6 ms·

First this: They don't make any economic sense or any other sense. Then this: They should be working for the public good. (Applause) And that means it shoul

by edw519 16y ago

First this: They don't make any economic sense or any other sense. Then this: They should be working for the public good. (Applause) And that means it should be available to the public. So... So...why aren't any of these (his 145 books): http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_tc_2_0?rh=i%3Astripbooks%2Ck%3ANoam+Chomsky&keywords=Noam+Chomsky&ie=UTF8&qid=1300306720&sr=8-2-ent&field-contributor_id=B000AP81EC http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_tc_2_0?rh=i%3Astripbo... in the public domain?

anon1385 16y ago
http://chomsky.info/books/counter-revolutionary-violence.htm http://chomsky.info/books/counter-revolutionary-violence.htm like this? or this: http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/year/year-overview.html http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/year/year-overview.... or this: http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/sld/sld-contents.html http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/sld/sld-contents.ht... or this: http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/rab/rab-contents.html http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/rab/rab-contents.ht... or this: http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/ni/ni-contents.html http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/ni/ni-contents.html or this: http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/dd/dd-overview.html http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/dd/dd-overview.html or this: http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/rc/rc-contents.html http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/rc/rc-contents.html
- TomOfTTB 16y ago
  In fairness just because something is published on the web doesn't mean it is in the public domain. A manufacturer can publish blueprints but you can't build and sell an improved version of their product if they have a patent on it.
  - secretasiandan 16y ago
    In fairness just because something is SOLD on the web doesn't mean it is NOT in the public domain.
  - RobertL 16y ago
    Chomsky's other problem is he's not an "intellectual". He's just a popular college prof who babbles a lot.
- davidw 16y ago
  Even if they were all in the public domain, he's basically "set", being a university professor with tenure. It would be a less pleasant world where only those with other secure income from other sources could produce information goods.
  - dexen 16y ago
    He is `set' because he continuously fulfills the expectation of the employer: he publishes (and teaches etc.). And expectations of the wide public: he provides information to us. The employer (university) is happy, because those publications bring them money, even if indirectly. And you were going to say that's a bad thing because...? Sure university is a somewhat special case; we don't expect everybody to become a professor. But, in similar vein, artists earn money by performing. Open source developers earn money by utilizing their knowledge and skill in paid-for projects. Etc., etc.
    - davidw 16y ago
      If you read what I wrote, I made no criticism of him for doing his job. I said it would be a poorer world were the only people who could afford to write those with independent sources of income. > artists earn money by performing What you're saying, in economic terms, is that musicians have rivalrous, excludable goods they can produce: the concert experience. That's not bad, although it would have the IMO negative effect of leaving the Brian Wilson (much more oriented towards studio work than touring) types between a rock and a hard place. Authors don't really have that: they could sign books, but that would reduce their income drastically, as most copies would be freely had. > Open source developers earn money by utilizing their knowledge and skill in paid-for projects. As for the open source developers, but WHERE DOES THE MONEY COME FROM in those paid-for projects? Scarcity is where it comes from, and often, they're getting paid to work on open source by someone who deals in the artificial scarcity of intellectual property.
      - dexen 16y ago
        > (...) WHERE DOES THE MONEY COME FROM in those paid-for projects? Scarcity is where it comes from (...) Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Google, IBM and the likes earn by selling services and goods rather than artificially limiting intellectual property. ((cue Android download link and AdWords control panel link))
stephth 16y ago
Putting work into the Public Domain is ironically not the best way to serve the public good. It's much safer to have a permissive license. Chomsky's answer here might have unintentionally passed the wrong idea in that sense.
- ez77 16y ago
  Are there any known cases of works dedicated to the public domain whose access was jeopardized as a result?
cma 16y ago
Chomsky is talking about institutional factors. He typically admits he is affected by them the same as anyone else. What kind of readership can a public domain book get? How would publishing it be funded? If it was a success, another publisher could just begin a print run. Old public domain books manage to get published, but, they have the advantage that they don't need to be advertised, have shelf space speculatively bought, etc. etc. Chomsky also doesn't believe we should have regular property (at least not in the "rights" sense), but he still owns stuff.
kaffiene 16y ago
Charging for a book is quite different from patenting the ideas it contains. If Chomsky writes a book on language, you can still write your own work. Product Patents don't work like that. Get the difference? Free to compete != free of charge. Libre vs Gratis. Free as in speech vs free as in beer. Get it?
angus77 16y ago
Any published work is copyrighted by default. Are you aware of Chomsky making any effort to keep his books out of people's hands? Has he sued anyone for copying or distributing his books?
- pbhjpbhj 16y ago
  >Any published work is copyrighted by default. But it is easy enough to declaim the restriction to copying if one wishes CC-SA, CopyLeft, CC0¹, PD etc.. Chomsky is likely contractual obligated, at least in part, if he holds a tenured professorship and may not be able to do this without leaving that post. -- 1 - http://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/ http://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/
  - angus77 16y ago
    If he's contractually bound then I think it would be fair to say that he is railing against the restrictions imposed upon him rather than being hypocritical. Of course, this is all speculation until someone either gets a response out of him on the issue, or he starts chasing down "pirates".
danssig 16y ago
There's always someone trying to make everyone out to be a hypocrite. It is not a conflict to both have a belief and not act within that belief. If the world suddenly started working the way he described and he still tried to sell things he expected others to give away then it would be hypocritical behavior.
- numeromancer 16y ago
  There's always someone trying to make everyone out to be a hypocrite. It is not a conflict to both have a belief and not act within that belief. It is only not a conflict if you are, in fact, a hypocrite, and do not bother to judge yourself by your own standards. If the world suddenly started working the way he described and he still tried to sell things he expected others to give away then it would be hypocritical behavior. This is the shelter that most hypocrites hide under, claiming that they can't possibly be expected to live by their own high ideals until all men are good and fair and wise. It is the claim of every communist dictator who hoards the wealth he denies his citizens, and every capitalist who colludes with government for protectionism and corporate welfare while crying for free-markets, and every cheap preacher who slinks around with prostitutes while bleating about the sexualization of our culture. If you dedicate yourself to high ideals, then dedicate yourself to them, and show the world that they are ideals that humans can live up to. If you are too enamored of worldly ways to do so, then be willing to forgive others of the same. The great Oz has spoken.
  - danssig 16y ago
    I disagree with this bit of hyperbole. You only live one time. Living the life of a pauper because of some ideals if just not practical. Most people will never hear of your sacrifice and those who do will write you off as a nutter. Chomsky is doing what he can by delivering his message to the youth, the future. He wouldn't be in a position to deliver that message if he were off trying to start a one-man revolution.
  - nooneelse 16y ago
    One can easily believe "X is good." without believing "X is what everyone should do in all situations." So to, one can believe "it would be better in numerous important ways if everyone did Z all the time." without believing "it would be better in all situations on all important measures if one more person did Z." You are advocating we judge others using a simplistic abstraction of what principles are. Good rhetoric perhaps, but not good thinking. Put another way, it is untrue to think that principles can only be beliefs without conditionals.
njharman 16y ago
ad hominem much?

