Parallel Importation... a conversation with myself.

Thanks for your comments, guys. They've been food for thought. And yes, it's something that I've been thinking about quite a bit lately.

So, here's the conversation that I'm having in my head. On one side, we have Andrew-the-literature-buff, who cares about the Australian literary industry. On the other side, we have Andrew-the-librarian, who wants books to be cheaper, and therefore more accessible to the Australian people.

Librarian: Books cost too much! Rah!

Lit-buff: Yes, they do. What's your point?

Librarian: Well, books are so much cheaper overseas! Why can't we get them here?

Lit-buff: Well you can, but wouldn't you rather support Australian publishers and authors.

Librarian: But they charge too much for books. if we get rid of Parallel Importation Restrictions (PIRs), then books will be cheaper.

Lit-buff: Um, no. PIRs have no bearing on the actual cost of the production of Australian books.

Librarian: But the Australian publishing industry have a monopoly on the Australian market. Bringing in some competition will surely drive down the cost of locally-produced books, yes?

Lit-buff: It's possible. It's also possible that the Australian book industry can't afford to reduce the prices of locally-produced books to compete with the international market. Especially if they are allowed to compete on our turf, but we can't compete on theirs because their countries are retaining their PIRs.

Librarian: But there would still be cheaper books!

Lit-buff: UK and US editions of books, whereby your money would go to US and UK publishers, and a smaller royalty to the author.

Librarian: They're not *that* much different. And really, the question of royalties shouldn't come into this argument. That's up to the author and the publisher to negotiate. If they go for a crappy book deal, that's their problem.

Lit-buff: I can't believe you actually said that.

Librarian: No, neither can I. My point is that the outcome of this recommendation *shouldn't* affect how much authors are being paid. Their books will be sold, one way or another. And they might get paid less per overseas copy of their book, but if they are cheaper books, it is likely that they will sell more books. It all evens out, right?

Lit-buff: You don't sound so sure. Besides, you've totally avoided the issue of Australian editions being replaced by overseas editions. They're NOT the same. The language is subtly different. They're representative of a society that isn't our own.

Librarian: Not substantially. I mean, yes, when it comes to some spellings. But the Macquarie English Dictionary accepts most American spellings as Australian nowadays. Stop being a linguistic pedant and get with the program!

Lit-buff: Okay, fine, you can have that one. But I'm still not convinced that the removal of PIRs won't result in the demise of smaller publishing houses and independent booksellers.

Librarian: That's capitalism, baby. Why should some have it easier, at the expense of the consumer? Open up the market and let some healthy competition even things out. Sure, there will be some victims, but the market will be healthier for it.

Lit-buff: That's bullshit. You made that up, didn't you?

Librarian: *sigh* Yes.

Lit-buff: So, what you're saying is that selling out our book industry to the international market is worth the chance to have cheaper books from overseas, even if it means possibly reducing the already-pitiful income of writers, putting smaller publishers and booksellers out of business, and minimising the opportunities for new and emerging writers to get published. Whilst, at the same time, we will undoubtedly boosting business for overseas publishers and writers. The benefits for overseas publishers for writers are absolutely certain, whereas the future of our own Australian literary culture will be uncertain.

Librarian: ...

Lit-buff: But the people who have the most to gain from these recommendations aren't the Australian people. It's the multi-national corporations who can afford to drop prices whilst still maximising their profit margins by flooding the market with cheap leftovers from overseas. The Australian people might be paying less than before, but their money will be going straight into the pockets of corporate profiteers, and not the Australian creative industry.

Librarian: Look... all I'm saying is that we shouldn't have to pay more for a book here in Australia than people do over in the UK and the US. That's all I care about. That's my issue.

Lit-buff: Well my issue is that removing PIRs doesn't actually deal with that problem.

Librarian: Okay, I'll agree with you there. So, why is it exactly that books are more expensive here than overseas? They have Parallel Importation Restricts over there too.

Lit-buff: I have no idea. However, it seems to me that there are probably more constructive ways to regulate the price of books, other than by simply trying to force prices down by bringing in overseas competition which will close down any businesses who simply cannot compete, and force writers to try to get international publishing deals if they hope to be able to sell their books in their own country.

