As e-book adoption steadily increases, I think writers and artists have a very good reason to wonder if easily pirated e-books are going to do to the publishing industry what Napster did to the record industry. With news that Dan Brown’s last novel was pirated within hours of being released and with e-reader adoption growing steadily, it’s a serious concern.
I know there are lots of bitter types out there who would love nothing more than to stomp on the grave of publishers, but if they fall it’s going to have a profound effect on the quality of books.
Now… There will always be books. Publishers or no publishers, agents or no agents, paid authors or no paid authors, people are going to write, and some will write very well no matter what. But I think the overall quality of books would suffer tremendously if very few people can make any money doing it. Not only because there wouldn’t be publishers to edit and copyedit and market, but the fewer people who can make any money or spend any time writing books because they have no hope of getting paid will result in lesser the competition and lesser the choice and lesser the quality.
This isn’t the music industry – no one is making money on an author tours or Ian McEwan t-shirt sales no matter how many I personally would buy.
But!
Lately something has happened that made me wonder if perhaps my worries about piracy might be somewhat overblown.
There’s a site that I’m not going to link to or name because I don’t want to give them any traffic at all. Let’s call them FakeTorrent. FakeTorrent is a site that purports to contain all sorts of pirated material, including books, that you can download very easily and holy cow thousands of people have already done it. All you have to do is install the right software.
And, of course, the software is a virus. Or they’re phishing for credit cards. Or some other nefarious activity. I didn’t stick around long enough to find out. But! There’s nothing being pirated. Essentially: they’re scamming pirates.
Could this be the future? Since pirates are already downloading files from dubious sites, is lacing a highly sought-after file with a virus or ads or scams a sufficient growth industry to actually deter piracy?
Now… don’t get me wrong. I’m not some starry-eyed Pollyanna who thinks piracy is going to go away entirely.
But I also have been around the Internet long enough to know the life cycle of user-generated websites, whether they be eBay, Friendster, Myspace, Craigslist, or a file sharing site. First the early adopters come along and everything works great. Very exciting! Then comes mass adoption, which strains the site’s capacity to keep everything running smoothly. And then, inevitably, come the spammers and scammers to ruin it for everyone. Once they arrive, using the site becomes tremendously annoying.
The only user-generated sites that have had any longevity at all are ones that have successfully kept the spammers and scammers at bay. And it takes an incredible amount of resources and ingenuity to stay ahead of them and sort them out from the regular users. (Twitter is on the cusp of the spammer/scammer wave, incidentally, and it will be interesting to see how well they handle it.)
I wonder if we’re going to see a similar life cycle in Internet piracy. Any piracy site or sharer that has built sufficient users and resources to ensure quality control will also (hopefully) be a big enough target that it can be taken down by lawsuits (see, incidentally, the Scribd lawsuit over its laissez faire policy regarding the uploading of possibly copyrighted material). There’s also, I think, a significant business opportunity for companies that specialize in reducing or eliminating piracy.
Obviously someone that is truly motivated will find a way, and pirates may adapt to new challenges and barriers. But I wonder whether mass piracy is really in our future.
Essentially: my hope is that pirating material will be a sufficient pain in the ass that people will just go ahead and buy through trusted and legal sites that can guarantee quality control. Maybe that’s overly optimistic, but you can bet I’m counting my lucky stars as an agent and author that e-books weren’t all the rage in the year 2000 when many of us had vastly underdeveloped Internet consciences.
What do you think? How big of a threat is piracy? Should I be worried?
Anonymous says
Great.
That solves it then. It was just a maturity thing.
I best get Mom to lend me her credit card so I can lever the publishing industry's collective heads out of the sand.
And yet, it seems the thousands of dollars I spend annually on books, combined with the odd free download, is only worthy of condescending comment from an industry insider.
Nathan Bransford says
anon-
I'm not even sure which previous comment was yours, but yes – illegal downloading is worthy of condescension in my book. So neener neener meaniepants.
Anonymous says
"Ah, I see, good to know that it's okay to steal from the rich. I'm sure if someone poorer than you broke into your house you'd throw in the candlesticks too."
