Stopped reading at "theft". Sorry, I don't take anyone serious who equates or even compares
copying to thievery. It's factually wrong, and serves as nothing but an attempt to discredit
anyone critical of or even opposed to copyright (whether just in its current form or in its
entirety).
While I strongly agree with the statement that copyright infringement does not equal theft, you're overreacting. It's even more ridiculous when the article is actually on your side of the argument.
I don't think he's overreacting. I read further, made it almost to the end, but stopped when the author kept re-iterating his "stealing" BS.
So he's against DRM. Fine. He's still repeating the same bullshit propaganda / newspeak that serves to justify draconian "anti-piracy" laws and the continuing attack on civil rights.
As slowpoke says, he continues to discredit those who are opposed to copyright in its current form (which by its very definition violates civil rights, it's just that we never really noticed until technology changed) as thieves and pirates.
The insults and accusations make it pretty obvious who's side he's on.
> New DRM technologies are not innovation, they are a Neanderthal-like reaction. We need distribution innovation. We need learning science innovation. We need total immersion with content innovation. We need production and manufacturing innovation. At this time our industry is staring down the barrel of a powerful gun that can soon dictate the means, price, availability of content creation and distribution if we do not figure out novel ways to move forward
He's both against DRM and against laws nailing down on P2P. The very 'draconian "anti-piracy" laws' that '[continuously] attack on civil rights'.
And not only he is against that but he is also actively doing some fscking thing about it.
In this article, he's not talking to us, who know the deal. He's talking to those who don't have a clue, and those people are talking about "theft" and so on. If you want to make the argument that he makes to such people, you have to talk their language however approximate it is, because if you first spend time what looks like (to them) some technical minutiae, you've already lost because they get lost.
Again, from the article:
> My point here is we need to get creative with piracy and how to work with it instead of thinking DRM, lawyers, or search engine blocks will address the problem.
That's a far cry from the side you're putting it on based on some verbiage.
This article was written by a publisher, O'Reilly, and they are obviously against copying. They don't use DRM because they know that it simply doesn't work, it would be a wasted effort, and as a bonus this way they can look "free", "open" and "cool". Of course they use the words "copying" and "theft" interchangeably, they don't really know or care about the difference, they are just bullshitting.
The sad thing is that publishers could remain relevant
by concentrating on what they did before: selling books
(yes, the real, paper-y ones). Instead they want to use
a technology that is incompatible with their business model
(charging for distribution).
While I personally prefer having electronic copies of books
because I find them much more useful, I know a good deal of
people who still buy physical books for various reasons (one
of which being haptic), so it's not like they will die out any
time soon. Maybe they won't be as profitable anymore, and
eventually fade into obscurity, but that's just the way of things.
As I said, I literally stopped reading. This is a matter of principle for me, because
it in almost all cases, this analogy either means the writer is dishonest and tries to
invoke an appeal to emotion, or that they are uninformed/a victim of industry propaganda -
and I really doubt the latter is the case. This might just be the exception that proves
the rule.
I'm thinking that people that cant afford, or thinks that 50$ is overpriced, are correct.
Just as those paying for it are also correct. Just as those that would pay even more.
Fixed prices is a tradeoff that is needless nowadays. Try a better way.
● Spread the book far a wide on torrents everywhere. Make the Book also freely downloadable from
your site.
● This maximizes the number of readers.
● This maximizes the number of readers that wants more books.
● Tell them that that next book is planned, it will cost this much to write. Donate here.
BitCoin, Flattr, PayPal, etc.
(It's no more begging then begging for 50$ per book)
The upside is far more readers and thus far more potential payers. And variable payment makes it affordable for everyone.
The cost of writing is also payed in advance, no more worries about how the book may sell.
I personally like this approach because it doesn't rely on distribution
as a business model anymore. By the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it's 2012
and we're still forced to pay for flipping some bits because an industry
thinks it deserves to be saved from having been made obsolete through
technological progress by ridiculous and increasingly draconian laws.
What about people who are wanting to make money off their one book? I'm not saying I disagree with you, but not every author wants to constantly be writing books, some people just write one on a topic of interest then leave it at that.
Free startup idea: Something that will sell content, like http://kout.me/, but, instead of money, you ask for a (verified) email address beforehand. A configurable amount of time later (a month if it's a book, three days if it's a video, etc), you send the "buyer" an email, asking them to donate if they enjoyed the content, and make that process as easy as possible.
I know I've wanted to donate many times for things I got for free, or for books that were handed down to me, or whatever, but there doesn't currently exist a good model for this. I like the "pay what you want" model of leanpub, but I think you would get even more revenue per thing if you made it free to read and based it on the honor system.
Thinking of piracy as a tax is not really a very good way to understand things.
Business is only able to sell copies at monopoly prices because the government gives them that ability through copyright law -- copyright is effectively a negative tax, a subsidy: the government gives businesses money the free market would not otherwise provide.
Since current copyright terms are almost certainly, in general, too large, piracy is working as a corrective: it brings actual copyright 'protection' back towards economically defensible and efficient levels.
One might feel there is still wrongness in piracy: that it is unfair, that some pay and others get things for free. But there is a very substantial amount of free-choice here: people are not at all strictly forced to pay and strictly prevented from free access. People can make a choice.
This seems like it might be, or at least suggest, a rather more functional kind of market than the standard conception. Instead of access being set bluntly and by guesswork by governmental law, it is decided by each individual according to their particular circumstances.
Linux Device Drivers, 3e, was available for free legitimate download - the authors themselves released GPL version of the book online - all the while. I bet it has not affected the sale of the book.
Forget piracy, we have a Safari books online account. Still, we buy copy of books we like. I have seen a lot of people doing the same.
