Filesharing and ebooks

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

You can wonder all you like,

Thankyou, so glad I have your permission to wonder about something of interest to me!

Originally Posted by Mojoe

and maybe there is bias and lies (like all studies) but I'd rather take my lies from the file sharing community rather than industries who have a vested interest in the status quo (and lining their own fat pockets).

No "maybe there is bias and lies".........simply there is!

As for who to take the lies from........why should the lies of one group be any more valid and worth paying attention to than the lies of another group?

Originally Posted by Moejoe

I can point you to the results from the studies and the institutions that made those studies, but I fear it would make little difference to your opinion and you would only poo-poo the results.

As Morlac pointed out, the "studies" you linked to are not studies at all but merely opinion pieces and anecdotal stories.

Should there be any valid scientific and verifiable studies then I'd be most happy to have a look at them. Though I have no actual opinion on the validity of the studies as yet(and therefore nothing to "make a difference to), should they stand up to scrutiny I would be most happy to stop wondering about their validity.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Instead I give two exemplums:

Before I got my liseuse I downloaded and read a few Cory Doctorow novels, which I then purchased in pbook. Free lead to sales.

After buying my liseuse and downloading ALL of Cory Doctorow's work for FREE I re-bought all of Cory Doctorow's available pbooks and donated them to the local library.

Two personal anecdotal examples with no way of verifying if they are truthful or not........strike me down with a feather I'm convinced!

Seriously though, for every example of that nature you can give I can give one of someone who just wants free stuff and has no intention of buying or donating anything.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Thankyou, so glad I have your permission to wonder about something of interest to me!

No "maybe there is bias and lies".........simply there is!

As for who to take the lies from........why should the lies of one group be any more valid and worth paying attention to than the lies of another group?

As Morlac pointed out, the "studies" you linked to are not studies at all but merely opinion pieces and anecdotal stories.

Should there be any valid scientific and verifiable studies then I'd be most happy to have a look at them. Though I have no actual opinion on the validity of the studies as yet(and therefore nothing to "make a difference to), should they stand up to scrutiny I would be most happy to stop wondering about their validity.

Two personal anecdotal examples with no way of verifying if they are truthful or not........strike me down with a feather I'm convinced!

Seriously though, for every example of that nature you can give I can give one of someone who just wants free stuff and has no intention of buying or donating anything.

Cheers,
PKFFW

Genie is out of the bottle. You can't cram it back in. You and yours lost.

For the hard of reading, I again offer the earlier links I gave out:

Some reports and other articles that may be useful for those who claim they need them to make up their mind:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...ectualproperty

142 page report on economic benefits of filesharing (in dutch) http://www.tno.nl/content.cfm?contex...=1&item_id=473 (Torrentfreak report on this report here: http://torrentfreak.com/economy-prof...cludes-090119/)

File sharing good for music biz - http://www.openbusiness.cc/?p=158 (original report here: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/node/409)

Radiohead: Filesharing good for Music: http://government.zdnet.com/?p=4538

NIN "Trent Reznor" understands where the music industry is going - http://www.fool.com/investing/genera...led-again.aspx

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

In the UK they do But seriously, you can't enforce Intellectual Property Rights on the internet, it's impossible. And IP is pretty much ridiculous in the face of the digital anyway, so why bother? Victory, if there is victory, will be pyrrhic at best.

For the sake of discussion, lets assume you can't enforce copyright on the Internet, are you implying that companies and individuals should allow their works to be freely distributed? Is so, then how do you propose authors make a living?

Do you think Books, Games and Films would continue to be made if there were no copyright laws to provide a financial incentive, outside of enthusiasts?

Maybe I've come to the wrong conclusion on your views to copyright. If so, what is it you're proposing?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by JoeD

For the sake of discussion, lets assume you can't enforce copyright on the Internet, are you implying that companies and individuals should allow their works to be freely distributed? Is so, then how do you propose authors make a living?

Do you think Books, Games and Films would continue to be made if there were no copyright laws to provide a financial incentive, outside of enthusiasts?

