Battle Intensifies Over Right to Copy

[Jason Dunn]

<a href="http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,89164,tk,dn031402X,00.asp">http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,89164,tk,dn031402X,00.asp</a><br /><br />There are some nasty copyright battles brewing down in the US, and it's important for all of us to pay attention. Where the US goes legally, many other countries follow (especially Canada) so I can only imagine how bad things will become if these new laws pass. MP3 will effectively be outlawed because there's no built-in DRM security. It's almost unbelievable how far-reaching the repercussions of this would be: taping TV shows would become illegal. I'm absolutely infuriated at the powers that be in the entertainment industry for trying to push this asinine law into being. Mark my words, DRM will be a sore point between consumers and the entertainment industry for at least another decade before a real solution is arrived at.<br /><br />"Could making an MP3 mix of your favorite songs and recording Sex in the City on your PC or VCR turn you into a criminal? That's exactly what consumer advocates are warning, as Washington and Hollywood gang up on the issue of digital copyright and piracy....<br /><br />...Adding some urgency to the debate is a bill authored by Senator Fritz Hollings (D-South Carolina), chair of the Commerce Committee, that would make illegal the creation, selling, or distribution of "any interactive digital device that does not include and utilize certified security technologies." The Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA) orders that copy protection be built into everything from your PC and handheld to your TiVo recorder and TV set-top box."

[TomB]

Jason, the minute forty percent of the US record-buying population started "trading" music instead of buying it, the handwriting was on the wall. Look at it this way, it costs more to produce a Hollywood Blockbuster than it costs to build a local shopping mall. No one would even think about walking through a mall robbing it store by store, yet few people with a fast connection think twice about "trading" music or movies. As we speak copies of "Lord Of The Rings" are available right now p2p as two 300MB DivX files.

Now which cost more money to build, your local shopping mall or Lord Of The Rings? And if you were that film's producer, how would you feel standing by and helplessly watching your film being "traded" to death? FYI a producer can't do a thing in the US except go to the courts and/or have expensive lawyers send out cease and desist orders to ISPs. In the meantime, the producer is being robbed blind. This is exactly what happened at movie88.com last month. The guy had every major film of the past five years online for $1 each for almost two months before Hollywood got him shut down. How many hundreds of thousands of films did he distribute before he was shut down? The supreme irony is that in the end, he was complaining because people were stealing HIS stolen movies by trading passwords on the Internet. Ya gotta love it!

So I repeat - what did you expect? It is kind of sad when you think of it. We may actually need these laws to protect us from ourselves because we don't have the self-control to "just say no" to material we have no rights to. Of course the saddest thing is that the 40% with little self-control or moral code are now ruining it for the 60% who have always played by the book...

Tom

[James Bond]

There is always the opposing pt of view: there is so much trading because consumers feel ripped off. DVDs are a bit expensive, same with CDs (whose prices seem to have gone up even). DVD is obviously much better than those highly compressed divx files, just as CD is better than 128kbps mp3. However, most music and movies that these producers make is trash. I would spend the $$$ for DVDs and CDs only for stuff that is quality. Why buy a CD with only one good song on it and 10 trash? Or a movie whose artisitic value approaches the nutritive qualities of popcorn? The entertainment industry needs a new distribution and pricing model. However, for the time being it is easier (and obviously cheaper) to go around suing everybody and closing sites and networks.

[TomB]

James - I agree about quality, but poor quality is no excuse for theft. If you think that makes sense, try breaking into Macy's tonight and walking out with a couple of thousand dollars worth of costume jewelry. The answer is - don't buy the material and don't "trade" it on-line. The minute Hollywood and musicians can't earn a living because of POOR QUALITY and not THEFT OF PRODUCT, is the day we all start to see and hear better entertainment.

BTW - the best way to look at this is putting yourself in an artist's or producer's shoes. "Umm, sorry James, we can't pay you this week, all of your work was stolen so we have no money to pay you. We think you're great though so try again next week!" Or here is another one I've seen on forums "Jeez James, we'd love to pay you but all our customers claim that 'art should be free'!"

As far as the cost of entertainment - how old are you James? When prerecorded video tapes first became popular 20 years ago they cost anywhere from $70 to $100! Current DVDs are twice the quality and only 20% of what tapes USED to cost. Many $100 million dollar films on DVD now cost less than a music CD that cost .1% of that to produce!

