Paper Books vs. Electronic

[Errant Bard]

And the 3.50 that GRRM doesn't have is just a hypothetical too, right? :P

He was never going to have it. The choice was just between someone reading his book or not. You seem to imply that there is a loss, when there is none.

By the way:

However, I'd say that if you really think downloading A Dance With Dragons from some shady Web site is not stealing, feel free to email GRRM and let him know. After all, if it's not stealing, what's the problem, right? Having been told by a reader that he was planning to find and download my own book, instead of paying for it, I can imagine what George might say.

Oh, nice false dichotomy. Either it's stealing or it's totally fine? Please. "Stealing" has meanings that "illegal downloading" has not. Using the wrong vocabulary only serves to confuses issues, among others the fact that a download is not a lost sale.

I guess I could email GRRM and a lot of other authors to notify them that checking a book from a library, borrowing from a friend, reading in a bookstore or buying second hand doesn't give them any money, is done by a lot of people, and is still not stealing too. I don't really see the point though.

[Datepalm]

I don't think Gaiman's correlation necessarily equals causation there. Interest in Neil Gaiman leads both to more copies being sold AND more copies being pirated, since both are expressions of interest in Neil Gaiman.

[TrackerNeil]

Oh, nice false dichotomy. Either it's stealing or it's totally fine? Please. "Stealing" has meanings that "illegal downloading" has not. Using the wrong vocabulary only serves to confuses issues, among others the fact that a download is not a lost sale.

You can't really say that a download is not a lost sale; no one really knows. And I'm not getting into some debate about whether illegal downloading is stealing; in my view, the difference in this context is largely cosmetic.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

EB

Meh, it's not like he was going to buy them in any case. Perfect example of how downloading is not stealing.

Aaaaaaarrgh!

If downloading were not available he couldn't have read the book without someone having purchased it first.

[Whitestripe]

I'm like an anti-hoarder, so most of my books come from the library. (the husband is the book collector and we have scores of books from friends and contacts in the small press world) If I really like something I will buy it. I do love a paper book, but I also like to being able to download ebooks from the library. I'd say I'm about 50/50 with paper and ebooks. If I've read a borrowed ebook and I really like it, I will get a paper copy.

[Errant Bard]

I don't think Gaiman's correlation necessarily equals causation there. Interest in Neil Gaiman leads both to more copies being sold AND more copies being pirated, since both are expressions of interest in Neil Gaiman.

I am not sure that there is any causation to see in Gaiman's speech. He only says that a download is not a lost sale, backed by some experiments.

Sure, when he explain that a book he was selling steadily, after being put for free on internet, had a 300% sales increase, it might not be cause and effect, but it damn well shoots down the idea that a download is a lost sale (except if his book sales are subject to some otherworldly fluctuations for no reason whatsoever, and he was destined to sell 600% more at that time or something)

You can't really say that a download is not a lost sale; no one really knows.

Oh? You always seem to be convinced that it is a lost sale, yourself. In our case I'm just looking at reality: a kid with no money is not going to conjure money out of thin air. Starting from that, it's better if he knows and loves an author than if he does not.

If downloading were not available he couldn't have read the book without someone having purchased it first.

But someone purchased it to put it online.

The important point is that he simply would not have read it at all if he could not download it. Net loss for GRRM: one less fan, who would not buy his books in the future when he'd earn money, or recommend the series to people who might have money.

[brzibrzi]

The important point is that he simply would not have read it at all if he could not download it. Net loss for GRRM: one less fan, who would not buy his books in the future when he'd earn money, or recommend the series to people who might have money.

exactly! not a single word of this can be denied.

also, i think GRRM has reached a point when one more fan worshipping his magnum opus is worth more to him than an extra $3.50 in his pocket

[3CityApache]

I must admit you are very convincing EB. But what about people who have money and could afford buying books, but deliberately not doing so, downloading them for free instead? There is quite a thin line between being able and not being able to buy something I guess and I think this line is mostly in our head, not our pocket. On the other hand, when someone gets used to downloading books for free, I'm not sure he/she will start buying them when finally starts earning money.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

EB,

But there are no new copies of the book being made if there is no downloading. The person in Croatia is forced to wait for a copy to become available from a library or a friend rather than having the, overly convienent, option of simply downloading a copy of the book. It means that there is the possiblity of lost sales because some who would not want to wait for the book to become available for free would simply buy it. Now, they don't have to wait for the free option. They can get their free copy almost as soon as the book is available.

Therefore, lost sales and lost revenue to the author of the work. At the end of the day you are probably right with regard to authors like Gaiman and GRRM. The losses will be minor. However, with regard to authors like Trackerneil who have not hit mass publication status I suspect the lost sales are going to be a tad more important.

[3CityApache]

At the end of the day you are probably right with regard to authors like Gaiman and GRRM. The losses will be minor. However, with regard to authors like Trackerneil who have not hit mass publication status I suspect the lost sales are going to be a tad more important.

But isn't there such a mechanism, that your works become available for downloading only after you do hit mass publication status? I'm asking because I'm not sure, but I always assumed it was a fact.

[badreligion]

I prefer my Kindle, just because I can borrow books from the library without actually going there. :cool4: I'm pretty lazy.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3city,

Not if you are trying to sell your work and make it as widely available as possible. You want people to have easy access. That means making "eCopies" available early on. That means being subject to piracy problems unless you make it onto the NYT bestseller list. It means hit a home run or you lose. Moderately sucessful authors, I suspect, are hit hardest.

