Can e-Publishing Overcome Copyright Concerns?

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Lack of hard data is not conclusive of anything. What do you think is going on on the Darknet? All those copywritten documents are being posted there, and absolutely no one is downloading them? Is lack of hard data a good reason to turn a blind eye to a potential loss to a person's income... to the extent that you're not even interested in investigating the possibility? Or is it just not important because it's not happening to you personally?

I know there is a darknet. I've been there. I know stuff gets downloaded.

What I don't know is what actual impact that has on anybody's sales.

The fact that something is simply downloaded doesn't count. Witness the discussion between Tompe and I about the ebook collections being downloaded with some downloaders not even knowing what all they have.

Factor that out of the equation, as it has no bearing. The relevant question is how many people downloaded your books from the darknet, and read them instead of buying a copy from you. That's lost sales you are concerned about.

We don't know. We can't know. There is no way to measure it.

I'm not suggesting turning a blind eye to someone's loss of income, but I'd like a bit more hard evidence that income is being lost, and how much, before I start advocating measures to prevent it. The problem is that the measures proposed all sound either like enormous pains for the honest folks (like DRM schemes) or draconian measures to police the Internet that could be (and almost inevitably would be, somewhere) applied for more sinister purposes.

The question becomes "Do you trust the market?" There will always be those who would rather steal what they want than pay for it, but thus far, enough of the market has been honest and willing to pay for what they get that the theft is an irritation, not a disaster.

Electronic content and the Internet have changed the equation, in making theft easier. Has it also eroded morality? Will a large enough number of people chose to steal rather than buy, and upset the applecart, simply because it's now easier to do so?

Personally, I doubt it. I may be an optimist, viewing the world through rose colored glasses, but I think the majority of folks out there are willing to pay for what they get, and the darknet will remain no more of an irritation than theft has ever been. It's possible I'm wrong, but I haven't seen any hard evidence pointing that way.

Writing places your ego in the line. I can't help wondering if writers concerned about loss of income through the darknet have a deeper unvoiced fear. What if poor sales of their books has nothing to do with illegal downloads? What if too many people simply aren't interested in reading their books? Reading a book is an investment of time as well as money, and every author has to confront the prospect of what all of those folks could be doing instead of reading books. Given the number other ways to spend discretionary time available for recreation, a book has to be compelling to justify reading it instead doing the other things you might be doing.

How about it, Steve? Which way do you jump? Do you trust the overall market, or not?
______
Dennis

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

How about it, Steve? Which way do you jump? Do you trust the overall market, or not?

Have you ever seen a movie scene, where the hero is carrying the villian's money, and being chased by the villian? And just before he gets caught, he throws the money into the air in the middle of a calm, law-abiding crowd... and suddenly, that crowd becomes greedy crazed lunatics leaping into the piles of free money, knocking each other over to stuff as much of that money into their pockets as they can before it's too late?

That's the market.

The Darknet is the free money in the air, with nothing stopping people from grabbing what they can. So they do. Are they evil? No... they are just taking due advantage. That's human nature at work.

There have been plenty of documented examples of people who have put digital products on the internet, and solicited donations after the fact... and received effectively nothing for their product. People took the free money, and walked away. Human nature at work.

It's in my best interests to make sure my profit-intended product doesn't become free money in the air... because when it does, I will have no control over people taking that product and not giving me anything for it. I will certainly lose out.

As for concerns about the quality of my work, and how that affects sales: Sure, I'm concerned with whether or not I'm good enough to garner a single sale, much less enough to make a living. But that's really beside the point. The point is, there is a source of loss out there, and it should be quantified, so we will know whether or not it's something that needs to be dealt with.

Personally I think that, based on the demonstrated traits of human nature, the Darknet does represent a significant source of loss that should be dealt with. Those with a rosier view of human nature will differ (as will those who share that human nature). But none of us will know, unless and until the problem is quantified.

And believe it or not, I can afford to be rational about this, because my livelihood is not on the line. I am not desperately clinging to my sole source of income, here... 2008 marks the first year I actually made a profit on this project, and it's projected to be a grand total of less than $500. This is a hobby for me. I have nothing to lose, except the time I spend writing stories, packaging e-book formats, updating web sites, and putting this stuff online.

