Can e-Publishing Overcome Copyright Concerns?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

IHeh. When I said painful, I meant painful. As in surveillance. As in, you can't imagine the stuff that'll be forced onto everyone's computers (most of which you won't even be aware of) to keep people from doing it through the analog hole. If we lose copyright, that's what businesses will demand, to safeguard their property. Because they already know they can't appeal to our sense of fairness...

Steve, who will buy it? Do you think that the American populace will tolerate Big Brother (we still have votes, remember). What about lawsuits about the safe creation of new copyright material? (I can't save my own digital photo's? That'll go over like a lead ballon. Sue the businesses and the government. How do you think a jury would rule when they are told the can't keep their grandkid's picture? Remember the Ford Pinto lawsuits?)
And how will you force onto a machine that's isn't connected to the internet, ever?

I think it would be easier to take all the guns away from Americans. But, I could be wrong....

[dottedmag]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Well, since that "reality" can only result in 2 things

You overlooked at least this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_Performer_Protocol

I'm sure our brave security experts can invent other social schemes working in copyrightless law systems.

[tcv]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Steve, who will buy it? Do you think that the American populace will tolerate Big Brother (we still have votes, remember). What about lawsuits about the safe creation of new copyright material? (I can't save my own digital photo's? That'll go over like a lead ballon.

...

I think it would be easier to take all the guns away from Americans. But, I could be wrong....

I wish I had as much faith as you, but our track record isn't so encouraging. I think it would go much like it does today. The companies offer a big, appealing benefit, then understate a new restriction or penalty.

When marketing Blu-Ray movies, the companies mention the higher definition, the Blu-Ray exclusive bonuses and more. The companies seem to neglect to mention the following things:

1. You have to buy a new player if you don't have one already.

2. Not all players are equal, meaning you could wind up getting one that crawls trying to run those special "bonus features" or one that needs converters for your TV or doesn't upscale to 1080p cleanly.

3. We're nearly certain that the player five generations from now won't be able to play this.

So, the message is weighted with the benefits and that's enough for most people to at least consider the shiny new features. But let's say you abstain. "I won't buy into this DRM-restricted crap."

Good for you, but you're just spitting into the wind.

You'll see people buying into it as you do your normal shopping. They want to see the liquid dripping from Spiderman's suit. You'll hear colleagues weave magical weekend tales of buying a new Blu-Ray player. One of your friends will buy one. Then another. A family member will get one. Then another. At least one will have bought it because they couldn't get the latest blockbuster in standard def. Eventually everyone around you will have traded in -- or "up," in their view -- unaware or in denial of the restrictions.

How long can you hold out? I think forever, but your choice will restrict your available motion picture entertainment.

I think that people would reject these things if the drawbacks outweighed the benefits. (The initial DivX may have failed for this reason.) But product designers and marketers are not in the business to offer reasons to NOT buy the latest.

No. They offer a new product that, in many ways, is better that the current generation. Buried within are new restrictions. Then comes the message: This is better. Buy it or miss out. Given the choice -- especially in light of how the marketing is crafted -- most people, eventually, choose to buy

Cheers,

m

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by tcv

No. They offer a new product that, in many ways, is better that the current generation. Buried within are new restrictions. Then comes the message: This is better. Buy it or miss out. Given the choice -- especially in light of how the marketing is crafted -- most people, eventually, choose to buy

It gets even better: It doesn't matter if the new stuff is really better - because advertising tells you its better and (even more important) cool ...

[GeoffC]

Do authors still write their stories by hand on paper with a pencil, or ink?
By this I mean the book itself, not ideas etc.
Do many authors still write their stories on a typewriter?

If the answer to either of these is no (or mainly no), then a story from its conception exists as a binary file in a computer.

To my uncertain knowledge most commercial newspapers, these days, start of with their content as a binary file in a computer.

This file is then available for any number of current, and hopefully future, methods by which stories can be read.

The writer deserves to be recompensed for their effort in producing the story, deserves to be recognised as the author of the story, whether that recognition is by patent or copyright is immaterial.
Surely the author has the right to maintain some control over their produce? Unless they sign part or all of that right away to another party, the distributor.

If my first questions have been answered "yes" - for a majority; then what extras need to be added to the financial equation? editorial and advertising are the two main ones I can think of. Whether we are looking at an e-format or a paper format, the next extra is storage/printing. Why therefore should a "book" that exists in its original state as an electronic file, cost nearly the same as a hardback book? - which is what we see with many new publications.



Where is Solomon when you need him?

What was this thread about, again?

[sanders]

Originally Posted by tirsales

One possible market-advantage for authors/publishers: Service. Have a good and nice page where you can buy (and use) your books/music very easy (easier and faster as downloading the product from grey/black market) and give away very high quality.
I personally do very much prefer simply clicking "buy this-and-that-book" on a fast server (prefarably from my reader and wherever I am) then searching, downloading, waaaaiiiitiiing on a p2p-net.

This is a dangerous idea. Suppose we say "ebook distribution is fully legalized from now on", and you rely on authors having a "nice page" to buy their book from, nothing is to stop someone from setting up a huge ebook site which will always come up first in Google search results, taking all kinds of credit cards, and selling their (copied) ebooks to you. Their business model would be "find the author's nice page, buy one copy of their book, and put it in our own catalog."

[tirsales]

Which would actually be illegal - and quite possible nowaday btw. The DRM-systems used wouldn't change anything, it's actually only the law prohibiting stuff like this - and that won't change

Oh well - if you want copyprotection - don't use DRM but watermark those files. Regular customers won't give a damn (because it wont disturb their usage in any way) but you would still have a determent ...

