Some interesting thoughts from Neil Gaiman on Piracy, or "giving it away free".
The crux of his argument:
Word of mouth is still the best tool for selling books.
This is how people found new authors for more than a century. Someone says, "I've read this. It's good. I think you'd like it. Here, you can borrow it." Someone takes the book away, reads it, and goes, Ah, I have a new author.
Libraries are good things: you shouldn't have to pay for every book you read.
I don't think any publisher denies the power of w-o-m for books. And giving away 3000 free copies of h2g2 would, in my reading, come under "promotion".
Note that Neil Gaiman's books are not free either. he puts up some essays for free and the first sandman comic (of a series) is free, yes - but I would again put it under clever promotion to get w-o-m going.
The balance between "free enough to generate w-o-m" and "generate lots of money for me" is a fine line. And I agree with him that if enough people read for pleasure, the line is easier to draw. However, I don't know the numbers for how many people do or do not read for pleasure....
'You just said "your getting shorter": you've obviously been drinking too much ent-draught and not enough Prim's.' - Jude
I think the quantity of books given away free is a red herring. As Gaiman says, you can walk into a Library and pick up any of his books for free (legally). You can also download any of them off the internet for free (illegally). The question then becomes about the practical difference between those two options. Practically, there is no difference.
In reality, most people buy random books at the airport, favoured authors from the bookshop or Amazon, and recommendations from friends are borrowed and lent.
I have access to all of the above. I can download books for free and read them on my Ereader or iPhone. I have a large collection of physical books that I only ever read once, a smaller subset that I've read multiple times, and an even smaller subset that I own multiple versions of in hardback and paperback (I'm looking at you JRRT).
As Neil Gaiman states in his interview, I did not buy my first copy of The Hobbit. I was lent a copy that sparked my interest and led to the three shelves and hundreds of euro worth of Tolkien books, not to mention the associated calendars and recordings.
On the flip side, I don't know anyone who bought "The DaVinci Code". My cousin gave me a copy she'd been given, which I read, passed on to Clare and then on to someone else. So at least 5 people read that book, based on one purchase.
It comes back once again to Gaiman's premise that "nobody took money out of my pocket". The people who read the book for free were probably never going to buy it anyway. And those that do read it for free may well go on to become purchasers. Sure, you may lose a couple of sales, but in the long run you'll come out ahead.
An interesting read. There are people out there who live as full-time pirates, no doubt, never paying for any content they consume, but how many of them are also avid readers? Oh, right--the ones that hang out in the library.
Seriously though, I know writer friends who keep telling me not to give the good stuff away. I wonder if that's not exactly backwards...but if you're going to give it away, go big.
Alatar wrote:It comes back once again to Gaiman's premise that "nobody took money out of my pocket". The people who read the book for free were probably never going to buy it anyway. And those that do read it for free may well go on to become purchasers. Sure, you may lose a couple of sales, but in the long run you'll come out ahead.
But they did purchase it. When they decided they wanted it.
I mean, I don't get his point, I really don't.
And as for libraries, we pay taxes, and I support the library, and hence book purchases, with all the late fines I pay.
'You just said "your getting shorter": you've obviously been drinking too much ent-draught and not enough Prim's.' - Jude
I have a quibble with a title - there are plenty of legitimate ways to get copyrighted stuff for free that are NOT piracy.
I've bought many books second-hand, at garage sales, at used bookstores, etc. I've borrowed and lent books, and given them away by a box (which is why I still have space to move in the house). I did the same with music. I don't believe I have ever pirated anything if I could purchase it legally.
I've said before - that first Pratchett paperback borrowed from the library eventually led to several shelves and my husband ordering hardcover Unseen Academicals from England for my birthday, for the Kidby cover. The only reason I don't have the full collection by now is because I keep giving books away, and I bet some of those "freeloaders" are on the way to their second shelf by now.
What is happening now that is unprecedented, IMO, is that with the advent of digital distribution, the publishers are trying to make every consumer of the media pay the original purchase price. Frankly, it's the sellers who are acting like greedy pirates, not the consumers.
On the flip side, I don't know anyone who bought "The DaVinci Code".
This made me laugh. Mine came from the book swap, and went back soon after.
If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.
Alatar wrote:I think the quantity of books given away free is a red herring. As Gaiman says, you can walk into a Library and pick up any of his books for free (legally). You can also download any of them off the internet for free (illegally). The question then becomes about the practical difference between those two options. Practically, there is no difference.
In the UK authors get a payment under the public lending right scheme for copies of books which are lent out by public libraries.
I think the problem is that there are all sorts of ways to get stuff which are, apparently, free to the end user be it music on radiio, programmes and films on Tv and, as Alatar has indicated, books from libraries. This hides the fact that many of these things have in fact been paid for via public lending right, or the tv station paying for the right to show the film, or the tv station recouping its own costs by advertising. This in turn hides the very real difference between some free stuff and others.
