Given that none of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (renamed the House of Windsor in 1910) are descended from King James I, therefore they have no legitimate claim. :) The Church of England (headed by the monarch) might be able to claim copyright, though not under current copyright treaties (unless there's been a special exception made somewhere, obviously)

Obviously, the royalties for sales of the Bible go to the Catholic church, because they were the ones who assembled the original Latin text that was later translated to English. Except, no, translators also get royalties, so the C of E also gets some. (Or the Lutherans? Both?) Possibly, royalties should be equally split among the entire membership of all involved organizations.

Pagan groups would be substantially disadvantaged, until they lay claim to copyright on the various pre-Christian artistic works; I can think of several Hellenic Reconstructionist groups that would benefit from royalties from sales of the Iliad.

Obviously, the royalties for sales of the Bible go to the Catholic church, because they were the ones who assembled the original Latin text that was later translated to English. Except, no, translators also get royalties, so the C of E also gets some. (Or the Lutherans? Both?) Possibly, royalties should be equally split among the entire membership of all involved organizations.

Pagan groups would be substantially disadvantaged, until they lay claim to copyright on the various pre-Christian artistic works; I can think of several Hellenic Reconstructionist groups that would benefit from royalties from sales of the Iliad.

Wouldn't Pagan groups benefit from the proceeds of Christan religious artworks? IIRC a lot of the visuals we have in (especially older) religious artworks are based on older Pagan works...

Much of the Bible is plagiarised from older sources, so I guess the copyright holders would have a lot of defending to do.

Given that none of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (renamed the House of Windsor in 1910) are descended from King James I, therefore they have no legitimate claim. :) The Church of England (headed by the monarch) might be able to claim copyright, though not under current copyright treaties (unless there's been a special exception made somewhere, obviously)

Paul is referring to "Crown Copyright". The copyright to the KJV (and to lots of other things too) is held by the "Crown" - the "office" of the Monarch, not the person.

Wouldn't Pagan groups benefit from the proceeds of Christan religious artworks? IIRC a lot of the visuals we have in (especially older) religious artworks are based on older Pagan works...

Trouble is, none of today's Pagan groups and societies are even remotely connected to the Pagans of yore in anything other than belief (and even that's very highly debatable), no matter how loudly they claim otherwise, so there are no descendants of those particular copyright holders.

Trouble is, none of today's Pagan groups and societies are even remotely connected to the Pagans of yore in anything other than belief (and even that's very highly debatable), no matter how loudly they claim otherwise, so there are no descendants of those particular copyright holders.

But we are not looking for descendents...we're looking for the rights holders. And wouldn't today's Druids have a stronger claim than today's Christians?

Put down the torch, and step away from the stake...

Why don't we let everyone share the word freely. Novel, I know. We could call it public domain. Worth a try, don't you think?

Even if the books that are currently in copyright never go out of copyright...older books would still be competition for new books. So how does that help this poor hack authors you are so concerned about?

It helps them, as there would not be more competition from other works going out of copyright.


Also, what do you expect now? No one should have access to free reading materials? What kind of illiterate world do you want this to be? That will be a great way to make sure the poor and disadvantaged never have the opportunity to learn.

In many countries the education of the poor is subsidised. The poor will not go without books. It is my belief that eliminating writing as a profession will reduce the level of literacy.


Stop making excuses for inadequacy. There is no such thing as a "level playing field" that isn't falsely created in order to give the appearance of such. People like what they like. And if they prefer Austen to new hack writer...then they will read Austen even if they have to go on the black market to do so.
I have never been arguing for censorship. You are proposing a capitalist approach in which readers choose the books they want to read. I simply want to ensure that such an approach is not biased by differences in cost that are subsidised by various interests.


Not all compensation is monetary. Some authors are happy to get recognition. Fanfic takes time and effort to write, and nobody's insisting those authors should get paid. Many of those works are so obviously transformative there'd be no question of valid commercial use, especially the ones based on public domain works.

Are you saying that fanfic authors who write alternative endings to Pride and Prejudice or modernized Red Riding Hood stories, should sell them?

Yes I am.


Why should an author have to charge readers if they've got enough money to not need that? If they're unemployed and retired, or supported by their family, why are they morally obligated to make strangers pay them money they don't need, to cut down on the amount and quality of free works available for people who don't have money?

The reason is that failure to charge money for literary works devalues writing as a profession. Take a look at the newspaper industry. With news freely available on the internet, the quality of writing in news stories in print and online has gone down. Making the content freely available has essentially eliminated the job of reporter and has led to worse news reporting.


I really don't get your arguments. How is society better off if quality books are kept from the poor, and authors are forbidden to share their art on their own terms?

I think that society will benefit from great new works being written. I do not think as many such works will be produced if it is not economical to write a book. An author needs to cut her teeth on some early works. Even big successes sometimes take years to come to fruition. The Harry Potter series took many years to achieve its prominence.

Only someone who is very poor cannot afford a 6 dollar paperback. Those who cannot afford such a work, can access books from public libraries.

In many countries the education of the poor is subsidised. The poor will not go without books. It is my belief that eliminating writing as a profession will reduce the level of literacy.

Writing as a profession shows no signs of being in danger. More people are making a living writing today than have ever done so in the past.

I have never been arguing for censorship. You are proposing a capitalist approach in which readers choose the books they want to read. I simply want to ensure that such an approach is not biased by differences in cost that are subsidised by various interests.

You are proposing that readers are forced to subsidize the costs of books they don't want to read--and authors may not want to charge for. How would you propose to make it mandatory to charge for writing? How much would authors be required to charge for what kinds of works?

You're also being exceedingly unclear about where that money would go, if there's no author available. A hundred years from now, who'd have the right to set the minimum price and collect royalties for the last of the Sherlock Holmes stories? Two hundred years from now, who'd own the rights to the Beatles' music?

I think that society will benefit from great new works being written. I do not think as many such works will be produced if it is not economical to write a book.

I see no shortage of written material, of all levels of quality. I see a lot of people in legacy publishing businesses very worried that their business model is no longer working; I don't see authors outside that model complaining that it's harder to get paid today than it was 15 years ago.

Where's this shortage of new materials you're worried about so much that you'd like to create drastic changes to world economics? (Mandatory fees--for anything--is a drastic change. Who decides how much is enough? Who regulates that the fees are being charged?)

Only someone who is very poor cannot afford a 6 dollar paperback. Those who cannot afford such a work, can access books from public libraries.

"Someone who is very poor" includes children. Wouldn't want them having access to free reading materials, of course. It also includes parents with several children; wouldn't want them getting free ebooks or news either.

Obviously, anyone who's got time to read can afford "a" $6 paperback. The issue with affordable books for the poor is whether they can afford reading as a leisure and educational activity on a regular basis... or should they just be getting their new ideas from television?

We finally have a way to broadcast text as cheaply as sound has been sent to people's homes for decades, and you want to remove it? You want to require us to pay for materials that are currently being offered for free, in order to support the careers of authors who can't compete in an open marketplace?

Down to basics: How much do you think should be the minimum price for an ebook? (If you think different lengths or genres or something else should have different minimum prices, what would those be?) And who'll be managing that payment (and taking a cut)--Amazon? Paypal? Dwolla? Something else?

Given that none of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (renamed the House of Windsor in 1910) are descended from King James I, therefore they have no legitimate claim. :)

Elizabeth II is a descendent of King James I and VI. (George I was the great-grandson of James I and VI)

Elizabeth II is a descendent of King James I and VI. (George I was the great-grandson of James I and VI)

And even were she not, as I mentioned before, Crown Copyright revenue goes to "the crown" in the abstract, not to any particular person.

Writing as a profession shows no signs of being in danger. More people are making a living writing today than have ever done so in the past.

I believe that writing as a profession is very much in danger. The example from the newspaper industry certainly suggests this. It would be a shame if the only people who can afford to write are the very wealth. This would set back hundreds of years of advances in society.


You are proposing that readers are forced to subsidize the costs of books they don't want to read--and authors may not want to charge for.

No, I am not proposing that readers are forced to pay for books that they do not want.


You're also being exceedingly unclear about where that money would go, if there's no author available. A hundred years from now, who'd have the right to set the minimum price and collect royalties for the last of the Sherlock Holmes stories? Two hundred years from now, who'd own the rights to the Beatles' music?

I would assume that the author appoints an heir. If this is not the case, most governments have laws pertaining to unclaimed assets.


Where's this shortage of new materials you're worried about so much that you'd like to create drastic changes to world economics? (Mandatory fees--for anything--is a drastic change. Who decides how much is enough? Who regulates that the fees are being charged?)

I am worried that people will not be able to earn a living writing fiction. I suspect that lack of professional writers will reduce the amount and quality of writing. I think that this is reason to produce a drastic change in economics. Such changes have been enacted to control the prices of other goods.


