You don't matter - and you never did

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

Second, I don't see the price of eBooks having dropped over time. Can anyone cite examples of titles dropping when the paperback came out?

AFAIK it can take a year for the paperback to come out, so it's probably too soon for most books.

That said, I can't definitively state the earlier prices. However, here are a couple of ebooks with agency pricing, released in 2010, that are far less than $15:

http://www.amazon.com/Just-Kids-eboo...RJV5Z6VNY3TFJE

http://www.amazon.com/Will-Grayson-e...RJV5Z6VNY3TFJE


There are also ebooks which are NOT agency priced, released in April, where Amazon is setting the price far above $10:

http://www.amazon.com/Devil-Sherlock...RJV5Z6VNY3TFJE

http://www.amazon.com/Play-Their-Hea...RJV5Z6VNY3TFJE


Keep in mind none of this is comprehensive -- you'd really need to record Amazon's ebook prices over the past 2 years to determine how agency pricing has actually affected prices.

However, since the $10 price point was far from universal (even at Amazon), and since so many ebooks are not using agency pricing: I suspect the fears of massive book price hikes may be real, but if so they are exaggerated.

Originally Posted by GA Russel

I'm much more concerned about the lack of interest (or ability) of the publishers in releasing back catalogue titles of deceased authors.

Well, there's only so much they can do.

• Publishers do not have unlimited budgets or staff, and it takes time and money to release back catalog ebooks.
• The authors/estates may well want to use a different publisher for ebooks as for paper.
• Authors / estates may hold out for better royalty rates.
• Authors / estates may just hate the idea of digital books (I can't imagine JD Salinger, for example, ever authorizing an ebook of Catcher in the Rye).
• Paper sales may be so low as to not justify priority for an ebook release.
• The works in question may be orphans -- e.g the original publisher holder may be out of business; author or estate may be unlocatable; rights may be in dispute.
• There may be as many as 20 million print titles in existence -- possibly more.
• Despite all this, Amazon has gone from 100k to over 700k ebook titles offered in the past 2 years.

In other words, it's not like Penguin can snap its fingers and release its entire back catalog in digital form overnight. A process like this takes time and money.

[boxcorner]

Originally Posted by bobavey

So, is the glass half full, or half empty?

I think it's broken.

[GA Russell]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Well, there's only so much they can do.

• Publishers do not have unlimited budgets or staff, and it takes time and money to release back catalog ebooks.
• The authors/estates may well want to use a different publisher for ebooks as for paper.
• Authors / estates may hold out for better royalty rates.
• Authors / estates may just hate the idea of digital books (I can't imagine JD Salinger, for example, ever authorizing an ebook of Catcher in the Rye).
• Paper sales may be so low as to not justify priority for an ebook release.
• The works in question may be orphans -- e.g the original publisher holder may be out of business; author or estate may be unlocatable; rights may be in dispute...

In other words, it's not like Penguin can snap its fingers and release its entire back catalog in digital form overnight. A process like this takes time and money.

Thus my concern about the publishers' lack of ability.

In regard to copyright, I am in favor of "use it or lose it". I object to a publisher having the legal right to keep a book off the market because it does not think the book will sell.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

Thus my concern about the publishers' lack of ability.

In case you missed it, several items on that list explicitly mention the author's rights, intents and wishes. An author should not, under any circumstances, be forced to sign a contract or release materials in a specific medium.

Also, who else should handle this task? Perhaps the government? IMO this would be a terrible idea, as it gives government too much power over digital content. It would be a tremendously expensive task, which is unlikely to happen in the onrushing age of austerity. Who would set the prices -- legislators? The Library of Congress, perhaps? And in the US in particular, would run the risk of censorship and/or massive partisan battles over what content is "acceptable." And of course, by the time you actually figure out how to legislate the required destruction of copyright (an unlikely event), the publishers will have put out most of the back catalogs anyway.

Google, perhaps? They are trampling over the author's rights to manage their content; the quality is low; they've often bowed to authoritarian governments. Nor has Google demonstrated that it is a fine steward of content or respectful of privacy.

How about the authors? If the contracts don't explicitly reference digital rights, or if the publisher returns the digital rights, then there's no problem. However, that's hardly going to produce a solution overnight.

