the problem is even worse with corporate book publishers,
because they've jacked up their "overhead" unnecessarily,
in order to soak up the excessive profit from bestsellers...
(this is why you'll never get 'em to reveal that overhead.)
in the business of publishing, _most_ books don't sell well,
but the very few that do end up having _enormous_ profits.
and thus, if any specific book isn't gonna be a runaway hit,
they actually would _prefer_ that it _lose_ money instead,
because that will help "even out the financial ledger" and
minimize their tax bill. their accountants can explain this.
so they jack up the "overhead" that every book must bear
(a.k.a., its fixed cost), to ensure that it will lose money,
unless it happens to be one of the bestselling exceptions.
and the thing is, when you're trying to inflate your costs,
and burn excess profit, you find that it's very easy to do.
you get yourself lavish digs in the heart of new york city,
hire a bunch of friends and relatives as "vice-presidents",
and pay (at the top, anyway) exorbitant salaries, because
y'all must be able to mingle with the celebrities, athletes,
and politicians who you will be signing to book contracts...
and so you get used to a high-end lifestyle, and when it all
comes crashing down because of digital disintermediation...
well, let's just say you're not ready for it, not quite yet.
but i do believe they are stupid as well.
they coulda got out in front, with e-books,
and used near-zero marginal costs to _boost_
their profits, even while lowering prices...
cannibalize yourself, so nobody else _can_.
maybe they went to college, but they slept,
so it was just a big waste of daddy's money.
michael said:
> bowerbird! hey, where you been, buddy?
hanging around... :+)
> Great to see you're still raising a ruckus.
i'm a hit-man, brother -- honesty, integrity, and truth...
> OK, back to work: Are there specific examples
> of Kessinger, for example, causing a book to be
> removed from Full View because of a claimed copyright,
> or is it just folklore? So far we're long on fears and
> short on examples.
i'll go ask over on the project gutenberg listserve.
i am quite sure they can give us some examples...
(what a treat to see michael ward's name right above! hi michael!)
anyway, here's the comment i left over at google...
sofia-
i'm so glad google is finally addressing this issue! thank you!
but let us not be disingenuous, ok? the vast majority of books
that are being hijacked from the public-domain are being lifted
by a small number of companies. google knows who they are.
you don't need us to identify the books one by one, individually.
it's the idea that people won't pay money for music,
especially not if they receive it for free, so instead
you have to sell them something that's "scarce"...
the underlying idea still remains commerce-based.
i vote against that meme.
if a musician gives me music that i love, for free,
as a gift, i'm gonna give 'em cash as a return gift.
no, i don't have to, and no, i'm not going to get
anything "extra" for doing it, but i'll do it anyway,
because i wanna live in a world that works that way.
and i'm gonna find (and reward) the other people
who want to live in a world that works that way,
and we're going to make our world work that way.
we're going to create a counterculture based on
reciprocal gift-giving, and it's gonna be cool...
you people who want to take the music for free
and give nothing back in return are freeloaders,
but we don't care because you cannot hurt us...
when you find you need us, though, know that
you cannot count on us to come through for you.
we'll be just as greedy as you were to us all along.
i'm continuing my quest to get you to forget about the dinosaurs,
and start focusing on giving some good advice to the mammals...
this post could be a pretty good start on that new focus, mike...
oh sure, you're still using the dinosaur-laden term of "piracy"...
but you go on to say this:
> take advantage of what piracy really can be:
> a free input into a larger business model,
> that provides free promotion and free distribution,
> while enabling a number of new (previously impossible)
> business models.
free promotion and free distribution. excellent.
see how easy it can be to flip things over to the mammal view?
remind the new species how they can use the system to benefit:
if you offer stuff freely, your audience experiences zero friction
contemplating a pre-consumption "is this worth money to me?"
and if -- post-consumption -- they decide it _is_ worth money,
they can still find some way to slip some money into your pocket,
to show their appreciation for your gift by reciprocating some cash.
they can also do _promotion_ for you by talking you up to friends,
and even "paying it forward" by distributing your work _for_ you...
when artists come to realize all the ways they can benefit from this,
and fans come to realize they are an essential part of the equation,
both sides of the relationship will benefit by strengthening the bond.