As far as music, hits are hits because you have gotten used to hearing them through repetition. If you like a particular artist who takes pride in his/her work, the chances are very good that after listening to the entire CD you will like it just as much as the "hit." If you are talking about buying "one hit wonders" then the simple solution is don't buy the CD until you sample it at places like Amazon. Whatever you do - don't "trade" anything - that is what has gotten us to the point we are today. Hollywood is trying to protect property that is being ripped off right in front of their eyes.

Now here is a very unique challenge to all the folks here who have any doubts that "trading" isn't theft. Let's get 100 of you to throw $1,000 each into a production fund for an ultra low-budget 35mm theatrical film. You guys will have script and casting approval through majority rule and a sign-off on the release print. If it succeeds and we can keep it from "traders" each of you make a profit. If it succeeds and winds up on the Internet we lose our shirts. Any takers?

[popealien]

TomB-

There are so many falacies in your argument, and I don't think they even address the real issue. First of all, your analogy of walking through a mall "robbing it store by store" doesn't work - If someone walks into sears and walks out with a lawnmower, that lawnmower is GONE. Not only can the store not sell it, but the money they used to buy it with is gone as well. Digital information is the only thing that can be duplicated like this - the lawnmower is still sitting in sears, but somebody is using a duplicate at the same time.

And when you talk about Lord of the Rings being availiable on P2P - I don't know about you, but I would WAY rather pay 12 bucks to go see a large crisp version in a theater than try to find a bootleg copy and watch it grainy on my PC monitor. Same with music, I want the liner notes and printed case - I don't see it being serious competition. Whats happening to the entertainment industry is the same thing that happened to horse couriers with the introduction of the train, automobile and airplane. Its not music and movie production that is being threatened here, its the industries death-grip on the distribution system.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that you should go and download music and movies, I'm saying that we allready HAVE laws against that, we don't need to go further to protect the industries profits and take more and more away from the consumer. Why shouldn't I be able to make a backup copy of my CD's for car or office? Why shouldn't I be able to build my own PC's without DRM hardware just because the entertainment industry percieves it as a threat to their income model? Maybe its time for them to adapt to reality instead of constantly trying to layer law upon law until we can't watch TV without permission from Sony and a barcode on our foreheads.

-Blah

[Kevlar Moneyclips]

Its amazing how much I hear about damages from P2P from the entertainment industry. If they really wanted to make a dent in piracy they would shut down the distributors who of bootlegged music on New York City streets. You can walk on any block in lower Manhattan and buy music cd's for $5 and now DVD's for $10. I don't know about some of the people here but I am not going to buy another 1000 albums with a digital rights system that tells me please insert $1.00 for the next five minutes.

I heard this anaolgy before and I am repeating it. If someone sells water in a desert where it has never rained before and a huge fortune and then one one day it begins to rain. What does the water merchant do? Does he legislate to make freely collecting rainwater illegal? Or does he adapt?

[Rob Alexander]

This isn't at all about whether it's right for people to trade things they haven't purchased legally; it isn't. It's about whether it's right to take away our ability to use what we HAVE purchased legally. Currently, we have certain rights under copyright law, including the right to make copies for personal use or study, to make back up copies, etc. The copyright holder doesn't have to assist us in exercising those rights (e.g. they can protect their media), but neither can they actively infringe on them (e.g. they can't add code that deletes your hard drive if you copy a program).

If they had their way, the big media producers would have you pay every time you watched a movie, listened to a song or read a book, and this fight is about that.

TomB is suggesting that this is about theft of intellectualy property, painting a picture of the big producers going out of business from Napster-like products. Nonsense. The Lord of the Rings has already covered the cost of ALL THREE movies from the theatre receipts of the first movie alone. TomB's issue isn't about them going broke or not, it's about whether they earn $1.2 billion in profits for a given year or $1.4 billion.

I'm not arguing that they're not losing money or that they don't have a right to be upset about it, but this fight is about whether legitimate consumers pay for the big media producers to make their extra profits. If this particular bill passes, it would mean society stripping away virtually all of our consumer rights, costing us collectively billions more than we're currently paying, just to raise the producers' profits by an extra 10-20% or so.

