Author to give up Writing due to Illegal Downloads

[Teresa Edgerton]

I don't understand, how could you morally make the case for someone not to give away free ebooks if it indeed makes them more money? Even if you didn't want the extra money could you not donate it to charity for instance? (I really think it needs to be studied further before we can say exactly what kind of effect giving away free ebooks has on an author's sales.)

You are lumping two very different things in together: giving away free books for whatever reason, promotional or otherwise, and someone taking them without permission.

Most authors do give away free books for promotional purposes where they think it will do them the most good, not where some random somebody gets a pirated copy and tells a friend, "Look I got this book for free. It was pretty good. You can get it for free, too." This is not encouraging other people to buy the book!

But we send out copies to reviewers, or as prizes in promotional giveaways. Sometimes we just give them away to people we think will enjoy them, or to libraries in our communities because we want to support them. There are dozens of good reasons for giving away free books. But we like to decide when and where. We like to decide what is likely to be for our own good; we like to decide when we simply want to be generous.

If a fan writes to me and says they enjoyed a specific book and if I have extra copies of the sequel (I don't for some books), often I'll just send them a copy, and pay the postage myself. They're already a fan, they'll almost certainly buy more of my books, so I'm probably not going to see any financial benefit from giving the book away. Maybe it's just a whim. Maybe I feel it's good karma. Maybe I'm grateful to them for liking my books. But it's my decision and I think other writers should be allowed to make these decisions for themselves. If they think that giving away books will help them sell more books, fine. But before they do it, they would be wise to figure out whether it really does help them sell more books.

If there are to be studies, they should be conducted by unprejudiced sources, not by the pirates themselves. And these decisions should not be based on the fact that writer X says they are selling YYYYYY number of books since they started allowing free downloads to the world at large. This may come as a big surprise to you, but sometimes writers inflate their sales numbers, to make the book look more desirable. Besides, even if they are telling the truth, it may not be a typical result. There may be other factors at work.

But when it comes down to it, it's all about the writer's choice, and those who would take it away. Which is probably a greater theft than that of the book.

 

[TheTomG]

No-one here has ever argued that choosing to give away works for free can be very beneficial for sales and profit.

This is of course entirely different for someone else choosing to take a work for free that you have not given away free.

I agree piracy is not going away, and I agree DRM and any other form of protection does nothing to stop it, and only irritates your real customers, so I am opposed to it.

I am opposed to the piracy. I am also opposed to people who have vitriolically responded to an author who has acted on their own freedom of choice, criticizing them for doing something legal and within their rights, when the people complaining are those doing something illegal and outside their rights.

It's like the thief complaining that you are not going to replace your television, because what are they going to steal now?

I don't think we fight piracy with technology. We fight it by education, by information, by showing people that it is wrong to take for free what someone has labored over. And then, yes, we trust to people's good nature that they learn and adapt and take that lesson to heart.

We fight it by making things easier to actually pay for and obtain as I think that reduces piracy. Having something only obtainable "in print from an obscure publisher who only distributes to large stores in London" will just encourage people to want to steal your work as they may have no legitimate means to access it. So I'm actually in favor of e-books, with sensible pricing, so that people CAN buy your book if they want it.

People will of course exploit that, but, you can't stop exploitation. You can however continue to educate against it, and trust that the human race is decent enough in the end to see the light and attitudes will shift

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Agreed that education is the key.

 

[jojajihisc]

"Look I got this book for free. It was pretty good. You can get it for free, too." This is not encouraging other people to buy the book!

How do you know this? Has ebook preference become unanimous?

But we like to decide when and where. We like to decide what is likely to be for our own good; we like to decide when we simply want to be generous.

But it's my decision and I think other writers should be allowed to make these decisions for themselves.

But when it comes down to it, it's all about the writer's choice, and those who would take it away. Which is probably a greater theft than that of the book.

What I'm asking is this: Is that individual author's choice (a choice to choose less income in the hypothetical situation I'm proposing) even more important than the good you could do with greater income?

