This will resolve slowly. Machines will age, drivers won't get written and slowly, software support will go away. Bet it takes some years, just like it did win 98
This does not help Gordon McComb's plight much but I found it interesting what happened with Gordon Williams and his Espruino.
That Gordon had written a Javasscript interpreter that was small enough to run on an MCU, TinyJS. Thes ource for that is still up on google code or somewhere. We once had it compiled for the Propeller and I believe someone even got that to run.
Anyway, Gordon continued improving that interpreter and it became the Espruino JS interpreter. But is was not published openly.
Then he put up the Espruino board project on Kickstarter. For a few dollars you could have an STM32 F4 running Espruino JS. And he promised that if the kickstarter target was reached he would release the code as Open Source.
The Espruino kickstarter raised 100,000 GPB when only 20,000 was asked for!
I put in a 100 GBP or so. I was more interested in getting the code that he boards.
Not a bad return for publishing something that anyone can copy.
Espruinio is great by the way, Gordon Williams has done a fantastic job on it and the WEB based IDE that goes with it.
I've always wanted to do a Kickstarter project. My favorite example of how an author can hit it big is the Finnish woman who put up a project for Hello Ruby, an illustrated programming book for children. Her goal was $10,000, and she raised close to $400,000.
There are a couple of things wrong with my plans, though. First, I am not an attractive, young, Finnish woman. I'm the opposite of everything about that statement. Her Kickstarter video -- and I praise her for it -- is mostly of her jumping on furniture with a short skirt on. I thought about doing that for my video, but I'd be arrested for disturbing the peace, and have to finish the project from jail.
I've done an informal study and it seems that among the most successful Kickstarter projects were started by young, attractive people who made a good video. Presentation on camera is critical. So I'm holding auditions for the Other Me -- a George Clooney lookalike wouldn't be turned down.
I've always applauded efforts like the Espurino project, but I'm just not that clever. People who can write compilers and do *anything* with JavaScript (that works) always amaze me. I've spent the last two weeks trying to get a variety of JavaScript-based lightboxes to work in various browsers and OSs. Oy!
Not for everybody, but definitely viable and practical. And it's again, a shining example of how it's not cut n' dried as in somebody reads something and it equates to no value, when it most clearly does. The problem is how to understand, and benefit from that value. It's different.
And yet all this still misses the larger point that the Internet does not espouse Free (as in freedom) at all, if an author's work is held hostage by the lowest common denominator, an ethic that eventually will become a zero sum game. Who is it Free for?
You continue to say that the book, or the content, or the ideas, have "no value," in some form as presented. That's not it at all. If it has no value no one would bother downloading it. The fact that is DOES have value makes it a resource that is piratable. No ones pirates useless things.
Trust me, I do "get it." I understand the dynamics of the new Internet order. I just don't like it, nor should you. I don't like how the greed, avarice, and laziness of others (pirates, upload moneys, file lockers, DMCA dodgers, the lot) has created what you consider "normal" business.
You continue to say that the book, or the content, or the ideas, have "no value," in some form as presented. That's not it at all. If it has no value no one would bother downloading it. The fact that it DOES have value makes it a resource that is piratable. No one pirates useless things.
Trust me, I do "get it." I understand the dynamics of the new Internet order. I just don't like it, nor should you. I don't like how the greed, avarice, and laziness of others (pirates, upload moneys, file lockers, DMCA dodgers, the lot) has created what you consider "normal" business.
Well, I'm not here making inferences based on user names... You go ahead though. No worries. My name is not hard to find, and that username is just some fun and a reminder of happy times with a goofy toy.
Let me make something clear: I don't think piracy is OK.
I do not pirate things, though I have in the past and stated why and how that came to pass.
The cost of completely, or near completely eliminating it is extremely high, and it will require a legal environment where information is treated like physical things are, and it will require a closed, trusted computing environment that imposes those same constraints.
In such an environment, it's not possible to do open things, nor trust our tech, nor persue information based business models.
Going that route is completely unacceptable. Costs are too high, potential for good market dynamics in terms of competition and avoiding lock in, etc... too low, and overall over exploitation potential off the charts too high as well.
That means Scribd carries Doctrow just as it may contain Feynman, or any of us. It also means Katy Perry is on Bittorrent as is Linux too. And it means we get MAME, and all sorts of other things.
I don't pirate things because there is a ton of open code, data, and people I can use, and I can give back and contribute to make it better, as can any of us. Adobe? Corel? No way, I ca use GIMP, Blender, Inkscape, etc... and I do, simply not choosing to entertain closed stuff that is expensive and of dubious value a lot of the time.
As much as you say about value Gordon, I could say the same. Readers and users have value, same as the work does. I've sold a heck of a lot of books for Doctrow and Lessig both, and I've bought their books myself, despite the fact that I can get them for no dollars, as can anyone too.
Value is an interesting thing, and it is something apart from price. This is hard to see with physical goods, though a quick comparison of Apple and say, Dell or HP, makes it perfectly clear who understands that and who does not. Adding value, and getting people to recognize it is the difference between a grind and a great business! Adding value is the check against zer sum scenarios we are all threatened with in physical goods constantly.
Let me also be clear in that I do not expect anyone to adopt a business model they do not believe in, but I also do expect those new business models to be possible, and they are possible due to how information differs from physical things.
And my point in this is to highlight that, and underscore how important it is that our law and our tech actually embody those differences, not suppress them, or we won't see the real value from either. And I love added value, business, making money, making margins and the whole works too. And I am good at it.
Why would I buy something I can download? I want the robust, easy to use, read, share and trade aspects of physical books. Most people do. Lots of reasons to buy things, and when that is easy to do, most people buy them too. I may want to give a gift, be able to read anywhere, whatever. People pay for the value they see, and the more they see, the more they pay, and promote. The latter is of huge value to authors who must differentiate themselves, or suffer brutal opportunity costs.
Here is something interesting: CopyBlogger, HubSpot, and others who are currently good authorities on content marketing give the info away! I can't tell you the benefit I have derived from those two specifically, and they continue to educate me every day. I love em. Called em and told them that too. They asked me for referrals, I am happy to provide, but even had I not had that convo, they put the tools I need to do it, and they are high value tools, meaning I have a maximized motivation to use them,
Why buy from these two?
Time is one reason. I might want them to take care of this domain for me. And I know how good they are, and what will happen, because they educated and enabled me! I can focus on that awesome thing I do, maximize that, and have them bring me handfuls of people who will then learn what I do, get enabled, and pay me when they realize they too can drill down on what makes them money, etc...
When I buy from authors, I know who they are, how they write, and I trust them to do the work I would have to do, and that is also a time argument. I won't buy authors who I don't know well, unless a trusted person recommends them...
Which comes back to value again. Thes events happen, and piracy is not OK. But, neither is a closed, expensive, authoritarian environment, so then...
How to maximize the value of every person who knows who we are, what we do, why and how we do it?
That is the discussion for most people. Parallax does this every day, providing a serious savings in time, and enabling information that makes investing in them worth it.
That author well known here could weigh the cost of paying Google to display ADS against becoming the definitive source for their work, bringing in tons of people without paying Google at all!
Interestingly, a division of money paid to Google for prospects by people who recommend, who got it somehow, may well show just what the value there looks like, and it's not zero by any means.
As for the kickstarter and a hot woman having the impact we know she can have, I can only respond with many Kickstarts I see that are good ideas, well presented by people, not hot, ordinary people, and question whether or not a good idea won't get it done when well positioned, clearly presented, etc...
I'll bet you, some thought, a friend or two, and a little production help, would do just fine. Know what? There are people out there, who are authorities on these things who will give you all you need in return for your attention and potential recommendation, or who will gladly do the work for you, on the chance that dollars are more available than time is too.
Don't change a thing! I'm not going to worry about that. Your business and your risks and costs are things you must balance. No worries, and I do not mean to imply otherwise. However, do understand the WHY behing what I put here in like kind.
It is not a zero sum game. There is value moving in these channels, and where there is value, it can be converted into revenue, and doing that in the ways Ive put here needs to be possible, and I've hinted at why that matters.
I can appreciate your not being a pirate, and did not think you were defending the practice. However, I believe the logic you are using shows a limited vision about the broader problem, and how it can escalate.
More and more I see this "adapt or die" mentality related to the new Internet order, which is based on breaking the law. But to make it work the system relies on others accepting it. Perhaps even using it to their advantage. I don't consider that fair play dealings. An advantage to me shouldn't mean a disadvantage for someone else.
You misunderstand me in thinking I haven't changed my business models to compensate. Finding new ways to leverage what's new and exciting is part of any business life cycle. But this is separate from knowing there's a fox in your chicken house, and then pretending it'll never do harm. On the one hand I can pursue work with those who don't rely on the pure content play. We can both make some money because the impact of piracy is far lessened. On the other hand I can still complain when there's a wrong being done, and when people say "live with it."
Sure, give things away. We all do this, and there's nothing new about the approach. Just don't think it really changes much related to piracy. Weird Al has given away his music videos on YouTube for years, using it as marketing. He recently put out a number one album and was rewarded with having it become heavily pirated by his "fans." He had every right to be discouraged. Despite the ready availability of official free versions of most of the songs, I guess some people saw some "value" in the full album, huh?
I don't accept the current system because it does not properly differentiate between information and physical goods. Until it does, we've got basic problems, and some business models will run in conflict to how technology has changed things.
Ok, so let's talk about Wierd Al. 40K torrent downloads, if we can even understand that number to be true, means what? Right now, I can go scoop that whole album off You Tube, at good quality and not miss a beat. Al himself gave it away, and he did so in order to promote sales of his album. BTW: I just read Google is going to be offering "off line viewing" through a You Tube subscription... Price? $10 per month, the same number Napster floated in the 90's long ago. (see below)
Back in the day, one would scoop it off FM in good quality too. Some stations would play whole album sides for that purpose. KINK FM here in PDX was noted for that practice, which incidentally, sold a lot of albums. Or gather with friends and have a music party. I did tons of them, with a mix of devices, an all night session, and each of us being music alphas promoted the Smile out of the stuff at that party too. Heck, that music is on subscription streaming, and it's on things like Spotify, and every where else you find hot, trending music.
Seems to me, like Al has a wonderful problem. He gave away his album and people thought highly of it to top the sales charts! That's awesome for a comedy album. (And I've long been a fan) Isn't that just a bit interesting?
Again, eliminating piracy will require closed, trusted computing environments. Personally, I oppose that on a number of fronts, but a primary one is how ordinary people will be left open to some pretty wide range over exploitation, unless they've got open alternatives out there, and where it's open, there absolutely always will forever be piracy.
It's one or the other.
Of those people, some just wanted to listen off line. They were listening anyway, as the album and videos are available, right now, immediate, for the asking, gratis on a number of perfectly legit venues too.
Some of them wanted to get the album and not pay, or could not pay. Bummer. But they told their friends, perhaps educating them about the product, and a lot of those friends probably could buy. You can bet plenty did.
