Can e-Publishing Overcome Copyright Concerns?

[radleyp]

People can go out and shoot one another too, but that doesn't mean society should not decide to inflict penalties and punishment if they do. Since the advent of copying machines, it has been possible to reproduce and distribute books illegally. New technology has made that easier: if I understand you correctly, this means we should find a new business model and forget about copyright enforcement. Maybe this is a losing battle, but I am sure that if the punishment for illegal copying is severe enough (huge monetary fines, for example) then copyright will continue to mean something. I have seen a similar battle in the world of trademarks, where I spend some of my time: domain names have made trademark enforcement (generally protected by national laws) much harder, but because the price for domain name thieves and even nations can be extremely high, there have been plenty of triumphs. It's certainly a challenge to come up with effective protections, but the idea that technological advances have made enforcement of ip protections difficult if not impossible I do not accept.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by radleyp

Since the advent of copying machines, it has been possible to reproduce and distribute books illegally.

Sure, but it was expensive (compared to now). You needed to buy/build the machine, have the expertise to use it, and provide raw materials in order to produce copies. The only people who really did this on a large scale were doing it for commercial gain. You didn't see the average consumer doing this themselves, so there was still value in going to a distributor to buy content. Copyright was created because production/distribution was expensive. It's basically encouraging artists to produce by guaranteeing them that they'll have a chance to make a profit from the creation of the work, but also largely that the expense of distribution will be reimbursed. It protected them from somebody undercutting their distribution costs and taking the market away from them by granting them a limited monopoly on the supply of their content.

In the digital world a "copying machine" is now a free piece of software, the expertise required is essentially being able to click a mouse, and there are no raw materials since it's all digital. Basically, digitial copies are now easy to make and free. What changed is that you don't need to be making money at it in order to be able to do it since there are no longer large costs that need to be recouped. It is now trivial for the average person to be a large scale digital distributor. This means that the real distributors aren't seen as providing any additional value, so people will be less and less willing to pay for that link in the chain.

Artists still provide value, because the content is what people want. However, there is no longer as much need for a middle man to distribute content. In the old business model, it's the middle men that were making the most money. They are very powerful and have a lot of incentive to resist change, but I don't think it's going to last forever. I'm not advocating eliminating copyright, there still needs to be some guarantee that an artist will make enough money from creating a work that they are encouraged to create, but in the digital world there no longer is a need to guarantee them enough protection to offset production/distribution as well. There have been a lot of extensions/penalties added to copyright that protect the large distributors. Harsher penalties may prolong things, but ultimately that's not what this is about. The reality is that in the future, distribution of digital content is a lot less relevant than it used to be when products were physical. That means that the model that placed the majority of the profit in the distributors hands will change as well.

I think the original intent of copyright started to go wrong when it became more about protecting the large corporate middle men than it did about protecting the individual artists. It's the middle men that are being threatened by changes in how the business model will work.

The trick is figuring out a new model that will work. Creating the content still has value, but copying/distributing the content doesn't. That's where things get interesting. One method that some people are talking about is taking what used to be one of the highest parts of the price of an artistic work and turning it into either free or very low cost (valuable distribution has become trivial distribution in a digital environment). Then figuring out a way to make money for your labor in creating the original content elsewhere. Either as services (concerts) or additional offshoot products. The key for authors is to figure out something that works for them. Most of the ideas I've seen being thrown around in this area are more geared towards musicians than authors (probably because for most people that's where the focus is). Authors need to figure out what value they provide to consumers other than production/distribution of the book that will let them make a living from the labor of creating the book. That's the piece that's still missing, and finding the answer is not going to be easy.

[radleyp]

I agree with you. Incredibly (or perhaps not so incredibly) Congress has gone to great lengths to protect what you call the "distributor" in lengthening, at very times over the past years, the term of copyright. This is a boon to companies like Disney that can now tie up their wares for ever longer periods, which was not the intention of the drafters of the Constitution. My concern is protecting the creator, but that means fighting the Disneys who see their interests threatened. Unfortunately, what digital has facilitated is piracy (cf. China), and only strong criminal law enforcement will help there, but only if the jurisdiction in question agrees. We shall see.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Current technology is breaking the old model already. The business model for how to make a profit needs to adapt.

Adapt, yes. But the day that my only hope to make money off of a novel is to sell a T-shirt, I'm turning the PC off.

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Authors need to figure out what value they provide to consumers other than production/distribution of the book that will let them make a living from the labor of creating the book. That's the piece that's still missing, and finding the answer is not going to be easy.

This reduces the role (and value) of the author to that of a typist. Thanks loads.

