Filesharing and ebooks

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Steve Jordan's books are widely torrented, I've seen Verdant Skies in at least two different sci-fi torrent compilations over the last week or so. If that was my own work I'd be excited as hell that I was being recognised, not bummed about phantom lost sales. Those torrents have at least a couple hundred seeders and a thousand peers at any one time. That's a lot of people who might go on to read (and pay for) Steve's work afterwards.

Steve's books would likely be just as widely available on torrents even if he used as much DRM as currently available. When you consider the best form of eBook DRM is not to release an eBook (no DRM to strip) and that those books (Harry Potter for example) are still actively pirated in electronic form, it doesn't say a lot for the success of DRM.

If I were an author I wouldn't be excited to see my books torrented, but I do agree that I also wouldn't see it as a lost sale. However, I would make an attempt to have the torrent taken down or the website remove my books.

Releasing without DRM at least allows your legitimate customers the freedom to read your books on any of their devices. Customers that may otherwise have no bought your books and WOULD have been a lost sale.

And in any case, lose money, make money, at least Steve doesn't have to kiss the ass of an industry that is as pointless in the digital realm as a monkey at a giraffe-only tea party.

I've often wondered why well known authors don't sell eBooks directly from their own on-line site. There is still a need for publishers in the print world, but other than marketting is there really such a need online? Ideally authors would sign contracts that allowed publishing ebooks on their own sites whilst still also distributing them in various on-line stores. Best of both worlds, hardcore fans may buy direct giving the author a higher income, whilst stores will help get the book under the eyes of new customers.

All I can think is that many print authors had their ebook rights tied up as part of their print contracts? Any authors on here able to give us some insight into this?

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

I often wonder about those studies.

How do they collect the data? Do they simply ask the file sharer's what their sharing and buying habits are? Or is there some other way they collect the data?

I wonder because it seems to me that many file sharer's would not be averse to twisting the truth in an online survey regarding how much stuff they buy after having first file shared it.

Q: If you have enjoyed the copy of a book you obtained through file-sharing do you then go out and purchase a "legitimate" copy of said book in order to support the author?

A: Oh sure I do, heck yes, of course! Why wouldn't I do that?

Seems to me the natural inclination of the survey respondent would be to perhaps embellish how much they actually do buy in order to make themselves feel a little better.

Of course, if the studies have a more accurate and verifiable method of collecting data then the above scenario would not come into play. And of course there would be many who would give completely honest answers too.

I just can't help wondering about all these famed studies though.

Cheers,
PKFFW

You can wonder all you like, and maybe there is bias and lies (like all studies) but I'd rather take my lies from the file sharing community rather than industries who have a vested interest in the status quo (and lining their own fat pockets).

I can point you to the results from the studies and the institutions that made those studies, but I fear it would make little difference to your opinion and you would only poo-poo the results.

Instead I give two exemplums:

Before I got my liseuse I downloaded and read a few Cory Doctorow novels, which I then purchased in pbook. Free lead to sales.

After buying my liseuse and downloading ALL of Cory Doctorow's work for FREE I re-bought all of Cory Doctorow's available pbooks and donated them to the local library.

The only people who ever lose out from file-sharing are those not file-sharing.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by JoeD

Steve's books would likely be just as widely available on torrents even if he used as much DRM as currently available. When you consider the best form of eBook DRM is not to release an eBook (no DRM to strip) and that those books (Harry Potter for example) are still actively pirated in electronic form, it doesn't say a lot for the success of DRM.

Agreed, DRM is trivial to bypass, but authors who release with an anti-DRM stance are more likely to be taken seriously I think, at least by me. Any author who advocates DRM in any shape or form I would class as uninformed and possibly stupid.

If I were an author I wouldn't be excited to see my books torrented, but I do agree that I also wouldn't see it as a lost sale. However, I would make an attempt to have the torrent taken down or the website remove my books.

I admire your determination, but as someone much more intelligent than I said; "Trying to take something down from the internet is like trying to remove piss from a swimming pool." At the very least you'll be seen as an idiot by the greater internet community, and more than likely you'd become a target for scorn and attack if you tried to enforce your copywrongs.

I've often wondered why well known authors don't sell eBooks directly from their own on-line site. There is still a need for publishers in the print world, but other than marketting is there really such a need online? Ideally authors would sign contracts that allowed publishing ebooks on their own sites whilst still also distributing them in various on-line stores. Best of both worlds, hardcore fans may buy direct giving the author a higher income, whilst stores will help get the book under the eyes of new customers.

