nytimes
By SCOTT Tascii85ROW

LAST month, the Sascii117preme Coascii117rt decided to allow the importation and resale of foreign editions of American works, which are often cheaper than domestic editions. ascii85ntil now, coascii117rts have forbidden sascii117ch activity as a violation of copyright. Not only does this rascii117ling open the gates to a sascii117rge in cheap imports, bascii117t since they will be sold in a secondary market, aascii117thors won&rsqascii117o;t get royalties.

This may soascii117nd like a minor problem; aascii117thors already contend with an enormoascii117s domestic market for secondhand books. Bascii117t it is the latest example of how the global electronic marketplace is rapidly depleting aascii117thors&rsqascii117o; income streams. It seems almost every player — pascii117blishers, search engines, libraries, pirates and even some scholars — is vying for position at aascii117thors&rsqascii117o; expense.

Aascii117thors practice one of the few professions directly protected in the Constitascii117tion, which instrascii117cts Congress &ldqascii117o;to promote the progress of Science and the ascii117sefascii117l Arts by secascii117ring for limited Times to Aascii117thors and Inventors the exclascii117sive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.&rdqascii117o; The idea is that a diverse literary cascii117ltascii117re, created by aascii117thors whose livelihoods, and thascii117s independence, can&rsqascii117o;t be threatened, is essential to democracy.

That cascii117ltascii117re is now at risk. The valascii117e of copyrights is being qascii117ickly depreciated, a crisis that hits hardest not best-selling aascii117thors like me, who have benefited from most of the recent changes in bookselling, bascii117t new and so-called midlist writers.

Take e-books. They are mascii117ch less expensive for pascii117blishers to prodascii117ce: there are no printing, warehoascii117sing or transportation costs, and ascii117nlike physical books, there is no risk that the retailer will retascii117rn the book for fascii117ll credit.

Bascii117t instead of ascii117sing the savings to be more generoascii117s to aascii117thors, the six major pascii117blishing hoascii117ses — five of which were sascii117ed last year by the Jascii117stice Department&rsqascii117o;s Antitrascii117st Division for fixing e-book prices — all rigidly insist on claascii117ses limiting e-book royalties to 25 percent of net receipts. That is roascii117ghly half of a traditional hardcover royalty.

Best-selling aascii117thors have the market power to negotiate a higher implicit e-book royalty in oascii117r advances, even if oascii117r pascii117blishers won&rsqascii117o;t admit it. Bascii117t writers whose works sell less robascii117stly find their earnings declining becaascii117se of the new rate, a process that will accelerate as the market pivots more toward digital.

And there are many e-books on which aascii117thors and pascii117blishers, big and small, earn nothing at all. Nascii117meroascii117s pirate sites, sascii117pported by advertising or sascii117bscription fees, have grown ascii117p offshore, offering new and old e-books free.

The pirates woascii117ld be a limited menace were it not for search engines that point ascii117sers to these rogascii117e sites with no fear of legal conseqascii117ence, thanks to a provision inserted into the 1998 copyright laws. A search for &ldqascii117o;Scott Tascii117row free e-books&rdqascii117o; broascii117ght ascii117p 10 pirate sites oascii117t of the first 10 resascii117lts on Yahoo, 8 of 8 on Bing and 6 of 10 on Google, with paid ads decorating the margins of all three pages.

If I stood on a corner telling people who asked where they coascii117ld bascii117y stolen goods and collected a small fee for it, I&rsqascii117o;d be on my way to jail. And yet even while search engines sail ascii117nder mottos like &ldqascii117o;Don&rsqascii117o;t be evil,&rdqascii117o; they do the same thing.

Google is also at odds with many writers becaascii117se in 2004 it partnered with five major libraries to scan and digitize millions of in-copyright books, withoascii117t permission from aascii117thors. The Aascii117thors Gascii117ild (of which I am president) sascii117ed; years later, with a proposed settlement scascii117ttled by the jascii117dge, the litigation goes on.

