Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew H.
The problem with these kinds of discussions, IMO, is that there isn't one solution that works for all writers. There is a huge difference between, say, James Patterson or Stieg Larsson on the one hand, and an average author with sales of 3-4,000 books on the other.
As Cory Doctorow point out, for most authors, the biggest danger is obscurity, not someone stealing your work. What these authors need to do is whatever it takes to get their book in front of the most potential readers. Which means making it as easy as possible for them to see it and get it - no DRM, available at a lot of places, some free copies. Sure, some people will read your book without paying for it, but if they never heard of the book, they wouldn't have paid for it either. According to this very plausible theory, the losses you will have due to no DRM are less than the gains you will get due to increased availability due to no DRM.
However, I don't think that this theory really works for authors who are not obscure - George R.R. Martin, Nora Roberts, Lee Child, etc. Authors who you can comfortably predict a year in advance that their next book will be a NY Times bestseller. These authors don't really need more exposure, and - particularly because their books are in demand - they are likely to suffer some actual sales losses due to casual sharing. (As opposed to losses from people who specifically look for their books on the darknet, which are probably difficult to avoid). How great these losses might be is hard to say, although I can imagine them being substantial. (It's hard to quantify how substantial - but I think a reasonable, somewhat conservative number might be something like 5% of actual sales lost - which is 50,000 sales for a million seller, and equates to real money).
|
I think it's definitely true that different kinds of authors have different needs in a business model. But I seriously have to question whether there would be a significant loss for well-know writers.
In the dead tree book world, well-known writers tend to have more expensive print editions. Nicer paper, nicer covers, and the ability to charge more due to knowing that people will pay for it.
I'm sure a lot of people do buy books like that new from B&N, but I'm sure a lot more don't. I know I tended to buy those books used, because often times, I just couldn't afford it. If I bought a new book, it tended to be something more obscure - and thus less expensive. I don't always have $13 to spend on a paperback, ya know?
How many sales do big writers lose from people buying their books used? Or people getting them through "casual sharing" with a friend? Or through the library? I'm willing to bet it's a lot more than whatever they lose from piracy or ebook casual sharing.
Again, I don't see anyone saying we should tear down used book stores and libraries, or make it illegal to give your book to a friend.
I'm a writer. I empathize with this - I really do. And I'm not saying I have the answer. I don't know how I feel about "casual sharing" of ebooks, but I'm uncomfortable enough with it that I don't do it unless the book is public domain. Even though I'm a lot more comfortable with it when it's a dead tree book. Maybe this is because ebooks are generally cheaper - or at least they would be if not for agency price inflation.
One thing is clear to me though. Whatever the solution to books in the internet age may be, DRM is definitely not it. That much I am sure of.
I am sure that as a writer, I don't want to screw my own readers that way. And as a reader, I don't like being screwed that way.
I am a loud and vocal advocate of supporting what you like with your dollar, and voting against what you don't like by withholding your dollar. I do that myself as much as I can. When I can't do it, I use my platform to present my argument to others for their evaluation, which is also helpful, and a vital part of civilian dialogue and democracy.
Catlady - You're right, it doesn't necessarily hurt a library's cash flow, per se. However, I think there is a chance that it may hurt their continued survival.
As mentioned before, some people do see ebook libraries as "free books." And even some honest people are inclined to break the DRM if they haven't quite finished the book by the end of the loan period, and then delete it when they're done. These are still perfectly decent people.
They know the library and the people who use it aren't losing anything - the next person in line gets the book whether they return it on time or not. If they had borrowed a paper book, they would have the option to extend or pay a fine. But with an ebook, they can't. They have to get back in line and wait maybe another month to finish the book. It is clear that the solution to ebook library lending has not been ironed out yet, because that is a crappy system.
It's really only a matter of time before some library gets sued for not providing adequate protection against the piracy of books, and thus preserving the sales that authors and publishers rely on. I could totally see that happening.
Of course, they'll never stop to consider that maybe it's their own fault that libraries are unable to protect their books.