Can e-Publishing Overcome Copyright Concerns?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Do you not think, though, that when an author like Steve is doing the "right thing" and making his books available at extremely reasonable prices, it's a damned shame that some people still want "something for nothing" and will choose to download them illegally rather than pay the extremely modest asking price for them?

Harry, I'm not disagreeing that Steve is doing the right thing. Maybe there are more that two of his works in the darknet. If so, that would invalidate my conclusions. The question at hand is, does the existance of darknet books take away legitimate sales? Do they act as advertising, creating more sales? I've heard both claims. This seems to be a reasonably controlled experiment (as reasonable as I think we'll ever get), some on darknet, some not, and basically flat sale across the board for all e-books, darknet available or not. It's not perfect, but it ought to mean something...

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

As I indicated, I think a comparison needs to be made against a famous and/or large-selling author, to get anything significant from this.

More might be gleaned from an examination of why these particular titles have been Darknetted. It might have a bearing on the attitude of Pirates that post the material, and why there seems to be the apparent level of disrespect that prompted them to post the material. So, in the interest of disclosure: The two Darknetted titles are Sol and Midgard's Militia (and we'll see what this disclosure does to sales, down the line!).

The obvious similarity between the two is that they are both soft SF, one a "Star Wars"-level story, the other a pulp hero story. Both feature characters with special powers/abilities. Both have aliens, and in both, the aliens are antagonists, but in Sol, aliens are also protagonists. Both stories have sexual elements, steamy at times but nothing X-rated.

They were released about 2 months apart (one novel, Evoguía, came out between them). Both are priced the same, the standard $2.50 that all other SJB books share.

Does anyone see anything significant to the situation here?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

As I indicated, I think a comparison needs to be made against a famous and/or large-selling author, to get anything significant from this.

I agree, but virtually all large-selling author's work are on the darknet already, so you can't do a <on/not on darknet> sales comparison, i.e. everything is already affected.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

I never said it would be easy...

[Ramen]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

I never said it would be easy...

The main problem is honesty. Honesty w.r.t. sampling and sampling capabilities. Honesty w.r.t. 'lost sales'. Honesty w.r.t. quality of content. Honesty w.r.t. formats and other hassles (hardcover only, no ebook, special formats only, DRM, ...). Honesty w.r.t. conclusions.

You were honest with your findings* but the industry has a very bad track record in such things. There's a reason that the RIAA and MPAA are referred to as MAFIAA. The amount of damages they claim are preposterous and having an accurate study would destroy these lies. Having an accurate view on matters instead of a scapegoat apparently isn't in their interest.

Now, I do not know what the result of such a study would be but fantasy numbers wouldn't survive. On both sides.

It's also a question of how the industry sees itself. The MAFIAA still lives in the boom years of the 90s where as reality has taken a dive. The book industry also has it's problems (Hardcover-only release, professional books, etc) but it's lightyears away from the likes of the MAFIAA.



*: Given the precedent the MAFIAA as set, technically, I should say "I have no reason to doubt you" or "as far as I can tell" but whatever

[igorsk]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

As I indicated, I think a comparison needs to be made against a famous and/or large-selling author, to get anything significant from this.

Here's a quote from Eric Flint, a rather good-selling author, I'd say.

Originally Posted by Eric Flint

Someone asked me once, in a debate, how I'd react if I discovered that one of my titles—maybe all of them!—had become widely pirated. I started by posing the most extreme case I could imagine.

"You mean, I walk into a drugstore and see that the latest copy of Time magazine has my face on the cover, with a title that reads 'Works of Eric Flint pirated worldwide!' and an article on the inside that tells everybody exactly how to do it?"

"Yes," came the reply, demonstrating that my opponent was no wizard at the art of debate. "What measures would you take?"

"Well," I said, "the very first thing I'd do is get on the phone and call my friend Mike Spehar. He's a retired Air Force pilot, and I'd want his advice on which brand of private jet I should buy to be able to commute easily from the villas I'd be buying in southern France, the coast just south of Barcelona . . . Hm, maybe a penthouse in Manhattan and another one in Paris . . ."

It was like shooting fish in a barrel.

