Heh. Funny. I don't recall you complaining that it was 50 Cent's choice to not go after file sharers when Lily scolded him for destroying the music industry in doing so.
Wonder why.
Gee, Mike, I must apologize for not making the arguments you want me to make while you ignore the points I raise. Obviously Allen is wrong to say music "can't be free" when it clearly can be (happy now?); but chiding her for making some of her music free and wanting to restrict some it is her choice. You may think it a bad choice, and you may or may not be right, but it is her choice.
Indeed. But Lily was scolding other artists for offering stuff for free. Is this really that complicated?
It's not complicated at all. It's ridiculous to say that if someone decides to protect their copyright and their content that they can't use services that others have decided to offer for free. That's why it's a silly point and not close to "dead on."
Given that you seem to have used "free music" to your own advantage in the past, how can you say that "music can't be free"?
It's her choice whether she wants to give away some of her music or not. It's not yours or anyone else's. It may or may not be a bad business decision, but it's her's to make and she's free to change her mind.
You are posting your blog on a Blogspot.com domain, which is provided by Google to you, for free.
The fact that Google has decided to provide the service without charge is their decision (which they, too, could change at any time).
Sorry, that's not one 'em. You can be fired for what you say. Free speech means that, within certain bounds, the government can't suppress your speech or arrest you for it.
If you want that extended to employers, lobby your congresspersons.
The article notes that he performed the song live for audiences for years before putting it on an album
Just wanted to point out that there is a difference between performing a song for years in front of live audiences before recording it and releasing it free on the internet to gauge interest. Concert goers have, usually, paid to hear the song by buying a concert ticket.
Actually, publishers don't print books. That work is contracted out. There will, I think, be a contraction in the book publishing business, but book publishers have the edge that they generally add more value in services, and generally treat authors better than, say, the recording industry treats musicians. However the big printers may have to look elsewhere to replace lost business if ebooks ever seriously erode the market for printed books.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Publishers Have Been Selling E-books for Years
Don't find anything to disagree with: your points are spot-on.
I particularly agree with the 10-year horizon (or beyond) for new "e-paper" technology to hit critical mass. This was always the problem for ebooks: publishers wanted to sell them, but demand was low because of the lack of the right hardware upon which to read them. That demand is spiking, but I don't think that even with that spike, sales will amount to more than 10% of overall revenue (or units).
Standards are the key as well. Book publishing is slowly starting to really adopt the ".epub" format (formerly the OEBPS), which should make ebooks operable on multiple platforms and allow for consistent presentation across those platforms.
Creating your own devise only locks you into one primary sales channel (not that Hearst couldn't sell through others, but then, why create the device). A better approach is to work with the hardware folk to produce ereaders that meet the needs of consumers and publishers.
Those are pretty old; from 1989. I'm a little surprised that SFWA hasn't updated them.
The Author's Guild has better. As for ebook royalties, I think most publishers have this as a subsidiary right and split revenue from ebook sales 50/50 with the author.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Publishers Have Been Selling E-books for Years
Tracking circulation of electronic products in the same way as print products is going to be very problematic. And unless the tracking mechanism is hugely intrusive, which is not likely to find consumer acceptance, then the metric will have to change.
My point about the next generation "e-paper" technology is that it is likely to largely wipe out the "paper-paper" editions.
This is essentially what happened to publishers of scholarly journals 10 years ago. When the demand for electronic editions emerged, STM journal publishers complained about having to produce them; after 5 years or so, they complained about having to continue the print editions.
Now, the business are different in that most journals are advertising-supported by subscription-supported, so the metric of success are different. But looking at what journals went through--and what they are currently going through--should be instructive to the consumer magazine market.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't know of any distributors, wholesalers or retailers in print book publishing that pay royalties on sales, unless they're self-publishing sites.
Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Borders, airport newsstands, etc. all generally buy books either directly from publishers or wholesalers (who buy from publishers) and pay a discounted price from the cover price to the publisher, who in turn pays a royalty to the author. Those distributors and retailers also generally buy the books on a fully returnable basis, meaning they can return them for full credit at any time.
Technically, any of those outlets, including Amazon can sell a book (or ebook) at any price they choose, but the publisher generally sets the price for books. With e-books for Kindle, Amazon is more restrictive.
Amazon really isn't the publisher of ebooks, either, even if an author directly uploads his or her ebook for sale on Amazon. Amazon acquires no rights and, more important, none of the legal risks that a publisher does.
