[petrucci]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

... 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.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

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.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

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.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

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.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

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.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

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.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

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.

Originally Posted by elfwreck

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.

Originally Posted by elfwreck

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.

Originally Posted by elfwreck

*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.

Originally Posted by elfwreck

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.

Originally Posted by elfwreck

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.

Originally Posted by elfwreck

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.

Originally Posted by elfwreck

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.