"Free is More Complicated Than You'd Think"

Scott Adams seems puzzled that those who helped to make the bread might want a piece of it when it's done:

Giving Stuff Away on the Internet, by Scott Adams, Commentary, WSJ: I spend about a third of my workday blogging. Thanks to the miracle of online advertising, that increases my income by 1%. I balance that by hoping no one asks me why I do it. ... I figured I needed a rationalization... My rationalization for blogging was especially hard to concoct. I was giving away my product for free and hoping something good came of it. ...

Over time, I noticed something unexpected and wonderful was happening with the blog. I had an army of volunteer editors, and they never slept. The readers were changing the course of my writing in real time. I would post my thoughts on a topic, and the masses told me what they thought ... without holding anything back. Often they'd correct my grammar or facts and I'd fix it in minutes. They were in turns brutal and encouraging. They wanted more posts on some topics and less of others. It was like the old marketing saying, "Your customers tell you what business you're in."

At some point I realized we were collectively writing a book, or at least the guts of one. I compiled the most popular (mostly the funniest) posts and pitched it to a publisher. I got a six-figure advance, and picked a title indirectly suggested by my legion of accidental collaborators: "Stick to Drawing Comics, Monkey-Brain!"

As part of the book deal, my publisher asked me to delete the parts of my blog archive that would be included in the book. The archives didn't get much traffic, so I didn't think much about deleting them. This turned out to be a major blunder in the "how people think" category.

A surprising number of my readers were personally offended that I would remove material from the Internet that had once been free, even after they read it. It was as if I had broken into their homes and ripped the books off their shelves. They felt violated. And boy, I heard about it. ... In the end, the bad feeling I caused by not giving away my material for free forever will have a negative impact on book sales.

I've had mixed results with giving away content on the Internet. I was the first syndicated cartoonist to offer a comic on the Internet without charge (www.dilbert.com). That gave a huge boost to the newspaper sales and licensing. The ad income was good too. Giving away the "Dilbert" comic for free continues to work well, although it cannibalizes my reprint book sales to some extent, and a fast-growing percentage of readers bypass the online ads with widgets, unauthorized RSS feeds and other workarounds.

A few years ago I tried an experiment where I put the entire text of my book, "God's Debris," on the Internet for free... My hope was that the people who liked the free e-book would buy the sequel. According to my fan mail, people loved the free book. I know they loved it because they emailed to ask when the sequel would also be available for free. For readers of my non-Dilbert books, I inadvertently set the market value for my work at zero. Oops. ... Free is more complicated than you'd think.

"I realized we were collectively writing a book." The word collectively might explain, in part, why some people objected to his removing the material from his site and taking all the (six-figure) gains for himself. Perhaps his "legion of accidental collaborators" feels a degree of ownership in the book - they participated in its creation - and they object to his taking their work for himself without having told them in advance that would happen. Leaving the material up on his site would have lowered the payment he received from the publisher, but perhaps that is the price of the collaboration.

Comments

[cm]

After having downloaded tons of for-free material from the internet, I have been finding I don't want to really read it on the screen as it doesn't work for me (for ergonomic reasons, but mainly straitjacket navigation within documents and also document collections).

The stuff of nontrivial size I really want to read or work with for a while I end up printing out, which works when it is laid out and formatted (and by entailment, intended) for letter/A4 printing, which is true for technical articles.

The other stuff that I use for occasional reference (and quite likely never) I would probably not feel inclined to buy, and would probably forgo it were it not free.

I don't think this will cannibalize books sales much. Unless one has a way of massively printing and binding at very low cost (essentially (ab)using somebody else's facilities), the cost equation doesn't usually work -- purchasing the book costs not much more and gives you much higher quality and utility than the self-printed version.

From most authors' side, preparing material for a print release, and the whole logistics of dealing with publishers and the publishing process is a considerable piece of work above and beyond "internet quality" (or perhaps mere passability), and not always worth the income.

The larger concern is probably somebody else ripping off the content (either for commercial publishing, or mooching it for attracting search traffic). Whenever I search for very specific content on Google, I always get loads of sites fishing for hits with apparently ripped material, many of them identical (fortunately readily apparent from the search results so I don't have to go there).

Now that's for mostly-text content; for multimedia content, it may be a different story.

[James Killus]

I have, rather weirdly, found at least one site that is nothing but advertising except for a teaser paragraph leading to an essay that I wrote. One is then directed to that essay. Perhaps someone is making money that way, but I tend to doubt they are getting much.

I'm also testing the "give it away" approach with serializing a novel on a blog site. One of the attractions of doing things on the internet is that one can experiment with it, and (at least for now) no one can stop you.

[Lafayette]

Article: At some point I realized we were collectively writing a book, or at least the guts of one. I compiled the most popular (mostly the funniest) posts and pitched it to a publisher. I got a six-figure advance

Oh, so his publisher published plagiarized writing submitted by a third-party without any compensation?

Any intellectual property lawyers out there who want to make an easy killing?

How in heaven's name did he think that the commentary posted was "his". Because it was in the "public domain"? That conveys nonetheless no right to reproduce it without having obtained the author's permission.

Let's presume he had it. Otherwise -- only in America, the country of me, myself and I.

NB: The last time we caught a student who had plagiarized off a blog to write a paper, we kicked him out. He lost the cost of one year of education, that his parents had paid for dearly. He's not about to plagiarize again for a while ... but one never knows. Some people think the ends ALWAYS justify the means.

[Lafayette]

cm: After having downloaded tons of for-free material from the internet

By what stretch of legal imagination does one think material is "free" just because accessing it on the Internet required no payment?

The police show up with a search warrant to correct that notion is typically a costly process, not to mention the public humiliation of a trial for Internet theft.

Most software contains an international user license that conveys the right to employ the software but not property rights to it. Meaning it must not be replicated for either transfer or resale. Most media has an inherent author's right to resale or usage. Peer-to-peer transfer has been declared illegal in most of the developed world -- so, unless one is living in Thailand or China, it's a dangerous thing to do.

The French media carried a story about a French couple who did not know that their son had illegally copied from the Internet more than 1000 songs of popular artists. He was then packaging and reselling them on CDs to his friends. He was found guilty not only of counterfeiting but VAT-avoidance. When the parents paid the fine, amounting to thousands of Euros, the lesson was driven home in no uncertain manner.

Music moguls last year thought about launching an aggressive and widely promoted national campaign to find and punish a number of cases of illegal Internet peer-to-peer transfer ... but decided against it at the last minute. Still, the law would have been clearly on their side.

Finally, I had a friend just last year stopped at customs in the UK for a casual verification of his computer. They found on his PC illegal copies he had made and used of the MS Office suite of programs. Imagine his embarrassment explaining his absence from work whilst defending himself at trial for theft.

[Carolyn Kay]

Lafayette:

Maybe Adams wasn't thinking that the ends justify the means, just that he wasn't thinking at all. Like Arianna, he's the only one who's SUPPOSED to make money.

They're entitled, and the rest of us unwashed masses are not.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

[Scott_Adams]

The comments of blog readers are not part of the book. The collaboration was limited to my noticing what people liked and didn't like, and adjusting the product as I went. That's the same thing any seller of any product does. The new version is guided by customer reaction to the old version.

