Can e-Publishing Overcome Copyright Concerns?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I just wish there was a hassle-free alternative to PayPal (bad experiences) .

I know you offer alternative payment methods on your site, but they seem a bit of a faff (esp. for those of us overseas).

(Uh, Sheriff? heh... I forgot my hat...)

It's true, a global commerce system like the internet could really use a better working global payment/exchange system. Unfortunately, I don't know if we have to wait for the banks, or the politicians, to work those problems out... but either way, it'll probably take awhile.

[GeoffC]

And when you thought it couldn't get any worse...

The Goblins arrive...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7412671.stm

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Interesting.

Copyright law does not directly govern the use of a product or creation after it is legally sold (or given away), and there are already too many precedents against the idea that someone can be made to pay back the creator for something they legally obtained, then sold on their own. Think of all the automakers suing used car sellers, real estate companies suing homeowners, and publishers suing all of those used bookstores...

In and of itself, it means very little. It's not a copyright issue, it's a legal issue. Any companies interested in that kind of control are just going to have to start writing up contracts and forcing their giftees to sign them and face legal liability for reselling them, gifting them, or even throwing them away. And every consumer down the line will have to sign such contracts for every purchase. Oy.

In fact, all that would result from that is for the purchaser/giftee to end up sending the item back to the original creator, who would then repackage it and regift it, resell it, or throw it away. Talk about Indian Givers. Oy gevalt.

I've said that copyright needs to be updated for the current century, and these legal issues could end up being rewritten into copyright law, making such transaction-by-transaction non-resale agreements a given.

But personally, I think it's all a case of going too far for absolute control of property, and absolutely greed-based. I'd hope copyright does not end up supporting this.

[Ramen]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Well, silly me... I guess there are no copyright concerns that e-publishing has to overcome. So, what were we talking about?

Were we talking about why publishers and authors are afraid to release their material electronically, because of the number of people who post their material illegally and cost them a significant part of their income, in clear violation of their copyrights?

Or were we just talking about how great the darknet is for making everyone loads of money? Pogue's article failed to mention all the income he's made from people who downloaded his books from the darknet, then went out and purchased all of his other material... but I guess the omission is understandable.

Anyway, I am going to back slowly away from this sub-thread, with my hands in clear view. Sorry for making such a fuss, Sheriff... I'll see myself out.

No, David Pogue, Ebook Piracy is Not a Given[db.tidbits.com]
Edit: I only now realised that this is linked at the news section
Edit2: Here's the link for future reference: Engst to Pogue: E-Book piracy not a given

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Many people on the MR site and elsewhere have suggested that copyright is already obsolete and useless. If it is rendered un-enforceable by open document copying and distribution via the darknet, coupled with widespread use of the darknet over paid distribution channels (like Amazon, say), with no method of securing compensation to the creator short of voluntary donations (as some MR members have openly suggested they'd prefer), copyright will effectively be dead.

I'd just like to point out, that I'm a supporter of copyright law. The GPL wouldn't exist without it. The problem, as usual, are excessive laws.

Macaulay on copyright law[www.bean.com] (a bit lengthy...)

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Ramen

(a bit lengthy...)

I'll say... I think I'll just convert this to an e-book and read it on the train home!...

[joblack]

The pirated books came from safari, I presume ... and not from his sent pdf eBooks.

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by joblack

The pirated books came from safari, I presume ... and not from his sent pdf eBooks.

But why bother with getting one's facts right before leveling accusations, yes?

Derek

[wgrimm]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

However, we regularly hear from people on these forums who seem to give the impression that it only takes a small transgression from an author to satisfy their justification to take their e-book from the darknet and not pay for it. "Have you seen him... with that stupid big nose? I'm taking Big Nose's book! Ha!"


The claim that "a book taken from the darknet isn't a lost sale, because they wouldn't have bought it anyway" is one that the publishing industry has not yet accepted (and for the record, nor have I).

The big problem with these moralistic arguments against piracy is that they really don't solve anything. DRM sucks because it trashes your rights; in my case, DRM has cost me lots of money- books I bought that were DRM'd are no longer available to me.

So, pirates are bad, and DRM is bad, and authors have a moral right to earn money off their e-books. I have heard this hashed and rehashed on tens if not hundreds of threads here. But still nothing is solved. How is piracy reduced? By reducing prices. Same as with movie piracy- drop the price of a DVD down to 5 or 10 dollars, and many fewer people will go through the hassle of downloading from the net. Sure, some will- but they are a small element, the same sort of cheapskates that will re-use chewing gum.