I say no.

The decision to control how your work is distributed is understandable although only with the assumption that that method maximizes your income. It's not clear that it does.

I also agree that education on this issue is critical. Assuming piracy/giving away free ebooks (not synonymous, I know, the difference is the author's choice) loses money is not based on evidence.

No-one here has ever argued that choosing to give away works for free can be very beneficial for sales and profit.

I have suggested it might do exactly that. I'm not claiming one side or the other just yet until we understand it better. I also have no allegiance to a system that used to be more straight forward and no longer applies in a rapidly accelerating information age.

 

[Parson]

because morality is ultimately an individual's choice. It's not something I'd do, and not something I agree with , but I do accept other's feel differently, otherwise why would they do it?

I do not agree with this sentiment at all! Morality is determined at the very least by a societal more; and in my view it is written down in Holy Writ. If morality is truly determined individually we are just short of anarchy and we can kiss polite society goodbye momentarily.

 

[Ursa major]

How do you know this? Has ebook preference become unanimous?

Logically, for book thieves, the answer must be a resounding yes. Stealing any other form of book would involve far too much effort for the poor dears.

What I'm asking is this: Is that individual author's choice (a choice to choose less income in the hypothetical situation I'm proposing) even more important than the good you could do with greater income?

I say no.

Sorry, but this is, in truth, incoherent. You are not comparing like with like.

You might as well have asked, "Is my choice to eat eggs, rather than cornflakes, for breakfast even more important than whether I put my money in a notice account or a current account?" At least with this question, a person would have a chance of knowing which account paid more, in order to do your hypothetical good**. (You could, perhaps, try rephrasing your statement so that it would allow us to understand the question you want to ask.)

The decision to control how your work is distributed is understandable although only with the assumption that that method maximizes your income. It's not clear that it does.

And it isn't clear that it doesn't. But why let an author choose when so many other people want to do it for them?

I also agree that education on this issue is critical. Assuming piracy/giving away free ebooks (not synonymous, I know, the difference is the author's choice) loses money is not based on evidence.

Sorry, but how is this an author's choice? Yes, authors can choose whether to give their books away, but they can't choose whether they're stolen. As for the evidence, where is it for any of these choices? To make money, the author must be selling some of their output. So where's the cut-off point? How many books should a first time author give away before starting to charge? Or is it a percentage, with, say, every third book being free? Basically, you've an idea buzzing around in your head and think it would be wonderful if some authors would put their money on the line and test it. Why don't you subsidise the test? You just know that you're on a winner, so why not go for it?

I have suggested it might do exactly that. I'm not claiming one side or the other just yet until we understand it better. I also have no allegiance to a system that used to be more straight forward and no longer applies in a rapidly accelerating information age.

The only thing accelerating is some people's belief that they don't have to pay for books. These thieves are the Internet equivalent of shoplifters: "The ebook is 'on the shelf' over here and the 'checkout' is over there, but if I hide the book 'under my coat', I can 'walk out of the shop' without paying for it." And you seem to be saying: "Hey, supermarkets. Some of your stock is being stolen from under your noses. Have you thought about giving your stock away? The stuff will simply fly off your shelves!"



** - I'm assuming you mean that the author is meant to be doing good with the few pennies the thieves will permit them to receive. Heaven forbid that they make mortgage payments or buy food. (Funny how the implication is that the person who's slaved to create something has to be working to an even higher moral standard than the average citizen. Why, if only the thieves could do something exceptional, like obeying the law.)

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I do not agree with this sentiment at all! Morality is determined at the very least by a societal more; and in my view it is written down in Holy Writ. If morality is truly determined individually we are just short of anarchy and we can kiss polite society goodbye momentarily.

This has been picked up by several as me agreeing with the actions, and if so it was badly worded by me.

I don't, and if I was asked, or in a conversation with someone about this, I'd say that I didn't agree and would tackle them on it. I'm intrinsically so dreadfully honest that stealing is not something I condone; I was putting forward the argument that a model that's not working may have to be changed to safeguard the people who are losing at the moment.

