Watch out …. the invisible hand might get our precious Snugglepies…. or so they say….(creeping globalization and all that) 
Ever wondered why it’s not possible to use a Kindle in Australia or why there is no branch of Amazon here? It’s because the Australian publishing industry is protected (it’s 70% foreign owned, anyhow … I’ll leave that to one side). It’s also why the books (especially non fiction and text books) cost so much here, relative to the rest of the world.
Fortuntely a recent Productivity Commission Report has recommended that restrictions on the parallel importing of books be reduced. 
The restriction on “parallel book importing” is the mechanism which gives Australia based publishers an effective monopoly on the book market. In a nutshell, any book which is physically published here cannot be imported by local bookshops. This includes all books, not only those by Australian authors. So effectively, bookshops are not permitted to purchase books at the cheapest price possible, and of course this means that there is a severe lack of competition. (And in any case books published here will be more expensive to produce, simply because of smaller print runs).
Naturally the publishing industry is up in arms about it and has managed to recruit a slew of Australian authors to the cause. The line they’ve swallowed is that this will be the death of the Australian writer, our kids will never come across Snugglepot and Cuddlepie again, we’ll be swallowed up foreign culture, this is an attack by neo-liberal free-marketism on everything we hold dear.
Anyway, that’s just the first step, because the commissioners are keen to expunge Australian territorial copyright altogether when, as they say, the next opportunity arises. Which means, of course, when it becomes politically palatable.
Now, that opportunity will only come if Australians are complacent about the success of their own culture, or if they suddenly stop caring about fairness in the workplace. Or perhaps if they can be convinced, once again, as their forebears were, from colonial times until the 1960s, that to be Australian is, after all, to be essentially second rate.
Australian rights are fundamental to the maintenance of our literary culture: our publishing, our printing, our writing and teaching – God help me, even our reviewing. For writers, this is the cornerstone of our fair go. And the policy confronting us has become our equivalent of WorkChoices.
Australians have outgrown colonialism but the loss of territorial copyright will return us to a colonial relationship in literary terms to London and New York – and what a squalid surrender! What a waste of cultural capital that would be. My twenty-five-year-old son has never known an Australia of cringers and whingers, and snobs and bolters, a country where people are compelled to ape the accents of their “betters” from another hemisphere. And I pray that he will never have to, but I fear that he may, unless we stay awake.
So tonight let’s not be distracted by one novel and one writer. The gong is great, I’m very happy. But I’m anxious we stay awake.
Consider the distance we have all come since Miles Franklin’s day and think of what we now stand to lose. Our Brilliant Career really could go Bung, and if it does, the work of generations will have been wasted, and we will have brought dishonour upon ourselves. And I really believe we can’t, and won’t let that happen. So let’s drink to that, eh? Cheers.”
It is inconceivable that a national Labor Government would so casually destroy Australian culture in support of the free-trade zealotry that gave the world the global financial crisis……Yet it is that which the Australian people must now conceive of as possible. If Kevin Rudd adopts this report he will go to his grave as the man who made a bonfire of Australian writing, and hailed the ash as reform.
I listened to a debate between Louise Adler (of Melbourne University Publishing) and Bob Carr (who has been campaigning against inflated bookprices here since 1991). It was on Phillip Adam’s ABC program “Latenight Live”. Carr beat Adler hands down, despite Adam’s typical smarm-filled ‘friendly’ put downs of Carr. In the final minute, after silencing Carr, he offered Adler the final right of reply but she had vanished … apparently having stormed off. Was she reduced to tears? I wouldn’t know, but I’ve read a few reports on the web to the effect that Carr shouted the poor woman down (it didn’t seem like that to me, Carr just knew what he was talking about).
Anyway it was Carr who took the position that the current monopoly practices in the book publishing industry are bad for working class families and that cheaper books are essential. Adler and Adams both made several snooty remarks about the horrors of the mass marketing of books in super-markets etc. How odd, that people like this can present themselves as “nice”, “progressive”, “left-leaning” and yet the views they express are objectively more conservative and reactionary than those of an ex ALP Premier of NSW.
The real cultural-cringing comes from those who argue that Australian culture requires mollycoddling (at the cost of books in general being priced out of the reach of many Australians).
And… there’s a crazy illogic to it. Since (fortunately) individuals are currently permitted to import books from places like Amazon, more and more of us are doing just that. In many cases, even when the price of shipping is included, that’s a cheaper way to do it. This applies especially to non fiction books, and less so to popular fiction. But nevertheless, if publishers here aren’t prepared to become competitive they will eventually be bypassed altogether.
Out of interest I compared the Amazon price of a book I recently purchased, with the price at Readings bookshop in Melbourne. That book was The Limits to Capital, by David Harvey. The Readings‘ price was $48.00(AU) and the Amazon price was $28.72 (AU).
And by the way, the librarians of Australia are in favour of lifting book import restrictions. You can read their submission on the Productivity Commission Report (linked to in my second paragraph).
library of Alexandria
As an author working in Australia I see this as a good thing. Anyone calling this the death of Australian writing is an idiot. A good author can get published anywhere so many of us won’t end up broke. What this might do is cull off much of the crap which is passed off as Australian Fiction. Presently, there is a lot of rubbish being produced. Usually I don’t argue for freer markets but in this case I make an exception as I would like to see Australian authors with international appeal get the recognition they deserve. Why should we all be forced to subsidise the tripe many present Australian publishers print? Make them compete and bring back quality at an affordable price.
Hard to tell these days and an easy mistake to make, but ex-Premier of NSW Bob Carr was ALP.
Caught out!!
Tweedledum, tweedledee ….. I really do have a lot of trouble telling Australian politicians apart. And it’s worse at the State level. Mostly, I just can’t pay attention to what passes for Australian politics.
Have fixed the error, but I freely acknowledge my ignorance of who’s who among the current crop of “leaders”.
The arguments for protection are pretty poor – they mostly amount to “but we need things to stay the same as they are now”. But they do raise important points we need to think about. Should the community or State organise a way to promote Australian or local culture? If so, how?
Especially, if we want (a big if) professional full-time artists or writers in any field – from novelists to journalists – how will we ensure that they’ll have the income they need to do something full-time which will create a product they won’t be able to sell?
(Even if your answer is “have a revolution” that still leaves the questions of how we arrange for full-time journalists and artists without sliding into cronyism and favouritism by assigning jobs through a bureaucracy).
Its very easy to sound informed and authorative when you subscribe to a certain point of view and you present your opinion in such a way as to label rational debate as being the incoherent whining of the writing class. How about including some facts.
When Bob Carr stated that the best selling Twilight series by Stephenie meyer was dearer to buy in Australian because of restrictive PIR’s he was wrong. The PIR’s don’t apply to the Twilight series because they were not published in Australia within 30 days of them being released in the US. Any Australian book seller can legally buy and resell the entire Twilight series from any international publisher at any price. Why didn’t this happen? it did. its only that the Australian booksellers that were sourcing this series from US publishers didn’t pass on the discount to Australian consumers. And you think the removal will lead to cheaper book. All they will lead to is larger profits for the major retailers.
CEO of Dymocks, Don Grover has claimed that Tim Winton’s Miles Franklin Award-winning novel was more than 30% cheaper to buy from a UK website than from Australian bookshops because of Australia’s book copyright rules.
“Mr Grover quotes the UK website price for Breath as equivalent to A$14.70, including delivery, and compares this with an Australian recommended retail price of $25. What he fails to mention is that the same title is for sale in Australia at BigW for $16.21, which minus GST (there is no VAT on books in the UK), is a few cents more than the UK website price. BigW is a member, with Dymocks, of the so-called Coalition for Cheaper Books.
Why does the US, UK and Canada, amoungst others, still have PIR’s in place?
Hi Youngmarxist,
Those strike me as the central issues for practically everything.
I do think the answer is to have a revolution, but that specifically requires resolving those very issues – more broadly than for writing etc – for all forms of production.
Any answer has to also provide for transition from the present capitalist basis. It also has to address the huge gaps between different countries.
Within capitalism it strikes me that copyright is simultaneously historically obsolete and increasingly dominant. Territorial copyright is just a minor absurdity within the absurdity.
To maintain a system of capitalist commercial publishing and employment of authors etc for wages while getting rid of copyright requires funding publishers from the general budget in proportion to audience surveys.
This is already done in a twisted form for music with broadcast stations paying for times played. A less irrational form is “Public Lending Right” where publishers receive payments from general taxation proportional to the number of times a work is borrowed from each library. This does not require the libraries to charge the borrowers or inflict paid advertisements on them like commercial stations or by run by cronies like Arts Councils and ABCs.
Under capitalism it would still involve the muck of favoritism, cronyism etc that characterizes commercial “marketing” as publishers promotion would influence revenue just as much as actual audience benefit. But it would not involve the irrationalities of copyright, whether territorial or otherwise.
I refer to the comments by “Australian Online Bookshop”.
I don’t actually see any argument there FOR keeping the import restrictions on books, just some picking apart of the details of what Bob Carr and so on have to say about the issue.
Let’s assume that Carr and Grover are being dishonest, and that book prices will not fall if parallel import restrictions are abolished. We can compare the price of Tim Winton’s “Breath” at three different websites to see where people are more likely to buy that book from:
bookdepository.co.uk:
GBP 7.19 including delivery
I bought a book from this website last week and the exchange rate on my Visa Debit card worked out at AU $2.15 = GPB 1. At the same rate, this means that Breath would work out to
AU $15.46, including delivery.
bigwentertainment.com.au:
AU $18.99 (including $1.73 GST) + $6.95 for cheapest shipping option
which comes to
$25.94 (or $ 24.21 before GST)
thebookabyss.com.au (the site linked to by “Australian Online Bookshop” above):
AU $22.35 (including $2.03 GST) + $7.95 shipping (on orders sent to Australian addresses under $75)
which comes to
AU $30.30 (or $27.97
afterbefore GST).I can’t confirm the in-store price at Big W for “Breath”, but their “bricks-and-mortar store website (as opposed to their online store) says that Stephenie Meyer’s “Twilight” is available in-store for AU $16.24. (click here for a screenshot confirming this).
$16.24 comes to $14.76
afterbefore GST.Big W’s online store offers “Twilight” for $23.40, or $21.27 after GST. That comes to $30.35 after shipping costs, or $28.22 before GST.
bookdepository.co.uk lists “Twilight” at GBP 6.29, so using the same exchange rate as I mentioned in “Breath”, the price there is AU $13.52 including delivery.
The price for the cheapest version of “Twilight” at thebookabyss.com.au is $20.10 ($18.27 before GST), plus $7.95 shipping. The total there comes to $28.05, or $26.22 not including GST.
That makes “Twilight” $11.81 cheaper off-the-shelf at a physical Big W store than if you ordered it online through the bookshop that “Australian Online Bookshop” links to.
It seems that, for one reason or another, Big W is in fact rather heavily discounting this popular book, so what “Australian Online Bookshop” says is wrong – the discount gained *is* being passed on to consumers, at least partly and at least in this case.
