Slashdot Mirror
An Acerbic Look At the Future of Reading
theodp writes "Using Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos' own words against him, Mark Pilgrim offers his chilling take on The Future of Reading with a mash-up of Bezos' Open Letter to the Authors Guild, the Amazon Kindle Terms of Service, Steven Levy's Newsweek article on the Kindle, 1984, and Richard Stallman's 'The Right to Read.'"
It's all books on tape from hear on in...
Reading? What's that? Is that some kind of new data bus?
-Vendal Thornheart
TFA isn't any more interesting either...
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
Ponder on the future of reading.......
If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
This looks more like a Daily Show script than anything else. Maybe they can just scrap their current writers and rely on blogger analysis.
tl;dr
I understand his points, but I think they are less relevant to a subscription service, which is what I want. I want to pay $X/month and be able to get as many books as I can read. I don't need to own, just to rent. Basically, a paid library where the benefit is that I can get the books right on the device because I'm lazy. $10/book to own is too much for me, since I won't read most books more than once.
How about that, both links are to fiction!
(for those of you who didn't RTFA, which is everybodyt but me and that other guy, the links are to Orwell's 1984 and Newsweek's "the future of" something or other.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
I'll tell you what is happening here. It's the same thing that is happening on other fronts - precisely the same thing.
The constitution was written with the idea of the government serving and protecting the people, watching out for their welfare, arranging things so that this was first and foremost concern in those areas the government operated.
This emphasis on copyright benefiting the business interests any any expense to the citizen's interests is the exact same change in emphasis we have seen for the takings of land, the decreases in freedom of speech, the ridiculous idea that software can and/or should be patentable, the intent to force you to wait through commercials, the powers allowed to the insurance companies to pre-qualify applicants, the insane readings of the commerce clause that allow the government to attack the citizen for any act at all, the outright hijacking of the news outlets by commercially oriented entities — the problem is that it is like the tale of boiling a lobster. It's all annoying, but none of it is annoying enough, by itself, to really get the citizens up in arms.
America is degenerating quickly. If you think your vote counts, you'd better start using it differently at every level. Because the "same-old, same-old" is what got us here.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
an article on the future of listening to audio tapes?
When a thing becomes outmoded, don't we always let it fall to the side? I mean I don't see many people beating their steering wheel with a buggy whip. electronic reading materials and electronic readers are beginning to be more popular. The MPAA and major networks want you to watch a movie version of the book rather than read it. It's going to be a hard sell to get people to keep turning pages on a paper book. Does anyone reading this post have a set of encyclopedias? Encyclopedias were essential for raising smart kids - replaced. The Physician's Desk Reference used to be an important book about drugs - replaced. An unabridged dictionary was or should have been truly important - replaced.
Perhaps we would be better off to read articles on the ergonomics of new electronic books etc. I know that Ford is not going to re-introduce the Fairlane 500, nor will GE try to bring back hand operated washing machines. Some things are simply no longer appropriate for the great unwashed masses.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
What's interesting here is simply that there is no reason why Amazon couldn't let users "resell" their books.
For the DRM'd book, they're simply tied to Amazons server. Amazon could easily let someone (through Amazon, natch) sell back their books to anyone wanting to buy it. Amazon then moves the key from Party A to Party B. Enable some external linking system to empower this, and you could easily "lend" a book to another party. "Dear Bob, click on this link and you'll get 'War and Peace'". Again, Amazon uses the link data to move the book from Party A's bookshelf to Party B. When Party B wants to return the book to Party A, the same transaction takes place.
There's no TECHNICAL reason why Amazon could not do this.
Support authors who publish their content using Creative Commons style licenses. What little writing I do is published using CC licenses, Wikipedia is moving to CC, and I never would have even heard of Cory Doctorow years ago (still one of my favorites) if not for CC.
I'm considering licensing the majority of the content on my educational resources site under a CC license. Seriously, support these kinds of effort at (1) making high-quality published works accessible to a broader audience, and (2) supporting authors who are willing to try new business models to earn a living.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
I don't need to own, just to rent.
You've never heard of a "public library?" Damn, just when I'm starting to like the 21st century* some bozo reminds me that the mamon worshipers are trying to take away every good thing I've taken for granted all my life.
-mcgrew
*click the sig for explanation
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
At least here on Slashdot, everybody just comments, nobody reads.
