Topics like this one are a good example of why/.s threads are so often a laughingstock all over the Web. If you look at the length of the column and time of posts, it's obvious people post without reading...I know this is a Troll characteristic, and that they think they're showing tude. But there are actually lots of people online who come just to laugh at posts like this..Sad, sort of, and requiring a sort of warped sense of humor. Still seeking a specific comment, criticism or sign of actually reading and/or comprehension. Coming via e-mail, as usual, and perhaps later...
...i'm pretty fond of this one. And I didn't write the Hellmouth series alas, a lot of kids around the country did. Still scrolling for one sign anybody's actually read the column..This one didn't, for sure.
..smoke as much crack as Katz? Money. Note that this far into the topic, there still isn't one comment that would even remotely suggest anybody has read the column or has a specific criticism of it. Or even an intelligent thought about it..I'm always struck at how much time these people have to pretend that they've read things.
is a self-parody as opposed to a complete parody. Does anybody here actually have any specific comments about the article, or are we doing to dance all day?
Methinks you're taking the world a bit seriously. The point was to have some fun, which, obviously, some people are. Beyond that, you're reaching a bit.
But here's a question...Plse help
on
Universal Access
·
· Score: 3
Talking to one exec about this, she said, and I quote directly: "But one problem we're already encountering is that many people just can't use computers and have trouble navigating the Net. We can provide and upgrade and maintain the equipment, which helps, but some people are already asking us for some education as well, especially in other countries. Do you know anyone who does this or specializes in this? How difficult would this be?" I wasn't sure what to tell her, frankly. How hard would this be in an underdeveloped country and are there companies that specialize in this? I'd appreciate any help or guidance. Plse e-mail me and I'll pass it along. Or post here in Threads and I'll pass the word to her and other execs to read through And thanks. I think this is one of those rare ideas that is both morally and economically just a good idea. She did say there would be cultural resistance in some countries, she thought.
This is the right place at the right time to start working to dismantle this dreadful law, passed nearly two years ago while much of cyberspace wasn't paying attention. Some rock bands and music companies (for completely different reasons) are invoking this same law, as will any large corporation with lawyers that doesn't want to see something published. Under the worst provisions of the DMCA, you don't even have to prove copyright infringement, just allege it..and the ISP can only avoid liability by booting the offenders or deleting the allegedly offensive material. To restore access or content, you have to file an affidavit under the jurisdiction of the federal judge in your region. This is one of the reasons it's outrageous for a corporation like Microsoft to use the DMCA to remove public comments. Almost nobody online was paying attention with the entertainment industry rushed to get this law passed, maybe because nobody imagined companies like Microsoft would jump in to use it to try and control what they call "proprietary" information, but which, in fact, will have the affect of censoring, chilling free speech. Slashdot is lucky, in this case, to be owned by a corporation..it has access to lawyers. To really grasp the horror here, imagine if you're a smaller website or weblog.Step one: The DMCA has to be repealed or re-written.It's much more offensive and damaging than the Communications Decency Act would have been, and much more enforceable.
l. I'm not sure exactly what you're asking Kent, but I'll be happy to try and respond. The whole point of a publishing contract is that a writer gives the publisher the right to his books..Otherwise why would the publisher pay anything? They pay for the rights to books, even though few books make a profit, and none of mine ever has. If you're asking will I seek a publisher that will allow my book to be e-distributed for free, I doubt that I will find such a publisher, nor do I know of one. But if you're asking will I seek a publisher that will distribute publishing material using different models, sure.
2. I don't do "art," I'm a media critic and author. The better example is my columns, from which I make 90 to 95 per cent of income. I charge a flat flee for those, and those are freely distributed all over the Net and Web, and I don't charge anythig for them. That's the model I think publishing will get to and that' sthe model I think the music industry will get to.
3. I find your notion of me as a corporate fat cat because I have a book contract hilarious. I get paid less for my books than you spend on CD's a year. Mid-list writers rarely, if ever make money. I get small advances and have never gotten a royalty check, so your sort of sneering assumptions mostly reveal a complete ignorance of publishing.
