Library books vs. torrented ebooks

[Inigima]

Oh, I forgot to address one thing Coco said: I have to agree that if you aren't running Adblock you're an idiot, but not for the same reason. Yes, I appreciate that advertising makes a lot of stuff on the Internet free. Unfortunately, ads are one of the single most common vectors for malware. When viewing ads doesn't pose a direct and serious risk to the security of my computer, I will consider turning it off.

[Solmyr]

Do ebooks not get edited or advertised or written or anything in your mind? Because they are electronic they just magically appear from the aether?

The only cost savings for the publisher in ebooks is in printing and printing isn't even close to a large cost in the publishing industry. Most analyses I've seen peg it at about 10%.

Editing and advertising costs exist even if a book is never published as an ebook. Editing is a flat cost and since paper books precede ebooks (from a historic PoV) that cost is already spent. As for advertising, I would gladly cut that out if it were up to me - it adds no value to the already written and edited book.

The author is certainly entitled to making profit from his good work. But here we arrive at the library casus again - a library that buys a single copy of a book and then lends it to 1000 people deprives the author of the profit from 999 extra copies ... or does it? Most of the people who borrow books from libraries would never have bought their own copy had libraries not existed. The same is true for people who download ebooks for free.

This leads me to believe that the profit per copy reward scheme is not working well enough and an alternative solution, like subsidizing talented authors, should be worked out instead.

We would destroy the publishing industry. Good plan. Who needs books.

I'd rather destroy the advertising industry (sorry Blaine :)). It's a good plan. We need less advertising.

[Ormond]

Copyright is generally X years from the author's death, not date of publication (X being usually either 50 or 70, depending on which country you're in). Tolkien died in 1973, so there's still another decade at least until LOTR is public domain.

In the USA, "70 years after the death of the author" only applies to works published after January 1, 1978.

For works published between 1923 and 1978, copyright is 95 years from date of publication.

So LOTR will become public domain in the USA in 2049.

http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm

At the moment, because of the dates laws were changed extending copyright periods, we are in an extended limbo where everything published before January 1, 1923 is in the public domain, but nothing else will lose its copyright until January 1, 2018 when the 1923 publications start to enter public domain.

P.S. I just noticed the interesting result that in the case of LOTR, it would lose its copyright six years earlier if the "70 years after the death of the author" were applied. There must be quite a few authors who published both before and after 1978 whose heirs will see the phenomenon of some of their earlier works remaining in copyright longer than works they published after 1978.

[Reposado]

I'm looking forward to a day when a library has the cajones and the lawyers to start streaming all their media content without restriction (maybe just a login with your library card).

The fact that the government has decided that Corporation A is allowed to press Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V, but that Person B cannot is a travesty, and one of the major market failures of our time.

OT but how is that market failure. Sounds a lot like government failure.

[ants]

....But it's not just about pharmaceuticals, of course. Anything of value, be it drugs, electronic gadgets, software, require labor and cost in the development stages. How do we plan to compensate the people who took the risks in developing these products, if not by protecting their right to be the exclusive party who can sell it? Or to put another way, how do we make information free without removing the incentive to generate new information?

Exactly.

At the moment the current system allows authors to make money. This means that established ones can be authors full time (can you imagine GRRM only working part-time as an author!) while it incentives others to try their hand writing a book for the first time. Plus of course the whole system built around checking/editing books, advertising, giving authors tools and encouragement that publishers supply. The current system compensates authors for the risks they took becoming authors, and allows them to specialise if they are successful.

If there is another system other than copyright laws that can fill this need - please, lets have it. And in an electronic world maybe there will be. But until one comes along, this is the best method we have.

[The Progressive]

Clearly we gotta follow the Chinese model on this issue.

[Spring Bass]

Clearly we gotta follow the Chinese model on this issue.

Free-ride off other people's intellectual property creation? ^_^

I'd much prefer a fixed period than a "copyright no longer applies after death" rule. Creating some income for your spouse and children in the advent of your death is an incentive as well, and there are not-insignificant number of older writers (such as GRRM).

[Shryke]

Editing and advertising costs exist even if a book is never published as an ebook. Editing is a flat cost and since paper books precede ebooks (from a historic PoV) that cost is already spent. As for advertising, I would gladly cut that out if it were up to me - it adds no value to the already written and edited book.

Ahh, so it's not that no one has to pay for editing it's that other people should have to pay for editing. Not you. You are obviously special.

The author is certainly entitled to making profit from his good work. But here we arrive at the library casus again - a library that buys a single copy of a book and then lends it to 1000 people deprives the author of the profit from 999 extra copies ... or does it? Most of the people who borrow books from libraries would never have bought their own copy had libraries not existed. The same is true for people who download ebooks for free.

