Are DRM infections dying out?

[taustin]

Originally Posted by avantman42

I think you're wrong to say it's gut feeling, because John Sargent's statement is based on actual sales data.

Over too short a period according to him.

Originally Posted by avantman42

He hasn't got enough data to be able to give a definite conclusion, so the conclusion may change, but nonetheless, he's basing his statement on actual data. To my mind, that means it's not a gut feeling.

I'm certainly not going to read more in to the data than the preson who presents it.

Originally Posted by avantman42

This originally came up because you asked pdurrant if he had any evidence that removing DRM wouldn't reduce sales. He and I have given John Sargent's statement as evidence. Do you (or anyone else) have any evidence that removing DRM will reduce sales? I'd be genuinely interested to see evidence to support either side, since John Sargent's statement is the only evidence I've seen so far.

I never said it would. In point of fact, I said otherwise. But lack of evidence isn't evidence.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It is different, the difference being that the US has a strong 2nd-place player: B&N. The UK doesn't - it's just Amazon and "small fry"; primarily Kobo.

Even in the US, the "small fry", overall, outsells B&N. I've seen no credible account of market shares in the UK, but I'd be very surprised if it were as unbalanced as 90%.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

And the only reason they *chose* to do away with DRM was they were tired of Apple's one-price-fits-all policy and wanted a counter to Apple's iTunes domination. So they went DRM free with Amazon to allow them to window prices; high at release, lower over time. They *wanted* discounting.

Er, not they didn't want discounting. They wanted higher prices for new releases, because the majority, by far, of sales will be in the first few months. Apple didn't want to do discounting, but they also didn't want to do the higher prices on new releases.

And music sales have been climing steadily since then, after years of declines.

Originally Posted by fjtorres

In ebooks, the BPHs (alleged) "fear of Amazon" drove them into a conspiracy with Apple to raise prices and stop discounting.

Sorry, but I don't see the parallel. I don't think selling three minute disposable-music singles has much to teach us about selling digital novels. For starters the demographics and consumption modes are totally different. To say nothing of the revenue streams for the two industries. (I don't think many authors are going to sell out stadiums for readings of their latest book.)

The parallell, if it is to be that, is that Tor is now playing the role of Amazon, and Amazon is playing the role of Apple. If Tor sees an increase of sales that they can attribute to removing DRM (and their execs want to see that increase), then other publishers will be falling all over themselves to follow suit, as happend with mp3 music. They use DRM because they believe it will increase their bottom line - the net profits. Once it because clear that isn't so, they will stop. It would be - literally - criminal for them not to, in the publicly held companies.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

And the only reason they *chose* to do away with DRM was they were tired of Apple's one-price-fits-all policy and wanted a counter to Apple's iTunes domination. So they went DRM free with Amazon to allow them to window prices; high at release, lower over time. They *wanted* discounting.

In ebooks, the BPHs (alleged) "fear of Amazon" drove them into a conspiracy with Apple to raise prices and stop discounting.

Sorry, but I don't see the parallel. I don't think selling three minute disposable-music singles has much to teach us about selling digital novels. For starters the demographics and consumption modes are totally different. To say nothing of the revenue streams for the two industries. (I don't think many authors are going to sell out stadiums for readings of their latest book.)

One of the big problems for authors is the "single income stream" nature of books. We can sell audio, print or ebook, but we can't play local pubs. We can't get an opening act. When we are on the radio, we're generally delivering a rather quick pitch about our book--whereas a musician can actually play, sing, or offer a sample of music played on either side of an interview.

The dynamics are quite different and as such, I think the whole DRM idea is different as well. I'm not saying DRM is good or bad, but many readers read once and are done. Sure there are also many readers who keep a library and take it everywhere. But the income streams are quite different for an author when comparing income possibilities of a musician. The delivery may not be all that different when comparing an ebook to an MP3 song/album, but many other pieces of the equation are quite different.

Thank you for bringing that up. It often gets lost in the comparison and while it may not be important to readers, it is very important to authors.

[Fluribus]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

And the only reason they *chose* to do away with DRM was they were tired of Apple's one-price-fits-all policy and wanted a counter to Apple's iTunes domination. So they went DRM free with Amazon to allow them to window prices; high at release, lower over time. They *wanted* discounting.

