[HN Gopher] Kickstarting a book to end enshittification, because...
___________________________________________________________________
Kickstarting a book to end enshittification, because Amazon will
not carry it
Author : CharlesW
Score : 208 points
Date : 2023-08-02 17:34 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (pluralistic.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (pluralistic.net)
| omgmajk wrote:
| Doctorow always has interesting stuff to read, I've been looking
| at most of his work for years now. The physical book will now be
| delivered to me when the Kickstarter ends as that's my preferred
| way of reading.
|
| I kinda don't get audiobooks myself, I find it hard to
| concentrate on the book and often have to pause and go back and
| re-listen because I zoned out.
|
| I guess this is semi-offtopic but I like Doctorow and he can have
| a slice of my money.
| ghaff wrote:
| Audiobooks are basically for the (mainstream, ie not hard of
| hearing) case of having a long driving commute or otherwise
| spending a lot of time in a car. Doesn't really work well for
| books with a lot of detail or figures.
| [deleted]
| taeric wrote:
| I have a hard time getting behind some of these criticisms of
| audible and the like.
|
| Its annoying, as I am against most DRM schemes out there. But to
| pretend those came from "big tech" is laughable, at best. A
| ridiculously large portion of "tech" is perfectly fine with
| sending copies everywhere. Is literally how many of us get our
| operating system. Music files and shareware copying were huge
| before the internet. Mod files and other demoscene music sharing
| was a ton of fun.
|
| Specifically to audible, to complain about their margins without
| acknowledging that they have built a large part of the market
| feels dishonest. I remember audio books before audible. Usually
| ~50 bucks for book. As such, I owned maybe 1. So, congrats, the
| folks on them could get more of a percent of far far fewer
| purchases. Getting things for lower cost is exactly why I get
| more of them. Such that artists have gotten more from me, even
| with the lower margin to them, from audible than they ever got
| before. Wanting the same large cut of a smaller sell is
| entitlement on both ends.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| Audible reportedly only pays 25% to authors, bumping it up to
| 40% if they agree to exclusivity on Audible.
|
| Which of course a lot of authors do because they need the
| money, and then no other audiobook marketplace can compete.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| The flip-side of this is that any author that doesn't agree
| to exclusivity is just leaving money on the table, because
| audiobook buyers will not touch alternative platforms unless
| it's their only option.
|
| This isn't because Audible is head-and-shoulders above the
| competition either. They aren't. They just won the game of
| Monopoly[0].
|
| [0] Someone should turn on house rules. Or - oooh maybe we
| could play the unused co-op mode
| taeric wrote:
| I am curious why you don't think they aren't better than
| the alternatives? Are they amazing and beyond improvement?
| Of course not. But most of the alternatives are crap.
|
| This is basically the same as the sad affair of enterprise
| software. The vast majority of that industry is actively
| bad. Not just not good, but actively bad.
| mtlynch wrote:
| > _I am curious why you don 't think they aren't better
| than the alternatives? Are they amazing and beyond
| improvement? Of course not. But most of the alternatives
| are crap._
|
| Do you think the quality of the alternatives might be
| related to the fact that Amazon/Audible is strangling all
| competitors out of existence with their exclusivity
| agreements?
|
| Imagine if an audiobook competitor popped up that's a 10x
| better experience for customers and authors. They'd
| starve out of existence without major VC backing because
| even though they're better, they can't bring the sales
| volume that Audible can, so customers choose the worse
| experience on Audible with the exclusivity agreement
| because the total earnings are higher.
|
| Long-term, that's a worse ecosystem for everyone _except_
| for Audible.
| taeric wrote:
| No. I think the quality of the alternatives is largely
| because it is expensive to make the publishing houses
| happy with licensing fees to be able to offer their work.
|
| This isn't even that controversial of a take. Netflix
| doesn't offer a ton of the things I used to be able to
| get in DVD from them, because the publishing houses have
| very high demands on licensing fees.
| taeric wrote:
| Right, but that was my point on the numbers. As a customer
| that has several hundred audio books due to Audible, yes, I
| know that the authors get a smaller cut of the sell than they
| do if I buy the audio book in a store. But their larger cut
| of my store purchases is effectively 0. Audible has grown the
| market to numbers that were basically pipe dreams of the
| past. To ignore that in the calculation is really dishonest.