Scott Adams

[Phoenix Woman]

JK Rowling's going through a similar publisher- (or in this case, movie-company) ordered breach with her fan base.

For years, the Harry Potter Lexicon has been the reference tool of choice for Potter fans, including Rowling herself. But when the guy behind the Lexicon wanted to publish it in physical book form, Warner Bros. sued.

[Alex Tolley]

I think it is fair to say that Scott Adams did benefit from the help of his fan base. They acted as a collective editor, helping him select topics to write about, select the best items for other to read, proofed his text, etc. Yet Scott and his publishers treated them as a "free" resource. It is fairly easy to see why this is considered a slap in their collective face, especially when the fruits of that collaboration were removed from the website to maximize the value of the content for Scott and his publishers. A public apology to his fans wouldn't go amiss.

One can only hope that Scott sees the humorous side of this and turns it into some Dilbert cartoons.

[Carolyn Kay]

Scott:

People get paid for market research, too.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

[lonesome moderate]

Interesting distinction, which I'm not so sure about, between comments that come over different media. Readers have, to a great extent, been writing Adams' strip for many years, by sending him emails about their work experiences. Adams was very open about this, and even published a book that reprinted a lot of the emails verbatim. So far as I know there weren't any readers who resented that--in a sense, you could say that they gave Adams free content, and he gave them free therapy. The blog postings that he gets now aren't materially different from the emailshe got be before, but he's much more limited in what he can do with them. That must be pretty frustrating.

[Pitt]

Lafayette:

You're over-generalizing. Plenty of material is available legally for free online, with a common example being musicians who have mp3s available for download straight off their website. (It's a very valuable way of building a fanbase for less well known bands.) One book publisher has all its out of print novels online; they noticed that making the old books freely available led to an increase in sales for their new books by the same authors. (Which is a pretty common trend - many people use online material as the basis for finding new material they might be interested in.)

Similarly, peer-to-peer networks are by no means "illegal", and are used for substantial quantities of legal activity, with the canonical example being distribution of free software such as certain linux versions.

Perhaps what you meant to say is that downloading copyrighted material from a p2p network is illegal. That's not true everywhere, though - for example, Canadians pay a levy on recordable media to take into account losses due to piracy of certain copyrighted materials, and so the courts have ruled they are legally permitted to download those materials.

Finally, you might want to consider the possibility that your friend was playing a trick on you, as his story does not sound credible. Customs officials have little or no way to verify whether a program installed on your computer is legally yours - how do they know you don't have the disks at home? - and in most jurisdictions would be prohibited by privacy laws from snooping around on your computer anyway.

[robertdfeinman]

I've been thinking about this after seeing the rash of books on politics and economics that have been appearing in the past few months. Here's an anecdote to suggest a new publishing model:

Psychologist Robert Altemeyer, prodded by his biggest fan John Dean, created a book which summarized his work on the "authoritarian" personality. He had previously published on this subject, but his book sales were modest - about 1000 copies.

This time he decide to give the book away and put it up on the internet for free: The Authoritarians. As you can see if you visit his site he has had over 100,000 visits, which I would guess amounts to about 10,000 readers of his book. So his objective of getting his work seen has been achieved.

Several of the readers pushed him to make a hard copy available and he complied by using one of the demand publishing services. He has declined to make a profit on this, but others could do so.

So here's my suggestion (this applies mostly to scholarly or limited-interest books):
1. Publish conventionally in a limited run
2. After a fixed period of time make the book available online, for free.
3. Allow the book to remain in print via demand publishing.

This would achieve three things. It would give the author the prestige needed to further his career. It would allow the publisher to make a reasonable profit. It would get the author's ideas out to the biggest possible audience.

I doubt most economists and political scientists expect to make much money from their books, but they would like to see their ideas examined and adopted. Money isn't everything.

[Winston]

I think that the reaction that Scott Adams observed to him removing content that other people had created from the internet and profiting from it is the same kind of thing that led to the open source movement. Back in the day (say, 20 years ago) lots of computer programmers would write little applications that were kind of handy and release them in to the public domain with the expectation that others would do likewise. This worked pretty well, but some companies kept doing what Scott Adams did, taking these useful bits of information, removing them from the public sphere and profiting from them. Computer types got angry and created a license called the General Public License. This license is interesting because it allows anyone to use or modify the software as long as they make their modifications (as well as the original code) publicly available under the terms of the GPL.
The result of this has been a preservation of the work that lots of people did for free to benefit everyone as well as lots of unintended benefits. For example, my home network has a network attached hard disc that at its core runs Linux (an operating system licensed under the GPL). Because the company that made it had to release the code necessary to make it run, other people were able to improve on the original configuration and give it numerous capabilities that it didn't originally have (automatic backup, a better media server and so on). We, as a society, need to work hard to prevent private interests from absorbing the sphere of common knowledge that benefits us all.

[James Killus]

Copyright infringement has approximately the same legal status as trespassing (or so I have been told by several lawyers). This means that it is not "illegal" as such, though there are obviously a number of individuals and organizations who wish for people to believe it to be so.

There are certain statutory violations under copyright law that are considered criminal, but downloading copyrighted files is not among them. Evasion of the VAT is something else again.

[Patricia Shannon]

http://legislative.nashvillesongwriters.com/news.php?viewStory=76

SONGWRITERS ARE
AMERICA'S SMALLEST SMALL BUSINESS

HOW SONGWRITERS ARE PAID
And the Federal Government’s Role

ROYALTIES:
> Mechanical Royalty — Writers receive 9.1 cents for a song that sells on an artist’s CD. However, this is usually split with the publisher, leaving the songwriter only 4.55 cents. If the song is co-written, then they receive only 2.275 cents! So, if a writer has a song on a million-selling album, they earn around $22,750.
> Performance Royalty — A songwriter is paid when his or her song is performed live or on radio, television, or cable. The average performance royalty is under $5,000 per year for those who are lucky enough to receive performance income.
> Songwriter royalties are THE ONLY INCOME STREAM in America DICTATED by the Federal Government! The rate a songwriter is paid is determined by the Copyright Royalty Board. When and how songwriter royalties are distributed is governed by Congress and the Department of Justice.
> Songwriters cannot increase their royalty income, even if the cost of doing business increases.
> A songwriter may go years without receiving royalties. If they have a hit song, the federal government says that the songwriter must receive royalties immediately after they are collected. This means a songwriter might receive most of their income from a song in one calendar year — making that income subject to a disproportionately high income-tax levy. Other creators, such as book authors, can negotiate the terms of their payments over several years for tax purposes — but NOT songwriters! Songwriters were once allowed to average their incomes. This is no longer permitted.
> Frivolous lawsuits can cost a songwriter their royalty income.

AMERICA LOSES
Two-thirds of its Professional Songwriters
> America has LOST TWO-THIRDS of its PROFESSIONAL SONGWRITERS over the past decade due to illegal downloading, piracy, radio deregulation and corporate mergers.
> Radio Deregulation has resulted in dramatically fewer spots on radio playlists. A few companies program the majority of country music reporting stations.
> Mergers and consolidations have resulted in fewer and fewer staff songwriter positions.