Things change all the time and companies and others adapt or not. It is easy to suggest a lot of possible answer to your questions but only time will tell what will happen.

But the alternative that most definitely is bad is to let forces try to hinder change by new laws that give us less freedom.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Morlac

I really wanted to stay out of this argument because I think it's rather futile to try to convince anyone of the rightness or wrongness of piracy when they've so clearly made up their minds. However, it's been a pretty civil discourse so far, so I'm going to dip my toe into the water...

First, Moejoe, I see what you did there (and in many of your posts...)



Mega-conglomerates do own a lot of IP. So do small companies (like mine -- full disclosure: I'm a very small publisher as well as an author). So do individuals. You can argue that the interests of each faction do not always align, but it's disingenuous to characterize this as being only about mega-conglomerates.

Mega-conglomerates are not necessarily evil. They are self-interested. They can be foolishly short-sighted. They can be prone to doublethink. But all of those can be true of individuals and small groups as well. The danger lies in the fact that mega-conglomerates are powerful enough to try to enforce their will on others and do so successfully.

If, however, one believes that mega-cons are inherently dangerous, bad, or even evil, one should certainly fight back. The means you choose to do that can still be judged by others and by society at large on a moral and legal basis. While I agree that IP-piracy, especially of a digital nature, is qualitatively different from stealing physical goods or physically harming the mega-con executives, the rightness or wrongness of your cause does not instantly render your actions just or unjust. (Should a pirate who honestly doesn't care about your good fight and simply wants to get some free stuff with never a thought of paying anyone should be judged much more harshly than you?)


That one is known as the naturalistic fallacy -- the false proposition that something is right because it is "natural." Well, for most of human history, it was also acceptable for the powerful to simply oppress or enslave or steal from the weaker. Heck, for most of human history we did without indoor plumbing. Personally, I'd like to keep what progress we've made in getting away from both of those states.

I never said 'right' or 'wrong', what I did say was 'how it is' (at least that is what I was aiming at through my 'fallacies'). You can't stop this tide of sharing is my whole thrust. You cannot stop what is happening, you can only embrace and try to understand. If you do not, you are consigned to be ignored and, lets face it, ridiculed by those who drive the engine of change.

Couldn't read the dutch one. Familiar with the others, most of which were, I believe, cited in Chris Anderson's "Free."

First, with the possible exception of the dutch one, these are not "studies." The Reznor and 50 cent articles are anecdotes. I'm glad that both gentlemen are realists who can find a way to capitalize on the situation. And I agree that there are ways to leverage the additional exposure piracy can provide. But that's in no way the same thing as saying that piracy is good. Polluting the environment creates vast opportunities for new businesses to take advantage of our desire to clean up the pollution. Does that mean that pollution is a good thing? Should we all join the "Polluter Party" to agitate our government to encourage more pollution so we can get better jobs with enviro-cleanup companies?

And what about the "File Sharing Good for Music Biz" study? That was a survey, not a study. It asked people who download music on legal download services questions about their own habits and attitudes. It focused on how peer recommendations and other social aspects can be used to influence consumer tastes and purchasing. In no way did this deal with the question of piracy, nor were the people polled actually pirates.

Yes it was a survey, and if you'll look back at what I said before I introduced my 'evidence' I never claimed any were studies - here is what I said....

Some reports and other articles...

Further to this, the word piracy was usurped by the industries who want to demonize the natural extension of the digital (everthing is reproducable at low to zero cost). You are no more a pirate if you share a file than you are a paedophile if you dress your children for school (rough analogy I know, but sharing and piracy are so different its apt I believe).

As an author I try to write what my audience will find interesting, illuminating, educational, and/or uplifting. I try to support other artists with encouragement, advice, reviews, recommendations, and, when economically possible -- since I'm a small publisher, not a rich one -- as a consumer I will buy their work.

As an editor, I try to help the author shape his or her message -- to put it in the clearest, most forceful, most compelling form possible.

As a publisher, I try to convince people to give our books a chance. In my business (educational publishing) free samples have always been around. We give free printed copies of our books to teachers and administrators to look at and evaluate. Of course that costs us money, but it's the best -- often the only -- way that they can judge whether or not it works for them. But it's one thing for us to choose to provide those free samples and quite another thing to have someone pirate them.

