Confessions of a Book Pirate

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by delphidb96

Now *THAT* is an interesting reason for removing copyright protection! Not sure I *like* it, but that sure would be motivation for writing more, yes???

Derek

Either that or motivation to not bother....

[thename]

Originally Posted by delphidb96

Now *THAT* is an interesting reason for removing copyright protection! Not sure I *like* it, but that sure would be motivation for writing more, yes???

Which is interesting when you consider that courts have stated (emphasis mine):

The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors. A copyright, like a patent, is 'at once the equivalent given by the public for benefits bestowed by the genius and meditations and skill of individuals, and the incentive to further efforts for the same important objects.'

So they assert the US' interest in copyright is to promote the production of new works for the public good.

Seems at odds with the reality as we know it in the post Mickey Mouse copyright world doesn't it?

[schex86]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Either that or motivation to not bother....

Exactly, "either/or"! Some will choose to write, and some will not, as they do now, as they have always done since ideas, could be transmitted to physical media.

The question we have to ask ourselves is whether or not the current corruption provides a net overall benefit. If enough people say it does not, then it should be changed.

Great discussion so far by the way. Glad to see common sense is finally starting to gain a foothold

[Iphinome]

Wow the debate here is far more polite than in the ebook pricing thread. I'll chine in with a summery of my side of things. The public domain is the cost of copyright all the content providers want you to pay again and again into infinity. They in turn refuse to pay for their monopoly by releasing work back into the public domain that inspired it. When copyright isn't limited (and anything beyond a human lifetime is effectively unlimited) then it isn't payed for. They're the pirates.

[MrBlueSky]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Either that or motivation to not bother....

Funny, writers are always saying that all they want is to make enough money to put a roof over their heads, put food on the table and provide for the spouses and children while writing novel after novel after novel for the edification of their adoring public. They leave the actual money-grubbing to their agents and publishers.

I would imagine that the very THOUGHT of being thrown into the (metaphorical) poor-house would be enough motivation to get their creative juices flowing. There again, if there is no longer the prospect of making a bazillion dollars for scribbling a few paragraphs or so — then I guess I won't bother either.

I guess I'll just have to get a real job after all.

[guyanonymous]

If you look at the creative communities online today (flickr, deviantart, cartographersguild, photosig, numerous fiction sites, the open-source programming communities and projects, make magazine) you'll find a lot of amazing work (and a lot of horrible work! - and everything in between) shared freely by creatives. Some of it surpasses the commercial work I see daily in advertising, have read, etc. And the creatives behind it are happy to share it - for the feedback, the community and individual respect, and just because it makes them feel good to share their creative output. Some finesse this sharing into commercial ventures, some are happy with things the way they are. The number of views, the rating system, the comment system - all those things provide a lot of incentive to a lot of people.

I'm definitely not worried about creatives not producing. We'll see a wider range of creative output, as opposed to only seeing the current style/genre/fad. Sorting through it all will be challenging - but the choice will actually be there. Sorting/search/rating mechanisms are issues that are technically solved (IMHO) and merely need to be tweaked and further developed. I suspect we'll see online book communities thrive, as have other art communities as people begin to leverage the power of many people's perspectives as opposed to the opinions of a few who make decisions now in the publishing industry.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by MrBlueSky

Funny, writers are always saying that all they want is to make enough money to put a roof over their heads, put food on the table and provide for the spouses and children while writing novel after novel after novel for the edification of their adoring public. They leave the actual money-grubbing to their agents and publishers.

The copyright argument is almost never customer vs artist (although the industry tries to portray it that way). It's almost always customer and artist vs industry.

[MrBlueSky]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

The copyright argument is almost never customer vs artist (although the industry tries to portray it that way). It's almost always customer and artist vs industry.

I don't really think that's true at all. It's ALWAYS about the artist. He always tries to portray it as if it was only the faceless 'industry' that is ripping the customer off, as if he (the artist) is somehow divorced from that same industry and is just some hapless bystander, in the same boat as the customer. Yet.

Who initially owns the copyright? The artist.

Whose name is on the cover? The artist.

Who sells/assigns his copyright to the publisher? The artist.

Who continues to get paid royalties for 70 years after death. The artist.

Who is most vocal in complaining about pirates 'stealing' from them. The artist.

Who has the most potential to gain from the status quo. The artist.


The publisher on the other hand, says that all he is doing is simply acting in the best intersts of the artist (as his intermediary). After all, the artist willingly signed away his copyright to him on the expectation that he (the publisher) would shower riches upon his (ther artist) head from producing the work for him.

The publisher says that all the editing, proof-reading, marketing and price-fixing he does is simply done in the name of, and on behalf of, the artist. In fact, any small smidgen of profit the publisher makes (he says) goes into subsidising the other unsucssesful artists that are freeloading on his roster right now. He (the publisher) will say that he can barely afford to survive after all these expenses have been accounted for and the artist paid his due. Indeed, he is the one who has to send his wife and childern out to work to make ends meet!

In truth both the artist and publisher are in in the scam together against the customer, and when all is said and done,it always comes down to the initial copyright holder -- the artist.

