'Elitist': angry book pirates hit back after author campaign sinks website

[SilentRoamer]

Or, to put it another way: I do find it rather worrying that you confuse legal ways of thinking and IT's ways of thinking with the logic of what is happening. Or do you really think that people pirate books to get hold of all those 0s and 1s? (Or perhaps there's a world shortage of 0s and 1s that I haven't heard about...?)

I find it worrying that you think anything other than "legal and IT ways of thinking" should be considered when stipulating what laws things should and shouldn't cover and under what laws they constitute a crime in the digital world. Copying of data without permissions is Copyright Infringement under both UK and US laws which also, through DMCA and local laws constitute a large portion of national laws - just because I am outlining that this is not legally recognized as Theft does not mean I am supporting or excusing this behavior.

Fraud deprives someone of something that was theirs, but it is not prosecuted as theft as it is recognized as being technically sufficiently different to constitute a different crime.

I thought SilentRoamer was simply making the point that copyright infringement and theft are both different legal terms - though in everyday use the former is often presumed to be the same as the latter, despite being technically different.

Exactly - I didnt think I was being obscure

He is... but all that resorting to legal niceities does is to disguise what is happening as some sort of technical offence, when it is the real world deprivation of people's rightful incomes.

If something is wrong, it shouldn't matter what law it does (or doesn't) come under. To take an admittedly extreme example: when slavery was not a crime, its lack of illegality did those enslaved no favours at all (and, indeed, rather the opposite).

Again you seem to be confusing my opposition to conflating theft and copyright infringement with a condoning of infringement. Not sure how the slavery quote is even relevant when you consider that both Copyright Infringement and Theft are both crimes - and should remain that way.

Personally I see Copyright Infringement as a worse moral crime than theft, because Copyright Infringement as a "potential loss" is much greater, the impact can be felt more and the scope is far in excess of Theft. Again - theft and copyright infringement are not the same in law, and I am talking about legal terms, so if you are using the legal term theft, when in fact Copyright Infringement is the crime then you are not technically correct.

I can agree that the moral spirit and moral objections are the same and that the technicalities hold little benefit to the victims.

 

[SilentRoamer]

I've heard that, but I doubt it is true. It may be very, very difficult, time-consuming and financially expensive, to the point that it isn't worth the effort, but I doubt that it is truly "impossible."

Modern encryption uses a key sent independently to the message (like your bank card and the PIN.) To read a message you need to intercept the key as well as the message itself. The message itself may be split into several parts and then reassembled. So, you also need to intercept all the parts. None of which applies to a DRM on a file you already have in your possession.

No its pretty much impossible in terms of useful timeframes to break 128bit AES encryption using standard (non Quantum) cryptography due to the sheer volume of possible key encryption combinations. There are no side step or shortcuts, you either have the decryption key or you have to brute force. There is a reason the FBI were asking Apple to reset passwords - they couldn't decrypt the data directly on the device as Apple wouldn't provide decryption access.

How long would it take to brute force an AES-128 key?

Good article that outlines some of the reasons why encryption is not really breakable using current computational methods.

 

[Dave]

No its pretty much impossible in terms of useful timeframes... you either have the decryption key or you have to brute force...

So, isn't that what I said. It is not "impossible" but it is "totally impracticable." Since you are splitting hairs over "theft" and "copyright infringement" you may allow me to do the same. My whole point was that with DRM you do actually have the encryption keys so the comparison isn't a very useful one to make.

By the way, I agree with you on both counts, but regarding the "theft", it is probably a result of the advertising campaigns; by the British Phonographic Industry, which for years used the slogan "Home Taping Is Killing Music ...and it's illegal" on every single record sleeve, and by the Federation Against Software Theft, which used the slogan, "Piracy is Theft." If you say something enough times then it becomes the accepted truth.

 

[Vertigo]

No its pretty much impossible in terms of useful timeframes to break 128bit AES encryption using standard (non Quantum) cryptography due to the sheer volume of possible key encryption combinations. There are no side step or shortcuts, you either have the decryption key or you have to brute force. There is a reason the FBI were asking Apple to reset passwords - they couldn't decrypt the data directly on the device as Apple wouldn't provide decryption access.

