Can e-Publishing Overcome Copyright Concerns?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by 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.

Like Eric Flint, the fact that they both have printed books puts them in the cat-bird seat... they are already established and printed, and therefore can afford to be magnanimous about e-books. New authors or e-book only authors do not have the same luxury.

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

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.

That is true. Nevertheless: Publishers are a much smaller group - and thus they need to do the first step. After all, they want to make money.

Like Eric Flint, the fact that they both have printed books puts them in the cat-bird seat... they are already established and printed, and therefore can afford to be magnanimous about e-books. New authors or e-book only authors do not have the same luxury.

Perhaps it could be a possibility especially for new authors? After all they could publish their work without a big overhead .. I havent planed a concept so far, this is just a spontaneous idea.
For e-book-authors having some ebooks on the darknet could advertise for your other books.

[Jadon]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

"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.

How does one choose what to read next? I think that's a factor on how this is viewed. If a person has very set views, such that only a particular book will do, such as the next volume in a series, then one might possibly assume that for that person, getting that very specific book, darknet or buying is an choice. For people not locked into a particular next book, I don't know if I'd see the same either/or. Most people could choose a book by any of the authors they follow, or any series they're reading, or some work they heard about. I think most darknet downloads are less "this is what I'll read next" as "this is something I might read someday, might as well get it now". Odds are it will be forgotten in the virtual pile, not that it's a direct substitution for a paid work.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

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.

Steve, this is not directed at you, personally or professionally, but an overview.

You know, there used to be the phrase "the customer is always right". Which meant that you as a business catered to the customer, and did everything you could to make the customer happy. You did it because if you didn't, some other business would, and take your customer's business away from you. This came from competition.

The monopoly world's phrase has always been "you'll take what we give you, when we feel like giving it to you". It's the attitude of a provider, smug in the knowledge that you don't have another choice. Think of your typical governmental bureaucracy.

I.P. is a (theorectically wasting) monopoly. So what we've seen over the years, and particularly today, is the "you'll take what we give you, when we feel like giving it to you" attitude from the business that sell I.P. to consumers. Not "how can we give you what you want, as easily as possible for you. (We appreicate your business, and want more.)"

Twenty years ago, those providers could get away with it, because the customer had no choice. Now they (illegally) do. And because they now have a choice, they're making a finger gesture (choose you culture) at the "you'll take what we give you" attitude, and serving themselves.

The only real fix is to acknowledge that it's no longer a monopoly, and take "the customer is always right" to heart and give them the best experience you possibly can. What is actually happening is the attitude of "How dare they, I'll shoot the <blanking> thieves. It's my monopoly!!!", instead. And the problem gets worse....

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Responded to in order:

Originally Posted by tirsales

That is true. Nevertheless: Publishers are a much smaller group - and thus they need to do the first step. After all, they want to make money.

They want to make money. You want a good book. You both want to not get ripped off. Consumers are the larger group, and they have the least to lose... which is why it's only magnanimous to offer a concession of trust to publishers.

Originally Posted by Jadon

How does one choose what to read next? I think that's a factor on how this is viewed...

Point taken. However, the need to "preview" a book can usually be satisfied with a free excerpt, as opposed to the entire book for free. If the darknet offered only excerpts of books, I'd consider it a much fairer use of it.

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

The only real fix is to acknowledge that it's no longer a monopoly, and take "the customer is always right" to heart and give them the best experience you possibly can. What is actually happening is the attitude of "How dare they, I'll shoot the <blanking> thieves. It's my monopoly!!!", instead. And the problem gets worse....

First, no offense taken.

And on the other hand, the customer is saying, "You publishers are money-grubbing thieves, and I demand you sell me an e-book for a penny!" Or, "I don't like the way you publishers look at me sideways like that... I'm just going to take your book and darknet it! Ha!"

My point is, there's blame, accusations and a lack of trust on both sides. Copyright concerns won't be solved while both sides do not trust each other, and refuse to cut the other side a break.

[Greg Anos]

How can I cut the other side a break when I already don't darknet, and don't recommend doing it? When is the publishing world going to look at the titles that exist on the darknet and say "let's start selling these titles, because we won't get a dime from them otherwise, and there is obviously a market for them", Never (or so it seems). It's the same old "you'll take what we give you, when we feel like giving to you". (Makes me think of Robinson in Little Caesar "I don't care if you like it or not. You'll take it, see. You'll take it or else!")

