April 3, 2008
Will Online Book Piracy Drive Authors to Stop Writing?
An interview with Tracy Chevalier, author of Girl With a Pearl Earring, in Monday’s Times of London suggests that digital book piracy may discourage authors from writing. Unless, that is, the publishing industry can come up with a different business model.
Echoing arguments made by the music industry, the article cites freewheeling digital reproductions of Harry Potter novels, cookbooks, travel guides, and other fiction and nonfiction texts as a possible disincentive for writers to continue practicing their (occasionally profitable) craft. Ms. Chevalier, chair of the UK’s Society of Authors, says “writers who write books that you dip in and out of” will suffer the most.
“[The payment structure] is a dam that’s cracking,” she told the Times. “We are trying to plug the holes with legislation and litigation but we need to think radically. We have to evolve and create a very different pay system, possibly by making the content available free to all and finding a way to get paid separately.”
At a recent industry discussion on copyright law, the article says, she offered several alternative income sources for the publishing industry to consider: government, business, rich patrons, and the public.—Catherine Rampell
Posted on Thursday April 3, 2008 | Permalink |Comments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: Indiana U. Engineer Finds Security Flaw in Popular Internet-Connected Copy Machine
Next: Bush Library Loses Internet Home, Opening the Door to Pranksters
Yes, we can clearly see how the “piracy” of the Potter books has nearly broken poor J.K. Rowling. I think I last saw her hanging out in the welfare line…
— Mike Apr 2, 05:29 PM #
The popularity of this technology may not have caught on before Ms. Rowling made her fortune from her books. Most authors will not enjoy the mass popularity she has, and future authors may have more trouble breaking into the field in a profitable manner. My preference would be to keep the content available by subscription only, such as what libraries pay for databases not freely available to the public; or ask payment up front for users to download the content.
— Deborah Apr 2, 05:58 PM #
My point is that using Rowling as an example isn’t going to win you any points in this argument. I won’t venture a business model for publishing, but I offer these two points:
1) The music business’ reaction to digital technologies clearly shows that digging in and sticking to your guns about old models is the wrong reaction. So kudos to Chevalier for advocating new models.
2) Another thing the music business is realizing right now is the value of vinyl: how the physical properties of the product itself play into consumer choices. Books have an edge up here. Imagine the Kindle x 1000. Even if you had the digital reader of your dreams, do we really think there will be NO market for physical books? Nothing is like holding a book in your hands.
— Mike Apr 2, 07:24 PM #
Books vs. Online? I know that there are those people who just love the smell and feel of a good book (so do I), but there are also those people that understand that the vinyl album and CDs contained MUCH richer and a more lush sound than MP3s… but convenience wins out. Sure, there are still people who manufacture vinyl records… but they are sold to a very, very small niche. CDs are still mass produced… but they’ll disappear, too. I think that Mike is right: nothing is like holding a book in your hands. But I also think that — like vinyl — the future market for tree-based literature is going to shrink into the single digits.
— K. Tribble Apr 2, 08:22 PM #
I don’t believe that the only reason people write is because of the money. But I may be wrong. Perhaps these authors will prefer to pump gas or shag grocery carts instead of writing the great American novel.
If we change the idea our ideas about writing from one of making millions upon millions of dollars, to that of making a decent living, I think the possibilities are much greater for the survival of literature. But if authors refuse to write their works because they are angry that they aren’t getting enough money, they will be hurting themselves more than they are depriving us.
— J. Weinheimer Apr 3, 05:34 AM #
Piracy of the immensely popular tends to happen when immense popularity has already occurred. One is putting at financial risk the last umpteen tens of millions. Publishers who have a model of money making where the home run few pay for the no run many will cut diversity to up executive bonuses and that will hurt strange new ideas and authors. Piracy is hurting not Rowling and her types but those subsidized by her outsized earnings. The pain is real and the harm to intellectual diversity is real.
— Richard Tabor Greene Apr 3, 06:03 AM #
In the past, the physical difficulty of copying and distributing works made it practical for copyright to work. Now, however, that is no longer the case. The marginal cost of creating a copy of almost anything is effectively zero, and distribution over the internet changes everything. What is needed is new ways to make sure that creators are recognized and rewarded for their contribution to the store of human creative and intellectual output.
In the past, publishers and their equivalent in other creative industries mediated between creators and the public, bringing money to creators and keeping a share for themselves. That is breaking down, and the publishing industries are desparately trying to find a new business model that allows them to retain their role (and more importantly from their point of view, their profits). It is good to hear that Chevalier is framing the discussion in terms of what new ideas might be developed, rather than just trying to keep the creaky old ediface intact for a little while longer.
