The current discussion at Dear Author concerning sharing books on Kindles made me see red. Apparently, some authors resent readers sharing books and buying from used book stores. This is regarded in a similar vein to internet piracy and is equated with lost sales. Here’s why I vehemently disagree.
I am a voracious reader. In my heyday, I read up to 7 books per week. Nowadays, it’s more like 3, but this still means I read around 12 books per month. As I don’t live in a country where English is the predominant language, I am obliged to buy my own books. Amazon Germany has pretty good deals on paperback books but I still spend around €60 per month. I have a monthly budget of €40 and I make up the difference with book vouchers received for special occasions. As the money I have to spend on books is limited, I’m extremely picky about which ones I buy. I rely heavily on recommendations from people whose tastes are similar to mine. I never choose a book randomly on the off-chance that it might be good.
When I lived in Ireland, I had access to libraries and used books stores. I was able to share books with my mother and with friends. I read more books in total, partly due to having more time, and partly due to having more books. When borrowing from the library, I frequently took a chance on an unknown author. For those books which were ‘meh’, or just plain bad, I wouldn’t have purchased them new in any case, so I suffered no financial loss, and there was certainly no lost sale from the author’s point of view. Quite on the contrary. For every ten unknown authors I tried at the library, one or two gained sales because I went out and bought their backlist or latest new release.
I had a similar experience with used book stores. I bought truckloads of secondhand category romances, which I devoured at speed. Reading these old Mills & Boon books fostered my love of the romance genre and encouraged me to take out a subscription for Mills & Boon Historicals. I would not have done so had I not discovered this line and its authors through my visits to used book stores.
Sharing books was another huge bonus to living in an English speaking country. I swapped countless books with friends. Sometimes the books I received in return were good, sometimes not. If they weren’t any good, they were not ones I would have bought anyway, so – once again – no lost sale for the author. If I particularly liked a book, I went out and bought a copy for myself and often bought a couple of others by the same author.
As a passionate reader and writer, I am all for authors receiving financial renumeration for their hard work. However, the current paranoia surrounding piracy has extended to other forms of sharing books and it is starting to grate on my nerves. I realize piracy is a problem which needs to be taken seriously. But treating all PAYING ebook customers as potential criminals is insulting. How would you feel if you went into a store and the sales assistant followed you around constantly for fear you would shoplift? Would you buy anything at that store? I know I wouldn’t.
Equating piracy with buying used books and sharing with friends is equally ridiculous. Piracy has the potential to reach far more people. But even at that, the number of times a book has been illegally downloaded does NOT represent the number of potential lost sales. And of those people who would have bought the book, how many did not do so because it was unavailable to them?
Authors who object to readers sharing books or buying used need a reality check. Both of these practices are likely gaining them name recognition and more sales in the long run. Equating sharing with piracy is naive, as is assuming every download of one of their books represents a lost sale. Given the number of traditional advantages which customers are losing in the digital age, I’m hoping it’s only a matter of time before a consumer protection group takes action and stands up for readers’ rights.
Further Reading:
Readers Have Copyright Rights, Too by Jane at Dear Author
Readers Are Not the Enemy by Robin at Access Romance -
Readers Have Rights, Too by author Courtney Milan
Please, Share My Books! by author Tessa Dare
“DRM-Restricted” by Brian O’Leary of Magellan Media
{ 39 comments }
I totally agree. To say it’s stealing when I share my books with friends is just bullshit. I brought so many friends to reading books just by sharing my books with them. And I’ll not change that. This whole topic makes me so angry. We are really not the enemies. Authors should be happy that we like their books so much that we want to bring others the joy of reading them.
OK, the author has rights too and I have nothing against a good functioning DRM system. But it has to work probably.
Good post. I wrote yesterday about a suggestion by Cory Doctorow that we call books with these limitations “DRM-restricted” (rather than the publisher-facing “DRM-protected”). I think doing so would help remind all of us about the reader.
@Brian O’Leary What an excellent idea! I’ve edited my post to link to yours.
@SusiSunshine I know I’ve persuaded friends to buy books through recommendations and sharing. I’ve discovered so many authors through borrowing books from others. I don’t understand how any author can fail to recognize the benefits of sharing.