Librarian: Ugh, that sounds way too complicated to even try to contemplate. I guess I'll settle for more expensive books. Better the devil you know, after all.

Lit-buff: Hey, you're a librarian. You know better than most that you don't actually *have* to buy books to read them - you can borrow them at the public library. In fact, the very existence of public libraries means that you shouldn't need to have an opinion in this matter, as a librarian.

Librarian: Somebody over at ALIA co-produced a submission on the matter. I thought it was relevant to my profession. Now, I'm not so sure. However, as a librarian, I'm also keen to promote and preserve our literary cultural heritage.

Lit-buff: Even if it means paying more for Australian books?

Librarian: Yes.

Lit-buff: Good. Then we're agreed.

*GROUP HUG*

*Andrew goes to sleep*

On Parallel Importation...

Now, there's been a lot of angst circulating about the recent recommendations that were made by the Productivity Commission, in regards to the Copyright Restrictions on the Parallel Importation of books.

Up until yesterday, I was utterly convinced that the recommendations were a Bad Thing. This was after seeing many writers blog on the issue, such as this post on Lili Wilkinson's blog, which I felt summed up the situation quite nicely.

Basically, if these restrictions were to be abolished, our local industry would be undercut by an international industry who can afford to sell them at cheaper prices and therefore put local publishers out of business. For local authors who rely on local publishers to produce their books, and don't have the profile / success to make it on an international stage, this creates a further barrier toward getting published. Furthermore, we wouldn't be able to read Australian versions of literature written by Australian authors. And, finally, cheaper books mean that authors don't get paid as much in royalties.

Now, I feel strongly about supporting the Australian literary industry. Yes, books cost money. However, in the scheme of things, books are better value for money than most forms of entertainment. We're talking about the equivalent cost of going out and having a meal. And if you can't afford that for books, we have public libraries, which will cost you nothing.

So, yesterday, I was a little surprised when I started seeing people in my social network making positive comments about the PC's recommendations, saying that this was a good thing. Who were these people? These people were librarians. And then I received an email from the Australian Library and Information Association - of whom I am a proud card-carrying member - drawing attention to the recommendations, and also highlighting ALIA's own recommendations which contributed to this result.

And so I had a look at ALIA's submission, and I was intrigued to find that ALIA supports the removal of restrictions on parallel importation, based on the following statements:

The restrictions are not needed in order to provide creators with further incentive to create and innovate.

The restrictions are not needed in order to provide local publishers with incentive to invest in creative endeavour.

The restrictions should be considered as a competition issue, and not a copyright issue.

Basically, the current issue is that, on an international market, Australian consumers are paying too much for books. This is creating an inequality, whereby books are more accessible to those who can (a) afford it, or (b) have the knowhow to get books from overseas. Consumers in Australia should be able to go to the bookstore and pay the same amount of money as consumers in the UK or the US.

And, speaking as a librarian who believes in social equality, social inclusion and accessibility to literature, this is an option that we need to seriously consider. The majority of literary culture in our society is from an international market. Australian literature aside, why should we be paying substantially more for international literature that is locally published when we can import a cheaper version?

So, my question is this: is there a way of opening up the market, and making books more accessible (ie. cheaper) without (a) compromising the creative integrity of Australian writers, and (b) putting our local industry out of business? Is it naive to think that overseas publishers will respect an international audience when exporting books to Australia (especially if they are exporting Australian literature INTO Australia?

One thing seems obvious - if we are to remove restrictions on parallel importation, then there also need to be new measures also brought in to protect our writers. We can't just pass this motion, and expect the other to follow, just because it's theoretically possible.

I'd be curious to hear what you think, writers and librarians (and publishers?) alike...

Has the world changed, or have I changed?

I have to say that, after seeing what Australia voted for on Triple J, I feel the need to compose my own list, in no particular order, of songs that should have made the hottest 100 of all time...

I mean, yes, I do understand that the whole *point* of having a popular vote is that not everything is going to make it, but there is so much good stuff out there, that is better than a third of what made the final list. Here is my list of songs which I feel have either been overlooked, or, worse still, completely forgotten...