I don’t particularly trust either large booksellers *or* book publishers based in Australia. Certainly it would be silly to assume that the retailers making up the “Coalition for Cheaper Books” would always sell a book for the cheapest price if they could get away with selling it for a dearer one. Which is why we ALSO need to make sure that people have the right to buy books themselves from overseas – not that that right needs much protecting by as, because if it were removed, all sorts of ordinary book readers would be very angry.
Territorial copyright is becoming obsolete very quickly as many people now at least check online booksellers for prices before buying a book. Whether or not the Government gets rid of parallel import restrictions (and I hope they will) people will keep on doing that and getting around the paternalist regulations designed to protect “their” culture. Whether or not you support a revolution (as the posters at this site do) or you are just looking for a better way to support local authors while still keeping the capitalist system, surely the most important thing to do is not to nit-pick holes in the arguments of people like Bob Carr, but to discuss how to give that support. Arthur in his comment above starts off with a few suggestions – following on from that, perhaps we would increase the amount paid under the public lending right to transfer more money to authors, which is far more transparent than applying protectionism to books.
I’m no expert on books and publishing and stuff. Most of the books I purchase are PDFs of technical publications.
However, the most cogent argument I have heard in favour of Territorial copyright came from an Australian author of children’s fiction. “If there’s to be only one international edition of a book, all taps will become faucets, nappies will become daipers and Mum will forever be spelled MOM.”
Mike if you want to support children’s authors then the most effective way would be direct subsidises rather than blanket protection. IE subsidise locals with prises and grants.
PS if the language gets changed to reflect the usage by the dominant power well hello that’s been going on since, a long time ago.
youngmarxist: I think you missed my point. What I posted were a few facts about the loudest proponents for the removal of PIR’s and their missleading comments. Surely you have to ask yourself why the CEO of Dymocks and Bob Carr, who by the way is on the Dymocks board, wound use false and missleading comments to support their argument for the removal of PIR’s? The fact is that the two statements they offer as fact are wrong and missleading! Breath is available to buy in Australia for roughly the same price as The book depository sells and ships for and you don’t have to wait for it to be delivered. Walk in and pick it up off the shelf at BigW. Simple!
As for Twilight, contrary to what Bob Carr says, there are no PIR in place for this book because it was not published in Australia withing 30 day of it being released in the US so if the coalition for cheaper books argument that the removal of PIR’s will reduce the price of books, why then is this book not cheaper? Because their assertions are simply wrong!
As for arguments to keep PIR’s:
I’m not sure if you’re aware of the term ‘remainders’. These are books that either have not sold or have been returned to the publisher as unwanted or excess stock. Due to economies of scale, US publishers will generally print in large runs. Once the excess stock becomes ‘remainders’ they no longer atract royalties for the author. Lets look at Tim Wintons Breath again. PIR’s do exist for this title so as it stands, Australian bricks & mortar bookshops are obliged to sell the Australian version of this book. Without PIR’s in place, excess stock, or ‘remainders’ from US publishers would flood the Australian market substituting sales of the Australian version without any royalties for the author. If thats not bad enough, as MikeFitz stated, the language would be American english and not australian english. This may not be important for people like Steve Owens but it sure as hell is to me.
As it stands, Australian book buyers are under no obligation to buy their books form Australian retailer. Anyone can jump online and buy any book from any supplier in any country. Pir’s make absolutely no difference what-so-ever when it comes to where you buy your books.
New Zealand is the ONLY western country to remove PIR’s. The US, UK and Canada all have PIR’s in place to protect their publishing industries and their interlectual copyright.
The New Zealand Society of Authors made submissions to the Productivity Commission asking them not to abolish PIRs because of their own experience of the resultant devastation to the industry.Since PIRs were abolished, book distribution warehouses in NZ have closed down. Publishers and independent booksellers have gone out of business and new authors have struggled to get published.
Even the Productivity Commission agrees that there is no guarantee that prices will come down – and there is no obligation on the retailer to pass any discounts on. In fact, evidence suggests that the reverse will happen if PIRs are abolished – and that prices will go up.
300 jobs at a printing facility in central Victoria would be lost almost imediately. This is only the tip of the iceberg. Publishing houses, printers, retailers, distribution companies…etc… etc… etc. thousands of jobs gone for what? MAYBE cheaper books? a very big MAYBE!
While teritorial copyright has absolutely no negative impact on Australian consumers but protects Australian authors, publishers, retailers and distributors I will continue to advocate for their retention.
Just on the struggle over strine vs yank speak, I can only see one purpose for language and that is to promote communication. Others may wish to save dead languages and this might be an interesting hobby, however useful language is dynamic and it changes along the lines dictated by the culturally dominant group. We may not like this but the world doesnt turn on our wishes.
Woah! “Without PIR’s in place, excess stock, or ‘remainders’ from US publishers would flood the Australian market substituting sales of the Australian version without any royalties for the author. If thats not bad enough, as MikeFitz stated, the language would be American english and not australian english”.
The flooding of ‘remainders’ from the US would surely do what Carr and co say: bring down the cost of books to the public.
I like Arthur’s reference to the Public Lending Right, of which I am a beneficiary (but only a very minor one, as my books just ain’t that popular).
As for the language, I think Australians know there’s no real difference in meaning between ‘mum’ and ‘mom’ or between ‘Cheers’ and ‘See ya later’.
Ciao for now,
Barry
The flooding of ‘remainders’ from the US would surely NOT do what Carr and co say: bring down the cost of books to the public. All this would do is create bigger profits for the majors. Even the Productivity Commission agrees that there is no guarantee that prices will come down – and there is no obligation on the retailer to pass any discounts on. In fact, evidence suggests that the reverse will happen if PIRs are abolished – and that prices will go up.
As for the language, children don’t know the difference!
When I have gone to remaindered outlets in the past, the prices have been much cheaper.
Sorry but I can’t get very excited about the prospect of my children saying ‘Ciao’ instead of ‘See ya later’. Or ‘mom’ instead of ‘mum’.
There is value in preserving idiom (through oral history, for instance) as a way of understanding how people once lived and communicated but I see no value in actually trying to live in the past. English is a great language because it is open to foreign influence. Somehting spooky about attempts in other countries to purify their lingo.
Hi Barry,
I think there’s a big difference between a remainder outlet and having them on the shelves of Australian bookshops posing as the real deal. I guess you also have to be comfortable with the idea that the Australian author is being done out of his/her commission because over runs from the US have flooded the Australian market. I’m personally not.
In reply to “Australian Online Bookshop”:
youngmarxist: I think you missed my point. What I posted were a few facts about the loudest proponents for the removal of PIR’s and their missleading comments. Surely you have to ask yourself why the CEO of Dymocks and Bob Carr, who by the way is on the Dymocks board, wound use false and missleading comments to support their argument for the removal of PIR’s? The fact is that the two statements they offer as fact are wrong and missleading!
I didn’t miss the point, I implied that I thought it wasn’t relevant to the issue of whether or not to keep protectionism for book publishers.
I also demonstrated – with checkable evidence – that Twilight IS available cheaper from Big W, by over $10, than from the website to which you link. Since you say there are no import restrictions against Twilight, that seems to imply that you are in fact wrong – that large book retailers WILL sell books at a discount when they can, at least if they can make a profit from a highly popular book like “Twilight”
Can you provide evidence that Breath is available at Big W at the price you quote – for example a link to a scanned catalogue or a photo of the price ticket at a store? I couldn’t find it listed at the Big W store website (as opposed to the Big W online bookstore).
I don’t see any problem with cheaper books flooding the Australian market. I don’t think it’s the responsibility of Australian book readers to pay higher prices to keep printing plants, publishers and book distribution warehouses and independent booksellers open. I *can* see arguments for making sure it’s possible for local authors to produce work, which I why I raised the question, and why Arthur mentioned the Public Lending Right as one way we can do that. But propping up the publishing and bookselling industry by enforcing protectionism? No thanks.
In fact, evidence suggests that the reverse will happen if PIRs are abolished – and that prices will go up
Which evidence?
As to children not knowing the difference between Australian and US English, I watched Sesame Street as a child, and was made very aware, despite what that show says, that the letter “z” is pronounced “zed”, not “zee”, in Australia, that we use “taps”, not “faucets” and so on. If people think it’s that important that we preserve local names and pronunciations, it’s not that hard to do.
I don’t think there’s any argument whatsoever that overall Australians are forced to pay higher prices for books due to the current restrictions on parallel importing. This applies particlarly to non-fiction. Citing eamples of people being able to pick up this book or that book at a price comparable to the overseas price doesn’t refute that.
Neither does the argument that people who don’t like it can just go to Amazon or the BookDepository. (A)We would prefer not to pay overseas shipping rates (B) as was pointed out by the
joint submission from the Australian Digital Alliance, the Australian Libraries Copyright Committee and the Australian Library and Information Association to the Productivity Commission:
“The restrictions upon parallel importation simply have the result of excluding Australians who are less ‘internet savvy’ from
obtaining more competitively priced books, and putting Australian
brick-and-mortar book sellers in a less competitive
position than online UK and US bookstores. In our globalised, connected world it seems illogical to continue to maintain
these importation restrictions.
We believe the importation restrictions raise an equity issue, in that it is people without access to the internet (or without
the necessary skills) who are more likely to be paying the price of
the parallel importation restrictions. In many cases this will be
the people who can least afford to be paying higher prices for books.
We submit that dismantling of the restrictions upon parallel importation should be supported where the benefits of wider range,
access, and cost differentials of books are of value to the community.
In our submission, the benefits flowing from greater
competition in the form of increased access to book outweigh any benefit obtained in continuing protectionism.”
As to the argument that everything has got worse in New Zealand since PIRs were lifted the same joint submission argues to the contrary, stating that in general book prices have fallen and noting that:
However, generally speaking, the impression that can be gained from retailers is that the incidence of parallel importing
itself is not particularly high.
It seems that the main impact of liberalisation is that by
legalising parallel imports, those imports have been
stregthened as a real competitive threat to incumbent and
authorised distributors and wholesalers. Faced with this threat, suppliers have improved their performance in providing more competitive terms and conditions of supply and
therefore reduced the need to engage in any substantial volume of parallel importing.
Taken together, the above considerations suggest that New Zealand should maintain its current liberal treatment of parallel importation as the gains to society as a whole exceed
any observable detriments.
Really, anyone who thinks that an absence of competition does not lead to both higher prices and general inefficiency in the production process hasn’t grasped economics 101. This is a general principle which can’t be refuted by citing a small number of exceptions with regard to one or two items. These exceptions can invariably be traced to the impact of a contingent factor. They don’t mean that the overall trend is any different.
I don’t agree with the nationalism implicit in the argument that greater competition might cause Australian job losses either. More effective production processes benefit us all even under capitalism. New technology has always caused job losses as well as creating new jobs. It’s disruptive to individuals for sure, but the alternative of maintaining old technology and more menial work is far worse. Likewise, if Australian jobs are lost, due to more competition faced by Australian-based publishing firms, that simply means that there will be more jobs for workers oveseas. Maintaining employment in indsutries here which are using inefficient methods just in order to employ Australians is poor economic policy from both a right and a left perspective.