That's a remarkably lazy analogy.
Nathan Bransford says
Actually I thought it was pretty good.
Anonymous says
Tomas anonys here … the DRM direction this thread has gone, I'm going to add my two cents. As this thread dives into the rabbit hole of DRM, it seems to be predicated on absolutes ie., "everyone" will forward their new copy of whatever book to their 10K friends (ravenous readers, all. Yeah, right.)
I buy books – paper, hardcover – and I give them to people. I pass along, easily, 200 books+ a year. Is this piracy? The difference between an electronic version – besides the fact that I hate reading on screens & don't see myself buying a "device" – is that the books I like tend to be hard to find &/or weird or whatever. When I give a book to someone, it's a gesture. Pressing "send" doesn't have the same feel.
There's also a matter of wildly divergent tastes: my mom reads Grafton, Hillerman, procedurals. Our tastes rarely overlap – I sent Bangkok 8 and got an, "Well, interesting, I guess." If I were to read this thread, without say, having ever read or suggested a book, I might think, Everyone reads the same thing. C'mon, well all know this isn't true. Dan Brown's best seller status, economically important, hardly reflects the dazzling range of books out there.
Then there's the fact that a book is a tangible, felt thing. An object. Besides the heft (or, slimness), there's a tactile quality to it "DRM" will never, ever have.
This makes me think of one book, esp. a story collection that I love so much, I've probably bought 30 copies over the last 10 years and given it as a gift.
So is there room in this thread for a range of reading / delivery / platforms? I find this DRM discourse totally unrelatable to my book buying/reading habits.
Anonymous says
Nathan,
The candlestick thing was hilarious. I think Anon1:27 has sour grapes at being one-upped.
Bane of Anubis says
Neener neener? Isn't Mork and Mindy before your time, Nathan ;)?
I definitely don't approve of pirating (though I think D has a fairly good point, if a bit too generalized), but I find hacking and virus-infesting far worse (and would be prone to using that candlestick like Prof. Plum on any discovered offender)
Ink says
Anonymous Internet Coward,
Isn't all that just a complex rationalization for being selfish? It's my rights, my money, my entertainment needs and I'll satisfy them how and when I please regardless of who I hurt and yet I have money and sometimes spend it where I want to and that makes it all okay because I give when I feel like it and don't when I don't and it's much more convenient for me, me, me this way…
Perhaps I'm missing something.
The Anonymous Internet Coward says
Good if you're comparing apples to oranges. You seem to only be able to think in blanket generalities, and freely hand out disdain for anything that falls outside your opinion. There's a lot going on in this thread, but of all the ideas but you fail to see the difference between stealing from an individual and stealing from a corporation.
Are they both stealing? OF COURSE. Do they both have the same end effect on a single person? No. Stealing music affects and industry, it's a collection of people. Stealing from a home affects very specific people.
The Lost Symbol came off the press at 30% off from Amazon. My guess is that publishers gave Amazon deeper buying discounts than the independent publishers. The Lost Symbol would have sold just as many copies whether it was discounted or not, but the whole industry just threw away ridiculous amounts of money that could have been used to infuse a troubled market with some much needed cash. Publishing houses are following in the path of the automotive and music industries and ignoring easy ways to bring in extra money, and they're worried about a handful of people stealing a book they probably wouldn't have read anyways?
How is it fair that struggling independent bookstores can barely survive amongst the chains, and the publishing houses effectively take money out of their mouths by giving the competitive edge to the big players?
This is a multi-faceted and gray issue, and you'll never be able to put into black and white terms.
The Anonymous Internet Coward says
"Isn't all that just a complex rationalization for being selfish?"
No, it's that I think it's all bullsh*t and I don't feel any particular need to rise above it. I'm not rationalizing that I'm just going to take what I want, but I'm explaining why I think the way I do.
Everyone just wants to think Piracy = Wrong, but not understand why these things are happening. In a better system, I'd happily pay for everything. If the corporations delivering the material don't want to take the best interests of the artist and end user into account, then I fail to see why I should care about their needs.
