Publishers need to die

[Charbax]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

People who want me to pay more taxes - eg. money to be used for things I don't need - need to die.

I don't regard corporations as people. I don't equate the business of publishing to that of the human being working there.

I am not suggesting people should actually die. I am suggesting that the companies those people work for and their old business models need to die.

[Phogg]

Charbax, when did government ever do anything right, and without sending moneys collected to big political donors rather than to the intended recipients?

Your Obama tax would result in starving authors turned out of their homes.

Think a little.

[Charbax]

Originally Posted by Phogg

Your Obama tax would result in starving authors turned out of their homes.

On the contrary, the authors are starving as things are today. Only an extremely few authors are full time authors the way things work today with publishing companies controlling the whole system.

My Obama tax suggestion will result in 4 million new authors worldwide living full time being authors. Basically which amounts to all the worlds bloggers and online authors being able to share $100 billion yearly resources worldwide.

Not $1 should go to publishers though. If authors will want to hire copyeditors or profetional translators, it'll be their choice. None of which should be contractually obligated ever again to share any of their intellectual propriety revenues with publishing companies.

[Gaurnim]

Originally Posted by Charbax

My Obama tax suggestion will result in 4 million new authors worldwide living full time being authors. Basically which amounts to all the worlds bloggers and online authors being able to share $100 billion yearly resources worldwide.

This has already been discussed more than 100 years ago, when copyright was put into place (in England I think).
I can't find the link, I'm sure somebody else on the forum will. If not, I'll have a more thorough look when I'm back at home.

It was said that copyright is the "least objectionable" way of paying authors for their works, as opposed to public or private funding, where the state's or the sponsor's opinions influence the authors they choose and the amount of money they give them.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by Charbax

On the contrary, the authors are starving as things are today. Only an extremely few authors are full time authors the way things work today with publishing companies controlling the whole system.

My Obama tax suggestion will result in 4 million new authors worldwide living full time being authors. Basically which amounts to all the worlds bloggers and online authors being able to share $100 billion yearly resources worldwide.

Not $1 should go to publishers though. If authors will want to hire copyeditors or profetional translators, it'll be their choice. None of which should be contractually obligated ever again to share any of their intellectual propriety revenues with publishing companies.

Show me one example of government not diverting money away from its intended purpose into a politicians coffers, and I'll show you an issue that hasn't been investigated yet.

New Orleans's levees anyone?
How about all that lottery money that was supposed to go to schools?

[lilac_jive]

Originally Posted by Charbax

I don't regard corporations as people. I don't equate the business of publishing to that of the human being working there.

I am not suggesting people should actually die. I am suggesting that the companies those people work for and their old business models need to die.

Constitutionally, in the US corporations are people. Just thought you'd like to know.

[Charbax]

Originally Posted by lilac_jive

Constitutionally, in the US corporations are people. Just thought you'd like to know.

Then it should be just as easy to just fire them and tell them to do something else.

If it's a bad thing to suggest that the Government should control corporations, then it should be much worse when corporations think they can control the lives of millions of people for the only sake of inflating their own profits.

Corporations were supposed to be ruled by the Government, the Government of the people, instead corporations are ruling both the Government and the people.

[lilac_jive]

Originally Posted by Charbax

Then it should be just as easy to just fire them and tell them to do something else.

If it's a bad thing to suggest that the Government should control corporations, then it should be much worse when corporations think they can control the lives of millions of people for the only sake of inflating their own profits.

Corporations were supposed to be ruled by the Government, the Government of the people, instead corporations are ruling both the Government and the people.

I think you have more problems with corporations than publishers. Is this the case?

[DixieGal]

What's the matter, Charbax? Why all the anger? I didn't remember you being this angry, so I clicked on your name in the thread and flipped back through all of your posts. You've never seemed so angry in the past. Are you OK?

[giddion]

Actually if you want some feedback on this from a published and author you should read the site/blogs of my favorite author Lawrence Watt-Evans: http://www.watt-evans.com/

He writes books the "traditional" way and also in reader supported serials, in the case of the serials if he gets sufficient donations for a particular work he essentially becomes his own publisher and has the print book mass produced and distributed.

He was also an early adopter of the ebook format and insists that his works are distributed DRM free, he relies on the fans to support him by purchasing the books, his print editions or by donating to his serials. But feels the DRM systems are awkward and unreasonable.

Despite his strong support of ebooks he still does books the traditional way as well (as a fan I wish all of his books were available in ebook but some of his publishers restrict that) He is clear how using a publisher benefits him:

If you compare his serials to the published work you can see the work done by the copy editors (and if the work is copy edited by the community I don't see any author getting paid, everyone will read it and consider themselves editors)

The publisher works as a form of insurance to him, they have lawyers and financial reserves by which to protect the authors IP rights - J.K. Rowlings will also speak strongly of this function as random house lawyers have worked hard on her behalf protecting her money when pre-releases were leaked to the web or fan translation were released prior to the official translation.

