Novelist Quits Writing Due To Piracy

The Lonely One said:

I think it's a personal decision. I don't get why people attack her,

Click to expand...

Because from some of our perspectives, it implicates her as a part of the system that is the problem, a system that is pushing the industry further and further from a real solution. It's a step backward.

kuwisdelu said:

Because from some of our perspectives, it implicates her as a part of the system that is the problem, a system that is pushing the industry further and further from a real solution. It's a step backward.

Click to expand...

"I'm going to pack up my toys and I'm going home."

I write for money. It's a job. I want to do it well, and I take it seriously, but it's just a job.

My books, both ghostwritten and not, have been pirated even before official release—books about technology were routinely pirated long before most people even knew what the Internet was.

I don't care. It's not like they actually read them, for the most part. Nor are the people who pirate for whatever excuse likely to buy my books.

I have noticed that the non-drm books are pirated far less often than the DRM books.

I'm much more interested in those people who do buy my books; I want them to find the books useful, and therefor buy more of my books. I'm not going to worry about the others; they aren't my readers.

Please note I am not defending piracy. I think of piracy as rather like the speakeasies, back in the 1920s. Like the speakeasies, piracy is an underground, illegal response to a poorly thought-out policy of deliberate scarcity.

Click to expand...

I thought that was a really smart observation, Alessandra Kelley.

As for the argument of there being no access to the art, in some countries there really is no access.

For example, say there's a game out in Britain. You live in Russia. You really, really want the game, you're even happy to buy the English version, but you cannot. It won't be available in your country for half a year. Arbitrarily. Because it suits the company to set things up that way.

All your online friends are talking about how great the game is, but you can't even have a friend buy it in Britain and ship it to you because the game will have DRM that prevents you running it on your equipment. Again, arbitrarily, because it suits the company to set it up that way.

Setting aside entitlement issues, this is flat-out unfair. Due to the accident of your birth, you're a paying the same amount of money--you're even willing to pay more money--but you're getting second class service.

Please note that a sense of justice is one of the things social animals are hard-wired to feel; justice is necessary for society to exist.

So when a company sets things up to suit themselves, not the customer (and they have the right to do this; I'm just arguing that it's counter-productive), they trigger a deep, innate rage that most human beings feel when faced with injustice.

And that rage drives people to try to "fix" the problem.

I think it's dismissive and incorrect to just call piracy purely a product of entitlement. For some fans, yes, it's entitlement. For others, they really are being treated worse than others and their actions, although illegal and harmful, really do "feel", to them, like they're clawing back a just solution.

To me it seems insincere. Does anybody believe she's quitting because some people are pirating her book?

Snitchcat said:

I have encountered far too many advertisements for books that, when I come to "Click to Buy", the response is, "You must be a resident of the USA or Canada" or, it's "Does not ship to xxxx country".

Click to expand...

Copyright and publication rights are probably to blame for some of this. And if you're talking about physical books, shipping abroad is an expensive and often complicated operation.

caw

jjdebenedictis said:

As for the argument of there being no access to the art, in some countries there really is no access.

For example, say there's a game out in Britain. You live in Russia. You really, really want the game, you're even happy to buy the English version, but you cannot. It won't be available in your country for half a year. Arbitrarily. Because it suits the company to set things up that way.

All your online friends are talking about how great the game is, but you can't even have a friend buy it in Britain and ship it to you because the game will have DRM that prevents you running it on your equipment.

Click to expand...

Again, this isn't an argument that people cite at all frequently for unauthorized downloading of books.

jjdebenedictis said:

I thought that was a really smart observation, Alessandra Kelley.

As for the argument of there being no access to the art, in some countries there really is no access.

For example, say there's a game out in Britain. You live in Russia. You really, really want the game, you're even happy to buy the English version, but you cannot. It won't be available in your country for half a year. Arbitrarily. Because it suits the company to set things up that way.

All your online friends are talking about how great the game is, but you can't even have a friend buy it in Britain and ship it to you because the game will have DRM that prevents you running it on your equipment. Again, arbitrarily, because it suits the company to set it up that way.

