Stealing Trek Literature

[Therin of Andor]

What's the difference? Why do I need to "present" it if you don't plan to do anything more than look at it, you can do that from seeing it hanging on my shoulder.

You "present" it open, of course. It's supposedly a proven deterrent, because if a shoplifter takes the extra time to secrete the item, not just drop it inside, it can (and does) bring the attention of security guards and cameras. Then they have the right to hold the shoplifter in the store until police arrive.

Only police have the right to "search" belongings.

A friend works in a store and it's amazing how often people "present" a bag on exit and suddenly realise they've put a store item into the bag which they haven't yet paid for. Of course, sometimes it's a scam, where they'll put a cheap item at the top but there's a more expensive item in their pocket, or in a wrapped parcel in the bag.

And then there's the old guy who regularly walks out of the supermarket with bacon rashers down his underwear.

Most people are all in agreement that the people who make bad choices and steal eBooks are responsible

No, some would say irresponsible.

Why do you think Amazon has gone out of the way on all it's kindle books to make it exceedingly clear that all electronic prices are set by the Publisher in great big letters above the price??

Maybe publishers were worried Amazon would offer all Kindle eBooks for absolute dirt cheap - at a loss - in hopes that Kindle would become the only viable eBook reader available? A monopoly. Wasn't Amazon's original credo that they aimed to be the only place to go for literature?

 

[label]

Maybe publishers were worried Amazon would offer all Kindle eBooks for absolute dirt cheap - at a loss - in hopes that Kindle would become the only viable eBook reader available? A monopoly.

Seriously, I'm starting to think I'm posting in publishers company website. Why is it that some of you have such a blind spot for the irresponsible, obvious, greed driven tactics employed by some publishers and why the resistance to place at least some of the blame at their feet???

They are artificially charging more for the eBooks and the margin is higher on their p&l sheets for eBooks than paper versions and they are doing it to forcibly drive people away from cheaper electronic versions to fuel their own paper version sales. And they aren't doing it for the authors. They aren't doing it for us. They are doing it because they are greedy and trying to manipulate the market so they can maximize their shares. Period.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Why is it that some of you have such a blind spot for the irresponsible, obvious, greed driven tactics employed by some publishers and why the resistance to place at least some of the blame at their feet???

Because I know several publishers and editors personally, some since the mid 80s, and have heard them discuss the many issues, as they canvas the thoughts of writers, readers, cover artists and booksellers - and if they were truly being irresponsible and greedy they do a very good pretending they are also concerned about their clients' livelihoods and the long term survival of the worldwide publishing industry.

Sure, I'm sure "some" blame is appropriate in some cases, but how does laying "some" blame solve anything?

... manipulate the market so they can maximize their shares.

Doesn't free enterprise encourage such actions? Why single out only publishers of paper books here?

 

[JWolf]

All we want is no DRM...

Wasn't it you boasting how DRM was so easy to strip out? Why does this even worry you?

I know it's very easy to strip the DRM. But, the DRM adds cost and that cost is passed onto us. Without DRM, there is no need to pass the cost of the DRM scheme onto the consumer.

Baen is charging $4-$6 for individual eBooks without DRM. This is fair. S&S is charging about $7.99 for an eBook with DRM. And, if you buy from S&S and you have a problem with the eBook and need to contact someone, you may as well call it a wash as getting a hold of someone at S&S to help you is a total pain in the ass. Most people won't pursue the issue. But I do feel if you are going to sell a product be it eBooks or CD or whatnot, you better have in place support in case there is a problem.

I recall people complaining that Paramount Home Video VHS tapes had a pulse imbedded that prevented them from "crosstaping" to share with friends, while other video companies hadn't bothered. The only people who realized the pulse was even there would have been the people attempting to crosstape, except they felt the need to complain.

Some people had a VCR or a TV that the pulse interfered with. So it wasn't just the people copying the tapes that had a problem. It was also legitimate customers who may have had a problem.

You see, it's one thing to not make a book available because the right deal hasn't come along yet.....I get that....it's when a book is known to already be in eBook format and they pull this crap that really irritates me.

Well, from the seminar I went to last September, I can say that the reason many eBooks aren't available in every format all at once, or in every region all at once, is sometimes because agents and publishers are still arguing to secure better deals. Because the original deal is not financially viable and they are seeking something better, in the long term, for their clients.

IIRC, no large Australian publisher has yet settled a deal with Kindle, because they were supposedly offering peanuts for the eBook rights and the publishers decided they could stand together and get something more acceptable to them.

