Before the Civil War almost all Southern states made it illegal to teach African Americans to read, whether they were slaves or not. This was to keep them from standing up for their rights which many abolitionists understood. They knew that in order to make informed decisions in a Democracy they had to have access to good educational material to do their best to stand up for their rights. Now there's much more educational information available, but a lot of it is only available to those that can afford to pay for it, and in many cases, some of the best educational information isn't promoted or advertised on traditional media, so even if some people can afford it they don't know what to look for. In other cases, copyrights are used to ensure that some material is only available at ridiculously high prices; this is most common for college books that are typically only sold to a small number of students, or in other cases books that are out of print, but still under copyright, driving up the cost of rare "collectibles." In these cases, or even in cases where books are more reasonably priced, people who share electronic copies for free are referred to as "Pirates" stealing intellectual property. They can be charged with a crime just like those teaching slaves, even when accessing educational material is necessary to participate in the Democratic process.
Some books, including educational books, are way over priced due to copyright laws, and the fact that publishing companies are unwilling to promote them creating demand, ensuring only the wealthy can afford them. This includes educational books about the most effective ways to reduce violence; and lower income people less able to afford education or expensive books are the biggest targets of violence. If someone were to share free electronic copies of research, enabling lower income people to help reduce violence, they might make communities safer, and still be charged with a crime for stealing "intellectual property," created or controlled by rich people more concerned with maximizing profits than serving the best interests of the public.
This is also a major problem for college students who are often required to buy certain books for various courses, in some cases, that they don't even use much, but they don't find out until it's too late. Book sellers know this and take advantage to gouge students, and in some cases they contract with colleges to provide these books, guaranteeing them sales, with little protection for the students, although there's no guarantee they provide full financial disclosure. Then they often can't sell them for more than a fraction of the price they pay. This problem isn't limited to college students, since many people can't afford to go to college at all, and the education they don't get could be important when it comes to making decisions in a Democratic society. Those trying to restrict access to educational material are often also trying to control the propaganda used to make political decisions, ensuring the wealthy can rig the economy for themselves, or control the majority of the public.
One problem with copyright, or our system of financing education, is that the establishment, including the media, politicians, and most colleges, fail to discuss the fundamentals of democracy or the most effective and efficient way to fund education. If they did discuss these basics, it might show we need to refine, or perhaps totally replace our economic system, among other things. There's no doubt that researchers, authors, etc. need to have their work funded and be paid a fair wage, but the same should not go for middlemen unless they're absolutely needed, and with modern computer and internet technologies, the need for publishing companies has been greatly reduced. When copyright laws were first made there was a much more diverse supply of publishers competing against each other; now most of them have consolidated into a small number of corporations dominating the market, and they have ties to promotional and media companies also dominated by a small number of oligarchs, controlling who gets published and who gets fair promotion, and educational material virtually never gets nearly as much promotion as novels or books written by high profile celebrities or media pundits. There are still a few small publishers, but they're few and far between with some of the best like South End Press going out of business and others like Chelsea Green publishing only a small number of educational books, which aren't well publicized without help of the larger oligarchs. What we clearly need is a system that funds authors and publishing companies that are more concerned with educating the public than maximizing profits, even if it means depriving the public of the educational material they need to participate in the Democratic process.
More important, we need to keep in mind that, in order to have a real and fair Democracy, all people need a good enough education to make informed decisions, and this should include access to educational or copyrighted material whether they can afford it or not. Even if we do stick with current copyright laws, that doesn't mean we can't find ways to enter much more educational material into the public domain so that more people can access it, especially when you consider the fact that with increased claims of pirating they're spending more to suppress distribution of educational material than ever before, and if that money were used to reimburse those creating content it would be much more efficient. Also, as I reported in numerous articles including one of my most recent articles We're Using Children For Research, Without Accepting The Benefits! we have dozens if not hundreds of studies showing that spending money on social programs including education and child care among other things routinely saves much more money than it costs by preventing crime and other social problems and enabling all people to have productive lives. The sources to come to this conclusion include many good academics, including James Garbarino, Dr. Robert John Zagar and Lisbeth Schorr who wrote Within our reach : breaking the cycle of disadvantage 1988 and Common purpose: strengthening families and neighborhoods to rebuild America 1997 which provided an enormous amount of research showing that we can solve many social problems, including reduction in crime, teen pregnancy, and much more by implementing productive educational programs, but the vast majority of the public is unaware of this research and politicians refuse to use it to make decisions.
Both these books are out of print, and there's surprisingly little demand for them, presumably due to lack of promotion and the fact that most people don't know how good these books are; because, there should be no doubt that they're very credible and acting on this research will save thousands of lives and millions of dollars, while improving the quality of life for everyone. There should be no doubt that distributing this educational material in the most efficient manner, regardless of copyright will help teach people about how to effectively solve social problems. Furthermore, there appears to be no effort, that I know of, to find out how many good researchers on important social interests are as interested, if not more interested, in providing research to help society than they are in earning a decent living, although it's understandable and expected that they would want reasonable pay for good work.