PIRACY FACTS
File Stealing
> MORE THAN 1 BILLION files are illegally downloaded EACH MONTH!
> Copyrights are the #1 BALANCE OF TRADE EXPORT item for the United States.
> When someone steals a song on the Internet it is not a victimless crime. Songwriters pay their rent, medical bills and children’s educational expenses with royalty income. That income has been dramatically impacted by illegal downloading, so many have reassessed their careers as songwriters. Songwriters are choosing other professions because they cannot earn a living- in great part due to illegal downloading.

[Patricia Shannon]

I turned off popups because I started having problems with my computer operating slowly after I had been on the internet. Maybe sidebar adverts are the way to go. Also, some popups can't be deleted. I also delete my internet temporary files every time I get off the internet. It seems to be working.

[Winston]

patricia,

Has the number and quality of songs written declined? Is there a shortage of music to perform? I'm pretty sure the answer to both of these questions is "no." Thus, I'd say that songwriters were previously overpaid.

[Winston]

To elaborate on my previous statements, I would assert that copyright itself is a form of theft. It is taking something that is inherently public and privatizing it. This is beneficial if the resource is something like a common field that is destroyed by overuse, but information suffers the opposite problem and dies from lack of use. Copyright is, in my opinion, a damaging anachronism in today's world.

[Patricia Shannon]

I would definitely say the quality of songs on the radio has diminished. Of course, much of that is because the decisions of which songs to run are made by businees people, not music lovers. Recently someone in the business pointed out a fact that I had quessed to be in operation. Songs are not chosen for air play on the basis of being songs that people love. They are chosen on the basis of not causing anybody to dislike them enough to turn the radio off.

Also, when the John Lennon Song Writing contest web site had a forum, a person who identified themself as an A&R person said he would rather work with a single person who could write ok and perform ok, than with two people, one who could write great songs, another one who was great at performing. Plus, many singer-songwriters prefer to perform their own songs, even if they aren't all that great, for ego and financial reasons.

Winston, what instruments do you play? How many songs have you written? How many CDs have you recorded? How many have you sold? Do you support yourself thru your own work? Do you get paid for the work you do? Would you work if you weren't getting paid? Don't you think you should work for free? If you think that when I spend weeks, months, in one case 3 years, to write a song, that it is "inherently public", you are a crazy, stupid jerk.

[Betsy L. Angert]

Dearest Mark . . .

I know it has been a long time. I stop by for short visits and never seem to take the time to write. This morning, I received a mail. The sender shared a snippet of you. I traveled directly and read. Again, I did not settle in to write; yet, my thoughts linger.

You may have heard Collective Wisdom: 'We Are Smarter Than Me' on Morning Edition.
When Barry Libert and Jon Spector set out to write about how social networking might help businesses, they allowed just about anyone with an idea to help write the book. Thousands of people contributed to We Are Smarter Than Me, which is about the wisdom of the crowd.
The two experienced many set backs as they attempted to set the agenda for how people must write. Ultimately, they let people be, and submissions were gathered with permission to publish.

For me, a competitive Capitalist system dictates an offensive hierarchy. There seems to be an unwritten supposition that if we are all equal, so too are our wants. Hence, we scramble and gamble in an attempt to acquire what no one else has. Too often people seek a singular control. They do not realize if they bothered to consult with others they might learn people are happy to help. They only wish to be acknowledged. Often, the compensation they ask for is minimal. Credit for their ideas and creative endeavors is, at times, enough.

Sadly, avarice and authority distort much reality. For decades, I have thought the reason tens of thousands of people drive to the one office is because those in power want to ensure laborers are hard at work. Executives want to see and cease control. The peons are put in place. Fear dominates. Paychecks are a powerful motivator.

Yet, once comfortable that all ticks along the Big Bosses are nowhere to be found. Consider Bear Stearns Chairman Jimmy Cayne and Stanley O’Neal, chairman and chief executive of Merrill Lynch & Co. Incorporated. Each improved their golf games as American's were forced to foreclose.

Ahhhh, the circumstances Capitalism breeds. It need not be each man, woman, or child for him or herself. I invite your thoughts . . .
Capitalism; Competitive Markets Cut To The Core; Inequity Is Inevitable
Betsy L. Angert
BeThink.org

[Patricia Shannon]

And when I referred to the time it takes me to write a song, that is just the time to work it out in my head, with the lyrics hand-written, the melody in my head or sung onto a cassette tape, far from a finished piece.

[Winston]

Patricia,

Why do you think you have the right to expect an eternal stream of revenue for your work? As for working without pay, plenty of people do that every day. They're called hobbyists.

[Patricia Shannon]

Winston, what hobby product are you putting a lot of time and money into, then giving away for free to strangers?
I have already put about $1,000 into getting a demo made of two songs. Maybe you are independently wealthy and can afford to do this as a hobby. But I can't.

You have a parasite mentality.

[Phoenix Woman]

Copyright used to end after 25 years. Now Disney wants it to last forever and kill the whole concept of the public domain.

As for the RIAA, they're busy hunting down people who play famous arrangements of tunes in the public domain. (Seriously: A few bluegrass artists have been dinged by roving RIAA informants because they played Bill Monroe licks in tunes that Monroe had arranged but didn't write.) That's what's killing live music in America.

[Patricia Shannon]

Phoenix Woman,

How many songs have you arranged? What is your relation to music? Performer, songwriter, or what?

[Patricia Shannon]

I agree that there should be a time limit on the length of copyright. I would like to note that a song might not get be produced until long after it is written, sometimes even more than 25 years.

Do you have a reference for your "Bill Monroe licks". It makes a difference if it is the whole song, or two bars they copied. Also, whether it was at an open mic night, or a big club where they pay the band. And when was this. The law was changed several years ago to make performances of copyrighted material legal in some cases. When someone (maybe the RIAA) told the Girl Scouts they couldn't sing copyrighted songs around the campfire, even songwriters disagreed, and the law was changed.

[James Killus]

Patricia,

I am neither a songwriter nor musician, though I have worked briefly as a radio engineer and unpaid DJ in college ('twas fun, though). However, I am, among other things, a professional writer, have published two novels and some number of short stories, articles, etc., so I do have a horse in this race. I do also know quite a few musicians and songwriters, as well as artists, actors, etc.

However, I must say that the current animus that so many "creators" have towards such things as file sharing etc. looks to me to be misdirected. The general income level for writers of fiction, for example, has been declining for far longer than the internet has been roaring along. My theory is that this is due to the advent of word processors, which made it much easier to churn out words, without increasing the number of readers. Thus, fiction writers have found themselves in the same position as farmers, where increased productivity, plus inelastic demand, inevitably results in a decline of total income for the producer segment as a whole. There is no reason to expect that something similar has not happened to music, where the production costs of recording have dropped far more than that for writing itself.

As for the apparent decline of music quality on the radio, there's really no doubt as to the culprit there: consolidation of media outlets. There is also no doubt as to the primary culprits for the defrauding of artists, and that is also recording companies, managers, and agents. It is no surprise whatsoever that large media companies want the artists to blame file downloading for every problem under the sun, given the past (and present) behavior of those companies.

For songwriters and musicians generally, you hoe a hard row. You are competing not just with each other, but with every recording artist from the last 80 years or so. Perhaps the current market for Louis Armstrong, Jack Teagarden, and Don Redman is small, but it does exist (and some of that music is out of copyright). More to the point, you are also competing with The Eagles, Frank Zappa, The Art of Noise, Madonna, and Emmylou Harris, just to mention names that I've seen within the last day or so.