As far as protecting authors and “our culture” is concerned, I’d argue against the whole notion that they should be demanding protection. I’m certainly not against public funding for the arts and I think that it should be done in such a way that risk-taking, innovative work is given a chance to make it to the market. But, even under socialism it would ultimately be some sort of market which determined survival. I’m against any endless propping up of a small elite of writers and artists who are saying “the right thing” as determined by another elite.
I think that Barry is right in suspecting conscious, organised efforts to prevent changes to Australian language usage. Good stuff tends to survive, new and exciting variations are introduced. That’s the way of things. Just have a look at YouTube … there’s masses of “Australiana” there (a lot of it crap), posted by all sorts of people who want to share it with the world. As far as I can see, Australians have more opportunity than ever before to get their “language” out there. There are videos for foreigners about how to talk with an Australian accent, how to use Australian slang, even how to eat vegemite. And they are being produced by ordinary Australians, not some government funded little coterie of artists.
Pricing books too high is just a ridiculous way to fund writers, employ people in publishing firms that are physically located here (70% are foreign owned anyway), or preserve the Australian way of talking.
And note: ever since the dawn of civilization people have talked and had culture. We talk differently now, and without effort we struggle to understand olde English, and most of us can’t read Latin or Ancient Greek. But it’s still all available … we can, if we want, read Cicero, Chaucer, Homer …. and it’s more available than ever. I’d like to see more people reading the classics and being familiar with history and the vast human cultural heritage. But it’s not dead, and that’s because it’s so valuable. Of course some good stuff has been lost forever. That’s because the capacity to preserve it was so small compared to today.
Modern humans are able to keep copies of everything. And they are doing it.
(And I don’t give a shit that Bob Carr is on the board of Dymocks. That’s just an ad hominem attack. It’s what he says that counts. Similarly, I wouldn’t stoop to say that the contributions from “Australian Online Bookstore’ should be disregarded out of hand because I suspect that he has an economic interest in maintaining PIRs. That may be the case, but what counts is the arguments proposed, not the person’s background. One can of course suspect bias, but this still has to be demonstrated by addressing what has been said)
I refer your correspondents to a fight-back blogsite against the threat to the publishing industry. http://savingaussiebooks.wordpress.com
It’s set up by authors and many others in the publishing industry – you might like to check out the information on this topic to further your knowledge on the matter. And just in case you think we’re all wealthy bludgers – authors earn around 10% per book’s RRP if they’re lucky. If it’s picked up for schools’ distribution, it’s much less. Large booksellers like Dymocks can demand 50% of the publisher’s fixed price. The retail cartels demand more. Who’re the greedy bastards?
Australian Online Bookshop makes some very relevant and pertinent points – and you can’t escape the most glaring point of all. The US and the UK prohibit Parallel Imports of Books. Why? Because they’re protecting their authors and their publishing industries. Are your correspondents expecting Australia to lie there with legs open, waiting for the rip-off to begin? Again.
I’m a children’s author so I speak with some knowledge. I’ve seen an example of how American publishers change Australian children’s books, and it wasn’t for the better.
You might think wrong spelling doesn’t matter (believe me, it does to literacy teachers), and you might think references to Australian experiences don’t need to go in stories read by Australian children, but many thousands of teachers, parents and writers do.
I’ve seen an edition of an Aussie picture book re-published in the US – the worse thing of all in that picture book was the dumbing-down, the subtly gone, until it became a sugar sweet facsimile of its Australian twin. With the current laws it can only be sold in the US – lift the restrictions and it’ll be available here. People don’t look to see where a book is published, unfortunately.
So-called ‘cheaper books flooding the market’ will be just that, poor quality, remaindered copied of books unwanted by others, and it’ll be much harder to get the book you want.
The other point I’d like to make – as a professional author, I don’t want to rely on awards, grants and prizes to continue to write and get my stories published. Most governments try to cut back on funding for the Arts – how long do you think the money would last?
I don’t want to be reduced to going cap in hand to Government to exist in a craft that is as relevant as any trade or profession – I and my fellow workers in the publishing and printing industry just want a fair go.
Quick response:
Sheryl argues that I can’t escape “the most glaring point of all”:
“The US and the UK prohibit Parallel Imports of Books. Why? Because they’re protecting their authors and their publishing industries. Are your correspondents expecting Australia to lie there with legs open, waiting for the rip-off to begin? Again.
Actually I think I can (escape it).
Yes, it is the case that the US and the UK have PIRs in place. And I think they shouldn’t.
However, in the US and the UK the impact of those restrictions on book prices is far smaller. This is because they both have much larger domestic markets than we do, and therefore more competition between publishers aas well as much greater economies of scale.
On the topic of writers feeling that they need special government protection, here’s a contrary view from New Matilda:
Australian Writers Need a Dose of Humility
It seems that those who are in support of the Productivity Commission’s recommendations on this issue take great delight in spreading misinformation and in calling anyone who doesn’t support the arguments ignorant, or other, worse, names. Yet here I am bemused by the claim that Australian publishers have a virtual monopoly. Excuse me, but isn’t a monopoly when one person has all the power? Using the word ‘virtual’ suggests it isn’t really a monopoly, but perhaps a bit like one.
If we can call the 200 or so publishers in Australia, or even the dozen or so ‘big’ publishers a monopoly (or a virtual monopoly), then we could equally apply that term to the five members of the poorly-named Coalition for Cheaper Books, who already control a lion’s share of the book market in Australia, and will control even more of it should the commission’s suggestions be implemented. These businesses already have it in their power to reduce book prices. Their retail margins on books are much higher than those on other goods, so if they were serious about reducing book prices, they would do so. And, if cheaper prices means more people will buy books, then increased sales would compensate them for the lower margins.
And, on the subject of virtual monopolies, two of the members of the ‘coalition’ already control grocery prices in Australia. Has this resulted in cheaper prices? Nup. They also have a pretty big pair of feet in the door of the retail fuel market. Cheaper prices? Nup. But we’re supposed to believe it’s a good thing to hand them a bigger share of the book market?
Lastly, if anyone is to blame for the current prices of books in Australia, then you can’t look much further than Dymocks for a scapegoat. This chain, supposedly in support of cheaper books, routinely adds a dollar or two to the price to sell above RRP. But they want cheaper books? Nup.
Well said, Virtual Monopoly. The Coalition for Cheaper Books seems to know more about MAKING money for themselves, then saving money for their consumers.
Let’s just bring in some figures here.
A book has an Recommended Retail Price.
Of that RRP, the author gets 10%.
The government gets 10% (GST).
Most booksellers get 40% – but Dymocks gets 50% – and those retail giants (Coles, Kmart, Big W and Woolworths) who are monopolising so much of what we buy… well they take 70%.
True, the retail giants then offer the book below RRP, and you could be mistaken for thinking that they’re passing savings onto the consumer. Ha! In reality, those retail giants don’t lower THEIR profits – they take a greater chunk of the author’s measly 10%.
How magnanimous! Selling cheaper books at the expense of the authors. Well – I guess it only stands to reason that next they’ll try to do it at the expense of the publishing industry as a whole.
Hmmmmm… Time to let my money talk. I’ve already stopped buying Woolworths fuel. As of my next shop, Woolworths won’t see my overloaded grocery trolley again. And I won’t be shopping at Coles, instead! I’ve had virtually enough of monopoly.
Christoph – calling people who hold differing views to your own ‘idiots’ is not a great advertisement for your writing skills.
The fact that you go on to say ‘a good author can get published anywhere’ also belies your claim of working in the industry. I have yet to meet a bonafide author who does not know that getting published is extremely difficult and relies on more than simply being ‘good’ at writing. Changes which constrict the industry will only make it harder to get published.
You then go on to refer to the ‘crap’ which is passed off as Australian fiction, without being brave enough to substantiate this claim. In recent years Australian authors have managed to win numerous international awards, with books which were first published in Australia. This award winning ‘crap’ would not have seen the light of day were it not for opportunities given to these authors by Australian publishers. Thos Australian writers with international appeal got their start here in Australia. They’d never have had their chance to appeal to the international audience if they didn’t have local publishing support first.
Anyone who feels they can win an argument by calling people idiots and trying to make themselves superior by using put downs like ‘crap’ perhaps needs to do some serious reading on the issue to inform themselves.
OK, here comes the backlash for us daring to suggest that protectionism for the Australian-based publishing industry should be abolished. Let’s take the points our critics raise:
And just in case you think we’re all wealthy bludgers – authors earn around 10% per book’s RRP if they’re lucky. If it’s picked up for schools’ distribution, it’s much less. Large booksellers like Dymocks can demand 50% of the publisher’s fixed price. The retail cartels demand more. Who’re the greedy bastards?
Please show me anywhere in this article or comments where people advocating the end of protection for the publishing industry have called authors “wealthy bludgers” or “greedy bastards”. If you can’t, I’ll suspect that you are pretending that we said that, to try and make us look bad.
Australian Online Bookshop makes some very relevant and pertinent points – and you can’t escape the most glaring point of all. The US and the UK prohibit Parallel Imports of Books. Why? Because they’re protecting their authors and their publishing industries. Are your correspondents expecting Australia to lie there with legs open, waiting for the rip-off to begin? Again.
An excellent, textbook example of using emotive language to obscure the issue of what should be done about protectionism for Australian publishers. I’d encourage the kids watching at home to remember that if you can’t provide actual counter-arguments, likening someone’s position to that of a sexual assaulter is a great way to try and shut them down.
Also, I have demonstrated that the points Australian Online Bookshop makes, central to her or his argument, are in fact wrong – AOB said that large booksellers won’t provide cheap books if parallel imports are allowed. I demonstrated, with checkable evidence, that “Twilight” is available at Big W, right now, for more than ten dollars less than the price it’s available at the website AOB links to.
You might think wrong spelling doesn’t matter
The correct word is “incorrect”, not “wrong”. Normally wouldn’t be so pedantic but since you’re arguing that allowing books to be imported from the USA would damage Australian language and culture, shouldn’t you use that language correctly?
(believe me, it does to literacy teachers), and you might think references to Australian experiences don’t need to go in stories read by Australian children, but many thousands of teachers, parents and writers do.
No. Please show me where anyone in favour of the end of protectionism for Australian publishers has said anything of the sort on this site.
I think keeping our local culture going is a good idea. That’s why I asked, three days ago, how we could go about doing that without protecting the publishing industry in Australia. Do you have any practical suggestions as to how we can support Australian writers without raising the price of books to the reader?
I’ve seen an edition of an Aussie picture book re-published in the US – the worse thing of all in that picture book was the dumbing-down, the subtly gone, until it became a sugar sweet facsimile of its Australian twin. With the current laws it can only be sold in the US – lift the restrictions and it’ll be available here. People don’t look to see where a book is published, unfortunately.
Which book? Do you have examples of the Australian and the US version to show us? What evidence do you have to suggest that this will always, or usually, be the case?
So-called ‘cheaper books flooding the market’ will be just that, poor quality, remaindered copied of books unwanted by others, and it’ll be much harder to get the book you want.
