Should Demonoid Stay Down?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Let's take a real world example that we can all relate to. Let's say I bought a copy of the Harry Potter #7. Then I download an ebook copy after that. Now I have a legal pbook and an illegal ebook. But there is no legal ebook. Has anyone lost any revenue for my reading the ebook considering I have the pbook?

Having the pbook is not relevant to having taken an illegally-created e-book.

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I could have downloaded the ebook without bothering to purchase the pbook.

And you would have done so illegally.

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Now, who's pocket did I just deprive of any revenue? Nobody.

You're just evading the issue. The issue is, the e-book is illegally created. You shouldn't be getting from anyone, except JKR.

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I even added to it by the purchase of the pbook.

The only legal thing you've done in this scenario!

Originally Posted by JSWolf

...But in the meanwhile, having the illegal ebook hurts nobody.

Well, since you want to argue the case in an abstract way, you could say that because of your piracy, the legitimate author decides not to release their books as e-books, thereby depriving them of what legitimate sales they might have gotten. So you have hurt their earning potential. Congratulations: Your actions just kept someone's kids out of college!

Abstractly speaking, of course.

Once again, my point is the fact that, if the e-book is illegally obtained, it is not your right to have. For any reason.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by bingle

Actually, I think your demographics are wrong. I wasn't able to find any numbers on the percentage of teen file sharers, but according to a 2005 survey, 27% of American adult internet users download music or video files (36 million people), with half of that being from P2P services, and half being through other means (from friends' iPods, email, web sites, etc).

Just a note. I think piracy is a lot more widespread than you'd like to believe, and will only continue to be so, as the generation of children with broadband in the home and university grows up.

Well, I doubt you can trust any numbers you find on the subject... and the difference even 2 years makes, in internet age, is immense. I'm sure the numbers for teen pirating are higher, with no useful way to obtain honest answers for a survey, nor to separate their use from the use of adults or others on the same computer.

[HappyMartin]

Good grief, what a thread, anyway.

I read recently that if you divided the number of downloads sold by i tunes by the number of i pods sold you get the number 24. I guess there could be a few i pods with a few bootlegs on board.

If the theory is correct that as more music gets pirated fewer talented people will enter the main stream music industry then we should see a dropping in creative and technical standards. We know that music is being pirated so are we seeing the drop in standards?

In this thread I see a lot of reference made to traditional copyright models being destined to fail in the digital era. It is suggested that new more appropriate and enlightened models should be utilized. I am in the dark though as to what these models might be. The only concrete suggestion I seem able to find is one whereby google adds will generate the income required for survival. I can hardly wait!!

[mrkai]

Well. You have a couple of camps here...I call the the socio-religious camps and the pragma camps.

Jon gave many examples of where no actual harm or revenue is lost...the only rebuttal to this is that its "just wrong".

I have given a more...market reality based approach to the situation...but at the end of the day it really comes down to this:

No one *needs* "e-anything" do they?

If we are going to wring our hands about not getting sales from things no one needs (but granted wants) and use false-accounting to claim loss that never existed (because, in reality, it did not) then there is no solution.

e-Things are not physical. they cannot by nature be constrained. Ask yourself this: how does premium cable make money? It is a pure creative engine. The service in and of itself is the product.

All attempts at legislating restriction of what is by essence of its nature unrestrictable has, as we have seen been 1. fraught with implication and 2. doomed to failure.

Any notion to the contrary is false. As i stated before, there is a percentage of people that will pay for practically nothing. Always have been, always will be. It is also quite obvious that this group hasn't overtaken the world, and likely, will not.

The iTMS was not created to drive iPod sales. The Kindle fantasy of being the "iPod of books" is quite misguided. Most people I know and have know since the iPod existed buy CDs. They put them in their computers and the computers put them on their iPods. There isn't a point and click method that i am aware of that allows me to pull a book off the shelf here and take it with me in my reader. I think people totally miss this part of the iTunes ecosystem equation. "MP3 players" *add value* to what you already have. The Kindle and other readers do NOT do this.

A small fraction of those might sell a cd when they need to eat, but for them, the value is in the content. For most, having a "massive CD collection" is where the value is.

Neither market is inherently worse than the other from a pure business sense...they simply value different things, and are waiting really for a market to develop to suit those needs.

Personally, Steve's books are worth more to me than any bestseller that Amazon sells for the kindle, because if I no longer have a Kindle, I can enjoy Steve's work. Its really funny to me that purveyors of digital goods seem to be more worried about those that are NOT CUSTOMERS and their wants and needs than those of their customers!

Yeah, someass might buy your stuff and dump it on the internet...but most people that actually pay for something do so because it has a value to them. Those that do not don't see the value and if or not it was "out there" would not change them.

