![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
The Google book search settlement is raising yet another fuss over digital distribution, so I've been thinking about it recently. Base assumption: our goal as a society is to encourage quality creative production, but the exact method is irrelevant. I think everyone is focusing on the wrong things. What follows applies to just about everything, but books serve as a convenient example. Let's break it down vaguely in order of controversy...
Production/Distribution: It is, of course, blatantly obvious at this point that distributing data in a non-corporeal digital form beats the pants off everything that came before. It's many orders of magnitude faster and just about infinitely cheaper. Anyone can do it. Everyone can now publish whatever they want to a global audience. No one can claim with a straight face that we need large corporate structures in order to achieve this goal.
Content screening: One of the unsung advantages to the old system was that it provided implicit quality control. Because publishing a physical book was so expensive, publishers wanted to get their investment back. If something was published, it had a fair chance of being decent. Maybe not your cup of tea, but not absolute crap, either. You were protected from the horrors of the slushpile. One concern with the new model is that, omg, how will we ever sort through the tsunami of material available? (Students of Chinese history will recognize this concern -- and the dangers that come from centralized "solutions" to it.) Well, it turns out this isn't really a problem either. We've developed lots of methods for ranking and recommending material. And more importantly, it matters less when these systems fail. If you're not paying for something, you're only out whatever time it took you to realize it was crap before putting it down. How often do you watch the first 10 seconds of a youtube video before going eh and closing the tab? The problem is solved by the same thing that caused it -- massive reduction in costs and even more massive amateur parallelization.
Content creation: This is where discussions start to get all emotional and pear-shaped. The simple truth is, I see no evidence that monetary rewards drive creation. (Except when the production tools are expensive, which was never the case for writing and is true less and less for just about everything else.) How many authors ever make a living at it? And even those that did, how did they manage to write before they were famous enough to make a living at it? The whole argument is ridiculous. It's even more crazy when you look at the unpaid material being posted constantly online. People like to create! (And that's a really good thing. I'd much rather live in a world where we didn't need to bribe people to be cool.) They also like to be famous, which I will argue was always the real external motivator. So, even though I'm going to be accused of wanting authors to starve to death alone in the snow, there just isn't a problem at this step. Things will still get written.
Editing: Finally, at this obscure step in the process, we run into problem. Going from a manuscript to a final book takes editing. (Also typesetting and cover design and other such things, depending on the final target medium. The same arguments apply.) Real effort, doing something boring and tedious and decidedly unsexy. Writing is sexy -- everyone wants to be an author. There are people who want to be copy-editors, but not usually in the do-it-for-free-cause-it's-fun kind of way. No one ever gets famous for being a copy-editor. Despite all the popular hysteria around the previous steps, this is where the new system grinds to a halt.
In the end, the question I'm very interested in right now is how to incentivize this kind of labor. If you're concerned with quality books coming out after the publishing houses finally go bankrupt, this is what needs to be fixed. There is no guarantee that there is a solution, of course. The old model is permanently broken, though. In the long run, selling data is for chumps. It's time to get over that and start making sure the new world order will be as awesome as possible.
(What, you were expecting answers? Solutions? No, just trying to clarify the issues. Sorry.)
Production/Distribution: It is, of course, blatantly obvious at this point that distributing data in a non-corporeal digital form beats the pants off everything that came before. It's many orders of magnitude faster and just about infinitely cheaper. Anyone can do it. Everyone can now publish whatever they want to a global audience. No one can claim with a straight face that we need large corporate structures in order to achieve this goal.
Content screening: One of the unsung advantages to the old system was that it provided implicit quality control. Because publishing a physical book was so expensive, publishers wanted to get their investment back. If something was published, it had a fair chance of being decent. Maybe not your cup of tea, but not absolute crap, either. You were protected from the horrors of the slushpile. One concern with the new model is that, omg, how will we ever sort through the tsunami of material available? (Students of Chinese history will recognize this concern -- and the dangers that come from centralized "solutions" to it.) Well, it turns out this isn't really a problem either. We've developed lots of methods for ranking and recommending material. And more importantly, it matters less when these systems fail. If you're not paying for something, you're only out whatever time it took you to realize it was crap before putting it down. How often do you watch the first 10 seconds of a youtube video before going eh and closing the tab? The problem is solved by the same thing that caused it -- massive reduction in costs and even more massive amateur parallelization.