It is ironic that the parent post claims that copyright is somehow destroying constitutional rights. (Presumably the US constitution.) In reality, it is the constitution itself that establishes copyright!
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 states that Congress should "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".
Now, you can try to argue that copyright is somehow immoral, but be aware that you are arguing AGAINST the constitution, not for it.
The issue with all electronic media is the ease of duplication. That's what all the DRM stuff is trying to address, and making such a mess of everything in the process.
This is nothing new: there was never any physical impediment to sitting down with a paper book and a Xerox machine, or even writing it out by hand. But it was laborious and time-consuming, sufficiently so that few people bothered. It was easier and cheaper to just buy a copy of the book.
So how you you do it? If I'm going to sit down and write a book I expect to be compensated for my efforts. How can you ensure the author's rights to fair compensation in a world where files are so easy to duplicate? It's clear that there is a business model issue here, so how would you fix it?
...laura
At least here on Slashdot, everybody just comments, nobody reads.
Not only did I read, but I repeated and replied as well.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
I scrolled to the bottom, and didn't see a video on the page. Does anybody have a link to the video?
... when they pass the "can you drop it" test. Books, especially paperbacks are pretty indestructible. Most electronics I've seen have to be taken care of nicely, etc. Also, the battery life of the book's way better, even including the batteries needed to read in the dark.
Wal-Mart Joins Amazon to Push Labels to Ditch DRM Once and For All: http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/drm-deathwatch/amazon-and-wal+mart-push-labels-to-ditch-drm-once-and-for-all-329105.php
You can't write this shit.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
Many would identify me as a bit of a nerd. I have a moderately low UID, I work in IT, and I have too many features on my cell phone.
Part of the nerd world tends to be life on the "bleeding edge" of technology. While a nerd may not always own the latest and greatest, he or she will tend to at least follow the news and allow that to influence their purchases. They probably got involved in the internet, BBSing, mobile internet, and any number of other technologies before their non-nerd friends.
But today, we have DRM. I've bought DRM, and I've skipped purchases because of DRM. DRM really annoys me, because it interferes with my interest in the latest techology. While the Kindle might not have been a "must-buy" item for me at its current price, if it were to be subsidized below $100, it would have entered my consumer radar, had it not been afflicted with the restrictions Amazon has placed. While I currently subscribe to a music service, (Rhapsody, if it matters) I tend to buy music that I wish to keep on old-fashioned CD. I'll rent DVDs, but I'll seldom buy them because I don't want to violate the DMCA to get them on my PMP.
Blu-Ray? HD-DVD? I have no idea; who's farting on my pizza less?
When I go out to eat, I don't have someone screwing up my food on purpose, and when I'm getting a haircut, they don't reserve the right to shave areas I'm not supposed to be able to see - why is it then that all of these great technologies have to come with a little "oh by the way..." restriction?
And is it really on topic?
I think the article is overreacting. Being able to change an E-Book is very different from being able to erase all evidence of an event taking place from all media (as was the case in the book "1984").
He seems to draw the conclusion that this capability will lead to such a situation. I think it's got a long way to go before getting there. If the government begins censoring everything *other than* remotely editable E-Books, I'll begin to worry. Until then, there's plenty of media other than that where you can find out what's really happening.
-Vendal Thornheart
It's one of the railroads you can buy in Monopoly!
Dunno why it's still an option these days, why not the iPod Railway or the Cellphone Yapping Railway?
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
If you can't see that the post is on-topic, then you should go read the FA. You might find some vague reference to the effects of copyright interpretation and enforcement on reading, which, you may recall, is something a person, a citizen, does. You also, if you work *really* hard, might recall that copyright is enforced top down by the feds. Using the constitution as the base authority. Go ahead. Read. Or work for comprehension. Or both. We'll wait. [ whistles ]
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
To me, an e-book reader device looks almost like a retro-futuristic object -- like an automobile that resembles a horse-drawn carriage or a airplane looking like a giant feathery bird. Nonetheless, I have been somewhat of a fan of the idea of e-reading - that is until recently, when, after having held a Sony reader in my hands for a minute, I have suddenly realized that I do not want to just read; rather, I want to be able to work with the book in a more interactive way. Also, it is likely that I will want to use a (full-featured) computer at the same time. But since I do not want to have to carry two gadgets around, I have to stick to a computer, using it as the reader (which is nothing new). Thus, I find the idea of a standalone e-book reader device somehow fundamentally flawed.