Any entity other than a publisher, or author who successfully captures or asserts the rights, that is capable of doing the job brings a whole host of issues to the table -- compulsion, violation of contracts, censorship, privacy to name a few. I'd say in this particular instance, it's much better to let the markets take their course.

Or to put it another way: Your desire for Product X in Format Y Right Now, Dammit does not legitimize the total disregard of an author's wishes, a publisher's rights, or international copyright law.

Originally Posted by GA Russell

In regard to copyright, I am in favor of "use it or lose it". I object to a publisher having the legal right to keep a book off the market because it does not think the book will sell.

Meaning what? That a rights holder should be required by law to publish a book in a format that you demand, or lose those rights?

Allowing open or free use of an orphan work can create a massive loophole. For example, the copyrights of photographers are routinely abused already; it would be easy for an art director to claim they couldn't locate the rights holder of an image, and use it freely. And we're not talking about images 70 years old -- abuses of images less than 10 years old, by people who fully understand that it's an infringement, is downright routine.

This is not to say that the status quo in regard to orphaned works is ideal, far from it. Rather, any plan regarding orphan works needs to be carefully managed in order to avoid abuses.

[GA Russell]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

...Or to put it another way: Your desire for Product X in Format Y Right Now, Dammit does not legitimize the total disregard of an author's wishes, a publisher's rights, or international copyright law.

...

Meaning what? That a rights holder should be required by law to publish a book in a format that you demand, or lose those rights?...

We're straying from the point of the OP, but what the heck, it's not the first time that's happened here.

Keep in mind that I am referring to how the world would be if I wrote the law, not my interpretation of the law as it currently stands.

I have sympathy for living authors, but not much for anyone else in the loop.

It is my view that once a work is released to the public, the author, etc., should not have the legal right to later withhold it from the public.

I know very little about the book publishing industry other than what I have read here in the past year and a half. I have for many years been keeping my eye on the music business, and am familiar with their issues, some of which, I believe, pertain to books.

It appears to me that there are a couple of similarities in the development of the two industries over the past few decades.

I gather that books, like music, has seen a number of mergers and acquisitions. This has had two unfortunate results.

The first is that the remaining corporations are run by people (often referred to as "bean counters") who have little passion for the product they sell, and are almost exclusively interested in producing smash hits.

The second is that the remaining corporations now own such a large amount of product that their staffs cannot effectively manage what they have. I am referring to back catalogue.

Copyright law grants a monopoly on a specific product to the copyright holder. In my view, this monopoly should be contingent upon the "use it or lose it" philosophy. The govt should not enforce the rights of the copyright holder who does not keep his work available to the public.

Let us consider music:

a) The European (and most of the world) period of copyright is fifty years from the date of recording. Today small European record companies are releasing (without permission required) jazz records from the fifties that the large corporations haven't kept in print for years.

b) In the US, small record companies are licensing sixties jazz recordings from the "majors" who consider their sales potential to be too small to make the effort.

Now back to books.

Yes, if a corporation feels that the sales potential of a back catalogue title does not justify the effort of putting it out, I believe that anyone else should be free to publish it without fear.

If a corporation does not have the staff to do what it takes to publish its property, then the govt should not recognize its ownership of that property anymore. If the corporation wants to keep its copyright without doing the work, it should farm it out to small companies like the record companies do.

[NVash]

Why not? Why not get some of these 'pirates' scanning books to make up a small business and make some cash out of it? Then the 'pirates' will no longer be pirating, everyone will get the books they want, corporations will be getting money which they can then give to the authors, everyonell be happy. Thatll never happen will it?

[GA Russell]

That's the idea, NV!

I envisage the folks who get the back catalogue farmed out to them to be college students who would be scanning the books anyway. Put' em on the payroll!

[lack]

All I see is one person having an inferiority complex and is trying to drag everyone down with him. It was never a discussion to begin with.

All that said, I actually learned much from this thread and look forward for more discussion on current ebook pricing model. Copyright issues aside.

[boxcorner]

Apropos of this discussion, I found the (now rather old - 4 November 2010) article by David Pogue in Scientific American, quite interesting: The Trouble with E-Readers

"This past summer Amazon made a shocking announcement: for the first time (and ever since), it sold more electronic books than hardcover ones. Now, that headline should have had half a page of footnotes. Amazon provided only the relative proportions of sales, not the actual quantities. It didn’t mention that its e-books of most best sellers cost a flat $10, compared with, for example, $25 for the same book in hardback. And it didn’t say anything at all about paperback sales (which sell the most of all)."

