6 ms·

Despite the downvotes I might get, there is nothing new to see here. This is the 1 millionth article of the same ilk. We need some fresh points of view. What I

Despite the downvotes I might get, there is nothing new to see here. This is the 1 millionth article of the same ilk. We need some fresh points of view. What I've been surprised by on previous HN commenting threads on this topic is how harsh people tend to be on the content creators' side of the balance sheet. People really despise pay walls and other existing attempts for creators to make money (you want all the songs in the world for $5 and not $10, REALLY??). As a creator myself, a scientist who publishes in academic journals, I desperately want to find new ways to help me and my colleagues monetize our works (Edit: by "monetize" I mean fundraise, NOT profit). I'm pretty sure direct consumer-to-creator payments are part of the solution, but that solution isn't exactly lighting the world on fire like Napster did.

rectang 12y ago
+1. As someone who makes my living off writing open source software, I am highly aware of the challenges in finding tenable business models when distribution is free. The particular model which works for me was to become an employee of a company which uses my software. There are other possibilities, such as consulting; it's important that we continue to experiment. Like you, I see creators in other realms as my colleagues and wish them every success.
- Mandatum 12y ago
  Would touring and concerts not be considered the "consulting" aspect of music?
- boracay 12y ago
  This is kind of an old discussions. Let me say it like this: If distributions wasn't free far less of us would be (successful) creators in the first place, probably including you and me.
yzzxy 12y ago
I have yet to see any new points in the disussion of free content since reading Chris Anderson's book FREE back in 2009. The one possible exception would be the advent of Patreon and to a lesser extent Kickstarter, but these are basically just subsets of the business model patterns he described.
- untilHellbanned 12y ago
  I've created Onarbor, https://onarbor.com https://onarbor.com, which is distinct from Patreon in that people actually publish on the platform instead of just linking to Youtube, whatever. I think that's theoretical more powerful in terms of building a community on the site, but it is slow-going so far.
  - bobbles 12y ago
    Dunno if you want some feedback, but this is HN so here it is! Looking at your main page it seems disjointed. You mentioned that this lets people publish and get paid, but I'm getting mixed messages of 'fund things here' vs 'publish here and get paid!' Maybe this could be clearer? (eg. "Support content you love!" "Be rewarded for your creations!" as separate pages?)
    - untilHellbanned 12y ago
      Thanks for the feedback!!! Yeah you can publish and fund on the Onarbor site. Currently as I scientist, I have to write papers and then separately write grant applications. This is duplication of effort and a complete waste of many people's time. Onarbor's solution is to combine publishing and funding. I think the problem people have is that this is user behavior that no other site (to my knowledge) on the internet has. People like Peter Thiel say it is good to do something that nobody else is doing. But the fear I'm having is that people will never get it.
ObviousScience 12y ago
I'm ideologically against scientists profiting off their papers, because it's a poor incentive and harms us all, especially if they're already being funded by the public. I see absolutely no reason that a publicly funded scientist should expect to profit off the results or papers that come from publicly funded science. In short, you're not a creator that's free-lancing, you're a creator for hire, and the results don't belong to you - they belong to the financing body, which in that case, is the public at large. A better solution is just to funnel money in to sciences through public funding mechanisms and telling you that the papers and results - free, and readily accessible to the public - are the deliverable we expect for that money. Let me ask you this: why do you think you need to get money from the paper or results when as a scientist, you're already being paid for your work through other channels?
- untilHellbanned 12y ago
  You misinterpreted what I mean by "monetize". Of course I'm not trying to profit of my work. I meant getting money to do my research. Currently, I have to write papers and then separately write grant applications. This is duplication of effort and a complete waste of many people's time. The solution I'm working on will combine publishing and funding.
rayiner 12y ago
> As a creator myself, a scientist who publishes in academic journals, I desperately want to find new ways to help me and my colleagues monetize our works (Edit: by "monetize" I mean fundraise, NOT profit). What's wrong with profiting from science? I think a lot of people have this, to me incomprehensible, state of mind where they feel like things that don't matter much in the grand scheme of things (InstaSnapWhatsYo) are entitled to make lots of money, but it's morally objectionable to make money on things that matter (science, journalism, etc). That creates perverse social incentives: people who are brilliant but not particularly selfless have every incentive to spend their talents on things that don't matter, instead of things that do.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- jholman 12y ago
  Well, there may be people that actually think that way (that it's okay to profit from useless things, but not okay to profit from useful things), but I think there's a less-incomprehensible version, that has to do with entitlement, perceived entitlement, perceived social virtue, that sort of thing. I see two major halves to this. First: No one cares if InstaSnapWhatsYo goes bankrupt, and if they do, Jan Systrom (founder of ISWY) doesn't make a heartstrings appeal that he's entitled to make money. Live by the market, die by the market, all in the game, y'all, etc. But Lars Ulrich thinks he's _entitled_ to sell 50 million records (emphasis on "sell", as opposed to "give away"), and EMI thinks they're entitled to their cut of the same. So the claims of Ulrich and EMI earn a degree of legitimate skepticism: this thing you're saying is "fair" and "just" in return for your social contribution, we can't help but notice that it's making you very very rich. My point here is that if you're nothing but a mercenary, it's hard to knock you for being a mercenary; if you're claiming social value and also have a vested interest, then this tension gets you some sharp looks. Some of that is legitimate, some of it is just sloppy thinking. (Aside: imo, this is the same type of sloppy thinking that claims that hypocrisy is a the one true sin; if Dahmer calls Manson a bad person, Dahmer is right, hypocrite or not.) Second: Science in particular has another problem, and that is the questionable social value of each individual scientist. Read 40 randomly selected peer-reviewed journal publications, and you're going to read a lot of useless garbage. And yet the authors of the garbage are still getting paid, and they might be making above-median wages for an American (not above-median wages for an American with 10 years of education who works 60-hour weeks, but still). I'm a pretty big fan of the net output of science, and academia generally, and think that we should increase our social expenditure on science, but I can see a rational reason for people to be suspicious of requests from scientists to increase science funding. Sort of accidentally, I note that the entire preceding paragraph also applies to your other example of things that matter, journalism. Every sentence, except the "10 years of education".

