The new publishing business model

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

P2P is used for a lot of uses, you're conflating it solely with the darknet there. That's RIAA propaganda, please don't do it.

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/01/...%28Slashdot%29

Also, why is a smaller torrent prone to dying, naturally? Well, it's down to client settings, essentially people share X torrents. With a custom client, this is entirely avoidable. In the same way, the project tracker is under no obligation to accept user torrents.

A custom client might not accept user torrents. Which would be the perfect reason to reupload the file somewhere else and use your own client. Custom clients made to restrict users in ways that open clients do not are made to be broken.

Also, honestly, I'm not quite sure where the torrent thing comes from: it's not from anything I've said, I'd use a wiki-based platform (possibly a distributed one) and not torrents!

Here's where it came in:

Steve Jordan said ""Post-filtering" takes place after the book is released, in P2P and portal reviewing processes."

I made my point about P2P.

You, then, make a reply to my reply which was explicitly about P2P. I could have mentioned other P2P methods other than torrents (like Emule or Kad) but the technical and cultural limitations would be very similar. But either way, wikis are not P2P and are irrelevant to a comment that was explicitly about P2P.

(Link for any who don't understand what P2P is and is not):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-to-peer

[DawnFalcon]

Oh. I think you're confusing "file sharing" and "P2P". Peer to peer equally applies to community-based networks (croudsourcing, etc.) as it does the distributed networking architecture, which is used for - among other uses such as VoIP, DCVS and IM - file sharing.

I don't think Steve was talking about file sharing.


Also, the sort of project I was talking about earlier in the thread would protect pre-release books with key pair encryption. It's a perfectly legitimate use of DRM.

[MaggieScratch]

Originally Posted by Fat Abe

Thank you so much for filling in the blank. I still have no idea who Teresa Hayden is, but I'll try to remember her name. I need to find a few SlushDivers to help me fish my manuscripts out of the gutter. Could Terry lend a helping hand?

A couple of things: their last name is not Hayden but Nielsen Hayden. And I don't think Teresa is an editor anymore. But the blog Making Light is a great resource for those wishing to learn about publishing.

[queentess]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

As this question sort of got passed up, I'd like to bring it up again: Is there some part of "impartial third-party post-filtering, instead of publisher pre-filtering" that does not make sense?

I think this is rather what already happens at Smashwords and the like. The stuff that is genuinely decent gets good reviews and gains respect.

I'd venture that the model right now isn't broken. You're proposing that publishers publish, well, just about anything, then let someone else wade through it. The current model allows publishers to continue to try to find the 'best' works and release them. Self-published ebooks (possibly with the help of freelance grammar nazis) then more-or-less follow your route, but backwards; instead of going through a publisher first, it first goes through the 'third-party filtering' system, then if it's good enough can be picked up by a publisher.

I could be wrong here, but isn't that what happened to Boyd Morrison?

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Oh. I think you're confusing "file sharing" and "P2P"

If there is some new meaning of P2P other than refering to distributed computer networks, usually used for file sharing, I was unaware of it. What you are calling P2P I would call crowdsourcing. I've always seen and used the term to mean only distributed sharing of content across a decentralized network of computers.

[DawnFalcon]

Croudsourcing is quite new (2008) and not everyone uses it yet, even when it's appropriate. Peer to peer can be used for multiple uses, so...

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Good comments, all. Let me address a few points:

Obviously, there is a lot of stuff in the slush piles that probably should never be seen in the wild (no tongue in cheek needed there). However, I'm suggesting that it should not be the publisher's job to decide, because the current publishing model is too dependent on profiting heavily on the smallest number of books, which means there are too many potentially good books in those slush piles that the publishers are passing up on due to lack of expected high-profit margins.

The publishers are better off applying their core talents--editing, proofing, packaging--to as many books as possible, including lower-profit books that otherwise get overlooked and lost in the slush piles. Some of those not-so-good books may only need a little work to be made sellable, real polished gems. Then pass that cleaned-up product to the author for them to sell and make whatever profit they can.

When I say the authors should be paying the publishers, I am not assuming the cost will be the same as what publishers pay to produce a book, including the entire print-based process, support of transportation, warehousing, etc, etc. The publishers basically would charge for editing and packaging services, period. We're talking about a few hundred dollars to a thousand, not much more. And it would be completely optional... if you don't think your work needs their services, don't use 'em. Or maybe just pay for proofing services, or just packaging. It's the author's choice, and it won't impact their ability to release their books... it will just make them better books. The idea would be for the author to make enough in sales to pay for the editing costs, or to accept them as operating losses.

Authors would be responsible for distribution, which does not have to be expensive... a purely digital distribution model can cost as little as a hundred dollars a year (website and software costs, primarily). Sure, it might be substantial in other cases, such as for those who insist on print, or spend more on website services, software, etc... but if you think about it, that's one way to cut down on the number of books that get pushed at the publisher, reducing the amount in the "slush pile."

And finally, although the publishers will no longer filter consumers from the slush, they don't need to: There are other services that can do that, most notably P2P services and portals that can review books and make recommendations. Those will be more impartial than recommendations and reviews from within publishers, who frankly have a vested interest in making their own drek sound good, and actually obligate authors (in some cases) to provide reviews in order to bring in customers.

So the slush will be reviewed, much will be revealed by more impartial sources to be slush, and left unpurchased... bad authors will still be filtered out, and consumers will still know what to buy and not to buy.

Admittedly, I didn't read through all the responses, but I don't see how your "model" is any different than vanity publishing today. That's exactly what vanity publishing is--buy the services you want or think you need. Harlequin has an entire new branch that charges for services (and also takes a cut of any book sold afterward.) They were even going to lend their brand to the idea until author guilds took offense.

Someone else mentioned Publish American.

There's all kinds of services already available. Really they are duel models that have co-existed for some time. In addition to that, publishers have spent the last few years pushing some of those upfront costs onto authors--things like promotion have been pushed onto many authors.

I think the key in the "new" world model is that there isn't enough money to go around...

[BearMountainBooks]

By the way, I've also seen a huge trend in just the last year to charge for reviews. Sites that used to review for free (usually the books were free) are now creating packages to charge the publisher and/or the author. These aren't cheap either. I saw one the other day that was 75 dollars for a review. Good grief.

The trend started a few years back when Kirkus added paid reviews to their stable.

Now whether this helps "gatekeep" and helps the quality of what is out there...I'm willing to bet there are varying opinions on that!

Maria