"The book industry is gonna get Napstered..."

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by djgreedo

That is essentially what I said. I agree 100%.

Originally Posted by djgreedo

I agree, but what is a fair price for a digital copy? The publishers believe it is the same price as a physical book. But the price of a physical book is based on more than just the text itself. It's the paper, the printing, the shipping, etc. Whether you like it or not, people generally will consider a book to have more intrinsic value than a 400kB digital copy of that book.

I agree.

What I think needs to be done is for not only authors to get rid of the "physical model" and embrace the new but also for consumers to get rid of this too.

What do I mean by that? It is all well and good to say digital copies are valueless when it suits ones purpose.(ie: in order to justify getting content for free) This doesn't address the other value of the work though. The value the work has in the reading. Instead this idea of digital copies being valueless merely becomes a justification for ones own selfish desires.

Originally Posted by djgreedo

I don't either, but I see it as inevitible. It is up to the creators of products to instill them with value.

Again, why only the creators?

It is no good harping on about the old models not working if one isn't willing to completely give up the model but rather is only willing to give up the parts of the model they don't like.

Consumers must accept that there is value. If there was no value they wouldn't want the item to begin with. Yes the value is different to what is normally attributed to the written work but it is there none the less.

Originally Posted by djgreedo

Yes. But that fits in with supply and demand, and that's how DRM is intended to force the same rules on ebooks. But DRM doesn't give us a product that can satisfy consumers.

Again, this argument is only giving up one part of the old model.

Originally Posted by djgreedo

If you could choose to get that code from McDonald's or download an identical code from the internet for free and your family was really hungry but you need your last $5 to go towards the electricity bill what would you do? That's obviously a ridiculous scenario, but it should point out that people will justify digital theft, and psychologically people will convince themselves it's not wrong when there is no identifiable victim. Since there is no way to stop that theft, would McDonald's bother to invent burgers if their recipe was impossible to protect?

Yes it really is a ridiculous scenario.

But in short, yes if all that were to happen I would have no problem with someone getting the code for free if they could.

And your last sentence sums it up really. Would McDonald's bother to invent burgers if their recipe was impossible to protect? I would say No and I would argue that more and more people will be turned away from creative pursuits if their creative efforts could never be protected and that is a sad thing to me.

Originally Posted by djgreedo

We shouldn't. Nobody is saying this content should be free. I am saying that due to technology and human nature, there is no way to provide this content in a buyer-seller way that compares directly to what we have today. There a myriad ways to monetize digital content, and I have faith that people will come up with a way that suits creators and consumers.

I have faith creators and consumers will come up with a way only if consumers admit the work has a value to them. The idea that all digital media is valueless can only lead to the idea that all digital media should be free because why pay for something that is valueless?

Originally Posted by djgreedo

I believe that the supply and demand of the future will be more along the lines of: "Pay me and I'll give you access to the next great thing that comes out of my head" rather than: "here is a thing I created. While you could easily get it for free, I'd like you to pay me."

I agree 100% on the proviso that consumers are willing to admit that creative work does have a value. The current mindset amongst many seems to be "all digital content is valueless and therefore should be free".

Originally Posted by djgreedo

Good. So we can debate about whether it is plausibe to expect content publishers to be able to profit in an environment with no supply and demand factors. I don't think it will be possible in 10 years.

Again, this is only giving up one part of the old supply/demand model. It is trying to take the old idea of phsycial supply and demand and applying only that part to the entire new digital age.

If we should give up the old ways(which I agree we should) then we should give them up totally and agree that supply and demand is not the only factor when determining value.

Originally Posted by djgreedo

Having content available for free doesn't have to mean the author doesn't get paid (and it definitely doesn't mean they don't deserve to get paid!). I am not saying that at all.

It just means they have to work out a way to get paid other than the exchange of a digital file for cash directly. It could be a subscription, it could be advertising, it could be something nobody has thought of yet.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by djgreedo

Of course the consumer's rights trump the creator's rights. The consumer has the power to not buy. In a digital age, the consumer also has the ability to get the product on their own terms regardless of what anybody thinks. It may not be morally right, but that doesn't make it untrue.

