SOPA

Now now ATJ, kinda unfair to demand HD when it was shot on video in the 70-90s, no?

That was not my suggestion at all... quite the contrary. I was saying that I would not expect older shows to be HD and so that just because the channel broadcasts in 1080i or even 720p doesn't mean the content is that.

By the way, I have also read that in some circumstances 720p is better than 1080i so being able to download 720p content for TV shows may mean that it "looks" better than what was broadcast at 1080i. We don't have a large enough TV to see the differences so I can't really comment on whether it is true or not.

Maybe there is more than foolhardiness at work here....are ebooks not more convenient than carrying around paper based editions? Should that convenience be reflected in the price? And perhaps the price of an ebook is set, knowing that some will share and share their ebooks with the many...charging all for the actions of some to ensure the revenue earned reflects the infringing?

Convenience may play some part in the pricing. There is also a great deal of convenience with a paper based edition. For example, a paper based edition is actually easier (and perfectly legal) to share with people in the same physical location. e.g. a member of a family can buy the paper based edition and then pass it on to the next family member when they have finished. The next person can pass it on, and so, on. I remember when I was back at school and they used to issue us with novels to read. Those same physical books were read over and over again. Only one purchase per book and all perfectly legal.

eBooks won't have that same convenience unless they are copied illegally.

Secondly, the price of a book isn't really based on paper, bindings or pixels. Its the value of the information contained therein....is that what makes something have monetary value, something worth paying for? After all, if something has no value, don't we all look elsewhere and buy something else? Camera kit, cars, houses...food...the information in books...we can choose.

Exactly! I agree 100%. Why then are eBooks often more expensive than a paper based book when they contain the exact same IP?

And besides, copyright gives artists a monopoly to exploit their works they see fit. This can include cheap, middle ground or reassuringly expensive. We can buy, or not...if the masses stay away the price will fall...all the time plenty are handing over their cash the market will be sustained.

Also agree, but I very much doubt the artist has much say in what the publishers do with their work. Also notice that self published stuff tends to be cheaper (and even free).

but I very much doubt the artist has much say in what the publishers do with their work.

Depends on the artist. When they are starting out, less power to get terms. When they become big, often on the publisher's dime and marketing, then they will ask and often get more. And even go back and renegotiate for back catalog. Same applies in other IP areas, such as music and television.

By the way, I have also read that in some circumstances 720p is better than 1080i so being able to download 720p content for TV shows may mean that it "looks" better than what was broadcast at 1080i. We don't have a large enough TV to see the differences so I can't really comment on whether it is true or not.

Yes, once such instance is sports. 720p60 is much better than the sometimes strobic 29.97, especially when they do slo-mo!

eBooks won't have that same convenience unless they are copied illegally.

If it's under the same account, you can share it between e-readers, so many people can read it at the same time., instead of waiting for the book.

Why then are eBooks often more expensive than a paper based book when they contain the exact same IP?

They are cheaper than paperback and hardcopy on release. As I explained, only when the demand drops do paperbacks lose value in the warehouse and need to be cleared out. E-books don't have that problem!

Also agree, but I very much doubt the artist has much say in what the publishers do with their work. Also notice that self published stuff tends to be cheaper (and even free).

Price is set by copyright holders, which include publishers/distributors etc. The artist chooses to license work to these entities. They can also choose to give it away for free, like Radiohead and Moby etc. That's the point, it's the choice of the copyright holders, not the consumers. Piracy takes that right away.

They are cheaper than paperback and hardcopy on release.

Not always. At least not here in Oz. I have frequently seen new release ebooks substantially more expensive that hardcovers.

Price is set by copyright holders...

Yes.. but I still have to wonder how much the authors have a say in the price of eBooks...

I know that when the music industry was going through all this (and things have improved a lot), artists were complaining about how little they were getting.

Copyright holders for books are a bunch of people, including publishers and host etc, not just the author.

Music is a whole different thing. Prior to the internet, the only way to hear music was radio, TV and movies. Nowadays, the internet allows self-publishing to reach far and wide, and also get artists heard. Artists like Lana Del Rey (Lizzy Grant) and Justin Bieber are all internet sensations gone wild. Both signed label deals and I'm pretty sure they make good money because they got the viewership.

