On Money, Or, Pay The Writer
Let’s talk, you and me. Let’s talk about money.
I like money. It makes it possible for me to feed my children and my book habit. I work damn hard every day for the money I get. Right now I’m on a jag of seven-day workweeks getting stuff done. I’m glad to have the work. I’m glad to have earned the work by being a professional.
But there’s something I’m having trouble with this morning. It’s the assorted silly and ugly responses to Roy Blount’s (president of the Author’s Guild) op-ed piece in the New York Times–the one where he says quite reasonably, “But people who want to keep on doing creative things for a living must be duly vigilant about any new means of transmitting their work.”
He’s talking about the Kindle 2’s voice capability. And in the blogsphere this morning I’ve come across many responses, most disagreeing with him for various specious reasons. These responses are mostly people who do not make their living from writing. This issue is bound up, with me, with the issue of DRM and piracy and a lot of others.
There is this persistent baseline assumption hanging around that artists don’t deserve to get paid because what they provide is a luxury. (It’s very Puritan of us.) This unconscious line of thinking says, “Why should artists bitch if I want to get their work for free? There’s lots of people willing to work for free–the Internet is awash with free fiction, free art, free free free and all for me!”
Yeah, and as Harlan Ellison obliquely noted in his famous rant, you get what you effing pay for. And there are a lot of people wanting writers to work for nothing.
I am cranky this morning, so I can boil my response down to two words. F!ck that.
I am not saying that everyone who calls themselves an artist deserves a mansion. Far from. Traditional publishing provides a popular product because of quality control. The gatekeepers and wickets an author has to go through to get traditionally published are just that: quality control, because a publisher is laying out cold hard cash to produce the books on paper. (This ties in with that huge post on epublishing I’m still planning.) Good e-presses have quality control as well, and guess what? Their books cost more because of that quality control. People pay more for professionally-produced audiobooks and music because of quality control. There are people selling podcasts–not just handing them out for free–and that money goes toward quality control–better tech to capture the voice, better stories, more in-depth reporting, etc., etc. (Publicity podcasts for free are a different animal. Don’t use them as a red herring.)
Blount’s point here is that authors deserve to get paid when there is a new means of transmitting their work. Those rights need to be guarded. Not just because we have to eat like the rest of you–but because YOU want quality fiction. Don’t you?
We could be nice and sweet and let our work get taken for free, a chunk at a time. And starve to death. Then, no more quality fiction.
Don’t tell me that the wave of the future is all free stuff. (To begin with, the Internet is not ubiquitous yet. It just feels that way to anyone in it.) Look, I can produce a better product when I take more care with it. That’s just the way it is. When I am properly paid for the care I take–when it’s possible (even if hard work) for me to feed my kids on what I make from writing–I don’t have to spend eight to ten hours at the office then come home and scrape up energy to write. I can spend those eight hours writing. (And then usually another three or four writing too, but that’s another blog post.)
But the unspoken assumption in a lot of people saying that the Author’s Guild is greedy, or that DRM didn’t work for the music industry so it won’t work for publishing, or throwing any number of red herrings up to say professional writers shouldn’t get paid for their work–which is essentially what I’m seeing all over the place–is that writers do not DESERVE fair pay for their effort, because what they produce isn’t important.
If it isn’t important, why should we produce it at all? Do you really want to wake up one day and have nothing but shoddy fanfic[1] for free on the internet in the place of books, quality ebooks, and quality fiction? Yes, you and I know it’s not going to happen. People love their books and music too much.
But do not expect those of us who write or play–those of us who produce these things you enjoy–to act as if it’s happened, or to live on air. We are not effing epiphytes. Don’t expect us to roll over and play dead when there’s a new means of transmitting our work and there’s a question of rights to it. Naturally a lot of people want shit for free. That’s human nature. It’s also human nature to say, “I spent a lot of time and effort on this shit, pay me before you use it.” That’s what an economy IS, tension between those two points.
The trouble is the persistent assumption that artists don’t deserve to be paid at all. That basic assumption is all bound up in the myth of the suffering artist–that you have to be a self-destructive, penniless, alcoholic jerk to create Great Arte that will sell for millions after you die in a garret. Screw that. I want to be a well-rounded decent human being and use my life doing the things I love, creating what I believe I was meant to create and making a reasonable living from it.
