Yeah, I'm not convinced. There is a fine line between feeling you're getting a bargain (or in this case, something for nothing), and getting something worthwhile for your money. If you devalue something to the point where it's free, you're also sending out the message that this isn't really worth a fig, so you (the punter) can do what you want with it.

Citing Amazon as an example isn't a great idea. Without the massive financial backing that got them through their lean first years, they'd never have become as they are now. How many indie bookshops can afford to sell books with little or no margin for five years, just to get a chunk of the market?

Neil Gaiman has been testing this. American Gods was up for free at one time. However, only online, and only for thirty days, and as I recall, you could not download it and save, you had to read it online.

They believe that he did see an increase in sales, but another point I'd make: he has several other books available, and it's likely those books that saw the most increase—but I don't have stats, don't quote me. American Gods may have sold more as well, especially to people like me who dislike reading a book on a website.

So, it sounds like a positive thing, of course, but not every author has a back list yet, and, it was a limited time, limited access test.

I believe he and his publisher are going to try this again.

Giving something away for free doesn't mean it's not worth a fig, just that too many people in our culture perceive it that way. And cultures change.

And whether it sounds maudlin or not, you can't put a price tag on the most valuable things of all. It's a sign of self-respect that I value my work enough to give it away.

Well, yes, Lee, I was making the point that it's all about people's perceptions.
There are tons of novels in the Library which one can take out for free, and loads in Charity shops on sale for a few pence: Do they increase an author's sales? And if not, then why would giving it away for free online make any difference?
I don't know, I'm just asking.

Naomi, it's a good question, and the jury is still out. People like Cory Doctorow claim giving it away increases sales, but he's already a big name. I too am a bit skeptical. And of course the music model is not quite comparable, and many musicians are starting to make most of their living from live performances and the extras like T-shirts. Reading for pleasure has always been a niche activity, so on this basis alone it's tricky to compare.

My point is that maybe writers shouldn't even expect to make money from their work. That the underlying assumption may be wrong, or at least inadequate.