"The book industry is gonna get Napstered..."

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by ahi

Forgive me, Hans, but this seems plainly wrong to me.

Consider how the creative professions traditionally supported themselves throughout most of history, and it is actually the last 100 or so years that suddenly look like an aberration, not the increasingly prevalent attitude that the costless reproduction of creative works ought not be a guarantee of livelihood to their authors, and much less to their publishers.

Not to mention that some amazing books even less than two hundred years ago were written on a subscription basis... that is to say, the author found enough people willing to pony up (or promise to pony up) money for his book in advance to it being written to make his efforts (including paying for printing, et al) worthwhile.

Author's getting 3% - 10% of the purchase price, and the fundamentally non-creative book industry (of publishers, printers, distributors, wholesalers, and retailers) getting the other 90% - 97% is not the only viable model... nor is it even one that seems particularly defensible to me.

And I write all this as a publisher.

- Ahi

Why is that any time someone is against the idea that digital media has zero value everyone simply starts spouting this trash about the traditional publishing ways not working in this new digital age. That is not the point!

No where in Hans' entire post did he/she advocate the traditional model. In other posts he/she clearly states the traditional models need to change.

So why claim the idea you quoted is wrong and use as your argument that the traditional ways do not work?

No matter how you put it the idea that digital media has zero value can only lead to people wanting to pay zero for it. If people want to pay zero for it then subscriptions, grants or any other new/old idea on how to pay for future creative digital works means nothing because people will see it as having no value and therefore will not give any money for it.

Now, yes there will always be some people who create simply for the joy of creating. And yes, not many have ever been able to fully support themselvs on the income from their writing. However, many have been able to work part time and devote much more time to their craft because they made some money from the writing. In many cases their craft has improved too, thus increasing the quantity and quality of the art we as consumers have to choose from.

In the brave new digital world where the prevailing mindset is "it's digital so it has no value and so it should be free", the vast majority who could create something of true worth will not because of the need to provide for themselves and their family. Further, the quantity and quality of art to choose from will substantially decrease.

And all that isn't even considering how absolutely selfish and childish the idea that "I want it for free so the author should just give it to me for free" really is! If you want to read an authors work, even in digital format, man up and pay a fair price for it.(whatever that is decided to be)

Cheers,
PKFFW

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by ahi

Except they did.

Most of, if not all, the works of the greatest composers of classical music were rampantly copied and internationally performed without, in the vast majority of cases, any compensation to them and nobody gave a damn, not even the composers themselves.

- Ahi

Not that composers are held in high esteem today. And you can still sing any song yourself in the bathtub, no copyright involved there. I mentioned composers because they were valued higher than performing artists in the past. They are not a good example for modern times. Well, the great composers were kept like show animals by the royalty of that time and paid a salary. Or else they increased their popularity through performances and got more orders. Their consent to copy was given. To a certain extent Europeans have a similar system. There you pay insane prices for blank media (DVD, CD) and some of the proceeds go into a fund for artists. Even for media that you use to backup your computer! I am strongly opposed to such a system, because I don't want the government to decide where my money goes, I want to support those that I believe are "worthy". I do that by paying for what I read, listen to, etc.

I agree with you that today's artists could look for different sources of income (Beethoven sweaters and mugs, anyone?), but I don't see the battle as lost yet. Why not educate people that paying for a book or piece of music in digital form is just as normal as buying a pbook? Why do you see that as wrong? Sure, some will copy it. Some drive 100 miles past a school with children present. You want an expensive phone, yes you can steal it. But most people will opt to do the right thing, and that is enough. The problem I see now that the idea is taking hold that digital works "should" be free, rather than "I can get it for free illegally."

The only reasonable way to go "free" is advertising. So for those who would enjoy an ebook with a half page ad on every page, I am sure Google will accomodate you soon enough. And I don't believe that authors will get a better deal this way.

[djgreedo]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

No matter how you put it the idea that digital media has zero value can only lead to people wanting to pay zero for it. If people want to pay zero for it then subscriptions, grants or any other new/old idea on how to pay for future creative digital works means nothing because people will see it as having no value and therefore will not give any money for it.

