How to use this Page

“Comprising” not “comprised of”

This is EXCELLENT!

Great to see. Hoopla actually provides an array of digital content, (I assume it may vary depending on the library’s subscription). It allows you to “check out” materials for a limited time, either to stream online or to play on a mobile device. My local library was only offering music and movies. But now I see ebooks and comics! I’ll have to check it out.

This comment has been removed by the author.

Let me try again. I got way too windy on my initial response.

I can't help thinking it's a simple, economics supply-demand issue. There are so many writers, so many submissions, that publishers, in a sense, have the upper hand right now. Add to that the changing world of books, how people are reading and their willingness to buy books, the profits are being spread thin for publishers as well.

As you suggested, I think most writers want to see their creations enjoyed by readers.

I am glad there are large groups advocating for authors. Corporations are, after all, very bottom-line motivated and the creators can get lost in that shuffle

This comment has been removed by the author.

LOL, I'm giving this a second try too.

I think the biggest dealbreakers with the original terms of Hydra did not have to do with no advance. There were other issues: Hydra wanted the rights to the work forever, they were taking all foreign rights, and they were deducting expenses normally absorbed by the publisher such as editorial work and cover art.

The new terms, even for the profit-sharing model, have an out-of-print clause and allow you to negotiate foreign and subrights. That's an important improvement, IMO.

Also, I don't know about SFWA but RWA does allow monies from royalty to count toward membership qualifications for PAN, their subgroup for published authors.

If a publisher doesn't offer an advance is this telling you that publisher doesn't expect to make much money from your book (and neither should you)?

@Julie: Well said, it is a business and the creative person is often not business-minded. In today's world, we have to be or as you said we will be lost in the shuffle. I am glad, too, that the publisher listened to the outrage though. It reminds me of what happened a few years ago in the children's publishing world with book covers.

@Maya: Thanks for adding that--yes, I knew there were many more issues besides the advance, but the blog post I read that bothered me the most was on John's site: WHATEVER and mostly talked about advances--I guess because I haven't gotten one, I took offense. :)

@Amber: I'm not sure. Maybe it means it's a changing world and nobody really knows what's going to happen yet until you get a book or two published and test the market. I write children's books. I write historical fiction and picture books--neither one of those are high money makers right now, and I know that. I am happy that someone is paying me to write and share that with children/teachers/parents. I guess for me it doesn't matter if it's upfront or after. And I guess I wrote this post trying to figure out if it should matter to me OR if it mattered to most and I was a minority.

To all--thanks for your comments! It's an interesting debate/situation. And I definitely don't think publishers should take advantage of new authors, of course; but I also think smaller and mid-level publishers need to have a good business model or they will find themselves going bankrupt in today's market.

Thanks for posting this, Margo! I was unaware of the controversy with Random House's digital-only lines. When we did the E-Publishing Revolution issue a couple of years ago, I was a little shocked to learn that most e-publishers, with few exceptions, do NOT offer advances. I agree with Julie's point of the changing climate of publishing, but I'm not sure if profits are being spread too thin for publishers. I know book stats have always been vague in the publishing industry, but it appears from the publisher-reported stats that digital sales have increased exponentially over the past few years. But I've also heard from other sources like Digital Book World that profits at the larger publishers have risen while sales have remained flat. Are they making profits because of lower advances, less money spent on marketing, and lower production costs for digital books?

Like many other industries it is lopsided and in favor of the conglomerates. Small and mid-size publishers struggle in the marketplace. I think it's up to the individual author to decide what's right for her. And I don't think you should take offense, Margo, about the comments on the advance. SFWA has always had these strict guidelines in place, despite the changing industry. They even have a list of publications you have to have been published in to qualify to apply for a membership!

But what is AWESOME about this story is the power of the people--because writers, organizations, agents, and readers spoke out against this contract, Random House changed it.

I love discussions like this! I'd love to see more of this on The Muffin. :)

Ang: You are right. :) I should look at it in a more positive light--power to the people--makes me think a little of the scene in Les Mis where the college rebels are waving the flag and singing, "Do You Hear the People Sing?" :) I qualify for PAL (Published Author List) with SCBWI which is my genre anyway, and my publisher is on their list. So there. :) LOL

You address something I've been wondering about and experiencing myself since the e-book price fixing suit/settlement went down and e-book prices went up.

E-books have a perceived value to me and I hesitate to pay more than that. A tighter budget compounds this issue and means my book purchases are more thoughtful and less impulsive now than they were six months ago.

And $11.99 for an e-book makes me pause and think, especially since I know that price will most likely drop when the paperback comes out in a year.

Hi Nathan,

I've often wondered the same thing. Personally I use e-books mostly for technical matters (I'm a web developer), content I send to my Kindle from the web, some magazines, and for travel (I do NOT miss having to cart around tons of books, either on the subway or plane/train) but I still prefer reading books.

However I do worry that it's not just competition with angry birds or any other time-wasters out there. Those have always been around to some extent. What I DO worry about, is the loss of a space to read, to write, to contemplate. Whether it be cell phones intruding on every single public space, video games or the relentless All-caps nature of the web, the space where writing, and reading, matters I fear is becoming less and less. Look at the decline of literature's influence in the last few years.

Maybe that's pollyanish of me, but it's what I see. Hopefully we'll reach some kind of balance in the years to come.

Best,

Tim

Good thoughts, I wonder the same.

I had an e-reader that went on the fritz and just upgraded to a tablet. I admit, I've mostly used the tablet for catching up with things like Top Chef's Last Chance Kitchen if I don't want to boot up my laptop. I check out ebooks from my library and load onto my device, but the selection is pretty small, and I usually have specific books I'm looking for. I hope that libraries get access to more ebooks, because I think that will help people convert to ebooks more. I use my library a lot; for the books I buy, I am usually buying print at a book event to support the author.

I love this discussion; very thought-provoking.

I don't think there's anything to be concerned about for readers or writers (unless your a print publishing company or investor by day!).

So what if ebooks become all the rage? Readers (vociferous readers) only care about two things: Quality and Accessibility of reading materials. We will read magazines and toothpaste bottles and classic novels so long as they either make for quality reading, accessible reading, or, ideally, both. It doesn't matter if the words are printed on plastic or a digital screen or paper (I mean, it does, but common, let's be honest, that is mostly nostalgic, and although I love the smell of paper books, I love accessible and/or quality reading even more).

If the concern is that ebooks will cheapen the reading experience by virtue of e-ink vs. print, alone, than I very much disagree. If the fear is that lack of 'gatekeeper' print publishing companies or the 'gatekeeper' of the labor-intensive process of printing physical books, in general, will keep the quality of reading low, I think we ought to expect more of ourselves.

Even before the printing press, good stories were told and thrived. Ever after, there may be MORE stories, and thus cheapened quality, but there are still good stories out there despite changing technology, and that's the only thing to be worried about, in my opinion.

I too have been thinking that books might just go the way of the record. Just as you can now easily download just a single, and therefore the concept of the album is suddenly losing meaning, I wonder if books will slowly be transformed into something else. My sister showed me a children's "e-book" of Winnie the Pooh on her iPad, but although there were words on the screen, it was really made to be more like a movie. And it made me incredibly sad for kids and their imagination. I think if we want long-form books to be passed down the generations, then it is up to us as parents to transfer our love of books to our children.

I just read that blog post yesterday. (So, speaking of futures and predictions...yeah...pretty sure I just changed the space-time continuum.)
E-book sells may be leveling off in the real world, but in the Education World it's the exact opposite. Most of my students now carry iPads and Kindles. My Outside Reading List is now emailed instead of handed out in class and contains links to purchase or download the books. Personally, I would much rather pay 9.99 and read a book on my Kindle than plop down $30-$40 for a hard copy. (But that's non-fiction. I feel rather wasteful paying for a fiction e-book I'm going to read in a couple hours. The library card is my friend.)
One of our major textbook suppliers announced at the beginning of this year that they would be phasing out their print department and instead would be encouraging all schools to buy their E-textbooks.
However, you are probably correct in that students would much rather be playing Angry Birds than reading about the First World War.