As far as licensing is concerned, what has always puzzled me is why the ease of the media exchange between, say, people makes sharing of the content legitimate? When you buy a book or, say, a video game, 90% of what you pay is the license. Once *you* have played the game, or have read the book, you have used up *your* license, and so selling the game or the book, or even giving it away, would seem to be illegal.
Much of progress is based on innovation. Much (some would say all) of
innovation comes from places it's not supposed to: weekend projects,
off the books work, amateurs. People have an idea and the interest
to follow it where it leads.
By definition the resources for this kind of work is not allocated
to it. Somehow resources are allocated for some other purpose
and leftovers become available. Look at how a lot of USENET depended
on modems and phone lines used for business during the day and uucp
dialup at night. There wasn't much complaint for individual, small scale use because the cost vanished in the noise.
HERE'S THE POINT: purchasing content means that it is still available after its primary purpose has been met. Uses that might not have justified expense on their own are now possible. As far as books go,
it means information is available to many people who do not have an
obvious need to know. If every book only goes to people who "need"
them society will lose out on the accidental creativity of everyone who reads.
(This subject of interstitial resources and innovation has many more aspects)
Just pick written (whether hardcopy of digital in nature) materials provided under the right license, in the same way that you'd pick software based on the license. Support licensing models designed to ensure your freedom to act as you would prefer with respect to the material, and discourage others from supporting opposing licensing models. Of course, if someone really wants to release their work under a restrictive license, there's nothing to stop them. There's also nothing to stop another community of people from absorbing the knowledge contained within the material, rewording it in a new and original form, and releasing that new material with the same message to the public at large.
This doesn't help you for works which are valued purely for their artistic merit, but I don't buy CDs anymore because I don't want to support a corrupt recording industry. I have found new artists whose works aren't so heavily "regulated," so to speak.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
The flip side to all the Big Brother concerns with ebooks is the potential for little known authors of merit to reach an audience. Without the choke hold of a narrow and tighly controlled distribution channel, many more more voices can be heard. There is also no reason why any book ever needs to be out of print again. The Kindle and other ereaders do support user-owned content. And Amazon has a program for letting authors publish to the Kindle through Amazon. eReading is the future and it could be a very rewarding future.
Anyone use one of these Amazon Kindle things yet? Can you read any text/PDF file on it, or do they have to be in a proprietary format or digitally signed by amazon.com?
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
...exactly.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
When you buy a book or, say, a video game, 90% of what you pay is the license.
That is *not* what you buy.
You purchase a copy. That copy is yours. You don't "use up" a license. You use a copy.
The whole idea of copyright is simple: allow the creator of a work to provide limited licenses on *copying.* The only rights the author has is the right to control copying of the creation. That's why it's called a "copy right."
This whole idea of licensing copyrighted works is from the software industry. It involves the *license* to create copies of the work. Of course, in most cases, the work is useless without copying onto a hard drive, so it kinda makes sense, in a strange way.
However, when you purchase a book, you are not making a copy. You are purchasing a copy, and that copy belongs to *you*. You may sell it, lend it, and even copy small sections for purposes of academia or research or review (SEE fair use). You can do anything you want, as long as you don't make a copy, because only the author has the right to authorize ("license") copies.
Please resist the urge to voluntarily give up your rights. Don't let them convince you that sharing is bad. It isn't. That book is yours. That console game is yours. You can sell them, lend them, or do anything else you can do with a physical object. Those are your *rights.*
At least, those are your rights in the United States, and in many other nations. Check with your local government to be sure.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
As far as i know, the Kindle can be used to read non-DRM books, just as an iPod can play non-DRM mp3's. One can, for example, format Gutenberg books for free, load them onto a Kindle, and read them. There are also DRM works available, but not, for example, Harry Potter. I can't think of another book i'd read under DRM.
So for me, the Kindle should be judged as an electronic reader. Like the Sony, it has a large format, high res, gray scale screen (no color). There's a pause displaying a new screen, but once there, power drain is minimal to keep it there. The batteries last a long time. Books can be text, PDF or web pages. It does WiFi and USB. It can play audio, but at the expense of consuming the batteries. You don't have to play audio. It can display images, but, they are gray scale.
