Click me. Not.
September 22, 2012 3:07 AM Subscribe
Pirate Party Politician Doesn't Want You Pirating Her Book. Senior German Pirate Party board member Julia Schramm has a vision for a utopian Internet: a "huge library" where "the knowledge and stories of all people are united, collected and archived" free of charge and free of "disgusting" intellectual property.
Schramm made headlines this week when her publisher took action against pirated copies of her book "Click Me." Now Schramm is at the center of a shitstorm over her wavering positions on intellectual property. Both the tabloid press and members of her own party accuse her of hypocrisy.
Schramm made headlines this week when her publisher took action against pirated copies of her book "Click Me." Now Schramm is at the center of a shitstorm over her wavering positions on intellectual property. Both the tabloid press and members of her own party accuse her of hypocrisy.
"My name is Julia and I live in the Internet. I'm perfectly happy and have friends I only know digitally and can switch off when I want to. I can be everything on the Internet: Mafia boss, Barbie, Hitler, hotel owner and a little green crocodile. At the computer I can be God. And I feel magnificent – magnificently evil, cold and calculating. ( . . . )"
I suppose, to continue the German historical analogies, that we should consider how different the world might have been, had Hitler been able to go online and relieve his mental state by trolling or playing Sim City or even role-playing a little green crocodile for a few hours. Things seem to have changed for the better, and I am grateful for it.
posted by Dee Xtrovert at 3:30 AM on September 22, 2012 [10 favorites]
I suppose, to continue the German historical analogies, that we should consider how different the world might have been, had Hitler been able to go online and relieve his mental state by trolling or playing Sim City or even role-playing a little green crocodile for a few hours. Things seem to have changed for the better, and I am grateful for it.
posted by Dee Xtrovert at 3:30 AM on September 22, 2012 [10 favorites]
*clears throat*
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaahahahaaaahaaaahaaaahaaaaaaaasssaaaa
*clears throat again*
Sorry, don't quite know what came over me there.
posted by ominous_paws at 4:07 AM on September 22, 2012
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaahahahaaaahaaaahaaaahaaaaaaaasssaaaa
*clears throat again*
Sorry, don't quite know what came over me there.
posted by ominous_paws at 4:07 AM on September 22, 2012
What an idiot. Fortunately, the actions of a single egotist say nothing about the merits of the positions taken by her organisation or the basic principles underlying them.
And if the Piratenpartei actually get rid of a senior member for gross hypocrisy, they'll be way ahead of the vast majority of other political parties.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 4:16 AM on September 22, 2012 [12 favorites]
And if the Piratenpartei actually get rid of a senior member for gross hypocrisy, they'll be way ahead of the vast majority of other political parties.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 4:16 AM on September 22, 2012 [12 favorites]
Well, on one hand, she's a hypocrite. On another, she's running into the logical result of the "let's burn down copyright" movement. I have no doubt that the copyright, patent, and trademark systems need overhaul, that they have lost sight of half their mission (to insure that information eventually moves into the public domain for further development by the society that protected it). But the idea that everything should be free means that the people who create that stuff get, well, not compensated for their work. And, if the web is able to bring creators and consumers closer together, cutting down (or out) the various layers of "handlers" whose facilitation is no longer really necessary, it also opens the doors for other layers of handlers to get in on the action. It's easy to attack copyright absolutely when you think your livelihood doesn't rely on some element of copyright.
So: tone deaf person, real problem.
posted by GenjiandProust at 4:20 AM on September 22, 2012 [15 favorites]
So: tone deaf person, real problem.
posted by GenjiandProust at 4:20 AM on September 22, 2012 [15 favorites]
She published excerpts from abusive emails and Twitter messages on a blog she set up especially for the purpose. Visitors can read for themselves how people accused her of having a "lust for money" and insulted her as a "corporate slut" and a "hypocritical, ugly beast," among other things.
Anybody have a link?
This reminds me of the persecution of another Julia; hysterical, internet-fueled rage about perceived inconsistency, overflowing with sexism. Accepting a offer to publish by Random House without negotiating for a DMCA exception in her contract is a gross oversight, but it's unlikely that RH would have granted it in the first place - which certainly makes her look bad, because a publishing house willing to do this probably wouldn't have advanced her €100,000 (if that's the correct figure.) So you can call her greedy, but the type of vilification she's receiving is over the top.
posted by Chichibio at 4:24 AM on September 22, 2012
Anybody have a link?
This reminds me of the persecution of another Julia; hysterical, internet-fueled rage about perceived inconsistency, overflowing with sexism. Accepting a offer to publish by Random House without negotiating for a DMCA exception in her contract is a gross oversight, but it's unlikely that RH would have granted it in the first place - which certainly makes her look bad, because a publishing house willing to do this probably wouldn't have advanced her €100,000 (if that's the correct figure.) So you can call her greedy, but the type of vilification she's receiving is over the top.
posted by Chichibio at 4:24 AM on September 22, 2012
Well, on one hand, she's a hypocrite. On another, she's running into the logical result of the "let's burn down copyright" movement. I have no doubt that the copyright, patent, and trademark systems need overhaul, that they have lost sight of half their mission (to insure that information eventually moves into the public domain for further development by the society that protected it). But the idea that everything should be free means that the people who create that stuff get, well, not compensated for their work.
And yet somehow Cory Doctrow makes a reasonable living whilst having all of his work under Creative Commons. Perhaps it is possible after all.
posted by jaduncan at 4:26 AM on September 22, 2012 [8 favorites]
And yet somehow Cory Doctrow makes a reasonable living whilst having all of his work under Creative Commons. Perhaps it is possible after all.
posted by jaduncan at 4:26 AM on September 22, 2012 [8 favorites]
...how different the world might have been, had Hitler been able to go online and relieve his mental state by trolling or playing Sim City or even role-playing a little green crocodile for a few hours...
