Can e-Publishing Overcome Copyright Concerns?

[Trenien]

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....

To be completely honest, I don't think it'd be very successful to offer the first few chapters of all of Steve's books in a torrent. It might work in a feed, but in a torrent I'm pretty sure it'd mostly frustrates potential readers. To avoid people grabbing them over the internet with a "f#@$k him" attitude, you must avoid frustrating them.

At the very least you'd need to be very explicit as to what it is exactly you offer. But the thing is, there is an endless stream (as torrents ) of complete books. Why would anyone bother to read the first few chapters of books from an unknown author (no offense Steve) to decide if you want to buy and read them.

Not to be overly pessimistic, but I'm afraid such an attempt is doomed to failure.

What I think may work - even though I expect Steve to be adamantely against the very idea - would be to "publish" a couple of books under creative commons on as many websites as possible. This would increase his exposure and may generate significant increase in sales.

Of course this is based on my personal conviction the worst that can happen to an author is obscurity, and I have no hard number to back that up.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by tirsales

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.

...They are based on hysteria, on an unreasonable fear of change.

You would seem to have an unreasonable fear of security (and of change) yourself. You're speaking of something as if it is a threat to human rights... when it's really only a threat to your buying a book, and someone else making a buck. That's a bit of an over-reaction, I think, and (only) one of the reasons this issue has gotten nowhere for so long.

You're suggesting that security must be extreme to the point of ridiculousness... and it does not. Security is as simple as having your cash register before the exit. It's as simple as a security camera watching for shoplifters unobtrusively from the ceiling. It's as simple as requiring a signature for a credit card process. All of these methods are standard practices, satisfactory for the majority of shopkeepers' security issues, and it doesn't lead to customers screaming "Anarchy!" and rushing into the nearest orchard to steal apples from a hapless farmer.

(And the internet IS anarchy. People do what they want, say what they want, lurk about anonymously, hack into and attack other people's computers without fear of punishment, tap into forbidden networks, post other people's property illegally, and take things for free that they are not entitled to. Like it or not, that is anarchy. The internet was designed by idealistic scientists and technicians who couldn't imagine anyone would want to intentionally do something bad on their network. Guess what? Their opinion of human nature was a bit off-base.)

I'm a liberal, too. But I'm also a realist. And as a realist, I can accept that some things have to come with caveats, in order for them to work. Houses come with doorlocks. Cars come with registrations. Driving requires a license. Credit cards require monthly payments. How well would these things work without their caveats? Not well, and everyone knows it. So we accept the caveats, and we can get along with our lives and some sense of security... not 100% perfect, but there nonetheless.

This is why I say some security would be a help. And I refuse to accept the notion that any and all forms of security are EVIL, ABHORRENT, and ultimately futile.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Trenien

What I think may work - even though I expect Steve to be adamantely against the very idea - would be to "publish" a couple of books under creative commons on as many websites as possible. This would increase his exposure and may generate significant increase in sales.

To be clear... why, exactly, do you believe I would be adamantly against the idea?

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

You would seem to have an unreasonable fear of security (and of change) yourself. You're speaking of something as if it is a threat to human rights... when it's really only a threat to your buying a book, and someone else making a buck. That's a bit of an over-reaction, I think, and (only) one of the reasons this issue has gotten nowhere for so long.

Security? No one fears security. I fear the demands and propositions made by publishers and politicians (not only in the context of copyright-protection, but also in the context of combating terrorism, enhancing security, etc)
E.g. the right to tap internet lines to search for downloaded content.

You're suggesting that security must be extreme to the point of ridiculousness

No, I am just repeating demands actually made by others.
You want to be assured that there is no darknet - and there is only one way of assuring this: Total control over absolutely everything. Over each computer, each network line, over each household, etc - and that would be the end of freedom and human rights.
Otherwise - there will always be a darknet, just as there will always be criminals, black market, etc

... and it does not. Security is as simple as having your cash register before the exit. It's as simple as a security camera watching for shoplifters unobtrusively from the ceiling. It's as simple as requiring a signature for a credit card process. All of these methods are standard practices, satisfactory for the majority of shopkeepers' security issues, and it doesn't lead to customers screaming "Anarchy!" and rushing into the nearest orchard to steal apples from a hapless farmer.

Have I critizied shop-keepers for e.g. registering IPs that shop there, asking for user credentials before you can buy, verifying your credit-worthiness before they ship or let you download an e-book?
No.
OTOH: Security cameras and stuff dont keep things from getting stolen. Following your logic (as long as there is even the slightest darknet - no e-market) no shop could possibly sell stuff.
The darknet exists and it will exist for as long as there is an internet. Saying that there will be no e-market as long as the darknet exists is as logical as stating that there will be no normal market as long as there is theft.

