Priced to Sell: Is the Future Free?

[Tuna]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

This also irks me, but in reverse. The assumption is that the majority of paid-for content is actually good, wherein in fact its mostly mass-marketed, focus-grouped, carbon-copied pablum. Out of all the BBC produced TV shows this year there was only a tiny fraction of that content that could be labelled as 'good', and as usual we got a vast majority of gameshows, reality based humiliation festivals and soap operas.

Good points all, and eloquently made. However, that assumption is not mine - paid content does not guarantee quality, but it does broaden what is possible.

You mention the responsibility of deciding what is good and what is bad. Sadly the talent to do so is rare, and the ability to deliver rarely lies with one person. Whilst publishing infrastructure can be a poor bedfellow of changing technology, it's role in polishing creative works into gems does benefit us, even if much of the time the items it is polishing are less worthy.

I'd be happier with the headlong rush to democratic distribution of media (shit or otherwise), if someone could come up with a useful way to support talent scouts, editors, proofreaders, typesetters and their other media equivalents as much as the authors that benefit from them. Anderson's explanation of how authors might be supported by free media is somewhat tenuous, so what place these others have in the new media model I don't know.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

The problem is that the vast majority of the digital audience don't share the same ideas about time=money. The fact that it might have taken the author five years to write their book means nothing to the downloader, it does not fit into the equation any longer when they come to make a choice from the swathe of products before them. That fact is background noise, and is especially unimportant with an audience who are schooled in the ideas of creative commons, open source and the information=free philosophies.

I'd like to see how these same people felt about their boss saying your time doesn't equal money to me. How would they feel if he said "I don't care if it takes you 1, 2 or 3 hours to make something for me, I can only sell it for $5 so I'm only paying you $2."

I'm pretty sure their tune would change.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Lets take as an example the amount of books that are offered every day on Mobileread for zero cost or near to zero cost (<$1). Any book now offered over these magical price points is probably going to get ignored, unless it has something more to offer. We're already at a point where zero or near-to-zero price points are becoming expected for new authors, established authors in digital format seem to get a pass for the most part, but even this is changing. A lot of avid readers refuse to pay the price-point the publishers/stores set on established authors books. They (we) do not value the digital product the same as the physical product. This is the inescapable fact of all this. Digital, because it is infinitely reproducible, has no starting worth. It begins at zero and you must add value from thereon in. Saying it took five years to write and all the rest doesn't mean anything to the end customer when they can go to Gutenberg or Feedbooks and snatch themselves a classic or new work of fiction for ZERO COST.

it's all a value proposition now. I can't remember who said it, but it was linked to in a recent MR posting, and it was a talk about the future of publishing. The speaker said something along the lines of "Product is dead, it's not about the product anymore but the context." By which he was talking of the community in which the product is offered, the value that the individual community put upon the object/information being offered. Its easy to value a pbook, there's a definitive process that must be undertaken and it has set costs at each stage. With a digital product there is no way to make the same value assumptions. Server costs/hosting? What if it's using P2P technology for distribution? What if it sits on a free blog host like wordpress, or one of the many new digital book outlets such as Feedbooks? What if it only took a weekend to write (famously the classic Incredible Shrinking Man by Richard Matherson was written in one weekend, also On the Road by Jack Kerouac).

You can't make a value assumption over a non-physical object, and the audience certainly wont make this judgement. It's the context of the object not the object itself that has worth now.

What about the value that comes from the reading?

It's all very well and good to argue that it's all about value and to argue that you(not you personally but a "general" you) aren't going to pay based on the time spent creating. However, if you are going to argue that then by rights you should argue that if you really really enjoy the book then you should be willing to pay alot for it right? I mean the value you gained from the book is very high since you thoroughly enjoyed it and will have those memories forever. If we do away with DRM you could also say then that you have the book forever to re-read, onsell etc as well so that should add further value right?

Can't really see that happening though, can you? I'm pretty sure the arguement will stop at the "I don't care how long it took or how much effort it took to write" part.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Tuna

Good points all, and eloquently made. However, that assumption is not mine - paid content does not guarantee quality, but it does broaden what is possible.

You mention the responsibility of deciding what is good and what is bad. Sadly the talent to do so is rare, and the ability to deliver rarely lies with one person. Whilst publishing infrastructure can be a poor bedfellow of changing technology, it's role in polishing creative works into gems does benefit us, even if much of the time the items it is polishing are less worthy.

I'd be happier with the headlong rush to democratic distribution of media (shit or otherwise), if someone could come up with a useful way to support talent scouts, editors, proofreaders, typesetters and their other media equivalents as much as the authors that benefit from them. Anderson's explanation of how authors might be supported by free media is somewhat tenuous, so what place these others have in the new media model I don't know.

I do agree that Anderson hasn't nailed the method of monetization of creative content, but I don't think that makes what he's saying any less truthful. We are rapidly moving away from all the old models that were so ingrained in our culture. They don't and they can't work with a populace that is used to zero or near zero cost cultural products. This is only accelerating by the day. The idea that talent scouts, proofreaders (typesetters?) and any of those analogue jobs will exist five years from now is tenuous. Ten years from now I don't expect we'll even need something as primitive as a hand held reader. What are we, eleven years away from Kurzwell's moment of singularity? Another ten years on top of that and we'll be fully on the other side of that singularity. The publishing industry can't survive the technological changes needed to make that singularity come about.