In fact, the whole of the copyright legislation itself is specificaly designed and implemented with the single intention of benefiting the artist. (You know 'to promote...'). If the artist actualy gave a damm about the fate and treatment of his book, he wouldn't sign away his rights so filpantly. If the artist really cared about the ciustomer, he wouldn't give the publiher complete control over his rights to enable them to treat customers the way that they do.

Its simply not good enough for the artist to whine that 'it's the publishers fault'. That will not do at all. Okay, the artist may be getting the short end of the stick too from the publisher -- but two wrongs do not make a right.

It may very well be that in todays industry the artist is regarded as nothing more than a pen for hire to source 'the product' from. But whse fault is that? When I buy a tin of beans, its Mr Heinz I am paying. Same as with the artist. I don't care how much Mr. Heinz paid the farmer for them, or how much he paid his worker to can them, or how much the retailers cut is for putting them on the shelf. If the price to too high at the counter -- I blame Mr. Heinz.

Same for a book. if the cover price is too high -- it's the artists fault. No argument.

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by MrBlueSky

I don't really think that's true at all. It's ALWAYS about the artist. He always tries to portray it as if it was only the faceless 'industry' that is ripping the customer off, as if he (the artist) is somehow divorced from that same industry and is just some hapless bystander, in the same boat as the customer. Yet.

Who initially owns the copyright? The artist.

Whose name is on the cover? The artist.

Who sells/assigns his copyright to the publisher? The artist.

Who continues to get paid royalties for 70 years after death. The artist.

Who is most vocal in complaining about pirates 'stealing' from them. The artist.

Who has the most potential to gain from the status quo. The artist.

I honestly don't agree with you, on any of these counts. What good is the copyright to the artist if they don't publish their work and receive payment for it? And how many options have they had to do that? I've gone the self-publishing route, and it's heartbreak for all but a tiny minority. The "flattening" of the market through the internet may change that in the long run, but it hasn't made more than a tiny dent so far.

In particular, the artists are not the ones I hear complaining most loudly about copyright infringement. That dubious honor rests squarely with the publishers.

Originally Posted by MrBlueSky

The publisher on the other hand, says that all he is doing is simply acting in the best intersts of the artist (as his intermediary). After all, the artist willingly signed away his copyright to him on the expectation that he (the publisher) would shower riches upon his (ther artist) head from producing the work for him.

The publisher says that all the editing, proof-reading, marketing and price-fixing he does is simply done in the name of, and on behalf of, the artist. In fact, any small smidgen of profit the publisher makes (he says) goes into subsidising the other unsucssesful artists that are freeloading on his roster right now. He (the publisher) will say that he can barely afford to survive after all these expenses have been accounted for and the artist paid his due. Indeed, he is the one who has to send his wife and childern out to work to make ends meet!

Why are you willing to accept the publisher claims over those of the artist? Regardless, the publisher is making the claim that the editing, etc. is on behalf of the customer; the marketing and price-fixing are certainly done for the benefit of the publisher, rather than the artist.

Originally Posted by MrBlueSky

When I buy a tin of beans, its Mr Heinz I am paying. Same as with the artist. I don't care how much Mr. Heinz paid the farmer for them, or how much he paid his worker to can them, or how much the retailers cut is for putting them on the shelf. If the price to too high at the counter -- I blame Mr. Heinz.

Same for a book. if the cover price is too high -- it's the artists fault. No argument.

Your argument doesn't make sense. Heinz is in the position of the publisher, not the artist. In your analogy, the farmer would be the artist, and the cannery workers the copy editors, printers, etc.

I actually do care how much Mr. Heinz paid the farmer and the cannery workers, and I care whether the workers at the store where I buy the canned goods are making a living wage. I go out of my way to buy "fair trade" goods from locally-owned businesses where possible. The farmer and the cannery worker receive far to small a fraction of the final price of the can as it is-- and the vast majority of authors receive a pittance per book from publishers.

Your priorities may be very different from mine, and I accept that, but I don't accept that your premises or conclusions hold for everyone, or even for the majority. Our contemporary system of publishing has developed into a stranglehold on channels from creators to customers. I hope to see distributed publishing via the internet and other means change that. But we're not there yet.

And this "creators vs. publishers vs. customers" argument doesn't even take another huge factor into account: distributors. Take a look at this article by long-time science fiction author C. J. Cherryh for insight into this problem.

http://www.closed-circle.net/WhereItsAt/?page_id=11

[TGS]

Originally Posted by MrBlueSky

Same for a book. if the cover price is too high -- it's the artists fault. No argument.

Your average paperback in the UK has a cover price of say £7.99, (I may be a bit out of date on this, I haven't lived there for a couple of years - I live in Denmark, where English language book pricing seems to follow the rule, "think of a number, double it and add nought). Now, of all the costs associated with producing that book, the big variable is what the author gets paid, (other things being relatively equal - such as cost of editing, production and distribution). If the author is paid a £20,000 advance and 45p per sale, her book costs £7.99 to the consumer. If the author is paid a £250,000 advance and 75p per sale the cover price is still £7.99. Cover prices then seem to bear little relationship to what authors get paid, and hence, the cover price cannot be held to be the authors fault.