Copyright is Out of Sight

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Assuming they can find what they like (or even find out what they like) amidst all the sh*t.

That would be down to marketing, but the smaller the interest group the more likely they are to find it. And tastes in fiction are just as subjective as tastes in music. One person's cack is another person's chocolate.

[guyanonymous]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Sure writers are going to write, painters are going to paint, musicians are going to play music. BUT without mechanisms in place to allow those creatives to put food in the dog bowl by making money at what they do the potential for creating great works is severely hampered. Modern tools and technologies make it easy to blog or post pictures or music and every tom dick and harry that think they are a writer or musician or artist can post their work on a web page and call themselves an artist or writer or whatever.

The mechanisms exist/are emerging to allow for creatives to sell to the world. They aren't limited by borders (unless they choose to be), by payment mechanisms (CC/visa/bank transfers etc have taken care of that), and there are mechanisms that exist which allow independent creatives to share/sell their work. There are more creatives now than ever before...and while the 'dream' is to get rich according to society, I think that many creatives will be happy to make a good middle-class income, something very possible with 6 billion people to sell to and near-zero distribution/production costs (after original generation).

Someone mentioned earlier in the thread that the best thing novelists (creatives) could do for themselves is personalize their business - become known and a real entity to their potential customers. Communication, transparency, and honesty - these are things that promote trust and create a following.

While it was written somewhat in jest, the Monkeysphere article just may apply. If we know/care about someone, we treat them differently than those we don't know. Of all the thousands of books I've read in my life, the authors I actually know and care about are those who have communicated with the public - and they're the ones I feel like I have a relationship (albeit not direct) with and care about supporting. They're the ones involving the public in the writing process, making us feel <somewhat> a part of their creative process. Are they authors and creatives who are going to get rich (ala Tom Clancy)? Probably not, but they're ones who will likely make a comfortable middle class living being creative. Will they have publishers who are going to take 50-80% of their sales profits? No...they may have editors who they contract to (or provide a smaller percentage) etc. They may hire techs to operate their sites. They may hire PR people to promote online...but all this will be at a fraction of the % previously given to publishers. (Monkeysphere is based on a real theory... https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikiped...bar%27s_number)

With millions of creatives, and more being written and created every day than ever before, world-wide distribution being easy, fast, and cheap (near zero for digital media), the supply side is over-burdened unless artificial means of scarcity are enforced. When supply is too high, prices should drop as value has decreased. I argue that a book today does not have the same monetary value today, as a book from 10 years ago did then, and of course not as much as one 100 years or 500 years ago did 100 and 500 years ago, respectively. Yet publishers and authors are trying to tell us that an infinitely available product is worth more than ever. Until an adjustment in value, here, comes through, right or wrong, piracy will continue.

I'm starting to see articles about PC piracy claiming it has started to decline and that the industry hasn't actually been hurt by it. PC gaming has changed thanks to the advent of Steam (who experiment with price, provide convenience beyond a physical game, and still provide some DRM that makes content providers happy for the most part). Companies, small and large, are able to effectively sell and profit from the tail-end of their catalogue - the old games that normally were impossible to find after their original sales-period ended. I know that, for me, I buy 2-3 more games each year than I used to play before (and I only bought 20% of those before), and pirate no games any more for these very reasons. They've found price-points and convenience that works for me, and I'm happy to wait a few weeks or months to save some money for their frequent sales of new and old items alike. I've even purchased games that I'd pirated in the past because they made it easy for me.

The music industry has gone through similar changes with iTunes, Amazon, and others, providing a more convenient way to buy music and a price point (individual songs) that people will pay easily. (I still think $0.99/song is too high, but that's just for me...)

Hell, even Apple has done something with tiny apps that nobody had really done before. Shareware/postcardware/etc...the games and programs that cost less than $10 now have a viable new outlet that provides more views and more potential sales than ever before - along with convenience for the consumer/seller, and price points that people will pay on a whim. They've created/changed an industry into something viable and mainstream.