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

Keep in mind that I am referring to how the world would be if I wrote the law, not my interpretation of the law as it currently stands.

That's fine, the question is whether you are considering the implications of your suggestions.

For example, let's say that we limit copyright strictly to "life of the author." David Foster Wallace published Infinite Jest in 1996 and died in 2008. Should all of his work go straight into public domain that instant? Should the publisher stop paying the estate any royalties upon his death? Should any publisher have the right to put out Infinite Jest? Or any Hollywood studio put out a movie based on the book, minutes after his demise?

Originally Posted by GA Russell

It is my view that once a work is released to the public, the author, etc., should not have the legal right to later withhold it from the public.

On what basis? That the public has the right to whatever content they please, in any form they demand?

If I write an academically researched anti-technology screed, should I be forced against my will to issue it in a digital format?

If I record an album and decide that it is utterly loathsome, should I be required by law to keep it in print?

If a book winds up being an expensive commercial failure, should the publisher be required to continue to incur expenses to release it?

Charles Pellegrino wrote The Last Train from Hiroshima, and it turned out that it relied heavily on demonstrably false testimony about historical events. Should the publisher be required to sell it indefinitely, despite the damage to their reputation and the potential harm of distributing misinformation?

Originally Posted by GA Russell

Copyright law grants a monopoly on a specific product to the copyright holder. In my view, this monopoly should be contingent upon the "use it or lose it" philosophy. The govt should not enforce the rights of the copyright holder who does not keep his work available to the public.

So instead, publishers should be what -- required by law to immediately and indefinitely issue works with minimal commercial value? That if a book is not in print for 6 months, it goes into public domain?

Not to mention that many of these books are still available in print form. Should a publisher lose the rights because they haven't released it in a specific medium? And which formats qualify? If the ebook is published in MOBI but not ePub, does the publisher lose the right to issue the ebook in ePub?

Orphan works are definitely a problem, and require a solution. But that criteria has to be based on something a bit more substantial than "no one is publishing it in the medium I want yet."

Originally Posted by GA Russell

Yes, if a corporation feels that the sales potential of a back catalogue title does not justify the effort of putting it out, I believe that anyone else should be free to publish it without fear.

And you don't foresee any problems with this approach?

• When, exactly, do you start the clock on this? Ebooks have been available, in some form or another, for over 10 years, probably longer. Should the publishers have invested millions in ebooks the instant they became a conceptual possibility?
• Back in the late 90s, the CD-ROM was all the rage, and everyone assume it would be the medium of choice going forward. Should the publishers have been required to release their entire back catalog instantaneously on CD-ROM, or lose all rights?
• What if the author wants the book available in paper, but not digitally or not in an audio book? Should they be penalized by the loss of control and royalties because they don't issue the book in the formats and mediums YOU want?
• Again, if a system of access to orphan works are improperly managed this would create a massive loophole in the current system, which would result in countless content creators losing royalties and losing control over their work.
• Again, in many cases a paper book may still be in print, or available via print-on-demand. All it would take is for a publisher to say "that book is available via POD" and copyright is maintained, as long as there is a rights holder still in existence.

Originally Posted by GA Russell

If a corporation does not have the staff to do what it takes to publish its property, then the govt should not recognize its ownership of that property anymore.

As determined by whom? By what process? Do you really think it's the job of a government to declare that a corporation needs to spend X in order to maintain its rights?

And yet again: Should a refusal to put a book out in one specific medium result in the total loss of rights?


Granted your proposal is not presented in great detail, and again orphan works are an issue that needs to be carefully resolved. But your comments here sound much more like an expression of consumer frustration and consumer entitlement than a genuine workable solution.

[GA Russell]

Kali,

a) The current US copyright law is life plus term. I would make it term plus life. Reasonable minds can disagree on the length of the minimum term. Originally the term was for 14 years, and I would be happy with that. I have no objection to the author receiving royalties for his entire life, even if he lives to be 100. (Irving Berlin complained because he outlived his copyright of Alexander's Ragtime Band.)

b) I would not require anyone to do anything that he does not want to do. All I am saying is...If you don't want to do it, you can't prevent someone else from doing it. Use it or lose it.

