Copyright has a chilling effect on book sales...

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by JD Gumby

Huh. She is? Could've sworn there were a couple of breaks in the lineage in there... (I'm no Monarchist, so had to rely on high school history from more than 20 years ago and maybe 15 minutes of Wikipedia "research" :P)

I think you might be mistaking James I and James II. James II's line died out (well the heirs who were allowed to ascend the throne, the actual senior line was barred from inheriting and still exists) with Anne Stuart, when made room for the current line which was descended from James I.

--
Bill

[petrucci]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

... Before e-books came along, people paid money for public domain books. That shows that people would read them whether or not they had to pay for the books.

That is incorrect. It shows that SOME people would read them whether or not they had to pay for them. There are other people who were not willing to pay money for some such books, but are now reading them because they are available for free in ebook format. I am such a person. I read a copy of "The Theory and Practice of Tone-Relations" by Percy Goetschius because it was free. I would not have paid money for it. Certainly you would not suggest that the number of public domain books that were sold in the 90s is even close to the number of downloads from Project Gutenberg in the 00s.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Now for the second, that if public domain books were not available, that people would read the books of struggling authors. People don't read classic books just because they are free. Only a small percentage of public domain books still are read by a significant number of people. They are reading these books because they are classics.

That is one reason that people are reading some public domain works. However, there are many other reasons that someone may read a public domain work.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Then there is the subject of books which are under copyright but the author chooses to give away for free, or to sell at a very low price. The important thing to understand is that books are not corn. One bushel of corn is pretty much like any other. If one person is selling corn at a lower price than another, then people will buy from the seller with the lower price. The same is true of other commodities, such as gasoline or gravel. It doesn't matter much which you buy, these products are said to be fungible, no one cares which bushel of corn you get.

Books aren't commodities, it matters to people which book they get. You can buy hamburgers for one dollar, but people still pay considerably more for a hamburger. They will pay more for higher quality. Similarly, you can get new books that are free or cost 99 cents, but people still pay more for books. Why? Because the reader determines that the more expensive book offers a value not offered by a free book. To read a book that you do not enjoy is not a bargain, no matter how cheap it is.

There is certainly a commodity like element in books and other forms of entertainment. Some consumers may roughly equate romance novel A with romance novel B. On another tack, how many times have you watched a TV show just because it was on, or listened to a song on the radio because it was what was being played? Such actions suggest a certain amount of indifference about the content of the work. I have certainly read books because of their availability. Price is one aspect of availability.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

The books that are offered for free or 99 cents are generally not best sellers. Because books aren't commodities, they can't drive better books off the market. We've seen that people will pay for quality. By quality, I mean as the reader defines it. Twilight may not be great literature, but people are buying it when they could be getting other books for free. I'm no fan of Twilight, but people will pay $8.99 for Twilight when they could have paid nothing or paid 99 cents for some other book. If people cared only about price, this wouldn't happen. Books are not commodities. Fungible commodities are interchangable, one bushel of wheat is pretty much the same as any other. That's not the case with books.

Some books that are 99 cents or less are best sellers. Even if they are not, they may still be good books, and may in fact sell better in the future once they are discovered. Thus, they could potentially drive off more expensive books. I am certainly not claiming that price is the only factor in selecting a book. However, I think that it does play a role.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

The public domain is not a subsidy. Copyright is a subsidy. It is an artificial government-granted monopoly on copying a book. The public domain is the default state. Copyright serves a good purpose, it encourages creation by giving the author a monopoly for a limited time in exchange for the works eventually entering the public domain. A price floor is unacceptable. If it is your book, you're free to charge whatever price you want for it, or to give it away. Gas stations have engaged in price wars, with one station cutting prices so much that the other station is driven out of business. The surviving gas station then raises their prices higher than they originally were. However, this only happens with commidities. Gasoline is pretty much gasoline, people don't care about it other than the price. Books are different, people won't read a book just because it is free.

Some people may read a book just because it is free. Price is usually not the only factor in such a decision, but it may still be a factor none the less. Books are even sorted by price online.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

If someone's book is only worth 99 cents - or not even that - who is to tell the author that they must charge more? Demand will determine the price. Many authors have found that having their books free or cheap has earned them readers. Price floors would be a violation of free speech. If someone wants to give away bibles, for example, should a price floor prevent this? Price floors also would harm rather than help new authors. New authors often offer their books for free or cheap in order to attract readers. It would be harder for them to attract readers if there were price floors. Price floors also drive the consumers out of the market, artificially raise the price, and people will often buy less.