I just put up YouTube videos from The Squirrel Nut Zippers and The Indigo Girls on my blog. Is this "illegal?" I do not think so; both were originally music videos specifically designed to assist in CD sales (and I do, in fact, own the CDs where the songs came from). In any case, that is for YouTube's lawyers to handle.

What many of my fellow writers do not seem to be able to understand is that a written work is a collaboration between the author and the reader. It is not a one-way street, with the reader's sole duty being to cough up cash. The reader's time also has value, yet there is seldom recognition of this.

There is a vast amount of writing, including music, available on the web, that the writers cannot even give away. Have you really established that your work is so good that a large audience exists for it? I see from your blog that you do post some poetry at times. Try posting a song recording and see how many downloads you get. Then we can compare notes and see how well you compare to the novel I'm serializing.

Part of the lure of the "glamour jobs" (writing, acting, musician, etc.) is the lure of the jackpot. Those who prey upon the aspirants exploit those dreams of glory, sometimes to the point of great tragedy. As nearly as I can tell, the internet has something of a leveling effect, perhaps reducing the highest sales, but giving openings for smaller scale successes. If I am right, that is the reason for the rage. Dreamers hate to have their dreams threatened, even hypothetically.

But, if you don't believe me, you might want to read what Janis Ian has to say on the matter.

[Patricia Shannon]

Part of the problem for those who create is that with increasing population, there are more of us, but there is not a proportionately larger market.

I certainly agree with you as to the cause of the declining quality of songs on the radio, and the defrauding of artists by record companies. When I was at a lecture by some people in the music business, one of the people (I think he was an entertainment lawyer) told us that he has observed that in general, that at each level of increasing sales of recordings, the artists make less TOTAL money. When they are selling their own work, they retain all the profits. Past a certain point, they have to work with people who take an increasing percentage of the profits.

My comments would be the same even if I were not a songwriter, but simply a music lover. I feel just as strongly that it would be immoral for someone to scan your books and put your books up on the internet for anybody to download for free.

As for quality, certainly many people think better of their own work than other people might. I often go to non-profit coffeehouses. Many of the singer-songwriters are excellent performers, but their songs all sound alike, none of them musically interesting. But I don't see how that means that they don't have rights to their own work.

As for my own songs, I know not all of them would be singles. But other people, including people in songwriting groups, do think well of some of my songs. My favorite took me three years to complete. The first time I performed it for a songwriters critique, singing a capella, for a group of professional performers and songwriters, I got a standing ovation as soon as the song was finished. It is not uncommon when I sing it for people, to be asked "who wrote it" in tones of awe. If I could write only one song in my life, that would be it. I myself am in awe that I wrote this song.

The demo I have, of two songs I co-wrote, which I paid $300-#350 to have recorded by a professional musician, has gotten very good comments from those who heard it. I don't at all begrudge the paying of this money. The performer had to spend a lot of time learning to perform musical instruments, practicing singing, learning to operate the recording equipment, and of course had to pay thousands of dollars for his equipment.

I wrote a song about working in a restaurant while I was still working at Waffle House. All the workers and customers loved it. My manager would have me sing it for ourselves or customers, esp. when things were stressfull. She had me sing it for people from corporate. It took me 3 or 4 months to write. I had planned to have a professional musician record this song, and one by a Waffle House cook who has written a song that people like a lot, but that is on the back burner because my cataract operation cost twice as much as I thought it would.

And the time I refer to writing is only writing the words on paper and working out the melody in my mind.

[James Killus]

Patricia,

I would have no problem whatsoever with someone scanning my books, or stories, or pretty much anything I have written, and uploading them to the internet for free downloading. In fact, I have done quite a bit of that myself, and I would take it as a favor if someone would do it for my first novel, because it's a lot of work and I haven't gotten to it yet.

So why do you feel it necessary to feel strongly about this on my behalf?

I will now give you some free advice, which may be worth what you pay for it. There is a much better chance of your profiting from your demos if you somehow make them more visible and available, even to the point of giving them away. I have made much more money from the work-for-hire jobs that I have gotten because of my published work than I have for that work itself. From what I can tell, that is typical.

You may also want to consider the business model offered by Jonathan Coulton, or at the very least, watch and listen to this Creative Commons video.

[Patricia Shannon]

It would cost money to do so. I don't have any to spare, esp. when the chances are I would never get it back. I'm not into gambling, except an occasional $1 lottery ticket. I still have one eye that needs a cataract operation, and I expect that will have to wait more than 3 years, until I'm eligible for Medicare. Also, it takes time, and I don't have enough as it is.

Where are your books available on-line for us to read? You said you have published two novels, but you only want someone to upload the first (Book of Shadows?). Why not the 2nd?

And I don't know why you are attacking me so strongly on this subject. Do you agree with Winston that your work is "inherently public", and that you have no right to expect any payment for it? Do you think it would be ok if someone printed your work and started selling it w/o reimbursing you?

Where did you get the money in the first place to print your work and give it away for free?

[James Killus]

Patricia,

If any of my messages came across as "attacking" you, I apologize. That certainly was not my intention. I have been disagreeing with some of the things you have written, but I did not think that constituted an attack. So, once again, sorry.

My second book has an e-publisher, who has requested that I not post it for download (though, of course, I have every right to do so). I post excerpts from it from time to time on my website, and if Hidden-Knowledge ever gives up on it (which they probably should), I'll have it up for download.

On the other hand, on my website, there are 17 shorter works, most of them previously published, including a fairly lengthy novella that can be downloaded, plus an ungodly number of essays, which may or may not be worth the time of reading them. That, of course, applies to every book in any library, which are also available for free. There was a substantial debate, historically, just incidentally about the ethics of the free lending library, with many people taking the same position that others take on music and video file sharing.

As for the publishing money, both of my novels were published by a commercial publisher (Ace Books), and I got the usual advances for them, which, if divided by the number of hours it took to write them, was a little above minimum wage. I did manage to sell a shorter version of my second book to a magazine before turning into a book, thereby being Paid Twice, which is one of the tricks of the trade.

But paperback novels have the shelf life of raisen bread; blink and you will miss most of them. I will note that it would still be cheaper to go online and buy an old copy of one of the books than to download a file and print them on your printer. The economies of scale are another one of the ways the business works.

I will also mention that I got more money from writing part of the computer game "Where in Space is Carmen Sandiego?" than I got for both books and all my short stories combined. That is yet another way that the business works.

[Patricia Shannon]

James Killus says...

On the other hand, on my website, there are 17 shorter works, most of them previously published, including a fairly lengthy novella that can be downloaded, plus an ungodly number of essays, which may or may not be worth the time of reading them. That, of course, applies to every book in any library, which are also available for free. There was a substantial debate, historically, just incidentally about the ethics of the free lending library, with many people taking the same position that others take on music and video file sharing.

As for the publishing money, both of my novels were published by a commercial publisher (Ace Books), and I got the usual advances for them,

But paperback novels have the shelf life of raisen bread; blink and you will miss most of them.

I don't see how you have negated my argument with Winston, who doesn't believe the creator has any rights to their creation, including books and computer games. You didn't address that question.

