Priced to Sell: Is the Future Free?

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Ankh

I would not argue the "consumer's rights" line... But the fact remains that in these digital times it is inherently difficult to prevent distribution of author's work ... without a compensation. Piracy is a serious problem, primarily due to the fact that it is so WIDELY practiced.

Mind you, I am not advocating piracy. I just think that it is unwise to close one's eyes to its existence.

And if we chose not to ignore the (however sad) reality, then the question that begs the answer is NOT "What is right or moral?", it is "What is doable?".

I am not arguing that we should ignore the reality. I am arguing we should work to change the reality rather than simply accept it.

Originally Posted by Ankh

Going "cap in hand" to the audience is certainly an option.

As is we, as a society, saying enough is enough. Why should we not pay a reasonable price to enjoy the efforts of an artist? Why should it be ok to say "I could get it for free so you should be happy with whatever I give you"?

Any situation that places all the power in the hands of one party over the other will be unsustainable. The breadth of choice we currently enjoy will inevitable be diminished by such a situation, just as it has already been diminished by the status quo of the "old ways".

Cheers,
PKFFW

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by dmikov

I would argue yes, his sculpture worth exactly as much as people are willing to pay for it. I can spend a year writing a book, picture or making a sculpture, but knowing my artistic abilities I will be happy if somebody will take it for $10. Now obligated is a strong word, I don't think we live in the society where you are forced to give away anything.

By saying "knowing my artistic abilities, I will be happy if somebody will take it for $10" do you mean to say you know your artistic abilities are worth only $10? I'm unsure exactly, so thought I'd ask in order to clarify.

If you believe your work to be worth $10 then it is only right that you would be willing to accept $10 for it. On the other hand, what if your work consistantly sold for $100. Should you be obligated to sell it for $10 simply because someone wants it for that price? Of course in a digital world you can easily make a copy of your work and sell it again so I do admit there are differences. However, should you be obligated to sell a copy of your work for say $1 instead of $5 simply because the person could go get it for free if they wanted to?

As for obligated, no we don't live in a society where one is forced to give anything away. However, we do live in a society, as is evidenced by the arguments put forward here, that says "I can get your work for free if I wanted to so you should be happy I am willing to pay anything at all."

How is having ones work taken for free any different than being obligated to give it away for free? The end result is the same is it not?

Cheers,
PKFFW

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

Or, to put that question on its head: have you even read all of "Shakespeare" (or every classic out there? I really don't see why it matters that there isn't any "great" PD content yet. There is so much else to choose from. Why do you need "new" stuff already?)?

Why create anything new? There are plenty of paintings, sculptures, movies, tv shows, poems etc in the world. No one could possibly enjoy it all in one life time so why bother creating anything anymore?

The argument could even be extended to essentially non-creative things. Why create new computer programs that do the same thing as the old only faster? Why create new cars that simply look different? Why create new styles of clothing? Why design new buildings simply for the look of them?

I would argue a lack of creation would lead to a stagnating culture. I would say the creation of new art is a sign of a vibrant and dynamic culture.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Tuna]

Originally Posted by dmikov

I actually have a different experience, where free software actually being better, sometimes much better then paid one. I work as a programer and half of the tools I use is free, not because company saving money, but because they are best. I am also getting a lot of freebies even from Microsoft, develpers there post a lot of things they do for free.
And let's not forget Java, Linux, MySql, Ruby etc.

You have perhaps missed the point that the free tools you use, and stuff like Java and MySql are very well supported by the corporate space. Certainly you don't pay for them directly, but the most of the developers who work on them earn a salary for that work.

That's very different from the calls for free creative works. Whilst IBM is very happy to sponsor developers working on Eclipse, and Sun pays for Java, neither company would see the worth in sponsoring the equivalent number of authors, artists or musicians.

[netseeker]

Originally Posted by Tuna

You have perhaps missed the point that the free tools you use, and stuff like Java and MySql are very well supported by the corporate space. Certainly you don't pay for them directly, but the most of the developers who work on them earn a salary for that work.

I guess now you are missing the point - at least a little bit. These developers earn a salary because their companies sell services and complimentary goods around the free products. Wouldn't this be possible for eBooks too?

