ebook survey

[Elfwreck]

I'm one of the don't-want-single-format people; while I'd like all ebook readers to read all formats (erm, or many popular formats; I don't feel slighted that my Sony doesn't read Tealbooks or TeBR formats), I don't believe one format is every going to be perfect for every type of ebook.

I certainly don't want to eliminate the .txt file as an ebook format, even though it's very limited; I don't want readers to lose the ability to read .txt even if all commercial ebooks switch to ePub. And while I agree that .pdf has severe limitations, there are also things it can do that nothing else covers, and I don't want to lose those.

I'd like it if all commercial novels were available in ePub, and Mobi while we're still doing the format wars. But I don't want other formats to vanish.

[anappo]

> The media is not available without DRM - 27.6%
> The media is not available in electronic format - 53.4%
> The price charged for electronic formats is too high - 25.9%
> Copyright law is immoral - 6.9%
> I need my money for other things - 5.2%
> A digital copy doesn't negatively affect the copyright holder - 5.2%

These are great numbers

So, by far the biggest justification for piracy is that the work simply fails to be on sale. Both "price is too high" and "DRM is evil" reasons are -half- of that (but still significant, affecting 1/4 of the sample). And the rest are all down there at about 1/10th of the "leader".

> I think the question as it stands is useful

Yes, of course. It shows how many people -would- download from darknet if given enough reason to do so.

> I also forgot to ask 'Is it OK to download a bootleg copy of a book
> for which you already own a paper copy?'.

A very good question - I've been pondering the same. To me the intuitive answer always was that it's ok. For years I actually used this as an ethical workaround - when something I wanted to read was unavailable, I would download a bootleg copy and then buy some other book from the same author (usually on paper) to fairly compensate.

This intuitive answer might no be entirely correct tho. It assumes that creator's share from e-book and p-book are the same. Which should -not- be the case.

> If they came up with a DRM that was impossible to remove,
> I would buy drastically fewer DRMed books.

Yes, that would be another good question for expanded survey - how many would still buy e-books if the DRM actually worked

All in all - very nice survey, thanks for doing this

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I'm one of the don't-want-single-format people; while I'd like all ebook readers to read all formats (erm, or many popular formats; I don't feel slighted that my Sony doesn't read Tealbooks or TeBR formats), I don't believe one format is every going to be perfect for every type of ebook.

I certainly don't want to eliminate the .txt file as an ebook format, even though it's very limited; I don't want readers to lose the ability to read .txt even if all commercial ebooks switch to ePub. And while I agree that .pdf has severe limitations, there are also things it can do that nothing else covers, and I don't want to lose those.

I'd like it if all commercial novels were available in ePub, and Mobi while we're still doing the format wars. But I don't want other formats to vanish.

interesting and very good point. i did answer i think all books should have a standardised format (i think they should work on all devices) however to nuance my reply i'll add that i don't think it should necessarily be to the detriment of other formats either, i.e. a standardised format but not necessarily a single format ; for instance, i agree that having .txt support and .pdf support are valuable as well, and even html can be handy sometimes (although really it's not hard to transform html into epub, and keep the advantages of html while gaining other advantages in addition). what i mean when i say that is probably more accurately that all books should be available in a standardised format at least. i do have pretty high hopes for the epub format once the standard is more thoroughly defined and the renderers are more sophisticated (that's no secret ) however i also know that particularly now there are some specific formatting situations which epub can't handle (or at the very least, it's not the best format for the job). and, i agree that pdf has specific strengths which make it very attractive to a specific reading population, and those should be addressed as well.

i do think though that all readers should be able to read the same format(s), and all books should be available in the format(s) supported. none of this "mobipocket or pdf only" nonsense for novels (still often the case, including of a book i just bought recently) when mobipocket is supported only on a subset of devices, requiring conversion for other devices, simply because while i have personally no problem converting to a different format, i think there are many people who find it intimidating, and this creates an unnecessary hurdle for them.

[djgreedo]

re: standard format

I suppose I didn't put enough thought into that question. My intention was really to see if people agreed that if a book is for sale digitally then it should be accessible on all devices (within reason) and not just the Kindle on an exclusivity deal or somesuch. I think people new to the technology would be completely confused the first time they go to Fictionwise - I was a bit hazy on what my device could display when I first got it, and I have plenty of experience with gadgets, computers, and file formats.

