Piracy in the Go industry.

[topazg]

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.

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.

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.

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

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 ... 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 ... 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 often buy books after borrowing them.

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).

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

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

[daal]

I don't recall him saying that he would never write another book.

viewtopic.php?p=77703#p77703

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.

[hyperpape]

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

[topazg]

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

"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.

[Ortho]

Those interested in these topics should know that the book(s) "Boken & Biblioteket" by Rasmus Fleischer is/are released this month.

(The title means "The Book & The Library".)

Is this available in English?

[mohsart]

Is this available in English?

Via OCR and google translate mayhaps ;)

/Mats

[kirkmc]

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

"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.

They've also recently set up a system in a large number of US libraries where you can "borrow" an ebook on a Kindle from the library. This system is set up by Overdrive, who already provides software to manage loans of audiobooks.

[ez4u]

Here is a timely post on the economics of an academic self-published book.

[cyclops]

After 225 posts in this thread I'm still not sure whether I should have my 70 or so go books - bought in the go book shop - burnt after my death or have them donated to the dutch go bond.

[Bill Spight]

After 225 posts in this thread I'm still not sure whether I should have my 70 or so go books - bought in the go book shop - burnt after my death or have them donated to the dutch go bond.

Why not donate them now?

[Bantari]

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.

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.)

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.

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.

Hmm...
It does seem to be more complicated than I though. The question I have now is - why do people keep writing?

Still, my basic premise is: more successful writers earn more. Regardless of the fact that the author makes money from books or from articles or from whatever. And each author wishes to be more successful. And success is ultimately based on sales, past and/or present and/or predicted future.
Also - each author has the right to find his/her own path to success. So it should be up to the author to determine what part of his/her work is offered for free. We are talking about a person's livelihood here, and I think everybody should be able to determine the best strategy for that for themselves.
It should not be up to the freeloading audience who would like everything for free all the time no questions asked.

[Bantari]

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.

I disagree.
If the publisher cannot hope to sell the books at a profit, then the author does not get paid... and most likely - the book does not get published.

This is the core of the argument I am trying to make... publishers, to publish a book, need to have a hope of making profit on this book... otherwise - they are not interested. And if a book does not get published, then the authors lose out, but also the readers lose out. And the publishers lose out. Its an all-around lose-lose-lose situation.

And book piracy adds to the problem.

[Bantari]

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 would only be immoral if it was hidden. Otherwise - it is YOU who is immoral. Let me explain:

When I write a book, I can sell you anything I want... the right to copy/distribute/profit from it... or the right to read-only... or whatever. As long as you know what I am sellig, and what you can do with it once you buy it, there is no moral issues. The decision is yours - buy what I offer or not. It is a very common misconception that people think 'I bought it so I have the right to do anything now.' Try charging for a copy of the WordPress software and you will see what happens.

This is the modern world. We used to sell stuff unconditionally a 100 years ago, now we just sell limited licenses. And that goes for everything... Take a house for example... You buy a house, but you cannot just buldoze it and put a factory in its place... you need additional licenses for that. You cannot even build a basement entrance without a special permit (I know, I tried). The same goes for books, movies, music, and everything else.

This is why there is a license included with most of the things you buy. And by buying it, you agree to abide by this license. The fact that you chose to not read the license files and assume whatever you want does not change the fact and is your own poor choice. If you then turn around and say 'the license is invalid' it is YOU who is immoral! Because you go back on the word you implicitly gave - i.e. your initial agreement that you will abide by the license.

I hope this makes it clear.

[gogameguru]

Unfortunately piracy is just part of the reality of doing business now. That doesn't mean you have to like it, but it does mean that raging against it isn't going to change anything.

In my opinion the only practical solution for any business now is to be better than the pirates. More convenient, more visible, better value. And value isn't just about price.

One of the sad things for the music industry was that they resisted improving their distribution system for so long, while file sharing software continued to evolve. This meant that the pirated version of most music was several orders of magnitude more convenient. You can forget about the price. After that iTunes (as just one example) came along and changed some things, if not all...

Will being better stop piracy? No. Will it help legitimate businesses sell more books? I think so.

In any case we have to wake up and try some things, otherwise all you have left is paralysis and entropy...

[Redundant]

This meant that the pirated version of most music was several orders of magnitude more convenient. You can forget about the price. After that iTunes (as just one example) came along and changed some things, if not all...

There's also the fact that getting digital music legally in some formats is nearly impossible. For example, I've never come across a place that sells FLAC, my preferred audio format.