Content creation: This is where discussions start to get all emotional and pear-shaped. The simple truth is, I see no evidence that monetary rewards drive creation. (Except when the production tools are expensive, which was never the case for writing and is true less and less for just about everything else.) How many authors ever make a living at it? And even those that did, how did they manage to write before they were famous enough to make a living at it? The whole argument is ridiculous. It's even more crazy when you look at the unpaid material being posted constantly online. People like to create! (And that's a really good thing. I'd much rather live in a world where we didn't need to bribe people to be cool.) They also like to be famous, which I will argue was always the real external motivator. So, even though I'm going to be accused of wanting authors to starve to death alone in the snow, there just isn't a problem at this step. Things will still get written.
Editing: Finally, at this obscure step in the process, we run into problem. Going from a manuscript to a final book takes editing. (Also typesetting and cover design and other such things, depending on the final target medium. The same arguments apply.) Real effort, doing something boring and tedious and decidedly unsexy. Writing is sexy -- everyone wants to be an author. There are people who want to be copy-editors, but not usually in the do-it-for-free-cause-it's-fun kind of way. No one ever gets famous for being a copy-editor. Despite all the popular hysteria around the previous steps, this is where the new system grinds to a halt.
In the end, the question I'm very interested in right now is how to incentivize this kind of labor. If you're concerned with quality books coming out after the publishing houses finally go bankrupt, this is what needs to be fixed. There is no guarantee that there is a solution, of course. The old model is permanently broken, though. In the long run, selling data is for chumps. It's time to get over that and start making sure the new world order will be as awesome as possible.
(What, you were expecting answers? Solutions? No, just trying to clarify the issues. Sorry.)
no subject
Technical writing definitely falls under the big question mark. On the other hand, it's usually paid for through means other than direct sales of the work. Most companies are pretty happy to give away their manuals, after all.
I know people complain about open source documentation all the time, but I'm not absolutely convinced it's really a problem. I've never really been happy with ANY documentation or support models. It isn't a solved problem to begin with.
I guess, in the end, I really don't care about promotion either way. If all we're left with is word of mouth, that seems really very good with modern communication tools. I can't imagine a good movie coming out that I wouldn't hear about that way, for instance. In fact, that's just about the only way I do hear about them these days. I consume far more material (measured by anything other than total expenditures) because of word of mouth than any other form of advertising.
no subject
For journalism, a 1-week copyright, would mostly serve.
no subject
I've written software documentation for small-company products; I've written software (much more than documentation) and have been on teams where I've been a developer helping technical writers writing documentation, all on the closed-source side of the fence. I'm intimately familiar with both process and results, and I can assure you that in my nontrivial experience, the situation is much worse in open source applications than closed-source. Much worse.
This does not imply the closed-source money-driven environment is perfect. Far from it. But it is, in applications, much better.
The server side isn't so bad for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being that there's enough market out there that somebody like O'Reilly can step in and churn out a series of books, for which they charge money and make a profit. But again: you have to deal with paying the producers of this content.
I guess, in the end, I really don't care about promotion either way. If all we're left with is word of mouth, that seems really very good with modern communication tools.
Yeah, but promotion and marketing won't go away and people will find ways to make it more effective and I'm pretty sure someone's going to come up with a pay model for that. If most artists are left entirely without that kind of specialised assistance, you end up with the double-talent requirement I mention above. Do you only want creative output produced by people who are really good at marketing?
Essentially what I'm saying is whether you care about it personally or not, this is a reality that will affect this outcome in pretty significant ways, and you need to consider it in this kind of model-making.
I can't imagine a good movie coming out that I wouldn't hear about that way, for instance. In fact, that's just about the only way I do hear about them these days.
Yes, but learn, chant, remember: not everyone is like you. Or me, for that matter; we're similar in this. But by contrast, 50% of Americans still get all of their news from broadcast network television, just for example. (Glenn Greenwald, citing market data, several months ago I don't remember exactly when.) And a majority make purchasing decisions based on advertising, for better or for worse. Hell, in some contexts, you get majorities outright saying they enjoy advertising.
So if you care about a larger audience, this is relevant. The geek community - which more generally works the way you describe, in my experience - can only support so many people so well, after all. (I suspect geekdom, being a subculture, overestimates its percentage size of population - and its economic weight, in this case - pretty routinely. It would be interesting to attempt a population vs. perceived population survey sometime.) So you really can't just think about your own pond here.
no subject
You're right that not everyone is like me. Implicit in my argument is the assumption that more will BECOME like me over time, at least in their media consumption habits. Very arrogant, but so is predicting the future in the first place.
no subject