Slight side note here: Don’t even start with the “Well, everyone wants to do that–and nobody would do the sh!t jobs if we all had the means to be Artists and Do What We Love.” This is not true. This profession, like any other, depends on professionalism and hard work. There are a lot of Speshul Snowflakes who expect to be paid for essentially producing nothing, which is NOT what I’m talking about here. I’m talking about the writer who consistently produces sellable product, and gets through those quality control checks publishing has evolved. The proportion of “writers” willing to work hard enough to eventually make it is small. The means to do what you love comes with hard work and discipline. This is universal. So don’t say I’m advocating that every Speshul Snowflake get a stipend. Because I’m not.
I’ve achieved a certain small amount of success doing the thing I love, and of COURSE I’m going to want to continue to be paid for the work and effort I put into it. Sure, tomorrow sales could tank and the world could decide I’m a bad writer (I already know I’m not a writer for everyone) and I may have to go back to flipping burgers, fixing plumbing, delivering pizza, doing insurance analysis, something.
But that is going to be because you, dear Reader, don’t want me anymore. I don’t want it to be because you want me, but I can’t make a living because some asshole decides he has a god-given right to steal and torrent my work, or because Amazon decides I don’t get a slice of those (insert rights here) rights just because THEY want all the money, world without end, amen. It’s natural for huge corporations to have to be forced to give up any cash at all, whether to their workers or what-have-you.
Naturally I am going to support the Author’s Guild and argue that I deserve to be paid for my work. That’s why I’ve worked so damn hard to get through those quality control wickets and be a goddamn professional.
People in our culture tend to be shocked and offended when artists want to get paid, because it strikes right at the heart of the Puritan assumption that all art is luxury and suspect, and therefore Not Worth Anything. (Except gloating over in the middle of the night.) Add in the human propensity to want things for free, and you have a cocktail of assumptions swirling around, and an overly-strong emotional response when those assumptions are challenged.
I used to think that I could argue with people over this issue and that they would eventually admit that I deserved to make a living too, if I was producing a quality product. (Yes, I know products and businesses fail all the time. But these people are asking me to fail at making a living because they don’t want to pay for something they use, not because they don’t want the item in the first place.) Now I am to the point of just shrugging my shoulders and saying, “Of course you want shit for free. That’s human nature. But don’t expect me to roll over and give it, and don’t expect me to be quiet about it when you want me to give up my rights–they’re called rights for a REASON, you know–or when you expect me to work and produce these things you want for free when I’ve got rent to pay and kids to feed and books to buy.”
I think it’s incumbent upon artists to be businesspeople too. And expecting shit for free is not how business is conducted.
I’m sure a lot of people will disagree with me, and they will talk about how I’m shortsighted and how electronic rights are meant to be free or are going to be free anyway in the future so why bother fighting now, or how the Kindle’s voice capability is just for the reader and not for the writer, and on and on. But all I keep hearing under all that is the ugly assumption that writers and artists are assholes for expecting to get paid for work that’s gone through the quality control wickets. And while it might be a widespread assumption in our still-very-Puritan culture, I don’t have a lot of patience with that dreck anymore.
Especially not today, when I woke up cranky.
Over and out.
[1] I like fanfic and think it’s great practice for beginning writers, as well as a stage each writer goes through. But the overwhelming percentage of fanfic I’ve ever seen is, well, only fanfic-quality. This isn’t a bad thing–but do you want this to be the only fiction you have access to? Do you?
Related posts:
February 25th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
some folks interpret “copyright” as their right to copy.. and it aint so.
I support an Authors right to earn a living from their works, and Artists too.
February 25th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Lili, we met briefly at Orycon; I doubt you’d remember. I so agree with you on some things and so disagree on others. I don’t have the writing time to go into it all. If there is ever a chance I could take you to lunch (we live relatively close to one another) and talk about these things, I’d love to.
(The main gist: Writers deserve to be paid. That’s why I’m an indie.)