I don't think people read that much anyway, so that's why e-book sales are leveling off even though tablets continue to sell.

I doubt it's because people are reading less than they used to.

It's sad that books aren't as popular as movies or video games, but they're just not.

Just to add to your tracking data, we bought a Kindle Fire and returned it in favor a Kindle Touch. My wife uses that to read. I have an Asus Android Tablet (10") and I read on that. Hardly use the library any more ... especially after reading in the NYT that bedbugs are spreading via books. Eeek!

I have a kindle touch with several books on it, but I only pull it out and dust it off for one reason- traveling. Since traveling with a library is awkward and expensive (suitcases are $25 a pop now) I settle for an e-reader on trips. But at home I cannot replace the experience of a paper book. It is tactile and real and something I can hand to my children someday and say "these words meant a great deal to me." I can't imagine bequeathing them my kindle and telling them how much I love my books.
You can buy anything on this planet online, but our stores are still crowded. We can order all our books from Amazon, but our Barnes and Noble is always busy. Shopping and selection is a social experience that people enjoy.
You can't download the smell of baking bread and hot cocoa from the corner cafe or the way a book feels in your hand when you carry it to the cash register.
I am an e-book owner, but with few exceptions, I am not an e-book reader.

I think the problem is that people can't buy an ebook from any store, save it on any computer, and read it on any tablet. If that problem can be fixed, I think people will absolutely buy ebooks, and at $11.99. I guess it means open-source DRM that any ebook vendor can apply and a software program that works like iTunes but isn't only for one kind of file type.

I guess I'm not convinced that price point is the key factor in many people's Angry Birds vs. Book decisions. Sometimes, in the short term, sure ... but in establishing long-term habits I think other factors are at play. I'd venture that more people are liable to become addicted to Angry Birds (and similar entertainments) than they are liable to become addicted to long-form written work, whether non-fiction or novels. But hasn't interest in long-form work always been more rare than simpler distractions?

Will addiction to Angry Birds and the like crowd out attention paid to work that requires sustained attention? Maybe. Maybe for some. Maybe for most, but "most" still leaves a significant audience for books, and book-lovers will find price points they can afford, as we always have.

I like potato chips. I also like to eat meals. I'll pay more for a meal than I will for a bag of potato chips, even though the potato chips are, in and of themselves, probably the more addicting 'food' ... and I don't think I'm alone.

I think we have to wait a few more years to see what happens. I always look at kids and I see the future. And you don't see many kids embracing print books these days. They all have tablets.

And, tablets weren't designed for e-books. Tablets were designed for many things, from social media to getting information on line fast. So we're really going to wind up right back where we started. People who read will always read, and most likely they'll be doing iton tabelts. People who don't read will be using their tablets for other things.

In other words, I never thought technology would make more people read. I only thought it would change the way people read. And, I wouldn't be investing in a small e-press anytime soon :)

Yes! I love books, and I don't have e-readers (except for the Kindle app on my phone). I use my Kindle phone app all the time (so I don't have to tote a book with me on errands and such), but I notice other people playing games on their phones. I'm usually the only one reading. I have friends who have bought their kids Kindles (or Nooks or iPads), and I've *never* seen their kids reading on them -- they read print books; they play games on their devices (and they're usually playing games, not holding a book).

This same thorny little idea: my novel versus Angry Birds, has been chasing itself around in my head for months.

I'm going to go find a paper bag to breathe into now.

I think people will continue reading whether Angry Birds is around or not. There have been distractions from long form reading for much longer than there have been free smart phone game apps (case in point: crossword puzzles, newspapers, card games, etc.). But then again, I'm the type of person who reads books instead of watching TV (shocking, I know), so maybe my views are outside the norm.

I agree with Christi. Entertainment in the form of games and apps are on two seperate ends of the spectrum. I dont think people will stop reading all together simply because there are app out there. Interesting post though :)

In this digital world, I now buy more content than ever before. Take today for example, I bought one ebook to read on my iPhone. It is a business book. I bought one audiobook because I'm interested in the author but I know I won't have time to read the book. I would rather listen to it than miss the opportunity to enjoy a good story. Finally, I bought a print book to use for an important project because I want to mark it up for reference.

I love the digital world.

The best thing publishers can do is to negotiate distribution agreements as quickly as possible with tablet and mobile partners. This is how they will add more value to their relationships with authors.

The genie is out of the bottle. This reader is not looking back.

I think you make interesting points in this post given what I can say about my household.

My husband and I each own Kindle Fires. I download books on mine and the occasional game, though I buy at least as many print books as I do ebooks. However, my husband downloads movies, TV episodes, and tons of game apps on his, NOT ONE SINGLE BOOK.

The popularity of such devices does not necessarily equate to the popularity of ebooks. My sister has an iPad she likes to purchase a few books on, but anything she knows she loves and will want to reread, she prefers to purchase in print to keep on her bookshelf. Print books just feel cozier when there's an emotional attachment to them.

It is for that reason that none of my favored books are purchased in ebook format, and my Kindle Fire is full of random reads and guilty pleasures I don't necessarily want sitting out for anyone to see.

For me, I keep my silly app/game addiction on my iPhone... except for Angry Birds. They're easier to see on the Fire's screen. :)

I'd leave a long comment, but I need to go read a friend's manuscript on my Kindle Fire...

I love print books. A few years ago I would have sworn I would always prefer them to digital books. But I only average one print book a month now while I buy multiple digital books every month. My Kindle is such a clutter-reducer, space-saver and money-saver. Plus having a portable library with me is fabulous since I tend to be reading 2-3 non-fiction plus 1-2 fiction books at a time and I like to take them with me wherever I go. I used to lug all that around in a big tote or decide before leaving the house which book to take along. Now I can take them all in a slim lightweight device that fits in a my purse. I have a feeling the eBook revolution isn't going to slow down. It may plateau for a while, but it's going to continue to grow in the future. I feel torn about that. There is something lovely and old-fashioned about paper books, but digital books are just so darn convenient.

I still purchase print books for instructional manuals and books that I know I'm going to need to share with the faculty I work with. But all my fiction goes to my Kindle app on my iPad.

One of the frustration points for me is one you blogged about a few days ago and I missed commenting on...I think just as we resell our own used books, we should be able to purchase and resell previously read ebooks. I understand the issues surrounding this, but I always look in my library's ebooks to see if they have what I want to read for free before I consider purchasing. I'd love to be able to purchase an already read ebook.

I work at a new School of Medicine in charge of curriculum development and instructional technology. We will not have a physical book store on our new campus, nor will we sell physical textbooks. Everything will be eTextbook. The biggest question for me is which provider has the best eTextbook platform (note taking, anotations, both searchable and sharable, integrated media and quizzes, flashcards, etc). That company (not the publisher) will win the eTextbook race. It's no longer just the words on the 'page' that provide the experience, it is how the reader will interact with the functionality the ebook platform provides.

~Eli

As long as people keep writing great books, we'll keep reading them, right? My daughters and all their friends have iPods and/or tablets, phones, etc, but they still devour books and discuss them. I think the readers in each generation will continue to raise more readers. I can't imagine 6 straight hours to read... I'd be In Heaven!

So, first of all Nathan, you know I can't resist disagreeing that e-book sales are leveling off. I disagree for two reasons:

a. The WSJ article was based on research conducted in this link here:

http://libraries.pewinternet.org/2012/12/27/e-book-reading-jumps-print-book-reading-declines/

Yes, the original research was entitled:

"E-book reading jumps, print reading declines".

How the conservative WSJ got, from that research, the idea that e-book sales are leveling off is a mystery only they can answer. I think the game of Twister was involved.

b. The only one who can really tell us what is happening with e-book sales is Amazon. And they aren't sharing their data, so we just don't know.

People can reassure themselves that e-book sales are leveling all, but there is nothing to support that!

Second, you are absolutely right that there are dangers to Publishers in pricing e-books too high; they are losing customers and strengthening the competition. They are also, unfortunately, hurting the authors that publish with them.