Why should consumer's rights trump creators?

Your reasoning here is no different to the old might makes right argument. Just because consumers can get content on their own terms doesn't mean that creators should simply lay down and accept that.

Originally Posted by djgreedo

I would like it to be number 2, but I don't for one second expect that to pan out. It would be an honour system, and on a global scale an honour system would be...unrealistic.

It seems more realistic to me that authors and publishers will find a new way to make money from their product, which I guess is option 3.

I think, as hans has mentioned, education is the key. We need to educate people in the idea that supply and demand are not the forces that dtermine value in the digital age. That just because something has limitless supply doesn't mean it has no value. By doing this people will hopefully come to realise that creative works have a value that is beyond supply and demand and will be willing to pay a fair and equitable price for that value.

Originally Posted by djgreedo

Firstly, a digital copy is valueless. That is not even up for debate. I think we can all agree that the value is in the intellectual property contained in a digital file.

Semantics really. How else are you going to access the intellectual property in the digital file except by reading it? So in essence the digital copy has a value because that is the medium by which the intellectual property is accessed.

Originally Posted by djgreedo

Again, nobody is claiming that content should be free and that it has no intrinsic value.

The fact is that the value cannot be compared directly to a supply and demand model because there is no limit to supply. When there is no limit to supply the percieved value drops (like economy of scale on an infinite progression).

Firstly, many are arguing that digital content should be free.

Secondly, see my earlier points about supply and demand not being the forces that should determine value in the digital age. People keep coming back to that because it supports their desire to access digital content for free.

By all means, give up the old ways of doing things. Just be man enough to give them all up, not just the parts that one doesn't like.(that is not directed at you personally)

Originally Posted by djgreedo

This debate is not about the morals of piracy or the value of creative material. It is about the inevitible changes the digital age is bringing to the way people trade in what is increasingly becomming a digital economy.

I have not seen anything to convince me that one of the following will not happen in the nearish future:

1) large-scale publishing will all but die as sales fall too much to support the current business models
2) publishers and authors (musicians, etc.) will move away from their current business models to make money indirectly from their otherwise free content.

Whether authors suffer or benefit from this is up to them.

And here I was thinking that the economy of the digital age is inherently bound up in the value of creative material. For what is economy other than the exchange of one thing of perceived value for another of perceived value?

Cheers,
PKFFW

[djgreedo]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

What I think needs to be done is for not only authors to get rid of the "physical model" and embrace the new but also for consumers to get rid of this too.

What do I mean by that? It is all well and good to say digital copies are valueless when it suits ones purpose.(ie: in order to justify getting content for free) This doesn't address the other value of the work though. The value the work has in the reading. Instead this idea of digital copies being valueless merely becomes a justification for ones own selfish desires.

Again, why only the creators?

That would be nice, but I think it would be more practical and realistic for artists to make money in different ways. I just can't see the same amounts of money changing hands for digital products that are going to only become easier to access illegally.

It is no good harping on about the old models not working if one isn't willing to completely give up the model but rather is only willing to give up the parts of the model they don't like.

Well, ultimately I think the consumer will decide what model they are willing to go with. It doesn't matter if it's the same as the current model or completely alien. It will the model that best suits consumers while compensating creators enough to make it worthwhile for them to create.

Consumers must accept that there is value. If there was no value they wouldn't want the item to begin with. Yes the value is different to what is normally attributed to the written work but it is there none the less.

Again, this argument is only giving up one part of the old model.