rectang 12y ago

+1. As someone who makes my living off writing open source software, I am highly aware of the challenges in finding tenable business models when distribution is free. The particular model which works for me was to become an employee of a company which uses my software. There are other possibilities, such as consulting; it's important that we continue to experiment. Like you, I see creators in other realms as my colleagues and wish them every success.

Mandatum 12y ago
Would touring and concerts not be considered the "consulting" aspect of music?
boracay 12y ago
This is kind of an old discussions. Let me say it like this: If distributions wasn't free far less of us would be (successful) creators in the first place, probably including you and me.

yzzxy 12y ago

I have yet to see any new points in the disussion of free content since reading Chris Anderson's book FREE back in 2009. The one possible exception would be the advent of Patreon and to a lesser extent Kickstarter, but these are basically just subsets of the business model patterns he described.

untilHellbanned 12y ago
I've created Onarbor, https://onarbor.com https://onarbor.com, which is distinct from Patreon in that people actually publish on the platform instead of just linking to Youtube, whatever. I think that's theoretical more powerful in terms of building a community on the site, but it is slow-going so far.
- bobbles 12y ago
  Dunno if you want some feedback, but this is HN so here it is! Looking at your main page it seems disjointed. You mentioned that this lets people publish and get paid, but I'm getting mixed messages of 'fund things here' vs 'publish here and get paid!' Maybe this could be clearer? (eg. "Support content you love!" "Be rewarded for your creations!" as separate pages?)
  - untilHellbanned 12y ago
    Thanks for the feedback!!! Yeah you can publish and fund on the Onarbor site. Currently as I scientist, I have to write papers and then separately write grant applications. This is duplication of effort and a complete waste of many people's time. Onarbor's solution is to combine publishing and funding. I think the problem people have is that this is user behavior that no other site (to my knowledge) on the internet has. People like Peter Thiel say it is good to do something that nobody else is doing. But the fear I'm having is that people will never get it.