Again, the word 'pirate'. Which is so seeped into the argument now that it's hard not to use it myself. But nobody is murdering, raping and pillaging to get hold of your material, and they never will. You're trying to make a buck and even though I understand that motivation, I also know that in a world where most information is free, your information isn't really worth a buck any longer. And I'm not being cruel, its just how it is. For you, for me, for any writer. The internet makes everyone a publisher (if they want to be). Every one is now a journalist, an artist, an author and a musician all rolled into one. The means of distribution is at everyone's fingertips, but the price we pay is now reduced to zero. Nobody expects to pay for email or Facebook or Twitter or even this site we are now having this discussion upon. Nobody thinks twice about copyright or infringement or sharing when we share forum posts or blog posts (maybe about plagiarism, but that's a different kettle of fish altogether). And so because of this democratization of content, the value on all creative endeavours has been reduced to near zero.

And that's what we all, as creative types, must consign ourselves to now. The possibility that we'll never make a single penny from our work, no matter how popular, is very real. We must shift our expectations to writing as art, as passion, as vocation rather than career.

Using myself as example, where I once wanted to make a living from writing, now all I want is one of three things (all three would be wonderful):

Eyes
Mind
Heart

I want people to read my work, I want them to think, and I want them to fall in love with what I write. No amount of money can buy those three (well, maybe the first).

Moejoe and many other people on both sides of the argument seem to be intelligent, thoughtful, compassionate people. I wish there was less of the demonizing of either side going on. From Moejoe's rhetoric, I'm afraid that he will dismiss and dislike me simply because I am a publisher. That would be a sad thing, at least for me.

To anyone who's still reading this who hasn't committed to one "side" or the other yet, I hope that you found something useful in this long post!

No, I don't dismiss what you say at all, as an 'indie' publisher you have my ear more than any rep from the big corps would ever have. But I must plead with you to understand what's happening, and what might happen in the future. I don't want to see all the indie pubs go out of business any more than I want the small press or the indie record labels to go out of business. But you, me, any writer can't bury their head in the sand for much longer in the face of the reality of the internet.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by JoeD

For the sake of discussion, lets assume you can't enforce copyright on the Internet, are you implying that companies and individuals should allow their works to be freely distributed? Is so, then how do you propose authors make a living?

Do you think Books, Games and Films would continue to be made if there were no copyright laws to provide a financial incentive, outside of enthusiasts?

Maybe I've come to the wrong conclusion on your views to copyright. If so, what is it you're proposing?

How would authors make a living? They'd make a living as they do now (the vast majority that is) by getting a job; usually teaching creative writing Only a very few at the top of the publishing pile actually get to write for a living, as with all branches of the creative industries. The mid list is all but dead, advances are drying up, if not in a drought already, editors are leaving in droves, the big houses are buying less and less and the small presses are dropping like flies. Publishing is a dying old man and it won't last much longer in any case.

For all arguable purposes, copyright doesn't mean anything to your average person now anyway. Name a song, any song and I can download it within a minute. Name a book, any popular book and I can probably have that within a minute also. A popular film, 20mins to 3hrs. A video game for PC or XBOX360 or the Wii, maybe 1hr to 2hrs. Copyright doesn't work any more. It can't protect the digital from being copied. It was put in place to guarantee that arists would continue to create, but it has been hijacked and pirated by the Disneycorps of this world for their own greedy ends.

Here's what would happen if all copyright ceased to exist tomorrow:

Nothing.

I would still write my stories, so would Stephen King. Young, hungry film directors would still make their cheap films. Actors would still act. Musicians would still pick up their guitars and compose love songs. The world would continue to spin, and art would still be made.

Somewhere along the line we've been convinced that creativity=job=money. It doesn't. A child is infinitely creative and can provide infinite joy to a parent, a relative, or a similarly atuned adult who sees that child's free drawing upon a page. Nobody expects to pay that child, nor does the child expect payment. Kafka went unpublished and unpaid in his lifetime, but he still HAD to create. Emily Dickinson had less than a dozen of her 800 plus poems published in her lifetime, but she still wrote.