Okay I have written out a response twice, but am severely struggling to make it coherent, not my strong point normally but when over-tired and sickly, apparently I am much worse. *shrug*
So instead of rambling will simply agree with you on that authors need to do a realistic breakdown on pirated/shared ebooks as to whether all, or even the majority of them are lost sales.
And point to Maili’s post on DA: “In short, most pirates are creating and distributing ebooks straight from print books, thanks to OCR* software and other means.” and “So I strongly feel some are being extremely unfair to readers of legit ebooks by lumping them with the actual ebook pirates and illegal distributors.”
As summing up a lot of my angst.
I just wish they would stop bringing the angst to the legitimate reader..
ETA Not that I mean to trivilise issue, it is an important one.
Hoping that makes some sense
There is, I believe, a certain muddiness in the discourse, or as Rod Steiger put it, “What we have here is a failure of communication.”
If ebooks were more like bound books, lending would not be an issue. Library and friend-to-friend lending of bound books happens now, and because it’s already part of the publishing paradigm and revenue is stable with the level of bound book lending, everyone is cool with it. (Well, I assume they’re cool with it; perhaps authors will now pipe up with their concerns on that front, too!)
But ebooks are the digital music of our time. And just as the music industry took too long to come to terms with digital music, the publishing industry (already not known for its cutting edge business model and up-to-the-minute responses to technology) is dragging its feet as well.
Here’s the added X-factor: There are proportionally more authors than musicians, and more of those authors are close-to-regular-folks who don’t get paid very much for their work, and who really worry about sales, mid-list oblivion, future contracts, etc. And some of those authors are expressing their fears in posts about ebooks and sharing.
What they should talk about is COPYING. If I “share” my bound book with you, I no longer have my bound book. But by definition, all digital material is susceptible to quick & easy copying, and copies mean everyone has one even after the sharing has occurred. That’s more incentive for the legitimate owner (i.e., the person who paid money to a licensed retailer for it) to share, and more incentive for the borrower to accept a copy (it’s free) — which gets us to Napster, not our library.
That’s when all the “bad” words enter the discussion: Copyright infringement, piracy, stealing, etc.
What the music industry did was the carrot and the stick: priced digital music so cheap it wasn’t prohibitive to buy it, and threatened Napster-ites with actual criminal prosecution and hefty fines to show they meant business. But before we transfer those steps to ebooks, let’s keep in mind a critical difference in the two industries. Not everyone has an ebook reader the way everyone had an MP3 device (e.g., iPod) back in the day. And each ebook reader (it seems) needs its own special ebooks, which reduces competition and price reductions.
(And don’t me — or Sarah! — started on the stupidity of reliving the 8-track vs. cassette drama here. There should be a universal platform for ebooks. Now.)
So what we need, in no particular order, is this: One platform, a variety of devices that accommodate that platform, a recognition that it is a global economy in this as in other industries, a price point for ebooks that discourages copying and encourages sales (without crippling bound book sales), and hefty fines for websites offering illegally copied books and the users of those websites.
That is closer to the music industry, which smartly doesn’t threaten me with criminal prosecution when I make a mix of music for my neighbor and burn it onto a CD.
Great post, Sarah! It’s so true that the more books around you, the more books you will buy. Since I’ve become a book blogger, I’ve received a lot of books for free for review, but my awareness of books has increased dramatically and I find buying to be more of a priority than before. If we don’t know who an author is, we won’t buy their books, and sharing is one huge way to raise awareness. The fact that reader rights are eroding away with the advent of e-publishing is worrisome and I hope that it can turn around before it’s too late.
You forgot that you can request that the library bring in a book you wouldn’t normally buy or a “new to try” author. As you said, trying books this way I’ve gone back and bought backlists – JD Robb, Julie Miller, Catherine Mann, Laurie R King – just to name a couple. JD Robb was recommended by the librarian, Julie Miller/Catherine Mann a friend gave me some of hers, Laurie R King was a 25cent sale at the library. Without these “cheap” trials… they’d make one less sale and I suspect, I’m not the only one.
What the music industry did was the carrot and the stick: priced digital music so cheap it wasn’t prohibitive to buy it, and threatened Napster-ites with actual criminal prosecution and hefty fines to show they meant business. But before we transfer those steps to ebooks, let’s keep in mind a critical difference in the two industries. Not everyone has an ebook reader the way everyone had an MP3 device (e.g., iPod) back in the day. And each ebook reader (it seems) needs its own special ebooks, which reduces competition and price reductions.