Piracy is not something to be supported, but having honest people getting screwed by the big media companies is NOT an acceptable alternative. :evil:

[TomB]

Hey guys, this was a wake-up call about why the copyright crush is happening - not a defense or personal attack! In fact I clearly stated that the few are ruining it for the many. All it takes is ONE guy compressing and posting a copy of The Matrix on line and through nuclear shares ONE guy has done more damage in one day, than 1,000 street corner hacks working New York City for a year. As far as a producer's right to make money - what are you saying - it's OK to steal from a rich guy? Well the sad truth is that less than 1% of the theatrical films that are released each year make anything close to Lord of The Rings and less than 20% make money. If that shocks you, look at the cost of filmmaking, the number of films done each year and the amazing level of "trading."

As far as the lawn-mowers and DVDs - bad example. Sure the actual duplication of the DVD cost a buck but it cost MILLIONS for even what is called a low-budget film to get to the one buck DVD stage. And for every sale that is lost through a "share" the producer lost from a $2 to $8 profit on a legitimate sale (producer's cut). What completely blows me away is that most people don't understand that copying and "sharing" a file - even for one friend is not only breaking the law, it is plain wrong. The only thing I can come up with is that the folks posting here are either very young or have never lost sleep over an income that isn't happening because a "successful" piece of work is being "shared" and not "paid for." :(

[James Bond]

It's funny that the recording industry did themselves in. Why did they have to adopt digital media like CDs and DVDs? Digital is easy to copy with computers. In fact, pirated video CDs were popular in China long before Napster. It is only when network bandwidth caught up with the size of these files that the recording industry started screaming. Should have thought about it earlier. It will be really scary if a couple of companies unrelated to the IT industry start to dictate what type of components go into a PC and its OS, all through legislation. Big Brother?

[thenikjones]

For articles on this issue see Jeff Kirvin's www.writingonyourpalm.net.

The problem with DRM is the hassle it poses to law abiding users. It took Audible.com over a month to sort me out when I changed my Jornada and couldn't access previous downloads.

A major advantage of "digital piracy" is car theft - here in the UK you can usually claim a maximum of 100 ukp ($140 US?) of "personal goods" on your car insurance - that is less than 10 CDs, let alone any other items. So I copy my legally bought CDs on my CD-RW and use those copies in my car. Will DRM stop me from doing this?

[bjornkeizers]

I'm one of those "few" ruining it for the "many", and I'm not afraid to admit that.

I have full version software..
I listen to MP3's..
I have burned a cd once or twice...

Care to guess why? .. Because I can, and indeed.. must.

CD's cost around 25 euro's over here, and we're talking just plain vanilla music cd's. Nothing fancy. Why on god's green earth would I buy one cd, of which I only like perhaps a handfull of songs?

For my 25 euro's, I can buy and burn over a dozen cd's! It's not an issue of quality or cost.. it's an issue of "we can so we do"

CD burning and trading is immensely popular here in the Netherlands; lots of people get cable just to be able to get mp3's and software! I heard an interesting figure a couple of days ago: in 2000, there were approximately 20 milion CDR's sold here in the netherlands. Last year, this figure rose to 70 milion..

That's an increase of 50 MILION CD'S! 8O

The fact is: no one can stop us. Look at Napster. When they pulled the plug on Napster, they opened Pandora's Box as well. Now we not only have mp3 sharing.. but Software, video's, pictures all of that as well. Fact is, we will find a way. Even if we have to move all p2p servers to say.. Tongo or the middle of the desert.. or even outer space.

Already we are bouncing signals all over the planet, piggybacking signals on existing satelites would be a peace of cake for some people...

[TomB]

I sincerely hope some of the consumer rights groups are able to speak out for the majority of consumers who play by the book. My guess is that people like Bjornkeizers will force the issue the other way without even understanding the problems they are causing for the rest of us. Even if the legal system doesn't crush consumer rights - what artist/producer is going to release product when he/she can't get paid for the work they do?

I can't understand this mentality but hey, welcome to the 21st century TomB! Anyone want to buy some used production equipment? :)

[Jeff Kirvin]

An interesting observation is that in the music industry (and to some extent, film, just ask anyone who's had a percentage of the "net" profits in their contract) many artists support P2P because it can actually help their bottom line.

For most musicians, the bulk of their money comes from touring and merchandising. The studio keeps almost all of the money from an album itself. In some cases, the musicians have to go on tour because the terms of their contracts have actually put them in debt to the studio for some of the cost of making the album.

Since these musicians are never going to see a penny from album sales, they don't care if the studio gets ripped off. And if more people "share" tracks online, maybe more people will come to see them in person, which is what actually puts food on the musicians' table.

