DRM, long the bane of electronic-media consuming populace, still reigns over the world of ebooks. While some small and niche publishers dropped DRM a while ago, the major publishers still lock the commodity to a particular reader/app. Tor/Forge has decided to break that chain. According to Publishers Weekly, Tor/Forge has decided to drop DRM from all of its new ebook releases by July 2012. That’s a quick turnaround, which means that at least one publisher thinks that DRM does nothing for their bottom line.

Being able to move a legally purchased ebook from one e-reader to another has long been cherished by the community of digital readers. While such a transfer raises some copyright issues (as I discussed a year ago), it is a wonderful pro-consumer move. While this policy shift won’t extend to Tor/Forge’s parent company Macmillan, it is a positive signal for the future of the industry.

An interesting note in the Publishers Weekly article is the statement by Tor/Forge president, Tom Doherty. Mr. Doherty points to the fact that the authors, not just the readers, have been asking for this for a long time. Maybe that kind of vocal support from authors at other publishers will make a difference. Maybe the Tor/Forge sci-fi authors are just a group that deals with and thinks about technology more than most authors.

While releasing ebooks from DRM poses some piracy issues, I think the future is brighter without DRM than with it. Most people aren’t looking to steal ebooks. They are looking to utilize the product that they have paid for. So, if their going to pay an extra five dollars, why not let them transfer the ebook between devices? We will see if this move ripples through the industry, or if the big publishers stand pat and continue to use DRM.

If you’re looking to satisfy that sci-fi urge, thanks to Tor/Forge, might I suggest one of their best authors – John Scalzi Fuzzy Nation

On April 11, the Department of Justice filed suit against Apple and five publishers for collusion to raise ebook pricing, stemming from the adoption of the “agency model” two years ago. That day, Hachette, HarperCollins, and Simon & Schuster agreed to a proposed settlement with the DoJ. Publishers Weekly has detailed the settlement here. As Publishers Weekly notes, one of the terms of the settlement is the appoint of an “Antitrust Compliance Officer,” which is as onerous as it sounds. That is why Macmillan and Penguin have chosen to stand their ground.

According to Publishers Weekly, Penguin Group chairman John Makinson said:

that Penguin will fight the charges “because we have done nothing wrong” and that the implementation of the agency model “is the one that offers consumers the prospect of an open and competitive market for e-books.”

For more from Mr. Makinson, look here.

I agree with Penguin’s choice. This is an incredibly complex issue, and I am not saying that one side is right and the other wrong. However, I stand by my earlier post and my feelings that changing when the publishers switched to the agency model, they did not break the law.

I think that when Apple entered the market, it offered the publishers what they wanted: more revenue. This was in opposition to Amazon who offered the consumers what they wanted: lower prices. What Apple did was open up the playing field. No longer was there only one real option for purchasing ebooks. Apple took the monopoly away from Amazon. In my opinion, what Apple did was curb anti-competitive behavior that Amazon practiced by undercutting the publishers and the authors, because they would profit out of the sheer volume of sales.

This is my point: if the purpose of anti-trust is to curb anti-competitive behavior, then what has Apple done wrong? I am not an expert on antitrust law by any means; I am painting with broad strokes in this post. However, I just don’t think that this is the place for the DoJ to take a stand. The action between publishers and Apple were out in the open two years ago. This wasn’t some shady, back room deal. And prices weren’t raised for every book. There was no mandate stating, “No ebook shall be sold below $14.99.” It just didn’t happen that way.

So, why not let the price of ebooks fall to consumers? Why do we need the DoJ to determine what an ebook should cost? If Publisher X is selling a first-print ebook for $12 and Publisher Y is selling for $15, let the consumer decide which to buy and when to buy, or whether either is worth the money. Ebooks are an emerging technology, not a known commodity, so how can we say that an ebook should cost $9.99? To me, we can’t say that.

It is hard to say what will come of this for the publisher. What is clear is that this DoJ suit helps Amazon, and I just don’t think that is good for the publishing industry.

Take a look at Scott Turow, president of the Author’s Guild, had to say … if you agree with my side of the argument. If not, feel free to speak your mind in the comments. I’d love to hear your thoughts.

This is definitely worth the listen for anyone interested in libraries or the law. Judge Posner is quite an interesting man. Enjoy!

For some background information, check out my prior post here.

I don’t have much to add in terms of prices and my opinions, so I will talk about settlement for a little bit. As WSJ points out, settlement is likely in this case. There are a lot of parties here, and none of them wants to disrupt its business too much. So what do they do? They sit down and work out a deal that works best for all the parties. According to the WSJ, publishers may be able to continue using the agency model.