Well, I disagree in that what the music industry was “forced” to do by retailers and customers was get rid of DRM and price the music properly and make it available and easy to buy online.
Those same technological issues that eBooks are going to face here. eBooks are too expensive and they have too many limitations and use DRM and too many publishers are making sure the books are simply not available for purchase anywhere online.
Until those problems with eBooks are reasonably addressed then piracy will continue no matter how much finger waving is done. Remember, Google only sees what is available through links on public websites. Most of the common piracy is on torrent or any number of “non-public” methods.
Just like the RIAA found with music the customer can not be held captive and does not care if the publishers have failed to give them what they want they will just create an anonymous way to get it.
There are tons of Harry Potter eBooks out there despite the fact none of them were ever sold. The customer is always right.
I totally agree with you about your post. I’m a radio host and as such get quite a lot of promotional CDs, this doesn’t stop me from buying CDs of the artists if I enjoy them. It’s the same with authors who I like. I can’t always get out to bookstores to buy new books; library book sales are where I get most of my books, but if I like an author I will buy their book. Sharing with friends and used book sales aren’t piracy. I don’t have an ebook and don’t really want one anyway, but if a person has one they shouldn’t be treated like a shoplifter if they read their book electronically.
“There are tons of Harry Potter eBooks out there despite the fact none of them were ever sold. The customer is always right.”
Well, as a lawyer I really do have to disagree with this statement. You are NOT a customer if you stole someone else’s intellectual property, even someone as rich as Jo Rowling. You are an infringer.
The issue I don’t see an answer to arises from the differences between reading and listening to music. MP3 players were a no-brainer to market because everyone wants the option of taking all their music with them, no matter where they’re going. Not everyone wants a digital device for reading books. So the industry has some barriers to overcome in their marketing paradigm, which is complicating all the piracy concerns.
Consumer preferences will have an effect on this market. When someone comes along with a digital reader everyone wants to have, everyone will buy one and more ebooks will be — uh, published? Streamed? Oh, right: purchased. Legally.
Magdalen do not accuse me of anything I did not do.
Legally you would be wrong.
You are NOT a customer if you stole someone else’s intellectual property, even someone as rich as Jo Rowling. You are an infringer.
Now this is exactly the type of word play that gets no where.
See, now there is the customer who wanted the Harry Potter books on their ebook reader framed in a loaded term as “infringer” or BAD PEOPLE and the publisher and author who failed to sell the ebook format framed as the innocent bystander or victim.
Even though from the way I see it the publisher in this case is creating the situation they are in and continues to do so. I just cannot see how they are being hurt since they decided not to even sell an ebook so no ebooks sales are being blocked. So what is the damage?
“You are NOT a customer if you stole someone else’s intellectual property, even someone as rich as Jo Rowling. You are an infringer.
Thank you. I get so pissed off when people conflate the decent, lovable guys who are my readers with the wankers on the file sharing sites.
And if you take a paper book, scan it and upload it onto a share site, you are a thief. Doesn’t matter if you make no money from it – you are assuming you have rights to the electronic reproduction of a copyrighted item which you do not have and will not have. Just because you *want* something, doesn’t make it necessary for you to *have* something. That’s the mentality of a shoplifter.
The raging entitlement of some people I’ve seen discussing this, is pretty nauseating.
There is no entitlement in asking how a publisher which does not make a book into an ebook is being harmed by the fact people are making them into ebooks. Anymore than why would printing out an ebook or using text to voice effect a publisher.
Seems to me if you can show damages then you are proving that you knew full well there was customer demand for the format but ignored it creating your own problem.
“Seems to me if you can show damages then you are proving that you knew full well there was customer demand for the format but ignored it creating your own problem.”
So, in your world, your want of something, instantly requires someone to provide it, or else it’s their fault if you steal it.
Right. And ethics is a county in England.
No in my “business” I act professionally and not rampage around accusing customers of wrong doing without the facts making sense because I like my job.
I would be fired on the spot if I accused some paying customer of trying to hack my system because they simply used some tool we provided them the wrong way.
It is always my job to tell the difference between a customer needing me to adapt my system to their needs and a hacker attacking my system. If I cannot tell the difference then I should promptly find another job because I won’t be given a choice in the matter.
“I would be fired on the spot if I accused some paying customer of trying to hack my system because they simply used some tool we provided them the wrong way.”
