Re: Neat summary of Google strategy

From: "Chris"
> On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, Marion Gropen wrote:
>
>> -- Works DO go into the public domain eventually, so it's 
>> not
>> as if there will never be the possibility of re-issuing 
>> them.
>
> This is certainly true if you simply don't know how to 
> track down
> heirs who are rightsholders. However - how does this work 
> if
> everyone has lost track of the author? If there is no 
> definitive
> report of an author's death, when does "life+X" start 
> counting
> down?

Chris,

I think this, and the points below, are some of the best 
organised and stated that I have seen from your point of 
view. In offering comments within your remarks I am 
intending discussion, though my views are at considerable 
variance to yours.

The question when does copyright end if the date of the 
creator's death is not known does not need a blanket orphan 
law. Rather, when someone has need of the specific book, a 
tracing agency should have the resources to work through the 
evidence to an answer, just as a private detective would be 
expected to.

>
>> -- There are always a LOT of alternative works that could 
>> be
>> used. It's just not very likely that you've found the one 
>> and
>> only work that fits your need. It's a classic newbie 
>> mistake to
>> think that his or her book is unique, and I think it 
>> would be
>> similarly off-base to think that an orphan work is
>> irreplaceable.
>
> This comment has been leaving me with a very uneasy 
> feeling for
> two weeks now. And to be clear - that's because I'm 
> thinking it
> might be *right*, not because I think it is wrong.
>
> If this is generally true - that for any given book, there 
> are
> alternatives that fit the role to some degree - then it's 
> likely
> going to be true for any book -- even new ones. This is 
> not to
> say that one book isn't going to be a better fit than the 
> rest,
> and that it can justify a higher value. But in general, 
> this is
> going to mean that the greater the sheer volume a book is
> competing against, the less it can justify its value above 
> its
> competitors. And to be clear - I don't have a problem 
> thinking
> that in many cases, paper books are competing against 
> video and
> audio in all it's various forms, as well as competing 
> against
> electronic text.

The concept of competition should not be overdone. There are 
general areas of competition, such as 'entertainment', 
'education', 'how to'. But within, say, 'how to', 
needlecraft does not compete with plumbing, nor beginner's 
embroidery with knitting or advanced embroidery.

It is also not true that ebooks and print books invariably 
are in competition. What may be true is that the two markets 
supply different needs, in part merging, and in part 
doubling demand [where people use both formats]. Over time 
it is expected that a shift in the sizes of each market will 
favour ebooks, but this is not a foregone fact.

>
> Seen this way, e-books are not a specific threat to paper 
> books.
> They are just one of a number of symptoms of a massive 
> volume of
> material .. "out there". Many of these alternatives can 
> take
> advantage of new technologies to lower distribution costs, 
> which
> has the effect of enabling a wider swath of material to 
> become
> available.

While in part we agree on aspects of competition, cost 
structures are far more complex and individual to a book for 
any set of assumptions to be used as a foundation of 
arguments about pricing, or the real effects of the advent 
of the ebook. The advances in technologies [plural] has led 
both to the entry of new publishers in their tens of 
thousands in the US alone [the available figures are 
difficult to interpret but the total may well be approaching 
200 thousand], and the relative price of the print book has 
tended to fall over some decades.

In my opinion the distribution costs are less important than 
the marketing potential of the net, especially with the rise 
of the online booksellers, and the potentials for contact 
with potential (paying) readers.

>
> But it also means that for any author who is not at the 
> top of
> the pile (and maybe even some of those), the value of 
> their next
> work is getting lower each time. And it's not piracy 
> that's doing
> it - it's the wide array of material that serves as your
> competition.

This is theoretical economics, rather than real life 
publishing. The variables involved are just too vast for 
such conclusions to be drawn. For example the price and the 
marketing effort may be quite different between editions of 
the same work, let alone of later books by an author. The 
'top of the pile' concept relates more to the market appeal 
than any random or preferential decisions.

On this list alone it is clear that far more books are being 
sold in reasonable numbers than would have been the case 
before the technologies took off. If you consider other ways 
of publishing, especially POD, you find the range of books 
and the sales have just been explosive in their rise.

>
> Marion, your long-standing question about what to do if 
> and/or
> when free ebooks can't drive the sales of paper (because
> electronic has become the primary mode) starts to look a 
> little
> different. The low and lowering cost of electronic means 
> that a
> new book - ebook or paper - is competing against an ever
> increasing swell of material of all types. The question 
> still
> stands, and is important - but the reason we get to that 
> point is
> much more about the entire range of creative media, not 
> just
> because of ebooks.

Paradoxically the flood of knowledge, of material may have - 
and appears to have - the opposite effect; people look 
increasing for 'gatekeepers to advise them on what is 
relevant and what is good, and books that explain in the 
vernacular of the moment. And the romance story that sells 
best is the one that relates to the experience of today, for 
example.

>
> The problem for paper books may then be that the creation 
> process
> simply means they cost more than the market will bear. And 
> you
> could legislate copyright all you want, but at the end of 
> the
> day, if it costs more than people will pay, then they 
> won't pay.
> They might pirate, or they might select something 
> cheaper - but
> they won't pay.

