Slashdot Mirror
Sharing Doesn't Hurt
Freeptop writes "Here's a fun followup to an old slashdot article: Eric Flint just posted another Prime Palaver article on the Baen Free Library. In this article of his, he talks about the effects of posting his books for free on the library. Specifically, he uses his own royalty statements to show that sales for his books have gone up whenever he has made them available for free. As usual, Mr. Flint writes a well thought out article demonstrating the pointlessness of encrypting e-books, and this time, he has proof to back up his assumptions."
You provide your customers with a free, easy (and legal) way of previewing your products, and they feel compelled to buy them. Who would have thought?
Why? In most cases, simply because they don't really know anything about the writer and aren't willing to spend $7 to $28 just to experiment. So, they keep buying those authors they are familiar with.
But wait- that means that authors would have to start... writing better... what about... how come....? Pffft, all this "library" does is promote healthy competition and publicize good works by unknown authors, which effectively ruins the monopoly held by the big names in the business. So actually, this library with its free postings does lower sales... of works that aren't as good.
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
That unlike most consumer goods, like VCRs or portable radios, is that when you don't like them within 30 days you bring them back to the store and get a refund (most of the time). Sure, there's sometimes conditions, like you have to keep the box, but that's reasonable.
Why is this not true for books/cds/software, because they assume that you copied them. This is what needs to change. If I hear a song on the radio that I like, go and buy the CD and the whole rest of the CD sucks, then I should be able to bring it back to the store and get a refund.
Free Mac Mini
I mean, the sample size is pretty small - one book. It's promising to see this happening, but I hesitate to jump to the end result of "it works". Then again, that's books and the hot topic of discussion isn't about books.
Even if the music companies are lying about everything else music sales are down and the actual reasons people are giving is that they download their music for "free" now instead of buying it. Yes, I've seen the survey results from the inside.
I guess my point is that this probably doesn't apply to music.
Even if the music companies are lying about everything else music sales are down and the actual reasons people are giving is that they download their music for "free" now instead of buying it. Yes, I've seen the survey results from the inside.
Was "Because the music you industry slimeballs publish sucks ass" one of the survey options?
Just asking...
I am not a number! I am a man! And don't you
Think of all those textbooks you bought (or will buy) in college. How many of those would have you have laid out money for if you could have gotten them for free? I'll bet your answer wasn't "All of them".
This may work for a fraction of books that are written, but it won't work for all of them. And anyone who bases policy on ONE datapoint deserves the lynching they'll get when they're proved wrong.
My basic point is that this guy is getting free advertising by releasing the book for free, which is resulting in some more sales than he would have gotten if nobody had ever heard of him...But the situation is much different when you're talking about an established very well-known author..And the same goes for music. MP3s given away for free by small bands may increase their market..But does anyone hear Britney Spears for the first time on MP3 and think wow, that's great..lets go buy the album? Of course not..And the the RIAA/other publish associations know this, and will quickly discount this guy's story.
The only issue I have with this is that the vast majority of us have grown up buying books and CDs, so even when there are free digital versions available we still like the old physical copy. I'm not sure whether this will be true of future generations who will have grown up with digital versions and may not like the physical copy better. If that's the case, ten or twenty years from now all the arguments about file-trading being good for sales may no longer be true.
Bite the hand.
The fact that his sales have gone up when he makes his ebooks available for free should not be taken as a green light to pirate ebooks (or anything else.)
The copyright holders have the right to distribute their works as they see fit and it is not for consumers to decide the distribution method for them.
We should instead try to educate people. If there is a business model that allows one to give a product away and still make a descent living I'm sure that a lot of us would be interested.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Most people prefer the deadtree version, so they might download the e-book and see if they like it, but ultimately I think they buy the paper version to actually read it. This is different from CD's and DVD's since those you can enjoy listening and watching right after you download them. I know a lot of people buy the CD's they have downloaded if they like them, but I am also sure that there are many more who do not.
As an aside, I also think that most "unprofitable" artists, at least in music, actually are profitable - but only to the label and producer. The bookkeeping for production, distribution and advertisement inside of a major label is such that different parts of the label make profit on an album but these profits are listed as expenses incurred and thus while they make the record company a net profit, the amount after these "expenses" can be negative in the labels' balance sheet shown to the artist, leaving the artist literally penniless (sometimes owing 5 or 6 figure sums to the company) for the work they've done.
It is about profit. If the publishing industy (music, film, book) thought for a second that they could squeeze more profit from opening up their content (or not contolling it so much) they would be all over it like a wet blanket. Until it can be proven with hard evidence that they can, they will continue to try to contol the content any way they can.
my $0.02
Reading entire novels on your computer screen will never be as comfortable as curling up on the couch or bed.
People start reading Eric Flints books online, get tired of the computer screen, like the book and purchase it.