[Tuna]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

Distribution channels (in my eyes) don't suddenly become "validated" when <famous person> makes use of it.. That's just falling into the trap the Culture Industry wants you to be trapped in. Twitter (something you seem to disapprove of), after all (iirc), became a "hit" when Ashton Kutcher visibly started using it; and yet at the same time you're saying that you will only accept these new distribution methods once famous persons "prove" their effectiveness and validity as a medium through adopting them. Do you see the irony here?

Firstly the 'Culture Industry' doesn't "want" anything - it doesn't have a mind, or a goal or an universal ethos. It's lazy to give a disparate collection of businesses and individuals a persona that conveniently suits your political beliefs.

I really don't think I ever said that famous people validate distribution channels. Nor do I disapprove of Twitter - as I said, I use it and integrate it with much of the other things I do online. What I did try to say was that suggestions that creative expression is moving on from traditional media such as long form books to things like Twitter are hopelessly optimistic. Twitter is a great social tool and there are some interesting experiments concerning creativity constrained by it's restrictions. However, as a 'new media' it is a novelty at best.

A new distribution method is validated once the 'novel' uses have become old hat and it is used as a regular conduit for sophisticated creative expression. In early computer graphics, there were hundreds of abstract films demonstrating 3D techniques. They had an audience because they were novel, and occasionally amusing. Creative expression was secondary. It was only when the medium itself stopped being the subject of those films that I'd regard it as being validated. See - no famous people involved there!

[Tuna]

Originally Posted by netseeker

I guess now you are missing the point - at least a little bit. These developers earn a salary because their companies sell services and complimentary goods around the free products. Wouldn't this be possible for eBooks too?

I doubt it, unless you're keen for all of the heroes in your books to drink Coca
Cola, drive a Toyota Camry and to watch Fox Networks - and the books themselves to have adverts just when you get to the good bits.

I'm exaggerating, but this is the crux of the whole discussion. Anderson and many others believe that this secondary market is capable of supporting creative works for the indirect benefit they would receive. I don't believe there's any evidence that there would be nearly enough support for creative works on a useful scale.

The software examples are also quite different, because by sponsoring the various projects, large corporations are variously trying to tie developers, companies and end users into their systems, or to undermine their competitors. That's not really something you can do with a book.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Tuna

Firstly the 'Culture Industry' doesn't "want" anything - it doesn't have a mind, or a goal or an universal ethos. It's lazy to give a disparate collection of businesses and individuals a persona that conveniently suits your political beliefs.

All it is is the "free market" principles worked out in a specific example that is concerned with "aesthetics" (which is why people are sometimes inclined towards judging it).
It's hardly any more or less than extrapolating from the ("anglosaxon") idea that "businesses must maximize profit/give dividends to shareholders". From that it fairly directly follows that they would want people to buy as much "culture" products as possible, which they will only do when the expiry date on bought products is shortly after buying. As such, they have a vested interest in promoting the idea that you must like "new" things (as the highest returns are on those), in creating an atmosphere in which a disparate amount of attention/emphasis is paid/put to/on the statements of the people whose products they're selling, (people buy stuff by famous people, after all, and famous people supposedly have something interesting to say, as they wouldn't have become famous otherwise) and in creating works that are meant for instant consumption and have little replay/reread value.
If they deviate from that it's only because they decide that different factors should be considered when deciding what kinds of products to deliver, not because "integrity" (or "artistic expression") fits into a Free Market notion about the supreme importance of profit maximization.

Anyway, I was hardly saying anything about alleged usefulness of twitter as a social medium, I was just wondering why you were putting so much emphasis on the fact that there was no wide adoption of the "new" media to the exclusion of the "old" ones. As though it was all a zero sum game.
You also seem to be (sort of) arguing that, since there isn't widespread adoption yet (after an apparently noteworthy interval of a decade or so), and because the current, improved products can be traced back to earlier versions which also weren't game-changing, there is no such thing as "gaining momentum", or a closer-now-than-before 'corner' that will be turned in the future either. the fact that most of the change has been evolutionary does not mean that changes 'in kind' cannot happen.

Yes, I realise you're not being entirely dogmatic, but the assumption/thought does seem to be in the background of your argument.

