Novelist Blames Piracy On Open Source Culture

What do you expect. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-02 02:38 · Score: 3, Funny

from someone that doesn't understand technology?

Re:What do you expect. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-02 03:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

(CNNNN) -- When Dan Brown's blockbuster novel "The Lost Symbol" hit stores in September, it may have offered a peek at the future of bookselling.
On Amazon.com, the book sold more digital copies for the Kindle e-reader in its first few days than hardback editions. This was seen as something of a paradigm shift in the publishing industry, but it also may have come at a cost.
Less than 24 hours after its release, printed paperback copies of the novel were found in library sites such as the New Your public library. Within days, it had been read for free more than 100,000 times.
Library loans, long confined to books, are spreading to music and movies. And as electronic reading devices such as Amazon's Kindle, the Sony Reader, Barnes & Noble's Nook, smartphones and Apple's much-anticipated "tablet" boost demand for books, experts say the problem may only get worse.
"It's fair to say that loaning of books is exploding," said Dilbert Drongo, an industry expert and professor of marketing at Fordham University.
Sales for library books in the second quarter of 2009 totaled almost $37 million. That's more than three times the total for the same three months in 2008, according to the Association of American Publishers (AAP).
Statistics are hard to come by, and many publishers are reluctant to discuss the subject for fear of encouraging more libraries. But library loans may pose a big headache in 2010 for the slumping publishing industry, which relies increasingly on electronic reading devices and e-books to stimulate sales.
"Libraries are a serious issue for publishers," said Carnt Hakkit Book Group in a statement. The company that publishes Stephenie Meyer's wildly popular "Twilight" teen-vampire series says it "considers copyright protection to be of paramount importance."
Authors are concerned as well.
"I'd be really worried if I were Stephen King or James Patterson or a really big bestseller that when their books become completely lendable, how easy it's going to be to loan them," said novelist and poet Sherman Dyslexie on Stephen Colbert's show last month.
"With the open-door culture of the Library, the idea of ownership -- of artistic ownership -- goes away," Dyslexie added. "It terrifies me."
And it's not just bestsellers that are targeted by librarians.
"Textbooks are frequently loaned, but so are many other categories," said Ed McCoyd, director of dubious policy at AAP. "We see shelving of professional content, such as medical books and technical guides; we see a lot of general fiction and non-fiction. So it really runs the gamut."
Lending of music, thanks to cassette, CDs and other devices, has been a threat to recording companies for more than a decade. Over the years, the record companies tried different approaches to combat library loaning, from shutting down free publicity to encrypting songs with digital-rights management software to suing individual customers.
Although legal lending of music persists, Apple's online iTunes store is now the world's biggest seller of music.
To some industry observers, this may be where the future of the book industry is heading as well. But talk to publishers and authors about what can be done to combat libraries, and you'll get a wide range of opinions.
Some publishers may try to minimize lending by delaying releases of books for several weeks after digital copies go on sale. Simon & Schuster recently did just that with Snorkel King's novel, "Under the Aquadome," although the publisher says the decision was made to prevent cheaper e-versions from cannibalizing hardcover sales.
Some authors have even gone as far as to shrug off physical book technology altogether. J.K. Pot has thus far refused to make any of her Hairy Porter books available physically because of library fears and a desire to see readers experience her books in pixels.
However, some evidence suggests that authors' and publishers' claims of damage from libraries may be overstated.
Recent statistics
Re:What do you expect. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-02 03:36 · Score: 5, Interesting

It is worse than that -- the person in question doesn't even know what is happening in his own profession. From TFA,

"I'd be really worried if I were Stephen King..."

Stephen King has already released a no-DRM ebook and made a lot of money from it, by releasing it piece by piece and requiring a certain minimum number of paid downloads before the next part of the story is released; this was discontinued because King himself could not figure out where to take the story. Perhaps if these people spent less time whining about how their fans are not paying their publishers, they could be more aware of how the Internet can change things and how they can use computers to publish their stories in new ways, connect with their fans, and provide their books to more people.
Re:What do you expect. by Opportunist · 2010-01-02 03:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

From a writer who has no idea how technology works you can expect kickass cyberpunk books! If, and only if, he has a good imagination.
If your books don't sell, don't blame piracy. Blame the books.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:What do you expect. by Dan541 · 2010-01-02 03:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's standard routine. If your business fails blame someone else.

--
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
Re:What do you expect. by ISoldat53 · 2010-01-02 04:31 · Score: 4, Funny

When has Stephen King ever known where to take a story? Life's too short to read King.
Re:What do you expect. by Darkness404 · 2010-01-02 04:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

There are a lot of code writers. A lot of bloggers. A lot of people who may remix music. Yeah, there aren't many people painting paintings here, but theres a lot of people with pretty good Photoshop skills. Yeah, Stephanie Meyer might not have a Slashdot account, but I guarantee you that the average /.er ends up writing as much as she does in blogs, comments, etc. Yeah, we might not have many people from bands, but we do have remixers, those who do parodies and a pretty high percentage of music fans.

And guess what? A successful author caters to their fans, a successful band will do the same. Guess what? While you in IT might not want to admit it, those are your end users and you should take their advice because they end up using the systems. Yeah, there is the occasional stupid suggestion (what if we stayed with the exact same software and never upgraded because I don't like using the newer version of our e-mail account and browser) but occasionally you realize that something you, as a geek, thought was a good idea that the masses don't like and a good developer fixes that.

--
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Re:What do you expect. by Dun+Malg · 2010-01-02 04:50 · Score: 2, Informative

Yeah, he should have just plucked out a few eyeballs, set someone on fire, and had the hero end up with the girl and be done with it. Writing Are Eezy!

But I must credit the man with having a better grasp of the craft of writing in the English language than Dan Brown.

--
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Re:What do you expect. by Monkeyboy4 · 2010-01-02 04:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

There are very few if any full time artists/writers/musicians on this website, and they are not well represented here.
Do they need to be? It's not like writers/artists/musicians are traditionally known for understanding the business of publishing music/art/literature. They just know how the system screws them.
Let's see - the artists feel screwed. The purchaser feels screwed. Hmm... maybe the distributes are screwing both of them in order to squeeze money out of both ends?
Re:What do you expect. by Nazlfrag · 2010-01-02 05:10 · Score: 2, Funny

We've all read the Art of Programming, and are therefore all artists. Q.E.D.
Re:What do you expect. by SETIGuy · 2010-01-02 05:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

The disdain of publishers for libraries is well known. It's been well known that the recording industry and movie studios have been trying to prevent libraries from lending their works. The book and magazine publishers would love to go to a "pay per read" model. A library only buys a book once and lets as many people read it as want to. That's clearly theft of copyrighted material. The idea that you can go read a 3 year old copy of "People" in your dentists office without paying for it amounts to communism.
This is all old news.

--
Support SETI@home
Re:What do you expect. by msclrhd · 2010-01-02 05:40 · Score: 3, Informative

What makes you say that people aren't willing to pay for books, music and films?
Yes, e-books are gaining popularity now that the technology is becoming more portable and easier. This just means that it is easier for some/most people than carrying around/keeping shelves worth of books (compare how much space a season of TV takes up when comparing VHS and DVD).
Yes, because it is digital it is easier to copy. But what about the people scanning print books to create digital versions of them (legitimately for out of copyright works on sites like guttenberg, or illegally)?
Pirates will be pirates.
You say how do people make their money, but lets think about this...
* 2009 is the first time that films in cinemas have grossed over $10 billion!
* 2008's The Dark Knight made over $500 million in the US and over $1 billion worldwide. [1]
* Avatar has the second biggest opening week performance, below The Dark Knight, and is well set to becoming the 5th film to earn over $1 billion worldwide (Titanic [1997], Lord of * the Rings: Return of the King [2003], Pirates of the Carribean: Dead Man's Chest [2006], The Dark Knight [2008]) -- all when piracy is supposed to be killing the movie industry. [1]
* Then there are runaway indie hits like Paranormal Activity ($107 miilion for a $15 thousand budget!) [3]
For music and books, i don't know what the figures are, but:
* Nine Inch Nails released an album for $4 or $5 (with limited edition versions for a lot more that sold out very quickly) and as a thank you released an album for free under the creative commons license, giving you permission to rework and remix it how you want
* Sandie Thom's career was launched via a webcast
* Various artists (such as Helen Austen, Poko Lambro and Lizzie Hibbert) are using YouTube and MySpace to help promote themselves as well as performing in pubs and bars, allowing them to gain a wider fan base
* The internet and the digital age are helping authors and musicians reach a wider audience (I like a lot of German music artists) -- especially new and upcoming authors and artists (I read quite a bit of internet fiction and buy some of their work where possible as a thank you)
* Self-publishing sites such as lulu.com are helping would-be authors publish their own work
The digital book formats are helping would-be authors publish their own works.
As for advertising, why would I want to have that take up space on a website I am viewing, be forced to watch it on the DVDs I own or have to be interrupted while watching a TV program or film with annoying adverts (Sheila's Wheels, anyone!). If the solution is to put advertising in the middle of electronic books for any of the new books from major publishers, then count me out (same with DRM).
And before you ask, I buy CDs, DVDs and books (but will be buying more electronic books in the future).
[1] http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/#alltime
[2] http://www.movienewsmovietrailers.com/hollywood-breaks-box-office-records-in-2009/90348
[3] http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=paranormalactivity.htm
Re:What do you expect. by SETIGuy · 2010-01-02 05:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm talking about people who write books, write or make music, movies, etc. If you have a family or want a life or good health you can't spend your time on the road touring nor can you afford to spend all your free time producing content for which you earn little income.
You are ignoring the basic fact that most people who write books and write or make music don't make a living doing it. I know a lot of people who do that. The same is becoming true of movies. We all know examples in music, so I won't relate them. I'm sure we all have co-workers who are part time musicians.
An example from book publishing, I once met an author who was in the process of getting her fourth SF/Fantasy novel published. I had noticed a couple of her previous book while browsing at Barnes and Noble. When I met her she was working as a part time secretary for a professor. None of her novels had resulted in what could be considered a full time salary for any length of time. Yet her publisher was still publishing them, and she was still writing them.
I have a friend who spent a significant part of his net worth making a movie and trying (mostly unsuccessfully) to get it shown at major film festivals.
I have a friend who paints, and tries to sell his paintings online, for about $2500 a piece. He maybe sells one a year.
So stop with the "I've gotta make a living at writing/making music/making movies" crap. Most of the people who write/make music/make movies would do it even if there weren't going to be a big paycheck, because most of them don't get a big paycheck anyway. Even with established artists (with rare exceptions) once the publisher has their cut, there's never much left for the artist.

