Gizmodo: How Much It Actually Costs to Publish an Ebook vs. a Real Book

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

I've been saying for years that the RIAAs lawsuit campaign isn't being done because they're worried about lost sales, it's because they're terrified that artists will figure out that P2P can replace them.

I don't think the lawsuits are for that purpose--I think the earlier DRM and stuff may well have been to slow the adoption of MP3s.

Successful artists don't want their songs being traded illegally on P2P either,and some have been very aggressive on that front (Metallica for instance).

The real threat that terrifies labels is artists selling MP3's directly to their fans from their websites etc. as Pearl Jam and others have started doing when their contracts are up.

[carbonize]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

The real threat that terrifies labels is artists selling MP3's directly to their fans from their websites etc. as Pearl Jam and others have started doing when their contracts are up.

Isn't that pretty much what Shaggy just said?

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by carbonize

Isn't that pretty much what Shaggy just said?

He said P2P, which to me is torrents and and P2P clients like Limewire etc.

Selling directly to fans isn't P2P. It's business as usual, other than cutting out the middlemen--labels. It's still someone making a product and selling it to consumers, not peers giving it to peers.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

He said P2P, which to me is torrents and and P2P clients like Limewire etc.

Selling directly to fans isn't P2P. It's business as usual, other than cutting out the middlemen--labels. It's still someone making a product and selling it to consumers, not peers giving it to peers.

Many smaller bands would love the exposure that P2P would give them in order to increase their concert ticket sales, etc. I don't think the RIAA is worried about a big name artist leaving them for P2P, but they're worried that new artists or indie labels will figure out that they don't need to sign a contract with a big time label in order to "make it big" anymore. The biggest enemy of a small band isn't losing CD revenue, it's obscurity.

The big labels have a strangle hold on the distribution/promotion chain, and they desperately want to keep it. That's why bands are forced to go to them if they want a shot at becoming successfull. That's the competition that P2P provides, not as a revenue generator.

[dmaul1114]

That I can see, but labels do make most of their money off the established bands who sell a million copies of everything they put out etc. So I'm sure their terrified of bands pulling a Pearl Jam and no longer needing labels to sell their hundreds of thousands or millions of albums.

But to be sure, they worry about not getting the up and coming bands signed into to crappy, long term contracts as that's how they get the successful bands locked up long term--get them before they have any other options. So fair point.

But at the same time, up and comers don't need P2P either. Than can use myspace, facebook etc. to stream their music. Tons of bands (new and established) do so already.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

Because as many people have stated here people want the ebook the same day as the hardcover is released or they will be "forced" to find illegitimate copies on the net.
many people here have said they will brook no delay at all - even a short one that launches the ebook a little while after the hardcover as several of the publishers have mentioned.

The publishers want to window the ebooks *to avoid the discount pricing.* If they'd said, "we'll release this ebook in 90 days, at the paperback price," the outrage & entitlement-issues would be much less, possibly nonexistent. Some people would still screech & insist on finding bootleg versions, but plenty would be willing to wait, just as plenty right now wait for the paperback.

Customers weren't being offered "hardcover price ebook now or mmpb price later." They were being offered "~trade pback price, sometimes full hardcover price, only." The outrage isn't at the delay; it's at the attempt to insist that ebooks are worth $15 regardless of what the public is willing to pay for them.

And the public has reacted: No, they're not, for many people. And they *do* have ways of getting them without paying that. The issue isn't with timing, it's with publishers' insistence that ebooks be benchmarked to hardcovers instead of paperbacks.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

But to be sure, they worry about not getting the up and coming bands signed into to crappy, long term contracts as that's how they get the successful bands locked up long term--get them before they have any other options. So fair point.

Exactly. They're worried about the future of their business if they aren't able to extort new artists.

But at the same time, up and comers don't need P2P either. Than can use myspace, facebook etc. to stream their music. Tons of bands (new and established) do so already.

Hence the FUD campaign that "downloading" is illegal. Sure, they have been a lot more successful in making segments of the public afraid of P2P, but I'm sure they would love to create an environment that equates any downloading of music (outside of their controlled chains) with "theft". That's why they have misinformation campaigns to try and create a culture that associates words like "piracy" and "theft" with downloading (instead of uploading).

Ask some people if file-sharing is illegal (without saying whether or not copyright is even involved) and many would automatically say yes. Those people have been led to believe that downloading any music for free is "wrong". A large part of that is due to the publicity that these lawsuits have given them.

[dmaul1114]

Agreed. I'm very much against downloading copyrighted material, and do think it should be illegal.

But the terms and laws have to be very clear. It's not file sharing that's illegal, it's file sharing material that's copyrighted that's illegal.

Artists and labels and publishers should have laws and enforcement efforts to protect their copyrighted material that they choose to sell and not give away. And I support being very aggressive on that front as you well know.

