Heads up to Harlequin authors. An anonymous source forwarded me a link (which I am so not going to republish because why should they get traffic?) to a site illegally offering free eBook copies of Harlequin novels. The site has multiple listings of a month’s worth of books in one file, and fields requests for books by title.
If you’d like to email me, I can send you the link so you can look for your book there. If an author finds that her book is being offered illegally, she needs to report the individual title to Harlequin.
The original email came from an author’s loop and the author of the original message suggests a rather sharp and brilliant method for tracking potential piracy: create a Google:Alert for the title of your book, and for your name or pseudonym. Google will email you daily, or as frequently as you wish, any search results that match your alert terms. Unfortunately, I do not know who wrote the original email that I received, but whoever you are – that’s a damn smart idea for any author published in eBook format, so mad props to you.
And good luck to any Harlequin author who finds her pirated eBook offered illegally.
UPDATE: RWA National just sent out a members-only alert about the issue.
I read lots of fantastic free fiction—legally, on Project Gutenberg.
I’m guessing most of this fiction was once considered marketable? Someone was paid to write it. Someone was paid to edit it. I’m not talking about previously published fiction. I’m talking about what will be left when the profit goes out of publishing. When no one is paid to do write, edit, market, publish a book.
And then there are those commercial authors who distribute free work, as well as various poets, essayists, and short story writers whose work is available free and legally online
Again, these are published authors who have chosen to distribute some of their work for free. This is not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about people who aren’t and will never be paid for their writing because it does not meet a certain standard of quality. My point is that, maybe not today, but eventually, readers are going to get what they pay for. And the ones who have been reading authors’ work without providing any compensation will be the loudest whiners when they can’t find anything decent to read.
I’ve bought more than few books by reading work offered online for free. I think that if I were someone who used download sites it would likely be for books I’d probably not consider buying to begin with. And one of two things would then happen. Either I’d reaffirm that initial decision or decide I want to read more of an author’s works and buy up his/her entire backlist and every subsequent book.
What if the book you downloaded was an author’s first published work? What if there was no backlist to purchase? And what if—just putting the possibility out there—not everyone downloading illegal copies is as conscientious as you are? What if most of them are just downloading the backlist for free, too?
Right now, the only weapon authors have to fight this is the fact that it is wrong. The last thing we need are people going around saying something I’m reasonably certain hurts authors actually helps them.
From your previous posts here, I know you to be an intelligent, honorable person. I’m sad to say, most people would not utilize the free downloading of books the same way you do.
Yeah, illegally downloading is not exactly the same as stealing a loaf of bread. But if my movie theater analogy doesn’t convince you it’s still wrong, I’m wasting my time.
My question is what’s the difference between the limited sharing of a print book and the limited sharing of an electronic book.
I’m not sure anyone here is really arguing that limited—between a few friends—sharing is a problem. I think the only real difference with ebooks would be the potential for abuse. And since that potential is all-too-frequently exploited, it concerns me.
No, Robin, I don’t see the sharing of print books as stealing. Because it isn’t. Not legally, not ethically. Posting an electronic version of a book on the Internet without permission is stealing, however.
Why? Well, why does copyright protection revolve around copying the work? It’s right there in the name of the thing—copy + right. Copying the work makes it possible to distribute the work. Putting a copy of a book on the Internet distributes copies all over the place. And yes, that’s theft.
Are you wanting us to agree that it’s okay if a reader shares electronic copies of a book just with two or three friends? That’s similar to the way a print book might be shared . . . two problems with it, though, both based on the fact that you have to copy the e-book to share it.
First, if you share an e-book, you make a second copy and keep your own, so this isn’t exactly the same as sharing a print copy. Second and IMO more important, once an e-book is copied and passed on, the copies can multiply. Maybe someone you gave a copy to gives a copy to another friend, who passes it to someone else—and that person puts it up on the Internet, and 200 people download copies.
I’d suggest that anyone who wants to be able to pass a good book on to friends should buy a print copy. Keeps things simple—and legal.
Eileen
“So does it come down to the original permission or the sharing itself? I mean, if a reader buys a print book and shares it without your permission is that okay, or is the sale itself the implied permission? And if a reader buys an electronic copy of your book and wants to share it, is that different, and if so, why?”
The primary difference is the format. It is highly unlikely that she will put my paper book in the Xerox machine and run off a hundred copies. It is possible that she will scan it, but that is still an awkward process.
She is entitled to pass the pb around, whether she bought it, or I gave it to her. She can legally sell it. She can sell the autographed copy (for more than the cover price. Good luck with that, imaginary reader). The pb will either end up on a keeper shelf, or it will fall apart in a few readings. Dead end. Case closed.
But it is very easy to take a file with no copy protection, and duplicate an infinite number of times. Since we are continually talking about the ‘grey area’ it can be easy to not see the copying as doing anything wrong or hurtful. One isn’t going to hurt anyone. Or two. Or five. Giving to one or two friends can get out of hand before you know it, if you draw no hard line for yourself on whether sharing books is an ethical issue.
Even then, I’m not going to crucify a person for making a few copies because they don’t know any better. People chose not to associate the author with the work (I believe you said this, didn’t you?) So while I see this book as my baby and my bread and butter, it is just words on a page to some people. And I am not a real person, or a creator, I am just two words on the front cover.
But I would request politely that you try to limit hypothetical e-copying to a small circle, even if you bought the ebook, and feel it is yours to do as you please. No copying would be nice. Close personal friends who won’t pass it on? I might not be thrilled, but I understand.
And frankly, I don’t know if you can copy HQ’s stuff, so the point may be moot for me.
We don’t get to the white hot rage, eyes rolling back in the head, and foaming at the mouth stage until we hit the big file sharing sites.
Don’t go there. Don’t do that. And don’t say we didn’t tell you.
Yeah, illegally downloading is not exactly the same as stealing a loaf of bread. But if my movie theater analogy doesn’t convince you it’s still wrong, I’m wasting my time.
I haven’t decided what I think of certain types of file sharing, actually. I know that I believe authors should pursue having their books taken off these download sites and from any type of copying for profit enterprises. I know I see a big difference between selling a pirated book and sharing an ebook with a friend.