In the real world, the only authors—or musicians, by the way—who get "pirated" in any significant numbers are ones who are already famous and enjoy top sales. (And all the "piracy" is likely to do, even then, is simply boost their sales. See my next essay for a further discussion.) The great problem faced by all authors—musicians are in a very similar position—is the opacity of the book market. The entertainment market in general, actually, even movies. Compared to that problem, all others are fleas standing next to mammoths.

I'm sure you can find quite a few of his books on darknet. I don't see him complaining.
Read the whole essay here.

[Darqref]

On various sources, mostly Wired columns (because that's where I generally read them), I've seen reporters who have had substantial conversations with hackers of various flavors. It would be interesting if one could make contact with the person(s) who put your books up on the darknet could be found (even if in an anonymous form) to ask why those particular books were put up.

My own favorite explanation for the "small anomaly" is that some small number of persons *found* the book(s) on the darknet, and then went to go purchase them. Of course, that favorite explanation may have no relation to reality.

Thanks for answering my question anyway.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by igorsk

Here's a quote from Eric Flint, a rather good-selling author, I'd say...

Yes, I remember the essay well, and yes, there's a point there.

Of course, Eric's assuming that there will always be more luddites than pirates, who will goggle (not "google") over Time covers, walk into the nearest bookstore and pay for his conveniently-printed book. But the former is not assured, and the latter is not the case for everyone. If either side of his equation broke down, he wouldn't be talking to his Air Force buddy about what kind of private jet to buy, he'd be talking to his accountant buddy about how soon he needed to liquidate his portfolio to cover the bills he could no longer pay (to be as wild with my duck-shooting as Eric).

Unfortunately, it's not just the established authors like Eric that have to be concerned about the situation. Assuming everything is okay because he is okay is ignoring a much deeper problem that could sneak up behind him and bite him in the butt when he's not looking.

The pirates are already at the castle walls, chipping away at the foundations, and those inside the castle ignore that at their peril.

[Lemurion]

I think part of it is that Eric's doing multiple things at once and they're feeding off each other.

The first is that he's short-cutting the darknet and making all his books freely available for download: you just have to wait until they've been out a while. It's only the newest ones he charges for and puts that down as "paying for speed and convenience."

The second is that he's building a community. It's an established fact that people are more likely to cheat or steal from members of an out-group than the in-group. By building an in-group with his readers this makes them that much more likely to want to pay for his works.

The third is that he is counting on the Luddites as Steve mentioned. Most people don't want to read on a computer. Otherwise there would be no market for portable reading devices. As reader device penetration goes up I would think that this will come into effect less and less. However there are still a number of years to go before that happens.

In some ways Eric's experience is a "Perfect Storm" and we can't guarantee that it would work the same for everyone. However, I do think it can and will work for other writers in a similar position. The question is how similar a position do they need to be in?

[Lemurion]

Sorry for the double post but I wanted to add this:

One thing in Eric Flint's favor is that he has moved from a back of the mid-list author when he started the experiment to an NYT bestselling front-list author.

It may not be a causal relationship, but it is an interesting comment that it has not prevented him from moving forward in his career.

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

The pirates are already at the castle walls, chipping away at the foundations, and those inside the castle ignore that at their peril.

The problem is: So far I have not seen any single evidence (or even strong indication) that the darknet costs sale and money.
I guess the license holders WOULD publish this evidence as soon as they got hold of it.

In fact - the only evidence I have seen so far is of authors/creatives indirectly earning through the darknet.

I stated this deliberately rather provocantly and blunt.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

It's impossible to prove that an instance of a document on the darknet directly results in a "lost sale," since you cannot prove that a document would have been bought if it was not available on the darknet. However, when there are statements published publicly on the web that specifically state, "I downloaded X from the darknet," it is logical to assume that the specified action MAY have substituted for a sale... that there is at least a small percentage of likelihood of a lost sale.

Projecting that into the estimated size and scope of the darknet, and even a small percentage can represent a significant (though still estimated) figure. Since much of business is based on figures derived essentially from estimations, it's not surprising that publishers believe these figures to be as good as solid.