(And the internet IS anarchy. People do what they want, say what they want, lurk about anonymously, hack into and attack other people's computers without fear of punishment, tap into forbidden networks, post other people's property illegally, and take things for free that they are not entitled to. Like it or not, that is anarchy. The internet was designed by idealistic scientists and technicians who couldn't imagine anyone would want to intentionally do something bad on their network. Guess what? Their opinion of human nature was a bit off-base.)

The internet was originally designed by the military. Just a matter of fact statement.
"Without fear of punishment"? I think you should start researching a bit. Most crackers, important viral designers, etc get caught.
You could also say that the real world is anarchy - I can say what I want, I can do what I want, etc.
If I know how to do it I can break into other peoples houses and steal what I want - without fear of getting caught. Its not harder then breaking into computers and networks without getting caught. Actually - it is difficult. But it is also very difficult to break into computers without getting caught.
And btw: saying what you want is one of the fundamental human rights.

I'm a liberal, too. But I'm also a realist. And as a realist, I can accept that some things have to come with caveats, in order for them to work. Houses come with doorlocks. Cars come with registrations. Driving requires a license. Credit cards require monthly payments. How well would these things work without their caveats? Not well, and everyone knows it. So we accept the caveats, and we can get along with our lives and some sense of security... not 100% perfect, but there nonetheless.

There is a small line between security and despotism. DRM - and most control statements proposed and demanded by the industrie and some politicians - cross that line into despotism.
I dont care if you e.g. mark your books with a customer-tailored signature (e.g. containing the name or id of the customer) and sue customers whose books appear on the darknet.
Even better: Just register an ID and let people reregister that ID to a new customer so customers could resell their books. It would still give you that security you need - but wouldnt allow publishers to violate my rights.
I dont care a dim about security measures - as long as they restrain from crossing that aforesaid line.

This is why I say some security would be a help. And I refuse to accept the notion that any and all forms of security are EVIL, ABHORRENT, and ultimately futile.

We already have some security. We have e.g. a police that pursuits criminals.
Demanding that there should be no darknet is like demanding that there should be no criminality - far from reality.

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by Trenien

At the very least you'd need to be very explicit as to what it is exactly you offer. But the thing is, there is an endless stream (as torrents ) of complete books. Why would anyone bother to read the first few chapters of books from an unknown author (no offense Steve) to decide if you want to buy and read them.

I agree it would be best to label the items as excerpts. I've downloaded excerpts of things before, to read before buying. (In fact, I've downloaded one of the excerpts from Steve's site itself.) The idea is partly to get his name out there. Again, most people who download get a lot of stuff they never read. Certainly no harm done there. But someone might spot a title in a forum or torrent search or whatever that they might not have come across, otherwise. Steve's decision is likely to be based on how much exposure he might get compared to how much work he'd have to put in.

[tirsales]

You could also establish a "excerpt and creative-common books"-community. That is a portal, where authors can publish some of their works for free and excerpts of other works ...
I dont know if something like that already exists - but it could interest people like e.g. me

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by tirsales

You want to be assured that there is no darknet - and there is only one way of assuring this: Total control over absolutely everything. Over each computer, each network line, over each household, etc - and that would be the end of freedom and human rights.
Otherwise - there will always be a darknet, just as there will always be criminals, black market, etc

I'm specifically NOT speaking in such absolutes. I have frequently used the phrase "some security," to make it clear that no system will be 100% secure. "Some security" brings risk to a manageable level, making it possible to transact business, accept some level of loss, and still make a profit.

Originally Posted by tirsales

The internet was originally designed by the military. Just a matter of fact statement.

FACT: It was funded partially by the U.S. military, and partially by other federal government agencies. It was created by university scientists seeking ways to share research data.

Originally Posted by tirsales

"Without fear of punishment"? I think you should start researching a bit. Most crackers, important viral designers, etc get caught.

Most? No. The most extreme and infamous... yes. And again, you are referring to the most extreme cases to make your point.

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

I'm specifically NOT speaking in such absolutes. I have frequently used the phrase "some security," to make it clear that no system will be 100% secure. "Some security" brings risk to a manageable level, making it possible to transact business, accept some level of loss, and still make a profit.

Then what is your point?
Where is the actual problem in the darknet and the current laws?
Are you selling e-books? Yes. Do you see a great impact of having your books on the darknet? No.
So ... it is possible to transact business and still make a profit.

