Any online shopping website for books in SEA?
106 views
Skip to first unread message
Mingming Wang
Apr 5, 2012, 5:52:05 AM4/5/12
to hacker...@googlegroups.com
Hi Guys,
Any online shopping website for books in SEA?
Amazon is expensive (the postage from US) and is the last option.
Thanks,
Mingming
Gibson Tang
Apr 5, 2012, 6:14:44 AM4/5/12
to hacker...@googlegroups.com
http://www.bookdepository.com/
Free shipping to Sg
Khoi Phan
Apr 5, 2012, 6:01:59 AM4/5/12
to hacker...@googlegroups.com
You can try open trolley?
Cheers,
Khoi
Mingming Wang
Apr 5, 2012, 10:16:28 AM4/5/12
to hacker...@googlegroups.com
Martin
Apr 6, 2012, 3:07:12 AM4/6/12
to hacker...@googlegroups.com
Mingming Wang
Apr 6, 2012, 5:31:51 AM4/6/12
to hacker...@googlegroups.com
Ya, I got Kindle and amazon account. It has work around for buying (e)books.
--
Chat: http://hackerspace.sg/chat
Paul Gallagher
Apr 7, 2012, 7:39:53 AM4/7/12
to hacker...@googlegroups.com
For technical books, don't overlook buying the ebooks directly from the publishers. O'Reilly in particular have me totally suckered - their daily deals and member discount mean a constant stream adding to my library. Admittedly, O'Reilly is one of the most enlightened publishers - no geographical restriction on sale of ebooks; no DRM; most books available in at least 4 or more ebook formats. It is a lucky happenstance that I've always had a love affair with "the animal books", and in any given technical category they usually have one of the best works.
I've pretty much switched to ebooks for technical reading. But every once in a while you come across a treasure that you just need to have in physical form. For that I will use amazon or the book depository depending on availability (and despite shipping, I usually find amazon prices on par if not better than any outlet). When it comes to fiction, I find I've also slipped into an all-digital habit, although in this case audio (audible and the library keep my wanted list overflowing).
The complete irony of this shift to digital formats is the fact that your access to content suffers from geographic restrictions far more than their physical counterparts (unless you live in the US or Canada of course). I am struck by the sheer idiocy of the situation every time I encounter an audiobook I cannot purchase on audible, yet I can happily purchase the audio CDs on amazon and have them shipped half way round the world, or similarly when the ebook is not available for sale, yet shipping the physical book is no problem. (I have steered clear of the kindle and the grey marketing "work around" sites simply because I am unsure of the legality - contractual, not moral - of these services. I strongly suspect that despite the publishers getting their cut of your purchase, if pressed they would consider you not to have purchased the book legally according to their license for the work. Does anyone know if this has been tested in court?).
I am curious why the issue of geographically constrained digital distribution rights is mostly overlooked whenever it comes to debate over BigMedia's latest attempt to "fight back against the pirates" .. e.g. ACTA, SOPA, PIPA. I suspect this is largely due to the fact that these battles largely play out in North America (where critics and their audiences aren't greatly affected by these issues - if they are aware they exist at all), and any protest that happens in Europe can of course be put down to "continental recalcitrance".
Let me run an argument by you? I'd be interest to hear if anyone agrees or you just think I am craayzee:
<rant mode=";-(" accepts="tl;dr">
When it comes to the debate over the protection of digital intellectual property rights, to focus on piracy is to mistake symptom for root cause. Even the RIAA sometimes slips off-message and shows it is confused about whether piracy or market access is the issue.
IMHO, the true villain in the piece is the multi-level marketing and distribution channels enshrined in the core business practices of the publishing industries as we know them (books, music, film). It is the one area where there is both a demonstrable problem, and also a course of action that could bring resolution.
I don't think its widely appreciated just how much of how the publishing industry works is almost an "accident of empire". It was the rise of the (English-language) book publishing houses in the early 20th century that seems to have set the pattern, with the industry coalescing around a dual axis of New York and London. Not that this was by design; simply a logical and practical response in an age where getting your product in the hands of consumers was inimitably tied to a physical distribution system. If you wanted to sell a book in, say, Singapore, you either needed to ship it to local distributors or find a local printing house and sell them the rights to print and distribute. For obvious reasons, UK publishing houses found this easier in countries with a historical link to the old British Empire, and New York publishers worked within the US sphere of influence. An informal "gentleman's agreement" arose around this practice, although it is has been under challenge in recent decades (mainly by US publishers looking to expand their markets). But to this day, it remains a defacto standard that the sale of rights to publish and distribute are tied to geographic regions. And with the rise of music and film, they too followed the same publishing and distribution model of books (and consumers the world over got lumbered with such wonders as DVD region coding. Yay!).
