Slashdot Mirror
Publishers vs. Libraries, round 2
CBNobi writes: "CNet's News.com has an article about book publishers' attempts to block the public from accessing free material from - where else - libraries. Publishers fear their copyrighted materials will be freely distributed in a digital form." Nice article. We've covered this before, but it isn't going away - publishers want a pay-for-use library system so that you won't go there to escape high prices elsewhere.
So, how bout we figure out exactly which publishers are trying to do this, and then be sure to scan and distribute electronically any of their materials? I'm really sick of this crap.
I think they understand it just fine, otherwise they wouldn't be making such a big deal out of it. The people who don't understand are those who think that any intangible goods should be de facto free. The zealots who say, "Well, it doesn't cost anything to make a copy, so how am I stealing? You're going to have to face the fact that you can't make money off of {software||content} anymore. You'll have to start selling {hardware||service||advertising}." Just look at how well it works for Open Source-based companies.
Small price to pay for having huge amounts of information at your fingertips at a moment's notice, including book reviews, music reviews, or software reviews.
Umm, who pays which price? The content providers pay to produce the content, and they pay for providing it to the consumer? What, pray tell, is their motivation? If you want to see a new dark ages, just take away all the content provider's profit motive. All that will be left on your much vaunted internet is Geocities home pages about pomeranians and GNU/Zealots' home pages.
For a slightly more humorous offering from these same clowns, check out the Stoolie Reward Program(tm)(c)(r) they've got all set up:
... or is it just 1984?
... just because she gets off on stuff like this. Don't worry, your brother will be some cigarette-rich man's prison bitch come next week. Are there any other friends or acquaintances I can help you shank in the back at this time?"
http://www.publishers.org/home/itr/reward.htm
Oh well, at least we know that they actually *read* the books that they publish
Me:"Hello, piracy hotline? I've got a situation here."
Hotline Phone Jockey:"What seems to be the problem?"
Me:"My 12 year old brother is typing in quotes from Ender's Game for unautorized use on his Star Wars fan site. What should I do?"
Hotline Phone Jockey:"Just remain calm, sir. We've got a beatdown team on the way. In the meantime, do you have a copy of Episodes 4-6, special edition DVD that you can distract him with?"
Me(recomposing myself after an inadvertant fit of laughter):"No, but I think he might have a copy kicking around somewhere. It's a pirated copy he watches with some DeCSS PERL script he wrote?"
Hotline Phone Jockey:"Thank you, fine upstanding citizen. We have contacted the publisher on the book issue, George Lucas on the unauthorized web site issue, the MPAA on the DVD issue, and Hillary Rosen
Me:"No, not at this time. So listen, do you do direct deposit or should I just look for a check in the mail?"
Those damned Eurasians and/or Eastasians are at it again!
- nocturne
Give me a break. There are significant costs in producing software, content, music, etc. All the people involved in the process expect a paycheck every week, not after the product is distributed. That's your up front cost to even make the intangible product available. You set the price based on the perceived demand to recoup this cost, be competitive with your competitors, and (hopefully) make a profit. However, if that demand you were counting on is made up of a bunch of pirates who won't pay, then you're going to have to raise prices to break even. This applies to music, software, or whatever. It's very simple.
Also, a pirate is only a potenial lost sale. It doesn't represent a loss of production materials, or the inability to use something like real theft does.
The people who don't understand are those who think that any intangible goods should be de facto free.
Thank you for being an example of my point. Imagine I walk into a store, any store, and take a product off the shelf. I go to the register with a calculator and some research I have done. "Let's see, Mr. Cashier, I found out that your cost for this product from the manufacturer is x, and you spend y on shipping, and the rent for the space it takes up in stock is z," etc., etc., until I have calculated the exact cost of the product. I then pay him exactly this plus one cent, which might be as low as 1/2 of the sticker price, and walk out. Is he not in his right to have me arrested for shoplifting? I owe him the rest of the sticker price. When the judge asks, and I tell him "well, the shopkeeper didn't lose any money because of me!" he will laugh me out of court, and into jail.
If a seller produces something, tangible or not, and places it up for sale, he/she has the right to name the price. If the price is unreasonable, the buyer has the right to ignore him and go on to another seller. The buyer does not have the right to take the product without permission, under the defense that the product is overpriced, or that they wouldn't be inclined to buy it anyway, or that it does not cause the seller to incur a production cost. Period.
To us, to anybody who really worries about ethics, the content providers' reaction is severely limiting. Sure, we want to pay the providers, the people who wrote the stuff in the first place. But we also want to feel free to help each other (and probably ourselves, too, yeah...)
In fact, the situation you suggest is NOT ON, because it leads directly to the sort of situation in which, let's say, lending books is illegal - but not everybody can afford them.
Now, say you need to use the government sanctioned books to learn the highway code - you can't use your dad's copy, cos he's not allowed to lend it out. Or you need to look something up in a text book at university, but your friend isn't allowed to lend you his copy and (whoops) you have no money. Put yourself in this situation. You know it's illegal to read your friend's copy... but you need to, to pass your course. Most people would do the better thing, ie. let their friend read that book... but not you, THB, writer of this comment, maker of compromises and short of sight. Congratulations.
Hmm, so essentially, modern information pirates (Napster users, warez kiddies, library patron d00dz) are just like the monks from hundreds of years ago. Just think if the publishers had wielded the same power back then! Monks had to hand copy all those books making it extremely difficult and expensive to copy a book. Today we can copy a book in microseconds and transmit it to 10,000 people throughout the world with a few seconds.
Strange. I usually get at least a form letter back. Although it usually takes several months to even get that. What's worse is when the return letter shows a complete lack of comprehension of what I was saying, or, more likely, they didn't even bother to read it.
I sent a letter to my rep regarding Napster. Now, in that letter, I didn't say I supported Napster. In fact, I specifically stated that I didn't support what they were doing, but that I had other issues that I felt needed to be addressed. I got a return letter saying something to the effect of, "Thank you for your opinion. Your support for Napster has been taken in to account, yadda yadda..." THAT WAS INFURIATING!
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Ten years down the road, when print and real-world formats will (might) go by the wayside, the concerns by the librarians today will be vital, and unless we heed them today, libraries may not legally exist in 10 years.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
It is not at all obvious that the "tolerated pirates" infact cause the situation to be a net loss to publishers. OTOH, "intangible commodities" have a marginal production cost that approaches zero. Also, a pirate is only a potenial lost sale. It doesn't represent a loss of production materials, or the inability to use something like real theft does.
