DRM for Public Domain works at B&N

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by ahi

Personally, I think that translation copyright should be markedly shorter than regular copyright.

That would make sense, but I don't think we're going to see somebody with political power do anything to reduce copyright any time soon.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

That would make sense, but I don't think we're going to see somebody with political power do anything to reduce copyright any time soon.

I'm certain you are right.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by ahi

I'm certain you are right.

Yes, indeed. Maybe even

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Yes, indeed. Maybe even

I wouldn't go that far.

Any digital media that the public perceives is wrongly denied to it, or even just denied at a fair price, it has other ways of getting.

I've no qualms about that, even despite being a publisher.

- Ahi

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by ahi

Any digital media that the public perceives is wrongly denied to it, or even just denied at a fair price, it has other ways of getting.

True, but that shouldn't be necessary if the laws weren't completely one sided.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

True, but that shouldn't be necessary if the laws weren't completely one sided.

Agreed. Although since most truly major legal changes in even the recent past came about as a result of violence (whether righteously or otherwise wielded), perhaps in a way this is preferable.

I would not say no to a magic-wand originating sanity-infusion into national and international legal systems though.

- Ahi

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by ahi

I would not say no to a magic-wand originating sanity-infusion into national and international legal systems though.

Reducing the influence of corporate lobbyists and getting rid of bribery (... sorry, "campaign contributions") would help. But that's a whole different can of worms, certainly beyond the scope of copyright reform.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Reducing the influence of corporate lobbyists and getting rid of bribery (... sorry, "campaign contributions") would help. But that's a whole different can of worms, certainly beyond the scope of copyright reform.

I must say, Sir, you harbour remarkably progressive views for a glowing-eyed cultist!

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by ahi

I must say, Sir, you harbour remarkably progressive views for a glowing-eyed cultist!

That's a cultist? I thought it was a guy in a penguin Halloween costume?

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

That's a cultist? I thought it was a guy in a penguin Halloween costume?

You mean it isn't?

[rogue_ronin]

Originally Posted by Requiem

If you would remember back in the day when cable first came around the only way for the cable companies to protect their interests were to scramble channels not paid for. i.e. HBO. Now that is the same conceptual idea of DRM. Limit the use of the product to the people paying for it. Yes you could still hook up a vcr and record those programs and hand them out to friends, but you can also retype the DRM protected files and hand those out if you want. (Not legal I know, but neither was handing around those vcr or cassette tapes in the 80's and 90's)

NO ONE has the right to take and freely distribute a copyrighted item, NO ONE. Which includes B&N's version of the PD files, Those specific copies contain newly copyrighted material and those copies ARE protected therefore the file is protected. I have never heard of 10 pages being DRM'ed while the rest is left without. I am not even sure if they have that ability. There are copies of PD that are NOT copyrighted and those are free to distribute. This is not a complicated issue in the context of the article.

As usual, the independent, moderate mavericky input of someone who either will not, or can not, understand what the point is. Not talking about piracy. Talking about cultural appropriation by increasingly-hegemonic corporate structures, the use of artists as a figleaf for said theft, and the restriction of available cultural material for current artists.

Hey guess what? That's the artists RIGHT to do what he pleases with his/her work.

Really? What a unique and cutting insight. I wish I'd paid attention to history, discussion and news. Instead of just spouting off with something that makes me feel good about my mavericky, independent support for RIGHTS!

The fact that we're largely talking about DEAD people penetrate your sweet, sweet, crunchy, independent, cocoa coating yet? Or that once the rights leave the artists, any sense of inherent, moral entitlement vanishes?

If you keep splitting the difference wouldn't you still be in the middle? Moving to one side or the other is not "splitting the difference".

The only side that moves is the one that's tolerant, that tries to get along with the other. You'll undoubtedly be surprised to learn, given your mavericky nature, that the ones who accommodate are not the folks who have money and power. So if you keep splitting the distance between their positions, the center moves. It's called the Overton Window.

I'm sorry but the view you are taking about moderates is not actually moderates. More of the uneducated, would you consider an independent to be moderate?

I would consider a moderate to be uninformed. And loud about how the people who are informed are so damned impolite as to demonstrate his ignorance to him.

