>>Why cannibalize hardcover sales?
You can't cannibalize a sale that doesn't happen. I don't buy hardcovers. I do buy ebooks. If an ebook comes out when it is getting a lot of media attention, I might buy it at that time. Months later when the ebook is published I probably won't even notice that the book is out because there isn't nearly as much publicity with the later release.
>>Those sales are the ones that make the future editions possible.
Profits make future editions possible. If a book is popular in the first edition, it may stay in print. However, staying in print has substantial costs to the publisher.
It does cost a little bit of editing effort to convert hardcopy to ebook format, but that is generally rather small, especially given that there is some pretty good software now that helps with the translation in formats. The good thing about ebooks from the publisher's standpoint is that it is very cheap to keep them in print compared to hardcopies which must be printed, stored in warehouses, and shipped around the world.
The small minds that lead many of our businesses seem to think that maintaining absolute control over a product is more important than profit margin. They fail to recognized that windowing only gives the illusion of control while cutting their profits.
Any popular is likely to be available in pirated form, even if the publisher doesn't release it as an ebook. The quality might not be as good because they are usually optically scanned copies, but they are generally readable (or so I have heard). I just did a google search for torrent plus the names of two books I considered purchasing recently, and it looks like both of them are out there in both audiobook and pdf format (and neither was released by the publisher in ebook format).
Book publishers have always windowed to some extent. Hardcover books normally come out a year before paperbacks. I always assumed this was because there is a higher profit margin on hardcovers, and they wanted to milk that as long as possible. If I am a typical customer, that probably didn't work very well. Since I am inherently cheap, I always wait for the paperback. Then, by the time the paperback comes out, I forget to buy it.
The marginal cost of producing an ebook is near 0. The standard charge for an ebook is 9.99. So, if you take 9.99 and subtract the pittance paid to the author, and you have pure profit. I now prefer ebooks over paper copies, so if a book I want is available as an ebook, I will probably buy it that way. Right now with most publishers, my options are to either wait (and probably forget) or get a pirated version.
Do we even care about free markets anymore? What we have in Redbox is clearly a more efficient business method of delivery. That should be encouraged. Lost jobs should be irrelevant because in the long greater economic efficiency creates a lot more jobs.
Unfortunately, the jobs that may be lost are here and now, voting and making campaign contributions. Future jobs don't vote.
Google is "them." Politicians always like to blame "them" when they want to distract the public from other issues. The public is usually quite willing to oblige.
This sort of reminds me of stories you hear about people getting picked up for shoplifting a cheap item when they have a lot of money in their pockets. The big labels pay so little to the artists to begin with, it is amazing that they decide to not pay up in this case.
Nazi's burned books. As Steven Colbert said, "You can't burn a Kindle." Actually, you can, but the point is that once something is an ebook and on the Internet, it is virtually impossible to destroy all the copies. Strike one against the Nazi argument.
The Nazi party were fascists. The real definition of fascism is that the government is run for the benefit of business rather than the citizens. I'll let you jump to any conclusions you want to from that.
>>Basically, looking at a painting is no different than hearing/playing a song on the radio - it's a public performance, only in a visual medium.
There is a HUGE difference. The painting is a scarce good, in fact one of a kind in most cases. The original painting is in one spot, and people have to go there to see the original. The painting was purchased at some point, and that is when the author got paid (I am talking about most cases, apparently the National Gallery has a different arrangement). Music, on the other hand is an infinite good. If someone steals the painting the original owner looses it. If someone steals a copy of the song, the owner still has access to the song.
Perhaps the National Gallery of Canada has a different arrangement. If they are renting the work, then the artist should simply take them back if they are not happy with the arrangement. If there is a contract term that has not expired, then they have to live with the terms of the contract until it expires, after which they should take it back.
Is this a fake story? My only reason for doubting its veracity is that Lucas sounds like a politician with a grasp of technology. A politician with an understanding of technology is the equivalent of proving that 0 is equal to 1.
This is only going to reduce the original sale price of artwork. On the other hand, the kids of the artist, and probably the grandkids will enjoy the long tail (and no doubt lobby for extending the 70 year limit).
In the past I have talked the issue over with the two commercial artists that I know. Both would rather have the money now. One of them told me "If my kids want to make money off of art, they should learn to paint."
This isn't strictly a case of copyfraud because in this case they do have copyright. However, it seems that if this is tolerated, the next logical step is to not bother with uploading a file, and to simply send letters to people who have any files shared. If anyone makes a fuss, the case won't be prosecuted. If the letter is sufficiently intimidating, it will probably get enough people to pay up to make the scheme profitable.
It is still very proprietary and DRM'd. Lately the have made some tiny holes in the walls surrounding the Kindle and its books, but I am not about to buy into a system that is designed to make it as difficult as possible to read the books I have paid for in the manner that I want to. There are a lot of other systems available, although I am still waiting for someone to get it right.
