Hacker News Reader

Comment by kuang_eleven | Hacker News Reader

I've switched almost entirely to ebooks for fiction, but I will only buy books that fit the following criteria:

1. DRM-free

2. No more expensive than the cheapest suggested retail price

3. Available in a generic format (EPUB, preferably)

So far, I've had excellent luck with Baen books, and decent luck with Tor books and miserable luck with just about every other publisher. Still, jokes on them, I will just pirate if I can't find a version that fits my criteria.

View on HN

Baen used to give away huge portions of their catalog in the CDs included with their hardbacks. Buying the latest in the series meant a good chance the rest of the series was on the CD. Even now they're the kings of available formats, even if they're not quite as high quality as other ebook providers. And their prices are so cheap (most books are $10 new, less as they age) I have to wonder how they and the authors make money.

With new books, selling an ebook means saving all of the production costs of a physical book. If you're buying from Baen directly, they also save all the merchandising costs, too.

With old books, they're competing with used books which are most often very inexpensive, so may as well get you an ebook for free or low cost and if you like it, hopefully you're buy the author's future books when they're new.

The joke is of course also on the authors who will not be compensated by you for reading their work.

Then they shouldn't use a DRM publisher.

You think that because of your beliefs you should be able both to enjoy somebody’s work and not pay them? Boycott them if you want - that’s absolutely fair. But enjoying their work anyway, and just not paying, is unprincipled and cheap. And arguing that it’s their fault that you’re stiffing them is awfully convenient.

By this logic, buying paperback books second hand is also unprincipled and cheap, no?

Which is a nice segue into a related topic, that by instituting DRM, publishers have removed the possibility for consumers to buy a book, read it once, and, knowing they will not want to read it again, decide to resell it for some of the value so they can buy more books.

None of this makes piracy ethical. But the whole system is rife with unethical practices, participating in almost any way is a quandary. The choice of simply not consuming literature and technical knowledge with the benefits of modern technology is not a perfect solution, for the individual nor society, either.

Yeah that’s an interesting angle. I don’t think buying secondhand books is cheap, because you are paying _someone_. Good question as to the morality of it re: author incomes. Paying no one and still getting whatever you want is what’s cheap.

At least somebody bought that book first. And before you say something like, "Wull, somebody had to buy a DRM book and strip the DRM out," think about the economies of scale we're talking about. The last thing is, buying used books is legal, which does put a dent in the "unprincipled" part of your argument.

Do you really mean to imply absolute adherence to the law, even unenforced laws, is a requirement to be a principled person? Does that mean all laws in all countries or are the laws of your country the most principled ones?

In some US cities it is literally illegal to feed the homeless. In every US city it is illegal to go on mile over the speed limit. In some countries it is illegal to not turn in your neighbors for being gay.

Be careful with confusing legality with ethics.

Nope I'm not implying that, but you certainly inferred it. Legality is one marker you can use when deciding ethics, especially in a democratic country. Also we're talking about the permissive side of the law (reselling used books), not the restrictive side (not being allowed to feed homeless people).

Maybe: "In some US cities it is literally legal to apply eminent domain to kick people out of their houses to enlarge a freeway" would be a better slippery slope, but that's still a totally different power dynamic.

So yeah I dunno. Try to come up with a better analogy, but definitely keep to your slippery slope. It'll convince somebody.

The onus is on you to argue why, in the case of piracy, breaking the law is moral. With feeding the homeless etc the argument is clear.

Easy. DRM restricts freedom and privacy in ways I find intolerable and will not financially support. Borrowing, piracy, and buying first or secondhand paper books does not have these problems.

Can you argue this position using a consequentialist utilitarianism system?

Sure, because only the most trivial forms of utilitarian are act-by-act. A rule-utilitarianism could easily require us to pay one another for things, even things we could just take, to maximise overall utility. If you think it needs to be act-by-act, you prove it. But start with why consequentialism is a better ethical system than any other.

Yeah those filthy rich authors with all their choices just going straight for the DRM so they can control what you read! Stick it to 'em, greedy bastards.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com