I wonder if those who would be inconvenienced by regulations put in place to make sure they could not take my books for free, are being as rational about the question... or voicing a fear that they will no longer get free money.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

There have been plenty of documented examples of people who have put digital products on the internet, and solicited donations after the fact... and received effectively nothing for their product. People took the free money, and walked away. Human nature at work.

I used to be a "shareware" author, and a member of a trade association called the ASP (Association of Shareware Professionals). There was great debate at the time about whether, in order to sell shareware software, you had to have "incentives" to do so ("nag screens", etc) or whether you could simply rely on people's honesty to pay for the software if they found it useful.

A British shareware author did an experiment to try to settle the matter. He released a disk utility which was either fully functional, or which displayed "nag screens" and had various other registration "incentives", depending on whether the PC's hard disk serial number was odd or even - ie, a completely random 50:50 probability. The program automatically included on the registration form a code which indicated which state it was in for that user.

The results: he had 7 times more registrations from the version that "nagged" than from the version which didn't.

That is, I think, proof positive of the not terribly surprising fact that most people will take "something for nothing" if they are able to do so.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That is, I think, proof positive of the not terribly surprising fact that most people will take "something for nothing" if they are able to do so.

Why do you think that? I think it indicates that people are lazy and need to be reminded to do things. If it was just a nag screen the program was still fully functional.

[tirsales]

Thats why others and I suggested that you
1. Publish work under the CCL - as advertising
2. Publish parts of your books with missing chapters / ends / similar and a nice splat-page stating where you could get the rest of the book. This page need to be easy - in fact a hyperlink from the book directly to a "buy this book with two clicks"-page would be perfect.
3. Dont use DRM - but remind people of buying stuff and give them the feeling that they could be watched when doing something illegal (watermarking, stamping a book with the name of the buyer, a little reminder-page where this book can be bought, etc)

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That is, I think, proof positive of the not terribly surprising fact that most people will take "something for nothing" if they are able to do so.

on the other hand, when radiohead released In Rainbows as a download, they stated that you could choose to pay whatever amount seemed reasonable for it, including nothing at all if you wanted, thereby giving explicit permission to download it for free. you can't get something for more nothing than that : no money, no risk, no trouble.

but i still paid for my download, and i was far from the only one.

we've plenty of examples on this forum of people who pay for shareware (the winzip example comes to mind), not because they *have* to but out of respect for the creators.

so i'm not convinced that there is "proof positive" that all people are inherently thieving bastards who are looking for any opportunity to grab what they can and run, with utter contempt for the creators.

in fact i'd be frankly offended if someone suggested that about me, and i suspect quite a few around here might react the same way.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Sure, there are always people who will pay. But the point is, their number is a small minority of the people who take, and the resultant total of "payments" rarely, if ever, fairly compensate the creator for the amount of effort put into the work.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

I wonder if those who would be inconvenienced by regulations put in place to make sure they could not take my books for free, are being as rational about the question... or voicing a fear that they will no longer get free money.

No, they are more concerned about losing free speech/privacy that the regulation will require.

To use your analogy, we lock up the townspeople in their houses, so when the money goes in the air, all they can do is watch. Nevermind their loss of movement, and their freedom of association. The money comes first....

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Sure, there are always people who will pay. But the point is, their number is a small minority of the people who take, and the resultant total of "payments" rarely, if ever, fairly compensate the creator for the amount of effort put into the work.

Which I doubt, but we have already been at this point.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

we've plenty of examples on this forum of people who pay for shareware (the winzip example comes to mind), not because they *have* to but out of respect for the creators.

so i'm not convinced that there is "proof positive" that all people are inherently thieving bastards who are looking for any opportunity to grab what they can and run, with utter contempt for the creators.

I'm most certainly not saying "everyone is a thieving bastard", but the results of the experiment I quoted are interesting. A 7:1 ratio of sales between people who are given some "reason" to buy the software, and those who choose to pay purely voluntarily is "suggestive", at least, that more people will pay when given some reason to do so than will do so simply because it's the right thing to do.

[tirsales]

It is. Thanks for the information
Never the less: It doesnt invalidate my point about "too much security" or "no drm" or even "we dont need no new law or internet-censorship"

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

@Ralph: How 'bout this analogy: Instead of money falling down into the crowd, a single person holding the money walks among the crowd, and hands a dollar to anyone who wants one, fairly and orderly? It doesn't have to be chaotic, unfair, or suppressive (unless the people decide to riot, beat up the money-holder, and grab the money from them...)

