Is the e-book threatening the future of our literary culture?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

One thing I'll mention: Sure, it's nice if authors can get other groups to "pay their rights," or otherwise subsidize them, so they can write. On the other hand, there's often no real reason that an author can't simply do it the way I do it: Write in their spare time.

I have a day job. I have a home, and bills, and chores. But I also have spare time, and I like to spend it writing (as opposed to sitting in front of the TV, or hanging out at the local bar, or--unfortunately for me--exercising). So I write, then I put my book online, and I wait for the sales to bring me some money. Right now, it's not much... certainly not enough to allow me to quit my day job. But it is extra income, and I don't have to be supported by someone else to do it.

I'm not saying that everyone has tons of free time, or that writers are all too lazy to put in a few extra hours writing instead of vegging. But I think quite a few writers, like me, can find the time in their busy schedules that they usually devote to lesser activities, and use that to write instead, and not require subsidies. I know it's not nearly as attractive as having a rich patron supporting you. But, as someone accurately pointed out, this is the twenty-first century. Time to move on.

ePub.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by mogui

I agree. Sadly, this suggests that either 1/ eBook Readers will fail, or 2/ They will be made and sold by companies that have no interest in selling eBooks. I can envision a Palm device with a larger screen that will be an excellent reader and convergence device as well. There is enough written content around to keep me reading for the rest of my life, should I be willing to get it off of a p2p network. The consequences are dire for writers unless we can discover another business model. Two have been suggested here. One is DRM under author control, and another is advertising subsidy. Are there other ideas? Is there a better place than MR to discover them?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to assume that once a book is in electronic form, people won't actually pay for it. those who do pay for it will promptly share it with everyone else, stripping out DRM if needed, and ultimately, there isn't really a paying market for ebooks large enough to support writers.

I don't think the paying market for ebooks is large enough now to support writers solely on electronic editions. But I reject the assumption that most folks out there are dishonest and won't pay for what they read.

Sure, you'll get folks who will try to rip off the writers by unauthorized copy and sharing to avoid actually paying for the content. How much of this will happen is impossible to measure. But I think that majority of the market will pay for ebooks. Price properly, and give people the feeling that they are getting actual value for their money, and it shouldn't be a problem.

When I hear people making noises like "They're all a bunch of dirty so-and-sos, who will rip you off if they get a chance!", my response tends to be "Why do you make that assumption? Because it's what you would do, and you assume eveyone else is just like you?"
______
Dennis

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Price properly, and give people the feeling that they are getting actual value for their money, and it shouldn't be a problem.

Without putting too fine a point on it, this is key. People who believe they are being treated fairly, generally treat you fairly. Yes, there are exceptions, but rarely are those exceptions so large that they negate the value of the rule.

Fair price is obviously a bone of contention. But sometimes, you have to accept the idea that you can't pay as little as you'd prefer, and/or make what you'd like. Or, you have to work harder to get it... like adding something of additional (or perceived) value to an e-book to justify the price to others.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Without putting too fine a point on it, this is key. People who believe they are being treated fairly, generally treat you fairly. Yes, there are exceptions, but rarely are those exceptions so large that they negate the value of the rule.

Fair price is obviously a bone of contention. But sometimes, you have to accept the idea that you can't pay as little as you'd prefer, and/or make what you'd like. Or, you have to work harder to get it... like adding something of additional (or perceived) value to an e-book to justify the price to others.

People will always want it cheaper. But the vast majority of folks will pay for content they like, if they feel they are being fairly treated. I know an assortment of folks, for example, who buy a lot of music CDs -- from the band, at a show. That way, they know the musicians who created the music they like are getting the money. They don't buy CDs in a store, because they know that music contracts tend to be structured so that it's lucky if the artist sees a dime from the sale. (I've even run into folks who downloaded ripped copies through bit torrent or whatever, and then tried to find out where they could send money to the band to pay for it. They were happy to pay for content, but they wanted to pay the artist.)

Fair price is relative. If the ebook of a current hardcover is priced the same as the hardcover, I doubt anyone will consider it "fair". If it's, say, half the hardcover price, you may have a completely different attitude. Price points will be a matter of experimentation by publishers to determine the sweet spot where the increased volume from the lower price makes up the margin lost by not charging a higher one.

First, of course, we need to get more publishers actually issuing electronic editions and making the experiments.
______
Dennis

[mogui]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

One thing I'll mention: Sure, it's nice if authors can get other groups to "pay their rights," or otherwise subsidize them, so they can write. On the other hand, there's often no real reason that an author can't simply do it the way I do it: Write in their spare time.

I have a day job. I have a home, and bills, and chores. But I also have spare time, and I like to spend it writing (as opposed to sitting in front of the TV, or hanging out at the local bar, or--unfortunately for me--exercising). So I write, then I put my book online, and I wait for the sales to bring me some money. Right now, it's not much... certainly not enough to allow me to quit my day job. But it is extra income, and I don't have to be supported by someone else to do it.