and society itself will be healthier as a result of this gift-exchange...
concentrate on _this_, mike, not on the dinosaurs. they're doomed.
there's no sense wasting your time and energy on them any more...
the newspapers are dinosaur corporations.
the recording companies are dinosaur corporations.
the movie companies are dinosaur corporations.
the book publishers are dinosaur corporations.
the real question should be this:
when are you going to stop expecting the dinosaurs to change?
they're dinosaurs. they will never change. they will just go extinct.
you're wasting your time thinking you can change a dinosaur mind.
and you're wasting my time too.
turn your attention to the mammals. show them how to take over...
> I dropped my newspaper subscription to
> weekend-only when the parakeet died.
> If I stop fishing I probably will
> drop my subscription entirely because
> I won't have any need for the newspaper at all.
sigh... i guess we will just have to learn that
"free" means "until we decide to charge you".
still, you'd think _kodak_ would understand
how important people's pictures are to them,
and thus would realize that ripping that bond
will cost kodak lots of lost trust and credibility.
the threat to _delete_ photos is quite troubling!
i have hope that artists can transform society
from its greedy state to a gift-exchange basis,
thanks to the miracle of cost-free reproduction.
you can't beat someone over the head, however,
to get them to give you a gift. it just won't work.
i find it difficult to see why harlan should "work"
for free, when nobody else is. they needed him
more than he needed them. do you expect me to
side with warner brothers instead? i think i'll pass.
i'm gonna take a piss now. hey, no need to pay me. :+)
> Is the scan (which in many ways is like a photo)
> a new work in any sense of the term?
> So is there a right to having people
> not use *your* scan of the document?
a straightforward scan of a public-domain page
is itself in the public-domain. use it _freely_...
that's why google "asks" you to use their scans only
for personal, non-commercial purposes. if google
_could_ use the law to _forbid_ you, they _would_...
you should ignore their "request". just ignore it...
the public-domain belongs to _you_, the _public_.
but their request in this case doesn't make them evil.
they'd just like to protect the investment they made
in scanning public-domain books. that's reasonable.
but it doesn't mean you need to _grant_ their request.
however, more recent actions by google _are_ evil...
(i don't use that word lightly; google brought it up.)
specifically, google's "settlement" in the recent suit
against them by authors/publishers has turned evil.
this "settlement" gives google control over "orphans"
-- books whose copyright ownership is unclear --
and it authorizes google to charge as much as $20
for print-on-demand hard-copy of those books...
since current p.o.d. machinery has a consumable cost
of one penny per page, a cost that will likely drop more,
the cost of a 250-page book should be more like $3-$5,
not $20, or even the $10 "median-price" google charts...
making a windfall like this over material they do not "own"
in any sense of the word -- books that were _abandoned_ --
is unconscionable, a rip-off of the public, plain and simple.
because the patent office has done so many stupid things,
it's not outside the realm of possibility that they did this too.
it's the patent office that is the big joke these days.
and i think they know it, too. they're just rubberstamping
all the applications as approved, until we have no choice
but to turn the whole system upside down and throw it out.
i predicted this some time back.
("the best way to get people to
buy your paper-book would be
to _pay_ people to download the
e-book and start reading that.")
viewed from a certain perspective,
it's simply a budget for marketing.
the problem is even worse with corporate book publishers,
because they've jacked up their "overhead" unnecessarily,
in order to soak up the excessive profit from bestsellers...
(this is why you'll never get 'em to reveal that overhead.)
in the business of publishing, _most_ books don't sell well,
but the very few that do end up having _enormous_ profits.
and thus, if any specific book isn't gonna be a runaway hit,
they actually would _prefer_ that it _lose_ money instead,
because that will help "even out the financial ledger" and
minimize their tax bill. their accountants can explain this.
so they jack up the "overhead" that every book must bear
(a.k.a., its fixed cost), to ensure that it will lose money,
unless it happens to be one of the bestselling exceptions.
and the thing is, when you're trying to inflate your costs,
and burn excess profit, you find that it's very easy to do.
you get yourself lavish digs in the heart of new york city,
hire a bunch of friends and relatives as "vice-presidents",
and pay (at the top, anyway) exorbitant salaries, because
y'all must be able to mingle with the celebrities, athletes,
and politicians who you will be signing to book contracts...
and so you get used to a high-end lifestyle, and when it all
comes crashing down because of digital disintermediation...
well, let's just say you're not ready for it, not quite yet.
