diff options
Diffstat (limited to '11077-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | 11077-0.txt | 864 |
1 files changed, 864 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/11077-0.txt b/11077-0.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..fc7f19b --- /dev/null +++ b/11077-0.txt @@ -0,0 +1,864 @@ +*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 11077 *** +Ebooks: Neither E, Nor Books + +Paper for the O'Reilly Emerging Technologies Conference, 2004 + +February 12, 2004 + +San Diego, CA + +Cory Doctorow + +doctorow@craphound.com + +-- + +Forematter: + +This talk was initially given at the O'Reilly Emerging Technology +Conference [ http://conferences.oreillynet.com/cs/et2004 ], along +with a set of slides that, for copyright reasons (ironic!) can't +be released alongside of this file. However, you will find, +interspersed in this text, notations describing the places where +new slides should be loaded, in [square-brackets]. + +This text is dedicated to the public domain, using a Creative +Commons public domain dedication: + +> Copyright-Only Dedication (based on United States law) +> +> The person or persons who have associated their work with this +> document (the "Dedicator") hereby dedicate the entire copyright +> in the work of authorship identified below (the "Work") to the +> public domain. +> +> Dedicator makes this dedication for the benefit of the public at +> large and to the detriment of Dedicator's heirs and successors. +> Dedicator intends this dedication to be an overt act of +> relinquishment in perpetuity of all present and future rights +> under copyright law, whether vested or contingent, in the Work. +> Dedicator understands that such relinquishment of all rights +> includes the relinquishment of all rights to enforce (by lawsuit +> or otherwise) those copyrights in the Work. +> +> Dedicator recognizes that, once placed in the public domain, the +> Work may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, +> modified, built upon, or otherwise exploited by anyone for any +> purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and in any way, including +> by methods that have not yet been invented or conceived. + +-- + +For starters, let me try to summarize the lessons and intuitions +I've had about ebooks from my release of two novels and most of a +short story collection online under a Creative Commons license. A +parodist who published a list of alternate titles for the +presentations at this event called this talk, "eBooks Suck Right +Now," [eBooks suck right now] and as funny as that is, I don't +think it's true. + +No, if I had to come up with another title for this talk, I'd +call it: "Ebooks: You're Soaking in Them." [Ebooks: You're +Soaking in Them] That's because I think that the shape of ebooks +to come is almost visible in the way that people interact with +text today, and that the job of authors who want to become rich +and famous is to come to a better understanding of that shape. + +I haven't come to a perfect understanding. I don't know what the +future of the book looks like. But I have ideas, and I'll share +them with you: + +1. Ebooks aren't marketing. [Ebooks aren't marketing] OK, so +ebooks *are* marketing: that is to say that giving away ebooks +sells more books. Baen Books, who do a lot of series publishing, +have found that giving away electronic editions of the previous +installments in their series to coincide with the release of a +new volume sells the hell out of the new book -- and the +backlist. And the number of people who wrote to me to tell me +about how much they dug the ebook and so bought the paper-book +far exceeds the number of people who wrote to me and said, "Ha, +ha, you hippie, I read your book for free and now I'm not gonna +buy it." But ebooks *shouldn't* be just about marketing: ebooks +are a goal unto themselves. In the final analysis, more people +will read more words off more screens and fewer words off fewer +pages and when those two lines cross, ebooks are gonna have to be +the way that writers earn their keep, not the way that they +promote the dead-tree editions. + +2. Ebooks complement paper books. [Ebooks complement paper +books]. Having an ebook is good. Having a paper book is good. +Having both is even better. One reader wrote to me and said that +he read half my first novel from the bound book, and printed the +other half on scrap-paper to read at the beach. Students write to +me to say that it's easier to do their term papers if they can +copy and paste their quotations into their word-processors. Baen +readers use the electronic editions of their favorite series to +build concordances of characters, places and events. + +3. Unless you own the ebook, you don't own the book [Unless you +own the ebook, you don't own the book]. I take the view that the +book is a "practice" -- a collection of social and economic and +artistic activities -- and not an "object." Viewing the book as a +"practice" instead of an object is a pretty radical notion, and +it begs the question: just what the hell is a book? Good +question. I write all of my books in a text-editor [TEXT EDITOR +SCREENGRAB] (BBEdit, from Barebones Software -- as fine a +text-editor as I could hope for). From there, I can convert them +into a formatted two-column PDF [TWO-UP SCREENGRAB]. I can turn +them into an HTML file [BROWSER SCREENGRAB]. I can turn them over +to my publisher, who can turn them into galleys, advanced review +copies, hardcovers and paperbacks. I can turn them over to my +readers, who can convert them to a bewildering array of formats +[DOWNLOAD PAGE SCREENGRAB]. Brewster Kahle's Internet Bookmobile +can convert a digital book into a four-color, full-bleed, +perfect-bound, laminated-cover, printed-spine paper book in ten +minutes, for about a dollar. Try converting a paper book to a PDF +or an html file or a text file or a RocketBook or a printout for +a buck in ten minutes! It's ironic, because one of the frequently +cited reasons for preferring paper to ebooks is that paper books +confer a sense of ownership of a physical object. Before the dust +settles on this ebook thing, owning a paper book is going to feel +less like ownership than having an open digital edition of the +text. + +4. Ebooks are a better deal for writers. [Ebooks are a better +deal for writers] The compensation for writers is pretty thin on +the ground. *Amazing Stories,* Hugo Gernsback's original science +fiction magazine, paid a couple cents a word. Today, science +fiction magazines pay...a couple cents a word. The sums involved +are so minuscule, they're not even insulting: they're *quaint* +and *historical*, like the WHISKEY 5 CENTS sign over the bar at a +pioneer village. Some writers do make it big, but they're +*rounding errors* as compared to the total population of of +writers earning some of their living at the trade. Almost all of +us could be making more money elsewhere (though we may dream of +earning a stephenkingload of money, and of course, no one would +play the lotto if there were no winners). The primary incentive +for writing has to be artistic satisfaction, egoboo, and a desire +for posterity. Ebooks get you that. Ebooks become a part of the +corpus of human knowledge because they get indexed by search +engines and replicated by the hundreds, thousands or millions. +They can be googled. + +Even better: they level the playing field between writers and +trolls. When Amazon kicked off, many writers got their knickers +in a tight and powerful knot at the idea that axe-grinding yahoos +were filling the Amazon message-boards with ill-considered slams +at their work -- for, if a personal recommendation is the best +way to sell a book, then certainly a personal condemnation is the +best way to *not* sell a book. Today, the trolls are still with +us, but now, the readers get to decide for themselves. Here's a +bit of a review of Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom that was +recently posted to Amazon by "A reader from Redwood City, CA": + +[QUOTED TEXT] + +> I am really not sure what kind of drugs critics are +> smoking, or what kind of payola may be involved. But +> regardless of what Entertainment Weekly says, whatever +> this newspaper or that magazine says, you shouldn't +> waste your money. Download it for free from Corey's +> (sic) site, read the first page, and look away in +> disgust -- this book is for people who think Dan +> Brown's Da Vinci Code is great writing. + +Back in the old days, this kind of thing would have really pissed +me off. Axe-grinding, mouth-breathing yahoos, defaming my good +name! My stars and mittens! But take a closer look at that +damning passage: + +[PULL-QUOTE] + +> Download it for free from Corey's site, read the first +> page + +You see that? Hell, this guy is *working for me*! [ADDITIONAL +PULL QUOTES] Someone accuses a writer I'm thinking of reading of +paying off Entertainment Weekly to say nice things about his +novel, "a surprisingly bad writer," no less, whose writing is +"stiff, amateurish, and uninspired!" I wanna check that writer +out. And I can. In one click. And then I can make up my own mind. + +You don't get far in the arts without healthy doses of both ego +and insecurity, and the downside of being able to google up all +the things that people are saying about your book is that it can +play right into your insecurities -- "all these people will have +it in their minds not to bother with my book because they've read +the negative interweb reviews!" But the flipside of that is the +ego: "If only they'd give it a shot, they'd see how good it is." +And the more scathing the review is, the more likely they are to +give it a shot. Any press is good press, so long as they spell +your URL right (and even if they spell your name wrong!). + +5. Ebooks need to embrace their nature. [Ebooks need to embrace +their nature.] The distinctive value of ebooks is orthagonal to +the value of paper books, and it revolves around the mix-ability +and send-ability of electronic text. The more you constrain an +ebook's distinctive value propositions -- that is, the more you +restrict a reader's ability to copy, transport or transform an +ebook -- the more it has to be valued on the same axes as a +paper-book. Ebooks *fail* on those axes. Ebooks don't beat +paper-books for sophisticated typography, they can't match them +for quality of paper or the smell of the glue. But just try +sending a paper book to a friend in Brazil, for free, in less +than a second. Or loading a thousand paper books into a little +stick of flash-memory dangling from your keychain. Or searching a +paper book for every instance of a character's name to find a +beloved passage. Hell, try clipping a pithy passage out of a +paper book and pasting it into your sig-file. + +6. Ebooks demand a different attention span (but not a shorter +one). [Ebooks demand a different attention span (but not a +shorter one).] Artists are always disappointed by their +audience's attention-spans. Go back far enough and you'll find +cuneiform etchings