I know that the creative process is difficult, sometimes painful. Art is a difficult thing to quantify, and there are reams of debate on the subject.

Honestly: How can someone claim that they are losing out, that money is taken from their pocket, that food is removed from their family’s cupboard, after getting paid *FOR 28 Years*? That seems like a long time to try again to write a book/essay/play/ &tc, or, failing that repeated success, learn to become a carpenter or sell vacuum cleaners.

David, I must ask: do you think getting paid for the next 50 years for something you did once (to use the example of Harper Lee who only wrote one greatly received book) fair?

We as readers are paying publishers to find raw talent, proofread it, edit it, to refine the skills of an artisan. How long do we need to put someone on intellectual welfare?

Isn’t it a shame that 65 years after that movie was released, it’s still under copyright, and still not freely available on the Web?

Joke all you will about a government newspaper bailout—something with its share of First Amendment problems—but in a neutral way the feds already do give newspapers and magazines a break through lower postage.

I continue to believe that the real answer is a mix of biz models, with the royalty one figuring prominently. OK, seriously now, just what biz models do you have in mind to replace reduced royalties?

Thanks,
David

But let me refer you to Walter Brennan’s speech about “helots” in Capra’s
MEET JOHN DOE. Do we handicap artists by rewarding them ?

In the spirit of capitalism, it would be nice to reward authors—to a reasonable extent—for defying the odds to create works with long-term value.

What’s more, a 28-year approach would discriminate against literary publishers and favor those aiming at shorter-term returns.

I join you in decrying copyright-term extension to Bono levels–guess who’s pestered the devil out of a well-known “progressive” with big Hollywood donations and an emphatic reluctance to say a word about the need for balance? But 28-year copyrights? Forget it.

The idea is to aim for balance, not penalize writers who defy the odds. “One successful startup” may be the only one that the writer has during his lifetime, despite the value of the work involved. What are you going to do? Put him on welfare? Or force him to work at Walmart rather than creating additional works that in the future could be valuable to society? The best works—not always, but often—can require extensive research just as technology can. How about some rewards for this time and perhaps travel? Remember, if nothing else, that long-term value can be factored into present value.

While I disagree with Bono and the need for eternal copyright, we’re talking about people with bills to pay the grocer and doctor. How are you going to finance them? You still have yet to supply us with replacement business models.

I can tell you a model I’d enjoy—a well-stocked national digital library system in the TeleRead vein. But it’s not a cure-all. For First Amendment reasons, I don’t want a government program being the only source of income for writers and publishers. Also, forget about institutional sponsors. They suffer from politics of a different kind and have their own bureaucracies and special agendas. And as for individual entrepreneurs, well, they’re hardly grand supporters of literature.

Simply put, we need a mix of business models, including a royalty-based one, that will consider the advantages of encouraging publishers to publish literary works—rather than just the ephemeral commercial dreck. I just don’t see a current replacement for the royalty-based model.

Finally, let me quote you: “But publishing has certainly changed, and I think it makes sense to discuss changing the rules, even if we eventually decide it’s better not to do so.” Well, better to discuss than to act without worrying about the long-term damage that may result. Again, if you have business models, let’s hear about ‘em.

Oh, and don’t just say, “But think how the authors can keep coming up with gloriously interactive versions of their works,” etc. I believe not just in interactivity but freedom from it. Nope, I’m not saying that annotation should be illegal, especially when the actual texts stand intact. But I don’t want to see all novels treated like, say, Wikipedia or Usenet. We need a business model, or mix of them, that will respect traditional novels as well.

Happy holidays,
David

After all, what do we do about entrepreneurs who have one successful startup at the age of 27, and none thereafter? Isn’t it exactly the same situation?

Excellent point!

But that is different from forcing them to give up rights long before they currently are required.

Again, you’re reflecting a particular way of thinking about this. No one’s forcing them to give up anything. They have no rights other than the bargain the public (the citizens of the country) have made with them in order to produce good-quality output for their edification. But the public should be able to make other, different, bargains if the circumstances people live under change. Some argue that the Web is just such a substantial change in circumstance. Myself, not sure about that. But publishing has certainly changed, and I think it makes sense to discuss changing the rules, even if we eventually decide it’s better not to do so.

What to do about someone who writes a best-selling novel at age 27 and lives to be 77 without ever repeating his success?

Suppose copyright was 14+14. They would have 28 years of exclusive access to that material, time to invest their earlier windfall for their old age. To many, that seems ample. After all, what do we do about entrepreneurs who have one successful startup at the age of 27, and none thereafter? Isn’t it exactly the same situation?

“If there was a whopping big shared backlist, accessible to everyone, created by short copyright terms…”

Well, as noted, there are the issues of (1) direct compensation for writers and (2) allowing the publishers to be sustainable while still paying writers, who, as it is, are getting little enough in most cases.

Please note that I’m all in favor of letting publishers and authors interpret copyright law liberally and, for example, authorize fan fiction. But that is different from forcing them to give up rights long before they currently are required. What to do about someone who writes a best-selling novel at age 27 and lives to be 77 without ever repeating his success? Most fiction vanishes forever in a few years. But remember the exceptions such as To Kill a Mockingbird. Where would Harper Lee be without her royalties?

No one has been more outspoken against Bono than I have, since I see this is a move toward eternal copyright—I just want some balance.

Happy holidays,
David

Here’s to a variety of business models! I don’t want one that displaces independent writers who would rather not link up with institutions or mess with the foundation-grant game. A little capitalism in publishing can go a long way.

Meanwhile here is the full text of a short Wikipedia item on backlists–an assessment with which I’d agree:

A backlist is a list of older books available from a publisher, as opposed to titles newly published. Record labels also have backlists of music titles they have published. Having a strong backlist for a publisher is also a form of The Long Tail in 21st Century business plans.

Building a strong backlist has traditionally been seen as the way to produce a profitable publishing house, as the most expensive aspects of the publishing process have already been paid for and the only remaining expenses are reproduction costs.

Also see Backlist to the Future, from the New York Times.

Happy holidays,
David

I hope all e-books will be put on-line. Allow people to read others’ comments, and comment on them. Building a social web for reading fun.

The ability to look up the word or search for further information when reading would be very important.

To write about what I am reading, to mark up a portion for further reading and follow up, would be useful too.

To share my reading passion with others, listen to someone else about the text I am reading. would also be very good.

I hope all these experience will become part of the book, so a social web will surround the text.

Regardless of the size, first-rate publishers typically need backlists to be sustainable. Which I like. It’s an incentive for them to buy good works that’ll last.

Should writers in many cases be getting a larger slice of the pie? And is too much power concentrated in a few publishing giants? Absolutely. But I still like the idea of backlists. Careful use of anti-trust law, not elimination of backlists, is the real solution here.

Happy holidays.

David