Is ebook piracy on the rise?

[acidzebra]

Also interesting that he was his own man without a parasitic industry trying to lock up the fruits of his genius for their (not his) profits

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by acidzebra

Also interesting that he was his own man without a parasitic industry trying to lock up the fruits of his genius for their (not his) profits

No?

You think theatre owners did not get paid when his plays were presented? You thing costumers created his plays' clothing for free? You think he had no patrons?

Sure, there was a system that profited from his works... and by the definitions presented here, were just as parasitic then as now.

And Harry's point was, if W.S. was not compensated for his creative work... as he (thankfully) was... he might just as well have been a longshoreman, and we wouldn't be discussing him now.

Originally Posted by acidzebra

I do not think writing books, making music, or making a painting is just like any job - in my work as a network administrator, nothing I will do will make a lasting impression on people like, say, the works of Shakespeare have. There is a fundamental difference.

However, you get paid for your work. So, it is your opinion that it makes sense to pay you for work that will have no lasting impression on Humanity, while it does not make sense to compensate someone whose work will have a lasting impression?

[acidzebra]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

However, you get paid for your work. So, it is your opinion that it makes sense to pay you for work that will have no lasting impression on Humanity, while it does not make sense to compensate someone whose work will have a lasting impression?

This is the second time I must ask you not to put words in my mouth.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Yes, the production and per-unit cost equations have changed forever, thanks to digital media. But this does not address the essential fact that people who produce those creative works, whatever the per-unit cost, deserve to be compensated for their work, just like any other worker. Discussion about production differences and unit costs merely obscures the real point of this discussion.

Do you believe that creative people have no right to make money from their work? Do you believe that you, as a consumer, have no responsibility to compensate an artist, not even a dime, for a work you obtain? Do you, as a consumer, believe that you and you alone should have the final say on what someone else deserves to make from their work?

And if you do believe these things... how do you expect artists to make a living, and thereby afford the time it takes to create the works you crave? And knowing they cannot profit from their efforts, why should an artist even bother to create works someone else will simply steal?

These are the issues concerning piracy... not per-unit costs, copyright details, or DRM. Being fair to the creators must be addressed, not obscured by cost debates and endless semantics.

Steve, I'll discuss paragraph 3 (at you request). If I don't have any good answers, that's because there isn't any good answers.

Across the fields of human economic endevor, (with the exception of primary I.P. creation), people get paid for work delivered. There is no further money to be paid on that work, not matter how many times it get used. I'll use the bridge analogy. A group of engineers and architechs design a bridge. A large group of laborers build the designed bridge. Enverybody gets paid for their part up-front, any nobody who built it gets any more money, no matter how many people use the bridge (even if it's a toll bridge, raking in money, day after day.) Now certain high-powered workers cut deals that defer some (or all) of the money they have earned until a later time, (think CEO's) but they still earned it as work received while they were working.

Primary I.P. creation pays in an entirely different model. The creators are paid a percentage on every sale of their work, up to certain legal time cutoffs. Nobody else in the working world has such a deal. This deal was based on physical limits of mass production. Now that those limits have been shattered, the deal is falling apart. DRM, ect. are simply stop gaps trying to restore the old limits. In the long term, they will fail.

That's the underlying reality. You may not like it, I may not like it, but it is.

How to recompense the I.P. creator? First, the pay is going to go down. Unavoidable. Many, not all, I.P. producers have unique ways of making money on their I.P. that are still tied to the unit worked, unit paid, methodology. Some examples, movies still have the theatrical performance, musicians still have concert venues, plays still will be produced. Some I.P. creators don't have this venue, and some never had (such as painters and large scale sculptors. Note, this is where the term "starving artist" came from.) For those I.P. producers who don't have a way to get paid in the unit worked, unit paid, world, the outlook is grim. The world will evolve into a straight pay, no royalty, world where the rates are low, possibly augumented by extra money coming in via advertising. The money will come from those who want either a particular physical form (old school) or the latest and greatest, and are willing to pay for the priviledge.

Remember the world owes nobody a living, whether you are a day laborer, a computer programmer, a CEO, a Capitalist, or an I.P. creator.

[axel77]

I'll try a new approach to this discussion, maybe a summing up from what was teached to me in the last years (mixed with my own intrepetation and addons)

What they teach you nowadays in economics 101 is they seperate "wares" into 4 rough catagories. While as a ware they understand virtually everything that matters to humanity (including services and so on)

The first separation lines, if the wares are consumed when used (like an apple), or if they are usable without consuming (like as case in point here "texts")

The second separation line is, if you can exclude people from using a ware or if you can't.