But that doesn't mean that file sharing itself is wrong, nor that it can't be a tool to help fledgling musicians, authors etc. break out without having to bend over and sign terrible contracts. That said, once they break out and decide to no longer use file sharing, streaming etc., their should be hardcore enforcement efforts to prevent/limit their material from getting to people who didn't pay for it.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

But that doesn't mean that file sharing itself is wrong, nor that it can't be a tool to help fledgling musicians, authors etc. break out without having to bend over and sign terrible contracts. That said, once they break out and decide to no longer use file sharing, streaming etc., their should be hardcore enforcement efforts to prevent/limit their material from getting to people who didn't pay for it.

That brings up an interesting question (I know, here we go again). Can you put something up on P2P and then take it down later? I'm not talking about distributing it yourself, I'm talking about allowing it on P2P networks.

When you allow your content to be file-shared, you're essentially granting everybody a license to distribute. Can you effectively take that license away later?

For example, say I record a song or write a book and decide to upload it to a P2P network in order to get myself known. Can I later decide to withdraw that right once I become popular and then start suing people? If I have new material, yes, but I don't see how you could take back control of something you have already allowed to be shared.

[dmaul1114]

I'd say once an artist decides to give a song or book away, they've given up their rights to control that material. Once they've put it out their, it's out there, and as you note I don't see how they can take that back.

Now any future, songs,albums books etc. they have control over and can keep off the P2P etc.

And that could include official recordings of stuff they gave away. A lot of up and coming bands are going to give away demos and live cuts as they don't have the money to get in the studio. Once they get in the studio and put out and LP or EP for sale, that doesn't mean people can pirate the studio version Song A because the band had previously given away a demo of Song A. But they can keep trading the demo of Song A that the band gave away.

That's my 2 cents on that anyway!

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

And I support being very aggressive on that front as you well know.

Yep, and the Pirateparties love that attitude. 2 MEP's and counting...

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

I'd say once an artist decides to give a song or book away, they've given up their rights to control that material. Once they've put it out their, it's out there, and as you note I don't see how they can take that back.

Now any future, songs,albums books etc. they have control over and can keep off the P2P etc.

And that could include official recordings of stuff they gave away. A lot of up and coming bands are going to give away demos and live cuts as they don't have the money to get in the studio. Once they get in the studio and put out and LP or EP for sale, that doesn't mean people can pirate the studio version Song A because the band had previously given away a demo of Song A. But they can keep trading the demo of Song A that the band gave away.

That's my 2 cents on that anyway!

Wow, we agree.

[carbonize]

Going even more off topic this image shows why people download movies - http://t1.xavimg.com/2010/02/piratelegal.jpg

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

Agreed. I'm very much against downloading copyrighted material, and do think it should be illegal.

All online participation requires downloading of copyrighted material. This thread is full of copyrighted material, which is downloaded to your computer in order to display it so you can read it.

And yes, there's a difference between "download of copyrighted material" and "download of copyrighted material against the wishes of the copyright owner, in ways that constitute infringement." And it's bulky to say the latter--but it's important, because the "technicality" that is the difference is what makes the internet work.

But that doesn't mean that file sharing itself is wrong, nor that it can't be a tool to help fledgling musicians, authors etc. break out without having to bend over and sign terrible contracts. That said, once they break out and decide to no longer use file sharing, streaming etc., their should be hardcore enforcement efforts to prevent/limit their material from getting to people who didn't pay for it.

Given the nature of most ISP ToS's, this is probably impossible.

AOL's TOS says "by submitting Content to public areas of the Services, you grant us, our parent, affiliates, and distributors the right to use, copy, display, perform, distribute, adapt and promote this Content in any medium."

Comcast's says "You acknowledge that material posted or transmitted using HSI may be copied, republished or distributed by third parties, and you agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Comcast, its agents, suppliers, and affiliates for any harm resulting from these actions."

Earthlink is sneaky--they say nothing directly about the right to copy your stuff, but instead say that "You agree to defend, indemnify and hold the EarthLink Parties harmless from and against all third party claim ... by reason of your use of the Service ... (iii) in connection with any claims for infringement of any intellectual property rights arising from or in connection with use of the Service ...."

Most ISPs have a bit in their TOS about "once you upload it, we can copy it at will." They kinda have to; they don't clear out their servers the moment you remove something from your website. The data bounces around unseen in backup copies, sometimes for years. But it's still a copy, still legally the same as a printout handed out on the street.

So basically--it's likely that, once you've put your stuff on the web for free download, you can't go after any site that continues to host it. You might be able to go after new uploads, but not archive sites, and probably not torrent-network sites. Maybe not torrent-network participants; that's all a bit blurry.

[dmaul1114]

See above. Once they put content out there, it's out there. I wasn't arguing they can start fighting downloads of stuff they put out themselves after they make it big.

I mean their future albums etc. that they don't put out on file shares, free downloads etc. on their own can be protected.

Make use of P2P etc. when you're a club band trying to make it big, then fight illegal uploads of subsequent albums once you have a record deal etc.