The Costliest Price for Ebooks? Free.
My debut novel, ASHFALL, has become popular enough that it's being widely pirated. Oh. Joy.
For the last week or so, I've been having a remarkably civil conversation via email with the owner of one of the pirating sites. It's not so much that I think I'll change his mind--I'm pretty sure that the next time someone changes their mind due to the internet will be the first--I just want to understand what motivates him to take the considerable personal risk of owning a pirate site.
It turns out that he feels justified in what he does because he believes he is helping authors--he's tasked me with reading extensive selections from Cory Doctorow's writings about the benefits he gets from making his ebooks available for free. Now Doctorow is both smarter and a more accomplished author than I, and I have no doubt that making his ebooks free benefits him. But here's what he gets wrong about the ebook market: an environment in which the value of a book descends to zero hurts both authors and readers. In the long run, the costliest price for ebooks is free.
There's no doubt that copyright laws are in serious need of overhaul. As currently written, they excessively protect corporate interests at the expense of individual consumers and content creators. But the important part of copyright law--of any law, actually--isn't what's written down in the law books--it's the social norms and habits that follow from the law.
I learned this viscerally during the year I was a foreign exchange student in Brazil. On my way out of the airport in Cuiaba, we slowed nearly to a stop at every green light. I tried to ask why, but my broken mix of Portuguese and Spanish wasn't up to the task. I had my answer soon enough though, as I saw cars ahead of us blowing through the reds at cross streets, full speed. Does Brazil have traffic laws? Yes, but the norm is that traffic lights are suggestions, not mandatory, so every intersection becomes a high-speed game of chicken. And to insure a car in Rio costs about a third of its purchase price every year. A similar phenomena applies to speed limits in the United States. The limit in Indiana, where I live, is 70 mph, but the norm is that people drive 75-80, and most of us tend to get annoyed at those going much slower or faster.
When laws work, they become a benchmark that sets a social norm and creates the habits that govern our day-to-day life. Right now, the social norm is that people who create and publish books deserve to get paid for their labor. Most people make sure the authors they enjoy do get paid, either by checking their books out from a library (which paid for the books) or by buying them.
Could I make more money giving ASHFALL away for free, like Cory Doctorow? Maybe, at least in the short-term. He's right when he says the biggest challenge facing new authors isn't piracy, it's obscurity. But my personal test for whether my behavior is moral or not is this question: If everyone behaved this way, what would the world be like? And if we all pirate books--or even give them away for free--the social norm becomes that books are free. And in a world where authors don't get paid for their work, I (and thousands of other authors) can't continue to write. Such a world would be considerably poorer for readers and writers alike. Which is why the costliest ebooks are free.
By the way, at least one of the sites pirating ASHFALL is charging for it. If you pay anything less than Amazon's price for ASHFALL, currently $8.98, I don't get even a penny.
For the last week or so, I've been having a remarkably civil conversation via email with the owner of one of the pirating sites. It's not so much that I think I'll change his mind--I'm pretty sure that the next time someone changes their mind due to the internet will be the first--I just want to understand what motivates him to take the considerable personal risk of owning a pirate site.
It turns out that he feels justified in what he does because he believes he is helping authors--he's tasked me with reading extensive selections from Cory Doctorow's writings about the benefits he gets from making his ebooks available for free. Now Doctorow is both smarter and a more accomplished author than I, and I have no doubt that making his ebooks free benefits him. But here's what he gets wrong about the ebook market: an environment in which the value of a book descends to zero hurts both authors and readers. In the long run, the costliest price for ebooks is free.
There's no doubt that copyright laws are in serious need of overhaul. As currently written, they excessively protect corporate interests at the expense of individual consumers and content creators. But the important part of copyright law--of any law, actually--isn't what's written down in the law books--it's the social norms and habits that follow from the law.