Certainly the practice of Godwining would have been much different.
"You know who else wanted the government to control health care? TINYGREENCROC357@AOL.COM, THAT'S WHO!"
posted by PlusDistance at 4:28 AM on September 22, 2012 [13 favorites]
Certainly the practice of Godwining would have been much different.
"You know who else wanted the government to control health care? TINYGREENCROC357@AOL.COM, THAT'S WHO!"
posted by PlusDistance at 4:28 AM on September 22, 2012 [13 favorites]
I suppose, to continue the German historical analogies, that we should consider how different the world might have been, had Hitler been able to go online and relieve his mental state by trolling or playing Sim City or even role-playing a little green crocodile for a few hours.
Well, he might have rolled Alliance.
posted by Pope Guilty at 4:30 AM on September 22, 2012
Well, he might have rolled Alliance.
posted by Pope Guilty at 4:30 AM on September 22, 2012
No, no. He's clearly a shoe-in for a Civ II tank rush.
posted by jaduncan at 4:38 AM on September 22, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by jaduncan at 4:38 AM on September 22, 2012 [1 favorite]
I'd never have heard of her or her book if it weren't for this clever move!
posted by Obscure Reference at 4:44 AM on September 22, 2012
posted by Obscure Reference at 4:44 AM on September 22, 2012
And yet somehow Cory Doctrow makes a reasonable living whilst having all of his work under Creative Commons.
Is all of Doctorow's work under a Creative Commons licence or just part of it?
posted by acb at 5:17 AM on September 22, 2012
Is all of Doctorow's work under a Creative Commons licence or just part of it?
posted by acb at 5:17 AM on September 22, 2012
Ok, I'm not familiar with the publishing industry, but I've read the two linked articles, and nowhere can I find a clear indication that Ms. Schramm had any control over or approval of her publisher's actions. Did I miss where it explains that she initiated or provided consent for the takedown orders?
Is it possible that her publisher acted on its own accord to protect the copyright?
posted by Salvor Hardin at 5:29 AM on September 22, 2012 [3 favorites]
Is it possible that her publisher acted on its own accord to protect the copyright?
posted by Salvor Hardin at 5:29 AM on September 22, 2012 [3 favorites]
Is it possible that her publisher acted on its own accord to protect the copyright?
There wouldn't really be any "on its own accord" involved. I am sure that the publisher was acting to protect the copyright, but they have the right (and even the obligation, on many levels) to do so. However, they would have essentiallydone so in partnership with Schramm, who knowingly signed a contract allowing (and on some level basically compelling) them to do so, in exchange for a whole lot of cash.
She's every bit as "guilty," in other words. More so, in the sense that publishers have to do this (under contractual agreement, to protect the assets of their investors, to enable recoupment), while Schramm could have self-published or just put the whole thing up for free on the internet itself. She wanted the money, she knew the deal.
posted by Dee Xtrovert at 5:41 AM on September 22, 2012 [4 favorites]
There wouldn't really be any "on its own accord" involved. I am sure that the publisher was acting to protect the copyright, but they have the right (and even the obligation, on many levels) to do so. However, they would have essentiallydone so in partnership with Schramm, who knowingly signed a contract allowing (and on some level basically compelling) them to do so, in exchange for a whole lot of cash.
She's every bit as "guilty," in other words. More so, in the sense that publishers have to do this (under contractual agreement, to protect the assets of their investors, to enable recoupment), while Schramm could have self-published or just put the whole thing up for free on the internet itself. She wanted the money, she knew the deal.
posted by Dee Xtrovert at 5:41 AM on September 22, 2012 [4 favorites]
Respect to the rest of the Pirate Party for so straightforwardly calling her out on her bullshit.
Well, the situation is not that clear - most of the other members of the national executive board are defending her. To my knowledge, The only "official members" (i.e., people who have been elected to some function) who have spoken out against here in this matter are the state executive committee of Lower Saxony (quoted here, but confirmed as official on Twitter by members of the committee), and the head of the state executive committee of Hamburg (in here private blog).
Anybody have a link?
Here. The rambling misogynistic shit that is sadly far to common.
posted by erdferkel at 5:45 AM on September 22, 2012
Well, the situation is not that clear - most of the other members of the national executive board are defending her. To my knowledge, The only "official members" (i.e., people who have been elected to some function) who have spoken out against here in this matter are the state executive committee of Lower Saxony (quoted here, but confirmed as official on Twitter by members of the committee), and the head of the state executive committee of Hamburg (in here private blog).
Anybody have a link?
Here. The rambling misogynistic shit that is sadly far to common.
posted by erdferkel at 5:45 AM on September 22, 2012
The Irony Party stands in solidarity with Ms. Schramm.
posted by nathancaswell at 5:47 AM on September 22, 2012 [4 favorites]
posted by nathancaswell at 5:47 AM on September 22, 2012 [4 favorites]
Is all of Doctorow's work under a Creative Commons licence or just part of it?
All. There's a quick summary here; central quote:
"Cory Doctorow's literary works are released under Creative Commons Atrribution NonCommercial ShareAlike or Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivatives. His latest work, Little Brother, has spent 4 weeks on the NYTimes bestseller list and is released as BY-NC-SA."
The latest book (coauthored with mefi's own cstross) is Rapture of the Nerds, and is available here for download in various DRM-free formats. Other works are also available on the same website; just go directly to craphound.com and explore.
I have no connection beyond being an enthusiastic reader.
posted by jaduncan at 5:48 AM on September 22, 2012 [1 favorite]
All. There's a quick summary here; central quote:
"Cory Doctorow's literary works are released under Creative Commons Atrribution NonCommercial ShareAlike or Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivatives. His latest work, Little Brother, has spent 4 weeks on the NYTimes bestseller list and is released as BY-NC-SA."
