Morning,
I love it when uncreative people yammer on about how everything in the age of the Internet should be free, free, free for the taking. Like an author’s words. Like a musician’s music. Like a photographer’s picture. Like a painter’s painting. Hey, if it’s not nailed down, in a shop behind glass, or guarded by some fellow without a gun, it’s free, right?
But in the tangible word, the non-Internet world, you wouldn’t walk into my restaurant and sit down and eat dinner for free now, would you? Or saunter into my shop, try on a pair of earrings and say, “Thanks. I’m taking these home and not paying you because I don’t feel like it.” No, you wouldn’t. Unless you were a criminal. Because that would be called stealing.
But making off with authors’ words goes on all day all long on the internet and people/businesses who simply don’t want to pay are convincing themselves (because it’s convenient for them to do so) that this is the brave new world and it’s a good thing that those unsuspecting creative people whose talent consists of the ability to make things that others can easily steal online should have to be flipping burgers for a living at some fry joint on the other side of town while someone else profits off of their efforts. More for them, less for the creative person. But that’s not the Democracy we claim we live in.
Thank you Scott Turow, wildly successful American author and lawyer, for sticking up for the little guy today. Turow writes, American Authors practice one of the few professions directly protected in the Constitution, which instructs Congress “to promote the progress of Science and the useful Arts by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” The idea is that a diverse literary culture, created by authors whose livelihoods, and thus independence, can’t be threatened, is essential to democracy.
I’m intellectually, philosophically, artistically and spiritually weary of the specious and lazy and currently quite popular online belief being touted by many, many many people that the preservation of the sacred Internet is more important than the preservation of copyright (and therefore earnership integrity) of authors’ works. Turow, who knows this belief system is wrong on every level, writes about the problem from a cultural, historical, legal, financial, and Yes, for those of you who love to trot out our Constitution, a constitutional perspective.
Since most of us who have been on Google+ for a while know someone, or many someones, here who is an artist who is either already being affected by someone stealing their work, or will be affected by it soon enough, reading what Turow has to say would be a good idea. I’m sorry to say that our beloved Google is not innocent in this arena, and Turow offers up the sorry details about that, too.
For it is just too easy to distance oneself from the seriousness of the issues of copyright protection if you are sitting in an office somewhere in Silicon Valley dreaming up new ways to become the most ferociousest, bestest, fiercest search engine and social media platform ever in the history of the Universe, if your wife, mother, brother, father, sister, daughter or son, whom you love, respect and care about very much isn’t an artist (thankfully or they might be poor the rest of their lives) trying to make a living off of their own creativity. So you don’t have to think about this much. And ponder the meaning of it culturally. Or legally. Or financially. Or interconnectedly to the rest of the Universe. Or constitutionally.
The problem is that unless you are a writer, it’s easy to talk yourself into believing that the issue isn’t important, that, Hey, words are free, right? Like music, right? Like it doesn’t matter that I would never walk up to you while you are eating a sandwich, grab it out of your mouth and eat it myself, right? Right here on the good old Internet I can take whatever I want if it’s not nailed down. If I have a website and I want to make a living selling ads so I can buy myself a nice new car, I can take what you wrote without asking your permission or attribution and purloin it for my own use and profit off it it, right? Like that’s Darwinism or something, right? Survival of the fittest, free trade, the modern world, the beauty of technology…the way it is now so get used to it, right?
No, that is not the way it is now. It is calling stealing. It is called taking for oneself what was created by others and profitting off of it without filling the bank account of the creator in the process. And, in case you are interested, and you should be, it is also Unconstitutional with a capital “U.”
I’d like to have a Ferrari, but I can’t afford one. I’d like to have a Cirrus, but I can’t afford one of those either. This does not mean that I can therefore talk myself into believing that stealing one, if I can get away with it, is okay.
Likewise, just because something is easily purloinable online, doesn’t mean it’s right to do so for one’s personal gain or for one’s business gain. But what is worse than that? Convincing other people online that it is okay is worse.
The value of copyrights is being quickly depreciated, a crisis that hits hardest not best-selling authors like me, who have benefited from most of the recent changes in bookselling, but new and so-called midlist writers. The Constitution’s framers had it right. Soviet-style repression is not necessary to diminish authors’ output and influence. Just devalue their copyrights. – Scott Turow, The Slow Death of the American Author
Support, fight for, and defend copyright protection for the creative people you know and those you don’t know. Artists have been around longer than the Internet. It’s important.
Have a grand day, everyone.
Giselle
#publishing #authorshipranking #eBooks #writingcontent
April 9, 2013 at 1:00 pm
Hear hear Giselle! Off to read the article when I get a minute, but your own heartfelt cry was beautifully written. (just taking that and putting it on my own post, because I can’t write like that you know, so I might as well make use of your talent!) As photographers we suffer from this more than we can know. Many just give their stuff away. Why fight it?
Giselle Minoli –
April 9, 2013 at 1:15 pm
Good morning, Ellie Kennard of course this affects your life as a photographer. More than anything I am disturbed by so many people who simply cannot afford to pay for things promoting the freedom of everything on the Internet. Promoting something as being free because one cannot afford to pay for it does not a cogent argument against copyright protection make. But sad to say I encounter this every day. Often, again sadly, in a young person whose life has not been long enough yet for them to see the complex financial relationship between our needs and the needs of others. That is what is being left out of this conversation. And it needs to change.
April 9, 2013 at 1:20 pm
As someone who does statistical analysis and who writes “technical” stuff, I am relieved that there is no desire to pirate what I write. This is also impractical since it’s tailored to a client’s specific requirements.
Even in this area, I feel quite often my work is not properly valued. I’ve lost count of the times that a client has said things like “you’ve only wrote 5,000 words there. I’m paying you xxxxx why can’t you write more words?” I do see where they are coming from, though, since it can be hard to put a tangible value on things like “creativity” or “logic” (in my case).
Much sympathy for artists whose work does get stolen on a regular basis!
April 9, 2013 at 1:21 pm
I think you have exactly pinpointed the problem, Giselle. I wish I believed it would change for the better anytime soon. It makes me nervous of the writing myself. But I do not make a living as a writer. Sounds like not many writers can.
April 9, 2013 at 1:30 pm
Giselle Minoli
I’m intellectually, philosophically, artistically and spiritually weary of the specious and lazy and currently quite popular online belief being touted by many, many many people that the preservation of the sacred Internet is more important than the preservation of copyright (and therefore earnership integrity) of authors’ works. Turow, who knows this belief system is wrong on every level, writes about the problem from a cultural, historical, legal, financial, and Yes, for those of you who love to trot out our Constitution, a constitutional perspective.
I’ve got a problem with this. You seem to be under the impression capitalism and self preservation is a greater cause than something that benefits all of humanity. The internet is a product of an era called the “Information Age”. The whole point was to spread knowledge, not peddle your “art” or “writings”. If you choose to participate, either lock it down with one of the many secure options or share it willingly knowing that someone is going to “benefit” from it for free. While I understand “copyright” is a big issue for personal gains it’s also completely detrimental to the larger picture which is spreading knowledge.
So, contrary to your views on the preservation of copyright vs the preservation of the internet, I feel you are 100% incorrect.
April 9, 2013 at 1:32 pm
Not everyone appears to have ejnoyed the article.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130408/01345422620/authors-guilds-scott-turow-supreme-court-google-ebooks-libraries-amazon-are-all-destroying-authors.shtml
April 9, 2013 at 1:32 pm
Hi U-Ming Lee funny I never would have thought of you as actually being “lucky” because of the kind of writing you do. That no one wants to steal tech writing is almost comical in this technological world.
But, Yes, you are write…it is pay by the what, word? Punctuation mark? Syllable?
My favorite thing is being asked to write something by someone who is smiling slyly when they say, “Could you please do this? Because it’s so easy for you.” Which is their way of saying that I can do it quick and they therefore don’t have to pay me. But I’m onto them and I always respond with “If it’s so easy then you don’t need me to do it. You can do it yourself and not have to pay anyone anything.” This always works and I highly recommend it!
April 9, 2013 at 1:35 pm
Delighted to discover our difference of opinion Neil Beaven and also to discover your lack of interest in the arts and their cultural importance. That’s fine with me. I’m sure you won’t mind my writing that I don’t care that you have a problem with what I wrote. That is your right.
April 9, 2013 at 1:40 pm
I actually believe in preserving an author’s copyrights to benefit the family of that author Matthew Graybosch. But I do know the families of (European) authors where the work has reverted to public domain after 50 years.
As John Stewart points out in the “tangible” word of drugs, software and all sorts of inventions too numerous to mention, we don’t bat an eye at the concept of protecting the investment of the inventor. It makes sense to us. There are generic drugs, after all.
But even there, the attitude that drives the belief that things should either be free or let’s say less expensive, is the lack of desire to pay for something that we don’t see as tangible. You pay for your car, your rent, your clothes, your food…you pay for your utilities. Water! We pay for Water! Shouldn’t water be free? But, no, here on the Internet every written word should be free…
April 9, 2013 at 1:42 pm
Not surprised to read that link at all Michał Banasiak. Thank you very much for sharing it. I can set my watch by how long it takes some tech people to show up with their swords when this issue is raised.
April 9, 2013 at 1:43 pm
As effective as your words are Giselle, at least in this thread, I’ll also continue to disregard your thoughts and feelings and freely pirate things on the internet.
I don’t mean to be intentionally belligerent it’s merely a difference in value structures. Right next to your post this morning I read a post in a rag newspaper stating Madonna was visibly upset for having to go through the normal queue system in some airport with her entourage and children. In my opinion, some artists are overly entitled. The ones that do an equal amount of sharing (thinking like Nine Inch Nails releasing free online albums) or coming up with creative means to market their stuff in such a way where the end user receives something completely unique still do alright.
Intuition goes a long way, aren’t we all just recycling other people’s words anyway? You seem to forget how hard artists had it prior to the internet; when they actually had to travel to get their arts out there to the public. Give a little take a little. I realize it’s a bit much asking for the best of both worlds but there has to be common ground.