After 10 years, I still can't buy Ian Fleming, Follet, Ayn Rand, most of Michner, much of Heinlein, Eric Frank Russell, John Brunner, much of Philip Jose Farmer, Stanislaw Lem, and on, and on, and on....

(Far too many aren't taking it, and going to the bookeasy, and giving the password.....)

[tirsales]

First I totally agree with Ralph Sir Edward.

"The customers" is simply a too heterogenous and large group to wait for them stepping up and signing a contract "never to use the darknet again". I know, this is exagerated - but I think you know what I mean.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

They want to make money. You want a good book. You both want to not get ripped off. Consumers are the larger group, and they have the least to lose... which is why it's only magnanimous to offer a concession of trust to publishers.

I dont use the darknet - now: Where are the publishers acknowledging that?
Most people dont use the darknet - it is only a minority using it - but still everybody gets punished.
And customers can wait longer - we dont NEED books - but the publishers need customers. Again: Publishers are simply missing a market that already exists. And the longer they wait, the more people will get to using the darknet. Simply because they want access to that specific book - which is not available, not available for their reader, etc - and can find it only in the darknet. They would have bought the e-book - now they dont. And the darknet can get a habit.
So ... the longer publishers wait, the more problems will arise.

Point taken. However, the need to "preview" a book can usually be satisfied with a free excerpt, as opposed to the entire book for free. If the darknet offered only excerpts of books, I'd consider it a much fairer use of it.

Give your books - missing the last chapters - into the darknet with a message stating "liked it? Get it from .."

And on the other hand, the customer is saying, "You publishers are money-grubbing thieves, and I demand you sell me an e-book for a penny!"

Fair pricing is different from wanting an e-book for a penny. I dont mind the publishers making a fair profit - even making a bigger profit with e-books then with p-books. But ... if you e.g. lower your cost by 50% and still charge the same price - this is impertinent.
Would you accept e.g. your haircutter simply raising his price by 50% without any reason?

Or, "I don't like the way you publishers look at me sideways like that... I'm just going to take your book and darknet it! Ha!"

If you try to put one over your customers (e.g. use DRM that effectively forbids them to use your product as they used it before) - they put one over you.
The publishers see their customers as enemies, as dangerous criminals. They have no trust into their customers.
In fact - they insult them by simply assuming that everybody would use the darknet, by demanding laws that allows publishers to spy on their customers, etc. Now customers are simply returning that cordiality.

You have seen it with the music and film industrie. License holders spying on their customers, damaging their computers by installing spyware and rootkits, demanding laws that allows them to enter houses to search for copied media, etc.
Now why do they expect customers to still like them?

My point is, there's blame, accusations and a lack of trust on both sides. Copyright concerns won't be solved while both sides do not trust each other, and refuse to cut the other side a break.

That is correct. But somebody has to make the first step.
Customers are still buying, the darknet is not raising as much as it could, etc - that is a fair amount of trust coming from the customers.
But where is the return?
In the last years I have ONLY seen the publishing industrie going more and more berserk, wanting crueler laws (in fact demanding laws that no democracy on earth could accept - the fact that some countries do (including Germany) tells you something about the state of democracy), etc etc. They have to stop - because nowadays the publishers are the ones keeping that circle going.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Like Eric Flint, the fact that they both have printed books puts them in the cat-bird seat... they are already established and printed, and therefore can afford to be magnanimous about e-books. New authors or e-book only authors do not have the same luxury.

Note that Eric Flint's free ebooks still sell in bits as well as on paper. Quite a few folks look at the (quite reasonable) prices at the Webscriptions web site and go ahead and buy the book anyway. Why not? It's cheap enough, and it supports the author and the only major fiction publisher that actually 'gets it' about eBooks!

Xenophon

P.S. I'm not bothering with the "buy in paper because they don't want to read on a screen" sales, 'cause they're not relevant to MobileRead.

[cftall]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

Note that Eric Flint's free ebooks still sell in bits as well as on paper. Quite a few folks look at the (quite reasonable) prices at the Webscriptions web site and go ahead and buy the book anyway. Why not? It's cheap enough, and it supports the author and the only major fiction publisher that actually 'gets it' about eBooks!

Xenophon

P.S. I'm not bothering with the "buy in paper because they don't want to read on a screen" sales, 'cause they're not relevant to MobileRead.

I agree !! C.F.Tall "Crackers"

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by tirsales

But somebody has to make the first step.

