3 ms·

Authors subsist increasingly on goodwill as pirating their products becomes easier and easier. I buy every book I read entirely because I want to support the au

Authors subsist increasingly on goodwill as pirating their products becomes easier and easier. I buy every book I read entirely because I want to support the author, not because there's any sort of barrier between me and pirating the book. Of course, I'm likely more technologically capable than the average reader, but for how long? It's not hard to imagine a future where piracy is an easy and attainable option for the vast majority of readers. A future where authors subsist almost entirely on the goodwill of their readers. And as a reader, this move seems like a straight up fuck you. When I buy a physical book (often at a price near that of an ebook) I can lend it to friends and family an infinite number of times, resell it for a good portion of the original price, or give it away to whomever I please. I have no such "rights" with a DRM protected ebook. But I do have the right with some DRM protected ebooks to temporarily lend it to someone else. And these authors just tried to make that more difficult. And really, what have they accomplished? They've shut down a single tool that let some readers use a publisher-sanctioned tool to lend DRM-protected ebooks. They haven't stopped anyone with the power of Google from learning how to remove the DRM from their ebooks or audiobooks and sharing them with however many friends, family members and strangers they want. They haven't stopped anyone with the power of Google from finding torrents of their ebooks or audiobooks. They did however manage to piss off a chunk of their customers. The ones who actually pay $12 for an ebook. If you subsist in part or in whole on the goodwill of your customers, it seems like a good idea to try and maintain that goodwill.

MattSayar 14y ago
This is beautiful and succinct. It makes me wonder what part of this whole operation can even be considered a "success."
res0nat0r 14y ago
> When I buy a physical book (often at a price near that of an ebook) I can lend it to friends and family an infinite number of times, resell it for a good portion of the original price, or give it away to whomever I please. It would be awesome to know the average 'lending count' of physical books, but I can tell you it is for sure no where anything close to 'infinite', I doubt it is even approaching ten. Have you checked out the resale value of anything on Amazon that isn't considered collectible or a first edition? I hate seeing that I am only getting less than two bucks for a book I paid 24.95$ for just a few months ago. Same goes with selling back retail copies of most of my stuff at Half Price Books.
EvanKelly 14y ago
I was skeptical of e-readers at first, but after receiving a kindle as a gift, my book consumption increased dramatically and it quickly became my favorite gadget. The one and only downside to the Kindle for me was lack of ability to share my books with friends. I've finished reading a book several times and told friends how great the book was, but I couldn't lend it to them, either because the book wasn't lendable, or the friend didn't have a kindle. On the otherhand, I brought a small library of physical books with me (maybe 10-12) when I moved to my new house with roommates. I keep those books in the living room bookshelf, and all of those books have been read by multiple people, be it roommates, friends, or visitors. E-books are currently missing the point on the social aspect of book purchasing. One of the great joys of reading is finishing a great book and lending it to someone and then discussing it, or having the opposite happen to you. I hope this problem gets a happy solution soon.
alexqgb 14y ago
Being reduced to pure dependence on goodwill when every other player in the economic system can also depend on the force of law (e.g. shopkeepers and shoplifting) reduces the victims - and I do mean victims - to the state of fourth class citizens. I agree, fully, that the technical reasons for this shift are irreversible. I agree, too, that the analog copyright based models dating back to the 18th century have become unsuitable in the 21st. And that's why we need to think long and hard about artists rights as such, and what we're going to do to assure that they have the same level of commercial respect and dignity that accrues to those who provide goods and services with marginal costs greater than zero - especially when artist's fixed costs remain non-trivial. That starts with taking a critical look at remarks like yours. "Look at me! I'm so supportive! Aren't you grateful? You better be fucking grateful." I'm sorry, that's not respect. That's just you being a conceited prick. Moreover, your willingness to stop paying "if you're displeased" (while presumably continuing to read) indicates that it was never respect for the law or fair exchange that motivated you. If your heart were truly in the right place you'd pay because you made a copy, and for no other reason. And if you didn't want to pay - for whatever reason - then you wouldn't make the copy. I recognize that we have no way to implement an exchange that enforces this norm at the present time. And I recognize that goodwill is the only thing artists can depend on for the foreseeable future. But let's stop pretending that this isn't a very one-sided arrangement. And lets stop pretending that people can take advantage of a one-sided situation and keep their hands clean. I'm sorry, but they just can't. And unless you're actively looking for a system that both sides view as fair, you're not the mensch you think you are. Also, if you're not willing to pay for what's provided because you MUST pay, then stop calling yourself a customer. Customers pay. They pay every time. And they pay to get what they want because that's how they get what they want. They don't make payment a secondary, incidental exchange based on some extraneous factor, like whether or not the provider expressed enough slobbering gratitude for the "customer's" generosity. Unless we're discussing gifts, generosity shouldn't enter the picture. I know that when I pay for groceries, generosity isn't what motivates me. I'll clue you in. If generosity and "a desire to support artists" is what motivates you, then what you're describing is no longer a commercial transaction. It's an act of patronage. I'm not saying that patronage is necessarily bad, but be honest enough to admit that's what's happening, and stop pretending you're a customer when, in reality, you're no such thing. Like everyone else, you take what you want. Unlike most, you make a donation. That's appreciated. But it would be appreciated even more if you were honest about what it is, and what it means for people to be in a situation that is entirely dependent on goodwill. If you're really concerned with the status and well-being of artists, stop saying "your reduced status is just the way it is and you should be grateful for what little you've got left" and start asking "what would restore a measure of genuine equality to this situation?"