--
Support SETI@home
Re:What do you expect. by winwar · 2010-01-02 07:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Your statement that "most of the people" would do it event if there wasn't going to be a "big paycheck" misses the point unless you think a "big paycheck" is $80 to 100 grand a year. It's not."
For most people in most places that IS a big paycheck.
You assume that piracy is a threat to these people. That is not a valid assumption.
"You also don't account for the drop in production and quality that occurs when you have to spend 40 to 50 hours a week in your day job to make ends meet."
Then they probably weren't that good to begin with. Just because you are passionate or have fans doesn't mean you have marketable talent. Life kind of sucks that way. Hobbies are things you like to do that cost you money. Otherwise they would be your profession. On the other hand, maybe they have the passion and talent and just need to be seen and heard. Piracy might just be the ticket....
Re:What do you expect. by _Sprocket_ · 2010-01-02 07:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

Your logic escapes me. I understand technology very well and I understand his concern. Piracy is much easier and cheaper in a digital world than in a print world. It is a threat to the business of content creators (authors) and their publishers. Ads won't pay the bills. All the clowns on this site who think people should or can work for free or a pittance need to get of their mommas' basements and try to support a family.
Aren't those clowns called authors? Not every author has best-seller credentials backing their latest project. And, consequently, there are some seriously lean times ahead of any new author - even some established authors. Yet we still have authors writing despite the uncertain economics of it all.
How much of a threat "piracy" represents is very much up to debate. But clearly the quoted author has no concept of the technology - right down to naming "open-source". They're full of fear for a mystery that they have no insight or understanding. The author offers no insight that uncovers that mystery as a boogie-man or real threat.
The problem is that content industry representatives see every case of copyright infringement as a lost sale. So while there are statistics that show quite decent sales figures, the industry reps focus on "loss sales" and paint a picture of doom and gloom.
With said doom and gloom on the horizon, authors are spooked. J.K. Rowling avoids eBooks because of this fear. Yet I have a digital facsimile of every one of her Harry Potter series. I also have the entire collection in hardback on shelves but the digital (DRM free) files are much easier to carry around and read. I suppose she's doomed. But does she has the publishing industry or people like me to thank for it?
Book authors are yet another content producer being dragged in to the digital age. I doubt they're going the way of the buggy whip manufacturers. But individual publishing houses might. The question is, will they drag their feet like the music industry has for the past millennium or will they look forward and figure out how to gracefully make that transition and start making money?
Re:What do you expect. by mqduck · 2010-01-02 08:27 · Score: 4, Interesting

I think he clearly understands it quite well, or at least its sociological effect. The concept of "artistic ownership" is an unfortunate consequence of an economic system that commidifies everything, even ideas. Open source represents something outside of capitalist production, producing for use value instead of exchange value.
Open source culture has indeed spread the idea that ideas shouldn't be treated like property, and should be proud that it demonstrates an alternative.

--
Property is theft.
Re:What do you expect. by jedidiah · 2010-01-02 08:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

> Your few friends and acquaintances are not proof of anything and they don't refute what I wrote.
Ok. Then take 99% of the guests at any sci-fi convention or any other literary convention.
Any well informed "fan" knows the idea of the blockbuster author is a myth. It's the top of a
very large pyramid with most of the actual talent being on the bottom like slaves.
Expansive copyright primarily benefits large corporations rather than the talent.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:What do you expect. by ffreeloader · 2010-01-02 12:23 · Score: 2, Interesting

standard slashdot routine, meanwhile, is to help yourself to everyone else's work.
If you expect content to be made, expect someone else to pay for it. Not you, you are special, you are born with the inate write to take for free what everyone else has to pay for to make your life special.
Such is the self-entitlement sleazebag attitude of the slashdot leech.
An overgrown sense of entitlement is pervasive in our society, not a /. phenomenon. It's been taught for decades in our educational systems and through all forms of media.

--
"while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
Re:What do you expect. by CodeBuster · 2010-01-02 12:24 · Score: 2, Funny

Stephen King? Isn't he dead?

Poor broadband on the Rez? by smchris · 2010-01-02 02:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

Wikipedia says much of his writing comes from his experiences growing up on the rez. Maybe a talk with Cory Doctorow would change his mind.

Re:Poor broadband on the Rez? by brianeisley · 2010-01-02 04:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

Agreed. First thing I thought when I read this was that he needed to talk to Cory Doctorow.
However, Doctorow told me when I met him that he'd publicly debated another copyright zealot, Harlan Ellison, and it didn't go well at all. Although that may just have been because of Harlan being his usual Harlan self.
b.

No shit. Duh. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-02 02:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

Maybe if the consumer didn't feel ripped off, exploited, and raped by every business and company they have to deal with we'd be more receptive and less possessive of whatever goods we happen to come across. Half the damn stuff in my house I don't really own, I license or lease or rent it or whatever. Damn right I like the idea of open source and control.

BZZZZT WRONG by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-02 02:41 · Score: 3, Interesting

Almost every aspect of open source/creative commons etc. requires attribution, and even pirates don't bother removing credits. Your 'artistic ownership' goes nowhere.

Re:BZZZZT WRONG by TechForensics · 2010-01-02 03:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

Almost every aspect of open source/creative commons etc. requires attribution, and even pirates don't bother removing credits. Your 'artistic ownership' goes nowhere.
However, his royalties may. Sooner or later we will have to consider, as a culture, what to do if established authors, and promising young authors, decide to abandon writing because too many freeloaders reduce author profits below subsistence. I'm not talking about the **AAs, I'm talking about individual authors who may have contracts with reputable publishing houses that do not insist on exploitive relationships. And what about the psychological deterrent to creativity? JK Rowling wrote the first Harry Potter book in desperation on welfare. Might she have done so if she believed her work would be distributed freely without any compensation to her?
Do we want promising youths to avoid careers in writing because online distribution has hurt profitability? Would J.D. Salinger, John Updike, Norman Mailer have enriched our lives if they needed other jobs? And Robert Heinlein said that many of his stories were written "to buy groceries".
Without some requirement to pay for books, would enough people do so?
Since a large part of the US's trade brings our nation income from royalties on Hollywood movies, is it possible we need to make sure what we produce has value in the world market to improve our balance of trade and thereby reduce inflation and unemployment? Of course the answer is yes-- so maybe the question we should be asking is how to puncture the evil media conglomerates (like the **AAs) to make sure the wealth from our nation's creative minds does not unduly concentrate wealth and power.
I say we are in danger of devaluing books, for instance, to the point of discouraging authors-- and harming our entire nation by stripping the value from music and movies simply because we want the money we pay to be distributed more fairly to the creators. We should not fight to keep online distribution free unless we also fight to create new systems of direct compensation to authors and not to middlemen.
But what about the harm to books and to the confidence of new authors happening RIGHT NOW.... what do we do BEFORE we have a system of direct compensation in place?

--
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
Re:BZZZZT WRONG by betterunixthanunix · 2010-01-02 04:10 · Score: 4, Informative

"Sooner or later we will have to consider, as a culture, what to do if established authors, and promising young authors, decide to abandon writing because too many freeloaders reduce author profits below subsistence."

Except that will not happen. Stephen King already demonstrated a tactic for turning a profit on eBooks: serial releases. Perhaps some day, instead of releasing entire novels, authors will release single chapters, wait until enough people have paid, and then release the next chapter, and so forth, until the entire novel is complete. The "publishing industry" may come to mean systems that automate this process, perhaps even online communities where readers not only pay authors but also communicate with the authors and with each other, commenting about the stories and characters.