The latest book (coauthored with mefi's own cstross) is Rapture of the Nerds, and is available here for download in various DRM-free formats. Other works are also available on the same website; just go directly to craphound.com and explore.
I have no connection beyond being an enthusiastic reader.
posted by jaduncan at 5:48 AM on September 22, 2012 [1 favorite]
Seems like there's only losers here. Rail against women [on the internet!], an idealistic political upstart, or the entrenched publishing industry. Pick a side and unleash your negative energy unto the world!
posted by deo rei at 6:06 AM on September 22, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by deo rei at 6:06 AM on September 22, 2012 [1 favorite]
Here's a different take on this, in German. Apparently a lot of the reporting is hopelessly biased and gleefully twists Schramm's position.
posted by muckster at 6:41 AM on September 22, 2012 [2 favorites]
posted by muckster at 6:41 AM on September 22, 2012 [2 favorites]
For those not able to read muckster's link, one of the claims made by the author was that Ms. Schramm never said that intellectual property itself was "disgusting". What she basically said was that treating the theft of intellectual property as though it were identical to the theft of physical property was "disgusting".
What *is* positively disgusting is the text posted at the "Hatemail am morgen!" site.
posted by Slothrup at 6:55 AM on September 22, 2012 [1 favorite]
What *is* positively disgusting is the text posted at the "Hatemail am morgen!" site.
posted by Slothrup at 6:55 AM on September 22, 2012 [1 favorite]
And yet somehow Cory Doctrow makes a reasonable living whilst having all of his work under Creative Commons. Perhaps it is possible after all.
and
"Cory Doctorow's literary works are released under Creative Commons Atrribution NonCommercial ShareAlike or Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivatives. His latest work, Little Brother, has spent 4 weeks on the NYTimes bestseller list and is released as BY-NC-SA."
Creative Commons depends entirely on copyright law in order to work. It's just a framework with which to assert or give up one's specific rights within copyright. I would also note that those restrictions are almost identical to the statutory fair-use rules that already exist. He isn't giving up much.
Even if he makes no money off of selling his books, that's no reason to eliminate that avenue of employment for other people who perhaps aren't as good at public speaking [or whatever it is that Doctorow does to make money].
posted by gjc at 7:42 AM on September 22, 2012 [1 favorite]
and
"Cory Doctorow's literary works are released under Creative Commons Atrribution NonCommercial ShareAlike or Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivatives. His latest work, Little Brother, has spent 4 weeks on the NYTimes bestseller list and is released as BY-NC-SA."
Creative Commons depends entirely on copyright law in order to work. It's just a framework with which to assert or give up one's specific rights within copyright. I would also note that those restrictions are almost identical to the statutory fair-use rules that already exist. He isn't giving up much.
Even if he makes no money off of selling his books, that's no reason to eliminate that avenue of employment for other people who perhaps aren't as good at public speaking [or whatever it is that Doctorow does to make money].
posted by gjc at 7:42 AM on September 22, 2012 [1 favorite]
I get tired of charges of hypocrisy, but I've got a theory about why they're useful--perhaps wrong, or perhaps too obvious to state.
Given that people are willing to say even obviously stupid things in order to deflect objections to positions they prefer to hold, contradictions between words and deeds give us an important kind of test, a place where attempts to rebut their bullshit can come to an end. Whatever the case for copyright reform, the case for the outright elimination of all copyrights is absurd, and hardly even worth discussing/arguing about. Folks like Ms. Schramm will argue for their silly position until the cows come home. But talk is cheap, and largely hypothetical. When more than mere words is at stake, when the decisions and conclusions are real and not fictional--and when it's her time and effort that's at issue and not someone else's--she takes the opposite position than she talks.
So, reflecting on such hypocrisy is not reveling in a cheap "gotcha;" rather, it tells us something important. That even the position's more ardent exponents judge their position to be false when the case matters to them, and when they have to draw real conclusions about real situations. Anybody can say anything when their words don't matter. Such people are sophists or fools, or, as is typical of the former, both.
posted by Fists O'Fury at 7:44 AM on September 22, 2012 [2 favorites]
Given that people are willing to say even obviously stupid things in order to deflect objections to positions they prefer to hold, contradictions between words and deeds give us an important kind of test, a place where attempts to rebut their bullshit can come to an end. Whatever the case for copyright reform, the case for the outright elimination of all copyrights is absurd, and hardly even worth discussing/arguing about. Folks like Ms. Schramm will argue for their silly position until the cows come home. But talk is cheap, and largely hypothetical. When more than mere words is at stake, when the decisions and conclusions are real and not fictional--and when it's her time and effort that's at issue and not someone else's--she takes the opposite position than she talks.
So, reflecting on such hypocrisy is not reveling in a cheap "gotcha;" rather, it tells us something important. That even the position's more ardent exponents judge their position to be false when the case matters to them, and when they have to draw real conclusions about real situations. Anybody can say anything when their words don't matter. Such people are sophists or fools, or, as is typical of the former, both.
posted by Fists O'Fury at 7:44 AM on September 22, 2012 [2 favorites]
I would also note that those restrictions are almost identical to the statutory fair-use rules that already exist.
You think that you have the right to make a complete copy of an authors work and give it to all of your friends under fair use? Really?
posted by jaduncan at 7:45 AM on September 22, 2012
You think that you have the right to make a complete copy of an authors work and give it to all of your friends under fair use? Really?
posted by jaduncan at 7:45 AM on September 22, 2012
This isn't even hypocrisy. Advocating for political change is not illegitimate if you don't voluntarily and pre-emptively endure all negative consequences that this change might bring.
If you argue for higher tax rate you do not have to overpay taxes like it was already in place.