ObviousScience 12y ago

I'm ideologically against scientists profiting off their papers, because it's a poor incentive and harms us all, especially if they're already being funded by the public. I see absolutely no reason that a publicly funded scientist should expect to profit off the results or papers that come from publicly funded science. In short, you're not a creator that's free-lancing, you're a creator for hire, and the results don't belong to you - they belong to the financing body, which in that case, is the public at large. A better solution is just to funnel money in to sciences through public funding mechanisms and telling you that the papers and results - free, and readily accessible to the public - are the deliverable we expect for that money. Let me ask you this: why do you think you need to get money from the paper or results when as a scientist, you're already being paid for your work through other channels?

untilHellbanned 12y ago
You misinterpreted what I mean by "monetize". Of course I'm not trying to profit of my work. I meant getting money to do my research. Currently, I have to write papers and then separately write grant applications. This is duplication of effort and a complete waste of many people's time. The solution I'm working on will combine publishing and funding.

rayiner 12y ago

> As a creator myself, a scientist who publishes in academic journals, I desperately want to find new ways to help me and my colleagues monetize our works (Edit: by "monetize" I mean fundraise, NOT profit). What's wrong with profiting from science? I think a lot of people have this, to me incomprehensible, state of mind where they feel like things that don't matter much in the grand scheme of things (InstaSnapWhatsYo) are entitled to make lots of money, but it's morally objectionable to make money on things that matter (science, journalism, etc). That creates perverse social incentives: people who are brilliant but not particularly selfless have every incentive to spend their talents on things that don't matter, instead of things that do.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
jholman 12y ago
Well, there may be people that actually think that way (that it's okay to profit from useless things, but not okay to profit from useful things), but I think there's a less-incomprehensible version, that has to do with entitlement, perceived entitlement, perceived social virtue, that sort of thing. I see two major halves to this. First: No one cares if InstaSnapWhatsYo goes bankrupt, and if they do, Jan Systrom (founder of ISWY) doesn't make a heartstrings appeal that he's entitled to make money. Live by the market, die by the market, all in the game, y'all, etc. But Lars Ulrich thinks he's _entitled_ to sell 50 million records (emphasis on "sell", as opposed to "give away"), and EMI thinks they're entitled to their cut of the same. So the claims of Ulrich and EMI earn a degree of legitimate skepticism: this thing you're saying is "fair" and "just" in return for your social contribution, we can't help but notice that it's making you very very rich. My point here is that if you're nothing but a mercenary, it's hard to knock you for being a mercenary; if you're claiming social value and also have a vested interest, then this tension gets you some sharp looks. Some of that is legitimate, some of it is just sloppy thinking. (Aside: imo, this is the same type of sloppy thinking that claims that hypocrisy is a the one true sin; if Dahmer calls Manson a bad person, Dahmer is right, hypocrite or not.) Second: Science in particular has another problem, and that is the questionable social value of each individual scientist. Read 40 randomly selected peer-reviewed journal publications, and you're going to read a lot of useless garbage. And yet the authors of the garbage are still getting paid, and they might be making above-median wages for an American (not above-median wages for an American with 10 years of education who works 60-hour weeks, but still). I'm a pretty big fan of the net output of science, and academia generally, and think that we should increase our social expenditure on science, but I can see a rational reason for people to be suspicious of requests from scientists to increase science funding. Sort of accidentally, I note that the entire preceding paragraph also applies to your other example of things that matter, journalism. Every sentence, except the "10 years of education".