4. I have actively urged my publisher to start distributing copyrighted material different, and I believe they will. Fatbrain and other places are experimenting with those m odels too. But your 100 per cent assertion that you can find a commercial publisher that would give away my books for free is hilarious. It's also utterly false. Have you ever met one of these people? If you're so sure, go find one. I'll talk to them, I promise.
5. I have never argued that musicians shouldn't get paid for their work. I actually believe they should get paid the same way I do..in flat fees or advances, and then understanding that because of the Net and the Web it isn't possible to collect copyright fees.
6. I do put my money where my mouth is, unicorn, but sadly, my mouth is much bigger. I have turned down a lot of syndication and fee offers for my columsn. they are free to anyone. If you want to take it or link it, do so. I will not hire an online PI to track you down and threaten you. Since almost all of my income is from media writing, and almost none is from books, I think that's about as much putting up as I can do.
7.I appreciate the issue you're raising, but painting me as a corporatist fatcat cause I write books is beneath both of us. If this answers don't help you, plse e-mail me (you or anybody else) and I will keep at it.
The other new consequence of corporatism..as it dominates the economy and politics..is it just puts pressure on individuals and individualism. The pressure to conform has really worsened. Online, we're fooled a bit because anybody with a computer can spout off (witness any Threads), but I think that distracts people from the fact that in schools, businesses and politics, everybody is under pressure to be inoffensive, tepid and quiet.
Good question (why the fear of IDing yourself?). Economists and political scientists say what's new is the size, power and technology the modern company. Corporatism isn't the same as capitalism. What's new is Microsoft, and ABC being owned by Disney, and the latter getting network yanked by Time-Warner and the changes in the nature of work and the economy since the early 90's. Corporatism now is funding politics, which is new, and gets more powerful by the day.
Despite the enthusiasm here, this is a sophomoric point. The model I'm moving to in my life..getting paid up front for writing, then distributing it for free, is the one I think the music industry will eventuall adopt. My column could generate revenue if I syndicated it or charged for reprinting..but I don't. I give it away all over the place and never charge for linking..This is the model I think intellectual property will evolve to..I'm amazed at the hypocrisy on this discussion..How many of you link, download and have taken free music? Never? Please.
I know you think this question is devastating, but it mostly reveals ignorance both of me and publishing (i've answered it many times including in these Threads). I don't own my books, so I can't give permission to download them. My publisher would sue me. My income overwhelmingly comes from my columsn, which I do control, and which I do give away. My columns are used in schools, linked to reprinted all over the U.S. and the world (maybe not all over, but lots of places). I don't get any royalties, or claim any copyright. It wouldn't be possible, and it wouldn't be right. Of my income, between five and 10 per cent comes from books and those are book adances (I've never earned a royalty). I believe the right model for writers like me to is to charge a flat fee..I'm under contract to Slashdot and have the column reprinted for free which it is. I hope this answers the question. Please e-mail me: jonkatz@slashdot.org if you have any questions about it.
Boy, is the e-mail flying on this one. Good stuff, pro and con.
One point. People keep asking me, thinking they are devastatingly clever, whether I'd be happy to give my books and articles away. Here's the sitch: I can't give people permission to download my books (my publisher would sue me) but I can give people permission to download my columns and reprint them on the Net and Web. I get no copyright or other royalties for them, and a few years ago, or in print, I would have. So I constantly give permission to link, mirror and distribute my work. I feel it makes me more valuable, though I'm certainly not valuable. I make some money on books through advances, but have never earned royalties on any of my books. I would be happy to go to a flat fee for writing..that's what I do on/., and otherwise, am happy to see my work distributed (books are a very tiny part of my income..maybe 10 per cent) for free. Consider this permission to link, reprint and post my columns anyplace, at no charge. This is, in fact, the model the music industry will be using in a few years I predict.
This is critical point of view..And it needs to be heard more often, IMHO. I can sympathisize with the feeling that artists need protection, but some of the portrays of the record companies as victims are nothing short of creepy. These new technologies have permitted lots of artist to get their music out. Sure, they will ultimately need to get paid, but this very articulate post is another reminder that the issue isn't as black and white as thieves vs. white hats.
Even the recording industry is acknowledging that simplistic notions of theft and property, good and evil don't work here. The fact is we need a new system of distributing culture that accomplishes a number of things:
l. Protects the rights of people who have grown up with access to free forms of culture, via new technologies.
