As a small side-note in this copyright discussion, the RIAA, the group that sues people who pirate music*, has ceased their lawsuits and is experiencing huge layoffs. *I won't say that they're fighting to give artists their fair share of lost revenue because exactly zero dollars from the lawsuits have gone to any artist.
-- Jonathan Sherwood Sr. Science & Technology Press Officer University of Rochester 585-273-4726 On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 9:15 AM, Dave Henn <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Eric Scoles <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On 2009-03-02, delancey <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> [snip] > >> >>> ... I fear an analogous thing is happening now; we're >>> setting a social norm that (1) it's reasonable to say certain kinds of >>> algorithms are theft (which, I might add, I continue to find deeply >>> problematic conceptually: how bizarre to say that a function -- >>> literally, a mathematical function! -- can transform a legally >>> purchased good into a stolen good!), and (2) content controllers seem >>> more and more to get to decide every form, every iteration, if not >>> every instance, that the relevant content should take. >>> >> >> >> As I say, I'm not arguing with your general point. This scares me, too, >> because it opens the door to levels of control we have a hard time >> imagining. The truism that I keep coming back to is that disintermediation >> of control structures -- here, that's represented by saying that >> creators always have control over everything that anybody >> can do with anything they make -- helps the really big players at least as >> much as it does the really small players. I would argue (and have argued, >> many times) that it actually helps the big players more, because they're far >> better equipped to exploit the economies of scale. >> > > Copyright is all about control over works by owners of rights in the works. > The law surrounding it tries to balance the rights of the copyright owners > against the public interest. Sometimes the balance tips toward owners, > sometimes toward public. Sometimes there is huge inconsistency between how > rights are handled as between two different types or forms of works. As you > say, those equipped to exploit economies of scale have advantage. So do > those equipped to lobby members of Congress to change the law in their favor > a la Disney, at least in effect, extending copyright law to protect Mickey > just before the copyrights were to expire (simplification, but many agree). > > >> In terms of this debate, here's one way that would play out. Publishers >> (or whatever ends up taking over from publishers) will be making >> deals with authors (who just want their stuff published) that give them >> greater control over the content. Big authors will get better terms. >> Amazon will do what it's always done >> >> Small authors, who are often the ones most obsessed with control in these >> situations, will be the ones who get screwed. Unless they fully >> disintermediate, they'll be stuck letting their books get read aloud anyway. >> There's just no way in hell this is not going to happen. The only real >> question is who will benefit from it. >> > > Big entities have been enjoying advantage over little forever. I generally > like it when the little gain. > > >> And I'm sorry, but I see no likely scenario where any but a tiny, tiny >> segment of authors benefit from speech-to-text DRM. Only the ones with the >> biggest PR muscle will see any benefit at all. A Stephen King or a J. K. >> Rowling can make their own terms, even start their own company. A Craig >> deLancey, not so much. >> > > Probably. You know what, screw it. Why should I pay for any of the extra > forms of works I do? Why don't I just have a machine transform the cheapest > forms into a different form and enjoy the alternate forms for free that way? > Stephen King and Rowling will never feel the difference, and the smaller > authors are going to get screwed anyway. So, buy used copies of books, have > a machine convert the books into digital text, then have the digital text > converted into audio, and boom. I can have my audio books for half the > price, probably much less if I'm willing to buy used copies whose covers are > in bad shape. True, right now converting the book into digital text is time > consuming for those of us who don't have the kind of automated book scanners > used by Google and the Library of Congress. But technology changes. > > Hey - isn't Google transforming legally-obtained and authorized copies of > works into an alternate form using an algorithm? > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "R-SPEC: The Rochester Speculative Literature Association" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/r-spec?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