I admit I had steam coming out of my ears when I saw how high your books were priced, Nathan. Not on my account, of course I'm going to buy your book, but because it prices your book too high for MG, imho. That could potentially hurt your sales, and it makes me really mad, because your books are very good and deserve to be given the absolutely best chance in the marketplace.

And by not supporting you, Publishers are weakening themselves. They are under-cutting their asset, and the costs of that will move into the future.

So, for a number of reasons, pricing too high is just a really dangerous move on their part. It weakens their position - with authors, in the marketplace and against competitors.

I agree with you 100%, Mr. Former Agent Man.
It's as I've pointed out as well: the major traditional publishers scoffed at ebooks and Amazon because, despite the really low cost to producing a book digitally these days technology being what it is, they missed the appeal of the Kindle revolution.
Kindles, and ebook reading, didn't necessarily explode because people love to read on a screen instead of turning pages!
It exploded because suddenly there was a way to carry large tomes, the newspaper, and magazines and Sudoku or whatever people used to entertain themselves with during long waits or just relaxing--and all in a lightweight package.
But it wasn't even or only convenience that launched the ereader revolution.
It was cost. There are books--you may not like them, they may in your opinion not be very good--you can download for free or 99c?
How much did Amanda Hocking charge?
If you could get Angry Birds for 99c, and a good novel, say, Pride and Prejudice, for 99c to $3, it would be a tougher choice than your $11 example.
Now, that's what Amazon figured out. And what the "major" publishers tried to stop. It's called "undercutting the competition." It's also called attracting cost-conscious consumers in an economic crisis.
I've mentioned before it's similar to the paperback revolution of the start of the last century.
Do you want to spread literature, and human understanding, to as many as possible? Or do you want to keep readinng, as a form of entertainment as well as education, for only those elites who can afford it?
The paperback revolution coincided with the spread of education beyond elites. A coal miner could and might have read War and Peace.
Not everyone in every country has access to the technological infrastructure that has made ereaders so popular in the U.S.
Until they do, likely paperbacks will out-sell ereaders.
But once they do?
If you offer it at a price they can afford, they will kill those Angry Birds...

Tablets are outgrowing books, that's for sure, but will books go away?

Tough to tell. Streaming and kiosks killed Blockbuster, but people still watch movies. There is hope. I hope.

I didn't read all the other comments due to limitations on the use of my eyes, so forgive me if I'm repeating what someone else has said already.

This made me think that apps like Wattpad, which offer readers instant, global access to more content than one could possibly read in a lifetime, are going to have an impact on eBook sales too.

Now eBooks are not just competing with games and other forms of tablet entertainment but also other books available for free, right now, anywhere readers have access to the internet...

~bru

A thought: No matter how common they become, e-readers will still mostly be for the well-off in society, whereas books--used and from the library--are what is more likely to land in the hands of the less fortunate, particularly children.

There was a time when books were for only the elite, and then they became more accessible. I worry that in an e-book world--where libraries would struggle to be relevant--that we would return to something mirroring that time. I may be jumping the gun here, but I recently interviewed an author who was writing a book that would only be digital, and that was his concern, that poor kids would not be able to read it. I'm curious what others have to say about this.

Scott

The problem has nothing to do with e-books, tablets, or publishing. It has to do with this, and this alone: what is the value of reading over playing "Angry Birds" for 99 cents, or even for free?

Anyone can entertain themselves for six hours, if the sole goal of life and growing up, and becoming an adult is merely to entertain oneself. So, I ask again: what is the value of reading, over everything else that can temporarily distract our minds and emotions from the burden of living, and the joy of finding purpose in this world?

The problem has nothing to do with e-books, tablets, or publishing. It has to do with this, and this alone: what is the value of reading over playing "Angry Birds" for 99 cents, or even for free?

Anyone can entertain themselves for six hours, if the sole goal of life and growing up, and becoming an adult is merely to entertain oneself. So, I ask again: what is the value of reading, over everything else that can temporarily distract our minds and emotions from the burden of living, and the joy of finding purpose in this world?

Sorry about the double post. I thought captcha had done the usual thing it does when I type it incorrectly, and that it had wiped out the comment.

@ Scott.

You know, I had the same concern. I was worried digital technology could be very dangerous, making reading a class issue even more than it is, because of the expense of buying the e-reader.

But I recently read some articles about what is happening globally (I'm so sorry I don't remember where they are, so I can't link them), and what they've found is that in some cultures - Africa, for instance - e-books are actually easier and more accessible. That's because alot of Africans, even the impoverished, have cell phones. And you can download apps and free books on cell phones.

In addition, there are some libaries being built that allow people to come in and read on digital technology. I think the first all digital library just opened in some little town in Texas. And everyone still will (hopefully) have access to libraries.

Digital technology for libaries makes sense because of storage, accessibility, even dusting. :)

Also, I predict that e-readers will keep getting cheaper and cheaper, until you can pick one up for 10 bucks at the drug store - or even get one for free from some site doing a promotion.

So, I could be wrong, it still might be something to worry about, but I was reassured by these things. I think it is a very valid concern, though!

When thinking about the future of ebooks, I can't help but look to my kids. Although I readily download books at midnight, just because I can, my 8 and 14 year-olds have not made the switch. I've nudged. We have multiple tablets in the house as well as a Kindle, and still, they choose paper. My personal reason for switching had to do with clutter, but if you look around their rooms, it's clear that they are not of that mindset.

We drove an hour to Barnes and Noble two days ago as a treat. The Borders in town closed and nothing came along to replace it. We used to make a weekly ritual of shopping there with the kids. But now when we make the trip to Portland, it's not the same. They only seem to carry the best sellers and the offerings change very little even when it's been a month or two since we made the trip. Both of my kids are becoming Amazon converts and ask me to look things up for them that friends had or that they saw in the library.

My gut tells me they'll eventually switch only because it's so hard to find what they want in paper without ordering it online and having to wait.

No. Unless the author/publisher was getting compensation for teh book, that would be acceptable. If they did do it, thye dhuld not allow indie or self published books to be resold

It's going to be awfully hard for writers to make a living if, in theory, a hundred people can read the same copy of a book with no compensation for the author. This isn't like a library or even a used book store full of paperbacks, in my opinion. I really don't like it. :-(

This is yet another reason why I think the consumption of all digital media (books, movies, music) is better off switching from a own-per-unit to a subscription model, since ownership of intangible data is so...fuzzy.

It would make these debates moot.

Instead of buying individual pieces of media and 'owning' them, instead you'd pay a fixed monthly fee for unfettered access to the library of media.

You're never watching 'your' Finding Nemo DVD, you're just renting it on demand any time you want. Ditto, you're never reading 'your' copy of 'Wolf Hall', you're just renting it on demand every time you open it on your Kindle.

I would *love* to pay $15 or whatever to read as many books in a month as I want.

Seems insane. How would you ever make any money?

I am so conflicted on this, because I've *always* thought that DRM and its associated restrictions hurts electronic sales--the ONLY time I will pirate or jailbreak a song or movie is when I flat-out can't do what I want with the file (put it on my nook and iPad at once, etc). Otherwise, paying money for the content is both easier and keeps viruses off my computer.

So I've championed publishers like Tor and many self-publishers, who are trying to go forward with DRM-free versions of their books to give their readers the greatest flexibility possible.

At the same time, it's one thing to have DRM-free items that you can read on any reader or give away, versus creating a secondary book market for ebooks. Amazon already makes it super easy to get rid of old media for an Amazon gift card--how soon will they begin compensating people for "returning" their ebooks? And with nothing to incentivize purchasing the new version (no dog ears, no underlining), the vast majority of people won't pay more for exact the same thing--and, I would wager, that even includes people who understand the author gets no payment for the "used" copy.

In addition, there won't be the "secondhand shipper" problem with the used ebook--usually you have to pay $4 shipping for a used book because the used book retailer isn't part of Amazon or bn.com. It will make it easier to buy used.