It appears that most of the works you think are worthy, that are on your web site, have already been published. You didn't put them up there before publishing, or instead of publishing. You got paid an advance for your novels. Winston doesn't think you should get paid for your written work, or your computer programming. I assume you had some cost in materials in preparing your work to send to a publisher. I don't know if you would count wear-and-tear on your computer towards the cost of the book. It depends on whether you run your computer into the ground before buying a new one. Do you get royalties for your share of the computer program you helped write? Do you put it on the internet for free download as soon as you wrote it?

I am not a performer. I don't have recording equipment, which costs a lot of money, as does studio time. Before my financial troubles started, I paid for a professional musician to make a demo, bought a stereo to make demo tapes, bought short, blank cassette tapes, bought tape labels and the program to print them. My partner paid for the stamps and bubble packes to send them to music publishers. I won't bore you with all the details, but we did get a publisher, but he turned out to be elderly and with a wife with Alzheimer's, and didn't do what we expected. I spent money entering the songs in several songwriting contests where the judges were people in the music business. (Got some honorable mentions, that led nowhere.)

My co-writer on those songs is a couple of years older than I, and cleaning houses for a living. I don't have air conditioning, central heat, or running hot water (I boil it on the stove and carry it back to the bathroom.) My contract ends at the end of the year, and the work situaltion is very unstable here. Even the "permanent" employees don't know how much longer they'll have a job. Yes, if I spend a bunch of money and time getting my songs into a form that people enjoy, I do want to get paid for it.

[Patricia shannon]

And the writer of the other Waffle House song is in his 50's, is a cook for Waffle House, has a disabled wife. When I talked to him at the beginning of the week, his wife was in the hospital with heart problems. He's hoping to get a second job at an auto shop, changing tires for them, to make extra money. He also spent a lot of time working on his song. He and I are both willing to sing our songs for people, but we would not think it fair if someone recorded our songs w/o our permission.

[peatey]

Patricia: [I don't have recording equipment, which costs a lot of money, as does studio time. Before my financial troubles started, I paid for a professional musician to make a demo, bought a stereo to make demo tapes, bought short, blank cassette tapes, bought tape labels and the program to print them. My partner paid for the stamps and bubble packes to send them to music publishers. I won't bore you with all the details, but we did get a publisher, but he turned out to be elderly and with a wife with Alzheimer's, and didn't do what we expected. I spent money entering the songs in several songwriting contests where the judges were people in the music business. (Got some honorable mentions, that led nowhere.)]

Patricia, I didn't feel that James was attacking you. I also do not wish to attack you. I just wanted to share my observation:

I am sorry to hear of obstacles in your musical pursuit. But I do not understand your preference for cassette tapes and traditional recording studio/professional musicians in an industry where recent technology advances have supposedly brought down cost of recording music substantially and therefore also have made traditional studio recording more affordable. You are competing against legions of teenagers using their Mac laptops and GarageBand to post freely downloadable (and sometimes professional quality) music in mp3 format on their MySpace blogs. Their music tend to be cheap in both price and legal restriction on use.

Many of the free computer software that makes music creation cheaper were created by people who believe our copyright laws are too expansive. Now music is like poetry--only a very few will succeed and get paid for their work, and the rest can't even give their hard work away and must remain hobbyists and consumers. I believe I'm echoing James's earlier comment here.

[James Killus]

Actually Patricia, there are a number of works of fiction that are up on my website, blog site, and newsgroup that have not been published. Short works (back to the business model again) do not pay for the time necessary to create them, so one writes short stories either for love or as publicity. Publishing in a high circulation magazine is best, but there aren't many of those, and the competition is fierce. After that come lesser venues, but at a certain point the marketing effort is no longer worth it. One can then put it in the trunk or put it where someone might read it. I usually do the latter, these days.

Truth to tell, I paid little attention to that one post of Winston's that annoyed you so. "Copyright as theft" is an extreme position, but extreme positions are the norm on the other side (there are those who argue for "perpetual copyright" for example), so I see nothing wrong with considering the concept, though I'll stipulate at the outset that I don't advocate such a measure.

The fact is that the abolition of copyright might not have as catastrophic effects as some seem to think. In the music industry, performance has always been a major source of income for the performers themselves, and that share is increasing. For many groups, in fact, their copyrighted sales of LPs, CDs, etc. must be viewed as primarily advertising for their concerts. The Grateful Dead are the exemplar of this; they always actively encouraged the taping of their live performances and they benefited greatly from the fan support that it produced.

But I don't think that "theft" is the appropriate perjorative to apply to either side of the copyright question. The situation is more akin to censorship, and copyright is, in fact, frequently used for censorious purposes (just try writing an unauthorized history of the Disney company, for example), as a means of controlling information rather than merely a method of profiting from it.

There is also a broad area of dispute as to what constitutes "fair use." There is a phenomenon called "fanfic" where fans of some work of fiction write stories involving characters from that work. New works, but some else's characters. The battles over fanfic have been quite bloody (figuretively speaking--I think).

My own position is, if someone else makes some money off of something that I've written, I'd like some of it, please. But otherwise, it's not worth my time to get upset over it. I mean, good grief, imagine what I'd be making here if I were paid by the word.

[cm]

Lafayette: To clarify, the tons of for-free stuff in my case are mostly academic or technical articles and out-of-print books that are put up for free noncommercial use by the authors, and open-source software, although I'm not exactly "reading" the latter. I am not confusing the concepts of "unencumbered" and "available if you know where to look".

[cm]

And when I said I would not consider buying it, I did not mean to suggest I'm downloading stuff that is ripped from for-sale content. I'm merely saying if it were instead only available for a fee, I would probably not buy but forgo it.

But aside from that, there is some legit stuff that is published free of charge, with the publisher's permission, in "lower grade" internet format in parallel with a for-fee book. Sometimes it's a draft version, does not have the full book content, or is merely not formatted nicely. Once I have seen print-quality PDF with an embarrassing blurb stating "printed from the internet edition" superimposed on every page. I presume the publishers do their arithmetic and realize that the free internet edition will not deter book purchases substantially, or it's figured into the deal.

[Alex Tolley]

Patricia,

Some points.

1. Esther Dyson pointed out over 10 years ago that because information products were copyable, that creators would have to make their money in other ways. James Killus confirms that point. You still seem wedded to selling product. You need to think about using your product as marketing materials to sell something else. It's hard, I sympathize, but stop playing Canute.

2. Few artists seem to acknowledge that the lifeblood of creativity depends on other artists or stuff in the environment. When everything costs a royalty to use, creativity will stop. There is a balance here, but it is much less that 25 years. An analysis by a UK academic suggested 14 years I think. The problem is that many people seem to think that information products should be concretized like physical product. They are different, and have different economic and cultural optimums. Lessig has beaten on that point for 7 years.

I know that my points will fall on deaf ears, because I have had this argument with a musician friend over this for over a decade. He cannot/will not make the transition to the new economy. If you want to survive, you need to see how you can manage this.

[BJ Feng]

I've found that there's a big difference in quality between what is given away as free on the internet and what is not free either on the internet or in traditional stores. Thanks to technology, most of us can publish our works for next to nothing, but not everything we create has value to others. Some stuff is free because that's what it is worth.

