Bootlegs, Piracy, the illegal copying of films, music and books, what's your view.
I read today that Stephen King's new novel, Joyland, has been pirated to make an ebook. What's interesting is that Joyland is a print only book. So it sounds to me like someone has gone to a lot of trouble to pirate the copy, or is is just a matter of scanning the print pages and uploading it?
What's your opinion of bootlegging, piracy? Don't these people earn enough money?
There is a word for this but I will settle for arrogant ignorance. I understand you have a philosophical stance against 'commercials' which I find naive in the extreme but just for your information I earned my living as a commercial artist (is that a dirty word in your lexicon 'commercial artist?) mainly as an illustrator, andI still earn on that basis.
Your position that the two are incompatible is sheer nonsense - just about every so-called 'fine artist' also has to earn a quid or do you think they lived on fresh air?
It's a pity that this thread ended up discussing wider issues than the original question, and was subsequently overlooked by others who could have added some good thinking. The thread became a sort of philosophical and cultural discussion between the "commercials" and the "artists". The two sections of life just don't mix. The philosophy of life in both camps couldn't be further apart.
To most of us makers/artists, the commercial world is a foreign land, shallow and superficial, inhabited by sales men and people obsessed with money and how to teach others how to make it. Remember the Dale Carnegie book, How to make friends and influence people. It was a sort of bible and led the way forward, people were led to believe, heralding the commercial world's intellectuality, which is now cluttered with books on diets and other coffee table works.
My final word on the bootlegging: if it really was hurting the commercial world, it would be stopped. The big money, isn't interested in the small fish, except to sell them more and more stuff to keep them hooked.
Fine Norman, but then all law(s) across countries is different and we simply have to take that as par to the course. In fact, simply cross the border between England and Scotland and find they have their own copyright laws from what I remember from a couple of articles. I am more guided by being part of an alternative, left wing oriented publisher set up in the 1980s. In fact, just to look at it to remind myself I did a web search and found nothing. Ultimately, given the whole premise on which it existed, it was a total failure.
Whilst we were treated as though we did not exist by other houses, in actual fact it would appear that editors at 'competitors' were doing very precise word counts of citation to see if we had infringed copyright law. I was only involved marginally, so was not part of the real goings on and so do not know exactly what was happening. If I remember properly we had a UK and Canada address, our authors were in mainly developing countries, typesetting was done in an anglophone west African country, printing and binding in Italy (I think).
However, I learned the point you are making about there being a thousand for every book you produce. I also saw the threats that circulated by publishers claiming intellectual property over certain materials where either my colleagues had no idea things, a couple of paragraphs typically, had previously appeared by were not being shown as quotes. Big publishing houses simply used strong arm tactics. As far as I recall, where one particular colleague who was nobody's easy number challenged these tactics, the government departments in those countries took more or less a 'sort it out yourself' attitude.
That is where I get the impression the laws are badly or mal-administered. I occasionally get it in the neck as an author, never entirely sure why, for journal articles. It strikes me that where publisher X does not 'favour' publisher Y there is some nit picking whereby the authors get it in the neck. In terms of the actual law, it is often explained that I need not bother too much so that it is far more dismissed than explained. However, my latest work with Springer as one of the world's biggest publishing corporations, was completely scoured by their people before publication was approved.
I doubt I would have been much good in the publishing business anyway, given I was involved with a politically contentious alternative publisher to begin with it was simply accepted as being on the fringe anyway. However, what I remember is that in a number of countries sales were either difficult or impossible because larger competitors stood in the way and copyright was one of their favourite weapons.
If that is more widespread in creative production then I can see how it makes people money on the one hand and how it also keeps others, for instance authors and composers, from receiving royalties on the other. I certainly was by no means upset by being out of that business as a 'publisher', albeit more in name and good intentions than actual involvement (I didn't have time then in reality).
