There's a better way to beat the ebook pirates

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by carld

But that still doesn't tell us how much damage piracy is doing to the ebook market. That's really the relevant number isn't it? How many ebooks aren't sold because they're downloaded instead?

Short of some wormhole into a parallel universe where piracy doesn't exist I can't really see how such a number could be derived at. Ebook sales seem to be growing rather than shrinking though.

[Worldwalker]

Let's look at a few scenarios:

An author named Arthur writes a book. It's available as both a paper book and an ebook.

Bob buys the book brand-new from Borders.
Carol borrows Bob's book and reads it.
Dave buys the book for his Sony Reader.
Elaine borrows Dave's Reader and reads the book.
Fred makes a copy of the book from Dave and reads that.
Gail downloads the book off the darknet.
Harry buys the book at a rummage sale.
Irene gets the book out of a "Free Books" box at the AAUW sale.
John checks the book out of the library.
Kathy tucks the book under her jacket and sneaks out of Borders.
Louis doesn't read the book at all.

Which of these people are stealing from Arthur? (or from the publisher, as the case may be)

It's pretty obvious that Bob and Dave aren't stealing it, and Kathy is. But how about Carol, Elaine, Fred, Gail, Harry, Irene, and John, who read the book without paying Arthur? (Louis didn't pay Arthur either, but he didn't read the book)

It gets tricky, doesn't it? You can't say "everyone who read the book without paying for it is stealing" or you'd criminalize Carol, who borrowed Bob's book, and Harry and Irene, who got it used. But if it's okay for Carol to borrow Bob's book, why isn't it okay for Elaine to do it, or Fred? And there's the matter that Dave probably paid more for the book than Bob did; should he have less of a right to lend it out? And in terms of Arthur's cash flow, how is Louis different from Harry? Or from Fred? The answers aren't as simple as they might look at first glance.

From an author's point of view, the real question is much simpler: "Do I get less money if someone does thus-and-so than if they don't?" That's a question authors wrestle with in other forms all the time. Will people pay me more for a high-falutin' book or a bodice-ripper? Should I price my book at $1 or $5 or $12? And, of course, the issue of what one wants to write comes into play: even if, for example, a romance will sell more copies than a literary novel, is that really the story burning to come out? It all comes back to "what is making me money, and what is costing me money?"

And the bottom line is that people who are never going to pay for your books ... are never going to pay for your books. Period. They are not your customers. You will not get their money. Since their money isn't on the table, they don't matter. They could read every word you've ever written, or they could heap scorn upon your writing, or they could be illiterate even in their own language, which is some obscure dialect of Lower Silesian. It doesn't matter. You're not getting their money, and you were never getting their money, so from your point of view as an author, there is no difference between the guy who reads every word you ever wrote but doesn't pay for any of them and the guy who can't read English.

Then we get the people who go out and buy your books, and who don't give them to a few million of their closest friends. The odds are pretty good that they'll keep on buying your books. They like to feel honest (it's amazing how many people are like that, surprising as it may be), or they're just used to buying books, or they want to make sure the author gets paid and keeps on writing. Those people are giving you money. You want to be nice to them. Making their reading lives inconvenient -- which is what most purported anti-piracy measures do -- isn't being nice to them. It's making them ask themselves "why am I giving money to this guy who just called me a thief and electronically dicked me over?" You don't want to do that. I say again: you want to be nice to them; they're buying your groceries.

In between, we get the people who might give you money ... or might not. They might decide to buy your book. They might decide to borrow it from someone. They might decide to download it off some random website. The odds are fairly high that making them dislike you will not induce them to give you money. The ones already inclined to obtain illicit copies will do so just out of annoyance. The ones who prefer not to do that will just read some other author's books. There are millions, and there are more books most readers want to read than there is time to read them; convince someone that you're not a person they want to do business with and they won't ... your competition is a click away. You want to encourage these people to give you money. Harassing them will not do it. Insulting them will not do it. Inconveniencing them will not do it. Seriously ... do you rush out to eagerly give money to people who harass, insult, or inconvenience you? You want to make the fence-sitters -- and that's not just the people downloading unpaid books, but the ones buying books from used bookstores or church charity sales, the ones borrowing books from libraries and getting books passed on by their mothers-in-law -- want to give you money.

