Is ebook piracy on the rise?

[axel77]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

What would the script have cost without the ads to subsidize them? Would you have been happier paying 2-3 times as much for the script, without ads?

Sure, some people may rip out ads... most people just ignore them. Until they see one that attracts their attention, or offers something they happen to want. That's the strength of ads, and why they have endured for so long.

Don't catch numbers out of thin air please, 2-3 times the cost for the script is sure not what the ads brought in. Actually it were often the ads for the store doing the production copying of the script, so there wasn't any money involved at all. Othertimes it was a bank doing some general sponsoring. There were also scripts without ads depending on which institute it came from. There wasn't any noticeable price difference.

So the some cents they brought in, yes I would have paid for them. I mean I open that thing to learn, not to be pumped up with ads.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by axel77

Don't catch numbers out of thin air please, 2-3 times the cost for the script is sure not what the ads brought in.

Maybe not in the case of your "script," which I was not clear on exactly what that was.

However, there are a number of trade magazines by organizations that do not solicit ads to subsidize the magazine. In those cases, magazines have been known to cost over $50 an issue as opposed to an ad-subsidized $5-10 cover price... a subscription of such a bi-monthy (6 issues) can cost hundreds. (Yes, I've seen them.)

This is where ad revenue shines, subsidizing the cost of a magazine in a significant way... because most people wouldn't want to pay $50 for an issue of Time, or $500 a month for basic cable.

[nekokami]

When I worked for a newspaper, a while back, I was told that the subscription fee was meant to cover the costs of printing and delivery... funding for the actual content (reporters, photographers, editors, etc.) and all the profit came from advertisements.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by nekokami

When I worked for a newspaper, a while back, I was told that the subscription fee was meant to cover the costs of printing and delivery... funding for the actual content (reporters, photographers, editors, etc.) and all the profit came from advertisements.

That's true... and as newspapers go online and reduce printing, they are looking into applying ad revenue to all costs. Some of them can even give away smaller versions of their papers for free, to help advertise online content and other content.

It wouldn't be too far outside of the realm of possibility to see e-books 100% subsidized by ads for newly-released hardbacks or high-art coffee-table books, for instance.

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

It wouldn't be too far outside of the realm of possibility to see e-books 100% subsidized by ads for newly-released hardbacks or high-art coffee-table books, for instance.

I wouldn't even mind that so much, if the book selections were at least as good as the Amazon recommendations. I've bought plenty of paperbacks that had ads for other books (by the same author or by other authors in the same publishing house) in the back, often with an order form. I wouldn't mind being able to click on a link and go straight to a site that would let me order the sequel to a book I'd just finished.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by nekokami

I wouldn't mind being able to click on a link and go straight to a site that would let me order the sequel to a book I'd just finished.

I'd go for that! (Might even encourage me to write more sequels.)

[pwalker8]

I think that there are several big issues with ad based ebooks.

First, you have the basic problem that in general, the book industry, like the music industry, is oriented towards best salers. So, the issue how would you split the ad review up between someone like Ms Rowling and your average mid list author? For that to work, publishers would have to retain the rights to works and have all the ad money go to the publishers. It seems to me that in the music industry, more and more artists are going indie rather than with record labels. I expect that the book industry will go in a similar direction.

Second, most authors seem to have trouble producing more than two or three books per year. Since in general, books tend to do most of their sales within a couple of months of being published, that just doesn't leave enough time for ads to be effective. You would almost need to go back to the magazine days to make ads work. I can see where it might work for a single author such as your self to have ads on his own web site, with content being your works, blogs, ect.. but I just don't see it working over all.

Last, I think that books are a lot like music, in that people want specific artists and titles rather than generic items. With TV, people tend to watch specific shows rather than specific actors. Most shows that last more than a few seasons tend to have a fair amount of turn over when it comes to actors. The product that advertisers are paying for is the show, not the specific actor. Books just don't have the continuity that advertisers are looking for.

As far as DRM goes, Apple is happy to sale music without DRM. The problem is most of the record companies won't let them. What is interesting is that several of those same companies are allowing Amazon to sale the same music without DRM via the new Amazon music store. While we don't have a lot of data to go on yet, I think that it's interesting that a large number of people perfer to buy from iTunes rather Amazon. I think this shows that as long as the DRM is not burdensome, and there is a method for getting around the DRM if you really want to (i.e. burn the music to cd, then rip it back from the cd as mp3), then DRM isn't a big deal to most people. I also suspect that within the next couple of years, DRM will be a thing of the past in music. After allowing Amazon to sale DRM free mp3's, the music industry will be very hard pressed to justify forcing Apple to continue to use DRM.

More than anything, I think that you are trying to come up with a solution for a problem that might not exist. I suspect that people are, for the most part, quite willing to purchase e-books and will continue to be, even if it isn't protected with DRM. People have been able to rip CD's for almost 20 years now, yet music scene is as vibrant as ever. I just haven't seen any evidence that suggests that the books will be any different as it moves into an electronic media.

[jakewastaken]

Even if they do add ads into ebooks we'll have a hack up here in a day removing it. In the end the nerds always find a way.

Hell yeah nerds, hell yeah.

[Meraxos]

I'd like to make the point that in America copyright has been completely perverted by corporate interests. Copyright was intended by our Nation's founders to strike a balance between rewarding the creator of the work and the general promotion of arts and science.

But because in the USA rich corporations can essentially buy any law they want due to the power of campaign contributions we now have a warped copyright law that exists only to bring wealth to the corporate owners of our common culture. The Constitution states that copyright shall be for a limited time? But Copyright was recently extended to something like 90 years past the death of the author. How is that limited and how does that promote arts and science?