by edw519 16y ago

anon1385 16y ago

http://chomsky.info/books/counter-revolutionary-violence.htm http://chomsky.info/books/counter-revolutionary-violence.htm like this? or this: http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/year/year-overview.html http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/year/year-overview.... or this: http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/sld/sld-contents.html http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/sld/sld-contents.ht... or this: http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/rab/rab-contents.html http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/rab/rab-contents.ht... or this: http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/ni/ni-contents.html http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/ni/ni-contents.html or this: http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/dd/dd-overview.html http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/dd/dd-overview.html or this: http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/rc/rc-contents.html http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/rc/rc-contents.html

TomOfTTB 16y ago
In fairness just because something is published on the web doesn't mean it is in the public domain. A manufacturer can publish blueprints but you can't build and sell an improved version of their product if they have a patent on it.
- secretasiandan 16y ago
  In fairness just because something is SOLD on the web doesn't mean it is NOT in the public domain.
- RobertL 16y ago
  Chomsky's other problem is he's not an "intellectual". He's just a popular college prof who babbles a lot.
davidw 16y ago
Even if they were all in the public domain, he's basically "set", being a university professor with tenure. It would be a less pleasant world where only those with other secure income from other sources could produce information goods.
- dexen 16y ago
  He is `set' because he continuously fulfills the expectation of the employer: he publishes (and teaches etc.). And expectations of the wide public: he provides information to us. The employer (university) is happy, because those publications bring them money, even if indirectly. And you were going to say that's a bad thing because...? Sure university is a somewhat special case; we don't expect everybody to become a professor. But, in similar vein, artists earn money by performing. Open source developers earn money by utilizing their knowledge and skill in paid-for projects. Etc., etc.
  - davidw 16y ago
    If you read what I wrote, I made no criticism of him for doing his job. I said it would be a poorer world were the only people who could afford to write those with independent sources of income. > artists earn money by performing What you're saying, in economic terms, is that musicians have rivalrous, excludable goods they can produce: the concert experience. That's not bad, although it would have the IMO negative effect of leaving the Brian Wilson (much more oriented towards studio work than touring) types between a rock and a hard place. Authors don't really have that: they could sign books, but that would reduce their income drastically, as most copies would be freely had. > Open source developers earn money by utilizing their knowledge and skill in paid-for projects. As for the open source developers, but WHERE DOES THE MONEY COME FROM in those paid-for projects? Scarcity is where it comes from, and often, they're getting paid to work on open source by someone who deals in the artificial scarcity of intellectual property.
    - dexen 16y ago
      > (...) WHERE DOES THE MONEY COME FROM in those paid-for projects? Scarcity is where it comes from (...) Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Google, IBM and the likes earn by selling services and goods rather than artificially limiting intellectual property. ((cue Android download link and AdWords control panel link))