Originally Posted by radleyp

I agree with you. Incredibly (or perhaps not so incredibly) Congress has gone to great lengths to protect what you call the "distributor" in lengthening, at very times over the past years, the term of copyright. This is a boon to companies like Disney that can now tie up their wares for ever longer periods, which was not the intention of the drafters of the Constitution.

One of the things the drafters of the Constitution understood is that Times Change, and laws must be flexible enough to change with them. That's the beauty of the American Democratic system: It is designed to be malleable.

The catch is, you have to be diligent, intelligent, and cooperative, to make that malleability work. That combination has become hard to come by lately, but it's not impossible. It just requires people to stop avoiding the issue, rolling over to government malaise, and allowing the Disneys of the world absolute control over the system.

All the talk about "killing off old copyright laws," "giving up on the old system," is just defeatest and lazy, and ultimately would be a disaster. The copyright system can be adapted to the new digital world. All we have to do is commit to getting it done properly. That's all.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

This reduces the role (and value) of the author to that of a typist. Thanks loads.

That is not at all what I'm saying. The author still provides artistic value. Coming up with the stories is not trivial, and is not something that the average person can easily do with any degree of competency. That's where the author's value is (and in reality always has been). What an artist may not be able to do anymore is rely on a perpetual stream of revenue coming in based on the service of printing/distributing a digital work they created. In the physical world, that service is where the money is made. In the digital world, consumers don't need anybody to print/distribute (or at least there's not much value in it), so an author can't expect to make their money for that service. That's the specific role that has been reduced in value, not the role of the author in general.

Authors need to adapt their model so that they make profit off of the writing of the book, and then will need to start working on the next book if they want to continue making a living as an author (which is how it already works for everybody else). Realistically, they (or whoever they sell the rights to) no longer have a monopoly as the distributor once the digital work is released, so can't count on that service as their revenue source. Distribution is not where the money is anymore.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

In the physical world, that service is where the money is made.

I don't think that's true at all. While a small portion of the retail price of a book goes to the printing an distrbution most of the money goes to the retailer, the wholesaler, the publisher and the author. Also, the publisher usually spends money to market and promote a book.

BOb

[radleyp]

Bob, when you say, "a small portion of the retail price of a book goes to the printing an distribution most of the money goes to the retailer, the wholesaler, the publisher and the author", I don't think you are saying anything different. The retailer, wholesaler and publisher are all part of the printing/selling chain, i.e. the distribution chain, and it is precisely that chain that is eliminated by digital.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

The author still provides artistic value. Coming up with the stories is not trivial, and is not something that the average person can easily do with any degree of competency. That's where the author's value is (and in reality always has been).

You say that... and you also say that the author/artist should give away his artistic product for nothing, and find a non-artistic way to make money, like selling pencils on the street. I maintain that this makes no sense for the artist who would like to make a living off of their work. They might as well give up the art, it's just dragging down their ability to make money.

Originally Posted by Shaggy

What an artist may not be able to do anymore is rely on a perpetual stream of revenue coming in based on the service of printing/distributing a digital work they created. In the physical world, that service is where the money is made.

Actually, that's where the money is lost... those are the overhead costs that take away from the actual source of money: Sales. An author is paid according to sales, not printing and distribution. Those are publisher's costs, and they either absorb that with sales income, or with the final amount they pay the author (or, perish the thought, both).

I'll grant that the old business model is being turned upside down by digital distribution. However, requiring the author to take on an additional (and essentially menial) job to make money is counter-productive, and will not encourage anyone to become an artist. Another method of payment needs to be found.

I've suggested elsewhere either the patronage model (rich guy looking for tax deduction finances your artistic endeavors), or the advertisers model (a company pays you to add their advertising to your work, like a TV commercial or product placement finances a TV show), to finance artists. This makes much more sense, for it encourages the artist to work on their art, not selling pencils, while the patron or advertiser supports them.

And the added value of this is that it largely removes the concern about "piracy" of works, because consumers do not have to pay for the work... they just have to see it, to satisfy the patron/advertiser (who is banking on self-promotion or product sales based on the exposure in the artist's work). This would solve many of the issues that copyright attempts to satisfy, by taking it out of the consumer's concern, and making it the patron/advertiser's concern.

E-publishing can adopt an advertising model right now... publications are already essentially operating on a combination of advertising and subscription/counter sales (and some mags and papers don't even charge at the counter... they are solely supported by ads). The removal of physical printing and distribution should allow a significant lowering of production costs that can be absorbed by a combination of advertisers and subscriptions.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

You say that... and you also say that the author/artist should give away his artistic product for nothing, and find a non-artistic way to make money, like selling pencils on the street. I maintain that this makes no sense for the artist who would like to make a living off of their work. They might as well give up the art, it's just dragging down their ability to make money.