The whole thing leaves me wondering if this is not just another attempt to drive down the price of new ebooks. The problem is, as usual, such tactics will disproportionately squeeze midlist authors who don't get giant pre-orders of their new titles.

Obviously, this is a dangerous innovation. The only way the author doesn't get screwed in this is if there's a secondary-reader royalty rate established, much like the royalty credits for songwriters. An author would get full credit of royalties on a books initial purchase, a .75 credit on secondary purchase, etc. etc.

There would also have to be some sort of time delay on the ability to resell e-books. For instance, a three or six month delay after initial publication date, that way authors aren't seeing their profit capabilities undermined by fast readers or unsatisfied customers.

And there has to be a limit on how many times an e-book file can be resold. That way there can still be sufficient demand vs. supply to maintain profits for authors.

Well, since the comments on Scalzi's post have pretty much already run the gamut on this, I really have nothing to add...except that my gut reaction was: "So, Amazon is trying to monetize piracy now?"

There's a fundamental flaw in the argument against the resale of ebooks: Where's the uproar over the resale of physical books? Authors don't get any of that money, do they? In reading Amazon's patent, it's clear that once a person sells a bit of digital content, it's not theirs to have any more, unless they buy it again -- the same with physical books. The patnent also says they'll impose limits on the number of times a bit of digital content can be re-sold. Where content creators -- from authors to publishers -- ought to get aggressive in the digital resale market is not to try to quash it outright, but to try to get a slice of the pie in what appears will be a tightly-run marketplace, where Amazon's sales at least will be handled in a manner that should make collecting resale royalties a simple matter.

I think we already compensate buyers for the reduced shareability of e-books with a lower price point. You can buy it cheap, but you can't resell it or lend it (except by lending your device). Ownership has been redefined in the digital age.

I just bought Word 2013 from Microsoft, but what did I buy? A bunch of digital information streamed to my computer. Even the days of "I went to Seattle and all I got was this lousy CD" are over. The licensing model is now simply a fact of life in the digital age.

People want the best of both worlds: the advantages and cheapness of digital files along with the advantages of a physical paper product. But you can't have both. If you want a copy you can sell or lend, buy a paper copy. If you have an ereader and like digital (and digital savings), go that way.

Tout finis.

To me, a "used" e-book is just a copy. I don't quite see it the same way as me taking the physical book I paid for, and reselling it (or giving, or loaning, or whatever). I guess if there is a mechanism for ensuring that I no longer have it, there is room for discussion; otherwise it just seems like illegal copying.

My question is, "Do authors and publishers get paid when a book is sold used?" If the technology is to be used as you have described it, wouldn't it be the same for the author/publisher of an e-book?

My thought is, if the technology to pass on ownership of an e-book exists, wouldn't it create an opportunity for the author/publishers to demand to be compensated for the re-sale of the e-book?

How are authors/publishers compensated for e-books in the Amazon Prime lending program? If they are paid (albeit at a lower royalty rate), maybe it could be used as a payment model for the re-sale of the e-books.

Obviously, Amazon's practices have created reason for the content creators to distrust their every move. However, they have also opened up opportunities for authors to realize their dreams to finally become published.

On the other hand, I would love to see a subscription type service as proposed by Lauren B at 12:29.

My first reaction was Yikes. No Way! But after reading some of the suggestions posted, I can see there are some compatible alternatives such as Lauren B.'s subscription model and Isaiah's idea of placing a time restraint before you can resale and/or the number of resales. (I really like this one.)

Nevertheless, if the author and publisher aren't being compensated then there are definately issues that need to be addressed before Amazon moves foreward, if they decide to do so.

Might as well just blog and give the story away for nothing. At least that way you don't have to pay for a cover and editing.

I think the best thing to do is to sell eBooks as a package with the real books. I want to own the hard copy, but I don't want to also have to buy the eBook. I'd gladly pay a little more on the normal price of a book if it included both. I don't like the idea of reselling 'used' eBooks, because like you say, there is nothing truly 'used' about them.

I think reselling ebooks would be fine as long as authors get a royalty each time the book sells. It wouldn't be right for Amazon (or any seller) to make money without compensating the creator.

Electronic files and hard copy books are apples and oranges-- or maybe apples and blue jeans. They aren't the same thing and it's ridiculous to pretend they are.

I guess some LIMITED version of passing it on--you read it, then gift it to someone--that would match how a lot of readers use books, fits what I make sense. I don't think you should be able to sell one (though I suppose if you made a private deal for the gifting, that is up to you) but once it is gifted, it can't be gifted again, and if it was a 'promotional' version (free or seriously discounted) then the 'gifting' could be removed if the author/publisher decided.

Or maybe the gifting (or a few extra rounds of borrowing) would be an add-on purchase the original eBook purchaser could buy... it is $2.99 but for $3.99 you can lend it up to three times or gift it when you're done.... something like that.

Nathan wrote: For me personally, it's hard to wrap my head around what a "used" digital files even means. A digital copy does not get worn, the pages don't yellow over time, there are not dog-eared corners. A "used" digital copy is exactly like a brand new digital copy. The idea of "used" digital anything is pretty meaningless.
-------
I saw Scalzi's response and reposted it around because it was a thoughtful rant (and I'm a professional writer with e-books and audiobooks too).

But when I saw this item on the problem, I remembered one other thing that makes "used" print books more valuable than pristine ones.

If a famous person (or subsequently famous person) has annotated a book with underlines and/or marginal comments, or if the author him/herself has added marginalia -- THAT copy becomes more valuable than a clean print copy.

One feature with Amazon Kindle that I'm using is the "share" feature that lets you highlight and "share" (with folks "following" you on Amazon Share who also have that book) snatches of text from the book.

The only books where I've seen others sharing text excerpts are some Harry Potter.

You can also insert a "comment" on shared text.

Those shares are not "attached" to your copy, but to the title. Anyone who has that title and is following you can see your shares. You can also post shared excerpts to Facebook and twitter.

Reading is becoming a social networking experience.

It's possible Amazon plans to develop something that allows you to sell "used" copies with access to some commentary by (whoever?).

Or maybe they just want to be sure nobody else can if Amazon doesn't do this?

First of all, the author has been paid for that sold book. Should the author then be paid again for the same book that has been purchased? If that's the case, then library book sales would be highly illegal. Second hand bookstores wouldn't have a business. Authors will find every reason to try to make a dime on everything they can.

Does Calvin Klein get money on clothing that is sold at a goodwill or Salvation Army? No, he's already been paid for the sale of the clothing. Same thing with ebooks. Once the book is purchased, it should be able to be sold back or resold. Now, I'm anti-Amazon, so I don't think they should make a profit off of it. Maybe collect a fund to help save libraries or something. Which yeah, I know will never happen.

I'll probably piss off a lot of authors, but really should you make double off of one book every time it switches hands?

This would be a disaster for both publishers and writers. It might be disastrous for Amazon too if their profits from used digital eBooks don't compensate them for the loss of writers who will flee to sites where their eBooks can only be "rented" rather than purchased. Unless Amazon is confident that they have such a large market share that their position is unassailable, they may want to make sure their author's pocketbooks stay full enough to keep them from being lured away.

Laura @6:31:

Well, I'm not pissed off, but I am scratching my head at your reasoning.

You said that "the author has been paid for that sold book. Should the author then be paid again for the same book that has been purchased?"

However, what has been sold was not the book, rather what has been sold is the right to read the book digitally on your e-reading device. We aren't talking about an item which loses value once it has been accessed, such as a car rolling off a lot or a pair of pants. We are talking about the intellectual property of a written manuscript, as well as the art (if applicable).

By the same logic, music, once purchased, should be free to be distributed in all avenues without any compensation to the songwriters and artists. And if you purchase a CD, that is applicable. However, when a song is played in a venue, streamed on the internet, or even covered by another band and sold, the artist is paid royalties for his intellectual property.