But there are aspects of the issue that bother me, as well. Like the fact that what would be considered perfectly legal sharing in a print context isn’t in an electronic context. And not just with books people purchase, but with ARCs, as well, which will never earn an author one cent of royalty *from that ARC itself*. I understand the potential problems that people identify with sharing ebooks. But at the same time, I think that technology could solve some of those problems. Like getting rid of DRM to begin with, so that a book was a separate entity from the device on which it’s read and could, with some other technological innovation, somehow be transferred without being copied. I can’t believe that kind of technology isn’t available, especially since libraries can lend ebooks for a limited amount of time. And since I’ve never borrowed an ebook from a library, can patrons copy those, as well, or is there some block built-in to prevent that?
The primary difference is the format. It is highly unlikely that she will put my paper book in the Xerox machine and run off a hundred copies. It is possible that she will scan it, but that is still an awkward process.
She is entitled to pass the pb around, whether she bought it, or I gave it to her. She can legally sell it. She can sell the autographed copy (for more than the cover price. Good luck with that, imaginary reader). The pb will either end up on a keeper shelf, or it will fall apart in a few readings. Dead end. Case closed.
The more you share a print book, the sooner it falls apart and has to be purchased again.
The more you share an ebook, the more copies of it exist and the more likely it will never need to be repurchased.
I don’t know about the others, but I am not in anyway “chid[ing] [others] for speaking in terms of theft.” I am arguing that using economic basis or even a legal one as the basis for the ethical reason for not sharing is one that is too easily mutable. For example, the FTC recently issued an opinion making it legal to unlock a cellphone that is tied to a particular carrier. Prior to that opinion, it was deemed illegal.
Who is to say that the Supreme Court wouldn’t determine that the current scheme of ownership (or lack thereof)for ebooks is violative of the first sale doctrine and that ebooks can be legally shared? And something akin to Paperback Swap, like Robin suggested, is instituted under full protection of the law?
It removes the argument for ethicality. (Is that a word?). I think that a different argument that underpins the ethics needs to be made because if legality serves as the ethical basis for an argument, then as Robin sort of says, doesn’t it have to serve as the ethical basis for everything in one’s life?
Okay, so I’m probably nuts to be emerging from my longtime lurkdom straight into a firefight, but here goes: I’m really fairly amazed that people are still making the “downloads don’t hurt anyone/they’re really promotion” after seeing what has happened to the music industry. Album sales have come crashing through the floor, labels are going down/getting bought out/consolidated, record stores are nearly a thing of the past. The widely acknowledged cause? That harmless, purely promotional file-sharing (it sounds like such a nice, generous term, doesn’t it?) that was only going to make more people go out and buy the albums later. Except—whoops—it looks like a lot of them must have forgotten to follow through with that part. And bear in mind that music is (by my understanding) a relatively high-margin industry, one that can take a lot more punishment than the more close-to-the-bone publishing market. Alarmist? Probably. But, clearly, not inconceivable.
Whew. So, um, hi.
Are you wanting us to agree that it’s okay if a reader shares electronic copies of a book just with two or three friends? That’s similar to the way a print book might be shared . . . two problems with it, though, both based on the fact that you have to copy the e-book to share it.
But this fact is not the fault of the reader, and for some books, there is no print version to purchase. If there were a way to transfer an ebook to another person without copying it, would that satisfy you, because it would no longer violate copyright.
What’s interesting to me is that a lot of the arguments I hear against ebook sharing are the same kinds I hear against ARC sales and used book sales (both of which are legal). Obviously the legal argument is clear: you can’t copy a book without violating copyright. But it seems to me that if you’re going to focus on ethical arguments, then a new landscape opens up. Same with economic hardship on the author. For example, I would think that used books account for way more lost sales than ebook sharing.
A number of arguments I see authors making are ethical or economic in nature and not legal, and I think that’s where some of us are engaged. That is, putting the legality aside, not all of us see the ethical or economic issues as black and white. As Jane noted a long time back, ethics and the law don’t always match up.
Here’s the issue, though, there is no proof that the downloaded copy = foregone sale. Just no proof at all. All you can do is point to the idea that the book was downloaded x amount of times.
I’m scratching my head over this one because as someone who is only published electronically, if I were to go to a file sharing website and discover my least selling title (for the record, 17 unit sales over the past year my publisher has reported to me) has actually been downloaded 100 times, how can I construe that as anything other than lost sales? There is no way for me to go out and discover if those downloads have resulted in purchases of other titles of mine, nor could Nora or any other author do the same. I also cannot buy the “I just want to sample the author’s work.” argument as I and my publishers make excerpts of individual books available and I’ve put out one super short story for free with one of my publishers and provided one to my newsletter members. I understand the disconnect between valuing the actual product (the book) and the work that went into producing the product, but please do respect that no matter the perceived quality, the creator and “assistant” producers have invested a ton of sweat equity into creating it. The same disconnect exists in the handcrafted goods market. (Yes, I’m also a knitter.)
My question is what’s the difference between the limited sharing of a print book and the limited sharing of an electronic book.
Robin, the difference is when one copy of a print book is circulated, only one copy as it was originally produced can exist, whereas with electronic books, multiple copies as it was originally produced can be created unless a publisher implements draconian DRM, which I have major issues with from an accessible-technology point of view. To illustrate: I lent a copy to a co-worker of an original printing of Naked in Death which Nora signed. I failed to get that book back before I left that job and that book is forever lost to me (yes, I have *greatly* learned my lesson). Imaginary scenario: my friend C sent me an electronic copy of Ann Bruce’s latest EC release via e-mail thinking I’d like it. I decide it’s not my cup of tea for whatever reason, but I know my other friend D would probably love it, so I send her a copy via e-mail. Now, at least six perfect copies of Ann’s book potentially exist: one copy on C’s computer, one in her e-mail, one copy on my computer, one in my e-mail, one on D’s computer, and one in D’s e-mail. As EC does not code their books with DRM, those are all viable copies to be spread around. Does that make sense?
kis said,
Isn’t that reason enough to discourage unlimited file-sharing?
Does that make sense?
I understand that part, Kelly. I think what I’m trying to get at is 1) if an electronic file could be distributed without copying it, would authors be okay with that, 2) it’s not the fault of the reader that ebooks can’t be transferred without copying, and yet it’s readers who are being characterized as “thieves” here 3) and is the objection to limited sharing—especially from authors who are primarily published in print—specific to electronic sharing, or is it a generalized distaste for book sharing that is focused on ebook sharing because it violates copyright?
