can there be a market for used digital content?

[GlenBarrington]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

Glen are you suggesting a Whuffie economy?

I don't know! What is a Whuffie economy? But I'm thinking more along the lines of a cultural shift that may affect the economy.

It's just that I see the traditional reason (earning a living) for trying to produce works of the intellect being worn away slowly by a combination of technology and government. And I don't see anything on the horizon that can stop it.

I'm just thinking out loud at this point. Trying out different positions to see how they fit. And maybe if we can't stop this erosion of incentive, maybe we need to redirect our thinking to figure out how our culture can produce the original works of art and technology it needs in another way.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by GlenBarrington

I don't know! What is a Whuffie economy? But I'm thinking more along the lines of a cultural shift that may affect the economy.

I believe that is an allusion to _Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom_.

BOb

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by GlenBarrington

I don't know! What is a Whuffie economy?

Whuffie is a fictional social currency used in Cory Doctorow's "Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom;"A person's Whuffie is a general measurement of his or her overall reputation, and Whuffie is lost and gained according to a person's favorable or unfavorable actions."

[JaneFancher]

this is an early April Fools joke, right?

The legitimate resale value of a "used" object is based on (a) a physical object of which there is a limited supply and/or (b) the willingness of a person to buy a devalued version of the original...i.e. they don't mind the hole in the left pocket of their designer jeans.

When speaking of digital content, there is no (a) or (b), so...no, legitimate resale... I don't think so. Perhaps people need to learn to shop carefully and be content with actually owning the product.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by JaneFancher

When speaking of digital content, there is no (a) or (b), so...no, legitimate resale... I don't think so. Perhaps people need to learn to shop carefully and be content with actually owning the product.

Why couldn't you have a digital model that was a kind of transferable license? That doesn't strike me as a laughable idea. It would be possible, for example, for Amazon to allow a Kindle book to be transferred to another user. I'm not promoting this as a great idea, but I would support it as something worth discussing. The point of the thread, I thought, was to ask the question as to whether there was a legitimate model or not.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by JaneFancher

When speaking of digital content, there is no (a) or (b), so...no, legitimate resale... I don't think so. Perhaps people need to learn to shop carefully and be content with actually owning the product.

Okay, I won't be buying from closed circle then if that's your attitude, I'm afraid.
EU law is quite clear - resale is permitted, and Exhaustion Doctrine applies.

Or, you can rent me the books. I'll pay $1-2 for renting them.

I know it sounds harsh, but you expect me to respect your rights as an author. Certainly - but I in return expect you to respect my rights as a purchaser, or I'll go elsewhere.

[JaneFancher]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

Why couldn't you have a digital model that was a kind of transferable license? That doesn't strike me as a laughable idea. It would be possible, for example, for Amazon to allow a Kindle book to be transferred to another user. I'm not promoting this as a great idea, but I would support it as something worth discussing. The point of the thread, I thought, was to ask the question as to whether there was a legitimate model or not.

Sorry...you're right. I honestly didn't mean to be so dogmatic.

It's certainly worth discussing. I tend to come at it from an individual creator doing a one on one digital sale, but there are definitely other models/options that larger companies might have.

For instance, beyond reselling the kindle itself, for an Amazon-style setup, where they basically license, as I understand it, the use of the file for several different "readers" they might be able to do something creative. Say you want to upgrade your kindle, load your "stock" onto it, then sell the old one complete with "stock". There might be a way to then add a second account to that old Kindle for the new owner for new downloads, retaining access to the original "library" but no additional download rights. Or say you begin with the rights for 6 readers. You use it on your kindle and on your computer, then you "resell" your rights to the remaining 4 readers.

From the individual creator's point of view, the only product we can sell is the file itself, and applying a resale model onto a digital file is, to say the least, disconcerting. At CC, we've made that file DRM free with 11 different formats for the price of a single book. We give free upgrades if/when we improve the format of a product. We've tried to play as fair as possible with the consumer.

Theoretically, following this basic concept, someone could buy one download, copy it and resell it, to someone who also copies and resells it to someone else who copies and resells it... even if you don't copy it first, you're passing on something with an infinite lifespan. It's not, if you will, exhaustible. This could go on infinitely, all of them thinking they're involved in an ethical and legal transaction.

Ethically? We'd have sold one copy. $5.00 for two year's work, and that copy could be being resold for the next thousand years. Yeah. That sounds fair.

Legally? Heck, I'm no lawyer. If it is technically legal, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Exhaustion Doctrine as applied to digital product to be challenged in court if this becomes a common practice. The Exhaustion Doctrine was written before digital product was even conceived. If you read it, it was obviously designed to deal with items with a natural lifespan. Something that simply isn't applicable to digital product.

But most of all, the whole idea is self-defeating when applied to product purchased directly from the creator. In the old model, authors were theoretically "paid" for that book by their advance. Nevermind most authors get far less than a minimum wage for their labors, and as the market has gotten crazier and crazier, their chances of earning out and having anything remotely like a real income subsequent to that advance, something which in the past every author counted on, has gotten less and less.

