Yeah, think of record labels -- the picture isn't really very pretty.Nah... every tech comes in and is supposed to 'destroy' the industry, but doesn't. Think of self-publishing and trad. pub, think of record labels, internet was supposed to destroy them. New tech creates reshuffling, some panic, and brings in new ways of doing things, that's it. I think AI can demolish 30% of every industry (esp. the bottom ends), but the rest will be remade it/reshuffled, and improved.
It's only what we did to published authors. Now we all scratch around for a living. Disruption happens all the time. We'll just need to adapt to a new situation.Pirating, then iTunes, did effectively destroy the music industry. The industry isn't gone obviously, but it uses a very different business model, and artists make less money. They basically make no money selling music (albums or songs), especially relative to the pre internet era, and they have to use alternate revenue streams.
This relates to art, but it can be applied to authorship.Check the AI terms and conditions regards copyright for anything it produces and anything you upload to there and you'll see that protection is there. They can only create content from other creative works in its data bank, or by cloning voices. You can only copyright creative works of any kind that are created by humans.
This. And it made me remember something.It's only what we did to published authors.
Music has never been more popular. Labels are doing just fine and artists are making money, maybe more from tours and live events and sponsorships than direct music publishing but that doesn't mean industry is demolished. Just different. As it should be, evolution is inherent.Yeah, think of record labels -- the picture isn't really very pretty.
The US music industry makes 40% less revenue than it did in 2000 because of tech -- internet streaming destroyed the album and physical (and MP3) sales, and it destroyed that entire revenue stream in the process. At the same time, artists bypass record labels, because with internet streaming and high tech, home recording, no record label is necessary. The big labels still exist, as conglomerates. Numerous others have folded.
Tech is great. It's the main reason we indies can publish, because of the eBook, and electronic delivery of eBooks primarily. But tech is a two edged sword. And I wouldn't bank on AI being completely beneficial to the publishing world.
Demolishing 30% of any industry affects people.
My own take on AI and publishing is that at first it will be used as a tool to speed up the publishing process. A lot of fast publishers in certain genres will use it to put out more product more frequently, especially in genres where the tropes and style of writing is more or less interchangeable from book to book. Ghostwriters will also probably feel the pinch, as with AI, they will no longer be needed.
After that? No one really knows what its effects will be. I think the consumer custom ordering their own, favorite genre book from an app on their own device is in the future somewhere.
If one wants to look at how tech can destroy an industry, look at newspapers, and the numbers which completely folded thanks to the internet.
Like I said, it's a two edged sword, and with AI it will be the same, and none of us can say for certain where indie publishing, or trad publishing, will be in 15-20 years, when AI will undoubtedly be a key player in numerous industries we all deal with every day.
It's no surprise that I agree with jb1111. The enormity of AI's impact on the entire world is not dawning on most people yet. IBM just announced nearly 8000 jobs will be replaced by AI, just one company. People are already getting legal advice from ChatGPT. No one's paying a lawyer $200 an hour unless the case is very serious. Accountants are being replaced everywhere. Massive unemployment is being forecast across most advanced societies and no one is ready. This is not just going to pass publishing by without a hit. I would say to RBC that the internet actually did destroy trad publishing. Today, being published by a corporate is often the "vanity" route, as you get a paperback in stores but you earn zip while a good living can be had with online writing. To suggest that a run of the mill deal with HarperCollins would be less lucrative than self-publishing, just as recently as twenty years ago would have been ridiculous. Yet, here we are and that is because the internet destroyed trad publishing. What trad is today is something very different. AI will be an order of magnitude more disruptive to publishing. As I mention above, and jb1111 also writes, it will be totally common practice for readers to tap out their own works, via whatever AI unit they have in their homes and those books will be instant, and better edited and proofed into the bargain. I don't need a cover artist charging $500 to cover each of my novels because of software. Soon, I won't need myself to write the books because AI will do it. When readers catch on to that, 90% of authors are joining the massive pile of unemployment that AI is creating.
The US music industry admits on the RIAA website that their revenues are 37% lower than they were in 2000. So, no, labels aren't really doing as well as they did 20 years ago. Sure, they still make money. So did Sears and K-Mart in 2000. The labels -- at least a sizeable chunk of them -- exist, sure. But a near 40% loss of revenue over a 20 year period is not a sign that the industry is doing well. Radio has lost maybe 60% of the revenue they took in in 2005. They talk about it frequently, that the advertising revenues are declining.Music has never been more popular. Labels are doing just fine and artists are making money, maybe more from tours and live events and sponsorships than direct music publishing but that doesn't mean industry is demolished. Just different. As it should be, evolution is inherent.
I defo agree on AI as the helpful tool. Maybe this will be insane productivity jump for whole human kind, while many will be left behind, at first. But they can use AI to learn new skills too. So as always, it's each person's responsibility to adapt and succeed.