In order to get any publicity at all and reasonable pay for their work they have to go through for-profit publishing companies that are only concerned about profit, not a fair balance between making money and educating the public; and in some cases, it's almost certain they can make just as much money while distributing more books, online or not. This is especially true of out of print books that are decades old, which clearly aren't selling or returning commissions to authors or publishers. In many cases, even if some books are available free online, people prefer print copies as long as they're not too expensive. Circulating them free online could lead to a few new sales which could increase profits or commissions for the author moderately. Furthermore, with modern technology, publishers are no longer taking much of a chance when they publish books that they might not sell and they have to pay the expenses of publishing them, since it's much more efficient to print smaller volumes if they're in doubt and they're much more familiar with developing good estimates of sales. Furthermore, when it comes to Kindles they only produce as many as are sold, since electronic copies are free to produce. In fact, with a system like this, authors should be able to get a larger share of the sales, since publishing companies do little or no work when it comes to selling Kindles; so now they're more concerned with controlling distribution than avoiding risk, and they're already making massive profits by dominating the market and taking an excessive share of the sales, with authors often getting only about 10% of sales prices, although most of the public can only guess at how much money goes to the author, who copyright laws were supposed to protect, since it's not disclosed. There should be no doubt that with Kindle technology the authors should be able to get a larger share, especially if the publishers provide very little promotion for educational books, which they typically do. When it comes to educational books promotions may be done, or should be done by organizations where their motive is more balanced, like colleges, or grassroots promotion where readers and teachers can use word of mouth, but there still need to be some promotions for the readers and teachers to find out about these books in the first place.
A large portion of research about preventing violence, or other educational subjects, is often funded by the government, including the classic study by the Gluecks, which is over seventy years old and still technically under copyright, the Obedience to Authority experiments, Stanford Prison Experiments, Class and Conformity experiments by Melvin Kohn, and many more, yet they're still under copyright. If this isn't enough to fund the research and make it available for free online, then we should at least be allowed to know how much of our tax money goes to this research, and get reasonable regulation to prevent price gouging especially when they're decades old, and the researchers have also been dead for decades, like the Gluecks' books, and they should officially be entered into the public domain. But even without major reforms ensuring research is funded so it can be put into the public domain much sooner, which, like many studies show about programs, might save more money than it costs, there are still ways to increase familiarity with good research and funds for the researcher, assuming the media gives them fair coverage.
For example, both James Garbarino and Lisbeth Schorr managed to sell a lot of books, even though the majority of the public never heard of them, and they're both allegedly worth between one and six million dollars according to the public record, and in their retirement years. I can't say for certain but they might be willing to enter their books into the public domain online, while continuing to profit off moderately priced print books, but this would be much more likely if they had more media coverage, which they serve, considering the quality of their work. If they had fair coverage they would have sold much more books, the public would be much more familiar with effective ways to reduce violence, and I find it hard to believe this wouldn't have lead to public pressure forcing politicians to make rational policy decisions that would reduce crime and violence saving the public much more than it would cost to fund good research. Yet the media refuses to give them fair coverage, and worse, they give obsession coverage to several incompetent so-called experts that do more harm than good, while enriching themselves and the media at the expense of the public.
I found very few media spots covering many of the best researchers I've read about, including James Garbarino, Dorothy Otnow Lewis, Murray Straus, Stacey Patton, Barbara Coloroso and more, and I've never seen traditional media cover any of these academics, without specifically looking for them; while I've seen and enormous amount of coverage from much less credible academics claiming to be experts like Dr. Phil McGraw, Dr. Drew Pinsky, and Dr. Mehmet Oz, all who have or had TV shows enabling them to become famous and much richer than more credible academics, and all three of these have repeatedly been exposed in scandals, and, frankly, proven to be frauds or quacks. At least two of them, Dr. Phil and Dr. Oz either didn't renew their medical licences or claimed their show wasn't a medical show, although they rarely tell their viewers that. These celebrity Doctors are worth much more than more credible doctors, with Dr. Phil allegedly worth $460 million, and several best sellers partly due to massive promotion from his show; Dr. Oz worth about $200 million; and Dr. Drew worth $25 million, not because they're credible, but because they're involved in epidemic scams, and the for profit media gets their share of the loot from advertising or through other means. This clearly indicates the traditional media is far more interested in maximizing profit, even if it's through massive amounts of fraud, than helping educate the public about reducing violence or any other educational issue.
This double standard isn't limited to educational material about preventing violence; there are many other examples about many other educational subjects, including the protection of the environment, where those doing good research to help the public make much less money than those providing propaganda or other activities helping wealthy people profit without paying for the damage they do to the majority. One of the most brazen examples is Lawrence Summers who once infamously signed the "Summers Memo" where he literally recommended exporting pollution to third world countries, saying, "Just between you and me, shouldn't the World Bank be encouraging MORE migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs [Less Developed Countries]? ... The measurements of the costs of health impairing pollution depends on the foregone earnings from increased morbidity and mortality. From this point of view a given amount of health impairing pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country with the lowest wages. I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that."