So the first quadrant are wares that are consuming and are excludeable, this is just the normal everyday product. This is what economy original was about, or at least concentrated upon, and this is also where are free market economy works best with.

The second quadrant is a rather strange category, that is consuming and non-excludable. Its almost empty, also possibly because we haven't been able to come up with any system that works well with that category. City-traffic is in cases the streets get too full such a thing. You cannot or will not exclude people from using a street, altough everyone uses up a slot when taking... (in cases of highways in some countries they are actually excluding people who are not willing to pay the fee)

The third quadrant are "club goods". That is they don't consume on use, but you can exclude people from using it. There we have subscriptions that work pretty well. Private-TV is such a case, the signal is encoded, and as long you do not subscribe you are excluded to see it (except you criminally break into that exclusion).

The forth quadrant are "public goods". That is they don't consome on use, and you cannot exclude people from using it. This is where the state comes in. Usually you are legally enforced to pay your contribution to this "wares" if you want or not (also called "taxes") "National security" is such a thing. Not consumed upon use, and you cannot in any way exclude somebody who is not willing to pay his part for national military.

---
Now books for sale, traditionally they have been treated as "normal products". Slowly consuming upon use (at one part they just fall apart). And you definitely can exclude people from having a paper book if they do not want to pay for it.

The library is somehow a mix of a club ware and a public ware. Club ware, because you have to pay subscription fees to be able to use it. Public ware, because they are usually havily funded by the state, and you pay for them by taxes regardless if you ever want to use the library or not.

As you can see on the quadrant our current economic system does differently well on different quadrants. It works best on normal goods, okay on club goods, public goods are usually troublesome (well everbody knows how ineffective and cost ineffecient public services can be...) and worst on consumable non-exclusive ware (its so bad we havent got any).

Now the whole Idea of DRM is to move or keep the text industry in another quadrant as it would normally fall under without "exclusion technologies".
With eBooks they try to either make them consumable products, by strictly convining them to single device with DRMs, and when the device is broken your copy is gone also. Understandable they try it, but this just doesn't go well with people. I personally wouldn't want such a deal.

Now when you say the "jini is so far out of the bottle", we cant impossible have any working exclusion technology, then it will fall under the public quadrant. That is the only way that remotly works we know we can produce in this quadrant is by public funding. That is an author gets paid if some goverment instution decides he is worth it. Thats by the way how authorship worked in the communistic states... I mean to say it didn't work at all would not be true, but it didn't remotly work as well as the system we had so far. It would likely make the books into the same quality category as public (goverment paid) TV. Which is quite horrible in most countries, but germany tops it all

Now what we still could and IMHO should hope for is that we succeed to make texts "club goods". The electronic library would be such a thing. Or generally you pay once for the text, and can use it as often you want. Or you pay generally a subscription fee for a given publisher... Or a given author. That way many scientific journals work. Not because hardly anybody ever buys it, but many scientific institutions have standing subscription to the publisher. Thats is not only quite well for a reader, who only pays a subscription fee for "all you can read", its also a dream scenario for publishers and authors, who know in advance a new title will get its targets. Only if a publisher/author gets worse over a given time, you will kill your subscription at some point....

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by acidzebra

This is the second time I must ask you not to put words in my mouth.

So, what are your words?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by axel77

---
As you can see on the quadrant our current economic system does differently well on different quadrants. It works best on normal goods, okay on club goods, public goods are usually troublesome (well everbody knows how ineffective and cost ineffecient public services can be...) and worst on consumable non-exclusive ware (its so bad we havent got any).

Now the whole Idea of DRM is to move or keep the text industry in another quadrant as it would normally fall under without "exclusion technologies".
With eBooks they try to either make them consumable products, by strictly convining them to single device with DRMs, and when the device is broken your copy is gone also. Understandable they try it, but this just doesn't go well with people. I personally wouldn't want such a deal.

Now when you say the "jini is so far out of the bottle", we cant impossible have any working exclusion technology, then it will fall under the public quadrant. That is the only way that remotly works we know we can produce in this quadrant is by public funding. That is an author gets paid if some goverment instution decides he is worth it. Thats by the way how authorship worked in the communistic states... I mean to say it didn't work at all would not be true, but it didn't remotly work as well as the system we had so far. It would likely make the books into the same quality category as public (goverment paid) TV. Which is quite horrible in most countries, but germany tops it all

Now what we still could and IMHO should hope for is that we succeed to make texts "club goods". The electronic library would be such a thing. Or generally you pay once for the text, and can use it as often you want. Or you pay generally a subscription fee for a given publisher... Or a given author. That way many scientific journals work. Not because hardly anybody ever buys it, but many scientific institutions have standing subscription to the publisher. Thats is not only quite well for a reader, who only pays a subscription fee for "all you can read", its also a dream scenario for publishers and authors, who know in advance a new title will get its targets. Only if a publisher/author gets worse over a given time, you will kill your subscription at some point....