And any side or view can trample the rights of another if people are not careful to accept other viewpoints and listen rather than spouting off absurd generalizations about people they have never met or known.

Sure can, in an imaginary world where pirate-y pirates pursue innocent creators, beating their creations out of them, stealing their reputations, berating them for their creativity and crushing their souls! And where cotton-candy stormclouds rain chocolate monkeys of vengeance!

Of course, that isn't happening. All the trampling is happening, here in the real world, from the people in a position to trample. There is nothing absurd in what I have stated. There is absurdity in equating strongly argued opinions with trampling. There is absurdity in accepting the squishy middle of what are clear moral and ethical choices as some sort of independent, free-thinking, mavericky ideal. There is absurdity in implying superiority of insight while not recognizing that the under-informed, placid middle is a tool used by those with power to shield their excesses.

You're "spouting off" a bit yourself, you know -- how is it that you can comment, but I cannot? (I know the answer and so do you.)

Think about the other side of the problem constructively and without bias before you come to the self-centered conclusion that your view is the only RIGHT one.

There are a lot of ways to approach the problem of the looting of culture. But none of them involve assuming that it isn't happening, or that when people address it what they're saying is "Everyone should rob creators." So I would suggest that you begin thinking, biased or not -- just begin.

You conflate piracy with arguments against copyright extension, DRM with copyright and artist's rights with the interests of business.

Apropos my earlier argument, you are a tool, and very, very useful.

m a r

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by rogue_ronin

The fact that moderates don't recognize, or don't admit, that the play being made by DRM forces is one that is designed to vacuum up culture, in a political bid for dominance over the means of distribution of information and art makes their positions untenable in argument, and inadequate in discussion....

Talking about cultural appropriation by increasingly-hegemonic corporate structures, the use of artists as a figleaf for said theft, and the restriction of available cultural material for current artists....

Oh, please.

Copyright has nothing to do with "control" of culture for anything other than commercial reasons. If you want to witness real cultural control for political reasons, keep your eye on places where it's actually happening -- e.g. China, Russia, Myanmar/Burma, Cuba, Iran etc

Not to mention that it is much easier now to openly and freely distribute digital information than it ever was to distribute analog information. 20 years ago, a self-published author would be lucky to have access to any sort of distributor, let alone be able to afford the costs involved for a small print run; now, anyone with $15 and a domain name can distribute their cultural content to an international audience.

And I am not aware of any sort of "DRM Forces" that are trying to make everyone use DRM whether they like it or not. EMusic, Amazon, iTunes, and numerous public domain ebook distributors are DRM-free or moving in that direction. So where's the "control" that you fear so virulently?

DRM is not a political conspiracy to lock down content. It's an imposition and an annoyance, but that's really about it.

Originally Posted by rogue_ronin

When someone locks a PD text under DRM, we here might know that it is available for free somewhere else, but most people won't. Because of this, they will be limited to the licensing and permission of a large corporation for access to their culture.

Free ebooks? Let me Google that for you.

B&N is under no obligation to educate people about public domain.

Originally Posted by rogue_ronin

We are the first generation of artists that do not have the right to access our predecessors work to create new work.

Erk? Plenty of artists can access their predecessor's works. In some cases this can mean public domain works, e.g. numerous artists who are inspired by Moby Dick. You have plenty of instances of movies and TV shows made 10 or 20 years ago that are re-made in the present. "Fan Fiction" flourishes, and is usually distributed via non-commercial methods. "Cover songs" are routine in pop music, not to mention that sampling existing recordings is a huge part (practically the backbone) of the musical component of hip-hop.

Some artists do exert a fair amount of control over their works; i.e. only one movie company has the rights to make "Harry Potter" movies. But that's due to copyright laws, and has nothing to do with DRM.

[rogue_ronin]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Oh, please.

Copyright has nothing to do with "control" of culture for anything other than commercial reasons. If you want to witness real cultural control for political reasons, keep your eye on places where it's actually happening -- e.g. China, Russia, Myanmar/Burma, Cuba, Iran etc

So commercial reasons are not political? (Because, of course, a la American Dream, all that wealth is just created by good ol' hard work, never any cheating or gaming the system!) And control is only the overt oppression of those out of governmental power? (No offering a preset set of options to folk, and claiming they have freedom to choose among them, no siree!)

