Sherman Alexie still hates ebooks

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

I've also as an anglo appearing tribal member lived on the reservation, and live off reservation. neither experience is a walk in the park

That is because major portions of society believe mixed race people should be forced to give up part of their heritage and conform to a single ancestral branch.

Then they claim that only other people are bigots.

[meraxes]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

no it's not. it is EXTREMELY different. I've traveled extensively in Britain and lived in Germany. I've also dated a black Englishman. it is extremely different.

I've also as an anglo appearing tribal member lived on the reservation, and live off reservation. neither experience is a walk in the park

Care to explain how exactly it is different? And this thing about life not being a walk in the park - are you saying people are still being discriminated because they live in a reservation? How?

[EatingPie]

Sherman Alexie is very, very strong in his beliefs and opinions. That's pretty obvious if you've read any of his books. He tends to attack and challenge the status quo, whether it's "white" culture, or on the reservation "indian" culture.

I very much disagree with his "death of localizing" idea. Right now I cannot share a book with my friends because I am the only one with a Reader. If they also had Readers, we could share. Notice he doesn't mention the Nook's much touted sharing feature. So while Readers inhibit the "localizing" right now, when the technology is further adopted, it should encourage stronger reading relationships.

OTOH, on piracy, he is 100% right. There is book piracy. And authors do not make money off pirated books. Plain and simple. And certainly the increase of e-Reader use will cause an uptick in piracy. What's the solution? I don't know. The RIAA suing people sure seems to suck though!

The Big Brother idea is also legitimate. Look at what Amazon did with the Kindle version of 1984. What's to stop them from doing it again... or any other company that has cellular access to your e-Reader? Similarly any company that forces you to use their software when updating your e-Reader could "remote delete" at the time of sync. And why should we trust the government to ignore these technological capabilities to limit free speech?

Even with these issues in mind, I don't think tossing out e-Readers at large is a solution. Solve the above problems, don't just nix the technology. As an example, the Big Brother issue is a far greater danger with mobile phones right now, and that sure hasn't stopped people from buying them, using them, and enjoying them... and, most importantly, benefitting from them!

-Pie

[supermighty]

Sherman just equated open source software with copyright theft. This guy has no clue.

[=X=]

Originally Posted by meraxes

Apart from the disgraceful "affirmative action" laws, which discriminate against the whites, I'm not aware of any other laws that make a distinction based on the colour of the skin.

"Affirmative Action" also encompassed Women, Gays&Lesbians, and the Low income, all categories that are predominately white.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by meraxes

Care to explain how exactly it is different? And this thing about life not being a walk in the park - are you saying people are still being discriminated because they live in a reservation? How?

you are kidding me right?

here, broaden your horizons. off the top of my head, Erdrich, Topahanso, Momaday, Black Elk, Silko, Deloria (Vine), Studi, Harjo... just to get started. and those aren't the angry writers

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by =X=

"Affirmative Action" also encompassed Women, Gays&Lesbians, and the Low income, all categories that are predominately white.

True......but still "disgraceful".

Hiring someone on basis of race, gender or whatever, instead of going for the best qualified, regardless of race gender or whatever, makes absolutely no sense.

Except to apologists.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

There is book piracy. And authors do not make money off pirated books. Plain and simple.

Authors do make money off pirated books, if the piracy leads them to new readers who buy the next book. Even if it only leads to new readers who read at the library, it convinces libraries to buy more books. If the pirates write reviews that convince other people to buy the books, the authors make money off the piracy.

Authors "don't make money" off used or borrowed books, either, but there's no big campaign to stomp those out--because authors are aware that "read without buying it new" doesn't mean "I got no benefit from that person's reading." (Well, they used to be aware of that. It seems an awful lot of them want to believe otherwise these days.)

They very likely don't make as much as they would have if every download were a sale. But every reader was never a sale (used and borrowed books have always been a substantial part of reading communities), and every download isn't even a reader; a lot of them are just files moving around between computers and never being viewed.

The Big Brother idea is also legitimate. Look at what Amazon did with the Kindle version of 1984. What's to stop them from doing it again... or any other company that has cellular access to your e-Reader?

Simple answers to that. Limit use of wireless readers, and keep a backup copy in a non-internet location. To avoid corruption/removal of your online data, keep archives offline.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

True......but still "disgraceful".

