Serene of the Oakland Serenes

I won't be participating; I think you already know my views on intellectual property and I work in a profession where undercutting by others has always made life more difficult for us. (although I'm happy enough to say that people come back to us because, really, in this profession, you do get what you pay for).

I think Dr. Hendrix has it wrong when he conflates giving it away with having a blog, but I think he's right about the fact that it hurts other writers when (good) writers give it away for free. I *do* love the Internet (otherwise I never would have met you!).

Gah, not explaining very well. Must give brain its glucose fix.

I don't think it's hypocritical to love one aspect of something and not love so much another. It's a matter of balance, yeah?

Okay, enough rambling :).

From:

serenejournal.livejournal.com

I didn't already know your views on intellectual property, but I like learning new stuff.

Rambling about the issue, not intended to be fully-formed thoughts:

I have a personal rule that I don't work for free (that includes writing) unless it's a volunteer gig. My LJ (and yours, I assume) is unpaid writing work. It's a volunteer gig for me. Giving away some of my work (as gifts, as protest, as volunteer work) works for me. I would love to see a climate in which some of us could give it away and others can get paid for it, and now that I type that, I realize that's what we have already.

I had been planning to post already-published work for this thing, but now I think I may write something new. Not to spite you, honest. ;-)

Go eat, chica! No depriving your brain of glucose -- it's such a pretty brain, and we must not starve it.

From:

I didn't already know your views on intellectual property, but I like learning new stuff.

I think we had more than one "lively conversation" on The List about it :).

My LJ (and yours, I assume) is unpaid writing work

Well, yours is :). Mine is rambling nonsense most of the time, and I call very little of it writing.

I would love to see a climate in which some of us could give it away and others can get paid for it, and now that I type that, I realize that's what we have already.

True. But at what point, and how much, does the giveaway drag down the earning power of those who are paid for it? Ain't easy making a living as a writer as it is.

I had been planning to post already-published work for this thing, but now I think I may write something new. Not to spite you, honest. ;-)

I know, no worries :):). The first thing that made me love you was the fact that I could disagree with you about something and have that be *okay* :). I'm sure you realize more than most how rare that can be; some folks seem to think the word "friend" is synonymous with "sycophant".

I have poached eggs and wheat toast and tea. I am happy :).

From:

I know that it's hard making a writer or an artist. But I am not comfortable with the notion that art or writing -- and disseminating it -- should only be the province of those who get paid for it. Which is the point I took away from Hendrix's rant.

I can't speak for science fiction -- I don't read it, and only buy it in book form for others. But I do read a lot of non-fiction writing of various sorts on the net.

My LiveJournal is rambling about my life. My other blog is not -- it is, as Serene mentioned, unpaid volunteer writing. I've never been published, and probably could not be, so what I do may well fall outside the purview of Hendrix's rant, I don't know. Many of the blogs I read are performing unpaid journalism. Dave Niewert's Orcinus performs a valuable public service in keeping people abreast of continuing developments in the anti-immigration movement, among other things, for example. He also has ads for his books on his site. He operates basically on PayPal contributions. According to Hendix's rant, that's wrong. But reading Orcinus or any one of the political/news blogs I read doesn't mean I don't also read the Mercury News and the St. Petersburg Times, and watch the eleven o'clock news (once in a while -- I usually read my news).

I could never get hired to write a traditional newspaper column. I won't lie and say it wouldn't be nice to reach lots of readers -- someday I may actually get around to doing the sort of groundwork one needs to do to have a very popular blog. (Not to mention reestablishing a regular blogging schedule: ) ) In any case, the Internet allows people who have something to say a place to speak, and a place to practice their craft.

I have a feeling that this is a place we'll just have to disagree on, and that's okay.

I don't have poached eggs, but I do have a pot of red beans and rice cooking, even though those won't be done until tonight : )

From:

I think I'm being somewhat misunderstood; I don't think the dissemination of art or writing should only be the province of those who get paid for it. I apologize if my writing wasn't clear enough :). If I felt that way, I wouldn't write my blog, or my LJ, or read the excellent writing from others in those mediums.

I seem to have stepped between two poles, starting with my misunderstanding of how the system works and mouthing off before being educated. But believe me when I say I wasn't exactly enamored of Dr. Hendrix's position.

My profession is a lot more cut-and-dried with regard to money (and I'm talking about video production in general, not just news gathering). I am guilty of projecting my experience and knowledge of that field onto the discussion here. The fact is they aren't comparable.

Ooh, red beans and rice. Comfort food for me, even if I am a Californian, born and bred :).

From:

Looking back, I don't think I read you original comment carefully enough. I'm sorry. I could see where in your business people undercutting you by working for next to nothing could be a real problem -- it looks to me like there really is only a finite amount of work available, unlike for writing, and it really is a zero-sum game.

I moved from New Orleans when I was three, but my mom used to make red beans and rice throughout my childhood. I love 'em, and have told the kids if they don't they can just make their own dinner :)

From:

bernmarx.livejournal.com

We've had a system where people could give it away for a long, long time, albeit before the Internet people generally charged for the production costs.

Publishers also frequently give parts of it away for free. When we see a trailer for a movie, that's getting part of it for free.

The line in the sand isn't nearly as clear as the OP suggests. :p

(That said, I do see his point, I just think he's going overboard. Time was, the "noble calling" of the writer meant the writer suffered true and deep financial hardship.)

From:

These things work differently in writing. John Scalzi explains. (http://community.livejournal.com/sfwa/11289.html?mode=reply)

From:

And I will bow to superior knowledge and own my own ignorance; I have never felt my writing was good enough to promote in the first place, and I'm more than willing to take the word of you and serene and John and everyone else trying to get and succeeding in getting their work seen (and paid for!). Admittedly this pushed a lot of buttons for me, as it very clearly explains some of the problems we've had over the years competing with inferior talent using inferior equipment and charging a cut rate.

