|
SylviaDuranFirstPaper 10 - 21 Jan 2012 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | DRAFT 2 -- READY FOR REVIEW | | | Continuing the Democratization of Knowledge through eBooks | | | Final Thoughts
The natural inclination for users to share content they enjoy with others is powerful. Their desire to share is further strengthened by what are viewed as illogical and greedy business decisions of ebook publishers. If ebook publishers continue denying the realities of the internet society, they risk being eliminated from knowledge dissemination altogether. | |
>
> | Definitely an
improvement. Now that we have removed the brush, we can see where
the gaps really are that you need to fill.
It turns out, in this account, that the book thing is really just
"next verse, same as the first," with respect to the arguments you
hear from the publishers, and the things you want to say back. But
that overlooks the immense differences between recorded music and
video, on one hand, and the print stream on the other. The
historical and economic differences are greater than they appear,
instead of negligible, as your analysis at present seems to indicate.
Which accounts for the mystery of timing: given that the filesizes of
books are smaller even than music (never mind the crappy forms used
by e-book readers: I can give you BOTH the actual images of the book
pages as printed, for a 1,000-page text, along with an e-text version
automatically made by OCRing the book page that makes the
human-readable page images fully searchable, in less than the space
taken up by a mid-quality mp3 three-minute pop song), why is the book
meltdown occurring a decade after the music one? If you ponder that
awhile, you'll see something important.
Something else important is that the Edisonian revolution happened a
moment ago, while we have been using writing in order to produce what
we call civilization since we've had it. In other words, the market
for music and video recordings distributes evanescence, but
everything we are is in books. And all books, whether they contain
contemporary rubbish that wastes good toilet paper or are Aristotle,
and technically the same. There's no DRM for the printed page.
The whole Google books pretend battle assumes that you have to be
Google to scan all the books in the world. You don't. You should
learn enough about book scanning to understand how easy and cheap it
would be FOR YOU to scan, prepare, and distribute as e-books on the
Net all the books you own. Each existing book in the world only has
to be scanned once, which means anywhere there's a copy, there can be
a perfect digital copy that will last forever for everybody. Using
any digital camera and software everyone in the world can use, copy,
modify and redistribute for free, you can make a perfect copy of any
book that everyone in the world can use forever in less than two
hours. If you can afford $400 once, and the book copies you are
scanning don't have to remain intact, you can cut that time in half.
So Google Books is irrelevant. All the books in the world will be
available to everyone everywhere for free, thus making the human
mind, for the first time in the history of humanity, everywhere able
to learn whatever it wants, within one generation. Publishers are in
the final period of play. That affects economic reality and
strategic behavior very deeply. You don't write about that because
you haven't seen all the way around the subject yet. But you've got
a good start here, and you should finish the job. | | | | |
>
> | | | |
# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, SylviaDuran |
|
|
SylviaDuranFirstPaper 9 - 07 Dec 2011 - Main.SylviaDuran
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| |
>
> | DRAFT 2 -- READY FOR REVIEW | | | Continuing the Democratization of Knowledge through eBooks
-- By SylviaDuran - 24 Oct 2011
Just as the printing press was credited with the democratization of knowledge, the electronic book (ebook) has the potential to spread information more efficiently and cost-effectively than ever before. However, publishers’ fear of the Napsterization of their industry has stalled the ebook revolution. This fear is not entirely unreasonable as evidenced by the music industry’s alleged billion dollar losses attributable to peer-to-peer networks. But unlike the music industry, ebook publishers carry an additional responsibility to society – the dissemination of information, which is indispensable to the continued democratization of knowledge. | |
<
< | Critics of the music industry note the industry was slow to evolve so the market responded with peer-to-peer sharing. Publishers of ebooks are now making similar mistakes and they are less forgivable the second time around.
I think apologists for
the music industry say that sharing is the response to bad industry
management. Critics would say that sharing is the normal human thing
to do and that trying to stop it from happening is wrong in
itself.
Your implication also is that the publishing industry is somehow
experiencing now the results of an unintended disruption resulting
from incompetence on their part. This is fable. They are being
disrupted now as a result of processes deliberately created decades
ago. The first time Jimmy Wales and I ever discussed the method by
which an online collaborative encyclopedia such as the one Richard
Stallman had called for could be used to destroy the textbook
publishing industry was before Wikipedia existed. | >
> | Unfortunately, ebook publishers have followed the same broken path laid by the music industry by adopting business strategies that hoard all benefits of this new technology. These strategies include implementing questionable pricing models, ignoring new business opportunities, and failing to support the evolution of libraries. | | | | |
<
< | | >
> | But a transaction always involves two parties and content users, the other party, have found strength in online numbers and are rejecting these terms. Just as music fans responded to the music industry's slow evolution, the internet society is creating its own rules for ebook dissemination where logic and ethics support peer-to-peer sharing to continue the democratization of knowledge. | | | | |
<
< | I am not sure what you mean by "processes deliberately created decades ago." I agree with your characterization of what is the normal human thing to do. We enjoy sharing things we find interesting, creative, etc.. YouTube? is a great example of this.
