The $15 Boycott: Will you be participating?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Harmon

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it works okay on the Sonys. I'm reading it on my 303 in landscape.

I believe you, but what's a 303? That's the area code here in Colorado.

[MrBlueSky]

Originally Posted by Kolenka

We can argue that the terms of copyright have been extended to harm the public domain, and I'd agree... but I don't think that makes the concept of a time limited monopoly as a carrot to give someone an incentive to turn education and entertainment into a career any less valid. It's a balancing act, and views at the extremes ignore the benefit they get from the other side. The time limited monopoly encourages people to actually make a full-time career out of things like research, book writing (educational, editorial, and entertaining), and so on.

Nobody can really disagree with the original intention behind the granting of copyrights (a time limited monopoly to encourage people to make a career in the arts) as being a good thing. It would be rather extreme to argue otherwise. But just WHO is it that is actually gaming the system?

When the time limited copyright monopoly was 14 years (with the possibility of one further extension), people did indeed have a 'reasonable period' in which to attempt to exploit their monopoly for the own individual benefit before it reverted back into the public domain. This was an equitable bargain that both parties accepted as a fair and reasonable compromise that protected both interests, the artisan and the public domain. What more noble intention can a law have? And if both parties follow the rules — all is sweetness and light.

That rose-tinted scenario you paint however, does not even begin to resemble what copyrights are used for today. You speak so fondly of 'a balancing act' as if it actually exists here and now in the real world, and imply that because I am in receipt of such wondrous benefits from my side of this utopian bargain I should quit whining and enjoy my good fortune. Oh my, if only it were so!

It seems to me that while you have taken your eye of the ball, the copyright maximilists have run away with it.

The fact that the time limits for copyright have been extended to life + 70 (and no doubt will be extended even further) gives lie to ‘middle ground’ view that authors ‘just’ want to make a career in the arts with a ‘reasonable’ expectation of not starving to death while pursuing this goal.

Do they really need the carrot of making monopoly profit for 70 years after they die before they deign to put pen to paper? I personally consider THAT to be at the extreme end of the bargain, and everything else is nothing more than a sideshow until that abomination is righted. Forget about my minor little infringing — any living author will still be coining it in long after we’re both dead and buried — is that not satisfaction enough to assuage their greed?

The monopoly hoarders have stolen the public domain right out from under our nose. Whether WE all agree between ourselves that the terms of copyright have been extended so far that the public domain is being harmed is irrelevant — we may as well all agree that 1 + 1 = 3 for all the difference THAT makes. The only view that carries any weight is the one that says IT'S MY MONOPOLY — PAY ME.

When power and control over culture is concentrated and exercised at the extreme end of the social contract, its hard to rationalise from a reasonable perspective when all you can see is the boot planted firmly in your face. I don't fall for the 'two legs good, four legs bad' propaganda anymore. Might definitely does not equal right.

I am required to pay monopoly prices today to the gatekeepers of my culture on a promise of receiving my public domain due at sometime in the future. And, as we have all seen, that future keeps getting pushed further and further forward. Not only that, the last time copyright was extended, works already in the public domain were brought back under copyright. Just how many promises must be broken before people get hit with the clue stick?

Well, as you say, the law is the law. Never mind about this silly little original intention that copyright is based on anymore — we must all follow the law to the letter as defined in today’s new reality, not as how its intentions were originally framed. Authors have the monopoly and publishers have paid for the law; there is nothing I can do about it except eat it. Okay. Fine. But...

That is EXACTLY to the letter, what I AM doing.

The law does not say that I cannot DOWNLOAD a file for my own personal use. It does say that I cannot UPLOAD one (that's naughty — that's distributing), but I certainly am allowed to download to my hearts content. I am. in that regard — a model citizen. Do you not applaud?

No. Oh well, castigate and berate me all you like for being morally depraved and ethically corrupt. Rant at me to your hearts content for being a thief and stealing the very bread from your mouth, from your wife and children’s mouths (and your grand-children’s mouths too for that matter). Tell me all about all the mental pain and anguish I am causing you if you must.

But, I’ll say to the copyright maximilists, DON'T even TRY to kid me into believing that I am not meeting MY obligations under YOUR law. The emperor after all, has no clothes.

Oh, undoubtedly, they despise that loophole in the law that allows me to exercise my fair use rights, probably as much as I loath that loophole that allows the monopoly hoarders to persecutee innocent bit-torrent users for ‘technically uploading’ when they are downloading. (Hint, use FTP instead to remain secure from harassment).

No doubt the legal screws (to wild cheering) will soon be tightened to squeeze me into submission


Never mind, you may crush my bones but not my spirit.

[Kolenka]

Originally Posted by MrBlueSky

Nobody can really disagree with the original intention behind the granting of copyrights (a time limited monopoly to encourage people to make a career in the arts) as being a good thing. It would be rather extreme to argue otherwise. But just WHO is it that is actually gaming the system?

If we agree with the original intention of copyright, then how can we justify violating the original intention just because "the other side" commits a wrong? The behavior helps to discredit individuals who do want shorter copyright durations (why adjust copyright at the request of those who won't even honor the adjusted terms?).

The tone of your post is a bit of a strawman, by attributing stances and opinions to me that don't even apply. Do I like where copyright is? Or the fiasco that the DMCA and DRM pose to electronic content markets? No to both. Do I think copyright (as intended) serves a useful purpose? Yes. The goal should be figuring out how to return to that, even if that includes punishing those who have been pushing for laws like the DMCA and copyright extension. But I'd rather vote with my wallet alone, and not give them fodder at the same time for the restrictive DMCA-like laws in the first place.

In the context of this thread, if people believe what Macmillian is doing is wrong for the market, then the idea of simply not buying from them is the right one. Support publishers who are taking the right approach instead (if there are any).

[MrBlueSky]

Originally Posted by Kolenka

The tone of your post is a bit of a strawman, by attributing stances and opinions to me that don't even apply. Do I like where copyright is? Or the fiasco that the DMCA and DRM pose to electronic content markets? No to both. Do I think copyright (as intended) serves a useful purpose? Yes. The goal should be figuring out how to return to that, even if that includes punishing those who have been pushing for laws like the DMCA and copyright extension. But I'd rather vote with my wallet alone, and not give them fodder at the same time for the restrictive DMCA-like laws in the first place.

Thank you for your comments.

The responses in this thread have consistently remained, if not good-natured, then notably civilised considering that we have indeed strayed far from the original question raised, and in comparison to others on the Net I have read.

I was not attempting to attribute ulterior motives to you personally, rather my intention was to take your excellent reply as a springboard to address the nuances expressed in multiple replies already made. It's a bit difficult on a public forum such as this to ensure that one does not come across as pompous (or a raving lunatic) while at the same time trying to take account of the range of specific points that have gone before in one succinct reply.

Anyway, unless someone is going to come up with a new and startlingly original proposition I think this is about as far as we can push this particular discussion without descending into rhetoric.

I believe that one is more likely to learn more from engaging with opposing views than supporting ones, and in that respect, this thread has not disappointed.

[gr8npwrfl]

I refuse to buy from the publishers that are setting prices. I will get the book darknet and send a payment to the author directly. I have sent a message directly to the authors I read telling them why I am doing so and encouraging the authors to setup a direct distribution of their material cutting out the middlemen entirely.

More and more new authors are direct distributing, if some of the major authors get enough email saying we would buy from them directly we may just see a shift from the stranglehold the publishers have on what they think we should be reading.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by gr8npwrfl

I refuse to buy from the publishers that are setting prices. I will get the book darknet and send a payment to the author directly. I have sent a message directly to the authors I read telling them why I am doing so and encouraging the authors to setup a direct distribution of their material cutting out the middlemen entirely.

More and more new authors are direct distributing, if some of the major authors get enough email saying we would buy from them directly we may just see a shift from the stranglehold the publishers have on what they think we should be reading.

Most authors are much better writers than distributors, and the time they would spend being a second or third-rate distributor would come from their writing time. Also, the greatest enemy of most authors is obscurity, and that's where going to direct distribution would land them.

Right now, the industry is still driven by bookstores. Direct distribution means effectively zero bookstore placement. That would even hurt ebook sales, as many people browse bookstores for ebooks to buy.

Authors won't go for it because it would hurt them.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by TallMomof2

Why should I believe that MacMillan will actually lower prices. I've been looking at backlist ebooks and comparing prices of the ebook at Fictionwise to the cheapest new pbook I can order from Amazon. In Science Fiction why should I pay $26.95 for A Paradigm of Earth by Candas Jane Dorsey at Fictionwise when I can purchase a pbook version from a 3rd party seller at Amazon for $3.95? In mystery I can pay $27.95 for Someone to Kill by Kurt Corriher at Fictionwise or $1.98 from Amazon (3rd party).

