interesting NYT article on "copyright morality"

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It is relevent in the sense that if Lauzon is proposing that payment to authors should be "voluntary", then he is being hypocritical if he is not also willing to accept voluntary donations for his own work. Or is he suggesting that it's fine not to pay authors, but HE still expects to get paid for HIS work?

The argument is that if you choose to work in certain ares you have to accept different models of how to get paid. And in an area where we have non-scarcity in the way you have here you have to have models like donations or that you get paid for writing the next book beforehand. There are a lot off possible models that could work. I find it very strange that so many people assume that things must work as they do today.

[deviant]

Originally Posted by nekokami

If you think editors are useless intermediaries, why don't you stick with fan fiction, or read the slush pile at Baen? The professional authors I know all regard editors as a critical part of the creative process. (You do realize that when I say "editor" I'm not talking about someone who corrects spelling and punctuation, right?)

Sure, there are some inefficiencies in the system as it stands right now. Yes, if you buy a pbook you're paying for manual labor, and if you buy the ebook you shouldn't have to pay for that. But do you think typesetting just happens at the magic wave of a wand? Or are you happy enough with plain txt files with line and page breaks in odd places?

Maybe I shouldn't assume. Perhaps the people who don't want to pay publishers really would be happy with work that was never handled by an editor, never proofed or professionally typeset. Perhaps the people who argue that "authors would write anyway" would be happy enough with the kind of work authors are able to turn out in their spare time between one (or sometimes two) "day jobs," authors who are never able to concentrate on polishing the craft of their writing.

I know where I stand. I'd rather read works by authors who are able to devote their full time to writing. In my experience, the writing is better. Same for professional editing, copyediting, and typesetting. Perhaps these are luxuries I can afford because I'm in my 40s with a professional job, and most people, or at least most younger people, can't spare income to contribute to such niceties. I don't know.

I started this thread thinking that the darknet was by and large harmless to book authors, because most people who actually read the books they download would care enough to compensate the author by buying a book eventually. I'd like to think the folks here who seem to argue that "ideas should be free" and "publishers are greedy thieves" are a minority. But I admit I'm starting to wonder.

I stopped reading fiction a long time ago. Judging back at the money I spent on them, I would have been fine with just the bare author's work - after all, that's why I'm buying the book. If I'm, for example, buying a new home, I'm primarily interested in the house, not the lavishly and meticulously arranged garden nor the half a dozen real estate specialists to counsel me - after all, who knows my needs best?

The same thing is here. The main part of the product has been supplanted by cosmetic face-lifts. An author can release his work without proofreading or editor involvement - can the publisher release a book without the author's creative work?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by deviant

I stopped reading fiction a long time ago. Judging back at the money I spent on them, I would have been fine with just the bare author's work - after all, that's why I'm buying the book. If I'm, for example, buying a new home, I'm primarily interested in the house, not the lavishly and meticulously arranged garden nor the half a dozen real estate specialists to counsel me - after all, who knows my needs best?

An editor like function will be needed since the most important function of an editor is to be a gate keeper. Also an author needs feedback and advice so I would not like to read book were an author has no feedback.

[sanders]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

It seems to be human nature to use the 'wrong's done to us, to justify doing 'wrong' back - it's the motivation behind DRM after all.

No, the motivation behind DRM is to try and keep "scarcity" in the equation.

Since stuff which can be copied without loss of quality can be multiplied indefinitely, scarcity is no longer there. What most people here seem to be suggesting is that authoring + publishing should become more of a "busking" type of job: You play your instrument at the street corner and hope someone will throw in a dime.

People walking by, not interested in the music, probably won't pay. But people standing there for hours, listening and enjoying the music, can also simply walk away without paying. In fact, it's perfectly OK to record this music, go home, and put MP3s of it on the internet so people can download it from home and feel even less bad about not paying.

