John Grisham speaks out on the future of pbooks and ebooks

[zacheryjensen]

Originally Posted by neilmarr

Don't forget, FormatC, that many of those white-haired, stoop-shouldered, friendly old book sellers we remember with a tear in our eye were often selling second-hand books with absolutely zero benefit to author, editor or publisher. It was the original book piracy. Neil

That's not piracy. I don't know about your crazy country but in mine, it's a protected right under "First-sale doctrine." Which is part of the current copyright law. Unfortunately, electronic goods are diluting its value and providing an escape to the law for rights-holders. I think this is severely bassackwards but have little hope with the huge number of IP-based industries that will want all the rights they can lobby for to suck every last penny out of consumers for their one-time efforts, of any improvement on this situation.

It does bring up an interesting rift in the concepts of purchase vs. licensing. To me, until electronic goods made me think about copyright in a meaningful way, purchasing a book or a record, or whatever always seemed like I was not purchasing rights to read or hear the works. I was paying for the effort that went into producing that copy. I was buying the medium not the message. And I am not afraid to be a little presumptuous in saying that I believe most people perceived things that same way, especially with music because of how often you'd have heard the music on the radio for free anyway. Because of how many opportunities you had to just record it yourself if you wanted. Who knew or even cared that you would be breaking copyright by doing that? In fact, you weren't thanks to betamax, in the US... but I digress.

Point is, electronic goods industrial propaganda tossers are successfully indoctrinating the public on the perception they wish to endure. It may not be a modification of law but the only reason the laws remain the way they are is because most people have no clue. They do what they think is right even if it's not. I don't know anyone who feels the slightest guilt at making a copy of a CD for a friend. I get cross-eyed looks when I tell someone I can't lend them any of my DVD's because they are now the back-ups to my ripped copies and I'm already stretching fair-use doctrine as it is. They don't know what fair use is, or any of that crap.

Now we're finally getting into one of the most archaic of IP-based industries moving along to electronic goods in the public eye. I have to wonder how it will be accepted, if the industry is willing to alienate older readers who simply won't accept the limits or laws, or if they will try to prop up the fledgling ebook business and deteriorating pbook businesses at the same time.

Personally I think the whole situation is all ridiculous. I think it's ridiculous that communication and storytelling is such a huge industry as it is. I think it's ridiculous to make business models based around ARTIFICIAL SUPPLY CONSTRAINTS. If you modeled the perception of paying for the copying process of pbooks to the same work for ebooks, of course nobody is going to think an ebook should cost anywhere near as much as a pbook. They know very well it costs almost nothing to make a 2mb file copy, even over the internet. The fact is, ebooks transform a retail market into a service market, exactly the way massive online games do the same thing to video games.

Nobody is worried about how much time and effort went into creating a book except for the hard core literates out there. So in a way I think Grisham is particularly justified in his concerns about the market. He's squarely in that rare variety of books that random jerks who never read normally will buy. Him, King, Patterson, etc. The books you see at Wal-mart and Target. The only reason YA authors, who also show up there fairly often should be less concerned is that they target an audience prone to accepting new business models and technologies. But at the same time, an audience that believes deeply in open sharing.

So, to make this all work a few things probably need to happen and there is probably more than one way to go about it...

My way would be, there is never any implication of ownership. The word "buy" never comes up in reference to ebooks. Ever. Unless you're being sold unrestricted rights or something. In fact, I'd much rather be sold a service to access books like a pay-for online library. I'd pay more for that then I do for netflix. As for paper books, they can continue to represent the path of ownership in the perception of the public. The people who already skip the library because they want to "own" a book can continue to do so. This setup mirrors streaming video vs. buying DVD's.

Alternatively, the industry has to completely indoctrinate the non-ownership ideal to the whole book-buying market, including your grandmothers who are older than currently copyright law. Then you can have more arbitrary pricing models, based less around the medium and more around the message. More money for longer books, more popular books, whatever. A slight premium on high quality binding (hardcover?) but not so strictly priced based on that aspect alone as it seems to go now. And eBooks, they should represent the baseline pricing. They should set the value of the "message."

And if a company has a clearance on their hardcover stock as BN so often does, then they better put the same equivalent discount on the eBook as long as the sale's going on to keep up appearances and avoid angrying up the blood of their newer target consumers.

Still... I'd much rather have the pay-for library model. I don't care about owning a book or not. I just want to read it once. I have only ever read the same book more than once one time and I would not have minded checking it out to do so. In fact, I checked it out of a library the first time I read it so I've only bought it once still.

One thing is for sure. All of this nonsense, battling over pricing and rights, and anti-consumer practices like DRM and format-based pricing disparities. It all makes me wish there were more Cory Doctorows and Peter Wattses in the world. It makes me quite grateful for project gutenberg and feedbooks.

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by neilmarr

...........sell second-hand books with financial benefit to nobody but themselves, I have little sympathy. N

So, ebay, who sells world-wide second-hand books, CDs, devices, phones, computers, clothes, furnitures cars and even houses, is the Great Evil of economy.........



Hey, but Amazon itslef do sell used books!
So, why publishers still give them the new ones to be sold? Why they don't lobby to put them out of business?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Actually, sales of music on physical media are in a steep decline (like 30% less than just 2-3 years ago). The only area where this is not true is classical music, since the quality of downloads is not good enough.....

huh? I don't think I believe that. I've downloaded tons of classical mp3's -- same quality you'd get on the CD.