[netseeker]

Originally Posted by Tuna

I doubt it, unless you're keen for all of the heroes in your books to drink Coca
Cola, drive a Toyota Camry and to watch Fox Networks - and the books themselves to have adverts just when you get to the good bits.

Sounds familiar. Are you sure that this isn't already reality? Btw. afaik some companies (including Sony) seriously consider using adverts in ebooks.

Originally Posted by Tuna

Anderson and many others believe that this secondary market is capable of supporting creative works for the indirect benefit they would receive. I don't believe there's any evidence that there would be nearly enough support for creative works on a useful scale.

Well, when was there ever evidence that a new business model would work? It has to be tried by someone. Sure, usually there are statistics and guesses but no evidence.

Originally Posted by Tuna

The software examples are also quite different, because by sponsoring the various projects, large corporations are variously trying to tie developers, companies and end users into their systems, or to undermine their competitors. That's not really something you can do with a book.

I agree that sofware is different but i'm still not convinced that similiar business models wouldn't work in the ebook market. If Microsoft would offer the Halo ebooks for free (or very cheap) could that help to sell more copies of the Halo video games? Maybe, because more people would read the ebooks and get interested in entering rest of the Halo universe. And what if the ebooks would include adverts? I guess it could work.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by netseeker

I guess now you are missing the point - at least a little bit. These developers earn a salary because their companies sell services and complimentary goods around the free products. Wouldn't this be possible for eBooks too?

Frankly, I see this as being a far more realistic and "workable" model going forward than the "I can get it for free so you should be willing to accept whatever I give as payment" model.

Who know's if it would work or not but at least it seems a much fairer way of going about things.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Ankh]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

As is we, as a society, saying enough is enough. Why should we not pay a reasonable price to enjoy the efforts of an artist? Why should it be ok to say "I could get it for free so you should be happy with whatever I give you"?

We (the people), unfortunately do not act as a "society" when it comes to our petty interests.

Especially in front of our screens, in seclusion of our homes, rooms, basements, offices. The fragmentation of our age, down to the single individual and his access to the Net. Wast as the Net is, it can provide a playground tailored to whatever one wants. One can engage in civilized discussion with his equals, and then turn around and download a pirated material with a couple of clicks. Be a virtual rogue, be a part of the mob.

The sense of common interests, of belonging to the group, all of the sudden loses any attached obligation. What one gives to the group is one's choice. One can switch his allegations on a whim. Or disengage from the Net altogether.

All to say that our virtual identity, the things that we do when we are connected to this new and strange entity, does not necessarily follow our patterns of behaviour in the real world. Where we have a posture to maintain, neigbours to scandalize, bosses to please, kids' expectations to live up to.

Why wouldn't we do the right thing? Because we are, statistically, greedy and fallible, ready to save a couple of bucks when we can, consequences be damned.

Corner ANY decent individual with those questions, and you will get the answers you expect. "Darn statistics" are something completely different.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

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.

But we won't see as much of it as we would if editing public domain texts paid.

I have, on my hard drive, scans (bitonal for text, jpg for images) of:

• 10 volume Berle's Self Culture (a set of books like the "junior classics")
• 7 volume History of Freemasonry
• 8 volume History of the Christian Church
• TW Rolleston's "Myths & Legends of the Celtic Race"
• HG Wells' "The Outline of History"
• English Lyrical Poetry from its Origins to the Present Time (when "present time" was 1912)
• Warner Library vol 27: Book of Songs & Lyrics

None of which Gutenberg has. I'd love them to be widely available. I'd love to convert them to usable ebooks, instead of their current state of image-based PDFs.

I love--L.O.V.E. love--doc conversion work. I spend hours throwing docs into Finereader, correcting the OCR errors, and outputting them into useful formats. Over the last couple of weeks, I converted three ancient Star Trek zines to readable formats. (30-year-old 3rd generation photocopies of mimeographed pages. It probably would've been faster to just retype them, but then I'd lose the ability to make searchable PDFs w/the original images.)

Those, I can't share with anyone because of copyright concerns. But this collection of public domain works, I could share. I can't even email them to anyone; my dialup connection means they're pretty much stuck on my computer. While I have high-speed at work, they block all the major filesharing pages.

