Publishers need to die

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by Daithi

Before I make my comment I wish to state categorically that I do not wish death on anyone. I'm assuming Charbax doesn't either and was just using Hyperbole.

Now that that's out of the way, I don't see why a system described by Charbox couldn't be implemented. You sign up for a service like Amazon and they ask you half-a-dozen questions. Do you usually agree with the conservative or liberal viewpoints? On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest, indicate if religion is a part of your life. Etc. Of course this survey is optional, but if you fill it out then Amazon could adjust the ratings you see on books based on how like minded individuals voted. So when some people click on Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand they would see a high rating if they were conservative and maybe a single star if they identified themselves as liberal.

Do you know why that sound awful? Because you would not read a book that maybe, just maybe, you would find enlightening, and entertaining. It wouldn't be on your 'probably like' list.

Aldous Huxley, (Chrome Yellow) and E. M. Forster (A Passage to India) would never have been read by me under this system. Both great reads, but I wouldn't have eve thought of giving them a try.


People are sheeple enough without being told what they might or might not like.

[ShortNCuddlyAm]

Originally Posted by Daithi

Before I make my comment I wish to state categorically that I do not wish death on anyone. I'm assuming Charbax doesn't either and was just using Hyperbole.

Now that that's out of the way, I don't see why a system described by Charbox couldn't be implemented. You sign up for a service like Amazon and they ask you half-a-dozen questions. Do you usually agree with the conservative or liberal viewpoints? On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest, indicate if religion is a part of your life. Etc. Of course this survey is optional, but if you fill it out then Amazon could adjust the ratings you see on books based on how like minded individuals voted. So when some people click on Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand they would see a high rating if they were conservative and maybe a single star if they identified themselves as liberal.

To get any meaningful recommendations out of that, you'd need more than half a dozen questions. Take the religion one, for example. I work with, and have worked with, people of different religions, all of whom would rate it 5 on that scale, but who have remarkably diverse tastes. Not all Christians hate the Harry Potter books, for example; and not all Muslims seem to think Salman Rusdie should be killed.

I actually like Amazon's current systems - both of showing what else people bought who bought the book you're looking at, and of showing what others who looked at it went on to buy. When I've been after a similar book to one I have, I've looked up the one I have on Amazon, and used those to see what else is available.

[Alisa]

Originally Posted by Daithi

Before I make my comment I wish to state categorically that I do not wish death on anyone. I'm assuming Charbax doesn't either and was just using Hyperbole.

Now that that's out of the way, I don't see why a system described by Charbox couldn't be implemented. You sign up for a service like Amazon and they ask you half-a-dozen questions. Do you usually agree with the conservative or liberal viewpoints? On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest, indicate if religion is a part of your life. Etc. Of course this survey is optional, but if you fill it out then Amazon could adjust the ratings you see on books based on how like minded individuals voted. So when some people click on Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand they would see a high rating if they were conservative and maybe a single star if they identified themselves as liberal.

That's fine for getting recommendations. Not fine as a way of determining people's income which is what he proposed.

[Elfwreck]

Just got back from a long weekend conference. Am sorry I missed most of the buildup of this thread; it's been hilarious.

Originally Posted by Charbax

Warner Music for example, acknowledges that a Music Tax is the only viable solution: http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs...-public-debate

And of course, Warner Music is 100% correct about this. After all, they know *everything* about the music industry... if they think it's the only viable solution, that must be true. Any solution that would result in Warner Music being put out of business would, of course, be "unviable."

Simply make it law

so that the Google Subscription plan should work across the whole Internet and through other providers.

Which country should make this law? What should the countries who make this law, do to countries who refuse to go along with it? How will they restrict access to this data from countries who refuse to pay a "fair share" of this tax?

What happens to authors who do not wish their works to be distributed world-wide? Oh, and what about works that are illegal in some countries but not others--can those countries opt out for paying for access to those works? What about language issues--can countries decide to only pay for the percentage of works that are available in languages commonly readable by their citizens?

What about countries where only 10% of the populace has internet at all--why should people w/o access to Google books bother paying for them, or why should 100% of the taxpaying public subsidize the 10% of them who'll have use of the services? Unlike the US, where the majority of public schools have computers & internet and therefore a nationwide "tax for artistic works online" makes some sense as part of national education, in many countries, a "tax for online artistic works" turns into "poor people pay so rich people get more entertainment."

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Daithi

You sign up for a service like Amazon and they ask you half-a-dozen questions. Do you usually agree with the conservative or liberal viewpoints? On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest, indicate if religion is a part of your life. Etc. Of course this survey is optional, but if you fill it out then Amazon could adjust the ratings you see on books based on how like minded individuals voted. So when some people click on Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand they would see a high rating if they were conservative and maybe a single star if they identified themselves as liberal.