I learned this viscerally during the year I was a foreign exchange student in Brazil. On my way out of the airport in Cuiaba, we slowed nearly to a stop at every green light. I tried to ask why, but my broken mix of Portuguese and Spanish wasn't up to the task. I had my answer soon enough though, as I saw cars ahead of us blowing through the reds at cross streets, full speed. Does Brazil have traffic laws? Yes, but the norm is that traffic lights are suggestions, not mandatory, so every intersection becomes a high-speed game of chicken. And to insure a car in Rio costs about a third of its purchase price every year. A similar phenomena applies to speed limits in the United States. The limit in Indiana, where I live, is 70 mph, but the norm is that people drive 75-80, and most of us tend to get annoyed at those going much slower or faster.
When laws work, they become a benchmark that sets a social norm and creates the habits that govern our day-to-day life. Right now, the social norm is that people who create and publish books deserve to get paid for their labor. Most people make sure the authors they enjoy do get paid, either by checking their books out from a library (which paid for the books) or by buying them.
Could I make more money giving ASHFALL away for free, like Cory Doctorow? Maybe, at least in the short-term. He's right when he says the biggest challenge facing new authors isn't piracy, it's obscurity. But my personal test for whether my behavior is moral or not is this question: If everyone behaved this way, what would the world be like? And if we all pirate books--or even give them away for free--the social norm becomes that books are free. And in a world where authors don't get paid for their work, I (and thousands of other authors) can't continue to write. Such a world would be considerably poorer for readers and writers alike. Which is why the costliest ebooks are free.
By the way, at least one of the sites pirating ASHFALL is charging for it. If you pay anything less than Amazon's price for ASHFALL, currently $8.98, I don't get even a penny.
Dystopian Places Answer Key
How many did you get correct?
Rusty Ruins - Uglies by Scott Westerfeld
PLACES
Panem - The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins
Ludania - The Pledge by Kimberly Derting
Nollop - Ella Minnow Pea by Mark Dunn
Hailsham - Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro
Goodside and Otherside - Bumped by Megan McCafferty
Prime Destinations - Starters by Lissa Price
Godspeed - Across the Universe by Beth Revis
Forgetting clinics - Memento Nora by Angie Smibert
Prime Destinations - Starters by Lissa Price
Heart - Incarnate by Jodi Meadows
Opium - The House of the Scorpion by Nancy Farmer
CMS boarding school - Tomorrow Girls: Behind the Gates by Eva Gray
Balanchine chocolate factory - All These Things I’ve Done by Gabrielle Zevin
The Pentagonal Spire - Insignia by SJ Kincaid
Goodgrounds - Possession by Elana Johnson
Unlake Superior - Birthmarked by Caragh O’Brien
Settler’s Landing - The Eleventh Plague by Jeff Hirsch
OASIS - Ready Player One by Ernest Cline
Demesne - Beta by Rachel Cohn
Comic-Con 2012 continued...
Large crowd for the Hungry for Dystopia Panel
Goodreads, Youtube and Anonymity
I know many
authors stay away from goodreads and after the last few weeks that probably
hasn’t changed. Of course there are arguments for staying off goodreads as an
author: you don’t have to obsess over the number of adds your book has, your
rating or not so favorable reviews. Authors are a neurotic bunch, and sites
like Publishers Marketplace, goodreads or amazon can make us even more anxious.
When ARCs
of The Other Life were sent out into the world, I considered staying off
Goodreads (not to cancel my account though) but I was too curious and kept
checking how many people had added my book as to-read and every review I got. You
could say I was addicted to my author’s dashboard on goodreads but eventually
the curiosity lessened and I stopped checking reviews. And yet I’m still on
goodreads on a daily basis but not as an author. I’m there as a reader because
even though I’m an author, I’m also a reader. I love reading books, I love
browsing the goodreads lists for new books, I love reading reviews of books –
the good and the bad. Maybe that’s why I’ve made peace with reviews. Does a bad
review stop me from buying a book I’m excited about? No. Sometimes the
arguments why a reviewer hated a book convince me to buy the book. Because one
person’s hate-list is another person’s love-list.
Of course some GIFS or pics in reviews are kind of mean but they are also entertaining and that's one of the goals of a review, isn't it? If reviews are boring, nobody wants to read them. I have to admit that I sometimes read the one or two star reviews for entertainment. Nothing is better than a rant accompanied by a few funny pics. I don't have to agree with a reviewer to enjoy their review. Sometimes I read negative reviews of books I've loved and though I might disagree with everything the reviewer says, I'm often entertained by their review.