| | | | |
<
< | New Industry, Same Mistakes | >
> | The Problem: New Industry, Same Mistakes | | | Implementing questionable pricing strategies | |
<
< | When the alternative is "free," ebook publishers hasten the retreat to piracy by engaging in questionable pricing strategies. Consumers express surprise and sometimes anger at current ebook prices as they often mirror print book prices. Consumers note they cannot donate, sell, or generally lend their purchased copies to other parties. In addition, the marginal cost of producing and distributing ebooks is much lower than print books. Publishers justify current pricing as a result of their fixed costs, such as marketing and editorial costs, which constitute the bulk of their expenses. Yet even assuming publishers' explanations are sincere, the perception that publishers are greedy and prices unfair remains. This perception has gained support from the recent class-action lawsuit against Apple and five major publishers claiming the parties engaged in price fixing. The lawsuit says prices of new ebooks have increased an average of 33 to 50% as a result. | >
> | When the alternative is "free," ebook publishers hasten the retreat to unauthorized sharing by engaging in questionable pricing strategies. Consumers express surprise and sometimes anger at current ebook prices as they often mirror print book prices. Consumers note they cannot donate, sell, or generally lend their purchased copies to other parties. In addition, the marginal cost of producing and distributing ebooks is much lower than print books. Publishers justify current pricing as a result of their fixed costs, such as marketing and editorial costs, which constitute the bulk of their expenses. Yet even assuming publishers' explanations are sincere, the perception that publishers are greedy and prices unfair remains. This perception has gained support from the recent class-action lawsuit against Apple and five major publishers claiming the parties engaged in price fixing. The lawsuit says prices of new ebooks have increased an average of 33 to 50% as a result. | | |
Ignoring new business models | |
<
< | The music industry's answer to [____} was to force [_____] through the legal system. Although these scare tactics worked on some probable offenders, threat of legal sanction did not stop the overall problem - the music industry continued its decline. It has taken ten years for new business models to gain traction, but the industry is finally understanding consumer needs. For example, some copyright owners now allow their content to remain on YouTube and generate revenue from advertising. It is a recognition that traditional revenue models are no longer sufficient in an internet society. | >
> | The music industry's answer to peer-to-peer sharing was to force individuals through the legal system. Although these scare tactics worked on some probable offenders, threat of legal sanction did not stop the overall problem - the music industry continued its decline. It has taken ten years for new business models to gain traction, but the industry is finally understanding consumer needs. For example, some copyright owners now allow their content to remain on YouTube and generate revenue from advertising. It is a recognition that traditional revenue models are no longer sufficient in an internet society. | | | | |
<
< | Similarly, traditional approaches to publishing will not survive in the internet society. Publishers appear to understand this evolution in some instances, but ignore it at their convenience. For instance, electronic publishers (e-publishers) restrict ownership rights of ebooks in ways print books are not - one cannot sell, donate, or lend endlessly a purchased ebook. This behavior is a response to the realities of the internet society. However, e-publishers have so far failed to embrace the benefits of the online community. For example, e-publishers point to high editorial costs as a reason for high ebook prices. Yet Wikipedia is a perfect example of an alternative to traditional editorial approaches. This is not to say e-publishers can or should rely on online users to edit their ebooks to cut costs, but if their current costs of ebook publication are the same as for print, e-publishers are not innovating or seeking improved efficiencies as they should be. The longer they wait to evolve, the more likely the market will force them to change through Napsterization. | >
> | Similarly, traditional approaches to publishing will not survive in the internet society. Publishers appear to understand this evolution in some instances, but ignore it at their convenience. For instance, electronic publishers (e-publishers) restrict ownership rights of ebooks in ways print books are not - one cannot sell, donate, or endlessly lend a purchased ebook. This behavior is a response to the realities of the internet society. However, e-publishers have so far failed to embrace the benefits of the online community. For example, e-publishers point to high editorial costs as a reason for high ebook prices. Yet Wikipedia is a perfect example of an alternative to traditional editorial approaches. This is not to say e-publishers can or should rely on online users to edit their ebooks to cut costs, but if their current costs of ebook publication are the same as for print, e-publishers are not innovating or seeking improved efficiencies as they should be. | | | | |
<
< | New mistake: Earning the ire of librarians | >
> | Preventing evolution of libraries | | | Libraries, the original information equalizer, could become a formidable opponent to e-publishers. Earlier this year, Harper Collins Publishers began restricting the use of library ebooks, making them expire after 26 uses (26 library check-outs). Once again, e-publishers restrict traditional ownership rights and the restrictions seem arbitrary. Libraries already adhere to the "one user per copy" rule in order to mirror print book ownership, even though this is a fictitious limitation in the electronic world. Further restrictions are difficult to justify. Publishers argue an e-book cannot have perpetual ownership because print books deteriorate over time, while e-books retain consistent quality. But if any group should benefit from technological advances, should it not be libraries? These are entities promoting literacy and creativity, rather than seeking profits. And with ever-present budget cuts, having to replace "deteriorated" ebooks makes Napsterization a fitting response to an industry preventing the spread of knowledge from traditional channels. | |
<
< | That's not correct
either. But a DRM-circumvention exception to allow libraries to
continue loaning restricted data files will eventually succeed
(perhaps this time?) in the periodic proceedings at the Library of
Congress required by DMCA.
Pirating Books is Ethical
The law is a temporary solution for regulating behavior. It is temporary because it is constantly evolving. In this sense, the law is neither right nor wrong, it is simply a compromise of adequate solutions. In publishing, "laws" arise from contractual agreements between parties, which are often lopsided. Perhaps in recognizing the law's limitations, consumers have begun turning to their moral compass and many are finding an acceptance of online piracy. For example, the New York Times Magazine ethicist, Randy Cohen, concludes that if a user has already purchased a hardcover book, it is not unethical to engage in ebook piracy of that book. Cohen compares it to buying a CD and then copying it to an iPod. Further, although the legality of the Google Digitization Project was suspect from the beginning, the company marched onward until they were legally ordered to halt. Although critics of Google note the company will financially benefit from this project, Google co-founder, Larry Page, is said to strongly advocate that "the world's information should be made available freely." | >
> | Sharing Electronic Books is Ethical
The law is a temporary solution for regulating behavior. It is temporary because it is constantly evolving. In this sense, the law is neither right nor wrong, it is simply a compromise of adequate solutions. Perhaps in recognizing the law's limitations, consumers are turning to their moral compass and many are finding an acceptance of unauthorized peer-to-peer sharing. For example, the New York Times Magazine ethicist, Randy Cohen, concludes that if a user has already purchased a hardcover book, it is not unethical to obtain an unauthorized electronic copy of this book. Cohen compares it to buying a CD and then copying it to an iPod. Further, although the legality of the Google Digitization Project was suspect from the beginning, the company marched onward until they were legally ordered to halt. Although critics of Google note the company will financially benefit from this project, Google co-founder, Larry Page, is said to strongly advocate that "the world's information should be made available freely." | | | Final Thoughts | |
<
< | Harry Potter ebooks have been delayed for several years, but it is claimed that the series is among the most pirated ebooks on the internet. The delay of the ebook series is shocking given that the books are credited with encouraging literacy and creating a community of readers. Fear of piracy, that was ultimately unpreventable, delayed the spread of knowledge. This is what makes the mistakes of the music industry less forgivable the second time around. Fortunately, the internet society does not accept unconvincing legal compromises and does not wait for legal change - it forces the democratization of knowledge when others will not. | >
> | The natural inclination for users to share content they enjoy with others is powerful. Their desire to share is further strengthened by what are viewed as illogical and greedy business decisions of ebook publishers. If ebook publishers continue denying the realities of the internet society, they risk being eliminated from knowledge dissemination altogether. | | | | |
<
< | What is the thesis of
this essay? | | | | |
<
< | This is something I need to improve. My preliminary thesis was that the ebook industry is not embracing the realities of the new technology and so will face Napsterization. | | |
| |
<
< | # * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, SylviaDurans | >
> | # * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, SylviaDuran | | | -- | |
<
< | So do you believe that the Google Digitalization Project would contribute to the net benefit of society by making these texts available in electronic form, albeit controlled by a corporate entity? As Eben points out in class, with enough grass roots support, a book digitalization project could be done by decentralized individuals. Is relying on Google ethical?
