Tweet
I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned this yet, but it's a good thing that we have something better to do than watch television.
It seems to me that their issue is closely related to those in the music industry. They want more money because their work is being used for more things. Isn't that like song writers, composers, and artists wanting more money because not only are they selling physical records, but there are many "soft" methods of distribution.
I can see the argument that more people are enjoying their work, so they should get paid proportional to every listener. But are the writers or composers really doing any more work to get wider distribution or additional mileage out of their work? Is the same work any more valuable because it can be distributed in a different form than originally intended?
If sales (hard, accountable cash) volume is greater, then I believe that the creator is intitled to a share. But these folks seem to want to be paid more money up front based on other potential use. Is that fair?
I'm actually starting to think about this myself. I'm not a songwriter, but I write articles for magazines now and then, and more magazines are starting to take advantage of the Internet to extend both their readership and content. Pro Audio Review's entire issues are now available on like for those with the patience to read them that way, yet I don't get paid any more for my articles than when they were a print-only publication. That doesn't bother me because I submit the same thing I always did. The publisher has additional expernses in putting the magazine on line, so if there's any money to be made from that, I feel that since it's his risk, he's entitled to the profits.
But other magazines are using the Internet in a different way. Rather than simply putting the print article on line, they're using their web site to provide supplemental information. When I write one of those articles, I have to do more work than if I was just writing for print - I may need to prepare some sound clips, make a drawing, take screen shots or photos, and write more text, what amounts to sidebars that don't rate paper and ink.
I also have to edit my work more severely because they always want fewer words in the print version than they used to, since they can supplement it with an on-line supplement. It's almost like I have to write two articles, or one main article and a few supplemental articles, and edit them as such. Goodness knows! We wouldn't want to make the MAGAZINE EDITORS do more work to organize their supplemental publication, would we? Yet I haven't been offered any more money for the "new media" format.
It's fun, it's just supplemental income for me, and I'm not planning to go on strike any time soon. But it makes me think harder about how, and for what, writers are paid and should be paid.
It seems to me that their issue is closely related to those in the music industry. They want more money because their work is being used for more things. Isn't that like song writers, composers, and artists wanting more money because not only are they selling physical records, but there are many "soft" methods of distribution.
I can see the argument that more people are enjoying their work, so they should get paid proportional to every listener. But are the writers or composers really doing any more work to get wider distribution or additional mileage out of their work? Is the same work any more valuable because it can be distributed in a different form than originally intended?
If sales (hard, accountable cash) volume is greater, then I believe that the creator is intitled to a share. But these folks seem to want to be paid more money up front based on other potential use. Is that fair?
I'm actually starting to think about this myself. I'm not a songwriter, but I write articles for magazines now and then, and more magazines are starting to take advantage of the Internet to extend both their readership and content. Pro Audio Review's entire issues are now available on like for those with the patience to read them that way, yet I don't get paid any more for my articles than when they were a print-only publication. That doesn't bother me because I submit the same thing I always did. The publisher has additional expernses in putting the magazine on line, so if there's any money to be made from that, I feel that since it's his risk, he's entitled to the profits.
But other magazines are using the Internet in a different way. Rather than simply putting the print article on line, they're using their web site to provide supplemental information. When I write one of those articles, I have to do more work than if I was just writing for print - I may need to prepare some sound clips, make a drawing, take screen shots or photos, and write more text, what amounts to sidebars that don't rate paper and ink.
I also have to edit my work more severely because they always want fewer words in the print version than they used to, since they can supplement it with an on-line supplement. It's almost like I have to write two articles, or one main article and a few supplemental articles, and edit them as such. Goodness knows! We wouldn't want to make the MAGAZINE EDITORS do more work to organize their supplemental publication, would we? Yet I haven't been offered any more money for the "new media" format.
It's fun, it's just supplemental income for me, and I'm not planning to go on strike any time soon. But it makes me think harder about how, and for what, writers are paid and should be paid.
Comment