I'm not saying that everyone has tons of free time, or that writers are all too lazy to put in a few extra hours writing instead of vegging. But I think quite a few writers, like me, can find the time in their busy schedules that they usually devote to lesser activities, and use that to write instead, and not require subsidies. I know it's not nearly as attractive as having a rich patron supporting you. But, as someone accurately pointed out, this is the twenty-first century. Time to move on.

ePub.

Steve, you are so write!

[mogui]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Not at all... it really only suggests that DRM will fail. E-books or other devices that can read standardized content (like ePub) have no need to fear. (Some of you may have noticed by now, I say "ePub" a lot because I hope that merely using it enough will put a subliminal tag in everyone's head, finally making it the actual standard!

And by ePub I am guessing you mean the process of electronic publication, but not a specific standard. It is a useful term.

[ricdiogo]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to assume that once a book is in electronic form, people won't actually pay for it. those who do pay for it will promptly share it with everyone else, stripping out DRM if needed, and ultimately, there isn't really a paying market for ebooks large enough to support writers.

Yes, that's what I believe.
It's not that everyone is going to share the file. You only need, one person to do it.
Even if a lot of people do actually pay for the book but we assume that some others (even if a minority) doesn't (and this is what already happens today), the copyright model is something different, because you don't have a 1-payment-per-book model as you used to. Even if this model can still support writers it'll be unstable and I believe that if authors want to be fully payed, they have to think of something else.

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Price properly, and give people the feeling that they are getting actual value for their money, and it shouldn't be a problem.

If you live in the US and you buy from an American e-publisher you can easily judge the price in terms of "fair or not faire". But 1 USD has a completely different value in Washington or in Beijing. When you sell in the Internet you sell to the entire world. Are you sure someone from New Delhi will think of 1USD as a fair price for an ebook?

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by ricdiogo

Yes, that's what I believe.
It's not that everyone is going to share the file. You only need, one person to do it.
Even if a lot of people do actually pay for the book but we assume that some others (even if a minority) doesn't (and this is what already happens today), the copyright model is something different, because you don't have a 1-payment-per-book model as you used to. Even if this model can still support writers it'll be unstable and I believe that if authors want to be fully payed, they have to think of something else.

Current estimates are that on average, a book is read by four different readers during its physical life. I very much doubt that the ratio of paid-for books to unpaid for books will change that much with ebooks, if sites like Baen offer an easy to use way to find and buy ebooks legally. It's a pain to find and download books from the darknet, and the quality is pretty inconsistent. I think Apple has pretty thoroughly shown that a usable interface and moderate prices can provide plenty of revenue to divide among e-tailers, publishers, and creators, even with filesharing still going on.

Originally Posted by ricdiogo

If you live in the US and you buy from an American e-publisher you can easily judge the price in terms of "fair or not faire". But 1 USD has a completely different value in Washington or in Beijing. When you sell in the Internet you sell to the entire world. Are you sure someone from New Delhi will think of 1USD as a fair price for an ebook?

People in Beijing and New Delhi aren't buying books from US publishers as it is, so what's the difference? If someone really wanted to, they could create a legal ebook purchase and download site that would vary prices based on location as determined from IP address. Sure, some people would spoof the IP address to get a cheaper price. Most people won't care enough to bother. And if the publisher feels they can't sell the book profitably (for publisher, author, and ebookstore) at a low enough price for the New Delhi market, they aren't going to be able to sell a p-book to that market, either. Ebook production prices are definitely lower than p-book production prices, no matter how you slice it.

Besides which, in another 20 years I'm not sure the dollar will have that much different value in the US, Beijing, and New Delhi. Globalization is having a lot of side effects, and one of them is increased buying power in places that are on the receiving end of the outsourced jobs from the developed countries. (Another is weakened buying power in those same developed countries -- if this goes on, authors may not get paid as much, but their local economies may look more like Beijing and New Delhi anyway.)

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by ricdiogo

Yes, that's what I believe.
It's not that everyone is going to share the file. You only need, one person to do it.

You only need one to do it. But you need a lot of others to reap the fruits of that labor rather than actually paying for it themselves for it to have the impact you envision. It's not just the copier in the loop -- it's everyone he shares with.

You are implicitly assuming the majority of folks out there are dishonest and will cheerfully receive stolen goods, even if they didn't do the actual theft.

Why?

Even if a lot of people do actually pay for the book but we assume that some others (even if a minority) doesn't (and this is what already happens today), the copyright model is something different, because you don't have a 1-payment-per-book model as you used to. Even if this model can still support writers it'll be unstable and I believe that if authors want to be fully payed, they have to think of something else.

I'm not sure I agree.

And even with physical objects, you still don't get the perfect "one payment per object" model. Retailers call the phenomenon "shrinkage" -- they have less stock on the selves than was actually bought and paid for. In other words, someone stole some of it. Retailers do their best to prevent that, and since they are physical objects, they can precisely measure the lost sales. That's not possible with ebooks. Someone copies and illegally shares a title. How many folks got the illegally shared copy, and therefore didn't buy one of their own? There is no way to find out.