Why does a CD still cost 17-25 dollars in a music store? Why do books still cost 20+ dollars? There is no need for that with the advent of the internet, everyone could change their approach to match the system in place.
April 9, 2013 at 1:46 pm
i really believe Giselle Minoli that copyright has gotten completely out of hand over the last half century. no one will suggest that those who earn a living via creative works do not have a right to being paid for said works. that is not what is wrong with copyright.
what is wrong with copyright are massive media conglomerates like the riaa/mpaa/bsa that secure rights that are far beyond reasonable not for the sake of the individual creating a work – but for the industry that thrives upon a stranglehold of both consumers and rights holders respectively.
thankfully there are new and creative methods that are reversing this trend – most of them made possible by the very technology that allows violation of copyright. the only difference is in the model with which the technology is utilized. like Spotify for example. I can listen to almost any song by any artist at any time, even on my mobile device, and the artist gets paid for each play. on YouTube i can choose to monetize my content and display different types of ads on my videos just the same as a major movie producer or recording artist. on my wordpress blog i can choose to use Google Ads to earn revenue by displaying ads to my blog subscribers.
in all of these instances, the end user receives the content of a creative work while the rights holder is compensated – without a monetary transaction occurring. if i come up with some silly video that goes viral and it gets millions of views – that can become very substantial amounts of money in ad revenues quickly. but ten years ago, if i recorded a stupid video… who would even be able to see it? the people i physically showed it to or paid to download it off my website at best.
that is the whole paradigm which of course seems to be antagonistic to the old one: create quality content and even if you are not compensated as much for the creative work itself as in the past, developing more followers/notoriety/fans has become in and of itself a type of compensation. the only thing that one needs to do is to embrace the new paradigm and focus more upon creating enchanting content than monetizing it.
it is like what Guy Kawasaki said in this video: Guy Kawasaki: Make Meaning in Your Company
while he is talking about startup companies and organizations, the same tenet holds true with all of the quality creative content folks i see thriving. make meaning, make money. try to make money, probably will fail to make meaning, and then you definitely wont make money.
April 9, 2013 at 1:47 pm
Neil Beaven kindly define “do alright.” I met a young writer a couple of months ago who was charging so little for his iBook that I queried him about it. He was perfectly fine, because of the generation he grew up in, which is the one that believes that everything should be free, with having to work all day long at a paying job and then writing all night long “for free.” After we talked about it he realized it was simply “pressure” to offer his book for a ridiculously low price. That is not my definition of doing alright. It is my definition of not valuing your own work.
I live in a family of doctors and scientists and there is no one in that world who works for free. There is a price for everything. If you, as an individual, don’t want to pay it, that is your right. But to devise a philosophy that everything should therefore be free to fit that lack of desire to pay for things is crazy. Oop Shooby, as Joni Mitchell would say.
April 9, 2013 at 1:50 pm
I agree with the main points of your argument; surely we do not expect restaurant meals or haircuts or shoes to be free for the taking.
He is certainly right about the fact that the Internet has made it easy to steal and devalued traditional publishing. Although it has also lowered barriers to self-publishing.
Part of the fault, I think is some of the conditions attached to copyrighted material: youtube videos that only play on PCs, not on mobile. Legal downloads that work in the US, but not in Europe. There are requirements that you download an ebook from a PC with USB, rather than your mobile. There is the ease with which publishers can delete e-books you bought, and the fact that they are non-transferable. I can give away or lend someone my physical copy of a book, why not an ebook?
He also seems to resent libraries (!), and have a fundamental misunderstanding of how Google book search works. It doesn’t give you the entire book, only snippets of it.
All that said, the best rant ever on the subject was by Harlan Ellison.
(NSFW – foul language)
Harlan Ellison — Pay the Writer
April 9, 2013 at 2:05 pm
Giselle you are an extremist at best. I pay for things, all the time. Just this weekend I went to see Jurassic Park 3d IMAX. The tickets were just over $40.00 for my girlfriend and I. That said, I’ll probably pirate Evil Dead, it’s a remake of a cult classic film that I really really enjoyed as a child; unfortunately the reviews for it are terrible. Again, middle ground. I pay for things that are innovative and worth the value on the price tag. I buy things that have a strong replay value. I recently bought “The Hobbit” hardcover book because I figured I’d really enjoy the precursor to all of the J. R. R. Tolkien books I’ve already purchased.
So please, don’t put words in my mouth. I pay for quality products all of the time. I overpay for quality products and sometimes I overpay for complete lemons and poor deals as well.
Your example of the starving artist is overplayed. Allow me to use your same argument which was applied my direction. You know a starving artist, therefore all artists must be starving. That’s not the case, the reason the person you met was selling their product for such a low price is because they didn’t market it properly or it was low quality. There are a number of different reasons which could be accredited to them doing it incorrectly. Or as I like to refer to it, “doing it wrong.”
The article linked above by the other poster and his words ring true, just getting your name out there nowadays is payment in one form. You need to develop a fan base and offer them a unique experience worth paying for.
April 9, 2013 at 2:10 pm
Neil Beaven seriously who is being the extremist? I’m sorry but the “quality” of something should never determine whether you pay for something or not. If you don’t like the quality of something, say in a restaurant, you have a right to return it and not pay for it. But you don’t get to keep it for free because you don’t think it’s “worth” paying for.
I’ve spent my life in the arts and I can assure you that the plight of starving artists is not understated. Nor is the fact that many many people are making a nice living off of the creative issue of other people.
I am happy to disagree with you on these issues. And happy to be called an Extremist! It’s been a long time.
April 9, 2013 at 2:16 pm
Are you inferring that I’m the extremist? Let’s sum it up like this,
You’ve taken my words and accused me of deliberately not paying for anything. Period.
I’ve retorted by mentioning just a few of the things that I pay for all the time.
I’m speaking to the common sense and middle ground, you are coming from lalaland and simply put, almost impossible to talk to.
Are you denying the fact that many artists do well, if not exceptionally well for themselves? Why do people become artists to begin with? They see others do exceptionally well for very little effort and they want to emulate that lifestyle.
Everyone wants to flick a paintbrush on a canvas and make millions. Everyone wants to go shoot hoops and score the next big contract (whether they play or not) and everyone wants to be a rock star.
An intelligent person would have a contingency plan, aka not putting all of your eggs in one basket. How about instead of sheltering up in your attic writing a novel you get a job working at a publicist and working on your novel in your spare time? Get a part time job at an art store and score a great discount on your materials.
Forgive me lack of empathy for your lack of planning. You completely discredit and recycle my approach (extremist) with no foundation for your argument at all.
This post is silly and trite. How much is the RIAA paying you to write it?
April 9, 2013 at 2:20 pm
For the record my post Neil Beaven is about protecting artistic copyright. I did not put any words in your mouth and find it odd that you think it fair to call me an extremist but dislike my pointing out fallacies in your own arguments. I wouldn’t want you wasting your time on a post that is silly and trite. You can stop anytime you like.
April 9, 2013 at 2:21 pm
I will pirate television shows until the cable companies and networks offer a reasonable way for me to pay for the tv shows that I want to watch when I want to watch them. The technology exists. Why should I have to pay the ridiculous fees for satellite tv (only option available for where I live) when there are only a handful of programs that I want to watch?
April 9, 2013 at 2:26 pm
Matthew Graybosch about the family holding I don’t share your view. If I buy a house or if I start a business and, as is suggested by Jodi Kaplan, I bequeath it to my children, or my husband (I get our house when he dies, he gets it when I die, my stepchildren get it when the last of us goes), the same right should be allowed to writers if the author so chooses to dispense with it that way.
It is true that intellectual copyright is extremely complicated. It is also evolving right before our eyes because of these inherently difficult issues. I know them intimately as a designer of fine jewelry and most of the people who are in my life who are artists and there are many of every genre.
While I understand that you individually may not want or think your progeny should own anything that you create Matthew Graybosch, I don’t think that should be a rule for every single writer who ever lives.
April 9, 2013 at 2:37 pm
I think there are separate forces at work here and we will need to disentangle them before the conversation can continue less controversially.
I argue that tery t’s justification for pirating television shows is down to a problem with product bundling. Why pay for, say, an issue of Playboy magazine when all you want to do is read the articles (as they say)? Technology now makes it feasible for people to buy single articles or to view only the pictures if that’s what they want. In this situation, the complaint about the “status quo” is therefore about being forced to purchase an entire bundle instead of being able to pick and choose from a menu.
On the other hand, I think Neil Beaven’s point seems a bit weaker. I think the argument really boils down to the fact that if you don’t like something after purchasing it, you have the right to demand a refund. I don’t have issues with that but I do take some issue with keeping the product even if you aren’t happy with it.
This problem arises, of course, due to the nature of the goods being discussed here. We’re talking about intangible goods, e.g. paintings, photographs, writing, music, etc that have almost zero reproduction costs. There is a potential for piracy to seriously undermine the profit of the person producing it – for instance, it is conceivable that author X will be unable to make a living from his book because it’s being so widely copied and distributed and none of that is being reflected in author X’s sales figures.
This does not happen in the case of the chef or the barber whose work can easily be replicated. If Gordon Ramsay makes you a meal; well, if you want the same taste, you’re going to have to go for Gordon Ramsay. It’s not like it’s easy to replicate the Gordon Ramsay formula.
I think this is a really difficult problem and my bias is that it is probably not one or the other. Dogma is not something that will be helpful here. I personally think of it this way:
– I recognise that it takes time, effort and creativity to create an intellectual good.
– I don’t have an inherent “right” to derive pleasure (or not) from the product without paying a fair due for it.
– I agree, in principle, to the concept of people being able to try out a product first but if they decide they want to keep it and to keep enjoying it, they should pay for it.
I think the argument about whether “copyright is evil” (or not) is bordering on sophistry. The system is flawed in many ways but to use that as justification for taking something for free (and feeling good about it) is, in my opinion, not in the interests of fair play. And I think many know this but they’ve just not really thought it through (or choose to ignore the sinking feeling in their stomachs).
