Stealing Trek Literature

[label]

But even in this post... you're trying to put a glossy shine on it. The 'little guy' fighting 'eeeeeeeevil corporations' for the right to be entertained at a 'fair price'.

So here it is in a nutshell:

What I'm really talking about involves basically 3 parties, though there are other players in the mix.

The Artist => Produces books in this case.
The Consumer => Buys the art.
In a perfect world, that's where it stops, end of story. Artist produces, consumer buys, everyone's very happy.

However, there is a third player that you seem to be forgiving because what they can choose to charge or withhold is technically "legal" and that's replaced (at least in this country) the "right" or "moral" thing to do.

The Publisher => Gets the art from the artist to the consumer.

Now, I do understand that a publisher has a right too:
1. Cover their own costs
2. Make a profit to sustain their business

What I think most people have a problem with is that many companies seek to minimize how much money the artists gets and maximize how much they can get the consumer to pay. That's where I think that while what they are doing is "legal", it is not the right thing to do. And because they are generally not doing the right thing, they force both artists and consumer into making difficult decisions, some of which end up being illegal.

What makes it worse, is that both the artists and consumers agree on how things should be happening and what is right:

Artists want the people to be able to afford and easily obtain their art. Look at the way artists like Radiohead and other groups are now bypassing the middle man to offer their art directly to the end user. Some authors are going that route now as well. Most consumers, including myself, have no problems paying for the thing that is of actual value here - the art itself. Most consumers don't even mind paying the cost of what it reasonably costs to deliver the art from the artists to the end user.

It's when the middle man screws up this relationship between the two important parties here, artist and consumer, that people get rightly frustrated and either don't get the art which is a loss for both artist and consumer, or obtain the art illegally which is a loss for the artist.

While I don't condone stealing, especially if the art is legally obtainable at a reasonable price, you cannot absolve the "eeeeeevil corporation" from all responsibility from this situation just because what they are doing is technically legal. While they may be legal, some of them definitely are not doing the right thing by either the artists or the consumer and they share responsibility in the mess we all live with.

 

[Deano2099]

No it's not. And it is a lesser crime. If you're not sure, imagine I put a gun to your head and said you had to choose from two options. Either:

a) I take all your CDs and DVDs, or

b) I rip copies of all of your CDs and DVDs to my laptop.

You're telling me your response would be "May as well just flip a coin, they're the same thing" ?

I notice you've conveniently left the creator out of your theoretical loop... nicely done. From the creators stand point it is the same exact thing, because there not being paid for their work the second time.

Well actually I have insurance so if I chose a) the creator would eventually be paid the second time but yes, the effect on the creator is the same for both.

You've quite nicely made my point for me: 'theft' is a crime against the current owner of a single instance of the product. 'Copyright infringement' is a crime against the author of the original work.

 

[label]

I think you're right - it does. It shows that there's a major change in thinking, especially within the younger generations, that access to elements of our cultural commons should be a right, and not a privilege. It's something we've forgotten, in the days since government-run libraries started to be shut down in droves. No, one doesn't need books, music, film and so on as a basic human need to live. But it's something we should provide to everyone if we want to grow as a race.

And I think the fact that we're starting to recognise this is bloody brilliant.

This is it exactly! We've been brainwashed to believe that what the corporations have done to both artists and consumer is somehow ok. It's not. They can be partners in this relationship and instead they have chosen to be greedily opportunistic and abuse both the artists who are actually producing something of value and the consumers of the art.

 

[Starbreaker]

Oh, yeah, we Americans love to produce things and then withhold them from the rest of the world. I mean, I'm so glad the UK puts things like Merlin and Doctor Who and all of their films and novels out on the same day in America.

 

[Deano2099]

I think you're right - it does. It shows that there's a major change in thinking, especially within the younger generations, that access to elements of our cultural commons should be a right, and not a privilege.

Shouldn't that be something that is left to the individual creator to decide? Why should society be allowed to claim control over an individuals creative endeavor?

That's a fair point. And a hugely in depth philosophical argument that frankly I'm not clever enough to have. Nevertheless I imagine that you and I fall on different sides of it.

But technology marched on and rendered the debate moot. People can get whatever they want for free on the internet now. The genie won't go back in the bottle, it's too widespread. Any work that can be digitised will be. So instead we have to find other models that work.

 

[JarodRussell]

Shouldn't that be something that is left to the individual creator to decide? Why should society be allowed to claim control over an individuals creative endeavor?

Society has been allowed to claim anything since the dawn of men.

But even in this post... you're trying to put a glossy shine on it. The 'little guy' fighting 'eeeeeeeevil corporations' for the right to be entertained at a 'fair price'.