I'm not sure I want to be in the "spend several years + several thousand dollars, then hold up your hand and hope for the best" business. I bet this is what is keeping most publishers away from a digital, DRM-free distribution model. Especially because the consensus seems to be that there is no moral obligation to pay anything whatsoever. If there's not even a moral obligation, then why the heck should they expect anything?

But, as others have noted: People keep simply re-iterating their points of view, and keep justifying their actions. Even 13 pages deep into the discussion, people still claim that publishers take 92% of the proceeds. I give up.

Happy new year to all of you, regardless :-)

[junkml]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It is relevent in the sense that if Lauzon is proposing that payment to authors should be "voluntary", then he is being hypocritical if he is not also willing to accept voluntary donations for his own work. Or is he suggesting that it's fine not to pay authors, but HE still expects to get paid for HIS work?

Maybe he would be more willing to use a different payment model (not necessarily the "voluntary" model, if he was going to get smaller payments, but get them for the rest of his life (and his children, and his grandchildren....)

I'm being a little facetions there, but the fact is that working as an author already has a completely different model than being a software engineer.

[bojan]

HarryT, I agree with you with most of the views expressed here, and I would say that lots of arguments here even have no point of being discussed, like if author or publishers should be payed for his work, or how should they get paid. But I have to say that with the 'gray' areas of the whole matter you do have a very strong moral positions.

So, here is my question: it looks like paperbackdigital has today gone out of business, and what this means is, that people have essentially lost their ability to re-read their books. In your opinion what should people do, to re-read their lawfully bought books:

1. buy yet another pbook or ebook and read it
2. go on darkent, download the book and read it
3. forget about it and not read it, after all they were not buying a book, but a limited license to read the book

I think what it comes down to, is a moral decision what is right, and you will have a very hard time of convincing anybody to go out and buy the same ebook again...

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Cheapness of product can certainly lower the cost of an item, but it doesn't mean that it has "no value".

I have no idea what you are talking about.

I said nothing about cheapness. I talked about scarcity and how when scarcity goes down, the value of item goes down.

pBooks are by definition scarce. eBooks by definition are not.

Originally Posted by HarryT

You haven't answered my question about whether or not you expect to get paid for your work, or whether you rely on voluntary donations?

I thought I made it clear. What part did you not understand?

Originally Posted by HarryT

You appear to be advocating the viewpoint that payment for books should be non-manadatory - do you "practice what you preach" by not charging for your work, or do you in fact expect to get paid for it?

I am advocating nothing. I simply pointed out alternative business models that seem to be working for other people.

[mrkai]

Originally Posted by bojan

So, here is my question: it looks like paperbackdigital has today gone out of business, and what this means is, that people have essentially lost their ability to re-read their books. In your opinion what should people do, to re-read their lawfully bought books:

1. buy yet another pbook or ebook and read it
2. go on darkent, download the book and read it
3. forget about it and not read it, after all they were not buying a book, but a limited license to read the book

Because as many violations of MrKai's Rule as we've had in tis thread in the realm of theory and morality...I'd like to know now what these customers, these CUSTOMERS are supposed to be told to do.

[Liviu_5]

Originally Posted by sanders

No, the motivation behind DRM is to try and keep "scarcity" in the equation.

Anyway to me it's very clear that drm does not sell and any attempt to build an e-book business based on it will remain small and insignificant.

On the other hand I completely agree that there is no reason for publishers to release e-books at all, so that's fine too. Better to sell nothing than be pirated after all

How much better you will feel as an author that is not pirated but sells almost nothing compared to JK Rowling who is so pirated

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by mrkai

Because as many violations of MrKai's Rule as we've had in tis thread in the realm of theory and morality...I'd like to know now what these customers, these CUSTOMERS are supposed to be told to do.

They can do nothing. They didn't buy an eBook. They bought a license to read an eBook on a limited number of devices for a limited time.