Which is why, for example, that it is still common for books to be available for sale in Thailand or the Philippines (US sphere of influence) while in Malaysia and Singapore we are still waiting for the UK rights to be sold before we see the book (and also why there is a US and a UK edition of the Harry Potter books).
The real problem of course is the wholesale transfer of these practices to the realm of digital publishing without questioning whether it still makes sense.
Author's themselves have little say in the matter, unless they choose to work outside the system (e.g. Scott Sigler). In a conversation with a successful and well-known author (I'll call him "Dan" as I've not asked if I can quote from private emails), "Dan" told me that although he doesn't like the practice it is out of his hands: the rights to electronic publishing have usually been sold along with the print rights, so it is up to the print publishers (who may only have, say, North American rights) to decide what they do with the electronic rights. But as "Dan" said of his fans lobbying the publishers: "It seems that's not made much of a difference."
I've got similar insights from electronic distributors too. A business like audible would obviously love to have worldwide distribution rights (larger market, and fewer opportunities to piss off their customers) but they too are stymied: "We strive to provide all titles to all of our customers, but the access also depends on the agreements that are made between our company and the publishers. We are working on making great improvements in this area that will truly benefit and please our customers."
As "Dan" put it to me: "It's clearly a case of 19th-century law running straight into 21st century technology"
So what is this "19th-century law" that is such a problem? The forgotten truth is that there is no such thing. Mostly this is just modern day contractual law at work (OK, between parties with "19th-century mindsets"). i.e. if I buy the rights to distribute a book in Australia, but then sell it in Singapore, I am in breach of contract. Copyright only enters the picture insofar as it defines the rights that I am licensing under contract, and implicitly assumes the commercial exploitation of rights in this manner.
All the industry's attempts to "reform" IP rights and enforcement - ACTA, SOPA, PIPA etc - have absolutely nothing in them to try to fix this state of affairs (or even acknowledge it as part of the problem).
Underlying ACTA and it's ilk is an assumption that intellectual property and copyright frameworks are a "solved problem" and thus solid bedrock for simply enhancing enforcement measures. But even a cursory layman's review the foundational treaties - the Berne Convention, WIPO Copyright treaty and TRIPS - and it is clear how far form the truth this is when it comes to digital media.
The fundamentals of Berne are solid: "Authors of literary and artistic works protected by this Convention shall have the exclusive right of authorizing the reproduction of these works, in any manner or form." The fatal flaw, and where things get slippery, is that in expounding the conventions, protections and other measures, there is an implicit assumption that weaves itself through the agreements without ever being explicitly stated: that "publishing"/"broadcast"/"reproduction" is an activity that necessarily takes place independently within the jurisdictions of the treaty signatories. So while main clauses never state one way or another, it pops up all over the place in subordinate clauses.
For example, from TRIPS: "A Member shall be excepted from this obligation in respect of cinematographic works unless such rental has led to widespread copying of such works which is materially impairing the exclusive right of reproduction conferred in that Member on authors and their successors in title." - here it is clear that there is an understanding that exclusive rights of reproduction may be conferred (or not) on a Member-by-Member basis. But I have yet to discover a single reference to where it is specifically agreed that exclusive rights of reproduction may be carved up piecemeal. Likewise, there is no explicit provision for granting "worldwide rights". These are treaties between independent countries of course, so I suspect it just falls into the category of the "bleeding obvious" that this is how it would work. (Anyone who actually knows international law and can educate me better - please do!)
All that changes of course in an era of global markets for digital product.
The WIPO Copyright treaty and TRIPS are widely understood to address the gaps exposed by technological innovation since the original copyright treaties. But that's not exactly true: they were in fact narrowly focused on providing "additional protections for copyright deemed necessary due to advances in information technology since the formation of previous copyright treaties". Plus it's easy to forget that even though WIPO Copyright Treaty was formally adopted as late as 1996 (TRIPS negotiated in 1994), so much has changed since then. Even those on the bleeding edge of the internet revolution in '96 would be hard pressed to have imagined the dramatic advances in broadband access, consumer adoption of internet-capable devices, and development of digital marketplaces we have seen even in just the past 5 years.