There is definitely benefit to having different formats, and I definitely agree with whoever said that .txt is a useful format.

Barring any technological barriers, there shouldn't be any reason for all good ereaders to not be able to open any standardised file format (except when DRM is involved).

Like MP3 for music, there could be a near-universal ebook format (please not PDF though!). There is still room in audio for .FLAC and .WMA and .M4A. Of course it's a lot easier to convert music to different formats.

[Donnageddon]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I'm one of the don't-want-single-format people; while I'd like all ebook readers to read all formats (erm, or many popular formats; I don't feel slighted that my Sony doesn't read Tealbooks or TeBR formats), I don't believe one format is every going to be perfect for every type of ebook.

I certainly don't want to eliminate the .txt file as an ebook format, even though it's very limited; I don't want readers to lose the ability to read .txt even if all commercial ebooks switch to ePub. And while I agree that .pdf has severe limitations, there are also things it can do that nothing else covers, and I don't want to lose those.

I'd like it if all commercial novels were available in ePub, and Mobi while we're still doing the format wars. But I don't want other formats to vanish.

Agree

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

i do think though that all readers should be able to read the same format(s), and all books should be available in the format(s) supported. none of this "mobipocket or pdf only" nonsense for novels (still often the case, including of a book i just bought recently) when mobipocket is supported only on a subset of devices, requiring conversion for other devices, simply because while i have personally no problem converting to a different format, i think there are many people who find it intimidating, and this creates an unnecessary hurdle for them.

Agree

Originally Posted by djgreedo

There is definitely benefit to having different formats, and I definitely agree with whoever said that .txt is a useful format.

Barring any technological barriers, there shouldn't be any reason for all good ereaders to not be able to open any standardised file format (except when DRM is involved).

Therein lies the rub. I agree that a few major formats should continue to exist (and new ones come to fruition) for reasons of aesthetics, and all good reading devices should be able to display these formats, but the damnable curse of DRM creates an expensive (due to licensing) barrier to that goal.

DRM is the devil's handmaiden.

[anappo]

> Like MP3 for music, there could be a near-universal ebook format

And the damnedest thing is - we almost had it! Back in 2007, the dominant e-book format was mobi. So, amazon had two format choices for their new kindle thing:
1. Use the DRM-free mobipocket - in which case we would no longer have this debate.
2. Use the DRM-ed mobipocket - in which case we would still curse the DRM and whine about other limitations of mobi format but at -least- we would have sort of MP3 for e-books.

Then Amazon picks the third option - to purposefully pervert the DRM-ed mobipocket to introduce artificial incompatibility. Hurray for creative bizdev and say hello to the worst of all possible worlds.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by anappo

Yes, that would be another good question for expanded survey - how many would still buy e-books if the DRM actually worked

I started buying ebooks at the start of 2003. I quickly found that DRMed ebooks were a pain to use. I only bought about six before I twigged to the problems - authorising/deauthorising/redownloading for Mobipocket, or keeping long-term track of unlock codes for eReader.

I only bought eight other DRMed books between 2003 and mid 2005, and five of them were fictionwise's free or 100% rebate books.

I didn't buy any DRMed books from mid 2005 to mid 2008.

In the first four days after MobiDeDRM became available, I bought 36 books...

I wouldn't be buying DRMed books now if I couldn't remove the DRM.

If the DRM changes so that I can't remove it, I'll stop buying DRMed books.

[LDBoblo]

Where I live, if you lend someone a book and they like it, they ask you how much it costs. If it is above the price of photocopying it, they will go and photocopy it instead. It's caused a bit of a ruckus here, and some of the more legitimate copy shops are now rejecting requests to photocopy many things. However, there are hundreds and hundreds of small shops that frankly don't care about what they copy, as long as they get paid for it.

In some cultures and/or subcultures, the idea of "buying it if I want to keep it" is considered noble and practiced by the majority, promoted by surrounding society. In other cultures, however, such ideals sound a bit ludicrous. Why spend $40usd for a book when you can get it for $5-10 at a cheap copy shop?

One of the main strongholds that publishers have been able to maintain is the relative inefficiency and inconvenience of reproducing their hardcopy materials, even including photocopiers. Digital formats make reproduction quite simple. I don't think it's surprising at all that many publishers are reluctant to put their materials out in electronic formats.

