Copyright has a chilling effect on book sales...

[Synamon]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

If you were correct, then book sales would be collapsing as e-reader owners obtained nothing but public domain works. But that isn't the case. E-reader owners do read some public domain books, but also read a whole lot of new books.

Exactly. Publishers reported almost $100 M worth of new adult ebooks were sold in January and $200 M worth of paper books in the same category. That was a 50% increase in ebooks and a small increase in paper books from a year earlier. People are buying more books, so if they are reading public domain works it isn't cutting into book sales, it is in addition to book sales.

[Kumabjorn]

Does Gutenberg publish numers on downloads?
I'm aware that a downloaded book doesn't translate into a read book, but is there anything else to go on?

[petrucci]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

If you were correct, then book sales would be collapsing as e-reader owners obtained nothing but public domain works. But that isn't the case. E-reader owners do read some public domain books, but also read a whole lot of new books.

This is your interpretation, not mine. I believe that new book sales are diminished somewhat by the abundance of free downloads. I am not saying that everyone will choose a free book over one that costs money. I believe that some people will choose those books and not buy new ones. I am also aware that free downloads can be used as marketing tools and boost sales. However, there is a limited amount of time that people have to read, and for every free book that they read, there is that much less time to read a new book. All of this being said it is difficult to predict what books sales would be in other circumstances, such as without free downloads. The e-book market is still very new. Many people are still getting their first readers or apps. They are adjusting to pushing a button and getting a book. They are also adjusting to the enormous variety that is available. And of course digital money is not thought of the same way to consumers as real money. When the dust settles the numbers will become clear.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Artists have *always* been in competition with all the art that's gone before them. Sculptors a hundred years ago were competing with Michaelangelo; portrait artists are competing with Rembrandt; authors are competing with Shakespeare and the Iliad; musicians have only recently been in direct competition with previous musicians, but were always in competition with enthusiastic amateurs. Now there's less enthusiastic amateurs and more previous experts to compete with.

I do not believe that this is really the case. When a church wanted a fresco in the 19th century, they could not get Michaelangelo to paint one. Amateurs were no real competition for professional musicians back in the day. When the emperor wanted to hear music, he made sure that there were professionals on staff.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

The same tools that allow artists to distribute their own works widely and easily allow historical works to be distributed; the playing field has not become uneven. Artists still have to find a reason people should pay them instead of enjoying the fruits of hundreds of years of a single-language civilization.

Being able to more widely distribute ones works does not suddenly make the playing field level. It is uneven because the previous works are free, they do not need to support a living person. All musicians can now widely distribute their works through recordings. This has had the effect of devaluing live performance.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Every publisher for the last couple-hundred years has had to ask, "will I make more money printing J.Q. Author's new book, or reprinting Shakespeare's plays?"

This is true. Many of them chose to print new works, as they could obtain exclusive rights to publish them, and hence potentially charge more money.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Mary Wollstonecraft can't set up a blog and twitter account and start interacting with her fans. Jane Austen can't warn people away from that zombie book and toward her original works.

They do not need to as they have historians to do that for them.

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

Does Gutenberg publish numers on downloads?
I'm aware that a downloaded book doesn't translate into a read book, but is there anything else to go on?

Project Gutenberg states that in the last 30 days there have been 4133016 downloads.

[Kumabjorn]

That would translate into 50 million downloads a year, that in turn implies a fair number of books that will not be sold, due to lack of available reading time. The difficulty is in estimating that. Would 1 500 000 unsold books seem realistic? Higher? Lower?

[Synamon]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

That would translate into 50 million downloads a year, that in turn implies a fair number of books that will not be sold, due to lack of available reading time. The difficulty is in estimating that. Would 1 500 000 unsold books seem realistic? Higher? Lower?

How many of those downloads replaced a trip to the library to borrow a paper book or a trip to the flea market to buy a cheap used book?

People's reading habits are changing due to new technology, but there isn't any way to equate public domain downloads with lost book sales.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by petrucci

I believe that new book sales are diminished somewhat by the abundance of free downloads.

Book sales have always been competing with royalty-free books--borrowed from friends or libraries, or bought second-hand. It has been a long, long time since anyone bought a new book because they couldn't find something free that was worth reading.

I am not saying that everyone will choose a free book over one that costs money. I believe that some people will choose those books and not buy new ones. I am also aware that free downloads can be used as marketing tools and boost sales. However, there is a limited amount of time that people have to read, and for every free book that they read, there is that much less time to read a new book.

Ah yes, the "webscabs" argument, claiming that free ebooks leads to "the downward spiral that is converting the noble calling of Writer into the life of Pixel-stained Technopeasant Wretch."

Amateurs were no real competition for professional musicians back in the day. When the emperor wanted to hear music, he made sure that there were professionals on staff.

Emperors (and presidents, and heads of universities holding festivities) still pay for musicians. The issue is whether the factory worker gets live or recorded music when he stops by the pub on the way home from work. And in those situations, amateurs do compete with professionals.

Being able to more widely distribute ones works does not suddenly make the playing field level. It is uneven because the previous works are free, they do not need to support a living person. All musicians can now widely distribute their works through recordings. This has had the effect of devaluing live performance.

On the contrary, it's made live performance the more valued experience. Many bands are happy to distribute their entire repertoire online for free, because it brings bigger crowds to their performances.

Authors, of course, don't have this option. However, authors, unlike musicians, have *always* competed with previously-written works.

The initial evidence is that the ability to publish widely at impulse-buy prices is bringing a lot more authors a living wage, where ten years ago they would not be able to reach as wide an audience.

I am rather confused by the idea that the public domain and free works should somehow be censored in order to support authors that people obviously don't want to pay to read, but maybe would if there were nothing cheaper available. If it's your considered opinion that the public should support new authors, regardless of their skill or popularity, perhaps the various governments should create a subsidy system, rather than removing education and entertainment from availability.

[Kumabjorn]

Originally Posted by Synamon

How many of those downloads replaced a trip to the library to borrow a paper book or a trip to the flea market to buy a cheap used book?

People's reading habits are changing due to new technology, but there isn't any way to equate public domain downloads with lost book sales.

Hence, as long as we can't transform it into an estimate of lost book sales these discussions seem kind of pointless.
In some way or other people are affected by the easy availability of free reading, positive for readers, perhaps less so for writers. We just don't know how. As far a I know, there have never been any large scale survey on this phenomena.

[petrucci]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

Hence, as long as we can't transform it into an estimate of lost book sales these discussions seem kind of pointless.
In some way or other people are affected by the easy availability of free reading, positive for readers, perhaps less so for writers. We just don't know how. As far a I know, there have never been any large scale survey on this phenomena.

I am surprised that I have not found any surveys. I can only think that researchers feel it is a does dog bite postman thesis. I have found some commentary from other industries. Here is an article about the effect of free adult entertainment on the adult entertainment industry.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...orn02_ST_N.htm

As you would expect, the free content has a negative effect on sales and profits.

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

Does Gutenberg publish numbers on downloads?
I'm aware that a downloaded book doesn't translate into a read book, but is there anything else to go on?

Gutenberg does, but that doesn't take into account all of the other places where they take the Gutenberg text and allow you download it for free, including Amazon.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by petrucci

Here is an article about the effect of free adult entertainment on the adult entertainment industry.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...orn02_ST_N.htm

As you would expect, the free content has a negative effect on sales and profits.

Adult entertainment has traditionally been expensive--or at least, not free, and not widely available. (In comparison to, say, pop music or romance novels.) Books, OTOH, are widely available to read for free, or for cheap in venues that don't pay royalties to authors.

I don't see that free books on the internet have changed the *proportion* of free book content to paid book content.

[Kumabjorn]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

Gutenberg does, but that doesn't take into account all of the other places where they take the Gutenberg text and allow you download it for free, including Amazon.

So at best hey might represent only 80 % of downloads, perhaps even down to 50 % depending on how many downloads occur on mirror sites?
Hence, the confusion deepens. Too bad, because it would really be interesting to get a general idea of the effects it might have on sales. According to released sales figures it doesn't look like the publishing industry is hurting, off course that doesn't mean their figures couldn't be even more impressive sans free downloads. (Was that a double negative? Maybe I can find some adult English class)

[petrucci]

From looking a bit further, it seems that the publishing industry is very concerned about the availability of free content. This is of course not surprising.

There have been several studies.

Dr. John Hilton's Ph.D. thesis on the effect of free ebooks on the sales of paperbacks.
http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/1313

Brian O'leary's book on the impact of P2P and Free distribution on book sales.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/77102909/I...-on-Book-Sales

Magellan Media presentation on piracy and free books.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...2Mzu2xVp4HQ1IA

I will run the risk of being too broad, but the conclusion of these studies is that the availability of free content boosts sales of paper books. However, they did not find that this was true for every book that they studied. Some books' sales dropped by more than 30 percent as a result of being freely available online. Moreover, some of the studies state that such marketing may not continue to be effective in the future.

