Tools of Change for Publishing: Search Results

Author Paulo Coelho Illustrates the Upside of Openness

Mac Slocum
August 7, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (0) | Listen

Budding authors may not be able to duplicate the success of Paulo Coelho, but Coelho's willingness to experiment across mediums is certainly worth studying. From Jeff Jarvis' Guardian column:

Coelho is the thoroughly modern author. But he still believes in print. For him, this isn't a matter of print v digital. It's a question of what comes when you add digital to print. What does it bring him? "It gives me a lot of joy," he said, "because writing is something you do alone." He recalled the night in 2006 when he read that he had become the second best-selling author in the world. He was bursting. "My God, my wife is sleeping. How can I share this news with anybody?" Now he can shout it from the mountaintop of his blog.

Coelho's embrace of digital outlets is liberal, even by Web standards. In addition to his blogging and social media efforts, Coelho set up a site that aggregates P2P links to free (pirated) versions of his books. He briefly discusses his P2P moves in a New Statesman column:

... I knew from previous experience that the free-sharing of my book over the internet would increase its visibility, so I didn't hesitate to post it on peer-to-peer websites and on my blog.

The more I've ventured into the virtual world, the more I have realised that the internet has a logic of its own and its credo is: share everything freely.

(Via Craig McGinty's Twitter stream)

Report: Radiohead Experiment Yields Indirect Success

Mac Slocum
August 4, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (0) | Listen

Much of the analysis around Radiohead's "pay what you like" experiment focused on the average price paid for the band's 2007 release, In Rainbows. But a new research report (PDF) from the MCPS-PRS Alliance takes a different approach:

... did the project succeed in diverting traffic away from venues where the band receives nothing, and towards a venue where it could receive something, be it the currency of cash or (at least) an email address?

Will Page and Eric Garland, the authors of the report, offer a two-part conclusion. First, luring people away from their chosen outlets is a significant challenge:

The venue hypothesis suggests that even when the price approaches zero, all other things being equal, people are more likely to act habitually (say, using The Pirate Bay) than to break their habit (say, visiting www.InRainbows.com). The implication of this 'venue hypothesis' is that if you wish the customer to deviate from his habitual action (and try a new venue), then you must offer him an improved venue, at least in his perception. [Emphasis included in report.]

Second, the massive publicity Radiohead received from the experiment likely diverted some customers from file sharing sites. In this case, "some" traffic diversion is enough to claim success:

Let's break it down real simple and treat torrent sites like a local bar, where curious consumers can enter and leave a venue of their choice anonymously, and found 'In Rainbows' to be the guest ale at the time -- and popular it was too, more popular than going anywhere else, like visiting the brewery where it originated from. Whilst the stand alone brewery did lots of new business thanks to the promotion, all the bars up and down the country did even more business. Hence the twist to our answer -- in that it is possible to redirect traffic back to your site, as well as bring new addition traffic to the torrents.

It's a murky outcome, to be sure, but Eliot Van Buskirk from Wired's Listening Post says publicity from Radiohead's experiment and the exposure In Rainbows received via official and unofficial downloads helped propel the band's traditional album and ticket sales:

All of this torrenting of In Rainbows contributed to the album making such a big impression on a listening public that's bombarded with an ever-increasing amount of information. Without its album being so widely traded, would Radiohead's album have shot to the top of the charts? Would their worldwide tour be such a smashing success? ... Not necessarily, says the report, and we agree.

Sorting through these types of reports is an arduous process because the permutations and relationships within the file sharing universe work against firm conclusions. Nonetheless, there are key takeaways:

Page and Garland's "venue hypothesis" is worth serious consideration in any file sharing experiment. Depending on the desired outcome (i.e. general publicity vs. trackable/marketable data), going where the people already are could be smarter than luring an audience to a new destination.

A "rising tide lifts all boats" gameplan isn't ideal, but it's suitable when you're up against an inherently murky landscape.

Finally, the quality of the content is, and always will be, the driver of interest. Alternative distribution boosted awareness for In Rainbows, but chart success and sold out concerts were the end results of good material. Put another way: attention is most valuable when consumers bond with the content.

Tags: download experiments file sharing free music p2p piracy radiohead

Opportunity Turns the Tables on Piracy

Peter Brantley
July 18, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (0) | Listen

The Economist examines the underlying business opportunities created by piracy:

Piracy can also be a source of innovation, if someone takes a product and then modifies it in a popular way. In music unofficial remixes can boost sales of the original work. And in a recent book, "The Pirate's Dilemma", Matt Mason gives the example of Nigo, a Japanese designer who took Air Force 1 trainers made by Nike, removed the famous "swoosh" logo, applied his own designs and then sold the resulting shoes in limited editions at $300 a pair under his own label, A Bathing Ape. Instead of suing Nigo, Nike realised that he had spotted a gap in the market. It took a stake in his firm and also launched its own premium "remixes" of its trainers. Mr Mason argues that "the best way to profit from pirates is to copy them."

