"The book industry is gonna get Napstered..."

[Krystian Galaj]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I think that you have a very cynical view of people, I'm afraid. The overwhelming majority of people (in my experience) are honest; if something is too expensive they will not buy it; it's only the small minority of dishonest people who will try to take it without paying for it.

In my experience, it's the other way around. Maybe 5% of the people will buy books, games, movies, if they can get them for free. Personally (not through the Internet) I know only one person who buys such things, and hundreds of people who download them.

EDIT: Well, it's Poland, a country where every police station is working on pirated Windows.

[pdurrant]

I was trying to explain why I thought that you were wrong to consider it a fair deal. A fair deal, to me, is one in which both parties profit proportionately.

I have shown that Amazon will accept 20% of retail price for selling a paper book, in which they incur specific costs in ordering, storing and handling.

While I can understand that they also have costs that are only applicable to ebooks (data storage, bandwidth), I can't see that they are more than the specific costs for the paper book.

Costs for customer service, website, payment handling, etc. are the same for both.

So either Amazon are being unfair to themselves in accepting books on 20% terms, or they are being unfair to ebook suppliers in insisting on taking 65%.

I can't see that Amazon would continue to accept books at 20% if they were unhappy with the deal - it would be simple for them to insist on a higher margin.

So my conclusion is that Amazon's deal for ebooks is unfair.

That's not to say that I might not take them up on it - they have such a large portion of the ebook market that it might be foolish not to do so. But abuse of a very strong market position isn't good long term news.

Originally Posted by HarryT

If you feel that it's not a good deal then of course your choice is clear - don't go for it.

For many, however, the large number of retailers that uploading to Mobi will let your book reach, and the hassle of setting up your own website, handling payment, etc, will make it worthwhile.

It's a service that's available. Nobody is under an obligation to use it if they prefer to sell their books through other channels.

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I publish a small number of paper books (I couldn't persuade the rights holders to go for ebooks).

If you don't even have rights on your own creations, something is gone very wrong.

[HarryT]

Paul said that he "publishes" them. That presumably means that somebody else is the author.

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

...

If the "new model" cannot support the creation of digital content, then content creators will suffer. Fortunately, this does not necessarily have to occur, as long as most readers can be encouraged to pay for what they read, hopefully by setting a reasonable price.

Good point.
As a reader, I am willing to pay for what I read, and I'm willing to pay for paper, ink and for the work behind it even if don't read a word in it.
But I'm not willing to pay for what I download (aside from a contribution for bandwith cost) if I don't actually read it.

Let me do a little statistic:
My reading average is about 2 books/month, meaning something close to 250 books in ten years. If I pay 5€ per book (a little less than a paperback price), I can have my ten years worth of reading if I go to the bookstore and buy 1250€ of books.

In your opinion, will an e-book dealer grant me a unlimited 10-years access to his catalogue for 1500€?
No, because in his mind I'm getting 25.000 or so books, even if I'll get just the 250 I'll read... Not to mention if I download some more than I read...

Now, if I go to the darknet and download thousands of books, what I'll read in the next ten years will be those same 250 books, more or less. I'll just have more choices every time I want to open one.
But, in dealer's mind, I'm stealing thousands, even if I don't even open the file.

What I mean is, in the case of a digital copy of a book, I'm not really owning or possessing it until I actually read it. And that's the moment I'll agree to pay a fair amount for the content. But, If a file is in my hard disk, it's not a book until that moment. It's just a bunch of zeros and ones.
Like the Odyssey was not a poem until Homer started to chant it.

That's what I think is a "new model".
I pay a fixed fair amount for unlimited access.
I don't distribute what I download.
I send periodic statistics on what I really read (and maybe a feddback about quality)

On the other side:
Distributor/publisher is paid with a percentage of my fee for his costs and work
Authors are paid proportionally to what I read with another percentage of it.
A small percentage of the fee will go in a pension fund for widows and children: copyright dies with the author.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Format C:

What I mean is, in the case of a digital copy of a book, I'm not really owning or possessing it until I actually read it. And that's the moment I'll agree to pay a fair amount for the content. But, If a file is in my hard disk, it's not a book until that moment. It's just a bunch of zeros and ones.

I find that an extremely strange concept, I must say. You could equally say that a paper book is just ink marks on paper until you "actually read it". What makes a paper book have more "inherent value" than a data file? A book is simply an information storage device.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

In my experience, it's the other way around. Maybe 5% of the people will buy books, games, movies, if they can get them for free. Personally (not through the Internet) I know only one person who buys such things, and hundreds of people who download them.

EDIT: Well, it's Poland, a country where every police station is working on pirated Windows.

