Should writers give up on getting paid for their writing?

[latepaul]

Originally Posted by carld

Oh, I very much disagree. The anti-copyright folks bring up the idea that writers can find other way to make money from their writing, other than getting paid for it, ALL THE TIME!

They never have any realistic suggestion of how this is supposed to happen in absence of copyright, of course, just either a sort of "well, it'll work out somehow" attitude, or "writers can dig ditches can't they?"
solution.

But the thing is, apart from a tiny minority, copyright never actually helped most writers make enough to live on anyway. The rest have always had to supplement the money they make from selling copies of their work with other things. So the reason you don't hear about that many "new" ideas for alternative revenue streams is that they would be ones that already exist and that most writers are using for most of their income.

A few new innovative ideas exist but they're mostly new spins on old themes. For example if you fund your next novel on Kickstarter it's really a crowd-sourced version of commission/patronage.

BTW - I'm not anti-copyright as in "let's scrap the whole thing" but I am anti-continuously extending it and coming up with every more draconian attempts at enforcement.

As to your solutions, that's just going back to the old system where the wealthy controlled the flow of ideas and information to the masses. I prefer not to retreat to intellectual serfdom.

It never really went away. The wealthy always had more control over the flow of ideas, that's part of what it means to be wealthy. If you want an example, in global terms I'm wealthy and thus I can afford a PC, an internet connection and have enough leisure time to sit hear spouting my opinions on MR

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by rhadin

I think it is a mistake not to keep searching for high-aulity indie authors. It was through such searching that I found indie authors like Shayne Parkingson, LJ Seller, Michael Hicks, Richard Tuttle, Vicki Tyley, and Tracey Falbe, among others. And once I found them, I found the reading experience to equal that of the well-known trade authors but at a significantly more reasonable price. Consequently, I have been willing to pay for their new books (e.g., in Tuttle's case I bought 28 of his books).

Tuttle's ebooks are $5.99. That's a tidy sum multiplied by 28.

Several others are now Kindle exclusives. It's a good thing you discovered them beforehand.

[taosaur]

Originally Posted by carld

Oh, I very much disagree. The anti-copyright folks bring up the idea that writers can find other way to make money from their writing, other than getting paid for it, ALL THE TIME!

I'm sure they do, all six of them, especially when they have their annual conference in the back booth at Denny's. My point was that they're a tiny minority of the people making the argument that publishers and writers are doing a lousy job of adapting to technology. They're also a tiny minority of the people pushing for copyright reform. The largest fair-use movement, Creative Commons, is a form of copyright.

There's no reason that exploring new business models has to be threatening to or mutually exclusive with copyright, royalties or advances. Your "anti-copyright" movement is a paper tiger.

[carld]

Originally Posted by taosaur

I'm sure they do, all six of them, especially when they have their annual conference in the back booth at Denny's. My point was that they're a tiny minority of the people making the argument that publishers and writers are doing a lousy job of adapting to technology. They're also a tiny minority of the people pushing for copyright reform. The largest fair-use movement, Creative Commons, is a form of copyright.

There's no reason that exploring new business models has to be threatening to or mutually exclusive with copyright, royalties or advances. Your "anti-copyright" movement is a paper tiger.

Who said anything about a movement? You shouldn't place claims and concepts on to people who haven't presented them. I've been through this anti-copyright discussion at least a dozen times on this forum, and the same idea is always presented. "If there were no copyright authors would find other ways to make money," or variations on that theme. I've yet, through all the thousands of words written about it, seen any viable approach that hasn't already been tried and discarded by authors attempting to make money from their writing.

[carld]

Originally Posted by latepaul

But the thing is, apart from a tiny minority, copyright never actually helped most writers make enough to live on anyway. The rest have always had to supplement the money they make from selling copies of their work with other things. So the reason you don't hear about that many "new" ideas for alternative revenue streams is that they would be ones that already exist and that most writers are using for most of their income.

I'd really love to see some proof of those statements, and what these alternative revenue streams actually are. Can you link some examples that have worked for people, for example, who haven't already achieved some degree of success through the traditional copyright system?

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Fbone

Tuttle's ebooks are $5.99. That's a tidy sum multiplied by 28.

Several others are now Kindle exclusives. It's a good thing you discovered them beforehand.

When I bought Tuttle's books, the first ones in each of the series was free. The subsequent books were $3.99-$5.99. This was several years ago. I never would have bought any of his books without the free ones to get me to try them, but once I read them, I was writing him and asking when the next in the series would be available. I would pay $5.99 for his books today, because I enjoyed them.

And yes, it is a good thing I discovered Tuttle before the Amazon exclusivity; I would not have bought any from Amazon.

