Harper Lee's heirs kill mass market paperback of 'To Kill a Mockingbird'

[bgalbrecht]

We don't know who are the recipients of Harper Lee's estate because the will was sealed by a judge. But we know that their first decision, the day after the will was sealed, was to cancel the mass market paperback, and nearly double the cost of the cheapest paper edition in print. The ebook price was about half-way between the MMPB and TPB prices. Obviously, it's their legal right to do so. Unlike Steve Eisenberg, I don't consider $8.99 to be a below market price, but it may well be for the academic market, where I see some editions of public domain works costing $10-25.

[harriska2]

Yes, my son read to Kill a Mockingbird in high school about 3 or 4 years ago.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

But we know that their first decision, the day after the will was sealed, was to cancel the mass market paperback, and nearly double the cost of the cheapest paper edition in print.

Not quite.
http://www.amazon.com/Kill-Mockingbi...ll+mockingbird

The real world jump went from $5.89 to $$8.92.
So it's closer to a 50% increase for consumers.
Royalties though, did roughly double: typical trade paperback royalties run 12-15% of list (say, $1.80 per copy) versus 8-9% for mass market (about $0.90 per copy).

Now, we know pbook sales in all forms have been declining since at least the turn of the century and it may be that this so beloved book isn't selling as well as it used to. Maybe schools today don't consider it quite as topical and compelling as it was a half century ago. Times change.

And maybe...
Maybe after taxes, agents fees, estate taxes, investors taxes, medical bills, etc... Maybe they really *need* the money.

Again: without knowing where the money is going (and who made the call) we have no way to pass valid judgment on the non-legal aspects. The legal aspects are totally clear: those with the right to choose chose. End of legal story.

The rest? Internet handwringing.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by barryem

It's a complicated topic and any simple answer you posit is almost certainly wrong.

We don't really know anything about Harper Lee's state of mind. The rumors are worrisome and believable but they're only rumors and law can't deal with rumors. Only with facts.

It's certainly true that Congress has made a mockery of the "limited time" statement in the Constitution but they are Congress and they're entitled to do that. I'm very sure that a millennium down the road Disney will have lobbied them to set copyright's "limited time" to something like "forever minus one". There's nothing in the Constitution that prohibits Congress from mockery.

We don't have to like all this stuff. I certainly don't like it. But if we want to complain about it let's complain with facts and not rumors.

Barry

It's an opinion, based on what I think likely happened. Frankly, no one here has the facts. What we have what is said in the news, which may or may not be true.

There most certainly is something in the Constitution that prevents Congress from making laws that is contrary to the Constitution. Eventually, the pendulum will swing. That's normally what happens when people go too far in one direction.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Because it puts this iconic book out of reach of a lot of people who want to own the pBook.

How is this any worse than outstanding original art being out of my reach to purchase? I go to the museum to view great art, and use the library to read outstanding books.

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Eventually, the pendulum will swing. That's normally what happens when people go too far in one direction.

I do tend to believe in regression to the mean and pendulum swings.

However, the length of US copyright protection for a book like Mockingbird (published in 1960 by author who died in 2016) is at least ten years less than for a comparable work in almost every other country. If the pendulum swings, it could easily swing to a consistent life plus 50 or, more likely, 70. This would reduce the copyright length for Go Set a Watchman, but increase it for To Kill a Mockingbird.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

How is this any worse than outstanding original art being out of my reach to purchase? I go to the museum to view great art, and use the library to read outstanding books.

Exactly. If the book really is that outstanding, then it would be worth a little bit extra to own a copy. Not like it is complicated to grab a free copy from the library to read it. Probably a topic for the P&R forum whether the book deserves the status of iconic or not. As far as I am concerned I am not tempted to put it on my TBR pile any time soon.

[rkomar]

Do libraries have enough copies for everyone in school? Of course not, we're not talking about recreational reading here. Cranking up the price of a book in the syllabus will cost more for the students. If that's a problem, they'll just have to replace it with another, cheaper book.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

it could easily swing to a consistent life plus 50 or, more likely, 70. This would reduce the copyright length for Go Set a Watchman, but increase it for To Kill a Mockingbird.

The US already has life+70 for works created after 1977, or published after 2002. So Go Set a Watchman has a copyright length in the US of life+70.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

The US already has life+70 for works created after 1977, or published after 2002. So Go Set a Watchman has a copyright length in the US of life+70.

Thanks for correction. Bringing up Watchman confused the point, which is that the US copyright length for Mockingbird is unusually short by international standards.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Love your thread title.
Do schools even still teach "To kill a mockingbird"?

Absolutely!

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Thanks for correction. Bringing up Watchman confused the point, which is that the US copyright length for Mockingbird is unusually short by international standards.

I wouldn't have said unusually short. 2061 (publication + 95) instead of 2067 (life+50).

I wish the US and the EU would adopt life+50 required by the Berne convention instead of the excessive life+70.

Of course, if I ruled the world, copyright would be more like max(life,50 from publication). But I don't see that ever happening. Life+50 might.

[Catlady]

As far as access to the book goes, considering how many copies have been in circulation, I should think that anyone who can't afford the higher price could easily find a secondhand copy.

[issybird]

Knowing nothing about it, I'm still going to opine that the heirs may be a little behindhand in this. I'm sure there was a spike in sales following both the release of Go Set a Watchman and Harper Lee's death, but I assume it's settled down to more typical levels and price could matter. I suppose they've got a good sense of the elasticity of demand, but it could be wishful thinking. In any case, a very nice earner, all things considered.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Catlady

As far as access to the book goes, considering how many copies have been in circulation, I should think that anyone who can't afford the higher price could easily find a secondhand copy.

Or call someone that has many books. They might have a copy that they will loan you. Also check the thrift stores.
I figure only hardcover first editions will be hard to find.
Or find a student that read the book last year or last semester.

[peterwardgd]

Those third world libraries and their tiny collections of books. Jesus, that must be a hell of a view down that nose of yours commenter honestly. And then someone's god makes and appearance! The comments, oh the comments. mobileread how ive missed you.