MattSayar 14y ago

This is beautiful and succinct. It makes me wonder what part of this whole operation can even be considered a "success."

res0nat0r 14y ago

> When I buy a physical book (often at a price near that of an ebook) I can lend it to friends and family an infinite number of times, resell it for a good portion of the original price, or give it away to whomever I please. It would be awesome to know the average 'lending count' of physical books, but I can tell you it is for sure no where anything close to 'infinite', I doubt it is even approaching ten. Have you checked out the resale value of anything on Amazon that isn't considered collectible or a first edition? I hate seeing that I am only getting less than two bucks for a book I paid 24.95$ for just a few months ago. Same goes with selling back retail copies of most of my stuff at Half Price Books.

EvanKelly 14y ago

I was skeptical of e-readers at first, but after receiving a kindle as a gift, my book consumption increased dramatically and it quickly became my favorite gadget. The one and only downside to the Kindle for me was lack of ability to share my books with friends. I've finished reading a book several times and told friends how great the book was, but I couldn't lend it to them, either because the book wasn't lendable, or the friend didn't have a kindle. On the otherhand, I brought a small library of physical books with me (maybe 10-12) when I moved to my new house with roommates. I keep those books in the living room bookshelf, and all of those books have been read by multiple people, be it roommates, friends, or visitors. E-books are currently missing the point on the social aspect of book purchasing. One of the great joys of reading is finishing a great book and lending it to someone and then discussing it, or having the opposite happen to you. I hope this problem gets a happy solution soon.

alexqgb 14y ago

Being reduced to pure dependence on goodwill when every other player in the economic system can also depend on the force of law (e.g. shopkeepers and shoplifting) reduces the victims - and I do mean victims - to the state of fourth class citizens. I agree, fully, that the technical reasons for this shift are irreversible. I agree, too, that the analog copyright based models dating back to the 18th century have become unsuitable in the 21st. And that's why we need to think long and hard about artists rights as such, and what we're going to do to assure that they have the same level of commercial respect and dignity that accrues to those who provide goods and services with marginal costs greater than zero - especially when artist's fixed costs remain non-trivial. That starts with taking a critical look at remarks like yours. "Look at me! I'm so supportive! Aren't you grateful? You better be fucking grateful." I'm sorry, that's not respect. That's just you being a conceited prick. Moreover, your willingness to stop paying "if you're displeased" (while presumably continuing to read) indicates that it was never respect for the law or fair exchange that motivated you. If your heart were truly in the right place you'd pay because you made a copy, and for no other reason. And if you didn't want to pay - for whatever reason - then you wouldn't make the copy. I recognize that we have no way to implement an exchange that enforces this norm at the present time. And I recognize that goodwill is the only thing artists can depend on for the foreseeable future. But let's stop pretending that this isn't a very one-sided arrangement. And lets stop pretending that people can take advantage of a one-sided situation and keep their hands clean. I'm sorry, but they just can't. And unless you're actively looking for a system that both sides view as fair, you're not the mensch you think you are. Also, if you're not willing to pay for what's provided because you MUST pay, then stop calling yourself a customer. Customers pay. They pay every time. And they pay to get what they want because that's how they get what they want. They don't make payment a secondary, incidental exchange based on some extraneous factor, like whether or not the provider expressed enough slobbering gratitude for the "customer's" generosity. Unless we're discussing gifts, generosity shouldn't enter the picture. I know that when I pay for groceries, generosity isn't what motivates me. I'll clue you in. If generosity and "a desire to support artists" is what motivates you, then what you're describing is no longer a commercial transaction. It's an act of patronage. I'm not saying that patronage is necessarily bad, but be honest enough to admit that's what's happening, and stop pretending you're a customer when, in reality, you're no such thing. Like everyone else, you take what you want. Unlike most, you make a donation. That's appreciated. But it would be appreciated even more if you were honest about what it is, and what it means for people to be in a situation that is entirely dependent on goodwill. If you're really concerned with the status and well-being of artists, stop saying "your reduced status is just the way it is and you should be grateful for what little you've got left" and start asking "what would restore a measure of genuine equality to this situation?"