Register or log in:

F&SF Forum » The Process of Writing

Legal Issues for Authors to Trip Over

(48 posts)

  1. ByronBailey
    Member

    Kevin said:

    There's a point, though, where product association can be a bad thing. You say authors shouldn't worry about it. Yet let's say you make the big time and find someone using one of your characters to shill Atlas Shrugged. Immediately you and your works become linked with Ayn Rand in the eyes of the public.

    I say:

    If it really bugged me, then I guess it would be about time to write my, probably short, satire and/or parody "Atlas Passed Gas" and all future official copies of my pertinent work in question shall include this satirical piece. Mostly, though, I'm not likely to be too troubled with it. My view of what the relationship between the writer, the writer's work, and the audience isn't like this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydXenL7iu0w

    My take on the relationship is more Promethean, based on a different titan than that Atlas fellow. I took that spark that the gods sent my way and built a fire out of it. Now I give this flame to my audience. I expect they'll do all kinds of things with it, some I approve of, some I don't. That's how it goes when dealing with creatures that have a mind of their own. They'll barbecue delicious brisket. They'll burn old women they accuse of being witches. They'll take dirt, work it into shape, put it in the fire and make pottery. They'll use my flame for keeping themselves warm. They'll burn books, books I would have loved to have read -- burn in hell Diego de Landa. They'll use fire in ways well beyond my original intent of giving it when all I've ever really wanted was to share a better way to take hashish. That anal thing they were doing was profoundly sad.

    I expect to be eaten alive. With that said, if at all possible, I'd like a slice of that liver, too. If it's not too much trouble, a heaping plate of fire-roasted eagle would be nice as well. Oh, and money. Yes, I know you like my creation, but please don't throw the money in the fire this time when you give it to me. Just give it to me. Lots of money because if you want me to keep doing this, it had better be worth it.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  2. Kevin C.
    Member

    When you hit it big, you are more than welcome to put your plan into practice. It's your property.

    I think the hypothesis of the development of the concept of ownership as part of the transition from hunter-gatherer to agrarian is inaccurate. The concept of mine is very basic, and isn't even restricted to humans. Nomadic and semi-nomadic peoples such as hunter-gatherers tend to be territorial for obvious reasons, as the resources with their range are their source of substance. They also undertake forms of cultivation, such as the West Coast Indians planting acorns, so an influx of new peoples means a lost of an investment in effort. The concept of mine may extend to the entire group and may be based on kinship, but it's still there. Yet the idea of personal property existed, and one did not steal from one's neighbor. However, note that theft to those outside the group was not necessarily frowned upon.

    The only shift in attitude, then, was fixed boundaries for ownership of land, and it may not have been all that big a leap. It's just a formal definition of territory applied to an individual or family, which isn't that much different from the recognized territory of a group with kinship connections.

    That being the case, we probably won't see some great shift toward the ownership of ideas. If anything, it could go even become more restrictive.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  3. ByronBailey
    Member

    Kevin Said:

    I think the hypothesis of the development of the concept of ownership as part of the transition from hunter-gatherer to agrarian is inaccurate. The concept of mine is very basic, and isn't even restricted to humans. Nomadic and semi-nomadic peoples such as hunter-gatherers tend to be territorial for obvious reasons, as the resources with their range are their source of substance. They also undertake forms of cultivation, such as the West Coast Indians planting acorns, so an influx of new peoples means a lost of an investment in effort. The concept of mine may extend to the entire group and may be based on kinship, but it's still there.

    I say:

    There is a big difference between _mine_ and _ours_. What a great deal of the conversation we're having now is precisely about what should be _mine_ versus what should be _ours_. There's probably a biological basis for the concept of property but culture does shape, reinforce, or de-emphasize this biological basis. A lot of things within our behavior like the subjugation of women, rape, and warfare may have a biological basis which is explored in fields like sociobiology. But like I said, culture can have a profound effect how these play out or even find a way to control them. For an example from one of our cousin species, rather than being terrorized by the bigger males, bonobo females have figured out that if the females band together, they're strongeer than any male. No male subjugation of the females in bonobo society. It helps to have lots of sex to keep the males content, too.

