HarperCollins to libraries: we will nuke your ebooks after 26 checkouts

[Marseille]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

I liked Avatar in 3D I'll give you that, I don't see how abolishing copyright would not have allowed that move to be made though. ...

Abolishing copyright would enforce a system where nothing is capable of being sold, at least not digital goods like books, movies, video games. You would still be able to sell things of course, and people would probably still buy them, but they would also be able to get them for free.

The box office doesn't bring a profit to most high budget films on its own -- DVD sales, TV and streaming are part of the expected ROI. As such, the risk of making those films sans copyright increases dramatically. To wit, if downloading movies weren't illegal, a lot more people would do it, making box office receipts even weaker.

If there's little to no return and high risk, there won't be any investors (high risk high return investments are viable, low risk low return investments are viable. High risk low return investments are not.), and the big movies won't get made. Would we still have movies? Sure. By hobbyists. You can go to youtube et al and get that now. Some aren't bad. Ditto for Indie games, but you can't make a $200 million Call of Duty or Halo (or even a multimillion Sid Meier's game) without copyright, and I like them too.

Arguably indie stuff is better when copyright exists because it attracts talent looking to make a name for themselves so they can eventually profit from other projects. Lots of Indie games are pursued with the eventual goal of copyright-based profit, even though early on they may give it away or sell it, but actually encourage piracy. Take away that apple, and some of those artists direct their efforts into areas with better long term prospects.

If anything, allowing the creators of [Avatar] to more freely sample ideas might have made the movie better.

Copyright doesn't prevent you from using other people's ideas, merely copying someone else's particular expression of an idea. Half the movies that do come out recycle pre-owned stuff, so I promise, sampling is alive and well. Avatar, for example, was Pocahontas with better visuals and less character development.

[dkperez]

>As much as I dislike HC's new library policy, I fail to see what's so awful >about trying to make money to stay in business. It's really not evil to >attempt to turn a profit.

>I have a hard time to see why people is upset. A lot of countries have a >system were the library pay a certain amount each time somebody borrow >a book. In Sweden for example they pay $0.20 each time. That would be >around $5 for 26 times (of course you have to buy the paper book or >ebook also). Maybe a bit less than for the Harper Collins eBooks but it >seems to me that people are complaining about the principle and not the >actual cost.

I'm not sure where the idea that anyone is saying it's "awful about trying to make money to stay in business"... But, lets look at publishing (and I state right up front that I AM NOT A PUBLISHING EXPERT)...

A publisher gets a book from an author, edits it, advertises it (maybe), and prints a bunch of copies on expensive machines using expensive people on expensive paper in expensive bindings. Then ships those books to book stores and/or libraries. And as I understand it, the publisher gets back the copies that don't sell... So, there is some fixed cost for the book, and some variable cost for every hardcover copy. Perhaps they sell the book for $25. And make a profit doing so.

The book has already been edited, formatted, and whatever.

At some point later, the publisher prints ANOTHER bunch of books on expensive machines using expensive people on less expensive paper and paperback bindings. Then ships those books to book stores and/or libraries. And as I understand it, the publisher gets back the copies that don't sell... So, there's (hopefully) minimal additional fixed cost since the book has already been edited, corrected, formatted, and whatever, and a variable cost for each copy. And the publisher sells the paperback for $5.00 and again, makes a profit.

Now they create an epub copy. The book has already been edited, corrected, formatted, advertised, and whatever. There is NO cost for the expensive machines, no cost for the expensive printing people, no cost for shipping, no cost for returns. There may be some advertising cost, and I presume a variable cost to pay the author for copies sold. And yet, the publishers ALREADY cry poor-me and demand that the ebook STILL cost twice (or more) as much as the paperback, nearly as much as the hardcover, and that retailers like Amazon and B&N are NOT allowed to set prices. For a copy that you CANNOT legally hand your wife, sister, mother, or whomever to read when you're done. That you CANNOT carry into your local Half-Price Bookstore, sell, and recoup some of your expense.

And now HC decides they STILL aren't profiting sufficiently, and wants to artificially "age" the digital copy so it becomes unusable after some (extremely few) number of loans. I don't know about your library, or whom they're lending to, but from conversations with the librarians here, I'm being told they ROUTINELY get 200-300 loans of a book before having to replace it.

So, YES, I hope people are absolutely infuriated by the principle, since it means the already underfunded libraries will be further restricted in what they are able to offer for this medium. So, I presume I'm missing something intuitively obvious to the more informed in this forum, but I find HCs action repugnant and smacking of outright piracy.