If you campaign for erecting a traffic light at a busy intersection you don't need to go into motions as if it was actually already there every time you drive across this intersection.
posted by patrick54 at 8:03 AM on September 22, 2012 [2 favorites]
If you argue for higher tax rate you do not have to overpay taxes like it was already in place.
If you campaign for erecting a traffic light at a busy intersection you don't need to go into motions as if it was actually already there every time you drive across this intersection.
posted by patrick54 at 8:03 AM on September 22, 2012 [2 favorites]
This isn't even hypocrisy. Advocating for political change is not illegitimate if you don't voluntarily and pre-emptively endure all negative consequences that this change might bring.
Yes. Intellectual Property is a social deal: "We'll grant you a temporary monopoly on your IP if you release it out where it's vulnerable to unauthorized copying."
She's proposing a different deal: "I'll share my Intellectual Property for free if everyone else does, and we'll all be richer."
posted by straight at 8:12 AM on September 22, 2012 [1 favorite]
Yes. Intellectual Property is a social deal: "We'll grant you a temporary monopoly on your IP if you release it out where it's vulnerable to unauthorized copying."
She's proposing a different deal: "I'll share my Intellectual Property for free if everyone else does, and we'll all be richer."
posted by straight at 8:12 AM on September 22, 2012 [1 favorite]
This isn't even hypocrisy. Advocating for political change is not illegitimate if you don't voluntarily and pre-emptively endure all negative consequences that this change might bring.
LOL yeah, absolutely right. Even funnier because this is a point I've made to others in other contexts many times... Perhaps I failed to see that here because the pro-pirate position just seems to absurd to me...
OTOH, if you really think that such information ought to be free, and it's illegitimate that it isn't, then it's a little odd to insist on getting paid for it. It seems rather like saying "I think there ought to be higher CAFE standards, but while gas-guzzlers are still legal, I'm going to drive one."
(Incidentally, the tax analogy is way better than the traffic light analogy.)
posted by Fists O'Fury at 8:13 AM on September 22, 2012
LOL yeah, absolutely right. Even funnier because this is a point I've made to others in other contexts many times... Perhaps I failed to see that here because the pro-pirate position just seems to absurd to me...
OTOH, if you really think that such information ought to be free, and it's illegitimate that it isn't, then it's a little odd to insist on getting paid for it. It seems rather like saying "I think there ought to be higher CAFE standards, but while gas-guzzlers are still legal, I'm going to drive one."
(Incidentally, the tax analogy is way better than the traffic light analogy.)
posted by Fists O'Fury at 8:13 AM on September 22, 2012
Incidentally, it's a rather bad deal, though. An author might share his work with other authors, and they with him...but farmers aren't going to share their crops for free books, and landlords aren't going to share their apartments for them.
None of this would be an issue if information weren't easy to copy. Just because we can copy it easily doesn't mean that there's any kind of moral imperative to do so, nor that doing so would be a good deal for those who generate the information.
If we want to start sharing everything, well, that's one thing. But if we just want authors and musicians to share their stuff, while everybody else keeps selling theirs...well...why? My guess is: because, well, it's easy to steal it, and we'd rather not be bothered with paying for it... I don't know of any principle that entails that books should be free but cars shouldn't be.
posted by Fists O'Fury at 8:19 AM on September 22, 2012
None of this would be an issue if information weren't easy to copy. Just because we can copy it easily doesn't mean that there's any kind of moral imperative to do so, nor that doing so would be a good deal for those who generate the information.
If we want to start sharing everything, well, that's one thing. But if we just want authors and musicians to share their stuff, while everybody else keeps selling theirs...well...why? My guess is: because, well, it's easy to steal it, and we'd rather not be bothered with paying for it... I don't know of any principle that entails that books should be free but cars shouldn't be.
posted by Fists O'Fury at 8:19 AM on September 22, 2012
Even if he makes no money off of selling his books
Doctrow sells physical copies, makes a living at that, and if you don't want one but liked the ebook you can pay for a book that goes to a physical depository such as a school or library.
Why so dismissive of the counter case?
posted by jaduncan at 8:22 AM on September 22, 2012
Doctrow sells physical copies, makes a living at that, and if you don't want one but liked the ebook you can pay for a book that goes to a physical depository such as a school or library.
Why so dismissive of the counter case?
posted by jaduncan at 8:22 AM on September 22, 2012
Such people are sophists or fools, or, as is typical of the former, both.
You can expect a fair bit of that around here.
posted by Wolof at 8:24 AM on September 22, 2012
You can expect a fair bit of that around here.
posted by Wolof at 8:24 AM on September 22, 2012
I don't know of any principle that entails that books should be free but cars shouldn't be.
You can protect real property with a gun or by locking it up. Protecting intellectual property requires a government-granted monopoly.
That may have been fine when most IP was tied to physical objects, but with modern technology, governments can only enforce those monopolies with extremely intrusive methods and by placing restrictions on technological developments. The benefit to society is not worth the cost anymore.
If we start running out of new intellectual property, we'll have to come up with some other incentives to get people to come up with and share new ideas/books/music/etc.
posted by straight at 8:39 AM on September 22, 2012 [4 favorites]
You can protect real property with a gun or by locking it up. Protecting intellectual property requires a government-granted monopoly.
That may have been fine when most IP was tied to physical objects, but with modern technology, governments can only enforce those monopolies with extremely intrusive methods and by placing restrictions on technological developments. The benefit to society is not worth the cost anymore.
If we start running out of new intellectual property, we'll have to come up with some other incentives to get people to come up with and share new ideas/books/music/etc.
posted by straight at 8:39 AM on September 22, 2012 [4 favorites]
"Here's a different take on this, in German. Apparently a lot of the reporting is hopelessly biased and gleefully twists Schramm's position."