    Kevin said:

    Yet the idea of personal property existed, and one did not steal from one's neighbor. However, note that theft to those outside the group was not necessarily frowned upon.

    I say:

    In general terms, hunter-gatherers tend to be almost communistic. There's probably exceptions, but I've read enough situations where members of the hunter-gatherer band would borrow with impunity each others supposed items without asking. If you weren't using the item or have it directly on your person, it would likely be "borrowed." Someone in turn might "borrow" it from the borrower without asking and so on. Now this works when the items in question are things like a spear. However, when modern luxury items are introduced like radios, the current paradigm concerning property breaks down. People like to have their radios with them, be able to listen to what they want to. The paradigm shift in dealing with this new property can be so severe, that the band collapses in many cases. Dealing with this new property does require profoundly different thinking. The thinking is in fact so profound, it can make in many cases the hunter gatrherer band virtually nonfunctional.

    In a hunter-gatherer band, the emphasis is on sharing. It helps a great deal in survival. If you take down an antelope, it's not necessarily yours although as the killer, you will likely get a choice bit or two like the heart or a chunk of liver. But you share the kill. And when you don't have a kill, others who do share with you. It's good for mutual survival to share. Share the food. Share what tools are available. For example, if your spear breaks and someone has another that they're not using, it's only good for the group that you get to hunt. Same thing with gathering baskets and the like. When you throw modern luxury items into the mix, though, it's frequently like throwing a wrench into the works of a machine. So much of their suvival is geared towards sharing and when it is called into question, the results tend not to be pretty. It is a big paradigm shift, not so much the idea that there can be private property but in how private property relates to the whole. When the whole is sustained by sharing, and that sharing is called into question by modery luxury items, it tends to lead to a radical reconfigeration of the society if not outright destroying it.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  4. Kevin C.
    Member

    Communal might be a better word than communistic, the former invoking images of a small group while the latter has distinct political connotations. Just how communal each group is depends on the group itself. I'd have to tear myself away from the small engine repair manual I'm reading to review anthropological material on-hand about the American Indians, but I think that not everything was held in common long before the arrival of Europeans and trade goods. Hunting, fishing, food gathering, and agriculture tended to be corporate activities, and even Western Civilization in the US manifested these traits in some degree among small communities.

    Beyond this, there was a sense of property, though it does no good to state it unless I can cite examples. Something about punishments for theft is nagging my memory. If all things are in common, then theft could not exist aide from hording.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  5. ByronBailey
    Member

    Kevin said:

    "I'd have to tear myself away from the small engine repair manual I'm reading to review anthropological material on-hand about the American Indians, but I think that not everything was held in common long before the arrival of Europeans and trade goods. Hunting, fishing, food gathering, and agriculture tended to be corporate activities, and even Western Civilization in the US manifested these traits in some degree among small communities."

    I say:

    There was much personal property in the Americas before Columbus. I'm talking specifically about the hunter gather band which was probably the basic unit of humanity for millions of years until things started to change with the advent of agriculture roughly 10,000 years ago or so. And even then, I'm talking in general terms. There may be more Many of the peoples of America were organized around much bigger units than the hunter gatherer band up to and including empires with the likes of the Aztec and Inca.

    As for communism versus communualism, Marx coined the term "primitive communism." Or was it Engels? It's been adopted by a number of anthropologists. I've heard the term communual in place of communist, too. I prefer communistic because it's like but not quite communist.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  6. ByronBailey
    Member

    Also, it's hard to say for sure exactly what the original hunter gathereres were like. Most of the hunter gatherers now tend to be more egaitarian than most societies, much more shared property, particularly in regards to the means of production necessary for survival. However, the current hunter gatherers tend to be those who have been pushed to the more marginal places of the earth that the agriculturalists don't want. In such an environment, a very high level of egalitarianism, and sharing, when resources are more scarce would be very conducive to survival. But who knows what form a hunter gatherer society might take in richer environments where there's enough resources to do well even if your neigbors don't help you.

