The Virtue of High Priced Books

[Leyor]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

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."

I'm sorry, I'll rephrase that to: I've presented some historical facts, that's yet to be disproven. Mostly the data regarding the comparison of two different countries enjoying a similar volume and pricing before Copyright was established, aswell as a comparison after Copyright was introduced to one country but not the others. The result being that the british authors earnings went down and that the amount of original works produced pr. country pr. year experienced and incredible disparity. This of course not considering the various socioeconomic implications of the average wealth of a british citizen being significantly higher than a german citizen, aswell as Germany having a slightly higher population count, or the fact that the statistic data was compiled of a period of over 100 years before, during and after (after being when copyright was introduced in Germany aswell)

Despite that, I feel, being only my individual opinion, that this comparison being based on what we may consider somewhat accurate historical facts, presents a somewhat stronger statement than either presenting an individuals salary or just saying "no author made a living before copyright", since both those are based on opinions disproven by the current historical data. This argument is futher strengthed by the somewhat singificant circumstance that there in academic circles seems currently no disagreement with those historical data.

By that I mean that I, I being an individual, has established, so far, that the historical claims presented so far has been inaccurate, and until disproven that Copyright, in that representative historical context, has had harmful implications for both authors and consumers. I, not being an authority on this subject, naturally not being able to establish this futher than you hopefully accepting the evidence given as credible and willing to debate it.

I really shouldn't write past midnight, I get somewhat pedantic My point is, that I can't really make you concede that Copyright has no redeeming qualities, since I am not convinced of that fact myself. I think your mistaken my opposition to some of the, to my mind, inaccurate historical claims defending Copyright and high prices, with not believing in any protection for creators of content.

I just feel that Copyright, from a historical perspective, has been harmful to creativity and accessability, and as such we as consumers need to attempt to affect changes towards improving it. Noone else is going to do it for us. That being in small ways by avoiding DRM'd books, or being vocal about high priced books being bollocks.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

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

...
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.

I disagree. I spend a lot of time at Smashwords, and although mainstream publishing occasionally throws out some total duds (especially late in a series), the vast majority have been through *some* kind of filter. The majority at SW hasn't, and it shows.

However, if you've got a decent tolerance for grammar problems, unproofed manuscripts (with common doubled words or missing prepositions), and short stories whose "shocking" conclusion you can figure out in the first three paragraphs--you can find some gems buried in the piles of muck.

There's more muck than in mainstream books; most of them had *nothing* but the author's ego to guide them about what's presentable. But there's also gems that could never get through a mainstream process because they don't fit the normal categories, or they're "too long" for their genre, or "too short," or just have a perspective that mainstream publishers aren't going to think is salesworthy.

I absolutely adore The Binder of Shame Presents: The RPG.net rants. I printed out six copies & handed them around to my gaming group, and we were all rolling on the floor over it. Grammar problems, missing punctuation, lousy formatting that I can't tell whether is from the original or the Meatgrinder ... and I don't care; this is going to be one of my "reread every year when I need a dose of hysterical laughter" books. It'd never get past a mainstream publisher, even a gaming one--the niche is too small. But for that niche, it's gold.

OTOH, in looking for the link for that, I saw the new books posted. Sigh.
$2.50 for The Divine Heart of God the Father Consecration and Prayer Book by "Apostolate of the Divine Heart", which I'm going to try not to think too much about. It's less than 2000 words. one thing led to another by goodness chinedu has this charming description:

mr. Adeleke was going out with his friends daughter, while his wife was also dating a young boy who is also a student in the shcool she lectures.

Less than 4000 words; author wants $4 for it. (Go ahead, read a page of the sample. Please. Because someone should join me in shuddering and twitching over here.) (Author is maybe ESL, and that excuses some problems--but not the lack of even Word's spelling & grammar check.)

I can understand the people who want to stick with mainstream publishers for a while longer; the quality's at least mostly *consistent.* Even the bad stuff follows patterns.

I do agree that there's some *terrific* stuff, not just niche stuff, in self-publishing. Ellen O'Connell is incredible; I will happily buy *anything* she writes. And while I think the percentage of total crap is higher than in mainstream publishing, I think it's worth wading through some of the sludge, and clicking on lots of previews, in order to find the quality books.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Leyor

I just feel that Copyright, from a historical perspective, has been harmful to creativity and accessability, and as such we as consumers need to attempt to affect changes towards improving it. Noone else is going to do it for us. That being in small ways by avoiding DRM'd books, or being vocal about high priced books being bollocks.

Copyright is price fixing. I would suggest going further, and working to end copyright by whatever means necessary, mostly this will involve just reading whatever you want.

[Leyor]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Copyright is price fixing. I would suggest going further, and working to end copyright by whatever means necessary, mostly this will involve just reading whatever you want.

While the goal itself is commendable, I'll still respectfully disagree

1. Copyright is about alot more than price.
2. To improve or replace the system, you need tangible realistic alternatives that contains an incentment to innovate, a way of ensuring the integrity of artistic works, that discerns between the subjective value of works and finally which rewards content creators, creating an incentment to produce.

Unless your an anarchist, you can't really replace 2, without ensuring those factors are taken care of, since such drastic changes will be hard to affect in an established industry, which is why I am not completely opposed to some of the aspects of copyright on a personal level (while thinking its important to fight it on a political level). I personally feel that the most important thing is to affect changes.

The fact that technical innovation has made it easy to rampantly copy provides one incentment for companies to innovate (unfortunately they are currently wasting that chance by sticking to their guns and simply becoming more restrictive). This is a perfect opportunity for them to explore how they can provide added value. Create an eco system that allows you to ask questions to the original author on a forum, or other things relevant for the fanbase, release special leatherbound editions. There's many things you can do, where instead of combating the profiliation of your work, which is inevitable regardless, by making your work more useless, you can add value and actually benefit the more, the more users it reaches.

The other incentment needs to come from us users. By rewarding business models that rewards authors in a more direct sense and provide an open way of obtaining content. By fighting copyright itself and vote against those of our representatives not representing our interests, since that's really the only way we'll ever stop OUR politicians from extending copyrights every time a Disney copyright is about to run out. (said statement may not be factually correct, but just used as an example for how the industry dictates the terms rather than us).

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Leyor

Unless your an anarchist ....

He has freely admitted that he is an anarchist.

[Leyor]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

He has freely admitted that he is an anarchist.

Whoaa fair enough then!

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Leyor

1. Copyright is about alot more than price.
2. To improve or replace the system, you need tangible realistic alternatives that contains an incentment to innovate, a way of ensuring the integrity of artistic works, that discerns between the subjective value of works and finally which rewards content creators, creating an incentment to produce.

By fighting copyright itself and vote against those of our representatives not representing our interests, since that's really the only way we'll ever stop OUR politicians from extending copyrights every time a Disney copyright is about to run out. (said statement may not be factually correct, but just used as an example for how the industry dictates the terms rather than us).

Without copyright, I feel that all prices would immediately move to Zero, extremely virtuous IMO. The incentive to create could still be monetary, although for many creators, I suspect this has never been the impetus for content creation.

Only the most creative of content would be rewarded. All the rest would be relegated to the bin, sorted through by those who have the time to sort. This act of sorting would itself be content creation, and could be incentivized as well.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for politicians to act virtuously.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by leebase

Write for those who can pay you and you'll also serve far better those who can't pay the high prices.

Strange comment. How does it serve those who can't pay? Will the privation toughen up those unable to pay? Shame for the kids born into poor families who can't afford books.

Originally Posted by leebase

Communism doesn't work because folks stop working when there is nothing to gain from their labors.

Hmmm. Rampant Corporatism / 'free-market' capitalism / globalization has the same effect where people are forced to worked for poverty wages.

Ultimately your arguments are ideologically based and have no bearing on reality.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by Rizla

Strange comment. How does it serve those who can't pay? Will the privation toughen up those unable to pay? Shame for the kids born into poor families who can't afford books.

It's only strange if you don't think about it. Poor Billy can't afford anything. If you cater to Poor Billy's price point, you won't be able to support yourself by writing books. So your books won't exist to begin with, or only very few will and those without the kind of quality they could have if you could afford to pay editors and such.

But if you write for those who CAN pay, then your books will exist -- and Poor Billy can check them out from the library, borrow them from a friend, or buy the used paper back when it hits his local garage sale. A book that exists will always be a better option for Poor Billy, even if he can't afford it the first day it's released.