"Someone who is very poor" includes children. Wouldn't want them having access to free reading materials, of course. It also includes parents with several children; wouldn't want them getting free ebooks or news either.

As I stated the poor will not go without books. There are public libraries, and other charities that offer books to the poor.


Obviously, anyone who's got time to read can afford "a" $6 paperback. The issue with affordable books for the poor is whether they can afford reading as a leisure and educational activity on a regular basis... or should they just be getting their new ideas from television?

Certainly there are more books in a public library than any of us have time to read. I do not believe that there is a shortage of books for the poor. Are we supposed to pay the poor so that they have time to read?


We finally have a way to broadcast text as cheaply as sound has been sent to people's homes for decades, and you want to remove it? You want to require us to pay for materials that are currently being offered for free, in order to support the careers of authors who can't compete in an open marketplace?

I am not suggesting removing the distribution channel. I do believe that authors should be paid for their work. It is possible that the cost of the book could be advertiser supported, and thus the consumer could think that it is free.


How would you propose to make it mandatory to charge for writing? How much would authors be required to charge for what kinds of works?
...
Down to basics: How much do you think should be the minimum price for an ebook? (If you think different lengths or genres or something else should have different minimum prices, what would those be?) And who'll be managing that payment (and taking a cut)--Amazon? Paypal? Dwolla? Something else?
A government could create laws that make it mandatory to charge for works of fiction, and other forms of writing that are intended as entertainment. This may seem unreasonable and overreaching. However, governments have all sorts of restrictions on entertainment. They also have many restrictions on commerce to maintain a functional economic system. Although I do not prefer such political methods, I see the coming need for government intervention else the profession of writing will be in jeopardy. Given the gravity of the restrictions it is certainly worth waiting until there is concrete evidence of the decline in the profession.

It would be the goal that the price of books be such that authors are able to make a living from writing. Thus, different types of works would likely have different prices. The exact minimum price could be set through a consideration of the profits from similar books in the past. I must admit that all of this is rather much more complicated and authoritarian than I prefer. However, I do not see another method that preserves writing as a profession.

The idea that public domain works create barriers for struggling authors is simply not credible. For it to be true, a couple things have to be true. One would be that people would not read public domain works if they were not free. The other is that if the public domain works were not available, that they would be reading the works of struggling authors.

Let's tackle the first one. Before e-books came along, people paid money for public domain books. That shows that people would read them whether or not they had to pay for the books. Therefore, public domain works are not competitors to the readers time. This time would be spent reading classics anyway. Forcing people to pay for public domain works would result in nothing more than less money in the readers pocket to buy other books.

Now for the second, that if public domain books were not available, that people would read the books of struggling authors. People don't read classic books just because they are free. Only a small percentage of public domain books still are read by a significant number of people. They are reading these books because they are classics. Someone who would otherwise read a classic book would most likely read a book of high quality if they were to read a new book. The struggling author who can't get anyone to buy their books probably isn't producing books that match up to the quality of the classics. If public domain books were not available, then readers might choose new books (or they might simply read less), but these books they selected would not be from struggling authors.

As only a small percentage of books in the public domain still are read by significant numbers of people, eternal copyright would put put tens of thousands of books into eternal limbo, where they would disappear just as surely as if they had been burned. An obscure book from the civil war that might be of great use to a historian would be gone, because no one had rights to it.

Then there is the subject of books which are under copyright but the author chooses to give away for free, or to sell at a very low price. The important thing to understand is that books are not corn. One bushel of corn is pretty much like any other. If one person is selling corn at a lower price than another, then people will buy from the seller with the lower price. The same is true of other commodities, such as gasoline or gravel. It doesn't matter much which you buy, these products are said to be fungible, no one cares which bushel of corn you get.

Books aren't commodities, it matters to people which book they get. You can buy hamburgers for one dollar, but people still pay considerably more for a hamburger. They will pay more for higher quality. Similarly, you can get new books that are free or cost 99 cents, but people still pay more for books. Why? Because the reader determines that the more expensive book offers a value not offered by a free book. To read a book that you do not enjoy is not a bargain, no matter how cheap it is.

The books that are offered for free or 99 cents are generally not best sellers. Because books aren't commodities, they can't drive better books off the market. We've seen that people will pay for quality. By quality, I mean as the reader defines it. Twilight may not be great literature, but people are buying it when they could be getting other books for free. I'm no fan of Twilight, but people will pay $8.99 for Twilight when they could have paid nothing or paid 99 cents for some other book. If people cared only about price, this wouldn't happen. Books are not commodities. Fungible commodities are interchangable, one bushel of wheat is pretty much the same as any other. That's not the case with books.

The public domain is not a subsidy. Copyright is a subsidy. It is an artificial government-granted monopoly on copying a book. The public domain is the default state. Copyright serves a good purpose, it encourages creation by giving the author a monopoly for a limited time in exchange for the works eventually entering the public domain. A price floor is unacceptable. If it is your book, you're free to charge whatever price you want for it, or to give it away. Gas stations have engaged in price wars, with one station cutting prices so much that the other station is driven out of business. The surviving gas station then raises their prices higher than they originally were. However, this only happens with commidities. Gasoline is pretty much gasoline, people don't care about it other than the price. Books are different, people won't read a book just because it is free.

If someone's book is only worth 99 cents - or not even that - who is to tell the author that they must charge more? Demand will determine the price. Many authors have found that having their books free or cheap has earned them readers. Price floors would be a violation of free speech. If someone wants to give away bibles, for example, should a price floor prevent this? Price floors also would harm rather than help new authors. New authors often offer their books for free or cheap in order to attract readers. It would be harder for them to attract readers if there were price floors. Price floors also drive the consumers out of the market, artificially raise the price, and people will often buy less.

There simply is no evidence that cheap or free books are harming book sales. People are not abandoning new books for public domain books, they are not abandoning more expensive books for 99 cent books. If a 99 cent book becomes popular, the price will go up.

Let's tackle the first one. Before e-books came along, people paid money for public domain books.

And, indeed, they still do.

I believe that writing as a profession is very much in danger. The example from the newspaper industry certainly suggests this.

The newspaper industry shows that what newspapers thought was their main commodity--investigative reporting, presumably well-researched and well-written--was not what people wanted to read.

Are you proposing that bloggers should be unable to offer their writings for free? Because that's what's killing newspapers. How much do you think bloggers should be required to charge?

It would be a shame if the only people who can afford to write are the very wealth. This would set back hundreds of years of advances in society.

*looks at Livejournal*
*looks at Dreamwidth*
*looks at Facebook*
*looks at Twitter*
*looks at fanfiction.net*
*looks at archiveofourown.org*

Somehow, I don't think there's any shortage of people on tight budgets who will find time & energy to write, nor any shortage of people who want to read what they write.

No, I am not proposing that readers are forced to pay for books that they do not want.

My mistake. You're proposing that authors be forced to charge for books that they want to give away. (How extensive is that? Do they have to charge their family members? Their coworkers? Are they allowed to use coupons?)

I would assume that the author appoints an heir. If this is not the case, most governments have laws pertaining to unclaimed assets.

Government laws dealing with unclaimed assets are a *mess* when applied to copyright. There is no "copyright auction" to get rid of the huge number of orphaned works currently in existence, and no easy way to track down potentially dozens of copyright owners a few generations after the author's death. (Multiply by number of creators; movies can have hundreds of claimants: scriptwriter's heirs, original-book-author's heirs, composer's heirs, recording studio's heirs...)

I am worried that people will not be able to earn a living writing fiction. I suspect that lack of professional writers will reduce the amount and quality of writing.

You haven't offered any evidence to support these conclusions, just a vague sense of dread. Yes, newspapers and magazines are having big problems--but authors, as a class, are not. Some types of publications are not doing well in the face of technological advances, but there is no indication at all that authors are less likely to find payment for their craft.

I think that this is reason to produce a drastic change in economics. Such changes have been enacted to control the prices of other goods.

I cannot think of any industry that *requires* payments for goods or services if the owner wants to give them out for free. If you have examples, please elaborate.

I know of several industries that have minimum-prices for the marketplace--but none that disallow gifts. Several that require licensing and quality standards, thus strongly discouraging gifts, but again, nothing that requires a payment. I could be missing something, though; feel free to give details of industries that don't allow their contents to be given away.

Not, "that require a license etc. to acquire." You can't give certain medicines without a prescription--but that doesn't mean the pharmaceutical company is required to charge for them.

As I stated the poor will not go without books. There are public libraries, and other charities that offer books to the poor.

I think you know nothing at all about the reading habits of the poor, nor how inadequate libraries are in rural areas. And it's ridiculous to say "charities can help them"--right now, AUTHORS are helping them. Why should the author have to go through a third party to donate books to the poor? (Or anyone else.) Can't the authors just say "my books are freely available to the poor"--and if so, why can't they say "my books are freely available to anyone who wants them?"