The Anonymous Internet Coward says
Also, it's worth noting that I have had my house broken into and my computer stolen, have had my bike stolen on a separate occasion, have had my backpack stolen twice while traveling, and experienced other minor personal theft.
Marilyn Peake says
I have a question, and I’m sincerely interested in the answer … Is there anyone here who’s written more than one book AND believes that pirated copies of books are acceptable? With all the painful work that goes into creating a book, I can’t imagine many writers feeling it’s OK if people steal it and don’t pay for the effort and huge numbers of hours spent writing and editing their book. In addition, artists spend hours creating the book covers, publishers spend hours formatting the books in multiple formats for distributors, and distributors spend hours setting up the books for distribution. I’m thinking that by the time most authors struggle through writing a second book, they’re hoping their efforts will eventually lead to some type of tangible financial income. I know that's true for me. 🙂
Nathan Bransford says
AIC-
Ah, I see, you want a breakdown of who you're stealing from.
When you pirate a $30 book you're stealing:
$15 from the bookseller
$10.50 from the publisher
$4.50 from the author
And what's also hilarious is that you're getting into an argument with Ink/Bryan Russell, who is an independent bookseller. Way to defend the little guy, AIC.
Ink says
Anon. Inter. Cow.,
Now it just seems that you're rationalizing thievery by depersonalizing the victim. "Corporation", "Collection of people"… but who do you think that collection of people is? It's a bunch of the specific people you say you don't want to hurt… at least not individually. But lump them in with some others and it's okay. The more the merrier! So I can spit on a group but not an individual. Let's specify… that rationalization would then make it okay to spit, say, on "the Jews", but not on "Leo Goldstein" because he might be a good fellow and that would be unethical.
Ink says
And if the big corporations took better care of ME and gave ME everything exactly the way I want it I wouldn't steal from them. How is that not selfish?
If you don't like their process, don't use their product. Simple. But don't steal it.
Anonymous says
So, as soon as an author becomes successful, that's when it's okay to steal their books? By that logic, all authors must remain poor. Sad, really.
Dan Holloway says
"This isn't the music industry – no one is making money on an author tours or Ian McEwan t-shirt sales no matter how many I personally would buy"
I'm afraid I think you're wrong, Nathan. I've been arguing for the use of the "merch and gig and free download" model in writing for many months, and the more I look the more reasons I see why it CAN work.
For me the basis of this model is the free e-download. It's that new auhtors in particular can exploit for publicity, but also to build a great platform, and a way of engaging with readers. Let people have your work for free; let them file share – and whilst you're at it use the tech to engage with them – embed easter eggs for them, utilise bluetooth and LAN and other things that exploit the power of connectivity. Make your free downloads MUST HAVE and you will soon have enough readers who WANT TO PAY to make a living.
I'm afraid this is yesterday's argument. And the authors and publishers who still think it's today's argument will, come tomorrow, be yesterday's news.
Anonymous says
Internet coward does make an interesting point in that stealing from a corporation IS different from stealing from an individual.
A corporation is an entity that is allowed to break many laws that individuals would go to jail for.
If I poison 100 people, I get the chair. If ACE Chem does it, they pay a fine.
So in a twisted sort of way, a criminal is stealing from another criminal. Not saying it is right, but it is an interesting point.
Anonymous says
The Anonymous Internet Coward said, “you fail to see the difference between stealing from an individual and stealing from a corporation.”
Do you think your Robin Hood!? Do you think you have a right to decide whom you can steal from?
Why don’t you stretch yourself and construct your arguments without tossing personal attacks at others? Can you do it? Because I understood your insults, but not your point?
I hope you were including yourself with all of the other idiots when you said, ‘Hiding behind the veil of anonymity and ripping on idiots everywhere”, on your blog profile.
The Anonymous Internet Coward says
Ink… I concede your very rational point and analogy, but the difference is that my personal ethic draws a line between corporate and religious persecution. Nice variation on Godwin's Law by the way.
I feel like this has all gotten out of hand, and I'm finding this medium a bit difficult to stay on top of who said what.
