US Government Seizing Webpages

[Mr Bean]

Like I said - you'll dismiss anything I have to offer as an anecdote.

Might that be because you've provided nothing but anecdotes and no links to comprehensive studies on the subject? The plural of anecdote is not evidence.

[Lagmonster]

No one here is saying that Piracy is justifiable, or that it's morally right, we're just saying that people don't deserve to be driven into bankruptcy for it. I wouldn't be if I stole a bunch of DVDs from a store and committed actual theft, so I should not be in danger of it if I acquire those same DVDs in a manner that does not actually deprive the producers of said material of any of their product.

It doesn't actually matter what the punishments are or whether they're just; if they're not just, fight the system properly and legally and when you lose, just resign yourself to never getting free luxuries.

If the punishment for pirating a movie, for example, was death, you bet your ass it would be right to go protest and yell and lobby to have such a system changed. But if you heard that someone was actually being put to death under said system for pirating a song you would be justified in thinking, "The punishment is morally wrong, but that motherfucker is stupid for wagering his life on a chance to save a buck fifty for Gene Simmons' latest single".

Yes, the laws can be poorly concieved and yes the punishments may not fit the crime, but we're not talking about lopping off a hand for stealing a loaf of bread to save your family from starvation - we're talking about appropriating luxuries in a manner against which the creators, legal owners and your government are all stunningly opposed. Since you are not entitled to luxuries and the penalties ARE disproportionately harsh, you should be smart enough to do a little risk analysis and decide it's not a good idea to decide that the laws you're going to ignore are the ones where they might break in your door and ruin your life. It's like the drug war argument; maybe the government should legalize drugs, but until they do, you are a walking Darwin Award if you break the law anyway despite knowing they 're going to be disproportionately harsh on your ass.

[Lagmonster]

Except a number of artists who have done the "pay what you want" method have made millions doing so, with plenty copying the model.

That's not true.

Ever heard of Radiohead?

"Radiohead" is not a "number of artists"; I might as well counter with Gene Simmons and AC/DC and declare that my side won. Leaving aside a handful of bigger artists, the pay what you want strategy 1) doesn't make money most of the time and 2) works well for independant (read: often self-funded) artists for a non-financial definition of the word 'success', because one of the major goals of a shitload of indies is to get recognized so they can earn investor-backed salaries and not have to be indies anymore. Don't confuse 'awesome and charitable business model' with 'promotional tactic'.

[General Zod]

"Radiohead" is not a "number of artists"; I might as well counter with Gene Simmons and AC/DC and declare that my side won. Leaving aside a handful of bigger artists, the pay what you want strategy 1) doesn't make money most of the time and 2) works well for independant (read: often self-funded) artists for a non-financial definition of the word 'success', because one of the major goals of a shitload of indies is to get recognized so they can earn investor-backed salaries and not have to be indies anymore. Don't confuse 'awesome and charitable business model' with 'promotional tactic'.

That was just the most immediate example that came to mind. Prince has done similar things, and there's the Norwegian artist I linked to above. I'm sure I could find more if I looked into it further.

[Broomstick]

Like I said - you'll dismiss anything I have to offer as an anecdote.

Might that be because you've provided nothing but anecdotes and no links to comprehensive studies on the subject? The plural of anecdote is not evidence.

I was offering it as an explanation for my personal stance on the subject and why I get pissed off at pirates, not as definitive scientific evidence. After all, the OP asked for our thoughts on the subject, which is what I gave. I have been hurt by copyright violations, so my feelings are rather strong on the issue.

[Aaron]

Um, in stuart's case, there is sufficient evidence to show that the individual providing the torrent harmed his ability to distribute his content. It actually prevented the two existing novels from being published in book format, and caused him to stop writing the third. is there any evidence that any single individual pirating copyrighted material inflicts that much damage on works produced by larger entities? Mind you, I already stated that I am not defending Piracy as moral I am simply stating that the punishments should fit the crime. If you get caught torrenting a season of a T.V. show, you should be penalized accordingly, rather than sued into bankruptcy as the RIAA is wont to do.