Will there be a limited, defined pool of people who are allowed to receive free books?

Certainly there are more books in a public library than any of us have time to read. I do not believe that there is a shortage of books for the poor. Are we supposed to pay the poor so that they have time to read?

If books were fungible, this argument would make sense. However, a library with 10,000 books does not mean every reader can find what they need or want; if that were true, we could shut down all the ebook sites on the web except for Project Gutenberg.

I am not suggesting removing the distribution channel. I do believe that authors should be paid for their work.

Even if they don't want to be, apparently. How much do you think they should charge for a 5000-word short story? For a 2000-word blog post? For a 50,000-word novel that they admit is rough and they're releasing it free at Smashwords in order to share with a few friends and get feedback from maybe a few extra people?

It is possible that the cost of the book could be advertiser supported, and thus the consumer could think that it is free.

You want *more* people involved in this money exchange?!? You are *oblivious* to overhead & accounting costs, aren't you?

However, governments have all sorts of restrictions on entertainment. They also have many restrictions on commerce to maintain a functional economic system.

Which governments mandate a minimum price for all copyrighted entertainment? Or for that matter, for all books?

It would be the goal that the price of books be such that authors are able to make a living from writing.

Why? Nowhere in all of human history, have all would-be authors been able to make a living from writing. (Nevermind that you're not talking about letting them "make a living;" you're talking about requiring that they charge fees... that the public may not decide to pay. If you wanted to guarantee them a living, just set up a tax and pay them all a stipend.)

Thus, different types of works would likely have different prices. The exact minimum price could be set through a consideration of the profits from similar books in the past.

In the past, fanfic short stories have been priced at $0. How much do you think a 400-word Star Trek ficlet should cost to read? How much should a 150,000-word epic novel cost--given that it's made without the permission of Roddenberry's estate or Paramount Pictures? (Do you advocate the removal of fair use?)

This is an important point. You're claiming a need for a drastic change in economic structures, for which you've provided no evidence (newspapers are suffering; professional authors, as a group, are not), and you want this fix attached to prices. But you don't know *what* prices, not how much, nor who should collect them, nor who should make sure they get collected.

You're claiming to have a solution you can't describe to a problem other people don't perceive. It's no wonder you're not convincing anyone.

The newspaper industry shows that what newspapers thought was their main commodity--investigative reporting, presumably well-researched and well-written--was not what people wanted to read.

Are you proposing that bloggers should be unable to offer their writings for free? Because that's what's killing newspapers. How much do you think bloggers should be required to charge?



*looks at Livejournal*
*looks at Dreamwidth*
*looks at Facebook*
*looks at Twitter*
*looks at fanfiction.net*
*looks at archiveofourown.org*

Somehow, I don't think there's any shortage of people on tight budgets who will find time & energy to write, nor any shortage of people who want to read what they write.



My mistake. You're proposing that authors be forced to charge for books that they want to give away. (How extensive is that? Do they have to charge their family members? Their coworkers? Are they allowed to use coupons?)



Government laws dealing with unclaimed assets are a *mess* when applied to copyright. There is no "copyright auction" to get rid of the huge number of orphaned works currently in existence, and no easy way to track down potentially dozens of copyright owners a few generations after the author's death. (Multiply by number of creators; movies can have hundreds of claimants: scriptwriter's heirs, original-book-author's heirs, composer's heirs, recording studio's heirs...)



You haven't offered any evidence to support these conclusions, just a vague sense of dread. Yes, newspapers and magazines are having big problems--but authors, as a class, are not. Some types of publications are not doing well in the face of technological advances, but there is no indication at all that authors are less likely to find payment for their craft.



I cannot think of any industry that *requires* payments for goods or services if the owner wants to give them out for free. If you have examples, please elaborate.

I know of several industries that have minimum-prices for the marketplace--but none that disallow gifts. Several that require licensing and quality standards, thus strongly discouraging gifts, but again, nothing that requires a payment. I could be missing something, though; feel free to give details of industries that don't allow their contents to be given away.

Not, "that require a license etc. to acquire." You can't give certain medicines without a prescription--but that doesn't mean the pharmaceutical company is required to charge for them.



I think you know nothing at all about the reading habits of the poor, nor how inadequate libraries are in rural areas. And it's ridiculous to say "charities can help them"--right now, AUTHORS are helping them. Why should the author have to go through a third party to donate books to the poor? (Or anyone else.) Can't the authors just say "my books are freely available to the poor"--and if so, why can't they say "my books are freely available to anyone who wants them?"

Will there be a limited, defined pool of people who are allowed to receive free books?



If books were fungible, this argument would make sense. However, a library with 10,000 books does not mean every reader can find what they need or want; if that were true, we could shut down all the ebook sites on the web except for Project Gutenberg.



Even if they don't want to be, apparently. How much do you think they should charge for a 5000-word short story? For a 2000-word blog post? For a 50,000-word novel that they admit is rough and they're releasing it free at Smashwords in order to share with a few friends and get feedback from maybe a few extra people?



You want *more* people involved in this money exchange?!? You are *oblivious* to overhead & accounting costs, aren't you?



Which governments mandate a minimum price for all copyrighted entertainment? Or for that matter, for all books?



Why? Nowhere in all of human history, have all would-be authors been able to make a living from writing. (Nevermind that you're not talking about letting them "make a living;" you're talking about requiring that they charge fees... that the public may not decide to pay. If you wanted to guarantee them a living, just set up a tax and pay them all a stipend.)



In the past, fanfic short stories have been priced at $0. How much do you think a 400-word Star Trek ficlet should cost to read? How much should a 150,000-word epic novel cost--given that it's made without the permission of Roddenberry's estate or Paramount Pictures? (Do you advocate the removal of fair use?)

This is an important point. You're claiming a need for a drastic change in economic structures, for which you've provided no evidence (newspapers are suffering; professional authors, as a group, are not), and you want this fix attached to prices. But you don't know *what* prices, not how much, nor who should collect them, nor who should make sure they get collected.

You're claiming to have a solution you can't describe to a problem other people don't perceive. It's no wonder you're not convincing anyone.

+100000

Out of karma again today. :(


Let's not forget the tons of free work available in the "writing" section of Goodreads.

What it looks like is that someone wants to make it a requirement that all writers become fully supported full time writers. Which is too cute. :rofl: I mean, it makes perfect sense to suddenly change the economics of multiple countries just so someone has decided that the regular way the writing game works isn't for them. I guess I should go take down my blog. All those free words I'm giving away. /sarcasm

+100000

Out of karma again today. :(
:iloveyou:

What it looks like is that someone wants to make it a requirement that all writers become fully supported full time writers. Which is too cute. :rofl: I mean, it makes perfect sense to suddenly change the economics of multiple countries just so someone has decided that the regular way the writing game works isn't for them. I guess I should go take down my blog. All those free words I'm giving away. /sarcasm

I could understand a claim of "a diverse literary field is important to our culture, ergo, authors should be supported, and moreso than in the past because the internet has thrown the distribution systems out of whack. That means we should find ways to get payments to good authors who'd otherwise not be able to write as much, and all of society loses out when that happens." Sure. Support authors = good idea. Maybe we could extend NEA grants to authors, by some broad criteria, and allow a huge swarm of part-time novelists to become slightly-more-time novelists by way of a tax-supported stipend.

The argument would go over like a plutonium balloon in some arenas, but it's at least a plausible argument. We should have authors; if there's a threat to writing-as-career, something should be done about that. "Let's pay authors to write" is a reasonable starting point; "let's pay them with tax money" is a potentially workable plan.

"Let's have everyone charge money for writing, regardless of quality!" is not.
"Let's have everyone charge money for writing based on quality criteria that exist inside my head" is also not.
Nor is "Let's have all authors but not all writers charge for their works;" there's no longer a coherent difference between those categories.

And while "Let's have all ebook stores set a minimum price" is actually enforceable, unlike the others, it shows a vast lack of understanding of retail economics--that's not "support the authors;" it's "support the stores ... oh, and the authors, maybe, if they're ready to pay self-employment tax and file long-form income tax claims in the future; otherwise, it's a nice way to drive them into bankruptcy through tax complications."

Elizabeth II is a descendent of King James I and VI. (George I was the great-grandson of James I and VI)

Huh. She is? Could've sworn there were a couple of breaks in the lineage in there... (I'm no Monarchist, so had to rely on high school history from more than 20 years ago and maybe 15 minutes of Wikipedia "research" :P)

Huh. She is? Could've sworn there were a couple of breaks in the lineage in there... (I'm no Monarchist, so had to rely on high school history from more than 20 years ago and maybe 15 minutes of Wikipedia "research" :P)

James I and VI
Elizabeth Stuart
Sophie of Hanover
George I
George II
Frederick of Hanover
George III
Edward Duke of Kent
Victoria
Edward VII
George V
George VI
Elizabeth II

She's his 10G Granddaughter.