And it makes a great deal of sense that a book downloaded from the "darknet' is not a lost sale- lots of people aren't going to buy an e-book that costs 15 or 20 dollars. Just like lots of people won't blow the money to buy a hardback book- they will wait and borrow it from the library or from a friend. It doesn't kill my budget to buy a book or two- I do it all the time. Make it easy for me to buy an e-book, price it fairly, and don't screw me with DRM, and I'll buy it. But don't treat me like a rube......

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by wgrimm

The big problem with these moralistic arguments against piracy is that they really don't solve anything. DRM sucks because it trashes your rights; in my case, DRM has cost me lots of money- books I bought that were DRM'd are no longer available to me.

So, pirates are bad, and DRM is bad, and authors have a moral right to earn money off their e-books. I have heard this hashed and rehashed on tens if not hundreds of threads here. But still nothing is solved.

The problem is in discussing financial issues in moralistic terms... you're right, it clearly doesn't work. Discussing the issues as moral absolutes isn't working: DRM is not the equivalent to an H-bomb; Pirates are not the Sons of Satan; Authors are not idealistic saints.

The only way to deal with financial loss is to take financial steps (including laws that support the financial steps). Appealing to the consumer's morality is pointless, because it has already been demonstrated that money trumps morality in the majority of consumers' minds.

I think copyright concerns can be upheld in a digital economy. I think that financial steps will accomplish that, by making it financially worth the while of the majority (consumers and creators) to support the copyright-based system. If it does not happen, it will only be because the financial system developed some other sales method that the majority will consider in their best interests to support.

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Appealing to the consumer's morality is pointless, because it has already been demonstrated that money trumps morality in the majority of consumers' minds.

That is nonsense. Do you know how few people are e.g. doing petty crimes though the chance of getting cought is minimal? So .. Moral is a very important imperative in the behaviour of people. As is comfort.
Money comes only in play if it is in too short supply - that is: When people dont have money, it gets more comfortable to not pay money.

Oh well, you have your opinion and I have mine. I strongly believe, that the only way to solve the "problem" is by providing customers with an easy and fair system to buy the content. You can see it e.g. in the music industrie - provide a nice and easy way to buy music, and people will buy the music instead of downloading it. Though the darknet still exists, the music is still available there, it is cheaper there, etc

Easy as in "really easy". Fair as in "fair priced, without drm and similar". And it need to be ever present. Easier to buy then to steal.

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

The problem is in discussing financial issues in moralistic terms... you're right, it clearly doesn't work. Discussing the issues as moral absolutes isn't working: DRM is not the equivalent to an H-bomb; Pirates are not the Sons of Satan; Authors are not idealistic saints.

The only way to deal with financial loss is to take financial steps (including laws that support the financial steps). Appealing to the consumer's morality is pointless, because it has already been demonstrated that money trumps morality in the majority of consumers' minds.

I think copyright concerns can be upheld in a digital economy. I think that financial steps will accomplish that, by making it financially worth the while of the majority (consumers and creators) to support the copyright-based system. If it does not happen, it will only be because the financial system developed some other sales method that the majority will consider in their best interests to support.

I think the biggest problem *against* full-compliance is money. No, not the money in the consumers' pockets, but the money that represents what informed consumers consider to be a "reasonable" price for an ebook that will generate an "adequate" profit to the publisher and royalty to the author. We all know that the "retail" costs for an ebook are far lower than that of a dead-tree. And the ebook doesn't have the costs associated with printing, storage and distribution. So when a publisher releases a new title in dead-tree but then also releases it in ebook - for trade or hardcover price - well, the average user decides it's not a "reasonable" deal.

Then when months go by and the publisher is still charging HC prices, the consumer gets frustrated and 'darknets' it. End result, a lost ebook sale. Had the publisher truly understood market forces, the publisher would have either released the ebook at mmpb prices initially, or would have shortened the time between initial hc pricing and mmpb pricing.

But then, we've already seen how publishers continue to insist upon 1800's marketing and publishing methods in the face of a 2000's marketplace.

Derek

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by tirsales

That is nonsense. Do you know how few people are e.g. doing petty crimes though the chance of getting cought is minimal? So .. Moral is a very important imperative in the behaviour of people. As is comfort.
Money comes only in play if it is in too short supply - that is: When people dont have money, it gets more comfortable to not pay money.

Although the real chance of getting caught might be low for an individual, the fact is that the perception of getting caught is higher, thanks to the measures of security (like hidden cameras and plainclothes floorwalkers, imparting a high risk to shoplifting) as well as the risk to standing, reputation, position, etc. People who want something still won't steal it, because of these perceptions. So people are in effect pre-conditioned to avoid petty theft. It's not a moral thing... it's a risk thing.

This is why it's such a big deal on the Internet: So far, there are no comparable security systems in-place to stop web-based petty theft, and almost zero risk; and netters want it to stay that way, because they like a zero-security, zero-risk world that allows them to do whatever they want, morality be damned.