I am deeply religious... and I generally despise everything offered in bookstores that's categorized as "religion."

My religion isn't Christian. Isn't Jewish, isn't Muslim, isn't Buddhist. That means when I see the label "religious" on a book, tv show, movie or other work of art, I brace myself for a meaning of "this was created in direct contrast to my religious beliefs." Sometimes, "this was created with the intention of suppressing and/or destroying my religion." Asking if I like "religious books" skews the survey; the books I read for spiritual growth are almost never labeled "religious," which common marketing demographics uses as a synonym for "Christian."

I think of myself as a liberal. I'm pretty extreme in my notions of personal liberty and individuality, and damn close to anarchistic in political leanings. I vote Democrat when I don't vote Wingnut. (The Wingnuts don't have a political party of their own; they're not that organized. However, they sometimes go either Green or Libertarian.)

I *adore* Rand's works. And George F. Will, whom I know I disagree with on many topics--but I at least understand that he thinks about those topics, rather than repeating buzzwords he's absorbed through osmosis.

My reading tastes don't divide neatly into conservative vs liberal, religious vs atheist, urban vs rural, or modern vs historical. The way I label myself has very little to do with which works I will enjoy... while I seek out works by bipolykinkypagangamergeekfemales, because I know I'll have something in common with them, there's no guarantee I'll like their writing, even if it's in favor of a dozen things I'm in favor of. I might prefer to read something by a right-wing evangelical Christian... because it gives me more to think about.

Someone could design a survey that had a good chance of predicting what books a person would likely enjoy--but it won't be based on what political or social demographics they fall into.

[Charbax]

Originally Posted by Daithi

You sign up for a service like Amazon and they ask you half-a-dozen questions. Do you usually agree with the conservative or liberal viewpoints? On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest, indicate if religion is a part of your life. Etc. Of course this survey is optional, but if you fill it out then Amazon could adjust the ratings you see on books based on how like minded individuals voted. So when some people click on Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand they would see a high rating if they were conservative and maybe a single star if they identified themselves as liberal.

Yup though I think it can be done without even asking people to fill out any questionnaire.

You simply rate as many books as you have read, especially you give a thumbs up to all the books that you really love, and based on that, the system will generate recommendations just for you. Simply a system like "People who love the books you love, also love these books."

This way, if a religious group try to game the system, their ratings won't affect anything other than how they are getting recommendations for themselves.

Last.fm, Amazon and Netflix already have recommendations for music, books and movies, their recommendations are already quite good. I'm sure things can be improved though once the Government makes a bigger deal out of trying to get a very diverse amount of artists noticed more according to their talent, their potential and their true worth. Basically what the Government wants is a system where talented artists automatically get noticed and they automatically get recommended and they automatically get the audience that they deserve, without spending even a minimum on advertising, marketing, lawyers, distributors or any of those intermediaries that corrupt the arts in the current system.

[ShortNCuddlyAm]

Originally Posted by Charbax

Basically what the Government wants is a system where talented artists automatically get noticed and they automatically get recommended and they automatically get the audience that they deserve, without spending even a minimum on advertising, marketing, lawyers, distributors or any of those intermediaries that corrupt the arts in the current system.

Sheer curiousity, why would (or do you actually mean whichever Government you're refering to there has stated on the record that that's what they want?) "the" Government want that? (The in quotes because you've said you're from Denmark yet you seem to be talking a lot about the US president who quite possibly cares a lot more about US citizens than artists from Denmark or elsewhere...)

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by Charbax

I'm sure things can be improved though once the Government makes a bigger deal out of trying to get a very diverse amount of artists noticed more according to their talent, their potential and their true worth. Basically what the Government wants is a system where talented artists automatically get noticed and they automatically get recommended and they automatically get the audience that they deserve, without spending even a minimum on advertising, marketing, lawyers, distributors or any of those intermediaries that corrupt the arts in the current system.

So your solution is to let the government handle this?

and the government is going to figure out a system?


Who decides what constitutes "a talented artist"?

Pass the kool-aid to someone else.........I'm not interested.

[Charbax]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Any solution that would result in Warner Music being put out of business would, of course, be "unviable."

Yup, I am just linking to Jim Griffin's opinion. He is a guy that was somehow hired by Warner to formulate some suggestions. Though I am quite confident that Jim Griffin knows that his suggestions will lead to putting Warner out of business. Cause obviously a global license system does put all intermediaries out of business and that is exactly what Warner is all about.

If they can't stop the evolution of Internet technologies, they may want to try and see if they can somehow get to control it.

