Quote:
Originally Posted by dmaul1114
I'm saying if Steven gets $4 or whatever for a paperback copy sold of The Shining , he should get $4 for an e-book copy of The Shining etc. E-book version cost the publisher less to put out, he did the same amount of work. He should get the same per copy, the publisher can get less and come out with the same (or close ideally) profit from not having printing and shipping costs on that copy.
Lesser known authors can get less per book etc. just like a lesser known band gets less per gig etc. But if that lesser known artist gets $1 per paperback copy of book A, he should get $1 per e-book copy.
|
I'm not sure that I understand why, if you're OK with an economic system where one author can command $4 per book and another $1 (because that's what the market will stand for their work), that you're not OK with that same system dictating that they get less for the same work in another medium.
To give an example which I think has some parallels - if I write some shareware aimed at use on PCs, I might decide that $10 is a fair price and make, say, $5 on it. The same software on a mobile phone might only cost, say, $2, and make $1 - because that is the nature of that market. It's up to me as a software producer to decide which devices to code for, what price to set etc. The market will decide what my efforts are worth. It wouldn't seem reasonable to me to complain that, now we have lots of mobile phone apps at a low price, it's not fair because I get less per sale. It's a large potential market and I have to decide whether I want to enter it on its terms.
In my view, the ebook market is likely to set a lower price point compared to paper books, but there is an ease of searching, of purchase etc. (or there should be!), and a much lower cost of sale, that offers compensating opportunities. I don't see why an author should necessarily get the same amount per sale in this new world (I hope they get more).