Here's [url=http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html\an older article from Wired[/url] on the long tail effect. It's predicting a future that, I believe, is coming true. Authors are finally embracing this themselves as they get back, assert, claim, keep their digital publishing rights. I think that JA Konrath has described this effect with his own work, seeing sales of his back-catalogue increasing as people read his new work.

The online-payment systems, though, as I understand it, are still behind the micropayment times. Paying $0.45 out of $1.00 or $1.99 or $4.99 represent very different profit margins to an author. Whether they settle on a percentage (I'd argue, from my financially ignorant background, that 2-5% is enough margin for any large scale automated payment system to profit handsomely, and percentages rather than flat fees need to figure in to micropayments more heavily than they do now. I think this will be one of the major keys to the puzzle for self-publishers. It may take VISA/MC/AMEX and the debit infrastructure changing to recognize this, but in the end they'll come through and realize there is a fortune to be made here in volume alone - and if they don't come through, Paypal will adjust, or other micro-payment suitable systems will arise.

In the movie world, Netflix has shown us that the one way people will 'rent' movies and be happy is their service. Video stores are shutting down all over the place as the costs leveraged on them for initial purchases and reduced customer counts make their business model no longer viable. I believe there are several music streaming services (pay a monthly fee, listen to whatever you want) which will stream 'radio stations' or individually chosen songs.

I admit to thinking publishers should be looking here for hope...imagine if a major publisher, Penguin for example, or Harlequin, provided a $15/month package that provided you with overdrive-style access to all the works in their catalogue. If you downloaded $15 books, $1/book would be divided up according to whatever agreements were in place. If 5 books were downloaded, $3.00 is divided up. Or perhaps the first $2 of that $15 is for the publisher, but the rest is divided up between authors who's books were downloaded during that time. And, of course, if its 100 books, each author gets a smaller chunk... I could see readers subscribing to their favourite publishers to get the collection of authors they enjoy reading the most. Its something I've only been thinking about recently, so please provide the +/- for me on this one, as I've not thought about it too much so far.

Finally, I've said in the past that the copyright term needs to be greatly reduced. I say it again, but questioning whether it matters or not - it's ignored by the coming generations and seen as a non-entity. For more than 100 years, the creative industry has been fighting piracy (and any industry change that they don't initiate to drive up profits) and failing. The model is broken, and we need to work together to find a viable new model...but it has to be one that is balanced. I'd argue that the one way to save the current system is to CUT copyright terms back to under 10 years - I'd suggest 2-5 at most. This will motivate creatives to keep creating and contributing to society, and promote more creation based on or developed from earlier works...that are still current and in a culture's mindset. During those 2-5 years, the potential sales market is (relatively) infinite via the internet, and distribution costs are near zero...there's a ton of time for profit....

[guyanonymous]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Assuming they can find what they like (or even find out what they like) amidst all the sh*t.

In the past 10 years, I've found far more authors through word-of-mouth and random browsing of titles/cover images and author's back catalogues than I have via publishers advertisements in magazines and newspapers.

Abe books and ebay may allow easier access to out-of-print books than ever before, but it still is unreasonably expensive (due to shipping alone if you're outside the US) for many of those books, and authors sure aren't making a dime from those sales. Additionally, they really only help if I know the name of the book or the author...they don't really help me search out new reading material.

Sites like fantastic fiction, librarything, etc. are the start of the filter that will allow us to find the books we want (be they mainstream or not) in a way we never could before. People will find what they like, and do it more easily than ever before. They'll also find more of it, and find new genres, authors, etc, that they never would have found before. That's what social websites do...they connect like minded people with information. Just because you're not aware of them, or just because they aren't mainstream yet doesn't mean they aren't out there doing a great job. They're part of a developing online culture that is changing and improving on a near-daily basis.

