Ebooks: Scarcity, abundance and economy

[stonetools]

Here is a post from a musician about his disillusion about the INternet asnd the supposed promise of the abundance economy:

You may have gotten the impression that I don’t like the Internet. Some people certainly have. Some are convinced that the reason for it is my ignorance of how it works.

The truth is I am deeply disillusioned about how it turned out and I’ll take this opportunity to tell you why.

The Internet should have been a godsend to musicians and creators of replicable works in general, for two reasons:

1.The two biggest problems an independent creator faces are distribution and promotion, which in the past meant the need to deal with publishers (and all associated creative and financial trade-offs). The Internet has enabled even the smallest business to reach a potentially global consumer base.
2.Creative works such as books, movies and music are pretty much the only products (others include software and news) that can be delivered on-line and as such seem custom-fitted to e-commerce.
Looking at the two points above, we see that the Internet should have opened wide new vistas for the creative sector and enabled thousands of independent creators to flourish without the need to court big business. So why didn’t it pan out that way?

Or did it? Some would say it did. However, looking at matters realistically, the amounts earned from creative output delivered through the Net verge on the laughable.

He goes to analyse the business of making money through Internet music sales, and concludes:

These numbers should serve to illustrate that whatever benefits “music 2.0″ may have, it’s certainly done nothing for the recording artist, save make her noticeably worse off than she was in the old CD-based market. If recording artists ever go the way of the blubber merchants, it won’t be because there’ll be no demand for their product. It will be because making recordings makes no economic sense.

LINK

The point is the same for the independent authors. If Indie writers and writers in general cant make money through the Internet, eventually they'll just stop publishing. We may simply be leaving thjrough an age of TEMPORARY abundance- that will last until writers just stop writing.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by stonetools

The point is the same for the independent authors. If Indie writers and writers in general cant make money through the Internet, eventually they'll just stop publishing. We may simply be leaving thjrough an age of TEMPORARY abundance- that will last until writers just stop writing.

I agree that there is a distinct possibility of this happening. I don't think all writers will stop writing... but I could see output could drop so low, and essentially most of what will be left will be non-commercial, non-edited, that there will be a decreasingly small market for any of it, and writing could eventually, effectively disappear.

This may happen, albeit temporarily; but I also believe that a new model of monetizing digital media will be developed, probably a very different method from the print-based model, and taking advantage of technological tools that have yet to be developed and/or implemented (mostly related to better document security and user identity).

The web was designed in a state that was inadequate for monetizing digital media. I don't expect it to stay that way, because it is incredibly insecure, leaving companies, governments and consumers open to attack and loss. Eventually consumers, governments and commercial entities will all finally agree on a need for a better, more secure and accountable system to benefit all parties.

The fate of all digital media will improve at that point, bringing a balance to the abundance economy that works for all parties, giving free rides to none.

[pwalker8]

So if all this is true, then how in the world did authors exists prior to the modern copyright era (i.e. prior to 1975)? Before that, US publishers were able to legally publish LOTR without paying Tolkien a dime. Sometimes we confuse the way things currently are with the way things have always been, when instead it's just a temporary anomaly.

[Ninjalawyer]

I feel like this thread needs a sign that reads "You (or your ideas) Need to be 50+ To Post in This Thread".



Edit

Seriously though, the internet lets music creators, authors, etc. easily connect and sell to fans, but it's not a free ride; selling still takes promotion and work to get those fans. That said though, if you can't sell your content in the period we're in now then you probably would have failed faster and harder at any other time in the time. Sorry, the internet isn't an "easy button" that dissolves the need for hard work.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

I feel like this thread needs a sign that reads "You (or your ideas) Need to be 50+ To Post in This Thread".



Edit

Seriously though, the internet lets music creators, authors, etc. easily connect and sell to fans, but it's not a free ride; selling still takes promotion and work to get those fans. That said though, if you can't sell your content in the period we're in now then you probably would have failed faster and harder at any other time in the time. Sorry, the internet isn't an "easy button" that dissolves the need for hard work.

