Misleading Metaphors That Drive The War On Online Sharing

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by elcreative

What happens if I don't want my work available as an e-book because I've produced a carefully crafted work where I regard the specific typography, layout, artwork and even the specific paper as crucial to the book? Who are you to say I have no rights to restrict the circulation of MY work???

You could think about the fact that it was decided that blind people are allowed to strip DRM in order to be able to use the TTS function on their readers. Your hypothetical case would ensure that blind people can't enjoy any aspect of the hypothetical carefully crafted work.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by elcreative

What happens if I don't want my work available as an e-book because I've produced a carefully crafted work where I regard the specific typography, layout, artwork and even the specific paper as crucial to the book? Who are you to say I have no rights to restrict the circulation of MY work???

Bootleg comic books are scans, not text; the people who want to read them agree that the artwork is essential. They do not, however, have holograms on the covers, even if the paper copies do; the readers have decided that's not important.

You have the right to decide a certain kind of paper is all you're willing to print on. You don't have the right to decide that the paper is essential to the reader's experience, any more than a painter has the right to insist their work only be displayed under full-spectrum lights, or a movie producer has the right to insist the movie be shown on larger-than-65" screens. If someone buys your book and photocopies it at 150% original size in order to read the smaller text, they'll lose that special paper--and you don't get to control that. If they convert it themselves to an ebook in order to have text-to-speech program read it to them, again, you don't have the right to stop them. (In the US. I gather UK laws are different.)

If you want to control how your work is experienced, don't publish it. Once it's released to the public, your control is very limited.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

You could think about the fact that it was decided that blind people are allowed to strip DRM in order to be able to use the TTS function on their readers. Your hypothetical case would ensure that blind people can't enjoy any aspect of the hypothetical carefully crafted work.

I'm afraid that may well be the case... there are many things that can't be enjoyed if you have some form of sensory deprivation... should we ban all music because the severely hearing impaired can't hear it and ignore those who can hear it, migraine sufferers can't deal with rapidly strobing lights so should dance events be banned from using them??? It is impossible to produce everything to match everybody's abilities or impairments... do you close art galleries because they're unfair to the blind... of course not... Do you ban people from producing paintings for the same reason... of course not... So... yes, this hypothetical work would not be enjoyable by blind people as every part of it would be essential to the entire artistic experience as it would NOT be a book of just words!!!

And as for reality, well how much of the full experience, of the Book of Kells, would a sight impaired person get... the words are fine but the experience of the Kells is not the words, it is the hand crafted illuminations... the words just give the content not the interpretation of the illustrators which is the major artistic appreciation of the book... just like the libretto of the Ring Cycle gives an impression of the work but it is the music and stage performance that make the entire work, anything less is just that, less... Wanting everyone to have access and appreciate everything doesn't make it possible...

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by elcreative

I'm afraid that may well be the case... there are many things that can't be enjoyed if you have some form of sensory deprivation... should we ban all music because the severely hearing impaired can't hear it and ignore those who can hear it, migraine sufferers can't deal with rapidly strobing lights so should dance events be banned from using them??? It is impossible to produce everything to match everybody's abilities or impairments... do you close art galleries because they're unfair to the blind... of course not... Do you ban people from producing paintings for the same reason... of course not... So... yes, this hypothetical work would not be enjoyable by blind people as every part of it would be essential to the entire artistic experience as it would NOT be a book of just words!!!

And as for reality, well how much of the full experience, of the Book of Kells, would a sight impaired person get... the words are fine but the experience of the Kells is not the words, it is the hand crafted illuminations... the words just give the content not the interpretation of the illustrators which is the major artistic appreciation of the book... just like the libretto of the Ring Cycle gives an impression of the work but it is the music and stage performance that make the entire work, anything less is just that, less... Wanting everyone to have access and appreciate everything doesn't make it possible...

Do you know any people who are seeing impaired? I can say that while my cousin doesn't get the opportunity to see a painting she can feel the paint strokes. She can see a carving or a statue - so the seeing impaired have greater access to the arts than you think. Also the book of Kells would be accessible for a blind person as long as the illustrations were raised and/or embossed.

There are also deaf people who dance - professionally.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Bootleg comic books are scans, not text; the people who want to read them agree that the artwork is essential. They do not, however, have holograms on the covers, even if the paper copies do; the readers have decided that's not important.