Rob Alexander had an excellent point. Despite Hilary Rosen's whining about the labels going broke, what's really at issue here isn't whether or not the RIAA can continue to stay in business. What's at issue is whether or not they can continue the elaborate screwing of artists on one end and consumers on the other. Does anyone else think it's strange that although the costs of manufacturing a CD have dropped drastically in recent years, the cost of a commercial music CD has steadily gone up? Where do you think that extra money is going? To the artists?

I'm not saying that file trading is right. I'm saying that it's not the problem. The problem is that the overall system is corrupt and has to change.

Think about it. If a retail music CD were $9.95, how many would bother downloading lower-quality MP3s? I wouldn't. I'd rather have a nice case, liner notes and a CD I can put in my collection, listen to around the house or download tracks to my Pocket PC. (&lt;-- just to keep this vaguely on topic)

But since that retail music CD is $20, suddenly finding the tracks I actually want online looks more palatable. I just don't have the money to spend a Jackson on a couple of songs.

And if that retail music CD is $20 and includes copy protection so that I can't download tracks to my Pocket PC or make a backup that I don't care if it gets melted sitting in the car... Well, then I'll go out of my way to pirate the damn thing. The record labels clearly don't give a damn about what I want, so why should I care about what they want?

Rosen complains that CD sales went down last year, and blames pirates. I blame the labels for overcharging for what in a lot of cases is a mediocre product to begin with. Charging "what the market will bear" is a founding principle of capitalism, but that the RIAA and MPAA need to understand is that that number varies based on the quality and availability of the product. If they want to sell more product, they should make better stuff and drop their prices to a reasonable level, not try to make the government enforce an unfair monopoly.

[zylark]

No amount of DRM fileformats are going to change the fact that mp3 and DivX are out there as freely available fileformats for the recording, copying and spreading of digital music and video over ANY digital media, including of course the net.

Back in the old days (remember those :D ) People copied vinyl to tape. With a small amount of loss, granted. Still that analouge transfer from one media to the other contributed less to the loss of audio quality than most are used to today with the heavy compression taking place by converting a song from CD to mp3.

Same goes for video. From VHS to VHS back then. From DVD to DivX today (or in some cases, from Cinema to DigitalVideo to DivX).

Even with the implementation af DRM to the original media, people can, and will, bypass this with a simple analouge transfer. The loss in quality will be insignificant.

The only thing DRM will have as a conequence is that "legit" media content will become an expensive hassle, and duely sink in demand. Illegally obtained media content will prosper on various p2p networks. Hassle free I might add. Though a bit low on quality compared to the original product.

Oh, and the crackers will have a prosperous future...

[timothyt]

DRM is a good idea, it's just poorly implemented. Why? Businesses factor loss due to theft into their pricing, always have, always will. All that DRM is INTENDED to do is guarantee that you have bought the digital content you are using (be it an application, a movie, a song, etc.) - how can you argue that you should be allowed to use something you haven't purchased? I don't understand that mentality at all. If you are one of the people who DOES purchase something, ask yourself: do you want to be the one paying for all the people who use it but didn't purchase it? That's exactly what happens! You think businesses just pull the money to pay for their estimated losses out of the air? No! They pass that on to the people who do buy the product.

What can (and should) be argued is DRM implementation. I don't have the answers here, but I think Audible.com has some good ideas that others should follow, particularly by letting users have multiple devices (but not unlimitted devices) that can play the content.

I think we're nearing the death of the record producer, which is - I think - good for individual artists, who are all I care about anyway. When I buy a Bruce Springstein CD, I want 90% of the purchase to go right into his pocket. Digital distribution can make that happen, but it will only work if, quite frankly, you can't get it for free (at least not very easily).

I don't have the answers I just think it's important to focus on the real problem: finding a way to protect the property rights of the individuals and businesses that have something to sell. I think we're not even close to a solution that is fair and effective, but we should keep brainstorming.

So... What would be a DRM method that you WOULD be willing to use? We've already all get Macrovision in our DVD players, nobody even thinks about it unless they're trying to copy a DVD... If that's not enough, what do we need and how should it work? Should media owners have the right to sell their goods directly on a pay-per-view basis? Should they have the right to sell you a single-user version? A single-copy version? I'm still undecided...

[Jason Dunn]

Jason, the minute forty percent of the US record-buying population started "trading" music instead of buying it, the handwriting was on the wall.


