baens-universe.com · Domains

When Sysadmins Ruled the Earth by Dynamoo · 2011-08-23 04:02 · Score: 1 · on Taken Over By Aliens? Google Has It Covered

When Sysadmins Ruled the Earth by Cory Doctorow is rather tongue-in-cheek but Google features prominently in this particular end of the world scenario..

When Sysadmins Ruled the Earth by Dynamoo · 2011-03-12 05:35 · Score: 4, Interesting · on The Emergency Internet Bunkers

When Sysadmins Ruled the Earth.

Re:Get the fuck outta here. by gstoddart · 2010-08-20 03:25 · Score: 1 · on Will Amazon Put Advertisements In eBooks?

Gutenberg? Isn't he the guy who made that infernal contraption that is responsible for for the imposition of copyright on the world in the first place?

Ummm ... no. When Gutenberg built his press, he made publications more open, not less. Copyright came after.

According to this, Gutenberg built his press in the 1400s, and copyright came about in the 1700s.

Check the facts elsewhere as you choose, but Gutenberg cannot be blamed for copyright. That's why the current Project Gutenberg carries his name.

Thomas Macaulay, as always by symbolset · 2010-07-04 15:34 · Score: 5, Insightful · on A Composer's-Eye View of the Copyright Wars

At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot. On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe, or the Pilgrim's Progress, shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great-grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress? Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create. And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living.

- Thomas Macaulay, 1841

This fine composer is the victim of the theft of the commons. He seems a reasonable guy. Unfortunately for him copyright is no longer a square deal and since people are now ignoring all copyrights, they're ignoring his too. That's not fair, but what is there to do? We as individuals have no power to make copyright back into a square deal again and to research every author and contributor to a work for each use to determine if there's net sanity there is just too high a burden. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. His loss is no greater than ours: he's lost some potential income; we've lost our culture.

Re:When they're right, they're right by Sparx139 · 2010-04-08 18:24 · Score: 1 · on The Economist Weighs In For Shorter Copyright Terms

A return to the 28-year copyrights of the Statute of Anne would be in many ways arbitrary, but not unreasonable.

It has been reported that 14 years is closer to optimal.

Maybe reasonable would be 7 years, or two.

And of course these speaches on copyright make a good primer on what to expect when the copyright law is percieved to be unfair.

Hey, a starving man will be happy to gulp down a half-eaten crust. Sure, it's not perfect but at least it's sort of reasonable.

Re:When they're right, they're right by PeterBrett · 2010-04-08 18:06 · Score: 2, Interesting · on The Economist Weighs In For Shorter Copyright Terms

A return to the 28-year copyrights of the Statute of Anne would be in many ways arbitrary, but not unreasonable.

It has been reported that 14 years is closer to optimal.

Maybe reasonable would be 7 years, or two.

And of course these speaches on copyright make a good primer on what to expect when the copyright law is percieved to be unfair.

Maybe you should support the Pirate Party? When (ha) we come to power we'll cut the duration of copyright to 10 years.

When they're right, they're right by symbolset · 2010-04-08 17:40 · Score: 5, Interesting · on The Economist Weighs In For Shorter Copyright Terms

A return to the 28-year copyrights of the Statute of Anne would be in many ways arbitrary, but not unreasonable.

It has been reported that 14 years is closer to optimal.

Maybe reasonable would be 7 years, or two.

And of course these speaches on copyright make a good primer on what to expect when the copyright law is percieved to be unfair.

More required reading by symbolset · 2009-12-31 14:09 · Score: 1 · on What Would Have Entered the Public Domain Tomorrow?

Thomas Macaulay, 1842.

Re:What do you expect? by symbolset · 2009-11-14 11:01 · Score: 1 · on Software Piracy At the Workplace?

There's more at work here than just the fact that suddenly otherwise law-abiding citizens have decided to become criminals.

