TechCrunch: Rampant Piracy Will Be The Kindle DX's Savior

[BillSmithBooks]

Originally Posted by tompe

That does not follow at all. There are alternative business models. Please think better on the implications of statements!

Sure, in theory. And maybe someday that will be settled out.

But for now, writing a book takes many hundreds of hours. Authors must be compensated for that time. Copyright is a way of reflecting that notion--the author can control under what terms each copy of that story can be sold and distributed. (At least until the purchaser resells it.)

Take away that protection, e.g. "I'll just make unauthorized free copies and let the author figure out an alternative business model" is, to me, a cop-out. I believe it is stealing, whether or not one wants to admit it.

Take away the livelihood of authors and most will be forced to go do something else for a living. Some very good books will never get written.

The only books being written will be those wealthy individuals who have the means to create without financial considerations...or individuals who find a sponsor or patron to pay them.

Some possible examples:

"BioEngineered Plants are Good for You," presented by Monsanto
"War is Fun and other tales" presented by Blackwater
"Housing Prices Will Always Go Up," presented by Countrywide

Coming soon to a best-seller list near you!

[tompe]

Originally Posted by BillSmithBooks

S
Take away the livelihood of authors and most will be forced to go do something else for a living. Some very good books will never get written.

Most authors do something else for a living. It is very few authors that can quit their daytime job.

[BillSmithBooks]

Originally Posted by tompe

Most authors do something else for a living. It is very few authors that can quit their daytime job.

Yes, but books supplement their income.

Books still take hundreds of hours of work. And authors still deserve to be compensated for their efforts.

Plumbers do not plumb for the love of it. Doctors cannot afford to practice for the pure love of it (thanks to insurance rates and student loans). Waitresses depend on tips--if people stopped tipping, you can sure bet that far fewer people would take those jobs. People spend thousands of dollars going to college; most would be irate if everyone freeloaded off them without paying for their services.

Authors do need to be paid.

Take away the compensation part of the equation and I argue that far fewer books would be written.

Now, partly agreeing with you, I think there are other potential models.

I don't think too many people can take the Cory Doctorow model--there simply will not be that much demand for fiction authors to lecture.

I believe advertising is a dead-end, at least now, if click rates on websites are any indication.

Perhaps giveaways to boost print sales? I think the ebook tech within a couple of years will be such that owning a printed edition is not nearly as important as it is now for most readers.

But I do strongly believe in DRM-free ebooks; I do think readers should be allowed to reformat and use their books in the way that suits their needs. I offer my books as plain old HTML (no DRM), with authorization to do limited sharing among friends.

But I also include a "Tip Jar" request.

My royalty on a printed book is less than a dollar. If you like my stories, hey, please consider sending me 50 cents or a buck by PayPal. That money enables me to devote more time to writing and produce future stories. Less money equals less time to write because I have to do something else to pay the bills.

I think it is an honorable and fair approach. I hope readers agree.

www.BillSmithBooks.com

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by BillSmithBooks

My royalty on a printed book is less than a dollar.
+
Authors do need to be paid.
+
Most textbooks cost upwards of 70-100$

Sure authors need (or more accurately should) be paid, but there is a rather large gap between 50c and a RRP.Ergo, "stealing" a book by downloading it somewhere else than from a "store" means "robbing" you of 50c. It's pretty hard to call that activity "criminal". (And no, the fact that others do it too doesn't make my act more criminal).

As far as I can tell, however, people hardly ever argue that authors don't deserve any money; they generally argue either that an author's offspring doesn't deserve to freeload off mom/dad's work (other than through direct inheritance of money), that authors shouldn't really have to stop working for the rest of their lives after writing only one book (although that argument is made more often in the music than in the writing industry), or most often that (textbook) publishers (worst of all) tend to charge extraordinary (read: extortionate) prices for those books, which students (who are forced to buy those books by their teachers) then have to cough up.
The nepotism (profs forcing people to buy their own books, or to buy books of people they have "agreements" with) and cartel-like behavior (I can't for the life of me imagine that textbooks really are that costly to produce, especially when I see the profits those publishers make) is what encourages people not to "respect" copyright legislation; not the fact that they begrudge the author his/her measly 50c-5$ per book sold.

[BillSmithBooks]

Originally Posted by Jaime_Astorga View Post
[SNIP] I am glad this is the case; I support piracy in general, but I specially support piracy against the price gouging college textbook companies who take advantage of the inelastic demand for their products by overcharging and releasing new editions every few years.

Quote: "I support piracy in general," i.e. authors should not be paid according to this argument.