Digital reproductions have no value. There is a difference. It costs nothing to copy an ebook 1 million times. This doesn't mean the original copy is valueless, but the value is intellectual rather than physical.

Subscriptions wouldn't mean nothing because you would presumably pay up front for content not yet created. If they payments stop, the content stops being made available.

In the brave new digital world where the prevailing mindset is "it's digital so it has no value and so it should be free", the vast majority who could create something of true worth will not because of the need to provide for themselves and their family. Further, the quantity and quality of art to choose from will substantially decrease.

People want to create art/content, and people want to consume it. A way will develop to accommodate this.

I doubt quantity will decrease, but quality probably will. Perhaps with so much amateur free content out there people will turn to paying for what they percieve must be better quality.

And all that isn't even considering how absolutely selfish and childish the idea that "I want it for free so the author should just give it to me for free" really is!

I'm not sure anyone is asking for content to be free or complaining about paying for ebooks.

Would people buy McDonald's burgers if we all had Star Trek food replicators that could instantly create any food we wanted (including McDonald's burgers) at negligible cost? I doubt it.

Regardless of the moral implications, it is impossible to prevent access to free digital content. DRM doesn't work. There is a huge shift in thinking for the upcoming generations. Digital copies are worthless if the original can be reproduced infinitely with no cost to anybody.

Our values are rooted in physical items having worth. Intellectual property is harder to regulate; add digital into the mix and it becomes essentially impossible to regulate.

So artists and publishers have few choices:
1) Try to transfer the physical supply/demand/control model to the digital age
2) Accept that there is no feasible way of continuing the old model and adapt to the market forces.

It may be disasterous for authors, but that is a moral objection, not a fact-based one. When every book/movie/TV show/ album is available at your fingertips at no percieved cost how do you make people pay? That question is for the artists and publishers to answer, and they'd better hurry up.

[djgreedo]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

The only reasonable way to go "free" is advertising. So for those who would enjoy an ebook with a half page ad on every page, I am sure Google will accomodate you soon enough. And I don't believe that authors will get a better deal this way.

I don't think advertising is the only way. I think someone will probably come up with something that works and it may surprise us all. It may be a combination of things - advertising, subscriptions, etc.

I think TV/video will go the advertising way. A watermark in the corner of the screen that changes every 10 minutes, product placement, and maybe the occasional ad. And the content will be totally free to access. It's no different to TV now really, and ads can be more accurately targeted. A lot of video podcasts work on advertisements.

Maybe we'll buy breakfast cereal with a short story printed on the inside of the box and 'cover art' on the front. Maybe we'll pop a pill and 'dream' a story at night.

Most of the comments I've heard about the future of the media still have some level of assumption that the future will look like the past. We may not read novels in 10 years. It may simply be impossible for an author to spend 2 years writing something he can't guarantee getting paid for. We may all listen to books with ads in them.

Do you think the pioneers of film foresaw TV (or Star Wars for that matter)? Do you think Alexander Graham Bell foresaw the Internet?

The amazing technology coming out has incredible potential, but it also has the potential to change media more radically than anyone can imagine.

At the end of the day we are all consumers, but only a handful of people are creators or publishers. Does anybody really think the creators and publishers have the power to override everybody else in the world and force us to consume media on their terms instead of our own?

[HansTWN]

No, a few people do not have the power to override everybody else. But we have not made a head count yet! I am a consumer only (no connection to authors, publishers, etc), and I prefer the pay-per-book method. So may many other consumers -- perhaps more than support your point of view. Nothing is free, in the end you always wind up paying in some way. I prefer the easy and transparent way.

And you are forgetting something. For physical goods the situation often is the same. You make a sample, then a mold. After that the production costs for each following piece may even be next to nothing, if the material is inexpensive. But because of the design and marketing costs they still sell each piece for 100 times or more of production costs. Is that first sample the only piece holding real value? In the end, what is monetary value? What you can get for it.

