STUDY SHOWS: Ditching DRM could reduce piracy, prices

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by ekster

That's also something I don't understand... do they really think that because they have a game exclusively for xbox, that I'll buy an xbox? ....

Yes, and people do. They buy Xboxes for that reason, iPhones and iPads for that reason and Kindles for that reason. Android is moving into the same space to some extent.

Increasingly it is more about the infrastructure and extended system than simply the device.

[Ken Maltby]

We are kinda blending two threads here, don't know if that is a good idea.
(It's hard enough to keep things straight, at my age.)

Luck;
Ken

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Ken Maltby

We are kinda blending two threads here, don't know if that is a good idea.
(It's hard enough to keep things straight, at my age.)

Luck;
Ken

Wha????? Now I'm really confused.

[ScalyFreak]

My fault. My apologies.

I have this weird compulsion to bring up video games everywhere I go, no matter what the conversation initially was about. Though my doctor did say that once the adjusted dosage starts having an effect, I'll eventually be able to have conversations about other things as well.

[frahse]

Originally Posted by teh603

I am a writer, and I have actually bothered to look up what "all unsolicited works will be considered a work for hire if accepted" means. By the same token, your referring to yourself a a "Rights Holder" suggests something entirely different about you.

By the way, did you actually read what I posted? I never once mentioned anything about writers being indentured or anything like that, only that the contracts they were being offered amounted to legalized theft.

First I admit I am doing this in between some other things, and perhaps my full attention wasn't on it.

O.K. I looked again. You said:
"Would some of those "Rights Holders" also be the ones who legally steal copyrights from new authors using abusive Work For Hire contracts that only pay a pittance?"

Actually that could be a strong analog for indentured ("For hire contracts that only pay a pittance"). A "contract" that holds an author tightly. All work belonging to the master ("legally steal copyrights")
Except for the ability to put an indentured person into prison, I think you came pretty close to describing the arrangement.

I am the Rights Holder of my books with contractual agreements with the publisher. They can do certain things, but I have not signed over the "complete rights in perpetuity" like say some of the music people you see getting a new law that will return rights to them after 35 years I think.

I have never worked for hire or with an advance. I write a book and then I shop it. I have two publishers now that I have done repeat business with. If you have followed my posts you should realize that I don't write for a living, though that is something I have had in mind doing for some time if I ever see making enough money.

teh603, the simple truth is that in this life, if you don't need the money immediately, you can always get a better deal. When I first started and was trying to sell a book, that had gotten some interest, I had to correct a male rep who seem to be very impressed with himself and wanted me to also be impressed, and he kept inferring that "I was obligated or owed them something."
At first I ignored it, trying to keep things pleasant, and realizing that he must not fully understand the actual situation, but I finally couldn't take it anymore.
Still I am pretty good at things like that and so I looked at the second person at the table actually a subordinate older lady, and asked with a sweet smile, "Mam, was I supposed to have received a remittance that I am unaware of. I mean did you send me a check in the mail."

teh603, I enjoyed that.

I hope I made myself more clear. I also hope you didn't take offense at anything I said. Good luck with your writing.

[frahse]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I can loan a paper book to dozens of friends. When I'm done with it, I can donate it or resell it. I am not restricted in what I do with my own property.

It's not just about copying--though I could certainly do that with a paper book--it's about using the material as I see fit.

Yes, you are completely correct.

And you can loan your Kindle and the eBook to as many friends as you wish. You can also sell it.

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by frahse

And you can loan your Kindle and the eBook to as many friends as you wish. You can also sell it.

But I can't give the ebook to my husband to read, while still reading another book on my reader, and I think that was the point. Devices can be treated as any other, but we're talking about the book itself here, and that is restricted.

Also, for this:

Originally Posted by frahse

When I first started and was trying to sell a book, that had gotten some interest, I had to correct a male rep who seem to be very impressed with himself and wanted me to also be impressed, and he kept inferring that "I was obligated or owed them something."
At first I ignored it, trying to keep things pleasant, and realizing that he must not fully understand the actual situation, but I finally couldn't take it anymore.
Still I am pretty good at things like that and so I looked at the second person at the table actually a subordinate older lady, and asked with a sweet smile, "Mam, was I supposed to have received a remittance that I am unaware of. I mean did you send me a check in the mail."

Never let anyone bully you.

[frahse]

Originally Posted by ScalyFreak

Not the least. Have you tried listening to what those two produce these days? I certainly wouldn't pay for that garbage.

Piracy hurts sales only if you assume that every music pirate would have purchased the music in question if piracy was not an option, and that's just not true. The vast majority of pirates of music, movies, and/or ebooks, never buy anything that they can just as easily get for free. And DRM never stops them from getting what they want.

