Joe Abercrombie on Ebook Pricing

[EowynCarter]

Originally Posted by Jellby

In Spain I think the normal VAT is 16%, but only 4% for books.

Umf !
Our are 19.6% and 5%....

[Ea]

Originally Posted by HarryT

...
In most - perhaps all - EU countries, books are either zero rated, or rated at a lower rate than the standard VAT rate. Eg, in France, the standard rate of VAT is 19.6%, but books are only charged (I believe) 5%.

In Denmark it's 25% - same VAT rate on everything. Add to that, that books published for a small market means small numbers, which means that the price per unit is higher. A typical price for a new hardback is the equivalent of 50-60 USD, and a new paperback about 25-30 USD. As you can understand, I think 20 USD for an ebook is still sort of cheap
I've hardly ever actually bought a book at full price, and I used to use the library extensively.

[rogue_ronin]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

Heinlein's wife still needs the money.
Dale

Virginia Heinlein is dead. Since 2003.

Heinlein has been dead since 1988.

They had no children.

All the profits on his books go to a trust. IE: a corporation. And they will go there for the next 60+ years.

This is about the worst example you could use to support any validation of rent-seeking behavior on the part of the culture-robbing inheritors of the creative.

I mean that in a friendly way.

m a r

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by rogue_ronin

Virginia Heinlein is dead. Since 2003.

Heinlein has been dead since 1988.

They had no children.

All the profits on his books go to a trust. IE: a corporation. And they will go there for the next 60+ years.

This is about the worst example you could use to support any validation of rent-seeking behavior on the part of the culture-robbing inheritors of the creative.

I mean that in a friendly way.

m a r

Of course I didn't write the law so I am not offended. I was just indicating the idea behind the law. In my opinion the 28 years after it was written is the reasonable life of a copyright law. Of course if it is revised as was the case for Strangers in a strange land in the '90s it would still be under copyright today, even using this rule. As it is the start date would presumably be 1988 so I don't know where the 60+ comes from. For Canada is would seem to be about 30 years.

Dale

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by rogue_ronin

All the profits on his books go to a trust. IE: a corporation. And they will go there for the next 60+ years.

Where do you get your figure of 60+ years from? Most of us live in countries with a "life + 70" copyright term, hence Mr. Heinlein's works will enter the public domain on 1st Jan 2059; fewer than 50 years hence.

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

Heinlein's wife still needs the money.

Me too.

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

....In my opinion the 28 years after it was written is the reasonable life of a copyright law.....
Dale

Make it 20, and I'll get a Green Card to vote for you when you run for the Oval Office...

[astra]

Originally Posted by Format C:

Me too.

[rogue_ronin]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Where do you get your figure of 60+ years from? Most of us live in countries with a "life + 70" copyright term, hence Mr. Heinlein's works will enter the public domain on 1st Jan 2059; fewer than 50 years hence.

You're right. Bad math.

And assuming that the laws don't change again.

How old will you be in 50 years? I will be very old, and an author dead for 70 years, who influenced my childhood, who was old when he did it, will just be allowed to enter the larger culture's remixathon. It's sad.

m a r

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by rogue_ronin

You're right. Bad math.

And assuming that the laws don't change again.

How old will you be in 50 years? I will be very old, and an author dead for 70 years, who influenced my childhood, who was old when he did it, will just be allowed to enter the larger culture's remixathon. It's sad.

m a r

I'm afraid I really don't see that you have any cause for complaint. You had to buy Mr. Heinlein's books when you were a child; you have to buy them now. Nothing has changed. You don't (IMHO, at least) have some inherent "right" to read them "for free". If you want to do so, go to the library .

[rogue_ronin]

That's not the point at all. I can read them whenever I wish. It's the fact that I (or anyone else) cannot derive works from them for what is in effect a century after their introduction. We cannot quote them extensively, rewrite, transform, reuse... I'm in the theatre -- there are plays to be written about questions Heinlein asked, or statements he made about human nature, etc.