Like getting rid of DRM to begin with, so that a book was a separate entity from the device on which it’s read and could, with some other technological innovation, somehow be transferred without being copied. I can’t believe that kind of technology isn’t available, especially since libraries can lend ebooks for a limited amount of time. And since I’ve never borrowed an ebook from a library, can patrons copy those, as well, or is there some block built-in to prevent that?
As someone who is intimately familiar with library-lent e-books, and e-audiobooks, the only reason that service is available is solely due to the existence of DRM, aka Digital Rights Management. If DRM did not exist, you would not be able to “borrow” e-books and e-audiobooks from libraries. Sometimes I think it would just be better if libraries did not offer these services because they can be so frustrating to navigate through the process of actually obtaining the file, and I’m pretty technologically competent. Yes, I recently spent almost two hours setting up an account and downloading an audiobook and transferring it to my brand new non-iPod MP3 player, why do you ask? 😆
>But this fact is not the fault of the >reader, and for some books, there is no >print version to purchase. If there >were a way to transfer an ebook to >another person without copying it, >would that satisfy you, because it >would no longer violate copyright.
I can tell you think I’m being nit-picky. 🙂 Technically, though, it’s impossible to transfer without copying. The transfer literally creates a copy, you see, in the other person’s device, whether it’s a computer or an ebook reader of some sort.
However—I’ve read an interesting article which suggested that the time may come when we have to rethink copyright—to find another way of protecting a creator’s rights than by centering it on copying, because computers copy things too easily. The article’s author suggested that we focus on controlling distribution instead, and he has a point. Same one you’re trying to make, I think—that the very limited distribution involved in passing a book to a couple friends shouldn’t be criminalized.
The problem is, we’ve always controlled distribution by controlling copying, and we don’t have a model for how to control distribution that doesn’t involve controlling copying. If someone comes up with one, I’d be delighted to listen/read about it.
Eileen
Robin, I’ll answer your questions from my point of view in order:
1. if user-friendly (!!) DRM existed where if a file was uploaded from your computer to another location, whether file sharing or e-mail and then was erased from your computer through the upload process, I probably wouldn’t have a problem. However, there would have to be an additional safeguard of that file not then be deleted from the file sharing site or e-mail program the moment it is downloaded to someone’s computer. Lots of different tasks involved here, and I’ve yet to come across any type of DRM that is user-friendly.
2. No, it’s not the fault of the reader that this cannot occur. It’s frankly hard for us authors to try to educate readers about the reasons why electronic file sharing, even among your friends, impacts us differently than if you were sharing a print book without coming across as a money-grubbing harpy even when we do it in the friendliest way possible. Those authors who have been to the file sharing sites and seen “wow! thanks for giving me the opportunity for never having to pay for another book by this author EVAH!!!111!!!” have just had insult heaped on top of their injury. This really blatant sentiment has definitely colored many of the author responses in this thread. It is hard to see something you’ve lovingly crafted tossed aside as garbage. Analogy: I spend 200 hours knitting up a cabled sweater in the finest merino wool for my best friend, she takes it and says, “Thanks! This will be perfect for rubbing out that annoying stain on my carpet. Now I don’t have to go out and buy cleaning rags.”
3. I actually can’t really address your third question as I’m almost exclusively published in electronic format.
I can’t comment on the details of law regarding what is legally permissable, ethically correct or somewhere in the murky grey areas. But I can say from a very personal perspective that this sort of piracy is definitely affecting me.
One of the sites listed on the RWA listed loaded one of my titles on 01/30/2008. As of today, that title has been downloaded more than 4,000 times in various formats. I haven’t even checked the other titles. They’re all out there, and I cringe at what I will find. Based on that single title, if I’d only sold half of what was freely downloaded, I would have made back a little more than 2k in royalties.
I’m not assuming that all those free downloads would have been guaranteed sales if those downloads weren’t available, but I’d like to think a few might have been such. I can’t even hold out on the hope that if the downloaders liked that title they might go out and buy my other ones. ALL of my titles are out there for free, and ALL of them are in e-book format only.
While there’s an unspoken code about not revealing royalties, I’ll break it say I made less than $200.00 on my last royalty statement, and none of that was from the title I’m using as an example here. So from my perspective, I have a hard time swallowing the idea that this kind of stuff actually helps midlist and new authors and only harms the big names. From where I stand, I was just bent over and fucked royally.
if an electronic file could be distributed without copying it, would authors be okay with that,
From what I gather, the technology to do this exists but is cumbersome and annoying to the consumer.
it’s not the fault of the reader that ebooks can’t be transferred without copying, and yet it’s readers who are being characterized as “thievesâ€
Not so. Users of illegal download sites are being characterized as thieves.
and is the objection to limited sharing—especially from authors who are primarily published in print—specific to electronic sharing, or is it a generalized distaste for book sharing that is focused on ebook sharing because it violates copyright?
It just kills me to think that one person could purchase my book and give it away free to every single potential reader out there at no cost to themselves and with no compensation to me other than that one original copy. The difference between print sharing and ebook sharing is the hideous potential for damage. It’s like comparing a gun to a freaking a-bomb. Yeah, they both kill, but there’s a matter of scale involved.
I kinda skimmed a bit, so sorry if I’m reposting something someone already said….
I realize its a different genre, but Baen publishers started putting out an online free library of books several years ago (no restriction on # of downloads, or copies made, or how long you can keep it).
The books in question were mostly older, out of print, or almost out of print, books. The authors of these books gave their permission for these books to be listed, and, in several cases, for their sales figures on those books to be listed.
In every case once the book was listed on the free online library not only did the dead-tree book sales jump dramatically, so did sales of other dead-tree books by the same author, and not only the dead-tree books put out by Baen, but also books put out by other publishers.
Baen has since offered much more current books as ebooks for free, and the authors in question say that they’ve seen no drop in sales because of those copies, and believe that the increases they’ve seen are the result of those free ebooks.
I realize the genre’s are quite different, and as I read little to no romance I have no idea if the readers of romance look at books the same way, but its something to keep in mind.
Personally I love and prefer a paper (or hardcover) book. But I simpley don’t have the space to store the number of books that my voracious reading habit requries. The library is a wonderfull tool, but unless they’ve gotten in something new since last week they don’t have anything on their shelves that interests me. Sides, they look at you funny when you take out 6 or 7 books a week……
I discovered ebooks a while back and was in heaven. I make it a point to purchase the legal ebooks where-ever I can find them (with the sole exception of when they cost as much as buying the hardcover would, in those cases I’ll just go buy the hardcover for heavens sake), the problem is that a huge number of books is not availible legally in an electronic format. Its increadibly frustrating.