I know some
people think reviews and especially comments on goodreads are too harsh and
should be censored. I’m not one of those people.
That brings
me to a related topic: Youtube’s plan to force people to use their real names,
if they want to comment on videos. Have you ever read the comments on youtube?
One word: holy shit. They make even the harshest comment on goodreads look like
a lovenote. I’m sure that people won’t be as racist or hurtful or sadistic on
youtube if this real name rule is enforced. And maybe at some point (and some
of the comments on Youtube have passed that point) it is necessary to exercise
control over the way people comment. Not the content, but that isn’t Youtube’s
agenda. So if you don’t mind saying hateful, racist stuff under your real name
on Youtube, you can still do it. But maybe people will stop to think about it
for a moment, if it can have consequences for their offline life. I like the
anonymity the internet provides, though I’m using my real name everywhere so it
doesn’t really apply to me. Anyway. I don’t really think we need to lose the
anonymity. I think each of us should just try to be considerate(I know it can
be hard). I’m sure some people want a real name rule for Goodreads too. But as
I said, I really like the anonymity of the internet.
Do you
think Youtube is making a step in the right direction with their real name
rule? Do you think other websites like amazon or goodreads should do the same?
Dystopian Quiz: Places
Here are the 20 terms:
1. Panem
2. Ludania
3. Nollop
4. Hailsham
5. Goodside and Otherside
6. Prime Destinations
7. Godspeed
8. Forgetting clinics
9. Prime Destinations
10. Heart
11. Opium
12. CMS boarding school
13. Balanchine chocolate factory
14. The Pentagonal Spire
15. Goodgrounds
16. Unlake Superior
17. Settler’s Landing
18. OASIS
19. Demesne
20. Rusty Ruins
And the books they came from:
a. Insignia by SJ Kincaid
b. Incarnate by Jodi Meadows
c. Bumped by Megan McCafferty
d. Starters by Lissa Price
e. Ready Player One by Ernest Cline
f. Across the Universe by Beth Revis
i. The Pledge by Kimberly Derting
j. Memento Nora by Angie Smibert
k. Birthmarked by Caragh O’Brien
l. Starters by Lissa Price
m. Ella Minnow Pea by Mark Dunn
n. The House of the Scorpion by Nancy Farmer
o. Tomorrow Girls: Behind the Gates by Eva Gray
p. Beta by Rachel Cohn
q. Uglies by Scott Westerfeld
f. Across the Universe by Beth Revis
g. The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins
h. Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro
i. The Pledge by Kimberly Derting
j. Memento Nora by Angie Smibert
k. Birthmarked by Caragh O’Brien
l. Starters by Lissa Price
m. Ella Minnow Pea by Mark Dunn
n. The House of the Scorpion by Nancy Farmer
o. Tomorrow Girls: Behind the Gates by Eva Gray
p. Beta by Rachel Cohn
q. Uglies by Scott Westerfeld
r. All These Things I’ve Done by Gabrielle Zevin
s. Possession by Elana Johnson
t. The Eleventh Plague by Jeff Hirsch
(And yes, I have read ALL of these books!)
s. Possession by Elana Johnson
t. The Eleventh Plague by Jeff Hirsch
(And yes, I have read ALL of these books!)
Authors Behaving Badly
Goodreads exploded in another of its periodic conflagrations this weekend. This time it was a self-published author whining in disturbing terms about bloggers who allegedly promised reviews in return for free e-books and allegedly failed to deliver. He even went so far as to post a list of said bloggers, describing them as "liars and thieves." In fact, one of the bloggers in question had never even heard of the author before the kerfuffle this weekend. If you'd like a more thorough review of this author's meltdown, Evie at Bookish has a recap.
As I've said before in other terms, 98% of authors are not cocoa-loco crazy like this guy. (We are, however, cocoa-loco crazy in more socially acceptable ways. We'll lock ourselves away with a computer on a perfectly nice day when we could be riding a bike, for example. Like today. Sigh.) Here's what I'd like to say to the other 2%: Book bloggers are not your prison bitches. They don't owe you anything. Not even if you send them a free book. Not even if you spend time doing an interview for them. They are doing a service to the literary community, promoting books, and in most cases they get paid absolutely nothing for that service.