Copyright is a bargain, a compromise that people submit to like civilized adults - but only in so much as it's perceived to be fair. Once eternal copyright was enacted the fairness of the proposition ended, as did the voluntary compliance. This was predicted long ago:

I will only say this, that if the measure before us should pass, and should produce one-tenth part of the evil which it is calculated to produce, and which I fully expect it to produce, there will soon be a remedy, though of a very objectionable kind. Just as the absurd acts which prohibited the sale of game were virtually repealed by the poacher, just as many absurd revenue acts have been virtually repealed by the smuggler, so will this law be virtually repealed by piratical booksellers. At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot. On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe, or the Pilgrim's Progress, shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great-grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress? Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create. And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living.

-Thomas Macaulay

Copyright holders have by getting what they want ended their advantage.

Re:Anyone Give A Shit What That Clown Says? Anyone by Lachlan+Hunt · 2009-07-24 09:38 · Score: 2, Interesting · on Stallman Says Pirate Party Hurts Free Software

Personally - I would suggest that copyright protection would be acceptable for "twice as long as it took you to create it, all told" - if you spent 3 years from concept/analysis to final product, then you get 6 years of profit protection for your effort. If it only took you 2 months to come up with, you only get 4 months protection. Of course, that's nearly un-enforcable and way too complicated.

Seriously, are you insane? You're totally ignoring the fact that software is generally created and then incrementally improved through successive release cycles. So, for examle, the linux kernel was initially released in 1991, and so, for argument's sake, let's say development began in 1990. Since then, it's been under continual development, and would now be in its 19th year. So by your logic, the current version would have a 38 year copyright protection. Next year, it would be up to 40. You see where I'm going with this? By 2040, the then current version would have 100 years of copyright protection.

Not only would that make the system seriously overly complex, making it virtually impossible to know when anything enters the public domain, it would end up being worse than the current system!

In reality, the ideal copyright system would have a fixed term from the date of publication, unlike the current system of life + 50 or 70 years (depending on country), so that calculating when a work enters the public domain is easy if you know the date of publication, without having to know when the author has or will die.

5 years is way too short. It shifts the balance too far in the wrong direction. It's even shorter than the original term of 14 (or 28) years. There are a significant number of works that are still worthy of protection after that short period. between 25 and 50 years is more reasonable. Beyond that, the law of diminishing returns really kicks in and the public loses out in favour of the extremely small minority, only serving to fill the pockets of the big media industry, just like in the current system.

Eric Flint argued for a 40 to 42 year term, and I think that's just about right.
http://baens-universe.com/articles/salvos3

Re:They don't even go back far enough. by symbolset · 2009-07-18 16:12 · Score: 1 · on We Were Smarter About Copyright Law 100 Years Ago

and he was 100% wrong in his predictions.

This is what happens when we don't read the link and then try to speak on the topic. We embarass ourselves. To wit:

I should note that Macaulay's position, slightly modified, did become the basis of copyright law in the English speaking world. And remained so (at least in the US) for a century and a half--until, on a day of infamy just a few years ago, the Walt Disney Corporation and their stooges in Congress got the law changed to the modern law, which extends copyright for a truly absurd period of time. Which--those who forget history are doomed to repeat it--is a return to the position advocated by Macaulay's (now long forgotten) opponent in the debate.

- Eric Flint

Shame, shame.

Re:They don't even go back far enough. by brit74 · 2009-07-18 13:52 · Score: 1 · on We Were Smarter About Copyright Law 100 Years Ago

Let's not forget other things he wrote:

You cannot depend for literary instruction and amusement on the leisure of men occupied in the pursuits of active life. Such men may occasionally produce compositions of great merit. But you must not look to such men for works which require deep meditation and long research. Works of that kind you can expect only from persons who make literature the business of their lives. Of these persons few will be found among the rich and the noble. The rich and the noble are not impelled to intellectual exertion by necessity. They may be impelled to intellectual exertion by the desire of distinguishing themselves, or by the desire of benefiting the community. But it is generally within these walls that they seek to signalise themselves and to serve their fellow-creatures. Both their ambition and their public spirit, in a country like this, naturally take a political turn. It is then on men whose profession is literature, and whose private means are not ample, that you must rely for a supply of valuable books. Such men must be remunerated for their literary labour. And there are only two ways in which they can be remunerated. One of those ways is patronage; the other is copyright.
http://baens-universe.com/articles/salvos2

I hope more people at slashdot would recognize the way that copyright supports the creation of media.