This leads me to believe that the profit per copy reward scheme is not working well enough and an alternative solution, like subsidizing talented authors, should be worked out instead.

The library model is dependant on a book being a physical thing. Because once your book is a file that can be copied instantly a billion times, a library doesn't make sense anymore. The whole point of a library is based around the idea that books are expensive and hard to copy and thus it's a better idea if we all get together and collectively buy them and then everyone can use them temporarily.

Once that's no longer true, libraries kinda stop making sense.

[Shryke]

Have you looked at films coming out of America lately? Many "big hits" (which are less and less big lately, due to a lack of disposable income) are just reboots of old IP. Supporting this industry is a crime to good taste. I also think it's a big drag on innovation, as we have, what, 3 big recording companies? A handful of large publishers? You get the picture. Because you can hold the rights to some IP for centuries under current laws, it basically encourages hoarding IP.

Yes, but that's talking about movies. This is about books. And while the movie game has changed, it's not towards reusing IPs. Adaptations and reboots are as old as movies themselves. Tons of classic films are themselves reboots or adaptations or both. (The largest change in movies is towards eating away the middle-budget film.)

And how is a handful of big publishers a drag on innovation? The reason there's so few is the market doesn't exist for a bunch of small ones. The profit margins aren't good enough. And they do pretty damn good work.

You can't argue these industries as a group because they all work differently. The publishing industry is different from movies which is different from music and so on.

And since this thread is about books, I'm not seeing the issue. The publishing industry is pretty good.

I'd be happy seeing one aspect of IP law changed immediately: dead people should lose rights to the IP they produced. Fuck their kids, I don't give a shit. Just look at the Beatles: Yoko Ono got it from John, and Michael Jackson got it from Yoko, and now who has it? The Beatles are mostly dead: it's about time for it to become Public Domain. Instead, Apple makes a big deal out of selling decades old music in the iTunes store.

I wouldn't call for dismantling the whole CFR (patents, IP law, copyright). But America is increasingly ruled by dead people, and I am not the only person who thinks it is hurting us.

Exactly. This is the kind of stupid shit that has to stop.

As someone mentioned earlier, this is nothing. Software is where the big patent battles are being waged and it's fucking insane. It's literally a mexican standoff where you own IPs not to make money, but to threaten your competitors with. Basically "If you sue me for violating stupid-patent-X, we'll hit you with a suit for stupid-patent-Y. So just stay cool!".

[The Progressive]

Free-ride off other people's intellectual property creation? ^_^

That's what some people are advocating here no?

Library put up digital copy of a book online, people downloaded it to their computer/tablet, then spread it around to their friends.

[Serious Callers Only]

It's worse than a mexican standoff, it's a mexican standoff where your best bet if you are small is to get bought out

It's intellectual feudalism, and it was predicted long ago.

[Spring Bass]

Since it's been raised, what are the alternatives to copyright for novelists to make a profit?

The music industry has live performances (where most artists make their money) and commissioned works, which is how musicians survived before copyright. The movie business has live theater exhibitions (although that's not where they make their money on most movies), merchandise, and possibly cheap copies (even without copyright, they could sell copies of their stuff - they just wouldn't be the only people doing it).

What does the publishing industry have? Weekly chapter installments? That's how many novelists published their works before copyright became serious, such as Charles Dickens.

[karaddin]

Yeah I think literature is the hardest one to see the way it should move forward with the new medium. I know I certainly don't have any good ideas for it. That said the current price of ebooks is artificially inflated beyond what it should be. I'm not going to say there are zero costs, the authors cut, the publishers cut and editing etc does need to come out of it, however printing and distribution costs are removed and the price should reflect this.

Amazon are claiming a conspiracy between Apple and the 5 major publishers to inflate the prices and have brought a class action lawsuit against them, Ars had an article on it last week and it seems like it will be a pretty big deal if successful.

On the software patent issue, the problems go beyond what's already mentioned as one of the other issues is that some of the patents are ridiculously broad. They don't just cover specific methods of doing a task, they cover the specific task itself.

[Shryke]

Yeah I think literature is the hardest one to see the way it should move forward with the new medium. I know I certainly don't have any good ideas for it. That said the current price of ebooks is artificially inflated beyond what it should be. I'm not going to say there are zero costs, the authors cut, the publishers cut and editing etc does need to come out of it, however printing and distribution costs are removed and the price should reflect this.

Amazon are claiming a conspiracy between Apple and the 5 major publishers to inflate the prices and have brought a class action lawsuit against them, Ars had an article on it last week and it seems like it will be a pretty big deal if successful.

How is it artificially inflated? Based on what data?

Shit, I just did a quick test.