And you use the word 'enthusiast' as somewhat of an insult. I'd take an enthusiast, a passionate so-called amateur any day over the beige sludge most of the corps pump out as entertainment to feed the drooling tv-coma masses. Enthusiasm is to be lauded, applauded, not derided and scorned.

Copyright helps only the corporations who end up controlling the copyright. The artist, like the proverbial prostitute hired to perform a spit-roast, is f**ked whichever way they turn.

[Morlac]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

No, I don't dismiss what you say at all, as an 'indie' publisher you have my ear more than any rep from the big corps would ever have. But I must plead with you to understand what's happening, and what might happen in the future. I don't want to see all the indie pubs go out of business any more than I want the small press or the indie record labels to go out of business. But you, me, any writer can't bury their head in the sand for much longer in the face of the reality of the internet.

Thanks, Moejoe -- and back at you. While I disagree with your conclusion, I don't dismiss it, nor the reasons you and others have come to it.

And I hope it's obvious that I am trying to understand what's happening now and what may happen in the future. I wouldn't be here if I didn't at least see that digital is -- as a medium -- unstoppable.

But what I hope would also be obvious from my posts is that I value principles. That's why I respect you (I believe that you have them and seem to live by them!) but also why I have a hard time accepting the argument that you advance. On one hand it seems to be morally based -- that either copyright itself or the large companies who tend to own them are intrinsically corrupt/wrong/bad. But on the other hand we have what you accentuated in your more recent post -- the notion that it is simply impossible to protect copyright in this digital world, so why try?

Now on the first (the right or wrongness of the system), I can't really argue with you because it's an article of faith -- a fundamental belief. You either see the world that way or you don't.

But on the second, while I don't want to go overboard in making a rhetorical point, sometimes you do have to draw that line in the sand and fight against something even if it's hopeless. I'd like to think that if one or both of us was trapped in the proverbial burning building, at least someone would try to save us even if the odds were long against success. In my case, I recognize that whether one wishes to call it "piracy" or "sharing" (or even "Fred") it's as you say, a genie out of the bottle. *Some* people are going to do it *some* of the time for *some* materials.

What I want is to try to keep things as civil and reasonable as possible on all sides in hopes that we can come out the other end of the revolution with a system that *does* continue to reward artists and the people who facilitate their work. Essentially, that we don't end up with a world in which *all* people copy *all* materials *all* of the time.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by JoeD

For the sake of discussion, lets assume you can't enforce copyright on the Internet, are you implying that companies and individuals should allow their works to be freely distributed?

If they do not want that done, they could try asking the torrent site operators to remove them. Politely, perhaps. Or post on the torrent's comment page their appeal.

Might be surprised!

- Ahi

[JoeD]

And you use the word 'enthusiast' as somewhat of an insult. I'd take an enthusiast, a passionate so-called amateur any day over the beige sludge most of the corps pump out as entertainment to feed the drooling tv-coma masses. Enthusiasm is to be lauded, applauded, not derided and scorned.

No, I use the term enthusiast to mean someone who produces creative works but does not do so as a job. They may make a token amount of money from it, but it isn't their main way of living. It's a hobby. Amateurs are simply people with the same skills as professionals, only they do not do it as a job.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Genie is out of the bottle. You can't cram it back in. You and yours lost.

Nice way of avoiding responding to any of my points!

But the really funny part is that I have never once argued that the genie isn't out of the bottle. I never once have argued that things should stay the same. I have never once argued that the traditional ways need to be protected.

So the you and yours bit really is amusing.

What I have argued is that the rights of others should be respected just as much as you respect your own rights. I see that from that point of view, yes, "me and mine" have indeed lost.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Yes it was a survey, and if you'll look back at what I said before I introduced my 'evidence' I never claimed any were studies - here is what I said....

Actually what you said was.......

Originally Posted by Moejoe

.....many studies show that it only helps to improve their sales.