I'd like to redescribe the I.P. goods description. By law (and custom) they start out in the "normal goods" quadrant and the eventually slide into the "public goods" category. How long they stay in the "normal goods" category had been determined by law, because economics made it too expensive to convert it into "public goods" against the will of the law. Technology has now lowered that barrier, causing a near-immediate drop of I.P. from "normal goods" to "public goods". This is causing a major disruption of the "normal goods" production model.

[acidzebra]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

So, what are your words?

That content CREATORS are entitled to a reasonable compensation for their efforts, determined in part by the market supply/demand for those goods.

That analogies with computer programs don't necessarily apply.

That culture has always been about the stories we tell each other, no matter the medium they are told in. And that these stories are for all of us to enjoy (see also: libraries and museums)

That you would do well to read up on "piracy" (think there was none?) and the non-existence of a real copyright in Shakespeare's time, and how despite these pressures he was still able to eke a living out of it all.

That you should read the words of Ralph Sir Edward and Axel77 on this very page in this very thread carefully.

[axel77]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I'd like to redescribe the I.P. goods description. By law (and custom) they start out in the "normal goods" quadrant and the eventually slide into the "public goods" category. How long they stay in the "normal goods" category had been determined by law, because economics made it too expensive to convert it into "public goods" against the will of the law. Technology has now lowered that barrier, causing a near-immediate drop of I.P. from "normal goods" to "public goods". This is causing a major disruption of the "normal goods" production model.

Well intellectual goods started as a public ware. "Intellectual property" was a social invention taken place not even soo long ago (what are a few centuries after all?) to turn them into normal goods. And yes I agree technology is now on the way of moving it back into the public wares sector.

My conclusion was, it should be club wares. That would be a situation we could all be happy with.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by axel77

Well intellectual goods started as a public ware. "Intellectual property" was a social invention taken place not even soo long ago (what are a few centuries after all?) to turn them into normal goods. And yes I agree technology is now on the way of moving it back into the public wares sector.

My conclusion was, it should be club wares. That would be a situation we could all be happy with.

Since the "normal goods" quadrant was so good a producing things, laws were passed (starting roughly 300 years ago) to move I.P. from "public goods" to "normal goods" to get more I.P.

I have no problem with the "club goods" model, but it will slide into the "public goods" just as fast as "normal goods" will.

(The scientific journal is a bad example. Scientists (authors) pay over a $1000 dollars a page to be published....)

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Primary I.P. creation pays in an entirely different model. The creators are paid a percentage on every sale of their work, up to certain legal time cutoffs. Nobody else in the working world has such a deal. This deal was based on physical limits of mass production. Now that those limits have been shattered, the deal is falling apart. DRM, ect. are simply stop gaps trying to restore the old limits. In the long term, they will fail.

Not really: The "IP deal" was based on a given period of time that it was deemed acceptable to guarantee exclusivity of a product to a creator, to encourage that creator to create for the public. Some parties chose to use mass production figures as a guideline for writing up contracts and agreements that would either transfer rights or apply after exclusivity was lost, but those were for the profitability of the contract holders... not the actual IP agreement.

The whole point was to provide for a fair way to compensate the creator, since, as you pointed out, no other work-compensation model would provide adequate incentive for an individual creator (and at the time of its creation, there were no "invention houses" like the Edison labs in existence to provide an inventor with a place to get a regular paycheck to invent).

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

For those I.P. producers who don't have a way to get paid in the unit worked, unit paid, world, the outlook is grim. The world will evolve into a straight pay, no royalty, world where the rates are low, possibly augumented by extra money coming in via advertising.

"Grim" may be a matter of opinion. Certainly it will be different. What you suggest is essentially a more institutionalized system: Artists will work for the compensation of a third party (like an advertiser), which will probably increase the complexity of the system around them. If they cannot make such a third-party arrangement, they will not create. Organizations called "publishers" will bring artists together under one roof, and handle the arrangements with third-party advertiser/patrons, so creators can create. And third-party advertiser/patrons will likely work with houses that they have prior experience with.

Presto: We're right back where we started, with creators working under publishers, and the only thing that is different is that the publisher is no longer printing as much paper, and we're applying the word "grim" to the printing industry.

