>>Where things are going to go apesh*t: fan fiction.
Well, one thing you probably won't have is a bunch of knee-jerk reactions from the publisher's legal department. Authors are likely to be more flattered by the fan work than they are to hire lawyers.
Re: They may sell a lot but the product is still amateur
>>When an author self-publishes to Kindle, there's something else missing from the process besides a middle-man publisher: an editor.
This isn't necessarily true for several reasons.
Some writers don't need editors. I'll go further -- Some writers shouldn't have editors. Sometimes editors make books worse. Editors for the major publishing houses tend to lead or force the author to the marketable center. Sometimes better literature results when the words go directly from the author to the reader.
There are commercial editors who will edit a book for a fee. With a traditional publisher the author does not usually get to pick the editor. When an author hires their own editor they retain greater creative control.
There are a lot of volunteer editors. Read the blogs of some of the ebook authors. They use a huge array of people as editors including friends, spouses, and even folks like faculty in the English department of local universities. Some of these non-professional editors do a great job.
Once you have some loyal fans you have some built-in editors and a powerful CwF opportunity. Fans will be happy to help edit your book. One thing I don't like about the self-published Kindle ebooks is that you tend to get only one iteration of the book. On some of the more writer-centric sites the books change a lot over the first few weeks as the author responds to editing suggestions from the fans.
Personally, I consider the lack of publishing house editors to be a feature of ebooks. Sometimes it is fun reading a book in its raw form.
If you go to isbn-us.com they have a special package that lists your work entered under a generic "independent publisher" for $55. For $129 you can set yourself up as a named publisher, although you still have to pay for the individual ISBN's. The point is that the tools are relatively cheap and easy to implement for people who want to roll their own books.
One of the most important uses of publishers is publicity. A lot of publishers promote the heck out of one author and then set back as the well known author sells herself. Publishers tend to build up stables of authors who are reliable producers.
Once an author is well known they can usually renegotiate a somewhat better package with their current publisher. However, under the old system the author only had the option to jump to another publisher who had roughly the same cost and contract structure as the current publisher. Now a well known author has the option to cut out the publisher entirely. This could be a very bad situation for publishers who will find it harder and harder to develop a stable of popular authors.
>>"But all of the business models you bring up tend to depend on it continuing."
That isn't true at all. The models usually rely on authorized copying. Authorized copying is not piracy except in the eyes of the recording industry and their lackeys.
There were speed limits before the gas embargo. Smaller eastern states typically had speed limits of 65 or 70. Western states where the population density is low typically had higher speed limits. 75 was common in the west, with a couple of states sparsely populated states in the north setting the speed limit at "reasonable and proper" which effectively meant no speed limit.
In the 70's the national speed limit was set to 55. Lots of people didn't like it, sales soared for things like radar detectors and cb radios. The devices were largely ineffective at avoiding tickets. What WAS effective was getting in a convoy of trucks and cars going well above the posted speed limit. That wasn't hard to do because not many people actually obeyed the 55 limit.
In that sense the situation with the 55 limit is much like today with music downloading. The law was perceived as being inappropriate, and therefore people ignored it. There were calls to reduce the speed limit to 50 and even lower because so many people were ignoring the law. Wisely, enough elected officials realized that would only cause more people to ignore the law. (Back then we did have some lawmakers who actually thought about issues instead of just listening to campaign contributors.) Higher fines and more draconian laws are not going to convince people to stop file sharing; they will just convince more people that it is OK to ignore the law. That will undoubtedly include some people on juries who have read the pamphlet on jury nullification.
Speed limits do have at least a plausible reason for existing. They provide some measure of public safety. I am not sure what cities you are citing that don't have speed limits.
One graphic indication that speed limits do have some effect on safety is that when the US lowered the speed limit to 55 traffic deaths went down significantly, and when it went back up to 70 the death rate went up significantly.
>>They can't get past any possible moral implications to file sharing.