Originally Posted by Rizla

Hmmm. Rampant Corporatism / 'free-market' capitalism / globalization has the same effect where people are forced to worked for poverty wages.

I guess they could just choose to starve. Methinks a job that exists is superior to one that doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by Rizla

Ultimately your arguments are ideologically based and have no bearing on reality.

No bearing on reality? lol! Oh yes. Tell us of the reality where everyone works for the good of others. From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs. How wonderful. Yeah. That system works SOOO much better than captialism which is based on self interest. Thank you so much for the education.

Lee

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I disagree. I spend a lot of time at Smashwords, and although mainstream publishing occasionally throws out some total duds (especially late in a series), the vast majority have been through *some* kind of filter. The majority at SW hasn't, and it shows.

Haha, well, fair enough. I always say that how one feels about a book's quality is very subjective. Maybe I've just been very lucky at Smashwords.

Thanks!

[tompe]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Haha, well, fair enough. I always say that how one feels about a book's quality is very subjective. Maybe I've just been very lucky at Smashwords.

Thanks!

How one feel is subjective but the quality is not. A spelling mistake or a grammar error does not disappear just because a reader does not notice it.

[Leyor]

Originally Posted by tompe

How one feel is subjective but the quality is not. A spelling mistake or a grammar error does not disappear just because a reader does not notice it.

Quality IS actually a very subjective thing. A very finely edited book about the dictomy of pimples, is that quality? A sobbing romance novel, is that quality?
It's a challenge that faced many libraries, do they invest in books with good narratives and of a high standard, content wise or should they invest most heavily in the books the public wanted, even if it was in their eyes trashy litterature such as Duke Nuk'em the Book.

Out of the top 10 most bestselling Kindle books, 4 were by indie authors. Out of the 25 bestselling indie authors,only 6 has ever had a publishing deal and professional editing before. Are their popularity an indication of their quality? If so, selfpublishing doesn't seem to affect the quality negatively enough that good writers aren't making it to the top on their own.

How well a book is edited also impact on the quality, I don't disagree there, and it'd serve services like that well if they looked into how they could provide an editor function, by utilitizing their network. But publishing is not a guarantee for quality, and selfpublishing is not a guarantee for reduced quality.

Originally Posted by Giggleton

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for politicians to act virtuously.

Me neither, so it's up to us to supply the pressure.

Originally Posted by leebase

It's only strange if you don't think about it. Poor Billy can't afford anything. If you cater to Poor Billy's price point, you won't be able to support yourself by writing books. So your books won't exist to begin with, or only very few will and those without the kind of quality they could have if you could afford to pay editors and such.

That's a really simplistic view of how the market works, and it's completely inaccurate. If you sell 5x more pies at half the price, you still make more money. Right now people catering to poor Billy's price point is making a KILLING. Amanda Hocking is making MILLIONS, selfpublishing and reaching a price point of 1-3$ pr. book. Is she an exception to the rule? I can right off the bat name a bunch of authors that are selling more than 10.000 books pr. month at that price point, without any digging. They are selfpublished and not going through the publishing system.

So your statement is inaccurate.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by Leyor

I'm sorry, I'll rephrase that to: I've presented some historical facts, that's yet to be disproven.

You linked to one article that makes HUGE cause/effect leaps, ignores HUGE relevant "likely causal facts". It's an opinion piece that you agree with. It's not proof of anything.

Originally Posted by Leyor

Despite that, I feel, being only my individual opinion, that this comparison being based on what we may consider somewhat accurate historical facts, presents a somewhat stronger statement than either presenting an individuals salary or just saying "no author made a living before copyright"

Who posited that? Offering up a red herring are we?

Originally Posted by Leyor

By that I mean that I, I being an individual, has established, so far, that the historical claims presented so far has been inaccurate, and until disproven that Copyright, in that representative historical context, has had harmful implications for both authors and consumers. I, not being an authority on this subject, naturally not being able to establish this futher than you hopefully accepting the evidence given as credible and willing to debate it.

You are foisting off a red herring -- the notion that those arguing for the value of copyright are therefore arguing in favor of all aspects of copyright from the past unto today.

Not so. As you have correctly pointed out, the origins of the British copyright model were not about economics but about censorship and government control of ideas. Lumping those notions in with copyright as it was instituted in America and how it's used today is spurious to begin with.