Perhaps these treaties wouldn't be so bad if they were just "neutral" to the prospect of global digital markets. But they are not, and include all manner of interesting gems (like "Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent Members from specifying in their legislation licensing practices or conditions that may in particular cases constitute an abuse of intellectual property rights having an adverse effect on competition in the relevant market." - so we all agree that we can all enact anti-competitive measures in our own jurisdictions. What??!!).
My personal view is that it's about time for these foundational treaties to be overhauled with a new understanding of global digital markets. In particular, (IMHO) it should be deemed an illegal, anti-competitive restriction on trade to grant a license for digital reproduction in one jurisdiction but not another.
In other words, as a copyright holder you can certainly choose not to grant a license for digital reproduction, but once you decide to grant a license you cannot geographically restrict it. This raises interesting market pricing challenges though, but to paraphrase Friedman in the crudest terms ... the digital world is flat, my dear: get used to it.
Could this ever happen? "Over my dead body" would be response of most of the industry. It's a great scam they have going, based on the principle that if you can sell the rights 10 times over for 10 countries, chances are you'll do better than if you only got to sell the rights for all countries one or more times. It is fundamental to the multi-level structure of agents, publishers and distributors. No matter how ludicrous or impractical it is from a technological standpoint, or how far from ideal it is from the consumer's standpoint.
So perhaps we are kind of stuck with it all for now. And the band played on...
(I have another tangential rant on how all this bluster about piracy has nothing to do with end users at all - it's all inside-baseball sabre-rattling intended to prop up the perception that rights holders have firm control over the jurisdictional boundaries of their licenses. After all, if I am a potential buyer of your license to distribute in Singapore, I would only risk it if I am sure you have all the DRM/contractual/legislative support in place so you can guarantee that your licensee in Malaysia is not going to "gray market" me out of the water).
</rant>
Ah, calm down now....
I've pretty much switched to ebooks for technical reading. But every once in a while you come across a treasure that you just need to have in physical form. For that I will use amazon or the book depository depending on availability (and despite shipping, I usually find amazon prices on par if not better than any outlet). When it comes to fiction, I find I've also slipped into an all-digital habit, although in this case audio (audible and the library keep my wanted list overflowing).
The complete irony of this shift to digital formats is the fact that your access to content suffers from geographic restrictions far more than their physical counterparts (unless you live in the US or Canada of course). I am struck by the sheer idiocy of the situation every time I encounter an audiobook I cannot purchase on audible, yet I can happily purchase the audio CDs on amazon and have them shipped half way round the world, or similarly when the ebook is not available for sale, yet shipping the physical book is no problem. (I have steered clear of the kindle and the grey marketing "work around" sites simply because I am unsure of the legality - contractual, not moral - of these services. I strongly suspect that despite the publishers getting their cut of your purchase, if pressed they would consider you not to have purchased the book legally according to their license for the work. Does anyone know if this has been tested in court?).
I am curious why the issue of geographically constrained digital distribution rights is mostly overlooked whenever it comes to debate over BigMedia's latest attempt to "fight back against the pirates" .. e.g. ACTA, SOPA, PIPA. I suspect this is largely due to the fact that these battles largely play out in North America (where critics and their audiences aren't greatly affected by these issues - if they are aware they exist at all), and any protest that happens in Europe can of course be put down to "continental recalcitrance".
Let me run an argument by you? I'd be interest to hear if anyone agrees or you just think I am craayzee:
<rant mode=";-(" accepts="tl;dr">
When it comes to the debate over the protection of digital intellectual property rights, to focus on piracy is to mistake symptom for root cause. Even the RIAA sometimes slips off-message and shows it is confused about whether piracy or market access is the issue.
IMHO, the true villain in the piece is the multi-level marketing and distribution channels enshrined in the core business practices of the publishing industries as we know them (books, music, film). It is the one area where there is both a demonstrable problem, and also a course of action that could bring resolution.