Then they comfortably read the book via the aforementioned places.
This won't work successfully for all medium like music as has already been demonstated.
The above post is an editorial, the poster cannot and will not be held responsible for all or in part for it's contents
Unlike a normal retailer, you know that they specialise in a specific genre (science fiction/fantasy). Hence the success rate of actually finding something (if you fit this segment) is actually quite high.
... some hint of the size (can be an ALTTEXT), and perhaps links to discussion forum (think if they come across a blockbuster like Nuromancer). As a personal plug, I would suggest people read Earth Web, there's some ideas on creating a market for ideas, putting monetary thresholds on accepting unknown email (they pay you to read it!), and blackmarketing in information. While the ideas are not particularly new, the way they are considered in a social setting does give some clues as to whether they would be accepted or not.
So what is their business? I would guess it is to specialise in a category and make their brand (trademark) imply a certain level of quality and endorsement. I know that when I go scanning along the book spines along store shelves, if I spot their symbol, I recognise what it means and take the time to read the jacket and guage the likelihood I would enjoy the rest of it.
People forget that one of the reason to read is to enjoy/explore/engage. Curl up in bed on a cold night with a favorite. Look for new ideas or a new prespective on life. Give a book to a friend to argue the issues. When the DRM or purchasing hassles get in the way of this, it merely increases the barriers to actually using their service.
I would suggest some improvements for their eBooks
LL
Books are simply different than music. Most Slashdot readers would love to have their music in MP3 (or OGG or whatever) format, but would NOT want to have all of their books in e-book format. Why? E-books are harder on the eyes to read, and this is a huge point. Your ears on the other hand can not tell the difference between the type of media music is recorded on (as long as the MP3 is a reasonable quality recording). So there is no value added by owning a CD over an MP3 copy, as there is with owning a paper book over an e-book.
So while I think his story is nice, it does not translate to a good reason to make music freely available online to increase sales.
Mark
just like music, this only holds true for works which would normally sell below a certain threshold.
the market rules for an unknown indie rock band are not the same as for metallica - the indie rock band will earn sales by exposure, metallica will lose them through pirating.
same mechanism, different results.
Indie rock lives! b-side!
Point well taken. There certainly is a difference between an artist offering up his/her works and having them forcibly taken.
However, this article points to the stupidity of the publishing industry (and by extension, the MPAA/RIAA)rather than the illegality of services like Napster.
File-sharing could be a boon to these guys if they would just pull their heads out of their asses. Rather than hurting sales, file sharing has been demonstrated to help it (small sample, but it's certainly far more evidence than the MPAA or RIAA can provide). Instead, they push for anti-copying legislation (CBDTPA).
It's just so pathetically ironic: in their attempts to stop piracy, they push more people into seeking illegal alternatives (who wants to pay $30 for a crippled CD when the good tracks are available online for free; no encryption is uncrackable).
And the very thing that they're fighting is the one thing that could save them. As I see it, the internet will leave them in the dust if they don't stop fighting it. Non-mainstream, quality artists will begin bypassing the MPAA/RIAA for internet alternatives. Then things will change.
Aw, hell, who am I kidding? A CBDTPA type-bill will pass, and free will equal illegal.
Extreme optimism and extreme pessimism in the same post? I better get my head checked, I may have schizophrenia,
-- If any of the above made sense, I assure it was purely by accident.
I hate to say it, but Flint lost billions of dollars by posting that book for free. Sure he made some money, but he would have made _so_ much more had he not posted the book in the Baen Library!
Wasn't this the RIAA's argument when the figures showed that CD sales were actually up during the time Napster was operating?
I love books a lot. I have more books than I have shelfspace for. They are crammed into every bit of spare space in three different rooms. My wife and daughter are just as bad. Actually, my wife is worse than me because she will buy the same book in two different languages.
Putting a book online will not prevent me from buying a real paper version of the book. It might get me interested in it enough to buy it.
As for Stephen King's experiment. He went about it the wrong way. Replacing a book with an electronic copy just isn't going to work. I can't lay in bed on a lazy Sunday afternoon and read an ebook. I can't bring it along when I'm going somewhere where I know there will be a wait (e.g. doctor's office) or when I go in that little room with so much privacy.
Sometimes I go through my shelves without anything in mind and run across a book I haven't read in years. It's like bumping into an old friend. You just don't get the same feeling browsing through a directory listing.
-- Will program for bandwidth
As a counter-point, I'd bring up Stephen King's experiment, where he allowed free download of his book and asked for a tiny donation in return. Very few of the people who downloaded the book paid for it and the project was scrapped.
Alright, let's look at the comparison:
Baen: Here, have these books for free. They're lesser known authors but we think that you'll enjoy them. Or if you want new titles, we have a pretty cheap subscription deal.
