Pirate Bay founders found guilty

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

Yes, but that was not the way it used to be. At least not for a writer who got published regularly. Writing short stories got Heinlein *out* of debt, not into it!

I'm sorry, but Heinlein is as well-known in SF circles (and in the US generally) as JK Rowling is worldwide. How is this an example of a middle-of-the-road, writer?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

Yes, but that was not the way it used to be. At least not for a writer who got published regularly. Writing short stories got Heinlein *out* of debt, not into it!

Heinlein is not "most authors". As I understand it it has always been the case that most authors cannot live only from their writing.

[sirbruce]

You're missing the point. Heinlein wasn't an established author when he started! He wrote his first short story for a $50 contest, but wound up selling it to another magazine for $70. That was 1939. That's equivalent to $1085 in 2008. That's for 7,000 words. You would be lucky to get that today for an unsolicited submission; chances are you'd get close to half that.

Yes, most authors cannot live only from their writing. My point is the number of authors who can is becoming fewer and fewer, because sales are down. Because sales are down, it's even harder for new authors to break into the business, much less making a living at it.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

You're missing the point. Heinlein wasn't an established author when he started! He wrote his first short story for a $50 contest, but wound up selling it to another magazine for $70. That was 1939. That's equivalent to $1085 in 2008. That's for 7,000 words. You would be lucky to get that today for an unsolicited submission; chances are you'd get close to half that.

Yes, most authors cannot live only from their writing. My point is the number of authors who can is becoming fewer and fewer, because sales are down. Because sales are down, it's even harder for new authors to break into the business, much less making a living at it.

Sales per author are down, you mean? Because I can't for the life of me imagine that total sales are down, just that 10 million others joined the ranks and all expect to survive based on their mostly meager talents.

[sirbruce]

http://www.publishersweekly.com/arti...dustryid=47152

Total book sales fell 2.8% in 2008, to $24.3 billion, according to estimates released last week by the Association of American Publishers. Sales were down in nine of the 14 categories measured by the association.

The totals are based on the monthly reports supplied by 81 publishers, supplemented by Census Bureau data. The AAP applies the percentage change reported in each category by the reporting companies to the previous year's totals.

[...]

The largest increase in 2008 was in the e-book segment, where sales rose 68.4%, to $113.2 million. The figure is based on reports from 13 e-book publishers. The trade segment had a difficult year, particularly in hardcover, with sales down in both adult and juvenile.

The AAP estimates that industry sales grew at a 1.6% compound annual growth rate in the 2002–2008 period. During that span, the mass market paperback and the book club/mail order segments were the only ones to have a drop in sales. Excluding e-books, the religion book segment, with a 4.5% compound annual growth rate, had the strongest gain in the period.

That's dollar volume, though; unit sales are declining more. And of course that's not inflation-adjusted.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

http://www.publishersweekly.com/arti...dustryid=47152



That's dollar volume, though; unit sales are declining more. And of course that's not inflation-adjusted.

Sure, that's over the past 6 years. What about total volume averaged over the past decade compared to when heinlein wrote (what, the '50s?)

Off-topic:
From The Teaching Company's Great American Bestsellers: The Books That Shaped America

A good place to start is probably with a definition: What is a bestseller? The phrase may seem self-evident, but in fact there is room for debate. To begin with, for books, the term “bestseller” dates back only to the 1890s. As several scholars of popular literature have pointed out, the word “bestseller” is misleading. A book termed a bestseller invariably appeared somewhere in a tabulation of 10 or 15 or more books. Recently, to add to the confusion, specialized categories of bestseller lists have proliferated. As we proceed in the course, I will discuss the distinctive qualities and particular accomplishments of each book we will examine, and I will also comment on the recurrence of certain themes, among them the meaning of America, the idea of success, the complex questions of race and gender, and the prominence of religion. And wherever I can do so, I will also try to answer the question, why was this book so popular?

[sirbruce]

Oh, there are probably more books sold today than in the 50s, yes. (You know Heinlein wrote all the way into the 80s, right?) Again, getting back to the main point, times are tough, authors aren't making what they used to, and ebooks don't fully solve that problem.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

Oh, there are probably more books sold today than in the 50s, yes. (You know Heinlein wrote all the way into the 80s, right?) Again, getting back to the main point, times are tough, authors aren't making what they used to, and ebooks don't fully solve that problem.

No, I didn't (Heinlein isn't really my thing, and I'm not from the US). That said, I still think there are too many authors ;-) And no, Ebook sales won't solve that problem, nor are they the problem. That is, I doubt that p2p can be blamed for such a substantial drop, and it saddens me that the "religion book segment" is seeing the most growth.
If you look at that list, you'll see that the heaviest drops occurred in the most expensive sections, and that it was, at least in the kid's book section, offset by a substantial increase in pback/mmp sales, so the total volume isn't down, just the number of sales with the highest margins. (and audiobooks aren't books :P)

I wonder why the "other" category grew so much, though.