By the way, very few authors, percentage-wise, have ever gotten rich. In fact, very few authors have even been able to make a living from writing. This is not just an artifact of the era of ebooks; this has always been the case. Even authors who attract the interest (and advances, sales promotion, etc.) of a publisher aren't guaranteed a living, let alone riches. In the field where I'm most familiar with authors -- science fiction -- all but a handful of authors have full-time jobs. Few are able to support themselves solely by writing, and those few -- like the late Jack Chalker, for instance -- write prolifically (55 books in 25 years after he quit his day job), are extremely well-known in their genre, and heavily promoted by their publishers. And there are very, very few of them; most writers don't make anything close to a living at it.

And the cold, hard fact is that indie ebook writers surviving through self-promotion make even less. Some make little. Some make nothing. We can argue whether J.K. Rowling's problem is piracy, but Joe Schmoe's problem is not. Joe Schmoe's problem is that he is not J.K. Rowling. Nobody has ever heard of him. They walk into Borders and his books are not on the "new and notable" rack. They go to Amazon and his books are not in the "recommended for you" list. They go to the library, the used bookstore, the charity book sale, and they don't see his books. Not only does the NYT Book Review not cover them, but neither does the dude who writes a book column for the South Podunk Chronicle or the one who writes that blog they read once in a while. In order for piracy to impact your sales, you have to have sales for it to impact. In order for customers to decide whether or not they intend to pay for your books, they have to be customers in the first place. Once that's dealt with, then the question of whether people who would otherwise give you money are not doing so for some reason can be addressed.

Also ... saying you'll take your toys and go home doesn't impress anyone. Seriously, it doesn't. It makes me think of Anne Rice and Laurell K. Hamilton. That's not company I would want to be in.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

In order for piracy to impact your sales, you have to have sales for it to impact.

That's not true. The damages might be hard to prove in a lawsuit, and of course, we'd need one of Mr. Ploppy's wormholes to get real numbers, but despite all the rationalizations, it is a fact there are people who will take stuff for free, if they want it and don't think they'll be punished, and can get it easily, rather than pay for it, and who would give in and pay for it if they can't. These are potential sales lost. The fact that other kinds of pirates also exist in no way means that this kind does not, and no rationalization about giving the author free publicity changes it.

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

It makes me think of Anne Rice and Laurell K. Hamilton. That's not company I would want to be in.

Hm? What's the story with those two?


ApK

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by ApK

...there are people who will take stuff for free, if they want it and don't think they'll be punished, and can get it easily, rather than pay for it, and who would give in and pay for it if they can't.

In my experience, there are very few of those people. There are people who will take things for free but not pay for them, and there are people who will pay for them because it's the right thing to do, but by and large, there's little overlap between the categories. There is some, certainly, as there is with everything. But when the sales of a book are very small (and in the case of most indie ebooks, they are) the number of people who obtain illicit copies who would otherwise pay for the book is extremely small. In general, if they have to pay, they don't want it.

Hm? What's the story with those two?

Anne Rice and Laurell K. Hamilton are notable for having very over-the-top, very public meltdowns in print. They, um, well, let's say they wrote things that I would not want to be remembered for writing. Especially the part where LKH says her characters are her imaginary friends (that's why she won't kill off any) and she buys them presents.

[Quexos]

Yes it does and your denying it so vehemently demonstrates either ignorance of the fundamentals of capitalism or a profound stupidity. How does my violating your so called rules kill children ? Ok you don't make sense and I'm foolish enough to get carried away. lol, the joke's on me.

