Apple’s new iPad tablet gives newspaper and magazine publishers an opportunity to claw back what they’ve given away: profitability. The potential for reading a newspaper on a screen of reasonable size and shape and in a format that actually resembles the paper-paper you hold every morning, has been boosted sky-high by the introduction of Apple’s tablet.

Actually, for an inveterate reader of newspapers the format issue remains, whether you read one on a Kindle, iPad, Skiff (pictured left) or other device. If you hold the device vertically (portrait format) size you see just one page at a time and thus lose the option of viewing at a glance what’s on both sides of your newspaper, even peripherally. If on the other hand you hold it horizontally (landscape format) you can see both sides of the paper but cut the size down to an uncomfortable dimension. If this is the price we pay to shift from paper to plastic, I say so be it, but I say it with a big sigh. Because, dammit, I love my newspaper just the way it is.

But throwing a tantrum won’t stop the clock, so we must expect a day when today’s “paper” will be plastic, and reading the paper will become an anachronism as quaint as the “cc” in our emails that describes carbon copies. Newspaper publishers are rethinking their business model and considering a variety of solutions aimed at sealing the leak of content into the digital river from which all currently come to drink their fill free of charge. Last fall the Wall Street Journal started forcing news-hungry website visitors to become subscribers or miss out on breaking news. The New York Times has announced a similar initiative.

Though dropping today’s news into e-book format seems simple enough to do, there are land mines, As Brad Stone and Stephanie Clifford of the NY Times point out “Media companies may have to swallow hard before tethering their futures to any high-tech company, let alone Apple.”

“Many publishers believe their economic health depends on finding a direct line to their customers, and it is not clear whether Apple — and other aggregators of Internet content — will allow that.

“Magazine publishers, for example, maintain sophisticated databases about their customers, which lets them cross-sell products, renew subscriptions and entice advertisers with statistics about their wealthy readers. A big part of the business is automatic renewals charged to credit cards.

“But when magazine publishers sell applications through the iTunes store, they do not get credit card information or even the name of the buyer.”

To make sure they aren’t jumping from the frying pan into the fire, Stone and Clifford report, some powerful magazine and newspaper publishers have formed a consortium that will operate its own online store, sell its own content, and collect its own consumer information.

You can read about it online here. Enjoy the pleasure while you can; the day will come when you’ll have to become a subscriber to access this content.

Richard Curtis

Every Blogger owes a debt of gratitude to newspapers and magazines. This posting relies on original research and reporting performed by the New York Times.

Is Google a service provider or a content provider? Before you answer I have to read you your Miranda rights, because you can go to prison if you answer the wrong way, at least in Italy.

The Italian government says Google is a content provider, and an Italian court supporting that position found three Google executives “criminally responsible for content posted on its system,” reports Rachel Donadio in the New York Times. Under Italian law, executives can be held responsible for actions taken by the companies they work for. The decision “suggests that Google is not simply a tool for its users, as it contends,” writes Donadio, “but is effectively no different from any other media company, like newspapers or television, that provides content and could be regulated.”

The case revolves around a video posted in 2006 that showed a group of teenage boys bullying an autistic boy. Prosecutors for the Italian government asserted that Google should have removed the video from its site faster than it did. It took two months after the incident before the Italian police formally complained to Google, but within two hours of receiving that complaint Google says it took the video down. Donadio writes that the response among Internet activists could be “likened to punishing the mailman for delivering a nasty letter.”

Google has posted a blog arguing that the Italian decision contradicts a European Union directive protecting Internet service providers from liability for content hosted on their site. You can read it in full here.

Though it’s hard to believe that the Italian ruling will not be thrown out on appeal, this incident is a wakeup call for Google and for anyone who believes he or she can simply throw a video up on a website without any consequences whatever. If the court decision is upheld it could have a catastrophically depressing effect on the Internet as we know it. As Google’s blog said, “If that principle is swept aside and sites like Blogger, YouTube and indeed every social network and any community bulletin board, are held responsible for vetting every single piece of content that is uploaded to them — every piece of text, every photo, every file, every video — then the Web as we know it will cease to exist, and many of the economic, social, political and technological benefits it brings could disappear.”