Do the publishers "age" audio books?

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by David Marseilles

Copyright doesn't prevent you from using other people's ideas, merely copying someone else's particular expression of an idea. Half the movies that do come out recycle pre-owned stuff, so I promise, sampling is alive and well. Avatar, for example, was Pocahontas with better visuals and less character development.

In theory yes, but who determines when an idea has been expressed solidly enough to be copyrightable?

Maybe as a society we didn't really need Avatar 3D? Shouldn't we be making things that we need??

[pietrocrazy]

Originally Posted by David Marseilles

The box office doesn't bring a profit to most high budget films on its own -- DVD sales, TV and streaming are part of the expected ROI. As such, the risk of making those films sans copyright increases dramatically. To wit, if downloading movies weren't illegal, a lot more people would do it, making box office receipts even weaker.

Isn't it interesting that the movie industry was originally opposed to the existence of VCRs and movie rentals, believing that they would cause their profits to fall when people realized you could just rent a movie instead of going to the theater? And yet now all these new media are responsible for their ever increasing profits?

Maybe the publishing industry should take a hint and welcome new technologies rather than fear them.

[wyndslash]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Shouldn't we be making things that we need??

i can sort of agree with you on that part. certainly, if society just consumed and made things that we need, there would be more for everyone, and perhaps a more equitable distribution of resources?

but we were raised in capitalism and shaped to live in it. if we wanted a different way of life, we should address behavior modification. after all, what is freedom? all acts are either rewarded or punished; we have incentives for almost everything that we do, whether we are aware of it or not.

(disclaimer: am currently reading Walden Two and thus this post might just have been a direct influence )

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by pietrocrazy

Isn't it interesting that the movie industry was originally opposed to the existence of VCRs and movie rentals, believing that they would cause their profits to fall when people realized you could just rent a movie instead of going to the theater? And yet now all these new media are responsible for their ever increasing profits?

This is not really true. The film industry didn't like *home copying* (i.e., taping TV shows and movies), but were always in favor of movie rentals, since it gave them a huge new market. Theater owners, however, didn't like either.

[Barty]

Originally Posted by dkperez

I've read through this thread, and I suspect I'm missing something simple....

HC has put forth a policy that will be extremely detrimental to patron's ability to enjoy ebooks from their libraries. Right? Why did HC do this? To make more MONEY. Bottom line. They don't care about happy customers. They don't care about happy authors. They care about getting as much money for as little effort as possible.

So, if enough people are sufficiently incensed by HCs action to refuse to patronize their product, they'll CHANGE the policy. If the libraries don't get HC books, and people don't know about HC titles, sales go down, less money comes in, and HOPEFULLY somebody at HC with a couple brain cells to rub together fires the moron that came up with this disgusting policy, and fixes it....

Or they'll just blame piracy and spend more money suing people and lobbying congress.

[Marseille]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Maybe as a society we didn't really need Avatar 3D? Shouldn't we be making things that we need??

Do we need fiction at all? Pie? Forums? Sports? Smartphones? Video games? Kittens?

In theory yes, but who determines when an idea has been expressed solidly enough to be copyrightable?

The same people who decide if your life was in sufficiently imminent danger to justify self-defense. I'm not suggesting every iota of copyright law is perfectly formulated, merely that having copyright is better than not.

Originally Posted by pietrocrazy

Maybe the publishing industry should take a hint and welcome new technologies rather than fear them.

I wholeheartedly concur. They fear new mediums because of their uncertainty. The business has established and complex reimbursement structures, any new apples might help, or they might just upset the apple cart. Whatever culture they have going makes them value certainty over new risks.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by David Marseilles

Do we need fiction at all? Pie? Forums? Sports? Smartphones? Video games? Kittens?

In a world without copyright I can still see movies like Avatar 3D being made. They would just have to be made more cheaply,

"Doing more with less"

Imagining that the system will crumble once copyright is abolished, that thinking places too little value on human ingenuity. It feels like copyright is only going to be around for about 15 more years anyway, so we can just go into wait and see mode till then.

[dkperez]

Does this always happen here? You guys devolve into two totally unrelated discussions in the same thread?

[Shopaholic]

Originally Posted by dkperez

Does this always happen here? You guys devolve into two totally unrelated discussions in the same thread?

It happens in probably all forums just like real life discussions. Sometimes topics take a left turn.