    There's reason to question, but based on what I've seen, the hunter gatherer bands tend to be more communistic, communal, egalitarian, or whatever term you want to use. Not absolutely so. But definitely in that direction.

    Speaking of "primitive communism," there's a group in New Guinea known as the Kapauku who have been refered to as "primitive capitalists." They're not hunter gatherers, though. ;-)

    Btw, this is a bit of a threadjack. Sorry to those who want to get back to copyright. :(.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  7. ByronBailey
    Member

    Kevin said:

    When you hit it big, you are more than welcome to put your plan into practice. It's your property.

    I say:

    I'm very doubtful I'll hit it big considering how much the current copyright laws nueter, disembowels, and decapitates satire, this honorable or at least lively tradition dating back to at least the time of Aristophanes. I can do some satire, but it's extremely limited when I can't utilize the symbols and metaphors that are most prescient and have to keep resorting to mythical and/or religious symbols.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  8. It is true that we know very little about early societies. However, I'd still like to point out that there is a difference between "possession" and "ownership".

    And by way of bolstering my argument a bit more (studied anthropology & history but by no means an expert in either field): writing did not exist prior to agriculture and I believe that most, if not all of the earliest written records are tallies of grain harvests, indicating which individual "owned" how much grain.

    The ability to draw, write and sculpt all existed well-prior to the advent of agriculture, yet we see no other forms of "tallying" that I am aware of. (Unless those ocher hand prints on cave walls are a tally - perhaps of visits - but I believe most anthropologists put those down as either simple artistic expression or as having some unknown spiritual purpose).

    Possession has no nuance. I've got it, you might take it away, possession changes hands - but there's no concept of "rights" associated, no abstract methods for exchanging possession (except perhaps to eat the fruit and then throw the poop at those who tried to effect change)

    On another note: someone earlier was discussing IP and, among other things, electronic copies vs physical copies, the inability to "own things that aren't real" & etc.

    First, the entire concept of IP is based upon conferring the same attributes of real physical property upon non-physical things. Trade Secrets represent the other method of handling non-physical property one wishes to control and historically has proven to be detrimental to the advance of knowledge. (Works well for Coca Cola tho).

    Second: yes, if you make an illegal copy of an electronic document, it IS the same as stealing a physical copy of the same thing. First, because it is enshrined in all kinds of laws that the two are one and the same and secondly because yes, you are depriving someone of the fruits of whatever transaction may have resulted. True, there are an unlimited number of copies in inventory (unlike the physical thing) - but that is literally beside the point. (And I'm not saying its right or wrong, merely addressing this misconception that because nothing physical changed hands there can't be theft involved).

    Take it one step further: the person who obtained the illegal electronic copy puts it up on line and makes it freely available to everyone and anyone who wants a copy. End of business for the person who is selling it. (Potentially and with numerous caveats attaching, but you get the point I think.)

    One advocate of the "give out free stuff" is Doctorow, who has demonstrated quite amply that making things available for free spurs sales, increases market exposure &c &c. However, while I admire what Cory (and a few others are doing), if you examine the situation closely you will discover that they really fall into a special case of people who have an extremely broad platform, numerous other revenue streams not necessarily associated with their free product (speaking fees for example) and are among the few who have managed to achieve "super stardom".

    Their methods and practices are not translatable (effectively, profitably) to the average "I've got a few stories and a couple of books for sale in a niche market" types.

    I've not doubt, that, for example, Lady Gaga could put out a free book associated with a purchasable one and achieve tremendous success and could claim that offering it for free did not affect their sales at all negatively. So could Obama, etc.

