Can e-Publishing Overcome Copyright Concerns?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by tompe

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".

"Making money is easy... if all you want to do is to make money."
-Citizen Kane

"If I just wanted to make money, I'd have a day job. Oh, yeah... I do."
-Steve Jordan

We're discussing one of the only tools available to protect people's intellectual property, their source of income. If we're not talking about money, there's little point talking about copyright. Copyright and making money, therefore, go hand-in-hand.

How many non-copywritten works are earning someone money?

How many alternatives to making money is e-publishing creating?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

How many non-copywritten works are earning someone money?

Quite a few, if you look at all the editions of authors like Dickens and Shakespeare in the typical book shop.

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

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

It's growing.

How many non-copyright protected ... oh well, I guess there are a number of models and systems to make money with non-copyright protected work.

But really: Why does everyone say "Oh my god, there wont be copyright?"
What the f* will change?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

"Making money is easy... if all you want to do is to make money."
-Citizen Kane

"If I just wanted to make money, I'd have a day job. Oh, yeah... I do."
-Steve Jordan

We're discussing one of the only tools available to protect people's intellectual property, their source of income. If we're not talking about money, there's little point talking about copyright. Copyright and making money, therefore, go hand-in-hand.

How many non-copywritten works are earning someone money?

How many alternatives to making money is e-publishing creating?

I think you totally missed my point.

You are formulating your view so it seems that you prefer to earn 1000 money units and having no person reading your books without paying for it to earning 1000000 money units and having 10% of the people reading your books not paying for it.

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

"Making money is easy... if all you want to do is to make money."
-Citizen Kane

"If I just wanted to make money, I'd have a day job. Oh, yeah... I do."
-Steve Jordan

We're discussing one of the only tools available to protect people's intellectual property, their source of income. If we're not talking about money, there's little point talking about copyright. Copyright and making money, therefore, go hand-in-hand.

How many non-copywritten works are earning someone money?

How many alternatives to making money is e-publishing creating?

I think the BIGGEST attitude issue is that the publishing industry - and we see the same in the music industry - gets so focused on getting that 'last 5%' of projected readers that they fail to see they're really pissing off the other 95% who would have paid anyway. Books are not a thin-margin product, they generate a solid 10-15% at minimum to the publisher - and between 4-12% for the author. There's room to acknowledge that 'preventing the 5% who're likely to steal a work' is going to eat up more money than just leaving off the various DRM protection schemes.

Further, all this emphasis ignores the real problem. It's not that some people will steal the books, it's obscurity which costs more money. First one has to become "aware" there's a new title or new author out there. Then one has to decide whether it's worth the risk (of boredom or disgust) to try said item/author. Adding in "copyright protection" to electronic books just adds further negatives in the "I don't want to take the risk" column because a user then has to face attempting to get "this" title - with it's specific DRM scheme - onto "that" ebook reader - which, of course, only supports *the other* copyprotectiion schemes. Why bother?

So, by word of mouth, the customer finds that there are 'darknet' versions which don't have this hassle. Guess what? The publisher, after sticking it to the customers often enough, has just created another proponent of the dark side.

I've *SEEN* this conversion process occur, more than once. And every time the industry chooses to focus on 'protecting their rights' over 'widening the market' by changing formats to build in tighter encryption methods, a new generation - quite often more technologically savvy - gains incentive to seek 'free' versions.

I know it's the industry's right to seek for a 100% sold-not stolen solution. But at some point, they've got to come to the realization that they're spending more money and getting less of a return.

I remember reading about two cameras, the trusty Yashicamat-124 versus the Hassleblad 500CM. They'd done a study of what *MOST* users of each camera imaged. And they found something out. For the most common shooting situations, the Yashicamat with it's fixed 80mm lens provided about 95% of the quality of the Hassleblad, this despite the fact that the Hassleblad had this stunning array of lenses and optional accessories. At the time you could pick up a Yashicamat, new, for about $250. The latest Hassleblad ran about $2,500. Thus, for most photographers, that extra 5% of 'quality' cost 900% more. This is, in terms of gaining that last 5% of sales, what the industry is failing to consider. I note that Hassleblad is still a 'niche' camera, supported solely by big-name pros - and that the Canon digital SLRs are cutting into that margin every year.

Derek

[tirsales]

@delphidb96: I agree. Thanks for your post

And don't forget the last two points:

1. You may loose that 5% of "book-stealers" - but you save lots and lots of money with reduced overall costs (e.g. printing, etc)
2. Noone speaks of abolishing copyright - and no, contrary to what publishers tell you, not using DRM does NOT mean you withdraw your copyrights.

