TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Arlen -dot- P -dot- Walker -at- jci -dot- com wrote:
>
> >I don't agree with Napster and I don't think that they're doing anything
> >but trying to figure out a way to make money off this technology of
> >theirs.
>
> And this differs from the artist how? ;{>}
True. Unfortunately, as Courtney Love pointed out in her article, the
person who owns the copyright isn't generally the one who makes the most
money from the music. That was what I was trying so unsuccessfully to
point out in my last post. (Don't you hate it when you read what you
wrote and discovered that it didn't say exactly what you thought it
should? And me a technical writer <sigh>.)
To bring this back to technical writing, that's just as true in the
publishing industry as it is in the music industry. The people I know
who have written third party software manuals haven't made a whole lot
of money from them, no matter how many are sold.
Now if we could just figure out a way to turn things around and make
sure that the artist/writer/creator makes the money instead of the
recording/publishing industry or the guys who dream up the technological
means to get around that whole pesky copyright and spending money thing.