There is no comparison at all between this and someone making a copy of a book in another format. If the customer owns the book, makes a copy, destroys the paper book in the process, that is legal. It is not legal to give that copy to any one else. That’s so basic to the copyright law, I can’t understand why anyone would argue against it.
People do steal ebooks, and they do scan print books and sell the scans. This is not the act of a real customer.
“It is always my job to tell the difference between a customer needing me to adapt my system to their needs and a hacker attacking my system.”
Since I am a coder and an author, I am able to understand just how flawed this analogy is.
Customers (subject to fair use rules) don’t have an intrinsic right to say a product’s format doesn’t suit them, so they will create a copy of that product in another format. Even if you’re talking about computer code, a customer has to pay for the right to reuse code used in their system, unless it’s open source. The right of reproduction, and the right of a creator to determine the way their creation is distributed and sold, is the core of what copyright is about. A customer is indeed entitled to create a *better* version of a product that doesn’t work for them – by writing their own book, hiring another coder – but they’re not entitled to take someone else’s work whole cloth, make another product out of it and distribute it (even for free) without either permission or compensation.
I’m sure you know all this and are just arguing for the hell of it.
Readers and real customers are entitled to respect from authors, but authors – unlike some other creators – are not compensated by salary or funding, and so are entitled to derive profit from their own hard work. Again, core to the principal of copyright. You distribute our work in whatever format you choose, without permission or compensation, then that is indeed stealing from our pockets. If people don’t like being called a thief, then they shouldn’t steal.
Hm, I wonder how these authors who think buying used books is piracy feel about libraries. Or how about inheriting books? All the time I spent as a kid reading my mom’s Barbara Michaels books, and I was pirate. And I never knew. *sob*
@Ann Somerville
See, now that’s part of this argument from authors with their me-me-me points. Cry me a river already. Authors should already know the risks, exposure and salary of what they will earn from their work (as do many other jobs), so let me say this to you: instead of focusing on your rights and the unfairness which lead to piracy vs sharing, are you honestly blaming readers for your lack of funds when it comes sharing? Don’t mistake me when I say sharing because I mean not illegally by distribution, but by close friends instead. Author, on this, seems to focus more on equating Kindle/E-book readers on the same levels as piracy. There are legal issues on this and a limit on sharing, as Amazon. This issue is about readers legally sharing, not uploading books on torrent sites because that’s a whole different matter.
So by your words, what would you think of libraries, used bookstores? So help us all if you still think that should be illegal. If that were to be the law then there would probably be a lot of pissed of people as opposed to the numbers of authors pleased with their sales. Sharing with friends is not piracy because there are different levels on that. As a reader, I find it offensive when an author would call on a friend a thief by sharing with me. Seriously, separate the words customer, readers, legal, sharing with friends away from copying and posting and piracy.
“You distribute our work in whatever format you choose, without permission or compensation, then that is indeed stealing from our pockets. If people don’t like being called a thief, then they shouldn’t steal.”
Okay, bud, I have some words for you know. Do you mean you oppose Amazon’s sharing Kindle up to 6 customers? Or even lending a copy for a friend who might be interested in reading a new author’s work but very hesitant? Enough with the ‘me, me, me chants’ If you don’t like friends sharing legally or a copy from the library, then you are one messed up author. You calling those readers, by your logic, a thief? Holy shit, big words when it’s still a majority of readers who freaking pay for your work. Might as well throw every reader in jail and close down libraries.
“are you honestly blaming readers for your lack of funds when it comes sharing? ”
No. Point to where I said anything that implied I did.
“Holy shit, big words when it’s still a majority of readers who freaking pay for your work.”
If you were a constant reader of my blog you would realise that (a) most of my fiction is completely free to read, (b) I give lots of free copies of my pro stuff away and (c) I’ve made it very, very clear that anyone who can’t afford my stuff should contact me and I will happily give them free copies. I also give a lot of the money I earn away – to charity, to friends. I’m not greedy, and I blame no one for my lack of fortune. I could earn more than I do, but it’s not important to me. But that doesn’t mean I want to be cheated by some random arsehole on the internet.
My only beef is with file sharing sites, and those who use them. I wasn’t aware of Amazon’s Kindle policy, but I have no problem with it. What I object to is bulk downloading – even of material I self-publish.