We should nurture and thank book bloggers, not publicly call out their alleged failings or create lists of disfavored bloggers. They are helping to grow and support our industry, providing some of the milk we all suckle. They succeed or fail based on the services they provide to their readers, and their obligation is to their readers, not to authors.
Look, I like the current trend of inexpensive e-book self-publishing. One of the glories of it is that anyone can do it without being taken for ride on the multi-thousand dollar Ferris wheel of vanity presses. I'm on record saying that I would consider self-publishing at some point in my career. But one of the problems with it is also that anyone can do it, some of whom clearly aren't emotionally prepared for the considerable stress of publishing a book. If a traditionally published author behaved like this chap, he'd hear from his literary agent and editor tuit de suite, and soon join the ranks of self-publishers if he didn't get his behavior under control.
I also think this spat demonstrates something about the costs of cheap ebooks. The author in question was whinging over supplying a free e-book that retails for $2.99. His lost profit on that ebook (assuming the bloggers bought it instead of getting it free--an unlikely assumption, since I started the free sample of one of the fellow's books and put it down after the second sentence--yes, it was that bad) would have been $2.09. But the average person requires about 5 hours to read a 300 page book--even at minimum wage, that time is worth $36.25.
Cheap e-books are not cheap for the reader. You're investing at least $40 worth of time every time you pick up a book. Would you rather spend $42.99 on 5 hours of crappy reading or, say, $54.99 on five hours of thought-provoking entertainment? I prefer the latter.
The last thing I want to say is congratulations to Goodreads. They banned the badly behaving author fairly promptly. That bodes well for Goodreads--civility requires rules and an enforcement mechanism, and I applaud Goodreads for supplying both.
What do you think? Have you seen any other examples of authors behaving badly? Let me know in the comments, please.
As I've said before in other terms, 98% of authors are not cocoa-loco crazy like this guy. (We are, however, cocoa-loco crazy in more socially acceptable ways. We'll lock ourselves away with a computer on a perfectly nice day when we could be riding a bike, for example. Like today. Sigh.) Here's what I'd like to say to the other 2%: Book bloggers are not your prison bitches. They don't owe you anything. Not even if you send them a free book. Not even if you spend time doing an interview for them. They are doing a service to the literary community, promoting books, and in most cases they get paid absolutely nothing for that service.
We should nurture and thank book bloggers, not publicly call out their alleged failings or create lists of disfavored bloggers. They are helping to grow and support our industry, providing some of the milk we all suckle. They succeed or fail based on the services they provide to their readers, and their obligation is to their readers, not to authors.
Look, I like the current trend of inexpensive e-book self-publishing. One of the glories of it is that anyone can do it without being taken for ride on the multi-thousand dollar Ferris wheel of vanity presses. I'm on record saying that I would consider self-publishing at some point in my career. But one of the problems with it is also that anyone can do it, some of whom clearly aren't emotionally prepared for the considerable stress of publishing a book. If a traditionally published author behaved like this chap, he'd hear from his literary agent and editor tuit de suite, and soon join the ranks of self-publishers if he didn't get his behavior under control.
I also think this spat demonstrates something about the costs of cheap ebooks. The author in question was whinging over supplying a free e-book that retails for $2.99. His lost profit on that ebook (assuming the bloggers bought it instead of getting it free--an unlikely assumption, since I started the free sample of one of the fellow's books and put it down after the second sentence--yes, it was that bad) would have been $2.09. But the average person requires about 5 hours to read a 300 page book--even at minimum wage, that time is worth $36.25.
Cheap e-books are not cheap for the reader. You're investing at least $40 worth of time every time you pick up a book. Would you rather spend $42.99 on 5 hours of crappy reading or, say, $54.99 on five hours of thought-provoking entertainment? I prefer the latter.
The last thing I want to say is congratulations to Goodreads. They banned the badly behaving author fairly promptly. That bodes well for Goodreads--civility requires rules and an enforcement mechanism, and I applaud Goodreads for supplying both.
What do you think? Have you seen any other examples of authors behaving badly? Let me know in the comments, please.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
