"The book industry is gonna get Napstered..."

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by ahi

I actually am massively underpaid and still thoroughly happy with my job. Not that this paragraph of yours makes any sense at all...

- Ahi

Underpaid but still actually paid right? Not quite the same as an author should be willing to write and give it away for free.

Since you enjoy your job shouldn't you be happy to do it for free just like the author should be willing to write for free? Or as Jaime suggested wouldn't it be barbaric for you to expect your boss to pay you?

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Now seriously, Ahi. Sharing means giving freely. Of course, that should be encouraged. But you are saying that children should be encouraged to just take a toy from another child if that other child doesn't want to share?

And I hope you are "sharing" your regular day job with your boss, since you are advocating sharing on all levels. How about you go in to work tomorrow and tell your boss "hey, today I don't want to get paid, I am in a sharing mood"?

I just tried to say to my boss "I want to be paid for the work I done yesterday a fee everytime that work is used, cited o reviewed. For all my life, and for other 70 years after that. And I wont to decide who, when, where and how will access my work outcome. My heirs will make that same decision for 70 years after my death. And they'll renew this right eternally".

Guess what... It didn't work....



Seriously: you can teach kids to share what they actually own, that is a good thing, i believe ("give half of your cake to your little sister, please...").
But they really have to understand that they won't own what they have.
That book, movie, videogame, comic strip, song they had last Crhistmas, it's not theirs. They can use it how and until when the Great Master of Content let them to do so.

But, really, you cannot teach them that they own the DVD and that they're thiefs if they "share" it with their friends keeping a backup copy...

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

A few points rather than quoting and responding to three pages.........

1: Copyright - I agree it goes way to far. Personally I think until death is right. Why should an author not retain ownership of his creation at least until he dies?

2: Digital media is valueless - I think most people advocating this idea are playing a semantics game. We can all agree that the value is in the reading correct? Well how else are you going to get that value except by reading the digital copy? So does the digital copy really have no value or are people just fixating on that in order to justify their own position?

So many here have argued that the "old ways" aren't going to work in this new digital age. I find it odd then that these same people continue to use an "old model" way of assigning value to something. That is they keep using the idea of supply and demand to suggest that since digital media has limitless supply then it has no value.

Well if we are looking to throw out the old ways, lets throw them all out. Lets stop playing semantics and admit that digital media does have a value. It's value is in being the medium by which the content is accessed. Lets try to work out a way to assigning a fair value to this rather than sticking to the old ways when it comes to value because they support our desire for free content.

ficbot mentioned paying a set fee for access to all digital media. Maybe that will work, who knows. I can guarantee you this though, it will only work if we get past this idea of digital media being valueless. Once someone assigns zero value to something they will not pay anything for it, simple as that.

3: Piracy et al - Piracy(or "file-sharing" if that suits you better) is generally done for no other reason than people want to access the work for free or at the very least not at the price the author/publisher is asking. Dress it up and justify it however you like but that is what it comes down to. Now, at the moment piracy is not a big deal. Few people, as a percentage of the reading public, engage in it really. Further to that, if ebooks were priced more "fairly" and came with full ownership(like a pbook and without DRM) I would say even less people would engage in piracy. As has been mentioned, the vast majority of people do want to act in a sane, rational and fair manner and pay a reasonable and fair price for what they want.

So what's the problem? Well that is how it operates now but is unlikely to stay that way in the future. As many have argued here, even the iTunes model is unlikely to be sustainable. Why is that? Because people view digital content as having zero value. Nobody is willing to pay money for something of zero value. Couple that with piracy becoming easier and more accessible in the future and we will see less and less people paying a "fair" price regardless of the DRM issues and whatever else is used to justify piracy now. And that will come about because people keep fixating on the idea of digital media being valueless as a way of justifying their desire to not have to pay for what they want.

4: Authors getting paid for writing - Yes, only a few ever make their living from writing. Does that mean all authors should not expect any payment for their writing? Seems so many on here are quick to confuse the desire to be paid for their writing with wanting to make squillions of dollars and live the high life from their writing.

Just because an author enjoys what they do(or should anyway) doesn't mean the public should have the right to access their works for free if that is not the authors intent. Maybe the author will never sell enough copies of their work to make a living from it but that does not mean they should just give it away for free. I think those that keep bringing up the "making a living from writing" are selling everyone a dummy. I believe they are intentionally confusing the issue as another way of supporting their point of view.