This is not a war being fought on a foreign shore. It’s one that is playing out beneath your nose. So, I respectfully suggest you take more than an intellectual interest in the income. Read the Times article in full here.

Richard Curtis

John Sargent, admiral of the Macmillan fleet, has charted the course of his company to meet the challenges of modern publishing, traditional and digital. In a memo to Macmillan authors, their agents, and their readers, Sargent spelled out a host of initiatives and policies. “It has become clear to me,” he says, “that there is far too little accurate information available in this time of unprecedented change. The issues we all face together are complex, and no news story or 140-character snippet can adequately address them.”

Some of the content of his message had been explicitly announced in the last turbulent months, other policies are fully articulated for the first time. You may read the announcement in its entirety here, but in essence:

• Starting at the end of March, we will move from the “retail model” of selling e-books (publishers sell to retailers, who then sell to readers at a price that the retailer determines) to the “agency model” (publishers set the price, and retailers take a commission on the sale to readers). We will make this change with all our e-book retailers simultaneously.
• All the new adult trade books for which we have the rights to publish in e-book format will be available at the first release of the printed book. We will no longer delay the publication of e-books (read: no windowing).
• We will price our e-books at a wide variety of prices. In the ink-on-paper world we publish new books in different formats (hardcover, trade paperback, and mass market paperback) at prices that generally range from $35.00 to $5.99. In the digital world we will price each book individually as we do today. Generally e-book editions of hardcover new releases will be priced between $14.99 and $12.99; a few books will be priced higher and lower. This is a tremendous discount from the price of the printed hardcover books, which generally range from $28.00 to $24.00. E-book editions of New York Times hardcover bestsellers will be priced at $12.99 or lower while they are on the printed list. E-book editions of paperback new releases will be generally priced between $9.99 and $6.99.
• For physical books, the majority of new release hardcovers are published in cheaper paperback versions over time. We will mirror this price reduction in the digital world.
• There has been a lot of concern from e-book readers that $9.99 books will no longer be available. Most Macmillan e-books will still be priced below ten dollars.

Sargent says he has not addressed illustrated books or books for young children, nor the long-term or author royalty consequences of the change. He will save those and other topics for future posts. But he does state categorically that “these changes will apply to every e-book retailer with whom we do business.”

RC

“I’ve been robbed!” is a cry heard with growing frequency as authors discover that their books are being sold or given away on any one of countless pirate websites. To make things worse, these pirates work in the open, flagrantly touting their wares and thumbing their nose at legitimate copyright owners and their legal representatives.

Many of the perpetrators operate far beyond the reach of any laws and understand too well that few copyright owners are willing to spend time or money to bring them to justice. Stephen King stated it as well as anyone: “The question is, how much time and energy do I want to spend chasing these guys,” he said in an email reported on Teleread. “And to what end? My sense is that most of them live in basements floored with carpeting remnants, living on Funions and discount beer.” (It’s a wonderful image but not necessarily an accurate one, as we recently reported).

Although piracy is rampant, victims are not completely without recourse. Every major legitimate Internet service provider has a procedure for reporting incidents of piracy perpetrated on their sites and redressing offenses. Reputable ISPs fear liability if they enable infringements. Using threats of terminating service, they will pressure culprits to take down illegal material – at least, when they know about it. All too often, however, they do not know they are hosting an infringement until the infringee brings it to their attention.

You would think that as soon as that happens the ISP would hasten to yank the pirated material off its website. But, as those who have complained to their carriers have discovered, it’s not that easy, because the service provider has no way of knowing whether or not the complaint is valid. You have to prove that you are the true copyright owner and have a valid claim of infringement. The victim, in other words, has to demonstrate that he or she is in truth the victim. Here is where injury is compounded by insult.

