Oh, OK, I misinterpreted you. I thought you were arguing in favor of arbitrary DRM-style restrictions on ebooks in the vein of "you can only read your book on one device" and "you can 'loan' your book to a friend, but you can't read it while he's got it," which someone must think is a good idea, because people actually do it.

If I had to guess what the best model for encouraging authors would be, I'd expect a Kickstarter-style crowdfunding model, with money coming from pools of interested consumers, would stand the best chance of being successful; hopefully what we don't get instead is an ad-supported model. But once a work is created I think it's really painful to artificially disallow unlimited redistribution. The value of making books easily available to everyone is too great to compromise on.

Luckily (in my opinion) I don't think that it will ever be possible to put that genie back into the bottle.

I apologise, I wasn't trying to imply any decree of overarching universal morality, as the idea of having the authority to impose my moral judgements on others makes me pretty uncomfortable. I consider libraries exactly like "download-try-before-you-buy" digital piracy actually

If I borrow a book from a library, and thoroughly enjoy it, and the author is still alive, I will most likely buy it, simply because I want him to write more. Likewise in the one book for 10 people in a Go club example: If I was one of those 10, and thought the book was really good, I'd go buy a copy to support the author.

I actually think all three of the above mentioned forms of try-before-you-buy should be legal, but maybe my view that most people are decent enough to then purchase what they like is naively optimistic.

EDIT: @Hyperpape: "The only convincing argument I know against piracy in a case like that is that you should follow the law regardless of your take on the morality of the situation."

That's the only argument I have found particularly convincing too. It comes down to your personal priorities between living by the law and living by your morals, but at least it feels consistent and justifiable.

Morality should in theory be objective. In practice there are different opinions. In law, we have to find a compromise.

But my point actually was, the statements "X is morally correct" and "X should be a law" are the same. Of course both are only opinions, and as such they may be incorrect, but then both statements are incorrect, not just one of them.

Addition after reading your new post, in particular the part I quoted at the bottom: Borrowing something, and then feeling morally obliged to buy it is actually a good example that shows a point where legality and morality diverge, therefore contradicting my statement. I'll let it stand regardless, because it explains where my previous arguments in this metadiscussion came from.


I think we actually agree on that point .


That's exactly my point as well, I just draw a different conclusion from it

In my argumentation, the "currently accepted societal norms over sharing of non-digital media" is the fixed point, and since that worked in the past, it can serve as a useful baseline for digital media. You have it the other way round, you are arguing that there are some "traditionally" accepted behaviours that are actually morally wrong, and with digital media we have the opportunity to change that.




No, not at all. Actually, I'm saying the opposite.

I'm saying the *author* of the idea should get something for the implementation. So if I took GoGoD and put it online (ignoring for a moment the question of getting permission), I would have to pay something for that, possibly even per download.

But I'm also saying that the author should get something for the implementation *only*. In particular, he should not get anything for a resale (transfer, *not* copy). The author was already paid for this concrete implementation, he doesn't need to be paid again. For a copy, it's different: That's something new, and the author should get something for it.

By that logic, for example, it would also be morally totally all right to make unlimited copying legal, if you somehow determine how many copies are in circulation and then compensate the author proportionally (doesn't need to be linear) from tax money. Is that model a good idea in practice? Don't ask me. But morally speaking, it sounds fair.



To that, I fully agree. But the important point is the "and thoroughly enjoy it".

Going to a library, borrowing a book and then not buying it because I didn't like it, is morally all right, too. That's of course something where law and morale has to diverge: You can't make (or more accurately: enforce) a law that someone has to pay if and only if it was enjoyable

So I think the real difference in our opinions boils down to our metadiscussion about law vs. morality: You are saying that people should always compensate the author if they like the work, even if it's acquired by resale or borrowing. That's under the implicit assumption that some sort of "try before you buy" is available, possibly in a way that's currently seen as illegal.

