|
3D Megadoodoo posted:Before copyright, some extremely popular writers essentially had to beg for food. But there's literally no reasonable reason for it to extend beyond the death of the creator. So Disney would still have a way to gently caress with the copyright laws!
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2020 18:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 01:17 |
|
|
There's kindof an analogue in Denmark with newspapers. The Royal Library scanned most of their archives covering everything 1650–2000, and you can search + view everything older than 100 years online for free (idk if this requires a Danish IP): http://www2.statsbiblioteket.dk/mediestream/avis Anyway, when it comes to more recent newspapers, you can still search, you just have to show up in person to see the scans. Now, during Corona, there's a class of so-called "ownerless" newspapers that's become available for home viewers (definitely only Danish IPs), because they made a deal with the rights owners. Previously they were only available at the royal or your local library (if they paid the license). Sounds pretty good, but the problem is there are no royalties to the writers for any of this, it's the guilds withholding publishing rights to material that is monetarily worthless but historically priceless because I guess it would be a slippery slope or something. Also these are literally called "ownerless" newspapers. Nobody even knows who owns the rights anymore, it's pretty much a protection racket. Carthag Tuek fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Jun 12, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2020 18:24
|
|
|
As long as we permit the cataloging of information to remain under the sole authority of capital and capital ownership we doom the future to one in which owners control our history
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2020 18:28
|
|
|
Chuck Wendig is a steaming piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2020 18:29
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:As long as we permit the cataloging of information to remain under the sole authority of capital and capital ownership we doom the future to one in which owners control our history agreeing with mel mudkiper itt
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2020 18:34
|
|
|
I don't know what this Chuck Wendig storm is about, but I have been following the #PublishingPaidMe stuff on twitter, where people post their advances/deals with publishers for their novels. And a good point raised was that people are expecting publishers to enact the ideals of perfect little social democracies instead of looking for the state to do it. Having anyone in control of what gets disseminated is problematic, but expecting publishers to pursue an ideal in a non-idealistic world could be considered a big ask. Instead, at the point of writing, wouldn't it be better that everyone is afforded the same ability to survive, even flourish, by the state, instead of expecting publishers to balance it all out. This ensures a better situation beyond, "just writing," and extends it to all forms of art, and production of art.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2020 18:42
|
|
|
no actually I do think its reasonable to ask the publishing companies to not threaten to shut down an invaluable tool of historical preservation because someone might get a pdf of a star wars book without paying for it Let's not even get into how many books are "out of print" despite still being under copyright meaning that publishing companies can literally buy and suppress information at will
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2020 18:47
|
|
|
How exactly did Wendig end up being blamed for this when it was a number of publishers and their army of lawyers that actually got it shut down?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2020 18:48
|
|
|
Ornamented Death posted:How exactly did Wendig end up being blamed for this when it was a number of publishers and their army of lawyers that actually got it shut down? He's not being blamed for it as much as getting poo poo on for gleefully being the bootlicking cheerleader of those publishers and lawyers
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2020 18:51
|
|
|
Ornamented Death posted:How exactly did Wendig end up being blamed for this when it was a number of publishers and their army of lawyers that actually got it shut down? im sure theres a lot of bad people at the root of this but one of them does stuff like this https://twitter.com/punished_harvey/status/1271425877310668801 so i think he deserves 95-100% of the blame lol just realised thats not him but the point stands cos he does very similar stuff
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2020 18:53
|
|
|
I wonder if the patron system would work in situations like this. The IA should have a button to donate directly to the author so as to mitigate the royalty impact this could have. Legality might be grey area, but I'd be amazed if it didn't outstrip the royalities they would get from their publishers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2020 18:54
|
|
|
CestMoi posted:im sure theres a lot of bad people at the root of this but one of them does this I'm gonna recommend you look at the profile of the tweet you just posted. Never mind, you caught it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2020 18:55
|
|
|
That's not him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2020 18:55
|
|
|
thats not him but it is distressingly similar to how he actually tweets
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2020 18:55
|
|
|
"Buckle up tweetohs!" I shall not.  I would rather disable the airbags and be flung through this windscreen to death, or potential brain damage, at which point I might vibe with your post.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2020 19:02
|
|
|
Ornamented Death posted:How exactly did Wendig end up being blamed for this when it was a number of publishers and their army of lawyers that actually got it shut down? Probably just because he's active on Twitter and publishing company attorneys are not. As far as I can tell from my phone, he's not associated in any formal way with the actual legal action. He's just, like, pro copyright, which is a perfectly reasonable stance for a living author.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2020 19:15
|
|
|
what happened?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2020 19:17
|
|
|
On the copyright front, as someone who wants their work to be read I feel a dilemma. Firstly, it's necessary to earn money to survive, publishing (in a limited, with copyright sense) can achieve this. For a lot of authors publishing a novel is only the beginning of what they do, especially in limited markets. They end up doing readings and appearances to earn more money, many also teach classes and workshops on writing (something I don't see much value in from a participatory perspective.) They might write reviews for newspapers and magazines on an area they, as a personality, are seen to have an interest or expertise in. This is all necessary because publishing, even with royalties, but especially with the general sales a book may make, doesn't provide a living. Separate to that is the idea that you just want your book read, i.e. it's separate to needing to live, and needing to live from your writing and related activities. People write—often—to communicate with people. There might be further desires embedded within that writing, to entertain, to further a viewpoint, to ask questions of a prevailing ideal, to challenge a philosophical output, to simply tell a—or your—story. For many reasons (look at self publishing) the industry around a traditionally published book supports the idea that it is worthwhile. If I were to release my book (in whatever form I can make it) very few people would see the value in it. It is something I have done. People didn't care to engage, even if the few who did saw its worth. The publishing industry—protected, withdrawn and closeted—with copyright as a form of its protection, establishes value for a book. And that goes straight to the primary desire of getting your book read, of having the communication you need as an author. These are societal issues, something the publishing industry works within, maintains, and something they take value from. Without wholesale change, far beyond the publishing industry itself, the route of books to readers won't be changed. It's not just books, it's not just media, it's everything related to how society values an author, their work, and the realms works find themselves in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2020 19:29
|
|
|
I mean, I think the whole philosophical debate about the nature of ownership and reimbursement is fine and all but I also don't think the complexity of the problem necessarily precludes "dont threaten the existence of a nonprofit that provides a service to humanity over a pittance of money" as a sort of rule of thumb
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2020 19:55
|
|
|
The question then is why is someone's means to survive a "pittance."
