Gizmodo: How Much It Actually Costs to Publish an Ebook vs. a Real Book

[charleski]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Except of course you don't need to, given most people have a PC!

Most people would rather read books on stone tablets.

[DawnFalcon]

Mm hum. Of course, a minority of people is still figured in millions, lots of them.

[Good Old Neon]

Here’s my issue – Since its release, I’ve been interested in reading Ron Currie’s new novel, Everything Matters – unfortunately, the Kindle version costs $4 more than its discounted hardcover counterpart. And this is not a case of someone forgetting to lower the price on the ebook version, as of a week ago, it dropped below $14, and was selling for $13 something or other – within the last week, the price has inched upward again. It’s unfortunate, I would have purchased it by now, but I refuse to pay more for a digital file than a physical object. Unless the price comes down, I’ll simply pick it up at the library, and deny a sale to both the author and publisher.

Hardcover - http://www.amazon.com/Everything-Mat...mm_hrd_title_0

Kindle - http://www.amazon.com/Everything-Mat...=AG56TWVU5XWC2

[pricecw]

Originally Posted by Billjr13

The only business model which has succeeded in taking traffic from the darknet is based on low price, no DRM and high availability. This is not coincidence.

Yeah Entitlement. Give me what I want, make it free or really cheap, make it easy to copy, or I will take it anyway without paying and give it to anybody who asks for it so they wont pay for it too. I'm Entitled to take whats not mine because I want it and you cant stop me.

Sounds like a bunch of petulant children justifying there bad behavior. "I want it I am going to take it and you cant stop me." "If it is on the internet it belongs to everyone, so I dont have to pay for it;" is a poor attitude and if you were the creative one and people were taking your work you wouldn't like it.

Look at it this way, copyright is a license from society to the creators to use work that belongs to society for a time (should be brief, but currently isn't) to compensate that creator for creating that work for society. Copyright has always been based on that concept. The work doesn't belong to the creator, upon creation it belongs to society, and for the good of society, it was determined the least evil way of getting that work would be for the society to grant a temporary monopoly license to that work.

Now, we are seeing corporations and some creators trying to abuse that license. We are also seeing terms so long that the creations themselves are getting lost before society gets the license back. So there is a backlash from society, the deal they signed just got turned against them, and as was said, they are forming up to displace the politicians that are allowing this to happen. If corporations and creators continue to abuse society, I believe that the backlash will get much worse, piracy will increase, and political pressure to take back the property of the society will increase, both of which will hurt the big names abusing the license. Although, I think with sane changes, it would help some of the smaller creators.

--Carl

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by pricecw

Look at it this way, copyright is a license from society to the creators to use work that belongs to society for a time (should be brief, but currently isn't) to compensate that creator for creating that work for society. Copyright has always been based on that concept. The work doesn't belong to the creator, upon creation it belongs to society, and for the good of society, it was determined the least evil way of getting that work would be for the society to grant a temporary monopoly license to that work.

That may well be the rational behind copyright, but that's a bunch of socialist/communist bull crap is what it is.

F*** the good of society. If I was blessed with talent I'd be creating stuff to make as much money as I can, not for the good of society. People suck.

I just find the notion that people have to create stuff for the good of society offensive on all levels. Anyone can choose to do so. They should also be able to choose to make stuff solely for profit just like corporations like Microsoft etc.

[Dulin's Books]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

People suck.

[dmaul1114]

NY Times has an article on the cost of real books vs ebooks as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/bu...yalties&st=cse

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by charleski

A bit too much digital fantasizing going on in that article. For instance: "One of the reasons e-books only constitute 3% to 5% of total sales is that the Big Six are doing everything they can to impede the growth of e-books," ignores the fact that lots of people would still choose not to spend $300 upfront on a device just so they can read a book.

Most ebooks are read on computers, not portable devices. And a lot of people have phones that can read ebooks--but the ebook industry is too complicated and weird for them to bother figuring out how it works in order to get one or two books.

[Dulin's Books]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

NY Times has an article on the cost of real books vs ebooks as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/bu...yalties&st=cse

the gizmodo article that started this thread is actually a report about that NYT article.

[pricecw]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

That may well be the rational behind copyright, but that's a bunch of socialist/communist bull crap is what it is.

F*** the good of society. If I was blessed with talent I'd be creating stuff to make as much money as I can, not for the good of society. People suck.

I just find the notion that people have to create stuff for the good of society offensive on all levels. Anyone can choose to do so. They should also be able to choose to make stuff solely for profit just like corporations like Microsoft etc.

OK, if that is what it is, then society will not give you the protection (what it was before the copyright acts). You can create, but once you let it out, it is out. Or you can get a patron, and create through patronage. Again, you get what you patron is willing to give you, and you create what he wants.

This is what existed before copyright. Copyright was designed as the least evil way (as opposed to patronage, or giving publishers copyright) to let creators create. Like it or not, when you create you add to the culture you create in, good or bad. Copyright is a license to allow that creation to happen and to compensate the creators.

Society finds that to be an acceptable trade to the creators to have the culture advanced.

Microsoft is in the same boat, although they also use patents, which are the same idea (temporary monopoly), but haven't been extended to the obscene lengths of copyrights (there is some backlash building here too).

So let's pretend we have a societal backlash, and copyrights are put back to a 14yr term (with maybe a 14yr extension). Would it stop creators from creating? Most money off of a book, image, code base, etc is made long before 14yrs is up. Disney (major lobbyist/pusher for longer copyright terms), took from the public domain, but fight like hell to prevent their work from entering it. Isn't that against the concept of why copyright is granted.