Hi Brian,
Sorry but I have to take issue with you on the statement that 'Copyright Law is not the problem it is in the administration'. That is not my experience from both sides as a Creator and a Publisher - worldwide. Possibly the latter being the most relevant. Primarily because there is no such thing as 'Copyright Law' singular. There are multiple Copyright Laws and differ either materially or in detail according the issues I outlined earlier. If we agree on Copyright belonging legitimately to the Creator - at least in Principle, then yes there is basic accord. However, despite claims to the contrary International Copyright Law is a figment, or more kindly a 'noble effort' but like most Laws they cannot cover every single contingency in an International environment. Least of all today where, like it or not, we ARE Global.
The Internet doesn't recognise that England stops at Dover or France starts at Calais, so how dos one apply anything other than International Law, and if that Law is defective (mainly as it was created usually on National issues), then patently it must follow that administrating it becomes almost impossible? Plus WHO administers it? National bodies, because to date to my knowledge there is no Internationally recognised body.
I remember on a separate, but vaguely related Contractual issue in the Middle East, being taught a salutory lesson in very simple terms, which followed the lines of "You, as a Foreigner working in an Arab country, for an Arab company, intend to take that Arab company into an Arab Court - and seriously expect to win?"
Different countries also have a different way of regarding Contracts, which also affect Law, and Copyright Law(s) are an implied and theoretically actual Contract. The Middle East generally views Contracts more as at best a Process of Agreement- and NOT an end in themselves. Many companies have found this problematical on solid tangible grounds, so how can we expect the less tangible to do any better?
Pirated goods from the Far East and elsewhere serve a social purpose in employing people, can we seriously expect them to put at jeopardy thousands to protect one foreigner? This is the REAL world and not Utopia.
Now to take it a stage further, and you may recall this. After WW2 Japan was the great Copyright Infringer, and we, I, grew up with the mantra of 'Japanese Rubbish' - as a lot of it was, but Japan recovered on the back of this 'rubbish' to become a leading industrial power.
Now they in turn are, or were having their works pirated to such an extent that they took the decision not to fight it but to use it and use places like China and Korea to produce their products, still under their label, but produced in exactly the same factories by exactly the same people who previously were 'pirates'. The process is continual China now looks to Africa as an even cheaper production area and closer to natural resources.
Let's talk boooks - the pirating and cheap prices from China have had one notable effect - that of reducing print prices within the EU. I can now print in Spain or Hungary at very competitive rates to China (although not in France surprise, surprise? Even when one can even get a quote!).
Does this change Copyright, well yes it does as it then makes books operate under closer scrutiny closer to home - but little else. Does it stop pirating? No it doesn't. You are an academic in your writing, I have been. You have used reference material from others - peer groups, and have been influenced and/or informed by them? I most certainly was. Much as my international experience in my chosen field was wide, it was not and could not ever be compehensive in a worldwide sense. So we/I used information gleaned from other sources - again peer groups, and possbly they did the same with mine, I don't know.
So when does this 'cross-fertilisation' become plagiarism or copyright infringement? Who makes that judgement? Is one paragraph enough? One sentence?
This is the complication of Copyright Law(s). Each of those issues in the previous paragraph would get a different reaction in a case brought in different countries under THEIR Law or interpretation of the Law.
Of course we all want to protect our efforts as much as possible but I submit that in the real world in which we now live - and with the technological tools available and developing this is now a false dream. With my Creative hat on - I want my work to be seen by the widest possible audience, I seek the plaudits, and hate the criticisms - but that too, is REAL world.
Make money?, a nice adjunct if it happens, but again and wearing my real world hat, tells me that for every book I write there are a thousand others appearing and competing for the dollar. Where will mine end up? As a Publisher I want to see it in best-seller lists making money - that's business, but as a Creator that's something different, or at least it should be.
Sorry, to ramble on again, but these are issues I deal with every day of the week. With our 'fact books' I often find myself looking at a reference with a claimed Copyright attached to it, and asking the same question 'Who Owns History?'
Nobody can tell me, although there are plenty who claim to own at least a piece of it.