Stuart's just a crybaby. Movie studios have early versions of films leaked all the time, but they can't afford to not release them.

Look guys:

It's up on here and has been up on here for an age. He vanity published the other ones and all signs where that he was going to do so again. Remember Red's novel? When he decided to try and get published he took it down. So fuck this TSW shite, no one is going to download a shite novel that takes two+ weeks to torrent.

[ThomasP]

Link

A prestigious economics think-tank of the Japanese Government has published a study which concludes that online piracy of anime shows actually increases sales of DVDs. The conclusion stands in sharp contrast with the entertainment industry’s claims that ‘illicit’ downloading is leading to billions of dollars in losses worldwide. It also puts the increased anti-piracy efforts of the anime industry in doubt.

The Japanese Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI) has published an elaborate study that examined the effect of piracy on sales and rentals of Japanese anime DVDs. The results are quite remarkable.

While the music and movie industry often make outrageous claims about the disastrous effect of piracy on their respective industries, researchers are still divided. Some researchers claim a considerable loss due to unauthorized sharing, while others have found that the overall effect of piracy is a positive one.

RIETI’s study on the effects of piracy on the sales of anime DVDs in Japan falls in the latter category.

In their paper the researchers examine the effects of YouTube and the popular P2P-network Winny on DVD sales and rentals of Japanese anime episodes.

“Estimated equations of 105 anime episodes show that (1) YouTube viewing does not negatively affect DVD rentals, and it appears to help raise DVD sales; and (2) although Winny file sharing negatively affects DVD rentals, it does not affect DVD sales,” the researchers conclude.

“YouTube’s effect of boosting DVD sales can be seen after the TV’s broadcasting of the series has concluded, which suggests that not just a few people learned about the program via a YouTube viewing. In other words YouTube can be interpreted as a promotion tool for DVD sales,” it adds.

The results of the Japanese research confirm that piracy does not always have to be associated with a decrease in sales. Similar effects have been observed for music piracy and book piracy as well.

One point of critique based on the main conclusions of the study, is that the observed relation only appears to be correlational. This may mean that the results could in part be influenced by significant third variables such as promotion and overall popularity. Since the report is only available in Japanese we were unable to confirm whether this was taken into account.

The results of the study come at an interesting time. For years anime distributors where considered quite lenient towards piracy, but last week the American anime distributor Funimation announced lawsuits against 1337 alleged BitTorrent downloaders.

Although it’s not expected that one study will change the tune of the copyright holders who are currently pursing alleged pirated in court, the study does confirm that the availability of unauthorized streams and downloads do not necessarily harm sales. Quite the opposite. The challenge for the content producers is to find the sweet spot that will benefit them, and consumers.

Piracy probably does hurt established business models. It's also just as likely that it has unforeseen positives for individual content creators. It's hard to assign P2P file-sharing a net negative value because of those unaccounted positives.

Um, in stuart's case, there is sufficient evidence to show that the individual providing the torrent harmed his ability to distribute his content. It actually prevented the two existing novels from being published in book format, and caused him to stop writing the third.

Wait...a story being available on P2P networks has prevented a self-published book from being printed? How's that work? I'm not aware of any POD publishers that refuse to publish material which is available on torrents or any other file-sharing medium.

That doesn't sound remotely like harm due to piracy; that sounds like confusion.

[HeadCreeps]

"Radiohead" is not a "number of artists"; I might as well counter with Gene Simmons and AC/DC and declare that my side won. Leaving aside a handful of bigger artists, the pay what you want strategy 1) doesn't make money most of the time and 2) works well for independant (read: often self-funded) artists for a non-financial definition of the word 'success', because one of the major goals of a shitload of indies is to get recognized so they can earn investor-backed salaries and not have to be indies anymore. Don't confuse 'awesome and charitable business model' with 'promotional tactic'.

That was just the most immediate example that came to mind. Prince has done similar things, and there's the Norwegian artist I linked to above. I'm sure I could find more if I looked into it further.

