Massive wave of ebook piracy?

[Steven Lake]

Actually, they're not as out of touch as you might think. They just act out of touch to minimize the backlash that would happen if people discovered that they're acting the way they are intentionally to steer the outcome favorably in their direction. They know they can't stop the market from changing, but they can almost certainly steer it in ways that benefit them by forcing people unwittingly to make the necessary changes for them. Then when the time is right, they "relent" and appear to go forward into the new market begrudgingly, when they're actually sipping champaign and eating caviar in celebration of a controlled market switchover.

[SensualPoet]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Since ebooks customers are not really much like top-40 singles, it is not inevitable that ebooks will follow music into an age of routine piracy. It is not inevitable but neither is it unlikely. On the contrary, with each passing day that the current irritants stay in place it becomes more and more likely.

This is an excellent point which doesn't bubble to the surface very often.

Readers are not solely Top-40 hits consumers, and the appeal of selling 99¢ chapters from an "album of chapters" does not apply. MP3s are consumed in 3 minutes; a book is consumed over a period of days. While folks might download lots of pirated ebooks, these are in many cases "sales" that would never have happened. Some posters here brag about libraries of 10,000 e-books -- a fraction of those will get read and no doubt those posters will continue to expand their libraries with PD or pirated material.

The true failure of publishers is lacking vision to monetize what they already have, and assist their distribution channels -- old and new -- as they attempt to find a soft landing or morph into a new model. People continue to read; people continue to be willing to pay for "premium" content. Publishers have to ensure they can reach consumers in a timely way to capitalise on new content, backlist content and impulse content.

So far, publishers are still in the slow lane (and some sit in the spectator stand) watching their bricks and mortar allies wilt on the vine. There are glimmers of hope and it's not too late. But each passing day will make the transitions harder.

[yagiz]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

No it's not. You're free to open as many as you have.

Well... OK! "Opening" may not have been the right word. Let's say "Only one book can be read at any given time in a household. If someone else is reading one of its owner's other books, this one closes".

How does that sound?

I'm sure you understand where I'm going with that. Me and my wife can sit on the same sofa and read two different paper books that I bought. But if you lock the two e-books I bought to my only e-reader, then I cannot share one of them with her, even if she has her own e-reader.

[gastan]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But that is the author's own fault - nobody else's. He or she is the one who chooses to sign the restrictive distribution contract with the publisher. You can't blame the publisher for only being granted rights to sell the book in a restricted territory.

This is nonsensical. First you state that the author is responsible by signing a restrictive distribution contract, implying that the author has no control over the contract language -- implying that the author simply chooses to sign or not sign a contract presented to them by the publisher. (And I believe this is the case. Except for super-star, best selling authors, I expect that a publishing offer is most probably a "take-it-or-leave-it" deal.)

Then you say that the publisher can't be blamed for "...only being granted rights to sell the book in a restricted territory." What? If the publisher writes the contract, as you imply in your first two sentences, whose fault is it?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by yagiz

I'm sure you understand where I'm going with that. Me and my wife can sit on the same sofa and read two different paper books that I bought. But if you lock the two e-books I bought to my only e-reader, then I cannot share one of them with her, even if she has her own e-reader.

But you can. Amazon and B&N both allow multiple (5 and more) ereaders to be registered to one account. Once registered, all ereaders on that account have access to all of the ebooks on that account.

Of course, this requires all ereaders on that account to be the same brand - all Kindles or all Nooks.

[Ankh]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Yes. mp3 piracy created a demand for dedicated hardware mp3 players, which made those players a lot cheaper to buy, which created a demand for legitimate mp3 sales, which lead to a massive increase in music industry profits.

One of the reasons for the way things turned out for music industry was absolute ease of ripping CD's and conversion to the mp3 format. It was straightforward, everybody could do it within half an hour. All you needed was an access to computer with CD reader, the source CD, and access to the net. Which turned out to be within the reach of practically everybody at the time when mp3 piracy exploded and became an issue.

Publishing industry, however, now faces a substantially different situation. Yes, one could scan pbook, proofread it and and upload it to the net. The process, however, is prohibitively complex for the average person and the quality of end result depends almost completely on the amount of human work that went into proofreading.

For the blockbuster editions, pbook piracy is an issue, the pbooks WILL be pirated, but those books sell anyway.

For a smaller publishing projects, it is highly likely that demand is small enough that obstacle (amount of work needed to pirate a pbook) is effective.

So we come to the other and newly emerging source of material, DRMed (and then DRM is stripped) ebooks. "DRM liberation" is even quicker and simpler than it was with CD ripping. ANY electronic edition is in danger of this scenario, blockbusters and smaller editions alike.

So what is the first reaction of the publishing industry? Hell, cut the second supply, resist by any means and as long as it is humanely possible!

It is logical. It also doesn't work on the long run, the transition to digital content and delivery is inevitable.

