But if that should change, you’ll see a paradigm shift, all right — a market flooded primarily with free but unedited work, except for those writers with other sources of income which would allow them to hire an editor. And as someone who’s judged her fair share of unpublished work over the years, I can assure you there are far fewer gems out there than you might want to believe.

Karen, I don’t think it’ll be that bad, to be honest. First, readers put up with some shocking work now. In my opinion. :-) But if shocking work is what people want to read, then who am I to say those authors shouldn’t become wildly successful?

Also, it’s possible to compete with “free”. How else can bottled water manufacturers make a profit? By understanding what needs are being met by illegal distribution–other than “don’t have to pay for it”–we can also find ways to compete with it effectively.

I’m also hoping that a market that allows for greater distribution and a more democratic selection of which works become successful (which touches on Robin’s last point above) will mean that the level of craftsmanship required to write a successful book will become higher.

Whatever the new-and-improved model turns out to be, I don’t think that’s what we really want. :)

But how do you know? Some change is actually good. ;)

just as Maybelline has to sell makeup in order to pay its workers.

But should consumers prefer Kirkland Borghese, for example, does that mean they are responsible for Maybelline’s failure? If mascara makers flood the market with a bunch of mascaras that are about the same level of effectiveness, does that shift the supply/demand curve? In one way it’s so wonderful that a large number of authors get a chance to have their books placed into the stream of commerce. But if the mechanism is not in place to effectively market all of those books equally, or if readers prefer some authors but not others, it can disable authors who do not have a solid reputation and guaranteed market share. And what about those of us who tend to be more book loyal than author loyal? I don’t think the market is at all set up to favor our preferences.

Plus, as a reader, I feel all the time that books are available that I have *no idea* are out there. If it weren’t for other readers and bloggers, and for Jane sending me books and recommending books, I would be even more limited in my awareness of what’s out there. And that’s frustrating to me, too, because it constructively abridges my own reading experience and cuts against the diversity I crave. And it can make me less adventurous, ironically, because my reading selection becomes more and more shaped by the books I have to review and those recommended to me. And when I do venture out and am disappointed because I don’t get the diversity I seek, I can become even more gun shy. And it’s a bitter irony, IMO, because on the one hand there are so many books to choose from, and on the other it often feels like there’s little substantive diversity among those offerings.

Plus I have limited time and money, which also limits my risk-taking behavior when it comes to even being in a position to seek out and purchase books by new to me authors. Which is one of the reasons that an occasional free read by a new author can get me started in a whole new reading binge (I can’t tell you how many ARCs have led to *multiple* sales of books by new to me authors). So authors can insist forever and a day that we readers drive the market, but IMO that’s only true in an abstract sense, because the market is delimited by authors and publishers long before we partake of its offerings.

But beyond that, I’m struck, frankly, by the way readers are so consistently placed in the position of carrying the burden for authors’ success or failure. When you talk about authorial “rights” to be paid for writing, I can’t help but feel that it’s the publisher who bears that particular burden. IMO you do not have that kind of contract with the reader.

Do I feel any individual reader has some sort of obligation to “pay” me by buying my books? Of course not. But my publisher’s sole source of revenue — from which I do get paid — is from book sales, just as Maybelline has to sell makeup in order to pay its workers. Since my earnings are entirely dependent on how many people buy my books, in a way that does put the burden on The Reader. At least, with this current model. Not knowing what my publisher’s other expenses are, I’m really not in a position to know whether they could, or should, pay me more through a higher royalty rate.

No, my contract isn’t with the reader, but with my publisher…who promises to sell as many copies of my books, to as many markets, in as many formats, as they possibly can (and thus far, I’ve had no complaints in this regard). If readers don’t buy enough of my books, I may well find myself out of contract. If they cease buying anybody’s books, nobody gets a contract.

Just sayin’. :)

As for piracy…right now, although I loathe and detest it on principle, I don’t think it’s having that huge an impact on most author’s overall sales. But if that should change, you’ll see a paradigm shift, all right — a market flooded primarily with free but unedited work, except for those writers with other sources of income which would allow them to hire an editor. And as someone who’s judged her fair share of unpublished work over the years, I can assure you there are far fewer gems out there than you might want to believe.

Whatever the new-and-improved model turns out to be, I don’t think that’s what we really want. :)

Hmm, next time I’ll wait for Robin to comment before I unleash my comment diarrhoea on this thread.

LOL, Kat! I kept telling myself that I wasn’t going to comment, I wasn’t going to comment, so you see how well I practice self-discipline!

I know my perspective on this issue is shaped by a bunch of different things, from my understanding of IP law and theory to the fact that I give away my intellectual property to the public sphere regularly in the course of my employment (and I don’t know how you’d measure whether I’m being paid fairly for it — I know what I’d say, lol), which means that I have a different perception what we’re all entitled to for our creative efforts and how important a strong public realm is for continued creativity. In any case, I agree with you that we’re on the cusp of a potential paradigm shift, and IMO there are other possible models out there that will benefit authors much more than they are now, even if it may take some time to make that shift successfully.

So? you might say.

The bit that makes it interesting are the comments (not the roughly $1675.00 in lost royalties so far, which, for this ebook author is a hefty chunk of change):

“Thanks so much for sharing. These look really good. Did some research on the author and I don’t suppose you have the second Huntingdawn book as well, do you?”

‘Aint that just a kick in the pants.

All those hours and hours of hard work going for free. And then they can’t even be bothered buying one lousy book (the 2nd HD book).

In this instance, the get-something-free-promotes-buying-concept = Epic Fail

I don’t see widespread interest in looking at how these different models might work beyond individual promotions. More’s the pity, IMO, but then the economy and other (not piracy) factors may eventually incentivize more risk-taking.

I think maybe we’ll see this happening more with a younger generation of writers who are comfortable with the idea of CC and filesharing and have a more intuitive understanding of how these can work to their advantage. I see this happening now in non-fiction, on blogs, etc. It’s hard to do if you’re used to how traditional book publishing works.

Hmm, next time I’ll wait for Robin to comment before I unleash my comment diarrhoea on this thread. I think you’re all sick of me by now. (I’m sick of myself, to be truthful.)