[NVash]

So then this begs the question. The author doesnt want to allow people to have a copy of their books for their mobile device or Kindle. There are people who would gladly pay for it but alas they would rather not do it. They scan it and read it on their Kindles or mobile device. Are they pirates?

And saying they share it. What is so wrong with that if the author didnt want to capitalize on that market?

See this is the main problem I have. I get tired of the black and white argument on pirating and I get tired of the fact that authors or publishers hold out so much. I know this isnt about pirating but I just get so sick of it. It makes no sense. All this time and many of my favorite books have yet to become ebooks. Many of them arent even around anymore, its hard enough to find the books but then the publishers are missing, the authors vanished off the Earth, what of those books?

[leebase]

I don't mind the off topic chatter, however, it's SOOO good, it's a shame to have it burried in pages 12 and later in this thread.

@lack -- it's amusing to see someone post #213 in this thread that this was never a discussion to begin with. For something that's "not a discussion" -- there's been a lot of might fine discussion going on.

I know -- I used a bit of hyperbole, and a bit of saltyness to grab attention and change the foundation of this never ending topic. I've gladly accepted the shots from you and others, but for the most part, the discussion has progressed splendidly, as I hoped it would.

It really should cause people to wonder -- just why am I so angry with the publishers -- when I wasn't before -- and when nothing has changed according to long tradition. I do think I've put my thumb on ONE of the causes. I think Amazon lured people into the false notion that they were part of the "new release popular book" market. They feel robbed by the publishers reasserting the new release popular book price (actually, lower than what people had been paying).

I was surprised that so many folks seem to be new to the concept that the really don't matter to every producer all the time. I take it for granted that Gucci, Lexus and the like really don't consider the likes of ME when they make their pricing decisions. Do folks really feel "looked down on" when someone says it plainly -- you aren't our kind of customer because you don't pay our kind of prices? To me, that's just life.

But I have been amazed at how many folks really truly feel they are OWED the "new popular book experience" for the "paper back experience price". No. Sorry. You aren't entitled. Now wait in the back of the line like you always have before and after the premium paying clients are catered too.....THEN....the publishers will come around after your money. And for those of you who don't pay anything? Libraries still work. Books still become used books. Neighbors who aren't buying ebooks will still lend you their cast off's. And you can always resort to stealing books on the internet if you like.

The reality is, it doesn't matter what a book costs to make. Never has. All the huffing and puffing by the "really don't matter" crowd isn't going to change the publisher's pricing policies.

Lee

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

Originally the term was for 14 years, and I would be happy with that.

You may be happy, but to put it mildly, lots of authors and content creators would not.

"14 years" was set over 200 years ago, at a time when average life expectancy was 35 rather than 75, and when duplicating content required significantly larger investments than it does today.

Life plus may not be perfect, and some implementations may be too long, but a) it isn't the worst idea, and b) it's internationally established and not likely to change any time soon.

Originally Posted by GA Russell

I would not require anyone to do anything that he does not want to do. All I am saying is...If you don't want to do it, you can't prevent someone else from doing it.

....

• What's the time frame before you lose control?
• Who gets to decide which formats are "required"?
• How can anyone possibly predict which formats will be viable, and therefore a "required" investment?
• What happens to an author who explicitly says "I hate digital distribution, and I don't want my books out in a digital form at all"?
• What about photographers and magazine articles, which aren't intended to be continuously in print?
• What about a musician who, for whatever reason, refuses to release recordings and only wants to play live?
• What about an artist who wants control when the material is translated into a different medium?
• Is every book ever written, that has not been made into a movie yet, fair game for Hollywood -- without any need to negotiate or pay for the rights?

"Use it or lose it" makes for a nice slogan, but it's completely unworkable.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

"14 years" was set over 200 years ago, at a time when average life expectancy was 35 rather than 75, and when duplicating content required significantly larger investments than it does today.

The reason it was 14 years was the time it took to distribute the work. It had nothing to do with lif expectancy. With that reasoning the time should be shorter today.

Also even if the life expectancy was 35 (which I seriously doubt) it is irrelevant since it is caused by death at very young age. So if people reached a certain age they survived to around our expected age.