Technology is changing at such a rapid rate that we can't possibly accommodate the old fashioned methods, and this isn't spiteful, it's just the nature of the technology we're using and how that technology is developing. A lot of these companies are willfully ignoring this change, burying their heads in the sand and hoping beyond hope that somehow all this is just a passing fad. Well it isn't. And if they're hoping to replicate the music industry, well that's going to be dashed also. The music industry is enjoying a momentary monetary reprieve with their paid-for downloads that will evaporate very quickly. And why?

Well, more and more artists are asking the big question 'Why do we need all these middlemen and hangers on?" "Why should I do the lion's share of the work, yet receive the smallest portion of the returns?" Your typical author with a big publisher makes %7-15 return after a couple G's advance on their work. Most authors can't make a living wage off what they write, and yet, somehow they're better off with the agents and the PR people and the editors and the gatekeepers...well, you get where I'm going with this and I don't have much time for those old fashioned book publishing ways. The balance is shifting toward a more equitable and fair relationship between creator and audience. A relationship that doesn't need the third wheel of publishing houses.

Of course there will be those who can't see how anything good can be created without the 'gatekeepers' from the publishing houses. Who reason that the gatekeepers filtered the crap out before it got to us, but I've always found this to be a ludicrous notion. Go to the shelves of any major bookstore, look in any section, pick up any five books randomly and you're bound to come away with a bad stench on your fingers. Quality isn't a driving force in the economics of publishing, that's why we have Stephanie Myer selling millions and Kelly Link barely visible to most.

Me, I'm on the side of change, on the side of the audience being the ones who decide what is gold and what is merely a shiny rock. Creators and audience first, the companies and their lackeys can go rot in Hell for all I care. Good riddance.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

This also irks me, but in reverse. The assumption is that the majority of paid-for content is actually good, wherein in fact its mostly mass-marketed, focus-grouped, carbon-copied pablum. Out of all the BBC produced TV shows this year there was only a tiny fraction of that content that could be labelled as 'good', and as usual we got a vast majority of gameshows, reality based humiliation festivals and soap operas. Content that I pay £100+ every year for through my license fee is barely worth that fee. The movies that have come out in the last ten years suffer a similar fate, sequel upon sequel, frothy inept romantic comedies, CGI demonstrations that forgot to add any kind of plot or character. Same for books if we're all going to be honest about this. What was the last genuinely well-written book that made the best seller list? I'm talking about something that will last more than the plane journey it takes to read? The bookseller lists are crammed full of terrible writing, rehashed ideas and sequel upon sequel. Oh and any argument that says monetary payment is a measure of quality can be rebuked instantly by using only two words: Dan Brown

The fact that you find most paid-for content crap(which in itself is simply an opinion) isn't an argument that free content is any better.

There are the very rare talents in this world that can and have created masterpieces with little or no input from anyone else. There are books out there that haven't required editing for example. These are the very very few and the very very far between. The vast majority do require proof reading, editing etc to make them worth reading. Like it or not, these things cost money.

Money will not turn a "bad" writer into a "good" writer I grant you. However, in the vast majority of cases, it will allow a "good" writers work to be made into something that is worth reading.

The case for money is even more pronounced in the medium of film and tv. These things take alot of money to produce. Specially if you are trying to produce something of quality. We have a small movie/tv industry here in Australia. There isn't alot of money in it. We still manage to turn out an ok movie/tv show now and then though. However, even the good stuff just doesn't have the production values that a good US or UK movie/show has. It looks cheap and this detracts from the viewing experience. On top of that, because there is so little money in the industry all our actors go elsewhere to try to make a living. We can rarely attract our best actors, writers and directors to come home to work and this has a downward pressure on the quality of the movies/shows that are produced.

When it comes to free content in this media I am yet to see anything longer than 2-3 minutes that was any good at all. Even the 2-3 minute stuff is normally only good for a laugh and not much else.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

I think where people get confused is in their analogies, for instance yours equating youtube user generated content with professional TV/movies. Youtube isn't an avenue for serious creative endeavours, and it never was. It's a repostitory of video clips, none more than ten minutes in length (supposedly). This isn't the place where you're going to find much more than drunk people singing, filmed accidents and pop videos, and all of these without any notion of building upon a creative career. if you want creativity go to Vimeo or Revver, even Dailymotion has more interesting user-generated content.

I'll take a look but I wont hold my breath.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

I suppose what I'm arguing is the Zappa equation (99% of everything is shit). That Zappa equation applies equally to traditional and new media, the only shift we're actually seeing is in how the audience filters out the shit from the shine. The responsibility is now firmly in our hands (pardon the image) to figure out what is good and what is bad. No more intermediaries from the big corps making the initial decisions on what sells and what does not. Because if the ability of a work of fiction to make money is the only metric by which we measure 'quality culture', then we're all fucked.

And if the prevailing attitude of "It should be free" continues then there will be far less for us to choose from. It wont matter how much power we have in our hands, how much we stick it to the big corps, how much filtering we do. If there is virtually nothing to choose from then is having the choice really worth it?

There is an old saying "beggars can't be choosers". When this "everything should be free" utopia if finally created then we will all truly be the beggars and we simply wont have any choice in what is served up to us.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

I'd like to see how these same people felt about their boss saying your time doesn't equal money to me. How would they feel if he said "I don't care if it takes you 1, 2 or 3 hours to make something for me, I can only sell it for $5 so I'm only paying you $2."