What I was trying to say was that morals are a grey area and my morals aren't someone elses, which is not to say I agree with theirs, or that I would sit back and not challenge. It's just that, ultimately, I can't change their morals; I can challenge, I can disagree, but I can't change them if they don't want them to be changed.

 

[Parson]

I did understand that you did not agree with their actions. What I was reacting to was that I understood that you were saying that values were neutral. I am utterly, utterly, convinced that some things are always wrong.

I don't think the fact that I can't change someone's mind means that in some way they are right. They are entitled to their own opinion, but in no way does that mean that they are right in their opinion.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

They are entitled to their own opinion, but in no way does that mean that they are right in their opinion.

Yes, that's it; I think I worded it badly.

 

[TheTomG]

Sorry my bad wording - I mean no-one is arguing against that. We are all happy for authors to give their work away for free, when they choose to do so, and when they choose which works. I meant no-one has argued with that point that you made

I do think though it is critical to the author to decide what is given away for free, and not left to the thief.

 

[Vertigo]

Very interesting thread. Though it seems to me that there are two completely different issues that are getting morally entangled.

1. Piracy is theft and is morally and legally indefensible. Period. There really is no more to be said about it.
2. Giving away free copies of a book may be a good and effective means of marketing a book but it should always be for the author alone to choose to do it.

Point number 1 really should be that simple but of course it isn't. Ever since the first tape recorder came on the market, piracy of media became an major issue (it had always been around of course but suddenly everyone could do it). Whilst it may be immoral, just as with many other immoral things that have been around since we crawled out of the caves, it is not going to go away. On the contrary, despite the industry's attempts, the pirates will always get around any attempts to block them. Does anyone remember the inaudible tone they started putting on LP's that created a beat frequency on the recording? No sooner done before cheap filters became available to filter out the inaudible tone. Remember also that the vast majority of downloader's are hoarders who never would have bought them in the first place. I used to sell shareware software (still do actually but don't really promote it anymore). Each time I brought out a new release within a few days the release codes for the software had been hacked and were available on the Warez sites. During the next few days my web pages would be swamped by literally millions of downloads (I even had to pay for extra bandwidth to accomodate these thieves - how annoying is that?). These were not downloaders that were considering paying for the product (there was no matching increase in sales). Now, do I assume I have just lost (literally again) millions of sales? Of course not, these people never would have paid me anything anyway. Actually most of them came from the poorer parts of the world anyway (mostly S America and China - 15 years ago). My point being to quote an earlier poster. Yes I have had my pocket picked some years back and, though I was pretty pissed off, I did just shrug my shoulders. It'll always happen and you can take reasonable precautions but there's no point getting ulcers over it.

Point 2 is much simpler. Many authors have shown that free downloads can generate sales. As with jojajihisc, I have been introduced to a number of authors by first downloading free material, usually from their own site (eg. Charles Stross, John Scalzi) or their publishers site (eg. David Weber, Elizabeth Moon, Paolo Bacigalupi). Baen talks extensively about this on their website and claim that it works. To the extent that you can dowload literally hundreds of free contemporary books from their site. But this should only be by the author's choice.

The problem is that this discussion is muddling these two things up. Sure free downloads may generate more sales but that doesn't mean that getting those free downloads by theft is good for the author (or anyone). Piracy and free downloads are two totally different matters. Maybe pirated downloads might generate more sales (I suspect not) but it is actually irrelevant; quite simply it is not by agreement of the person that actually put in all the work to create the product in the first place. And is therefore indefensible. Simple. End. Except that we must accept (though not like) that it will always happen, as it always has in the past.

The only hope is to educate people in moral behaviour. Something the world seems to have lost in the last 100 years. But that's a whole other topic!

Appologies for the long post ;eek;

 

[Lobolover]

I always imagined that you need some level of income-bringing popularity for anyone to even realy pirate your book to a huge extent in this day and age.

Personaly, I think the people doing this are rather......hard to symathise with.