Publishers are seeing their production costs sink. Yet their only response to attempt to stamp out those that were likely unable or unwilling to buy in the old model, or simply unaware of the product.
Software producers have been whining about piracy for decades. Software piracy has been rampant for decades. Yet those same software producers only seem to be getting more successful rather than being run out of business.
The doom and gloom simply isn't consistent with reality.
A "crime and punishment" mentality in this area is remarkably shortsighted. I benefits neither consumers nor publishers in the end.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
What's with this ability for a GROUP of people to all gather around a TV or stereo and all watch movie or listen to a CD without the IP holder receiving additional per seat revenue?
More than one person using an IP playback device of any kind == theft.
We need a law to force manufacturers to make it so their devices can be used by ONLY ONE PERSON AT A TIME. That way, access and our IP can be protected.
It might be funny if it weren't happening today. Various municipalies in Texas have outsourced the drafting to technical laws (e.g. building codes) the 3rd parties, typically contractor's associations. These third parties have copyrighted their work, and claim that citizens must pay to make copies of the law. Although a copy is on file at City Hall, citizens are not allowed to make copies of the master document. Citizens of course _can_ be put in jail for violating that law.
Peter Veeck (son of the late baseball maverick Bill Veeck) is fighting this through the courts at the moment.
sPh
Copright was concieved as a defence against publishers:
Publishers should loose all court cases automaticaly, only authers should be able to bring suit, and only on their own behalf... Only Intalects may own Intalectual property - it *is* that simple
Execute corporations, not people.
>>>>truth; beauty; unix.<<<<
In the process, the scientific and academic communities (along with the poor) lose access to source materials, lose basic free speech "fair use" rights, and we all wind up forced to pay again and again for the most basic information one needs to be an informed citizen; in perpetuity. I can't imagine anything more destructive to the fundamentals of democracy than destroying libraries for the sake of publishers profits. A great deal for the plutocracy, a rotten deal for us rabble citizens.
Write your congressman, write the President, MAKE A STINK!
--Maynard
When you pirate MP3s, you're downloading communism!
(I didn't make that up, I just saw it on a poster.)
Yes, I'm still a junky. Are you still a bitch?
Anyway, on another note, this marks the further progress of a disturbing trend. Some time ago, like, say 1997, copyright holders were reactive. That is to say, they waited until Napster was in use, and was allowing people to trade songs. Now, they seem to be going after parties that they suspect may one day plan to engage in something less than total protection of their copyrighted material. In other words, they're on the offensive.
However, the more aggresive they become, the more reviled they'll be. I expect that if anybody engages in a large scale legal assault on libraries, they'll have the public up in ferocious arms. After all, libraries are one of the few things that people (without a finiancial or religous interest at odds with their purpose) almost universally support.
Inaction is tantamount to assistance. If our government lets private consortiums lay our libraries bare, they'll be no better (and arguably a good deal worse) that governments like China. At least they don't pretend to be fair.
Yes, I'm still a junky. Are you still a bitch?
There's still defensibility in the "one copy in use" idea; why not make this on the web? Make a server that will display a work to one user at a time, per the number of that work that the library posesses/licensed. You'd get the fast turn-around of not having to wait for someone to physically return the book while still protecting the publisher. (Maybe this's the way to do music sharing too?)
--- The reclining dragon deeply fears the blue pool's clarity.
When was the last time you could buy a book, read it, and then return it for a full refund because you thought it wasn't worth the cost of printing it in the first place, much less what you paid for it?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Actually it's more like various bodies write building codes (one excellent example being the National Electrical Code written by the National Fire Protection Association) and then governments sort of cut and paste them into the local ordinances instead of re-inventing the wheel. The bodies which write these codes go to condsiderable expense to create these codes and have every right to copyright their work and expect you to pay for your copy. If you don't like it tell your local government that you want them to develop their own and make it available for free. Don't expect a positive response. Very few communities have the size and money to duplicate the level of expertise of the NFPA for example, and all the manufacturers of electrical supplies (wire, conduit, sockets, switches, etc) adhere to the NEC anyway, so it's easier to agree with the code that 15 amp receptacles should be wired with commonly available 14 gauge or larger copper wire instead of making a law calling for 17 amp circuits and 13 gauge wire, which would have to be custom made at a horrible price premium.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Even if those codes weren't enshrined into law, they would still be useful and widely used. Insurance companies would demand them. Or structure their rate schedule so as to accomplish the same effect.
These things have to be created and kept current and the cost of doing so has to come from somewhere. The only choice is how directly or indirectly the end consumer pays. You can pay the electrician who buys a copy of the NEC a little more, or you can pay the insurance company a little more, or you can pay a little more for electrical supplies, or you can pay higher taxes so that government can cover the cost, or maybe you can think of some other scheme to hide from the consumer the fact that they are paying for this, but one way or the other, they will be the ones to pay for it, the money will not materialize out of thin air. Ain't no free lunch on this one.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
see also: "preaching to the converted"
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
The difference between Napster and the library system is that we're supposed to return the book to the library. And most of us don't check the book out, make copies of it and start our own lending library. There are exceptions of course (ever seen a grad student's textbook library?), but in general, most of us read the book/watch the movie, and return it, not making a copy for ourselves.
Napster/Gnutella facilitate the copying of the music/file for your own use, then starting your own lending library where everyone else on the network can do the same.
If libraries can no longer offer information for free, we've created a social divide, those that have money to get the information, and those that don't.
One of the major points of the Telecom Act of 1996 was to provide reduced/free internet access to libraries and public schools (E-rate and universal service), trying to provide lower income individuals access to the information on the internet. Why would the US government allow publishers to charge for books which are currently free, creating an even bigger information divide?
Yeah. I'll bet they'd *really* like to get their hands on that crazy Thomas Jefferson guy. That right-wing extremist nut wanted to have a revolution every 20 years! Man, can you believe to what lengths some of these radicals will go to? Disturbing the good honest law abiding citizens like that--they should be ashamed of themselves!
NO! We must dump all the books into Boston Harbor! THAT'S the message we want to send with this!
Same here.
Books rentals are free, video rentals cost £1/$1.50 per week (compared to £3/$4.50 per night from Blockbuster), and the cost of the others varies.
*Everything* is free here (unless you return it past the due date). At least, that's the way it is in our local libraries (North and South Carolina) and the University libraries I've been to.