Compare him to Professor Robert Bullard, one of the most respectable environmental researchers exposing how corporations are profiting from polluting minority neighborhoods, even though it was very difficult to get financing for his research. He managed to gather an enormous amount of evidence showing this was the case, writing some of this in several books including "Dumping in Dixie" and "Invisible Houston," yet large institutions refused to acknowledge his work unless there was an enormous amount of grass roots pressure. He struggled for decades to get his point across, at least with activists that don't rely on traditional media, and managed to eventually become worth over a million dollars, according to most estimates, perhaps a little more; but Lawrence Summers had the support of the political and business establishment and most estimates put his wealth at between twenty and forty million dollars, not because his work helped improve the lives of the majority, but because he did the opposite enabling corporations to increase profits without being accountable for pollution. Another example is Dr. Herbert Needleman, who exposed how much damage lead caused to health, especially in children, who probably only had a modest amount wealth before he passed away; but the lead industry apparently hired academics to make false accusations, which were eventually exposed. These are just a few examples where our economic system has proven to reward people much more for helping the rich get richer than they do for researchers that improve the quality of life for the vast majority of the public.
If our economic system can reward people for committing epidemic levels of fraud, it can find a way of rewarding people for doing research that helps the public and get it into the public domain so the public can read their research for a minimal price, if not free online. The problem is, of course, powerful institutions, including the government, media, colleges, and Wall Street corporations are all controlled by wealthy people obsessed with rigging the economy in their own favor; and to fix this problem, we need to shift control of these institutions to the public, and make educational material available to them by any means necessary.
The Internet Archive is being sued for providing free access to books, including many educational or out of print books, free to the public, one at a time, just like any other library, although they can lend them to anyone in the country, not just those in the local area. There are a lot of fundamental principles that aren't even being discussed in traditional media, which is only providing a minimum of coverage of this, mostly on line, including the fact that copyright laws were first made long before access to the internet was even considered. With the internet we now have much better opportunities to spread educational material at a much lower cost, but instead of even trying to consider new ways to fund research, educational material, creative novelists, or other forms of so-called intellectual property the government is digging in it's heals with old copyright laws, without even trying to consider new funding methods, even for educational issues, which sometimes does have other funding methods.
I went into this subject previously in several articles including Copyright Bureaucracy, Copyright violators are thought criminals and Copyright & "Intellectual Property" Are endangering Lives & Democracy! Changes in copyright laws in the past fifty years or so have repeatedly extended the length of copyrights until seventy years after the death of the author, often long after there's interest in the books, or when they're out of print, and they make it very confusing for most people to know what is copy-written and what isn't In some cases John Mark Ockerbloom, who edits The Free Online Books Page at U-Penn, has indicated that some books may be questionable even after this period, or in other cases they might be available before it, although it's hard to know why without learning complicated copyright laws. He's clearly trying to list books and make them available free when he can, but he often declines to list them from the Internet Archive since they're currently being sued by four very wealthy publishing companies. These publishing companies are selling close to two billion, or in at least one case close to four billion dollars worth of books per year, and their executives routinely make much more than authors, and the companies typically get 88% to 90% of the sales for traditional books and 75% for Kindles or E-books, according to the most credible sources available, but these amounts aren't publicly disclosed, so this isn't a guarantee. Allegedly Substack charges 15-20% for subscriptions, but they provide no promotion and unless someone like Glen Greenwald has name recognition, it's difficult if not impossible to get many if any paying subscribers. Paypal and GoFundMe both charge about 3-5%, and in some cases, like news about the Ukrainian conflict, the establishment has declared sources that disagree with the establishment to be "fake news" even when this isn't always the case, and refused to allow them to use these payment methods, or even worse, in one or two cases, if not more, they may have seized existing funds, according to several sources, which is a major threat to free speech.
It seems to me that the much bigger conflict should be between authors, who provide the work that is supposed to be protected by copyright, and the publishing companies, who take the vast majority of the money, and ensure that only authors they're willing to promote can get any sales in the first place. Many authors may understandably hesitate to speak out against these large publishing companies, with the possible exception of a few authors that are famous and wealthy enough they might not be dependent on the publishing companies, or, perhaps a larger number of authors who can't get their books published or promoted at all, so they can't make much money either way, but few people will ever hear of these unknown authors, if they speak out. Another big problem is that few lobbyists speak out on the behalf of the people who read these books, whether they buy them, sometimes, being forced to pay excessive prices for some of them, or read library or online books for free. The Internet Archive is one of the few sources acting on their behalf, and traditional media isn't covering their claims in a high profile manner, nor are they drawing attention to The Electronic Frontier Foundation which came to the defense of the Internet Archive in the following article:
The Electronic Frontier Foundation: Hachette v. Internet Archive July 2022
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), with co-counsel Durie Tangri, is defending the Internet Archive against a lawsuit that threatens its Controlled Digital Lending (CDL) program.
The Internet Archive is a nonprofit digital library, preserving and providing access to cultural artifacts of all kinds in electronic form. CDL allows people to check out digital copies of books for two weeks or less, and only permits patrons to check out as many copies as the Archive and its partner libraries physically own. That means that if the Archive and its partner libraries have only one copy of a book, then only one patron can borrow it at a time, just like any other library. Through CDL, the Internet Archive is helping to foster research and learning by helping its patrons access books and by keeping books in circulation when their publishers have lost interest in them.
Four publishers sued the Archive, alleging that CDL violates their copyrights. In their complaint, Hachette, HarperCollins, Wiley, and Penguin Random House claim CDL has cost their companies millions of dollars and is a threat to their businesses.