Why is a knockoff worth less than the real thing for a physical good? Even if the quality is the same?

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by djgreedo

Digital reproductions have no value. There is a difference. It costs nothing to copy an ebook 1 million times. This doesn't mean the original copy is valueless, but the value is intellectual rather than physical.

The value, I would argue, is in the reading of the book and not in the 1's and 0's. To claim the copy is valueless is just plain wrong in my opinion. If it was truly valueless then there would be no desire to read the book at all. The person who wants to read the book must place some value on doing so otherwise they wouldn't want to read it.

Just because they can get it for free doesn't mean it is valueless to them. Why should they not be required to pay some fair price for the priviledge?

Originally Posted by djgreedo

Subscriptions wouldn't mean nothing because you would presumably pay up front for content not yet created. If they payments stop, the content stops being made available.

If the mindset of "it's digital so it is valueless" becomes the norm then people will see all digital media as valueless. How can you convince someone to pay for something they deem valueless, even if they are doing so only as a way of supporting their selfish belief they have a right to that something for free.

That is why I say subscriptions would mean nothing.

Originally Posted by djgreedo

People want to create art/content, and people want to consume it. A way will develop to accommodate this.

I totally agree. I just don't think the way forward is to claim that all digital media is valueless and therefore should be given away for free.

Originally Posted by djgreedo

I doubt quantity will decrease, but quality probably will. Perhaps with so much amateur free content out there people will turn to paying for what they percieve must be better quality.

But it's digital and therefore valueless right? So who is going to pay for something if it is valueless? I don't know of anyone willing to pay for something they determine has no value.

Originally Posted by djgreedo

I'm not sure anyone is asking for content to be free or complaining about paying for ebooks.

Many have done both.

Originally Posted by djgreedo

Would people buy McDonald's burgers if we all had Star Trek food replicators that could instantly create any food we wanted (including McDonald's burgers) at negligible cost? I doubt it.

What if only McDonalds had the code necessary to make the replicator create that burger? Then if someone wanted the burger, if they deemed it has some value to them, they would pay for the code in order to get the burger right?

It is no different to writing. If we could all write our own fantastic stories, stories that delight and amaze us even though we were the ones who wrote them, then would we ever pay someone else to write one we could read? But we can't can we? So why should we expect someone else to take the time to write that story for us and give it to us for free?

Originally Posted by djgreedo

Regardless of the moral implications, it is impossible to prevent access to free digital content. DRM doesn't work. There is a huge shift in thinking for the upcoming generations. Digital copies are worthless if the original can be reproduced infinitely with no cost to anybody.

I Absolutely agree it is impossible to prevent free access to digital content. That is not in debate at all.

What we can prevent is the idea that because it is digital it has no value. As Hans said, value is what we make it. We can spread the idea that an author has rights too. We can spread the idea that if we wish to get the value of reading a digital copy of a book then we should do the honourable thing, respect the authors rights and pay a fair and equitable price for said value. Or we can keep going with the idea that "I can get it for free therefore I have the right to do so and to heck with the author".

Originally Posted by djgreedo

Our values are rooted in physical items having worth. Intellectual property is harder to regulate; add digital into the mix and it becomes essentially impossible to regulate.

So artists and publishers have few choices:
1) Try to transfer the physical supply/demand/control model to the digital age
2) Accept that there is no feasible way of continuing the old model and adapt to the market forces.

Yep, and we as consumers have a few choices too.

1: Keep going with the idea that our rights trump the creators rights. That we are entitled to free access to all digital media for no other reason than we want it.

2: Decide that the creators rights should be respected, that a creative work(even a digital copy of one) does have value if we choose to assign it a value and work with authors in seeking out a balance which allows for a fair and equitable exchange to take place.

I know which I think is the way to go, which do you think is?

Originally Posted by djgreedo

It may be disasterous for authors, but that is a moral objection, not a fact-based one. When every book/movie/TV show/ album is available at your fingertips at no percieved cost how do you make people pay? That question is for the artists and publishers to answer, and they'd better hurry up.