Here we see our quandry: Each side can claim to have already made the "first step," yet both sides insist the other side has not come "far enough." Neither side is being fully honest with the other, and both sides have legitimate grievances that the other side seems (at face value) to ignore. How can this situation possibly play out well?

Personally, I can't see how (to return to the title of this thread) copyright concerns will ever be settled on the existing internet as we know it. The fact of the matter is: You can't trust everybody. Absolute trust, fairness and safety on the existing web, worldwide, will simply never happen. Ethics and values are not the same from individual to individual, nor from country to country. You need control, but no one wants to grant even an iota of it, despite the potential for enhancing web and personal safety and fairness for all, for fear of the personal freedoms they will lose. Somebody always pisses in the pool.

e-Publishing cannot overcome copyright concerns, because it is not within its purview to control the elements that threaten copyright. e-Publishing is literally at the mercy of the structure of the web, which is by nature anarchic. The web itself needs to rein in the anarchy, and enact controls over those elements, through enhanced security protocols, or copyright protection simply won't happen. All e-publishers can do is wait to see if it ever happens.

[nekokami]

It occurs to me, reading this thread, that we don't actually know that anyone has downloaded Steve's books, only that at least one person has uploaded two of them. (I don't know where in "the darknet" the books are, either-- torrents, usenet, IRC, etc.)

Beyond that, Steve, I think it would be a great idea to host a torrent of your own of the first three chapters of each of your books, with a note in each about where to purchase the rest of the content. I think this would be good for three reasons. One is that it would probably get you some free visibility to potential readers. Another is that it would likely swamp the existing darknet uploads, because someone getting your torrent could get "all" your titles (albeit only the first three chapters), rather than getting one or two only. The third is that it would promote your reputation as a cool, tech-savvy author who knows how to use the latest social tools to his advantage. If you really want to go whole-hog in this direction, you can offer the same excerpts via IRC with a bot, and periodically post to usenet, I suppose. After all, you already offer these excerpts online. This would just be additional channels of distribution.

Just a suggestion....

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

And not a bad suggestion, at that... if I ever find the time, that is!...

Lately, I've been pretty busy, and the prospect of setting up sites on all the potential avenues... ie, blogs, torrents, MySpace, YouTube, usenet, etc, etc... has been a bit overwhelming. (It's all I can do to keep up with you guys!)

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Here we see our quandry: Each side can claim to have already made the "first step," yet both sides insist the other side has not come "far enough." Neither side is being fully honest with the other, and both sides have legitimate grievances that the other side seems (at face value) to ignore. How can this situation possibly play out well?

Again - who wants the money?
If you own a shop - you must do what it takes so that customers buy in your shop. If you apply to strong secutiry measures and customers stay out - you either get out of business or you take a different approach.
Its easy ... the customer dictates the market.

And - what first steps did the publishers do? Offering DRM with an unreasonable set of limitations is not a first step - perhaps a step backward, but not a step towards the customers.

How this can come out well? The industrie wants me to give them money, to buy their merchandise, etc. That's okay. Offer me what I want and I will buy it.

Personally, I can't see how (to return to the title of this thread) copyright concerns will ever be settled on the existing internet as we know it.

And I again state that those concerns are neither based on facts nor on any solid reasoning. They are based on hysteria, on an unreasonable fear of change.

The fact of the matter is: You can't trust everybody.

Okay. You, the shopkeeper, install a team of security guards in front of your shop doors. Then you throw everybody out and let only people enter your shop who you explicitely trust and who sign a contract to not use the stuff purchased at your shop in the following ways (enter long list) and let you the shopkeeper enter their flat and keep track of their (that is the customers) phone calls so you can control that contract.
Guess what - you will not have a single customer.
And that is the approach the industrie takes? Perhaps they should start thinking again.

You cant force anybody to buy stuff - you have to convince them.


@Steve Jordan: You are selling your e-books without drm. Thanks for that. Then you stated, that you know that two of your books are on the darknet. But: This books keep getting bought. Thus the market is functional. There is no need for DRM or that "enforced copyright protection" or stuff. Believe me: You would sell less books if you insisted on drm or some kind of "control over your merchandise". Even if you loose one or two sales to the darknet - you will loose more by applying drm or similar.

You need control, but no one wants to grant even an iota of it, despite the potential for enhancing web and personal safety and fairness for all, for fear of the personal freedoms they will lose. Somebody always pisses in the pool.

You simply dont have any right to force control onto a majority of people and limit their freedom just because you fear - without any evidence to base your fear on - that a small minority MIGHT cost you an amount of money - though you still sell the same amount of stuff, etc.