Here's a tree from Alfred the Great
http://www.britroyals.com/royaltree.htm

Huh. She is? Could've sworn there were a couple of breaks in the lineage in there... (I'm no Monarchist, so had to rely on high school history from more than 20 years ago and maybe 15 minutes of Wikipedia "research" :P)

I think you might be mistaking James I and James II. James II's line died out (well the heirs who were allowed to ascend the throne, the actual senior line was barred from inheriting and still exists) with Anne Stuart, when made room for the current line which was descended from James I.

--
Bill

... Before e-books came along, people paid money for public domain books. That shows that people would read them whether or not they had to pay for the books.

That is incorrect. It shows that SOME people would read them whether or not they had to pay for them. There are other people who were not willing to pay money for some such books, but are now reading them because they are available for free in ebook format. I am such a person. I read a copy of "The Theory and Practice of Tone-Relations" by Percy Goetschius because it was free. I would not have paid money for it. Certainly you would not suggest that the number of public domain books that were sold in the 90s is even close to the number of downloads from Project Gutenberg in the 00s.


Now for the second, that if public domain books were not available, that people would read the books of struggling authors. People don't read classic books just because they are free. Only a small percentage of public domain books still are read by a significant number of people. They are reading these books because they are classics.

That is one reason that people are reading some public domain works. However, there are many other reasons that someone may read a public domain work.


Then there is the subject of books which are under copyright but the author chooses to give away for free, or to sell at a very low price. The important thing to understand is that books are not corn. One bushel of corn is pretty much like any other. If one person is selling corn at a lower price than another, then people will buy from the seller with the lower price. The same is true of other commodities, such as gasoline or gravel. It doesn't matter much which you buy, these products are said to be fungible, no one cares which bushel of corn you get.

Books aren't commodities, it matters to people which book they get. You can buy hamburgers for one dollar, but people still pay considerably more for a hamburger. They will pay more for higher quality. Similarly, you can get new books that are free or cost 99 cents, but people still pay more for books. Why? Because the reader determines that the more expensive book offers a value not offered by a free book. To read a book that you do not enjoy is not a bargain, no matter how cheap it is.

There is certainly a commodity like element in books and other forms of entertainment. Some consumers may roughly equate romance novel A with romance novel B. On another tack, how many times have you watched a TV show just because it was on, or listened to a song on the radio because it was what was being played? Such actions suggest a certain amount of indifference about the content of the work. I have certainly read books because of their availability. Price is one aspect of availability.


The books that are offered for free or 99 cents are generally not best sellers. Because books aren't commodities, they can't drive better books off the market. We've seen that people will pay for quality. By quality, I mean as the reader defines it. Twilight may not be great literature, but people are buying it when they could be getting other books for free. I'm no fan of Twilight, but people will pay $8.99 for Twilight when they could have paid nothing or paid 99 cents for some other book. If people cared only about price, this wouldn't happen. Books are not commodities. Fungible commodities are interchangable, one bushel of wheat is pretty much the same as any other. That's not the case with books.

Some books that are 99 cents or less are best sellers. Even if they are not, they may still be good books, and may in fact sell better in the future once they are discovered. Thus, they could potentially drive off more expensive books. I am certainly not claiming that price is the only factor in selecting a book. However, I think that it does play a role.


The public domain is not a subsidy. Copyright is a subsidy. It is an artificial government-granted monopoly on copying a book. The public domain is the default state. Copyright serves a good purpose, it encourages creation by giving the author a monopoly for a limited time in exchange for the works eventually entering the public domain. A price floor is unacceptable. If it is your book, you're free to charge whatever price you want for it, or to give it away. Gas stations have engaged in price wars, with one station cutting prices so much that the other station is driven out of business. The surviving gas station then raises their prices higher than they originally were. However, this only happens with commidities. Gasoline is pretty much gasoline, people don't care about it other than the price. Books are different, people won't read a book just because it is free.

Some people may read a book just because it is free. Price is usually not the only factor in such a decision, but it may still be a factor none the less. Books are even sorted by price online.


If someone's book is only worth 99 cents - or not even that - who is to tell the author that they must charge more? Demand will determine the price. Many authors have found that having their books free or cheap has earned them readers. Price floors would be a violation of free speech. If someone wants to give away bibles, for example, should a price floor prevent this? Price floors also would harm rather than help new authors. New authors often offer their books for free or cheap in order to attract readers. It would be harder for them to attract readers if there were price floors. Price floors also drive the consumers out of the market, artificially raise the price, and people will often buy less.

What will the demand be if there are lots of great books that the reader wants for free? I certainly think that it is no stretch to think that writings will be devalued by a superabundance of works for free.


There simply is no evidence that cheap or free books are harming book sales. People are not abandoning new books for public domain books, they are not abandoning more expensive books for 99 cent books. If a 99 cent book becomes popular, the price will go up.

You would have to ask the publishing industry for their numbers. I suspect that such works are hurting sales. There is evidence from other forms of entertainment.


The newspaper industry shows that what newspapers thought was their main commodity--investigative reporting, presumably well-researched and well-written--was not what people wanted to read.

I would argue that it shows that a superabundance of free news has lured a large number of newspaper customers to other news sources. The other news sites do not have well researched and reported content because they cannot afford to produce it and distribute it for free, not because people do not want it.


Are you proposing that bloggers should be unable to offer their writings for free? Because that's what's killing newspapers. How much do you think bloggers should be required to charge?

Most bloggers that I am aware of are actually paid for their work. They receive substantial compensation from advertising revenues.


*looks at Livejournal*
*looks at Dreamwidth*
*looks at Facebook*
*looks at Twitter*
*looks at fanfiction.net*
*looks at archiveofourown.org*

Somehow, I don't think there's any shortage of people on tight budgets who will find time & energy to write, nor any shortage of people who want to read what they write.

In this regard you are correct. In fact, census data shows that the number of authors has increased drastically since 1980.

Quote:
I am worried that people will not be able to earn a living writing fiction. I suspect that lack of professional writers will reduce the amount and quality of writing.


You haven't offered any evidence to support these conclusions, just a vague sense of dread. Yes, newspapers and magazines are having big problems--but authors, as a class, are not. Some types of publications are not doing well in the face of technological advances, but there is no indication at all that authors are less likely to find payment for their craft.

Unfortunately, I lack data to support my claims with regard to authors in general. I have given examples from numerous industries, including journalism. My fear is based upon basic principles in economics. I firmly believe that lots of free books of high quality will devalue writing.

Quote:
I think that this is reason to produce a drastic change in economics. Such changes have been enacted to control the prices of other goods.


I cannot think of any industry that *requires* payments for goods or services if the owner wants to give them out for free. If you have examples, please elaborate.

I know of several industries that have minimum-prices for the marketplace--but none that disallow gifts. Several that require licensing and quality standards, thus strongly discouraging gifts, but again, nothing that requires a payment. I could be missing something, though; feel free to give details of industries that don't allow their contents to be given away.

Not, "that require a license etc. to acquire." You can't give certain medicines without a prescription--but that doesn't mean the pharmaceutical company is required to charge for them.

There are restrictions to donations. A good example would be the restrictions on political campaign donations in the USA.


Quote:
It would be the goal that the price of books be such that authors are able to make a living from writing.

Why? Nowhere in all of human history, have all would-be authors been able to make a living from writing. (Nevermind that you're not talking about letting them "make a living;" you're talking about requiring that they charge fees... that the public may not decide to pay. If you wanted to guarantee them a living, just set up a tax and pay them all a stipend.)

Here I made an error. I never meant that ALL would-be authors could earn a living from writing. There are certainly lots of people who are not cut out to be writers. I am concerned that very few authors would be able to earn a living from writing.


This is an important point. You're claiming a need for a drastic change in economic structures, for which you've provided no evidence (newspapers are suffering; professional authors, as a group, are not), and you want this fix attached to prices. But you don't know *what* prices, not how much, nor who should collect them, nor who should make sure they get collected.

As I stated in a previous post, the prices could be chosen based on previous revenue from similar works. Projected sales are made every day in the business world. I do not have such data, and thus cannot provide it. Commerce could proceed much as it currently does, so long as the minimum prices are met. It would require government oversight to ensure that the minimum prices are charged.

Most bloggers that I am aware of are actually paid for their work. They receive substantial compensation from advertising revenues. [quote]

I know of (not know personally, but know of) several million bloggers at Livejournal and Dreamwidth who don't get advertising revenue from their blogging at those sites. (Nor should they, for the most part; LJ and DW are designed as journals--much more social than most blogging platforms.)

