Digital Vs. Physical Goods

[Penforhire]

Simultaneity of infinite copies is only a convenience issue compared to, say, public libraries which, in America, might have hundreds of a given p-book lent out repeatedly.

This issue is sort of the boundary condition of "what if everyone only used the public library?" Sure, we'd have to wait longer to read popular books. And branches would likely have to carry more books. Now I understand libraries pay a fee for their books and some of that should get back to content creators. Perhaps we need a device-tax that is similarly distributed. I have no idea what a fair distribution is but the complaint about digital goods is at least comparable to library books.

[Madam Broshkina]

Originally Posted by KevinH

Hi,

Your argument is very flawed. If it were true, then there would be no successful musicians/groups making any money. Yet they still do and lots of it.

Originally Posted by KevinH

If any publisher actually pushes the "license" versus "ownership" issue, they will soon get a very large class-action lawsuit filed against them for deceptive marketing/advertising and or a price-gouging lawsuit brought for charging "ownership" prices for "licensed" goods to be followed by charges of cross-collusion and price fixings (agency-model anyone).

If they push the license versus ownership issue then I would be willing to pay $1.00 - $2.00 per ebook, and not the $9.99 - $20.99 I am being charged today.

Also, assuming piracy is equivalent to lost sales is nonsense and that lack of drm or ease of copying results in increased piracy. Pirates never have and never will pay for their ebooks/music/software and therefore can not be counted as lost sales at all. I do not pirate, and never would as I want my favorite authors to actually produce more works. What actually keeps me from spending more money is DRM and this "license" issue. I think there are many many people like me. If they push the license issue, they will then actually see true lost-sales.

I cannot see how you can compare musicians to authors. I would expect that musicians/groups make a lot of their money from concerts. The question:
"Do music artists make more money playing concerts or with CD sales?" was asked on Answers.com.


The Answer: "Bands certainly make more money from concerts. Most major label contracts only pay a small fraction of each CD, and there are many reductions taken from the artist's royalties. So unless your CD sells millions of units, you're not going to make much. For live performances, however, the artist keeps most of the money.
Basically this can be extended to the debate about pirating digital music: it's not going to kill the artist, it's only killing the record companies."

When was the last time you have seen John Grisham in concert?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Revenues for the music industry have nose-dived in the past few years,

Not true. Revenue for the music industry has increased year on year since the advent of Napster in the 90s, the publicity about which made mp3 downloading a mainstream activity.

http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86724/u...evenue-up-4-7/

[leebase]

Originally Posted by screwballl

Either way it is the same thing and tends to carry the same legal consequences, especially if you try to represent the bookcase as an IKEA and not your own work which is the only essential difference of physical versus digital.

Fascinating. You actually think copying an Ikea book shelf is essentially the same think as copying a digital file?

The difference I see:

1. Takes material to make a copy of the book case
2. Takes time and money to transfer the copy of the book casse
3. Takes time and skill to make a copy of the book case
4. If one has the skills to make a book case from scratch, one is unlikely to be buying book cases from Ikea in the first place.
5. Nobody is actually making copies of Ikea book cases to give to friends and family -- millions of people actually ARE making digital copies of music, ebooks, movies and sharing them for free across the world.

Lee

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

Perhaps we need a device-tax that is similarly distributed.

Like the similar tax some countries have on CDR and other blank media, any income would just go to large publishers, with the creators getting little or nothing of that. Independent creators and small publishers would get nothing at all.

[Fayth]

I don't think DRM is very helpful to booksellers. Those who pirate will pirate with or without DRM, because DRM always gets cracked. They can be pretty much ruled out in a discussion regarding the validity of DRM.

I suppose the issue I can see is that those with less technical proficiency (not trying to imply torrents are complicated, but there are a vast number of people out there who do not know how to find/use them) will be able to share files easily. Now I'm not sure this would result in much loss either, but at least it has some validity. That being said, I really don't think its worth it even with that in account. Paying customers only get pissed off when DRM causes trouble for them, and in my experience can often deter people from future purchases.

Originally Posted by leebase

5. Nobody is actually making copies of Ikea book cases to give to friends and family -- millions of people actually ARE making digital copies of music, ebooks, movies and sharing them for free across the world.

Lee

And these people would be doing that with or without DRM. Right now DRM exists, but does nothing to stop files being put onto torrent sites and the like. No DRM will ever go unbroken simply because there is a larger force of intelligent minds interested in cracking these things than there are people making them. Not saying companies don't have intelligent people making DRM, but they can't possibly compete with thousands of people around the world who are capable of breaking such things.

I think you are under some illusion that DRM is helping to stop the pirating world from getting information, which it isn't. The only thing DRM does stop is those with little technical knowledge from sharing files locally, amongst friends and family.

[KevinH]

> I concur that the "1 infringing download = 1 lost sale" is likely incorrect.
> But that hardly proves that "1 infringing download = 0 lost sales."

No, it could in fact be the opposite. 1 infringing download shared among friends may in fact result in additional sales!

> With at least some ereading platforms, it's pretty clear you're dealing
> with some type of licensing situation. Read the EULAs one of these days.

Where is this EULA? In some faq someplace? It is typically not on the main website that they call a "Store". The Sony Store, the Kindle Store, the Kobos Bookstore, etc. Where do they claim in any add or in any place that they are not a "Store" where you buy things to take home and own and instead are a "Rental Agency". I think almost any jury would rule that what we have now amounts to deceptive practices if they do intend to only "license the book".