“Enough with the ‘me, me, me chants’”
Enough with the ‘authors should eat shit and die’ chants. Clearly authors have to protect our rights because if we rely on the compassion and decency of readers like you, we’re screwed (fortunately most readers aren’t like you.) We work hard for our art, and yet people think we should almost pay *them* to read our writing. Your entire comment is hostile and nasty based on nothing but the fact I’m an author and understand the copyright law.
All I’ve done is dispute with someone who actually does know better, that the belief it’s okay to scan a paper book and upload the files if there’s no eversion, is somehow hunky dory. It’s not. That’s nothing but theft and piracy, and his reasoning is based on nothing but entitlement. An author has an absolute right over her creation, how it’s reproduced and distributed. End of story. That’s the law, and that’s the moral imperative behind the law.
“If you don’t like friends sharing legally or a copy from the library, then you are one messed up author.”
Well, thank you, dear girl. Having not said word one about libraries (am big fan of them, by the way) or friends sharing (fine by me) until this comment, I’m so glad you are getting in with the preemptive dismissal.
I’ve never called a real customer a thief. I’ve never taken anyone to task for sharing with a friend. So drop the aggression, *bud*.
File sharers and file sharing sites are thieves, and contrary to a lot of what I’ve read today, they do impact on income – which I *am* entitled to, because I’ve done the hard work. You write a novel, go through the publishing process, and see if you want someone telling you it’s just whining to insist on income from that. I know personally of people who use file sharing extensively, and who *will* pay for books that aren’t up on their IRC channels and what have you, so yes, file sharing means lost sales. And in case you think that’s small potatoes, it’s not. Most ebooks sell in the hundreds, not in the thousands. Even 10 lost sales means a reasonable hit, percentage wise.
And just to make it clear – that’s income I earned. Like you earn your salary, I presume. If you wouldn’t like someone to come along and lift 10% of your pay packet because hey, it’s not like you’d miss it and they need the money, then don’t steal from me and give me some bullshit about wrong formats for books, or they’re too expensive or whatever.
Let me also make it clear – I hope you *aren’t* a customer of mine (clearly you’re not because you know nothing about me or my writing or my attitudes to it). Because you’re rude, selfish, and just a little stupid, based on this comment on yours. I don’t need a sale so badly that I need to put up with crap like this from someone like you. I like my readers. They’re damn nice people. A lot of them are friends. People like you? I need like a hole in the head.
That proves my point on this whole argument.
It’s basically a shell game with moralistic outrage.
I never once defended torrent use or piracy I simply said it went on for a reason. I then explained the reasons based on lack of customer support and limitations of DRM and even flat out not providing the format at all.
That’s the real problem here.
What the authors and publishers are doing is stamping their feet and crying about their legal rights of ownership and of “property” when a lot of times they don’t even sell an ebook format and then they cry about what they perceive as their money lost… THEIR ENTITLEMENT when they have no money from ebook sales they are entitled to.
The fact is there is no monetary value in DOING NOTHING.
“Hm, I wonder how these authors who think buying used books is piracy feel about libraries. Or how about inheriting books? All the time I spent as a kid reading my mom’s Barbara Michaels books, and I was pirate. And I never knew. *sob*”
There, there, Heidenkind, of course you weren’t a pirate. (Or a fairy princess, or a cowboy — unless you *thought* you were, in which case that’s appropriate use of childhood imagination…)
You didn’t copy anything. You read a book. You read a book that, effectively, your mother lent to you. That’s sharing. There was one copy before you read it and only one copy when you were finished.
“Piracy” involves making, or taking, an unauthorized copy of something that someone still has copyright protection. (Stuff in the public domain can be copied freely and legally.) The Chinese who make copies of movies = pirates. The people who make fake Louis Vuitton bags and Rolex watches = pirates (trademark infringement, the cousin to copyright infringement).
So, if we can agree the people selling fake Louis Vuitton bags are pirates, Teddy Pig’s argument is that if there’s no Louis Vuitton shop in your town, it’s okay to sell fake Louis Vuitton bags. I don’t agree.
Look, there’s a gorgeous Slim Aarons photograph (http://tinyurl.com/2hr86q) that I would love to have as a poster. It’s never been sold as a poster (I’ve checked). Instead, I have the option to buy an authorized print for thousands of dollars . . . or capture the Internet image (not hard to do) and print my own, unauthorized print. I don’t do that, though. And maybe it’s old fashioned of me, but the reason I don’t is because I know that the people who legally possess the rights to that photograph have made a business decision not to mass market that image. Just because I want a cheap print doesn’t make it okay for me to make an illegal copy of that image.
