Is ebook piracy on the rise?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

P.S. Steve, this is all your fault.

Hey, I just write here. Anyway, the other responses here do a good job of explaining the differences between library and darknet.

As to the question of the "maximum fair price:" There isn't one.

The author has the right to decide what his book is worth, whether it be one dime or a thousand dollars. The consumer has a right to say "yes, I'll buy it" or "no, thanks," depending on whether or not the consumer thinks it is worth the amount asked for. It is up to the individual consumer to decide... one person's "too much" will be another person's "deal!".

In the same way that printed books don't all cost the same, there's no reason to expect e-books to cost the same. I've said elsewhere, what is important isn't the medium... it's the content.

And the consumer's decision that the amount is too high does not provide an excuse for any other consumer action besides walking away from the sale. It only provides a reason for the author to consider lowering his price, if he wants to sell to that person.

What is being questioned is, how much does an author deserve to make from a book sale, and the answer is: Whatever he's clever enough to get. If the author manages to price his product properly, and makes a million bucks, there's nothing wrong with that. Consumers have no business dictating or deciding how much someone else has the right to earn. Their job is to buy the book if they want it, or not, plain and simple.

[Barcey]

I have the Olympics on while browsing this thread and I can’t help but compare to some of the doom and gloom in the thread.

Professional athletes and team owners would probably say we should all pay to watch each of the athletes as they compete. Why would anyone train for 14 hours a day over 4 years if they’re not guaranteed compensation. For some reason they do. Yes I know people will say that they do it for the future endorsements etc... but for a lot of them that’s not why they do it. It’s something inside them that is driving them to do it.

There will also be uncompensated usage of peoples efforts. We can’t always focus on how we can eliminate it because we can’t. The question is how to make a living despite it. I’ve seen a disproportionate number of threads about “piracy” vs the massive potential and enablement of e-publishing.

I think it’s great that a french author in Canada now has the potential to easily sell books to the entire french speaking world. We’re eliminating all the barriers to get the books to the people so they can purchase them, now the problem is to get the people to want to read them ... and pay for them.

Apple and Amazon are proving that you can sell electronic media for a profit without DRM despite uncompensated consumption of music.

I’m disappointed in humanity when I see people looting and I’m disappointed in humanity when I hear that people are reading books without compensating the author but I’m used to disappointment. I still think that electronic publishing is a big plus for authors.

[hits commercial skip on PVR to avoid compensating advertisers]

Canada = 0 medals

[sigh]

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Ah no... the difference is not the number or quality of books read.

There is no copyright violation here. A legal copy is purchased and no one has violated the copyright.

Ok, even if we accept your premis that the person that puts the ebook on the darknet buys it, there are still 100 copyright violations here.

That's a legal statement, not ethical. But I can counter it.

If I buy one copy, but have a hundred copies on my hard disk is that a hundred copyright violations? (You'd have trouble winning the case in court.)

If I move those 100 copies to 100 backup servers I've leased space on, is that a hundred copyright violations? (Again, you'd have trouble winning the case in court.)

It looks like it would be a copyright violation when someone else opened the file. But that is a users issue, not copies issue.

Not the same. With the library example, only 1 person is able to read the book at a time. With the "dark net" 1 legal copy of the the book becomes 100 not-legal(legit whatever) copyies of the book. In the library, if 100 people want to read it the wait list becomes long... this generally indicates to the library they maybe should buy some more copies. They certainly wouldn't Xerox the book so they could lend more out at a time. Would everyone agree this is wrong?

Ah, yes. Consecutive versus concurrent use might be a hole in my argument. But first you need to prove concurrent use is wrong but consecutive use is right.

Now I will say your premise is wrong. Generally the person putting the book on the darknet scanned a book he got from a library. How is this ok if Xeroxing the books is not? So, Bob has violated copywright by doing this. Then every person that downloads it is violating the copywright.