If you live in the US and you buy from an American e-publisher you can easily judge the price in terms of "fair or not faire". But 1 USD has a completely different value in Washington or in Beijing. When you sell in the Internet you sell to the entire world. Are you sure someone from New Delhi will think of 1USD as a fair price for an ebook?

I have no idea. Given the relative values of the dollar and the rupee, it will be a more expensive proposition for the person in New Delhi. Whether it's worth the money will depend upon what it is and how badly they want it, like any other question of value.
______
Dennis

[Robert Marquard]

The donation to authors idea has a problem. Personality comes into account. The author may write beautiful books, but is ugly or a real asshole. The difference is giving money to the author or buying books.
See the SFWA DMCA story. Guess what happens if he is payed for his personal conduct.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

You are implicitly assuming the majority of folks out there are dishonest and will cheerfully receive stolen goods, even if they didn't do the actual theft.

Why?

You have only to read this site to see that a significant proportion of posters appear to be quite happy to download eBooks that they haven't paid for. Some like to pretend that it's perfectly OK to download an eBook if they've previously bought the paper version (logic which somewhat baffles me); others openly admit that they never buy eBooks because they can download them freely and "it's no different from borrowing books from the library".

And these, by and large, are the same people who claim to have some "moral objection" to DRM - a mechanism which would prevent the criminal activity that they are engaged in. What they really mean of course is that if DRM were universally adopted, their supply of free books would dry up and that would be terrible .

Perhaps I'm just getting cynical in my old age...

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You have only to read this site to see that a significant proportion of posters appear to be quite happy to download eBooks that they haven't paid for. Some like to pretend that it's perfectly OK to download an eBook if they've previously bought the paper version (logic which somewhat baffles me); others openly admit that they never buy eBooks because they can download them freely and "it's no different from borrowing books from the library".

The question is whether the folks like that here constitute a representative sampling of the market.

And these, by and large, are the same people who claim to have some "moral objection" to DRM - a mechanism which would prevent the criminal activity that they are engaged in. What they really mean of course is that if DRM were universally adopted, their supply of free books would dry up and that would be terrible .

I object to DRM, but it's practical, not moral. I thing DRM is counter-productive and ultimately futile.

It's like computer security: the perfectly secure computer is the perfectly unusable one. The more security measures you put in place, the harder it is for the user to actually do any work with it. (And users can be endlessly creative about bypassing security...)

DRM is the same. Make it hard enough for people to get and read their books, and they find ways around it. And most DRM systems are relatively easy to crack.

Perhaps I'm just getting cynical in my old age...

I'm cynical, too, but ultimately, I believe there are enough honest folks out there to make a healthy system, without imposing draconian measures on everyone because of the actions of a few.
______
Dennis

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Robert Marquard

The donation to authors idea has a problem. Personality comes into account. The author may write beautiful books, but is ugly or a real asshole. The difference is giving money to the author or buying books.

The majority of readers never meet the authors, or know what they look like, so it's not an issue.

I had the good fortune to know Alfred Bester, years back. Charming, cultured, and as the late James Blish once put it, "One of the nicest people you could ever hope to meet whose feet still touched the ground when he walked."

Someone else commented "Alfred Bester was what I always thought writers were like until I met some!"

See the SFWA DMCA story. Guess what happens if he is payed for his personal conduct.

Which he are you referring to? The one who instigated the DRM take-down order on SFWA's behalf?

I just wonder how long it will be before he gets a choice of resigning or facing impeachment.
______
Dennis

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

I object to DRM, but it's practical, not moral. I thing DRM is counter-productive and ultimately futile.

It's like computer security: the perfectly secure computer is the perfectly unusable one. The more security measures you put in place, the harder it is for the user to actually do any work with it. (And users can be endlessly creative about bypassing security...)

DRM is the same. Make it hard enough for people to get and read their books, and they find ways around it. And most DRM systems are relatively easy to crack.

We must agree to differ about that, I'm afraid. I feel personally that MobiPocket's DRM system is fair - you can have up to 5 devices registered, and it's easy to add or remove them at any time - and unobjectionable; it doesn't "get in the way" of reading the book in any way at all. That's why I'm now "standardising" on devices which will read MoibPocket.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by mogui

And by ePub I am guessing you mean the process of electronic publication, but not a specific standard. It is a useful term.

What I was referring to is the standard presently being endorsed by the International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF):

".epub" is the file extension which refers to two open standards, the Open Publication Structure (OPS) and Open Container Format (OCF), produced by the IDPF. ".epub" allows publishers to produce and send a single file through distribution and offers consumers interoperability between software/hardware for unencrypted reflowable digital books. OEB, originally produced in 1999, is the precursor to OPS.

This is the standard that Adobe and Sony have endorsed (for the future, not yet), and which I think is the best bet for a standardized e-book format.

ePub.

ePub.

ePub.