[quote]Quote:
I am worried that people will not be able to earn a living writing fiction. I suspect that lack of professional writers will reduce the amount and quality of writing.

Unfortunately, I lack data to support my claims with regard to authors in general. I have given examples from numerous industries, including journalism. My fear is based upon basic principles in economics. I firmly believe that lots of free books of high quality will devalue writing.

And yet the explosion of free ebooks and other content over the last 10 years has made *more* professional authors, not less of them.

The problem you want to fix doesn't exist. Yes, the publishing industries are in utter chaos--but there are *no* signs that this means writing-as-career is in any danger whatsoever. Authors' ability to get paid for their work has only increased as the web has grown, including in a variety of fields that never allowed for payment before.

There are restrictions to donations. A good example would be the restrictions on political campaign donations in the USA.

I don't see how that's an example of "being required to charge for something." Who is being required to take money for something they wanted to offer for free?

Quote:
It would be the goal that the price of books be such that authors are able to make a living from writing.

Here I made an error. I never meant that ALL would-be authors could earn a living from writing. There are certainly lots of people who are not cut out to be writers. I am concerned that very few authors would be able to earn a living from writing.

Ah. But you've proposed no method by which anyone could distinguish a "professional" author, who "should" earn a living at writing, from an amateur who's welcome to post content for free. (Or would amateurs be censored to force people to pay for professional works--perhaps DailyKos should be shut down to get people to buy newspapers?)

Long before establishing prices and laws to enforce your ideas, you'd have to define the "authors" who'd benefit from them. You keep saying that authors shouldn't give their content away for free, but you haven't said how you mark the difference between someone who should get paid, and someone whose writing quality isn't worth paying for.

The mind boggles at the idea of an author crossing some invisible quality line and being informed they can no longer give away their works but now must charge.

As I stated in a previous post, the prices could be chosen based on previous revenue from similar works.

There are NO previous revenue numbers for many of the kinds of works that are currently being given away for free. Even the works that have something resembling a print precedent--many blogs are comparable to newspaper editorials--have no standards for payment; the standard is "whatever the market will bear." In some cases, editorial authors get paid a notable amount per column. In others, they get paid nothing... getting their name in the paper is payment enough. In a setting where publication itself is a rarity, being included in the paper is payment; there's no way to equate that to the value of a blog post.

Equally important: Who would they be required to get payments from? All readers, including family members? Would authors be able to give away promotional copies? (Is Cory Doctorow "devaluing writing" by giving away free ebooks to sell print books?)

Projected sales are made every day in the business world.

They are made from the premise that (1) someone wants to sell something and (2) someone else wants to buy it. Your mandatory payment idea seems to require a payment even when both of those elements are missing.

I do not have such data, and thus cannot provide it. Commerce could proceed much as it currently does, so long as the minimum prices are met. It would require government oversight to ensure that the minimum prices are charged.

What do you imagine those minimum prices would be?
This is a *crucial* question. What's the minimum price for an ebook novel of, say, 50,000 words... a dollar? Three dollars? Ten dollars?

What's the minimum fee for a 5,000 word short story? Is it allowed to be free if it's posted at a blog rather than arranged as an epub? Do you think the fanfiction sites should be shut down, or switched to mandatory-payment systems?

(How much money do you think my 13-year-old's fanfic is worth, anyway?)

And how much of those minimum payments would be taxed from them to pay for the gov't oversight?

Would retired authors who don't want to be bothered with extra tax problems and would prefer to write for free, be forced to deliver their content through underground file sharing programs?

What's the penalty for delivering free ebooks to readers?

"Commerce" isn't going to come up with any answers for these, because "commerce" isn't seeing a problem. There are authors. Some of them get paid; most of them don't; most of the ones that do, don't make enough from writing to live on. Since this has been the situation for at least the last 500 years, nobody's seeing a problem with that situation.

There is indeed more free, widely available content than there used to be, and if that interfered with author payments, we would have a problem. However, all evidence says that more free content means more readers, which means more people interested in buying *specific* content. More authors are making a living at their craft now than there were ten years ago. Why should we expect this to change?

On the order of 200,000 new books are published in the United States every year (and I am not even sure if that includes indie titles). Even if copyright was shortened to the original term of 14 years, that means 2.8 million books would be in copyright at any given time. The consumer is already overwhelmed by more books in any given year than they could possibly read in a life time. All this means is a large public domain is unlikely to significantly impact the basic fact that too many books are published to sustain more than a tiny percentage of authors as their sole source of income.

--
Bill

That is incorrect.
[...]


tl;dr

@pdurrant: read the next paragraph for the summary.

It is my contention that, in most cases, an abundance of free fiction will cause similar books that are not free to lose value. It has been argued that this cannot be the case as books are not fungible. Although we can certainly distinguish one book from another, this does not mean that books are incomparable from the perspective of a consumer. I believe that although the titles of fiction may be unique, they are valued by a consumer on the basis of their potential to entertain him. Several books can be equal in this regard, and thus the unique nature of the titles does not prevent the degredation of price.

In a previous post, QuantumIguana argued that readers of classics would be more likely to read new books of higher quality. This suggests that he believes that there is a similarity between the classics and new books of high quality. Such similarities are a form of comparison. The fact that such comparisons exist undermines the position that books are unique, as something that is unique is by its nature incomparable. Moreover it suggests that such similarities are important in the choice of reading material.

If books were truly unique we would only seek out particular titles. We all know that this is not the case. For example, readers seek out works by a particular author in the hopes that they are similar to other works she has written. Readers may also consider the brand/series. A given series may be written by several different authors. Take for example a T.V. show such as House. Different episodes are written by different writers. However, as a consumer of T.V. programs we can make a determination to watch the program based on its brand, and not on the author of a particular episode. A similar situation arises with books. There are customers who will buy the latest Star Wars novel regardless of its author. Another example would be the James Bond franchise. This is not to say that some consumers will not take into account the author of a book when considering purchasing it. My point here is that works by different authors may in some circumstances be considered roughly equal from the perspective of consumption.

There are instances in which we will purchase works even when we know nothing of the brand or the author. An example would be purchasing Analog, or a collection of works by different authors. Such choices are usually driven by the genera of the book. I believe that in almost all circumstances readers take into account genera when purchasing a book. An exception to this is choosing a book based on its author, even when his works span different genera.

I mentioned many different aspects of books. They all relate in one way or another to a person's enjoyment of a work. This I believe is the fundamental basis for the value that a person places on a book. Different people find different experiences enjoyable. Some may want a to read romance while others may want pulp fiction. If their desire is met, then they will be satisfied. In most cases a particular book is not required to satisfy such a desire. Any one of many hundreds of books could fit the bill. I think that the real commodity here is a reader's time, which can be filled to his satisfaction with a wide variety of books. If a person's entertainment quota is met by free books, then there is one fewer paying consumer of books. If few enough people are paying for books then their value will decrease.


On the order of 200,000 new books are published in the United States every year (and I am not even sure if that includes indie titles). Even if copyright was shortened to the original term of 14 years, that means 2.8 million books would be in copyright at any given time. The consumer is already overwhelmed by more books in any given year than they could possibly read in a life time. All this means is a large public domain is unlikely to significantly impact the basic fact that too many books are published to sustain more than a tiny percentage of authors as their sole source of income.

To a large extent I agree. However, if many of those books were free, then an even smaller percentage of authors could make a living from their craft.

@pdurrant: read the next paragraph for the summary.

It is my contention that, in most cases, an abundance of free fiction will cause similar books that are not free to lose value. It has been argued that this cannot be the case as books are not fungible. Although we can certainly distinguish one book from another, this does not mean that books are incomparable from the perspective of a consumer. I believe that although the titles of fiction may be unique, they are valued by a consumer on the basis of their potential to entertain him. Several books can be equal in this regard, and thus the unique nature of the titles does not prevent the degredation of price.

[...]

If a person's entertainment quota is met by free books, then there is one fewer paying consumer of books. If few enough people are paying for books then their value will decrease.



Even if true, this is no reason to argue against the free availability of public domain ebooks. The public benefit of free books vastly outweighs any loss of income to contemporary authors.

And actually, I don't think it's true. Public domain classic books are great, but they are, because of the length of copyright, out of date. They don't deal with current events or recent technological or social change. People who are used to (say) feminism, mobile phones and the Internet, will not be forever satisfied with fiction that ignores all those items.

And then there are changes in English, and in writing styles.

I don't see any likelihood that many excellent (& lucky) authors will not be able to make a good living in the future as in the past. That the vast majority of published authors will not be able to make a living at writing fiction will also not change.