You see, this is where DRM really hurts the customer. If the eBooks in AU are available in ePub and you own a K3, you won't be able to buy the eBooks you want. But if the ePub versions had no DRM, then you could buy them and convert them very easily to read on your K3. So really, DRM is just hurting the customer who happens to have a K3 or any flavor of Kindle. But, if DRM wasn't an issue, convert away and thus, Amazon would have to deal.

 

[JWolf]

The cost to make an eBook is less then the cost of the paper book. This is a given. Once the book gets to the stage of being ready to be printed/made, the costs then differ. There are no costs for printing, no costs for the paper, no costs for ink, no costs for shipping, no costs for warehousing, no costs for shipping from the warehouse to the store, no costs for being remaindered, no costs for the glue to hold the cover, and in some cases, the eBook doesn't have a proper cover so the cost for that isn't even an issue. All these costs add up to more then the costs to make the eBook, apply the DRM, and send it to the online store that is going to sell it.

So why then are we being charged so much extra when the costs are not there? Why are the sellers not allowed to give a discount on the eBooks from the Agency 5? Some shops have stopped giving discounts on all eBooks because it's too hard to give discounts on just the non-Agency 5's eBooks.

We had a situation that was no perfect. It could have been easily fixed. But it wasn't fixed. It was broken even more. The greedy bastards (Agency 5) decided to break the system for everyone and they've done a damn good job doing so.

And please, don't give me the "It's their eBook, they xan scrw you if they want" argument because all they are doing is price fixing and cheating the customer.


Also, they've broken the hell out of paper books too with trade format. This new trade format is just there to prevent the MMPB prices so they can still charge more. Greedy bastards for sure.

It is no wonder some people will go download instead of buying. If all was fair, that would be one thing, but it's not and when it's not, it's unfair to the consumer.

 

[ATimson]

Because I know several publishers and editors personally, some since the mid 80s, and have heard them discuss the many issues, as they canvas the thoughts of writers, readers, cover artists and booksellers - and if they were truly being irresponsible and greedy they do a very good pretending they are also concerned about their clients' livelihoods and the long term survival of the worldwide publishing industry.

That may be true of small presses, or even editors at the large ones. But someone at the large presses seems content to harm their clients' livelihoods by annoying readers...

Sure, I'm sure "some" blame is appropriate in some cases, but how does laying "some" blame solve anything?

Because it's more likely that people who see some blame can be led to properly see all where that applies (see also: Agency 5).

 

[JWolf]

Why is it a lot here are not even mentioning the damage the Agency 5 is doing to eBooks? do you know get it? Do you know maybe even know about the Agency 5?

If you don't know, Google is your friend, use it and find out. If you agree, with the agency model, then you are part of the problem. If you don't get it, then Google is still your friend, use it.

 

[Kataaran]

All we want is no DRM...

Wasn't it you boasting how DRM was so easy to strip out? Why does this even worry you?

Most DRM is easy to circumvent, whether it's music, DVDs or ebooks. The only people it causes difficulty for are people that pay for the DRMed files. It doesn't stop pirates because they're all busy downloading from www.ihazfilez.com.

What I see when I'm presented with the option of buying a DRMed file is the publisher/seller giving me the middle finger. They have contempt for me as a buyer so don't really feel inclined to listen to publishers whining. I buy plenty of textbooks that are DRM-free to read but I won't touch literature. If they want my money but all they are prepared to sell me is a DRMed pile of crap, well f*** em.

 

[JD]

I just want to say right now, I really give a crap about DRM or Agency 5 or whatever. Personally, I'm perfectly happy paying more for an ebook than a paperbook. For me the convenience makes up for any price difference, as long as it's not totally outrageous (I'm happy paying anything under $10 for a paperback, or $25 for a hardcover). Sure the stuff might be annoying, but this is still a fairly new technology, just now going mainstream, and there are always problems with any new tech when it goes mainstream. If we're patient I'm sure they'll work out a better system in time.

JWolf, have you sent any of the stuff you've been posting on here to any of the publishers? Because just posting it on here anytime someone mentions ebooks isn't going to do you any good.

EDIT: And besides, I just checked the prices of both formats of Rough Beasts of Empire on Amazon and B&N, and the only difference between the four was a $0.16 difference between the two formats on B&N. Which is really not even a difference at all.
EDIT2: I just checked more of the non-Trek books on my wishlist and the majority of them are actually cheaper as ebooks.
Here some of them are:
Valis: EB$9.29/BP$11.39
Snow: EB$9.66/BP$10.26
Percy Jackson: The Lightning Thief: EB$5.00/BP$7.19
Maximum Ride: The Angel Experiment: EB$7.99/BP$8.09
The Princess Bride: $5.12/$8.77
The Stand: $8.09/$8.90
So Long and Thanks for All the Fish: $6.15/$7.83
The Otherworld: Bitten: $6.99/$9.79
Artemis Fowler: $5.69/$7.19
Mercy Thompson: Moon Called: $7.99/$7.83 I don't know about anyone else but I have no problem with an extra $0.17 for the paperback.
Ok I think you get my point, which is that overpricing the ebooks is obviously (at least to me) nowhere near as big of a problem as you're making it out to be. And I have even more examples of this on my list if you want to see them.

