Why in the future? It could have happened any time. And if neither of them copied the other, neither is fake.
Well, I agree, I just figured the fact that the number of published works per year increases and it will be huge in the next centuries. It will be like some sort of external DNA. Therefore, it would become a relevant issue for writers. Well, you say that only because I've told you that they didn't copy each other. If you scratch that, wouldn't be always a reasonable doubt about it? Would the fans consider the first one as the real one? There's a lot of thinking to be done about it in the future.
Are you just saying that the plots and characters are similar? I’m not following your scenario here. The idea of two stories being near-identical, and, without copying, both of them being sufficiently well-known to have fans who are aware of the other, seems implausible.
Yes, the same story, characters starting point, middle and final ending, but not writen in the same way. I suppose you're right. It was just a thought that maybe in the future this case would be more than just improbable.
I don’t think that the “more will be published” idea makes this happen, because the larger number of works means a smaller audience for the average work. And so the odds of two coincidentally near-identical works both being well known are low.
That's true. I didn't realise that. Things must be different in the future for that to happen. Like some sort of centralized publish public system where all readers go to get their favorite books. Otherwise, there's little chance the two stories could be discovered at the same time. Too improbable.
Not sure about "larger number of works=smaller audience per work"; presumably, as time passes, so too will the number of readers. I cannot say the writer:reader ratio is the same now as it was in the past but I doubt it will be too different in the future. Plus, financial incentives being what they are, I suspect the harder the market the better the writers are that succeed in it (since they not only have to secure the happiness of what readers they catch, but also have to have the necessary willpower and flexibility to ensure they finish their book and catch any readers at all). Not to mention most people of a given hobby (not just reading but TV watching and gaming as well) do not just follow one author/show/game company. I'd assume casual readers read multiple books (though in how many different genres I cannot say; I'd assume mostly within their preferred genres, be that one, two, three or more I don't know but I'd assume an average of 3 preferred genres) and of course if a reader speaks regularly with fellow fans, then if one fan catches eye of one book that they like they'll probably share its existence and thus spread its awareness (and potentially popularity) into the fanbases of other popular-enough books.
I don’t think that population is going to increase at anything like the rate of published works. With self publishing, I do think that the writer/reader ratio has likely already increased immensely.
If anything publishing is massively decentralizing over time. 100 years ago, Self Publishing was either a luxury or a risky gamble. Now the Internet offers many ways for authors to Self Publish as well as self advertise and cut out the middlemen. As more and more authors take advantage of Self Publishing and more and more good books become known for being Self Published, mainstream publishers will undoubtedly start to recede as it's often far easier to Self Publish than to Mainstream Publish. The hard part is writing a good book and getting lots of people to buy it, enjoy it, and thus establish that initial fan base. But over time? I suspect in 20 years Self Publishing will be mainstream and there will be more and more third parties trying to make it easier/support authors in Self Publishing so to make it "more approachable" for careerists. Should publishing ever be centralized, the quality of books will simply suffer (due to content control in the hands of a small group of insiders) and eventually interest in reading traditionally will recede over time (though I doubt it'd ever go extinct; there'd probably just be a sort of "Indie Revolution" or something).
I'd assume most Self Published works don't get much readers/buyers and that a sort-of 80:20 rule is applied (with 20% of the Self Published works getting 80% of the sales). The hard part is becoming that 20% (or at least good enough to make rent and thus justify writing as a career instead of a hobby). But you're right though; since it's far easier than ever, the ratio is most likely shrinking. However I doubt that matters much to the "good authors" who break through the crowd and manage to get themselves a consistent fan base. I guess the necessary skills to be a good (professional) author will shift considerably though; in favor of (self) marketing and advertising as normally that's what mainstream publishers do. And I imagine some people would rather take control of their advertising and marketing instead of trying to convince a middleman to it for them (and of course there are those that'd rather try to get a helpful middleman to compensate for where they may be lacking; marketing and advertising).
If it's a matter of coincidence and Great Minds Think Alike, both are "real," and may the more appealing book win. But if one author can prove the other stole her files and just renamed the characters and settings and kept her prose, then of course the author who was plagiarized is in the right. This has happened. But the fake book came out a little later, after the story thief had time to look at the first novel and decide it'd be profitable to tinker with it. So, no "almost the same time."
The worry over this matter makes it a good thing I have enough ideas in the genres I've embarked on already to last me the rest of my life. From time to time another writer, maybe somebody I'm beta reading for or a new member here, will come up with a decent idea or a cool inciting incident, but proceed to make a total disaster (IMO) of the rest of the plot. If there is any plot at all (she says darkly), and in these cases there usually is not. "Wow," think I, "I could do something with that." If I think the other writer will listen, I'll suggest the possible development to him: "Why not have this happen?" If she insists no, her plot is fine as it is, or he makes it clear he's just announcing his brilliant idea and not asking for advice . . . oh, the temptation is great. So great. Because I could really, truly, take that germ of an idea or that inciting incident and Make Something Out of It. The Plagiarism boogeyman is so big and rampant these days that I'm probably shocking you all just saying so. Even though I wouldn't have the nerve actually to write up those ideas. But still, I've--- horrors!--- thought of it. I squash the guilt by recalling what Beethoven said one evening after attending a performance of a new opera by some minor Italian composer. The plot concerned a man who is held as a political prisoner in a powerful lord's secret dungeon, and the prisoner's wife disguises herself as a boy to infiltrate the prison and set her husband free. After the show, Beethoven greeted the opera composer (did I say he was an opera composer?) and said, "I liked your little play. I must write some music for it." [Italics mine.] And thus we have Beethoven's immortal paean to married love and human freedom, Fidelio. I'm glad he didn't let the Plagiarism bogey get the better of him. It shows why he was great, and I am not.
