But accusing either of them of "masquerading" as author advocacy groups is sloppy thinking and sloppy language; tarring all of these organizations with accusations of perfidy is wrong.
Authors United is indeed masquerading as an author advocacy group. They represent a minority of status quo authors, refuse to engage in any sort of debate or defense of their position, and utilize the media to push an agenda that will most definitely hurt authors--themselves included.
As for the Authors Guild, we could argue about the merits of getting into bed with the enemy that controls you, and trying to change things through appeasement rather than conflict, but then don't call yourself a guild for authors. On the AG website is a lengthy pronouncement on how they protect free speech and a defend the "digital arena" from censorship, when they just wrote to Congress in an effort to resurrect a ridiculous offshoot of SOPA.
Might I suggest they call themselves the Vichy Guild?
As for the AAR, I just blogged about how they went against their own Canon of Ethics.
At what point do actions become perfidy, Ted?
Much more accurate and useful is to highlight the areas where these organizations' long-standing missions have developed potential tensions and conflicts in the new world made more readily possible by digital publishing.
If you take a hundred school tests without cheating, but cheat on ten of them, you aren't allowed to call yourself honest. You're a cheater. How is is accurate and useful to focus on those ninety where no cheating occurred? We're supposed to reward someone for being honest? We're supposed to praise the Authors Guild for doing a few of the things it's supposed to be doing?
Digital publishing, which you mentioned, is not the only issue the Authors Guild is struggling with. Forever-term contracts have been around for decades. So have non-compete clauses. Where were they on this thirty years ago? Only now they start blogging about it, without doing anything substantive on issues that have plagued writers for my entire lifetime?
The reason that writers will get less is only because there is more competition, IOW, because there are more people writing more books.
Writers won't get less.
In eight years of selling print books, I made about $300,000.
Self-pubbing ebooks, I made that much in the last few months.
Ebooks aren't zero sum. I price mine at $2.99 or less. The is no competition.
Kindle and Nook owners don't think, "I'll buy Konrath or someone else." When prices are this low, they buy both. It's been shown, time and again, ereader owners buy more than they did in print.
There may be a glutted marketplace in the future, making new authors hard to find among the millions of books. But anyone with a Twitter account, a Facebook page, and half a brain should be able to find a niche audience. And a niche audience on a world-wide scale will easily sustain a writer.
I'm currently having my ebooks translated into German. More languages will come, and I'll continue to make 70% royalties.
Never before have artists had the opportunity to make so much money, without having to kowtow to or split profits with gatekeepers.
Very few writers could actually quit their day jobs and make a living with legacy contracts. I've got hundreds of peers who are trad published, but only a few handfuls can make a go at it full time.
Self-pubbing ebooks will allow more writers to make more money. The very tip-top of the dogpile may make less, but I have a hard time weeping for NYT bestsellers. They were given the keys to the kingdom, and now the kingdom is crumbling.
But anyone making less than $500k a year should be able to do better going solo.
BestNetTech has not posted any stories submitted by haknort.
But accusing either of them of "masquerading" as author advocacy groups is sloppy thinking and sloppy language; tarring all of these organizations with accusations of perfidy is wrong.
Authors United is indeed masquerading as an author advocacy group. They represent a minority of status quo authors, refuse to engage in any sort of debate or defense of their position, and utilize the media to push an agenda that will most definitely hurt authors--themselves included.
As for the Authors Guild, we could argue about the merits of getting into bed with the enemy that controls you, and trying to change things through appeasement rather than conflict, but then don't call yourself a guild for authors. On the AG website is a lengthy pronouncement on how they protect free speech and a defend the "digital arena" from censorship, when they just wrote to Congress in an effort to resurrect a ridiculous offshoot of SOPA.
Might I suggest they call themselves the Vichy Guild?
As for the AAR, I just blogged about how they went against their own Canon of Ethics.
At what point do actions become perfidy, Ted?
Much more accurate and useful is to highlight the areas where these organizations' long-standing missions have developed potential tensions and conflicts in the new world made more readily possible by digital publishing.
If you take a hundred school tests without cheating, but cheat on ten of them, you aren't allowed to call yourself honest. You're a cheater. How is is accurate and useful to focus on those ninety where no cheating occurred? We're supposed to reward someone for being honest? We're supposed to praise the Authors Guild for doing a few of the things it's supposed to be doing?
Digital publishing, which you mentioned, is not the only issue the Authors Guild is struggling with. Forever-term contracts have been around for decades. So have non-compete clauses. Where were they on this thirty years ago? Only now they start blogging about it, without doing anything substantive on issues that have plagued writers for my entire lifetime?
The reason that writers will get less is only because there is more competition, IOW, because there are more people writing more books.
Writers won't get less.
In eight years of selling print books, I made about $300,000.
Self-pubbing ebooks, I made that much in the last few months.
Ebooks aren't zero sum. I price mine at $2.99 or less. The is no competition.
Kindle and Nook owners don't think, "I'll buy Konrath or someone else." When prices are this low, they buy both. It's been shown, time and again, ereader owners buy more than they did in print.
There may be a glutted marketplace in the future, making new authors hard to find among the millions of books. But anyone with a Twitter account, a Facebook page, and half a brain should be able to find a niche audience. And a niche audience on a world-wide scale will easily sustain a writer.
I'm currently having my ebooks translated into German. More languages will come, and I'll continue to make 70% royalties.
Never before have artists had the opportunity to make so much money, without having to kowtow to or split profits with gatekeepers.
There is nothing, nada, that says that once e-books become common that there will be a paying market for them.
Let's tweak that for another media.
There is nothing, nada, that says that once mp3s become common that there will be a paying market for them.
Oops. Doesn't work. iTunes sells more music than Wal-Mart.
Let's try again.
There is nothing, nada, that says that once streaming video becomes common that there will be a paying market for them.
Oops. That doesn't work either. Netflix? Hula? Amazon?
Ebooks ARE common. They outsell print. And even though I'm widely pirated, I'm still making a crapload of money.
So there is plenty of evidence, both historical and personal, to justify a paying market for ebooks.
So I have to wonder where this fear comes from?
Stockholm Syndrome. Or ignorance.
Very few writers could actually quit their day jobs and make a living with legacy contracts. I've got hundreds of peers who are trad published, but only a few handfuls can make a go at it full time.
Self-pubbing ebooks will allow more writers to make more money. The very tip-top of the dogpile may make less, but I have a hard time weeping for NYT bestsellers. They were given the keys to the kingdom, and now the kingdom is crumbling.
But anyone making less than $500k a year should be able to do better going solo.