27 August 2011
The Guardian published this article by Ewan Morrison a few days ago.
What I like best about the article is that it focuses on the economics of publishing, rather than the technology. I agree that the paper book will survive. It will specialize. Certain types of paper books will have sharply reduced print runs and some will disappear altogether, but others, notably the light-entertainment paperback, will continue.
We may also see a sharper differentiation between what is published by established imprints and what is thrown out on the net for free, the latter being significantly devalued in the public’s eye. Self-published books have been long derided as being of inferior quality. After all, if you couldn’t get a publisher to put it out, then it probably isn’t worth reading.* As the public becomes accustomed to the new digital media and its distribution methods, then they’ll start to discriminate among the new media in the same way.
I also foresee a shortening of the copyright period, or because the media conglomerates have such political power and essentially write the laws themselves, perhaps it won’t shorten, but they’ll lose the argument that that piracy is stealing from the “artist.” As Morrison’s article points out, the artist doesn’t make money from the long tail of the backlist. It is only the corporations that distribute books or have snapped up millions of copyrights that can amass enough income from the long tail to make selling that market worthwhile. Copyright durations like life of the author plus seventy years don’t benefit the artist or encourage creation of new works, they instead benefit those who have played no role whatsoever in creation of new works and actually discourages creation of new works because they focus on remarketing the old. Remember that copyright as we know it is a rather new concept.
But the issue of authorial compensation isn’t new. Shakespeare and other Elizabethan playwrights, for instance, got no royalties from their works. Rights to their plays were sold for relatively small one-time sums. Shakespeare managed to amass a fairly sizable fortune not because he was writer, but because he was also an actor. As an actor he owned shares in the theater companies that owned and produced the works. That’s what made him rich. Most other playwrights of his day barely managed to stay out of debt, if they were lucky. These problems have always plagued the industry, and will continue to do so no matter what economic model is in place.
* (28 August): It has been pointed out that this is a gross generalization. There are high-quality books that don’t attract a publisher because the market for them is too small.
(Hat tip: Jonathan Green’s Twitter feed)
