Paper book or Ebook?

[Errant Bard]

In any case, take a moment to examine what you're fighting for. Why is it so all-fired important that artists NOT be paid for their work? What's your goal here?

Let me assure you, if I have ever given you the impression I was implying that (because I sure as I hell did write nothing of the sort), then it was not on purpose.

Artists should be paid. Must, even. The only think I am trying to say is that going hysteric about it, and not looking at the reality... preferring instead to rail at concepts that don't truly fit the situation (namely "stealing"), because you're angry and want to malign those you are angry as much as you can, is not productive. Not only do you not make anyone pay more, but the usual desired (shown to be useless for that purpose so far) measures coming with that mindset are the advent of a police state (and no, it's not because it's already happening that you have to help.)

Let me repeat: authors have to be paid for their work, and out of context, anyone who gets to enjoy a work is morally bad if he does not compensate the author in some way. And having said that, Could they and would pay to read your stuff, if there was no download available, is important to know. After that, context and circumstances vary, and that's the interesting point to examine, to then look for a better, maybe, way of retributing artists without going Big Brother.

Also, no practical difference between taking something and not giving something? As a guy paying taxes, I see a lot of difference in my account between before and after the state takes them, I'd like if it decided to just not give me anything instead. In all the variations I can think of (I don't know: taking a life vs not giving life,) there is still a world of difference.

Are you okay with writers not being paid by people who download their work from torrent sites? What is the best solution. As Tracker pointed out he and his co-author asked nicely and go nothing.

No, I am not ok with it... but I don't consider that those guys would have actually bought the book if they had not downloaded it, either.

The best solution? I don't think there is really a solution to illegality, I am less than convinced that there is any practical way to stop illegal downloads, and I think that global available income dipped as the number of authors does nothing but rise. I don't think there is any other "solution" than to trust readers, in the end.

As for TN's book, I don't know what I'm supposed to take of it. The most I have ever argued regarding a positive effect of having one's stuff out there is that it was publicity (just parroting what Gaiman says, really) but publicity is not a guarantee of sales, especially if it's not touching a wide audience and the sample is not well-liked. So, yeah, the ones who downloaded are not moral. Yet would they have bought the book, would they have known about the book without that? I'm doubtful about it, thus I don't think there is a loss for the authors, except for pride.

[TrackerNeil]

Artists should be paid. Must, even. The only think I am trying to say is that going hysteric about it, and not looking at the reality... preferring instead to rail at concepts that don't truly fit the situation (namely "stealing"), because you're angry and want to malign those you are angry as much as you can, is not productive. Not only do you not make anyone pay more, but the usual desired (shown to be useless for that purpose so far) measures coming with that mindset are the advent of a police state (and no, it's not because it's already happening that you have to help.)

Now that the conversation about illegally distributing ebooks has turned to the advent of a police state, I think I'm out.

[john]

Have you paid for a license, or have you paid for a data file? Because in addition to getting a license, you also get a data file. They can't just come in and take away that file once you have it in your possession - and take the proper steps. Which doesn't have to include stripping the DRM.

You paid for a license. :P You do get a data file, which you'll almost certainly get to keep. But you might not.

[Errant Bard]

Now that the conversation about illegally distributing ebooks has turned to the advent of a police state, I think I'm out.

You put things I never said in my mouth while asking your questions, I tried to give a clear and motivated answer. I don't see no discussion about the advent of police state. What did you expect me to say?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

EB,

You put things I never said in my mouth while asking your questions, I tried to give a clear and motivated answer. I don't see no discussion about the advent of police state. What did you expect me to say?

I'm now confused. You said:

Not only do you not make anyone pay more, but the usual desired (shown to be useless for that purpose so far) measures coming with that mindset are the advent of a police state (and no, it's not because it's already happening that you have to help.)

Are you saying the only way to stop piracy is to create a police state and as such were better off allowing people to pirate and that this, as it spreads, will not negatively affect small authors like Trackerneil and his co-author?