I'm pretty sure their tune would change.

Your analogy is irrelevant. The process of writing is unseen, has an unkown time frame, and is subjectively enjoyed by the creator. It is also, for a vast majority, done on-spec without a contract or any fixed hours. It has very little parallel with an employee/employer xhours = xpay job.

And in any case your analogy is almost to a tea what the publishing companies do. They offer advances on sales that they think will happen... doesn't matter how many hours you put into the creation of the work, if they deem it to be worth only $5 then they will only pay you an advance that they can then make some profit from. So they'll pay you $2

Find another analogy that actually makes sense and I'll argue against it.

What about the value that comes from the reading?

It's all very well and good to argue that it's all about value and to argue that you(not you personally but a "general" you) aren't going to pay based on the time spent creating. However, if you are going to argue that then by rights you should argue that if you really really enjoy the book then you should be willing to pay alot for it right? I mean the value you gained from the book is very high since you thoroughly enjoyed it and will have those memories forever. If we do away with DRM you could also say then that you have the book forever to re-read, onsell etc as well so that should add further value right?

Can't really see that happening though, can you? I'm pretty sure the arguement will stop at the "I don't care how long it took or how much effort it took to write" part.

Cheers,
PKFFW

Actually I did argue in earlier posts that I thought payment after enjoyment was the best method (or was that in another thread?). In any case I don't think set prices reflect the digital age, especially in the face of zero-cost and infinite reproduction. Set prices make little sense to a digital audience. Now, paying after you've enjoyed something, that might work. So yeah, reading does have value. Although thats up to the individual to decide, not the company.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Your analogy is irrelevant. The process of writing is unseen, has an unkown time frame, and is subjectively enjoyed by the creator. It is also, for a vast majority, done on-spec without a contract or any fixed hours. It has very little parallel with an employee/employer xhours = xpay job.

And in any case your analogy is almost to a tea what the publishing companies do. They offer advances on sales that they think will happen... doesn't matter how many hours you put into the creation of the work, if they deem it to be worth only $5 then they will only pay you an advance that they can then make some profit from. So they'll pay you $2

Find another analogy that actually makes sense and I'll argue against it.

It wasn't really an analogy actually. I was merely pointing out the reverse side of the logic that says "I wont pay you based on your effort or time, I'll pay you whatever I want based on whatever I think gives me the best outcome".

It's great to use that logic when it benefits us but it's a rare individual indeed who uses that logic when it comes to what others should pay them.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Actually I did argue in earlier posts that I thought payment after enjoyment was the best method (or was that in another thread?). In any case I don't think set prices reflect the digital age, especially in the face of zero-cost and infinite reproduction. Set prices make little sense to a digital audience. Now, paying after you've enjoyed something, that might work. So yeah, reading does have value. Although thats up to the individual to decide, not the company.

And do you really see the individual in this world saying "hey that was my favourite book of all time so I'm going to pay $100 it was just so darn good"??

What you are arguing is that the audience should have sole rights to determine the valuation of the work. Furthermore, you argue the audience should have sole rights to determine valuation after they have been able to enjoy the work obligation free!

You are not aruging "Creators and audience first" at all. You are arguing audience first, last and only.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

The fact that you find most paid-for content crap(which in itself is simply an opinion) isn't an argument that free content is any better.

If you'll look at my argument, you'll see that I'm not arguing that free=better, I'm arguing that free=no better or worse.

There are the very rare talents in this world that can and have created masterpieces with little or no input from anyone else. There are books out there that haven't required editing for example. These are the very very few and the very very far between. The vast majority do require proof reading, editing etc to make them worth reading. Like it or not, these things cost money.

DID cost money, DID cost money. Crowdsourcing is already proving a boon in many areas, and we're not just talking WIKI's here. Look at the foreign language translations of Doctorow's work. Done without payment by volunteers. The filesharers do this also. When they put out a rip of a book, they'll add a note with a version number and if any typos or corrections are made, the next filehsharer along makes that know by adding a new version number.

I know from my own experiences with some typos and spellings that have been caught by readers of my writing, who did this for no money might I add. Were their suggestions any less or any more helpful than a person whose paid to do the same? Will all writing cease because someone isn't making a buck off it?

Money will not turn a "bad" writer into a "good" writer I grant you. However, in the vast majority of cases, it will allow a "good" writers work to be made into something that is worth reading.

And lack of money will not make a great writer any less great. Are you honestly saying that money is the only way to make something worth reading? That the traditional process is the only way that writers can better themselves? From good to readable, what does that even mean? Stephen King is possibly one of the worst writers in history, and okay, that's subjective, but everything is when it comes to writing. Good, bad, indifferent, it's all up to YOU. You don't need someone in between to tell you what is worthwhile and what isn't. Gladly, we're living in a time where you CAN make up your own mind, where your choices aren't limited to what the companies want you to read.

The case for money is even more pronounced in the medium of film and tv.

I've cut the above quote short because I don't really care about TV and I think it's going to die out within ten years anyway. Film as well can't last at current levels. Do I know where its going? Not a clue, as far as I'm concerned TV and FILM are cultural wastelands at the moment and I can 't see that getting any better in the near future.

And if the prevailing attitude of "It should be free" continues then there will be far less for us to choose from. It wont matter how much power we have in our hands, how much we stick it to the big corps, how much filtering we do. If there is virtually nothing to choose from then is having the choice really worth it?