They are wrong. Libraries have paid publishers billions of dollars for the books in their print collections, and are investing enormous resources in digitization in order to preserve those texts. CDL helps ensure that the public can make full use of the books that libraries have bought and paid for. This activity is fundamentally the same as traditional library lending, and poses no new harm to authors or the publishing industry. Libraries have never been required to get permissions or pay extra fees to lend books. And as a practical matter, the available data shows that CDL has not and will not harm the publishers' bottom line.
The Internet Archive and the hundreds of libraries and archives that support CDL are simply striving to serve their patrons effectively and efficiently, lending books one at a time, just as they have done for centuries. Copyright law does not prevent that lawful fair use. Indeed, it supports it. Complete article
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), with co-counsel Durie Tangri, is defending the Internet Archive against a lawsuit that threatens its Controlled Digital Lending (CDL) program.
The Internet Archive is a nonprofit digital library, preserving and providing access to cultural artifacts of all kinds in electronic form. CDL allows people to check out digital copies of books for two weeks or less, and only permits patrons to check out as many copies as the Archive and its partner libraries physically own. That means that if the Archive and its partner libraries have only one copy of a book, then only one patron can borrow it at a time, just like any other library. Through CDL, the Internet Archive is helping to foster research and learning by helping its patrons access books and by keeping books in circulation when their publishers have lost interest in them.
Four publishers sued the Archive, alleging that CDL violates their copyrights. In their complaint, Hachette, HarperCollins, Wiley, and Penguin Random House claim CDL has cost their companies millions of dollars and is a threat to their businesses.
They are wrong. Libraries have paid publishers billions of dollars for the books in their print collections, and are investing enormous resources in digitization in order to preserve those texts. CDL helps ensure that the public can make full use of the books that libraries have bought and paid for. This activity is fundamentally the same as traditional library lending, and poses no new harm to authors or the publishing industry. Libraries have never been required to get permissions or pay extra fees to lend books. And as a practical matter, the available data shows that CDL has not and will not harm the publishers' bottom line.
The Internet Archive and the hundreds of libraries and archives that support CDL are simply striving to serve their patrons effectively and efficiently, lending books one at a time, just as they have done for centuries. Copyright law does not prevent that lawful fair use. Indeed, it supports it. Complete article
But what about the authors or researchers that provide the content these publishing companies are suing about? Apparently the vast majority of them aren't speaking out, which isn't surprising, since speaking out for the Internet Archive might incite retaliation from the publishing oligarchs, and speaking out for the publishing companies might anger readers. However, there are a modest number of writers speaking out, and most of them appear to be defending the Internet Archive. According to Author coalition blasts publishers in legal fight with Internet Archive 09/29/2022, three hundred authors signed a letter defending the Internet Archive, and only a handful defended the publishers. Pretty much all well known authors are fairly wealthy, including those speaking out, all of whom are worth at least one and a half million. Naomi Klein is one of the most outspoken defenders of the Archive, and compared to many other well known authors she's only moderately well off with about one and a half million dollars, according to a quick internet search (like all other estimates which you can confirm yourself) and so is Cory Doctorow, another one of the most prominent defenders of the Archive, Neil Gaiman also defends the Archive, and is worth eighteen or seventy-four million dollars, depending on which source you check. Sandra Cisneros, the only author clearly siding with the publishers is worth about seven million dollars, and Daniel Handler, who initially signed the letter before retracting it without fully explaining is worth an estimated three million dollars or according to another source, it might be twenty-five million dollars.
The Internet Archive itself apparently had a revenue of about thirty-seven million dollars, although it's unclear where it comes from, the only revenue I'm aware of is from donations and they almost certainly get more than that to maintain their web site; but it's a minuscule fraction of the amount of revenue the publishing companies have, and they're providing a service to the public for free, unless people choose to donate. At a glance it seems that all the high profile people involved in this lawsuit are fairly wealthy, with the people defending the publishing companies much wealthier than those defending the Archive; however, if the publishing companies win it will be middle class or poorer people who will either pay a higher price to read these books, or deprived of the educational material they may need to participate in the Democratic process. Although, in all fairness, the vast majority of the books being shared are novels, not educational material; but obviously I think it should be more important to ensure all people have access to educational material to make decisions in a democratic society, including educational material about reducing violence and solving other social problems. As I've written repeatedly, there's an enormous amount of educational material teaching how to solve these problems and save an enormous amount of money at the same time, but the political establishment serves their wealthy campaign donors, and since the traditional media doesn't inform the majority of the public about how effective and cost effective many solutions are, the public isn't pressuring politicians as much as they would if they were better informed to implement programs helping all people, not just the wealthy.
But what about the authors that aren't so famous? Are they likely to lose their modest income because of the Internet Archive? Do they support either side? Since they get no attention from traditional media it's impossible to know for certain; but I can make a few good guesses, and I doubt if they will be impacted by this lawsuit either way, since it's unlikely their books are on the archive, or they will get any more promotion either way it goes. If anyone does have a legitimate complain it's either these small authors, or the general public that is having educational material withheld from them and subject to promotions heavily favoring the wealthy, without looking out for the best interests of the majority. There is some information about the medium income of authors available, and it clearly indicates these famous and wealthy authors are far from typical writers, since the sources I found claim that medium income from writing is less than $50,000 a year, perhaps much less; one source claims it's only $6,080 for all authors and $20,300 for those claiming to be full time authors, another source claims it's $41,260 per year, which is clearly much better, but still shockingly low. Furthermore, if this is the medium income, and if the most famous authors are making hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars per year, that will bring the medium up, which means the vast majority of authors probably make even less than this, and are probably only known at the local level.