Of those people, some are going to talk it up, some will share it, and all know who Al is. Which is worth something. Actually, it's worth a lot as I'll show below.
Of the people who share it, some will buy, some will download, some will stream and some will talk, and that ripples through a few times. Al gets paid at several points in there too. And he doesn't have to buy ads along the way in there either. Giving the album away is a great promo, and having people share it beats the Smile of out any AD campaign you can name.
Now some will buy the album, and make a disc, loan to friends, share it straight up person to person, no torrents required. Al is gonna miss out on those copies, but he may well pick up some sales along the way as new fans are made. Personal recommendations beat the Smile out of any AD campaign you can name. Ask the people who sell cosmetics and what personal "girl to girl, trust me this works" means for them. They will do ANYTHING to get it. In our space, it's similar. If Heater tells me I should go give it a look, I'm gonna. I may not even read the AD.
This is a comedy album, so it may not end up on too many "I love you mix tapes", but who knows?
Now, for the newbies, who got introduced to this music, or maybe people who have been away from Al for a while as listeners, might get into it and decide to see what else he's done. Hope they publish the back catalog sales. Bet they see a bump, and that bump will be broad based too, spread out across everybody who knows who Al is. The more who know, the bigger that bump is too. If Al is sharp, he will put a bundle out there.
Further, nobody has ever actually quantified losses. If it's pirated hard, it's sold hard. You are right, people move things of value and they share them and that gets the word out, which drives sales. So far, when piracy is way up, so are sales!
Why do you think Al gave the album away in the first place? He knows this game.
And the "mixed feelings?" he also knows having users is everything. If he's relevant, he's gonna sell. if he's not, he won't, and piracy contributes to his relevancy a whole lot more than a lot of artists care to admit. Ask Metallica about that, their fan hostile position on this, their sales, and then compare to the Grateful Dead, who encouraged recording, sharing and everything else long before this modern game ever started. Compare relevancy too. No contest. Sales?
Frankly, that article didn't invalidate a single point I made. If you want, I can go and cite 10 more that nail it.
Unless we all want closed, very limited computing devices, and law that doesn't actually treat information as the different entity it is, maximizing how things do work is the name of the game.
You know, they cried about this with FM. They cried about it with tape. And they cried about it with writable CD ROM. About the only one they didn't wine about was DAT, and DAT was closed enough to be basically useless, so nobody bought in. Ask SONY how well people adopt closed stuff. Memory card? Who cares? Minidisc? Nobody cares, and so it goes... And the RIAA got a tax on CD ROM for music, and kept it. Ask the artists about that one. Somebody got happy, but it wasn't the people who made the album. (Many of whom have since moved to direct streaming and sales direct to their fans to great effect too.)
Do you know when Napster was at it's high point there were 40 million users all on one centralized sharing source? And that was 40 freaking million at the dawn of broadband too. Absolutely huge! The owner of Napster offered music 2 billion dollars a year, 3 if they asked for it really nice, in return for a blanket license and the ability to collect, sell and have everybody benefit from the massive marketing data being collected.
They turned that down. And that's been a very expensive fight ever since. When you look at opportunity costs, 40 billion dollars minimum since that time is nothing to sneeze at. Very expensive medicine so far. And that 40 million number assumes little growth and majority adoption of flat monthly pricing for Napster. (an idea 10+ years before it's time, delivered by somebody who understands this cold)
Now, that was the starter ante. The real game would have gotten going with the explosion of Napster capable users, and it would have tracked right along with broadband adoption too. That 40 billion would very likely be in the hundreds now, given a solid user base and the usual growth, and $10 a month for doing what Spotify Pro basically does now. Years too late, if you ask me. The golden time was missed a very long, expensive time ago. Music would have secured a much larger share of the entertainment dollars out there, and know what is interesting as all get out? The movie people saw this, grokked it, and they did it much closer to right. Netflix, Hulu, and other services, get their stuff out there, and secure a lot of money the very same way Napster would have early on. Don't think they didn't see what happened. They did.
The music guys were a bunch of clowns, if you ask me. Had they actually thought about information and listened to somebody who understood how it works and what it means, there would be near zero piracy discussion today, and there would be a whole culture of sharing just like there is and should be today, and it would have been very nicely monetized, with big, fat checks going to everybody involved, amounts determined nicely by the central servers and the sharing data needed to parse it all out and treat people right. Not to mention how valuable the sharing data is, given it breaks down along demographic, geographic lines, relating everything to everything else! Ask the Pandora people what that kind of info is worth, and they sort of botched it. Spotify nailed it, and that data is worth a ton.
But we didn't get that nice vision. What we got was people digging in on antiquated business models, and so they started in fighting hard. Various closed formats were introduced, Windows was changed to honor them, and the DRM, and devices featured lots of shiny logos, all of which people ignored in favor of nice, open, easy to use ways and means that continue today. Running Linux and viewing legally obtained content was a crime, and still is in some places. Shame really. I built my first media player for the home out of Linux, and the family loved that thing. It didn't lock us into 12 minutes of previews every time we wanted the kids to watch "Aladdin" When I actually did buy a player blessed by the studios, it was so obnoxious, I moved to rip the kid movies to play the movie as we were used to. (fair use on that one, but it almost became a crime --scary)
They killed Napster off too. With it, hundreds of billions of dollars of very consistent revenue, in addition to ordinary sales, and not to mention the data and it's worth. ...and what did they get?
Distributed sharing. Killed that off and what did they get? Anonymous, distributed sharing! Threatened that, and what did they get? Tor, and onion type networks, which incidentally have helped politically repressed people all over the world get real news and information. That's a plus! Threaten that and what will they get?
Near complete encryption, and it goes on and on.
Know who sorted most of it out? Apple computer, who finally sold them on "loose DRM" and we got back to making a disc or sharing with a friend being OK, and sales went through the roof, establishing iTunes as the place to get it done. Had they listened to Fanning, Apple iTunes would not exist today and they would have been laughing all the way to the bank, instead of having to listen to lectures from Steve Jobs, all the while smarting over the billions they walked away from.
So the truth is, "adapt or die" is real. It's not just a thing people say to make sure they can get freebies. Not that at all. It's about how information works, technology being open or closed, trusted or not (and by that, we mean somebody trusts it, not you, or how you use your tech), and it's about the clash between big corporations owning culture and the people, who are the source of culture, wanting to create their own culture.
(Lessig lays this out very well in his books, all online, gratis, or you can tip him, or buy them, whatever)
While I'm at it, here's another very interesting metric:
Ever think about entertainment / hobby dollars? I have. The number one attribute, near completely ignored in all of this, is those dollars are for the most part fixed for the very vast majority of people. Whatever it's fixed at, it's fairly consistent too. Some variance is possible, but really that's more like a loan than not. Make a big purchase and "pay for it" with reduced spending for a while kind of thing.
What does this mean?
It means there simply are not the dollars out there. If every single instance of piracy was converted to a sale, people would make billions! Now, isn't it quite interesting that Shawn Fanning, who created Napster, had this all figured out, realizing he could secure a percentage of that fixed entertainment money and do so consistently over time, deriving very large and consistent revenue and growth where none existed in that space before?
I think so.
Now, back to those billions! They don't exist. The money simply isn't there.
Every month, the very vast majority of people spend what they've got for these purposes. And the real competition is for share. If video games has a good year, and is more compelling than movies, video games will get more share and movies less, and so it goes for most things in this, what I'll call "piracy space" for purposes of discussion.
And the money isn't there because we currently do not value labor well enough globally for people to afford the level of content they typically consume. That's a hard, ugly, real fact. I'm not saying we should value labor that highly either. Different discussion, ideally somewhere other than here. But, I am saying there are available dollars, and they get spent, period. Well, mostly. There are some exceptions, but not the kinds of exceptions that balance this whole mess out.
And what that means is relevancy is KING. Whoever is relevant will get the majority of the dollars, and they will get the biggest margins when they are as relevant as they can be at the lowest cost.
So then, another artifact of eliminating piracy, aside from the closed computing stuff I mentioned already, is people would simply consume a whole lot less of everything! And this would focus choice down to the most compelling things, seriously beating up smaller time players as they simply would not be a priority in the same way they are today.
Nobody talks much about this, and I've studied it for years.
I've got papers cited in government, think tanks, NPR, etc... Around the middle of the 00's, I left this advocacy, seeking other kinds of advocacy, so I don't write much on it today, but I did, and I did because I thought we might actually get some progress, and we just haven't overall. Ugly mess, and the other causes I'm interested in, such as corruption, are a higher priority.
Right now, it's wide open. Some people pirate a lot. The vast majority of them just don't have the money. It's not about "finding it", it's that they don't have it. Another bigger slice has the money, and will usually spend it, and the easier it is to spend it, the more likely they are to spend too. And there are a smaller set who can buy what they want, and in these economic times, that set is getting smaller, not larger. Zynga calls these people "whales" and watches them plug thousands of dollars into those goofy FaceBook games. Most of us would never think of that, because most of us actually can't do that and afford anything else, and there is the priority dynamic sticking out like a sore thumb. Zynga is falling on hard times now too. Their model assumes growth, and it's there in terms of players, but it's just not there in terms of dollars. Stocks are down. Probably about where they should be.
So that means, you can compete with anybody right now. If you are relevant, you sell. Period. If people are excited, you sell more, and they share more and that too means you sell more.
Louis C.K. sold direct to fans, $5. No DRM, nothing. That thing is all over the place, and it got pirated hard, but it also sold hard, and he made a killing on it. Notably, he made a lot more than he would have had he gone with the established business models too. That piece is a bit old, but it contains some really good detail. He's in the millions on that one now.
It's not a closed system, and people will pay for stuff they really get excited about. If it is closed up, the more mainstream "needs" or "wants" would lock down the vast majority of the income and that means you compete directly with them, and it would mean you would do so without the advantage of having larger potential mind shares like they have, because you don't have the ad budgets they have, nor the established name / branding they have. And lacking other means being discussed here, you get locked out, or you pay big to get relevancy.
If you get shared a lot, tons of people know who you are and can get excited about that, and you benefit. In a closed scenario, I'm not so sure it would play out to your benefit, and I know for sure the investment required to play at all is much larger. Closed, after all, means you will also pay a cut to those who do own the channels. And the more they own, and lock down, the bigger cut you and everybody else will pay too.
And once it's closed, it's closed. Right now, it's really hard to keep it open, but it is. Once that fight gets won, there is absolutely no way it will be undone, because then the future is secure for those established players, and they know it and would have the means to invest in ways that keeps it all that way.
Back to those fixed dollars... Now, put it into another context.
There are people all over the place, unable to get educated and or improve themselves. Giving them material support, in terms of face time and human seat time is cost prohibitive. Secondly, giving them physical goods is also cost prohibitive. This is why we've got things like the Pi, because they are enabling in a very basic way. Some kid somewhere gets hold of that and they will pirate, but who knows what they will do or become or talk about?