|
| I don't know if they are the best numbers, but
| https://wordsrated.com/audiobook-sales-statistics/ has some
| break downs. The digital market has clearly seen a shift in
| the last couple of decades. And it seems safe to say that it
| has driven a lot of the growth in publishing and other
| related metrics.
|
| My assertion is that publishers used to give higher cuts to
| the authors because they didn't care about such a small
| portion of their sales. More, their long term investments in
| printing made it such that they couldn't scale out audio
| books nearly as effectively, so they had no incentive to
| build out that market.
|
| Even dumber in this debate, the fact that Audible puts their
| files in DRM is almost certainly at the demands of the
| publishers. You can click through most publishers to see they
| still want to charge 25+ for audio books that you can get for
| 1 "credit" on Audible. Credits being about 11 bucks, and I
| get why publishers would want to keep those files restricted
| to try and discourage people from using Audible.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| My problem isn't just with the royalty rates, it's making
| the default rate so low and using it as leverage to push
| authors into exclusivity contracts.
|
| Imagine if Apple started telling companies "You have to pay
| us a 60% cut, unless you agree to not have an Android app
| in which case we'll do 30% instead."
|
| You could argue that Apple is entitled to make that
| arrangement because they essentially created the mobile app
| software market, but I have a hard time imagining that
| people would be OK with it.
| taeric wrote:
| But is your worry for the authors, for other platforms,
| or for customers?
|
| I'm very sympathetic to all of these concerns, at large.
| However, as things are done, many authors will make the
| most money by agreeing to this contract, and customers
| get the cheapest option there. The only people actually
| getting hurt, right now, are the other platforms. To
| paint this in any other way is not at all honest. And
| that is the part that is annoying me.
|
| There is also a moral hazard "they will switch some day"
| argument to be made, i suppose. But I don't like hinging
| current practices on future hypotheticals. Making a
| choice today should be possible with the understanding
| that you can make a different choice in the future.
| thfuran wrote:
| >But is your worry for the authors, for other platforms,
| or for customers?
|
| Yes. Shitty practices from a market player with
| significant monopoly power are bad for all of them.
| taeric wrote:
| So you can show that authors are getting less money in
| this environment? And, despite me being able to trivially
| show that I paid less per book than any offered
| alternative on the table, with the exception of the
| library, you claim I'm getting a raw deal now? We can
| even add in performers and others doing the recording to
| this question.
|
| Obviously, I only have the numbers on what I paid out. If
| you actually have the others, I'm game to hear what those
| numbers are. And no, you can't just say, "they would have
| gotten a larger cut in the other marketplaces," as I am
| literally asserting that Audible is the largest
| marketplace because they grew it. A smaller cut of the
| much larger marketplace is the point. (And in real terms,
| the cut is smaller for Audible, too.)
|
| It is funny looking at the benefit of libraries to
| customers, as guess who is also trying to kill library's
| ability to loan out audio books? (They already have to do
| some silly license purchase shenanigans.)
|
| Again, if you are worried that they will "turn bad in the
| future," realize that I can change my mind in the future
| and agree they are bad. Right now, most evidence is that
| they are instrumental in growing the market.
| thfuran wrote:
| >And no, you can't just say, "they would have gotten a
| larger cut in the other marketplaces," as I am literally
| asserting that Audible is the largest marketplace because
| they grew it
|
| Ma Bell was the largest telecom because they grew the
| industry. That doesn't mean their actions once they had
| monopoly power in a large market were particularly
| beneficial to anyone but themselves.
|
| >Again, if you are worried that they will "turn bad in
| the future,"
|
| No, they already did. Their actions now are bad.
| Exclusivity deals are bad. Their enormous cut is bad.
| taeric wrote:
| So you can't show that customers pay more, or that
| authors and performers get less? Got it.
|
| Appeals to "Ma Bell" are basically my point? If it is
| shown that they are using their advantages in audio books
| to compete in other markets, or that they are causing
| active harm to customers/creators, then I will be far
| more sympathetic to the whining of rich creators.
|
| It is frustrating, as I mostly agree with the idea that
| exclusive deals are bad. But this is a very nuanced take
| where they aren't forcing you to be exclusive, unless
| they literally funded and produced it. (See Sandman on
| Audible. I'd expect that to be exclusive for at least a
| time?) If you can show coercion that they are forcing
| people into this deal, and not honestly saying "if you
| agree to this, you will sell about the same total amount,
| and get more of the cut," I will be more than willing to
| change my mind on that.