Many people may think that the best authors are chosen by readers, which is the impression the media tries to give us; however, in order to become a popular author the fist thing they need is name recognition, which they can't get without promotion from traditional media or other sources. This means virtually all, if not all modern authors are screened by the oligarchs that control publishing companies and media institutions that promote them.
Does anyone think the most famous authors are the best authors? Or that they're as good as classic authors? For the most part, no, and that includes me. When it comes to the best novelists that I know of, they're all classics, and the few that come close aren't necessarily among the most popular, and there's little doubt that the media simply doesn't promote the best authors. Some of the best classic authors also criticized wealthy elites and the political establishment, like Mark Twain, George Orwell, Jack London, Upton Sinclair, Aldous Huxley, Charles Dickens, Voltaire, Daniel Defoe, John Steinbeck, and more; but no well known modern authors do this nearly as well, nor, do I suspect that any of these great classic authors could get the promotion they needed to become famous now. Instead we get a lot of moderately good authors like John Grisham, Ken Follet, and a few other reasonably good ones, and a lot of incredibly bad authors like Dan Brown or James Patterson who get an enormous amount of promotion and cater to those looking for things that are easy to read without important content.
Some of these classic authors had massive impacts on politics helping educate the public about abuses by corporate America, like Upton Sinclair's books, "The Jungle" which informed the public of massive abuses and dangers to their health and led to regulation of food protecting the public, and "The Brass Check," which exposed how incredibly biased the media of that time was, long before massive consolidation in the past forty years enabling a fraction of one percent to control well over ninety percent of national media. Upton Sinclair managed to get a lot of publicity for his books, especially "The Jungle" even though wealthy media outlets refused to promote them, and if they reviewed them at all, they gave them very bad reviews, but progressive media at that time was able to get the word out anyway, even with much lower circulation. Now, with media controlled by a fraction of one percent there's little or no chance that someone like Upton Sinclair could become nearly as popular. The consolidation of the media and publishing companies has also lead to much less competition or attempts to create more new and good authors. Instead of trying to promote diverse choices in authors the media and Big-Box book stores put out massive promotions for a modest number of books trying to sell the same books to a large portion of readers, and, in many cases, the authors promoted are working directly for the media or political establishment, serving the interests of the wealthy, and it's often very obvious.
One of the biggest, if not the biggest promotions I ever saw was the promotion of Sarah Palin's book "Going Rogue" after her losing Vice Presidential campaign, which was because she was so stupid, incompetent and irrational, yet they obsessively promoted her so much she shot onto the top of best sellers lists. However, their promotional tactics were obviously misleading and she didn't become so popular based on merit. There was more promotion than I remember ever seeing, and her book was marked down to just under $5 by many sources, so it's no wonder that it made it to the best sellers list. The same goes for dozens of celebrities, or media pundits that have little writing skills, but lots of name recognition and networks willing to give them obsessive promotions going from one talk show to another. The only one I ever read myself is Rachel Maddow's book "Drift" which was at best mediocre, possibly better than most of her reporting, but not nearly as good as many other researchers that haven't been able to get any promotion from traditional media, so only a small percentage of the public has an opportunity to learn how good their work is, and many political decisions are based on the propaganda of the wealthy, not the best research or the policies supported by a large majority of the public. While these mediocre or terrible authors get obsession coverage the few good recent authors, like Colleen McCullough and Gary Jennings, that might be almost as good as the classics are almost forgotten by a large percentage of the public.
For the time being, it will be difficult if not impossible to defend the little known authors rights, or make better novels or other creative services available to the majority of the public; however, using copyright to deprive poor or middle class people of educational material won't help anyone except for the rich, who already have more money than they need, so it won't even help the. This is more about control than it is fairness. Libraries and local book clubs, some which already exist, might help bring attention to little known authors, especially if a growing percent of the public recognizes how much the oligarchs are rigging the system so only authors they approve can get promoted, and some of these unknown authors might be much better than the ones the media promotes, although I would have to admit, that they might be mixed in with many more mediocre authors, but it's worth a try. If various library groups contact each other on the internet they might increase their effectiveness; and if we do eventually get media reform, or some alternative media outlets are willing to cover them they can expand even more, and we might get many more good authors almost as good if not better than classic authors.