I find it funny that you assume that MP3s and burning them to CD are an inherant illegal act. When I buy a CD I immediately rip it and put it on my media rack - rarely to be touched again. Am I doing something illegal or immoral? Am I contributing to the downfall of the music industry and stealing from artists?

I still buy on average of about three a month - peer to peer hasn't changed that at all. If anything, it's increased my CD buying - when I hear a song that I like (like "Wherever you will go" by The Calling) I go grab it with a peer to peer program. This gives me the ability to listen to it when I want instead of relying on the preferences of a radio DJ. If I like the single, I'll go buy the album.

[Dan East]

Well, there are two things that can be assumed regardless.

1 - p2p will not go away.
2 - Regardless of any DRM implementation, even at the hardware level, it will be broken. Regardless of how the information is stored or transferred it must eventually be decoded. It may take the creation of custom hardware, but the data will be captured after it is decoded (assuming of course that the DRM implementation is not broken outright, such as the DSS algorithm used with DVDs). Think about it. It only takes a handful of people with custom hardware to gain access to the information, then item number 1 comes into play. Lets take Nintendo Entertainment System games for example. How many of you own the custom hardware it takes to extract data from an NES catridge? Now, how many of you can download NES ROM data off of the internet?

Dan East

[TomB]

I find it funny that you assume that MP3s and burning them to CD are an inherant illegal act.


Jason, I am not assuming anything. In the United States duplicating or transcoding a copyrighted work is illegal unless you own the copyright or have the author's permission! Please read the copyright notice on any book, record, tape, CD or DVD before you copy it! All the Betamax case allowed was the TEMPORARY timeshift of broadcasts! A copyright owner can allow what he wants with his content so in the early days of computers when floppies were easily damaged manufacturers "allowed" users to make one backup copy for themselves so manufacturers wouldn't be replacing bad disks every few months. Now in real life, no one is going to bother you for PERSONAL COPIES of anything - the problem is many people don't stop there. That is why Napster flourished and is the focus of my posts here, NOT what people do for themselves in the privacy of their home.

Dan East, you are 100% right - and that is one of the disturbing things about this thread. ALL business transactions are based on trust and a code of both law and morality. Of course there will always be people who will crack protection, steal, rape plunder and murder. BUT if the majority are moral and law abiding, these things don't / won't happen on a large scale.

As I mentioned in the first post, the reason we are getting unreasonable copyright laws now is because for whatever reason, the MAJORITY doesn't seem to accept that it is WRONG to copy/trade/take from another without paying for that person's work. Look at this thread! One guy actually thinks stolen music HELPS artists!!!! Boy, I'm glad the majority still feel that murder is immoral or we'd be in big trouble!

Timothyt, I thought I was going nuts - I'm glad to see your views. As far as the record producer - they have a major function. Bruce was playing on NYC streets until a producer heard him - saw his talent - backed him with studio quality recordings - promoted him - got airplay - got him on a touring contract - arranged the bookings - set up transportation and lodging - and on and on. What we are seeing without a producer is EVERYONE with a computer and a modem, and many times zero talent, commitment, drive or follow-through, getting direct access to US. In other words, stars are not just born with a natural talent, SOMEONE (the producer) has to provide a venue for them - and an audience to support them. It's funny, but every "independent" on MP3 would kill to have a producer email them with an offer! :)

[Jeff Kirvin]

As I mentioned in the first post, the reason we are getting unreasonable copyright laws now is because for whatever reason, the MAJORITY doesn't seem to accept that it is WRONG to copy/trade/take from another without paying for that person's work. Look at this thread! One guy actually thinks stolen music HELPS artists!!!! Boy, I'm glad the majority still feel that murder is immoral or we'd be in big trouble!


I was that guy, and it's absolutely true. Why do you think the Grateful Dead have always encouraged bootlegs of their concerts? Because they know it's a great way to get people to show up and see them in person, where the money goes to them and not the studio. It would be wonderful if the studios weren't screwing the artists out of all their money, but that's not the case.

Even with the "legitimate" digital music channels put up recently by the labels, the artists are still getting screwed, but this time they're getting screwed by the labels rather than the fans. PressPlay and the other one -- I forget the name -- pay artists only $0.0025 per downloaded song. That's' right; a quarter of a cent for something that costs the consumer a buck or more. Do you think that 0.25% is a fair royalty? That means the Dixie Chicks need four people to buy a copy of "Goodbye Earl" before they get a single penny (and that's before taxes!). This is why the Dixie Chicks and other artists have filed cease and desist orders against the labels for digital distribution of their work.

