Comment by PuppyTailWags | Hacker News Reader

Comment by PuppyTailWags | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I'm not asking whether or not George R.R. Martin would or wouldn't be fine: I'm asking whether or not it's reasonable for HBO to make a killing off his work without him being paid at all as an example of how it doesn't seem reasonable on its face that smaller authors should just get shafted if someone makes a huge profit off their work.

Since we want to talk about mid-tier authors, I think you'd be surprised how long and how well royalty can still pay authors. Cassandra Khaw has repeatedly commented on how Hammers On Bone (published 2016) is still making them significant revenue. And this isn't at all covering the nuances of UK/US markets, where books can make it big in the UK and only years later publish in the US and vice versa (where I know for certain make significant income for authors)! I'm sure Susanna Clarke, who has Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, is still immensely grateful for how well Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell continued to sell (and then she came out with another banger, Piranesi!). Victor LaVelle is still making money off The Ballad of Black Tom (2016) to the point of producing a re-release hardcover of the book due to popular demand! And I know Nnedi Okorafor is still earning excellent royalties from Who Fears Death (2011) even though her more profitable works (Binti, Akata series) are getting more attention nowadays.

The argument that books primarily sell 95% of all they'll ever sell in the first 2-3 years is a total misunderstanding of the book market. It may look like that for current-events nonfiction or celebrity bibliographical works, but fiction markets don't work like that at all-- the backlist makes a huge chunk of the stable income of an author. This is true also for indie and self-pub markets (I can't name specific examples because I haven't done heavy research into this, but I know from panels and talks from other romance authors that self-publishing romance heavily relies on voracious readers who will buy your entire backlist.)

But should any of those authors become sick, disabled, or otherwise no longer able to produce, should they end up never making another cent of any of their works? How would they support themselves 5, 10, 15, 20 years?

> But should any of those authors become sick, disabled, or otherwise no longer able to produce, should they end up never making another cent of any of their works? How would they support themselves 5, 10, 15, 20 years?

Isn't this an issue about social security or income insurance or pensions.. why should this be specifically different for an author than a bricklayer?

> But should any of those authors become sick, disabled, or otherwise no longer able to produce, should they end up never making another cent of any of their works? How would they support themselves 5, 10, 15, 20 years?

Rick Cook (who wrote the Wizardy Complied series - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Cook_(writer) )... back in 2007 wrote: http://rickcooks.blogspot.com/2007/12/wiz-6-wizard-uncomplet...

> In spring 2000 I was well into Wiz 6: The Wizardry Capitalized when I went into the hospital for emergency heart surgery. The surgery saved my life but a combination of medical problems and the effects of the drugs I take has pretty much ended my fiction career. (Non-fiction I still manage very nicely, thank you.)

I've seen this happen to others. Something about the heart medicine prevents some spark of creativity. Its another example of an author who needed to support himself for another 20 years off the royalties from books he wrote a decade before.

>I'm asking whether or not it's reasonable for HBO to make a killing off his work

The difference is that in this case, everybody would be free to adapt it as they see fit. HBO doesn't get the exclusive rights. Under the current system, only very big producers can afford to license well known properties. Under a more permissive system, anybody can do it.

No, because HBO has more than license: they also have audience and money to pay for actors, animators, script writers and, most importantly, a marketing campaign. They could still make a ton of money off of it, just that George R.R. Martin wouldn't see a single cent of it! That's what I'm saying would suck terribly. [See: All the lovecraft works in public domain-- big productions based on the mythos are still making toooons of money!]

Again, I think it's a mistake to hold up GRRM as representative of someone who would be "shafted" if HBO were able to make GoT without his participation. That ignores the other side of the coin: all the works that could be made into other media but aren't because: the author doesn't want someone else to sully their work; the author wants too much money; no one can find the copyright holder.

It's interesting that none of the works you cite as being vulnerable are more than 12 years old. If we could agree on 12 years with a 12 year renewal, I'd happily compromise on that compared to what we have now.

Looking at Cassandra Khaw: the book you mention, Hammers On Bone, is just seven years old. So under my scheme (I allowed for the idea of renewals) maybe she'd be on her second renewal? Certainly nothing like the current system, where that book will conservatively be under copyright well into the 2100s.

But to your point: U.S. publishers sell almost a billion books per year. I'm not sure how much authors get, since the numbers seem to be different for professionally published books vs. self-published, but let's take it as $1 per copy. HoB is currently ranked 560,000th on Amazon. If we take any kind of reasonable distribution of book sales, that would have her selling <= 1,000 books per year. That means she's clearing up to $1,000 per year on that book -- certainly enough to call it "significant revenue," but also not enough to keep body and soul together on its own.

And again, I'll point out that current copyright goes far beyond the death of the author. Should we be similarly sympathetic to the children (or even grandchildren) of the author?

And as an aside: Cassandra Khaw is actually similar to Piers Anthony: the very first book in the Xanth series is currently ranked 48,000th at Amazon, but the 20th book is ranked over 1 millionth. Interestingly, the most recent book is ranked 280,000th, so better than the middle of the series, but not as good as the first book. This speaks more directly to your point than any of the examples you gave, since A Spell for Chameleon came out almost fifty years ago. And the Battle Circle omnibus edition (it was a trilogy originally) is ranked 180,000th, so better than the most recent Xanth novel.

But all of this ignores the point I originally made, which is that copyright is only secondarily for the benefit of authors. If you really want to argue for longer copyright, you have to support the idea that fewer authors would write, or write less, if copyright were shorter. That's the only justification that speaks to the intent in the constitution.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com