On the down side, it doesn't scroll well (there's that pause). It's larger than a shirt pocket. I prefer the Palm form factor. Portability is important. The Kindle is something like $400, which i consider outrageous.
My old Handspring Visor Platinum has an LCD screen, works well in direct sunlight, ambient room light, and darkness (with backlight), runs more than 20 hours on 2 AAA batteries (10 with backlight), spares can be carried for more endurance, does USB, turns pages quickly, has two font sizes to optimize readability with it's small screen, fits in a shirt pocket, was $110 new (closeout), and can run other apps, like a calendar, memopad, planetarium, and games. There are DRM readers available. I happen to like weasel better. 8 MB RAM/file store allows apps and at least a couple Bible sized books on line. On the downside, it doesn't display images, and it is no longer available. For long battery life in black and white, LCDs rock.
I'm now using a Nokia 770. It fits in a shirt pocket, has stunning color but it is weakest in direct sunlight, does PDF, and web, the text reader: FBReader offers fonts, sizes, and colors, runs 5 hours on a charge, a spare battery can be purchased, was $150 new (closeout), can run other apps including a Palm emulator, does WiFi, Bluetooth and USB. It runs Linux. It comes with a 64 MB flash card, for huge libraries online. A 2 GB flash card allows audio and video, or this stuff can be streamed over WiFi.
-- Stephen.
that all major politicians in all major parties are whores of a corporatocracy
how truthful that cynicism is or not, i can defeat your point of view with an even more cynical observation: if a third party appeared, killing off the republican or the democrats, that party would merely replicate the previous party's level of degeneration and corruption
so the issue is structural: a law must be passed that must seal off the involvement of money in politics. anyone who gets enough signatures gets a pool of money to spend, that's it
then, any spending of any money in any case, no matter how peripheral, is punished. that owuld be easy to enforce, considering the spotlight that politicians labor under
but to get that law made, you need an issue-oriented candidate, of ANY PARTY
who would ride a wave to public office based on this issue and this issue alone, then his popularity must be big enough to muscle the change through
it has nothing to do with party politics
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Sure, you can do 3D images, etc. But nothing in an e-book will amaze a child more than a good old fashioned pop-up book.
I hate to admit it, but when I was a kid, it was the cover of a book that got my interest. If it had a boring cover, I probably passed on it. I know, I probably missed out.
Now, how many of you have found yourself wandering a video store looking for something to spice up your evening and found yourself drawn by some flashy imaging on the box? Or a well thought out title? Yes, I realize that is rather shallow, but it works, from a marketing point of view.
Since I get most of my reading/video from the internet these days, that really doesn't work anymore. Now I rely almost entirely on reviews, reader/viewer reviews in particular.
It makes me wonder if the next generation of book marketing will be the manipulation of our perceptions of a book/movie by the manipulation of the reviews we read. (Yes, I am aware that already happens to a small extent, but I am talking about marketing campaigns that rely solely on writing fake reviews, etc.) Is some monkey out there pounding out code for a "Review generator"?
And to go one step further, will we one day be looking for "No DRM!" in reviews just as much as content information?
Come friendly bombs ...
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
Wheee! Yet another "Teh Kindle is teh antichrist!" article by someone who handily ignores the fact that it's easy to put your own non-DRMed content on the Kindle and read it. Shrug. Nothing to see here.
...instead of buying a book in one discrete transaction, you could subscribe to a book, with the expectation that an author will continually add to it. This would be more suitable for nonfiction than novels, but it's also possible that a novelist might decide to rewrite an ending, or change something in the middle of the story. Finally they can "special-editionalise" the Star War novels too!(Yes, editionalise is a real word, my Kindle says so)
Codeala - Just another mindless drone
- Consume food or beverages, smoke or use tobacco or tobacco products inside library buildings.
- Use obscene, abusive, threatening or insulting language or engage in obscene acts.
- ...
- Be present in the building without shirt or shoes. Patrons must wear a covering of their upper bodies and shoes or other footwear while in the library building.
- Have offensive personal hygiene in a library building. Patrons' bodily hygiene, including offensive body odor and the presence of bodily wastes on clothing and skin, shall not be objectionable so as to constitute a nuisance to other patrons or staff.
- Bathe or wash clothing in library restrooms.
- Sleep.