To me the objective isn't to make file sharing legal. The battle is to break the stranglehold the gatekeepers are struggling to maintain. The battle is to have a level of fairness and realistic pricing that will actually encourage most people to follow the rules and obey the laws.
Try turning the question around and asking "Who's the pirate?" I think it was Courtney Love who asked that question originally. Is it fair that a budding young artist can't even sing their own songs at open mike nights because they have all been shut down due to extortion and bizarre licensing requirements? If I want my music to be streamed for free I find I can't because the collection societies collect money on all music that is streamed and make it virtually impossible to run small indie-only streaming services? Is it fair that most bands who win the lottery and get signed to a record deal never see a penny from selling albums? Is it fair to have my own music taken down from youtube because of a bogus DCMA notice? Is it fair to have law firms go into the mass extortion business with flimsy claims of P2P activity?
COICA seems like it is all but certain. Proponents are vocal and the corporate opponents have been relatively subdued. (Corporate proponents and opponents are the only ones that actually matter in the US Congress, of course.) Perhaps this will help Google understand the need to oppose COICA vocally.
As a previous poster noted, the only real meaning it has is designating what primary election you vote in. It used to be that if you wanted to switch parties, you had to skip voting in a primary election that selects the candidates for each party. Now most states allow you to change parties at any time, but you can only vote in one primary per election cycle.
There are a lot of political games played with switching parties for primaries. Voters often vote in the opposite party primary to vote for a weak candidate in hopes of having an easier opponent in the main election. Republicans have a reputation for doing this a lot, and it is often encouraged by right-wing radio pundits. During the last Presidential election people like Rush Limbaugh were telling Republicans to cross over and vote for Hilary Clinton to keep Obama tied up and spending money in primary contests. Democrats cross over, but it is usually lower profile because left-wing talk show personalities (rare, but they exist) like to pretend they are above politics.
Of course, cross-over strategies tend to backfire, but that is a whole discussion in itself.
I think because of cross over voting, registration status does not carry much weight. If someone is listed as a party member they might truly be of that party, or they might have been a crossover voter.
There have been several times in the US past when the political parties got far out of sync with the people. When that happens we often get third parties starting up. If the third party starts to grow, one of the major parties subsume the third party and adopt its stance. We have seen something like that on the far right with the Tea Party. The left and middle seem to be lacking in such a movement at the moment. Perhaps the Pirate Party will take on that role. Heaven knows that the Democrats are far out of sync with their constituents on the left and in the middle. This could get interesting.
The law would give legal cover to those who send DCMA take down notices when the pictures show up on line. On the other hand there isn't much need for legal cover because there aren't effective legal penalties against bogus DCMA notices.
The only real deterrent to questionable take down notices is the Streisand effect they tend to create. Let's see the Florida legislature try to craft a law against the Streisand effect. I should probably quit now and stop giving them ideas.
>>3) It can't be stopped. It can be slowed, it can be tamped down.
Can it even be slowed? The last ten years of attempting to stop/slow/tamp down the problem have done nothing but allow the problem to accelerate. In fact, many of the actions intended to slow the problem down have made the problem worse.
>>It's a question of time, of government action, and of a moral shift in the population.
Time? Really? The only time the problem would have been fixed was in the nascent days of Napster when the music industry picked the worst possible alternative. Now time is working against those who fight piracy.
Government action? Where has that really worked? The industry got basically everything they wanted in France, and Hadopi has not stopped/slowed/tamped down piracy. It has, on the other hand, been a boon to companies selling VPN services. Government action cannot fight off basic economics forever.
History has shown that the only laws that can be enforced in free countries are the ones that the people choose to follow. I think it might actually be possible to craft an IP law that people would follow and even enforce with social pressure. However, the industry isn't going that way. They want more draconian laws that are further alienating people. If the industry gets everything that it wants from government, jury nullification would probably follow right behind.
