For many people getting a print copy is worth the money they pay for it. Free aint worth much if you can't take it to the beach, the lavatory, or on a walk. A printed version has added value, and that people are willing to pay for.

In addition, most folks get tired of reading stuff on a screen. Screen flicker and stuff like that. Fluorescent lights don't help any. Hard copy you can read under sunlight, out in the fresh air with pretty girls passing by, dogs chasing pigeons, and kids making a racket.

Don't know about you, but I find it easier to get lost in a book when life surrounds me, than when I'm away from the world. Or maybe it's because I'm an America.

Now, if you want consternation in the publishing world, wait until somebody tries distributed printing.

I was watching MTV the other day when it occured to me that it costs a lot of money to get a video made and played. Then it occured to me that the sole purpose of bands putting their music on MySpace and other personal websites for free is to get noticed by a record company because only by getting a recording contract are they capable of going to the next level of impact and distribution.

Look at last years runaway success, the Arctic Monkeys who were going to turn the record industry on its head. They achieved a number one single on downloads alone and as soon as they became noticed they signed a contract, brought out a record and made a video - thanks to the big company's money. This year it's Lily Allen and Sandy Thom amongst others.

The only people who have lost out in this whole situation is the traditional A&R man who used to go and seek out new talent. Now anyone can trawl the net and find a new voice.

But one thing hasn't and will not change. Bands want their CD's in the shop and their face on MTV and their record on iTunes and in the short term they're willing to give their stuff away for free to get there.

If I was a new author starting out I'd be an idiot not to find some, any kind of outlet for my work. I'd happily put my work on MySpace or on a blog or anywhere until I got a response. If someone finds me and likes me and wants to represent me and print me (because at the end of the day I challenge you to find a single author who doesnt't want their book in their hands), if I'm lucky enough to find a publisher who has the resources to distribute my book more widely than I could possibly hoped to have imagined, then I can start thinking about copyright. Take another look at the Friday Project and that is exactly what they're doing.

When I was a kid I would religiously tape the top 20 every sunday night - piracy! Yet come pocket money day the first thing I'd do is run to the shop and go and buy the record I liked. For recording artists and authors the real deal is to get a deal.

Is this copyright issue really as important as you think? I really don't see how much has changed. The internet has simply made it possible for millions upon millions of voices to be heard. It's the publishing industry's challenge to find the voices that everyone wants to hear and ensure they find as wide an audience as possible. Once you've found your voice, copyright it and make everybody a bunch of money (by taking the rrp off to start with!). If you think the internet is going to rip you off, trust me I think the law is on your side. Because the only people who really benefit out of any situation is the lawyers, that's for damn sure.

Creative Commons is a good sensible start and a sensible reaction to the issues you think are so important. But surely, the point is it didn't take long to find a solution to a problem that more or less supports the status quo. Hence, it ain't actually that big of a deal.

Actually, I do challenge your statement about authors, at least in terms of myself. Though I am still debating the issue, I am not at all sure that I want to be published and distributed conventionally. I like the independence and flexibility that blog posting offers. If I can get enough online readers for my YA fantasy novel MORTAL GHOST - and their often interesting and valuable feedback - that would be very satisfying in itself. At least potentially, the internet offers a much greater visibility than print, a much larger readership - at least for the average author, not the very rare megabestselling one.

One theme emerging is that allowing free internet downloads of books is great because of the market awareness it generates for the 'real' product - the book. The problem is that once a single distribution channel - in this case the Internet -is treated as free promotion where do you stop? Should BBC's Book at Bedtime not pay copyright fees because it definitely promotes books. Should radio stations not have to pay for playing music? Should authors not receive payment from the library loan system (which has been so successful and benficial particularly to the wide range of 'mid-list' authors who depend on that source to survive)? The reference to MTV is valid. It's known as the MTV moment - when record companies first allowed MTV to broadcast their videos free as a promotional effort. MTV is now bigger than all the record companies; the record companies have been forced to consolidate; to focus only on chart-toppers; and are facing sever profitability issues. The law of unintended consequences in action.

Another theme emerging from this is that it's clear large record companies and publishers are reacting to these advances rather than engaging with the new systems and inventing new ones.

It's never been easy to make a supertanker change direction...