Can e-Publishing Overcome Copyright Concerns?

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by akiburis

Why not just accept that an ebook is a different thing from a paper book? A paper book is an object that you can buy and, having bought it, own outright. A commercial ebook is something else, something that you pay to use under certain limited terms and conditions. Not altogether unlike like buying a ticket to a movie, when you pay just to see the showing you paid to see. You may not like this, but that doesn't in the least affect the legitimacy of publishers' reasons for treating ebooks differently from paper books, because they are something different from paper books.

oh ? so how do you explain that the publishers want me to pay as much as a paper book (and frequently as much as a HARDCOVER paper book), for this commodity which i only rent, never own ?

i think here is where i must agree to disagree with you , since this attitude on the part of the publishers seems to be fundamentally incoherent (and unacceptable, to me). either i pay a reasonable price for a book (which still should be significatly less than a paper book, but that's a different topic altogether), which i then own ; *or* i pay a fraction of the price of a paper book to rent the ebook, for a limited, arbitrarily decided by the publisher, time (and when i say a fraction, i mean maybe 10%, not 90%). even at a drastically reduced price, this second possibility is not really satisfactory to me, since as i have mentioned, if i don't want to keep a book i will get it from my library (for free). also, someone (Harry ?) recently mentioned somewhere that the president of one of the largest ebook stores considers that he sells *books*, not licences.

the argument of whether ebooks are the same as paper books seems to be highly versatile, as depending on the context people seem to maintain alternately that they *are* and also that they are *not*, with equal vigor.

Originally Posted by pilotbob

To Zelda:

With the proliferation of "Starbucks" here the term "for the price of a cup of coffee" has changed from $1.20 or so to $8 (the average price of a medium sized latte at SB, no I hate coffee thank God.)

8$ for one cup of coffee !!! gloups !! at those prices, i would switch to tea as well we have starbucks here too but i think they're for tourists.

EDIT : and also : what Geoff and Tirsales said.

[Trenien]

Oh? We're having another one of these?

Originally Posted by Alisa

I speed a little and occasionally jaywalk, too, but I don't steal.

Ohboy! My pet peeve .
Let's repeat: if you download an ebook (or a song, a movie or anything of the sort) your trespass isn't thief, it's copyright infringement. Which is very probably way less potentialy harmful to society than you "speeding a little".

I'm fine with the idea of stripping the DRM off a book I've paid for to preserve my use of it even if it may violate a law. I'm not ok with taking a book without the owners being compensated for it.

You know, "compensated" is a very interesting way to put it. It suggests that anytime anybody reads a book, its author is hurt and must be compensated for that. And here I thought the worst that could happen to any writter was NOT being read...

[Trenien]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Fine, but you see what I'm saying? These eBooks are so cheap compared with paper books that it really doesn't matter if you can re-read them in 20 years or not. Cheap paperbacks fall to pieces after a few years. eBook DRM systems change. It's no big deal. It's not the end of the world if you have to spend US$4 again to re-read a book. What's $4? Half the price of a pizza? Why does it matter?

I still have paperbacks I bought 20 years ago when I was a teenager. Recently, I read an entire serie (about ten books) of paperbacks that my stepfather bought when he was a teenager.
That makes these about 40 years old.

[Trenien]

Originally Posted by akiburis

Why not just accept that an ebook is a different thing from a paper book? A paper book is an object that you can buy and, having bought it, own outright. A commercial ebook is something else, something that you pay to use under certain limited terms and conditions. Not altogether unlike like buying a ticket to a movie, when you pay just to see the showing you paid to see. You may not like this, but that doesn't in the least affect the legitimacy of publishers' reasons for treating ebooks differently from paper books, because they are something different from paper books.

You know, that's wanting to have things both ways: as far as pricing and attitude goes ("download is thief"), they want ebook to be pretty much the same as pbooks, but as for the consumer rights: they have the right to shut up and fork over the money again and again.

And some people wonder why darknet thrives...

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by Trenien

You know, that's wanting to have things both ways: as far as pricing and attitude goes ("download is thief"), they want ebook to be pretty much the same as pbooks, but as for the consumer rights: they have the right to shut up and fork over the money again and again.

And some people wonder why darknet thrives...

yes, exactly.

[Greg Anos]

Boy howdy, I hit a nerve with my post about the durability of DRM'ed
e-books.

It becomes a matter of worldview. Do you like to rent, or do you like to buy? There's nothing wrong with either viewpoint, but it is a matter of personality.

Those of us who like to buy want to keep our purchases useable as long as possible, and are willing to pay extra, up front, to do so. Those of us who prefer to rent don't care what happens after the initial use, and want it a cheaply as possible.