And yes, murder is still wrong. Comparing that to P2P file trading is apples to orangutans.


Timothyt, I thought I was going nuts - I'm glad to see your views. As far as the record producer - they have a major function. Bruce was playing on NYC streets until a producer heard him - saw his talent - backed him with studio quality recordings - promoted him - got airplay - got him on a touring contract - arranged the bookings - set up transportation and lodging - and on and on. What we are seeing without a producer is EVERYONE with a computer and a modem, and many times zero talent, commitment, drive or follow-through, getting direct access to US. In other words, stars are not just born with a natural talent, SOMEONE (the producer) has to provide a venue for them - and an audience to support them. It's funny, but every "independent" on MP3 would kill to have a producer email them with an offer! :)


Ah, so that's where you're coming from. We need the publishers/producers/etc. to keep us sheilded from all the crap, is that it? We need a "content filter" to let us ignorant consumers know what we're supposed to like? Maybe that's why pop music is littered with boy bands that all sound exactly the same and what passes for novels these days is mostly formulaic crap. Give the public what they want, and make damn sure they never have the choice to pick anything else!

Sorry, but using the Internet to allow everyone an equal voice is what the arts have been starved for. The crap will sink under its own weight, and a lot of good, original voices that haven't been able to penetrate the "more of the same" gatekeeper mentality will be heard (and as for promotion and marketing, word of mouth is incredibly powerful on the Internet; how did you hear about Napster in the first place?). This is a good thing. Take your censorship somewhere else, we're all full up here.

[Jason Dunn]

Jason, I am not assuming anything. In the United States duplicating or transcoding a copyrighted work is illegal unless you own the copyright or have the author's permission!


I should have re-phrased that. There's a difference between "illegal" and "immoral", although some people who are "letter of the law" types (like yourself I think) would disagree.

Is it illegal to rip a CD for personal use? Apparently, yes.
Is it immoral to rip a CD for personal use? Not to me it isn't. I paid for it, so I'm not acting in an immoral fashion by simply wanting to listen to it on my own device.

Is it illegal to go 10 KM/H over the speed limit? Yes.
Is it immoral? Not to me. 50 KM/H over the limit becomes a danger to others, which is immoral.

Some people follow the law, others follow their own moral code because the laws created by mankind shift and change over time. For example, abortion is legal in some places, illegal in others. Does that mean it's moral or immoral depending on your geographical location? Do we need a GPS to find our own morality? To me, abortion will always be an immoral act regardless of the laws of man. The laws of man, just like mankind itself, are fallable and weak.

I'm the kind of person who doesn't have a problem doing "illegal" things as long as they're not immoral. Judge me as you will. :)

PS - I don't want to see this thread be turned into a pro-choice/pro-life thing, so please let's stick with the DRM/music/copying topic. Thanks! (flame me in private if you want to) :D

[TomB]

Jkirvin you obviously do not earn your living as a performer. Please press a CD, write a book or paint a picture (without a producer) and tell us about it. BTW - breaking the copyright law in the US is a felony. If you are convicted, you are in the same boat as the other bad guys I mentioned.

Finally, regular folks don't follow the letter of the law. I have simply been trying to explain why the entertainment business IS. Who knows, maybe art should be free. Jason you are right, this is a no win topic although like Timothyt, I honestly cannot understand this mentality.

[Jason Dunn]

TomB and others who think along the same lines...

In ten years when every song we have, every book we read, and every video we own is on a pay-per-use basis, you'll look back on these days and realize you should have stood up and fought for your rights as a consumer. The media machine doesn't want to sell you anything - it wants to rent it to you so it can make money again and again...all for the same content. Will the artists get rich off of this? No - only the people who control the content will.

[Jeff Kirvin]

Jkirvin you obviously do not earn your living as a performer. Please press a CD, write a book or paint a picture (without a producer) and tell us about it.


Since you asked... I have written three books, published them myself online without the assistance of an agent or publisher, and I have made money from those sales. Interestingly, I've sold those books via the honor system, meaning I intentionally give people the complete, full, uncrippled product, and people have paid for it anyway.

G'head, tell me again that all consumers are thieves if given the opportunity...

