"If you can afford an ebook reader, you can afford ebook prices"

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Pardoz

That sums it up pretty neatly, yes. Problem is, the people making the decisions are pretty heavily invested in a failed model, so they're unlikely to change their tunes.

Not so much a failed model, I think (although it's got some serious problems) as one that doesn't apply to a new market.

The publishers who don't do ebooks at all are doing as well as they ever have. (Those are mostly small publishers. Some are doing okay; some aren't. But they're not collapsing from ebook piracy.) It's the publishers trying to apply print-market methodologies to e-commerce who are floundering.

Eventually, the print-only publishers are going to need a digital presence--but not yet; ebooks really are a tiny market at the moment. If they've got sense, they'll wait until the market's more established & stable, look at what works & what doesn't, and move into it when they've got the resources to expand in that direction.

In the meantime, Random House and Macmillan are thrashing around madly while the customers back away slowly from the crazy. (Oh, and while scam artists make off with what they can, because the thrashing serves to confuse the legal and ethical issues until nobody's sure what's going on. Neither the companies nor the pirates are providing *quality* ebooks... but the pirate ones are at least worth their price.)

[GhostHawk]

Exactly so WorldWalker, Karma your way.

Until the Publishers realize their model is wrong it won't change.
The only way to speed that change is to refuse to buy from those publishers.

[GhostHawk]

Elfwreck I almost always agree with your posts, but not this time sir.

"Not so much a failed model, I think (although it's got some serious problems) as one that doesn't apply to a new market."

True, yet can you truly say that a model that plans on 60% of all physical product being produced will be destroyed, remaindered, stripped, or dumped as not being failed?

Let me put it this way, would you buy a new Ford car if you knew that 60% of the cars off the line would be scrapped? Even if the product itself is good, they are WASTING 60%. The cost of that 60% is coming out of your pocket every time you buy from them.

Fix the model, cut the costs, reduce the price, sell more units.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by GhostHawk

Elfwreck I almost always agree with your posts, but not this time sir.
"Not so much a failed model, I think (although it's got some serious problems) as one that doesn't apply to a new market."

True, yet can you truly say that a model that plans on 60% of all physical product being produced will be destroyed, remaindered, stripped, or dumped as not being failed?
...
Fix the model, cut the costs, reduce the price, sell more units.

It brought publishers and bookstore owners money and readers books, and all parties involved were/are continuing that business. It was/is horrifically wasteful, and could be more profitable for publishers *and* cheaper for readers by cutting out some of that waste--but it's working as it is, and apparently well enough that, until fairly recently, there's been no serious examination on how to change it.

I'm glad the digital world is changing the way it's being considered--instant communication and PoD options can make big changes in print run sizes. But the current method isn't failing because improvements are possible.

[GhostHawk]

"It was/is horrifically wasteful, and could be more profitable for publishers *and* cheaper for readers by cutting out some of that waste--"

Ahhh, we agree again.

Thing is we are paying for that waste. Every time you buy a book your supporting that model.

Cut the waste, cut the price, sell 3 times as many books, make more money.
Everyone ends up happy. Seriously, if you could get a hardcover for just over what your paying for paperback now wouldn't you want that? Assuming author, and book you want to read, etc.

Granted book sellers might not have it quite so easy. They'd actually have to do a better job of anticipating need. But with today's computer world, and inventory tracking software that shouldn't be that big a job.

Order smaller lots, track sales, reorder if it looks like its going to be a big seller.
Every other seller manages to do it, I don't see why they can't do it better with books.

[scveteran]

Originally Posted by Dusty

My mantra has always been...
"Cut the price in half and I will buy twice as much"

The music industry never understood this till Apple sold it for less than a dollar and made millions.

If they cut the price in half and you only buy twice as much they are going to lose a lot of money.

I strongly suggest people take a few business classes. If you do, you will find that there are some fixed expenses that can be split up between each product sold. SO if you sell twice as many, the cost for each will be half as much.

On the other hand, there are a number of costs that are per unit. These cost the same no matter how many you sell. That means that if you cut the price in half, you are just cutting your profit.

Further the truth is that when you cut the prices in half, it doesn't mean you actually will buy twice as many. In things that take a fair amount of time of your discretionary time to consume such as books, this is very unlikely due to the fact most people have only so much time that they read.

[scveteran]

Originally Posted by jamesbeat

Bad analogy. Stealing a physical book from Borders would be depriving them of a physical object, and thus prevent them from selling it to someone else.
Downloading a pirated ebook, while it is still wrong, does not permanently deprive the publisher of it, and thus does not meet the definition of stealing.