If the books are poor quality, and don’t suit the people who pay for them, they can choose not to buy them. Not sure how having a larger supply of books will make it “harder to get the book you want”.
The other point I’d like to make – as a professional author, I don’t want to rely on awards, grants and prizes to continue to write and get my stories published. Most governments try to cut back on funding for the Arts – how long do you think the money would last?
As someone who has to pay more for books than he has to, I don’t want to rely on protectionism of Australian-based publishers to support authors. We’ve already discussed the idea of an expanded Public Lending Right as one way to support authors. What other ways do you suggest that don’t involve the cronyism of “awards, grants and prizes”?
I don’t want to be reduced to going cap in hand to Government to exist in a craft that is as relevant as any trade or profession – I and my fellow workers in the publishing and printing industry just want a fair go.
And so do people who buy books. Why shouldn’t books be available at the cheapest possible price? And how is the publishing industry’s rent-seeking – demanding special treatment from the Government – not going “cap in hand to the Government”?
It seems that those who are in support of the Productivity Commission’s recommendations on this issue take great delight in spreading misinformation and in calling anyone who doesn’t support the arguments ignorant, or other, worse, names.
Really? What examples can you give? Since I demonstrated, with checkable evidence, that Australian Online Bookshops arguments were wrong, surely your side of the argument is promoting a fair bit of misinformation as well?
Yet here I am bemused by the claim that Australian publishers have a virtual monopoly. Excuse me, but isn’t a monopoly when one person has all the power? Using the word ‘virtual’ suggests it isn’t really a monopoly, but perhaps a bit like one.
We can call it an “oligopoly”, or a “cartel”, if you’d prefer – a cartel that is demanding special treatment from the Goverment.
If we can call the 200 or so publishers in Australia, or even the dozen or so ‘big’ publishers a monopoly (or a virtual monopoly), then we could equally apply that term to the five members of the poorly-named Coalition for Cheaper Books, who already control a lion’s share of the book market in Australia, and will control even more of it should the commission’s suggestions be implemented.
I’ve already stated that I don’t really trust either side in this argument. Both industry groups are self-interested, and if (as I hope) protection for Australian publishers is abolished, we’ll need to keep a close eye on the large retailers to make sure they don’t abuse their market power. An important part of this will be making sure that people can buy books online.
These businesses already have it in their power to reduce book prices. Their retail margins on books are much higher than those on other goods, so if they were serious about reducing book prices, they would do so. And, if cheaper prices means more people will buy books, then increased sales would compensate them for the lower margins.
These businesses have already reduced book prices, as I demonstrated earlier – a copy of Twilight is available from Big W’s physical store for $16.24.
Why is my clear and checkable demonstration of this being ignored? Is it because it destroys the central points of the arguments in favour of protection for Australian publishers.
And, on the subject of virtual monopolies, two of the members of the ‘coalition’ already control grocery prices in Australia. Has this resulted in cheaper prices? Nup.
Really? Why is food cheaper at my local Coles supermarket than my local IGA?
They also have a pretty big pair of feet in the door of the retail fuel market. Cheaper prices? Nup.
Evidence, please?
Lastly, if anyone is to blame for the current prices of books in Australia, then you can’t look much further than Dymocks for a scapegoat. This chain, supposedly in support of cheaper books, routinely adds a dollar or two to the price to sell above RRP. But they want cheaper books? Nup.
Cool. I won’t buy from Dymocks then. Easy, really.
Let’s just bring in some figures here.
A book has an Recommended Retail Price.
Of that RRP, the author gets 10%.
The government gets 10% (GST).
Most booksellers get 40% – but Dymocks gets 50% – and those retail giants (Coles, Kmart, Big W and Woolworths) who are monopolising so much of what we buy… well they take 70%.
Evidence, please?
True, the retail giants then offer the book below RRP, and you could be mistaken for thinking that they’re passing savings onto the consumer. Ha! In reality, those retail giants don’t lower THEIR profits – they take a greater chunk of the author’s measly 10%.
Assuming for the sake of argument this is true (you provide no evidence in support of your assertions), how is that relevant. If the reader gets the book for less money, then the saving is being “passed onto the consumer”. If you think this will result in authors not being paid enough money to be able to create books, do you have any proposals other than protection of Australian-based publishers to ensure authors are supported properly? What, for example, do you think of the suggestion of an expanded Public Lending Right that has already been discussed, long before you joined this discussion?
How magnanimous! Selling cheaper books at the expense of the authors. Well – I guess it only stands to reason that next they’ll try to do it at the expense of the publishing industry as a whole.
Why does the publishing industry deserve protection?
Hmmmmm… Time to let my money talk. I’ve already stopped buying Woolworths fuel. As of my next shop, Woolworths won’t see my overloaded grocery trolley again. And I won’t be shopping at Coles, instead! I’ve had virtually enough of monopoly.
If you can tell me where to buy groceries and fuel for less than Coles and Woolworths sell them, please say so. I’m sure everyone here would like to know. If you end up paying more for groceries and fuel by boycotting Coles and Woolworths, do you think other people should be forced to follow your example?
Not an Idiot, what is your response to the other arguments made here – arguments without the words “crap” or “idiot”? Are you here to make a serious contribution or are you just cherry-picking the easiest target?
What, for instance, do you think of the fact that I have clearly demonstrated that Big W sells the popular book “Twilight” for over ten dollars less than the site linked to by someone who here argues for continued protection of the Australian-based publishing industry?
And what do you think of the idea of an expanded Public Lending Right as one possible way to support authors without needing to protect publishers?
I am all for expanding the Public Lending Right. But to be paid PLR, a writer must first be published. To be published, a writer must send their manuscript to a publishing house. This is called an unsolicited manuscript. Unsolicited manuscripts go on a pile called the ‘slush pile’ and it takes the publisher about 6 months to get through the pile and around to reading them (Qld Writers Centre, Publishers and Agents seminar). After 6 months you may receive a reply. I suspect the slush pile of US and UK publishers will be even higher and take even longer, because of their greater population. So there’s no chance for me and young people like me there.
If the PIRs are dropped, Australian publishing houses will not be willing to invest in young authors like myself. I have already had an email from my literary agent (Cameron Creswell) regarding my picture book manuscript (which she loved) saying that Australian publishers are ‘pulling back’ on the publication of picture books. Because of the economic situation and the threat of PIRs being lifted, they are unwilling to invest in new, unproven talent. And I will have even less chance in the US and UK, because my work has an Australian flavour.
My mother is a teacher of early childhood and the Australian picture book is used daily by herself and her colleagues to give the children a sense of ‘self’ and who they are as Australians.
Books with Australian content, which reflect our social and cultural values and indigenous beliefs are one of the few sources still available to children. Young people are already bombarded with more than enough popular foreign culture and language in the forms of music, movies and food without taking away the only resource left to them which reflects who they are – Aussie books.
So I am strongly against the lifting or the restrictions. Young children don’t have a voice, but I am speaking up for them.
Youngmarxist. With all due respect, maybe you could be a little less condescending towards those of us who hold different points of view to yours. Some of us may not be able to articulate our views as well as you obviously can but we are entitled to express our opinions just as you do. I know this is a divisive and emotive issue and can generate some fairly heated debate but let’s keep it in perspective.
[youngmarxist: Please show me anywhere in this article or comments where people advocating the end of protection for the publishing industry have called authors “wealthy bludgers” or “greedy bastards”. If you can’t, I’ll suspect that you are pretending that we said that, to try and make us look bad.]
You seem to take this comment as a personal attack upon yourself rather than a generalisation referring to some of the comments that have been expressed on forums like this all over the web. The fact is that there is a perception that authors are gouging huge profits from the sale of their books and this is simply not true.
[youngmarxist: An excellent, textbook example of using emotive language to obscure the issue of what should be done about protectionism for Australian publishers. I’d encourage the kids watching at home to remember that if you can’t provide actual counter-arguments, likening someone’s position to that of a sexual assaulter is a great way to try and shut them down.]
Please! Let’s address the issues not the language and the issue is the US and the UK both have PIR’s in place and unlike Australia who limit parallel importation based on the 30/90 law, they actually prohibit it outright. Those economies obviously think there is a commercial argument to maintaining PIR’s.
[youngmarxist: Also, I have demonstrated that the points Australian Online Bookshop makes, central to her or his argument, are in fact wrong – AOB said that large booksellers won’t provide cheap books if parallel imports are allowed.]
I think you’ve actually misread or misinterpreted what I said in an earlier post. I said “Twilight series” which is a series of four books. What you have done is pick one book, the cheapest in the series and used it to advance your argument. Leaving that aside, the point that I was making in that post was that both Bob Carr and Don Grover used incorrect information to try to persuade us that PIR’s were responsible for higher prices. I guess my question is, why would two of the most informed individuals in the retail book industry use false or misleading information when advocating for the removal of PIR’s? If the issues regarding PIR’s and prices are as obvious as they say they are then surely they could provide substantiated, accurate examples.
[youngmarxist: The correct word is “incorrect”, not “wrong”. Normally wouldn’t be so pedantic but since you’re arguing that allowing books to be imported from the USA would damage Australian language and culture, shouldn’t you use that language correctly?]
Again you should play the ball and not the man. This comment is charged with condescension and elitism.
[youngmarxist: No. Please show me where anyone in favour of the end of protectionism for Australian publishers has said anything of the sort on this site.]
I can’t speak for Sheryl but I can only assume that her comments refer to general comments being made on a number of different forums, one in particular which Sheryl refers to at the beginning of her post. http://savingaussiebooks.wordpress.com
[youngmarxist: Which book? Do you have examples of the Australian and the US version to show us? What evidence do you have to suggest that this will always, or usually, be the case?]
We’re not in a court of law here so I’m not sure what the rules of evidence are but I for one am prepared to take ALL comments that have been posted here at face value. I see no reason for anyone to lie no matter their point of view. I thought this was all about expressing differing opinions and debating the merits of those opinions in a courteous and adult manner. I wouldn’t have thought there was a need to have our lawyers present.
[youngmarxist: If the books are poor quality, and don’t suit the people who pay for them, they can choose not to buy them. Not sure how having a larger supply of books will make it “harder to get the book you want”.]
I think here, and I’m sure you’ll correct me if I’m wrong, that you’re assuming the cheaper or ‘remaindered’ stock will sit side by side on our local Aussie bookshop shelves. What you seem to forget is that these books will more than likely be replacing the locally produced version of the book which will in fact result in a smaller supply of books to choose from. There will be less choice, not more.
[youngmarxist: As someone who has to pay more for books than he has to, I don’t want to rely on protectionism of Australian-based publishers to support authors. We’ve already discussed the idea of an expanded Public Lending Right as one way to support authors. What other ways do you suggest that don’t involve the cronyism of “awards, grants and prizes”?]
Why shouldn’t an author get paid for the work they do? Why should they have to rely on government handouts to sustain their vocation? Most people go to work, do their job and get paid. Why should authors be any different? I would have thought without them this entire argument is moot.