I'm going to have to disagree with you because I found anecdotal evidence in the other direction. Perhaps we could table this aspect.

But, turns out lets say 100 libraries buy 1 copy of the book, and 1 copy is put on the darknet and 500,000 people read it. The author sold 101 copies and won't be writing another book because he is at Burger King trying to earn money to feed his family.

BOb

This feeds back into my use argument. In using the library book without paying the author, each library patron is just as ethically wrong as any of the pirates who download it from the darknet.

P.S. I don't know about you, Bob, but I'm having a lot of fun.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by axel77

First the ad on the website does what 0.02 cents per click?

And about merchandising, you don't get it, if I'm not Rowling or King, but this is my first book I hope to get some readers for... Nobody is going to make toys for this book, even if its free.

I mean the production of this toys already only starts to make sense if you have hugh quantities.

It doesn't work for 99% of the books out there.

You know... I promote the idea of patron/sponsoring, though I do not currently have a patron or sponsor. And I may never get one, whether I want one or not. The point to patronage or sponsoring is that someone will provide the money you want to make a profit off of publishing an e-book that no one wants to pay for.

But I never meant to imply that 100% of hopeful e-book authors will be able to go this way. There will be many authors that will seek sponsors or patrons, and be turned down, in the same way that television networks will turn down a pilot for a TV show if they are sure it will not be popular, and therefore will not sell sponsored products. That leaves many people with pilot TV shows, and unread manuscripts, twisting in the wind.

Hopefully, such a situation will mean mostly good material gets sponsored, and mostly bad material does not get sponsored, weeding out the bad from the good content. I emphasize "mostly," because we all know the system often passes on potentially good material, and accepts what turns out to be bad material. In some cases, good material simply goes unseen. In other cases, the good material must find another way to get out to consumers... and for e-books, this might mean convincing readers that it is worth... yes... paying the author directly for the book. (This is the way I sell right now.) Or finding some way to make money that no one else has thought of yet. (It's a young market. There's bound to be ideas no one has developed yet, to profit off of digital material.)

If, someday, the e-book market demands every book to be free, and only sponsored/patroned writers can produce e-books, I will have to search for my own sponsor/patron, and I may very well be one of those left twisting in the wind. Bad luck for me... but as someone pointed out, "the world does not owe me a living."

Bottom line: I can't predict what is going to work for you (or me, for that matter). You have to see what will work for you, based on the quality of your work, and the skill and luck you have marketing yourself to readers, sponsors or patrons. I will have to try the same thing, and at that point, we'll find out whether I'll keep writing, or if this is the last you'll hear from me.

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Hey, I just write here. Anyway, the other responses here do a good job of explaining the differences between library and darknet.

As to the question of the "maximum fair price:" There isn't one.

The author has the right to decide what his book is worth, whether it be one dime or a thousand dollars. The consumer has a right to say "yes, I'll buy it" or "no, thanks," depending on whether or not the consumer thinks it is worth the amount asked for. It is up to the individual consumer to decide... one person's "too much" will be another person's "deal!".

In the same way that printed books don't all cost the same, there's no reason to expect e-books to cost the same. I've said elsewhere, what is important isn't the medium... it's the content.

And the consumer's decision that the amount is too high does not provide an excuse for any other consumer action besides walking away from the sale. It only provides a reason for the author to consider lowering his price, if he wants to sell to that person.

What is being questioned is, how much does an author deserve to make from a book sale, and the answer is: Whatever he's clever enough to get. If the author manages to price his product properly, and makes a million bucks, there's nothing wrong with that. Consumers have no business dictating or deciding how much someone else has the right to earn. Their job is to buy the book if they want it, or not, plain and simple.

I never talked about the price of a single copy of the book.
For that, it's exactly as you said: If I'm willing to pay that much, here is my money, if it's too much for my pocket, I'll go to the library.

I'm not talking about consumers dictating or deciding anything.
I'm just asking what YOU want.
And your answer is: all the money in the world (or there's no business to put a limit in it, which is exactly the same amount).