[tubemonkey]

The easiest way to bring the publishers to their knees is to quit buying books in all formats (hardcover, paperback, audio, ebook); and then tell them why.

Resist the temptation to buy. But human nature being what it is, most people will buy anyway and rationalize their particular purchase. This enables the publishers to continue the status quo.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

People Rationalize Everything. Even the irrational. That's why this issue has been stuck in the same bog for a decade, and will be a decade from now.

My ebooks aren't expensive (less than $3), aren't covered with DRM, are available in most any country, have nice custom-made covers, are high quality digital products, and are not written by someone famous. And they still ended up in BitTorrents. (Yes, I've seen them.) So, obviously someone rationalized a perfectly good reason to put them there, such as "He's rich," "He's an old geezer and doesn't need more income," "He's a jerk, this'll teach him," "He's black," "He's not black enough," "He's American," "He's not a good American," "He's a geek," "He's a nerd," "He hates Madonna," "He hates Lady GaGa," "My buds will think I'm cool," "This is just for my family," "No one will see them," "No one will know I did it," "The Devil made me do it," etc, etc, etc...

Bottom line, we can't rationalize away piracy. The only thing that can be done is to make piracy undesirable, so people won't want to be bothered doing it in significant numbers. And the best way to do that is to make products available in an easy and reasonable package, so people won't think twice about just buying them.

You'll still have piracy, but the better your package is, the less piracy you'll have, and the less it will matter.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

People Rationalize Everything. Even the irrational. That's why this issue has been stuck in the same bog for a decade, and will be a decade from now.

My ebooks aren't expensive (less than $3), aren't covered with DRM, are available in most any country, have nice custom-made covers, are high quality digital products, and are not written by someone famous. And they still ended up in BitTorrents. (Yes, I've seen them.) So, obviously someone rationalized a perfectly good reason to put them there, such as "He's rich," "He's an old geezer and doesn't need more income," "He's a jerk, this'll teach him," "He's black," "He's not black enough," "He's American," "He's not a good American," "He's a geek," "He's a nerd," "He hates Madonna," "He hates Lady GaGa," "My buds will think I'm cool," "This is just for my family," "No one will see them," "No one will know I did it," "The Devil made me do it," etc, etc, etc...

Bottom line, we can't rationalize away piracy. The only thing that can be done is to make piracy undesirable, so people won't want to be bothered doing it in significant numbers. And the best way to do that is to make products available in an easy and reasonable package, so people won't think twice about just buying them.

You'll still have piracy, but the better your package is, the less piracy you'll have, and the less it will matter.

You have hit the head on the nail (ok, I'm not awake). All seriousness aside, just on these forums, I'm amazed by the "logic" used on these forums to "justify" piracy.

[queentess]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

The only thing that can be done is to make piracy undesirable, so people won't want to be bothered doing it in significant numbers. And the best way to do that is to make products available in an easy and reasonable package, so people won't think twice about just buying them.

You'll still have piracy, but the better your package is, the less piracy you'll have, and the less it will matter.

Originally Posted by ficbot

I actually agree with what he says. Personally, I have explored such sites a bit when I first got ebooks, and found most of them not up to par. I would rather have the 'proper' version. But most people aren't as picky as I am and many people I know do not re-read books (I do). So someone like my mom who will only read it once may view a download as the same as going to the library and chalk up the odd error to those old library books you would get with the coffee spills on them from previous borrowers.

I take issue with the fact that the filetypes are so branded. I don't have to have a Sony mp3 player to play Sony mp3's... why should I need a Sony reader to read Sony ebooks? (And Amazon and Nook, etc.) At some point this process needs to become painless for the consumer.

As for "the odd error"... I've read many legitimate ebooks that are chock full of errors. It doesn't make the 'real' product more appealing than piracy.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by gastan

What? If the publisher writes the contract, as you imply in your first two sentences, whose fault is it?

According to Harry?... probably the customer's.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

I'm amazed by the "logic" used on these forums to "justify" piracy.

The same is true of the "logic" used by some on here to "justify" current industry practices.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

The same is true of the "logic" used by some on here to "justify" current industry practices.

The only justification the industry needs is - "it's a free market and they can do as they wish". It's their product and no one forces the consumer to buy.

To buy or not to buy = to enable or not to enable. I choose not to buy.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

The only justification the industry needs is - "it's a free market and they can do as they wish". It's their product and no one forces the consumer to buy.

To buy or not to buy = to enable or not to enable. I choose not to buy.

Being a free market does not justify the violation of consumer rights.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by sabredog

You are quoting me out of context Harry. My first paragraph comments about the need for publishers to change anachronistic distribution models and that directly relates to restrictive contracts (with GR) offered to authors.

I'm afraid I still think you have it back to front. It's the authors who offer the restrictive contracts to the publishers, not vice versa. A world-wide publisher such as, say, Penguin, would like nothing better than to acquire world-wide rights to a book, but very often the author holds out for, say, separate UK and US rights because they can make more money that way.