All I can think is that many print authors had their ebook rights tied up as part of their print contracts? Any authors on here able to give us some insight into this?

As far as I know there are a few reasons the agented/trad published authors don't release their own work online and without publishers:

1: Stephen King Syndrome. This author has reached a point where he or she or sometimes It (Dan Brown) can release whatever they like and it will sell. You can visually spot this kind of author in the wilds of your local bookstore. They're the ones whose names are bigger than the titles of the books. They don't have to think about sales in the first instance, so they don't think about selling their own wares without a publisher in the second instance.

2: Book Fundies - These authors still believe that the actual physical books are magical, that the very act of transference from one media to another will kill whatever magic was there in the first place. They're fundamentalists of paper and pulp and will never make the switch.

3: Bluddites - these authors have no idea what's going on and can barely use a computer, let alone figure out how to produce and sell books from their own website.

4: The Misinformed - A lot of top-selling authors would probably make just as much from ebook sales direct from their own site as they would through trad publishing, but the beasts in the middle, the gatekeepers whisper constantly into their ears that it won't work, that it can't work, that the old system is the only system that can be sustained. Agents, editors, PR people, Marketeers (pretty much not human anyway) all feed off the backs of the writer and if the status quo is broken they're all out of pocket.

5. Contracts - Stupid, locked-in, only-benefit-the-publisher contracts written up by the parasitic, inhuman, corporate lawyers. The writer (as most artists in these awful industries) is tied up and bound and has no freedom to do anything.

[ghostyjack]

I can see and understand both sides of the argument, and I don't think either will sway the other.

I'm a self-confessed file-sharer and have downloaded quite a bit of music, film, books and applications over the years, but you wont find much (if any of it) on my PC's or any of my storage mediums.

The reason for this, is I use it as a "Try before you buy" system. I don't want to purchase something that will turn out to be a pile of crap, so I use file-sharing to check it out first and then go and buy it.

This has proven a good method of preventing wasted purchases by myself, I've only got a limited budget and need to not waste any money.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by acidzebra

For 99.9999% of all authors, piracy isn't an issue, obscurity is. For the ones lucky enough to have broken through the obscurity barrier, piracy has ceased to be an issue at all (unless they are exceptionally greedy and/or paranoid).

That, I agree with, even for authors who sell only ebooks. I just believe they have somewhat more pressing concerns (not: reasons to be 100% against) about filesharing than authors who produce physical books.

Like authors of pbooks who give away some copies on book-signing tours, they have to consider how well the freebies work to bring publicity vs the lost sales. It's a balancing act, and one that currently, they have no effective way to manage, unlike authors who give away pbooks.

[Spectrum]

ebook pbook abook ...piracy is rampant.
The Pandora box is open and breaking DRM is "FUN" for challenged coders.
They may not read/use drm stripped works but have great fun in dismantling DRM.
So we need to get over the angst and move on...

[K-Thom]

Moejoe, your whole attitude and point of view is the main reason I won't consider the Pirate's Party a serious political or social movement. Which I'm not going to vote for on tomorrow's election in Germany, since I simply won't support filesharers' juvenile motivations.

Grow up and respect the work of others, then we'll talk again.

I can point you to the results from the studies and the institutions that made those studies, but I fear it would make little difference to your opinion and you would only poo-poo the results.

You won't really make your case with that stance.

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

I admire your determination, but as someone much more intelligent than I said; "Trying to take something down from the internet is like trying to remove piss from a swimming pool." At the very least you'll be seen as an idiot by the greater internet community, and more than likely you'd become a target for scorn and attack if you tried to enforce your copywrongs.

I hope I'm not the only person who is glad that despite the futility of it, people still do their best to stop others urinating in swimming pools. Or should swimming pool owners just allow anyone to do so because they can't stop everyone from doing it?

[Andanzas]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

I can point you to the results from the studies and the institutions that made those studies, but I fear it would make little difference to your opinion and you would only poo-poo the results.

Instead I give two exemplums:

Before I got my liseuse I downloaded and read a few Cory Doctorow novels, which I then purchased in pbook. Free lead to sales.

After buying my liseuse and downloading ALL of Cory Doctorow's work for FREE I re-bought all of Cory Doctorow's available pbooks and donated them to the local library.

Yeah, I am sure that libraries everywhere are overwhelmed by the generosity of file sharers.

I'd rather have a link to those studies, thanks.