bemoaning the current Sumerian go-go lifestyle +with its insistence on myths with plotlines and characters and +action, not like we had in the old days. As artists, it would be +a hell of a lot easier if our audiences were more tolerant of our +penchant for boring them. We'd get to explore a lot more ideas +without worrying about tarting them up with easy-to-swallow +chocolate coatings of entertainment. We like to think of +shortened attention spans as a product of the information age, +but check this out: + +[Nietzsche quote] + +> To be sure one thing necessary above all: if one is to +> practice reading as an *art* in this way, something +> needs to be un-learned most thoroughly in these days. + +In other words, if my book is too boring, it's because you're not +paying enough attention. Writers say this stuff all the time, but +this quote isn't from this century or the last. [Nietzsche quote +with attribution] It's from the preface to Nietzsche's "Genealogy +of Morals," published in *1887.* + +Yeah, our attention-spans are *different* today, but they aren't +necessarily *shorter*. Warren Ellis's fans managed to hold the +storyline for Transmetropolitan [Transmet cover] in their minds +for *five years* while the story trickled out in monthly +funnybook installments. JK Rowlings's installments on the Harry +Potter series get fatter and fatter with each new volume. Entire +forests are sacrificed to long-running series fiction like Robert +Jordan's Wheel of Time books, each of which is approximately +20,000 pages long (I may be off by an order of magnitude one way +or another here). Sure, presidential debates are conducted in +soundbites today and not the days-long oratory extravaganzas of +the Lincoln-Douglas debates, but people manage to pay attention +to the 24-month-long presidential campaigns from start to finish. + +7. We need *all* the ebooks. [We need *all* the ebooks] The vast +majority of the words ever penned are lost to posterity. No one +library collects all the still-extant books ever written and no +one person could hope to make a dent in that corpus of written +work. None of us will ever read more than the tiniest sliver of +human literature. But that doesn't mean that we can stick with +just the most popular texts and get a proper ebook revolution. + +For starters, we're all edge-cases. Sure, we all have the shared +desire for the core canon of literature, but each of us want to +complete that collection with different texts that are as +distinctive and individualistic as fingerprints. If we all look +like we're doing the same thing when we read, or listen to music, +or hang out in a chatroom, that's because we're not looking +closely enough. The shared-ness of our experience is only present +at a coarse level of measurement: once you get into really +granular observation, there are as many differences in our +"shared" experience as there are similarities. + +More than that, though, is the way that a large collection of +electronic text differs from a small one: it's the difference +between a single book, a shelf full of books and a library of +books. Scale makes things different. Take the Web: none of us can +hope to read even a fraction of all the pages on the Web, but by +analyzing the link structures that bind all those pages together, +Google is able to actually tease out machine-generated +conclusions about the relative relevance of different pages to +different queries. None of us will ever eat the whole corpus, but +Google can digest it for us and excrete the steaming nuggets of +goodness that make it the search-engine miracle it is today. + +8. Ebooks are like paper books. [Ebooks are like paper books]. To +round out this talk, I'd like to go over the ways that ebooks are +more like paper books than you'd expect. One of the truisms of +retail theory is that purchasers need to come into contact with a +good several times before they buy -- seven contacts is tossed +around as the magic number. That means that my readers have to +hear the title, see the cover, pick up the book, read a review, +and so forth, seven times, on average, before they're ready to +buy. + +There's a temptation to view downloading a book as comparable to +bringing it home from the store, but that's the wrong metaphor. +Some of the time, maybe most of the time, downloading the text of +the book is like taking it off the shelf at the store and looking +at the cover and reading the blurbs (with the advantage of not +having to come into contact with the residual DNA and burger king +left behind by everyone else who browsed the book before you). +Some writers are horrified at the idea that three hundred +thousand copies of my first novel were downloaded and "only" ten +thousand or so were sold so far. If it were the case that for +ever copy sold, thirty were taken home from the store, that would +be a horrifying outcome, for sure. But look at it another way: if +one out of every thirty people who glanced at the cover of my +book bought it, I'd be a happy author. And I am. Those downloads +cost me no more than glances at the cover in a bookstore, and the +sales are healthy. + +We also like to think of physical books as being inherently +*countable* in a way that digital books aren't (an irony, since +computers are damned good at counting things!). This is +important, because writers get paid on the basis of the number of +copies of their books that sell, so having a good count makes a +difference. And indeed, my royalty statements contain precise +numbers for copies