-- AaronChan - 30 Oct 2011
I do think allowing Google to proceed with this project is better for society as a whole. Although grass roots efforts can be done, we have become a lazy society (myself included). Because we have access to all the books we want, there is little incentive for us to actively contribute to the sharing of knowledge for the sake of others. Either we don't care or just don't understand what it is like for those who do not have our privileged access. I am not sure if this is unethical. What do you think? | | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
SylviaDuranFirstPaper 8 - 16 Nov 2011 - Main.SylviaDuran
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
Continuing the Democratization of Knowledge through eBooks | | | When the alternative is "free," ebook publishers hasten the retreat to piracy by engaging in questionable pricing strategies. Consumers express surprise and sometimes anger at current ebook prices as they often mirror print book prices. Consumers note they cannot donate, sell, or generally lend their purchased copies to other parties. In addition, the marginal cost of producing and distributing ebooks is much lower than print books. Publishers justify current pricing as a result of their fixed costs, such as marketing and editorial costs, which constitute the bulk of their expenses. Yet even assuming publishers' explanations are sincere, the perception that publishers are greedy and prices unfair remains. This perception has gained support from the recent class-action lawsuit against Apple and five major publishers claiming the parties engaged in price fixing. The lawsuit says prices of new ebooks have increased an average of 33 to 50% as a result.
Ignoring new business models | |
<
< | The music industry's answer to piracy was to force individual pirates through the legal system.
Would you explain,
please, why you refer to someone sharing books or music as a pirate?
I find it difficult to understand why you would use a word denominating
a violent criminal as a description of children sharing books and
music with one another. Are you trying to prove your fealty through
echoing the worst, most outrageous, propaganda of the culture owners?
Or have you become so thoughtlessly brainwashed that calling children
thieves and murderers seems normal to you?
I had not seen the word pirate and piracy as a derogatory term, although I can now see how it can be perceived in that manner. I used a term that is often used to describe this behavior. Although you perceive this as being thoughtlessly brainwashed, my goal was to be concise in my communication rather than be offensive.
Although these scare tactics worked on some probable offenders, threat of legal sanction did not stop the overall problem - the music industry continued its decline. It has taken ten years for new business models to gain traction, but the industry is finally understanding consumer needs. For example, some copyright owners now allow their content to remain on YouTube and generate revenue from advertising. It is a recognition that traditional revenue models are no longer sufficient in an internet society.
Maybe. But it's not a
recognition that sharing is normal, good and useful, and that the
ownership of ideas is actually now going to become extinct. It's
like saying that once people who own slaves have discovered that
there's going to be resistance and start treating their slaves better
they have "recognized that traditional revenue models are no longer
sufficient in slave society." But in fact the real point is that
slave society ends in emancipation, whether peaceful or violent, and
the ownership of ideas will end just as completely as the ownership
of human beings, one way or another.
%PURPLE % I do not believe there is recognition that sharing is normal, good and useful. I do not agree with the comparison between ownership of human beings and of ideas. | >
> | The music industry's answer to [____} was to force [_____] through the legal system. Although these scare tactics worked on some probable offenders, threat of legal sanction did not stop the overall problem - the music industry continued its decline. It has taken ten years for new business models to gain traction, but the industry is finally understanding consumer needs. For example, some copyright owners now allow their content to remain on YouTube and generate revenue from advertising. It is a recognition that traditional revenue models are no longer sufficient in an internet society. | | | Similarly, traditional approaches to publishing will not survive in the internet society. Publishers appear to understand this evolution in some instances, but ignore it at their convenience. For instance, electronic publishers (e-publishers) restrict ownership rights of ebooks in ways print books are not - one cannot sell, donate, or lend endlessly a purchased ebook. This behavior is a response to the realities of the internet society. However, e-publishers have so far failed to embrace the benefits of the online community. For example, e-publishers point to high editorial costs as a reason for high ebook prices. Yet Wikipedia is a perfect example of an alternative to traditional editorial approaches. This is not to say e-publishers can or should rely on online users to edit their ebooks to cut costs, but if their current costs of ebook publication are the same as for print, e-publishers are not innovating or seeking improved efficiencies as they should be. The longer they wait to evolve, the more likely the market will force them to change through Napsterization. | |
<
< | The industry is
presently selling NO material as an e-text for which there are
editorial expenses. A large part of the trade is re-enclosure: sale
of public domain materials under DRM'd and copyrighted tents. Almost
all the rest of the trade is material whose fixed editorial costs are
recouped through traditional sales of manufactured books to retail
resellers.
I generally agree with this. However, there are some ebooks that incorporate additional sounds, images, etc. that are specific to the ebook format (or so they say), which would bring additional costs. | | | New mistake: Earning the ire of librarians
Libraries, the original information equalizer, could become a formidable opponent to e-publishers. Earlier this year, Harper Collins Publishers began restricting the use of library ebooks, making them expire after 26 uses (26 library check-outs). Once again, e-publishers restrict traditional ownership rights and the restrictions seem arbitrary. Libraries already adhere to the "one user per copy" rule in order to mirror print book ownership, even though this is a fictitious limitation in the electronic world. Further restrictions are difficult to justify. Publishers argue an e-book cannot have perpetual ownership because print books deteriorate over time, while e-books retain consistent quality. But if any group should benefit from technological advances, should it not be libraries? These are entities promoting literacy and creativity, rather than seeking profits. And with ever-present budget cuts, having to replace "deteriorated" ebooks makes Napsterization a fitting response to an industry preventing the spread of knowledge from traditional channels. | | | Pirating Books is Ethical
The law is a temporary solution for regulating behavior. It is temporary because it is constantly evolving. In this sense, the law is neither right nor wrong, it is simply a compromise of adequate solutions. In publishing, "laws" arise from contractual agreements between parties, which are often lopsided. Perhaps in recognizing the law's limitations, consumers have begun turning to their moral compass and many are finding an acceptance of online piracy. For example, the New York Times Magazine ethicist, Randy Cohen, concludes that if a user has already purchased a hardcover book, it is not unethical to engage in ebook piracy of that book. Cohen compares it to buying a CD and then copying it to an iPod. Further, although the legality of the Google Digitization Project was suspect from the beginning, the company marched onward until they were legally ordered to halt. Although critics of Google note the company will financially benefit from this project, Google co-founder, Larry Page, is said to strongly advocate that "the world's information should be made available freely." | |
<
< | Sharing is ethical. Why
are you apparently discussing whether criminal activity is ethical?
Why is there even a question whether it is ethical to share?