So here’s my thought – wouldn’t a settlement just be a kind of mediated collusion? Instead of Apple and the publishers sitting down and working out the details, now we add the DoJ, Amazon and B&N. So… more discounts for the readers? I don’t mean to pessimistic about the possibilities, but I don’t see how a potential settlement would change things much.

I’ll point to this quote from Apple’s motion in a similar EU proceeding: “Apple’s entry created new competition in eBook distribution and a vastly larger pool of eBook consumers.” Isn’t this true?

Yes, consumers were happy with $9.99 ebooks at Amazon a few years ago. But Amazon was practically the only option for purchasing ebooks then. Apple’s entry changed that and yes it did come with some sticker shock, but it kept publishers from cowering away from ebooks in fear. So, would a settlement just get us to a place where we can still get some ebooks for $10 but pay $15 for others? Do we need the DoJ to take care of that?

Apple only entered the ebook market two years ago, so can’t we just let the market play itself out? I think the thing weighing most heavily in favor of the publishers is that they were very transparent about what happened. No, they didn’t release meeting notes, but they did explain why prices increased – the agency model. Their product, their right to determine prices for that product in my mind. If you don’t want to pay for it, don’t! Shocking, I know. But real books exist out there still, and if you don’t like the ebook market as is, maybe you should wait it out until prices settle down.

We will see what happens with the DoJ suit but unless a bombshell drops, I don’t see this having the same weight as other antitrust cases. We will see.

Read:
WSJ – “U.S. Warns Apple, Publishers” by Thomas Catan (March 8, 2012)

Yes, that is an astronomical price for a single ebook, but I can’t say that Random House doesn’t have a point in naming this price. Because library ebook lending could be a boon for libraries, there is a greater value that the publisher can attach to the product. I think Random House is just playing it safe. They aren’t trying to gut libraries’ budgets but rather protect themselves. When Netflix first cropped up, content providers signed deals that were not nearly as lucrative as they could have been. Now, those same providers are rethinking their terms and demanding more from Netflix. Netflix is a “lender” of sorts in the same way that libraries are. Now, I know that libraries aren’t churning out profits, but I use this example to show that Random House is merely trying to protect itself.

Yes, $25 may seem steep, but it is rational. We can at least say that Random House is doing good by dealing with the libraries instead of shunning them entirely. $25 may be too high, and it may not be high enough. No one knows rights now, but at least Random House is playing the game and trying to keep all the parties involved. Hopefully, Random House is as willing to adapt to the changing environment as they say they are.

[2/6/12]
Publishers Weekly reported last week that Random House has committed itself to library ebook lending programs. While the new “terms of sale” will include a price increase for libraries purchasing new ebooks, the benefit is huge.

Random House is among the few publishers who does “not limiting lends (such as HarperCollins) or title availability (such as Penguin, Hachette) or [does] not lending at all (Macmillan and Simon & Schuster),” as Mr. Albanese points out in his article.

To me, this is a great compromise. Yes, the library is paying more out of pocket up front, but they are really gaining in the long run. With many libraries on the verge of insignificance to the general public and running low on funds, adapting to the changing “ecosystem” of ebooks is vital. The fear is that publishers stand to lose a lot from the free lending of ebooks because of the increased potential for dissemination.

I think that two things are important in this developing landscape. The first is that libraries don’t go extinct. The good that libraries provide is significantly more important than the potential lose of revenue. I think that safeguards are necessary to limit the potential scope of disseminating literary material for free, but that only in keeping libraries intact is this possible.

Which leads to my second point – the local library must remain at the center of this. While entities like HathiTrust have all the material, the dissemination of material should really be a group effort, organized through the local entity. I don’t want my library to become a Netflix service, and I don’t want the facade of my library to remain the same but run under the corporate management of some GoogleBooks spin-off company. If libraries can share the material (and is ever easier with the expansion of technology), then I should be able to go to my library to get it. I think that the utility in keeping libraries local is that offers a greater mechanism for policing digital misuse. And, if ebooks become as relevant to libraries as someone like Random House anticipates, then the library will have greater incentive to police misconduct.

Take this from my ramblings: what Random House is doing is important because it reaffirms a cooperative spirit that is necessary to keep libraries vital and relevant. Instead of fearing the worst, Random House is moving toward a solution. They are being proactive about their future, instead of waiting anything out. Fighting isn’t always the answer and here, Random House is showing that with a little creativity and cooperation both parties can benefit.

