Piracy, the new formula for success?

[wannabee]

Originally Posted by sourcejedi

s/eversion/e-version/

a little protagonist in a super colorful world!

[crossi]

Any book not good enough to be pirated wasn't worth publishing in the first place. Sort of like the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.

[Algiedi]

The fact that, as many others have noted, the main function of this book (a potential gift/a picture book) cannot be efficiently pirated is both good and bad news.

It's bad news in that it's not (at first glance) very relevant to the piracy debate since it's not the "true", final product that's being pirated, but more of an extended preview.

It's good news for The-Pirate's-Dilemma-raised people such as I, because it proves the fact that a successful way to ride the wave of piracy is simply to provide a more competitive offer than the pirates - have added value that'll make it worth paying for your copy. Something that Bittorrent simply cannot offer you & compete with: it can be value as a gift, in the form (pretty pictures that a digital support cannot satisfactingly render yet), in extra goodies bundled with the product, etc.

The faster content producers understand that, the faster everyone will benefit from it: customers will get better products that'll be worth their money, which will fill the pockets of the content producers. Everyone's happy.

[sourcejedi]

Algiedi: I wish it were that easy to resolve the conflict.

For the majority of book sales, I don't think there's no room for "extra" value that couldn't be pirated. Either it works as a digital file, or (as in this case), it only really works in paper. Bundled extras wouldn't be anything more than a gimmick. I just want to read the story!

In the large, the extra value that can't be pirated is tied up in how you get that digital file. Legitimacy is part of it, obviously. But there's also the convenience you get with buying from Amazon, for example, relative to searching pirate sites, and trying to judge the quality of the a file posted by someone you don't know. Or services like the Kindle has with synchronization of reading positions, annotations etc between phone/dedicated reader/laptop. Or just knowing that the book you bought is supposed to work on your specific reader, and in case it doesn't there's a responsive customer support line.

[All of which goes against the hacker creed - all this value is being provided due to vendor-lockin at the moment - but we're a relatively small constituency. DRM is never "light", but it can be well-thought out and designed to make the closed system as convenient as possible.]

Currently that's all outside the direct control of the publisher (or "content producer"). Bundling e-books with p-books might help, e.g. avoiding exasperated book buyers learning how to pirate, and improve/modernize their image. But that's not really the point of ebooks; the reason they're worth using at all is that they're not tied to a single physical object, and the digital file can stand on its own.

[Algiedi]

Originally Posted by sourcejedi

In the large, the extra value that can't be pirated is tied up in how you get that digital file. Legitimacy is part of it, obviously. But there's also the convenience you get with buying from Amazon, for example, relative to searching pirate sites, and trying to judge the quality of the a file posted by someone you don't know. Or services like the Kindle has with synchronization of reading positions, annotations etc between phone/dedicated reader/laptop. Or just knowing that the book you bought is supposed to work on your specific reader, and in case it doesn't there's a responsive customer support line.

That's exactly the kind of stuff I was thinking of when I was talking about added value that pirates can't match.

Although if one were to nitpick, quality of files is not consistently better from Amazon than from pirate websites (but we can hope that'll change soon), and so far MR has been providing a much better customer service to me than Amazon

But yeah, that's the idea.

Originally Posted by sourcejedi

Currently that's all outside the direct control of the publisher (or "content producer").

My bad, I never know which terms to use (especially in English). Let's just say "anyone trying to make money out of ebooks that's not a pirate".

Originally Posted by sourcejedi

For the majority of book sales, I don't think there's no room for "extra" value that couldn't be pirated. Either it works as a digital file, or (as in this case), it only really works in paper. Bundled extras wouldn't be anything more than a gimmick. I just want to read the story!

So one could say about just wanting to play the game and do away with Steam. Those gimmicks can be things that people do want but never think of the official source as a provider of it (c'mon Amazon, gimme a mobi-Sigil) or artificially create the need for silly gizmos (god knows our life is full enough of those already to prove that point).

Random examples off the top of my head:
- "Mod" tools: a simple, convenient way to change formatting on the fly (WYSIWYG CSS, like).
- A shitton of stuff can be made around the community: support for fanfic (have some character sheet provided by the author or editor), with possible bundle-publishing for the best ones. Hell, add illustrations to that as well. Make your own customers give you that extra value for free!
- Moar social networks function integration.
- Well I was thinking about a lot of goodies but they could get pirated as well unless one uses "streaming-only-from-a-verified-copy-of-the-book" unpleasantness.
- Great offers for loyal customers. Something concrete, objects - a beautiful printed versions, statues, whatever. Make 'em wanna spend that extra buck!

