SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

So I'm curious. Thanks to a Google Alert on my name (yeah, I know, I feel icky just admitting it) I've become aware of a bunch of pirate links to my books.

This is strange to me. I didn't even know book piracy was a thing. I guess it must be, but I had no idea.

How big a problem is it, for readers and the industry?

See this thread. You might also try posting your question under the Author Feedback group.

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Except that libraries pay the authors to have those books. Whether through a lending program with returnability, or through digital licensing.

Pirates don't pay the artist (author, musician, film, etc) anything. No, it isn't a huge problem, and in a lot of ways one can argue that if someone pirates your book and likes it, then they are more likely to pay for the next one (that is why authors put the first book in their series out for free, right?)

But will artists continue to create art, when no one values it enough to feed the artist?

Heidi wrote: "Except that libraries pay the authors to have those books. Whether through a lending program with returnability, or through digital licensing.

Pirates don't pay the artist (author, musician, film..."

Nicki is talking about the different types of lending systems. Here in the US the author is paid 1 time for 1 sale (if paper). IF the author is not an SPA because most US libraries don't accept SPA work. So those authors aren't even in the game.

When talking about digital, the major publishers are making it more difficult and more expensive for the library system(s). This means that less and less ebooks are purchased for libraries (which is less and less and less money for authors.


[Some] Other library systems outside the US pay the author per lend.

I understood what Nicki was saying, I was pointing out that it is not like libraries, because libraries DO pay, whereas pirates do not.

Heidi wrote: "Pirates don't pay the artist (author, musician, film, etc) anything. No, it isn't a huge problem, and in a lot of ways one can argue that if someone pirates your book and likes it, then they are more likely to pay for the next one (that is why authors put the first book in their series out for free, right?)

But will artists continue to create art, when no one values it enough to feed the artist?"

OK... Pirates don't "pay" the artist directly for a book they've downloaded. Though neither do people purchasing from secondhand stores, or donation-based shops (like thrift stores) or those getting a book from trading sites like PaperbackSwap, or finding a book on a park bench via BookCrossing, or being given a book from a friend, etc. Authors don't see a dime from those transactions - but it is still someone reading their books for free and maybe liking them enough to buy another. Those are all "lost sales" situations that act as advertising for potential future sales.

I think that Gaiman is right about this. I think people are much more willing to try an unknown if it's free than if they have to "invest" sight-unseen. If they hate their work, then they're out nothing. If they love the work, then they will likely buy it in the future. I actually read a book about the value of free, and it is quite interesting how giving out freebies actually benefits the business rather than hurting it.

Looking at it from another perspective, if one has already purchased a book, perhaps one that they know they love and want to own in physical form, but also want to be able to read digitally because it's more convenient, their options are to either pay again for a book they've already purchased, or "pirate" it.

Some may still think that's wrong, and that's fine. But for every book someone reads and discusses with someone else, there's potential for a sale, regardless of how Person A acquired the book initially.

Finally, I don't think that writers (meaning people who love and are passionate about writing) will stop writing because of piracy. They will write because that's their outlet and what they do. Of course it's great to be paid for doing what we love or are passionate about, but I don't think that there's much risk of piracy edging a writer out unless their work is just terrible and nobody wants to read it. Otherwise, I think their work will stand up to some amount of people getting a freebie, especially if the quality is good enough to make fans out of the people who read it, who will then go out and spread the word.

I do wish that authors were paid according to the quality of their work though. Perhaps then we'd not have so much utter dreck floating around out there. I would happily pay a bit more for books that are well-written than something someone wrote over a drunken weekend and uploaded.

Heidi wrote: "I understood what Nicki was saying, I was pointing out that it is not like libraries, because libraries DO pay, whereas pirates do not."

Uh huh.

So true, Nicki! I would love to see that kind of model in the publishing world. A Priceline-esque Name Your Own Price tool. I think it would have to be more like a lend-to-own model though, because I would want to read the book first in the majority of cases.

Or you can get an extended sample (say like 100 pages) and then you would have to buy the rest. If you are enjoying it, you pay. If not, then don't.

Ahh... Utopia. :P

Anthologies.

A lot of authors misuse and abuse anthologies. But the best (and/or smartest) authors know how to work an anthology. They make 'em free and put in some of their best/popular work.

Then watch the books fly off the shelf.