You have the right to decide a certain kind of paper is all you're willing to print on. You don't have the right to decide that the paper is essential to the reader's experience, any more than a painter has the right to insist their work only be displayed under full-spectrum lights, or a movie producer has the right to insist the movie be shown on larger-than-65" screens. If someone buys your book and photocopies it at 150% original size in order to read the smaller text, they'll lose that special paper--and you don't get to control that. If they convert it themselves to an ebook in order to have text-to-speech program read it to them, again, you don't have the right to stop them. (In the US. I gather UK laws are different.)

If you want to control how your work is experienced, don't publish it. Once it's released to the public, your control is very limited.

Actually, you are wrong... the paper is handcrafted with textures and images both embossed and impressed into it together with word patterns and other things so I do have the right to decide it is essential to the reading experience because I designed it that way, any other version is not the work... and yes, an artist can insist upon how work is displayed (until it is sold) and a movie producer can insist on a movie being shown on larger than 65" screens, it is not compulsory to put it out on DVD... and all the rest assumes that the primary output from the book relates to its words, that is not necessarily so... I have many books which are an artistic experience with the book being a complete concept.

Text-to-speech will work really great on a 200 page artistic concept item with ONE printed word per page... the item is designed to be treated as an entirety not a chop and match, now someone may convert it that way but they're not going to enjoy it and they DON'T have the right to sell that as the work to other people... oh and I never said the hypothetical work had small text, you're assuming again, and photocopying something, on artistically textured and designed paper, is probably going to end up being more difficult to read than the original... this also doesn't mean that someone who chooses to butcher the work can then sell it on...

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

Do you know any people who are seeing impaired? I can say that while my cousin doesn't get the opportunity to see a painting she can feel the paint strokes. She can see a carving or a statue - so the seeing impaired have greater access to the arts than you think. Also the book of Kells would be accessible for a blind person as long as the illustrations were raised and/or embossed.

There are also deaf people who dance - professionally.

Yes I do... and again reality imposes its ugly face... nobody is going to get to run their fingers over the Book of Kells (and it wouldn't do much good as most of the illustrations are flat with little or no texture)... and I'm not talking about carvings or sculptures and feeling the paint strokes doesn't do a great deal of good if you aren't allowed to feel them, try asking the Louvre to let you grope the Mona Lisa? Why bring this up when I was talking about a specific hypothetical... This is typical of threads on this forum in that people can't be bothered with dealing with a specific point but have to drag in other things to change the discussion to suit themselves...

And deaf people who dance rely on the underlying beat/bass to stay with the music... not all music has this so I guess we should start adding bass to chamber music and violin concertos... not everything is available to everyone, this is life, it's not ideal but it is reality and surely it would be equally unfair to limit all works to things that can only be consumed by everyone?

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Yes I do... and again reality imposes its ugly face... nobody is going to get to run their fingers over the Book of Kells (and it wouldn't do much good as most of the illustrations are flat with little or no texture)... and I'm not talking about carvings or sculptures and feeling the paint strokes doesn't do a great deal of good if you aren't allowed to feel them, try asking the Louvre to let you grope the Mona Lisa? Why bring this up when I was talking about a specific hypothetical... This is typical of threads on this forum in that people can't be bothered with dealing with a specific point but have to drag in other things to change the discussion to suit themselves...

And deaf people who dance rely on the underlying beat/bass to stay with the music... not all music has this so I guess we should start adding bass to chamber music and violin concertos... not everything is available to everyone, this is life, it's not ideal but it is reality and surely it would be equally unfair to limit all works to things that can only be consumed by everyone?

So what you're saying is that since your point is that disabled people can't enjoy something the way your abled self can then they aren't worth the trouble and to screw them?

I'm sure my blind cousin with her painting collection - and the paintings she does herself - would be gratified to know that you think she doesn't deserve to see the Mona Lisa. And all the deaf people who like music need to stop and get over themselves, huh?

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by elcreative

I'm afraid that may well be the case... there are many things that can't be enjoyed if you have some form of sensory deprivation... should we ban all music because the severely hearing impaired can't hear it and ignore those who can hear it, migraine sufferers can't deal with rapidly strobing lights so should dance events be banned from using them???

My point wasn't that a book shouldn't exist unless everyone is able to fully enjoy it. But since there are ways for the visually impaired to at least enjoy the story I don't see why you wish to deny them.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Rubbish... if I produce an item of artwork that requires being in a certain physical form then that is my right - it's my artwork - if you don't like it in that form... tough, make your own artwork... I'm not limiting its availability to anyone but if it's put in another form then it no longer represents the intrinsic idea... nobody is entitled to have everything in this world in any form that they choose... get real... you just reminded me why I put you on ignore originally...