| cmeacham98 wrote:
| Bias disclaimer: AWS is my current employer
|
| The meaningful difference between these two examples is
| that Apple is a gatekeeper to the iOS market.
|
| Anybody can spin up a website hosting .mp3s like Audible
| does. Nobody can publish an app to the iOS App Store
| without going through Apple (and Apple doesn't allow
| alternative app stores or sideloading for consumers).
| pixelatedindex wrote:
| I actually think Audible is pretty good. I would feel better
| about buying from them if it wasn't fully owned by Amazon. Are
| there any good alternatives out there?
| cobbzilla wrote:
| try librivox.org, decent public domain coverage.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| Speechify is trying, though the catalog isn't nearly as wide
|
| https://speechify.com/audiobooks/
| UtopiaPunk wrote:
| libro.fm is an option for buying books. You can purchase a
| subscription or buy individual books. Some of the money goes
| to support local bookstores, so that's kind of neat. They're
| also not Amazon, so that's kind of neat, too.
|
| I'm a big fan of the Libby app, which you can acccess through
| your local library. If your library subscribes to the service
| (and it's likely they do if you live in the USA), then you
| just need to log in with your library card.
| https://libbyapp.com
|
| There's also LibriVox, which is mostly a volunteer project.
| As its volunteers, the quality of the reading can vary
| widely, but you can sometimes find audio versions of older
| literature here that can't be found anywhere else. It's also
| free.
|
| https://librivox.org/
| TylerE wrote:
| Just because a library subscribes to libby doesn't mean you
| nessesarily get it. My local system does, but they went for
| cheapest plan that only includes children's books.
| entropicdrifter wrote:
| libro.fm is the website I use for audiobooks. The library is
| signficantly smaller but it's 100% DRM free, you can support
| a local bookstore with your purchases [1], and they have a
| subscription that gives you credits you can spend on
| audiobooks, very similar to Audible.
|
| [1] https://libro.fm/indies
| howardabrams wrote:
| Gutenberg has some. Perhaps I need to help by reading the
| classics out loud... into a microphone... and uploading them.
| layer8 wrote:
| I use https://audiobookstore.com/.
| CharlesW wrote:
| > _But to pretend those came from "big tech" is laughable, at
| best._
|
| I'm curious about how old you are. Tech's obsession with DRM
| (then called "copy protection") started in 19751, and IIRC as
| of the late 70s/early 80s basically all software of note had
| DRM.
|
| 1 https://archive.is/b8rK9
| taeric wrote:
| I'm old enough to remember it has almost always been
| publishers pushing drm.
|
| And yes, I remember serial port keys that tried to lock cad
| software. Some were keyed to physical sectors on hard drives.
| TylerE wrote:
| Anyone who works with music software, to this day, deals
| with the pain of physical hardware keys. A few of the
| software players are moving from that to cloud based drm...
| which is at least less annoying since it doesn't tie up a
| previous USB port.
|
| It's called iLok.
| omgmajk wrote:
| >Anyone who works with music software, to this day, deals
| with the pain of physical hardware keys.
|
| And anyone who works in the automotive industry, sadly.
| bitwize wrote:
| Creators as well. Talk to anyone who works in a creative
| field that isn't programming. They _want_ DRM. They love
| it. And the reason why is simple: DRM works. It does the
| job. It doesn 't stop all piracy, but it greatly attenuates
| it allowing the creators to make a buck. I remember
| discussing this with a writing group in the 90s, when the
| first e-readers came out. They vastly preferred the DRM-
| encumbered platforms because they could make money with
| lower risk of piracy.
|
| And this is why DRM will never go away. Take DRM away, and
| creators will just stop releasing things digitally.
| Programmers in general need to learn to suck it up when it
| comes to things like this. Without DRM, pirates win,
| creators lose, legitimate audiences lose.
| msla wrote:
| Non-shortened link:
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/18/business/technology-a-
| tal...
| mikewarot wrote:
| We tech people are only obsessed with routing around DRM...
| it's _management that is obsessed with DRM_.
| maxbond wrote:
| It is vitally important not to conflate _technologists_
| with _the tech industry_ and not to confuse a criticism of
| the industry as a criticism of ourselves personally.
