Can e-Publishing Overcome Copyright Concerns?

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The average person just wants to read the purchased eBook and is not really concerned with rereading it or the fact that it may not be transportable to some future device.

Darn it Jon!

You've just proved to me I'm not 'average'...

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Also fairness... as he points out later in the article, others try to accept the system by telling artists to go out and "play live, sell T-shirts, etc"... IOW, do twice the amount of work (or more) for the same profit. How many people working for an employer, for example, would be satisfied if their boss told them to do their full-time work for free, then go out and sell umbrellas with the company logo on the street for their income? Not many? Then why should an artist have to do that, just to make a living?

No, that's not what that means. They're not saying do twice the amount of work for the same profit, they're saying that if you want to continue to get paid, you have to continue to work. In every other profession I can not expect to keep getting paid for work I did yesterday. If I want another paycheck today, I have to do work today. I don't just make something and then expect to get paid over and over for the same thing.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

Darn it Jon!

You've just proved to me I'm not 'average'...

Deal with it, green eyes!

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Deal with it, green eyes!

Oh, how did you know ----

Actually they're hazel...

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

No, that's not what that means. They're not saying do twice the amount of work for the same profit, they're saying that if you want to continue to get paid, you have to continue to work. In every other profession I can not expect to keep getting paid for work I did yesterday. If I want another paycheck today, I have to do work today. I don't just make something and then expect to get paid over and over for the same thing.

I think you've got that wrong. What he's suggesting is that those artists should give away their chief creative product for free, and make their money on throwaway extras like T-shirts and posters (none of which they "constantly create" either). That IS working twice as much for the same profit... or, giving away half your product (the best half, no less) for free.

[Shaggy]

It's a different business model, and makes sense if you think about it. In a digital world, your intellectual property (mp3, ebook, whatever) has an infinite supply. You can try to artificially limit the supply in order to give value to the product (DRM, aggressive coyright enforcement, etc), but that's almost impossible to control (as we've seen). They obviously have artistic value, that's why people want them, but because it's trivial to create an infinite supply they have little (if any) financial value. The general idea with changing the business model is that you give away the things that have an infinite supply, and sell things where you can control the supply/demand. Either charging for services instead of products, as in live performances, concerts, etc. Or else charging for traditional physical products, as in t-shirts, posters, etc, including your time/labor in producing/marketing those physical products.

What many people are saying is that the concept of creating something that is trivial for anybody to copy/distribute and trying to make a living off of artificially limiting the supply is doomed to failure. As with any other profession, you need to earn your living by either doing or producing something that people can't easily do themselves. That's what provides your product/service with value.

It's not that you're doing more work for the same profit, it's that the original item (the easily copied/distributed intellectual property) doesn't have much profit potential because there's little financial value in it. In order to make a profit, you need to do other things.

[MaggieScratch]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Actually, I tend to blame the publisher for that, myself. But I get your point. My only point there was, it's too unquantifiable, much like the piracy debate. Without hard numbers, either on the extent of "piracy," or the losses due to "bad karma," nothing can be solved on that front. We need to move on to concrete solutions.

Okay, fair enough; I see your point now and agree. I was just as bad there.

I don't see DRM in itself as evil, I see limiting portability of ebooks across devices because of DRM as evil. If one can't break DRM, one can't convert an ebook for a new reader. That's not a problem if you stick with one brand of reader, just like for those music consumers who stick with iPods are never going to have a problem buying their music from iTunes, and certainly sticking with iPods is an attractive proposition as Apple does a great job updating the hardware regularly. A combination of light DRM with ePub might be the answer. If each reader can take a DRMed ePub document and convert it for that reader, then consumers can switch devices with confidence that their electronic library won't become useless overnight. I'm assuming that's the idea of ePub--someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

And yes, we're back into a DRM thread. To bring it back to the original topic:

The rhetoric coming from a writer of the stature of David Pogue is one thing. He has a day job. I really don't think his kids will end up flipping burgers at the truck stop because a few readers downloaded his book on the Internet instead of ignoring it entirely (and hey, somebody has to flip the burgers, after all). On the other side we have Cory Doctorow. I appreciate Cory's position on ebooks and DRM but at the same time, giving away free electronic versions of all your books as a loss-leader to get people to purchase the hard copy books essentially devalues the electronic edition. I don't think that's quite the right approach, either. Making electronic editions of books worthless certainly will put an end to piracy--technically--since you can't pirate what is yours to freely trade, but it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater IMO. Ebooks should be on a par with at least MMPBs, I think.