I don't have time to convert them. I convert the content that interests me directly, or that someone has specifically asked for; I can't afford to spend 6 hours a day converting PD texts for random strangers at Gutenberg.

So instead of correcting OCR errors in documents, and reformatting the paragraphs so they work as ebooks, I spend my 9-5 hours scanning closing binders (to PDF), and renaming them to "Tab 01 Terms and Conditions of Sale; Tab 02 Amendment to Terms and Conditions," and calling clients on the phone and explaining that they cannot have "searchable tiffs" no matter what the last guy they talked to said.

I'd much prefer to be reformatting scanned texts. But without being paid for it, it remains a side hobby, and the documents that are directly useful or interesting to me & my friends come way ahead of documents useful to the public at large.

I format ebooks into PDFs that work on my Sony Reader; I can't do Mobi at all, and am lost with LRF formatting. Learning the new programs takes time, and that's a limited resource. (How did I learn to make PDFs? I got paid for it; I worked for 4 years in a scan-OCR-PDF production company.)

Your idea that "people will volunteer their work" is correct... to a degree. I volunteer bits of doc editing/conversion work here & there; sometimes to friends, sometimes to total strangers. (I've taken to downloading free PDFs, adding tags & bookmarks, and sending them back to the authors.) But if I were paid to correct OCR errors and convert scanned pages to ebooks, I'd happily do it 40 hours a week.

There's a lot of writers in that spot, too. Writers who will indeed write a novel & release it for free online... but who could be writing the next Lord of the Rings, the next Stranger in a Strange Land, the next Watership Down... if they could afford to stop teaching high school and write full-time.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Ankh

We (the people), unfortunately do not act as a "society" when it comes to our petty interests.

Especially in front of our screens, in seclusion of our homes, rooms, basements, offices. The fragmentation of our age, down to the single individual and his access to the Net. Wast as the Net is, it can provide a playground tailored to whatever one wants. One can engage in civilized discussion with his equals, and then turn around and download a pirated material with a couple of clicks. Be a virtual rogue, be a part of the mob.

The sense of common interests, of belonging to the group, all of the sudden loses any attached obligation. What one gives to the group is one's choice. One can switch his allegations on a whim. Or disengage from the Net altogether.

All to say that our virtual identity, the things that we do when we are connected to this new and strange entity, does not necessarily follow our patterns of behaviour in the real world. Where we have a posture to maintain, neigbours to scandalize, bosses to please, kids' expectations to live up to.

Why wouldn't we do the right thing? Because we are, statistically, greedy and fallible, ready to save a couple of bucks when we can, consequences be damned.

Corner ANY decent individual with those questions, and you will get the answers you expect. "Darn statistics" are something completely different.

Ok let me rephrase.

We, as individuals that make up the society we live in, could perhaps try living up to our stated ideals and thereby change the "reality".

I find it interesting that the prevailing idea, within this thread, is that the answer to this reality is that creators should hand over their works for free in the hopes that the audience will decide to throw them a bone and pay something after they have enjoyed the work. Would not the reality you describe above seem to suggest that "we the people" will simply take the work, enjoy it, then scamper away to take the next offering without any thought for payment to the creator?

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Ankh]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Would not the reality you describe above seem to suggest that "we the people" will simply take the work, enjoy it, then scamper away to take the next offering without any thought for payment to the creator?

Most of us would do so, but not all. The appeal to the audience is nothing short of a variation on the ancient theme of one Maecenas, the wealthy patron of arts (poetry). One of the survival tactics that kept the arts alive through long periods of barbarism.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Ankh

Most of us would do so, but not all. The appeal to the audience is nothing short of a variation on the ancient theme of one Maecenas, the wealthy patron of arts (poetry). One of the survival tactics that kept the arts alive through long periods of barbarism.

As an artist, having a "Patron" is an entirely different prospect to giving ones art away in the hope the audience will deign to give a donation in return.

As is evidenced by the attitude of "I can get it for free so therefore it is my right to have it for free", for the vast majority of artists, regardless of the value the audience places on the work, there will be no recompense for their creative efforts and time. I find that rather sad.

Cheers,
PKFFW