I found a book I want to read on the Internet Archive. I can’t copy it. I must “borrow” it. This illustrates the artificiality of it all. Most of all because in Switzerland 8 have the right to make a copy for myself and my close friends and family. DRM and the artificial rules around it deny me the benefits of the digital age and deny me my rights for the monetary gain of a few corporate heads and software engineers. This isn’t right!
And already they are trying to change the law. 💰🙈
«I do know one thing: the solution doesn't involve watering down my every little idea and creative impulse for the sake of some day easing my fit into a mold. It doesn't involve tempering my life to better fit someone's expectations. It doesn't involve constantly holding back for fear of shaking things up.
This is very important, so I want to say it as clearly as I can:
@kensanata Did you know books are written by "authors" who need food and housing to live? Strange but true! Library lending rules mean they get paid for some reading, even if not as much as buying their book.
@mdhughes Of course I do. The current system needs reform, do you agree? Do agree that the protection periods are a scam? Do you agree that digital rights management is an abomination? Do you agree that we don't have the duty to uphold business models using draconic punishments if they have outlived their usefulness to the public? Your rhetoric questions make people angry for no reason. Engage, or don't engage, but please don't enrage people. Life is too short for these fly-by comments.
@kensanata No, the casual disregard for people's hard work and IP is the problem. If people weren't mostly thieves, and bought books even if "free", it wouldn't be necessary. But you just want someone's work for free. Why is that? Why do you think you should be able to take without paying?
@mdhughes Casual disregard for people's hard work? Not I! People being thieves? Not I! Remember, in Switzerland, I can make copies for my own use. It's the law. In fact, DRM is reducing my rights. Something is being taken from me! Please remember the reason for copyright. It's not the securing of livelihood of authors. In the US, it's the promotion of science and useful arts. To add further insult, in my particular case, the author is already dead. I'd understand it if we had 14 years again.
@kensanata Nothing's been taken from you, you just didn't get a book you're not legally entitled to in any Berne country for free. If you *bought* a book, you might have some right to strip DRM. We border on that with Betamax decision here. But you have to cross the owner's palm with silver first. Until you do, you're a would-be thief.
@mdhughes You're lacking precision in your words. Copyright expires. Copyright has exceptions. Copyright is a thing we agreed to do for a purpose. I don't think it's worth my time talking to you about this any more. Please untag me from any further posts.
@waweic Haha! I'm with Karl Popper: revolutions result in bloodshed and violence. Incremental change is way to go! But right now it seems that we still need to build momentum, convince politicians, vote for the right politicians, before we get to make the changes we want.
@mdhughes UBI, GMI, tax-based / acesss-metered, and any of numerous other mechanisms would solve this problem vastly more equitably than present systems which are entirely an accident of history perpetuated now by the interests of a self-serving property-aggregating publishing monopoly.
@dredmorbius @kensanata We don't have UBI, and even when we do, the economy will still be driven by IP. If there's no money in the economy, there's no UBI. A great many authors have no giant publishing megacorp, just self-publishing.
Movies are mostly made by giant evil megacorps, and yet they need to recoup their investment as well if we want to see Guardians 3.
So, people of low morals will still be angry they can't download all things for free.
copyright like property is theft, the rich are here using copyright to steal from the entire world and the and here you are defending that theft because they dont take absolutely everything
@radikalgrafitio The entire world wrote a book or made a movie? Really? Disney just scooped up Guardians of the Galaxy from the 'Net? Who'd they steal it from?
This is the least plausible argument I've ever heard. It's like the Menendez brothers asking the court for mercy as orphans.
