why is it immoral to read the same book for free by downloading it from a pirate website?

Possible answer: downloading the book is too easy; going to the library requires a little bit of suffering.

Possible answer 2: downloading the book is not immoral, it's just illegal.

Possible answer 3: it's also immoral to check a book out of the library, but then one wonders why local governments are spending taxpayer money to fund libraries and thus encourage immorality.

* * *

The main point of the article linked to above is that the number of adults who have read a novel has increased since 2002, after a long decline since 1982. Perhaps, in bad times, reading of novels increases? 1982 was the bottom of bad economic times which began in the 1960s. During the mid-1980s and 1990s, perhaps people were too busy making money to have time to read?

Comments

[ziel]

I think it's like alcohol and pot. Alcohol is legal because it always has been legal (except for that brief 14 year unpleasantness in the 20th century - an exception that proves the point), while pot is new, so the authorities feel comfortable banning it. Libraries have always been around - they're traditional - so publishers couldn't get away with trying to ban them, though I'm sure they'd love to if they could. Electronic sharing is new, so they jumped on the opportunity to ban it. Libraries have also always offered lp's and cd's for lending as well.

[Regarding Liberty]

If a copyright holder did not, for whatever reason, want a book available for free in a library, could they legally stop them from offering it? Or is a public library modeled like a personal bookshelf writ large, where I am allowed to bring a friend over to read whatever books I own?

But yes, to answer your question, it is not immoral. That's because your use of electronic media does not prevent the original holder's use. And so the main reason for property rights (allocation of scarce resources) is moot. Intellectual property rights is a moral oxymoron, but a legal reality. Only if you believe "profit motive" constitutes a moral rights claim can you think it's immoral to download a copy of some 1s and 0s.

[anon coward]

Many people think nothing of the morality of intellectual piracy, so posing that question really doesn't get very far. It even passes the 'switch test' - I wouldn't care much if people were copying my stuff for free (as long as I get credit).

But selling unauthorized copies for profit is a whole different matter - that's piracy.

[Thras]

"The main point of the article linked to above is that the number of adults who have read a novel has increased since 2002"

Corresponding to the rise of Harry Potter mania in the United States.

Immorality of ebooks? Well, it's kind of tough. In modern times, authors more or less enter into a group contract with the rest of the world to write a book in exchange for certain copyright privileges. These privileges have certain loopholes (libraries, etc). But both parties (the author and the public) know this coming in. Now, we can make some hash about the morality of group contracts enforced through the Constitution, but I think many people accept the principle.

Pirated ebooks, on the other hand, are a violation of the rules of the game. Kind of arbitrary, yes, but it's something everyone agreed to. You wouldn't call someone moral for cheating at football, even if the rules are ultimately arbitrary, right? And copyright rules are, if anything, more important because they involve people's livelihoods.

[a_c]

A library can only serve a limited number of customers, while a pirate book could theoretically serve anyone with an internet connection. The ratio of books purchased to books read is higher for libraries, leading to more revenue for the publisher.

[Turambar]

"“people are discovering that you don’t have to spend anything to read a book if you have a library card.” "

Because of of course your time is worth nothing.

And you are at the mercy of recent library culling policies. I have gone back to reread specific things from my teen years and discovered that libraries dont stock things like "Sink the Bismarck", Asimov's Foundations. There were some books in Zelazny's The Chronicles of Amber but you couldnt read the series since the there were gaps.

And forget John Dickson Carr.

HS is right , that if communities want to have their libraries fulfill a mission beyond as a gethering place or free computer access for loafers, then they are going to have to work out a distribution mechanism based around e-books. Otherwise the current stocking policies based on space and book condition make it difficult to fulfill the libraries stated mission.

I guess it might be scary for publishers to get paid on the ebooks people actually check out through the library, verses the physical books they sell to libraries based on marketing to the closed priesthood of professional librarians.

[Wade Nichols]

Actually, NY Public Library (NYPL) allows you to download books to your computer to read, and also download audio books. I've yet to try it, since I'm still old fashioned and prefer the physical book. (Easier to read on my nearly hour long subway ride)

I think you need certain software that supposedly deletes the books/audio files when they reach the "due date".

Check out NYPL here, for those living in NYC:

http://ebooks.nypl.org/3FF62B12-5CD3-4C38-99CF-C5BF783FE3DF/10/225/en/Default.htm

As for your morality question, libraries probably duck the issue because they at least pay for the actual copy of the book, or the rights to the digital version. The only difference between libraries and pirates though is maybe the fact that the library has the software that supposedly removes the file from your computer when it's due. If you get the file from a pirate, you're going to keep the file at least until you're bored with it.

