Lendle: Amazon has revoked Lendle's API access

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Joykins

I think there's a place in the world of art for offering a product (song, book, whatever) for free electronically and accepting donations. Doctorow's made it work for him. My husband's had some success doing that with music. But I think this generally works best in small, niche markets.

I think it works best when it's the authors choice. Copyright laws protect that choice. People can make that choice now.
Some people seem to forget that it is copyright protection that makes things like Creative Commons and GPL possible. It is the protection of copyright laws that give you the ability to say "You can use my work for free and and share it BUT YOU MAY NOT SELL IT FOR MONEY!"
These 'New Society' types seem to be fine using the existing protections for their own choices, but they seem to want to take choice away from anyone who disagrees.

That being said, I'd like to see copyright law reform. The main purpose is supposed to be public interest: Protect the creators right to control and profit from their work for some time, so they can create good work that will eventually be part of the public domain.
It wasn't supposed to be a guarantee of profits for Disney to the end of time.

ApK

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by ApK

I think it works best when it's the authors choice. Copyright laws protect that choice. People can make that choice now.
Some people seem to forget that it is copyright protection that makes things like Creative Commons and GPL possible. It is the protection of copyright laws that give you the ability to say "You can use my work for free and and share it BUT YOU MAY NOT SELL IT FOR MONEY!"
These 'New Society' types seem to be fine using the existing protections for their own choices, but they seem to want to take choice away from anyone who disagrees.

That being said, I'd like to see copyright law reform. The main purpose is supposed to be public interest: Protect the creators right to control and profit from their work for some time, so they can create good work that will eventually be part of the public domain.
It wasn't supposed to be a guarantee of profits for Disney to the end of time.

ApK

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

By that you mean you want to charge people for the right to read your work? Doesn't that sound a bit odd? Why not give your work away and have faith that your readers will respond by paying you what they think your work is worth, NOW THAT'S A FREE MARKET!!

There was a study done in DC not too long ago. A professional violinst played for free in the DC metro to see what would happen. Would people stop to listen to his beautiful free music? Would people pay him for the wonderful moment he just gave to him?

The answer was a resounding NO. People do not respect free.

Subject: Joshua Bell

A man sat at a metro station in Washington DC and started to play the violin; it was a cold January morning. He played six Bach pieces for about 45 minutes. During that time, since it was rush hour, it was calculated that thousands of people went through the station, most of them on their way to work.

Three minutes went by and a middle aged man noticed there was musician playing. He slowed his pace and stopped for a few seconds and then hurried up to meet his schedule.

A minute later, the violinist received his first dollar tip: a woman threw the money in the till and without stopping continued to walk.

A few minutes later, someone leaned against the wall to listen to him, but the man looked at his watch and started to walk again. Clearly he was late for work.

The one who paid the most attention was a 3 year old boy. His mother tagged him along, hurried but the kid stopped to look at the violinist.

Finally the mother pushed hard and the child continued to walk turning his head all the time. This action was repeated by several other children. All the parents, without exception, forced them to move on.

In the 45 minutes the musician played, only 6 people stopped and stayed for a while. About 20 gave him money but continued to walk their normal pace. He collected $32. When he finished playing and silence took over, no one noticed it. No one applauded, nor was there any recognition.

No one knew this but the violinist was Joshua Bell, one of the top musicians in the world. He played one of the most intricate pieces ever written, with a violin worth 3.5 million dollars.

Two days before his playing in the subway, Joshua Bell sold out at a theater in Boston and the seats average $100.

This is a real story. Joshua Bell playing incognito in the metro station was organized by the Washington Post as part of a social experiment about perception, taste and priorities of people. The outlines were: in a commonplace environment at an inappropriate hour: Do we perceive beauty?

Do we stop to appreciate it? Do we recognize the talent in an unexpected context?

One of the possible conclusions from this experience could be: If we do not have a moment to stop and listen to one of the best musicians in the world playing the best music ever written, how many other things are we missing?

[boswd]

What did Ivan ever do to Amazon?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

There was a study done in DC not too long ago. A professional violinst played for free in the DC metro to see what would happen. Would people stop to listen to his beautiful free music? Would people pay him for the wonderful moment he just gave to him?

The answer was a resounding NO. People do not respect free.

Excellent story wrt Joshua Bell!

Thank you. Very demonstrative of why the idea of free simply doesn't work.

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

There was a study done in DC not too long ago. A professional violinst played for free in the DC metro to see what would happen. Would people stop to listen to his beautiful free music? Would people pay him for the wonderful moment he just gave to him?

