7 ms·

I actually had to check it wasn't April 1st. Oh the irony indeed. On the plus side: 1. This might focus people's attentions on the problems of buying DRM books

by frossie 17y ago

I actually had to check it wasn't April 1st. Oh the irony indeed. On the plus side: 1. This might focus people's attentions on the problems of buying DRM books - I am still astonished how little it bothers people. 2. For the love of all your deities, can we please revisit copyright laws. The man has been dead for 59 years. Surely we can all agree those books should be public domain by now. Death+70 is just too long.

olefoo 17y ago
Death plus 70 is just one instance of laws being purchased by special interests; and that is a tough problem.
- derefr 17y ago
  At this point, I'd actually accept a special "Disney gets to make money from Mickey Mouse forever" law in exchange for shorter copyrights for everything else.
  - CWuestefeld 17y ago
    That's actually an interesting idea. Wouldn't it be a good experiment (and a nice comeuppance if it pans out) to see the unshackled media beat the pants off a stagnating Mickey?
    - dan_the_welder 17y ago
      Finally legal Mickey Mouse anime slash.
  - andreyf 17y ago
    There's probably a more realistic version - to put expensive-to-prove legal loop for extending copyright (but not as expensive as lobbying congress) so large corporations can take that option instead of breaking copyright for everyone. Another option would be to create a branch of IP "in between" copyright and trademark (which is indefinitely renewable). But IMNAL, so it might as well be my ass talking.
  - 10ren 17y ago
    Unfortunately, it would probably need to be "Disney gets to make money from all its copyrighted works forever". But I suspect Disney isn't actually that powerful itself, but it has sufficient resources and motivation to argue its case strongly before the appropriate committees - and then the many other powerful parties with similar interests rally round it.
- CWuestefeld 17y ago
  I agree with the intent of what you said. But I'd like to point out that the phrase "special interest" is very loaded. If you're going to use the phrase, can you differentiate between a "special interest" versus just a plain old regular interest? It seems that people use "special interest" to denote interests with which they disagree. Those entities that they agree with are overlooked, despite the fact that all entities manifestly have their own interests. (I hesitate to cite specific examples for fear of forking out an off-topic thread for an OP that's already marginal)
  - olefoo 17y ago
    It is in the nature of special interests that they will always declare themselves to be acting in the public interest. I would agree that getting too specific is best left to discussions on another site.
  - andreyf 17y ago
    I think of "special" interest as the opposite (by some imaginary scale) of "public" interest. Public interest that which costs/benefits people equally - so things done "in the public interest" will benefit the majority of people. Democratic governments are good [1] because they tend to do things which are "in the public interest". Things done "for special interests" are those done for a minority at the expense of the majority - "special" because that minority has some sort of power (lobbying) that the majority of people don't have. 1. According to utilitarianism - the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its contribution to overall utility: that is, its contribution to happiness or pleasure as summed among all people [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism]
    - CWuestefeld 17y ago
      We are told that actions like Kelo and Didden are in the public interest -- that is, to the benefit and betterment of the entire community -- but this is clearly bunk. How can we discern which of policies being espoused are really net-beneficial to society? I claim that in all but the most obvious cases, you can't. It's a fool's errand, and thus the term "special interest" has no use but in propaganda.
umjames 17y ago
I agree about DRM on books being bad. That's what I love about Pragmatic Programmers' e-books, I can get a plain PDF that I can read on any device that can read it.
- sailormoon 17y ago
  Yeah, but the problem with that is that with PDF the page layout is really set in stone. What's appropriate for a 24" monitor may not be appropriate to read on your phone, or netbook, or what not. The best format, IMO, is plain HTML. It can come with a custom style sheet, or can be overridden to taste on the client. It can be read by anything, it can be endlessly adapted .. it's just the best overall solution, IMO.
  - scottdw 17y ago
    I know at least the clojure book (http://pragprog.com/titles/shcloj/programming-clojure http://pragprog.com/titles/shcloj/programming-clojure) is available in epub format which is essentially xhtml zipped with metadata files (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPUB http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPUB).
tdavis 17y ago
I'm astonished by how little DRM bothers people in general. The idea that I can buy something and not own it at the same time is ridiculous. It'd be like buying a car and having it taken back in 5 years. We make a distinction between "buying" and "leasing" for a reason. Except on the Internet, where everybody tries to get you to buy things and apply leasing rules to what you just bought. It's completely asinine.
- andreyf 17y ago
  It's not "leasing", either, though - unless they're indefinite-time leases for a fixed price, with the right to "withdraw" the lease for a full refund. Most leased cars are returned, I imagine. Most "DRM-bought" Kindle books are not. So while "buy" isn't the right word, neither is "lease". It's a whole different beast altogether.
  - grandalf 17y ago
    Every purchase has terms of sale and a price. Whether those terms are dictated by the counterparty or by laws and social customs is irrelevant. You can buy a car but you can't drive it 100 miles per hour. You can buy 1000 smoke detectors, but you can't harvest the radioactive isotope and make a nuclear reactor. You can buy a book on paper, but you can't re-publish it as your own work, etc.
- grandalf 17y ago
  Interesting. I'm always astonished by how much DRM does bother people. If a song costs $0.99 with DRM then it would cost more without DRM. Very simple. In most cases the DRM terms of use are acceptable to me, which is why I don't hesitate to buy DRM'ed content. Of course, many DRM implementations are highly annoying, but that is a design issue not a core issue with DRM technology.
  - tdavis 17y ago
    Why should the non-DRM version cost more? If anything, the DRM version should cost more, given all the time and work put into wrapping the item in some annoying "protection". In the vast majority of cases, DRM is only an annoyance. It doesn't stop anybody who really wants to share content from sharing it. The only things DRM does is give undue power to content sellers (like Amazon) and make content completely worthless when whatever technology is used to verify ownership stops working (or gets turned off like MSN Music, Yahoo Music...)
potatolicious 17y ago
This has turned out to be overblown, as usual. More info here: http://www.informationweek.com/news/personal_tech/drm/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=218501227 http://www.informationweek.com/news/personal_tech/drm/showAr... Somebody (third-party) decided to sell 1984 and Animal Farm on the Kindle Store without owning the copyright to it. Amazon is of course forced to take down said illegal posting. The only questionable part here is whether or not they should be allowed to delete purchased copies (with refund).
- olefoo 17y ago
  Thanks for finding that, it sounds like that story came out somewhat after the story had already blown up. The detail that it was due to a self-service publisher who did not own the copyright is crucial. It sounds like Amazon could save itself a lot of the PR grief that comes with this sort of thing by posting takedowns and C&Ds on chillingeffects.org like Google does.
  - habibur 17y ago
    Illegal or not, the purchasers bought the books from Amazon's web site, not from some Hackerz site. Amazon later discovered that the books that Amazon was itself selling were somehow illegal, which the buyers need not have to be concerned about in the first place. Then instead of informing the buyers of it's mistake, Amazon decided to delete the copies outright, without any notice and of course without any talk of refund to the buyers. That's what I understand of this situation.
    - potatolicious 17y ago
      Then you misunderstand the situation. Amazon issued notice of the deletion (though did not clarify that the books were illegal), and automatically refunded money without the customers having to ask. I think they handled it as well as anyone can handle this particular situation.
      - tdonia 17y ago
yason 17y ago
But isn't the reason to maintain copyright on this particular dead man's work to help him make a good living and thus greatly increases his ability to contribute with even more creations? Oh. Oh, wait...