Libraries help, and people use them and that's good. Frankly, I hope we can see libraries funded to be hacker / maker type spaces so that people can get their hands on physical things too. The more the merrier.
Information, can be out there, accessible, and made use of, and we will get a lot of benefit from that overall. In developing parts of the world it matters a lot. Heck, it mattered to a young potatohead long ago. Changed my life, and again, I was dirt freaking poor. No regrets on that as it drove me to learn, do, scrounge, build, and get people skills needed to take me up and out to professional work today. And I payed off big, and I know that, and they know that too.
Open helps with this in ways that closed isn't. And once we've completely monetized things, how exactly does that work for those have nots who could use to learn something? Not sure I like how that all plays out. And once they've learned something, they happen to be customers for Parallax, your content and who knows what else. Funny how that works isn't it?
So I know we do not agree. I hear you and I think there is a lot of work to be done to make things better than they currently are, and I think they can be made better, but I absolutely do not accept that will happen, unless we have the debates and set the policy we need to and we can't do that without discussing these things in frank, real terms, using real data and consider it in a systemic fashion, not just focus on one particular set of interests.
That starts with the word infringement, and it's a hard word. Not in the common lexicon, and it needs to be. Our founders understood that word, and they didn't even have an Internet! Surely we can talk in real terms and realize effective law that doesn't render information down to material goods.
I put the other info here for context to support, "It's not theft" and it's absolutely not. Never was, never will be.
Once we can actually talk about infringing and what it means, we might actually see some progress everybody can benefit from. Frankly, if we continue to have these discussions poorly, we run the risk of making things worse. And we've already seen the tit-for-tat escalation you speak of, and what drove it?
Absolute refusal to consider information as information, and very poor characterizations, like "theft" being used as framing to support antiquated business models, despite doing that being an obvious step away from the overall general welfare, and definitely away from prosperity, which is what we are supposed to be doing in the first place. At least, that's how the USA calls it. Other parts of the world clearly may differ.
Edit after reading this thing again:
Notice a trend here? With each innovation, we monetize sharing. In the 90's, it was impossible to share without piracy, unless one used physical means. Trading storage devices filled with stuff was common on college campuses, and people made disks for each other, sorts of things. Napster worked because music just barely worked on early broadband and dialup. E-mail followed, with people able to send tracks to one another directly. (I used this method with a friend to help produce a couple of CD's, which is kind of amazing. E-freaking mail...)
The piracy alarm went off, and the war begun. The late 90's and early 00's was a dark time, illicit methods growing rapidly, the center of attention was lost, things got distributed and a lot of people got angry, which didn't help matters at all. Closed computing was advanced as a solution, leading people like me to say, "no" and leading others to provide alternatives that do bring $$$ through sharing. iTunes was born. So was AllOfMp3, a russian site selling music by the byte.
AllOfMp3 was a great learning example, because it was easier to use and better structured than anything else out there. Rather than share, people would just pay and download. This site was shut down as a condition of Russia entering the WTO.
Today, we've got streaming everywhere, subscriptions available, cheap DRM free downloads, content creator sales direct to fans, and god knows what else. Actually going and getting a torrent, risking malware, or a copy with porn in the middle, seems quaint. People can share, link, listen, trade, comment on, and do every other self-expression thing with culture they want to, and there are nice $$$ associated with all of it.
Net result? Piracy still exists, but it's increasingly marginalized by giving people options to be people and do what people do that make money for everybody, adding a lot of value to everybody. It's entirely possible to capture the value associated with information and how people use it, and it's entirely possible to compete successfully with piracy without having to close everything up and or apply draconian law.
We haven't settled this yet. The closed guys are still working hard. Cell phone, PS3 type computing is still a very real potential out there, and the state of law has improved, but is still lacking. The threat of piracy is being used to advance every hardware / software lock in wet dream there ever was too. Despite this progress, and a lot of money flowing where it could have flowed for many years Napster style, we still see the constant citations of massive losses coupled with an equally massive lack of material data to support those losses, and here we are today.
Likewise Gordon. I do not intend, nor imply you are at fault, and it's not my intent to beat you up in any way, nor see you struggle. It's not about any of that, and I think you understand that, and I know I understand you better now. That's a good thing!
as usual I enjoy your posts. I like to read so I always look forward to your posts. They show deep thinking. But this one also shows some deep misunderstanding here.
You have a good understanding of cooperate environments, stock market, global trends and say 'the big picture'. But for people like me (or Gordon?) things are different.
I am talking about all those small guys. One person company's. No fancy meetings with Venture Capital but fighting to pay the monthly bills with the meager and unreliable income out of your self's personal work.
Like writing software, writing good books is a time consuming process. If one sale need to provide the needed income the product would be quite expensive. Would not work. So you gamble your current money - to finance yourself while writing - against future revenue coming out of that work.
If it doesn't you are done and have to stop writing books or software because you are now driving trucks again or do whatever you did before.
Sure. Mircrosoft does not really care if I buy that one w2008 Server license. But Gordon does care if somebody buys his books or just copy's them. It is a question of scale.
And not all things scale up well to cooperate scales. In over 25 years of programming I never sold hundreds or thousands of licenses. Just filling those niches bigger company's would not touch for exactly that reason. The target group is to small. No money to be made. Same with Gordon. His books do not sell in big numbers like Steven King. Never saw one at Walmart. The target group is to small. No money to be made.
But Gordon's books are brilliant. He is putting 'blood, sweat and tears' into them. I love his writing and tutorials/demos. This QS book of him is in constant reach for a quick look at some similar schematic for what I need. Just to check my sanity.
But the target group is to small so what to do exactly now to keep him alive and able to write more books like that?
Nah.
I'd listen to Stallman and I see the philosophical aspect of all of the Free Software (capital F) and I see also your arguments why you think this is coming to us no matter what. But it will again kill all the small suppliers in the market and favor the big ones.
I think this is a very sad development.
Richard Stallman used the wrong word. He should not have used Free but Wild. That would have derailed all the confusion we now have about Free and free (like a beer).
Because writing good books or writing good software is simply not easy and needs a lot of time. And that time needs to get paid for the person doing it or it will simply die. (at worst).
The current mentality on the internet is that everything has to be free (lower f) and copying it is - well - usual.
I think this is a rapid devaluation of the value of work the original author put in there.
So all your tips of how to use the 'piracy' as advertisement to penetrate the global market do not really work if the software or book is specialized on a small market.
So how do all them small guys fit in the global picture you painted in you excellent post?
Before I continue, lets understand nobody is on trial here and that the value of our work is important.
I have written and sold software, small time, and had to deal with piracy. I have also had to deal with this in the context of specialized training materials, both for small audiences. Some small time music too.
My intent wasn't to go full Stallman. Open code and data is important. It is not the only path. Closed is good too. However, open needs to be possible.
My intent was to clarify infringement, and that got done. If we move to specifics related to people suffering from infringement, I'm happy to contribute what I can, but I also need to understand it is OK to discuss it on more specific, personal terms.
I hold Gordon in high regard, as I do my peers here. Going forward on this topic may require frank discussion on personal terms, and again, that is a good, worthy thing to do.
So I'm asking... Do we want to go there? I'm happy to. No worries. I'm asking out of respect for Gordon, and because I'm on the free gig here, having the conversation benefit everyone interested is fine by me.
I'll take some time and research Gordon while we wait.
But - well - I am in no way speaking for Gordon here. I just would miss his work If he would not be able to continue.
My point here is more general. It's not Gordon or Mike. It's the 'every thing should be free (lower f) mentality'.
Please do not misunderstand my reasoning. As far as I followed your posts you started out poor and made your way thru it over time. I am happy for you that you where able to do that.
In my opinion we do not at all need to go on a personal level here. It is a value thing. Copying (or even selling ) other peoples work without paying them for the work they have done is simply theft. Regardless if it is software or books or education material or physical things like board designs. It is just theft. Nothing else.
Sure. If something is offered by the individual as being MITed, GPLed, or otherwise offered to the public OK. In that case it is the authors choice to do that. But if not this should also be respected and not brushed away as old fashioned and to be ignored.
It's simply theft. Nothing else. It might make the difference of somebody continuing his work and getting out new stuff, or don't and driving trucks again. (Nothing against truck driving. Been there and done that for some years in my life)
And to the point of open and closed.
All my employers and customers always got the source of what I sold them. How else I (or somebody else) could manage to adapt there custom made software when needed? Them paid for so they got it. As said before, I never sold hundreds or thousands of licenses. I am just a very small fish in the pond.
reading my own posts I think I have put you in the same basket as I am in. Sorry for that. I just tried to get some principles explained and your books seemed to be a good example.
Net result? Piracy still exists, but it's increasingly marginalized by giving people options to be people and do what people do that make money for everybody,
You go ahead and continue believing that. From my direct experience, and speaking with other content creators, it simply isn't true. You should educate yourself about the relatively new role file lockers are playing in the world of piracy, and the kind of organizations that run some of the larger ones (i.e. the kind that cut off the heads of horses and put them in beds). Their greatest impact is only from the past year or two, and they are game changers.
I'm sure you appreciate torrents are old school, but measurable, so people still look to their numbers. WAY's music was far more pirated on file lockers, and by now the loss must be in the millions of downloads. The fact that it was pirated shouldn't be surprising, but it does show up the fallacy in the thinking that all it takes is some savvy marketing and freebies to make it okay. Free stuff and clever marketing do NOT stop piracy. They are designed to (partially) make up for piracy by gaining real sales. I think most people can see that.
I've already said why not paying for something -- the form is irrelevant -- where there is an expectation of payment is theft. That's the true definition of theft, and no Net-era revisionism can change it.
But Gordon's books are brilliant. He is putting 'blood, sweat and tears' into them. I love his writing and tutorials/demos. This QS book of him is in constant reach for a quick look at some similar schematic for what I need. Just to check my sanity.
Mike, thanks much. It is the dropping sales of my last two robotics books, both of which are now hopelessly pirated by HUNDREDS of file lockers worldwide, that has given rise to the opinions I express here. The sales of the books can be directed plotted against when the eBook became available (they are cracked in 10 seconds), and when they started showing up on "free download" sites.
As a FWIW, the Parallax Kickstart book is exactly the kind of content I try to write for these days. Go ahead and pirate it -- that can only benefit Parallax! (Besides that, it's open source content anyway. Ken and I agreed on that point early on.)
And you know what? I have spoken with content creators who are not having the same impacts, and their strategy is different. My own experiences were interesting. Pre broadband, I was able to deal with piracy reasonably. Post broadband, I found it more challenging, but I also found more ways to make money too.
Say what you want about theft, but if you were to bring a case of theft to a court, you would lose. You would lose because the damage you claim as well as the basis for your standing to claim it would not meet the criteria for theft.
It does, however, meet the criteria for infringement. And you would have a case I support you in winning.
Before I enter into the discussion Mike triggered, what solution do you propose?