| lesuorac wrote:
| Work at a place that made expensive physical objects.
| Customers calling in because they could use the objects
| because they plugged the hardware key into a different
| machine was all the time ...
|
| Like the hardware had to be wired to the computer running
| the software. An extra hardware key that needs to be
| plugged into the computer as well doesn't do anything!
| Muromec wrote:
| That's why the "big" qualifier is important.
| slowmovintarget wrote:
| How about Brandon Sanderson's criticism of Audible? [1]
|
| > If you want details, the current industry standard for a
| digital product is to pay the creator 70% on a sale. It's what
| Steam pays your average creator for a game sale, it's what
| Amazon pays on ebooks, it's what Apple pays for apps
| downloaded. (And they're getting heat for taking as much as
| they are. Rightly so.)
|
| > Audible pays 40%. Almost half. For a frame of reference, most
| brick-and-mortar stores take around 50% on a retail product.
| Audible pays indie authors less than a bookstore does, when a
| bookstore has storefronts, sales staff, and warehousing to deal
| with.
|
| > I knew things were bad, which is why I wanted to explore
| other options with the Kickstarter. But I didn't know HOW bad.
| Indeed, if indie authors don't agree to be exclusive to
| Audible, they get dropped from 40% to a measly 25%. Buying an
| audiobook through Audible instead of from another site
| literally costs the author money.
|
| What's worse is if the audio book goes into their subscription
| service, the author gets paid an even smaller fraction, as it
| is 25% or 40% of the _fractional time on the subscription fee._
|
| Amazon built the system to dominate the market, then used the
| dominant position to bully creators into a teeny tiny fraction
| of the profits Amazon makes on the work.
|
| [1] https://www.brandonsanderson.com/state-of-the-
| sanderson-2022...
| asdfman123 wrote:
| > A ridiculously large portion of "tech" is perfectly fine with
| sending copies everywhere
|
| Not the part that controls the market share.
| artichokeheart wrote:
| Did you actually read the article linked? There was no mention
| of margins. I question the motives of your comment. It reads
| like big tech bootlicking.
| taeric wrote:
| I read it. I confess I'm largely remembering previous
| articles that loved highlighting the amount of margin that
| Audible demands.
|
| For the DRM complaint, I'm mostly sympathetic, but I have a
| really hard time believing it is not at the insistence of the
| publishing companies. They literally force library lending to
| go through similar DRM schemes. And it is largely in their
| interests to make sure you can't purchase the cheaper Audible
| version of a book and take it out of their ecosystem.
|
| That last point is ultimately my main gripe here. Audible has
| incentives for you to buy more from them. Which they largely
| pursue not by locking your current purchases to them, but by
| offering better prices and funding better books. To try and
| "stick it to the man" by bitching about DRM schemes is a hell
| of a non-sequitur that smacks more of virtue signalling than
| it does actual concerns.
| belorn wrote:
| What other previous articles?
|
| As for the last point, that one is not about Audible, so...
| what are we even discussing here? The article last
| argument, which is after discussing DRM and monopolies
| where users are captured into a locked market, is that
| google and apple has a 30% tax. They don't go into any
| depth over why a general 30% tax in a third-party market is
| bad in a duopoly situation, presumably because they don't
| feel it is necessary.
| taeric wrote:
| I've seen complaints on Audible for a few years, at this
| point? Surprised if this is news to you. Though, I also
| wouldn't be too shocked if folks skip past audio book
| news that don't listen to audio books.
|
| What do you mean the point wasn't on Audible, btw? The
| article is literally about how he is proud he isn't
| putting his book with Audible because of DRM? This is
| painted as if it is a choice of Amazon's, but it is hard
| not to read this as a choice of the Doctorow's. Perhaps
| you thought I was referencing someone else's last point?
| I meant that as a reference to my last point in the
| previous paragraph.
| incongruity wrote:
| I find it really hard to deny that platform lock-in is a
| powerful anti-competitive and anti-consumer force - I think
| you're off base in denying its impacts and the merits of
| addressing it.
| taeric wrote:
| I largely agree with this take. But I also largely feel
| I'm being asked to support, who, exactly?
|
| Note that we aren't pushing for removing the DRM. This is
| largely about someone wanting you to buy from another
| place. I can almost believe the DRM angle, but publishing
| houses have shown they are the far larger driver of that
| than Audible is. This is why libraries have to have a
| special license to loan out audio books. They are largely
| looking to force that in ebooks, even.
