[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by djgreedo

That is essentially what I said. I agree 100%.

Originally Posted by djgreedo

I agree, but what is a fair price for a digital copy? The publishers believe it is the same price as a physical book. But the price of a physical book is based on more than just the text itself. It's the paper, the printing, the shipping, etc. Whether you like it or not, people generally will consider a book to have more intrinsic value than a 400kB digital copy of that book.

I agree.

What I think needs to be done is for not only authors to get rid of the "physical model" and embrace the new but also for consumers to get rid of this too.

What do I mean by that? It is all well and good to say digital copies are valueless when it suits ones purpose.(ie: in order to justify getting content for free) This doesn't address the other value of the work though. The value the work has in the reading. Instead this idea of digital copies being valueless merely becomes a justification for ones own selfish desires.

Originally Posted by djgreedo

I don't either, but I see it as inevitible. It is up to the creators of products to instill them with value.

Again, why only the creators?

It is no good harping on about the old models not working if one isn't willing to completely give up the model but rather is only willing to give up the parts of the model they don't like.

Consumers must accept that there is value. If there was no value they wouldn't want the item to begin with. Yes the value is different to what is normally attributed to the written work but it is there none the less.

Originally Posted by djgreedo

Yes. But that fits in with supply and demand, and that's how DRM is intended to force the same rules on ebooks. But DRM doesn't give us a product that can satisfy consumers.

Again, this argument is only giving up one part of the old model.

Originally Posted by djgreedo

If you could choose to get that code from McDonald's or download an identical code from the internet for free and your family was really hungry but you need your last $5 to go towards the electricity bill what would you do? That's obviously a ridiculous scenario, but it should point out that people will justify digital theft, and psychologically people will convince themselves it's not wrong when there is no identifiable victim. Since there is no way to stop that theft, would McDonald's bother to invent burgers if their recipe was impossible to protect?

Yes it really is a ridiculous scenario.

But in short, yes if all that were to happen I would have no problem with someone getting the code for free if they could.

And your last sentence sums it up really. Would McDonald's bother to invent burgers if their recipe was impossible to protect? I would say No and I would argue that more and more people will be turned away from creative pursuits if their creative efforts could never be protected and that is a sad thing to me.

Originally Posted by djgreedo

We shouldn't. Nobody is saying this content should be free. I am saying that due to technology and human nature, there is no way to provide this content in a buyer-seller way that compares directly to what we have today. There a myriad ways to monetize digital content, and I have faith that people will come up with a way that suits creators and consumers.

I have faith creators and consumers will come up with a way only if consumers admit the work has a value to them. The idea that all digital media is valueless can only lead to the idea that all digital media should be free because why pay for something that is valueless?

Originally Posted by djgreedo

I believe that the supply and demand of the future will be more along the lines of: "Pay me and I'll give you access to the next great thing that comes out of my head" rather than: "here is a thing I created. While you could easily get it for free, I'd like you to pay me."

I agree 100% on the proviso that consumers are willing to admit that creative work does have a value. The current mindset amongst many seems to be "all digital content is valueless and therefore should be free".

Originally Posted by djgreedo

Good. So we can debate about whether it is plausibe to expect content publishers to be able to profit in an environment with no supply and demand factors. I don't think it will be possible in 10 years.

Again, this is only giving up one part of the old supply/demand model. It is trying to take the old idea of phsycial supply and demand and applying only that part to the entire new digital age.

If we should give up the old ways(which I agree we should) then we should give them up totally and agree that supply and demand is not the only factor when determining value.

Originally Posted by djgreedo

Having content available for free doesn't have to mean the author doesn't get paid (and it definitely doesn't mean they don't deserve to get paid!). I am not saying that at all.

It just means they have to work out a way to get paid other than the exchange of a digital file for cash directly. It could be a subscription, it could be advertising, it could be something nobody has thought of yet.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by djgreedo

Of course the consumer's rights trump the creator's rights. The consumer has the power to not buy. In a digital age, the consumer also has the ability to get the product on their own terms regardless of what anybody thinks. It may not be morally right, but that doesn't make it untrue.

Why should consumer's rights trump creators?

Your reasoning here is no different to the old might makes right argument. Just because consumers can get content on their own terms doesn't mean that creators should simply lay down and accept that.

Originally Posted by djgreedo

I would like it to be number 2, but I don't for one second expect that to pan out. It would be an honour system, and on a global scale an honour system would be...unrealistic.

It seems more realistic to me that authors and publishers will find a new way to make money from their product, which I guess is option 3.

I think, as hans has mentioned, education is the key. We need to educate people in the idea that supply and demand are not the forces that dtermine value in the digital age. That just because something has limitless supply doesn't mean it has no value. By doing this people will hopefully come to realise that creative works have a value that is beyond supply and demand and will be willing to pay a fair and equitable price for that value.

Originally Posted by djgreedo

Firstly, a digital copy is valueless. That is not even up for debate. I think we can all agree that the value is in the intellectual property contained in a digital file.

Semantics really. How else are you going to access the intellectual property in the digital file except by reading it? So in essence the digital copy has a value because that is the medium by which the intellectual property is accessed.

Originally Posted by djgreedo

Again, nobody is claiming that content should be free and that it has no intrinsic value.

The fact is that the value cannot be compared directly to a supply and demand model because there is no limit to supply. When there is no limit to supply the percieved value drops (like economy of scale on an infinite progression).

Firstly, many are arguing that digital content should be free.

Secondly, see my earlier points about supply and demand not being the forces that should determine value in the digital age. People keep coming back to that because it supports their desire to access digital content for free.

By all means, give up the old ways of doing things. Just be man enough to give them all up, not just the parts that one doesn't like.(that is not directed at you personally)

Originally Posted by djgreedo

This debate is not about the morals of piracy or the value of creative material. It is about the inevitible changes the digital age is bringing to the way people trade in what is increasingly becomming a digital economy.

I have not seen anything to convince me that one of the following will not happen in the nearish future:

1) large-scale publishing will all but die as sales fall too much to support the current business models
2) publishers and authors (musicians, etc.) will move away from their current business models to make money indirectly from their otherwise free content.

Whether authors suffer or benefit from this is up to them.

And here I was thinking that the economy of the digital age is inherently bound up in the value of creative material. For what is economy other than the exchange of one thing of perceived value for another of perceived value?

Cheers,
PKFFW