Anyone who’s ever been abused and then told that he or she was “asking for it” will appreciate how offensive it is for an author to be asked to provide proof of authorship. But if we put our lawyer hat on we will realize that it’s necessary. Those who review claims have no way of distinguishing the robber from the robbed without some ID and documentation. Thus, when you click on a website’s “takedown” link to request removal of your stolen book, try to keep your cool when you are informed that “Under Section 512(f) of the DMCA, any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material or activity is infringing may be subject to liability.”

We recently had reason to ask Scribd to remove a work by our client that had been posted on its site by a third party. We were furnished with a link to its takedown procedure such as this one. It took us only a few minutes to fill out and within 24 hours our request was heeded and the file removed. I am told that Scribd has been cooperative about such complaints. Once it receives and investigates one and confirms that an infringement has occurred, Scribd creates a file documenting the true copyright owner so that future attempts at illegal uploads will be flagged if not summarily rejected.

That’s one win for the good guys. Unfortunately, the score is Bad Guys 1000- Good Guys 1. What it will take to level the playing field?

Richard Curtis

Greetings from East 74th Street.

Here’s a snowman on our street with six-pack abs. If you know of a cute snow woman looking for an eligible mate, let us know. She should be warm but not hot, if you don’t mind. Melting hearts is one thing, reducing lovers to a puddle is another.

RC

After reporting on a remarkable dialogue between blogger C. Max Magee and a book pirate we received a comment from a person named jap [sic] claiming to be a pirate too.

His posting elicited a host of comments from readers ranging from vituperative (“Pirate is too sexy a term. What you are is a petty thief”) to respectful (“You have me intrigued, Jap. I would suggest you are not a typical pirate…”) to grudging agreement (“In a world without pirating, a majority of people would just not buy the book. So yeah, I definitely think the impact is overrated (or over-agonized about.”)

From his cover of anonymity jap responded to many of these comments and amplified on his original contention that “You have your morality and I have mine.” Though we deplore piracy and are reluctant to offer a forum for its practitioners, we happen to think that it’s sometimes better to listen to our adversaries than ignore them, however diabolical their reasoning may seem. This is especially true when they offer cogent suggestions about where we should be focusing our efforts to deal with piracy.

I invited “jap” to write an article for us but he declined. However, in the hopes that we can benefit from his observations, below are a few that we have gleaned from his communications. We will do our best to accept his airy reassurance: “Don’t worry: the book business is not in danger.”

Richard Curtis
**********************************
*You have your morality and I have mine. It is perfectly okay for me to download books (or movies btw). It was also okay to copy or print books for everybody before 1710 (when the first copyright law was passed), or buying that “unauthorized by author” book…

*Probably you are thinking just now “but it is unlawful!!” Is it necessary to explain that law and moral[ity] are not the same thing?

*Morality aside, it is probably of your interest to know that we the ebook pirates do buy books. I understand you are worried for your business but don’t worry: the book business is not in danger.

*I have never read most of the books I have downloaded. One of the downloads was a file containing several thousands of books. I have also bought several of the books I previously downloaded and read. Other books I did read I would never buy them. There are also books that I did read and I will buy as soon as I find them in a bookstore. I have also bought books that I know are easy to find and download. In fact buying books is a great pleasure for me.

*Why do many people pirate? I think the answer is different for each person. In my case, I think and I feel that that Internet is a great tool to get books, tons of books. It is the greatest library and the greatest bookstore at same time.

*DRM is a Bad Idea. It decreases sales, and believe me, it has never stopped pirates.

*There is a difference between stealing and downloading. If I steal a printed book at Best Buy, Best Buy becomes poorer. If I download a Dan Brown’s book, Dan Brown does not become poorer.

*Part of my money went to Dan Brown’s pockets. If you are interested in business, instead of your morality, the question is why many people go to library, and download books AND buy books. For centuries books have been bought by the very same people that go to libraries.

*I am a typical pirate. Most pirates never upload works, neither sell them, just download. Also most pirates buy content in a way or other. I for instance download movies but go to movie theatres. In fact many pirates are high spending people. And many music pirates are buying CDs, the real problem of CD market is that CD is becoming obsolete. Digital sales (iTunes and alikes) are speedily increasing. Hulu is not yet available in my country but I am willing to try it as soon as possible,

*Do you really think a guy who is scanning a book and uploading it is trying to avoid buying it at Fictionwise? That’s nonsense.