(I think it's interesting that pants are apparently not required...)"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Considering you can get books in pretty crappy condition for under a $1. I'd download books, regardless of DRM for that price, just so long as the only preferences that are mined is my download history from the site I purchase from.
If I buy a CD, I can burn a copy and put my original in my closet for safekeeping. Then I can loan you the copy, as long as I don't use the original.
Why can't I loan my MP3 that I bought? If I loan you a copy, but don't play my own copy, until after you delete yours ("returning" it to me), I'm doing exactly what I did with the CD.
The CD was a piece of plastic I bought that had the bits burned in a pattern. The MP3 was just a series of electrons or photons I bought zapped into its pattern of energy levels. If the loaning rights are only to the physical medium I bought, which happens to have the pattern I like etched into its physical particles, then how come I can loan you the copied CD?
I can also take that CD to a party at your house, and play it for some friends. Even some friends of yours who I don't know - and friends of theirs who they brought who you don't even know. I can even leave the room while it plays across the house. And then, while I leave it behind as a loan for a week, you can have another party without me, as long as I don't play the copy. Why can't I do that with an MP3?
I know that the person to whom I loaned it might copy it themself, without the right to do so. But that's their criminal act, not mine. I know that MP3s are even easier to copy than are CDs, but that's an artifact of the technology, not a change in the law.
Why can't I loan my MP3s, except that the music business that sold it to me could make even more money if I didn't. Except that loaning CDs, like loaning vinyl and tape before it, is one of the main ways music has always been marketed. It's always been easy to record radio broadcasts, but (even though that's illegal, like copying a CD - or MP3 - a friend loaned you) the practice just increased sales, and even more profitable ones when the marketing was done free among the fans.
Why can't I loan my MP3s? Is Hollywood still intent on suicide?
--
make install -not war
This kind of juxtaposition is what I had in mind when I expanded a /. comment in this piece on the Kindle.
I think the Kindle gets so much press because it's technologically so damn impressive but legally so damn irritating. Until there's a way of solving the hurdles to distributing books, I wouldn't even consider buying the Kindle.
Good post...the "if I had Mod points" things hardly touches it though ;)
Going on means going far
Going far means returning
The bloody thing is the size of a small hardcover. OK, it's a SLIGHT improvement over the other readers I've seen that were the size of a full-sized hardcover, but if a paperback book is already too big to tote around, who's going to carry the larger and more fragile Kindle?
My eBook reader is a Sony Clie. I can put DRMed and non-DRMed content on it, and read it, and it fits in my pocket even if I'm wearing blue-jeans. AND it was half the price even in pre-Bush dollars.
The whole idea of buying a dedicated eBook reader instead of software for the PDA or smartphone most of teh potential customers already have is just wacky. If Bezos wants to move eBooks, he needs to ship them in Mobipocket format instead of re-re-re-inventing the wheel (this one's triangular! One fewer bump!).
For the record: I have three primary beefs with DRM:
I can think of lots more. But these three will do for a start.
...laura
Something is bothering me here.
... and no one even BOTHERS to copy it.
The very old famous hand-wringing used to be "the Publishers don't want me because I'm not sacrificing my story for cheap marketeting, so I'll never be famous".
In other threads, we complain that "no one even reads anyway, so why bother at all?"
Therefore, since I am not certain to make any money at all, why not release a book for free "that anyone could copy..." - because that would mean they WANTED IT.
The true horror is making it free
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Fun fact, the printing press was invented in 1430's. Before this, it's a bit of a stretch to say the 'ink-and paper volumes' were standard for anyone. They made the kindle look cheap.
For non-fiction, computer screens are fine. However, for fiction, I'm never switching from paper as long as it's available. There's something about a real book that I just like. Bright shiny computer screens are distracting to the process of immersion and imagination that helps make books worth reading.
I guess this article just goes to show you that one need not be a huge mega-corporation to create FUDD. Is he really implying a correlation between automatic errata updating and the Ministry of Truth from 1984?! I thought we were supposed to be the tech-savvy level minded people, not the type of people who thought that Y2K was the apocalypse.
This stuff really makes my wanna scream. I found a new logo for them in here.
Yes, Kindle is evil, with its DRM, Amazon store tie-ins, and constant connection to Amazon.
But there are good e-book readers:
http://www.irextechnologies.com/products/iliad
http://www.bookeen.com/
They also support DRM'ed books, but they are very different devices: open, programmable, extensible, and they support open formats right on the device.
