More and more authors feel uneasy about the advent of digital books and written content online. Although the emergence of the internet has done little harm to literature so far, writers fear the perception of value of digital products that is now present among young people. Most online content is available for free, so why should anyone pay for information? Also, the perceived monetary value of digital products is generally lower than the perceived value of physical products. This is partly an explanation for the fact that digital music tracks and ebooks are low priced compared to CD’s and books.

Although the music and film industry have suffered significantly from the decline of physical sales, these sectors have also proven that there are lucrative alternatives to compensate this loss, for example live performances or fancy premiere parties. For book writers, there is not much else to do than selling books, besides the old signing session. So, how will book authors manage in the digital age if consumers continue to consume digital books without paying for it?

Not only authors express these concerns. Press publishers have a similar struggle with online content. News and current affairs is typically a segment of publishing that is abundantly available online at no costs. Therefore, the German press publishers have lobbied for their own neighbouring rights that should cover even short snippets of online press articles. The new additional copyright should basically protect the press publishers' investments in the online environment.

Currently there is an intensive debate among several involved interest groups about the expected effects of such a right. 

Two authors that think they have a good answer to these questions have published their view recently. Robert Levine addresses the dilemmas of written content in the online world in his book Free Ride: How the internet is destroying the culture business and how the culture business can fight back.

The German economist Torben Stühmeier responds to the German press publishers that claim they are entitled to an additional publisher’s copyright to allow them to be compensated for the free distribution of their content online. The publishers say there is a role for governments here. Enforcing such a publisher’s copyright could be justified for the government because it is in the public interest to make sure quality news content is available online. This is important because the availability of such content is under pressure when publishers can’t make a living in online publishing. However, Stühmeier is hesitant to support this claim. His article aims to shed some light on the expected economic effects of such a new rule. It states that a neighbouring right is not sufficiently justified by economic theory and can distort revenues. If both the author and the publisher are entitled to a compensation, this either amounts to a double fee, or to the same fee that has to be split in half by the two stakeholders. The first scenario would increase the price of news and hinders the distribution of texts online and the second scenario leaves authors with even less income that they already have. Surely, this debate is to be continued. 

Sources:  Random House; NRC Next Aug 4, 2011 (Dutch); econstor.eu, urheberrecht.org and leistungsschutzrecht.info (German)