What will the demand be if there are lots of great books that the reader wants for free? I certainly think that it is no stretch to think that writings will be devalued by a superabundance of works for free.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

There simply is no evidence that cheap or free books are harming book sales. People are not abandoning new books for public domain books, they are not abandoning more expensive books for 99 cent books. If a 99 cent book becomes popular, the price will go up.

You would have to ask the publishing industry for their numbers. I suspect that such works are hurting sales. There is evidence from other forms of entertainment.

Originally Posted by elfwreck

The newspaper industry shows that what newspapers thought was their main commodity--investigative reporting, presumably well-researched and well-written--was not what people wanted to read.

I would argue that it shows that a superabundance of free news has lured a large number of newspaper customers to other news sources. The other news sites do not have well researched and reported content because they cannot afford to produce it and distribute it for free, not because people do not want it.

Originally Posted by elfwreck

Are you proposing that bloggers should be unable to offer their writings for free? Because that's what's killing newspapers. How much do you think bloggers should be required to charge?

Most bloggers that I am aware of are actually paid for their work. They receive substantial compensation from advertising revenues.

Originally Posted by elfwreck

*looks at Livejournal*
*looks at Dreamwidth*
*looks at Facebook*
*looks at Twitter*
*looks at fanfiction.net*
*looks at archiveofourown.org*

Somehow, I don't think there's any shortage of people on tight budgets who will find time & energy to write, nor any shortage of people who want to read what they write.

In this regard you are correct. In fact, census data shows that the number of authors has increased drastically since 1980.

Quote:
I am worried that people will not be able to earn a living writing fiction. I suspect that lack of professional writers will reduce the amount and quality of writing.

Originally Posted by elfwreck

You haven't offered any evidence to support these conclusions, just a vague sense of dread. Yes, newspapers and magazines are having big problems--but authors, as a class, are not. Some types of publications are not doing well in the face of technological advances, but there is no indication at all that authors are less likely to find payment for their craft.

Unfortunately, I lack data to support my claims with regard to authors in general. I have given examples from numerous industries, including journalism. My fear is based upon basic principles in economics. I firmly believe that lots of free books of high quality will devalue writing.

Quote:
I think that this is reason to produce a drastic change in economics. Such changes have been enacted to control the prices of other goods.

Originally Posted by elfwreck

I cannot think of any industry that *requires* payments for goods or services if the owner wants to give them out for free. If you have examples, please elaborate.

I know of several industries that have minimum-prices for the marketplace--but none that disallow gifts. Several that require licensing and quality standards, thus strongly discouraging gifts, but again, nothing that requires a payment. I could be missing something, though; feel free to give details of industries that don't allow their contents to be given away.

Not, "that require a license etc. to acquire." You can't give certain medicines without a prescription--but that doesn't mean the pharmaceutical company is required to charge for them.

There are restrictions to donations. A good example would be the restrictions on political campaign donations in the USA.


Quote:
It would be the goal that the price of books be such that authors are able to make a living from writing.

Originally Posted by elfwreck

Why? Nowhere in all of human history, have all would-be authors been able to make a living from writing. (Nevermind that you're not talking about letting them "make a living;" you're talking about requiring that they charge fees... that the public may not decide to pay. If you wanted to guarantee them a living, just set up a tax and pay them all a stipend.)

Here I made an error. I never meant that ALL would-be authors could earn a living from writing. There are certainly lots of people who are not cut out to be writers. I am concerned that very few authors would be able to earn a living from writing.

Originally Posted by elfwreck

This is an important point. You're claiming a need for a drastic change in economic structures, for which you've provided no evidence (newspapers are suffering; professional authors, as a group, are not), and you want this fix attached to prices. But you don't know *what* prices, not how much, nor who should collect them, nor who should make sure they get collected.

As I stated in a previous post, the prices could be chosen based on previous revenue from similar works. Projected sales are made every day in the business world. I do not have such data, and thus cannot provide it. Commerce could proceed much as it currently does, so long as the minimum prices are met. It would require government oversight to ensure that the minimum prices are charged.