[mrkai]

Originally Posted by hogleg

As a side note, I started off this conversation being a pro reader author. I specifically went with a publisher with an eBook sales model. I have notice how a few bad apples have spoiled this barrel. I quit reading this long ago, and Im only posting this because this was the newest thread in news.

It is obvious to me that in spite of all the good discussion I've seen, rational people tend not to steal anyway, and so what's left? Will I try to convince a bunch of thieves they're wrong? Think they'll change their minds? Not when they get some else's work for free.

This is inane...at best.

So, you choose to go with a publisher that has the sense to sell your book to people that wish to buy it...but are MORE CONCERNED with people that...AREN'T CUSTOMERS?

Not a single thing you've posted has offered any insight whatsoever. Most of it is full of vitriol and cursing.

Assuming whatever you wrote was worth something TO BUYERS anyway, it is a 100% certainty that it would end up in electronic form and you would make NOTHING off it.

To be with a publisher that has the savvy to be aware of this and have a business plan for it is a great step.

And I feel you are a coward...to come here and insult people that are "pirates" and "thieves" and "dishonest"...but you yourself lack the honesty to put your Name on your comments so that folks that don't agree with you (you know, people that desire and wish to purchase eBooks...but will get them anyway as a second choice) would not be able to identify you and how much distain you have for "potential customers"...while conversely coveting "potential revenue"...and thusly avoid your book like the plague.

I'm glad these people were able to feed your confirmation bias. You would be better served tho, listening to people that want to buy what you are trying to sell than obsessing over those that do not.

[Greg Anos]

With due respect to all the poster's on the thread, it seems to be a discussion of hardened positions, rather that a look at the potential change in morals due to the availability of pirated materials. (Liviu_5's first post). I'm going to post my view on how we got here, morally and ethically (you may substitue ethos if you prefer), and then where (and why) we seem to be going. Please save your brickbats until the end.

First, the word <steal>. All ethic systems traditionally defined <steal> as taking an object from one entity by another without permission or compenation. When that occured, the former owner no longer had the property, and the new acquirer then had it. But it was based on the concept of a transfer of property, not the creation of a new property. If I <stole> an apple from you, I had an apple and you no longer had one. If I had a machine that could make unlimited free apples (given a pattern) and I bought (or borrowed) a pattern apple, I didn't <steal> the original apple, no matter how many copies of the apple I made. You may argue I have broken other laws, but not <stealing>. You either still have your apple (after I returned it) or I bought it legally. The glut of apples may make them commercially worthless, but again, that is not <stealing>. (Other criminal labels may apply.)

From the beginning of civilization until the time of Gutenberg, the above concept was true, as there was no way to make (unlimited) cheap copies of anything. Gutenberg created the first mass-production technology - printing.
This was so different from anything before, it several hundred years before it started to reach legal definition (Statue of Anne (ca. 1710)). You can look in Roman law, Greek philosophy, Chinese and Indian philosophy, ect. and not find it. Nor in injuctions from sacred texts, either (stealing was always defined as property transfer - not unathorized (sic) property creation).

So when we talk of the morality of Intellectual Property(I.P.), remember, this concept has been around only 300 years (or so) out of 5000-8000 years of civilization. It is a creation of modern man, not given from on high (so to speak).

The whole concept of providing legal protect to what we now call I.P. was to provide a <limited> monopoly to the creators of new ideas, to encourage their creation. In reality, it was to protect producers who used I.P. to make a massed-produced product from competition. All mass production required large production runs to defray the equipment cost of production. I.P. protection allowed one to charge more, and pay off factory costs faster. This was true whether you were talking Patent or Copyright. This is a <very> important point. Once given the protection of law, I.P became self-enforcing under the mass-production worldview. If you could have your Capital (i.e. factory) seized for I.P. infringment, no one wanted to take that risk. The gain would be little and the risk (economically) large. Therefore I.P. gained value as a thing in and of itself, and created industries based on it (i.e. authorship and inventors).

