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

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

The reason ebooks are limited in number is entirely because someone said they should be--that's an artificial scarcity.

Yes, that's exactly what it is. However, there is a good reason for that "artificial scarcity": It is the established method to compensate creators for their creations, and thereby encourage their creation.

Take away "artificial scarcity," and no one has to pay for anything beyond the very first copy; Creators do not get compensated; and most of them will stop creating, or create much, much less, because they live in a world where people have to work to earn a living.

Those who want creators to create, for zero payment, simply have to figure out a way those creators can make a living, without money, in a money-dominated 21st century world. (And if you do figure it out, be sure and tell someone!)

Originally Posted by PKFFW

In this regard consumers need to start admitting that digital media does have value. Consumers must admit that uploading unlimited "copies" of the "content" simply because it is quick and easy to do so is not a smart way to encourage publishers to start seeing ebooks the same as pbooks.

I disagree on one point here: We should not consider an e-book the same as a printed book, any more than we should consider television the same as a campfire story. They may seem similar on the surface, but in fact are very different entities, both of which have very different rules. The sooner we deal with e-books' differences, instead of trying to fit round things into square holes, the sooner we can work out the methods we all need to adopt to sell and profit from e-books.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by anappo

> Consumers must admit that uploading unlimited "copies" of the "content"
> simply because it is quick and easy to do so is not a smart way to
> encourage publishers to start seeing ebooks the same as pbooks.

So you are basically asking that your entire consumerbase comes to you with a certificate that tells you we are not "uploading unlimited copies"? Or can you describe us another mechanism for sufficient proof that it is now safe to stop screwing with your customers?

Where did I say that? I don't remember ever saying everyone should have to have certificates or anything like that. Maybe my memory is failing.

Another mechanism would be to begin educating your(general "your" not your specifically) friends, family, work mates, acquantices etc that the idea that all digital media should be free, that they have a "right" to access ebooks for free and that it is some sort of patriotic stand against the greedy corporations to acquire copyright ebooks for free is not such a good thing. Begin educating them that a fair price for a quality product is a reasonable way of compensating creators for their time and effort if you want to enjoy their works. Encourage people to at the very least first try sourcing their ebooks legitimately if they can rather than simply claiming it as a "right" to have it for free. Then open a dialogue with publishers about the same, write letters, lobby your congressman etc etc etc.

Of course that requires one to live up to their purported ideals and morals, is so much more hard work and finally it requires they reach into their wallet. So I can't see it happening any time soon.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[HansTWN]

so it is ok, to buy a few sewing and cutting machines and start producing Nike T-shirts? Not much to it. After all, Nike is "artificially" limiting supply by not allowing anyone else to use their brand.

How about art forgery? If the copy is good enough to be mistaken for the original by many experts? Just increasing supply!

Yes, it is impossible to 100% stop illegal copying. Just as it is impossible to stop other crimes. But if the average person recognizes that this is wrong then it is enough to sustain ebooks as a business. Because those few that would then remain downloading and distributing for free would never be prospective buyers anyway.

[anappo]

> Maybe my memory is failing.

Not your memory, it's your reason. Basically, what you ask of your customer base is a reverse proof of negative. Your belief is that your customers cause you economic harm through piracy. As it is not proven to be false, you choose to believe it is true. Then you require proof to the opposite of your customers.

> Encourage people to at the very least first try sourcing their ebooks legitimately

This try will likely fail, unless the "people" are interested in military SF (Baen) or can read russian (litres). Possibly there are other niche bookstores, but overall, chances you find something in english that interests you are not good. Unless you are a) US resident and b) accept your books to be crippled with DRM. If you fail at both, darknet and gutenberg are your friends. So, are you trying to recruit me to get my friends and family used to DRM? Or what?

> Then open a dialogue with publishers

Last time I did that I was nicely asked to not post on their forum again. Apparently I came accross as being their enemy. With each passing year, the feeling is increasingly mutual.