I don't think its widely appreciated just how much of how the publishing industry works is almost an "accident of empire". It was the rise of the (English-language) book publishing houses in the early 20th century that seems to have set the pattern, with the industry coalescing around a dual axis of New York and London. Not that this was by design; simply a logical and practical response in an age where getting your product in the hands of consumers was inimitably tied to a physical distribution system. If you wanted to sell a book in, say, Singapore, you either needed to ship it to local distributors or find a local printing house and sell them the rights to print and distribute. For obvious reasons, UK publishing houses found this easier in countries with a historical link to the old British Empire, and New York publishers worked within the US sphere of influence. An informal "gentleman's agreement" arose around this practice, although it is has been under challenge in recent decades (mainly by US publishers looking to expand their markets). But to this day, it remains a defacto standard that the sale of rights to publish and distribute are tied to geographic regions. And with the rise of music and film, they too followed the same publishing and distribution model of books (and consumers the world over got lumbered with such wonders as DVD region coding. Yay!).
Which is why, for example, that it is still common for books to be available for sale in Thailand or the Philippines (US sphere of influence) while in Malaysia and Singapore we are still waiting for the UK rights to be sold before we see the book (and also why there is a US and a UK edition of the Harry Potter books).
The real problem of course is the wholesale transfer of these practices to the realm of digital publishing without questioning whether it still makes sense.
Author's themselves have little say in the matter, unless they choose to work outside the system (e.g. Scott Sigler). In a conversation with a successful and well-known author (I'll call him "Dan" as I've not asked if I can quote from private emails), "Dan" told me that although he doesn't like the practice it is out of his hands: the rights to electronic publishing have usually been sold along with the print rights, so it is up to the print publishers (who may only have, say, North American rights) to decide what they do with the electronic rights. But as "Dan" said of his fans lobbying the publishers: "It seems that's not made much of a difference."
I've got similar insights from electronic distributors too. A business like audible would obviously love to have worldwide distribution rights (larger market, and fewer opportunities to piss off their customers) but they too are stymied: "We strive to provide all titles to all of our customers, but the access also depends on the agreements that are made between our company and the publishers. We are working on making great improvements in this area that will truly benefit and please our customers."
As "Dan" put it to me: "It's clearly a case of 19th-century law running straight into 21st century technology"
So what is this "19th-century law" that is such a problem? The forgotten truth is that there is no such thing. Mostly this is just modern day contractual law at work (OK, between parties with "19th-century mindsets"). i.e. if I buy the rights to distribute a book in Australia, but then sell it in Singapore, I am in breach of contract. Copyright only enters the picture insofar as it defines the rights that I am licensing under contract, and implicitly assumes the commercial exploitation of rights in this manner.
All the industry's attempts to "reform" IP rights and enforcement - ACTA, SOPA, PIPA etc - have absolutely nothing in them to try to fix this state of affairs (or even acknowledge it as part of the problem).
Underlying ACTA and it's ilk is an assumption that intellectual property and copyright frameworks are a "solved problem" and thus solid bedrock for simply enhancing enforcement measures. But even a cursory layman's review the foundational treaties - the Berne Convention, WIPO Copyright treaty and TRIPS - and it is clear how far form the truth this is when it comes to digital media.
The fundamentals of Berne are solid: "Authors of literary and artistic works protected by this Convention shall have the exclusive right of authorizing the reproduction of these works, in any manner or form." The fatal flaw, and where things get slippery, is that in expounding the conventions, protections and other measures, there is an implicit assumption that weaves itself through the agreements without ever being explicitly stated: that "publishing"/"broadcast"/"reproduction" is an activity that necessarily takes place independently within the jurisdictions of the treaty signatories. So while main clauses never state one way or another, it pops up all over the place in subordinate clauses.
For example, from TRIPS: "A Member shall be excepted from this obligation in respect of cinematographic works unless such rental has led to widespread copying of such works which is materially impairing the exclusive right of reproduction conferred in that Member on authors and their successors in title." - here it is clear that there is an understanding that exclusive rights of reproduction may be conferred (or not) on a Member-by-Member basis. But I have yet to discover a single reference to where it is specifically agreed that exclusive rights of reproduction may be carved up piecemeal. Likewise, there is no explicit provision for granting "worldwide rights". These are treaties between independent countries of course, so I suspect it just falls into the category of the "bleeding obvious" that this is how it would work. (Anyone who actually knows international law and can educate me better - please do!)
All that changes of course in an era of global markets for digital product.
