interesting NYT article on "copyright morality"

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

And if your friend doesn't have a device supported by Mobipocket (like most people)?

If my friend did not have a device which supported MobiPocket, then they wouldn't be able to read the book which I'd bought REGARDLESS of whether or not it had DRM.

Most people DO have a device which supports MobiPocket - a Windows PC.

The point is, though, that if you bought eBooks specifically to share with a friend, you'd need to ensure that you had compatible readers no matter what format you used. If "sharing" is important to you, you'd probably be better off sticking to a format which comes with its own reader - ie paper books.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by MaggieScratch

But I think it's a darned shame that many very good books wouldn't be written because the authors were busy doing something else to pay the bills

That is an argument for letting the state through taxes pay authors. Why trust the market to decide what a good book is if our goal is to minimize the number of good books that are not written.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

You guys are still arguing over whose shoelaces are tied better, and avoiding kicking the damned ball!

Originally Posted by nekokami

In your mind, is it morally necessary to compensate someone for their labor, assuming they have not voluntarily donated that labor?

Hells yes!!!

We do not each live alone in our own little black holes. We live in a society that has to work together to function. In order for that to work, there have to be accepted modes of behavior, based on natural laws and common human understandings designed to allow the society to progress and thrive... those are "morals." Any society that does not practice some type of morals... is not a society, but a pack of vultures.

So, based on the progress of this thread, it's easy to see who here are the humans... and who are the vultures.

Or, to put it another way: If the scrawny crooked neck fits... wear it.

I'd say this thread is over... but it never really got started, did it?

[deviant]

So what would be the "point" of this thread?

If you are trying to convince us that the current system of copyright, intellectual property and indeed the entire state of the market is fair, and thus, moral (because morality, as I see it, cannot exists without fairness, although society doesn't necessarily need morals to exist) you should bring out arguments that support this thesis.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by deviant

If you are trying to convince us that the current system of copyright, intellectual property and indeed the entire state of the market is fair, and thus, moral (because morality, as I see it, cannot exists without fairness, although society doesn't necessarily need morals to exist) you should bring out arguments that support this thesis.

I totally agree. You also need to show that your principle allows the society to progress and thrive and the opposite does not do that. And how you can go from "thinking that some moral principle is not a good one" to "that person cannot practice any moral principle" is totally bizarre. And immoral.

[sanders]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Does anyone know the cost of a pbook (that has a price of $7.99 before any discounts) when the price of the paper, printing, shipping, storing, etc are all removed from the cost? I want to know what the price of an electronic book really costs. I'm not talking with markups. I'm talking the expense to make this book before it becomes a pbook. I'm not talking matching the ebook to the hardcover or to the new format that's just designed to suck our money from our wallets. But the ordinary pbook at $7.99 price. What is the remaining price once you remove all the pbook specific costs.

Unfortunately, the answer is "it depends". A paperback in a book store with a price of $7.99 on its cover is probably obtained from the publisher for $3.60 (standard discount is 55% off cover price). This is the "margin" for the book store.

If the price of the book is this low, that probably means it has been printed in a large run. The size of the print run has an enormous impact on the price per book. As an example, a 176-page, black and white, standard format paperback costs about $5.25 per book if you print 200, $4.50 per book if you print 500, and down to $0.83 if you print 10,000. (Numbers are from Morris Rosenthal's book on Print-On-Demand.) Say the printing costs were $0.83 for this particular example. That leaves $2.77 for the publisher.

Most other costs in book-making are fixed (i.e. they don't really vary with the number of books produced) such as typesetting, cover design, etc.

I will post another reply to this thread but I will first have to count to a very large number or my post will be moderated "abusive".

[sanders]

If people are hoping that this thread is persuading publishers to bring out un-DRM-ed ebook versions of their books, think again.

This thread has so many postings which had me shake my head in disbelief, I'm not sure I should even be posting a reply.

Someone was doubting whether publishers really add value to a book, because this person wanted some book "and it wasn't even available locally". Of course, that is considered a valid reason to just download a pirated copy. The alternative (going to the bookstore and asking them to order the book) is probably way too much work.

Instead, let's do away with publishers entirely, and simply phone up the author, ask him/her to xerox a copy of her manuscript, and mail it to you. Much more efficient, right?

And then all the bitching about whether "piracy" or "stealing" is the right term (when we are discussing morals). Okay. I will not call someone who downloads an ebook of mine without paying (because he decides it is "too expensive" or he doesn't want us "filthy publishers to profit from an author's work") a thief. I will call him a self-centered, low-life, arrogant f*ck.