    But as I said earlier, I don't think any of this is going to be effectively and satisfactorily resolved until we get to the other end of that paradigm shift I mentioned.

    and oh, btw - Amazing Stories is a real project working towards bringing the magazine back into publication. I've got a bunch of people on board helping (Malzberg, Silverberg, White, Price, Wrzos, a bunch of authors over at Book View Cafe - we'll be rolling out a round-table interview with 14 of them pretty soon, and other folks ranging from Michael Brotherton and Micheal Burstein to Jamie Todd Rubin and Daniel Kimmel. Please stop on by the blog if you get a chance - http://www.amazingstoriesmag.com

    Posted 7 years ago #
  9. aethercowboy
    Member

    ASE:

    First, you must understand that the entire concept of Intellectual Property is itself derived from the conjoined concepts of Intellectual Works and Intellectual Rights. In the days prior to electronic data storage, the concept of Intellectual Property made sense (the work was a physical good, and great effort was expended to duplicate it). However, nowadays, since Intellectual Works are infinite goods, to attribute the same ideals as property to them is fallacious.

    In essence, when you create an intellectual work, there is One copy. If somebody "steals" that copy from you, by either publishing it without your consent, or otherwise infringing upon your Intellectual Rights, your One copy is not altered or removed from your possession (think about how ridiculous the phrase: "someone stole my idea" is). It is a purely intellectual work, and remains yours ad infinitum short of some intervention evocative of Inception.

    The difference between, say, an apple and a digital copy of a book is that if you take an apple, you impact the seller and the potential future buyer, and the seller has made physical effort to make the apple available to sell. Downloading an e-book only hurts the seller, who may have exerted effort in producing the work, but has lost nothing physical in this scenario, so s/he can always sell more copies, and as I discussed earlier (albeit under the weather), this can be for a variety of otherwise legitimate reasons (e.g., should somebody have to buy the ebook if they've already bought the print edition?).

    The logic that makes infinite goods scarce seems to go like this: "While my work is infinite, there are only a finite number of people who will buy it, therefore if somebody gets a free copy, they will not buy it, and therefore there is one fewer potential customer." Yes, sure, this is true, but by that reasoning, every single other person who didn't buy the book (I for one, have never bought a romance novel) would be just as guilty of removing a potential customer. The only difference is that the person with the free copy got a free service. The author didn't lose any time or money in the rendering of this free service, as it was completely separate of them.

    Potential customers are like Schrodinger's cats; once you observe them, they're either thieves or patrons, but before you do, they are both. I could buy a book (or a CD or a DVD) and digitize it. Am I thief? Or I could download a book (or a song or a movie), and enjoy it so much that I but a legitimate copy. Am I a thief?

    While I can't speak for everybody, I like to have physical copies of the books I enjoy. So, if I really like that one public domain book, I'll get a physical copy. If I don't, I'll just read it as an e-book and get on with my life. So, if I come across a digital book that I like (I sometimes get a fair share of them from authors for the purpose of reviews), I'll actually consider buying it in print. But, that's just me.

    I personally avoid downloading unauthorized books from the Internet because I like not having any felonies on my record (I like to vote). So, if I really, really, really, want to read a book, instead of wading through a filesharing site, I'll do an Interlibrary Loan to see if I like the book. The only difference between this act and the act of downloading a book is that a physical book is a serial thing while an e-book is a parallel thing; only one person can read a physical book at a time. Either way, though, I got to read a free book, and the author didn't make a dime. The library is distributing this discrete copy of the book freely, and everybody seemed to be happy with it. What gives?

    If we were able to make a machine equivalent to the replicators on Star Trek (without referring to them as 'replicators', of course) that could turn energy into matter, would the designer of a particularly tasty and nutrient packed apple have any say if starving "pirates" downloaded his apple to feed their families, without paying his asking price (which was about the same price as a real apple). While the author may think that their work is "worth" a certain amount, its true value is what people are willing to pay for it. If people aren't willing to pay the asking price for a digital good (which is actually more like a digital service), then the true market price should be what they're willing to pay. That's economics.

    Beyond discrete things like apples, let's compare Intellectual Property to, say, property such as a homestead. You hold some claim to the land that you "own," and as such, when other people use that land without your permission or in ways that are contrary to your wishes, this impacts you more than if somebody downloads a copy of your e-book. The main difference here is known as "physical conflict," since land, like apples, is scarce, whatever land I use for my purposes is land that other people cannot use for their purposes. In a virtual environment where space is infinite, there's no similar conflict (think in sandbox-style video games, in which space is only inhibited by the power of the computer hosting the game).

