Why e-books?

[ratinox]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

I think that if they cared to look the publishers would find that most books of any worth have been scanned and edited already, for free. Furthermore it is much less complicated to access and use these copies than it is to buy an electronic book through the likes of Amazon or Kobo.

Technically yes.

Legally? Maybe not.

The Big 5's stances on copyright are as strict as the RIAA and MPAA. Using unauthorized scans as bases for legitimate distribution is seen as legitimizing the practice and this undermines the uncompromising "all unauthorized copying is bad" party line.

Smaller publishers, especially with manga and visual novels, have embraced fan scans and translations as bases for formal, authorized localization. These publishers often pay fan translators for their translations and sometimes hire them as employees or contractors to put professional polish on their work.

[barryem]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Precisely, Mike. I certainly don't consider it "emotive" to state that someone who feels that they have a god-given right to an ebook has a misguided sense of entitlement.

The way you phrased that; "god-given right to an ebook" and "misguided sense of entitlement" is very much an appeal to emotion. I don't think anyone has made religious claims. You've exaggerated the way the pirates claim to feel to make it seem more outrageous than it is.

Most people agree that it's beneficial to assure that it's authors are paid so they'll be encouraged to keep on writing. We've made that into a law. That's all very practical; a solution to a problem.

The problem with about half the discussions of these issues on this site, and most sites, is that they are so heavily emotional. There's very little practical discussion. There's certainly not any open discussion of copyright issues here. There are always those things we're simply not allowed to say.

Barry

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

Can you name any industry where the rights of the person who want's something are put before the rights of the person who owns it?

I think you are looking at what I said in the wrong way, perhaps because you are suffering from the bamboozlement that I mentioned.

I am not talking about giving away rights, I am talking about the ill considered focus on rights management being the predominant part of the outdated (by centuries) market model rights holders are using that blinkers them to other models that win by focussing on the wants of customers.

Other industries with rights over their products, even when easily copied, to be successful focus from the customers' perspective, so making it more sensible to buy the product rather than to copy or make oneself. Then there is the even harder case for a product producer of having an easily copied product over which there is no possibility of rights protection providing the comfort of a legal barrier to potential customers copying or making their own instead.

Take, for example, apple pies. There is no rights management to stop them being made by anyone, they are very easy to make and at one time everyone made their own. Anyone with even little understanding of marketing knows why pie manufacturers have won the market through product pricing, ease of access, quality, etc. even without the possibility of rights protection. OK there is some leakage, some people still make their own, but pie manufacturers do not take the approach of how can we prevent them from doing so, they take the approach of how can they win them away from making them.

Music rights holders (being an electronic product easily copied like eBooks), who focussed heavily on DRM to protect their market, are slowly adapting by changing their focus. They are now at the stage where their customers can purchase the tracks they want cheaply, of reasonable quality (that improving), conveniently (no special software or device needed to purchase and use the product), and no DRM (or if there is there is the option to cheaply buy out of that and make a copy to portable media). Of course artists have had to adapt a little too, some find that they now have to tour rather than sit in a studio (or basement ) but such need for change comes to all professions over time so no need for them to grumble.

I want to leave it at that (as I said before ) as there are some here who take any suggestion of there being an alternative way as just being a threat to rights holders and get emotive. I take it that they buy books, so there is one basis for my previous use of the word bamboozled.

[barryem]

There's a pretty big difference in apple pie and music or ebooks. Apple pie is a physical thing. Music and ebooks are not.

In the days when music came on LP or CD or cassettes and books came on paper the medium was physical and could be resold or kept and that was that. Then came computers and later MP3 files which could easily be copied and redistributed. There was nothing physical anymore. It became something new and different.

Copyright in the days of physical media made sense on the face of it. Copyright in these days of ephemeral media is a very different animal. You're correct that our current system doesn't cover current media very well. Much of it makes no sense. It's overly complex and getting more so as changes are made to try to adapt law to constantly changing media.

Today there are so many huge problems with the copyright system that anyone who has an emotional attachment to it is a bit balmy. And yet it sort of works to protect content much of the time because most of us agree that something is needed and it's all we have so we try to abide by it.

