To your second point. Absolutely you need to give and graciously receive samples.

I absolutely agree on the expectation that content is not worthless. I know some people think making work available for free degrades its intrinsic value (or the estimation thereof) but that misses the mark. In the music world, the biggest free file-sharers are also the biggest purchasers, and the intrinsic monetary value of content is clearly related to the subjetive aesthetic value individuals place on it. I think that's transferable to written content. In other words, just because I give something away, deosn't mean someone wouldn't be prepared to pay for it (or an almost identical work by someone else) if it had a price tag, provided they love it. Likewise, if I give someone one book for free and they think it's rubbish, they won't come back for my next one even if it's also free.

For sure you to have the right to free publish but you should also be allowed to get paid. There needs to be a mechanism and the expectation that content is not worthless. I am not advocating the collective agreements. I am advocating the built in ability to charge for the content.

I will check out the web site…

I'm a content producer. Unlike Glen, I'm nervous about the Fair Syndication Consortium's proposal. It's too close to the Performing Rights Society's balls-up of YouTube that means there's a whole load of musicians who can't get their videos out to me in the UK. I would like to be able to post my work for free if I want to and reserve the right not to share in the ad revenue of the places I post it. Culture-based industries have a habit of defending protectionist practices in the name of defending content producers, when actually they defend the industry not the individual.

A couple of small points. 1. I'm broke. I scrape by in a day job. I'm not a rich erson writing as a hobby trying to drive hardworking writers out of business. 2. I do want to make a living from my writing. BUT 3. I would like to have the right to try and do that by using the business model of my choosing, and I choose to give my content away for free. I will always give it away for free in electronic form. I believe my novels are good enough and have enough appeal that readers will be prepared, down the line, to pay for my books. As someone who believes cultre is a conversation between artist and audience, I can only see supply side protectionism as a form of cultural murder (not morally, logically). If my writing isn't good enough to attract paying bookbuyers, or my business model's too misjudged and people don't buy, no one has anything to fear from me. If my writing or my business model IS good enough then why shouldn't I take a slice of the industry's pie.

I guess my point is – collective agreements and fair treatment for producers sound great (hey, it's like Fair trade for coffee growers, we already have the preconception it must be A.Good.Thing). But the problem with collective agreements is they draw circles, they impose boundaries, they categorise. The wonderful thing about the internet is it attacks categories and boundaries, and finds ways to disrupt cartels. Long may that continue.

Please note, I am a member of the Year Zero Writers collective (http://www.yearzerowriters.wordpress.com) but the opinions stated here are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of my fellow Zeros :-)

Also interesting that Google today decided to display copyright license next to the images.

I don't know what backwards means. In business and life its 90% trial and error. We adjust, businesses adjust. Case in point is Yahoo that now owns Flickr. The ad model is no longer working for them, they must find other sources for revenue. Nothing is cast in stone and people do change their habits. In the end we all are interested in reward flawing back to the creators. Change is possible.

I'm a big fan of freemium, and I'm trying to build that model into my blog as well as a software project I'm working on. Rewarding folks who generate great content monetarily is as natural as paying an artist for their work.