King: I'm going to try this e-book thing. Since my time is too valuable to just give the work away for free, I'm asking that you (after downloading the book) send me a tiny donation. You know, just a way of saying, "Thanks".
Sure, huge similarities there. One offers hassle-free books (or a $15/month subscription deal for "front list", new books) where what you get is either outright free or the traditional pay upfront, versus "oh if you like this inconvenience yourself to send me a buck". I'm sure that's similar enough that consumer preferences, such as wanting simplicity in the sale process won't distort your figures.
Think about it-- wasn't shareware a flash in the pan marketing method? As long as people could only easily trade files on SneakerNet, shareware piracy didn't get too bad. Nowadays though, the modern Internet makes it easy to distribute warez (what with P2P and easy to setup hhtp/ftp servers). And that's a fact every media format faces. Right now, most of them are arguing for stronger control. On the other hand, I'm quite glad to see Baen (literally) take the wind from the sails of those who argue that "piracy causes lost sales".
Do you like Japanese imports?
I tend to call this the DOOM model, since id used it for Wolfenstein/DOOM/Quake 1. Give away the first episode free, charge for the complete game (or in book terms series).
;)
Id is a company with annual revenues of over 1 million dollars per employee, so they must be doing something right.
Trying to draw parallels between free music and text publishing in relationship to weather they help or hurt sales is an apples to oranges situation.
On the surface, distributing pirated books should be a heck of a lot easier then music. The file size is small (espically in unformated plain text). There is a slightly more difficult situation of getting the printed page to electronic format, but a bored pirate with some OCR software and several hours to kill should be able to do it with little problem.
So, why is'nt anyone trading pirated books? Part of this has to do with a declining love of the medium found in the Internet generation. But I suspect more is found in the computers inability to translate media into an enjoyable format.
When I download a song I like, it's very easy to take the music, pump it to my stereo or burn it onto a CD, making the recording indistingusable from a purchased copy. A text file enjoys no such luxery. Lying on my couch reading off the screen of a laptop is just not as good as holding a book in my hand.
So, when somebody goes online and sees a free book they enjoy, the next logical step is to purchase the thing, because having an actual book format copy is better. There is little value added, other then album art/liner notes, and the knowledge you've done the right thing, by going out and purchasing music.
That having been said, I still think unrestricted free trade of music is a good thing, and helps the artists in the long run. I just don't see this article as being a credible argument for that.
The Internet is generally stupid
Avery
In his last apartment, the computer was in the living room. When the wife was on the couch reading a book, if he sat and watched TV, it was 'quality time'. If he sat and read, it was 'quality time'. If he sat and picked his nose... well you get the idea.
:)
The minute he went on the computer (generally doing things like reading and coding, things most people would consider at least a bit more useful and rewarding than the idiot box), she freaked.
I find this sort of antipathy towards computers is all too prevalent in our society. Then again, it's what keeps us in high demand, I suppose...
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
It has nothing to do with obligation/guilt/insert silly reason here.
People have been able to copy music for decades now. Yet, we still buy original LPs/cassettes/CDs. Why? Because our society has us convinced that there is some sort of value in the 'official' product.
Everyone always comes up with 'recording onto tape loses quality', but come on now - how many of you recorded songs off the radio, just because it was convenient? Sure, the quality sucks, hell, off the radio you miss parts of the song while DJs yack, but people STILL DO THIS. And they STILL BUY CDS. Why?
You can record damn near any movie off of cable/satellite. Yet movie sales keep breaking records. Why?
I doubt it's strictly a quality issue - many non-audio/videophiles have rather shitty playback equipment, it's all the same to them. And if it's all about quality, why would anyone in their right mind use mp3/DivX/VCD?
Fact is, we place a very high value (monetary and otherwise) on 'official' products. Hell, why do you think so many people are so anal about track order for ripped CDs? Does the order of songs matter? Other than for an album like The Wall, I don't see why anyone would care, other than 'This is how the OFFICIAL album goes, therefore I HAVE to have my copy the same'.
Liner notes (or whatever you call the inserts into CD cases), pics of the band, whatever little bit of info you find in a CD... fact is, people have always considered the real thing to have a lot of value, no matter how cheap they can get a copy. Sometimes it's purely for the status symbol of "I own 200 DVDs", which is a lot of the general population.
Let's face it - if people actually cared about the quality of the information, and not moreso the medium, Britney Spears et al wouldn't be anywhere near as popular as they are.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Just because you see them on MTV or hear them on the radio doesn't mean they're not slaves to their record contract, and the threat of being sued for trying to get out of the contract weighs over their heads.
The whole record industry, movie industry, copyright/trademark/intellectual property law industry is dirty, and needs a really healthy washing.
My fear is that soon the SSSCA/CBDTPA or a similar law will be passed, and free will be illegal. "If you didn't pay for it, you must be breaking the law, because we have to make money on everything you do!"