ADWD

Hardcore: ~$19

eBook: ~$10

The cost of printing and distribution usually comes in under 20% and yet there's a 50% savings right there.

And that's ignoring room for profits so the company can actually function.

The bitching about eBooks always ignores that the majority of the cost of making a book is not printing. And that's ignoring all the other things going on in the business.

Publishing is not a business with huge margins. Certainly not for the kind of books most people here read.

The problem with eBooks is people get the book itself, just minus some paper, and suddenly think it should be worth almost nothing. It's a really obvious example of perceived value. Even though the paper isn't most of the cost of a book, people think it is.

[The Progressive]

Since it's been raised, what are the alternatives to copyright for novelists to make a profit?

What does the publishing industry have? Weekly chapter installments? That's how many novelists published their works before copyright became serious, such as Charles Dickens.

Lol, the Chinese are doing just that for the last several years. This is how it usually works ................ writers put out sample chapters on popular literature websites; those with high number of views and/or critical acclaims are then moved to VIP section; readers will have to pay a subscription to the sites in order to read the new installation in the VIP section; authors then get paid by the amount of readers/votes/views they get. The paid sites deal with copying from other sites by various methods, however, all of the popular works still get copied and spread around the free sites.

[karaddin]

How is it artificially inflated? Based on what data?

Shit, I just did a quick test.

ADWD

Hardcore: ~$19

eBook: ~$10

The cost of printing and distribution usually comes in under 20% and yet there's a 50% savings right there.

And that's ignoring room for profits so the company can actually function.

The bitching about eBooks always ignores that the majority of the cost of making a book is not printing. And that's ignoring all the other things going on in the business.

Publishing is not a business with huge margins. Certainly not for the kind of books most people here read.

The problem with eBooks is people get the book itself, just minus some paper, and suddenly think it should be worth almost nothing. It's a really obvious example of perceived value. Even though the paper isn't most of the cost of a book, people think it is.

The price may have come down, at launch my aDwD was $14 for my Kindle. And I'm not randomly bitching about it, I'm referring specifically to the allegation made by Amazon in the law suit that they were selling all ebooks for a max of $10 and were strong armed into increased prices by the publishers/Apple. At minimum they certainly think they can sell for less.

[Shryke]

The price may have come down, at launch my aDwD was $14 for my Kindle. And I'm not randomly bitching about it, I'm referring specifically to the allegation made by Amazon in the law suit that they were selling all ebooks for a max of $10 and were strong armed into increased prices by the publishers/Apple. At minimum they certainly think they can sell for less.

No, at minimum Amazon thinks they can sell for less.

Amazon is just a distributor. To them, eBooks cost ... basically nothing.

The publishers disagreed.

There's also the issue of degrading the value of your product, which the publishers are certainly much more concerned with then Amazon.

[karaddin]

No, at minimum Amazon thinks they can sell for less.

Amazon is just a distributor. To them, eBooks cost ... basically nothing.

The publishers disagreed.

That's what I meant by "At minimum they think they can sell for less" - they being Amazon, sorry for not being clear. They also were selling for less at a prior point, so they must have been buying for less than the $10 mark. I guess it's premature for me to state that it's artificially inflated though, that will depend on the outcome of the court case.

Also to be clear, I'm certainly not complaining about $14 for aDwD, there are some books that obviously need to be more expensive than others and this is one of them.

[Reposado]

Yeah I think literature is the hardest one to see the way it should move forward with the new medium. I know I certainly don't have any good ideas for it. That said the current price of ebooks is artificially inflated beyond what it should be. I'm not going to say there are zero costs, the authors cut, the publishers cut and editing etc does need to come out of it, however printing and distribution costs are removed and the price should reflect this.

Well, costs do not determine prices, so that is pretty irrelevant. Prices are what people will pay for something, supply and demand, etc.

[Spring Bass]

Lol, the Chinese are doing just that for the last several years. This is how it usually works ................ writers put out sample chapters on popular literature websites; those with high number of views and/or critical acclaims are then moved to VIP section; readers will have to pay a subscription to the sites in order to read the new installation in the VIP section; authors then get paid by the amount of readers/votes/views they get. The paid sites deal with copying from other sites by various methods, however, all of the popular works still get copied and spread around the free sites.

I'm not arguing that it's a bad idea. I think it's actually a good response if we get into an era where copyright on books is nigh unenforceable. Aggregation is the key, since people are more likely to go to a site that has all the new chapters they want to read, and such a site is where people can start following new authors doing the chapter-by-chapter installments.

The reading experience if most of the publishing world went that way would be pretty different, though, and I suspect that would heavily influence the type of writers that would get followings. Imagine reading one of GRRM's books that way.