Easy, Ninjalawyer...I'm over 50 (and D-mned proud of it! Where's my senior citizen discount???)

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Easy, Ninjalawyer...I'm over 50 (and D-mned proud of it! Where's my senior citizen discount???)

On a minutes reflection, I realize that my post was a "tad" inflammatory and more than a tad unhelpful. Posts like this:

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

I agree that there is a distinct possibility of this happening. I don't think all writers will stop writing... but I could see output could drop so low, and essentially most of what will be left will be non-commercial, non-edited, that there will be a decreasingly small market for any of it, and writing could eventually, effectively disappear.

...tend to make me facepalm so hard that I'm rendered temporarily insane. Still a poor excuse for poor manners on my part though.

[Greg Anos]

Steve, Stonetools, you might as well dream of Chivary and Knights making a comeback. Isn't going to happen. Gunpower killed Chivary daid, and I do mean daid (dead, southern US style). Abundance is killing the scarcity world you want, and it isn't going to come back either.

Too much product, too durable. That horse is long gone, and you're not gonna catch it. Babe Ruth is still at bat, and you can't send him to the showers for your generation's hitter. Forget piracy for moment, DVDs are durable, CDs are durable, and books are durable. And they all have thriving used markets. Only now you can find what you want mail order, easily. Just have to wait for shipping. And digital entertainment, stripped of it physical husk, is potentially immortal.

You can't stop it. I can't stop it. I just recognize the reality, and am learning to live with it.

With over 1,000 books (E and P), 700 Audio CDs, and 1,700 DVDs - all legitimately purchased - it's not piracy that's keeping me from buying the latest whizbang - it's the lack of need.

(Tonight's the Night, Tonight's the Night, ight, ight, ight - Neil Young - 1989)

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by stonetools

The point is the same for the independent authors. If Indie writers and writers in general cant make money through the Internet, eventually they'll just stop publishing.

No, they won't. We will *never* have a shortage of people willing to write for free. Just like we'll never have a shortage of actors willing to work for beans, or singers who'll entertain at their friends' houses without getting paid.

We may lose some *specific* (and wonderful) authors, but we're not going to wind up with less people interested in writing, nor even less *talented* people writing. The ability to make money at any creative-entertainment job has always been much, much smaller than the number of people who want to do those things.

We may simply be leaving through an age of TEMPORARY abundance- that will last until writers just stop writing.

Kris Rusch points out that "For the year 2005, I see that 378,000 new titles got published in the English language. Before the indie-published books descended on the industry."

How many books did you read in 2005? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say "less than 1% of what was published." How many did you read in 2006? 2007? At no point should we worry about running out of reading material; if all authors on the planet took a 10-year sabbatical, we'd still have plenty to read until they started again. We'd have plenty of *excellent* books to read.

The problem with making money writing on the internet isn't "getting people to pay;" it's convincing them that what's new & hot off the presses is just as interesting as that book their best friend told them about six years ago and they just now got a copy.

We aren't living in the age of abundance; we're living in the age of surfeit. We have more educational and entertainment content than we can consume. If the rate of increase of the rate of increase tapers off, we'll still have more than we can absorb in a lifetime.

Authors are now competing with all of literary history, from ancient Babylonian texts to whatever was posted at the DailyKos five minutes ago. This doesn't mean authors can't make a living at their craft... it just means they can't rely on income from people who would rather be reading something else. They need to convince readers to choose their works, rather than expect the market to be so limited that readers will think it's that author or nothing.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Babe Ruth is dead, and baseball is no longer the nation's sport.

I didn't say anything about knights and chivalry... I said people will figure out how to monetize digital media. The same as they've figured out how to monetize everything else since men settled down to grow crops and tend sheep.

You really think the internet can't be monetized? Don't hold your breath, pardner.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

On a minutes reflection, I realize that my post was a "tad" inflammatory and more than a tad unhelpful. Posts like this:



...tend to make me facepalm so hard that I'm rendered temporarily insane. Still a poor excuse for poor manners on my part though.