Also, your historical facts support what today's copyright supports claim. Without copyright there is vast plagarism. That was true even back then and would be orders of magnitude more relevant today.

Yes, with copyright prices are higher. That's the VIRTUE of copyright, not a problem with copyright. The virtue of copyright allows there to be income from more than just direct labor. Beethoven could make money from teaching piano, of course. But with copyright, he could make money from creating a symphony -- and not just from his own performance of said symphony.

Today we have BOTH copyright AND the free exchange of ideas. Anyone who wants to put their work into the public domain can do so. Thanks to copyright, those who wish to control their creations and be paid for them can do so as well.

Your one link to a paper that tries to put all the differences between Germany and Britain on copyright is full of holes. Self evidently flawed.

Lee

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by leebase

But if you write for those who CAN pay, then your books will exist -- and Poor Billy can check them out from the library, borrow them from a friend, or buy the used paper back when it hits his local garage sale. A book that exists will always be a better option for Poor Billy, even if he can't afford it the first day it's released.

Tell us of the reality where everyone works for the good of others. From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs. How wonderful. Yeah. That system works SOOO much better than captialism which is based on self interest. Thank you so much for the education.

If you add the option for Billy to download the ebook for free to his cheap disposable ereader from a website he can access at the library then I would have to agree with you.

Every system has its problems, capitalism has many, communistic anarchy has little, perhaps none, except maybe the people who still adhere to capitalism.

[Leyor]

Originally Posted by leebase

You linked to one article that makes HUGE cause/effect leaps, ignores HUGE relevant "likely causal facts". It's an opinion piece that you agree with. It's not proof of anything.

Actually I've linked to several pieces. Some being opinion pieces like the ones by Orson Scott Card and the Spiegel, others being a study compiled on the background of historical data; I'd like to direct you to: "Geschichte und Wesen des Urheberrechts (History and nature of copyright) by Eckhard Höffner, July 2010 (in German) ISBN 3-930893-16-9". I've even previously linked to a simple easy to read presentation only hightlighting his points.

A study conducted by economic historical Echard Hôffner, who's managed to get this and other articles published in peer reviewed journals. I'd say his credentials currently ranks above yours and mine. The study contains the economic background and context, an economic impact assessment and alot of empirical data, also supported by other authoritan sources.

While there in science are no "facts" only theories, I'd say that there's a weight of empirical data that atleast supports this position. Not really going to debate this futher as currently your weight of argumentation has been "because I said so".

Who posited that? Offering up a red herring are we?

Writers were either independently wealthy or had patrons who gave them sinecures. No one was able to make a living as a writer until the copyright act was passed.

In this very thread none the less.

I know the best defence is an attack, but as I wrote before, I insist on accuracy, and I'd like to thank you very much to actually read your own thread before making red herring claims.

You've offered no basis for your position besides your own conjecture. I've made two major claims, one that people here has defended copyright based on invalid historical assumptions like the one above, two that there's no intrinsic value to books being priced highly. I'd very much like that you back up your own claims before you attack mine.

Your argument about plagiarism is also a hollow one. Your premise is that plagiarism in itself is a bad thing, and it should be selfevident to the rest of us. However despite plagiarism authors earned more. So PLEASE be precise and call a shovel a shovel. Plagiarism in that SPECIFIC context only hurt already wealthy publishers.

I am really uncertain what your motives are. Your definitely not advocating the cause of authors, your not advocating the cause of consumers. The historical data over more than hundred years:

1710:

Germany:
Plagiarism
Authors earned more pr book.
10x more original works
More people could afford the books

Britain:
Copyright
Authors earned 2.5 times less pr. book
Less original works
Only the wealthiest could afford it.

Instead of saying, wow, thats interesting, how come the authors earned more, or even if you want to be critical dig into the fact that Britain was alot more progressive and wealthier than germany. You instantly go, woops plagiarism, bad, just because it is.

You can attack my claims and data, but as I said, I'd like to see you offer up some of your own. Also keep in mind that I don't claim that abolishing copyright today would have the same result, I am merely referencing what HAS happened.


I'd love to have a discussion with you about how interesting it is, that alot of people earn more money the lower they price their books, and who a high price of books genuinely profits. But it seems we can't get past the past. Maybe for the sake of understanding, you could list what You think are the positives of the book industry, and we can argue from there? Because I am really confused on who you really wish to benefit.