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

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Wrong. The common man decides, with his wallet. When he buys into something that is culturally, environmentally, or even technologically damaging, simply because it's cheap, he is deciding foolishly. When he refuses to buy until he sees what he wants, and pays for quality, he is acting smartly. Cheap doesn't make right, any more than might makes right. Any good consumer knows you get what you pay for.

If I may quote myself from the post - "If I can make it, then which either costs less, or is better quality? I pick accordingly." It doesn't mean that I automatically pick cheap, or quality. It means I place a economic choice on the spectrum cheap vs quality.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

U.S. consumers bought into a non-sustainable credit lifestyle, polluting vehicles, sweat-shop products and mindless pop media, all in the name of the god Cheap... and today, it's costing us. Now consumers are doing their level best to drive e-books over the same cliff by opposing copyright reform, security and compensation (in favor of, in order, none, none and none). And so far, no one has offered anything other than a few Age of Aquarius-style platitudes to suggest how an e-book market can actually work without any of those things, in what is still an economy-driven politically-motivated world.

We created that lifestyle though technology. But technology never stays the same, it changes. And there are losers in the change, and well as winners. Look what happened to silent film actors who had lousy voices when talkies came out. Technology destroyed their economic earning power. Should we have killed sound to protect them? The computer has effectively killed copyright. Shall we kill the computer to keep copyright intact? Who knows what tommorrow's changes will obsolete. All I know it, it will obsolete something. And somebody is going to lose because of it.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

The world may not "guarantee" me a fair royalty for my work. But I can dicker with that. If, however, the world tells me "we're just going to take whatever you create and pay you nothing, whether you like it or not," it's not worth my while to create anything for a world like that.

From an economic standpoint, you're probably right. On the other hand, 95 percent of business started fail within 5 years. Is creating copyright product immune to this reality?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

From an economic standpoint, you're probably right. On the other hand, 95 percent of business started fail within 5 years. Is creating copyright product immune to this reality?

No, but a lack of copyright, security, compensation or other protections will surely doom the remaining 5%.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Jaime_Astorga

I know. But if we go by prices, then can we agree that "advertisement" is much cheaper to someone using google than, say, a $12.99 subscription to use the service? Pirate books aren't free, either, then, since to get them one has to pay for bandwidth and probably visit a site with ads, yet the point stands.

As you say, it depends on what it cost you to get to that site.

The thing about advertisement-subsidizing is that it socializes content cost. Maybe you didn't directly pay for it... but the next guy did, when he responded to an ad and bought something. And maybe you responded to an ad and bought something, thereby paying for content someone else perused.

But all of that is essentially spreading the costs among multiple coffers... IOW, you pay for it indirectly. And in most cases, those distributed indirect costs, if they were capable of being isolated, tend to be more than the direct cost. But since it's spread over enough people to bring individual costs way down, and most people don't intuitively make those connections, it seems as if it's cheap or free to the individual, and consumers are thereby placated. Just one of the psycho-socially-engineered ways in which content is paid for.

For the record, though, a pirate site may collect money, or at least cost you money to access, but absolutely none of that money will go to the creator.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

The computer has effectively killed copyright. Shall we kill the computer to keep copyright intact? Who knows what tommorrow's changes will obsolete. All I know it, it will obsolete something. And somebody is going to lose because of it.

I don't think copyright is dead, but how it can be applied is changing.

It's still difficult to set up a business selling other people's copyrighted works without permission. (At least, it's difficult to do so if those works are less than 50 years old. Older works just aren't carefully watched, except for a few high-profile cases.) It is, however, increasingly easy to copy works for free, and it's never going to get harder to do so.

Definitely a key point to keep in mind: Digital copies will never be harder to make than they are right now. Future applications of copyright law need to acknowledge that.

Copyright may shift to a system where only economic control is permitted, and free use is unrestricted. (I don't think that's a good idea.) Or publishers may offer bells-and-whistles versions that are hard to reproduce--ebooks with links to a verified website with author interviews or additional, non-downloadable notes; interactive movie DVDs that require info set by the seller at time of purchase. But those won't dissuade customers who just want the basic book or movie content.