No one ever said or even implied that books were incomparable. Of course books are comparable, but they are not interchangable. A fungible commodity is one in which is interchangble for any other. A bushel of corn is interchangable for any other. A bottle of wine is not interchangable with any other wine. If someone can't get the wine they want, they will seek out another bottle of similar quality wine. They won't likely be selecting a bottle of Mad Dog 20-20 if they can't get the vintage they were looking for. Just as some wines are of higher quality than others, some books are of higher quality than others. If someone cannot obtain a public domain classic, they will search for a new book of similar quality. They will not be seeking a marginal beginning author.

With a Star Wars of James Bond novel, you know what you're getting. You have an idea of the quality to expect. Analog is a well-known brand, people have good reason to expect a certain level of quality from Analog. When people look at an anthology, they tend to look at the names. If the authors are authors they know and enjoy reading, they are much more likely to buy it than if the authors are unknown to them.

If someone is looking for a classic, they will not be satisfied with just any book. Jane Austen wrote romances, but they aren't interchangable with any random romance novel written today. Someone might be in the mood for a romance book, but that doesn't mean that just any romance book will do. They are comparable, but not interchangable. Some books are higher quality than others. People aren't reading the classics just because they are free. There are tens of thousands of books that are in the public domain, but only a small percentage of them still have any significant readership. The public domain is simply not competition for the struggling new author. It is highly unlikely that a struggling new author is putting out books that rival the best books ever written.

People generally prefer new books over older books. English teachers would love it if people were moving to the classics in droves, but it just isn't happening. Free or cheap new books are not dominating the market, far from it. If people had to pay for public domain books, this would not improve the lot of the struggling new writer on bit.

Any book that does sell well can demand a higher price. I don't think Twilight is a great book, but people are buying it, so she must be doing something right. People are paying $8.99 for it when they could choose from many hundreds of other vampire books for free or 99 cents. Clearly, the free or 99 cent book has not hindered the ability of authors to charge more. If there is a demand for the book, people will pay. If your position were correct, this wouldn't be happening. This means we must discard the idea that free and cheap books are crowding out authors. Simply write better books.

A price floor would hurt struggling new authors, not help them. Authors can use pricing to get people to try their books. If authors were forced to charge a minimum price for books (good luck with that holding up in court!) they would have more difficult time establishing a readership.

No one ever said or even implied that books were incomparable. Of course books are comparable, but they are not interchangable. A fungible commodity is one in which is interchangble for any other. A bushel of corn is interchangable for any other. A bottle of wine is not interchangable with any other wine.

I thought that you stated the books were unique. Regardless, some people regard wine as interchangable. There are even people who drink hand sanitizer. There are also people who regard some books as interchangable, such as my quoted romance novel a and romance novel b. The books are interchangable because they all satisfy the reader's desire for entertainment.

I agree that interchangability is a matter of personal preference. I doubt that there are many people who think that all books are interchangable with one another. However, I suspect that almost everyone regards some books as interchangeable.


If someone can't get the wine they want, they will seek out another bottle of similar quality wine. They won't likely be selecting a bottle of Mad Dog 20-20 if they can't get the vintage they were looking for. Just as some wines are of higher quality than others, some books are of higher quality than others. If someone cannot obtain a public domain classic, they will search for a new book of similar quality. They will not be seeking a marginal beginning author.

I do not disagree with the first part of your argument. However, not all people want to read the same types of books. Some people want sci-fi and others want a spy novel. There are even people who really like trashy novels. Many books from one of these genera may satisfy the desires of a particular reader. There is no reason that some of these may be written by a 'marginal' author. In fact, some 'marginal' authors are really great writers.


With a Star Wars of James Bond novel, you know what you're getting. You have an idea of the quality to expect. Analog is a well-known brand, people have good reason to expect a certain level of quality from Analog. When people look at an anthology, they tend to look at the names. If the authors are authors they know and enjoy reading, they are much more likely to buy it than if the authors are unknown to them.

You never really know what you are going to get until you read the book. A perfect example would be the Jar Jar Binks debacle. This is not to say that series, authors, and genera are not very important. Many people choose books based on these factors. However, I explained in my previous post, that each of these factors does not necessarily play a role in the decision to buy a book. In a certain sense when you buy a book you are really going in blind. For this reason some people will only buy books that have been recommended to them. However, I think that a great many readers will buy books without such reviews. A case in point are displays in bookstores. If people were only going to purchase books that were recommended, such displays would be of little use.


If someone is looking for a classic, they will not be satisfied with just any book. Jane Austen wrote romances, but they aren't interchangable with any random romance novel written today. Someone might be in the mood for a romance book, but that doesn't mean that just any romance book will do.

I agree. However, this does not mean that several books will not do. For example, if you wanted a good romance novel and had not read much of Austen, then several of her books may be interchangeable.


Some books are higher quality than others. People aren't reading the classics just because they are free. There are tens of thousands of books that are in the public domain, but only a small percentage of them still have any significant readership. The public domain is simply not competition for the struggling new author. It is highly unlikely that a struggling new author is putting out books that rival the best books ever written.

It may be unlikely, but not impossible. To give another musical example, Mozart stuggled to earn a living for much of his life.


People generally prefer new books over older books. English teachers would love it if people were moving to the classics in droves, but it just isn't happening. Free or cheap new books are not dominating the market, far from it. If people had to pay for public domain books, this would not improve the lot of the struggling new writer on bit.

I really do not know the exact effect of free books on the market, as I would need to know the condition of the market without such books. I do know that lots of people are downloading free books. It is reasonable to assume that some of these people are reading the downloaded books.


Any book that does sell well can demand a higher price. I don't think Twilight is a great book, but people are buying it, so she must be doing something right. People are paying $8.99 for it when they could choose from many hundreds of other vampire books for free or 99 cents. Clearly, the free or 99 cent book has not hindered the ability of authors to charge more. If there is a demand for the book, people will pay. If your position were correct, this wouldn't be happening. This means we must discard the idea that free and cheap books are crowding out authors. Simply write better books.

I am not totally convinced that this is the case. There are many examples of backlash from raising prices despite swift sales. One that comes to mind is Netflix. To some extent people pay what they expect to be a reasonable amount. If they are used to paying very little or nothing for something then they will not be willing to pay more than that amount. I am rather perplexed about Twilight. It may be able to command a high price because people are used to paying such prices for books. It may also be that it is not interchangable with many other vampire novels, as Twilight is targeted at a young adult female audience, which is not the typical audience of most vampire books.


Even if true, this is no reason to argue against the free availability of public domain ebooks. The public benefit of free books vastly outweighs any loss of income to contemporary authors.

ANY loss of income. What if NO contemporary authors could earn a living from writing?


And actually, I don't think it's true. Public domain classic books are great, but they are, because of the length of copyright, out of date. They don't deal with current events or recent technological or social change. People who are used to (say) feminism, mobile phones and the Internet, will not be forever satisfied with fiction that ignores all those items.

And then there are changes in English, and in writing styles.

I don't see any likelihood that many excellent (& lucky) authors will not be able to make a good living in the future as in the past. That the vast majority of published authors will not be able to make a living at writing fiction will also not change.

While your point is well taken, some people still think that classics are relevant today. As they say, some things never change. Also, I introduced free and under-priced books into the discussion, as they also have an effect on sales.

There are also people who regard some books as interchangable, such as my quoted romance novel a and romance novel b.

the only people who say that about romance are non-romance readers who are not aware of the wide variety and richness of the genre and it's various sub-genres. I don't think you can say that about sub-genre-romance A (which may be angsty and emotionally wrenching) and sub-genre-romance B (which may be a light-hearted comedy of manners)

I daresay that is true of any genre - I don't know much about Westerns, for example, but I'm sure there are aficionados who will deny that Western by Author A is interchangeable with Western Author B - or even books by the same author within the same genre. for example, back to romances again, not all Nora Roberts are created equal, and I sometimes wonder that the author of The Witness is the same person who is writing the Inn Boonsboro books.

ANY loss of income. What if NO contemporary authors could earn a living from writing?

Obviously, that would be Very Very Bad; you just haven't provided any compelling evidence that it's remotely likely to happen.
Why would authors suddenly not be able to make a living writing, when currently, with exactly the free-ebooks-everywhere system you're trying to prevent, they're more able to make a living than they have ever been?

Nobody here is saying "it's fine for authors not to get paid!" We're saying that, as things stand, some authors get paid, and we expect some authors to get paid in the future, and while some individual awesome authors will indeed fail to get the support they need and we will all miss out on some great works thereby, that isn't worth changing the entire economy of arts and literature. Certainly not by mandating a price for things authors would like to give away for free.

If you provided any numbers to support your claim that authors are less likely to make money at their craft in the future, people might be convinced. If you outlined a solution plan that was obviously beneficial to authors, they might see how that plan fixes the problem you perceive.

(A plan of "all authors will charge money for all their published works" is not beneficial; it doesn't get anyone to *buy* those works. Especially when you haven't been clear about which writers would need to charge, and which would be considered non-professional.)