[Elfwreck]

[QUOTE=petrucci;2067928]Most bloggers that I am aware of are actually paid for their work. They receive substantial compensation from advertising revenues. [quote]

I know of (not know personally, but know of) several million bloggers at Livejournal and Dreamwidth who don't get advertising revenue from their blogging at those sites. (Nor should they, for the most part; LJ and DW are designed as journals--much more social than most blogging platforms.)

Quote:
I am worried that people will not be able to earn a living writing fiction. I suspect that lack of professional writers will reduce the amount and quality of writing.

Unfortunately, I lack data to support my claims with regard to authors in general. I have given examples from numerous industries, including journalism. My fear is based upon basic principles in economics. I firmly believe that lots of free books of high quality will devalue writing.

And yet the explosion of free ebooks and other content over the last 10 years has made *more* professional authors, not less of them.

The problem you want to fix doesn't exist. Yes, the publishing industries are in utter chaos--but there are *no* signs that this means writing-as-career is in any danger whatsoever. Authors' ability to get paid for their work has only increased as the web has grown, including in a variety of fields that never allowed for payment before.

There are restrictions to donations. A good example would be the restrictions on political campaign donations in the USA.

I don't see how that's an example of "being required to charge for something." Who is being required to take money for something they wanted to offer for free?

Quote:
It would be the goal that the price of books be such that authors are able to make a living from writing.

Here I made an error. I never meant that ALL would-be authors could earn a living from writing. There are certainly lots of people who are not cut out to be writers. I am concerned that very few authors would be able to earn a living from writing.

Ah. But you've proposed no method by which anyone could distinguish a "professional" author, who "should" earn a living at writing, from an amateur who's welcome to post content for free. (Or would amateurs be censored to force people to pay for professional works--perhaps DailyKos should be shut down to get people to buy newspapers?)

Long before establishing prices and laws to enforce your ideas, you'd have to define the "authors" who'd benefit from them. You keep saying that authors shouldn't give their content away for free, but you haven't said how you mark the difference between someone who should get paid, and someone whose writing quality isn't worth paying for.

The mind boggles at the idea of an author crossing some invisible quality line and being informed they can no longer give away their works but now must charge.

As I stated in a previous post, the prices could be chosen based on previous revenue from similar works.

There are NO previous revenue numbers for many of the kinds of works that are currently being given away for free. Even the works that have something resembling a print precedent--many blogs are comparable to newspaper editorials--have no standards for payment; the standard is "whatever the market will bear." In some cases, editorial authors get paid a notable amount per column. In others, they get paid nothing... getting their name in the paper is payment enough. In a setting where publication itself is a rarity, being included in the paper is payment; there's no way to equate that to the value of a blog post.

Equally important: Who would they be required to get payments from? All readers, including family members? Would authors be able to give away promotional copies? (Is Cory Doctorow "devaluing writing" by giving away free ebooks to sell print books?)

Projected sales are made every day in the business world.

They are made from the premise that (1) someone wants to sell something and (2) someone else wants to buy it. Your mandatory payment idea seems to require a payment even when both of those elements are missing.

I do not have such data, and thus cannot provide it. Commerce could proceed much as it currently does, so long as the minimum prices are met. It would require government oversight to ensure that the minimum prices are charged.

What do you imagine those minimum prices would be?
This is a *crucial* question. What's the minimum price for an ebook novel of, say, 50,000 words... a dollar? Three dollars? Ten dollars?

What's the minimum fee for a 5,000 word short story? Is it allowed to be free if it's posted at a blog rather than arranged as an epub? Do you think the fanfiction sites should be shut down, or switched to mandatory-payment systems?

(How much money do you think my 13-year-old's fanfic is worth, anyway?)

And how much of those minimum payments would be taxed from them to pay for the gov't oversight?

Would retired authors who don't want to be bothered with extra tax problems and would prefer to write for free, be forced to deliver their content through underground file sharing programs?

What's the penalty for delivering free ebooks to readers?

"Commerce" isn't going to come up with any answers for these, because "commerce" isn't seeing a problem. There are authors. Some of them get paid; most of them don't; most of the ones that do, don't make enough from writing to live on. Since this has been the situation for at least the last 500 years, nobody's seeing a problem with that situation.