If you just "let it be free", legally and with the artist's consent, why would "people who like my stuff" eventually pay for anything? People don't generally pay for free things.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
Alatar wrote:I accept all that, but its kinda beside the point that Gaiman is making.
He's saying in essence, let it be properly free, whether library, lent or downloaded; cause people who like my stuff will eventually pay for it.
And as he is relying on SOMEONE eventually paying for it - he is relying on stuff being not free.
I mean, my first copy of Good Omens was from the library. Then I bought my own copy. Then I gifted my sister one. But if I could have got these last two free, I would have taken the free option. Eventually, it was not free.
I swear, I don't get his point.
Edit: cross-posted with Yov. Who said the same thing, succintly.
'You just said "your getting shorter": you've obviously been drinking too much ent-draught and not enough Prim's.' - Jude
EDIT to add, if I can lawfully get stuff completely free I will, at present what prevents me from doing so is that it is unlawful.
I understand the argument to the extent that the various entertainment companies sould not be too heavy handed in enforcement (and I think the US fines are way over the top): someone may do something illegal as a sample and then buy a legitmate copy but that still relies on having some copies being illegal.
I know that I've recorded things off air in a PVR but for whatever reason nmissed episodes and then gone and bought the series. However I might not have done if I'd managed to record all the episodes and watch them. I haven't bought Downton Abbey for that reason.
Last edited by Aravar on Thu Feb 17, 2011 3:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
Ok, here's my own thoughts (as opposed to Gaiman's, which I was trying to get across previously).
There are two distinctly different media on offer right now, physical books and downloadable books. While I could easily download all of Gaiman's entire back catalogue online, thats not the same as having a physical book. This is evidenced by the fact that I own multiple copies of some books, simply because there is an attraction to owning the physical copy, in different variations, with different covers etc.
This is not true of downloadable books. I can download an illegal copy of a Gaiman novel, format it for my iPhone and read it in Stanza for free. So why would I buy the Kindle version? To all intents and purposes it would be identical to the free illegal version on Stanza. I would be paying for something (at roughly the same price) that is essentially inferior to the printed version because I can't pass it on to a friend. And of course, in the future, as eReaders proliferate, these illegal eBooks will become more and more prevalent. So where will Gaiman make his money?
I think, as with many other issues, the market will adapt, as it has to. Piracy is not going away, no matter how many fines are slapped on people. Online ebooks will have a "race to the bottom" on pricing, because whoever wins that market (like iTunes did with Music) will effectively own online ebooks, like Amazon owned the online bookshop. And people will go to the cheapest option.
There's a sweet spot with most things, where people say "Its worth paying that much for this". The same happened with Shareware, with Music (iTunes), with Games (Steam). Eventually the price point is such that people decide it's not worth the hassle of pirating and converting and all the other faffing around, and they just pay.
Ebooks are not there yet. Lord of the Rings on Kindle is over $17. Unlike Gaiman, I believe that the realistic floor is say $2 for an online book (something like LotR maybe $5). Maybe $3 at launch. The Hardback can still sell for $15 - $20, because its collectible. The paperback will continue with slightly lower sales, at a higher price, but this will be offset by the fact that the paperback my get read 5 times for a single purchase.
Piracy will still continue, because there's a certain demographic who will never pay, simply because they value their money more than their time.
So, in essence I sort of agree with Gaiman. If his catalogue is easily accessible at a low price (or indeed free) , it will garner him new fans. However, the question becomes, "How many of those fans will convert into purchasers". Some people will be buying his Hardbacks, some will pick up a Gaiman at the Airport cause they recognise the name having read a freebie, but some will just download a free version off the Internet and read it on their phone. The more focussed question is "Which of the people who read it for free would have paid for it, and is that smaller or larger than the number of people who would never have bought anything except for reading a freebie?"
And what about authors who do not publish new books every year, or ever in hardcover? Is our stuff not worth paying for at all because it isn't published in a physically desirable form, or because we spent our years creating it a few years back? What if the physical book is no longer available at all—does that make reading our work worthless?
I entirely agree that ebooks are overpriced. I got 50 or 60 cents for every physical book of mine that sold; I get about $1 for every ebook copy that sells. $2 would probably be a fair price, but not the same $8 the physical book cost; there are no costs for materials or manufacturing or distribution or inventory involved.
But a model that works for a bestselling author like Neil Gaiman and his fans is not going to nurture the next Neil Gaiman along. The fact that he can afford to give his stuff away because there will always be another new book it can promote doesn't mean the rest of us can.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
Primula Baggins wrote:But a model that works for a bestselling author like Neil Gaiman and his fans is not going to nurture the next Neil Gaiman along. The fact that he can afford to give his stuff away because there will always be another new book it can promote doesn't mean the rest of us can.