Artists who embrace the idea of free music are trending toward the idea of free music with the possibility of merchandising sales. It looks like Techdirt keeps pushing the idea of successful music business models which include free music. To summarize, it's notable that artists have trended toward making their music free, but placing various gimmicks up for sale. A somewhat in-depth article on the subject of music business models can be found at Wired, including the self-distribution model. It stresses the idea that while the quantity of sales is smaller, the profit per unit has a chance to counter this.

Harvard study on the subject. See Ancillary Products and Services. The study points out that the free music with merchandising models are easier for artists with notoriety, but may present issues for smaller artists. It stressed that the model likely will not work for every artist.

So, the general idea appears to be that the Ancillary business model works for some, but only if the artist is able to connect with the consumer and "hawk the goods". If the artist prefers to focus on the art, the business model is far less likely to be successful. The concept is similar to the "pay what you want" strategy in that it relies on not requiring every consumer to pay money for a product, yet still obtaining a profit for related goods produced. While I'm in agreement that the "pay what you want" model fails, the idea of veering away from "investor-backed salaries" has some merit.

[Darksider]

Wait...a story being available on P2P networks has prevented a self-published book from being printed? How's that work? I'm not aware of any POD publishers that refuse to publish material which is available on torrents or any other file-sharing medium.

That doesn't sound remotely like harm due to piracy; that sounds like confusion.

Stuart claimed that the torrent effectively ended his plans to publish the two books and write the third.

Stuart gives his explanation in this thread.

[General Zod]

Wait...a story being available on P2P networks has prevented a self-published book from being printed? How's that work? I'm not aware of any POD publishers that refuse to publish material which is available on torrents or any other file-sharing medium.

That doesn't sound remotely like harm due to piracy; that sounds like confusion.

Stuart claimed that the torrent effectively ended his plans to publish the two books and write the third.

Stuart gives his explanation in this thread.

Since Stuart already published his material on the internet I doubt anyone but a vanity press would have published him anyway. Which rather makes this whole tangent irrelevant.

[ThomasP]

Wait...a story being available on P2P networks has prevented a self-published book from being printed? How's that work? I'm not aware of any POD publishers that refuse to publish material which is available on torrents or any other file-sharing medium.

That doesn't sound remotely like harm due to piracy; that sounds like confusion.

Stuart claimed that the torrent effectively ended his plans to publish the two books and write the third.

Stuart gives his explanation in this thread.

That's really confusing

I can understand being upset that someone's torrenting it, but as already mentioned, it's already freely available online, so I'm not seeing how that would be any different from what's already happening.

It looks like he decided not to put them online anymore, which is understandable, but I'm not seeing the connection to piracy in that case; it was a choice he made, not any loss due to pirates.

[Broomstick]

Legally, just because you put something on a web page does not mean you've consented to endless distribution of it. "Posted on the internet" does not equal "public domain". Of course, as a practical matter once it's posted it's hard to control. It wasn't legal to bit torrent Stuart's work without permission, that was a copyright violation, but unless someone with deep pockets wants to do something about it the perpetrator will get away with it.

[Aaron]

Then he should have used his brain and not put them up, or put them up in a secure usergroup. Yeah, it may not be consent to distribute but it's pretty fucking dumb.

[Broomstick]

I think sometimes people are having fun in a newsgroup posting stories without thinking about next week or next year. This is one reason you don't see established authors on line very much, they either figured it out or learned the hard way.

He could still vanity-publish it on his own, but with it available for free on-line who is going to pay anything for that? It's not that it prevents all publication but rather it eliminates all profit.

[RedImperator]

I think sometimes people are having fun in a newsgroup posting stories without thinking about next week or next year. This is one reason you don't see established authors on line very much, they either figured it out or learned the hard way.

He could still vanity-publish it on his own, but with it available for free on-line who is going to pay anything for that? It's not that it prevents all publication but rather it eliminates all profit.