Heidi wrote: "But will artists continue to create art, when no one values it enough to feed the artist? "

The strange thing about this argument, which we hear a lot, is its timing.
We hear it a lot when it comes to TV, for instance - how piracy is destroying TV. But we hear this argument in an era in which the revenue and profits of TV companies (cable, at least) have been soaring to all-time highs - while HBO was being ravaged by piracy, its profits were increasing by double-digit percentages for year after year. Nor does piracy appear to have damaged the quality. It's generally accepted that there are more good TV shows being created now than at any point in time.

It's harder to tell what's happening with books. There's less book piracy, for one thing. And many parts of the traditional book ecosystem are simultaneously struggling with the transition to digital, the rise of self-publishing, and the difficulty of competing with international corporations falsely claiming to be operating out of tax havens. So there are problems. But is piracy really a big element of that?

The number of people reading books isn't falling, to my knowledge (in fact iirc it's ticked up in the last few years). People's willingness to pay for books doesn't seem to have fallen either (otherwise new books wouldn't be so expensive). So if people are having troubling making money, I don't think it's because of problems with demand. And as for supply, will people continue to write novels? Well, more novels are being written now than at any point in history, even though the vast majority of them reach only tiny readerships.

Will it impact on quality, though? Well, maybe I have a jaded perspective. I listen to classical music. Therefore I'm quite conscious of the fact that for hundreds of years, composers created some of mankind's greatest artistic accomplishments, to a large degree funded through a mix of patronage, day jobs, and the low-rent option of dying of syphilis in a garret. I'm happy with the level of artistic quality that approach can yield...

...and speaking of patronage, I'd just add that a number of webcomic artists have been professional, and in some cases full-time professional, even since before the rise of patreon and kickstarter, either through direct charitable donations or through merchandise sales (which in most cases are motivated more by the desire to donate, I think, than by actual craving for this button or that T-shirt). And they've done that with fanbases that are absolutely tiny compared to those of succesful authors, and despite the fact that their main product has been offered entirely free of charge. I'm not convinced that the pay-first-read-later book-purchase model of author profit is actually endangered... but if it is, I don't think that'll be the end of the story.

Rob wrote: "So I'm curious. Thanks to a Google Alert on my name (yeah, I know, I feel icky just admitting it) I've become aware of a bunch of pirate links to my books.

This is strange to me. I didn't even kno..."

The problem of piracy is rampant and constant. I am not at all a well-known author, but even my unknown stuff has been pirated and put up for free on a bunch of these seemingly self-replicating sites out there. For a time I felt furious and indignant enough to spend hours combating the problem, by writing the site owners very formal threats that I would take legal action if they didn't take my stories down from their sites etc etc etc.

One of them even wrote back with an apology. But after spending even more hours reading in publishing and authors' forums on the subject, I came to realize that receiving an apology, or any reply at all for that matter, is quite rare. Some authors even get laughed at or verbally abused when they complain to these pirates.

After a while I began to realize that there is actually no way to stop the piracy from happening. Period. The site-owners live all over the world, and even those in countries where anti-piracy laws could be enforced are hiding behind VPNs and free website templates. If you were even able to get one of those sites off the web, ten more identical ones would simply pop up in its place, if for no other reason than out of spite for your having been a thorn in the pirate's side. Yes, some of them actually are spiteful like that. And can cause bad press, I would imagine.

A side effect of piracy, as many have mentioned, is that it's free advertising.

And then I watched a video interview of Neil Gaiman on the subject -- Gaiman on Copyright Piracy and the Web -- and that convinced me.

Among other good points he makes, he explains how 1) piracy actually, over time, increases an author's sales. And 2) Those people who got a free copy from a pirate site were never going to spend money to buy your book anyway, so you've actually lost nothing.

I've decided to not try to fight it, and to just accept piracy as an inevitable (and in some ways helpful) aspect of the industry.

'Hope this helps :-)

Nicki wrote: "They pay once for the original copy, which is then lent out without the author receiving any further payments (except in places that pay PLR, and even there, not all authors are eligible). Just like piracy, where a copy is purchased and then shared..."

I think there's a significant difference between public libraries and piracy. Public libraries do pay for their books, and they lend under the constraints of copyright law, whether the books are physical books or e-books. Not only that, public libraries buy multiple copies of physical books. A paper book can go out for about 25 lends before it has to be replaced. Library sales can be a large source of revenue for an author.

A pirate can buy one book, copy it in digital media, then charge below-retail price for it an infinite number of times. Or the pirate can swap it for another pirated book, also for an infinite number of times.

