[petrucci]

So much to talk about!

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Works come out of copyright at various times, but in general no earlier than 50 years after their author has died, and in many countries 70 years after. The US is an exception, in that for many years, no more books will enter the public domain until 95 years after their publication (in 2019 books published in 1923 will enter the US public domain).

So I see no likelihood of an increase in topical public domain books.

I disagree. New forms of media have made all things historical more accessible. Naturally some of these have been incorporated into our culture. Sometimes the old stuff is taken lock stock and barrel, like Jazz, and other times it is reworked into something new like steampunk.

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

I believe it was Samuel Johnson who stated; "No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." As true now as it was 300 years ago. If you can't make money writing literature, those with the talent and skill will find other lucrative outlets for their efforts.

Well apparently there are lots of blockheads out there. Most authors get their start by writing for nothing. It is my understanding that J.K. Rowling was not paid to write Harry Potter. It was only later picked up by a publisher.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Yes, there are people who drink hand sanitizer. Vinters generally don't go after this market segment. If someone can't get the fine wine they are looking for, they aren't going to drink hand sanitizer. If someone can't get Jane Austen, they aren't going to read some random marginal romance novel.

You claimed that wines were not interchangeable. My response was aimed at illustrating that the value that people place in books and other items differs from one person to another. Thus, to certain people wines are most definitely interchangeable.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Being in a genre does not mean the book is interchangable.

Is this an admission that books can be interchangeable?

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Your point relied on the best books ever written being interchangeable with the marginal books of struggling authors.

It most assuredly did not, as you introduced the idea of marginal books and struggling authors. Aside from this, the concept of best books is certainly a matter of personal opinion. Thus, what you classify as a marginal book by a struggling author, could be classified as a best book by someone else. It is conceivable that someone would interchange such books.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

If they are really great authors, their books will sell.

Sadly, I suspect that this is not the case. It has certainly not been the case with music.

Quote:
You never really know what you are going to get until you read the book. A perfect example would be the Jar Jar Binks debacle. This is not to say that series, authors, and genera are not very important. Many people choose books based on these factors. However, I explained in my previous post, that each of these factors does not necessarily play a role in the decision to buy a book. In a certain sense when you buy a book you are really going in blind. For this reason some people will only buy books that have been recommended to them. However, I think that a great many readers will buy books without such reviews. A case in point are displays in bookstores. If people were only going to purchase books that were recommended, such displays would be of little use.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

If I pick up a copy of Analog, I know what to expect. Analog is a well-known brand. If I get a Big Mac, I know what to expect. It doesn't mean that you can't be disappointed. I can get a bad hamburger or I could be disappointed with Star Wars after seing Jar Jar binks. You can't be disappointed unless you had some reason to expect better. Your point about bookstores is off base. People are not just randomly selecting books in a bookstore. I can walk into the bookstore, and see books by Asimov. I know what to expect, Asimov is a known brand. I can then take a look at the book, and flip through the pages to see if it looks like it might be worth my time.

Let me begin by stating that the argument here is really an aside, the critical point is to establish that books can be interchangeable and that such interchangeability is in the eye of the reader. However, the decision making process involved in purchasing a book is an interesting one. There are many factors that influence such a decision. Brand is only one of them. Another thread cited the following article:

http://dearauthor.com/ebooks/let-the-tail-wag-the-dog/

It suggests that 'buzz' (not in the intoxicating sense ) influences the purchase of books.

On this topic consider a traveller at an airport. He wants something to read to pass the time on the plane. The selection of books at the airport store may be somewhat lacking in a certain sense. However, from his perspective it could be that any one of a large variety of books could satisfy his need to be entertained.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Sure, you could read any of Jane Austen's books and have a pretty good expectation of it being good. But again, your point relied on Jane Austen's books being interchangeable with any random romance novel. People don't read Jane Austen just because it is available for free. Only a small number of public domain books are read by significant percentages of people. If all people cared about was the cheapness of a book, we wouldn't see this, we would see people reading public domain books at random.

Here we are again with the random interchange/struggling author thing again. My argument is that if there are books that are available for free that are interchangeable for books that cost money then I expect the former books to cut into the sales of the latter books. This will result in lower income for authors. As I argued above, such interchange is a matter of personal preference.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Not everyone who downloads free books reads them. The market is dominated by new books that people pay money for. Many people see a free book, and download it to see if it interests them.

The market may appear to be dominated by new books that cost money, because it is those books that we see in bookstores and see advertised. However, there is an awful lot of free books out there that people are consuming. It would be useful to have have market research on the matter.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

If your assertion was correct, sales of new books would be suffering, but they aren't. We don't see free or 99 cent books dominating the market.

This is really the critical point. I do not have a response that I feel is satisfactory, but I do have a response none the less. There are many reasons that the market is not suffering. People could be influenced to purchase the new books because of buzz. This would also help explain why free and 99 cent books are not doing well. They mostly likely do not have as much marketing, and thus lack the buzz to sell. They may also not be considered interchangeable with the new books.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Netflix is service which people pay for on an ongoing basis. Raise the price, and people object. A book is not. If you paid 99 cents for a book, but now the price is $5.99, you're not out a cent. If you didn't buy the book when it was 99 cents, you just missed a good deal.

It could be perceived that way. However, it may also not be.

There are some e-books that cost more than paper ones. They are different media, and thus the price of one item was not even raised. However, some consumers are very upset about the price discrepancy, as they are used to paying the paper book price.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Twilight isn't selling because people are used to paying full price for books. If that were the case, surely some other vampire novel would be selling. Why this one, and not some other. Clearly, readers don't think Twilight is interchangable with any random vampire novel. Women have been reading vampire novels for a long time. Twilight has given readers what they want, and thus people will pay $5.99 when they could have had another vampuire book for free. I'm not interested in this book, but readers decided that this book worth $5.99, despite the availablity of free books. The success of Twilight is strong evidence against the idea that free books are causing the market for new books to dry up.

The Twilight example is a good one. It may be that I am incorrect. I pointed out many factors could be influencing its success, including buzz. If these factors continue to dominate the decision to purchase a book then I would be incorrect. It may just be that there are not equivalent books in the consumers' eyes.