Or maybe it's just my "what would Valve do?" reflex.

EDIT: oh yeah and another current thread's talking about it: subscription model.

[sourcejedi]

Originally Posted by Algiedi

My bad, I never know which terms to use (especially in English). Let's just say "anyone trying to make money out of ebooks that's not a pirate".

Sorry, that wasn't really meant as a criticism. I was just trying to avoid digressions into what a publisher is, and whether it meant the same as your word. I don't think we have a problem there .

Well I was thinking about a lot of goodies but they could get pirated as well unless one uses "streaming-only-from-a-verified-copy-of-the-book" unpleasantness.

Yeah, that's where I'm coming from.

Those gimmicks can be things that people do want but never think of the official source as a provider of it (c'mon Amazon, gimme a mobi-Sigil) or artificially create the need for silly gizmos (god knows our life is full enough of those already to prove that point).

Hmm, maybe I'm being unimaginatively pessimistic here. But all these gizmos are things e.g. Amazon would have to implement, not the publisher.

You're saying publishers should out-compete copyright infringement, by bundling additional services (and loyalty rewards) that make people feel really good about paying for ebooks.

My caveat to that would be that if they try to invest in this, their first competitor won't be copyright infringement; it'll be Amazon.

There's a point that the big publishers have actually started looking at this now, and their main aim in competing with Amazon is probably not to take the 30% margin for themselves, but to start their own experiments and hopefully raise the bar, because they fear Amazon would otherwise become complacent and/or they think they can provide strengths Amazon lacks.

But it doesn't look like they're going to sell anything fancier than the Sony store does (I presume they'll use ADE); they just want to provide a better service for discovering books you'd like to read (and then make it as easy as possible to buy them).

[They're not even "selling" recommendations. They're explicitly not focussing on automatically analyzing your purchases to provide suggestions, without you having to bother telling it what books you already like, because Amazon do that already].

I think it's very interesting, and they're focusing on the sort of thing they can do well. A bit like Tor.com (Tor is a publisher, but they run a blog which is ostensibly a general science fiction site, including regular stuff on TV shows, for example).

I'm not convinced they should be investing much more heavily in reader software or retail deals. Some of them did try to in the past, but the few efforts that are actually succeeding now were (AFAIK) all driven by independent technology and/or retail companies.

If they're independent, they can fail independently . Provided there's competition, you can allow individual experiments to fail without having an individual publisher get dragged down by that failure.

maybe it's just my "what would Valve do?" reflex.

The same as Amazon?

EDIT: oh yeah and another current thread's talking about it: subscription model.

Graar, why'd you have to bring up something complicated like that . [It breaks my last point, because you really want significant publisher cooperation, to offer what is effectively a bulk discount]. Maybe that's the answer. I don't know what to say about it, other than at least it's more honest about the presence of lock-in. (No point pirating / looking at this other store; I've already paid my money so I'd better use my subscription service).

[Giggleton]

Amazon is the publisher.

I would think that with the introduction of an Amazon tablet, Amazon is hoping for developers to create interesting reading centric apps. Or they could just be trying to take a cut of mobile gaming revenue. Either way, third party development of reading and publishing tools is probably the way to go.

I plan to use eink and if the Amazon tablet eventually becomes a high refresh color eink device...

[sourcejedi]

Giggleton: Wow, I agree with you on something. (Third party development). On a piracy thread, no less.

& the tablet is a valid point. The Kindle doesn't look like a great platform for social media integration. Though I think their first aim is simply to produce a Nook competitor: Android hardware specifically designed for reading, which runs a Kindle app out of the box. I suspect the Nook colour has been a real eye-opener.

But I only agree because I'm ignoring your apparent definitions of "publisher" and "third party developer". I consider Amazon a third party developer, generally distinct from publishers. I wouldn't have thought Amazon would license their DRM to third-party developers on the tablet, or get rid of their own DRM. They're clearly not doing it for the benefit of third-party app developers using Adobe, or some other competing DRM ecosystem.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by sourcejedi

The Kindle doesn't look like a great platform for social media integration. Though I think their first aim is simply to produce a Nook competitor: Android hardware specifically designed for reading, which runs a Kindle app out of the box. I suspect the Nook colour has been a real eye-opener.

I'm ignoring your apparent definitions of "publisher" and "third party developer". I consider Amazon a third party developer, generally distinct from publishers. I wouldn't have thought Amazon would license their DRM to third-party developers on the tablet, or get rid of their own DRM. They're clearly not doing it for the benefit of third-party app developers using Adobe, or some other competing DRM ecosystem.

