Copyright has a chilling effect on book sales...

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

Trouble is, none of today's Pagan groups and societies are even remotely connected to the Pagans of yore in anything other than belief (and even that's very highly debatable), no matter how loudly they claim otherwise, so there are no descendants of those particular copyright holders.

But we are not looking for descendents...we're looking for the rights holders. And wouldn't today's Druids have a stronger claim than today's Christians?

[QuantumIguana]

Put down the torch, and step away from the stake...

[Synamon]

Why don't we let everyone share the word freely. Novel, I know. We could call it public domain. Worth a try, don't you think?

[petrucci]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

Even if the books that are currently in copyright never go out of copyright...older books would still be competition for new books. So how does that help this poor hack authors you are so concerned about?

It helps them, as there would not be more competition from other works going out of copyright.

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

Also, what do you expect now? No one should have access to free reading materials? What kind of illiterate world do you want this to be? That will be a great way to make sure the poor and disadvantaged never have the opportunity to learn.

In many countries the education of the poor is subsidised. The poor will not go without books. It is my belief that eliminating writing as a profession will reduce the level of literacy.

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

Stop making excuses for inadequacy. There is no such thing as a "level playing field" that isn't falsely created in order to give the appearance of such. People like what they like. And if they prefer Austen to new hack writer...then they will read Austen even if they have to go on the black market to do so.

I have never been arguing for censorship. You are proposing a capitalist approach in which readers choose the books they want to read. I simply want to ensure that such an approach is not biased by differences in cost that are subsidised by various interests.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Not all compensation is monetary. Some authors are happy to get recognition. Fanfic takes time and effort to write, and nobody's insisting those authors should get paid. Many of those works are so obviously transformative there'd be no question of valid commercial use, especially the ones based on public domain works.

Are you saying that fanfic authors who write alternative endings to Pride and Prejudice or modernized Red Riding Hood stories, should sell them?

Yes I am.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Why should an author have to charge readers if they've got enough money to not need that? If they're unemployed and retired, or supported by their family, why are they morally obligated to make strangers pay them money they don't need, to cut down on the amount and quality of free works available for people who don't have money?

The reason is that failure to charge money for literary works devalues writing as a profession. Take a look at the newspaper industry. With news freely available on the internet, the quality of writing in news stories in print and online has gone down. Making the content freely available has essentially eliminated the job of reporter and has led to worse news reporting.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I really don't get your arguments. How is society better off if quality books are kept from the poor, and authors are forbidden to share their art on their own terms?

I think that society will benefit from great new works being written. I do not think as many such works will be produced if it is not economical to write a book. An author needs to cut her teeth on some early works. Even big successes sometimes take years to come to fruition. The Harry Potter series took many years to achieve its prominence.

Only someone who is very poor cannot afford a 6 dollar paperback. Those who cannot afford such a work, can access books from public libraries.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by petrucci

In many countries the education of the poor is subsidised. The poor will not go without books. It is my belief that eliminating writing as a profession will reduce the level of literacy.

Writing as a profession shows no signs of being in danger. More people are making a living writing today than have ever done so in the past.

I have never been arguing for censorship. You are proposing a capitalist approach in which readers choose the books they want to read. I simply want to ensure that such an approach is not biased by differences in cost that are subsidised by various interests.

You are proposing that readers are forced to subsidize the costs of books they don't want to read--and authors may not want to charge for. How would you propose to make it mandatory to charge for writing? How much would authors be required to charge for what kinds of works?

You're also being exceedingly unclear about where that money would go, if there's no author available. A hundred years from now, who'd have the right to set the minimum price and collect royalties for the last of the Sherlock Holmes stories? Two hundred years from now, who'd own the rights to the Beatles' music?

I think that society will benefit from great new works being written. I do not think as many such works will be produced if it is not economical to write a book.

I see no shortage of written material, of all levels of quality. I see a lot of people in legacy publishing businesses very worried that their business model is no longer working; I don't see authors outside that model complaining that it's harder to get paid today than it was 15 years ago.

Where's this shortage of new materials you're worried about so much that you'd like to create drastic changes to world economics? (Mandatory fees--for anything--is a drastic change. Who decides how much is enough? Who regulates that the fees are being charged?)

Only someone who is very poor cannot afford a 6 dollar paperback. Those who cannot afford such a work, can access books from public libraries.

"Someone who is very poor" includes children. Wouldn't want them having access to free reading materials, of course. It also includes parents with several children; wouldn't want them getting free ebooks or news either.