E-books in public libraries are a new wrinkle because they don't wear out like paper books. As far as I know, nobody has figured out an acceptable pricing system yet. Some major publishers are charging double or triple the cost of a physical book for an e-book. (2013 numbers http://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/... )

I think the charge per lend system for e-books at public libraries sounds promising. This writer makes a good case for it.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidvinj...

I liked this blog by a librarian. It's helpful to look at some facts here.
http://www.rachellegardner.com/are-li...

Nicki wrote: "I'd really enjoy a system that allowed people to pay varying amounts for the same work, like a Kickstarter with its differing tiers..."

This is a price discrimination system, and it is every seller's dream. Every buyer would pay the maximum amount he/she would be willing to pay, and the vendor would receive maximum income. This system runs afoul of anti-trust and price-fixing laws in the normal buy-sell market, certainly in the U.S. and probably elsewhere. Instead of one stated price for all buyers, the vendor charges a different price to each different buyer, depending on what the buyer is willing to pay. That's the extreme model. Kickstarter's pledges are voluntary, backing the creation of a project, so it's a different situation.

Free is just that, and it's legal. Piracy is not legal.

Gaiman has an interesting rationale, but a book loaned or given is different from something stolen. So while he is rationalizing it, and it does further some readership (in his case and probably others), it's still illegal.

In a way, though, his coming to terms with it is good, because it's not going away. But there is a difference between 'piracy' (stealing) and free. The distinction needs to be there.

Right, but Gaiman was not saying such illegal activity is "right" or "okay;" he was simply pointing out that it's a rampant issue that's completely out of his control (and out of anyone's control, for that matter). So there is no point in stressing over it. And he points out that on the bright side, piracy had even helped his sales in some countries (Russia, for example), and that the people digging around in the internet for free (illegally so) books were never going to spend money to buy your book anyway, so it's no loss to you.

Some here have mentioned pirates obtaining copies via free promo cycles. While that may happen, I can state for a fact that one of my stories was pirated without me ever having offered it up in a free promo cycle. So, probably, the pirate obtained it via other means, perhaps the Kindle Unlimited lending program etc.

But I also have read about instances whereby pirates who are also hackers have actually obtained copies of books from Googlebooks etc for free without ever paying a cent. I don't know how much truth there is to this, though.

But yes, I agree; just because you can obtain a free copy of a book illegally does not mean you should. Illegal is illegal, and in this particular instance, immoral as well.

I used to get into these conversations all the time.

I'm a big used book buyer. I buy a LOT of used books. I honestly can say that the majority of my library was purchased used.

I also am a heavy library user. Right now I have 7 books checked out and about 8 or so requested/pending.

What always bother me about these conversations is that usually the person who is the most upset is a SPA and/or a small press pub. The author almost always equates their book on a piracy site as real lost sales. The next step is to get said book(s) removed from piracy sites and then the author assumes sales will increase.

But most of the time there is no sales uptick.

So what happens next is that the author starts making noise about how unfair 2nd hand sales are. I've also heard authors complain about libraries. Most of the time these conversations descend into something along the lines of "one book = one person." :-(

MrsJoseph wrote: "I used to get into these conversations all the time.

I'm a big used book buyer. I buy a LOT of used books. I honestly can say that the majority of my library was purchased used.

I also am a heav..."

Yeah, and to be fair, used books eventually end up in yard sales or estate sales or sold back to the used book stores, so around and around the cycle goes; lots of people read those books... and the only ones to profit are the booksellers -- not the author.

Except, in a way, the author does. For example, I bought a few Joe Haldeman books from a secondhand bookstore I used to work at (and at a nice discount, hehehe). Loved them. Ended up wanting to read more by the same author. Saw his Forever Free in a Barnes & Noble or a Borders, can't remember which, and bought it. I paid more for that one brand-new book than I probably had for all the used Haldaman books combined. But I didn't care, because I really wanted to read it. And the author would have received his royalty from my purchase. And now here I am in this thread on Goodreads, talking about him in a positive way, giving him further exposure.

Plus, if all the libraries and used books bookstores were to go away, humanity would have lost yet another chunk of its soul. I don't want to live in a world like that.

Exactamunodo about not stressing.

But rationalizing by saying it increases sales, and asking people to raise their hand about favorite books given vs found browsing is not a good rationale. The next fold in that process is to negate the idea that thievery is wrong period. Then people start thinking, well, why doesn't everyone agree. Because it's wrong.