No Ellis! You are being slightly manipulative there. Where I used 'cloud' it was in the context of aspersion but not meaning vague which is what you used it as. In fact I doubt anybody is worrying too much about passing books on. I have books that are numbered and in the system of bookcrossing.com. That assures books are passed on without commercial gain. Indeed, none of us probably worries about lending libraries, books left on park benches and ones friends pass around amongst each other. In the case of books, music CDs, DVDs of films, etc it is where copies are made for commercial gain the like of Victoria, Glyn and I are raising a serious question about whether that copying is theft or something similar. You, however you window dress it are looking for justification and telling us why it is not theft. We can only assume that you are, therefore, not an affected author, composer or whatever and are consequently not affected. Since, certainly in my case, I hardly stand to make my fortune by writing it is not only about money but also about usage and as with many books in the social sciences I can be misquoted easily enough to begin with but it is when I consider the fact that because of bad quality copying it could be not only somebody using a bootlegged but also incomplete copy and thus citation also being not entirely legal whilst agreed not theft. In fact, it is not copyright law that is a mess but its administration. If it was properly administered between countries then in fact many of the issues discussed here would be easily resolved. Publishers are not that worried, any more than Rolex are by copies, which is why action is only very seldom pursued. It is when entire chunks of the world seem to be reading a best selling work that is not formally published that it is a 'problem'. There are clouds there in the sense that one looks at countries that shrug their collective shoulders and allow books, music, films, software, etc to be produced, sold and even deprive those countries of revenues.
There's two reasons why I don't lend out media material, ie books, cds, dvds.
1. People can buy their own copy.
2. I don't want to lose my own copy.
Mark, I seem to remember an expression along the lines 'imitation is the sincerest form of flattery'?
I haven't really heard of Rolex being over-concerned about their products being copied - for exactly the reason you cited. Anybody and everybody knows the difference between a Rolex and a copy, and yes it is an 'aspirational product'.
Sorry Vincent but for me your argument simply doesn't hold up. Of course the more material that gets out into the market will highlight more dross, but can also reveal a diamond or two that wouldn't otherwise see the light of day. Your evident dislike of new technology is curious as it has enabled many to expose their works to the judgement of the market - which is the ultimate arbiter of everything IF you want to make money - which presumably even the Small Crafts person is looking for? Technology such as Digital Printing is to the fore in this area.
EVERY Business large or small works with RISK, and the object in simple terms is to try and minimise the fthis to maximise the return on effort ie profit. Using available technology from Caxton onwards has been a normal part of this. If you believe that it is the be all and end-all of a craftsperson is to use their hands and that's it, then that personn will automatically remain small and localised by definition.
Technology is NOT the be-all and end-all, it is a TOOL as much as the hammer and chisel. Technology doesn't think, it just gives us other ways and means to think in applied terms.
Mocking or deriding 'Business ' per se is pointless as is any producer in thinking his is the only valid part of a profit. It has always beena shared world, with each contributing. For me the person taking the greatest financial risk is entitled to the greatest financial return. I create our books but get less of the profit than my financial partners who provide the wherewithal for the books to be physically produced, and to me that is fair enough.
If on the other hand technology allows me to produce and sell books across the ether for my own total profit what's wrong with that?
If your craftsperson uses a power tool to help produce, well that's progress isn't it? Switching the lights on, or using a computer are the result of technology. But if your craftsperson doesn't have the supplementary marketing (business) skills to create the wealth from his or her creativity, you seem to imply that those who can provide these are drones and leeches in the process, and I couldn't disagree more.
It is an interesting point though Mark. If it is something like a Rolex people will go to all kind of lengths to obtain the real McCoy. If they can't afford it then a good copy will suffice, but they will not try to convince anybody that it is the real thing. When it comes to music CDs, books and the like then people will sometimes go to some length to get copies rather than legitimate releases. They save money, sometimes a lot even but will mostly avoid talking about the fact it is a cribbed copy. The whole issue with copyright and theft is rather more complicated than Ellis has described it above. Whilst he is right on the one hand, on the other he and Vincent rather cloud over the moral theft which is what Victoria is clearly and justifiably concerned with. However, whether copyright and theft are entirely different or not is beside the point since copyright is nonetheless protection of intellectual work for its authors, composers, their heirs, agents, publishers and any others who have a share in ownership. My feeling when I find a copy of my work on somebody's bookshelf (which I have several times) is rather influenced by what I know about the individual. If I know it s somebody who could afford to buy full price then I will assure anybody that if they have expectations from me then I will not live up to them. Indeed, on one occasion I provided the person in question with misleading information. The question I asked myself was how much of a fool could I be taken for? I decided to be something like people who make imitation Rolex watches and the like...