Hiring someone on basis of race, gender or whatever, instead of going for the best qualified, regardless of race gender or whatever, makes absolutely no sense.

Except to apologists.

AA isn't supposed to be "hire on the basis of gender/race/etc." It's supposed to be, "among qualified candidates--choose one of a nonprivileged category."

When supermarkets hire stock clerks, they don't look for "the most qualified candidates." There are no "most qualified" candidates. There are qualified candidates, and utterly incompetent candidates, and otherwise qualified candidates who will steal from them. They don't want to hire group B or C candidates... but among the (often very large) pool of group A candidates, affirmative action says they should hire the ones who started out at a disadvantage.

This is important to establish as a rule, because without some kind of outside nudge, people like others who are like themselves. They like *similar* people. Employers will hire to match the race, gender, nationalit and cultural background of the current management without thinking about it, because they "felt more comfortable" with those candidates. Oppression sustains itself without any overt bigotry at all; Affirmative Action is an attempt to correct that.

[kindlekitten]

it also works to counteract the effect of walking onto a job and seeing a sea of white male faces. I am unusual in my profession, and in 30 years have met/worked with 5 other women who do what I do. it is to ensure that those of us who are qualified aren't locked out. it still happens.

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Authors do make money off pirated books, if the piracy leads them to new readers who buy the next book. Even if it only leads to new readers who read at the library, it convinces libraries to buy more books. If the pirates write reviews that convince other people to buy the books, the authors make money off the piracy.

Interesting point. My main negative to this is that... well... music "pirates" aren't out there writing reviews and buying albums... they just MP3 the next album too!

Authors "don't make money" off used or borrowed books, either, but there's no big campaign to stomp those out--because authors are aware that "read without buying it new" doesn't mean "I got no benefit from that person's reading." (Well, they used to be aware of that. It seems an awful lot of them want to believe otherwise these days.)

Well, the record industry actually had a brief campaign against used CDs. I believe Garth Brookes was one of those opposing used CD sales. Obviously, it went nowhere... exactly where it should have gone (hell was apparently full that week).

While I can see how there is a benefit to the author from these examples. But payment isn't one of them! Not directly, anyway. I'm totally for lending books and libraries, and selling used books. But the point Alexie made was about payment.

They very likely don't make as much as they would have if every download were a sale. But every reader was never a sale (used and borrowed books have always been a substantial part of reading communities)...

This raises a contradiction in Alexie's statement. He is heralding the destruction of communities by digital downloads. But, as you say, a substantial part of this "community" had to do with loaning books (analogous to digital downloads). So loan books, the community thrives, Alexie is happy!

OTOH, the author isn't paid from the loan. So the author makes no money from their work. Therefore, limiting books to only paid (non-loaned) versions guarantees the author is compensated. And therefore... Alexie is happy!

But in the first "Alexie is happy" scenario, the author isn't compensated. In the second, the community is wrecked. You can't have both. Alexie can't always be happy!

I don't know if it ends up being so cut and dried, but it's still an interesting conundrum.

Simple answers to that. Limit use of wireless readers, and keep a backup copy in a non-internet location. To avoid corruption/removal of your online data, keep archives offline.

Yes, these are basically what I was talking about. Solve the technical problem don't throw out the technology.

-Pie

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

AA isn't supposed to be "hire on the basis of gender/race/etc." It's supposed to be, "among qualified candidates--choose one of a nonprivileged category."

When supermarkets hire stock clerks, they don't look for "the most qualified candidates." There are no "most qualified" candidates. There are qualified candidates, and utterly incompetent candidates, and otherwise qualified candidates who will steal from them. They don't want to hire group B or C candidates... but among the (often very large) pool of group A candidates, affirmative action says they should hire the ones who started out at a disadvantage.

This is important to establish as a rule, because without some kind of outside nudge, people like others who are like themselves. They like *similar* people. Employers will hire to match the race, gender, nationalit and cultural background of the current management without thinking about it, because they "felt more comfortable" with those candidates. Oppression sustains itself without any overt bigotry at all; Affirmative Action is an attempt to correct that.

Yeah yeah........I know what affirmative action is trying to correct. I was there for the beginning. Such pretty words.