Okay, you realize all the drama and the screaming has been over Stuart's claims that some piddlydick torrent killed TSW's publishing chances, right? And not the hundreds of thousands of page views in a public forum over the course of two years. The torrent is undoubtedly illegal, but it also did fuck-all to TSW's chances in the marketplace.

PS: I think you're overstating the dangers of internet exposure for unpublished novel-length works. Yes, it can hurt your chances. No, it isn't a good idea. But it's not an instant kiss of death--the circumstances matter. I don't think even TSW's massive exposure would actually hurt it--the potential lost sales are counterbalanced by the existing fanbase, and anyway, it's a first draft. I think TSW has massive structural and stylistic problems that would keep it off bookshelves (sorry, Tropers, but "It's a documentary" isn't going to fly at Tor Books), but that's an unrelated issue.

[Broomstick]

I think sometimes people are having fun in a newsgroup posting stories without thinking about next week or next year. This is one reason you don't see established authors on line very much, they either figured it out or learned the hard way.

He could still vanity-publish it on his own, but with it available for free on-line who is going to pay anything for that? It's not that it prevents all publication but rather it eliminates all profit.

Okay, you realize all the drama and the screaming has been over Stuart's claims that some piddlydick torrent killed TSW's publishing chances, right?

Yes, I realize that. In the past I have not commented on Stuart's particular situation because, frankly, I've never read it and I'm not involved on the story part of this site. I am, of course, aware of a lot of yelling about it over time.

And not the hundreds of thousands of page views in a public forum over the course of two years. The torrent is undoubtedly illegal, but it also did fuck-all to TSW's chances in the marketplace.

I will say that if he ever had any intention of publishing it he never should have posted any of it in a public forum and leave it at that. Whether he was aware of that, or this started as a fun thing with friends and turned into something more serious for him I can't say, never having read it.

PS: I think you're overstating the dangers of internet exposure for unpublished novel-length works. Yes, it can hurt your chances. No, it isn't a good idea. But it's not an instant kiss of death--the circumstances matter. I don't think even TSW's massive exposure would actually hurt it--the potential lost sales are counterbalanced by the existing fanbase, and anyway, it's a first draft. I think TSW has massive structural and stylistic problems that would keep it off bookshelves (sorry, Tropers, but "It's a documentary" isn't going to fly at Tor Books), but that's an unrelated issue.

It doesn't matter if it's a rough draft or not. Now that it's been publicly posted no traditional publisher will touch it, and even a lot of non-traditionals won't go near it. Period.

Granted, I'm not some wildly successful author - I've only been paid for my writing about 12 times over the past 30 years and it's been small scale short story/article length - but I have gotten my feet wet in the industry. If you ever want to get paid for your writing NEVER post it in a public forum. It doesn't matter if the exposure creates a fan base or not. Posting on the public parts of the internet is seen as a form of self-publishing by the industry and they don't want sloppy seconds. Stuart lost his chance for publication when he posted the story here, not when the bit torrent thing happened. That doesn't make the bit torrent OK, it's still illegal. Stuart still owns the copyright on his story, the problem is, as always, enforcing it.

Once in a very great while something that started on the internet does get published. It's pretty damn rare and very much the exception to the rule. Often, it's a compilation, like the aviation quotes at Skygod being published in book form - which added artwork to it as well. I can't ever recall it happening with fiction.

Now let me say something positive about the internet and creativity. I think it's wonderful some creative people choose to make their work freely available. I also like some of the ideas regarding new licensing ideas. The problem right now is that we're going through a transition and it takes awhile for everyone to adapt.

[General Zod]

He could still vanity-publish it on his own, but with it available for free on-line who is going to pay anything for that? It's not that it prevents all publication but rather it eliminates all profit.

You're obviously unfamiliar with the Baen free library. Putting it out there for free isn't the kiss of death for profits, but if your product sucks nobody's going to buy it either way.

[Broomstick]

I actually am familiar with the Baen free library and have downloaded several e-books from it. I will point out that some of those items were previously published in a more traditional manner, and it functions in part as free advertising for the rest of the Baen collection, which is not offered for free. It's also somewhat controversial in the writing world, but I don't want to go off on that tangent.