The problem with that is if you don't provide it in a format that people want, someone will create it anyway and give it away for free. If it's just a case of typography you could create a PDF designed for a 6 inch screen, but even then someone will just convert it to a format people want and give that away. The days when a creator of anything can dictate how their product is consumed are long gone. At best you can have a preferred format, but if people want to consume it in a different way they will do so.

[anamardoll]

This whole conversation makes me think of Wicked.

The musical Wicked is wonderful but in accordance with 'tradition', you can't buy a copy of the performance, because that would supposedly cannibalize live sales. The people who think this is a stupid, stupid position argue that (1) most fans will still go see the live performances when convenient/possible, so you're getting twice the money from the fans and (2) the fans would like to show their elderly, bed-ridden grandmas who cannot possibly drive 3 hours to attend a live show.

And, of course, (3), the whole thing is probably available in bootleg form on the internet at this point anyway.

Well, and (4), the amount of people you can reach with live sales is pitifully small compared to the people you can reach with, say, Amazon.com.

Ableism is an issue in our country. Earlier this year I had to have a huge fight with DishNet over their lack of captions on "child units" in the house. (I switched to DirecTV, and they have captions for all units, yay.) There was NOTHING on the DishNet site about this issue, and in fact, there was contradictory information on their ad-copy that frankly conflicted with the reality. It took hours and hours and hours of work -- and social networking -- just to get them to waive the $300 "contract breaking fee" because their "service" didn't service adequately the members of my household.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

So what you're saying is that since your point is that disabled people can't enjoy something the way your abled self can then they aren't worth the trouble and to screw them?

I'm sure my blind cousin with her painting collection - and the paintings she does herself - would be gratified to know that you think she doesn't deserve to see the Mona Lisa. And all the deaf people who like music need to stop and get over themselves, huh?

I didn't say that and you know it... I said that some things are not possible and that is the case, I didn't say it was right but, what the hell, you read what you like into what I write rather than read what I write, I'm sure it'll suit you better anyway...

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

The problem with that is if you don't provide it in a format that people want, someone will create it anyway and give it away for free. If it's just a case of typography you could create a PDF designed for a 6 inch screen, but even then someone will just convert it to a format people want and give that away. The days when a creator of anything can dictate how their product is consumed are long gone. At best you can have a preferred format, but if people want to consume it in a different way they will do so.

And what I was talking about wasn't just a case of typography, it was an entire concept but having seen how so many people here either don't understand, wilfully misunderstand the hypothetical I posed, I guess that another sort of artistic expression can just bite the dust and not be bothered with any more...

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

My point wasn't that a book shouldn't exist unless everyone is able to fully enjoy it. But since there are ways for the visually impaired to at least enjoy the story I don't see why you wish to deny them.

My hypothetical never mentioned a story to be enjoyed, it was an artistic concept... there are other sorts of books than those that have stories...

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by elcreative

I didn't say that and you know it... I said that some things are not possible and that is the case, I didn't say it was right but, what the hell, you read what you like into what I write rather than read what I write, I'm sure it'll suit you better anyway...

What you don't get that is is NOT cool to leave people out. You made up a fictional book with all sorts of fictional reasons as to why someone should not be allowed to format shift. As soon as people bring up very valid points as to the entire segment of the population that you are making a POINT to leave out - and now it's that "I didn't say that." The fact is that digital is making EVERYTHING assessable. My blind cousin has an iPhone and a Kindle. Just because your fictional book didn't take into account those people with disabilities is no reason to get all huffy.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

A craftsman does not have control over the use of his works after he's sold them. You don't get to sell a chair and say, "this chair cannot be used to make porn movies."



"Get people freebies" is not directly in society's interests. "Allow the pool of publicly-available arts, literature & scientific discovery to grow" is. Keeping a stranglehold on that growth for the profit of a few, most of which are big corporations, is not in society's interest.

I'll take seriously the yelling about "digital theft" when the retroactive changes to copyright law are reversed--and everything published in the US before 1978 gets put into the public domain. Extending copyright on existing works was mass theft from the public.

No Elfwreck, only those before Dec 31, 1954. They were created under a maximum copyright of 56 years, we, the public, made that contract. We are required to honor it.