How long would it take to brute force an AES-128 key?

Good article that outlines some of the reasons why encryption is not really breakable using current computational methods.

And this just emphasises that the weak link from the point of view of the person doing the encryption is the legitimate receiver, should they decide to decrypt (legitimate) and then broadcast the decrypted file (illegitimate). Anyone else 'intercepting' the file would find it, to all intents and purposes, impossible to decrypt. For example I have no problem decrypting and removing DRM from my own legitimately bought books but I would find it impossible to do the same with my mother's legitimately bought books as I don't have her key available to me.

So all these pirate books you see online have originated from someone who has initially legitimately purchased the book. It is not some shadowy organisation stealing the files and then breaking the encryption. That is a misunderstanding. The culprit is someone who has paid their money for the book, decrypted it and stripped the DRM, and then, from some misguided sense of altruism, making that decrypted file available to all. This is the strange thing that I mentioned earlier, the person making the 'pirated' book available online must have initially bought it legally, and none of these people are making any profit from it. It is only the people subsequently downloading the books that are that are actually making 'profit' in the form of saving paying the buying price.

I think this is also why it's such a problem for enforcement. The only person they can really hit is the individual downloading the books which is, I guess, just small fry and impractical. So what they mostly do is get the sites hosting the books (and other copyrighted media) for download taken down. As I understand it this is a continual process; the sites go down and then reappear under slightly modified names or even just on mirror sites.

Interesting though it is we have rather strayed from the original topic here which was really the astonishing response of people who are prevented from downloading the pirated books who somehow manage to convince themselves that they are the victims!

 

[Ursa major]

does not mean I am supporting or excusing this behavior.

Except that, inadvertantly, you are... as I explained earlier.

People who obtain pirated books are very unlikely to suffer any legal consequences. (They are more likely to get malware downloaded to their device.). So what particular law they are not being prosecuted under is really neither here nor there.

"Copyright Infringement" sounds like a very impersonal crime: it is the copyright that is being infringed. It gives no sense that there are human victims of what is being done. So, although it is, as you say, the strict legal definition as far as the law and the courts are concerned, "copyright infringement" is also a euphemism (a very handy one for people who don't want to believe that they are depriving someone of the fruits of their work).

You may or may not have noticed that I have not been calling for people to be prosecuted for theft when they obtain a pirated book. All I am saying is that the effect of what they are doing is akin to theft (just as the financial effect on a victim of fraud is akin to theft): they are benefitting from something that requires payment to its owner and creator without the owner and creator receiving that payment. They have, in logic (and in effect, as far as the victim is concerned), if not in law, stolen the value of that required payment. And they should be strongly persuaded to understand that this is exactly what they are doing (which calling them "infringers of copyright" is not doing).

 

[SilentRoamer]

So, isn't that what I said. It is not "impossible" but it is "totally impracticable." Since you are splitting hairs over "theft" and "copyright infringement" you may allow me to do the same. My whole point was that with DRM you do actually have the encryption keys so the comparison isn't a very useful one to make.

By the way, I agree with you on both counts, but regarding the "theft", it is probably a result of the advertising campaigns; by the British Phonographic Industry, which for years used the slogan "Home Taping Is Killing Music ...and it's illegal" on every single record sleeve, and by the Federation Against Software Theft, which used the slogan, "Piracy is Theft." If you say something enough times then it becomes the accepted truth.

Sorry Dave - I reread my post and realized starting it with a "no" looked like I was disagreeing, in effect I was in agreement and just reinforcing your post as an accurate description of encryption and its limitations.

Except that, inadvertantly, you are... as I explained earlier.

No I am not and I don't appreciate you telling me what I do and don't condone, inadvertantly or not, because I hold to legal definitions when talking about legal terms. If I state, repeatedly and explicitly that I think Copyright Infringement is wrong and you still choose to posit that actually I don't, then I don't know what more I can say and even if I did what use if I don't say what I mean?