I suspect the solution--as it usually does--lies somewhere in the middle, but we have to get the extremists to give up their position a little bit. There's the rub, I think.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

It's not that you're doing more work for the same profit, it's that the original item (the easily copied/distributed intellectual property) doesn't have much profit potential because there's little financial value in it. In order to make a profit, you need to do other things.

Well, then... to put it bluntly... why do it at all? That model is reversing the role of product and promotional tool, and it makes no sense.

If I'm expected to give away my e-books for free, then go out on the street and sell Kestral T-shirts... it's not worth it to do so. If that was the only way I could make money, I'd get out right there. Or better yet, I'd make better T-shirts, worth good money, and create cheesy online promotional freebies (like Kestral porn ) to attract more customers.

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Well, then... to put it bluntly... why do it at all? That model is reversing the role of product and promotional tool, and it makes no sense.

If I'm expected to give away my e-books for free, then go out on the street and sell Kestral T-shirts... it's not worth it to do so. If that was the only way I could make money, I'd get out right there. Or better yet, I'd make better T-shirts, worth good money, and create cheesy online promotional freebies (like Kestral porn ) to attract more customers.

Certainly writing talent is very different from marketing talent. I think writing talent and compensation should not be tied to your ability to sell T-shirts. That is just stupid.

Dale

[radleyp]

Shaggy, I think this statement: "if you want to continue to get paid, you have to continue to work. In every other profession I can not expect to keep getting paid for work I did yesterday. If I want another paycheck today, I have to do work today. I don't just make something and then expect to get paid over and over for the same thing." is a fundamental misunderstanding of intellectual property protection. A copyright entitles you, the creator, to collect monies for work that you did, not only yesterday but possibly years ago. So the copyright holder can indeed expect to get paid over and over for the same thing. The Constitution provides explicitly for protection for copyright (and patent) holders. Such protection, moreover, is an encouragement to create more and maybe better and more popular things. Pogue feels, as do other creators, that he is being cheated out of such earnings (maybe he is, and maybe he isn't, I don't know). The work is done once, no additional work should be required to reward the creator.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The average person just wants to read the purchased eBook and is not really concerned with rereading it or the fact that it may not be transportable to some future device.

Ok, lets consider I am an average person.

I bought a Sony PRS-500 when it first came out (got as Christmas present actually). Sony's ebook store didn't have alot available that I was looking for, what they did have cost more than a paper back down the street at Barnes & Nobel. I read the demo books that were on my machine. I ended up reading many free books and buying books from books stores like scifi-az that had sony formated PDFs.

Now, I see that Kindle has this new reader and they have thousands of books at better prices than the Sony store. So, I buy one of those since my son has been using my Sony alot, reading all the books I mentioned above that I managed to get for it.

What, I can't read the books I buy from Amazon on the Sony too?

To me, the above scenerio would be one a normal person would run into. As you say, not really understanding DRM and thinking the books would work on both devices.

So, now I have 4 options:

Option 1 (Technically illegal)
Start buying books that I can break the DRM on and convert for my Sony and Kindle... which eliminates one of the best features of the Kindle, the Amazon book availability and pricing (Wispernet not withstanding). Or, I have to buy the same books twice, once from Amazon and once from Sony (assuming we both want to read it and Sony has it.) Wait, why is this more convenient than paper backs?

Option 2
Return my Kindle and buy a second Sony due to the device lock-in that the DRM requires. (Granted this may save me money up front because the Sony is about $100 less than the Kindle. But, it might cost more as less books are available at the Sony store and many cost $5-7 more than the Kindle store. At my estimated reading rate of one book a week that adds up.)

Option 3
Sell the Sony and buy a second Kindle due to the device lock-in that the DRM requires. (This will cost me $200 more assuming I can sell the Sony for $200 or so. But the cheaper book cost at Amazon will probably pay for this difference in a year or so.)

Option 4
Forget eBooks all together... its too early at this point. I can buy a p-book, me and my son can read it (granted not at the same time) and I can sell it used to recover some money to buy more. Or I can get books from the library for free.