February 25th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
I can’t agree more, but if there’s one thing I know for sure, it’s that we’ll always have members of the reading community too cheap to pay for quality work, and members of the writing community perfectly willing to put out for free in exchange for attention. While it’s too easy to note that the biggest proponents of the “information wants to be free” gibberish are those writers whose only claim to fame is giving away their work, I’ve become fond of the old joke about the difference between a Creative Commons writer and a pizza: “At least a pizza can feed a family of four.”
Now as far as reader idiocies are concerned, what I love are the twits who can get stories and articles for free, and they STILL need to steal copyrighted material. Those just blow me away.
February 25th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
The Kindle should have permission required for text-to-speech (and a better voice at that). Authors/Publishers should have the option to decline the ability for kindle books to read like that – and/or have an added fee.
I don’t think DRM works, period. Temporary ownership of something bought and paid for is stupid unless it’s a lease or rental. The Internet has screwed a lot of artists (writers, musicians, illustrators, etc) because now everyone assumes they can grab everything instantly and for free because there’s no way to track it. It has a lot to do with an unregulated internet and peoples selfish tendencies.
Initially, I didn’t care about the new text-to-speech feature because from what I heard from educators was the voice is so bad it’s not worth using it. Even if translation was better, it’s still not the same as when someone is actually reading it aloud or not. But I’ve come to realize that if this isn’t stopped now, people will continue to push and walk all over the rights of artists.
February 25th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
There have always been people who wanted something for nothing. Now it’s one thing to give a sample for free, but don’t expect the whole thing to be. Not cds or dvds or books. Everyone deserves a right to earn an income off of their work. It is stealing otherwise.
Is is also called stealing to take without paying for it. I was shocked that the new reading device was doing that. No good!
February 25th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Let me begin by stating I fully support artists rights, and payment and credit for their work.
I’ve got mixed feelings over the Kindle issue.
On the one hand, as noted above, authors have rights that include the right to sell electronic/audio versions of their written work.
On the other hand, I can see a legitimate ADA issue for blind readers, whose literary choices are severely limited by what actually gets recorded or transferred to Braille, and the text-to-voice capability in the Kindle could go a long way in correcting that. (That’s really the only pro I see on that issue.)
The third hand holds that Amazon/Kindle will be a proprietory thing/monopoly and thus a choke hold on what’s available for it.
What I do see is a restructuring of how author contracts may be written in the future to cover the problem. How that will wind up, “Future cloudy, ask again later.”
February 25th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
I fully support artists right to protect their copyrights and earnings but on the issue of whether the Kindle text-to-speech feature contravenes this I think Nelil Gaiman puts it most succinctly here – http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2009/02/quick-argument-summary.html. Whatever anyone may feel – a computer reading a book is NOT the same experience as a properly produced audio book.
February 25th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
I fully support your right to get paid, after all I buy all your books as soon as they come out, but I think Ray Blount is wrong.
The Kindle text-to speech feature is not the same as an audio book nor is it a replacement for one.
February 25th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Fully 100% agree that an author has a right to get paid – it’s their work just like any other profession. On the other hand, I think Kindle’s text-to-speech function is more about accessibility than it is audio rights. If I was blind or vision impaired than I would be on my knees thanking the Book Gods for the huge increase in available material. But since I AM (thankfully) able to read a page or a screen without needing audio, I know I would never use this function (I don’t even own a Kindle).
Some robot monotone is not going to compare to the artistry that goes into a real audio book. I just can’t imagine that greedy, thieving people would use that function more than, say, downloading a torrent (which cheats the author out of much more than the Kindle function – at least with the Kindle they have to buy the e-book copy first, right?) Real readers would much rather buy the real thing and support their favorite authors.
One thing I am very curious about is this: Just recently I was working in Adobe Reader for some reason and noticed that this program has a text-to-speech function as well. So really what is the difference between that and the Kindle? I would say mobility, but as I own a netbook that’s not too much bigger than the Kindle itself, that’s really not true. Why wasn’t this much of a fuss made when Adobe added this function? Is it just that the Kindle is more exposed in the media?
February 25th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Hi, I also support the author’s right to be paid.. That said, the read aloud function is not the same as an audiobook. In paying for the audiobook, the consumer is also paying for the production, the actor’s voice work, etc… The computer reading the book aloud is just that – a computer voice.
February 25th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Okay, two questions.