Trouble is, in real life it doesn't work that way. The wrong people get hired many times because employers know if they don't hire them.......the dreaded "discrimination" card will be played.

I've never understood how people can't understand that you can't build a truly great society without going after the best and brightest......regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation or gender....and thats the truth!

So why wasn't that made law instead?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

it also works to counteract the effect of walking onto a job and seeing a sea of white male faces. I am unusual in my profession, and in 30 years have met/worked with 5 other women who do what I do. it is to ensure that those of us who are qualified aren't locked out. it still happens.

And old guys too!

I gotta ask, what kind of work do you do?

[ggareau]

Firstly, I'm pretty sure that his buy local/community action thing has nothing to do with local authors. He's arguing that people should buy from local bookshops rather than large chains or over the internet because a part of our culture (the small, welcoming bookshop) is quickly disappearing - like local coffeeshops which are being supplanted by Starbucks.

It's true. And I don't care. I read enough about enough things that I can rarely find what I want in a local bookshop - they don't have the room for a good selection. And on the things they *do* have, I can buy them at a big-box store for much less. Maybe I'm losing the local bookshop experience, but frankly I go to bookshops for books, not conversation. I'm sure others go for the experience - I'm just not one of them.

Secondly, regarding natives (Native Americans, Native Canadians) they really have been screwed over enough for special consideration. There's a lot of prejudice that still goes on between people in rural areas and people on the reservation (some of it warranted, some of it not) and I have no issues with them calling themselves Indians - I know a few who do. Happily Indian isn't so much a grenade as the n-word is though. But no, you shouldn't call natives Indians, though them calling each other that is a non-issue.

And while I'm not a fan of affirmative action-like policies, They're necessary for now. Until people working at comparable jobs with comparable experience get the same pay, something needs to change. In addition, the more viewpoints we have on a topic via cultural reference, the more answers we'll get. There is a point where we need to be actively encouraging non-whites and females into things like computer science. Currently it only reinforces the idea that "my way (which in that particular case is the white male way) is the best way" and that's not good for anyone.

Thirdly, you cannot stop piracy and there's no point trying. Anyone can digitize any book and once one person does, anybody else can access it. DRM can't and won't fix the problem since it's fundamentally flawed from the start. Besides, borrowing books from libraries and other people has led to me spending thousands of dollars over the years. Getting MP3s for free over the internet has led to me spending close to $500/year on music.

The funny thing is that the open source movement has accepted these things and moved on. OSS and Creative Commons are effectively "we can't stop you from doing what you want, so let's try to mitigate the harm to the future." OSS and Creative Commons are the only viable model of copyright and property that I've seen moving forwards outside of a Big Brother-esque police state. I have no idea how Alexie takes open source and turns it into big brother but doesn't see big brother as the only option for the type of copyright control that he wants.

Lastly, don't kid yourself - Colbert knows exactly what's going on. He's encouraged people to remix his own stuff despite his character's strict capitalistic view. He's repeatedly gotten people on to talk about creative commons, copyright, and alternate revenue sources for artists. Generally he just lets them run their mouths though - he seems to want to take in as many opinions as possible - and that's fine. Colbert is not the thought police.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by kennyc

And old guys too!

I gotta ask, what kind of work do you do?

telecommunications, installation, quality assurance, project management. and when I talk about not running into women who do what I do, I mean in the trenches, climbing poles, running cable, installing the heavy duty hardware. there are starting to be more in the project management, but face it, they've never had dirt under their fingernails or splinters from a phone pole throughout their body.

Originally Posted by ggareau

And while I'm not a fan of affirmative action-like policies, They're necessary for now. Until people working at comparable jobs with comparable experience get the same pay, something needs to change. In addition, the more viewpoints we have on a topic via cultural reference, the more answers we'll get. There is a point where we need to be actively encouraging non-whites and females into things like computer science. Currently it only reinforces the idea that "my way (which in that particular case is the white male way) is the best way" and that's not good for anyone.

.

I have very first hand experience about this. an issue that has been going on for 3 years now. unfortunately I can't talk about it yet (so don't anyone even bother prying), but I will share when I can. trust me on this. life is really not rosy for a lot of us in non traditional jobs