Although the idea of discounting bestsellers is an interesting one, there is a limitation as to how far this discount will go. We all can already see retailers discounting the bestselling items (or predicted best sellers). How deep the discount goes at the retail level is determined by two things - how far the label lets it go down, IOW what the cost per unit is to the retailer, and how far the retailer lets it go down. Therein lies a conflict. Above and beyond the money made by the artist (little) and the label/publisher/whathaveyou (more than little) you still have a retailer who is trying to get their cut. Yes, you will still see price matching as various retailers compete for sales, but these prices will bottom out at the point where retailers make little or no money. Unless the site selling these MP3s is guaranteed income from other sources we won't see prices ever drop down to nothing on a site dependent in any way on purchases for income. I imagine that the retailers - something that has not been mentioned much in this discussion - are playing more of a role in the future of copyright law than we are paying attention to.
It seems to me that yes, the publishing industry hasn't got a clue how to deal with the internet and it's potential. However this can be a remarkable boon to the new writers out there who find themselves strangled by a market that is increasingly formulaic. Given that first time authors lucky enough to get a foot in the door are lucky if they make enough money to cover their expenses for a few months the internet could become a major innovation for those who want to make a career of writing.
Now I'm a book junky and wouldn't trade my paperbacks for anything, but it seems to me that there is a potential out there for writers to not only gain an audience and worldwide exposure, but to be able to retain the rights to their work, which were previously sold to publishers in exchange for both money and exposure. If authors could find a new way to make money off of internet publishing - perhaps via banner advertisement or the like - book publishing could instead be steered towards public interest instead of mere formula and the Oprah Effect. This exposure could increase the number of new authors that do make it into print - it's easier to sell yourself with a web history showing public interest.
Plus there are so many potential ways of changing the standard novel format to be more suited to online publishing, innovations that would surely create their own kind of market, completely separate from the book industry. All things considered although the publishing industry's backwoods view of current events may prove to harm it, I don't see any harm in changing a system that serves only to promote a few select middle grade authors and those selected for Oprah's book club. Maybe we'll get the chance to read more quality writing as a result.
We do control some of the best tools ever created to effect social change in this country, nay, the world at large. But the same personality attributes that allows us to spend 12 hours staring at a computer monitor making those tools are the same personality attributes that relegate us to relative obscurity in the public eye. The general public admires the earning potential of this line of work, but little else.
Above and beyond our own introversion working against us (this is where I'm spending my day off instead of writing my congressman) there is also a rampant ignorance working against us. People in general do not understand the scope of the machines they've installed in their homes. If they did, some of the issues involving patent law and copyrights, well, wouldn't be issues. To be honest, there's a fear of computers that is prevelant even in homes with computers. Too many books, movies, whathaveyou with machines destroying people's lives. This kind of paranoia is not going to help the cause of those that understand these weird little boxes
Then there is the problem of communicating "our" point of view. As it stands now it's difficult to find anyone able to bridge the gap between "geek" and "non-geek" for lack of better terms. Many folks around here speak computer very well, but how many speak politics? To make matters more difficult, the more well known geek figures around (for example, Bill Gates) have enough non-charisma to make the average candidate reflexively recoil. Anybody notice Bush or Gore having lunch with Mr. Microsoft on the campaign trail? Not like he's lacking money. Even if we could find a more centralized voice, until we found a way to explain it with enough clarity for the nontechie and enough charisma for the press to latch on - sound bites are everything - "our" voice is going to be misrepresented.
What kind of life do you think we're hoping to find? Given a rather strong penchant for egotism among the species I figure this "life" we keep looking for has to fit in to one of two categories:
1.Not quite as smart as us, so we can keep all those books that call us (or at least some of us, in some cases) the "superior race". Like a whole planet of folks who really dig "Wings".
2.Dead. So we don't have to worry about them killing us for being inferior.
I think we'd prefer to find the latter. Less hassle, even if the former could give us the excuse to ship the military off-planet
"Anonymity on the web is almost entirely focused on the ability to perform porn-related transactions without shame. Anyone who thinks it has anything to do with anything else needs a clue."
