Social DRM Take 2

[Liviu_5]

Originally Posted by tompe

Well, I want to be able to read a book in one sitting so that would not work. And I also think that what you thought of the book should influence how much you pay.

The whole idea is to pay for the next book the author is writing so you then totally side step the problem of copying.

Once the book is ready, offering 25-50% excerpt with a possibility of an immediate buy should be good enough - I agree that it does not apply to snippets though

Regarding paying the author's next book - that is a very interesting idea and I thought about it - to me it would involve something like taking pre-orders in escrow, rather than pay as you go - but I am not sure something like that would work outside of people with a large fan base, and then what's the point?

I do not think that the copying issue is avoidable in any feasible way - and again let us not kid that drm is about that and not about control and lock-in -
so the idea is how to insure a revenue stream that keeps authors happy.

To me the one obvious and not that hard thing to do is create a community of fans, treat them nice, tell them to support rather than pirate, but DO NOT scold, take the moral high ground, make emotional threats since from personal experience there is nothing more off putting than attacking people personally to scare them off.

Of course there are authors that have a given position and following that they can afford that but I think that overall you should do that only if can afford it so to speak...You come upon as a sanctimonious, high-horse person, well, we are all sinners so to speak and let those without sin cast the first stone sums my attitude well and puts me off like few things do

As one of my favorite characters Logan Ninefingers of Joe Abercrombie's First law trilogy puts it,

"Let's be realistic"

[tompe]

Originally Posted by nekokami

As much as I think people mean to be honest, I suspect people would be a lot more likely to forget to pay if they didn't have to do so until the end of the book. And while there could be a link to "tip" the author more if you like the book, to be honest I don't think it's reasonable to expect to read the whole book and then decide if you want to pay for it or not.

But if you do not pay you will not be able to read more books by the author. The idea is also that if you think the book is crap you do not pay anything. So then the problem is shifted how to bootstrap a writing career and one possibility as you point out is to use libraries for that.

Readers mindset have to be changed and problem like forgetting to pay is probably only a problem when setting up the new system.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Liviu_5

To me the one obvious and not that hard thing to do is create a community of fans, treat them nice, tell them to support rather than pirate, but DO NOT scold, take the moral high ground, make emotional threats since from personal experience there is nothing more off putting than attacking people personally to scare them off.

And that is probably a good way to get people to pay for future production.

Maybe it will only work for certain type of authors by I think something like this is worth trying. And maybe Baens subscription model works in a similar way today?

[Liviu_5]

Regarding the "fan community" thing - look at the response of Mr. Weber when he posted by mistake the final draft of his eagerly awaited novel - the first HH in 3+ years - true he has lots of fans, sells a lot... and he did it himself rather than having someone betray a trust...

He basically encouraged people who got it to discuss it openly in the Snerkers section of the Bar, is giving away at least some of the revised chapters as they come and even contributed to the discussion with hints about the next 2 novels - this is the thing that will make me plonk 15$ whenever the e-arc will be available whether I got the "whoopsie draft" or not...

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

To those who have apparently ceded the "high moral ground," consider that if the majority of people were 100% willing to pay for their goods, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. (I'll also point out that I do not use, and have never used, DRM to encrypt or secure my content, for reasons made quite clear--and often not-so-clear--on this forum, and leave that right there.)

On a more practical note, yes, there are probably much better ways of securing payments for works than charging the customers who overridingly feel that if they can find it for free easily enough, by all means get it for free. I personally hope and expect to use one of those other methods, not DRM, if I continue to offer e-books in the future.

Advertising/patronage has been mentioned (by me and others), and I agree that this is probably the absolute best way to provide e-content to the public, because it removes them from the payment equation altogether, and therefore doesn't require DRM.

And yes, no one particularly likes ads. But aren't ads that you can choose to ignore a small price to pay for getting the content you want... for free?