All through this discussion, I have asserted a technical solution isn't possible without also eliminating open, general purpose computing. Is that your solution, or do you have alternatives?
I have also asserted losing general purpose computing is too draconian of a solution. There isn't any budging on that one. The core reason is I find I can meet 90 percent of my computing needs with open code, which is a huge value. I can also meet a very high percentage of my information / data needs with open content.
Quite frankly, I don't have to buy much, meaning I am happy to buy when I do. This is true for a large and growing number of people. Saving say, $200 on Microsoft Office, frees up roughly $20 / month for entertainment / hobby dollars, for example.
The use value inherent in open computing, etc... is too great to render moot to near eliminate piracy. And I say near, because a very closed environment won't actually eliminate it, just curb it considerably.
So what else do we do exactly?
Frankly, I do not see a viable solution, other than maximizing the opportunity for people to make choices that can or are monetized. This is precisely why I have the position I do.
So let's hear that answer. I have some in terms of the goal; namely, to make as much money as possible. Do you have one that will seriously reduce piracy?
Secondly, claiming downloads as losses isn't intellectually honest. We can say there were downloads. We can say some number of those do represent potential sales. We can say some number of those resulted in sales too.
We know absolutely the dollars do not exist to fund all downloads. And those things together mean we can't say downloads represent X losses.
And we can say there are some losses from downloads too.
I agree with that, and have no doubt you are seeing losses from downloads. The question is what to do about it generally, and more specifically, how can you maximize your revenue?
I am not condoning piracy. I am saying it will simply exist. And I am saying, given it exists there are clear means by which one can maximize their revenue.
Doing that makes sense, because there is value associated with the activity. Those who recognize that tend to also maximize their revenue.
Edit: Gordon, if you end up interested in potentials to maximize your revenue, I'll put some time on that gratis. Happy to do it.
This looks a lot like "potatohead doesn't care", which isn't true at all. Moving away from open, general purpose computing as a solution is frankly, too expensive and unacceptable. Most of us here know what that would really need to look like in order to be effective. A discussion of the problem as well as options isn't very useful when it's inaccurate, which was and remains the primary point in this discussion.
Mike, thanks much. It is the dropping sales of my last two robotics books, both of which are now hopelessly pirated by HUNDREDS of file lockers worldwide, that has given rise to the opinions I express here. The sales of the books can be directed plotted against when the eBook became available (they are cracked in 10 seconds), and when they started showing up on "free download" sites.
As a FWIW, the Parallax Kickstart book is exactly the kind of content I try to write for these days. Go ahead and pirate it -- that can only benefit Parallax! (Besides that, it's open source content anyway. Ken and I agreed on that point early on.)
FWIW Gordon...I just PURCHASED 10 of your robotic books and will be donating them to the local high school robotics club.
Thank you for the effort and dedication that you poured into the creation of that IP....it is appreciated.
Before I enter into the discussion Mike triggered, what solution do you propose?
I'd be fine if people stepped away from the nonsense that taking content isn't stealing, and therefore not wrong. That would be a start.
Peeps think this all is new. It's not. Kids have been sneaking into movie theaters before any of us here were born. Their argument was the same as people use today: If I'm not talking anything away (what's the harm of two more eyeballs?), then how can it be "stealing"?
It's stealing because the people who brought the film to the theater expected to be paid for it. Forget that it cost money to make and show. The "social contract" was that it's presented to the public for pay. On a practical level, if everyone snuck in, there would be no theater, no movies. But somehow, these righteous people think they are excused from buying a ticket. They're special.
The argument is as juvenile now as it was then. As long as people parrot this line the problem will never go away.
I realize my voice is tiny in the sea of the Internet, but I'm not the only one who feels this way. I'm glad for your friends who have withstood the piracy onslaught, but a matter of principle is just that. I'm doing okay, but won't be writing any more books (unless they're self-published or part of hardware sales). I can make more money elsewhere, and have returned to consulting.
In the end, it shouldn't matter what our personal take is. If something is wrong, it's wrong.
Anyway, I feel I've said all I need, or want, to say. Time to play with some robots.
I never said it wasn't wrong. It is, and there is work to be done.
I feel about the same way toward people who really fail to recognize there is value being tossed about. And there is. Nobody likes it, and it's not easily controlled, but it can be managed and exploited to great effect. Given that, or trading away open computing, I'll take open, because I can do open, not infringe on anything at all, and get what I want to get done, which frees dollars for fun stuff like books.
So long as we have this basic disconnect, progress on this matter will be difficult for everyone. As for what is what, I tend to look at what courts determine and apply the language correctly from there.
I did spend a few hours over last night and some this evening. Here are the products of that: (if I can do more, or drill down, let me know)
BTW: Self-publish, with content marketing to back it, coupled with hardware is an extremely good strategy, and it was one of the things I planned on saying. I suggest you also target the Pi, which could use the excellent treatment you can bring to the table. That one is ripe for the picking and an easy, relevant high value addition to the library you've built so far. It is very consistently listed with your offerings and mentioned in various reviews / discussions related to your work. Existing audience is probably involved already, or thinking about it. Easy sales here. They will want your take on it, which competes nicely with the amount out there already. You've got a base who will be interested regardless.
Hate to say it, but be sure hardware kit is available stand alone for the pirate who gets sucked in. No joke either. This also works well for those who complete everything and pass the book on to an interested friend old school too. Finally, people may want to share the experience, get spares, etc...
You've got a stellar personal brand. Overlaying content marketing on to that is going to pay you off. If you choose to get after the Pi, that's a perfect base to start the content marketing without having to rework what is out there. Weave it in over time to rope everybody in and maxmize a new push.
If you do that content marketing, be sure and ask for the business. That was the other item I noted last night. You've got a stellar reputation and a library of outstanding books, along with other relevant, high value writing out there. It's an absolutely top notch content marketing seed. Many do not have anywhere near what you have to work with. Just ask for the business more. It's not as present as it should be in the various places people land when their searches end up your way. You are leaving money on the table here.
Edit: I'll just be frank, as if I haven't throughout...
There is a lot of, "here are the books I've written" and "this is who I am and where I came from", both of which are excellent in both presentation and their nature. You are a pioneer, and it's obvious. But... there isn't enough, "buy my book and you will get or do or feel X" Ask for the business more Gordon, and you will get more of it. No joke. That's sales 101. And it's extremely common for technically oriented people to under do this for fear of overdoing it. You won't. Frankly, you probably can't, just due to your up front, personal and technical nature. I mean all of that in the best of ways, just one peer here to another. Ask a little more. It will be enough.
Your reluctance to run more obvious ADS is a thing I agree with. Hate it really. But asking for the business isn't always about an AD. It is a straight up request that people compensate you for the fine work you do. Again, content marketing, not ADS. (and yes, the content becomes the AD, but there is an easily seen and appreciated value transfer at the same time, as well as an indicator of authority and relevance, which is what makes it work so much better than ADS themselves do, and which will encourage sight unseen purchases) I mentioned two of the effective players in that space earlier, who do in fact, give it away, should you want to just do the work. I recommend you do, taking the better strategy bits, some "ask for the business" copy that isn't offensive or high pressure and proven and deploy it in your style, not theirs. (This is part of why they give it away. You know better than they do, unless you pay them to figure it all out.)
I didn't see a mailing list, or any kind of container for those who have an interest. (doesn't mean it's not there, just that I didn't see it) While these are somewhat diluted in the face of things like Twitter, etc... they are still quite valuable. The best form is one where something of value, news, a tip, something relevant, arrives every so often. Just enough that people appreciate it, or they might be triggered to do something sparked from it is perfect. This maintains relevance, and is sharable too. Once people look forward to these things, you are in. From there, it builds nicely toward whatever you are targeting. These work extremely well with content marketing, and in fact can be sent and posted at the same time for max impact without being overbearing.
Finally, you might consider both a higher degree of cross promotion, if your current writing arrangements allow for it, as well as break up some titles to hit the e-book price sweet spots of $1.99 and $4.99. Self-published margins on those at or around those points deliver some sweet margins and good volume with moderate returns.
Edit: And have you explored an app? I think you should. Link it to a variety of rules of thumb, references, and other value adds. People get it, pay something, use it, and your relevance goes up, they pay for it, and get value in return as well as something to share with their friends that pays you. If you can get it to output something for them of high value, home run. Make sure that output is sharable and it links back to your content marketing, or existing outlets, whatever makes sense. If you can feed it, or get it updated regularly with some dynamic content you can update? Double home run.
A lot of the above is targeted toward younger trends, BTW. While we might think, "the app" is somewhat silly, and trust me, I for the most part do, it is a mistake to underestimate the value of being on that mobile device. For a seriously large fraction of people under 30-35, it matters. A lot. I'm speaking about relevancy here as much as I am basic utility / usability.
Perhaps one day the lexicon can improve and with it discussions of this kind. I really don't like the state of things. As for juvenile... well? I didn't think all that highly of a few points made either, though I didn't choose to characterize them, nor you, just rebut them. Know that.
Sorry for the hard discussion. I didn't see a solution in there. Anything that doesn't impact open, I'm in full support of.
Until one is presented, maximizing revenue is the default name of the game, as noted earlier. The idea that it's possible to just beat back other opinions, as hinted at here, really isn't going to be effective, particularly when considering younger audiences.
I would take the time to write how and why that is, but I'll just leave it here at face value and anyone curious can start another thread another day.
...but a matter of principle is just that. I'm doing okay...
I respect this. And "open needs to be possible" is a matter of principle on my part too. It is possible to improve on "doing OK." But we all have our boundaries, and we all have our cost / risk perceptions. Completely understood.
...Microsoft has stated its intention of having a much more rapid update cycle for Windows software, similar to its update cycle for Windows Phone mobile software....
Hoh great. Even more foot-tappings while we must wait for daily episodes of "Installing updates 1 of 354227896417...."
I'm guessing even the name is a bit of a clue to what's to come. Thresholds tend to be something you are either on one side of or the other side of. Systems tend to not be ON a threshold. Threshold, even as a noun, implies action, something being crossed over, not some place where you are. Maybe they are subliminally trying to combine the concepts of "thresher" and "chokehold" into an operating system.
Thresh as derived from thrash.
Thresh hold.
Thrash hold.
Trash hold.
Trash old.
Let's see, Microsoft marketing threw out....brink, precipice, verge, cusp, portal, inception, edge, origin, incipience, alpha, nascence, genesis (oh no, the Genesis Project! Can I cook or can't I?)
I'd be fine if people stepped away from the nonsense that taking content isn't stealing, and therefore not wrong. That would be a start. .... If something is wrong, it's wrong.
Slavery used to be legal. Whiskey used to be illegal.
Right and wrong are NOT absolutes, they are subjective. Laws are (can be/are supposed to be) absolutes, but there can be bad laws, stupid laws, and unconstitutional laws.