Setting aside entitlement issues, this is flat-out unfair. Due to the accident of your birth, you're a paying the same amount of money--you're even willing to pay more money--but you're getting second class service.

Please note that a sense of justice is one of the things social animals are hard-wired to feel; justice is necessary for society to exist.

So when a company sets things up to suit themselves, not the customer (and they have the right to do this; I'm just arguing that it's counter-productive), they trigger a deep, innate rage that most human beings feel when faced with injustice.

And that rage drives people to try to "fix" the problem.

I think it's dismissive and incorrect to just call piracy purely a product of entitlement. For some fans, yes, it's entitlement. For others, they really are being treated worse than others and their actions, although illegal and harmful, really do "feel", to them, like they're clawing back a just solution.

Click to expand...

I think when you say something is "unfair" and that people are "faced with injustice", AND you're talking about access to a video game, it's a bit silly to say that you're setting entitlement aside.

I mean, of COURSE the company is making decisions based on how it suits them. That's their right, because they own the game. You would prefer that the company make decisions based on how it suits you. Fair enough, that's your preference, but you don't own the game, so your preference doesn't give you much standing.

There are serious NEEDS in this world that people are unable to have met because of the accident of where they were born. If these people feel driven to steal in order to meet their NEEDS, I understand it. I also understand how THEY might feel a "a deep, innate rage" at the world's injustices. I sympathize, I join them in railing against the injustice, and I try to help.

But having to wait an extra six months for a video game? Come on. Anyone who feels a deep rage about that is ABSOLUTELY suffering from an expanded sense of entitlement, and those who steal in response to the situation are just thieves, not crusaders for justice.

jjdebenedictis said:

I read an article about Valve, the company that makes Portal and other games, and they talked about how they had released a game to the Russian market, which traditionally has outrageous rates of piracy, and found they had virtually no piracy problems.

What were they doing differently? They released the game in Russia the same day they released it in Britain, rather than months later.

In other words, the fans were pirating games as a solution to a problem (games were always released in their country much, much later), and when the company made that problem go away, the piracy also went away.

Click to expand...

No, it didn't. They just saw some improvement because *some* pirates stopped, the ones who only wanted an early release, and the general amount of illegal downloads in Russia is so high, even this small %% dropping off was noticeable. But the majority of pirates, at least in Russia, do not do it for that reason. They simply want stuff for free and they have the means to get it, so why not. It's the national mindset: lulz we tricked the rich dudes out of their money. It's especially true re: games, because there is no "poor artist" concept behind them in the eyes of the general public.

Snitchcat said:

Quitting because of piracy? So, the bad guys have won? You've given up your dream, but in this case, was it really your dream? Was it worth giving up to something that can be overcome?

Click to expand...

She might still be writing, just not showing it to anyone except friends.

I know a Russian author who did the same thing. She has a blog and when she posted about her frustration (she kept receiving emails in which people were asking her where they could download her newest book and got offended when she sent them the link to a local version of Amazon), some comments were like this: hm, you want me to pay for *books*? That's weird, I pay for clothes, food, vacations, important stuff, not for something that's just entertainment. Those people--the ones who commented--were not poor. They just had this idea that only a careless spender would spend money on something that's not new shoes or a new house. A writer, in their world, is someone who has lots of fun writing books (while they slave away at their boring day jobs) and then has the nerve to want some money from those hard-working dudes who are just looking for a bit of fun, ridiculous, isn't it?
And those were people who called themselves her fans and devoted readers.

Another example, also a Russian one. Sergey Lukyanenko is a number one bestselling Sci-Fi writer not only in Russia but, it seems, in Eastern Europe. He is a passionate hater of book piracy and used to blog about it quite a lot. His blog's audience is huge. Once his post received a large number of replies from readers who downloaded his books illegally. They said they thought all the publishers were corrupted and they'd be happy to thank the author directly if they could, but they refused to give any money to publishers. (This is a popular point of view in that country.) Others said they downloaded books illegally when those books were hard to find. Or that they only wanted to read ebooks and never bought the paper stuff. Etc, etc. Lots of reasons.

