Can e-Publishing Overcome Copyright Concerns?

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by Trenien

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.

Correct.

[HarryT]

Are you able to provide a link to further information about that?

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by Trenien

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.

You have a valid point. I go darknetting when the frustration level over gaining a legal ebook version gets too high. And for a book I can pick up as a $6.99 mmpb, the bar - for me - is set rather low. If the publisher insists I have to wait for months or years for an ebook version and then insists upon putting it into a format I don't like while loading on the DRM - well, except for an occasional hiccup in the system, I can usually get a darknet version to tide me over until a decently-containered legal version arrives. (Of course, I assuage my guilt by buying an mmpb version... I suppose I should go through psychoanalysis to "cure" that behavior. )

Derek

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by tirsales

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.

Yes, but this only works when there's a perceived risk of getting caught. In today's web atmosphere, that perceived risk is slight enough that most people ignore it. Very few Jammie Thomases have been dragged into court so far, and most people assume they will never be that one in 500,000 that will get nabbed.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Yes, but this only works when there's a perceived risk of getting caught. In today's web atmosphere, that perceived risk is slight enough that most people ignore it. Very few Jammie Thomases have been dragged into court so far, and most people assume they will never be that one in 500,000 that will get nabbed.

The representative of the copyright holders can't afford too many Jammie Thomases. They lost at least 6 figures on the prosecution, due to the fact the the person they were sueing had few assets (never, never, never sue poor people. You lose no matter how the suit comes out. Lawyers aren't cheap.)

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

The representative of the copyright holders can't afford too many Jammie Thomases. They lost at least 6 figures on the prosecution, due to the fact the the person they were sueing had few assets (never, never, never sue poor people. You lose no matter how the suit comes out. Lawyers aren't cheap.)

Well, I just named her as the most recently-famous example. But the point is good.

I'll point out, however, that the MPAA's goal there wasn't merely to fine Thomas... it was really to scare the bejeezus out of anyone else who might do what she did. If they calculate that they've managed to prevent more file-sharing and projected loss through theft (a fool's guesstimate at best) than what they spent, they'll figure they came out ahead.

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Are you able to provide a link to further information about that?

I will search my notes for that.

[Trenien]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Well, I just named her as the most recently-famous example. But the point is good.

I'll point out, however, that the MPAA's goal there wasn't merely to fine Thomas... it was really to scare the bejeezus out of anyone else who might do what she did. If they calculate that they've managed to prevent more file-sharing and projected loss through theft (a fool's guesstimate at best) than what they spent, they'll figure they came out ahead.

Considering the overall result, and considering the fact that the allegated loss from downloading have never been proved, I'd say they failed.
As they're edging away from the DRM nonsense, it appears the majors have come to share that point of view.

Of course there is another view on the matter: the majors have never believed the nonsense figures they pulled out of their asses. What they did think was that they could use it to enforce DRM which would allow them to slowly come to a permanent pay-per-use system - do "micro-payments" reminds anyone anything?
What they've realized is that they've been scammed by the DRM makers into believing such a system could be made.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Trenien

What they did think was that they could use it to enforce DRM which would allow them to slowly come to a permanent per-per-use system - do "micro-payments" reminds anyone anything?
What they've realized is that they've been scammed by the DRM makers into believing such a system could be made.

Don't know why they'd think that: No entertainment-based micro-payment service has yet to succeed, even the mighty Disney couldn't pull that off (and they tried twice).

[Trenien]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Don't know why they'd think that: No entertainment-based micro-payment service has yet to succeed, even the mighty Disney couldn't pull that off (and they tried twice).

My point exactly!

You have to remember that the nonsense has begun about ten years ago. It took that long for those people to understand that what they bought was essentially wind. Worse than that it's somewhat stinky wind that kind of indisposes the customers.
The fact that nobody could pull it off hasnt stopped people from thinking they could, even now.

[Darqref]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

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.