The library system introduces an interesting twist on ownership, one that no doubt is influencing some of the discourse on the future of electronic publishing. I have not used a public library in quite some years, but I was happily a member of a university with a broad library and inter-library loan programs, which put a lot of materials at convenient access. If I wanted to read a book, I could just go and check it out, granted they had it on the shelves. It was, for all practical purposes, free. I'd return it, and if I wanted to read it again, I'd go check it out again.

Carry this over to digital formats, and you get the obvious question: Why on earth would you bother? The purpose of returning the book is because it's a finite entity with limited durability and longevity. Not returning it would be denying others the chance to read it.

Amazing spirit, those libraries have. As far as I was concerned in my youth, I didn't need to buy the books as long as I could just get them from the library. Lucky me, since I was pretty poor.

When I was in high school...or rather not in high school because I was skipping classes as we degenerates were known for, I'd often go with a friend in a...erm borrowed car...to a bookstore some 100 km away (the nearest Barnes and Noble). Our local library was rather rubbish (and being spotted locally could cause problems with the school), and we could sit at the Barnes and Noble for hours, reading books that we'd never buy, or couldn't afford to buy. Sure, we bought some books every other time we went, but usually it was more for the reading experience there.

Can such open opportunities and spirit be maintained in digital format while not sacrificing publisher and author profits? Can they even exist on the internet? I think it's obvious that many companies have been staring at these concerns, but the think tanks have been stumbling trying to come up with feasible answers. The solutions we've seen so far involving proprietary formats, exclusivity, and licensing limitations, along with the gimmickry of "read a page or two before you decide to buy!", seem to be a band-aid on a broken leg--no, a band-aid on brain damage.

I still have problems seeing ebooks as tangible goods. With libraries, information itself was essentially free for the taking, and when I bought a book, I was paying for the book itself, not the information inside it. With digital books, I'm not getting anything physical, and I'm still paying tangible book prices for it. What a joke. A lot of companies seem to be afraid of this thinking too.

What to do? I'm no expert, so don't look at me. Paying book prices for licenses to view books though without any physical copy...a pretty rubbish concept.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by djgreedo

4. Do you consider copying of copyrighted media for the purpose of transferring copies to other people against the wishes of the copyright holder to be immoral?

Depends on if the specifics make it fair use or not. As others have noted, how many is "other people"?

6. Have you ever breached copyright by downloading a copy of a book or any other digital media from a website distributing the media without the consent of the copyright holder?

Nobody has. Despite what various propaganda campaigns are trying to make people believe, in this case the website is breaching copyright, not the downloader.

It sounds like some of the basic premises that the poll is based on are incorrect.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by anappo

>
This intuitive answer might no be entirely correct tho. It assumes that creator's share from e-book and p-book are the same. Which should -not- be the case.

I'm not sure that really matters. If you own the pBook, then in the US you can legally scan it yourself. The creator obviously doesn't get a share from that.

Copyright is not based on how much profit the creator makes.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

I'm not sure that really matters. If you own the pBook, then in the US you can legally scan it yourself. The creator obviously doesn't get a share from that.

Copyright is not based on how much profit the creator makes.

The fact that so many rah-rah Copyright anti-Piracy hardliners are confused on such utterly fundamental details never stops confounding me.

I suppose thank God that the law is in the hands of corporate-***re lawyers and judges instead of self-proclaimed morally upstanding citizens. The former still leave people with more rights against corporations than the latter seemingly would.

- Ahi

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by ahi

The fact that so many rah-rah Copyright anti-Piracy hardliners are confused on such utterly fundamental details never stops confounding me.

Generally, the hardliners aren't confused, they know exactly what they're saying and it is intentional. Unfortunately, the mis-information that they like to spread confuses the average person (which is why they spread it).

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Generally, the hardliners aren't confused, they know exactly what they're saying and it is intentional. Unfortunately, the mis-information that they like to spread confuses the average person (which is why they spread it).

I hope you're wrong. I like to think that good intentions more often than not lie behind people's actions, even when they seem counterintuitive.

- Ahi

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by ahi

I hope you're wrong. I like to think that good intentions more often than not lie behind people's actions, even when they seem counterintuitive.

Well, by hardliners I mostly mean members of the content industry. I think for the most part, people who get things jumbled on here are just victims of the confusion.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Well, by hardliners I mostly mean members of the content industry. I think for the most part, people who get things jumbled on here are just victims of the confusion.

Oh, OK. We are of one mind on the issue then.

- Ahi