Obviously, anyone who's got time to read can afford "a" $6 paperback. The issue with affordable books for the poor is whether they can afford reading as a leisure and educational activity on a regular basis... or should they just be getting their new ideas from television?

We finally have a way to broadcast text as cheaply as sound has been sent to people's homes for decades, and you want to remove it? You want to require us to pay for materials that are currently being offered for free, in order to support the careers of authors who can't compete in an open marketplace?

Down to basics: How much do you think should be the minimum price for an ebook? (If you think different lengths or genres or something else should have different minimum prices, what would those be?) And who'll be managing that payment (and taking a cut)--Amazon? Paypal? Dwolla? Something else?

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by JD Gumby

Given that none of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (renamed the House of Windsor in 1910) are descended from King James I, therefore they have no legitimate claim.

Elizabeth II is a descendent of King James I and VI. (George I was the great-grandson of James I and VI)

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Elizabeth II is a descendent of King James I and VI. (George I was the great-grandson of James I and VI)

And even were she not, as I mentioned before, Crown Copyright revenue goes to "the crown" in the abstract, not to any particular person.

[petrucci]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Writing as a profession shows no signs of being in danger. More people are making a living writing today than have ever done so in the past.

I believe that writing as a profession is very much in danger. The example from the newspaper industry certainly suggests this. It would be a shame if the only people who can afford to write are the very wealth. This would set back hundreds of years of advances in society.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

You are proposing that readers are forced to subsidize the costs of books they don't want to read--and authors may not want to charge for.

No, I am not proposing that readers are forced to pay for books that they do not want.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

You're also being exceedingly unclear about where that money would go, if there's no author available. A hundred years from now, who'd have the right to set the minimum price and collect royalties for the last of the Sherlock Holmes stories? Two hundred years from now, who'd own the rights to the Beatles' music?

I would assume that the author appoints an heir. If this is not the case, most governments have laws pertaining to unclaimed assets.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Where's this shortage of new materials you're worried about so much that you'd like to create drastic changes to world economics? (Mandatory fees--for anything--is a drastic change. Who decides how much is enough? Who regulates that the fees are being charged?)

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. 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

"Someone who is very poor" includes children. Wouldn't want them having access to free reading materials, of course. It also includes parents with several children; wouldn't want them getting free ebooks or news either.

As I stated the poor will not go without books. There are public libraries, and other charities that offer books to the poor.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Obviously, anyone who's got time to read can afford "a" $6 paperback. The issue with affordable books for the poor is whether they can afford reading as a leisure and educational activity on a regular basis... or should they just be getting their new ideas from television?

Certainly there are more books in a public library than any of us have time to read. I do not believe that there is a shortage of books for the poor. Are we supposed to pay the poor so that they have time to read?

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

We finally have a way to broadcast text as cheaply as sound has been sent to people's homes for decades, and you want to remove it? You want to require us to pay for materials that are currently being offered for free, in order to support the careers of authors who can't compete in an open marketplace?

I am not suggesting removing the distribution channel. I do believe that authors should be paid for their work. It is possible that the cost of the book could be advertiser supported, and thus the consumer could think that it is free.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

How would you propose to make it mandatory to charge for writing? How much would authors be required to charge for what kinds of works?
...
Down to basics: How much do you think should be the minimum price for an ebook? (If you think different lengths or genres or something else should have different minimum prices, what would those be?) And who'll be managing that payment (and taking a cut)--Amazon? Paypal? Dwolla? Something else?

A government could create laws that make it mandatory to charge for works of fiction, and other forms of writing that are intended as entertainment. This may seem unreasonable and overreaching. However, governments have all sorts of restrictions on entertainment. They also have many restrictions on commerce to maintain a functional economic system. Although I do not prefer such political methods, I see the coming need for government intervention else the profession of writing will be in jeopardy. Given the gravity of the restrictions it is certainly worth waiting until there is concrete evidence of the decline in the profession.

It would be the goal that the price of books be such that authors are able to make a living from writing. Thus, different types of works would likely have different prices. The exact minimum price could be set through a consideration of the profits from similar books in the past. I must admit that all of this is rather much more complicated and authoritarian than I prefer. However, I do not see another method that preserves writing as a profession.

[QuantumIguana]

The idea that public domain works create barriers for struggling authors is simply not credible. For it to be true, a couple things have to be true. One would be that people would not read public domain works if they were not free. The other is that if the public domain works were not available, that they would be reading the works of struggling authors.