M.L. wrote: "Exactamunodo about not stressing.

But rationalizing by saying it increases sales, and asking people to raise their hand about favorite books given vs found browsing is not a good rationale. The n..."

A slippery slope, for sure :-)

Nicki wrote: "someone on Goodreads 4.0 will be writing a post about how they wouldn't want to live in a world where you can't download a book. "

...yes, wirelessly and directly to the 8.5 yottabyte hard drive implanted in his or her brain ;-)

Nicki wrote: "Gaines wrote: "...yes, wirelessly and directly to the 8.5 yottabyte hard drive implanted in his or her brain ;-)"

:D

I'll queue for that technology!

(I was looking at RFID chip implantation earl..."

The tech has in development for a while, for retinal implants that receive GPS data, so that when you drive, a little yellow arrow (for example) will pop up in your vision telling you to turn right at the next street, etc. I read about this years ago. I wonder if/when it'll be on the market.

I'm all for used book stores! Donated my hardback of American Gods to the Goodwill. :-)

I loved that book.

Nicki wrote: "CS wrote: "A paper book can go out for about 25 lends before it has to be replaced."

What on earth kind of library replaces a book after only 25 lends? Certainly not any of the ones I live near. My local library still has paperbacks that are the exact same copies I took out as a teenager, and I'm now in my thirties. Paperbacks. The hardbacks will last even longer."


So.

This is terrible.

US TradPub* charges libraries more for books than a regular buyer. But even with that, TradPub decided it wasn't enough. They were not allowing libraries to buy ebooks.

After quite some time, TradPub decided to allow ebook but they were going to A) Charge a lot and B) only allow 25 lends before the book "self destructed" Mission Impossible style.

Which means a lot of libraries don't really invest in ebooks as they should. In my system I'm much more likely to run into an audio than an ebook.

Because I know how precious ebook lends are, I try to rarely borrow ebooks from my system. I go ahead and take the L and do inter-library loans for DTBs.



*TradPub = Traditional Publishers. Not all of them did this but I forget which ones.

Wow. Ouch.

Agreed ~

My library does an excellent job of getting ebooks, which means I use them all the time... which means I now feel a tad bit guilty. Especially about the ones I return unread. Not to use a Doctor Who quote or anything, but - NO MORE!

I wish I had known that awhile ago.

Nicki wrote: "What on earth kind of library replaces a book after only 25 lends? Certainly not any of the ones I live near..."
I'm using the estimate in the librarian's blog (link posted above). My public library refreshes its collection regularly. The library also replaces books that have been damaged or vandalized.

Nicki wrote: "Voluntary pledges are exactly what we were talking about, just like Kickstarter..."
If you're saying that people can make voluntary donations to authors in addition to the uniform stated book price, I don't have a problem with that, and I expect neither would the U.S. Attorney General.

Nicki wrote: "...I used to spend a good 3 months out of the year in a country where, up until a year or so back, downloading copyrighted material for personal use was perfectly legal."

In the U.S., limited copying of copyrighted material can be legal under the "fair use" exception. It's typically a single use for the person copying it for personal or educational purposes, and certainly not for sale or swap or other mass distribution. But it sounds like the downloads in the country you mentioned were whole books or shows or something else that would have infringed copyright if done in the U.S.

We don't know how authors' revenues from royalties would change if public libraries did not lend. Isn't that the issue? People might choose not to read the book at all, or they would just acquire a pirated copy. All those library borrowers would not automatically become book buyers. Maybe even most of them would not become book buyers.

Assume there's a hardcover book I'd like to read that retails for $25. I'm not going to buy it at that price. I'm unwilling to buy a copy at the discounted Amazon price also. But I'm curious about the book and I'm willing to borrow it at the public library, being one of its potential 25 users before it has to be replaced. Through my taxes, I'm paying about a dollar to read a used book I don't own. A royalty payment from that "price," small as it is, represents money the author would not otherwise have gotten from me. Collectively, these amounts can be a tidy sum for an author whose book is purchased by the public libraries.

CS wrote: "We don't know how authors' revenues from royalties would change if public libraries did not lend. Isn't that the issue? People might choose not to read the book at all, or they would just acquire a..."

Or illiteracy could go up and there would be less book sales all together. That's what's important to me about libraries.

