Continuing the Democratization of Knowledge through eBooks

-- By SylviaDuran - 24 Oct 2011

Just as the printing press was credited with the democratization of knowledge, the electronic book (ebook) has the potential to spread information more efficiently and cost-effectively than ever before. However, publishers’ fear of the Napsterization of their industry has stalled the ebook revolution. This fear is not entirely unreasonable as evidenced by the music industry’s alleged billion dollar losses attributable to peer-to-peer networks. But unlike the music industry, ebook publishers carry an additional responsibility to society – the dissemination of information, which is indispensable to the continued democratization of knowledge. Critics of the music industry note the industry was slow to evolve so the market responded with peer-to-peer sharing. Publishers of ebooks are now making similar mistakes and they are less forgivable the second time around.

I think apologists for the music industry say that sharing is the response to bad industry management. Critics would say that sharing is the normal human thing to do and that trying to stop it from happening is wrong in itself.

Your implication also is that the publishing industry is somehow experiencing now the results of an unintended disruption resulting from incompetence on their part. This is fable. They are being disrupted now as a result of processes deliberately created decades ago. The first time Jimmy Wales and I ever discussed the method by which an online collaborative encyclopedia such as the one Richard Stallman had called for could be used to destroy the textbook publishing industry was before Wikipedia existed.

New Industry, Same Mistakes

Implementing questionable pricing strategies

When the alternative is "free," ebook publishers hasten the retreat to piracy by engaging in questionable pricing strategies. Consumers express surprise and sometimes anger at current ebook prices as they often mirror print book prices. Consumers note they cannot donate, sell, or generally lend their purchased copies to other parties. In addition, the marginal cost of producing and distributing ebooks is much lower than print books. Publishers justify current pricing as a result of their fixed costs, such as marketing and editorial costs, which constitute the bulk of their expenses. Yet even assuming publishers' explanations are sincere, the perception that publishers are greedy and prices unfair remains. This perception has gained support from the recent class-action lawsuit against Apple and five major publishers claiming the parties engaged in price fixing. The lawsuit says prices of new ebooks have increased an average of 33 to 50% as a result.

Ignoring new business models

The music industry's answer to piracy was to force individual pirates through the legal system.

Would you explain, please, why you refer to someone sharing books or music as a pirate? I find it difficult to understand why you would use a word denominating a violent criminal as a description of children sharing books and music with one another. Are you trying to prove your fealty through echoing the worst, most outrageous, propaganda of the culture owners? Or have you become so thoughtlessly brainwashed that calling children thieves and murderers seems normal to you?

Although these scare tactics worked on some probable offenders, threat of legal sanction did not stop the overall problem - the music industry continued its decline. It has taken ten years for new business models to gain traction, but the industry is finally understanding consumer needs. For example, some copyright owners now allow their content to remain on YouTube and generate revenue from advertising. It is a recognition that traditional revenue models are no longer sufficient in an internet society.

Maybe. But it's not a recognition that sharing is normal, good and useful, and that the ownership of ideas is actually now going to become extinct. It's like saying that once people who own slaves have discovered that there's going to be resistance and start treating their slaves better they have "recognized that traditional revenue models are no longer sufficient in slave society." But in fact the real point is that slave society ends in emancipation, whether peaceful or violent, and the ownership of ideas will end just as completely as the ownership of human beings, one way or another.

Similarly, traditional approaches to publishing will not survive in the internet society. Publishers appear to understand this evolution in some instances, but ignore it at their convenience. For instance, electronic publishers (e-publishers) restrict ownership rights of ebooks in ways print books are not - one cannot sell, donate, or lend endlessly a purchased ebook. This behavior is a response to the realities of the internet society. However, e-publishers have so far failed to embrace the benefits of the online community. For example, e-publishers point to high editorial costs as a reason for high ebook prices. Yet Wikipedia is a perfect example of an alternative to traditional editorial approaches. This is not to say e-publishers can or should rely on online users to edit their ebooks to cut costs, but if their current costs of ebook publication are the same as for print, e-publishers are not innovating or seeking improved efficiencies as they should be. The longer they wait to evolve, the more likely the market will force them to change through Napsterization.

The industry is presently selling NO material as an e-text for which there are editorial expenses. A large part of the trade is re-enclosure: sale of public domain materials under DRM'd and copyrighted tents. Almost all the rest of the trade is material whose fixed editorial costs are recouped through traditional sales of manufactured books to retail resellers.

New mistake: Earning the ire of librarians

Libraries, the original information equalizer, could become a formidable opponent to e-publishers. Earlier this year, Harper Collins Publishers began restricting the use of library ebooks, making them expire after 26 uses (26 library check-outs). Once again, e-publishers restrict traditional ownership rights and the restrictions seem arbitrary. Libraries already adhere to the "one user per copy" rule in order to mirror print book ownership, even though this is a fictitious limitation in the electronic world. Further restrictions are difficult to justify. Publishers argue an e-book cannot have perpetual ownership because print books deteriorate over time, while e-books retain consistent quality. But if any group should benefit from technological advances, should it not be libraries? These are entities promoting literacy and creativity, rather than seeking profits. And with ever-present budget cuts, having to replace "deteriorated" ebooks makes Napsterization a fitting response to an industry preventing the spread of knowledge from traditional channels.

That's not correct either. But a DRM-circumvention exception to allow libraries to continue loaning restricted data files will eventually succeed (perhaps this time?) in the periodic proceedings at the Library of Congress required by DMCA.

Pirating Books is Ethical

The law is a temporary solution for regulating behavior. It is temporary because it is constantly evolving. In this sense, the law is neither right nor wrong, it is simply a compromise of adequate solutions. In publishing, "laws" arise from contractual agreements between parties, which are often lopsided. Perhaps in recognizing the law's limitations, consumers have begun turning to their moral compass and many are finding an acceptance of online piracy. For example, the New York Times Magazine ethicist, Randy Cohen, concludes that if a user has already purchased a hardcover book, it is not unethical to engage in ebook piracy of that book. Cohen compares it to buying a CD and then copying it to an iPod. Further, although the legality of the Google Digitization Project was suspect from the beginning, the company marched onward until they were legally ordered to halt. Although critics of Google note the company will financially benefit from this project, Google co-founder, Larry Page, is said to strongly advocate that "the world's information should be made available freely."

Sharing is ethical. Why are you apparently discussing whether criminal activity is ethical? Why is there even a question whether it is ethical to share?

Final Thoughts

Harry Potter ebooks have been delayed for several years, but it is claimed that the series is among the most pirated ebooks on the internet. The delay of the ebook series is shocking given that the books are credited with encouraging literacy and creating a community of readers. Fear of piracy, that was ultimately unpreventable, delayed the spread of knowledge. This is what makes the mistakes of the music industry less forgivable the second time around. Fortunately, the internet society does not accept unconvincing legal compromises and does not wait for legal change - it forces the democratization of knowledge when others will not.

What is the thesis of this essay?

---

# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, SylviaDurans

--

So do you believe that the Google Digitalization Project would contribute to the net benefit of society by making these texts available in electronic form, albeit controlled by a corporate entity? As Eben points out in class, with enough grass roots support, a book digitalization project could be done by decentralized individuals. Is relying on Google ethical?

-- AaronChan - 30 Oct 2011