So whilst not explicitly claiming the links were to studies, you did claim many studies show something and then provided links. I think it natural to assume(and most likely your intent was to have people assume) that your links would relate to these studies you claim are out there.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Here's what would happen if all copyright ceased to exist tomorrow:

Nothing.

I would still write my stories, so would Stephen King. Young, hungry film directors would still make their cheap films. Actors would still act. Musicians would still pick up their guitars and compose love songs. The world would continue to spin, and art would still be made.

Overnight? Very little would change. Over the next thirty years? Plenty would change, because artists would have no financial incentive to share their works widely. Why publish a book, with all its setup costs, when anyone can grab it & re-publish it cheaper--if nothing else, without the editing and selection process the original went through? Why go through the expense of making a movie, when you can't have any assurance of getting back the costs and making a profit?

All screenwriters certainly aren't going to act, direct & produce movies on their own. They need a team, and a lot of equipment, to make their idea into a public-viewable presentation. Who's going to pay for all that? Only those who can afford to do it in their leisure time?

Performing artists would have a great time. One reason that many bands didn't get behind DRM is that they like to play, not sell CDs; they're content to get paid enough to live on by being on stage. Authors don't have that option; selling copies is their only way to make a living at their craft. Or, of course, they can make a living assembling motherboards, and work on their craft in the evenings, if they've got the energy.

Artists would be limited to those who are able to charge for a performance, or can afford to produce their works for free, or for random unknown amounts of money. And they'd have no incentive to produce publicly--quite the opposite; patronages with strict exclusion contracts might become common.

Of course, digital copies are easy to produce & distribute, so there'd be no reason not to share those. But DRM would also become more common, and more types of it would flourish--without the requirement of fair use, and the right to own one's purchases, materials would be distributed under "Usage Licenses" controlled by the creator or, more likely, a third-party software company. And even free digital copies would work to deepen the cultural divide between families wealthy and educated enough to use computers, and those without those resources.

Inner-city libraries in poor neighborhoods would stock up on letter-sized printout binders of works from the web. Eew.

I agree that copyright as it stands is seriously broken; it hinders more creativity than it encourages, and it's got a stranglehold on our history. However, that doesn't mean it should be removed entirely; we still need the protections copyright was created to grant. We just need to figure out how to grant those protections without blocking huge amounts of creative and sharing efforts.

I love Lessig's idea of making noncommercial derivatives entirely legal, and having much less protection against either noncommercial copies or commercial derivatives. That premise is a good start for sorting out how the law needs to change.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Overnight? Very little would change. Over the next thirty years? Plenty would change, because artists would have no financial incentive to share their works widely. Why publish a book, with all its setup costs, when anyone can grab it & re-publish it cheaper--if nothing else, without the editing and selection process the original went through? Why go through the expense of making a movie, when you can't have any assurance of getting back the costs and making a profit?

Anybody in 30 years time publishing an actual physical book will be a specialist, akin to someone making a reproduction Queen Anne table right now. And people have been writing novels, stories, plays, making indie movies for the last hundred years without hope of getting the money back they invested to make those cultural artifacts. There's NO assurance as it is that you'll make a single cent on a movie you make, especially an indie movie, so you must make it out of passion, because you HAVE to make it. Your profit-centered approach to art is peculiarly American, where everything is bottom-lined and dollar based. In Europe, Art has been subsidized for a long time and a lot of it is created just because we want to further the arts, not make money.

All screenwriters certainly aren't going to act, direct & produce movies on their own. They need a team, and a lot of equipment, to make their idea into a public-viewable presentation. Who's going to pay for all that? Only those who can afford to do it in their leisure time?

This is where I believe you couldn't be wronger. The actual costs associated with independent film making are getting smaller and smaller. Digital cameras such a the RED are allowing even those with the smallest budgets to go ahead and see their dreams fulfilled. Look at the recent Lord of the Rings fan film - the Hunt for Gollum - and tell me that you can't create a great movie just because you want to. I can't find the exact quote, but George Lucas predicted that with the advances in technology, a single person in a bedroom with a home computer would be able to replicate his Star Wars prequels in quality by 2050. The same goes, incidentally, for music production. Ten years ago you needed studio time at the costs of thousands per day, a producer also costing the same, now you can replicated all of that on a low end Mac with a copy of Pro Tools. Both can be distributed on the web for very low cost.