    And beyond even that, let's get into something like water rights. As crazy as it seems, in some regions, people don't hold any rights to use the water that lands on their own property. Why? Because that water belongs to the farmers who need it to grow the plants. If I put up a rain barrel in such a place, I am limiting the water that can be used for agriculture, and am posing a detriment to the greater society. Again, this is a physical conflict. The water I am collecting for my use prevents others from using it.

    If we lived in a universe in which we could create a pocket universe for each person, there would be fewer issues of physical conflict. Just lock the door behind you when you leave.

    Physical conflict and scarcity are the bases of the concept of property, and as such, since there is no physical conflict unless you steal a physical copy of the book, there is not property lost. Property is finite and physical, and IP is infinite and digital, therefore it is not real property, but more appropriately, Imaginary Property.

    What you own when you claim you own Intellectual Property is instead a set of rights over a set of works, much like 94.5 FM does not own a particular frequency (how does one OWN that? Is there a physicist in the house?), they instead hold the rights to use that frequency instead of others, granted by the FCC. As an rights-holder, you own the privilege of deciding what is done with it.

    Some legal theorists claim that "rights", such as the rights to free speech, or to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, are "property rights" over your person to use your body in ways that fulfill these rights. IP-rights would therefore be property rights over all potential media in the universe as well as other people themselves, preventing them from establishing a set of words or images that draws too close to your own. That, to me, seems like a form of slavery.

    The enforcement of intellectual property rights in essence builds an artificial physical conflict. However, the victim here is the consumer. If you said "It was a bright and sunny day before the sky turned to blood," I can no longer use those 61 characters however I please. My physical rights and the rights to my own person have been impeded by your intellectual rights.

    To claim that laws stating or establishing that physical goods = electronic goods does not justify the fact that it is obscenely false (c.f. the Indiana Pi Bill). Downloading an e-book and stealing a physical book are two different things entirely. First, a physical book has a manufacturing and distribution costs (paper, ink, fuel, etc.). An e-book's manufacturing and distribution cost is essentially trivial (There are plenty of typesetting tools out there that are open-source and do a better job than some editors I've seen, c.f. LaTeX and its ilk; and I can host a file on my computer for no additional cost to myself and transfer it to another party through a variety of free means, including IR, lasers, removable media, and other methods that provide me no additional cost for distribution). To steal a physical book is to deprive the bookstore of the sale that included the cost of paper, ink, and fuel expended to produce this book. Likewise, it prevents little Timmy of little Sue from buying that copy to read themselves to sleep at the orphanage. To download an unlicensed e-book does no such thing. The only loss to a "stolen" e-book is the value that the author has attributed it to (which is probably the product of some function evaluating time spent on the work, value of the author's time, effort to produce it, the supposed quality of the prose, and length of the work divided by number of copies desired to be sold). But in a free market capitalist society, we are not guaranteed to sell our goods for the price we offer. I would sooner buy a pair of $35 Chuck Taylors (and be seen as a hipster), than to buy a pair of $60 Toms (and be seen as a worse hipster). That does not mean that the government would (or should) be pounding down my door, making me buy the more expensive (and possible more humanitarian) pair of shoes.

    With respect to computers (something I'm particularly well versed in), I could buy one of many graphics cards, which, for those who don't know what's inside computers, is a device that helps your computer display polygons (think: 3D video games) quickly and smoothly. I could get Graphics Card A for $50, or Graphics Card B for $100. The funny thing is: They're the same graphics card with different firmware installed (firmware is a special type of programming that hardware, such as a graphics card, uses to control its components). If I buy the cheaper one, I can 'flash' the firmware (not as exciting as you'd think) with one that is optimized for making full use of the hardware. Often this third-party firmware is itself open source, and as such, is distributed freely by the maintainer. In the end, who have I harmed? I bought a graphics card for the sum asked by the vendor, and once it became my property, I installed a different set of controls on it to optimize it, and make it operate equivalently to the more expensive card. Did I steal anything?