It's not all about revenue. Revenue might be lower for songs, and covid has been a big downer for those live-performing artists from the top to all the way down the line to bars. However, when the Beatles were paying 95% tax on their 75% of royalties after the manager took his cut of 25%, there was little left. Those royalties were only 10 to 16% on sales as an average recording contract.This is about time and market saturation. As we have seen from above, there are plenty of AI covers and even some texts going onto Amazon. The thin end of the wedge. The law is not fast enough to play catch up, which is why music revenue is 40% down. No one cared about that or online indie publishing happening and simply said "we'll have to adapt". Now, the same thing will happen, except one big difference. An indie can move maybe six times faster than a trad, publishing six online novels for every one a trad can get out. AI can write a novel every hour. It's about time. No author is keeping up with AI output. The market gets flooded with garbage. Readers don't pay $2.99 for something they can get for nothing and this is just the first wave. As I say, bespoke, personal novels are the second wave.
For every Irish busker or Justin Bieber that makes it big off YT or another online venue, there's a gazillion others who used to make money off music that make zero. I personally know some of those people.It's not all about revenue. Revenue might be lower for songs, and covid has been a big downer for those live-performing artists from the top to all the way down the line to bars. However, when the Beatles were paying 95% tax on their 75% of royalties after the manager took his cut of 25%, there was little left. Those royalties were only 10 to 16% on sales as an average recording contract.
Musicians have more control these days in many aspects of revenues, with many producing music independently. Those at the top now make insane amounts of money, but there a more crumbs for those lower down the pecking order if they strive for it.
There are more avenues for artists these days without hit records. An Irish female busker is just one of many on YouTube is now a millionaire just for singing and playing guitar on the street. Many artists no longer use recording studios, but record from home with the benefit of AI type software. It's all about adapting to new circumstance. I'm sure that a book-cover designer who uses Ai can come up with a lot better finished product that a novice.
The music business lost 40% of their revenue when they killed the record album and the music sale. Competition didn't really affect that (at least not for 10-15 years), nor did the law really -- at least not in the US. Federal law in the US tried to set up a "fair" digital music royalty system, but it didn't make up for the lack of music sales. They tried, I suppose. But half a cent a play isn't making up for CD, cassette, or even MP3 sales.This is about time and market saturation. As we have seen from above, there are plenty of AI covers and even some texts going onto Amazon. The thin end of the wedge. The law is not fast enough to play catch up, which is why music revenue is 40% down. No one cared about that or online indie publishing happening and simply said "we'll have to adapt". Now, the same thing will happen, except one big difference. An indie can move maybe six times faster than a trad, publishing six online novels for every one a trad can get out. AI can write a novel every hour. It's about time. No author is keeping up with AI output. The market gets flooded with garbage. Readers don't pay $2.99 for something they can get for nothing and this is just the first wave. As I say, bespoke, personal novels are the second wave.
I agree entirely. The game is already afoot and this is an attempt at automation that may or may not work. Wait and see.My own take on AI as it concerns my own publishing is that I'm going to ignore it for a while. My genre is already flooded with fast and repetitive publishing, and it has been for years, and I don't see where people turning out a short book a week are going to gain much by using AI to turn out ten of them a week. I suppose maybe some will try that, and perhaps some of my fast-publishing competitors will make more money that way, but it seems there would be a limit to the amount of new product by the same author that a genre will stand.
Well that's label revenue, that's not whole industry. The money streamers make should be added to the total, not to mention indie musicians, and then I would bet the money has increased.The US music industry admits on the RIAA website that their revenues are 37% lower than they were in 2000. So, no, labels aren't really doing as well as they did 20 years ago. Sure, they still make money. So did Sears and K-Mart in 2000. The labels -- at least a sizeable chunk of them -- exist, sure. But a near 40% loss of revenue over a 20 year period is not a sign that the industry is doing well. Radio has lost maybe 60% of the revenue they took in in 2005. They talk about it frequently, that the advertising revenues are declining.
Record labels, and radio, are being bypassed. And because of the new music consumption business model, musicians make less money. Because when they were signed to a label that had money, that label promoted the tours, and promoted the artist's music. Now that promotion money for many artists is increasingly non-existent. For many it has become a regional and locals-only game.
An example of the difference in music revenue: the album sale that brought in $15-$18 in revenue in 2000 brings in 9 cents now. If a music consumer plays it 10 times, the industry gains 90 cents in revenue. A music consumer would have to play an album, all the way through, around 200 times for the label to gain the same revenue it gained off just one sale in 2000. Of course, even with streaming's comparatively low revenues, everyone still gets their cut -- the producers, the label, etc. This is why the songwriters want digital royalties doubled, which still won't give them anywhere near the revenue stream they had in 1999.
It's an example of the new business and consumption model having a detrimental effect on creators. But yeah, as you mentioned, they have to adapt to the new model.
And I do agree with you that the changes in tech -- like AI, KU, etc. -- are the new reality. It doesn't necessarily follow, however, that the new business and consumption model is going to be good for those who create and produce the product. It's great for consumers, though. And in any business model, there are winners, there are losers, and then there are those who are somewhere in the middle. And, like you said, indie authors are going to have to adapt to the AI business model when it kicks in.
I think where we differ is I'm more skeptical about the long term affect on indie authors. But those who remain in the game are going to have to figure out a way to survive. And that may be through using AI.