What do you think?
I think I've covered that.
How big of a threat is piracy?
Whatever you think of me, I'm a good example of the reasons that piracy won't resolve itself, and I still put more money into the publishing industry than your average schmoe who reads two books a year.
Should I be worried?
Any industry that gets crushed by something as minor as this deserves to go down.
Nathan Bransford says
dan-
I definitely think it can work for some people, and there are authors who are utilizing free to build audiences, especially via the Kindle. But I just don't think it's sustainable for everyone.
Cory Doctorow and Chris Anderson and the other freevangelists are very well poised to utilize free because Cory has a very popular website and Anderson is a speaker, etc.
But what about for the authors who can't afford to devote themselves full time to managing a website or a speaking career on top of writing books? How are they going to see any return on writing?
And how is the infrastructure of publishing going to survive if no one is charging anything?
I think freevangelism is great for the freevangelists. But just because it works for them doesn't mean it's going to work for everyone.
Ink says
What a philosophy. I can do bad things to people I don't like, but I shouldn't do bad things to people I like.
Apparently I'm going to have to work on my likability.
Nathan Bransford says
Bryan-
I wouldn't invite AIC to your bookstore. At least, not if he's wearing a large coat.
Pepper Smith says
I think a major problem with the comparison of giving away a paper copy of a book with giving away an e-copy is that with the paper copy, you're giving away the same copy you bought. With giving away e-copies, you're giving away as many as you choose to make, as well as keeping the copy you bought.
It's the proliferation that's the problem. You can't give away more copies in paper than what you've paid for. With the e-copy, the give-away can be endless, and you still have the copy you paid for. For an author whose work is primarily in e-format, all those free copies can be a career-killer. I know of one ebook author who has prematurely ended a series because the number of pirated copies was greater than the number her publisher was selling.
The folks who are doing the really innovative work in cross-genre fiction often start out in epublishing, and they're the ones who are getting hit the hardest by piracy, often by so-called fans who claim to love their work but also somehow imagine they're striking a blow for the little guy by not paying for it. 'Cause everyone know, of course, how rich publishers are…and how much authors are making.
Only five percent, or less, of authors actually make a living off their writing. The vast majority are just hoping they'll make enough to pay a few bills.
Anonymous says
Anon @ 1:58 PM,
By that logic, you're saying that, if a big corporation becomes a criminal role model, it's then acceptable for individuals to become criminals as well. In other words, the mores of a culture should be established by those with money and power. If those in power are ethical, everyone else should be. If they're not, it's morally and ethically acceptable for others to be corrupt.
The Anonymous Internet Coward says
"Why don’t you stretch yourself and construct your arguments without tossing personal attacks at others? Can you do it? Because I understood your insults, but not your point?"
I actually think Nathan has made more personal attacks than I have. If I've thrown them at him, it's only in answer to his self-rightous tone.
Anonymous @ 1:58… all I'm looking to do is put out an alternate interesting point of view. This is the internet, and one of the problems is that it's too easy for like-minded people to gather together and pat each other on the back. Thanks for regonizing as much.
Dan Holloway expressed some of my sentiments quite well. Not necessarily what I've voiced thus far, but if I could have written just one post on this blog, I would have liked it to be his.
Anonymous says
My guess is that the publishing industry will destroy the scourge of Internet Piracy.
They will succeed where no other creative industry has.
Torrent sites in their droves will bow down to the might of the literary lash and remove all ebook torrent links.
A newly crowned king, an authorial Arthur, will stand atop the body of the fallen and rejoice in his vigilance in the battle to stigmatize piracy.
Then some kid will post a google docs link to Jacob Wonderbar on his iphone's facebook app or just email the whole file to his fellow gangstas in year four.
These children will be identified and shot.
We're sorry, but it's for the greater good.
Ooops, it was just a moronic dream. I thought I was still in the 90s.
Ink says
Anon. Inter. Cow.,
Well, you can spit on some vegans, instead, if that would make you and Godwin happy.