I will offer this quote from the Baen site:

The only "restrictions" we'll be placing is simply that we will encourage authors to put up the first novel or novels in an ongoing popular series, where possible.

This is equivalent to offering the first chapter of a stand-alone novel for free. You get the first bit free, if you want the whole thing you need to pay for it. Rather like video games that give out the first few levels for free but make you pay if you want the whole thing. Or a 10-day trial for a MMORPG. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, however, it's disingenuous to think that this isn't set up to direct customers to items that cost money.

Just because some people choose to avail themselves of various on-line alternatives to traditional publishing doesn't mean other people want to, or should do so. I think a multiplicity of choices is a good thing, but coercion is not.

[RedImperator]

It doesn't matter if it's a rough draft or not. Now that it's been publicly posted no traditional publisher will touch it, and even a lot of non-traditionals won't go near it. Period.

Granted, I'm not some wildly successful author - I've only been paid for my writing about 12 times over the past 30 years and it's been small scale short story/article length - but I have gotten my feet wet in the industry. If you ever want to get paid for your writing NEVER post it in a public forum. It doesn't matter if the exposure creates a fan base or not. Posting on the public parts of the internet is seen as a form of self-publishing by the industry and they don't want sloppy seconds. Stuart lost his chance for publication when he posted the story here, not when the bit torrent thing happened. That doesn't make the bit torrent OK, it's still illegal. Stuart still owns the copyright on his story, the problem is, as always, enforcing it.

I think you're confusing short form and long form here. Internet exposure is absolutely, positively, always, without question, death for short stories. I don't write nonfiction, so I can't speak to nonfiction articles, but I wouldn't be the least surprised if it's the same for that. I never argued otherwise.

However, long form is a different animal. It's simply not true that internet exposure automatically kills unpublished novels. I can name at least two published novels off the top of my head that were posted in their entirety, online, in their final draft form before being picked up for print. I haven't found a single reputable source anywhere who's willing to flat-out say that internet exposure kills novels. Nobody recommends it, nobody thinks it's a good idea, but the publishers are going to make a decision on buying a manuscript based on how many copies they think they can sell, and if they don't think the internet exposure hurt it, or didn't hurt it enough to matter, then they'll buy it. It's not like a fucking religion; just a business decision.

[General Zod]

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, however, it's disingenuous to think that this isn't set up to direct customers to items that cost money.

I don't recall saying it wasn't, so I'm not sure what your point is here.

Just because some people choose to avail themselves of various on-line alternatives to traditional publishing doesn't mean other people want to, or should do so. I think a multiplicity of choices is a good thing, but coercion is not.

Good thing I didn't say it wasn't suitable for everyone?

[Broomstick]

However, long form is a different animal. It's simply not true that internet exposure automatically kills unpublished novels. I can name at least two published novels off the top of my head that were posted in their entirety, online, in their final draft form before being picked up for print. I haven't found a single reputable source anywhere who's willing to flat-out say that internet exposure kills novels. Nobody recommends it, nobody thinks it's a good idea, but the publishers are going to make a decision on buying a manuscript based on how many copies they think they can sell, and if they don't think the internet exposure hurt it, or didn't hurt it enough to matter, then they'll buy it. It's not like a fucking religion; just a business decision.

Well, sir, if you are aware of examples I'm not then good for you. I stated I had never heard of it happening but if it has then it has. You are correct that it's all based on how many copies they think they can sell, or rather whether or not they can profit.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, however, it's disingenuous to think that this isn't set up to direct customers to items that cost money.

I don't recall saying it wasn't, so I'm not sure what your point is here.

The point is that the Baen free library isn't some sort of "pay what you want" thing, or even a means of first publication. As I said, a lot of those books have already been published, meaning they've already turned a profit, the writer and publisher have already earned their money, and any subsequent sales from this for stand alone novels is gravy.

This is not ever going to be the primary model for publication. At least not for people who want to make a living writing.