Nobody bands playing in the back alleys of Nowhere, Nowhere have fewer options so they sign crappy deals. It's risk management for the labels so they want skewed deals. That's life! And all that is hampered somewhat by piracy.

I guess labels and pirates are pretty much alike, they both screw the actual artists.

Errr no Cor, the labels make money off the artists with their permission. The pirates don't!

Please re-read my post about monopolies

Oh btw, I totally forgot to mention that a few visionary artists actually wants pirates to work for them. Bjork's Biophilia is only available on the iOS of Apple but she did say she hoped pirates would make it cross platform to Android and even Blackberry! Her iOS contract aside, she did publicly say this. In typical marketing tactics, the entire album was released one song at a time, then they let you have a "discounted" version for the big app.

http://bjork.com/#/news/biophiliaappsaleday

So there are people slowly moving towards open source... but that doesn't make money, or at least as much money as the pre-existing models!

You're forgetting Radiohead, who released their album as 'pay what you want' after finally being freed from jail.

"Ed O'Brien said of the self-distribution strategy: "We sell less records, but we make more money." Colin Greenwood explained the Internet release as a way of avoiding the "regulated playlists" and "straightened formats" of radio and TV, ensuring fans around the world could all experience the music at the same time, and preventing leaks in advance of a physical release."

.."Warner Chappell confirmed that "Radiohead made more money before In Rainbows was physically released than they made in total on the previous album Hail To the Thief"

Maybe Radiohead can do this because they're already popular, but I think the self publishing trend is going to continue and I hope we'll see the end of music labels and their almost mafia like practices. (and yes, I know Apple, Amazon, etc are not much better)

It seems like im not the only person that believes release hurdles and pricing is almost a bigger problem than piracy.

If someone approves of free downloads, releases etc, it's not piracy. Everyone is free to give away their stuff, just as they are free to request payment. Piracy is only when you steal something you are supposed to pay for. That applies to my D7000 (which was just stolen) and my D200, which I gave away, just as it applies to music, art, IP etc.

The problem is many people today don't know, or don't care about the difference.

And everyone is free to choose the business model by which they choose to distribute their stuff; the sad reality of most models will not change - a few will make money, most won't. The advantage for those who choose the big media distributors will be marketing and distribution muscle, self-distributors will be generally at a disadvantage in this respect. The internet has overall not changed this, those with money dominate, those without do not.

While the official receipts are confidential, it's not hard to imagine they made more money since pretty much all the profit went them. However, that doesn't mean they'd make less money than going through the established channels for other promotional tie ins like concerts and merchandise. I personally think the real reason is apparent if you compare Hail To Chief to In Rainbows.

That said, Radiohead isn't Backstreet Boys or Queen in terms of sales numbers. Bjork is a little bigger and the reason I brought her up is that she was ok with people porting her app to other OSes because she couldn't due to her deal with Apple. Albums that sell 10-20 million now don't because ostensibly due to piracy.

I don't think reducing the price much lower will do anything except benefit the people who already pay. I think the margin of customers being swayed by the word free (and relative ease of access with torrents and filesharing) is much larger than the people who can't afford 12.99 but will pay 6.99. The proof is there. Ever since iTunes,Zulu, Amazon, Spotify etc came out, sales overall are still falling overall. Taking away bad music, economy etc, it's still pretty bad. I mean 2010, sales went up when Limewire P2P was shut down. Coincidence or direct cause and effect?

Im glad to see widespread protests against ACTA are starting. ACTA is potentially much worse than SOPA.

http://metinalista.si/why-i-signed-acta/

Going slightly off-topic here, but its kind of related...

My wife bought me a book for Christmas. A real, paper book with a hard cover. The book in question is entitled Vietnam and it features the work of Larry Burrows, a photojournalist who documented the conflict from the early sixties until his untimely death when the helicopter he was travelling in was shot down over Laos in 1971.