The publisher actually contributes a great deal. It's not that an author can't or couldn't do the same (some do), but a publisher provides expertise in editing, copyediting, design (internal and cover), marketing, promotion, publicity, and sometimes licensing of subsidiary rights (book club, translations, foreign editions, etc.). Again, it's not that the author couldn't do these things, or hire contractors to do these things, but a publisher has experience and existing relationships that provide for more efficiency.
You can do these things, but it's going to be more difficult to get your book in Barnes and Noble or Borders, reviewed in the New York Times, or booked on a tour of bookstores.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Publishers Have Been Selling E-books for Years
These are all problems that the new LCD technology is meant to address (among other things). Tracking circulation is probably going to have to be based on downloads, which will affect ad rates. A lot depends on how interactive the technology is.
This is essentially correct: you want to sell ebooks for the kindle, you pretty much dance to Amazon's tune. From what I understand, there is some room to negotiate (since Amazon needs content to sell in order to sell Kindles), but not much.
For this, just like the music industry, they take the lion share of the profits and some would say risk.
As I noted above, profit margins in the book publishing industry are much smaller than in the recording industry.
If I was king for a day at a publishing house, I'd be working like a mad-man to setup on-demand/low volume printing presses, digital store fronts for both digital downloads and physical associated goods, and a promotional system that would be far better than what any single author could hope to do on their own.
Most publishers are already doing this. And they still provide value in terms of interior and cover design, publicity, marketing, and promotion. Of course, not every author gets the same level of these services, but they all get the value of distribution systems to major wholesaler and retailers, whether print or electronic. As for just electronic, if you move beyond PDF, publisher also handle conversion to the various e-publishing standards used by different electronic vendors. The also generally pay the author up-front, a non-refundable advance against royalties. Most authors never actually earn-out that advance in accrued royalties.
On-demand and/or short-run printing is relatively expensive, moreso on a per-unit basis than larger print runs. The trade off is you don't have warehouse stock. But those costs are necessarily passed along to the end-user.
Actually, most publishers (though not all) price the ebook version the same as the lowest price available print format, usually the same a the paperback.
Oh, and the margins in book publishing, except for big bestsellers that are really a small percentage of the number of books published, are pretty modest.
Contract differ, but if an author is getting 10% royalty on the cover price, that amounts to nearly 20% of the publisher's gross, since the publisher sells books to retailers at discounts of up to 50% of the cover price.
For the vast majority of books, the average profit margin is between 10% to 15%. Some quite a bit less. The economics of bestsellers are, however, a little different.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Publishers Have Been Selling E-books for Years
Personally, I'm not a fan of reading for any length of time on an iPod or iPhone: screen's just too small.
Kindle and Sony Reader are a definite improvement, since they're about the size of a regular book; use ambient light, which replicates the same experience of reading a physical book; can be used in environments that other "screens" can't (such as bright sunlight); and have generally good battery life. But they're still limited.
What is jazzy about the cholesteric LCD is that it operates similarly to the e-ink technology but is in color and can be manufactured as a thin, light, semi-rigid sheet of plastic of almost any size. Coupled with wireless technology, I very strongly believe it will be a game-changer.
Re: Re: Publishers Have Been Selling E-books for Years
I agree that the markets are merging; I think the technology I mentioned will complete the merge, essentially erasing the difference between mags and newspapers.
And, about the dog, call your local moving company: they should sell blank newsprint paper, which they use as packing materials, pretty cheaply. Stock up now!
And, of course, a bit part of the problem is that these same publishers didn't do anything to lead the way on ebooks. Instead, they sat around doing nothing while Amazon built the Kindle and Google went and scanned a bunch of books.
Hachette doth protest too much. Publishers have been selling e-books for years and have been looking for ways to maximize that market since the very early 90s. Even then, some publishers (and authors) were shouting about how this would be the "death of books." Didn't happen then, and it's unlikely to happen now.
Publishers haven't been just "sitting around." There's been plenty of experimentation at the margins, but e-book sales have been pretty minor (millions of dollars, but not much increase in sales volume over the last 10 years). The problem has always been coming up with standards for e-book formatting, with PDF the default (and it's a lousy default) as well as a portable device.
The "e-ink" technology used by Kindle and Sony Reader has been around for almost 10 years and while they both have contributed to a nearly exponential increase in e-book sales volume (and dollars), they still aren't the answer.
