[756] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
Sharetext?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Katy Silberger)
Thu Jul 16 13:16:02 1992
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1992 12:09:55 CDT
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu>
From: "Katy Silberger" <JWEZ%MARISTB.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list PACS-L <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu>
In-Reply-To: In reply to your message of TUE 14 JUL 1992 14:38:27 EDT
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
I am responding to the comments about "sharetext". The writer
proposes two models, both of which involve voluntary payment for
material used. I'm a true idealist. I have used PC-Write for
years and voluntarily PAID Bob Wallace several times for my
continued use of his excellent product. I've paid a fellow who
wrote a great tetris-like game called "Colors". To the extent
that I can participate in the spirit of the shareware movement I
do.
I see a real problem facing the development of "sharetext".
For the many scholarly and academically oriented documents
available via the INTERNET, a large part of the print market
of similar traditionally published documents is the Library
market. (Sorry about that sentence -- I should be preparing
this on PC-Write and the uploading into mail). I printed,
bound and cataloged a copy of "Zen", and I will buy a copy
of the print version. I would have a very hard time "buying"
a copy of "Zen" for my institution were I to want to pay
Brendan Kehoe via the sharetext concept. After painting
myself as such an idealist you may ask WHY?
Imagine this senario. I tell the business office that
I would like to send a cheque to Mr. Kehoe to compensate him
for the text. They're pragmatists -- they would want an
invoice. I come back with a page from the printed copy listing
a "suggested contribution". They tell me the auditors wouldn't
accept such a document. In short, business offices want to do
business with businesses. If hard-working authors are to be
able to make a living via electronic publishing, as a community
we need to be devising the best, fairest, least absurdly
bureaucratic system we can. We shouldn't be moaning because
Mr. Kehoe likes to eat; we should be putting our collective
intelligence and expertise together so that writers have a
viable paper-free publishing medium.
Katy Silberger
jwez@maristb
> The second entails risk for both the author and publisher. They produce
> the work and hope that it will attract enough notice to make the effort
> worthwhile. The compensation rarely reaches the level of the salaried
> or grant supported work.
>
> I think that a third model exists.
> be to provide a working model of a more complete product so that the
> user will be tempted to pay for it.
>
> Producing shareware and perhaps even sharetext is a hard way to make a
> buck. Most people who use these products - even regularly - don't pay
> for them.
