Amazon Won’t Pay Self-Published Author For Books It Mistakenly Gave Away • Hacker News Board

Re: Amazon Won’t Pay Self-Published Author For Books It Mistakenly Gave Away

#91

Post by Dylan16807 » Tue, Nov 08, 2011, 10:01 PM UTC

awj wrote: post #77

ck2 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, if you go by RIAA settlements and court verdicts, non-physical items are actually worth exponentially more than physical.

Part of the reasoning there is in calculating the impact of redistribution. When someone tosses an mp3 up on a torrent the RIAA doesn't just lose the immediate (potential) sales for those who downloaded it, but also for anyone that that network shares the files with. Mind you, I don't agree with the specific numbers they're citing, but the general logic works. It's kind of like the Drake equation, everyone can agree…

No, the model doesn't work. If the RIAA gets their huge multiple from one person they aren't going to consider downloads later in the sequence as covered. They would gladly go after a torrent swarm and charge each member based on the total number of copies.

If they only went after the initial seeder, I could understand. But that's completely counterfactual.

Re: Amazon Won’t Pay Self-Published Author For Books It Mistakenly Gave Away

#92

Post by alttag » Tue, Nov 08, 2011, 11:57 PM UTC

dminor wrote: post #89

alttag wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Libraries purchase physical copies of books (often at higher prices to get a sturdier binding). For popular books, libraries purchase multiple copies, some of which get lost or damaged, and must be replaced. In other words,authors still see some income from libraries. With Kindle Lending, there is no substantive gain for authors.

Presumably one must buy the book before it can be lent. People may ascribe a higher value to a lendable book, or be more likely to purchase in the first place.

Not as part of the Kindle Lending library available to Prime users, no.

Re: Amazon Won’t Pay Self-Published Author For Books It Mistakenly Gave Away

#93

Post by slowpoke » Wed, Nov 09, 2011, 2:46 AM UTC

jonnathanson wrote: post #52

slowpoke wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I would say it's more like some people walked out of the library with them. No. If anything, they are walking out of the library with a perfect copy of the book, while the library still has the original. Nobody looses anything. People need to stop clinging to paid distribution of content as a business model. It's obsolete.

"People need to stop clinging to paid distribution of content as a business model." If there's no money to be made in producing content, then nobody will produce content (aside from financially independent amateurs, in the model of the 18th century novelists). There needs to be some way to monetize the labor and time that goes into the production of art and entertainment. IMO, anyone who claims that paid distribution…

>If there's no money to be made in producing content, then nobody will produce content

Sigh, how often have I heard this by now? It's a lie, and you know it. The only thing that will stop existing are the big content industries.

>There needs to be some way to monetize the labor and time that goes into the production of art and entertainment.

And where did I exclude that? I merely said that paid distribution of content is no longer a viable business model. Gatekeepers are no longer needed in a modern information society. Besides, I don't care about the copyright industry's profits and it enrages me that you think I should[1].

>IMO, anyone who claims that paid distribution needs to go away also bears the burden of proposing an alternative that makes rational business sense.

Why should I need to propose an alternative? I'm stating a factual truth: the business model is obsolete, and trying to preserve it by force ultimately hurts everyone's rights and liberties. If the alternative is no alternative, then so be it.

An analogy: If somebody would invent teleportation, it would not be his or her job to come up with new business models for the industries that produce or provide other means of transportation. And no, this is not an utopian scenario. It has happened hundreds, if not thousand times in the past. A new technology came along, making an older one obsolete, and possibly putting entire industries out of business[2]. Nobody complained. Until now - when the content industry is the first that thinks it's entitled to laws and regulation to safe their business model from rightly going the way of the dinosaur.

[1] Shamelessly ripped off from http://torrentfreak.com/i-dont-care-about-your-profits-and-i...

[2] Another very nice essay by Rick Falkvinge, also on TF: http://torrentfreak.com/nobody-asked-for-a-refrigerator-fee-...

