Copyright Laws Threaten Our Online Freedom

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

So you believe fledgling writers should devote a few hours a week to their craft, their art, and devote the majority of their waking hours to a career that doesn't capture their heart?

This is what they arleady do until they're paid for a publishing contract. I realy don't see what point your making here? The same situation occurs whether the writing pays off in the end or not. The writer is still writing without payment, especially in the case of fledling writers. Even in the case of previously published writers who are working on-spec on new material, there's no guarantee they'll sell that material at all. It's as much a wish as anything else. Do they 'not' write because of this? Of course they do. Writing is a passionate vocation, not a bloody business proposition.

I like the idea of writing as a vocation rather than a job--but saying "the money doesn't matter" ignores the fact that money does indeed matter to their ability to continue writing. Money for rent and food and whatnot has to come from somewhere, and by saying "they shouldn't expect it to come from writing" you are also saying "writers should do something they like a lot less than writing to support themselves."

Which for the most part they already do when they're under a publishing contract. Remember that most writers who are published don't make a living from their writing in the traditional industry, they have to get jobs 'they like a lot less' to make ends meet. At least if they're doing it digitally they have more control. And this is where we come to money as a driving force in art. It is preposterous to think that art would cease without monetary recompense. That we as a creative animal would cease our creative endeavourst if there was no wage packet.

I'm not seeing the good in that approach. I understand it's the situation for most writers, but I don't agree that it's the ideal, that it's what they should strive for.

The ideal is a world in which creativity is reward in and of itself. Which we have right now. You can write, publish and have readers in the digital world if you don't care about money.

I don't write for a living. I barely write as a hobby. I have no idea if I could be A Great Novelist or A Great Nonfic Author, and I'm not likely to find out for another decade or two, maybe longer. I treat my writing as a vocation... and as a result, pretty much nobody gets to read it.

Who's fault is that though? It's not mine, or the digital world, or even the old fashioned publishers. If you're not actually willing to put your work out there, which you can do complteley freely now, how will you ever have anybody to read your work? If you're waiting for some arbritary point in the future where you're 'good enough' then you'll be holding back your creativity forever.

Are you better off thereby? Am I? Is my family? My friends on LJ think some of my writing is screamingly funny and should have a wider audience... it's not going to happen, because there's that 9-5 job thing in the way of developing both my craft and my publicity. (I suppose you could say, "if it were really your vocation, you would find time for it." I suppose that's true. If you agree that the majority of potential writers shouldn't bother to develop their skills, that's a reasonable answer.)

Okay, your friends think your writing is funny, but nobody else is going to have that decision to make if you're never going to take the leap and show your writing. In the digital world you can make that leap. Also, a 9-5 job is the lamest excuse in the world to avoid writing. Kafka had a 9-5 job and was never published in his life, but you know what, he still wrote. If its a passion, you'll find the time whether you have no money at all, or you're dying (George Orwell).

You're assuming a lot with what you say also. Yes, if you want to be a writer you have to dedicate a hell of a lot of time. You will as a writer, be unpaid for most of this craft-building time with or without publication at the end of it all. Some say you have to dedicate at least 10 years, others say 1million words, that is of course if you want to write better than Dan Brown. If not, you can spend a weekend with the Dummies Guide to Plotting and steal any old conspiracy cobblers off the internet and it'll be good enough. Again, most writers have a 9-5 job, or at least a part-time job teaching useless creative writing courses at colleges and universities. That's how its always been, probably will stay the same in the upcoming years.

I suppose that's true. If you agree that the majority of potential writers shouldn't bother to develop their skills, that's a reasonable answer.

This is so ridiculous and full of cobblers that I could open up my own shoe-repair shop with it.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

It's not a matter of "the author has no control," but rather that "the author has delegated control to either publisher or agent" with a reasonable expectation that the publisher or agent won't be too egregiously stupid -- if only to protect their own income potential.

I agree. I don't think it was a question of whether or not there were good reasons for it, but I believe Format C's point was that when an author decides to publish they are giving up (delegating) control.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

This is what they arleady do until they're paid for a publishing contract. I realy don't see what point your making here?

You seem to be saying a publishing contract shouldn't be the goal, and those who currently write for pay are doing it wrong, and those who aspire to write for pay should give up on it.

Remember that most writers who are published don't make a living from their writing in the traditional industry, they have to get jobs 'they like a lot less' to make ends meet.

