The Virtue of High Priced Books

[Leyor]

The patronage system for the arts is factually accurate. At least historically it wasn't easy to duplicate works. In the digital world something can be reproduced for "free" and instantly distributed to the whole world.

What are you talking about? The original statement was:

No one was able to make a living as a writer until the copyright act was passed.

Thats historically untrue, and I get offended by people attempting to rewrite history for the sake of making a strong selfserving statement. Many authors made a living, both under the patronage system and for hundreds of years without patronage. I enjoy discussing with you, but I insist on accuracy, even if the original statement wasn't yours, you chose to comment on it.

As for a source, I've provided one in my previous post aswell as below, which proves that Germany experienced an economic upturn as a result not having copyright, and that a big industry of many original authors and publishers profitted from this and. The industry profitted from it well enough that it was capable of producing 10 times the volumes of original works than Britain by comparison.

I also included an individual example between a completely unknown german author working without copyright, compared to one of the most well known british authors of that period, working within a copyright system.

Your article actually paints quite a different picture. There was rampant plagarization in Germany due to the lack of copyright. There was great profit in England after the enactment of copyright.

There were societal differences between England and Germany to go far more to understanding the results than copyright law. As far as that is concerned, the article supports what copyright supports believe.

I'm amazed at how two people can read the same article and come to such drastically different conclusions. I somehow feel that you didn't really read it, since your conclusions are also widely different from those of the research conducted.

""For the period of the Enlightenment and bourgeois emancipation, we see deplorable progress in Great Britain," Höffner states".

DESPITE plagarization in Germany, the industry thrived. Producing a wealth of original works and providing ten times the amount of authors with a living than in Britian, not only that but the authors earned 2.5 to 5 times more in average pr. book than in Britain Creating a dynamic book industry. Let's get our definitions right, you're saying plagarization as a negative loaded word, probably because you have such a heavy investment in defending copyright. But plagarization in itself isn't bad, it's only bad if it has some negative consequences, which obviously isn't the case here.

The only ones who profitted in the UK was the publishers who rode gilt carriages. There was less authors making a living. There was less books available to the public. There was a regressive development in the industry.

Here's some additional material: Unfortunately due to Copyright issues, I can only provide you with a short presentaton rather than the actual report

http://www.cippm.org.uk/downloads/Sy...eng-10_min.pdf

I wonder if the reason why we're viewing the same article in such different lights, is because we have a substantially different perspective and motivation. From what I can infer from what you just wrote, the criterias that defines the success of copyright is:

1. That the publishers earn as much money as possible.
2. That books having a high price is a goal in itself.

It's always doing someone else a disservice to ascribe them views, but you did write that "There was great profit", and these were basically the benefit of Copyright in Britain, especially since the average author in Britain earned alot less than the average author in Germany (see page 25 of my new link). I personally am not a publisher, and for me the success criterias of a dynamic book industry is:

1. As high a volume as possible of original works.
2. That as many of these works as possible reach as many people as possible.

I am sorry if I come out confrontational, I respect that you argue your point of view well and respectfully.

But classifying success as publishers earning alot of money, and pricing books high as being something having an inherent value by itself, is something that is diametrally in opposition to the interests of all us regular people who either benefit from obtaining the books, or those who originally author them. It makes me wonder if some of us here suffer from a bit of Stockholm syndrome, being in a symbiotic relationship with this industry, since we're willing to support principles that are obvious contrary to our own self interest, and doesn't even benefit the content creators themselves.

I'd love to discuss how I disagree with you on how digital copies makes profiliation of works so easy that no author can make a living. Authors faced similar problems before and overcame them, there's so many ways to change ones business model to profit despite that. Can a digital copy make a beautiful leatherbound book? Author tours, props etc. Imagine a free business model, where the profiliation of an authors works decided their income from derivatives of their work. I'm not saying that it's a good idea. I am just saying that it's in our interest that the market adapts to our needs, or both the industry and us consumers will suffer from the struggle in between.

To finish off. History has proven that:

There's no virtue to high priced books.

Besides making publishers ride gilt carriages

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Leyor

But classifying success as publishers earning alot of money, and pricing books high as being something having an inherent value by itself, is something that is diametrally in opposition to the interests of all us regular people who either benefit from obtaining the books, or those who originally author them. It makes me wonder if some of us here suffer from a bit of Stockholm syndrome,

There's a lot of Stockholm syndrome in the publishing industry.

It's also true that the changes in publishing--switching to ebooks and POD, slow death of brick-and-mortar stores, cuts in school & library budgets--are going to mean some currently-successful authors are going to lose their incomes. Some of those will be good authors that we'd like to succeed; their works just won't thrive in the new system. And some authors & publishers focus on those, instead of acknowledging the hundreds of new authors that will spring up to replace each of them.