I'm actually saying the same thing: I'm arguing you should be able to transfer ownership freely through resale and borrowing. That's under the implicit assumption that people that really like something they only borrowed will feel morally obliged to buy their own copy after giving it back. Another implicit assumption is that someone who really likes a book will not sell it (again out of a moral obligation to reward the author). Maybe that's a bit naive, but I took those two assumptions as so self-evident that there's no need to explicitly state them. Personally, I would never sell a book that I like, and I ofter buy books after borrowing them.

So actually I think we are saying the same thing, except on the minor detail of "pirate-before-you-buy"


Morally speaking, I agree.

Legally speaking, I think the authors should have the freedom to restrict some forms of distribution (e.g. unrestricted internet download) for practical reasons. But they should *not* have the freedom to restrict anything they want: For example, if I didn't like a book, I'd like to be able to resell it.


Same here, and fascinatingly the same sentiment led to completely different points of view, that in the end seem to converge on basically the same thing

Without going too far down a rabbit hole, I don't get your position.

T: "I, Topazg, have decided to buy any library book that I read any enjoy"
H: "Whatever floats your boat. I mean, I know people who braid their eyebrows. Not my thing, but I ain't buggin."

At this point, do you say "No, I mean, you should do it. It's not just personal preference"? Or do you leave it at that?

If you say I should do it, then I don't really care whether you call it "Morality" or not, I'm gonna say that you're wrong. If you don't say that I should do it, then it's just like braiding your eyebrows.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

If you promise your dying mother that you'll tend to her rose garden when she's gone, you should do it, barring extreme circumstances. But I doubt the cops should be involved.

Or do I misunderstand you?

_________________
Occupy Babel!

Isn't the whole point of morality discussions always "I think that's morally correct, so that's what I will do, and I'd like it if everyone else acts the same. Feel free to disagree."?


On the rose-garden: Let me reformulate that scenario:
I think there should be a law that promises have to be kept, because that's the morally correct thing to do. Tending the rose-garden would then be covered by that law.
Actually there is such a law, it's just that we use the word "contract" instead of "promise". If I promise you something, then legally speaking we have a contract. If I break my promise, you can sue me. If the promise is something "unimportant", it may happen that the judge will just laugh at you, and possibly fine you for stealing his time. That doesn't change the legality of the matter, it's just that sometimes it's impossible to enforce.

There is no inherent reason why the cops don't get involved in the rose-garden. It's just that it is relatively unimportant, and the cops have better things to do. Actually, the example is not as stupid as it sounds: There are really cases where things like that end in court (usually between siblings that fight for the heritage ).

Well, ok... I will be the first to admin that I am out of my depth here.

Here is what my common sense tells me:
I find it hard to believe that the field of authors cannot be divided into more and less successful ones - based on the income. What's more, this dividing line can be arbitrarily set at almost any reasonable level, which means that the whole spectrum is populated - from the ones on the bottom, not being able to support themselves from writing, to the ones on the top. And that this is not always only a function of a number of books an author writes.

For example:
I would assume that, in the field of Go writing, a pro would be able to ask for a higher advance on a book than, say, Robert Jasiek. Robert, in turn, would be able to ask for a higher advance than, say, me. And so on... Now, if I wrote a book, and by some miracle it got published, and it generated tremendous sales, I would be able to ask for more money for my second book, and possibly higher royalty. It is hard for me to believe this would work any different...

Now, lets assume the same scenario. I managed to publish a book that has the potential to have tremendous sales, but I also offered this book for free on my website, so not many actually bought it - most downloaded it for free. What I go to the publisher with my second book, what would they think? They would think 'This guys writes great books' but then they will ask 'Do you intend to offer this book for free?' If I said Yes, the popularity of the first book alone would not suffice to predict high sales of second book.

I am not sure I explain it all correctly here... I just look around, at the world, and I see everything evolving around money, profits, and the bottom line. I don't see any reason the book business should be any different... so unless somebody is wealthy enough and just wants to write books for free for the fun of it, I really see no general benefit in pirating books.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Where can I download it, Helel?