Add in the possiblities for blind readers who can use a computer screen reader to read ebooks and just think of all the potential readers your missing by not allowing a legal ebook!
And just to add to the controversy, what does that blind person do when they desperately want to read a book or series and are unable to find it as an audio book or legal ebook? Tell them tough luck, guess you just weren’t cut out to be a reader of mine? (and please don’t tell me I’m stretching things, I personally know two women who went blind later in life -rather than being born blind- both were voracious readers till they couldn’t see any more. I helped them both find several sources for legal ebooks, and not only were both thrilled, one outright burst into tears while listening to the first book she’d been able to “read” in over a year.)
The books in question were mostly older, out of print, or almost out of print, books. The authors of these books gave their permission for these books to be listed, and, in several cases, for their sales figures on those books to be listed.
In every case once the book was listed on the free online library not only did the dead-tree book sales jump dramatically, so did sales of other dead-tree books by the same author, and not only the dead-tree books put out by Baen, but also books put out by other publishers.
Setting aside the very important point that in this case the publisher and author both decided to give the books away: these were books that had already had a chance on the market, and the added publicity at the end of their runs gave a boost in sales. This is not remotely comparable to a brand new book being pirated and put up for free download within days and sometimes before it is even released in stores.
The increase in sales of print books in this case is encouraging, but will not necessarily equate to an increase in sales for authors with new material just released in another genre—and where the downloads are occuring on a site where the only promotion of the author is to provide free downloads of all their other works. There is a big difference in a publisher using freebies to actively promote an author, and an illegal site just giving shit away willy-nilly.
SFF books run long. They may become tedious to read on a computer screen. Romances can be as little as 50-70 k words. Easily read on a laptop, without bothering to buy the dead tree book. As a reader of both fantasy and romance, my keepers are almost all fantasy. I can read them over and over, and prefer the print format. With romance, it’s either or.
And this argument does nothing to address the problems faced by authors who are released primarily in ebook format. If there are no print sales to be boosted, there is no benefit at all to the author. No trade off. Just the horrible feeling of being bent over a desk and cornholed by the very people you are working so hard to entertain.
~Here’s the issue, though, there is no proof that the downloaded copy = foregone sale.~
Well, I could say visa versa. No proof it isn’t either. Which is why I went with 50% in my example. You’re not going to suggest that no downloaded copy would have been a sale.
And regardless, it’s still not theirs for the taking.
Not arguing with that, if your only media is ebook format, then print sales don’t mean a thing.
BUT, Baen also proved that having gotten one book for free, the readers in question went actively searching for other books by the same authors and were willing to pay for them.
No this doesn’t excuse someone posting an illegal copy against the publisher’s/author’s express wishes, but I’ve long been of the opinion that there is a massive over reaction when it happens. Yes ask them to remove your books from their list, and take legal action if they don’t, after all its your work and they have no right. But also consider the free publicity that you just got, cause thats a whole lot more people than could have seen the one copy my library system MIGHT have, and someone liked it well enough to take the time and energy to scan the whole thing in, or break the DRM on the ebook. That means something to the average reader. They might not think of it that way, but it does, and they’ll remember the author of a book they liked and look for them next time they’re at the store.
Yes there are diehard “I’m not paying a dang thing so neither should anyone else” pirates out there. There probly always will be. But don’t toss out the bad with the good either.
Gotta add, since it was mentioned earlier. Amazon WILL refund for an ebook. They did so for me. Admitedly it wasn’t because I didn’t like it but because I felt they had mis-represented what was included in the ebook version, but they still did it.
I am not altogether sure that science fiction or fantasy are a good fit for a comparison with category romance simply because of the publication window and schedule. Admittedly, I am not all that familiar with science fiction/fantasy publishing, but I don’t think it follows the Harlequin category publishing model of a dozen or two books a month which more than likely will never be reprinted.
Unless all future titles by any one author are consistently high and/or s/he goes to single titles and people look for the backlist…
~ but I’ve long been of the opinion that there is a massive over reaction when it happens.~
I don’t feel I’m massively over-reacting when thousands and thousands of illegal downloads of my books are out there.
This is not promoting me. These people are not, for the most part, searching for my books afterward to purchase. I illustrated just this upthread with an example from one site with two of my titles.
Why, I just have to ask, is there this opinion that writers are over-reacting when they object, and object strongly, to an illegal activity that harms them?
I am not altogether sure that science fiction or fantasy are a good fit for a comparison with category romance
I’m sure it’s not a good comparison. Show me a category romance that is a six book series, with each book averaging 160k words. Then we’ll start talking apples and apples.
Nor is giving away out of print or nearly out of print books comparable with giving away new releases.
And there is certainly nothing comparable between freebies as marketing agreed to by author and publisher, and the theft and dissemination of someone else’s work to all and sundry.
Baen and its authors are entitled to do as they like with their intellectual property. I wish them every success.
Cory Doctorow’s alleged success is an entirely different matter, and is yet to be proven more than blip on the radar. Talk to him three titles down the line and see what he says. There was a lot of publicity surrounding his decision to give away those ebooks. I know I’ve said this before, but there is as yet no proof that his good sales figures are not the result of the publicity, rather than the result of the giveaway. Anecdotal evidence as it pertains to one title is not enough to convince me of the value of free downloads of entire, newly released books. And it will never convince me it is right or justifiable for someone who has no legal right to an author’s work freely distributing it at no charge to anyone who wants it.
I believe copyright law needs to change. Someone here suggested tying legal right to intellectual property with right of distribution. I think for electronic media, I would be fine with that.
If only three people buy a ticket for a movie, and no one wants to purchase the other seats, does this mean it’s okay for me to let my 200 closest friends in the emergency exit to watch the movie for free? My friends would not have actually paid to watch the movie, and they weren’t taking a seat from a paying customer, so what’s the problem? The theater isn’t technically losing any money, right?
But I did that all the time when I ran conferences and events. Getting a full audience to hear a specific speaker, in the expectation that benefits tangible or intangible would follow, was often much more important for the event organizers than making money on that particular day. If three-quarters of the audience attended as comps, the speaker didn’t know that and s/he was happy to have a full room to speak to. Still not really analogous to the pirated books problem, though.