Of course, that is not the picture that the current publishing industry wishes to paint, since it means the demise of their current business model and way of life. They will tell us that unless they continue to yield growing profits, authors will not write anything and we will be left without great novels to read, textbooks to study, or any number of other printed media.

"But what about the harm to books and to the confidence of new authors happening RIGHT NOW.... what do we do BEFORE we have a system of direct compensation in place?"

Educate new authors about direct compensation, discuss what Stephen King tried, and start building those direct compensation systems and online communities for authors and their fans. Such communities already exist for illegal books, missing only the payment component, so I think it is fair to assume that a community for legal books, complete with a payment system, would be successful. All that is needed is for a few great authors to try it out, to release good stories that people will pay to have revealed, and new authors will start trying it for themselves. We already have the technology necessary to start building such communities, it just has not been combined into a coherent system yet.

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:BZZZZT WRONG by Darkness404 · 2010-01-02 05:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

However, his royalties may. Sooner or later we will have to consider, as a culture, what to do if established authors, and promising young authors, decide to abandon writing because too many freeloaders reduce author profits below subsistence. I'm not talking about the **AAs, I'm talking about individual authors who may have contracts with reputable publishing houses that do not insist on exploitive relationships. And what about the psychological deterrent to creativity? JK Rowling wrote the first Harry Potter book in desperation on welfare. Might she have done so if she believed her work would be distributed freely without any compensation to her?
The writers need to adapt. Back in the 1800s, hugely successful authors like Charles Dickens used serials to captivate audiences. Each person needed to buy each issue of the magazine to continue reading the story, and later it would be published in a book if it was a success. Today, that is relatively rare in traditional publishing, though it does still happen with manga.

Perhaps established writers can do what Stephen King did when he distributed an e-book, he would release a new part after certain sales were met. Or perhaps they can sell chapters to put on various profitable blogs. Perhaps they can release things in blogs themselves.

For every story about an author not making enough money on a book, there are ten more examples to counteract it. The creator of XKCD survives only on XKCD merchandise. And XKCD is marketed exclusively to open source culture. The comic itself isn't updated daily, and theres no ads on the page. Sounds like a recipe for failure right? No, because people liked it, it survived. Surely then the tale of Homestar Runner would be one that ends in failure as they are all hard-to-do Flash animations with lots of bandwidth, yet the creators still make a living, still make new cartoons and recently released several video games based on it. All this while no ads on the page. There are many other sites that make a living for the author, User Friendly, CTRL+ALT+DEL, MegaTokyo, and Penny Arcade and more all make a living for their authors.

Do we want promising youths to avoid careers in writing because online distribution has hurt profitability? Would J.D. Salinger, John Updike, Norman Mailer have enriched our lives if they needed other jobs? And Robert Heinlein said that many of his stories were written "to buy groceries".
Promising youths are not going to avoid careers in writing because now publishing is free. Look at teenage blogs sometime and you will see more poetry than in an English class, stories, etc. If they write something and the community likes it, the community will sustain it.

Without some requirement to pay for books, would enough people do so?
There is always going to be a market for physical books. Now, 10 years from now, 100 years from now. Its not going anywhere. And those are physical things and can't be duplicated for free.

Since a large part of the US's trade brings our nation income from royalties on Hollywood movies, is it possible we need to make sure what we produce has value in the world market to improve our balance of trade and thereby reduce inflation and unemployment? Of course the answer is yes-- so maybe the question we should be asking is how to puncture the evil media conglomerates (like the **AAs) to make sure the wealth from our nation's creative minds does not unduly concentrate wealth and power.
You are just like the RIAA. You see a -possible- reduction in sales, ignore history and ignore people who don't fit your definition and make a flawed conclusion. A) Before there was any copyright people wrote B) Today, people can release content for free, without ads and still make a living C) E-Books and online publishing increase the amount of writers because it costs no money to get them published and you keep your rights.

--
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Re:BZZZZT WRONG by Udigs · 2010-01-02 05:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

But seriously... how did "artists" survive before copyright? How did the renaissance get going? Who said that shitty writers had a human right to earn a fortune from derivative novels at the expense of draconian laws and computers that are locked down to prevent even the most basic control by their owner? Huh? Huh?
The MARKET determines what is shitty or not, not you. And guess what, "shitty" doesn't mean "not good." It means people don't want/like it. It could be the most brilliant thing in the world. You didn't like Harry Potter? So what? Millions of other people did. So yes, if millions of people are reading/enjoying my work, you'd better believe I have a right to make a living off of that.
Re:BZZZZT WRONG by adarn · 2010-01-02 05:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

A real artist makes art because they have to.
The world may wind up losing out on some vapid entertainment (the aforementioned Harry Potter) but real artists will continue to make art and will continue to eek out livings by doing so.
Re:BZZZZT WRONG by arose · 2010-01-02 05:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

The MARKET determines what is shitty or not, not you.
'The MARKET' does not have copyright, if you want to argue about 'the MARKET', pick a field that doesn't have government protected monopolies.

--
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Re:BZZZZT WRONG by BrokenHalo · 2010-01-02 06:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's starting to look like that being an artist (of any kind) is no longer a job.

It never was if your work was only ever mediocre. Millions, or perhaps billions of books, musical works, paintings and recordings have been made during the course of mankind's history, but of those only a comparative few will ever be of interest to future generations. Every so often, a musicologist (say) might unearth some gem from a few hundred years ago, but a lot of such work remains unplayed simply because it is of little interest.

Being an artist is only a viable job if you're good at it: there's no substitute for talent.
Re:BZZZZT WRONG by gilgongo · 2010-01-02 06:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

But what about the harm to books and to the confidence of new authors happening RIGHT NOW.... what do we do BEFORE we have a system of direct compensation in place?
Oh, Cry me a river. Really - if 80% of all the authors producing today simply stopped, would anyone notice? This hugely precious literary ecosystem you seem to speak of doesn't and has never existed - it's a figment of a money-grubbing, Disneyfied publishing industry.
Ever been in the fiction section of a bookshop in the last 75 years? Almost all of what's on the shelves is deriviative garbage published by a miniscule number of gatekeepers desperate to reproduce the last blockbuster than sold more than 10,000. JK Rowling?? Without too much subjectivity, JK Rowlings books are complete shit! Fiction publication is like music publication: for every vapid block-buster there are literally thousands of similar works (some arguably far better) that barely sell much over a couple of thousand copies in their entire print runs despite ridiculous marketing efforts.
Meanwhile, really worthwhile books will always get written because the energies of art and intellectual freedom will always far outweigh trivial economic consideration. For one thing, what do you think authors did before the perpetual copyright we have today? Do nobody bother to write books before 1850?
The time is ripe for change. Piracy will decimate the money-grubbing, Disneyfied publishing industry and not a moment too soon. Don't fancy making tuppence from your pipsqueak idea for a murder mystery? Get a proper job!

--
"And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
Re:BZZZZT WRONG by man_of_mr_e · 2010-01-02 08:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

That's a strawman, and you know it. Yes, you can sell open source software, but only an idiot buys it without some kind of added value (like technical support). What kind of added value can an author of an ebook offer that would compel someone to buy it? None.
Simple fact is, the open source model doesn't apply to other creative works because there isn't the opportunity for side revenue.

--
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Re:BZZZZT WRONG by Sal+Zeta · 2010-01-02 11:17 · Score: 2, Informative

Right, so books end up being ruined like this. No thanks.
Well, considering that most of the books and novels written during the eighteenth and nineteenth century were published as serialized on journal in a similar fashion ( stuff like Ulysses and most of the novels by Poe; not just "pulp" stories) , It's debatable the idea of "dilution" or otherwise worsening of published contents if they were published this way.
Re:BZZZZT WRONG by tftp · 2010-01-02 14:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

Ummm.. How exactly do I as the author of a book make money by allowing you to write fan fiction and freely copy my work?
First of all, "copying of your work" is not involved here; fanfic writers build on top of it. So your nice story about adventures of Lagrumar and Meleanne (who, of course, got accidentally teleported onto a planet of robots) will not be touched - you wrote it, and nobody can change what you wrote.
Now consider your protagonists and the universe that you developed. As a businessman you can leave it all to yourself, and possibly write a few more novels in that setting. Chances are, it will take you a few years, and there will be some serious disconnect between the Book 1 and the Book 2 because there is nothing to bridge the gap, to keep the interest going. It is also frustrating for the reader to encounter loose ends that you never had a chance to work out ("where did Evilron go, and what prevented him from stopping Lagrumar on the Bridge of Destiny?") By the time your second book is out the mystery of the first story is largely forgotten.
So cultivation of the fan base, using whatever makes them happy, helps you too. First, you have a chance to follow up on side stories and minor protagonists that you would never do yourself. This is often the case with fanfic set in Star Wars or ST universes - filling the gaps. Most of ST fanfic, for example, is underground, unauthorized, and you take your chances when you read it - much of it is awful. If, however, you, as the author, have some influence over the writers, you can help those who can write, and you have a good chance to convince the rest of budding writers to either do something harmless instead, or to write what they can write. Instead of War and Peace, for example, they can try themselves with a short story of a lone soldier in one battle of that war.
All that adds to your customer base, increases your presence among the readers, increases the number of books set in your universes (mostly through the free labor of your fans) and makes your chances of landing another contract much better. This is only my humble proposal, of course, and I am only dealing with one specific question - how to add value to books.
Re:BZZZZT WRONG by MacWiz · 2010-01-02 20:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