[Errant Bard]

EB,

I'm now confused. You said:

Are you saying the only way to stop piracy is to create a police state and as such were better off allowing people to pirate and that this, as it spreads, will not negatively affect small authors like Trackerneil and his co-author?

No, I'm saying that what the publishing world generally asks for, in the name of fighting piracy, are legislative measure that require as slip towards police state.

Yes, it is my belief we are better off not going in that direction, and it is also my belief that piracy will always be a part of the equation. "Allowing" it or not is irrelevant: such legislation has no effect unless you arrive to a point where everything you do is monitored by a central power, with executive privileges (tribunals are already overbooked, this would not go through judicial processes.)

I would argue against the idea that "it spreads", too. It's been 15 years since Napster, people still pirate music, but it's not worse than it was, and the music industry never made more money than now.

I fundamentally disagree with the idea that you hurt people by not giving money to them, that's not how hurting works, same as what I said for taking.

I don't know about profit loss, but in this case, as I said, I doubt people would buy most of what they pirate, I know the entertainment budget has actually grown, and the corrolary would be, I guess, that I believe what would hurt the authors income is more the fierce competition, made fiercer by the ever growing number of self published authors, people's budget and time is finite and is actually spent in its entirety even with piracy.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

EB,

Is your contention that piracy does no harm because those who pirate wouldn't buy the pirated work in any event?

[matt b]

I would argue against the idea that "it spreads", too. It's been 15 years since Napster, people still pirate music, but it's not worse than it was, and the music industry never made more money than now.

While true, recorded music sales have fallen significantly over the last decade or so. But musicians have something available to them that can't be pirated in any way: The Live Show, and that's been crucial for making up the music industry's lost ground. So even if a band's album is pirated and they make nothing off that, they still have a good shot at making some money from concert tickets and merchandise sales. Authors don't have anything comparable, they have one way of making money and that's it.

Still, I've found it interesting that those who pirate music spend more money on recorded music than those who don't. Obviously people who pirate whatever it is don't do it because they hate what they're pirating, they do it because they love it. Tapping into it in a way that gives back to the creators is the tricky part, and I sure don't know how to do it.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

EB,

What sort of consequences do you think should be imposed for piracy. If none, what is to stop it from spreading. As matt b points out the music industry has a built in non-reproducable waynto make money, live performances, not open to publishing. As such wouldn't spreading piracy naturally have a more significant impact on publishing than music?

[Werthead]

The 'pirated copy doesn't equal a lose sale' argument is not very convincing. It came about because of the phenomenon of bulk-downloading in fields such as music and anime, where people would download an absolute shedload of stuff and then only ever watch/use a small proportion of it. The rest would just take up hard disk space and then get deleted. So yeah, in that case the 'downloaded copy doesn't equal a lost sale' argument works, but it doesn't apply to situations where you pirate something and then use it (unless you're like 12 years old and physically cannot afford it, in which case get a paper round or something).

In the case of someone downloading something and enjoying it, they should very definitely buy it as soon as is viable, or make some kind of financial restitution to the creator. This is what is happening at the moment with GoT: people are downloading/pirating it not because they are dickheads, but because there is no alternative. Either the show is only available via some hideously expensive paid-for channel or isn't screened in their country for months, and with HBO refusing to bring the DVD/Blu-Ray out for a full year, HBO can't entirely be surprised by this. However, HBO don't care because people still buy the DVDs and Blu-Rays in their millions, because they know that HBO will put out a good package and the extras will be brilliant. If people pirate it to get it in the meantime, that's okay by them because it's not taking anything away from them. People pirating it when they could go and buy the DVD/Blu-Ray release are definitely arseholes, though ;)

The argument is that you need to reimburse the creators because if you don't, and a lot of other people don't either, they won't be able to make any more and everyone ends up screwed. If you take the view that you can pirate it and get away with it because the other 90% of people who enjoy it and will pay for it, that makes you nothing more than a parasite.

