Hacker Monthly - Issue #4 - September 2010
hackermonthly.com
hackermonthly.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince#Generosity_vs._parsi...
downforeveryoneorjustme.com says it's a problem only for me, but since it keeps going back and forth without me doing anything, and every other site works perfectly, I'm not sure what I can do.
Just thought I'd let you know. If anyone else has the same problem, please say so so I won't feel so alone :)
Cheng did seek my permission for this and I was happy to give it but I was also operating under the assumption that the digital edition was free. I didn't (and wouldn't) expect to necessarily get paid for something that was given away but when it's paid for digital?
I really don't know.
In other similar publications, where the content is mainly an aggregate of other articles (such as the Joel on Software books), the authors are all paid based on per-print or a pre-negotiated flat sum for the rights.
Most magazine publishers insist that contributors are paid, because by accepting a payment the original author is binding to a de facto contract to assign rights of their work to the publishers. This avoids any confusion, such as that you are feeling now.
In your specific case, I think it is fair that the original authors are paid - as the value in this publication is not the colors or fonts or organization, but rather the content.
(you may also want to check the StackOverflow terms and conditions, because it could be that they own commercial rights to any content on the site)
Stackoverflow content is Creative Commons licensed (non-exclusively):
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Case_Studies/StackOverflow.c...
so the content could be reproduced with attribution anyway.
Interestingly though, it's not the SO version that was published. I made some corrections to an expanded version on my blog:
http://www.cforcoding.com/2009/07/plain-english-explanation-...
which obviously isn't CC-licensed.
Print version costing money makes sense. It costs money to print things and send them to people.
I think of it this way: ads on Stackoverflow pay for the site being there but any user can access the content. There is no registration or pay wall (like the evil hyphen site) so I'm happy to volunteer my time to answer people's questions. If SO were ever to construct a registration or pay wall I'd be gone in 0.13 seconds.
This feels a little similar to me. While I appreciate the work that goes into doing a magazine layout this is now a commercial enterprise in all senses, at which point you need to pay your content creators, so it feels a little bait-and-switch to me.
Or am I wrong?
For somebody else to profit, in my eyes, is no different to the splogs that I spend too much time playing wack-a-mole with. The splogs could also argue that they are making the information (my content) more easily accessible and more organized.
The hackermagazine is in a position where they could pay contributors, providing a quid-pro-quo through profit sharing. Most personal blogs make very little from advertising, so they could re-jig their model to provide a revenue source to good writers (who in-turn would have a further motivation to write good articles).
It is a bit like the old trade monthlies and quarterlies who would take the best research papers or other contributions from a particular field and wrap them up in a magazine - only they would pay their contributors.
If the publisher was not being sincere in their email, and this was a bait-n-switch, then that is a whole other matter that would require clarification from them.
That was the ideal plan. Make around $1 for each print copy sold. Sell some advertising. And hopefully I can get it thru month after month.
No, that didn't work out well (I could show you some proof of the total revenues we made from the first 3 months).
That's when I've decided to charge, for digital issue. Because it's either that, or the magazine dies somewhere down the road. I love the magazine. I love making it. I love it when readers tell me they enjoy reading it. And I wanted to keep on doing it for as long as possible.
So I've got to make that tough decision, sooner rather than later.
On the other hand, I DO plan on compensating the author, but I have to see how's the numbers performing for the first issue before making any promise.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not pissed. Nor do I really feel cheated. I am just leery and perhaps oversensitive to freely contributing to paid content, which is what my example about SO and the evil hyphen site was about.
I also take responsibility for not asking (which I didn't) nor doing more research than the cursory glance that I did. So even if I were pissed (which I'm not) it would be at least partly my fault.
So let me just say for the record, in case anyone is under a misconception from what I've written so far: you've dealt with me courteously and professionally so I certainly wish you well on this.
This is simply more about how my own philosophy in what I want to contribute to. Think of these comments as me thinking out loud (about that).
The publisher can't assume that you read and follow everything they write. The entire agreement and disclosure should have been contained in that email to you, so you have nothing to apologize for (the fact that you didn't know that there was no free issue until you saw it here on HN says that there was a flaw in the communications process).
As mentioned in the other comments, I hope the publisher can clarify and be much clearer in his emails to potential authors next time around (perhaps publishing an 'authors' page on the website with a clear FAQ - ie. if the authors can expect their own copy, etc.)
I actually held out on insta-clicking to buy a copy when I read your comment (I still am), so clarification here will help everybody.
I would assume that your costs are your time plus the incremental transaction costs charged by the middle-man. Perhaps I am missing something?
(I can't work out, in my own mind, how selling a magazine online, to this community, with a $10 cover price can not 'work out well' enough to be in the black - esp. considering the response to the first issues. Perhaps some insight is in order - as I think it might be a learning experience for all , ie. what was your conversion rate? What are your costs?
This would be an interesting HN community case study).
But if it were to ever make serious money I would assume that the people that put the magazine together would go for a revenue share model with their authors.
I knew that it was going to be a 'for pay' issue because there was a HN thread on it here but I can see how that would take you aback if you didn't realize it.
Still, it's not as if this issue is all of a sudden making the project huge money, more likely is that it will go a little bit towards reducing the start-up costs.
The main focus of Hacker Monthly is always the print edition. It is the reason I've created Hacker Monthly in first place. Because the print edition remains the same (it's actually cheaper), that's another reason I didn't mention in the email.
Still, I regret these assumptions and for that, I sincerely apologize to you. I'm sorry.
That would remove any ambiguity and provide an additional incentive for writers.
Can you tell us if you made some kind of (special) deal with them and if so what it boils down to?
Also, your link to "A Coder's Guide to Coffee" links to the wrong submission.
I ordered the print version so I can read it while taking a dump :) But I'd still like the digital version for all the other times. Hope I don't have to pay for it separately.
MagCloud doesn't share any data of the people who bought the magazine on their site so we couldn't do this automatically.
Edit: Never mind, completely misread the notes section of the subscription page. Answer - you don't.
But that's ok, what's a few dollars between friends?
On a different note, thanks for offering the ebook version at the same time as the dead tree version. Well worth the 3 bucks.
Thank you so much for supporting us.
Cool URIs and all that. Preemptive thanks!