Moral shift? Go talk to young people. They are shifting, but in the opposite direction. As you say in your original post, we have a generation that doesn't believe that piracy is wrong. So is it going to take another 20 years to raise a generation that spouts the RIAA/MPAA message? How do you plan to do that? The industry has tried some information and misinformation campaigns targeting young people, but they have not been anymore effective than any other "Just say no" campaign. I deal with a lot of students who have gotten disciplinary notices that the school is required to give out when the industry thinks they are downloading illegal material. The ones actually doing the downloading shift IP addresses and keep doing what they are doing. The ones who are wrongly accused (and there are a LOT of them in that group) get angry.
The bottom line is that the movie industry doesn't have 20 years and them music recording industry doesn't have 5 years to enact more draconian laws or educate a new generation about the glories of paying $15 for a shiny music disk, or waiting patiently until the windowing system opens up to allow them to legally view the movie they want to see.
You can shout of moral outrage. But eventually morality is set by society, not corporate lawyers. If societal norms are turning against your business, then it is a good time to consider changing your business. You can go to church on Sunday and talk about moral depravity, but in the Monday morning board meeting you should probably concentrate on the bottom line.
By the way, when I do talk to young people, I spout the school line about how unauthorized copying is illegal and should not be done. I counsel against it, and I don't give any hints or ideas about how to get around further notices. But I do see how students react. The only ones that I see long-term behavioral change are people who are falsely accused. They tend to become pirates.
It seems to me that there are three ways a business can respond to piracy:
1) Profit from it, or at least use it to your advantage.
2) Ignore it because you can't stop it. Spend your energies on things that will improve your bottom line.
3) Become obsessed with something that you can't stop. Use all of your political capital to fight it. Put a lot of financial resources into snake-oil companies who tell you that their DRM solution will make the problem go away and let you turn the calendar back to 1985. Make your product as difficult as possible to get. Alienate your fan base and let the rest of your business rot away.
At their best, gatekeepers add something of value for the artist. At their worst, and that appears to be the case here, they mainly make money off the talents of others. I doubt that the music shops are as concerned with subsidizing new composers as they are with subsidizing six and seven figure salaries.
On the post: More Authors Realizing They Can Make A Damn Good Living Self-Releasing Super Cheap eBooks
Re:
Well, one thing you probably won't have is a bunch of knee-jerk reactions from the publisher's legal department. Authors are likely to be more flattered by the fan work than they are to hire lawyers.
On the post: More Authors Realizing They Can Make A Damn Good Living Self-Releasing Super Cheap eBooks
Re: They may sell a lot but the product is still amateur
>>When an author self-publishes to Kindle, there's something else missing from the process besides a middle-man publisher: an editor.
This isn't necessarily true for several reasons.
Personally, I consider the lack of publishing house editors to be a feature of ebooks. Sometimes it is fun reading a book in its raw form.
On the post: More Authors Realizing They Can Make A Damn Good Living Self-Releasing Super Cheap eBooks
Re: One cost you missed
http://www.isbn-us.com/isbnnumbers.htm?gclid=CO6ujNfgsKcCFdtx5QodDzdhCQ
On the post: More Authors Realizing They Can Make A Damn Good Living Self-Releasing Super Cheap eBooks
One more thing for publishers to worry about
Once an author is well known they can usually renegotiate a somewhat better package with their current publisher. However, under the old system the author only had the option to jump to another publisher who had roughly the same cost and contract structure as the current publisher. Now a well known author has the option to cut out the publisher entirely. This could be a very bad situation for publishers who will find it harder and harder to develop a stable of popular authors.
On the post: New Study: 70% Of People Find 'Piracy' Socially Acceptable [Updated]
Re: Re:
That isn't true at all. The models usually rely on authorized copying. Authorized copying is not piracy except in the eyes of the recording industry and their lackeys.
On the post: New Study: 70% Of People Find 'Piracy' Socially Acceptable [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Makes Sense...