-bowerbird
well, of course they are lying assholes...
but i do believe they are stupid as well.
they coulda got out in front, with e-books,
and used near-zero marginal costs to _boost_
their profits, even while lowering prices...
cannibalize yourself, so nobody else _can_.
maybe they went to college, but they slept,
so it was just a big waste of daddy's money.
-bowerbird
michael said:
> bowerbird! hey, where you been, buddy?
hanging around... :+)
> Great to see you're still raising a ruckus.
i'm a hit-man, brother -- honesty, integrity, and truth...
> OK, back to work: Are there specific examples
> of Kessinger, for example, causing a book to be
> removed from Full View because of a claimed copyright,
> or is it just folklore? So far we're long on fears and
> short on examples.
i'll go ask over on the project gutenberg listserve.
i am quite sure they can give us some examples...
-bowerbird
(what a treat to see michael ward's name right above! hi michael!)
anyway, here's the comment i left over at google...
sofia-
i'm so glad google is finally addressing this issue! thank you!
but let us not be disingenuous, ok? the vast majority of books
that are being hijacked from the public-domain are being lifted
by a small number of companies. google knows who they are.
you don't need us to identify the books one by one, individually.
-bowerbird
i understand the logic a.t.&.t. is using to rob me.
i hope they understand my logic when i walk away.
surely there will be a carrier somewhere who realizes the
importance of ensuring their best customers stay happy...
-bowerbird
i thought it was humorous that the apple reviewer actually _searched_
for the kama sutra... who knew those fools could be so darn erudite?
ironically, this action has given eucalyptus tremendous word-of-mouth.
so in the end, the programmer should thank apple for the big boost up...
-bowerbird
aren't you getting bored explaining this over and over and over?
just sit back and let the idiots learn the lesson the hard way, ok?
-bowerbird
there's something slightly pernicious here.
it's the idea that people won't pay money for music,
especially not if they receive it for free, so instead
you have to sell them something that's "scarce"...
the underlying idea still remains commerce-based.
i vote against that meme.
if a musician gives me music that i love, for free,
as a gift, i'm gonna give 'em cash as a return gift.
no, i don't have to, and no, i'm not going to get
anything "extra" for doing it, but i'll do it anyway,
because i wanna live in a world that works that way.
and i'm gonna find (and reward) the other people
who want to live in a world that works that way,
and we're going to make our world work that way.
we're going to create a counterculture based on
reciprocal gift-giving, and it's gonna be cool...
you people who want to take the music for free
and give nothing back in return are freeloaders,
but we don't care because you cannot hurt us...
when you find you need us, though, know that
you cannot count on us to come through for you.
we'll be just as greedy as you were to us all along.
so take all you want. but remember the karma...
-bowerbird
i'm continuing my quest to get you to forget about the dinosaurs,
and start focusing on giving some good advice to the mammals...
this post could be a pretty good start on that new focus, mike...
oh sure, you're still using the dinosaur-laden term of "piracy"...
but you go on to say this:
> take advantage of what piracy really can be:
> a free input into a larger business model,
> that provides free promotion and free distribution,
> while enabling a number of new (previously impossible)
> business models.
free promotion and free distribution. excellent.
see how easy it can be to flip things over to the mammal view?
remind the new species how they can use the system to benefit:
if you offer stuff freely, your audience experiences zero friction
contemplating a pre-consumption "is this worth money to me?"
and if -- post-consumption -- they decide it _is_ worth money,
they can still find some way to slip some money into your pocket,
to show their appreciation for your gift by reciprocating some cash.
they can also do _promotion_ for you by talking you up to friends,
and even "paying it forward" by distributing your work _for_ you...
when artists come to realize all the ways they can benefit from this,
and fans come to realize they are an essential part of the equation,
both sides of the relationship will benefit by strengthening the bond.
and society itself will be healthier as a result of this gift-exchange...
concentrate on _this_, mike, not on the dinosaurs. they're doomed.
there's no sense wasting your time and energy on them any more...