I was with you all the way to the last sentence -- Get a proper job!
What exactly is a "proper" job? One where you go to work every day for minimum wage, doing the same thing over and over and over, hating the job and the paltry contents of the pay envelope at the end of the week? Do you have a "proper" job that doesn't involve a money-grubbing corporation of some sort and isn't solely in the pursuit of money?
And to play devil's advocate for a moment, what if everyone listened to your advice? Everyone gets a "proper" job, leaving no one to make new movies, music, video games, television shows or books. What do you do after work when our culture disappears? How do you entertain yourself? What do you do for fun?
You say that if 80% of authors stopped writing, no one will notice. This seems to assume that the good ones aren't motivated by money and only the mediocre talent wants to get paid. Look around. That's not real life.
Besides, would we really rather have Stephen King working down at the local hardware store? Would the world be a better place if Charles Dickens had joined the military or been a banker instead of writing stories? Edgar Allen Poe tried the military, but failed to get through West Point. Should we put Bob Dylan in a telemarketer job? Willie Nelson could be a WalMart greeter. Springsteen could probably get elected governor of New Jersey. Pete Dougherty and Amy Winefeld maybe could run a day-care center. Samuel L. Jackson could be a great car salesman, but don't even think about trying to get him to come down on the price. Yeah, proper jobs for all.
There's enough literary playground in that concept for a good book. At least a comedy film. I'd go direct to DVD, though, because it might only be funny for one or two viewings.
But what about the harm to books and to the confidence of new authors happening RIGHT NOW.... what do we do BEFORE we have a system of direct compensation in place?
The question was not about the "money-grubbing, Disneyfied publishing industry," it's about how to keep the authors writing without the need for publishers. "Get a haircut and get a real job" was an insult when George Thoroughgood wrote a song about it and it still is. Do you decide the 20% that shouldn't get a proper job? Or is Simon Cowell to remain the global arbiter of that? If so, I'd rather wade through the other 80 percent in search of something that rocks a bit more than the sticky-sweet pop parade he puts on.
As for the original article, railing against dear old Ben Franklin's public library system because people can read your books for free is even more ludicrous than the RIAA's campaign of stupid. There's more to a library than just the fiction section. You can't copy things at a library. You can borrow one physical copy of a book to read it, but only one person at a time can access its contents. Still, hundreds of people may read one particular copy.
While I'm willing to take chances at the library, I'm not going to buy a book from an author whose work I have never read. Similarly, I'm not going to buy music I've never heard.
And a last thought on all of this is that the only people complaining about the internet (or the library) are those whose success and popularity may be directly attributed to it.

When you don't understand something... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-02 02:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's simple: don't offer your unfounded opinion.

Clearly people pirate books they wouldn't have bought... I know one kid who has like 4000 ebooks, he's probably read two of. Also, making them "more" digitized doesn't matter. When there's one digital copy, there's 10,000,000. They are right about one thing, making them easier to buy (and part of easier means less copy protection) will mean they will sell more.

Just look how iTunes completely stopped selling anything when they started offering non-copy-protected books - oh wait, they didn't.

Re:When you don't understand something... by Clover_Kicker · 2010-01-02 02:56 · Score: 2, Informative

There's a 5GB ebook archive on the Pirate Bay with thousands of ebooks all RARed up, it's easier to download the whole thing and just extract the ones you're interested in.
Or so they tell me...
Re:When you don't understand something... by Demena · 2010-01-02 03:02 · Score: 4, Interesting

The books I respect I buy in hard cover, largely Pratchett and reference books The ones that will enjoy and read casually I want to carry around I buy in paperback. If they really wanted to promote sales they would include an electronic copy with the purchase. I don't pirate (really) so there are very few that I have in electronic form. The ones I have are very largely from Tor. The ones that I really enjoy I will buy in paperback or hard copy. Tor publishers have effectively proved that giving books away get them more sales. Many times I have read a book provided online and then bought the entire series in paperback or hardcover.
Re:When you don't understand something... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-02 03:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

So it's ok to steal, as long as you steal more than you could possibly have bought legitimately otherwise? Sounds great. I guess you'll have no problems then with me pirating millions of dollars worth of money. It's not like I could have earnt it legitimately anyway. And if they just made money easier to make, I wouldn't have to.
Re:When you don't understand something... by digitig · 2010-01-02 03:38 · Score: 2

When I want a particular book then I check for availability of an eBook copy first. No book I have wanted has ever been available in eBook format. Something tells me that I'm not in the eBook target market -- I wonder how many open source proponents are?

--
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Re:When you don't understand something... by CrimsonAvenger · 2010-01-02 03:40 · Score: 4, Informative

The books I respect I buy in hard cover, largely Pratchett and reference books The ones that will enjoy and read casually I want to carry around I buy in paperback. If they really wanted to promote sales they would include an electronic copy with the purchase.
As an example of this, last time I bought a hardbound Honor Harrington novel, a CD was included with electronic copies of ALL the Honor Harrington books. Very nice, wish more publishers than Baen would do that.

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:When you don't understand something... by zach_the_lizard · 2010-01-02 04:10 · Score: 3, Interesting

To steal will deprive someone else of property, while you gain it yourself. Downloading the ebooks does not deprive anyone of property. Information, by its very nature, is not scarce once it has been discovered.

--
SSC
Re:When you don't understand something... by Narpak · 2010-01-02 04:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

Just look how iTunes completely stopped selling anything when they started offering non-copy-protected books - oh wait, they didn't.
While not exactly the same; I checked out Scott Sigler s podcasts of his own novels (for free on his site), since I listened through all of it (and enjoyed it) I decided to buy his books in hardcover to support him. While I would probably have bought them in an e-book format if I could (as in if I had an e-reader and there was a good e-book service), ordering and buying them through my local store was fine and made me feel all warm and cuddly inside from supporting local businesses that I enjoy frequenting.

While e-book piracy might be an issue, my personal opinion on piracy (of all types of content) is that the only way to effectively lessen it is to have good online stores where those with the inclination and economical capacity to do so can legally purchase such articles. Draconian DRM systems does not work, or only works to a very limited extent while making life harder and less enjoyable for those that actually do want to buy their products legally.

As for "artistic ownership" I can not imagine that the "open source culture" imagined by Alexie will ever be able to change laws and general opinion to such an extend that authors/artists lose control of the commercial aspects of their own products (maybe a reduction in copyright length from its current standard at most). It is a great leap, in my mind, from the concept of distributing content created by others to being able to use that material for financial gain without the artists approval. Which is how I interpreted his fears.

--
The Long Now Foundation
Re:When you don't understand something... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-02 04:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

You're not paying for "information", you're paying for a "performance" by a certain person or group.
There are only a handful of storylines. The art comes from the telling, and not every writer can do that well.
You're paying to have a particular writer tell you a story without the expense of traveling to hear him tell it in person.
Because technology has made it easy to duplicate a performance, first in print, later in recordings, now digitally, doesn't mean you're paying for "information".
Re:When you don't understand something... by Chris+Mattern · 2010-01-02 07:33 · Score: 2, Informative

Baen's been smart about avoiding e-copy paranoia for a long time now. You can even browse some of the backlist online for free. Great folks; I'm always glad to do business with them.
Re:When you don't understand something... by CrimsonAvenger · 2010-01-02 08:34 · Score: 2, Informative

Baen's been smart about avoiding e-copy paranoia for a long time now. You can even browse some of the backlist online for free. Great folks; I'm always glad to do business with them.
You can download the Free Library for free. In whatever format you like, ePub, Mobi, HTML, Kindle, etc. I've got about half of it in my Sony Reader now. Plus the couple hundred dollars worth of stuff I've bought from Baen at about $6 per eBook....

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

His publishers are a bigger problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-02 02:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

I just checked the kindle store; He has five books available there.

I then checked amazon.com and found pages and pages of paper books of his.

Now, why would people pirate his books?

Perhaps because they aren't legally available in ebook format?

Re:His publishers are a bigger problem... by peragrin · 2010-01-02 03:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

exactly. Piracy is an economic problem. If you have piracy then you have an major imbalance in your supply and demand chain. Try to fix that first before blaming everyone else.
People wanted portable music files on their computers and they got them where ever they could. movies, ebooks etc offer what they people really want and they will mostly buy the legal copies.
Even in somlia the piracy is an economic problem. 20 hijackers get a million plus dollars for 2-3 months of work. it breaks down to each getting some $20,000 who then spend that money on the locals $20,000 for three months work isn't bad by USA standards in somlia it worth a lot more. especially since one can't get harmed by international maritime law. They feed you a meal better than you have had in weeks, give you a quiet place to sleep while they detain you for a while and then let you go.
Solve the economic demand side of the product and realize that your not supplying things that there are honest markets for.