April 9, 2013 at 2:40 pm
If people like tery t take copyrighted material for their own use, but would not have bought the material at market prices, then the author is none the worse.
However, if people who _would_ have bought now do not buy, we see a reduction in sales revenue.
The practical question is: Can we identify who was actually diverted from buying because of the copyright violation?
And of course there is the beneficial phenomenon of “buzz” or word-of-mouth advertising that is generated by those who steal. That advertising can increase sales revenue.
Also, importantly, stealing a song recording is unlike stealing a car, because the recording remains with the producer. His ability to sell it again, producing more revenue, is undiminished.
April 9, 2013 at 2:45 pm
Hi Phill Hocking…I haven’t checked but didn’t you comment on my Spotify post? I think so. I have to go back through my archives! The issues are extremely complex and where it falls apart for me is what it means to be “paid for every play.” I personally think that Spotify charges way too little for an unlimited amount of music listening. And, in the way that John Stewart mentions above the consumption of music, television shows (tery t) and so many other things has indeed been reduced to a kind of “food.”
I do believe that this is part of the problem. When there is a overstock of wheat it looses its value. The price of gas goes up and down. The problem is that we tend to lump everything in together. A novel, which might have taken a writer 5 years to complete, is not the same thing as dinner out. But, oddly, someone who would be perfectly willing to go to the corner bar and down beer after beer after beer with their friends of a Friday night and end up with a bill that is way more than double the sticker price for a hardbound book, would be more willing to pay for the evening’s beer tab than for the book.
It is not the copyright issue in the end, that Scott Turow was writing about. It is the cultural issue and what it means that, for instance, in the Russia that gave us War and Peace and Anna Karenina there is nary a one who can name this generation’s equivalent.
Technology is fabulous. I use it every day. But there are other things that need to be preserved other than technology, and things that need to be promoted other than the unbridled and free use of everything.
BTW…how are you, anyway?
And Matthew Graybosch, could someone please tell me the name of the corporation for which I am shilling? 😉
April 9, 2013 at 2:56 pm
Oh them Matthew Graybosch. Funny I never got a paycheck. Can one be an unpaid shill? I think not, since that would be contrary to my opinion that people should be paid for their efforts!
April 9, 2013 at 3:04 pm
Bloggers are the new authors. It’s not a death, just a change.
April 9, 2013 at 3:17 pm
John Stewart that’s the problem, though. I actually don’t even own a tv and have no desire to own one. I don’y want hundreds of channels – I want the ability to watch only those shows I have an interest for. And I want the ability to watch them when I want to watch them. This may sound like I’m being difficult, but, as I said before, the technology exists to do offer programming in this method. Unfortunately, the monopoly of cable companies has a strangle hold on this type of innovation. That’s not my problem.
April 9, 2013 at 3:26 pm
The Internet has opened up a lot of avenues for people to actually make money for their products; authors, artists and musicians especially. This is completely obvious if you follow the jamband scene. Musicians, such as phish, String Cheese, Nine Inch Nails (not jamband), you can see that they have used the Internet for profit. They give away most of their recored music online or copies of their live shows and make money by going on tour and selling out stadium sized venues. I can’t tell you how much money I have spent on these three band alone, but I could probably pay off my mortgage and take a vacation.
April 9, 2013 at 3:28 pm
I’m with you on the selectivity of TV issue tery t. I vote for you not spending every dime you make on the artists you support and saving some for yourself. And I love your enthusiasm!
April 9, 2013 at 3:39 pm
I just read this article Giselle Minoli that Alex Grossman also posted. As I said on his thread, it is a scary time for authors. I am a part of the Google book suit with two books in question. Scott Turrow has our back. I am getting ready to publish two new books and the publisher I choose has just been bought out by a larger conglomerate. Unbelievable. a big publisher swallowed up overnight. So I am going to be adventurous, I’ll tell you more as my publishing plan unfolds, but one thing I know is I want the law on my side to protect my copyrights. Thanks for Bringing this up Giselle and please pardon my typos, I’m on my phone. Have a great day!
April 9, 2013 at 3:52 pm
Giselle Minoli I can see both sides of the issue and agree with points from each side. Personally I stopped pirating after I got out of high-school early college era since I fully believe that all works should be fairly compensated.
That said, current piracy basically falls into two camps, the first camp is the people that just don’t want to pay. These are the people that were buying the cam copies for a couple bucks before broadband and really weren’t going to buy the things anyways. Not condoning it but that is a moral issue that each person has to take on themselves as it is near impossible to regulate.
The second issue is current publishing practices make it so hard to actually pay for items that people end up pirating the item just to save some sanity. I don’t think anyone responding here is truly informed enough to say if something like spotify is truly charging to little or to much and I will leave that to the labels/artists and them to handle. Taking that out I would say that many people that use spotify likely were the same people that listened to the radio instead of buying tracks. In the US at least terrestrial radio stations pay ZERO royalties to the artists or their labels so I would assume something is better than nothing and would see that as a pure improvement. Again, maybe they aren’t charging enough maybe they are, that’s a call I am not looking to get into.
My final though is a question that I truly am just interested in general thoughts. How is the secondary book market any worse than a public library? And why is it any different if that source is foriegn? The secondary market only works if they item was bought at least once before and with physical medium it’s not like one can easily buy once and sell many and if they are finding the sale worth while abroad at a cheaper rate why is it okay for them to charge more here?
This wasn’t intended as an attack on any side of the issue, if anyone views it as such I sincerely and wholeheartedly apologize.
April 9, 2013 at 4:28 pm
Giselle Minoli i believe that i commented on your spotify post but that was eons ago and i hardly recall what was said! 🙂
as the person in this thread that is living la vie boheme and probably the closest to starving artist status (i am homeless living in the slums squatting in an abandoned house with no power or water, almost all of my associates are junkies, i have not had a decent meal in longer than i can recall – hell im pretty much just like mark in rent only living a little more rough lol) i believe you have defined the problem quite well and that your proposed solution matters little to those most affected by it.
the problem as you defined is sociological: unless someone is of the artiste variety, they do not really understand the value of creative works and many feel free to flaunt copyright for whatever reason. the proposed resolution however matters little to me or those in my situation. nobody is copying my content as nobody is exposed to it. the problem with #AttentionEconomy is that you have to get people to pay attention – and this is how the major media conglomerates marginalize folks like me. i know i am preaching not just to the choir here, but gabriel in your instance giselle lol but the overwhelming majority has no appreciation for the arts, so they do not support independent artists in any way. what does it matter if my works are copyrighted if nobody even is aware of the fact they exist, let alone are willing to pay for them?
when i was homeless in la the only reason i was able to eat daily was because i played guitar 12-15 hours a day and made a few bucks from folks. that shit is played out here in spokane – there are so many street musicians that even if they weren’t all better than me i would not have much of a hustle doing it. so i spend most of my time writing online and due to the same #AttentionEconomy difficulties i spoke of with regards to the media conglomerates hits me here on g+. things are a lot different now after my hiatus than when i was first starting out, and there is just so much more out there more interesting than me that i am noise instead of signal to most folks.
will that stop me from continuing to create, express, and communicate? no way in hell. so here is a bunch of my content that i hope you all will enjoy and i know will probably never even result in a bunch of engagement let alone money/gigs/commissions/advances/etc. the largest reason that i am a starving artist is probably because i create what i want to create and do what i am interested in… and i hardly can be surprised when it is not commercially viable.
my new blog mostly about network/systems engineering stuff:
http://phillhocking.wordpress.com
some poems i wrote this last year:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1B_31hIfE1selgr3RNFolI3KrgIJgy0BAwXaCR4HkUkY/edit?usp=sharing
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BAJfSCCFJnICsVXrGMCcnhRBCMrwXQ5WbUcd86d07qo/edit?usp=sharing
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o3ZGhiV1tGxzL3l6ME8EnMvV2A8SEjd_3JcM6lYcAjE/edit?usp=sharing
some crummy videos of my even worse singing:
The better 23 cover I think.
Jamie All Over cover
long cold night – rough drunken xanny barred out draft
April 9, 2013 at 6:55 pm
Phill Hocking you have no idea how much I appreciate your heartfelt words. I do not know what to say on learning of your living circumstances because I feel that anything I would say would belittle the reality of it for you and I don’t want to do that. What I admire is the strength of your feeling, about pretty much everything, and that you carry on no matter what.
There are so many different levels on which to live the artist’s life, one of them certainly being La Vie Boheme. And within each stratum there is the damned, dreaded and dastardly money issue. If I am any kind of female Gabriel(la!) it is to remind people of the importance of the arts – all of the arts, in their lives, in ways many people simply take for granted every single day, such as passing a street minstrel such as yourself playing his guitar and singing, or the street artist selling their watercolor cityscapes, or the photographer…or the poet or the writer.
If we were to remove any of these things from our lives the world would go silent, dark, colorless and emotionless. And if we were to shut off all the words, or to claim that they are not worth money, well then, I invite everyone to ponder what the world would be like if everything they ever read had not been paid for in some way. Would it exist? What would be the state of their minds and lives and education?
I’m glad for the continuing conversation Phil and agree with Cheryl Machat Dorskind that I am glad I/we have artists/lawyers like Scott Turow at our backs. I do think it matters. And I do think it will shift. Everything does. Eventually.
April 9, 2013 at 7:02 pm
Good Morning Giselle Minoli Stepping into the fray ~ I agree with you and Scott Turow regarding copyright for writers and photographers–creators.
What I have a big problem with is actually a separate issue that seems to me to be mixed into the pot, and confuses the issue.
Academic journals and scientific research are now hidden behind paywalls. It’s impossible to access them if one is attempting serious scientific research, without paying a very high fee, and then once the fee is paid, the article may not be at all helpful. The research and the resulting article are publicly funded, yet the fees for the article go to middle-men corporations who control access. This is the situation that Adam Schwartz was rebelling against, and however wrong his methods, he had a legitimate point. The academic researchers are not getting the money, the corporations who monopolize access are.