I don’t think the absence of an ebook, or digital, version of a Harry Potter book is any justification (legal or ethical) for making, or taking off the Internet, a digital version of a Harry Potter book. Just go read a library copy, or borrow it from a friend. Jo Rowling won’t mind because the book you would have in your hands was legally purchased.
So, if we can agree the people selling fake Louis Vuitton bags are pirates, Teddy Pig’s argument is that if there’s no Louis Vuitton shop in your town, it’s okay to sell fake Louis Vuitton bags. I don’t agree.
Look, there’s a gorgeous Slim Aarons photograph (http://tinyurl.com/2hr86q) that I would love to have as a poster. It’s never been sold as a poster (I’ve checked). Instead, I have the option to buy an authorized print for thousands of dollars . . . or capture the Internet image (not hard to do) and print my own, unauthorized print. I don’t do that, though. And maybe it’s old fashioned of me, but the reason I don’t is because I know that the people who legally possess the rights to that photograph have made a business decision not to mass market that image. Just because I want a cheap print doesn’t make it okay for me to make an illegal copy of that image.
I don’t think the absence of an ebook, or digital, version of a Harry Potter book is any justification (legal or ethical) for making, or taking off the Internet, a digital version of a Harry Potter book. Just go read a library copy, or borrow it from a friend. Jo Rowling won’t mind because the book you would have in your hands was legally purchased.
No, what I said is if you do not sell ebooks you can not prove you lost any money from ebooks being shared. You have no sales to compare to.
I am saying that if Dan Brown decides today not to sell his next book to the island of Malta. Then Dan Brown goes to Malta and finds people sharing copies of his book which he receives no money for.
Who do you blame for being a dumb ass? The people of Malta for human nature or Dan Brown throwing a hissy fit?
Notice I am not fruitlessly arguing about ownership rights here. I am pointing out the lack of common sense.
If you can’t read Harry Potter or Dan Brown as an ebook, there’s an easy & legal alternative: read them as bound books!
Someone on Twitter just asked if it’s fair to rave about an Ian Rankin book only available in the UK. My feeling is, sure. If you really want to read a book that’s only published in another country, there are ways to obtain that book without violating the copyright. (Usually more expensive ways, but that’s another issue.)
And the authors/publishers of bound books can claim lost revenues based on the number of bound books they would have sold if everyone who illegally downloaded a bootlegged or scanned digital copy had legally purchased a bound book. But they don’t have to; there are statutory penalties. Under US copyright laws, the statutory penalties are (I believe — it’s been a while since I took copyright law in law school) $20,000 per instance of infringement. Under the Berne Convention, there are international treaties making copyright infringement punishable in all countries; you have problems enforcing IP violations in countries like China, but they are a member of the convention.
But look, the law is the law, and common sense is common sense. If I understand you, you’re pointing out the stupidity of an industry that’s more in tune with Gutenberg that Bill Gates. I’m cool with that observation (see comment #6 for my animadversions on publishers) but I still wish you’d dial back the rhetoric that seems to suggest it’s okay to infringe copyrights. It’s not exactly yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater; I don’t actually think you’re exhorting crowds of frustrated ebook fans to storm the technological Bastille. I just think your points would be stronger if you acknowledge that copyrights, and laws to protect them, exist.
Sorry Magdalen, but this is exactly why Cory Doctorow is a visionary who receives awards because he speaks the truth and why so many authors rampaging about this new technology are yesterday’s news.
Adapt or die. Arguing how many laws fit on the head of a pin will not stop it.
It’s not based on my opinion or your interpretation but the cold hard facts of the market.