-bowerbird
the newspapers are dinosaur corporations.
the recording companies are dinosaur corporations.
the movie companies are dinosaur corporations.
the book publishers are dinosaur corporations.
the real question should be this:
when are you going to stop expecting the dinosaurs to change?
they're dinosaurs. they will never change. they will just go extinct.
you're wasting your time thinking you can change a dinosaur mind.
and you're wasting my time too.
turn your attention to the mammals. show them how to take over...
-bowerbird
re: I don't read the newspaper much, and it isn't because of Google.
> I dropped my newspaper subscription to
> weekend-only when the parakeet died.
> If I stop fishing I probably will
> drop my subscription entirely because
> I won't have any need for the newspaper at all.
you funny. :+)
-bowerbird
sigh... i guess we will just have to learn that
"free" means "until we decide to charge you".
still, you'd think _kodak_ would understand
how important people's pictures are to them,
and thus would realize that ripping that bond
will cost kodak lots of lost trust and credibility.
the threat to _delete_ photos is quite troubling!
i will certainly be leery of kodak from now on...
-bowerbird
charlie, charlie, charlie, didn't think that one through, did you?
-bowerbird
that shepard. man he's a lousy plagiarist.
look, he didn't even get the colors right...
-bowerbird
Re: They really don't have any clue, do they?
> Perhaps if the RIAA hadn't been
> standing on the lifeguard chair
> pissing in the pool and on
> all their customers
actually, they didn't really do that, they
paid harlan ellison to do it for them...
-bowerbird
i am pro-free. i believe in it strongly.
i have hope that artists can transform society
from its greedy state to a gift-exchange basis,
thanks to the miracle of cost-free reproduction.
you can't beat someone over the head, however,
to get them to give you a gift. it just won't work.
i find it difficult to see why harlan should "work"
for free, when nobody else is. they needed him
more than he needed them. do you expect me to
side with warner brothers instead? i think i'll pass.
i'm gonna take a piss now. hey, no need to pay me. :+)
-bowerbird
> Is the scan (which in many ways is like a photo)
> a new work in any sense of the term?
> So is there a right to having people
> not use *your* scan of the document?
a straightforward scan of a public-domain page
is itself in the public-domain. use it _freely_...
that's why google "asks" you to use their scans only
for personal, non-commercial purposes. if google
_could_ use the law to _forbid_ you, they _would_...
you should ignore their "request". just ignore it...
the public-domain belongs to _you_, the _public_.
but their request in this case doesn't make them evil.
they'd just like to protect the investment they made
in scanning public-domain books. that's reasonable.
but it doesn't mean you need to _grant_ their request.
however, more recent actions by google _are_ evil...
(i don't use that word lightly; google brought it up.)
specifically, google's "settlement" in the recent suit
against them by authors/publishers has turned evil.
this "settlement" gives google control over "orphans"
-- books whose copyright ownership is unclear --
and it authorizes google to charge as much as $20
for print-on-demand hard-copy of those books...
since current p.o.d. machinery has a consumable cost
of one penny per page, a cost that will likely drop more,
the cost of a 250-page book should be more like $3-$5,
not $20, or even the $10 "median-price" google charts...
making a windfall like this over material they do not "own"
in any sense of the word -- books that were _abandoned_ --
is unconscionable, a rip-off of the public, plain and simple.
-bowerbird
i am curious about just how stupid they can get,
because they just keep continuing to amaze me.
-bowerbird
folks, this is a joke.
there's no such patent.
but you really believed it, didn't you?
because the patent office has done so many stupid things,
it's not outside the realm of possibility that they did this too.
it's the patent office that is the big joke these days.
and i think they know it, too. they're just rubberstamping
all the applications as approved, until we have no choice
but to turn the whole system upside down and throw it out.
-bowerbird
i predicted this some time back.
("the best way to get people to
buy your paper-book would be
to _pay_ people to download the
e-book and start reading that.")
viewed from a certain perspective,
it's simply a budget for marketing.
-bowerbird