Get Real26 November 2002 I've come to some realizations recently that have either changed or clarified my thinking about copyright in the digital age. I thought I'd commit them to writing to see if they make as much sense in print as they do in my head. First off, we need to dispell the idea that ebooks have to be cheaper than paper books because they cost less to produce and distribute. Price has nothing to do with production costs. This is Economics 101, folks, supply and demand. Publishing companies can charge whatever they want for their product, regardless what it cost to produce. You have the choice to either buy it or not, depending on whether you think the value of the book is worth the price. I agree that most ebooks offered by major publishers are overpriced. Not because the profit margins are too high, but because most consumers haven't been "sold" on the idea that an ebook can provide $18-24 of value to the purchaser. Publishers can correct for this by one of two ways. They can lower prices to match the perceived value or they can try to convince purchasers that the value is worth the price. (If you don't believe the latter strategy can work, consider designer jeans. Just because Henry Yuen couldn't pull it off doesn't mean it can't be done.) Either way, consumers have no grounds to say ebooks should be less expensive because the cost less to produce. That's not how capitalism works. The producer sets the price, and you either pay it or you don't. Capitalism works because you trade value for value. The purchaser gives up hard-earned money in an even trade for what he gets in return. If it's not an even trade either party can back out of the deal. If you don't think something is worth the price, don't buy it, but don't think the fact that you can't have it at a price you prefer justifies just taking it, either. While I have downloaded files that I have already purchased elsewhere, I do not download things I don't own. Downloading songs (or ebooks, or warez) may not be stealing in the strictest sense of the word, in that you don't deprive the victim of anything in the act of taking it, but the fact is that enjoying the benefits of someone else's work without their consent or remuneration is morally wrong. Period. I don't care how you justify it to yourself. The moral compromises of others are not my concern. The problem is that there are looters on both sides of the file-sharing equation. The "content providers" - and by this I mean the massive distribution networks and coalitions like the RIAA and MPAA rather than the artists themselves - have set up a vast monopoly that has allowed them abuse their power over the consumer. A prime example of this is the flurry of news articles a while back spotlighting BMG's "all future CDs will be protected, you blood-sucking pirates" mentality and the failure of SuperCD and DVD-audio standards to catch on because they don't allow ripping to other formats. While I agree that the use of intellectual property without proper compensation to the creator is wrong, trying to prevent people from using something they've paid for in the way they wish to use it isn't tenable, either. Forget for a moment the idea that digital goods are never completely protected. Forget that once people are used to doing something - and ripping audio discs to listen on portable devices, in the office or in the car is already too widespread to be a stoppable fad - that it's nearly impossible to get them to stop. All you really have to understand to know why draconian digital rights management won't work is this: Music, movies and books are luxuries, not necessities. Anything that abuses a consumer's right to do as he wishes with what he's purchased in good faith will not be bought. Period. I haven't bought a CD in years, and really have no plans to ever buy one again. I don't download music I don't own, either. So how do I listen to new music? I listen to the radio, or I simply do without. If you don't like what BMG's doing in regards to their customers, don't support them. Don't steal from them either, but you don't have to buy what they're selling. Listening to new music and reading new books is not compulsory. Speaking of compulsory, I have a mea culpa. My column entitled "Compulsory License" may have been the most evil thing I've ever written. If you create something, no one should ever be allowed to force you to do something with it that you don't wish to do, no matter how much they "compensate" you for the act. An author should be the final authority on her own work for as long as she lives, with no exceptions. (That said, I also now firmly believe the term of copyright should expire the moment the author's death certificate is signed. If the author's heirs want royalties, let them write something of their own.) Let's face it, folks. Writers, artists, musicians, they all gotta eat. The royalties made off of one work aren't going to pay the mortgage, most likely. Even the best producers are going to rely on a body of work to pay their bills. They should be able to profit from that work as long as they can. When they're not around to profit from it anymore, it shouldn't put money into the pockets of anyone who didn't earn it, either. It's time to drop the pretense. It's time to get real. Jeff Kirvin
Jeff Kirvin is available for consulting on mobile technology. Email me today! |