Regional restrictions now in the UK

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Tuna

No emotion here - I work in this area and see the possibilities and problems that digital distribution introduces. I'm fairly pragmatic about it, but disappointed that digital copying is seen as a 'victimless crime', when it is having a very definite effect on the creative landscape.

Of course it has effects. Things change. The question is what the end result will be after the transition period. One of the changes is that two theater plays was canceled in Sweden after complaints from artist organisations disagreement about music rights. So we are hindered to experience these creative works.

[Solicitous]

Originally Posted by veysey

But I also know this: the price of an ebook MUST be less than the pbook. Yes, one must account for editing, etc. But it costs less to move electrons than to cut down a tree (since I'm paying separately for the electron moving infrastructure).

Also an interesting argument to add is with a pbook you have the right to sell the book to someone else afterwards. With an ebook you buy a licence to the ebook. Legally AFAIK you have no legal right to lend or sell the ebook to someone else after purchasing. So from that point buying an ebook you get extra restrictions compared to buying a pbook, so therefore the price should also reflect those restrictions.

I have no issue with restrictions on buying ebooks, what I do have a problem with is; I can buy a book from the US or the UK (or any other country) over the internet and have it shipped to me at home as a valid and legal transaction. Now if I try and buy an ebook I am restricted depending on where I live. I understand the difference in argument of purchasing a pbook online in theory the transaction takes place in the country where the book is being sent from, and an ebook sale is taking place from my place of residence, but come on, the exact same steps are required to purchase either the pbook or ebook.

I just think publishers are shooting themselves in the foot, people are willing and able to buy ebooks but publishers are restricting them. IMHO all this is going to do is increase the piracy of ebooks.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Tuna

Talking of which, I was reading this week about Lilly Allen's decision to quit music after producing two very well received albums. Her take is that she cannot make a living from music when the vast majority of her fans get digital copies rather than buying the album legitimately. She toured like crazy this summer, but it appears not enough. If we can ignore whether or not her music is any good, how do you feel about that?

Actually, that more or less comes down to her having negotiated a shit contract, where she gets nearly no money from CD sales. A lot of information can be found about these practices online, and it's one of the reasons why artists tour so much these days (they get a higher cut from those). To be honest, she should be grateful if the industry were to die, as it would've prevented her from signing a criminally unfavorable contract in the first place. It's the fault of those industries that they can't come up with new ways to generate revenue from the stuff she records, not the fault of the consumers who "aren't buying her enough". Never mind that there might be perfectly good reasons not to buy her stuff (such as not listening to her music because you don't like it overly much).

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Tuna

Umm.. OK, so on the one hand you have the Mona Lisa. Pretty high on the scarcity front. On the other hand I can walk round the corner to a copy shop and pay a couple of quid for a pretty good colour reproduction. In the case of a photographic print, the quality can be extremely close, if not indistinguishable from the original. By your use of the term 'scarcity', the photocopy costs a tiny, tiny fraction of the value of the original. It has almost non-existent scarcity. How is that different, apart from in your head?

Here is a digital copy of the Mona Lisa. It has zero digital value, because of the nature of a digital product. Anything that is actually an 'object' as in exists physically in the real world, no matter if it is a reproduction or not, is subject to the laws of scarcity, and therefor has an inherent price (no matter if its a fraction of a penny). The digital is not, and it cannot be, no matter how many of your ludicrous, nonsensical rants you post here.

Regardless, scarcity is a piece of misdirection on your part. Scarcity doesn't dictate the value of creative works. Harry Potter books don't cost 5p because they've printed fifteen billion of them. Your £4 that you pay to see a movie largely comes down to the cost of filming it, not the cost of building the cinema - by your logic cinemas are scarce and expensive to build, so we should be paying a hundred times over for the privilege of going there.