 

[Destructor]

Something from author Lilith Saintcrow on this subject that pretty much chimes with my thoughts on the matter: http://www.lilithsaintcrow.com/journal/2011/01/dont-steal-my-books/

Hi James! I didn't know you were a TrekBBSer. I loved 'The Flight of the Eisenstein' and am about to start reading 'Nemesis'. Both, I feel I should declare, legally purchased, from a bookstore, in print form (I like reading in the bath, see).

Anyway, back on topic, this thread is sort of confusing me. There's a lot of people arguing that we, as the world, face some sort of choice in how the future is going to be. As individuals, sure, we all face the choice of whether to steal the books/films/music we consumer, and as responsible fans (particularly Star Trek fans, since Star Trek espouses an upstanding, moral view of the universe) we should support the artists who make the art we love. This is my own worldview and, I hope, the worldview of everyone in this forum. We will be the last to steal. That is a fine and honourable choice for us to make and I hope we all continue to make the right choice.

But it makes no difference! What the world is going to do is digitize everything, and, once it is distributed, put it somewhere that anyone can get it, at which point anyone who wants it will be able to find it and get it. Nothing is going to stop this, ever (bar, as I've said, some kind of massive backwards technological step, like an oil apocalypse or something). As long as there are computers and an internet, this is what is going to happen. DRM won't stop it. Not even ever-punitive laws will stop it. You could put the death penalty on file-sharing tomorrow and like two people would stop doing it.

"But what about the writers, how do you expect them to get paid with this crazy new model?" You're totally right! It's horrible and tragic for the writers that people can basically steal their work with impunity. But isn't history a rather detailed catalogue of how horrible and tragic things, while unfair, do in fact happen pretty much constantly? Yes, it's cataclysmic. Yes, it probably means the end of the printed word as we currently understand it, and the financial model that authors currently subsist on. That sucks. It really does. But it changes nothing. This is just a reality that needs to be adjusted to. There's no choice here. Books (even ones that aren't released digitally, like HP) will be free to anyone who wants to read them on an eReader, the moment they are released. I won't be one of those people, I'll keep paying. But take a look on the other side of the approaching singularity, friends! No-one over there is paying. They're not even looking at the ceiling and pondering if maybe they should be.

Quick question: Are book sales, as in total amount of books sold, in general, going up, or down? Like, are the effects of this digital bookpocalypse actually being felt anywhere?

 

[Technobuilder]

The Harry Potter Series isn't available in digital? Seriously? (Why the hell not?)
__________________________________________________________________

Completely Unrelated but....

Quick Plug for:

The PERCY JACKSON & The Olympians (Series)

and it's sequel series

The The Heroes of Olympus (Series)

Really good stuff (Avoid the films)

 

[JD]

And as you can see in my post, it's cheaper in ebook form.

 

[Therin of Andor]

The Harry Potter Series isn't available in digital? Seriously? (Why the hell not?)

I remember the day I found some obscure vinyl KISS records that my brother didn't have in his LP collection. One of them was memorably called "KISS My Ax" - and it turned out to be an infamous bootleg record, made from fan recordings of a live KISS concert. At the time, I had absolutely no idea what a "bootlegger" did. Had KISS wanted to sell fans permanent audio recordings of every live concert they did, I'm sure they could have done so, but they'd also have been worried that the sound mix was right and that new consumers of such recordings weren't getting less-than-professional experiences. Now, my brother was thrilled to finally hear a KISS concert he'd had no opportunity to attend but, years later, I was horrified that this practice was so widespread in the music community, and that KISS itself made no money from bootleg sales.

Maybe JK Rowling enjoys the book/reading experience so much she just couldn't imagine her words in a digital format? Certainly, she's also restricted the use of her characters on certain merchandise. I'm also reminded of "Calvin and Hobbes". The only greeting cards, T-shirts and figurines you'll ever see of Calvin the boy and Hobbes the tiger are bootlegs, because Bill Watterson, the cartoonist, refused to have his cute little images licensed for tie-in merchandise.