For what it's worth, I don't hold anything against you personally (you haven't stolen my book yet), and I do think it takes a certain chutzpah to come here and say what you're saying. You've had a few interesting points, too, but I just can't help but feel the moral logic behind your argument is fraudulent and utterly self-interested. I'll pay when I want to pay… not exactly the most civic-minded philosophy in the history of the world.
The Anonymous Internet Coward says
"And how is the infrastructure of publishing going to survive if no one is charging anything? "
This is your problem. The infrastructure is outdated and you refuse to accept it. You see a limited scope of options and fail to see that there are other business models where everyone can win.
I'm off stealing (it's wrong)now: Should the industry create authors who are excessively financially compensated, and barely support others? If all that matters is what the general public wants to read, then who will support quality writing even though it's only read by the minority? Literary fiction will never approach the sales figures of thrillers and romance. Does that mean literary writers deserve to barely eke out a living because you can't buy their paperbacks at the airport?
I just don't understand why so many people cling to this business model.
Nathan Bransford says
AIC-
The only personal attacks I have leveled as far as I can see is calling people who admit to piracy "thieves," and one "neener neener meaniepants."
I know that's cooking with some very hot fire, but…
Marilyn Peake says
Dan Holloway –
You recommend "merch and gig and free download". I know LOTS of new authors who tried that. None made money. Many went broke and stopped writing. Do you know any newbie writers (not older writers, already established through old-fashioned hard cover and paperback sales) who have succeeded by that method?
Anthony says
Anon says,
"We are moving toward licensing. Where everything you "buy" you are just licensing to use or read. Basically renting. This of course allow the actual owners to sell more because your copy can not be recycled or reused."
I would disagree with this statement.
You cannot compare a book to software, in so far software is licensed. But even if you did comapre the two, I believe you're missing key elements:
People like to buy things
People like to license things
People like to use a service
There are price points for all of these, with different production costs and different types of cost to a consumer (on-going vs. one time).
But let's say "lets pretend a book is leased." I would assert something like this has been tried. And it failed several times.
Take Divx for example. Not the codex, but the movie watching system in which a consumer would "rent" a movie. When they were done with this movie, it would not play after a certain number of re-viewings.
The model was people would buy into this because the initial movies would be cheaper.
And that was just ONE thing wrong with Divx. It was a massive study in DRM FAIL.
If Disney can't do this with movies, I can hazard a bet no book publisher, no matter how big, can do it with books.
Anonymous says
"But what about for the authors who can't afford to devote themselves full time to managing a website or a speaking career on top of writing books? How are they going to see any return on writing?"
They're not. Was there any guarantee of that written anywhere in time?
"And how is the infrastructure of publishing going to survive if no one is charging anything?"
Nathan, it survives by evolving.
The 'stop piracy' argument is redundant. You guys are really missing the point that AIC is trying to make.
If people like AIC and myself are downloading content the piracy problem is way beyond being stopped.
Nathan Bransford says
AIC-
I think the infrastructure will change and is changing. But it should change to fit the needs of legal paying customers, not to ward off the barbarians trying to tear everything down.
And I think it's extremely disingenuous for people to claim that the industry is blind to change. The publishing industry has been planning and preparing for the e-book era for 15 years. You can legally download millions of books on multiple devices instantaneously and wirelessly. Think about that for a second! It's never been possible before in the history of the world. And everyone wants to complain because they can only e-mail their new e-book to six people instead of ten?
There are some kinks yet to be worked out, but come on…
Nathan Bransford says
anon@2:15-
One of the ways the industry will "evolve" is by putting a big dent in piracy. So… I'm not too worried.
ted says
Having arrived late and read all the comments at one go, it's pretty easy to characterize AIC and fellow Anon sympathizers with a single word: juvenile.
Piracy and the self-justifying theories that condone it are for people who don't have much experience with the world. As these people mature, most of them develop a sense of empathy, values, etc., and evolve beyond piracy, the same way most people evolve beyond behavior like littering and line-jumping.
There will always be people who don't make it past adolescence, but authors/publishers should be able to make a living with the majority that do.
The Anonymous Internet Coward says
"I'll pay when I want to pay… not exactly the most civic-minded philosophy in the history of the world."
