Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Jordan
That is the million dollar problem, in a nutshell: Until a consensus is reached regarding the status of electronic files, i.e., whether they can be considered "goods of worth," "completely worthless," or something else altogether
|
Treating electronic data like physical objects is stupid. They are obviously not the same, the analogy fails left and right. The information contained in electronic files can have worth, but nobody would argue that information can be handled in exactly the same way as physical goods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Jordan
I maintain that any and all electronic versions of one of my books, for instance, have a net worth, set by me.
|
No, you can set the price you would like to receive in exchange for the books. If nobody is willing to pay that price, the net worth differs from what you think it is. The net worth is what the market will bear, not something you decide. You can value your work at X, the production costs of the work can be Y, and the price the public is willing to pay for your work can be Z. But this is really not relevant to the larger discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Jordan
If someone wants to obtain a copy of that book, they are obligated to pay me the price I set for that book. If they do not want to pay that price, they are within their rights to try to bargain a new price with me, or they can walk away and not make the purchase. They are not within their rights to take it and not pay me, especially since the book is not a commodity that they can claim to require. This is how goods have been traded for the past few thousand years, on every continent on the planet, and electronic or not, I see no reason why the practice cannot continue unchanged.
|
You've just indicated that you are unsure whether electronic data is the same as physical objects (I believe the term 'million dollar question' was used), and now you wish to pretend nothing needs to change - but the variables of the equation have changed. We've gone from a model of scarcity to a model of ubiquity. I agree in principle that nobody has the right to just take what is not theirs, but the question is, can you stop them from taking it or, preferably, incite them to spend their money?
I would say evidence provided by the RIAA and MPAA so far says "no, you can't stop them" as they, for all their posturing have made no significant dent in movie and music piracy. Given that no authors are starving due to rampant piracy of their work I would say that yes, there are ways to get people to give you money. I've checked the p2p nets, your name doesn't come up. Whatever your problems with piracy are, piracy is not your problem. Obscurity is a far bigger problem, at least, if you are looking for selling or generating interest in your work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Jordan
I would not call that "damaging democracy"... I'd call it "testing democracy." You can argue that we have such an authority over what we see and hear already...
|
Let's view piracy as a separate market for a moment. So for a given work of literature, there is a paper book market, an electronic book market, and a pirate book market. Obviously, you cannot compete with the pirate market on price. Price of the pirate market is zero or near-zero. And your proposed method of competition with this pirate market is a draconian system of control.
How well do you think that is going to work out? How do you think your consumers will react? I'm not an economist but I can see from here that it will not end well for you, the author.
In addition, DRM does not, as a rule, hinder pirates. It hinders the rest of your potential consumers.
On a side note, I love the constant references to pirates. It always reminds me of the Dutch and the British who used to/still revere their own sea heroes, while viewing the other lot as a bunch of pirates. I'm not saying data pirates are sea heroes, I just thought it was funny.