Pirating is not limited to media, of course. I have a Rolex Submariner watch which is £30,000, only mine cost £15 in South Korea! Rolex & other manufacturers see this as a threat to their business but I cannot see the harm. The watch would not stand close inspection so would not fool a watch enthusiast for a second. It looks ok & keeps good time. Have Rolex lost a sale? No way would I pay anything like £30,000 for a watch so I would not buy a real Rolex & those who could spend that on a watch would buy from a reputable dealer, not a market stall in Itaewon. Mind you, I like the desigh so if I won the lottery Rolex would get a sale - thanks to the sample I already have!
The explosion isn’t really in IT Vincent, it is in connectivity. I’d also debate whether innovation or execution is importent in the ranks of a multinational. Regardless, I don’t share your disillusion with the “modern” world. I enjoy it.
I'm quite aware of advances in technology and have a foot in both camps: low and high. I have been involved in Small Craft Industry promotion since 1975 and the IT explosion since 92. All discussions about technology with regard to bootlegging etc, is a pure red herring and the usual input from people in the commercial world is jump in with dedication to support their "God", i.e. progress. This progress hasn't done much to improve the intellectuality of modern living, all it has done is to produce more mediocrity with more faces glued to more screens. You only have to look at what's on offer by the commercial sector, vamped up by "gurus" with interminable books on how to create more screens with more glued faces.
Bootlegging is descended from old fashioned smuggling and the revenue men, which grew from avoiding paying more for something than it was worth. When you look into the divisions of the spoils, as was done earlier, the makers get the least, whilst the commercials clean up.
The mention of lap tops having no CD drives isn't anything new, but there are such things as external CD drives: I made my own. In my recording and broadcasting career, I have gone from the Uher,Nakamichi, Sony Walkman stereo tape recorder, mini disc and finally to a Sony digital with SD cards. In my publishing career I have travelled through, Wade Arabs, Adanas, Table top lithos (TTRs etc) Gestetner 600s etc, laser printers and now amazon print on demand. We still make hand-made paperbacks for limited editions, but time is a problem as interests grow. Being craft trained, I have learnt to be self reliant and am able to use practical solutions to move on.
I was employed by the Irish and Brit education establishments to teach a form of self reliancy under many guises, to members of the commercial world. This was in the 80s, 90s, as some of the more enlightened big multinationals were worried that their management were too bland and unable to innovate. They still go through the motions of doing this with all kinds of seminars, weekend residential courses, but the late Sir Peter Parker told me that it wasn't having much success. At the time he was president of the LSE and their output was top notch. His main worry was the mass production of mediocrity from the "new universities" which were, still are, growing at an alarming rate, and producing nothing but poorly educated clones.
What's this got to do with bootlegging, I hear you ask. Quite a bit really. Bootlegging is a thriving traditional industry, but when compared to what revolves round the main stream commercial world, is a drop in the ocean. In the old days, smuggling was a group activity, and when dealing with traditional items now a days, still is. Individual, private bootlegging, is a backlash against the vast profits of the commercial giants, and it is this bootlegging that is causing the most damage to modern makers of intellectual items.They are encouraged in this activity by the multitude of new fangled products, which encourage and allow them to breach the copyrights and incomes of the makers.
Where the makers lose money, the main stream commercials make even more with more advertizing, and marketing to the stealers. It has become very lucrative to advertize on web sites. Even the Brit Met office carries ads. The bootlegger might rob from the maker, but they spend vast amounts of money on stuff which they come across when doing their robbing.