/Mats

_________________
mohsart - games & books
http://spel.mohsart.se/

You can divide authors like that, but it's not the right way to look at it. At the top end are people who make their living from writing: best-selling authors, journalists who also write books, etc. (Me included; I don't make much off of books, but I make my living from writing).

At the bottom end are people who write every evening to write the Great Novel, get it published, sell a thousand copies and never publish again.

In between is a huge mess of different situations. First, fiction and non-fiction are very different, in terms of sales. Second, publishers simply _must_ publish a certain number of books each year, for a wide variety of reasons. So they know that not every novel they publish is by the next James Joyce, and that's why they only choose to really promote a few of them. But many books get accepted because publishers need to publish.

Finally, there are authors who publish non-fiction and really don't care about sales. They want the "prestige" of having their names on the covers of books. I can tell you that by publishing computer books, I got better paying freelance writing gigs than others; just having a list of books published was the best reference I could have. Lots of people who write technical books, or other non-fiction, don't even care about advances, because they make their money by selling their own books at lectures or conferences. With a standard 30% discount on purchases, they get far more than they would from royalties. (Interesting point to remember: the person in the chain who makes the most from book sales (as a percentage of the total price) is the bookseller. S/he gets much more than the publisher or the author.)



Yes and no. It's really quite complicated. And go isn't the best example, but if you show good sales on your first book, the advance on your second book will be higher, in most cases.

As for offering books for free, if that free does replace sales - which may or may not be the case, at least today - then the publisher would hesitate. Advances are calculated on a combination of past performance and future possibilities, so it would be taken into account.

Thing is, book sales are pretty much flat; they're not going down like CD sales. So none of this has come out in the marketplace yet. Advances are a bit lower in general, but that's been the case for the past 5 years or so, and it's not really related to piracy, but rather to an industry that really doesn't know where it's going.

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

Mostly, this conversation has focused on our role as consumers; how our decisions affect the writing industry. In general though, authors don't get paid by consumers, they get paid by publishers, and it is the publisher and not the author who decides how the work will be distributed and sold. It is in the interest of all three parties, the consumer, the author and the publisher, that books get written, published, and read. Whether they get sold is primarily an interest of the publisher.

The interests of the author are renumberation and recognition. While selling books may seem to be the means to these ends, the connection is indirect. An author becomes recognized by being read, and gets renumerated because a publisher decides that publishing the author's work is good for the publisher's particular business model. While selling books usually plays a big part in these business models, other factors such as supporting talent, idealism, or love of a genre also play a role.

Of course publishers need to earn money to survive, but how they do so is, well, their business. The piracy question for them is not whether it is good, bad, right, wrong, legal or not; the question is how it affects their business model. For those of us not privvy to the inside workings of the industry, to say how an individual publisher sees the issue is mere conjecture. Suffice it to say, piracy, as well as book lending, does not simply detract from sales, it also affects the complicated relationship between consumers and authors. Circulation is increased, as is author recognition. Some readers will want to read more of an author writes, some not.

Our interest as consumers is that books get written and published. To what extent do our deliberations and behavior play a role in the equation? How do publishers and authors react when they read that we sometimes pirate their works and sometimes buy them? Some will say that the world is going to hell in a handbasket, while others will say "same as it's ever been." It is certainly entertaining to read our philosophical deliberations. Odd that nobody is paying us to do so. Apparently, our publisher has tricked us into working for free. Who is losing out?

This isn't to say that all authors are happy with likes alone, but those who like to be paid need most of all to appeal to paying publishers.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

Obviously we as go book consumers have already lost a great talent in JF when he decided that he's had enough of pirates and will not be producing any more go books or more interesting posts on L19.

_________________
http://tchan001.wordpress.com
A blog on Asian go books, go sightings, and interesting tidbits
Go is such a beautiful game.

He didn't stop posting because of pirates, he stopped posting because he isn't enjoying discussions with us.