Nicki wrote: "Becky wrote: "I do wish that authors were paid according to the quality of their work though. Perhaps then we'd not have so much utter dreck floating around out there. I would happily pay a bit mor..."

You mean patreon??????

There are a few webnovel authors I support though there and they give their stuff out free but if you want to donate you can.

Nicki wrote: "No, I'm saying that it would be interesting if there were a platform in which users could voluntarily select the price of the item, exactly as done by Humble Bundle for years now, which apparently hasn't bothered the US Attorney General either." (Although why you're bringing the US, where I do not dwell, into this, I don't know, but then I mentioned the US-centrism of these views upthread. Welcome to the internet, many of us are in other countries).

OK, I get what you're saying. The price is chosen voluntarily by the buyer from $.01 to whatever. It would be different if the seller set the price. Also, I mention the U.S. because I can speak more knowledgeably about the situation in my own country. I leave it up to others in the UK and elsewhere to explain how it's done in their countries. I also assumed from your post that you were considering a system like this worldwide on the Internet, not only for the UK, so the US would be affected.

Aaron wrote: "There are a few webnovel authors I support though there and they give their stuff out free but if you want to donate you can. "

Are you sure it's the authors that are giving their stuff out for free? And not pirates pretending to be the authors? Is there a subscription fee?

CS wrote: "Through my taxes, I'm paying about a dollar to read a used book I don't own."

If ONLY libraries got that big a percentage of taxpayers' money!! Although, I'm afraid, they are more likely getting far less than a cent from you, if you do the math :-)

Nicki wrote: "Fair enough; it sounds like we had a bit of crossed wires there. Sorry about that. :)"

Same here. Sorry from my end also. Mix-ups and limitations from writing on a msg board. :-)

Incidentally, and speaking of differing situations across various countries, piracy / free books on the internet / extremely low prices / etc etc are such a huge thing in China that Amazon has barely been able to get a foothold in that market, and it has been there since 2004 when it bought out Joyo. It's had to funnel enormous funds just to keep from having to close its virtual doors there, and pretty much any other corporation would have given up by now. Even including cross-border purchases (ones made from overseas customers not living in China), Amazon.cn's market share is absolutely tiny; as of last year, it was around 1.1%. (yes, that's a decimal point between those 1s lol)

Part of the problem is that exactly because of China's history with online books (in fact, the entire concept of online book sales was invented in China), including piracy, the online serialization of novels, batch downloads, etc etc, years ago the big corporations there had to create an online marketing mechanism that was completely different from what is now the norm in most other countries. Subscription services abound; for decades people there have been able to pay a small monthly sum and have access to a very large number of publications (tons of domestic publications, although the selection of allowed overseas publications is limited; refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interne... for an overview). This system has been in place there since the '90s. Sure, Amazon has more recently invented a similar system with its Amazon Prime and Kindle Unlimited etc, but basically that competition with established internet giants in China, as well as the much lower prices readers there are willing to spend on a book or a chapter of a serial, have combined to practically shut Amazon and other overseas corporations out of the market.

It will be interesting to see how the situation changes, both within China and abroad. No country exists in complete isolation, after all; China's system affects the rest of the world, just as America's does, etc etc etc. All these systems interact and cause change within each other.

Becky wrote: "I do wish that authors were paid according to the quality of their work though. Perhaps then we'd not have so much utter dreck floating around out there. I would happily pay a bit more for books that are well-written than something someone wrote over a drunken weekend and uploaded. "

I'm guessing you're the one who gets to choose?

"Amount of time in the writing" has nothing to do with quality, and what you consider "good" or "bad" is likely going to be VASTLY different from what other people think.

M.L. wrote: "I'm all for used book stores! Donated my hardback of American Gods to the Goodwill. :-)"

Goodwill is a scam, you know. People supply those stores with product for free, and anything they charge is a 100% mark-up. On top of that, they pay disabled employees pennies - literal pennies (source: my disabled cousin worked there for 25 years) - nevermind the minimum wage, and our tax dollars support it. Meanwhile, their executives earn huge paychecks and the owner is a billionaire.

So by supporting Goodwill, you are supporting a practice far worse than piracy.

I have to hand it to him, though: calling it "Goodwill" is brilliant. Pure evil, but brilliant.

Trike wrote: ""Amount of time in the writing" has nothing to do with quality, and what you consider "good" or "bad" is likely going to be VASTLY different from what other people think."