We don't need ivory-tower gatekeepers here. We need let everything the ocean of books be a fulsome ecosystem containing everything produced and use nets (filters) of our own design to pull out the fish (books) we want to eat (read). Those nets will get better.... If our gatekeepers only let in the tuna and salmon, then we never even have the option of trying the sardines...and some people like sardines (though I find them gross).

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by guyanonymous

There are more creatives now than ever before.

No, there is the same number. The difference now is that they don't just give up at the first rejection letter. There's no knowing how many good writers were lost to society forever because of traditional publishers and their profit driven agenda.

Publishers will still exist in the future, and will probably dangle contracts in front of the more successful self-publishers to entice them into selling their souls. And a lot of those self-publishers will be more than happy to do so.

In the old days, vanity publishing involved spending your own money to have a book published. Now, vanity publishing involves giving away 90% or more of your income to have a book published.

[Namekuseijin]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

Unlike today's Westerners, the Chinese in the imperial past did not consider copying or imitation a moral offense. Rather, they considered it “a noble art,” a “time-honored learning process” through which people manifested respect for their ancestors. At a very young age, Chinese children were taught to memorize and copy the classics and histories.

Key word in bold letters. Westerners can do it too to public domain classics. I'm sure someone pointed this to you already...

Btw, you're sounding like: "Giggleton is my Lord and my sheppherd!"

And I knew the bad breath of trolls had such a simple explanation...

[spellbanisher]

I'm not on giggleton's side or anyone elses. I was reviewing the earlier comments and adding my own commentary. Plus, we may have a public domain, but copying is still seen as bad in any case, because we are supposed to contribute something unique. Another point that i did not make explicit was that our views on things such as intellectual property are not shared by the vast majority of the world, and imposing those views on other peoples, which western countries have been hellbent on doing for the last thirty years, will be costly and counterproductive.

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Assuming they can find what they like (or even find out what they like) amidst all the sh*t.

Ah, we have come to the "how will we sort through all the crap" part of the thread. This has more to do with the institution of publishing than it does with intellectual property or copyright. Publishers may persist in a post-copyright regime. Indeed, even with the enormous amount of free stuff out on the internet, most readers, like kennyc and harryt, still rely on publishers to sort through all the crap. The reason why publishers will persist is not because they will be necessary to the printing and distribution of texts, but because they will enforce a rigorous process of sifting through texts, employing educated and well-qualified editors and literary agents, to chose and produce works which will appeal to their given demographics. Publishers will become or already are name brands that people turn to for guaranteed high quality works.

Publishers can also cease to exist in the existing copyright regime. Authors could easily decide to self-publish or to join guilds or form new organizations to help them produce quality texts, and social networking (and the dedicated few who are willing to read anything) would act as the filter. Even under these new forms of publishing that does not mean that writers will relinquish their copyrights. Even texts with creative commons licenses applied to them are still copyrighted works; the author has just chosen to exercise only some, instead of all, their rights.

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

No, there is the same number. The difference now is that they don't just give up at the first rejection letter. There's no knowing how many good writers were lost to society forever because of traditional publishers and their profit driven agenda.

How many great writers give up at the first rejection letter? Most writers get rejected dozens if not hundreds of times before they are first published. The ability to survive the horror of a rejection letter and the realization that God did not create you perfectly as you are separates those who are truly passionate about writing (or obsessive) from those who are only in it because of some deluded aspirations for fame or fortune or prestige. Even the most talented writers, quite frankly, suck when they first start writing. Writing is a skill that requires thousands of hours of honing and sharpening followed by bursts of binge drinking or coke sniffing (okay, only one of these two things is necessary to become a great writer). Rejection forces writers to look more closely at their writings, to try new things, to reevaluate their methods. Rejections force them to push their writing beyond what they thought were their limits. Rejection is a necessary part of the growth and maturation of a writer. Of course their are some writers who are just so gifted that they never get rejected, like snooki.

