eBook Gold Rush

[leebase]

Originally Posted by jplumey

I understand the problem, just not its relevancy to this discussion. Are you saying the publishers should price the product based on the design cost alone? That they shouldn't sell their product based on it's value to their customers? That they should sacrifice their profits because it costs them so little to distribute their product?

You got it. There is very little correlation between the cost to make something and it's price. Cost at most provides a floor to what a good must be priced in order incentivize production in the first place.

If we all agree that $1 is all an book is ever worth, and it costs $2 to make a book -- then there will be no books made.

On the other hand, if enough people are willing to pay $100 for the latest book from Oprah...then it matters not a bit that it only cost $2 to make the book.

Lee

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by leebase

That is not the definition of capitalism. And there IS a way to amortize the "design cost". You charge for the product. We've had medicine for over 100 years. There's no problem understanding there's more to the cost of a pill than the cost to manufacture it.

Communism too is an old and discredited idea. Wouldn't it be nice of folks just work for the good of others. From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs. Doesn't work.



Lee

LeeBase, you miss the point. To quote the PD song - "How're you gonna keep 'em on the farm, When they've seen Paree?"

How are you going to make people buy your production when they can make their own copy for a cent? Until you have a working answer for this question, (and nobody has done it yet), You can charge all you want, but who's going to pay?

This is not a call for piracy, just an acknowledgment that it exists. And that virtually everybody who is the target market for e-books has the capability to make their own copy.

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

How are you going to make people buy your production when they can make their own copy for a cent? Until you have a working answer for this question, (and nobody has done it yet), You can charge all you want, but who's going to pay?

I think most people understand that digital product, whether it's a computer game, music, or ebook, or something else, all cost money to develop and produce, and are willing to buy it from a legitimate source to help pay back the development costs. The content producers realize that there are always people who aren't going to pay for their content, but as long as enough people are willing to do the right thing to make it profitable (whether willingly with non-DRM product or grudgingly with DRM'd product), they'll keep making new digital product.

If that wasn't the case, iTunes would be out of business now, instead of being one of the more profitable pieces of Apple.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

I think most people understand that digital product, whether it's a computer game, music, or ebook, or something else, all cost money to develop and produce, and are willing to buy it from a legitimate source to help pay back the development costs. The content producers realize that there are always people who aren't going to pay for their content, but as long as enough people are willing to do the right thing to make it profitable (whether willingly with non-DRM product or grudgingly with DRM'd product), they'll keep making new digital product.

If that wasn't the case, iTunes would be out of business now, instead of being one of the more profitable pieces of Apple.

And people pay for bottled water for the same thing that could get easily for nearly free. But how much?

iTunes is a success at 99 cents a track. Would they be at 99 dollars? I doubt it. And therein is the point. How much will people pay for convenience? I will pay for convenience. Because that's what for sale, the convenience. They are not putting a value in the digital product as much as the convenience to purchase it.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

And people pay for bottled water for the same thing that could get easily for nearly free. But how much?

iTunes is a success at 99 cents a track. Would they be at 99 dollars? I doubt it. And therein is the point. How much will people pay for convenience? I will pay for convenience. Because that's what for sale, the convenience. They are not putting a value in the digital product as much as the convenience to purchase it.

The key is education -- make people realize that illegal copying is a despicable crime. And just like other crimes most people wouldn't commit them even if they were sure they could get away with it. Somebody walks ahead of you on the street, there is nobody else around. A 10 dollar bill drops out of his pocket, to you pick it up and keep it or do you alert the other person?

The only problem is the perception of many young people that everything digital is free. On the web you pay for everything with your attention (i.e. watching ads) or with your data (which is being collected by the websites). This has been extended to mobile phones (pay through the nose for your contract but get the phone free or at a huge discount). Nothing is really free, but the illusion has been created that it is.

[Giggleton]

I'm going to continue reading, my ethics are crystalline. Why just today I communicated with an author through netgalley.com about some formatting problems in an ebook about to be released, how much was this communication worth? Because that is all we are ever do COMMUNICATE!

Take what you need, give what you can. SIMPLICITY.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

I'm going to continue reading, my ethics are crystalline.

That is really, really sad.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

The key is education -- make people realize that illegal copying is a despicable crime.

Yeah, we need a "don't copy that floppy" for the 21st century!



Oh, wait-- we have a "don't copy that floppy" for the 21st century.



Your problem is-- you are pushing an opinion, not a fact. And the "cool kids" will mock the narcs and hall monitors just like they always have.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXR4T8xVFdw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGM8PT1eAvY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBkuiChImb8

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

And the "cool kids" will mock the narcs and hall monitors just like they always have.

