interesting NYT article on "copyright morality"

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Alan

Of course, why would somebody pay for something they could easily get for free. And so music is being copied without permission of the copyright holders and rips the music industry of a lot of revenue. So you prove exactly my point: There has to be some kind of protection against (widespread) copyright infringements.

You totally missed the point. The point was that the music industri is moving towards DRM free music because they make more money that way.

You want to pay because you want to support the people that have produced something you like so they will produce more things.

We might not like DRM (I do not). It might have some serious flaws in it (especially if the publisher is not available anymore and we got a new ereader). But I cannot see any alternative.

That is really not an argument. There have been a lot of alternative mentioned here that probably would work.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Would you trust a textbook that hadn't been peer reviewed? I wouldn't!

Well, if I trusted the author maybe. But if I do not know about the author or about the people doing the peer review i would not trust it after the peer review. I would start to trust it when the book is beeing used and accepted by the community and there is more feedback. At the university where I work the people choosing textbooks are reading them and checking them themselves before choosing them for a course. I do not think they really trust only a limited peer review.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Would you trust a textbook that hadn't been peer reviewed? I wouldn't!

Not a text book example (excuse the pun ) - but Wikipedia seems to stack up quite well when compared with traditional encyclopedias.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by tompe

You totally missed the point. The point was that the music industri is moving towards DRM free music because they make more money that way.

They finally saying good bye to DRM because DRM implementation in music files is a pain in the neck. Ever tried to play DRM protected music on your favorite MP3 player? Only recently there are some available that can play such files. Most players cannot.

But DRM in ebooks is transparent. No license files, nothing. Just tell the online store where you buy your book the PID of your device(s). That's all. It's like giving your address or your credit card number. That is all DRM most customers will ever see.

And it is exactly the same with iTunes and the iPod. iTunes' files are DRM protected. But the customer will not be bothered with it in any way. That is the reason iTunes sell millions of files. And they are expensive compared to alternatives like on mp3sparks.com and the like, not to mention Emule and Co.

That is really not an argument. There have been a lot of alternative mentioned here that probably would work.

Lower prices were mentioned, yes. I wrote about that argument in my last post. Also digital watermarks were mentioned. I also wrote about that. And that pretty much were all alternatives people came up with.

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Not a text book example (excuse the pun ) - but Wikipedia seems to stack up quite well when compared with traditional encyclopedias.

Though it is here: Wikepedia is good for some topics. But overall it is useless when it comes to trustworthiness. Why? On Wikipedia the one prevails who is online longer than others and drives his agenda more aggressively than others. This is especially true for political topics. Truth is not democratic. And on Wikipedia not even everybody has the same voting power (others are online longer than you are, can edit more articles, don't have to earn money for themselves like you do, and so on). When truth is determined democratically, it is for sure a big fat lie.

Alan

[sianon]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

I see you've not been bitten by DRM yet.

Try reading that DRMed eBook on a reader that Mobipocket doesn't support (which is most eBook reading devices) and see how easy and hassle-free it is.

not true, mobipocket files can be read on a wide variety of devices.

[Liviu_5]

Originally Posted by Alan

O
You know the iPod? You know iTunes? They sell music legally and are making big bucks.
on.

The same with DRM. Of course you can circumvent it in many ways. But most people does not even bother to try. And the majority counts. That's the point.
We might not like DRM (I do not). It might have some serious flaws in it (especially if the publisher is not available anymore and we got a new ereader). But I cannot see any alternative.
Alan

Actually iTunes does not make loads of money for Apple considering that they make pennies per song sold since the vast majority of revenue goes to the artists/records; iPods make the real money and once drm music is gone for good, I will not be surprised if iTunes gets a major facelift like becoming a studio itself; after all if customers can go to Wal Mart and buy muisc to play on the iPod, why should Apple keep humoring the studios.

Regarding the majority and e-books, well right now the majority of people do not buy e-books and I do not see this changing soon; and there are alternatives, something called the print book that has been doing well for a long time; to convince people to try e-books you gotta offer big advantages not big disadvantages like drm

I like e-books but not at the cost of giving up the ability to read anywhere and anytime. let us have this discussion about the inevitability of drm when drm-ed e-books will represent something like 30% of the book market; until then I see nothing inevitable about drm

[deviant]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, it is you who are confused. The end result of using a publisher is better quality books; that is of direct benefit to the reader. I don't want to read books full of grammatical errors and spelling mistakes, which is what we'd get "raw" from most authors.

I don't want to know what kind of author sends his work to publishers with spelling errors and grammatical mistakes. After all, if you're a writer, you should at least be able to, well, write.

I write physics textbooks. No university in the world is going to use a textbook for a course unless they know that it's been published by a reputable publisher who's subjected the information in it to a proper peer review. How is this process going to work without publishers?

My professors usually review their books before using them for their courses, regardless of what kind of reviews it got. Need I say that most students don't care about the textbook as long as it's cheap?