Publishers are well aware that Amazon and Kindle have the potential to lock them into pricing the same way iTunes did for the recording industry. But Kindle and Sony Reader, while an important market, aren't likely to take over the industry the way iTunes has dominated music.
What publishers should be planning for is the next generation of "e-paper" e-book reading technology: Cholesteric LCD. When this technology gets to the point of being cheaply manufactured, that will be the real revolution in book publishing.
Not to mention magazine and newspaper publishing; if they think they have it bad now, this technology will, I believe, essentially wipe out paper distribution there. Book lovers will always demand physical, bound books, but periodicals and newspapers will be doomed.
Amazon does not buy any "rights" from publishers. Amazon is a reseller, a distributor. They don't actually "buy" anything from publishers: most all physical books are "sold" to Amazon (and nearly every other wholesaler or retailer) on a fully returnable and refundable basis. That means if Amazon or your corner bookstore does not sell a book, they can return it to the publisher (or in the case of paperback, just the front cover) and get a full refund at any time.
Even with e-books, Amazon does not buy any rights.
Copyright law is intended to create incentives for increased production of creative works (well, technically "sciences.") Thus, if copyright law were properly calibrated, everyone would be better off.
Technically, it's "sciences and useful arts." And the incentives are built right into the language in the Constitution, if you complete the sentence: "...by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Calibration and balance between the exclusive rights of creators and the rights of the public domain are the heart of copyright, not just an excuse for "lose-lose."
You are quite correct that it is a mistake to think of this as a fight between the public and copyright holders, but unfortunately, heated rhetoric casts it as just that.
You say questioning copyright should lead to perhaps a different "calibration" of stronger copyright, no copyright (both of which I agree are unlikely) or somewhere in the middle. And if it's somewhere in the middle, the calibration is an act of finding the precise balance of rights that results in the most benefit for both the public and creators.
Advancing any change in copyright law (stronger, none, or a calibration) is going to be difficult enough; if we're bickering over what terms are appropriate, it will be impossible.
...I always cringe at calls for "balanced copyright" -- which I think misses the point of copyright (a truly successful copyright law involves making everyone better off, rather than "balancing" interests)...
This is essentially nonsense. All copyright law is an attempt to achieve a balance between the rights of the creator and the rights of citizens (or society, if you prefer). The balance is clearly tilted too far toward the rights of the creator (who in most cases transfer the right to corporate publishers or distributors), but if the solution is copyright law that doesn't involve balance, one that "makes it better for everyone," that's essentially the same thing as no copyright at all.
You've indicated that you are not necessarily for abolishing copyright, yet in numerous posts, you carve out a position that is tantamount to the same.
If you cringe at any discussion of balance in copyright law or copyright reform, then can you articulate with any specificity exactly what is a copyright law that "makes it better for everyone"?
On the post: Some Questions For Lily Allen
Re: Re: Choice
Wonder why.
Gee, Mike, I must apologize for not making the arguments you want me to make while you ignore the points I raise. Obviously Allen is wrong to say music "can't be free" when it clearly can be (happy now?); but chiding her for making some of her music free and wanting to restrict some it is her choice. You may think it a bad choice, and you may or may not be right, but it is her choice.
Indeed. But Lily was scolding other artists for offering stuff for free. Is this really that complicated?
It's not complicated at all. It's ridiculous to say that if someone decides to protect their copyright and their content that they can't use services that others have decided to offer for free. That's why it's a silly point and not close to "dead on."
On the post: Some Questions For Lily Allen
Choice
It's her choice whether she wants to give away some of her music or not. It's not yours or anyone else's. It may or may not be a bad business decision, but it's her's to make and she's free to change her mind.
You are posting your blog on a Blogspot.com domain, which is provided by Google to you, for free.
The fact that Google has decided to provide the service without charge is their decision (which they, too, could change at any time).
These are pretty silly points, Mike.
On the post: NFL: Refs Banned From Using All Social Media; Press Can't Live Tweet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you want that extended to employers, lobby your congresspersons.
On the post: Jason Mraz Listens To His Fans In Picking 'I'm Yours' As A Hit Single
There's a Difference
Just wanted to point out that there is a difference between performing a song for years in front of live audiences before recording it and releasing it free on the internet to gauge interest. Concert goers have, usually, paid to hear the song by buying a concert ticket.
On the post: Publishers Lashing Out At eBooks
Re: Re: Re: Back to basics...
