[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by petrucci

This is your interpretation, not mine. I believe that new book sales are diminished somewhat by the abundance of free downloads. I am not saying that everyone will choose a free book over one that costs money. I believe that some people will choose those books and not buy new ones. I am also aware that free downloads can be used as marketing tools and boost sales. However, there is a limited amount of time that people have to read, and for every free book that they read, there is that much less time to read a new book. All of this being said it is difficult to predict what books sales would be in other circumstances, such as without free downloads. The e-book market is still very new. Many people are still getting their first readers or apps. They are adjusting to pushing a button and getting a book. They are also adjusting to the enormous variety that is available. And of course digital money is not thought of the same way to consumers as real money. When the dust settles the numbers will become clear.

What interpretation? I'm presenting facts and logic. English teachers might love it if people were rushing out to read old classics, but it just isn't happening. People overwhelmingly read new books. A small number of old books are still widely read, and these would still be read whether or not the book was under copyright.

People would be reading Jane Austen or Dickens whether or not they were under copyright. We know this because they still read them before e-books, when you had to pay for a paper copy. It might have been cheaper than a new book, but not tremendously so. I can walk into Barnes and Noble, and find a paper copy of a PD book for perhaps $6.

Since they still would be reading Austen or Dickens whether or not they were under copyright, free e-books aren't a competition for the reader's time. They would be occupied with reading them anyway. Someone is not going to choose a book by a marginal author just because a great classic isn't available.

But there are many public domain books that are not widely read. Eternal copyright would keep these books in legal forever. They would cease to exist just as surely as if they had been burned.

I do not believe that this is really the case. When a church wanted a fresco in the 19th century, they could not get Michaelangelo to paint one. Amateurs were no real competition for professional musicians back in the day. When the emperor wanted to hear music, he made sure that there were professionals on staff.

How many churches were hiring artists to create frescoes in the 19th century? And amateurs were in competition with professional musicians, more so than today. There were a great many amateur musicians. Sheet music was very popular, as people would buy it and sing it at home. Many musicians of the past were of such poor quality that they would have been unable to compete with a garage band today. If I can compete as a musician today, how am I am amateur? If I can put on a show and sell CDs, am I not a professional? Emperors still have live music.

Being able to more widely distribute ones works does not suddenly make the playing field level. It is uneven because the previous works are free, they do not need to support a living person. All musicians can now widely distribute their works through recordings. This has had the effect of devaluing live performance.

There are a lot of bands who make their real money from live performances, for them, CDs sales are more promotional than a major source of income.