Glad you realized your error. My guess is that you didn't bother to read the links in your desire to snark about dinosaurs and to affirm how supercool and perfect the Internet is. Well the Internet is supercool but writers still have to get paid. If writers can't get paid, they don't go to work- just like YOU don't go to work if you don't get paid, MR. LAWYER.
Right now the Internet makes it easy to distribute content but makes it difficult to get paid for distributing content. That will be fixed in time once the rule of law comes to the Internet and writers can publish knowing that they can't be ripped off. With impunity . Secure IP rights is an old timer value all of us can get behind, whippersnapper.

[stonetools]

. No, they won't. We will *never* have a shortage of people willing to write for free. Just like we'll never have a shortage of actors willing to work for beans, or singers who'll entertain at their friends' houses without getting paid.

We may lose some *specific* (and wonderful) authors, but we're not going to wind up with less people interested in writing, nor even less *talented* people writing. The ability to make money at any creative-entertainment job has always been much, much smaller than the number of people who want to do those things.

Quote:

There is nothing wrong with people writing for free - so long as you understand that most writing for free is worth what you pay for it. In the end, if you are satisfied with the efforts of hopeful amateurs, that's great. The Internet has an infinity of the stuff available for you to read. However, I-and the general public- prefer professionally created content, which is a lot more difficult to write. My bet is you won't find much, if any, quality biography or science writing or historical nonfiction on your favorite site, because it takes time, money, research, and skill to produce such work. Sitting down in front of your computer in your basement ain't gonna cut it.
Heck, even great fiction often requires extended research in the field - not just googling or Wikipedia .
How are writers who produce that kind of content going to be able to even work, much less get paid?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Babe Ruth is dead, and baseball is no longer the nation's sport.

I didn't say anything about knights and chivalry... I said people will figure out how to monetize digital media. The same as they've figured out how to monetize everything else since men settled down to grow crops and tend sheep.

You really think the internet can't be monetized? Don't hold your breath, pardner.

As you are describing monetization - no. The control that used to be in I.P. is gone, destroyed by computers. It's not coming back, unless you smash all the computers. Which isn't going to happen.

Does that mean no money is goin to be made in I.P. in the digital age? Of course not. But it'll be against a background of free players, not all of them hopeless amateurs, and not all of them new. The Public Domain, define it as you will, (different contries, different definitions) will always be out there, readily available. Think Linux, Open Office, Project Gutenberg. Or think about people trying to use free offers to drum up customers. Just because you take the freebie doesn't mean you're going to buy more. And all of these are going to be available at your fingertips, as long as the current system exists.

The one thing that isn't changing is time. I now have more I.P. at my fingertips than I can consume in a lifetime. Don't tell me how I have to keep paying and paying for more.

As Jack Vance said in The Demon Prince series, "There will always be a Beyond." Barring economic collapse, there will always be an abundance.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by stonetools

There is nothing wrong with people writing for free - so long as you understand that most writing for free is worth what you pay for it. In the end, if you are satisfied with the efforts of hopeful amateurs, that's great. The Internet has an infinity of the stuff available for you to read. However, I-and the general public- prefer professionally created content, which is a lot more difficult to write. My bet is you won't find much, if any, quality biography or science writing or historical nonfiction on your favorite site, because it takes time, money, research, and skill to produce such work. Sitting down in front of your computer in your basement ain't gonna cut it.
Heck, even great fiction often requires extended research in the field - not just googling or Wikipedia .
How are writers who produce that kind of content going to be able to even work, much less get paid?

I look at what's available and conclude that the "general public" doesn't care about the quality stuff you describe. Look at the "Dumbing Down" of Scientific American over the years. It wasn't because of piracy. If you do Google searchs, you don't find much of the sort of reading that you want that already exists. Even the pirates aren't that interested.

Nobody writes narrative poetry any more, either. Somehow, the world gets by....

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Babe Ruth is dead, and baseball is no longer the nation's sport.

I didn't say anything about knights and chivalry... I said people will figure out how to monetize digital media. The same as they've figured out how to monetize everything else since men settled down to grow crops and tend sheep.

