iSights 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (478) comment rss

  • On the post: F. Scott Fitzgerald Made $8,397 On Great Gatsby; His Daughter Gets $500,000 Per Year From It

    iSights ( profile ), 30 Oct, 2009 @ 01:17am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Shocking

    "To take something I've learned here on TechDirt if an author could write a story and release it as an eBook, he could make it where he is selling some other 'finite' good and giving the story away with it. "

    Bullshit. Authors sell stories and words. Period.

    How many Tom Clancy t-shirts have you purchased? How many Stephen King book signings have you PAID to attend? How many fractions of one percent would want an leather autographed copy of John Connolly's latest book?

    Enough to support him for a year? Please. Stop drinking the infinite good TechDirt Kool-aid and think for a change.

    And the next argument will be: well then, maybe if they can't make a living doing it then they shouldn't be writting and just get a "real" job.

    Which just forced another writer to stop writing full time, didn't it? Which pretty much screwed up that whole "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries," thing, now didn't it?

    I, for one, do not want my favorite authors greeting me as I walk into Walmart. I do not want them sitting in bookstores pleading for a handout. I do not want them going door-to-door looking for patrons and grants.

    I want them to do what they do best. Write.

    We have an admittedly imperfect system that generates hundreds of thousands of books each and every year, all on spec. I can buy any of them for a fraction of what it cost to produce them.

    And I have yet to hear of any other "solution" that guarantees the same results.

  • On the post: F. Scott Fitzgerald Made $8,397 On Great Gatsby; His Daughter Gets $500,000 Per Year From It

    iSights ( profile ), 30 Oct, 2009 @ 12:58am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Shocking

    "...then the author knows they can charge the next publisher more money for this second book. I could go on..."

    Don't. Your lack of knowledge of publishing, copyright, and the impact of what you're suggesting is frightening.

    So the publisher pays a lot more for the second book? So the publisher then has a lot more money to recoup, yes? So he has to print a lot more books to do so.

    But if the book is instantly in the public domain, Knock-Off Books can immediately print it's own copies, distribute them, and charge, say, a $1 for them, since unlike Original Books they didn't pay the author a dime.

    Same cover, same binding, same text. Cheaper price. Which one is the public going to buy? Which one will Walmart stock?

    What publisher is going to take the risk of actually paying an author, knowing that they're going to be stuck with the bill? In your scenario, he who pays first loses.

  • On the post: F. Scott Fitzgerald Made $8,397 On Great Gatsby; His Daughter Gets $500,000 Per Year From It

    iSights ( profile ), 30 Oct, 2009 @ 12:48am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Shocking

    "So during this time that the author is working on the project where does his money, food, housing come from, thin air?"

    Ah, what part of the term "investment" do you not understand? I've said time and again that a write invests his time AND his money creating a work.

    "You speak about reward, but its a matter of just compensation for their time..."

    It's a matter of compensation for his time, his money, and the risk. He could, after all, have spent that time and money doing something else. It's also a matter of compensation for the value of his creation.

    I suspect that we've inadvertently stumbled on your real problem: The phrase "just compensation" says it all.

    You apparently think authors are like plumbers, one pretty much the other, each cranking out the same words on some word-processing assembly line, and that they should be compensated as such. Number of hours worked times $10 per hour equals his "just" compensation.

    It appears to stick in your craw that someone can take a risk and be handsomely rewarded for doing so. That someone can be more creative than you, and be handsomely rewarded for that fact.

    And that society values their contributions more than your own. It's not fair, is it? No, not fair at all.

    (The fact that many also take the same exact risk and gain nothing from it also seems to elude you. Such is the nature of risk/reward.)

  • On the post: F. Scott Fitzgerald Made $8,397 On Great Gatsby; His Daughter Gets $500,000 Per Year From It

    iSights ( profile ), 30 Oct, 2009 @ 12:13am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Shocking

    "...just because they spent years writing a book doesn't mean they deserve to get paid for 1, 5,10, 20, 70 years for the same story..."

    Why? I'm all for shorter terms, but why? They took the risk in exchange for an entirely potential reward. You did not.

    Besides, what about, say, ebooks? The next thing. In your example the publisher buys the book and then... what? Every copy is free? How many "ebooks" can he publish/sell before it's free? Five? Ten? How about a million?

    Or until he recoups his investment? Okay... but the publisher made an investment in paying for something that may or may not sell. He took a risk. So how much "profit" is he allowed to make? How many failed risks is he allowed to cover?

    Or, I know, how about specifying some period of time during which it can be sold, after which it's "free"?

  • On the post: F. Scott Fitzgerald Made $8,397 On Great Gatsby; His Daughter Gets $500,000 Per Year From It

    iSights ( profile ), 30 Oct, 2009 @ 12:03am

    Re: Re: Re: genus and creativity need to have unique rewards

    You hit the nail on the head there. Too many people in this country feel that, because they EXIST they are entitled to other people's WORK.