There is an old saying "beggars can't be choosers". When this "everything should be free" utopia if finally created then we will all truly be the beggars and we simply wont have any choice in what is served up to us.

I think your logic is way off. If everything is free then people will still create, if not create more. The barriers of entry are down, so you don't need to worry about the old gatekeepers. You can do it yourself and ask the audience what they think. There will be more cultural creativity in the next ten years than in the last sixty, that's my prediction. More writers, more musicians, all that good stuff. Your choices will be abundant (they are already). You wont have to pay for your culture, but you know what, you might pay anyway just to support people you like. This isn't a UTOPIA, its the pre-wake of the singularity in action.

Welcome to the future, it's happening now

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

It wasn't really an analogy actually. I was merely pointing out the reverse side of the logic that says "I wont pay you based on your effort or time, I'll pay you whatever I want based on whatever I think gives me the best outcome".

It's great to use that logic when it benefits us but it's a rare individual indeed who uses that logic when it comes to what others should pay them.

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.

And do you really see the individual in this world saying "hey that was my favourite book of all time so I'm going to pay $100 it was just so darn good"??

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.

What you are arguing is that the audience should have sole rights to determine the valuation of the work. Furthermore, you argue the audience should have sole rights to determine valuation after they have been able to enjoy the work obligation free!

You are not aruging "Creators and audience first" at all. You are arguing audience first, last and only.

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.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

If you'll look at my argument, you'll see that I'm not arguing that free=better, I'm arguing that free=no better or worse.

Your opinion. Mine would be that the vast majority of free is far worse than the vast majority of paid.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

DID cost money, DID cost money. Crowdsourcing is already proving a boon in many areas, and we're not just talking WIKI's here. Look at the foreign language translations of Doctorow's work. Done without payment by volunteers. The filesharers do this also. When they put out a rip of a book, they'll add a note with a version number and if any typos or corrections are made, the next filehsharer along makes that know by adding a new version number.

I know from my own experiences with some typos and spellings that have been caught by readers of my writing, who did this for no money might I add. Were their suggestions any less or any more helpful than a person whose paid to do the same? Will all writing cease because someone isn't making a buck off it?

A typo here and there is one thing and any good writer should actually be able to do that him/herself.

Editing is different. A writer will generally feel that what they have written is perfect the way it is when generally it really isn't. They don't have the objectivity to see this. Now, you could trust a bunch of completely unknown readers with no track record and varying tastes and abilities to edit your work and that is your choice. The results would no doubt be varied. On the other hand you could trust a trained professional with a track record to edit it. One vision, someone you trust and possibly have worked with or at least read other stuff edited by them and so know their style and work. Results would more than likely be much better. Again, your choice of course.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

And lack of money will not make a great writer any less great. Are you honestly saying that money is the only way to make something worth reading? That the traditional process is the only way that writers can better themselves? From good to readable, what does that even mean? Stephen King is possibly one of the worst writers in history, and okay, that's subjective, but everything is when it comes to writing. Good, bad, indifferent, it's all up to YOU. You don't need someone in between to tell you what is worthwhile and what isn't. Gladly, we're living in a time where you CAN make up your own mind, where your choices aren't limited to what the companies want you to read.

I stated in the vast majority of cases, not all. I also stated there are those few and far between talents that can do it all themselves. I am not saying the traditional process is the only way to do this. In fact, in a previous thread I did state that I'm all for getting rid of the "traditional process". However, I still think that the input of money can go a long long way to making a book much better than it would be. I am not saying that money is the only way to make something worth reading. I am saying that in the vast majority of cases a good writer will still need some editing, some constructive criticism, some direction in order to make their writing something that is really worth reading.

As for the difference between good and readable........there are plenty of "good" writers out there whose writing in it's raw and unedited form is not really very readable. Along comes an editor who makes suggestions, criticisms and ideas and the writer goes away and incorporates those(or not as they see fit) and the finished work(written by the "good" writer) becomes much more readable and enjoyable in most cases. Get it?

Originally Posted by Moejoe

I've cut the above quote short because I don't really care about TV and I think it's going to die out within ten years anyway. Film as well can't last at current levels. Do I know where its going? Not a clue, as far as I'm concerned TV and FILM are cultural wastelands at the moment and I can 't see that getting any better in the near future.

Your arguments generally do come down to dismissing anything you don't agree with so I'm not surprised you simply skip past this. Funny how you are so quick to link the publishing industry to the music industry when it suits you but now are so quick to dismiss a link between film/tv and writing when you don't want to argue the merits.

As for TV dying within 10 years I tell you what................I'll give you a million to one odds against. Care to make a wager?

Originally Posted by Moejoe

I think your logic is way off. If everything is free then people will still create, if not create more. The barriers of entry are down, so you don't need to worry about the old gatekeepers. You can do it yourself and ask the audience what they think. There will be more cultural creativity in the next ten years than in the last sixty, that's my prediction. More writers, more musicians, all that good stuff. Your choices will be abundant (they are already). You wont have to pay for your culture, but you know what, you might pay anyway just to support people you like. This isn't a UTOPIA, its the pre-wake of the singularity in action.

Welcome to the future, it's happening now

Anyone who wants to create now can already do so. There are absolutely no barriers to creation and never have been. The barriers lie in creating something of worth and getting that something out to the audience.