They could have done discounting without removing DRM.

In ebooks, the BPHs (alleged) "fear of Amazon" drove them into a conspiracy with Apple to raise prices and stop discounting.

Sorry, but I don't see the parallel. I don't think selling three minute disposable-music singles has much to teach us about selling digital novels. For starters the demographics and consumption modes are totally different. To say nothing of the revenue streams for the two industries. (I don't think many authors are going to sell out stadiums for readings of their latest book.)

Does the recording industry care about stadiums?

The question is whether or not the removal of DRM would lead to consumers abandoning the paid downloads for illegal downloads. If one assumes that music is more disposable than novels, it would seem likely that music seekers would be more likely to seek the illegal sources than readers would.

Are readers more profligate criminals than music listeners are? If the removal of DRM from music didn't lead to collapse, why would it do so for books?

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Fluribus

Are readers more profligate criminals than music listeners are? If the removal of DRM from music didn't lead to collapse, why would it do so for books?

I think the point BearMountainBooks was making was that the comparison may not be valid because mp3 downloads may not be the sole (or even the biggest) revenue stream for a recording artist. If people were stealing mp3 files, the artist may still make money from concerts and radio airplay, for example, so the illegal downloading of music may not hurt as much as the illegal downloading of ebooks.

Not taking a position pro or con, just trying to clarify the argument.

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by taustin

I'm certainly not going to read more in to the data than the preson who presents it.

I still don't agree, but I also don't think we're going to agree on this point, so I'm just going to let it go.

Originally Posted by taustin

I never said it would. In point of fact, I said otherwise. But lack of evidence isn't evidence.

I know you didn't say it would. I didn't suggest you had. As it happens, I suspect you're right. Personally, I suspect removing DRM would have very little effect on sales, up or down. I'd still like to see more evidence though, for either side.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by ApK

I think the point BearMountainBooks was making was that the comparison may not be valid because mp3 downloads may not be the sole (or even the biggest) revenue stream for a recording artist. If people were stealing mp3 files, the artist may still make money from concerts and radio airplay, for example, so the illegal downloading of music may not hurt as much as the illegal downloading of ebooks.

Not taking a position pro or con, just trying to clarify the argument.

Yes, that is pretty much what I meant. Thank you. And yes, record producers make money from concerts, so they do care about stadiums.

I'm not saying more people steal Mp3s versus novels--and in fact, stealing isn't the biggest threat--casual sharing is the threat. I respect the hard work of musicians just as much as a novelists, but musicians do have opportunity for other revenue streams. Many of them can play locally--for that matter, they can play at weddings, high schools, and local pubs. They can, in some ways, work in their chosen field. Writers don't have that opportunity and the revenue stream is more critical for everyone involved in the chain. (It should be noted that we writers can attempt to work in journalism, write paid-for articles, but there is not a huge demand for that sort of thing and the pay is lousy. Many of us do that sort of thing on the side, just as musicians might do various side jobs that involve music.)

But to get back to casual sharing--when I've had this discussion with readers on other forums or read through conversations, they tend to start with "How do I mail this book to my x?" The initial poster doesn't even know it shouldn't be done. In longer conversations, it turns out that many people assume, "if I can mail it, it must be allowed, right?" I've seen people post "If they don't want us doing it, they'd take steps..." and that sort of thing.

The bottom line is that most people aren't trying to rip-off artists/authors, but if it's as easy as attaching a file, they don't even stop to THINK about it.

I recently had a conversation with someone who sold all her CDs because she was moving. I said, "But you copied them first, right?" Her response, "Well sure." When I pointed out this was illegal, she said, "I never thought about it one way or the other!"

When I worked in the library, we had to constantly tell people not to copy the movies or the music CDs. "But why?" I'm not kidding you. People don't think twice about it. If they don't get a chance to read the audio, watch the movie or listen to the CD (or they like it a lot) they copy it. If they accidentally put the COPY back in the library case, we have to fine them or take away their library cards (this is only for repeat offenders).

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by avantman42

I still don't agree, but I also don't think we're going to agree on this point, so I'm just going to let it go.


I know you didn't say it would. I didn't suggest you had. As it happens, I suspect you're right. Personally, I suspect removing DRM would have very little effect on sales, up or down. I'd still like to see more evidence though, for either side.