Bezos believes that he can make enough off eBooks (but not enough to price the reader better...look at its construction, materials and lower quality display vs the retail..."Whispernet" notwithstanding) via volume tho some are sold at a loss...apparently to the chagrin of some publishers.

What i think content providers in the digital space just *cannot* and *will not* come to grips with is that Digital ISN'T SUPERIOR in the minds of consumers. It is to them the difference between radio and an LP or CD. Its a "good enough lower quality" alternative to a physical thing, as much as taping off a radio is to having the record.

To YOU it isn't. Its Just as Good. Its not to them...they haven't bought it yet, and then, are proven RIGHT when they figure out their "iPod Store" songs don't work on anything else when their iPod breaks.

Ethics? Is it "ethical" to sell someone something that makes them forever beholden...because some other person once did something wrong? Hrm.

Most people can sense when someone is trying to "pull a fast one" and respond, in kind.

[mrkai]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

You're just evading the issue. The issue is, the e-book is illegally created. You shouldn't be getting from anyone, except JKR.

...then why piss and moan about not getting paid? GETTING PAID IS THE ISSUE...and if not the "issue" it is certainly the POINT...

And (obviously) begging people hasn't worked...suing children and grandmas hasn't worked.

Its almost as if folks aren't interested in remuneration. They are interested in retribution.

Can't really buy anything with vengeance tho...

[mrkai]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Well, since you want to argue the case in an abstract way, you could say that because of your piracy, the legitimate author decides not to release their books as e-books, thereby depriving them of what legitimate sales they might have gotten. So you have hurt their earning potential. Congratulations: Your actions just kept someone's kids out of college!

Abstractly speaking, of course.

Once again, my point is the fact that, if the e-book is illegally obtained, it is not your right to have. For any reason.

This is a reach. So let me get this straight...

The author decides to not release a product...and someone ELSE has deprived them?!?!

You have hurt their "potential" earning? There is NO POTENTIAL without a product!

That is like me saying "If I cannot get everybody in the world to buy my product, it is not worth getting ANYBODY in the world to buy it, so I shall not produce it and ITS ALL YOUR FAULT!!!"

What?!

There is no business but government taxation that has a guaranteed income.

This is what I was referring to before when I mentioned dishonest debate

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HappyMartin

Good grief, what a thread, anyway.

I read recently that if you divided the number of downloads sold by i tunes by the number of i pods sold you get the number 24. I guess there could be a few i pods with a few bootlegs on board.

Could be that people with iPods are ripping their own CDs and not buying the music from iTunes. That is a real possibility. You cannot assume illegal downloads without proof to back it up.

[mrkai]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Could be that people with iPods are ripping their own CDs and not buying the music from iTunes. That is a real possibility. You cannot assume illegal downloads without proof to back it up.

...an industry source/sponsored study I believe and were used as some sort of royalty argument.

As I said in a previous post here, the iPod is seen to add value to an existing music collection by most and was initially marketed, and to some degree, still is marketed as such.

There was no iTMS when the iPod was introduced. It was over a year, almost two before the iTMS was actually available. The iPod sales volume is what has brought the iTMS success.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by mrkai

This is what I was referring to before when I mentioned dishonest debate

I wasn't being dishonest. I was making a counterpoint that made as much sense as the point offered before it. An abstract is exactly that: An abstract. It has nothing to do with real life. It's a fantasy.

Read what I said at the end: "My point is the fact that, if the e-book is illegally obtained, it is not your right to have. For any reason."

[jasonkchapman]

Originally Posted by HappyMartin

The only concrete suggestion I seem able to find is one whereby google adds will generate the income required for survival.

I do know that this has worked. The original edition of The Heretic was published on the Web by a site with related non-fiction content. My royalties were based on a portion of the ad revenues. It did fairly well for me. It was, of course, snagged and passed around without the ads and without permission, but I have no idea how much I lost due to that.

As a postscript, I still made more money from the paper edition, even though it came out a year or two later.

[mrkai]

Originally Posted by jasonkchapman

I do know that this has worked. The original edition of The Heretic was published on the Web by a site with related non-fiction content. My royalties were based on a portion of the ad revenues. It did fairly well for me. It was, of course, snagged and passed around without the ads and without permission, but I have no idea how much I lost due to that.

As a postscript, I still made more money from the paper edition, even though it came out a year or two later.

Either case.

[mrkai]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

I wasn't being dishonest. I was making a counterpoint that made as much sense as the point offered before it. An abstract is exactly that: An abstract. It has nothing to do with real life. It's a fantasy.