--
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Re:His publishers are a bigger problem... by thetoadwarrior · 2010-01-02 04:04 · Score: 4, Interesting

The more I read about the guy the more I think he's an outdated douche. It sounds like it's not his publisher that's the problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Alexie

Journalist Motoko Rich quoted Alexie as saying that he refused to allow his novels to be made available in digital form. Alexie called the expensive reading devices "elitist" and said that their widespread adoption would harm both readers from poor communities, as well as the authors themselves. He stated in an interview with Stephen Colbert that "digital books take away jobs" from the artists.[4] He said also in this interview that the culture surrounding books and bookstores is diminishing, and that the digital book phenomenon will only continue to decrease the value of hard copy.

Just missing the right term by Chysn · 2010-01-02 02:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

There's really no critique of open source here. He said "open source," but he's just throwing the term around without knowing what "open source culture" is. He clearly means something along the lines of "peer-to-peer" culture.

--
--I'm so big, my sig has its own sig.
-- See?

Re:Just missing the right term by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-02 03:21 · Score: 2, Funny

He clearly means something along the lines of "peer-to-peer" culture.
Exactly. We have to find a way to stop peers talking to each other. It only breeds discontent and piracy.
Re:Just missing the right term by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-02 06:50 · Score: 2, Funny

Hi, welcome to Slashdot! You must be new here.
Whenever a piracy story comes up, the apologists come out of the woodwork here. Pirates have been hiding under the skirts of the open source movement for ages.
Re:Just missing the right term by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-01-02 07:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

Unfortunately, there are quite a few authors who misuse FLOSS terms - even those terms that have a very specific meaning - as synonyms of "piracy". For another example, here's a (translated) citation from one fairly popular Russian sci-fi/fantasy writer, Sergey Lukyanenko (the guy who wrote the book on which this movie is directly based), from his essay on author's rights and Internet:
"The text is stolen? This is the inevitable destiny of any good (and not even necessarily good) book. It will spread through various "online libraries" (mostly owned by proponents of "copyleft" - that is, theft of author's rights)."
He repeats the word "copyleft" three more times within the same chapter, repeatedly stressing his understanding of the term as equivalent to "pro-copyright infringement".

And this is a suprise ? by amck · 2010-01-02 02:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

ebook readers buy more paper books than other readers, and this is a suprise ?

Someone who is willing to spend 200-400 dollars on a e-reader is already a heavy reader, practically by definition. As much as I love my e-reader, there are a bunch of books its not good for - photo books, textbooks (no, A4 pdfs on a Sony e-reader are not a good option.) And for my favourite authors, i'll buy the hardback and get it signed by the author, and then lend to friends.

--
Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist

Isn't the Library already a way to get books free? by taloobie · 2010-01-02 02:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

Gosh... books have been free to read for a very long time. It's called a library. So if authors and publishers are worried about piracy of books why don't they cut libraries off? Gimme a break. There are many ways to use the digital mediums ease of distribution to make money/protect artistic ownership. Publishers should consider giving away a very basic digital version of a book, could even make it time sensitive. It would be very cool and very useful to have a world wide public library. Perhaps that seems unreasonable to police... but the reality is people can get whatever written material they want without buying it from a Borders store... and that isn't because of "ebooks". been this way for a very long time. The great books will be purchased by enough people to make money (my gosh, how many copies of LOTR, the Bible, etc. does everyone own... and those books are very easy to get for free!)

bought 3.1 times as many books.. from Amazon! by Clover_Kicker · 2010-01-02 02:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

Comparing ebooks to physical book sales is obviously stupid, because Amazon can't track how many physical books I bought at local chains, or the used shop downtown.

Re:bought 3.1 times as many books.. from Amazon! by Kneo24 · 2010-01-02 03:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

Nor do they have the ability to track your ebook purchases from other websites!
...
But really, your point is moot. Amazon can and only tracks sales from within their own domain, which doesn't make their point "obviously stupid". Their customers buy 3.1 more ebooks on average. They have a shit ton more customers than your used shop or local chains, I would wager. In fact, I doubt most of those shops even sell ebooks. I hope next time you remember that when a website or a chain says, "consumers did this more than this", and you know they can't track from other vendors, it's implied that they mean their own customers.

Let me paraphrase that by damburger · 2010-01-02 02:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

'With the more egalitarian culture in the North, the idea of ownership — of negro ownership — goes away. It terrifies me.'"

The loss of something isn't inherently bad. That a change terrifies someone you might respect does not make it bad.

--
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?

Elimination of artificial scarcity terrifies him by noidentity · 2010-01-02 02:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

"With the open-source culture on the Internet, the idea of taxpayer-funded artificial scarcity - of artistic monopoly -- goes away. It terrifies me." There, fixed that for you, Mr. Alexie.

He blames piracy on open source culture yet by unity100 · 2010-01-02 02:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

he keeps on using internet for everything. he doesnt object to being linked in forums/content sites using open source scripts for their engine, he doesnt object to using google, which not only uses numerous open source elements to power its operation but also provides open source back to the community, he probably is thrilled when someone gets to buy his books by finding him the through the searches google provides, and many many more.

well, see, mr novelist, apparently you either dont know zit on what you are writing about, or just one of those who want everything self-centric.

if you want to prove otherwise, drop your usage of ANYthing that includes open source. including google, any and all links it provides to your novels/ebooks, any potential traffic/sales you get from forums/sites using phpbb and the similar open source engines. and then lets talk. else, youre just another bastard to us.

--
Read radical news here

Re:He blames piracy on open source culture yet by chrb · 2010-01-02 03:30 · Score: 3, Informative

The quoted novelist appears to have used an unfortunate choice of words - he probably means "non-respecting-of-intellectual-property culture" rather than "open-source culture". The distinction is obvious to most slashdot readers, but presumably not to this novelist. The quote does not indicate that he has any problems with open-source software, I would imagine that his complaint is more about sites like Pirate Bay than Google.

The real story should be. . . by JSBiff · 2010-01-02 03:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

You know, I'm always. . . impressed. . . by the ability of the 'news' media (and people in general) to turn things around completely ass-backwards. The anecdote that the CNN story leads off with is about the Dan Brown book "The Lost Symbol". The book sold millions of copies, but was pirated over a hundred thousand times in the first few days. To me, that says "9 out of 10 People willing to pay for stuff they *could* have downloaded for free". The *real* story, which CNN apparently wishes to ignore, is that the vast majority of people are honest, and wish to pay the authors whose books they like, *instead* of pirating. The *real* story is the pirates are the vast minority of people. Of course, that doesn't generate page views.

As for Sherman Alexie . . . why do I care if he (she?) is terrified? People get terrified about all sorts of irrational things. Many children are terrified of the dark. Why do I care if someone is irrationally terrified of something?

Re:The real story should be. . . by DoofusOfDeath · 2010-01-02 03:16 · Score: 3, Funny

You know, I'm always. . . impressed. . . by the ability of the 'news' media (and people in general) to turn things around completely ass-backwards.
No worries! If you're right, all even-numbered rehashings of a story get it completely right!
Re:The real story should be. . . by webdog314 · 2010-01-02 03:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

I have to wonder though, about those millions of people who bought "The Lost Symbol"... It would be easy to assume that they did so because they are good and honest people. But it could simply be that 9 out of 10 people don't have any idea where to find pirated digital books, or have access to do so.
In my eyes, the publishing market has always been about convenience. People, in general will pay for something if it is convenient for them to do so. As soon as it becomes more convenient to simply download it off the net (including the risk of breaking the law) they will. Sure, there are still lots of people willing to then buy the book after reading a pirated copy, but I'd be willing to bet it's a LOT less than 9 out of 10.

Tie to Open Source is unsubstantiated by RunzWithScissors · 2010-01-02 03:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

The people I know and work with in the open source community are probably the most piracy conscious people I know, mostly because of jack holes like this guy. It bugs the hell out of me that people always tie open source and piracy when in fact, there could be nothing further from the truth. I'm the first one to pay for things like GAMES for Linux, or quality e-books because I want people to produce more of them! And honestly, there's nothing wrong with wanting to get paid for your work.

I think ultimately this has nothing to do with Open Source and everything to do with people wanting something for nothing, and if they can get it, they'll take full advantage. Likely the tie to Open Source comes from the fact that people who are extremely cost conscious are going to prefer Open Source products because they align with their pricing criteria (The same way illegal copies of products align with their pricing criteria)

-Runz

Grabbing publicity? by FrozenGeek · 2010-01-02 03:17 · Score: 4, Interesting

What are the odds that Sherman Alexie is simply making a controversial statement to gain publicity?

Prior to this article, I'd never heard of him. Given his statement, I doubt I'll every buy any of his work but his statement has gotten his name air-time.

--
linquendum tondere

I have a personal anecdote to share on the matter by arikol · 2010-01-02 03:26 · Score: 4, Interesting

Not long ago I wanted to buy an ebook (just published. I went to Amazon and they wanted the hardcover price for the ebook. $25 for an ebook, just plain silly. So I went to barnes&noble, they offered the ebook for $10, similar to a paperback. So I tried to buy it.