    You also mentioned people like Cory Doctorow. I have read many of his books, one of them I actually purchased! Two of them he e-mailed to me before they came out. The rest I downloaded through one means or another. But, yeah, he's got his hand in a lot of different pots, like giving talks, and blogging, and teaching at Clarion, and things that other authors couldn't possibly do... Wait...

    Other authors, though, especially mainstream, have embraced free e-copies. Neil Gaiman did so with American Gods, which not only boosted the sales of THAT book, but also encouraged people to buy the sequel. Of course, he also makes his money by writing graphic novels and screenplays, so I guess he doesn't count either...

    Show me an author who (a) is ONLY an author, and (b) is able to make a comfortable living off of their writing, and you know what I'll show you? An author who wouldn't be (and isn't) harmed by filesharing. Do you think that Stephen King, when he's not rolling around in a big pile of money or writing lamp-monster stories, is giving even a second thought to people downloading Tommyknockers off of Pirate Bay? I don't. And any author who isn't ONLY an author is doing something else because being an author doesn't pay as much as they'd like to live comfortably, and not because Chinese hackers are reading Lord of the Rings without paying for it (don't even get me started on Christopher Tolkien...), but because either they don't have the universal appeal of a NYT Best Seller (either because they write at higher than an a third grade reading level or they're too pretentious) or just aren't good at writing.

    I agree that when somebody distributes something electronically against the author's wishes and it has a serious economic impact on the author, then that is wrong. However, I also find it just as wrong to spend $15 on a book that I find out sucks. They're both wrong, but neither of these things should be illegal. I believe that paying for electronic goods should be akin to putting money in a tip jar. You can go to Central Park and listen to somebody play guitar all afternoon, but you are under no legal obligation to pay them (unless the laws have changed since I last visited NYC).

    If you take away filesharing, people who download will resort to libraries and reading in bookstores and other authors who make their work more available. I can think of countless times free digital goods have introduced me to an author that soon became one of my favorites (such as Doctorow), and many more that have introduced me to authors to avoid like the plague. It shouldn't be the peoples' fault that authors make lousy economists or are unable to adapt to today's digital marketing. They need to realize that stopping the flow of digital content with laws is akin to trying to stop a flow of lava with laws. Albeit, the digital content tends to cause less damage.

    TL;DR:

    I'm a copyright minimalist who thinks that the current copyright laws are not designed for today's (or tomorrow's) market.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  10. ByronBailey
    Member

    amazing stories editor said:

    The ability to draw, write and sculpt all existed well-prior to the advent of agriculture, yet we see no other forms of "tallying" that I am aware of. (Unless those ocher hand prints on cave walls are a tally - perhaps of visits - but I believe most anthropologists put those down as either simple artistic expression or as having some unknown spiritual purpose).

    I say:

    What looks like tally sticks made of bone have been found dating back to the Paleolithic some 30,000 years or so ago. It makes me wonder how much more common versions made of wood that was much more unlikely to be preserved might have been. Still, who knows what they might have been used to count? Units of time like days? The number of people in an enemy band? Something we could consider property?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tally_stick

    With that said, I think there was a huge paradigm shift when agriculture came on the seen. A very basic concept of property likely existed before then. However, when you're a hunter gatherer living a nomadic existence, it's hard to really indulge that concept when the property is limited to what you can carry with you. In such a situation, you probably don't want that much personal property. In such a situatuation, the meaning given to personal property might be slight. Hunter gatherer bands although tending towards the egalitarian, aren't absolutely so. There's differences in status, sometimes in different situations, based on things like skill or knowledge or maybe even looks. But the status tends not to be about what you own. Now when agriculture came on the scene, and the lifestyle became sedentary (as in nonmigratory rather than inactive), the people could now accumulate for more property than they could carry. That was an immense paradigm shift extending to areas well beyond mere property rights to things like status and social structure.