Re: Amazon Won’t Pay Self-Published Author For Books It Mistakenly Gave Away

#94

Post by slowpoke » Wed, Nov 09, 2011, 2:53 AM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #90

toyg wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's like people read the book, went home, and wrote it down again. The original book is now back in the shop and the publisher is free to sell it. How can you "lose" a sale that you don't know you'd get? I bet 6000 downloads for an unknown writer of zombie-pulp wouldn't have happened without the £0 price tag. We can argue about it all day, but the fact is that there is no direct loss, and if there is an indirect…

I find your argument poor in the extreme but to say "there is no direct loss" is wrong even at extremely confined levels of directness. Your argument hinges on the idea that he wouldn't have made a single sale and would still have expended time and effort in promotion of the work if he knew it were being given away for free. The difficulty in quantifying the cost is largely irrelevant IMO. Either Amazon are guilty or…

>The difficulty in quantifying the cost is largely irrelevant IMO.

If you cannot quantify any damages, you are not entitled to any compensation. It's as simple as that, really. Or are you seriously going to argue that "there could have been possibly maybe with a certain unknown probability which I cannot prove" is a sufficient claim in court (or actually, anywhere else as well)?

Re: Amazon Won’t Pay Self-Published Author For Books It Mistakenly Gave Away

#95

Post by slowpoke » Wed, Nov 09, 2011, 3:04 AM UTC

edanm wrote: post #25

slowpoke wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I would say it's more like some people walked out of the library with them. No. If anything, they are walking out of the library with a perfect copy of the book, while the library still has the original. Nobody looses anything. People need to stop clinging to paid distribution of content as a business model. It's obsolete.

If by "obsolete", you mean "a business that rolls in many billions of dollars every year", then you're right.

You're committing a fallacy here, in addition to completely missing my point.

The fact that it still rolls in billions has nothing to do with any justification of the business model. To use an extreme analogy: slave trade rolled in a huge profit as well. Would that be a justification for slave trade for you?

Re: Amazon Won’t Pay Self-Published Author For Books It Mistakenly Gave Away

#96

Post by slowpoke » Wed, Nov 09, 2011, 3:18 AM UTC

mindstab wrote: post #71

Big business vs the little guy is extremely unfair these days. If I had given away 6000 free mp3s or movies via a P2P system you can bet they'd try me in court for the full price of them all, but in this article already they are equivocating saying "oh but they were free, less people would have paid for it so he can't realistically ask for all the money for all the copies we gave away". How come when a big company ge…

You just described the problem of copyright as a whole: it was never designed for the little guy - as the popular myth goes (guess who is spreading that). It was invented by and for publishers (aka the big business), not for authors. That was true in the 16th century when the first ancestor of modern copyright was instated in England, if didn't change with the Statue of Annette, and isn't any different today, either.

Re: Amazon Won’t Pay Self-Published Author For Books It Mistakenly Gave Away

#97

Post by slowpoke » Wed, Nov 09, 2011, 4:04 AM UTC

eropple wrote: post #61

danssig wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But your model isn't right either. An author has to have a way to be compensation and depending on charity (of thieves no less) just isn't valid. The book has value or it doesn't. If it has no value then it shouldn't be created.

The unpleasant implication of slowpoke's "model" (and it's really just recycled Stallman nonsense) is that they'd really do it for the love of the art, and to hell with such ephemeral things as "eating". Guess they have to get a job or something.

Where did I ever mention any model of my own? Arguing against something does not imply my stance on anything else. You're committing a fallacy here.

Also, there are very few artists which can actually live of their art alone, WITH copyright. That wouldn't change much without it. It's how things always have been, despite what the content industry would like you to believe. Your petty appeal to emotion won't change it, either.

Finally, ignoring the fact that rms is a strawman in this context, if you'd ever read what he writes about selling software, you'd know that it does not really matter to him as long as the essential freedoms are preserved (beer vs freedom).