You are attributing meaning based on your moral considerations of theft. So because you think theft is more morally reprehensible than copyright then everyone should have the same moral yardstick.

I have already stated and I will reinforce the point that I consider Copyright Infringement to be worse than digital theft - they are not the same, even though they may have some moral equivalency.

I think we are in agreement that both theft and copyright infringement should be prosecuted to the full effect of the law - as all crimes should be. Lets try to find some common ground

 

[Ursa major]

This is an issue of hearts and minds.

Given that:

1. no country is going to fine tens of millions of people for downloding pirated books,
2. no country is going to put a significant number of them in gaol,
3. the legal niceties are irrelevant to the perpetrator (who will see no comeback, other than, perhaps, a malware infection),
4. the legal niceties are irrelevant to the author and publisher (who will not see a penny/cent),

it requires the perpetrators to face up to what they are doing: taking people's rightful incomes from them.

Hanging on like grim death to what the law happens to say is not only unhelpful, it is counterproductive.

 

[SilentRoamer]

Hanging on like grim death to what the law happens to say is not only unhelpful, it is counterproductive.

I am really struggling to see where you are coming from with your line of reasoning. So if this was classed as theft under law and not copyright infringement are you suggesting that would envoke some sort of moral culture change?

The law clearly states that Copyright Infringement is illegal, it says the same things about theft, it treats them as different crimes because they are technically different. Copyright infringement is a loss of "potential" earnings. Theft is a deprivation of a quantifiable amount. As a society we have to put a lot of stock in what "the law happens to say" unless you think individual moral judgement trump the rule of law of the nation state - but were getting into a whole different ethical debate there!

We both agree that Copyright Infringement is wrong - we defer in that you believe it is theft (counter to what the law states) whereas I believe, that while equally morally reprehensible (if not more so) that there exists sufficiently technical (both from a legal and an IT perspective) differences to render Copyright Infringement and Theft separate criminal acts - whilst retaining a similar moral failing.

Both for me are a problem because they don't respect things that don't belong to you - theft is a failure to accept others rights to personal property and private ownership, copyright infringement is a failure to respect others rights to intellectual property and produced content. Both are wrong.

Personally I don't think you are going to change the moral culture of an entire generation, I dont think the internet has been around long enough for humans to build any substantive and commonly agreed moral framework as yet and many of the problems we see are as a result of that - specifically the level of anonymity and lack of interaction with a potential victim that causes this moral disconnect.

I don't expect we're likely to agree as you seem set with your opinion that Copyright Infringement is Theft - I am just pointing out that legally, you are wrong, otherwise there would be no need to define Copyright Infringement as a separate act - it would be codified in law as a type of theft.

 

[Brian G Turner]

no country is going to fine tens of millions of people for downloding pirated books

No country, perhaps - but it doesn't seem all that long ago that the RIAA and MPAA conducted a high profile attempt to fine large numbers of people for copyright infringement through downloading music or films - and even forced UK Internet Service Providers to get involved.

However, not only did it fail to stop online piracy, it was arguably a public relations disaster - there are some earlier threads on that here:

https://www.sffchronicles.com/threads/643/
https://www.sffchronicles.com/threads/2108/

 

[Ursa major]

not only did it fail to stop online piracy, it was arguably a public relations disaster

Which just goes to show that the courts are far from the best place for fighting the downloading of pirated ebooks.

 

[Ursa major]

I am really struggling to see where you are coming from with your line of reasoning. So if this was classed as theft under law and not copyright infringement are you suggesting that would envoke some sort of moral culture change?

Er... no. I'm not calling for the law to be changed, or more forcefully applied, for -- as Brian has helpfully pointed out -- such a tactic has proved useless, if not counterproductive, in the past.

We are dealing with an activity that has become embedded in the culture, so the law courts are not the best place to fight it. Instead, authors and the publishing industry should use the tools to hand: words... words to describe the impact on the victims of downloading pirated ebooks.

So instead of giving the downloading of pirated ebooks the veneer of a victimless crime, we need to forget about going on about copyright infringement (the offence in law, and basically irrelevant when trying to change hearts and minds) and get more people to realise that what they are doing is more akin to taking the bread out of authors' mouths... which may be literally true in some cases (although obviously not for those who haunt the best seller lists).

