|
The
Warren Adler E-Sheet 43
In
this issue:
| |
|
 |
Greetings
From Publishing Central
We are happy to offer you another issue of
the Warren Adler E-Sheet, which
keeps you up to date on what is happening
in the author's world. |
| |
|
An Unfound Book is an Unread Book is a Dead
Book
 As
an author who, for the past six years, has
pioneered the concept of digitalizing all of
his backlist of 28 books in all existing
formats and has promoted the idea of the
future of electronic publishing, I am taken
aback by the shortsighted and clueless effort
by the
Authors
Guild of which I am a member, to sue
Google Print for "massive copyright
infringement at the expense of the rights of
individual authors." (read
more)
The class action suit was brought by the
Authors Guild and author Herbert Mitgang,
children's book author Betty Miles, and
former United States Poet Laureate Daniel
Hoffman.
 |
|
Creating obstacles, which this lawsuit
intends on the flimsy assertion that the
search engine violates a copyright by
allowing the copyrighted book to be found
is not only counter-productive to an
author's interests but a form of
destructive self-censorship. |
|
|
My own venture into electronic publishing was
three-fold: to keep my books "alive" and
rescue them from out-of-print status, continue
to brand my authorial name, and to promote the
viability of my copyrights which will remain
in force more than 70 years beyond my
lifetime. The internet offered a golden
opportunity to project one's work to all of
the possibilities of recognition by a
limitless world-wide audience and, perhaps,
create a revenue flow for my heirs and theirs.
Out-of-print status is the fate that awaits
more than 80% of all books, especially in the
area of fiction, of which I am a practitioner.
Out-of-print means death to an author. His
work is removed from publisher's warehouses
and is left moldering on library shelves or in
dusty attics of home libraries to be
eventually destroyed or handed down to
disinterested progeny. It is true that
re-discovery years later may resurrect an
author's financial viability, but that is a
mighty rare occurrence. As history can attest,
contemporary popularity is hardly a harbinger
of future popularity.
Indeed, an unread book is merely a paper
artifact. Essentially a book is a one-on-one
communication system, an author to reader
experience. Considering the time and attention
required to read, it is not a casual
performance whether reading for knowledge,
insight or entertainment. Those of us who
write and read, who revel in stories, who are
questers of wisdom and discovery consider such
an occupation one of the necessities of a
fulfilled life.
In terms of fiction, some gurus characterize a
novel, for example, as a one-time-read,
consigned quickly to the dustbin or the shelf.
Resurrection is unlikely unless educators in
academia anoint the author with recognition as
an example of literary or historical worth and
assign the book to be read by students or, by
some miraculous alchemy and unpredictability,
a book speaks to future generations and
becomes what is commonly referred to as a
"classic".
For the first time in human history, this
miraculous alchemy has, through cyberspace,
become tangible. The internet has spawned
universality and turned the old paradigm of
communication on its head. With it has come
the search engine. Soon, if it has not already
arrived, little will remain hidden from the
ardent quester.
The author, who once looked forward to almost
certain oblivion, now has an opportunity to
stay alive, his works to be available for all
time and all generations. Of course, this
doesn't mean that his work will become
financially viable through the life of his
copyright, but, at the very least, he has the
opportunity to be discovered, read, and maybe,
just maybe, generate a few bucks for himself
or his progeny. For an author, not being read
is as good as being dead.
At the heart of this silly lawsuit is the
issue of compensation. I would be curious to
know what compensation the authors who have
brought this suit have earned from their out
of print books. Google Print and now Yahoo,
Adobe, Hewlett-Packard and
others are joining the digitalization effort
which, in the near future, will make all
published works in every library in the world
available to be found by anyone with a
computer.
I will grant that libraries allow copyrighted
books to be lent and read at no cost to the
reader after purchasing the books from
publishers who pass on royalties to the
author. That is an issue that might be more
diligently addressed by the Authors Guild than
their effort against Google Print, which
constitutes a search rather than a giveaway.
Authors should be celebrating this effort by
Google Print. By setting up a device to, at
the very least, find their books, sample them,
and perhaps buy them through retail outlets
online either as e-books, audio books,
print-on-demand or traditional printed books ,
new or used, out-of-print, in-print or
whatever is a blessing to an author.
Creating obstacles, which this lawsuit intends
on the flimsy assertion that the search engine
violates a copyright by allowing the
copyrighted book to be found is not only
counter-productive to an author's interests
but a form of destructive self-censorship.
Note that I have not dealt with the
publishers' suit against Google on similar
grounds. A number of publishers, McGraw-Hill, Pearson, Simon & Schuster
and John Wiley have taken up the
cudgels.
I am raising my objections strictly from the
author's point of view, not the publishers.
They have another axe to grind. Authors often
have a competing agenda. For example, they
have little say in the process of declaring
books out of print, which, in effect assures
their book's extinction.
Even publishers' invention of the term "out of
print" to describe this process I find
pejorative. Their general comment when asked
has always been "business is business" and if
a book doesn't sell, they kiss the book
bye-bye. Of course, many books are put on the
fast track to oblivion by a publisher's
neglect, meaning failure to back it with
advertising, marketing and promotion.
For the publisher, the author produces
"product", notwithstanding their perpetual
bleat of how much they respect the artistic
and creative values of their writers. Their
business interests, of necessity, are their
primary consideration.
We fully understand the publisher's concept of
inventory control, warehousing, remaindering
and all the other operations of good business
practices to keep them viable as profit
centers. Most of today's major publishers are
answerable to higher authorities who set
financial goals that must be met or managers
will no longer hold their jobs. A study of
turnover in the publishing industry might be a
good yardstick of how well they are really
doing in that regard.
The individual author, however, whatever his
compensation, has not only a financial but an
emotional tie to his creative work. He must
fight for recognition both within the entity
that publishes his work and the general
public. Most authors have little to say in
matters of distribution, marketing and
publicity, all necessary factors in sales
performance.
The publishers' suit against Google on
copyright grounds raises different issues than
that of the individual authors. Their battle
is their own and I won't speak for them either
way.
As an author, I believe the suit instigated by
the Authors Guild is contrary to the interests
of their members.
E-Sheets
1 to
42
For
your convenience, we now offer an online
archive of Warren Adler E-Sheets. See the
E-Sheet
archives now.
Until next time, happy reading.
Warren
Adler
If
you like this E-Sheet, use the following form
to subscribe for monthly distribution.
Visit
Warren
Adler's homepage now! |