The publisher pays him in advance for works, and guarantee certain payments on delivery of finished work, giving him the ability to dedicate his time to writing knowing his children will be fed. Pier Anthony spoke on this in his author's notes during his Xanth days, he apparently came up with MANY book ideas and would submit them to the publisher, the publisher had a team to provide reader feedback and would base their offers on that feedback, he would then write the books he knew he would be paid for.

Publishers handle publicity, you can speak all you want about ratings and reader recommendations etc but there is a HUGE and I do mean HUGE volume of readers that essentially don't think for themselves, I know readers and not thinking sounds like an oxymoron but it's true. Many people don't buy an author until a certain person (can we say Oprah) or reviewer tells them to. It's the publisher that gets the book into the hands of those important people and its all $$ based. It's also the publisher that gets those exciting little review snippets on the jackets and and again I've seen people making book choices simply because of how those mini reviews sound.

Yes I'm reading/hearing the stuff on the art tax and how much a medium shift requires a shift in business etc etc. It's nice sounding but it's not going to happen, at least not in the next decade. Too much would have to change we just barely got China to agree to the current copy righting/author compensation policies, you think tomorrow they'll agree to pay taxes to an author fund instead? Also thousands of content authors particularly in the music industry are bound by legal contracts that would prevent them from publishing in a web 2.0 medium. If there is a system coming down the line that might eliminate publishers you can be sure that they will be writing very creative and binding agreements that will preserve their rights to control those content authors.

Also speaking of those other mediums without the legal contracting etc who controls the compensation in group endeavors? Take a research work that was written by 5 authors, who decides who gets what for a particular work? Even if they are paid in the tax based on the success of previous work who decides how much credit each author gets for this work. Or for a hit song how much is the singer, how much is the band, how much is the mixer, how much is the lyrics and how much is the music (you know the beat etc - there is a word for it but it escapes me right now)

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Charbax

Of course this new copyright tax system needs to be worldwide. I think it is very fair, . . . Simply put, pay intellectual propriety through taxes.

This proposition isn't insane. We already pay for TV, radio, libraries, museums, galleries, sculptures and other common good through taxes in many developed countries.

You are correct that a lot of our tax dollars goes to support institutions that we may consider superfluous to our daily lives, such as the Museum of Beer Cans and Bottles. Sadly, that occurs because the American voter keeps reelecting congresspersons who can bring home that bottle of Billy Beer and who really do not think about what is best for the country as a whole.

But what you really are proposing is not a "fair" system; it is just a way to subsidize something you support that no one else may be interested in supporting.

A much better solution would be to require everyone to pay percentage of their income (on a progressive sliding scale) as a tax and then select how the tax collector can spend it. Thus, if I want to support starving children and universal health care but not writers and artists or the Beer Museum, I could make that election. You, OTOH, could support writers and artists and let the children starve. (I wonder what would happen if no one supported national defense.)

[Moejoe]

I think what we're seeing here is a cultural rift between European ideas of subsidisation and a more American idea of individual liberty.

I agree with a lot of what Charbax is saying and I think that is mainly because I come from a country that has arts subsidy at almost every level. We're culturally biased toward an idea of 'sharing' from the get go, whatever European country we may live in. Taxation is almost a natural extension of that idea to us. Also, being a pragmatist, I can't see how the publishing industry can survive in a world with ebook readers and widespread sharing of intellectual works.

Let's address some of the points others have made, and I apologise in advance for not quoting the individuals. A point was raised as to the efficiency and usefulness of the copyeditor in the publishing process. Now, I'd agree, that a good copyeditor can polish the proverbial turd and turn it into gold, but, and this is a massive but (pun intended) just pick a random selection of best-sellers from your local bookstore and take a look at what is actually being printed. Verbose, meandering, fat tomes of unadulterated rubbish is pumped out every day by the publishing industry. A lot of it has barely seen the red pen. I give you, and I mean no offence to fans, the last four or five books of Stephen King as evidence, anything by James Patterson in the last five years, and most contraversial of all, the Harry Potter series. (Yes I fully expect to be hunted down and killed for this one).

In an industry with such razor thin margins quality and individual expression are never high on the agenda. The fabled editors of yore who would mould and cultivate a young writer are all but gone. This is a bottom-line industry and the only aim now is to find and market a product. A product which is becoming less and less culturally relevant in the face of modern entertainments and social attitude (What caring enviromentalist could truly support an industry built upon the destruction of trees?).