The WIPO Copyright treaty and TRIPS are widely understood to address the gaps exposed by technological innovation since the original copyright treaties. But that's not exactly true: they were in fact narrowly focused on providing "additional protections for copyright deemed necessary due to advances in information technology since the formation of previous copyright treaties". Plus it's easy to forget that even though WIPO Copyright Treaty was formally adopted as late as 1996 (TRIPS negotiated in 1994), so much has changed since then. Even those on the bleeding edge of the internet revolution in '96 would be hard pressed to have imagined the dramatic advances in broadband access, consumer adoption of internet-capable devices, and development of digital marketplaces we have seen even in just the past 5 years.
Perhaps these treaties wouldn't be so bad if they were just "neutral" to the prospect of global digital markets. But they are not, and include all manner of interesting gems (like "Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent Members from specifying in their legislation licensing practices or conditions that may in particular cases constitute an abuse of intellectual property rights having an adverse effect on competition in the relevant market." - so we all agree that we can all enact anti-competitive measures in our own jurisdictions. What??!!).
My personal view is that it's about time for these foundational treaties to be overhauled with a new understanding of global digital markets. In particular, (IMHO) it should be deemed an illegal, anti-competitive restriction on trade to grant a license for digital reproduction in one jurisdiction but not another.
In other words, as a copyright holder you can certainly choose not to grant a license for digital reproduction, but once you decide to grant a license you cannot geographically restrict it. This raises interesting market pricing challenges though, but to paraphrase Friedman in the crudest terms ... the digital world is flat, my dear: get used to it.
Could this ever happen? "Over my dead body" would be response of most of the industry. It's a great scam they have going, based on the principle that if you can sell the rights 10 times over for 10 countries, chances are you'll do better than if you only got to sell the rights for all countries one or more times. It is fundamental to the multi-level structure of agents, publishers and distributors. No matter how ludicrous or impractical it is from a technological standpoint, or how far from ideal it is from the consumer's standpoint.
So perhaps we are kind of stuck with it all for now. And the band played on...
(I have another tangential rant on how all this bluster about piracy has nothing to do with end users at all - it's all inside-baseball sabre-rattling intended to prop up the perception that rights holders have firm control over the jurisdictional boundaries of their licenses. After all, if I am a potential buyer of your license to distribute in Singapore, I would only risk it if I am sure you have all the DRM/contractual/legislative support in place so you can guarantee that your licensee in Malaysia is not going to "gray market" me out of the water).
</rant>
Ah, calm down now....
--
Chat: http://hackerspace.sg/chat
Jason Ong
Apr 7, 2012, 11:47:57 PM4/7/12
to hacker...@googlegroups.com
Meng Weng Wong
Apr 8, 2012, 12:26:41 AM4/8/12
to hacker...@googlegroups.com, Meng Weng Wong
On Apr 7, 2012, at 7:39 PM, Paul Gallagher wrote:
In other words, as a copyright holder you can certainly choose not to grant a license for digital reproduction, but once you decide to grant a license you cannot geographically restrict it. This raises interesting market pricing challenges though, but to paraphrase Friedman in the crudest terms ... the digital world is flat, my dear: get used to it.
Could this ever happen? "Over my dead body" would be response of most of the industry. It's a great scam they have going, based on the principle that if you can sell the rights 10 times over for 10 countries, chances are you'll do better than if you only got to sell the rights for all countries one or more times. It is fundamental to the multi-level structure of agents, publishers and distributors. No matter how ludicrous or impractical it is from a technological standpoint, or how far from ideal it is from the consumer's standpoint.
So perhaps we are kind of stuck with it all for now. And the band played on...
Thank you for the incisive analysis.
DVD regions are the most obvious manifestation, but as you said it's creeping into books, too.
I should point out that the US vs UK axis of the early 19th century was also due to the limitations of printing technology – back in the day when metal type physically inked the page and every printer had a Linotype or Monotype machine, it was much easier to print in one location and ship the books than to print in multiple locations. In the 1950s with the rise of offset lithography and phototypesetting it became possible to ship the phototype films around, but by that time the entrenched practices were more efficient than any alternative. It's cheaper to put a load of books on a ship than to build and staff a new printing press in a foreign location.
Anyway, given all of this historical context, the next question is: what enlightened startups and new industries are emerging to disrupt the old?
For an author writing for publication today, in a world where anyone can crack a .mobi and copy an ePub, what best practices do you recommend?