[youngmarxist: Why shouldn’t books be available at the cheapest possible price?]
They should be no argument. But will removing PIR’s actually lower the price of books in Australia? Even the Productivity Commission agrees that there is no guarantee that prices will come down – and there is no obligation on the retailer to pass any discounts on. I personally think the removal of GST on books in Australia would be the most effective way to reduce the price of books. Neither the US nor the UK levies a consumption tax on books.
[And, on the subject of virtual monopolies, two of the members of the ‘coalition’ already control grocery prices in Australia. Has this resulted in cheaper prices? Nup]
[youngmarxist: Really? Why is food cheaper at my local Coles supermarket than my local IGA?]
[They also have a pretty big pair of feet in the door of the retail fuel market. Cheaper prices? Nup].
[youngmarxist: Evidence, please?]
Food at my IGA is not cheaper than my local Coles or Woolies, nor is it any dearer. My local Aldi is a lot cheaper than all of the above. Similarly, APCO is always at least 3 to 5 cents per litre cheaper than my local Coles or Woolies petrol outlets. That is just a local comparison and may not be the case in your local market. I think the point remains a valid one though, i.e. whenever you concentrate power you reduce choice.
[youngmarxist: What, for instance, do you think of the fact that I have clearly demonstrated that Big W sells the popular book “Twilight” for over ten dollars less than the site linked to by someone who here argues for continued protection of the Australian-based publishing industry?]
Again, as I’ve mentioned above, this misrepresents my original comment.
keza, I personally don’t have an economic interest in maintaining PIR’s. Around 85% of what we sell we source from Australian publishers. I could import up to 85 to 90% of those books from a US distributor for around the same price and have them at my door within 5 days of placing an order. The demise of Australian publishers would not, on the whole, have a big impact on our business.
My comments about Bob Carr were in fact not an ad hominem attack. I have no personal issues with him and in fact have even voted for him once or twice. I believe he has as much right as anyone else to present his arguments regarding PIR’s to the wider community. I mentioned that he is on the board of Dymocks to illustrate the fact that he should be more informed when making those arguments.
Youngmarxist asked: Are you here to make a serious contribution or are you just cherry-picking the easiest target?
Not looking for the easiest target, Young Marxist. I jumped on that one as it is the first on the page – and the worst example of an argument on the page, because it relies on simply diminishing the arguers rather than the argument. I don’t have time to respond to every single point raised – but am wanting to stay in touch with this debate and contribute where I can. So, here goes:
You asked -“What, for instance, do you think of the fact that I have clearly demonstrated that Big W sells the popular book “Twilight” for over ten dollars less …?”
Given that this book is offered so cheap at a time when PIR IS in effect, I think it’s an argument for maintaining the status quo. If books can be offered cheaply now, then why change things. However, I realise that you are saying it is cheap because it is an import, so for argument’s sake I went to the same site and did a comparison of a YA fantasy book which IS published in Australia. Garth Nix’s Abhorsen is sold on Big W online for $15.51. The publisher’s RRP is $17.95 for the same edition – so Big W is selling for less than RRP (possibly as a result of getting a higher discount from the publisher, or perhaps, just perhaps, they’re taking a cut in their margin). Interestingly (and, surprisingly given that the PIR rules are supposed to prevent this), Big W also offers several imported editions of the book – the cheapest being $17.15. A saving of 80 cents off the RRP, but more expensive than the local edition sold by the same shop. In this case, the imported edition is not cheaper once it is imported into Australia – although if I went further and browsed other sites, I am sure I would find sites where the Australian edition is more expensive. My point here is that in the same shop, the imported book is not cheaper. What is likely to be lower is the percentage paid to Mr Nix when someone buys the imported edition. And, of course, the US version will have been edited for the US market, where it is intended to be sold.
You said – “And what do you think of the idea of an expanded Public Lending Right as one possible way to support authors without needing to protect publishers?”
Personally, I could benefit from expanded PLR, as I am fortunate enough to have already been published. However, there are two problems with using this as a means of responding to scrapping PIRs. Firstly, only authors who have been published can get PLR. It is paid for copies of published books held in public libraries. If the changes go ahead, and new writers can’t get published, they won’t have access to PLR. Secondly, PLR is only payable on books and editions published in Australia. If libraries start to stock the imported edition, authors will not get PLR payment on those books. A further problem is that PLR is not payable until sometimes two years from the date of publication. A book published in 2009 for example will be surveyed in 2010 and first eligible for payment in 2011. A long wait for payment.
Okay, now I’ve answered the questions you directed at me, now I’ll ‘cherry pick’ a couple of your other queries. I make no excuses for this – time is limited and no one person can hope to have every answer to this complex issue.
You asked: “Do you have any practical suggestions as to how we can support Australian writers without raising the price of books to the reader?”
Firstly, I want to note that authors are not asking for raised prices. We are readers, too, and don’t want prices to be increased, nor even to be kept high just for the sake of it. Wanting to maintain PIRs is not about wanting to increase prices.
But, as for practical support for Australian writers – yes, I do have some suggestions. Ensuring that Australian editions of books authored by Australians are the ones that appear on bookshelves will support Australian authors AND Australian readers. Legislation that prevents remaindered or altered foreign editions of these books being bought in from overseas would achieve this.
Yes, I know that sounds just like the existing PIRs – but this is a means of ensuring Australian authors are paid for their work. In no other profit-making industry do people expect the workers to work for free. But, when books are remaindered, that is exactly what happens. Remaindered stock is stock that, for a variety of reasons, retailers or wholesalers have been unable to sell. That stock is then sold off as a job lot (often with other remaindered, but unrelated stock) to the highest bidder. The seller then writes that stock off, and is not obliged to pay the author any royalties. That’s right – the author gets nothing. But the new owner of that remaindered stock is still entitled to sell it.
With Australia’s borders open to this stock, Australian booksellers who have a demand for that title (probably because the author has made a name for him/herself in his country of origin) would be able to buy the remaindered stock. Yes, it would be cheaper than full priced Australian stock. Yes, some of that saving might be passed on to the consumer. But the author gets nothing. A law which allows that to happen would be very wrong.
We don’t expect other workers to work for free. We don’t buy a bottle of milk thinking the farmer should milk the cows for free, the factory worker should bottle it for free, the checkout girl should scan it for free. But if we allow remaindered stock to replace properly remunerated product then we expect the author to work for free.
Unfortunately, there is no way to support Australian writers which doesn’t require money being spent. Spent by consumers buying books, spent by grants organizations, spent by publishers or spent by government handouts – in the end, though, this money is being spent on a product, and products cost money. I don’t think authors are asking to be paid for doing nothing. They are asking to be paid market rate for their share of a product they have helped create. What scrapping PIRs will do is remove the author’s share from the equation.
A second practical suggestion is to consider removing the GST on books, most particularly children’s books. One reason books are cheaper in the UK is because they are not subject to VAT. Perhaps Australian produced books could be exempt from GST, thus passing a saving to consumers without affecting the precious bookseller’s cut.
Lasty, you said: “If (as I hope) protection for Australian publishers is abolished, we’ll need to keep a close eye on the large retailers to make sure they don’t abuse their market power”
In an ideal world, that might work. But the reality is that large retailers are adverse to being monitored. Earlier this year, just days before the Grocery Choice website was to go live, the big three supermarkets met with the consumer Affairs minister and convinced him that transparency would not work for them. There is little chance they are going to agree to be monitored on book prices and they are not going to change their practices voluntarily. But there are no legislative measures recommended by the Productivity Commission to ensure they don’t abuse their market power. Us little guys (the book buying public) can keep as many eyes on them as wel like – it won’t change their practises.
Globalisation will win out. We have seen the loss of a number of manufacturing industries in australia over the last few decades and this has been a good thing we have all benefited from. There has been movement of workers from the manufacturing industry to other industries mainly Hi tech and this has involved workers being retrained or upskilled but a better life for all australians. These people also saw the danger in losing the “Australian” component of their industry however they have now moved into other industries or become more innovative in their old industry and their fears were not realised and we don’t bemoan the loss of the Australian underpants.
globalisation will also mean one language for the world enabling everyone in the world to be able to communicate with each other. That language most likely will be English, you know the language we speak here. It can’t be australian as we speak ENGLISH!!!!!!! Any ENGLISH teacher can tell you that there are lots of different ways to spell words. There are no “mistakes” in the spelling of words in books edited in the U.S., that is how they spell them and if anyone was wanting to complain I assume it would the English but putting a case for one bastard language over another seems rather semantic. I am looking forward to reading a book that I can discuss with someone in Mongolia because we both understand it. I don’t want to be stuck in some cultural backwater isolated by language and culture. I have no preference for Australian writers I have a preference for good books.
I happen to be a worker, I go to work to get money not because I love it. This is the case with most workers including doctors lawyers etc. They work for large corporations and have little chance to show their artistic flair. It would be nice if we could all do what we wanted and we are trying to get to that point. I am not of the opinion that we ought to start with writers. I think we can all go together. If you want to write or sing or act then do it. If you want to make money out of it good luck but don’t expect me to pay for it.
Globalisation will allow Australian authors to compete more readily internationally where they will make more money. If they need a nursery to get started then perhaps they should look at a different career, there’s plenty out there.
Emerging Author, thanks for taking the discussion further.
I can see your points about why there are problems with the current way the Public Lending Right scheme is set up. But I don’t see any particular reason why we *need* to keep publishers as gatekeepers of the scheme. Why shouldn’t you be able to submit your books directly to Australian libraries and get paid based on how popular they are?
I do think it’s good for people (not *just* children) to be able to easily read stories about the world they live in, as well as being exposed to foreign influences. What frustrates me about this debate is the assumption that protecting Australian-based publishers is the only way that can happen. I think it’s possible to get rid of that protection while still fostering a confident Australian book culture.
I agree with one part of Tom’s post but disagree with another part. I share Tom’s enthusiasm for globalisation and agree that protectionism cannot be justified in Australia, be it over textiles or books. I like the way the cost of clothing has dropped so significantly over the past couple of decades – it all began with Whitlam’s reversal of the old White Australia era mentality. During his period in office, he outraged the reactionaries (especially union bosses) by cutting tariffs by 25%. Keating took it further; again angering those who prefer the ‘good old days’.
Sorry folks but, as an author who benefits from both the Public Lending Right and the Education Lending Right, I know that when all’s said and done, the books I write and get published are a product, a commodity.
The difference, of course, is that Australian writers will be more inclined to reflect their particular cultural milieu. This is where the ‘identity’ issue comes in but, again frankly, it doesn’t worry me too much that the idiom may be changed in Australian books that are published overseas, imported and cost less.
The old Australian idiom is preserved in many ways, most effectively through sound archiving. Nothing can beat the experience of actually hearing the slang and accents and idiom spoken by previous generations. I once recorded a very long oral history interview with an Australian communist and union leader who was born in 1914 in ‘the slums of Fitzroy’ (Melbourne). It’s a fascinating recording, full of insights and impressions, but also remarkable for the idiom spoken. Ted spoke an old Australian working-class idiom that he probably learned from his parents who were born in the late C19th. But, does it bother me that hardly anyone speaks like that any more? Not at all. Idiom changes – the English language moves forward through resisting ‘purity’.