Again, you're wrong, its not misdirection, just plain fact. Harry Potter doesn't cost 5p because the market (ie you) are willing to pay more. We're talking about 'inherent value' of an object. Scarcity (as I said earlier) is only one factor in that value. Supply and demand, basic economics. There is no supply and demand in the digital (unless you try and force it with DRM). And the money you pay to see a movie actually doesn't make the cinema that is showing that movie a bean, they make their money from the concessions outside before you even see the movie. The movie industry is a scam anyway, always has been, and that's a creative accountancy thing (some of the best selling movies of all time were officially losing money so the studios could fudge their tax returns).

One digital copy or a billion doesn't change the cost of production, nor does it change the value someone might assign to being entertained for however many hours it takes to read the book. We pay for the creative work, not the effort of cutting down a tree and scribbling on it.

No it does not change the cost of production (although it does lower it in many cases) but it does affect the perception of inherent value at the opposing end. The value proposition has completely changed. When you hold up a book in your hand it is a physical thing that you have been trained to perceive as having value beyond its actual cost of production (as in what the publishers pay to produce that object). Like all other 'products' you are instantly attuned in a capitalistic society to assign a monetary value.

Here's the Mona Lisa again, shared for anybody who wants to download it and make it into a wallpaper on their desktop. This painting only achieves value when it becomes 'something' in the physical world. Maybe if it was on a T-shirt or a mug, then you could assign some monetary value to it.

No emotion here - I work in this area and see the possibilities and problems that digital distribution introduces. I'm fairly pragmatic about it, but disappointed that digital copying is seen as a 'victimless crime', when it is having a very definite effect on the creative landscape.

If you work in this area and you're not 'shitting bricks' then I'm very worried for you. There's only so long that the old models of pay-for-product will last before the generation underneath us become the main force in consuming culture. A generation who share songs, movies and books now without a second thought. Who are increasingly attuned to a society and a social system that is 'free'. Ask any teenager do they pay for their email provider, and you'll get a blank stare. Culture is heading the same way.

Talking of which, I was reading this week about Lilly Allen's decision to quit music after producing two very well received albums. Her take is that she cannot make a living from music when the vast majority of her fans get digital copies rather than buying the album legitimately. She toured like crazy this summer, but it appears not enough. If we can ignore whether or not her music is any good, how do you feel about that?

Lily Allen is a coked-up, talentless, only got to where she is now because her famous Daddy pulled the strings, never-was. Recording artists have been screwed over on CD sales (like authors are on book sales) for the last 50 years and more. Everything that needs to be said about Lilly Allen, was said by Dan Bull (yes I bought his album after downloading this and another song completely freely)

I guess you could say there will be half a dozen new artists to fill her shoes, willing to release their first album for free just to get the exposure. What happens when they come to record their second or third album, but cannot justify doing something for free when it has become their career?

You don't seem to know much about the industries you're actually citing as examples. Most bands don't make it to a second or third album in the recording industry. They don't have the money to do so when the record companies have taken them for every single penny. Anybody outside that system is better off immediately, both creatively and in the potential of earnings.

[Tuna]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

Actually, that more or less comes down to her having negotiated a shit contract, where she gets nearly no money from CD sales.

So that would be a bit like giving her music away for free then?

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Tuna

So that would be a bit like giving her music away for free then?

I am afraid I cannot quite follow your analogy?

[Sparrow]

One possible benefit of a digital free-for-all is that people can improve other people's work - take out the boring bits, amend poor writing - and then send the corrected version out for others to enjoy. Eventually, there could be loads of different versions - to suit all possible tastes.

I always thought the Mona Lisa would look better in a stetson.