The same should be true of books. Certainly, a book which suffers wear and tear after an initial read and is then resold has diminished its value to such an extent that it poses no great threat to the sales of an author's work. But an e-book, which does not diminish in value for any reason except perhaps time, poses a great threat to the author if it can be acquired at a cheaper price by cutting out the royalties.

In other words, an author's got to eat.

Isaiah Campbell:

In other words, an author's got to eat.

If I had a dollar for every time I heard that saying. Lawyer Milloy said the same thing when he wanted more millions from the New England Patriots. They traded him.

Why shouldn't we treat e-books as physical books? We pay just about the same amount for most of them. Considering it costs next to nothing to upload a document to site.

I also don't like "However, what has been sold was not the book, rather what has been sold is the right to read the book digitally on your e-reading device. We aren't talking about an item which loses value once it has been accessed, such as a car rolling off a lot or a pair of pants. We are talking about the intellectual property of a written manuscript, as well as the art (if applicable)."

If I'm paying $20 (The Casual Vacancy) for the right to READ a book, then I might as well just buy the damn hardcover and be done with e-books all together, because according to you, I'm basically renting it anyway?

I'm not trying to take money away from an author, I'm trying to help the consumer who gets completely lost in this myriad of challenges of the digital world. Scratch your head, but eventually there will be a backlash.

So all the books I've purchased for my Nook, I don't own, I've just been given the "right" to read it?

No. It's hard for authors as it is to make any money on hard copies. Especially first time writers to get a break. I say stick to the hard copy books. I have my first novel available through Amazon and Barnes and Noble and both have asked if I would consider ebook. I said no...more money for them and minimal to zero for the author.

If authors aren't being compensated for the reselling, then there have to be some sort of boundaries set. Otherwise, no one will want to go through the hassle of getting published. What if, if you bought it used but then could not resell it. So you can pass it on, but it can only be passed on once. I also agree with the poster who said there should be some sort of time limit on how soon you could resell it so that it wouldn't bite into new book sales.

DRM is annoying if you can't get a book on to your own device, but other than that, I think it serves a purpose.

This is an issue only because publishers are fighting a rear guard action to maintain the price of ebooks in the ballpark of paper books. This, despite the lack of major costs such as printing, storage, shipping, and returns. A similar situation existed in the early days of PC software when common programs sold for hundreds of dollars. Piracy was rampant. Now, these programs are sold for twenty or thirty dollars, with benefits of online support, and the frequency of piracy is far, far less.

If ebooks commonly sold for a couple of dollars apiece I doubt that a market for used ebooks would exist.

For Laura and those confused about this whole issue.

When you resell a used paper book, you are selling the paper, the ink, and the glue, NOT the content. That is called "The First Sale Doctrine." In fact, you never owned the content of the book. You never had the right to reprint the contents of the book, or sell it as a screen play, or anything else like that.

A digital book is only the contents. If you'd bother to check out the small print when you buy an ebook, you'd see that you aren't buying it, you are licensing the content, and what you can and can't do with that content is included, usually in the DRM information. That usually means you can't loan an ebook, you can't resell an ebook, and you can't post it online for free.

For more details and links to government laws and information on the subject, read my articles on copyright:


“A Reader’s Guide to Copyright,” A simple explanation of what copyright is and what the reader needs to know.

http://mbyerly.blogspot.com/2009/03/readers-guide-to-copyright.html


“The First Sale Doctrine and Ebooks,”  Is it legal to resell or share an ebook?

http://mbyerly.blogspot.com/2009/04/first-sale-doctrine-and-ebooks.html

You can also see my articles on the Kindle used ebook system and what used ebooks outside of a Kindle system would mean for publishing, writers, and readers by clicking on the "copyright " label.

Patents are tricky. For example, there was a patent on something called the Berger Lamp for a long time. It's an infuser that takes impurities from the air and add scent to a room. They were very expensive for a long time because of this patent. When it ran out, everyone started selling them and they became more afforadable.

With that said, the odds are Amazon acquired this very important patent to keep others from selling used e-books. Whether or not Amazon will implement this is another question. Many large corporations acquire patents and never use them. They just want to hold them so no one else can use them. If that's the case, it's another brilliant move on Amazon's part.

However, if they want to start selling used e-books, and if authors are not going to get royalties, they are playing a different game now than they were with used print books. Authors and publishers can offset this by selling their own "used" e-books at a fraction of the cost. Or, authors could actually give away these books for free and cut Amazon completely. If it is done, it will create a large stir. But I don't see it happening anytime soon. Now, if one of the big six had been paying attention, they would have acquired the patent and never used it so Amazon wouldn't get it. But Amazon, as usual, is on top of everything.

Obviously, this won't happen. It would actually destroy Amazon's book business, which would do immense harm to their business as a whole.
Seriously... there'd be no ebooks produced, apart from a few rubbish ones by desperate self publishers.
No publisher who needs to make money – which is most publishers – will produce ebooks if this starts happening.
It won't be able to happen to previously sold books, because they weren't sold, only the license to download and read them was sold. So we who've bought them so far can't resell them.
So.
How would this work if it were to be implemented?
Some numbers.
Numbers are good.
Best case scenario for author/publisher...
Consumer buys $10 ebook from Amazon. Author/publisher share $7 however their contract states. Amazon make $3.
Consumer reads book, sells it back to Amazon for, say $4. Attractive deal for consumer. It only cost her $6 for the book.
Amazon sells the "used" copy, which is a faultless brand new copy of course, for, say $8.
Consumer loves this. Gets $10 book for $8. Amazon makes $4 on second-hand copy. More than they made on the new one.
At this point Author/publisher have made $7, and Amazon have made $7 from that one copy.
2nd owner of book sells it back to Amazon for $4.
Turned out a good deal for 2nd owner. It only cost them $4 to read the book.
Amazon sells it to 3rd Consumer for $8.
Amazon has now made a profit of $11 on a book that sells for $10 new.
Much more than the publisher and author combined.
At this point one book has profited the producers of the book.
Repeat forever.
So the publisher/author would sell very few copies of an ebook, and as this production would ensure a loss rather than a profit, they would not produce any ebooks at all, only print books.
Amazon would only try this if their ultimate goal was to stop ebooks being produced.
Probably not Amazon's business model is it?

You can't sell "used" music files on itunes, and I doubt this will ever come to fruition either. Since you've really just bought a license to read a book's content, not bought the book itself, it doesn't make sense to sell "used" e-books.

I heard on the news a couple of weeks ago about a library in Texas that has gone all digital -- it's reportedly the first digital library in the country. They will have a physical location, but it'll be a place where people can go and use Kindles, Nooks, etc. I guess that means they're going to loan e-books.

Libraries have to buy books in order for their patrons to check them out. Is it possible for publishers to work with libraries or maybe even come up with a new model for consumers to be able to share their "used" ebooks and the publishers still reap some benefit?

No, no, no, no, no. This is not cool.

Being a part of the anti-DRM crowd, I have to say it's not the same thing, either (not saying you said that, just ...).

Pirates will still pirate, and people who understand that we must financially support creative works if we want more cool creative works will still pay.

The only difference is who gets the money. I'd rather see it going to writers and publishers than digital distribution behemoths like Amazon. As much as I love Amazon, and I shop there a lot, they've already taken a big enough piece of the publishing pie.

I'm confused how this 'technology' differs from Kindle Direct Publishing, in which Amazon Prime members can "lend" books to others, in a "lending library," all digital and virtual, with no extra compensation to the writers?

On the other hand, do writers/publishers currently get some compensation for resale of their books, by either used book stores or even, for example, the bookstores that buy and sell textbooks?

Perhaps the time has come to allow such virtual resale, with some compensation from the seller going to the writer, again? I see no reason, in the digital world, why the publisher needs to benefit from resales suddenly if they haven't until now...:)

But I share your concern/confusion as well. Since a "digital" used book is essentially the same as a new one, I can see the incentive among, say, Kindle users to keep or reopen some memory on their devices--the equivalent of clearing unwanted used books from your shelves--and get compensated.