 

[Dave]

...authors and the publishing industry should use the tools to hand: words... words to describe the impact on the victims of downloading pirated ebooks
...get more people to realise that what they are doing is more akin to taking the bread out of authors' mouths... which may be literally true in some cases (although obviously not for those who haunt the best seller lists).

That will be a mountain to climb. Aren't authors and artists meant to be struggling for their art? Unless you can get the literary equivalent of David Attenborough, showing writers feeding their offspring with plastic, then I'm afraid that you have a lost cause. Good luck anyhow!

 

[Ursa major]

That will be a mountain to climb.

Yes it will... but it does not help when what the practice does -- depriving authors of income -- is obscured.

It isn't as if we on this site are completely unaware of how little authors can earn from them having put in vast amounts of time and effort.

 

[awesomesauce]

Now, the real question in my mind is why there aren't online libraries partnered with local libraries for e-books. My idea is to use one's library card as an online ID, and one can check out e-books to be read in a built in reader. This way, the library can get additional registrants, the people can get access to books, and the authors can either be paid a flat fee for the book, or could be paid in royalties for access. Everyone could win in such a setting...

The libraries in my county to indeed have online lending of some books. I think it would greatly increase if it were used more. As was noted earlier in this thread, many books, especially ebooks, are very inexpensive. Often less than the price of a soda! So most people simply buy rather than use the e-library, and therefore the e-library is not greatly used.

I don't know how thoroughly this has been discussed yet (still in the early pages) so apologies if someone gets to it later.

Ebooks are very expensive for libraries, compared to paper copies, because they aren't able to buy them and loan them until they fall apart. The third paragraph here describes exactly the situation with ebooks at my local library.

Then there's the problems with DRM and device compatibility. Most library ebook systems seem to use Adobe DRM, which means readers with Kindles are out of luck.

 

[RJM Corbet]

I don't know how thoroughly this has been discussed yet (still in the early pages) so apologies if someone gets to it later.

Ebooks are very expensive for libraries, compared to paper copies, because they aren't able to buy them and loan them until they fall apart. The third paragraph here describes exactly the situation with ebooks at my local library.

Then there's the problems with DRM and device compatibility. Most library ebook systems seem to use Adobe DRM, which means readers with Kindles are out of luck.

Public Lending Right | The Society of Authors

Authors get a small royalty payment for each loan from a library. Should apply to ebooks too. I don't know the details.

 

[awesomesauce]

I think you'll find that self-published authors publishing on Amazon will have DRM applied by the Amazon system. As far as I know the only publisher to reject DRM, in the quite correct belief that it achieves nothing, is TOR. Whenever you buy a Tor ebook from Amazon it always comes with a notification from Amazon along the lines "At the request of the publisher this book is sold free of DRM" so their books are deliberately sold unencrypted.

Angry Robot is DRM free, at least if you buy direct off their own website. (This is one of the reasons I buy so many of their books. Also Storybundle collections are DRM free.

I know several self published authors who put their books DRM free on Amazon too. Those are the ones I read because I have a Pocketbook, not a Kindle. It's still a pain in the behind to get them out of the Amazon ecosystem and convert them to a reasonable format though, so I tend to do it in batches when I have the time. (No preorders or first day sales here. Heh.)

 

[awesomesauce]

Public Lending Right | The Society of Authors

Authors get a small royalty payment for each loan from a library. Should apply to ebooks too. I don't know the details.

Same here, but 8p (as cited on that page) is a lot less out of a library budget than $3.40 per loan! (The only actual figure I could find in a quick Google search for CPC costs. I don't know if it's representative of current rates.)

 

[RJM Corbet]

Same here, but 8p (as cited on that page) is a lot less out of a library budget than $3.40 per loan! (The only actual figure I could find in a quick Google search for CPC costs. I don't know if it's representative of current rates.)

I know, 8p seems absurd, doesn't it? Perhaps somebody else knows more about it ...