Fortunately, when it comes to good non-fiction research there's much more available than novels almost as good as the classics; however, and enormous amount of the best research, on many different subjects, get virtually no promotion and the majority of the public is totally unaware of it. In many cases they charge enormous prices, and they're often no longer in print, especially older books. As far as I can tell the only people aware of many of these books are in the academic world or activists that know where to look for them even though they get no promotion. In many cases these books expose serious problems with inequality rigging the economy against the poor, especially minorities, but those that need to know about this the most, the poor or minorities, are often the least likely to read them or being able to afford high priced books. Inequality in School Discipline: Research and Practice to Reduce Disparities: 2016 1st ed. 2016 Edition by Russell J. Skiba Shopping While Black: Consumer Racial Profiling in America (Criminology and Justice Studies) 1st Edition by Shaun L. Gabbidon (Author), George E. Higgins Retail Racism: Shopping While Black and Brown in America (Perspectives on a Multiracial America) Hardcover – September 15, 2021 by Michelle Dunlap The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison: Thinking Critically About Class and Criminal Justice 12th Edition 2017 by Jeffrey Reiman Controlling the Dangerous Classes: A History of Criminal Justice in America 3rd Edition by Randall G. Shelden 2018 Faith-Based War: From 9/11 to Catastrophic Success in Iraq (Religion and Violence) 1st Edition by T. Walter Herbert 2009 Without Copyrights: Piracy, Publishing, and the Public Domain (Modernist Literature and Culture) Illustrated Edition by Robert Spoo 2013 Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency Hardcover – June 1, 1950/1966 by Sheldon Glueck (Author), Eleanor Glueck and many more. An enormous amount of this research that gets little or no attention can solve many social problems, including reducing violence, poverty, homelessness, income inequality and much more, but few people are aware of the best research, since it gets little or no promotion, and in many cases, once people learn about it, the research is behind a paywall, often ridiculously high priced. For example, "Shopping While Black" by Gabbidon and Higgins might be very good but it's only about 120 pages and it costs $42 for the Kindle and there are no less expensive print copies; fortunately "Retail Racism" is more than twice as long and only $34 for the Kindle, with a couple print copies that can be delivered for under $20.
There's also an enormous amount of research showing that one of the most important contributing causes of violence in our society is massive amounts of poverty, combined with high income inequality, lack of education, or employment opportunities and many other economic issues; often this research goes back to the nineteenth century, which is no longer protected by copyright; but the best research is more recent. This started to improve significantly with some studies like "Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency" by Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck, which was the first of three books on the subject and improved even more with many other books in the decades to come like "Within Our Reach" by Lisbeth Schorr, which explains many programs that save much more than they cost by preventing social problems from escalating to violence, poverty, homelessness and many other problems. Lisbeth Schorr's two best books are still available at reasonable prices, as are many others, but they get virtually no promotion so few people know how to solve problems in the most effective way possible and books like those written by the Glueck's are no longer even in print and if you find old copies they may cost seventy-five dollars or much more, the only reason they're now available is that the Internet Archive is making them available free. If the Archive loses their lawsuit then this may not be available much longer, even though there's little or no potential for profit and this is important educational material, with two of their books, Unraveling juvenile delinquency by Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck 1950 and Predicting delinquency and crime by Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck 1959 only available on the Archive, and fortunately, for some reason, the third book, "Family environment and delinquency" by Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck 1962, is in this series is in the public domain. And Within our reach : breaking the cycle of disadvantage by Schorr, Lisbeth B 1988 and Common purpose : strengthening families and neighborhoods to rebuild America by Schorr, Lisbeth B 1997 are also available on the Archive, pending the settlement of the lawsuit, but availability of good research material, especially the poor that are the greatest victims of political corruption, shouldn't depend on rich corporations being able to take their cut before we can access educational material needed to participate in the Democratic process. These are only a few examples, but there are thousands of good books that are only available to those than can afford them, and some of them are so outrageously priced, there aren't many that can afford them.
If there's any doubt about the fact that these book sellers are just trying to maximize profits regardless of how good a service they provide to the public, or if they earn it, keep in mind, they're trying to sell classic Kindles, which are available free, although there might be some people gullible enough not to realize this and might pay for them even though Amazon or book publishers don't own the copyrights, since these are in the public domain. Kindles on Amazon for classic authors like Mark Twain, Upton Sinclair, and many others sell for at least one to eight dollars, sometimes more, even though they're in the public domain and are available free, and Amazon has no more right to sell them than anyone else. There pricing is arbitrary, in one case trying to sell a Kindle of Moll Flanders for $2.99, in another case a full collection of Defoe, including Moll Flanders, for $1.99, but everything they get is pure profit, since it costs nothing to make electronic copies, which is why they're free elsewhere. This shows they're relying on gullible people unaware how many books are free since they're not advertised. Any institution giving them away can't pay for advertising but those scamming the public can use a portion of the loot to advertise so they can scam people even more. This is another clear indication they just want to squeeze every penny from anyone they can even though they do nothing to earn it.
Amazingly when I tried to search for information about how Amazon is trying to scam people by selling them Kindles that are in the public domain, instead of finding sources exposing this obvious scam, I found several get rich quick scams trying to advise people that might want to sell Public Domain books on Kindles for a profit on Amazon. This sounds the obvious classic saying, "If it sounds to good to be true it probably is." There's little doubt that Amazon wouldn't share their loot with small scam artists, unless perhaps they wanted a scapegoat, but even then they would still be to blame, or more likely, somehow the people promoting this absurd idea, are working up to a scam of their own, possibly asking for up front money, personal information, or some other scam. This isn't the exception, as I've pointed out in previous articles our economy is based on a large amount of obvious fraud. For example, for profit advertisers never maximize profits by being honest, and one of the most obvious establishment scams are insurance or aftermarket warranties, where they spend an enormous amount of money on advertising, lobbying, campaign donations, high profits and CEO pay, which leaves little money for claims. Our economic system is being run by scam artists, who want a large cut of every transaction even when they do little or nothing to earn it, not people trying to give consumers or authors a fair deal.