That's above my reading level*, and I'm worried about Google Translate mangling it. Can you give a longer synopsis?
*Bushaltestelle drei!
posted by klangklangston at 8:52 AM on September 22, 2012
That's above my reading level*, and I'm worried about Google Translate mangling it. Can you give a longer synopsis?
*Bushaltestelle drei!
posted by klangklangston at 8:52 AM on September 22, 2012
It seems rather like saying "I think there ought to be higher CAFE standards, but while gas-guzzlers are still legal, I'm going to drive one."
Because of economies of scale and depending on how you define "gas-guzzlers" this is exactly what a tonne of people are doing.
posted by ODiV at 8:56 AM on September 22, 2012
Because of economies of scale and depending on how you define "gas-guzzlers" this is exactly what a tonne of people are doing.
posted by ODiV at 8:56 AM on September 22, 2012
And yet somehow Cory Doctrow makes a reasonable living whilst having all of his work under Creative Commons. Perhaps it is possible after all.
I'm genuinely curious as to where his income comes from. I'm not famous or anything, but about 6 years ago, I put 5 songs up on my web page as downloadable MP3 files, & they consistently get 50-100 hits a month. I'm glad people are listening, but no one has ever clicked the "donate" button below them, ever. Not once.
posted by Devils Rancher at 8:57 AM on September 22, 2012 [3 favorites]
I'm genuinely curious as to where his income comes from. I'm not famous or anything, but about 6 years ago, I put 5 songs up on my web page as downloadable MP3 files, & they consistently get 50-100 hits a month. I'm glad people are listening, but no one has ever clicked the "donate" button below them, ever. Not once.
posted by Devils Rancher at 8:57 AM on September 22, 2012 [3 favorites]
Well, Cory is a good self-promoter who makes sure to get his face around a *lot* and uses the free stuff to build an audience that have a certain percentage of people who will pay.
His longer version of that explaination is here.
Seriously though, I swear I'm not either Cory or his agent.
posted by jaduncan at 9:19 AM on September 22, 2012
His longer version of that explaination is here.
Seriously though, I swear I'm not either Cory or his agent.
posted by jaduncan at 9:19 AM on September 22, 2012
...about 6 years ago, I put 5 songs up on my web page as downloadable MP3 files, & they consistently get 50-100 hits a month. I'm glad people are listening, but no one has ever clicked the "donate" button below them, ever.
What else are you doing to connect with your fans? Cory doesn't just put his books up with a donate button. He does readings/signings, gives talks, writes articles, etc. He's cultivated his fan base, and fans have a different set of priorities than random web visitors.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 9:26 AM on September 22, 2012
What else are you doing to connect with your fans? Cory doesn't just put his books up with a donate button. He does readings/signings, gives talks, writes articles, etc. He's cultivated his fan base, and fans have a different set of priorities than random web visitors.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 9:26 AM on September 22, 2012
What else are you doing to connect with your fans?
Hah, pretty much nothing, and it's entirely plausible that the songs in particular suck enough that no one wants them once they've been heard, I was just curious about what the other actual avenues were for someone who has effectively given up rights to their intellectual property.
Pretty much no one, or some vanishingly small percentage anyway, will pay for something marked "free."
posted by Devils Rancher at 10:21 AM on September 22, 2012
Hah, pretty much nothing, and it's entirely plausible that the songs in particular suck enough that no one wants them once they've been heard, I was just curious about what the other actual avenues were for someone who has effectively given up rights to their intellectual property.
Pretty much no one, or some vanishingly small percentage anyway, will pay for something marked "free."
posted by Devils Rancher at 10:21 AM on September 22, 2012
Pretty much no one, or some vanishingly small percentage anyway, will pay for something marked "free."
I don't know about that. Humble Indie Bundle 6 is averaging $5.82 right now. (Though the median is presumably much lower, and the site does require at least one penny so there's that at least.)
A lot depends on context. I sat and watched some people at a fruit stand give out explicitly free stuff on a hiking trail for a while once. They never asked for money or even put up a donation sign, but the little jar with the money filled up pretty fast anyway. It won't replace capitalism in the wider world, but it happens at least.
posted by Winnemac at 10:41 AM on September 22, 2012 [1 favorite]
I don't know about that. Humble Indie Bundle 6 is averaging $5.82 right now. (Though the median is presumably much lower, and the site does require at least one penny so there's that at least.)
A lot depends on context. I sat and watched some people at a fruit stand give out explicitly free stuff on a hiking trail for a while once. They never asked for money or even put up a donation sign, but the little jar with the money filled up pretty fast anyway. It won't replace capitalism in the wider world, but it happens at least.
posted by Winnemac at 10:41 AM on September 22, 2012 [1 favorite]
I am disappointed in the lack of pirate puns in this thread
posted by nathancaswell at 10:57 AM on September 22, 2012
posted by nathancaswell at 10:57 AM on September 22, 2012
for example, one could do one about "parroting her arrrgument"
posted by nathancaswell at 10:58 AM on September 22, 2012
posted by nathancaswell at 10:58 AM on September 22, 2012
or "she doesn't have a leg to stand on"
posted by nathancaswell at 10:58 AM on September 22, 2012
posted by nathancaswell at 10:58 AM on September 22, 2012
well ... I guess it's lucky she can always go on tour, and make her money thataways ... after all content-creators make their money selling t-shirts on tour ... nothing from actual sales.
posted by jannw at 11:34 AM on September 22, 2012
posted by jannw at 11:34 AM on September 22, 2012
Humble Indie Bundle 6 is averaging $5.82 right now.
You have to pay that much or more to get the bonus game, Dustforce, which is fantastic and worth much more than that. I'm sure the average would be lower if you could actually get all the games for $0.01.