printed, shipped, returned and sold. + +But that's a false precision. When the printer does a run of a +book, it always runs a few extra at the start and finish of the +run to make sure that the setup is right and to account for the +occasional rip, drop, or spill. The actual total number of books +printed is approximately the number of books ordered, but never +exactly -- if you've ever ordered 500 wedding invitations, +chances are you received 500-and-a-few back from the printer and +that's why. + +And the numbers just get fuzzier from there. Copies are stolen. +Copies are dropped. Shipping people get the count wrong. Some +copies end up in the wrong box and go to a bookstore that didn't +order them and isn't invoiced for them and end up on a sale table +or in the trash. Some copies are returned as damaged. Some are +returned as unsold. Some come back to the store the next morning +accompanied by a whack of buyer's remorse. Some go to the place +where the spare sock in the dryer ends up. + +The numbers on a royalty statement are actuarial, not actual. +They represent a kind of best-guess approximation of the copies +shipped, sold, returned and so forth. Actuarial accounting works +pretty well: well enough to run the juggernaut banking, +insurance, and gambling industries on. It's good enough for +divvying up the royalties paid by musical rights societies for +radio airplay and live performance. And it's good enough for +counting how many copies of a book are distributed online or off. + +Counts of paper books are differently precise from counts of +electronic books, sure: but neither one is inherently countable. + +And finally, of course, there's the matter of selling books. +However an author earns her living from her words, printed or +encoded, she has as her first and hardest task to find her +audience. There are more competitors for our attention than we +can possibly reconcile, prioritize or make sense of. Getting a +book under the right person's nose, with the right pitch, is the +hardest and most important task any writer faces. + +# + +I care about books, a lot. I started working in libraries and +bookstores at the age of 12 and kept at it for a decade, until I +was lured away by the siren song of the tech world. I knew I +wanted to be a writer at the age of 12, and now, 20 years later, +I have three novels, a short story collection and a nonfiction +book out, two more novels under contract, and another book in the +works. [BOOK COVERS] I've won a major award in my genre, science +fiction, [CAMPBELL AWARD] and I'm nominated for another one, the +2003 Nebula Award for best novelette. [NEBULA] + +I own a *lot* of books. Easily more than 10,000 of them, in +storage on both coasts of the North American continent [LIBRARY +LADDER]. I have to own them, since they're the tools of my trade: +the reference works I refer to as a novelist and writer today. +Most of the literature I dig is very short-lived, it disappears +from the shelf after just a few months, usually for good. Science +fiction is inherently ephemeral. [ACE DOUBLES] + +Now, as much as I love books, I love computers, too. Computers +are fundamentally different from modern books in the same way +that printed books are different from monastic Bibles: they are +malleable. Time was, a "book" was something produced by many +months' labor by a scribe, usually a monk, on some kind of +durable and sexy substrate like foetal lambskin. [ILLUMINATED +BIBLE] Gutenberg's xerox machine changed all that, changed a book +into something that could be simply run off a press in a few +minutes' time, on substrate more suitable to ass-wiping than +exaltation in a place of honor in the cathedral. The Gutenberg +press meant that rather than owning one or two books, a member of +the ruling class could amass a library, and that rather than +picking only a few subjects from enshrinement in print, a huge +variety of subjects could be addressed on paper and handed from +person to person. [KAPITAL/TIJUANA BIBLE] + +Most new ideas start with a precious few certainties and a lot of +speculation. I've been doing a bunch of digging for certainties +and a lot of speculating lately, and the purpose of this talk is +to lay out both categories of ideas. + +This all starts with my first novel, Down and Out in the Magic +Kingdom [COVER], which came out on January 9, 2003. At that time, +there was a lot of talk in my professional circles about, on the +one hand, the dismal failure of ebooks, and, on the other, the +new and scary practice of ebook "piracy." [alt.binaries.e-books +screengrab] It was strikingly weird that no one seemed to notice +that the idea of ebooks as a "failure" was at strong odds with +the notion that electronic book "piracy" was worth worrying +about: I mean, if ebooks are a failure, then who gives a rats if +intarweb dweebs are trading them on Usenet? + +A brief digression here, on the double meaning of "ebooks." One +meaning for that word is "legitimate" ebook ventures, that is to +say, rightsholder-authorized editions of the texts of books, +released in a proprietary, use-restricted format, sometimes for +use on a general-purpose PC and sometimes for use on a +special-purpose hardware device like the nuvoMedia Rocketbook +[ROCKETBOOK]. The other meaning for ebook is a "pirate" or +unauthorized electronic edition of a book, usually made by +cutting the binding off of a book and scanning it a page at a +time, then running the resulting bitmaps through an optical +character recognition app to convert them