…if all a writer can do is complain about how much better it was back then, and looks at his audience as if it would stab him and eat him the first chance it got, well, how much can you do? If someone demands that he is drowning in five feet of water, all you can do is tell him to stand up and point him in the direction of the shore. You can’t make him do either.

John Scalzi is perhaps the most lucid writer around on the subject of Intellectual Property. This rant is on the subject of “book piracy”; but I think it’s applicable to all creative endeavors.

View All

20 Comments

  1. You know…

    in the past, you and I have had a couple of scrapes about intellectual property.. (back in the good-old xnetgoth days, i believe… ).. but I think my opinion on certain things has been changing…

    First off, let me say.. I still don’t believe in the recently created adage that “information wants to be free”… for a number of very practical reasons.. for example, if this were the case, we wouldn’t need science, because natural knowledge would just leap out and tell us how everything works..

    Rather, however, I do believe that a number of people have wanted information to move relatively freely and have thus worked rather hard–and spent a good amount of resources, to create the modern situation in most western countries where information is extremely inexpensive by historical standards… Evidence for this viewpoint abounds in the history of technology–i.e. copy machines didn’t fall from the sky into everyone’s laps (good thing too..) but rather were the end result of a long process.. just as the massive telecommunications and infromation infrastructure that we now enjoy was the result of trillions of dollars of investment and expenditure… also.. one can also look at other places around the globe–where either through a lack of resources (much of africa) or a concentrated attempt to prohibit the free movement of information (china) that information isn’t just at everyone’s beck and call…

    anyway… despite this caveat.. I think I will be happy to watch the publishing (and recording) industry hit the skids… and this is where my position has really come a lot closer to yours, , I believe… specifically, in these fields especially, I think the corporate world has turned the original purpose of protecting intellectual property on its head to a great extent… Instead of patents and copyrights being used to protect the inventors and authors–they are used to squeeze out every last dime from consumers and they often actually prohibit a lot of creative work…

    Take scholarship, for instance, the “fair use” laws in this land are insane, in my view.. Often, for example, an essay written in a scholarly book is needed for a class.. Instead of being able to copy it from the book and distribute it in a reader (where you actually only charge money to cover the cost of the paper and copying..) you often legally have to go through the publishing company and they want money for every instance fo the copying… Now.. what’s the intent here?? Since this was a scholarly book.. they probably only ran tops a couple of thousand copies of the book, and aren’t going to print more–so it’s not like they are doing this in order to protect their book sales (most of the books get scooped up by profs and libraries anyway..).. because there aren’t enough copies of the book to go around…
    For me.. it’s just plain greed.. and greed doesn’t cut it with me, especially when it is matched up against the potential for learning…

    Overall.. what I think would be great–since I still adore the basic technology of a “book”–I like reading them.. I like having book shelves of them, etc etc–is to have “book stores” where all books were already digitized.. and where you could take a gander at them free on terminals.. see if you liked them.. read them all, whatever… and then.. if you really wanted it.. you would go up to the counter and ask to get a certain book.. and then a high-speed printing and binding machine would crank that sucker out…
    And you could have the situation that unknown authors could submit books there in digital form.. and then they could agree on a price with the owner.. and we could let peoples choices determine whether various people became famous authors or not.. (not publishing executives…)

    how’s that sound? i think it would work wonderfully for books.. and for things like music too… (and posters/printed artwork type stuff..)…

    Very decentralized–very market friendly–AND back to the original intent of helping creative types earn money on their creative works..

    1. Re: You know…

      Works for me. If you didn’t, I recommend reading the whole blog post I linked to. Also this earlier one: http://www.scalzi.com/whatever/003538.html. As he points out, putting a book out there to be read in electronic form doesn’t automatically equal making no money from it. I think it’s absurd that some publishing companies are balking at Amazon’s “Look inside this book” feature. a) it’s nothing we couldn’t already to at Barnes&Nble; b) it would be incredibly annoying to read the whole book that way, even if they allowed it; and c) if anything, it’s going to make me buy more books, because I’m more likely to buy if I can read an excerpt.

      I’ve always thought that “Information wants to be free” was just a useful simplification of a complex process, just like “nature abhors a vaccuum”. Nature, as far as we know, doesn’t have any emotions one way or the other; but vaccuums tend to get filled nonetheless. Likewise, “information wants to be free” is just a way of saying “people want information, and will go to great lengths to get it”. Look at it on the micro level and it’s meaningless; look at it on a macro level and it’s born out by observation.