Now I grant you, that in the writing industry only, the barriers to getting the work out to the audience are dropping. The barriers to creating something of worth are still there.

In other artistic and cultural endeavours the barriers to both are still there. The idea that it should all be free because we can now "file-share" it means that these other endeavours at the very least, will become even more of a desolate wasteland than you believe them to be now.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[PKFFW]

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.

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.

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

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Your opinion. Mine would be that the vast majority of free is far worse than the vast majority of paid.

You're looking in all the wrong places then. I've already read this year a book that is now in my top ten of all time list. That was completely free.

A typo here and there is one thing and any good writer should actually be able to do that him/herself.

I think that's a veiled insult, a really trite one too. Typos are natural elements in writing, they are missed all the way into traditionally published books.

Editing is different. A writer will generally feel that what they have written is perfect the way it is when generally it really isn't. They don't have the objectivity to see this. Now, you could trust a bunch of completely unknown readers with no track record and varying tastes and abilities to edit your work and that is your choice. The results would no doubt be varied. On the other hand you could trust a trained professional with a track record to edit it. One vision, someone you trust and possibly have worked with or at least read other stuff edited by them and so know their style and work. Results would more than likely be much better. Again, your choice of course.

Who are these professionals actually trained by? I'm curious because, unlike the film industry, there's not really say, the equivalent professional qualification of A.C.E that a film editor might have. And if we're talking track record, well their track record is mainly in taking a gamble on the product they chose to represent. And lest I forget, but the editors in publishing now pale in comparison to the editors of ten years ago, and are nothing compared to the editors who worked with Hemmingway or Bradbury or any of the greats in the golden age of publishing. The editing of books, that kind of nurturing is hardly done anymore.

If you're seriously suggesting that Stephanie Meyer or Dan Brown has a good editor (and you must be based upon your statements) then I don't know what to say. I really don't. I'm lost for words.

I stated in the vast majority of cases, not all. I also stated there are those few and far between talents that can do it all themselves. I am not saying the traditional process is the only way to do this. In fact, in a previous thread I did state that I'm all for getting rid of the "traditional process". However, I still think that the input of money can go a long long way to making a book much better than it would be. I am not saying that money is the only way to make something worth reading. I am saying that in the vast majority of cases a good writer will still need some editing, some constructive criticism, some direction in order to make their writing something that is really worth reading.

And all of these things can and will be done outside of the structures of traditional publishing. And again its all subjective. Just because I think Kelly Link is one of the greatest short story writers I've ever come across, doesn't mean anything.

As for the difference between good and readable........there are plenty of "good" writers out there whose writing in it's raw and unedited form is not really very readable. Along comes an editor who makes suggestions, criticisms and ideas and the writer goes away and incorporates those(or not as they see fit) and the finished work(written by the "good" writer) becomes much more readable and enjoyable in most cases. Get it?

What I get (your condescension aside) is that you're looking at an industry that existed thirty years ago, with editors who groomed writers work and prepped them and nurtured their talents . That's not publishing now (unless you're talking about small press). Big publishers don't give a shit about their talent. It's a conveyor belt with Harvard graduates and the cousins of the CEO running the show. It's a bottom line business that relies on marketing and brand recognition. If you think that any of modern publishing is about nurturing talent and making them better writers, well, I'd say you're quite deluded.

Your arguments generally do come down to dismissing anything you don't agree with so I'm not surprised you simply skip past this. Funny how you are so quick to link the publishing industry to the music industry when it suits you but now are so quick to dismiss a link between film/tv and writing when you don't want to argue the merits.

As for TV dying within 10 years I tell you what................I'll give you a million to one odds against. Care to make a wager?

I skipped over one of your points because I found it irrelevant and now that's the total sum of all my arguments?

Okay, lets get a few things clear. I worked in the industry, I have qualifications that got me into that industry. Even back when I worked in TV, you could see the end coming a mile off.

There's very little quality to TV, never has been. It's a medium of advertising (apart from the BBC and public funded stations). The programs exist to sell advertising. But now there's less and less advertising selling because there's less and less people watching. So there's less and less money. Ergo, there's less and less money for production....you see where this downward spiral is going?

In the face of the web, new and zero-cost interactions, social networking and all the other goodies that a PC offers you, the TV just can't compete. Especially to a younger generation. If you can tell me how they're going to survive the next ten years with ever dwindling audiences, well... you shouldn't be telling me, you should be telling CBS and NBC and ITV, because they're all scrambling to know, and they'll pay you a pretty penny to find out.

Now, lets take your other point about me making comparisons between music and publishing. Yes, of course I did, they're easy enough to link together and very similar in the way they work. There are agents in both (they call them AnR in music) there are editors in both (studio producers in music) and there are publishers. Both industries rip off the artist by offering crappy monetary incentives and ridiculous percentages on sales. And the products of both industries are low bandwith and easy to reproduce on a modern PC in a digital form (music file / ebook).

I hope that has answered your, frankly, quite ridiculous assumptions in full.

Anyone who wants to create now can already do so. There are absolutely no barriers to creation and never have been. The barriers lie in creating something of worth and getting that something out to the audience.

Now I grant you, that in the writing industry only, the barriers to getting the work out to the audience are dropping. The barriers to creating something of worth are still there.

In other artistic and cultural endeavours the barriers to both are still there. The idea that it should all be free because we can now "file-share" it means that these other endeavours at the very least, will become even more of a desolate wasteland than you believe them to be now.