Digital items are potentially immortal, so people who buy don't want anything to get into the way of maintaining them. Let me give you an example - I have two atari 800 computers, 25 or so years old. They will eventually wear out. I also have an atari 800 emulator for my PC. So I can use my old software (which I purchased 25 or so years ago- not pirated), on my PC for as long as I can get a WINTEL chip based computer (that'll run Windows 2000 SP4). That's what I mean by immortal. The Atari emulator may still be useable 100 years from now. (I won't be, but I'll have it as long as I last...)

If you like to rent, this doesn't matter at all. You rent what you want (from what's available at the time), and then pitch it for the next item/time. Your concern is trying to keep it cheap.

You pays your money and takes your choice.

[akiburis]

i think here is where i must agree to disagree with you , since this attitude on the part of the publishers seems to be fundamentally incoherent (and unacceptable, to me). either i pay a reasonable price for a book (which still should be significatly less than a paper book, but that's a different topic altogether), which i then own ; *or* i pay a fraction of the price of a paper book to rent the ebook, for a limited, arbitrarily decided by the publisher, time (and when i say a fraction, i mean maybe 10%, not 90%). even at a drastically reduced price, this second possibility is not really satisfactory to me, since as i have mentioned, if i don't want to keep a book i will get it from my library (for free). also, someone (Harry ?) recently mentioned somewhere that the president of one of the largest ebook stores considers that he sells *books*, not licences.

the argument of whether ebooks are the same as paper books seems to be highly versatile, as depending on the context people seem to maintain alternately that they *are* and also that they are *not*, with equal vigor.

First, please don't "agree to disagree" with me. Just disagree. As long as disagreement is expressed civilly, there's no need for prefatory apologies, I think.

That ebooks are a different thing from paper books is in the first place simply a fact to be recognized, I'd say, not an argument. Of course, the arguments based on that fact are versatile--and almost always incoherent, and unacceptable to someone. I myself see nothing coherent in saying, as many seem to me to do, "Ebooks are so much more valuable to me than paper books that authors and publishers have no right not to make their books available to me as ebooks--at a much lower price than paper books, of course, because--well, why should I pay much for something that is actually worth so little (and I could so easily get it for free!), although I want it so much that you have no right not to provide it, and why should I care about your wicked desire to make a living from your work?"

Perhaps I should apologize for saying this: "This is unacceptable" or "not really satisfactory to me" is not a coherent argument or an argument at all. "I want it so" was never a sufficient reason for anything in this vile (wild?) world. Digital technology, wondrous as it may be, hasn't changed that.

[BooksForABuck]

Some really good points. For the most part, I agree with Steve. I think the notion that freely available eBooks will expose readers to our works and those readers will then buy paper copies makes two assumptions: (1) that our other works aren't available for free, too, and (2) that paper copies are somehow superior to electronic copies and will, therefore, be desirable. While these assumptions may have been valid in the early days of the Baen experiment (when Baen posted old books and when reading devices were primitive), I no longer believe this to be the case--as we move to the future, books will mean eBooks (just as, a generation after Gutenberg, books meant printed books rather than hand lettered books).

I think Steve's analogy of the employee asked to do his day job and then make money selling umbrellas is dead-on. Most writers I know are introverts--after all, what we do is sit at our computers and write. Our interaction is with people in our minds rather than real life people. Which is a difference between writers and musicians (although the notion that musicians should only be able to charge for concerts is also shaky).

Yet, DRM is costly both for the administrator and especially for the customer. What's the solution? I don't know. I offer my books without DRM but also not for free (except when selling through Mobipocket/Kindle where DRM is required). I offer my books at highly affordable prices--certainly much cheaper than I can sell the print versions. I include strong language about not stealing books. I don't think anyone owes me a living for my writing and publishing, but I also recognize that I and my authors work hard and that, to the extent that we produce a product people enjoy, we're certainly no less entitled to a bit of revenue off of that enjoyment than any other entertainers (although movie seats always seem to go empty, nobody I've heard suggests that movies should be free (and maybe Disney could buy a popcorn farm to replace the revenue stream).

I don't know the answer, other than that waving your hands and suggesting that it isn't a problem because a few authors have made a nice living riding the edge while eBooks were an inferior product and could be given away as promo items is not the way we're going to move our industry to the future.


Rob Preece
Publisher, www.BooksForABuck.com

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by akiburis

That ebooks are a different thing from paper books is in the first place simply a fact to be recognized, I'd say, not an argument.