      Of course, like me, part of Scalzi’s optimism stems from his belief that the majority of people aren’t assholes. But it has some weight coming from him, since he’s made a good bundle on giving much of his work away in one form or another. I think that the assumption of the author he quotes, that 99% of customers are dickheads, is something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Regard your audience with that kind of contempt and it will naturally come through to them one way or another, and you will wind up attracting a largely contemptible audience. Regard them with a sort of happy astonishment, on the other hand, the way Gabe and Tycho do, and you’ll wind up building a relationship with them which results in loyalty and better sales. Karma is another of those things that I think is meaningless when examined in the small, but tends to be a realistic predictor of the overall trend.

      I think you’re exactly right that the publishing industry, for the most part, does not represent either the consumer or the creators anymore. Disney makes their billions off of public-domain characters – and then gets congress to bump up copyright expirations so as to keep Mickey Mouse out of the public domain. Films lie moldering into dust in archives because they aren’t profitable enough to reprint, but they can’t be copied by archivists either. The DMCA makes it a crime for a blind man to read an e-book that the publisher hasn’t allowed to be exported or read aloud by software. It’s fucked up, and the more the content creators route around the publishers and create relationships directly with consumers, the better.

    2. Re: You know…

      Works for me. If you didn’t, I recommend reading the whole blog post I linked to. Also this earlier one: http://www.scalzi.com/whatever/003538.html. As he points out, putting a book out there to be read in electronic form doesn’t automatically equal making no money from it. I think it’s absurd that some publishing companies are balking at Amazon’s “Look inside this book” feature. a) it’s nothing we couldn’t already to at Barnes&Nble; b) it would be incredibly annoying to read the whole book that way, even if they allowed it; and c) if anything, it’s going to make me buy more books, because I’m more likely to buy if I can read an excerpt.

      I’ve always thought that “Information wants to be free” was just a useful simplification of a complex process, just like “nature abhors a vaccuum”. Nature, as far as we know, doesn’t have any emotions one way or the other; but vaccuums tend to get filled nonetheless. Likewise, “information wants to be free” is just a way of saying “people want information, and will go to great lengths to get it”. Look at it on the micro level and it’s meaningless; look at it on a macro level and it’s born out by observation.

      Of course, like me, part of Scalzi’s optimism stems from his belief that the majority of people aren’t assholes. But it has some weight coming from him, since he’s made a good bundle on giving much of his work away in one form or another. I think that the assumption of the author he quotes, that 99% of customers are dickheads, is something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Regard your audience with that kind of contempt and it will naturally come through to them one way or another, and you will wind up attracting a largely contemptible audience. Regard them with a sort of happy astonishment, on the other hand, the way Gabe and Tycho do, and you’ll wind up building a relationship with them which results in loyalty and better sales. Karma is another of those things that I think is meaningless when examined in the small, but tends to be a realistic predictor of the overall trend.

      I think you’re exactly right that the publishing industry, for the most part, does not represent either the consumer or the creators anymore. Disney makes their billions off of public-domain characters – and then gets congress to bump up copyright expirations so as to keep Mickey Mouse out of the public domain. Films lie moldering into dust in archives because they aren’t profitable enough to reprint, but they can’t be copied by archivists either. The DMCA makes it a crime for a blind man to read an e-book that the publisher hasn’t allowed to be exported or read aloud by software. It’s fucked up, and the more the content creators route around the publishers and create relationships directly with consumers, the better.

    3. Re: You know…

      Here’s what I think I see happening in the world of IP. Or at least, what I hope is happening. Democritization. In almost all areas, the existing IP systems have lead to an artificial dichotomy between the celebrities and the unknowns. With few exceptions, you’re either one or the other if you’re a content producer. You’re either U2 or you’re flipping burgers and playing bars in your spare time. I exaggerate, but not by much. Publishers – be they music, book, or movie publishers – encourage this divide. They spend millions making the stars even bigger, and ignore anyone they don’t think has star potential. It makes sense, from their point of view – large coporations love predictability (it makes the shareholders happy), so they put their money on the proven horses.

      What we are moving towards, I believe, is a system where more artists and authors make a decent part-time or full-time wage doing what they love, but fewer make millions. This is a threat to the publishers, who would have little place as they currently exist in such a system; the stars, who stand to lose their overlarge incomes; and the would-be stars who are in the business because they want to be huge, not because they love the art. Thus the backlash.

      1. true true…

        And I would applaud such a situation.. Mega-stars only encourage cult-like types of worship–which generally goes against what I consider to be good forms of human activity–i.e. using your brain and everyone playing a role in keeping things going…

        (also.. note.. I did read a chunk of that guys article.. and agreed with most of it..)