Why is it only for the artists to decide?(I left out publishers because I am not advocating the old ways and could care less about them)

Why is it not also the consumers to answer? Why should consumers just merrily go on their way believing the have every right to access a creative work for free just because they deem the digital copy to be valueless?(disregarding the fact that that whole concept is a fallacy used to support their belief and nothing else)

Cheers,
PKFFW

[HansTWN]

Djgreedo claims all consumers stand behind him. Do they really??? Last I heard Itunes is doing very well selling digital downloads. My guess is he is representing a small minority. See the vote count of the socalled pirate parties.

[djgreedo]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

No, a few people do not have the power to override everybody else. But we have not made a head count yet! I am a consumer only (no connection to authors, publishers, etc), and I prefer the pay-per-book method. So may many other consumers -- perhaps more than support your point of view.

I think you miss my point. I totally support paying for the media I use. I think it's a bad thing that authors and publishers will soon not be able to make money out of their work in the same way they do now. But my attitude is not going to stop the inevitible.

In a digital economy the current way is not a viable way to conduct business. It is based on supply and demand of physical objects. Younger generations already don't place value in most media because so much of it is available free, and what isn't free is easy to copy and distribute. The younger generations don't even consider copying content to be stealing. This is not necessarily bad morals but a paradigm shift. Is copying a file without damaging the original or costing the owner anything a bad thing? The easy answer is 'yes', and I would agree. But that answer comes from a completely different mind set of physical property.

It may be that people will still buy digital media the way we do now on iTunes or Fictionwise in 10 years, but I doubt it. And I don't doubt it because I don't value the content, I doubt it because it's already happening. Musicians are turning away from making money on CDs and focusing their efforts on other things. Bands are increasingly experimenting with giving music away. This won't work exactly the same way for authors, but something similar will have to.

Nothing is free, in the end you always wind up paying in some way. I prefer the easy and transparent way.

You seem to be implying that I want all content to be free. I haven't expressed such an opinion.

You may prefer the easy and transparent way of paying, and so do I, but that doesn't change the fact that people won't pay the prices necessary for easily reproducible digital content in this fashion.

In a world where people can get whatever digital content they want easily and quickly and at no cost, do you see the digital content industries thriving by charging what they charge now?

How can publishers make money when they have no control over supply and demand? Our entire economy is built on supply and demand.

I don't claim to have the answer to that. I seriously doubt that acting as though supply and demand was still relevant (e.g. DRM) is going to be the answer.

This is a very complex and interesting topic.

[djgreedo]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Djgreedo claims all consumers stand behind him. Do they really??? Last I heard Itunes is doing very well selling digital downloads. My guess is he is representing a small minority. See the vote count of the socalled pirate parties.

Firstly, please don't assume that I like what is happening. I want authors (and musicians, etc.) to make money, and I happily buy music and books digitally - I hardly ever buy CDs or paper books any more. I do buy my stuff digitally and legally. I am being realistic about the implications of this technology. That seems to make me a devil's advocate somewhat.

The publishers would agree with me. They claim their sales are dwindling and the sky is falling. I would wager they know more about their sales figures than you or I do. But it is obvious that sales are down, and it's mostly attributed (whether it's correct or not) to piracy. Piracy is a direct result of the ease of digital copying.

We are still at the start of the digital age. CD stores are still packed with customers and so are book shops and video game stores. We haven't switched totally to digital yet.

We are already seeing lots of free content pop up. I don't buy newspapers any more because there are countless free online newspapers. It is no coincidence that newspapers around the world are downsizing and/or going out of business.

There are already lots of websites offering free books (legally). When similar content is available for free, will people (en masse) be happy to pay $20 for a commercial product that doesn't necessarily offer higher quality? I don't think so. Publishers will be forced to slash their prices to an unsustainable level and find other ways of getting our money.