stephth 16y ago

Putting work into the Public Domain is ironically not the best way to serve the public good. It's much safer to have a permissive license. Chomsky's answer here might have unintentionally passed the wrong idea in that sense.

ez77 16y ago
Are there any known cases of works dedicated to the public domain whose access was jeopardized as a result?

cma 16y ago

Chomsky is talking about institutional factors. He typically admits he is affected by them the same as anyone else. What kind of readership can a public domain book get? How would publishing it be funded? If it was a success, another publisher could just begin a print run. Old public domain books manage to get published, but, they have the advantage that they don't need to be advertised, have shelf space speculatively bought, etc. etc. Chomsky also doesn't believe we should have regular property (at least not in the "rights" sense), but he still owns stuff.

kaffiene 16y ago

Charging for a book is quite different from patenting the ideas it contains. If Chomsky writes a book on language, you can still write your own work. Product Patents don't work like that. Get the difference? Free to compete != free of charge. Libre vs Gratis. Free as in speech vs free as in beer. Get it?

angus77 16y ago

Any published work is copyrighted by default. Are you aware of Chomsky making any effort to keep his books out of people's hands? Has he sued anyone for copying or distributing his books?

pbhjpbhj 16y ago
>Any published work is copyrighted by default. But it is easy enough to declaim the restriction to copying if one wishes CC-SA, CopyLeft, CC0¹, PD etc.. Chomsky is likely contractual obligated, at least in part, if he holds a tenured professorship and may not be able to do this without leaving that post. -- 1 - http://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/ http://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/
- angus77 16y ago
  If he's contractually bound then I think it would be fair to say that he is railing against the restrictions imposed upon him rather than being hypocritical. Of course, this is all speculation until someone either gets a response out of him on the issue, or he starts chasing down "pirates".

danssig 16y ago

There's always someone trying to make everyone out to be a hypocrite. It is not a conflict to both have a belief and not act within that belief. If the world suddenly started working the way he described and he still tried to sell things he expected others to give away then it would be hypocritical behavior.

numeromancer 16y ago
There's always someone trying to make everyone out to be a hypocrite. It is not a conflict to both have a belief and not act within that belief. It is only not a conflict if you are, in fact, a hypocrite, and do not bother to judge yourself by your own standards. If the world suddenly started working the way he described and he still tried to sell things he expected others to give away then it would be hypocritical behavior. This is the shelter that most hypocrites hide under, claiming that they can't possibly be expected to live by their own high ideals until all men are good and fair and wise. It is the claim of every communist dictator who hoards the wealth he denies his citizens, and every capitalist who colludes with government for protectionism and corporate welfare while crying for free-markets, and every cheap preacher who slinks around with prostitutes while bleating about the sexualization of our culture. If you dedicate yourself to high ideals, then dedicate yourself to them, and show the world that they are ideals that humans can live up to. If you are too enamored of worldly ways to do so, then be willing to forgive others of the same. The great Oz has spoken.
- danssig 16y ago
  I disagree with this bit of hyperbole. You only live one time. Living the life of a pauper because of some ideals if just not practical. Most people will never hear of your sacrifice and those who do will write you off as a nutter. Chomsky is doing what he can by delivering his message to the youth, the future. He wouldn't be in a position to deliver that message if he were off trying to start a one-man revolution.
- nooneelse 16y ago
  One can easily believe "X is good." without believing "X is what everyone should do in all situations." So to, one can believe "it would be better in numerous important ways if everyone did Z all the time." without believing "it would be better in all situations on all important measures if one more person did Z." You are advocating we judge others using a simplistic abstraction of what principles are. Good rhetoric perhaps, but not good thinking. Put another way, it is untrue to think that principles can only be beliefs without conditionals.

njharman 16y ago

ad hominem much?