How to make a buttload of money giving away a novel you wrote for free

[eridani]

He tells you to download it and read it--he does not invite you to claim it as your own work and sell it, and he states that readers are not allowed to modify the content. The only reason I know about this is that my husband picked up a copy of the mass market paperback.

http://www.scalzi.com/agent/

Legal Notes: This work is copyrighted by John Scalzi. The novel is freely given and may be freely distributed on a non-commercial basis, in whatever electronic format you please, as long as the work remains intact and unaltered and is attributed to me, John Scalzi. All other rights are reserved by me, specifically commercial and derivative rights. If you are interested in commercial and/or derivative rights, contact me.

Mass market paperback? How did it get there from being a freebie? According to the paperback intro, he invited people who liked the book to mail him a dollar. He collected $4000 that way before it became too much of a hassle and he asked people to stop. A science fiction specialty publisher asked to publish a special hardcover limited edition of 1500 copies at $30 each, and 26 extra-limited copies leatherbound in a handmade tray for $150. 10% of profits to be donated to charity.

http://www.scalzi.com/whatever/003435.html

Scalzi's paperback intro reported that some of those $30 books are being sold on ebay for hundreds of dollars. (Note that is didn't even bother to suggest that they shouldn't be allowed to do that.) It was only then that a mass paperback publisher approached him to do a regular paperback book deal. They seem to be selling well despite the fact that to this day you can still read it for free online. In addition, the whole process has increased sales of his better known books.

And that's why I don't get this bullshit argument from another thread that downloading a freebie is plagiarism. The latter is specifically defined as setting up a separate for profit production run and selling someone else's work. Seems to me like there is steadfast bullheaded refusal to look at dozens of possible new business models that can support creators that are made possible by cheap and easy reproduction.

If I'd been one of the original online readers, I probably would not have spent $30 for a hardcover, but I definitely would have bought the paperback when it came out. (Note that he has updated a number of dated cultural references in the paperback. It is really astonishing to me that the passage of a mere five years would make that necessary.)

[Demit]

1. I do hope you meant a 'boatload' of money.

The other image is kind of nasty this early in the morning :)

[dipsydoodle]

2. Don't make a mountain

out of a moleskin. :)

[eridani]

4. You mean a Moleskine, of course. Right? n/t

[Javaman]

8. No, actual moleskin...

:rofl:

it's sort of the "silk purse out of a sow's ear" sort of thing.

:rofl:

[JohnnyRingo]

3. I've never heard the pornography industry complain about free downloads

and that seedy industry pulls in more than publishing houses and music labels combined. Actually, I don't mean that to be a factual statement, but it is a multi-billion dollar a year industry employing thousands despite offering their goods for absolutely free on the internet.

I also didn't see Kodak sue anyone to stop memory card manufacturers or bring litigation against printer companies on the grounds that patents for printed photographs are their property. They wisely adapted themselves to join the computerized revolution and are doing just fine today. On the other side of the intellectual property line, music labels tried to halt production of blank cassette tapes and later rewritable CDs to monopolize their interests. Their self adulation could have set back technology years had they been successful in court.

Only the music business and book publishers (and now the NY Times) are claiming one will forever have to buy products in their selected format at the price they choose. Music labels and book publishers both will stop publishing artists' work whenever they want, for any reason they want, and no one is allowed to make another copy despite what the artist/author wants. Forever.

Songwriter/singer Janis Ian has an alternate view of people who download her music that everyone who believes copying is stealing should read before rushing to judgement:

http://www.ru.org/janis-Ian.htm

[eridani]

5. Yep--given all the musicians in the world, there are far more of Janis Ian

--than Michael Jackson.

[JohnnyRingo]

9. Indeed.

As a matter of instance, I was at a show for one of my favorite roots rock bands several years ago. Webb Wilder took a break and settled at the merch table so I wandered back to look through the offerings.