Well, that is generally how subjective opinion works. And while I may agree with you that amount of time spent writing doesn't equal quality (there are, I'm sure, books that authors have spent years writing that still aren't all that good) I'm not quite willing to assume that a book written and published over a weekend would be anywhere near what I would call "quality".

As far as payment, yes, I would choose to pay less (or nothing) for crappy books. Wouldn't you?

Trike wrote: "Goodwill is a scam, you know. People supply those stores with product for free, and anything they charge is a 100% mark-up. On top of that, they pay disabled employees pennies - literal pennies (source: my disabled cousin worked there for 25 years) - nevermind the minimum wage, and our tax dollars support it. Meanwhile, their executives earn huge paychecks and the owner is a billionaire."

That's sad. Well, as far as I know, Lifeline (which is a big thing here in the Australia, as well as the UK and South Africa from what I understand) is a great place to donate books to; the profits all go to charity. Sure, most of their part-time employees are volunteers (the ones who help out at the giant book fairs held twice annually, for example), but the full-time ones earn a real wage. I seriously doubt it's lower than fair, because that sort of thing would be noticed and called out pretty quick in this country. (Case in point: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-09-17... -- soon after that happened, several (if not all?) Chili's franchises in the area shut down. I haven't seen one around for years.)

M.L. wrote: "Exactamunodo about not stressing.

But rationalizing by saying it increases sales, and asking people to raise their hand about favorite books given vs found browsing is not a good rationale. The n..."

An important clarification: copyright violations are not theft. They're not "stealing" and they're not "thievery".

That's not radical anti-copyright propaganda, that claim: that's the US Supreme Court, and other courts elsewhere. Copying books without permission of the author may be illegal in many countries, but it isn't the same sort of crime as theft. And morally, of course, the two things are entirely unrelated. People have constructed arguments for why copying is inherently morally wrong (they're wrong arguments, obviously, but they're arguments), but there's no way you can contort it into being a form of theft. Theft is depriving a person of possession of an item. Making an additional copy of that item is not depriving anyone of it - just as me building an identical replica of your house would not be me "stealing" the house.

[If someone says it's theft because the author is deprived of the right to refuse to allow copying of the work... well then all immoral acts are "theft", because they deprive someone (or something) of their rights, and the term becomes meaningless. It also begs the question of whether authors have a right to refuse replication. Morally, legally and historically speaking, I think most people recognise that the right to forbid replication of certain types of work (but not others) in certain cases (but not others) is not a fundamental moral human right, but a legal privilege granted by some countries (but not others) in order to encourage creative work. It is therefore inherently open to question and reconsideration whether that privilege is effective, and whether it continues to be necessary, and in what form.]

Gaines wrote: "part of the problem is that exactly because of China's history with online books (in fact, the entire concept of online book sales was invented in China), including piracy, the online serialization of novels, batch downloads, etc etc, years ago the big corporations there had to create an online marketing mechanism that was completely different from what is now the norm in most other countries.

huh. I didn't know this.

I did know that ebooks were originally created for disabled people - I want to say mainly for the blind - but the ease of use, cheap expense (etc) over time made them very popular.

Actually, that's one of the reasons I get PO'd when companies try to kill of text to speech. Accessibility is very important to me and that's just a ploy to get more money from those who can afford it least. The blind/physically handicapped often don't have our abled choices.

Wastrel wrote: "An important clarification: copyright violations are not theft. They're not "stealing" and they're not "thievery"..."

Copyright infringement is not "theft" as a court of law would see it. But a person who makes and distributes illegal copies can be subject to civil and criminal penalties (damages and fines). Copyright law gives authors some rights to control and protect their intellectual property, and to profit by it.

Gaines wrote: "If ONLY libraries got that big a percentage of taxpayers' money!! Although, I'm afraid, they are more likely getting far less than a cent from you, if you do the math :-) "

How are you calculating the numbers? I'm trying to figure out how much an author receives in royalties from the book I borrow from the library. It's not really "free," since the library must purchase the book at full price or higher, and the author receives royalties off the purchase price.

From the librarian's blog (link posted upthread), a paper book may be used for 25 lends. HarperCollins requires renewal of license for an e-book after 26 lends (link posted upthread). My hypothetical, for a book that costs $25, divided by 25 users, each user accounts for $1 of that book in library costs before it is discarded and a replacement is purchased. That's how much the library is paying in book purchase price for me so I can borrow and read that book. The library makes this purchase with tax dollars.