(Dustforce is a Super Meat Boy type game about sweeping up dust (or leaves, or garbage, or toxic waste). It has beautiful artwork, great animation, excellent music, and is very difficult.)
posted by straight at 12:02 PM on September 22, 2012
You have to pay that much or more to get the bonus game, Dustforce, which is fantastic and worth much more than that. I'm sure the average would be lower if you could actually get all the games for $0.01.
(Dustforce is a Super Meat Boy type game about sweeping up dust (or leaves, or garbage, or toxic waste). It has beautiful artwork, great animation, excellent music, and is very difficult.)
posted by straight at 12:02 PM on September 22, 2012
You can protect real property with a gun or by locking it up. Protecting intellectual property requires a government-granted monopoly.
Well no, not really. Property rights are also enforced by the government, and generally not by rushing out your front door with a shotgun yelling "Get of my property!"
with modern technology, governments can only enforce those monopolies with extremely intrusive methods and by placing restrictions on technological developments
Your phrase "restrictions on technological development" is really another way of saying that effective enforcement of copyright laws would discourage VCs from investing in consumer internet startups. These services are attractive investments because they rely on user-generated content — most of the labor is free, so you don't have to hire many people as the business scales up. If you had to hire an army of content reviewers to verify that everything complied with copyright, your business would be far less profitable.
Copyright enforcement might reduce "innovation" in some vague sense. Maybe we will have fewer consumer web startups or something. Is that a bad thing? Yes, internet companies are a "rapidly growing" part of the economy, but they don't grow in a way that creates jobs. And the content industries protected by copyright that they disrupt are much more labor intensive and often unionized.
The issue comes down to whether you think society benefits more from "innovation" than it does from having jobs.
posted by AlsoMike at 12:28 PM on September 22, 2012 [2 favorites]
Well no, not really. Property rights are also enforced by the government, and generally not by rushing out your front door with a shotgun yelling "Get of my property!"
with modern technology, governments can only enforce those monopolies with extremely intrusive methods and by placing restrictions on technological developments
Your phrase "restrictions on technological development" is really another way of saying that effective enforcement of copyright laws would discourage VCs from investing in consumer internet startups. These services are attractive investments because they rely on user-generated content — most of the labor is free, so you don't have to hire many people as the business scales up. If you had to hire an army of content reviewers to verify that everything complied with copyright, your business would be far less profitable.
Copyright enforcement might reduce "innovation" in some vague sense. Maybe we will have fewer consumer web startups or something. Is that a bad thing? Yes, internet companies are a "rapidly growing" part of the economy, but they don't grow in a way that creates jobs. And the content industries protected by copyright that they disrupt are much more labor intensive and often unionized.
The issue comes down to whether you think society benefits more from "innovation" than it does from having jobs.
posted by AlsoMike at 12:28 PM on September 22, 2012 [2 favorites]
You can protect real property with a gun or by locking it up. Protecting intellectual property requires a government-granted monopoly.
This doesn't actually work all that well in practice. Other people interested in taking your stuff often have more or bigger guns. They also have bolt cutters, saws, and other tools. Generally, centralized policing works better than individual vigilantism to protect property. For an excellent look at the effects of a weak central state on legal matters and property, I recommend Njal's Saga. It is also a ripping yarn, and features the funniest viking joke ever.
posted by GenjiandProust at 12:51 PM on September 22, 2012 [1 favorite]
This doesn't actually work all that well in practice. Other people interested in taking your stuff often have more or bigger guns. They also have bolt cutters, saws, and other tools. Generally, centralized policing works better than individual vigilantism to protect property. For an excellent look at the effects of a weak central state on legal matters and property, I recommend Njal's Saga. It is also a ripping yarn, and features the funniest viking joke ever.
posted by GenjiandProust at 12:51 PM on September 22, 2012 [1 favorite]
In other pirate news: Pirate Bay's Warg, back in Sweden, busted on hacking charges
posted by homunculus at 1:11 PM on September 22, 2012
posted by homunculus at 1:11 PM on September 22, 2012
The issue comes down to whether you think society benefits more from "innovation" than it does from having jobs.
We must look out for the buggy whip makers, after all.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 1:16 PM on September 22, 2012
We must look out for the buggy whip makers, after all.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 1:16 PM on September 22, 2012
We must look out for the buggy whip makers, after all.
Not really the argument here. Horse and buggies disappeared because Detroit offered alternate transportation, not because someone was taking their stock without paying for it.
The argument is over people's taking stuff without permission and without paying for it.
posted by IndigoJones at 2:00 PM on September 22, 2012 [3 favorites]
Not really the argument here. Horse and buggies disappeared because Detroit offered alternate transportation, not because someone was taking their stock without paying for it.
The argument is over people's taking stuff without permission and without paying for it.
posted by IndigoJones at 2:00 PM on September 22, 2012 [3 favorites]
Is the controversy here that she was hypocritical enough to take the publisher's money, or has she actually made statements about not wanting people to pirate her book?
posted by Chuckles at 2:07 PM on September 22, 2012
posted by Chuckles at 2:07 PM on September 22, 2012
Horse and buggies disappeared because Detroit offered alternate transportation, not because someone was taking their stock without paying for it.
If there was a Buggy Industry Association of America back then, they would have had the laws changed to define providing alternative transportation as "taking." They then would have had the government raid the hobbiest tinkerers and sued the dirty "highwaymen" for comical amounts.
Eventually a Highwaymen Party would be formed to try to push back against them, only to have one of their members embroiled in a controversy for having pamphlets shipped by teamsters.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 2:18 PM on September 22, 2012 [1 favorite]
If there was a Buggy Industry Association of America back then, they would have had the laws changed to define providing alternative transportation as "taking." They then would have had the government raid the hobbiest tinkerers and sued the dirty "highwaymen" for comical amounts.