Another problem is the criminalization of casual sharing. Until recently breaking copyright was a civil offense that was usually only an issue between two businesses or artists. Now, however, if a happy teenager makes a mix tape of her favorite tunes and shares it with Grandma they are both felons. Corporate cartels like the RIAA push for ever more draconian laws so there is no end in sight.

As a people we are impoverished by the control that corporations have over our shared culture. It is sad beyond measure that literally everything in our society has to be monetized.

So, in the end, because copyright law has simply become a scheme for further enrichment of huge corporations I have no problem with people who download and share any kind of cultural material for personal use. People have lost almost all of their fair use rights and I don't blame them at all for fighting back in the only way that is available.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Meraxos

So, in the end, because copyright law has simply become a scheme for further enrichment of huge corporations I have no problem with people who download and share any kind of cultural material for personal use. People have lost almost all of their fair use rights and I don't blame them at all for fighting back in the only way that is available.

With all due respect, you cannot use the extension of copyright terms by Disney et al (which we all agree is abusive) as an excuse to justify illegal copying of current books (which would be in copyright in ANY country, since the author is still alive). It is just plain WRONG to read a book without paying the author, who's worked damned hard to write that book. Not just illegal but plain WRONG. Everyone deserves to be paid for their work if that work is used by someone.

[Argel]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It is just plain WRONG to read a book without paying the author, who's worked damned hard to write that book. Not just illegal but plain WRONG. Everyone deserves to be paid for their work if that work is used by someone.

The best three sentences in the whole thread.

[pdurrant]

This is the problem with excessive copyright law. Thomas Babington Macaulay had this to say when debating a proposed extension to copyright lay in 1841:

Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create. And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living.

I encourage everyone to read McCaulay's speeches on copyright, available at

http://www.baen.com/library/palaver4.htm

Paul

Originally Posted by HarryT

With all due respect, you cannot use the extension of copyright terms by Disney et al (which we all agree is abusive) as an excuse to justify illegal copying of current books (which would be in copyright in ANY country, since the author is still alive). It is just plain WRONG to read a book without paying the author, who's worked damned hard to write that book. Not just illegal but plain WRONG. Everyone deserves to be paid for their work if that work is used by someone.

[HarryT]

Precisely, Paul. Words of wisdom indeed.

[godel10]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It is just plain WRONG to read a book without paying the author, who's worked damned hard to write that book. Not just illegal but plain WRONG. Everyone deserves to be paid for their work if that work is used by someone.

I never thought I was doing something wrong when I was visiting my city public library. Are you seriously thinking my attitude is wrong?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I think that there are several big issues with ad based ebooks.

First, you have the basic problem that in general, the book industry, like the music industry, is oriented towards best salers. So, the issue how would you split the ad review up between someone like Ms Rowling and your average mid list author?

Television is also oriented towards "best sellers," i.e., highly rated shows... but lower-rated shows are still supported by ads. It's a simple matter of selling ad time at various pricing levels that apply the ads to different levels of authors. So while Rowling would get the equivalent of Chrysler ads, I, for instance, would get the equivalent of the Pocket Fisherman ads.

The level of ads could also contribute to my income, i.e., the publisher would pay me a set level, and the higher ads I bring in, the more I would get from them on top of my set salary.

Originally Posted by pwalker8

It seems to me that in the music industry, more and more artists are going indie rather than with record labels. I expect that the book industry will go in a similar direction.

It could happen... but only if they can make reliable money as indie artists. Publishers exist to act as the "middleman," supposedly taking the burden of advertising, distribution, and profit allocation, off the author's hands. We have yet to see whether or not most authors can reliably do all of that for themselves.

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Last, I think that books are a lot like music, in that people want specific artists and titles rather than generic items. With TV, people tend to watch specific shows rather than specific actors. Most shows that last more than a few seasons tend to have a fair amount of turn over when it comes to actors. The product that advertisers are paying for is the show, not the specific actor. Books just don't have the continuity that advertisers are looking for.

This where books are different... in most cases, it is the author, not the book, that is the real draw. People buy books by their favorite authors, often regardless of the specific title, usually because an author tends to write the same type of book each time. So advertisers would be paying to promote the author, not the book... except in the cases of successful franchises, like Star Wars.

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I think this shows that as long as the DRM is not burdensome, and there is a method for getting around the DRM if you really want to (i.e. burn the music to cd, then rip it back from the cd as mp3), then DRM isn't a big deal to most people. I also suspect that within the next couple of years, DRM will be a thing of the past in music.

I'd agree with the first statement, which is why I do not agree with the second. If a company comes up with a DRM system that people do not complain about, and it increases their profit more than a non-DRM system will, they will continue to use it, and make more money.

Originally Posted by pwalker8

More than anything, I think that you are trying to come up with a solution for a problem that might not exist. I suspect that people are, for the most part, quite willing to purchase e-books and will continue to be, even if it isn't protected with DRM. People have been able to rip CD's for almost 20 years now, yet music scene is as vibrant as ever. I just haven't seen any evidence that suggests that the books will be any different as it moves into an electronic media.

Yes... we've just covered all of this ground, without actually establishing a rise in e-book piracy! (Sad, isn't it?) But that doesn't mean there is no problem... piracy does exist, the e-book industry has not managed to solidify into a vibrant industry yet, and the two may indeed be related. Not the only related factors, mind you... quality of reading devices, cost of devices and e-books, availability of titles, are all part of the equation... but it's still too early to determine which is more of the problem. So we try to deal with piracy here, and discuss the other issues elsewhere.

And if we someday manage to establish that, in fact, piracy is not the problem we think it is, I think quite a few of us around here will breathe easier that we can finally lay this contentious issue to rest.