Okay, Lukyanenko said and created a social experiment. He set up an account using a local cyber-money system and asked everyone who downloaded his books illegally and wanted to pay for them or just to thank him for writing books to send him a bit of money. He promised to donate the whole sum to charity, it wasn't about him wanting money, he wanted to prove that his opponents only cared for free stuff.

He got... I don't remember the exact amount but it was about 150 or 200 dollars total. Mind you, he is the most famous Sci-Fi author in that part of the world. Like Stephenie Meyer for American Young Adult.

Though piracy isn't just about the customers wanting stuff. It's not about freedom of information, either. It's about profit. http://lib.rus.ec is the biggest Russian site for pirates. Its servers are situated somewhere in Southern America. It's full of banner ads and has an incredible amount of hits per hour. Can you imagine just how much $$$ flows towards its owners? They are filthy rich. And that's not the end of it. If you click on "buy it" instead of "read it", wanting a fb2 or another special ebook format (the free copies are in basic html format), you will be sent to another site. That site sells digital copies of books which were never released in that form. More than that: some writers who chose to publish their books as free ebooks, find those *free* ebooks on sale there.

* * *
"Literature is not a profit-making job, but a passion," said Kelly Sánchez, one of the least vitriolic critics. "If you had a real vocation then you wouldn't stop writing." [from the article]

Every time I see this, I want those people to arrive at their work place next Monday just to discover that they will no longer be paid because the public feels like they must do it for free. Hey, doctor, if you had a real vocation, then you wouldn't demand any pay from your patients. Hey, teachers, artists, physicists, what are you doing wanting some money to feed yourself with? That's your vocation, dammit. You chose chemistry? Work in the lab for free and sweep streets at night to pay your bills.

Vocation? Ha. It's just a convoluted way of saying: yes, writer, gimme what I want for free and stop whining, you should be happy we read your drivel.

Toothpaste said:

I was not attacking you. I was stunned you would steal anything and offered you a comparison to try to show you how it's wrong.

And just because your excuse is "I'm not talking about t-shirts, I'm talking about books" and that you aren't talking physical books but ebooks, and that you are using the excuse of it's just because I can't get these books where I live, doesn't matter. It's still an excuse for stealing.

I get why you got upset by what I said in comparing what you are doing to shoplifting, and I get why you'd want to come up with reasons that what you're doing isn't the same thing. Shoplifting is so obviously wrong that you don't want to be accused of doing the same thing in what you're doing stealing someone's book. But you are. Just because you don't have to physically go into a store to do it and no one will chase after you, just because you can get away with it, well, that still doesn't make it right.

Interestingly when I was a teen I had friends who used the exact same excuses as you do for their shoplifting, and in fact used the "the corporations deserve it anyway" thing as well and I said the exact same thing to them as I did to you.

I'm sorry, you can try to convince us and yourself that what you are doing is somehow different, but it isn't. Now, you can acknowledge, "Yup, I'm doing something wrong, but them's the breaks" and fine, I can't say anything but be disappointed in you. But you can't defend the behaviour. It's wrong.

There are other ways to get the books you want to read without stealing them. Like IceCream said, go to your local bookstore and have them order them for you. And you know what? Like I said above, if you can't find or afford the book? Then you can't have the book. You don't have RIGHT to a book or a t-shirt or anything, just because you want it.

The excuse of "it's more convenient and easier for me to steal" is not one.

Sometimes we don't always get what we want. Trust me, I haven't gone clothing shopping in two years because I can't afford clothes and I finally saved enough to be able to go shopping this month. Should I have not bothered to save my money and just shoplifted instead?

Anyway, I know you're likely going to see this as yet more of an attack, and I would be defensive too in your situation, but I hope others reading this will see my point.

Click to expand...

I'm confused by all of the piracy talk. Really, I am.

Here's my question in regard to books specifically: what's the difference between a pirated copy and going to the library to read the book?

What's the difference between having bought a book, and then sharing the physical copy among friends?

In both situations you have a number of people reading the book for free. What happens when libraries go entirely digital? You'll have digital copies of books floating all over the Internet for absolutely free all over the place. I recently took out a digital library loan of a book. It remained on my computer for exactly four weeks, and then I either had to "renew" the loan or "return" the book.