All that is left as a security option is tagging products with DRM or access codes or whatever, to chase down individual items after they are taken. Anyone in security will tell you, what you should be doing is preventing items from being taken in the first place. But as long as consumers continue to rail against any security applied to the web, it makes the prospect of selling any digital product difficult at best.

Originally Posted by delphidb96

I think the biggest problem *against* full-compliance is money....

Since my e-books (2 of them, anyway) are on the Darknet, even with their considered-to-be-reasonable prices, I'd say that money isn't really the issue... or, at least, it's only part of the issue. The real issue is Respect.

People who do not respect a creator Darknet their work, in effect letting others take the work for free, a sign of disrespect for the creator. And it's not always about money... it can be about opinions, politics, insults, perceived slights, or even looks... but everyone focuses on money, because the loss to income is considered of paramount importance (and the best way to hurt someone) by many.

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

So people are in effect pre-conditioned to avoid petty theft. It's not a moral thing... it's a risk thing.

This could very well be true. Then apply the situation on the darknet: License holders are suing like they get paid for it - and still, there is not that much of a response to this.

All that is left as a security option is tagging products with DRM or access codes or whatever, to chase down individual items after they are taken. Anyone in security will tell you, what you should be doing is preventing items from being taken in the first place. But as long as consumers continue to rail against any security applied to the web, it makes the prospect of selling any digital product difficult at best.

As I was saying: Apply a kind of watermark that is hard to remove. It should be more then sufficient in providing customers with a kind of "I could get caught"-feeling and annoys less then a kind of DRM.

Since my e-books (2 of them, anyway) are on the Darknet, even with their considered-to-be-reasonable prices, I'd say that money isn't really the issue... or, at least, it's only part of the issue. The real issue is Respect.

You well never be "free of the darknet" - just as you will always have a certain amount of theft, drug dealing, etc. No matter how high your security - somebody breaks it.

People who do not respect a creator Darknet their work, in effect letting others take the work for free, a sign of disrespect for the creator.

I disagree. Getting something from the Darknet doesnt always show disrespect to the author. I e.g. got quite some amount of RPG-Rulebooks from the Darknet. Why? I already had them in hard-cover and wanted the e-books as a comfy alternative. This way I can lead a game with only my laptop - which already holds my personal notes, player statistics and stuff.
Of course I would have bought the e-books if they were available - but they are not.
So - where is the disrespect for the original author? I paid him (quite a lot in this case) for his work and I honor his work by playing his system and even winning new customers through the introduction of new players.
I know what you meant - but I still couldnt let it stand

And it's not always about money... it can be about opinions, politics, insults, perceived slights, or even looks... but everyone focuses on money, because the loss to income is considered of paramount importance (and the best way to hurt someone) by many.

I guess it is rarely about hurting the author. If I dislike an author (a company, etc) I boycot him completely. Why should I share his work on the darknet? He could only get a broader fan-base out of this.
Have a look at e.g. Adobe. Do you really think that it was Adobe's loss that you can find their Acrobat-Software on the darknet? Economists have calculated that it was Adobes win - because they managed to attract new customers who learn using this software in a private environment and buy it once they move into a professional one.

I e.g. strongly dislike M$ and everything attached to them. In fact I loath M$. You won't see me downloading M$-stuff from the darknet - instead I use software from other companys and boycott M$.

Okay, some people might get a kick out of "uploading the foes work to the darknet". It's more healthie this way, otherwise they might scratch your car

[Trenien]

Originally Posted by delphidb96

I think the biggest problem *against* full-compliance is money. No, not the money in the consumers' pockets, but the money that represents what informed consumers consider to be a "reasonable" price for an ebook that will generate an "adequate" profit to the publisher and royalty to the author.

I honestly don't feel like the average user cares whether the money they're paying generates an adequate profit (at best, it only has a fringe effect). Again, this is basing your business model on morality, one that is doomed to failure in the world of plentifulness that the digital realm is. At the end of the day, you can only make people consistently fork money over for things that are scarce.

So when a product, such as Steve's, is digital only, you have a problem. My feeling on the matter is that you can only take advantage of what will remain scarce: customers time. In other words, people will buy from you if they feel the convenience of doing so outweights the amount you're asking for.

[Trenien]

Originally Posted by tirsales

I e.g. strongly dislike M$ and everything attached to them. In fact I loath M$. You won't see me downloading M$-stuff from the darknet - instead I use software from other companys and boycott M$.

Actually it's been demonstrated (and upheld in court), that companies such as Mcrosoft and others encouraged the illegal downloading of their products in order to gain market shares.