> Nor is there currently any evidence of price-fixing. It is not illegal for a
> single publisher to fix a price at a retail outlet -- as evidenced by things
> like the Apple App Store, Google Android Market, Smashwords, Amazon
> CreateSpace, all of which allow the developers / publishers to set prices.

What else can you call Amazon being forced to raise it prices via the collusion of multiple publishers getting into a group and agreeing to agency pricing and then pushing it. Yes, a single company can set minimum advertised prices, but I do not think an group that represents most of the major publishers in the industry can do the same.

> Nor is there a single shred of evidence that the publishers collaborated in
> secret to set book prices with the intent of squashing smaller competitors.
> Rather, multiple retailers -- including Google and Apple -- freely
> initiated, offered and accepted publisher pricing controls.[/QUOTE]

Price fixing need not be just restraint of trade or unfair competitive practice to still be price fixing, especially when done by most of the major publishers at the same time operating as a group which is what we saw happen and it forced Amazon to change raise its prices and therefore hurt consumers. Seems like a case to me.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

I have no idea what a fair distribution is but the complaint about digital goods is at least comparable to library books.

I concur that there is a similarity. A single copy of a library book is used by many people and the author is only compensated for the one book.

However, the scale and ease of distribution of sharing files on the internet break the comparison to libraries.

Libraries do not have infinite budgets. They can only buy so many copies of an ebook for lending to their customers. Only one customer at a time can read the ebook. As such, with DRM, libraries remain exactly the same with ebooks or with physical books. But it's only DRM that enables this to be true.

Without DRM, a library could buy 1 book, lend it out to a customer, who instantly copies it and puts in on a file sharing site on the internet.

Lee

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Madam Broshkina

When was the last time you have seen John Grisham in concert?[/SIZE]

Writers do get paid for making public appearences/readings, convention panels, etc. While they are there they are able to sell their own copies of their books at full price. I've also seen a writer who will write characters based on real people into their books for a fee. Some also teach writing skills to wannabe writers, others sell T-shirts and other merchandise. Writing books is not their only source of revenue.

[Fayth]

Originally Posted by leebase

I concur that there is a similarity. A single copy of a library book is used by many people and the author is only compensated for the one book.

However, the scale and ease of distribution of sharing files on the internet break the comparison to libraries.

Libraries do not have infinite budgets. They can only buy so many copies of an ebook for lending to their customers. Only one customer at a time can read the ebook. As such, with DRM, libraries remain exactly the same with ebooks or with physical books. But it's only DRM that enables this to be true.

Without DRM, a library could buy 1 book, lend it out to a customer, who instantly copies it and puts in on a file sharing site on the internet.

Lee

Please stop arguing that some random person will get a file out to the rest of the internet! It won't happen, even without DRM. There is no purpose for it because a group of reputable file hosters will already have it out. With or without DRM trying to stop them. The valid part of your argument would be someone sharing locally, with friends and family. Someone who would not otherwise be able to break the DRM themselves.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by leebase

Without DRM, a library could buy 1 book, lend it out to a customer, who instantly copies it and puts in on a file sharing site on the internet.

Lee

Even with DRM they could do that easily enough.

[BenBanned]

I perfer my artists poor.
With substance issues.
On their deathbeds.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by leebase

And so, at the start of the discussion, we can see that digital goods HAVE to be treated different than physical goods. To not do so would change the financial equation for authors drastically, and could likely end the profession of book writing.

Only if the publishers are going to provide support for digital products that isn't available for physical ones--upgrades that work on new hardware, customizable viewing/usage settings, clear explanations of usage limitations & refunds for incompatible purchases because of publisher error, and so on.

When I buy a record album, I don't automatically get the CD version. But when I upgrade my music collection from vinyl to CD, I can sell the vinyl discs to someone who still wants to listen to them that way. When I buy an ebook, unless I can sell it when I'm done with that version, the publisher should be handing me the new DRM'd version for my new machine--or my new software. Or refund my money when it's no longer compatible with my setup.

Ebookstores should be clear about how DRM works--not just "click here to install the program," but "this ebook only works under [OS] and with hardware [X]; it is compatible with the following devices [a, b, c] only." (And, of course, "not available in the following countries ..." needs to be mentioned *before* you click "add to shopping cart.")

If I'm buying "limited use of product," the terms of use need to be spelled out before purchase. (Also. Authors need to check their contracts for the differences in royalties between licenses and sales.)

where a copyright owner transfers a copy of copyrighted material, retains title, limits the uses to which the material may be put, and is compensated periodically based on the transferee’s exploitation of the material, the transaction is a license.

Amazon doesn't get periodically compensated for use of Kindlebooks. They don't limit when & how you can read them (you can load to your computer & read anytime; or hand your Kindle around to anyone), and they don't claim the right to revoke your copy under some circumstances.

If they *did*, people wouldn't pay $10 for the kindlebooks.

If publishers *treated* ebooks like licensed use products, instead of purchases, there'd be a lot less complaining about them.

[kovidgoyal]

1.) DRM does not prevent a digital file from being copied

Moving on

2) It is impossible to prevent a digital file from being copied by its intended recipient. Not impractical, not difficult, but impossible

3) It is possible to make it difficult for the intended recipient of a digital file to copy it. However, that is offset by the fact that since distributing digital files is cost free, all it takes is one recipient willing to put in the effort to unlock the digital file. Contrast this with physical goods where every copy requires effort.

3) Therefore digital goods are not physical goods, and efforts to make them act like physical goods are simply going to engender giggles.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by BenBanned

I perfer my artists poor.
With substance issues.
On their deathbeds.

You first, fella!