i think this is true but some will struggle to see whats taking place. Unfortunately for them, the technology will make it as effortless as telling someones joke or using grandmas recipes* without being compensated if someone chooses. So charging 20 bucks per e-copy will be futile. Maybe they can go the itunes route and sell them for a buck or two. You can already self-publish on kindle correct? how much profit can be had by cutting out the middle-man, reaching millions of people you never could before instantly, while charging a mere dollar? I would surmise that publishing companies have probably been more of a barrier to the creative process than actually helped it. The less barriers, the better for all involved. regarding being paid vs being read, I think most artists want to be validated first and foremost. They want to be noticed. Although they can do both much easier already and thats a bonus for all in the long run. Either way, those who embrace it first will prosper. those who do not, will suffer. *your examples
exactly, my examples assumes a no revenue model, which is silly. a much more realistic model is the netflix model. i can steal basically any movie i want. but i buy netflix anyways, its really cheap, it streams HD through my roku box, everyone gets paid, the movie guys are happy, i am happy, red is happy i am not stealing as much. and so in the future, the ease of stealing will push all media down a similar path. they better make it easy and make it work for cheap or we will steal. it isnt that we are immoral, its just that is how things will work. give me every book ever written for 30$ a year on my kindle. this may not work now, but in the future, when we have open-platform readers and even more easy stealing, it will happen. also, a not-related point. if we are smart we will invest in the company that makes my roku box. the way it works with "channels" is the future. its is the a la carte model we all want. it is not quite ready yet, but it will be. and it wil be huge. no doubt. i would write a book for nothing if i had the talent and thought thousands would read it. its not like being a plumber where you hate it. its fun to express my delicate little feelings through words. no idea. i would guess a lot. as of now amazon has the publishers by the balls. the kindle is so massive, the publishers have to bend over and give amazon a huge cut, for access to the readers. writers cant be making a huge cut of the $10 i pay for my kindle books. a direct model might work like crazy. like you said, just dropping all barriers between the creative types and the reading public. and we would need a way to separate signal from noise, with so many crappy books out there saturating the world. but somebody would do this for us. with a new model, a direct model or even some ad support or whatever i have no idea, the world would not have less access to good writing, if anything i think we would have more, without the traditional gatekeepers filtering books for us.
Stop being logical, you are asking me. Sorry. No, we are talking about the real world and publishing is extremely profitable. Then they are writing crap that is worthless. Like any other occupation the cream rises to the top. The best authors write the marketable material. Why do you disdain capitalism in this instance? Why are creative people alone undeserving of pay? YOU ARE SIMPLY TRYING TO JUSTFY THEFT. ADMIT IT!!! Who knows? What I do know is that Hemingway could not support himself as writer unless he got paid for it. No one can. Getting a book published is not a simple task and requires the best writers. All deserving of pay. Why do you deserve any pay? If you actually get any pay. If you did you would understand. Buuuullchit.
red, you are just gonna have to trust me that i am not trying to justify theft. i am always in favor of open platforms and formats and standards and access to information. i think it is better for everyone. there are many examples of how the modern wor is different. would you say, for example that wikipedia is ruining the careers of encyclopedia writers? of course it is! but who cares! its better for everyone that we dont have to pay for information. and the information is still being produced. the word "deserve" is meaningless in this instance. the reason we have copyrights for example, in the pharma is that we need the companies to be profitable, so they will continue to produce drugs. again, this simply isnt true about writing.
Quote: martin said.... imagine a world in which traditional publishing simply isnt profitable. " No, we are talking about the real world and publishing is extremely profitable." -red this is like me asking you to imagine what would happen if pot were legal and you just refusing to understand the implications of a change in policy. "we are talking about the real world"? i know, i am asking you to examine the implications of what i am saying.
Look, I'm not disputing that publishing is evolving. Millions of out-of-print books will be available to read, most of them in the public domain. It's a good thing. It keeps lots of paper from being wasted and books can cost a few bucks to pay the nice people who created the product and not spend money on paper, printing, shipping and retail stores. The $1.99 E-book is going to replace the $12.95 paperback book. It's not going to replace all books because MOST people still like books, I'm sorry if you can't grok that. So this isn't a refusal to accept technology. I embrace all technology. But you must get real and understand that creative people must be paid for their work if we are to have a music, film, or book industry at all. Your bias against creative people goes far deeper than your piracy and your greed. If artists are good, people will pay and the artists will succeed and flourish and write more books. if they are bad, they will remain amateurs and must find work as a bartend . . . I mean, a job at a beer distributor. They get to make that choice. Some amateurs choose to give their music and books away. Some musicians and writers seek to be professionals and must make the crafts pay in order to do so. You can choose to pass on them and only listen to amateurs if you like amateurs. But you DO NOT have the right to steal from creative people making an honest living at their crafts. This is important. You claim to have principles, yet your stance against creative people is morally bankrupt.
thanks for finally actually addressing what i am saying. i think we just disagree on this: "people must be paid for their work if we are to have a music, film, or book industry at all" i think the industry might actually improve if people were not paid. for example, i think money drives media companies to appeal to the lowest common denominator, to aim for mass appeal, saturating the market with junk. but i am not proposing that people do not have a means to get paid. if we can figure out a model that works, (like the netflix streaming model, a flat fee for access), that that is great. the industry needs to realiz that as things becmoe easier to steal, they need to be aware that they are no longer providing exclusive distribution services like they used to, and the model has to change. media has to be cheaper and more accessible, or the public will make their own solution (meaning stealing). i quit that job and now i am sales rep for a fortune 500 software company.
I always figured I could fall back on writing if need be but now that the doors have opened, Im thinking sooner than later. Looks like my inner mark twain will be soon compensated. Im gonna go the 99 cent value menu route so I dont break you guys. Future of media: The rise of the million-selling Kindle author; Tech News and Analysis
exactly. when the costs of books reflect that the distriibution actually cost nothing, books will sell more and be more accessible and we will be a smarter society. a way to make this happen quicker is to pressure publishers, by stealing until they straighten up. if that means they have less money to market the next dan brown abomination, so be it.
