Publishers need to die

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Charbax

Well you seem to be okay registering to mobileread.com to post these forum messages...

Most Internet users today seem to have no problem logging into Facebooks, Myspaces, Google accounts, Forum profiles and post on blogs.

I don't do Facebook or LinkedIn because of their TOS which claims ownership of whatever I put on their sites. "Most" is not "nearly all." And you do seem to ignore the HUGE collection of people who aren't online at all.

I pay too much money for dialup, when I could have cable or dsl from AT&T or ComCast, because I won't put up with their TOS either.

In the case of the new artistic revolution, it will be regulated by the Government which will also enable very strict rules concerning privacy.

1) Which government?
2) Who will create these strict privacy rules, and who will enforce them?

That would be part of what the whole standard would be about. It's like Open Social, like OpenID, privacy is perfectly manageable.

Those work because they are opt-in, and noncommercial.
You're proposing an incredibly commercial venture (paying artists) that assigns taxpayer dollars based on their internet activities. You haven't discussed which government will allocate those dollars, or how they'll deal with international trade agreements, or how they'll provide access to the works that are being promoted.

Nor, again, how the interests of people not online will be addressed. We don't need more cases of the poor subsidizing rich people's entertainment.

What you get is better recommendations,

Better than what? I'm already swamped with more recommendations than I can keep up with. How many hundreds of ebooks do I need in my "to-read" list?

Basically you get a much better Internet by opting in for this.

Oh? Will the government (again, which government?) be subsidizing slash fanfic--erotic stories of Kirk & Spock, or Superman & Batman, Harry & Draco? Or will they be considered "copyright infringement" and remain in the darknet? In which case, I don't see why I should be paying extra taxes to support the artists who aren't the ones I read the most.

What I expect from such a proposal is a whitewashed, bowdlerized collection of "government-approved works," rather than any growth in artistic diversity and popularity.

(And at this point, I need to insert another because I just can't take any of this seriously. "The Government will regulate the new artistic revolution?" )

[Charbax]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Nor, again, how the interests of people not online will be addressed. We don't need more cases of the poor subsidizing rich people's entertainment.

Again, all people don't pay the same amount of taxes. A tax can have plenty of factors that determine its size, such as income, geographical location and even the speed of their Internet and if they have Internet at all. So stop keep bringing that argument about poor people paying for rich people's entertainment.

Americans watch 4 hours of TV in average every day. Just set them up with a new type of set-top-box that costs less than $100, and those people can be getting more than half of those 4 hours of daily videos from the Internet cause they will quickly figure out that recommended and personalized Internet on-demand video is much better than random ad-supported crap on regular TV broadcast monopolies. How do you get to finance all these Internet videos, again this is going to be mostly the tax system.

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by Charbax

In the case of the new artistic revolution, it will be regulated by the Government which will also enable very strict rules concerning privacy. That would be part of what the whole standard would be about. It's like Open Social, like OpenID, privacy is perfectly manageable.

Yeah, until they decide to suspend those 'strict rules' in the interest of national security.

What on earth are you drinking? What ever happened to personal choice, individuality?

Under your system, there is no individuality. Sheeples! You have sheeples! Follow the leader, read only the most popular, listen only to the most popular.........ICK!

[Charbax]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

Yeah, until they decide to suspend those 'strict rules' in the interest of national security.

What on earth are you drinking? What ever happened to personal choice, individuality?

Under your system, there is no individuality. Sheeples! You have sheeples! Follow the leader, read only the most popular, listen only to the most popular.........ICK!

Nope you are obviously not understanding my posts.

The recommendations algorithms provide personalized recommendations that are different for every user. Thus in fact I do encourage individuality, much more individuality than under the current system where most people choose to buy books cause they saw an ad for it on a bus.

I advocate personal choice with this system cause basically everyone will be allowed to download anything they want legally and for free on the Internet. I don't see how you can give people more individual choices and freedom than that.

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by Charbax

Nope you are obviously not understanding my posts.

The recommendations algorithms provide personalized recommendations that are different for every user. Thus in fact I do encourage individuality, much more individuality than under the current system where most people choose to buy books cause they saw an ad for it on a bus.

I advocate personal choice with this system cause basically everyone will be allowed to download anything they want legally and for free on the Internet. I don't see how you can give people more individual choices and freedom than that.

Personally, I don't choose my books that way.

And how can you advocate personal choice, and at the same time, want the government to have control?

Thats an oxymoron.

[Charbax]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

Personally, I don't choose my books that way.