Cheers,
PKFFW

It's not the idea that everything should be free, its the burgeoning reality of that situation that cannot be changed or should be changed. The word Free itself isn't even warranted any longer when everything is free (and we're very close to that point). You want to ignore what's going on, fine? Ignore it. You want to shout against what's happening, go ahead. Doesn't change the fact that it is happening, that the old models are dying, that the old ways of the entertainment conglomerates are coming to an end.

RIP Old Media.

*And yes, TV/Movies will become a wasteland soon enough (if they're not at that point now). Unless the nearness of the singularity brings about technological change that makes the production of movies/tv to a level of ease that music and writing have reached -- this is a highly probable happening.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

You're looking in all the wrong places then. I've already read this year a book that is now in my top ten of all time list. That was completely free.

Firstly, was this free book a classic PD which you very likely would have had to pay for at time of publication? Secondly, if it wasn't, the fact you have read one book that is now in your top ten doesn't mean a thing. I never said all free content is worse I said in my opinion the vast majority of it is. Your one book aside.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

I think that's a veiled insult, a really trite one too. Typos are natural elements in writing, they are missed all the way into traditionally published books.

No insult intended. My point was that any good writer who wants to spend the time going through his/her work letter by letter, word by word could find any and all typos. If a proof reader does it for a living why could not a writer do it themselves. It is not really part of the creative process it is simply a methodical reviewing of the work for any errors.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Who are these professionals actually trained by? I'm curious because, unlike the film industry, there's not really say, the equivalent professional qualification of A.C.E that a film editor might have. And if we're talking track record, well their track record is mainly in taking a gamble on the product they chose to represent. And lest I forget, but the editors in publishing now pale in comparison to the editors of ten years ago, and are nothing compared to the editors who worked with Hemmingway or Bradbury or any of the greats in the golden age of publishing. The editing of books, that kind of nurturing is hardly done anymore.

They are trained in writing if not in editing specifically. Much like many journalists do a uni degree in media, writing or some other related field, if not in journalism specifically, which enhances their journalism.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

If you're seriously suggesting that Stephanie Meyer or Dan Brown has a good editor (and you must be based upon your statements) then I don't know what to say. I really don't. I'm lost for words.

Straw man. I never suggested any such thing.

And even if it wasn't, the fact that two writers you don't care for may or may not have good editors does not in any way mean that any and all writers would be better off without a good editor.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

And all of these things can and will be done outside of the structures of traditional publishing. And again its all subjective. Just because I think Kelly Link is one of the greatest short story writers I've ever come across, doesn't mean anything.

Yes they can.

My argument, again for the slow ones at the back, is not that traditional publishing is the way to go. My argument is that when you pay peanuts you get monkeys and this idea that the audience should be able to enjoy the work and then pay whatever they feel is right will, by virtue of human nature, result in peanuts being paid in most cases. This will result in a general lowering of the quality of the product because most product does require work outside of the creative process in order to make it of a standard that people would be willing to pay a reasonable price for. This work must be paid for as most of it is done by people who will not benefit directly from the work as the author would.(ie from sales etc of the book)

Do you really think quality people will be willing to do this tedious, non-creative work for free just for the love of it, much like the writer writes for the love of it? If so then I'm the one lost for words now.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

What I get (your condescension aside) is that you're looking at an industry that existed thirty years ago, with editors who groomed writers work and prepped them and nurtured their talents . That's not publishing now (unless you're talking about small press). Big publishers don't give a shit about their talent. It's a conveyor belt with Harvard graduates and the cousins of the CEO running the show. It's a bottom line business that relies on marketing and brand recognition. If you think that any of modern publishing is about nurturing talent and making them better writers, well, I'd say you're quite deluded.

Firstly, what condescension? All I'm saying in the quoted paragraph is that plenty of(I would argue most) good writers still require direction, suggestions, critiques/criticisms and editing of their work. If you think saying that is being condescending then you are the one living in a dream land.

Secondly, what is your point? Publishing today isn't as good as it used to be so the writer should have no say as to the value he/she places on the work. That the audience has a right to everything for free if they so choose and should only be obliged to pay if they think it is worth it? Sure we all hate it when we stump up good money for a poor book but frankly that is the way life is. If you want to read that book you should be obligated to pay what the author wants. If the author wants to give it away for free on the proviso that the reader pays whatever he/she thinks it is worth great. If the author wants someone to pay a reasonable price before they have the right to read it then why should the authors rights be any less respected or worthy than the readers?

Originally Posted by Moejoe

I skipped over one of your points because I found it irrelevant and now that's the total sum of all my arguments?

No, it's the sum of your arguments because you repeatedly disregard anything that holds no interest to you or that you disagree with.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Okay, lets get a few things clear. I worked in the industry, I have qualifications that got me into that industry. Even back when I worked in TV, you could see the end coming a mile off.

And your anecdotal evidence is supposed to.....what?

Originally Posted by Moejoe

There's very little quality to TV, never has been. It's a medium of advertising (apart from the BBC and public funded stations). The programs exist to sell advertising. But now there's less and less advertising selling because there's less and less people watching. So there's less and less money. Ergo, there's less and less money for production....you see where this downward spiral is going?

Strange, here in Australia more and more people are signing up to pay tv all the time. Not sure why they are doing it if TV is going to die in less than 10 years.