On the post: Publishers Lashing Out At eBooks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Publishers Have Been Selling E-books for Years
I particularly agree with the 10-year horizon (or beyond) for new "e-paper" technology to hit critical mass. This was always the problem for ebooks: publishers wanted to sell them, but demand was low because of the lack of the right hardware upon which to read them. That demand is spiking, but I don't think that even with that spike, sales will amount to more than 10% of overall revenue (or units).
Standards are the key as well. Book publishing is slowly starting to really adopt the ".epub" format (formerly the OEBPS), which should make ebooks operable on multiple platforms and allow for consistent presentation across those platforms.
Creating your own devise only locks you into one primary sales channel (not that Hearst couldn't sell through others, but then, why create the device). A better approach is to work with the hardware folk to produce ereaders that meet the needs of consumers and publishers.
Cheers.
On the post: Publishers Lashing Out At eBooks
Re: Re: Re: Us vs. Them
Those are pretty old; from 1989. I'm a little surprised that SFWA hasn't updated them.
The Author's Guild has better. As for ebook royalties, I think most publishers have this as a subsidiary right and split revenue from ebook sales 50/50 with the author.
On the post: Publishers Lashing Out At eBooks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Publishers Have Been Selling E-books for Years
My point about the next generation "e-paper" technology is that it is likely to largely wipe out the "paper-paper" editions.
This is essentially what happened to publishers of scholarly journals 10 years ago. When the demand for electronic editions emerged, STM journal publishers complained about having to produce them; after 5 years or so, they complained about having to continue the print editions.
Now, the business are different in that most journals are advertising-supported by subscription-supported, so the metric of success are different. But looking at what journals went through--and what they are currently going through--should be instructive to the consumer magazine market.
On the post: Publishers Lashing Out At eBooks
Re: Re: Amazaon charges???
Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Borders, airport newsstands, etc. all generally buy books either directly from publishers or wholesalers (who buy from publishers) and pay a discounted price from the cover price to the publisher, who in turn pays a royalty to the author. Those distributors and retailers also generally buy the books on a fully returnable basis, meaning they can return them for full credit at any time.
Technically, any of those outlets, including Amazon can sell a book (or ebook) at any price they choose, but the publisher generally sets the price for books. With e-books for Kindle, Amazon is more restrictive.
Amazon really isn't the publisher of ebooks, either, even if an author directly uploads his or her ebook for sale on Amazon. Amazon acquires no rights and, more important, none of the legal risks that a publisher does.
The publisher actually contributes a great deal. It's not that an author can't or couldn't do the same (some do), but a publisher provides expertise in editing, copyediting, design (internal and cover), marketing, promotion, publicity, and sometimes licensing of subsidiary rights (book club, translations, foreign editions, etc.). Again, it's not that the author couldn't do these things, or hire contractors to do these things, but a publisher has experience and existing relationships that provide for more efficiency.
You can do these things, but it's going to be more difficult to get your book in Barnes and Noble or Borders, reviewed in the New York Times, or booked on a tour of bookstores.
On the post: Publishers Lashing Out At eBooks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Publishers Have Been Selling E-books for Years
On the post: Publishers Lashing Out At eBooks
Re: Re: Amazaon charges???
On the post: Publishers Lashing Out At eBooks
Re: Back to basics...
As I noted above, profit margins in the book publishing industry are much smaller than in the recording industry.
If I was king for a day at a publishing house, I'd be working like a mad-man to setup on-demand/low volume printing presses, digital store fronts for both digital downloads and physical associated goods, and a promotional system that would be far better than what any single author could hope to do on their own.
Most publishers are already doing this. And they still provide value in terms of interior and cover design, publicity, marketing, and promotion. Of course, not every author gets the same level of these services, but they all get the value of distribution systems to major wholesaler and retailers, whether print or electronic. As for just electronic, if you move beyond PDF, publisher also handle conversion to the various e-publishing standards used by different electronic vendors. The also generally pay the author up-front, a non-refundable advance against royalties. Most authors never actually earn-out that advance in accrued royalties.
On-demand and/or short-run printing is relatively expensive, moreso on a per-unit basis than larger print runs. The trade off is you don't have warehouse stock. But those costs are necessarily passed along to the end-user.
Of course, you could still do all that yourself.
On the post: Publishers Lashing Out At eBooks
Re: Us vs. Them
Oh, and the margins in book publishing, except for big bestsellers that are really a small percentage of the number of books published, are pretty modest.