E-books have the potential of making books much more widely and cheaply accessible, if they don't get hijacked by companies like Amazon.
You're missing one rather large and important piece of reasoning which rationalizes the intent of DRM and explains why you can't loan your MP3 as you do with your CDs:
The technology for limiting rights and usage was not mature, practical, or else available when older media were introduced. What this means is that, contrary to your assumption, current MP3s do not *add* restrictions to your usage, but that instead (for technical reasons) CDs did *not* add them.
This may seem like a purely semantical argument but it carries some very important implications: that restricting usage was *always* the intent, but could not be done before; and that now that the technology is available, rights restrictions are finally being rightfully implemented. It means that publishers had always wanted to control your access to the content, but couldn't do so until now. It means the fact that you could sell a tangible, used book to someone else was merely a technological fluke. And it further means that you have absolutely no claim over the content, and perhaps not even to the medium on which such content is applied.
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely and consummately abhor this perverted view. But this is the case brought forth by the so-called "intellectual property" concept and the distortion of Copyrights' purpose of enriching humanity's cultural universe. More importantly, identifying the real reasons why these technologies are applied is the first step in any effort to defeat them: it must be understood that these technological mechanisms are merely a means to an end, and that the the reason they seem to have become so prevalent in our society is because those who propose them feel themselves justified by history.
-dZ.
Carol vs. Ghost
to the format.
It will only be surpassed in popularity (not need, though, think of technology meltdown or infrastructure change, making power untenable) when there's a "book like" ebook reader that can be read in AT LEAST as many places, used as flexibly as paper books are and aren't tied to a location (so you can take a "book" camping for a week without taking a power source too). It also needs to have the same UI capability and have search/index/multimedia capabilities in addition.
At that point, the expense of such a book reader is warranted.
THEN it will start to take off.
"Intent" of whom? Who can prove "intent", anyway? In reality, we deal with actions, like what it says on the parchment Constitution that people signed and that Americans are obligated to obey.
The Constitution says only that Congress can secure for limited times exclusive rights to copy content, when that promotes science and the useful arts. That power of the government is created as a compromise between the freedom of speech (and other expression) which the Constitution does not otherwise give the government the power to restrict (except in case of actual immediate threats of violence), and the needs of commerce (in 1789, and however long afterward it's still been true) to protect the investment in that content from competition at advantage from the lesser investment of merely copying it.
Sure, publishers probably always wanted to control content to the utmost, like paying per letter read every time. But the rest of the people, the vaster majority, probably always wanted to get it all for free. So what? The balance struck by the Constitution to protect the publishers minority specified the degree of free speech by everyone else that could be infringed: only that necessary to protect science and the useful arts. Protecting enough potential return on investment that people would produce and publish content. But there's no evidence that unlimited profits for unlimited times, the reverse of the balance - flipped towards the dreams of the publishers, not the rights of the public - are provided for in the Constitution. To the contrary, the copyright exception to free speech is specifically proscribed. And then the absolute right to free speech is made explicit in the 1st Amendment, if there were any doubt about whether the copyright provision might indicate more power to infringe our free speech. If you're going to bring up intent, those two sentences in the Constitution, which is all that gives any power to the government, make clear the intent: the smallest exception to free speech, justified only by promoting science and the useful arts.
The Constitution specifies how we create a government to protect our rights, and, when welfare beyond that is at stake, it's "the general" welfare, not the specific privileges of any few, like publishers, except where those privileges are essential to everyone's welfare. It's a timeless document about rights. Now, it was written by people, so it could be wrong, so it provides for amendment. The only amendment on this subject has been to state an even more aggressive protection of our free speech from any government control, despite the copyright provision. But it doesn't explicitly state that the copyright provision is superseded. So there is still a compromise at work, which must be tested as the society changes, including changes from technology. However, it's clear that the copyright extensions through the 20th Century were justified solely by the influence of publishers for greater advantage, not any greater necessity to protect the potential return on investing in producing and publishing content. The proof is in the vast residual profits, well beyond that any investor would need anticipate to justify investing, which would still have been adequate in practically all those cases were the copyright term (to name just one abuse) just the original 14 years, not the effective perpetuity that now blatantly violates the Constitutions "limited times" instructions.