There's much wailing about "but who are the new Shakespeares? The new Austens, the new Dickenses, or even the new Rowlings and Kings, in this endless digital slushpile?"

Well, yeah, probably not going to have authors as popular as Dickens... because when you're competing with 2000 other books released that year, it's a lot easier to be the star than when you're competing with 50,000 new books. Or 200,000.

In the 60's, TV shows were canceled for ratings numbers that the networks would scream and beg for today... because when there were less than 10 channels, everyone watched whatever was most popular. With over 500, people watch what they like. More viewers, more shows, but less viewers per show.

The future is more books, and less blockbusters. And the tighter copyright law enforcement is, the less shared culture we'll have.

To finish off. History has proven that:
There's no virtue to high priced books.
Besides making publishers ride gilt carriages

Absolutely. There's great virtue in finding ways for authors to make a good living at their craft; there is absolutely no reason for that to be "fewer, more expensive sales of books" rather than many more lower-priced sales. In fact, it's better for authors if they have more readers... the authors I know would all be happier with 1000 readers at $1 (final amount to the author) than with 200 readers at $5.

They might not trust that they can get 1000 readers if they drop the price to $1, but that's a different issue from "this book is worth $5." Or $10. Or $34.95.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

Pretty sure I paid about $15 (street price) for Deathly Hallows, but the list price was $34.99

True, but isn't it the "sales price" we all care about. The issue is that "sales price" and "list price" are the same for Agency model eBooks.

BOb

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

True, but isn't it the "sales price" we all care about. The issue is that "sales price" and "list price" are the same for Agency model eBooks.

BOb

Absolutely.

[anamardoll]

Elfwreck, every time you post, I want to tattoo your post on my arm or something.

As an English major, I particularly think that the hue and cry about how our generation's "classics" will be sifted out from all the digital dreck* out there is terribly ironic, since many of what we currently consider to be "The Classics" weren't discovered or appreciated until after the author's death, sometimes simply because the culture wasn't ready for it yet. So the answer is simple: Time will tell the good from the bad. Just as it always has.

* (And it MUST be all bad, right, because more quantity of self-published books must mean a dip in quality, right? Has anyone actually gathered any kind of actual data on this? I would think that, until proven otherwise, it would be just as valid to assume that the general quality would stay the same percentage as before when the gatekeepers were the publishing companies. The very idea that publishing companies did a decent job sifting out quality is itself a symptom of literary Stockholm Syndrome, I think. But I digress.)

[leebase]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

* (And it MUST be all bad, right, because more quantity of self-published books must mean a dip in quality, right? ....)

Not at all. It doesn't HAVE to be that way. It surely COULD be the case that these publishers don't know what they are doing and are putting out dreck in direct proportion as what folks are finding on Smashwords.

So, if that were the case. IF quality and desirability of the free and super cheap ebooks on Smashwords (or anywhere else) are every bit as good as that put out by the big six.

If that were the case.

IF that were the CASE.

Then why are we even worried about copyright and the Price Fix 5? Who needs them? Let them put outrageous prices on their ebooks and wrap them up tight in DRM so that nobody can afford them or actually open up a file.

No worries mate. There is PLENTY of great quality work being given out for free right on Smashwords.

IF, that is, there really is no difference.

Lee

[crich70]

Actually way back when it's likely that a pound did go a lot further than it does in today's world. There was less to buy back then for one thing and no doubt many things were locally produced since not many people traveled far from home back then. He lived from 1608-1674 so the great voyages of discovery were still to happen for the most part. You can't buy what you don't even know exists, nor can someone else charge you a high price for a product that they themselves don't know of.

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Interestingly Milton was in favor of abolishing copyright, from my reading of aeropagitica. Where does this 5 pounds figure come from? Would that have been enough to feed Milton for a few months? How long did it take him to write Paradise lost?

Maybe we don't need professional writers then? Copyright is an experiment, it is time to evaluate the data, and change course if needed.

[crich70]

I agree. There are some very good books on SmashWords including some free books and books that have been either lower priced or 100 percent off with the coupon code that I've gotten over at SmashWords, and which in many cases has been posted about here at MR. Turing Evolved is one such book. SF isn't everyone's cup of tea, but I thought it was very well written and it is a free book. SECTOR 64: Coup de Main was another good one (I think it has a coupon code but I'm not sure) and there are Wesley Allison's Robot books "His Robot Girlfriend" (free) and "His Robot Wife" (not free). I'm sure there is probably some junk at SmashWords, (though that can be subjective) but generally people tend to give bad reviews to badly written books I think.