Simplistic, and of course, not what I am talking about. Copyright is exactly what it says, a right to make copies, granted so that creators can profit from their creations. I have no objection to it, and in fact think it was, and is, a brilliant solution to a difficult problem.

But the limited monopoly of prior times is being transformed into a permanent monopoly, and specifically because of the fear of the internet and copying technologies, and the spread of knowledge. Licensing and control of distribution of content is what is being pursued (among many, many other things) by the business elites in the US, at least.

I live in Thailand. I know that there are worse places, with more overt oppression than most of the US. It is irrelevant that there is something worse, somewhere else. DRM, copyright extension, invasive control of digital systems; these are of a pattern with all the other abuses of power and money in the States. We discuss eBooks here, and DRM and copyright. Not insurgency, military repression and international relations.

Not to mention that it is much easier now to openly and freely distribute digital information than it ever was to distribute analog information. 20 years ago, a self-published author would be lucky to have access to any sort of distributor, let alone be able to afford the costs involved for a small print run; now, anyone with $15 and a domain name can distribute their cultural content to an international audience.

For the moment, sure. You don't think that there are people trying to put that back in the bottle? Heck, that Google search you're so proud of down below -- there are days here in Thailand, depending on what mood VIPs are in, when I can't run it at all. Ever wonder why the States has such crappy broadband, or monopolistic practices, or traffic-shaping, etc? It's not because the nice corporations are trying to help the plebes with their artistic remixin'.

I mean, try to mount a play that uses music from the 1950s without begging a corporation for permission. Maybe rewrite the dialogue to a showing of the Maltese Falcon. Or use the script from it as a source for a serious rewrite. Do anything at all with Zorro! Use commercials from the early twentieth century as material in your documentary -- try it!

You can't. The twentieth century is locked up, and so will be the twenty-first. The things that matter, that people want to talk about and use are imprisoned by the companies that "own" them.

If you try to create a new work from something sorta old, but not really old (and therefore of less relevance), you will be found. You will be punished.

The current relative ease of distribution is being overtaken by the ease of suppression. Now maybe it'll always stay ahead -- but not if folks keep thinking it's all gonna be just fine, keep trusting the guys in suits.

And I am not aware of any sort of "DRM Forces" that are trying to make everyone use DRM whether they like it or not. EMusic, Amazon, iTunes, and numerous public domain ebook distributors are DRM-free or moving in that direction. So where's the "control" that you fear so virulently?

"DRM Forces", glad you picked up on that telepathic message I was sending out. I'm hugely in fear of "DRM Forces".

The control I fear is that there are such things as EMusic, Amazon and iTunes. Too damn big, with too much power to shape choices. It will settle into a small group of corporations (pick an industry, any industry, it always does) that will protect each other from progress and outside insurgency using wealth and the concomitant political influence.

But really, beyond that, none of what you're discussing has anything to do with artists, or cultural appropriation -- the main thrust of my arguments so far.

DRM is not a political conspiracy to lock down content. It's an imposition and an annoyance, but that's really about it.

Conspiracies mostly look like conspiracies after the fact and from some distance. From up close, it's just a bunch of people who have similar goals and naturally do the sorts of things that allow them to achieve them. That those goals are reprehensible and contemptible are what makes it seem villainous -- and the fact that they have no awareness of the damage that they do daily to society is the dangerous part.

It is a symptom of a dangerous mindset, that leads to such things as creating devices that are not under the control of their tacit "owners." Devices that can report, that can be reprogrammed, that can be edited without your knowledge or permission.

It leads to the creation of laws to extend copyright to ludicrous lengths, that creates laws that make sacrosanct encryption schemes of corporations, but require citizens to relinquish theirs at the border.

Free ebooks? Let me Google that for you.

That looks like fun! Let me try: Mickey Mouse Copyright Laws

Or maybe: Corporate Apologist

B&N is under no obligation to educate people about public domain.

Sure enough. It's the bottom line after all. That's what really matters. We have to respect that because it's so noble.

