[B5JMS] attn. JMS: A TV writing question...

[b5jms at cs.columbia.edu]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: janmschroeder at aol.com (Jan)
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:04:28 +0000 (UTC)
Lines: 45

JMS wrote:

>The bottom line of the internet is that everything should be available to
>everybody else, that no ownership of property can be allowed, that no one
>should have to pay for anything, that it should all be free.
>
>Which is great for the deadbeats who don't want to pony up the money for
>anything, but it will eventually kill the goose and step on the golden egg,
>because it will destroy the ability of authors and artists and comoposers to
>make a living doing what they do, which is to create extraordinary works that
>reflect our society in one-of-a-kind ways.  
>

I really kind of wonder about that.  I know that there's a lot of heat over
Napster and it's clones as well as over Internet piracy but is it really going
to have any effect but a small *benefit* in the long run?

I've read statements by some successful (defined here solely as "making a
living from their art)" artists (Janis Ian, Mercedes Lackey) who have
experienced only positive results from having their work available for free on
the Internet.  The theory on their part seems to be that, by having an item
available to the casual browser, there are actually *more* sales once the
consumer knows what product s/he's buying.  Music stores have allowed customers
to listen to records for decades without it harming sales.  Why shouldn't books
and videos be available to sample as well? I mean, really - one is supposed to
trust 'reviews' and 'critics'?

I can understand that artists seem to feel threatened by the 'free' Internet
and possible theft of their work but in the long run isn't it better to have
something available to be sampled and increase sales to casual browsers than to
clutch each item to your chest and insist that each and every item be paid for
by a blind consumer? 

So I guess my question is...Is the sky really falling? I've read results of
people performing the experiment of having items free online who've experienced
positive results.  Can the opponents show similar experiments? Granted that one
can't prove a negative but I've never even seen a poll where the respondents
claimed that they wouldn't buy something available for free online.

Wondering,
Jan





=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 23:51:49 +0000 (UTC)
Lines: 49

>I've read statements by some successful (defined here solely as "making a
>living from their art)" artists (Janis Ian, Mercedes Lackey) who have
>experienced only positive results from having their work available for free
>on
>the Internet.  The theory on their part seems to be that, by having an item
>available to the casual browser, there are actually *more* sales once the
>consumer knows what product s/he's buying.  Music stores have allowed
>customers
>to listen to records for decades without it harming sales.  Why shouldn't
>books
>and videos be available to sample as well? I mean, really - one is supposed
>to
>trust 'reviews' and 'critics'?

Well, those are really a whole passle of very different issues, ownership vs.
review copies, samples vs. whole works, choics vs. compulsion....

If a person wants to put up samples of his/her work, that's terrific.  It's
when someone takes the work and puts it up, or removes ownership, that's the
issue, when choice is removed.

>I can understand that artists seem to feel threatened by the 'free' Internet
>and possible theft of their work but in the long run isn't it better to have
>something available to be sampled and increase sales to casual browsers than
>to
>clutch each item to your chest and insist that each and every item be paid
>for
>by a blind consumer? 

But the issue isn't samples, it's whole works.  There are some usenet groups,
for instance, that have put up every story an author has ever published.  Whole
books have been uploaded.  

Remembering that the average novelist makes less per year than the average
grade school teacher, if 2000 copies of a book are read or downloaded online
instead of purchased, that loss of $2-3,000 can make a huge impact on the
writer's financial life.


 jms

(jmsatb5 at aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2003 by synthetic worlds, ltd., 
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine 
and don't send me story ideas)