Are you seriously paying more than $10 for an e-book?

[boboratory]

If you have an e-book reader, one of the great promises of the e-book revolution was that it would reduce costs associated with printing physical books, and those costs would be passed on to the reader.

As I look at new releases in the Kindle lists, they are creeping towards $15 each. How is that passing the savings on to the consumer, to you, the reader? With the list price on paperbacks ranging between $9-$30- are you paying for an antiquated book industry infrastructure?

Surely the larger publishers haven't changed how they pay their writers (which perhaps if any of you have experience in that matter you can add your voice).

As a small, unknown publisher, the most I would expect to charge for a title at this time would be $4. Granted, author "Brand" value plays a huge part in pricing, but apparently people are willing to pay $15 for an e-book version that they could get in hard cover for $18.

Thoughts?

 

[Steerpike]

No, I will not pay that much for them. When the price of the eBook exceeds that of the physical book, I still just buy the physical book.

 

[Devor]

That's because pricing is controlled largely by the Publishers, and Amazon's role in the matter is relatively small. Rather than buy the product themselves and resell it at a markup, they simply charge a percentage of whatever price the ebook is sold.

While publishing on an ereader may have fewer costs, the ebook industry at large is a threat to the current role of publishing. And Brick-and-Mortor companies have been known to threaten to stop carrying products by companies who sell things cheaper online, although I've no knowledge of that happening to Publishers specifically. The point I mean to make is, there's a lot of pressures on the Publishers to not pass along the full effects of cost advantage into a price advantage, and it may have little or nothing to do with price gouging in and of itself. Typically price gougers end up getting undercut by their competitors, so I think it's mostly about the many pressures which apply to the entire publishing industry.

Meanwhile, paperbacks are often sold at a lower price because too many were printed to begin with. On top of that, the price is often set at a markup by the retailer, who can sell below the "recommended retail price" because they actually bought the book first, especially if it's sat too long on the shelf. Also paperbacks don't really cost that much to make to begin with.

It doesn't matter to me if I have the hard copy or a soft copy. But I want to make a statement with the books on my bookshelf, and I won't keep everything I've ever read.

 

[Shadoe]

I usually don't pay that much for an e-book. (Unless I really, really gotta have the book.) I've found that publishers like to charge the same price as the most recent release of the book. So if the hardback version is just released, they'll charge the hardback price. When the paperback version is released, they charge the paperback price. Logically, the price of the e-book should be much less than the paperback, just as paperbacks cost less than hardbacks, simply because the production costs are less. One excuse the publishers use to explain the higher cost for e-books is that they have to sell more to make the same money because of piracy. I figure, once they've sold ten copies, they've made up their costs and the rest is pure profit.

 

[danr62]

I will, if it's an author I already know and like and I really want the book.

 

[Stranger]

So I have a "pirate friend", let's call him "Bob", who gets all his books from the internet. In Bob's defence, he is a poor college student with like $3 in his bank account.

The costs for ebooks are ridiculous considering there's absolutely no cost to print them. If they made it so that each book cost $1 or so, I'm sure Bob would actually buy them. Or at least three of them.

 

[Steerpike]

I don't have enough money in my account for some things I'd like to have (maybe a nice Bugatti). Those manufacturers should lower their prices to something I can afford, or I'm justified in using other means to obtain the items!

 

[Stranger]

I don't have enough money in my account for some things I'd like to have (maybe a nice Bugatti). Those manufacturers should lower their prices to something I can afford, or I'm justified in using other means to obtain the items!

Bob the Bad Pirate says: "Ah, ye olde "you wouldn't download a car" argument. I would if I could! Also, if cheese makers decided cheese costs $8,000,000, would it be your fault you can't afford cheese?"

 

[Devor]

So I have a "pirate friend", let's call him "Bob", who gets all his books from the internet. In Bob's defence, he is a poor college student with like $3 in his bank account.

The costs for ebooks are ridiculous considering there's absolutely no cost to print them. If they made it so that each book cost $1 or so, I'm sure Bob would actually buy them. Or at least three of them.