Article:
Publishers Weekly – “Fair Trade: Random House Will Raise Library E-book Prices, But Commits to E-Book Lending” by Andrew Albanese (February 2, 2012)

According to this article from Publishers Weekly, “[a]n international alliance of publishers and publishing associations has succeeded in getting a Munich court to serve cease and desist orders to the operators of two Web sites that have been illegally offering more than 400,000 copyrighted books for free.”

Servers in one country, domain names registered in another, and the copyrighted material coming from the US – which law wins out? It is a tricky situation and not easily solved. But this is a good step: instead of letting the pirates win because the logistics are complicated, this German court decided to allow the copyright holders to make an aggressive move.

It will be interesting to see what other courts allow such moves. This case is different than the Megaupload situation, because the servers are not in the US, so the US doesn’t have the greatest claim for jurisdiction. But who knows – maybe a few lawyers will get creative and courts will start to cooperate on an international level to stop the massive revenue loss of pirated copyright material.

Read:
Publishers Weekly – “Publishers Score Win in International Piracy Battle” by Jim Milliot (February 15, 2012).

Mr. Tartakovsky presents a tight analysis of the role of lawyers in Dickens work, Dickens’ own legal pursuits, and the common ground between lawyers and Dickens. As Mr. Tartakovsky states: “Isn’t it true that for both lawyers and novelists, whoever tells the best story wins?”

I would mostly agree, but I will point out one glaring hole in the article – where is Mr. Jaggers? Yes, Jarndyce and Jarndyce does embody a general human perception about the tedium and inane intricacy of the law. But Mr. Jaggers, from Great Expectations, is the lawyer of all Dickens’ lawyers. He is the preeminent shark. He is ruthless. He has his hand in every pot in London, and he seems to stir them at his will. Isn’t this also a populist opinion of lawyers – that they work themselves into everyone’s lives and manipulate the outcome of someone else’s problem to their benefit? I hope that today this is not as true as 150 years ago, but this is what public perception likely was.

If, as Mr. Tartakovksy states, Dickens is “literatures greatest humanist,” then where is the fair portrayal of a lawyer? Maybe they all were like Mr. Jaggers, at least the good ones. Cold and powerful at best, with the seedy and corrupt lawyers falling just behind. Maybe there was not a single decent lawyer. My suspicion is that any decently humanized Dickensian lawyer would be portrayed as a kind-hearted but slow-witted individual.

The utility of the lawyer, for Dickens, was to represent the power structure. You can only rail against the government so much, and I think Dickens preferred the faces of institutionalized “government” much more. Money and the law create a tangible power structure – as much today as 150 years ago. Mr. Jaggers is like the second in command to an unknown king, whether that “king” be money or law. Jaggers can dictate without taking personally responsibility for his actions. It is Ms. Havisham’s money, not his. And, he represents the law, not any personal set of values. Mr. Jaggers is ultimately a villain, and the best way to represent the power structure that tortured the average person was to make that villain a lawyer.

If anyone can find that kind, gentle lawyer in Dickens, please let me know. I feel like one might exist in Hard Times. Until he is found, I’ll chalk Dickens’ lawyers up to this: I don’t think Dickens hated lawyers or the law, but in selecting characters and defining their “types” he found the perfect combination of human detachment and moral ambiguity in the lawyer.

Original article:
NYT – “Dickens v. Lawyers” by Joseph Tartakovsky (Feb. 5, 2012)

The article is great for that argument, but what really grabbed me was Paul’s analysis of the book. Wrinkle was one of those early books that I really connected with. It was a book that my mother read to me, even though I was old enough to read it on my own. Second-grade me may have had trouble pronouncing tesseract, but I would have loved the book regardless.

Paul’s analysis is more than a gender study. In many ways, I think this article has helped me understand what I love so much about Wrinkle, and how it has shaped my literary choices since. Explaining the mystery of the book, Paul states: “[it is] the realization that even the most know-it-all kids do not, in fact, have all the answers and that certain questions are worth asking.” This was it for me. What I loved about it was, as Paul puts it,”[the] delight in not knowing.”

Wrinkle was pure science fiction, but the book is not a fantasy in escapist terms. It is a book of thought, which the best sci fi is. Again, as Paul explains, “science fiction is not only about science; it is also often deeply informed by politics, and can be a vehicle for commentary on the complex effects of progress in all its permutations — medical, political, technological.”

And yet, this one was for kids. As high minded as the story was and as complex as the theories behind it, the book was about exploring the potential of the mind. Wrinkle is a coming of age novel, but one where Meg grows in all aspects of her being. She realizes the potential to be multi-dimensional, which, as I write this, I am realizing may be the point of the novel. Excuse the cheesiness, but each of use is a tesseract. What a message for kids.