Re:They don't even go back far enough. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-18 09:13 · Score: 0 · on We Were Smarter About Copyright Law 100 Years Ago

- Thomas McCauley on copyright, 1841.

Wow. Maybe the harm now is insignificant compared to the harm then, since the slop which the pigs are fighting over in our day is worth practically nothing compared to the writings of men like McCauley?

After reading only part of the above, I wonder if a law restricting access to the flood of pap drowning our contemporary "culture" will greatly benefit those few remaining who have some small hope of become a little wiser.

They don't even go back far enough. by symbolset · 2009-07-18 06:43 · Score: 5, Insightful · on We Were Smarter About Copyright Law 100 Years Ago

I will only say this, that if the measure before us should pass, and should produce one-tenth part of the evil which it is calculated to produce, and which I fully expect it to produce, there will soon be a remedy, though of a very objectionable kind. Just as the absurd acts which prohibited the sale of game were virtually repealed by the poacher, just as many absurd revenue acts have been virtually repealed by the smuggler, so will this law be virtually repealed by piratical booksellers. At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot. On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe, or the Pilgrim's Progress, shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great-grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress? Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create. And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living.

- Thomas McCauley on copyright, 1841.

Long long ago, in a parliament far away by symbolset · 2009-06-12 14:18 · Score: 2, Interesting · on World Copyright Summit and the Lies of the Copyright Industry

Thomas Macauley gave two speeches on copyright extension. He covered all the salient points we're going to touch here on slashdot today, and a few more. They are hosted here. Please note that the host is a publisher, and Macauley was himself a distinguished author. It was over 160 years ago, but it's still a good read.

After that, if you have the math to sift through these two papers on the subject, you may agree with their author that the maximum benefit to authors and the public comes with copyright terms of about 15 years. The farther you get from optimum, the less benefit both creators and consumers see - not more for one and less for the other depending on direction, as one might assume.

Excessive length of copyright harms content creators, too.

Start with Thomas Macaulay by symbolset · 2009-06-12 09:09 · Score: 2, Insightful · on How Should a Constitution Protect Digital Rights?

Reference here.

An unfair law is ignored - and should be.

Re:Baen Free Library by Chelloveck · 2009-05-13 02:18 · Score: 1 · on Copyright Infringement of Books

Baen is great. One of the big advantages is that they are seriously opposed to DRM. All of their books, for free or for pay, are available in a variety of formats. None are encrypted. One of the formats is plain ol' HTML. EBook formats may come and go, but HTML will be recognizable forever.

They also have no problem with you lending your copy to a friend, or reselling it. They ask that you treat it like a paper book in that there shouldn't be more than one person reading any one "copy" at the same time.

I'll also take a moment to plug Jim Baen's Universe. It's a bi-monthly magazine, similar to Analog or Asimov's, but only available electronically. Same unencrypted distribution formats as their books. Well worth a subscription.

Re:Copyright issue is a scam by symbolset · 2009-05-05 17:11 · Score: 2, Insightful · on Backlash Builds Against US Copyright Blacklist

I feel your pain. It will get much worse before it gets better. Look at the top appointments at US Justice. The content industries are girding for a tough battle and they'll take no prisoners. They intend nothing less than criminal punishments for imaginary offenses.