Since when do 160 albums or 233 books constitute a "huge" collection? My father-in-law has about that many books, and I've always thought of him as an illiterate slob.
Rule of thumb: it's not huge until it starts affecting the placement of furniture in three or more rooms. And paperbacks don't count.
Damn it, what ever happened to pleasing the customer?
It's never been an issue in those cases where the customer is willing to take the abuse. If you keep buying abuse, they'll keep selling it. The same thing happens with women's clothing.
--
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
Never was, never will be.
--
Knowledge is, in every country, the surest basis of public happiness.
The most disgusting part of that industry is that the one who gets the bigger profit (50% of the final retail sale price) is (of course) the one who does the least work: the bookseller.
--
Knowledge is, in every country, the surest basis of public happiness.
Could be that "Waco types" refers to Tim McVeigh, and I think he could be labeled a terrorist. OTOH, I never knew that McVeigh had been one of the leaders of the Radical Librarian movement, either...
I guess that must be the *real* reason he was put to death.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Have a look at the Baen Books Free Library. They explain their thinking and I agree with them. I own a lot of their books, purely because of their free library.
:-)
I wish more people did this. Then again, looking at my wallet, perhaps it's good that they don't!
---
Come live in my lil village. Artists and geeks are welcome to free housing and food as long as all their works are released open to the public. You won't live in a mansion but I'd make sure you had a better life than most people in this world. :)
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
Are you sure about that? Maybe I'm just uninformed, but I've never heard of such a thing before. My Mom's a librarian - I'll have to run that by her. You would think that under the right of first sale, after the library has bought the book they can do anything with it (well, except distributing unauthorized copies of course) without paying anything back to the publisher. I would think it would be like the used CD market, except that you get the CDs for free in exchange for returning them after a while.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Very interesting. What's the deal on this in the States?
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Book publishers can simply learn from the software industry and seal all books in a plastic bag, then stick a EULA inside the bag making anyone who opens the bag and/or reads the book bound by a license. Then the publishers can limit how the book is used (cannot use it as a coaster or prop up a couch with it), charge libraries extra money for a "multiple user" license, charge an annual fee for the right to continue using the book (Book.NET and Book XP), and then make the library or consumer purchase a new book every time they print a new edition. It's easy to see how silly the software industry is if you replace the word "software" with "book" every time you talk about licensing.
== Paul Rickard, Editor of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign ====
I say we ban Xerox copiers. After all, by the same logic, theyre used to commit the same sort of crimes. Then we can get around to banning cars because they can be used to transport stolen property.
Or, we could just all collectively admit as a group that the 90's are over, and it's ok to tell stupid people to shut the hell up again.
Bowie J. Poag
--
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
A totally free information infrastructure is unlikely to spell doom for content. I would more likely predict NOT a dearth of content, but rather a dearth of attention.. there would be SO much content flowing around that people will be competing for eyes and ears.
I've seen this meme over and over again, and I simply don't buy it. What is your honest opinion of 99% the drivel created for profit, tailored for the masses, produced by a committee of ad execs, and endlessly tweaked by marketriods with focus groups in hand?
Titanic? Back Street Boys? Britteny Spears? The Home Shopping Network?
Thanks but no thanks.
The entire ancient, dinosaur-like industry is on the verge of collapse, but honestly, I no longer care... Soon they will be complaining that libraries are equivalent to 'THEFT' and 'PIRACY' because they deprive them of "potential" profit. Cry me a river.
The point, is everything will be available in digital for eventually. When that happens, the mountains of garbage legislation the RIAA, MPAA and book publishers have rammed down your throat will have basically made all libraries illegal..
Face it, after reading the crap the RIAA spews about napster, you might be led to think that LIBRARIES are stealing by lending ANY content.
I mean, look at all the money the publishers are losing everytime somebody reads a library book and doesn't buy one at the bookstore.
"ITS ILLEGAL! ITS IMMORAL! ITS PIRACY!"
I am TIRED of their complaints, and I am tired of copyright law.
Black letter law.
An attempt to file an infringement suit against a library (the only law which, in my IANAL amateur legal opinion applies) will be dismissed instantly because Fair Use applies in the text of the statue itself.
There is also no infringement possible since no "copy" of the work is being made, and furthermore, if a copy *was* made, the library could only be accused of contributory infringement, which would *also* be dismissed on common sense grounds.
This is a non-starter. The publishing industry should find something else to do, like publish something people want to *own* rather than borrow.
If we were going to have a modern-day Boston Tea Party, the place to do it would be at book publishers' warehouses or printing facilities. I'd just bring in a firehose or six and wet down the boxes of books thoroughly - no casualties or risk of human life, but it makes all their brand new books completely unsellable.
Meldroc, Waster of Electrons
Someone here on Slashdot had a rather eloquent quote. I'm sorry, but I don't remember the name. Anyways...
Meldroc, Waster of Electrons
"I like the sense of completion when I'm done with a newspaper, I feel like I know all of the important news."
What a horrifyingly inaccurate feeling. You only know the news that the newspaper company thinks you need to know. When I finish reading the newspaper, I can't help but wonder "What aren't they telling me?"
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
No, see, they're DEFINED as terrorists retroactively because the FBI and ATF had to go Get Them and protect We The People from Dissident Elements. You know, defending Truth, Justice, and the American Way and all that.
Newspeak. Gotta love it.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
I have no doubt that in 10 years time, we'll still have all of the real world formats that you say will have gone by the way side.
I don't know what they said when Gutenberg invented his press, but when the radio was introduced, they said newspapers would die. When TV was introduced, they said that newspapers and radio would die. When cable was introduced, they said that newspapers, radio, and broadcast TV would die. When the Internet was introduced, they said that newspapers, radio, broadcast TV, cable TV, home stereos, bookstores, and malls would die. They haven't.
The utopian idea of a paperless society is still far off. As long as people still like and demand their morning paper, their drive-time morning radio, their mid-morning /. news fix, their evening news, their "get-in-the-mood" jazz CD, and the shopping "experience" content publishers won't be able to force consumers into one all-encompassing format.
Not that we won't move to such a format in the future, but it's still a ways off. Personally, I like the rich diversity of the media experiences that all of these formats provide. I like the sense of completion when I'm done with a newspaper, I feel like I know all of the important news. On the internet, however, I feel a need to check out just one more news site. I like sitting down with a good book and turning the pages as my imagination runs wild. Other times, I like zoning to a movie based on the same book. As long as consumers demand it, there will be someone to offer it.