        Another thing that i thought about.. at the kinds of “book establishments” that I described.. I don’t see why you couldn’t have some built in features like “leaving comments on a book” or some such thing.. in which case, authors could then login and look at their comments.. and maybe realize “hey.. looks like I could use an editor–and this guy seems pretty good..” or people could also offer there services at such places as editors–a function I think is incredibly necessary…– and then they could work out deals without going through publishing firms..
        basically.. sort of taking the good things from blogging and combining them with more concrete forms of literature..

        In this way–you could actually create a ground-level-democratic literary community.. Books might change a bit in format… i.e. you might have “Slushcrash v 1.5”–as in.. yes.. the book was uploaded originally, and then has been through five revisions in terms of editing.. but what’s wrong with this??

        Hmm.. this idea intrigues me.. if I ever play the lottery and win–do you wanna go in with me–help me write the software so that we could set something like this up??

        1. Re: true true…

          I don’t see why this needs a lottery win. This sort of thing already exists in the less salable parts of the fiction universe (eg. fanfiction and erotic fiction). We’d need to add some sort of ratings system that lets new readers quickly search through the masses of junk (and there will be masses of junk) to find good stuff. That’s the only new technical work that will need doing (not that simple ones don’t exist).

          The hard part will be convincing writers with real talent to post to it.

        2. Re: true true…

          I don’t see why this needs a lottery win. This sort of thing already exists in the less salable parts of the fiction universe (eg. fanfiction and erotic fiction). We’d need to add some sort of ratings system that lets new readers quickly search through the masses of junk (and there will be masses of junk) to find good stuff. That’s the only new technical work that will need doing (not that simple ones don’t exist).

          The hard part will be convincing writers with real talent to post to it.

        3. Re: true true…

          I think it would have to be value-added for people to really flock to such a brick-and-mortar store… I can see it working as an internet mail-order service… in fact, similar services exist now, if I’m not mistaken… but I think you’d have to add something to the experience to draw people into an actual shop… a cafe, at the least… it’s a fun idea though.

        4. Re: true true…

          I think it would have to be value-added for people to really flock to such a brick-and-mortar store… I can see it working as an internet mail-order service… in fact, similar services exist now, if I’m not mistaken… but I think you’d have to add something to the experience to draw people into an actual shop… a cafe, at the least… it’s a fun idea though.

      2. true true…

        And I would applaud such a situation.. Mega-stars only encourage cult-like types of worship–which generally goes against what I consider to be good forms of human activity–i.e. using your brain and everyone playing a role in keeping things going…

        (also.. note.. I did read a chunk of that guys article.. and agreed with most of it..)

        Another thing that i thought about.. at the kinds of “book establishments” that I described.. I don’t see why you couldn’t have some built in features like “leaving comments on a book” or some such thing.. in which case, authors could then login and look at their comments.. and maybe realize “hey.. looks like I could use an editor–and this guy seems pretty good..” or people could also offer there services at such places as editors–a function I think is incredibly necessary…– and then they could work out deals without going through publishing firms..
        basically.. sort of taking the good things from blogging and combining them with more concrete forms of literature..

        In this way–you could actually create a ground-level-democratic literary community.. Books might change a bit in format… i.e. you might have “Slushcrash v 1.5”–as in.. yes.. the book was uploaded originally, and then has been through five revisions in terms of editing.. but what’s wrong with this??

        Hmm.. this idea intrigues me.. if I ever play the lottery and win–do you wanna go in with me–help me write the software so that we could set something like this up??

    4. Re: You know…

      Here’s what I think I see happening in the world of IP. Or at least, what I hope is happening. Democritization. In almost all areas, the existing IP systems have lead to an artificial dichotomy between the celebrities and the unknowns. With few exceptions, you’re either one or the other if you’re a content producer. You’re either U2 or you’re flipping burgers and playing bars in your spare time. I exaggerate, but not by much. Publishers – be they music, book, or movie publishers – encourage this divide. They spend millions making the stars even bigger, and ignore anyone they don’t think has star potential. It makes sense, from their point of view – large coporations love predictability (it makes the shareholders happy), so they put their money on the proven horses.

      What we are moving towards, I believe, is a system where more artists and authors make a decent part-time or full-time wage doing what they love, but fewer make millions. This is a threat to the publishers, who would have little place as they currently exist in such a system; the stars, who stand to lose their overlarge incomes; and the would-be stars who are in the business because they want to be huge, not because they love the art. Thus the backlash.