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by tompe

But if you do not pay you will not be able to read more books by the author. The idea is also that if you think the book is crap you do not pay anything.

Is this because you assume that if not enough people pay, the author won't distribute any further books? Or because by paying for one book, you are given access to the next book?

In the first situation, the author may still write, but probably won't have as much time or motivation to really polish their craft as they would if they were actually paid for each book. There is an assumption that most people *will* remember to pay after reading a good book, and I still think that is a flawed assumption.

The second situation is essentially the same as an author choosing to give away one book as a sample, which many authors do.

Regarding the "collect pre-order payments before the book is published" scenario, I know of one author who effectively did that by asking people to subscribe to a book that would be released one chapter at a time, but only if enough people subscribed (Diane Duane). That project is still ongoing, and is only up to Chapter 8 after over 2 years. See http://www.the-big-meow.com/ for more info.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by nekokami

There is an assumption that most people *will* remember to pay after reading a good book, and I still think that is a flawed assumption.

I agree. Evidence and anecdote suggest the assumption is inaccurate, in all but a very few instances: When given the choice, very few people "remember" to pay, and those who don't generally seem to have a good excuse for not doing so (from "gee, I forgot... I'll, uh, do it tomorrow" and onward).

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by tompe

But if you do not pay you will not be able to read more books by the author.

How would you prevent someone who did not pay for book A from buying book B?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

How would you prevent someone who did not pay for book A from buying book B?

If not enough people pay the author will not write more books. When the next book is payed for and written anybody can read it. There is no cost to read existing books.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by nekokami

Is this because you assume that if not enough people pay, the author won't distribute any further books? Or because by paying for one book, you are given access to the next book?

He do not write any more books. Or more books in the series that was not payed for. Each written and released book is free. You contribute to the continued authorship.

There is an assumption that most people *will* remember to pay after reading a good book, and I still think that is a flawed assumption.

That is why you have commuity building also. Like blogs.

Regarding the "collect pre-order payments before the book is published" scenario, I know of one author who effectively did that by asking people to subscribe to a book that would be released one chapter at a time, but only if enough people subscribed (Diane Duane). That project is still ongoing, and is only up to Chapter 8 after over 2 years. See http://www.the-big-meow.com/ for more info.

There was one or two author at Worldcon that had done this very successfully. I think it was Lawrence Watt-Evans and Phil Foglio.

[acidzebra]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

if the majority of people were 100% willing to pay for their goods, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.

We are having this conversation because with the advent of the digital we went from a market based on scarcity and tight control of media by select groups to the digital world where duplicating data costs nothing and can be done by anyone, and people like content owners (again, as often distinct from content creators) are panicking over this orgy of information.

You do not know whether the majority of people is willing to pay for their goods or not. There are no reliable statistics on this sort of thing, or if you do have them, I would be extremely interested. Given the figures I see on piracy and what I see on the major p2p nets, I doubt the majority of people who access the internet in one way or the other have a lot to do with it. Such restraint, when all the content is out there on the p2p nets. That said, I do believe people are motivated by selfish reasons. Part of the reason why the iTunes store is such a smashing success - it is just so easy and relatively cheap to get a song, why bother hunting it down on the p2p nets?

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

And yes, no one particularly likes ads. But aren't ads that you can choose to ignore a small price to pay for getting the content you want... for free?

Hey, I don't mind ads. But I think you'll find a large portion of people will either ignore them or strip them from the content, and within days ad-supported ebook content becoming a 'standard' you will see ad stripping tools pop up all over the place. Like ad-blocking tools on browsers, commercial-removing scripts in PVRs, and so on. Then again, the presence of blockers doesn't stop internet advertertising or TV commercials, so who knows, it might be viable.

[Liviu_5]

Originally Posted by tompe

If not enough people pay the author will not write more books. When the next book is payed for and written anybody can read it. There is no cost to read existing books.