There is indeed more free, widely available content than there used to be, and if that interfered with author payments, we would have a problem. However, all evidence says that more free content means more readers, which means more people interested in buying *specific* content. More authors are making a living at their craft now than there were ten years ago. Why should we expect this to change?

[bill_mchale]

On the order of 200,000 new books are published in the United States every year (and I am not even sure if that includes indie titles). Even if copyright was shortened to the original term of 14 years, that means 2.8 million books would be in copyright at any given time. The consumer is already overwhelmed by more books in any given year than they could possibly read in a life time. All this means is a large public domain is unlikely to significantly impact the basic fact that too many books are published to sustain more than a tiny percentage of authors as their sole source of income.

--
Bill

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by petrucci

That is incorrect.
[...]

tl;dr

[petrucci]

@pdurrant: read the next paragraph for the summary.

It is my contention that, in most cases, an abundance of free fiction will cause similar books that are not free to lose value. It has been argued that this cannot be the case as books are not fungible. Although we can certainly distinguish one book from another, this does not mean that books are incomparable from the perspective of a consumer. I believe that although the titles of fiction may be unique, they are valued by a consumer on the basis of their potential to entertain him. Several books can be equal in this regard, and thus the unique nature of the titles does not prevent the degredation of price.

In a previous post, QuantumIguana argued that readers of classics would be more likely to read new books of higher quality. This suggests that he believes that there is a similarity between the classics and new books of high quality. Such similarities are a form of comparison. The fact that such comparisons exist undermines the position that books are unique, as something that is unique is by its nature incomparable. Moreover it suggests that such similarities are important in the choice of reading material.

If books were truly unique we would only seek out particular titles. We all know that this is not the case. For example, readers seek out works by a particular author in the hopes that they are similar to other works she has written. Readers may also consider the brand/series. A given series may be written by several different authors. Take for example a T.V. show such as House. Different episodes are written by different writers. However, as a consumer of T.V. programs we can make a determination to watch the program based on its brand, and not on the author of a particular episode. A similar situation arises with books. There are customers who will buy the latest Star Wars novel regardless of its author. Another example would be the James Bond franchise. This is not to say that some consumers will not take into account the author of a book when considering purchasing it. My point here is that works by different authors may in some circumstances be considered roughly equal from the perspective of consumption.

There are instances in which we will purchase works even when we know nothing of the brand or the author. An example would be purchasing Analog, or a collection of works by different authors. Such choices are usually driven by the genera of the book. I believe that in almost all circumstances readers take into account genera when purchasing a book. An exception to this is choosing a book based on its author, even when his works span different genera.

I mentioned many different aspects of books. They all relate in one way or another to a person's enjoyment of a work. This I believe is the fundamental basis for the value that a person places on a book. Different people find different experiences enjoyable. Some may want a to read romance while others may want pulp fiction. If their desire is met, then they will be satisfied. In most cases a particular book is not required to satisfy such a desire. Any one of many hundreds of books could fit the bill. I think that the real commodity here is a reader's time, which can be filled to his satisfaction with a wide variety of books. If a person's entertainment quota is met by free books, then there is one fewer paying consumer of books. If few enough people are paying for books then their value will decrease.

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

On the order of 200,000 new books are published in the United States every year (and I am not even sure if that includes indie titles). Even if copyright was shortened to the original term of 14 years, that means 2.8 million books would be in copyright at any given time. The consumer is already overwhelmed by more books in any given year than they could possibly read in a life time. All this means is a large public domain is unlikely to significantly impact the basic fact that too many books are published to sustain more than a tiny percentage of authors as their sole source of income.

To a large extent I agree. However, if many of those books were free, then an even smaller percentage of authors could make a living from their craft.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by petrucci

@pdurrant: read the next paragraph for the summary.

It is my contention that, in most cases, an abundance of free fiction will cause similar books that are not free to lose value. It has been argued that this cannot be the case as books are not fungible. Although we can certainly distinguish one book from another, this does not mean that books are incomparable from the perspective of a consumer. I believe that although the titles of fiction may be unique, they are valued by a consumer on the basis of their potential to entertain him. Several books can be equal in this regard, and thus the unique nature of the titles does not prevent the degredation of price.

[...]

If a person's entertainment quota is met by free books, then there is one fewer paying consumer of books. If few enough people are paying for books then their value will decrease.