Obviously, that would be Very Very Bad; you just haven't provided any compelling evidence that it's remotely likely to happen.

The crux of my argument (that readers may choose one book over another based on price) is in dispute. It seems easiest to hash that out first. If it turns out that I am wrong on that account, then there is no need to go further.


Why would authors suddenly not be able to make a living writing, when currently, with exactly the free-ebooks-everywhere system you're trying to prevent, they're more able to make a living than they have ever been?

The reason is that people could obtain free books that satisfy their reading for entertainment itch. There may also become an expectation that books are free or very inexpensive. There are many reasons that this may not currently be the case, even though there are some free books. One reason is that many of the current crop of free books are old and thus undesirable because of its antiquity. Another is that many of the new free ebooks are low quality. However, this may not remain the case as more books go out of copyright, and more authors post their works for free.

One reason is that many of the current crop of free books are old and thus undesirable because of its antiquity. Another is that many of the new free ebooks are low quality. However, this may not remain the case as more books go out of copyright, and more authors post their works for free.

Works come out of copyright at various times, but in general no earlier than 50 years after their author has died, and in many countries 70 years after. The US is an exception, in that for many years, no more books will enter the public domain until 95 years after their publication (in 2019 books published in 1923 will enter the US public domain).

So I see no likelihood of an increase in topical public domain books.

There are some quality authors (e.g. Cory Doctorow) posting their ebooks for free. I expect that this number will diminish as ebooks come to be the dominant part of the book market, rather than a tiny sliver of it.

Non-traditionally published authors? Some will become well known and make lots of money. Most will remain in obscurity, selling or giving away tiny quantities.

Publishers are going to have a hard time. Bookshops are going to get hammered. But I think that authors will do as well or better than they have previously.

One reason is that many of the current crop of free books are old and thus undesirable because of its antiquity. Another is that many of the new free ebooks are low quality. However, this may not remain the case as more books go out of copyright, and more authors post their works for free.

I believe it was Samuel Johnson who stated; "No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." As true now as it was 300 years ago. If you can't make money writing literature, those with the talent and skill will find other lucrative outlets for their efforts.

I thought that you stated the books were unique. Regardless, some people regard wine as interchangable. There are even people who drink hand sanitizer. There are also people who regard some books as interchangable, such as my quoted romance novel a and romance novel b. The books are interchangable because they all satisfy the reader's desire for entertainment.

Yes, there are people who drink hand sanitizer. Vinters generally don't go after this market segment. If someone can't get the fine wine they are looking for, they aren't going to drink hand sanitizer. If someone can't get Jane Austen, they aren't going to read some random marginal romance novel.

I agree that interchangability is a matter of personal preference. I doubt that there are many people who think that all books are interchangable with one another. However, I suspect that almost everyone regards some books as interchangeable.

Your point relied on the best books ever written being interchangeable with the marginal books of struggling authors.

I do not disagree with the first part of your argument. However, not all people want to read the same types of books. Some people want sci-fi and others want a spy novel. There are even people who really like trashy novels. Many books from one of these genera may satisfy the desires of a particular reader. There is no reason that some of these may be written by a 'marginal' author. In fact, some 'marginal' authors are really great writers

Being in a genre does not mean the book is interchangable. If someone wants a science fiction novel, not just any science fiction novel will do. Once the books sell, they aren't marginal authors. If they are really great authors, their books will sell.

You never really know what you are going to get until you read the book. A perfect example would be the Jar Jar Binks debacle. This is not to say that series, authors, and genera are not very important. Many people choose books based on these factors. However, I explained in my previous post, that each of these factors does not necessarily play a role in the decision to buy a book. In a certain sense when you buy a book you are really going in blind. For this reason some people will only buy books that have been recommended to them. However, I think that a great many readers will buy books without such reviews. A case in point are displays in bookstores. If people were only going to purchase books that were recommended, such displays would be of little use.

If I pick up a copy of Analog, I know what to expect. Analog is a well-known brand. If I get a Big Mac, I know what to expect. It doesn't mean that you can't be disappointed. I can get a bad hamburger or I could be disappointed with Star Wars after seing Jar Jar binks. You can't be disappointed unless you had some reason to expect better. Your point about bookstores is off base. People are not just randomly selecting books in a bookstore. I can walk into the bookstore, and see books by Asimov. I know what to expect, Asimov is a known brand. I can then take a look at the book, and flip through the pages to see if it looks like it might be worth my time.

I agree. However, this does not mean that several books will not do. For example, if you wanted a good romance novel and had not read much of Austen, then several of her books may be interchangeable.

Sure, you could read any of Jane Austen's books and have a pretty good expectation of it being good. But again, your point relied on Jane Austen's books being interchangeable with any random romance novel. People don't read Jane Austen just because it is available for free. Only a small number of public domain books are read by significant percentages of people. If all people cared about was the cheapness of a book, we wouldn't see this, we would see people reading public domain books at random.

It may be unlikely, but not impossible. To give another musical example, Mozart stuggled to earn a living for much of his life.

I suppose he would have worked as a musician in a hotel lobby. The funny thing is that with his talents, Mozart would have thrived today, while in his time, he had to struggle.

I really do not know the exact effect of free books on the market, as I would need to know the condition of the market without such books. I do know that lots of people are downloading free books. It is reasonable to assume that some of these people are reading the downloaded books.

Not everyone who downloads free books reads them. The market is dominated by new books that people pay money for. Many people see a free book, and download it to see if it interests them. If your assertion was correct, sales of new books would be suffering, but they aren't. We don't see free or 99 cent books dominating the market. Public domain books have a limited appeal, they are quite old, the language has drifted considerably, and the world-view is often rather obscure for people living in 2012. As it is, no new books will be entering the public domain until 2019.

I am not totally convinced that this is the case. There are many examples of backlash from raising prices despite swift sales. One that comes to mind is Netflix. To some extent people pay what they expect to be a reasonable amount. If they are used to paying very little or nothing for something then they will not be willing to pay more than that amount. I am rather perplexed about Twilight. It may be able to command a high price because people are used to paying such prices for books. It may also be that it is not interchangable with many other vampire novels, as Twilight is targeted at a young adult female audience, which is not the typical audience of most vampire books.

Netflix is service which people pay for on an ongoing basis. Raise the price, and people object. A book is not. If you paid 99 cents for a book, but now the price is $5.99, you're not out a cent. If you didn't buy the book when it was 99 cents, you just missed a good deal. Twilight isn't selling because people are used to paying full price for books. If that were the case, surely some other vampire novel would be selling. Why this one, and not some other. Clearly, readers don't think Twilight is interchangable with any random vampire novel. Women have been reading vampire novels for a long time. Twilight has given readers what they want, and thus people will pay $5.99 when they could have had another vampuire book for free. I'm not interested in this book, but readers decided that this book worth $5.99, despite the availablity of free books. The success of Twilight is strong evidence against the idea that free books are causing the market for new books to dry up.

So much to talk about! :)


Works come out of copyright at various times, but in general no earlier than 50 years after their author has died, and in many countries 70 years after. The US is an exception, in that for many years, no more books will enter the public domain until 95 years after their publication (in 2019 books published in 1923 will enter the US public domain).

So I see no likelihood of an increase in topical public domain books.

I disagree. New forms of media have made all things historical more accessible. Naturally some of these have been incorporated into our culture. Sometimes the old stuff is taken lock stock and barrel, like Jazz, and other times it is reworked into something new like steampunk.


I believe it was Samuel Johnson who stated; "No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." As true now as it was 300 years ago. If you can't make money writing literature, those with the talent and skill will find other lucrative outlets for their efforts.

Well apparently there are lots of blockheads out there. :) Most authors get their start by writing for nothing. It is my understanding that J.K. Rowling was not paid to write Harry Potter. It was only later picked up by a publisher.


Yes, there are people who drink hand sanitizer. Vinters generally don't go after this market segment. If someone can't get the fine wine they are looking for, they aren't going to drink hand sanitizer. If someone can't get Jane Austen, they aren't going to read some random marginal romance novel.

You claimed that wines were not interchangeable. My response was aimed at illustrating that the value that people place in books and other items differs from one person to another. Thus, to certain people wines are most definitely interchangeable.


Being in a genre does not mean the book is interchangable.

Is this an admission that books can be interchangeable? ;)


Your point relied on the best books ever written being interchangeable with the marginal books of struggling authors.

It most assuredly did not, as you introduced the idea of marginal books and struggling authors. Aside from this, the concept of best books is certainly a matter of personal opinion. Thus, what you classify as a marginal book by a struggling author, could be classified as a best book by someone else. It is conceivable that someone would interchange such books.


If they are really great authors, their books will sell.