It may be your opinion that it is not stealing, but you are wrong according to legal books that I have checked. You can also go to law.com and look up theft. It says that is is the crimes where someone intentionaly take personal property without permission or consent. Has nothing to do with whether it is a physical object or not. It is still a crime.

[Iphinome]

scveteran I believe the argument is nothing was taken because the person claiming theft hasn't lost any property. If I take a photo of your car you still have the car, if i build an identical car you still have your car, if I have a magical matter duplicator that copies your car all the way down to every single atom get into the newly made car and drive off you still have your car. I wouldn't have even violated any patents since what I build for my own personal use that never passes to anyone else won't apply. But I would have committed copyright infringement when i made an atom for atom copy of the owner's manual in your glove box. But you yourself lost nothing, not stealing, copying which is not a crime it is a civil matter.

I see a lot of this in these threads, whatever you think of unauthorized copies on a moral level making one is a civil matter.

Repeat after me, civil not criminal, civil not criminal, civil not criminal.

[scveteran]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

fortunately you are not the Jiminy Crickett of the interwebbs. as I said, I justified my reader with the knowledge of a price cap. and I had looked at some of the older books on Amazon that I new I would be interested in, and they were all well under the 9.99.

then we have the false delays in e-publishing which is a bunch of horseshit. I both bought and pirated Under The Dome because I refused to wait, and I am about to start on book 12 of The Wheel of Time as I'll be damned if I am going to wait for them to epublish a book a month of that series especially as I owned MANY copies of those books, wanted to read them again before reading #12, and now that I have an ereader I don't see the need to deal with a bulky book or be bonked in the head with it when I fall asleep.

it's time for the publishers to smell the new reality

Nothing you have said so far in this thread justifies your theft. The truth is you want a product and you think it is alright for you to steal it because it is not available to you in the way that you want it, at the price you want it, and/or the time you want it.

That is definately not a valid legal reason to steal from someone. IMO it also is not a moral reason for your behavior.

[scveteran]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

scveteran I believe the argument is nothing was taken because the person claiming theft hasn't lost any property. If I take a photo of your car you still have the car, if i build an identical car you still have your car, if I have a magical matter duplicator that copies your car all the way down to every single atom get into the newly made car and drive off you still have your car. I wouldn't have even violated any patents since what I build for my own personal use that never passes to anyone else won't apply. But I would have committed copyright infringement when i made an atom for atom copy of the owner's manual in your glove box. But you yourself lost nothing, not stealing, copying which is not a crime it is a civil matter.

I see a lot of this in these threads, whatever you think of unauthorized copies on a moral level making one is a civil matter.

Repeat after me, civil not criminal, civil not criminal, civil not criminal.

You really need to read some more and educate yourself on the subject. Many times the cases are handled in civil courts. This is because the owner of the copyright doesn't really benefit from you going to jail. However, the act is illegal and does carry criminal penalties.

The maximum penality for a first time offense is a fine of $500,000 dollars and 5 years imprisonment.

If you can go to jail for it, it certainly is a criminal matter and not just civil.

I will say again, most of the time, this can and will be handled in the civil courts. That does not mean that it is not a crime and that you can't go to jail for it.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by scveteran

It may be your opinion that it is not stealing, but you are wrong according to legal books that I have checked.

Which legal books claim that copyright infringement is theft?

You can also go to law.com and look up theft. It says that is is the crimes where someone intentionaly take personal property without permission or consent. Has nothing to do with whether it is a physical object or not. It is still a crime.

It can still be a crime, and not be "theft."

If someone copies an ebook, he hasn't "taken personal property." It's not gone from its original location. And he certainly hasn't "taken" it from the copyright owner, who probably didn't even have had access to the version the copy was made from.

If I scan a book and OCR it, I haven't "taken" anything from anyone. I've made something new. No "theft" is involved. If it's a book I bought, I own it... I had consent of the owner of the book.

I didn't have consent of the copyright holder. But I also didn't take anything away from him. His potential income for an ebook? It's not "theft" if I write a scathing review and convince a hundred people not to buy his book, and it's not "theft" if I give away a hundred of his books for free. In both cases, he's out 100 sales. One is legal; one is not--neither is "theft."

And if the law believed copyright infringement was theft, the penalties for copying a single ebook or other digital file would be on par with petty theft, not the insane $150k-per-infringement possibility that inspires the RIAA to file hundreds of lawsuits.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

scveteran I believe the argument is nothing was taken because the person claiming theft hasn't lost any property.

This is just a case where the law needs to be update to cover digital products.