 

[j d worthington]

As others have made clear since (and if I unintentionally added to muddling the issues, my apologies), if an author (musician, artist, etc.) offers their work as free downloads or whatever, that is fine. As I've said above, it is theirs to do with as they wish, they created it and can dispose of it or distribute it in any way they want (providing, if they choose to go for book publication, they find a publisher). And if this helps increase sales, well and good. (I personally think that such an effect is likely to be limited, but I may be wrong; at any rate, I've not kept track of such things, and trends can change either way.)

But, as others have pointed out (and as I thought I had clarified in my posts), this is an entirely different issue from piracy. That is, however unavoidable (and, to use my earlier statement, cars and candy-bars also get stolen as well) still theft, and can by no means whatsoever be excused, nor is this likely to in any way increase a writer's income. Quite the opposite, in fact; and anyone who does care for books, writing, or for that matter creativity in the arts in general, should protest such actions and combat them whenever possible.

Which leads back to my point about, if authors aren't paid, then eventually all we are likely to see are the talentless hacks who can't get published (barring one of the self-publishing routes), because these are the only ones who are likely to have the desire to keep putting stuff out there. The others, the ones who would be professional writers, are simply not going to put the kind of time and effort needed into such things just to give it away free... unless it is their choice to do so, and they see a corresponding rise in sales as a result -- something that, ipso facto, would not be the case with piracy, as in this practice the writer is cut out of the financial loop altogether....

(There. If I've been muddled before, this should make the points I've been addressing clearly....)

 

[jojajihisc]

Very interesting thread. Though it seems to me that there are two completely different issues that are getting morally entangled.

1. Piracy is theft and is morally and legally indefensible. Period. There really is no more to be said about it.

Excellent point that I've been considering trying to explain myself but I'm a poor typist and even worse writer and trying to clarify ideas via text is both frustrating and confusing. So here goes an attempt at why I've used voluntary ebook giveaways and piracy interchangeably.

*The first thing I should say, and I should have said from the get go, is that for the purposes of trying to understand the economics of free ebooks and piracy the moral distinction is irrelevant. I recognize it I just honestly don't know what to do about piracy so my thinking tends toward undermining their actions rather than resisting them. I have several times used the terms (voluntarily) free ebooks and piracy as synonymous. Each action is getting books into the hands of potentially paying customers. That's it. This is what's happening. Let us understand those effects on the author's money making ability.

As Ursa Major and I have both said we don't know one way or the other whether these actions are costing authors money or making them money or even having no financial effect upon them.

I am, however, quite interested in the latter possibility. If a book you write pays you, say $10,000 and it could be read by one person who paid for a copy or ten thousand people of which only maybe a thousand paid and nine thousand pirated their copy, which do you choose?

Both answers to me are fascinating because anybody can understand not wanting non-paying customers to have their work that involved such labor and commitment to produce. That's natural. That's what's fair. The latter also makes sense though because ten thousand times the amount of readers are reading your work and being affected in some way by your words and that's a powerful thing. That has it's own value.

Among those ten thousand there might be one or two who buy something from you because they are now aware of you and your work. Another motivation is that I've often heard authors say things regarding why they went into writing like "to touch as many people as I can" or "to make a difference in as many lives as I can" or "if I can make a difference for just one person then it's all been worth it." Aren't the chances of these things happening better the more people read an author's work?

Merry Christmas,

jojajihisc

 

[Vertigo]

It certainly does JD and I agree with you. Actually I thought you made the point perfectly well earlier, only there still seemed to be posts saying "what are you complaining about? You'll get more sales through having your stuff pirated." To me it's actually irrelevant whether they get more sales; it is still theft. It's like saying crime is OK because it keeps everyone working in criminal law in a job!

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Vertigo, when I said that about pickpockets, I meant to literally have your pocket picked. I wasn't speaking figuratively; it was just an example of something we can't eradicate, but no one is likely to accept and "get over" if it happens to them.

