Quote:
Originally Posted by Moejoe
Makes no sense at all. If I could put a picture of myself here shrugging with a strange look on my face, I would, but I can't.
|
Let me try to explain better then....
On the one hand your logic states it is ok for the audience to say "I'll pay you whatever I like or even nothing, after I've read the book. I'll base this payment on how much I believe the work to be worth and not on how much effort or time you put it."
On the other hand that same audience would cry foul if their own boss stated about their work "once you have finished the work and I have had time to value it based on my own criteria I will pay you whatever I think fair or nothing at all as I see fit".
I am saying, you can't have it both ways. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Moejoe
This has already happened, both Radiohead and NIN have recieved thousands of dollars for CD's that you could pay nothing, or whatever you felt like (and I'm talking thosuands of dollars in ONE donation). This is already proven with 'big names'. In the future this kind of after-enjoyment payment will sustain far more writers than are sustained by the greedy-corp-advance-miniscule percentage model we have now.
|
So a couple of big names have received a couple of big donations. Even counting those donations have they been able to cover their costs and earn a living from this method alone? I rather doubt it.
One of your major arguments against the old method is that so few authors can sustain themselves by writing alone. Now you point out two established big name acts that may or may not have actually covered their costs and made enough money to live on as if that is proof that your brave new world of letting everyone pay whatever they like works.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Moejoe
YES!! and a thousand times YES!! I'd like to amend my earlier statement in favour of yours. Audience first when it comes to valuation. Because they're (after you've had your own creative enjoyment of course) the only ones who matter in all this. Without them creators are one hand clapping, they're the tree falling in the forest and nobody around to hear.
|
Uh, you forgot the other part of my statement.........audience first,
last and only.
If that is how you want to do things then great for you. Just realise that in the real world this will mean that many creative endeavours will suffer if not die out all together because those endeavours do cost money to produce and when the audience majority simply decides to enjoy without paying then the money will dry up and there will be no more creating.
Of course you are only concerned with what interests you and don't care about any other endeavour so I'm sure that wont bother you.
How did that other saying or poem or whatever it was go? Something like..."When they came for the jews I did not protest because I am not a jew, when they came for the black people I did not protest because I am not black, now there is no one left so who will protest when they come for me?"
I'm not arguing for the old way, I am arguing that the creator of a work should have some input as to the value of that work. This method has worked for centuries when it comes to paitings, sculptor etc. The artist names their price and if the audience wants that piece of art they pay the price and if they don't they don't. Why should it be any different in writing? If you want to read something that an author has created then why should you not pay what the author is asking? Simply because you don't want to and you think it is your right to enjoy their work for free?
Seems rather childish and self centred to me.
Cheers,
PKFFW