Unfortunately, the world has continued to change. First, The invention of the photocopy machine made copying printed material cheap, without having to invest any capital at all. Second, the home computer (whatever other things it is used for) made a cheap and readily available digital copying machine. Finally, the coming of the internet allowed the rapid transfer of digital information between all these copying machines. Suddenly, huge numbers of people had the I.P. equivalent of factory sitting in their homes - paid for, and <lots> of things to manufacture (sic). The economics of mass-production I.P. was shattered. The collateral damage is the primary industries making I.P. The higher the I.P. content, the more the damage.

This is not going to change. It's only going to get worse. (You may not like it, shucks, <I> may not like it. But either way, it isn't going to change reality.) I.P. was (and is) an artifact of mass-production methodelogies, and live and dies by them. When there is a large economic profit to be gained by breaking laws, those laws get broken. Eventually, they get repealed.

Sorry about the length. 30.

[Trenien]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

From the beginning of civilization until the time of Gutenberg, the above concept was true, as there was no way to make (unlimited) cheap copies of anything. Gutenberg created the first mass-production technology - printing.
This was so different from anything before, it several hundred years before it started to reach legal definition (Statue of Anne (ca. 1710)). You can look in Roman law, Greek philosophy, Chinese and Indian philosophy, ect. and not find it. Nor in injuctions from sacred texts, either (stealing was always defined as property transfer - not unathorized (sic) property creation).

I will put in a small addendum here.
Despite what most of us were taught in school, Gutenberg wasn't the first to invent movable type printing. The oldest known occurrence was in China and predates it by a few hundred years. Note that I'm not splitting hair here, it is relevant: until a very recent time (less then twenty years), there was no concept of copyright in China (and most of SouthEast Asia). As a matter of fact, although laws exist, they seem to be mostly ignored.

So we have to remember that copyright came about because of easiness of reproduction, but only in Europe (and its former colonies after a while) which then strong-armed the rest of the world into adopting it.

That doesn't mean it's necessary to have intellectual work produced.

I'll give one example. A while back I chanced upon a Chinese TV series that I found somewhat interesting (big production in the same genre that of 'Crouching Tiger, Hiding Dragon'). But the most interesting thing was that you could completely download a dvd-rip version of it although it'd only begun to be shown on TV.
Discussing about this way of doing things(strange for me, used to the way tv series producers work in the western world), I found out it a completely standard practice:
- A TV company decides to produce a new serie.
- They first completely film and post-produce it.
- On the day the fist episode is shown on TV, they release the complete serie on dvd: that way, they get first mover advantage to the market and will catch the greater portion of the people who are likely to buy the dvds.

Of course, afterward the copyrights infringers (real ones here) will release cheaper versions, but it seems being first on the market is enough to keep doing business.

[Greg Anos]

Quite right, Trenien. No historical slight was intended, I was trying to keep a long post as short as possible. I, therefore, limited it to a straight-line Western view of copyright.

The Chinese method of quick release is very similar to what was done in the West in the pre copyright days (and during the early copyright days as well). Get it out quick and sell to the early adopters, knowing that knockoff competition would force down the price soon. (sound familiar?) In the early copyright era, the sale of works piecemeal as serials in magazines encouraged paying the price of a book (then) to get the latest work of an author.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by bojan

So, here is my question: it looks like paperbackdigital has today gone out of business, and what this means is, that people have essentially lost their ability to re-read their books. In your opinion what should people do, to re-read their lawfully bought books:

The problem is that you cannot add or change the PID of the ebooks purchased at PaperbackDigital since they are now out of business. BUT, you CAN still READ them on the device(s) you've originally authorized them to be read on. However if you purchase a new device such as a Gen3 or iLiad, you are out of luck as far as reading any of them on your new device. DRM has just jumped up and bit you on the ass and is laughing big time at you. The best option you have is to contact Mobipocket and see if there is anything they would be willing to do for you to solve your problem. If not, you are out of luck as far as reading them on any other device not authorized and frankly, I think it stinks.