Not everyone believes that sharing is ethical. This New York Time ethicist wrote about this issue because he received questions from readers who were uncertain about their own behavior. If so many of us have been"brainwashed" as you like to describe it, then it is natural for the question of ethics to arise.
| | | Final Thoughts
Harry Potter ebooks have been delayed for several years, but it is claimed that the series is among the most pirated ebooks on the internet. The delay of the ebook series is shocking given that the books are credited with encouraging literacy and creating a community of readers. Fear of piracy, that was ultimately unpreventable, delayed the spread of knowledge. This is what makes the mistakes of the music industry less forgivable the second time around. Fortunately, the internet society does not accept unconvincing legal compromises and does not wait for legal change - it forces the democratization of knowledge when others will not. |
|
|
SylviaDuranFirstPaper 7 - 10 Nov 2011 - Main.SylviaDuran
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | | | | Continuing the Democratization of Knowledge through eBooks | | | | |
>
> | I am not sure what you mean by "processes deliberately created decades ago." I agree with your characterization of what is the normal human thing to do. We enjoy sharing things we find interesting, creative, etc.. YouTube? is a great example of this.
| | | New Industry, Same Mistakes
Implementing questionable pricing strategies
When the alternative is "free," ebook publishers hasten the retreat to piracy by engaging in questionable pricing strategies. Consumers express surprise and sometimes anger at current ebook prices as they often mirror print book prices. Consumers note they cannot donate, sell, or generally lend their purchased copies to other parties. In addition, the marginal cost of producing and distributing ebooks is much lower than print books. Publishers justify current pricing as a result of their fixed costs, such as marketing and editorial costs, which constitute the bulk of their expenses. Yet even assuming publishers' explanations are sincere, the perception that publishers are greedy and prices unfair remains. This perception has gained support from the recent class-action lawsuit against Apple and five major publishers claiming the parties engaged in price fixing. The lawsuit says prices of new ebooks have increased an average of 33 to 50% as a result. | | | Or have you become so thoughtlessly brainwashed that calling children
thieves and murderers seems normal to you? | |
>
> | I had not seen the word pirate and piracy as a derogatory term, although I can now see how it can be perceived in that manner. I used a term that is often used to describe this behavior. Although you perceive this as being thoughtlessly brainwashed, my goal was to be concise in my communication rather than be offensive.
| | | Although these scare tactics worked on some probable offenders, threat of legal sanction did not stop the overall problem - the music industry continued its decline. It has taken ten years for new business models to gain traction, but the industry is finally understanding consumer needs. For example, some copyright owners now allow their content to remain on YouTube and generate revenue from advertising. It is a recognition that traditional revenue models are no longer sufficient in an internet society.
Maybe. But it's not a | | | the ownership of ideas will end just as completely as the ownership
of human beings, one way or another. | |
>
> | %PURPLE % I do not believe there is recognition that sharing is normal, good and useful. I do not agree with the comparison between ownership of human beings and of ideas. | | | Similarly, traditional approaches to publishing will not survive in the internet society. Publishers appear to understand this evolution in some instances, but ignore it at their convenience. For instance, electronic publishers (e-publishers) restrict ownership rights of ebooks in ways print books are not - one cannot sell, donate, or lend endlessly a purchased ebook. This behavior is a response to the realities of the internet society. However, e-publishers have so far failed to embrace the benefits of the online community. For example, e-publishers point to high editorial costs as a reason for high ebook prices. Yet Wikipedia is a perfect example of an alternative to traditional editorial approaches. This is not to say e-publishers can or should rely on online users to edit their ebooks to cut costs, but if their current costs of ebook publication are the same as for print, e-publishers are not innovating or seeking improved efficiencies as they should be. The longer they wait to evolve, the more likely the market will force them to change through Napsterization.
The industry is | | | recouped through traditional sales of manufactured books to retail
resellers. | |
>
> | I generally agree with this. However, there are some ebooks that incorporate additional sounds, images, etc. that are specific to the ebook format (or so they say), which would bring additional costs. | | | New mistake: Earning the ire of librarians
Libraries, the original information equalizer, could become a formidable opponent to e-publishers. Earlier this year, Harper Collins Publishers began restricting the use of library ebooks, making them expire after 26 uses (26 library check-outs). Once again, e-publishers restrict traditional ownership rights and the restrictions seem arbitrary. Libraries already adhere to the "one user per copy" rule in order to mirror print book ownership, even though this is a fictitious limitation in the electronic world. Further restrictions are difficult to justify. Publishers argue an e-book cannot have perpetual ownership because print books deteriorate over time, while e-books retain consistent quality. But if any group should benefit from technological advances, should it not be libraries? These are entities promoting literacy and creativity, rather than seeking profits. And with ever-present budget cuts, having to replace "deteriorated" ebooks makes Napsterization a fitting response to an industry preventing the spread of knowledge from traditional channels. | | | Why is there even a question whether it is ethical to share?
| |
>
> | Not everyone believes that sharing is ethical. This New York Time ethicist wrote about this issue because he received questions from readers who were uncertain about their own behavior. If so many of us have been"brainwashed" as you like to describe it, then it is natural for the question of ethics to arise.
| | | Final Thoughts
Harry Potter ebooks have been delayed for several years, but it is claimed that the series is among the most pirated ebooks on the internet. The delay of the ebook series is shocking given that the books are credited with encouraging literacy and creating a community of readers. Fear of piracy, that was ultimately unpreventable, delayed the spread of knowledge. This is what makes the mistakes of the music industry less forgivable the second time around. Fortunately, the internet society does not accept unconvincing legal compromises and does not wait for legal change - it forces the democratization of knowledge when others will not.
What is the thesis of
this essay? | |
>
> | This is something I need to improve. My preliminary thesis was that the ebook industry is not embracing the realities of the new technology and so will face Napsterization. | | |
# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, SylviaDurans | | | So do you believe that the Google Digitalization Project would contribute to the net benefit of society by making these texts available in electronic form, albeit controlled by a corporate entity? As Eben points out in class, with enough grass roots support, a book digitalization project could be done by decentralized individuals. Is relying on Google ethical?
-- AaronChan - 30 Oct 2011
\ No newline at end of file | |
>
> | I do think allowing Google to proceed with this project is better for society as a whole. Although grass roots efforts can be done, we have become a lazy society (myself included). Because we have access to all the books we want, there is little incentive for us to actively contribute to the sharing of knowledge for the sake of others. Either we don't care or just don't understand what it is like for those who do not have our privileged access. I am not sure if this is unethical. What do you think? |
|
|
SylviaDuranFirstPaper 6 - 07 Nov 2011 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | DRAFT 1 | | | Continuing the Democratization of Knowledge through eBooks | | | Just as the printing press was credited with the democratization of knowledge, the electronic book (ebook) has the potential to spread information more efficiently and cost-effectively than ever before. However, publishers’ fear of the Napsterization of their industry has stalled the ebook revolution. This fear is not entirely unreasonable as evidenced by the music industry’s alleged billion dollar losses attributable to peer-to-peer networks. But unlike the music industry, ebook publishers carry an additional responsibility to society – the dissemination of information, which is indispensable to the continued democratization of knowledge.