Then, on to DRM. Yes, DRM sucks - but what else can a publisher do? Consider being on the train, and knowing that there is this guy in the train with you, every single day, who never buys a ticket. The train goes anyway, whether he pays or not - his little extra weight can be considered "bandwidth costs" which are negligible. When he is finally asked to show his ticket and he replies with "I don't have one, and that really doesn't deprive you of anything - if you had forced me to pay, I would simply not have taken the train".

What's more, if the guy checking the ticket says "Why yes you're right - never mind, have a nice journey!", would you still pay for your ticket next time?

Now I know that as a publisher (focused entirely on money, after all) I should simply make the trade-off whether putting out an ebook would make me more or less money than only providing a pbook. Well, this thread certainly makes me consider other factors as well, namely: do I want to make life easier for self-centered, low-life f*cks, or am I willing to forego some profit in exchange for the warm and comforting thought that someone is not hitching a free ride thanks to my extra efforts?

I am starting to lean towards the latter.

[HarryT]

Very sensible views, Sanders. I congratulate you on your common sense.

[deviant]

Originally Posted by sanders

If people are hoping that this thread is persuading publishers to bring out un-DRM-ed ebook versions of their books, think again.

This thread has so many postings which had me shake my head in disbelief, I'm not sure I should even be posting a reply.

Someone was doubting whether publishers really add value to a book, because this person wanted some book "and it wasn't even available locally". Of course, that is considered a valid reason to just download a pirated copy. The alternative (going to the bookstore and asking them to order the book) is probably way too much work.

And when the store says they can't order it? What then?

Instead, let's do away with publishers entirely, and simply phone up the author, ask him/her to xerox a copy of her manuscript, and mail it to you. Much more efficient, right?

Phone up the author? That'd be a solid alternative if it wasn't for an even better one - the Internet. If authors would put their work on the net, price it at a fraction they are sold now and thus make it widely available, they'd cut down significantly on piracy.

And then all the bitching about whether "piracy" or "stealing" is the right term (when we are discussing morals). Okay. I will not call someone who downloads an ebook of mine without paying (because he decides it is "too expensive" or he doesn't want us "filthy publishers to profit from an author's work") a thief. I will call him a self-centered, low-life, arrogant f*ck.

That's your view of things. My view is that someone is trying to rip me off and I'm not going to stand for it. How do you judge whose view is right?

Then, on to DRM. Yes, DRM sucks - but what else can a publisher do? Consider being on the train, and knowing that there is this guy in the train with you, every single day, who never buys a ticket. The train goes anyway, whether he pays or not - his little extra weight can be considered "bandwidth costs" which are negligible. When he is finally asked to show his ticket and he replies with "I don't have one, and that really doesn't deprive you of anything - if you had forced me to pay, I would simply not have taken the train".

What's more, if the guy checking the ticket says "Why yes you're right - never mind, have a nice journey!", would you still pay for your ticket next time?

"Not knowing what to do" was a good excuse when DRM was an entirely new concept. Since it's no longer a new concept it should have been removed because it fails at its purpose.

Taking your train example, a DRM would have all the passengers thrown off the train into the pouring rain as the personnel checks for tickets. The only exception to this would be the people who didn't pay, who'd hide in the train. Thus, the only people getting wet would be those that paid for the ticket. How many would take the train again?

Now I know that as a publisher (focused entirely on money, after all) I should simply make the trade-off whether putting out an ebook would make me more or less money than only providing a pbook. Well, this thread certainly makes me consider other factors as well, namely: do I want to make life easier for self-centered, low-life f*cks, or am I willing to forego some profit in exchange for the warm and comforting thought that someone is not hitching a free ride thanks to my extra efforts?

I am starting to lean towards the latter.

As a person with free will you have every right to do whatever you choose. However, you should understand that the majority of readers who can't get an ebook because of your choice won't feel much compassion with your plight. In fact, they're even more likely to use a pirated copy because there is no legally available copy.

[sanders]

Originally Posted by deviant

And when the store says they can't order it? What then?

Then either the store is too lazy to do so, or the book is out of print. Any book still in print which has an ISBN, can be ordered by the store.

Originally Posted by deviant

Phone up the author? That'd be a solid alternative if it wasn't for an even better one - the Internet. If authors would put their work on the net, price it at a fraction they are sold now and thus make it widely available, they'd cut down significantly on piracy.