But some don't. And that's the goal of a lot of aspiring writers, not fame online. (Those who want fame online without money can blog for it.)

It is preposterous to think that art would cease without monetary recompense. That we as a creative animal would cease our creative endeavourst if there was no wage packet.

Creativity doesn't cease without payment, but it does change form, and especially distribution route.

There's a whole lot of *incredible* writing you'll never see, because it was locked up in friends-only posts at LiveJournal, which have since been deleted. The authors got validation for their writing, and whatever acclaim their community had to offer, and since there was no money on offer, when they grew tired of maintaining a place for it, it went away. It's no longer available to anyone.

Payment allows a much wider distribution for creative works because payment moves it outside of a family/community effort.

Who's fault is that though? It's not mine, or the digital world, or even the old fashioned publishers. If you're not actually willing to put your work out there, which you can do complteley freely now, how will you ever have anybody to read your work?

I'm willing to. I'm not willing to give up my day job for it, which is my problem. However, in another decade or so, my day job will be much less pressing; I won't be responsible for the welfare of people who can't provide for themselves.

You're advocating that I should *never* be willing to give up my day job for it--that writing should be done for kudos alone, and money should never be part of the reason for it.

Kudos, I can get now. I'm not particularly interested in kudos from random total strangers; I get validation from people whose opinions I respect, and that's plenty of creative reward. I am, however, potentially interested in money from random total strangers. You're saying authors shouldn't want that, shouldn't use it as a motivation to write.

If you're waiting for some arbritary point in the future where you're 'good enough' then you'll be holding back your creativity forever.

My creativity is doing fine. Focused, and not of interest to most people, but fine. I don't have any obligation to share it with a larger crowd, or to create enough content to fill entire bookshelves.

If the larger crowd has interest in my creativity (which they probably don't, not specifically) or the creativity of a thousand other potential authors (which they do, somewhat), they need to offer an incentive for them to develop & release those works. That incentive can be money, as much as it can be online acclaim or virtual awards or literary prestige.

Not saying I'd sneer at literary prestige, but the odds of my being offered a Pulitzer are a lot lower than my odds of being offered a month's rent for a story.

You seem to say I shouldn't consider writing for a month's rent.

Okay, your friends think your writing is funny, but nobody else is going to have that decision to make if you're never going to take the leap and show your writing.

Why should I bother? My friends like my writing; why should I care if you like it as well? What reward do I get out of the extra effort that takes?

Also, a 9-5 job is the lamest excuse in the world to avoid writing.

I don't avoid writing. (Check my word count on recent posts in this forum.) I avoid writing for publication. It's a somewhat different skill, takes different focus, and doesn't offer enough financial reward for the effort, at this point in my life.

You're saying it never should, that I should expend that effort even if there's no reward attached. Not seeing the logic, there.

[Crusader]

The thing with current copyright is that it doesn't take new media into account. The old models of doing things are slowly becoming more and more obsolete with the "I want it now" generation. That's where the beauty of a digital version of your product (book/CD) is a great opportunity.

Firstly production costs should come down immensely. You won't run out of the product since only a copy is send to the customer. The customer doesn't have to wait for shipping and can get the product immediately by downloading it directly from the author. Your customer base suddenly becomes the whole world, without having to worry about how you'll distribute it in any specific country. Think 1 000 000 copies at $5 instead 100 000 copies at $20. That's the beauty of digital media and it will take a huge mindset shift for authors/artist to embrace this to maximum affect.

Promotion can easily be done via social networking sites. An interesting example of this I recently saw is a kid on Youtube (who has a huge subscriber base) who promoted the CD he and his band made. Within a week they were on the Top 20 albums sold on iTunes. (I'm a bit fuzzy on the exact figures).

People don't want to be treated like criminals with excessive DRM and copyright. They want easy and affordable access to the media of their choice. Once they can get that piracy would largely become a non-issue.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

You seem to be saying a publishing contract shouldn't be the goal, and those who currently write for pay are doing it wrong, and those who aspire to write for pay should give up on it.

No, I'm saying a publishing contract isn't the be all and end all, and that 'money' as a goal is a pointless endeavour in creative works going forward into the digital age. Not that a publishing contract means anything any longer, and its especially not a guarantee of income. Money as a side-effect is worthwhile, its useful, but it's not going to make your writing any more or less pleasurable in th efirst instance. Money != passion.