Critics of the music industry note the industry was slow to evolve so the market responded with peer-to-peer sharing. Publishers of ebooks are now making similar mistakes and they are less forgivable the second time around. | |
>
> | I think apologists for
the music industry say that sharing is the response to bad industry
management. Critics would say that sharing is the normal human thing
to do and that trying to stop it from happening is wrong in
itself.
Your implication also is that the publishing industry is somehow
experiencing now the results of an unintended disruption resulting
from incompetence on their part. This is fable. They are being
disrupted now as a result of processes deliberately created decades
ago. The first time Jimmy Wales and I ever discussed the method by
which an online collaborative encyclopedia such as the one Richard
Stallman had called for could be used to destroy the textbook
publishing industry was before Wikipedia existed.
| | | New Industry, Same Mistakes
Implementing questionable pricing strategies
When the alternative is "free," ebook publishers hasten the retreat to piracy by engaging in questionable pricing strategies. Consumers express surprise and sometimes anger at current ebook prices as they often mirror print book prices. Consumers note they cannot donate, sell, or generally lend their purchased copies to other parties. In addition, the marginal cost of producing and distributing ebooks is much lower than print books. Publishers justify current pricing as a result of their fixed costs, such as marketing and editorial costs, which constitute the bulk of their expenses. Yet even assuming publishers' explanations are sincere, the perception that publishers are greedy and prices unfair remains. This perception has gained support from the recent class-action lawsuit against Apple and five major publishers claiming the parties engaged in price fixing. The lawsuit says prices of new ebooks have increased an average of 33 to 50% as a result.
Ignoring new business models | |
<
< | The music industry's answer to piracy was to force individual pirates through the legal system. Although these scare tactics worked on some probable offenders, threat of legal sanction did not stop the overall problem - the music industry continued its decline. It has taken ten years for new business models to gain traction, but the industry is finally understanding consumer needs. For example, some copyright owners now allow their content to remain on YouTube? and generate revenue from advertising. It is a recognition that traditional revenue models are no longer sufficient in an internet society. | >
> | The music industry's answer to piracy was to force individual pirates through the legal system.
Would you explain,
please, why you refer to someone sharing books or music as a pirate?
I find it difficult to understand why you would use a word denominating
a violent criminal as a description of children sharing books and
music with one another. Are you trying to prove your fealty through
echoing the worst, most outrageous, propaganda of the culture owners?
Or have you become so thoughtlessly brainwashed that calling children
thieves and murderers seems normal to you?
Although these scare tactics worked on some probable offenders, threat of legal sanction did not stop the overall problem - the music industry continued its decline. It has taken ten years for new business models to gain traction, but the industry is finally understanding consumer needs. For example, some copyright owners now allow their content to remain on YouTube and generate revenue from advertising. It is a recognition that traditional revenue models are no longer sufficient in an internet society.
Maybe. But it's not a
recognition that sharing is normal, good and useful, and that the
ownership of ideas is actually now going to become extinct. It's
like saying that once people who own slaves have discovered that
there's going to be resistance and start treating their slaves better
they have "recognized that traditional revenue models are no longer
sufficient in slave society." But in fact the real point is that
slave society ends in emancipation, whether peaceful or violent, and
the ownership of ideas will end just as completely as the ownership
of human beings, one way or another. | | | Similarly, traditional approaches to publishing will not survive in the internet society. Publishers appear to understand this evolution in some instances, but ignore it at their convenience. For instance, electronic publishers (e-publishers) restrict ownership rights of ebooks in ways print books are not - one cannot sell, donate, or lend endlessly a purchased ebook. This behavior is a response to the realities of the internet society. However, e-publishers have so far failed to embrace the benefits of the online community. For example, e-publishers point to high editorial costs as a reason for high ebook prices. Yet Wikipedia is a perfect example of an alternative to traditional editorial approaches. This is not to say e-publishers can or should rely on online users to edit their ebooks to cut costs, but if their current costs of ebook publication are the same as for print, e-publishers are not innovating or seeking improved efficiencies as they should be. The longer they wait to evolve, the more likely the market will force them to change through Napsterization. | |
>
> | The industry is
presently selling NO material as an e-text for which there are
editorial expenses. A large part of the trade is re-enclosure: sale
of public domain materials under DRM'd and copyrighted tents. Almost
all the rest of the trade is material whose fixed editorial costs are
recouped through traditional sales of manufactured books to retail
resellers. | | | New mistake: Earning the ire of librarians
Libraries, the original information equalizer, could become a formidable opponent to e-publishers. Earlier this year, Harper Collins Publishers began restricting the use of library ebooks, making them expire after 26 uses (26 library check-outs). Once again, e-publishers restrict traditional ownership rights and the restrictions seem arbitrary. Libraries already adhere to the "one user per copy" rule in order to mirror print book ownership, even though this is a fictitious limitation in the electronic world. Further restrictions are difficult to justify. Publishers argue an e-book cannot have perpetual ownership because print books deteriorate over time, while e-books retain consistent quality. But if any group should benefit from technological advances, should it not be libraries? These are entities promoting literacy and creativity, rather than seeking profits. And with ever-present budget cuts, having to replace "deteriorated" ebooks makes Napsterization a fitting response to an industry preventing the spread of knowledge from traditional channels. | |
>
> | That's not correct
either. But a DRM-circumvention exception to allow libraries to
continue loaning restricted data files will eventually succeed
(perhaps this time?) in the periodic proceedings at the Library of
Congress required by DMCA. | | | Pirating Books is Ethical
The law is a temporary solution for regulating behavior. It is temporary because it is constantly evolving. In this sense, the law is neither right nor wrong, it is simply a compromise of adequate solutions. In publishing, "laws" arise from contractual agreements between parties, which are often lopsided. Perhaps in recognizing the law's limitations, consumers have begun turning to their moral compass and many are finding an acceptance of online piracy. For example, the New York Times Magazine ethicist, Randy Cohen, concludes that if a user has already purchased a hardcover book, it is not unethical to engage in ebook piracy of that book. Cohen compares it to buying a CD and then copying it to an iPod. Further, although the legality of the Google Digitization Project was suspect from the beginning, the company marched onward until they were legally ordered to halt. Although critics of Google note the company will financially benefit from this project, Google co-founder, Larry Page, is said to strongly advocate that "the world's information should be made available freely." | |
>
> | Sharing is ethical. Why
are you apparently discussing whether criminal activity is ethical?