[anappo]

> if the average person recognizes that this is wrong then it is
> enough to sustain ebooks as a business.

E-books as business (without DRM) is already shown to be sustainable. As much as Ive seen, average person is perfectly ok with paying for e-books.

Therefore there is no "if". Condition you put is already met. What remains is the question of "why" is the e-book business still blatantly anti-customer?

The answer is that the DRM insanity has nothing to do with preventing piracy at all. That would be merely stupid. What it has to do with is attempts to establish content monopolies.

If the DRM is ever to go away, it will not be because at one day we will all wake up to discover there is no more piracy around. It will be because the bastards will eventually discover that DRM doesn't work too well to make monopolies either.

[HansTWN]

there are dozens of publishers and dozens of online stores. The only one that even has a remote shot at a dominant market position (and that is US only) is Amazon. Aren't you a little paranoid???

I have no idea where this hatred of "evil corporate entities" comes from. Didn't even know "Das Kapital" was available as an ebook, lol. Anyway, many in this thread have expressed the idea that it is not ok to pay for ebooks. I have no problem with your position in general.

The company closest to becoming a monopoly these days is actually building their business model around free (ad supported) services. And that is Google. Funny enough, they are usually worshipped as a model of corporate behavior. Even the Microsoft "monopoly" is evaporating as we speak.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by anappo

Not your memory, it's your reason. Basically, what you ask of your customer base is a reverse proof of negative. Your belief is that your customers cause you economic harm through piracy. As it is not proven to be false, you choose to believe it is true. Then you require proof to the opposite of your customers.

Firstly, your belief is that piracy does not do any economic harm. As this hasn't actually been proven(regardless of the suspect claims made by many) you choose to believe it is true. You then expect publishers to take you at your word and be happy with anyone and everyone uploading and downloading as many "copies" of the "content" for free as they like.

Secondly, let me be clearer, I never said proof was needed anyway. I never even remotely suggested that. Proof isn't needed by either side.

What I suggested was a change in thinking and the willingness to try to live up to the ideals and philosophies espouosed. I do not blame publishers for being wary about ebooks when the prevailing philosophy seems to be that anyone and everyone should be allowed to download any number of "copies" of the "content" free of charge. If this were not the prevailing attitude, was not gaining acceptance amongst more and more consumers then perhaps publishers would not be so wary about the entire situation.

On the other hand, I believe publishers need to look at other models such as Baen and iTunes and see that, right now, consumers are willing to pay a fair price for a decent product and try to adapt and make that model work for themselves.

Then perhaps some middle ground could be found. As each "side" moves into the future we can see what happens and deal with it as it comes up.

Originally Posted by anappo

This try will likely fail, unless the "people" are interested in military SF (Baen) or can read russian (litres). Possibly there are other niche bookstores, but overall, chances you find something in english that interests you are not good. Unless you are a) US resident and b) accept your books to be crippled with DRM. If you fail at both, darknet and gutenberg are your friends. So, are you trying to recruit me to get my friends and family used to DRM? Or what?

So you've just made the decision that you might not find what your want legitimately so you wont even bother trying?

And you expect publishers to look at your example and think "gee my customers are great, they are happy to pay a fair price for a decent product so I'm going to embrace this new market."

Maybe if you took the few minutes it would take to at least make the attempt, and encouraged those you know to do the same, two things might happen.
1: You might actually find what you want, as unlikely as you think that might be.
2: Publishers, at least the ones who are willing to listen to and perhaps act on what the community is saying, may see that there is a market out there for a quality product at a fair price and they may move to fill that market.

Or you could go on simply deciding beforehand, without any evidence to back your position, that you have no chance at all of finding what you want legitimately and therefore you wont even bother trying. Instead you will continue to download whatever you want for free from the darknet and encourage those you know to do the same. I'm pretty sure two things will happen.
1: More and more people will come to believe in your position, thereby reducing the number of people even willing to try to legitimately source ebooks.
2: Publishers will never come to see that there is a market out there for a decent product at a fair price and will never move to fill that market. Further, they will see "file-sharing" increasing more and more each day and will continue to think it is a waste of time and resources even bothering to fill the market if they did know it exists.