2. Protects the rights of artists to be compensated in ways (new ways probably) for their work.
3. Allows the free market system to function rationally and profitably.
3. Busts up the music industry cartel and monopoly over music, the biggest outside of Columbia.
I'm at a loss as to what my about-face is. I feel exactly the way I felt last week. I just want to acknowledge that I haven't been as clear about artist's rights as I have about users. But I think RIAA is way off base with these suits, as would be clear if you read the whole column. But I'm responding to the many artists writing me saying they feel I haven't been as clear on the one as I have been on the other. If that's an about face, I'm happy to make it. Using terms like "steal" and "piracy" are the problem. An eight year old who goes online and learns to love all kinds of music..jazz, rock, rap..isn't a thief. he or she is using technology to acquire culture in an amazing way. No way these kids should be cut off from doing that.
No, as a person who makes (or almost makes) a living off of being paid for published work, I am not saying it's okay to pirate music. I am saying what you are saying and what Danny Goldberg, who is quoted in the column is saying...music-sharing has been good for music, generated enormous sales and potentially, can be great for artists. It doesnt' protect artists to protect that music can't be downloaded and shared. They will just get ripped off forever. What would really protect artists..and believe me, I am for that...is a new way of distributing music that offers it more cheaply and with more choice. Nobody should be forced into open source, of course, but I don't see most of this kids as thieves. new technologies have given them access to unimaginable amounts of music, and they are using and loving it. If the record industry would get off its butt..as its own execs are urging (see above) then artists could be protected, they could make money, and people wouldnt lose this amazing new access to cheap and plentiful culture. I am not advocating music piracy, just trying to see this music revolution in a different context than: you're a thief, not I'm not!
You're fighting the wrong fight here. Everybody involved is saying artists should be paid for their work. The question is what's the best way. Read the comments of the music industry execs in the column. Some are actually acknowledging that they will make more money and artists will be better protected if they use the Net to sell music differently, rather than cling so stubbornly to the current mode.s
Slashdot Mirror
Topics like this one are a good example of why
Still seeking a specific comment, criticism or sign of actually reading and/or comprehension. Coming via e-mail, as usual, and perhaps later...
...i'm pretty fond of this one. And I didn't write the Hellmouth series alas, a lot of kids around the country did. Still scrolling for one sign anybody's actually read the column..This one didn't, for sure.
..smoke as much crack as Katz? Money. Note that this far into the topic, there still isn't one comment that would even remotely suggest anybody has read the column or has a specific criticism of it. Or even an intelligent thought about it..I'm always struck at how much time these people have to pretend that they've read things.
is a self-parody as opposed to a complete parody. Does anybody here actually have any specific comments about the article, or are we doing to dance all day?
...you should have gone running rather than pretending to have read the piece. Is e-fibbing a sin?
Methinks you're taking the world a bit seriously. The point was to have some fun, which, obviously, some people are. Beyond that, you're reaching a bit.
thanks.
Talking to one exec about this, she said, and I quote directly: "But one problem we're already encountering is that many people just can't use computers and have trouble navigating the Net. We can provide and upgrade and maintain the equipment, which helps, but some people are already asking us for some education as well, especially in other countries. Do you know anyone who does this or specializes in this? How difficult would this be?"
I wasn't sure what to tell her, frankly. How hard would this be in an underdeveloped country and are there companies that specialize in this? I'd appreciate any help or guidance. Plse e-mail me and I'll pass it along. Or post here in Threads and I'll pass the word to her and other execs to read through And thanks. I think this is one of those rare ideas that is both morally and economically just a good idea. She did say there would be cultural resistance in some countries, she thought.
This is the right place at the right time to start working to dismantle this dreadful law, passed nearly two years ago while much of cyberspace wasn't paying attention.
Some rock bands and music companies (for completely different reasons) are invoking this same law, as will any large corporation with lawyers that doesn't want to see something published. Under the worst provisions of the DMCA, you don't even have to prove copyright infringement, just allege it..and the ISP can only avoid liability by booting the offenders or deleting the allegedly offensive material. To restore access or content, you have to file an affidavit under the jurisdiction of the federal judge in your region.
