http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/shimenawa.php?disp=comments en-US http://backend.userland.com/rss 60 Thu, 22 May 2008 04:51:36 +0000 Adam Hodgkin [Visitor] c50628@http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/ Printing physical copies of books and then requiring that prospective readers should buy a copy in order to read it sounds like a form of physical DRM to me. But I agree that it would be a mistake if publishers (or more likely digital e-book reader manufacturers) would be making a mistake if they were to try to re-engineer a situation in which the 'first sale' doctrine could be reinvented for digital ownership. There are alternative social ways of allowing sharing and mutual enjoyment, and we have hardly begun to scratch the surface of what can happen within groups of readers and groups of listeners. I too like the Naxos position. http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/shimenawa.php/2008/05/21/on_owning_books#c50628 Thu, 22 May 2008 03:30:17 +0000 pbrantley [Member] c50619@http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/ Mike, <br /> <br /> In preface, I'm not convinced this necessarily implies a trendline down to "sell one". I think there might be a "sell lots" future - although notably, I am not exactly sure what the "lots" will be <i>of</i>, whether books, or some variety of services. I think part of the answer is reliant on how we consume digital books: what forms of content; on what kind of devices; and in what transactional context. Certainly the fundamental economics are going to have to change. <br /> <br /> On the larger point, I can't object. We agree. It's a fearsome leap into a place where we must conjure substance from the void of the future.<br />
In preface, I'm not convinced this necessarily implies a trendline down to "sell one". I think there might be a "sell lots" future - although notably, I am not exactly sure what the "lots" will be of, whether books, or some variety of services. I think part of the answer is reliant on how we consume digital books: what forms of content; on what kind of devices; and in what transactional context. Certainly the fundamental economics are going to have to change.

On the larger point, I can't object. We agree. It's a fearsome leap into a place where we must conjure substance from the void of the future.
]]> http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/shimenawa.php/2008/05/21/on_owning_books#c50619 Thu, 22 May 2008 02:28:53 +0000 Mike Shatzkin [Visitor] c50613@http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/ My comments interspersed, preceeded with MS. For easier identification, I have labeled yours PB. I have not changed or edited anything you wrote.<br /> <br /> PB: <i>Mike, I think the "we'll only sell one book" fallacy is what drives publishers to DRM; it's what drove the music industry almost into the ground.</i><br /> <br /> MS: The record companies were doomed by new technology. Are doomed. They were selling value by the album while people valued music by the song. Whether they'd offered it themselves or not, ultimately, the model had to be completely rewritten. And musicians have a fallback position: they can play live for money.<br /> <br /> PB: <i>When I was at the NISO conference on digital resources in SF this May, I was heartened to hear the head of licensing for the Naxos label say the overwhelming trend was "buy it for life" - no more LP to CD to Blu-Ray transitions impinging on the consumer's experience. The last dwindling holdouts on control are streaming and file expiration, and those are fading fast.</i><br /> <br /> MS: Music is different in a hundred ways. But you weren't asking for the right to move it from device to device for your enjoyment. You're asking for the right to give it to anybody you want to give it to. I repeat what I said: if that's the model, connectivity will evolve and sales will fall inversely, ultimately approaching "one".<br /> <br /> PB: <i>He admitted that current models of music monetization and the jobs around it are in danger, but he emphasized that the future of music was tremendous. New technology brings old music alive, and new forms of expression and distribution are emerging all around us.</i><br /> <br /> MS: Damn right the models don't work and the jobs are going. I am sure the "future of music" will be fine. Most musicians I know would rather play than eat anyway. Mozart and Beethoven did fine working for what the royalty would pay them. We can go back to that model.<br /> <br /> PB: <i>Digital is a threat to current models of publishing. But it is no more a threat to reading than my iPod is to the enjoyment of music. In the space of that opportunity resides a creative industry capable of rebirth.</i><br /> <br /> MS: Now you're supporting my point, not disputing it. I said I hadn't decided how I feel about a world where publishing means "sell one"; I just said the publisher functions would have to be served some other way and anybody making a living being a publisher today would be nuts to do anything other than resist that future. So please give me an objection that responds to that point.
PB: Mike, I think the "we'll only sell one book" fallacy is what drives publishers to DRM; it's what drove the music industry almost into the ground.

MS: The record companies were doomed by new technology. Are doomed. They were selling value by the album while people valued music by the song. Whether they'd offered it themselves or not, ultimately, the model had to be completely rewritten. And musicians have a fallback position: they can play live for money.

PB: When I was at the NISO conference on digital resources in SF this May, I was heartened to hear the head of licensing for the Naxos label say the overwhelming trend was "buy it for life" - no more LP to CD to Blu-Ray transitions impinging on the consumer's experience. The last dwindling holdouts on control are streaming and file expiration, and those are fading fast.

