Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!zephyr!tektronix!percival!parsely!bucket!whizz!bbh From: bbh@whizz.uucp (Bud Hovell) Newsgroups: news.misc Subject: Re: In Moderation Summary: long, not very interesting stuff - hit 'n' now and take a load off :-) Message-ID: <692@whizz.uucp> Date: 8 Jul 89 20:37:38 GMT References: <8831@chinet.chi.il.us> <3300@epimass.EPI.COM> <197600001@inmet> <14403@bfmny0.UUCP> <3749@viscous.sco.COM> <24A91A67.28396@ateng.com> <3579@looking.on.ca> <1147@intercon.UUCP> <8853@chinet.chi.il.us> <485@logicon.arpa> <8863@chinet.chi.il.us> <487@logico Reply-To: bbh@whizz.UUCP (Bud Hovell) Organization: McCormick & Hovell, Inc. Lines: 87 In article <8888@chinet.chi.il.us> patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) writes: >I have been paid for my articles which have appeared in various magazines >and newspapers. I am paid for talking on the radio for half an hour twice >a week on subjects of my choice relating to Chicago history. >But I am not paid for things I write on Usenet. Why not? Is it because as Becasue they are entirely voluntary. >you say, I don't value my intellectual efforts? Or is it because Usenet is >not the place to charge for things? If you decide to publish it gratus, whether on Usenet or in any number of printed publications which do not pay their writers, then it is *you* who have set the monetary value. There is no law I know of that says you cannot give something away for which you might otherwise have found a way to be paid. Also, I think that it is not *necessarily* implied that one who is paid for *some* of his writings should necessarily be paid for anything he may write which is read by other persons. At the extreme, this would imply that your local laundry should pay you to read the list you submit to them along with your dirty linen. And a copywrite notice would only compound the absurdity. A less provocative example is the "Letter to the Editor". In all cases I know of, submitting such a letter implies a complete release of any and all rights by the person submitting it. Even if were it written by a Hemingway or a Townsend. Both in this example and on the usenet, such submission is entirely voluntary on the part of the writer - unlike *any* printed medium in which editorial judgement (decision to print or reject the article) plays a dominant role in determining whether an article gets published. (Arguably, academic journals might be cited as a singular anomoly in this regard, since they are dominantly designed for getting academics published, merit having no place in the editor's decision-making process). And even with the Letter to the Editor, the publication is not *required* to carry the offering on its pages. The usenet - purely upon your whim - *is* required to carry your work. At some considerable expense to all the people who transport it thru a marketplace to which you would otherwise have little or no access. It really ain't *free* - and others are paying the main freight, not you. Whether they read your article or not. And they don't get a vote. Perhaps one of the major difficulties in this discussion is semantic. Thru historical practice, submissions to the net have been referred to as 'articles', notwithstanding that many such 'works' are simply short responses to other 'articles' submitted by others. No one refers to office memos as 'creative works', even though many of them carry much more weight of thought than most of what appears on the net. Now the question is: is a submission to usenet more like a traditional 'article' comparable to what one would expect to read in an editorially controlled publication, or more like a 'letter' comparable to what one would find in the op-ed section? Since the decision to release the 'article' is exclusively that of the person submitting it, I have difficulty understanding how anyone could conclude that in its raw form, such a 'work', stand-alone, would have identifiable market value, since there is no editor to make such judgment. And the 'marketplace' gets no choice, since everything comes in together, (some) jewels and (much) garbage. I would not quarrel with you, Patrick, if you were to assert that you are able only to contribute jewels. But just remember that you - and *only* you make that judgement before you release your work. It would require supreme confidence to further assert that no second-opinion could possibly be valid. Notwithstanding that every author tends to believe that - right up until the time he meets with his editor. Indeed, one could argue that it is the editor who frequently contributes as much 'value-added' to a final, published article as does the author. In some cases, more. And some - a very few - authors acknowledge that fact. But they tend to earn the *dominant* portion of their income by their published writing. People who submit their work to usenet, it seems to me, are releasing their monetary interest in such work, absent a signed contract granting them specific payment. Unless one wishes to believe that an implied copyright also extends to a voluntary Letter to the Editor - and which will have the livin' shit whacked out of it by the typical editor! And *still* without compensation, apology, permission, or even a by-your-leave. And certainly with no individual copyright notice attached! Bud Hovell USENET: ...!{sun!nosun|tektronix!percival}!whizz!{bbh|postmaster|sysadmin} USPO: McCormick & Hovell, Inc., PO Box 1812, Lake Oswego, OR USA 97035 MOTD: "Vote NO!"