This is one of the reasons it's outrageous for a corporation like Microsoft to use the DMCA to remove public comments. Almost nobody online was paying attention with the entertainment industry rushed to get this law passed, maybe because nobody imagined companies like Microsoft would jump in to use it to try and control what they call "proprietary" information, but which, in fact, will have the affect of censoring, chilling free speech. Slashdot is lucky, in this case, to be owned by a corporation..it has access to lawyers. To really grasp the horror here, imagine if you're a smaller website or weblog.Step one: The DMCA has to be repealed or re-written.It's much more offensive and damaging than the Communications Decency Act would have been, and much more enforceable.
..again.
l. I'm not sure exactly what you're asking Kent, but I'll be happy to try and respond. The whole point of a publishing contract is that a writer gives the publisher the right to his books..Otherwise why would the publisher pay anything? They pay for the rights to books, even though few books make a profit, and none of mine ever has. If you're asking will I seek a publisher that will allow my book to be e-distributed for free, I doubt that I will find such a publisher, nor do I know of one. But if you're asking will I seek a publisher that will distribute publishing material using different models, sure.
2. I don't do "art," I'm a media critic and author. The better example is my columns, from which I make 90 to 95 per cent of income. I charge a flat flee for those, and those are freely distributed all over the Net and Web, and I don't charge anythig for them. That's the model I think publishing will get to and that' sthe model I think the music industry will get to.
3. I find your notion of me as a corporate fat cat because I have a book contract hilarious. I get paid less for my books than you spend on CD's a year. Mid-list writers rarely, if ever make money. I get small advances and have never gotten a royalty check, so your sort of sneering assumptions mostly reveal a complete ignorance of publishing.
4. I have actively urged my publisher to start distributing copyrighted material different, and I believe they will. Fatbrain and other places are experimenting with those m odels too. But your 100 per cent assertion that you can find a commercial publisher that would give away my books for free is hilarious. It's also utterly false. Have you ever met one of these people? If you're so sure, go find one. I'll talk to them, I promise.
5. I have never argued that musicians shouldn't get paid for their work. I actually believe they should get paid the same way I do..in flat fees or advances, and then understanding that because of the Net and the Web it isn't possible to collect copyright fees.
6. I do put my money where my mouth is, unicorn, but sadly, my mouth is much bigger. I have turned down a lot of syndication and fee offers for my columsn. they are free to anyone. If you want to take it or link it, do so. I will not hire an online PI to track you down and threaten you. Since almost all of my income is from media writing, and almost none is from books, I think that's about as much putting up as I can do.
7.I appreciate the issue you're raising, but painting me as a corporatist fatcat cause I write books is beneath both of us. If this answers don't help you, plse e-mail me (you or anybody else) and I will keep at it.
The other new consequence of corporatism..as it dominates the economy and politics..is it just puts pressure on individuals and individualism. The pressure to conform has really worsened. Online, we're fooled a bit because anybody with a computer can spout off (witness any Threads), but I think that distracts people from the fact that in schools, businesses and politics, everybody is under pressure to be inoffensive, tepid and quiet.
Good question (why the fear of IDing yourself?). Economists and political scientists say what's new is the size, power and technology the modern company. Corporatism isn't the same as capitalism. What's new is Microsoft, and ABC being owned by Disney, and the latter getting network yanked by Time-Warner and the changes in the nature of work and the economy since the early 90's. Corporatism now is funding politics, which is new, and gets more powerful by the day.
Despite the enthusiasm here, this is a sophomoric point. The model I'm moving to in my life..getting paid up front for writing, then distributing it for free, is the one I think the music industry will eventuall adopt. My column could generate revenue if I syndicated it or charged for reprinting..but I don't. I give it away all over the place and never charge for linking..This is the model I think intellectual property will evolve to..I'm amazed at the hypocrisy on this discussion..How many of you link, download and have taken free music? Never? Please.
I know you think this question is devastating, but it mostly reveals ignorance both of me and publishing (i've answered it many times including in these Threads). I don't own my books, so I can't give permission to download them. My publisher would sue me. My income overwhelmingly comes from my columsn, which I do control, and which I do give away.