I am sure they don't apply to Spain.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by K-Thom

Moejoe, your whole attitude and point of view is the main reason I won't consider the Pirate's Party a serious political or social movement. Which I'm not going to vote for on tomorrow's election in Germany, since I simply won't support filesharers' juvenile motivations.

Grow up and respect the work of others, then we'll talk again.



You won't really make your case with that stance.

Grow up? Are you serious? You do understand that when a certain someone tells a certain someone else to 'grow up' what they are actually doing is admitting defeat? But lets actually address some of your silly claims.

One; I do respect the works of others, but respect is not the same as bowing down to ridiculous IP rights and the companies behind them (rights that are only a recent invention in any case). Disavowing the ridiculous IP of certain mega-conglomerates is how we fight. Ignoring Copyrght is another.

Two: If it is juvenile to want to do that which has been done since the beginning of our existence as human beings, then I am juvenile. If it is juvenile to want to share that which I have created with others, then I am juvenile. If it is juvenile to want the power to transfer back into the hands of creators, then you may call me juvenile.

Three: I make a vocal stance. I give my creations away freely. I advocate others do the same. Now, let me ask you what do you do? What is your part in the copyfight? Are you, as many others, a simple bystander, who has no part, who does not care? Do you sit on fences awaiting the outcome? Or have you no opinion at all? Are you beige in all this?

Some reports and other articles that may be useful for those who claim they need them to make up their mind:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...ectualproperty

142 page report on economic benefits of filesharing (in dutch) http://www.tno.nl/content.cfm?contex...=1&item_id=473 (Torrentfreak report on this report here: http://torrentfreak.com/economy-prof...cludes-090119/)

Fifty Cent on filesharing as marketing

File sharing good for music biz - http://www.openbusiness.cc/?p=158 (original report here: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/node/409)

Radiohead: Filesharing good for Music: http://government.zdnet.com/?p=4538

NIN "Trent Reznor" understands where the music industry is going - http://www.fool.com/investing/genera...led-again.aspx

--------

But, in the end, all these arguments are moot. It is the actions not the words of any man or woman that shall mark their allegiances and passions. How I fight the inequity of the old system is very simply to ignore that system and to provide my own work outside of that system for free and without restrictions.

I ask again, for want of clarity, all those who claim to be on the side of the 'artists', what it is that you 'do' that truly supports those artists? Because if it is merely purchasing products, then you do nothing at all in their favour.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by JoeD

I hope I'm not the only person who is glad that despite the futility of it, people still do their best to stop others urinating in swimming pools. Or should swimming pool owners just allow anyone to do so because they can't stop everyone from doing it?

In the UK they do But seriously, you can't enforce Intellectual Property Rights on the internet, it's impossible. And IP is pretty much ridiculous in the face of the digital anyway, so why bother? Victory, if there is victory, will be pyrrhic at best.

[bavardage]

People should read Cory Doctorow's essays on the subject. He is an author. A 'successful' author.
A colletion of essays about copyright and such. http://craphound.com/content/download/

[ahi]

Personally, I think nothing short of the death penalty is sufficient deterrent for people who copy binary bytes they have not specifically purchased in binary byte format.

Anybody that disagrees needs to grow up and start respecting the intellectual right's property!

Originally Posted by bavardage

People should read Cory Doctorow's essays on the subject. He is an author. A 'successful' author.
A colletion of essays about copyright and such. http://craphound.com/content/download/

No they shouldn't. Doctorow is not a valid counterexample to the idea that piracy hurts authors, because he gives the erroneous impression that it doesn't.

In fact your slyly bringing it up in the hopes of nudging people toward kindergarten-style criminal activities is almost as heinous as burning down half a dozen rural villages.

- Ahi

[Morlac]

I really wanted to stay out of this argument because I think it's rather futile to try to convince anyone of the rightness or wrongness of piracy when they've so clearly made up their minds. However, it's been a pretty civil discourse so far, so I'm going to dip my toe into the water...

First, Moejoe, I see what you did there (and in many of your posts...)

Disavowing the ridiculous IP of certain mega-conglomerates is how we fight. Ignoring Copyrght is another.

Mega-conglomerates do own a lot of IP. So do small companies (like mine -- full disclosure: I'm a very small publisher as well as an author). So do individuals. You can argue that the interests of each faction do not always align, but it's disingenuous to characterize this as being only about mega-conglomerates.