Thanks, Lynn.

From:

One of the many sad things is that newspaper revenues are declining because people go to the web for news, and a lot of primary story-digging is done by print reporters. However, the great news blogs can help a lot with stories that the Authorities are trying to bury. I've forgotten which government scandal this was, but a few weks ago the government dumped 3,000 pages of documentary evidence on a Friday night, confident that nobody could wade through it all to the meat of the scandal. Individual blog readers worked overnight on fifty-page chunks. The government was not happy with the results of this freelance parallel processing.

Then there was the proposal to stop funding NOAA, because everybody could get the weather forecast from the Weather Channel.

We have to work out new ways to live witht the new technologies. Andf it's damned hard.

From:

We have to work out new ways to live witht the new technologies. Andf it's damned hard.

I'll drink to that.

From:

And -- for the sake of completeness -- another huge issue in newspaper revenue problems is the rise of websites like Craigslist, cars.com, and Rent.com, which have gutted classified ad revenues.

From:

It was the Federal Prosecutor scandal, and it was effort coordinated by Joshua Micah Marshall over at Talking Points Memo. This is exactly the sort of things blogs do well. And then there was the George Allen "macaca" incident. Blogs helped make that a major story.

But yeah, it's a tough balancing act, integrating new technologies in ways that don't hurt people's livelihoods.

From:

rmjwell.livejournal.com

So the short translation of Hendrix's rant is "How dare you be more successful than me?"

From: (Anonymous)

Pixel-Stained Technopeasant, it is a nice image... OK

by why Wretch?

From:

Pixel-Stained Technopeasant, it is a nice image... OK

by why Wretch?

From:

serenejournal.livejournal.com

It's how he phrases it in the second link above.

From:

That's what I get for skimming!

I'm Sorry, but, his main point isn't made for paragraphs!
It reads like a resume, and not a clear one.

*sigh*

From:

bastette-joyce.livejournal.com

I skipped all the resume stuff. I don't care how many degrees the guy has or all the different kinds of work he does, or who he lives with!

The actual rant begins with this sentence: I think the ongoing and increasing sublimation of the private space of consciousness into public netspace is profoundly pernicious.

His views on intellectual property are a bit too right-wing for my taste.

From:

I heard an excellent interview with Scott "King of the Scabs" Sigler,
who turned an unpublished book into a podcast and thereby landed a publisher.

If you would like, take a listen:
http://www.twit.tv/natn17
The interview starts twenty minutes and 20 seconds in.

From:

In the interview, Scott admits that he makes 3X as much from the GoogleAds on his web site that links to his podcast than he did from publishing of his book!

So he isn't "giving away" his writing at all! ;)

From:

nex0s.livejournal.com

Ya gotta love the massive condemnation of all things 'net.

I read some blogs, and write my blog but I BUY books. In fact, I can't think of a single novel I've read online. I don't like reading a screen that much, and it'd be prohibative to print out a novel - as well as still painful for me to read that way. I like reading novels in book form, or listening to them. It's a thing I have.

I have discovered novelists through their blogs though, that I might not have read otherwise.

So, .... what's his beef exactly? People who can't get published go and publish themselves and that's wrong how? Long before the net there were vanity publishing houses and the like. The only difference is now someone might actually read someone's unpublished novel.

Besides, it's a new path to publishing. I read waiterrant.net, and I love him. When his book comes out, I'll BUY his book in hardcover because I love his work.

How is he being a scab? Without the blog he'd never have gotten the bookdeal.

What a wanker.

N.
PS: I am suddenly re-amused by my icon for this post!

From:

ailbhe

People bought my two books because they'd already read them online.

From:

rmjwell.livejournal.com

Sounds surprisingly similar to what Janis Ian (http://www.janisian.com/mp3_downloads.html) is doing.

From:

What offends me most about that rant is the notion that art -- any art -- should be the province of only those who get paid for it, and the rest of us should learn our place and just STFU.

So yes, I guess I *am* a pixel-stained technopeasant wretch, and proud to be so.

From:

bastette-joyce.livejournal.com

Quoting from the Hendrix rant:

I'm also opposed to the increasing presence in our organization of webscabs, who post their creations on the net for free. A scab is someone who works for less than union wages or on non-union terms; more broadly, a scab is someone who feathers his own nest and advances his own career by undercutting the efforts of his fellow workers to gain better pay and working conditions for all. Webscabs claim they're just posting their books for free in an attempt to market and publicize them, but to my mind they're undercutting those of us who aren't giving it away for free and are trying to get publishers to pay a better wage for our hard work.

Sorry, I don't think the analogy fits. You can't have scab workers without a company to hire them. But who hires a writer to publish their books? They're self-employed. There's no corporation making money off the backs of striking workers. n the other hand, there are publishing houses and agents, and probably all sorts of other people who make a lot of money from writers who go the traditional route of publishing and selling their work. So if anyone's flirting with The Man, it's published writers. :) Not that I have any problem with someone who wants to make a living from their work! It's just ironic that a published writer would be accusing someone who gives away their work of being a scab.

I also think there's an odd, and kind of insulting (to writers) implication in Hendrix's position, which seems to claim that all writers and all written works are more or less interchangeable. So if author A charges for their work, and author B gives it away, people will automatically choose author B's work, because not having to pay is the only thing a reader values (which is insulting to readers)? What about people who are fans of writer A? Will the free work of writer B suffice as a substitute? I don't think so. Unless they are too poor to afford books (and that's what libraries are for), readers will buy a book from a writer they love, because that writer offers them something no other writer can do. Hendrix should have a bit more faith in and respect for his readers.

From: