No idea. I guess if they find cracked material, it’s a definite proof of wrong doing (to them) but the only people it really affects are law abiding purchases. Hate it with a passion, and if removing it increases piracy a bit, so what?

The real thing that needs to change is attitudes among those who use file sharing sites. At the moment, the attitude is raw arrogance and dismissal of author and publisher rights, feeling they are somehow sticking it to the man. Which is why authors spend so much time explaining how it directly affects them, but I suppose that also only affects the law-abiding reader.

I don’t know the answer. I’m on both sides of this argument. All I know is blaming the author for piracy, and slamming law abiding readers who *don’t* make mass copies etc or use file sharing sites, is no way to go on.

The current trend seems to be a move towards restricting access to material rather than opening up the market to more paying customers. I believe this is a mistake. I have no magic solutions to offer. I’ve been doing a series of posts on hypothetical piracy dilemmas and I’ve tried to come up with suggestions for how to avoid the temptation in the first place.

How, other than what is being done? DRM sucks, and hurts honest readers. Leasing content is cumbersome and easily circumvented. Obviously authors trying to publicise the harm it does them, doesn’t work and is turned back on them.

The music industry made mp3s so cheap that file sharing is barely worth it, and so it’s dropping. But it takes a lot longer to write a novel than a song, and an author doesn’t had ready access to other income models the way performers do (very few books get made into films etc.) The two creations aren’t actually comparable.

What pisses me off is that *authors* are blamed for the failures of publishers and the actions of pirates, as if most authors have the slightest ability to change either.

Not *you*, no. But certain commenters here clearly do.

“There should still be one copy at the end of it.”

Not in the Amazon model, certainly not in what the *terribly* professional and *pro author* Mr Pig has described.

I don’t get worked up about a few extra copies here and there, even of my self-pubbed stuff. But when the income stream is so small, authors get nervous when readers and bloggers conflate friends sharing and file sharing. If you’re numbering total sales in the hundreds, even 20 or 30 extra copies is a big chunk.

“Did you notice that this helped increase sales?”

It wasn’t put up for free for that reason. I put my work up on line because at the time the market was tiny and not worth engaging with. I write for love and just wanted to share. It certainly built up a readership for me, and yes, it does bring in sales now, but that’s not the reason it exists. My philosophy on this is entirely different from Cory Doctorow, who’s a prick of the first water. No wonder so many other similiar people find him admirable.

You know, having read the latest comments on DA, and the absolute loathing of authors who want to retain some control over their rights, I wonder why any of us smaller authors should even bother writing. It’s not worth it financially, certainly won’t be if everyone follows TP’s and Jane Litte’s advice, and it’s not worth it emotionally. I used to love writing for the connection with readers, knowing my stories had touched them in some way. Discovering how deep the contempt for what I do is so deeply rooted and irrational, makes me feel that connection is going to be increasingly rare, and doubtless I will be made to look like a greedy fool for even wanting that.

I have discussed the reasons the publishers and authors are failing to address piracy with their lack of doing anything to provide a better alternative.

With all this talk about how well the RIAA did for the music industry in fighting piracy which is still rampant in my opinion it seems just that the book publishing industry now wants to replicate that same success at failing to see people online as potential customers and rather turning them into the enemy.

Teddypig :

You can only hold back technological advances so long before you lose control.

Edit

MoveDe-linkModerateSpamDelete

I don’t agree with everything you’ve said regarding piracy, but on this point we are definitely on the same page. The print publishing industry are a few years too late jumping on the ebook wagon and they’re making a hash of it.

There’s also the problem of technology advancing far faster than the wheels of legal change. I suspect that’s at least part of the geographical restrictions mess.

The problem I see with the current publisher/author attitude towards piracy is that it’s not helping to stop it. In my opinion, the move towards DRM and geographical restrictions is more likely to encourage piracy than to hinder it. If there is no realistic way to prevent people from downloading material illegally, it might be better to target those who pirate because they have no other way of obtaining said material. I’m not justifying their actions, but these are the people who are more likely to stop if presented with the opportunity to obtain a legal copy for a reasonable sum of money.

Given the entertainment industry’s spectacular lack of success at combating piracy so far, something clearly needs to change.

Slightly off topic: you mentioned giving away material for free. Did you notice that this helped increase sales? Just curious.

You can only hold back technological advances so long before you lose control.

The biggest proof is the lack of hard data being used in the arguments I have read and how studies that have been done prove the exact opposite of the highly protectionist stance most publishers are taking.

You side with the RIAA and I will choose to look towards more beneficial solutions that do not include running the customers off with a big stick.

I’ve read some of Cory Doctorow. There’s more than a whiff of the Emperor’s New Clothes to his arguments — he basically discounts some things that he sees as not fitting into his big picture. (I can see why you admire him!) All sorts of arguments can seem convincing with this approach. It ultimately doesn’t work. You simply can’t deny the rights of those who create original works simply by scrunching your eyes shut, putting your fingers in your ears and humming a lot.