by frossie 17y ago

olefoo 17y ago

Death plus 70 is just one instance of laws being purchased by special interests; and that is a tough problem.

derefr 17y ago
At this point, I'd actually accept a special "Disney gets to make money from Mickey Mouse forever" law in exchange for shorter copyrights for everything else.
- CWuestefeld 17y ago
  That's actually an interesting idea. Wouldn't it be a good experiment (and a nice comeuppance if it pans out) to see the unshackled media beat the pants off a stagnating Mickey?
  - dan_the_welder 17y ago
    Finally legal Mickey Mouse anime slash.
- andreyf 17y ago
  There's probably a more realistic version - to put expensive-to-prove legal loop for extending copyright (but not as expensive as lobbying congress) so large corporations can take that option instead of breaking copyright for everyone. Another option would be to create a branch of IP "in between" copyright and trademark (which is indefinitely renewable). But IMNAL, so it might as well be my ass talking.
- 10ren 17y ago
  Unfortunately, it would probably need to be "Disney gets to make money from all its copyrighted works forever". But I suspect Disney isn't actually that powerful itself, but it has sufficient resources and motivation to argue its case strongly before the appropriate committees - and then the many other powerful parties with similar interests rally round it.
CWuestefeld 17y ago
I agree with the intent of what you said. But I'd like to point out that the phrase "special interest" is very loaded. If you're going to use the phrase, can you differentiate between a "special interest" versus just a plain old regular interest? It seems that people use "special interest" to denote interests with which they disagree. Those entities that they agree with are overlooked, despite the fact that all entities manifestly have their own interests. (I hesitate to cite specific examples for fear of forking out an off-topic thread for an OP that's already marginal)
- olefoo 17y ago
  It is in the nature of special interests that they will always declare themselves to be acting in the public interest. I would agree that getting too specific is best left to discussions on another site.
- andreyf 17y ago
  I think of "special" interest as the opposite (by some imaginary scale) of "public" interest. Public interest that which costs/benefits people equally - so things done "in the public interest" will benefit the majority of people. Democratic governments are good [1] because they tend to do things which are "in the public interest". Things done "for special interests" are those done for a minority at the expense of the majority - "special" because that minority has some sort of power (lobbying) that the majority of people don't have. 1. According to utilitarianism - the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its contribution to overall utility: that is, its contribution to happiness or pleasure as summed among all people [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism]
  - CWuestefeld 17y ago
    We are told that actions like Kelo and Didden are in the public interest -- that is, to the benefit and betterment of the entire community -- but this is clearly bunk. How can we discern which of policies being espoused are really net-beneficial to society? I claim that in all but the most obvious cases, you can't. It's a fool's errand, and thus the term "special interest" has no use but in propaganda.