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Remember the world owes nobody a living, whether you are a day laborer, a computer programmer, a CEO, a Capitalist, or an I.P. creator.

No, the world does not owe anybody something for nothing. However, every individual owes every creator/producer something for a product/creation they willingly consume... and especially if the creator duly requested payment for that item. Whether that payment comes from per-use charges, tolls, taxes, or paychecks from institutions that support you, if you produce something people want, you are owed for whatever people take.

[Greg Anos]

Let me try again....

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Not really: The "IP deal" was based on a given period of time that it was deemed acceptable to guarantee exclusivity of a product to a creator, to encourage that creator to create for the public. Some parties chose to use mass production figures as a guideline for writing up contracts and agreements that would either transfer rights or apply after exclusivity was lost, but those were for the profitability of the contract holders... not the actual IP agreement.

The "IP Deal" was done to encouage production of new works. It provided a new and very different model for payment over a very limited period of time, payable out of a monopoly granted of that period. It was initimately tied to the mass production model. No mass production model, no effective basis for I.P.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

The whole point was to provide for a fair way to compensate the creator, since, as you pointed out, no other work-compensation model would provide adequate incentive for an individual creator (and at the time of its creation, there were no "invention houses" like the Edison labs in existence to provide an inventor with a place to get a regular paycheck to invent).

No, the point was to create more I.P. Now this was done by incenting the producers, both the creator and the manufacturer of the final I.P. physical product, but compensation the creator was not the reason it was done. It was a side-effect if you will. This deal was based on a technology
basis (mass production) that made the law self-enforcing. The law of unintended consequences resulted in the creation of a totally different form of compensation (royalty) that had never existed before. It is inherently different, and is an artifact of I.P./mass production model. If the model fails, so does that form of compensation.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

"Grim" may be a matter of opinion. Certainly it will be different. What you suggest is essentially a more institutionalized system: Artists will work for the compensation of a third party (like an advertiser), which will probably increase the complexity of the system around them. If they cannot make such a third-party arrangement, they will not create. Organizations called "publishers" will bring artists together under one roof, and handle the arrangements with third-party advertiser/patrons, so creators can create. And third-party advertiser/patrons will likely work with houses that they have prior experience with.

Presto: We're right back where we started, with creators working under publishers, and the only thing that is different is that the publisher is no longer printing as much paper, and we're applying the word "grim" to the printing industry.

Grim I said and Grim I meant. There will be no ongoing royalties in the forthcoming model. It'll be like the Doc Savage pulp world. One manuscript, one payment, one time, and nothing else. No auxillary rights, no ownership of character, nada. Work for hire terms, just like programming for a corporation. Assuming the corporation can make a profit....

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

No, the world does not owe anybody something for nothing. However, every individual owes every creator/producer something for a product/creation they willingly consume... and especially if the creator duly requested payment for that item. Whether that payment comes from per-use charges, tolls, taxes, or paychecks from institutions that support you, if you produce something people want, you are owed for whatever people take.

You aren't even owed something for something. I could write a manuscript and spend a year doing it. That doesn't meant it worth anything to anybody. (With my talents, I'd probably have to pay somebody to burn it....) Karl Marx is in the 360 degree position. Labor has no intrinsic value at all. It only has value, when the end result is something that somebody else is willing to exchange something else for. No more, no less. If nobody is willing to trade for it, all the labor in the world is valueless.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

You aren't even owed something for something. I could write a manuscript and spend a year doing it. That doesn't meant it worth anything to anybody. (With my talents, I'd probably have to pay somebody to burn it....) Karl Marx is in the 360 degree position. Labor has no intrinsic value at all. It only has value, when the end result is something that somebody else is willing to exchange something else for. No more, no less. If nobody is willing to trade for it, all the labor in the world is valueless.

But the point is that you have the right to set the price of that manuscript. You have the absolute and exclusive right; nobody else. You can say "you have to pay me $100 if you want to read my book" and all anyone else can do is decide whether or not to pay it. They don't have the right to say "it's not worth $100 so I'm just going to take it anyway". That's the whole point of copyright. Yes, you may well write a lousy book which nobody wants to pay for - that's something the market will decide for itself - but the right to determine the price of your work is vested by the law in you, as the author, not in the reader.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

I think we're just kicking around semantics here, regarding IP, so I'll refrain (my foot is tired!)...

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

You aren't even owed something for something.

You are owed, if someone takes what you've produced (as opposed to not taking what you've produced)... that was my (primary) point. All else is obfuscation, which I try to eschew.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's the whole point of copyright.

Hell: That's the whole point of civilization.