Fixed Cost Contribution Margin. The technical term.

People don't realize, but before the iPod piracy was such a problem in music that the labels were no longer taking risks by investing in new talent. It's true that some unknown bands can find fame without the labels, but by and large the entire music industry was on its way into the dumps. But piracy has really lessened since iTunes so the arguments don't matter as much anymore.

 

[Steerpike]

There are food items I do not buy because I do not want to pay the asking price (including some cheeses). If all the food in the world were priced outside of one's budget, I suppose you'd have argument

 

[Shadoe]

I feel honor-bound to buy a book at least once, if I'm going to read it.

 

[MichaelSullivan]

Surely the larger publishers haven't changed how they pay their writers (which perhaps if any of you have experience in that matter you can add your voice).

Author compensation on ebooks is not very good these days. On the surface it looks good as standard royalties are:

• 10% of hardcover LIST
• 6-8% of paperback LIST
• 25% of ebook NET

But how that actually breaks down is:

• 30% of LIST to distributor (Amazon, B&N, ibookstore)
• 52.5% of LIST to publisher
• 14.9% of LIST to author
• 2.6% of LIST to agent

In the print world there are printing, warehousing, and large return fees so the publisher taking 90% - 94% makes sense. But in the ebook world there are little returns, no printing, and no warehousing - the royalties are paid on NET not LIST.

When self-publishing an ebook the breakdown is

Books priced $2.99 - $9.99

• 30% of LIST to distributor (Amazon, B&N, ibookstore)
• 70% to author

Books priced more than $9.99 and less than $0.99

• 65% of LIST to distributor (Amazon, B&N, ibookstore)
• 35% to author

Which is one of the reasons that many authors that were traditionally published are switching to self-publishing.

 

[MichaelSullivan]

So I have a "pirate friend", let's call him "Bob", who gets all his books from the internet. In Bob's defence, he is a poor college student with like $3 in his bank account.

The costs for ebooks are ridiculous considering there's absolutely no cost to print them. If they made it so that each book cost $1 or so, I'm sure Bob would actually buy them. Or at least three of them.

Does bob also go to clothing stores and shoplift sweaters? After all he only has $3 in his bank account. I know there is the idea that electronic "isn't real" but it took "real" people to create it and they should be compensated.

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

Does bob also go to clothing stores and shoplift sweaters? After all he only has $3 in his bank account. I know there is the idea that electronic "isn't real" but it took "real" people to create it and they should be compensated.

They should, but it's nonsensical to analogize copyright infringement with physical theft. They aren't the same thing, which is why we have two entirely separate bodies of law that deal with them.

 

[Steerpike]

They should, but it's nonsensical to analogize copyright infringement with physical theft. They aren't the same thing, which is why we have two entirely separate bodies of law that deal with them.

Yes. Unfortunately, however, content owners are pushing more and more to pull copyright law further into the realm of criminal law.

 

[Devor]

They should, but it's nonsensical to analogize copyright infringement with physical theft. They aren't the same thing, which is why we have two entirely separate bodies of law that deal with them.

I agree. The loss to the company is intangible and often "unrealized," meaning that the loss may not actually happen. Piracy is theft, but of a completely different and lesser kind. Unless you own a boat and are off killing people and seizing their ships. But that's... not really funny...

 

[Steerpike]

I agree. The loss to the company is intangible and often "unrealized," meaning that the loss may not actually happen. Piracy is theft, but of a completely different and lesser kind.

Some have argued to expand ideas of author's moral rights to cover situations where there is no demonstrable economic loss. I think they latch onto moral rights because it is generally separated from economic considerations, but arguing a moral rights loss in the context of piracy would broaden moral rights beyond their historical scope. The idea I've seen floated out there is that you have taken something from the author because you have taken away from her the right to control her own intellectual and creative work product, and that this should be actionable outside of economic harm. Because copyright infringement allows for statutory damages, I'm not sure what is gained from this approach, but I think content owners are trying to shift public consciousness to a recognition that piracy deprives the author of something valuable even if they don't lose money. I do not think that shift will occur.