But some don't. And that's the goal of a lot of aspiring writers, not fame online. (Those who want fame online without money can blog for it.)

Some writers don't have to get a second job to make ends meet, you're right, but the vast majority do. And that's the point I'm trying to make (over and over again it seems). Seeking publication in the hopes of making a living is a lottery at best and is completley out of your control. The publishers, the agents, the editors and the *spit* marketeers now decide your future. Its up to them in the end if you succeed or don't. They're the ones who market your work, they're the ones who decide whether its good enough or not, they're the ones who place it in front of the public eye. At a whim they could decide not to push your book, or send it out to reviewers or a million other little backstabbing games the industry plays and where are you as a writer -- paddles and creeks come to mind. And on your last point there, there are quite a few more bloggers making money than their are midlist writers. If you're writing for publication and money, blogging seems the best route to go.

There's a whole lot of *incredible* writing you'll never see, because it was locked up in friends-only posts at LiveJournal, which have since been deleted. The authors got validation for their writing, and whatever acclaim their community had to offer, and since there was no money on offer, when they grew tired of maintaining a place for it, it went away. It's no longer available to anyone.

What does this statement prove? If they want to be read why are they locking up their work in the first place and then allowing it to be deleted? If they cared about their work why would they pull it when there was no money involved? Sound like a bunch of whining idiots to me. I have no sympathy for them or the plight.

Payment allows a much wider distribution for creative works because payment moves it outside of a family/community effort.

I don't see how you can get any wider of a distribution than 'anybody who can connect to the internet'. Payment means nothing in that instance. If I place a work on Feedbooks or Manybooks for instance, even here on Mobileread, my potential audience is anybody who has a computer or web enabled smartphone/pda. Payment means nothing in this digital world, word of mouth and community do.

I'm willing to. I'm not willing to give up my day job for it, which is my problem. However, in another decade or so, my day job will be much less pressing; I won't be responsible for the welfare of people who can't provide for themselves.

You're advocating that I should *never* be willing to give up my day job for it--that writing should be done for kudos alone, and money should never be part of the reason for it.

No, I'm not advocatin that you should 'never' be willing to give up your day job. What I'm saying is 'don't expect that to happen', don't 'strive for that' because you'll be in for a rude awakening. If money is your goal from writing (and this has been said since the year dot when it comes to writing) then you're doing it wrong.

Kudos, I can get now. I'm not particularly interested in kudos from random total strangers; I get validation from people whose opinions I respect, and that's plenty of creative reward. I am, however, potentially interested in money from random total strangers. You're saying authors shouldn't want that, shouldn't use it as a motivation to write.

No, I'm saying it's the wrong motivation, that its a motivation fraught with dissapointment and always has been. If money is your primary concern, why write? There's a million other things that pay much better for far less effort. This was true before the digital explosion, and will be true tomorrow. Again the old quote:

There's no money in poetry, but then again, there's no poetry in money.

My creativity is doing fine. Focused, and not of interest to most people, but fine. I don't have any obligation to share it with a larger crowd, or to create enough content to fill entire bookshelves.

Good for you, and yes, you don't have any obligation. You can keep it locked inside a lead coffin at the bottom of the ocean. Me, I love the option of putting it up on Feedbooks and sharing my fiction with others.

If the larger crowd has interest in my creativity (which they probably don't, not specifically) or the creativity of a thousand other potential authors (which they do, somewhat), they need to offer an incentive for them to develop & release those works. That incentive can be money, as much as it can be online acclaim or virtual awards or literary prestige.

When the creation of art itself is payment enough, then all other considerations are null and void. Artists must in the first instance derive pleasure from the work itself, without that the work itself is pointless. No incentive is needed. I'll give you an exemplum:

Today whilst walking back from the supermarket I noticed that a patch of sunlight had broken through the otherwise darkened clouds. That patch of sunlight focused, most distinctly upon a red brick wall, giving that wall (if only the wall itself was viewed) the impression that it was a bright summer afternoon. As I walked by, viewing this most peculiar effect of light, a story started up in my mind about a man and a wall and a patch of sunlight.

Ten minutes later I was writing the story.

Now I needed no monetary incentive to write that tale. I didn't need a publishing contract or a deadline to do it. I was inspired, something of the divine spark of creation lit up in me and I felt something that I needed to put down. The passion of that moment, the fun of the next hour or so writing, I would pay you to enjoy. The incentive to create is inherent in all of us, it does not need money to be triggered.