Exactly!

Scaly, I agree for the most part about the singing. Actually Beyonce can sing very well if she has a mind to. I heard her at the Presidents (inaugural ball or something) and singing an old standard she was wonderful. Both ladies can dance exceedingly well. But their usual music is awful. I prefer country myself.

Your argument that people do bad things, doesn't mean that we should legalize bad things. That argument is specious at best. I am surprised that you use it.

[frahse]

Originally Posted by ekster

That's also something I don't understand... do they really think that because they have a game exclusively for xbox, that I'll buy an xbox? If they have a movie that will only play on a Sony bluray player that I will buy that Sony bluray player? And if they only have an ebook for Kindle, that I will get a kindle?
There were/are some games I'm very interested in and willing to buy, but I don't own an Xbox or a PS3... so the end result? Less sales for them.
And they're crippling their own sales for what? To brag? To just get the up-front cash deal? That's very short-sighted of them. It's not like I'm asking them to make the new Duke Nukem compatible with a paperbook.

I'll never understand how some of these people ever get hired/elected to lead these companies...

The people make money, lots of money for their companies, and themselves.

[frahse]

Originally Posted by ScalyFreak

But I can't give the ebook to my husband to read, while still reading another book on my reader, and I think that was the point. Devices can be treated as any other, but we're talking about the book itself here, and that is restricted.

Also, for this:



Never let anyone bully you.

I can't argue that you can't divide the eReader to go with however many books you have on the device, but still the seller/publisher/author considered all that when they sold you the eBook and priced it accordingly. [Or at least that is what they would say.
I wish it was another way myself. As an author I would much prefer to be selling books only in paper form, even if I might lose sales to the used market.. As a reader, and a person that is allergic to dust, I like the eReaders a lot.]

Now I feel kind of bad when I say this but it is one of those things that is spelled out in the print both large and fine.


And yes mam, I won't. Thank you.

[frahse]

And one last thing.

The book selling situation has changed.

For years there was a used book market. I used it a lot myself. Amazon and B&N and others made it easy to get a book (current minimum price 4.00USD.) I had no doubts that I would get the book or my money back. Amazon would guarantee it. I loved it.

Many authors hated it. It cut into book sales. In fact the publishers and authors wanted a cut of the used sales. I won't go into the arguments here though I know them.

Now what will happen as the eBooks take over. The used books market will die eventually. Actually it will do the asymptotic type thing and gradually approach 0 over time.

I might say as an author that is good. More sales. As a reader who buys used books because they are cheaper than eBooks I think it is bad. As an author that uses used paper books for writing purposes finding it better than trying to look things up in a reader, it is bad.

The world really doesn't get better or worse but it does get more complicated. Entropy I suppose!

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by frahse

Your argument that people do bad things, doesn't mean that we should legalize bad things. That argument is specious at best. I am surprised that you use it.

I'm not. If that's how my posts read, then obviously I will need to rephrase my arguments a bit.

I'm not saying we should make piracy legal. I'm not a writer, musician, game developer or movie maker, so my entire interest in the DRM debate is as a consumer. And as a consumer, I want the people who spend their time developing my entertainment to be compensated for their work. If you didn't get paid for what you write you would lose a great incentive to keep writing and make what you write available to the public, and that would suck. Hard. I don't want that to happen, I want new entertainment to keep coming my way, so I can stay sane, and I want the ones who provide it to be able to pay their mortgage. Also, I genuinely believe that creative talent deserves to be rewarded.

So as a consumer, I am entirely against the kind of piracy that is all about obtaining free entertainment without the creator's permission.

Now, that out of the way, here's the point I wanted to make, a bit rephrased:

Unlicensed distribution of copyrighted material happens whether we want it to or not. That has always been the case, long before ebooks were invented, in the form of a buyer giving the book to someone. Heck, library books get stolen all the time. One can even argue that libraries are a form of "piracy" since the author gets royalties only when the library purchases the book, but not every time someone borrows it.

So piracy exists, that's an established fact. It's also an established fact that DRM can do nothing to stop it. Ask the video game developers about this one, they'll tell you that the more "ingenius" their DRM, the quicker it gets broken. Mass Effect has already been mentioned, the Spore fiasco is another good example.

So since DRM can do nothing to prevent piracy, it makes no sense to spend money on adding it to a product. It makes even less sense to include it if it's the kind of DRM that actually inconveniences the paying customer. (See the Mass Effect example again.) From my consumer-centric point of view, DRM-free is the only logical alternative. I'm all for making that mandatory. Until that pipe-dream of mine becomes reality, I buy DRM-free whenever I can, strip the DRM when that's not an option, and when all else fails, I get a pirated copy of the digital content I have purchased. I am, as I said before, an honest pirate. Everything on my computer has been paid for, one way or another.