Why is there even a question whether it is ethical to share?
| | | Final Thoughts
Harry Potter ebooks have been delayed for several years, but it is claimed that the series is among the most pirated ebooks on the internet. The delay of the ebook series is shocking given that the books are credited with encouraging literacy and creating a community of readers. Fear of piracy, that was ultimately unpreventable, delayed the spread of knowledge. This is what makes the mistakes of the music industry less forgivable the second time around. Fortunately, the internet society does not accept unconvincing legal compromises and does not wait for legal change - it forces the democratization of knowledge when others will not. | |
<
< | | >
> | What is the thesis of
this essay? | | |
# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, SylviaDurans |
|
|
SylviaDuranFirstPaper 5 - 30 Oct 2011 - Main.AaronChan
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
DRAFT 1 | | | Harry Potter ebooks have been delayed for several years, but it is claimed that the series is among the most pirated ebooks on the internet. The delay of the ebook series is shocking given that the books are credited with encouraging literacy and creating a community of readers. Fear of piracy, that was ultimately unpreventable, delayed the spread of knowledge. This is what makes the mistakes of the music industry less forgivable the second time around. Fortunately, the internet society does not accept unconvincing legal compromises and does not wait for legal change - it forces the democratization of knowledge when others will not. | |
<
< |
| | | | |
>
> |
| | | # * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, SylviaDurans | |
>
> | --
So do you believe that the Google Digitalization Project would contribute to the net benefit of society by making these texts available in electronic form, albeit controlled by a corporate entity? As Eben points out in class, with enough grass roots support, a book digitalization project could be done by decentralized individuals. Is relying on Google ethical?
-- AaronChan - 30 Oct 2011 |
|
|
SylviaDuranFirstPaper 4 - 25 Oct 2011 - Main.SylviaDuran
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | NOT READY FOR REVIEW | >
> | DRAFT 1 | | | Continuing the Democratization of Knowledge through eBooks | | | When the alternative is "free," ebook publishers hasten the retreat to piracy by engaging in questionable pricing strategies. Consumers express surprise and sometimes anger at current ebook prices as they often mirror print book prices. Consumers note they cannot donate, sell, or generally lend their purchased copies to other parties. In addition, the marginal cost of producing and distributing ebooks is much lower than print books. Publishers justify current pricing as a result of their fixed costs, such as marketing and editorial costs, which constitute the bulk of their expenses. Yet even assuming publishers' explanations are sincere, the perception that publishers are greedy and prices unfair remains. This perception has gained support from the recent class-action lawsuit against Apple and five major publishers claiming the parties engaged in price fixing. The lawsuit says prices of new ebooks have increased an average of 33 to 50% as a result.
Ignoring new business models | |
<
< | The music industry's answer to piracy was to force individual pirates through the legal system. Although these scare tactics worked on some probable offenders, threat of legal sanction did not stop the overall problem - the music industry continued its decline. It has taken ten years for new business models to gain traction, but the industry is finally understanding consumer needs. For example, some copyright owners now allow their content to remain on YouTube? and generate revenue from advertising. Further, new music label contracts, known as 360 deals, take into account other revenue streams including touring, merchandise sales, song publishing, and sponsorships to account for decreased music sales. Although these deals are unfortunate from the musician's perspective, they are a recognition that traditional revenue models are no longer sufficient in an internet society. | >
> | The music industry's answer to piracy was to force individual pirates through the legal system. Although these scare tactics worked on some probable offenders, threat of legal sanction did not stop the overall problem - the music industry continued its decline. It has taken ten years for new business models to gain traction, but the industry is finally understanding consumer needs. For example, some copyright owners now allow their content to remain on YouTube? and generate revenue from advertising. It is a recognition that traditional revenue models are no longer sufficient in an internet society. | | | Similarly, traditional approaches to publishing will not survive in the internet society. Publishers appear to understand this evolution in some instances, but ignore it at their convenience. For instance, electronic publishers (e-publishers) restrict ownership rights of ebooks in ways print books are not - one cannot sell, donate, or lend endlessly a purchased ebook. This behavior is a response to the realities of the internet society. However, e-publishers have so far failed to embrace the benefits of the online community. For example, e-publishers point to high editorial costs as a reason for high ebook prices. Yet Wikipedia is a perfect example of an alternative to traditional editorial approaches. This is not to say e-publishers can or should rely on online users to edit their ebooks to cut costs, but if their current costs of ebook publication are the same as for print, e-publishers are not innovating or seeking improved efficiencies as they should be. The longer they wait to evolve, the more likely the market will force them to change through Napsterization.
New mistake: Earning the ire of librarians | |
<
< | Libraries, the original information equalizer, could become a formidable opponent to e-publishers. Earlier this year, Harper Collins Publishers began restricting the use of library ebooks, making them expire after 26 uses (26 library check-outs). Once again, e-publishers restrict traditional ownership rights and the restrictions seem arbitrary. Libraries already adhere to the "one user per copy" rule in order to mirror print book ownership, even though this is a fictitious limitation in the electronic world. To further restrict libraries' ability to share knowledge with its patrons is difficult to justify. Publishers argue an e-book cannot have perpetual ownership because print books deteriorate over time, while e-books retain consistent quality. But if any group should benefit from technological advances, should it not be libraries? These are entities promoting literacy and creativity, rather than seeking profits. And with ever-present budget cuts, having to replace "deteriorated" ebooks makes Napsterization a fitting response to an industry preventing the spread of knowledge from traditional channels. | >
> | Libraries, the original information equalizer, could become a formidable opponent to e-publishers. Earlier this year, Harper Collins Publishers began restricting the use of library ebooks, making them expire after 26 uses (26 library check-outs). Once again, e-publishers restrict traditional ownership rights and the restrictions seem arbitrary. Libraries already adhere to the "one user per copy" rule in order to mirror print book ownership, even though this is a fictitious limitation in the electronic world. Further restrictions are difficult to justify. Publishers argue an e-book cannot have perpetual ownership because print books deteriorate over time, while e-books retain consistent quality. But if any group should benefit from technological advances, should it not be libraries? These are entities promoting literacy and creativity, rather than seeking profits. And with ever-present budget cuts, having to replace "deteriorated" ebooks makes Napsterization a fitting response to an industry preventing the spread of knowledge from traditional channels. | | | | |
<
< | Pirating Books is Ethical
ETHICS | >
> | Pirating Books is Ethical
The law is a temporary solution for regulating behavior. It is temporary because it is constantly evolving. In this sense, the law is neither right nor wrong, it is simply a compromise of adequate solutions. In publishing, "laws" arise from contractual agreements between parties, which are often lopsided. Perhaps in recognizing the law's limitations, consumers have begun turning to their moral compass and many are finding an acceptance of online piracy. For example, the New York Times Magazine ethicist, Randy Cohen, concludes that if a user has already purchased a hardcover book, it is not unethical to engage in ebook piracy of that book. Cohen compares it to buying a CD and then copying it to an iPod. Further, although the legality of the Google Digitization Project was suspect from the beginning, the company marched onward until they were legally ordered to halt. Although critics of Google note the company will financially benefit from this project, Google co-founder, Larry Page, is said to strongly advocate that "the world's information should be made available freely." | | | | |
<
< | Subsection B
Subsub 1
Subsection B
Subsub 1
Subsub 2
Section II
Subsection A
Subsection B | >
> | Final Thoughts
Harry Potter ebooks have been delayed for several years, but it is claimed that the series is among the most pirated ebooks on the internet. The delay of the ebook series is shocking given that the books are credited with encouraging literacy and creating a community of readers. Fear of piracy, that was ultimately unpreventable, delayed the spread of knowledge. This is what makes the mistakes of the music industry less forgivable the second time around. Fortunately, the internet society does not accept unconvincing legal compromises and does not wait for legal change - it forces the democratization of knowledge when others will not. | | |
|
|
|
SylviaDuranFirstPaper 3 - 25 Oct 2011 - Main.SylviaDuran
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
NOT READY FOR REVIEW | |
<
< | Continuing the Democratization of Knowledge through e-books | >
> | Continuing the Democratization of Knowledge through eBooks | | |
-- By SylviaDuran - 24 Oct 2011 | |
<
< | Just as the printing press was credited with the democratization of knowledge, the electronic book (e-book) has the potential to spread information more efficiently and affordably than ever before. However, publishers’ fear of the Napsterization of their industry has stalled the e-book revolution. This fear is not entirely unreasonable as evidenced by the music industry’s alleged billion dollar losses attributable to peer-to-peer networks. But unlike the music industry, e-book publishers carry an additional responsibility to society – the dissemination of information, which is indispensable to the continued democratization of knowledge.