Recently, I attempted to research a health issue, and was repeatedly defeated by the paywalls. I have a strong medical background and wanted original research, not news bulletins written by non-scientists. Just a few years ago, the research would have been readily available. Now, it’s very difficult to find.
April 9, 2013 at 7:06 pm
Hi, Cheryl Machat Dorskind I am now back. Could I coax you back to this thread to tell us all more about what is going on with you and how it has affected you and what it means in reality? Because I think this is where the theorizing about how everything should be free, gets separated from the grass roots reality of the issue. While intellectual copyright issues are indeed complex and, well, intellectual and therefore ivory-towerish in a certain way, the whole ballgame changes when you know someone personally who is dealing with these issues in their own life. I dealt with them as a fine jewelry designer in a 7 year Federal Copyright infringement lawsuit. And deal with attribution issues in many other areas of my life.
Slightly off the subject but on point nonetheless less, in case any of you saw it, was the 60 Minutes interview with a large group of parents whose children had been shot at Sandy Hook. This is yet another issue that is easy to push aside and say it has nothing to do with us and that gun control won’t fix the problem. But if you saw the episode, these men and women were so articulate, so sober and sane and reflective that it is hard, and I mean it is hard to pretend, having listened to any one of them individually and certainly all of them collectively, that it doesn’t matter.
So, too, with this issue. These are huge topics the complexity of which is hard to get our heads around. But the solution is not to toss copyright and protection of any one culture’s or the global culture’s arts out the window because, well, it’s too hard to figure out.
When in doubt: pay for art. It is not free. It was created by someone who put a massive amount of effort into its manifestation.
But you know this Cheryl Machat Dorskind for you do that, and teach it, every day of your life.
April 9, 2013 at 7:09 pm
Mara Rose you raise an excellent point. You know that I posted about Aaron Swartz, someone who I think used an unwise method to protest exactly the issue you are raising. But I do believe that too is going to shift and, interestingly, it is the same issue as publishers allowing eBook authors to make less than half what a major traditional imprint would pay them for their work. Academic writers have traditionally published for free in order to share their work. But the problem it seems to me is that when any of us agree to do it for free, then it is hard to start charging for it. I know brilliant authors who have made the decision not to publish e-Wise if it isn’t traditional because of the lack of protection and I respect it completely.
Perhaps the community of scientific and academic writers needs to rise up?
April 9, 2013 at 7:57 pm
Hi Giselle, thanks for kicking off an absolutely fascinating thread. I’ve read it through, including the links, and together with my previous knowledge and experience I have to say I just don’t agree with many of Turow’s assertions. The Techdirt article did a pretty good demolition of some of his points so no sense in rehashing here.
There are many threads running through this issue. The greatly lowered cost of distribution and publishing. The fact that making a million digital copies of a thing is a negligible incremental cost. The fact that despite the doomsayers music, writing and other arts are actually thriving right now. The difficulty in finding an audience when there are so many other things competing for a person’s limited disposable income. And that what was intended to be a limited author right has been extended over the years to become an extended corporate right.
I sympathise with anyone struggling to make ends meet, particularly if they are talented, but seeking to put the technological genie back in the bottle is bound to end in unhappiness and failure. You can’t criminalise and legally pursue your audience and expect them not to react. You also can’t expect people to pay an artificially high cost for a product just because it’s not fair – if a book costs dollars to publish, print and distribute, it costs cents to create a million copies, so why charge the same amount or more? Yes, I get that any publisher has the right to charge what the market will bear, but it’s also clear to me that this is also one of the key drivers of piracy.
Turning to my own particular case, we recently spent over $400k developing and producing the web comedy series The Clandestine http://TheClandestine.TV 😉 Our job is now to find an audience – without them it is pretty pointless! And when we find them, we have to encourage them to engage with us and trust us with their contact details. And then find ways to sell a product or service to them. It’s not easy, but it is very doable. Of course balancing jam today versus jam tomorrow is a daily discussion (should we release this video free or behind a ‘gate’; can we send another email to our audience yet; where can we get a journal or blog to review it etc.) Frankly our main problem starting out is ‘attention deficit’ so tackling that first, as any publishing PR flak would do, has to be our first goal. But our model also includes integrated sponsorship from gingerparts.com, so we have to drive interest, attention, engagement and transaction for them too!
It’s working out fine so far. Our financial and audience goals for this first season are likely to be exceeded.
In my view too many artists/writers/whatever spend far too much time lamenting the lost golden age that never was Many tried, few were chosen when publishers were gatekeepers and controlled access to the market and audience – that is no longer the case. So time to review how this now works and find an alternative model… big publishing advances are no longer a sustainable model. But it’s now cheap and relatively easy to cut publishers out of the loop in terms of permissions and revenue sharing.
My ha’pworth.
April 9, 2013 at 10:04 pm
Hi Darryl Collins It’s absolutely fine for you to disagree with Scott Turow’s POV (or mine for that matter). Only I confess I don’t get where you get that he wants to put the technological genie back in the bottle. I didn’t interpret his statements that way at all. He’s talking (and so am I) about the importance of protecting artistic copyrights. And I don’t get where artists/writers/whatever are spending far too much time lamenting the lost golden age. There certainly and indeed was a golden age and there is absolutely no denying that if you know anything at all about publishing. But again, I personally don’t know any creative people/artists/writers who are lamenting anything and I don’t think Scott Turow does either. Most creative people I know are busy creating and working and producing.
That does not mean however that they do not have an opinion, or should not have an opinion, about what was then and what is now. I could go on and on and give a zillion different references to historical understanding and why having a perspective on it is absolutely important. The Internet is one of the few places that doesn’t happen – perspective wise there’s little perspective. In film, filmmakers absolutely talk about the history of filmmaking and so to do those in television. So too those in theatre. So too those in art, painting, music. This is not lamentation, at least not in my view. It’s wisdom.
It is a refusal to throw the baby out with the bath water and to go along with the tide wherever it goes because someone else tells you that you have to. This is the essence of thinking for oneself.
So…bravo for The Clandestine! That is absolutely awesome and good for you.
April 9, 2013 at 10:09 pm
Giselle, let’s just turn the internet off if it’s such a big problem. The poster just before you pointed out many different ways we are better off NOW with the advent of the Internet than we were back in these “glory days” that you’ve just attested. I don’t see you refuting his points much in a similar fashion you didn’t refute mine. This is about as senseless as arguing religion with someone to be frank.
What it all boils down to is, the times are a changing… get on the bus or walk.
April 9, 2013 at 10:13 pm
I’m absolutely not interested in “refuting” your points Neil Beaven. You stated before that you thought this was silly and trite and didn’t want to waste your time. Thus I have chosen not to waste mine with you. I’m sure you would agree that is a wise decision.
April 9, 2013 at 10:19 pm
It’s late here so I’ll be brief. I respect copyright. I pay for what I want or need. I also frequently chose not to buy creative works on the basis that I think they are too expensive. But the simple fact remains – the move from analogue to digital has changed everything it touches. Everyone can now find and download what they want or need and know it is delivered at a fraction of what it previously cost. And that copyright law hasn’t actually changed! Any creator is at liberty to go to law to seek to protect their rights. So it’s hard for me to have much sympathy with Turow seeking to hold back the tide or at least restrict developments.
Thank you for your kind words! 🙂
April 9, 2013 at 10:27 pm
Where I don’t share your view Darryl Collins is in your belief that Turow is seeking to hold back the tide. I don’t think that is at all what he is doing, I don’t think that’s what he wrote and it certainly isn’t what I have written. What Turow is writing about is that even within the technological world that has changed everything, this does not de facto mean that the ages old respect for the living that authors need to make off of their work should be dismissed and thrown out the window.
No one is saying let’s abandon the technology. What Turow is saying is that when embracing the technology a respect for the authorship must be retained. That is what he is saying.
What’s interesting is that he is both a writer AND a lawyer with a successful (economically as well) career. He is taking a look at the issue from the artistic side and from the legal side. There’s something wrong with that? And he’s pointing out the effect that it is having. Again, there’s something wrong with that?
He can’t exactly be accused of being disinterested. The fact that he is interested is, well, pretty interesting given the fact that, as he points out, the changes in technology have benefitted him.
April 9, 2013 at 10:30 pm
BTW Darryl Collins snooping gingerparts.com to see what that is all about. And am checking out The Clandestine as well. Ought to have it rigged so that you can log in with Google+!
April 9, 2013 at 10:37 pm
I’ll read again what he wrote in the morning. My perception was that he wants new restrictions (don’t permit the resale of imported book editions), restrictions on technologies and business models (don’t let Google scan and display book contents even in a restricted and controlled way) and price controls (ignore the economies of the digital medium). Not much for me to support there. I’d rather support creators who do good work and charge a price I am prepared to pay!
April 9, 2013 at 10:43 pm
It was simply matter of cost and functionality Giselle. I love G+ but our research told us that our audience was more likely to be on FB. Hard to justify the additional development cost without calculating the benefits. I am thinking how to integrate better with G+ but in the meantime The Clandestine…
April 9, 2013 at 10:47 pm
I know it’s late where you are Darryl Collins and I don’t want to keep you on because we can continue this. I don’t interpret “restrictions” as turning back the tide. I don’t see how unbridled use is visionary to be honest. And, to be equally honest, I don’t see how it’s possible to support creators who do good work and charge a price you are prepared to pay! In a free market where everyone is being undercut and everyone wants everything for free, how is it possible to support creators who do good work? And what is the price you are prepared to pay? I’m really just asking because I’m curious.
Today I bought three books (actually, tangible paper books): two hardbound and one paper back. Compared to eBooks they were expensive. But as Jodi Kaplan points out I can give them to someone if I want to. They are also now part of my library (I have a pretty big one). But the best part is that I feel, in Scott Turow’s model, that I am participating directly in support of those writers. I actually bought 4 books. Two are gifts for friends.
There is a balance issue here. Publishers have made mistakes and writers have made mistakes.
We sort of do both in our household. My husband has a kindle and buys that way. I buy “real” books so we support it both ways.