There are some people who tried this with varying degree of success - though let us not forget that what is success is kind of unclear here since author compensation is so variable, Stephen King was unhappy and abandoned a project after people paid for it in 6 figures from what I remember, while other authors may consider the book as a success at 10k or 20k or...

And this thing with "the author is not paid he/she will not write" - well I just do not believe this - sure there are authors that stopped writing because of lack of commercial success, but I profoundly doubt that was due to "piracy" and that a method as above would have made any difference.

If you write stuff that enough people find compelling - which I think is not as easy as it sounds - and if you can manage to find those people for which the stuff you wrote is for - and that is pretty hard too considering the amount of stuff that's out there - I think you will monetize the experience somehow.

Obscurity rather than piracy is the main problem for most authors and I still believe that will be the case for a while...

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by acidzebra

You do not know whether the majority of people is willing to pay for their goods or not. There are no reliable statistics on this sort of thing, or if you do have them, I would be extremely interested.

As I said, some evidence is anecdotal... some (like King's The Plant) are well-documented. Fact is, there is more "evidence" of any kind that the majority of people, when given the choice, do not pay. There is no evidence of a large number of creators getting well-paid from "tip jars."

Originally Posted by acidzebra

Hey, I don't mind ads. But I think you'll find a large portion of people will either ignore them or strip them from the content, and within days ad-supported ebook content becoming a 'standard' you will see ad stripping tools pop up all over the place.

Sure they will. But not everyone will use them. And for those who do, the advertisers can always come up with new ads that defeat the blockers... a constantly-escalating war.

Advertisers have never worried about getting everyone who sees their ads to buy... they work in proportions: Of those who see the ads, X% inquire further; of that X%, Y% will buy. Once they know how many people will see the ads (even if for a second, before they are blocked or ignored), they know what to pay for exposure. And it is up to them to increase exposure by escalating the ad war.

But in the meantime, the e-books are free. And as long as the ads aren't too bothersome (or, even better, are slightly entertaining), most customers historically just let them be.

Originally Posted by Liviu_5

And this thing with "the author is not paid he/she will not write" - well I just do not believe this - sure there are authors that stopped writing because of lack of commercial success, but I profoundly doubt that was due to "piracy" and that a method as above would have made any difference.

Few authors are going to quit because of the impression that "someone stole all my books." If they quit, it's because they didn't make the money they wanted, for whatever reason that was.

Originally Posted by Liviu_5

If you write stuff that enough people find compelling - which I think is not as easy as it sounds - and if you can manage to find those people for which the stuff you wrote is for - and that is pretty hard too considering the amount of stuff that's out there - I think you will monetize the experience somehow.

Without commercial success to count on, not only will you see fewer writers, but you'll see less of a support base for them, i.e., editors, proofers, printers, artists, etc... so you'll get a much less polished product. There may be plenty of e-books, but if they have ugly (or no) covers, and read as if they were written by grade-schoolers... who will want to read them?

[Lemurion]

If authors are not paid the quantity and quality of works will likely go down. This has nothing to do with DRM, desire or anything other than the fact there are only 24 hours in a day, and 168 hours in a week. A normal work week takes about 55-60 of those hours when you factor in things like commuting, preparation and even unpaid lunch breaks. That slows down writing considerably.

Take the last two novels I wrote: The first one was written while I was working full time (and I had a second job for part of the time) and took about 2 years to write all told. The second was a ghostwriting job and took about three months.

Writers who cannot earn their living will not only produce less but they will also have less opportunity to polish their skills because they can't afford the time to write.

Steve is absolutely right in saying that removing commercial success from the system will do nothing but hurt every single reader among us.

Writers need to be paid, and a system of paying per title seems to be the most workable that's currently available. (I say per title rather than per copy because many merchants do allow you to re-download multiple copies over time.) It may not be the best possible system, but it's what we have and none of the alternatives seem to work any better.

So let's go with the idea that we will be working on a pay-per-title model for the immediate future.