— Bob Apr 3, 06:55 AM #
New models for book distribution already exist and are forming niche markets. For example, at podiobooks.com authors distribute their own works in audio form for free. Donations are accepted, and a large chunk of the money goes to the authors.
The work there that I have tried is pretty awful, mind. But some of it has been reasonably successful and has resulted in real book publication for the authors (e.g. Scott Sigler’s novels – which are really terrible but no worse than many similar books available for sale in airport bookstores).
I could see this model growing and providing passionate authors with a modest income. I agree with J. Weinheimer – I have little sympathy for authors who are in it for the money. Those who have stories to tell will continue to write. Stephen King wrote hundreds of stories starting from early childhood, most rejected, before Carrie was published. I have no doubt that he would still be writing even if he’d never had a single story accepted for publication.
The hard part will be figuring out a way to distinguish the dire garbage that is out there from really excellent writing, and establishing editorial standards. But I have no doubt that this can be done.
— Anonymous Apr 3, 06:57 AM #
There’s no question that all of the information/entertainment industries (the ones dependent on the concept of “intellectual property” are facing enormous challenges and will have to change the way they do business. I’m frankly less worried about authors (who make on average only a few thousand a year; I have a job with benefits and write when I can, which works) as I am about the industry itself. Editors, designers, publicity staff, new media staff – those are their day jobs.
There’s a rather silly myth that editors don’t edit anymore. Well, they do (at least books that aren’t guaranteed blockbusters by bestseller authors) and they are expected to make choices that earn profits – and they have no academic freedom to take risks. That’s the reality. They have to publish what will sell. Those of us who love books need to help the industry think about the future – one that allows risk taking – while respecting the fact that they’re facing a huge shift that will change the way everything is done. It’s not going to be easy, or simple. But it’s important we get it right.
— Barbara Fister Apr 3, 09:32 AM #
One of the best alternatives to the current system was put forth by Harvard-trained economist Whitney Biltsman. He proposed an arts subsidy from the federal government that would, in a sense, employ deserving artists, thereby enriching the country and providing books and music in digital form at no charge for american citizens.
The program would be administered by a “department of national arts”. Of course, the funding would have to be supported by a modest tax increase, but what a small price to pay for the resulting creative explosion. In fact, such a proposal is currently being championed by Sen. Harm Ridenour, and Barak Obama made mention of this proposal in a speech to academics last week.
— Umberto Apr 3, 09:50 AM #
Barbara (#9) –
Technology will not remove the need for editing, marketing, etc.
What it is doing is removing the ‘per unit sold’ profit model. With reduced profit, some people get paid less. Corporate publishers will likely avoid reducing their profit margins as much as possible, thus passing the losses on to those who actually perform the work: authors, editors, etc.
So why not take the corporation out of the picture altogether? Authors can contract directly with editors, skipping the middle-man. Still less profit total, but minimize the loss to those who actually do the work.
It seems to me that the days of the mega-publishers are limited, just as the days of the print newspaper are.
Umberto (#10) – Generally I like the proposal, I am just concerned about who gets to determine which artists are ‘deserving’. Then again, government bias is not all that much worse than corporate bias… possibly better, depending on how it is handled.
— Dan Apr 3, 10:05 AM #
I am actually sitting here weeping at how eletronics,computers and the internet have killed the arts and scholarship and why so less and less of quality is being produced each passing day …and the only way to make a living is writing cable scripts and reality shows …not something you hear the gurus hype about technology. At least you had to pay Homer to hear him Speak the Iliad or he just kept his mouth shut and no one could ripp off his work as he spoke but he could give a group discount.
— Jim Apr 3, 10:24 AM #
is that all it would take to discourage a writer from writing?
isn’t the basic question “why writers write?” i don’t knock on strangers doors and say, “hey, write something!!” writers write because that’s what they were meant to do or want to do because they feel they have a story to tell or information to share. if that is the case, then share it and shut up. if you don’t want to share it, write a diary and keep it to yourself. but to be elitist and think that your work is only valuable based on what someone can or will pay for it is absurd. we cry about people supposedly not reading anymore. but now we want to eliminate a possible venue for them to read. sheesh!
— robyn andrews Apr 3, 10:42 AM #
Hmm… so writers should write and share their work just for the joy of doing so? How well does this work if we replace a word here?
“I have no sympathy for executives who do it for the money.”
