By the way, I very, very rarely buy a book without first reading a chapter or two, either online or in a store. I think it’s idiotic to not provide a free chapters.

Also, Copyright’s purpose is to protect authors who contribute to that shared culture – and the industries’ assault on the idea of private ownership only does irreparable damage to both.
Some publishers are now offering self publishing services:
http://www.schieldenver.com/services/bookseller-services/copyright-a-registration/copyright-protection-service.html

Another is to become famous and/or make lots of money. This urge (also common and very strong in our celebrity- and money-obsessed world) means you can’t just tell stories, you have to sell them and/or yourself. Most likely both.

The trouble is, these urges often coexist in the same writer, setting up enormous cognitive dissonance. Why should I work so hard and then give my story away? Oh, that way I may get more people to listen to it. But oh, if they don’t pay they’re evil pirates, right? I read about that in the paper. But if I don’t have a fan base, nobody will buy my stuff and I won’t be rich and famous. So I’ll spend all my money traveling around the country, giving my book away in contests, and making book trailers to build an audience – and even though I’m spending far more than I’m earning from selling books I may just turn into Dan Brown and someday be rich and famous. But oh, everyone else is doing it too, so I have to spend more money to make a better book trailer.

I’m not sure what the answer is, but maybe it’s important to recognize that these impulses don’t coexist naturally. But then, I’m an anarchist and don’t enjoy the monetization of creativity.

Washing dishes is honest work.

What if I liked an song and wanted to buy another copy for a friend – I can’t do that either. These annoying restrictions show that with digital content, even with good vendors such as eMusic there is still some way to go before consumers have the same complete freedom and rights as with old physical items.

Not being concerned about being ripped off for 7 installs for every two you’ve accounted for? People who will either like it and use it or won’t and won’t –but will pay nothing either way?

How is this being ripped off? You seem to believe–on what basis I am not sure–that the ratio:

(additional sales from more exposure)
-------------------------------------
   (lost sales from free copies) 

is always less than unity. Indeed, you appear to know somehow that additional exposure will never lead to any additional sales, ever. That’s a fairly remarkable claim.

Again: what matters is the sales figures. Until you or someone else presents sales figures data that shows unlocked copies are not generating net sales, you’re just speculating. So am I, but at least I’m acknowledging that under some circumstances it is possible to get a net gain from an unlocked app.

The cost of license management in terms of developer and support hours is significant, to say nothing of lost sales and bad word-of-mouth from customers who run into any of the depressingly common problems with activation. If those costs, as well as lower advertising/marketing costs, are factored in to the equation the case for license management gets even harder to make. I’m not saying it can’t be made, at least in some cases. I’m saying no amount of moral outrage about being “ripped off” is ever going to form the basis of a rational business decision.

Copyright’s very purpose is to protect our shared common culture as well as the interests of the artists who contribute to that shared culture – and the industries’ assault on the idea of private ownership only does irreparable damage to both.

http://thenerfherder.blogspot.com/2008/03/ebook-licenses-and-assault-on-private.html

We can’t prove that other forms of file-sharing also reduce our sales, because we can’t eliminate the file-sharing in the same way for periods of time to see what happens to our sales. But it’s naive to think that file-sharing is advertising that increases our sales when the only measurable form of it so drastically hurts our sales.

The economics are very different in small markets than in large markets. I wouldn’t take our experience to mean that Microsoft doesn’t benefit from piracy. But we are very badly hurt by it.

When I loan out a volume or sell it back to a used bookstore, I’m passing on the license along with the physical item – the two are inextricably linked. It’s a perfect DRM system; I can’t “sell, gift or trade” my content, only the hardware that it happens to be printed on.

But digital copies of books, music and movies aren’t linked in this way. I can make a perfect copy of a file, pass it on to you, and keep my original. That’s where things get complicated.

If you think about it, paper and ink books amount to owned hardware. While that hardware belongs to me – just as a Kindle or an iPod might – the content it contains doesn’t. I could, for example, lend you a Kindle or sell it to you loaded with books (although I suspect there’s something in the fine print that discourages this). What I can’t do is sell or trade a copy of a digital book while keeping the original.