Any emotional attachment to this mish-mosh is a bit obsessive. I think most of us can agree that it's important but it's also pretty ugly. If we're going to make it any better we have to stop loving it and start thinking more clearly about it.

Barry

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by barryem

There's a pretty big difference in apple pie and music or ebooks. Apple pie is a physical thing. Music and ebooks are not.

Of course, an eBook is no substitute for a good apple pie either .

But from a marketing point of view they are similar in having the characteristic of potential customers being able to very easily produce ones own copy/pie rather than buying one. So my point was pie makers have successfully developed a marketing strategy where most people now prefer to buy a pie rather than make their own pie, and that in an environment without the advantage of having artificial legal barriers to people making their own (as book and music rights holders do with respect to copying).

It is all about strategy, should one create a market where ones place in it is predominantly focussed on being protected by legal barriers, or should one create a market where customers want your products even if they can easily make/copy them themselves. I think all the evidence is that the former results in poorly produced products and potential customers seeking substitute products (e.g. poorly produced eBooks and illicit downloads, sound familiar?).

[Cinisajoy]

I must chime in to say making an apple pie is not easy.
Or let me phrase making an apple pie is easy. Making an edible apple pie takes skill, talent and luck. Pie crusts while using simple ingredients are very easy to screw up.
Ok rather like ebooks.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Pie crusts while using simple ingredients are very easy to screw up.
Ok rather like ebooks.

We make our own apple pies but cheat on the very easy to screw up part by buying frozen pastry for crusts - so, I suppose, much like downloading an illicit eBook .

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

We make our own apple pies but cheat on the very easy to screw up part by buying frozen pastry for crusts - so, I suppose, much like downloading an illicit eBook .

Well now, if I was to make an apple pie that I wanted guaranteed to be edible, not only would I use the Pillsbury refrigerated pie crusts (try them, they are better than frozen though you will need to buy a pie pan), I would also get canned apple pie filling.

Pies are not my specialty.

That would definitely be like downloading an illicit ebook.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

Other industries with rights over their products, even when easily copied, to be successful focus from the customers' perspective, so making it more sensible to buy the product rather than to copy or make oneself. Then there is the even harder case for a product producer of having an easily copied product over which there is no possibility of rights protection providing the comfort of a legal barrier to potential customers copying or making their own instead.

The problem is that it is so easy to copy digital files that it is impossible to try selling them without legal protection against copying, donationware works in very few circumstances.

OK, name me some products that are free to copy and distribute that make their producers money?

I'll cross off RedHat Linux for you for starters and tell you they are not in the business of selling Linux they are selling training and tech support.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

OK, name me some products that are free to copy and distribute that make their producers money?

Calibre would be one, but it's perhaps near the top of an extremely short list. I completely agree that it's an unrealistic distribution model for ebooks.

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Well now, if I was to make an apple pie that I wanted guaranteed to be edible, not only would I use the Pillsbury refrigerated pie crusts (try them, they are better than frozen though you will need to buy a pie pan), I would also get canned apple pie filling.

Pies are not my specialty.

That would definitely be like downloading an illicit ebook.

well at least you did not make the pie from a recipe out of an illegally downloaded copy of a copyrighted cookbook ha

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by barryem

There's a pretty big difference in apple pie and music or ebooks. Apple pie is a physical thing. Music and ebooks are not.

In the days when music came on LP or CD or cassettes and books came on paper the medium was physical and could be resold or kept and that was that. Then came computers and later MP3 files which could easily be copied and redistributed. There was nothing physical anymore. It became something new and different.

Copyright in the days of physical media made sense on the face of it. Copyright in these days of ephemeral media is a very different animal. You're correct that our current system doesn't cover current media very well. Much of it makes no sense. It's overly complex and getting more so as changes are made to try to adapt law to constantly changing media.

Today there are so many huge problems with the copyright system that anyone who has an emotional attachment to it is a bit balmy. And yet it sort of works to protect content much of the time because most of us agree that something is needed and it's all we have so we try to abide by it.