I also wouldn't say that many good writers have been lost because of the publishing industries profit driven agenda. In fact, many great writers would have never been able to make a living writing if publishers hadn't invested in them, given them advances and time to build their audience (usually from wood, although some use steel). Readers look at publishers like they are an evil empire; all the testimony I've heard from writers about publishers is usually positive.

Their are bigger culprits to blame for all those good writers lost to society. How many good writers were lost to society because they were born as peasants or slaves? How many good writers were lost to society because they were born in a third world country? How many good writers were lost to society because they were killed in wars or by plagues and famine? How many good writers were lost to society because they were born as caterpillars. (at least they got to become butterflies). Writing has always been a profession for the privileged, although all you writers living in one bedroom apartments and subsisting off ramen noodles probably disagree.

In the future we may regret the demise of publishing houses. We may regret destroying the walls set up by those ivory tower elitist publishers. It may go something like this:
Old Giggleton: Remember when there were publishers.
Old Mr Ploppy: We don't and never needed their ivory tower walls.
Old Giggleton: We were told there were riches beyond our imaginations behind those walls.
Old Mr Ploppy: so
Old Giggleton: If only we could have known that behind those walls was nothing but raw sewage .
Ghosts of Harryt and Kennyc: We told you so!
Old Mr Ploppy: What! Fascists! Quit complaining ploppy. If we keep sifting through the sewage we'll eventually find some diamonds. Its only a matter of time before we find those hidden riches.
Old Giggleton: Please, no more sewage. I'm very very sick. My skin has turned green.
Ghosts of Harryt and Kennyc: Ha! Ha! Ha!
Old Mr Ploppy: That's nothing giggly. Green is the skins natural color. It's the publishers that made skin into all those unnatural colors.

[Namekuseijin]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

Kali Yuga tries to debunk Giggleton's arguments by calling them “Friday afternoon technobabble.” He says that a new technical ability does not create the moral framework to make the action permissible. He uses the ability to go around killing people because he has a gun as an example an activity that is made possible by a technology but is still impermissible. His second point is that the idea that the world will be a better place and that corporate interests will evaporate is ridiculous. He finishes his rebuttal by saying that copyright is a social contract enforced by laws.

As far as his first point, he is correct but only in theory. Possibility does not equal permissibility. But he inadequately connects theory to copyright and sharing. To connect this to his final point, copyright is a social contract enforced by laws because it is generally seen that copyright does society the most good. But no law serves an absolute principle. Every law constrains liberty, but the damage it does to overall liberty is offset by the greater protections its provides. If a law no longer does good than harm, it must be changed or abolished. The question now is whether we should gimp the technology that makes production of information infinitely easy so that creators can profit the way they have always profited. The question isn't even a matter of compensation. It's a question of whether the old method of compensation, the old business model, is the best business model. New technology has always agitated old industries. The moving image was a threat to the stage. The radio and the album was a threat to the live performance. Cable and vcr was a threat to movies. Each time old industries tried to use the law to crush new technologies, and had they succeeded society would be much worse.

In summation, Yuga fails to make an argument. Instead, Yuga assumes that his position is a first principle, when in fact it must be proved. Yuga begs the question.

Yuga's post is number 5. I will continue the review at a later time to see if Carld was correct in his assertion that anti-copyright proponents have yet to make “a cogent, thoughtful and considerate.” We will let the world decide (or the three people who will read this post.) For now I am tired, and though I may still make smartass posts in this thread and other threads, I will continue my review at a later time. Now, I am off to the fortress of pretense.

hey, I'm thinking of compiling this amusing series of narratives from the thread discussion into an ebook and selling it at Amazon for a few bucks... or sending it via torrent for chinese to copy and learn...

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

hey, I'm thinking of compiling this amusing series of narratives from the thread discussion into an ebook and selling it at Amazon for a few bucks... or sending it via torrent for chinese to copy and learn...