Not to say your writings are worthless James, but I think the creator has a right to charge what they want for their work. Why should Patricia, who's spent countless hours working on something that provides us enjoyment, be prohibited from making money? Writing a good story, article, or piece of music especially, is incredibly hard.

There's no doubt that piracy is difficult to prohibit or overcome, but whether people SHOULD receive these works for free is another issue. Everyone is right that we need a solution that allows creative artists to make a living providing works that we all want and enjoy, but so far there doesn't seem to be much of one. How is a songwriter who isn't good at live performance like a Britney Spears is, supposed to make a living? And why should they have to give away their valuable work for free? It is valuable because we want it and would pay to receive it, if only it wasn't so easy to steal.

[BJ Feng]

I think that greater enforcement by the music industry and musicians would have a large impact. If the costs of getting caught are very high, many people would figure that pirating just isn't worth the potential losses. I believe the penalty for digital copyright piracy is $250,000 per work or song. I'm not sure, but I know it's pretty high. My friend and I have also had this discussion and he believes that if the music industry were to start taking people to court and actually try to collect on the full legal amount, people would be scared off and piracy would fall by a large amount. I think he could be right. I see it similar to growing marijuana. You can make a lot of money doing so, but what prevents a lot of people, and a lot of people I know from actually growing, is the fear of getting caught and the consequences. Sure piracy would continue, but the sheer volume would decrease, and those who want to give their works away for personal or strategic reasons could still do so.

[Lafayette]

CK: They're entitled, and the rest of us unwashed masses are not.

Separating the wheat from disposable chaff

Quite right. Entitlement, meaning entering the plutocratic Valhalla by means of amassing capital, conveys upon the anointed one "special consideration".

They are presumed to be devilishly clever (but honest), workaholics (probably divorced three times), with a streak of God given good luck, and - above all - keen patriots of the nation and the capitalist system, which made them (abracadbra!) the cosmopolitan socialites that they have become.

In fact, the only way they can distinguish themselves from the rest of mankind -- in any meaningful way -- is to belong to the right country-clubs, drive the right European make of car, fly the right Executive jet, donate to the Right political party, be captioned in the right business media magazines, and be seen on their yachts in the right Caribbean / Mediterranean seaside resorts (with hot and cold running bimbos).

Us poh-boys be damned. We're the nerds who "didn't make it". After all, "making it" separates the wheat from the disposable chaff -- didn't you know?

[Lafayette]

BJF: It is valuable because we want it and would pay to receive it, if only it wasn't so easy to steal.

Completely true to form, BJF. Money is the only means you have of estimating value.

Were this the case, think of all those artists who lived and died in relative poverty: DaVinci, Hogarth, Van Gogh, Mozart, etc.

All worthless ...

[Carolyn Kay]

>>Part of the problem for those who create is that with increasing population, there are more of us, but there is not a proportionately larger market.

Patricia:

Maybe the audience is limited, but where is it written that a very few people must make many millions for their creative efforts, while the rest of us make little or nothing?

I'd like to see some democratization in the payment for creative works arena.

It's interesting that the people who say we have to learn to get paid in "other" ways tend to be people who hate advertising and who won't contribute voluntarily for content.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

[Alex Tolley]

C_K: "It's interesting that the people who say we have to learn to get paid in "other" ways tend to be people who hate advertising and who won't contribute voluntarily for content."

What evidence have you got for that opinion?

[Carolyn Kay]

>>Alex Tolley says...

>>What evidence have you got for that opinion?

My own personal experience providing an informative website for seven years.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

[Winston]

Neither DaVinci nor Mozart were poor for most of their lives, in fact they were both, at times very wealthy (despite the lack of copyright protection). I suspect that poor financial planning was more responsible for Mozart's poverty at the end of his life than lack of compensation.

[Patricia shannon]

peatey says...
I am sorry to hear of obstacles in your musical pursuit. But I do not understand your preference for cassette tapes and traditional recording studio/professional musicians in an industry where recent technology advances have supposedly brought down cost of recording music substantially and therefore also have made traditional studio recording more affordable.

Many of the free computer software that makes music creation cheaper were created by people who believe our copyright laws are too expansive. Now music is like poetry--only a very few will succeed and get paid for their work, and the rest can't even give their hard work away and must remain hobbyists and consumers. I believe I'm echoing James's earlier comment here.

You have obviously never been poor, or even short of money, or you would realize the stupidity of your remarks. Regular readers of this blog already know of my recent history, and I don't feel like boring them and myself by repeating it. To use "free computer software" requires a computer, which costs money. Also, a place to put it, which I don't have in my manufactured home. To buy equipment to burn a CD, or even copy the one I have of my demo, costs money. I am not a professional musician. Those who are produce quality work because of the large amounts of time they have spent in the past learning, practicing, and rehearsing, and they deserve to be paid when I use their services.

For those who think that the status quo is working so well, that must mean you are happy with the music available now. I'm not, and I'm not the only one.

Unlike some of you, I believe people are entitled to be paid if they perform work that is desired by others. I don't believe in slavery. We seem to have several people making comments who are independently wealthy.

Actually, the lyrics to my "Hunger Walk" song are at

http://www.fighthunger.org/campaigns/music/walk

The tune is the Thanksgiving hymn "Come ye thankful people, come". This was not planned, it just started coming to me when I was walking in a Hunger Walk. When I can find someone to help me, I need to sing the song into a computer file to send to them, which they have requested, because not all people know the tune. Also, I know there is at least one place where fitting the words to the music was tricky, but I don't know where it was now that I have worked it out.

I have posted several poems/song lyrics here and on my blog. I have performed at a couple of open mics. But I'm not going to spend a lot of money I don't have to provide entertainment for leaches.

[Patricia Shannon]

I forgot to thank B J Feng. Since we often disagree, I don't want to overlook it when we do.

[Mike Giberson]

So, to get back to the Scott Adams case that began this discussion, let's see if I have this straight:

People who commented on Adams's blog objected to him deleting those comments and the source material they refer to, and some people now suggest that the commenters were somehow mistreated because they supplied "consumer research" services or otherwise collectively contributed to the inspiration for the book and were not paid for it.

Or, in other words, Adams is supposed to maintain the blog posts and comments at his own expense, for an indefinite period of time, and Adams should somehow pay the people who read his blog for free and then freely supply comments on his blog if he happens to notice which blog posts people like and is inspired to respond creatively.

All that I have to say is that if Mark Thoma reads all of these comments, gets the idea to write about it and get paid for the publication, I want my 5 cents. Plus, he'd better keep all of these comments online, forever.

[Patricia Shannon]

Mike Giberson, well put.

Sorry to continue with my personal stuff, but I forgot to let people know that anybody is free to use my "Hunger Walk" song, or even change it slightly, like changing "Hunger Walk" to "Hunger Drive" or "Hunger Fight", as long as it is for programs that benefit the needy on a non-sectarian basis, and where all the profits go to this cause. It just occurred to me that I would like to add a stipulation for an upper bound on salaries in the organizaion, but I would want to research that. Staff in these organizations also deserve to be paid a fair amount.

[BJ Feng]

Mike, I think the people objected because he received money for the works and had to delete their posts because of it. They probably wouldn't have been so upset if he just deleted archives to save space and money. After reading Scott's detailed explanation, I'm more in favor of Scott's position since he didn't actually quote from those posts.