Not saying I'd sneer at literary prestige, but the odds of my being offered a Pulitzer are a lot lower than my odds of being offered a month's rent for a story.

You seem to say I shouldn't consider writing for a month's rent.

No, again, you're making assumptions. If you could honestly get paid a month's rent from a short story, there would be nothing wrong in that. But to expect to get your months rent for the story is pointless.

Why should I bother? My friends like my writing; why should I care if you like it as well? What reward do I get out of the extra effort that takes?

You shouldn't care at all, that's great, that means you're comfortable with what you write and nobody can shake that opinion. There's very little extra effort really, in the digital world, to publish. It's as easy as signing up for a Feedbooks account and uploaded your work. Bingo-bango. Done!

I don't avoid writing. (Check my word count on recent posts in this forum.) I avoid writing for publication. It's a somewhat different skill, takes different focus, and doesn't offer enough financial reward for the effort, at this point in my life.

You're saying it never should, that I should expend that effort even if there's no reward attached. Not seeing the logic, there.

No, I'm saying the writing is the reward. The money is icing on a cake that is already delicious enough as is.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

There's very little extra effort really, in the digital world, to publish. It's as easy as signing up for a Feedbooks account and uploaded your work. Bingo-bango. Done!

Erm... if you really think Feedbooks would be willing to allow my Harry Potter or Star Trek fanfic, I'd be willing to go for that. I don't think they violate copyright--I'm pretty sure they fall well under "parody"--but I doubt Feedbooks would feel the same way.

Somehow, I suspect Feedbooks has publication standards that exclude most of what I currently write. (I suspect Feedbooks does *not* want to become a fanfic archive, and they should hope no fanfic authors of long novels decide their works are no more copyright violations than The Wind Done Gone, and start placing them on ebook sites.)

No, I'm saying the writing is the reward. The money is icing on a cake that is already delicious enough as is.

The writing is the reward. You seem to be saying that seeking payment as well is irrelevant and pointless, and authors should not be concerned with it. That because the current mainstream publication model is flawed (it is), authors should forgo it entirely for the "simplicity" of digital publication, for which they only need to get online, research appropriate web hosts for their works, learn the web interface for each of those locations, understand half a dozen ebook formats, edit their own works for conversion to those formats, and decide whether and how to promote their works online.

There are plenty of authors who take to all that like breathing; there are plenty more, who don't--and you seem to be advising them to give up on what's working (poorly, in some cases) for them, for something entirely alien, with a pack of rewards that don't match the ones they're getting now.

They may be better rewards. But they are different; and the online self-publication route doesn't offer the same opportunities that a traditional publishing contract does.

You seem to be telling new potential authors that they should ignore the potential rewards of traditional publishing for the potential rewards of digital self-managed publishing, as if they were easily measured against each other, with the digital benefits being obviously more.

I don't believe it's that simple.

[ficbot]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

So you believe fledgling writers should devote a few hours a week to their craft, their art, and devote the majority of their waking hours to a career that doesn't capture their heart?

Yes, because people do that in a lot of 'careers.' If you are looking at this as a money-making career that you are doing for money, then yes, you have to pay your dues, and it amazes me that so many writers seem to want the overnight fame and fortune and don't realize that.

My stepfather really wanted to be a dentist, but could not afford to go to dental school. So he got a degree in pharmacy (it was cheaper) and worked as a pharmacist for several years so he could pay for dental school.

You can't have it both ways. Either it's a passion, you do it for the love of it, and money (if any) is nice, or it's a 'job' in which case it might involve paying your dues and having to do stuff you don't want to do from time to time, be it marketing, maintaining a website or what have you. That's part of having a 'job.' I love my work as a teacher for example, but I loathe playground duty. That's part of the job though, and it's a small enough part thank goodness that when it's my turn, I suck it up and do it without complaining

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Erm... if you really think Feedbooks would be willing to allow my Harry Potter or Star Trek fanfic, I'd be willing to go for that. I don't think they violate copyright--I'm pretty sure they fall well under "parody"--but I doubt Feedbooks would feel the same way.

I'm not going to adress your other points immediately, just to give you some good news. Feedbooks has a TON of fanfic A lot of it is in the DC Universe as far as I've been able to tell. So have at it!!!