The latter also makes sense though because ten thousand times the amount of readers are reading your work and being affected in some way by your words and that's a powerful thing. That has it's own value.

On the face of it, that appears to be true. In reality, when people pay little or nothing for something, they generally hold it cheap. (Unless it's a gift, and then it has value for that reason.) Paying for something focuses one's attention wonderfully. The same book someone might read all of the way through and be affected by is more likely to be tossed aside after the first few pages if everyone can have a copy and it costs nothing. More people having the book does not necessarily mean more people being moved by it in some way. It could mean just the opposite: like one of those pamphets people hand out for free on the streets and then throw down underfoot or into the nearest trash-can. Our words would therefore become less powerful rather than more.

And I really would rather that people didn't have one of my books if they aren't going to at least enjoy it. Obviously, I can't guarantee that they will, but I'd like to increase the chances not decrease them.

.
.
.

 

[Ursa major]

On the face of it, that appears to be true. In reality, when people pay little or nothing for something, they generally hold it cheap.

This reminds me of a case study I heard on a course I attended, more than two decades ago, given at one of the world's major marketing training organisations.

I won't go into too much detail, as I'm unsure of the confidentiality of the information given in the case study.

A company that was primarily involved in producing consumer goods had come up with a fire detection system that performed better (because of its more comprehensive coverage) than existing ones and cost very little to make, because of the company's expertise with their primary, consumer, product**.

As far as I can recall, the existing safety system was priced at £30 (per sensor or per square meter of ceiling space). The consumer goods company could make their system at an equivalent cost of £6.

So did they undercut the existing systems? No: they priced it at £36, for the simple reason that its selling point was its superiority in performance and selling it cheaper would have undermined the potential customers' belief in the new system's efficacy. (Remember, this was safety equipment: no-one wanted to be seen to be cutting corners on safety, particularly as the target market included airport terminals).

So in effect, the company had to make a huge profit on the system or make no sales at all. Oh and they had to set up a arm's-length subsidiary: none of their potential customers would have bought a safety system from the parent, consumer goods, company.


Now obviously books aren't safety critical, and they're sold to the general public, but human beings do judge the value of things based, at least in part, on the value the producers put on them, as reflected in the asking price. (How else can we explain the prices paid for some (most?) modern art?)



** - I know this sounds odd, a consumer system coming up with a safety system, but there really was a synergy between the implementations in the two product areas.

 

[Ursa major]

I ought to add that people also like a bargain. However, the whole point of a bargain is that people believe the price is lower than it would normally be (or lower than what it's worth).

If a book, by a non-famous author, is free, why would you think it worth more?

 

[Jo Zebedee]

It's about paying the perceived market value for a product and this is where the book market, specifically the ebook market needs to settle down.

It took about 3 years after the net book agreement ended in the UK to get a bedding in of book prices and the market was able to decide its loss leaders (Guinness, Jamie Oliver, HP I'm looking at all of you) and the amount people were willing to pay/ thought reasonable to pay for the product.

Interestingly Waterstones, who were one of the first leaders in the bedding in of pricing with their 3 for 2 policy are now taking a different stance, and going for individual pricing instead of a one size fits all approach.

This hasn't happened yet in the ebook market, and the market is getting swamped on a number of fronts; quality, quantity, surge in demand, so the supply/demand diametric is skewed at the moment, and I would guess, for the medium term.

That's why I think any research regarding sales against price in the e market needs to be carried out over a longer period; it's okay to say the market supports it at the moment, but the dimetrics of the market are currently skewed.

 

[Abernovo]

What Ursa says is quite correct: if a product is priced low, it is often perceived as low value. Unfortunately, thieves/pirates (same thing) want something for nothing. Personally I would like to see books being cheaper, so that I could afford more, but at the same time, I want books to be valued and cherished, so they have to be priced accordingly.

On the issue of freebies, perhaps the answer is to give away samples of the first couple of chapters as teasers (I know this is already done by several authors) or give away the occasional short story, again with the idea to draw readers in to the author's novels and short story collections.