Not Relying On Copyright Doesn't Mean You Don't Make Money
from the sad dept
Copycense recently pointed me to a really depressing post by the author David Glass, discussing his views on copyright. I found it depressing because it opened with such hope and recognition about how important remixing and sharing are to culture and creativity, and how little any of that has to do with copyright:For centuries, people have enjoyed a shared pool of story, riffing with the same old themes, playing with each others' work. After that and after my Walkman childhood came the Internet, and fun new worlds of mash-ups and sharing, open source and Creative Commons.With such a great opening, why is the article depressing? Because it's followed by the inevitable "but..." And that "but" is that he wants to make money from his writing and the "old industry" relies on copyright, and if he wants to make money he has to play ball with their ways of thinking.
I love it all. Creativity should come from a spirit of communication, maybe cooperation, not the egotistic holding to oneself that copyright suggests. I like musicians to sample each other, and authors to reference each other, and film-makers to pastiche each other. I'm all for intertextuality and a sense of fun and play. I'm pretty much a copyleft sort of guy.
People ask to see what I�ve written and I have little to show them online. I want to be published and broadcast and paid for my work and I fear that sticking things on the net puts that at risk. For example, if I sell a short story to a magazine they will want first rights, and if I�ve put that story on the web already, there is a grey area as to whether that counts as prior publication. I play it safe and put very little of my writing up, in the hope that through conversation I can keep people interested in me anyway, in the hope that a time will come when I can send people off to read a book of mine, or hear my play on the radio.In other words, copyright isn't promoting progress at all here. Instead, it's really doing the opposite, causing this author to hide his works and hope that some old gatekeeper decides to publish it.
This is a much more mild version of an argument we've seen elsewhere. Copyright defenders, for example, like to assume that when folks like myself talk about doing things without copyright, we mean either doing things for no money or through some sort of "charitable" set up. That's simply not true, of course. We talk about all sorts of business models that let people make more money than they could have otherwise -- and we're certainly seeing that happen in the world of writing. We're hearing more and more success stories in the world of self-publishing of ebooks or using platforms like Kickstarter or testing other business models selling additional scarcities.
There are lots of business models that seem to work quite well for people who can and do connect with their fans -- and one of the best ways to connect is to get the actual writing out there and get people hungry for more and more and more. Those who are doing the math (and are fanatical about connecting with fans) are starting to argue that there's a lot more money to be made in going with some new business models -- even for those who can make a lot of money the traditional way.
Compare that to going the old gatekeeper route: you have to deal with a lot of making no money while you deal with rejections. If you get a book deal you may get an advance, but then you're unlikely to ever see much more than that, unless the book is fabulously successful. That's not to say that there aren't still roles for those gatekeepers, but relying on them solely and feeling the need to hide your works away -- especially when you recognize the overall benefit to creativity from sharing and openness -- just seems like a really depressing statement on copyright.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: business models, copyright, david glass, writing
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
There is a lot of money in free
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There is a lot of money in free
/copytard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Birthing Pains
Unfortunately, consumers are caught in the middle and could really care less about either of their problems. They want content on the device of their choosing at the time of their choosing in the format of their choosing. While content creators and gatekeepers refuse to fill the needs, pirates step in and fill the gaps.
With digital content, unlike physical goods, consumers are in the unique position to fill the markets needs on their own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Birthing Pains
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Birthing Pains
That's all I can say.
Nicely done!! :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Birthing Pains
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disagree
But I think there needs to be a balance. Holding all your work like this would be a mistake; you're missing out on all the publicity and fan connections and such that are discussed often around here. But using some of your work in order to promote your other work that you hope to sell in this manner makes sense to me. Or perhaps you could hold onto all or most of your work but make stuff that's already been published for "awhile" (weeks, months, years... whatever makes sense to the artist) available for free and reap the same benefits.
As always, there's all kinds of room to maneuver and experiment here, but I think in general the idea of trying to sell first right to publish is not a bad one, it just shouldn't be the only aspect of your business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Disagree
This guy should publish some shorter/smaller pieces of work to build a fan base upon. Maybe publishing the first chapter of the book, or a 30-60 second preview of a song etc.
He can still sell the first rights but it would be for the whole body work (book, song, etc.) which has already been given some self promotion.
Nice post antimatter3009!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Disagree
For example, if anybody can print the book after it's out, there's an advantage in being the first one out of the gate. You get the first mover advantage so that your books are the ones on the shelves, your cover art is recognized, and the others (while equally free to be made) look more like knockoffs. I think that might be a direction things are going, with publishers and labels competing for who gets first dibs on a new work as opposed to forcing the creator to give up all monopoly rights.
First also plays into the Kickstarter model, where donors or top-level contributors might get an early peak or advance copy of the book.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
UK and US releases of Doctor who are at different times. Fans, frustrated by this regionalization will seek alternatives.
Also think about fans of anime. You have the official release, but then you have people loyal to a certain fansub group. Ex. The wait for One Piece to be translated can be a week after Funimation's, which affects the speed of discussion.
If you want to monetize and value it, you want to do it smartly:
Get the official copy out early. Let the "pirates" distribute their own version to increase hype but people will usually come to you if that's what you offer.
Thing about Dr. Who is that it's more of an artificial scarcity that is automatically removed because of digital access.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now, if the work in question has already been distributed, the subsection of fans demanding immediate gratification is arguably removed from the equation. meaning that those willing to invest in the artists work might be less enthused.
Actually, there's no "might" about it. Pre-releasing your work does cause corporate interest to pause when considering investing. This has nothing to do with copyright, and everything to do with maximizing investment by reaching as large section of the public as possible. The hype and excitement over something new is incredibly valuable, and should not be dismissed casually.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
..get the actual writing out there and get people hungry for more and more and more.
...but at some point, he has to sell some writings (or signed photographs / t-shirts / re@l scarcity) if he's going to profit from his work, non?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright is not going to change the simple fact that people don't buy discman's anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dentist in canton ga
[ link to this | view in chronology ]