I would expect to see that the publishing industry tries to reign in free content. Similar actions have been taken by the movie industry with regard to Netflix and other formerly free providers.

In any case, trying to move back to the original topic, without copyright the publishing industry would lose a great amount of revenue. This would effect authors and result in fewer quality books being produced.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by petrucci

This is your interpretation, not mine. I believe that new book sales are diminished somewhat by the abundance of free downloads. I am not saying that everyone will choose a free book over one that costs money. I believe that some people will choose those books and not buy new ones. I am also aware that free downloads can be used as marketing tools and boost sales. However, there is a limited amount of time that people have to read, and for every free book that they read, there is that much less time to read a new book. All of this being said it is difficult to predict what books sales would be in other circumstances, such as without free downloads. The e-book market is still very new. Many people are still getting their first readers or apps. They are adjusting to pushing a button and getting a book. They are also adjusting to the enormous variety that is available. And of course digital money is not thought of the same way to consumers as real money. When the dust settles the numbers will become clear.

What interpretation? I'm presenting facts and logic. English teachers might love it if people were rushing out to read old classics, but it just isn't happening. People overwhelmingly read new books. A small number of old books are still widely read, and these would still be read whether or not the book was under copyright.

People would be reading Jane Austen or Dickens whether or not they were under copyright. We know this because they still read them before e-books, when you had to pay for a paper copy. It might have been cheaper than a new book, but not tremendously so. I can walk into Barnes and Noble, and find a paper copy of a PD book for perhaps $6.

Since they still would be reading Austen or Dickens whether or not they were under copyright, free e-books aren't a competition for the reader's time. They would be occupied with reading them anyway. Someone is not going to choose a book by a marginal author just because a great classic isn't available.

But there are many public domain books that are not widely read. Eternal copyright would keep these books in legal forever. They would cease to exist just as surely as if they had been burned.

I do not believe that this is really the case. When a church wanted a fresco in the 19th century, they could not get Michaelangelo to paint one. Amateurs were no real competition for professional musicians back in the day. When the emperor wanted to hear music, he made sure that there were professionals on staff.

How many churches were hiring artists to create frescoes in the 19th century? And amateurs were in competition with professional musicians, more so than today. There were a great many amateur musicians. Sheet music was very popular, as people would buy it and sing it at home. Many musicians of the past were of such poor quality that they would have been unable to compete with a garage band today. If I can compete as a musician today, how am I am amateur? If I can put on a show and sell CDs, am I not a professional? Emperors still have live music.

Being able to more widely distribute ones works does not suddenly make the playing field level. It is uneven because the previous works are free, they do not need to support a living person. All musicians can now widely distribute their works through recordings. This has had the effect of devaluing live performance.

There are a lot of bands who make their real money from live performances, for them, CDs sales are more promotional than a major source of income.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by petrucci

I will run the risk of being too broad, but the conclusion of these studies is that the availability of free content boosts sales of paper books. However, they did not find that this was true for every book that they studied. Some books' sales dropped by more than 30 percent as a result of being freely available online. Moreover, some of the studies state that such marketing may not continue to be effective in the future.

First of all, none of these studies even addressed the public domain. Secondly, so what if it not every book showed an increase in sales? That's business, there are no guarantees. And if making books free as a promotional method might not work in the future, so what? They will change their marketing strategies if that happens. All this has nothing to do with the public domain.

I would expect to see that the publishing industry tries to reign in free content. Similar actions have been taken by the movie industry with regard to Netflix and other formerly free providers.

Netflix isn't free. The content owners aren't providing their content for free. If they decide that it isn't worth their while, they don't allow it to be on Netflix. Perhaps the publishing industry might stop promotional free e-books, perhaps not. But they can't do a thing about independent authors offering their works for free if they wish.

In any case, trying to move back to the original topic, without copyright the publishing industry would lose a great amount of revenue. This would effect authors and result in fewer quality books being produced.

Straw man. We're not arguing against copyright, but against eternal copyright. The impacts of eternal copyright is that obscure books would disappear entirely, and culture would be greatly diminished if people could not make derivative works of public domain works. If Cinderella was under copyright forever, no one would be able to reinterpret it. The public domain IS our culture.

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

People would be reading Jane Austen or Dickens whether or not they were under copyright. We know this because they still read them before e-books, when you had to pay for a paper copy. It might have been cheaper than a new book, but not tremendously so. I can walk into Barnes and Noble, and find a paper copy of a PD book for perhaps $6.

A lot of people pay for ebook copies of these PD classics probably because they don't realize they can get them for free or they assume there must be some value in the copyrighted additional material commissioned by the publisher.