Originally Posted by leebase

Not at all. It doesn't HAVE to be that way. It surely COULD be the case that these publishers don't know what they are doing and are putting out dreck in direct proportion as what folks are finding on Smashwords.

So, if that were the case. IF quality and desirability of the free and super cheap ebooks on Smashwords (or anywhere else) are every bit as good as that put out by the big six.

If that were the case.

IF that were the CASE.

Then why are we even worried about copyright and the Price Fix 5? Who needs them? Let them put outrageous prices on their ebooks and wrap them up tight in DRM so that nobody can afford them or actually open up a file.

No worries mate. There is PLENTY of great quality work being given out for free right on Smashwords.

IF, that is, there really is no difference.

Lee

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by leebase

Then why are we even worried about copyright and the Price Fix 5? Who needs them? Let them put outrageous prices on their ebooks and wrap them up tight in DRM so that nobody can afford them or actually open up a file.

You are arguing from the false premise that the only reason someone would care about copyright, DRM, price-fixing, etc, is because they believe the outcome of those issues matter to their everyday life.

For me, personally, I almost never buy new books. Not because I'm an ARGH! PIRATE! but because (a) I utilize the FLoP heavily and (b) I'm a hobbyist reviewer that already has more ARCs than I can count waiting to be read. Literally, I get something like 20+ new books a month from NetGalley, Vine, new authors looking for a review, etc.

So, I have no monetary investment in this argument. Price all the new Stephen King eBooks at $500 a pop - it won't affect my wallet.

But - and here's why your argument is based in a false premise - I still care about DRM, price-fixing, copyright nuances, etc. because I care about the issue for intellectual reasons.

It's interesting that you assume that everyone is motivated solely by financial reasons. I mentioned this earlier and pointed out a valid example of someone spending time and money to create something of value (a blog) without hope of comparable monetary rewards in the hopes that you might have your horizons broadened and see that lots of people are motivated by a variety of things.

If I recall correctly, you sneered that a blog was not a particularly good example of valuable content being created for free. So there's that. (And I do apologize if I read your post wrong.)

TL;DR version: People can care about price-fixing AND also believe that there's comparable-quality books available for free on Smashwords. The two opinions are not mutually exclusive. And not everyone who cares about an issue is affected by that issue personally.

[Mrgauth]

I believe most of the "classics" are that simply because there were so few decent books available up until the last 100 years. Prior to that few had A book, well enough lots of books. I truly believe if many of those so-called classics were released today for the first time they would amount to nothing. But that's just me as I find most of the classics to be drivel.


As for prices of books, I could care less what they want to price them. I simply know what I will pay and if it is more than that, forgettaboutit. My biggest disappointment is the fact that ebooks are not much, and in some cases not at all, cheaper than physical paper books. That I just don't get.

[Leyor]

I'll have to agree with Anarmadoll,

It seems that we keep returning to the price itself having some intrinsic property.
It doesn't.

We've established that from a historical viewpoint, that Copyright reduced the authors earnings pr. work and that the high price pr book actually resulted in only one group of people benefiting: Publishers. And that Copyright quelled innovation lessening the amount of original works pr. year. So we don't really need to beat around that bush anymore.

I think the important thing here, is that prices being high or low, or publishers benefitting economically or authors benefitting economically, isn't nescessarily a goal in itself. As we can see there is actual alot of factors to consider beyond pure economics.

For me, giving as many people as possible access to as much information as possible, that can enrich their lives, has value.

For me, ensuring a system that supports innovation and new original works, has value.

For me, a system that lets you actually own the books you buy, instead of renting them, has value.

I could keep on, but I think the main reason here is that the reason it has value is because, I am one of those people. I might not live in Nepal and not be able to afford proper university books, but I am an user or a consumer like them. I am not a publisher.

And while it shouldn't be nescessary. I've purchased alot of copyrighted material, from textbooks to hardcover novels to Games and music. I've chosen to gather only e-books from drm free sources like Baen and Gutenberg.

I just think this issue transcends wheter Peter wants to download a pirated novel of Twillight. It's about creating a durable system that guarantees people access to information and can actually promote innovation in a time where the industry is fighting change with more and more extended controls that hurts every one of us.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Leyor

We've established that from a historical viewpoint, that Copyright reduced the authors earnings pr. work and that the high price pr book actually resulted in only one group of people benefiting: Publishers. And that Copyright quelled innovation lessening the amount of original works pr. year. So we don't really need to beat around that bush anymore.

Hmmm. Did I miss the part of the discussion where that was all "established?" Or has the definition of the word been changed? There's been some opinions bandied back and forth, but none of the stuff you mentioned in that quote has been "established," that I can see. So as far as I'm concerned... the "bush" still needs some beating before I'm ready to concede that copyright has absolutely no redeeming qualities--as you seem so eager to "establish."