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2020 20:02
|
|
|
Mrenda posted:The question then is why is someone's means to survive a "pittance." if someone was able to survive off the lost revenue caused by the internet archive they are profound masters of budgeting The problem with your argument is that it seems to asserting that the internet archive was in someway meaningfully eating into the profit margins of either publishers or writers and there is no evidence to suggest that is the case Mel Mudkiper fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Jun 12, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2020 20:04
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:if someone was able to survive off the lost revenue caused by the internet archive they are profound masters of budgeting "Meaningfully" is doing a lot of work here. Would everyone who borrowed from it leave the book unread otherwise? Maybe, but it's doubtful. You're asking one particular instance of access to forego a society of realities without addressing the society.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2020 20:09
|
|
|
I think the bigger issue for most authors is that IA was offering DRM-fee versions, meaning the books could then be uploaded to other sites. Hell, here's author Nick Mamatas detailing how the copy of his book that IA uploaded later made its way onto Amazon, right when his publisher is releasing a new edition. https://mobile.twitter.com/NMamatas/status/1271500458951979008
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2020 20:09
|
|
|
Ornamented Death posted:I think the bigger issue for most authors is that IA was offering DRM-fee versions, meaning the books could then be uploaded to other sites. Hell, here's author Nick Mamatas detailing how the copy of his book that IA uploaded later made its way onto Amazon, right when his publisher is releasing a new edition. your example kind of proves my point though this dude is one of the rare exceptions where his long unpublished book suddenly gets picked up for a new publication, but for hundreds of thousands of writers and texts those books become lost, or largely inaccessible. The value is having a permanent digital archive of the sum total of human creation is greater than the value of some e-book sales he might have lost. Also, the internet archive is not responsible for piracy being performed on Amazon. That's on Amazon. Someone taking free information and attempting to re-monetize it is not a condemnation of the person providing the free information. Mrenda posted:You're asking one particular instance of access to forego a society of realities without addressing the society. Yes I am, because a simple solution to a small issue doesnt necessitate solving a large issue
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2020 20:14
|
|
|
This is largely what I meant earlier when I said I find the commodification of art to be toxic to society You are treating text as a product to be consumed instead of considering that is also an essential part of the greater human experience and its survival should not be dependent on whether it can continue to provide value as a commodity
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2020 20:19
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Yes I am, because a simple solution to a small issue doesnt necessitate solving a large issue "You might as well earn nothing, because you're worth next to nothing! I don't value books, your work, or your need to live. Sure we can address the global issue of why and how people deserve access to the necessities of living, but I don't care, because my €1 I'd normally be giving you is irrelevant, even if you're talking about changing this so I don't have to pay you and you could still live. Eat dirt!" Mel Mudkiper posted:This is largely what I meant earlier when I said I find the commodification of art to be toxic to society This is bollocks. "Greater human experience" means nothing when you're denying the part one particular person plays in that experience.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2020 20:19
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:your example kind of proves my point though I'm not really arguing with you, just pointing out a particular complaint of authors with in-print work (DRM-free files). I agree that not having access to in-copyright but out-of-print works is troubling.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2020 20:20
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:He's not being blamed for it as much as getting poo poo on for gleefully being the bootlicking cheerleader of those publishers and lawyers People focus on him so they can ignore the many POC authors talking about how the Internet Archive is stealing from them. https://twitter.com/nkjemisin/status/1271465078664171521?s=20 https://twitter.com/colsonwhitehead/status/1243932648973709313 I'm unsurprised to see goons weaponize "well, maybe ALL of society should be reformed!" to justify intentional theft, because they like the theft.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2020 20:21
|
|
|
Mrenda posted:"You might as well earn nothing, because you're worth next to nothing! I don't value books, your work, or your need to live. Sure we can address the global issue of why and how people deserve access to the necessities of living, but I don't care, because my €1 I'd normally be giving you is irrelevant, even if you're talking about changing this so I don't have to pay you and you could still live. Eat dirt!" You seem to be arguing with someone other than me and maybe you should go find them instead. I will still be here if you actually want to argue with my points though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2020 20:22
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:You seem to be arguing with someone other than me and maybe you should go find them instead. I will still be here if you actually want to argue with my points though. Your points are crap because you're denying someone's ability to live and make what you see as part of "the greater human experience."