Even if true, this is no reason to argue against the free availability of public domain ebooks. The public benefit of free books vastly outweighs any loss of income to contemporary authors.

And actually, I don't think it's true. Public domain classic books are great, but they are, because of the length of copyright, out of date. They don't deal with current events or recent technological or social change. People who are used to (say) feminism, mobile phones and the Internet, will not be forever satisfied with fiction that ignores all those items.

And then there are changes in English, and in writing styles.

I don't see any likelihood that many excellent (& lucky) authors will not be able to make a good living in the future as in the past. That the vast majority of published authors will not be able to make a living at writing fiction will also not change.

[QuantumIguana]

No one ever said or even implied that books were incomparable. Of course books are comparable, but they are not interchangable. A fungible commodity is one in which is interchangble for any other. A bushel of corn is interchangable for any other. A bottle of wine is not interchangable with any other wine. If someone can't get the wine they want, they will seek out another bottle of similar quality wine. They won't likely be selecting a bottle of Mad Dog 20-20 if they can't get the vintage they were looking for. Just as some wines are of higher quality than others, some books are of higher quality than others. If someone cannot obtain a public domain classic, they will search for a new book of similar quality. They will not be seeking a marginal beginning author.

With a Star Wars of James Bond novel, you know what you're getting. You have an idea of the quality to expect. Analog is a well-known brand, people have good reason to expect a certain level of quality from Analog. When people look at an anthology, they tend to look at the names. If the authors are authors they know and enjoy reading, they are much more likely to buy it than if the authors are unknown to them.

If someone is looking for a classic, they will not be satisfied with just any book. Jane Austen wrote romances, but they aren't interchangable with any random romance novel written today. Someone might be in the mood for a romance book, but that doesn't mean that just any romance book will do. They are comparable, but not interchangable. Some books are higher quality than others. People aren't reading the classics just because they are free. There are tens of thousands of books that are in the public domain, but only a small percentage of them still have any significant readership. The public domain is simply not competition for the struggling new author. It is highly unlikely that a struggling new author is putting out books that rival the best books ever written.

People generally prefer new books over older books. English teachers would love it if people were moving to the classics in droves, but it just isn't happening. Free or cheap new books are not dominating the market, far from it. If people had to pay for public domain books, this would not improve the lot of the struggling new writer on bit.

Any book that does sell well can demand a higher price. I don't think Twilight is a great book, but people are buying it, so she must be doing something right. People are paying $8.99 for it when they could choose from many hundreds of other vampire books for free or 99 cents. Clearly, the free or 99 cent book has not hindered the ability of authors to charge more. If there is a demand for the book, people will pay. If your position were correct, this wouldn't be happening. This means we must discard the idea that free and cheap books are crowding out authors. Simply write better books.

A price floor would hurt struggling new authors, not help them. Authors can use pricing to get people to try their books. If authors were forced to charge a minimum price for books (good luck with that holding up in court!) they would have more difficult time establishing a readership.

[petrucci]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

No one ever said or even implied that books were incomparable. Of course books are comparable, but they are not interchangable. A fungible commodity is one in which is interchangble for any other. A bushel of corn is interchangable for any other. A bottle of wine is not interchangable with any other wine.

I thought that you stated the books were unique. Regardless, some people regard wine as interchangable. There are even people who drink hand sanitizer. There are also people who regard some books as interchangable, such as my quoted romance novel a and romance novel b. The books are interchangable because they all satisfy the reader's desire for entertainment.

I agree that interchangability is a matter of personal preference. I doubt that there are many people who think that all books are interchangable with one another. However, I suspect that almost everyone regards some books as interchangeable.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

If someone can't get the wine they want, they will seek out another bottle of similar quality wine. They won't likely be selecting a bottle of Mad Dog 20-20 if they can't get the vintage they were looking for. Just as some wines are of higher quality than others, some books are of higher quality than others. If someone cannot obtain a public domain classic, they will search for a new book of similar quality. They will not be seeking a marginal beginning author.