The long and the short of it is that an author has created something and it is their right to ask for a fair payment for it before someone has the right to access it. If the audience doesn't want to read it or the asking price is too high then they can simply not buy it. Maybe the author will make a living from it and maybe they wont but that isn't the issue. The issue is that it is the authors right to ask for payment and it is not the audience's right to go and access the work for free if they want to. And arguing that this is the reality, that people do just go pirate it if they want it and that the authors should just deal with it is no different to saying might makes right. The might of the public makes it right to do whatever they want. No, it doesn't make it right.

Cheers,
PKFFW

1. Copyright: I agree with you. Life is enough.
Besides, copyright is not at all the only way to reward authors, despite the fact most people here thinks so.

2. Digital "media" has a value, OK. It's digtal "copy" which does not. To fully get out of the "old model" you have to erase the whole idea of "copy". It's not a matter of supply and demand. It's just the fact that "copies" do not exist.
I pay for media. I pay my computer, my connection, my ebook reader, the elecrtical power to keep them going... Digital media has definitely a value and it's not free at all.
OTOH, digital copy is valueless. How much do you pay for the "Copy" you create in RAM when you open your book? Are you stealing from the author?
The value is mostly in the content, and then in the medium, like it always have been. In this "new model", a "copy" does not correspond to a "new instance of the medium".

3. Piracy. In Italy we have:
Total amount of legal ebook novels: 0
Total amount of pirated e-novels: 30.000 and counting.
Is price the only driver toward piracy?
Let's face it: pirated ebooks are far more, better formatted, more usable and more easily available than legal ones. They're offering more for less. And pirates work hard to do it. They spend hours in scanning, formatting and proofreading...

4. Authors: nobody should expect to be paid just for having put some words on a page. I did it, and the crap I wrote wasn't published, and I din't make a penny. Will you pay me? I don't think so.
Authors have to be paid, as long as they do a good job. The better the writing, the higher the reward. That would be fair!
As of now, bad authors in bad TV shows make more money than good authors with good blogs...
So, I'm completely in favour of a meritocratic reward method.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Format C:

2. Digital "media" has a value, OK. It's digtal "copy" which does not. To fully get out of the "old model" you have to erase the whole idea of "copy". It's not a matter of supply and demand. It's just the fact that "copies" do not exist.
I pay for media. I pay my computer, my connection, my ebook reader, the elecrtical power to keep them going... Digital media has definitely a value and it's not free at all.
OTOH, digital copy is valueless. How much do you pay for the "Copy" you create in RAM when you open your book? Are you stealing from the author?
The value is mostly in the content, and then in the medium, like it always have been. In this "new model", a "copy" does not correspond to a "new instance of the medium".

You are not paying for the 1's and 0's; you're paying for the right to use the book, video, or whatever. No payment = no right.

3. Piracy. In Italy we have:
Total amount of legal ebook novels: 0
Total amount of pirated e-novels: 30.000 and counting.

If there really are zero Italian eBooks available (and forgive me for saying so, but I find that a little hard to believe), it seems as though a major business opportunity exists to fill that gap in the market.

4. Authors: nobody should expect to be paid just for having put some words on a page. I did it, and the crap I wrote wasn't published, and I din't make a penny. Will you pay me? I don't think so.

Nobody is saying that authors should "expect" to be paid. What people are saying is that authors have a right to put a price on their work, and customers have a right to buy it at that price, or not to buy it, as they see fit, just as with any other product. You do NOT have the right to say "it's not worth $x, so I'm just going to take it without paying for it".

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Format C:

2. Digital "media" has a value, OK. It's digtal "copy" which does not. To fully get out of the "old model" you have to erase the whole idea of "copy". It's not a matter of supply and demand. It's just the fact that "copies" do not exist.
I pay for media. I pay my computer, my connection, my ebook reader, the elecrtical power to keep them going... Digital media has definitely a value and it's not free at all.
OTOH, digital copy is valueless. How much do you pay for the "Copy" you create in RAM when you open your book? Are you stealing from the author?
The value is mostly in the content, and then in the medium, like it always have been. In this "new model", a "copy" does not correspond to a "new instance of the medium".

Ok then, I think we have to get past the idea that the "copy" has no value. If not then people will feel that the thing they want(ie: the copy) has no value and therefore they shouldn't have to pay anything at all for it.

And yes there is a difference between fair use copying(copying the file so your wife/GF/BF/best mate/few close friends/whatever in that like) and uploading the file for the entire internet connected world to have access to free of charge. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with fair use. I am saying that there is something wrong with sharing the file with the entire internet connected world free of charge and against the authors wishes.