He will nonetheless certainly continue to write. How could he not? He specifically said that he will continue to write his New in Go column, and I don't recall him saying that he would never write another book.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

Some good points. Another thing to realize is who the customers of publishers are. It's not you and me, it's booksellers. This is the same for record labels; they sell to record stores. So what's happening now with more direct sales is very hard for these companies to negotiate. They have teams of sales reps with experience in selling to booksellers, but they know very little about direct sales. (And they could start making direct sales, or at least start appealing directly to consumers, at least for ebook sales, which they could initiate.)

This is the case in all content industries. While we are the final consumers, those who package the content really have little contact with us. This explains a lot of how the record industry went bad. Aside from piracy, the contempt for music consumers, overcharging for CDs, coming up with scheme after scheme to try and convince consumers to buy yet another version of their favorite record, has led to a backlash. I'm a classical music fan, and some might say "collector," and I frequent forums of other such fans. The general attitude there is that the record labels are all evil.

Fortunately, the book industry doesn't suffer from this, because of the way people consume books. (You rarely need to be a remastered version of your favorite novel.) But with ebook pricing, this attitude is starting to arise. This anger - in part due to a misguided feeling that publishers should be "fair," and not business people, is starting to lead to backlashes against book publishers.

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

_________________
http://tchan001.wordpress.com
A blog on Asian go books, go sightings, and interesting tidbits
Go is such a beautiful game.

I think at least somewhat relevant to this is the difference between owning something and licensing it. When you buy a book you own it, which gives you the right to re-sell, lend etc. Quite often digital media are "sold" to us under license, which as I understand it means you only get the rights granted therein. I know that in the music industry digital sales are almost always under license, although they are counted as sales because the artist then gets less royalties than under a normal licensing act (such as radio play). I think this is at best pretty immoral on the part of the music publishing companies, does the same thing happen with ebooks?

I think it is hard for me to assume that "because something has worked in the past it is morally right". There are cannibalistic societies, societies where the age of sexual consent and child-bearing / marriage is 13, and it wasn't that long ago where formally challenging people to a fight to the death to defend one's honour would not have been considered murder. These all "worked" (either in the past, or currently), and yet they are hardly clear cut moral issues.

Morality has evolved, and will continue to do so no doubt. As a result I think it is important to keep "the way things are currently being done" in line with the fundamental reasoning behind what is considered moral and immoral at any given time, with respect to making adequate and proportionate laws.



I apologise, I read what you were saying as "proportionate to the number of instances of their implementation", rather than "proportionate to the total implementations of the their idea". It still leaves a very grey area around derivative works, but that's unavoidable



I agree with all of this! It makes me wonder whether there's a market for a "digital borrowing service", something akin to the way dropbox functions, where effectively you can lend things out by a file transfer rather than copying, which would allow for something potentially legal digitally. Of course you can circumvent it by making copies before you transfer it, but then you can circumvent it by putting it in dropbox or uploading to ftp anyway - at least it would be having a legitimate service which, correctly used, would maintain the spirit of the law (as I interpret it at least).



Yes, a very interesting discussion in the end, I thoroughly appreciated your points of view on it all

Yes, I forgot that. Nonetheless, if John Fairbairn indeed has stopped writing, the reason is not simply that he's had enough of pirates. While pirates clearly get his gall, he has also mentioned other reasons for his withdrawal. He is "retired," and not dependent on the iffy-at-best income, has already received plenty of recognition, and, as he writes in the post you quoted, he sees interest waning on the side of both publishers and consumers.

It's a sorry tale if he is so fed up with the book world that he no longer wants to be a part of it. He says that other authors feel similarly, and I have no reason to doubt him.

Nonetheless lots of pirated go books means that consumer interest is alive and well. Whether the industry can continue to produce successful business models is another question, but why should we doubt the creativity of moneymakers? Certainly writers don't run out of things to write about. Piracy in the book industry plays a similar role to rotting in the food industry. It's an ugly factor, but it won't stop people from consuming.

OK. It's not that similar; it's just a fun analogy.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

There are moves towards digital lending: http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/ ... =200549320.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

"Eligible Kindle books can be loaned once for a period of 14 days."

That would be a hilarious restriction to try to enforce on purchases of non-digital books.

Is this available in English?