ketherian ([info]ketherian) wrote,
@ 2007-02-07 07:54:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current mood:accomplished
Current music:Take a picture - Filter
Entry tags:meme

Lip service meme
Dick Margulis over at words / myth / ampers & virgule wrote an interesting set of questions entitled Lip Service. After posting my answers, he suggested I pass the list aroung to increase the discussion. So, answer the following questions here. Then take the questions and post your own slant on them on your own blog. If you provide the link, I'll follow it and coontinue the discussion on your blog/LJ. If you don't have a blog or LJ feel free to provide full comments here.

The following is taken from Dick's blog:

In responding, please state, for everyone’s benefit who reads this—even if you know that I know who you are—whether you are a knowledge creator (an author, for example), a knowledge processor (an editor, for example), a knowledge purveyor (a publisher, for example), a knowledge steward (a librarian, for example), or a knowledge consumer. You can be part of multiple categories; there are no point off for that. It might also be interesting to know whether you are under thirty, thirty to fifty, or over fifty. No need to be more specific than that about your age, I should think.

Okay, on to the questions…

1. Google has entered into agreements with certain libraries to digitize every book in their collections, including books that are still protected by copyright. Google believes it does not need to secure permission from copyright holders to do this. Does the public interest in free access to information outweigh publishers’ and authors’ interest in being compensated for their work?

2. E-books can be produced in such a way that once you pay for one and download it you can send copies of the files to your friends or post them on your own blog or Web site. They can also be produced in such a way (using digital rights management) that you cannot share the book. Some people argue that the latter model creates a barrier that limits sales. Other people argue that the open model encourages piracy. What is your opinion?

3. Most authors never earn a nickel from the books they write. If all authors understood this, do you think the number of books published each year would continue to increase or would begin to decrease?

4. If it’s posted on the Internet, it’s okay for you to use it. True or false?


(Post a new comment)


[info]swestrup
2007-02-07 02:15 pm UTC (link)
I write software, so I guess I'm in content creation. I'm also over 30.

1) False dichotomy. What Google is doing is enhancing the value of the copyright holders works and increasing the chance of them being compensated for it. Its win/win.

2) I am firmly against DRM in all forms. It doesn't work. We went through this in the software industry 20 years ago. You cannot successfully copy protect anything that needs to be viewable/usable. Its logically impossible, and attempts to circumvent the laws of the universe are expensive, annoying, and a waste of resources.

3) I can't talk for the rest of the world, but I'm 1/4 of the way through writing a book. I never expect to earn a penny from it. Nor would I expect to earn any money from the other book projects that I have in mind. I'm writing the books because I want to write them. Any after-the-fact compensation is just gravy.

4) A vague question. What do you mean by 'use'? I have the plans for an atomic bomb that I found on the Internet. Can I build one? Can I set one off? Can I republish the data? Can I write a blog post pointing to the evils involved? All are uses. Some are more appropriate than others. What doe you really mean to ask?

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Question 4
(Anonymous)
2007-02-07 02:27 pm UTC (link)
Ambiguity of question 4 was completely intentional. Leaving the s off the end of points was completely unintentional.

Dick

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]ketherian
2007-02-07 03:58 pm UTC (link)
Hi Stirling.
Thanks for answering.
I would like to know why you believe #1 is a false dichotomy.

2. DRM doesn't work - that's true.
Are you proposing that a completely different model should be applied to information available on the internet, regardless of the form its in? Early adopters will usually pay for the information (first to buy the song, first to buy the book), but DRM is designed to reduce piracy. Using games as an example it's easy to see that most anti-piracy methods are desipesed and people buy games (at 60$ a pop) then share them freely amonst friends. Most games, however, do not let you play at two stations simultaneously. Should this too be abolished? It seems to me this is ultimately what DRM folk are trying to apply to other forms of information. Naturally you can always get a crack for a game...

It would seem we're in accord with question 3. :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]swestrup
2007-02-07 04:21 pm UTC (link)
Well, as to #1, many authors have discovered that giving away their works for free has substantially increased their revenues from dead-tree versions of the exact same works. It only makes sense. If I download and read an interesting novel from an unknown author, I am much more likely to go out and buy works by that person, as I now know its worth it to me.

In a similar vein, I buy large numbers of scientific and technical books. Generally as many as my budget will allow at any time. These books can cost anywhere from $50 to $150 bucks each, and its very annoying to pay that kind of money and get something that's crap. I've gotten into the habit of trying to download 'illegal' copies of such works first. If the contents justify buying a copy, then I do. That also gives me the advantage of being able to find out in which of the dozen or so candidate books I read something in, by running a text search on the downloaded copies.

#2 - Given that DRM doesn't work, any business model that requires its working in order to be successful is predoomed for failure. In such cases, your time and energy is better spent coming up with a business model that does work. I'm not saying its easy, but its a more rational approach to the changing technology. And we do NEED such business models. It won't be much longer before advances in nanotech give us the equivalent of the Startrek matter replicator, with all the attendant issues that will bring. It would help to have solved these simple cases by then.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
DRM
[info]ketherian
2007-02-09 02:10 pm UTC (link)
DRM is quite the hot topic this week.
Apple seeks to end DRM while warner insists on copy protection
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6344929.stm

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: DRM
[info]ketherian
2007-02-09 03:39 pm UTC (link)
And more info here: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070209-8803.html

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]ketherian
2007-02-08 04:12 pm UTC (link)
Thanks for the clarification.
I look forward to your post (assuming your're playing).

Coming up with new business models is needed; for if DRM doesn't work then why do we still have it? (Why do games still have anti-crack software). Bruce Schneier recently posted about the Psychology of Security, and I think that's a partial clue as to the reason behind DRM. It makes people (namely the creators and distributors of the data) feel secure. As Mr. Schneier points out, however, there is a large difference between feeling secure and being secure.

So whatever new business model is designed would have to take into account that familiar feeling of security; otherwise it won't work. Tough job.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]swestrup
2007-02-09 04:42 pm UTC (link)
I don't think I shall play, but I have posted this pointer:
http://www.harpers.org/TheEcstasyOfInfluence.html

Which says just about everything on the subject that I would like to say, and does it much better, even if it never mentions DRM.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…