Originally Posted by ApK

No, it doesn't. Only your twisted rationalization for violating our rules does.

[poohbear_nc]

Moderator Notice
The tone of this thread has shown that there are obviously differing viewpoints, and no one is going to persuade the other that they are wrong. If you are unable to remain polite, it is better to refrain from posting anything.

Posting Guidelines.

Please acknowledge that views do differ, and move on.

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

The publishers have tried all kinds of things themselves and the books are still being pirated.

They might think they have, whilst whining about it in the morning cup of latte or to a sympathetic captive audience, but they have not done everything yet.

They still use geo restrictions as a distribution tool, still use DRM and still rip off ebook customers with high prices.

Geo restrictions alone are a prime cause of casual piracy.

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by boxcorner

guardian.co.uk/media
24 April 2011

The author of the article, severely misinterprets what piracy is about. It's not, as far as I can tell, a situation where consumers are going to respond to value-added e-books. When someone wants an e-book, they want the content. Adding premium content to an e-book is going to do exactly nothing to get people to buy it when they can get it for free with the content they're actually interested in reading. Similarly, while I think typos and such are definitely an issue with e-books, it's hard for me to imagine that you're going to get more people to buy by only assuring them that they'd get the same thing they'd get if they bought the paper version.

There will always be a certain number of people who will go for the free version of an e-book. The only thing you can do is to make obtaining a pirated copy of an e-book as painful as humanly possible. I certainly don't agree with suing anyone who downloads form a site, but anyone who hosts such files needs to be given as much grief as is allowable under the constitution of his/her country. It's the people doing the hosting that are the problem, not the ones doing the downloading.

Do I have any idea how this could be done? Not really, but pretending that piracy exists because people are upset with the quality of e-books is delusional. Piracy exists because people like getting stuff for free, and will push ethical boundaries if they feel anonymous.

[cfrizz]

Most of Anne Rice's books, especially her vampire books has been her ongoing battle with herself about religion/Catholic church etc. Her latest meltdown was her proclamation of leaving the church...again. Her proclamation before that one which coincided with her religious books was how she was going back to the church.

This is the first I have heard about LKH issues.

Sigh, such talented women, who also happen to be such whack jobs!

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

Anne Rice and Laurell K. Hamilton are notable for having very over-the-top, very public meltdowns in print. They, um, well, let's say they wrote things that I would not want to be remembered for writing. Especially the part where LKH says her characters are her imaginary friends (that's why she won't kill off any) and she buys them presents.

[NVash]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

By the way, very few authors, percentage-wise, have ever gotten rich. In fact, very few authors have even been able to make a living from writing. This is not just an artifact of the era of ebooks; this has always been the case. Even authors who attract the interest (and advances, sales promotion, etc.) of a publisher aren't guaranteed a living, let alone riches. In the field where I'm most familiar with authors -- science fiction -- all but a handful of authors have full-time jobs. Few are able to support themselves solely by writing, and those few -- like the late Jack Chalker, for instance -- write prolifically (55 books in 25 years after he quit his day job), are extremely well-known in their genre, and heavily promoted by their publishers. And there are very, very few of them; most writers don't make anything close to a living at it.

And the cold, hard fact is that indie ebook writers surviving through self-promotion make even less. Some make little. Some make nothing. We can argue whether J.K. Rowling's problem is piracy, but Joe Schmoe's problem is not. Joe Schmoe's problem is that he is not J.K. Rowling. Nobody has ever heard of him. They walk into Borders and his books are not on the "new and notable" rack. They go to Amazon and his books are not in the "recommended for you" list. They go to the library, the used bookstore, the charity book sale, and they don't see his books. Not only does the NYT Book Review not cover them, but neither does the dude who writes a book column for the South Podunk Chronicle or the one who writes that blog they read once in a while. In order for piracy to impact your sales, you have to have sales for it to impact. In order for customers to decide whether or not they intend to pay for your books, they have to be customers in the first place. Once that's dealt with, then the question of whether people who would otherwise give you money are not doing so for some reason can be addressed.