Originally Posted by anappo

Last time I did that I was nicely asked to not post on their forum again. Apparently I came accross as being their enemy. With each passing year, the feeling is increasingly mutual.

Ok, maybe next time you could try politely opening a dialogue, actually taking the time to consider their point view and then think about ways that lead to a win-win situation and seek to implement them.

Of course that's assuming you actually have any interest in changing the status quo. If not, then don't bother.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[djgreedo]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Yes, that's exactly what it is. However, there is a good reason for that "artificial scarcity": It is the established method to compensate creators for their creations, and thereby encourage their creation.

Steve, you make a very good point. I would like to add that this 'established method to compensate creators' is not necessarily the only way to compensate creators, nor is it necessarily the best way. It's just what has worked for physical media in the last century or so.

Take away "artificial scarcity," and no one has to pay for anything beyond the very first copy; Creators do not get compensated; and most of them will stop creating, or create much, much less, because they live in a world where people have to work to earn a living.

I disagree with your conclusion here.

I think/hope that creators can find ways to generate income from their work that doesn't necessarily involve a direct payment for a digital copy. Many people already earn money indirectly from free content (podcasters, bloggers, musicians), and I'm sure creators will innovate in this area.

I think you may be right (sadly) about creators' incentives being reduced. With so much free content out there, creators can only compete by dropping prices to a point at which the gap between paid and free is not a big deal to most people. The money earned from -for example- advertising is not going to be as much as the money earned from a publishing deal and royalties (I'd like to be wrong here, but I doubt I am).

Quality of creative work may very well suffer, but that's for the market to decide (and that doesn't mean I like the fact the market will decide, but the buyer has the power in the end - even more so when free content -and 'free' as in pirate content- is so freely available).

Those who want creators to create, for zero payment, simply have to figure out a way those creators can make a living, without money, in a money-dominated 21st century world. (And if you do figure it out, be sure and tell someone!)

I think you are misinterpreting the general attitude of people - I don't want digital content to be free, but I think in the digital age, it needs to be for practical reasons - lack of scarcity and the abundance of free alternatives are the main reasons. The quality better be high if a publisher is charging $20 for a book about a topic for which 100 free books already exist.

As for making a living without money: not being paid directly for digital media is not the same as not being paid at all.

I don't have the answers, but as long as there is a product that people want there will be a way for the creatore to be paid to create it, whatever the form that payment takes.

I disagree on one point here: We should not consider an e-book the same as a printed book, any more than we should consider television the same as a campfire story. They may seem similar on the surface, but in fact are very different entities, both of which have very different rules. The sooner we deal with e-books' differences, instead of trying to fit round things into square holes, the sooner we can work out the methods we all need to adopt to sell and profit from e-books.

Perfectly put. I agree with this statement 100%.

[HansTWN]

A lot of what you say, djgreedo makes a lot of sense. However, how can you abandon the "old" system before you have a new system in place? And when will there be a new system? That would leave authors in limbo. Well, if your predictions are on target, then I bet we will have an advertising based system since most authors are not rock stars who can make money with public appearances.

Bright new ideas, anyone?

[djgreedo]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

A lot of what you say, djgreedo makes a lot of sense. However, how can you abandon the "old" system before you have a new system in place? And when will there be a new system? That would leave authors in limbo. Well, if your predictions are on target, then I bet we will have an advertising based system since most authors are not rock stars who can make money with public appearances.

Bright new ideas, anyone?

I don't think it's a matter of abandoning the old system for a new one. I think that will happen gradually. It's happening with music already (though books have some obvious differences). I can download live performances (audio and video) of many of my favourite bands for free and it's 100% legal. My favourite band gave away an album 9 years ago for free (and it's a great album). Of course I also paid close to $100 to see that band live last year and bought a t-shirt.