Prosecuting schoolboys for taunting doesn't get many headlines. Prosecuting Google gets worldwide attention. My hope is that these prosecutors get the professional and public embarrassment that they deserve.
I've said it before, it's not about the money, it is about the control. However, I'm not sure that is entirely true in this case. I am not sure the recording industry is clever enough to shut down small venues and open mike nights to prevent new artists developing outside of their control. I think in this case it is more about money. ASCAP et.al. just want to collect more money. After deducting heavily for administrative salaries and other costs, they still make a tidy profit on what they get to keep because they "can't find" the artists they owe money too.
What bothers me is that this won't fix the problem of piracy. The industry will then go to their hired guns in Congress and say "This didn't work. We need something more draconian." And they will probably get it.
It will be interesting to see what happens next. My guess is that nothing significant will happen. It would make no sense at all for recording companies to pull out of the Danish market; they can still sell music as they always have. There probably will not be a drop in music sales unless the recording industry does something dumb or tries to manipulate the market to show how much piracy damages the market.
Piracy rates may go up, but that is not significant economically as long as music sales stay at the same levels as countries with more aggressive lawsuits. The music industry outside the traditional recording industry will probably improve because it is now easier to be a music fan.
There ought to be a law against claiming copyright fraudulently. The penalty should include paying reasonable legal costs of the defendant, and there should be a possibility of punitive damages if the claimant knew or should have known that they were making a false claim.
The NFL has used colleges as farm teams for decades. In the long run this probably isn't a good system for colleges or the NFL because they have different objectives.
The NFL should just set up its own system of farm teams like Baseball has. That way they would not be hampered by silly NCAA requirements for things like academic performance. Players in the farm team system could focus more on the important issues such as how to successfully cover your steroid use and how to get away with various types of felonies.
>>I just think it's THERE and it's not going away.
There are a lot of things that seem unfair or that are undesirable in any free market economy. There are things that fly in the face of the modern sense of justice. However, they are there as Mike says.
What the recording industry is fighting is basic economics. They are trying to pass laws that say people must continue to buy plastic disks. They have the additional problem that they can't really say that they want to force people to continue buy plastic disks, so they strike out at the symptoms of the problem. If they managed to kick every file sharer off the Internet tomorrow, CD sales would not return to where they were. In fact, it is even possible that CD sales would decline because the illegal downloads may be serving to promote the music. The real problem is basic economics, and that is a very hard thing to fight with laws and regulations.
On the post: Book Publishers Starting To Delay eBook Releases -- Taking Bad Ideas From Hollywood
Re:
>>Why cannibalize hardcover sales?
You can't cannibalize a sale that doesn't happen. I don't buy hardcovers. I do buy ebooks. If an ebook comes out when it is getting a lot of media attention, I might buy it at that time. Months later when the ebook is published I probably won't even notice that the book is out because there isn't nearly as much publicity with the later release.
>>Those sales are the ones that make the future editions possible.
Profits make future editions possible. If a book is popular in the first edition, it may stay in print. However, staying in print has substantial costs to the publisher.
It does cost a little bit of editing effort to convert hardcopy to ebook format, but that is generally rather small, especially given that there is some pretty good software now that helps with the translation in formats. The good thing about ebooks from the publisher's standpoint is that it is very cheap to keep them in print compared to hardcopies which must be printed, stored in warehouses, and shipped around the world.
On the post: Book Publishers Starting To Delay eBook Releases -- Taking Bad Ideas From Hollywood
Business sense
Any popular is likely to be available in pirated form, even if the publisher doesn't release it as an ebook. The quality might not be as good because they are usually optically scanned copies, but they are generally readable (or so I have heard). I just did a google search for torrent plus the names of two books I considered purchasing recently, and it looks like both of them are out there in both audiobook and pdf format (and neither was released by the publisher in ebook format).
Book publishers have always windowed to some extent. Hardcover books normally come out a year before paperbacks. I always assumed this was because there is a higher profit margin on hardcovers, and they wanted to milk that as long as possible. If I am a typical customer, that probably didn't work very well. Since I am inherently cheap, I always wait for the paperback. Then, by the time the paperback comes out, I forget to buy it.
The marginal cost of producing an ebook is near 0. The standard charge for an ebook is 9.99. So, if you take 9.99 and subtract the pittance paid to the author, and you have pure profit. I now prefer ebooks over paper copies, so if a book I want is available as an ebook, I will probably buy it that way. Right now with most publishers, my options are to either wait (and probably forget) or get a pirated version.
On the post: Study Being Promoted As 'Redbox Kills Jobs' Actually Shows That Hollywood Jobs Will Grow
Do we even care about free markets?
Unfortunately, the jobs that may be lost are here and now, voting and making campaign contributions. Future jobs don't vote.