What do publishers want? Total control over telephony, over the internet, over computers and how their stuff is used? At least - that is what they demand. All that to enforce some copyright? Actually - that is more then some police forces are demanding to counter terrorism .. A bit of an overreaction, dont you think?

[editing quite a bit of political content out - its ot here]

e-Publishing cannot overcome copyright concerns, because it is not within its purview to control the elements that threaten copyright. e-Publishing is literally at the mercy of the structure of the web, which is by nature anarchic. The web itself needs to rein in the anarchy, and enact controls over those elements, through enhanced security protocols, or copyright protection simply won't happen. All e-publishers can do is wait to see if it ever happens.

I reply: e-Publishing cannot overcome copyright concerns because publishers seem to be a bunch of histerics.

Why does the media-industry still sell films, musik, e-books, etc? Because the market is functional. Thats why. There is simply no need to enhance "copyright protection". That stuff is on the darknet - and it will always be. If there was any reason in the ranting of the publishing industrie, they wouldnt sell a single song or book or film anymore.

I wouldnt buy in a shop that searched my pockets without any reason for it. I wouldnt buy in a shop that enforces me to tell the shop-keeper how I use the stuff bought at his shop.
I once knew a shop who had too many security guards. It was creepy - wherever you looked you saw one. You never felt like "simply stralling through the shop, looking at stuff, buying what looks nice" - but more like "running it, grabbing what you need, paying, running out".
They lost customers. They lost customers so fast they changed back. Now they are accepting some small percentage of theft - but they make more money that way.
Its not fair, its not how it would be in a perfect world, etc - but the world is not perfect.

I buy a book in a shop, I read it - and then I lend it to friends, I even resell some of my books. I wouldnt buy in a shop that would prohibit me from doing that.
Stop believing that the e-market is so much different from the p-market - the customers are the same. And they dont give money to people who insist on affronting them.

And btw: The web is neither anarchistic nor anarchic, just not centrally controled. There is a huge difference between that. And who should enforce new controls? Germany? The Unites States of America? Iran? The industry? Me?
Actually I could live with the last one

I am a liberal. I believe that every constraint to freedom, to human rights, etc needs to be based on strong reasoning - and that the benefit of that restriction needs to outweigh the cost (the restriction itself).
So e.g. forbidding murder is reasonable. Restricting human rights (e.g. the sanctities of the home) because someone MIGHT loose some sales isnt. Especially if their is NOT A SINGLE PROOF that he is really loosing sales - and not gaining them.

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by nekokami

It occurs to me, reading this thread, that we don't actually know that anyone has downloaded Steve's books, only that at least one person has uploaded two of them. (I don't know where in "the darknet" the books are, either-- torrents, usenet, IRC, etc.)

Beyond that, Steve, I think it would be a great idea to host a torrent of your own of the first three chapters of each of your books, with a note in each about where to purchase the rest of the content. I think this would be good for three reasons. One is that it would probably get you some free visibility to potential readers. Another is that it would likely swamp the existing darknet uploads, because someone getting your torrent could get "all" your titles (albeit only the first three chapters), rather than getting one or two only. The third is that it would promote your reputation as a cool, tech-savvy author who knows how to use the latest social tools to his advantage. If you really want to go whole-hog in this direction, you can offer the same excerpts via IRC with a bot, and periodically post to usenet, I suppose. After all, you already offer these excerpts online. This would just be additional channels of distribution.

Just a suggestion....

I like that idea...

BTW, I wasn't all that sure whether I'd ever seen any of Steve's books on the 'darknet', so I just popped over to #bookz and did a '@seek' on his name. Yep. There are about 32 copies of three of his titles, "Onuissance Cells", "Berserker: The Kestrel Voyages" and "Midgard Militia". Since I've already gone to Steve's site to buy the books *I* was interested in, I can't really say whether anyone's downloaded copies of these either.

Derek

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

And not a bad suggestion, at that... if I ever find the time, that is!...

Lately, I've been pretty busy, and the prospect of setting up sites on all the potential avenues... ie, blogs, torrents, MySpace, YouTube, usenet, etc, etc... has been a bit overwhelming. (It's all I can do to keep up with you guys!)

I hear ya. Maybe just pick one to do this month, e.g. either a torrent or a bookz bot. (A torrent would be easier.) Do a different one next month. The key thing is to get all your previews out there in an extra channel.