So here it is in a nutshell:

What I'm really talking about involves basically 3 parties, though there are other players in the mix.

The Artist => Produces books in this case.
The Consumer => Buys the art.
In a perfect world, that's where it stops, end of story. Artist produces, consumer buys, everyone's very happy.

However, there is a third player that you seem to be forgiving because what they can choose to charge or withhold is technically "legal" and that's replaced (at least in this country) the "right" or "moral" thing to do.

The Publisher => Gets the art from the artist to the consumer.

Now, I do understand that a publisher has a right too:
1. Cover their own costs
2. Make a profit to sustain their business

What I think most people have a problem with is that many companies seek to minimize how much money the artists gets and maximize how much they can get the consumer to pay. That's where I think that while what they are doing is "legal", it is not the right thing to do. And because they are generally not doing the right thing, they force both artists and consumer into making difficult decisions, some of which end up being illegal.

What makes it worse, is that both the artists and consumers agree on how things should be happening and what is right:

Artists want the people to be able to afford and easily obtain their art. Look at the way artists like Radiohead and other groups are now bypassing the middle man to offer their art directly to the end user. Some authors are going that route now as well. Most consumers, including myself, have no problems paying for the thing that is of actual value here - the art itself. Most consumers don't even mind paying the cost of what it reasonably costs to deliver the art from the artists to the end user.

It's when the middle man screws up this relationship between the two important parties here, artist and consumer, that people get rightly frustrated and either don't get the art which is a loss for both artist and consumer, or obtain the art illegally which is a loss for the artist.

While I don't condone stealing, especially if the art is legally obtainable at a reasonable price, you cannot absolve the "eeeeeevil corporation" from all responsibility from this situation just because what they are doing is technically legal. While they may be legal, some of them definitely are not doing the right thing by either the artists or the consumer and they share responsibility in the mess we all live with.

What you propose there is to regulate something that has evolved naturally. Publishers haven't developed out of greed, they were needed because an author cannot finance publication of thousands of books, and the consumer would be totally irritated by everyone selling their books directly.

 

[BillJ]

However, there is a third player that you seem to be forgiving because what they can choose to charge or withhold is technically "legal" and that's replaced (at least in this country) the "right" or "moral" thing to do.

The Publisher => Gets the art from the artist to the consumer.

Now, I do understand that a publisher has a right too:
1. Cover their own costs
2. Make a profit to sustain their business

But the publisher is the one taking the risk... on every single book they decide to publish. Whether they advance an artist $50,000 (this is just a placeholder dollar figure) and it sold one copy or if they advanced the artist $50,000 and it sold fifty-thousand copies.

The cost to the consumer doesn't just cover the cost of that product... a lot of the profit goes to cover artists they took a risk on and lost. Then you get into costs of printing and distribution of hard-copies and conversion and distribution of electronic copies (both those that were profitable and others that weren't). Then you have to remember that the retail price isn't the price that the publisher is receiving.

I don't believe that anyone outside the industry and the writers are in a position to declare what 'fair market value' is.

 

[BillJ]

...and the consumer would be totally irritated by everyone selling their books directly.

Plus the fact that we would probably be paying 10x what we pay now for books.

 

[Kataaran]

^ Digital theft is still theft.

Not according to these bods it isn't:

A number of years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a man named Dowling, who sold "pirated" Elvis Presley recordings, and was prosecuted for the Interstate Transportation of Stolen Property. The Supremes did not condone his actions, but did make it clear that it was not "theft" -- but technically "infringement" of the copyright of the Presley estate, and therefore copyright law, and not anti-theft statutes, had to be invoked.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/07/28/copying_is_theft_and_other/

 

[BillJ]

^ Digital theft is still theft.

Not according to these bods it isn't:

A number of years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a man named Dowling, who sold "pirated" Elvis Presley recordings, and was prosecuted for the Interstate Transportation of Stolen Property. The Supremes did not condone his actions, but did make it clear that it was not "theft" -- but technically "infringement" of the copyright of the Presley estate, and therefore copyright law, and not anti-theft statutes, had to be invoked.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/07/28/copying_is_theft_and_other/

Whatever makes you sleep better at night.

 

[ST-One]

But it's one of those laws where no-one will even find out and no-one will get hurt if you do it.

That doesn't make it right.

Have you seen how badly many ebooks are formatted (large gaps between paragraphs, margins that are too large...).
To make these legally purchased ebooks readable I have to strip the DRM off these books - and I really don't have a problem doing it as I don't intent to share these files for which I have paid good money with anyone else.