But not the writers or publishers?
:)

Here's a new twist on the issue: ReDigi is a company also looking to get into the used e-books sale. But with their sales, authors and publishers would get a cut with every sale--and that's part of what makes it even legally trickier, because giving the author and publisher a cut sort of violates the "Right of First Sale" doctrine. (Source: Publishers Weekly, "Sale of Used E-Books Getting Closer," Judith Rosen Feb. 16 2013.)

If an e-book is going to be resold, I'd rather the author and publisher get a cut. As a reader starving for more books but keeping an eye on a too-short budget, I like the idea of more affordable reading. I'll pay full-price for authors I know I like, but if I'm looking for a new author, or faced with an intriguing book from an unknown? I'm more likely to buy if it's cheap enough I can still spend the extra on an author I know I love.

But as a writer, I will pay full price to support other authors whose works I know I like, whenever I can afford to buy new. The conundrum comes when facing the question of whether or not most other people will, too.

I think it's such a complicated question because the impulse is to try to create the ebook market in the image of the paperback book market.

Not sure that can be done because, as you point out, the two are such different animals and yet, as a reader I do want to be able to treat my digital books just like my paperback ones, loan them to friends etc.

At the moment, pre-coffee, I don't have a great solution to offer, but thanks for giving me something interesting to think about on this rainy Friday.

This comment has been removed by the author.

I don't think this conversation should overlook what happened with the shift in music and piracy. Conceptually, the music industry didn't mind if I made a copy of a cd for a friend for free (peer to peer was ok). This was in no way controversial, and completely impossible to regulate. The issue really was when strangers were introduced to the equation with mp3 sharing. I think it's reasonable to understand why that is controversial.

So with my ebooks (as with all my content), I feel like I should be able to transfer my license (for a fee or for free) to someone within my network (there should be an easy way to regulate this - immediate family and an approved list of friends in order to limit it so everything isn't available to all my facebook friends), and I'm ok not having the right to do the same with a stranger.

Also, if we look at the developments in dvds over the last decade, we've seen how the studios are including enhanced content that's only available if you buy the movie or tv show. If ebook licenses do become transferable, we may start to see enhanced content available only to the first buyer - a way to incentivise the purchase. Also, probably windowing so the original purchaser couldn't transfer their license immediately.

Assuming that Amazon is attempting to offer the ability to re-sell Kindle-formatted books across Kindle devices, then they do actually have the ability to ensure that the original "owner" no longer retains a copy. They control the content and the cloud and can make sure that you remove all locally downloaded copies before re-selling.

(Yes, yes, rooted/jail-broken devices and PC's used by slightly more tech-savvy folks could easily be used to cicumvent the issue...just as with DRM and DVD copying and all that).

Now, having said that, I suspect that Amazon is first going to use this to scare sense into publishers who attempt to charge hardcover prices for new e-books (actually, I think the fact that this is getting publicity IS their scare attempt). If the publishers are going to insist on charging paper prices for electronic content, then perhaps the electronic content should come with the same resale rights as the paper.

If Amazon has the patent on the technology, and finds the legal right to do so, they could easily threaten to allow re-sale of those overpriced books. If you were a publisher, what would you do?

Also, digital content CAN age, can deteriorate, can become obsolete. Anyone have a PC game sitting on 5 1/2" floppy disks? Think you're going to play that again someday?

I'm not saying that I agree one way or another on whether this is good. Just suggesting a potential motivation.

No, I'm not reselling the paper, ink, and the glue. I am reselling the content if I resell a paper book. Because when I go to the thrift store or used book store, I am not buying a collection of glue, ink, and paper. I'm buying the content. I'm buying the book. I'm buying what the author wrote at a price point I can afford and in a manner that authors and publishers have no control over. Consequently, when I buy an ebook, I'm not buying a collection of zeroes and ones, I'm buying the content. To say otherwise is silly, no matter what the proper definition of publication rights might be.

I've always thought e-books should function like movies. Buy the book outright for $10-$20, or rent the book (for 21 days) for $3.99-ish. I get a lot of my e-books now through Overdrive, but I hate waiting. I would gladly pay 4 bucks to avoid the wait, but not thrilled about paying $15 for a book I'll read once and forget about.

Interesting question and comments.

I sort of feel like doing a 'wait and see' on this. For example, Amazon may never use the patent - as a commentor above said, they may just be tying up the rights.

If it does try re-sales, it may reimburse authors for them. There's no reason why it wouldn't, it gives the bulk of every sale to the indie author (and quite abit to the publisher) anyway. Amazon does not appear to be interested in bilking the author.


And/or - Amazon may decide to offer subscription for used book exchanges.

Or - It may ask authors to participate voluntarily, like Prime. Some authors might agree for the discoverability.

Or - Amazon may not even know what Amazon is going to do yet. :)

Should be interesting!

In different news, I'm halfway through the new Jacob book, Nathan. Wow, fast paced and fun. Loved the 'elephant in the room' - too clever, Nathan. :D

One of the greatest pleasures in life is browsing in a physical bookshop or library - picking up a book, turning the pages, feeling the smoothness of the paper under your fingers. E-books may have a place but they will never replace the tactile experience of "book" - and what happens when your magical electronic equipment breaks down?
There has to be a place for both but I think there will have to be legislation to prevent the sale of books for 20p. That has to come from us through our elected politicians in the end - and it is going to take a lot of work. I just hope we are up for the job!

I haven't a clue how it's to be fixed, but thank you for laying this mess out so clearly.

I'm with you on this, Lucy - I insist on keeping my ebooks priced far higher than 20p - believing that they are worth far more than that. I'm sure I'd sell more if they were cheaper - but hey ho, that's my choice.

I know someone who makes a point of only buying v cheap books - 20p or less - on the basis that if she doesn't like them she hasn't lost much. While i look to pay more, as I want to read writers who think like I do!

But as long as there is a free market in ebooks the prices will continue to be pushed down. It seems unlikely that any international body will ever have enough clout - or enough concern about this system - to challenge this. We live in a world where the market rules.

Which leaves it to writers to cling onto any principles they may have. And to readers to select books according to quality and not price. And to newspapers, magazines, etc to review as many sensibly-priced books as possible. And to schools to help children discover books of all genres, and hopefully cherish them enough to keep prices higher. We can dream.

And the very best of luck to Dan Holloway.

Sadly, I don't see anyone legislating against 20p books, catdownunder - it's not a vote-winner, is it? There are more readers than writers...

Lucy, I agree with you but feel there are a few reasons not to despair yet (unless they also allow resale of said e-books without a cut for author/publisher). We could all buy cheap crappy food from value ranges, but we don't. Perhaps paper books will become more of a premium item that, after the initial excitement of showing off about having a Kindle or an iPad, people will like to be seen with.

Also, when books are cheap I buy mpre. I buy books I wouldn't have bought at all. I might not ever read them, but they're useful to have around in case I'm stuck somewhere (like waiting in the Apple Store yesterday!) with nothing to do. If there is a book I specifically want, I order if from Foyles online (not Amazon) unless I happen to be in town and can go to the bookshop. So I wonder how many of the 20p books are actually bought by people who would never have bought the book at all? I don't expect people wait to see if the book they want is on a 20p deal in a few months. Thought I suppose there might be collateral damage - that people might not buy other books they would have bought because they already have enough to read? Not sure.

(But we know *plenty* of people who have rushed to plug their self-published e-books on Amazon at low prices or nothing 'to get sales/readers'. That's not something that started with commercial publishers.)

Lucy, while I completely agree that under-pricing leads to undervaluing and that that is a a bad thing in lots of ways, I still don't think you need to worry about the other aspects, viz the move away from physical books leading to disappearance of print books.

Your para beginning, "Just think about this for a moment. ...." BUT, how likely is it that the actual book he was desperate to read, (though not so desperate that he wouldn't just buy it in the bookshop or even on Amazon) is going to be the book in the daily deal? I agree that many people are drawn by price, but there are a whole load of readers who read because they want to read particular books and as long as they can afford them or borrow free from a library, they will. The 20p promotion is a good way to let people try things, but once desire has been created, people will pay a reasonable price.