[HansTWN]

The unstoppable tide? Maybe, I am not convinced yet. I see the same things you do. Bands giving away their music -- mostly startups who want to become known to a wider audience. Many in the younger generation thinking that downloading from the darknet is not stealing -- definitely at the root at the problem. Education is the answer, just like most people obey the law even when they know they could get away with breaking it in a certain situation. The same people that download pirated digital goods do not necessarily steal physical goods. The younger generation has to realize that pirating is wrong, it is stealing. Is it hopeless? I still think there is a chance.

[djgreedo]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

The value, I would argue, is in the reading of the book and not in the 1's and 0's. To claim the copy is valueless is just plain wrong in my opinion.

That is essentially what I said. I agree 100%.

Just because they can get it for free doesn't mean it is valueless to them. Why should they not be required to pay some fair price for the priviledge?

I agree, but what is a fair price for a digital copy? The publishers believe it is the same price as a physical book. But the price of a physical book is based on more than just the text itself. It's the paper, the printing, the shipping, etc. Whether you like it or not, people generally will consider a book to have more intrinsic value than a 400kB digital copy of that book.

I just don't think the way forward is to claim that all digital media is valueless and therefore should be given away for free.

I don't either, but I see it as inevitible. It is up to the creators of products to instill them with value.

What if only McDonalds had the code necessary to make the replicator create that burger? Then if someone wanted the burger, if they deemed it has some value to them, they would pay for the code in order to get the burger right?

Yes. But that fits in with supply and demand, and that's how DRM is intended to force the same rules on ebooks. But DRM doesn't give us a product that can satisfy consumers.

If you could choose to get that code from McDonald's or download an identical code from the internet for free and your family was really hungry but you need your last $5 to go towards the electricity bill what would you do? That's obviously a ridiculous scenario, but it should point out that people will justify digital theft, and psychologically people will convince themselves it's not wrong when there is no identifiable victim. Since there is no way to stop that theft, would McDonald's bother to invent burgers if their recipe was impossible to protect?

no different to writing. If we could all write our own fantastic stories, stories that delight and amaze us even though we were the ones who wrote them, then would we ever pay someone else to write one we could read? But we can't can we? So why should we expect someone else to take the time to write that story for us and give it to us for free?

We shouldn't. Nobody is saying this content should be free. I am saying that due to technology and human nature, there is no way to provide this content in a buyer-seller way that compares directly to what we have today. There a myriad ways to monetize digital content, and I have faith that people will come up with a way that suits creators and consumers.

I believe that the supply and demand of the future will be more along the lines of: "Pay me and I'll give you access to the next great thing that comes out of my head" rather than: "here is a thing I created. While you could easily get it for free, I'd like you to pay me."

I Absolutely agree it is impossible to prevent free access to digital content. That is not in debate at all.

Good. So we can debate about whether it is plausibe to expect content publishers to be able to profit in an environment with no supply and demand factors. I don't think it will be possible in 10 years.

What we can prevent is the idea that because it is digital it has no value. As Hans said, value is what we make it. We can spread the idea that an author has rights too. We can spread the idea that if we wish to get the value of reading a digital copy of a book then we should do the honourable thing, respect the authors rights and pay a fair and equitable price for said value. Or we can keep going with the idea that "I can get it for free therefore I have the right to do so and to heck with the author".

Having content available for free doesn't have to mean the author doesn't get paid (and it definitely doesn't mean they don't deserve to get paid!). I am not saying that at all.

It just means they have to work out a way to get paid other than the exchange of a digital file for cash directly. It could be a subscription, it could be advertising, it could be something nobody has thought of yet.

Yep, and we as consumers have a few choices too.

1: Keep going with the idea that our rights trump the creators rights. That we are entitled to free access to all digital media for no other reason than we want it.

Of course the consumer's rights trump the creator's rights. The consumer has the power to not buy. In a digital age, the consumer also has the ability to get the product on their own terms regardless of what anybody thinks. It may not be morally right, but that doesn't make it untrue.

2: Decide that the creators rights should be respected, that a creative work(even a digital copy of one) does have value if we choose to assign it a value and work with authors in seeking out a balance which allows for a fair and equitable exchange to take place.