On the post: Can Someone Explain How Making French Cultural Works More Available Takes Away French Heritage?
It's Them
On the post: Major Labels Accused Of $6 Billion Worth Of Copyright Infringement In Canada
but they are only paying peanuts to begin with.
On the post: Novelist And Poet Says Google Books And The Kindle Are 'Nazi' Technology
Why it isn't Nazi
The Nazi party were fascists. The real definition of fascism is that the government is run for the benefit of business rather than the citizens. I'll let you jump to any conclusions you want to from that.
On the post: Artists To National Gallery Of Canada: 'Pay Us Again And Again And Again!'
Re: The MAFIAA logic
There is a HUGE difference. The painting is a scarce good, in fact one of a kind in most cases. The original painting is in one spot, and people have to go there to see the original. The painting was purchased at some point, and that is when the author got paid (I am talking about most cases, apparently the National Gallery has a different arrangement). Music, on the other hand is an infinite good. If someone steals the painting the original owner looses it. If someone steals a copy of the song, the owner still has access to the song.
Perhaps the National Gallery of Canada has a different arrangement. If they are renting the work, then the artist should simply take them back if they are not happy with the arrangement. If there is a contract term that has not expired, then they have to live with the terms of the contract until it expires, after which they should take it back.
On the post: Woman Filming Parts Of Sister's Birthday Party At Theater, Charged With Felony Movie Copying
The lesson the MPAA is teaching
"If your friend is having a birthday, don't take them to a movie."
Is that the lesson the MPAA wants to teach people?
On the post: UK Politicians Pushing Back On Mandelson's Digital Economy Bill
Is this a fake story?
On the post: Australia Moves Forward With (Weakened) System To Have Artists Paid Multiple Times For Same Artwork
Screw the kids, I want my money NOW!
This is only going to reduce the original sale price of artwork. On the other hand, the kids of the artist, and probably the grandkids will enjoy the long tail (and no doubt lobby for extending the 70 year limit).
In the past I have talked the issue over with the two commercial artists that I know. Both would rather have the money now. One of them told me "If my kids want to make money off of art, they should learn to paint."
On the post: Should There Be Punishment For Bogus 'Pre-Settlement' Letters?
Should address the bigger problem
On the post: The Uselessness Of Amazon's Announcement That Kindle Is Its Best Selling Product
Also the #1 crippled product at Amazon
On the post: Italian Prosecutors Assume Google Execs Read All YouTube Comments; Demands Jailtime Over Video
It's just better PR
On the post: ASCAP, BMI And SESAC Continue To Screw Over Most Songwriters: 'Write A Hit Song If You Want Money'
It's about the control
On the post: Cable Industry Joins MPAA In Asking FCC To Allow Them To Stop Your DVR From Recording Movies
Re: The problem is...
On the post: Danish Anti-Piracy Group Withdraws All Its Lawsuits Against Individuals (After Losing Most Anyway)
What next?
It will be interesting to see what happens next. My guess is that nothing significant will happen. It would make no sense at all for recording companies to pull out of the Danish market; they can still sell music as they always have. There probably will not be a drop in music sales unless the recording industry does something dumb or tries to manipulate the market to show how much piracy damages the market.
Piracy rates may go up, but that is not significant economically as long as music sales stay at the same levels as countries with more aggressive lawsuits. The music industry outside the traditional recording industry will probably improve because it is now easier to be a music fan.
On the post: YouTube Taking Down Public Domain Works?
Copyfraud
On the post: Copyright Dispute Leads To NFL Not Scouting College Juniors
Farm Teams
The NFL has used colleges as farm teams for decades. In the long run this probably isn't a good system for colleges or the NFL because they have different objectives.
The NFL should just set up its own system of farm teams like Baseball has. That way they would not be hampered by silly NCAA requirements for things like academic performance. Players in the farm team system could focus more on the important issues such as how to successfully cover your steroid use and how to get away with various types of felonies.
On the post: Internet Hating Sony Pictures CEO Insists Piracy Is Killing Movie Business; But Facts Show Otherwise
Big Movies feed Big Egos
On the post: On The Media Takes On The Music Industry
Economics is like that
There are a lot of things that seem unfair or that are undesirable in any free market economy. There are things that fly in the face of the modern sense of justice. However, they are there as Mike says.
What the recording industry is fighting is basic economics. They are trying to pass laws that say people must continue to buy plastic disks. They have the additional problem that they can't really say that they want to force people to continue buy plastic disks, so they strike out at the symptoms of the problem. If they managed to kick every file sharer off the Internet tomorrow, CD sales would not return to where they were. In fact, it is even possible that CD sales would decline because the illegal downloads may be serving to promote the music. The real problem is basic economics, and that is a very hard thing to fight with laws and regulations.
Next >>