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

I'm not going to adress your other points immediately, just to give you some good news. Feedbooks has a TON of fanfic A lot of it is in the DC Universe as far as I've been able to tell. So have at it!!!

Download... combine... throw into Reader...

Thanks!

[Greg Anos]

MoeJoe, Elfwreck, as an outside observer, y'all seem to be talking at cross purposes. I'd like to throw in a clarifier, so y'all can unite and throw brickbats at me...

The entertainment business is structured with an extremely few enormous successes at the top, and order of magnitude more scraping along at a marginal wage, and a whole sea of people trying to get to #1, making nothing from the business. It doesn't matter it you are talking writing, acting, music, or professional sports. The same dynamic is at work.

If you compare that with skilled labor, ignoring the travails of off-shoring for the moment, you have nobody making a huge success, but the vast majority of the working skilled labor making a good wage. Depending upon the particular skill, it could be a very good wage. This include everything from plumbing to programming to pathology.

So the question is as follows, do you want to make money as your primary goal, with creativity as your secondary goal, or do you want to creativity your primary goal with money making your secondary goal. And don't tell me both. The world doesn't work that way.

If money is #1, then a skilled trade is your best ticket, and has been for a couple hundred years.

If creativity is your #1 goal, go ahead, but expect poverty from those efforts for a long time, perhaps forever.

But, (and here's what I think MoeJoe's trying to get across), the odds are probably 10,000 to 1 against you hitting the economic big leagues in a creative effort. And it doesn't matter which creative field you are dealing in, the odds are the same. Yes, lightning does strike regularly, but will you be the recipient? And many of those lightning strikes occurred only after years of unrenumerated creative toil. Lord of the Rings took 15 years of spare time work, without a dime, and then another 8 years of modest pay before it tore the roof off economically.

[Barcey]

I read that there is a Pirate Party coming to Canada now too.

Politicians have been able to pass these silly laws and collect the campaign finance donations (aka bribes) because they understood that people were not likely to change their votes over copyright laws. Although I don't think they're going to get a lot of votes I'm hoping that it will at least make the politicians realize they've gone too far. You can't continue to make "criminals" out of the majority of your population. The fact that the Pirate Party got 7% in the last vote in Sweden has got to make people take some notice.

[PKFFW]

I'm not going to try to reply to each individually as so many posts were made over night. Instead, I'm just going to list some points I think are pertinent.

1: Xenephon and Elfwreck have made a lot of good points.

2: Copyright, as it currently stands, I do agree is flawed. It lasts way too long for starters. However, I do not think the idea of simply abolishing it is a good solution. Personally I would be happy with copyright until death. If I create a story then frankly I should have control over it at least until I am dead and buried. Just because something is flawed though does not mean there aren't good points inherent in it. Copyright was initially started as a way of encouraging people to put their creative works out there whilst being assured they would be protected from unscrupulous people simply making copies. Why not try to go back to that original ideal rather than simply saying "it's so easy to make copies now the creator should just accept it and give up any ideas of ownership or being compensated for their work".

As for two people coming up with the same story purely by chance.........sorry tough luck. That may happen once in every few million years by chance.(in fact it is such a remote possibility I wasn't even going to bother responding to the idea but figured why not) On the other hand, someone simply reading another person's story and copying it and claiming they wrote it themselves would happen very frequently. I would say it would be impossible to determine if the second person had come up with the idea themselves or if they had copied it so an arbitrary decision has to be made regarding how the situation will be treated. Since it would be virtually impossible for two people to come up with the exact same story independantly yet very easy for one to copy another then it makes sense to treat the situation as the latter.

3: The idea that once an author publishes their work they should loose all control over it and not have rights towards it is simply ridiculous. On the one hand it seems many are arguing that by going the "self publishing" route an author has more control over their work and this is a good thing. On the other hand, these same people are arguing that once an author does that they should not have any right or expectation to say how it may be distributed. The logic boggles me.