@Ann Somerville
First off, I’ll agree to disagree with you on some points. I don’t see the reason why you classified me as a little stupid and selfish other than this comment. As far as I know, you don’t know shit about me, thank god. From what I replied to you, I saw several implications. Don’t assume that I merely made this response based on nothing. I may have been a little tempered, but when I read this kinds of comments like yours, I was miffed. I then apologize if I came off too much. But I stand by what I say on some topics. I agree with your view on people uploading and copy/paste a book online to share. That’s piracy. However, reader’s have rights too. A good mate of mine was also bashed by another author similarly like you when the lass simply tried to explain that it was within legal laws. Yes, an author was the right of her distribution, sure, however, should they be pissed at the fact with Kindle readers able to share? Hell yes, but didn’t she allow her work to go onto digital? Uh-uh, this is an example. As far as I know, it sure is legal. Though I understand the fright of being pirated. Crimey, I’d like to argue further in reply to your comments to mine, but I see no point anymore. Okay, call me idiotic for adding just further examples. I have better use of my time. I’d rather end this here then be called selfish and stupid if I reply again. At least we’re both passionate on our views, that’s a given.
Lastly, I’m glad I’m not a customer of yours. But then again, you already have several so what’s the point, hey? Not much lose but since you’re an author apparently, you don’t sound so professional when it comes to debating with a reader. Seriously, have a good day.
“treating all PAYING ebook customers as potential criminals is insulting. ”
Sarah, I absolutely agree.
But treating all authors as greedy Luddites is also insulting – and since the authors are the ones losing money when readers decide to act on that lack of respect, it’s not surprising they tend to become a little hot under the collar on the subject. Most ebook authors can count on at least one notification a day if they’ve set up Google alerts, that their books are being shared. It’s demoralising and depressing to see such flagrant theft going on and knowing there’s not a damn thing you can do about it.
When you have one commenter repeating the attitudes to authors I last saw on a file sharing comm, and another basically advocating an author’s worst nightmare – the unauthorising, wholesale reproduction of their work simply because that reader has decided that because a publisher has not *yet* exercised their license to electronic rights, they never will – it makes it hard to convince wary authors that really, DRM is a bad thing, and ebooks really will increase their sales and profits.
I believe in limitations on copyright. I believe in and encourage genuine transformative works like fanfiction. I believe sharing books between friends, libraries, and used books stores, all increase interest in an author’s work, and go towards an author’s need to be read. I am a reader too.
But if any bastard takes my ebooks, prints them, and flogs them on ebay – or scans my print books and puts them on a file sharing site – I will kick them in the balls repeatedly, and then take legal action. *I* will decide how my books are disseminated and reproduced. Mr “Free Market Roolz” Pig can kiss my arse. Fiction books aren’t an essential product like medicine. If someone can’t get a book in electronic format, and they want it, that’s just too effing bad. You don’t get to break the law, steal from authors, and tell them to suck it, just because your convenience demands one format over another.
TP claims to always be looking out for authors. I wonder how many of his little friends are aware just how cavalier he is towards their rights, and what he’s advocating here.
I do care about writers but I would rather listen to a writer like Cory Doctorow trying to understand the new markets and explain ways to benefit from it than listen to a writer who needs to learn how to act in a professional manner online.
Um, TP — have you been under a hedge for the last year or so? Because unbridled market forces — unhampered by laws, regulations or sheer decency — brought the global economy to the brink of catastrophe. So if your coup de grace is “market forces rule OK,” you picked the wrong year for that!
I’ve read some of Cory Doctorow. There’s more than a whiff of the Emperor’s New Clothes to his arguments — he basically discounts some things that he sees as not fitting into his big picture. (I can see why you admire him!) All sorts of arguments can seem convincing with this approach. It ultimately doesn’t work. You simply can’t deny the rights of those who create original works simply by scrunching your eyes shut, putting your fingers in your ears and humming a lot.
I think that people who have bought into the publishing market as it is will do and say just about whatever they need to try and keep things the way they are despite all evidence that the market, the business model, and even the laws are going to change.
You can only hold back technological advances so long before you lose control.
The biggest proof is the lack of hard data being used in the arguments I have read and how studies that have been done prove the exact opposite of the highly protectionist stance most publishers are taking.
You side with the RIAA and I will choose to look towards more beneficial solutions that do not include running the customers off with a big stick.
@Ann Somerville I don’t regard an author who wishes to be paid for her work as a greedy Luddite. Far from it. The point I was making in my post was that some authors – and I do stress some – extend their fear of piracy to sharing books with friends. And as Magdalen pointed out in an earlier comment, sharing is not synonymous with reproduction. There should still be one copy at the end of it.