-sk
I can see the need when paper was the only way to get the work out there, but now that any idiot with a computer can pulish to the world for the small cost of server space and internet connectivity. Why can't authors set up a Paypal account and say "make a donation and I will send you the book"? And before we get any of those "Stephen King tried that and failed" posts, the problem with King's experiment was more like cause by people losing interest in the story while waiting for the next chapter rather than them not wanting to pay. Hell I waited until the entire green mile was out before I went and bought it.
Yeah, i really like this guy. Im probably going to buy one of his dead tree books (which I was never interested in) because i read his article on IP. Very good read, that article.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
We need to show the publishers that we won't tolerate them trying to roll back the clock 200 years!
Let's burn their product! Yeah, that's always a good way to draw attention the cause!
It worked with bra-burning in the 60's.
It worked with draft card burning during the Vietnam War!
Let's all assemble in front of the library and burn a big pile of the publishers' books! They'll get the message!
...no wait, something seems off with this analogy...
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Or, strongly recommend that they come up with a number instead of the open-ended "limited term" language. Judging from the copyright laws as they existed in the early days of the Republic, they'd have probably come up with a 20-30 year maximum.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Doesn't this make them "secret" laws, since the average person has no access to them?
Isn't there a law against enforcing laws that the citizens are not permitted to see, and therefore CANNOT know about? (as distinguished from ordinary ignorance)
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
There must be some way to tie this into all those "Education initiatives" all of the politicians are talking about but not doing anything about. Make library and content access an education issue. Give them a PR black eye. (As if they aren't already doing that to themselves.)
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
I'm not so sure about that. In 1975 I was washing dishes for 1.70USD/hour. Paperbacks, new, were sometimes 1.25, but more like 1.75 and 1.95USD.
But I take your point more generally, as a 7.95 paperback today as quite a bit more than the 5.40 (?) minimum hourly wage today.
Freedom can only exist with capitalism. Capitalism is simply free people voluntarily exchanging goods and services. If you forbid such transactions, you have substantially reduced freedom. Abuses such as the DMCA are not failures of capitalism, they are failures of government. Corporations can whine all they want about hackers or libraries daring to exercise their fair use rights, but it takes Congress and the President to enforce their will.
As usual, the Street Performer Protocol would solve this problem without oppressive copyright laws.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
The major problem here is the exact same as as for every other digital version of a phyical product, and that is that once you have your product you can retain a copy and give it to twenty friends, where as with a physical copy only one friend can have it at a time, and you cannot, at least not for free.
A system to sell content online, while letting both the publisher and the consumer have to same rights they do with pysical media is very difficult to find. A completely new model will have to be created, and supported by law. It will require both parties to give up some rights.
Many people believe that they should have all the rights that they currently have under copyright law, plus the publisher should give up more of theirs, but the only way that online content will ever work is if both sides give up something.
Giving up the ability to lend is not that bad if the cost is far less, as it should be without the physical cost. At the same time the publisher must not raise the cost of the content.
> Wouldn't it be funny if the government decided to copyright every law it passed, and then didn't allow anyone to publish them?
/rant >
a ct
Canada already partially does this with their tax law! The government (Revenue Canada) *REFUSES* to officially publish the Tax Act (their excuse is that it is constantly changing and would be out of date)
< rant on stupid government laws >
Hello McFly, how about ONE RULE: a FLAT 5% tax ON EVERY Goods and Service. Nah, that would be EASY to follow now!
<
i.e.
http://www.ccra-adrc.gc.ca/about/faq-e.html#tax
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/note.html
Fortunately there is no law that requires a person to have a SIN (Social Insecurity Number)
~~
A government is as corrupt as the number of laws it has.
This is becoming more and more obvious everyday: If something is technically possible and profitable, someone is going to want to do it. It is profitable to use the legislation to restrict other people's freedom in ways that allow you to sell more.
I don't begrudge authors and publishers a living. I actively support it by buying an enormous number of books, including printed books of material that I can get online.
The publishers are feeling threatened by technology. Sharing of books online is easy and cheap. It takes less time than buying a physical copy and costs less. Electronic copies of texts allow you to cut and paste what you want to quote with ease. If they are on the Web, they permit hyperlinking to the full version.
The problem here is that we don't have an acceptable model for how content is to be sold online. Subscriptions and broadcasting offer excellent models for information that is time-critical such as news,weather, stock quotes, even video feeds of live sports. Neither model is good for books.
We have grown used to buying a copy. When I purchase a book, I don't own the rights to the words, but that single physical copy is mine. I can read it, sell it, give it away, loan it to a friend, mark up the pages with notes, or destroy it. I have the right to read it today, next week, next year, or on my death bed 500 years from now when nanotechnology can no longer rebuild my failing body. My right to read it does not require paying an ongoing license fee, and is not subject to the continued availability of special hardware or software to make the pages readable.
Who would want to give up that flexibility and receive nothing in return?
The libraries I have in my area can't keep up with the new computer books and sci-fi books. They just don't have the money. A lot of libraries can't afford to purchase a lot of books each year. What's next inter-library loan? Are they going to attack this too?
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
Here is an email address of the AAP (Association of American Publishers):
amyg@publishers.org
Send them a note to leave librarians alone. They are also offering rewards for turning people in (must lead to an arrest).
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
Instead of writing a reply here, write one (on paper) here:
Senate Address Lookup and House of Representative Address Lookup
We heard about it, read about, whined and cried about it. What about doing something about it? Like singing to the choir we complain about how the government is letting big business get away with.... Everyone is taking our rights....yada yada yada... If we do not care enough to actually put pen to paper, we are not really serious. If we are not serious why should we be taken seriously?
Wake up, smell the JAVA and act!
I invented a time machine then went to get a patent on it and found out that someone had patented it 10 minutes before I got there. Damn the bad luck!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Step 1, invent time machine.
Step 2, bring a copy of Slashdot articles like this one back to 1780.
Step 3, find Thomas Jefferson and get an amendment made that allows unrestricted access, irrevocably and permanently, for all non-commercial private usage.
Step 4, know that I won't have to entrust my content to companies who lock my content then go out of business and take the keys with them.
Screw the temporal prime directive...
- JoeShmoe
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
Just a nitpick, but those aren't terrorists. Randy Weaver was a right wing nut who had guns the government didn't want him having, so they sniped his wife unprovoked, and threw him in jail. The Waco cult was..well, a cult that was centered around the wholesome value of 35 year old white male rejects getting their jollies from brainwashed 13 year olds.