In the 70's the national speed limit was set to 55. Lots of people didn't like it, sales soared for things like radar detectors and cb radios. The devices were largely ineffective at avoiding tickets. What WAS effective was getting in a convoy of trucks and cars going well above the posted speed limit. That wasn't hard to do because not many people actually obeyed the 55 limit.
In that sense the situation with the 55 limit is much like today with music downloading. The law was perceived as being inappropriate, and therefore people ignored it. There were calls to reduce the speed limit to 50 and even lower because so many people were ignoring the law. Wisely, enough elected officials realized that would only cause more people to ignore the law. (Back then we did have some lawmakers who actually thought about issues instead of just listening to campaign contributors.) Higher fines and more draconian laws are not going to convince people to stop file sharing; they will just convince more people that it is OK to ignore the law. That will undoubtedly include some people on juries who have read the pamphlet on jury nullification.
On the post: New Study: 70% Of People Find 'Piracy' Socially Acceptable [Updated]
Re: Re: Makes Sense...
One graphic indication that speed limits do have some effect on safety is that when the US lowered the speed limit to 55 traffic deaths went down significantly, and when it went back up to 70 the death rate went up significantly.
On the post: Confirmed: Chris Dodd Lies, Takes Top Lobbying Job, Promises To Trample Consumer Rights
Re: We are fighting a long, uphill battle...
To me the objective isn't to make file sharing legal. The battle is to break the stranglehold the gatekeepers are struggling to maintain. The battle is to have a level of fairness and realistic pricing that will actually encourage most people to follow the rules and obey the laws.
Try turning the question around and asking "Who's the pirate?" I think it was Courtney Love who asked that question originally. Is it fair that a budding young artist can't even sing their own songs at open mike nights because they have all been shut down due to extortion and bizarre licensing requirements? If I want my music to be streamed for free I find I can't because the collection societies collect money on all music that is streamed and make it virtually impossible to run small indie-only streaming services? Is it fair that most bands who win the lottery and get signed to a record deal never see a penny from selling albums? Is it fair to have my own music taken down from youtube because of a bogus DCMA notice? Is it fair to have law firms go into the mass extortion business with flimsy claims of P2P activity?
On the post: Confirmed: Chris Dodd Lies, Takes Top Lobbying Job, Promises To Trample Consumer Rights
Mama
On the post: Rosetta Stone Says Google Is A 'Gateway For Criminals'; Urges Congress To Make Google Liable For Infringement Via COICA
Just got a powerful enemy
On the post: Massachusetts Apparently The First State To Let You Officially Register As A Pirate Party Member
Re:
As a previous poster noted, the only real meaning it has is designating what primary election you vote in. It used to be that if you wanted to switch parties, you had to skip voting in a primary election that selects the candidates for each party. Now most states allow you to change parties at any time, but you can only vote in one primary per election cycle.
There are a lot of political games played with switching parties for primaries. Voters often vote in the opposite party primary to vote for a weak candidate in hopes of having an easier opponent in the main election. Republicans have a reputation for doing this a lot, and it is often encouraged by right-wing radio pundits. During the last Presidential election people like Rush Limbaugh were telling Republicans to cross over and vote for Hilary Clinton to keep Obama tied up and spending money in primary contests. Democrats cross over, but it is usually lower profile because left-wing talk show personalities (rare, but they exist) like to pretend they are above politics.
Of course, cross-over strategies tend to backfire, but that is a whole discussion in itself.
I think because of cross over voting, registration status does not carry much weight. If someone is listed as a party member they might truly be of that party, or they might have been a crossover voter.
On the post: Massachusetts Apparently The First State To Let You Officially Register As A Pirate Party Member
Party time
On the post: Programmer Faces 15 Years In Jail For Planting Virus That Automatically Broke Whac-A-Mole Games
On the post: Mediacom Puts Its Own Ads On Other Websites, Including Google & Apple
A lot of people don't have that option.