You're right, but to what degree does it matter? The way I understand it, most authors have day jobs or are earning a steady if not stellar income. Ebooks cannot be sold at the same margins as paperbooks - I don't think most people would pay those prices, and publishers will still want their cut. In Australia I used to pay $30 for a CD in the late '90s. It's now normal to pay something like $18 for a new release. I could pay even less for the digital version. This price drop is mostly due to the ease of digital copying and the loss of percieved value. A middle ground would be needed for books that consumers think is fair, and that will be a low lower than authors and publishers think is fair! (yes, consumers will make this decision because they will not buy what they see as overpriced regardless of the effort the author put into writing it).

My concern/prediction is that profit margins will drop so much that authors can't make a living off selling their books, and will need to find other ways to make money from their work.

And your last sentence sums it up really. Would McDonald's bother to invent burgers if their recipe was impossible to protect? I would say No and I would argue that more and more people will be turned away from creative pursuits if their creative efforts could never be protected and that is a sad thing to me.

Creative efforts can't be protected. It's a shame, but it's true. I doubt anybody fully knows what implications that is going to have in the future. The piracy of the future may well be actual theft - stealing someone's work and putting your own name on it and then making money off it somehow. Can. of. worms.

But TV networks give their content away - content that costs a lot of money to produce, and they still make money. Authors can do the same, and one day some genius will work out how to make people give them money for their stories even when the actual digital files are given away freely.

I have faith creators and consumers will come up with a way only if consumers admit the work has a value to them. The idea that all digital media is valueless can only lead to the idea that all digital media should be free because why pay for something that is valueless?

I think that will happen. If Hollywood stopped making movies (bad example, most of them are crap) and if Stephen King stopped writing books, it would not go unnoticed. I don't think people have a problem with the 'value' of media, but I really think the 'money for product' model is unworkable unless it changes dramatically.

I agree 100% on the proviso that consumers are willing to admit that creative work does have a value. The current mindset amongst many seems to be "all digital content is valueless and therefore should be free".

I see this attitude a lot, especially in younger people. Piracy is often considered a victimless crime. How is it a crime if the original is untouched? This is not merely an opinion but (I think) an entrenched value that will only become more entrenched as digital media becomes an increasingly important factor in our lives.

And I think the only way to get around it is to come up with a model that embraces what we now consider piracy. If the content is free and the creator still makes a fair amount of money then everybody wins. But how? I would be happy with an iTunes-like solution (which we kind of have already, albeit with DRM that makes buying a book a minefield of file types, DRM types and store/device exclusives), but I can't see it working in the future.

Again, this is only giving up one part of the old supply/demand model. It is trying to take the old idea of phsycial supply and demand and applying only that part to the entire new digital age.

If we should give up the old ways(which I agree we should) then we should give them up totally and agree that supply and demand is not the only factor when determining value.

Agreed.

Well, whatever works is how it will be, and I think that will be determined not by reason but by market forces. Consumers will pay what they deem fair and creators will create products if they can be compensated for their work. We may be surprised and find that the economy of the future is something we couldn't dream of.

Why should consumer's rights trump creators?

Your reasoning here is no different to the old might makes right argument. Just because consumers can get content on their own terms doesn't mean that creators should simply lay down and accept that.

I don't necessarily think consumers' rights should trump creators' rights, but they do. The customer is always right. If publisher A won't sell on the customer's terms publisher B will fill in the gap to please the customer. Prices and terms will theoretically be as customer-friendly as possible as long as the seller can make a profit.

I think, as hans has mentioned, education is the key. We need to educate people in the idea that supply and demand are not the forces that dtermine value in the digital age. That just because something has limitless supply doesn't mean it has no value. By doing this people will hopefully come to realise that creative works have a value that is beyond supply and demand and will be willing to pay a fair and equitable price for that value.

I agree that education is important here. Will it be enough to make a difference? We can hope.

Semantics really. How else are you going to access the intellectual property in the digital file except by reading it? So in essence the digital copy has a value because that is the medium by which the intellectual property is accessed.

Totally agree. As you said, education is an important. People are generally ignorant of how much work goes into creating a book. People tend to think that an author sits down and writes for a few weeks then goes to the bank to collect a $1,000,000 cheque No wonder people think a digital copy of a book is not worth much.