He's talking about books, not software.
// TODO: fix sig
- Online piracy -- while it is definitely illegal and immoral -- is, as a practical problem, nothing more than (at most) a nuisance.
- Losses any author suffers from piracy are almost certainly offset by the additional publicity which, in practice, any kind of free copies of a book usually engender.
- Any cure which relies on tighter regulation of the market is far worse than the disease.
And he puts his money where his mouth is. He has 3 complete novels online, along with 15 other authors.// TODO: fix sig
The publishers have already changed copyright law. It's called the DMCA. What happens when libraries can only loan out encrypted copies, and people have to visit a publishers web site and buy a decryption key tied to their physical hardware and time-stamped to only allow access for a certain time period in order to read the material? And if libraries did anything to bypass the encryption, they'd be breaking the DMCA. It's totally filthy.
This was at a time when the United States was in a struggle for its own survival as a colony in the harsh American wilderness. Freedom of information, Franklin understood, was the only way that people would quickly learn the things they needed to know.
The same principles apply today, though with some modification. Now there is so much free information that the embarassing pay-for-knowledge era of our history is nearly finished. The internet brought back what Ben Franklin started.
What does this have to do with libraries?
Well, as the vast number of books published each year eventually forces libraries to go all- or mostly-digital, some of that content is going to find its way online in one form or another. It will leak out, or users will leak in.
It's coming. Publishers will try to fight it, of course, but they have no chance. They're just trying to keep their jobs for as long as they can.
Got Rhinos?
This really isn't all that bad by itself, the real problem is that copyright terms are far too long. So perhaps this is the compromise, fee per use, but for a limited time like the constitution promises. I'm sorry, but 90 some odd years is not limited -- if a book released now will not become public domain in my life time (or possibly even my children's life time) then it is not limited. Heck, books that were written when my grandparents (who are all dead now) were children are not even in the public domain due to the Sonny Bono Act!
We are slowly but surely descending back to the dark ages. Instead of a tyrannous monarchy, we are allowing corporate despotism to limit the free flow of ideas for the sake of a piddly profit.
It's a sad time to be human.
dd
We've already seen articles (on /. even) on digital paper. Onve this technology is created and marketed how long until you can buy a "book" that you can plug a chip, disc, or other media in and the text appears? Personally I'd love a device like this, as much as I love normal books, I'd love to carry fifteen of them in my pocket and be able to pop one of them in my "paper book" at any time to read them. The look and feel of a normal book would be there with the convenience of a digital format.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
When all is said and done -- after all the legal whining by the Publishers Assiciation, RIAA and the like -- they will end up with more, not less, legal rights. The average person will end up with less rights. In their quest for fairness, it will end up with more of the booty in their corner.
Who can blame them? Clearly libraries will be the only place to go now that book prices are skyrocketing.
this isn't a warning knell, this is stupidity. Libraries are a basic functioning piece of our country (U.S.), in what few pristine areas of 'original implementation' that exist. Blocking books from library usage is digging into the depths of corporate clout that until recently was only the domain of Coca-Cola schemes
-shpoffo
And what do the video rental places or libraries do in this case? Do they photocopy or dub the whole thing cause they bought it once and they can? Well, no, they don't. They get another copy to keep up with demand. And if the demand radically drops after the initial popularity has passed, they sell an excess copy or two. Or they institute a reserve system or a speed read/new release standard for new popular titles. They certainly don't just give it away to whoever wants it to keep forever.
Thank you, btw for your excellent demonstration of the Slashdot Entitlement Attitude. I may keep this post on file to demonstrate it to others.
Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
Gee. Thanks, though, as I said, I know America isn't a democracy. Calling it a "democratic republic" is giving it to much credit, though. I actually prefer the term "representative republic" as it doesn't contain any of the wonderful positive vibes the word democracy embodies.
Pax Digitalia
Of Thomas Jefferson: So, it's OK to buy and sell people, but not ideas. Just so we're clear on all that.
OK, repeat after me class:
People: OK to own them if they are Negroes.
Ideas: Not OK to own them.
You know, it's funny how wealthy men who profit from the entrenched system of power get all "idealistic" when it comes to the business of buying and selling ideas. It's easy when you've got another source of income.
To such men, the patent office is a hinderence. On the other hand, to a man who has no personal wealth, and only an idea to his name, the patent office shines like a beacon.
Ideas are a gift from God, a birthright. A man who would take your ideas against your will would just as soon take your birthright and make you a slave. This whole "IP is not a natural right" thing is part of a fiction that has been created by the ruling class to help them maintain power.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Don't they realize that by switching from free to paid library scheme, where a book still has to be purchased to loan it out, they will be causing people to copy it and transfer it to digital format?
It might happen regardless, but by charging for access to it at a free library the chances are much higher.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
---=-=-=-=-=-=---
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Look up "public lending right". The payment is typically made statistically; not on a literal per-book-borrowed basis
E.g. an explanation of Britain's PLR is at http://www.plr.uk.com/aboutus/aboutus.htm
They came for the Software pirates
I said nothing
I was not a software pirate
They came for the music traders
I said nothing
I was not a music trader
They came for those who registered domains
I sad nothing
I was not a registered no domains
They came for the book barrows
I was a reader
There was no libraries left for people to find out.
Ascii artist &
Where does this come from? Are you trying to tell me that every time I check out a book at the library, for no charge whatsoever, the library pays a royalty to the publisher? I couldn't even begin to imagine the nightmare that would have been before computerized borrowing became common in libraries. And even with computers, there would be hundreds of different checks sent to all the various publishing companies around.
Are you trying to tell me that I'm going to get in trouble because I haven't been mailing a check to some publishing company every time I've lent one of my books out to a friend?
I don't recall seeing any such EULA printed in any of my books. In fact, I seem to recall some court case where the publishers attempted to control the price at which I, the consumer, could sell a book I had purchased. The publishers lost that case. Did I miss the case where they won the right to charge a royalty every time I lend out a book I have purchased?
Edward Burr
Edward Burr
Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.
Libraries do not pay royalties when they lend out books, nor should they. The books, once purchased, are the libraries' property, and the copyright law (First Sale doctrine) explicitly states that after a sale, the copyright holder does not have the right to control the further distribution of a particular copy. (The record companies and software companies got a special exception for commercial rental carved out of the First Sale doctrine, but even in the case of CDs, public libraries have the right to lend them without permission or royalties.)