April 9, 2013 at 10:50 pm
Okay Darryl Collins I’m following The Clandestine. And I honestly hope the money starts pouring in! Isn’t that what we want for artistic pursuit? I do!!!! Fingers crossed for you.
April 9, 2013 at 10:59 pm
The price I am prepared to pay is a simple compact with the seller (publisher or creator) – they tell me what they think it is worth and I chose to accept it or not! I don’t expect everything on the Internet to be free, but I also don’t expect to pay the same price or more for a digital copy that is, as you say, more restricted (I can’t transfer or lend it easily to anyone). These artificial restrictions are ultimately self defeating I believe.
April 9, 2013 at 11:27 pm
Ho capito Darryl Collins. With the exception that I don’t see these as “restrictions.” I see them as bringing necessary consciousness to copyright issues where it has been lost…sometimes out of ignorance, sometimes out of the need for financial gain, sometimes out of denial, and in large part because of a refusal to look at what the end result is. We have a tendency, globally, to get so excited about instant gratification that we can’t see the forest for the trees. Global warming, anyone? The failure of globalization and the Euro, anyone?
And we don’t, as a rule, oppose all of what you would call “restrictions.” We do want pollution restrictions. We do want to make sure that pesticides are controlled and that our food isn’t polluted and poisoned. So to say (and I am not saying this is your view so don’t get me wrong) that all restrictions are undesirable isn’t accurate.
But we seem to have no problem imposing them on the creative world, and by that I mean that to create a market where the the providers of content cannot survive on that content is in itself restrictive, while at the same time we want an unfettered Internet.
The music business has its own special issues. So, too, television and film. And the pharmaceutical market. What may be the right solution for each of those scenarios may not be right (write!) for the world of authorship.
April 10, 2013 at 12:03 am
To reiterate what Mara Rose said, academic researchers do not retain copyright of their manuscripts upon publishing…journals keep the copyright, after exacting a publication cost from the authors, as well as from the public to access them. Fortunately, federal funding agencies now require all papers to be open access after a limited time (typically a year) and some wealthy private funding foundations (like Howard Hughes and Wellcome Trust) pay for public access up front (copyright still is with the publishers, and not authors, I believe).
Most scientists want their research disseminated as widely as possible because the payback comes in ways other than royalties on publication (from future grants and reputation).
April 10, 2013 at 12:17 am
PLOS journals retain copyright of any published articles and charge authors upwards of $1,500 for open access.
April 10, 2013 at 12:51 am
That is so true Rajini Rao. I hear that a lot from my (eldest) scientist stepdaughter. But isn’t the main point of difference between a scientist who wants to publish and a, say, fiction, nonfiction, or “poetical” writer is that the scientist doesn’t “need” to get paid for their published writings because they are making a salary elsewhere, which I assume is a salary at something they want to be doing, where their research is also supported and championed. So, they are in fact getting a lot from a lot of different sources.
I think this is decidedly different from many novelists and poets and nonfiction writers, who are often working at one job during the day and working at night at their creative effort, from which one day they hope to make a living so that they can quit their day job. This is often true of fine artists as well, some of whom are fortunate enough to have patrons so that they can put in the long hours needed.
So the difference is that a published scientist doesn’t necessarily “need” whatever income could be generated from published scientific studies. But this is not true of other kinds of writers.
So perhaps, and I’m not sure, scientists don’t need to champion another model because survival isn’t the issue for them?
April 10, 2013 at 1:00 am
Giselle Minoli , you’re right in that scientists receive their funds from grants and the institutions that hire them. So the papers are not a direct source of income (indirectly, they are..and in that scenario, the more widely disseminated the better). The injustice is that scientists give away copyright and pay to have their work published, something that most people may not be aware. The ideal model would be open access with copyright retained either by us or the agency that funds the work.
April 10, 2013 at 1:08 am
I think there are more similarities between the scientist and the artist case than that, Giselle Minoli. The way my scientist friends tell it, they pretty much have to publish in high impact journals – it goes into their resume which directly impacts whether they have a viable career in their field. I am given to understand that this is particularly important for postdocs; at that point in their careers, they really are the modern day equivalent of the “itinerant preacher”, not quite wedded to an institution and doing a combination of research, writing, grant applications and teaching to try to get their careers established.
The full professors (who the postdocs hope to become after about 10-15 years after getting their doctorate) are, I guess, the equivalent of the fine artists who have a patron of sorts (the university or the trust that endows the chair) and have some security if they are granted tenure. But those are few and far between.
April 10, 2013 at 1:09 am
If that is what would work I champion that model Rajini Rao. I absolutely think copyright should be retained by whichever writer, scientific or not. But the difference would stop there because of the backup salary of scientists funded by grants or institutions.
Copyright is key. And while there are many who think it is going to be done away with, I actually think it is going to go the other direction and go back to the artist(s). There is a well spring of support for that despite Turow’s dissenters and despite the power of the Internet.
I love to make predictions.
April 10, 2013 at 1:10 am
As to your PLOS…charging scientists $1,500 to be published and then profiting on top of that is outrageous. Scams abound wherever scammers can get away with it Rajini Rao.
April 10, 2013 at 1:15 am
That is a nice analogy U-Ming Lee and one I hadn’t thought of. And it begs the question of how that will change at the University level given what is going on in education. I’m not of course assuming that by institution you just mean University. But even hospitals are changing. The whole thing is changing. All the more reason to preserve the integrity of copyright and the respect for the creator no matter the scenario, scientific or not. And Mara Rose for what it’s worth to you, I, too, have hit that firewall when I wanted to get my hands on some study or scientific paper. The fees are staggering. I have to be honest and say that at the time I wondered about the arrogance of it, not that they wanted to charge me so much money, but the inherent assumption seemed to be that the average person wouldn’t be interested in reading scientific research. Only “other” scientists or research institutions. The amount of money my husband spends on medical journals is through the roof. It makes buying a subscription to the NY Times seem like buying a chocolate bar.
April 10, 2013 at 1:15 am
U-Ming Lee , I wish I had an endowed chair 😛 Most university professors are in “soft money” positions. I raise my own salary from grants and tenure applies to the position, but not the salary i.e., my position is guaranteed but not my salary. Some State Universities pay partial salary. So, going back to publications, we fight to get them into the highest ranked journals because that’s what our reputation (and future funding) depends on. A bit of a rat race!
April 10, 2013 at 1:18 am
So, Rajini Rao this rat race is year-to-year for you? What is the length of one of your grants? How often does it happen that one has tenure but no funding???
April 10, 2013 at 1:30 am
Grants are 2-5 years each. Most of the funds go towards salaries of students and fellows who do the research, and of course supplies and such. Universities make money from them in the form of overhead. Each institution negotiates with federal funding agencies for this overhead..for mine, it is quite high (65%). So for every $100 I raise, the Univ. gets an additional $65. State Univ. get less because they are supported in part by tax payers. Since the universities are invested in us, they are (fortunately) not so quick in kicking us out if grants run dry ..temporarily, that is. In the long run, we would be downsized and lose our salary. The difficulty here is that funding levels are so low that only 1 in 10 grant applications get funded (by the NIH). This is a huge waste of effort, because at least 2-3 times as many excellent proposals fall by the wayside. There’s also a limit to resubmission: two strikes and we’re out. We can’t send the same application back in again after one revision. This is probably way too much info than you asked for, sorry!
April 10, 2013 at 1:34 am
So, Rajini Rao that certainly underscores the need “to promote the progress of Science and the useful Arts by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”
I’m curious how much time (per week…is that fair?) you spend “fund-raising?”
April 10, 2013 at 1:42 am
Definitely a huge part of our time and energy is spent writing for funds. In addition, I help my students and fellows write theirs as well. It depends on one’s success rate of course..I have colleagues who write 20-30 applications per year! Personally, I wait until I have everything in order (preliminary results, etc.) before submitting..so I do fewer applications with a higher return but that takes a lot of self discipline. OK, now I’m freaking out..I’d better go work on my next grant!
April 10, 2013 at 1:52 am
You’re amazing Rajini Rao. Thank you for showing up here. I learned a lot and it adds another important perspective and, in fact, just strengthens my belief in protecting the copyrights of scientists and artists!
April 10, 2013 at 2:46 am
Thought you all might enjoy this most interesting blog piece by Jason Merkoski, One on One: Jason Merkoski and the View of E-Books From the Inside. Ain’t such a pretty picture: “So it is refreshing to see Jason Merkoski, a leader of the team that built Amazon’s first Kindle, dispense with the usual techo-utopianism and say, “I think we’ve made a proverbial pact with the devil in digitizing our words.” And this: “If you’re willing to overlook the fact that Big Brother won’t be a politician but an ad man and that he’ll have the face of Google.” Mr. Merkoski even has mixed feelings about Amazon, which he left two years ago. “It’s hard to love Amazon,” he notes. “Not the way we love Apple or a bookstore.” Read on…
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/one-on-one-jason-merkoski-and-the-view-of-e-books-from-the-inside/?src=recg
April 10, 2013 at 3:46 am
Well, I guess I will be one of those artsy hipsters of the future, with my real books and my CD’s ;P. Good Night Everyone. Great discussion!
April 10, 2013 at 3:53 am
More hipster than I’ll ever be, Matthew Graybosch Haha!
April 10, 2013 at 11:38 am
(I have vinyl too…and cassette tapes).
April 10, 2013 at 12:32 pm
I have boatloads of vinyl, not so many tapes, but I do have them. And….we have huge collection of movie CDs. Not everyone streams movies on their puters!
April 10, 2013 at 3:30 pm
As usual, a very interesting and spirited discussion is happening here. It’s difficult to know where to jump in, so maybe I’ll offer this slight tangent.
One theme I see running through this thread, which recurs elsewhere, is this idea that the internet is “here to stay,” so either go with it or get out of the way. And if copyrights get steamrolled in the process, well, that’s just too bad because it’s the march of progress.