Viewing "taking content" as illegal is a very big stretch. Taking PHYSICAL items, a watch a car, a book;or entering a PHYSICAL place, your house house, movie theater, a store, can be illegal. Stealing a joke, a song, a formula, a story, (as in making this stealing illegal) is a stretch. These things are based on sharing (communication). An LP containing a song is physical, a book containing a story is physical. If folks had stretched the law to ALSO cover non physical things (like the song itself or the story itself), more power to them, but its obviously wrong to do so (see what I did there?) and this will eventually be fixed.
The simple question that Gordon asks is basically "How does the creator of a work, book, movie, whatever, supposed to be compensated for the work he has put in to create it?"
One can imagine spending a year writing a book that could actually be a real value to many. I.e. what they learn from it can help them make money or improve their lives, and then finding that nobody who has enjoyed or benefited from that book is prepared to pay a single cent towards it.
Except possibly the first guy you sold it to who had to pay you because there was nowhere else to get a copy.
One possible answer is "Don't do that". Writing books like that is no longer a profitable line of work.
I guess in the absence of any books being written in the future as a result society will figure out a different way of maintaining creative talent.
Comments
This will resolve slowly. Machines will age, drivers won't get written and slowly, software support will go away. Bet it takes some years, just like it did win 98
That Gordon had written a Javasscript interpreter that was small enough to run on an MCU, TinyJS. Thes ource for that is still up on google code or somewhere. We once had it compiled for the Propeller and I believe someone even got that to run.
Anyway, Gordon continued improving that interpreter and it became the Espruino JS interpreter. But is was not published openly.
Then he put up the Espruino board project on Kickstarter. For a few dollars you could have an STM32 F4 running Espruino JS. And he promised that if the kickstarter target was reached he would release the code as Open Source.
The Espruino kickstarter raised 100,000 GPB when only 20,000 was asked for!
I put in a 100 GBP or so. I was more interested in getting the code that he boards.
Not a bad return for publishing something that anyone can copy.
Espruinio is great by the way, Gordon Williams has done a fantastic job on it and the WEB based IDE that goes with it.
There are a couple of things wrong with my plans, though. First, I am not an attractive, young, Finnish woman. I'm the opposite of everything about that statement. Her Kickstarter video -- and I praise her for it -- is mostly of her jumping on furniture with a short skirt on. I thought about doing that for my video, but I'd be arrested for disturbing the peace, and have to finish the project from jail.
I've done an informal study and it seems that among the most successful Kickstarter projects were started by young, attractive people who made a good video. Presentation on camera is critical. So I'm holding auditions for the Other Me -- a George Clooney lookalike wouldn't be turned down.
I've always applauded efforts like the Espurino project, but I'm just not that clever. People who can write compilers and do *anything* with JavaScript (that works) always amaze me. I've spent the last two weeks trying to get a variety of JavaScript-based lightboxes to work in various browsers and OSs. Oy!
And yet all this still misses the larger point that the Internet does not espouse Free (as in freedom) at all, if an author's work is held hostage by the lowest common denominator, an ethic that eventually will become a zero sum game. Who is it Free for?
You continue to say that the book, or the content, or the ideas, have "no value," in some form as presented. That's not it at all. If it has no value no one would bother downloading it. The fact that is DOES have value makes it a resource that is piratable. No ones pirates useless things.
Trust me, I do "get it." I understand the dynamics of the new Internet order. I just don't like it, nor should you. I don't like how the greed, avarice, and laziness of others (pirates, upload moneys, file lockers, DMCA dodgers, the lot) has created what you consider "normal" business.
And really no wonder the alias either.
Nowhere did I say there is no value in the work.
I do not pirate things, though I have in the past and stated why and how that came to pass.
The cost of completely, or near completely eliminating it is extremely high, and it will require a legal environment where information is treated like physical things are, and it will require a closed, trusted computing environment that imposes those same constraints.
In such an environment, it's not possible to do open things, nor trust our tech, nor persue information based business models.
Going that route is completely unacceptable. Costs are too high, potential for good market dynamics in terms of competition and avoiding lock in, etc... too low, and overall over exploitation potential off the charts too high as well.
That means Scribd carries Doctrow just as it may contain Feynman, or any of us. It also means Katy Perry is on Bittorrent as is Linux too. And it means we get MAME, and all sorts of other things.
I don't pirate things because there is a ton of open code, data, and people I can use, and I can give back and contribute to make it better, as can any of us. Adobe? Corel? No way, I ca use GIMP, Blender, Inkscape, etc... and I do, simply not choosing to entertain closed stuff that is expensive and of dubious value a lot of the time.
As much as you say about value Gordon, I could say the same. Readers and users have value, same as the work does. I've sold a heck of a lot of books for Doctrow and Lessig both, and I've bought their books myself, despite the fact that I can get them for no dollars, as can anyone too.
Value is an interesting thing, and it is something apart from price. This is hard to see with physical goods, though a quick comparison of Apple and say, Dell or HP, makes it perfectly clear who understands that and who does not. Adding value, and getting people to recognize it is the difference between a grind and a great business! Adding value is the check against zer sum scenarios we are all threatened with in physical goods constantly.
Let me also be clear in that I do not expect anyone to adopt a business model they do not believe in, but I also do expect those new business models to be possible, and they are possible due to how information differs from physical things.
And my point in this is to highlight that, and underscore how important it is that our law and our tech actually embody those differences, not suppress them, or we won't see the real value from either. And I love added value, business, making money, making margins and the whole works too. And I am good at it.
Why would I buy something I can download? I want the robust, easy to use, read, share and trade aspects of physical books. Most people do. Lots of reasons to buy things, and when that is easy to do, most people buy them too. I may want to give a gift, be able to read anywhere, whatever. People pay for the value they see, and the more they see, the more they pay, and promote. The latter is of huge value to authors who must differentiate themselves, or suffer brutal opportunity costs.
Here is something interesting: CopyBlogger, HubSpot, and others who are currently good authorities on content marketing give the info away! I can't tell you the benefit I have derived from those two specifically, and they continue to educate me every day. I love em. Called em and told them that too. They asked me for referrals, I am happy to provide, but even had I not had that convo, they put the tools I need to do it, and they are high value tools, meaning I have a maximized motivation to use them,
Why buy from these two?
Time is one reason. I might want them to take care of this domain for me. And I know how good they are, and what will happen, because they educated and enabled me! I can focus on that awesome thing I do, maximize that, and have them bring me handfuls of people who will then learn what I do, get enabled, and pay me when they realize they too can drill down on what makes them money, etc...
When I buy from authors, I know who they are, how they write, and I trust them to do the work I would have to do, and that is also a time argument. I won't buy authors who I don't know well, unless a trusted person recommends them...
Which comes back to value again. Thes events happen, and piracy is not OK. But, neither is a closed, expensive, authoritarian environment, so then...
How to maximize the value of every person who knows who we are, what we do, why and how we do it?
That is the discussion for most people. Parallax does this every day, providing a serious savings in time, and enabling information that makes investing in them worth it.
That author well known here could weigh the cost of paying Google to display ADS against becoming the definitive source for their work, bringing in tons of people without paying Google at all!
Interestingly, a division of money paid to Google for prospects by people who recommend, who got it somehow, may well show just what the value there looks like, and it's not zero by any means.
As for the kickstarter and a hot woman having the impact we know she can have, I can only respond with many Kickstarts I see that are good ideas, well presented by people, not hot, ordinary people, and question whether or not a good idea won't get it done when well positioned, clearly presented, etc...
I'll bet you, some thought, a friend or two, and a little production help, would do just fine. Know what? There are people out there, who are authorities on these things who will give you all you need in return for your attention and potential recommendation, or who will gladly do the work for you, on the chance that dollars are more available than time is too.
Don't change a thing! I'm not going to worry about that. Your business and your risks and costs are things you must balance. No worries, and I do not mean to imply otherwise. However, do understand the WHY behing what I put here in like kind.
It is not a zero sum game. There is value moving in these channels, and where there is value, it can be converted into revenue, and doing that in the ways Ive put here needs to be possible, and I've hinted at why that matters.
More and more I see this "adapt or die" mentality related to the new Internet order, which is based on breaking the law. But to make it work the system relies on others accepting it. Perhaps even using it to their advantage. I don't consider that fair play dealings. An advantage to me shouldn't mean a disadvantage for someone else.
You misunderstand me in thinking I haven't changed my business models to compensate. Finding new ways to leverage what's new and exciting is part of any business life cycle. But this is separate from knowing there's a fox in your chicken house, and then pretending it'll never do harm. On the one hand I can pursue work with those who don't rely on the pure content play. We can both make some money because the impact of piracy is far lessened. On the other hand I can still complain when there's a wrong being done, and when people say "live with it."
Sure, give things away. We all do this, and there's nothing new about the approach. Just don't think it really changes much related to piracy. Weird Al has given away his music videos on YouTube for years, using it as marketing. He recently put out a number one album and was rewarded with having it become heavily pirated by his "fans." He had every right to be discouraged. Despite the ready availability of official free versions of most of the songs, I guess some people saw some "value" in the full album, huh?
I don't accept the current system because it does not properly differentiate between information and physical goods. Until it does, we've got basic problems, and some business models will run in conflict to how technology has changed things.
Ok, so let's talk about Wierd Al. 40K torrent downloads, if we can even understand that number to be true, means what? Right now, I can go scoop that whole album off You Tube, at good quality and not miss a beat. Al himself gave it away, and he did so in order to promote sales of his album. BTW: I just read Google is going to be offering "off line viewing" through a You Tube subscription... Price? $10 per month, the same number Napster floated in the 90's long ago. (see below)
Back in the day, one would scoop it off FM in good quality too. Some stations would play whole album sides for that purpose. KINK FM here in PDX was noted for that practice, which incidentally, sold a lot of albums. Or gather with friends and have a music party. I did tons of them, with a mix of devices, an all night session, and each of us being music alphas promoted the Smile out of the stuff at that party too. Heck, that music is on subscription streaming, and it's on things like Spotify, and every where else you find hot, trending music.
Seems to me, like Al has a wonderful problem. He gave away his album and people thought highly of it to top the sales charts! That's awesome for a comedy album. (And I've long been a fan) Isn't that just a bit interesting?
Again, eliminating piracy will require closed, trusted computing environments. Personally, I oppose that on a number of fronts, but a primary one is how ordinary people will be left open to some pretty wide range over exploitation, unless they've got open alternatives out there, and where it's open, there absolutely always will forever be piracy.
It's one or the other.
Of those people, some just wanted to listen off line. They were listening anyway, as the album and videos are available, right now, immediate, for the asking, gratis on a number of perfectly legit venues too.
Some of them wanted to get the album and not pay, or could not pay. Bummer. But they told their friends, perhaps educating them about the product, and a lot of those friends probably could buy. You can bet plenty did.
Of those people, some are going to talk it up, some will share it, and all know who Al is. Which is worth something. Actually, it's worth a lot as I'll show below.
