Happy holidays and—ahead of time—a great ’07. Carly and I are driving South later this week to the Charlotte / Statesville area of North Carolina, where a newly installed cable modem is already blinking away at my in-laws’. Expect just a brief interruption of the TeleBlog, although I might slow the pace, given family commitments and the e-books I want to catch up with.
So what’s ahead for ’07? Perhaps it’s best to say, “What should be ahead?”—given all the unknowns. Here’s my own wish list.
1. A truly usable E Ink machine—or one with a similar technology, such as Nemoptic‘s—for e-book reading. Best of luck to Sony, iRex, Bookpac, Bookeen and others in achieving that goal. The image seen here is of an experimental design from Bookeen.
Look, no miracles expected. Inexpensive color would be nice, but I won’t get my hopes up. I also want a fast screen that will be great for text entry In addition, if a light somehow can built in for nighttime use—opinions vary—that will score points. The machine should have decent search capabilities, too, and a stylus for entering searches and other data. And if it will work with an auxiliary USB keyboard and do word processing and the like, then so much the better. If I’m actually calling for a real computer in disguise, I plead guilty.
No, I haven’t given up on LCD technology. I’m rooting for Panasonic’s color Word Gear machine to live up to expectations. Depends. Might not have the search capabilities I’d demand.
OLEDs are also worth watching. Next year might an OLED machine come out of the blue to stun the e-book industry? This is just a wish—nothing more. Issues remain, such as the life of the displays.
2. An end to the e-book format mess. Don’t count on it happening soon. Most likely the the e-book software vendors in International Digital Publishing Forum will do the revised OEBPS standard, just as Adobe apparently intends. Trouble is, it’ll be infested with proprietary DRM from the usual suspects, and Microsoft meanwhile will do its own thing, more or less ignoring the IDPF. I continue to dislike DRM intensely, but if you’re going to have it, at least figure out standards to accommodate the big publishers insisting on it.
A DRM standard is among the goals of the OpenReader Consortium, in which I’m involved, and our first implementer, OSoft, the creator of dotReader. Speaking of OpenReader and dotReader, I want all kinds of great, creation-related tools of the open-source variety for OpenReader, so that, yes, just as we’re all hoping, nontechies can publish e-books—with minimal expense and fuss.
3. The success of the One Laptop Per Child project, which, if successful, will make e-books much more practical for developing countries—by lowering the cost of the hardware, including book-adequate displays.
4. A peace treaty between the techies and the content-creators. As a tech-oriented writer and author of six nonfiction books, I’m stuck in the middle of the war. Consider copyright term extension. I’ll continue my battles against the anti-Net, antischool, antilibrary Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. In a related vein, I hope that politicians in the States and elsewhere will wise up about technology. Will this actually be the year when John Edwards—who looks as if he’ll soon announce his formal 2008 presidential campaign—applies his populism to areas such as Bono and the anti-fair-use clauses of the DMCA?
At the same time, yes, I’d be very grouchy if copyright law reduced the effective life of copyrights to, say, 28 years. Repeat after me. A novel is a computer program NOT. Publishers need their backlists, and, yes, publishers do have a role to play in creating and adding to value (see relevant language in a paper by my friend Curt Priest. E-bookdom will benefit from all kinds of business models—both with and without publishers.
5. The success of networked books of the kind that dotReader and Sophie will make possible. yes, I still hope to publish those screen shots of Sophie, after Bob Stein at the Institute for the Future of the Book has time to prepare them.
6. Lots of great new content. The majors are slowly making progress, and as I’ve noted, the results should help small e-book publishers as well. And vice versa. Let there be an e-book for every buyer, and customers galore for every e-book. It won’t happen but we can hope.
So what do you think of the above wishes, and what items would you like to add to this list?
Publishers need their backlists? What tune should we play when we break out the violins?
What happens to backlists when large publishing conglomerates buy others and keep getting bigger? That would be an interesting question for anyone that is an expert.
Yes–so they can more easily gamble on new Long Tail writers.
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
I wish for a dictionary and the ability to write comments, create quote entries from the text, and automatically create my reading list.
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.
Wouldn’t a short copyright period (say, 28 years, 14+14) ensure a larger backlist for everyone? That is, more works in the public domain means more publishers can publish them. It would give the publishers more to work with, and remove barriers to entry, thereby allowing for more publishing opportunity, though perhaps they would have to develop different business models.
Hi, Bill. Perhaps more titles would be available. But there’s also the quality issue. Established publishers would have less money to pay for new books, and there would be fewer decent titles. Not all books are done by people in academia and working for large institutions. Independent authors need adequate money for living expenses and research; they get little enough as it is.
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:
Also see Backlist to the Future, from the New York Times.
Happy holidays,
David
Sure, but this is all argued from the point of view of the existing
business model, where publishers make money by hoarding
titles in their backlists — a huge subsidy from the public to
the publisher. If there was a whopping big shared backlist,
accessible to everyone, created by short copyright terms,
publishers (and successful novelists) would have to figure out
different ways of making consistent profits — different business
models.
Thanks for your further thoughts on much-shorter copyrights, Bill. I’d be curious to learn more about the biz models that you believe publishers and writers could use without letting quality suffer. A total life of just 28 years just won’t cut it in my opinion, but I’m open-minded. Please pass on more specifics.
“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
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.
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?
Bill Janssen wrote:
Excellent point!
Bill, the very best literature may have value over much longer a period of time than 28 years.
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
David, you raise a number of issues here.
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 :-??
David, it occurs to me that perhaps you should push for government bailouts of newspapers, as well as a government-funded digital library. After all, in the heyday of American literature, journalism was where aspiring writers were paid to learn their trade.
Bill, I think the typical writer would love to have a hee-lot problem. Even without shortened copyright terms, we’re talking about an occupation that keeps losing out to inflation year after year.
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
Amazing what’s on the Web! Of course, given it’s Walter Brennan, it would have to be hee-lot :-).
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?
[…] Play news catch-up with TeleRead Our friends over at TeleRead have been very active with a lot of coverage of e-book news these days. In case you were absent from your computer due to heavy-duty holiday relaxing, make sure to catch up with these TeleRead highlights that David prepared for us. Some of my favorite recent TeleRead articles:TeleRead
Pardon my two cents:
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?