Piracy--whether you think it is an okay thing to do or not--changed the way the music industry works, i.e., iTunes as mentioned somewhere downthread. Eventually, piracy--whether you think it is an okay thing to do or not--will change the way the publishing industry works.

And all of the above having been said, I'm still not positive if any of what I have said makes any sense at all.

Toothpaste said:

I'm sorry, you can try to convince us and yourself that what you are doing is somehow different, but it isn't. Now, you can acknowledge, "Yup, I'm doing something wrong, but them's the breaks" and fine, I can't say anything but be disappointed in you. But you can't defend the behaviour. It's wrong.

Click to expand...

Exactly. I've done it (not shoplifting) with anime and music. And I always felt like a sleaze, truthfully and so didn't do it often. However, once companies came to the realization they could make money if they shifted how they sold their product, iTunes selling individual songs, anime selling boxsets, manga translatiors doing a better job with their translations, I was more than willing to put out the cash to buy them instead of having to resort to piracy to get what I wanted.

But what I had been doing was still theft and never tried to justify it as anything else.

The author that I'd love to have her book. I am disappointed that I won't be able to read it and maybe I'll change my tune after it's been out for a while but right now $9.99 is far too much for my budget to pay for an ebook. I'm sorry.

So I vote with my money and simply won't buy it at that price.

Ses said:

I'm confused by all of the piracy talk. Really, I am.

Here's my question in regard to books specifically: what's the difference between a pirated copy and going to the library to read the book?

What's the difference between having bought a book, and then sharing the physical copy among friends?

In both situations you have a number of people reading the book for free. What happens when libraries go entirely digital? You'll have digital copies of books floating all over the Internet for absolutely free all over the place. I recently took out a digital library loan of a book. It remained on my computer for exactly four weeks, and then I either had to "renew" the loan or "return" the book.

Piracy--whether you think it is an okay thing to do or not--changed the way the music industry works, i.e., iTunes as mentioned somewhere downthread. Eventually, piracy--whether you think it is an okay thing to do or not--will change the way the publishing industry works.

And all of the above having been said, I'm still not positive if any of what I have said makes any sense at all.

Click to expand...

Depending on where you are, the author may get a payment for each time the book gets checked out of the library, so there's a difference there. Even if the author doesn't get paid directly, there's still the reality that a physical book will wear out after surprisingly few readings, meaning that a new book will have to be bought. Not the case with digital copies. And as you've noted, most libraries are pretty responsible about not signing out multiple copies of a single purchased e-book (that's why you have to 'return' it, so that someone else can read it). If they want more copies to circulate at once, they will have to buy another copy.

Same 'it will wear out eventually' argument goes for sharing a physical copy between friends. There's also the fact that most people only have a few friends who share their reading interests, so most shared books are only shared between a few people. Digital downloads, on the other hand, are being shared between total strangers all over the world, who knows how many times. The copies never wear out or have to be 'returned'. Some of the piracy sites, as noted above, are big business (through ads or through actually selling the pirated books), so someone is making a lot of money from the authors' hard work without the author being compensated at all.

I don't think we're ever going to stop it, and I don't think it's a crisis. But I DO think it's stealing, and I think people should stop pretending that it isn't.

Ses said:

Here's my question in regard to books specifically: what's the difference between a pirated copy and going to the library to read the book?

What's the difference between having bought a book, and then sharing the physical copy among friends?

Click to expand...

One of the ways to look at it is the issue of the author's will. The author agreed to give her book to a library. In some countries authors get paid for that (though the amount of money is rather low). The author did not intend to give her book away as a free download available to everyone. If the author wanted everyone to read her stuff for free, she would have just put it online.

As for the physical copy, it's the value of rereads & ownership. If four friends have one book, they might share it, but only one of them has the book at any given moment. They can't read it at the same time, well, they can, but it's not very convenient. With the digital format & piracy, each of them now owns a copy. They have absolutely no reason to buy this book now.

Ses said:

What happens when libraries go entirely digital?

Click to expand...

I suspect that writing will become just a hobby and readers will whine about their favorite authors writing too slowly--because their favorite authors will now be forced to hold a day job no matter how popular their books are.