Maybe what drew me to the novel, and to sci fi in general, was that exploratory spirit – the idea that questions are meant to be answered, no matter how difficult. Wrinkle certainly does prove this, and the novel endures in this capacity to this day.

Thanks, Mom, for sharing that one with me.

As I explained in my last post, I think that digital publishing could be a great step for education. By teaming with education publishers, Apple is prepared to move this plan into action with all haste. I like the direction Apple has chosen to move in – this isn’t an easy challenge and it may never reap the kinds of rewards that something the the iPod has. Education aside, what concerns me is how iBooks Author will play out.

iBooks Author allows individuals to create and publish their own ebooks, free of charge. The software is more than just a pdf converter – authors can add pictures, music, video, and slide shows to create interactive multimedia books. But while the aim of this software is to create textbooks, it can and will be used to publish novels.

My greatest concern is rampant plagiarism. I am not concerned that people will try to rip off already published material as their own. Rather, what happens when some steals a story from some fan fiction site and publishes it as their own. Will the original author ever even know? Maybe not, unless the book sells. And while it is unlikely that this book will hit it big, it’s the principle of the matter. Websites like Book Country are ripe with the works of authors who may never get published, but who have put countless hours and personal expression into their works. Now, Apple is great at vetting products before selling them, as has been the case with publishing apps for their devices. But books pose a significantly different challenge than apps, and I just hope that Apple is prepared to properly review and investigate materials before publishing them.

Turning back to the idea of multimedia textbooks, I would like to posit an idea. Copyright law has always adapted to include new technologies. In fact, new technology is usually what stirs an expansion in copyright law. How will copyright law react if multimedia “books” become the norm?

In my mind, a textbook that also sings and dances isn’t really a book. I don’t mean that in a bad way. I would have loved an interactive anatomy book in high school. I don’t think multimedia textbooks will be ideal for every class, but I think they can have a place. But is it still a book? Is my paperback copy of Hemingway a book in the same way that a multimedia, interactive copy of Bio 101 is a book? To me: no. It is a published work, but not a book.

And that may be the most exciting part about this whole announcement. Maybe, instead of classifying these things as books, we give them a new category. Maybe, instead of fitting an innovative technology into an old category, we define it as something new and we give it its own rules. I know that copyright law now allows for expansion for new technologies, but I hope that we question the fit instead of just accepting it. Let’s not just let these new “things” become part of the “later developed” mediums of expression under the 1976 Copyright Act. Let’s accept the challenge and define them.

Digital interactive textbooks are something special. They are not books in the way that we know books, but they may become the new normal. Whatever uses they may find in the future, I hope we can grow the law with the technology, instead of just reacting to the change too far down the road.

More reading:
AppleInsider – “Apple to reinvent the textbook” (Jan. 19, 2012)

According to this recent post by Digital Book World, children prefer ebooks for reading and learning. Although they cite a small study, the majority of the children preferred ebooks to print books. Most importantly, the study suggests that “children who read e-books also retain and comprehend just as much as when they read print books.”

Two years ago Apple made their foray into ebooks, and this late January event may have just as pronounced an effect on the market. Now, I realize that Apple is not the first to take ebooks to the realm of education – B&N, among others, has done a great job with eTextbooks. But Apple has the hot hand, and I think that when they say, “the time is right for ebooks in the classroom,” the market will listen. And based on the above study, maybe the time is right for education and ebooks to embrace each other.

I think the most important factor in this equation will be comprehension. If student don’t retain information when studying with an ebook, then pushing the technology is worthless. However, what I imagine is a student who, while doing class reading about Napoleon, is able to pull up an encyclopedia article about the Rosetta Stone, or watch an interactive battle map, or find additional reading on early 19th-century French poetry. Yes, that same student could find all of this information without an ebook, but I think the instant connectivity of an ebook and electronic databases could be a great advancement in education. I see the pitfalls of over-information and undisciplined electronics use. However, I think the risk is worth the reward.

If children do indeed prefer ebooks to print books, then there is a generation on the rise that may very well function better with electronic than print media. Starting now to move towards an electronic classroom is important because it will give the educational system time to grow with technology. I won’t advocate for all ebooks in fall 2012, but the more that classrooms and publishers work together, the more likely ebooks are to succeed in the advancing the American education system.

I look forward to Apple’s announcement, but also to watching how publishers approach the growth of educational ebooks.