Sadly, I suspect that this is not the case. It has certainly not been the case with music.

Quote:
You never really know what you are going to get until you read the book. A perfect example would be the Jar Jar Binks debacle. This is not to say that series, authors, and genera are not very important. Many people choose books based on these factors. However, I explained in my previous post, that each of these factors does not necessarily play a role in the decision to buy a book. In a certain sense when you buy a book you are really going in blind. For this reason some people will only buy books that have been recommended to them. However, I think that a great many readers will buy books without such reviews. A case in point are displays in bookstores. If people were only going to purchase books that were recommended, such displays would be of little use.


If I pick up a copy of Analog, I know what to expect. Analog is a well-known brand. If I get a Big Mac, I know what to expect. It doesn't mean that you can't be disappointed. I can get a bad hamburger or I could be disappointed with Star Wars after seing Jar Jar binks. You can't be disappointed unless you had some reason to expect better. Your point about bookstores is off base. People are not just randomly selecting books in a bookstore. I can walk into the bookstore, and see books by Asimov. I know what to expect, Asimov is a known brand. I can then take a look at the book, and flip through the pages to see if it looks like it might be worth my time.

Let me begin by stating that the argument here is really an aside, the critical point is to establish that books can be interchangeable and that such interchangeability is in the eye of the reader. However, the decision making process involved in purchasing a book is an interesting one. There are many factors that influence such a decision. Brand is only one of them. Another thread cited the following article:

http://dearauthor.com/ebooks/let-the-tail-wag-the-dog/

It suggests that 'buzz' (not in the intoxicating sense :)) influences the purchase of books.

On this topic consider a traveller at an airport. He wants something to read to pass the time on the plane. The selection of books at the airport store may be somewhat lacking in a certain sense. However, from his perspective it could be that any one of a large variety of books could satisfy his need to be entertained.


Sure, you could read any of Jane Austen's books and have a pretty good expectation of it being good. But again, your point relied on Jane Austen's books being interchangeable with any random romance novel. People don't read Jane Austen just because it is available for free. Only a small number of public domain books are read by significant percentages of people. If all people cared about was the cheapness of a book, we wouldn't see this, we would see people reading public domain books at random.

Here we are again with the random interchange/struggling author thing again. My argument is that if there are books that are available for free that are interchangeable for books that cost money then I expect the former books to cut into the sales of the latter books. This will result in lower income for authors. As I argued above, such interchange is a matter of personal preference.


Not everyone who downloads free books reads them. The market is dominated by new books that people pay money for. Many people see a free book, and download it to see if it interests them.

The market may appear to be dominated by new books that cost money, because it is those books that we see in bookstores and see advertised. However, there is an awful lot of free books out there that people are consuming. It would be useful to have have market research on the matter.


If your assertion was correct, sales of new books would be suffering, but they aren't. We don't see free or 99 cent books dominating the market.

This is really the critical point. I do not have a response that I feel is satisfactory, but I do have a response none the less. There are many reasons that the market is not suffering. People could be influenced to purchase the new books because of buzz. This would also help explain why free and 99 cent books are not doing well. They mostly likely do not have as much marketing, and thus lack the buzz to sell. They may also not be considered interchangeable with the new books.


Netflix is service which people pay for on an ongoing basis. Raise the price, and people object. A book is not. If you paid 99 cents for a book, but now the price is $5.99, you're not out a cent. If you didn't buy the book when it was 99 cents, you just missed a good deal.

It could be perceived that way. However, it may also not be.

There are some e-books that cost more than paper ones. They are different media, and thus the price of one item was not even raised. However, some consumers are very upset about the price discrepancy, as they are used to paying the paper book price.


Twilight isn't selling because people are used to paying full price for books. If that were the case, surely some other vampire novel would be selling. Why this one, and not some other. Clearly, readers don't think Twilight is interchangable with any random vampire novel. Women have been reading vampire novels for a long time. Twilight has given readers what they want, and thus people will pay $5.99 when they could have had another vampuire book for free. I'm not interested in this book, but readers decided that this book worth $5.99, despite the availablity of free books. The success of Twilight is strong evidence against the idea that free books are causing the market for new books to dry up.

The Twilight example is a good one. It may be that I am incorrect. I pointed out many factors could be influencing its success, including buzz. If these factors continue to dominate the decision to purchase a book then I would be incorrect. It may just be that there are not equivalent books in the consumers' eyes.

I disagree. New forms of media have made all things historical more accessible. Naturally some of these have been incorporated into our culture. Sometimes the old stuff is taken lock stock and barrel, like Jazz, and other times it is reworked into something new like steampunk.

That's what makes the public domain so useful to content creators. Once re-worked, it gains its own copyright.

I still see no likelihood of an increase in topical public domain books.

You claimed that wines were not interchangeable. My response was aimed at illustrating that the value that people place in books and other items differs from one person to another. Thus, to certain people wines are most definitely interchangeable.

Wines are not interchangeable. Someone is looking for a bottle of a certain quality, and cannot obtain that vintage, they will look for a bottle of similar quality. A bottle of Ripple will not do, nor will a bottle of hand sanitizer.

Similarly, if someone cannot obtain a copy of Jane Austen or Dickens, they may buy a book of similar quality, but it is exceedingly unlikely that they would instead choose some book from some struggling author. The new author struggling to sell their book is not in competition with the best books ever written.

It most assuredly did not, as you introduced the idea of marginal books and struggling authors. Aside from this, the concept of best books is certainly a matter of personal opinion. Thus, what you classify as a marginal book by a struggling author, could be classified as a best book by someone else. It is conceivable that someone would interchange such books.

You introduced the concept, I merely addressed it. You spoke of public domain works as competing with the works of new authors whose books aren't selling. If an author's books aren't selling, "struggling" is a fairly accurate description. If readers have decided not to buy that author's books, "marginal" is also probably accurate. No, it really isn't conceivable that people would consider a classic interchangeable with the works of some struggling author.

Sadly, I suspect that this is not the case. It has certainly not been the case with music.

If nobody wants it, is it really that good?

So much to talk about! :)

Well apparently there are lots of blockheads out there. Most authors get their start by writing for nothing. It is my understanding that J.K. Rowling was not paid to write Harry Potter. It was only later picked up by a publisher.



With that example you unwittingly proved my point. No author is paid before they get their first novel published. If she hadn't get paid you would never have heard of Harry Potter. She was rejected several times, but she stuck with it, hence, she was writing in order to get paid. And once paid, she could continue to develop the plot and characters that inhibit Hogwarts.

Doesn't the mere fact that people with e-readers and unlimited access to hundreds of thousands of free books (public domain as well as free promotional offers from self-published authors as well as traditional publishing houses) still continue to buy ebooks, often for $10 or more, in great quantities, show that (a) readers in general don't consider books in general completely interchangeable, and (b) the availability of free books doesn't mean authors/publishers can't possibly sell their books any more?

I mean, I've personally bought 117 ebooks for a total of $530 just this year alone, ranging from $0.99 books (promotional and/or self-published) to books costing over $10, the overwhelming majority of these being books that have been released in the last few years.

And being a fairly ereading-savvy person, I'm well aware of the various avenues of acquiring free books (legal as well as illegal, public domain as well as brand new books), so I could easily have just spent my time reading free books (public domain or otherwise). Instead, for some odd reason, both I and my friends - all educated people, all of us having our favourites among books written a century or few ago - keep buying books, mostly newer books.

I just bought Peter Bergen's "Manhunt - The ten year search for bin Laden, from 9/11 to Abottabad", I found at least five darknet sources for this, but I chose to pay $13 to Amazon.
1) Bergen has done some hard research and deserves to get paid
2) I know that I won't have any formatting problems, and if I do, Amazon will immediately accept a return and make sure the problem is fixed.

That to me is easily worth $13, despite knowing that some gawkers will look at this posting and exclaim: "LOOSER!"

That to me is easily worth $13, despite knowing that some gawkers will look at this posting and exclaim: "LOOSER!"

Well, the ones who can spell would call you "Loser", but not because you paid for it - but for being so insulting about it.

Actually when they do let it out it is always with an extended o.

Actually when they do let it out it is always with an extended o.

In that case, "loooser" is the preferred spelling. For extended/drawn out words, 3-5 vowels is best, depending on just how long you wish it to represent the sound.

In that case, "loooser" is the preferred spelling. For extended/drawn out words, 3-5 vowels is best, depending on just how long you wish it to represent the sound.

Thank you, I'll remember that the next time I use such an exression.

I have no problem with fanfic, so long as the authors are earning a living doing something. However, if some rich guy, with nothing else to do, spends all of his time writing fanfic, and publishes it for free, then there is a problem. Such fiction, presuming it were good and there is no reason to think that it could not be, could decimate the profession of writing fiction.

I think stonetools has competition. :D