“I have no sympathy for secretaries who do it for the money.”
“I have no sympathy for accountants who do it for the money.”
Who exactly declared that the end result of pursuing a “noble” career is that you ought to be a pauper? If you’re noble, you don’t have a right to want to earn funds to send your kids to college or give them a nicer life?
— bta Apr 3, 12:05 PM #
As a science fiction author, I don’t really have a problem with my content being free, but I believe authors need to be compensated so they can continue their craft (without the inevitable restrictions government funding would bring.) My ebook is up on Amazon, representing thousands of hours of work. My only wish is that others would derive some joy from reading it. Like most authors, I’m not quitting my day job. I have better odds of getting rich playing the lottery. I recognize the problem. After all that work, the book may never be read by many because the creation of a successful (well read) novel is much more than the writing. The endeavor demands editors, cover artists, publicists, website people, marketing people and, if one is very lucky, agents, accountants and lawyers. It metaphorically takes a vehicle and there is expense to run that vehicle. In essence, many authors are paying, one way or the other, to have their work read. I suppose that vanity has its cost, but if fewer and fewer can afford such vanity, will we all be the poorer for it?
— Lawrence Frederick Apr 3, 12:32 PM #
Paulo Coelho, author of The Alchemist, has provided the perfect counterexample — and his comes from actual experience instead of alarmist guesswork. As explained in this Fortune magazine article Coelho found that after posting a free (originally pirated) Russian translation of The Alchemist on his website (but doing no other marketing or promotion in Russia), Russian sales of The Alchemist went from 1,000 copies in 1999 to 10,000 in 2000, 100,000 in 2001, and a million in 2002. He now quietly hosts an unofficial clearinghouse (the blog “Pirate Coelho”) for links to free versions of his work, including translations and audio readings — and his worldwide sales continue to rise.
— lukethelibrarian Apr 3, 01:04 PM #
Good example. Coelho is a best selling author in print format. He is taking advantage of a temporary technical condition. I quote the article: “It’s very difficult to read a book on your computer. People start printing out their own copies. But if they like the book, after reading 30-40 pages they just go out and buy it.” So true, but the Kindle is changing all that. Authors, unlike me, that actually have books in print format (with all the expense that involves) should probably consider using this in the short run, say over the next few years. Coelho goes on, “I’m doing it mostly because the joy of a writer is to be read. But at the end of the day, you will sell more books.” And he needs the revenue because, “A fulltime staff of six helps manage his manifold Net activities, and the entire operation costs him $15,000 each month [presumably in Brazil], which he pays out of his own pocket.” That having been said, he indeed has found a workable business model. Even if it won’t last, it does show that such models can exist. So free content in isolation doesn’t serve the author, but free content can be used as part of some larger scheme. Advertising based revenue systems come to mind.
— Lawrence Frederick Apr 3, 05:05 PM #
This is a good example, but it can be extended. I believe that it is a new world, and that very soon, if something is not available for free on the web, people will just ignore it and find something else that is for free and it will be “good enough,” e.g. Wikipedia. This is the world and authors must fit in.
But, just because something is free doesn’t end the argument. I could see a resource being free on the web in a very poor format, broken up on multiple pages, etc., so that while it is available: findable through Google, etc. but it is awful to read and a real pain to download. But people could if they desired.
In this case, people may very well be willing to pay for an improved format that could be used on their Kindle, or other handheld device. After all, that is the model mentioned by Coelho, just all in digital form. I believe this may allow the best of both worlds.
— J. Weinheimer Apr 4, 03:55 AM #
Is this a rhetorical question? If not, I have an answer: Book piracy will stop authors from writing. Book pirates will then turn to magazines and pretty soon photographers and graphic artists will stop photographing and graphic artisting. Next the pirates will take on prescriptions, and doctors will stop writing prescriptions. Big pharma will fall, dragging down numerous hedge funds, thus setting off a cascade of financial failures, ultimately leading to one last desperate attempt to revive the American economy: War! But not just any war, the war to end all wars: Armageddon! Much to the surprise of the Jews, Jesus does, in fact, return, dispatches a hell of a lot of people, but disappoints the Christians by not sending the Jews to Hell. The Son of Man, in the third year of his thousand year reign of peace and happiness hires Frank Gehry to rebuild the Temple, and then, declaring himself to be a hypenate carpenter-savior-photojournalist, cranks out a coffee table book about the rebuilding, thus restoring writing to its proper and much-missed place in the Universe. Now stop asking silly questions and go away.
— marci Apr 4, 07:25 PM #