Should forward-thinking authors abandon paper entirely, and find new business models that rely on other means of monetization? That's what we tell musicians when we sneer that the physical LP and CD are historical anomalies; when we blithely infer that information wanting to be free justifies unlimited torrenting of mp3s; and exhort musicians to sing before live paying audiences for their supper.
I ask because I know at least two authors who want to do the right thing but don't quite know what it is. What should authors do?
Jason Ong
Apr 8, 2012, 1:22:02 AM4/8/12
to hacker...@googlegroups.com, Meng Weng Wong
Can't say for the book industry but for music it's easy - make your music free for listening and charge fans for a unique experience, eg. live gigs, bonus tracks, limited editions, etc.
--
--
Chat: http://hackerspace.sg/chat
Paul Gallagher
Apr 8, 2012, 1:28:07 AM4/8/12
to hacker...@googlegroups.com
That's a good point about the role of printing technology in directing the industry, Meng.
what enlightened startups and new industries are emerging to disrupt the old?
... I remember hearing Jerry Pournelle on TWiT giving some great insights into how he is seeing the industry change, and how he might publish future books.
(I looked up the ref: http://twit.tv/show/this-week-in-tech/335 from ~24:15)
In brief, he said he's considering just letting his agent publish directly and bypass the publisher. His run-down of what a publisher traditionally provides and how it applies these days:
And of course with disruptive change => lots of ideas start to pop
what enlightened startups and new industries are emerging to disrupt the old?
(I looked up the ref: http://twit.tv/show/this-week-in-tech/335 from ~24:15)
In brief, he said he's considering just letting his agent publish directly and bypass the publisher. His run-down of what a publisher traditionally provides and how it applies these days:
- Advances (he's successful enough to not need them)
- Distribution (don't need it - go electronic)
- Production (don't need it - use your Mac; freelance or collaborate with artists for covers, illustrations etc)
- Editing (you *really* need this - but you can get a freelancer or thru your agent)
- Publicity (publishers no longer really do this anyway - best publicity in Jerry's view: amazon's recommendations)
And of course with disruptive change => lots of ideas start to pop
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Meng Weng Wong <meng...@gmail.com> wrote:
--
Chat: http://hackerspace.sg/chat
Jason Ong
Apr 8, 2012, 1:32:34 AM4/8/12
to hacker...@googlegroups.com
Pop goes the weasel and the weasel goes pop!
Cheers,
Jason
----
web: http://bit.ly/jasonong
--
Chat: http://hackerspace.sg/chat
Paul Gallagher
Apr 8, 2012, 1:55:29 AM4/8/12
to hacker...@googlegroups.com
Judging by the amount of crap music we used to listen to but thought was "rad" or "hip" at the time ... I think you must be right;-) It never was about paying for the music itself!
Patrick
Apr 8, 2012, 2:39:22 AM4/8/12
to hacker...@googlegroups.com, Meng Weng Wong
On 2012-04-08 12:26, Meng Weng Wong wrote:
> I ask because I know at least two authors who want to do the right
> thing but don't quite know what it is. What should authors do?
> I ask because I know at least two authors who want to do the right
> thing but don't quite know what it is. What should authors do?
Test and iterate; this seems like asking what price should i charge.
Meng Weng Wong
Apr 8, 2012, 3:36:22 AM4/8/12
to hacker...@googlegroups.com, Meng Weng Wong
On Apr 8, 2012, at 1:28 PM, Paul Gallagher wrote:
If you buy Jerry's view (and he's written enough books to know a thing or two!), we're in the midst of a major shift to dis-intermediate the publishers, and critically how it is possible that the role of the agent will be significantly enhanced/changed in the process.
And of course with disruptive change => lots of ideas start to pop
I wonder how many books have been "advanced" on Kickstarter.
If the book hasn't been written, maybe there's a "10,000 true fans" audience who are willing to pay for it to come into being.
But once the book has been written, it stands to reason that an audience should rather pirate than buy it, because the writing of the book is then a sunk cost and the marginal "theft" of data "piracy" doesn't really hurt anyone.
On those grounds, an author should be expected to write their first book for free.
Which makes sense because most authors' first books aren't that great anyway.
So you do what Tolkien did: release the Hobbit, then write the Lord of the Rings.
Jason Ong
Apr 8, 2012, 4:01:28 AM4/8/12
to hacker...@googlegroups.com
The kickstarter model's a game changer. Last I heard was a game that raised USD 3 million. Only complaint is the US bank account restrictions.