I’m reading a very interesting book now (which I paid for 🙂 ) by Evgeny Morozov: To Save Everything, Click Here: The Folly of Technological Solutionism. In it, he talks about this notion of “internet centrism,” a mindset wherein the capital-I “Internet” is imbued with properties as though it is a separate, natural object. And when we sign on to that way of thinking about it, we make it much more difficult for ourselves to craft solutions to real problems of human endeavor, such as the one Giselle Minoli has noted in this and other posts.
It, the logic goes, is a precious gift from the gods that humanity should never abandon or tinker with. Thus, while “the Internet” might disrupt everything, it itself should never be disrupted. It’s here to stay — and we’d better work around it, discover its real nature, accept its features as given, learn its lessons, and refurbish our world accordingly.
Morozov’s style can be abrasive and off-putting to some, but the more I read, the more I see what he’s talking about woven through the discourse. The goal should not be preservation of the almighty internet, at all (human) costs. The goal should be to use technology to shape a human future where art, creativity, work — and human existence itself — is elevated; above the holy trinity of efficiency, productivity and profit. I fear we have a long and difficult road ahead.
April 10, 2013 at 3:41 pm
Brian Titus I appreciate this reference. I’m going to buy Morozov’s book! This “centrism” that crops up every now and again about so many things is, not to be abrasive, but, Yes, to be provocative, is making people loose brain cells.
When Amazon was “invented,” it was said that no one would go to bookstores anymore. That did not happen. When “tapes” of movies were released, it was said that no one would go to movie houses to watch movies anymore. That did not happen. When iTunes came along and Napster and a host of other sites that made downloading music either very cheap or free, it was said that no one would pay full dollar for music anymore. That did not happen. When Europe was forced to embrace the Euro, it was supposed to save that economy. That did not happen. When globalization was embraced (or forced upon us?), it was supposed to make the world economy easy peasy and a booming success. That did not happen.
Many people simply do not want to either learn from history, nor to be circumspect about the present moment, nor to have a combination of affection for and wisdom about the future. It is just too easy to believe that the way things are today will always be the ways things are.
As for his abrasive style I am not sure it isn’t necessary. There is something wildly abrasive about this technological hostility toward any other “model” of thinking or product and you can read some of it right here on this thread. Why the technological world is so frightened of what existed before it and what will no doubt come along after it is a mystery to me.
Thanks very much for this great interjection Brian Titus. But you always have useful things to add and I’m grateful.
April 10, 2013 at 4:00 pm
Thank you Giselle Minoli , I’m very interested to hear your thoughts on the book; I’ve been highlighting it like mad, which is something I rarely do.
I would also be curious to get our mutual friend Peter Strempel into this thread and hear his perspective.
April 10, 2013 at 4:07 pm
Brian Titus, I miss Peter Strempel. We haven’t crossed social media paths in far too long, for which I will take responsibility because with this ridiculous travel schedule of mine I have too little time to spend here and so therefore miss the musings of many thoughtful and articulate people and Peter Strempel is certainly one of them. Methinks Himself is writing on his own writing pages, something I understand.
April 10, 2013 at 4:22 pm
Giselle Minoli I can tell you that Peter Strempel is alive and well, at least in a G+ sense. There, we’ve pinged him 3 times now, surely he will appear presently, as if by magic!
April 10, 2013 at 4:26 pm
Indeed, Brian, but only to say goodnight. It is 02:26 here and way past sensible wombat bedtime. I shall return …
April 10, 2013 at 4:32 pm
And a big Kentucky Bourbon greeting to my favorite Wombat Peter Strempel! Sleep well.
April 10, 2013 at 4:32 pm
Sleep well, we’ll see you later Peter.
April 10, 2013 at 5:40 pm
Hi Giselle Minoli.Sorry I couldn’t step back sooner into this thread, but I have been out of the office teaching. I am happy to respond, and as you will see, I do have a lot of thoughts on all of this.
Scott Turow is a smart guy and his article is excellent and addresses many important author issues. He is also president of the Author’s Guild. I will try to stay with the information in his article, since that is what brought my attention to your’s and Alex Grossman posts yesterday.
The copyright laws are good and protect writers, photographers, artists, inventors, songwriters. (BTW, did you know they do not protect fashion designers?)
Google has been trying for years to copy every book into digital format and make it available for free. I, like many authors are against this. I love some of Google’s products (like G+), but this one is a bad idea. Personally, I hope the case remains locked in court dispute for perpetuity.
Turow talks about the resale of ebooks in the article. Some think this is a terrific idea, but as an author, I think it is a terrible idea and will cut sales drastically. This issue is also in the courts.
I study copyright and try to keep up with the laws. As a photographer and blogger, as well as author, I have to deal with copyrights often. They can be a hassle, but I appreciate them because I know that the laws are also there to protect me. It’s like when you are using your credit card in a store and the credit card company will not allow the purchase to go through until you verify who are you. This takes time, its a hassle, you have to get on the phone, answer questions, etc, but in the end I am glad the credit card company took the time to protect me. Same with the copyright laws.
With photography, copyrights become murky because now, with the relative low cost of great cameras, it seems like “everyone” is a photographer. Some new photographers do not care about sharing their photos and use the creative commons as a way of saying “hey, go ahead, just credit me but use my photo.” Other photographers care and want the laws to protect them. These “others” make a living being a photographer and so it make sense that these photographers would want to protect their assets with copyrights.
In terms of textbooks, as a professor I am well aware of textbooks price tags. Like many professors, we try to be cognizant of these costs and choose books to accommodate the student’s pockets. Text books can now be rented and ebooks are becoming more prevalent (with a lower cost). A relatively new approach is where a publisher collects multiple authors writings at the professor’s request and compiles a specialized textbook. I haven’t looked into the cost of this yet, but I am reminded every day in my edu inbox to check this out.
As a parent of a budding scientist, I am astounded at the cost of a textbook. One could cost as much as $350. I am bracing myself to see what they cost in med school. I do not know who is earning all that money (scientists or publishers), but that is not the issue here.
So, there you have a sketch of my thoughts based on Turow’s article. Writing, like teaching, and art arises from a passion to communicate. It may not be the most lucrative avenue, but without copyrights, there would be little incentive to create.
I will end this long thread with a question (thanks , btw, for reading). I was interviewed on a local television channel. I want to put the interview on my website. Who do you think owns the copyright?
April 10, 2013 at 5:44 pm
Cheryl Machat Dorskind With regard to your interview, it depends on what kind of agreement you signed with the television station.
April 10, 2013 at 5:47 pm
Alex Grossman That’s a great reply, but the interview is a few years back and I can not find the agreement and neither can they. So who do you thinks wins?
April 10, 2013 at 5:48 pm
Cheryl Machat Dorskind thank you and interesting question. I would argue with Alex Grossman that it does depend on what you have the “ability” to “negotiate” with the television station. But I would bet my last dollar that the television station’s lawyers think that THEY own every word that comes out of your mouth and that they can publicize, print, resell, package and do whatever they want with it. Am I wrong?
April 10, 2013 at 5:50 pm
Cheryl Machat Dorskind I was typing as you were typing. I would still say that they say they own everything on their media format. If I were you, I would commandeer it for your own purposes and say “Show me an agreement that I can’t do this”…and see what they say!
April 10, 2013 at 5:50 pm
I will wait a little while longer to see who else jumps in. I did ask a lawyer or two for their thoughts. Everyone agrees, it is an interesting question, one I do have an answer to.
April 10, 2013 at 5:52 pm
Cheryl Machat Dorskind Absent any kind of agreement where the TV station recognizes your rights, Giselle Minoli is right that they will take the position that you granted them the right to use it as they see fit with you holding no rights whatsoever. Your position would rest on “fair use”, but if it’s a long piece, you may not be able to justify using all of it. And by justify, I mean make them feel happy about your use, not justify your rights to your own image and words.
April 10, 2013 at 5:55 pm
It’s my guess that the station owns the copyright because a) they produced it, b) they asked you to participate in their media format and you said Yes, c) they paid for it, d) it is a part of their product.
I’m not sure this is any different than what an employee “produces” for a company for which they work. An art director in the old days at CBS did the work “for hire” by CBS, but their name remains attached to it as the artist for the rest of their life and is a part of their portfolio. But with an “interview,” this is dicey. I alternately loathe and love discussing this stuff because intellectual copyright law is literally being made up as each new case scenario develops.
April 10, 2013 at 6:19 pm
Very thoughtful post +Cheryl Machat Dorskind, probably the best from the google-hating or artist-loving advocates. (I’m being provocative there for fun).
I don’t disagree with much of what you say funny enough, for one thing I’ve lost track of what the main issues are – there have been so many aired here.
WRT to copyright, very few people advocate removing it, just adjusting it to the new realities of technology and Internet. So it’s not really worth having a disagreement about copyright here – things change, so will copyright if it’s obvious enough to enough people that it has to.
It would be hard for the TV channel to argue they have sole ownership of the work unless you had assigned or licensed your rights to your performance to them. In any case, one of the joys of the American system is ‘fair use’, so I’d go ahead and use it and in the unlikely case they claimed it was there, ask them to prove it. 😉
April 10, 2013 at 6:33 pm
Well I will have to pat myself on the back and accept your compliment Darryl Collins. (So I gave your post a +1) Glad you enjoyed my post. It’s funny, but I have come up with some godd ideas about this copyright question/issue since I posted the question. I will fill you in on the lowdown, but want to wait a bit longer to see who else joins in the copyright debate and offers their advise or thoughts.
April 10, 2013 at 6:44 pm
Not to single you out Darryl Collins but again, there is that internet-centric view — we have to adjust “it to the new realities of technology and Internet.” Wouldn’t it be wiser to think about what we want and expect copyrights to do for us and — if necessary — “adjust” the technology to accommodate?
I know it’s a really difficult question and I don’t have any answers. And like I said, I’m not poking at you specifically Darryl; I think we are all thinking that way for the most part.
April 10, 2013 at 7:52 pm
I don’t mind being singled out Brian. Yes I am internet-centric, but I don’t see that as a problem. However your next comment pulled me up short, very interesting perspective. Though if I had to answer, I’d say I want copyright to protect a limited number of things for a very limited time and to adapt to new opportunities and business models.
