[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

So assuming that books from back then are suddenly cheaper, the COST to me as a reader is that any time you push prices down on goods, it will push prices down on current goods (or could.) That sounds great to me as a reader until my favorite writers stop writing.

Would those be your favorite writers if you had access to the full range of books produced in the last century? Or rather: would new readers, kids just learning to enjoy books, prefer books by modern writers, who write contemporary stories but have unfinished series that may never get done, over books released several decades ago, which have the advantage of being complete sets?

Would modern romance writers be glutting the market, if the entire backlog of romance books were widely available at low cost? Some would probably sell well--trends in literature are different now--but the majority of the midlist in most genres would probably be unable to compete with the weight of history.

I don't think this is a bad thing. The public shouldn't be paying romance writers to re-invent the third wheel just because the last hundred times that story was done, it wasn't reprinted and fell into obscurity. Maybe if writers had to produce *new* situations, characters, and snappy dialog, the profession would get more respect--and the authors who were able to produce a new twist on longstanding themes would get paid more.

Those writers writing today may not be inclined to continue a series (even if they want to, their publisher may say, sorry, not enough sales.) I've already had multiple series cancelled that I was enjoying and at least one writer who hasn't written in years. It's just not a viable career for many a writer.

So, we should cheat the public out of connection with their history, not allowing open sharing and distribution of the works that shaped our parents' or grandparents' youths, in order to support a handful of writers who can't write or market as well EL James?

(That's exaggerated for effect. I am not saying that authors who've had to give up on their careers are not as good as EL James. I *am* saying that "find customers" is an essential part of a writer's career... and I don't support the idea of "remove other options from potential customers" as a fair and reasonable way to go about that.)

I view copyright as: If you don't want to pay for it, don't. But I don't think copyright HURTS any reader because there are multiple ways to obtain materials for reasonable costs that include a price tag of zero. I think lack of copyright or too short of a copyright could actually hurt writers and readers in the long run.

Sure. But I suspect we disagree on what "too short copyright" would be. I'm in favor of 10 years for free, and then a need to register for 10 more years, and re-register every 10 years after that, with increasing reg fees. If you want to keep your works away from public use, pay the public for the right to have a monopoly.

And some older books? Get them the old fashioned way by buying used or whatever other legal means is available.

So, "readers don't NEED to read those books, so there's no reason to allow easy distribution. But we NEED to support today's authors, even if they're not writing stuff that's as good as those older books."

(Again: exaggerating for effect; not saying you directly meant that.)

In the old days it was sometimes impossible to find a book. With the internet, so much more is available. It may not be in the form I want or convenient, but generally speaking I can find it.

"Not in the form I want" is an inconvenience to me. It's total inaccessibility to some readers.

Almost none--maybe none--of John Kenneth Galbraith's books are legitimately available as ebooks. Most are out of print. I suppose it's fine that people who need large-text versions or audiobooks wait another 70 years to read his books.