| aedocw wrote:
| Depending on what you are looking for from an audio book, there
| are options. If you expect essentially a professionally made
| radio production of the book (multiple voice actors, effects,
| etc) then a real audio book is hard to beat.
|
| On the other hand if you just want to listen to the book being
| read, check out https://github.com/aedocw/epub2tts ... It does
| not sound as good as a pro human, but it's not far off in my
| opinion. I've used that to listen to 30+ books that I owned the
| digital version of.
| taeric wrote:
| I actually have a few narrators that I prefer now. I think
| they get less of a cut than the authors do, but are still
| doing quite well for themselves, now.
| TylerE wrote:
| I'm just glad we're past the point of 80% of fiction being
| narrated by Scott Brick, the most boring and monotone
| narrator ever.
| I_am_tiberius wrote:
| I find it awesome that Cory writes you personally when you pay
| for the book.
| diatribist wrote:
| How would he manage to do that for thousands of people?
| xhkkffbf wrote:
| Maybe his sales aren't so big?
|
| He's constantly giving away his books. One theory is that he
| makes much more from "consulting" and political work around
| Silicon Valley. So the books are just loss leaders.
| I_am_tiberius wrote:
| More reason to support his work.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| I am not sure what they're referring to with that post. The
| kickstarter sells a personalized signed copy of this boom at
| about twice the price.
| squarefoot wrote:
| A better link: https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/31/seize-the-
| means-of-comput...
|
| Unfortunately BoingBoing has slowly become enshittified itself;
| they also deleted my account for no reason while I was
| hospitalized for nearly 2 months, then when I came back home
| noticed that the ad-rticles where they sell overpriced low
| quality products (seriously, get better suppliers!) don't permit
| user comments anymore, presumably because some inevitably pointed
| to better and cheaper products. I recall thinking "ok, they went
| the IMDB way". IMDB once had a very active user comments
| sections, but when fake movie ratings, mostly by shills, became a
| thing, users started to expose them in comments, so what was IMDB
| response? Remove user comments, naturally.
| brookst wrote:
| BoingBoing is the worst of the worst enshittification. All of
| the problems that the theory predicts, _plus_ a sanctimonious
| tone like they 're somehow above all that.
|
| They've become the annoying religious proselytizers who show up
| unsolicited, and are drunk to boot.
| flir wrote:
| A few years back they were one of the big voices sounding the
| alarm about electronic voting. Now, according to them, that's
| an alt-right conspiracy theory.
|
| Not gonna lie, that annoyed me.
| bitwize wrote:
| Electronic voting was a problem when George W. Bush was
| winning elections.
|
| After Trump lost, electronic voting was no longer a
| problem.
|
| It's kinda like how socialm edia was savior of the world
| during the Arab Spring when a communist Egypt seemed like a
| possibility. Then Trump and Brexit happened, and social
| media became a danger to democracy.
| kam wrote:
| They stopped sounding the alarm because they largely won
| that battle: The previous electronic voting machines
| everyone objected to had no paper trail and there was no
| way to verify that they were trustworthy. Modern electronic
| voting systems count paper ballots, and a recount can
| verify them by hand.
| leashless wrote:
| Perhaps this Boing Boing situation is part of what inspired
| Doctorow to the enshittification insight!
| inhumantsar wrote:
| Except he was one of the key people behind it until a
| couple of years ago
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| Presumably he left for a reason.
| dang wrote:
| Ok, we changed to that from
| https://boingboing.net/2023/08/02/cory-doctorows-new-book-
| on.... Thanks!
| SideburnsOfDoom wrote:
| And you'll find some of it as audio read by the author on his
| podcast.
|
| On various feeds:
|
| https://archive.org/details/Cory_Doctorow_Podcast_447
|
| https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-internet-con-how-t...
|
| https://www.podchaser.com/podcasts/podcast-cory-doctorows-cr...
|
| https://play.pocketcasts.com/podcasts/88849f30-39ce-012e-11b...
| golemotron wrote:
| It's like Richard Stallman passed his baton to Cory.