I enjoy reading contrarian books, so I’ll likely get that one you referred. One of the books I read at the dawn of this internet-centric age was Silcon Snake Oil. http://www.amazon.com/Silicon-Snake-Oil-Thoughts-Information/dp/0385419945/ref=la_B000AQ44MY_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1365623330&sr=1-2&tag=651998669-20 It was provocative and thought-provoking (but probably dated now) and an antidote to the first dot com bubble. I was running the UK’s biggest online DVD store at the time so it was refreshing to see what we were doing from a left-field perspective.
April 10, 2013 at 8:01 pm
Ahh Clifford Stoll — he had that great espionage story called The Cuckoo’s Egg!
I hope you enjoy the Morozov book. He’s been making kind of a stir lately. Although I agree with Giselle Minoli, it might be necessary to be a little abrasive, especially in this era when we are moving very rapidly through issues of security, privacy, and copyright, without so much as a pause to consider what we’re doing.
April 10, 2013 at 8:11 pm
Another great book.
Abrasive and strong opinions are fine so long as people remain civil! I agree we should take care with security and privacy and take the time to get it right. But I think copyright is an entirely different beast – that infers privilege and protection to creators for significant period of time. However it is often used as a weapon to stifle legitimate experimentation and new business models, often by corporations and inheritors that it was never intended for!
April 10, 2013 at 8:14 pm
Couple of related posts just FYI.
https://plus.google.com/u/1/114751555461906155961/posts/4fzmnJQzpGp
April 10, 2013 at 8:38 pm
Darryl Collins I had this theory that security, privacy, and copyright are three linked areas where we are going to see more and more craziness. See this post from last year:
https://plus.google.com/106313443642953370943/posts/DJfg2go3Nfu
April 10, 2013 at 8:50 pm
I still don’t get it. I would never equate or associate copyright with security and privacy. It is just so different and largely unrelated. Privacy of copyright? Security of copyright?
April 10, 2013 at 8:54 pm
Sure — how about your ISP examining your network traffic to make sure you’re not consuming copyrighted info? How about Amazon reaching into your Kindle to remove content you’ve purchased? I don’t see them as equivalent, but I think they intersect now in a way that is unique to the “digital” era.
April 10, 2013 at 8:59 pm
Ah, that’s what it means. My ISP should not examine anything I do online without a court order – they are not the police, they are providing a pipe. Amazon shouldn’t do that, and I suspect it’s not legal for them to do so. But two interesting examples.
April 10, 2013 at 11:25 pm
So just to be devil’s advocate Darryl Collins…what is the difference between your ISP or Amazon or Google or any other entity doing that with Anything anyone else created? I am for broadening of copyright protection for creators because technology has made it possible for more theft, not less. And unlike others here I believe creators should own their copyrights in perpetuity unless they sell or bequeath them.
April 11, 2013 at 1:51 am
Good grief, apologies for the plethora of typos in the above, which I’ve fixed…I sent it from my iPhone (technology) from a meeting (about technology). Yikes…
April 11, 2013 at 2:04 am
I’m still trying to wrap my head around which part’s the devil and which part’s you Giselle Minoli.
As more and more intellectual property takes digital form, does that mean things like encryption and anonymity need to become illegal? There are lines of thought that could lead there, even if it seems a little far-fetched now.
Copyright enforcement in the digital age (i.e. 100% perfect copy capability) sure is a can of worms…
April 11, 2013 at 6:16 am
There is no difference +Giselle Minoli – no one should have a right to do it. Technology has ALSO created many more opportunities for creators to market and sell their works. And there is no proof that pirating or ‘thieving’ copyright damages sales, quite the opposite. Retention of copyright in perpetuity and the ability to sell or bequeath it would create an enormous problem down the line when a company or person accumulates and asserts rights over many works that they actually had nothing to do with. The original intention of copyright was to provide a limited period to the creator to exploit their work, not a golden egg that can be traded forever.
April 11, 2013 at 6:16 am
There’s no way to respond to this without being impolite to at least half the world, maybe more.
The issue here isn’t copyright. The issue is the anti-intellectualism that has legitimised the organised theft by corporations we know as ‘free markets’, in which none but the largest can ‘compete’, and everything human is reduced to an anti-humanist monetary value, including literature.
It gets worse, the anti-intellectualism necessary to crowd out dissent from free market orthodoxies has turned education into vocational training whose function is to facilitate employability rather than to educate.
Lawyers, doctors, engineers, scientists, accountants, MBAs and IT graduates are all well trained, but not educated in any real sense of that word. No notion of history, philosophy or the arts. No facility to make aesthetic or philosophic judgements, hence no faculty for appreciating any new Ulysses, Old Man and the Sea, or 1984. Instead only slavish adherence to best-seller lists and a burgeoning market of simplistic techno-futurist babble, self-help cretinism, management mumbo jumbo, and the odd airport thriller here and there.
This perception of things fits so very neatly into the barbarian, coldly deterministic techno crowd, which regards everything as reducible to numbers, and therefore being of no intrinsic value in itself, but only as a filler for data machines to crunch and on-sell as advertising space and demographics.
Publishing companies in this environment wouldn’t cultivate or nurture a new Joyce, Hemingway or Orwell. They need low-brow story tellers who can become a franchise, like Martin or Rowling, from print to digital reader to film to TV to merchandise. Not that this matters to more than a few million people worldwide. There are no longer enough educated and engaged people who could concentrate long enough to absorb the complex ideas and human concerns that have always animated great literature. There is more literary writing in reviews than in most books.
I don’t see how this state of affairs won’t just get worse by pursuing copyrights, which usually accrue to corporations first and authors a distant second. More importantly, the interposition of lawyers in anything always makes matters worse and more expensive.
The only factors with any chance at all of changing this sad state of affairs is a change in political economy to remove the special privileges of big money, and, perhaps, a mandated requirement that ANY degree course MUST include at least a year of general education.
Turow himself is part of the problem rather than the solution. A champion of the monetised adversarial legal system that has removed ethics and justice from jurisprudence, his only excuse is the impotent ‘I just do what the law permits’. And that’s how things will stay until people like Turow say: ‘Enough. It’s time to change how things are and what the law permits.’
Maybe we need a novelist to write a tale that tells THAT story in a grand metaphor. Wait, such an author would never get published to begin with …
April 11, 2013 at 11:16 am
Good morning, Peter Strempel. I’ll respond to the last sentence first, which is that two of the three authors I can think of who might take on that subject are dead, Ayn Rand (who would write about it to entertaining and weird effect – she is the darling of the I Can Do Whatever I Want crowd), Paddy Chayefsky, and the very much alive Tom Wolfe, but that’s another subject.
On my “business” ThinkPad desktop I have all sorts of shortcuts to folders I need to access quickly. The word ‘copyright’ is, for me, such a shortcut to a deeper conversation and it is in this sense that I evoke and defend the word and the meaning behind it. Can’t speak for Turow, but for me at least that meaning is there in his article. You could say (if you knew) that I’m affected in my thinking by the 7 (very expensive) years I spent in a Federal copyright infringement lawsuit against a person who copied my designs and sold them across the country under her own name getting to the market before me because of money she borrowed from her mother. I won the case though the damage had been done. And no, I did not stop designing in despair, and this, to me, is the point of protecting creator’s copyrights. It’s rather like the importance of protecting the environment. We don’t say, ‘There is so much crap in the atmosphere now, let’s not bother trying to clean it up.’ But we do say this with regard to artistic copyright. Effectively, we say, ‘Someone will steal from you eventually so don’t bother fighting it because the damage will be done and there’s nothing you can do about it.’
That’s pretty cynical and something I will always fight against. Is it a losing battle? Am I naive? Foolish? Does it matter? I’m a prime example of someone who should give up after my own experience, but it only strengthened my resolve. I shill for my own efforts and those of others like me, not a corporation.
Every single issue you point out arose in the court course of my personal 7 years, which were, in essence, a deconstruction of how it is possible for someone to think they have the right to do something like that. This was way back in 1994, many, many years before the current Internet we now champion and enjoy. This was by no means an uneducated person, but, rather, one who had grown up in an I Can Do Whatever I Want Environment.
Creating anything original or new had been replaced for her by a rapacious appetite for making money off another person’s talent, which is much, much easier to do than being creative oneself. I defended my copyrights because that is what there was for me to do, and I have yet to meet another creative person who doesn’t understand my choice to do that.
I make a distinction between the authors I think Turow is writing about and corporate copyright (let’s say, publishers in this instance) because if the protest, the rising up, the refusal to cave in, doesn’t start with the individual, the talented individual, then there is no discussion about anything further down the road anyway. I don’t lay the dilemma at the hands of lawyers, who are simply doing what they know how to do because that’s the way their own brains work, in the same way that an architect, or jewelry designer, or poet is doing what they know how to do because that’s the way their brains work.
And Yes, those who think that everything is “free” and that they can borrow, pilfer, use, purloin, steal, whatever they want are also doing what they do because that is the way their brains work.There are just boatloads of them at the moment. Do I agree that anti-intellectualism is prevalent? Absolutely. I think of John Kerry being told that he couldn’t do an interview in Canada in French because it would be intimidating and off-putting to Americas who are mono-lingual.
I suppose what I’m really saying to you, Peter, is that I don’t know that one can educate anyone else about art or history or philosophy or poetry or literature. I think perhaps one is drawn to that education inherently, naturally, or they are not, or at least they have the possibility within them for curiosity about those things to be awakened and nurtured or they don’t.
In the meanwhile, I’ll make the case for the continued protection of copyrights perhaps because I’m protective by nature and I like to conserve not destroy and create not tear down.
Besides, if Wombats were to discover that someone somewhere has managed to make ‘copy’ Wombats that look cute but are, instead of being the intelligent and sweet-natured vegetarians we know them to be, rapacious and stupid carnivores who threaten all of Australia and Wombat World, well, I’d probably rail against them, too.
Foolish? Maybe. But someone has to do it.