No matter what clichés, excuses, seminars, praise for wonderful progress, Legal loop holes and other such blather and all the other interminable sound bytes, it can't be denied that depriving a maker of their entitled income is immoral.
It's not unlike what Gandhi and Kropotkin had to say about mass industry. (I'll leave you to figure that one out)
Very well explained Norman and having personally spent nearly 40 years in the technology world I agree entirely with your King Canute point. In fact a less kind soul might have mentioned the Ludites 
Good stuff Mark,
it is also a question of who leads whom in this area. I started following music in the 78's time, then went to 45rpm Extended play - marvelled at the introduction of the multidisc release players of 78's which almost guaranteed to break the bakelite discs as they crashed down! Then the wonder of independent sound with Musicassettes and the Walkman - many of which cassettes I still have and wonder of wonders it is the pirated Indian ones I bought in Bahrain in 1980 that have stood the test of time far better than the major brand issues (interesting?).
Then I was directly involved in the business in Australia when CD's came out, and we spent hours in front of techie machines trying to figure out if the sound really was better as claimed. We didn't think so, but the pretty rainbow effect was a good sales aid - and I kid you not! Then came another disaster at the time when they tried to introduce the mini-cd and there was an immediate consumer backlash, with people of the time simply refusing to buy their music again. How times change?
On the film side I started with the huge Phillips Discs, which were also hugely expensive and the range limited and you needed a special machine to play them. Then like most I went to Betamax which still has a better image quality than VHS (stone-age stuff this isn't it?), then of course DVD then DIvX de-da-de-dah. Now we are being regaled with Blue-Ray, HDD etc., and the same films are being 'enhanced' and re-released! The world has gone made?
Now as I have said elsewhere I have been advised that new laptops will no longer have CD/DVD drives on them - and we will have to somehow get them from 'apps stores' for downloading to our iPads, iPhones, Smartphones and Gawd knows what other techie wizardry is just around the corner.
Whoa Trigger!!!
Finally 'Ah, the Golden Days of Sexual Discovery' - as they used to say 'once tasted - never wasted'
Now if I could only remember what the Hell they are talking about..................?
It wasn't ever Copyrighted was it?
Bruce my musical tastes go back even further than yours although my time in the business was 70's-80's predominantly. I have some 8,000 hours (or thereabouts) of Music from 1900-1950. Now just to complicate Copyright issues just a little here. The USA allows for something called 'Creative Commons' which DOES allow people to download certain music as allocated by the original Copyright Owner. This does cover personal use only and is one used most frequently by new bands to get recognition. I am not sure if this applies in the UK or not,and I often wonder what happens in the event of a piece of music being taken up massively from this, and the composer has given it away essentially.
The contradiction applies here doesn't it? You allow individuals to freely download the music - so you can get more recognition, but then limit that recognition by not allowing wider dissemination. As Dr Spock would say - 'Illogical'.
Re; your other comments on 'sweat shops'. My time in Asia leaves me in a quandary about this. I have to agree that without such sweat shops there would be massive underemployment and starvation, but also have to recognise (again) the almost obscene profits made by major labels. The gap is too wide in my book and it IS exploitation.
However, again the 'real' world - and that means all of us who buy things, are to blame. We KNOW things are made cheaply, and we still buy the Label at a huge price- who is guilty the provider of our fantasies, or us sad-sacks who need them satisfied?
Finally I had a quite heated argument many moons ago with a couple of teachers, when I raised the case of the habit of one New York cocaine junkie ultimately keeping a whole Columbian village alive. I think this is called a 'moral dilemma' isn't it?
Victoria, sorry but again you are looking at the situation a little too simplistically. Particularly when you refer to 'musicians' as this term is far too wide. To create a musical piece for commercial use or sale is rarely the work of one person. It will of course start with the 'Composer' (live or dead) but the major and most critical person is then the 'Musical Arranger'. This is the person who arranges the musical scores according to the composition and/or requirement of the recording. Taking say a Beatles song/tune and re-arranging it from a 4-piece guitar arrangement by Composer AND (this case) Arranger McCartney is completely different from arranging the music for a 17-piece Jazz orchestra or 40-piece Concert Orchestra. So we have to ask the question 'where and with whom does the Copyright apply?'