There are quite a few sites that are now allowing writers to post articles and stories anonymously. Some sites started this with trepidation, obviously concerned about points such as the one you stated - some people do publish what many would consider pornography, and don't want the aggravation or embarassment that would come with full disclosure. Imagine the surprise when the items being posted anonymously were more likely to be political in nature from those in countries where there words could result in death or imprisonment, not merely public scorn. While we are currently lucky enough to not have a country that is quite so violent in retribution, that doesn't mean our country is flawless, or even safe for those who reveal those flaws. There are many more ways to ruin a person than simply killing him. Ask any of the actors who lived through the McCarthy-era persecutions in Hollywood. The item I find interesting in this matter is that the group developing these comments was created to consider "educational programs" under the heading of Unlawful Conduct. Last I heard I don't need to give someone my name if I learn something.
Actually Ingram is a distributor - both of books and periodicals - rather than a publisher, which would have had further reaching consequences had the purchase not been in violation of monopoly laws. Still the question remains how much better it is that Amazon is trying to get it.
Regardless of who did it first, the trend leading to this patent was set long ago and has been continuing for some time. This is simply the first time the implications extend outside the book world. Why is it Amazon doesn't use the New York Times bestseller list on their site? It's not because of it not representing what Amazon sells, but because of a cease and desist order sent to Amazon and Borders last June (notice any prominent bookstores missing? Selective enforcement, you might say.)that resulted in the list being removed. Or look at the discounts on bestsellers - Amazon ups theirs, BN follows suit. Both Jeff Bezos and Leonard Riggio, CEO of Big and Nasty, seem so concerned over their fight with each other and other online competitors that they lack any judgement concerning the implications of their actions. There is more publicity over this issue than previous ones simply because they've moved out of the industry. The pattern for this behavior was set a long time ago. Bezos' lack of foresight should not be surprising since his company not only has never shown a profit, but has no plan to do so in the near future. But what is the best way to stop it? Since the procedure for getting a patent isn't going to be improved any time soon and people aren't going to stop buying books online the only thing that we can do is pay closer attention to what is being patented and hope that more prominent figures like Tim O'Reilly take a stand on similar issues. Or let them patent it, and then come up with something better ourselves.
Censorship issues are often fraught with irony. In the early 1990s a California high school actually handed out copies of Ray Bradbury's Farenheit 451 to students with all the "hell"s and "damn"s blacked out. To be honest the only resonable incident of censorship I ever heard of was some teacher banning the Cabbage Patch Kids books because of poor grammar.
Slashdot Mirror
Although the idea of discounting bestsellers is an interesting one, there is a limitation as to how far this discount will go. We all can already see retailers discounting the bestselling items (or predicted best sellers). How deep the discount goes at the retail level is determined by two things - how far the label lets it go down, IOW what the cost per unit is to the retailer, and how far the retailer lets it go down. Therein lies a conflict. Above and beyond the money made by the artist (little) and the label/publisher/whathaveyou (more than little) you still have a retailer who is trying to get their cut. Yes, you will still see price matching as various retailers compete for sales, but these prices will bottom out at the point where retailers make little or no money. Unless the site selling these MP3s is guaranteed income from other sources we won't see prices ever drop down to nothing on a site dependent in any way on purchases for income. I imagine that the retailers - something that has not been mentioned much in this discussion - are playing more of a role in the future of copyright law than we are paying attention to.
Now I'm a book junky and wouldn't trade my paperbacks for anything, but it seems to me that there is a potential out there for writers to not only gain an audience and worldwide exposure, but to be able to retain the rights to their work, which were previously sold to publishers in exchange for both money and exposure. If authors could find a new way to make money off of internet publishing - perhaps via banner advertisement or the like - book publishing could instead be steered towards public interest instead of mere formula and the Oprah Effect. This exposure could increase the number of new authors that do make it into print - it's easier to sell yourself with a web history showing public interest.
Plus there are so many potential ways of changing the standard novel format to be more suited to online publishing, innovations that would surely create their own kind of market, completely separate from the book industry. All things considered although the publishing industry's backwoods view of current events may prove to harm it, I don't see any harm in changing a system that serves only to promote a few select middle grade authors and those selected for Oprah's book club. Maybe we'll get the chance to read more quality writing as a result.