Whatever the "reality" of the darknet is, what is probably more significant to the publisher is the appearance of it. Imagine if you wanted to open a store on a storefront, and right outside the store was a mob of kids, greedy hands outstretched, acting like they wanted to run in and steal your goods the minute you opened your door. They don't even have to really mean it... the impression alone may be enough to set a store owner off, and prompt them to install extra security, or even to move their store to another block.

There may never be hard numbers on the darknet, but the impression alone is enough to set publishers off. If we want publishers to deal with consumers with a minimum of draconian security measures (or, at worst, to keep them from just leaving), we need to do our part to show them that we are not contributing to the darknet... that we are boxing the ears of the nearest Artful Dodger and sending him home to Mama, instead of holding the doors open for them to run in and out with their booty.

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

It's impossible to prove that an instance of a document on the darknet directly results in a "lost sale," since you cannot prove that a document would have been bought if it was not available on the darknet.

That is correct. But I havent even found one evidence of a work available on the darknet being sold less then a work not (or difficult) being available.

However, when there are statements published publicly on the web that specifically state, "I downloaded X from the darknet," it is logical to assume that the specified action MAY have substituted for a sale... that there is at least a small percentage of likelihood of a lost sale.

And on the other side there is a percentage of likelihood of a sale won. Add that together - you will result in (at least) zero.

Whatever the "reality" of the darknet is, what is probably more significant to the publisher is the appearance of it.

And that is wrong. This is like imprisoning someone because I believe from heresay that he once talked to an evil person ...

Imagine if you wanted to open a store on a storefront, and right outside the store was a mob of kids, greedy hands outstretched, acting like they wanted to run in and steal your goods the minute you opened your door. They don't even have to really mean it... the impression alone may be enough to set a store owner off, and prompt them to install extra security, or even to move their store to another block.

The difference is:
a) the kids constrain other customers from entering the shop
b) stealing in a shop creates a direct loss (e.g. the lost book) while downloading from the darknet costs you - at the max - a potentiale sale, not results in a direct loss. There is no cost attached to copying a file.
I know what you mean - but that doesnt justify that behaviour (neither of pirates nor of publishers).

There may never be hard numbers on the darknet, but the impression alone is enough to set publishers off. If we want publishers to deal with consumers with a minimum of draconian security measures (or, at worst, to keep them from just leaving), we need to do our part to show them that we are not contributing to the darknet... that we are boxing the ears of the nearest Artful Dodger and sending him home to Mama, instead of holding the doors open for them to run in and out with their booty.

I am not stating that piracy - in any form - should be supported. I am just stating that there is no evidence in any form that the darknet has a bad impact - and thus the publishers/etc are just acting out of histery.

I repeat: You will never get rid of the darknet - just as you will never get rid of petty thefts or similar. But the darknet is not the problem it is stated to be.
And one of the solutions could be more customer service, etc - this will not keep your work from appearing in the darknet (nothing will) - but it will increase your sale and stop quite a large percentage of people from using that darknet availability.

[pshrynk]

Corey Doctorow puts a lot of his work out there free to encourage people to buy his stuff.

I have heard that Paulo Coelho wants his e-books to be free to encourage sales of the tree-books.

Just an observation.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by tirsales

I repeat: You will never get rid of the darknet - just as you will never get rid of petty thefts or similar. But the darknet is not the problem it is stated to be.

It may not be... but it's the publishers that need convincing, and so far, they're not buying it.

Originally Posted by tirsales

And one of the solutions could be more customer service, etc - this will not keep your work from appearing in the darknet (nothing will) - but it will increase your sale and stop quite a large percentage of people from using that darknet availability.

I don't challenge that either... I'd never suggest that this world couldn't benefit from better customer service.

However, I think putting all of the onus onto the publishers to "do the right thing," without assuming any onus on consumers, is the wrong way to go about improving the system. Consumers have a responsibility, too... they are an equal part of the equation, and in their way, are just as culpable for the state e-publishing is in. In order for the industry to change for the better, both sides have to go the extra mile, show some courtesy, and extend the benefit of the doubt. A one-sided effort simply isn't going to work.