One person at a time license agreement? Do you know how annoying it is to go to a library (or video rental store even) and find the book you have been waiting for months to read is still on loan to somebody else? It goes against the control that publishers want, but one of things digital text has over the old analog paper book is that the amount of copies are not as limited...
-- Judas96
"...don't take a nerf bat to a knife fight." - Joe Rogan, said on News Radio
Napster/Gnutella allow people to pool their resources and all have the file at the same time.
A library on the other hand allows one person at a time to have access to the material, and then they have to return it to allow other people to use it.
This process of trying to exthort our public libraries just makes me sick. How greedy can these people be? Have these people no morals?
I'm all for capitalism, but it's practices like these that make me ashamed to call myself an American. It's things like this that sometimes makes me wonder if communism really wouldn't be a valid alternative. (Assuming that somebody could actually get communism to work.)
--------------------------------------
If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.
If (very theoretically speaking) we had never had libraries until the current day, and someone tried to start them, I think that the newfound libraries would be sued into the ground.
A library does exactly what Napster\Gnutella etc do, or try to do... allow people to pool their resources to have access to a large amount of copyrighted information.
And much like P2P, libraries don't seem to cause a large dent in the sale of books. There are enough realtivly wealthy people around who enjoy owning books and would still rather pay 20-30 dollars a pop then take a trip to the library.
I made this entire point a little bit more humorously at http://ursine.dyndns.org/~mnoelharris/warezportal. html
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
Yeah, but WE get to vote for our legislators, and if we don't vote for them, they won't be in office to get anymore $, will they?
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
11,030,375,944 ...definately, definately 11,030,375,944...
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
Weaver was also exonerated of all charges. It was shown in court that he was entrapped into buying a sawed-off shotgun. He was a racist jerk, but he didn't do anything wrong.
For the crime of being a racist jerk with guns, he had his kid shot in the back and his wife in the head. The sniper who dropped the woman wasn't even punished.
It's not funny at all. There are already a lot of copyrighted laws that cannot be freely distributed. Check this link. Highlights:
* California and 47 other states have building laws that are copyrighted by one of three nonprofit organizations. [and they'll get nasty if you try to redistribute the text.]
* The federal government requires U.S. physicians to use a medical billing code that's owned by the American Medical Association.
This is one of the most insane things I have ever heard of. For some reason it is a little-known fact... probably because it's things like building codes, and not the traffic codes that everyone needs to know about. It's still unforgiveable.
Eventually, we'll all have brain implants that all we have to do is think (and pay a few bucks), and we have that information. The difference between "knowing" and "accessing information" will become lost. Likewise, the difference between "computing" and "thinking" will blur. What's 321,323 X 34,328? Will I know whether or not I'm actually figuring out the answer with my brain or if I'm visiting a site and plugging in the numbers.
Language will not be a barrier. Location will not be a barrier.
We'll all be gods.
Libraries are how napster got the idea in the first place! Sharing music is like sharing literature. If its illegal for music, it *must* be illegal for books! Watch out, everyone, the internet is next.... then your phone.... then talking to people....
;-)
Moderators, please note the extreme sarcasm in the way I'm typing
--
"That's one small step for man..." "STOP POKING ME!!!!"
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
Here is a list of 198 free books. These are all books whose authors have intentionally made them free as in beer or as in speech.
The Assayer - free-information book reviews
Find free books.
Try not to over generalize. Some laws are not based on greed, some are for legitament human interest. The majority of people do not want to die, so they make it illegal to kill someone. I suppose you could call this greed, but I wouldn't.
Granted, I agree that a lot of laws these days don't seem to be based on the same principals, but it's inaccurate to say _all_ laws are from the rich, for the rich.
What is the alternative then?
If I don't believe in the function of the state to protect me, then I have to protect myself. Should I fence in my house, put barbed wire around my windows, and sit up all night with a gun staring into the night?
Or perhaps I band up with several people I trust, and we look after eachother. If one of us is in danger, we all react? Good thing we can legally carry guns.
Although I suppose the state is nothing more than an extension of the second alternative that I present. The only difference is that the gang includes everyone now.
I agree that much law is not for the benefit of anyone... look esp. towards countries like China where it is standard policy to remove dissadents.
What the solution is, I don't know.
Under Title 17 of the U.S. Code, libraries are permitted to lend materials - books, magazines, videotapes, DVDs, CDs, cassettes, CD-ROMs, etc, with certain restrictions. IANAL, but from everything I've seen and everything my local public library's lawyer has said (I'm an employee), the publishers don't really have much of a leg to stand on shy of changing U.S. Copyright law outright.
----------
Something cleverIf they wanted to fight this then they should have done it over a hundred years ago or whenever the hell public libraries started. But anyways...
There's two different categories of literature here. There's the technical stuff like programming reference manuals and other scientific text that you can actually learn from, and the other is the fictional crap like Stephen King puts out. Knowledge should be key. I'd personally be more concerned about the technical information. That is key to advancement in knowledge and by definition, life. That should be something you should pay for (although I personally don't like the standard $50+ for a geek book). But writing technical information takes work to accomplish. It takes research and knowledge and usually many people.
However, the fictional stuff (I hate it, even sci-fi) isn't a necessity, just something you might like... something that is considered to be enjoyment. In that case, you should pay for that too. Although publishers should find another way of making money of that stuff, like advertising in the middle of the paragraph.
You could also argue that publishers should not be needed. You just need the people that write the content and then some kick-ass site that will allow them to post their work and accept micropayments for it. I'm sure publishers are getting a good chunk of money and easily doubling the cost of a book.
Pick an argument a flame me, I don't care. So much in this world is totally fucked up due to economics. I'd prefer we get rid of money and everybody just performs work that they enjoy. I'd still program, there'd still be people that farmed. But that's getting into another argument.
I'm brilliant,
Or, why books and music aren't the same.
Here is the fundamental reason books won't be pirated like music is the difference in HOW we enjoy them.
Music is a fundamentally passive experience for the listener. A person doesn't care how the sound is generated(gramaphone, MP3, CD, etc) as long as it hits the airwaves and they can hear it. Pleasant background noise is the primary reason for most music that get's pirated. In the car, in the office, wherever.
Reading is a fundamentally active experience for the reader. I read in bed at night and I kick back on my sofa to read too. I can listen to music without being active with the media, but with a book, I have to interact witht ehmedia to get the message.