Look, I understand all of your concerns. Everyone wants to protect what's theirs, including conceptual "things" like privacy and security. No one wants to feel like they are being oppressed. I'd like to point out again that, to an extent, most of us have already given up the very things we are afraid of losing now, to our present retailers, bankers, ISPs, phone companies, etc... and that we are not now locked in our homes, so fearful of who's watching us that we can't function in the real world.

Nobody likes to have to be regulated. I wish the world didn't need a single regulation. But in the interest of fairness, safety, and cooperation, regulations can be a useful thing... a traffic light at a busy intersection, as opposed to the alternative 30-car pileup every other morning, or the (apparently powerful and pervasive) fear that a fellow motorist, or more to the point, a government cipher, will just blow up your car as you pass.

Regulating the web would be one more brick in the pile... and yes, it's already a big pile... but it's also a pile we're already used to, and if done properly (and I maintain that it can be done properly), it doesn't have to collapse the entire pile and doom us all to Hell with the addition of this one brick.

Anyway, I have no more to say about regulation in this thread... I don't think I can clarify my position any further. (You're welcome.)

We still have the issue of the thread, though, which hasn't been answered to anyone's satisfaction: Authors have a concern about their copyrights and protection of same (justified or not, but there nonetheless). Can e-publishing do anything to alleviate that concern, and thereby open and improve the e-publishing market, which is the point of the thing after all?

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

We still have the issue of the thread, though, which hasn't been answered to anyone's satisfaction: Authors have a concern about their copyrights and protection of same (justified or not, but there nonetheless). Can e-publishing do anything to alleviate that concern, and thereby open and improve the e-publishing market, which is the point of the thing after all?

Get some people to demonstrate that it is working. Really test the new possibilities. Then they will see the light

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

We still have the issue of the thread, though, which hasn't been answered to anyone's satisfaction: Authors have a concern about their copyrights and protection of same (justified or not, but there nonetheless). Can e-publishing do anything to alleviate that concern, and thereby open and improve the e-publishing market, which is the point of the thing after all?

The optimax prediction is that nothing will change. Why? Because the controlling players (publishers and authors) are more concerned about losses than gains. The analog hole will not be blocked, and the darknet (whether internet, private network or sneakernet) will continue. It's the same pattern as digital music, and I estimate it'll take 7-10 years before the controlling players will flip-flop to being more concerned about gains than losses. And there are too many existing vested economic interests to prevent the Draconian controls you have suggested from being implemented.

Shrug. Steve, I have always tried my best not to get personal, but I have to ask you the following question.

Consider the amount of time you have vested in these discussions. Would you have been better off economically spending that time (as a publisher) marketing your products? Is it better to be obscure and pure, or known and robbed?

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

@Ralph: How 'bout this analogy: Instead of money falling down into the crowd, a single person holding the money walks among the crowd, and hands a dollar to anyone who wants one, fairly and orderly? It doesn't have to be chaotic, unfair, or suppressive (unless the people decide to riot, beat up the money-holder, and grab the money from them...)

Actually, I remember one of those news shows where they tried to give people on the street a $20 bill... most people wouldn't take it. Either they didn't have time to really understand what was being offered, or they were suspusicious there was a catch or such.

Also, there is a difference between people taking money that is being passed out then illegal downloads on the internet.

(Ever get a phone call with an offer of a free vacation and you don't have to buy anything. I do, and hang up all the time.)

Steve, I agree you should get paid for your work. But, I don't agree that you treat everyone like a theif.

Imagine if every time you exited a store in the mall you were searched to ensure you didn't steal anything? A full body cavity search. They didn't see you take anything, and your coat didn't have a buldge in it. Every driver would have a police officer riding with them to ensure they didn't break the laws. Every tax return was audited to ensure you weren't cheating on your donations even though you didn't have a reciept. Every day a narcotics agent will come and search your house to make sure you don't have any drugs. Everyone of your bank transactions will be scrutinzed to make sure you aren't funding "terrorists" (this already happens to all transactions over $10,000 or overseas, ask NAEB about it.)

The above is sort of what you propose by "traffic scanning" on the internet. Is the above ok with you? You will give up your privacy because people do steal from WalMart? They have a right to earn money so you must submit to a full cavity search when you leave their store every time.

No, in addition to the loss of privacy (which is guaranteed by the constitution) think of the resources and cost it will take to do the above.

BOb