Why? The value of a book is in no way related to its fabrication process - a bunch of paper is not worth 20$, a book on the other side is. Wether it is an arrangement of bits and bytes or an arrangement of paper doesn't change the valuable part - the content.
So - the method of delivery varies, not the book in itself. Just like there is no big difference between a fax and an email - though the method of delivery is very different and the quality of the email higher.
I guess this is a difference in our world-view. I dont see a difference in reading a p-book and an e-book on an e-reader - e-reader are a bit more comfortable (weight, etc) with some discomfort (e.g. battery) attached. In fact - this is why I like e-reader.

"Ebooks are so much more valuable to me than paper books that authors and publishers have no right not to make their books available to me as ebooks

They have every right. And I have every right NOT going to buy their books.
But they really should think about the following: The market will change. E.g. Books are available via the darknet - wether they are sold as ebooks or not. More and more publishers will sell books as e-books - and more and more people will start switching to e-books. You have seen this with music and video, and you will see the same with e-books.
So the only question that occurs is: Does a publisher (and an author) want a share of that market or not. If they dont its fine by me - but they better should not be moarning afterwards.

at a much lower price than paper books, of course, because--well, why should I pay much for something that is actually worth so little (and I could so easily get it for free!), although I want it so much that you have no right not to provide it, and why should I care about your wicked desire to make a living from your work?"

When have e.g. I ever doubted the right of an author to live of its work? Or he right of an publisher to earn its share?

Perhaps the point could be illustrated like follows:
a) I can buy a p-book - it will keep over the years, I can lend it, read it as often (and in every environment I like), I can even sell it. I dont need to restrict myself to a given device or seller.
b) I can buy an e-book - it is much cheaper to produce, thus has a greatly increased profit margin. I cannot lend it to other people, I will only be able to read it under given circumstances, etc - but it costs the same.
Now ... Why should I buy that e-book? See what I mean?

All I am asking is a fair deal - like a p-book is a fair deal. Give me the same amount of accessability (whatever dealer I want, whatever device I want) and give me a fair price (much less to produce but the same price? Still I would pay that price - if no DRM or similar is enforced - though it would really be unfair). They can earn more with an e-book than with a p-book, it's okay. I get more comfort, they get more money - everyone is lucky.
Enforce DRM (or similar crap), or charge a price too high - and one side looses, the whole market gets killed.
Steal the books - and one side looses, the whole market gets killed.
Its a symbioses - and publishers and authors should start seeing it like that.

"I want it so" was never a sufficient reason for anything in this vile (wild?) world. Digital technology, wondrous as it may be, hasn't changed that.

Yeah. Same for publishers and authors.
"I dont want the darknet to exist", "I dont want e-books to evolve", etc wont change drek. Really, it wont.
Not wanting to see changes in the market wont stop them. "I cant see you, you cant see me" is a popular game for childs - grown-ups should know that it doesnot work.

@booksForABuck: I agree. Not in all details, but in general.
Noone asks you to "give away your books for free". Both sides want a fair deal. No DRM, fair prices, etc - and everyone is lucky.

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by akiburis

First, please don't "agree to disagree" with me. Just disagree. As long as disagreement is expressed civilly, there's no need for prefatory apologies, I think.

That ebooks are a different thing from paper books is in the first place simply a fact to be recognized, I'd say, not an argument.

all right then, i disagree with you . i actually used that expression because someone had just used it a few posts before mine, and it amused me to repeat it (but i admit i'm easily amused).

concerning ebooks vs. paperbooks, Trenian really did put it succinctly and clearly only 4 posts up,

Originally Posted by Trenien

You know, that's wanting to have things both ways: as far as pricing and attitude goes ("download is thief"), they want ebook to be pretty much the same as pbooks, but as for the consumer rights: they have the right to shut up and fork over the money again and again.

but if you want to pursue it, perhaps we should be more nuanced in our statements. i accept as true that :
- the content of an ebook can be the same as a paper book.
- the artistic value of an ebook can be the same as a paper book.
- the material form of an ebook is not the same as a paper book.

when i buy a book, it is the *content* i am interested in, obviously, since if i want to buy a book by Dorothy Sayers, i won't be interested in a paper and ink object which is superficially identical, and the same price, but contains, say, the listings of the telephone directory of the city of Rouen. if we are talking about a paper book, since the content (the text) and the container (the actual paper and ink, in the form of a book) are indissociable, many questions do not arise (such as, whether i own the book or am merely renting it, whether i can lend it to a friend, read it in any chair i like and using any lightbulb, for how long, how many times, can i sell it to a used bookshop if i don't want to keep it...).

an ebook is fundamentally different from a paper book in that the content is dissociated from the container, and it can be delivered via a computer, a dedicated device, a telephone, etc. HOWEVER with few exceptions (and there i mean things like art books) the container is secondary or even irrelevant, yet paradoxically a significant source of costs to the publisher which are then passed along to the consumer.

i see no reason not to pay for the content. i want to support the authors i read, and thank them for their hard work, and encourage them to continue. i do NOT want to continue to pay for the costs inherent in the production model of paper books but irrelevant to the production of ebooks, such as the paper and ink itself, the cost of transport, the cost of stocking the books in a warehouse, and all the associated costs of selling them in a physical shop.

