Since I last wrote about parallel imports things have moved on a pace. The initial submissions have closed and the Productivity Commission is quietly augmenting the submissions with interviews with the significant players in the industry.
There have been some interesting submissions, some of which have influenced my own opinions. Of note is the Australian Booksellers Association submission which reverses their previously held open market position, and the Leading Edge submission which puts the prices under scrutiny. Gleebooks and Readings argue that the 90 day rule does not reflect reality, and a huge swathe of author and publisher submissions argue against any change. Finally the coalition of Dymocks and the major retailers argues for the removal of the current rules.
My only change and concession to protection is that an Australian citizen who is the predominant author should be allowed to retain territorial control in the Australian market over all editions of their work to give them some protection against the pitfalls of selling on an international market. I can't see this really as being a huge issue but it certainly does give some protection for smaller local publishers in the global market and would provide peace of mind for authors who are terrified of the remainder bins.
For the rest, I haven't really changed my position. I find it strange that purely local publishers are arguing against changes and I was appalled by Peter Carey's submission which was published by the Sydney Morning Herald in spectrum this weekend. Appalled enough to write another post.
For starters, I have to point out that Peter - for perfectly valid reasons - stopped publishing through the Australian publisher that discovered him and nurtured his career and went with a publisher with a global parent which pretty much destroys any credibility the rest of his rant against globalisation of rights may have had. Smaller publishers such as my employer UNSW Press and Peter's former publisher UQP struggle not against territorial rights but competitiveness in getting retail and media space compared with the international publishers and also the drain of talent that gets poached once they become successful. I won't rehash my previous post but I still think that pricing is a lesser consideration in that it only makes a difference once an author is already successful, and is not a barrier to an author becoming successful.
On book territorial copyright my motivation is just an extension of my position against the appalling regional territorial control on television and movie product. Peter Carey talks about the threat of colonialism and international publishers thinking "how can we sew this market up?". Well Peter, they've already got the market sewn up. Territorial copyright is just the icing on the cake. I can't help thinking that the effects of colonialism is in the thinking that Australian publishing somehow depends on the protection of international authors and publishers. In that case they seem to have won already. Even Peter's former publisher is arguing against changes to the rules.
I'm not entirely surprised with the conservative view from Leading Edge and the Australian Booksellers Association. They're concerned about of getting done over by the discount department stores, and not having the clout to get in on the action. Well they're right to be concerned. The good independent bookshops have already moved on from trying to compete on the top ten, but there's no question it cuts into the the mum and dad bookstores out in the suburbs who aren't in a major chain, but this is no different to what is already happening out there. Territorial copyright isn't stopping Woolworths from increasing their market share.
Despite the alluring pricing comparisons presented by the Coalition for Cheaper Books I seriously doubt most of these will translate in reality, except on the mass market editions, and then, only then will you be cutting into Peter Carey's royalties.
0 comments:
Post a Comment