Above and beyond our own introversion working against us (this is where I'm spending my day off instead of writing my congressman) there is also a rampant ignorance working against us. People in general do not understand the scope of the machines they've installed in their homes. If they did, some of the issues involving patent law and copyrights, well, wouldn't be issues. To be honest, there's a fear of computers that is prevelant even in homes with computers. Too many books, movies, whathaveyou with machines destroying people's lives. This kind of paranoia is not going to help the cause of those that understand these weird little boxes
Then there is the problem of communicating "our" point of view. As it stands now it's difficult to find anyone able to bridge the gap between "geek" and "non-geek" for lack of better terms. Many folks around here speak computer very well, but how many speak politics? To make matters more difficult, the more well known geek figures around (for example, Bill Gates) have enough non-charisma to make the average candidate reflexively recoil. Anybody notice Bush or Gore having lunch with Mr. Microsoft on the campaign trail? Not like he's lacking money. Even if we could find a more centralized voice, until we found a way to explain it with enough clarity for the nontechie and enough charisma for the press to latch on - sound bites are everything - "our" voice is going to be misrepresented.
1.Not quite as smart as us, so we can keep all those books that call us (or at least some of us, in some cases) the "superior race". Like a whole planet of folks who really dig "Wings".
2.Dead. So we don't have to worry about them killing us for being inferior.
I think we'd prefer to find the latter. Less hassle, even if the former could give us the excuse to ship the military off-planet
There are quite a few sites that are now allowing writers to post articles and stories anonymously. Some sites started this with trepidation, obviously concerned about points such as the one you stated - some people do publish what many would consider pornography, and don't want the aggravation or embarassment that would come with full disclosure. Imagine the surprise when the items being posted anonymously were more likely to be political in nature from those in countries where there words could result in death or imprisonment, not merely public scorn. While we are currently lucky enough to not have a country that is quite so violent in retribution, that doesn't mean our country is flawless, or even safe for those who reveal those flaws. There are many more ways to ruin a person than simply killing him. Ask any of the actors who lived through the McCarthy-era persecutions in Hollywood. The item I find interesting in this matter is that the group developing these comments was created to consider "educational programs" under the heading of Unlawful Conduct. Last I heard I don't need to give someone my name if I learn something.
Actually Ingram is a distributor - both of books and periodicals - rather than a publisher, which would have had further reaching consequences had the purchase not been in violation of monopoly laws. Still the question remains how much better it is that Amazon is trying to get it.
Regardless of who did it first, the trend leading to this patent was set long ago and has been continuing for some time. This is simply the first time the implications extend outside the book world. Why is it Amazon doesn't use the New York Times bestseller list on their site? It's not because of it not representing what Amazon sells, but because of a cease and desist order sent to Amazon and Borders last June (notice any prominent bookstores missing? Selective enforcement, you might say.)that resulted in the list being removed. Or look at the discounts on bestsellers - Amazon ups theirs, BN follows suit. Both Jeff Bezos and Leonard Riggio, CEO of Big and Nasty, seem so concerned over their fight with each other and other online competitors that they lack any judgement concerning the implications of their actions. There is more publicity over this issue than previous ones simply because they've moved out of the industry. The pattern for this behavior was set a long time ago. Bezos' lack of foresight should not be surprising since his company not only has never shown a profit, but has no plan to do so in the near future. But what is the best way to stop it? Since the procedure for getting a patent isn't going to be improved any time soon and people aren't going to stop buying books online the only thing that we can do is pay closer attention to what is being patented and hope that more prominent figures like Tim O'Reilly take a stand on similar issues. Or let them patent it, and then come up with something better ourselves.
Censorship issues are often fraught with irony. In the early 1990s a California high school actually handed out copies of Ray Bradbury's Farenheit 451 to students with all the "hell"s and "damn"s blacked out. To be honest the only resonable incident of censorship I ever heard of was some teacher banning the Cabbage Patch Kids books because of poor grammar.