Copyright has a chilling effect on book sales...

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by petrucci

It does not cost anything to 'buy' and e-book that is out of copyright.

I think that depends on the quality of the copy you want. I read a copy of Beowulf this year. The PG copies were pretty much nowhere near the quality I wanted and I had to go dig up a paper copy. If there were copies of the Norton or Signett editions with commentary I would have purchased.

Its a fallacy to believe that just because something can be found for free means that no one would pay for a decent rendition. People do it all the time. If that were really the case...everyone would only pirate and no one would buy ebooks.

Not go into everything that you said - I just want to remind you that all of these books have been available for a very long time. Yet people still have jobs in publishing. Could it possibly be that people like new content? *gasp*

And re: musicians...again I call shenanigans. I know more than a handful of "professional musicians" who have published CDs, gig regularly, and have full time jobs. I would bet money that the number of people counted on that list were full time musicians vs people who haven't made enough to live off of that trade. They still count.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by petrucci

Sorry for the double post, but there are several people to whom I wish to reply.

There is certainly some truth to Quantum Iguana's statement about a book not selling. There is a lot of schlock out there, and much of it won't sell regardless of copyright. However, there are certainly some people who are choosing out of copyright books over new ones. These people are being lost from the new book market so to speak. This loss hurts authors as there is not as much money to go around.

I agree that many people are making music. However, a much smaller percentage of the population is earning a living from music. And some people are choosing Gershwin over other music.

The mistake you make is to assume that there is a fixed pool of money that people will spend on books, music or movies. If someone cannot read Dickens, this doesn't mean that they will simply buy a new book. If they can't buy Dickens, they may well just not read at all. Compyright does not, and cannot have the effect of eliminating competition to new books. As I said, the books that disappear into copyright limbo are books in low demand, they would be at most a small niche. Dickens would probably be read even if it was still in copyright. We'd probably lose the many adaptations of his works, but Dickens would be read. The Great Gatsby is still under copyright, and that hasn't driven it from the shelves.

Just look at all the books out there for sale. People are buying new books, and buying a lot of them. They put out good books - or at least books that people want to read - and people buy them. If someone's books don't sell, it's not because everyone is reading public domain books, it's because the readers don't want them. Readers aren't going to want these books any more just because public domain books aren't available.

I'm not sure what to make of that census data. It shows what people reported. Musicians needing a day job to get by is a very old practice. Are they a musician that waits tables or a waiter who is also in a band? They are going to pick one to put on the census.

People complained that movies were going to eliminate live theater. It didn't. People complained that TV would eliminate movies. It didn't. People complained the VCR was going to kill the movie industry. It didn't. Recorded music didn't kill live music. I vast range of live music to choose from.

But it doesn't matter. If someone can't compete with recorded music, too bad. That's not a reason to suppress recorded music. If someone can't compete with the works of the past, too bad. Write better books. Suppressing books to artificially create a market for new books has the same effect as book burning, and not only that, it won't increase the market for new books. Why should Gershwin be supressed?

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by petrucci

Although old content may be niche, it is still a factor. People who consumed old content did not spend their money on new content. This deprives current authors of revenue they would have had if the old content were not chosen.

You cannot be deprived of MY money. If I read a public domain book, I'm not "stealing" from a current author. The money is mine, until I choose to give it to someone else.

I suspect that old content will become more and more prevalent in the coming decades. For one, it will not cost anything. Secondly, some of it is really good.

The fact is, people generally prefer new books. English teachers all over the world might love it if everyone read old classics, but there is no sign of this happening. In the US, nothing will enter the public domain until 2019 due to extensions of copyright. Books from nearly a century ago aren't likely to domainate the book market. Why should people be deprived of a good book?

[petrucci]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

The mistake you make is to assume that there is a fixed pool of money that people will spend on books, music or movies. If someone cannot read Dickens, this doesn't mean that they will simply buy a new book. If they can't buy Dickens, they may well just not read at all. Compyright does not, and cannot have the effect of eliminating competition to new books. As I said, the books that disappear into copyright limbo are books in low demand, they would be at most a small niche. Dickens would probably be read even if it was still in copyright. We'd probably lose the many adaptations of his works, but Dickens would be read. The Great Gatsby is still under copyright, and that hasn't driven it from the shelves.