I do not disagree with the first part of your argument. However, not all people want to read the same types of books. Some people want sci-fi and others want a spy novel. There are even people who really like trashy novels. Many books from one of these genera may satisfy the desires of a particular reader. There is no reason that some of these may be written by a 'marginal' author. In fact, some 'marginal' authors are really great writers.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

With a Star Wars of James Bond novel, you know what you're getting. You have an idea of the quality to expect. Analog is a well-known brand, people have good reason to expect a certain level of quality from Analog. When people look at an anthology, they tend to look at the names. If the authors are authors they know and enjoy reading, they are much more likely to buy it than if the authors are unknown to them.

You never really know what you are going to get until you read the book. A perfect example would be the Jar Jar Binks debacle. This is not to say that series, authors, and genera are not very important. Many people choose books based on these factors. However, I explained in my previous post, that each of these factors does not necessarily play a role in the decision to buy a book. In a certain sense when you buy a book you are really going in blind. For this reason some people will only buy books that have been recommended to them. However, I think that a great many readers will buy books without such reviews. A case in point are displays in bookstores. If people were only going to purchase books that were recommended, such displays would be of little use.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

If someone is looking for a classic, they will not be satisfied with just any book. Jane Austen wrote romances, but they aren't interchangable with any random romance novel written today. Someone might be in the mood for a romance book, but that doesn't mean that just any romance book will do.

I agree. However, this does not mean that several books will not do. For example, if you wanted a good romance novel and had not read much of Austen, then several of her books may be interchangeable.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Some books are higher quality than others. People aren't reading the classics just because they are free. There are tens of thousands of books that are in the public domain, but only a small percentage of them still have any significant readership. The public domain is simply not competition for the struggling new author. It is highly unlikely that a struggling new author is putting out books that rival the best books ever written.

It may be unlikely, but not impossible. To give another musical example, Mozart stuggled to earn a living for much of his life.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

People generally prefer new books over older books. English teachers would love it if people were moving to the classics in droves, but it just isn't happening. Free or cheap new books are not dominating the market, far from it. If people had to pay for public domain books, this would not improve the lot of the struggling new writer on bit.

I really do not know the exact effect of free books on the market, as I would need to know the condition of the market without such books. I do know that lots of people are downloading free books. It is reasonable to assume that some of these people are reading the downloaded books.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Any book that does sell well can demand a higher price. I don't think Twilight is a great book, but people are buying it, so she must be doing something right. People are paying $8.99 for it when they could choose from many hundreds of other vampire books for free or 99 cents. Clearly, the free or 99 cent book has not hindered the ability of authors to charge more. If there is a demand for the book, people will pay. If your position were correct, this wouldn't be happening. This means we must discard the idea that free and cheap books are crowding out authors. Simply write better books.

I am not totally convinced that this is the case. There are many examples of backlash from raising prices despite swift sales. One that comes to mind is Netflix. To some extent people pay what they expect to be a reasonable amount. If they are used to paying very little or nothing for something then they will not be willing to pay more than that amount. I am rather perplexed about Twilight. It may be able to command a high price because people are used to paying such prices for books. It may also be that it is not interchangable with many other vampire novels, as Twilight is targeted at a young adult female audience, which is not the typical audience of most vampire books.

Originally Posted by PDurrant

Even if true, this is no reason to argue against the free availability of public domain ebooks. The public benefit of free books vastly outweighs any loss of income to contemporary authors.

ANY loss of income. What if NO contemporary authors could earn a living from writing?

Originally Posted by PDurrant

And actually, I don't think it's true. Public domain classic books are great, but they are, because of the length of copyright, out of date. They don't deal with current events or recent technological or social change. People who are used to (say) feminism, mobile phones and the Internet, will not be forever satisfied with fiction that ignores all those items.

And then there are changes in English, and in writing styles.

I don't see any likelihood that many excellent (& lucky) authors will not be able to make a good living in the future as in the past. That the vast majority of published authors will not be able to make a living at writing fiction will also not change.

While your point is well taken, some people still think that classics are relevant today. As they say, some things never change. Also, I introduced free and under-priced books into the discussion, as they also have an effect on sales.