Critics of the music industry note the industry was slow to evolve so the market responded with peer-to-peer sharing. Publishers of e-books are now making similar mistakes and they are less forgivable the second time around. | >
> | Just as the printing press was credited with the democratization of knowledge, the electronic book (ebook) has the potential to spread information more efficiently and cost-effectively than ever before. However, publishers’ fear of the Napsterization of their industry has stalled the ebook revolution. This fear is not entirely unreasonable as evidenced by the music industry’s alleged billion dollar losses attributable to peer-to-peer networks. But unlike the music industry, ebook publishers carry an additional responsibility to society – the dissemination of information, which is indispensable to the continued democratization of knowledge.
Critics of the music industry note the industry was slow to evolve so the market responded with peer-to-peer sharing. Publishers of ebooks are now making similar mistakes and they are less forgivable the second time around. | | | New Industry, Same Mistakes
Implementing questionable pricing strategies | |
<
< | When the alternative is "free," e-book publishers hasten the retreat to piracy by engaging in questionable pricing strategies. Consumers express surprise and sometimes anger at current e-book prices as they often mirror print book prices. Consumers note they cannot donate, sell, or generally lend their purchased copies to other parties. In addition, the marginal cost of producing and distributing e-books is much lower than print books. Publishers justify current pricing as a result of their fixed costs, such as marketing and editorial costs, which constitute the bulk of their expenses. Yet even assuming publishers' explanations are sincere, the perception that publishers are greedy and prices unfair remains. This perception has gained support from the recent class-action lawsuit against Apple and five major publishers claiming the parties engaged in price fixing. The lawsuit says prices of new e-books have increased an average of 33 to 50% as a result. | >
> | When the alternative is "free," ebook publishers hasten the retreat to piracy by engaging in questionable pricing strategies. Consumers express surprise and sometimes anger at current ebook prices as they often mirror print book prices. Consumers note they cannot donate, sell, or generally lend their purchased copies to other parties. In addition, the marginal cost of producing and distributing ebooks is much lower than print books. Publishers justify current pricing as a result of their fixed costs, such as marketing and editorial costs, which constitute the bulk of their expenses. Yet even assuming publishers' explanations are sincere, the perception that publishers are greedy and prices unfair remains. This perception has gained support from the recent class-action lawsuit against Apple and five major publishers claiming the parties engaged in price fixing. The lawsuit says prices of new ebooks have increased an average of 33 to 50% as a result. | | |
Ignoring new business models | |
<
< | The music industry's answer to piracy was to force individual pirates through the legal system. Although these scare tactics worked on some probable offenders, threat of legal sanction did not stop the overall problem - the music industry continued its decline. It has taken ten years for new business models to gain traction, but the industry is finally understanding consumer needs. For example, some copyright owners now allow their content to remain on YouTube? and generate revenue from advertising. Further, music label contracts, known as 360 deals, now take into account other revenue streams including touring, merchandise sales, song publishing, and sponsorships. Although these deals are unfortunate from the musician's perspective, they are a recognition that traditional revenue models are no longer sufficient in an internet society. | >
> | The music industry's answer to piracy was to force individual pirates through the legal system. Although these scare tactics worked on some probable offenders, threat of legal sanction did not stop the overall problem - the music industry continued its decline. It has taken ten years for new business models to gain traction, but the industry is finally understanding consumer needs. For example, some copyright owners now allow their content to remain on YouTube? and generate revenue from advertising. Further, new music label contracts, known as 360 deals, take into account other revenue streams including touring, merchandise sales, song publishing, and sponsorships to account for decreased music sales. Although these deals are unfortunate from the musician's perspective, they are a recognition that traditional revenue models are no longer sufficient in an internet society. | | | | |
<
< | Similarly, traditional approaches to publishing will not survive in the internet society. Publishers appear to understand this evolution in some instances, but ignore it at their convenience. For instance, publishers restrict ownership rights of e-books in ways print books are not - one cannot sell, donate, or lend endlessly a purchased e-book. This behavior is a response to the realities of the internet society. However, publishers have so far failed to embrace the benefits of the online community. For example, publishers point to high editorial costs as a reason for high e-book prices. Yet Wikipedia is a perfect example of an alternative to traditional editorial approaches. This is not to say publishers can or should rely on online users to edit their e-books to cut costs, but if their current costs of e-book publication are the same as for print, publishers are not innovating or seeking improved efficiencies as they should be. And the longer they wait to evolve, the more likely the market will force them to change through Napsterization. | >
> | Similarly, traditional approaches to publishing will not survive in the internet society. Publishers appear to understand this evolution in some instances, but ignore it at their convenience. For instance, electronic publishers (e-publishers) restrict ownership rights of ebooks in ways print books are not - one cannot sell, donate, or lend endlessly a purchased ebook. This behavior is a response to the realities of the internet society. However, e-publishers have so far failed to embrace the benefits of the online community. For example, e-publishers point to high editorial costs as a reason for high ebook prices. Yet Wikipedia is a perfect example of an alternative to traditional editorial approaches. This is not to say e-publishers can or should rely on online users to edit their ebooks to cut costs, but if their current costs of ebook publication are the same as for print, e-publishers are not innovating or seeking improved efficiencies as they should be. The longer they wait to evolve, the more likely the market will force them to change through Napsterization. | | | New mistake: Earning the ire of librarians | |
<
< | Libraries, the original equalizer of access, could become a formidable opponent to publishers. Earlier this year, Harper Collins Publishers began restricting the use of library e-books - they now expire after being checked out 26 times. Once again, publishers address the influences of internet | >
> | Libraries, the original information equalizer, could become a formidable opponent to e-publishers. Earlier this year, Harper Collins Publishers began restricting the use of library ebooks, making them expire after 26 uses (26 library check-outs). Once again, e-publishers restrict traditional ownership rights and the restrictions seem arbitrary. Libraries already adhere to the "one user per copy" rule in order to mirror print book ownership, even though this is a fictitious limitation in the electronic world. To further restrict libraries' ability to share knowledge with its patrons is difficult to justify. Publishers argue an e-book cannot have perpetual ownership because print books deteriorate over time, while e-books retain consistent quality. But if any group should benefit from technological advances, should it not be libraries? These are entities promoting literacy and creativity, rather than seeking profits. And with ever-present budget cuts, having to replace "deteriorated" ebooks makes Napsterization a fitting response to an industry preventing the spread of knowledge from traditional channels. | | | | |
<
< | Law Takes a Backseat | >
> | Pirating Books is Ethical | | | ETHICS
Subsection B |
|
|
SylviaDuranFirstPaper 2 - 24 Oct 2011 - Main.SylviaDuran
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
NOT READY FOR REVIEW | | | Just as the printing press was credited with the democratization of knowledge, the electronic book (e-book) has the potential to spread information more efficiently and affordably than ever before. However, publishers’ fear of the Napsterization of their industry has stalled the e-book revolution. This fear is not entirely unreasonable as evidenced by the music industry’s alleged billion dollar losses attributable to peer-to-peer networks. But unlike the music industry, e-book publishers carry an additional responsibility to society – the dissemination of information, which is indispensable to the continued democratization of knowledge.