[SNIP] Ergo, "stealing" a book by downloading it somewhere else than from a "store" means "robbing" you of 50c. It's pretty hard to call that activity "criminal". (And no, the fact that others do it too doesn't make my act more criminal).

So I suppose if I grabbed your wallet and took 50c out of it, it would NOT be criminal?

I hope--and I would think that most reasonable people would agree--that authors who strive to be reasonable and fair with their customers should be supported (and paid).

You have a choice: You can support the authors and publishers who are fair with you. Don't buy from those who charge exorbitant prices and otherwise take advantage of customers.

Just as you should support the indie musicians you enjoy so they can keep on making music. Buy their CDs/mps, go to concerts, buy T-shirts. That's all they want...to make a living so they can keep on making music.

But just copying without permission deprives the creator of valuable income they really need to pay bills. It means they will have less ability to spend time creating new works for you to enjoy because they have to go back to flipping burgers to pay their light bill. Is that really a desirable goal?

But I agree, you're spot on about the thievery of textbook publishers. The push for "open source textbooks" will hopefully curtail that.

[fugazied]

I think their initial premise is incorrect, the Kindle DX does not NEED saving. It will be a success simply because people always want bigger faster more powerful devices. It's a great size for PDFs and newspapers, that's why I'm getting one!

[taosaur]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

But when you talk about "piracy in general," do you really mean that you believe that authors should not be paid for their work?

Originally Posted by BillSmithBooks

Quote: "I support piracy in general," i.e. authors should not be paid according to this argument.

I can't speak for Jaime Astorga, but you two are making quite a jump here. When JA says "I support piracy in general," I assume he's talking about so-called piracy as it exists: present means of file-sharing at more or less present volumes, not a fictional world in which file-sharing is the only means by which anything gets distributed.

As things are, the author gets paid AND their works are more widely distributed, increasing the odds that they get paid more, and more often, down the road. The extent to which file-sharing does impact sales is precisely the extent to which publishers (of any media) are pressured to reform their business models and distribution schemes, and creators are pressured to find publishers who can handle the new realities.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by tompe

That does not follow at all. There are alternative business models. Please think better on the implications of statements!

There are plenty of other business models. But that's not at all the same thing as "I support piracy in general." The statement I quoted says flat out that the writer supports taking copies of copyrighted works with no compensation to the copyright holder whether the copyright holder approves or not. Most of those "other business models" require some entity other than the poster to change something. That may well be good business (in the sense that the copyright holder makes more money), but it's not something any of the rest of us have a "right" to force on them.

Similarly, the ethical way to support alternate business models is to purchase from those who engage in them, and to refuse to do business with those who do not -- while being very vocal about it. In the case of eBooks, that latter means telling each publisher "You just lost another sale to me because..." -- over and over and over again, if necessary -- but it does not mean making unauthorized copies of someone's work!

You want to boycott those publishers who are clueless? Great! I'm with you! But when you want to have it both ways by also consuming the work of authors without compensation, you've crossed an ethical line that really matters!

Xenophon

P.S. No one has yet proposed an alternate business model for compensating authors that appears superior to copyright! But please note: the ever-extending copyright term mess we have today is also wrong; I support returning copyright duration to a much shorter and more justifiable term.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by taosaur

I can't speak for Jaime Astorga, but you two are making quite a jump here. When JA says "I support piracy in general," I assume he's talking about so-called piracy as it exists: present means of file-sharing at more or less present volumes, not a fictional world in which file-sharing is the only means by which anything gets distributed.

As things are, the author gets paid (by the non-file-sharers only) AND their works are more widely distributed (without their permission or approval), (possibly, arguably) increasing the odds that they get paid more, and more often, down the road. [SNIP, but more below]

I edited some parenthesized, bold-faced clarifications into your statement above. My point is that any author who wants to give away their work via a file-sharing route is free to do so. And sharing those files isn't piracy at all -- it's entirely legitimate! My issue is with the NON-legit content, and the question of who gets to choose.

Originally Posted by taosaur

The extent to which file-sharing does impact sales is precisely the extent to which publishers (of any media) are pressured to reform their business models and distribution schemes, and creators are pressured to find publishers who can handle the new realities.

Actually, this just isn't correct. The part of the file-sharing that brings pressure to bear on publishers and their business models is exactly and only the degree to which they lose sales (whatever those lost sales may be -- there's plenty of argument about that question, and I don't intend to take it on here). "[Pressuring publishers] to reform their business models and distribution schemes, and [pressuring] creators [...] to find publishers who can handle the new realities" would happen just as well in economic terms if all the file-sharers simply refused to purchase or consume any content not available via their preferred business model. That's engaging in a boycott. It's well known and understood, and clearly an ethical approach to the issue.

