Copyright Laws Threaten Our Online Freedom

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

1. What makes artists different? Most people work in jobs they don't particularly think are the most interesting in the world. They still have to survive, though.

I think you've misunderstood the point that's being made. The people who are arguing that artists should create their work "for free" are the ones who seem to be saying that artists are different to other people, who expect to be paid for their work. Of course an artist doesn't have a "right" to be paid for what they create, but they certainly have a right to put a price on it, and let the market decide whether or not that price is worth paying.

What I really don't understand is this strange idea what people who write books should be "happy" to live on "donations", rather than being able to say "my book costs $x. Pay that if you want to read it". There's absolutely nothing wrong with selling a book for a fixed price.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I think you've misunderstood the point that's being made.

No, I believe that the point was being made that artists unrealistically all expect to become the next Dan Brown, with Mojo countering that they should expect to make nothing (at least for a decade or two), and as such not try to subsist on the dole (and whine), but get a normal-paying job first, and then perhaps later choose to devote themselves to their "art" (once they've been recognized by more people than themselves).

[HarryT]

That, I certainly agree with!

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

No, I believe that the point was being made that artists unrealistically all expect to become the next Dan Brown, with Mojo countering that they should expect to make nothing (at least for a decade or two), and as such not try to subsist on the dole (and whine), but get a normal-paying job first, and then perhaps later choose to devote themselves to their "art" (once they've been recognized by more people than themselves).

Whilst I agree with this premise I'm not sure it is truly what the "free brigade" are saying.

If that were really the point then why not simply say that rather than saying authors should give their work away for free and let the audience decide, after they have read it, whether or not they want to pay for it? They should do this expecting nothing and just for the joy of writing and if some money comes their way they should rejoice at this unexpected largesse of their audience.

There seesm to be very much a "enjoy writing and do it for free or become a souless money hungry corporate drone that only cares about the money" feeling around here. Personally I don't see why one can't enjoy writing but still want to be paid for it.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Elfwreck]

FWIW, I wasn't talking about authors who want to become the next Dan Brown, or the next Stephen King, or the next JK Rowling. I was thinking of authors who'd like to become the next Suzette Haden Elgin, or the next David Gerrold, or the next Mercedes Lackey if they get really lucky. Mid-list authors who make a quiet career out of writing (well, Lackey's is perhaps not so quiet anymore), but sometimes still have to take on other jobs.

It's hard enough for writing to be a career without the copyfight crowd (which I'm usually part of) insisting that it's a pointless goal. Yes, copyright laws are scrambled, and publishing contracts are generally bad and sometimes abusive, but that doesn't mean authors should work from the premise that the only "real" value in their work is in reader satisfaction.

[lemon lime]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

There seesm to be very much a "enjoy writing and do it for free or become a souless money hungry corporate drone that only cares about the money" feeling around here. Personally I don't see why one can't enjoy writing but still want to be paid for it.

I've been following this discussion through multiple threads, and I don't feel this idea has been pushed. I have seen accusations that it is being pushed, and I honestly don't understand why.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by lemon lime

I've been following this discussion through multiple threads, and I don't feel this idea has been pushed. I have seen accusations that it is being pushed, and I honestly don't understand why.

Note, I am not suggesting there is this feeling across MR in general. However, I too have followed this discussion through multiple threads and I've seen this idea pushed quite blatantly by some.

On many occassions the idea that if one is writing "for the money" then one is doing for the wrong reasons has been put forward. The connotation here is that if one isn't writing simply for the pure joy of writing then somehow they are less worthy and noble. That they are somehow cheapening or defiling the creative process. Furthermore the idea is that one simply can't be creating good writing if one is only doing it for the money.

Disparaging comparisons to Dan Brown and other authors have been made multiple times when referring to writers who want or expect to make a living from their writing. The connotation here being that only mass marketed pulp fiction that follows a derivative, "cookie cutter" plot type writing has a chance of making one a living from writing. By extrapolation we are supposed to gather that anyone who wants to make a living writing must go down that path.

Lastly, on numerous occassions the idea that if you want to make money you should go get another job and if you want the happiness of creation then writing is for you has been put forward. The simple "either/or" wording of such statements is used to convey the idea that the two are mutually exclusive, that one can't want to create great writing and also make money.

So that's why I say there seems to be that feeling.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Lastly, on numerous occassions the idea that if you want to make money you should go get another job and if you want the happiness of creation then writing is for you has been put forward. The simple "either/or" wording of such statements is used to convey the idea that the two are mutually exclusive, that one can't want to create great writing and also make money.

So that's why I say there seems to be that feeling.

Cheers,
PKFFW

Yes, that view has certainly been expressed on many occasions and, like you, I see no reason why someone should not be able to enjoy writing and still get paid for it; the two are not mutually exclusive.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Note, I am not suggesting there is this feeling across MR in general. However, I too have followed this discussion through multiple threads and I've seen this idea pushed quite blatantly by some.

By one, as far as I've seen.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

So you believe fledgling writers should devote a few hours a week to their craft, their art, and devote the majority of their waking hours to a career that doesn't capture their heart?

If they only have a couple of hour per week to spend efter working 40 hours than they probably do not care so much about their writing so they should probably just stop writing.

Nearly all authors start with working and writing at the same time and they write much more than a couple of hours per week.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Gaurnim

Interesting article, thanks.

Just a quick note (it is mentioned at the end of the article) : the author of this column is a member of the Swedish Pirate Party.

What it says is: "The writer is the Pirate party’s member of the European parliament". Was there some reason to exclude the fact that he is a MEP?