If authors put their work on the net, they'd be publishers. Publishers and authors, but publishers still. They would then have to pay up for a cover designer, an editor, a proof reader, and a typographer. They would have to do the marketing themselves. They would probably even have to hire someone to do their website for them, lest the first 100 hits on Google are torrents of their stuff instead of their own web site. They would have to strike a deal with a credit card paying agency. They would have to take all this financial risk themselves, without a publisher paying them an advance.

I am going to do this (at least for the pbook version, using print on demand - I'm still not sure I'll publish an ebook) because I feel that although it means selling (far) fewer copies, I will get much better margins (and keep control over my own work, so I get to decide whether or not to do an ebook for example, instead of someone else).

It is very true that with the advent of the internet, the threshold for an author to self-publish is much lower. Especially if you're reasonably computer-savvy, which means you can save a lot of costs by providing your own camera-ready output, and set up your company website yourself.

Originally Posted by deviant

That's your view of things. My view is that someone is trying to rip me off and I'm not going to stand for it. How do you judge whose view is right?

I don't think the publishing industry is a rip-off. Brick-and-mortar book stores have amazing liberties (which date from the great depression) taking over half of the cover price of books, and not even taking much risk at that (since they can usually ship back unsold copies to publishers for a full refund - even if these copies are damaged and can not be sold anymore). Publishing is not a Get Rich Quick industry.

Still though - if you think you are being ripped off, in my view you should simply say "thanks but no thanks" and not take things into your own hands. If an exquisite restaurant thinks it can get away with asking $100 for an entree, you should simply not eat there if you don't think that's worth it. Of course, this gets us back into the "copying is not stealing" argument. Just out of curiosity - do you sneak into movie theaters and/or hitch free rides on trains?

Originally Posted by deviant

"Not knowing what to do" was a good excuse when DRM was an entirely new concept. Since it's no longer a new concept it should have been removed because it fails at its purpose.

So what does the publishing industry do? They feel there is no good DRM, so they'd rather not venture into ebooks at all.

Believe me: if there was a solid DRM which both publishers and consumers would both be happy with, publishers would jump into it feet first. Their biggest pain in the neck is currently the book stores with their outrageous margins. I'm sure they'd love to cut them out.

[Mambo]

Originally Posted by hogleg

Most writers usually don't make a living off writing. Standard royalties used to be 6%, with a bum up to 8% after 150,000 copies. figure $.45 for each book. 45,000 bucks for 100k books. Keep in mind that you may not reach that many books for 10 years, and your advance (against ryalties) may be 4 grand.

The reason I say that is that grey market eBooks don't really hurt publishers as much as they hurt authors.

You get 0.45 for a book and you say that downloaders hurt you? Man, do you know what are you talking about? How long it takes to recognize your actual enemy?

At least you should get 50% in a healthy world order. A downloader may have taken 0.45 from you but your publisher steals 3.3 per copy. (If there is book for 7.5 that is 6%, which I doubt if you can get a good book for that much.)

Let me know your book's name, I check if I accidentally downloaded and I am glad to pay 0.45 per book, but I would not have purchased it for the price of a paper book or a hardback anyway.

I don't think downloaders steal author's money. If a book was downloaded wrongfully 1,000,000 times it still does not mean that you could have sold more than 10,000 without free downloaders.

ONCE AGAIN, I CAN'T COMPREHEND (MY WIFE NEITHER) YOU GET 0.5 PER COPY and it's the fault of downloaders that you don't have money?

[Mambo]

Originally Posted by sanders

Instead, let's do away with publishers entirely, and simply phone up the author, ask him/her to xerox a copy of her manuscript, and mail it to you. Much more efficient, right?

And then all the bitching about whether "piracy" or "stealing" is the right term (when we are discussing morals). Okay. I will not call someone who downloads an ebook of mine without paying (because he decides it is "too expensive" or he doesn't want us "filthy publishers to profit from an author's work") a thief. I will call him a self-centered, low-life, arrogant f*ck.

Hi, I didn't know that authors are unaware of email. You should keep up with
technology development sometimes. Kind of efficient, but who knows what is efficient for you?

It seems that the only sin or wrongdoing a person can commit according to my readings on mobileread is stealing a book. However, stealing a book is not a deadly sin whereas degrading god's creation (people you know) in a way you mentioned above is a deadly sin.