Not what I'm saying, although I entirely see how it comes across that way. I started this conversation with a more flippant tone, and I'm regretting it now.
This argument is easier in the music industry because the disparity is much larger. I've only ever downloaded four books. Harry Potter 7 (experiment to see what was out there, and what I'd get, and because I was curious what the Potter fuss was about. I borrowed 1-6 and then 8 from a friend). The Lost Symbol (curiosity about the book based on publicity and controversy), Pygmy (which I hadn't decided whether I'd read or not yet), and Doctrow's Little Brother. Beyond that, I've done my share to stimulate the industry. I really don't intend to continue to download pirated books.
My way of thinking with music and movies, is that these industries produce some of the most obscene wealth in our society. Celebrities living lives of excess, while incredibly talented actors and musicians barely eke out a living. Studios, producers, execs, all profit from abusive contracts and business models.
The problem is that enough people don't care, and will continue to throw money in these directions without regard for the impact. A new Kanye West is created every day (can't wait to buy his new book). I have three choices…
1. Continue to pay into this system.
2. Vote with my dollar and abstain.
3. Pirate and allow myself a bit of pop-culture enjoyment without supporting the industries, and harming some innocents along the way.
I generally refuse to go with 1, I most often stick with 2, and sometimes succumb to 3.
That's why I seek out pirated goods.
Anonymous says
"I think the infrastructure will change and is changing. But it should change to fit the needs of legal paying customers, not to ward off the barbarians trying to tear everything down."
As a consumer I lose no money when I download, unlike the publishing industry. My job security isn't threatened unlike publishing employees (authors, agents etc).
I play basketball with you, I share the same interest in film, we grew up together at school, I worked summers on your family's farm, I married your pretty cousin from Virginia. I'm the everymen – hardly a barbarian consciously tearing down the establishment.
Ask yourself why I'm downloading the content. Is it simply because I'm a 'thief'? If you think so, then the problem already has you beat.
Anonymous says
For those who say it's okay to steal e-books from corporations because it's their fault they haven't yet built in protections against it, does that mean it's morally acceptable to break into department stores during a flood (think back to those who did that in New Orleans) or to steal from those living in tent cities without doors that can be locked? Robin Hood stole from the rich to give to the poor, not to enjoy the stolen goods himself.
Anonymous says
ted:
if piracy was just a juvenile phase that is grown out of like line jumping, then why is it making such a dent in the bottom line?
It is not juvenile, it is a philosophic disagreement. It is not a bunch of teen stealing movies it is millions of grown adults that think there is nothing wrong with it.
Marilyn Peake says
The Anonymous Internet Coward said:
"That's why I seek out pirated goods."
There’a another way to change the current corporate structure. Buy lots and lots of indie books. There are MANY struggling indie publishing houses that close down every day due to low sales because they can’t afford advertising equal to that of the large publishing houses.
Anonymous says
I am an author, and I think piracy is stealing. You don't have to use what I created, but if you do, you should pay for it. This argument by freevangelists that you should give your work away in order to make it more popular is like the old joke that I may lose money on every sale but make it up in volume.
People steal books and music because it's easy and they're unlikely to get caught. Period. It hurts authors, believe me, and we're about as far from "corporate" as we can be. If you want to "battle" corporate American, why don't you walk into Wal-Mart or Best Buy or your local car dealer and steal a car. You don't do it because you don't want to be punished. Plain and simple.
The Anonymous Internet Coward says
To eradicate an issue, you need to understand the root cause. I'm not going to change Nathan's point of view, and he's not going to change mine.
By the way…
"And, of course, the software is a virus. Or they're phishing for credit cards. Or some other nefarious activity. I didn't stick around long enough to find out. But! There's nothing being pirated. Essentially: they're scamming pirates.
Could this be the future? Since pirates are already downloading files from dubious sites, is lacing a highly sought-after file with a virus or ads or scams a sufficient growth industry to actually deter piracy?"