Also, you seem to be suggesting that with less and less money there will be less and less production. Isn't that what I've been saying all along?

Originally Posted by Moejoe

In the face of the web, new and zero-cost interactions, social networking and all the other goodies that a PC offers you, the TV just can't compete. Especially to a younger generation. If you can tell me how they're going to survive the next ten years with ever dwindling audiences, well... you shouldn't be telling me, you should be telling CBS and NBC and ITV, because they're all scrambling to know, and they'll pay you a pretty penny to find out.

I'm not denying that tv is struggling, I just don't think it will be dead and buried in 10 years. Just like radio isn't dead and buried like everyone thought it would be by now.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Now, lets take your other point about me making comparisons between music and publishing. Yes, of course I did, they're easy enough to link together and very similar in the way they work. There are agents in both (they call them AnR in music) there are editors in both (studio producers in music) and there are publishers. Both industries rip off the artist by offering crappy monetary incentives and ridiculous percentages on sales. And the products of both industries are low bandwith and easy to reproduce on a modern PC in a digital form (music file / ebook).

I hope that has answered your, frankly, quite ridiculous assumptions in full.

Nope it hasn't answered my point at all.

You find it easy to compare music and books for the reasons you give. Good for you. The fact you are not interested in the comparisons between film/tv and books does not mean those comparisons aren't valid as you seem to be suggesting by your complete disregard for them.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

It's not the idea that everything should be free, its the burgeoning reality of that situation that cannot be changed or should be changed. The word Free itself isn't even warranted any longer when everything is free (and we're very close to that point). You want to ignore what's going on, fine? Ignore it. You want to shout against what's happening, go ahead. Doesn't change the fact that it is happening, that the old models are dying, that the old ways of the entertainment conglomerates are coming to an end.

RIP Old Media.

Firstly, we are a long long way from "everything being free".

Secondly, once again since you seem so slow in picking up on this, I'm not arguing that old ways aren't dying. Nor even that they shouldn't die.

Thirdly, your idea of what is going on may not actually be all that acurate. You see the consumer having the upper hand in having sole rights. Any situation in which one party has substantial advantages over the other will be unsustainable. The idea that the audience will or should have sole rights is no different to the idea that the publishing moguls should.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

*And yes, TV/Movies will become a wasteland soon enough (if they're not at that point now). Unless the nearness of the singularity brings about technological change that makes the production of movies/tv to a level of ease that music and writing have reached -- this is a highly probable happening.

Not even sure what this singularity you keep referring to is. However it seems it is simply some guys idea of what is going to happen at some point in the future. So to argue this and that from the standpoint, and on the basis of, something happening in the future doesn't seem to be very sound reasoning.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Tuna]

I've nothing much to add here as I feel PKFFW is making the case very well.

Moejoe, the problem is that single instances of great 'free' works, or things like Radiohead's never to be repeated publicity stunt don't make for a healthy eco-system.

As PKFFW has pointed out, correction of a few typos does not make for a well edited book. Even then, as the focus of end users is unpredictable, for every book that is corrected you'll find half a dozen that aren't. That'll only get worse as the number of ebooks increases. How many people do you think will pick up a book and either (a) put up with typos, loose grammar and unweildy paragraphs or (b)sit down and correct them?

For all that you decry traditional media, I think we'll find people returning to some of the 'big corporations' once the novelty of watching another cat video or reading some poorly concieved science fiction cliche has worn off. You deplore the output of the BBC, yet they are the ones who have put immense effort into pioneering new media and new delivery mechanisms. They are also the ones who actively find new talent and encourage and develop it. Whilst you might find the majority of their output not to your taste, surely you can recognise that they still produce high quality programmes that suit many corners of the public's interest? Against that, the entire world of 'free' creativity can boast very, very few successes.

As for singularities, the barriers for creative works have been very low for at least the last decade. Writing books and composing music in your 'back room' have been possible for longer, and video production and editing for around that time. Even the distribution mechanisms have been around for nearly as long. Yet we're not surrounded by a flood of new talent, or of singlular creative works. If free was able to deliver the breadth and quality of works that paid currently does we should have seen more evidence of it by now.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Tuna

I've nothing much to add here as I feel PKFFW is making the case very well.

Moejoe, the problem is that single instances of great 'free' works, or things like Radiohead's never to be repeated publicity stunt don't make for a healthy eco-system.

As PKFFW has pointed out, correction of a few typos does not make for a well edited book. Even then, as the focus of end users is unpredictable, for every book that is corrected you'll find half a dozen that aren't. That'll only get worse as the number of ebooks increases. How many people do you think will pick up a book and either (a) put up with typos, loose grammar and unweildy paragraphs or (b)sit down and correct them?

Thousands, if not more will do this. They already do it all the time with Guttenberg texts. They do it here and they format those works with loving care. You see, as many of the industry pundits have pointed out, the future isn't in the product, it's in the context. It's in the niche and the community developed around that niche. So, will we see crowdsourced editing? Of course we will. Will we see digital dust jackets produced for other writers for no fee - yep, of course we will. I'm already doing it.

For all that you decry traditional media, I think we'll find people returning to some of the 'big corporations' once the novelty of watching another cat video or reading some poorly concieved science fiction cliche has worn off. You deplore the output of the BBC, yet they are the ones who have put immense effort into pioneering new media and new delivery mechanisms. They are also the ones who actively find new talent and encourage and develop it. Whilst you might find the majority of their output not to your taste, surely you can recognise that they still produce high quality programmes that suit many corners of the public's interest? Against that, the entire world of 'free' creativity can boast very, very few successes.