But this also demonstrates my point. A good indie author can expect readers to pay a fair sum for their books once they get the reader hooked.

[ProfCrash]

I think the key is that a good author, regardless of Indie or not, can expect readers to pay a fiar sum for their books once the reader is hooked.

A fair sum can be defined as many things, it depends on the person buying the book. I have no problem paying $15 for a book by an author I really like. But that is me at a very specific time in my life. My price point might drop when the baby comes and I have to worry about paying for day care and diapers. But your definition of a fair price and my definition of a fair price can differ.

[stonetools]

I'm glad that Mr. Goldin decided to modify or reverse his initialn statement , because THIS:

Bestselling author and publishing expert Seth Godin says writers are right to worry. In fact, he says writers have to give up on the idea that they can or should make a living directly from their writing and instead look at other ways to monetize their work.

is bulls###t.

Writers SHOULD be able to make a living directly from writing. If they can , they'll focus on writing better so they can make more money. If they can't make a living from writing, then they'll move on to something they CAN make a living from. Economics101 tells you that.
Frankly I want great writers to be paid great, good writers to be paid well, and poor writers to move on to something else. That's the way to get better books.
I also want writers to focus on WRITING. Its popular round these parts to say writers should do marketing, should self publish, self edit, etc.
WRONG. Another basic economic principle is the division of labor. I want my writers WRITING-not shooting commercials, attending conventions, flogging merchandise, or whatever. George RR Martin does a lot of that, and the result? One novel every 5 years.
I like Stephen King's approach. He writes EVERY damned day-including holidays- and lets his publisher do everything else.
Seth Goldin's stuff is popular among people who AREN'T professional writers- people who frankly, don't want to pay for content.

[sbroome]

A lot of what would allow musicians and writers and artists to develop though, which is a complete focus on writing, is not that possible in a world without advances and internships that used to be commonplace in those industries. People like Stephen King were established when the industry was entirely different.

[latepaul]

Originally Posted by carld

I'd really love to see some proof of those statements, and what these alternative revenue streams actually are. Can you link some examples that have worked for people, for example, who haven't already achieved some degree of success through the traditional copyright system?

I think you misunderstood me. The "alternative revenue streams" are everything they do to make up the difference between what they earn directly from writing and what they need to live. I'm not restricting that to writing-related activities, though there are some like writing for hire, performing your work, teaching and so on. But it's also every kind of "day job" or other source of income.

What I'm saying is that copyright doesn't magically free most writers from the need to find the rest of the rent money by working in a book store simply because most writers don't earn anywhere near enough from writing anyway. So if copyright went away - which remember I'm NOT advocating - the primary impact would be that they'd need to do more of what they're already having to do. And since they're already having to do these things they're not new and unheard of, they're already common and mundane.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by rhadin

I would pay $5.99 for his books today, because I enjoyed them.

And yes, it is a good thing I discovered Tuttle before the Amazon exclusivity; I would not have bought any from Amazon.

But this also demonstrates my point. A good indie author can expect readers to pay a fair sum for their books once they get the reader hooked.

Certainly. This applies to all authors. Buy Stephen King's ebook at $2.99 and, if enjoyed, buy his others. Price becomes less of an issue when you're fairly certain of high level of enjoyment.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

I'm surprised your dentist didn't want to advertise there too since he obviously did such a good job.

I'll speak to her.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by spindlegirl

Interviewer Jian Ghomesi interviewed Seth Godin talking about this topic. It's a 16 minute clip but there is a small blog article with comments:



In the audio clip Seth Godin makes a good point about there just being SO MANY books that there is not much unique out there that people are willing to pay for. And he also clarifies that artists and creators DO deserve to be paid but there is just an overabundance.

Obviously, some should. Just like some actors should give up on being paid for their acting or basketball players who should give up on being paid to play basketball.

I know whining is a national pasttime but when a self-described author whined to me that you couldn't do anything without a big-name agent I pointed out that Pat Conroy did. He shurgged it off.

Reality does not intrude on a good whine.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by carld

I've always wondered about that when the anti-copyright folks bring it up. If there were really ways to make money from writing, other than being paid for it, wouldn't most writers already be doing these things to "monetize their work"?

Sell the movie rights.

Host a TV show.

Do public speaking.

Cross promote a video game.

Merchandising.

Drive ad traffic to your blog.

There are ways, and people are doing it. However, many writers are hoping to spend their work days writing, not selling ads, negotiating deals, designing toys, etc, traveling, performing, even if they are able.

ApK

[Lemurion]

Over the last few years I've made over $50,000 directly from "writing," and less than 1% of that total comes from selling fiction under my own name. I work part-time from home and I know there is money to be made in writing.