By Mark from St Paul

August 25, 2011 11:36 AM | Link to this

Page, I got so caught up in the bulk of your comment that I didn’t catch you saying, “Your angst about the high price of “content” that you misdirect at copyright law should be focused on the corporate-led distribution model.” I think we can agree on that. I still think copyright laws are written for the distributors, but I’m glad you agree that the distribution model is broken.

By Mark from St Paul

August 25, 2011 11:28 AM | Link to this

Page, I’m impressed. Yes, I’ve been shooting from the hip, but now you have my full attention. Yes, U2 now allows “legal” piracy, but as of when? Not in the early ’80s when they first toured this country, not in the ’90s when piracy was just taking off. No, unlike any record label I know of, U2 took control of their music and started making it available through new channels even when that meant giving it away for free (like Radiohead and increasingly more artists do). As for Hocking, I read her blog but didn’t realize the publishers had put out so many books so quickly. I think you’ll find the dead tree editions are all 2011 copyrighted editions of books previously published online only (maybe some from 2010). The $8 e-prices are the price Hocking’s paying for dealing with dead tree publishers who artificially jack up ebook prices to pay for their dead tree publishing losses. Please note that I’m not begrudging any author or musician or composer any of their money. My objection is to old distribution channels that “absorb” most of the money paid by fans for unnecessarily expensive works (it costs $$ to kill and process trees). Copyright laws don’t impact new writers like Hocking. Copyright laws are about transferring an author’s ownership to a corporation. Hocking just did that and her ebook prices immediately jumped. Yes, she got a nice check from a publisher, but the return is much higher prices for her fans who are mostly teenagers with allowances, not incomes. Good luck to her, she deserves the money. I just don’t understand why you would support a system that creates layers of profit where none are needed? Hocking made great money publishing directly at Amazon. No agent, no publisher, just her cashing checks from Amazon. She’s making a little more from her deal, and some fans will be happy to have hardcover copies of their most prized ebooks. Meanwhile, her new fans will be paying $8 for her new ebooks which used to sell for $2.99 (the 99¢ volumes were older books apparently). A $2.99 ebook costs the same to publish as an $8 ebook. Who gets the extra $5.01? I’m guessing it’s not entirely Hocking. How do her fans benefit from having to pay people in NYC for having gotten involved? Is better cover art that big a deal? Does having a publisher’s imprint mean the book should cost more? Why?

By Page Turner

August 25, 2011 10:55 AM | Link to this

Mark, allow me to clarify some of your misinformation and obfuscation. First of all, U2 allows recording at their shows and distribution of those recordings, therefore recordings of independent origin of their concerts are not “pirated.” Secondly, the concert experience is distinct from listening to a recording. Thirdly, concert receipts are different and go into some different pockets than royalties from recordings. Fourthly, if someone wants to “use a five-second snippet of a U2 song in a TV show,” the purpose is clearly to attach the specific cachet of U2 music to the TV show. Why shouldn’t U2 or their representatives charge for that? If all that’s needed is five seconds of music, any number of musicians can provide that for a pittance. Fiftly, you write, “Amanda Hocking has made herself a millionaire by selling books on Amazon… . for a buck apiece.” Looking at Amazon’s site right now, I see her physical books available for $6-$10 and her Kindle downloads available for $1-$8. I assume she has not given up her copyright to these works. (I’m sure you will tell us if she has.) So how do copyright laws strangle creativity? Your angst about the high price of “content” that you misdirect at copyright law should be focused on the corporate-led distribution model. And as you show with your example of Amanda Hocking, participation in that model is no longer mandatory for an artist’s success.

By Mark from St Paul

August 24, 2011 6:15 PM | Link to this

U2 is one of the most pirated bands on the planet. The recording industry would tell you they’ve been deprived of billions of dollars of sales when in fact it is that very ubiquity and popularity of their music that sells concert tickets. Three-quarters of a billion dollars in concert sales in one year?! To make that from royalties on CD sales would require them to sell at least 150 million copies in just one year. It would also make their fans spend a billion and a half on those CDs so all the RIAA slugs would get their share. We live in a digital world. The music and movie industries want to chain us to the old distribution models, none of which make any sense anymore. Copyright and patent laws are strangling creativity. The lawyers are telling us you can’t use a five-second snippet of a U2 song in a TV show without paying big bucks. How does that make any sense? Down the road from me Amanda Hocking has made herself a millionaire by selling ebooks on Amazon. Because they were digital her fans, mostly teenagers, could afford to buy all her books. She’s one of the most popular authors in the country now, and her first hardback just came out. The odd thing about her is that her books don’t get pirated. For a buck apiece, her fans pay for them instead of illegally downloading them. $25 books and $15 CDs are killing the publishing and recording industries but instead of going with the new technology, they’d rather sue their fans over downloads.

By Page Turner

August 24, 2011 10:05 AM | Link to this

Mark, please explain the logical connection between your observation about U2’s concert receipts and your rant about copyrights. Thank you.

By Mark from St Paul

August 23, 2011 5:42 PM | Link to this

And every recording U2 ever made (and countless bootlegs) are available online for free, yet U2 just grossed over $750 million on their just concluded world tour. All the sturm und drang over copyright is about the right of “suits” to parasitically make a living from outdated distributions channels.

By Page Turner

August 22, 2011 6:07 PM | Link to this

“Why would anyone pay for what they can get free?” Mark wonders. Who knows? As James Patterson demonstrates, sales of physical items otherwise freely available in cyberspace aren’t dead yet. In the music field, The Grateful Dead is undoubtedly the most torrented group around. Thousands of their concert recordings are freely available by torrent or trade. Yet in January this year their record company grossed over $3.2 million in 4 days, selling out a limited edition package of 73 CDs from their 1972 Europe tour. (The bundle of CDs is available now without the deluxe packaging for $450.) That something is available for free in digital form clearly doesn’t preclude some people buying it in an enhanced or more convenient format.

By Mark from St Paul

August 21, 2011 7:13 PM | Link to this

Sorry Vick, but there’s no way James Patterson could have made $84 million by selling books last year. Almost every day I see his entire bibliography available for free on torrent sites. Why would anyone pay for what they can get free? Or, maybe the publishing, recording and movie industries are dead wrong when they say that downloading is killing their industries.

By Samuel Johnson

August 21, 2011 2:55 AM | Link to this

How wonderful not to see anyone associated with politics on the list.