Read what I said at the end: "My point is the fact that, if the e-book is illegally obtained, it is not your right to have. For any reason."

It really depends on how the argument is framed.

If it is a question of revenue its nonsensical because the author was paid for the words read.

Where is the value? The words...the medium...the morality? Authors wish to be paid, and should be paid.

In this hypothetical case, the author was. Since in reality, in the digital domain, exclusive distribution rights are unenforceable and in practical reality, null and void, it makes little sense to attempt to find a solution that does not address this root cause.

Its like pining for the "good old days" when blacks and women "knew their place"...pine away. Its not going to happen. It was "right" then too. Things change.

It was perfectly legal to deny women property, rights and human dignity by making them second-class citizens, and to subjugate sentient human beings as chattel. And those fighting those laws via non-compliance or subversion thereof were criminal scum. Every punishment they received wasn't nearly enough for their flagrant disrespect for the law and the...property..of others.

It is a wonderful thing that others did not see the law as so absolute.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by mrkai

If it is a question of revenue its nonsensical because the author was paid for the words read.

Check around sometime. You'll see that authors don't just get one lump sum for a single work, they get continued royalties for additional printings beyond a specified level... in other words, they get paid for each instance of a book being sold. Their publishers get paid for each instance of a book being sold. It's nonsensical to assume that an author should only be paid once when his book is sold twice.

Originally Posted by mrkai

In this hypothetical case, the author was. Since in reality, in the digital domain, exclusive distribution rights are unenforceable and in practical reality, null and void, it makes little sense to attempt to find a solution that does not address this root cause.

The fact that a law is difficult to enforce doesn't make it a bad law.

Originally Posted by mrkai

Its like pining for the "good old days" when blacks and women "knew their place"...pine away. Its not going to happen. It was "right" then too. Things change.

It was perfectly legal to deny women property, rights and human dignity by making them second-class citizens, and to subjugate sentient human beings as chattel. And those fighting those laws via non-compliance or subversion thereof were criminal scum. Every punishment they received wasn't nearly enough for their flagrant disrespect for the law and the...property..of others.

It is a wonderful thing that others did not see the law as so absolute.

What... e-books should be free for the same reason that Blacks should be free?!? Yeah... I'll have to give that some thought...

[mrkai]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Check around sometime. You'll see that authors don't just get one lump sum for a single work, they get continued royalties for additional printings beyond a specified level... in other words, they get paid for each instance of a book being sold. Their publishers get paid for each instance of a book being sold. It's nonsensical to assume that an author should only be paid once when his book is sold twice.

...as my cousin is a singer-songwriter and my father-in-law is a published author

That said...if it is nonsensical to assume a book sold in paper, bounded form is of equal value to one that is not because there are not the same thing.

But you know, you don't have to convince me. You have to convince people from whom you wish to extract cash from.

That authors and such receive residuals and royalties is of no consequence to the consumer...they made that deal and quite frankly, I think its a sucker deal. It is the way it is because authors and songwriters and such do not assume the greater risk of producing the product in question. Blame the system or produce yourself to cut out the middleman.

I mentioned Prince before. He fully acknowledges that without major backing he sells FAR LESS product. However because he assumes the greater risk in this arrangement he gets paid at least an order of magnitude more and as a result has made more cash in hand.

Writes should take a page from Sinatra. Tired of the "unfair treatment" and "devaluation" of actor's and director's talents...he started his own studio to address this.

Do writers have their own publishing houses?

[mrkai]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Check around sometime. You'll see that authors don't just get one lump sum for a single work, they get continued royalties for additional printings beyond a specified level... in other words, they get paid for each instance of a book being sold. Their publishers get paid for each instance of a book being sold. It's nonsensical to assume that an author should only be paid once when his book is sold twice.



The fact that a law is difficult to enforce doesn't make it a bad law.



What... e-books should be free for the same reason that Blacks should be free?!? Yeah... I'll have to give that some thought...

That was very good there, Steve. I like it.
Where, please, do tell, have I stated in the course of this discussion that content creators should not be paid?

Go on...show me Did you forget that i create digital content in the form of software? I get paid every day, enough so that I do not have to do it "on the side".

It is very disingenuous to put those words in my mouth, and quite a leap. People pay for digital content everyday. Lots of people. Lots and lots. Or as our freinds in the UK would say "loads" of them.

Its a matter of valuation, nothing more. It is a 100% Buyer's Market situation without question.

The only thing Sellers that do not wish to adapt to this market can really do is *not sell*...and unless you believe in Randian fantasy, it won't make a whit of difference. There will be no "epic declination of mankind" whatsoever; someone will always step in to fill the market void.

Some will do it to spite the fact that there is even a market