Aaaanndd.. an error came up saying that I could not buy this book from the area I was in (not USA). I looked around some more and did not find a european distributor for the ebook. Lot's of companies had the hardcover, but no ebook. I checked if I could order it from amazon (I had no intention of completing that !!$25!! transaction) and same thing. I was not allowed to buy the bloody book.

So I went to my friends at thepiratebay and got the book. I needed to do some conversion to get the text to display properly on my device, but it worked. The legal alternatives, which I tried to follow, simply did not work. Maybe there was a way to get the legal options to work properly, but the way to get customers to do the legal thing is to make that EASIER than the illegal way.
On iTunes I am guaranteed to get good quality files, on TPB I am not. Simple.

Here in sweden the streaming service Spotify has changed the game. It's just so easy to do the legal thing that illegal downloading went down. Do the same with movies, books, programs.. basically everything else. Make the legal way the best and easiest way, and people will come.

As for Cory Doctorow, I do wish that he gave me some way of giving him money for the digital copies I've gotten from him. I don't want to buy a paper version, and I don't want to donate a paper version. I just want to pay the author (and editor and all those involved) for his/their work.

Re:Elimination of artificial scarcity terrifies hi by matt4077 · 2010-01-02 03:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

Open source licenses rely on the same system and are just as taxpayer-funded as "all rights reserved". There's a lot to criticize in his statements, but misleading data (as in the summary) or extremism like yours doesn't serve the cause. We-have-a-right-to-everything-for-free is not going to convince the general public, politicians and courts that copyright reform is necessary. The focus should be limited copyright terms (12 years is what I've read maximizes the public benefit) and strong fair use rules. If we want to get there, defending piracy and ridiculing artists isn't helpful.

--
Fleur de Sel

Re:If the formula is flawed the result means nothi by matthewmacleod · 2010-01-02 03:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

He didn't make any such assumption. You can't put words into people's mouths then complain that they're wrong!

Re:Elimination of artificial scarcity terrifies hi by Jeeeb · 2010-01-02 03:36 · Score: 2, Interesting

"With the open-source culture on the Internet, the idea of taxpayer-funded artificial scarcity - of artistic monopoly -- goes away."

I've always wondered why so many people on slashdot find the right to profit of your creation to be such a bad thing. (I.e. artificial scarcity). It's especially odd for a site full of software engineers .etc. whose livelihood often depends on artificial scarcity.

Take the iPhone for example. The materials that go into making an iPhone and those that go into making your average run of the mill phone are certainly not different enough to justify the price difference. The real difference is in the design - I.e. pure information with effectively no-limits to the amount it can be copied. Yet another company can't just use that information without Apple's permission - I.e. they can't just go off an make their own iPhone. Is this "taxpayer-funded artificial scarcity" bad?

Or take Windows or any other peace of commercial software. It's purely information so the fact that I'm not free to copy and use it as much as I want must be "taxpayer-funded artificial scarcity". Is this bad?

The point is that making this information takes very real time and effort, whether it's designing a phone (or car or whatever), writing software, making a movie/song, or in this case writing a book. So what is so wrong with people having the right to demand payment for allowing people to utilise (Be it for entertainment, business or whatever) the information they have worked hard to create?

Now I'm not saying there shouldn't be limits to this right. But it seems that a lot of people just shout "Artificial scarcity" at anyone who raises their voice against piracy or whatever.

Now as for this guy, I think correlating the open source movement and piracy is stupid. People pirate stuff because they want things for free and the risks are so low. That's human nature, with or without the open-source movement.

100,000 times? by Macka · 2010-01-02 03:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

TFA states:

"Less than 24 hours after its release, pirated digital copies of the novel were found on file-sharing sites such as Rapidshare and BitTorrent. Within days, it had been downloaded for free more than 100,000 times"

Where do they get these numbers from? Do Rapidshare release download stats? Is there some secret BitTorrent download counter/tracker these people have access to? This has got to be a figure someone has just pulled out of their ass.

So a question for you by Sycraft-fu · 2010-01-02 03:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

What would you propose as a replacement? See we have an interesting quandary: We like creative works of all sorts. A massive part of our entertainment comes from this and these days we even need it for other things. So we want people to be able to work on "virtual goods" as it were. Well, these people still need to eat. They need physical goods to be able to do their work. That means they need to get paid. So what do you do about that? There is our current system, where we declare virtual goods to work like real goods. You have to pay for each copy you want. This works pretty nicely in a capitalist economy. It encourages people to make works that others want, allows them to support themselves doing so if they are good, gives more rewards the greater the demand for a work is and so on.

So, let's say you do away with that. You say "Information scarcity is artificial, from now on, all information can be copied freely." Ok, how then do the creators of it eat? What do they do to make money? Their works are no longer viable. This means they have to get other jobs, their creative works can only be a hobby. The "Well just sell support!" that is often parroted for software doesn't work at all in these other areas.

You run in to the very real problem that we want people to spend their time creating works that are nothing but information. However, if you want them to do that, you need to pay them. So if you want to eliminate the concept of IP and have all information be unrestricted, you've got to come up with a system for how to compensate the people who spend their time making it.

Re:So a question for you by Cinderbunny · 2010-01-02 04:23 · Score: 2, Informative

how then do the creators of it eat? What do they do to make money? Their works are no longer viable. This means they have to get other jobs.
Being a writer, and having many writer friends (published and unpublished), I find it hilarious that people think that writers and artists can actually support themselves without having a day time job. How many writers and artists do you think pursue writing and art as a full-time career? A handful at most. The writers who have written the books you read have other jobs: professors, teachers, translators, editors, retail reps, etc. Believe me, an artist creates from an inherent need to create, not because they see money signs at the end of the tunnel. I don't think anyone goes into art expecting to become the next Haruki Murakami or Lady Gaga.
Re:So a question for you by noidentity · 2010-01-02 04:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

Let's start with the facts:
1.Information can be copied at virtually no cost.
2.The benefit of an intellectual work is multiplied by the number of people who use it.
3.Creating intellectual works has a cost.
The current system tries to satisfy 3 by limiting 1 in order to make the work behave more like a physical object, so that people will have to pay to get the work. Limiting 1 greatly reduces 2, and has all sorts of collateral damage.
If we leave 1 intact, intellectual works have a far greater benefit to everyone. The challenge is to come up with a way to satisfy 3, without harming 1 and 2. The free-market solution to problems like this is to allow market participants to come up with innovative solutions. Those that solve the problem best stand to make the most profit, so there is incentive.
With the current sub-optimal system in place, there is no incentive to come up with a free-market solution, since the current system is effectively subsidized by taxes, and it even makes it dangerous not to play, due to the possibility of frivolous lawsuit. There is no justification for the current system, because it's been created almost entirely to benefit a small group of people, and it's been done at a cost of everyone's property rights. And no, ideas aren't property. Property is a way of dealing with conflict over scarce resources; if a resource isn't scarce, then everyone can use it without conflict. So it's not that "I have to come up with an alternate", it's that "you have to justify your continued infringement of my property rights".

Re:WTH is Sherman Alexie? by Opportunist · 2010-01-02 03:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

"Expert" changed its meaning. It used to mean "someone who knows something about a subject". Today it's "random loudmouth that shares your opinion on it".

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

The idea went away? That idea never stuck by Opportunist · 2010-01-02 03:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

Let's be honest here, how many people do you know that really had "that idea" of IP ownership? How many talk about "licensing" Windows and how many "buy" it? How many "license" a book and how many "buy" it?

And that set in with the open source movement? My dad, who can't tell a toaster from a netbook and would think of a medical condition hearing about "open sores", is the proud "owner" of a very extensive dead tree library. And it's his firm belief that he "owns" those books, the idea that these books don't belong to him never crossed his mind.

So let's be sensible here. The idea of intellectual property never made it into public conscience. And until recently that was very much in the interest of the same people that now bemoan it.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Re:Isn't the Library already a way to get books fr by taloobie · 2010-01-02 03:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

Lost sales? If I borrow the book from the library, chances are I wouldn't have bought it in the first place.

You might also not have ever encountered the book you borrowed! libraries are great discovery mechanisms... that's why we still have STACKS and don't all just sit at the CPU pinpointing exactly what we want.

Alexie's comments were in a Colbert Show interview by CyrusHellborg · 2010-01-02 04:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

Alexie's comments were in a Colbert Show interview. I saw the show, which is on Hulu if anyone is getting peppy about researching this. I saw him speak at the Seattle Center a few days after the Sept 11 attacks. Sherman Alexie's entire schtick and world view is backward facing. No wonder a domain of inquiry residing more in the 21st century than in the 18th is frightening to him.

Re:I have a personal anecdote to share on the matt by calmofthestorm · 2010-01-02 04:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

Personally I'm just afraid of being locked out of my own collection (losing it overnight as with kindle, unable to transfer to new laptop/reader, unable to copy passages out of it for fair use or search/index it using my software, etc). Now that iTunes and Amazon offer unprotected music it's a great place to shop (I prefer amazon as it doesn't require bloatware in a VM to download, but iTunes often has better bitrate). Thing is that I'm not big on music, and most of what I like is free legally or I already have.