Jim Griffin is talking about that way the Internet evolves, and by talking about it at least he is acknowledging that the only solution is a global subscription plan, or a global tax.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Which country should make this law?

Any country can start doing this anytime now. France could have started this in 2007 if only Ségolène Royal had won the election against Nicolas Sarkozy. Certain other countries are talking about implementing this maybe, such countries as England, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium all are talking about it at the Parliament level.

They know they can't sue all teenagers. They know p2p file sharing cannot be stopped or controlled. Parliamentarians aren't all completely stupid. They know something has to be done and completely obviously the only solution is a global license thus a global subscription plan or even better a tax.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

What should the countries who make this law, do to countries who refuse to go along with it?

Simply put, not pay the artists from those other countries. They could save up some piles of money for artists not yet registered in their country for whenever their country joins or simply allow all international artists to register on their plan to get access to those payments.

All countries will quickly understand though that it makes no sense to try and stop it. This is totally and completely inevitable. All artists, all journalists, all writers, all film makers and TV people, they are all going to be paid through collective payment systems. Now if those payments are coming from interoperable subscription models, from ISP-level Global Licence payments (perhaps even with a choice to opt-out if for example you say that you aren't consuming any Global Licence arts online, just as UK and Danish people can opt out paying BBC and DR public service licenses if they don't have a TV) or if it will come through a dynamic modular tax.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

How will they restrict access to this data from countries who refuse to pay a "fair share" of this tax?

Absolutely no need to restrict access to any data to people downloading from other countries. The system has to start with trusting that the intern subscription, license or tax revenue will be enough for sustaining the internal artists.

Now if as a result of this new artistic revolution, the national artists produce such fantastic content that an enormous of International attention is brought, well then nothing stops the artists from commercializing their stuff in other countries, thus treat their bandwidth export as some sort of free marketing for whatever commercial opportunities they may still have in those chaotic countries that may not accept changing their system for the best.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

What happens to authors who do not wish their works to be distributed world-wide?

Well firstly, if they do not want to see their works on worldwide p2p darknets then they should firstly not release their works and just keep it for themselves. There is NOTHING they can do about it no matter the laws and regulation passed be them Pro-p2p or Anti-p2p. No law can ever stop p2p file sharing. Impossible, never going to happen, go to sleep, not even remotely possible.

Second, all artists can opt-out being paid from this system if they don't want money.

Third, all artists can opt-out having their works backed up and seeded on government sponsored systems that will be responsible to safeguard a copy of all works and all digitalisations of all works with the prospect to guarantee that all works are available to everyone no matter their popularity, and to optimize the identification of works, optimize the distribution speeds of works, to coordinate the distribution of the optimal digitalizations of works. Artists can opt-out being part of that download.gov server.

Fourth, law should decriminalize the teenagers using p2p, thus artists should not expect to be able to sue the children of countries passing this law. They should just know that they can forget everything about their attempts at terorising the children with idiotic law suits claiming for astronomical fines to be paid. That kind of fascism will not be tolerated. And p2p will be legalized and completely encouraged by the Governments.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

What about countries where only 10% of the populace has internet at all--why should people w/o access to Google books bother paying for them, or why should 100% of the taxpaying public subsidize the 10% of them who'll have use of the services? Unlike the US, where the majority of public schools have computers & internet and therefore a nationwide "tax for artistic works online" makes some sense as part of national education, in many countries, a "tax for online artistic works" turns into "poor people pay so rich people get more entertainment."

Your point is right though, this whole artistic revolution plan has to be part of a plan to bridge the digital divide. The global human rights should be ammended providing everyone worldwide with a right to Education, to access to all Knowledge, Information and to the total unrestricted exchange of ideas. Now I am not an expert in Human Rights and too lazy to do a Google Search on it. But I am pretty sure those things are not Human Rights, but the Human Rights are only about 50 years old, they are pretty recent, and when they were written people had absolutely no idea that a tool like the Internet would be possible where all information, all knowledge, all communications can be worldwide, instant and free. Eventually Human Rights should include a global right for food, healthcare and decent shelter and transportation. But I am also pretty sure those can get taken care of once everyone is online.

Anyways, the global tax can be totally elastic. People should pay according to their personal income and people can pay as well according to their access to those online tools. The average Chinese is probably going to be paying 10x less than the average European for example. But that may also mean that Chinese artists might have to deal with less revenue per artist from this system. Until they can get up to our level.

I actually think that legislative action on this can be accelerated as politicians realize that the consumption of intellectual goods on the Internet can replace the consumption of material goods. This reduces pollution, this reduces inequalities, this can reduce psychological tensions between the rich and the poor, since distribution of intellectual goods on the Internet is completely and absolutely free and can become carbon neutral once data centres can be solar and wind powered and once people start using ARM Linux powered Laptops that consume 50x less power than bloated Intel/Microsoft PCs.