I can't speak for most authors who haven't made their positions known, but I suspect there would be many more that might question our methods of funding their research, or at least demand full disclosure, so we would know if publishers are taking way to big a share of the proceeds from book sales, although many that are dependent on the current system might hesitate. I suspect that if Joseph Heller, one of the last great classic authors, were still alive he would understand that good authors might know when they have "enough" and especially when it comes to research needed to participate in the democratic process, reducing violence, or solving many other social problems, educating the public is more important than trying to squeeze every penny out of every man woman and child because billionaires can never get "enough" money or political power, even if it causes our society to slowly but inevitably deteriorate.
The following are some additional sources or related articles:
Public Domain Publishing: $100,000 Selling Classic Books on Amazon Since 2013, Aaron Kerr has pocketed over $110k in royalties through this very part-time side hustle.
Selling Public Domain Books on Kindle 03/30/2020 Dale L. Roberts
How to Publish Public Domain Books and Why You Should 03/25/2022 Dave Chesson
How to Upload Public Domain Books Straight to Your Kindle — For Free 03/04/2014
If You Self Publish on Amazon, Who Owns the Copyright? 05/01/2021
Amazon Confirms It Makes No Profit On Kindles 10/12/2012 A Kindle Paperwhite may be sold to a consumer for no profit by Amazon, but all the content that consumer will buy thereafter will undoubtedly make up for the difference - especially since Kindle consumers typically start reading more after buying one. (This is over ten years old, so it may not be up to date.)
Major retailers reportedly selling Palin's Going Rogue below cost 11/16/2009
Is Sarah Palin's Book Any Good? 11/17/2009
Sarah Palin threatens to sue author of "Rogue" book 09/27/2011
Neil Gaiman, Cory Doctorow And Other Authors Publish Open Letter Protesting Publishers’ Lawsuit Against Internet Archive Library 09/22/2022
How Much Do Authors Make Per Book? 05/11/2021 The median 2017 income of participating authors was $6,080 with just $3,100 of that being from book income alone (as opposed to speaking fees, teaching, book reviewing, and other supplemental activities). The median income of people who described themselves as full-time authors was just $20,300 when including all book-related activities.
FAQ: How Much Do Authors Make? 07/21/2021 The average annual salary for authors is $41,260 per year
Lisbeth Schorr "Within Our Reach" $12.99; Lisbeth Schorr "Common Purpose" $15.99; James Garbarino "Children and Families in the Social Environment" 1992 $39.99 about 335 p. of text
Faith-Based War: From 9/11 to Catastrophic Success in Iraq (Religion and Violence) by T. Walter Herbert 2009 Excerpt p.159 A Theology of Torture"
The Adventures of Tom Sawyer: Original Illustrations Paperback – Illustrated, May 6, 2018 by Mark Twain Retrieved 10/28/2022 Kindle $4.79
The Adventures of Tom Sawyer: Original Illustrations Paperback – Illustrated, May 6, 2018 by Mark Twain Retrieved 10/28/2022 Kindle $0 with Kindle unlimited, which has a monthly fee
Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (Dover Thrift Editions: Classic Novels) Paperback – May 26, 1994 by Mark Twain Retrieved 10/28/2022 Kindle $.99
A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court (Dover Thrift Editions: Classic Novels) Paperback – June 14, 2001 by Mark Twain Retrieved 10/28/2022 Kindle $4.27
Oil! Upton Sinclair Retrieved 10/28/2022 Kindle $3.99
King Coal Paperback – August 10, 2017 by Upton Sinclair Retrieved 10/28/2022 Kindle $1.99
David Copperfield by Charles Dickens Retrieved 10/28/2022 Kindle $7.99
Charles Dickens: Four Novels Retrieved 10/28/2022 Kindle $7.99
Moll Flanders Illustrated by Daniel Defoe Retrieved 10/28/2022 Kindle $2.99
Delphi Complete Works of Daniel Defoe Retrieved 10/28/2022 Kindle $1.99
Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift Retrieved 10/28/2022 Kindle $2.99
Internet Archive Opposes Publishers in Federal Lawsuit 09/03/2022
Internet Archive Seeks Summary Judgment in Federal Lawsuit Filed By Publishing Companies 07/08/2022
How Writers Coped Without Copyright 12/07/2013 What would happen if copyright didn't protect against piracy? The answer can be found in history. Without Copyrights: Privacy, Publishing, and the Public Domain, by Robert Spoo, Oxford University Press, 355 pages
Without Copyrights: Piracy, Publishing, and the Public Domain (Modernist Literature and Culture) Illustrated Edition by Robert Spoo 2013
A lawsuit is threatening the Internet Archive — but it’s not as dire as you may have heard 06/23/2020
IPA’s Amicus Brief: ‘Global Significance’ in the Internet Archive Lawsuit 08/31/2022
Could the Internet Archive Go Out Like Napster? 09/12/2022
Book publishers, Internet Archive spar over fate of digital-book lending lawsuit 09/06/2022
Los Angeles City Council President Nury Martinez Resigns Post After Racist Remarks Revealed In Leaked Audio – Update 10/10/2022 In the audio, which surfaced on Reddit, Martinez, the council president, called Bonin’s Black son “parece changuito,” or like a monkey. She also can be heard saying, “They’re raising him like a little white kid which I was like, ‘This kid needs a beatdown. Let me take him around the corner and then I’ll bring him back.'” She also referred to Bonin as that “little bitch.”