I call it "greed", and in my opinion it's unfair just like piracy, only in the other direction.

That's why I was saying that all those 33 pages are about "IO want your money" and nothing more than it.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm somewhat puzzled by why you think that this is my view, Moz - I have said at least three times on this thread that libraries are a major source of revenue for many authors. Libraries BUY the books that they lend to their readers. If 1000 libraries have a copy of a book, that's 1000 sales for the author.

Why do you ignore that in for example the US it does not work this way. Is your opinion that all US libraries should close since they lend books without paying the author?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

If I buy one copy, but have a hundred copies on my hard disk is that a hundred copyright violations? (You'd have trouble winning the case in court.)

If I move those 100 copies to 100 backup servers I've leased space on, is that a hundred copyright violations? (Again, you'd have trouble winning the case in court.)

It looks like it would be a copyright violation when someone else opened the file. But that is a users issue, not copies issue.

To answer the question: Legally... in the U.S. ... yes, you'd have 100 copyright violations there.

However, historically (so far) the courts have ruled according to whether you made any of those copyright violations available to others, or (maybe) could prove that you intended to. If the court believed those copies were all for you and you alone (" I just like to be thorough with my backups, your honor"), and none had been disseminated, you would not be prosecuted.

If they thought even one copy had or might get out "into the wild," they could prosecute you to the full extent of the law.

They keep execution (pun intended) of the law intentionally vague, in order to allow the courts to decide on judgment calls like that.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Just anecdotal. Or, do you think people uploading books to the darknet are going to the book store and buying copies.

From what I have heard from people involved in the community I am pretty sure they do. Especially since they often destroy the book when scanning it.

[axel77]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Hopefully, such a situation will mean mostly good material gets sponsored, and mostly bad material does not get sponsored, weeding out the bad from the good content. I emphasize "mostly," because we all know the system often passes on potentially good material, and accepts what turns out to be bad material. In some cases, good material simply goes unseen. In other cases, the good material must find another way to get out to consumers... and for e-books, this might mean convincing readers that it is worth... yes... paying the author directly for the book. (This is the way I sell right now.) Or finding some way to make money that no one else has thought of yet. (It's a young market. There's bound to be ideas no one has developed yet, to profit off of digital material.)

I think exactly this is broken. Sponsored books would not encourage quality.

Bottom line: I can't predict what is going to work for you (or me, for that matter). You have to see what will work for you, based on the quality of your work, and the skill and luck you have marketing yourself to readers, sponsors or patrons. I will have to try the same thing, and at that point, we'll find out whether I'll keep writing, or if this is the last you'll hear from me.

Well if there is no alternative you can really suggest that works, then I'll stick with the old way to try to get money by selling copies and outlawing illegal copies.

[Greg Anos]

Here is the nub of the discussion. (And thanks for putting the cuss back in discussion )

***RANT WARNING***RANT WARNING***RANT WARNING***


How should authors be paid?

Not how much, but how?

Currently, it's being paid in an advance/royalty method, created by copyright law. The copyright law is under seige and failing. disrupting (and potentially destroying) this payment method.

Everybody else in the world except I.P. creators get paid once, with no future royalties attached.

Why are authors (I.P. creators) so special?

When I hear authors rant about how their livelyhood is being taken away by "pirates", I think about all the factory workers and technicians in highly paid countries who have had their livelyhoods hammered by labor substitution in poorer countries. The generic response is "that's too bad, but still it's good for everybody else, just retrain." To listen to authors, when their world gets disrupted by uncontrollable competition, it's armegeddon.

Maybe author should join the rest of the world, and get paid once. No future royalties. Just like engineers, brain surgeons, and garbagemen.

And if you can't make a living at it, do something else. That's what everybody else in the world faces every day. There is no guarantee that what you want to do for a living will make you a living. Never has been, never will be.