And I think the concept of physical ownership of 'atoms' is so strongly ingrained in our culture and psyche that it's a huge barrier to progress and shifting into the digital age. At least it's an exciting time.

Firstly, many are arguing that digital content should be free.

I don't think digital content should be free. I believe that it is likely (if not inevitible) that the way to make money from digital content in the future is to offer it free and make money in secondary ways. That seems easier than trying to force people to pay for a product that can be easily pirated, because it does emulate supply and demand in a way. It could create a more tangible value.

Secondly, see my earlier points about supply and demand not being the forces that should determine value in the digital age. People keep coming back to that because it supports their desire to access digital content for free.

By all means, give up the old ways of doing things. Just be man enough to give them all up, not just the parts that one doesn't like.(that is not directed at you personally)

And here I was thinking that the economy of the digital age is inherently bound up in the value of creative material. For what is economy other than the exchange of one thing of perceived value for another of perceived value?

A shift in thinking is required one way or another. People will pirate regardless.

If relatively few people pirate, then the current iTunes models will work.

If piracy becomes even more widespread, then the current model becomes unworkable. Will publishers increase prices and blame the pirates?

I think that is the only major point we disagree on. I think people will steal increasingly as more people use digital devices and the ease of stealing files becomes accessible to the masses, and the only way I can imagine solving this problem is to give everything away and make money through other channels - advertising, subscription (which really would work very much like supply-demand), product placement, etc.

And while it would be great if the iTunes model worked, I still think someone will work out how to make more money by using one or more of the methods I've hinted at.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by djgreedo

........A shift in thinking is required one way or another. People will pirate regardless.

If relatively few people pirate, then the current iTunes models will work.

If piracy becomes even more widespread, then the current model becomes unworkable. Will publishers increase prices and blame the pirates?

I think that is the only major point we disagree on. I think people will steal increasingly as more people use digital devices and the ease of stealing files becomes accessible to the masses, and the only way I can imagine solving this problem is to give everything away and make money through other channels - advertising, subscription (which really would work very much like supply-demand), product placement, etc.

And while it would be great if the iTunes model worked, I still think someone will work out how to make more money by using one or more of the methods I've hinted at.

I decided to only respond to this part as I think everything we both really wish to say has been said already.

I agree that piracy will become more prevalant. I agree authors and publishers need to realise this and try to find new and innovative ways to profit from the digital age or they will go by the way side.

I think the idea of making money in "other ways" is one bound to failure though. Lets look at the main ideas put forward......

Advertising:

Firstly, who wants to read a book with an ad on every other page. Secondly, as is seen with TV already people are downloading more and more from the darknet partly in order to get around this very issue. As more and more people do this advertisers will pay less and less until the advertising dollar completely dries up. The same goes for pirated ebooks. Uploaders will simply get rid of the adds before uploading and people will seek to acquire them through the darknet because they don't like adds. In short, advertising wont work.

Value added items like T-shirts or cards etc:

Lets get real, how many people really want a t-shirt or card of their favourit book? I'd say about 0.00001% of the people who read the book. Clearly not enough to make it worthwhile to put all the effort into creating a book. If people want a t-shirt they will go buy a t-shirt, they wont go read a book and think about buying a t-shirt because of it.

Donation system:

We agree that piracy is only going to become more prevalent in the future so why would anyone honestly think that a donation system based on the honour system will work? Frankly if the idea is that the content is free and people should make a donation if they feel like it, most will simply focus on the "free" part.

Subscription method:

It only takes one copy out there and limitless copies can be made. So it really only takes 1 subscriber. Again, if the idea is all content is free, why would anyone bother paying the subscription?

Writer releases next part only when sufficient funds have arrived:

At least the author gets paid but I can't see the public agreeing to this in the long term. It gives far to much "power" to the author.