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2020 20:25
|
|
|
Copernic posted:People focus on him so they can ignore the many POC authors talking about how the Internet Archive is stealing from them. I CAN QUOTE BLACK WRITERS TOO https://twitter.com/xoxogossipgita/status/1271485226829721602?s=20 Weird how the question of the nature of information and preservation in a digital society might be more than a reductive race thing which you seem to be trying to make it for some reason? Mrenda posted:you're denying someone's ability to live and make what you see as part of "the greater human experience." No I'm not Saying "The Internet Archive is not piracy and calling it piracy is reductive and trying to shut it down risks great social and cultural harm" is not the same as "stealing things is good" Mel Mudkiper fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Jun 12, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2020 20:27
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I CAN QUOTE BLACK WRITERS TOO Never mind that they seem to be honing in on my idea of "changing society" so authors can live and create without worrying about their books being commercial successes (rather than important documents) and how that's supposedly "to justify intentional theft" rather than me, as an author, wanting my work to have an effect on society.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2020 20:29
|
|
|
Mrenda posted:Never mind that they seem to be honing in on my idea of "changing society" so authors can live and create without worrying about their books being commercial successes (rather than important documents) and how that's supposedly "to justify intentional theft" rather than me, as an author, wanting my work to have an effect on society. I am going to say this very politely but I have no idea what you are on about and maybe you need to calm down and reassess
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2020 20:31
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I CAN QUOTE BLACK WRITERS TOO no one is buying your elaborated philosophical framework for 1. reading NK Jemisin's work without 2. paying NK Jemisin. And you clearly have no interest in grappling with the outcome of your preferred policies, which is to take money from authors and keep it for yourself. Do you have any black AUTHORS of BOOKS to cite?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2020 20:36
|
|
|
pospysyl posted:My thinking on this is that this is all a response to stagnating ebook sales. Print book sales have been increasing surprisingly quickly over the last few years, but ebook sales haven't grown at nearly the same rate. To these publishers, controlled digital lending is an easy scapegoat to blame for hurting ebook sales, rather than rising ebook prices and increasing consolidation of reading platforms. I don't think there's any way that eliminating digital lending would actually help ebook sales, but for the masterminds behind these attacks the appearance of action is all they really need.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2020 20:37
|
|
|
I guess next step is to claim that second hand stores and flea markets are theft too
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2020 20:39
|
|
|
Copernic posted:no one is buying your elaborated philosophical framework for 1. reading NK Jemisin's work without 2. paying NK Jemisin. And you clearly have no interest in grappling with the outcome of your preferred policies, which is to take money from authors and keep it for yourself. A. I have never pirated a book B. I would never buy OR pirate an NK Jemisin book C. Your inability to conceive of text as anything other than product and your certainty that I must be suggesting other methods of conceptualizing information in order to "steal from authors" is indicative of my point Copernic posted:Do you have any black AUTHORS of BOOKS to cite? Is there a reason why this insanely arbitrary restriction is necessary? The internet archive also catalogs articles from journalists w/o any advertising revenue. It is not exclusively a book database.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2020 20:41
|
|
|
ulvir posted:I guess next step is to claim that second hand stores and flea markets are theft too  at anyone who thinks that line of attack will do anything but expand.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2020 20:42
|
|
|
ulvir posted:I guess next step is to claim that second hand stores and flea markets are theft too I mean, keep in mind the only reason libraries even exist is because they were grandfathered in pre-capitalism. The entire idea that libraries are ok because they do it "legally" is absurd when you consider that video rental stores had to fight for their right to exist in the 80s despite providing the same service. Publishers want any access to information short of paying full price for it killed, they just havent gotten to libraries themselves yet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2020 20:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 01:17 |
|
|
 Hieronymous Alloy posted:Probably just because he's active on Twitter and publishing company attorneys are not. As far as I can tell from my phone, he's not associated in any formal way with the actual legal action. He's just, like, pro copyright, which is a perfectly reasonable stance for a living author. his books had, respectively, 5 and 7 views on the internetarchive not downloads, views the problem is that the IA is an invaluable tool for researchers and anyone interested in learning about more or less anything which is being destroyed by hack writers who produce nothing of value and whose works are not even read in significant numbers by the users of the IA. so now you cant read the pdf of the zombie star wars novel, yes, but also of print and rare books become completely inaccessible Mel Mudkiper posted:I mean, keep in mind the only reason libraries even exist is because they were grandfathered in pre-capitalism. yes, if libraries did not already exist it would be impossible to create them now, and the same nerds fighting IA would be fighting libraries chernobyl kinsman fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Jun 12, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2020 20:48
|
|