Any emotional attachment to this mish-mosh is a bit obsessive. I think most of us can agree that it's important but it's also pretty ugly. If we're going to make it any better we have to stop loving it and start thinking more clearly about it.

Barry

Certainly copyright law is one of those situations where the law is way behind the reality of the situation. When you are dealing with digital media, you depend on the good will of the consumers to prevent piracy. Both music and video (movies and TV) are a number of years ahead of books in that regard. Music tried the legal muscle approach and lost big time.

It seems to me that as long as content is legally available in a desirable format at a reasonable price, then true piracy (as opposed to individuals breaking DRM and making use of content for their own personal use such as back up or format shifting) remains either on the fringes or in certain parts of the world. That social contract breaks down when one side or the other gets a bit too greedy (i.e the content providers try to squeeze every penny out of the consumer, or the consumer insists on free content).

[Conan46]

The big problem with drm is that your legally purchased content can be taken from you at any time. I rarely purchase books now, but when I do it is mostly drm-free ebooks from publishers like Tor. They make my life easier and my purchases secure. Drm punishes lawful customers while encouraging piracy. It also pushes those who would not otherwise be pirates to circumvent drm to secure their purchases. There is nothing good or useful about drm.

[ratinox]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

The problem is that it is so easy to copy digital files that it is impossible to try selling them without legal protection against copying, donationware works in very few circumstances.

I think you're making the same mistake that some traditional publishers (including RIAA and MPAA) keep making. The best way to make a profit from digital content isn't by selling digital content. It's by selling everything else around it.

My go-to example is web comics. Web comic artists give away what traditional publishers would consider to be their products. Instead, web comic artists make their incomes from merchandise related to their comics and, more recently, on-site advertising and, more recently still, crowd-funding services like Patreon.

My second example is Netflix. They clearly don't sell content. They sell delivery of content, originally DVD rentals and now mostly streaming content over the Internet. That is to say, they sell convenience.

My third example is Baen Books. Baen, through the Baen Free Library and the Baen CDs, operates a hybrid model: give some content away with few restrictions and encouragement to redistribute, and traditionally sell the rest.

So yes, you can make a profit by giving content away, but it requires a different view of what content is in order to do it.

[LadyKate]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

One way or another, he'll find the books he's looking for. It still doesn't solve the issue. If an e-book version is not legally available but there is a fan created version, people will download it.

Passing moral judgements on those people is each individual's prerogative of course. I'm not saying that I have all the answers. I'm just trying to point out that it is the reality.

Publishers like those Barry mentioned that have a book but refuse to release an e-version and refuse to let someone else do it are just encouraging piracy.

It is not that the publishers refuse to release an e-version. It is that they are not releasing any version.

In my opinion the copyright act needs to change. It needs to recognize the changes to what a book is and to provide different levels of protection for the works. A publisher should not be able to obtain the "entire" protection of the copyright act that the writer has by virtue of it being their work.

Publishers should be able to have limited term rights to produce the work they "license" for a specified period of time. If they do not produce the work or have it available on bookstore (including web) shelves they would forfeit their rights back to the author or his/her heirs.

If they refuse to issue e-books and the author (or his/her legal heirs) petitions for the release of their work in ebook format, then the ebook rights for those books which did not have ebook rights specifically mentioned should revert to the author or his/her heirs.

Publishers should have a clause in their contracts that if the author's work is not published and put up for sale for a specified period of time (new condition, not used) the rights to that work would revert to the author or his/her heirs.

Big business owned the publishing world with the very minor exception of vanity publishing houses. This is changing and authors are in a position where it is possible for them to put a book into "print" (or at least electronic print form) for much less up front cost.

I am wondering if it would not be possible for an author that does not have electronic publishing specifically written into their contracts to petition or better yet to join with other authors in similar positions in a class action suit to have the ebook rights returned to them!

I am certain that many of the books that were published before this century did not mention ebooks or electronic publishing in their contracts. it would be interesting to see it the authors would win either the return of their rights to publish the ebooks or for the publisher to have to publish the ebooks.

(an apology... for my rant. I feel strongly that books should not disappear due to lack of publisher interest)