I turn the pages. I look at the images. Sometimes I slowly trawl the book from beginning to end, and other times I dip into it and select just a few pages. The book feels heavy, the paper is tactile. I enjoy the experience of reading the captions, but above all the printed image is there on the page.

The limited experiences I have with ebooks, no matter the reader used, somehow fails to work in the same way. There isn't the same connection...the reader in my hands feels the same no matter what the subject is. The pages don't turn the same way...I can't open the book and let the pages fall to reveal a random image.

Am I old fashioned? Or is the paper book experience just a load of arty, self serving rubbish?

Cor

I don't think it's really growing. ACTA was outed by Wikileaks in 2008. Avaaz petition notwithstanding, there is very little talk about it. I do have certain issues with ACTA, especially regarding pharmaceutical companies. This whole secrecy thing is a bit too much even for my tastes. However, it seems the G22 countries are almost all in, as are most of the EU countries, thanks to the EC.

I'm surprised Kader Arif's resignation hasn't made a bigger headline. Conspiracy theory time?

The EU governments still need to ratify it, and that may be a problem. Even 1 not signing would cause it to fail, at least for a while. Poland is on the verge of not signing.

I dont think you need to be into conspiracy theories. News is made by big media companies, who dont want this news out. This happens every day. Calling that a conspiracy theory is just ignoring how the world works

Also, interesting article in Forbes . http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/201...-never-kill-you which seems to be saying a lot of what im saying. Make it easier. Work together. Come into this century. Ultimately that will work better than nuking the internet.

deco, I think there is a place for both. I have totally switched to ebooks when it comes to novels.

Sorry Cor. I think any century stealing is wrong. Pricing a product is the choice of the content provider, not the consumer. The consumer either chooses to buy it or not. Tassi's logic is flawed. His premise that an industry will not fail because of piracy is inherently known. What he is not acknowledging is that the industry isn't all multi-millionaires driving Paganis, but intricately layered to provide employment from grip to actors, logistics etc etc, so there are people who are employed @ $10 an hour involved too, many of them.

I'd say the majority of those who steal aren't going to pay anyhow, because they don't see the value that those who pay do. So these people essentially want a free ride. That's the point of ACTA, SOPA, PIPA and all the other As. Why should these people get a product they don't want to pay for?

I'm afraid Tassi has no idea about the industry or its economics, among other intricacies. The same content cannot provide for a non-paying base. The people stealing are those who want to pay $150 a month for internet, filesharing and electricity to watch all the TV, movies, books and listen to music for that low price, by using pirated content. That's the bottom line and the content providers are trying to stop the freeloaders.

It's not like TV stations don't understand the market either. Many TV shows are available for free on broadcaster's websites, and they even tie in stuff that's not available on the broadcast program.

We simply wont agree on how to break this cycle I lean towards innovation, you lean towards regulation. I think innovation is the way to go.

Not true . I totally agree the industry has to innovate, and they are moving along toward that end, however glacially. However, I also think humans are just self-indulgent animals.

I think the piracy issue is almost separate. It's a pervasive problem that equates to theft because it's there for the taking. Stats prove that when Napster/Limewire were shut down, sales only jumped 5-10% on the online music sites. You can say it proves your point that regulation won't end piracy. Conversely, it also proves that the industry is losing 5-10% sales to piracy and also that the rest will probably not pay at any price more than what they are paying for their download ability, since that would be added expense.

If the fast internet is $50 a month and filesharing service is say $20 a month. That's $70 for pretty much every song/movie/TV show/book ever published/produced. Even if those products were to drop 80% in price, there'd be an incremental increase of possibly another 5-10%. The majority of downloaders aren't going to pay at any price because free is available.

One prime example is the Daily Show from Comedy Central. That show is broadcast on cable then released to the web FOR FREE the next day. Still there are people putting it up the sharing net sans commercials because they can. And I think my buddy told me the download stats are staggeringly high. This is the same for several other shows on Comedy Central and other networks.

Obviously those shows still make money because of cable and ads, so the piracy has no effect on it. No DVD sales etc to worry about.

I'm sure you believe in IP rights. And yes, while innovation is only going to come, we also need to shut down/curtail the theft that is brazenly going on because it's outright stealing in your face style.