Let's tackle the first one. 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. Therefore, public domain works are not competitors to the readers time. This time would be spent reading classics anyway. Forcing people to pay for public domain works would result in nothing more than less money in the readers pocket to buy other books.

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. Someone who would otherwise read a classic book would most likely read a book of high quality if they were to read a new book. The struggling author who can't get anyone to buy their books probably isn't producing books that match up to the quality of the classics. If public domain books were not available, then readers might choose new books (or they might simply read less), but these books they selected would not be from struggling authors.

As only a small percentage of books in the public domain still are read by significant numbers of people, eternal copyright would put put tens of thousands of books into eternal limbo, where they would disappear just as surely as if they had been burned. An obscure book from the civil war that might be of great use to a historian would be gone, because no one had rights to it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Let's tackle the first one. Before e-books came along, people paid money for public domain books.

And, indeed, they still do.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by petrucci

I believe that writing as a profession is very much in danger. The example from the newspaper industry certainly suggests this.

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.

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?

It would be a shame if the only people who can afford to write are the very wealth. This would set back hundreds of years of advances in society.

*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.

No, I am not proposing that readers are forced to pay for books that they do not want.

My mistake. You're proposing that authors be forced to charge for books that they want to give away. (How extensive is that? Do they have to charge their family members? Their coworkers? Are they allowed to use coupons?)

I would assume that the author appoints an heir. If this is not the case, most governments have laws pertaining to unclaimed assets.

Government laws dealing with unclaimed assets are a *mess* when applied to copyright. There is no "copyright auction" to get rid of the huge number of orphaned works currently in existence, and no easy way to track down potentially dozens of copyright owners a few generations after the author's death. (Multiply by number of creators; movies can have hundreds of claimants: scriptwriter's heirs, original-book-author's heirs, composer's heirs, recording studio's heirs...)

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.

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.

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.

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.

As I stated the poor will not go without books. There are public libraries, and other charities that offer books to the poor.

I think you know nothing at all about the reading habits of the poor, nor how inadequate libraries are in rural areas. And it's ridiculous to say "charities can help them"--right now, AUTHORS are helping them. Why should the author have to go through a third party to donate books to the poor? (Or anyone else.) Can't the authors just say "my books are freely available to the poor"--and if so, why can't they say "my books are freely available to anyone who wants them?"

Will there be a limited, defined pool of people who are allowed to receive free books?

Certainly there are more books in a public library than any of us have time to read. I do not believe that there is a shortage of books for the poor. Are we supposed to pay the poor so that they have time to read?

If books were fungible, this argument would make sense. However, a library with 10,000 books does not mean every reader can find what they need or want; if that were true, we could shut down all the ebook sites on the web except for Project Gutenberg.

I am not suggesting removing the distribution channel. I do believe that authors should be paid for their work.

Even if they don't want to be, apparently. How much do you think they should charge for a 5000-word short story? For a 2000-word blog post? For a 50,000-word novel that they admit is rough and they're releasing it free at Smashwords in order to share with a few friends and get feedback from maybe a few extra people?

It is possible that the cost of the book could be advertiser supported, and thus the consumer could think that it is free.

You want *more* people involved in this money exchange?!? You are *oblivious* to overhead & accounting costs, aren't you?

However, governments have all sorts of restrictions on entertainment. They also have many restrictions on commerce to maintain a functional economic system.

Which governments mandate a minimum price for all copyrighted entertainment? Or for that matter, for all books?

It would be the goal that the price of books be such that authors are able to make a living from writing.

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.)

Thus, different types of works would likely have different prices. The exact minimum price could be set through a consideration of the profits from similar books in the past.

In the past, fanfic short stories have been priced at $0. How much do you think a 400-word Star Trek ficlet should cost to read? How much should a 150,000-word epic novel cost--given that it's made without the permission of Roddenberry's estate or Paramount Pictures? (Do you advocate the removal of fair use?)

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.

You're claiming to have a solution you can't describe to a problem other people don't perceive. It's no wonder you're not convincing anyone.

[MrsJoseph]

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.

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?



*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.



My mistake. You're proposing that authors be forced to charge for books that they want to give away. (How extensive is that? Do they have to charge their family members? Their coworkers? Are they allowed to use coupons?)



Government laws dealing with unclaimed assets are a *mess* when applied to copyright. There is no "copyright auction" to get rid of the huge number of orphaned works currently in existence, and no easy way to track down potentially dozens of copyright owners a few generations after the author's death. (Multiply by number of creators; movies can have hundreds of claimants: scriptwriter's heirs, original-book-author's heirs, composer's heirs, recording studio's heirs...)