Thomas Macaulay actually foretold what would happen 150 years ago:

I will only say this, that if the measure before us should pass, and should produce one-tenth part of the evil which it is calculated to produce, and which I fully expect it to produce, there will soon be a remedy, though of a very objectionable kind. Just as the absurd acts which prohibited the sale of game were virtually repealed by the poacher, just as many absurd revenue acts have been virtually repealed by the smuggler, so will this law be virtually repealed by piratical booksellers. At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot. On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe, or the Pilgrim's Progress, shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great-grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress? Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create. And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living.

Now ask yourself... how many gigabytes on an iPod? Does your store take the 100packs of CDs and DVDs off the pallet, or they just leave the pallet in the aisle to save labor? What do you have that needs 7.5TB of storage in a consumer grade device? Photos? That's 2 million photos. Home movies? That's a lot of family picnics. He was right. People generally no longer care.

I looked over this list. Apparently part of their problem with Pakistan is that Pakistan authorizes the production of medicine for internal use without their permission. Let's see what the CIA has to say about Pakistan:

Pakistan, an impoverished and underdeveloped country, has suffered from decades of internal political disputes, low levels of foreign investment, and declining exports of manufactures. Faced with untenable budgetary deficits, high inflation, and haemorrhaging foreign exchange reserves, the government agreed to an International Monetary Fund Standby Arrangement in November 2008.

I can't bring myself to care that Pakistan makes medicine for its poor people without permission. To just let them die would be evil. I'm sure a lot of people feel the same way. That they can claim this is some "offense" reveals that they lack even the slightest hint of humanity. And so suddenly nobody cares what happens to them and their precious imaginary property.

But that doesn't help you in the here and now. Sorry.

Re:Now I know who to blame by mirkob · 2009-04-26 21:54 · Score: 1 · on The Woman Who Established Fair Use

just to repeat myself from other copyright posts...

the original copyright was a monopoly granted from the English crown to the corporation to avoid "pirating" independent printer.

the intent of the copyright adopted in the USA was to promote creation and innovation.

at this time everywhere the copyright is reverting to his original despicable form.

the time limit on copyright should only have one purpose, encourage creators of a good creation to produce other good product.

not make sure the retirement pension for his nephew

a professional sf book writer in many essays about copyright drm ecc evaluated that, for a professional book author a copyright of 40 years is about right (do not remember the eventual post mortem part but you should read all his essay yourself here: http://baens-universe.com/authors/Eric_Flint bottom first)

I'm with you about the fact that the bulk of the protection should to the authors and not the corporation who own them!!!!

Re:Fuck. by digitrev · 2009-04-26 03:52 · Score: 1 · on Music Copyright In EU Extended To 70 Years

You want a good argument for term lengths of copyright? Read McCauley on Copyright. It's a pair of speeches given by Thomas McCauley in the British Parliament in 1841 and 1842. To put it bluntly, McCauley has said all there is to be said on copyright, and done it much more eloquently than you or I could.

Pay attention to the second speech, where he argues for a copyright term of 42 years or until death, whichever is longer.

Re:And the original one was .. 50? by symbolset · 2009-04-25 16:44 · Score: 1 · on Music Copyright In EU Extended To 70 Years

Here's some reading material.

I think he described the issues quite well over 160 years ago.

The principle of copyright is this. It is a tax on readers for the purpose of giving a bounty to writers. The tax is an exceedingly bad one; it is a tax on one of the most innocent and most salutary of human pleasures; and never let us forget, that a tax on innocent pleasures is a premium on vicious pleasures. I admit, however, the necessity of giving a bounty to genius and learning. In order to give such a bounty, I willingly submit even to this severe and burdensome tax. Nay, I am ready to increase the tax, if it can be shown that by so doing I should proportionally increase the bounty. My complaint is, that my honourable and learned friend doubles, triples, quadruples, the tax, and makes scarcely any perceptible addition to the bounty.

Re:Economic impact by digitrev · 2009-04-21 12:39 · Score: 1 · on Fair Use Affirmed In Turnitin Case

In fact, if you believe Mr. Flint, then putting your books online for free actually helps your sales.