Cheers,
Jason
----
web: http://bit.ly/jasonong
--
Chat: http://hackerspace.sg/chat
Meng Weng Wong
Apr 8, 2012, 4:15:12 AM4/8/12
to hacker...@googlegroups.com, Meng Weng Wong
On Apr 8, 2012, at 4:01 PM, Jason Ong wrote:
The kickstarter model's a game changer. Last I heard was a game that raised USD 3 million. Only complaint is the US bank account restrictions.
i wonder if the Rocket Internet guys are going to clone it next.
Sometimes I feel that any Internet service that deliberately limits itself to the US deserves to get cloned.
Meng Weng Wong
Apr 8, 2012, 4:18:10 AM4/8/12
to hacker...@googlegroups.com, Meng Weng Wong
On Apr 8, 2012, at 3:36 PM, Meng Weng Wong wrote:
I wonder how many books have been "advanced" on Kickstarter.
Paul Gallagher
Apr 8, 2012, 4:20:02 AM4/8/12
to hacker...@googlegroups.com
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Meng Weng Wong <meng...@gmail.com> wrote:
But once the book has been written, it stands to reason that an audience should rather pirate than buy it, because the writing of the book is then a sunk cost and the marginal "theft" of data "piracy" doesn't really hurt anyone.On those grounds, an author should be expected to write their first book for free.Which makes sense because most authors' first books aren't that great anyway.
Making money from writing books has always been a notoriously dicey endeavour (let alone for your first book)!
Even the great Isaac Asimov failed to sell his first two stories before finally getting published on his third attempt.
I think new writers have much more to worry about than piracy. Take a note from Scott Sigler who still managed to sell Earthcore 10k times on iTunes even though it had already been released for free, and repeated such a paradoxical feat by hitting #7 on the amazon best seller list with Ancestor - which had also been previously made available for free. Lesson? If people just pirate your work, it doesn't mean the world is full of vipers - it probably just means your book isn't very good.
(Earthcore is an awesome read/listen btw)
Paul Gallagher
Apr 8, 2012, 4:26:16 AM4/8/12
to hacker...@googlegroups.com
The "Lean Agent" model?
- "incubate" new authors
- treat book ideas as experiments
- team them with essential services (editors, artwork, design)
- release that MVP
- metrics, metrics
- iterate a book based on learnings
- or "pivot" to new titles
Jason Ong
Apr 8, 2012, 4:35:38 AM4/8/12
to hacker...@googlegroups.com
Gives new meaning to user stories...
Cheers,
Jason
----
web: http://bit.ly/jasonong
--
Chat: http://hackerspace.sg/chat
Paul Gallagher
Apr 8, 2012, 4:48:24 AM4/8/12
to hacker...@googlegroups.com
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Jason Ong <velv...@gmail.com> wrote:
Gives new meaning to user stories...
Jason Ong
Apr 8, 2012, 5:08:30 AM4/8/12
to hacker...@googlegroups.com
As a hero, I should be able to save the world from an impending doom.
Bad agile jokes aside.
Afaik, successful music artistes make money out of their songs from mechanical royalties rather than album sales -- Radio broadcasts, tv themes, movie playlists, karaoke requests.
Cheers,
Jason
----
web: http://bit.ly/jasonong
--
Chat: http://hackerspace.sg/chat
Patrick Haller
Apr 8, 2012, 5:07:56 AM4/8/12
to hacker...@googlegroups.com
On 2012-04-08 16:26, Paul Gallagher wrote:
> The "Lean Agent" model?
> * "incubate" new authors
> * treat book ideas as experiments
> * team them with essential services (editors, artwork, design)
> * release that MVP
> * metrics, metrics
> * iterate a book based on learnings
> * or "pivot" to new titles
> The "Lean Agent" model?
> * "incubate" new authors
> * treat book ideas as experiments
> * team them with essential services (editors, artwork, design)
> * release that MVP
> * metrics, metrics
> * iterate a book based on learnings
> * or "pivot" to new titles
Yeah; Dickens would probably be a classic example of an author in this
vein. Writing serials allowed him to develop characters/plot based upon
audience interest.
Plenty of similar opportunities in today's world; the biggest block is
writing as much as that guy wrote....
lol. Or finding a "technical co-founder" co-author.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages