Copyright has a chilling effect on book sales...

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by 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.

The more posts of yours I read...the more I feel that you are talking about laziness. It's too hard to write a book now, Austen already did it! *whine whine whine* IF the book is good...it has an audience. If the book is not good...then there are no sales. Austen doesn't make a bit of difference. Copyright doesn't make a bit of difference. What makes a difference is creativity and skill. Otherwise there would be no Hunger Games. No Twilight. No A Song of Ice and Fire. No The Name of the Wind. No The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. No Fifty Shades of Grey... (Do I really need to go on and on??)

Every. Single. Day. musicians and writers prove your theory wrong by making it big and making big sales. What more do you need than that?


I'm sure next you will want to go after the freely available Fan fiction. There are people who never buy books and only read and write fanfic. That's hurting new book sales, too.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

What makes a difference is creativity and skill. Otherwise there would be no ... Twilight.

You say that almost as though it would be a bad thing .

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You say that almost as though it would be a bad thing .

I can't argue there...

[petrucci]

Well apparently, Quantum Iguanas are disagreeable creatures. Even when you agree with them they disagree. Case in point is my post about the studies of freely available literature. In general the studies supported your contention, as did my summary of them. You then respond with:

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

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.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

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.

I believe that your argument here is fallacious. People have a limited amount of time to read, as their lives are finite. In that time they choose books to read. If they choose a particular book, then they cannot read another book at that same instant. Thus, books may be thought of as being in competition to be read. If a person reads a work by Austen or Dickens, then he or she is not reading another book. This makes competition for the remaining reading slots more fierce.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

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.

I appreciate your point about obscure books. However, in many instances you take a capitalistic approach. If these books were valued then people would be willing to pay the small amount that they would cost. If not, then maybe they are not worthwhile.

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

The more posts of yours I read...the more I feel that you are talking about laziness. It's too hard to write a book now, Austen already did it! *whine whine whine* IF the book is good...it has an audience. If the book is not good...then there are no sales. Austen doesn't make a bit of difference. Copyright doesn't make a bit of difference. What makes a difference is creativity and skill. Otherwise there would be no Hunger Games. No Twilight. No A Song of Ice and Fire. No The Name of the Wind. No The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. No Fifty Shades of Grey... (Do I really need to go on and on??)

Every. Single. Day. musicians and writers prove your theory wrong by making it big and making big sales. What more do you need than that?

I am not complaining about laziness. I am also not saying that people cannot make it big. What I am saying is that fewer people can make it big because part of the market is being taken up by free and out of copyright books.

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

I'm sure next you will want to go after the freely available Fan fiction. There are people who never buy books and only read and write fanfic. That's hurting new book sales, too.

I have no problem with fanfic, so long as the authors are earning a living doing something. However, if some rich guy, with nothing else to do, spends all of his time writing fanfic, and publishes it for free, then there is a problem. Such fiction, presuming it were good and there is no reason to think that it could not be, could decimate the profession of writing fiction.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by petrucci

Well apparently, Quantum Iguanas are disagreeable creatures. Even when you agree with them they disagree. Case in point is my post about the studies of freely available literature. In general the studies supported your contention, as did my summary of them. You then respond with:



I believe that your argument here is fallacious. People have a limited amount of time to read, as their lives are finite. In that time they choose books to read. If they choose a particular book, then they cannot read another book at that same instant. Thus, books may be thought of as being in competition to be read. If a person reads a work by Austen or Dickens, then he or she is not reading another book. This makes competition for the remaining reading slots more fierce.


I appreciate your point about obscure books. However, in many instances you take a capitalistic approach. If these books were valued then people would be willing to pay the small amount that they would cost. If not, then maybe they are not worthwhile.


I am not complaining about laziness. I am also not saying that people cannot make it big. What I am saying is that fewer people can make it big because part of the market is being taken up by free and out of copyright books.


I have no problem with fanfic, so long as the authors are earning a living doing something. However, if some rich guy, with nothing else to do, spends all of his time writing fanfic, and publishes it for free, then there is a problem. Such fiction, presuming it were good and there is no reason to think that it could not be, could decimate the profession of writing fiction.

That is the FUNNIEST thing I've read in weeks! *boo hoo*

(not) Sorry to say, I still disagree with your point. I think that it is like crying that your kid can't make the honor roll because some other person's kid did it already (oh noes! It's not my fault! It's someone else!)...and on that note I'll let Jay-Z close it out for me.

Already Home

[Chorus]
Oh they want me to fall (fall),
Fall from the top (top),
They want me to drop (drop)
They want me to stop (stop)
They want me to go (go),
I'm already gone (already)
The s*** that I'm on
I'm already home
(Hey, I'm already home yeah)


[Jay-Z]
I taught 'em about fish scale they want me to fish for them
They want me to catch clean, then cook up a dish for them
All of this just for them, or they got a diss for him
They want me to disappear, like it's gonna SHIFT for them
They say that I'm in the way, they want me to sit for them
But what they admitting is, they ain't got s*** for him
But really the fact is, we not in the same bracket
Not in the same league, don't shoot at the same baskets
Don't pay the same taxes, hang with the same bi***
So how am I in the way, what is it I'm missing?

[Chorus]

[Jay-Z]
I'm in the hall already, on the wall already
I'm a work of art, I'm a Warhol already
On another level, on another plane already
H-O-V I got my own lane already (already)
I done cooked up the rock already
So why the f*** can't you all get hot already (already)

[Kumabjorn]

Anybody else breaking out the pop-corn?

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by petrucci

Well apparently, Quantum Iguanas are disagreeable creatures. Even when you agree with them they disagree. Case in point is my post about the studies of freely available literature. In general the studies supported your contention, as did my summary of them. You then respond with:

You presented these studies as if they had something to do with the public domain, which they did not. You mentioned that many books did better when they were offered free for a time, but then chose to highlight those books that did not sell better after a free promotional period. What promotional pricing is used has nothing to do with the public domain.

I believe that your argument here is fallacious. People have a limited amount of time to read, as their lives are finite. In that time they choose books to read. If they choose a particular book, then they cannot read another book at that same instant. Thus, books may be thought of as being in competition to be read. If a person reads a work by Austen or Dickens, then he or she is not reading another book. This makes competition for the remaining reading slots more fierce.

My logic is solid. People don't read Austen or Dickens just because they are free. Before e-readers, their books had been public domain for well over a century, but people still had to buy them. They could copy them without paying royalties, but they had to buy the paper books. This did no prevent people from reading them.

This indicates that people would still read these books even if they had to pay to obtain them. If people would be reading them anyway, these books can't be competing with the readers time. It is simply a given that some people are going to read the classics.

I appreciate your point about obscure books. However, in many instances you take a capitalistic approach. If these books were valued then people would be willing to pay the small amount that they would cost. If not, then maybe they are not worthwhile.

Copyright is a deal between government and authors. In exchange for the work entering the public domain at some point, authors get an exclusive right to copy their books. During that period of copyright, I am all for authors being able to make money selling their books. Once that time expires, then anyone can copy it without paying.

I am not complaining about laziness. I am also not saying that people cannot make it big. What I am saying is that fewer people can make it big because part of the market is being taken up by free and out of copyright books.

It isn't credible that if Pride and Prejudice or A Christmas Carol was not available, that those people who had wanted to read these books would switch over to reading some marginal author. If they couldn't read the classics, they would in all likelyhood be reading books by a really good contemporary author. That really good author isn't going to be someone on the fringe barely selling anything.

There are authors who complain about non-public domain books being given away for free or for 99 cents. But it is their book, they can set the price to whatever they want. If they want to pay people to take it, that's their business. If you can't compete with a 99 cent book, then write a better book. There are 99 cent hamburgers on the market, but hasn't prevented anyone from selling hamburgers that cost more, they just have to produice a better hamburger.

I have no problem with fanfic, so long as the authors are earning a living doing something. However, if some rich guy, with nothing else to do, spends all of his time writing fanfic, and publishes it for free, then there is a problem. Such fiction, presuming it were good and there is no reason to think that it could not be, could decimate the profession of writing fiction.

Why in the world would it make a bit of difference whether the author of fanfic has something else tho to with their time? Fanfic doesn't compete with the original material, people aren't reading fanfic instead of the original, but in addition to it. Those who read fanfic tend to be the most loyal customers of the original material.

[JD Gumby]

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.

Certainly no more so than physical book sales are diminished by used book stores and public libraries.

[petrucci]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

You presented these studies as if they had something to do with the public domain, which they did not. You mentioned that many books did better when they were offered free for a time, but then chose to highlight those books that did not sell better after a free promotional period. What promotional pricing is used has nothing to do with the public domain.

I presented the studies as having to do with the availability of free books. This related to my argument about competition and its relation to public domain works.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

My logic is solid. People don't read Austen or Dickens just because they are free. Before e-readers, their books had been public domain for well over a century, but people still had to buy them. They could copy them without paying royalties, but they had to buy the paper books. This did no prevent people from reading them.

This indicates that people would still read these books even if they had to pay to obtain them. If people would be reading them anyway, these books can't be competing with the readers time. It is simply a given that some people are going to read the classics.