I really wish someone would do the same for books. As long as piracy provides a cheaper, more convenient, and higher quality product (all of which are currently true) how can legitimate distributors hope to compete? Well they can't win on price, but there's no excuse for not winning on convenience or quality. And that would be enough to win me over, despite my not having a lot of money. Offer a better quality, DRM-free product, with an easy buying process, at a sane price, and you'll have my business.

--
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.

public confusion over the term "open source" by bcrowell · 2010-01-02 04:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

Unfortunately the average person has very little idea what the term "open source" actually means. It's a technical term that's vague to them. These are the kind of people who probably also aren't clear on the term "operating system," etc.

I've seen both positive and negative misinterpretations flying around. The usage in TFA seems to be open source == piracy, or maybe open source == free as in beer. If you really parse the quote from the article in terms of the actual meaning of "open source," it doesn't make any sense. Actual quote: "With the open-source culture on the Internet, the idea of [artistic] ownership [...] goes away." Meaning: "People on the internet are used to being able to see the original programming instructions used to create their software, and with that culture, the idea of [artistic] ownership [...] goes away." It obviously doesn't make any sense. It also doesn't make sense when you consider that open-source licenses like BSD and GPL can only be enforced because the original authors own the copyright.

There are also people who see "open-source" as a feel-good term, like "green," and they apply it inappropriately because they want some of that goodness to rub off on them. For instance, I went to a symposium in August here in California where the results of Schwarzenegger's Free Digital Textbook Initiative were announced. Participants included open-source types from Curriki, CK-12, and Connexions, as well as teachers, politicians, IT folks, hardware vendors, and textbook publishers. The only traditional publisher that submitted any books to the initiative was Pearson, and all they submitted was a consumable workbook, not actual textbooks. Pearson's rep referred to its workbook as "free and open-source," but in fact the workbook is not open source in any sense. (It's distributed in a non-editable format, and it's not distributed under an open-source license.)

It's unfortunate that we haven't ended up with terminology that's more understandable to the average person. We had people like RMS advocating the term "free software," and others like Eric Raymond pushing for "open source." This had to do with an ideological agreement within the free software/OSS movement. The problem is that neither term is easy for outsiders to understand. "Free software" simply implies free as in beer to most people. They equate it to "freeware," i.e., low-quality, closed-source Windows software that you download from someone's Geocities page as a .exe file. "Open source" isn't understandable to most people, because they don't understand the distinction between source code and executable code.

--
Find free books.

How? by paiute · 2010-01-02 04:08 · Score: 4, Funny

Alexie is a Native American. Those people have no sense of ownership anyway. Their tribes roam from book to book. It wasn't until the white man arrived with his culture of printing out books and putting his name on them and getting all upset if the Indians took them off the shelf and didn't return them within two weeks that the trouble started.

--
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine

Re:Elimination of artificial scarcity terrifies hi by devent · 2010-01-02 04:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

Nobody is saying that copyright is bad (well, not me at least). But copyright, thanks to you in the USA*, is now basically indefinitely.

Copyright is a balance act, benefiting the creator and ripping of the public culture

* because of you exporting the idea of an indefinitely copyright to all Europe and rest of the world. In addition to the ridiculous flight safety laws. Thank you very much America.

--
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute

Re:Elimination of artificial scarcity terrifies hi by noidentity · 2010-01-02 04:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

If I trespass on your property and build something from your materials, I don't own the result, even though it's "my" creation. Buf if I design something, then I can legally prevent you from building that thing out of your own property; in effect, I usurp some of your (and everyone else on the planet's) property rights.

Your main argument seems to be that because someone put a lot of work into something, he is entitled to get money for it. Why did he put a lot of work into something in the first place? Perhaps because he knew he had this artificial scarcity and taxpayer-funded policing of people. OK, but that doesn't give us a reason for having it in the first place, before anyone was expecting such policing.

It seems the only justification is "because we haven't come up with another model to fund the large initial investment in creating a design". I think initially people accepted this, because the monopoly was of a fairly short duration, short enough that it was worth the benefit of this new funding model. But that's long gone, and the public domain has been shafted.

Re:Elimination of artificial scarcity terrifies hi by Znork · 2010-01-02 04:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

Open source licenses rely on the same system

They rely on the same system to counter the effects of the system. Without the system they would not need the system.

The focus should be limited copyright terms

Limiting copyright terms is ultimately futile. As long as copyright works as an artificial scarcity it damages the economy, and as long as it's implemented as a privatized taxation for you're basically not going to get it to stick at whatever number of years you want it stuck at. The incentive to increase it will always remain among the profiting stakeholders and the parties paying for the transactions will not be represented as long as the system cost is not accounted for.

The exclusive right to control copying is what needs to be done in with. If you want to fund creators out of what is the equivalent of state funds, then just fund them out of state funds (with funding gathered out of, for example, a vat system on content carrying copies). Tie it to number of copies made or something if you want economic effects equivalent to today, altho actually recognizing it as a transfer system has more interesting possibilities (what number of years maximizes public benefits is grossly generalized), more appropriate targets would be amount of payout to author per year, perhaps capped, perhaps scaled per work for a number of years, etc, to create an incentive for maximizing productivity. That would also dissuade from the non-core activities such as marketing, lobbying, partying and distribution, as those would not, and should not be funded out of creator incentives.

If we want to get there, defending piracy

Piracy is unavoidable and well on the way to being utterly uncontrollable. Further, in light of the media lobbyists attacks on freedom and democracy denying them revenue by any means necessary has become an ethical obligation. Whether it's making sure all your friends and relatives have access to any media they could desire to prevent them from providing funds to the media lobbyists, or to provide random strangers with copies they may desire, both are socially responsible things to do in the face of efforts such as ACTA.

And really, having 'reasonable' dialogue has gotten us well on the way towards multi-century copyright where artists and creators barely get the crumbs falling off the table (and far lower part of revenue than in any other state-run transfer system). You may want to update your idea of what 'helpful' means in this case.

Re:Elimination of artificial scarcity terrifies hi by Random+BedHead+Ed · 2010-01-02 04:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

"With the open-source culture on the Internet, the idea of taxpayer-funded artificial scarcity - of artistic monopoly -- goes away."

I've always wondered why so many people on slashdot find the right to profit of your creation to be such a bad thing. (I.e. artificial scarcity). It's especially odd for a site full of software engineers .etc. whose livelihood often depends on artificial scarcity.

It's worth noting that grandparent does not criticize artificial scarcity, just calls it what it is in order to contradict the novelist's claim that it is a form of property. Whatever grandparent's opinion on the value of copyright may be, the statement that it is not like physical property under US law is correct.

I rather like copyright, particularly as I'm an aspiring novelist, but I have no illusions that it's a type of property or that my novel should be "mine" forever should I be fortunate enough to get it published. I recognize that copyright is just a limited right that I'll get to exercise for a long span after the work is released.

Re:No shit. Duh. by ClosedSource · 2010-01-02 04:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Half the damn stuff in my house I don't really own, I license or lease or rent it or whatever."

And the other half you pirated?

Re:Elimination of artificial scarcity terrifies hi by vadim_t · 2010-01-02 04:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

I've always wondered why so many people on slashdot find the right to profit of your creation to be such a bad thing. (I.e. artificial scarcity). It's especially odd for a site full of software engineers .etc. whose livelihood often depends on artificial scarcity.

As a software engineer, I don't. I get paid by the hour or by the project. I couldn't care less what happens with my work afterwards.

Most of my work is on custom internal applications and not things sold on the shelf. You can pirate it all you want, but it's not made for you, so you're unlikely to find it useful, and even if you can use it you'll still need to pay somebody to adjust it to your needs.

I've written open source software for money. It's easy. Customer says "I want this software to be able to do X". I look at it, negotiate with the customer, do the work and get the money. Modification gets released under the license of the original project (was GPL2). Maybe some other programmer somewhere will get money in the future for building on my work, and so on.

Take the iPhone for example. The materials that go into making an iPhone and those that go into making your average run of the mill phone are certainly not different enough to justify the price difference. The real difference is in the design - I.e. pure information with effectively no-limits to the amount it can be copied. Yet another company can't just use that information without Apple's permission - I.e. they can't just go off an make their own iPhone. Is this "taxpayer-funded artificial scarcity" bad?

Yes. I'd like to have companies competing to make the best phone possible. For that purpose, it'd be best if any company could create a phone with any design it wanted, without being restricted by patents.

Or take Windows or any other peace of commercial software. It's purely information so the fact that I'm not free to copy and use it as much as I want must be "taxpayer-funded artificial scarcity". Is this bad?

Yes. Attempting to keep it from being copied imposes a cost on society that I think we'd be better without.

The point is that making this information takes very real time and effort, whether it's designing a phone (or car or whatever), writing software, making a movie/song, or in this case writing a book. So what is so wrong with people having the right to demand payment for allowing people to utilise (Be it for entertainment, business or whatever) the information they have worked hard to create?

I'm not against work being paid for, I simply think work is something that should be paid for at the time it's performed. A programmer can charge by the hour/project, a musician can charge for creating a song, and so on. Then we don't need the entire messy copyright thing.