I agree with Jason. You're going to regret it when you can only rent intellectual property from people with no creative ability at all that have just managed to build an empire by placing themselves between the money and the talent, then screwing both sides.

[TomB]

Interesting dialogue. First of all, no matter what laws are passed and enforced, the pay-per view scenario will never happen. We have already seen that fail with Circuit City's DivX disks. If no one buys the product the sellers will either adjust their approach or go bankrupt.

Jeff, I went to your site and looked around. We have been talking apples to oranges in terms of scope, but maybe fresh approaches like your own is what the industry needs.

I did take a look at one of your books and at 26 RTF pages (55 typeset pages in the print world I publish in) your 17,000 word-count is about 10% of the industry average for a book. Comparing your $5 price to the $20 average street price for a hardcover on a word by word basis, your asking price is about twice as much as a hardcover. I have to admit that is pretty imaginative, but if you are truly making your living from this operation, my hat is off to you.

Others aren't as lucky as you. I just tossed 9,300 unsold CDs on a run of 10,000 from a working NYC band that had over half a million downloads on MP3.com and played the main stage at the Utica NY Woodstock. Of those 700 CDs, 400 were promos. The group couldn't pay their bills and disbanded. Over 500,000 downloads = 300 $10 CDs or 10% of the band's cost of producing and promoting their work? Jeff, we should have invested our money in your publishing operation!

I am leaving this thread empty-handed. I still don't understand the "trade" mentality or how one gets around it to offer a quality product and get paid WITHOUT the insane copyright crush we have been discussing. I really wish there was a solution but according to analyst David Card, the sad answer may be there is none. Card spoke at today's Jupiter Media Forum in NYC saying "seventy percent of online adults surveyed by Jupiter can't understand why anyone would pay for any online content." That isn't good for anyone but ironically affects Jason the most! The story appears on today's Wired site:

http://www.wired.com/news/ebiz/0,1272,51146,00.html

[Jeff Kirvin]

Interesting dialogue. First of all, no matter what laws are passed and enforced, the pay-per view scenario will never happen. We have already seen that fail with Circuit City's DivX disks. If no one buys the product the sellers will either adjust their approach or go bankrupt.


That only works in a free market when consumers have alternatives. If everyone is required to use DRM by law, consumers have to suck it up and deal with it, or simply do without.


Jeff, I went to your site and looked around. We have been talking apples to oranges in terms of scope, but maybe fresh approaches like your own is what the industry needs.

I did take a look at one of your books and at 26 RTF pages (55 typeset pages in the print world I publish in) your 17,000 word-count is about 10% of the industry average for a book. Comparing your $5 price to the $20 average street price for a hardcover on a word by word basis, your asking price is about twice as much as a hardcover. I have to admit that is pretty imaginative, but if you are truly making your living from this operation, my hat is off to you.


Two points you neglected to mention, Tom:

1. You picked the novella. In today's publishing climate, it's nearly impossible to publish a novella at all in paper. It's too long for magazines and too short for a book of its own. I also have a 30,000 word non-fiction book (Writing On Your Palm) and an 80,000 word novel (Between Heaven and Hell). 80k is well within the range of paper published novels. $5 would be cheaper than you'd find either of these books in paperback.

2. The $5 is just a suggested price, a starting point. Because the books are sold on the honor system, there's absolutely no way to "enforce" those prices. In fact, I tell customers up front that they are welcome to adjust the price as they see fit and pay whatever they feel the book is worth. I've been paid as little as $1 for a book and as much as $20. So your breakdown of cost per page is completely irrelevant.

In the immortal words of Yoda, "you must unlearn what you have learned." Trying to sell content online using the same models as selling in the "real" world is a recipe for failure, as you've seen firsthand. That doesn't mean you can't make money online. It does mean you have to adjust your business model to the new medium and think along new lines. Trying to force a brick and mortar business onto the Internet without changes is doomed to failure.

[TomB]

Jeff no matter what your product is and how it compares to printed counterparts, the bottom line is you are earning a living on the Internet from your intellectual properties (at least 500 - 1000 paid downloads per month after PayPal and bandwidth fees). That is an incredible accomplishment - something none of the hundreds of internet-based operations I know of have been able to do in the past three years. Of course your creativity and the laws we have discussed would be superfluous if society continued to live by the code we used for 2,000 years prior to the Internet - Exodus 20:15.

Congratulations on your achievements - and best of luck to us all! :)