I see what you are saying, that Austen is not competing for a person's time because it is a given that she will read it. However, what I am saying is that there is a finite number of books that a person will read. If a person reads Austen, then there is one fewer other book that the person will read. This effectively means that there is a shorter list of books that the person will read. A shorter list means fewer purchased books, and presumably less money for authors.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Copyright is a deal between government and authors. In exchange for the work entering the public domain at some point, authors get an exclusive right to copy their books. During that period of copyright, I am all for authors being able to make money selling their books. Once that time expires, then anyone can copy it without paying.

This may currently be the case in law, and I do not dispute that.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

It isn't credible that if Pride and Prejudice or A Christmas Carol was not available, that those people who had wanted to read these books would switch over to reading some marginal author. If they couldn't read the classics, they would in all likelyhood be reading books by a really good contemporary author. That really good author isn't going to be someone on the fringe barely selling anything.

A few of them may switch to a marginal author. However, this is not the thrust of my argument. I am not advocating the non-availability of older books. I wish to see a level playing field, so that new authors do not have to compete with free classics. The old books should be in copyright and cost money, just like new books.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

There are authors who complain about non-public domain books being given away for free or for 99 cents. But it is their book, they can set the price to whatever they want. If they want to pay people to take it, that's their business. If you can't compete with a 99 cent book, then write a better book. There are 99 cent hamburgers on the market, but hasn't prevented anyone from selling hamburgers that cost more, they just have to produice a better hamburger.

I certainly appreciate your point of view. However, there are laws about selling products for less than it costs to produce them. There is a real danger from subsidised merchandise. Authors will not be able to afford to write a better book, as the market will not bear the price.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Why in the world would it make a bit of difference whether the author of fanfic has something else tho to with their time? Fanfic doesn't compete with the original material, people aren't reading fanfic instead of the original, but in addition to it. Those who read fanfic tend to be the most loyal customers of the original material.

If the author is not otherwise working, then writing the books and distributing them freely is a form of price subsidy.

Originally Posted by Perotin

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

Originally Posted by JD Gumby

Certainly no more so than physical book sales are diminished by used book stores and public libraries.

I think that free e-books will have a greater effect on sales than libraries and used books. Books in libraries and used book stores were purchased new at one point. Free e-books were never sold. Secondly, and more importantly, there are limits to the distribution of library books and books in used book stores. A library book can only be in one place at one time. At times it is not economically viable to ship a used book to another locale. There can be an infinite number of copies of a free e-book. Lastly, it is much easier to access a free e-book than going to a library and borrowing a book.

You can see publishers struggling with libraries over e-books. The former wish libraries to purchase a license/copy of the book for each copy that is in circulation.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by petrucci

I presented the studies as having to do with the availability of free books. This related to my argument about competition and its relation to public domain works.

The studies were about whether or not making things free was a good marketing strategy. They had nothing to do with the public domain.

I see what you are saying, that Austen is not competing for a person's time because it is a given that she will read it. However, what I am saying is that there is a finite number of books that a person will read. If a person reads Austen, then there is one fewer other book that the person will read. This effectively means that there is a shorter list of books that the person will read. A shorter list means fewer purchased books, and presumably less money for authors.

If a person was going to read Jane Austen anyway, Austen's books can't possibly compete for time. Since people read Jane Austen even when they had to pay for a paper copy, it is clear that she would have been read anyway.

This may currently be the case in law, and I do not dispute that.

It's more than just law; in the US it would take a Constitutional amendment to make copyright eternal.

A few of them may switch to a marginal author. However, this is not the thrust of my argument. I am not advocating the non-availability of older books. I wish to see a level playing field, so that new authors do not have to compete with free classics. The old books should be in copyright and cost money, just like new books.

On the contrary, that is the core of your argument. Your argument is that authors struggle to sell books because people are reading the classics. The only way this can happen is if these struggling authors would be the recipients of increased book sales if the classics weren't freely available.

If readers weren't able to read Austen, and thus read a new book instead, (that's a big assumption - they might simply read less books) it isn't credible that the book read would be from a marginal author. People don't read public domain books just because they are free. Most public domain books are rarely read if at all. A handful are classics, and would be read whether or not people had to pay for them.

I certainly appreciate your point of view. However, there are laws about selling products for less than it costs to produce them. There is a real danger from subsidised merchandise. Authors will not be able to afford to write a better book, as the market will not bear the price.

If the author is not otherwise working, then writing the books and distributing them freely is a form of price subsidy.

That works for fungible goods, where all goods are the same. Gas prices are one such example. There have been cases where one chain would lower their price to the point where competitors couldn't stay in business. Then when the competitors closed their doors, the chain would raise their prices.

E-books aren't fungible. Lowering your price can't drive competitors out of business because books aren't interchangeable. The market will bear the price of good books, this is indisputably clear, because people do pay for good books.

