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

[Barcey]

Just an observation.

The exchange kind of demonstrated what is wrong with the ebook market today. All the focus is on the pirates and no attention is being payed to the paying customers.

Loss mitigation needs to be a part of the equation but it should be hidden as much as possible.

You don't want a security specialist designing your store or all the goods would be buried in 40 feet of concrete with a mine field around it.

You don't want just a security specialist designing your computer application or there would be no presentation layer or network connectivity.

The industry needs to focus more on how to keep their paying customers happy and get them purchasing more. All I see is how they can stop people from stealing.

I personally believe that the iTunes model will work for ebooks but the quality must be there and the consumer needs the assurance that they've bought the right to consume the content any time they want. If I'm going to invest 20 hours of my time on a book I will happily pay the $10 for the assurance that it's a quality copy and the creator is getting compensated. I don't think I'm the only one.

Steve, I personally think your ebooks are too cheap at $2.50.

[carld]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Until some paper publisher waived enough money under his nose.....

Which isn't going to happen, because in Ahi's world there are no copyrights, and no one pays for writing.

[BillSmithBooks]

Originally Posted by ahi

Such a bloody drama queen!

You have no basic right of copyright. It is a highly artificial, historically recent (and arguably historically aberrant), legally (not naturally) derived government grant of monopoly whose exact nature differs from country to country and does not even exist in a few of them.

But you go on crying for yourself, you poor maligned, abused, thieved but still shiningly brilliant prodigy of a writer!

Or, alternatively, stop writing in protest. I promise you, Steve, that I will personally make sure the world and human civilization survives the loss of your unparalleled literary jewels!

- Ahi

I must admit, if you came to my website, money in hand, I would refuse to sell you a copy of my book.

[anappo]

To: PKFFW

> can we stop the semantics game of "copies" versus "content".

We shouldn't. By continuing to use words copy and content interchangeably, you are in danger of fooling yourself into illusion that these are sort of the same thing. The difference is quite practical.

Suppose I buy an e-book. I then have a choice of 14 different formats for download. I choose zipped html. I download the file and extract the html. I then run a script that replaces unicode characters between 1040 and 1103 with html literals. I save the file with different name. I then import the resulting file into mobi reader and sync it to my CyBook. Later that night, a backup script zips both the html versions up again and stores them on external HD.

How many books did I buy? One. How many copies of that book do I now "own"? There is no meaningful answer to that question.

You cant really buy nor sell a "copy". You can buy or sell a set of rights to your content - a license.

The first industry to come into contact with null-price copying and distribution was the software industry. We now sell licenses, not copies. For example, as far as I remember, Borland used to sell his compilers under license that basically came down to this:

We just sold you some software. You can install that software on however many comupters you like. However, by accepting this license, you agree to make it so that only -one- person is using the software at any given time.

> So what do you want that "copy" for if not for the
> content it contains?

Backup. Format shifting. Multiple reading devices. Migrating from one computer to another. Fixing the format so it can be displayed on devices with buggy software. Etc. All this causes instantiations (not necessarily even copies in the bit-perfect sense) to spontaneously appear all over the system.

> What I don't applaud is using all the "I don't like DRM,
> too high price, yadda yadda yadda" as a justification for
> obtaining the content for free.

Sure. But honestly, at some point of gross inconvenience while trying to purchase a legal e-book, you are going to lose customers. Either to pirates or to more rational sellers. If buying a book requires your potential customer to break more laws than pirating, then there is not much justification for buying either.

To: Steve Jordan

> As far as I know, I personally do not have a problem with pirates or theft.

Someone here already mentioned "lack of evidence on pirating having negative influence on non-bestseller sales". I cant find the link right now but this was an actual study - not for e-books as far as I remember, but music.

What they claimed as result was that effect of piracy depends on popularity.
Top few percent on the sales charts were visibly hurt by piracy.
Middle of the chart - there was no measurable effect.
Bottom of the chart - effect on sales was positive.

If this can be verified, then Rowling might lose money to pirates. You may gain.

Also, my respect for not selling through amazon. I too think your prices ($2.5 wth?!) are lower than optimal.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by BillSmithBooks

I must admit, if you came to my website, money in hand, I would refuse to sell you a copy of my book.

That's quite alright. I'm not into rubber-puppet space adventures either. (Telling how from the three self-identified writers in this thread [that I am aware of] so far, it's the most talented one that isn't over-the-top paranoid about copyright infringement.)

The funny thing about copyright infringement is... how often it's from authors and publishers who would fail to attain a circulation large enough to make them relevant even if they gave their books away for free.

But don't worry. Unlike you, I am professional enough to separate business from personal life. In the unlikely event that you ever try to buy one of my books, I will be more than happy to sell it to you.