 

[Kevin O. McLaughlin]

Some have argued to expand ideas of author's moral rights to cover situations where there is no demonstrable economic loss. I think they latch onto moral rights because it is generally separated from economic considerations, but arguing a moral rights loss in the context of piracy would broaden moral rights beyond their historical scope. The idea I've seen floated out there is that you have taken something from the author because you have taken away from her the right to control her own intellectual and creative work product, and that this should be actionable outside of economic harm. Because copyright infringement allows for statutory damages, I'm not sure what is gained from this approach, but I think content owners are trying to shift public consciousness to a recognition that piracy deprives the author of something valuable even if they don't lose money. I do not think that shift will occur.

Steerpike, I'm not entirely sure if I'm misunderstanding you or not. You're talking about "moral rights" for copyrights - but that's not really involved here. US law already provides fines for copyright infringers, even if there is no economic loss. No expansion necessary - statutory fines in the US are up to $150,000 and five years in jail per offense. Generally speaking, the high end is only applied to cases of where willful infringement with intent to cause economic damage or gain economic profit are involved, but the fines exist regardless of damage for all federally registered work. Damages can be acquired *in addition* to the statutory fines, but even if you infringed and never cost anyone a cent (for example, most fan fiction) the fines alone can be very steep, generally starting in the mid-four-digits and moving up from there.

Intellectual property violations ARE their own category under US law. They're not in the same ballpark as other forms of theft. But in many cases, they can carry a much greater penalty for the theft of a much smaller item - stealing ten 99 cent items from a small store is shoplifting, which is generally a misdemeanor and carries very light if any penalties. Stealing ten 99 cent songs via pirate download can be something like a $30,000 fine. Not arguing the wrong or right of that - it is what it is.

 

[Kevin O. McLaughlin]

Oh, and to answer the original question - I've bought precisely one ebook prices over $6.99 - a Weber book that I downloaded the sample for, and bought by accident. I was like, hey, it's David Weber - and didn't do a return on the book even though it was an accidental purchase (darned Buy Now button on my brand new Kindle last January!). Haven't done it since. Don't see myself buying many books over that price anytime soon, although I might make a few exceptions. In general, I find plenty to read in the 99 cent to $6.99 range.

 

[Steerpike]

Steerpike, I'm not entirely sure if I'm misunderstanding you or not. You're talking about "moral rights" for copyrights - but that's not really involved here. US law already provides fines for copyright infringers, even if there is no economic loss. No expansion necessary - statutory fines in the US are up to $150,000 and five years in jail per offense. Generally speaking, the high end is only applied to cases of where willful infringement with intent to cause economic damage or gain economic profit are involved, but the fines exist regardless of damage for all federally registered work. Damages can be acquired *in addition* to the statutory fines, but even if you infringed and never cost anyone a cent (for example, most fan fiction) the fines alone can be very steep, generally starting in the mid-four-digits and moving up from there.

Intellectual property violations ARE their own category under US law. They're not in the same ballpark as other forms of theft. But in many cases, they can carry a much greater penalty for the theft of a much smaller item - stealing ten 99 cent items from a small store is shoplifting, which is generally a misdemeanor and carries very light if any penalties. Stealing ten 99 cent songs via pirate download can be something like a $30,000 fine. Not arguing the wrong or right of that - it is what it is.

I don't think you read more than the first sentence of my post, where I mentioned moral rights. In the excerpt you quoted I mention statutory damages, and I also mention that 'moral rights' do not apply here but that some are pushing for a new scope of 'moral rights' to encompass something like piracy, separate and apart from traditional infringement. And I also say there doesn't seem to be much point in doing so, which appears to be part of the point you are making.

I'm aware of how intellectual law functions, including laws on infringement. Some have proposed adding a new type of moral right, presumably under the idea that it will somehow help shift how the public perceives piracy. I do not think that will work.