I'm not sure where people get the idea that simply throwing money at social problems like world hunger will make them go away. There is a food surplus in this country alone that would probably startle people if they knew about it -- one of the figures I found was 60 million tons of surplus grain in the US alone.
Unfortunately, what prevents us from solving larger social issues like this is politics, not lack of funds. It's a given though that when given the choice between untangling the difficult maze of human interaction and simply throwing money at an issue, most people would rather throw money and be content that they've helped somehow.
I hardly think a man who has won the Hugo, Nebula, Locus and Campbell awards, was voted the favorite writer by Locus writers and has written over eleven novels (several of which were bestsellers) is at all jealous of Lucas.
'We have the Internet. We have the power. Any questions?'
The old chestnut about might making right comes to mind.
So good of you, Jon, to cheer on the people who decide that the ability to be rude and ignore the wishes of others constitutes a mandate to do whatever the hay they want.
As I recall with great interest, 'The Prince of Egypt' didn't merchandise very much, believing it tasteless to have little plastic Moses figures in your McDonald's Happy Meal.
As for 'no one needs that much money'... that's like saying 'no one needs to live forever'. The implicit question is: 'What would you do with it all?' If you honestly have no idea how to spend 'too much money' responsibly and in a way that would benefit several good causes, check out Elizabeth Barrette's excellent What to Do With Entirely Too Much Money. I bet you'll think twice next time you buy that lottery ticket.
So when are we going to set up a site where the musicians recording the music circulating freely on the 'Net get compensated? Sure, MP3 is cool... what's not cool is that between the RIAA not allowing artists to release tracks as MP3s (and thus get paid for them) and people pirating music all over the place, there's no way for the artist to get their money.
Wouldn't it be cool if we could somehow refund the artists without having to pay through the RIAA? Any ideas, people? Come on. Open standards might be cool, but cheating musicians out of their reward isn't.
The problem with this is distribution. That's the second of the two major reasons we have publishers (the first being packaging and printing, something that a print-on-demand solution would theoretically solve). Your aim as an author is to make money off every copy you sell... and it's much harder to get copies sold if you don't have a physical presence that people can handle, point to, have signed, have placed on large kiosks for them to see. It's far more enticing to a buyer to see an interesting cover and title and pick it up than it is to peruse endless text lists of titles.
Authorial presences on the web are beginning to make a difference, but it still doesn't compare yet to physical print-runs, keeping in mind that books are sold to far more people than are on the net.
If there comes a day when no book need ever be out of print, then something radical is going to happen to the way authors are paid. There's value in reversion clauses; it's one thing for a publisher to be willing to never be out of print, but it's another thing entirely whether a publisher is willing to give their infinitely-retained backlist the kind of publicity it would need to keep an author even moderately compensated.
Additionally, I have to wonder how having an eternal backlist will affect what authors are sought after.
I don't have a problem with the idea of books never going out of print; I'm just skeptical. I don't see the publishing industry taking many chances on new authors. I see massive consolidation of publishing houses with increasing slushpiles and decreasing interest in radical books. Unless something like the afore-mentioned print-on-demand makes book publishing cheaper, I can only imagine that eternal backlists will only make it more difficult for new authors to break into the business.
It's called print-on-demand, something publishers are beginning to toy with.
Of course, the state of the industry now grants publishers the right to print-on-demand as a subsidiary right, which means the author gets paid a lot less for it -- not only that, but having a book constantly in some publisher's backlist and theoretically available for purchase prevents an author from obtaining her rights from the publisher so that she can re-sell them to another publisher for a better deal/new and more publicized print-run!
It might be good for publishers, and it might be good for consumers, but the authors have to eat too.
Publishers are running to reprint their backlists? Since when? I'd submit that the opinion of a published author might be more informed on that matter. I, for one, am not seeing publishers eager to publish more and new material and out-of-print material... only works they're absolutely certain will sell. Quite a different matter from the proliferation of new and old and everything-in-between material Arnett seems to suggest.