Re:buzz builder? by symbolset · 2009-04-19 18:38 · Score: 1 · on Microsoft Leaks Windows 7 RC Date — Before May 5

Now that you're getting into this slashdot posting thing, there are going to be some bumps. It's a nuisance at first that you can't go back and edit posts, but you'll be thankful for that before long. I'll try and be helpful and not as abrasive as when I was trying to get your attention.

The idea of copyright comes from the power and desire of "kings" to control the means of production and distribution of information. In an age where our contemporary equivalent of "kings" have no such power opinion is growing that how they feel about the matter is irrelevant, especially when their edicts like clawbacks from the commons are deemed unfair. After all, many works once in the public domain have now been stolen back into copyright protection. Was that right? Was that fair? They took that public intellectual property and made it private. Is it not fair that we take some back and make it public? The current duration of copyright is patently insane theft of the commons and the common man will have his due.

There's a growing movement to end copyrights and patents. The publishers and inventors had best take care how they sell the idea that their cause is fair and just. Brutal enforcement isn't going to work because it just motivates the common man to defy his oppressor. If you believe technology will solve this question by enforcing restrictions you should read up on Alan Turing's work - anything one machine will do, another machine can be built to do. For more direct matter I recommend you read the speeches of Thomas Macaulay. His analysis is spot on though the language is a bit obsolete being that he gave these speeches in 1841.

Ah, the classics. For when we forget history we are doomed to repeat it.

Others have pointed out that in a world with no copyright, the GPL has no force. This is true, but then in that world the GPL is unnecessary since its purpose is to protect the right of people to improve on what has gone before - a right which, believe it or not, used to be assumed.

And you're right: Since Microsoft is constrained to obey the law, it's not fair that others are permitted civil disobedience. But there it is. Every time Microsoft has served the interests of the content owners over the interests of the customers who pay them for product, they've been reviled and duly so. You can't have it both ways. That's why exactly 0% of 600 surveyed students planned to buy a Zune.

Re:Writers who should not be paid by qbzzt · 2009-03-03 07:16 · Score: 2, Insightful · on "Authors Guild" Skims Half of Google Book-Rights Settlement

work, as in labor. And only paid once.

The problem is that in most cases nobody knows how valuable the work is going to be. Therefore, it is hard to price the work until you see how many people will pay to read it.

Re:Not ignorance, fear by mirkob · 2009-03-01 22:40 · Score: 1 · on Book Publishers Making the Same Mistakes as Record Labels?

as always when the argument of DRM and related matters come at hand i suggest everyone to read the essays of eric flint a sf writer and editor for one of the few on-line only sf magazines baen-univers

http://baens-universe.com/authors/Eric_Flint

at this page you all could read many illuminating essays about copyright and DRM mainly related to the book industry but not only

start from the bottom of the page and skip the editorial articles and the only story and you will have a series of illuminations on the topic!

I subscribe to four SF Magazines Electronically by sehlat · 2009-01-31 16:08 · Score: 5, Informative · on Difficult Times For SF Magazines

Jim Baen's Universe - http://www.baens-universe.com/

Always been electronic, and I'll keep this subscription going as long as I'm breathing.
Worth every penny of what they charge and there are membership bonuses. Some of the
best short fiction I can find comes out of this shop.

Fictionwise - www.fictionwise.com Carries Analog, Asimov's and F&SF. I've had
subscriptions to all three since 2000 and intend to continue them until either they
or I fold.

Print may be dead, but these guys publish zero-DRM and I can stuff them into my Palm and
go. That was the approach that got me back into reading science fiction.

Re:Online uptake? by Chelloveck · 2009-01-31 15:53 · Score: 5, Informative · on Difficult Times For SF Magazines

Or Jim Baen's Universe, a darned fine science-fiction and fantasy magazine published in electronic format only.