Before the ONLY way to steal a book, album, movie etc. was to steal a physical copy of it. And yes that deprives a store, publisher, author etc. of a copy.

Thus aside from going to the library, or borrowing a copy from a friend, if you wanted to read a book you had to buy a copy. You could have gotten a photocopied version I suppose, but that wasn't all that common.

In the digital era, if you want to read a book without paying for it, you can just go online, hit the torrent sites and download a copy without paying a time with minimal effort for a popular book.

The publishers, e-book stores, authors etc. haven't been deprived of a physical copy of anything, but they have lost a potential sale, and you've got to enjoy the work without paying for it (nor getting it legitimately from a library, or friend who bought a copy and loaned it to you).

Thus the laws need to change as you can't steal a digital copy of something like you can a physical copy in terms of depriving someone of physical copy.

But "stealing" (or whatever you want to label it if you don't like using that word) a digital book, album, movie etc. should be a criminal law violation and not a civil violation.

In 50 years there probably won't be cds, dvds etc. There will probably be few physical books (if any). Thus the laws have to evolve to protect digital property as we move away form having physical property in many fields.

Just because it's currently (unfortunately) a civil matter, doesn't mean that's the way it should be, nor the way it will remain. It just means the criminal laws haven't caught up with the era of digital products yet.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

And if the law believed copyright infringement was theft, the penalties for copying a single ebook or other digital file would be on par with petty theft, not the insane $150k-per-infringement possibility that inspires the RIAA to file hundreds of lawsuits.

Laws need to adapt so that downloading a book, album, movie etc. illegally is treated similarly to petty theft.

Of course, their needs to be larger penalties for people distributing illegal copies of digital content to 100s or 1000s of people, just like it's more than petty theft if someone steals a shipment of 1000 cds and gives them away or sales them.

The times are changing and the law needs to catch up to deal with cyber crimes, illegal file sharing etc. that are replacing other methods (theft, shoplifting etc.) of illegally getting albums, books, movies etc.

[scveteran]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

For the same pricing structure that works for pbooks to be reasonable for ebooks, we need to be able to transfer ownership of the ebooks at will. Need to be able to legally sell them or give them away.

Until we've got that ability, ebooks, regardless of their nifty digital features, are inherently less valuable than pbooks, because they're one-owner purchases. Part of many people's willingness to pay for pbooks hinges on their ability to give it to someone else when they're done.

I might pay $25 for a new hardcover book, which I can share with as many friends as I like, allow my kids to take to school, and if I tire of it, can sell it or give it away. I'm not paying $15 for personal-ownership-only of a few thousand words.

I could agree with your argument about being able to sell or loan out the ebook on one simple condition. That there is a system in place that ensures that only one ebook reader at a time has that ebook available to be used. This would also require that no one would be able to make a copy of the file. It is strictly transferred from one reader to another. So when you loan it out, you can't access it. When you sell it, it is gone from you forever.

Any other method of allowing you to "loan or sell" the file really is nothing more than demanding the right to be able to infringe on others copyrighted works.

[Iphinome]

In what way does an infringing copy cause harm to the point of being a criminal act? Where would fair use come in? Is it a tax issue? You obtained value without paying taxes on it? What's the taxable value? Copyright is a monopoly there's no open market to set a price since there's no used data stores like there are used book stores.

In principal I don't think people should copy a whole work without permission of the copyright holder, in practice well maybe two wrongs can make a right. DRM takes away fair use rights I see no moral difference between stripping the drm yourself or downloading a drm free copy, I see no moral difference between scanning and OCRing a book you own and downloading it from someone who saved you the trouble. I believe retroactive copyright extension is unjust and have no problem ignoring it and copying freely anything that would legally be in the public domain now since that was the social and legal contract when the work was made.

No doubt the laws need updating but not to favor corporations, DMCA needs to be repealed, customers need to be treated as such not as criminals. If the old publishing model doesn't work they need to be allowed to fail and burn, someone will come up with a better model. Till things shift in favor of the consumer well it may be immoral to copy it may be actionable in civil court but i can't bring myself to condemn people who are bucking an unjust system.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by scveteran

You really need to read some more and educate yourself on the subject. Many times the cases are handled in civil courts. This is because the owner of the copyright doesn't really benefit from you going to jail. However, the act is illegal and does carry criminal penalties.

The maximum penality for a first time offense is a fine of $500,000 dollars and 5 years imprisonment.

If you can go to jail for it, it certainly is a criminal matter and not just civil.

I will say again, most of the time, this can and will be handled in the civil courts. That does not mean that it is not a crime and that you can't go to jail for it.

[Citation Need]