One: How does the Kindle really help vision-impaired people? If that’s the consideration here, why are those accessibility rights not in contracts like other rights are? Large print and audiobooks all have well-defined rights structures. I’m having trouble seeing the Kindle as an altruistic thing for the vision-impaired.
Two: What happens when the robot voice gets more human?
These comments saying “I support the writers being paid, BUT…” No. I’m sorry, NO. The writer needs to be paid, especially when there is a new technology for delivering their work. We need to figure out what the rights for this new delivery technology are and what percentage the writer gets. There is no “but” here.
February 25th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
The adobe reader has had the text to speech function for awhile. I’m going on the assumption that the kindle version sounds like this. The vision impaired are helped by the access to a greater variety of books. While many books have an audiobook version, many do not. A robot voice can’t get more human. It’s a robot. It just puts human words together. Only a human voice can give life to the characters. Only a human can express emotion. Again, there is a huge difference between an audiobook and this function. If anything, the use of this function seems to me to be a step down from reading the words off the page. When I read, I put emotion into the words as I’m reading them. The robotic computer voice interferes with that. I have known about this function for some time. I do not use it, and would only do so if my access to the written word was impeded for some reason (Knock on wood). Also, I seriously enjoy listening to audiobooks when going for walks or while doing housework, so I do have experience with them.
February 25th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
As I understand it, the Kindle text-to-speech feature is very much like the same feature that many Windows programs provide. I can open up a PDF file and have it “read aloud”. The thing is, these are extremely computerized voices that have no tone and often mispronounce words.
(Other writers had recommended using the text-to-speech feature in some word processors for editing. Yeah, that’s kind of impossible when, oh, “melee” gets pronounced as “mealy”, for example.)
I don’t think that this feature is at all on the scale of a professional audio book, particularly the ones with full casts.
However, it does allow an option for people that have vision problems or are actually blind to “hear” the book when there is no audio book available. There aren’t that many books in certain genres that get made into audio books, and particularly erotic work is limited.
I think most people that are likely to use the feature, would much rather hear the book read by a human being instead of a computer, also.
I think the bigger issue with audio books, even more than whether or not the Kindle (and by extension, any Windows program with text-to-speech capability) infringes copyright… is how many people just download MP3s of audio books off peer-to-peer or BitTorrent sites.
February 25th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Sorry for the delayed reply Lili but gmail is doing weird stuff again.
So let me tell you about my, short, adventure with TTS some years back.
I was using Microsoft Reader back then and the new update came in.
I downloaded and installed it and started in a recent book from Baen when, through my computer speakers ( 2.1 Cambridge Soundworks back then) came those most amazing, annoying, flat drone.
MSReader turned on its version of TTS by default and while you could turn it down you couldn’t turn it off!
It was perfectly clear, it was just unbelievably bad.
If writers had wanted to protest back then I would have been all for it. Imagine all books reduced to a sing-song of Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers.
Nowadays I use Mobipocket and M$ got wise and banished TTS as a default.
A vision impaired acquaintance told me back then that TTS was just one of those things he thought the “seeing” world inflicted on him but it was better than nothing and better then waiting around for braille books he really couldn’t afford ( He was one on the most ecstatic people you could ever imagine when mp3 audio books finally took off and the price was at least semi-affordable and were better than tape).
I basically forgot about TTS till this thing about Amazon suddenly blew-up.
I’ve heard the TTS on a Kindle 2.
It’s better then the sing-song drone it used to be but the improvement is marginal.
No one shelling out $350 for a Kindle is going to use it, except as a curiosity, if they don’t have to.
If you have the choice between listening to an audio book downloaded from iTunes or TTS on a Kindle is just no contest and there are a lot more iPod owners out there then Kindle owners.
So in answer to your question, no I doubt the vision impaired are any happier about this then you are, they want real audio books at a price they can afford.
So what’s with this thing?
What does Amazon think it’s pulling and, most importantly, does it matter ?
5 possibilities :
1. This is a mistake on par with the earlier M$ one .
2. There is about to be a technological breakthrough that will make TTS equivalent to audio books and Amazon wants in on the ground floor with rights sewn up.
3. This is a sideshow and it’s never going to be anything else.
4.Worse, this sideshow is distracting writers from necessary questions about publishing in the digital age.