I was very glad to read earlier, from Ms. Roberts, that authors do get some benefit from my purchases of remaindered books. It will make me feel better when I am stretching my books budget that way.
and kis said:
if you don’t care how much work (not just author effort, but screening and editing by agents and publishers) goes into a piece of marketable fiction, I think you need to spend some time reading the free stuff. I’m sure there’s the odd pearl out there, but you’re gonna be knee-deep in some funky-ass oysters before you find it.
Hell. Sturgeon’s Law still holds. 90% of the stuff in the bookstores that has been screened and edited by professionals I consider unreadable crap. I know I have paid good money for quite a few books that turned out to be IMO funky-ass oysters. The slush piles, on the other hand, probably have stuff that the editors reject that I would pay full price for. It rather does boil down to my personal taste vs what an editor considers ‘marketable’. Even the Pit of Voles has 10% eminently readable stuff. There, at least, I can just click off if the text starts to smell funky and I’ve only wasted a few minutes of my spare time and not a chunk of post-tax income.
I’m not saying that you shouldn’t get upset by an illegal action involving your work, I just don’t believe that it harms the author in question as much as many think it does. I’m not saying thats an excuse for downloading an illegal copy, I just think many author’s over react. Now like I said before, I read very little romance and am much less familer with the genre in general, so I’m more than willing to admit that what works for one may not work for another.
As for the RIAA, which some used as “proof” that illegal downloads hurt the artist: I stopped buying albums and CD’s along time ago. I don’t download illegal songs, though I have occasionally used Itunes to get a song I heard on the radio and take a look at other peices by the same artist. RIAA and any artist who vocally supports them simply lost me as a customer BECAUSE of their violent reaction. And there’s a huge number of people in my circle of peers who feel that same way. The cost of buying an album that I couldn’t listen to ahead of time (at least not more than one or two songs via the radio), and when they started sueing people for millions it just killed any interest I had. And now to top it off the RIAA is trying to cut the percentage that artists make off their albums, so I refuse to believe that they really do have artist’s best wishes in mind.
But if you’re running the conference or event, it’s your choice, your call to let in non-paying audience members. I doubt many theater managers would hold open the exit doors for people with no tickets.
It’s not my choice, as the writer of the book, to have the work downloaded for free—and to have this happen thousands of times.
Actually, I think this has been a fairly level-headed discussion, with very little over-reacting (other than my own use of the term cornhole, sorry). Nobody has been screaming THIEF!!! in all caps. Authors here have simply been trying to convince others of the harm that is done to us and to publishers, and eventually will be done to the entire industry, including readers, if this illegal behavior continues unchecked.
Authors, agents, editors and printers provide a service to the reader. That service has to have an inherent monetary value, or no one with any talent or skill would be willing to do it. Anna Genoese did a bit—dang, but I can’t recall where—on the throes publishing houses go through when it comes to profit and loss. As it is, most books do not make money for the publisher. Even if the author earns out her advance, because of book design, cover art, print-paper-binding, editing, copyediting, marketing and distribution, the book can still represent a net loss to the company. For every ten thousand dollars Nora loses to illegal downloads on a given title, that is one book by a newbie that will not see print with that publisher. As the margins get slimmer, sure, the big names will remain. But anything new, different, quirky, risky will be passed on.
It annoys the crap out of me that even though the Canadian dollar is at par with the U.S., I’m still paying 50% more for a book than my American stepsons are. But because the books I want are more expensive than I would like, that does not give me any right to go out and steal them online. If I did that, I would be a thief.
Even the Pit of Voles has 10% eminently readable stuff. There, at least, I can just click off if the text starts to smell funky and I’ve only wasted a few minutes of my spare time and not a chunk of post-tax income.
Hey, if it floats your boat, more power to you. I enjoy a bit of free fic, myself, and I have also been sadly disappointed by books I’ve paid for. But the thing is—it is and should be an author’s choice whether they give their work away, or whether they go through the arduous, sometimes depressing process of breaking into the commercial market. And it is entirely the theater owner’s decision as to whether he wants to cultivate good feeling in potential customers by giving those seats away, rather than having people sneak in without permission or compensation.
LaNora said:
But if you’re running the conference or event, it’s your choice, your call to let in non-paying audience members….
It’s not my choice, as the writer of the book, to have the work downloaded for free—and to have this happen thousands of times.
Well, of course, yes! Take ‘em to court. Gut the rat-bastards who run the pirate sites. No one should have their work stolen.
But please, in the process, leave wiggle room for other authors and other publishers to make other decisions, if they wish to, to explore different legal options for electronic distribution of their own works. It ought not to be electronic distribution itself that is on trial, but the illegal misuse of the technology.
~But please, in the process, leave wiggle room for other authors and other publishers to make other decisions, if they wish to, to explore different legal options for electronic distribution of their own works.~
I never said otherwise. In fact, have said several times on this thread that if a writer chooses to allow it, it’s their choice.
It’s not a matter of wiggle room. It’s a matter of the choice of the writer and/or publisher.
But please, in the process, leave wiggle room for other authors and other publishers to make other decisions, if they wish to, to explore different legal options for electronic distribution of their own works. It ought not to be electronic distribution itself that is on trial, but the illegal misuse of the technology.
I don’t think anyone here has argued against choice for the author and publisher. Though some (including me) have expressed doubts as to the theoretical value of giving away entire books immediately after they are released for sale, no one is saying authors and their publisher’s should not be allowed to do so. We just take umbrage when thieves do it for us.
I have a 4000 word short up on my site for free, two excerpts (with more coming) and am considering giving away a longer (40-50 000 word) work if it doesn’t fit my publisher’s guidelines. I’m all for giving free samples. But there’s adifference between a glass of milk and the whole bloody cow. Just as there’s a difference between a cow legally given away, and a cow taken from the barn in the dead of night.
I would almost feel better if the pirate sites were charging. If people still had to pay something for the illegal download, they would be more likely to not take it at all, or to pay a little more for a legitimate copy. With unauthorized giveaways, the only thing stopping people is their sense of fairness, and I’m starting to have serious reservations as to whether most people even have those anymore.
Test comment. I seem to be having problems commenting (on my own website! Oh the indignity!).
*I’ve just got to wonder aloud here: with the writers weighing in saying “This hurts us” and publishers and editors weighing in saying “This hurts us,” why am I hearing so many variations of “Suck it up! We’ll take what we want for FREE!”?