The upshot: We all tend to see our digital assets in the same way as our physical libraries, but we’re looking at it in the wrong way. When we buy a book, we’re actually buying a license to read that book. Kindle works in exactly the same way. It looks like a sale because it is a sale – the sale of a license. And, as the legal brainiacs at Gizmodo argue, I ought to have the right to resell that license.

But how can I do that and ensure that I haven’t kept a copy? How can I (legally) lend a license to a friend while retaining a perfect replica of the licensed material?

Which isn’t to say that I’m a fan of draconian DRM measures or anything less than a vocal supporter of Creative Commons. But the issue is far more nuanced than what’s been presented here and at Gizmodo.

But cigarette companies give out free packs in the interest that you et hooked. Theres a medical reason for that, but also a marketing one. People who like something don’t just sit back satisfied. They need more. So if you find sales are suffering [and the jury is out on whether sales suffer because of piracy] because people can find your product for free, create a new feature for the product, or change the product slightly and sell it again, or provide a subscription service or any number of ways to deal with piracy other than have an undignified little fit over it. I find this protection of property morality to be historically interesting; sort of the economic equivalent of a guy on his porch with a sawed off shotgun, times a thousand. I mean I agree with Kyle in that labour should be compensated, but I disagree in that I don’t think people should pay throuh the teeth all the time. If people don’t want to pay, equally, businesses don’t want to give me my moneys worth.

With books, some of the most avid readers are students, who tend now to spend all their money on drugs and beer, but will in the future spend some small amount on books. Now you can let them read Dickins or Conrad or whatever other crap they were taught at school was good, or you can et them interested in your pulp oh so modern and sophisticated novel. One way to do that is give it away. It will pay in dividends if you’re good, the same way I still eat Frosties and Reeses peanut butter cups [and smoke cigarettes]. I mean, musicians have to be their own agents. Are authors too high and mighty?

I often wonder how better off Id be if I used my powers of analysis for evil instead of internet message boards….

Seems like the labor involved in ‘ripping’ a book is high enough, and with books more numerous than software or movies it would be much, much harder to get everything converted. It’d take an undertaking like Google’s…

DRM that restricts ‘copy’ isn’t really what you’re arguing against with this line of reasoning. This line of reasoning only covers DRM which restricts ‘move’. Imagine a DRM scheme which allowed you to ‘move’ your files as many times as you wished, but restricted your ability to ‘copy’.

With a ‘move’ enabled DRM scheme, I could ‘move’ my ebook to your ebook reader. I could ‘move’ my .ogg files from one player to another. I could ‘move’ my movies from my hard drive to yours. I just wouldn’t be able to ‘copy’ them. Just like with regular DVD’s and printed books I would have to go out and buy them again when you didn’t return them ;)

Yr pst rds lk cck nd bll stry, bcs y frgt t pt n nmbr t th crtcl pnt. t’s lk yr mnd blnkd n th prt tht hd t b md p.

“Nw, wht wld b cnvncng nmbr? ‘ll dcd nc ‘v fnshd th pst.”

Jst syng.

*hugs her books*

You treat licensing as though it is the “correct” model for books. But there is no “correct” model. Copyright is a human invention: we define what it is and what it does. This debate is not about finding the truth of what books are. It is a contest to determine what they will be. It is part of a continuing radical shift in the nature of copyright. It doesn’t seem like a shift, for once we accept new definitions and new models (e.g. “intellectual property”) we imagine we have simply discovered what copyright always was. It’s a political struggle, but it’s hidden, because n retrospect the conclusion appears to be logically inevitable.

The models and metaphors we use – ownership, buying, licenses, property, theft, and so on – are not simply questions of semantics. These models don’t reflect reality, they create it.

That said, I still find his point plausible.

Zipster, if you’re going to tell stories like that, you might as well fill out your user profile here. I liked the bit with the chalk piano.

Tom (17), ask Antinous. It happens to him all the time. I think it’s a combination of italics and blockquotes.

Cory (3), Boomzilla (19), not only do they have D&OITMK for sale via Zipster, but they list it as having been published by St. Martin’s Press.