Just because some people choose to avail themselves of various on-line alternatives to traditional publishing doesn't mean other people want to, or should do so. I think a multiplicity of choices is a good thing, but coercion is not.

Good thing I didn't say it wasn't suitable for everyone?

You have some sort of problem that I'm agreeing with you? Not everything has to be a confrontation.

[General Zod]

The point is that the Baen free library isn't some sort of "pay what you want" thing, or even a means of first publication. As I said, a lot of those books have already been published, meaning they've already turned a profit, the writer and publisher have already earned their money, and any subsequent sales from this for stand alone novels is gravy.

This is not ever going to be the primary model for publication. At least not for people who want to make a living writing.

And. . . I never said it was either. The whole point is that putting it out for free didn't necessarily impact your profits, which had absolutely no bearing on my other points. You're trying too hard to connect the dots here.

You have some sort of problem that I'm agreeing with you? Not everything has to be a confrontation.

It sounded more like you were trying to argue a point I never made since I'm not sure who your "disingenuous" remark was supposed to be aimed at.

[Broomstick]

And. . . I never said it was either. The whole point is that putting it out for free didn't necessarily impact your profits, which had absolutely no bearing on my other points. You're trying too hard to connect the dots here.

In the case of the Baen library the profit was made before free release. If those books had been released free as a first publication then it most certainly would have impacted the author and publisher's profits. This has been covered by other posters in this thread. Yes, you can reap some profit from free downloads and a pay what you want system, or relying on a slice of the audience to then go out and purchase hardcopies, but it does not equal the profit of more traditional publication. Yes, it does impact profits. Free release as first publication means lower profits. Free release after initial traditional release means greater profits.

More and more we see this model in play. Typically, free release comes 6-12 months after initial release, though not always. It goes along with offering items with hardcopy sales that can't be had with a free release. It's a viable model, nothing wrong with it, but how you go about doing it does impact the bottom line.

[General Zod]

In the case of the Baen library the profit was made before free release. If those books had been released free as a first publication then it most certainly would have impacted the author and publisher's profits. This has been covered by other posters in this thread. Yes, you can reap some profit from free downloads and a pay what you want system, or relying on a slice of the audience to then go out and purchase hardcopies, but it does not equal the profit of more traditional publication. Yes, it does impact profits. Free release as first publication means lower profits. Free release after initial traditional release means greater profits.

Do you have some actual evidence supporting this claim? Because as far as I can tell Baen seems to think the opposite.

1. Online piracy — while it is definitely illegal and immoral — is, as a practical problem, nothing more than (at most) a nuisance. We're talking brats stealing chewing gum, here, not the Barbary Pirates.

2. Losses any author suffers from piracy are almost certainly offset by the additional publicity which, in practice, any kind of free copies of a book usually engender. Whatever the moral difference, which certainly exists, the practical effect of online piracy is no different from that of any existing method by which readers may obtain books for free or at reduced cost: public libraries, friends borrowing and loaning each other books, used book stores, promotional copies, etc.

3. Any cure which relies on tighter regulation of the market — especially the kind of extreme measures being advocated by some people — is far worse than the disease. As a widespread phenomenon rather than a nuisance, piracy occurs when artificial restrictions in the market jack up prices beyond what people think are reasonable. The "regulation-enforcement-more regulation" strategy is a bottomless pit which continually recreates (on a larger scale) the problem it supposedly solves. And that commercial effect is often compounded by the more general damage done to social and political freedom.

[Broomstick]

On the topic of delayed releases, I think this is a good case for why scaling back copyright term would be a good thing without really hurting the producers.

If copyright expired after, say, five years, the producers and publishers have probably already made the majority of their money.

Copyright starts the moment the work is produced. It can take longer than 5 years to get a screenplay turned into a movie. Under that proposed 5 year limit all the movie studios have to do is wait out the 5 years THEN pick up the screenplay and not have to pay the writer anything at all.

Novels can take years to finally get published.

Musicians may take a decade or more to get their first album released.

5 years isn't long enough. Now, five years from publication might work, but "copyright" and "publication" are not synonymous.