My columns are used in schools, linked to reprinted all over the U.S. and the world (maybe not all over, but lots of places). I don't get any royalties, or claim any copyright. It wouldn't be possible, and it wouldn't be right. Of my income, between five and 10 per cent comes from books and those are book adances (I've never earned a royalty). I believe the right model for writers like me to is to charge a flat fee..I'm under contract to Slashdot and have the column reprinted for free which it is. I hope this answers the question. Please e-mail me: jonkatz@slashdot.org if you have any questions about it.
Boy, is the e-mail flying on this one. Good stuff, pro and con.
/., and otherwise, am happy to see my work distributed (books are a very tiny part of my income..maybe 10 per cent) for free. Consider this permission to link, reprint and post my columns anyplace, at no charge. This is, in fact, the model the music industry will be using in a few years I predict.
One point. People keep asking me, thinking they are devastatingly clever, whether I'd be happy to give my books and articles away. Here's the sitch:
I can't give people permission to download my books (my publisher would sue me) but I can give people permission to download my columns and reprint them on the Net and Web. I get no copyright or other royalties for them, and a few years ago, or in print, I would have.
So I constantly give permission to link, mirror and distribute my work. I feel it makes me more valuable, though I'm certainly not valuable.
I make some money on books through advances, but have never earned royalties on any of my books. I would be happy to go to a flat fee for writing..that's what I do on
This is critical point of view..And it needs to be heard more often, IMHO. I can sympathisize with the feeling that artists need protection, but some of the portrays of the record companies as victims are nothing short of creepy. These new technologies have permitted lots of artist to get their music out. Sure, they will ultimately need to get paid, but this very articulate post is another reminder that the issue isn't as black and white as thieves vs. white hats.
Even the recording industry is acknowledging that simplistic notions of theft and property, good and evil don't work here. The fact is we need a new system of distributing culture that accomplishes a number of things:
l. Protects the rights of people who have grown up with access to free forms of culture, via new technologies.
2. Protects the rights of artists to be compensated in ways (new ways probably) for their work.
3. Allows the free market system to function rationally and profitably.
3. Busts up the music industry cartel and monopoly over music, the biggest outside of Columbia.
I'm at a loss as to what my about-face is. I feel exactly the way I felt last week. I just want to acknowledge that I haven't been as clear about artist's rights as I have about users. But I think RIAA is way off base with these suits, as would be clear if you read the whole column. But I'm responding to the many artists writing me saying they feel I haven't been as clear on the one as I have been on the other. If that's an about face, I'm happy to make it.
Using terms like "steal" and "piracy" are the problem. An eight year old who goes online and learns to love all kinds of music..jazz, rock, rap..isn't a thief. he or she is using technology to acquire culture in an amazing way. No way these kids should be cut off from doing that.
It says twice -- in the intro and column -- that this ruling was about my mp3.com, not mp3.com
but mp3.com is the party held liable, since it owns mymp3.com
..Since the Net changes the dynamics of music publishing, this is a great question...how much should artists be paid for digital music downloads?
No, as a person who makes (or almost makes) a living off of being paid for published work, I am not saying it's okay to pirate music. I am saying what you are saying and what Danny Goldberg, who is quoted in the column is saying...music-sharing has been good for music, generated enormous sales and potentially, can be great for artists. It doesnt' protect artists to protect that music can't be downloaded and shared. They will just get ripped off forever. What would really protect artists..and believe me, I am for that...is a new way of distributing music that offers it more cheaply and with more choice.
Nobody should be forced into open source, of course, but I don't see most of this kids as thieves. new technologies have given them access to unimaginable amounts of music, and they are using and loving it. If the record industry would get off its butt..as its own execs are urging (see above) then artists could be protected, they could make money, and people wouldnt lose this amazing new access to cheap and plentiful culture. I am not advocating music piracy, just trying to see this music revolution in a different context than: you're a thief, not I'm not!
...maybe I was online too late, but my version doesn't have a "was" in it..
...column above..he acknowledges that free music has increased sales and revenues, thus helped artists..It's an interesting take.
You're fighting the wrong fight here. Everybody involved is saying artists should be paid for their work. The question is what's the best way. Read the comments of the music industry execs in the column. Some are actually acknowledging that they will make more money and artists will be better protected if they use the Net to sell music differently, rather than cling so stubbornly to the current mode.s
...the movement of college kids to other music-sharing sites this weekend was amazing..