I said they need to find a way other than relying on charging for distribution. The examples I quoted (concerts, t-shirts, posters, etc) where taken from other sources, they weren't my suggestions. As I mentioned, those are usually more meaningful to musicians than authors. Authors will need to figure out something that makes sense other than charging for distribution. I agree, selling pencils on the street would be rather silly.

Actually, that's where the money is lost... those are the overhead costs that take away from the actual source of money: Sales. An author is paid according to sales, not printing and distribution. Those are publisher's costs, and they either absorb that with sales income, or with the final amount they pay the author (or, perish the thought, both).

It's all part of the same thing. Yes, printing and distribution are costs to the publisher, but those are also things that the publisher does which provide value to consumers. A large part of the revenue that they bring in from sales is based on the value they are providing by printing the books, shipping them to retailers, getting them put on the shelves. That's the distribution chain, and people pay the publishers for providing that service. The sale is a certain amount of revenue. From that you subtract the costs of printing/distribution, what's left is the profit. The more value you provide, the more revenue you can charge (which means more profit). With digital distribution, consumers no longer need a publisher to print books, ship items to brick and mortar retailers... etc. The cost to the publisher of those services is gone, but so is the value to the consumers. Because there's no longer any value, the revenue people are willing to give you for distribution is gone, so the profits are gone as well.

I'll grant that the old business model is being turned upside down by digital distribution. However, requiring the author to take on an additional (and essentially menial) job to make money is counter-productive, and will not encourage anyone to become an artist. Another method of payment needs to be found.

Absolutely. As I said, the examples of t-shirts and posters applies more to musicians. The biggest example for them though is the concert. In that case, the live performance is a service that they can provide which does have a lot of value to consumers. Authors will need to figure out what works best for them. Harry Potter (an extreme example, I know) probably makes a ton of money by licensing rights to other markets for physical items like t-shirts, costumes, toys, movie rights... etc. Rowling doesn't need to setup a table on a street corner and sell t-shirts personally, but the companies she licenses the rights to will make a lot of revenue that way.

I've suggested elsewhere either the patronage model (rich guy looking for tax deduction finances your artistic endeavors), or the advertisers model (a company pays you to add their advertising to your work, like a TV commercial or product placement finances a TV show), to finance artists. This makes much more sense, for it encourages the artist to work on their art, not selling pencils, while the patron or advertiser supports them.

And the added value of this is that it largely removes the concern about "piracy" of works, because consumers do not have to pay for the work... they just have to see it, to satisfy the patron/advertiser (who is banking on self-promotion or product sales based on the exposure in the artist's work). This would solve many of the issues that copyright attempts to satisfy, by taking it out of the consumer's concern, and making it the patron/advertiser's concern.

E-publishing can adopt an advertising model right now... publications are already essentially operating on a combination of advertising and subscription/counter sales (and some mags and papers don't even charge at the counter... they are solely supported by ads). The removal of physical printing and distribution should allow a significant lowering of production costs that can be absorbed by a combination of advertisers and subscriptions.

Yep, that's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Advertising is one possibility, but there may be others that a creative artist can come up with as well.

[pshrynk]

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.

So, when does that Kestral porn come out?

[tirsales]

@shaggy: And musicians do still - and will continue to - earn money for each sell.

Yes, I DO NOT like DRM. Not at all.
But: I still assume, that selling a book should give you money - just as well as selling software (which is essentially the same) should make you money. Enough money for an author to continue living from his book-sells, for a developer to continue living from his software.
I do both - programming and writing (not published yet) - and I want to get money for both. Not for some obscure "second market" (dont want to sell shirts, really), but for the product itself.

I do not know how this can be achieved. But - on the other side - using a kind of "serial number" would be a possibility, just like registering books online to specific devices, etc - look at software, it's essentially the same problem (and the same solutions can be used).

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

So, when does that Kestral porn come out?

Cue the seventies syntho-beat!

boom-chica-chica-chica-boom-boom-chica-chica-
boom-chica-chica-chica-boom-boom-chica-chica-...

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by tirsales

@shaggy: And musicians do still - and will continue to - earn money for each sell.

Will they? The RIAA lawsuits and P2P sharing is already starting to show that model is broken. If you're talking physical albums, then yes. But if you're talking mp3's, do you really think the RIAA will be getting a lot of money from online mp3 sales in the future? Musicians will make far more money from concerts than they ever will from mp3 royalties.

Yes, I DO NOT like DRM. Not at all.
But: I still assume, that selling a book should give you money - just as well as selling software (which is essentially the same) should make you money. Enough money for an author to continue living from his book-sells, for a developer to continue living from his software.
I do both - programming and writing (not published yet) - and I want to get money for both. Not for some obscure "second market" (dont want to sell shirts, really), but for the product itself.