1. Echo and the Bunneymen - The Killing Moon
2. Lou Reed - Perfect Day
3. They Might Be Giants - Birdhouse In Your Soul
4. The Smiths - There is a Light that Never Goes Out
5. The Boys Next Door - Shivers
6. The Church - Under the Milky Way
7. Do Re Mi - Man Overboard
8. R.E.M - Losing My Religion
9. Prince - When Doves Cry
10. Elvis Costello - Alison
11. Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds - The Ship Song
12. Grandmaster Flash - The Message
13. Talking Heads - Psycho Killer
14. U2 - With or Without You
15. The Doors - The End
16. David Bowie - Heroes
17. Portishead - Glory Box
18. NWA - Straight Outta Compton
19. Velvet Underground - Sunday Morning
20. The Pixies - Debaser
21. The Cure - Lullaby
22. Soft Cell - Tainted Love
23. Neneh Cherry - Buffalo Stance
24. Rolling Stones - Sympathy for the Devil
25. Elliott Smith - Miss Misery
26. Leonard Cohen - Suzanne
27. Kate Bush - Wuthering Heights
28. The Whitlams - No Aphrodisiac
29. Blind Melon - No Rain
30. Jane's Addiction - Been Caught Stealing
31. Sex Pistols - Anarchy in the UK
32. Joy Division - Atmosphere
33. Nine Inch Nails - The Perfect Drug

Feel free to disagree... of course! Can you think of any other songs that didn't make it? Let me know! I'm always keen to expand my tastes in music. :)

Sabbatical

It has now been over a month since I have spent most of the working week... well, working. I knew this time would come, sooner or later, and, frankly, I had been looking forward to it. After all, I have been working regularly on at least 0.6 EFT (and mostly completely full-time) for almost four and a half years. I know it sounds very Gen Y of me to say this, but after a few years of scampering around the rat-race, I was conscious of the fact that I was becoming part of a machine, and losing a sense of perspective and control. And it's easy to get sidetracked from your original hopes and dreams for your life and career. I needed to take some time out to reflect, regroup, and make new plans.

Staycation. Funemployment. Bludging. There are numerous terms which could sum up the conscious decision to spend time away from the world of gainful employment.

However, I like to think of it as a sabbatical. A respite. A retreat, to spend time engaged in the things that are important to me, and work toward a sense of self-actualisation.

So far, I've found the experience to be extremely liberating yet challenging. So often, people use "The Job" as an excuse to avoid ever getting to do the things that they really want to do. Take away that excuse, and there's only yourself. I've taken to writing and practising musical material for a cabaret show that I will be performing at the Butterfly Club next week. I've done a spot of solitary overseas travel (something that I've never done before). I'm registered as a volunteer at the Melbourne International Film Festival.

It also feels empowering to be at that point in my career where I can say, "No, I don't feel compelled just to take 'any old job'. I'm going to hold out until I see a job that I know is right for me." I've let a couple of job opportunities pass me by - jobs which I would probably be more than satisfied with, but I wasn't convinced that I would actually find fulfilling as an activity that would occupy a large chunk of my time.

Because something that I've come to realise now is exactly how valuable my time is. And, for now, I want to keep that time for myself. Yes, it's a financially-expensive option, but so many professionals these days complain about being time-poor. The question no longer seems to be a case of "How much money will you give me for my time", but rather "How will I be spending my time with you as an employer?" and "Is there something I'd rather be doing with my time?" Time spent being bored or unhappy is time wasted, and nobody benefits from that.

Of course, when you're in a job, it's hard to see the forest from the trees. However, now that I'm seemingly "outside" the loop, I can see across the industry, and it's quite clear to me where the changes are occurring, where the "don't go there" areas lie, where people are happy and enjoy working (and where they aren't), and where my ideal future career lies. I see the movers and the shakers - the shining lights in the industry - who I know I need to team up with to get there. And, for the first time in my life, I have a strong idea of exactly what I want to do with my life and my career. When you get that feeling, doing anything else feels like the stupidest waste of time. I feel both lucky and cursed by this.

And whilst I wait for the next bus that will get me onto that particular road, I have plenty of valuable time to live, love, read, write, create and share the passion - skills which I can build on in my future career.