And how can you advocate personal choice, and at the same time, want the government to have control?

Thats an oxymoron.

Without sufficient Government regulation, you get to have private monopolies controlling the markets and that is much worse.

The basic truth is that arts should not be treated as commercial products in a market. Commercialism is sickening to most artists. Most artists recognize the deep feeling of sickness and unease when they always are forced by publishers to consider the marketing and commercial aspects of their artistic product and that the final cut on their creation always has to turn it into something that can sell and be profitable. Real Art is above all commercial market considerations.

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by Charbax

Without sufficient Government regulation, you get to have private monopolies controlling the markets and that is much worse.

The basic truth is that arts should not be treated as commercial products in a market. Commercialism is sickening to most artists. Most artists recognize the deep feeling of sickness and unease when they always are forced by publishers to consider the marketing and commercial aspects of their artistic product and that the final cut on their creation always has to turn it into something that can sell and be profitable. Real Art is above all commercial market considerations.

Yeah, well I don't see any of these 'real artists' turning down any of that nasty money brought in by those horrible publishers.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Charbax

Again, all people don't pay the same amount of taxes.

The point is that people who *have no access* will be paying taxes to support people who *do* have access. The people who have no access, tend to be poor. The people who do have access, tend to be less poor, and include the very wealthy. Unless the deciding factor is "no internet = no art tax," there's nothing reasonable about gov't funded art that's decided by internet popularity.

Just set them up with a new type of set-top-box that costs less than $100, and those people can be getting more than half of those 4 hours of daily videos from the Internet

Less than $100, how?
Less than $100 in hardware to set up? Less than $100 ever--free internet?
Who's providing the internet, and who's keeping the porn away from the kiddies? Who's making sure the adults who want porn have access to it?

cause they will quickly figure out that recommended and personalized Internet on-demand video is much better than random ad-supported crap on regular TV broadcast monopolies.

You're awfully certain that your tastes in entertainment are everyone's. That what you like to watch is what everyone would prefer.

Has it occurred to you that many people prefer TV to internet because they like what's on TV? Because they don't want to waste a dozen hours browsing through a hundred websites and three hundred blogs, trying to find the one with content they'll enjoy? That they want to be bombarded with cute entertaining ads that tell them what kind of products they can use to wash their clothes, outfit their kids for school, and where they can eat lunch?

For someone screeching about "diversity," you have a one-track message.

How do you get to finance all these Internet videos, again this is going to be mostly the tax system.

Again, people who are working three jobs while raising two children are paying taxes to support the habits of those who have four hours of leisure time every day.

Saying "oh, taxes can be variable" is meaningless--you haven't said how they'll vary, or who'll be deciding on the variations. You seem to assume that "the Government" is a noble entity that will do so fairly, without any ideas about what "fair" means in cold hard numbers.

You still haven't mentioned which government will be implementing this, and how the oversight committee will guarantee people's privacy while avoiding hacking into the database and internal corruption skewing the answers. Nor who'll be deciding what content standards are appropriate for this world-wide artist payment-by-popularity game... do you really think that the gov'ts of the world are going to start subsidizing porn? Or are you under the impression that porn is actually a small, marginal part of the online entertainment industry?

(Is there a statistician in the house who can throw numbers into the discussion?)

[Gaurnim]

Originally Posted by Andurian

When copyright was put into place, copyright pretty much only protected the incomes of authors (and the publishing houses they chose to work with) because anyone wanting to pirate their works would have to pay for the media to distribute the works on. Which means that copyright outlawing piracy didn't hurt the media consuming public much at all, since pirates would be charging close to the price of the original author.

Modern circumstances are different - copyright laws *do* hurt the media consuming public, since there is little to no distribution cost. Modern pirates charge nothing at all.

Not to say I'm wholeheartedly against copyright as a means to protect authors (certainly *something* needs to keep authors producing new books), but saying "the issue was decided a hundred years ago" fails to observe that the facts on the ground are different now.

I definitely agree that excessive copyright hurts the media consuming public, but I do think that some form of copyright is necessary in order for the media consuming public to have somehting to consume.
Having only public or private financing of authors instead of copyright would put a layer of censoring that should not exist.

I've found what I was refering to, at last !
It's said far better than I could say it, and I do think that a good part of it still applies nowadays.
This link includes the text of Macaulay speeches on copyright, in 1841-1842 :
http://www.baen.com/library/palaver4.htm
(Additional link with the same text, and some footnotes :
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/4/25/1345/03329)

The situation has changed in some ways, of course, but we still need an incentive for authors to write, and this shouldn't be controlled by public or private funding.
Copyright allows an author to retain ownership of his work, and to use as he sees fit. If no publishing house wants to publish it, he can self-publish on the web, make it available for free, use a tip-jar, ....

