Re: Snooze/lose (Was: Academics and coursepacks)

On 8/29/98, Bernard Katz <bkatz[_at_]uoguelph.ca> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 27 Aug 1998, Michael Bradley <michael[_at_]vision-soft.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 26 Aug 1998, Bernard Katz <bkatz[_at_]uoguelph.ca> wrote:
> > >
> > > In fact, it has already been argued persuasively in this regard
> > > that opening up the potential for publication by bringing works into
> > > the public domain at a *earlier* stage than life + 50 is much more
> > > likely to result in more titles becoming available to the public
> > > than by extending the term of protection still further!
> >
> > If you mean it's been argued on this list, all that I recall is a
> > report that when a certain classic US novel (I forget which one) went
> > into the public domain, several publishers issued new editions. But
> > the same report said that the original publisher's sales dropped in
> > half. So all that shows is the profits from publishing the work were
> > spread around, not that the overall number of copies sold increased.
>
> The arguement that I have read (not necessarily on this list) and found
> persuasive is that releasing the monopoly hold on publishing the work
> and hence the need for royalty payment to the heirs of the author, or to
> the copyright holder likely will spur competition among publishers.
> Some also are likely to be interested in a work that has been selling
> even at low levels, and may place added value in a new publication by
> providing an introduction, special notes, etc. (all of which would of
> course carry copyright protection). Further, works that may have had
> but marginal potential for sales while under copyright will be viewed by
> publishers in a more receptive light for risking publication, even as
> straight reprints with no added value elements, once they are in the
> public domain. Several examples can be found merely by perusing Books
> In Print and looking for multiple editions of classics - modern and old,
> aa well as titles with very limited sales potential, such as poetry.

There is, however, a functional limit to competition among publishers, based on the cost of printing. I don't have numbers, but I would suspect that publishers spend more on printing and marketing costs than on royalties to authors. To be sure, the larger the print run, the lower the per-book cost of printing -- but if material becomes PD, then publishers have to estimate their sales lower due to competition from other publishers, hence smaller print runs, hence higher per-book costs. Factor in increased marketing expenses -- gotta make my edition of this work stand out from all the other guys' editions -- and the savings in royalties is almost certainly negated, at little savings to the consumer. The only people who "win" in this situation are the ones who -- since the material is PD -- can legally make photocopies for a dime a page and distribute them at a fraction of publishers' costs.

Daniel J. Schaeffer
daniel_schaeffer[_at_]kirkland.com Received on Mon Aug 31 1998 - 13:58:07 GMT