This being said, we can also work within the standard principle of you hand over a set price and then get access to the title. Again, it seems to work better than the alternatives such as after the fact donations. Most people don't donate afterwards, and in many cases it can simply be ascribed to the fact it slips their mind.

The most important question regarding DRM (at least for the health of the industry) is whether the use of DRM has any effect on revenue, and if it does whether that effect is positive or negative. There's also the question of whether the effect of DRM is drowned out by the price, but for the moment we'll assume that price isn't a major factor.

We know that DRM does not keep books off pirate sites, as even books which have no electronic editions at all will end up there. I can go to any number of torrent sites, or to the binary newsgroups and find as many books as I wish in relatively short order without either DRM or having to pay for them.

The books are out there. The genie is out of the bottle.

The question that now comes up is what proportion of the populace would rather steal something than pay for it. I don't know what it is, but the percentage is higher than zero.

We also know that under normal circumstances many if not most people are perfectly willing to pay for things they could otherwise steal. Just visit any busy produce stand and you will see what I mean: people lining up to pay a busy salesclerk while the produce is there for the taking, and without the five minute wait.

Yes, some people do steal, but not enough to destroy the business model, which has functioned effectively for millennia.

It works because enough people want to pay, or at least feel they should pay that theft is kept low enough for the business to remain sustainable.

There is no evidence at all that e-books released without DRM are more prevalent on pirate sites than ones released with DRM.

What's really needed, rather than DRM is to make e-books easy to buy. If it's quicker and easier to buy a title than hunt it out on a pirate site and download it, many people will choose to buy it just because they can't be bothered to go through the hassle of downloading.

It's true that some won't pay; but this brings up another question. Which is more important, stamping out illicit downloads or increasing revenue? I submit that it should be increasing revenue because while the losses from illicit downloads are not quantifiable, the gains from increased revenue are.

Now there is one way in which DRM can increase revenue; but it does this at the cost of customer goodwill. I own an iPaq and a Palm T|X. I bought the iPaq first, and later the Palm. When I first bought the iPaq, I used MS Reader, which is not available for the Palm. So any DRM-protected e-books I bought for the iPaq cannot be read on the Palm.

(Yes I know all about format shifting .lit books-- and I could have used a Sony Reader and Cybook for my examples but I chose to go with the devices I actually own.)

This means that if we rule out format-shifting, the only way for me to get those titles onto my Palm is to buy them again. This is the only way DRM can increase revenue: by enforcing vendor lock-in. However it's just as likely to turn people to other alternatives, because many do not want to buy the same title twice if they don't have to. They can either format-shift the e-book for the new device, or turn to an illicit site and download it.

Once they're on the site, they may as well download more titles.

DRM is not preventing piracy or increasing revenue, so there's no reason to continue with it. It simply increases costs and annoys customers.

Eliminating vendor lock-in, and making reasonably priced books readily available will do far more to protect author's rights than imposing DRM restrictions.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

We also know that under normal circumstances many if not most people are perfectly willing to pay for things they could otherwise steal. Just visit any busy produce stand and you will see what I mean: people lining up to pay a busy salesclerk while the produce is there for the taking, and without the five minute wait.

Yes, some people do steal, but not enough to destroy the business model, which has functioned effectively for millennia.

It works because enough people want to pay, or at least feel they should pay that theft is kept low enough for the business to remain sustainable.

There is only one problem with applying this idea to electronic files, and that is web anonymity.

People don't steal at a produce stand, because of the concern of being identified and caught (either immediately, or the next time you're out in public). Most theft is headed off by showing the potential thief that they are not anonymous.

On the web as it is designed today, users can (mostly) establish anonymity, so they can steal and have no fear of being identified and caught. This creates more of a casually dishonest atmosphere on the web, and changes the business dynamic radically. Losses (not price, the proportion of stolen goods to sold goods) are higher, and a business must decide whether it needs to take steps to mitigate the larger amount of loss.