Erk? Plenty of artists can access their predecessor's works. In some cases this can mean public domain works, e.g. numerous artists who are inspired by Moby Dick.

Okay, folks are making stuff from the public domain. Wow. Nice to see that you agree with me.

Moby Dick was written in 1851, before the Civil War. So, while the themes of the piece are being mined, I'm not so sure that the specifics of the piece have great relevance to people who didn't live through that century.

And of course:

Two actual events inspired Melville's tale. One was the sinking of the Nantucket whaleship Essex, which foundered in 1820 after it was rammed by a large sperm whale 2,000 miles (3,700 km) from the western coast of South America. First mate Owen Chase, one of eight survivors, recorded the events in his 1821 Narrative of the Most Extraordinary and Distressing Shipwreck of the Whale-Ship Essex. Already out-of-print, the book was rare even at the time.[2] Knowing that Melville was looking for it, his father-in-law, Lemuel Shaw, managed to find a copy and buy it for him. When Melville received it, he fell to it almost immediately, heavily annotating it.[3]

If he had been writing under our current laws, how much you want to bet that the company that owned the rights to Narrative of the Most Extraordinary and Distressing Shipwreck of the Whale-Ship Essex would have sued his ass?

You have plenty of instances of movies and TV shows made 10 or 20 years ago that are re-made in the present.

Not by someone who doesn't have permission from the company that owns the rights. I mean come on, are you even trying here?

"Fan Fiction" flourishes, and is usually distributed via non-commercial methods.

I'm not talking about fan fiction. That's mostly "Mary Sue"s living out an adolescent fantasy. I'm talking about artists remixing their culture, for their profit. From stuff that should be available to them, but isn't because we keep giving more cultural assets and control to companies.

"Cover songs" are routine in pop music, not to mention that sampling existing recordings is a huge part (practically the backbone) of the musical component of hip-hop.

Are you talking about live covers, or recorded? Recorded, you're completely wrong -- they pay through the nose to make the recording, or split off a large piece of the profits. And they need permission to do it, of course. Live, you're just unlikely to be caught. And, generally, that's just mimicry, anyway, not creativity.

And hip-hop -- the whole hip-hop sampling thing is something you should read up on. Do you know how much they pay for as little as 5 seconds of another song? You're flashing back over 20 years here, to a time when it was in ascent. Read about after the lawyers got them. How what and how they sampled evolved, or disappeared. Do one of your famous Google searches on "sampling lawsuit". It's not like these guys are free to do what they like. Like, say, Beethoven.

Some artists do exert a fair amount of control over their works; i.e. only one movie company has the rights to make "Harry Potter" movies. But that's due to copyright laws, and has nothing to do with DRM.

Right, so why are you writing about it? I'm not writing about it. No one is writing about it. Artistic control over recent works of living artists is irrelevant to what we're talking about.

I'm talking about the use of DRM and the draconian laws that support it as they're being used by large corporations to carve up the cultural assets of our society between them, locking them away from the generation of creators and artists that would, in prior generations, feel no restriction about using them. Or suppressing innovation (re: printer cartridges, for instance.)

I'm talking about the extension of copyright, again by large corporations via political means, and the use of it as a bludgeon to extract control and wealth by rent-seeking.

And I'm talking about the lack of accountability of those corporations, the people who staff them and the mindset and ethics of both the companies and their people as they influence culture and law. And as a sideline, I'm commenting on how folks who don't pay much attention to what is going on, who take the mushy, middle path enable it all.

m a r

[Requiem]

I am not really sure what you are trying to accomplish with your "milk crate" preaching, mixed with underhanded personal attacks on people who are trying to have a civilized conversation about an issue that involves us all. But usually when I see people preaching, I just ignore them, because that, my misguided friend, is MY right.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by rogue_ronin

So commercial reasons are not political?

Sony is not trying to make us supporters of a new Japanese Co-Prosperity Sphere, and Apple is not trying to turn everyone into hippies. So, "commercial reasons" are not particularly political -- unless you adhere to the point of view that your choice of soap is also a "political act." It's technically accurate but rarely a useful position. And it's bupkis compared to overt totalitarian control of information.