[mjh215]

Ok, I admit it is entertaining, but even for that purpose overfeeding a troll can lead to dangerous consequences... Such as them breeding... And it really doesn't matter if the troll is a bonafide forum troll or just insane... So....



-MJ

[Charbax]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

The point is that people who *have no access* will be paying taxes to support people who *do* have access.

Why? Cause you say so?

You don't think it can be a factor if the tax payer has an Internet connection at home and which speed of download and upload it is at?

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

there's nothing reasonable about gov't funded art that's decided by internet popularity.

Everything is reasonable about it. Governments around the world already pay artists based on popularity for TV, Radio, Museums, Libraries in many countries. The Internet can be much more reasonable at measuring popularity.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

and who's keeping the porn away from the kiddies? Who's making sure the adults who want porn have access to it?

Well if you want to know, it's quite easy to filter adult-only material at the DNS level and simply make it a part of the deal, that the adult at the residence has to unlock access to adult-only material using an online control panel. This is in talks to be implemented in Australia, the UK and probably many more countries. There is a logical way to implement this so that it has got nothing to do with censorship. Also with a direct email based communication with your Government, the adult can be instantly warned of any encrypted proxy open DNS type of activity on the connection.

See the latest about the Australian child protection DNS level filtering system: http://www.australianit.news.com.au/...-15302,00.html

It'll be very effective to protect the Children and it will not slow down the Internet or disrupt free speech if implemented intelligently.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Has it occurred to you that many people prefer TV to internet because they like what's on TV?

Has it occured to you that everything that is on TV can be found on the Internet and played back on-demand whenever you want?

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Because they don't want to waste a dozen hours browsing through a hundred websites and three hundred blogs, trying to find the one with content they'll enjoy?

Well don't worry, it'll be a one click process to get instant access to any movie or TV show ever made, just as any video-blog post or web video ever put on the Internet.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Saying "oh, taxes can be variable" is meaningless--you haven't said how they'll vary, or who'll be deciding on the variations. You seem to assume that "the Government" is a noble entity that will do so fairly, without any ideas about what "fair" means in cold hard numbers.

Again, if you insist, people can easily be taxed based on their home Internet bandwidth speed. This tax can be levied at the ISP level. Not all taxes are income taxes. And even if you do take it as part of the income tax, then obviously people wil lower income would pay less and they are as well less likely to have the Internet at home. So I suggest you drop your argument.

[Charbax]

Originally Posted by Gaurnim

Copyright allows an author to retain ownership of his work, and to use as he sees fit. If no publishing house wants to publish it, he can self-publish on the web, make it available for free, use a tip-jar, ....

Copyright is meaningless in a system where making unlimited copies is free.

Artists who want to be independent shouldn't be left begging for money using tip jars. Relegating our artists into being beggars is not a solution to anything.

Artists should be encouraged to have their works being copied on the Internet to as many people as possible, enjoyed by as many people as possible over the Internet, and without any compulsory money transactions (with the completely ridiculous 85% of that revenue going to intermediaries) blocking 95% of the usage. And while they see their works being copied to as many people as possible, they should feel the compensation come to them automatically.

This cannot be done in any other way than an industry wide subscription model, which is best implemented as a tax at the ISP and/or income level. And nope, we cannot let it up to Amazon, Google or AT&T to manage and regulate this tax. Taxes are managed by the Government, that's what it's for.

[ShortNCuddlyAm]

Charbax - are you an unpublished author by any chance? Or possibly an unhung painter or other unappreciated artist?

[Charbax]

Originally Posted by ShortNCuddlyAm

Charbax - are you an unpublished author by any chance? Or possibly an unhung painter or other unappreciated artist?

Are you by any chance a publisher or are you working for a publisher, distributor, retailer and feel in any way threatened by my logic?

[ShortNCuddlyAm]

Originally Posted by Charbax

Are you by any chance a publisher or are you working for a publisher, distributor, retailer and feel in any way threatened by my logic?

Nope, not any more, although I used to be one of the above. That's not why I'm interested in this thread though. I'm interested because I'm a reader and I'm interested in civil liberties.

I'm certainly not feeling threatened by your logic...

Maybe I should have just been a bit more blunt and asked where your interest, and seemingly blind obsession, in things being done this way comes from? I'm genuinely interested to know, by the way.