In short, I keep coming back to the idea that the only viable method is for the consumers to admit there is value in creative work just as there is value in whatever job they do for a living. If they see no value in creative work they will never be convinced to pay anything for it or for any other "value added crapola" that comes with it.

Will authors make as much in the future? Almost absolutely not. But that isn't really my point.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[HarryT]

You missed out what I think personally is the most important thing: EDUCATION. Children need to be taught the basic fact that "it's wrong to take stuff that doesn't belong to you without paying for it", and that applies to digital content as much as it does to physical objects.

[ficbot]

Is there 'value' in a digital work depends on how the digital work is presented. Is the $4-5 I pay for multiformat titles on Fictionwise worth it? In some cases, yes. In some cases, no. I would like a sample chapter to be mandatory so I can be a better judge, the same way I could read a few pages in a bricks and mortar bookstore, but caveat emptor, I suppose. For the most part, I am quite happy to pay for the book, go to my bookshelf and download it in the format I choose.

Start slapping all sorts of restrictions on it though, and its value diminishes. Only read on this many devices or on this specific platform? Encumbered by DRM I must go through manual labour to remove? And then they complain that more people don't want to pay for it?

We need one of two things to happen. Either everything needs to go multiformat, so one can easily buy it, download it in the format they choose and away they go (and they own it, can come back to their bookshelf later and download again if need be, can read on whatever devices they own etc.) OR we need to have a common, widely accepted format that everyone uses, and it will be like iTunes where no matter what device you have, you can download the item, load it on with one click, and be done.

Is it possible some people will still 'steal' the books? Of course it is. Nobody can ever prevent that. The corner grocer has to budget into his year a certain amount of loss to teenagers shoplifting candy bars, it's the same thing. But if you start with a mutual respect where you offer a useable product at a fair price and you make it easy for your customers to enjoy their purchase in the legal ways they choose (e.g. on whatever device they want, as many times as they want etc) then most people, as iTunes has shown us, really will behave like sensible, rational and fair people.

I blame the 'industry' for setting up this adversarial position. They treat us not like customers but like thieves-in-waiting, and they view their job not so much as 'suppliers of quality books' than as 'enforcers who must thwart us from being criminals.'

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You missed out what I think personally is the most important thing: EDUCATION. Children need to be taught the basic fact that "it's wrong to take stuff that doesn't belong to you without paying for it", and that applies to digital content as much as it does to physical objects.

Totally agree. Both Hans and I have mentioned education as being of paramount importance.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by ficbot

Is there 'value' in a digital work depends on how the digital work is presented. Is the $4-5 I pay for multiformat titles on Fictionwise worth it? In some cases, yes. In some cases, no. I would like a sample chapter to be mandatory so I can be a better judge, the same way I could read a few pages in a bricks and mortar bookstore, but caveat emptor, I suppose. For the most part, I am quite happy to pay for the book, go to my bookshelf and download it in the format I choose.

Start slapping all sorts of restrictions on it though, and its value diminishes. Only read on this many devices or on this specific platform? Encumbered by DRM I must go through manual labour to remove? And then they complain that more people don't want to pay for it?

We need one of two things to happen. Either everything needs to go multiformat, so one can easily buy it, download it in the format they choose and away they go (and they own it, can come back to their bookshelf later and download again if need be, can read on whatever devices they own etc.) OR we need to have a common, widely accepted format that everyone uses, and it will be like iTunes where no matter what device you have, you can download the item, load it on with one click, and be done.

Is it possible some people will still 'steal' the books? Of course it is. Nobody can ever prevent that. The corner grocer has to budget into his year a certain amount of loss to teenagers shoplifting candy bars, it's the same thing. But if you start with a mutual respect where you offer a useable product at a fair price and you make it easy for your customers to enjoy their purchase in the legal ways they choose (e.g. on whatever device they want, as many times as they want etc) then most people, as iTunes has shown us, really will behave like sensible, rational and fair people.

I blame the 'industry' for setting up this adversarial position. They treat us not like customers but like thieves-in-waiting, and they view their job not so much as 'suppliers of quality books' than as 'enforcers who must thwart us from being criminals.'