That this silver lining exists should not obscure the cloud. Most of the time, companies will decide to combat piracy of their products by sending in the lawyers with all guns blazing. And most of the time that is the right thing to do. But before they rush into action companies should check to see if there is a way for them to turn piracy to their advantage.

Tags: file sharing obscurity p2p piracy

TorrentSpy Hit with $110+ Million Copyright Judgment

Mac Slocum
May 8, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (0) | Listen

Defunct BitTorrent index TorrentSpy has been ordered to pay more than $110 million in damages for copyright infringement. From News.com:

The judge ordered TorrentSpy to pay $30,000 per copyright infringement -- for 3,699 films and shows. That works out to be worth $110,970,000.

TorrentSpy shut down its site in March. Ira Rothken, TorrentSpy's attorney in the copyright suit, tells News.com the company declared bankruptcy last week, a fact he says will be lost amidst the judgment's large dollar figure:

"What is really going on here is a Hollywood public-relations stunt," Rothken said. "The reason for the size of the judgment was so a bunch of news organizations would write that 'a $100 million judgment was issued against a bunch of pirates' when, in fact, it was declared against a company with no appreciable assets that has already declared bankruptcy."

TorrentSpy plans to appeal the decision.

The judge overseeing the case ruled against TorrentSpy in December after allegations of evidence destruction surfaced. From a Dec. 2007 report:

TorrentSpy operators intentionally modified or deleted directory headings naming copyrighted titles and forum posts that explained how to find specific copyrighted works; concealed IP addresses of users; and withheld the names and addresses of forum moderators, the court found. They had earlier been fined $30,000 for violations of discovery orders and were warned of severe sanctions if they continued to ignore the orders.

These actions may have obscured the underlying legal issues in the TorrentSpy case, specifically TorrentSpy's assertion that it was a search index, not a file host. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) analyzed this angle in 2006:

... that's the important question raised by the TorrentSpy lawsuit: what's the difference between a "good" index and a "bad" index, and is that a distinction that copyright law can effectively make? In 1998, when Congress passed the DMCA's "safe harbor" provisions, it seemed to be saying that indexes should be shielded from copyright claims, so long as they implemented a "notice-and-takedown" procedure. The TorrentSpy suit (as well as the MP3Board.com lawsuit) suggests that the entertainment industry wants to renegotiate that bargain in court. The result could have important implications not just for torrent indexes, but for all online index and search services.

Tags: bittorrent file sharing p2p piracy

Responsibly Assuaging Author Concerns about File Sharing and "Piracy"

Andrew Savikas
April 28, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (7) | Listen

Eric Freeman, co-author of O'Reilly's Head First HTML with CSS & XHTML and Head First Design Patterns, recently asked via email about a rise in activity for Head First books on a popular file-sharing site. His query sparked an interesting thread on the Radar back-channel that I thought worth sharing here.

The original question (sent to Tim O'Reilly, who passed it along to the Radar list):

Tim

Any thoughts on the rise of Head First titles (mostly HFDP and HTML) on Pirate Bay? I'm trying to just take it as a sign there is strong interest in the books still ;)

Hope all is well,

Eric

First to respond was Nat Torkington, who nicely summarizes the "Piracy is Progressive Taxation" argument (emphasis added):

Fantastic! There's absolutely nothing you can do about it, and unless you see sales dipping off then I don't think there's anything you *should* do about it. The HF books work really well as books, so at best the torrents act as advertisements for the superior print product (not often you can say that with a straight face). At worst most of your downloads are going to people who wouldn't have bought the book at cover price and who will, if they enjoy it, rave about it to others.

So long as the royalty checks are strong, take BitTorrent as a sign of success rather than a problem. A wise dog doesn't let his fleas bother him.

Nikolaj Nyholm followed up referencing Make Magazine's experience:

I agree with Nat. Tim, this is your own "my problem isn’t piracy, it's obscurity." PT [Phil Torrone] has made the argument that he tracks Make popularity based on number of seeders on Pirate Bay (correct me if i'm wrong, PT). However, I'm starting to see O'Reilly books in Poland, printed in China, but with a different cover. While it's a market that you probably wouldn't reach with their current buying power, it's something I'd look into nonetheless. I'll pick up a couple of books next time I'm there and bring them next time I'm stateside.

... and then Make's own Phil Torrone weighed in (again, emphasis added):

Yup - seeing your books / magazines on Pirate Bay is always a good thing - You're current, you're interesting, if you're lucky your content transforms in to advertising for other things - for Make, the magazines become a campaign for our kits and events.

Authors are rightfully concerned to see their work pop up on peer-to-peer file sharing sites (though on occasion they're the ones who put them there), but the answer should not be to reflexively seek to stop it (you can't anyway).