Eventually a Highwaymen Party would be formed to try to push back against them, only to have one of their members embroiled in a controversy for having pamphlets shipped by teamsters.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 2:18 PM on September 22, 2012 [1 favorite]
publishers have to do this (under contractual agreement, to protect the assets of their investors, to enable recoupment)
posted by Dee Xtrovert at 7:41 AM on September 22
Random House may have to do it. I have no idea what their investors might demand. I'd note though that there's no requirement for publishers in general to do it. It's not as though copyright goes away if you fail to defend it every time you notice an infringement.
posted by joannemerriam at 3:43 PM on September 22, 2012
posted by Dee Xtrovert at 7:41 AM on September 22
Random House may have to do it. I have no idea what their investors might demand. I'd note though that there's no requirement for publishers in general to do it. It's not as though copyright goes away if you fail to defend it every time you notice an infringement.
posted by joannemerriam at 3:43 PM on September 22, 2012
Incidentally, it's a rather bad deal, though. An author might share his work with other authors, and they with him...but farmers aren't going to share their crops for free books, and landlords aren't going to share their apartments for them.
Well that seems more like a problem with the farmers and the landlords, doesn't it?
posted by thsmchnekllsfascists at 5:36 PM on September 22, 2012
Well that seems more like a problem with the farmers and the landlords, doesn't it?
posted by thsmchnekllsfascists at 5:36 PM on September 22, 2012
Property rights are also enforced by the government
The difference is more the matter of degree. Once I publish a book or a recording of a song or an idea, there's no possible way for me to prevent people from copying it without the government stepping in. It's utterly out of my hands.
And governments don't need to spy on every house in the neighborhood to figure out whether any of my neighbors have stolen my car or my crops.
Your phrase "restrictions on technological development" is really another way of saying that effective enforcement of copyright laws would discourage VCs from investing in consumer internet startups.
I was thinking more of the way computers and the internet and software and consumer electronics have been crippled and stifled by concerns that they not be used for copying or sharing intellectual property.
posted by straight at 6:33 PM on September 22, 2012
The difference is more the matter of degree. Once I publish a book or a recording of a song or an idea, there's no possible way for me to prevent people from copying it without the government stepping in. It's utterly out of my hands.
And governments don't need to spy on every house in the neighborhood to figure out whether any of my neighbors have stolen my car or my crops.
Your phrase "restrictions on technological development" is really another way of saying that effective enforcement of copyright laws would discourage VCs from investing in consumer internet startups.
I was thinking more of the way computers and the internet and software and consumer electronics have been crippled and stifled by concerns that they not be used for copying or sharing intellectual property.
posted by straight at 6:33 PM on September 22, 2012
It's not as though copyright goes away if you fail to defend it every time you notice an infringement.
There IS a concept like that in Trademark law, so perhaps people are confusing the two? As usual?
posted by gjc at 8:41 PM on September 22, 2012
There IS a concept like that in Trademark law, so perhaps people are confusing the two? As usual?
posted by gjc at 8:41 PM on September 22, 2012
We must look out for the buggy whip makers, after all.
Are you saying that the arts are a dying industry? That nobody in the arts ought to be paid?
posted by gjc at 8:42 PM on September 22, 2012
Are you saying that the arts are a dying industry? That nobody in the arts ought to be paid?
posted by gjc at 8:42 PM on September 22, 2012
Are you saying that the arts are a dying industry? That nobody in the arts ought to be paid?
Nobody who is still asking that question, no.
The answers, examples, and how-to guides have been out there for long enough now. You may have to adjust your business model. Reality appoligizes for the inconvenience.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 9:43 PM on September 22, 2012
Nobody who is still asking that question, no.
The answers, examples, and how-to guides have been out there for long enough now. You may have to adjust your business model. Reality appoligizes for the inconvenience.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 9:43 PM on September 22, 2012
Random House may have to do it. I have no idea what their investors might demand. I'd note though that there's no requirement for publishers in general to do it. It's not as though copyright goes away if you fail to defend it every time you notice an infringement.
If you don't make fairly reasonable and consistent attempts to defend your copyright, it's true that you don't actually *lose* the copyright. But you seriously deteriorate your chances of collecting meaningful damages by not being fairly thorough, and Random House is in business to make money, it's not someone's hobby. So they act accordingly.
Any publisher that hands over more than $100K is certainly going to upset shareholders (etc) if they do not make a pretty good effort to defend themselves against reasonably serious breaches of that copyright.
Given that the publisher here is making a serious effort to have this book translated and licensed to a variety of territories, you can be sure that any licensees would be under strict duty to protect the copyright as a condition of their contract with the original publisher.
posted by Dee Xtrovert at 9:47 PM on September 22, 2012
If you don't make fairly reasonable and consistent attempts to defend your copyright, it's true that you don't actually *lose* the copyright. But you seriously deteriorate your chances of collecting meaningful damages by not being fairly thorough, and Random House is in business to make money, it's not someone's hobby. So they act accordingly.
Any publisher that hands over more than $100K is certainly going to upset shareholders (etc) if they do not make a pretty good effort to defend themselves against reasonably serious breaches of that copyright.
Given that the publisher here is making a serious effort to have this book translated and licensed to a variety of territories, you can be sure that any licensees would be under strict duty to protect the copyright as a condition of their contract with the original publisher.
posted by Dee Xtrovert at 9:47 PM on September 22, 2012
You may have to adjust your business model. Reality appoligizes for the inconvenience.
You know I find it refreshing to see someone spell out the cold, cynical logic of capitalism without making any apologies.
posted by AlsoMike at 10:06 PM on September 22, 2012
You know I find it refreshing to see someone spell out the cold, cynical logic of capitalism without making any apologies.
posted by AlsoMike at 10:06 PM on September 22, 2012
The latest book (coauthored with mefi's own cstross) is Rapture of the Nerds, and is available here for download in various DRM-free formats.