On the post: New Legislation 'To Protect Farmer IP' Would Make It A Felony To Photograph Farms
Take downs
The only real deterrent to questionable take down notices is the Streisand effect they tend to create. Let's see the Florida legislature try to craft a law against the Streisand effect. I should probably quit now and stop giving them ideas.
On the post: Hollywood Gone Mad: Complaining That Oscar Nominated Films Downloaded More
Re: Re: Dealing with piracy
>>3) It can't be stopped. It can be slowed, it can be tamped down.
Can it even be slowed? The last ten years of attempting to stop/slow/tamp down the problem have done nothing but allow the problem to accelerate. In fact, many of the actions intended to slow the problem down have made the problem worse.
>>It's a question of time, of government action, and of a moral shift in the population.
Time? Really? The only time the problem would have been fixed was in the nascent days of Napster when the music industry picked the worst possible alternative. Now time is working against those who fight piracy.
Government action? Where has that really worked? The industry got basically everything they wanted in France, and Hadopi has not stopped/slowed/tamped down piracy. It has, on the other hand, been a boon to companies selling VPN services. Government action cannot fight off basic economics forever.
History has shown that the only laws that can be enforced in free countries are the ones that the people choose to follow. I think it might actually be possible to craft an IP law that people would follow and even enforce with social pressure. However, the industry isn't going that way. They want more draconian laws that are further alienating people. If the industry gets everything that it wants from government, jury nullification would probably follow right behind.
Moral shift? Go talk to young people. They are shifting, but in the opposite direction. As you say in your original post, we have a generation that doesn't believe that piracy is wrong. So is it going to take another 20 years to raise a generation that spouts the RIAA/MPAA message? How do you plan to do that? The industry has tried some information and misinformation campaigns targeting young people, but they have not been anymore effective than any other "Just say no" campaign. I deal with a lot of students who have gotten disciplinary notices that the school is required to give out when the industry thinks they are downloading illegal material. The ones actually doing the downloading shift IP addresses and keep doing what they are doing. The ones who are wrongly accused (and there are a LOT of them in that group) get angry.
The bottom line is that the movie industry doesn't have 20 years and them music recording industry doesn't have 5 years to enact more draconian laws or educate a new generation about the glories of paying $15 for a shiny music disk, or waiting patiently until the windowing system opens up to allow them to legally view the movie they want to see.
You can shout of moral outrage. But eventually morality is set by society, not corporate lawyers. If societal norms are turning against your business, then it is a good time to consider changing your business. You can go to church on Sunday and talk about moral depravity, but in the Monday morning board meeting you should probably concentrate on the bottom line.
By the way, when I do talk to young people, I spout the school line about how unauthorized copying is illegal and should not be done. I counsel against it, and I don't give any hints or ideas about how to get around further notices. But I do see how students react. The only ones that I see long-term behavioral change are people who are falsely accused. They tend to become pirates.
On the post: HarperCollins Wants To Limit Library Ebook Lending To 'Protect' Authors From Libraries
Protection
On the post: Hollywood Gone Mad: Complaining That Oscar Nominated Films Downloaded More
Dealing with piracy
1) Profit from it, or at least use it to your advantage.
2) Ignore it because you can't stop it. Spend your energies on things that will improve your bottom line.
3) Become obsessed with something that you can't stop. Use all of your political capital to fight it. Put a lot of financial resources into snake-oil companies who tell you that their DRM solution will make the problem go away and let you turn the calendar back to 1985. Make your product as difficult as possible to get. Alienate your fan base and let the rest of your business rot away.
On the post: Music Publishers Still Annoyed By Free Online Archive Of Public Domain Musical Scores
Gatekeepers
On the post: Record Labels Planning Yet Another Way To Try To Get You To Rebuy Music You Already 'Bought'
Re:
Next >>