Mega-conglomerates are not necessarily evil. They are self-interested. They can be foolishly short-sighted. They can be prone to doublethink. But all of those can be true of individuals and small groups as well. The danger lies in the fact that mega-conglomerates are powerful enough to try to enforce their will on others and do so successfully.

If, however, one believes that mega-cons are inherently dangerous, bad, or even evil, one should certainly fight back. The means you choose to do that can still be judged by others and by society at large on a moral and legal basis. While I agree that IP-piracy, especially of a digital nature, is qualitatively different from stealing physical goods or physically harming the mega-con executives, the rightness or wrongness of your cause does not instantly render your actions just or unjust. (Should a pirate who honestly doesn't care about your good fight and simply wants to get some free stuff with never a thought of paying anyone should be judged much more harshly than you?)

If it is juvenile to want to do that which has been done since the beginning of our existence as human beings, then I am juvenile.

That one is known as the naturalistic fallacy -- the false proposition that something is right because it is "natural." Well, for most of human history, it was also acceptable for the powerful to simply oppress or enslave or steal from the weaker. Heck, for most of human history we did without indoor plumbing. Personally, I'd like to keep what progress we've made in getting away from both of those states.

Some reports and other articles that may be useful for those who claim they need them to make up their mind:

Couldn't read the dutch one. Familiar with the others, most of which were, I believe, cited in Chris Anderson's "Free."

First, with the possible exception of the dutch one, these are not "studies." The Reznor and 50 cent articles are anecdotes. I'm glad that both gentlemen are realists who can find a way to capitalize on the situation. And I agree that there are ways to leverage the additional exposure piracy can provide. But that's in no way the same thing as saying that piracy is good. Polluting the environment creates vast opportunities for new businesses to take advantage of our desire to clean up the pollution. Does that mean that pollution is a good thing? Should we all join the "Polluter Party" to agitate our government to encourage more pollution so we can get better jobs with enviro-cleanup companies?

And what about the "File Sharing Good for Music Biz" study? That was a survey, not a study. It asked people who download music on legal download services questions about their own habits and attitudes. It focused on how peer recommendations and other social aspects can be used to influence consumer tastes and purchasing. In no way did this deal with the question of piracy, nor were the people polled actually pirates.

I ask again, for want of clarity, all those who claim to be on the side of the 'artists', what it is that you 'do' that truly supports those artists?

As an author I try to write what my audience will find interesting, illuminating, educational, and/or uplifting. I try to support other artists with encouragement, advice, reviews, recommendations, and, when economically possible -- since I'm a small publisher, not a rich one -- as a consumer I will buy their work.

As an editor, I try to help the author shape his or her message -- to put it in the clearest, most forceful, most compelling form possible.

As a publisher, I try to convince people to give our books a chance. In my business (educational publishing) free samples have always been around. We give free printed copies of our books to teachers and administrators to look at and evaluate. Of course that costs us money, but it's the best -- often the only -- way that they can judge whether or not it works for them. But it's one thing for us to choose to provide those free samples and quite another thing to have someone pirate them.

Moejoe and many other people on both sides of the argument seem to be intelligent, thoughtful, compassionate people. I wish there was less of the demonizing of either side going on. From Moejoe's rhetoric, I'm afraid that he will dismiss and dislike me simply because I am a publisher. That would be a sad thing, at least for me.

To anyone who's still reading this who hasn't committed to one "side" or the other yet, I hope that you found something useful in this long post!

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by bavardage

People should read Cory Doctorow's essays on the subject. He is an author. A 'successful' author.
A colletion of essays about copyright and such. http://craphound.com/content/download/

While I respect--and mostly agree with--Doctorow's opinions, and am thrilled to have access to his books in digital form (and have converted CONTENT into a reader-sized PDF for myself), his arguments don't work for everyone.

His arguments *against DRM* apply to everyone. DRM will only last as long as it takes the average consumer to notice it & care about it, which will happen as soon as the tech gets common enough. His arguments *for free distribution of digital content* are less universal (which may be why he spends less time on them); they don't apply as well for authors whose sole sales formats are digital.

I believe that Doctorow is aware that the future will be different, and old methods of publishing and promotion will not be effective. He doesn't pretend to know what will work in that future; he's working on the premise of "don't piss off the customers who'll be the main buyers in that world." But while he's got a lot of theory & background, and nicely points out a lot of the flaws of the current systems, that doesn't mean he's got good answers to move forward with.

I love his ideas; he gets me thinking about possibilities. But his ideas don't show any way to pick the best (least painful, most useful) methods from all those possibilities.