Or maybe there will be some system forcing people to pay for using a library (not per book, but as a monthly payment or something), and a part of it might somehow go to writers. But I doubt it. Too difficult to sort out the distribution.

Or maybe not. People brought up anime as another kind of product that often gets pirated--and look at Funimation now offering up-to-date online streaming.

Ses said:

I'm confused by all of the piracy talk. Really, I am.

Here's my question in regard to books specifically: what's the difference between a pirated copy and going to the library to read the book?

Click to expand...

The library pays for the book. After it's worn out, they pay for it again. When it's no longer popular, they sell it.

What's the difference between having bought a book, and then sharing the physical copy among friends?

Click to expand...

One friend sharing among others (who might like the book enough to get their own copy) is nothing compared to making an infinite number of copies and handing them out so no one who takes a copy ever needs to buy their own.

In both situations you have a number of people reading the book for free. What happens when libraries go entirely digital? You'll have digital copies of books floating all over the Internet for absolutely free all over the place. I recently took out a digital library loan of a book. It remained on my computer for exactly four weeks, and then I either had to "renew" the loan or "return" the book.

Click to expand...

Most libraries won't go "completely" digital for a very long time. E-readers, while cheaper, are still outside the budget for most people. When you've got the latest census saying that roughly 1/2 the US population is hovering at the poverty line, physical books you can check-out are more accessible to the masses.

Piracy--whether you think it is an okay thing to do or not--changed the way the music industry works, i.e., iTunes as mentioned somewhere downthread. Eventually, piracy--whether you think it is an okay thing to do or not--will change the way the publishing industry works.

Click to expand...

Maybe.

Maybe not.

You're comparing two completely different industries.

And all of the above having been said, I'm still not positive if any of what I have said makes any sense at all.

Click to expand...

It does.

Didn't we all start writing because we wanted to and needed to create??
Christ....

I never have the nerve to join in on these piracy threads because I know 99% of people will violently disagree with me. But here goes.

I don't share the usual logic that piracy = theft = wrong. Piracy is copyright infringement. That's illegal, which is not the same as wrong.

We learned in law school that much legislation is pushed through by powerful, well-funded bodies with influence and access. Copyright law is no different. For decades, copyright law has only ever become more restrictive. There's a fascinating graph here showing the remorseless expansion of (US) copyright law, particularly the expansion of the duration of copyright. I gather (though I haven't researched it in detail) that the Copyright Term Extension Act, also known as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act, was driven through in large part because of pressure from Disney. If that's the case, it's a classic example of how major corporations can influence laws to suit their interests, while the small consumer loses out.

Piracy is illegal because copyright law makes it so. But copyright law was written to protect the interests of people with money. These people spend considerable sums of money to "educate" the public that piracy is "stealing". That's an entirely subjective opinion that coincidentally happens to benefit their financial interests.

Copyright law could be rewritten tomorrow to strike a different balance between various interests. For example, it could be made legal to burn a purchased product to another form of media for personal use, like scanning an ebook from a bought print copy, or ripping a hard copy of an album to your hard drive. In that case, what we now consider piracy would become legal overnight. Presumably people would then no longer consider it wrong.

In a nutshell, I feel much more ambivalent about piracy than other posters.

(Disclaimer: Not a lawyer, may have dozed off during intellectual property class.)

(Anecdote: Last year I went to a book industry conference as part of my publishing degree. The panel were expressing their extreme hatred of book pirates. One said that pirates should be hanged; the panel laughed. My fellow publishing students sat in stony silence. All of us had pirated books, music and films. Many of us now work in publishing.)

Ses said:

Here's my question in regard to books specifically: what's the difference between a pirated copy and going to the library to read the book?

What's the difference between having bought a book, and then sharing the physical copy among friends?

In both situations you have a number of people reading the book for free.

Click to expand...

If I buy one book and lend it to my mom, 12 girlfriends and the mailman, I have not profited. If a library lends a book out a million times, they haven't profited.

And in both scenarios, nothing illegal has taken place. One copy is being read by one person at one time. Not one copy being parsed into millions of copies that are distributed by pirates - to line their treasure chests, not those of the author.