Critics of the music industry note the industry was slow to evolve so the market responded with peer-to-peer sharing. Publishers of e-books are now making similar mistakes and they are less forgivable the second time around. | |
<
< | Publishers use questionable pricing strategies
When the alternative is "free," e-book publishers hasten the retreat to piracy by engaging in questionable pricing strategies. Consumers express surprise and sometimes anger at current e-book prices as they often mirror print book prices. Consumers note they cannot donate, sell, or generally lend their purchased copies to other parties. In addition, the marginal cost of distributing e-books is much lower than print books. Publishers justify their pricing saying their fixed costs, such as marketing and editorial costs, constitute the bulk of their expenses. | >
> | New Industry, Same Mistakes
Implementing questionable pricing strategies
When the alternative is "free," e-book publishers hasten the retreat to piracy by engaging in questionable pricing strategies. Consumers express surprise and sometimes anger at current e-book prices as they often mirror print book prices. Consumers note they cannot donate, sell, or generally lend their purchased copies to other parties. In addition, the marginal cost of producing and distributing e-books is much lower than print books. Publishers justify current pricing as a result of their fixed costs, such as marketing and editorial costs, which constitute the bulk of their expenses. Yet even assuming publishers' explanations are sincere, the perception that publishers are greedy and prices unfair remains. This perception has gained support from the recent class-action lawsuit against Apple and five major publishers claiming the parties engaged in price fixing. The lawsuit says prices of new e-books have increased an average of 33 to 50% as a result. | | | | |
>
> | Ignoring new business models
The music industry's answer to piracy was to force individual pirates through the legal system. Although these scare tactics worked on some probable offenders, threat of legal sanction did not stop the overall problem - the music industry continued its decline. It has taken ten years for new business models to gain traction, but the industry is finally understanding consumer needs. For example, some copyright owners now allow their content to remain on YouTube? and generate revenue from advertising. Further, music label contracts, known as 360 deals, now take into account other revenue streams including touring, merchandise sales, song publishing, and sponsorships. Although these deals are unfortunate from the musician's perspective, they are a recognition that traditional revenue models are no longer sufficient in an internet society. | | | | |
<
< | Notes: perception, music industry streaming programs, price fixing lawsuit | >
> | Similarly, traditional approaches to publishing will not survive in the internet society. Publishers appear to understand this evolution in some instances, but ignore it at their convenience. For instance, publishers restrict ownership rights of e-books in ways print books are not - one cannot sell, donate, or lend endlessly a purchased e-book. This behavior is a response to the realities of the internet society. However, publishers have so far failed to embrace the benefits of the online community. For example, publishers point to high editorial costs as a reason for high e-book prices. Yet Wikipedia is a perfect example of an alternative to traditional editorial approaches. This is not to say publishers can or should rely on online users to edit their e-books to cut costs, but if their current costs of e-book publication are the same as for print, publishers are not innovating or seeking improved efficiencies as they should be. And the longer they wait to evolve, the more likely the market will force them to change through Napsterization. | | | | |
<
< | Subsection A | >
> | New mistake: Earning the ire of librarians
Libraries, the original equalizer of access, could become a formidable opponent to publishers. Earlier this year, Harper Collins Publishers began restricting the use of library e-books - they now expire after being checked out 26 times. Once again, publishers address the influences of internet
Law Takes a Backseat
ETHICS
Subsection B | | |
Subsub 1 | | |
| |
<
< | # * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, SylviaDuran | >
> | # * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, SylviaDurans |
|
|
SylviaDuranFirstPaper 1 - 24 Oct 2011 - Main.SylviaDuran
|
|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
NOT READY FOR REVIEW
Continuing the Democratization of Knowledge through e-books
-- By SylviaDuran - 24 Oct 2011
Just as the printing press was credited with the democratization of knowledge, the electronic book (e-book) has the potential to spread information more efficiently and affordably than ever before. However, publishers’ fear of the Napsterization of their industry has stalled the e-book revolution. This fear is not entirely unreasonable as evidenced by the music industry’s alleged billion dollar losses attributable to peer-to-peer networks. But unlike the music industry, e-book publishers carry an additional responsibility to society – the dissemination of information, which is indispensable to the continued democratization of knowledge.
Critics of the music industry note the industry was slow to evolve so the market responded with peer-to-peer sharing. Publishers of e-books are now making similar mistakes and they are less forgivable the second time around.
Publishers use questionable pricing strategies
When the alternative is "free," e-book publishers hasten the retreat to piracy by engaging in questionable pricing strategies. Consumers express surprise and sometimes anger at current e-book prices as they often mirror print book prices. Consumers note they cannot donate, sell, or generally lend their purchased copies to other parties. In addition, the marginal cost of distributing e-books is much lower than print books. Publishers justify their pricing saying their fixed costs, such as marketing and editorial costs, constitute the bulk of their expenses.
Notes: perception, music industry streaming programs, price fixing lawsuit
Subsection A
Subsub 1
Subsection B
Subsub 1
Subsub 2
Section II
Subsection A
Subsection B
# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, SylviaDuran |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|