*How is not paying for a book in a library wrong? How is downloading for free a 1922 book (public domain) right but a 1923 book wrong?

*Until 1978 copyright term was a maximum of 56 years since the work was first published. Nowadays is 70 years since author’s death. If I download a 1950 book, is that wrong or right?

*The above terms are for United States. If I live in a country where a 1989 book is in public domain, is it wrong to download it?

*Morality? Copyright is (sometimes) useful, not moral.

*Btw I prefer to buy O’Reilly ebooks, they are not DRM’d.

*It is not possible to protect copyright. You can fight for-profit piracy because you can always follow the money and because any seller (lawful or not) needs to offer his product to public. You cannot successfully fight not-for-profit piracy because it is possible to do it so privately as desired. 10 years of RIAA prosecution did get nothing.

*However may be I can be useful for your business. I am not just a pirate, I am also a customer. Sometimes I pirate books, sometimes I buy them. Obviously, if you get to maximize the times I buy then you are increasing your sales.

*As I said DRM is a Bad Idea. When people buy ebooks, they want to do things like read that book on any present and future device. So many people break the DRM (it is easy) but breaking the DRM is unlawful, so your customers have paid to be outlaws. This is not the kind of thing that discourage piracy.

*Everytime I have bought a DRMed book I broke the DRM for the above reason and I did feel fooled because I paid but I was out of law. Just imagine which is the effect on your law abiding customers. They get a product that is worse than what I get when I pirate. Do you want to reduce piracy? Sell your books sans DRM.

*My best hint for you: don’t obsess with piracy, focus on selling.

*How did I read this article? It is not because it is an article about piracy, but because it is an article of this blog, and I usually read this blog because it is a good blog about the book world.

Elizabeth Ann Scarborough’s Song of Sorcery is another light-hearted contemporary fantasy adventure that will please the author’s many fans. Colin Songsmith sings a song to an old witch who takes an unlikely revenge. The witch’s granddaughter rescues him from the dire threat of being eaten alive by the cat. She hears the song, which happens to concern her recently married sister and a gypsy. Convinced that she has to save her sister, she takes the minstrel, the cat and her magical resources to Rowan Castle. The story is rich with descriptive details of setting and encounters with magical and fantastic creatures such as a talking cat, a lovesick dragon, and a bear prince. The characters speak in contemporary slang which plays nicely against the traditional fantastic settings.

Elizabeth Ann Scarborough was born March 23, 1947, and lives in the Puget Sound area of Washington. She won a Nebula Award in 1989 for her novel The Healer’s War, and has written more than a dozen other novels. She has collaborated with Anne McCaffrey, best-known for creating the Dragonriders of Pern, to produce the Petaybee Series and the Acorna Series.

The Master Fiddler

Naïve Jacquie Grey thought that her life would just work itself out. But now that she’s stuck in Tombstone, Arizona without a dime, she’s beginning to rethink that strategy. Her vulnerability and gullible nature make Jacquie the perfect mark for handsome Choya Barnett, who can’t help but use her innocence to his advantage. Now that Jacquie’s body and soul are laid bare, will Choya regret his cruelty?

******************************************
The Ivory Cane

From the moment they met in the streets of San Francisco, Sabrina had mixed feelings about him. Bay Cameron was strong and noble, but insufferably rude. Moments after he saved her life, he had insulted her pride–an unforgivable crime as far as she was concerned. Sabrina Lane was blind, but she could easily see that this man brought out her most passionate impulses. She might even fall in love with him–if she could stand his company.