[Schlimazl]

The 'pirated copy doesn't equal a lose sale' argument is not very convincing. It came about because of the phenomenon of bulk-downloading in fields such as music and anime, where people would download an absolute shedload of stuff and then only ever watch/use a small proportion of it. The rest would just take up hard disk space and then get deleted.. So yeah, in that case the 'downloaded copy doesn't equal a lost sale' argument works, but it doesn't apply to situations where you pirate something and then use it (unless you're like 12 years old and physically cannot afford it, in which case get a paper round or something).

A) Pretty sure people do it with books as well, I've seen monstrous sized book torrents lying around and Ill eat my hat if somebody read all the stuff in there.

B ) I think that question here is not if somebody used the pirated product, but whether he'd use it if it wasn't available for free.Personally I highly doubt that if you give an average pirate a choice either read and pay or don't pay, but don't read, he'll go for the former option.I guess what I'm trying to say that from what I've seen the driving force of piracy is the free part, the product itself is secondary.

Either way i don't see how it is connected with the the paper vs electronic debate, paper books are elementary pirated by scanning and Russian language pirate libraries were flourishing well before the e-readers.

[MisterOJ]

From my own past experience, illegal downloads can actually make artists money.

Back 12-14 years ago (in my younger days), I used to pirate music. I downloaded bunches of albums. Some I'd listen to maybe once and then delete. Some, I'd only listen to a track or two and delete. A bunch got downloaded without a single listen.

But there was a handful albums that I really liked. One was by the relatively unknown band Carbon Leaf. They're still around. And they're not huge stars or anything, but they have a small, devoted following. They're easily one of my favorite bands. Over the past 10-12 years, they've gotten a good chunk of money from me. I've bought albums, T-shirts, concert tickets and more. I have purchased their entire catalog of albums, either via CDs or through legitimate online downloads. If not for a pirated album years ago, they never would have gotten a dime from me, because I wouldn't know who they are.

Am I an exception? Or are most people like me? I have no idea, but I suspect a goodly number of folks have spent money they otherwise would not have because of an illegal download at some point.

[Errant Bard]

What sort of consequences do you think should be imposed for piracy. If none, what is to stop it from spreading. As matt b points out the music industry has a built in non-reproducable waynto make money, live performances, not open to publishing. As such wouldn't spreading piracy naturally have a more significant impact on publishing than music?

Yes, there would not be any non-piratable content that you could file under the "books publishing" label, so there is no fallback if the actual problem was piracy. Not that the fallback is that impressive.

What is to make it from spreading? I don't know. Would you yourself pirate and not give any money to the artists? Why would you do it? Is coercion the only thing that makes people who would have bought stuff before buy stuff now?

I find prattle about "fighting piracy" in articles such as this one hilarious considering you can still type any band's name into goggle and find their albums pronto, but he may have a point when it comes to ease of use: people pay for the convenience, for what is easier to use on the devices they own, they don't much care about small transactions either. (also funny considering US is the single most active country in the world regarding "fighting piracy", and it's the one where music sales don't grow... whatever.)

In any case the idea that you can stop piracy seems deluded to me, considering, well, what I could get on the net right now with no risk. It goes with the territory, like self publishing (another aspect of the ease and insignificant costs of digital distribution.) Maybe sales will drop, I doubt it though, but the alternatives seem more harmful. Speaking of this, did you know publishers in my country once justified the high prices for e-books -sometimes equal to those of the paper version- by how costly DRM were to apply? BS of, course, and really sad considering how easily DRM are stripped, but it shows the mindset: better to put useless "anti pircay" stuff in to make them inconvenient enough to make piracy attractive than to accept a potential small margin loss and capitalize on what people want out of the format, and are ready to pay for.

So yeah, in that case the 'downloaded copy doesn't equal a lost sale' argument works, but it doesn't apply to situations where you pirate something and then use it (unless you're like 12 years old and physically cannot afford it, in which case get a paper round or something).