Common E-book sales are a fraction of even the worst distribution NY came up with. The only factor off-setting that differential is the direct sale that allows the bulk of the money to go directly to the author. If you like an author's work and buy second hand, you're directly undermining the author's ability to write more. That, to me, is self-defeating.

[Iphinome]

We're not talking about sell your copy and also keep a copy, While this can already be done say when you buy a cd, copy it and sell it used it's not ethical and we're not suggesting it. What we're saying it if you buy something it becomes yours and you can sell your property, the first sale doctrine. You buy a cd you can then sell it to someone else. So if you buy a license to an ebook and then decide you no longer want it You could sell or give it away.

In theory every copy floating around you would have been paid for aside from someone's normal backups which you'd expect them to delete if they resold the book when they were done with it, there's no real way to force them to do it, just... well one has to accept that there are always going to be people who game a system and you might find tilting at windmills more personally fulfilling than trying to stop it from ever happening.

[JaneFancher]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Okay, I won't be buying from closed circle then if that's your attitude, I'm afraid.
EU law is quite clear - resale is permitted, and Exhaustion Doctrine applies.

Or, you can rent me the books. I'll pay $1-2 for renting them.

I know it sounds harsh, but you expect me to respect your rights as an author. Certainly - but I in return expect you to respect my rights as a purchaser, or I'll go elsewhere.

In actual fact, the whole idea is pretty much a non-issue for me personally, though Ben did suggest an interesting scenario. As I said to him, my statement was probably a bit narrow-focused.

At CC we greatly respect our readers and work very hard to play fair with them and bring them a unique and quality product. We are DRM free, supply multiple formats in a single, reasonably-priced file, and free "upgrades" when we refine a file. Our readers, in turn, play fair with us. They're smart. They know how close to the edge we run and that if they take a sale away from us we won't be able to keep writing. We work with them, not counter to their interests and they know it. That's the kind of reader I know and respect.

[djgreedo]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Okay, I won't be buying from closed circle then if that's your attitude, I'm afraid.
EU law is quite clear - resale is permitted, and Exhaustion Doctrine applies.

Or, you can rent me the books. I'll pay $1-2 for renting them.

I know it sounds harsh, but you expect me to respect your rights as an author. Certainly - but I in return expect you to respect my rights as a purchaser, or I'll go elsewhere.

The laws and rights you refer to were formulated before the digital age. They were created for physical media.

Current laws notwithstanding, why should you have the right to resell a digital file? The right to resell a physical object is quite common sense to most people I think. You own the item in every sense. You sell it to someone else and the item then physically belongs to them.

Reselling a digital copy isn't such a black-and-white issue, nor is it an isolated issue. The digital economy is simply different to selling physical copies of things, and any assumptions and direct comparisons to traditional trade need to be considered carefully.

I don't believe that reselling a digital file should necessarily be a right. It doesn't make sense to me that an infinitely reproducible file can be resold as 'second-hand'. But that should be factored into the price of the original (think of the cost of a paper book as including the resale value in the price).

The consumer's rights and the publisher's rights need to be worked out from the realities of the digital age, not from the conventions of an economy based on physical items.

But I think most of this is going to be moot anyway. I think it's inevitible that all digital media will become free or so cheap that the cost is irrelevant, and we will pay indirectly (e.g. ads, donations, sponsorships, etc.). There is simply no way to control the distribution of digital content going forward.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by JaneFancher

In actual fact, the whole idea is pretty much a non-issue for me personally, though Ben did suggest an interesting scenario. As I said to him, my statement was probably a bit narrow-focused.

Sorry, but the statement taking my rights as a joke is, to me, a step too far. The situation with Scalzi and Stross might of made me over-sensitive, I agree, but I /have/ passed on ebooks I didn't like to other people, deleting my copies, and that's legal here.

(And, of course, it's up to me to make sure I did delete them. Had to dig out my deep backups...)


djgreedo - No, they were created for items sold to you. In law, the delivery method is not relevant. The differentiation is between product and service, not physical and digital.

There is no reason whatsoever to "think different" - if you want to strip the rights associated with sale, you can rent it or provide it as a service. You want digital files to have all the limits of non-sales without providing anything in return, which means they have to be considerably cheaper, or they will not be adopted.

This is, of course, what's happened to music - it had to get a lot cheaper. But every time this comes up, "oh, we can't do that for books". Well, pick - user rights, or get cheaper. A small minority of users playing you false on rights (and bluntly, in even slightly different situations they'd of gone to the darknet anyway) or a global price cut...

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by JaneFancher

Common E-book sales are a fraction of even the worst distribution NY came up with. The only factor off-setting that differential is the direct sale that allows the bulk of the money to go directly to the author. If you like an author's work and buy second hand, you're directly undermining the author's ability to write more. That, to me, is self-defeating.