"Maybe the audience is limited, but where is it written that a very few people must make many millions for their creative efforts, while the rest of us make little or nothing?"

Carolyn, not all the creative works we produce are equally good, just like not all the cars produced are of the same quality. I play two instruments and I can admit that my jam sessions are worthless to anyone other than myself. However there are more talented musicians out there that can write and come up with amazing stuff; they should be able to charge more for their music than I can. You can take Mozart's Symphony 41 "Jupiter" for example. There is absolutely no way I could write something of the same quality no matter how hard I tried. Higher quality stuff commands a premium.

[Patricia Shanon]

B J Feng
well put.

[James Killus]

Patricia,

I met a couple of musicians circa 1973, who were touring the so-called coffee house circuit, which was actually primarily colleges. Their names were Steve Baron and Jeff Lowell, and they'd had a larger group, a quartet, which had made an album. At one point (long story short, we were visiting another nearby college to see Count Basie) I asked them if they'd made any money off the album.

"Session fees," they told me. Baron had written all the songs, but he'd basically made nothing on the album itself; production costs had consumed all the royalites (and the record company later went out of business).

By contrast, the early Motown records made millions, but the session men that gave those records their distinctive sound and style--got session fees. The royalties went to the songwriters. Winner take all.

In understand, in fact I agree with, your desire to have creative people paid for their efforts, especially if they create something that people like. But this has never happened. Sometimes people make money and sometimes they don't. Sometimes the creative people get some of that money, and sometimes they don't. That people are often not paid properly, or fairly, or anywhere near what they'd like or expect, is typical, and has been since before Stephen Foster wrote down some music that he heard the slaves singing, added some more (and sometimes abhorent) lyrics, made a lot of money and then died of drink. It's always been "Behind the Music." I think of it as akin to a miracle when talented people are rewarded, and a further miracle when success doesn't destroy them.

And just incidentally, you might try selling your song to Waffle House. God knows they could use some style. And the greatest tragedy isn't selling out; it's deciding to sell out and finding that no one is buying.

[Patricia Shannon]

Waffle House wouldn't buy my song. It's not derogatory of WH, but also not rah,rah. It's mostly about what the servers have to put up with from the customers.

Waffle House offered the cook I mentioned $500 for his song. We don't think that's enough.

So what is the point of unfairness being common. That doesn't mean I'm obligated to go along with it. I didn't start writing songs for money. A phrase will come into my head, and not let me go, and forces me to write a poem or song for it! Being a musical person, if they don't come to me with a melody to begin with, I make up a melody after the fact. I feel a kind of duty to the songs that I think are worthwhile to do something with them. i have read my poems/lyrics at many open mic poetry readings. But I feel no duty to spend a bunch of money I can't afford to provide a decent recording of them free to the public. And I don't get a thrill out of performing, although I've gotten to the point where my throat no longer clenches when I do perform.

And I do think it's unfair that songwriters but not performers and producers get royalties, however meager. The new rules for music on the internet, eg., web radio stations, redresses that. I think it should be extended to regular radio stations and to juke boxes. If someone doesn't think it's worth paying something for, they can simply not buy it.

[James Killus]

Good grief, Patricia, I've never asked you to spend a lot of money in order to record your music and give it away. I've already said that there are far too many people who prey upon the dreams of aspiring artists. The writing business is littered with them, Vanity Presses (and its newish version, Print on Demand publishing), editing services, faux PR firms, and creative writing classes. The music business is likewise encrusted with them, I just don't know as many of the players these days.

What I've been saying is that file sharing and file downloading is not really the problem. It takes little or no money to publish something on the internet, and sometimes the artists make some money off of it. Some, in fact, have made some fairly sizeable money off of it, quite possibly in similar numbers to those making money off of more traditional routes. There are viable business models that make use of file sharing and giving away free content, and it's hard not to suspect that one of the reasons why major media companies want to destroy peer-to-peer file sharing is because they don't control those business models.

But let's also get something clear. What I've been talking about is not purely a matter of "unfairness being uncommon." It's more like unfairness, from somebody's point of view, is inevitable. There are only going to be so many hit records, so many bestsellers, so many blockbuster movies, and those will always have something of the least common denominator about them. So most artists, even the most talented, or even brilliant, artists, are never going to achieve major success, and many will be overlooked by any sort of financial success. It's worth trying for success for many, and it's still certainly worth continuing to create for many more. But for most of us, the value of it had better come from the creation itself and whatever affect it has on the people who do appreciate it.

And there is absoultely no way to gimmick the laws or the marketplace to change that. Moreover, it's folly to try, because laws will never work to the advantage of individual artists; copyright laws have always been written to benefit organizations like publishing companies, and they always will be.

I'd have probably taken the $500, incidentally, but that's just me.

[Lafayette]

JK: and it's hard not to suspect that one of the reasons why major media companies want to destroy peer-to-peer file sharing is because they don't control those business models.

It's all in the game

No, that is NOT the reason.

The reason is simple: P2P transfer is theft of intellectual property. What is it about intellectual property rights that you do not seem to understand?

And, as for Patricia, or any creator of intellectual property, were they to put it up on some commercial Web-site, allow samples to be played, then pay-for-download either of songs or entire albums, then they too might allow their creative talent the rewards they so richly deserve. (Pun intended)

The market for some creative work (songs and movies) requires razzmatazz to give the work "legs" (meaning sizeable sales). That advertising/plugging/publicity/whatever is costly since it requires skilled talent to do so properly. So, let's not decry either those "studios" that play consumer sentiments in order to boost sales. It's all in the game.

[Carolyn Kay]

>.Carolyn, not all the creative works we produce are equally good, just like not all the cars produced are of the same quality... Higher quality stuff commands a premium.

B J Feng:

Absolutely true, and I'm not suggested that we change that dynamic. What I am suggesting, however, is that the big entertainment companies have controlled who, of all the very talented people around, got the publicity that enabled them to make many millions while others languished. That absolute control is what I'd like to see changed.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

[BJ Feng]

Carolyn, that is happening now that the cost of production and distribution have decreased. At every concert you go to, the band, no matter how small and unheard of, offers CDs of their music for sale. I even see street performers at the Santa Monica Pier and Promenade offering CDs for sale. I've heard that Radiohead is going to make available downloads of their new music for $1 a song. It seems that bands like Fallout Boy and Coldplay are able to get bid without the traditional advertising and help the big music agencies offer.

I blame big companies for not allowing their music to be distributed any other way than CDs. Many musician are happy that they don't have to go through the big corporations anymore. They now have total creative freedom and can put out a song that in the past, would have been rejected for being too "innovative".

However I'm against piracy, these artists still deserve to make a living. I would estimate 95% or more of peer to peer networks' traffic is of copyrighted works without the permission of the authors in question.

[James Killus]

P2P transfer is theft of intellectual property. What is it about intellectual property rights that you do not seem to understand?

I might ask the same thing, Lafayette. For one thing, copyright violation is not theft.

The owner of a copyright has standing in civil court to sue someone for copyright violation. However, (to use an example that will never happen) you do not have the right to sue on my behalf. Moreover, if you find an example of copyright violation, you may then notify me, and I may or may not take action. But if you notify the police, unlike cases of "receiving stolen property" for example, they can do nothing.