Originally Posted by Format C

4. Authors: nobody should expect to be paid just for having put some words on a page. I did it, and the crap I wrote wasn't published, and I din't make a penny. Will you pay me? I don't think so.
Authors have to be paid, as long as they do a good job. The better the writing, the higher the reward. That would be fair!
As of now, bad authors in bad TV shows make more money than good authors with good blogs...
So, I'm completely in favour of a meritocratic reward method.

Firstly, I think Harry's reply sums up my point of view.

Having said that, I wouldn't mind some sort of meritocratic reward too but who would decide what has merit and what doesn't? Many would argue Dan Brown's work has no merit yet millions upon millions have gotten enjoyment from his work. Should he be paid less than someone who is deemed to have merit but only a few hundred or a thousand people have ever read?

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Jellby]

Originally Posted by Format C:

Let's face it: pirated ebooks are far more, better formatted, more usable and more easily available than legal ones. They're offering more for less. And pirates work hard to do it. They spend hours in scanning, formatting and proofreading...

I have yet to find a pirated ebook which the minimum acceptable formatting, I guess I've never known where to look for them.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Format C:

I just tried to say to my boss "I want to be paid for the work I done yesterday a fee everytime that work is used, cited o reviewed. For all my life, and for other 70 years after that. And I wont to decide who, when, where and how will access my work outcome. My heirs will make that same decision for 70 years after my death. And they'll renew this right eternally".

Guess what... It didn't work....

Did you agree to be paid a relatively tiny sum each time the work is used, cited or reviewed for the hours of time and effort you have put into it?

That's where the comparison to "normal" work falls down. Most people are willing to make a deal with a single boss to swap an hours worth of time for what they deem to be a reasonable rate of pay because it gives them the perceived security of a paycheque each week that the single boss must pay them right there and then.

An author on the hand doesn't get an hourly wage, the author takes the gamble that their time and effort will pay off by asking for a little bit from(hopefully) alot of people in order to make a decent wage from their labour. And, as has been mentioned time and time again on these boards, most authors(even good ones) never make a living from their writing. That means that even with copyright lasting till death +70 years, their gamble never paid off and they never got an equivalent monetary reward for their efforts that the paid worker gets.

So when looked at in that light, most authors are getting royally screwed by copyright because it runs out before their work has even made them a living!
(note, I'm not actually arguing that they are getting screwed or that it should last longer, just pointing out that for most authors they never make the same wage someone else does for doing their work even though the copyright lasts so long)

Originally Posted by Format C

Seriously: you can teach kids to share what they actually own, that is a good thing, i believe ("give half of your cake to your little sister, please...").
But they really have to understand that they won't own what they have.
That book, movie, videogame, comic strip, song they had last Crhistmas, it's not theirs. They can use it how and until when the Great Master of Content let them to do so.

But, really, you cannot teach them that they own the DVD and that they're thiefs if they "share" it with their friends keeping a backup copy...

That's really a completely different issue to how long copyright lasts.

I'm all for full ownership rights for digital media. No DRM, fair use policy, etc etc. I think it will come one day. One thing that is hampering its' introduction though, is the idea that anyone should be allowed to upload any file they want for the entire internet connected world to access for free. Until people get that idea out of their heads and replace it with the idea that paying a reasonable fee for digital media is ok and fair, authors and publishers will continue to drag the chain. It's a two way street and requires both parties to change their prevailing mindsets.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[carld]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I buy an ebook from Fictionwise.com. I own it, not the author. I can read it. I can read it aloud to my kids. I am *legally* permitted to loan it to a friend, give it away, or sell it.

Yes, you own your digital copy due to the rights conveyed to you when you buy it. You do not have the right to make copies of it and share it around. When someone steals a copy of the book no rights are conveyed at all.

[Jaime_Astorga]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Change or not change I don't really care.

Why I bring it up is because I think it is very hypocritcal for people to be spouting off about how the "old ways" don't work........authors should move with the times man, publishers are big greedy corporate vampires draining every cent from customers, self-publishing is the way of the future, no barriers between creator and audience, adapt or die etc etc..............and then in the next breath use the "old way" of supply and demand in order to support their argument that digital media has zero value.

If the "old ways" don't work in the digital era then don't use the "old way" of supply and demand as the determining factor in establishing value.

Cheers,
PKFFW

You are missing the point. Not "everything" has changed... humans still breathe air, energy is still equal to mass times the speed of light squared, and the laws of economics still hold. When talking about how the "old ways" don't work anymore, one refers to the ease with which digital works, as opposed to physical works, can be distributed and copied. It is that which has changed, and it is that which makes some of the old ways not apply anymore. But we are still operating under the constraints of economics.