I contend there is no 'the market'; for the purpose of 
aggregating the 'publishing industry' one may add together 
the experiences of all the markets it is composed of. They 
are already classified into broad areas. And the areas do 
not go up and down in concert either.

>
> Unless we re-write copyright to *force* people to pay 
> creators to
> create (whether or not they want the results), then strong
> copyright will only hasten the downfall of relatively 
> expensive
> works. Of course, rampant copying will also hasten the 
> downfall
> of expensive works. But in the face of such economic 
> pressure,
> perhaps nothing can keep the value of works up. (I've yet 
> to see
> a law that can oppose strong economic pressure.)

I do not understand this idea of 'forcing' people to pay 
creators. There is a massive fight under way in the popular 
music industry which is actually about big business 
behaviour and its weaknesses when the artistes need the big 
players less than in the past, but this is not how the book 
industry is moving. Most users of books pay with gratitude 
that what they want is available, or use the public library 
if they read so much or find their budgets don't stretch.

I have never  found anyone who can justify the idea that 
their is any reason to change the copyright system in its 
basics - there are arguments over term. On term, until 
someone can product a really good argument for any 
particular term the victory will go to deep pockets.

>
>
> This ends up being a brutally simply direction.
>
> Most people will pay less.

Don't agree - except in the music area. Most people will pay 
what they believe fair.

>Most creators will earn less.

Here there are so many assumptions that I don't know quite 
how to show the point. 'Creators' is a term to cover all 
sorts  and types of people and experiences. In general more 
people who would never have got near being published are 
selling beyond realistic hopes. Many are able to publish 
their own way. Many do so for reasons that are not 
commercial.

Creators
> will either accept less or stop creating.

Again the point is not the price, or the margin per unit, 
but the total sale and consequent income. And the issue 
applies where people are creating to earn - which is a large 
percentage, but far from being the total. Production costs 
are variable, not fixed, and depend on many factors. All 
works cost time, but the rest may be for very low monetary 
cost - under £100 or $200 say, or very high - maybe over 
£7,000 or $10,000. The effect on the price needed is 
obviously dramatic. But that is then affected by the 
expected sale... and so on.

Those creators
> accepting less might very well find that there are many 
> more
> outlets for their creativity, and other ways - yes, such 
> as
> advertising - to tap into the flow of value. But that 
> still may
> not make up for the losses elsewhere.

You may have specific cases in mind, but as a generalisation 
I don't recognise it. Publishing is a little bit like buying 
tickets in a lottery anyway. The creator, unless he is one 
who gets an advance from a publisher, is aware that in the 
most favourable market he may be unlucky and in the worst he 
may just strike a chord. The thinking you posit is simply 
not part of the likely equation.

Now I don't know quite what you are thinking of for 
'advertising', but there are many writers who are full or 
part time copywriters for adverts, and the use of 
advertising to pay for websites and free material on offer 
is well used. The problem with both is that they become 
scarcer i ntimes of recession, the very time when they could 
be the buffer you seem to suggest.

>
> In such an environs, ebooks will almost certainly work 
> very well.
> But - that's hardly the point here, is it?
>
>
> ... Chris
>
>
> : chris smith 
> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
> : nihil tam munitum quod non expugnari pecunia possit - 
> cicero :

I have come to the conclusion the ebook has an excellect 
future, but I believe the print book has actually not yet 
reached its full potential either. I have long thought it a 
mistake to see the one having to fight the other. Certainly 
since 2002 both have shown incredible growth.

Of course it depends on your definitions. New works, 
reprints and revivals and classic have all been enjoying 
expansions. From all I can make out total sales have grown 
impressively, though this is spread over an ever larger 
number of titles. Conversly I think the figures will show 
that [some small comfort to envirnmentalists] pulping and 
remaindering is a smaller proportion of original printing, 
though the great expansion may mean it has increased in 
absolute terms; this lessening of waste comes from the 
ability to print economically in smaller numbers both as POD 
and through offset advances.

The ebook, while also advancing, is beginning to face the 
problem you mention, of the market being so full of 
products. The rise of specialist and small online ebook 
sellers shows how the gatekeepers start to become important 
as any branch of publishing begins to mature.

In general terms the technology is only a means of 
production and of delivering the message and of debating; 
the fundamental rules of marketing are not changed, neither 
of publishing, nor even of buying - or of reading for free.

Joseph Harris 



------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------
Post a message:   ebook-community [[at]] *
Unsubscribe:      ebook-community-unsubscribe [[at]] *
Switch to digest: ebook-community-digest [[at]] *
Switch to normal: ebook-community-normal [[at]] *
Put mail on hold: ebook-community-nomail [[at]] *
Administrator:    ebook-community-owner [[at]] *

(* == yahoogroups.com)
-------------------------------------------------------Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ebook-community/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ebook-community/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:[email protected] 
    mailto:ebook-community-fullfeatured-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    ebook-community-unsubscribe-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/