Where I disagree with Tom is over his attitude to authors which, it seems to me, is disparaging. Writers do it, usually, because they are passionate about expressing themselves and find it very satisfying. They should be seen as workers like the rest of us.
So, what should happen? Well, in opposing the absurdity of C21st protectionism, it’s important at the same time to come up with somehting that supports writers.
Consistently, I find when I think of “what should happen”, it’s something that cannot happen within the framework of capitalism which is only interested in profit-motivated production.
But, what I reckon should happen is that authors should be part of the working class, paid a basic wage by the state out of general revenue, but from that basis of security have their earnings linked to a Public Lending Right type of system. In that way, the sheep are separated from the goats in terms of earnings through success.
I do agree with Tom when he says that globalisation will allow Australian authors to compete more readily internationally. Globalisation is more opportunity than threat. As for Tom’s remark about authors wanting a nursery, I think it’s more a case of authors not wanting to have to suffer for their art.
In my opinion, the problem here is capitalism, which only values artistic endeavour in pursuit of profit. In a system based on social ownership, writers nad other artists would be both more secure and more able to succeed.
The arguments for retaining the restrictions on parallel imports are not just about the English language and Australian English. They are about identity. A child from Mongolia may learn to speak English, but he will identify himself as Mongolian. So a book about a kid in San Francisco, who catches a tram to school, will have no relevance to him in his environment and he will not be able to identify with this story. Similarly it will do nothing to support the Australian child’s developing identity.
Just because we all speak English, doesn’t mean we are all the same. I have taught foreign languages for over 20 years and speak five myself. I know first hand how very difficult it is to learn and understand the cultural nuances of a particular language and its people. Australia is no longer a colony. We have developed our own unique ways of speaking and writing, which reflect our beliefs and attitudes as separate from the rest of the english speaking world. Our experiences and influences are different to those of other nations including the US and UK.
If PIRs are lifted fewer Australian books will be published. This has been admitted by the Productivity Commission. They will be replaced by foreign books for our kids. This issue is not just about what we as adults want to read. Our kids love to read stories about themselves and if the PIRs are lifted there won’t be many for them to chose from. This is the major concern for me.
Not an Idiot:
You asked -”What, for instance, do you think of the fact that I have clearly demonstrated that Big W sells the popular book “Twilight” for over ten dollars less …?”
Given that this book is offered so cheap at a time when PIR IS in effect, I think it’s an argument for maintaining the status quo.
The point of the example of “Twilight” is that (according to Australian Online Bookshop) there is no PIR on it, as it was not picked up by an Australian publishing house in the time needed to trigger the restrictions. AOB said:
“the Australian booksellers that were sourcing this series from US publishers didn’t pass on the discount to Australian consumers.”
and my figures demonstrate that, in that particular case at least, AOB’s assertion plainly is wrong.
The specific example you give of Grant Nix’s Abhorsen definitely demonstrates that imported books won’t *always* be cheaper. (And thank you for bothering to find a specific example). However to me the most important point is the special privileges granted to Australian-based publishers. I don’t think those privileges are justified, and overall, it seems likely to me that those privileges are going to push the price of books up.
Regarding Public Lending Right, as I just mentioned to Emerging Author I can see all sorts of problems with the way the scheme is currently run – I didn’t realise the details of how it worked and I think it’s ridiculous that publishers should be the gatekeepers of what gets accepted. I also don’t see why, with modern records systems, why it should take so long to get paid. If someone buys a book of mine from the self-publishing site lulu.com, I get paid pretty much immediately. If a for-profit company can make that happen, I don’t see why we couldn’t speed up author payments from libraries.
What I like about the idea of the Public Lending Right is that it’s an attempt to actually reward authors based on how many people want to read their books. Ignoring for a moment the big flaws in how it’s currently run, can you see a way, at least in principle, that that could be a way to encourage Australian authors to write Australian books?
Your point about how authors don’t get royalties for remaindered works opens up a lot of issues. You say allowing remaindered editions to be imported is expecting an author to work for free.
It seems to be that a better solution (under our current capitalist system) is to pass a law saying that it’s illegal to sell books in Australia for which an author has not received royalties, and that any section of a publisher’s contract that purports to take away a right to royalties for remaindered books is null and void. Of course, that might make publishers more reluctant to publish books, but I think that one of the most important things in this debate is working out how authors can become more independent of publishing companies, in the same way that some musicians are now able to.
That would protect an author’s right to get paid for work done, without giving privileges to the publishing companies.
I’m heading out now so I’ll respond to your other points when I get back.
tomb said, “Any ENGLISH teacher can tell you that there are lots of different ways to spell words. There are no “mistakes” in the spelling of words in books edited in the U.S.,…”
Ah! An interesting comment, tomb. (Is that the death knell for Australian publishing, btw?)
When Australian authors submit work to American publishers, it is often returned with spelling corrections – because they mark the Australian (IE the ENGLISH version of spelling them) incorrect. The American publishers often haven’t heard your decree that there are lots of different ways to spell words.
FACT: Australian school children are taught Australian (English) spelling.
FACT: Where American spelling differs from Australian (English) spelling this causes ongoing (often lasting) confusion amongs students.
FACT: Parents still value the 3Rs – Reading, wRiting and aRithmetic. And they place great emphasis on the spelling component of wRiting.
The other thing I think you will find is that most ENGLISH teachers would tell you is that there is a correct USAGE for the different spellings of each word. A doctor will practise in a medical practice. Two different spellings, with two different contexts. Switch them around and an English teacher would tell you that it is a mistake.
Just some things for you to note….
And finally – as a teacher I am often encouraging students to find a job that they LOVE, so that they WANT to go to work. Who wants to be stuck in a role they hate all their life – or enslaved by money?
Perhaps that’s why you’re so… gloomy by name?
Tomb, your disparaging attitude towards writers is an attitude, not an informed opinion. You seem to think that nobody should do a job that they like which is sad, very sad. I would prefer to go and see a doctor who likes his/her job – because being passionate about that job means s/he is going to be keen to do it well, to develop new skills and so on. I’d also prefer to be served by a shopworker who enjoys their job – because again they are going to be pleasant and more likely to be helpful. I agree that it is possible to do a job you don’t enjoy. I am a published author but find it necessary to work other jobs to help pay the bills. I don’t love those jobs like I love writing, but I try to engage with those jobs so that I do them well.
Authors are not looking for a free ride. Writing is a job. It is not generally a well paid job – except for a very few writers who have hit the jackpot, such as JK Rowling. For the rest of us, the amount we are paid does not even begin to convert to an hourly rate. This is not a complaint – this is a reality we have long accepted. But now you are saying we should not be paid at all. Perhaps you don’t read books? If you do, and you pay for them, who would you prefer get the money? Should all the money go to the booksellers and publishers? Authors only get a small cut (a maximum of 10% of cover price), yet you seem to have problem with this small amount – but not the big cut the booksellers get (often 50%). Doctors and lawyers don’t work for free. You’ve told us you work for money – so you don’t work for free. But you want writers to work for free. Writers actually do some of their work for free because, once a book is written, there is still a need to find a publisher. If we don’t get published, we don’t get paid. Fair enough, that’s a risk we take. But once we do get something published, we should be paid for it. I don’t expect YOU to pay me, Tomb. I expect that the person who buys my book will pay the bookseller, who pays the publisher, who pays me.
Being paid for my work – that’s what every worker wants.
Tomb – One of the pleasures I get from reading books is finding that I can relate – finding that I know the place, or know the situation, or know of someone just like that. Books that reflect our own culture back to us help us remember that we’re not alone in the world.
Another pleasure, however, is reading about differences. When I read something set in another time or place or culture, it extends my experience. It lets me discover things that I might never come across in my own life. It helps me understand the human experience.
Our current import restrictions of books give us the best of both. Our industry is able to thrive – publishers can hope to recover investment costs, therefore they’re willing to back local writers. And publishers can also buy the rights to foreign novels, so we can read those too. (Profits from these help support local investment) And if a foreign book is not taken up here, we are free to import it.
You may love the idea of a world where we all speak the same and have no cultural differences.
I cannot think of anything sadder.
What I don’t understand is why globalisation is a thing so ardently desired. To the person who said we don’t miss the Australian underpants, obviously you’ve never had to pay good money for inferior goods, simply because we no longer have the capability to produce these goods ourselves. Equally obviously you’ve not lived in a small community where there were massive retrenchments, and people had to move away in order to get a job, or look to becoming a dole bludger. You might move on with your life, but if you happen to have loved the job you did, then you don’t forgive those who reft it from you.
To implement the Productivity Commission’s suggestions, without an actual firm plan on how to manage the ‘what-should-happen-next’ scenario, simply concentrates more power to the multinational duopoly who currently control a huge percentage of our grocery and petrol prices. Put simply, they are the only ones who are absolutely sure to do well from the abolishment of PIRs.
The current system has a lot to dislike about it, for instance the person who does no more than put a book on a shelf, whether they actively promote the book or not, get between 3 – 7 [1] times as much than the person who sepnt years developing and writing the book. And yes, of course there are good reasons for change.
But surely a better way to bring about change is to leave things as they are while doing a proper community consultation. I don’t actually consider the Productivity Commission did community consultaion, simply because there was never any doubt that they were going to find in favour of big buisnes.[2] To actual travel around the country, and speak to groups of educators, and librarians, and writers groups, and booksellers, and the general public. Find out how people are accessing books, and what they need. Bring everyone into round table discussions. And then compile all the points.
It might turn out that the best way to lower the price of books in this country is to limit the amount that booksellers can charge. It might turn out that PIRs are actually part of the problem, it might turn out they aren’t. It may be that the cheapest way to sell books in this country is through a direct selling scheme, a la Tupperware parties. But the biased mess that is the Productivity Commission’s report merely makes me angry that they got paid, probably quite well, to put it together.
[1] youngmarxist, I do actually have documentary proof of Dymocks demanding 60%, of whatever the rrp was, to stock a small press book, but I prefer not to put buisness invoices online.
[2] Of course, I may be ore cynical than most
Given that authors get only about 10% of retail prices, it seems obvious that authors have the LEAST stake in efforts to maintain territorial copyright.
Direct payments to authors in proportion to readership based on surveys would obviously be far more effective. It should be irrelevant where the work is printed or published. PLR merely demonstrates that it is possible to do such surveys. An effective scheme to actually REPLACE copyright (not just territorial copyright) would be much larger scale and much better designed. (Broadcast station royalties are another example of survey based revenue – with an even worse design than PLR so that broadcasts are interrupted by more ads).
Authors would find it far easier to campaign for a greater share of budget revenue to stimulate Australian culture than to campaign for keeping up prices 90% of which go to others (and that result in pure waste on individual international shipments).
The ultimate absurdity is in academic publishing, where institutions pay academics to write and then pay academic publishers to publish them via their libraries buying copies.