into ASCII text, to be +cleaned up by hand. These books are pretty buggy, full of errors +introduced by the OCR. A lot of my colleagues worry that these +books also have deliberate errors, created by mischievous +book-rippers who cut, add or change text in order to "improve" +the work. Frankly, I have never seen any evidence that any +book-ripper is interested in doing this, and until I do, I think +that this is the last thing anyone should be worrying about. + +Back to Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom [COVER]. Well, not yet. +I want to convey to you the depth of the panic in my field over +ebook piracy, or "bookwarez" as it is known in book-ripper +circles. Writers were joining the discussion on +alt.binaries.ebooks using assumed names, claiming fear of +retaliation from scary hax0r kids who would presumably screw up +their credit-ratings in retaliation for being called thieves. My +editor, a blogger, hacker and +guy-in-charge-of-the-largest-sf-line-in-the-world named Patrick +Nielsen Hayden posted to one of the threads in the newsgroup, +saying, in part [SCREENGRAB]: + +> Pirating copyrighted etext on Usenet and elsewhere is going to +> happen more and more, for the same reasons that everyday folks +> make audio cassettes from vinyl LPs and audio CDs, and +> videocassette copies of store-bought videotapes. Partly it's +> greed; partly it's annoyance over retail prices; partly it's the +> desire to Share Cool Stuff (a motivation usually underrated by +> the victims of this kind of small-time hand-level piracy). +> Instantly going to Defcon One over it and claiming it's morally +> tantamount to mugging little old ladies in the street will make +> it kind of difficult to move forward from that position when it +> doesn't work. In the 1970s, the record industry shrieked that +> "home taping is killing music." It's hard for ordinary folks to +> avoid noticing that music didn't die. But the record industry's +> credibility on the subject wasn't exactly enhanced. + +Patrick and I have a long relationship, starting when I was 18 +years old and he kicked in toward a scholarship fund to send me +to a writers' workshop, continuing to a fateful lunch in New York +in the mid-Nineties when I showed him a bunch of Project +Gutenberg texts on my Palm Pilot and inspired him to start +licensing Tor's titles for PDAs [PEANUTPRESS SCREENGRAB], to the +turn-of-the-millennium when he bought and then published my first +novel (he's bought three more since -- I really like Patrick!). + +Right as bookwarez newgroups were taking off, I was shocked silly +by legal action by one of my colleagues against AOL/Time-Warner +for carrying the alt.binaries.ebooks newsgroup. This writer +alleged that AOL should have a duty to remove this newsgroup, +since it carried so many infringing files, and that its failure +to do so made it a contributory infringer, and so liable for the +incredibly stiff penalties afforded by our newly minted copyright +laws like the No Electronic Theft Act and the loathsome Digital +Millennium Copyright Act or DMCA. + +Now there was a scary thought: there were people out there who +thought the world would be a better place if ISPs were given the +duty of actively policing and censoring the websites and +newsfeeds their customers had access to, including a requirement +that ISPs needed to determine, all on their own, what was an +unlawful copyright infringement -- something more usually left up +to judges in the light of extensive amicus briefings from +esteemed copyright scholars [WIND DONE GONE GRAPHIC]. + +This was a stupendously dumb idea, and it offended me down to my +boots. Writers are supposed to be advocates of free expression, +not censorship. It seemed that some of my colleagues loved the +First Amendment, but they were reluctant to share it with the +rest of the world. + +Well, dammit, I had a book coming out, and it seemed to be an +opportunity to try to figure out a little more about this ebook +stuff. On the one hand, ebooks were a dismal failure. On the +other hand, there were more books posted to alt.binaries.ebooks +every day. + +This leads me into the two certainties I have about ebooks: + +1. More people are reading more words off more screens every day +[GRAPHIC] + +2. Fewer people are reading fewer words off fewer pages every day +[GRAPHIC] + +These two certainties begged a lot of questions. + +[CHART: EBOOK FAILINGS] + +* Screen resolutions are too low to effectively replace paper + +* People want to own physical books because of their visceral +appeal (often this is accompanied by a little sermonette on how +good books smell, or how good they look on a bookshelf, or how +evocative an old curry stain in the margin can be) + +* You can't take your ebook into the tub + +* You can't read an ebook without power and a computer + +* File-formats go obsolete, paper has lasted for a long time + +None of these seemed like very good explanations for the +"failure" of ebooks to me. If screen resolutions are too low to +replace paper, then how come everyone I know spends more time +reading off a screen every year, up to and including my sainted +grandmother (geeks have a really crappy tendency to argue that +certain technologies aren't ready for primetime because their +grandmothers won't use them -- well, my grandmother sends me +email all the time. She types 70 words per minute, and loves to +show off grandsonular email to her pals around the pool at her +Florida retirement condo)? + +The other arguments were a lot more