[QuantumIguana]

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.