Of course, the arguments based on that fact are versatile--and almost always incoherent, and unacceptable to someone. I myself see nothing coherent in saying, as many seem to me to do, "Ebooks are so much more valuable to me than paper books that authors and publishers have no right not to make their books available to me as ebooks--at a much lower price than paper books, of course, because--well, why should I pay much for something that is actually worth so little (and I could so easily get it for free!), although I want it so much that you have no right not to provide it, and why should I care about your wicked desire to make a living from your work?"

i have never put forth that argument, or anything like it. i advocate *fair* pricing of ebooks, taking into account some of the factors i've mentioned above, (and discussed at length previously...), based on actual costs, and the publisher passing along the savings of this new production model to the consumer.

this has nothing to do with the inherent value of the *content* which i am not questioning, and please do not ascribe this sort of faulty reasoning to me. it's true that i consider pricing an ebook like a paper book abusive, but this is based on material costs, not any perceived value of the content. it costs less for the publisher to produce, it should cost less for me to buy.

Perhaps I should apologize for saying this: "This is unacceptable" or "not really satisfactory to me" is not a coherent argument or an argument at all. "I want it so" was never a sufficient reason for anything in this vile (wild?) world. Digital technology, wondrous as it may be, hasn't changed that.

"this is unacceptable" or "not really satisfactory to me" is a perfectly coherent way of expressing my opinion. as for my arguments, perhaps i was too concise previously but since this is a recurring discussion sometimes i forget what i have already said in which thread. to be honest i find this whole subject really tiresome and wish i hadn't gotten involved, so perhaps i also am not very motivated to be completely exhaustive.

[Alisa]

Originally Posted by Trenien

Oh? We're having another one of these?



Ohboy! My pet peeve .
Let's repeat: if you download an ebook (or a song, a movie or anything of the sort) your trespass isn't thief, it's copyright infringement. Which is very probably way less potentialy harmful to society that you "speeding a little".

I didn't say it was stealing. I was saying that just because I commit some crimes I don't have an ethical issue with doesn't mean I will commit any crime. When I shifted to talking about DRM stripping and downloading I switched to the talking about "respecting intellectual property". Why did I do this? I knew I would get a snarky comment like this otherwise. Seems it wasn't enough.

[akiburis]

an ebook is fundamentally different from a paper book in that the content is dissociated from the container, and it can be delivered via a computer, a dedicated device, a telephone, etc. HOWEVER with few exceptions (and there i mean things like art books) the container is secondary or even irrelevant, yet paradoxically a significant source of costs to the publisher which are then passed along to the consumer.

How on earth is the content dissociated from the container? The container, and therefore the content--which in the case of ebooks is as a matter of plain fact absolutely undissociable from the container--is an electronic file that, if unprotected, can be reproduced, altered and reproduced, corrupted and reproduced, for any reason or no reason, by anybody anywhere.

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by akiburis

How on earth is the content dissociated from the container? The container, and therefore the content--which in the case of ebooks is as a matter of plain fact absolutely undissociable from the container--is an electronic file that, if unprotected, can be reproduced, altered and reproduced, corrupted and reproduced, for any reason or no reason, by anybody anywhere.

no, when i talk about the content, i mean the actual text, which can be delivered via different containers such as : a newspaper or magazine, a paperback printed books, a hardcover book, a scroll, giant blocks of chiselled marble, clay tablets, etc. an ebook, being by its very nature virtual, is not tied to any material form, which is precisely why (in theory, at least, if we escape DRM) the SAME text (content) could be displayed and read on my computer screen, my eb1150, my future e-ink device, and / or my telephone screen (which can be considered other containers).

[tirsales]

@akiburis: So ... A pommes (french frie) inside a box is essentially not in any way related to a pommes on a dish?
A coke in the bottle is absolutely not the same as a coke in a glas?

Whoa - that's a whole new philosophy for me ... I repeat: We simply (and completely) disagree.

[akiburis]

an ebook, being by its very nature virtual, is not tied to any material form

Sorry. Whatever an ebook may be by its very nature, it exists as a digital file. Which is a material form. Otherwise, you'd have to get your ebooks from God.