You do it, many of us here do it, too, but the majority won't. Ereaders are still some nerd gadgets. They are not widely advertised, not prominently featured in the media and are hard to find in any physical shop. They are niche products. DRM on the other hand is not an issue for most people. But it is in the music business, because there DRM protected files are much less easy to use. An exception is the iPod and iTunes. And guess what - both sell big time.

I remember trying to get my college to move from paper books to e-readers. Since buying a e-reader was so expensive, I was thinking of getting a few friends and getting a discount. We were offered a 15% discount for purchases over 50 units. The sad part? We could have ordered as many as 300 units ordered but the discount would still be only 15% which didn't make the wide adoption plan look too realistic. So it's not so much of a niche market as much as the producers basing their business plan around profit rather than wider adoption.

Wikipedia the one prevails who is online longer than others and drives his agenda more aggressively than others. This is especially true for political topics. Truth is not democratic. And on Wikipedia not even everybody has the same voting power (others are online longer than you are, can edit more articles, don't have to earn money for themselves like you do, and so on). When truth is determined democratically, it is for sure a big fat lie.

I take all history I read, regardless of the source, with a solid grain of salt. It wouldn't be the first time somebody used history for their own purposes.

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by Alan

That is correct. And that is also the reason why DRM is only easy and secure (for the customer) if bought at big companies like Amazon (Mobipocket).

Ask the people foolish enough to believe that when they paid money for DRMed PDFs and videos - that Amazon no longer supports.

Originally Posted by Alan

I do not like DRM either. But so far I do not see an alternative for authors and publishers. Unprotected ebooks can be copied indefinitely. Paper books cannot. There has to be some kind of protection against unauthorized use of books. Do you have a better idea?

Ya, no DRM. Stop treating the customers like thieves. Offer eBooks for a reasonable price.

The "I don't see an alternative" excuse was old a long time ago. Here's the alternatives for authors:
1. Refuse to support eBooks - and stop making money because after a while everyone will only download the pirated versions.
2. Only offer eBooks with DRM - and stop making money because after a while everyone will only download the pirated versions.
3. Offer eBooks without DRM - and have at least a chance to make money.

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by tompe

The filter is also a feedback mechanism to the author and I do not see how customer reviews could do that.

Authors will need to get closer to their readers. Cases in point: John Scalzi, Scott Siegler. Both have web sites, blogs and accept feedback from their readers.

Originally Posted by tompe

Why do you think publishers have a poor record? I think you are totally wrong and that they have a good record. A couple of exceptions is not proof of a poor record.

The fact that all the "best sellers" that I have seen have been awful books.
The fact that they miss authors like Scott Siegler, who got his book in the top 10 lists of Amazon before the big publishers took him seriously.

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, it is you who are confused. The end result of using a publisher is better quality books; that is of direct benefit to the reader. I don't want to read books full of grammatical errors and spelling mistakes, which is what we'd get "raw" from most authors.

Sounds like the authors aren't doing their job. If they want to pay someone to edit their work, that's up to them. But that's not a justification for me to pay more.

Originally Posted by HarryT

I write physics textbooks. No university in the world is going to use a textbook for a course unless they know that it's been published by a reputable publisher who's subjected the information in it to a proper peer review. How is this process going to work without publishers?

Don't care. You keep speaking of how things work today. I couldn't care less of what the status quo is.

I am speaking of what things will be tomorrow.

A side note: When I was in college, one of my classes used a textbook that was "in process" (i.e. the instructor was writing it). The class actually helped the instructor write the book.

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by sianon

not true, mobipocket files can be read on a wide variety of devices.

Where's the Mobipocket reader for Linux?
Where's the Mobipocket reader for my Nokia N800?
Where's the Mobipocket reader for my OLPC XO?
(I'm talking about the Mobipocket reader that's supported by Mobipocket and handles DRMed eBooks - not fbreader.)

A "wide variety of devices" is not "all devices."

[tompe]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

The fact that all the "best sellers" that I have seen have been awful books.
The fact that they miss authors like Scott Siegler, who got his book in the top 10 lists of Amazon before the big publishers took him seriously.

But a bestseller is a very good book for a publisher since it generates money that can be used to take risks with other books. And any method will miss some authors but so what? That does not mean that all or any other method is better.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

Sounds like the authors aren't doing their job. If they want to pay someone to edit their work, that's up to them. But that's not a justification for me to pay more.

They are "paying" the editors at the publisher to edit the book so what is the problem?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by deviant

I don't want to know what kind of author sends his work to publishers with spelling errors and grammatical mistakes. After all, if you're a writer, you should at least be able to, well, write.

I think some very good and well know author are word blind for example. From my point of view the most important thing is if the author can tell a story. Spelling and gramatical errors can be fixed by other people.

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by tompe

But a bestseller is a very good book for a publisher since it generates money that can be used to take risks with other books. And any method will miss some authors but so what? That does not mean that all or any other method is better.

Exactly.

What's good for the publisher is not necessarily good reading.