Because that’s what this boils down to. The information-technology of the Internet is being used to take goods that otherwise people would have to pay for and making a buck or two off the space for the downloads, when the creator of the goods hasn’t given permission. And the writers/publishers/editors cry foul, and are met with the statement that “this doesn’t really hurt anyone/isn’t a crime/is too complex for you to complain about.”
Um, no. Just…no. How many times will we have to repeat out of our experience that it hurts us before we are considered to have a “real” grievance?
* Whoever said above that s/he doesn’t buy a book for how much hard work a writer puts into it just floored me. Would you get a lawyer and then not worry about the quality of work s/he does? What about the person who serves your food or paints the toys that goes in your baby’s mouth? The underlying assumption is that artists don’t deserve the same consideration as other wage earners, because they’re just…artists.
Why? We provide a service just like everyone else. Why is it okay for artists to be shafted? This is a hot-button issue for me, as I’m sure you can tell. I get up in arms about the denigration of the creative. So I’ll throttle that for now and simply point out:
* If we’re not paid for that service, there will be no quality left to speak of—because we’ll be too busy washing cars, delivering pizza, brushing up our resumes again to serve you. Sorry about that. We do have a powerful need to eat once a month, just like everyone else.
* We’re all adults here. Can any of you honestly say, given what you know as an adult of human nature, that people who illegally download an author’s work are always going to go and Do The Right Thing by purchasing a copy of the work once they have Decided They Like It?
Because I flatter myself that I have a pretty sunny view of human nature and the innate decency of humankind, but even my Pollyanna side won’t buy that one. If you could get a car for free, or easily splice off cable television for free, how many people with free cars or cable will, once they’ve sampled it, contact the car company or the cable company and offer to pay?
If you believe that, man, I’ve got a bridge to sell you…and some nice beachfront property in Arizona, for a real song…
David:
Ignoring the fact that you’re grossly mischaracterizing the arguments of people who refuse to see filesharing as completely a black-and-white issue, here are some names for you:
John Scalzi is an SF author. I’ve already quoted him extensively, so no need to link to his opinions on this.
Cory Doctorow is an SF author and feature writer for all sorts of magazines and newspapers. Ditto.
Tim O’Reilly owns one of the biggest and most reputable publishing businesses for tech books. Ditto.
Janis Ian is a musician and author.
Jason Mraz is a musician .
Moby is a musician.
Radiohead is composed of musicians.
(Links to quotes courtesy of Wikipedia because I’m too lazy to do actual searching. I can probably come up with more.)
Richard Stallman is kind of bugfuck crazy, but also one of the originators of the copyleft movement and a software developer.
By the way: Is “Bay-Area Newspeak” a way to refer to liberals? Because you can just come right out and say it. Doctorow is Canadian, Scalzi grew up in LA, not the Bay Area, and lives in Ohio, and…oh, what’s the point? I think most of the people above can be tarred as some variety of dirty liberal, though. Though Stallman is mostly just bugfuck. (Brilliant, but bugfuck.)
Anon:
This assumes that all people would be unwilling to pay for the Regular Loaf and went solely for the Magic Jesus Loaf. It also assumes that the Magic Jesus Loaf was either the only thing available or the most accessible and visible of all the loaves in the store. Keep in mind that not only is the Magic Jesus Loaf less satisfying in some ways than the Regular Loaf (it doesn’t have as satisfying a texture or taste, and it doesn’t come in collectible limited-edition wrappers), oftentimes, you have to look really, really hard for the Magic Jesus Loaf. And when you do find it, the Magic Jesus Loaf is slow to arrive—sometimes taking 8 hours to finish appearing on your dinner table. Other times, the Magic Jesus Loaf isn’t…quite right. There are little rocks in the loaf that hurt your teeth. Other times, the Magic Jesus Loaf hides a grenade and pretty much burns down the room, if not your entire house. For this and a few other reasons, the vast majority of people prefer Regular Loaves. Magic Jesus Loaves are usually preferred by students, people with too much time on their hands, evil dickheads who don’t want to pay for anything, ever, and various people on a limited budget who are interested in trying a new type of bread but are wary about plunking down money for the actual loaf, or who are unable to easily access a decent bakery for whatever damn reason. (Note that these are not mutually exclusive categories.)
Lilith:
Actually, if filesharing doesn’t result in any financial harm, why ISN’T it OK, other than the violation of the artist’s rights to decide how, when and where to distribute her work? Not that I think violation of an abstract right is perfectly OK and hunky dory (as I’ve stated above, this is the one bit I struggle most with), but if I end up buying five albums from Of Montreal’s backlist as a consequence of a few free downloads, I can’t say that I feel too sorry for violating their abstract right to decide whether or not I could download an illicit copy of “Oslo in the Summertime” and “Gronlandic Edit.”
So yes, economic harm IS part of my equation in terms of whether it’s OK to do this or not.
And I’m not arguing that it’s OK to fileshare only midlist authors but not bestsellers—though that’s an interesting way of taking the data I’ve offered and extrapolating it to conclusions that don’t apply. I’m using that to point to what analyses have shown vs. the bedrock assumption that every download = dollars lost. I’m not attempting to make a recommendation for action; I’m merely offering the results of studies that support some of my contentions (that filesharing is not always harmful, and that it sometimes boosts sales).
When it comes down to it, I’m not entirely decided yet on filesharing for books. I have decided opinions on filesharing for music. And in almost all cases, if an artist wants to come down hard on pirates for illegally redistributing their work, I say “Go for it.” Going against individual fans the way RIAA is pretty fucking retarded, but it’s their right; gunning for the big re-distribution sites—really, I don’t think anyone’s attempting to argue here that that’s a bad strategy, or the wrong thing to do.
And I still say this isn’t even remotely analogous to identity theft or malicious hacking. Identity theft ALWAYS results in economic harm and damage to somebody’s reputation. It’s impersonation. You could argue that a piracy site is closer to that—they’re impersonating a legitimate distributor. Malicious hacking at the core is about disabling a system. I’m not sure what system is being disabled with filesharing.
It’s hard for me to take your argument seriously when you’re comparing everyone from small fry like me who use filesharing in different ways and for different reasons than people who actually pirate to a malicious hacker or an identity thief. Shoplifting was a MUCH better analogy, because it actually worked to a certain point before it broke down. These two analogies don’t even get off the ground.
