Why Are Book Publishers Making The Same Mistake The Record Labels Made With Apple?

from the we've-seen-this-movie-before,-and-it-doesn't-end-well dept

Back in 2005, we noted that Apple's dominance over the online music space, which upset the record labels tremendously, was actually the record labels' own fault for demanding DRM. That single demand created massive lock-in and network effects that allowed Apple to completely dominate the market. If the record labels had, instead, pushed for an open solution, then anyone else could have built stores/players to work as well, and it could have minimized Apple's ability to control the market. Yes, everyone is now opening up (including Apple), but it took a long time, and Apple had already established its dominant position.

So why are book publishers doing the same thing?

Farhad Manjoo has an interesting article in Slate where he notes that publishers are worried about Amazon turning into "the Apple of the book industry," yet at the same time, they're the ones who are pushing for DRM and limitations that will effectively lock users in to Amazon's ebook platform for a long time. If the publishers had insisted on more open solutions, then a real competitive market could develop. That would be better for everyone. As great as the new Kindle is, it's still rather expensive. Allowing others to enter the market would lead to greater innovation -- making it easier for more people to get into the ebook reader market, and open up plenty of new opportunities for publishers. But the dumb and pointless infatuation with "DRM" and "protecting" works will basically hand the market over to Amazon for many years, and get many folks locked into to Amazon's Kindle platform, even when more open solutions finally start to become popular.

Filed Under: drm, ebooks, kindle, lock-in, publishers
Companies: amazon, apple

Copyright Royalty Board Keeps Download Rates The Same; iTunes 'Saved'

from the compulsory-mess dept

I tend to think the whole concept of compulsory license rates in the music space is rather backwards. There are a bunch of different rates for all different participants, and it's basically the opposite of letting a market work. It's the government setting a handout rate for many different groups who don't want to create their own business model. The whole process serves to significantly hold back a number of new and innovative business models by letting many to rely on the government to effectively set their revenue for them. That said, one of the worst things is that a single decision by whoever sets the royalties can completely change how an industry works with a single vote. Earlier this week, we noted that Apple was threatening to shutter iTunes if the Copyright Royalty Board raised the rates for publishers on downloads. The threat was probably pretty baseless, but apparently it worked. The CRB has kept rates the same, which is going to upset many songwriters and publishers.

Filed Under: compulsory licensing, copyright, downloads, itunes, music, publishers, royalties, songwriters
Companies: apple

The Pirate Bay Threatens To Sue Over Copyright Violations

from the want-to-see-copyright-abuse?-we'll-show-you-copyright-abuse... dept

The folks who run The Pirate Bay sure do seem to have quite a bit of fun. The latest is that, in response to a report from Swedish book publishers about how they scraped TPB's results for a period of time and noticed that 85% of Sweden's best sellers could be found on the site, the folks from TPB are threatening to sue the publishers for copyright infringement. Hypocritical? Yes. But, clearly, the TPB guys are merely making the point of just how silly copyright laws are. The TPB guys aren't big believers in copyright, obviously, so any such lawsuit isn't so much hypocritical as it is pointing out the absurdities of such a system to those who seem to think that copyright systems make perfect sense.

Filed Under: copyright, database rights, publishers, sweden
Companies: pirate bay

Search Engines Should Ignore Bossy Publishers

from the disallow dept

James Grimmelman has an in depth look a ACAP, the new "standard" for website access control that we discussed last Friday. I put "standard" in scare quotes because, as Grimmelman points out, the specs clearly weren't written by people with any experience in writing technical standards. While a well-written standard will very precisely specify which behaviors are required, which are prohibited, and under what circumstances, the ACAP spec is full of vague directives and confusing terminology. Some parts of the standard are apparently designed to "only be interpreted by prior arrangement." Also, despite the "1.0" branding, the latest version of the specification has several sections that are labeled "not yet fully ready for implementation." It is, in short, a big mess.

Of course, this shouldn't surprise us, because it's not really a technical standard at all. Robots.txt works just fine for almost everyone, and search engines aren't clamoring to replace it. Rather, some publishers are using the trappings of a technical standard to try to micromanage the uses to which search engines put their content, and they're laying the groundwork for lawsuits if search engines fail to heed the demands embedded in ACAP files. Not only are the rules vague and confused, but the "standard" also helpfully notes that the rules "may change or be withdrawn without notice." In other words, a search engine that committed to complying with ACAP directives would be setting itself up to have their search engine's functionality micro-managed by the publishers who control the ACAP specifications.

Luckily, as Mike pointed out on Friday, search engines have the upper hand here. So here's my suggestion for search engines: instead of trying to comply with every nitpicky detail of the ACAP standard, just announce that every line of an ACAP file will be interpreted as the equivalent of a "Disallow" line in a robots.txt file. Websites would discover pretty quickly that posting ACAP directives on their sites just caused their content to disappear from search engines. As much as they might bluster about other search engines "stealing" their content, the reality is that they can't afford to give up the traffic that search engines send their way. If search engines simply refused to include ACAP-restricted pages in their index, publishers would quickly realize that those old robots.txt files aren't so bad after all.

Filed Under: publishers, robots.txt, search engines
Companies: associated press, google, microsoft, yahoo

News Publishers Want To Change Robots.txt; Want To Make Sure Their Content Is Less Useful

from the deep-misunderstandings dept

Following on the speech given earlier this month by the head of the Associated Press, where it was made clear that the AP and news organizations still think that they can be gatekeepers of news, a bunch of publishers along with the AP are now trying to revise robots.txt so that they can hide content on a more selective level. Now, it is true that robots.txt can be rather broad in its sweep. But it's rather telling that it's the publishers who banded together and are telling search engines what changes are needed, rather than working with the search engines to come up with a reasonable solution. In the meantime, there really are some simple solutions if you don't want content indexed by search engines -- but we've yet to fully understand why publishers are so upset that Google, Yahoo and others are sending them so much traffic in the first place.

Filed Under: publishers, robots.txt
Companies: associated press

Staples Sued By Canadian Writers And Publishers For Photocopying Books

from the had-to-happen-at-some-point dept

Michael Geist points us to the news that Access Copyright, an organization representing approximately 9,000 Canadian publishers and writers has sued Staples/Business Depot for copyright infringement over photocopying done at the stores in Canada. They're asking for $10 million, which Geist notes is "the largest lawsuit ever launched over copyright infringement of published works in Canada." For photocopying books in stores? Are book publishers really worried about the photocopier menace? Hopefully there's more to this claim than just the fact that people can photocopy passages from a book at Staples. It's pretty difficult to believe that this practice is widespread enough to cause any serious harm to publishers or writers. If it's just about people copying an occasional passage, as Geist notes, a previous lawsuit against libraries had found that the libraries weren't responsible and that "fair dealing" (similar to fair use in the states) shouldn't be constrained. Sure, if Staples were somehow copying books and selling the photocopies out the back you could make an argument that it's an issue, but if people are just using the photocopier in the store to copy parts of a book for personal reasons, it's hard to see the rationale here.

Filed Under: canada, photocopying, publishers, writers
Companies: access copyright, staples