High Prices Prevent College Students from Buying Assigned Textbooks 08/11/2011 Survey Finds Soaring Costs, Publisher Tactics May Jeopardize Success in Classes Alongside tuition and fees, textbook costs have risen sharply in recent years. New analysis by the Student PIRGs found that textbook prices increased 22% over the last four years, quadruple inflation. According to the College Board, students should expect to spend $1,137 annually on textbooks and other course materials. The GAO estimates that textbook costs are comparable to 26% of tuition at state universities and 72% at community colleges. “As if outrageous $100-200 price tags aren’t enough, publisher tactics make textbooks even more difficult for students to buy,” said Allen. “It’s adding insult to injury.”
Textbooks are pricey. So students are getting creative. 01/17/2020 He said he doesn’t buy books he feels he will not need, and he once had a professor who asked the class to purchase a textbook Reyes never opened. It was the most expensive textbook he bought that year. “I wish the professors could be a little bit more honest about how their class is going to be structured,” Reyes said. The days leading up to the beginning of the semester can be stressful, students said. Some professors do not reveal which books are required until classes start.
Report: High Textbook Prices Have College Students Struggling 01/28/2014 The problem, Senack said, comes from a lack of competition in the textbook market -- professors, not students, are responsible for selecting course textbooks. "They can't shop around and find the most affordable option, meaning there's no consumer control on the market," Senack said. As a result, publishers can keep costs high by printing new editions every few years -- eliminating the option of reselling old books -- or bundle the books with expensive software add-ons.
College Students Need Cheaper Textbooks 01/09/2018
Textbook Math: Students Avoid High Campus Prices, Buy Books Online 01/13/2020 When students feel they’ve been overcharged, they take to social media to let the bookstore know. On the Barnes and Noble UNCC Facebook page, one student left a review describing how the bookstore charged him $115 to rent a used textbook—which he found on Amazon for $15. “Barnes and Noble needs to be boycotted for exploiting college students for insane profits. I will never spend a dime there again,” he wrote. Another student left a review stating that the bookstore sold an access code for his textbook for $96, but he discovered that the code was available through the publisher for $55. Yet another student left a negative review, writing that bookstore employees told him that he could return books on a certain day, and then refused to accept his books when he came back.
Wikipedia: Anti-literacy laws in the United States
Reality TV and the AMA Code of Medical Ethics 05/12/2017
“I’m a Doctor, but I also Play One on TV” — The Sketchy Truth Behind TV Doctors 04/19/2020
Beware of Social Media Celebrity Doctors 09/06/2017
The American Medical Association is finally taking a stand on quacks like Dr. Oz 06/13/2015
Dr. Phil, Dr. Oz and Dr. Drew: do no harm (unless it is good for ratings) 04/07/2021 Doctors on reality television can spread misinformation with impunity. Can anything be done about this? Center director Jeffrey Cole explores the issue.
Dr. Oz Shouldn’t Be a Senator—or a Doctor 12/15/2021
Dr. Oz Responds to Critics: 'It's Not a Medical Show' 04/23/2015
The Dark Side of Dr. Phil 10/17/2019
Dr. Do Nothing (Dr. Phil McGraw) 03/05/2021 The popular daytime TV show seems to exploit the vulnerable people coming on the program for help.
Physicians to Columbia: Dump Dr. Oz for Hawking 'Quack Treatments' 04/17/2015
A New Low for Dr. Oz 06/07/2018
Dr. Oz is running for US Senate in Pennsylvania. Here are 8 times he's made false or baseless medical claims. 11/30/2021
Dr. Oz would be one of many quack physicians in the Senate's history 12/02/2021
The Operator Is the most trusted doctor in America doing more harm than good? 02/04/2013
‘Magic’ Weight-Loss Pills and Covid Cures: Dr. Oz Under the Microscope 12/26/2021
Missouri State Medical Association: What’s Wrong With Dr. Oz? 2015 Sep-Oct
Is Dr. Oz Bad For Science? 01/30/2013
Dr. Oz Has A Long History Of Promoting Quack Treatments 12/02/2021
VIRAL Dr. Oz ‘Wizard Of Lies’ attack ad just broke the Internet! 07/21/2022
Dr. Oz, Andrew Wakefield and others, um, ‘honored’ by James Randi 04/01/2011
Media Consolidation Means Less Local News, More Right Wing Slant 07/30/2019
How a boy becomes a killer 12/19/2012
WNT: Transcript 02/09/2001
James Garbarino: What causes violence in children? 10/02/2015
After Dark Radio 12/13: James Garbarino talks killers, plus future of After Dark 12/14/2015
The War-Zone Mentality — Mental Health Effects of Gun Violence in U.S. Children and Adolescents 09/29/2022 Interview with Dr. James Garbarino on the effects of exposure to gun violence on child and adolescent development.
How Much Do Authors Make Per Book? 05/11/2021
Does Copyright Law Apply to Educators?
What are the Best novels?
Most famous novelists?
Famous Authors: The 30 Greatest Writers Of All Time
Wikipedia: List of best-selling fiction authors Doesn't include Colleen McCullough or Gary Jennings