My point is that copyright has the effect of increasing the value of works. Obviously if you can copy a work for free, then its value goes down. Further, new works would not have to compete with no or reduced cost copyright works. This competition need not put new books out of business. It just siphons off some money making the situation worse for new authors.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

I'm not sure what to make of that census data. It shows what people reported. Musicians needing a day job to get by is a very old practice. Are they a musician that waits tables or a waiter who is also in a band? They are going to pick one to put on the census.

I agree the census data is not totally clear. However, my original statement was about musicians who were earning a living from music. I may look more into the issue.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

People complained that movies were going to eliminate live theater. It didn't. People complained that TV would eliminate movies. It didn't. People complained the VCR was going to kill the movie industry. It didn't. Recorded music didn't kill live music. I vast range of live music to choose from.

It is funny that you bring up these points, as movies have almost certainly decreased the number of people employed in live theatre.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

But it doesn't matter. If someone can't compete with recorded music, too bad. That's not a reason to suppress recorded music. If someone can't compete with the works of the past, too bad. Write better books. Suppressing books to artificially create a market for new books has the same effect as book burning, and not only that, it won't increase the market for new books. Why should Gershwin be supressed?

I do not think that I ever advocated that recorded music should be suppressed. However, competition from out of copyright material makes it more difficult to support yourself as an author.

Originally Posted by MrsJoeseph

Yet people still have jobs in publishing.

If Amazon has its way, there will be many fewer people.

[BeccaPrice]

I'm not sure what to make of this argument. Am I somehow cheating authors because I recently chose to re-read a mystery series rather than going out and buying new books? What's the difference between that and buying books at a used book store? or choosing to get public domain books at Gutenberg?

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by petrucci

My point is that copyright has the effect of increasing the value of works. Obviously if you can copy a work for free, then its value goes down. Further, new works would not have to compete with no or reduced cost copyright works. This competition need not put new books out of business. It just siphons off some money making the situation worse for new authors.

It doesn't siphon off money, because it is my money, not yours. If those new authors wrote better books, those books would sell. People aren't going to buy low-quality books just because the public domain books aren't available.

It is funny that you bring up these points, as movies have almost certainly decreased the number of people employed in live theatre.

But it has not gone away. The quality of live theatre has certainly increased. I have no shortage of live theatre to choose from.

I do not think that I ever advocated that recorded music should be suppressed. However, competition from out of copyright material makes it more difficult to support yourself as an author.

You seem to be promoting eliminating competition from public domain books. That's supression.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by petrucci

My point is that copyright has the effect of increasing the value of works. Obviously if you can copy a work for free, then its value goes down. Further, new works would not have to compete with no or reduced cost copyright works. This competition need not put new books out of business. It just siphons off some money making the situation worse for new authors.




If Amazon has its way, there will be many fewer people.

Wow. And here I thought that Amazon has a Publishing Arm.

Thank you for helping me to understand that all new books written/new songs composed that are still within copyright are by hacks that can't compete. We should get right on that old book/old track burning tour asap. Can't have these poor hack authors and musicians starving out there!

/sarcasm

[petrucci]

Originally Posted by BeccaPrice

I'm not sure what to make of this argument. Am I somehow cheating authors because I recently chose to re-read a mystery series rather than going out and buying new books? What's the difference between that and buying books at a used book store? or choosing to get public domain books at Gutenberg?

In my opinion you are not cheating authors by rereading books, or buying books used. I think that it is perfectly legitimate to do so. My point is that authors need to sell books to earn a living, and when people read out of print books for free, there are that many fewer customers for current authors.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

It doesn't siphon off money, because it is my money, not yours. If those new authors wrote better books, those books would sell. People aren't going to buy low-quality books just because the public domain books aren't available.

