Observe the Species Stupidus Libertarianus
Over at TechCrunch, Duncan Riley concludes that the fact that someone photographed each page of the latest Harry Potter novel and posted it to BitTorrent somehow signals the end of analog media as we know it.
Whilst the validity of the hype surrounding Harry Potter may be subject to debate, what the leaking of the book does demonstrate is that the days of the mainstream media and publishers strictly controlling the dissemination of information has well and truly past; simply where there is a fan with a will, there is a way.If that isn’t enough, the unintentional hilarity of this comment made my day.
Wilco
July 17th, 2007 at 7:22 am
Because something’s not legal doesn’t make it wrong. We live in a new age where ideas, information and media are free. If you like it or not is beside the point. Personally I feel it’s morally wrong to charge money for something that can be coppied (sic) into infinity. And yes, that can’t be done with books and cd’s and dvd’s (Huh?). But it can with it’s content.
There’s nothing sacret (sic) about law. They come and go, and it’s about time a few of them leave because quite clearly they weren’t ment to cover content that can be coppied to infinity and back.
posted by Peter L. Winkler | 3:21 PM
6 Comments:
The availability of pirated books online doesn't mean that publishers have lost control. It does mean the system doesn't work the way it used to, and maintaining it in its current shape is going to require cooperation from the readers. That's a new concept in the book business. Until publishers and readers work out a compromise, the world is going to look rather Wild West.
Because something’s not legal doesn’t make it wrong.
True. It's an argument that has to be taken case-by-case, but it's not universally wrong.
We live in a new age where ideas, information and media are free.
We live in an age where these things are free to the end consumers. The media are willing to sink considerable money into producing and distributing content without charging end users because the content is a great medium for advertising. Individuals are willing to put time, effort, and money into posting information for free because they foresee other ways of recouping their investment: attention, respect, the satisfaction of performing a public service. In no case does the content poof into existence without a cost to anyone.
Personally I feel it’s morally wrong to charge money for something that can be coppied (sic) into infinity.
Ah, conflation of the ease of copying an object with the ease of producing the object. This works with objects that are purely physical. It's as easy to copy a cheeseburger as to make a cheeseburger. It fails to work the moment development costs come into play. Everyone knows how to make a basic cheeseburger, but inventing a new cheeseburger recipe takes time, skill, and materials. Development costs are real costs, paid by real people behind the scenes, and they should be reimbursed.
How much reimbursement? Well, how much development went into the end product? Cheeseburger recipes take so little development that the idea of their having development costs at all sounds silly. The cost of ingredients and cooking skill far outweigh those of recipe development. On the other hand, a book is almost entirely development. The cost of the physical book is nothing compared to the cost of writing and editing the contents. In fact, the existence of a physical book is moot; producing an ebook costs a fraction of a paper book's price, but the content is exactly the same and requires exactly the same amount of writing and editing. The fact that an ebook is infinitely copiable doesn't mean it doesn't cost anything to produce.
What's Wilco's saying is, "I don't care what it costs other people to make something--if I can get it for free, it should be legal to get it for free." A tempting argument, but selfish.
And yes, that can’t be done with books and cd’s and dvd’s (Huh?). But it can with it’s content.
I think he means that books, CDs, and other physical objects can't be copied into infinity because people lack the resources to do so. The reality is that people have always been able to make as many copies of a book as they need, provided they're willing to put the effort into it. No one bothered because the effort cost as much as or more than the cost of buying another legal copy. We've reached the tipping point where copies cost less than originals from the end users' perspectives. This is where the social contract between readers and publishers is going to have to change.
Last night, a friend and I kicked this same problem around. I suggested that we were moving toward a model in which ebooks are free, and if you like a book, there's strong pressure to give money to the author. I couldn't see a way to get the publisher a cut without annoying donors. (If I give an author $5, she had damn well better get $5!) That would mean publishers had no incentive to, well, put out books. We'd be back to vanity publishing, and you can see how well that's worked.
My friend suggested we were moving toward a model in which backlist books are free, but you have to pay for new works. That makes more sense. Baen Books, a major fantasy and SF publisher, did something similar by putting most of its backlist online for free after it discovered that making an author's out-of-print books available for free increased the sales of her in-print books. This method would lose profits from the long tail, but might recoup the loss from new books. Publishers would always be able to keep an old book off the free lists if it continued to be profitable.
We're a long way from any kind of compromise, though. The necessary mental shifts haven't happened, and print books are still profitable, even after piracy is taken into account. The trick is going to be making the switch before print books stop being profitable and publishers are dragged under.