There's probably worse things in the world than Polish capital not flowing to America in exchange for products that Polish individuals can obtain without an expense either to themselves or the software publisher.

The software publisher lost nothing, whereas the Polish individual and Poland both have gained the potential for increased productivity. Given enough increased productivity, perhaps they can even help pull America out of its economic collapse.

Am I kidding? Who knows...

- Ahi

[pdurrant]

HarryT's right - I'm not an author.

I published "Desbarollda" because I like the author and the illustrator's work, and it was generally unavailable. And because I could. I managed to track down copyright holders and get permission for a PoD book, but not an ebook.

"Jackdaw and Other Stories" was for a friend. I really ought to get around to doing it in ebook, but I didn't do the typesetting on that one, so I'd need to extract the text and reformat it.

My next book should be in both PoD and eBook - a new collection of Kai Lung stories by Ernest Bramah. This will include four previously uncollected (& as far as I know, unpublished) stories.

Originally Posted by Format C:

If you don't even have rights on your own creations, something is gone very wrong.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by Format C:

What I mean is, in the case of a digital copy of a book, I'm not really owning or possessing it until I actually read it. And that's the moment I'll agree to pay a fair amount for the content. But, If a file is in my hard disk, it's not a book until that moment. It's just a bunch of zeros and ones.
Like the Odyssey was not a poem until Homer started to chant it.

Does a tree, when it falls in a forest, make a sound if there's nobody to hear it?

I have plenty of books in my e-library that I've not read yet. I actually bought them! So, according to you, I still don't possess them... Even though my hard-earned money has passed hands and I got access to some 1's and 0's....

[yvanleterrible]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I find that an extremely strange concept, I must say. You could equally say that a paper book is just ink marks on paper until you "actually read it". What makes a paper book have more "inherent value" than a data file? A book is simply an information storage device.

New way of seeing indeed!

Thinking further, paper books do retain a certain value troughout their physical existence, proof of which is in the resale market.

[AnemicOak]

Paul, do you know what cut LightningSource takes if they're the ebook distributor instead of Mobi/Amazon?

[ahi]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

Paul, do you know what cut LightningSource takes if they're the ebook distributor instead of Mobi/Amazon?

Do they funnel it through Mobipocket and others? Last time I checked it was not clear what sort of distribution they can actually offer for eBooks.

- Ahi

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I find that an extremely strange concept, I must say. You could equally say that a paper book is just ink marks on paper until you "actually read it". What makes a paper book have more "inherent value" than a data file? A book is simply an information storage device.

It is, indeed.
Actually a paper book has more "material value" than a file.
The pbook is a real thing, an electronic copy of it it's just an ephymereal recording of a concept.

What I mean is: while in paper and ink world it is correct to think about "copies" (like in copies sold, remainder copies, illegal photo-copies), it isn't so in the digital world, where the same idea of "copy" has no meaning (e.g., when a file is open in MS word, at least two different copies are born from the blue nowhere: the file on disk, a second temporary file, and a copy in RAM, which in turn can be copied in the swap and in the hybernate file... Are they "illegal copies", according to DCMCA?).
To develop a real efficient business model for digital content, we must be able to think different.
And to think about access to content rather than copies bought is a big step forward.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Format C:

It is, indeed.
Actually a paper book has more "material value" than a file.
The pbook is a real thing, an electronic copy of it it's just an ephymereal recording of a concept.

What I mean is: while in paper and ink world it is correct to think about "copies" (like in copies sold, remainder copies, illegal photo-copies), it isn't so in the digital world, where the same idea of "copy" has no meaning (e.g., when a file is open in MS word, at least two different copies are born from the blue nowhere: the file on disk, a second temporary file, and a copy in RAM, which in turn can be copied in the swap and in the hybernate file... Are they "illegal copies", according to DCMCA?).
To develop a real efficient business model for digital content, we must be able to think different.
And to think about access to content rather than copies bought is a big step forward.

You don't think the ink on the paper book's pages is near-perfectly analogous to the orderly magnetic/electric distortion that represents the specific content of the eBook on your disc/DVD/other device?

I don't really see a meaningful difference myself... or, rather, not an inherent one. Only a difference in how each can be handled/used.

- Ahi

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by ahi

You don't think the ink on the paper book's pages is near-perfectly analogous to the orderly magnetic/electric distortion that represents the specific content of the eBook on your disc/DVD/other device?

I don't really see a meaningful difference myself... or, rather, not an inherent one. Only a difference in how each can be handled/used.

- Ahi

I don't think so.
I mean, I can see the difference between amanuensis' work and Gutemberg's...