Okay, interpret me as being silly and slow: What is the problem with the current law and system? The concrete probleme.

FACT: It was funded partially by the U.S. military, and partially by other federal government agencies. It was created by university scientists seeking ways to share research data.

It originated in the ARPAnet - a military institution. But yes, one of the problems is, that the original technology was never designed for a network that large. Another problem are national laws and governments meddling in the technology and the evolution of the network. But this is OT.

Most? No. The most extreme and infamous... yes. And again, you are referring to the most extreme cases to make your point.

Nope. The percentage of hackers getting caught is higher then the percentage of e.g. store-thiefes getting caught.
The same for viral designers.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by tirsales

Then what is your point?
Where is the actual problem in the darknet and the current laws?
Are you selling e-books? Yes. Do you see a great impact of having your books on the darknet? No.
So ... it is possible to transact business and still make a profit.

Okay, interpret me as being silly and slow: What is the problem with the current law and system? The concrete probleme.

As was discussed a few pages back, my situation is not a good one to hold up to this particular light: I am not famous; I am not in print; I am not making my livelihood on my books; and therefore I am not one who is potentially losing a significant part of my income/profit through copyright infringement.

The final point is the concrete problem. And yes, at this point in my writing "career," I do not suffer this problem. That does not mean others, especially published authors, are as lucky.

I was not seeking to claim that this situation is costing me anything. I am trying to come to an understanding of why there is a copyright concern among publishers, why it should concern consumers as well, and what (if anything) can be done to mitigate those concerns and satisfy publishers and consumers alike.

Do you believe the system is fine the way it is? Why are you in this thread? You could have simply answered the thread's question with "Yes," "No," or "Who cares?" and moved on. You must agree that there is a problem worth discussing here. What do you think the problem is?

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

As was discussed a few pages back, my situation is not a good one to hold up to this particular light: I am not famous; I am not in print; I am not making my livelihood on my books; and therefore I am not one who is potentially losing a significant part of my income/profit through copyright infringement.

Yes. Potentially.
For a "potentially" publishers are giving up a whole market - a market that exists wether they take part or not. Wether publishers sell e-books or not: The darknet exists, people download content from the darknet, etc
The only way you can stop them from doing that is by giving them an alternative - an official ebook-market. A real, official, fair e-book-market.

The final point is the concrete problem. And yes, at this point in my writing "career," I do not suffer this problem. That does not mean others, especially published authors, are as lucky.

And I doubt it is that much of a problem as it is said to be. See the darknet as a possibility to get some advertisment.

I was not seeking to claim that this situation is costing me anything. I am trying to come to an understanding of why there is a copyright concern among publishers, why it should concern consumers as well, and what (if anything) can be done to mitigate those concerns and satisfy publishers and consumers alike.

I dont think that "the customers" can do anything about that problem. Nor do I think the law can do something - absolut control is not possible (or at least not in a democratic system) and short of absolut control nothing would change in the darknet-situation.

The only people who can change something are the publishers - by realizing this.
Tell "the public" about the problem - but tell them the real story, not the biased crap the industrie does.

Do you believe the system is fine the way it is?

The laws? No. They give publishers rights not even the police have.
But I believe we dont need any kind of tightening of the laws.
But we need more publishers willing to participate in that market, more people seeing that new market, more advertisement for the legal market - and less TV-spots criminalizing normal citizens, etc

Why are you in this thread? You could have simply answered the thread's question with "Yes," "No," or "Who cares?" and moved on. You must agree that there is a problem worth discussing here. What do you think the problem is?

I already stated what I think is the core of the problem: Hysteria. Fear of change. Ignorance of new technologies.

Who cares? I do. Because I love that new technologie and I really would love it to succeed.
Because I am very sensible about stuff like "freedom", "human rights", etc - and some publishers are acting against that.
Because I want to know what others think about the topic, what the problem is - because I really cannot see it that harsh.

There is a problem with the darknet. But it is a problem the publishers made themselves - by not giving real alternatives. And it is not a big a problem as the industrie would want us to believe.
I know some people who are downloading. Nearly none of the content would have been bought. And a fair amount gets bought because of downloads. In earlier times people recorded the radio or exchanged tapes - not that big of a difference for the media industrie.