[BeccaPrice]

There are also people who regard some books as interchangable, such as my quoted romance novel a and romance novel b.

the only people who say that about romance are non-romance readers who are not aware of the wide variety and richness of the genre and it's various sub-genres. I don't think you can say that about sub-genre-romance A (which may be angsty and emotionally wrenching) and sub-genre-romance B (which may be a light-hearted comedy of manners)

I daresay that is true of any genre - I don't know much about Westerns, for example, but I'm sure there are aficionados who will deny that Western by Author A is interchangeable with Western Author B - or even books by the same author within the same genre. for example, back to romances again, not all Nora Roberts are created equal, and I sometimes wonder that the author of The Witness is the same person who is writing the Inn Boonsboro books.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by petrucci

ANY loss of income. What if NO contemporary authors could earn a living from writing?

Obviously, that would be Very Very Bad; you just haven't provided any compelling evidence that it's remotely likely to happen.
Why would authors suddenly not be able to make a living writing, when currently, with exactly the free-ebooks-everywhere system you're trying to prevent, they're more able to make a living than they have ever been?

Nobody here is saying "it's fine for authors not to get paid!" We're saying that, as things stand, some authors get paid, and we expect some authors to get paid in the future, and while some individual awesome authors will indeed fail to get the support they need and we will all miss out on some great works thereby, that isn't worth changing the entire economy of arts and literature. Certainly not by mandating a price for things authors would like to give away for free.

If you provided any numbers to support your claim that authors are less likely to make money at their craft in the future, people might be convinced. If you outlined a solution plan that was obviously beneficial to authors, they might see how that plan fixes the problem you perceive.

(A plan of "all authors will charge money for all their published works" is not beneficial; it doesn't get anyone to *buy* those works. Especially when you haven't been clear about which writers would need to charge, and which would be considered non-professional.)

[petrucci]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Obviously, that would be Very Very Bad; you just haven't provided any compelling evidence that it's remotely likely to happen.

The crux of my argument (that readers may choose one book over another based on price) is in dispute. It seems easiest to hash that out first. If it turns out that I am wrong on that account, then there is no need to go further.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Why would authors suddenly not be able to make a living writing, when currently, with exactly the free-ebooks-everywhere system you're trying to prevent, they're more able to make a living than they have ever been?

The reason is that people could obtain free books that satisfy their reading for entertainment itch. There may also become an expectation that books are free or very inexpensive. There are many reasons that this may not currently be the case, even though there are some free books. One reason is that many of the current crop of free books are old and thus undesirable because of its antiquity. Another is that many of the new free ebooks are low quality. However, this may not remain the case as more books go out of copyright, and more authors post their works for free.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by petrucci

One reason is that many of the current crop of free books are old and thus undesirable because of its antiquity. Another is that many of the new free ebooks are low quality. However, this may not remain the case as more books go out of copyright, and more authors post their works for free.

Works come out of copyright at various times, but in general no earlier than 50 years after their author has died, and in many countries 70 years after. The US is an exception, in that for many years, no more books will enter the public domain until 95 years after their publication (in 2019 books published in 1923 will enter the US public domain).

So I see no likelihood of an increase in topical public domain books.

There are some quality authors (e.g. Cory Doctorow) posting their ebooks for free. I expect that this number will diminish as ebooks come to be the dominant part of the book market, rather than a tiny sliver of it.

Non-traditionally published authors? Some will become well known and make lots of money. Most will remain in obscurity, selling or giving away tiny quantities.

Publishers are going to have a hard time. Bookshops are going to get hammered. But I think that authors will do as well or better than they have previously.

[Kumabjorn]

Originally Posted by petrucci

One reason is that many of the current crop of free books are old and thus undesirable because of its antiquity. Another is that many of the new free ebooks are low quality. However, this may not remain the case as more books go out of copyright, and more authors post their works for free.

I believe it was Samuel Johnson who stated; "No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." As true now as it was 300 years ago. If you can't make money writing literature, those with the talent and skill will find other lucrative outlets for their efforts.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by petrucci

I thought that you stated the books were unique. Regardless, some people regard wine as interchangable. There are even people who drink hand sanitizer. There are also people who regard some books as interchangable, such as my quoted romance novel a and romance novel b. The books are interchangable because they all satisfy the reader's desire for entertainment.

Yes, there are people who drink hand sanitizer. Vinters generally don't go after this market segment. If someone can't get the fine wine they are looking for, they aren't going to drink hand sanitizer. If someone can't get Jane Austen, they aren't going to read some random marginal romance novel.

I agree that interchangability is a matter of personal preference. I doubt that there are many people who think that all books are interchangable with one another. However, I suspect that almost everyone regards some books as interchangeable.