Nora:
Dude, I just acknowledged that bestsellers like you ARE being economically harmed by illegal downloading. I did it twice. And once in a special addendum marked all bold and shit. Are you telling me you’re not reading every word of my 700-word comments carefully? ::weeps::
That’s because, as far as I know, the vast majority of P2P sharing is illegal. That’s pretty much foregone and not very interesting to argue. I’m interested in exploring whether it’s always wrong to do so, and whether the harm done is as clear-cut as people are presenting it.
What I’m interested in is how people who see this as black-and-white by and large don’t bother differentiating between occasional downloaders like me, people who almost exclusively download because they’re dickheads in the mode Scalzi described, and people who actively pirate copyrighted material for profit.
kis (again):
Again, this analogy fails. Letting in friends in actually takes up space that a paying customer may have occupied, and letting in 200 friends if the theater is already somewhat full (let’s assume you’re serious and not being hyperbolic here) may actually present a fire hazard if the theater is designed to seat, say, 70 or 150. Though this analogy is interesting because the friends may end up buying popcorn or other concession stand items, so in that way it kind of works better than the other analogies I’ve seen involving tangible property.
Robin:
Christ. Thank you for saying that.
See, I’m interested in discussing this as well; most of the people here have talked about intellectual property as directly equivalent to tangible property, and it isn’t, partly because of the reasons you’ve stated. I’m especially interested in working out how the first sale doctrine fits into the countours of intellectual property, now that we’ve essentially been able to separate it from its fixed form. I haven’t read or come to any satisfactory answers yet—not that I’m not necessarily looking for an answer in the comments of of this blog—but I do want to read more opinions and figure out where I stand when it comes to books in particular and refine my stance on other media.
Publishers acting like dickheads themselves in response to dickheads is something I haven’t thought about, and this is probably the most concrete argument I’ve read so far regarding the true potential of actual harm.
My cavalier attitude about grabbing music MP3s notwithstanding, I am in favor of shutting down websites that allow the mass downloading of files; essentially, once a website starts aping a legitimate distribution source is when it truly crosses the line for me. I’m still attempting to figure out where I truly stand for the rest of this.
kis (again):
This is quite the slippery slope to embark on. If publishing fails as an industry, I think it’ll be due to various factors other than or in addition to illegal file downloads. Even the RIAA has backed down from its “FILESHARING IS LOSING US ALL OUR MONEYS” stance. Piracy has been around for a long time, and every time new technology appears that allows making and distributing copies an easier enterprise, whether that’s casettes or VHS tapes or writable CDs and CD burning drives or writable DVDs and DVD burning drives or the Internet, cries of doom and gloom abound. Two things will generally save the day:
1. Corporations are uncannily good at making money.
2. Most people aren’t evil dickheads. Not even us piratical brats with entitlement complexes.
Ruth: Thank you for bringing up the Baen Free Library. I’d forgotten about it, to be honest—for some reason I thought it was Tor, not Baen. From “Prime Palaver #6” by Eric Flint:
The article has some numbers to back up reasoning behind the way the free library works.
It doesn’t address the issue of e-book only releases, however. And again, this isn’t an attempt to justify true piracy.
azteclady:
Actually, I think category romances would be the perfect candidate for a model similar to the Baen Free Library. Do you know how long it took me to hunt down Anne Stuart’s entire backlist for Harlequin/Silhouette? Sheeeeit. The books may not be available at brick-and-mortar stores, but it’d be dead easy to include links to Amazon.com and to eHarlequin where they can purchase paper copies, as well as comprehensive links for purchasing the author’s backlist.
kis (yet again):
You haven’t addressed the fact that sales for other titles by the same authors have jumped as well, and that sales increased in general.
Intellectually, there’s every difference. But in terms of actual effect, is there a difference?
I want people to try and separate the abstract rights from the economic damage; we seem to be mixing up the arguments all the time, and every time somebody tries to bring up examples of no economic harm or economic benefit to counter the argument that there will ALWAYS be economic harm, the whole “But our rights, our trampled rights!” argument is trotted out. And yes, we know that. Most of us here acknowledge that yes, your rights to determine who gets to distribute your work have been violated by illegal downloading—there’s no way around it. I’m mostly interested in addressing the idea that it’s wrong because it always deprives the artist of revenue.
You bring up Cory Doctorow, but you haven’t addressed John Scalzi, who had a similar experience, nor Tim O’Reilly’s experiences.
daisyj:
Got anything to back up any of your assertions? Including the idea that “album sales have come crashing through the floor”? Sales are down according to certain metrics, sure, but I’m not sure “crashing through the floor” is necessarily an accurate assessment. From the NY Times:
Record stores are nearly a thing of the past, true, but that’s more due to Wal Mart syndrome and large on-line retailers like Amazon.com taking over their business. Album sales are down, and profits are down, but as noted in the NY Times article, iTune downloads and other legal downloads have gone up exponentially, and they have a slimmer margin of profit than CDs and tangible media. And not only that, but with the advent of iTunes and other legal means of obtaining single works, people are now free to buy ONLY the songs they like instead of expensive CD singles (God, who buys singles any more?) or whole albums.
I was thinking about the way I use filesharing, and the way pretty much all of my friends use filesharing. Some commentators have compared it to a personalized radio, where instead of waiting for the DJ to play our favorite song, we’re empowered to go seek that out, and when that song rocks our socks, for us to seek out the rest of the album to see if THAT works as well as that one song. I think this effect partly explains why blockbusters see economic harm and why the mid-list and lower seems to benefit somewhat from filesharing. Filesharing has enabled me to a much more informed consumer; it’s taken away a significant element of risk away from my purchasing decisions (at least, it has mostly for music, and somewhat for TV shows). I used to fall for radio hits and buy CDs based on the one or two songs I really liked, only to be deeply disappointed by the rest of the album and sell them back to the used record store a while later. My CD consumption has gone up over the years, but the last time I had to sell a CD to a used record store was…man, back in 2003 or 2004. Nowadays, I mostly buy music I know I’ll love.
In short, when it comes to music in particular, filesharing has helped the market operate more efficiently for me. And it looks like it’s doing the same thing for many people. Again, without attempting to assess the right or wrong of it, or impose my idea of right or wrong on people. I’m very clearly in the minority in this forum, and I’m fine with that. I’m perfectly comfortable with my conscience and the reasons why I use filesharing.
By the way, do people realize that Smart Bitches engages in copyright infringement just about every Friday with the Friday videos we post? A huge chunk of the clips and videos posted on YouTube are done without the permission of the rights holders, and we’re effectively re-distributing them by embedding them on our website.