MS: Music is different in a hundred ways. But you weren't asking for the right to move it from device to device for your enjoyment. You're asking for the right to give it to anybody you want to give it to. I repeat what I said: if that's the model, connectivity will evolve and sales will fall inversely, ultimately approaching "one".

PB: He admitted that current models of music monetization and the jobs around it are in danger, but he emphasized that the future of music was tremendous. New technology brings old music alive, and new forms of expression and distribution are emerging all around us.

MS: Damn right the models don't work and the jobs are going. I am sure the "future of music" will be fine. Most musicians I know would rather play than eat anyway. Mozart and Beethoven did fine working for what the royalty would pay them. We can go back to that model.

PB: Digital is a threat to current models of publishing. But it is no more a threat to reading than my iPod is to the enjoyment of music. In the space of that opportunity resides a creative industry capable of rebirth.

MS: Now you're supporting my point, not disputing it. I said I hadn't decided how I feel about a world where publishing means "sell one"; I just said the publisher functions would have to be served some other way and anybody making a living being a publisher today would be nuts to do anything other than resist that future. So please give me an objection that responds to that point.]]> http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/shimenawa.php/2008/05/21/on_owning_books#c50613 Wed, 21 May 2008 23:22:02 +0000 Eoin Purcell [Visitor] c50593@http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/ Hear, hear!<br /> <br /> I like the post and I love the sentiment!<br /> <br /> Eoin
I like the post and I love the sentiment!

Eoin]]> http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/shimenawa.php/2008/05/21/on_owning_books#c50593 Wed, 21 May 2008 22:45:15 +0000 pbrantley [Member] c50587@http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/ Mike, I think the "we'll only sell one book" fallacy is what drives publishers to DRM; it's what drove the music industry almost into the ground. <br /> <br /> When I was at the NISO conference on <a href="http://www.niso.org/news/events/2008/digresources08/agenda">digital resources</a> in SF this May, I was heartened to hear the head of licensing for the Naxos label say the overwhelming trend was "buy it for life" - no more LP to CD to Blu-Ray transitions impinging on the consumer's experience. The last dwindling holdouts on control are streaming and file expiration, and those are fading fast. <br /> <br /> He admitted that current models of music monetization and the jobs around it are in danger, but he emphasized that the future of music was tremendous. New technology brings old music alive, and new forms of expression and distribution are emerging all around us. <br /> <br /> Digital is a threat to current models of publishing. But it is no more a threat to reading than my iPod is to the enjoyment of music. In the space of that opportunity resides a creative industry capable of rebirth.
When I was at the NISO conference on digital resources in SF this May, I was heartened to hear the head of licensing for the Naxos label say the overwhelming trend was "buy it for life" - no more LP to CD to Blu-Ray transitions impinging on the consumer's experience. The last dwindling holdouts on control are streaming and file expiration, and those are fading fast.

He admitted that current models of music monetization and the jobs around it are in danger, but he emphasized that the future of music was tremendous. New technology brings old music alive, and new forms of expression and distribution are emerging all around us.

Digital is a threat to current models of publishing. But it is no more a threat to reading than my iPod is to the enjoyment of music. In the space of that opportunity resides a creative industry capable of rebirth. ]]> http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/shimenawa.php/2008/05/21/on_owning_books#c50587 Wed, 21 May 2008 22:20:15 +0000 Mike Shatzkin [Visitor] c50583@http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/ You DO realize that the ultimate result of an evolved wired world and this "first sale" doctrine you posit is that almost books will sell one copy? I don't even have to explain that, you'll see it in a second.<br /> <br /> We may evolve to that world and it may be unavoidable, but whatever value is provided today by book publishers will have to be provided some other way. I will have to think a bit about whether that's the world <br /> I like the idea of evolving to, but you would understand if a publisher saw it as a slow-motion form of suicide. Right?
We may evolve to that world and it may be unavoidable, but whatever value is provided today by book publishers will have to be provided some other way. I will have to think a bit about whether that's the world
I like the idea of evolving to, but you would understand if a publisher saw it as a slow-motion form of suicide. Right?]]> http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/shimenawa.php/2008/05/21/on_owning_books#c50583 Wed, 21 May 2008 22:11:12 +0000 David Orban [Visitor] c50582@http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/ Very nice post. I do have similar experiences, of books recommended to my by my father, now reading to my children, and recommending others to my mother.<br /> <br /> I will be missing the smell of paper books. Maybe will find a spray, like there's one of 'new-car-smell'.<br /> <br /> Hopefully book publishers will realize that their music industry and movie industry colleagues made a huge mistake going DRM, and will avoid it.
I will be missing the smell of paper books. Maybe will find a spray, like there's one of 'new-car-smell'.

Hopefully book publishers will realize that their music industry and movie industry colleagues made a huge mistake going DRM, and will avoid it.]]> http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/shimenawa.php/2008/05/21/on_owning_books#c50582