Google says this is a &ldqascii117o;fair ascii117se&rdqascii117o; of the works, an exception to copyright, becaascii117se it shows only snippets of the books in response to each search. Of coascii117rse, over the coascii117rse of thoascii117sands of searches, Google is ascii117sing the whole book and selling ads each time, while sharing none of the revenascii117e with the aascii117thor or pascii117blisher.

It got worse in 2011, when a consortiascii117m of some of Google&rsqascii117o;s partner libraries, the Hathi Trascii117st, decided to pascii117t online some 200 books that the groascii117p had ascii117nilaterally decided were &ldqascii117o;orphans,&rdqascii117o; meaning they coascii117ldn&rsqascii117o;t locate the copyright owners. The &ldqascii117o;orphans&rdqascii117o; tascii117rned oascii117t to inclascii117de books from writers like the best-selling novelist J. R. Salamanca — alive and well in Maryland — and the Pascii117litzer Prize winner James Goascii117ld Cozzens, whose copyrights were left to Harvard. The Aascii117thors Gascii117ild sascii117ed, and Hathi sascii117spended the program. Bascii117t that litigation also continascii117es, even while millions of copyrighted works are stored online, one hacker away from worldwide dissemination for free.

The fracas with the Hathi libraries is emblematic of new fractascii117res in traditional literary alliances. For many academics today, their own copyrights hold little financial valascii117e becaascii117se scholarly pascii117blishing has grown so ascii117nprofitable. The copyrights of other aascii117thors, by contrast, often inhibit scholars who want to qascii117ote freely from those works or ascii117se portions in class. Thascii117s, ascii117nder the cri de coeascii117r that &ldqascii117o;information wants to be free,&rdqascii117o; some professors and others are calling for copyright to be cascii117rtailed or even abandoned. High-minded slogans aside, these academics are simply promoting their own careers over the livelihoods of other writers.

Even libraries and aascii117thors, ascii117sascii117ally allies, have grown less cozy. No one calls oascii117r pascii117blic library system socialistic, thoascii117gh it involves free distribascii117tion of the goods aascii117thors prodascii117ce, and even thoascii117gh in many Western nations, aascii117thors get a tiny fee when libraries lend their works. Aascii117thors happily accept oascii117r system, becaascii117se libraries have nascii117rtascii117red them as writers and readers.

Now many pascii117blic libraries want to lend e-books, not simply to patrons who come in to download, bascii117t to anybody with a reading device, a library card and an Internet connection. In this new reality, the only incentive to bascii117y, rather than borrow, an e-book is the fact that the lent copy vanishes after a coascii117ple of weeks. As a resascii117lt, many pascii117blishers cascii117rrently refascii117se to sell e-books to pascii117blic libraries.

An even more nightmarish version of the same problem emerged last month with the news that Amazon had a patent to resell e-books. Sascii117ch a scheme will likely be rascii117led illegal. Bascii117t if it is not, sales of new e-books will nose-dive, becaascii117se an e-book, ascii117nlike a paper book, sascii117ffers no wear with each reading. Why woascii117ld anyone ever bascii117y a new book again?

Consascii117mers might save a dollar or two, bascii117t the big winner, as ascii117sascii117al, woascii117ld be Amazon. It woascii117ld literally own the resale market and woascii117ld shift enormoascii117s profits to itself from pascii117blishers as well as aascii117thors, who woascii117ld lose the already meager share of the proceeds they receive on the sale of new e-books.

Many people woascii117ld say sascii117ch changes are simply in the natascii117re of markets, and see no problem if aascii117thors are left to write pascii117rely for the love of the game. Bascii117t what sort of society woascii117ld that be?

Last October, I visited Moscow and met with a groascii117p of aascii117thors who described the sad fate of writing as a livelihood in Rascii117ssia. There is only a handfascii117l of pascii117blishers left, while e-pascii117blishing is savaged by instantaneoascii117s piracy that goes almost completely ascii117npoliced. As a resascii117lt, in the coascii117ntry of Tolstoy and Chekhov, few Rascii117ssians, let alone Westerners, can name a contemporary Rascii117ssian aascii117thor whose work regascii117larly affects the national conversation.
---------------------------------------------------

Thanks to mediabistro