NYPL is one of the BEST things about living in New York City. They always have most of the latest best sellers, and large #'s of copies (40-80). You can request books on line, and have them delivered to your nearest branch. They send you an email when they're ready. Plus, NYPL also has DVDs and great college type courses on DVD from The Teaching Company on subjects such as European art, world history, etc. (ANY of the art history courses by William Kloss are highly recommended! Kenneth Harl's history lectures are also good.)

Big thanks to people such as billonaire Stephen A. Schwarzman of the Blackstone Group! He donated $100 million the NY Public Library.

[Peter]

"During the mid-1980s and 1990s, perhaps people were too busy making money to have time to read?"

Oh, I don't know ... it's not as if most people increase their working hours when the economy is strong. Construction workers, yes, maybe some factory workers too, but most service sector/office jobs (the majority of all jobs) are for a set number of hours per week that don't vary much.

[wongba]

a_c is right. the library purchases their copy and allows ppl to borrow the book for a limited time. there will only be one borrower at a time of a physical book.

a shared e-book, unless all participants are altruistic and adhere to time sharing the book, could be read at any time by several readers.

the situations are not true moral equivalents. this is all grey as far as i can see. if i intended to read the entire book for pleasure, i would feel the need to buy or borrow from a library. if i needed a specific bit of info, i wouldn't feel guilty about pirating something, getting that info and then deleting the pirate copy.

[ed]

Thras says:"authors more or less enter into a group contract with the rest of the world to write a book in exchange for certain copyright privileges."

That's an interesting point.

But note that the rules of the game HAVE in fact been changed, retroactively, in favor of the authors/creators. All the books and movies created more than 50 years ago would all be in the public domain now, if we still used the rules under which they were produced. Instead we got the Micky Mouse Protection Act (sponsored by a Republican).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

[rightwingnut]

Its all distribution and sales.

Even though most library copies -- if not all -- are 'freebies' provided by publishers. These copies can only be accessed by a limited amount of readers, not to mention the library as you mention is spending taxpayer money to keep its doors open.

The ebook freeloading crowd just diminishes the amount of total revenue a book can generate, and stiffs publishers and authors in the process. Since a single copy can potentially serve the whole book's reader-base.(The distribution channel is completely open)

Self-publishing aside, the cost of producing a professional book, which involves editors, copy-editors, marketing and a series of resources is fixed. That's why no pro author or established publisher is interested in publishing ebooks.(Stephen King is perhaps the most vocal on this whole topic).

Like most businesses, publishing operates on a no bottom or top cap. If its a best seller the sky is the limit for revenue, but if its a lemon there are sunk costs that need to be taken into account. What the ebook model does is take away any potential top and pull every book to a bottom where its tough to justify even producing it.

Its the same story with software.

Unless someone can guarantee publishers and authors a minimum revenue cap to account for a reader-base that can potentially read of 'the same copy' ebooks wont hit the mainstream.

Though be careful what you wish for. One way I see this could be possible is through advertisements.

[Richard H]

I have a complaint about the Amazon Kindle. The books I read don't have "pages" so they're difficult to cite. Or am I just missing something?

They'll have to correct this or Kindle can never be used for research purposes.

[Stopped Clock]

If the book is in a library, that means the author has been paid for it.

If the book is in a library, that means you have to put it back when you're done.

If the book is in a library, you can't make dozens of copies and give them to all your friends.

As far as I know, none of these things are true about pirated eBooks, since they're pirated. That to me makes all the difference. Really, pirating a book is exactly the same thing as pirating a software program.

I am planning to write a novel and am a little bit worried after reading the post you made earlier about eBooks potentially bringing down the whole publishing industry. I suspect eBooks aren't going to be a profitable alternative unless the anti-piracy technology somehow improves a great deal over what exists today.

[Poor Postdoc]

My guess:

1. Libraries lending books is ok because they have been around for a long time - authors recognize having your book available at the library is part of the "deal".

2. Because going to the library involves wasting time, money and possibly dodging unpleasant humans that like to dwell in/around libraries, going there is only a good deal vs. ordering the book online for poor people. You also have to return the book on time or face a fine and/or public humiliation by a poorly paid librarian. This means demand is limited and that authors can feel that they are helping out the poor through offering them an alternative way to get hold of the book. Stealing the book online is almost as convenient as buying it.

[Duke]

Cory Doctorow, sci-fi novelist and editor at BoingBoing, makes all of his books available for free online under a Creative Commons license. Doctorow claims this practice has made him more money than he would have made otherwise.

Doctorow seems to be at the forefront of exploring how the publishing model (along with copyright laws and questions of morality) will evolve in the ebook era.