| [deleted]
| CharlesW wrote:
| Only Cory seems 1,000 more pragmatic. And although he's often a
| hypocrite1 and I'll roll my eyes very hard every time I read
| the word "enshittification", I admire that his goal was to
| create a "shovel-ready" book with actionable advice and look
| forward to reading it.
|
| 1 https://imgur.com/a/TAltXUf
| hgomersall wrote:
| A paywall is not DRM.
| danem wrote:
| How is it meaningfully different? Both exist to ensure that
| each person consuming the media has paid for it. Sure, in
| practice pay-walled articles can be easily copied to non-
| drmed formats, but no one does this and the motivation is
| the same.
| maxbond wrote:
| Additionally, it's not really paywalled at all, it's just
| crossposted to a paywalled platform (presumably for the
| convenience of people who prefer Medium, for reasons I
| can't fathom but to each their own):
|
| https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/31/seize-the-means-of-
| comput...
| msla wrote:
| There's a difference between DRM and selling your stuff.
|
| There's a difference between DRM and using copyright law to
| the fullest.
|
| Thinking the line is between loading your stuff with user-
| hostile malware and giving it away is precisely the kind of
| thing the user-hostile malware camp would want people to
| believe: "We have to spy on users and destroy their machines
| because the alternative is not compensating artists! We stand
| with SAG-AFTRA so install Denuvo on every system you own!"
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| > and I'll roll my eyes very hard every time I read the word
| "enshittification"
|
| Why? It seems like a good description that accurately
| describes the behavior and is reasonably obvious on first
| reading.
| Jiro wrote:
| It's a horrible name. It obviously implies that something
| is being made shitty, but it fails to say what or how.
| "Enshittification" could just as easily mean "the process
| by which your computer fan gets clogged with dust" or "the
| process by which rice loses vitamins when you cook it too
| much". It's like calling it "bad stuff" except with more
| profanity.
| Daishiman wrote:
| As a web user of 26 years, it describes precisely what
| happens.
| Mindwipe wrote:
| The ineffective gobshite who makes more money from the cult of
| believers than actually coming up with any workable
| alternatives baton?
| mark_l_watson wrote:
| I bought donated for this book yesterday - I am looking forward
| to getting the book.
|
| My comment yesterday on Mastodon:
|
| @pluralistic I just listened to the 8 minute audio teaser, signed
| up for libro.fm, and joined your kickstarter. I feel like I am
| trapped in Apple's walled garden, but I am at least looking for a
| window to open!
| warkdarrior wrote:
| Looking forward to download the book from LibGen.
| freedomben wrote:
| Care to explain why you want to steal from the author? Has he
| offended you with his high level of consideration and respect?
| jt2190 wrote:
| > [I]t's a Big Tech disassembly manual that explains how to
| disenshittify the web and bring back the old good internet.
|
| As someone who also loves to "surf" the web and who misses the
| good old days, I do wonder if it's really in humanity's best
| interests to have everyone starting at screens all day. There was
| a time before the web when we thought computers would do all the
| grunt work, but the last few decades seem like we humans are
| still needed to push buttons, Copy/Paste, etc. for _everything_.
| stblack wrote:
| Related to this, Cory Doctorow's appearance on Future Tense
| podcast (Australia) is truly excellent.
|
| After being introduced, he goes on an 8-minute disquisition. We
| should all aspire to rap tech like Cory Doctorow can.
|
| https://pca.st/yr3hd7f9
| diatribist wrote:
| The issue with most folks selling books about how to avoid the
| excesses of DRM and other exploitative practices is that most
| people are happy to pay a premium for the convenience of having
| a digital library managed by Amazon, Google, Facebook, &etc.
|
| Big tech companies must pay the bills for their servers in one
| way or another and charging people money to keep the data in
| their digital vaults is a tradeoff most consumers and producers
| are more than happy with. Consider the alternative to this. It
| would require every creative to manage their own payment
| gateway and digital delivery infrastructure and they would more
| than likely end up either even or in the negative as far as
| their own profits were concerned.
|
| Maybe Doctorow has a big enough audience to manage his own
| digital delivery infrastructure but most authors I'm certain
| don't have the same luxury.
| blueridge wrote:
| Thanks for posting this, great episode.
| sundarurfriend wrote:
| The kickstarter page is much more informative than this article:
| https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/doctorow/the-internet-c...
| CharlesW wrote:
| That video is well worth the 3m watch, thank you!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-08-02 23:00 UTC)