I think you missed one point: it's not because you do it when it's free than you would do it when it's not. One easy example could be the way most people I know listen to music: they can like a song well enough when it plays on the radio/at a party/wherever they don't pay a cent for it, but that does not mean that they will actually buy it or, more than that, would have actually bought it if the only way to listen to it had been to buy it.

Radio is also a good example of how Neil Gaiman (and Mr OJ above) explains piracy works for him: you listen to songs, you care moderately for a lot, but don't buy, but you also find some you really like, and so you proceed to buy everything that band produced.

Hmm thinking about it, books are perfect to insert advertisement in, keeping with the private radios business model. Imagine: "And the axe took her in the back of the head. <next line:>HEADACHES? Buy the Sandor aspirin at your nearest drugstore"

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

EB,

You make good points but take care not to offer a false dichotomy. I'm not suggesting that stopping any and all piracy of intellectual property is an achiveable goal. I'm asking if there is no effort to stop piracy whether ot not piracy of intellectual property, particularly for books, would not be likely to increase in frequency?

No, I would not pirate books, mainly because I do not own an eReader and don't care to purchase one. Destroying a phyisical copy of a book to facilitate fast photo copying of a book is also not something I'm going to do.

[Errant Bard]

I'm not suggesting that stopping any and all piracy of intellectual property is an achiveable goal. I'm asking if there is no effort to stop piracy whether ot not piracy of intellectual property, particularly for books, would not be likely to increase in frequency?

Ok, I'm a bit late answering, my apologies.

In case this is still of interest, for the question, I guess it depends on what you mean by "effort to stop piracy". I believe it can go down with some measures, but I believe those measures to be worse than the disease, and I don't believe there would much of a return on investment either: the piracy could go down, but the sales would not go up (keeping with the theme that a download is not a lost sale.)

If we only offer more convenient ways than piracy to get content, while keeping minimal efforts on closing down illegal outlets that make stuff too easy to get, piracy will probably go up proportionally to the number dematerialized rentals, if we go with the global licence model, piracy ceases to exist by definition. There are choices to make, it can go a number of ways.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

EB,

In other words the "Steam" method of making it easier to access the desired property legally than pirating? That said how do you make it easier to legally buy an eBook than to download for free from a torrent site?

[David Selig]

EB,

In other words the "Steam" method of making it easier to access the desired property legally than pirating? That said how do you make it easier to legally buy an eBook than to download for free from a torrent site?

Remove the idiotic DRM, for starters, so you can read any book on any device. The current situation is absurd.

Remove the idiotic geographic restriction - as someone who lives outside I can't buy any ebooks from Barnes and Noble, for example, but nothing stops me from ordering any of their paper books. On Amazon I can buy most of the books from the kindle store, but still there are some which I can't even though they aren't published where I live, it's extremely unlikely they will be published in the near future, nobody has bought the rights, and I can still buy the paper version without any problems.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

David,

Isn't part of the problem that different publishing companies have the right to publish particular books in different countries and not all of them are releasing eBooks?

[Crazydog7]

paper. The vision in my right eye is shit and e-readers never work right for me.

[Suttree]

I would argue against the idea that "it spreads", too. It's been 15 years since Napster, people still pirate music, but it's not worse than it was, and the music industry never made more money than now.

Certain parts of the industry may be making more money but as someone who used to work in retail marketing for Virgin Megastores I can assure you the above statement is incorrect. Aside from a few hold outs (Amoeba records etc.)and small nostalgia projects the brick and mortar store model is done. Online streaming has replaced some of that but then you have issues like this:

The wider music world has been galvanized by the issue of low royalties from fast-growing streaming companies.

In 2012, for example, when Pandora’s former chief executive testified at a congressional hearing on music licensing, songwriters protested on Capitol Hill. Five writers of hits by stars like Beyoncé and Christina Aguilera showed that 33 million plays on their songs on Pandora yielded just $587.39 in royalties for them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/14/business/media/pandora-suit-may-upend-century-old-royalty-plan.html?_r=0

All that aside pirating around the globe is more prevalent than ever. Oh and as for the thread topic...paper all the way.