Contract differ, but if an author is getting 10% royalty on the cover price, that amounts to nearly 20% of the publisher's gross, since the publisher sells books to retailers at discounts of up to 50% of the cover price.
For the vast majority of books, the average profit margin is between 10% to 15%. Some quite a bit less. The economics of bestsellers are, however, a little different.
On the post: Publishers Lashing Out At eBooks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Publishers Have Been Selling E-books for Years
Kindle and Sony Reader are a definite improvement, since they're about the size of a regular book; use ambient light, which replicates the same experience of reading a physical book; can be used in environments that other "screens" can't (such as bright sunlight); and have generally good battery life. But they're still limited.
What is jazzy about the cholesteric LCD is that it operates similarly to the e-ink technology but is in color and can be manufactured as a thin, light, semi-rigid sheet of plastic of almost any size. Coupled with wireless technology, I very strongly believe it will be a game-changer.
Oh, and you have a very discerning dog.
On the post: Publishers Lashing Out At eBooks
Re: Re: Publishers Have Been Selling E-books for Years
And, about the dog, call your local moving company: they should sell blank newsprint paper, which they use as packing materials, pretty cheaply. Stock up now!
On the post: Publishers Lashing Out At eBooks
Publishers Have Been Selling E-books for Years
Hachette doth protest too much. Publishers have been selling e-books for years and have been looking for ways to maximize that market since the very early 90s. Even then, some publishers (and authors) were shouting about how this would be the "death of books." Didn't happen then, and it's unlikely to happen now.
Publishers haven't been just "sitting around." There's been plenty of experimentation at the margins, but e-book sales have been pretty minor (millions of dollars, but not much increase in sales volume over the last 10 years). The problem has always been coming up with standards for e-book formatting, with PDF the default (and it's a lousy default) as well as a portable device.
The "e-ink" technology used by Kindle and Sony Reader has been around for almost 10 years and while they both have contributed to a nearly exponential increase in e-book sales volume (and dollars), they still aren't the answer.
Publishers are well aware that Amazon and Kindle have the potential to lock them into pricing the same way iTunes did for the recording industry. But Kindle and Sony Reader, while an important market, aren't likely to take over the industry the way iTunes has dominated music.
What publishers should be planning for is the next generation of "e-paper" e-book reading technology: Cholesteric LCD. When this technology gets to the point of being cheaply manufactured, that will be the real revolution in book publishing.
Not to mention magazine and newspaper publishing; if they think they have it bad now, this technology will, I believe, essentially wipe out paper distribution there. Book lovers will always demand physical, bound books, but periodicals and newspapers will be doomed.
On the post: Publishers Lashing Out At eBooks
Re: Amazaon charges???
Even with e-books, Amazon does not buy any rights.
On the post: Is Creative Commons Bad For Copyright?
Re: Re: Balance
Technically, it's "sciences and useful arts." And the incentives are built right into the language in the Constitution, if you complete the sentence: "...by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Calibration and balance between the exclusive rights of creators and the rights of the public domain are the heart of copyright, not just an excuse for "lose-lose."
You are quite correct that it is a mistake to think of this as a fight between the public and copyright holders, but unfortunately, heated rhetoric casts it as just that.
You say questioning copyright should lead to perhaps a different "calibration" of stronger copyright, no copyright (both of which I agree are unlikely) or somewhere in the middle. And if it's somewhere in the middle, the calibration is an act of finding the precise balance of rights that results in the most benefit for both the public and creators.
Advancing any change in copyright law (stronger, none, or a calibration) is going to be difficult enough; if we're bickering over what terms are appropriate, it will be impossible.
On the post: NFL: Refs Banned From Using All Social Media; Press Can't Live Tweet
Re: Re: Concentrate on the Game
On the post: Is Creative Commons Bad For Copyright?
Balance
This is essentially nonsense. All copyright law is an attempt to achieve a balance between the rights of the creator and the rights of citizens (or society, if you prefer). The balance is clearly tilted too far toward the rights of the creator (who in most cases transfer the right to corporate publishers or distributors), but if the solution is copyright law that doesn't involve balance, one that "makes it better for everyone," that's essentially the same thing as no copyright at all.
You've indicated that you are not necessarily for abolishing copyright, yet in numerous posts, you carve out a position that is tantamount to the same.
If you cringe at any discussion of balance in copyright law or copyright reform, then can you articulate with any specificity exactly what is a copyright law that "makes it better for everyone"?
Next >>