Re: Amazon Won’t Pay Self-Published Author For Books It Mistakenly Gave Away

#98

Post by edanm » Wed, Nov 09, 2011, 6:00 AM UTC

slowpoke wrote: post #95

edanm wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If by "obsolete", you mean "a business that rolls in many billions of dollars every year", then you're right.

You're committing a fallacy here, in addition to completely missing my point. The fact that it still rolls in billions has nothing to do with any justification of the business model. To use an extreme analogy: slave trade rolled in a huge profit as well. Would that be a justification for slave trade for you?

Well now you're talking about morality. I honestly had no idea that that's what you were referring to in your post.

Re: Amazon Won’t Pay Self-Published Author For Books It Mistakenly Gave Away

#99

Post by danssig » Wed, Nov 09, 2011, 10:11 AM UTC

slowpoke wrote: post #93

jonnathanson wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"People need to stop clinging to paid distribution of content as a business model." If there's no money to be made in producing content, then nobody will produce content (aside from financially independent amateurs, in the model of the 18th century novelists). There needs to be some way to monetize the labor and time that goes into the production of art and entertainment. IMO, anyone who claims that paid distribution…

>If there's no money to be made in producing content, then nobody will produce content Sigh, how often have I heard this by now? It's a lie, and you know it. The only thing that will stop existing are the big content industries. >There needs to be some way to monetize the labor and time that goes into the production of art and entertainment. And where did I exclude that? I merely said that paid distribution of conten…

>It's a lie, and you know it.

[citation needed] What is the "truth"? That e.g. artists will be fine because they can make more from concerts? Too bad about artists who make incredibly wonderful CDs but have no stage presence. I guess they don't deserve to be artists then.

Or, wait, I know, they can buy t-shirts, stick their name on them and charge 50 times what they cost. People will buy them because they want the artist to keep producing! Do people not realize merchandise sales are just a form of charity? After all media is free, what are you going to do when people get sick of giving to this charity?

>I don't care about the copyright industry's profits

Here it sounds like you're talking about something different than I am. I don't care about the profits of obsolete middle men. I care about someone who's good at music, acting, writing, whatever being able to make a living from it. And not by depending on charity or throwing events.

Re: Amazon Won’t Pay Self-Published Author For Books It Mistakenly Gave Away

#100

Post by toyg » Wed, Nov 09, 2011, 10:45 AM UTC

danssig wrote: post #99

slowpoke wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If there's no money to be made in producing content, then nobody will produce content Sigh, how often have I heard this by now? It's a lie, and you know it. The only thing that will stop existing are the big content industries. >There needs to be some way to monetize the labor and time that goes into the production of art and entertainment. And where did I exclude that? I merely said that paid distribution of conten…

>It's a lie, and you know it. [citation needed] What is the "truth"? That e.g. artists will be fine because they can make more from concerts? Too bad about artists who make incredibly wonderful CDs but have no stage presence. I guess they don't deserve to be artists then. Or, wait, I know, they can buy t-shirts, stick their name on them and charge 50 times what they cost. People will buy them because they want the ar…

> Too bad about artists who make incredibly wonderful CDs but have no stage presence. I guess they don't deserve to be artists then.

Too bad about those companies who make incredibly beautiful buggy-whips, but have no other income, I guess they don't deserve to be buggy-whip makers then!

Either we embrace the capitalism-fuelled race to productivity enhancement or we don't, but I fail to see why a minority of the population is entitled to lifetime (and even posthumous) subsidies because they refuse to show themselves in public, while the remaining 90% is not.

> I don't care about the profits of obsolete middle men. I care about someone who's good at music, acting, writing

Then how can you defend a system that was written by and for these obsolete middle-men? A system that sees the overwhelming majority of arts-related profits going to middlemen, while artists starve ? For each billion dollars in the entertainment industry, only a few millions go to a few selected, market-friendly artists, and that's obscene.