interesting, though. It +seemed to me that electronic books are *different* from paper +books, and have different virtues and failings. Let's think a +little about what the book has gone through in years gone by. +This is interesting because the history of the book is the +history of the Enlightenment, the Reformation, the Pilgrims, and, +ultimately the colonizing of the Americas and the American +Revolution. + +Broadly speaking, there was a time when books were hand-printed +on rare leather by monks. The only people who could read them +were priests, who got a regular eyeful of the really cool +cartoons the monks drew in the margins. The priests read the +books aloud, in Latin [LATIN BIBLE] (to a predominantly +non-Latin-speaking audience) in cathedrals, wreathed in pricey +incense that rose from censers swung by altar boys. + +Then Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press. Martin +Luther turned that press into a revolution. [LUTHER BIBLE] He +printed Bibles in languages that non-priests could read, and +distributed them to normal people who got to read the word of God +all on their own. The rest, as they say, is history. + +Here are some interesting things to note about the advent of the +printing press: + +[CHART: LUTHER VERSUS THE MONKS] + +* Luther Bibles lacked the manufacturing quality of the +illuminated Bibles. They were comparatively cheap and lacked the +typographical expressiveness that a really talented monk could +bring to bear when writing out the word of God + +* Luther Bibles were utterly unsuited to the traditional use-case +for Bibles. A good Bible was supposed to reinforce the authority +of the man at the pulpit. It needed heft, it needed +impressiveness, and most of all, it needed rarity. + +* The user-experience of Luther Bibles sucked. There was no +incense, no altar boys, and who (apart from the priesthood) knew +that reading was so friggin' hard on the eyes? + +* Luther Bibles were a lot less trustworthy than the illuminated +numbers. Anyone with a press could run one off, subbing in any +apocryphal text he wanted -- and who knew how accurate that +translation was? Monks had an entire Papacy behind them, running +a quality-assurance operation that had stood Europe in good stead +for centuries. + +In the late nineties, I went to conferences where music execs +patiently explained that Napster was doomed, because you didn't +get any cover-art or liner-notes with it, you couldn't know if +the rip was any good, and sometimes the connection would drop +mid-download. I'm sure that many Cardinals espoused the points +raised above with equal certainty. + +What the record execs and the cardinals missed was all the ways +that Luther Bibles kicked ass: + +[CHART: WHY LUTHER BIBLES KICKED ASS] + +* They were cheap and fast. Loads of people could acquire them +without having to subject themselves to the authority and +approval of the Church + +* They were in languages that non-priests could read. You no +longer had to take the Church's word for it when its priests +explained what God really meant + +* They birthed a printing-press ecosystem in which lots of books +flourished. New kinds of fiction, poetry, politics, scholarship +and so on were all enabled by the printing presses whose initial +popularity was spurred by Luther's ideas about religion. + +Note that all of these virtues are orthagonal to the virtues of a +monkish Bible. That is, none of the things that made the +Gutenberg press a success were the things that made monk-Bibles a +success. + +By the same token, the reasons to love ebooks have precious +little to do with the reasons to love paper books. + +[CHART: WHY EBOOKS KICK ASS] + +* They are easy to share. Secrets of Ya-Ya Sisterhood went from a +midlist title to a bestseller by being passed from hand to hand +by women in reading circles. Slashdorks and other netizens have +social life as rich as reading-circlites, but they don't ever get +to see each other face to face; the only kind of book they can +pass from hand to hand is an ebook. What's more, the single +factor most correlated with a purchase is a recommendation from a +friend -- getting a book recommended by a pal is more likely to +sell you on it than having read and enjoyed the preceding volume +in a series! + +* They are easy to slice and dice. This is where the Mac +evangelist in me comes out -- minority platforms matter. It's a +truism of the Napsterverse that most of the files downloaded are +bog-standard top-40 tracks, like 90 percent or so, and I believe +it. We all want to popular music. That's why it's popular. But +the interesting thing is the other ten percent. Bill Gates told +the New York Times that Microsoft lost the search wars by doing +"a good job on the 80 percent of common queries and ignor[ing] +the other stuff. But it's the remaining 20 percent that counts, +because that's where the quality perception is." Why did Napster +captivate so many of us? Not because it could get us the top-40 +tracks that we could hear just by snapping on the radio: it was +because 80 percent of the music ever recorded wasn't available +for sale anywhere in the world, and in that 80 percent were all +the songs that had ever touched us, all the earworms that had +been lodged in our hindbrains, all the stuff that made us smile +when we heard it. Those songs are different for all of us, but +they share the trait of making the difference between a +compelling service and, well, top-40 Clearchannel radio +programming. It was the minority of tracks that appealed to the +majority of us. By the same token, the malleability of electronic +text means that it can be readily repurposed: you can throw it on +a webserver or convert it to a format for your favorite PDA; you +can ask your computer to read it aloud or you can search the text +for a quotation to cite in a book report or to use in your sig. +In other words, most people who download the book do so for the +predictable reason, and in a predictable format -- say, to sample +a chapter in the HTML format before deciding whether to buy the +book -- but the thing that differentiates a boring e-text +experience from an exciting one is the minority use -- printing +out a couple chapters of the book to bring to the beach rather +than risk getting the hardcopy wet and salty. + +Tool-makers and software designers are increasingly aware of the +notion of "affordances" in design. You can bash a nail into the +wall with any heavy, heftable object from a rock to a hammer to a +cast-iron skillet. However, there's something about a hammer that +cries out for nail-bashing, it has affordances that tilt its +holder towards swinging it. And, as we all know, when all you +have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. + +The affordance of a computer -- the thing it's designed to do -- +is to slice-and-dice collections of bits. The affordance of the +Internet is to move bits at very high speed around the world at +little-to-no cost. It follows from this that the center of the +ebook experience is going to involve slicing and dicing text and +sending it around. + +Copyright lawyers have a word for these activities: infringement. +That's because copyright gives creators a near-total monopoly +over copying and remixing of their work, pretty much forever +(theoretically, copyright expires, but in actual practice, +copyright gets extended every time the early Mickey Mouse +cartoons are about to enter the public domain, because Disney +swings a very big stick on the Hill). + +This is a huge problem. The biggest possible problem. Here's why: + +[CHART: HOW BROKEN COPYRIGHT SCREWS EVERYONE] + +* Authors freak out. Authors have been schooled by their peers +that strong copyright is the only thing that keeps them from +getting savagely rogered in the marketplace. This is pretty much +true: it's strong copyright that often defends authors from their +publishers' worst excesses. However, it doesn't follow that +strong copyright protects you from your *readers*. + +* Readers get indignant over being called crooks. Seriously. +You're a small businessperson. Readers are your customers. +Calling them crooks is bad for business. + +* Publishers freak out. Publishers freak out, because they're in +the business of grabbing as much copyright as they can and +hanging onto it for dear life because, dammit, you never know. +This is why science fiction magazines try to trick writers into +signing over improbable rights for things like theme park rides +and action figures based on their work -- it's also why literary +agents are now asking for copyright-long commissions on the books +they represent: copyright covers so much ground and takes to long +to shake off, who wouldn't want a piece of it? + +* Liability goes through the roof. Copyright infringement, +especially on the Net, is a supercrime. It carries penalties of +$150,000 per infringement, and aggrieved rights-holders and their +representatives have all kinds of special powers, like the +ability to force an ISP to turn over your personal information +before showing evidence of your alleged infringement to a judge. +This means that anyone who suspects that he might be on the wrong +side of copyright law is going to be terribly risk-averse: +publishers non-negotiably force their authors to indemnify them +from infringement claims and go one better, forcing writers to +prove that they have "cleared" any material they quote, even in +the case of brief fair-use quotations, like song-titles at the +opening of chapters. The result is that authors end up assuming +potentially life-destroying liability, are chilled from quoting +material around them, and are scared off of public domain texts +because an honest mistake about the public-domain status of a +work carries such a terrible price. + +* Posterity vanishes. In the Eldred v. Ashcroft Supreme Court +hearing last year, the court found that 98 percent of the works +in copyright are no longer earning money for anyone, but that +figuring out who these old works belong to with the degree of +certainty that you'd want when one mistake means total economic +apocalypse would cost more than you could ever possibly earn on +them. That means that 98 percent of works will largely expire +long before the copyright on them does. Today, the names of +science fiction's ancestral founders -- Mary Shelley, Arthur +Conan Doyle, Edgar Allan Poe, Jules Verne, HG Wells -- are still +known, their work still a part of the discourse. Their spiritual +descendants from Hugo Gernsback onward may not be so lucky -- if +their work continues to be "protected" by copyright, it might +just vanish from the face of the earth before it reverts to the +public domain. + +This isn't to say that copyright is bad, but that there's such a +thing as good copyright and bad copyright, and that sometimes, +too much good copyright is a bad thing. It's like chilis in soup: +a little goes a long way, and too much spoils the broth. + +From the Luther Bible to the first phonorecords, from radio to +the pulps, from cable to MP3, the world has shown that