Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
One question for you: I don't know how you make your living, but, whatever it is, do you give it all away for free? If you have an expectation that you will be paid for your work, why do you suggest that authors should not? Writing a book is just as much "work" as any other means of earning your living.
This strange concept that people should write books "to aid their fellow man", rather than to make money, has always slightly puzzled me. Should restaurant owners serve meals to aid their fellow man, rather than to make money? Should plasterers plaster walls to benefit people rather than to make money? Why should authors be somehow "different"?
|
I know these issues may have been answered in other posts, however, I just noticed that the questions were directed to me.
First, the thought that writing books to "aid your fellow men" is "strange" is a recent phenomenon, and the unfortunate consequence of unending attempts by the publishing companies and their beneficiaries to indoctrinate and coerce the general public using any means available. Hence you have the insanity of modern copyright legislation now coupled with the modern propagandist equivalencies of theft and, strangely enough, sea-borne piracy, when all that is really being discussed is the terms of a social contract in its relation to copying.
I would contend that, prior to the advent of large-scale adoption of copyright "protection" for the benefit of the publishing industry, there is, at the very least, a 1:1 ratio (probably much greater) of books that were published, either by hand or with a printing press, which were created with the very "strange" goal of bettering mankind as the primary purpose of their making.
And certainly, this ratio is maintained among the literary classics of all cultures which have stood the test of time. From Aristotle to Sun Tzu, there is a clear indication that authors who earnestly desired to share their thoughts and ideas for the betterment of others, found in writing many levels of fulfillment, all done with financial compensation, apparently, being among the least of their concerns.
So, strange though it may indeed be, this impulse to transmit our ideas throughout our respective societies, is to mankind's great benefit, part of his nature. Man certainly does maintain many strange characteristics when you compare him to other forms of animal phenomena.
Which brings to mind your other question, which was "would I work for "free", and if not, how can I possibly expect others to do so?".
If an author can earn his living through the natural act of expressing his ideas and sharing them with others, then this is a good thing. It provides FURTHER incentive, certainly, to this type of behavior and allows him to become more specialized in his endeavors.
However, I am of the, perhaps, antiquated position that my occupation does not define who I am. In my case, while I serve in the military, and would not, by my own choice, render that service without payment, I would not, on the other hand, expect the public to be forced to pay my salary if, by my actions, I was not providing a service worthy of my hire. If such were the case, I expect that I would, either voluntarily or not, be required to seek an alternative form of employment, which in a free market system would direct me to employers willing to pay for the skills I possessed thereby resulting in a net increase to my nation's economic capital. You notice, this benefit has occurred, even though I could not, at this speculative point claim the "Military" designator.
And I may be way off base here, but IMO, every man, woman, and child who can type on a keyboard or write with a pen is worthy of the designation of "Author", and that this concept is the key to mankind fulfilling its true potential. If you agree, then why focus on the perpetuation of a long obsolete publishing industry? While it of course provides the benefits of "book" distribution, it also harms society with its ridiculous demands of artificial scarcity of information. It insists that only publishers be paid for producing copies, when the reality is that for an ever growing segment of society, copying is free, and such services are no longer required.
Publishers, if faced with an ever shrinking market, should consolidate where necessary and reallocate their capital in a manner beneficial to the societies that produced them in the first place.