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by carld

Yeah, because that's the way commerce works. I have something, someone else wants it, they give me money for it. The government also made laws saying someone can't just klunk me over the head and take my stuff because they don't want to pay for it. I like those laws.

Do you?
Around the world they're putting those "rights" on water.
And there are places where you have to pay for it.
It's not a distropic novel: it's happening right now.

When they'll find a way to enforce "rights" on air, will you be happy to pay for breathe?

The principle itself may appear a good thing. But we have to put a limit to it.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Jaime_Astorga

But we are still operating under the constraints of economics.

One of the "laws of economics" is that a worker should be fairly compensated for their work (admittedly, a law that is not always honored as it is). How is that to be accomplished if their work is considered by consumers to be free?

For all the talk about future writing being done only by those who "love the act of writing," everyone has to admit that the excising of commercial writers from our world will mean a huge dearth of new and updated material, worldwide. Myself, I don't think that's a good thing.

So we need to figure out a fair way to fairly compensate all authors, or face mega-bookstores with about 40 titles on their shelves.

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You are not paying for the 1's and 0's; you're paying for the right to use the book, video, or whatever. No payment = no right.



If there really are zero Italian eBooks available (and forgive me for saying so, but I find that a little hard to believe), it seems as though a major business opportunity exists to fill that gap in the market.



Nobody is saying that authors should "expect" to be paid. What people are saying is that authors have a right to put a price on their work, and customers have a right to buy it at that price, or not to buy it, as they see fit, just as with any other product. You do NOT have the right to say "it's not worth $x, so I'm just going to take it without paying for it".

You really well summarized what i said.
About the zero books: I mean the ones you usually find in brick&mortar libraires.
Of course there are a few independent authors and maybe some small publishers selling a few obscure novels on the net somewhere...

[carld]

Originally Posted by Format C:

Do you?

Yes I do. I think it's a good thing that my stuff is my stuff, and you can't just take it from me because you want it.

Originally Posted by Format C:

Around the world they're putting those "rights" on water.
And there are places where you have to pay for it.
It's not a distropic novel: it's happening right now.

I pay my water bill to the city every month, what's your point?

Originally Posted by Format C:

When they'll find a way to enforce "rights" on air, will you be happy to pay for breathe?

Now you're being silly.

Originally Posted by Format C:

The principle itself may appear a good thing. But we have to put a limit to it.

There are limits to freedom as well. You can't take stuff that isn't yours just because you want it and don't want to pay for it.

[Jaime_Astorga]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

One of the "laws of economics" is that a worker should be fairly compensated for their work (admittedly, a law that is not always honored as it is). How is that to be accomplished if their work is considered by consumers to be free?

Err... no. When I studied economics, I assure you "people should be compensated for their work" was not an economical principle. That is, if anything, a moral question.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

So we need to figure out a fair way to fairly compensate all authors, or face mega-bookstores with about 40 titles on their shelves.

Will thousands of years of written works suddenly banish from the shelves?

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Let me put it in very simple terms. Let us say you wrote a great book. You can expect to sell 1 million copies at 10 bucks each. So that file with the book is worth 10 million dollars at the beginning. Now I get hold of the file. I distribute it for free on the internet and everybody decides to download for free and not to buy. The value of that file just dropped from 10 million to ZERO. And only because of what I did to you. Morally you just stole 10 million dollars and distributed the proceeds to darknet users -- maybe you will be out in 40 years because you didn't keep any money for yourself? That would be justice.

The number expected to sell is imaginary; it does not exist. I could claim to expect to sell a billion copies and it would be equally imaginary. For your argument to be valid you must have some real way to express the value. This isn't it.

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Another example. The government of the country you live in decides tomorrow that all money will become worthless and they will distribute new money. Have they hurt you? Not according to you, you still have the old money, just as before. Nobody has physically taken anything away from you. And you may save on years of buying toilet paper.

That's not piracy, so it's not relevant to this discussion.

Originally Posted by HansTWN

A third example. Let us say you and I work together. You have a great idea. You tell me about it. I go to our boss and get a raise and a promotion. No problem, you still have the original idea on that hard disk in your head! No harm done.

Again, that's not piracy, so it's not relevant to this discussion.

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Sorry, the argument "they still have the original file" therefore no crime has been committed, no wrong has been done, just blows my mind.

That's becuase I'm using words for what they really mean, and you are using them for their emotional value.