And, what's more, if you decide to be a prick and upload scans of said book to the pirate bay in turn just to make a point, I'll approach the website's operators in a civilized manner and will request that they remove it (in addition to plugging my website and my other books on the torrent's comments page) instead of suing you into bankruptcy.

This thread, despite too many people's valiant attempts, is failing to become any less stupid as time goes on.

- Ahi

[carld]

Originally Posted by ahi

And, what's more, if you decide to be a prick and upload scans of said book to the pirate bay in turn just to make a point

So copying other folks stuff is fine, but not yours?

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by anappo

To: PKFFW

> can we stop the semantics game of "copies" versus "content".

We shouldn't. By continuing to use words copy and content interchangeably, you are in danger of fooling yourself into illusion that these are sort of the same thing. The difference is quite practical.

Suppose I buy an e-book. I then have a choice of 14 different formats for download. I choose zipped html. I download the file and extract the html. I then run a script that replaces unicode characters between 1040 and 1103 with html literals. I save the file with different name. I then import the resulting file into mobi reader and sync it to my CyBook. Later that night, a backup script zips both the html versions up again and stores them on external HD.

How many books did I buy? One. How many copies of that book do I now "own"? There is no meaningful answer to that question.

You cant really buy nor sell a "copy". You can buy or sell a set of rights to your content - a license.

The first industry to come into contact with null-price copying and distribution was the software industry. We now sell licenses, not copies. For example, as far as I remember, Borland used to sell his compilers under license that basically came down to this:

We just sold you some software. You can install that software on however many comupters you like. However, by accepting this license, you agree to make it so that only -one- person is using the software at any given time.

> So what do you want that "copy" for if not for the
> content it contains?

Backup. Format shifting. Multiple reading devices. Migrating from one computer to another. Fixing the format so it can be displayed on devices with buggy software. Etc. All this causes instantiations (not necessarily even copies in the bit-perfect sense) to spontaneously appear all over the system.

> What I don't applaud is using all the "I don't like DRM,
> too high price, yadda yadda yadda" as a justification for
> obtaining the content for free.

Sure. But honestly, at some point of gross inconvenience while trying to purchase a legal e-book, you are going to lose customers. Either to pirates or to more rational sellers. If buying a book requires your potential customer to break more laws than pirating, then there is not much justification for buying either.

I'm not sure how many times I have to repeat myself but I'll try one more time!

I'm NOT, repeat NOT, repeat NOT talking about "personal fair use". I have no problem with making a copy for a close friend or wife or whatever, I have no problem with format shifting, I have no problem with using a copy on your phone, computer and ebook reader.

So why are you still arguing a point that I have repeatedly over and over and over again stated is not what I'm talking about???

I'm sure you can agree there is a difference between "fair personal use" and uploadinig a "copy" to the internet for all to download free of charge can't you? It is this I am talking about when I mention "copy". It is this idea that because it is a "copy" then it should be free for anyone and everyone to download.

The idea that a "copy" in and of itself has zero value and therefore should be free to everyone is just a hypocritical fixation used to support the desire by many to have free access to whatever they want.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Jaime_Astorga

Also, I'd like to take a moment to thank everyone who has posted on this topic. It has been hilarious.

Couldn't agree more, same with the kindle deletions threads.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I'd like to discuss at more depth. Nobody talks about patent trolls with plant patents, so maybe it won't branch off that way.

Patents on roses work because roses are hard to propagate. Most amateur growers don't even bother.

Other plants, like Irises, propagate like rabbits. Because of that, no breeder bothers to spend the money to get a plant patent. So, with no patent protection, there can't be an Iris business, right? Wrong! There are commercial breeders, just like roses, and there are new hybrids every year, just like roses. And they go for a pretty penny, the first year or two. Then the propagation rate takes over and the price drops like a rock to a couple of bucks. You can get them free if you know somebody who grows that particular variety.

I mention this to show that money can be made with patent or without patent. Somewhat different method, but money is still made.

Yet we're told that civilization will come to an end without massively enforced copyright, that lasts (basically) forever. I'm sorry, I don't see it...

Maybe it has something to do with the apparent ease of breeding new Irises?

If something is realitively easy to do and most anyone could do it and then make a fair bit of money from that endeavour over the next couple of years then I'm sure lots of people will do it. Then when the money dries up from that flower they just move on to the next one and start the process over again.

By the number of posts relating to how much bad writing there is out then I'm sure you'd agree writing(at least something good that will make a fair bit of money in only a couple of years) is probably not so easy.

So maybe the combination of doing something pretty easy, coupled with the fact you can make a fair bit of money in a couple of years, is why the flower breeding business continues to thrive without the need for patents?

Cheers,
PKFFW

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by ahi

But don't worry. Unlike you, I am professional enough to separate business from personal life. In the unlikely event that you ever try to buy one of my books, I will be more than happy to sell it to you.

The number of times you have attacked the poster rather than what was posted would indicate you have no capacity to seperate business from personal life.