************************************************
Sweet Promise

Erica Wakefield’s torrid past is behind her–she has finally escaped her self-destructive ways. She knows that she has found the perfect man: handsome, rich and completely in love with her. Forest is exactly what Erica’s millionaire father wants for his beautiful daughter. So why is this Texas spitfire still thinking about her estranged husband, Rafael de la Torres? Wasn’t the Mexican lover just a ploy to get Daddy’s attention? When Erica has to find Rafael and make him sign the divorce papers, she runs the risk that he will reignite the passion that smolders in her memory?

In late 2006, students at a school in Turin, Italy filmed and then uploaded a video to Google Video that showed them bullying an autistic schoolmate. The video was totally reprehensible and we took it down within hours of being notified by the Italian police. We also worked with the local police to help identify the person responsible for uploading it and she was subsequently sentenced to 10 months community service by a court in Turin, as were several other classmates who were also involved. In these rare but unpleasant cases, that’s where our involvement would normally end.

But in this instance, a public prosecutor in Milan decided to indict four Google employees —David Drummond, Arvind Desikan, Peter Fleischer and George Reyes (who left the company in 2008). The charges brought against them were criminal defamation and a failure to comply with the Italian privacy code. To be clear, none of the four Googlers charged had anything to do with this video. They did not appear in it, film it, upload it or review it. None of them know the people involved or were even aware of the video’s existence until after it was removed.

Nevertheless, a judge in Milan today convicted 3 of the 4 defendants — David Drummond, Peter Fleischer and George Reyes — for failure to comply with the Italian privacy code. All 4 were found not guilty of criminal defamation. In essence this ruling means that employees of hosting platforms like Google Video are criminally responsible for content that users upload. We will appeal this astonishing decision because the Google employees on trial had nothing to do with the video in question. Throughout this long process, they have displayed admirable grace and fortitude. It is outrageous that they have been subjected to a trial at all.

But we are deeply troubled by this conviction for another equally important reason. It attacks the very principles of freedom on which the Internet is built. Common sense dictates that only the person who films and uploads a video to a hosting platform could take the steps necessary to protect the privacy and obtain the consent of the people they are filming. European Union law was drafted specifically to give hosting providers a safe harbor from liability so long as they remove illegal content once they are notified of its existence. The belief, rightly in our opinion, was that a notice and take down regime of this kind would help creativity flourish and support free speech while protecting personal privacy. If that principle is swept aside and sites like Blogger, YouTube and indeed every social network and any community bulletin board, are held responsible for vetting every single piece of content that is uploaded to them — every piece of text, every photo, every file, every video — then the Web as we know it will cease to exist, and many of the economic, social, political and technological benefits it brings could disappear.

These are important points of principle, which is why we and our employees will vigorously appeal this decision.

A few years ago a pair of reporters for a now-defunct publication called Inside ran an interview with three men from the old world of publishing who were in the process of reinventing themselves.

The article was titled “Publishing’s Grumpy Old Visionaries” and the three were depicted as “wundermenschen of the brave new book world”. One of the three was former Random House editorial director Jason Epstein. Another was literary agent John Brockman. To understand my reluctance to reveal the third, you’ll have to click on the article. (And incidentally, one of the two reporters was none other than Sara Nelson, who went on to become editor in chief of Publishers Weekly.)

Though their projections differ in a number of particulars, the Grumpy Old Visionaries accurately foretold the place where we are now and the rock-strewn path that led us here.

The three ageless hotshots are still working their visions and walking both sides of the publishing street – the dusty, decaying old one and the gleaming but bewildering new one. One of these three caballeros, Epstein, has tried to fix his coordinates in both past and future in a reflective article in the New York Review of Books. Like the rest of us he has mixed emotions about the two worlds but he lets his predilection show in this poignant summing-up:

“I must declare my bias. My rooms are piled from floor to ceiling with books so that I have to think twice about where to put another one. If by some unimaginable accident all these books were to melt into air leaving my shelves bare with only a memorial list of digital files left behind I would want to melt as well for books are my life. I mention this so that you will know the prejudice with which I celebrate the inevitability of digitization as an unimaginably powerful, but infinitely fragile, enhancement of the worldwide literacy on which we all—readers and nonreaders—depend.”

Read his elegant and elegiac essay here.

RC