This reminded of super-popular band Radiohead who a couple years ago made big waves in the music biz by deciding to make their last album available to download online and said "pay whatever you want, if you feel like it". It was a huge success - but only because they have such a huge and loyal fan base that even when essentially work for "tips" they could still earn hundreds of thousands of dollars (which they did). I was very dubious as to whether less established bands could dream of pulling off the same thing.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
Thanks for raising this interesting and important topic, and sharing your well-thought-out thoughts (in addition ot providing Gaiman's), Al. I may have more to add, at some point, but I wanted to make sure that I made it clear that I appreciated it.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
Primula Baggins wrote:And what about authors who do not publish new books every year, or ever in hardcover? Is our stuff not worth paying for at all because it isn't published in a physically desirable form, or because we spent our years creating it a few years back? What if the physical book is no longer available at all—does that make reading our work worthless?
Aye, there's the rub! Of course, I'm of the opinion that if you're getting $1 on every Ebook, and it's available on Kindle for $2, surely that's vastly preferable to the Physical model where you get a far smaller percentage and also a larger barrier to entry for the buyer.
If I were to guess, I think the future model that would work best would be Online publishing for new authors, with a dedicated portal where the books are rated by the readers, followed by a Print-on-Demand option for those who would like to own a physical copy.
This would remove a lot of the barriers to publishing that face authors, but would probably result in a similar situation to the App Store, where the prices are low, but so is the average standard. However, even in the App Store, cream tends to rise to the top. Perhaps this is where Apples iBooks will find their niche?
I want to say that I too appreciate this discussion and what you've posted, Alatar. That said, I have more to say (big surprise):
It takes three minutes to find out whether an app does what it's billed as doing.
It takes a lot longer (hours or days) to find out whether you're happy with a novel.
Novels inherently need more screening/editing/preparation than apps. That screening (the real service publishers provide) is worth money to consumers.
The cream would not rise to the top, because there's not nearly enough cream. It would become impossible for "the decent midlist author" to find her footing or a readership, ever. As a reader myself I'm not going to comb through hundreds of free or nearly free ebooks to find the one that approaches publishable quality (but still has not been edited! Which is a terrible lack). Go look at sites where people can freely post their books; check the average quality, see if you can find any signal among the noise.
It isn't like apps, or three-minute songs. It's a product that truly does need some preselection and some professional attention before the market offerings are even worth browsing through.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
This would remove a lot of the barriers to publishing that face authors, but would probably result in a similar situation to the App Store, where the prices are low, but so is the average standard. However, even in the App Store, cream tends to rise to the top.
This touches on the role of the publisher, which is both distributor and gatekeeper. Since the advent of word processing, the physical barrier to creating a novel-length manuscript has dropped significantly. Alas, the artistic barrier to creating something any human being you're not related to might want to read has not.
The result is that agents and publishers have been increasingly swamped. Email made this explosion worse: you don't even have to ship a pound or two of paper to submit manuscripts. The internet made it a perfect storm: I can collect email addresses from hundreds of agents and BCC them all with queries if I want. People do this because they see the tools and don't do their homework, but the background noise this creates makes it that much harder for the gatekeepers to do their job.
What we're now contemplating is a literary landscape without gatekeepers, or rather, where everyone is their own gatekeeper. If you think most of the stuff published nowadays is bad, think about the stuff that got turned down because it was worse. Way worse. No grasp of grammar or logic (let alone rhetoric) worse.
People who follow such trends point to social networking as an alternative: from Goodreads to LastFM, there are now online ways of sharing and critiquing...but even those ways presuppose a gatekeeper to a great extent. What would happen if there were ten times as many novels to go through? A hundred times? The publication rate for novels submitted to agents/publishers hovers around 1-2% (already excluding things too bad to read past the query) so that last number is not arbitrary.
It's an interesting, even exciting time, I imagine, to be a published author. As an unpublished one I feel like I'm on an embassy rooftop waiting for the last chopper, along with about a thousand other people.
You've got the chops, as I hope you know, and you'll get there. This isn't the end of publishing. I think a model will emerge that may give more opportunities to writers like you and me without eliminating all barriers to publication for bad writing.
The thing that is always left out of these discussions is editing. People who aren't editors themselves or haven't had their own work edited don't seem to grasp how much work and professional skill is involved, and how important it is to the final product. Social networking "gatekeepers" are not editors. They can point their friends toward things they might end up enjoying, but they can't turn something promising into something that deserves professional publication.
A writer who never works with an editor may never reach her full potential. It's not something that can just be removed from the equation and leave the results the same.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