Cuvtixo (33):

Is it nearly cost effective to print out the average paperback yet? (purchasing your own paper and ink) In the foreseeable future?”

Not now, not in the foreseeable future. Trade and mass market books are printed in large quantities in printing plants, and realize significant economies of scale. You’re not going to get anywhere near that with one-offs.

LightningSource (the outfit that prints and binds everyone’s POD titles) is cheaper than printing it yourself, if you want normal page format and type size, but it’s still more expensive than regular mass-market and trade paperbacks, and you can’t get hardcovers.

What POD and DIY are good for is printing books you can’t otherwise get.

StanfromBrooklyn (40), one of the biggest single reasons I’ll buy some new piece of software is that using it has convinced me that I want to own it. Meanwhile, I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve been given pirate copies of software I don’t want and don’t use. There’s no sale lost; I wouldn’t have bought it anyway.

Chevan (42), that’s not true. First, there are godzillions of titles I want that aren’t available via the net.

Second, I used to keep a casual eye on e-piracy sites when I worked in-house at Tor. No way did they have all the Tor titles. In fact, I don’t recall them having any titles that hadn’t been published as e-books, which meant they only represented a fraction of Tor’s list. Furthermore, the text had in many cases been badly handled. Maps and other art was missing. Munged frontmatter, chapter starts, part titles, and line-for-line text were common, as were missing italics, boldface, and small caps. Running heads would get accidentally incorporated into the text. They were a mess. The same went for Forge titles. If people are going to pirate e-texts, they’ll really have to do a better job.

Tom (43), excellent comment.

ScottFree (46), the music model doesn’t work. For starters, bars don’t stage readings from novels.

What we find is that while people who are interested in a particular subject may buy a self-published nonfiction book on that subject, they’re very resistant to buying fiction from authors whose work they haven’t previously read and enjoyed, and which hasn’t been given a strong recommendation by someone they trust. It’s a real barrier. Getting past that barrier is one of the biggest reasons publishers do all that elaborate packaging and promotion on new books.

Chris Schmidt (48): Bypassing? Legitimizing? Steve Brust wrote the book because he had it in his head, not to prove some kind of point. He’d have sold it if he could; he’s been having serious health problems, and he has the same health plan most working artists do.

Steve’s plenty legitimate on his own. He has a regular publisher that would have been happy to consider his novel, if it didn’t require a licensing arrangement with a major studio. Licensing is always a godawful hairball. I’m not even sure those rights were on offer, since no one’s publishing Firefly/Serenity tie-ins.

All of which made it that rare thing: an unsaleable good book.

Warlord (51): Uh-huh. That would explain why they always submit them to NYC publishers first.

Takuan (54): Congratulations on spotting one of the problems the professionals worry about.

Barbara Fister (57), I’m all for monetizing creativity. It makes there be more of it, and it’s better, too. How come Athens, Georgia spawned all those professional musical groups? Because they’ve got a good club scene. Why did the Renaissance produce such a run of good art? They commissioned a lot of it, and paid well for the really good stuff.

You do a great description of the book self-promotion trap. You do know it doesn’t work, right? Rich and famous authors like Dan Brown are rich and famous because their books were printed and distributed in commercial quantities to brick-and-mortar bookstores. Word of mouth from satisfied readers only works if the person who hears it can then go and buy the book. The extremely dubious pundits of self-publishing who go on about how this or that famous author was self-published are lying through their teeth — generally because they’re trying to sell you their book on how you can become rich and amous via self-publishing.

Lulu (59): Is that as in Lulu.com? If so, I like you guys. You’re a straight-up business.

I can see how illegal downloads of that kind of material would eat your sales. You’ve got a finite pool of customers who have to have that text. For you, every pirate download really is a lost sale.

ScottFree (60): You’re a marginal annotator? You and Coleridge and Joanna Russ. Y’all talk back to your books.

We find that a lot of readers will read the first few chapters for free, and then if they’re enjoying it they’ll buy the hardcopy. If they keep enjoying it, they’ll be far more likely to buy the author’s next novel — and backlist, if there is one.

Funny how that mirrors what’s going on in the real estate market. Oh, and the worldwide economy. All property is being concentrated in the hands of a few people. Serf’s up!