As artists, these people rightly demand certain controls over their work. Whether the public likes it or not.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Once upon a time, bootleg recordings were more or less tolerated by the music industry (at the start of a Springsteen concert that was broadcast live over the radio, Bruce announced, "BOOTLEGGERS! START YOUR TAPE RECORDERS!"), mainly because they almost always sucked, and very few record buyers collected bootlegs.

Then, everyone had the bright idea to go digital, and in a very short time, anybody with a decent computer had the capability to put out a bootleg album of their favorite artist that's better than their latest release.

With home desktop publishing, well, you can finish the rest...

 

[label]

Sure, I'm sure "some" blame is appropriate in some cases, but how does laying "some" blame solve anything?

Blame doesn't solve anything. Never has. Considering all the facts in any discussion is always useful, however. This thread as largely been almost everyone on both sides saying "stealing is wrong". Where the interesting discussion has been for me is why are we at where we at? Are people stealing music because basically most people are just thieves and liars and make it easy enough for someone to steal something and they will? Or, is it a little less black and white than that?

I've been trying to point out that in some cases, some of the larger publishers (penguin, simon & schuster, etc) have been intentionally trying to manipulate the market to force people to buy paper backs or at the very least, artificially inflate the value of their paperbacks. I'm not saying every single publisher is doing this, just that enough are doing it that it's a causal factor in where we are right now.

Doesn't free enterprise encourage such actions? Why single out only publishers of paper books here?

Because they are neither the creators or consumers of the art and I despise when they get in the way and act as a determent to both artist and consumer. Art should be about those who create it, and those who appreciate it. Those who seek to assist in that connection and seek a reasonable profit are welcome in this relationship.

Those who seek to subvert the relationship between artist and consumer and abuse their position to fill their own pockets are guilty of more than just being greedy, they are guilty of either driving a wedge between artist and their audience which is unforgivable to both parties, or at least, driving the audience to find ways to steal what they want because they're not willing to tolerate the interference from corporate america.

It's really quite simple and applies to all of life, not just this discussion.....I welcome any partner to any process that is a partner of integrity and is looking for an equitable part in the relationship. I condemn any partner who looks to abuse their place in the relationship and does not act with honor or integrity but seeks to abuse their position.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Because they are neither the creators or consumers of the art and I despise when they get in the way and act as a determent to both artist and consumer. Art should be about those who create it, and those who appreciate it. Those who seek to assist in that connection and seek a reasonable profit are welcome in this relationship.

You see, that's where your argument falls apart for me. Every publisher I've met see themselves very much a part of the creative process. They are also, in their personal lives, consumers of good literature. To marginalize their role as only interested in efficent distribution deals or hefty profits does them a great disservice.

As a self-publisher, I know that it's possible to get as much passion and satisfaction happening from the publishing angle as the written wordcrafting, the cover designing or the clever marketing strategy that will put the right book (or eBook) into the hands of the right person at the right time.

 

[Destructor]

As artists, these people rightly demand certain controls over their work. Whether the public likes it or not.

You've made numerous assertions to that effect, but it's not 'whether the public likes it or not'. If the public likes it, they can submit to the controls the artist or publishes puts into place. And if they don't like it, they can sidestep those controls with approximately the same amount of effort. So the statement shouldn't be 'whether the public likes it or not', it should be 'if the public likes it'.

Not morally, or legally, but in fact.

 

[Therin of Andor]

So the statement shouldn't be 'whether the public likes it or not', it should be 'if the public likes it'.

Not morally, or legally, but in fact.

Most artists (and that includes writers) say that they do their art for themselves. That other people like it, or want to pay money for it, is a blessing and a bonus. However, when an artist is depending on his or her art making enough money to make a livelihood, that complicates matters.

Watterson didn't give a damn "if the public likes it" that he wouldn't do tie-in merchandise. Rowling didn't give a damn "if the public likes it" that she wouldn't do eBooks.

But that doesn't give people the right to make and/or sell "Calvin and Hobbes" T-shirts and cuddly toys, or "Harry Potter" eBooks, nor should they be demanding that their publishers make such material available.

 

[James Swallow]

Hi James! I didn't know you were a TrekBBSer. I loved 'The Flight of the Eisenstein' and am about to start reading 'Nemesis'. Both, I feel I should declare, legally purchased, from a bookstore, in print form (I like reading in the bath, see).

Ah, thanks. You're the kind of reader we authors appreciate...

 

[Kataaran]

...nor should they be demanding that their publishers make such material available.

Why shouldn't we ask that publishers join the 21st century? Also, if they won't supply what people want then the copyright infringers will. It's like trying to hold back the tide. Supply and demand, and if they won't supply it someone else always does. They're only shooting themselves in the foot.