Until tiny little e-books become mainstream, I don't see the pirating of books becoming a problem. Sure I could download the latest novels to read, but no one wants to sit at the computer and read for recreation. It will just be a non-issue until that point and by then either the content industry will have won or we'll have reclaimed our freedom to the point where these kind of draconian restrictions are not tolerated.
Steven
-- I have marked myself unwilling to moderate-- I don't have other accounts to artificially inflate the karma of
It's not as though the codes would do anyone any good if they weren't enshrined into law, and it's not as though the professional organizations would stop writing them if I could go make a copy for free.
If _they_ want to sell me a copy, maybe with some value added in the form of annotations or a more convenient format or something, then that's fine. But claiming that they own the law itself is just ridiculous.
Law exists to protect them against a type of theft that is particular to their industry. Suddenly, technology exists to make it incredibly easy to accomplish this type of theft, potentially threatening their industry's existence. Would you expect the people involved to do anything less than vigorously defend themselves by applying the related law, and even sharpening the law?
Law is created by the rich to protect their property; the cruft of "law" has accumulated over the centuries to the point where lunacies like this issue can be bandied about as intelligent discourse.
Your "point" that rich, entreched interests move to protect themselves hints at the above truth--only those in a position of power and wealth can "sharpen" the law to their benefit.
I also remark that if these content-based industries failed to defend themselves, and collapsed, the content they provide would likely dry up as well - because there wouldn't be any money in providing it.
A classic error of economic, spoken as truth. Economics is a pseudo-science and has as much real value as today's weather report.
Simply, people are NATURAL producers--remember the Copper-top analogy in The Matrix? That is just one way a human produces; given the full breadth of expression, people will naturally produce work that is of value, even if that value is only measured in their own satisfaction.
The problem today is most people--people like you--are so convinced they are worthless outside of what they can sell that they cannot imagine another way. In such a world, pay-per-view of Lewis Carroll and Shakespear and WHATEVER makes perfect, logical sense.
Well, there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio......
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, The Histories
All the article actually says is that content providers (publishers) don't want libraries to give away the perfect copies of their work, that they would normally charge for, for free. I know, try and keep the shocked gasps down in the back there.
As already pointed out, this doesn't say anything whatsoever about traditional books.
The concept is that if publishers offer digital media and that media is freely duplicatable, then potentially libraries could become a means for people to avoid paying for the service. They just don't want libraries to become the book equivalent of Napster.
If everyone'd stop getting in to a flap, it's actually not that serious... If a digital book is distributed as a CD, disc, memory card, secure file, whatever, with adequate copy protection, this isn't even an issue - it still goes out to one user at a time and then the user hands it back.
Yes, potentially publishers may be stupid enough to distribute via a totally unsecure medium (as happened with CDs) but realistically, they're watching the music industry and holding back until they have secure systems themselves.
So, the whole flap is that libraries might become digital book Napsters if publishers start publishing without security. As libraries already tend to carry music and haven't turned in to Napster clones, and as digital publishing is some way behind digital music, it's unlikely to become an issue anyway.
And it still doesn't effect the traditional model of libraries anyway - just in case anyone's still missed that point.
Only the paranoid may survive, but what do their offspring look like? Weasels, I betcha.
-- .sig are belong to us!
All your
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Slashdot needs to split the "Funny" mod-comment into "laughing with you" and "laughing at you."
---
---
Those people are idiots. There is nothing like getting a honest to goodness hard copy of a great story, sitting down next to a fire and reading it to my children. The warm glow of my CRT nor the soft glow of a flat panel will never replicate that experience. Anything that promotes the idea of reading is good for the publishing industry, even distrubting there books in PDF.
Burn Hollywood Burn
I live in a college town were we get a LOT of bands coming though via the University. For every band that comes into town, the Student Government donates their most recent CD/LP (they keep both) to the public library. As we have one of the largest and most complete compilations of Punk/Pop/whatever that exists...
Burn Hollywood Burn
We don't need any record of what mankind has done freely available to anyone, nope...
We need what the big publishers say is what we should see and do, and forget about the past. It's unimportant anyway. In fact, just give your money to the publisher now, so they'll send you more of what they just published because it's popular.
We're at war with EastAsia, We've always been at war with EastAsia...
IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...
I should not care to undertake the challenge of defending the proposition: A law or ordinance adopting a building code, together with the code so adopted, is not a public record. Given the choice, I'll defend instead the proposition that the earth is flat (and not just in peninsular Florida!).
I am not a lawyer, though when it comes to Open Government issues I do play one in front of certain judges. [http://www.payer.org/wvha/suit]
Tilt at windmills. Occasionally one will fall over out of sheer surprise.
This is nowhere in the article. If a library has an e-book, what do the publishers think is okay for the library to do with it? I think a one person at a time per license agreement seems reasonable, provided the license is a one time cost, good forever, and transferable to another body.
Biting the governmental hand that feeds them copyright enforcement in the first place, yeah that's real darn wise.
After I have received the wisdom of good teaching, I will untiringly teach all people. - The Teachings of Buddha
Isn't it funny to think of them referring to library books as content? You know, "Hey mom, Billy and me are just headed over to the library to pick up some content for the trip this weekend." What an age we live in.
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. -Galileo Galilei
This isn't about public law (i.e., through the government); it's about the laws of Capitalism.
What I mean is that you are exactly right, you can write some code, and you can choose to either copyright it or release it into the public domain, but programmers aren't generally a bunch who have to make their living by having other people act as money-making agents for us.
Writers, musicians and artists traditionally do have to relinquish their public rights to copyright in order to get what they really want: to actually make money off what they do.
When I first went online, I was immediately (like in 5 minutes) struck by the ability one had to finally self-publish. But until we find a way for the dollars to find their way to the creator's hand without passing through a filter, creative people will still be duty-bound to these bloodsucking capitalist assholes in the publishing, recording and gallery business.
Anyway, I think that's sort of along the lines with what the poster meant; the laws of Capitalism are definitely being challenged by the Internet. And I think it's a good thing.
gameDB
The day that public libraries are illegal is THE DAY that we've completely lost our freedom to the corporations.
When information is THAT controlled by the IP cartels, it will be a world where only the very wealthy can afford to read (as per Richard Stallman's scary short story, the "Right To Read"), and only the wealthy elite are educated.
In that world, the masses will only know what they are told, or what they can afford to buy. They will be trained to meekly work for the corporations and be "good" cowed consumers of what the corporations want them to buy.