Totally agree with everything you say.

With one caveat........people will act like sensible, rational and fair people only so long as creative efforts(ie: ebooks) are deemed to have some fair and reasonable value that they think it is right to pay. If the idea that these efforts are valueless then people will think it sensible, rational and fair to simply acquire it for free since it has no value.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[jetreader]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

The Napster of books is already here, it's called the ebooksbay. Fully searchable, indexes torrents and pdf giveaways etc. It's been around for awhile too Some of these 'tech' journalists really need to do some research.

ebooksbay is not free, while the Napster was

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You missed out what I think personally is the most important thing: EDUCATION. Children need to be taught the basic fact that "it's wrong to take stuff that doesn't belong to you without paying for it", and that applies to digital content as much as it does to physical objects.

At the same time that content owners are taught that they don't have a perpetual piece of property and that stretching copyright terms is as much "theft" as "taking things that don't belong to you".

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

At the same time that content owners are taught that they don't have a perpetual piece of property and that stretching copyright terms is as much "theft" as "taking things that don't belong to you".

Exactly, since things naturally belongs in the public domain this copyright thing is taking things that does not belong to you and it is wrong. But the society have accepted that you do this action that is wrong for a limited time.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by tompe

Exactly, since things naturally belongs in the public domain this copyright thing is taking things that does not belong to you and it is wrong. But the society have accepted that you do this action that is wrong for a limited time.

Tompe, I have been thinking....(The SWAT team and the FBI have been notified ). Everybody keeps thinking in terms of intellectual "property". I think that we should use a different term. Since it's is only a temporary grant of monopoly, we should use the term "Lease". It grasps the underlying reality better than "property", and even a politician understands what a lease is....

[Jaime_Astorga]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Tompe, I have been thinking....(The SWAT team and the FBI have been notified ). Everybody keeps thinking in terms of intellectual "property". I think that we should use a different term. Since it's is only a temporary grant of monopoly, we should use the term "Lease". It grasps the underlying reality better than "property", and even a politician understands what a lease is....

But that's not quite right either. If works rightfully belong in the public domain and are only temporarily granted to creators, then who is leasing them? The government? The people? And while the idea is to motivate creators to make more, they don't have to, so they don't have to "pay" for the "lease"...

How about we call it exactly what it is? A temporary (lol) government protected monopoly on the right to copy works created by someone.

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by ahi

How does this not apply to a paper book? The space it takes up on your bookshelf until you actually read it is hardly added value.

- Ahi

"I'm a book collector, a real fanatic one. Here, on that shelf, you can see my collection of almost one hundred leather books, all printed by Marino's typography in Siena in the late 19th century. I have never read one of them, I don't even dare to open it!".

"I'm an ebook collector. Here, in this 32GB SD card, you can't see my huge collection of twenty thousand PG books, all multiple format, neatly proofreaded by a chatroom crew. I have never read one of them..."



Just an extreme example, but I think it picuters well what I mean...
A dime novel has more value on pulp paper than in ASCII...

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

....
What must change in the digital age is the perception that works in digital form have zero value, or we will have a future without innovation
.....

I totally agree with you.
the value of work is almost sacred to me.

This, though, does not extend to file copies...

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

I am a consumer only (no connection to authors, publishers, etc), and I prefer the pay-per-book method.

Pay-per-book is fine. What DRM is trying to create is "pay-per-reader," which has never been required for books before.

Unless the publishing industry figures out how to allow ebooks to be legally & conveniently loaned & re-sold, the pirate industry will continue to shadow them.

There is no large pirate industry with paper books, because the loan-and-resell market is HUGE. (There is some... there are universities where copying textbooks is common. But this hasn't reached outside of that closed setting because people who can't or won't pay full price for a pbook, for whatever reason, do have easy, legal ways to acquire one. Remove that, and you'd see an explosion of home-printed copies of popular novels.)