Morning

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 – 

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!

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.

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!

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…

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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).

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? 😉

Bloggers are the new authors.  It’s not a death, just a change.

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.

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!

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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. 

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!

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.

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.

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).

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?

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.

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.

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!

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!

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!

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

More hipster than I’ll ever be, Matthew Graybosch Haha!

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!

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.

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.

Indeed, Brian, but only to say goodnight.  It is 02:26 here and way past sensible wombat bedtime.  I shall return …

Sleep well, we’ll see you later Peter.

Cheryl Machat Dorskind  With regard to your interview, it depends on what kind of agreement you signed with the television station.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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…

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 …

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.

Since I’m a troublemaker (right Peter Strempel?), I would like to invite Jeff Jockisch here to read and comment.

Giselle, the place is full of troublemakers. 😉

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….

Well, Jeff Jockisch is one of the troublemakers I highly respect here, so I hope he will come and give his thoughts!

You’re mighty free with that whiskey today Peter Strempel!

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.

Sounds delicious to me Darryl Collins. I will have to check to see if there is some Kentucky bourbon laced with honey. Hmmmmm…..

We will entice Jeff Jockisch to get over here yet!

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?

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.

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).

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?

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)

Scusi, Brian Titus? Porto and chocolate? Whatever happened to homemade Cannoli and a nice Nocino Brian Titus?

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.

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.

I blame it on Darryl Collins. He’s Irish. The Irish are to blame for everything.

Nah, you’re the troublemaker, Brian.  Heh, heh, heh!

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…