Hey if you can make a profit off a bunch of rambling and often incoherent posts full of runon sentences punctuation errors mispelings and badly grammar then all of the power in the world to yous

[Namekuseijin]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

How many great writers give up at the first rejection letter? Most writers get rejected dozens if not hundreds of times before they are first published. The ability to survive the horror of a rejection letter and the realization that God did not create you perfectly as you are separates those who are truly passionate about writing (or obsessive) from those who are only in it because of some deluded aspirations for fame or fortune or prestige. Even the most talented writers, quite frankly, suck when they first start writing. Writing is a skill that requires thousands of hours of honing and sharpening followed by bursts of binge drinking or coke sniffing (okay, only one of these two things is necessary to become a great writer). Rejection forces writers to look more closely at their writings, to try new things, to reevaluate their methods. Rejections force them to push their writing beyond what they thought were their limits. Rejection is a necessary part of the growth and maturation of a writer.

yes. You seem passionate enough but lacking either the persistence or the coke sniffing, probably the former. Which is why you spend your literary verve here on long and pointless anti-establishment posts rather than on writing a convincing and amusing enough fictional view of such utopic world that would inspire future leaders towards your vision.

Well, there's always a chance they are reading here too...

Of course their are some writers who are just so gifted that they never get rejected, like snooki.

never get rejected because never applied and, thus, were never heard of.

unless you're talking about some twitter personality?

In fact, many great writers would have never been able to make a living writing if publishers hadn't invested in them, given them advances and time to build their audience (usually from wood, although some use steel). Readers look at publishers like they are an evil empire; all the testimony I've heard from writers about publishers is usually positive.

Their are bigger culprits to blame for all those good writers lost to society. How many good writers were lost to society because they were born as peasants or slaves? How many good writers were lost to society because they were born in a third world country? How many good writers were lost to society because they were killed in wars or by plagues and famine? How many good writers were lost to society because they were born as caterpillars. (at least they got to become butterflies). Writing has always been a profession for the privileged, although all you writers living in one bedroom apartments and subsisting off ramen noodles probably disagree.

a torrent of great quotes. Did you sniff anything or it was your own imagination?

are you talking about mangá authors?

Old Giggleton: Remember when there were publishers.
Old Mr Ploppy: We don't and never needed their ivory tower walls.
Old Giggleton: We were told there were riches beyond our imaginations behind those walls.
Old Mr Ploppy: so
Old Giggleton: If only we could have known that behind those walls was nothing but raw sewage .
Ghosts of Harryt and Kennyc: We told you so!
Old Mr Ploppy: What! Fascists! Quit complaining ploppy. If we keep sifting through the sewage we'll eventually find some diamonds. Its only a matter of time before we find those hidden riches.
Old Giggleton: Please, no more sewage. I'm very very sick. My skin has turned green.
Ghosts of Harryt and Kennyc: Ha! Ha! Ha!

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

hey, I'm thinking of compiling this amusing series of narratives from the thread discussion into an ebook and selling it at Amazon for a few bucks... or sending it via torrent for chinese to copy and learn...

If you torrent it I'll sue you for the loss of my $10billion income. Stealing people's words is like stealing a car and using it to kill kittens.

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Stealing people's words is like stealing a car and using it to kill kittens.

What's wrong with stealing cars to kill kittens? Now if you were just stealing cars i could see something wrong there. But the greater good you are doing with the stolen car surely must outweigh the fact that you stole a car.

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

never get rejected because never applied and, thus, were never heard of.

unless you're talking about some twitter personality?

Snooki is a reality tv star who just got published. If you can view Southparkstudios from Brazil (There might be regional restrictions) here is an episode (its 20 minutes) which will tell you everything you need to know about snooki.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clip...alled-a-snooki

[Enkidu of Abydos]

It would be greater good if he had stolen the car to kill people, not kittens. People are even more in excess on this planet then kittens. It's like an overgrown backyard, someone has to do some pruning.