I would say the nook is more of an eye strainer than an eye opener,

Do you have an economic metric for determining when an entity crosses the line between non-publisher and publisher?

I do wonder just how open Amazon's tablet will be though, will they allow third party reading apps? The web browser itself could provide a decent interface to books on a tablet. I don't think Android tablets have as much built in blocking technology as Apple products do. I doubt I would buy an Amazon tablet if the tablet did not allow me to use a book provider other than Amazon, I'm not saying I wouldn't use Amazon to procure books, I would just like to know that Amazon is doing all that it can to ensure that they have the best reading interface on their tablet. Keeping the tablet open would keep Amazon on its toes as it were, to constantly improve their interface.

[sourcejedi]

Sigh. You're crossing the line into quibbling for the fun of it . I'm not attached to my definition of publisher, it's just that's how I write. If you want to define "publisher" differently, you'll need to re-interpret my writing by substituting a different word where you see "publisher".

Traditionally, a book has one publisher (at a time, per territory), but is sold by many different retailers. Amazon is a retailer. (Or retail outlet, or something).

That's where I draw my terms from. If you want a heuristic that avoids the woolly and potentially changing abstractions that really define publishing, the publisher is generally the same person who paid the cover artist/designer.


I'd be surprised if you couldn't root the Amazon tablet. Amazon made friendly noises about people rooting the Kindle, despite the risk of people over-using the mobile data connection. It'd leave the Nook with an unofficial advantage, for no particularly good reason. There's a good reason for having their own appstore: it let's them avoid things like the hardware requirements for the Google-run one, which are (or were) very phone-centric.

You might be interested to see they've currently allowed Kobo, Aldiko, and Wattpad. No guarantee... but you're right, if they do it, it'd be great for competition.

I've also seen it claimed that the screen will improve on the standard transflective LCD... but given the physics, it's surely only a quantitative improvement.

don't think Android tablets have as much built in blocking technology

Sucker. I'm pretty sure some of the android phones are locked down with a "trusted platform" type system. If there are tablets made by the same people and sold with the same business model, they'll be the same.

No Apple device has bothered with that yet (they just make sure to fix the security holes that allow unauthorized rooting -- at least one of which could have lead to very damaging exploits). There's no costly blocking technology that Android is missing; if Amazon want to have an Apple-level lockdown, it wouldn't cost them any extra.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by sourcejedi

Sigh. You're crossing the line into quibbling for the fun of it . I'm not attached to my definition of publisher, it's just that's how I write. If you want to define "publisher" differently, you'll need to re-interpret my writing by substituting a different word where you see "publisher".

Traditionally, a book has one publisher (at a time, per territory), but is sold by many different retailers. Amazon is a retailer. (Or retail outlet, or something).

You might be interested to see they've currently allowed Kobo, Aldiko, and Wattpad. No guarantee... but you're right, if they do it, it'd be great for competition.

What if we said that a publisher was someone who helped another publish a book? Then we could create a publisher curve, little publishers who helped one person publish one book and big publishers who help infinite people publish infinite books. We could restrict helping to things such as editing, cover design, or simply uploading.

That is interesting about Kobo being allowed on the Amazon appstore, I had this idea in my head that Amazon wasn't going to allow third party reading apps on their tablet and now I don't have that idea in my head anymore and I can think of other things!

[sourcejedi]

That is interesting about Kobo being allowed on the Amazon appstore

Yup! Interesting times indeed. It's still complete speculation at this stage, but I hope it's a good sign.



I would say that each edition of a book has only one publisher. So I wouldn't say "someone". I would say "the person or organisation who..."

For example, there are many traditional publishers who sell their books through the Amazon Kindle store. Amazon credit them as the publisher when you look at the book in the store, and their name will be shown as publisher on the title page. If you redefine publisher so that Amazon becomes a joint publisher of such a book, the word loses a lot of specificity.

Amazon DTP books are generally self-published, i.e. the publisher is the author. (Though I've seen it suggested that if you're aiming for money or even just fame in self-publishing, you should try to distinguish between the two roles in your head). Perhaps the word doesn't fit perfectly here -- "this book has no publisher" sounds equally valid -- perhaps we'll see new words for a new order of things. But I don't think Amazon are doing anything more or different than in the first case, that would make them a publisher in this case.

Amazon is only "publisher" where the publisher is a brand they own. (I don't know whether they've actually started selling yet).

I'm not hung up on size -- with "self-publishing", you can have a publisher with just one book, and that doesn't bother me.

[Giggleton]

I'll just stick with my previous definition, anyone who exists is a publisher. It's more general.