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

How many non-copywritten works are earning someone money?

Originally Posted by HarryT

Quite a few, if you look at all the editions of authors like Dickens and Shakespeare in the typical book shop.

And of course, not least, the Bible...(though no doubt some of these are re-writes)...

[tirsales]

Regarding the topic of "non-copywritten work" - have a look at software and open-source. I know, authors dont like this - but software is really not that different from books...
And what will you see? OpenSource and "normal" software living next each other. And both sides actually make money ...
(I agree - it would be difficult to sell support for a book. But there are other possible incomes for an author then selling the book itself. It should be left to the author wether he likes the traditional way (see "non-drm does not mean non-copywritten") or "open writing"

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

And of course, not least, the Bible...(though no doubt some of these are re-writes)...

Bibles are translations and the vast majority of translations are copyrighted. I wouldn't, however, call them re-writes.

Dale

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

Bibles are translations and the vast majority of translations are copyrighted. I wouldn't, however, call them re-writes.

Dale

You are right, my use of "re-writes" was incorrect;
but nonetheless it's a work that has lasted the time, and many changes to keep the money rolling in to someone...Obviously not the original authors!!!

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

Bibles are translations and the vast majority of translations are copyrighted. I wouldn't, however, call them re-writes.

Dale

Even most of the Bibles which aren't translations (eg I have a couple of different Greek New Testaments) are still copyrighted text!

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Quite a few, if you look at all the editions of authors like Dickens and Shakespeare in the typical book shop.

I was thinking of something... a bit more recent. After all, I doubt Dickens or Shakespeare are benefitting from their current sales, one way or the other.

Originally Posted by tompe

I think you totally missed my point.

You are formulating your view so it seems that you prefer to earn 1000 money units and having no person reading your books without paying for it to earning 1000000 money units and having 10% of the people reading your books not paying for it.

That's more of a DRM issue than a copyright issue, and I'm not addressing DRM here. I have no reason to believe that the removal of copyright will result in a 1000x increase in the number of sales of my books, as you suggest in your example. Without copyright to protect my interests, I'd have more reason to expect a comparable loss in income, quite possibly down to zero, as people freely swap my books on the darknet, with no one worried about paying me for any of them... or more significantly, someone else selling my books in their name, with better marketing and publicity, making money from them instead of me.

Can you see how that might concern me as an author?

Copyright is a tool, like a cashier in front of the store exit, that provides a way to make sure the product gets paid for. (Well, actually, I suppose DRM is the cashier, and copyright is the societal agreement that you are supposed to stop there and pay on the way out.) It is not 100% secure and foolproof, but it works well enough to provide a maximum of sales with a minimum of loss. Removing copyright would be akin to putting the cashier in the parking lot, farthest from the door, and seeing how many people bother to go over and pay (instead of making a left turn and walking away). As the net (and the world) has already demonstrated, giving people the choice to pay for content out of the goodness of their hearts generally results in pitifully low payments and overall loss.

But even copyright won't work when everyone decides to just rush for the doors, past the cashiers. That's the issue here: How do we make people act fairly and honestly, when they perceive that it's too easy to just rush the doors?

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

But even copyright won't work when everyone decides to just rush for the doors, past the cashiers. That's the issue here: How do we make people act fairly and honestly, when they perceive that it's too easy to just rush the doors?

I repeat: There is actually NOTHING but the copyright law that prevents them from doing so AS IT IS.
DRM changes drek about that. It is much too easy to circumvent or rightout break DRM - and those books are available on the darknet. Only the law (not caring about DRM that law...) and a sense of "morally right" or "fair" makes e-book-readers buy your books.

So - DRM changes nothing for your security as an author and annoys your customers.

What can you do to make people buy your books? Make it easy for them. Make it comfortable. If it is more comfortable then the darknet - people will buy those books not "steal" them.

But really - this is a serious question: Why are you assuming that copyright will vanish?

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Even most of the Bibles which aren't translations (eg I have a couple of different Greek New Testaments) are still copyrighted text!

We're moving slightly off-topic here, but why are these still copyrighted? Is it the layout, changes in interpretation or revision that makes each edition a new copyright.

My English Bible, 23rd impression 1964, is Authorised but not copyrighted, and yet my New English Bible - New Testament is clearly copyrighted.

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

But even copyright won't work when everyone decides to just rush for the doors, past the cashiers. That's the issue here: How do we make people act fairly and honestly, when they perceive that it's too easy to just rush the doors?

That, in a nutshell, is surely the crux of the problem?