One of the first things ebook publishers need to do to counter piracy, is to make sure their versions are BETTER than scanned-and-OCRd versions thrown around on the darknet. If the mainstream published version looks no different from the bootleg, there's a lot less incentive to put up with DRM; combine that with "oh, you can't transfer it to your new computer" and people will go looking for the pirate version.

Another potential solution is changing the penalty system for copyright infringement--marking a difference between individual misuse and corporate exploitation. A penalty of $50 per file wouldn't create the furor and martyrdom that the current range of penalties does ("hey look! I moved 783 kb of text from one computer to another and now I'm worth $150,000 to the right person!"). Treat minor copyright infringement like petty theft, punish accordingly, and stop turning low-grade hackers into folk heroes who can claim to have caused $2mil of economic chaos.

[GlennD]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

From an economic standpoint, you're probably right. On the other hand, 95 percent of business started fail within 5 years. Is creating copyright product immune to this reality?

I bet if you looked at the number of authors who submit manuscripts (whether they get published or not) vs the number of authors who make a living solely from their writing, the odds look pretty poor for writers.

I used to feel the same way as a lot of posters about copyright and royalties...then I spent some time reading Colleen Doran's blog, where she's quite forthcoming about the struggles of trying to support yourself with artistic work (in her case she draws and writes comic books). It was quite an eye-opener. In one article in her blog she says:

"Following up on our jolly article about Mark Twain’s get rich quick schemes, the sad truth is there is no surer way to get poor quickly and permanently than by becoming a writer.

While a very small percentage of writers rake in the cash, the low income echelons increase as the internet and book pirating cut into writer’s profits. According to this survey, the average writer in Britain makes no more than 4,000 pounds per year (about $6,000)! Of course, many of them continue to believe they will break that exclusive club of top ten percent of income earning phenoms, despite all evidence to the contrary."

Keep in mind, writers also don't have the benefits that a lot of us expect in a 9 to 5 job - no insurance, no 401k , etc. The retirement income a writer hopes for is royalties from a back catalog.

I'm not saying I agree 100% with everything Steve is saying.....but writers need more than good reviews and a pat on the back to keep writing. People who steal income from authors are also stealing from all of us who hope that our favorite writers continue to produce work for us to read.

The way writers gain income from books may change as technology changes, but they've got to be able to support themselves or we'll see a lot less writing.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Thanks... I guess...

[tompe]

Originally Posted by GlennD

Keep in mind, writers also don't have the benefits that a lot of us expect in a 9 to 5 job - no insurance, no 401k , etc. The retirement income a writer hopes for is royalties from a back catalog.

I'm not saying I agree 100% with everything Steve is saying.....but writers need more than good reviews and a pat on the back to keep writing. People who steal income from authors are also stealing from all of us who hope that our favorite writers continue to produce work for us to read.

The way writers gain income from books may change as technology changes, but they've got to be able to support themselves or we'll see a lot less writing.

There is no evidence that piracy cut into the income for the authors that do not sell so much.

Seeing a lot less of the bad writing might be a good thing. I do not see why we must support all the people that want to write. Should that principle hold for anything a person want to do?

[ficbot]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

True. The other significant reason is that customers are too greedy and selfish to honestly compensate creators for their work, and will come up with any excuse to avoid doing so.

Are you actually serious? I honestly can't tell if you mean this statement as a joke or not. If you really are serious about this, you've just lost me as a customer, at any rate. What an offensive thing to say in a thread where dozens, including me, have said that we do pay for our books, we want to pay for them, and all we want is for the publishing industry to set up mechanisms where we can do this in a fair and encumbered way. If you meant this statement as a joke, please clarify what exactly you are getting at here because honestly, I'm a little offended.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by ficbot

Are you actually serious? I honestly can't tell if you mean this statement as a joke or not. If you really are serious about this, you've just lost me as a customer, at any rate. What an offensive thing to say in a thread where dozens, including me, have said that we do pay for our books, we want to pay for them, and all we want is for the publishing industry to set up mechanisms where we can do this in a fair and encumbered way. If you meant this statement as a joke, please clarify what exactly you are getting at here because honestly, I'm a little offended.