Hey Steve

Do you know if the 2 books you *know* are on the darknet sell at the same or different rates that ones you think are not?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

As it happens, all of my e-books are sold at the same price (excepting Kindle editions bought at Amazon, which can vary according to Amazon's system, outside of my control). So in my case, cost would not be an issue.

For the record, I have been told by multiple sources that at least 2 of my books are "on the Darknet," but never which ones... nor have I searched or inquired. In fact, considering how common the name "Steve Jordan" is, even among authors, it's possible that one or both of the books aren't even mine! But that doesn't alter my opinion of posting copywritten works as being a sign of disrespect.

[Trenien]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

As it happens, all of my e-books are sold at the same price (excepting Kindle editions bought at Amazon, which can vary according to Amazon's system, outside of my control). So in my case, cost would not be an issue.

I think what Darqref meant was whether of not the two books on darknet have seen a drop in the number you sell. If you don't know which one are available, I guess the question is moot (except if you've noticed a significant discrepancy, but I doubt that).

[pshrynk]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

As it happens, all of my e-books are sold at the same price (excepting Kindle editions bought at Amazon, which can vary according to Amazon's system, outside of my control). So in my case, cost would not be an issue.

For the record, I have been told by multiple sources that at least 2 of my books are "on the Darknet," but never which ones... nor have I searched or inquired. In fact, considering how common the name "Steve Jordan" is, even among authors, it's possible that one or both of the books aren't even mine! But that doesn't alter my opinion of posting copywritten works as being a sign of disrespect.

So, let me ask a hypothetical:

Suppose you were a published author who did not want anyone reading e-books because of a prediliction towards paper.

Suppose that you had some wildly popular books, oh say seven or even four, that I wanted to read, but I'm wanting to get everything on my Kindle so I can carry it around with me everywhere.

And suppose that someone as a public service had scanned and uploaded these seven or four books.

Then, if I had already bought all seven or four books in paper, would you say that it was a signo of disrespect to dl darkweb copies of your seven or four books so that I could re-read them, still owning paper copies?

I understand the legal arguments, but just wondered what you, as a published author thought of this sort of usage.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

Then, if I had already bought all seven or four books in paper, would you say that it was a signo of disrespect to dl darkweb copies of your seven or four books so that I could re-read them, still owning paper copies?

I understand the legal arguments, but just wondered what you, as a published author thought of this sort of usage.

Okay... hypothetically:

If you had already purchased the books, and came across them on the Darknet prior to scanning and converting them yourself, for your Kindle... I would not consider it a matter of disrespect to do so. I would consider that as falling under the concept of "fair use," which is a legality-bender at any rate, and I would be okay with that.

The "disrespect" I speak of would be directed mostly to the person who scanned the books and posted them, without permission from the author/owner, on the Darknet. A person who downloaded those books for free, knowing that it was against the author/owner's wishes (in other words, knowing that the author/owner expected you to pay for at least one version of that book, or at most, every version you obtain), would also demonstrate disrespect, though not as much as by those who posted the book.

I suppose it could be argued here what level of respect an author/creator shows--or deserves--by expecting you to pay for each copy of the same e-book. But this is why there is "fair use," essentially giving people a legal excuse for copying their already-purchased media for their own use, and telling author/creators to "deal with it."

But the reason "fair use" works, is because historically it's always been significant work to duplicate someone else's product, making it hard to seriously infringe upon someone else's market and cause them financial harm. Now that we have electronic media, the web, and the Darknet, the logic behind "fair use" has been shattered.

This has left us in a quandry over what to do: Do we repair the logic by inventing copy difficulty (DRM, etc); do we lock down the web (surveillance, etc); do we re-create the media in such a way as to make it more secure to transact (Kindle, etc); do we do all three; or do we do nothing, in the face of a shattered system, and hope the Goodness of Mankind will somehow keep the media market functioning as it always has?

Hypothetically speaking... which is most likely to result in a functioning media market, where people get what they want and author/creators get paid fairly, and so continue to produce?