This is laughable. This has been the state since the dawn of sharing serial numbers, and piracy continues to spread. The answer lies not in foiling the pirates, but enticing them back to your higher quality product.
Anonymous says
AIC said, “I just don't understand why so many people cling to this business model.”
It’s the word 'business' in business model that does it for me.
It is about business. Business is about making money.
I still don't get your point/solution. Are you suggesting that someone set a salary cap on something? I suppose you want the job at deciding what that cap will be?
And about all of the thing that were stolen from you (quite an impressive list), what, have you decided that if you can't beat them, join them?
No, really, please, one more time, without calling everyone greedy capitalist, explain your defending stealing from people or corporations who employ people . I am trying to get it, but I’m starting to think this more about your political views – are you a socialist?
Anon2:48, Do you know anything about the economy? Also, serial killers are amongst us, what's the point of that statement?
No, I am not going to ask myself. I am going to as you: why do you steal? I hope you are not for real and are pulling chains here. Your creepy.
Dan Holloway says
Nathan, thank you for responding. I will confess to being one of the freevolutionaries (https://loudpoet.com/2009/09/03/freemium-for-writers-is-two-debates/) – in the Che Guevara AND the Darwin sense.
My point has never been that the industry SHOULD go the free route. My point is always, given what's happening, what can authors do? And I'ma fraid standing still isn't an option. And because I'm against protectionism in any form, I'm afraid that means people will stop being able to make a living who used to be able to do it. But that's always been the way fo things. Until a few years ago, billions of people were excluded absolutely from the publishing industry by dint of being born in "the wrong place". There's still a huge amount of social exclusion on a global level, as I've argued elsewhere, but now it's at least possible for at least some of these to reach readers directly and reap the rewards.
My point is there will always be talented authors who are excluded from teh industry. That's the way it is. I have to say my FEELING is that what people don't like about what's happening now is taht who's excluded is being decided by working class kids in Baton Rouge and not by an upper-middle class elite. And that's exactly what I DO like about it
Michael Pickett says
I'm in a graduate Publishing and Writing program and we just talked about this the other day. One of the possible futures brought up was one in which the authors basically give their writing away for free, and then have to make their money through other means like tours and other merchandise. Now, I'm with you, Nathan. While I wouldn't mind having a Cormac McCarthy shirt, I don't think they're going to catch on soon. So, I hope that piracy doesn't become too much of a problem, because if it does, I should get out of my program right now.
The Anonymous Internet Coward says
@Marylin As I mentioned earlier, I do that quite frequently.
Nathan Bransford says
Dan-
Actually I feel that precisely the reverse is true. The only people who can afford to write in a world where free rules (and, increasingly, to work in the publishing industry) are the elite because they can afford to write. I would much rather that kids in Baton Rouge have access to the world of books than another preppy Ivy grad because diversity is great for art, but in the free world that you're talking about I don't know that that's the way it's going to work.
Ink says
Anon. Inter. Cow.,
I see what you're saying, but you're basically admitting three is wrong. But you "succumb" to it occasionally. There's no moral legitimacy, just human weakness. So why bother trying to rationalize that weakness into an ethic? We all make mistakes. We all do the wrong thing sometimes.
I guess I just have more respect for: Hey, I admit I've done it, probably shouldn't, will try not to in the future even though it's possible I'll backslide.
We've all been there. But trying to support a false ethic, one you know is selfish and possibly harmful, seems a little a deceptive (or inherently self-deceptive perhaps).
Anyway, time for me to go home. Indie bookstore done for the day. Though I'll inevitably be drawn back to the siren call of this thread sometime tonight…
Lol, I thought when I read this thread, well, here's a topic I won't say anything about and everyone will have a reprieve from my blather. Oh so wrong. Must find more hobbies or something.
Nathan Bransford says
anon@2:28-
You're downloading content because a company built on paying customers and an author counting on paying customers has created a work of art that is appealing to you. But rather than pay for it like everyone else you'd rather steal it.
And, of course, if everyone did what you did, that art wouldn't be around to steal.
You're the person who cuts in line, the person who cuts people off in traffic, the person who wants a free ride while others pay. I get it.