As a programmer do you expect to be able to write one piece of software, and then make a living for the rest of your life without writing anything else?

An obscure "second market" for software is charging for support. There's already a huge number of companies out there that have adopted the business model of giving the software away for free, but charging for a support service. Open Source software is the one that people think of the most, but even companies like Oracle, Sun, IBM, etc (which historically made a lot of money off of sales) are giving away their software for free these days and making all of their money from support contracts.

I do not know how this can be achieved. But - on the other side - using a kind of "serial number" would be a possibility, just like registering books online to specific devices, etc - look at software, it's essentially the same problem (and the same solutions can be used).

There is no such thing as DRM that can't be broken, there is no solution that will work. As a programmer, you should know this. Going down that path is a losing battle that just acts to delay the inevitable.

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Will they? The RIAA lawsuits and P2P sharing is already starting to show that model is broken. If you're talking physical albums, then yes. But if you're talking mp3's, do you really think the RIAA will be getting a lot of money from online mp3 sales in the future? Musicians will make far more money from concerts than they ever will from mp3 royalties.

Yes. But they WILL continue to earn money from MP3 royalties - no matter the drm, it is still forbidden to copy mp3 and it will continue to be so.
It is easy to copy MP3 - but they still get selled.

As a programmer do you expect to be able to write one piece of software, and then make a living for the rest of your life without writing anything else?

No. But do you know how few authors can do this? I guess you can count them with one hand, without using binary counting ... Harry Potter is a big exception, but most successfull authors write MANY years before selling their first book and writing MANY books before getting a top-seller.

An obscure "second market" for software is charging for support. There's already a huge number of companies out there that have adopted the business model of giving the software away for free, but charging for a support service. Open Source software is the one that people think of the most, but even companies like Oracle, Sun, IBM, etc (which historically made a lot of money off of sales) are giving away their software for free these days and making all of their money from support contracts.

Yes. But the majority still earns via selling software. The company, at which I work (boy, english is definetly not my first language), sells support - giving away software for free. But we also sell software - and both parts earn money.
Yes, there are many possible business models - e.g. flatrates, monthly paying, additional services, etc and authors will need to adopt. But they will continue to earn money selling (e-)books and this is as it should be.
Perhaps a flatrate? Calculate it - the complete industrie will earn more and it is possible to calculate market shares to calculate the profit of each author / musician / etc.
Authors selling their eBooks and special "additional packages"? Or direct selling of unprotected books (yes, it gets paid), etc There are many possible models.

There is no such thing as DRM that can't be broken, there is no solution that will work. As a programmer, you should know this. Going down that path is a losing battle that just acts to delay the inevitable.

I never talked about unbreakable drm. Can you break a serial number? Yes, without any problems, just by googling.
Can you copy copyprotected DVDs? Without any problem. Can I do this? Without any second problem. Do I still buy (and rend) DVDs? Yes. And most people I know do this as well - and not only since "breaking a copyright" is illegal in germany.
Hell - you can break ANY system...

So? Where is the problem? Most people still buy their software (not all, but a large chunk).
What about e.g. letting you download a book, then entering a serial for that given device, a short connection to the server validating your serial (and registering that book-serial to that device, so that you can share with a number of people and devices, but not with everyone) and then giving you access to that book?
Can it be broken? Yes. Even when using hard cryptografic approaches (each device with a given security-chip and a book-encryption specific to that chip, etc). Will most people break it? No. Not if the deal is fair - e.g. reading the book on multiple readers in your family, etc

It's not about unbreakable DRM - we can agree on this one. That the industrie is continuing to try to enforce something as laughable as this (see BluRay, Windows Vista, WMA, DRM'd eBooks, etc) is ridiculous. But thats really not the point. (Oh and we can agree that DRM in its current usage is evil).
And yes, authors (and the whole publishing industrie) need to adopt to the new market - but not to the point, that they give up earning with their products.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

As a programmer do you expect to be able to write one piece of software, and then make a living for the rest of your life without writing anything else?

HA! It's been done.

As a programmer, if I wrote a program that I was selling, I would expect to get paid for every copy of it... even though making a copy is [close to] free. The value isn't in the CD it is shipped on, it is the benefit the end user derives from it. Much software is not sold [licensed] for $X as a download or $X + $Y for a shipped CD with packaging. The extra cost covers the package, shiping and handling.

Why should books be any different just because the delivery method changed... only the cost of that deliver method should be adjusted, the royalties the author makes should be the same.

BOb

(TO SELF: No more never ending threads!)