Ah, but what if I don't know if I like the author's work?

The big purpose of secondhand books is, "Hey, I liked this; maybe you'll like it too--try it for free and find out." And ebooks are eroding that aspect of literature. The concept of "1purchase=1reader" has never been how books worked. Would never let them flourish.

Books got to be popular because they were read by many people after the buyer, not because the buyer convinced all their friends to go buy another new copy.

This *is* a problem with digital books, because ebooks lack a lot of the features that can make buying your own copy useful. You can't get them signed. You can't get the leatherbound special edition *or* the supersmall fits-in-your-pocket paperback. There's no new updated cover with a forward by Author's More Famous Friend. (Well. There can be updated covers, but the appeal for cover art in ebooks is much less. It's useful, but it doesn't get seen nearly as often.) There's no way to show your "ebook shelf" to your friends, so they can pick one to borrow. It's hard to put six people in a room reading ebooks, hard to have "library night with cheese and wine and light conversation." The social aspects of books (which were always a bit limited) are mostly removed from ebooks.

The ebook industry *desperately* needs to find a way around this. Maybe by having online discussion groups for books (where the entire text would be available, which means copyable). Book clubs where ebooks are exchanged by email, swapped around in a small group with an understanding that they won't be shared with anyone outside of the group. (These already exist. If they're not legitimized somehow, they'll continue to *not encourage sales* outside of the group, because the people involved can't legally talk about where they got their books.) Maybe transfer licenses that work a limited number of times (which, when exhausted, puts us back exactly where we are now, except that maybe people will be less prone to wanting to share if they know 5 other people have already read this one).

Any method of adding social aspects to ebooks is going to mean less direct sales, which is painful for authors who are counting every book sale. But those methods are going to be necessary, if books are going to take part in the digital age as a vital form of entertainment instead of a rarified hobby, similar to stamp collecting: sure, there are lots of afficionados, and even fanatics, but for the most part, they don't share it with their friends.

Me? I read over 100k words per week. Sometimes half a million words in a week. My budget for books isn't going to increase anytime soon. And the circular nature of reading means I read more of what I know I'll like--which means there are a dozen fanfic authors whose new works I pounce on, and hundreds of professional authors whose names I don't even know, because I don't have a chance to taste their works before buying, because none of my friends have sent me a link and said, "you *gotta* read THIS!"

People don't send each other links and say, "You *gotta* buy THIS!" Ebooks need to find a way around that problem.

[JaneFancher]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Ah, but what if I don't know if I like the author's work?

The big purpose of secondhand books is, "Hey, I liked this; maybe you'll like it too--try it for free and find out." And ebooks are eroding that aspect of literature. The concept of "1purchase=1reader" has never been how books worked. Would never let them flourish.

Actually, I'm very glad you posted this. Saves me a lot of wordage.

After a good night's sleep, I find my attitude quite changed.

I've always been a huge supporter of used books. What I write isn't for everyone. It's complex and intense and long. A book generally takes me at least two years to write and edit. I don't like the work I slaved over languishing unwanted or, worse, in a garbage bin somewhere. Anything that gets it into the hands of those who can appreciate it, I'm for.

On the CC site, we operate completely on the honor system. We even say flat out that we don't have a problem with lending the file, just please, if the person likes it, remember how we make our living and come buy a legitimate copy. We all of us write books designed to be reread. If you like it once, you're going to like it better the second and third time through.

I totally agree about the community thing. I posted elsewhere about the critical mass syndrome of publishing that has been completely destroyed by the Thor Tool decision. In that sense, ebooks will, I'm convinced, be the saviors of true alternative, quality fiction. For a less common-appeal book, a given physical community might have only a handful of readers who truly enjoy it. The chances they'll meet is small. They enjoy it in private, try to parse the questions provoked in the privacy of their own mind, rather than clarifying their reactions in social dialog. Online, they can google the author and find, increasingly, a whole community ready to share and discuss.

As for physical social events, there's nothing to stop local readers groups from choosing an ebook to read and discuss. And then there's the global readers' group. The fact that ebooks are universally available means people who have met online and are headed for a convention from all ends of the country can read the same book, meet in the bar and talk about it, with no one held hostage to a local B&N buyer.

It's really pretty exciting, and just getting started.

[Tricorp]

So how does the nook lending feature fit into this discussion?

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Tricorp

So how does the nook lending feature fit into this discussion?

Barely at all; it's a mostly-crippled way of transferring usage rights.
1) Only works for two weeks.
2) Only works *once* per book.
3) Doesn't work at all if the publisher has decided not to allow it.
And, of course,
4) Only works for people who use B&N's software, on its limited range of devices, to read ebooks.

What the Nook lending feature is mostly useful for, is to show that lending and transferal of ebooks is *technologically possible*, and that publishers and bookstores are loathe to allow ebooks to be shared as pbooks have always been shared.