Get the facts. Copyright protects your implementation of the idea of the wheel... not the concept of the wheel itself. To use your example, copyright law would prevent other people from duplicating your particular stone wheel with the specially chiseled sides... not from making their own take on a wheel and selling it.
Ideas can't be copyrighted. What you do with those ideas can.
The point (and problem with this) is that without the ability to 'hoard' your intellectual property, you wouldn't be able to make a living doing it. Then all the best software, art, music and literature would be made by one of two people: 1) People who are slaving away during the day at something they hate so they can have time to do what they like when they go home, or 2) People who are poorer than dirt.
Copyright doesn't protect 'ideas'. It protects concrete works. I can't copyright the idea of a human falling in love with an alien. I can, however, copyright a work of fiction that addresses that idea.
By this man's logic, we should make murder legal because we can't prevent it. Just because you can't stop someone from doing something wrong doesn't make it okay to do it. Nor should we assume that everyone does it because it can be done -- not everyone's a rogue or a thief.
Sorry. When I create something of my own labor, I should be able to decide what to do with it, whether it's keep it for my own gain or give it away. Freedom is about choices. Abolishing copyright would take away my choices. Isn't that what all this free software bit's about?
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, what prevents us from solving larger social issues like this is politics, not lack of funds. It's a given though that when given the choice between untangling the difficult maze of human interaction and simply throwing money at an issue, most people would rather throw money and be content that they've helped somehow.
Just my two dineri.
I hardly think a man who has won the Hugo, Nebula, Locus and Campbell awards, was voted the favorite writer by Locus writers and has written over eleven novels (several of which were bestsellers) is at all jealous of Lucas.
The old chestnut about might making right comes to mind.
So good of you, Jon, to cheer on the people who decide that the ability to be rude and ignore the wishes of others constitutes a mandate to do whatever the hay they want.
As for 'no one needs that much money'... that's like saying 'no one needs to live forever'. The implicit question is: 'What would you do with it all?' If you honestly have no idea how to spend 'too much money' responsibly and in a way that would benefit several good causes, check out Elizabeth Barrette's excellent What to Do With Entirely Too Much Money. I bet you'll think twice next time you buy that lottery ticket.
Wouldn't it be cool if we could somehow refund the artists without having to pay through the RIAA? Any ideas, people? Come on. Open standards might be cool, but cheating musicians out of their reward isn't.
Authorial presences on the web are beginning to make a difference, but it still doesn't compare yet to physical print-runs, keeping in mind that books are sold to far more people than are on the net.
Additionally, I have to wonder how having an eternal backlist will affect what authors are sought after.
I don't have a problem with the idea of books never going out of print; I'm just skeptical. I don't see the publishing industry taking many chances on new authors. I see massive consolidation of publishing houses with increasing slushpiles and decreasing interest in radical books. Unless something like the afore-mentioned print-on-demand makes book publishing cheaper, I can only imagine that eternal backlists will only make it more difficult for new authors to break into the business.
Of course, the state of the industry now grants publishers the right to print-on-demand as a subsidiary right, which means the author gets paid a lot less for it -- not only that, but having a book constantly in some publisher's backlist and theoretically available for purchase prevents an author from obtaining her rights from the publisher so that she can re-sell them to another publisher for a better deal/new and more publicized print-run!
It might be good for publishers, and it might be good for consumers, but the authors have to eat too.
So, get a satellite instead of cable. And don't buy pay-per-view. Big deal. :)
Ideas can't be copyrighted. What you do with those ideas can.
Gee, there's a life I want to live.
Copyright doesn't protect 'ideas'. It protects concrete works. I can't copyright the idea of a human falling in love with an alien. I can, however, copyright a work of fiction that addresses that idea.
Sorry. When I create something of my own labor, I should be able to decide what to do with it, whether it's keep it for my own gain or give it away. Freedom is about choices. Abolishing copyright would take away my choices. Isn't that what all this free software bit's about?
The same server I'm using to post book reviews of science fiction is now processing SETI data. There's something so perfectly enclosed about that!