One notable absence was his collection of CDs. He hadn't had a new release in a few, but none of his back catalog was on the table as it usually was. When I asked, he replied that the label took them out of print and he wasn't allowed to sell copies of his own music unless the label reversed their decision. This wasn't a temporary ban, the contract was forever, and I'm sure Webb would have loved knowing that someone downloaded his music and came to see him live, which was the only income he had at the time.

The big guys like McCartney and Metallica have the bones to write their own contracts now, but even they get offers they can't refuse to sign over control of their music to labels that seldom act in the artist's interest. The little guy playing his own music doesn't have a chance of being heard if he doesn't have independent funding.

Thanks now to the internet downloads and inexpensive disc printing, Indy bands have seen a recent resurgence that the big labels did their very best to quash in favor of shelf space for more Britney Spears discs.

On edit: If someone never heard of Janis Ian, she's made her point. See my further argument posted below.

[ejpoeta]

6. i think it's bs about how they are doing it for the artists. how many have taken to the internet

and finally found an audience in spite of the music industry. i think they fear their importance dwindling by now. I would gladly support the artists and don't feel sorry for the industry big wigs at all. they make millions while artists struggle. I have no problem paying for music. Or movies. But their attitude about it, as if everyone is downloading it from the internet when I would argue that number is a very small one. if they are losing money, it is because the are peddling crap. at least now I don't have to buy a whole album to get one decent song. I can buy that one song. And I think if they would have foreseen the internet thing and saw it as an opportunity, they could have had an itunes out there a long time ago. but how many artists get screwed because there was no internet when they made contracts with artists and how many artists aren't given anything from internet sales? I wonder this because I am sure the record companies would gladly pocket all the money instead of having to give any to the artists they supposedly want to protect.

[Atman]

7. The fundamental difference: Scalzi CHOSE to distribute his work this way.

The other thread has nothing to do with Scalzi's chosen business model. It has to do with illegal downloads.

Does the car thief have a defense in asserting that more people seeing the hot car on the road will increase sales for the auto maker? If the auto maker GAVE him the car and asked him to drive it around for promotional purposes then I could accept the premise. But ultimately it is the property owner's choice, not the thief's.

[JohnnyRingo]

10. Where does that line end?

Selling bootlegs and pirates of someone else's work is one thing, but copying for private use is another matter altogether. The Supreme Court defined that distention when the labels tried to halt sales of cassette tape recorders back in the '80s.

Does a person who loads up his iPod really pay for each and every one of the hundreds of files he burns to memory? Does he send a voluntary buck to the appropriate publisher for the files he shares from friends devices? This form of sharing creates an interest in little known artists leading to sales that never would be realized unless the radio stations had the song in the same endless loop they grant Lil Kim. Indeed, it was the music label greed and their payola that destroyed FM radio play lists to begin with.

It was music label money that funded law changes allowing companies like Clear Channel to claim large shares of radio markets. They did this so they wouldn't have to bribe hundreds of independent stations to get airtime for their latest cash cow. Media airtime spurs sales, not the other way around. Unfortunately.

If the labels spent half as much on promoting small name artists as they do on lawsuits, DRM software, and enforcement to protect Justin Beiber, those struggling indy artists would be rolling in money instead of a '92 Dodge minivan.

The music industry's primary interest is not music, and never has been.

[eridani]

11. It has to do with CHOOSING a business model that is in sync with modern reality

If someone takes your car, you can no longer drive around. If someone takes your song, you sitll nave it. Now, how can you harness that propensity of people to copy information so that they will give you money? Scalzi figured it out, and so should everyone else.

I really don't see how you could post this comment with a straight face after reading the other comment in this thread about A FUCKING RECORD COMPANY THAT REFUSES TO LET AN ARTIST SELL COPIES OF HIS OWN MUSIC!!!! Freebie downloads are now the guy's only chance at all to make any money from his music after his CDs went out of print.