its first +preference for new media is its "democratic-ness" -- the ease +with which it can reproduced. + +(And please, before we get any farther, forget all that business +about how the Internet's copying model is more disruptive than +the technologies that proceeded it. For Christ's sake, the +Vaudeville performers who sued Marconi for inventing the radio +had to go from a regime where they had *one hundred percent* +control over who could get into the theater and hear them perform +to a regime where they had *zero* percent control over who could +build or acquire a radio and tune into a recording of them +performing. For that matter, look at the difference between a +monkish Bible and a Luther Bible -- next to that phase-change, +Napster is peanuts) + +Back to democratic-ness. Every successful new medium has traded +off its artifact-ness -- the degree to which it was populated by +bespoke hunks of atoms, cleverly nailed together by master +craftspeople -- for ease of reproduction. Piano rolls weren't as +expressive as good piano players, but they scaled better -- as +did radio broadcasts, pulp magazines, and MP3s. Liner notes, hand +illumination and leather bindings are nice, but they pale in +comparison to the ability of an individual to actually get a +copy of her own. + +Which isn't to say that old media die. Artists still +hand-illuminate books; master pianists still stride the boards at +Carnegie Hall, and the shelves burst with tell-all biographies of +musicians that are richer in detail than any liner-notes booklet. +The thing is, when all you've got is monks, every book takes on +the character of a monkish Bible. Once you invent the printing +press, all the books that are better-suited to movable type +migrate into that new form. What's left behind are those items +that are best suited to the old production scheme: the plays that +*need* to be plays, the books that are especially lovely on +creamy paper stitched between covers, the music that is most +enjoyable performed live and experienced in a throng of humanity. + +Increased democratic-ness translates into decreased control: it's +a lot harder to control who can copy a book once there's a +photocopier on every corner than it is when you need a monastery +and several years to copy a Bible. And that decreased control +demands a new copyright regime that rebalances the rights of +creators with their audiences. + +For example, when the VCR was invented, the courts affirmed a new +copyright exemption for time-shifting; when the radio was +invented, the Congress granted an anti-trust exemption to the +record labels in order to secure a blanket license; when cable TV +was invented, the government just ordered the broadcasters to +sell the cable-operators access to programming at a fixed rate. + +Copyright is perennially out of date, because its latest rev was +generated in response to the last generation of technology. The +temptation to treat copyright as though it came down off the +mountain on two stone tablets (or worse, as "just like" real +property) is deeply flawed, since, by definition, current +copyright only considers the last generation of tech. + +So, are bookwarez in violation of copyright law? Duh. Is this the +end of the world? *Duh*. If the Catholic church can survive the +printing press, science fiction will certainly weather the advent +of bookwarez. + +# + +Lagniappe [Lagniappe] + +We're almost done here, but there's one more thing I'd like to do +before I get off the stage. [Lagniappe: an unexpected bonus or +extra] Think of it as a "lagniappe" -- a little something extra +to thank you for your patience. + +About a year ago, I released my first novel, Down and Out in the +Magic Kingdom, on the net, under the terms of the most +restrictive Creative Commons license available. All it allowed my +readers to do was send around copies of the book. I was +cautiously dipping my toe into the water, though at the time, it +felt like I was taking a plunge. + +Now I'm going to take a plunge. Today, I will re-license the text +of Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom under a Creative Commons +"Attribution-ShareAlike-Derivs-Noncommercial" license [HUMAN +READABLE LICENSE], which means that as of today, you have my +blessing to create derivative works from my first book. You can +make movies, audiobooks, translations, fan-fiction, slash fiction +(God help us) [GEEK HIERARCHY], furry slash fiction [GEEK +HIERARCHY DETAIL], poetry, translations, t-shirts, you name it, +with two provisos: that one, you have to allow everyone else to +rip, mix and burn your creations in the same way you're hacking +mine; and on the other hand, you've got to do it noncommercially. + +The sky didn't fall when I dipped my toe in. Let's see what +happens when I get in up to my knees. + +The text with the new license will be online before the end of +the day. Check craphound.com/down for details. + +Oh, and I'm also releasing the text of this speech under a +Creative Commons Public Domain dedication, [Public domain +dedication] giving it away to the world to do with as it see +fits. It'll be linked off my blog, Boing Boing, before the day is +through. + +# + +EOF + +That's the end of this talk, for now. Thank you all for your kind +attention. I hope that you'll keep on the lookout for more +detailed topology of the shape of ebooks and help me spot them +here in plain sight. + + +Cory Doctorow + +Midflight over Texas + +February 4, 2004 +*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 11077 *** |