Not everybody is perfect you know, but I guess after consuming the 100th girlfriend and swearing all day and among doing all the other evil things people are not able to distinguish any more what is wrong and what is right. So while calling downloading books a piracy, please remember that you are not any better. All people do wrong things and most of those things are worse than downloading a book.

And if we talk about morals, actually I insist that printing books on paper in the 21st century is worse than downloading an electronic copy. That's what should be illegal, printing millions of copies of crap. I wouldn't allow printing book if it's less than 100 usd worth, and I am honestly disappointed how people on Mobileread does not show any concern about the environment.

If for no other reason but the environment, downloading without a doubt should be treated as the better thing over buying a paperbook.

[Mambo]

Originally Posted by sanders

Of course, this gets us back into the "copying is not stealing" argument. Just out of curiosity - do you sneak into movie theaters and/or hitch free rides on trains?

What is not stealing for a publisher-hearted author?

I did not know that reading books in the library for free is like sneaking into movie theaters. Or what should someone do if he/she is poor in your opinion? Not reading anything and similarly not eat and die?

My view is Copying = electronic library. As long as somebody does not set up a real electronic library. And I don't think that it should be my problem that there is no infrastructure or monetary interest for such a business/service?

I think people should rebell against the existing status quo of publishers (should the new way of doing business be rather a network of authors instead of incorporated publishers?). One way of rebelling is downloading books for free or for a fair amount of money. History shows there would be no progress without questioning of the status quo sometimes, even if that questioning does not occur the right way.

[nekokami]

I don't know why I keep vainly trying to haul this discussion back to morality. But here goes one more time:

Originally Posted by tompe

I think it is obviously not morally necessary. There are no right to be compensated for any labor you choose. If I choose to do the labor of writing in this forum I do not see how there could be some moral reason to compensate me. So I think the question probably is not the correct question to pose. But I assume it depends on what donate means. Can I pick up garbage on my way to work without donating the labor?

Ok, it's fair to say I didn't word the question correctly. But let me rephrase it, please:

In your mind, is it morally necessary to compensate someone for their labor when you take advantage of that labor, assuming they have not voluntarily donated that labor to you?

In other words, we're not discussing forcing someone to compensate the laborer for arbitrary labor, we're talking about whether someone who enjoys the fruits of someone else's labor has a moral obligation to compensate the laborer -- in some form. If you like, we can also debate who sets the value of the compensation: the laborer, the one who enjoys the labors, a negotiation between the two of them, or a third party, e.g. "the state." Supposedly, in a free market, the value is negotiated by the laborer and the consumer, whereas in communism the value is set by the state.

(In any case, posting on a public forum definitely counts as donating labor. That's implied by the nature of a public forum. But you could set up a private forum in which you could post your words of wisdom and you could ask for compensation from those who would read your posts.)

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by mrkai

Anyway, he told us how he did it, and told me why: because he could. it was a challenge. It seemed a "waste" to him to NOT package it all up after all of the hours he put into it so that others might benefit, if they wished.

Now, this is...sort of robin hood logic to me, but I sort of just filed it away for awhile. He promised to behave and we got some R & D out of it all, so that was that.

Now, morally, this guy believed he was doing a service. He didn't seem to think it was wrong for us to sell our product...at all.

He also felt that people that paid for it should be able to move it to another computer without asking us first. When I mentioned that I did not agree because it was "my software" he simply said "so what do people get from you when they give you money, then? A promise?"

I had never looked at it like that, of course.

I think this is a very interesting story, and at the heart of much of the "darknet" activity. Also note that if you had not had DRM (which you are now working to get rid of), this fellow would not have been trying to crack your product, and then wouldn't have had the sense that it would be a waste not to share his effort. That effort-sharing is a big chunk of what drives the darknet. Sure, there are probably people out there who just want to take without paying, but most of them think they are paying in some way, by contributing their own materials to the darknet. I think this is misguided-- the content creators and others who help bring content to consumers aren't being compensated as they should-- but scarcity and challenge are what is driving this market. And I think the re-typing of HP7 (it wasn't scanned, it was manually retyped from digital photos) is a classic example of this.

Calling darknet users "filthy scumbag thieves" or whatever isn't going to solve the problem of content creators being compensated for work. Trying to understand what drives the darknet and remove those drivers has a much better chance, IMHO.

And no, I don't think the darknet is driven by the crumbling morality of today's youth. The drivers are much more interesting, and much more possible to address.

Which is the only reason I keep participating in these discussions, despite all the name-calling and not-listening that goes on.