Melville House writer Stephanie DeLuca’s article Ebook Piracy is Bad for Everyone analyzes the different ways that book piracy has a negative effect on publishers, authors, and readers alike. However, my issue lies not with the points she makes, but with how she does not address what causes a person to resort to piracy in the first place. This brief article describes how rampant piracy on sites like SlideShare has become an increasingly important problem for the publishing industry, as well as the core reasons why book piracy is negative. The article states that piracy harms the careers of authors and disregards the work that many people contribute to get a novel published. It also remarks that people pirate books almost as a way to get back at big publishing companies. Beyond that, we do not see what makes a person resort to piracy in the first place. 

The article makes some rather good points about the effects of piracy. But what made me want to write this essay was how after reading it, one major question was left unanswered: why?
People do not only pirate books as a form of protest. While many illegally download books simply to avoid paying for a novel they find interesting, many also do so in order to access texts that they cannot afford, or to find books that are otherwise unavailable for purchase. One particularly noteworthy example is academic piracy, specifically the piracy of textbooks and other academic resources. Many students, unable to pay exorbitant prices for textbooks that they may not even use often, resort to piracy in order to alleviate the financial burden that higher education may place on them. This also applies for articles hidden behind paywalls; when the articles that a student may need are hidden behind subscription services, many turn to piracy to access information they need for assignments and research. At the end of the day, many do not consider illegally downloading a book some kind of statement against the power of the publishing industry. Many do it because they have few other options. Not everybody can just take out their credit card and purchase access to academic articles that can cost as much as $40 or more, especially when that money could go towards putting food on the table or towards something more important.

This brings us back to my main problem with Melville House’s article: it depicts piracy as something fundamentally immoral, regardless of the circumstances. The article does not ask why people pirate before it condemns those who do. It does not address how a large portion of piracy is rooted in the inaccessibility of information, choosing instead to frame the subject as black-and-white. In reality, piracy is a complex topic, with equally complex reasons behind why people do it. There is no denying that piracy has a massive impact on the publishing industry. To say otherwise would be a lie. But to say that all people who do it are “willfully ignorant” of the impact it has, or to say that people pirate books exclusively for their own entertainment, is untrue as well.

DeLuca ends the article by stating that “Until the collapse of capitalism, we all still need to pay our bills.” The same applies for readers and students, especially those in circumstances where getting books legally isn’t as simple as it sounds. With some learners, the cost of a book can mean all the difference. We all still need to pay our bills somehow.