The answer was a resounding NO. People do not respect free.

I think you're absolutely right that people don't respect free. But I think it's a little bit harsh to draw that conclusion from the experiment. The experiment was conducted in such a way that it mainly tested people's priorities, not their appreciation. The kids stopped because they didn't have the pressure of feeling like they had somewhere to be. The adults, by the very nature of the space being a train station, did have places to be.

I think we judge too harshly if we hold it against someone that they'd rather keep their job than listen to a finely crafted piece of music for 45 minutes, if they have to choose.

[Joykins]

yeah, I think the Joshua Bell experiment would have worked out much differently during afternoon rush. I like to listen to buskers, but only when I have time.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by Joykins

yeah, I think the Joshua Bell experiment would have worked out much differently during afternoon rush. I like to listen to buskers, but only when I have time.

I saw a gentleman playing the violin in a metro station one afternoon when I was coming from a doctor's office. He played a wonderful set of music that I enjoyed for about 15 mins. I left him a dollar or two (didn't have much on me, it was a few years ago and I was broke). In the time I was there, I saw a total of 0 people stop to listen.

[ApK]

Yeah, I don't think the Bell experiment applies here. There was a lot misread into that experiment, even by the press. It was discussed at some length at the time by the various music forums I participate in.
Joshua Bell said in an NPR interview that the experiment could have been done with a local street violinist, the point being merely to see if people would stop and smell the roses when, as said above, that was not their priority, and roses were not expected to be there. Bell did it himself to get the experiment some press attention, and also, I'd guess, to eliminate any argument that the player just wasn't any good.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=9521098

[BearMountainBooks]

Some interesting viewpoints here. Wow.

As an author, I don't mind the lending feature as it exists, but I do vastly prefer it to be casual and certainly not a part of any site that might explore piracy or be creating databases...

And no, books should not be completely readable and for pay after reading. Neither should cake. You want cake, you pay for cake. If it turns out to be bad cake, oh well.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by bhartman36

I think you're absolutely right that people don't respect free. But I think it's a little bit harsh to draw that conclusion from the experiment. The experiment was conducted in such a way that it mainly tested people's priorities, not their appreciation. The kids stopped because they didn't have the pressure of feeling like they had somewhere to be. The adults, by the very nature of the space being a train station, did have places to be.

I think we judge too harshly if we hold it against someone that they'd rather keep their job than listen to a finely crafted piece of music for 45 minutes, if they have to choose.

The experiment may be flawed, but it proved (to me at least) that the best musician in the world could not make a living attempting "free." The reason doesn't matter, but the results do. He could try playing at different times of the day, he could play on the street in different areas. End result, long term would still be that he'd earn a pittance.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

And no, books should not be completely readable and for pay after reading. Neither should cake. You want cake, you pay for cake. If it turns out to be bad cake, oh well.

I assume you are speaking of return-ability a refund? Or just the idea of "read for free and donate after?"

I don't think comparing to a consumable like cake is meaningful. How about comparing to another form of art like a painting? You would expect to look at and know you enjoy a painting before paying for it, right?

ApK

[ApK]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

The experiment may be flawed, but it proved (to me at least) that the best musician in the world could not make a living attempting "free." The reason doesn't matter, but the results do. He could try playing at different times of the day, he could play on the street in different areas. End result, long term would still be that he'd earn a pittance.

Not at all. You're drawing a completely invalid conclusion. If he was trying to 'make a living playing for free' He'd set up in a place and time when people where hanging around relaxing, like at courtyard during a lunch hour, and put up nicely printed signs that say "FREE CLASSICAL MUSIC CONCERT!" Or, better yet "FREE JOSHUA BELL CONCERT."

The whole point of the Bell experiment was to NOT do that.

[Joykins]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

And no, books should not be completely readable and for pay after reading. Neither should cake. You want cake, you pay for cake. If it turns out to be bad cake, oh well.

I do this, I check it out of the library and if I like it enough I buy it. This is why I own 2 copies of Gillian Bradshaw's _The Beacon at Alexandria_, I bought it twice after wearing out the library copy.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, I certainly would not agree . Don't you think, though, that as a true believer in the "new society", you should be taking the lead and giving away your work for free, rather than sordidly expecting to get paid for it?

You must look around and see the toxicity that our economic system has caused. Every human in the industrialized world is living with what is called their toxic load, when this load becomes too high...

I do tend to give everything away and encourage others to do so. I cook food and then sell it to people, personally I think more people need to be involved in food production.