Oddly enough, at one speaking engagement they gave me a really nice paper journal, from Barnes & Noble, with a few hundred pages of blank 6×9 cream paper inside a (leather?) cover. Unfortunately, I really don’t handwrite legibly so it just sits there…

As for giving it away (your work), do they really expect you to do that? I bet if it was one of those folks giving you grief who had works being given away for free, they would probably be raising high heck about wanting to get paid somehow. Barbara does give a nice summary of the complexities. I just observe that people like Doctorow and others are already established writers. They have made their living and fortunes selling their work, so they can certainly afford to give a little sample here and there away to build readership and/or goodwill. But if you look overall, such folks still expect to be paid for their work.

Anyhow, just a thought or two. I guess you got to see, once again I am sure, the not so nice side of the Internet.

Best, and keep on blogging.

That aside, I think the question of whether creative work should be free if it’s digital (or if it should cost a fraction of an analog version) is a very hot topic these days. I’m not sure how this will all shake out, but I sure hope it isn’t with even more advertising intruding on our lives. (And honestly, I think we’re all about saturated on that score.)

Thanks for the comment. If I offer “a good opportunity to consider these topics,” maybe I shouldn’t be so aware that my post is on the long side. (“Long-winded, rambling” are characterizations I know better than to argue with…)

I’ve been wondering lately how current attitudes about copyright affect our expectations of control over our names, images, and public statements. It seems to me in Kisser’s initial post he feels he ought to have been consulted before being quoted. He is perhaps somewhat ashamed of his (very public) blog commentary, and taking his embarrassment out on the quoter is a way to feel better about himself through the social approval of commenters.

I am reminded of how most people respond the first time someone replies to their mass email with “check Snopes!” They get snarky first, and then realize how powerful their word is – that they are espousing an idea and a piece of information by forwarding it. Perhaps Kisser was faced for the first time with the unavoidable truth that blog posts are public statements attached to one’s good professional name. And, feeling dumb for not having realized it before, he reacted poorly.

But regardless of his discomfort, he and the other bloggers/commenters were unfair in their comments about you, Walt, and your book. You are a well-known name in libraries, and you write fairly and thoughtfully, aware of your own prejudices and limitations and are sure to inform your audience when you have been mistaken.

I think Barbara is right on with about “a mixed bag of expectations and a lot of moralizing about the right way to do things in a digital world.” Those who have already made a firm decision about what is right are always frustrated with those who think differently or even those who are reserving judgment (and let s/he who is without sin cast the first stone!)

Thanks for a good opportunity to consider these topics.

Well, actually, scholars do tend to get paid for books, albeit not for scholarly articles–and I would certainly make the results of any sponsored research available for free, if I had any sponsored research.

Jerry Pournelle calls the third hand the “gripping hand”–in some of his SF novels. “Anything free makes sense to them” sounds good until you need to earn a living to pay for those things that ain’t going to be free–housing, clothes, food, national security. Unless it’s only creative work that’s supposed to be done for free?

I guess it’s the moralizing given as universal truths that gets to me. As you may know, I’ve written a lot about open access, mostly supportive–and, fortunately, most knowledgeable OA advocates don’t attempt to extrapolate to such an extent.

Again, though: If someone came forward to sponsor, for example, my blog studies, at a fair rate of pay, I’d be only too delighted to make the resulting downloads free and book versions available for the cost of production. Heck, I’d be thrilled.

On the one hand, scholars tend not to get paid for their writing (except to the extent that it’s part of their job and may be funded by grants as well) so making their research reports free makes sense to them.

On the other hand, writers on the commercial side like Cory Doctorow are experimenting with free downloads to grow their readership. The biggest problem is finding readers and building a fan base in a very crowded field, so making their work free (and linkable and buzz-able) makes sense to them.

On the third hand (assuming we’re four-handed aliens) Internet user has gotten quite used to accessing texts online at no cost; making downloads free makes sense to them. Anything free makes sense to them. They’re consumers.

And on the fourth hand, librarians are used to paying for content, and often paying more for online content than for print, so charging for electronic access to information comes as no surprise.

I think we’re encountering a mixed bag of expectations and a lot of moralizing about the right way to do things in a digital world. Some of the arguments made for open access to scholarly work have been extrapolated to all work, even if the economic context in which it’s produced it is quite different.

John: Thanks. Then again, Anderson has a history of generalizing some possibly-good points beyond belief. That was true of the Long Tail; it’s not surprising that it would be true of “free everything.”

nah… it’s just stupidity, manifesting itself publicly,
like a bad smell, so we’ll step away from it quickly…

if they were to tell you that you owe them a free lunch,
you’d chuckle in their face; that’s appropriate here too.

-bowerbird