Thanks for dropping by and giving Wilco's comment far more consideration than it deserves.
I see that the bootlegs of the latest Harry Potter horse choker seem not to have affected sales of the physical edition in the least.
I may yet be proven wrong, but I think ebooks are a dead end, except for some niche audiences.
There was a stimulating discussion on C-SPAN Sunday between Andrew Keen and Lev Grossman. Keen made the same point I've been making for years: It's incredibly difficult for an artist to find an audience and make any money by putting their work on the internet.
I would have thought by now that hard reality had dispelled the fog of fantasy that leads people to think that placing their ebook online will lead to fame and fortune.
I don't think the honor system will work for authors with ebooks either. How many authors of computer shareware who allow unlimited free use of their app and merely suggest you send them something have made even a susbsistence income from their product?
For all the railings from Fran, King and their comrades in arms about exclusion, publishers do have value beyond being merely a distribution channel.
I may yet be proven wrong, but I think ebooks are a dead end, except for some niche audiences.
Once we have smart paper, ebooks will explode. Until then, you're right, they're not a viable mainstream market.
It's incredibly difficult for an artist to find an audience and make any money by putting their work on the internet.
I would have thought by now that hard reality had dispelled the fog of fantasy that leads people to think that placing their ebook online will lead to fame and fortune.
Absolutely. Even if you have a great manuscript that's been polished and packaged to a professional level and you're willing to promote full-time, you're still screwed. The best advertisement any book has is its presence on a bookstore shelf.
Or, increasingly, on a supermarket shelf. You can get your self-published book into an independent bookstore if you know how to approach the owner. You can't get your book onto the shelves of Stop & Shop, Wal-Mart, or Target, which means your book is permanently cut off from the masses of casual readers.
I do disagree with your statement that an author can't find an audience online. If you belong to an online community with niche tastes and you know how to interact with people, you can stir up a fandom of thousands. It's hard to make money selling ebooks to them, but you can parlay your online popularity into a book deal. It happened most recently with a writer in Harry Potter fandom who had an audience of tens of thousands and got a three-book deal from a YA publisher. The scale of her success is unique--the HP empire does that--but she's not the only person who started with an online fandom.
Even then, though, writers moved to traditional publishing as fast as they could. That's where the money is. That's the ONLY place the money is.*
I don't think the honor system will work for authors with ebooks either. How many authors of computer shareware who allow unlimited free use of their app and merely suggest you send them something have made even a susbsistence income from their product?
I agree. Even if people could be convinced to change their habits and make the honor system a little more profitable than it is now, people like getting free stuff just a little too much.
For all the railings from Fran, King and their comrades in arms about exclusion, publishers do have value beyond being merely a distribution channel.
There's money up front, there's promotion, and there's EDITING. Let me say that again: EDITING. The advance will keep beans on your table today, but the editing will keep beans on your table in 20 years. To keep with the Harry Potter theme of the comment thread: The first few HP books are going to survive for a long, long time, but the last four are going to become an acquired taste. Rowling shoved in so much fluff and waffle and gook to suit the tastes of the current fans that the books are going to be indigestible once the furor's died down. By that time Rowling will have bought up most of the British National Trust just to have something to do with her money, so her purse won't be hurting even if her pride is, but lesser writers need those long-term royalties.
* Unless you sell self-help or make-money-fast books via seminars, and then your weekly take is likely to be what most working novelists earn in a year. All but about 50 novelists are in the wrong business.
Dear Margot:
Another thoughtful comment. Thanks again.
Id be happy to put you on my blogroll if you'll reciprocate.
Best,
Peter
P.S. Saw your most recent comment on Fran's blog. You nailed her. Her "Goodbye Cruel World" posts are like fake suicide attempts where the attempted suicide makes sure they're always rescued before it's too late.
Id be happy to put you on my blogroll if you'll reciprocate.
Sure! My blog isn't going to be very active, but I'd be glad to give you a link back.
Her "Goodbye Cruel World" posts are like fake suicide attempts where the attempted suicide makes sure they're always rescued before it's too late.
Pseuicide.
This time around it worked for her, which makes me wonder what's next. Since talking about leaving didn't get her any attention, she escalated. Over the next several days, I suspect she'll allow herself to be talked into continuing her blog, but now any sign of inattention will make her prep for departure again. It's no shame to want attention, but I wish she'd learn ways of getting it that don't involve shooting herself in the foot.
"Pseuicide."
Very funny.
Post a Comment
<< Home