Also ... saying you'll take your toys and go home doesn't impress anyone. Seriously, it doesn't. It makes me think of Anne Rice and Laurell K. Hamilton. That's not company I would want to be in.

This is exactly my point. No one knows him. This is why I said piracy was free publicity. I may be wrong in that but thats the way I see it. As an author, thats the way Id see it. Nobody knows me, why not? Id take it as a compliment. Packing up and going home wouldnt be an option, thats the easy way out and were not even in the big leagues yet. Id hate to see how youd react if you started getting bad reviews on Amazon.

Id say LKH buys into her own hype but she doesnt have any these days. I find it amusing how many people bash her books. And for good cause, pick one up lately? Its horrible. It cant even be classified as good porn, the book does nothing right! And Anne Rice, what in the World is her deal? Ive read a few things from both, every single time Im awestruck.

Originally Posted by ApK

That's not true. The damages might be hard to prove in a lawsuit, and of course, we'd need one of Mr. Ploppy's wormholes to get real numbers, but despite all the rationalizations, it is a fact there are people who will take stuff for free, if they want it and don't think they'll be punished, and can get it easily, rather than pay for it, and who would give in and pay for it if they can't. These are potential sales lost. The fact that other kinds of pirates also exist in no way means that this kind does not, and no rationalization about giving the author free publicity changes it.

Has that ever been proven? You already said its hard to prove in a lawsuit. We know that some download just for kicks. How do you know its a lost sale? This is why I say to just move on. You can kick that concept around all you want. Thats time you could be promoting yourself, trying to write another book, make yourself a little well known. You want to blame pirates go right ahead. Your sales are affected because of you, bottom line.

Originally Posted by cfrizz

Most of Anne Rice's books, especially her vampire books has been her ongoing battle with herself about religion/Catholic church etc. Her latest meltdown was her proclamation of leaving the church...again. Her proclamation before that one which coincided with her religious books was how she was going back to the church.

This is the first I have heard about LKH issues.

Sigh, such talented women, who also happen to be such whack jobs!

Ah yes, I remember. Anne Rice left the church this time due to their strict anti-Gay policy. Many found that amusing that she didnt know of that going in. Dont want to open that can of worms in this thread, just wanted to say that in case anyone wanted to know.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

If you wrote to make money, I think you chose the wrong genre.

SF was the only genre I wanted to write. You can't write what's not in your heart.

[BenBanned]

Anonymity is not necessary, I download anything that interests me with absolutely no guilt. I dont need any excuses for pirating its part of what I do every day. I guess I would fit into that group of people where your not getting my money anyway. The only time I buy new books is when someone gives me a giftcard. It is very rare that I need to get my hands on a copy of something that just came out, so second hand is how I do most of my reading. Not to mention I am never paying for an e-book the concept seems absurd to me, most of time I could just wait a few days and get a hardcopy for the same price.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

SF was the only genre I wanted to write. You can't write what's not in your heart.

Put a vampire in a spaceship.

That's apparently all it takes at the moment.

(Actually, that's been done. And I hear it's better than I make it sound. BTW, more power to you if it's your bag, but I just do not get this current vampire/romance thing. Did this really start with Twilight, or has pent-up demand been building since Buffy?)

[NVash]

Maybe its been working that way since Buffy. But remember, Anita Blake was a hit as well.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by NVash

Has that ever been proven? You already said its hard to prove in a lawsuit. We know that some download just for kicks. How do you know its a lost sale?

Yes. Proven empirically, witnessed first hand.
I've heard variants on this conversation more than once, from more than one person, regarding ebooks, music, movies, and computer apps:

"Hey I was just about to order that new x by y. I hear it's really good!"
"Save your money, Here, I'll give you copy."
"Thanks!"