Lois’s answer to “I just read this in my local paper and I wondered what your thoughts were: "Opinion: Publishers are…” > Likes and Comments
24 likes · Like
Hello;
Why does this make sense? They already charge more for the e-book and limit use to 2 years. Is not this embargo counter-productive?
The access to (correct) information is so profound a right, and so rarely tapped into, that it is unthinkable to limit it for anyone. Selecting them by geographical location, for pity's sake. Because of licenses.
One possible solution would be to completely deregulate the flow of information, and leave it free - as it has always been, pre computerization - to whims and fancies. Which, in my mind, means to leave people "read" whatever they want, enabling them to do so. For those who can afford it - let them pay (there are enough other factors at play which still pose limitations - languages, cultural backgrounds, etc.). For those who can't afford it - subsidize them. Yes, there is no free lunch, and yes, there is a monetary value attached to any aspect of our life. So pour money into public / school / university libraries, and let people choose. I don't see a problem with anyone who has low/er income to ID and then have free access to whatever digital or physical copy of a book they want. We all have a number attached to our name anyways.
The problem money-to-athor can be tackled easily with the per-copy-strategy suggested by Lois. Applicable to both libraries and the free market (and publishers, and translators).
The problem books-to-people can be tackled easily with the per-ID-strategy (no, no loss of privacy here, your friends still won't know what you are reading, unless you tell them). But some very strict and non-discriminatory rules will be required.
The problem financing-to-libraries undoubtedly has a solution too.
But I should be able to buy any book I want, regardless of where I am physically, regardless of my nationality !!!!!! (which is NOT how it is right now).
Posing limitations to libraries is just obscene - they DO already pay. And people DO pay to use libraries. And all libraries I've ever used DO pose limitations on usage (people cannot check out more than a reasonable number of media). And libraries DO limit the number of copies, and the borrowing periods. And people DO have physical limitations - not many read more than 20 books per year, I think. What are these people thinking ...
Obviously the big problem are publishers.
I don't know how it actually is, but I have a notion that authors sell their work to publishers, and lose any control thereafter. Is there any practical reason behind this, besides it is customary, and that authors need venture capital ?
A major point being left out of the argument on both sides (not even articulated well by the library establishment) is that, while teachers create people who can read, LIBRARIES CREATE READERS. Readers are significantly more likely to buy books than non-readers. Yes, that means a lot of people borrow many of their books instead of buying them; but the overall market is MUCH larger because people (especially as children) got used to needing books in their lives by going to the library.
This is also true of e-books. Once libraries started stocking e-books and e-audiobooks, a lot of people felt the time was finally ripe for them to purchase an e-reader/listener. I am a librarian and have seen this on a daily basis. Heck, I did it myself. And like me, once you have the e-reader, sometimes you buy books for it, especially the ones you suspect you want to re-read or for authors like Lois (and several other friends and acquaintances who are authors) that you want to make sure get supported.
Publishers who do not understand this dynamic are setting fire to their own pants and then complaining about the smoke.
@ Steve --
Your points are all valid enough. This reminds me a lot of what Tom Doherty of Tor used to say about wire-rack paperback exposure before the implosion of stocking companies in the mid-90s, from hundreds of people making choices of what to put out down to a handful, resulting in a huge loss to and of midlist writers.
From where the writer sits, at the hind end of a long economic chain, a book read but not sold counts the same as a book neither read nor sold. While you are quite right about audience-building, I think I am generationally very lucky to be almost out of the game now, and not having to live on the charity of a few generous readers. Younger writers seem to me to be dashing madly around doing an insane amount of PR work, none of which is, y'know, actually writing books, on the internet and elsewhere, to make up the shortfall.
No, I don't have an answer for this, apart from the payment-per-checkout model which entails someone other that me doing a lot of expensive and complicated work to set up. Which, be reasonable, they could only be motivated to do if there was profit, or at least a living, in it somewhere for them.
Ta, L.
I also like the model of charging the library a small fee per checkout best. Personally I am a hard core library user with rarely less that 4 library items in my possession at any one time. For fiction I only buy the books of authors I enjoy enough to reread (of which Lois is one) and I will go back and buy all of a series I've already read, just to have them. Those are also the authors who produce the only fiction books I buy unread. But I'd be happy to pay a small fee for a book I will only read once.
We live in interesting times. More and more musicians are self producing and self promoting, TV shows and writers seem to be going the same way, gaining enough popularity in spaces like Amazon, Patreon, and Youtube that they get picked up by a network or publisher. It seems that the well established venues like publishers and TV networks are scrambling to milk the old model for everything they can when they should be working to create a value added service to the people they work with and for. Change is hard but fascinating. BTW, just as a side note deciding that even a paperback is time limited isn't fair. I try to be careful with my books. Some of my Georgette Heyer's are 30+ years old and I still reread them, although I do plan on replacing them with digital copies, when I get organized.
``I don't go to the library for my ebooks - and I have a lot of them I BUY them instead. I have to use ebooks, because I can't walk far enough to get at paper ones.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
Hello;Why does this make sense? They already charge more for the e-book and limit use to 2 years. Is not this embargo counter-productive?