Performing artists would have a great time. One reason that many bands didn't get behind DRM is that they like to play, not sell CDs; they're content to get paid enough to live on by being on stage. Authors don't have that option; selling copies is their only way to make a living at their craft. Or, of course, they can make a living assembling motherboards, and work on their craft in the evenings, if they've got the energy.

And there's the thing, authors can no longer expect to make a living following their passions, just as a painter can't or a poet. Why should we expect to make money? Writing, acting, painting, performing has been done and will continue to be done without any monetary reward. It's not like the publishers are actually helping authors out in any case. 5-7% of f**k all is not a way to make a living. In any other industry the publishers would have been taken to court for unfair work practices. Authors have zero protection from the publishers, even when they join the ridiculous 'guilds', who haven't done shit for authors since their inception.

Artists would be limited to those who are able to charge for a performance, or can afford to produce their works for free, or for random unknown amounts of money. And they'd have no incentive to produce publicly--quite the opposite; patronages with strict exclusion contracts might become common.

Amateur Dramatics societies are a staple of every small town in the UK. These enthusiastic, and a lot of the time, very good actors put on plays and musicals because they love to, not because they need to make a living. That thought doesn't even enter their minds. They do it all, from set design to arranging venues after they've completed their bread-and-butter jobs. I love my local Amateur Dramatics society and what they do for the community and I'd rather see these joyful 'amateurs' put on a production of 'Abigail's Party' than go to the cinema to watch Sequel IV the Search for More Cash.

Of course, digital copies are easy to produce & distribute, so there'd be no reason not to share those. But DRM would also become more common, and more types of it would flourish--without the requirement of fair use, and the right to own one's purchases, materials would be distributed under "Usage Licenses" controlled by the creator or, more likely, a third-party software company. And even free digital copies would work to deepen the cultural divide between families wealthy and educated enough to use computers, and those without those resources.

And if DRM flourished, we would find more and more ways to crack it, more and more ways to distribute freely. If one single clean copy exists, then a billion can exist, and we'll make sure they do exist. We won't let your future scenario come to pass. If the content creators want to go that route, then they better hire the brightest and the bold, because you really don't want to piss of the Open Source crowd and their supporters.

Inner-city libraries in poor neighborhoods would stock up on letter-sized printout binders of works from the web. Eew.

It's an interesting thought, but unlikely in your 30 year scenario. We, in all likelihood, won't have libraries in 30 years time (physical that is). And printouts will, if there's any justice in the world, be consigned to a footnote of computer history.

I agree that copyright as it stands is seriously broken; it hinders more creativity than it encourages, and it's got a stranglehold on our history. However, that doesn't mean it should be removed entirely; we still need the protections copyright was created to grant. We just need to figure out how to grant those protections without blocking huge amounts of creative and sharing efforts.

I love Lessig's idea of making noncommercial derivatives entirely legal, and having much less protection against either noncommercial copies or commercial derivatives. That premise is a good start for sorting out how the law needs to change.

Copyright doesn't work in favour of the creator, and hasn't since the first ridiculous extensions. Now it cannot work in a zero-cost, infinitely replicable culture. The content hoarders like Disney and all the other Mega-Hyper-Corps in their rush to control everything, ruined copyright forever. But they also opened the doors to absolutely free culture. A culture that knows no price, that is created out of joy rather than money. As we have seen both capitalism and communism haven't worked, now we're heading toward something very different. I don't know what that something is, but it's going to be exciting to find out.

[Blue Tyson]

Originally Posted by ahi

Personally, I think nothing short of the death penalty is sufficient deterrent for people who copy binary bytes they have not specifically purchased in binary byte format.

Like the Australian Attorney General then?

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Blue Tyson

Like the Australian Attorney General then?

Especially him! (Or her! And then, especially her!)

I speak as the calm voice of morality and reason!

- Ahi