5. TTS remains of very limited use for some people some time.
I go for 1 and 5 and I’ll do my best to keep a straight face about 2 (But the the flat disbelief is leaking out around the edges.).
But I’m worrying, really worrying, about 3 and 4.
I mean that sideshow comment, this is not grappling with the questions that need to be answered when digital books take off.
How are writers going to control their futures?
I definitely remember a large publishing company slipping in a paragraph in their contract that effectively stripped writers of all digital rights and gave them, in perpetuity, to the publisher. You may remember it as well ( I don’t have a link handy but I’ll bet some of your readers do. ).
The collective outrage of writers and their agents reversed it.
It was the first attempt at a “land grab” it won’t be the last and Ray Blount is going on about TTS ?
February 25th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Thanks, Pam. That was informative.
Yes, Roy Blount is speaking about TTS–because if we don’t take a critical look at the small issues we won’t have a leg to stand on when it gets to the larger digital issues. I do not view this as a distracting sideshow–I view this as an issue that will help us practice for the larger digital rights issues, a “thin end of the wedge” type of thing.
I also got a couple emails today about the Google Books settlement with the Author’s Guild. Blount and AG are not “just going on” about TTS. There are other issues they are taking definite action about.
February 25th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
I love books and I love many different authors. And I have always paid for my books, and I dont begrudge writers making a living, or getting paid for their books. however I am failing to see where the authors should automatically get paid twice for a book/ebook due to someone else inventing a new piece of technology like this or improving it and marketing it. Are the authors not getting paid for the original book that the device is then translating into a temporary sound format?, is the device actually making/copying the book or sharing it with anymore of an audience than the original bought and paid for copy is/would have been?
I am a sci fi fan and I am wondering if this type of reasoning coralates to in the future demanding an aditional surcharge if you would let a robot read aloud a traditional book in your home to you or your family? I dont know, I guess maybe I need to do some more thinking about it. I do think that as technology advances, it causes every facet of society to experience some transitional growing pains.
Marty Myers
February 25th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
When I found out that the Kindle 2 could read aloud, I actually cried in relief. My biggest regret about knowing that I would be blind was not being able to read my favorite books (including yours) right when I wanted to. With the Kindle 2, now I know that I don’t need to shell out 20-50 dollars a book in order to be able to read whatever I wanted. Yeah, some books aren’t published on Kindle. There are more books published on Kindle than in audio format, though.
I’ve heard the reading programs and they suck. No one, I don’t think, would want to listen to that over a real audio book. But it is something. And the limited selection of fiction that is out in audio format it kind of sad. I really do have limited knowledge of what resources there are out there for the blind, but I have personal experience with not being able to read anything. It sucks, but the Kindle would at least make it bearable.
I would happily pay a fee for the author and publisher to get money for my Kindle being able to read the books to me, though. I don’t want to cheat anyone out of their fair share, but I do want to still be able to read.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Of course authors deserve to be paid.
And if all professionally produced writing were to disappear, because writers don’t get paid for their work anymore, then fanfiction of variable quality wouldn’t be the only writing left, there would be nothing left. Because fanfiction writers need something to write about and that’s the creative product of a professional writer. So without professional writers fanfiction would dry up as well.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Hi Kris,
The thing about this is, Amazon could easily absorb that cost, not the consumer. It isn’t an additional fee–or it doesn’t have to be, any more than audiobooks are an “additional” fee.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
You wouldn’t be “charged twice” any more than you’re charged twice for an ebook, or twice for an audiobook.
February 26th, 2009 at 5:39 am
I think part of the issue here is that when it comes to providing something that will “help those poor, unfortunate, disabled souls” people get mushy. They think that even though it costs money to provide those services, that they should be free. I run into this all the time as i am a Sign Language Interpreter for the Deaf. People think that i should do charity work. I disagree. I have a 4-year degree to pay for, licensure, certifications, and CEU’s i must maintain to do that job. I have to have a car to get my backside there every day. And i should do this for free?! Its not like i get paid what it actually costs me to do this job. I provide a service, i should be paid for it. Writers are the same. Just because something is out there to provide access (i wont say equal, cuz TTS is NOT equal access) to the blind for books, doesnt mean it should be free.