[Moejoe]

Heinlein, as with a lot of those authors, was under a form of patronage that you don't see occur any longer. The editors at the short story magazines and the publishing imprints were a much more selective and pro-active bunch back when Heinlein began his career. If they liked an authors work they would actively push that work, no matter the generated sales. That doesn't happen now, or at least, not quite as often.

I remember talking to an agent, and this wasn't that long ago, at a bar in London (can't remember how that all came about). We were discussing what it takes to get representation, and she said without any irony:

"There's only three ways to break in. You either know someone, you're known, or you copy something that's already well known."

It explained a lot to me about what book publishing is about, and why it's so cutthroat. They're not selling hearty meals here, they're selling Pot Noodles. Some celebrity jackass will get a million pound advance on a ghost written book about what they eat for breakfast that morning. If you're the nephew of the cousin of the publisher, you've also got a good chance too. And if all else fails, just buy a James Patterson novel and copy that.

EDIT: and on the subject of having representation. I seem to recall that there are 8,000 publishers in the continental United States, only 12 of them insist on you having an agent. (My memory might be fuzzy, but the figures are in the ballpark).

[Greg Anos]

My point is that while there are more people to read, there is less aggregate time to read in. TV, videogames, surfing the Web (like what we're doing now), more available music, more available movies, ect., all cut into an individual's reading time. In 1939, most of those didn't exist. Reading was the prime entertainment. Now is way back in the pack, in aggregate. That's why newspapers are dying in the US.

When the market was larger, more money (in constant dollars) went into acquiring product, which led to better pay for writers....

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

My point is that while there are more people to read, there is less aggregate time to read in. TV, videogames, surfing the Web (like what we're doing now), more available music, more available movies, ect., all cut into an individual's reading time. In 1939, most of those didn't exist. Reading was the prime entertainment. Now is way back in the pack, in aggregate. That's why newspapers are dying in the US.

When the market was larger, more money (in constant dollars) went into acquiring product, which led to better pay for writers....

How true.

But you know, that's progress for you. I imagine the troubadours felt similarly about the printing press and raising literacy....

On the other hand, for SOME authors, it isn't all bad. J. K. Rowling made it to Forbes' billionaires list on seven books. And look at all the interest in LOTR's e-edition. For good stuff, there will still be a market for the foreseeable future, regardless of the format.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

My point is that while there are more people to read, there is less aggregate time to read in. TV, videogames, surfing the Web (like what we're doing now), more available music, more available movies, ect., all cut into an individual's reading time. In 1939, most of those didn't exist.

I think the "distractions" argument is overstated, myself. Sure, they didn't have videogames in 1939... but they had amusement parks. Not many movies... but plenty of plays. Baseball games. Town meetings. Roller rinks. County fairs. Bowling alleys. Concerts in the park. There have always been lots of ways to get entertained, and books have shared that playing field ably for all of that time.

In addition, people in general have more free time than they did 50+ years ago... more time to be entertained, because work doesn't occupy as much of their lives as it used to.

Hey, there are almost 7 billion potential readers out there! If books aren't as popular today, I submit it's because a lot of content isn't compelling enough to people, and what is out there isn't being marketed well (if at all)... not because readers are too distracted.

Publishers spent too many years operating either as detached elites, or as lazy mass-market pushers, instead of really trying to develop the business to keep up with the times. If publishers had kept up, and were consequently better at modern production and marketing (which includes e-books), reading could be more popular than TV today (how much broadcast drek do you watch? Really?).

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Sonist

How true.

But you know, that's progress for you. I imagine the troubadours felt similarly about the printing press and raising literacy....

On the other hand, for SOME authors, it isn't all bad. J. K. Rowling made it to Forbes' billionaires list on seven books. And look at all the interest in LOTR's e-edition. For good stuff, there will still be a market for the foreseeable future, regardless of the format.

Agreed. I'm talking aggreagates, not individuals. For the majority of writers, they have been steadily squeezed for many years...

[Krystian Galaj]

People might have more free time, and similar distractions than 50 years ago - but take into account that there's so many books now. All those titles written and released long ago still compete with today's novels.
I haven't read a book written after 1960 for 2 years now. I like to read classics of book genres, books which made the genres what they are today. Mystery classics, science-fiction classics, lovecraftian horror classics, first vampire stories, original pulp fiction. Maybe new novels can compete with them in a bookstore, when they're lying on the bestsellers table, and classics are nowhere to be seen - but not on the Internet. If I do my research, why should I choose a new name over Zelazny, Heinlein, Christie, Conan-Doyle, Jordan, if I haven't read them all yet?
I think this factor should be taken into account.

[ProDigit]

So the verdict is out but TPB is still up and running?