You really think the internet can't be monetized? Don't hold your breath, pardner.

People have figured out to monetize it, and are still figuring it. The internet is a disruptive technology, so not all of the old ways that required the interposition of a gatekeeper between creator and consumer will work in every case, but it has opened up monetization methods that didn't, couldn't exist before (donations direct to creators, Smashwords, Kickstarter, etc.).

What makes the internet so interesting is that content creators and gatekeepers lose some control to consumers, but that loss of control itself opens up new markets and methods of selling. There's no structural defect in the internet that needs to be addressed to make it easier to sell, the defect is in the way some are still trying to sell.

Originally Posted by stonetools

Glad you realized your error. My guess is that you didn't bother to read the links in your desire to snark about dinosaurs and to affirm how supercool and perfect the Internet is. Well the Internet is supercool but writers still have to get paid. If writers can't get paid, they don't go to work- just like YOU don't go to work if you don't get paid, MR. LAWYER.

I don't read your links because they are typically tired examples of confirmation bias. You sift the internet for those pieces by individuals who have had the world change while they weren't looking, individuals who share your own opinion on how things ought to be.

Originally Posted by stonetools

Right now the Internet makes it easy to distribute content but makes it difficult to get paid for distributing content. That will be fixed in time once the rule of law comes to the Internet and writers can publish knowing that they can't be ripped off. With impunity . Secure IP rights is an old timer value all of us can get behind, whippersnapper.

The internet opens up new markets and possibilities that never existed, even if some of those in the new market don't pay the net result is still more potential eyeballs on that content. The very openness of the internet that annoys you is what makes it such a valuable market; creators giving up some control to consumers isn't necessarily a bad thing.

And as we've already seen with sites like Megaupload and services like Napster, the rule of law has always been part of the internet. The world has changed (for the better), it's time to change with it.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by stonetools

My bet is you won't find much, if any, quality biography or science writing or historical nonfiction on your favorite site,

My favorite site? Of course not; those aren't genres that appeal to me much. I find no shortage of legal analyses and books on education theory to read. I do have trouble finding quality free books about nonChristian theology, but that's a matter of publishing bias and language limitations rather than economics-of-ebooks.

However, I do have access to history and biography books when I do want to read them. Bookboon has free hard science textbooks. I assume that by "biography" and "historical nonfiction" you mean "books written about the past in recent years," because of course there's no shortage of biographies and history books available online for free.

More recent content takes a bit more work to find, but there's no shortage of it. The SSRN archive has an incredible collection of peer-reviewed research. FlexBooks are aimed at K-12 students. And while Wikipedia is sneered at by many scholars, it serves as an excellent layman's source of introductory information into countless subjects.

Of course, those weren't all written for free, so your point may stand. My point is not "authors will write for free" (although I did say that, and many will) but "free-to-customers reading content is not going to destroy the literary world." The collapse of the publishing industry systems of the 1960s isn't going to mean the end of quality reading material, including quality nonfiction reading material.

Nobody gets into writing histories or calculus texts because they want to get rich, any more than they decide to write sword-and-sorcery adventures to get rich.

How are writers who produce that kind of content going to be able to even work, much less get paid?

Maybe they'll have patrons who pay them to produce specific types of content. This can create skewed content, but given the number and diversity of potential patrons, it's a lot less problematic than this system was a few hundred years ago, when patrons were all upper-class white men. Kickstarter's had some terrific projects.

Maybe we'll have a government arts endowment. (I have doubts about this working--not because it wouldn't be effective, but because if we've reached the point of considering public education a form of "socialist welfare," the public's been brainwashed against believing there's a value in widespread access to knowledge of any sort.)

I know that (1) we're not going to run out of quality content to read while the publishing industry thrashes around looking for new business models and (2) enough people value quality writing, including nonfiction, that they will actively seek ways to reward authors for it.

We have people who want to pay, and people who want to write; the fact that the internet has changed the dynamics between them doesn't mean the destruction of quality nonfic writing.