So my argument is not that we should "legalize bad things", not only because I'm not sure how we'd make pirating content legal, but rather that we stop inconveniencing a paying customer with something that doesn't stop the pirates anyway.

As my sarcastic post earlier in this thread tried to point out, the DRM is only necessary if we assume that all paying customers are dishonest and plan to distribute what they paid for to as many people as they can, as quickly as possible. I find that assumption a bit insulting. After all, the fact I was willing to pay for the book says otherwise, doesn't it? Doesn't it? *listens to crickets and sees blank stares from the music industry and book publishers*

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by frahse

Now I feel kind of bad when I say this but it is one of those things that is spelled out in the print both large and fine.

Oh, I know that. That doesn't mean I have to like it.

[teh603]

Originally Posted by frahse

And one last thing.
The book selling situation has changed.

For years there was a used book market. I used it a lot myself. Amazon and B&N and others made it easy to get a book (current minimum price 4.00USD.) I had no doubts that I would get the book or my money back. Amazon would guarantee it. I loved it.

Many authors hated it. It cut into book sales. In fact the publishers and authors wanted a cut of the used sales. I won't go into the arguments here though I know them.

It also helps keep old out of print books in circulation, when most publishers have decided to cease printing for whatever reason. Some of my and my mother's favorite sci-fi authors are only available in used book stores.

In the case of college students, the used book business flourished because the textbook industry has a captive audience and is gouging with abandon. How else can you explain a company releasing a new edition every year or so with no meaningful difference in content? Or why so many texts are in full color with meaningless sidebars when they could just as well be comb-bound black-and-white typewritten texts with a minimum of illustrations? Or some recent scandals involving kickback schemes where textbook companies pay professors to require their students to use a specific edition of a specific textbook?

Originally Posted by frahse

First I admit I am doing this in between some other things, and perhaps my full attention wasn't on it.

O.K. I looked again. You said:
"Would some of those "Rights Holders" also be the ones who legally steal copyrights from new authors using abusive Work For Hire contracts that only pay a pittance?"

Actually that could be a strong analog for indentured ("For hire contracts that only pay a pittance"). A "contract" that holds an author tightly. All work belonging to the master ("legally steal copyrights")
Except for the ability to put an indentured person into prison, I think you came pretty close to describing the arrangement.

It doesn't imply slave labor or indentured servitude. Neither does abuse of the law. All I was stating and implying is that publishers can and do abuse "work for hire" contracts to the detriment of authors. You're taking my statement and then going off the deep end with it.

I am the Rights Holder of my books with contractual agreements with the publisher. They can do certain things, but I have not signed over the "complete rights in perpetuity" like say some of the music people you see getting a new law that will return rights to them after 35 years I think.

I have never worked for hire or with an advance. I write a book and then I shop it. I have two publishers now that I have done repeat business with. If you have followed my posts you should realize that I don't write for a living, though that is something I have had in mind doing for some time if I ever see making enough money.

There you go with that "Rights Holder" business again. Is there some overwhelming reason you can't call yourself an "author" or "writer" ?

As for "work for hire," I think we've already established that it depends on what your contract says. Even if you wrote it ten years in advance, its still a work for hire if you sign that contract. And in the days before the internet and indie ebook publishers, you had to sign that contract if you wanted out of the slushpile and into the fold of published authors.

teh603, the simple truth is that in this life, if you don't need the money immediately, you can always get a better deal.

If all the deals you're being offered are more or less the same, you'd better be ready to wait an awful long time. And then there's also publish or perish in some environments.

When I first started and was trying to sell a book, that had gotten some interest, I had to correct a male rep who seem to be very impressed with himself and wanted me to also be impressed, and he kept inferring that "I was obligated or owed them something."
At first I ignored it, trying to keep things pleasant, and realizing that he must not fully understand the actual situation, but I finally couldn't take it anymore.
Still I am pretty good at things like that and so I looked at the second person at the table actually a subordinate older lady, and asked with a sweet smile, "Mam, was I supposed to have received a remittance that I am unaware of. I mean did you send me a check in the mail."

How does this connect with finding a better deal? It looks to me like you decided to play hardball with one publisher.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by ScalyFreak

But I can't give the ebook to my husband to read, while still reading another book on my reader, and I think that was the point. Devices can be treated as any other, but we're talking about the book itself here, and that is restricted.

..

You can if you both have devices on the same Amazon account.