Sorry this is off-topic a bit.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Format C:

..
That kind of commerce died long before the rising of the digital market: it was replaced by the shopping mall ternd.
There you go, look at the shelves, you usually don't ask nothing to the staff, fill your trolley, go to the counter, give your credit card, a little smile and goodbye.

This kind of shopping can and will be replaced by Internet shopping. But that old white haired shopkeeper who's become your friend couldn't.
He's just been swept away by recession.

So true and also much of the reason Amazon has grown because, while you don't get that personal connection there is tons of information about particular books or authors available as well as a plethora of opinions by readers like yourself -- something just not possible in a B&M store that is trying to cut expenses..

[zacheryjensen]

Originally Posted by kennyc

huh? I don't think I believe that. I've downloaded tons of classical mp3's -- same quality you'd get on the CD.

Sorry this is off-topic a bit.

Tread lightly my friend! You are near to entering audiophile territory. It is a perilous land where science and reason are replaced by shrieking horrors that can only be quelled by voodoo and the warm resonance only a $499 wooden knob can bring about. Try to speak sense to these savages and they will spare no expense tying you to their spits with double-magic power-conditioning triple-shielded air-free fiber optic cables. For musical flavor!

Take care!

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by zacheryjensen

That's not piracy. ..... how often you'd have heard the music on the radio for free anyway. ....

This is not true. You "pay" for it by being "forced" to listen to commercials which are the ones physically paying for it.

[neilmarr]

A sound case, Zachery, and beautifully expressed. I can feel a profound musing coming on. N

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by zacheryjensen

Tread lightly my friend! You are near to entering audiophile territory. It is a perilous land where science and reason are replaced by shrieking horrors that can only be quelled by voodoo and the warm resonance only a $499 wooden knob can bring about. Try to speak sense to these savages and they will spare no expense tying you to their spits with double-magic power-conditioning triple-shielded air-free fiber optic cables. For musical flavor!

Take care!

I know, I know, but I really don't care about people's OPINIONS or PERCEPTIONS. What I'm talking about is the sampling rates, etc.

[zacheryjensen]

Originally Posted by kennyc

This is not true. You "pay" for it by being "forced" to listen to commercials which are the ones physically paying for it.

Nonsense, you're not obligated to listen to them you've made no contract with the radio express or implied by tuning in, whether they play commercials or not and whether you listen to them or not.

You are not paying for anything, the purchaser of airtime for ads is paying hoping that you'll listen. It's wrong-headed to think the listeners are somehow paying in this manner. The gamble is 100% in the hands of the advertiser and that's that.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by neilmarr

A sound case, Zachery, and beautifully expressed. I can feel a profound musing coming on. N

I feel an article, opinion piece, or book coming on....

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by zacheryjensen

Nonsense, you're not obligated to listen to them you've made no contract with the radio express or implied by tuning in, whether they play commercials or not and whether you listen to them or not.

You are not paying for anything, the purchaser of airtime for ads is paying hoping that you'll listen. It's wrong-headed to think the listeners are somehow paying in this manner. The gamble is 100% in the hands of the advertiser and that's that.

Absolutely not wrong-headed. That is the business model that is what has worked with broadcast media for at least a century and is based on human nature. You can choose to believe its not true, but the facts are different.

If you want to talk about gambling we can, but the bottom line is the house always wins.

[ficbot]

I guess I just don't get the big deal. I mean, sure, people will lose jobs I suppose, and they don't want to, hence the resistance. But this has happened tons of times throughout history and industries evolve. Off-hand, I can think of half a dozen 'industries' that existed in my grandparents day which are now either marginal (corset makers, for instance, who likely solely service the film industry now) or vastly changed (horse and buggy is now a car, they had no washing machines or dishwashers). Heck, my grandparents used to routinely employ a guy whose sole job was to deliver milk to people's iceboxes!

Progress happens. You either roll with it and find a new niche, or you go out of business, but trying to stop it is like saying we should still be using horse and buggies because otherwise the carriage makers will be out of business.

[Kali Yuga]

I agree with Grisham that a significant increase in ebook sales is likely to decimate book stores. And as others have pointed out, the same transition is killing both music stores and the music industry.

However, Grisham is overlooking the positive changes for books and readers that are on the horizon: access to more titles, easier archiving procedures, smaller environmental impact, more self-publishing options, slightly lower costs.

I don't think the transition to ebooks is either unmitigatedly positive or negative, there's a little of both.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

I agree with Grisham that a significant increase in ebook sales is likely to decimate book stores. And as others have pointed out, the same transition is killing both music stores and the music industry.

However, Grisham is overlooking the positive changes for books and readers that are on the horizon: access to more titles, easier archiving procedures, smaller environmental impact, more self-publishing options, slightly lower costs.

I don't think the transition to ebooks is either unmitigatedly positive or negative, there's a little of both.

Exactly. Good and bad. The King is dead, long live the king!

[MikeRo]

Originally Posted by neilmarr

Don't forget, FormatC, that many of those white-haired, stoop-shouldered, friendly old book sellers we remember with a tear in our eye were often selling second-hand books with absolutely zero benefit to author, editor or publisher. It was the original book piracy. Neil

Neil, I respectfully disagree with you about this. If someone recommends an author to me I almost always buy a second-hand copy of one of their books first and if I like it I tend to buy their latest books new.

Plus, without second-hand book stores my basement would have exploded years ago. I am incapable of throwing out a book; giving them away or selling them to second-hand book stores is the only way for me.