The change that technology has brought has been to increase the profitability of producing content when it's less restricted. So arguing about tech of 2007 vs 1789 means that the laws should indeed be changed: less protection is necessary, because technology and its common use has now radically eliminated costs of distribution and barriers to entry, while increasing the reachable market to an instantaneous, worldwide audience, and putting some of the highest quality production techniques into the hands of vastly more people who need invest the tiniest amo
--
make install -not war
I think that many here are confusing the act of enjoying a piece of literature, which is largely solitary experience and the act of learning which is interactive and collaborative nature.
The idea of restricted information is much more palatable to those who simply wish to read a piece for their own enjoyment and never return to it.
However, once the idea and process of restricted information is accepted, which will be established in the realm of enjoying a piece of literature mentioned above, the way will be clear to expand this established process to that of learning and textbooks.
It is the restrictions on interaction and sharing and their effect on the act of learning that this piece deals with and that we should be concerned about.
Today we read articles about people being sued for sharing a $5.00 piece of music. How soon will it be before we see the first lawsuit for sharing a digital copy of a $200 textbook?
>> And since it's obvious that DRM is helping kill the publishing business when it should be thriving, there really is no sane argument in its favor.
I think you may have misunderstood the point of my argument. I agree with your comment wholeheartedly, and specially with the quote above, so I hardly see the reason to react in such a defensive manner.
My point was that saying statements such as "I was able to copy my CDs before, ergo I should be able to copy my MP3s now" is the wrong attitude when fighting the pervasion of Copyrights and DRM. Not necessarily because they are wrong, but because they depend on causality as the justification for eliminating such restrictions. And the classic retort to such argument has been "well, usage was always meant to be restricted, we just couldn't do it before." This is obviously a strawman argument, but it is my opinion that it is fundamentally flawed on both sides. The latter because, as we agree, is not really reasonable based on historical fact; the former, well, because it fuels the latter and by arguing against its false logic legitimizes it.
My original comment implied that those in favor of DRM, are striving to convince the populous and government that this distorted view and intent of Copyrights is the way it was always meant to be. That the means of providing a temporary monolopy of the work to the author towards the end of promoting the public good, is the end in itself. To you or me this may seem absurd and incomprehensible, especially in light of what is said in the Constitution, yet the pervasiveness of DRM, and the acceptance that most have towards these mechanisms as "necessary evils" (and the recent extensions to the Copyright statutes) suggests that at least *some* are falling for it.
So the proper arguments should be *against* the distortion of the intent of Copyrights and a focus on educating about the real reasons why it has been in the best interest of our society to limit -- temporarily -- such rights, but with the ultimate goal of enriching the public domain of works, and thus promote "science and the useful arts". And once that is accepted and upheld, all arguments in favor of extending "intellectual property rights" past the lifetime of an author, or of restricting access or fair use, become invalid and indefensible.
In the meantime, sure, fight DRM! oppose it! boycott it! But when stating your case against it, I hope you don't just say "because DRM prevents me from doing what I did before, and that's wrong", but rather "because DRM prevents me from doing what has been my Constitutional, cultural, and moral right since the birth of this Nation." And that's wrong.
-dZ.
Carol vs. Ghost
I wrote that response with a tone that defended my argument, which was based on the Constitution, from your criticism of it, which was based on a technological change. I don't think I was harsh. But it is clear that we agree.
However, it's now clear that you don't understand my original point. I used "CDs" as my example, because that's what we're all familiar with, and the "it's digital, it's different" argument is disproven by it. But I could have said "records", including vinyl, or "books", or "videotapes", or anything else that fair use protects. Fair use isn't "fair" because of any technology. And it's not an exception to copyright: it's an explicit itemization of rights to free speech that copyright does not infringe.
So we're in violent agreement. It's not that complicated, only moderately - because the copyright exception is presented as the basic rule, not as an exception, and the fair use limits on copyright are presented as exceptions. Because the only ones presenting these facts are the publishers. So yes, I do proudly reject any attempt to sell me a package that includes suspension of my rights, right in the face of whoever's peddling it to me. But I also talk in public (like on Slashdot) in simple terms, like "I could share my CDs, why can't I share my MP3s?", which anyone can understand. If they get the answer wrong, by making it more complicated, I explain why there was no legitimate power to stop sharing CDs, which hasn't changed. Over the past few years, as others have also done so, I've seen consciousness gradually change. That's my way of helping.