[Moejoe]

[alicja]

Fileshering, piracy etc.
For few days I was a proud owner of new PRS-600 now I am angry. I am a big book worm so my hubby decided that it will be more practical for me to have ebook reader. Unfortunately the only option to buy the newest books is to download illegal!!! I am leaving in Holland but do not speak Dutch. Here you have only opportunity to use bol.com with very limited offer. Ebook store non exciting in Europe, restriction in UK so what left? Piracy... I have never used this sites but now I am so angry that Sony has cheated in Europe- selling device without possibility to use it

[EowynCarter]

Originally Posted by alicja

Fileshering, piracy etc.
For few days I was a proud owner of new PRS-600 now I am angry. I am a big book worm so my hubby decided that it will be more practical for me to have ebook reader. Unfortunately the only option to buy the newest books is to download illegal!!! I am leaving in Holland but do not speak Dutch. Here you have only opportunity to use bol.com with very limited offer. Ebook store non exciting in Europe, restriction in UK so what left? Piracy... I have never used this sites but now I am so angry that Sony has cheated in Europe- selling device without possibility to use it

Yeah, I suffered this when i was in denemark, and french stuff was locked to me.

[Tuna]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

You don't seem to know much about the industries you're actually citing as examples. Most bands don't make it to a second or third album in the recording industry. They don't have the money to do so when the record companies have taken them for every single penny. Anybody outside that system is better off immediately, both creatively and in the potential of earnings.

Lots to discuss here, but I'll just ask a quick question as I'm confused.

How does giving your music away for free make you more money than accepting a pittance from a recording industry that uses it's influence and contacts to go out and sell your music for you? If artists usually don't make a second or third album because they can't afford it, surely the answer isn't to decimate their primary source of income?

[ahi]

Originally Posted by alicja

Fileshering, piracy etc.
For few days I was a proud owner of new PRS-600 now I am angry. I am a big book worm so my hubby decided that it will be more practical for me to have ebook reader. Unfortunately the only option to buy the newest books is to download illegal!!! I am leaving in Holland but do not speak Dutch. Here you have only opportunity to use bol.com with very limited offer. Ebook store non exciting in Europe, restriction in UK so what left? Piracy... I have never used this sites but now I am so angry that Sony has cheated in Europe- selling device without possibility to use it

Download the eBooks illegally then... if in fact doing so is even illegal in Holland. Why be upset? The respective authors will survive without the $0.25 - $1.00 per book they would've gotten from your considerably more expensive purchases.

If publishers won't sell, but your fellow human beings will share, it seems to me the situation isn't so bad.

- Ahi

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Tuna

Lots to discuss here, but I'll just ask a quick question as I'm confused.

How does giving your music away for free make you more money than accepting a pittance from a recording industry that uses it's influence and contacts to go out and sell your music for you? If artists usually don't make a second or third album because they can't afford it, surely the answer isn't to decimate their primary source of income?

Because, and I've seen this happen, the recording company don't do all those things that you say. They very rarely promote any band that isn't an instant success, and even then the band will end up in hock to the recording company in the end.

A band's primary source of income is touring and merchandise (not CD Sales) and even this is being stripped away by the major labels in new contracts. When you talk about compensating artists and fairness and stealing, you should understand that the biggest thieves and bastards in this whole process are the media publishing companies. They're the ones who you should be directing your ire towards.

It's better to read Courtney Love's speech she gave back in 2000 (about the music industry) http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/

Artists aren't helped by copyright and the big media publishers, they are only put into servitude.

[A Nonny Mouse]

As a lurker I have watched this thread and have un lurked & registered just to comment.

There are many differing views on this thread over the legality of the *use* or *misuse* of the intellectual property of other people.

If I happen to see a*model* male or female in the street who trades on their *Image* this being their sole method of income. If I take a photograph of this person, thereby taking a *digital* copy of their *image* am I guilty of theft? if I do not use it for personal gain. If so where do the paparazzi stand?

If I steal a physical copy of their photograph from a Photographer I am guilty of theft.

Do we have any legal eagles on the forum? who will comment.

If I take a copy of digital media made available by a third party free of personal gain am I guilty of theft?.

Seems to me only the legal profession can answer this

[Terisa de morgan]

Originally Posted by A Nonny Mouse

If I take a copy of digital media made available by a third party free of personal gain am I guilty of theft?.

I'm afraid it depends on the country. In Spain, no, you aren't, in other countries yes.