I used to work one-on-one with a blind woman, and i know how hard it was 15 years ago to get ahold of audio books in contemporary fiction as well as braille books. I doubt it’s gotten a WHOLE LOT better since (we lived in a small, farming community).
I see where ADA access comes in, but honestly, if the publishing world wants to comply with that then they need to get off their backsides and create more audiobooks. Most of what is out there ISNT available in audio format. TTS is a joke. That’s kindof like saying “we provide headphones to listen to the movies” as equal access for a deaf person. (dont get me started on open captions in the theatres.. or complete lack thereof).
Anyways, just my two cents.
February 26th, 2009 at 6:14 am
One problem is that most of the hard work writers do is invisible to their readers and the public at large.
Most people have simply no idea how much sweat a writer puts into a book.
And most people haven’t a clue how modest the payments are for nearly all published books, nor that audio rights, translation rights etc can often be so important in helping to keep writers financially afloat.
There is more than misconception involved here, which is why it is so hard to get the message across. The public clings tightly to its legends about the writing profession: i) that writing a book is a great way to get rich quick ii) that all you need is a good idea, and the book will somehow write itself.
I also believe that some of the publicity and promotion that some sections of the publishing industry puts out – stuff about huge advances and so on – exploits this fantasy, and reinforces it.
February 26th, 2009 at 7:37 am
I just agree with you, Lili. There is no “but”, there can’t be if – as you put it – you want a leg to stand on. If you let yourself be walked over once, respect is lost in the future and any attempt to say “you can’t do that” goes out the window, because it’s worked in the past. It’s an ages-old issue that really has nothing to do with the specifics of audio books or DRM or any of that. Therefore, you have to establish and fight for boundaries from the beginning, which IS what it’s about. Shrugging off “going on about” something is an excuse to avoid addressing the UNDERLYING issues, which I believe you’ve pointed out. It’s sad how insidious this attitude is in every sphere of life.
February 26th, 2009 at 9:37 am
I suspect the main use of the TTS function for the Kindle will be commuters having their morning news read to them, or their daily blogs. Not fiction (or even non-fiction) books.
Were the TTS feature used in a public performance, additional fees would be due the writer (just as reading from a book would incur such fees). But using TTS on a book for which the writer has been paid should not be an issue (it won’t compete with audiobooks, other than in price – and there the extra costs go, not to the author, but to the narrator and production company). You wrote a novel, the consumer purchased a copy and then consumes it using the electronic hardware purchased from Amazon. One device, one copy; only the interface (eyes vs ears) changes. And has been noted, most books won’t ever get an audiobook; for those who cannot read the printed page, they have no other option (of course, for this group, they already have a clear exception under copyright law, allowing them to break DRM in order to enable TTS, if the medium in which they purchase the work has TTS disabled. A similar exception, but greyer in language, is there for those needing font size adjustments or a different display due to sight issues).
I suspect most authors will find that they are simply getting more sales due to TTS features on the Kindle – not sabotaging their audiobook sales. And with the Kindle, once the original consumer reads or listens to the book, they can’t pass it along – unlike the hard copy paper books or cassette/CD audiobooks that many purchase, which can be used by many consumers, but for which the author is only paid once (a trade-off for which the author and estate receives their current monopolistic copyrights for publication for a good number of years, something not enjoyed by authors until recent decades).
February 26th, 2009 at 10:57 am
When I write a novel and it gets sold to the publisher, my agent negotiates foreign rights, audiobook rights, etc. The rights for a new audio means of delivery of my work are no different than the audiobook rights, and they need to be negotiated. With my agent.
“Getting more sales” due to TTS features on the Kindle–if your original point in the first paragraph (commuters getting their morning news) holds, this point in the third doesn’t. And it is only a matter of time before someone cracks the Kindle and starts torrenting the TTS. It’s happened with every other kind of media.
Authors getting monopolistic copyrights is fairly recent. I do not see where this is a bad thing–it helps the author get paid enough so they can concentrate on producing more. Your tone here suggests that because this copyright is new, the author is already getting more than enough. This is not so–and writers need to be vigilant about these new means of transmitting their work, which was Blount’s point.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
(I know your recent post said you’re not talking about this anymore. Which is cool, but I need a minute to clarify some thoughts for my own benefit. Bear with me.)
