Buy vs license article

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash

It may seem like a consumer "upside" from the producers' point of view, but I have a feeling many of those consumers doing what you describe feel like they're having to jump through hoops to use the content. Plus you're only looking at one segment of consumers - any consumers not able or not willing to take those steps are stuck with what they can get. They're not enjoying the upside you describe.

Originally Posted by FF2

While the numbers may grow, I have a feeling that a very tiny percentage of ereader users do any such thing.

I didn't mean to imply that ALL consumers are doing the things I mentioned. The average consumer is buying a digital file and reading it on their reader of choice. What I did mean to imply is that the consumer has the option of doing the things I described... they are not effectively prevented from doing those things.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

I’m so sick of this argument... PEOPLE STEAL. People steal all the time. They steal books, they steal cars, they steal purses – of course they’re going to steal ebooks! That you would think any differently shows either a willful decision to ignore the obvious or a slightly unbelievable naivety. I every time I read a publisher/author react with surprise. "OMG, someone stole a copy of my book! Now I have to treat all my loyal and paying customers like thieves in order to punish those people who were never going to give me money in the first place."

I, a legal user and customer, am sick and tired of being treated like a thief simply because thieves exist.

Are you saying it's acceptable to steal, then? I, as a member of the society at large, would disagree.

I also take umbrage to the implication that I, and all content producers, treat my customers as thieves. The act of applying security to one's goods to prevent theft is NOT treating all customers as thieves. Security is designed to deter actual thieves. Non-thieves should not be inconvenienced by the existence of security, any more than is necessary to deter actual thieves.

However, I also made clear in my comment that a balance should be struck between applying security and inconveniencing customers (by which, I mean honest customers... not the thieves). Presently, digital security systems do not strike a good balance, and that needs to be fixed. However, "a good balance" doesn't mean "swing the doors open, turn your back and let the consumers do what they will." That particular sales method hasn't been successful for too many content producers, and it isn't going to get any better.

And as a content producer, I'm sick and tired of being called names and stolen from, especially when I don't even apply DRM to my products, by people who believe I'm an ogre because I understand the need for product security.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

The consumer can buy a digital file, fairly easily break any DRM that exists, make as many copies as they desire, shift to other formats, and read on any device they desire. They can also give some copies away, and in most cases, not be concerned about legal reprisal.

For the record, if they search, they can often obtain the file without paying for it, and still have the same options.

Yes, I'd consider that a much better deal than content producers and sellers get.

Are you actually saying that the consumers get the better part of the deal because they can pirate?

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

I didn't mean to imply that ALL consumers are doing the things I mentioned. The average consumer is buying a digital file and reading it on their reader of choice. What I did mean to imply is that the consumer has the option of doing the things I described... they are not effectively prevented from doing those things.

There's nothing effectively preventing me from performing brain surgery on my roommate - except it would be illegal and I don't know how to perform brain surgery.

Theoretically, every consumer has the option to strip DRM for most available formats, simply on the basis that the tools exist to do so. But there are plenty of people effectively prevented from using those tools.

I would like to state at this point that if you are getting attacked for merely being a content producer, that isn't fair because YOU personally aren't a part of that problem - you clearly give people multiple DRM-free format options, as well as giving them the option to buy directly from you or from their preferred retailer. I appreciate that, believe me, because it eliminates three problems: DRM, format issues, and the prevailing retail model. Four, actually, if you count Agency pricing. All of these issues cause frustration for many. You provide what most of us want - options. Thank you for that.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash

There's nothing effectively preventing me from performing brain surgery on my roommate - except it would be illegal and I don't know how to perform brain surgery.

Theoretically, every consumer has the option to strip DRM for most available formats, simply on the basis that the tools exist to do so. But there are plenty of people effectively prevented from using those tools.

That's my point: There are laws and law enforcement agencies designed to prevent you from performing brain surgery without a license or customer agreement. There are no such effective tools related to ebook manipulation. The only thing preventing people from manipulating ebooks is a lack of desire to do so (or lack of access to someone who knows how to do it for them). The tools can be legally obtained, easily learned and used without fear of reprisal, because no law enforcement agency is likely to catch them.

And I appreciate your saying that I'm not part of the problem. Unfortunately, I'm still being stolen from... so I, maybe more than many other producers, should have a say in how my work should be protected.

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

That's my point: There are laws and law enforcement agencies designed to prevent you from performing brain surgery without a license or customer agreement. There are no such effective tools related to ebook manipulation. The only thing preventing people from manipulating ebooks is a lack of desire to do so (or lack of access to someone who knows how to do it for them). The tools can be legally obtained, easily learned and used without fear of reprisal, because no law enforcement agency is likely to catch them.

Perhaps we've just had different experiences when it comes to computer users. My mom has been using a computer for nearly a decade, and it was only this year that she's been able to consistently get photos off of her camera and into the Kodak software. But she's good at shopping online, and she'd be one of the first to grip that an ebook is a dollar cheaper at B&N than Amazon.

There are also people who are hesitant due to the fact that DRM removal hasn't been thoroughly legally tested. The information available online is often contradictory. Couple that with the fact that, in some cases, the company they bought their device from can see what's on it... For some people, that's an effective deterrent. I think this goes a little deeper than just a "lack of desire" to do it. Most people have a line they won't cross. Mine? I wouldn't do it for my mom or anyone else. I would only be willing to do it to my own files that I personally purchased and control, and I don't share my files with anyone.

I guess I just feel that your argument both underestimates and overestimates a lot of people.

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

And I appreciate your saying that I'm not part of the problem. Unfortunately, I'm still being stolen from... so I, maybe more than many other producers, should have a say in how my work should be protected.

I agree, you should have a say. I'm not arguing that. And it sickens me that people would steal from you ESPECIALLY considering your accessibility and pricing. But the honest consumers who spend money on ebooks want to have a say too, and to many it seems that it's the pirates who have the most say because all the answers lead back to the fact that people are stealing. I would say that's why people react badly - it's another case of "one person (or many in this case) ruins it for everybody". It may be timeless but it never goes over well or quietly. It's certainly not your fault, though. It's just where things are at in this relatively new area. To go back to the topic of this discussion, people are used to buying physical goods and being able to vote with their dollars. Suddenly they are paying for things they can't own, and getting it from somewhere else is no longer as simple as it used to be. It sucks, and I still assert that saying, "anyone can get around it" is false.

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by Doug Huffman

The prices are rental prices, unless you know of some limitation on "rental prices." Capitalism functions properly only in an intelligent and educated (I think that means skeptical) market. No one has ever gone broke overestimating the stupidity of the market.

And that's another reason why capitalism has never functioned "properly". Or at least in the way that its proponents claim it does.

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

That's my point: There are laws and law enforcement agencies designed to prevent you from performing brain surgery without a license or customer agreement. There are no such effective tools related to ebook manipulation. The only thing preventing people from manipulating ebooks is a lack of desire to do so (or lack of access to someone who knows how to do it for them). The tools can be legally obtained, easily learned and used without fear of reprisal, because no law enforcement agency is likely to catch them.

And I appreciate your saying that I'm not part of the problem. Unfortunately, I'm still being stolen from... so I, maybe more than many other producers, should have a say in how my work should be protected.

Who's "stealing" your Work? You've found torrents? Any evidence that this activity has actually cost you Money?

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

The consumer can buy a digital file, fairly easily break any DRM that exists, make as many copies as they desire, shift to other formats, and read on any device they desire. They can also give some copies away, and in most cases, not be concerned about legal reprisal.

For the record, if they search, they can often obtain the file without paying for it, and still have the same options.

Yes, I'd consider that a much better deal than content producers and sellers get.

Are you opposed to readers being able to read books they've purchased on whatever device they own? Should I not be allowed to read books I purchased on my ol DX on my new Nook Color?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

Are you opposed to readers being able to read books they've purchased on whatever device they own? Should I not be allowed to read books I purchased on my ol DX on my new Nook Color?