The access to (correct) information is so profound a right, and so rarely tapped into, that it is unthinkable to limit it for anyone. Selecting them by geographical location, for pity's sake. Because of licenses. One possible solution would be to completely deregulate the flow of information, and leave it free - as it has always been, pre computerization - to whims and fancies. Which, in my mind, means to leave people "read" whatever they want, enabling them to do so. For those who can afford it - let them pay (there are enough other factors at play which still pose limitations - languages, cultural backgrounds, etc.). For those who can't afford it - subsidize them. Yes, there is no free lunch, and yes, there is a monetary value attached to any aspect of our life. So pour money into public / school / university libraries, and let people choose. I don't see a problem with anyone who has low/er income to ID and then have free access to whatever digital or physical copy of a book they want. We all have a number attached to our name anyways.
The problem money-to-athor can be tackled easily with the per-copy-strategy suggested by Lois. Applicable to both libraries and the free market (and publishers, and translators).
The problem books-to-people can be tackled easily with the per-ID-strategy (no, no loss of privacy here, your friends still won't know what you are reading, unless you tell them). But some very strict and non-discriminatory rules will be required.
The problem financing-to-libraries undoubtedly has a solution too.
But I should be able to buy any book I want, regardless of where I am physically, regardless of my nationality !!!!!! (which is NOT how it is right now).
Posing limitations to libraries is just obscene - they DO already pay. And people DO pay to use libraries. And all libraries I've ever used DO pose limitations on usage (people cannot check out more than a reasonable number of media). And libraries DO limit the number of copies, and the borrowing periods. And people DO have physical limitations - not many read more than 20 books per year, I think. What are these people thinking ...
Obviously the big problem are publishers.
I don't know how it actually is, but I have a notion that authors sell their work to publishers, and lose any control thereafter. Is there any practical reason behind this, besides it is customary, and that authors need venture capital ?
A major point being left out of the argument on both sides (not even articulated well by the library establishment) is that, while teachers create people who can read, LIBRARIES CREATE READERS. Readers are significantly more likely to buy books than non-readers. Yes, that means a lot of people borrow many of their books instead of buying them; but the overall market is MUCH larger because people (especially as children) got used to needing books in their lives by going to the library. This is also true of e-books. Once libraries started stocking e-books and e-audiobooks, a lot of people felt the time was finally ripe for them to purchase an e-reader/listener. I am a librarian and have seen this on a daily basis. Heck, I did it myself. And like me, once you have the e-reader, sometimes you buy books for it, especially the ones you suspect you want to re-read or for authors like Lois (and several other friends and acquaintances who are authors) that you want to make sure get supported.
Publishers who do not understand this dynamic are setting fire to their own pants and then complaining about the smoke.
@ Steve --Your points are all valid enough. This reminds me a lot of what Tom Doherty of Tor used to say about wire-rack paperback exposure before the implosion of stocking companies in the mid-90s, from hundreds of people making choices of what to put out down to a handful, resulting in a huge loss to and of midlist writers.
From where the writer sits, at the hind end of a long economic chain, a book read but not sold counts the same as a book neither read nor sold. While you are quite right about audience-building, I think I am generationally very lucky to be almost out of the game now, and not having to live on the charity of a few generous readers. Younger writers seem to me to be dashing madly around doing an insane amount of PR work, none of which is, y'know, actually writing books, on the internet and elsewhere, to make up the shortfall.
No, I don't have an answer for this, apart from the payment-per-checkout model which entails someone other that me doing a lot of expensive and complicated work to set up. Which, be reasonable, they could only be motivated to do if there was profit, or at least a living, in it somewhere for them.
Ta, L.
I also like the model of charging the library a small fee per checkout best. Personally I am a hard core library user with rarely less that 4 library items in my possession at any one time. For fiction I only buy the books of authors I enjoy enough to reread (of which Lois is one) and I will go back and buy all of a series I've already read, just to have them. Those are also the authors who produce the only fiction books I buy unread. But I'd be happy to pay a small fee for a book I will only read once. We live in interesting times. More and more musicians are self producing and self promoting, TV shows and writers seem to be going the same way, gaining enough popularity in spaces like Amazon, Patreon, and Youtube that they get picked up by a network or publisher. It seems that the well established venues like publishers and TV networks are scrambling to milk the old model for everything they can when they should be working to create a value added service to the people they work with and for. Change is hard but fascinating. BTW, just as a side note deciding that even a paperback is time limited isn't fair. I try to be careful with my books. Some of my Georgette Heyer's are 30+ years old and I still reread them, although I do plan on replacing them with digital copies, when I get organized.
``I don't go to the library for my ebooks - and I have a lot of them I BUY them instead. I have to use ebooks, because I can't walk far enough to get at paper ones.
Another complication with digital content is international. A library in the US can choose to purchase a book published in England (or any other country), import the book to the US, catalog and let patrons check out. But there are audiobooks or eBooks licensed in England that people with US addresses can't access, although an English person visiting in the US can download the item.