The music industry learned to trust us customers to make it possible to buy music digitally from Amazon and others (and I can do with those files what I want - convert them, copy them - without having to jump through hoops to do it).
How long will it take for the book publishers to learn to trust their customers?

 

[label]

But the publisher is the one taking the risk... on every single book they decide to publish. Whether they advance an artist $50,000 (this is just a placeholder dollar figure) and it sold one copy or if they advanced the artist $50,000 and it sold fifty-thousand copies.

I've already agreed that the publisher has the right to cover their costs and make a reasonable profit. What I've argued against is when publishers employ cynical and greedy tactics that does the exact opposite of what they're supposed to be doing.....connecting people with the artists.

I'm not going to get into the what-if's and financial details of a publisher because it's not relevant. What I've never understood is how anyone can absolve corporations of all accountability for their actions even when some of them are just as wrong as those people who illegally download art when it's readily available.

I don't believe that anyone outside the industry and the writers are in a position to declare what 'fair market value' is.

If you think the writers have any say in that at all, I think your a bit out of touch with what's actually happening. There may be a few exceptions among some of the elite authors, but price points are much, much more publisher driven than artists driven. It's one thing if Stephen King writes a book, publishes the eBook on his website directly and charges $10. He's getting all (or most) of that money and that's what the writer feels he should be compensated. The problem is, how the prices get set is much, much more about the publishers bottom line and profit margin than it has to do with the actual writer, whom I agree, should be the one who sets the "fair market value".

So, according to your own statement that the writer should set the fair market value and seeing that by and large they don't, I can assume that you must also have a problem with the publishers now?

 

[label]

...and the consumer would be totally irritated by everyone selling their books directly.

Plus the fact that we would probably be paying 10x what we pay now for books.

I think you mean 10x less. When artists sell directly, they can charge far, far less and make far, far more then having to use a publisher. Radiohead's "In Rainbows" album showed us how much more profitable it is for the artist and how much less it would cost for the end user.

 

[BillJ]

I'm not going to get into the what-if's and financial details of a publisher because it's not relevant. What I've never understood is how anyone can absolve corporations of all accountability for their actions even when some of them are just as wrong as those people who illegally download art when it's readily available.

How are financial details irrelevant in the cost of a book?

What actions are they taking that are wrong? That they are charging what they believe the market will pay for their product? Or they're charging more than you're willing to pay for a product?

If you think the writers have any say in that at all, I think your a bit out of touch with what's actually happening.

No artist has his arm twisted by a publisher. The publisher makes an offer to the artist for the right to publish the work. The artist had the right to say 'yes' or 'no'. If they say yes... then they are implicitly agreeing to work with the publisher.

 

[BillJ]

...and the consumer would be totally irritated by everyone selling their books directly.

Plus the fact that we would probably be paying 10x what we pay now for books.

I think you mean 10x less. When artists sell directly, they can charge far, far less and make far, far more then having to use a publisher. Radiohead's "In Rainbows" album showed us how much more profitable it is for the artist and how much less it would cost for the end user.

Looks to me like the physical version continues to cost roughly the same as any other CD:

http://www.amazon.com/Rainbows-Radiohead/dp/B000YXMMAE

Which means they're probably using existing infrastructure to press the discs. If the infrastructure didn't exist... the costs would be much higher.

Just because a 'one-off' experiment proves to be popular doesn't mean everything that uses the same model is going to be successful. Check out the 3D rage that Avatar set off.

 

[Deano2099]

^ Digital theft is still theft.

Not according to these bods it isn't:

A number of years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a man named Dowling, who sold "pirated" Elvis Presley recordings, and was prosecuted for the Interstate Transportation of Stolen Property. The Supremes did not condone his actions, but did make it clear that it was not "theft" -- but technically "infringement" of the copyright of the Presley estate, and therefore copyright law, and not anti-theft statutes, had to be invoked.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/07/28/copying_is_theft_and_other/

Whatever makes you sleep better at night.

Well it's about grammatical correctness isn't it? If an author says that when they see their books being copied they feel like they've been raped, is copyright infringement now rape?

It was about 25 years ago when people first started copying floppy discs and cassette tapes that the industry got upset about "copyright infringement", decided that the word wasn't sexy enough, and decided to call it "piracy" instead.

Then Jack Sparrow came along and all the kids decided that being a pirate was awesome, and then the Somalian pirates turned up and reminded us all that actual piracy is a horrible and nasty thing and nothing to do with copyright infringement, so the industry needed a new word and so "copyright is theft" was born. They're attempting to change the meaning of the word and they may well succeed, that's how language develops. Personally I think it's gay.