--
make install -not war
>> But I also talk in public (like on Slashdot) in simple terms, like "I could share my CDs, why can't I share my MP3s?", which anyone can understand. If they get the answer wrong, by making it more complicated, I explain why there was no legitimate power to stop sharing CDs, which hasn't changed. Over the past few years, as others have also done so, I've seen consciousness gradually change. That's my way of helping.
:)
I see. Then I concede that it was my mistake in judging your simplistic comment as your overall understanding of the issue, instead of an attempt at painlessly introducting the topic. I apologize for this.
And once again I would like to reiterate that I absolutely agree with your views on Copyright, as expressed in your responses.
And I'll agree with you 'till I'm blue in the face, dammit!
-dZ.
Carol vs. Ghost
This is all so dumb arguing about DRM and everything for these devices, when the truth is in two years time you'll be able to buy the chines knock-off for far less and do whatever the F you want with it, and nobody can do a damn thing to stop it.
Grandparent post says "My personal experience is that people tend to suck up all the free content and when that is cut off, they move on to the next free content somewhere else." I was going to say yes, but...
Sure, I suck up the free stuff and when that is cut off I move on, except for my subscription to the Economist. In May 2006 I paid £ 224 for another three year subscription. That is £ 74 = $154 dollars a year with the best discount available.
I've gradually realised that the main stream media are in the business of selling eye-balls to advertisers. So they pimp up the stories to get you to read them and hope that you don't find out that it has all been hyped up. Worse, main stream media reports are written to stir the emotions more than to inform. So long as you remain in the headspace of Oh my God! and Isn't it awful! it is intoxicating entertainment with a modest basis in fact. Drop out of that headspace for a while and the pressure to have the emotions that the media thrust upon you starts to feel abusive.
I've ended up that I pay real money for sober reporting, but that is not on offer from mainstream media. I'm not going to pay for what they serve up. Cut me off and I'll find another free source. If all the free sources dry up, that will grant me a liberation from crap that I have not been able to achieve by will power alone, and I will be grateful.
Running in parallel with the issue of paying for content that you value, that is paying money for goods, there is the issue of content that one despises, where one is consuming bads because it has an addictive pull. You cannot just assume that if CNN runs out of money and gives up, that this is a bad outcome.
You responded to the wrong part of my post I guess.
When I said, "Why would anyone bother paying for the content when they can just get it out of the public domain? I wouldn't."
I was not saying that all public domain content was equal.
The grandparent suggested that content producers should produce content on contract, and then release it into the public domain.
My statement was speaking to why would anyone bother signing up for the contract to pay for the content when they could just wait until it was released into the public domain. If everyone knows the content is going to be available for free eventually, why pay in advance? Oh, I'm sure there will be some fanatics willing to be the first to get the content, but 1) it will likely show up on P2P sites shortly anyway and 2) it will be released legitimately into the public domain anyway.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
CNN /used/ to charge for video content. I believe they called it "ipass" or something like that. But I believe they stopped that some months ago. Now there are advertisements played before most video spots.
I'm sure the reason why they changed their policy is because no one was paying for the content. I know whenever I saw a teaser on CNN but couldn't watch the video I just googled it and watched the story on some free site.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
>Creative works are very similar. If what you said is true, then the majority of people
>would never pay top-dollar for first-run movies and first-edition books. They would
>just "move on" to the much cheaper 2nd run theaters, or wait for the DVDs to hit the
>$4 bin at wal-mart, or buy the remaindered books at places like The Dollar Store.
Or...they might download them for free off the internet.
Oh wait, that's exactly what they are doing...
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
When I was a kid, I hated books.
I am the kind of near sighted mole that fall asleep after thirty minutes reading. Eye fatigue.
One day, my dad bought me this strangle little piece for Boris Vian, about werewolves and killer lesbians.
I was thirteen.
I loved it.
I went to my dad and screamed "I CAN HAS MOAR !". He just showed me the bookshelves. "Has moar, my son, hundreds just waiting for you."
The reading room was wonderful, fresh, sunny. The kind of place I'd now stay in for a smoke and some pages. Browsing the shelves was an experience, reaching the top ones was another, it sealed my relationship with books.
I don't want to imagine what I'd have become had my father said : "Sorry son, I have 13.000 books on my kindle, but by law, I cannot lend them to you. And stop speaking lolctaz."