The problem I see with the current publisher/author attitude towards piracy is that it’s not helping to stop it. In my opinion, the move towards DRM and geographical restrictions is more likely to encourage piracy than to hinder it. If there is no realistic way to prevent people from downloading material illegally, it might be better to target those who pirate because they have no other way of obtaining said material. I’m not justifying their actions, but these are the people who are more likely to stop if presented with the opportunity to obtain a legal copy for a reasonable sum of money.
Given the entertainment industry’s spectacular lack of success at combating piracy so far, something clearly needs to change.
Slightly off topic: you mentioned giving away material for free. Did you notice that this helped increase sales? Just curious.
@Teddypig
I don’t agree with everything you’ve said regarding piracy, but on this point we are definitely on the same page. The print publishing industry are a few years too late jumping on the ebook wagon and they’re making a hash of it.
There’s also the problem of technology advancing far faster than the wheels of legal change. I suspect that’s at least part of the geographical restrictions mess.
I have intentionally stayed out of discussing piracy here.
I have discussed the reasons the publishers and authors are failing to address piracy with their lack of doing anything to provide a better alternative.
With all this talk about how well the RIAA did for the music industry in fighting piracy which is still rampant in my opinion it seems just that the book publishing industry now wants to replicate that same success at failing to see people online as potential customers and rather turning them into the enemy.
“I don’t regard an author who wishes to be paid for her work as a greedy Luddite. ”
Not *you*, no. But certain commenters here clearly do.
“There should still be one copy at the end of it.”
Not in the Amazon model, certainly not in what the *terribly* professional and *pro author* Mr Pig has described.
I don’t get worked up about a few extra copies here and there, even of my self-pubbed stuff. But when the income stream is so small, authors get nervous when readers and bloggers conflate friends sharing and file sharing. If you’re numbering total sales in the hundreds, even 20 or 30 extra copies is a big chunk.
“Did you notice that this helped increase sales?”
It wasn’t put up for free for that reason. I put my work up on line because at the time the market was tiny and not worth engaging with. I write for love and just wanted to share. It certainly built up a readership for me, and yes, it does bring in sales now, but that’s not the reason it exists. My philosophy on this is entirely different from Cory Doctorow, who’s a prick of the first water. No wonder so many other similiar people find him admirable.
You know, having read the latest comments on DA, and the absolute loathing of authors who want to retain some control over their rights, I wonder why any of us smaller authors should even bother writing. It’s not worth it financially, certainly won’t be if everyone follows TP’s and Jane Litte’s advice, and it’s not worth it emotionally. I used to love writing for the connection with readers, knowing my stories had touched them in some way. Discovering how deep the contempt for what I do is so deeply rooted and irrational, makes me feel that connection is going to be increasingly rare, and doubtless I will be made to look like a greedy fool for even wanting that.
“it might be better to target those who pirate because they have no other way of obtaining said material.”
How, other than what is being done? DRM sucks, and hurts honest readers. Leasing content is cumbersome and easily circumvented. Obviously authors trying to publicise the harm it does them, doesn’t work and is turned back on them.
The music industry made mp3s so cheap that file sharing is barely worth it, and so it’s dropping. But it takes a lot longer to write a novel than a song, and an author doesn’t had ready access to other income models the way performers do (very few books get made into films etc.) The two creations aren’t actually comparable.
What pisses me off is that *authors* are blamed for the failures of publishers and the actions of pirates, as if most authors have the slightest ability to change either.
@Ann Somerville I hear such casual references to stripping DRM that I truly wonder why the entertainment industry bothers with it.
The current trend seems to be a move towards restricting access to material rather than opening up the market to more paying customers. I believe this is a mistake. I have no magic solutions to offer. I’ve been doing a series of posts on hypothetical piracy dilemmas and I’ve tried to come up with suggestions for how to avoid the temptation in the first place.
“the entertainment industry bothers with it.”
No idea. I guess if they find cracked material, it’s a definite proof of wrong doing (to them) but the only people it really affects are law abiding purchases. Hate it with a passion, and if removing it increases piracy a bit, so what?
The real thing that needs to change is attitudes among those who use file sharing sites. At the moment, the attitude is raw arrogance and dismissal of author and publisher rights, feeling they are somehow sticking it to the man. Which is why authors spend so much time explaining how it directly affects them, but I suppose that also only affects the law-abiding reader.
I don’t know the answer. I’m on both sides of this argument. All I know is blaming the author for piracy, and slamming law abiding readers who *don’t* make mass copies etc or use file sharing sites, is no way to go on.