Of course consumers should be able to read their books on any device they prefer... that goes without saying.

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

Who's "stealing" your Work? You've found torrents? Any evidence that this activity has actually cost you Money?

Yes, I've found torrents of my work, the best and the worst.

And as for what it has cost me: I submit that having (or not having) hard evidence that people are downloading those torrents is in fact not germaine to the issue. Torrents are designed to be uploaded and downloaded anonymously, so naturally there is no "evidence" that a particular consumer has uploaded or downloaded a torrent with my work, and therefore no concrete dollar amount can be derived.

However, we all know that the torrents are being created with stolen works (including mine) and downloaded by others, which means works of mine are being downloaded within those torrents. As I am not being paid for those works, that constitutes stealing my work. Q.E.D.

As this situation clearly exists, and as I have no way of exacting legal recompense for my losses, I claim that the balance between me and the consumer is heavily weighted in the consumer's favor.

[FF2]

I think the question was more along the lines of "would those who torrented your files (presuming you are right and folks are taking your stuff) actually have purchased your offerings? Or would they not have purchased if they had to pay? So, if they would never have purchased, then even though they stole it, does not mean you lost any money."

Impossible to actually figure out or calculate. But then those are not really consumers who have a better position than you (or the more generic seller of ebooks or e-property).

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by FF2

I think the question was more along the lines of "would those who torrented your files (presuming you are right and folks are taking your stuff) actually have purchased your offerings? Or would they not have purchased if they had to pay? So, if they would never have purchased, then even though they stole it, does not mean you lost any money."

Impossible to actually figure out or calculate. But then those are not really consumers who have a better position than you (or the more generic seller of ebooks or e-property).

Even if they those that download his books for free never would have purchased them in the first place they are still thieves and author has every right to despise them.

What about those who sneak into a movie theater? Are they guilt free if they never would have paid to see the movie otherwise? (forget the trespassing for the moment)

[CommonReader]

Unfortunately the publishing industry seems to have learned little from the experiences of the software and music industries. There is no point in going to war with your own customer base by harassing your customers with restrictive license agreements and clunky DRM restrictions. The legal option has to be more attractive than the alternative of downloading books from some server in Russia. The customer who has to fiddle with his files and requires a DRM-cracking software just because he has switched from Kindle to Sony-Reader will start to wonder why he hasn't downloaded the books from the net in the first place and saved himself all that trouble.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

The issue illustrates the vital need to look at digital media differently from print media.

Compare a horse to a car: A car owner can use a car similarly to a horse, and even do things with it that the horse can't do (as well as getting used to the things a car can't do that a horse can). Similarities aside, you have to consider both differently: A car is not alive; car models are interchangeable with each other; a car can't be fed oats to fill up; tires cost more than horseshoes; etc.

Printed books and ebooks are the same: They do similar things, and some things that one does the other cannot do. But they are different entities, and must be looked at differently. The law will have to treat them differently, and producers and consumers will have to get used to treating them differently.

I feel that those who insist we treat ebooks like printed books are ignoring a basic fact of life... things change, and we must change with them, or we are sabotaging that change, making it less than it could be. In this forum (and including this thread), we argue these points to great extent, but they can all be distilled down to a basic idea: Change vs No Change. And as a sub-topic, which changes are beneficial to the new thing, and which are not.

Unfortunately, instead of discussing the issue itself, we get bogged down on minor details first, and tend to act as if those minor details are the issue itself. This thread is the perfect example of that: Arguing the merits and contrasts between buying vs licensing is missing the point; those are effectively abstracts, used merely to help define the things we can and cannot do with a product. Many threads I've started in the past have quickly broken down to debating the abstracts connected to the subject, and as a result, the thread went nowhere.

We should be discussing the best method for handling ebooks, what should and should not be acceptable, and worry about definitions later. In fact, the establishment of acceptable practices will help define the new definition that will be applied to the new product.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Even if they those that download his books for free never would have purchased them in the first place they are still thieves and author has every right to despise them.

It is still copyright infringement here in the real world. And NOT theft!