We seem to be going in circles. I agree that low quality books may not sell regardless of competition. However, if part of the book market is being satisfied with free books, then there is that many fewer new books sold. This means less money for authors.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

But it has not gone away. The quality of live theatre has certainly increased. I have no shortage of live theatre to choose from.

Many other people have a shortage of live theatre options.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

You seem to be promoting eliminating competition from public domain books. That's supression.

I am promoting copyright, and keeping copyright materials in copyright.

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

Wow. And here I thought that Amazon has a Publishing Arm.

They certainly encourage authors to self-publish their books on Kindle.

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

Thank you for helping me to understand that all new books written or new songs composed that are still within copyright are by hacks that can't compete. We should get right on that old book or old track burning tour asap. Can't have these poor hack authors and musicians starving out there!

end sarcasm

I am sad that you missed my point. I most certainly do not claim that all new works are by hacks, and can't compete. However, competition from out of copyright material does exist. It makes it that much harder to make a living as an author.

[QuantumIguana]

The intent of copyright is to give authors exclusive rights to their work for a limited time in exchange for the work entering the public domain at some point. It is not to supress works to that future authors on the fringe can make more money.

Long before e-books were available, people still bought paper copies of PD works. The "competition" would not go away if the books remained in copyright. People would still read Dickens. It is the obscure books that would disappear. Instead of reading Dickens for free, they would pay to read Dickens. How would that give you any more sales? If anything it would reduce the potential for sales of new books, because buyers would have less money in their pockets. Public domain books certainly aren't in competition for the reader's money.

[BeccaPrice]

We seem to be going in circles. I agree that low quality books may not sell regardless of competition. However, if part of the book market is being satisfied with free books, then there is that many fewer new books sold. This means less money for authors.

but if I re-read a book, that's essentially reading a free book, which means fewer new books sold, which means less money for the authors.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

[color]Citation needed[/COLOR][/B]. Given the ease with which current technologies allow people to produce music, the increased population of the earth and the fact that the world economy has increased, are you honestly saying that their are fewer people making music today than in 1912? Really? Really?!

I don't know how many people worked as professional musicians in 1912 as opposed to now. However, it is almost certainly the case that fewer people are actually making music today. This is a fairly well-studied phenomenon in music history; it's sometimes referred to as "the death of amateurism." Prior to recorded music, if you wanted to hear music, you had to play it or someone had to play it for you. Since part of being educated was learning how to read and play music, you didn't necessarily have to hire a professional to play at your party, or at your house. (Although you probably did have to buy the sheet music.) If you wanted to hear a symphony, you would buy a version transcribed for the piano and play it (or have your spouse do so).

With recorded music, you suddenly didn't need 12 years of piano lessons and sheet music to hear music; you just bought the recording. This also made music more available to people who weren't educated, of course.

(This is studied in music history because it affected the audiences for classical music - if most of your audience are amateur musicians, they will "get" certain things that people without musical training might miss. Sort of like watching the Simpsons or Family Guy if you don't understand any of the cultural references).

WRT professional musicians, it is possible that their numbers increased due to the popularity of recorded music, at least up to a point. It was hard to put even a trio in an elevator...but with recorded music, it can be played 24/7.

[petrucci]

Originally Posted by BeccaPrice

but if I re-read a book, that's essentially reading a free book, which means fewer new books sold, which means less money for the authors.

I assume that the price of the book takes into account things like rereading and loans. I may have mentioned this in the used book piracy thread.

My point is that books that are out of copyright are not on a level playing field with those that are in.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

The intent of copyright is to give authors exclusive rights to their work for a limited time in exchange for the work entering the public domain at some point. It is not to supress works to that future authors on the fringe can make more money.

Long before e-books were available, people still bought paper copies of PD works. The "competition" would not go away if the books remained in copyright. People would still read Dickens. It is the obscure books that would disappear. Instead of reading Dickens for free, they would pay to read Dickens. How would that give you any more sales? If anything it would reduce the potential for sales of new books, because buyers would have less money in their pockets. Public domain books certainly aren't in competition for the reader's money.