The Role of Society in Society by florescent_beige · 2010-01-02 04:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

There's an article up at the LA Times about Peter Drucker. If you don't know, Druker was an economist who said things like:

The enterprise exists on sufferance and exists only as long as the society and the economy believe that it does a necessary, useful, and productive job.

As pointed out above by noidentity and others, people who have risen in the economic hierarchy thanks to institutions built by the people for the people owe their success to society's edifices as much as themselves. Sure someone may be a talented corporate cost-cutter with the nickname "Chainsaw" or a writer nobody has ever heard of, but they would be flipping burgers if it wasn't for the artificial man-made constructs of incorporation and copyright.

There's an implicit Ann Rand-ian quality to Alexie's thinking: progress for all depends on the special qualities of a few geniuses who naturally deserve the good life. Putting aside the fact that most admirers of Rand ignore that her elite characters all had a social conscience and gave back, few people who claim to be rainmakers stop to consider where they got the water that makes the rain.

But that's all background really, the issue that Alexie is talking about is the economic value of what he does. That value is assigned by society and I think it's fair to say that the generation growing up doesn't see as much value in it as he does. And they may have a point. Upsetting as it may be to artists, would the world fall apart if it was even harder to make a living doing what they do? Did Avatar give us free electricity? Feed Africa?

The artistic community might also want to ask itself if copyright had not been extended to ridiculous lengths and more books that people actually want to read were in the public domain, would that have prevented a lot of piracy? Experience has shown that where legal alternatives exist for people to get what they want they will chose those alternatives. I don't think too many people explicitly know how many works they have been denied by copyright reform but I think they can sense it.

The conflict we have now exists because this generation's instincts clash with the status quo. It remains to be seen whether or not the interests represented by Rupert Murdoch`s media machine can keep the lid on things.

--
Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller

Re:No shit. Duh. by FatSean · 2010-01-02 05:03 · Score: 3, Funny

My couch, bed, carpeting and most of my furniture is pirated. You got me. Please don't turn me in!

--
Blar.

The "hobbyist art is good enough" argument by jonaskoelker · 2010-01-02 05:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

Well, these people still need to eat. They need physical goods to be able to do their work. That means they need to get paid.

I have bought four guitars, two amps, cables, effect pedals, a saxophone and a clarinet, pooling together summer job wages, birthday gifts, savings of allowances, et cetera. I've been in a recording studio twice; I've performed on the local town square once, and at several events locally. Back when I was a kid (~14-18yo) and didn't have any real money.

Musicians want to play. Actors want to act. Writers want to write.

The publishers acted as quality assurance; they did searching and pruning, so we could have the best art. You know what also does that? A moderation system (/.). A review system (amazon). A simple counting mechanism ("most downloaded this day/week/month/year").

None of them are perfect. So aren't the studios. And some artists already choose a life of material poverty in return for wealth in terms of self-expression and self-actualization.

Exactly why is it that the people's need for art can't be satisfied well enough this way? Some amateurs are really good. Oh, so we'll go to the theatre and look at people rather than go to the cinema and look at screens, because making films is rather resource-intensive (i.e. expensive). Or we'll watch more shorts and/or more animated films. Won't we still be entertained?

Re:Lies, damned lies, and statistics. by Narpak · 2010-01-02 05:49 · Score: 3, Informative

How often do you see the net total adjusted for the current economic situation? Are the book markets actually loosing money?

On a related topic Charles Arthur tried to go through various numbers and statistic as related to music piracy in this article on The Guardian's site.

The first clue of where all those downloaders are really spending their money came in searching for games statistics: year after year ELSPA had hailed "a record year". In fact if you look at the graph above, you'll see that games spend has risen dramatically - from £1.18bn in 1999 to £4.03bn in 2008.

Meanwhile music spending (allowing for that * of adjustment in 2004 onwards) has gone from £1.94bn to £1.31bn.

DVD sales and rentals, meanwhile, have nearly doubled, from a total of £1.286bn in 1999 to £2.56bn in 2008.

If we assume that there's roughly the same amount of discretionary spending available (which, even allowing for the credit bubble, should be roughly true; most of the credit went into houses), then it's clear who the culprit is: the games industry. By 2009, the amount spent in games and music is almost exactly the same as 1999 (though note that the music industry changed its methods from 2004).

Link to graph refered to.

--
The Long Now Foundation

Re:I have a personal anecdote to share on the matt by Kurrelgyre · 2010-01-02 07:22 · Score: 2, Interesting

Did you then buy the physical book so that the author could get paid?

Re:Elimination of artificial scarcity terrifies hi by vadim_t · 2010-01-02 07:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

Hi there.

I'm a software developer, currently employed. I don't care about the copyright status of what I produce, as I can earn money in any case.

Most programming work isn't of the software sold in shops variety, but of the custom coding for a client kind. It doesn't matter to me how many copies of my work exist, as I don't earn money from royalties, I get it from performing the job I was hired to do (which is for instance improving a program to support X). The clients generally don't have much of a reason to care either, as they have specific needs, and don't sell the software I work on.

I have been hired to work on GPL2 licensed software, and it worked just fine for me.

So here you have an example of somebody who has absolutely no problem with "Information wants to be free, man!" as you put it.

Usenet Was Here by argent · 2010-01-02 07:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

Hello, the '80s are calling and want their news back.

Re:I have a personal anecdote to share on the matt by winwar · 2010-01-02 07:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

"I will pay $1 for a book, maybe $2 and that would be severely pushing it. I will not pay $5, $10, $25 for an E-Book. Sorry, but no. There is virtually no cost to distributing an E-Book. There is no paper, ink, shipping, storage, typesetting, etc... there is simply pressing a button to make a copy."

The bulk of the "cost" of the book is not in those things. It's the same model with music and movies. Bestsellers subsidize the failures. And they try to make a large profit.

Ultimately, you pay $25 for ebook for the same reason that you pay it for the hardback, for the convenience. You want it now. If you don't want it now, you are not their target demographic and thus do not matter to them.

Personally, I think you have a skewed sense of pricing between mediums. You equate a book to a music single. I would equate a book to an album or movie. A short story would be more equivalent to a single. In short, what you want is never going to realistically to happen. You can create a single in a day. You can't do that with a book. One has a greater production cost.

Re:Elimination of artificial scarcity terrifies hi by selven · 2010-01-02 07:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

Nobody has the right to profit. If you build a snowman, you can't complain that nobody pays you for it even though it does improve the landscape. You have the right to try to profit, but society has no obligation to bend backwards for you.

Neil Gaiman and Baen have it right by Fencepost · 2010-01-02 11:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

Neil Gaiman has spoken at various times (e.g. Neil Gaiman at Open Rights Group) about the fact that most of his readers found him free, then started to buy his books. Cory Doctorow summarizes this beautifully in the foreword to Little Brother (freely downloadable from Cory's Site, read the section "The Copyright Thing."

I recently saw Neil Gaiman give a talk at which someone asked him how he felt about piracy of his books. He said, "Hands up in the audience if you discovered your favorite writer for free -- because someone loaned you a copy, or because someone gave it to you? Now, hands up if you found your favorite writer by walking into a store and plunking down cash." Overwhelmingly, the audience said that they'd discovered their favorite writers for free, on a loan or as a gift. When it comes to my favorite writers, there's no boundaries: I'll buy every book they publish, just to own it (sometimes I buy two or three, to give away to friends who must read those books). I pay to see them live. I buy t-shirts with their book-covers on them. I'm a customer for life.
Neil went on to say that he was part of the tribe of readers, the tiny minority of people in the world who read for pleasure, buying books because they love them. One thing he knows about everyone who downloads his books on the Internet without permission is that they're readers, they're people who love books.
People who study the habits of music-buyers have discovered something curious: the biggest pirates are also the biggest spenders. If you pirate music all night long, chances are you're one of the few people left who also goes to the record store (remember those?) during the day. You probably go to concerts on the weekend, and you probably check music out of the library too. If you're a member of the red-hot music-fan tribe, you do lots of everything that has to do with music, from singing in the shower to paying for black-market vinyl bootlegs of rare Eastern European covers of your favorite death-metal band.

Baen with Webscriptions and its Free Library has been making e-books in multiple formats available for years. They've found that after an author puts a few books into the Free Library the sales of that author's backlist (including the freely-available books) rise. I suspect that they get more sales & readers for Webscriptions as well - if I can buy individual ebooks for $6 or the entire set of releases for the month (up to 4 "frontlist" new publications plus some backlist) for $15, I might as well cough up the couple of extra books and see which writers I like.

--
fencepost
just a little off

Re:No shit. Duh. by bennomatic · 2010-01-02 18:11 · Score: 3, Interesting

Off topic, but I love this:

Sometimes I wish that Obama really was a Socialist or Liberal.

People have short memories. Obama's not that far left of Bush Sr.; if Bush Jr. hadn't been such a wacko, nobody would be calling O anything left-er than a centrist.

--
The CB App. What's your 20?

Slashdot Mirror

Novelist Blames Piracy On Open Source Culture

98 of 494 comments (clear)