The truth is, there are far too many authors, living and dead, all competing for the same pool of money and time. There isn't enough to go around, even without digital "piracy". In any other business, bankruptcy would eliminate the weak competitors. I.P. potentially lasts forever. Current authors are still competing with Shakespeare, John Donne, Balzac, Alexandre Dumas (both), Mark Twain, H.G Wells, Rudyard Kipling, Raymond Chandler, Ernest Hemmingway, Louis L'Amour, Robert Heinlein, (and on and on and on....), as well as each other. The real problem isn't "piracy" per se, but the fact that it makes the competition even more stiff for current authors, by making more works readily available. Project Gutenberg is as big of a threat to current writers as "piracy" is. It's legal and it's readily available and it's free.

(White men with straitjacket and hypos enter room, backing me into a corner. The needles jab, and things start spinning.... A voice in the background, say "Don't worry, nobody will listen anyway.")

[axel77]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Everybody else in the world except I.P. creators[/I] get paid once, with no future royalties attached.

Who should make this big one-time payment? And how is he compensated?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Format C:

I'm not talking about consumers dictating or deciding anything.
I'm just asking what YOU want.
And your answer is: all the money in the world (or there's no business to put a limit in it, which is exactly the same amount).

"All the money in the world," and "whatever he's clever enough to get" (my exact words), are not the same thing. I certainly did not say I wanted all the money in the world, and that statement does not even imply that I do.

Originally Posted by Format C:

I call it "greed", and in my opinion it's unfair just like piracy, only in the other direction.

So, in fact, you are dictating how much I have a right to earn, and deciding that I am greedy. Even without my putting a single dollar figure down.

Any worker has a right to earn what he can on his work. Any consumer (you) has the right to walk away from a sale, if you believe it is too much. You personally do not have the right to tell someone else what they are entitled to earn... period. You personally cannot dictate to someone you don't know what they "deserve"... period.

"Greed" is in the eye of the beholder, whether it is triggered at 100 billion, 1 million, $2.50... or some imaginary, arbitrary figure that you want to use to label me greedy and justify not paying for something I'm selling.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by axel77

I think exactly this is broken. Sponsored books would not encourage quality.

Actually, they should. Sponsors should be smart enough to know that quality books will be read more, and their ad will be seen by a wider audience.

I know what you're suggesting: The latest T&A gore-fest garbage will get all the sponsors. But there are plenty of sponsors that will only sponsor quality material.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by axel77

Who should make this big one-time payment? And how is he compensated?

That's the way many publishers used to work with writers' stables: You were commissioned to write a book, you wrote for them, you got paid.

If you can find organizations that will allow writers to work for them and produce, say, a book every two months, give them a set salary and send them home at 5PM... call me!

Publishers could do this now... but they use the royalty system to allow them to pay a smaller fee to the writer up front, and allow the rest to be dictated by actual sales. IOW, they're taking much of their risk out of the equation. Get publishers to accept the risk, and you're cool.

Edit: Damn, I just posted thrice in a row in a piracy thread. Guess I better check back into Mayo for a few weeks...

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by axel77

Who should make this big one-time payment? And how is he compensated?

A World Wide Entity, who's in charge to catalog every single content piece, be it a book, a movie, a intracelebral experience...
Consumers get those via sharing, by download, by mail, by buying hardcopies (paying a higher price) in the shops...
They pay for it with a fee, that can be a on time in life fee, a recurring one, a tax, whatever.

Whenever he access a content, a user agree to give a feedback on it (or to make the present receiver give a feedback). That feedback consist in a rating.
The Entity in charge just collect the feedbacks from the users. And compensate the authors according to the number of users and the rating obtained.

If you've got a high quality file freely available (and if you've got at least one legal content, you've paid for everything), you won't be interested in piracy.
And if you really like a work, you will give high rating to compensate the author and make him/her produce more.

If the system have a upper limit on the income for the single content, there's enough money for every author.