The problem with this reasoning is the same problem I have with PKVW's insistence on relating TV to BOOKS. They aren't remotely similar on a cultural level, they don't work on the same kinds of business models or the same kind of distribution channels as fiction or music. Fiction and music are natural fits for the internet. Already most of my music is sourced from Jamendo, its open-source, pay what you like music. My books are sourced from FEEDBOOKS and author websites (no DRM thanks, and no corps). I choose what is good and what is bad from what is offered to me by the creator.

The BBC is a public service, it does not rely on advertising funds, it relies on the taxation of the people. If the BBC actually had to rely on advertising, I reckon ALL of the good programs we see now would disappear. I'd like to move away from the TV, but it seems I keep getting dragged back into comparisons of it. I don't watch TV on the actual TV set I have. I haven't watched any TV like that since the invention of Bittorrent. For me TV is all but irrelevant, especially considering I can download any of it for free at any moment of the day (yes, its not sanctioned, but you can't stop people copying digital bits and sharing them).

As for singularities, the barriers for creative works have been very low for at least the last decade. Writing books and composing music in your 'back room' have been possible for longer, and video production and editing for around that time. Even the distribution mechanisms have been around for nearly as long. Yet we're not surrounded by a flood of new talent, or of singlular creative works. If free was able to deliver the breadth and quality of works that paid currently does we should have seen more evidence of it by now.

You're right, partially, but wrong about the distribution channels. Those channels were not around ten years ago. We didn't have the prevalence of BT, we certainly didn't have FEEDBOOKS for writers, and going back to writers again, we didn't have any standardized ebook formats as we have now with ePub or any ebook readers like the Sony or Kindle. You're only NOT seeing evidence of this great creative work because you're not looking for it. Your eyes are still on the channels they've always been upon. You're still looking toward the big corps to provide you the entertainment, these are your trusted sources. And no, it's not all 'cat' videos and cliched science fiction. It's beautiful magical realism by people like Kelly Link and Benjamin Rosenblum, it's anarchic animated video game reviews every wednesday with Zero Punctuation, it's exciting community based endeavours like Everyblock (they just went open source by the by), its Twitter hashtags and mashups of old videos to new beats. There aren't enough hours in the day to enjoy independently created entertainment. It's all very exciting, it's all very worhwhile, but hey, if that's not your thing, no problem.

The corps are waiting for you. They have market-tested, focus-grouped, products they would like to sell you. Same as it was, same as it shall be.

[Tuna]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

You're right, partially, but wrong about the distribution channels. Those channels were not around ten years ago. We didn't have the prevalence of BT, we certainly didn't have FEEDBOOKS for writers, and going back to writers again, we didn't have any standardized ebook formats as we have now with ePub or any ebook readers like the Sony or Kindle. You're only NOT seeing evidence of this great creative work because you're not looking for it. Your eyes are still on the channels they've always been upon.

Your assumptions will get the better of you.

I was browsing the internet in 1994, and before that usenet. I was reading books on a Psion 5mx ten years ago (daylight readable and 20+hours on a set of batteries.. we haven't got so far since). Web comics? Check. Whole book series on hand crafted web pages? Check. MP3s? My band put tracks online ten years ago last month.

You talk as though EPub is allowing people to do something new - HTML and (god help us) even Microsoft Word were there first, by a long, long margin. Feedbooks? Try Usenet - which I remember browsing for content twenty years ago. From the point of view of an author, we're not on the cusp of a new paradigm, we've been living it for years. If you want to create, you can't do anything now that you couldn't do a decade ago.

Of course the availability has improved - there is a wider audience, if you can gain their attention. The tools have also improved to a lesser extent. However, it's not unreasonable to extrapolate from those early populations and see where it gets us. I'm quite certain the answer is - not as far as the utopians would like to believe.

Taking Feedbooks as an example. In the 100 most recently added books, there is exactly one author that has released a book written in the last ten years - all of the remaining entries are from the previous century or before. Is that the sign of a new paradigm bursting with creativity?

Originally Posted by Moejoe

You're still looking toward the big corps to provide you the entertainment, these are your trusted sources. And no, it's not all 'cat' videos and cliched science fiction. It's beautiful magical realism by people like Kelly Link and Benjamin Rosenblum, it's anarchic animated video game reviews every wednesday with Zero Punctuation, it's exciting community based endeavours like Everyblock (they just went open source by the by), its Twitter hashtags and mashups of old videos to new beats. There aren't enough hours in the day to enjoy independently created entertainment. It's all very exciting, it's all very worhwhile, but hey, if that's not your thing, no problem.

The corps are waiting for you. They have market-tested, focus-grouped, products they would like to sell you. Same as it was, same as it shall be.

If you're putting up Twitter as a sign of cultural enrichment, I think we might have to agree our views differ. Yes, I have a Twitter account, linked with my blog, webpages and facebook. No, I don't believe they represent a form of entertainment so much as a subsititute for weaker social bonds on the personal level. Given the sheer magnitude of people online right now, the fact that you're still listing individual sites of mention points to the fact that freedom to create does not equate to a healthy cultural ecosystem.

We have a thousand million monkeys, and a thousand million typewriters... where are the thousand Shakespeares?