|
To: PKFFW
> can we stop the semantics game of "copies" versus "content".
We shouldn't. By continuing to use words copy and content interchangeably, you are in danger of fooling yourself into illusion that these are sort of the same thing. The difference is quite practical.
Suppose I buy an e-book. I then have a choice of 14 different formats for download. I choose zipped html. I download the file and extract the html. I then run a script that replaces unicode characters between 1040 and 1103 with html literals. I save the file with different name. I then import the resulting file into mobi reader and sync it to my CyBook. Later that night, a backup script zips both the html versions up again and stores them on external HD.
How many books did I buy? One. How many copies of that book do I now "own"? There is no meaningful answer to that question.
You cant really buy nor sell a "copy". You can buy or sell a set of rights to your content - a license.
The first industry to come into contact with null-price copying and distribution was the software industry. We now sell licenses, not copies. For example, as far as I remember, Borland used to sell his compilers under license that basically came down to this:
We just sold you some software. You can install that software on however many comupters you like. However, by accepting this license, you agree to make it so that only -one- person is using the software at any given time.
> So what do you want that "copy" for if not for the
> content it contains?
Backup. Format shifting. Multiple reading devices. Migrating from one computer to another. Fixing the format so it can be displayed on devices with buggy software. Etc. All this causes instantiations (not necessarily even copies in the bit-perfect sense) to spontaneously appear all over the system.
> What I don't applaud is using all the "I don't like DRM,
> too high price, yadda yadda yadda" as a justification for
> obtaining the content for free.
Sure. But honestly, at some point of gross inconvenience while trying to purchase a legal e-book, you are going to lose customers. Either to pirates or to more rational sellers. If buying a book requires your potential customer to break more laws than pirating, then there is not much justification for buying either.
To: Steve Jordan
> As far as I know, I personally do not have a problem with pirates or theft.
Someone here already mentioned "lack of evidence on pirating having negative influence on non-bestseller sales". I cant find the link right now but this was an actual study - not for e-books as far as I remember, but music.
What they claimed as result was that effect of piracy depends on popularity.
Top few percent on the sales charts were visibly hurt by piracy.
Middle of the chart - there was no measurable effect.
Bottom of the chart - effect on sales was positive.
If this can be verified, then Rowling might lose money to pirates. You may gain.
Also, my respect for not selling through amazon. I too think your prices ($2.5 wth?!) are lower than optimal.
|