-----Original Message-----
>From: Jenny Millea
>Most people I know who are 'literary' writers
>-
>for want of a better term - have other jobs that are usually tenuous;
>that
>is they are part-time or sessional academics, high school teachers,
>doing
>freelance editing, try and get gigs as writers-in-residence, and/or work
>in
>everyday jobs because they can't survive on what the current
>copyright/distribution/publication system provides.
Creators of IP that the market deems good are very richly rewarded. Many
creators aren't rewarded at such a high rate because their product is not
viewed with the same value.
Changing to a licensing v. ownership model for books won't make the market
view the lower value products more highly, but it will place new
restrictions on the consumer, for no net benefit to the consumer.
I am in favour of authors receiving fair compensation, but limiting
distribution of their product through new legal caveats will diminish the
value of the product.
"What do you mean, I paid $10 for this e-book and I can't lend it to my
mate!"
And realistically, the 2nd hand book market is a drop in the ocean, and
claiming libraries some how diddle authours (who will be paid $1.19 per year
per copy in Aussie libraries for as long as the books are held, or 50 years
under PLR) is not looking at the majority issues.
Authors worried about libraries, 2nd user copies or photocopying are free
not to publish. The vast output of titles (Amazon state 3 million currently
actively in print) proves the rewards, both monetary and non-financial are
suitable to motivate authors.
The only reason their rewards as a group should be increased is if society
needs more of them (as with teachers, nurses etc.). This isn't so. With
ebooks, the author can still choose whether to release their work as
e-texts, and can take the risk that the increased word of mouth will drive
sales, or not.
Regards,
Michael Skeggs
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.1 : Fri Aug 31 2001 - 03:10:03 EST