[Charbax]

Originally Posted by ShortNCuddlyAm

Sheer curiousity, why would (or do you actually mean whichever Government you're refering to there has stated on the record that that's what they want?) "the" Government want that? (The in quotes because you've said you're from Denmark yet you seem to be talking a lot about the US president who quite possibly cares a lot more about US citizens than artists from Denmark or elsewhere...)

Again I quote the legislative agenda from the current whitehouse.gov:

Encourage Diversity in Media Ownership: Encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation's spectrum.

Diversity in media, thus in the artists making contents on the different kinds of media, that is definitely part of the agenda for the US Government and always kind of has been part of the agenda.

But now if you introduce a solution to pay artists according to how popular their stuff is, then obviously you want the correct type of diversity happening and you want fair an reasonable algorithms to be put in place to get the artists the audience that they deserve.

[Charbax]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

So your solution is to let the government handle this?

and the government is going to figure out a system?


Who decides what constitutes "a talented artist"?

Pass the kool-aid to someone else.........I'm not interested.

You can read some of the past 7 pages in this thread. The Government can encourage the improvement of recommendation algorithms, which mathematicians, companies anyone can work on using a standard API to hook into an open standard database of all the works of art and all the artists that are part of this system.

No where am I saying that the Government is hosting anything (other than I would say making sure that there is some type of backup of everything, safeguarding the cultural heritage is the Governments job) or providing any of those algorithms. The Government though needs to regulate things, cause you don't want any one company control the databases, control the subscription plans nor control the recommendations algorithms.

Itunes and the Kindle Store models kind of suck. And I think that it would suck if Google was the only company in control of yet another subscription plan for books. On the other hand it does not harm competition if Google and Amazon were both working on the same standard for the subscription plan, the same standard for measuring popularity of contents, the same standard for using any third party API to recommend content, the same database for all works of art and all artists and their fans.

You can leave the Government out of there and wait for companies like Google to come up with some kind of Open Social for the monetization of all types of arts on p2p networks. Or you can have a Government step in and say, this is it, let's monetize things now, let's solve this problem right now and let's kick start the revolution right now cause the market obviously has no clue how to fix this problem all by themselves.

[Daithi]

OK, my mistake. I had not read all of Charbax's posts. Didn't realize he was advocating "the government" as the gatekeeper of all intellectual property. No thanks.

I have no problem with individual websites implementing Web 2.0 with ratings tailored to my particular tastes as selected by like minded individuals. There's also nothing to stop me from experimenting and sampling items outside my comfort zone. The point is that the web could take the place of the publishing industry's role of gatekeeper in regards to what is good and what isn't.

The business about "the government" mandating this role is simply nuts.

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by Charbax

You can leave the Government out of there and wait for companies like Google to come up with some kind of Open Social for the monetization of all types of arts on p2p networks. Or you can have a Government step in and say, this is it, let's monetize things now, let's solve this problem right now and let's kick start the revolution right now cause the market obviously has no clue how to fix this problem all by themselves.

"The Government" couldn't fix a leaky pipe.

Look around.

[lilac_jive]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

"The Government" couldn't fix a leaky pipe.

Look around.

Dude, the things you are proposing are way too much for what is in reality not that big of a problem.

[ShortNCuddlyAm]

Originally Posted by Charbax

Again I quote the legislative agenda from the current whitehouse.gov:

Diversity in media, thus in the artists making contents on the different kinds of media, that is definitely part of the agenda for the US Government and always kind of has been part of the agenda.

But that isn't the same thing as doing away with all publishing houses etc, and it doesn't even neccesarily mean that the Govt has any interest whatsoever in what the artists do, just what the corporations do. And I wouldn't have thought it was in the Govts best interest to do away with a potential source of income...

But now if you introduce a solution to pay artists according to how popular their stuff is,

How do you get from the Whitehouse statement to that? The statement that you quoted looks like it's all to do with corporations, monopolies and so on, and nothing to do with the artists themselves.

then obviously you want the correct type of diversity happening and you want fair an reasonable algorithms to be put in place to get the artists the audience that they deserve.

That is just about the scariest thing you've written. The "correct type of diversity" suggests that some person or organisation controls this. As you have been suggesting that the Govts lead on this, I'm assuming you want the Govts to control the diversity. I'm almost at a loss for words to describe just how scary I find that. Govts have enough powers as it is without making it even easier for them to censor material they find objectionable. Or do you really think that isn't what would happen? If so, you really need to open your eyes to what the various Govts around the world can already get up to.