These systems are relics in an age of near zero cost reproduction. Information wants to be free. Authors need to be paid and copyright is less and less viable as a means of paying them.
Sharyn said: The current system has a lot to dislike about it, for instance the person who does no more than put a book on a shelf, whether they actively promote the book or not, get between 3 – 7 [1] times as much than the person who sepnt years developing and writing the book.
I agree with almost everything you say but i do have to take exception to the your assertion that all booksellers are making huge profits at the authors expense. Maybe some of the majors, who demand publishers and agents give them between 50 and 70% off RRP throught volume discounts and rebates, are making that sort of money but i can tell you unequivically that most booksellers don’t. We’re lucky to net between 4 and 6% after all all oncosts.
In a way, the Publishers that have bowed to these major chains are solely responsible for the power these chains have in the current marketplace. When they sell your books to one of these majors for sometimes less than half what smaller bookshops have to pay they are creating a monster that has turned around and bit them fairly on the backside. Now it is these same majors that are advocating for the removal of PIR’s which may spell the death of the people that put them in such a position of power in the first place. It really puts small to medium sized bookshops in a very awkward position. Do we support the publishers that have driven a nail into the coffin of small business through their insatiable greed for ‘turnover’ or do we let them suffer at the hands of the bohemoth?
Of course we support them because this supports the industry, the authors, the printers and in turn, Australian culture and heritage.
I beleive there are ways to support a viable, vibrant Australian publishing industry and in tunr, Australian authors but a lot has to change. The removal of PIR’s will not achieve the change we need nor will it lead to lower book prices.
Australian Online Bookshop complains that I misrepresented her/his argument by demonstrating that the first book of the Twilight series was over ten dollars cheaper at Big W than at the bookshop AOB links to.
AOB points out that the phrase used was the “Twilight *series*”. So let’s compare the prices of the four books that make up the Twilight series, “Twilight”, “New Moon”, “Eclipse” and “Breaking Dawn”.
Big W’s in-store price for paperback copies of those 4 books is $74.62 – $16.24 for “Twilight” and $19.46 each for the other three books. This can be confirmed at this screenshot.
At the bookshop that AOB links to, the price for all 4 books in the series is $80.40 ($20.10 each). This is the total price as shipping is free for orders to Australan addresses where the total book price is $75 or more.
The price of these books can be confirmed at this page – note that I am using the price of the “B Format” books, which are the cheapest.
This makes the price at Big W 7% cheaper than at the bookstore AOB links to.
AOB has said that:
1) Import restrictions don’t apply to Twilight
2) “Australian booksellers that were sourcing this series from US publishers didn’t pass on the discount to Australian consumers.”
It is clear that AOB is, again, wrong.
AOB has also said that:
“Bob Carr and Don Grover used incorrect information to try to persuade us that PIR’s were responsible for higher prices. I guess my question is, why would two of the most informed individuals in the retail book industry use false or misleading information when advocating for the removal of PIR’s?”
Let’s be clear. I don’t particularly trust Carr or Grover, and certainly wouldn’t take any examples they give on face value. But if Carr or Grover have an obligation to be correct, so does everyone else in this argument.
AOB’s response to me complains about the language I used, and also responds to my complaints about other people’s language by saying:
“Please! Let’s address the issues not the language and the issue”.
AOB also objects to my requests for evidence, and says that
“We’re not in a court of law here so I’m not sure what the rules of evidence are but I for one am prepared to take ALL comments that have been posted here at face value. I see no reason for anyone to lie no matter their point of view. I thought this was all about expressing differing opinions and debating the merits of those opinions in a courteous and adult manner. I wouldn’t have thought there was a need to have our lawyers present.”
1) You can’t debate the merits of opinions without working out if those opinions are based in fact, or are just plain wrong.
2) You can be dead wrong without lying. Just because you might be personally sincere doesn’t mean your opinions should be taken on face value.
3) You don’t need lawyers to weigh evidence and work out if people’s opinions are based in fact or in wrong assumptions. It’s a basic part of critical thinking. Any discussion that doesn’t have that sort of rigour is just worthless mush.
4) I don’t take any assertions of fact on face value, they should be checked. I *expect* my assertions to be checked by people who disagree with me.
5) The rules of evidence are that when you make an assertion, you should demonstrate with checkable, concrete examples, that it is true.
I didn’t want to leave these criticisms and incorrect assertions unanswered, but this is a dead end, and I’m now going to concentrate more on talking about how we can support a confident Australian culture without rent-seeking, protectionism or cronyism. I’d especially like to discuss how we could come up with an interim scheme that would be possible under capitalism (as most of the people willing to support Australian culture are not revolutionaries and won’t accept the “have a revolution” solution, at least not yet).
I’d also like to discuss how such a scheme could work after a revolution that abolished capitalism,
Youngmarxist you present an interesting dichotomy. On the one hand you are arguing for a move that, as it stands, will only concentrate more power to multi-national capitalists. On the other you want a revolution to remove capitalism.
So what is more important to you, cheaper books or your political ideals?
I’ve already stated what I think should happen. Real community consultation. Not sitting in one’s comfortable offices in Canberra, and saying in effect: “We will decide your future, so tell us why we should listen to you. Provided, of course, you know you can actually contact us.” But the sort of consultation that means you know what library needs the Principal at Kings College has, as well as what needs the Principal at the one teacher school in Gerogery has. Who do I think should fund this? Printers, publishers, writers, book sellers and Government. Costs should be transparent to all, and no one side able to alter the outcome.
Australian Online Bookshop: I would prefer to deal exclusively with your type of store, the ones that do actually care about customers. I can’t help but wonder how many other small press are out there that would do the same? This could well be a point worth further discussion.
the one eyed red proletarian is back again adopting a victor hart aphorism
Hybrid strine today
succumb
to the eagle’s
imperial lingo
& fair dinkum
you’re gone tomorrow
AOB – Keep plugging away there. I for one appreciate the wisdom of your arguments. And your persistence in this campaign!
There’s a lot of truth in your comment about the situation being a direct result of the power given to large retailers to set the terms themselves. Since becoming aware of the control that Big W and the like have over the book market – and the cut they get out of books! – I have come to the conclusion that I no longer want to see my book on their shelves. Why did I ever want to in the first place?
Youngmarxist you present an interesting dichotomy. On the one hand you are arguing for a move that, as it stands, will only concentrate more power to multi-national capitalists. On the other you want a revolution to remove capitalism.
So what is more important to you, cheaper books or your political ideals?
You present a false contradiction.
First, keeping protection for the holders of Australian territorial rights to books will help the Australian arms of such multi-national publishers as Random House, Macmillan, Penguin and HarperCollins.
Second, when I decide which group of capitalists I should support in this argument – publishers or booksellers – I make that decision based on what outcome is more likely to encourage people to be freer, more confident and self-assertive.
For instance, the Australian Library and Information Association (which is not revolutionary) supports getting rid of protection for rights-holders of Australian books because they think it will further their goal of promoting:
“the free flow of information and ideas in the interest of all Australians and a thriving culture, economy and democracy”
I agree that their stance is likely to promote that goal, and I also think that that goal is the most likely way to promote a culture where one day people will get tired of working for capitalist bosses, and will start thinking about how to get rid of them.
In contrast, I think begging the Australian Government for protection – especially when the begging is done by the authors who get the crumbs falling off the publishers’ tables – is likely to lead to a stagnant, fearful culture. That culture will never have a revolution, I think, although it might enjoy having a whinge now and again and pretending that whingeing has something to do with being “progressive” or “left”.
Saying you think “real community consultation” should happen is not a policy proposal. If the consultation you want were to happen, what policies would you advocate?
For the people here who have supported the proposal to get rid of protection for the Australian rights-holders of books, it seems that we need to find authors who are excited by new ways to distribute books, inclding online print-on-demand services, and who aren’t just going to demand “Bigger cages and longer chains” from the publishing houses that profit from their work.
Youngmarxist, I believe any policy change should arise from what comes out of the ‘real community consultation’ It should not be decided before the community is asked exactly what they need, and want. That is the equivalant of Sartre’s telling a student you only ask for advice from those who will give you authority to act as you already want to. It prohibits real and effective change.
Like it or not the people here who have supported this move, and ALIA, ‘are’ supporting a move that will concentrate power into the biggest capitalist companies in this country. And I do not present a false contradiction. I am asking you to support a major community consultation, instead of letting the current proposal go through. One that will accurately map exactly what is needed, and wanted – by the people.
So I shall qualify my question. Which is more important to you: Believeing that the Coalition for Cheaper Books are being completely honest, and book prices will drop by the dramatic 22% – 50%[1] that has been bandied about, and supporting a move that will definitely concentrate more power to the country’s largest capitalists? Or your political beliefs that support the power of the people? In essence, cheaper books, or your political beliefs?
[1] as stated by Michael Cooney, Chief of Staff, Office of Andrew Barr here: http://eneit.livejournal.com/280062.html
It is curious to see Alan Moran at the IPA supporting the existing arrangements. He claims there are market segmentation benefits and draws a comparison with pharmaceuticals.
I am asking you to support a major community consultation, instead of letting the current proposal go through.
No. The Productivity Commission accepted hundreds of public submissions. I think that’s adequate consultation. And if/when I consult with the community on books, I will consult with authors who are excited by modern technology and its ability to empower authors against the publishing houses that extract their profits from the work done by those authors.
And I do not present a false contradiction.
Yes, in fact you do.
You said that the policy I support “will only concentrate more power to multi-national capitalists”
I pointed out in response to that that the current policy gives power to multi-national capitalists, such as Random House, MacMillan, Penguin and HarperCollins. I’m sure you’re aware that HarperCollins is owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, a multi-national capitalist organisation, so I now assume that your emotive arguments using the bogeyman phrase “multi-national capitalist” are deliberately dishonest.
So I shall qualify my question. Which is more important to you: Believeing that the Coalition for Cheaper Books are being completely honest, and book prices will drop by the dramatic 22% – 50% that has been bandied about…
Either you havent’t read my comments, or you’re deliberately and dishonestly ignoring the fact that I have said several times I see no reason to trust any figures produced by the Coalition for Cheaper Books. EG here:
Let’s be clear. I don’t particularly trust Carr or Grover, and certainly wouldn’t take any examples they give on face value.
…and supporting a move that will definitely concentrate more power to the country’s largest capitalists? Or your political beliefs that support the power of the people? In essence, cheaper books, or your political beliefs?
Cheaper books are a core of my political beliefs. People should have access to the good things in life, including books, as cheaply as possible. Protecting publishers who hold the Australian territorial rights to books is against my core political beliefs.
We’ve also started discussion on this thread about other ways that authors could get paid well for writing, and books could be cheaper. But you haven’t responded at all to that.
So this is becoming another dead end. I won’t respond again to you here unless you:
1) Acknowledge what I say and stop misrepresenting my position.
2) Stop using technical terms like “multi-national capitalist” as emotive language to try to twist the argument in your direction.
I’m still keen to still discuss this with people who support the current scheme if they can avoid such basic dishonesty in argument.