@mdhughes @radikalgrafitio Actually it did and they did. If you think about where they got the ideas, where they learned the skills, where they got the equipment, how they found the people to do it with, etc. — you will quickly discover that indeed a large part of the entire world was involved. We like the "inventor" myth, because they are our heroes, but in practice the contribution of the final author is minimal, compared to all the hard work of all the people who contributed historically.
but if someone wants to take ideas or contents from gotg and make something new they have to get permission from disney and give them money
and who gets that money? if you take the list of cast and crew here and paste it into notepad theres over 3400 lines
thats just people that directly contributed, and the vast majority of them will not be getting any thing for extra sales or deals to use the ip, but people who do nothing but own shares will
@deshipu @mdhughes i forgot the link to the cast and crew https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2015381/fullcredits?ref_=tt_cl_sm#cast
@mdhughes A Modest Proposal: Universal Online Media Payment Syndication
"...the total size of the US arts and entertainment industry is $528 billion, where the publishing industry is $152 billion. Estimating online access as, say, 20% of this (which I freely admit was pulled from /dev/ass), works out to about $100 per person annually, which isn't too outrageous a number...."
@mdhughes What the academic publishing industry calls "theft" the world calls "research": Why Sci-Hub is so popular
Let me tell you why:
Because it works. It delivers information and knowledge to those who need it.
Because information and knowledge are public goods. As CUNY/GC says, an "increasingly unpopular idea", but an absolutely correct one.
Because much the world cannot afford to pay US/EU/JP/AU prices for content. Billions and billions of people.
@dredmorbius @kensanata Sci-Hub is self-publishing for people who are almost all employed by Universities, paid by taxes and tuition, and will take years of income from students in exchange for a certificate.
So, it works to have open access, IF you have a giant revenue funnel pouring money into producers' pockets (one grant proposal at a time).
Bringing everyone up to 1st world is an NP-hard problem, politics, religion, war, and resources seem intractable.
@mdhughes If you've paid close attention, I've not said that content has no costs to produce, or that producers shouldn't be paid, neither of which you directly state, but which are strongly implied.
I use Sci-Hub extensively to access materials which would have, under original copyright terms, been freely available years or decades ago. And the authors in any event aren't paid by conventional access (among the points addressed in the links shared).
@mdhughes I've also pointd out that we already have this gaping funnel, and that the entire publishing sector could be funded by redirecting monies spent on Internet advertising to the tune of about $100/person by tho world's wealthiest billion inhabitants. Their total present advertising tax is over $600/per.
Raising the world to 1st world incomes is an utter non sequitor: all we've got to do (for publishing) is to decouple access and price.
@dredmorbius We don't have that money funnel for authors, outside of academia. Advertisers are not suddenly going to give their money to authors. If everything is free, there's no money in ads anyway, ads only exist to boost sales of profitable products.
The most you can hope to achieve is everyone in 1st world has UBI, and then some of them, who don't care to get anything more and have no development costs (both unusual situations), release their work for free.
@mdhughes Joseph Stiglitz, "Knowledge as a Global Public Good," in Global Public Goods: International Cooperation in the 21st Century, Inge Kaul, Isabelle Grunberg, Marc A. Stern (eds.), United Nations Development Programme, New York: Oxford University Press, 1999, pp. 308-325.
@dredmorbius Sadly, that link doesn't work for me. Is that the same as https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/sites/jstiglitz/files/Knowledge_as_Global_Public_Good.pdf which I got from https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/papers ?
@xj9 Wow! Thanks.
@kensanata maybe i don't care to take into account future employers in my toots, but i still basically do similar things each day.
I don't think that is necessarily a problem, the problem is that the set of things i do is inadiquate.
@kensanata #DRM media are definitely a reduction in rights. Want to lend a book or an album to someone? Only if the platform allows it and with major restrictions. Want to transfer it (sell, give away)? No such luck. If the platform goes under or got discontinued (hello Microsoft, twice)? you're SOL
DRM is inherently unethical. If I were you I would break the DRM and create a freely distributable copy. Free access to information should not be restricted
@beegrrl Yes, but the current system using Calibre and Apprentice Alf means that I need to install Adobe Digital Editions 2.0 as well, and I think that step is just as aggravating. Anyway, I found a solution. I'm just angry that it has come to be so complicated.
Good job. It's hard, but freeing information is part of the process. now you just need to push it up to libgen or whatever and we can all benefit from your work
@Mnemonic Of course.
@kensanata I once wrote a script to scrape that stuff and put it in a PDF-file. When I'm home at wednesday, I could try to find it again
@waweic Thanks. I'm fine, now. 😃