The phrase below is worth the read:

> giving creative workers more rights without addressing their market power is like giving your bullied kid more lunch money. There isn't an amount of lunch money you can give that kid that will buy them lunch – you're just enriching the bullies

▲

skybrian 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Misleading phrases like this are why I dislike Doctorow.

Just before that he tries to sell us on the idea that there are no alternatives when actually there are. For example, you don’t have to publish a book through the Big Five. There are many large and small independent publishers, and some authors have had good luck with self-publishing.

I do think copyright law needs reform, but don’t trust Doctorow to explain it properly.

▲

wrsh07 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

And what alternatives existed for Wolf in the 80s? What value were publishers providing?

Like many industries, book publishers integrated: editing, production, marketing, and distribution. They may have also helped with licensing.

Would _Who Censored Roger Rabbit_ have been the success it was with a different publisher? These counterfactuals are hard to prove! (Look at the discussions this year around k pop demon hunters - how much credit does Netflix get for growing an objectively good film's audience? Reasonable people debate this!)

The big publishers do provide utility, but there's also an incredible asymmetry (they have trivially made many more book deals than any of their authors)

▲

echelon 2 hours ago | parent [-]

You don't need to tie yourself to distributor control if you catch fire and maintain your rights. It's never been easier to build your audience and personal brand.

VivziePop with Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss was able to do this on YouTube and then ink deals with Amazon and merch retailers (where the real money is). Her shows alone rake in over $100m and the merch significantly more.

Glitch with Murder Drones and Amazing Digital Circus did the same. And they've stolen a lot of high profile folks from Disney for Knights of Guinevere and upcoming shows.

Psychic Pebbles did it and how has an Adult Swim show. Joel Haver, lots of others...

This is basically what George Lucas was able to engineer with his 20th Century Fox deal to maintain merch rights. But it's even better for creators today.

▲

wrsh07 an hour ago | parent [-]

It feels like you're not responding to my actual point, so let me repeat my first sentence:

> And what alternatives existed for Wolf in the 80s?

▲

echelon an hour ago | parent [-]

Really? It isn't obvious?

> The big publishers do provide utility, but there's also an incredible asymmetry (they have trivially made many more book deals than any of their authors)

Literally doesn't matter in today's meta for people making music, video, or games. A substack or podcast following will do the same for authors.

It's not that this isn't hard. I'd argue it's harder to get noticed today now that everyone can make content. It's just that the power asymmetry is disappearing because you can hold onto more of your rights.

Today it's about building a brand following. If you can do that, the publishers will chase you.

It wasn't available for Wolf because nobody realized this strategy yet. A lack of Internet made it more difficult, but not impossible. George Lucas kind of got it.

Now it's glaringly obvious. Just not easy.

	▲	wrsh07 12 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> Literally doesn't matter anymore This is incredibly incorrect! The examples you've pointed to illustrate the smiling curve [1]. Publishers still have an enormous amount of leverage and power, and that is extremely important for other businesses operating in that space. Not everybody is an individual creator, and some creators prefer to work on small teams. You're describing this incredible transformation of the value chain (who provides value, who captures value) while missing the point!! > It's just that the power asymmetry is disappearing This is so fundamentally untrue. Do individuals have more power? Yes! Their BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement) is now "fine I can self publish and survive." That doesn't mean there's not a huge power asymmetry still. Without the blessing of Microsoft, Sony, Apple, valve it is hard to get my game featured. Can I still go viral? Of course! But listen to Zach Gage talk about the funding difference for making a game for Apple Arcade. It prefunds development and allows him to hire a team. As for rights negotiations, even Taylor Swift had some difficulty reclaiming ownership of her masters. The power asymmetry is alive and well. > Would you rather I delete my comment No, I want you to read more carefully and engage with the things people are actually saying and not what you think they are saying from briefly skimming what they write. [1] https://stratechery.com/concept/aggregation-theory/smiling-c...

▲

cholantesh 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why is it misleading? The fact that alternatives exist doesn't mean that they're any good .

▲

MichaelZuo 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

There are plenty of fine, even higher quality and credibility, publishers out there.

In fact even a mediocre university press likely has higher standards, in just about every conceivable quality aspect, than even the best imprints of the big 5.

	▲	Taek 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes but do the books make more money and get more distribution? Quality is not the critical factor here

▲

xhkkffbf an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

It's true that the alternatives may not be good, but if so it suggests that maybe publishing is a business that requires certain behavior.

I think the best thing that Doctorow could do is set up his own publishing business and show the big companies the right way to do it. If he's right, he'll get the best new talent and quickly succeed.