April 11, 2013 at 11:47 am
Dunno how we got into a discussion about NOT defending copyrights rather than dismantling legalised and large scale theft, but please don’t get me wrong: I am not saying that stealing is OK. The opposite.
However, Turow’s article complained about the legalised misappropriation of royalties – theft – by corporations dumping surplus in secondary markets. That is free marketeering, pure and simple. The internet doesn’t really come into it.
Opposing this Thatcher-Reagan doctrine becomes harder and harder the less educated people are, and the less they understand the consequences of legalised theft so long as you are a corporation and above a certain size. I don’t backpedall from that point of view, and I definitely see lawyers as central to the legitimacy of that system. No excuses for ‘that’s just how their minds work’.
Without reversing the free market mantra that your antagonist was just being entrepreneurial, the theft you complain of will remain legitimate, no matter how many yours you fight legal battles. It’s the big picture stuff you need to change, and the little stuff will take care of itself.
Time for some ethics to make it back into all walks of life, not just philosophy classrooms.
April 11, 2013 at 11:58 am
Apologies Peter Strempel for giving you or anyone else the impression that I think you are not defending copyrights. That wasn’t my intent. I’m not defending lawyers, although I can see why you might think that. And I don’t disagree with your points about ethics.
I suppose I need to rewire my own brain somehow, because I have always tried to change the big picture stuff by taking care of the little stuff. In every area of my life I do this. It’s sort of my artistic POV, get the beginning right and the rest of it will fall into place. So…my failing for not knowing how to do it starting the other way around.
April 11, 2013 at 1:59 pm
Since I’m a troublemaker (right Peter Strempel?), I would like to invite Jeff Jockisch here to read and comment.
April 11, 2013 at 2:02 pm
Brian Titus I thought Peter Strempel was the troublemaker. There’s more than one? Damn…
April 11, 2013 at 2:07 pm
Giselle, the place is full of troublemakers. 😉
April 11, 2013 at 2:08 pm
And me being such a harmless, benign little Wombat …
April 11, 2013 at 2:19 pm
The benign are often the most harmless Peter Strempel. This does not mean they are not charming, however.
Yes Jodi Kaplan but there are troublemakers I like and troublemakers I do not like….
April 11, 2013 at 2:22 pm
Shucks. Have a virtual whiskey on me, Giselle.
April 11, 2013 at 2:23 pm
Well, Jeff Jockisch is one of the troublemakers I highly respect here, so I hope he will come and give his thoughts!
April 11, 2013 at 2:27 pm
Jeff is a good troublemaker.
April 11, 2013 at 2:41 pm
You’re mighty free with that whiskey today Peter Strempel!
April 11, 2013 at 2:41 pm
Excellent. Bourbon for everyone. It really is the best thing about Kentucky. Given that there isn’t a Wombat in sight…
April 11, 2013 at 2:43 pm
Yeah, Brian. For one reason or t’other I have been entirely far too sober for far too long, and will probably stay that way for some time to come yet. So in my own sobriety I feel generous with the virtual flow of the stuff.
April 11, 2013 at 9:34 pm
Old Bushmills Distillery here in Northern Ireland has just launched a bottle of “Bushmills with Irish honey”. I’ll toast you all with that.
April 12, 2013 at 10:45 am
Sounds delicious to me Darryl Collins. I will have to check to see if there is some Kentucky bourbon laced with honey. Hmmmmm…..
April 12, 2013 at 7:28 pm
http://theawesomer.com/photos/2012/05/052812_bushmills_irish_honey_1.jpg
April 12, 2013 at 7:29 pm
We will entice Jeff Jockisch to get over here yet!
April 12, 2013 at 7:32 pm
You might have to promise Jeff Jockisch something more fortifying than Peter Strempel’s “virtual” hooch Brian Titus. Poor Jeff. Nothing like being roped like a steer in the rodeo…
April 12, 2013 at 11:34 pm
I do want to say, for the record Darryl Collins, that this evening at dinner at our favorite bar, I asked if, in your honor, there were such a thing as Kentucky Bourbon laced with Honey. The vile libation pulled off the shelf by the bartender was something called Wild Turkey American Honey. Not only does it shame Lawrenceburg, Kentucky, but I understand Kentucky Honey Bees are circulating a petition against its continued production. As well they should be. It was an abominable concoction distilled by a wholly nefarious person, who should be stoned, IMHO.
Further, I understand it was developed for the “female” audience. This is depressing. Some of we “females” can shoe a horse. Some of us can fly planes. Some of us can even drink Bourbon straight. Spread the word, would you?
April 12, 2013 at 11:37 pm
P.S. Without falling backwards off our chairs or puckering our lips, I might add.
April 12, 2013 at 11:40 pm
All that honeyed whiskey flooding the market downunder (from the US, not Ireland) is precisely targeted at a female demographic that can’t stand whiskey, honey or not.
The MBA marketing types who came up with this abomination deserve worse than stoning.
To demand the transformation of a product they have no sympathy for into lollywater is a crime that should be seen as equivalent to psychological torture by the UN and all civilised jurisdictions.
April 12, 2013 at 11:44 pm
Agreed Peter Strempel. But can you imagine how horrified I am to be included in this “pack” of “females” against my will or without my knowledge or agreement. For God’s sake they could have at least asked my opinion. The truly sad thing is that were I to meet a “female” who actually liked the stuff it would be a mirror onto her entire spirit, mind, soul and heart. A rather brutal indictment? Absolutely. Warranted? Almost certainly. She writes smiling sweetly.
April 12, 2013 at 11:58 pm
Ouch. What have I started? I haven’t even tried the damned stuff yet and already I hate it. 🙂 I’m privileged that you thought of me in a bar Giselle Minoli, honoured. I am toasting you right now with a Back Bush. (That sounds a bit weird).
April 13, 2013 at 12:00 am
Alas, in terms of the demographic those gray-minded MBA bean counters were after, you don’t count anymore, Giselle. You’d have to sit for a full frontal lobotomy, and giggle a lot more. And reduce your vocabulary. And settle for life as seen by someone with a single figure IQ.
I see the ‘young women’ who drink the pre-mixes being hawked by the industry (we call them alcopops), and I shudder no matter how much duck-faced silicone they can flash at me. They almost deserve the honey mixture.
This is why I favour cigar bars, with comfortable leather easy chairs, no loud music, and genteel conversation, even if does taper off, after a while, into broad drawls (I suspect this is how the American Southern drawl actually originated).
April 13, 2013 at 12:10 am
Peter Strempel I don’t know whether to send you a virtual smooch, or climb into bed, even more depressed, with a bottle of bourbon. Could someone, anyone, please (I dare you) explain to me why this place, inventor of Bourbon and home to One Helluva Horse Race, favors women of the silicon varietal? I would like to think that the Kentucky men who haunt the sorts of bars you describe are not, in fact, as stupid as the broads they pay for, but I have come to seriously question that these past two years. Of course the men who actually invented Bourbon were a different sort of fella. The third, fourth and fifth generations always muck things up.
However, honey, when I am in the mood, on the phone, if I am pressed, I, too, can pass as a dimwit. Light your cigar, Big Boy?
April 13, 2013 at 12:12 am
Aaaahahahaha.
April 13, 2013 at 12:40 am
You guys are cracking me up. I’m sticking with my wine tonight (Montepulciano, if you must know). To be followed by a little porto & chocolate. It’s my birthday weekend!
https://plus.google.com/106313443642953370943/posts/RAcdnpuXkTg
(Truth be told, we will make an excuse to have porto & chocolate most any night, no birthday necessary)
April 13, 2013 at 12:47 am
Happy birthday, Brian.
As I stated earlier, it’s been a dry spell for me for some time, with a brief lapse for German beers on my own birthday weekend over Easter.
I do, however, have 30 years of whiskey stories under my belt, and I don’t regret a single one.
April 13, 2013 at 12:56 am
Scusi, Brian Titus? Porto and chocolate? Whatever happened to homemade Cannoli and a nice Nocino Brian Titus?
April 13, 2013 at 12:57 am
And happy birthday to you Peter. I’ve had three Easter birthdays myself, the last one in 1974. My next one will be when I’m 86; I hope I get to see it!
April 13, 2013 at 1:00 am
I am now officially disconsolate. I cannot fathom a Dry Wombat. What is that anyway? There must have been a mutation somewhere. I think you need to morph from a vegetarian Wombat Peter Strempel to a carnivorous Tasmanian Devil. I am worried about you.
April 13, 2013 at 1:01 am
Take the Nocino, leave the Cannoli?
Never heard of Nocino; I wonder if the all-powerful PA LCB sells it?
April 13, 2013 at 1:10 am
Happy Birthday both of you B & P. Nocino is from Emilia-Romagna, the region of Italy my father’s family is from. Also the food center of Italy…the Po River Valley. You know all that Parmesan and Prosciutto and Balsamico. What I love about people who dream up spirits is that some Italian thought of soaking unripe green walnuts in alcohol and spices and letting it sit in the sun. I wonder what he (I’m assuming) had smoked or to drink to put his mind in a state that would come up with that.
I think I’ve threadjacked my own post and I don’t care.
April 13, 2013 at 1:14 am
That settles it, I’m looking for some this weekend!
Scrolling up it looks like I should probably take the blame for the threadjack. See, I am a troublemaker.
April 13, 2013 at 1:20 am
I blame it on Darryl Collins. He’s Irish. The Irish are to blame for everything.
April 13, 2013 at 1:21 am
We have a winner!
April 13, 2013 at 1:25 am
Nah, you’re the troublemaker, Brian. Heh, heh, heh!
April 13, 2013 at 7:33 am
Hahahaha thanks Giselle Minoli we start fights and parties, sometimes at the same time, just for the craic. 😀
April 17, 2013 at 11:47 am
Darryl Collins my mother was Irish. The biggest smile in the world and that Irish personality. Her family was from Shannon. She never got to go, sadly…
April 17, 2013 at 1:06 pm
Lovely part of the world. A couple of years ago we hired a cruiser on the Shannon river – it was perfect. The weather helped!