I think if books are attractive enough and good enough and not TOO expensive, people will still buy them. The "you get what you pay for" theory, while by no means fool-proof, is powerful and very often true. Publishers are currently working hard and often very successfully to make books more attractive and desirable. Many publishers do a fantastic job from acquisition to production and then publicity. I've recently been drawn inexorably towards new books because of the elegant and genuine praise of them pre-publication, in all sorts of arenas. They are beautiful books, written and designed and edited beautifully.

By the way, I'm a Kindle owner but I enjoy reading on the Kindle far less than i did at first. I welcomed ebooks with open arms but now them only if I have to, for various functional reasons; they are not my vehicle of choice.

Sorry, I'm rambling and I'm also using anecdote/personal experience. I'm just saying, I don't think you need to worry too much about books! (Libraries, yes...) But I do agree that we need to be very careful what we give away too cheaply.

Thought-provoking post!

Stroppy and I are channelling...

Great post Lucy we need discussion about this because people will do what they want anyway but having informed discussion raises all sorts of issues that they may not have thought of.
I got a kindle recently and I do enjoy using it for lots of different reasons and I have bought cheap books I would not have paid more for. I also bought one that I had already read (part of a series I enjoyed and had previously borrowed from the library.) It reminded me how much I enjoyed it and I think I will be buying the paper copy of those in the series I don't actually own already.
I have been examining how I use the kindle. It has not decreased the pile of books bought recently to read in paper copies, but I have read quite a number of samples of books on the kindle, some of which I will not want to read, others I will want in paper copies, and some I might just buy if they come up as cheap books on the kindle.
I am not particularly keen to pay a lot for a book on my kindle because I would rather have the paper copy if I am paying more.
Not sure why that makes sense to me, but it does!
I was on the train the other day and I took a book with me rather than my kindle, but it was a slim copy - not heavy book!

I do think it is like when videos first came out and everyone said we would no longer be going to the cinema to see films. I think it will even out and people will use the kindle as an addition to and not instead of paper copies, but as to pricing, who knows where that is going.

Enjoyed this post and have shared it across onto the authors electric sites. Many independently publishing e-authors have been quietly raising the price of their products from the 99p levels of the early days and feel at least as threatened by the 20p promotions as trad published authors. Free promotions are not now seen as a route to success though some authors use them skilfully to promote their range of titles. The other development now in the world of indie authors is using Amazon's createspace technology to produce paper versions of e-titles. The quality of these is not unacceptable but of course they are only available through Amazon and there is little scope for a trade discount. I'm an independent writer publisher who publishes primarily on paper and sells through bookshops as well as Amazon. As an ex-bookseller I'm happy to say that my print sales still far exceed the electronic versions.

Lucy, thank you for linking to my post.

I would say a couple of things, because my post was about traditional publishing as much as self-publishing. I agree, traditionally published authors are somewhat at the mercy of publishers on this - but publishers do have choices, and we're already seeing small publishers ahve considerable critical and commercial success by positioning themselves to stand for quality and a host of other values - Peirene, for example, with their beautiful subscription packages, And Other Stories, whose exquisite books are sourced through reader collectives, Bluemoose promoting "non-metropolitan voices", Melville House almost single-handedly rebranding the novella, McSweeney's pusing the limits of what books can be. I think this is a trend that will continue (i've argues elsewhere that large trends tend to trigger smaller but significant oppositional trends, and I think this focus on quality, and on values is a natural reaction to the downward drive of ebooks).

I would add as a coda to this that it's not quite true that authors are simply flotsam. For years, those authors who wrote difficult to place, slightly awkward and non-standard books (the kind of thing now being championed by small presses) were told they had a simple choice - carry on doing it exactly as they wanted and carry on being un- or self-published or change and write what publishers wanted. It would be disingenuous, given there are small presses championing quality values, to claim that authors don't have the exact same option of changing what they write to appeal to them (though, as one of those who chose not to write for teh mainstream, I quite understand why people wouldn't want to change what they write - just that just as I was always told I was making a choice, so, in a way, are authors who stick to writing for the bg houses ).

My second point and I think the most fundamental point is about your comment:
"I do want to be fairly rewarded for my efforts, and that includes readers paying a reasonable price for my work."
Ignoring some of the usual points about what "fairly rewarded" means, I think it would be really good to start having an open and honest debate about whether there really is a necessary connection between the reward given to writers and the price paid by readers. It's so much taken for granted that there is that most times I mention it to people they look at me liek I'm stupid or have somehow missed the point, but I genuinely think it's possioble to go back to first principles and look again from scratch at the way writers are paid - there is a very interesting session on this at this year's Oxford Literary Festival that I think will raise some eyebrows (http://oxfordliteraryfestival.org/literature-events-2013/Tuesday-19/writing-and-publishing-on-line-a-new-age-for-fiction-and-poetry)

Hooray! This is exactly what I hoped would happen - a lively and informed discussion on the topic. Thank you all so much for joining in.

Crabbit - I think people will PROBABLY pay a reasonable price for print. My example of Mr Average was possibly a little disingenuous, but people do definitely shop around for the best prices - that's what all those comparison websites are for, and it's quite usual nowadays for shoppers to use a physical shop to examine a product, and then buy it more cheaply online. Because of the Amazon discount deals, books, however much we think they are different and special, are now seen as price-sensitive units, and 'the cheaper the better' mantra is still king of the consumer arena (except, currently, in the ready meal beef arena!).

It's interesting that Linda said she downloaded a book from a series she'd already read - and will now probably buy the series in print. On the e-book front, there is strong evidence that readers, if they like a newly discovered author, will want to read more of them, and will therefore be tempted to download a sequel immediately. I hope that some at least may decide that, like Linda, they'd rather have the books in print form and pay for that.

I've followed this discussion with interest, but the one thing that hasn't been mentioned is the fact that it is the traditional publishers who are putting up the 20p books. I had a quick check and I notice Ken Follett's Winter of the World is there just now, and I'm sure some books by Peter James have also been there. At the Harrogate Conference last year Peter said the author had no say in whether there books were offered at 20p, it was the publishers' decision. The lowest price an indie author can offer a book is 77p, or if they are part of the Select programme they have several free days, but the 20p book is not an option available to them.

Dan - thank you. You make some very good points and I wish I could go to that OLF session and hear what they have to say - I agree, it will be very interesting. I'd like to know a bit more about what you mean by 'going back to first principles' when it comes to the correlation between reward for writing and price paid by readers. Personally, I'm not going to write for love. I have a family to support and I need to earn from my writing. I know others here will feel the same way. Could you explain what you are suggesting about looking at it again from scratch, please? If there's another model which you think might work, it would be good to hear about it.

Oops, there's a typo in the last post - sorry! There should be their, comes from typing faster than my brain can think!

Sorry, Chris. I should have made that clearer in the piece. Yes, it's the publishers and Amazon who 'choose' the authors to go in the 20p promotions. The authors themselves have no say in it. I think my point about readers enjoying an author they've downloaded cheaply and then buying more books by them at a 'normal' price is what the publishers hope will apply here. It's all about volume of sales. I can see the logic, but my worries still apply!

Hi Lucy,

I meant simply asking the question whether the only way for writers to be paid for their work is by readers paying for their books as they do now. I don't have an answer but I think it's a question we don't think to ask because we have a model of "how it's done" so firmly in our heads. Philippe Aigirain, who's one of the panellists in Oxford, offers teh suggestion of legalising file-sharing and paying writers through collective licensing where everyone pays a small monthly amount for access to high speed broadband and out of that money content creators are paid per download. There are huge flaws in that but it's at least asking the question.

Thanks again, Dan. I see what you mean - we are pretty entrenched in the current system, and you're right - no one does question that because it is such a 'normal' equation. As you say, there are flaws in Phillipe's suggestion - and, of course, it would only work for downloadable material, not for print. I'm going to go away and cogitate now - much food for thought, and, I think, many more questions to answer.