Of the people who share it, some will buy, some will download, some will stream and some will talk, and that ripples through a few times. Al gets paid at several points in there too. And he doesn't have to buy ads along the way in there either. Giving the album away is a great promo, and having people share it beats the Smile of out any AD campaign you can name.
Now some will buy the album, and make a disc, loan to friends, share it straight up person to person, no torrents required. Al is gonna miss out on those copies, but he may well pick up some sales along the way as new fans are made. Personal recommendations beat the Smile out of any AD campaign you can name. Ask the people who sell cosmetics and what personal "girl to girl, trust me this works" means for them. They will do ANYTHING to get it. In our space, it's similar. If Heater tells me I should go give it a look, I'm gonna. I may not even read the AD.
This is a comedy album, so it may not end up on too many "I love you mix tapes", but who knows?
Now, for the newbies, who got introduced to this music, or maybe people who have been away from Al for a while as listeners, might get into it and decide to see what else he's done. Hope they publish the back catalog sales. Bet they see a bump, and that bump will be broad based too, spread out across everybody who knows who Al is. The more who know, the bigger that bump is too. If Al is sharp, he will put a bundle out there.
Further, nobody has ever actually quantified losses. If it's pirated hard, it's sold hard. You are right, people move things of value and they share them and that gets the word out, which drives sales. So far, when piracy is way up, so are sales!
Why do you think Al gave the album away in the first place? He knows this game.
And the "mixed feelings?" he also knows having users is everything. If he's relevant, he's gonna sell. if he's not, he won't, and piracy contributes to his relevancy a whole lot more than a lot of artists care to admit. Ask Metallica about that, their fan hostile position on this, their sales, and then compare to the Grateful Dead, who encouraged recording, sharing and everything else long before this modern game ever started. Compare relevancy too. No contest. Sales?
Frankly, that article didn't invalidate a single point I made. If you want, I can go and cite 10 more that nail it.
Unless we all want closed, very limited computing devices, and law that doesn't actually treat information as the different entity it is, maximizing how things do work is the name of the game.
You know, they cried about this with FM. They cried about it with tape. And they cried about it with writable CD ROM. About the only one they didn't wine about was DAT, and DAT was closed enough to be basically useless, so nobody bought in. Ask SONY how well people adopt closed stuff. Memory card? Who cares? Minidisc? Nobody cares, and so it goes... And the RIAA got a tax on CD ROM for music, and kept it. Ask the artists about that one. Somebody got happy, but it wasn't the people who made the album. (Many of whom have since moved to direct streaming and sales direct to their fans to great effect too.)
Do you know when Napster was at it's high point there were 40 million users all on one centralized sharing source? And that was 40 freaking million at the dawn of broadband too. Absolutely huge! The owner of Napster offered music 2 billion dollars a year, 3 if they asked for it really nice, in return for a blanket license and the ability to collect, sell and have everybody benefit from the massive marketing data being collected.
They turned that down. And that's been a very expensive fight ever since. When you look at opportunity costs, 40 billion dollars minimum since that time is nothing to sneeze at. Very expensive medicine so far. And that 40 million number assumes little growth and majority adoption of flat monthly pricing for Napster. (an idea 10+ years before it's time, delivered by somebody who understands this cold)
Now, that was the starter ante. The real game would have gotten going with the explosion of Napster capable users, and it would have tracked right along with broadband adoption too. That 40 billion would very likely be in the hundreds now, given a solid user base and the usual growth, and $10 a month for doing what Spotify Pro basically does now. Years too late, if you ask me. The golden time was missed a very long, expensive time ago. Music would have secured a much larger share of the entertainment dollars out there, and know what is interesting as all get out? The movie people saw this, grokked it, and they did it much closer to right. Netflix, Hulu, and other services, get their stuff out there, and secure a lot of money the very same way Napster would have early on. Don't think they didn't see what happened. They did.
The music guys were a bunch of clowns, if you ask me. Had they actually thought about information and listened to somebody who understood how it works and what it means, there would be near zero piracy discussion today, and there would be a whole culture of sharing just like there is and should be today, and it would have been very nicely monetized, with big, fat checks going to everybody involved, amounts determined nicely by the central servers and the sharing data needed to parse it all out and treat people right. Not to mention how valuable the sharing data is, given it breaks down along demographic, geographic lines, relating everything to everything else! Ask the Pandora people what that kind of info is worth, and they sort of botched it. Spotify nailed it, and that data is worth a ton.
But we didn't get that nice vision. What we got was people digging in on antiquated business models, and so they started in fighting hard. Various closed formats were introduced, Windows was changed to honor them, and the DRM, and devices featured lots of shiny logos, all of which people ignored in favor of nice, open, easy to use ways and means that continue today. Running Linux and viewing legally obtained content was a crime, and still is in some places. Shame really. I built my first media player for the home out of Linux, and the family loved that thing. It didn't lock us into 12 minutes of previews every time we wanted the kids to watch "Aladdin" When I actually did buy a player blessed by the studios, it was so obnoxious, I moved to rip the kid movies to play the movie as we were used to. (fair use on that one, but it almost became a crime --scary)
They killed Napster off too. With it, hundreds of billions of dollars of very consistent revenue, in addition to ordinary sales, and not to mention the data and it's worth. ...and what did they get?
Distributed sharing. Killed that off and what did they get? Anonymous, distributed sharing! Threatened that, and what did they get? Tor, and onion type networks, which incidentally have helped politically repressed people all over the world get real news and information. That's a plus! Threaten that and what will they get?
Near complete encryption, and it goes on and on.
Know who sorted most of it out? Apple computer, who finally sold them on "loose DRM" and we got back to making a disc or sharing with a friend being OK, and sales went through the roof, establishing iTunes as the place to get it done. Had they listened to Fanning, Apple iTunes would not exist today and they would have been laughing all the way to the bank, instead of having to listen to lectures from Steve Jobs, all the while smarting over the billions they walked away from.
So the truth is, "adapt or die" is real. It's not just a thing people say to make sure they can get freebies. Not that at all. It's about how information works, technology being open or closed, trusted or not (and by that, we mean somebody trusts it, not you, or how you use your tech), and it's about the clash between big corporations owning culture and the people, who are the source of culture, wanting to create their own culture.
(Lessig lays this out very well in his books, all online, gratis, or you can tip him, or buy them, whatever)
While I'm at it, here's another very interesting metric:
Ever think about entertainment / hobby dollars? I have. The number one attribute, near completely ignored in all of this, is those dollars are for the most part fixed for the very vast majority of people. Whatever it's fixed at, it's fairly consistent too. Some variance is possible, but really that's more like a loan than not. Make a big purchase and "pay for it" with reduced spending for a while kind of thing.
What does this mean?
It means there simply are not the dollars out there. If every single instance of piracy was converted to a sale, people would make billions! Now, isn't it quite interesting that Shawn Fanning, who created Napster, had this all figured out, realizing he could secure a percentage of that fixed entertainment money and do so consistently over time, deriving very large and consistent revenue and growth where none existed in that space before?
I think so.
Now, back to those billions! They don't exist. The money simply isn't there.
Every month, the very vast majority of people spend what they've got for these purposes. And the real competition is for share. If video games has a good year, and is more compelling than movies, video games will get more share and movies less, and so it goes for most things in this, what I'll call "piracy space" for purposes of discussion.
And the money isn't there because we currently do not value labor well enough globally for people to afford the level of content they typically consume. That's a hard, ugly, real fact. I'm not saying we should value labor that highly either. Different discussion, ideally somewhere other than here. But, I am saying there are available dollars, and they get spent, period. Well, mostly. There are some exceptions, but not the kinds of exceptions that balance this whole mess out.
And what that means is relevancy is KING. Whoever is relevant will get the majority of the dollars, and they will get the biggest margins when they are as relevant as they can be at the lowest cost.
So then, another artifact of eliminating piracy, aside from the closed computing stuff I mentioned already, is people would simply consume a whole lot less of everything! And this would focus choice down to the most compelling things, seriously beating up smaller time players as they simply would not be a priority in the same way they are today.
Nobody talks much about this, and I've studied it for years.
I've got papers cited in government, think tanks, NPR, etc... Around the middle of the 00's, I left this advocacy, seeking other kinds of advocacy, so I don't write much on it today, but I did, and I did because I thought we might actually get some progress, and we just haven't overall. Ugly mess, and the other causes I'm interested in, such as corruption, are a higher priority.
Right now, it's wide open. Some people pirate a lot. The vast majority of them just don't have the money. It's not about "finding it", it's that they don't have it. Another bigger slice has the money, and will usually spend it, and the easier it is to spend it, the more likely they are to spend too. And there are a smaller set who can buy what they want, and in these economic times, that set is getting smaller, not larger. Zynga calls these people "whales" and watches them plug thousands of dollars into those goofy FaceBook games. Most of us would never think of that, because most of us actually can't do that and afford anything else, and there is the priority dynamic sticking out like a sore thumb. Zynga is falling on hard times now too. Their model assumes growth, and it's there in terms of players, but it's just not there in terms of dollars. Stocks are down. Probably about where they should be.
So that means, you can compete with anybody right now. If you are relevant, you sell. Period. If people are excited, you sell more, and they share more and that too means you sell more.
Check this out: https://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20111214/00162117076/louis-cks-experiment-brings-110k-sales-550k-gross-over-200k-net-four-days.shtml
Louis C.K. sold direct to fans, $5. No DRM, nothing. That thing is all over the place, and it got pirated hard, but it also sold hard, and he made a killing on it. Notably, he made a lot more than he would have had he gone with the established business models too. That piece is a bit old, but it contains some really good detail. He's in the millions on that one now.
It's not a closed system, and people will pay for stuff they really get excited about. If it is closed up, the more mainstream "needs" or "wants" would lock down the vast majority of the income and that means you compete directly with them, and it would mean you would do so without the advantage of having larger potential mind shares like they have, because you don't have the ad budgets they have, nor the established name / branding they have. And lacking other means being discussed here, you get locked out, or you pay big to get relevancy.
If you get shared a lot, tons of people know who you are and can get excited about that, and you benefit. In a closed scenario, I'm not so sure it would play out to your benefit, and I know for sure the investment required to play at all is much larger. Closed, after all, means you will also pay a cut to those who do own the channels. And the more they own, and lock down, the bigger cut you and everybody else will pay too.
And once it's closed, it's closed. Right now, it's really hard to keep it open, but it is. Once that fight gets won, there is absolutely no way it will be undone, because then the future is secure for those established players, and they know it and would have the means to invest in ways that keeps it all that way.
Back to those fixed dollars... Now, put it into another context.
There are people all over the place, unable to get educated and or improve themselves. Giving them material support, in terms of face time and human seat time is cost prohibitive. Secondly, giving them physical goods is also cost prohibitive. This is why we've got things like the Pi, because they are enabling in a very basic way. Some kid somewhere gets hold of that and they will pirate, but who knows what they will do or become or talk about?