umjames 17y ago

I agree about DRM on books being bad. That's what I love about Pragmatic Programmers' e-books, I can get a plain PDF that I can read on any device that can read it.

sailormoon 17y ago
Yeah, but the problem with that is that with PDF the page layout is really set in stone. What's appropriate for a 24" monitor may not be appropriate to read on your phone, or netbook, or what not. The best format, IMO, is plain HTML. It can come with a custom style sheet, or can be overridden to taste on the client. It can be read by anything, it can be endlessly adapted .. it's just the best overall solution, IMO.
- scottdw 17y ago
  I know at least the clojure book (http://pragprog.com/titles/shcloj/programming-clojure http://pragprog.com/titles/shcloj/programming-clojure) is available in epub format which is essentially xhtml zipped with metadata files (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPUB http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPUB).

tdavis 17y ago

I'm astonished by how little DRM bothers people in general. The idea that I can buy something and not own it at the same time is ridiculous. It'd be like buying a car and having it taken back in 5 years. We make a distinction between "buying" and "leasing" for a reason. Except on the Internet, where everybody tries to get you to buy things and apply leasing rules to what you just bought. It's completely asinine.

andreyf 17y ago
It's not "leasing", either, though - unless they're indefinite-time leases for a fixed price, with the right to "withdraw" the lease for a full refund. Most leased cars are returned, I imagine. Most "DRM-bought" Kindle books are not. So while "buy" isn't the right word, neither is "lease". It's a whole different beast altogether.
- grandalf 17y ago
  Every purchase has terms of sale and a price. Whether those terms are dictated by the counterparty or by laws and social customs is irrelevant. You can buy a car but you can't drive it 100 miles per hour. You can buy 1000 smoke detectors, but you can't harvest the radioactive isotope and make a nuclear reactor. You can buy a book on paper, but you can't re-publish it as your own work, etc.
grandalf 17y ago
Interesting. I'm always astonished by how much DRM does bother people. If a song costs $0.99 with DRM then it would cost more without DRM. Very simple. In most cases the DRM terms of use are acceptable to me, which is why I don't hesitate to buy DRM'ed content. Of course, many DRM implementations are highly annoying, but that is a design issue not a core issue with DRM technology.
- tdavis 17y ago
  Why should the non-DRM version cost more? If anything, the DRM version should cost more, given all the time and work put into wrapping the item in some annoying "protection". In the vast majority of cases, DRM is only an annoyance. It doesn't stop anybody who really wants to share content from sharing it. The only things DRM does is give undue power to content sellers (like Amazon) and make content completely worthless when whatever technology is used to verify ownership stops working (or gets turned off like MSN Music, Yahoo Music...)

potatolicious 17y ago

This has turned out to be overblown, as usual. More info here: http://www.informationweek.com/news/personal_tech/drm/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=218501227 http://www.informationweek.com/news/personal_tech/drm/showAr... Somebody (third-party) decided to sell 1984 and Animal Farm on the Kindle Store without owning the copyright to it. Amazon is of course forced to take down said illegal posting. The only questionable part here is whether or not they should be allowed to delete purchased copies (with refund).

olefoo 17y ago
Thanks for finding that, it sounds like that story came out somewhat after the story had already blown up. The detail that it was due to a self-service publisher who did not own the copyright is crucial. It sounds like Amazon could save itself a lot of the PR grief that comes with this sort of thing by posting takedowns and C&Ds on chillingeffects.org like Google does.
- habibur 17y ago
  Illegal or not, the purchasers bought the books from Amazon's web site, not from some Hackerz site. Amazon later discovered that the books that Amazon was itself selling were somehow illegal, which the buyers need not have to be concerned about in the first place. Then instead of informing the buyers of it's mistake, Amazon decided to delete the copies outright, without any notice and of course without any talk of refund to the buyers. That's what I understand of this situation.
  - potatolicious 17y ago
    Then you misunderstand the situation. Amazon issued notice of the deletion (though did not clarify that the books were illegal), and automatically refunded money without the customers having to ask. I think they handled it as well as anyone can handle this particular situation.
    - tdonia 17y ago

yason 17y ago

But isn't the reason to maintain copyright on this particular dead man's work to help him make a good living and thus greatly increases his ability to contribute with even more creations? Oh. Oh, wait...