What is the standard royalty now? 10%-15%? Say the author gets a $3 royalty from that book. Because of my demand for that book, he/she receives $3 divided by 25 users, or $.12 per book per user in royalties paid to author. Hypothetical, of course. Not much individually, but a healthier sum in royalties for all library copies everywhere.

The budget for my library, Contra Costa County Public Library, Ca, was approx $30 million this year, of which approx $26 million (87%) was paid for by property taxes. The county has 1.1 million residents, but not all are paying property taxes. The total county budget was $269 million, of which the public library budget was approx 9%. It's a chunk of change, and I'm glad to pay my share of it. It's a great library, a wonderful community resource, and worth every dollar.

CS wrote: "How are you calculating the numbers? I'm trying to figure out how much an author receives in royalties from the book I borrow from the library. It's not really "free," since the library must purchase the book at full price or higher, and the author receives royalties off the purchase price. "

So. The amount of money allocated to libraries varies from area to area - and these areas can vary. My area would normally be the entire county I live in...but the "city" I live in has some kind of special set up in that it is only partially attached to the county. We supply our own "stuff" from library budgets to police officers (in this area counties share the county police but my city has it's own police district).

Also, "around 25 lends" for book is determined by the popularity of a book and how patrons treat the book(s). There are tons of books in my system that have been checked out MUCH more than 25 times.

I don't think there is a "standard royalty" but if it is you can almost guarantee that it's not 10%-15%. I've heard lower numbers being tossed around - closer to 3%-5%. This is, of course, not including authors who skew the median numbers like a King or a Rowling.

I also don't think that authors receive their royalty amounts based off of the library book price.

It doesn't matter, however, because even standard boilerplate contracts have to be scrutinized to get any true data. Any number we toss out is just pissing in the wind. We have no idea what the rate would be calculated on.

Trike wrote: "M.L. wrote: "I'm all for used book stores! Donated my hardback of American Gods to the Goodwill. :-)"

Goodwill is a scam, you know. People supply those stores with product for free, and anything t..."

Actually it was Disabled Veterans :) and our local Friends of the Library (not Goodwill). DV picks up - and I donated probably 200 books and other stuff. Friends of the Library, I drop off.

I wouldn't call Goodwill a scam though. The people that shop there are looking for something cheap, discounted clothes and the like, and considering retail mark up, I understand why.

Overall, the terms "Piracy" is actually too cutesy. Call it "Stealing" or "Thievery," that's what it is. Nothing cute about it.

What I do think is good is not to get worked up over the fact it exists, because it ain't going away! :) I think that's what Gaiman was trying to get across.

Wastrel wrote: "M.L. wrote: "Exactamunodo about not stressing.

But rationalizing by saying it increases sales, and asking people to raise their hand about favorite books given vs found browsing is not a good rat..."

That big fat warning on videos calls it a federal offense. That's what Intellectual Property rights are about. It's stealing. Call it what it is. :)

M.L. wrote: "Overall, the terms "Piracy" is actually too cutesy. Call it "Stealing" or "Thievery," that's what it is. Nothing cute about it.

But it's not. That's what your moral side wants it to be. But it's not.

It's exactly what its called: copyright violation.

I don't like the use of "pirate" since I work in the Maritime area and I deal with real pirates who board ships to steal goods, weapons and people.

However, "Pirate" has been used in regards to copyright violation since the early 1800's. I doubt it's going to change anytime soon.

MrsJoseph wrote: "M.L. wrote: "Overall, the terms "Piracy" is actually too cutesy. Call it "Stealing" or "Thievery," that's what it is. Nothing cute about it.

But it's not. That's what your moral side wants it to ..."

I agree it's not changing.

But if it is not stealing, then tell me what copyright violation is - and why it is against the law?

Who does it hurt and why it is illegal?

Why is there a copyright in the first place?

All for the sake of discussion, of course, because you don't need to tell me a thing. I know the answer. :) It's taking or using something without permission: illegally. And when you take something illegally, it's stealing. :) If someone wants to split hairs by definition and thereby do the thing called "piracy" that's their choice.

On another note, if there is a better charity than Disabled American Veterans or the/a (local) Friends of the Library who accepts books, let me know.

M.L. wrote: "All for the sake of discussion, of course, because you don't need to tell me a thing. I know the answer. :) ?"

Cute but no cigar. It's not stealing its copyright violation so I'll ignore the rest of your "I already know" statement.

Tell me again how many people are doing time for copyright violation?