To take a US view (other western nations, the reasoning is the same, even if the words are different).

US Constitution, Article I, Section 8

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

The only purpose that the copyright is granted is to promote the progress of science and useful arts. Now, would a 14yr term do this better than life +70yrs? If the creation is lost to society before that term is up, does it not go against the purpose of copyright? If so, why should we as a people extend that license at all?

And for the record, I do make use of copyright on creations, and I do impose licenses on those creations. However, I hate when corporations buy politicians, and they pass laws that go against the letter and spirit of the constitution of this country (US). Especially when it is written as clearly as this section is.

--Carl

[dmaul1114]

I agree with the concept, I disagree with the tone of entitlement that came across in your first post.

And I don't agree with the wording of the constitution either. Copyright should be to protect the financial interests of creators, not progress in the arts and sciences IMO, and it should be worded more directly to speak to that. With progress for the arts and sciences as a secondary goal that's advanced by not letting copyrights extend forever.

The concept I agree with, the tone of entitlement of people/society to another's creations is what bothers me. But it's all moot, as long as copyrights last at least until the creator's death I'm fine with the system. Try to make it shorter and I'll be very upset and very aggressive in writing every elected official I can to encourage them to vote against the bill etc.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by pricecw

OK, if that is what it is, then society will not give you the protection (what it was before the copyright acts).

In the UK, before the Statute of Anne, all copyright was legally vested in the Stationers' Company in London, only members of the company (and it was a Guild, in the old cartel-style sense of the word, with a monopoly on publishing) could claim the right to protection of works they had registered, and only against other members. That system lasted almost 150 years as a Crown Charter.

So let's pretend we have a societal backlash, and copyrights are put back to a 14yr term (with maybe a 14yr extension).

That's not the worrying one. The worrying one is the movement to decriminalise non-profit copying of copyrighted works.

I hate when corporations buy politicians, and they pass laws that go against the letter and spirit of the constitution of this country (US).

Heck, it's ludicrous that the Scandinavian countries are the home of the Pirateparty movements. There is a strong social contract in those countries, after all, but if you look more closely the movements are a reaction to the percieved abuse by (mostly American) companies of the social contract from their side!

Reign in the companies and the pirateparties would close up and go home.

[pricecw]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

I agree with the concept, I disagree with the tone of entitlement that came across in your first post.

Ah, but here lies the problem, you have a sense of entitlement, that a product (your creation), that does not exist more than the physical embodiment, should have protection that is not naturally there.

Before the copyright acts, you could write, paint, draw, etc and that physical manifestation belonged to you, if someone stole it, that would be theft, if someone copied it, there was no problem. If you didn't want to have someone copy it, you kept it for your enjoyment and didn't display it.

Society, believing it would further itself, if the creators created, and believing that people are less likely to do this without a form of re-numeration, decided it was best for society to not allow that copying. A number of ways to prevent this were discussed, one was to go with a patronage system, but that was viewed as bad for society, because the patron would decide the form of creation. Another was to give publishers the copyright. Finally, it was decided the least evil effects on society was to grant this monopoly license to the creator of the work. This all happened in the early 1700's, and the US Constitution captures this thinking.

So now, society took something (the ability for people to copy your work, while not taking anything from you) from everyone else, and granted you the creator a way to earn money before that right of everyone else was returned to them, giving you something that you didn't have before. Now you feel entitled to not more and more and more of this. Everytime copyright is extended, it is taking from everyone but the copyright holder, and giving to the copyright holder.

So, the creators had an entitlement (government program taking/taxing the many for the individual), and feel that they deserve more. And you call those that feel that the entitlements given are enough "entitled"? Isn't this putting the horse before the cart?

You should go read some of Eric Flint's writtings on this in the Jim Baen's Universe, he does a good job summing it up, even if I disagree with some of his personal positions. Anyone that uses copyright, should have a firm foundation on where it comes from, and why it exists in society.

--Carl

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

And I don't agree with the wording of the constitution either.

I'm kinda stuck here between reacting with or with

Are there other parts of the constitution you think are focused too much on benefits to all of society rather than to individual participants in it?

Copyright should be to protect the financial interests of creators, not progress in the arts and sciences IMO, and it should be worded more directly to speak to that. With progress for the arts and sciences as a secondary goal that's advanced by not letting copyrights extend forever.

How would you rephrase it?

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I'm kinda stuck here between reacting with or with

Are there other parts of the constitution you think are focused too much on benefits to all of society rather than to individual participants in it?

It's just something that really shouldn't be in the constitution. It relates to business (right to sell your creations) and should just be covered by laws just like all the SEC, antitrust laws etc. etc. we have.

How would you rephrase it?

I'd take it out all together, as above. Leave it a legal issue, not a constitutional issue.

Have a law that requires people to register for copyrights, and have the copyrights give them (and/or their publisher etc.) sole control over the sales, distribution, and re-use (re-mixes etc.) of their content from the time of creation/copyright until 10 years after death when it will become the public domain.

No need to mention the for the good of society, progress of the arts etc. That's just BS. People can buy the book, get it from the library, rent the movie, see the painting and/or authorized reproductions in gallaries etc. Things can progress just fine while stuff isn't in the public domain.

The only thing they can do is take it and sell it on their own, remix it etc. until it's in the public domain--hardly any great set back to progress.