Libraries help, and people use them and that's good. Frankly, I hope we can see libraries funded to be hacker / maker type spaces so that people can get their hands on physical things too. The more the merrier.
Information, can be out there, accessible, and made use of, and we will get a lot of benefit from that overall. In developing parts of the world it matters a lot. Heck, it mattered to a young potatohead long ago. Changed my life, and again, I was dirt freaking poor. No regrets on that as it drove me to learn, do, scrounge, build, and get people skills needed to take me up and out to professional work today. And I payed off big, and I know that, and they know that too.
Open helps with this in ways that closed isn't. And once we've completely monetized things, how exactly does that work for those have nots who could use to learn something? Not sure I like how that all plays out. And once they've learned something, they happen to be customers for Parallax, your content and who knows what else. Funny how that works isn't it?
So I know we do not agree. I hear you and I think there is a lot of work to be done to make things better than they currently are, and I think they can be made better, but I absolutely do not accept that will happen, unless we have the debates and set the policy we need to and we can't do that without discussing these things in frank, real terms, using real data and consider it in a systemic fashion, not just focus on one particular set of interests.
That starts with the word infringement, and it's a hard word. Not in the common lexicon, and it needs to be. Our founders understood that word, and they didn't even have an Internet! Surely we can talk in real terms and realize effective law that doesn't render information down to material goods.
I put the other info here for context to support, "It's not theft" and it's absolutely not. Never was, never will be.
Once we can actually talk about infringing and what it means, we might actually see some progress everybody can benefit from. Frankly, if we continue to have these discussions poorly, we run the risk of making things worse. And we've already seen the tit-for-tat escalation you speak of, and what drove it?
Absolute refusal to consider information as information, and very poor characterizations, like "theft" being used as framing to support antiquated business models, despite doing that being an obvious step away from the overall general welfare, and definitely away from prosperity, which is what we are supposed to be doing in the first place. At least, that's how the USA calls it. Other parts of the world clearly may differ.
Edit after reading this thing again:
Notice a trend here? With each innovation, we monetize sharing. In the 90's, it was impossible to share without piracy, unless one used physical means. Trading storage devices filled with stuff was common on college campuses, and people made disks for each other, sorts of things. Napster worked because music just barely worked on early broadband and dialup. E-mail followed, with people able to send tracks to one another directly. (I used this method with a friend to help produce a couple of CD's, which is kind of amazing. E-freaking mail...)
The piracy alarm went off, and the war begun. The late 90's and early 00's was a dark time, illicit methods growing rapidly, the center of attention was lost, things got distributed and a lot of people got angry, which didn't help matters at all. Closed computing was advanced as a solution, leading people like me to say, "no" and leading others to provide alternatives that do bring $$$ through sharing. iTunes was born. So was AllOfMp3, a russian site selling music by the byte.
AllOfMp3 was a great learning example, because it was easier to use and better structured than anything else out there. Rather than share, people would just pay and download. This site was shut down as a condition of Russia entering the WTO.
Today, we've got streaming everywhere, subscriptions available, cheap DRM free downloads, content creator sales direct to fans, and god knows what else. Actually going and getting a torrent, risking malware, or a copy with porn in the middle, seems quaint. People can share, link, listen, trade, comment on, and do every other self-expression thing with culture they want to, and there are nice $$$ associated with all of it.
Net result? Piracy still exists, but it's increasingly marginalized by giving people options to be people and do what people do that make money for everybody, adding a lot of value to everybody. It's entirely possible to capture the value associated with information and how people use it, and it's entirely possible to compete successfully with piracy without having to close everything up and or apply draconian law.
We haven't settled this yet. The closed guys are still working hard. Cell phone, PS3 type computing is still a very real potential out there, and the state of law has improved, but is still lacking. The threat of piracy is being used to advance every hardware / software lock in wet dream there ever was too. Despite this progress, and a lot of money flowing where it could have flowed for many years Napster style, we still see the constant citations of massive losses coupled with an equally massive lack of material data to support those losses, and here we are today.
Likewise Gordon. I do not intend, nor imply you are at fault, and it's not my intent to beat you up in any way, nor see you struggle. It's not about any of that, and I think you understand that, and I know I understand you better now. That's a good thing!
as usual I enjoy your posts. I like to read so I always look forward to your posts. They show deep thinking. But this one also shows some deep misunderstanding here.
You have a good understanding of cooperate environments, stock market, global trends and say 'the big picture'. But for people like me (or Gordon?) things are different.
I am talking about all those small guys. One person company's. No fancy meetings with Venture Capital but fighting to pay the monthly bills with the meager and unreliable income out of your self's personal work.
Like writing software, writing good books is a time consuming process. If one sale need to provide the needed income the product would be quite expensive. Would not work. So you gamble your current money - to finance yourself while writing - against future revenue coming out of that work.
If it doesn't you are done and have to stop writing books or software because you are now driving trucks again or do whatever you did before.
Sure. Mircrosoft does not really care if I buy that one w2008 Server license. But Gordon does care if somebody buys his books or just copy's them. It is a question of scale.
And not all things scale up well to cooperate scales. In over 25 years of programming I never sold hundreds or thousands of licenses. Just filling those niches bigger company's would not touch for exactly that reason. The target group is to small. No money to be made. Same with Gordon. His books do not sell in big numbers like Steven King. Never saw one at Walmart. The target group is to small. No money to be made.
But Gordon's books are brilliant. He is putting 'blood, sweat and tears' into them. I love his writing and tutorials/demos. This QS book of him is in constant reach for a quick look at some similar schematic for what I need. Just to check my sanity.
But the target group is to small so what to do exactly now to keep him alive and able to write more books like that?
Nah.
I'd listen to Stallman and I see the philosophical aspect of all of the Free Software (capital F) and I see also your arguments why you think this is coming to us no matter what. But it will again kill all the small suppliers in the market and favor the big ones.
I think this is a very sad development.
Richard Stallman used the wrong word. He should not have used Free but Wild. That would have derailed all the confusion we now have about Free and free (like a beer).
Because writing good books or writing good software is simply not easy and needs a lot of time. And that time needs to get paid for the person doing it or it will simply die. (at worst).
The current mentality on the internet is that everything has to be free (lower f) and copying it is - well - usual.
I think this is a rapid devaluation of the value of work the original author put in there.
So all your tips of how to use the 'piracy' as advertisement to penetrate the global market do not really work if the software or book is specialized on a small market.
So how do all them small guys fit in the global picture you painted in you excellent post?
Quite interested!
Mike
Before I continue, lets understand nobody is on trial here and that the value of our work is important.
I have written and sold software, small time, and had to deal with piracy. I have also had to deal with this in the context of specialized training materials, both for small audiences. Some small time music too.
My intent wasn't to go full Stallman. Open code and data is important. It is not the only path. Closed is good too. However, open needs to be possible.
My intent was to clarify infringement, and that got done. If we move to specifics related to people suffering from infringement, I'm happy to contribute what I can, but I also need to understand it is OK to discuss it on more specific, personal terms.
I hold Gordon in high regard, as I do my peers here. Going forward on this topic may require frank discussion on personal terms, and again, that is a good, worthy thing to do.
So I'm asking... Do we want to go there? I'm happy to. No worries. I'm asking out of respect for Gordon, and because I'm on the free gig here, having the conversation benefit everyone interested is fine by me.
I'll take some time and research Gordon while we wait.
But - well - I am in no way speaking for Gordon here. I just would miss his work If he would not be able to continue.
My point here is more general. It's not Gordon or Mike. It's the 'every thing should be free (lower f) mentality'.
Please do not misunderstand my reasoning. As far as I followed your posts you started out poor and made your way thru it over time. I am happy for you that you where able to do that.
In my opinion we do not at all need to go on a personal level here. It is a value thing. Copying (or even selling ) other peoples work without paying them for the work they have done is simply theft. Regardless if it is software or books or education material or physical things like board designs. It is just theft. Nothing else.
Sure. If something is offered by the individual as being MITed, GPLed, or otherwise offered to the public OK. In that case it is the authors choice to do that. But if not this should also be respected and not brushed away as old fashioned and to be ignored.
It's simply theft. Nothing else. It might make the difference of somebody continuing his work and getting out new stuff, or don't and driving trucks again. (Nothing against truck driving. Been there and done that for some years in my life)
And to the point of open and closed.
All my employers and customers always got the source of what I sold them. How else I (or somebody else) could manage to adapt there custom made software when needed? Them paid for so they got it. As said before, I never sold hundreds or thousands of licenses. I am just a very small fish in the pond.
Enjoy!
Mike
reading my own posts I think I have put you in the same basket as I am in. Sorry for that. I just tried to get some principles explained and your books seemed to be a good example.
So I beg for your pardon, for doing that.
Enjoy!
Mike
Depending on how this goes, I may PM some of it, and I may put some generalities here.
To be clear, I have nothing but good intent on this, and I'm putting some work into it. A few hours last night proved quite interesting!
You go ahead and continue believing that. From my direct experience, and speaking with other content creators, it simply isn't true. You should educate yourself about the relatively new role file lockers are playing in the world of piracy, and the kind of organizations that run some of the larger ones (i.e. the kind that cut off the heads of horses and put them in beds). Their greatest impact is only from the past year or two, and they are game changers.
I'm sure you appreciate torrents are old school, but measurable, so people still look to their numbers. WAY's music was far more pirated on file lockers, and by now the loss must be in the millions of downloads. The fact that it was pirated shouldn't be surprising, but it does show up the fallacy in the thinking that all it takes is some savvy marketing and freebies to make it okay. Free stuff and clever marketing do NOT stop piracy. They are designed to (partially) make up for piracy by gaining real sales. I think most people can see that.
I've already said why not paying for something -- the form is irrelevant -- where there is an expectation of payment is theft. That's the true definition of theft, and no Net-era revisionism can change it.
Mike, thanks much. It is the dropping sales of my last two robotics books, both of which are now hopelessly pirated by HUNDREDS of file lockers worldwide, that has given rise to the opinions I express here. The sales of the books can be directed plotted against when the eBook became available (they are cracked in 10 seconds), and when they started showing up on "free download" sites.
As a FWIW, the Parallax Kickstart book is exactly the kind of content I try to write for these days. Go ahead and pirate it -- that can only benefit Parallax! (Besides that, it's open source content anyway. Ken and I agreed on that point early on.)
And you know what? I have spoken with content creators who are not having the same impacts, and their strategy is different. My own experiences were interesting. Pre broadband, I was able to deal with piracy reasonably. Post broadband, I found it more challenging, but I also found more ways to make money too.
Say what you want about theft, but if you were to bring a case of theft to a court, you would lose. You would lose because the damage you claim as well as the basis for your standing to claim it would not meet the criteria for theft.
It does, however, meet the criteria for infringement. And you would have a case I support you in winning.
Before I enter into the discussion Mike triggered, what solution do you propose?