But I'm guessing he'll discover what the major companies know: the consumer is fickle, developing a new book/movie/song is expensive, and only a few hits pay for the rest.

	▲	mrguyorama 12 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Doctorow has been distributing most of his books for free for at least 20 years. That's how I read them as a kid with no money.
	▲	dehrmann an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Or set up a social content recommendation system.

▲

badlibrarian 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

His book "Why None Of My Books Are Available On Audible: And why Amazon owes me $3,218.55" captures the soul, heart, nuance (and grammar) that he repeatedly brings to these issues.

He once sat in his basement for an entire month "playing the DRM off" his record collection. Resulting in twice compressed 128k MP3s and innumerable blog posts.

▲

chimeracoder 37 minutes ago | parent [-]

> He once sat in his basement for an entire month "playing the DRM off" his record collection

What are you referring to here?

	▲	jandrese 3 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Sounds like the analog hole. You play DRM material out the audio port and at the same time capture the input of that and re-encode in a non-DRM format.
	▲	badlibrarian 4 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		He set up two computers and manually played low-res DRM-protected MP3 files out of one and into the other for weeks, documenting the process on BoingBoing. He touted this not only as freedom but "preservation."

▲

shadowgovt 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> some authors have had good luck with self-publishing

Indeed. What are the relative statistics on authors who have managed to bootstrap themselves vs. authors who make a comfortable living through the Big Five?

	▲	Asparagirl 39 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		It’s not common, but it does happen. Andy Weir, author of “The Martian” and “Project Hail Mary”, originally gave his work away for free online on his website. He only self-published to Kindle (for the lowest possible price setting, 99 cents) because some of his fans didn’t know how or didn’t want to manually install his home-rolled ePubs on their devices, and begged him for the Amazon/Kindle distribution.

▲

TitaRusell 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Artists can put their big boy pants on and negotiate better deals instead of crying about them retroactively.

▲

raldi 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is the problem with basic income if you don’t also increase the housing supply: landlords will just raise rents and soak it all up.

▲

benmanns 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It does, however, make providing housing more profitable, which, on the margins, will drive more landlords and home builders into the market, decreasing long term costs (relative to a straight 100% increase relative to the basic income). So you might send everyone $100 per month and costs go up $100 per month, until supply chains shift towards supplying lower income humans with more goods and services than they used to get, at which point costs will decrease (from the $100 increase).

With enough forewarning, suppliers could anticipate the increased demand and prepare for it.

▲

raldi 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Not if desirable places restrict zoning in a way that prevents more housing from being legal to build.

	▲	falcor84 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		A major factor in what makes places more desirable is access to jobs. In the case of full UBI, it will be easier to: stay unemployed, negotiate a remote work contract or launch a new venture from anywhere, so I expect that we'll see people spread out a lot more.
	▲	triceratops 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		No need to stay in a "desirable place" (read: place with jobs) if you have UBI.

▲

chimeracoder 35 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

> It does, however, make providing housing more profitable, which, on the margins, will drive more landlords and home builders into the market, decreasing long term costs

Landlords are, by and large, not the ones who create new housing units, and "lack of profit potential is" also generally not the main impedance to creating new housing in most locations either.

	▲	mrguyorama 4 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		>and "lack of profit potential is" also generally not the main impedance to creating new housing in most locations either. It somewhat is. Housing builders can only do so many projects per whatever cycle they run. They will optimize towards building fewer projects that are highly profitable rather than building tons of low income housing or starter homes that each have much lower profit. Builders don't want to scale up, they want to make money. Building would also be abysmal to scale up anyway, because it's somewhat skilled labor that you pay peanuts for. This is just one of the ways that wealth inequality results in market failures. People with lots and lots of wealth value each individual dollar significantly less, and are therefore willing to part with significantly more dollars per unit of service or product. That means you always get a much higher profit margin targeting stupid rich people than anything else. So everything is built around bilking these dumb but wealthy people for everything you can, and nobody builds or sells much to the poorer people. This drives prices for things up in general, and starves the market of oxygen for meeting the needs of less wealthy people. Ask any developer, big or small, who their target market is, and they will not say "poor people" and this has been true for decades, and the difference between "poor" and "not poor" has only continued to grow.

▲

scotty79 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Or you could have progressive real estate tax so you don't let the bully keep the stolen lunch money and you can give it to your kid again.

	▲	raldi an hour ago \| parent [-]
		That would be amazing, but places like California prohibit that as well.

▲

doctorpangloss 22 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

haha, you probably want to replace "their" with "[media conglomerates']"