Parametric said:

Piracy is illegal because copyright law makes it so. But copyright law was written to protect the interests of people with money.

Click to expand...

Regardless of the group the laws were intended to protect, copyright laws DO protect the author. Whether the author is Disney or Joe Schmoe, the intellectual property deserves to be protected, and random people who copy and distribute it shouldn't have the right to profit off the backs of the people who have done the work.

I won't disagree violently (It is Christmas after all, LOL) - but I very much disagree that piracy isn't wrong.

lucidzfl said:

Didn't we all start writing because we wanted to and needed to create?? Let that sopping wet vag of a person find real work somewhere else.

Christ....

Click to expand...

Um....

Captcha said:

There are serious NEEDS in this world that people are unable to have met because of the accident of where they were born. If these people feel driven to steal in order to meet their NEEDS, I understand it. I also understand how THEY might feel a "a deep, innate rage" at the world's injustices. I sympathize, I join them in railing against the injustice, and I try to help.

But having to wait an extra six months for a video game? Come on. Anyone who feels a deep rage about that is ABSOLUTELY suffering from an expanded sense of entitlement, and those who steal in response to the situation are just thieves, not crusaders for justice.

Click to expand...

You have a good point, and I agree with it. I'm just arguing as to why piracy happens.

I don't think demonizing the pirates will ever solve the problem. If we strive to understand their mindset, we're more likely to come up with a solution that works--and that's of value, because the current measures imposed by industry do not work.

On a related note, studies have shown middle-class and wealthy people are more likely to shoplift than poor people. You're quite right that pirates have a skewed (i.e. privileged) perspective on how tough their life is.

Carrie in PA said:

Regardless of the group the laws were intended to protect, copyright laws DO protect the author. Whether the author is Disney or Joe Schmoe, the intellectual property deserves to be protected, and random people who copy and distribute it shouldn't have the right to profit off the backs of the people who have done the work.

I won't disagree violently (It is Christmas after all, LOL) - but I very much disagree that piracy isn't wrong.

Click to expand...

I very much agree that a copyright law is necessary to protect the rights of creators. There are a whole ton of reasons to have some form of copyright law. But there's no reason that we have to have our current copyright law. It's that current form, specifically, which I think was written by those people who have money. I don't know that authors necessarily benefit from this version as opposed to another. Maybe authors would be better off and sales would be higher with a different, more permissive version of copyright law. But we'll never know, because copyright is only heading in one direction: the term will get longer and the exceptions will get fewer and the penalties will get harsher.

bearilou said:

Um....

Click to expand...

Sorry. Not trying to be difficult, but anyone who can just up and quit their job kind of bugs me. Lots of people are trying hard to find jobs. And writing is probably the cushiest job there is.

I'd be thrilled to do it for a living. And quite honestly, don't they care about the people who read their work?

Edited because iPad butchered my post

Parametric said:

I very much agree that a copyright law is necessary to protect the rights of creators. There are a whole ton of reasons to have some form of copyright law. But there's no reason that we have to have our current copyright law. It's that current form, specifically, which I think was written by those people who have money. I don't know that authors necessarily benefit from this version as opposed to another. Maybe authors would be better off with a different version of copyright law. Perhaps sales would be better with a more permissive model. But we'll never know, because copyright is only heading in one direction: the term will get longer and the exceptions will get fewer and the penalties will get harsher.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree that copyright laws (and pretty much all other laws regarding everything under the sun) could probably be better written to benefit authors even more. And I also don't disagree that money talks and gets legislation passed.

But I do disagree that piracy isn't wrong because the laws protect the big boys more.

Carrie in PA said:

Not one copy being parsed into millions of copies that are distributed by pirates - to line their treasure chests, not those of the author.

Click to expand...

You do realize that most of the sites do not charge? The ones that do very quickly tend to be shutdown.

Part of the problem in terms of users is that surprisingly large numbers of them genuinely do not realize that downloading "free" books from the Internet is unethical; after all, most of the content on the Internet is free.

This is one reason I think it's helpful for authors to say "I do not get paid when you do not buy my book," or some version thereof.