All through this discussion, I have asserted a technical solution isn't possible without also eliminating open, general purpose computing. Is that your solution, or do you have alternatives?
I have also asserted losing general purpose computing is too draconian of a solution. There isn't any budging on that one. The core reason is I find I can meet 90 percent of my computing needs with open code, which is a huge value. I can also meet a very high percentage of my information / data needs with open content.
Quite frankly, I don't have to buy much, meaning I am happy to buy when I do. This is true for a large and growing number of people. Saving say, $200 on Microsoft Office, frees up roughly $20 / month for entertainment / hobby dollars, for example.
The use value inherent in open computing, etc... is too great to render moot to near eliminate piracy. And I say near, because a very closed environment won't actually eliminate it, just curb it considerably.
So what else do we do exactly?
Frankly, I do not see a viable solution, other than maximizing the opportunity for people to make choices that can or are monetized. This is precisely why I have the position I do.
So let's hear that answer. I have some in terms of the goal; namely, to make as much money as possible. Do you have one that will seriously reduce piracy?
Secondly, claiming downloads as losses isn't intellectually honest. We can say there were downloads. We can say some number of those do represent potential sales. We can say some number of those resulted in sales too.
We know absolutely the dollars do not exist to fund all downloads. And those things together mean we can't say downloads represent X losses.
And we can say there are some losses from downloads too.
I agree with that, and have no doubt you are seeing losses from downloads. The question is what to do about it generally, and more specifically, how can you maximize your revenue?
I am not condoning piracy. I am saying it will simply exist. And I am saying, given it exists there are clear means by which one can maximize their revenue.
Doing that makes sense, because there is value associated with the activity. Those who recognize that tend to also maximize their revenue.
Edit: Gordon, if you end up interested in potentials to maximize your revenue, I'll put some time on that gratis. Happy to do it.
This looks a lot like "potatohead doesn't care", which isn't true at all. Moving away from open, general purpose computing as a solution is frankly, too expensive and unacceptable. Most of us here know what that would really need to look like in order to be effective. A discussion of the problem as well as options isn't very useful when it's inaccurate, which was and remains the primary point in this discussion.
FWIW Gordon...I just PURCHASED 10 of your robotic books and will be donating them to the local high school robotics club.
Thank you for the effort and dedication that you poured into the creation of that IP....it is appreciated.
I'm honored! Thanks, man.
I'd be fine if people stepped away from the nonsense that taking content isn't stealing, and therefore not wrong. That would be a start.
Peeps think this all is new. It's not. Kids have been sneaking into movie theaters before any of us here were born. Their argument was the same as people use today: If I'm not talking anything away (what's the harm of two more eyeballs?), then how can it be "stealing"?
It's stealing because the people who brought the film to the theater expected to be paid for it. Forget that it cost money to make and show. The "social contract" was that it's presented to the public for pay. On a practical level, if everyone snuck in, there would be no theater, no movies. But somehow, these righteous people think they are excused from buying a ticket. They're special.
The argument is as juvenile now as it was then. As long as people parrot this line the problem will never go away.
I realize my voice is tiny in the sea of the Internet, but I'm not the only one who feels this way. I'm glad for your friends who have withstood the piracy onslaught, but a matter of principle is just that. I'm doing okay, but won't be writing any more books (unless they're self-published or part of hardware sales). I can make more money elsewhere, and have returned to consulting.
In the end, it shouldn't matter what our personal take is. If something is wrong, it's wrong.
Anyway, I feel I've said all I need, or want, to say. Time to play with some robots.
I feel about the same way toward people who really fail to recognize there is value being tossed about. And there is. Nobody likes it, and it's not easily controlled, but it can be managed and exploited to great effect. Given that, or trading away open computing, I'll take open, because I can do open, not infringe on anything at all, and get what I want to get done, which frees dollars for fun stuff like books.
So long as we have this basic disconnect, progress on this matter will be difficult for everyone. As for what is what, I tend to look at what courts determine and apply the language correctly from there.
I did spend a few hours over last night and some this evening. Here are the products of that: (if I can do more, or drill down, let me know)
BTW: Self-publish, with content marketing to back it, coupled with hardware is an extremely good strategy, and it was one of the things I planned on saying. I suggest you also target the Pi, which could use the excellent treatment you can bring to the table. That one is ripe for the picking and an easy, relevant high value addition to the library you've built so far. It is very consistently listed with your offerings and mentioned in various reviews / discussions related to your work. Existing audience is probably involved already, or thinking about it. Easy sales here. They will want your take on it, which competes nicely with the amount out there already. You've got a base who will be interested regardless.
Hate to say it, but be sure hardware kit is available stand alone for the pirate who gets sucked in. No joke either. This also works well for those who complete everything and pass the book on to an interested friend old school too. Finally, people may want to share the experience, get spares, etc...
You've got a stellar personal brand. Overlaying content marketing on to that is going to pay you off. If you choose to get after the Pi, that's a perfect base to start the content marketing without having to rework what is out there. Weave it in over time to rope everybody in and maxmize a new push.
If you do that content marketing, be sure and ask for the business. That was the other item I noted last night. You've got a stellar reputation and a library of outstanding books, along with other relevant, high value writing out there. It's an absolutely top notch content marketing seed. Many do not have anywhere near what you have to work with. Just ask for the business more. It's not as present as it should be in the various places people land when their searches end up your way. You are leaving money on the table here.
Edit: I'll just be frank, as if I haven't throughout...
There is a lot of, "here are the books I've written" and "this is who I am and where I came from", both of which are excellent in both presentation and their nature. You are a pioneer, and it's obvious. But... there isn't enough, "buy my book and you will get or do or feel X" Ask for the business more Gordon, and you will get more of it. No joke. That's sales 101. And it's extremely common for technically oriented people to under do this for fear of overdoing it. You won't. Frankly, you probably can't, just due to your up front, personal and technical nature. I mean all of that in the best of ways, just one peer here to another. Ask a little more. It will be enough.
Your reluctance to run more obvious ADS is a thing I agree with. Hate it really. But asking for the business isn't always about an AD. It is a straight up request that people compensate you for the fine work you do. Again, content marketing, not ADS. (and yes, the content becomes the AD, but there is an easily seen and appreciated value transfer at the same time, as well as an indicator of authority and relevance, which is what makes it work so much better than ADS themselves do, and which will encourage sight unseen purchases) I mentioned two of the effective players in that space earlier, who do in fact, give it away, should you want to just do the work. I recommend you do, taking the better strategy bits, some "ask for the business" copy that isn't offensive or high pressure and proven and deploy it in your style, not theirs. (This is part of why they give it away. You know better than they do, unless you pay them to figure it all out.)
I didn't see a mailing list, or any kind of container for those who have an interest. (doesn't mean it's not there, just that I didn't see it) While these are somewhat diluted in the face of things like Twitter, etc... they are still quite valuable. The best form is one where something of value, news, a tip, something relevant, arrives every so often. Just enough that people appreciate it, or they might be triggered to do something sparked from it is perfect. This maintains relevance, and is sharable too. Once people look forward to these things, you are in. From there, it builds nicely toward whatever you are targeting. These work extremely well with content marketing, and in fact can be sent and posted at the same time for max impact without being overbearing.
Finally, you might consider both a higher degree of cross promotion, if your current writing arrangements allow for it, as well as break up some titles to hit the e-book price sweet spots of $1.99 and $4.99. Self-published margins on those at or around those points deliver some sweet margins and good volume with moderate returns.
Edit: And have you explored an app? I think you should. Link it to a variety of rules of thumb, references, and other value adds. People get it, pay something, use it, and your relevance goes up, they pay for it, and get value in return as well as something to share with their friends that pays you. If you can get it to output something for them of high value, home run. Make sure that output is sharable and it links back to your content marketing, or existing outlets, whatever makes sense. If you can feed it, or get it updated regularly with some dynamic content you can update? Double home run.
A lot of the above is targeted toward younger trends, BTW. While we might think, "the app" is somewhat silly, and trust me, I for the most part do, it is a mistake to underestimate the value of being on that mobile device. For a seriously large fraction of people under 30-35, it matters. A lot. I'm speaking about relevancy here as much as I am basic utility / usability.
Perhaps one day the lexicon can improve and with it discussions of this kind. I really don't like the state of things. As for juvenile... well? I didn't think all that highly of a few points made either, though I didn't choose to characterize them, nor you, just rebut them. Know that.
Sorry for the hard discussion. I didn't see a solution in there. Anything that doesn't impact open, I'm in full support of.
Until one is presented, maximizing revenue is the default name of the game, as noted earlier. The idea that it's possible to just beat back other opinions, as hinted at here, really isn't going to be effective, particularly when considering younger audiences.
I would take the time to write how and why that is, but I'll just leave it here at face value and anyone curious can start another thread another day.
I respect this. And "open needs to be possible" is a matter of principle on my part too. It is possible to improve on "doing OK." But we all have our boundaries, and we all have our cost / risk perceptions. Completely understood.
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/windows-9-preview-to-launch-september-30-95384657789.html
Hoh great. Even more foot-tappings while we must wait for daily episodes of "Installing updates 1 of 354227896417...."
I'm guessing even the name is a bit of a clue to what's to come. Thresholds tend to be something you are either on one side of or the other side of. Systems tend to not be ON a threshold. Threshold, even as a noun, implies action, something being crossed over, not some place where you are. Maybe they are subliminally trying to combine the concepts of "thresher" and "chokehold" into an operating system.
Thresh as derived from thrash.
Thresh hold.
Thrash hold.
Trash hold.
Trash old.
Let's see, Microsoft marketing threw out....brink, precipice, verge, cusp, portal, inception, edge, origin, incipience, alpha, nascence, genesis (oh no, the Genesis Project! Can I cook or can't I?)
The Klingon Busters have killed my son!
Slavery used to be legal. Whiskey used to be illegal.
Right and wrong are NOT absolutes, they are subjective. Laws are (can be/are supposed to be) absolutes, but there can be bad laws, stupid laws, and unconstitutional laws.
Viewing "taking content" as illegal is a very big stretch. Taking PHYSICAL items, a watch a car, a book;or entering a PHYSICAL place, your house house, movie theater, a store, can be illegal. Stealing a joke, a song, a formula, a story, (as in making this stealing illegal) is a stretch. These things are based on sharing (communication). An LP containing a song is physical, a book containing a story is physical. If folks had stretched the law to ALSO cover non physical things (like the song itself or the story itself), more power to them, but its obviously wrong to do so (see what I did there?) and this will eventually be fixed.
One can imagine spending a year writing a book that could actually be a real value to many. I.e. what they learn from it can help them make money or improve their lives, and then finding that nobody who has enjoyed or benefited from that book is prepared to pay a single cent towards it.
Except possibly the first guy you sold it to who had to pay you because there was nowhere else to get a copy.
One possible answer is "Don't do that". Writing books like that is no longer a profitable line of work.
I guess in the absence of any books being written in the future as a result society will figure out a different way of maintaining creative talent.