I know which I think is the way to go, which do you think is?

I would like it to be number 2, but I don't for one second expect that to pan out. It would be an honour system, and on a global scale an honour system would be...unrealistic.

It seems more realistic to me that authors and publishers will find a new way to make money from their product, which I guess is option 3.

Why is it not also the consumers to answer? Why should consumers just merrily go on their way believing the have every right to access a creative work for free just because they deem the digital copy to be valueless?(disregarding the fact that that whole concept is a fallacy used to support their belief and nothing else)

Firstly, a digital copy is valueless. That is not even up for debate. I think we can all agree that the value is in the intellectual property contained in a digital file.

Again, nobody is claiming that content should be free and that it has no intrinsic value.

The fact is that the value cannot be compared directly to a supply and demand model because there is no limit to supply. When there is no limit to supply the percieved value drops (like economy of scale on an infinite progression).

This debate is not about the morals of piracy or the value of creative material. It is about the inevitible changes the digital age is bringing to the way people trade in what is increasingly becomming a digital economy.

I have not seen anything to convince me that one of the following will not happen in the nearish future:

1) large-scale publishing will all but die as sales fall too much to support the current business models
2) publishers and authors (musicians, etc.) will move away from their current business models to make money indirectly from their otherwise free content.

Whether authors suffer or benefit from this is up to them.

[djgreedo]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

The unstoppable tide? Maybe, I am not convinced yet. I see the same things you do. Bands giving away their music -- mostly startups who want to become known to a wider audience. Many in the younger generation thinking that downloading from the darknet is not stealing --

FWIW my favourite band gave away a complete album in 2000, several years before I got my first MP3 player. They continue to give away music and sell music online at reasonable prices. They are currently planning a subscription service, which I find interesting. They know their money isn't going to come from CDs, so they are trying to find out how to profit in an environment where the recordings are not valued as they once were.

definitely at the root at the problem. Education is the answer, just like most people obey the law even when they know they could get away with breaking it in a certain situation.

Perhaps I'm more cynical than you. Like you said, young people don't see it as stealing. If they download a song then pay $100 to see the band live, the band is happy (I've heard several artists say this) and the fan is happy. Doesn't make it right, of course.

The same people that download pirated digital goods do not necessarily steal physical goods. The younger generation has to realize that pirating is wrong, it is stealing. Is it hopeless? I still think there is a chance.

I don't think there is a chance. I think the best way forward is for the artists to make money another way. Sort of how Nintendo sells Wiis at a loss, but makes money from licensing to games manufacturers. They are sort of 'giving away' their main product. Authors can come up with ways to make money without selling books. In that I am optimistic.


I don't see the alternative as necessarily a bad thing.
The alternative is that artists will make money somehow because they will find a way to profit from their skills.

In fact, I think the digital age might be a levelling field. We all know that the majority of artists make very little money, and only a small handful make their riches. If good economic models are found, maybe for every 1 JK Rowling we have now we might have 300 hard-working authors making a solid living by selling ads and creating subscription stories.

If authors made their money indirectly from ads, subscriptions, etc. they will not need to be paid for the products that they can't prevent theft of anyway.

[HansTWN]

maybe we will soon have a special thread in the "flea market" section where authors sell their autographed T-shirts?

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by djgreedo

Firstly, please don't assume that I like what is happening. I want authors (and musicians, etc.) to make money, and I happily buy music and books digitally - I hardly ever buy CDs or paper books any more. I do buy my stuff digitally and legally. I am being realistic about the implications of this technology. That seems to make me a devil's advocate somewhat.

Not at all, simply someone with a view that in some ways differs to mine(and Hans') but who has chosen to discuss the issues in an adult, courteous and rational manner. Which is alot more than can be said for many others.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[djgreedo]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

maybe we will soon have a special thread in the "flea market" section where authors sell their autographed T-shirts?

It's not far from what might happen!

I could imagine getting a book for free, then paying $5 for a personalised note from the author. Or buying an ebook and getting some sort of 'added incentive' in the mail a week later - a signed card or something.