Those authors who have been to the file sharing sites and seen “wow! thanks for giving me the opportunity for never having to pay for another book by this author EVAH!!!111!!!†have just had insult heaped on top of their injury. This really blatant sentiment has definitely colored many of the author responses in this thread. It is hard to see something you’ve lovingly crafted tossed aside as garbage. Analogy: I spend 200 hours knitting up a cabled sweater in the finest merino wool for my best friend, she takes it and says, “Thanks! This will be perfect for rubbing out that annoying stain on my carpet. Now I don’t have to go out and buy cleaning rags.â€
I know you probably won’t be persuaded by this, but I really think that the correlation between value and availability/price works primarily at the other end of the spectrum—that it’s readers who are willing to pay insanely high prices for OOP books or ARCs who demonstrate a value/price relationship.
For the most part, though, I can’t imagine that people who share books see them as valueless. I know that free books I receive in the form of reviewing copies don’t appear any more or less worthy to me than books I pay for (and I still purchase the final copies of books I like, even when I still have the reviewing copy).
BUT, I totally understand that it’s a blow and an insult and that it feels like complete disrespect to an author when she comes across her books on those sites. And like I said, I think authors should enforce the rights they have by getting their books removed from those places.
I think that one of the things that’s so frustrating for me as a reader is that in some ways, electronic publishing—by its very nature given the current technology—frustrates the rights both readers and authors would lawfully possess if the books in question were in print. I’m interested in the article Eileen Wilks mentioned (and hope she might share the title and author), because I think that over time something is going to have to change—either the technology or the nature of copyright law or both. And I’m also concerned about DRM and the way it seems to control perfectly lawful functions.
I also wonder whether there’s a certain price point at which there would be no good incentive to file share or pirate books, and whether there’s a way to find out why people do download books—is it mainly cost or civil disobedience or mere availability, etc. And is there room for some kind of fair use exception, for, say, sharing as a part of promotion. For example, if I read an ebook arc, and I love it and want another blogger to read and possibly review it, the law says I can’t share my copy, even though if the arc were hard copy I could. And some of us reader-bloggers spend an INSANE amount of money on books, and a fair amount of time reading and reviewing books, which, IMO, ends up performing some kind of marketing function, even if any of us don’t specifically review for that reason (like me—I review primarily for myself, actually, and then for other readers). So sharing in that context seems much more to me like a contribution to the genre rather than a theft from it.
Erm, Candy, I have been very clear that it’s not sharing between friends that I have a problem with. It’s wholesale stealing I have a problem with, and to a lesser extent, the gussying-up of wholesale stealing as a “gray area” that to me, just seems like the slippery oiled slope to a primrose Hell.
So you will not agree that taking goods that are worth money is shoplifting, and you will not agree that the use of the Internet’s information-sharing technology to steal goods that would otherwise go for a price is analogous to identity theft or malicious hacking. Okay.
Where, then, would you classify taking a book Nora or Angela or Eileen or any other author worked for a six months to a year on, spent two years getting to print, that the publisher sank money into printing and making available and did all the marketing on, and making it available for 4000 free downloads where people are saying “Oh good, now I don’t have to pay money for this! I will never pay for another book again!”
How can that not be stealing? How can it be even vaguely in a gray area? I’m really struggling to understand here. The only thing I can come up with is that we haven’t defined our terms and are misunderstanding each other. I am seeing you say, “The exception of file sharing that we can argue is legally or ethically OK proves that all piracy is OK,” and I don’t think that’s what you mean. Can we set the grounds of the discussion here and go on from there?
Because I am so used to so getting you on so many levels, and this is mystifying me. I’m close to “agree to disagree” time, but I really want to understand what you’re saying here.
If a book by Author X is unavailable for me, I can go peruse ten thousand by Authors A-AABBXYYCKHJD, because the supply is so huge.
I copied this probably an hour ago as I worked my laborious way through these comments, so I don’t remember who posted it. I’m not real sure I remember what I wanted to say about it.
It was part of a comment about how the growth of the supply reduces the value of the product and crapitizes (my word) the products available.
Thing is, the products are not equivalent. Author X and Authors A-AABBXYYCKHJD are not the same. A Nora Roberts book is not the same as a Lilith Saintcrow book. This isn’t to say that they’re not both excellent books, but they’re totally different Kinds of books and provide a totally different reading experience. As do books by Alyssa Day and Julie Leto and all the other authors who’ve been posting here.
Books and authors are not interchangeable widgets. Yes, there ARE a lot of romance books out there, but only Eileen Wilks writes Eileen Wilks books. Browsing the shelves for what else is out there isn’t going to get me another Wilks book until Eileen writes the sucker and her publisher gets it out on the shelves.
How does this relate to Piracy? People don’t download just any ol’ book. They seem to download a lot of books by authors they are already familiar with and love, and are too cheap-ass to spend the minimal amount of money to buy the book.
But too much of the downloading, and the crapitizing might just happen…
Yeah, something probably needs to happen to open up the availability of legal downloads, but this ain’t it…
* Whoever said above that s/he doesn’t buy a book for how much hard work a writer puts into it just floored me. Would you get a lawyer and then not worry about the quality of work s/he does? What about the person who serves your food or paints the toys that goes in your baby’s mouth? The underlying assumption is that artists don’t deserve the same consideration as other wage earners, because they’re just…artists.
No. My point is the exact opposite of this—that artists deserve ONLY the same consideration that others do. That while I might appreciate the hard work that goes into making a drug, if it has a lethal side effect I’m not going to be persuaded by the time someone spent developing it. I’m sure people worked really hard on those Pintos that blew up, too.
By the same token, I know some lawyers who didn’t work all that hard during law school but are damn good attorneys. I know people who spent years on their doctoral dissertations who didn’t write as ground-breaking a piece as others who spent months. I don’t—in the main—think you can necessarily measure the quality of something by the effort exerted in making it, in part because effort is such a subjective thing to measure. I appreciate skill, and I know that skill takes time to perfect, but if I assume that most people work hard in their vocations, I’m not going to be more persuaded to buy something simply because someone spent a certain number of hours making it. Unless, of course, we’re talking about something like wine, where its character depends in part on stuff like aging and the materials in which it’s aged and other time-sensitive elements of the process.
That doesn’t mean I don’t respect copyright law and the work of authors. It just means I don’t respect the work of authors simply because it takes effort.