I really do believe that a fair system, no-drm, fair prices, etc - much like Steve Jordans attempt so far I know it - would be a real alternative. A successfull alternative. An alternative that COULD "battle" the darknet much more successful then any law could do. THAT would be the alternative.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by tirsales

There is a problem with the darknet. But it is a problem the publishers made themselves - by not giving real alternatives. And it is not a big a problem as the industrie would want us to believe.
I know some people who are downloading. Nearly none of the content would have been bought. And a fair amount gets bought because of downloads. In earlier times people recorded the radio or exchanged tapes - not that big of a difference for the media industrie.

This is just justifying stealing: "They are a bad store, so I steal from them" is not the right attitude.

Originally Posted by tirsales

I really do believe that a fair system, no-drm, fair prices, etc - much like Steve Jordans attempt so far I know it - would be a real alternative. A successfull alternative. An alternative that COULD "battle" the darknet much more successful then any law could do. THAT would be the alternative.

Okay... but where this seems to work for me, it apparently doesn't work for all publishers and authors... so it will not be enough of a solution in itself. It needs help.

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

This is just justifying stealing: "They are a bad store, so I steal from them" is not the right attitude.

It is not. I am just stating why some of those problems actually arise. I am not defending the pirates or thieves. I am just stating that the problem can arise from this ignorance.

Okay... but where this seems to work for me, it apparently doesn't work for all publishers and authors... so it will not be enough of a solution in itself. It needs help.

You sure 'bout that? Because I dont think the other publishers have even tested it.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by tirsales

You sure 'bout that? Because I dont think the other publishers have even tested it.

Most of them haven't. They've taken the ostrich approach. Let me be explicit - they produce no e-book format product, under the idea if they don't create it, there'll be nothing to pirate, so they're protected from I.P. piracy. Because of the analog hole, (scanners, keying, ect.), this is blatantly false-to-fact, but that doesn't change the thought process. When they get their noses rubbed in reality, they scream "pirates!, we've been robbed!!!", totally ignoring that fact that they offered the consumer no other option to legally obtain the e-book product. (Let me put DRM'ing to the side.)

You'd think they'd want the money. They do, but not at the cost of giving up their "control" over their product! They want control over the product they <own> more that anything else, even money. They will cheerfully do without extra money in order to maintain that control/power. But with the widespread existence of cheap computers and even cheaper communications, the world has changed, and that control not longer exists.

Everything you see from most publishers and many authors is trying to put humpty-dumpty back together again. I.P piracy laws that look like they came from the 16th century, draconian DRM, luddite calls to abandon technology, privacy, anything, to bring back that control again.

This is just one aspect of the change the world is going through. To get a bigger picture of some of the potential implications, read a copy of The Rational Individual by James Davidson and Lord Rees-Moog. (No, it's not available as an e-book.)

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

This is just one aspect of the change the world is going through. To get a bigger picture of some of the potential implications, read a copy of The Rational Individual by James Davidson and Lord Rees-Moog. (No, it's not available as an e-book.)

Can we just have the synopsis of their End Of The World As We Know It scenario, please?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Can we just have the synopsis of their End Of The World As We Know It scenario, please?

Actually, it's not an E.O.T.W.A.W.K.I. book per se, it's an investment book about long term investments, third of a series. It's complex book, so this is leaving out lots...

Governments are based on the ability to project power. If a government can knock off a TPLC (Tin Pot Little Country - Yes, Minister) before lunch out of petty cash, everbody will follow the big country's rules. When a sovereign government can't knock off the burg across the stream, nobody follows the rules of that government.

Technology makes and breaks the ability to project power. The invention of the stirrup created medevial feudalism. Gunpowder destroyed medevial feudalism. The industrial revolution caused the large nation-state. The computer and high-speed communications are gutting the nation-state and large scale capitalism as well.

When feudalism went kaput, so did the cultural mores of feudalism, like chivalry, the dominance of the Catholic Church, the just price rule, the banning of usurary, and the power of aristocratic titles (et. al.).

The comp/comm technology is making it possible to live just about anywhere with a reasonable high standard of living. This is causing the change from being a citizen of a particular nation-state, subject to high taxes, draconian laws, and the chance of being made cannon fodder against your will, to being a customer of a nation-state, picking the one with the laws and taxes you like, and living and working from there (and going elsewhere if you find a better deal). This will cause the abandonment of the large scale nation-state mores of patriotism, welfare states, and predatory taxation. I.P. is one of the "collateral damages" of the shift. (It's barely mentioned in the book.)

The governments in the left-behind nation-states aren't happy about this, nor are people dependent on government handout funded by taxes on the people leaving. Big companies find that little companies are faster on the trigger (sic) and the only big companies that will be left are ones that require large sunk capital expenses for production. Here's how to invest in that sort of world.

That's the best I can do for a 600 page complex book.