Originally Posted by rogue_ronin

....the limited monopoly of prior times is being transformed into a permanent monopoly.

Yeah, whatever. In some cases it can be difficult to knock out a market leader, in other cases it's a snap. Yesterday MySpace was the big dog, today it's Facebook, tomorrow it's Twitter. Google barely existed 20 years ago, and today they're a major force in the exchange of information and a major threat to Microsoft's OS monopoly. For all any of us knows, Sony or Apple could be gone in 10 years.

I.e. I don't see much of an indication, let alone definitive proof, that the whole world will be run by Buy n' Large by 2030.

Originally Posted by rogue_ronin

We discuss eBooks here, and DRM and copyright. Not insurgency, military repression and international relations.

Oh, so you get to invoke vague doomsday scenarios of utter "corporate control" of content, but it's improper to point out the drastic nature of actual, existing and current methods of political control of content, in order to inject some perspective into the discussion? Nice.

Originally Posted by rogue_ronin

I mean, try to mount a play that uses music from the 1950s without begging a corporation for permission. Maybe rewrite the dialogue to a showing of the Maltese Falcon... etc.

1) We're discussing DRM, not the validity of copyright laws. These situations have nothing to do with DRM.
2) Didn't you laud the value of copyright a few paragraphs ago? Either you like it or you don't, which is it?
3) The situations you cited have nothing to do with monopolistic practices. Even a small company can hold and enforce the rights to a well-known artwork.

Originally Posted by rogue_ronin

The current relative ease of distribution is being overtaken by the ease of suppression.

Sorry, not seeing much evidence of this -- other than the actions of totalitarian regimes. If anything, it's easier today than in the past to produce and distribute content without the backing of a large corporate entity, government and/or wealthy patron.

As much as people squeal about DRM and limited formats, almost every portable device I've seen allows at least one open format (if not several). Rights holders may be focusing on halting the illegal distribution of their content, but don't care much (if at all) about those who choose to release it for free.

Originally Posted by rogue_ronin

The control I fear is that there are such things as EMusic, Amazon and iTunes. Too damn big, with too much power to shape choices. It will settle into a small group of corporations (pick an industry, any industry, it always does) that will protect each other from progress and outside insurgency using wealth and the concomitant political influence.

Again, yet more evidence that radicalism is not exactly the key to rational thought.

Emusic and Amazon's music downloads have always been MP3's, i.e. no DRM. Apple is making a push to selling music without DRM. The companies you're terrified of are doing exactly what you want, namely ditching DRM, and you're still afraid?

I mean, really. What are you looking for, a world where no one charges for digital content? The abandonment of all copyright? Or perhaps there a magic number of retailers that would satisfy you? 10? 15? 30? 100? If the market doesn't support the number of retailers you like, who has to pay to support their existence? Or, what's your alternative to the capitalist approach -- government distribution of content, perhaps? Or perhaps governments should subsidize any and every retailer and distributor of digital content?

And will eliminating DRM even make much of a dent in the formation of a monopoly? Apple's music sales are now increasingly eschewing DRM, yet the iTunes store, iPod and iPhone are still the big dogs....

Your ideas seem rather hysterical and poorly thought out. Have fun winning people over to your position. :P

Originally Posted by rogue_ronin

And hip-hop -- the whole hip-hop sampling thing is something you should read up on. Do you know how much they pay for as little as 5 seconds of another song?

Of course I am. Guess what? The requirement to pay for a sample has obviously not even remotely slowed down the practice.

Most of the examples I cited indicate that copyright does not seem to have done much to hinder the production of cultural products, and it certainly hasn't stopped artists from being influenced by their contemporaries. Read an interview with any artist in the last 20 years, and they will list their recent influences ad nauseum.

Originally Posted by rogue_ronin

I'm talking about the use of DRM and the draconian laws that support it as they're being used by large corporations to carve up the cultural assets of our society between them....

And you're massively ignoring the trends that are working to the contrary: e.g. open standards, market and cultural fragmentation, a proliferation in media outlets, easy distribution, radical drops in the cost of media production, rejections by artists of large publishers, and of course ignoring the plentiful evidence that belies your position.

You're welcome to believe that the sky is falling, but I see no evidence for it.