Or pulling together a master collection of the man's work, done out of admiration, in an easily transformable or specifically beautiful format. Or whatever. The man and his wife are dead, he cannot be importuned to create any more works, no matter how much we pay him (or his inheritors.)

The miracle of For Us the Living is a perfect example: Written in 1938, it was not published until 2003 -- it will enter public domain in 2098 in the US.

Culture is not passive. It reacts, infuses, refolds and adds. What is changed is both what is added and something new. Think of someone like Beethoven, reusing music from Mozart.

I am not comparing myself to Beethoven, nor Heinlein in regard to their genius. What I mean is that the problem is an environment of fear and (im)permission instead of creativity/love, and the locking up of culturally significant works for the benefit of what are largely corporations.

Reducing these ideas to pricing:

You don't (IMHO, at least) have some inherent "right" to read them "for free".

when I did not mention that at all (you are not quoting me, you are quoting a straw man) simply demonstrates how much of our ideas about everything in culture have been captured by the interests of business.

I hope you understand.

m a r

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by rogue_ronin

That's not the point at all. I can read them whenever I wish. It's the fact that I (or anyone else) cannot derive works from them for what is in effect a century after their introduction. We cannot quote them extensively, rewrite, transform, reuse... I'm in the theatre -- there are plays to be written about questions Heinlein asked, or statements he made about human nature, etc.

Or pulling together a master collection of the man's work, done out of admiration, in an easily transformable or specifically beautiful format. Or whatever. The man and his wife are dead, he cannot be importuned to create any more works, no matter how much we pay him (or his inheritors.)

The miracle of For Us the Living is a perfect example: Written in 1938, it was not published until 2003 -- it will enter public domain in 2098 in the US.

Culture is not passive. It reacts, infuses, refolds and adds. What is changed is both what is added and something new. Think of someone like Beethoven, reusing music from Mozart.

I am not comparing myself to Beethoven, nor Heinlein in regard to their genius. What I mean is that the problem is an environment of fear and (im)permission instead of creativity/love, and the locking up of culturally significant works for the benefit of what are largely corporations.

Reducing these ideas to pricing:

when I did not mention that at all (you are not quoting me, you are quoting a straw man) simply demonstrates how much of our ideas about everything in culture have been captured by the interests of business.

I hope you understand.

m a r

You, sir, have most aptly summed up the whole problem with our culture as it stands in relation to the almighty 'business model'. Bravo!

[Jack Tingle]

Originally Posted by rogue_ronin

That's not the point at all. I can read them whenever I wish. It's the fact that I (or anyone else) cannot derive works from them for what is in effect a century after their introduction. We cannot quote them extensively, rewrite, transform, reuse... I'm in the theatre -- there are plays to be written about questions Heinlein asked, or statements he made about human nature, etc.

Or pulling together a master collection of the man's work, done out of admiration, in an easily transformable or specifically beautiful format. Or whatever. The man and his wife are dead, he cannot be importuned to create any more works, no matter how much we pay him (or his inheritors.)

You can do some of that:
1) You can quote them for critical purposes, though you can't quote great swaths of his books. You can reference the books themselves if you need to.
2) You can parodize, but not reuse. Rewriting and tranformation requires you to change his work extensively, so you can call it your own.
3) You can certainly write a play about his ideas. You just can't use his words except as modest quotes, and you have to credit him.

Why do you think you should have the right to re-edit or republish his works without paying? Prettying up someone else's work isn't adding value. Go write works of your own. I certainly encourage you to "react, infuse, refold and add. What is changed is both what is added and something new." The law just requires your changes and addition to be non-trivial and truly new.

Regards,
Jack Tingle

[Teddman]

Originally Posted by Jack Tingle

Prettying up someone else's work isn't adding value. Go write works of your own.

This is how I feel about publishers re-packaging 50+ year old books and selling them at full mark-up.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by rogue_ronin

The miracle of For Us the Living is a perfect example: Written in 1938, it was not published until 2003 -- it will enter public domain in 2098 in the US.

If it was a "corporate work" that'd be true, but I don't think that's the case for this book. Since it was published after 2002, it comes out of copyright 70 years after his death (in 1988), on 1st Jan 2059.