In case you hadn't noticed, yours is not the only voice in this thread: There are as many people here saying that they just want free books, and that I, a creator of those books, essentially should have no say in the matter. If you thought I directed my statement at every customer and potential customer out there, as opposed to the entry I followed, I apologize.

But when you say "fair and (un?)encumbered," is that to mean fair to you? Or am I included? Because, frankly, you have no idea how insulted I am by this thread...

Originally Posted by tompe

There is no evidence that piracy cut into the income for the authors that do not sell so much.

Of course there's no evidence, since there's no way to accurately measure whether or not a pirate might have bought a book if they hadn't pirated it. There is also no "evidence" that celebrity endorsements sell more products... yet, inexplicably, celebrities are hired, and more products move off the shelves. Citing "no evidence" is a familiar dodge, and a broken record.

Originally Posted by tompe

Seeing a lot less of the bad writing might be a good thing. I do not see why we must support all the people that want to write. Should that principle hold for anything a person want to do?

If it was only the bad writing we'd see less of, that might be one thing (though who are you to judge?). But you won't just be losing "bad" writers... you'll also be losing "good" writers who can no longer make a living in your "free book" world. Or did you just assume that all popular writers are "bad"?

[ficbot]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

But when you say "fair and (un?)encumbered," is that to mean fair to you? Or am I included? Because, frankly, you have no idea how insulted I am by this thread...

It means that I am not willing to pay if they are going to tell me I can read only on a Kindle and not a Sony, or only in the USA and not in Canada, or only two times or three times or not on cell phones or whatever. If I own it, I own it. If they want to sell it in a way where I do NOT own it, they need to price it accordingly at a rental price and then that's fair. But they don't do that. They charge price for books we can do LESS with.

I don't 'pirate' books in cases like these because I do believe in paying authors. But I *do* vote with my wallet and just read other things and buy from other authors. There are definitely authors who have lost otherwise sure sales from me for this reason.

Rather than focusing their efforts on the people who aren't going to be a sale---non-readers, and the tiny percentage that 'pirate' who nothing you do will stop them, it seems to me publishers would be better served focusing their efforts on making it as easy as possible for those who may actually be a customer to BE a customer. Offer the books for sale in print, in ebook, however people want them. Offer them unencumbered by DRM so that people can enjoy them on the device of their choosing. Make them affordable for the average reader and make them as easy to get and use as possible. THAT is the way to save the publishing industry.

iTunes has sold a billion downloads. People WILL pay for books, Steve. But overly protectionist authors who are so scared of the mythical 'pirate' that they don't even offer the books (see: JK Rowling) have no right to complain that nobody is buying. You have to start by giving the customers a sensible, reasonable option.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by tompe

There is no evidence that piracy cut into the income for the authors that do not sell so much.

There is no way to effectively measure *how much* piracy cuts into the income of mid-level authors. That's not the same as no evidence that it does so. Even if not a single pirated copy replaces a paid copy, the fact that they're not downloaded from official, sanctioned sources means that the author has no reader statistics to bring to publishers to prove his popularity.

Seeing a lot less of the bad writing might be a good thing. I do not see why we must support all the people that want to write. Should that principle hold for anything a person want to do?

You think more piracy & less payment of authors = less bad writing?

As much as I enjoy a great deal of fantastic writing that's available for free, I know it's outweight more than tenfold by atrocious writing. Sturgeon's law applies to professional work; for amateurs and students, it's probably closer to 99% that's worthless.

[Abecedary]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

If it was only the bad writing we'd see less of, that might be one thing (though who are you to judge?). But you won't just be losing "bad" writers... you'll also be losing "good" writers who can no longer make a living in your "free book" world. Or did you just assume that all popular writers are "bad"?