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Steve, who will buy it? Do you think that the American populace will tolerate Big Brother (we still have votes, remember).

tcv nailed it: It will be bundled (often invisibly) into services and SW you do want... bloatware... extras... automatic security updates... Microsoft... presto, it's there, and you don't even know when it happened. Sure, many savvy people will manage to avoid it, but most people won't... they won't even know what's happening, or because they get to download Iron Man II in 3 minutes on their home PC, they won't care.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by tirsales

No, I acutally dont think that we will see a loss of content.
Different marketing models: Yes.
Loss of content: No.

Problem is, copyright is often the only tool creators have to protect their content. There may be other marketing models... such as advertising or patron support, for instance... but without a way to protect your investment from being infringed upon, why would you bother to produce?

Think about it: iTunes has contracts with music producers to put certain songs/artists on iTunes, and on no other service. If any legitimate service could put those same artists/songs up for free download, pay the artists nothing, and not get taken to court over it... why should anyone go to iTunes to get exclusive contracts? Why should any consumer pay for a song at iTunes? Why should an artist expect to get any money from such a system? And if there's no money in it for them, why bother to produce?

Another example (hypothetical, since I don't know the real players involved): ABC's Lost is being sponsored by Procter & Gamble, whose money is poured into the show in exchange for airing 6 of their commercials every hour. If the (imaginary) CBA network could co-opt Lost and broadcast it with commercials from someone other than P&G (who did not support Lost), and not be taken to court, would P&G bother to support a show and not get their commercial broadcast end of the deal? How would Lost get produced, without their sponsors and their monetary support?

Copyright is the glue that holds all of that together. Without copyright, supporters would have little or no reason to support an artistic work, because they can and do expect to have that work co-opted without any compensation to them. I could copy a book written by Michael Crichton, put my name on it, sell it, and not suffer any legal action.

In such a system, we will lose content, from professional creators who will decide it's not worth their trouble to produce and get nothing from it. The content we'll have left might not all be c**p, but the quality of available content will be severely lessened with the loss of professional creators.

You tell me: Why would anyone want a system like that? Just because it's free? Is "free" worth the subsequent and guaranteed loss of quality?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Problem is, copyright is often the only tool creators have to protect their content. There may be other marketing models... such as advertising or patron support, for instance... but without a way to protect your investment from being infringed upon, why would you bother to produce?

Because you earn money?

When you write about these questions I get the impression you think it is more important to protect thing than earning money. The reasoning seem to start with "protection is needed" instead of starting with "how can I earn money".

[tirsales]

I never said "turn away from copyright". You just have to understand that it is the only thing protecting your creations now - and that wont change.
DRM is NOT protecting. DRM is just a hindrance, without a "dont break this"-law it doesn't do anything (it is just not safe enough) - and you don't need this law because copyright is already working as a "dont copy this" law.
If you think you need something - use watermarks. They dont annoy people (because no usage-hindrance is implemented) but have the same determental effect - after all everybody could see who bought that content originally!

And "different market models": Yes. Of course we will see them - we already begin to see them. e.g. content-flatrates, renting of content, etc
I have no business model for eBooks - and if I had I would think twice wether it would be better to share it here or try to implement it myself. But new models will evolve - the old model need not die, but new models will perhaps co-exist.

[astrodad]

I just don't see the logic in the 2/3 deal. I just think it will cause more work for people, and thus impose a barrier to purchase. I like the idea of proofing a couple of chapters on the website before purchasing. I don't like the idea of downloading a 2/3 complete book, reading it, then having to reconnect my device to finish it. That might work for a device like the Kindle, but not for the average user.

[tirsales]

@jplumey: That's one of the things I meant with "service" - make it easy for people to give you money.
They have just read your demo-chapter? Give them a link at the back "read on" - 'click', book is bought and you can just read on ... If the book is good - they are not going to search the darknet, because they want to read on now.

E.g. you have a big ad in a railroad station, presenting a new book. The ad is succcessfull - you want to read that book (your train is late, you forgot to upload new books to your device, etc) - so you just buy that book here and now. Perhaps via bluetooth (or whatever) directly "from the ad", perhaps via a wlan-hotspot, via UMTS or sprint, or whatever.
If you cant buy that book at the ad - most people will have forgotton about it back home. And now - they are not going to search it in the darknet, because they want to read (and have) it NOW. So - make it easy for them to get it NOW.
Make your device connect to stores and let people buy wherever they are - not only via Amazon, but other services too. etc etc
THIS will make people give you money - not forcing them to use a slow page with bad searching- or sorting routines. iTunes is successfull because Apple understood that. Make it easy for people.
They dont want to use xyz-browser - give them a software that is comfortable, and your set ...

Oh well, I'm repeating myself.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

tcv nailed it: It will be bundled (often invisibly) into services and SW you do want... bloatware... extras... automatic security updates... Microsoft... presto, it's there, and you don't even know when it happened. Sure, many savvy people will manage to avoid it, but most people won't... they won't even know what's happening, or because they get to download Iron Man II in 3 minutes on their home PC, they won't care.

I suppose that LINUX doesn't exist, and that to buy a thing is a choice, and not a painful forcing of DRM down everybodies throat. Old fashion of me, I suppose.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I suppose that LINUX doesn't exist, and that to buy a thing is a choice, and not a painful forcing of DRM down everybodies throat. Old fashion of me, I suppose.

I suppose that Linux has the lion's share of the PC market today...