Your point relied on the best books ever written being interchangeable with the marginal books of struggling authors.

I do not disagree with the first part of your argument. However, not all people want to read the same types of books. Some people want sci-fi and others want a spy novel. There are even people who really like trashy novels. Many books from one of these genera may satisfy the desires of a particular reader. There is no reason that some of these may be written by a 'marginal' author. In fact, some 'marginal' authors are really great writers

Being in a genre does not mean the book is interchangable. If someone wants a science fiction novel, not just any science fiction novel will do. Once the books sell, they aren't marginal authors. If they are really great authors, their books will sell.

You never really know what you are going to get until you read the book. A perfect example would be the Jar Jar Binks debacle. This is not to say that series, authors, and genera are not very important. Many people choose books based on these factors. However, I explained in my previous post, that each of these factors does not necessarily play a role in the decision to buy a book. In a certain sense when you buy a book you are really going in blind. For this reason some people will only buy books that have been recommended to them. However, I think that a great many readers will buy books without such reviews. A case in point are displays in bookstores. If people were only going to purchase books that were recommended, such displays would be of little use.

If I pick up a copy of Analog, I know what to expect. Analog is a well-known brand. If I get a Big Mac, I know what to expect. It doesn't mean that you can't be disappointed. I can get a bad hamburger or I could be disappointed with Star Wars after seing Jar Jar binks. You can't be disappointed unless you had some reason to expect better. Your point about bookstores is off base. People are not just randomly selecting books in a bookstore. I can walk into the bookstore, and see books by Asimov. I know what to expect, Asimov is a known brand. I can then take a look at the book, and flip through the pages to see if it looks like it might be worth my time.

I agree. However, this does not mean that several books will not do. For example, if you wanted a good romance novel and had not read much of Austen, then several of her books may be interchangeable.

Sure, you could read any of Jane Austen's books and have a pretty good expectation of it being good. But again, your point relied on Jane Austen's books being interchangeable with any random romance novel. People don't read Jane Austen just because it is available for free. Only a small number of public domain books are read by significant percentages of people. If all people cared about was the cheapness of a book, we wouldn't see this, we would see people reading public domain books at random.

It may be unlikely, but not impossible. To give another musical example, Mozart stuggled to earn a living for much of his life.

I suppose he would have worked as a musician in a hotel lobby. The funny thing is that with his talents, Mozart would have thrived today, while in his time, he had to struggle.

I really do not know the exact effect of free books on the market, as I would need to know the condition of the market without such books. I do know that lots of people are downloading free books. It is reasonable to assume that some of these people are reading the downloaded books.

Not everyone who downloads free books reads them. The market is dominated by new books that people pay money for. Many people see a free book, and download it to see if it interests them. If your assertion was correct, sales of new books would be suffering, but they aren't. We don't see free or 99 cent books dominating the market. Public domain books have a limited appeal, they are quite old, the language has drifted considerably, and the world-view is often rather obscure for people living in 2012. As it is, no new books will be entering the public domain until 2019.

I am not totally convinced that this is the case. There are many examples of backlash from raising prices despite swift sales. One that comes to mind is Netflix. To some extent people pay what they expect to be a reasonable amount. If they are used to paying very little or nothing for something then they will not be willing to pay more than that amount. I am rather perplexed about Twilight. It may be able to command a high price because people are used to paying such prices for books. It may also be that it is not interchangable with many other vampire novels, as Twilight is targeted at a young adult female audience, which is not the typical audience of most vampire books.

Netflix is service which people pay for on an ongoing basis. Raise the price, and people object. A book is not. If you paid 99 cents for a book, but now the price is $5.99, you're not out a cent. If you didn't buy the book when it was 99 cents, you just missed a good deal. Twilight isn't selling because people are used to paying full price for books. If that were the case, surely some other vampire novel would be selling. Why this one, and not some other. Clearly, readers don't think Twilight is interchangable with any random vampire novel. Women have been reading vampire novels for a long time. Twilight has given readers what they want, and thus people will pay $5.99 when they could have had another vampuire book for free. I'm not interested in this book, but readers decided that this book worth $5.99, despite the availablity of free books. The success of Twilight is strong evidence against the idea that free books are causing the market for new books to dry up.