Do I believe that higher priced ebooks are intrinsically virtuous?... No, not at all. But honestly, price isn't an issue for me. I buy it if I can afford it. If I can't afford it... I wait for the price to drop where I can afford it. Otherwise, I do without. I'm a big boy, I can wait (and patience is a virtue).

Do I think literary works are protected by copyright for an unnecessary length of time? You bet! It's ridiculous! I'd love to see it shortened--shortened a lot. I'd love to see orphaned works automatically enter the public domain if someone doesn't actively lobby for copyright renewal after a reasonable period of time.

I also think DRM is a horrible tool to try and protect copyright with. But it's also a non-issue for me. I buy an ebook and immediately remove any DRM that comes with it--with a squeaky clean conscience, I might add. I've even lent a few non-loanable ebooks to close personal friends without feeling like a pirate-ous turd.

Abolish copyright completely?? Not on your life. I'm not interested in the eradication of intellectual property as a concept and/or law. Not. At. All.

[hidari]

Considering all the lemmings who bought Rowlings books, I am sure with enough Marketing and cannibalistic word of mouth... many people would buy a book at a high price just to have said they bought it.... Have met many who have bought "famous" books but never actually read said book.


Ah.... I better buy a Kindle, iphone, open a Facebook account, and twitter about my toilet habits before the day is through...

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Elfwreck, every time you post, I want to tattoo your post on my arm or something.

* (And it MUST be all bad, right, because more quantity of self-published books must mean a dip in quality, right? Has anyone actually gathered any kind of actual data on this?

No hard numbers, but... the percentage of atrocious self-published stuff is much, much higher.

As lousy as some of the mainstream published books are, they all have tolerable grammar. They all use punctuation. They all capitalize the first words in sentences and the word "I," unless they're being incredibly artistic and have a reason not to. They all have plots that go somewhere. They don't have fifteen pages of dialogue with no descriptions of action. They don't switch POV within a single paragraph. I haven't yet seen a short story or novel written in txt-speak, but I'm sure it's just a matter of time. I have seen txt-speak used seriously as normal words. ("R" and "U" are the biggest culprits.)

Self-publishing has brought a lot of wonderful books that would never have been considered by a publisher--but it's also brought out every wannabe writer who thinks that having a story idea is the same as having a finished novel.

• The Fermented Gourmet: A Second Career by The Fermented Gourmet: Everyone thinks he's an expert.
• GOD'S COUNTRY by Steven Travers: If it's over 3/4 of a million words, it must be good, right?
• Confessions of a Royal Wedding Limo Driver by Nicholas Galt: Short & free; at least you won't feel you wasted real time or money on it.
• Pound of Flesh by Richard Gerard: The goodbye's [sic] in this story will help you hit if [sic] off.

Plenty of things could serve as a gatekeeper, but what we're getting now is unfiltered--not only the stuff that got rejected because it was badly written, but the stuff that was never submitted because the author was too lazy to figure out how to write a cover letter & send a manuscript through the mail.

There are some *incredible* free self-published ebooks. But finding them among the dreck could be a full-time job. I expect, though, that over time, we'll find some sorting/recommendation methods, and in ten years, we'll have a decent list of the good stuff from 2010--and it'll be a lot more diverse than the NYT bestseller list.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

As lousy as some of the mainstream published books are, they all have tolerable grammar. They all use punctuation. They all capitalize the first words in sentences and the word "I," unless they're being incredibly artistic and have a reason not to. They all have plots that go somewhere. They don't have fifteen pages of dialogue with no descriptions of action. They don't switch POV within a single paragraph. I haven't yet seen a short story or novel written in txt-speak, but I'm sure it's just a matter of time. I have seen txt-speak used seriously as normal words. ("R" and "U" are the biggest culprits.)

I'm going to have to disagree with you on the bulk of this, though.

I actually read a book published through a publisher last year that had POV switches in a single sentence. I actually counted 17 POV changes in the first 50 pages. It was quite terrible.

(And I could probably locate 15 pages of dialogue without action in the Twilight series. )

Believe me, I'm not arguing that the Smashwords stuff is flawless, but I do think the percentage of quality could very well be equal if we define quality in the simplistic 1-star, 2-star, 3-star, etc. rubric.

In the paradigm I'm thinking, I can easily imagine that some of the Smashwords 1-star books would be WORSE than mainstream published books that are also 1-star, but if a book is a turd (pardon my language), having bad grammar doesn't make it MORE of a turd, in my mind. Maybe that explains where I was coming from a little more.

(Still going to tattoo your post on my arm, though. )