What you propose there is to regulate something that has evolved naturally. Publishers haven't developed out of greed, they were needed because an author cannot finance publication of thousands of books, and the consumer would be totally irritated by everyone selling their books directly.

And it's continuing to evolve. Naturally. The internet and filesharing are removing the need for a lot of the middle-men. And while label may be theoretically suggesting we legislate to speed this process along, the industry is actually pushing through legislation to try and stop it. Yes, markets evolve and change, but some people are trying to stop that evolution as it's about to evolve them out of the picture.

 

[label]

How are financial details irrelevant in the cost of a book?

Umm, they're not irrelevant to the cost of a book, they're simply irrelevant to this discussion. For the third time, I've already said that a publisher has a right to cover their costs and make a profit. That means I've accepted that their are lots of financial details involved that would play into them covering costs/making profit. Hence: we both agree that there are details that go into determining the cost of a book. Hence: irrelevant.

What is irrelevant is that those details are not the only thing that drives the cost for some publishers. Which brings us to this:

What actions are they taking that are wrong?

Sources from several publishers have come out and stated that they have artificially inflated the prices of some of their eBooks so that they would not devalue their dead tree books. Other articles have documented how they will pull eBooks temporarily to artificially inflate mass market paperbacks.

It's when publishers move from making sound financial decisions based equitable profits and price points for all involved into greedy, debilitating practices that forces both artist and consumer to have to work around them instead of through them and they only have themselves to blame.

No artist has his arm twisted by a publisher. The publisher makes an offer to the artist for the right to publish the work. The artist had the right to say 'yes' or 'no'. If they say yes... then they are implicitly agreeing to work with the publisher.

Sure, and they have historically had so many alternative methods of disseminating their work in the past that I'm sure they all felt perfectly fine saying "no" when they didn't agree with the price points.

Not sure if you work for a publisher or not, but seriously, are you that out of touch with how corporate america works that your just willing to overlook all the problems that a lot of publishers introduce into the system??

 

[Deano2099]

I think the cost of publishing a book is being somewhat overstated here. I'm looking from a digital perspective, 5-10 years down the line when everyone has an e-reader. Physical books will get more expensive over time. As will physical CDs. As these will be premium products sold to the fans who really want them. The mass market will be entirely digital.

When publishing gets to that point, what do you really need? A writer, of course. An editor, that's a given. A proof-reader/sub - in most cases yes. Typesetter? Maybe if the editor can't do it. What's left? Cover designer - if you want, less necessary in the digital age (just like with CDs). You don't have to go any further on the production side of things...

It's not really more people that with say music, where you need a writer, performers and a producer. And someone else to do the mixing and/or mastering if you really want.

 

[BillJ]

Sources from several publishers have come out and stated that they have artificially inflated the prices of some of their eBooks so that they would not devalue their dead tree books. Other articles have documented how they will pull eBooks temporarily to artificially inflate mass market paperbacks.

Then you can express your displeasure by simply not buying from said publisher. It still doesn't make theft okay for something that isn't essential to your daily life.

Sure, and they have historically had so many alternative methods of disseminating their work in the past that I'm sure they all felt perfectly fine saying "no" when they didn't agree with the price points.

It's up to each individual artist to decide what their personal integrity is worth... not me. It's not up to me to decide on the integrity of a given artist, nor does my thoughts on his integrity give me to right to steal from him/her.

Not sure if you work for a publisher or not, but seriously, are you that out of touch with how corporate america works that your just willing to overlook all the problems that a lot of publishers introduce into the system??

Worked in banking/financial district for better than a decade. I look for things that interest me and whether I'm willing to pay what said publisher is charging. Just because the publisher is charging more than I'm willing to pay doesn't make it okay for me to take it. YMMV.

 

[BillJ]

I think the cost of publishing a book is being somewhat overstated here. I'm looking from a digital perspective, 5-10 years down the line when everyone has an e-reader. Physical books will get more expensive over time. As will physical CDs. As these will be premium products sold to the fans who really want them. The mass market will be entirely digital.

When publishing gets to that point, what do you really need? A writer, of course. An editor, that's a given. A proof-reader/sub - in most cases yes. Typesetter? Maybe if the editor can't do it. What's left? Cover designer - if you want, less necessary in the digital age (just like with CDs). You don't have to go any further on the production side of things...

It's not really more people that with say music, where you need a writer, performers and a producer. And someone else to do the mixing and/or mastering if you really want.

Advertising? Go ahead and self-publish as a new author with no backing and no advertising and watch your 'bestseller' that you spent years writing drop to number 1,000,000 on the Amazon list, regardless of quality.