Doctorow isn't self-publishing his books, either. His publisher is Tor Books, the largest science fiction publisher in the world, and a division of the German publishing giant Holtzbrinck.

Here's a link to a Cory Doctorow article, "Giving It Away," that appeared in Forbes in 2006:

http://www.forbes.com/2006/11/30/cory-doctorow-copyright-tech-media_cz_cd_books06_1201doctorow.html

[Gigliozzi]

You can read a book for free at a bookstore, you know. Virtually all major bookstores like Border's and Barnes & Noble contain comfy (to some degree) armchairs, and some bookstores even have built-in cafes, with tables and everything. You frequently see people grabbing a crapload of books and magazines, sitting down on some chair, skimming through everything, and then putting it all back where they found it. Nobody (as in, store managers who would certainly prefer you buy something) tells them anything. In fact, what with all the armchairs and everything, it almost seems like you're being encouraged to freeload. Why?

In regard to what Wade Nichols said, I don't think you need to be "old-fashioned" to prefer physical, "paper" books. I myself remain a loyalist to those, but more for practical reasons than anything else. I admit that I'm not that deep on these new eBook devices or what have you, but it seems unlikely to me that someone could devise a simpler, electronic way to handle a book than just having an actual book in your hands, which you can leaf through with insuperable ease and endure far less optical strain by viewing. Maybe with larger, heavier books there's an advantage to an electronic reader, but I would still stick with paper.

I adore man-made innovation, and as we call it in the engineering community, I'm a technological optimist. Having said that, I don't believe that just about everything can or should be improved by total electronic translation. We are all in love with the idea that in one way or another, everything in our lives is destined to become all futuristic and shit (that concept, we would call the inevitability thesis as it relates to technological determinism - forgive me for showing off some vocab.) But paper books, I think, are certainly an example of how something completely "organic" bests whatever electronic equivalent you compete it against. At least for the time being.

Not to knock on any champion of eBook devices, but the whole thing seems to me just one giant plot to introduce dumb hipster shit into yet another medium, and appeal to those who make the flaunting of their gizmos a top priority in life. Being a regular reader is a bit of a lifestyle in its own way, that is, it requires dedication, seriousness, and above all, curiosity - all virtues which the great majority of people, both in the U.S. and abroad, do not possess and hardly ever will. What they do possess, though, is great vanity and superficiality, both traits which you can directly capitalize on by developing and selling a slick-looking and easily visible toy for everyone to notice and admire. The kind of people - or at least, many of them - who would buy such an object aren't at all concerned with reading for the sake of acquiring knowledge. They just want to make other people, and themselves, believe that they are, in fact, readers. It's insincere posturing at its very finest.

Please do correct me if you think I'm wrong.

[slwerner]

HS – “Well here’s a morality question for the world. If it’s OK to read a book for free by going to the library, why is it immoral to read the same book for free by downloading it from a pirate website?”

HS,

Are there actually sites making pirated eBooks available? What motivation would anyone have to freely distribute the materials that they paid for, especially when one considers that they may be putting themselves at risk of RIAA-style lawsuits?

One of my daughter’s points when asking for an eReader for Christmas was that, at school, where she resides, her personally purchased books have had a habit of going missing as they either got loaned out to someone, who loaned them to another, and so on, until they became untraceable; or, someone simply “helped themselves” to them.

By having them on an eReader, not only do they require no storage space – but they don’t get “lost”.

But, getting back to your question, sharing an eBook with one other person (at a time) is no different than lending out a printed copy (purchased by either a library or a private individual) – neither illegal nor immoral.

Since distributing an eBook to multiple people at once is clearly an effort to avoiding all but one of them having to pay for the intellectual property offer for individual sale, it IS immoral.

Trying to sell copies, well, that’s pirating, and clearly illegal (and, hence, immoral).

But, again, is there really a growing problem with pirated eBooks yet?

"This means demand is limited and that authors can feel that they are helping out the poor through offering them an alternative way to get hold of the book."

Poor people don't (and often can't) read, especially those "poor" that live in the city.

[creepy dude]

Actually I don't think libraries should be letting out brand new works. Not that I care about copyright: because the vast majority of the new is crap.

Libraries should stock only the tried and true classics. And calculus textbooks.

"Libraries should stock only the tried and true classics. And calculus textbooks."

Sounds like NAM repellent. And a great idea.

[Gigliozzi]

Here's a link to a recent Forbes article which illustrates the point I was making, that is, computers and electronics do not always outdo everything. eBooks vs paper books is one example. This article focuses on post-its.

http://www.forbes.com/technology/2009/01/21/postits-digital-tools-tech-intel-cz_lg_0122postits.html?feed=rss_technology