I was going to stay out of this thread, but this needed to be commented on. If someone has a true passion for doing something, they'll do it regardless of whether they can make a living at it or if it will sell. They'll create because they have a need to create. It's rare to find an author (or musician, or painter, etc) who actually makes a good living doing what they love on their own terms. But there are tons of all of those who do it because they love doing it. And they don't care whether people think their work is good or bad. So if you're a "good" writer who stops doing it just because you can't make a living at it, then I say good riddance. As far as I'm concerned, that's no different from hrumphing and taking your ball home with you. There are more than enough other "good" writers to take your place who write because they love to write. And I will be more than happy to compensate them for their efforts.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by ficbot

Rather than focusing their efforts on the people who aren't going to be a sale---non-readers, and the tiny percentage that 'pirate' who nothing you do will stop them, it seems to me publishers would be better served focusing their efforts on making it as easy as possible for those who may actually be a customer to BE a customer. Offer the books for sale in print, in ebook, however people want them. Offer them unencumbered by DRM so that people can enjoy them on the device of their choosing. Make them affordable for the average reader and make them as easy to get and use as possible. THAT is the way to save the publishing industry.

One of the biggest issues here is the fact that the "no sale" readers are so undefinable (see my earlier post) that simply dismissing them may not actually be the way to go. Sure, maybe Rowling won't miss a few of those no-sales... but a little author like me could find they make the difference between success or failure of a book, or a business. And as long as those numbers are unquantified and therefore ignored, it's impossible to say one way or the other.

It's always good to cater to your customers as much as possible. But it's also a good idea to try to draw in more customers, including those "no-sales," and convert them to "sales." In many cases, existing customers will buy more if some of their criteria are met. But meet the right ones, and you just might encourage everyone to buy. And the more people you bring in, the more you'll find out about the customers, potential customers, and your actual market, and stop guessing about what's going on.

So, even though I don't use tools that tend to drive away customers, I still concern myself with those "no-sales," to the extent that I'd like to find out why they didn't buy, to see if I can offer something that will make them buy. Maybe I can write material they prefer (or just write better). Maybe I can offer another e-book format. Maybe I'm offering too many formats, and need to cut the confusion. Maybe I need to offer free porn. Maybe lowering my prices below $2.50 will make customers swarm like locusts! Or maybe I just talk too much.

I don't know. But I'm willing to see what I can try.

[GlennD]

Originally Posted by Abecedary

So if you're a "good" writer who stops doing it just because you can't make a living at it, then I say good riddance. As far as I'm concerned, that's no different from hrumphing and taking your ball home with you. There are more than enough other "good" writers to take your place who write because they love to write..

And what kind of output will your good, passionate writers have? Someone who writes solely because they love it still has to eat. Someone who is out working a 40 hour job and is squeezing in writing on top of it is clearly going to write far fewer pages than someone who can spend that 40 hours a week writing. I like to read those big thick multi-volume fantasy epics - I don't see how anyone could ever finish one while holding down a day job.

I've been reading "Grumbles from the Grave" by Robert Heinlein recently. As far as I can tell from his own accounts, he was not a man who wrote because he "loved" it. He wrote because he wanted the income, and he was talented enough and prolific enough to ensure that he made enough to support himself. In a "free book" world, we wouldn't have any of his works. He would have probably been working as an engineer at some government base instead.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by GlennD

Keep in mind, writers also don't have the benefits that a lot of us expect in a 9 to 5 job - no insurance, no 401k , etc. The retirement income a writer hopes for is royalties from a back catalog.

Benefit for working stiffs are just another form of income. You want a 401K? Guess what? You stuff your money into it. If the company matches it, they could just as well pay you the same cash, because they are paying it out anyway. All benefits for working stiffs are just another form of compensation, that goes away forever when you do.... You want a pension as a writer? You can buy an annuity as you go, and it's probably safer that a corporate pension.