Originally Posted by ahi

And, what's more, if you decide to be a prick and upload scans of said book to the pirate bay in turn just to make a point, I'll approach the website's operators in a civilized manner and will request that they remove it (in addition to plugging my website and my other books on the torrent's comments page) instead of suing you into bankruptcy.

So everyone should be allowed free "copies" of everyone elses work but when it comes to your own they shoudn't be?

It's only digital media so why shouldn't someone upload it for anyone else who wants it? Are you saying you would try to make financial gain from artifical scarcity? Or are you saying that everything you've been arguing up to now is good for the goose but not the gander?

Originally Posted by ahi

This thread, despite too many people's valiant attempts, is failing to become any less stupid as time goes on.

- Ahi

Certainly none of those attempts have been yours.

And didn't you tell everyone earlier it was time to cheer because you were not going to post any more of your vitriolic purile personal attacks in the thread anymore? That you were "done with this thread"?

Cheers,
PKFFW

[anappo]

To: PKFFW

> I'm sure you can agree there is a difference between "fair personal use"
> and uploadinig a "copy" to the internet for all to download free of charge
> can't you?

Yes, we could agree on it if only you stopped putting the word "copy" in there - its a bad word, really!

According to what you just wrote up there, I could convert your piece of content to morse code and then upload it to darknet, making no additional "copies" of original in the process and be home free doing it. Which is obviously absurd.

If you start off defining "fair use" and "unfair use" of digital objects, using the term "copy", you will end up with nonsense.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by anappo

To: PKFFW

> I'm sure you can agree there is a difference between "fair personal use"
> and uploadinig a "copy" to the internet for all to download free of charge
> can't you?

Yes, we could agree on it if only you stopped putting the word "copy" in there - its a bad word, really!

According to what you just wrote up there, I could convert your piece of content to morse code and then upload it to darknet, making no additional "copies" of original in the process and be home free doing it. Which is obviously absurd.

If you start off defining "fair use" and "unfair use" of digital objects, using the term "copy", you will end up with nonsense.

I don't get your point here and I'm not sure how you could possibly argue, based on what I have written in this thread, that I am saying it is ok to change the format and upload the content for all and sundry to have free access to.

I'm the one arguing that uploading the content, be it as a straight out copy or in another format, on the basis that "it's digital so everyone should be able to get it for free" is wrong. I don't care what word is used as I would think the meaning of what I am saying could not be any clearer.

It seems that others disagree and believe it is ok to get a "copy" of the "content" for free simply because it is in digital format.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[HansTWN]

To use the immortal words of Bill Clinton "It is the content of the file, stupid!" No offense to anyone intended.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Maybe it has something to do with the apparent ease of breeding new Irises?

If something is realitively easy to do and most anyone could do it and then make a fair bit of money from that endeavour over the next couple of years then I'm sure lots of people will do it. Then when the money dries up from that flower they just move on to the next one and start the process over again.

By the number of posts relating to how much bad writing there is out then I'm sure you'd agree writing(at least something good that will make a fair bit of money in only a couple of years) is probably not so easy.

So maybe the combination of doing something pretty easy, coupled with the fact you can make a fair bit of money in a couple of years, is why the flower breeding business continues to thrive without the need for patents?

Cheers,
PKFFW

Commercially breeding perennial plants is not easy, and very much a numbers game, with or without patents. I consider it painting with DNA, instead of ink or oil.

All copyright is a numbers game. I don't consider a work good or bad, but popular or unpopular. A work could be held in extreme esteem but a small group (a "cult classic") and ignored the the mass public (or even actively disliked by the mass public). I won't say this it's a bad work, just unpopular. and Vice Versa.

So the question to me is, why does the Patent world work so well, (with the patent trolls being the function equivalent of "pirates") at a length of 20 years. (Look around, do you see a shortage of inventiveness?) But the copyright world has to have a term longer than Lex Luthar in the Superman movies. Everything in the US was written under a max of 56 Years of less until 1976. Explain to me how (for example) Elvis, Hemmingway, Maxfield Parrish, or Humphrey Bogart didn't create because their right didn't go on long enough.

Pure land grab. So while corporations are "stealing" my patrimony though excessive length copyright, other people are "stealing" things back. And as McCauley noted in 1841, they aren't being too fussy about what they steal, either...

[HansTWN]

You cannot justify wrong doing by claiming someone else did worse. If I robbed a bank and stole 10,000 would I get off by claiming my neighbor took 20K?

Corporations have to make money, that is not greedy, that is the very point of their existence. Corporations are not evil, faceless entities. They are groups of employees, share holders, communities, that depend on them.

Copyright after death is a very different matter, and good arguments can be made against it. In some cases it is very valid, though. A good example is Micky Mouse. Expiry only if Disney goes belly up, that would make sense.