Some ideas for authors:
Subscriptions: pay to get the next chapter or sequel, or pay upfront for x number of stories or books over a year (x dependant on whether the author needs a day job )

Provide physical items as an incentive to pay for ebooks - autograph, personalised message, etc, a meaningful 'prop' from the book's contents, ticket to a reading

Advertising - product placement (distasteful, I know), ads every 10 pages or before every chapter (this chapter brought to you by ______ ). Hey, it works for TV...

Companies could 'sponsor' authors

Authors could sell a limited number of hard copies to collectors at premium prices - musicians are doing this with fancy box sets already.

Donations - 'click here to donate $2 to support the author'

Exisiting streams, such as film rights, etc.


That's just a few ideas. I think the reality will be a combination of many income streams, perhaps combined with some traditional payment.

I think the author that considers direct payment for copies of his books a primary income stream is going to be in trouble.

Think about how much money Tiger Woods earns from golf compared to his total income. What about past US presidents? My understanding is that they earn a relatively modest salary as President, yet earn millions upon millions in consulting roles and as speakers after their term.

Each of the ideas above has benefits and drawbacks, of course. And of course, someone far more savvy than me will no doubt come up with much better ways.

This may all change the way authors work. I think it's wrong to assume that the current ways are perfect and should stay (and that new technology should be moulded to fit those ways). Maybe the novel will become a less important format, maybe authors will need to participate more in promoting their work to be successful. Maybe authors will need to be part-time businesspeople who spend as much time generating income streams as they do writing.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by carld

>We need people to stop calling copyright infringement "stealing," for starters

I will never stop calling it stealing, because that's what it is.

If I make an ebook out of a printed book, and email it to six of my friends, who no longer has a book because of it? Whose book have I stolen? If it's out of print, whose money have I stolen?

Perhaps more importantly--why do you insist it is stealing, when the law does not? Do you think that your personal morals should override the courts?

This kind of slander--and it is slander, or libel, to claim someone has committed a crime they have not--is a big part of why the filesharing community doesn't pay much attention to objections. They recognize that many of the objections have no foundation in legal reality, but are expressions of moral outrage.

I am sometimes persuaded to change my actions because they have, or could, hurt people. I am never persuaded to change them because someone is offended by them.

(This mini-rant is entirely related to calling copyright infringement "stealing," and has nothing to do with my thoughts on filesharing of ebooks. I'm strongly in favor of reasonably-priced, DRM-free ebooks, and I spend dollars in that direction and encourage my friends to do the same.)

[fugazied]

Corporations who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat the failures of the past. It will be that way with publishers, they are slow to adapt and many customers won't put up with DRM.

You get the scenario where customers who WANT to buy the product cannot because it's not available or the drm is ridiculous (unable to share a book with a friend like they would a paper book), and they will turn towards the free version (pirated version) or buy a 2nd hand paper version later on. How many millions will the publishers lose?

It's not AS bad as the music industry was early this decade around napster time because ebooks have a better distribution mechanism than the music industry did though.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by djgreedo

I don't think it's a matter of abandoning the old system for a new one. I think that will happen gradually. It's happening with music already (though books have some obvious differences). I can download live performances (audio and video) of many of my favourite bands for free and it's 100% legal. My favourite band gave away an album 9 years ago for free (and it's a great album). Of course I also paid close to $100 to see that band live last year and bought a t-shirt.

Some ideas for authors:
Subscriptions: pay to get the next chapter or sequel, or pay upfront for x number of stories or books over a year (x dependant on whether the author needs a day job )

Provide physical items as an incentive to pay for ebooks - autograph, personalised message, etc, a meaningful 'prop' from the book's contents, ticket to a reading

Advertising - product placement (distasteful, I know), ads every 10 pages or before every chapter (this chapter brought to you by ______ ). Hey, it works for TV...

Companies could 'sponsor' authors

Authors could sell a limited number of hard copies to collectors at premium prices - musicians are doing this with fancy box sets already.

