There's a better way to beat the ebook pirates

[NVash]

I dont doubt that this may be true, but some people may go out later on and buy it anyway just to support the author.

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by BenBanned

Anonymity is not necessary

It may not be necessary for everyone who pirates, but it sure helps. Just like security cameras in stores help deter theft, believing no one can see you encourages bad behavior. (Of course, if you're not aware you're being watched, your behavior isn't affected.)

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by NVash

I dont doubt that this may be true, but some people may go out later on and buy it anyway just to support the author.

I can't say that's impossible, but it seems very counter to human nature. The most rational thing to do, if you've already got an e-book, is just read it and go on with your life. Where you might get a benefit, as an author, is if someone reads a free copy of your work and decides to go out and buy something else you wrote. But that's a pretty big gamble, considering the fact that the person almost certainly has a source they can get any book of yours for free (i.e., the place they got the first one from).

[NVash]

Okay now see theres a problem with the logic. We can apply the very same to libraries. Because honestly what good is a book after youve read it?

[elcreative]

Well, if it is a good book then it can be re-read... not everybody buys read'n'toss junk plus sometimes a series can span many years of writing and it's nice to re-read the earlier books before the new one or the new one makes you want to re-read the lot. Definition: Good book = one that can be enjoyably re-read...

Originally Posted by NVash

Okay now see theres a problem with the logic. We can apply the very same to libraries. Because honestly what good is a book after youve read it?

[Giggleton]

Yes of course there is, you have to beat them at their own game.

[Worldwalker]

I'm not going to say "authors should be thankful for pirates because it's free publicity" because, frankly, I don't have valid data (even anecdotes) to defend that stand. It may be, or it may not be, or it may vary depending on writer. In fact, it does vary depending on writer. Everyone who's likely to read her books knows who J.K. Rowling is; few people know who Joe Schmoe is.

To me, the issue isn't one of publicity, but of focus. Taking our hypothetical writer Joe Schmoe, what would change if absolutely nobody ever read his books without paying him? How much more income would he get? Based on the concept that people who want the work of an unknown writer for free are unlikely to pay for it -- they'll just read a different unknown writer for free, or go watch TV instead -- I'd say very little. But every bit of effort Mr. Schmoe is putting into keeping people from reading his books without paying him is effort he doesn't have available to promote his books to the people who will pay him, or to write new books with. Even if he was perfectly successful at preventing un-paid-for reads, he'd have traded inconveniencing non-customers for not recruiting, or ignoring, actual customers. A basic fact of business is that you need to keep the customers you already have and convert potential customers; people who are not in either category are a waste of time, effort, and money.

For a major author, it's possible that the people in the third category (the non-customers) might affect potential customers, moving them into the non-customer category. But for a minor author, the problem is one of not having enough customers in the first place. Let's say our hypothetical Joe Schmoe sold 10 books last year. That's pretty lame. He sold 100 books, and another 100 books were read without paying for them. Out of the latter 100, the readers of 10% of them, had there been no free books available, would have paid for them. The other 90% would have just read something else, or done something else. Now, Joe has two choices of how to use his available time: He could put it into promotion, and increase the sales of his books, or he could put it into a crackdown on the pirates, and decrease the copying of his books. Let's say he could double his sales, or halve the piracy. If he doubles his sales, he'll sell 200 books, and another 200 people will read them without paying. If he halves the piracy, he'll sell 100 books + 1/2 of the ones who would have bought if piracy was not an option, which is 5 books, and 45 people would read them without paying. Which one he chooses depends on his focus: If he's focusing on getting more customers, he'll want the 200 people buying his books, and not worry about the 200 who aren't paying up. If he's focusing on reducing people reading without paying, he'll settle for the 105 customers in order to stop 50 pirates (45 of which read something else and 5 of which paid for the books). I'm just pulling numbers out of the air here, of course. They can be any numbers you want. But the focus is what matters: is it more important to Joe Schmoe, or to you, that more people give you money, or that fewer people read the book without giving you money? I can't answer that -- only the person with the book (and the real numbers) can.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by NVash

Okay now see theres a problem with the logic. We can apply the very same to libraries. Because honestly what good is a book after youve read it?

Libraries are legal. They have permission to lend the books.

I'm done wasting valuable typing effort defending against obvious and transparent rationalization for dishonest acts.

In this thread, anyway.

[NVash]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

But the focus is what matters: is it more important to Joe Schmoe, or to you, that more people give you money, or that fewer people read the book without giving you money? I can't answer that -- only the person with the book (and the real numbers) can.

I think I used 'free publicity' to try to put a silver lining on this cloud. As an author I dont think the point is piracy. The point is that you arent well known, you are Joe Schmoe and really you need to fix that. You could sit around and say that its the pirates then pack up your stuff or try and figure out a way to appeal to more people. The pirates arent going anywhere and people will find someone else to give their money to. The only one that really suffers is the author and his or her fans, and ultimately its all up to the author.

Originally Posted by ApK

Libraries are legal. They have permission to lend the books.

I'm done wasting valuable typing effort defending against obvious and transparent rationalization for dishonest acts.

In this thread, anyway.

Libraries are legal. Im just saying. This whole 'PIRATES' argument is old hat and it has been for some time. Its worked for the music industry as they put out garbage music that no one wanted for years and now the publishing industry is using it. The pirates are there, we know. So what? Who cares whos right and wrong in that? We still dont have REAL concrete numbers. We have 'suspected lost sales'. Come on now, seriously? This whole thing has been beaten to death. Everybody wants to come in and debate how wrong it is. Now were complaining about Joe Schmoe being pirated when no one knows who Joe Schmoe is. Shouldnt Joe Schmoe worry about this piracy when he actually has some sales and people know who he is? Shouldnt he promote himself a little better then complain about piracy? Im just saying.

And honestly, why the complaining? Its not going anywhere, thats been said a million times. No one can prove anything with that, whether people would buy the book or not, its a moot point. Its basically running around in circles when that time could be better focused on something more constructive.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by ApK

Libraries are legal. They have permission to lend the books.

When libraries are outlawed only outlaws will have libraries.

[Ron.]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Well, if it is a good book then it can be re-read... not everybody buys read'n'toss junk plus sometimes a series can span many years of writing and it's nice to re-read the earlier books before the new one or the new one makes you want to re-read the lot. Definition: Good book = one that can be enjoyably re-read...

Some of us no matter how good a book is ever re-read a book.

[NVash]

I re-read parts but no, seldom have I ever re-read a whole book. And even re-reading parts got old after the fourth or fifth time.

[jgaiser]

As usual for copyright/pirating threads, this one has deteriorated to meaningless noise. One final post before I abandon this.

Baen has been putting CDs of authors books in certain released hardback editions. Those CDs are available for free, with Baen's knowledge and permission at The Fifth Imperium. Why do you suppose award winning, best selling authors (Lois McMaster Bujold, David Drake, Eric Flint, and John Ringo among others) can be convinced to give away their books for free? Could it be that Baen has shown these authors that sometimes giving away stuff for free ultimately means greater *sales*?

I'm not condoning pirating, but it appears that free books can mean more income for the authors.

[elcreative]

Your way of doing things suits you I'm sure... personally I find that you can get more/different things out of a good book than one reading will provide...

Originally Posted by Ron.

Some of us no matter how good a book is ever re-read a book.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by 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.

and you truly see no ethical, moral or legal issue with that?