"File-sharing" and consuming content that is not legitimately acquired, although it does have an economic impact similar to a boycott, gives up the moral pressure that a boycott brings. What happens instead is that file-sharers just look like a bunch of folks who want the content for free and prefer to just "steal" it. So If your true goal is to pressure content producers and their publishers, do it the ethical way. Boycott them, and tell them all about it. And if your true goal is to get the content for more-or-less free, do the file sharing thing.

But don't fool yourselves -- sharing files while using the language of a boycott just makes you look like you're attempting to justify taking content without permission or compensation. It shoots your moral argument in the foot (or maybe in the heart)!

Xenophon

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

But don't fool yourselves -- sharing files while using the language of a boycott just makes you look like you're attempting to justify taking content without permission or compensation. It shoots your moral argument in the foot (or maybe in the heart)!

Only while you still care about whether or not others approve of whatever it is you're doing.
The only reason why that "makes someone look like they're a rationalizing/pirate" is because some people seem to be constantly & hell-bent upon trying to make out "the other side" as one-dimensionally evil/hypocritical. Because/And Lord knows editorial you will be punished as soon as you're caught in an apparent self-contradicting/rationalization.

[joblack]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/05/09...le-dxs-savior/

The same fits on the Iliad Reader - only it has more functions ... it hasn't got in wild piracy anyway.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

Similarly, the ethical way to support alternate business models is to purchase from those who engage in them, and to refuse to do business with those who do not --

I think we are at a local maximum were it is impossible to leave it by following laws and behaving ethically.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by tompe

I think we are at a local maximum were it is impossible to leave it by following laws and behaving ethically.

I believe that's called "Revolution".

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

Only while you still care about whether or not others approve of whatever it is you're doing.
The only reason why that "makes someone look like they're a rationalizing/pirate" is because some people seem to be constantly & hell-bent upon trying to make out "the other side" as one-dimensionally evil/hypocritical. Because/And Lord knows editorial you will be punished as soon as you're caught in an apparent self-contradicting/rationalization.

(Good to encounter you in a substantive discussion again, zsb! This should be interesting...)
I fully expect to be called on my behavior when (not if!) I'm engaged in "an apparent self-contradicting/rationalization." I attempt to think about my choices when that happens. Sometimes I find that there are options I hadn't considered, and I need to change some of my behavior (or rationalization). Other times I need to explain myself better. And sometimes I'm just plain being self-contradicatory.

I'm certainly not expecting to change the minds of folks who think that file-sharing of unauthorized copies of creative content is perfectly OK. (How's that for avoiding the loaded and strictly incorrect term "pirating"?) Rather, I'm trying to explain what their choices look like from the point of view of the people some of them/you claim to be attempting to influence.

If your goal is impact on the business world (as in taosaur's second paragraph above), it's important both to see how the business world sees your actions and also to consider the total effect of those actions on their beliefs.

"We're boycotting your products because [fill in the reason]" is a statement the business guys understand and can evaluate. Get a bunch of folks together and you'll have some impact (although the size of that impact is unlikely to exceed your impact on sales numbers).

"We're boycotting your products because [fill in the reason]" combined with "oh yeah, we're also downloading them without authorization or compensation" gets interpreted as "We're not willing to pay for the product at any price, and we're using our 'boycott'-like rhetoric as cover for our file-sharing." And that understanding on the part of the business folks robs the rhetoric of nearly all its potential impact.

Please note: It doesn't matter whether that interpretation matches your intent or not! That's how it'll come across to folks outside the file-sharing community.


As for consistency... well... I was trying to point out firstly that not buying is a separate decision from file-sharing/downloading of unauthorized content, and secondly that you can send a clear message either about poor business models and broken systems OR about file-sharing and "information wants to be free"... but NOT about both at once. If you try to have it both ways, the "influence the business folks" part is guaranteed to get lost.

Xenophon

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by tompe

I think we are at a local maximum were it is impossible to leave it by following laws and behaving ethically.

I respectfully disagree. This is what we have ballot boxes for. And issue groups who lobby lawmakers to try to get changes in the law. And opinion articles, and legal support groups (can you say EFF?) and lots and lots of other approaches to making changes. Don't like the current copyright regime? Write to your lawmakers and tell them why! Then vote to match.

I also note that I'd choose behaving ethically over following the law in most circumstances. And I come from a country where our history both provides a fine example showing that sometimes a revolution is the ethical choice and also shows how bad things need to be before that becomes true (there's this small issue of extremely high costs [in lives, money, time, paint, etc.] to all concerned). And we're not anywhere near that point on this issue! Or even on any issue IMHO.

Xenophon