    Thus they demand that all movies, books, music, software, games, and anything and everything else they can think of be given to them for free.

    They're "entitled" to it.

  • On the post: F. Scott Fitzgerald Made $8,397 On Great Gatsby; His Daughter Gets $500,000 Per Year From It

    iSights ( profile ), 29 Oct, 2009 @ 11:56pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Shocking

    "Royalties should not come into the equation at all."

    Says you. I say they should. An author is making an up-front investment writing something that may not be rewarded at all. He's betting his time and money on the fact that it will.

    It's risk/reward formula, in that those who take risks deserve to be rewarded if (note the if), if the market feels that their work has value. Entrepreneurs do it all the time.

    If he does a great job and makes a great product, he's rewarded for it. If he makes a crappy product he's not. Simple.

    If an inventor starts a business making whatsits, and the market falls in love with his whatsits and he sells millions of them, then he is well rewarded for his invention, yes?

    Why should not a great author have the same benefit?

  • On the post: F. Scott Fitzgerald Made $8,397 On Great Gatsby; His Daughter Gets $500,000 Per Year From It

    iSights ( profile ), 29 Oct, 2009 @ 11:45pm

    Re: Entitlement

    He's making an up-front investment on writing something that may or may not pan out or be rewarded at all. He's betting his time and money on the fact that it will.

    It's risk/reward formula, in that those who take risks deserve to be rewarded if (note the if), if the market feels that their work has value. Entrepreneurs do it all the time.

    You, on the other hand, may have a nine to five job that pays a nice salary and has good benefits. He has no salary and no benefits. Your risk is negliable, and your chance of a significant reward likewise.

    Further, society rewards writing a great book more than, say, a plumber fixing a faucet or some guy at McDonalds asking if you'd like fries with that.

    Only a very, very few people can do the former, practically anyone can do the later.

    And as I said above, I can't understand the attitude of "entitlement" either. Why do some people think they're somehow automatically entitled to the work of others, free of charge?

  • On the post: F. Scott Fitzgerald Made $8,397 On Great Gatsby; His Daughter Gets $500,000 Per Year From It

    iSights ( profile ), 29 Oct, 2009 @ 11:29pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Shocking

    You're also assuming that one received an advance. Fewer and fewer authors do these days...

  • On the post: F. Scott Fitzgerald Made $8,397 On Great Gatsby; His Daughter Gets $500,000 Per Year From It

    iSights ( profile ), 29 Oct, 2009 @ 11:27pm

    Re: Re: Re: Shocking

    "Your type of argument falls into the category of 'entitlement society', once content creators and their representatives move away from this type of thinking everyone wins."

    You mean, everyone except those who actually create the work? The ones that spent years writing books and novels and plays and stories? Those people?

    I've said it before and I'll say it again, from my perspective, you're the one advocating the "entitlement society", in that you're the one stating that you're somehow entitled to someone else's work, free of charge.

    I will say, however, that we'd be better off limiting the period to, say, the same 17-year period given patents, after which rights revert to the commons.

    But I'm not for completely throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

  • On the post: F. Scott Fitzgerald Made $8,397 On Great Gatsby; His Daughter Gets $500,000 Per Year From It

    iSights ( profile ), 29 Oct, 2009 @ 11:19pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Shocking

    An advance is just that, an advance. Until it's repaid you get no royalties whatsoever.

  • On the post: F. Scott Fitzgerald Made $8,397 On Great Gatsby; His Daughter Gets $500,000 Per Year From It

    iSights ( profile ), 29 Oct, 2009 @ 11:16pm

    Re: Re: Re: Shocking

    First, read my comment above on "one hit wonders".

    Second, don't put words in my mouth.

    Third, are you an idiot? As I also mention above, authors make a risky, up front investment in time and money to produce work "on spec". We, as readers, then get to evaluate the results (reviews, friends, dust jackets, previous work) and decide if the potential entertainment value is worth a few bucks. If so, we buy it.

    Then, AND ONLY THEN, is their effort rewarded.

    If it's trash, then no one buys it. If it's bad, only a few buy it, and the author is upside down on his investment. If it's short-lived, then people stop buying it over time and the royalties also diminish over time.

    If it's great, then people buy it and keep on buying it. The author is rewarded for making the investment in time and money and, as do most, start in on the next book in the series.

    It's ENTIRELY demand and merit based, as only the "valuable, good output" is rewarded with sufficient sales, and we, as readers and consumers, only pay an insiginifcant fraction of the "development" costs.

  • On the post: F. Scott Fitzgerald Made $8,397 On Great Gatsby; His Daughter Gets $500,000 Per Year From It

    iSights ( profile ), 29 Oct, 2009 @ 11:04pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Shocking

    What monopoly? You mean, like a Stephen King book only being available from Stephen King?