Actually, I am not being dishonest, however I am more than happy to allow you the right to your opinion. I have merely asked a question, and I have used the words you have used in previous posts. It was not I who brought up the capitalism bogeyman.
The Productivty Commission reports holds a lot of skewed data. And the ones who will suffer if it is implemented ‘as it stands’, and I do believe I have used that phrase a time or two in my posts, will be the small presses, the independant book sellers, and the emerging writers. The big buisnesses, be they publisher or bookseller, will survive the changes. But they will survive on the basis of the cookie cutter world books: the best sellers, and the books that appeal to the majority public. I doubt Mills and Boon publishers would even notice a bump in the road.
Nor am I asking for the lack of change, only to hold the status quo while a real and exhaustive consultation is held. I do not believe legislative change should be enacted on the basis of this skewed and elitist data. They accepted ‘hundreds of submissions’ but the industry directly employs tens of thousands of people. And I also know that a lot of rural educators had no idea that they could present a submission to the Productivity Commission. I know this from actually talking to them.
By the way, I have been involved in new and exciting publishing technology since 2001. The proposed changes have nothing to do with e-books or digital and multi media publishing, and everything to do with profit margins on mass paperback, and hardcover physical book formats.
I do howe3ver acknoleddge you are right on one point, This is indeed a dead end. And by your actions, you have answered my question. Thank you.
I see you’re up to your old tricks again Youngmarxist. It appears to me when others point out obvious failings or contradictions in your argument, you resort to accusations of ignorance and dishonesty.
The productivity commission did accept hundreds of submissions, the majority from industry stakeholders, so I question whether this can actually be considered community consultation. Leaving that aside, I think you’ll find the majority of submission which, by the way, were virtually ignored by the commission, were against the removal of PIR’s and therefore, do the finding of the commission accurately reflect the thoughts of the comminuty. I personally don’t think so.
Westfarmers, Woolies, Dymocks… some of the members of the so called ‘coalition for cheaper books’, will be the biggest beneficiaries of the removal of PIR’s should it occur. Last time I looked they fit the description of ‘capitalist’ i.e An investor of capital in business, especially one having a major financial interest in an important enterprise. As far as I’m concerned if you support the removal of PIR’s you have to acknowledge the added power it will put in the hands of such companies.
Anyway…probably just another dead end but I just thought I’d correct the record.
“Where I disagree with Tom is over his attitude to authors which, it seems to me, is disparaging. Writers do it, usually, because they are passionate about expressing themselves and find it very satisfying. They should be seen as workers like the rest of us.
So, what should happen? Well, in opposing the absurdity of C21st protectionism, it’s important at the same time to come up with something that supports writers. “
Barry, I think I said I am happy for Writers to write!! The current system does not allow all writers to write. It allows an elite to write. We would all like to have a job doing the things we enjoy and am passionate about but as you say under capitalism we can’t. I would definitely support a system which gave everyone this opportunity. Those wanting to maintain the current system are taking an opportunistic position of bagging capitalism when it suits them but wanting to preserve the status quo. I haven’t seen anything from these people advocating a broad change for the general good of humanity. They want to preserve something for themsleves be it an industry, words, culture etc.
I can understand the need to assess where writers might stand in a better system but how we can preserve a system which caters to only an elite is of no interest to me. I know you are a writer and as this is a blog then I suppose we all are. However most of us don’t and won’t get paid for it. These people are not wanting to fix that they want to preserve the present system which would maintain this unsatisfactory state of affairs. I have no problem with those that Write for a living and consider most workers but it isn’t a high priority of mine to try to pick winners or losers or to protect them over others.
As an English teacher, I encourage all students to write and to read literature from a broad range of sources. I find it sad that I can’t relate to someone in Mongolia and look forward to the day I can. The reason I can’t is more to do with economics than language or culture. When I can, it won’t mean there would be no differences cultural or otherwise. I think this discussion is one example of people that have differences relating to each other.
Tomb can you please elaborate on your comment ‘I think I said I am happy for Writers to write!! The current system does not allow all writers to write. It allows an elite to write.’
By ‘write’ do you mean write and be published?
If this is what you mean I dont think the removal of PIR’s will alter this in any way, in fact it will make it harder for Australian authors to be published either in Australian or elsewhere for that matter.
I do think Australian publishers take risks on new and emerging authors but I don’t think it’s their role to publish everyone who wants to write. There are self publishing companies, both here and overseas, commonly known as vanity publishers. A lot of writers that can’t get a publishing deal with an existing publisher sometimes use a vanity publisher and self promote their books independently to booksellers and the public via websites etc.
Elizabeth Jolley, one of Australias most prolific authors wrote most of her life but wasn’t published until she was well into her 40s. I guess my point is you don’t have to have anyones permission to be a writer.
The existence of PIR’s and the current structure of publishers don’t prevent a writer from writing.
1. Defending territorial copyright won’t work – ie you will lose.
2. In the not so distant future copyright in general won’t work. Other mechanisms will have to be developed to fund publishing.
3. The undesired mechanisms are patronage based (Arts Councils etc).
4. A plausible alternative is survey based methods (eg PLR).
5. Put some effort into making that viable. Instead of wasting energy on a losing battle that won’t unite readers with writers and publishers, put the energy into proposals that COULD unite readers, writers, publishers and bookshops. Dont expect others to develop the details for you. Put forward some concrete ideas on how to ACTUALLY fund published writing rather than “protecting” a 10% cut of a distribution system made obsolete by modernity.
But Arthur – the future direction of the publishing industry is not here yet. Who knows what is to come? Do you expect us to give up territorial copyright NOW, when the US and UK continue to thrive under the current system? We’re small players – they will hardly be looking at us saying, Wow, look what Australia has done, let’s follow them. They’ll be cheering all the way to the bank.
We can’t throw out the current system without having one to take it’s place – and I hardly think Govt handouts to authors can be called a system.
If this process would SLOW DOWN, maybe proper consultation could take place. Not the sort where a commission, that has already made up its mind, calls for and then ignores submissions.
Tomb – I am hardly an elite. I currently work in…gasp…childcare (another lowly paid profession) and in my spare time, I work at my writing. I have had some successes, here and there, but am still waiting for the big one…
So, not elite. Yet I keep trying because, as hard as it is, I know that perseverance is the key to this game. And I know that there are opportunities out there – for now.
What happens when you take away those opportunities, and our already limited chances dwindle more? We lose our next generation of writers. You may not care that a few more dreamers have to face the real world (I thought my day job was already in the real world!) but I would LOVE to read their books some day!
As I clearly have little financial stake in this, it may shock you to know that what drives me is my love of books! Because most writers are in the game because of their love of reading, you will find many of us are largely motivated by what we stand to lose. Incase you missed what that is, it’s books!
Reader, since you agree that we can’t throw out the current system without another to take its place and that Government handouts aren’t a viable replacement, you ought to be working on practical details of ideas for survey based systems for paying authors.
Instead you are wasting your time shouting SLOW DOWN at a steamroller.
I’m sorry Arthur, but it’s kind of hard to throw together details when you’re about to be run down! And it’s not realistic for individuals in society to come up with the sorts of practical details you say they should. Who do you think I am? Put it this way – I don’t have publishing contacts, or bookselling contacts, or printing or binding or editorial… I don’t have research skills, and I know little about statistical analysis.
I am a small, concerned individual.
This is the kind of consultation the Govt should be doing, together with the big players in the industry. But even the big players are busy dodging bullets, and that makes it kind of hard for them to put some creative thinking into action. If they spend the next 6 months working out details for some brand new scheme, they’ll turn around and find that our PIRs are gone and it’s all too late.
Some say the Commission WAS that consultation, but they went in with their free market ideology, and only considered supporting arguments.
I don’t understand why the big race. You tell us to run from the steamroller and get working. Why can’t the steamroller slow down???
Reader, sure you can’t develop practical details of alternative by yourself. But you and others remain invited to join in discussion of such details here. You haven’t had much luck convincing others here to try and help stop the steamroller on getting rid of territorial copyright so it seems likely that by continuing to put all your energies into that you will still end up losing but also have no alternative to recover lost funding for authors.
There’s a much bigger steameroller aimed squarely at all forms of copyright. Its called the internet. Governments and copyright industry associations are fighting a much more successful rearguard action to preserve the old ways of funding information and have succeeded in delaying the time when everything published will be available to everyone instantaneously for no additional charge. But that is so OBVIOUSLY desirable and inevitable they cannot avoid it forever. In fact music is already largely distributed via peer to peer (both online and offline) without any payments to authors or publishers.
Literature, music and film all need mechanisms for public funding based on surveys of use and usefulness.
Such mechanisms exist for non-tollway roads, pure science and other forms of public and semi-public goods.
There are lots of practical details to work out. Including:
1. How to raise and allocate budget revenue between literature and other public goods given that people have different levels of interest in literature and other services.
2. How to transition from national to international systems replacing copyright.
3. Mechanisms for surveys eg public library and bookshop/instant printshop sales records, reader reports, internet download logs,. Including mechanisms to prevent rorting.
eg Readers “vote” on which publications they deem worth funding?
4. How to allocate based on survey results. (eg I see no reason to maintain the present absurdity of “stars” and “celebrities” that are hugely popular receiving proportionately huge incomes and would rather that the “long tail” got a higher proportion so the funding per reader should tail off with increasing numbers).
5. Future role of publishers. (I would assume that most public funding would continue to go via author contracts to the publishers rather than the authors as survey based income would be highly dependent on publisher’s resources for attracting attention of readers).
6. Future role of bookshops. Merge with libraries, instant print shops, video rentals and cafes?
Is this the way forward for Africa?
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/aug2009/gb2009083_487801.htm
Dalec.
Send to the right thread. Also, offer a point of view or an argument based on the link. Are we really meant to read it, then work out what you’re getting at and, on that basis, respond? Try debating for once. Respond to the excerpt from David McMullen’s book that I posted.
Guy Rundle had a very witty letter in The Age recently in response to someone who wrote an article in response to a good one by him on this topic.
Clinging to the past
READING Natalie Hickey’s article (Comment, 23/9) by gaslight (Mr Edison, your invention will never replace the warm glow of paraffin), I find I am persuaded of the error of my ways.
The printed book will never die. Electronic readers will not follow the same uptake pattern as the mobile phone, which did so much damage to my hand-carved pager business. Printed books will never drop to volumes so low that their production becomes uneconomic en masse. A rising generation will never regard electronic media as the normal form of text. Territorial copyright applied to electronic media is not nonsensical.
Nothing you grew up with ever changes or declines, as any pianola salesman will tell you.
The best way to ensure vibrant local culture is to act as if nothing has to be rethought.
I apologise for the shaky quality of this handwriting, but my quills are blunt and I am in urgent need of a new goose.
Guy Rundle, Old Jindabyne, NSW
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/technology-is-not-so-advanced-that-protection-for-our-authors-can-end-20090922-g0h3.html
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/book-import-laws-are-madness-based-on-delusion-20090912-flgs.html
Its odd how Guy Rundle simultaneously does clearly support progress and see through what he calls the “cultural left” while also maintaining a pseudoleft position on international issues.