4: Money Vs Joy of creating..............it's a bit of red-herring really. I don't think it has to be one or the other at all. Why should an aspiring writer not be able to enjoy creating whilst at the same time harbour a dream of being able to support themselves by that writing? There is no law that states if you enjoy doing something then you have no right to expect to be paid for it. This idea that if a writer really enjoys what they are doing(and therefore is doing it for the "right reasons") then they should have no problem giving their work away for free and just hoping and praying money will follow is just that........an idea. That idea is no more or less valid than the idea that this same author thoroughly enjoys writing but wants a reasonable payment(whatever that is deemed to be) before they will distribute their work for people to read. Neither is more noble, neither has any more claim to be in it for the "right reasons". In both cases the writer is thoroughly enjoying what they are doing.

On that note, I'm not going to argue about which may or may not provide greater monetary reward in the end. That is not my point and frankly I don't think there is enough evidence to prove one way or the other anyway.

5: People will pay..........sorry, a few high profile cases where giving the creative work away for free has led to that same work being rewarded monetarily doesn't mean a whole lot. At the moment most people on the whole still believe in the principle of paying a fair price for something they want. As the idea of "I can get it for free so therefore I have the right to enjoy it for free and the creator should just accept this and give it to me for free" becomes more common and accepted, less and less people will feel any need to pay anything at all for what they want, regardless of how good it is or how much enjoyment or value they received. In the end, most people will believe they have every right to enjoy whatever they want for free. How many writers do you think will be able to support themselves by writing then? I'm betting alot less than do so now. So how many do you think will ever be able to devote enough time to their writing to become truly great at it or even truly worth reading? I would say very few indeed. How much choice for art truly worth enjoying do you think we the audience will have then?



Before I once again get accused of arguing for the old stagnant ways of corporate greed and big publishing companies taking advantage of authors and screwing the audience, of living in the past man.........I am not!

I agree the present system is not perfect. Self publishing may very well be the way forward for many authors in the future and good for them.

What I am arguing against is tearing down everything, throwing out the baby with the bath water as they say.

Creators should have rights. The fact they have published their work should not mean they are no longer entitled to any control over it or payment for it. If that were the case, where do you draw the line? Would it be ok for someone to change the last chapter and then call it their own and re-sell it? What about just changing the names of the characters? How about simply changing the name of the story? I mean, they published it so they shouldn't expect any control over it anymore right? That idea is ridiculous to me.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

So you believe fledgling writers should devote a few hours a week to their craft, their art, and devote the majority of their waking hours to a career that doesn't capture their heart?

1. What makes artists different? Most people work in jobs they don't particularly think are the most interesting in the world. They still have to survive, though.
2. It might also be a neat way to gain some experience at living, rather than living in literary cafés listening to other aspiring writers talking about themselves (Sorry, the only students with literary aspirations that I know personally are all fairly narcissistic.. I'm sure it's skewed my perspective)
(3. Dostoevsky did just fine writing to make ends meet. Most of his work was written to pay off debts, or similar things)

[HansTWN]

For those of you who don't speak German let me give you a quote from the German author Meinecke as seen in the German part of the forum. "Ich freue mich darüber, wenn jemand 19,90 Euro für meinen neuen Roman bezahlt. Ich betrachte das als anteilige Anerkennung eines mehrjährigen Arbeitsprozesses." Translation: "I am very happy if someone is willing to pay Euro 19.90 for my new novel. For me that means they acknowledge the years of work I have put into it." He continues to contrast this with a government sponsored program to support artists and voluntary donations by readers, and continues: "Hier steht sozusagen Ehre gegen Gnade". "This is a case of honor vs pity/mercy".

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

For those of you who don't speak German let me give you a quote from the German author Meinecke as seen in the German part of the forum. "Ich freue mich darüber, wenn jemand 19,90 Euro für meinen neuen Roman bezahlt. Ich betrachte das als anteilige Anerkennung eines mehrjährigen Arbeitsprozesses." Translation: "I am very happy if someone is willing to pay Euro 19.90 for my new novel. For me that means they acknowledge the years of work I have put into it." He continues to contrast this with a government sponsored program to support artists and voluntary donations by readers, and continues: "Hier steht sozusagen Ehre gegen Gnade". "This is a case of honor vs pity/mercy".

Cute, if uninformed. He's ignoring the huge, looming presence of Traditional Publishers, and the work they did/cut they take/etc.
I'm sure he's happy that people are buying what he's writing, and I'm sure he feels happy and is proud that he's (no longer) getting Artist benefits, so that he can now claim not to be living "at the mercy of the welfare state", but it seems a bit like biting the hand that feeds you (or derisive towards his less successful peers). Then again, writers don't always like to be known for being nice.