And no, it is not a form of price subsidy, someone not charging for a piece of fan fiction isn't a price subsidy.

[petrucci]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

On the contrary, that is the core of your argument.

It is nice of you to tell me what my argument is.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

That works for fungible goods, where all goods are the same. Gas prices are one such example. There have been cases where one chain would lower their price to the point where competitors couldn't stay in business. Then when the competitors closed their doors, the chain would raise their prices.

E-books aren't fungible. Lowering your price can't drive competitors out of business because books aren't interchangeable. The market will bear the price of good books, this is indisputably clear, because people do pay for good books.

You should inform the adult entertainment industry of your opinion. They have suffered huge losses from freely available content. I posted a link to a USA Today article about the topic a few pages back.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

And no, it is not a form of price subsidy, someone not charging for a piece of fan fiction isn't a price subsidy.

Of course it is a form of subsidy. It took time and skill to write the fanfic. That time and skill is worth money, as is anyone's time. By distributing the work for free they are effectively subsidising the activity of writing.

[QuantumIguana]

You should inform the adult entertainment industry of your opinion. They have suffered huge losses from freely available content. I posted a link to a USA Today article about the topic a few pages back.

The free online porn isn't public domain material, and it isn't generally promotional content offered by the copyright holder. Also, porn is pretty much fungible. There isn't all that much difference in quality from one to the next.

Of course it is a form of subsidy. It took time and skill to write the fanfic. That time and skill is worth money, as is anyone's time. By distributing the work for free they are effectively subsidising the activity of writing.

An author can't subsidize themselves, that's an oxymoron. If someone was paying the author to write, that would be a subsidy. Distributing fan fiction without payment isn't in any way, shape or form a subsidy.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by petrucci

I wish to see a level playing field, so that new authors do not have to compete with free classics. The old books should be in copyright and cost money, just like new books.

Who should control the copyrights for them, and make the money for those sales?

If you need examples, who should get income for:

• Plato's works, written thousands of years ago, and translated to English a few hundred years ago?
• William Shakespeare's works?
• Jane Austen's works?
• H. Beam Piper's early works?
• Civil-war era newspapers scanned to online archives?
• The Bible?

If the copyright owners you want to assign to them decide to make them all free to distribute under Creative Commons, how will the copyright help new authors?

Why should new authors *not* have to compete with the entire public domain? After all, they have always lived in a world where those works are widely, cheaply available, and for the last several decades, thousands of those works have been free from Project Gutenberg.

Do you think that forcing Austen back into copyright, assigning an heir to get profit from her books' sales, and assuming that greed will make the price of those books rise, will help new authors? That people will therefore decide to buy New Author's work instead of Austen's, since they're now all the same price?

(Also: does your notion of removing works from the public domain apply to all copyrighted materials, or just books? Are photographs, movies, and songs all to be assigned to someone for perpetual copyright protection to "make a level playing field" for new artists? Should new composers and lyricists not have to complete with free versions of Greensleeves and Deck the Halls?)

I certainly appreciate your point of view. However, there are laws about selling products for less than it costs to produce them. There is a real danger from subsidised merchandise. Authors will not be able to afford to write a better book, as the market will not bear the price.

What do you mean, "less than it costs to produce them?" Books are *always* sold for less than the cost of production... if "time the author spent writing them" is part of the equation.

If it takes six months to write a book, the ebook certainly isn't selling for "half a year's rent, utilities, food, and other expenses" per copy. Each book is priced low in order to make those costs up by selling many copies.

If a book takes six months to produce, what do you think the minimum cost for the ebook should be? Should fast writers charge less per book than slower ones?

If the author is not otherwise working, then writing the books and distributing them freely is a form of price subsidy.

I don't get this. What's being subsidized? Who is getting money from an outside source?

Authors with a day job are welcome to distribute books for free, but retired or disabled authors have to charge $5 a copy? I don't follow your logic at all.

[CommonReader]

Originally Posted by petrucci

You should inform the adult entertainment industry of your opinion. They have suffered huge losses from freely available content. I posted a link to a USA Today article about the topic a few pages back.

Porn is pretty much generic. Most men do not particularly care if it's Busty Girl A or Busty Girl B who is exerting herself, yet few people who want to read Jane Austen would be happy to be handed Chaucer instead.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by petrucci

The page states that US census bureau statistics show there were 139, 310 musicians and composers in 1910 and 161,000 in 2001.

Regardless of the truth of my claim, there has been a precipitous drop in the percentage of people that are employed as musicians.

Well the invention and spread of gramaphones and radio probably had something to do with that? Live performers were no longer required for music to be enjoyed.