I am not anti competition. I am opposed to unfair competition. This has become a greater concern now, as a digital copy of an out of copyright book can cost next to nothing. In such a circumstance it is not on a level playing field with new books whose authors are still trying to make a living.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by petrucci

I am not anti competition. I am opposed to unfair competition. This has become a greater concern now, as a digital copy of an out of copyright book can cost next to nothing. In such a circumstance it is not on a level playing field with new books whose authors are still trying to make a living.

There is nothing "unfair" about the public domain. What you are proposing is the artificial elimination of competition.

There are public domain books that are commonly read, and there are public domain books that aren't commonly read. The ones that are commonly read are going to be read whether or not copyright is made eternal. People are going to read Jane Austen or Dickens whether or not they are under copyright. If they were under copyright, the only difference would be that the reader would have less disposable money in their pockets than they would if these books were public domain.

If Jane Austen and Dickens were somehow suppressed, this would NOT mean more sales for authors on the fringe. The people who read classics would simply read more of the better current authors, rather than reading books of marginal quality.

If you were correct, then book sales would be collapsing as e-reader owners obtained nothing but public domain works. But that isn't the case. E-reader owners do read some public domain books, but also read a whole lot of new books.

[cfrizz]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

You cannot be deprived of MY money. If I read a public domain book, I'm not "stealing" from a current author. The money is mine, until I choose to give it to someone else.



The fact is, people generally prefer new books. English teachers all over the world might love it if everyone read old classics, but there is no sign of this happening. In the US, nothing will enter the public domain until 2019 due to extensions of copyright. Books from nearly a century ago aren't likely to domainate the book market. Why should people be deprived of a good book?

Agreed! I have NO interest in reading the old classics, I also have no interest in reading the newest BPHs books either due to the prices. However, I'm still finding PLENTY to read at prices I'm willing to pay in subject matter that I like to read!

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by petrucci

I am not anti competition. I am opposed to unfair competition. This has become a greater concern now, as a digital copy of an out of copyright book can cost next to nothing. In such a circumstance it is not on a level playing field with new books whose authors are still trying to make a living.

Artists have *always* been in competition with all the art that's gone before them. Sculptors a hundred years ago were competing with Michaelangelo; portrait artists are competing with Rembrandt; authors are competing with Shakespeare and the Iliad; musicians have only recently been in direct competition with previous musicians, but were always in competition with enthusiastic amateurs. Now there's less enthusiastic amateurs and more previous experts to compete with.

The same tools that allow artists to distribute their own works widely and easily allow historical works to be distributed; the playing field has not become uneven. Artists still have to find a reason people should pay them instead of enjoying the fruits of hundreds of years of a single-language civilization.

Every publisher for the last couple-hundred years has had to ask, "will I make more money printing J.Q. Author's new book, or reprinting Shakespeare's plays?"

Every pub owner for the last hundred has considered, "will I make more from customers if I hire a band than I'll lose to the band itself?"--the option of recorded music changed the dynamic a bit, but not much; there were always more issues at stake than the flat cost of music. (Musicians need space and sound equipment, and they have personalities. Part of the appeal of recorded music is that it never hits on the waitstaff or demands extra fries with its burger.)

Every reader has had to decide, "shall I read this new novel by someone I've never heard of, or this book I'm told is excellent, which was written a hundred years ago?" And they've had to decide that over and over. They didn't read new authors because they couldn't find a copy of Dickens' or Doyle's works.

On the one hand, yes, there are thousands more public domain works widely available now. (Couple-million, googlebooks says, but some of those are repeats and some are not "books" in the standard sense.) On the other hand, authors who want to find their audience don't have to first convince an agent and then a publisher that the public wants to read their work--they can get a free blog & start writing, set up ebooks on their choice of several platforms.

Mary Wollstonecraft can't set up a blog and twitter account and start interacting with her fans. Jane Austen can't warn people away from that zombie book and toward her original works.

I'm not seeing the "unfairness" of the current situation for authors & other artists.