Book Publishing Needs Socialism to Save It ("need" to suppress competition like France does)

Let me just state up front that I love America and wouldn’t live anywhere else but, I also believe there’s room for a blend of socialism and capitalism to exist in a democratic society, and when it comes to how books are sold or treated, I prefer what the French and other advanced nations do.

Here in the U.S., thanks largely to Amazon, books have become commoditized. You can buy clothes based on price—or a desk or the hotel you vacation at. But books should not be purchased based on price alone.

Sure price is a factor. One may buy a used book vs. a new one, to save money. Others will buy a paperback rather than the higher-priced hardcover. But when books become so devalued and sell at a loss, you have to question how such pricing helps the long-term viability of books.

In the U.S. it seems the publishing market is ruled by one company—Amazon—and five major conglomerate publishers—and one physical retailer (Barnes & Noble). When Amazon makes a change, the publishing industry trembles and acquiesces.

But the Hatchette-Amazon battle is now being waged and the repercussions of it could dictate the fate of publishing’s long-term viability. However, in other countries, books are a much healthier product.

In France, where Amazon only owns 10-12% of the book market—but 70% of online sales, Amazon is contained because of laws passed to protect and support bookstores and publishers.

The law says online sellers can’t offer free shipping on discounted books. Further, booksellers can’t offer more than a 5% discount off a book’s cover price.

And your analysis is accepted by most everyone here at FR until the protection from the government is called a “copyright” or a “patent” or “protection of intellectual property”, when all of a sudden, folks will jump up to defend life-of-author/artist plus 70 years, evergreening of drug patents, business-plan patents, pretending that algorithms are devices (and therefore patentable) rather than mathematical theorem, ... at which point calling something “property” makes it so, pro-business trumps pro-liberty.

The founders of this country also recognized copyright and patent protections for artists and inventors.

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution:

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

Sorry if you think the Constitution isn't pro-liberty enough for you.

No, it seems many on FR DON’T agree with the value of free trade over protectionism. A long discussion on this took place here...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3178001/posts

As far as tariffs being equivalent to patents, not really. The Constitution allows temporary patents for the promotion of Arts and Sciences. (”To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries” U.S. Const Art 1 Sec 8.)

That’s a lot different from tariffs lobbies to “protect” domestic business from competition.

I'm fine with the Constitution on the subject. The Constitution specified a purpose and the notion of "for limited time to authors and inventors", for state-granted monopolies to authors and inventors. It did not grant Congress the power to reify those monopolies as property that could be alienated from the author or inventor and given over to publishers or literary estates or heirs. Life of the author plus 70 years is manifestly unconstitutional under a strict construction of the clause, since once the author has died, the monopoly is not secured to the author.

Limiting letters patent to inventors and copyright to authors, as reforms in England not long before the American Founding had done, were part of what the Founders were getting at with that clause. I think they would appalled that the clause has in these latter days been used to justify laws under which a publishing house could prevent the use of a 1928 poem by a poet who died in 1968 as song lyrics in 2003. (I cite the case of Robert Frost's poem "Fire and Ice" the monopoly rights to which were held by Henry Holt & Co., who prevented them from being used as song lyrics by the neo-medieval band Unto Ashes, prompting them to replace the poem with a parody about failed royalty negotiations entitled "Flayed by Frost". The track Fire and Ice, which was released in Europe years earlier, finally was released in the U.S. in 2012.) This use of copyright -- the suppression of derivative works by publishers and literary estates -- is the antithesis of the Constitutional purpose of copyright.

The current state of the law is such that one would imagine the Founders has written a clause "to impede the progress of science and the useful arts, by securing for indefinitely extendible times to publishers and other commercial interests the exclusive right to the writings and discoveries of others."

It wasn’t until 1622 that England established copyright laws and it wasn’t until 1710 that the laws reflect much of what we understand as copyright laws.

The laws were not being relaxed in terms of copyrights, they were being strengthened in 1789 when the U.S. Constitution was being written. Jefferson and Franklin were both strong advocates of copyright laws in the colonies and later the United States.

The original length of copyrights were 14 years with another 14 to be applied for. However, throughout the 19th century, the move was toward more stringent protection of an artists or inventors works. The Constitution was not a loosening of copyright and patent laws, it was a step on the way of recognizing that people who do the work should own the fruit of that work.

And since the United States is a signatory of the Berne Convention now, that treaty has the same weight of law as the U.S. Constitution itself. (You can look that up in the Constitution. Article VI reads in part: This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land)

And where is the liberty in taking someone else’s work and making money from it? That doesn’t sound like liberty to me. It sounds like theft.

Very interesting. I just finished my first novel and have been in the process (beyond editing) of deciding the self publishing or lit. agent route. I already have my query done, but have yet to send the request. I wasn’t aware of the amz %’s, but understand the agent/pub. take.

I’m concerned w/ the self pub. course due to not having a fan base and being an unknown. Furthermore, I had concerns about exposure (options) for studio interest.

Any advice that you could offer me would be appreciated. (PM as I don’t want to hijack the thread)

And where is the liberty in taking someone else’s work and making money from it? That doesn’t sound like liberty to me. It sounds like theft.

That's because you've bought into the notion that ideas can be "property".

And, your history doesn't go back far enough. Before the Law of Queen Anne, it was normal for publishers to hold exclusive right, and before the Statue of Monopolies, letters patent were granted far and wide to non-inventors. The Constitution specified limits on who Congress could grant monopolies, which are now flouted with publishers, heirs, executors of literary estates holding monopolies when the author has been moldering in the grave for 70 years, and using them to suppress derivative works (e.g. "The Wind Done Gone" -- a retelling of "Gone with the Wind" from a slave perspective), performances of dances (cf. Martha Graham's artistic estate) or use of poems as song lyrics.

By your reasoning the Fantasia on a Theme of Thomas Tallis, Variations on a Theme of Paganini, and a host of other musical works using other composers' themes as starting points are "theft" (or at least become so if the composer of the new work or an orchestra performing it make money). Rubbish! That's how culture works: it builds on previous culture. Putting a rent-seeking heir or lawyer into the process is contrary to the expressed purpose of the Constitutional provision, to promote progress in the sciences and the useful arts.

Progress in my own field -- mathematics -- would grind to a complete halt if we had to pay royalties to other mathematicians and get permission from them (or their heirs or publishers) to use their definitions or theorems. To not be a "thief" (of honor for originating the idea, not of the idea, which is not something which can be stolen) consists in putting a citation to the paper the definition or theorem came from, and eventually, when the notion becomes well-known enough, even this lapses as the definition or theorem becomes part of the common patrimony of mankind. (Maybe the discoverer is honored with his or her name attached to the result, maybe not.)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.