  2. You know…

    in the past, you and I have had a couple of scrapes about intellectual property.. (back in the good-old xnetgoth days, i believe… ).. but I think my opinion on certain things has been changing…

    First off, let me say.. I still don’t believe in the recently created adage that “information wants to be free”… for a number of very practical reasons.. for example, if this were the case, we wouldn’t need science, because natural knowledge would just leap out and tell us how everything works..

    Rather, however, I do believe that a number of people have wanted information to move relatively freely and have thus worked rather hard–and spent a good amount of resources, to create the modern situation in most western countries where information is extremely inexpensive by historical standards… Evidence for this viewpoint abounds in the history of technology–i.e. copy machines didn’t fall from the sky into everyone’s laps (good thing too..) but rather were the end result of a long process.. just as the massive telecommunications and infromation infrastructure that we now enjoy was the result of trillions of dollars of investment and expenditure… also.. one can also look at other places around the globe–where either through a lack of resources (much of africa) or a concentrated attempt to prohibit the free movement of information (china) that information isn’t just at everyone’s beck and call…

    anyway… despite this caveat.. I think I will be happy to watch the publishing (and recording) industry hit the skids… and this is where my position has really come a lot closer to yours, , I believe… specifically, in these fields especially, I think the corporate world has turned the original purpose of protecting intellectual property on its head to a great extent… Instead of patents and copyrights being used to protect the inventors and authors–they are used to squeeze out every last dime from consumers and they often actually prohibit a lot of creative work…

    Take scholarship, for instance, the “fair use” laws in this land are insane, in my view.. Often, for example, an essay written in a scholarly book is needed for a class.. Instead of being able to copy it from the book and distribute it in a reader (where you actually only charge money to cover the cost of the paper and copying..) you often legally have to go through the publishing company and they want money for every instance fo the copying… Now.. what’s the intent here?? Since this was a scholarly book.. they probably only ran tops a couple of thousand copies of the book, and aren’t going to print more–so it’s not like they are doing this in order to protect their book sales (most of the books get scooped up by profs and libraries anyway..).. because there aren’t enough copies of the book to go around…
    For me.. it’s just plain greed.. and greed doesn’t cut it with me, especially when it is matched up against the potential for learning…

    Overall.. what I think would be great–since I still adore the basic technology of a “book”–I like reading them.. I like having book shelves of them, etc etc–is to have “book stores” where all books were already digitized.. and where you could take a gander at them free on terminals.. see if you liked them.. read them all, whatever… and then.. if you really wanted it.. you would go up to the counter and ask to get a certain book.. and then a high-speed printing and binding machine would crank that sucker out…
    And you could have the situation that unknown authors could submit books there in digital form.. and then they could agree on a price with the owner.. and we could let peoples choices determine whether various people became famous authors or not.. (not publishing executives…)

    how’s that sound? i think it would work wonderfully for books.. and for things like music too… (and posters/printed artwork type stuff..)…

    Very decentralized–very market friendly–AND back to the original intent of helping creative types earn money on their creative works..

  3. What if they’re only 4’6″ and can’t swim?

  4. What if they’re only 4’6″ and can’t swim?

  5. May I recommend the similar rants of Eric Flint? He’s the only author I know who’s put actual data into the debate. He’s also addressed the surrounding issues in more depth than I’ve seen elsewhere, with examples for support instead of strained metaphors.

    He’s also a great fiction author. I highly recommend 1632 (yes, the whole novel is online free, and selling well in stores).

    1. that is brilliant….

      hmm… I wonder if we can get people like neal Stephenson on board for stuff like this…

      1. Re: that is brilliant….

        I don’t know about Stephenson, but Vinge seems to be posting most of his recent work online: Synthetic Serendipity and The Cookie Monster (both highly recommended). What he’s thinking economically I don’t know. He hasn’t commented. He may simply think it more valuable to be noticed than paid for his novellas, because they are awkward to publish anyway.

      2. Re: that is brilliant….

        I don’t know about Stephenson, but Vinge seems to be posting most of his recent work online: Synthetic Serendipity and The Cookie Monster (both highly recommended). What he’s thinking economically I don’t know. He hasn’t commented. He may simply think it more valuable to be noticed than paid for his novellas, because they are awkward to publish anyway.

    2. that is brilliant….

      hmm… I wonder if we can get people like neal Stephenson on board for stuff like this…

  6. May I recommend the similar rants of Eric Flint? He’s the only author I know who’s put actual data into the debate. He’s also addressed the surrounding issues in more depth than I’ve seen elsewhere, with examples for support instead of strained metaphors.

    He’s also a great fiction author. I highly recommend 1632 (yes, the whole novel is online free, and selling well in stores).

Comments are closed.