  • On the post: F. Scott Fitzgerald Made $8,397 On Great Gatsby; His Daughter Gets $500,000 Per Year From It

    iSights ( profile ), 29 Oct, 2009 @ 04:27pm

    Re: Re: Re: Shocking

    Arguing by analogy proves... well, nothing, actually.

    And that one was particulary bad.

    Artists and authors need to put food on the table, pay rent and pay for insurance and clothing and cars and gas like anyone else.

    Even the plumber who gets paid per job actually gets PAID per job. No one suggests that he give his work away, and then do his next job for free, and then do his next job for free, and so on, all because he "loves" plumbing, and to make ends meet he should take a job at Walmart.

    Authors make a risky, up front investment in time and money to produce work "on spec". it takes months, or even years to produce such work. We, as readers, then get to evaluate the results (reviews, friends, dust jackets, previous work) and decide if the potential entertainment value is worth a few bucks. If so, we buy it.

    If enough of us do so, he makes some money, and in all probability uses it to write another book. If not, maybe he goes to work for Walmart after all.

    You are not "forced" to pay him for his work. On the other hand, you're not automatically entitled to it either. Value is and should be given for value received.

    He makes a major investment in time and money, and you pay an almost insignificant fraction of that amount to enjoy the result.

    And your problem with that is?

  • On the post: F. Scott Fitzgerald Made $8,397 On Great Gatsby; His Daughter Gets $500,000 Per Year From It

    iSights ( profile ), 29 Oct, 2009 @ 02:53pm

    Re: Shocking

    "Instead -- like most jobs -- he recognizes he needs to keep producing new works to earn money..."

    This horse is often trottled out of the barn durning these discussions, and to my mind it's simply made of straw. Did Edison just create one invention, and then rest on his laurels? Did King or Clancey or Heinlein just write one bestselling novel and call it quits? Did Spielberg just direct one blockbuster?

    Heck, even bands labeled as "one hit wonders" aren't in that category on purpose. Most at least tried to come up with another song or hit in order to build on their earlier success, but simply failed to capture the public's fancy.

    I suspect that if you look at almost any inventor, author, director, or musician, you'll find that the "hit" upon whose larels they're supposedly resting was neither their first attempt, nor their last.

    One should also note that that in order to produce new work one still needs to be able to live off the proceeds of the existing work.

  • On the post: As Expected, Mandelson To Introduce Plan To Kick File Sharers Off The Internet

    iSights ( profile ), 28 Oct, 2009 @ 12:06pm

    Music, music, music...

    "In fact, continuing this war on music fans is only going to make people less interested in buying."

    People download more than just music, you know. And music at least has a performance model, unlike, say, books or software.

  • On the post: UK Law Enforcement Tells UK Gov't: Please Don't Kick File Sharers Offline

    iSights ( profile ), 27 Oct, 2009 @ 03:20pm

    Re: Re: let's use the UK as a test...

    That will last how long? You have dozen's of ISPs to choose from?

    How about simply not stealing in the first place?

  • On the post: UK Law Enforcement Tells UK Gov't: Please Don't Kick File Sharers Offline

    iSights ( profile ), 27 Oct, 2009 @ 03:17pm

    Re: Uh..?

    Right. They pretty much admit that the UK government. the police, and various intelligence agenices are "monitoring" the internet...

    ...and Techdirt's take is all about the poor, poor file sharers who might get kicked off the web?

    What about the "due process and civil rights" in regard to the monitoring itself?

  • On the post: France Agrees To Kick File Sharers Off The Internet Again; Lobbyists Call It 'Consumer Relief'

    iSights ( profile ), 22 Oct, 2009 @ 09:43pm

    Re: Re:

    "How is it a cheap shot ... and anyone who is even close to intellectually honest has to admit that."

    Talk about cheap shots.

    That's what? The "No True Scotsman" fallacy?

  • On the post: Trying To Explain The Economics Of Abundance In Two Minutes Or Less With A Whiteboard

    iSights ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2009 @ 05:46pm

    It took two whole minutes? Huh. Try:

    It's easy to copy stuff, so everyone will, so one should totally ignore creation costs and instead try to sell t-shirts to people who only want to rip off the content...

    That didn't even take two minutes to write. (grin)

  • On the post: Michael Dell Recognizes Blocking What Customers Want To Protect Your Own Biz Model Is Dumb

    iSights ( profile ), 15 Oct, 2009 @ 10:33pm

    Servers

    "Clark asked Dell about the fact that, through virtualization, many companies end up buying fewer servers, and less hardware in general."

    Once company I worked with did exactly that. However, they ended up buying several high-end dual quad-core high-availabilty servers with a boatload of RAM on which to run the virtual images, as opposed to buying a dozen or more low-end commodity pizza boxes.

    I suspect that margins on the high-end severs were perhaps just "slightly" better...

Next >>