It is unfair to compare eBook prices to that of used book prices. Plus, you didn't add in the mandatory shipping that you also have to pay. So that $3.95 book could easily be over $6 after you add in shipping.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Pardoz

Sue Grafton's L is for Lawless is going to be pretty hard to beat here. E-book: $30. New hardcover, direct from the publisher: $27. New paperback: $6.99. Cheapest pbook you can find on Amazon: $.01.

$5.74 from Amazon for the eBook.

Amazon does list the digital list price as $30.

But have a look at "A" is for Alibi and you will see the eBook is $9.99 where the paperback is $6.39. So given McMillan's new pricing, why is the price not lower for he eBook?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Pardoz

Well, yes, both John Scalzi and Charles Stross are authors, and they're passing the hand-cream back and forth as they rally against the Evil Amazon Empire, so 'authors' are rallying.

For a change in perspective, Lynn Abbey (who's been playing this game for a lot longer) has a rather different take on the latest Macmillan PR piece here.

Interesting read.

Lynn Abbey has also linked to a number of very interesting blog posts I suggest everyone here read.

http://www.lynnabbey.com/html/face_of_chaos_blog.html

[kilofox]

Originally Posted by MrBlueSky

The law does not say that I cannot DOWNLOAD a file for my own personal use. It does say that I cannot UPLOAD one (that's naughty — that's distributing), but I certainly am allowed to download to my hearts content. I am. in that regard — a model citizen. Do you not applaud?

You are just the other side of the same immoral coin.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Lynn Abbey has also linked to a number of very interesting blog posts I suggest everyone here read.

http://www.lynnabbey.com/html/face_of_chaos_blog.html

Thanks Jon. I particularly like:

Piracy. Is. Stealing. - http://americasfuture.org/convention.../#comment-3355

[kennyc]

And what of this:

http://www.mediabistro.com/ebooknews...zon_151113.asp

"Available everywhere but Amazon."

[dmikov]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Thanks Jon. I particularly like:

Piracy. Is. Stealing. - http://americasfuture.org/convention.../#comment-3355

I hope you are sarcastic. Cause the guy is an utter idiot. He has no clue what the law is or what he is writing about. Reading the comments was very entertaining though. The guy tried to reply and was putting his feet more and more in his big stupid mouth.

[Critteranne]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

Most authors are much better writers than distributors, and the time they would spend being a second or third-rate distributor would come from their writing time. Also, the greatest enemy of most authors is obscurity, and that's where going to direct distribution would land them.

Right now, the industry is still driven by bookstores. Direct distribution means effectively zero bookstore placement. That would even hurt ebook sales, as many people browse bookstores for ebooks to buy.

Authors won't go for it because it would hurt them.

Exactly. Distribution is huge, and the expenses involved in putting out a book can get really high.

The writing site AbsoluteWrite.com has a board on self-publishing and POD (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=47) with lots of advice for authors who want to try that. It's hard. As an example, one author had to sell her book through CreateSpace for six months to pay for her block of ISBNs. (They suggest that self-published authors buy them by the block rather than individually.) And don't forget the expense of cover art, proofreaders, editors, etc. Those are very expensive -- but much more important than people realize.

Even a small publisher can't always get those books distributed properly. It seems lots of people think they can start their own small press and sell books, and they often shut it down when they realize how hard it is. They end up hurting the authors they thought they would help. I can't count the number of horror stories I've read on AW's Bewares and Background Check board (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=22).

I've read lots of stories about authors who went through clueless small publishers who claimed to provide "distribution." Those publishers often either claimed to have bookstore distribution (even when they did not) or claimed that "bookstore sales don't matter" (of course they do). All too often, authors work their butts off to promote their book, only to sell fewer than 100 copies. They made less than they spent on printing bookmarks, buying copies of their own book, etc. There are legit small presses, of course. But even publishing through a small but respectable publisher can mean lower distribution and fewer sales. Also, in this economy, quite a few of those small presses are shutting down.

Sure, there are success stories of self-pubbed (and small press) authors who do well, but they're rare and often specialized cases (such as authors who are already well known or who have a built-in market through seminars).

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Thanks Jon. I particularly like:

Piracy. Is. Stealing. - http://americasfuture.org/convention.../#comment-3355

Why am I sooo not surprised you're of that political persuasion.


Critteranne - That's a pretty damming argument against the ISBN system, and not much else, honestly.