They will --- and just like with drugs it will be they themselves that will hurt the most. If IP will not be respected in the West when the "cool kids" grow up then there won't be many jobs left for them except to work at Walmart, McDonald's, or some other similar establishment. Because everything the West excels at (ideas rather than manufacturing) will not be worth anything.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

They will --- and just like with drugs it will be they themselves that will hurt the most. If IP will not be respected in the West when the "cool kids" grow up then there won't be many jobs left for them except to work at Walmart, McDonald's, or some other similar establishment. Because everything the West excels at (ideas rather than manufacturing) will not be worth anything.

Nobody ever said that paradigm shifts in society are easy. It wasn't easy during the industrial revolution, and it won't be during the equally fundamental shift happening today with the information revolution. You want to cling desperately to the old system-- I say "burn, baby burn."

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

They will --- and just like with drugs it will be they themselves that will hurt the most. If IP will not be respected in the West when the "cool kids" grow up then there won't be many jobs left for them except to work at Walmart, McDonald's, or some other similar establishment. Because everything the West excels at (ideas rather than manufacturing) will not be worth anything.

You can't copyright ideas, or so I've been told.

Robots should be used for manufacturing and ideas should be free. simple.

[anamardoll]

I really liked the article in the OP, thank you.

I'm wondering if we'll ever get to a point where not EVERY thread devolves into a rant about piracy, information control, DRM, economics, and everything else that makes this thread identical to the last three threads I've read on MobileRead?

J/K

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

I really liked the article in the OP, thank you.

I'm wondering if we'll ever get to a point where not EVERY thread devolves into a rant about piracy, information control, DRM, economics, and everything else that makes this thread identical to the last three threads I've read on MobileRead?

Yes, once all of those things are seen as irrelevant by the majority, and we can link to all books openly, the threads should be much more interesting.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

The key is education -- make people realize that illegal copying is a despicable crime.

The problem is that there's no bright, clear line between "legal copying" and "illegal copying."

Ripping your CDs to MP3: presumably legal.
Five years later, selling the laptop you used to rip them, with files: possibly illegal. Except you didn't make any illegal copies then. But when the buyer receives the laptop, he would be making illegal copies if he puts those songs on his iPod.

Copying a chapter from a long book in order to write a report on the symbolism therein: Legal use.

Copying a chapter from a long book and sending it to a friend by email to convince them to buy the book: legal? Illegal?

Copying a chapter from a long book to send to a friend because it contains a crucial scene that was left out of the movie version: Probably illegal?

Copying an entire pbook in order to mark up the copy with notes: legal.
Copying an entire pbook in order to allow a 3-year-old to handle it and potentially destroy it: ??

Copying an entire purchased ebook onto my hard drive in two locations, onto flash drive, and my two different active ebook readers: Legal.

Copying it onto my husband's ebook reader: ??

Copying it onto my good friend's ebook reader: probably illegal.

If it's legal to share with my husband, and he doesn't want to read it, can he transfer his "share" to my friend? If not, why not--what makes it legal to give him a copy and not her?

And just like other crimes most people wouldn't commit them even if they were sure they could get away with it.

A big portion of the crime of copyright infringement, in the US, is damages. If there's no sales lost, the use is much more likely to be considered fair. If there's no legit digital copy, there's no damage from sharing those files, if it can be shown that person wouldn't have bought paper anyway, or already has, or that paper won't serve for what they want the digital copy for.

The only problem is the perception of many young people that everything digital is free.

This is not new, and not related to the digital world. We have always been surrounded by free entertainment, including entertainment that other people were paying for. TV and radio are the recent big culprits, but even before those, it was always possible to get used newspapers, secondhand books, or access to music by hanging around musicians. We have always had more consumers-of-content than buyers-of-content; media companies' attempts to use the internet to change that isn't going to work.

It's also the wrong way to approach the problem. If the issue is, "they're not buying our stuff!" the solution isn't, "let's make sure they don't have it." With enough effort, lawsuits, and software locks, they can indeed make sure non-buyers don't get access... which leaves them exactly where they are now: with less sales than they want. And a lot of expenses for "security."

The focus needs to be on "convince people to buy," not "punish people for not buying." Nobody in the publishing industry gets any prizes for the number of pirates stopped.

[Piper_]

Outstanding post, elf. K+

I want to be optimistic, but I fear for any reasonable solution as long as we have, on one side, publishers who are so tightly-sphinctered they won't allow tts or a single two-week lend or format shift, and, on the other side, people who call for authors to cede the rights to the fruit of their labor to everyone and their uncle.

Both extremes only inflame the other, while the rational middle majority, who just wants to be fair to everyone, hangs frustrated in limbo. (Or worse, if the lobbyists with the most $ win.)