And then we come sharply to the inequity that is built into the publishing industry. When we see the top 1% of writers taking in the majority of the profit, how can we not wish for a more equal relationship to occur? How can we not wish for more individual voices to be allowed a moment in the sun, maybe even enough moments to grow into something fulfilling and worthwhile. Advances for the new writer are laughable, profits, if any, are measured in the low percentile. In this atmosphere any writer has to be a Patterson, King or Rowling to be worthwhile to the industry. This then leads to a homogenous, porridge of releases fit only for the plane journey and beach retreat. I give, my learned friends, as pure an example as I can find -- the recent popularity of the Twilight series. A more asinine, badly-written, unpolished turd as there ever was.

Where does that leave us and the publishing industry in the face of modern technologies? Well, for the writer, there is no better time to go it alone. Subsidisation may not be the end-all panacea the writer is looking for, but in coutnries that are favourable to taxtation for the arts, it maybe one method for the writer to survive. On the other hand, digital publishing by the sole author is more viable now than ever before. And it is this the lone author that will finally kill the publishing industry.

A writer does not have to set any fixed price, he has no major overheads to consider apart from hosting a website and the tools with which to produce the original work. Translations, as we've seen with Cory Doctorow's work, can be undertaken by eager and willing fans of the work. Editing can be done by the writer if he's so inclined, shared amongst 'alpha-testers' or outsourced to a more critical eye. The argument of quality derived from the series of hurdles a writer must go through in the traditional publishing industry is almost laughable when we look at the 'quality' of what is released by that same industry every day. The writer, alone, setting his own price, working at whatever pace he may wish, and in direct contact with the readers becomes his own publishing industry. This writer, savvy with P2P distribution, excited by what technology offers and working under his own profit incentives, cannot be beat by an industry that is still trying to fit an old business model into into the connected world. This new writer is free to write whatever fancy he likes without worry or fear of the bottom-line, he gives his writing away free and asks in return only the kindness of strangers to keep him going.

The future may not be subsidized, but it is more than likely to be gifted from reader to writer and back again. Maybe, in that future we'll see more rubbish, but we'll also discover diamonds and those diamonds, for us the readers, will cost less and less. In this model individual liberty and collective sharing becomes part and parcel of the way things are.

For me, the publishing industry is a dinosaur looking up into the sky as the comet approaches, a puzzled look upon its face.

[Charbax]

Originally Posted by giddion

thousands of content authors particularly in the music industry are bound by legal contracts that would prevent them from publishing in a web 2.0 medium. If there is a system coming down the line that might eliminate publishers you can be sure that they will be writing very creative and binding agreements that will preserve their rights to control those content authors.

Although I agree that there might be an overlap problem when introducing the Obama art tax law and all these multi-year contracts that many currently established artists and authors have signed with publishers and labels. That overlap though might only be temporary. And Obama can pass the art tax for new artists to jump on that right away, and old artists can jump on it whenever they can free themselves from their previously signed contractual obligations.

All those contracts can simply be made void by a new law. Laws passed by Governments trump whatever contracts corporations sign to own artists and authors.

And not being a lawyer at all myself, I would say though that it should be pretty much unconstitutional for one person (the corporation) to own the intellectual propriety of another person. Thus all those contracts should become void by default.

Anyways, Obama and world leaders should basically legalize piracy. Which means no corporation can prevent copies of all the works of art from being traded on the Internet, none of the people downloading and uploading it can be sued any ways. Legalizing piracy basically means authors can upload their content wherever they want on Web 2.0 sites and they cannot get sued by the contract with whatever publisher/music label/movie studio to which they might previously have sold their soul to in the past few years where prospects have been so gloom for all the artists in the world.

[Charbax]

Originally Posted by DixieGal

What's the matter, Charbax? Why all the anger? I didn't remember you being this angry, so I clicked on your name in the thread and flipped back through all of your posts. You've never seemed so angry in the past. Are you OK?

I am not angry. I am just stating the basic truth.

I suppose some people though, perhaps working in the current publishing business, might feel a bit threatened by my words of wisdom.

[Charbax]

Originally Posted by rhadin

A much better solution would be to require everyone to pay percentage of their income (on a progressive sliding scale) as a tax and then select how the tax collector can spend it.

You might as well just not pay any taxes then. Smaller government doesn't solve anything. It's pretty much proven fact. Just look at Bush and his gigantic tax cuts to the rich. It didn't solve anything other than to create the worlds worst economic and financial meltdown in history, a melting north pole with rising sea levels, millions killed in the middle-east for the privatization of Oil and a record level of starving people in poor countries.

You right wing libertarian conservatives have had your chance in the last 14 years. Now it's time for the meaningful socialists to take over and fix the problems that you have created.