The scary thing is, our own GOVERNMENT is leading us to this bleak future, the post-Information Age Dark Age, out of their own ignorance and greed.
The DMCA, evil as it is, is only the thin end of the wedge. It is what makes such absurdities as even ALLOWING the discussion of restricting public libraries to be discussed by anyone other than a raving, Oliver Stone believing consipracy theroy raver.
Unfortunately, this is only the beginning. As our current rate of loss of civil rights to big corporation and big government continues to accelerate, the coming Dark Age becomes more real... I predict that unless things change NOW, the world of 50 years in the future will be a cross between the bleak future in Richard Stallman's "The Right to Read" (corporate control of all information) and "Demolition Man" (the ultimate "everything that is not good for you is bad, and therefore illegal" nanny state government).
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
Don't they know that there is already ways to get books online. I've seen audio books online, that means two people are being ripped off.
They think that digital forms of book in a library is going to cause piracy. It's already out there... but yet libraries can't help people, give away the info thats already on the net.
Books, not mp3s, should be freely available. But I won't see many people fighting to keep the libraries up to date with the rest of society.
Free books, as in beer. That's what Ben Franklin said. That's why he's on the Hundred dammit - he made it possible for us to read in a way, I guess.
Get your Unix fortune now!
When I made the comment, it was as a joke...it's really sickening that this is actually happeing. Oh for the days of actual freedom...
If it's supposed to move and doesn't, use WD-40. If it moves and it shouldn't, use duct tape.
Think about it. Isn't this really just the next step in the logical extension of copyright laws? Hopefully this kind of slap in the face will finally wake up the public at large into changing some of the ridiculous laws that are currently "on the books."
Sorry for the rotten attempt at a pun. Except for that, the rest of my comment is quite serious.
If it's supposed to move and doesn't, use WD-40. If it moves and it shouldn't, use duct tape.
Wouldn't it be funny if the government decided to copyright every law it passed, and then didn't allow anyone to publish them? Then you would just have to take the word of the Police, FBI, NSA, etc. that you had broken the law.
I can see it all now:
"Officer, what did I do wrong?"
"You turned left onto Jefferson St. on Friday the 13th. That'll be a $3000 fine, payable to me."
If it's supposed to move and doesn't, use WD-40. If it moves and it shouldn't, use duct tape.
I don't know what the average library is like in the US, but here in the UK, lending libraries are multimedia.
My local library lends books, audio CDs, videos, DVDs and even some (mainly educational) CD-ROMs. Books rentals are free, video rentals cost £1/$1.50 per week (compared to £3/$4.50 per night from Blockbuster), and the cost of the others varies.
But just because people are going to the library instead of the bookshop, authors don't loose out. Each time a book is lent, the author(s) receive royalties of around 5 pence/7.5 cents, capped (I think) at around £35,000/$52,500 per author per year.
For many authors whose books are out of print and/or not readily stocked by bookshops, these payments make a big difference. Not every writer is as sucessful as Stephen King or Nick Hornby, and this pay-per-rental method promotes less popular authors (allowing them the chance to become more popular) and promotes literary diversity.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
That said, I am reminded of something I read recently in a biography of P.G. Wodehouse (1881-1975). He wrote a friend saying that there must be a way for a writer to sell his works on his own; he mentioned someone who actually did that and made a pretty decent living off of it. It seems that, with e-books and the internet, you could do that very thing today.
Or not.
T-Bone ... Forget I said that."
"It's the greatest one-man thrill in Jack Frost's pageant!"
"I know a better one
- MST3K, "Snow Thrills"
The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
I don't believe for a minute that the fuckers feel threatened about their booksales. You can't tell me they seriously believe that we are at an age when people would rather sit at their desk or sit in their beds with a fucking laptop to read a fucking novel! People still buy books becase they like to turn the page.
In related news, the AAP set up camp outside the Library of Congress today. Snipers have positioned themselves around the compound, in the event that dissidents attempt to launch stolen content at the AAP.
"These radicals are running the world's largest content fencing ring", said spokeswoman Judith Platt. "If they had just destroyed the content when we asked them to, we wouldn't have to take these drastic measures."
Peter Jovanovich, CEO of Pearson Education, parent company to Prentice Hall, has set up bonfires in anticipation of the dissidents' surrender. "I had hoped they would surrender peacefully," said Jovanovich, "but instead, they shouted profanities and told us to take our tank home."
In what Jovanovich calls, "a complete disregard for publisher's rights", the dissidents have hung a sign stating: "Information Wants to be Free!"
Publishers afraid to publish books because Publishers fear their copyrighted materials will be freely distributed in a digital form?
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
They'll scream and holler about me buying a book myself and loaning it out. It seems that more and more of these conundrums come from companies/institutions/courts not understanding the enormity of the Internet. Companies that have previously made money by selling information, whether it's books, mp3s, or software, are gonna have to accept a certain amount of loss due to piracy. Small price to pay for having huge amounts of information at your fingertips at a moment's notice, including book reviews, music reviews, or software reviews.
Denver Isuzu Suzuki
Hmmm, I don't see my post as arguing that we don't have good property-rights. The problem as I present it comes between property rights and the profitability derived therefrom. Property rights mean you have the RIGHT to sell something, but if people are giving it away for free on a mass peer-to-peer system, it will be about as enforceable as people copying videotapes. FWIW, we do a pretty good job of making people money despite these obvious difficulties. It just seems like a lot better stuff would be produced if we had a system whereby we had a general 'content creator' fund that was distributed to content creators according to how much value people attributed to it. That is to say all content would be free, and everyone would be able to allocate a certain amount of value from the general fund to go to that author. Unfortunately the overhead for this kind of massive venture would have to come from some sort of non-profit organization. The government would be ideal, but since we have a general distrust of government here, and even more distrust of socialism, this would never fly in today's political climate.
In this context it seems that the actual media publications were printed on was the only thing that made content publishing economically viable.
Now we seem to have an ever-increasing conflict between content publishers and the public who will get information for free if they can. Micro-payments and subscriptions are possible answers, but they seem like very clumsy solutions to this problem.
With easy duplication of information in the so-called information age, and the difficulty the market is having transferring cash value to the content generators, maybe the Internet and easy duplication of information is exposing a fundamental flaw of capitalism?
We all know that information has INCREDIBLE value, yet the free market doesn't seem able to transfer the benefit of this value to the people who create the content. As such, they will have to find another means of making a living which may well be less valuable to society, but yet pays them better...
chew on that for a while.