Just to throw more into the equation, one author I know published a book without lending available--her belief was the lending hurt sales (even though it's a lend once policy). Now the sub-sample is extremely small, but the bottom line was that she couldn't tell a difference. Of course, she is an unknown. So if the book were by a well-known author, I *think* it would hurt more.

Why do I bring it up? Because DRM on one of my books is probably vastly different than DRM on a John Grisham book. Just as lending of that book would be.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

One of the big problems for authors is the "single income stream" nature of books. We can sell audio, print or ebook, but we can't play local pubs. We can't get an opening act. When we are on the radio, we're generally delivering a rather quick pitch about our book--whereas a musician can actually play, sing, or offer a sample of music played on either side of an interview.

Well, you can do as most author and have a day job since if you have time for other stuff then writing then you can do anything with that time.

Also most authors write essays and reviews and articles and so on. So they have other income.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by avantman42

I still don't agree,

You're disagreeing with the person who persented the data, and doing so with a copule of sentences from a news article by someone who probably didn't understand what they were writing to begin with, rather than all of the data like the guy you're disagreeing with.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by tompe

Well, you can do as most author and have a day job since if you have time for other stuff then writing then you can do anything with that time.

Also most authors write essays and reviews and articles and so on. So they have other income.

And, in fact, most professional fiction writers don't make anywhere near enough to live on. I believe less than 10% do. The average income from writing is less than $5k per year.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by tompe

Well, you can do as most author and have a day job since if you have time for other stuff then writing then you can do anything with that time.

Also most authors write essays and reviews and articles and so on. So they have other income.

The vast majority of essays, reviews and articles don't pay. (Reviews very seldom pay and most authors avoid doing reviews because it can cause them problems with other authors.)

Yes, we can work. And so do most musicians. That doesn't change the fact that they have more opportunities to make money in their chosen field. And I'm not saying it's easy for them, just that there are other opportunities to show their skills and gain an audience for their work. Me writing an essay (paid or not) isn't necessarily a good showcase for my urban fantasy. Sure, we can swizzle some articles, but most readers I talk to don't even agree that a short story is a good way to "sample" an author. An essay is removed even further from a book, while a musician can play the exact songs he sells whenever given the opportunity. And hearing a live song may make you want to hear it again. Hearing a story told aloud...once you know the ending...well, it's different. Some people won't care if they ever "read" it again.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by taustin

And, in fact, most professional fiction writers don't make anywhere near enough to live on. I believe less than 10% do. The average income from writing is less than $5k per year.

For fiction writers living entirely on writing income it's probably less than 5 percent. Although I haven't seen any polls with updates on that sort of thing in a long time. Most of us do have day jobs and writing may or may not supplement that. In many cases the day job FUNDS the writing. (And this is true for traditionally published writers as well as self-published writers. Most of us pay for the majority of our own promotion. Traditionally published writers do get some promo, but that generally includes review copies of a certain number and little else.) The more popular a writer, the more promo they get.

BUT, our pay shouldn't be the topic here and I apologize for leading the discussion astray. The point was that DRM for a writer may play a different and possibly more significant role than it does for music. From a reader standpoint, those who don't like DRM can work around it. From a writer standpoint we're caught between a rock and a hard place as far as making decisions on what to offer and when.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

The vast majority of essays, reviews and articles don't pay. (Reviews very seldom pay and most authors avoid doing reviews because it can cause them problems with other authors.)

Yes, we can work. And so do most musicians. That doesn't change the fact that they have more opportunities to make money in their chosen field. And I'm not saying it's easy for them, just that there are other opportunities to show their skills and gain an audience for their work. Me writing an essay (paid or not) isn't necessarily a good showcase for my urban fantasy. Sure, we can swizzle some articles, but most readers I talk to don't even agree that a short story is a good way to "sample" an author. An essay is removed even further from a book, while a musician can play the exact songs he sells whenever given the opportunity. And hearing a live song may make you want to hear it again. Hearing a story told aloud...once you know the ending...well, it's different. Some people won't care if they ever "read" it again.

The choose field for a write is to write. I do not think that there are more opportunities for a musician than a writer to earn money in the choosen field (the field is writing for the writer...).