Read the U.S. Constitution. Do you find the words "intellectual property" there? You do not. It is a concept invented to try to turn a lot of disparate statutory legal entities into something akin to common law property. But it is, in fact, an empty concept. Copyright is not patent is not trademark is not trade secret. And Congress has the exclusive Constitutional right to make laws concerning those things.

Moreover, P2P has been found, in multiple court cases to not inevitably create copyright violation. It may be used to violate copyrights, just as any photocopier may be so used. But the violation is not inherent in the technology, and I will not be bullied into saying that it is.

I will also note, once again, that I have had far more professional interest in copyrights, patents, and trademarks than you have, so back off.

[Mark Thoma]

James Killus:

http://newmarksdoor.typepad.com/mainblog/2007/10/i-borrow-the-be.html

[James Killus]

Thanks, Mark, I'd forgotten that bit of snarky fun.

I also put together my thoughts on that particular subject (with links back here) a few days ago:

Significant

[Patricia Shannon]

What I'm opposed to is the attitude that someone has the right to benefit by other people's labor w/o paying a fair price, whether it be outright slavery or poverty-level wages or stealing a product from a store or being on welfare or disability when one doesnt' need it or downloading music w/o the creator's consent. It seems to be a natural human inclination, aggravated by the current culture, and the practice of teaching children to have high self-esteem regardless of their actions. The right wingers criticize welfare, but their desire to have the fruits of other's labors w/o paying a decent wage is exactly the same impulse. Yes, that's the way it's always been, but that doesn't make it right, and that doesn't mean we should condone it.

[Caro]

Patricia, I ran across this article at Mashable this morning:

Radiohead Could Really Piss Off the Music Industry Machine (by Kristen Nicole at Mashable)

Radiohead blew us away with the “donated” sales revenue from its last album “In Rainbows.” The band offered the music for free, and let fans choose how much they’d pay, almost as a tip for the album. What comScore found was that 62% of global users chose not to pay for the album at all… Radiohead used to be part of the music industry’s machine… It was that industry machine that enabled Radiohead to garner such a large fan base, right? So now that the band has kicked the middle man to the curb, the middle man may still want a cut of current sales… The music industry will just need to continue to shift its approach. So will we still have artists able to gain major traction without the music industry’s machine? We won’t have to. The machine will just be better operated.

By the way, I'm a computer professional, too.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

[Lafayette]

PS: What I'm opposed to is the attitude that someone has the right to benefit by other people's labor w/o paying a fair price

Problem is, with the above, is that the statement doesn't indicate what constitutes a "fair price".

Is it the price unions negotiate for assembly-line workers at Ford? Of is the price that the janitor gets cleaning the offices of the Masters of the Universe at Goldman Sachs?

Just what IS a fair price? Goldman Sachs earns between 1 and 1.5% of the GROSS value of any LBO or fusion or whatever transaction for which it is the middle-man. Does that mean the "fair price" for the "team" that conducted the transaction to term, that resulted in a bill of anywhere from $50M to $500M should share equitably in the Treasure Chest?

Let's say that they earn $10M each deal and that they do about three a year. Their "fair price" is therefore $30M?

And janitors, what is their "fair price" -- $30K? Now, lets see, that makes it a difference of 1000 to 1.

How do we decide what is "fair"? Please, someone tell me. I'm obviously befuddled. Are the deal-makers at Goldman Sachs "worth" 1000 times more than the janitor? Certainly, they are not worth equally as much, since natural talents distinguish them. Were they able, janitors would be deal-makers. (Remember the film "Changing Places"?)

Equitably not equally. There's a difference. Look it up:

equitable: characterized by ... fairness; just and right; fair; reasonable

equally: in an equal or identical manner

My point: The key word in the definitions above is "reasonable". We need to define, as a society, what is equitable. Somewhere near 40% of the national wealth generated (GDP) going to 1% of the population; that is neither equally nor equitably a fair distribution.

Neither is the "sky's the limit" equitable. It is not social justice. It is not fair. It's just greed ... mixed with a childish fantasy of "having made it" and being able to "show the world".

Is that what life's all about? Then stop the planet, some of us wanna get off.

[piglet]

Scott Adams used to draw good comics, for a while, but he really is a nerd who has next to no interest in what happens in the real world. (And worse, because he's a rich comic author, he thinks that whatever ignorant thoughts he may have on any subject that he doesn't really care for are important. And worse, he's right, as far as earning money is concerned). And I'm not at all surprised that he doesn't care for the intellectual property rights of his readers.

[BJ Feng]

Fair is what is determined by the market. Fair is what someone is willing to pay. If you don't want to pay $X for a given piece of music, then don't. I would love to have a Mercades for $10,000, but just because I'm not willing to pay $50,000 for one doesn't give me the right to steal one off of the dealership.

[James Killus]

I would love to have a Mercades for $10,000, but just because I'm not willing to pay $50,000 for one doesn't give me the right to steal one off of the dealership.

And there it is again, the ongoing refusal to believe that copyright violation is anything except a form of theft.

Suppose someone has a matter duplicator and duplicated someone else's Mercedes. Would that be theft?

The idea that someone "deserves" to be compensated for their labor is rather Marxist in its impulse, the idea being that labor itself is the source of all value. BJ has the answer to that in two parts, the first being the circular reasoning that "the market" tells us what is fair (and we choose the market as the distribution mnechanism because it is fair), and the second being the (unexamined) assumption that the market must be supported by the restriction of supply, so that it is illegal to reproduce things without someone's permission. The idea that the "someone" is entirely determined (and enforced) by the actions of Government does not seem to occur to those who hold such views. Or maybe it does and they keep mum about it.

[piglet]

"Fair is what is determined by the market."

This is a gem. I don't know what argument Feng is trying to make here, but saying that fair is what happens to happen is really a gem. See, there is a market in stolen Mercedes, so the whole transaction must be fair, right?

[Patricia Shannon]

Suppose someone spent time and money developing a computer program, and when they went to sell it, it was immediately put on the internet for free downloads. What would you label that? Don't you think that when people buy equipment and spend a lot of time developing computer programs, that they should post them all on the internet as shareware?

Much of the cost of a car comes from the labor. Actually, all of the cost, because the cost of the materials boils down to the costs of the labor needed to produce the materials. So why should we have to pay for a car.

The cost of a anything, including a car, includes the development costs, including much intellectual labor, including creative endevors.

James Killus, is this a case of trying to justify your own actions in regards to downloading of music?

How many of those who are so dismissive of intellectual property rights have tried to write a good song, much less devote the amount of time it takes to master an instrument, including the voice? I'm not aspiring to become rich (although of course I wouldn't object if I did), but I do object to the idea that I have no rights to the fruit of my labor.

[James Killus]

Patricia, I don't download music. More accurately, I have downloaded a total of maybe 4 music files, ever. Two were from Jonathan Coulton, and he made them freely available (for a week, then he charges for downloads). The other two were public domain and in OOG format.

So yes, I am sure that I am not trying to justify my own actions concerning music.

I am also reasonably sure that you have not understood a single thing I've written here. I'm sorry that I have not been able to get my points across. Still, everything I've written here has been for free, which is far below my market rate. Perhaps everyone here should take up a collection so that I could be paid for the fruits of my labor.