Well done. Speaking of DRM, here's another problem with it:
How DRM screws people with visual disabilities: a report from the front lines
posted by homunculus at 10:50 AM on September 23, 2012
Well done. Speaking of DRM, here's another problem with it:
How DRM screws people with visual disabilities: a report from the front lines
posted by homunculus at 10:50 AM on September 23, 2012
You know I find it refreshing to see someone spell out the cold, cynical logic of capitalism without making any apologies.
Whereas the willful ignorance of the sheer intrusiveness by government and corporations to enforce the illogical belief that infinitely copyable bits are tiny physical goods scares me.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:05 AM on September 23, 2012
Whereas the willful ignorance of the sheer intrusiveness by government and corporations to enforce the illogical belief that infinitely copyable bits are tiny physical goods scares me.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:05 AM on September 23, 2012
Pretty much no one, or some vanishingly small percentage anyway, will pay for something marked "free."
Sorry, that's not my experience at all. I release all of my music online for free, DRM-free, with an optional donation box, and fully 1/4 of the people who download an album end up paying something for it. That's not a vanishingly small percentage by any means, especially considering that the 1/4 tend to pay WAY more than I would have charged.
What strikes me is how often people will come back, days or weeks later, and donate after having enjoyed an album. I couldn't believe it at first, but they actually WANT to chip in to support my work. I'm making enough from donations alone now where I could conceivably quit my day job and survive.
So, although I am not strictly anti-copyright, and I respect anyone's decision to sell their work for whatever price they choose (although I'm against the DMCA and believe Fair Use should be expanded dramatically), I think Doctorow has the right idea here. When you freely share high-quality work that you're extremely passionate about, and you work hard to get the word out, a surprising percentage of people seem to reciprocate your good will. It's too bad that pessimism and/or fear prevents people from trying it.
posted by jake at 4:09 PM on September 23, 2012 [2 favorites]
Sorry, that's not my experience at all. I release all of my music online for free, DRM-free, with an optional donation box, and fully 1/4 of the people who download an album end up paying something for it. That's not a vanishingly small percentage by any means, especially considering that the 1/4 tend to pay WAY more than I would have charged.
What strikes me is how often people will come back, days or weeks later, and donate after having enjoyed an album. I couldn't believe it at first, but they actually WANT to chip in to support my work. I'm making enough from donations alone now where I could conceivably quit my day job and survive.
So, although I am not strictly anti-copyright, and I respect anyone's decision to sell their work for whatever price they choose (although I'm against the DMCA and believe Fair Use should be expanded dramatically), I think Doctorow has the right idea here. When you freely share high-quality work that you're extremely passionate about, and you work hard to get the word out, a surprising percentage of people seem to reciprocate your good will. It's too bad that pessimism and/or fear prevents people from trying it.
posted by jake at 4:09 PM on September 23, 2012 [2 favorites]
Sorry, that's not my experience at all. I release all of my music online for free, DRM-free, with an optional donation box, and fully 1/4 of the people who download an album end up paying something for it.
This made me realise I should have mentioned that mefi's own frenetic (aka Brad Sucks) also does this, and has done reasonably well out of it as far as I understand. Or Jonathan Coulton and his gigging/being paid to do songs for video games. Etc, etc.
posted by jaduncan at 8:49 PM on September 23, 2012
This made me realise I should have mentioned that mefi's own frenetic (aka Brad Sucks) also does this, and has done reasonably well out of it as far as I understand. Or Jonathan Coulton and his gigging/being paid to do songs for video games. Etc, etc.
posted by jaduncan at 8:49 PM on September 23, 2012
Sorry, that's not my experience at all. I release all of my music online for free, DRM-free, with an optional donation box, and fully 1/4 of the people who download an album end up paying something for it. That's not a vanishingly small percentage by any means, especially considering that the 1/4 tend to pay WAY more than I would have charged.
What strikes me is how often people will come back, days or weeks later, and donate after having enjoyed an album. I couldn't believe it at first, but they actually WANT to chip in to support my work. I'm making enough from donations alone now where I could conceivably quit my day job and survive.
That's actually very encouraging to hear. I've just seen so much of the "we're entitled to free music -- make your money at the t-shirt table" noise that it tends to drown out success stories like yours.
posted by Devils Rancher at 9:06 PM on September 23, 2012
What strikes me is how often people will come back, days or weeks later, and donate after having enjoyed an album. I couldn't believe it at first, but they actually WANT to chip in to support my work. I'm making enough from donations alone now where I could conceivably quit my day job and survive.
That's actually very encouraging to hear. I've just seen so much of the "we're entitled to free music -- make your money at the t-shirt table" noise that it tends to drown out success stories like yours.
posted by Devils Rancher at 9:06 PM on September 23, 2012
You know I find it refreshing to see someone spell out the cold, cynical logic of capitalism without making any apologies.
The idea that I can't share a book or a song with my friend without money changing hands, that I can't use an idea or technique that someone else thought of first without money changing hands, is the cold, cynical logic of capitalism.
posted by straight at 8:51 AM on September 24, 2012 [2 favorites]
The idea that I can't share a book or a song with my friend without money changing hands, that I can't use an idea or technique that someone else thought of first without money changing hands, is the cold, cynical logic of capitalism.
posted by straight at 8:51 AM on September 24, 2012 [2 favorites]
« Older Werner Herzog directs a mini-documentary about The... | “Keeping the public informed since the 20th... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Can you guess which kind of Baader-Meinhof member Julia Schramm might have been?
Respect to the rest of the Pirate Party for so straightforwardly calling her out on her bullshit.
posted by Dee Xtrovert at 3:22 AM on September 22, 2012 [17 favorites]