Is the Internet Good for Writers?
Interesting quotes compiled by 10 Zen Monkeys. Good job.
There is an interesting parallel to law here. Commercial attorneys and those whose coin of the realm were intellectual property licenses and other commercial papers are getting killed by the internet, where their hard work gets posted and pasted by a multitude of companies who would prefer to pilfer something on the cheap rather than pay an attorney to draft the language. It doesn’t even matter that such language might be inapplicable or worse. And it doesn’t matter that using such language could get the thief in trouble for practicing law without a license – the pilfering continues unabated.
Regarding writing more specifically, it seems now that writing is merely the platform for something more lucrative – a means to an end, rather than an end in and of itself. Writers write books but earn better money speaking (or even more lucratively, consulting). Musicians make little from albums but earn great amounts of box office booty. Published lawyers become the safe pick for a multitude of high-paying gigs, whether public speaking, consulting, or straight practice of law.
In short, we’re entering a brave new world where intellectual property laws are routinely broken by common citizens. There is no stopping it. There are no easy answers, except by finding indirect ways to make money off of our writings.
Let’s not go overboard here Tim. I feel bad for those corporate lawyers, I really do. But let’s consider what the economic effect is of their work being “re-purposed” by small businesses.
It’s not unusual for a company founder to collect legal documents from his network and use them for several months until he’s able to afford a lawyer. This sort of swapping promotes small businesses and helps them duck a major cost. (To borrow from public policy, legal fees are a lot like a regressive tax). They generally find legal representation after a point and pay for it. In the meantime, I’d bet dimes to donuts that the corporate lawyers just pass through the imagined cost of the “content piracy” to their big corporate clients. I mean really, does it cost $400+ an hour (at the low end) to download a document from WestLaw?
*************
On the platform idea, it certainly works for some journalists. Others leverage the expertise they build in journalism into some other profession, analyst, investor, consultant, etc…
Journalism is certainly aching for a better business model. At least blogging has made us better off than before. We’re no longer wedded to a printing press and publisher. There are interesting startups here in San Francisco that are working to help people manage “premium” digital content, but I doubt their viability (at least in the text market) after the NYT dropped its paywall.
Can’t argue with you there, Alex. And as a young General Counsel for a small startup, I did my own trolling for the right language on the internet and in corporate filings rather than spin legalese from wholecloth (particularly when the legalese was better than I could have done in any reasonable length of time).
But the point I was trying to make remains valid – content providers will need to make at least some of their money indirectly to offset the losses from content saturation and intellectual property theft.
For lawyers, you seem to argue that their indirect method of securing compensation is to overcharge wealthy clients. That might be true for a handful of firms. However, while branded law firms can convince wealthy corporate clients to pay through the nose for legal advice, young corporate lawyers who miss the large firm gravy train can struggle for years to establish their careers, often while facing down six figure loans. The ubiquity of startups using legal boilerplate won’t affect the large firms in so much as it affects the young attorneys who are never given a shot to craft such language at a price much less than $400 per hour. For writers and journalists, the struggle to establish their brand while making ends meet in a free content world is a tricky proposition.