[Errant Bard]

But what about people who have money and could afford buying books, but deliberately not doing this, and instead downloading them for free?

Well, yes, obviously this one is a lost sale. But if you look at numbers you see that when people actually have money, they spend it. The most pirated is the most sold, always, and inversely.

But there are no new copies of the book being made if there is no downloading. The person in Croatia is forced to wait for a copy to become available from a library or a friend rather than having the, overly convienent, option of simply downloading a copy of the book. It means that there is the possiblity of lost sales because some who would not want to wait for the book to become available for free would simply buy it. Now, they don't have to wait for the free option. They can get their free copy almost as soon as the book is available.

Certainly, but it's not relevant to our case since the subject simply cannot buy the book. So what lost sale? What loss, more generally? None.

Anyway, your thought experiment is limited, I would say that the one downloading a book is more likely to buy that book when it becomes available

Therefore, lost sales and lost revenue to the author of the work. At the end of the day you are probably right with regard to authors like Gaiman and GRRM. The losses will be minor. However, with regard to authors like Trackerneil who have not hit mass publication status I suspect the lost sales are going to be a tad more important.

As I say, there is no loss. Someone who would not actually buy your book doesn't pay for it, how can you consider this a loss? Do you count the non-fantasy readers as lost sale because they won't buy the book too? What about those who watch the serie?

Authors like Trackerneil need exposure more than they need additional three dollars. Not being downloaded is useless if it means not being read, which is what more likely happens with unknown authors. People spend their buck on a more limited pool of authors nowadays, and they buy slightly less books, at least in my country, if I can believe a few editors, so brand name is important.

Reminds of IBM versus Microsoft, back in the day. The small company which had its operating system pirated worldwide did not tank.

[Timzy]

it's simple - if you wanted no more bookshelves she would want more bookshelves :)

Easy just buy lots of books so she has no choice but too get anothere bookshelve

also

Books for the house but E-readers everywhere else

:)

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

EB,

You are saying piracy helps struggling authors. Until you show me authors breaking into mass publication because of piracy I'm going to disagree.

[3CityApache]

Ser Scot

OK, I see you got a point. But on the other hand, again, I think there exist some kind of support for new, moderately succesful writers instinctively showed by their readers. Support, that manifests itself by paying for their work, particularly because they're not famous enough not to care if we paid or not. In case of hugely succesful writers we could always try to justify our actions by saying "they don't care, it wouldn't hurt' em if I'm not paying". In this case it's not an option.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3city,

That model bothers me because I'd prefer authors not be turned into beggers.

[Callandoril]

It's a brave soul who admits on westeros.org that he/she has stolen the work of George R.R. Martin.

Meh, it's not like he was going to buy them in any case. Perfect example of how downloading is not stealing.

And the 3.50 that GRRM doesn't have is just a hypothetical too, right? :P

That being said, not going to blame anyone in Croatia for downloading anything, really.

First, thanks for thinking I'm a brave soul. I also plan on being a writer but it would be my second 'occupation' you could say, since I'm planning to go to informatics college -> programming, and it that branch, with enough creativity, you can both enjoy it and still make money... anyway, I can relate to GRRM, but I haven't got the resources to buy the books. Since I've found out about ASOIAF about 7 months ago, if I saved the money I got every month, I MAYBE could've bought one book only so...

Second, I could've just borrowed them from my town library(yes they did pay for the books), but the books there: a) are not in a good condition, B) my friend borrowed and it had some awful translations, so that's why I chose to download...

And as I put in my first post, if/when I get the money, I'll buy those books. I'm a huge fan of ASOIAF and other series(and I own some books like 'The Darkness that comes before' from Bakker, but every book I have gotten were gifts) and I don't see a reason why I shouldn't buy books when I can afford to actually buy them... this doesn't excuse me, it's still not right, but, what can you do?

[Mr. E]

As I say, there is no loss. Someone who would not actually buy your book doesn't pay for it, how can you consider this a loss? Do you count the non-fantasy readers as lost sale because they won't buy the book too? What about those who watch the serie?

The problem here is the only thing you're doing is arguing semantics. Sure, let's say hypothetical person wouldn't have bought book anyway. But what does it matter? Said person is still reading the book. Meaning that whether he or she would have bought it or not, they are still enjoying the fruits of GRRM's, or Neil Gaiman's or TrackerNeil's labors with no benefit to any of them. I just don't see how you can argue with that without the most impressive of philological gymnastics.

And honestly, I actually agree the piracy, in the long run, probably does help authors with exposure and sales and creating new things--I completely think that's true. That does not negate the nature of the the primary action, especially if the person in question has the means to pay for the product anyway.

[3CityApache]

Ser Scot

But we are still talking about a world where illegal downloading of officially published books is only a certain margin, are we not? I wonder if this margin widens once the author becomes popular, and I tend to believe it's not necesserily true. Of course I don't know real figures here, but let's say 1 percent of illegaly downloaded books versus, say, 5 million copies sold, which makes 50 000 copies. It would be a huge pile of money for not such a succesful author, but the same 1 percent when one sold only 20 thousand copies of the book makes it only 200 copies illegaly downloaded.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that authors would be turned into beggars only if this margin was considerably bigger. Which may be the case, I don't know, but I think it works both ways, just like EB suggests. People who read and like the book, even if they didn't pay for it (which I don't like or support, just to be clear), in the long run contribute to author's popularity and book sales increase. So impact of their individual act of illegal downloading of said book may be somewhat diminished.