Donations - 'click here to donate $2 to support the author'

Exisiting streams, such as film rights, etc.


That's just a few ideas. I think the reality will be a combination of many income streams, perhaps combined with some traditional payment.

I think the author that considers direct payment for copies of his books a primary income stream is going to be in trouble.

Think about how much money Tiger Woods earns from golf compared to his total income. What about past US presidents? My understanding is that they earn a relatively modest salary as President, yet earn millions upon millions in consulting roles and as speakers after their term.

Each of the ideas above has benefits and drawbacks, of course. And of course, someone far more savvy than me will no doubt come up with much better ways.

This may all change the way authors work. I think it's wrong to assume that the current ways are perfect and should stay (and that new technology should be moulded to fit those ways). Maybe the novel will become a less important format, maybe authors will need to participate more in promoting their work to be successful. Maybe authors will need to be part-time businesspeople who spend as much time generating income streams as they do writing.

This would lead books down the same road a lot of music has gone. A great voice has (mostly) become secondary, looks and performance on stage and in videos are what sells. Well, time will tell where this is going!

[carld]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

If I make an ebook out of a printed book, and email it to six of my friends, who no longer has a book because of it? Whose book have I stolen? If it's out of print, whose money have I stolen?

You don't have the right to do that. You've stolen the author's IP. It's theft, no matter how you dress it up.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Perhaps more importantly--why do you insist it is stealing, when the law does not? Do you think that your personal morals should override the courts?

Why not? people promoting filesharing seems to think their personal morals override the law. They seem to think it's perfectly okay to violate copyright law just because it's easy and they want to.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I am sometimes persuaded to change my actions because they have, or could, hurt people. I am never persuaded to change them because someone is offended by them.

Do you honestly think filesharing does no harm, really?

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

(This mini-rant is entirely related to calling copyright infringement "stealing," and has nothing to do with my thoughts on filesharing of ebooks. I'm strongly in favor of reasonably-priced, DRM-free ebooks, and I spend dollars in that direction and encourage my friends to do the same.)

I'm in favor of the same things, but it does not in anyway change my opinion that filesharing is stealing.

[djgreedo]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

If I make an ebook out of a printed book, and email it to six of my friends, who no longer has a book because of it? Whose book have I stolen? If it's out of print, whose money have I stolen?

You've copied someone's intellectual property without their permission (assuming you're talking about a bookin copyright).

You may not have directly deprived them of a physical object or money, but you may have prevented a potential sale. You may have devalued their work. You may have transmitted their intellectual property against their wishes.

It comes down to whether you believe intellectual property is property. I think most people respect that creative output is of value, both emotionally and commercially. Most people believe that creators have the right to earn a living from their creative work, and that a part of that right is to control who can and cannot distribute that work.

EDIT:
It doesn't matter if the book is out of print - the author may be trying to get the book back in print, etc. The author may not want the book to be distributed further. It should be the author's choice, shouldn't it?

Perhaps more importantly--why do you insist it is stealing, when the law does not? Do you think that your personal morals should override the courts?

Not calling it stealing is simply splitting hairs or moving the goalposts. Whatever you call copyright infringment it amounts to the same thing - depriving a creator of control over his creation.

I am sometimes persuaded to change my actions because they have, or could, hurt people. I am never persuaded to change them because someone is offended by them.

Do you consider diminishing someone's ability to earn a living from their creative endeavors to be hurting them? How about diminishing a creator's control over their own creative work?

(This mini-rant is entirely related to calling copyright infringement "stealing," and has nothing to do with my thoughts on filesharing of ebooks. I'm strongly in favor of reasonably-priced, DRM-free ebooks, and I spend dollars in that direction and encourage my friends to do the same.)

I don't see the term 'stealing' as problematic. It seems a waste of time to split hairs over it. It may not be a 100% accurate depiction of the nuances of digital copyright infringement, but that is analgous to stealing if not stealing in a traditional sense. It has largely the same effect on the owner of the IP (or perhaps different but equal effects).