    One of the earliest Neolithic sites found is a place called Çatalhöyük and it looks like a city of a population of 5,000-10,000 people. But it looks like a city made by hunter gatherers. No obvious social status. No obvious palaces or rooms for the elites. No central planning, but what looks like maybe everybody just built where they wanted, resulting in people getting completely hemmed in, forcing the doors to be on the roof. and you've got to walk over everyone else's roof to get to your place. This at the dawn of civilization when people were still inventing civilization.

    I think there's an important class paradigm shift in regards to social status and class that might be just as important, ;possibly more important and the changing view of property might be just one aspect of it. Whether or not tallies go back who knows how long, many of the early civilizations do have extensive tallies, inventory lists, and the like. But these tallies, as far as I know, weren't primarily being used so much to let the commoners know what htheir property was. It was being used by the elites to know what their property like in the form of taxes was. Catelhuhok as one of the earliest Neolithic sights looks like they were still working on this paradigm shifft and haven't quite grasped that increased property can equal increased up to insane levels.

    Most hunter gatherers bands that we have now tend to have cultural safeguards in place to prevent one individual from getting too much status over another. For example, if a person is a great hunter and consististently brings back the meat, the group might start commenting on how stringy the meat is when it isn't just to bring him back down to size. They tend to resist one person getting too much power and influence through things like gift exchanges which is probably the biggest way chieftains acquire power.

    In short, there was some kind of paradigm shift that probably had multiple dimension when agriculture came on the scene. I suspect, much like amazing stories editor, that we're probably going through another major paradigm shift with the technology we've developed and are developing. It'll probably be multidimensional, too, extending to everyything from property rights to social structure and infrastructure.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  11. ByronBailey
    Member

    I said:

    Catelhuhok as one of the earliest Neolithic sights looks like they were still working on this paradigm shifft and haven't quite grasped that increased property can equal increased up to insane levels.

    I say:

    The missing word and it's an important word is "status." It should read "Catelhuhok as one of the earliest Neolithic sights looks like they were still working on this paradigm shifft and haven't quite grasped that increased property can equal _status_ increased up to insane levels.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  12. Ron
    Member

    Earlier in this thread I mentioned derivative works based on the original novel _The Wonderful Wizard of Oz_.

    An anthology entitled _Oz Reimagined_ will be coming out in February, edited by John Joseph Adams:
    http://www.johnjosephadams.com/oz-reimagined/

    Posted 6 years ago #
  13. Steve R.
    Member

    Excellent comments aethercowboy. The copyright/patent laws are "broken" there is no such-thing as "Intellectual Property". Copyright/patents were meant to be limited (time & scope) monopoly privilege to foster the creation of content that would become part of the public domain. They were never meant to "protect" the content creator.

    One aspect of so-called "Intellectual Property" that has not received appropriate discussion in the public arena has been the diminution of the rule-of-law. Essentially, the content creators believe that they are entitled to violate the rights of the accused without having to abide by due-process. In the interest of brevity, I will stop there. Some additional discussion can be found here.

    I'll just finish with this: Against Intellectual Monopoly by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine and Against Intellectual Property by Stephan Kinsella.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  14. Ron
    Member

    Aaron Swartz, Rest In Peace
    http://boingboing.net/

    Posted 6 years ago #
  15. Steve R.
    Member

  16. Ron
    Member

    Judge rules that in the US, Sherlock Holmes is in the public domain:

    http://boingboing.net/2013/12/27/sherlock-and-co-are-finally-in.html

    Posted 5 years ago #
  17. Ron
    Member

  18. Steve R.
    Member

    Posted on TechDirt: "Nina Paley Argues Why Copyright Is Brain Damage".

    Masnick wrote: "We first wrote about Nina Paley in 2009, upon hearing about the ridiculous copyright mess she found herself in concerning her wonderful movie Sita Sings the Blues. While she eventually was able to sort out that mess and release the film, she also discovered that the more she shared the film, the more money she made, and she began to question copyright entirely."

    Posted 3 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.