Most sane "average" people are going to go with Option 4. How does that help the ebook industry move forward? DRM is about vendor lock-in... it isn't good for the average person or the technical person and it only casues problems for the honest customers.

Me I'm not sane or average so I am strongly considering Option 3. As I said, due to the Kindle book availablity and pricing, not that I think the Kindle is a better device than the Sony.

BOb

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by MaggieScratch

I don't see DRM in itself as evil, I see limiting portability of ebooks across devices because of DRM as evil...

A combination of light DRM with ePub might be the answer...

We're in agreement here, as well: One ePub doc, bought with light DRM (like a CC or registration #), to be converted at will to any readers you have. Hopefully, if the ePub cost is low enough, people will be willing to buy their own, and won't just let copies loose at will.

I'm more on David's side than Cory's: I believe the work is the value, not the medium. Cory essentially considers electronic files worthless in his model. The problem is also with the public: Most of them feel as Cory does. This is fine for people like him, who have the support of the publishing castle, and therefore make their money through the castle system. For everyone on the outside of the castle, it's not so good. And it's not fair, to tell everyone on the outside that their work is valueless, just because no publisher has deigned them worthy of access to the castle.

Copyright is about enforcing fairness, making sure ideas with merit aren't just stolen by others with more resources or pull (or friends in the castle). My copyright is as good as Cory's copyright, which is as good as David's copyright, and I ultimately have as much control over my product as they do. Copyright works because the public, acting through the law, accepts that concept and largely upholds it... until recently, when electronic files have thrown a planet-sized monkeywrench into the works.

Salvaging the situation depends upon people agreeing that the work has value beyond ink on bound slips of paper, and upholding that through application of copyright law. If the people refuse to accept that, then the industry will eventually find all of its material on-line for free, and that won't be great for the publishing castle (or those inside it).

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Ok, lets consider I am an average person.

We'll give you the benefit of the doubt...

Originally Posted by pilotbob

What, I can't read the books I buy from Amazon on the Sony too?

To me, the above scenerio would be one a normal person would run into. As you say, not really understanding DRM and thinking the books would work on both devices.

You're right, and this is likely to be the single biggest stumbling block related to all e-books: I can't read one book on another device; and most "normal" people won't realize that until it's too late. Therefore, the sooner we have a common format (like ePub) that users can buy, and have their device, whatever it is, automatically read/convert it, the better the industry will be.

Actually, there is another option for "normal" people, that should go before option 4: Stick with whatever you already have, grumble about the things others have that you don't, and hope things get better (in other words, wait for ePub to save us all), before you get fed up and go with 4. For early adopters, it's akin to Death By a Thousand Cuts. But if you're a patient person, this strategy actually works well, if slowly.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by radleyp

The Constitution provides explicitly for protection for copyright (and patent) holders. Such protection, moreover, is an encouragement to create more and maybe better and more popular things.

That was the original intent, and back when copying/distributing was very expensive and copyright terms were limited, it actually worked to encourage more artistic creation. These days, where copyright is constantly being extended (both in terms and punishments) and electronic copying/distribution costs are very cheap (compared to what they were), a lot of people would say that the only thing the current copyright law does is promote greed.

It's nice to think of copyright as trying to achieve a balance between the public good and encouraging the arts, but that is only true from a historical perspective. The laws are tipping that balance further and further towards the benefit of publishers/distributors, but technology is further and further reducing the value of what they provide. At some point, the old model is going to need to be changed. Right now the industry is doing everything it can to resist that change, and many consumers are reacting by losing respect for the industries rights. I think the artists are, unfortunately, being caught in the middle.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Well, then... to put it bluntly... why do it at all? That model is reversing the role of product and promotional tool, and it makes no sense.

Current technology is breaking the old model already. The business model for how to make a profit needs to adapt. I don't think anybody really has hit on the right model yet for digital content, but it seems pretty clear that the old model for physical content is becoming obsolete when applied to the digital world. Trying to cling to the old model by fighting technology in order to artificially limit the supply/distribution is never going to work. There is no such thing as an unbreakable DRM that will protect your digital work. Once you start distributing digital content, consumers are going to find a way of doing it themselves. Because of technology, the distributor is now irrelevant. That's not where the value is anymore with digital content, so that's not where the profit will be.