I think it ultimately depends on how it’s worked out. No ‘buts’ this time, I promise. Of course an author should be paid (I’d certainly want to be) – I just think the cost of that should be included as a matter of course with e-book rights. As in, writers may need to just be paid a bigger slice of pie for e-books in general *because* the TTS function exists. Trying to separate TTS rights from e-book rights when the TTS function is right there as part of the technology is logistically difficult. It would be like trying to charge someone who loans their books to friends. How are you going to track that without following them home? Why not just take into account that it’s possible and ask for a bigger cut in the original deal?
The issue I have is it sort of sounds like, by making TTS a separate set of rights, you’re saying that maybe someone’s going to say “No, Kindle, you can’t use TTS with my book.” And the only way that’s going to be possible is DRM. And history has proven that DRM does not prevent piracy. Determined people are still going to crack DRM and reverse-engineer things and steal – because they are jerks. It’s the honest people who’ve purchased the product and then had a system crash or a hardware change that suffer.
So, in summary, DRM for e-books = BAD. Authors getting another X% in their e-book contracts because TTS is now possible = GOOD. Personally, I’m sticking with my hard copies. At least until the Kindle comes out with a “Text to Smell” function.
February 26th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
See I’m running somewhere down the middle with this.
On the one hand I can totally understand the concern that once (if ever? god I hope….) the TTS voices get decent enough to sound human someone’s going to find away to copy that audio and pirate it. That is generally how humanity works at any rate. It totally makes sense to make sure contracts and codings are done NOW to ensure thats less of an issue later.
On the other hand…I have a friend who’s been going slowly blind since she was 17 (or at least thats when it was diagnosed). In the last two years enough of her vision is finally gone to make reading a print book, even a large print book, downright impossible. She was an avid reader till her sight got so bad but I didn’t realize how much it upset her till we were discussing some books one day and she admitted to being extreamly upset at not being able to read the latest book in a series by a fav author. To which I blurted out “but they have it as an ebook!” She totally didn’t see the connection, so I sat her down at her husbands computer and I used my account at Fictionwise to download a book for her and helped her set up her screen reading software to read it. She cried. It was the first new book she’d been able to “read” in over a year. No TTS is in no way the same as a good audio book, but it DOES give the visually impaired a chance to read and explore new books that they may never otherwise have had a chance to even think were out there. True, many of the blind are like my friend, where money is an issue and chances are good something like the Kindle is competely out of their budget. But when I heard that the Kindle 2 was going to have the TTS feature I made a point of telling her husband that if he could come up with half the cost of the Kindle, I’d put up the other half. Its going to be her birthday present, and before I give it to her I’m going to load it up with as many books as I can afford. Cause its totally worth it.
February 26th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
Hi Ruth,
I don’t see where it’s in the middle. Ebooks are already cheap and reliable; audio rights for authors would not make a huge difference in their cost. The two things–accessibility and author rights–are not mutually exclusive, and I don’t think they should be presented as such.
February 27th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
I can totally agree with that….
I completely agree that the person who put hrs and hrs and hrs of work into creating a product getting appropriately paid, and if that requires renegotiating contracts to do so then do it.
I’m just not sure that it should be done in a way that restricts the accessiblity of the product. My concern is that if authors are given the option to NOT allow TTS to read their book (for fear of human nature) then many people will loose out. And lets face it, there has yet to be a security coding that someone hasn’t eventually broken. Give the hackers a challange and they’ll find a way to break the restriction eventually.
I’m not sure WHAT would be the right way to handle it. Maybe a tax or fee attached to all TTS software (or hardware, such as the Kindle, that have it as a built in option) that is handed over to some authority to dispense to authors in some form (the Authors Guild maybe?), course then you have the authors who aren’t part of the guild who ought to get something. Canada has (or at least used to) a similer type fee attached to the purchase of blank media such as CDs that goes to artists. And doesn’t radio do something similer too for the music they play?
February 28th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
Thanks, Lilith. I love your books. I love you. And I love the fact that you’re a clear, strong voice for us writers.
March 5th, 2009 at 6:33 am
[...] On Money, Or, Pay The Writer (lilithsaintcrow.com) [...]