Very interesting post, Lucy, and as you say, much food for thought. It would be interesting to see the volume of sales of other books by an author who has had a book on the 20p list - traditional print editions and as ebooks.
I occasionally buy books for my kindle, which I have to say I love, but I buy far more proper printed books (yes, my house is groaning under the weight of them!). The kindle is reserved for books that I know no one else in my family will read. I also download sample chapters of books, which is uesful as a writer.
My teenager has an iPad, but never reads ebooks on it - it's all about bookshops and printed books. The same goes for almost all his friends, girls and boys alike. Or they use the library...
I'm sure all that will change eventually, but it hasn't got there yet.
Young adults, however, do buy more ebooks than teens.

A storyville documentary on the google books project (on the BBC last night) looked at some of these broader questions raised here - who does knowledge in books belong to and who should pay for it? Where are the limits of the public domain? Is the idea of copyright and royalties still workable in the digital age? It's on iplayer and well worth watching.

Stroppy makes the point that no one's going to legislate against 20p deals because there are more readers than writers. But I'm inclined to think no one's going to legislate because there are so many writers all competing for sales. There is so much material being produced and made available through digital means. Of course it is devalued as a result.

Sadly I think it does mean the end of the paper book, in the long term. They will linger on in a niche market of gift books and illustration-heavy books, much like vinyl records have done, but the mass market of fiction will move almost totally to ebook format. Publishers too will become very different beasts; they will still exist, but will consist of only a handful of Editors and sub-editors arbitrating over quality and the content of lists - they will be the badges of credibility that will help authors to stand out in a world where self-publishers seem almost to outnumber readers.

I give the paperback 20 more years at most. I almost said 10.

Nick, there is a *huge* difference between the book/e-book and the LP/download pairs. All the methods of accessing music and videos require electronic or electrical equipment. You can't look at record and hear the music. A paper book is the only delivery method in any of this debate which requires no technology on the part of the end-user. All you need is daylight (or electric/candle-light). When one technological delivery method supersedes another it is because it offers something superior. In the book/e-book arena, it only offers something different.

I am not sure where we are going with this at all, except that it feels most ominous. The free or low price offers feel a false and dangerous trail to follow but I am not sure what can be done about it.

I am happy to read "series" books on my kindle when I need an escapist fix. I recently enjoyed several Donna Leon's while stressed by other things.

However I do find e-books poor vehicles for any reading that requires a sense of study or concentration or subtle pleasure and have begun buying books in preference to e-books when the book "matters".

I also don't like the fact that I can't pass on or share a book even if that is being made possible.

I thought what Philip Jones of Futurebook had to say in the digital bit of the Bookseller today was very measured, and certainly relevant to this discussion, so am quoting him liberally below:

"A black and white view of the future is actually fairly simple to imagine, which is perhaps why many pioneers come across as zealots. Books will be digital, and those books that are not digital will simply no longer get put in motion. The old ways must bend to the new. Digitalists can then spend their time arguing over enhancements, subscriptions models, DRM, free, and social. Those library users who still want access to published content can simply use the web; or download free e-books from Google's giant 'brain'.

But in debating the future we should try not to take polarised positions, simply because they do not reflect the world as it is. A muddle.

It is likely that a much trickier future will emerge than the one imagined, if it hasn't already. Digital will need to find space along with physical (and yes, vice versa). Business models will need to make sense of both. We will need to supply reading material in lots of different ways, some of them using concepts and materials from the Victorian age. Some things will fall away for sure, but not all things, and there is scant evidence that one of those things that needs to disappear is the library.

Digital changes everything, of course, but it need not kill everything."

The world is indeed a muddle, but we will get through it somehow!

Connected, though, not the same, is the question of the traditionally published author's royalty level on an e-publication. Not a problem for the independent author who will typically be getting 70% on a properly priced book, though paying all his or her own costs. But the traditionally published author is expected to take 20% on an e-book which has NOT cost the publisher very much in the way of production. Chris Longmuir wrote about this in her AK blog today http://www.authorselectric.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/ebooks-are-authors-being-ripped-off.html

(sorry AE, not AK = Authors Electric. The light's fading and I'm too lazy to get up from desk and flick the switch. Will now LEAVE the desk and deal with the animals while there's still a glimmer outside.)

Thanks for that link, Julia. What Chris says is spot on - I've commented on her AE post, but I will say here that the whole e-royalty for traditionally published authors is a mess, and needs sorting fast, or there will be a lot of resentment around (well, there already is!).

I have to say I love reading on my Kindle. I am reading a paper book at the moment, but only because I couldn't get the book on Kindle, and I'm finding the smallness of the print and the stiffness of the book's spine infuriating.
I find the Kindle preferable for research reading - easier to mark places and find them again, and easier to find the book I want!
That said, I do think the immediate future is pretty gloomy.
Every revolution crushed somebody. The Ind Rev resulted in thousands of skilled, independent handloom weavers being ruined.
I think, eventually, the industry will sort itself out, when they realise that killing the goose that lays the shiniest golden eggs is bad business. How long that will take, and how many writing careers will go to the wall before it happens, is anyone's guess.
Personally, I see the 21st Century equivalent of the Workhouse looming before me...So it goes.

'So the thing I worry about most is what is currently happening to the perception of the value of a book.' I can't agree more. Not just as an author [I too earn my living as a writer, or not as the case may be] but as a reader. It's not good for my reading self to see books as cheap fodder rather than the inestimable treasures that they really are. What we need is a campaign to shout about the true value of a book and the powerful and lasting impact it has on a person's life. No artist would expect to give away their life's work for a few pence. Readers shouldn't expect to buy a writer's life's work for a few pence. Dan Holloway's idea of going back to first principles and thinking about how writers are paid is an interesting one, and timely too. Gggrrrr. These 20p jokers make me so FURIOUS. And as my Project Gutenberg piece said, earlier this month, so do the free giveaways too.

I use the Kindle Android app on my smartphone to search and buy ebooks from Amazon. Using the this app and having a small screen means I get less information on potential books and what really stands out when searching is the number of reviews and stars (you can search by minimum number of stars). I suspect traditional publishers may be trying to increase the number of readers, and therefore reviews and stars, by offering 20p books.

I won't buy ebook novels at paperback prices unless it's by a favourite author. However, I have been buying lots more books than I would normally buy, simply because very cheap ebooks mean I'm willing to experiment more.

By the way, I still won't buy ebooks of illustrated books, non fiction and reference books, and poetry books.

I don't know if you saw this, Lucy? Another interesting idea to throw in the mix
http://publishingperspectives.com/2013/02/will-pay-as-you-read-allow-publishers-to-charge-more-for-ebooks/

Another excellent link, Dan - and, again, food for thought. If this pay-as-you-read model does work and become the norm (though I can't see it happening on a large scale for a while, if ever), then perhaps we will return to a Dickensian world where the chapter-end cliffhanger is what has to be mastered by every author. I suppose in a way this is what is happening on the WattPad site, where (as I understand it) authors will only publish the next chapter of their book if enough people have liked/read the previous one.

Fascinating thread to which I come late and to which I don't have anything intelligent to add! I am quite quite sure of one thing though: the printed book WILL survive whatever is thrown at it. In some form or other. It's simply too well designed and too fit for purpose and too BEAUTIFUL as well as useful to disappear. As for the payment for ebooks, 20 p books on Kindle and the like: I KNOW NOTHING!!

I made a list of the top 20 Kindle titles today, and most of them are on the 20p promotion (which is only available to traditional publishers, as others here have noted). How the author makes "hundreds of thousands" is unclear, since out of 20p there can't be much royalty left once publishers, agents, and amazon have had their cut!

I price my backlist ebooks at £2-99. I think low prices are fine for promotions, but should be used sparingly to avoid cheapening the content. Trouble is, once one publisher does it...

...and having just read some of the other comments above, I think there is a danger in pricing low to attract readers who might not otherwise read that kind of book. They might hate it and review accordingly! I've downloaded a few 20p mistakes already, so now I won't download even at that price until I've read the sample.