On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Eric Scoles <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 2009-03-02, delancey <[email protected]> wrote: > >> [snip] > >> ... I fear an analogous thing is happening now; we're >> setting a social norm that (1) it's reasonable to say certain kinds of >> algorithms are theft (which, I might add, I continue to find deeply >> problematic conceptually: how bizarre to say that a function -- >> literally, a mathematical function! -- can transform a legally >> purchased good into a stolen good!), and (2) content controllers seem >> more and more to get to decide every form, every iteration, if not >> every instance, that the relevant content should take. >> > > > As I say, I'm not arguing with your general point. This scares me, too, > because it opens the door to levels of control we have a hard time > imagining. The truism that I keep coming back to is that disintermediation > of control structures -- here, that's represented by saying that > creators always have control over everything that anybody > can do with anything they make -- helps the really big players at least as > much as it does the really small players. I would argue (and have argued, > many times) that it actually helps the big players more, because they're far > better equipped to exploit the economies of scale. > Copyright is all about control over works by owners of rights in the works. The law surrounding it tries to balance the rights of the copyright owners against the public interest. Sometimes the balance tips toward owners, sometimes toward public. Sometimes there is huge inconsistency between how rights are handled as between two different types or forms of works. As you say, those equipped to exploit economies of scale have advantage. So do those equipped to lobby members of Congress to change the law in their favor a la Disney, at least in effect, extending copyright law to protect Mickey just before the copyrights were to expire (simplification, but many agree). > In terms of this debate, here's one way that would play out. Publishers (or > whatever ends up taking over from publishers) will be making > deals with authors (who just want their stuff published) that give them > greater control over the content. Big authors will get better terms. > Amazon will do what it's always done > > Small authors, who are often the ones most obsessed with control in these > situations, will be the ones who get screwed. Unless they fully > disintermediate, they'll be stuck letting their books get read aloud anyway. > There's just no way in hell this is not going to happen. The only real > question is who will benefit from it. > Big entities have been enjoying advantage over little forever. I generally like it when the little gain. > And I'm sorry, but I see no likely scenario where any but a tiny, tiny > segment of authors benefit from speech-to-text DRM. Only the ones with the > biggest PR muscle will see any benefit at all. A Stephen King or a J. K. > Rowling can make their own terms, even start their own company. A Craig > deLancey, not so much. > Probably. You know what, screw it. Why should I pay for any of the extra forms of works I do? Why don't I just have a machine transform the cheapest forms into a different form and enjoy the alternate forms for free that way? Stephen King and Rowling will never feel the difference, and the smaller authors are going to get screwed anyway. So, buy used copies of books, have a machine convert the books into digital text, then have the digital text converted into audio, and boom. I can have my audio books for half the price, probably much less if I'm willing to buy used copies whose covers are in bad shape. True, right now converting the book into digital text is time consuming for those of us who don't have the kind of automated book scanners used by Google and the Library of Congress. But technology changes. Hey - isn't Google transforming legally-obtained and authorized copies of works into an alternate form using an algorithm? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "R-SPEC: The Rochester Speculative Literature Association" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/r-spec?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