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.



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.



I think you know nothing at all about the reading habits of the poor, nor how inadequate libraries are in rural areas. And it's ridiculous to say "charities can help them"--right now, AUTHORS are helping them. Why should the author have to go through a third party to donate books to the poor? (Or anyone else.) Can't the authors just say "my books are freely available to the poor"--and if so, why can't they say "my books are freely available to anyone who wants them?"

Will there be a limited, defined pool of people who are allowed to receive free books?



If books were fungible, this argument would make sense. However, a library with 10,000 books does not mean every reader can find what they need or want; if that were true, we could shut down all the ebook sites on the web except for Project Gutenberg.



Even if they don't want to be, apparently. How much do you think they should charge for a 5000-word short story? For a 2000-word blog post? For a 50,000-word novel that they admit is rough and they're releasing it free at Smashwords in order to share with a few friends and get feedback from maybe a few extra people?



You want *more* people involved in this money exchange?!? You are *oblivious* to overhead & accounting costs, aren't you?



Which governments mandate a minimum price for all copyrighted entertainment? Or for that matter, for all books?



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.)



In the past, fanfic short stories have been priced at $0. How much do you think a 400-word Star Trek ficlet should cost to read? How much should a 150,000-word epic novel cost--given that it's made without the permission of Roddenberry's estate or Paramount Pictures? (Do you advocate the removal of fair use?)

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.

You're claiming to have a solution you can't describe to a problem other people don't perceive. It's no wonder you're not convincing anyone.

+100000

Out of karma again today.


Let's not forget the tons of free work available in the "writing" section of Goodreads.

What it looks like is that someone wants to make it a requirement that all writers become fully supported full time writers. Which is too cute. I mean, it makes perfect sense to suddenly change the economics of multiple countries just so someone has decided that the regular way the writing game works isn't for them. I guess I should go take down my blog. All those free words I'm giving away. /sarcasm

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

+100000

Out of karma again today.

What it looks like is that someone wants to make it a requirement that all writers become fully supported full time writers. Which is too cute. I mean, it makes perfect sense to suddenly change the economics of multiple countries just so someone has decided that the regular way the writing game works isn't for them. I guess I should go take down my blog. All those free words I'm giving away. /sarcasm

I could understand a claim of "a diverse literary field is important to our culture, ergo, authors should be supported, and moreso than in the past because the internet has thrown the distribution systems out of whack. That means we should find ways to get payments to good authors who'd otherwise not be able to write as much, and all of society loses out when that happens." Sure. Support authors = good idea. Maybe we could extend NEA grants to authors, by some broad criteria, and allow a huge swarm of part-time novelists to become slightly-more-time novelists by way of a tax-supported stipend.

The argument would go over like a plutonium balloon in some arenas, but it's at least a plausible argument. We should have authors; if there's a threat to writing-as-career, something should be done about that. "Let's pay authors to write" is a reasonable starting point; "let's pay them with tax money" is a potentially workable plan.

"Let's have everyone charge money for writing, regardless of quality!" is not.
"Let's have everyone charge money for writing based on quality criteria that exist inside my head" is also not.
Nor is "Let's have all authors but not all writers charge for their works;" there's no longer a coherent difference between those categories.

And while "Let's have all ebook stores set a minimum price" is actually enforceable, unlike the others, it shows a vast lack of understanding of retail economics--that's not "support the authors;" it's "support the stores ... oh, and the authors, maybe, if they're ready to pay self-employment tax and file long-form income tax claims in the future; otherwise, it's a nice way to drive them into bankruptcy through tax complications."

[JD Gumby]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Elizabeth II is a descendent of King James I and VI. (George I was the great-grandson of James I and VI)

Huh. She is? Could've sworn there were a couple of breaks in the lineage in there... (I'm no Monarchist, so had to rely on high school history from more than 20 years ago and maybe 15 minutes of Wikipedia "research" :P)

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by JD Gumby

Huh. She is? Could've sworn there were a couple of breaks in the lineage in there... (I'm no Monarchist, so had to rely on high school history from more than 20 years ago and maybe 15 minutes of Wikipedia "research" :P)

James I and VI
Elizabeth Stuart
Sophie of Hanover
George I
George II
Frederick of Hanover
George III
Edward Duke of Kent
Victoria
Edward VII
George V
George VI
Elizabeth II

She's his 10G Granddaughter.

Here's a tree from Alfred the Great
http://www.britroyals.com/royaltree.htm