Naturally within the lifespan considerations I have spoken of earlier and assume for the moment we are talking of a 'living' composer, we have both the essential original work, and often the more (commercially) essential work of the arranger, and of course the musicians who play the stuff. Much of how the royalties are worked out depends on the recoding company - who like print Publishers are the ones basically taking the Financial Risk, and without whom the work would only get very limited play. So they usually organise the Production and Marketing of all works and as such usually will have the Copyright(s) to THAT Production at least.
Obviously it makes sense for them to get assignments to the works, and usually this is a pre-requisite.
The LEAST important in this sense are the Session Musicians, who usually get fee-for-job and that's it.
Next you refer to paying for the four different ways (interpretations?) of the same music. This is a tricky area as 'Interpretations' will usually go into fresh Copyright provided there is 'signficant difference of an artistic nature' - and who makes this judgement? Actors fall into this category all the time, and can usually claim copyright for their interpretation BUT only if it is a created work in recognisable form - ie a Recording and not a transitory stage performance. How does this affect the guy in the front row with his iPhone working? I don't think this has ever been tested in a Court, but technology is moving ahead of the laws.
Many famous Jazz tunes and musicians interpreted(stole?) musical themes from each other and elaborated on them, and ditto from other sources. This can be evidenced by the ongoing claims of both Jelly Roll Morton adherents and Scott Joplin ones on who created famous Ragtime tunes such 'Maple Leaf Rag' can be seen as cited for either of them. These were of course early days of Copyright ideas.
The world is changing and as others have said the geni is out of the bottle and I for one don't see how the continued 'scrambled eggs mess' of Copyright Laws can stand up to it.
I still maintain that the more a work gets covered/stolen/pirated ultimately that is the best for the original creator in tems of reputation building and profit. Fighting against it even by the biggest is doing what King Canute was trying to demonstrate - the impossibility of fighting the tide.
We have to somehow learn to live with it, and work with it rather than trying ineffectively to fight it.
My own view is that we are on a new threshold of Marketing - which to me at least is a clear move away from Mass Merchandising to Niche Marketing. Personally this has always made more sense to me anyway. Now we have the tools to do it effectively.
A lot of music I download has been deleted from catalogues(50s-60s jazz) and isn't available elsewhere, so I don't feel I'm robbing anybody.
The thing is, Victoria, my albums have not fallen apart. They were perfectly playable! Sure, if you break something you usually have to buy another & pay the full replacement cost. If the record had been trodden on I would not begrudge having to buy another copy. When you buy an album you pay the artist for his work in full. You have purchased the right to listen to their product for life. Some CDs are protected & cannot be put on to a computer so that I can put them on an ipod. I'm sure that you would not pay four times for something - I can't at the moment think of a parallel example but would you buy an expensive dress that cannot be cleaned so that you have to buy it again & again?
I have just read Bruce's reply, too & he advises against buying from Primark et al, mentioning Bangladeshi sweat shops. I will buy from them happily - these "sweatshops" provide an income, somewhere safe & dry, & therefore an opportunity for these kids to eat, learn & develop. The alternative is that these kids live on the street, starve & are open to far more abuse & damage than they will ever experience if they have a skill. It may not be much of a life, but its better than the one they would have if they didn't have a job.
I feel the same way about synthesisers and Karaoke machines.....they're doing musicians out of work, but, c'est la vie! Don't buy Primark or other cheapos, etc. Regular folk go for what's best and cheapest for themselves. It might not be right, but it's the truth! Does Mr or Mrs Average care that their designer whatever was produced in a BanglaDeshi sweatshop?..don't think so! It's the nature of the beast!
Chris, when the actual composer and writer get a pittance, and some suave teenage blonde fine young thing that was programmed from a very young age gets the money, it is just as bad.