Aliens v. The RIAA! Win An Early Release Copy Of Year Zero, Techdirt's July Book Club Offering
from the join-in-the-fun dept
Okay, I know it was just two days ago that we announced the Techdirt Book Club book for June (and, a reminder that tomorrow at 1pm PT/4pm ET, we'll be holding a Q&A with Patricia Aufderheide for the Techdirt Book Club book for May), but today we're "pre-announcing" the Techdirt Book Club book for July. And that's because if you want to get a free hard copy of the book, you can enter a giveaway starting today. You may remember, a few months back, Rob Reid (founder of Listen.com, among other things) got plenty of attention for his rather humorous talk about copyright math. And, earlier this week, we wrote about his op-ed for the WSJ concerning ways to compete with "free."But none of that compares to Year Zero, Reid's new novel, which is being released on July 10th. It's all about aliens who go bankrupt after they realize they owe the record labels more money than exists in the universe, because they got hooked on our music, and shared that music with other aliens. Rob has released a video trailer as a teaser for the book, which is quite amusing:
I've had a chance to read the book, and I can say that it's awesome. Think Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, but with copyright law driving a major plot line. A mainstream humorous sci-fi novel that uses the Berne Convention as a key plot point and tosses aside casual references to Larry Lessig and Fark? Yes. Count me in. And, unlike most novels that bring up copyright, this one gets the legal issues mostly right (there is one point where trademark and copyright get confused, but it's so minor, you'll let it slip).
Anyway, as we said, this will be the Book Club book for July, and we'll be doing some fun things with Rob to have him engage with everyone here—but, if you're lucky, there's a chance for you to get a physical copy of the book delivered a month before it's actually released. Rob has the details on his blog, but basically you have to let him know (via a comment on his blog, a tweet or a Facebook comment) what song you'd like to beam to the aliens. Thirty winners -- ten from the comments, ten from Twitter and ten from Facebook (though you can enter all three) -- will be chosen at random to get books. So, go ahead and beam some songs to aliens. And just hope the RIAA doesn't claim that you're "inducing" infringement by doing so...
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: aliens, book club, contest, hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy, riaa, rob reid, year zero
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, I'll accept a physical book without complaint, thank you very much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Because all digital copies are obviously pirated, right? Right? /sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have high hopes for this. The moderated discussion with Jason Mazzone was informative, yet it felt restrictive. I'd like to see more interactivity in discussions with authors, even if only to be able to tell the author 'I purchased and read all of your book and I liked it.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sounds like a bitter wannabe author/creator who never amounted to anything, so attacks those who are his better and actually got published and have a growing audience. Sadly, you will just blame "piracy" and expect copyright to entitle you a living from your failures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As with all mentally-impaired people, one must gently and carefully guide them to the correct answer, making sure they themselves see the truth of each step and reach the conclusion on their own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Really? That's the best you got? That isnt even decent ad-hominem troll material. I've heard better from gradeschool kids. Feel free to attack me and contribute nothing else to the topic. I'm sure the "report" button will sort you out quick enough. Ta!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Um...how so? So, according to you, expressing my opinion by saying "this comment is invalid" and clicking "report" by a private individual is "Censorship"? In what universe?
He has a right to call me names.
I have JUST AS MUCH RIGHT* as he does to disagree with his comment and flag it as bad/off topic/abusive/whatever.
If you knew what a principle was, you'd understand this concept.
* Caps are for EMPHASIS, because you and him are too thick to understand an important point, so it has to be OBVIOUS to even have a small chance of getting through to people like you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
YOU ARE AN IDIOT (Caps are for EMPHASIS).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That point being that a flagged/reported comment is NOT in any way censorship on the part of Techdirt or the people flagging/reporting said comment.
You trolls have gone from pathetic to desperate to just plain sad. If you don't know the difference by now, after having had it explained to you countless times, between a reported comment (which is a comment that is being reported for reasons such as being blatantly off topic or purely disruptive ala ad homs or whatnot) and censorship... well, you're just an idiot. Not anyone else. YOU.
Also, all your original comment was was a pathetic insult, not even a good one. There is little room for disagreement there. The only option in such a case (as with all comments that consist solely of ad homs) is to report them and move on. Don't like it? Stop insulting people or drive-by dissing anything you don't like. Try and add to the conversation at hand and maybe your comments won't get reported. Keep acting like a douche and you'll get treated like one. In this case, with no respect and at the expense of your comments being easily viewable (because they're still viewable with the simple click of a mouse... which negates the very definition of censorship).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure it is. It's say that, if enough people click the button, your words don't matter and won't be included in the discussion.
If you cannot see that as censorship, well, you missed a lot of things in life I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
YOUR words though tend to not matter in general. Whether they're reported or not. Because you tend to not say anything worthwhile.
If you cannot see the difference between censorship (which as RD already pointed out means your comment is not viewable at all or you would not be able to even leave a comment) and reporting something that is offensive or off topic then yeah, you're still just an idiot who refuses to understand something despite it being explained to him in as simple terms as possible.
Now seriously, find something else worthwhile to say or get lost. Oh, and by telling you to get lost that's not me trying to censor you. That's me telling you to get lost because you're now just trolling and being disruptive for the sake of trolling and being disruptive (not to say you weren't already, which you very much were).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is still includede in the discussion - and probably even more so than non-hidden comments. How much further from most common definitions of censorship can you get?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I understand completely. I also understand that the siren song of Techdirt on censorship is anything that makes it even slightly harder for something to be seen or read is a form of censorship. I am following lord god Mike's own views on these things.
Using the report button to shut someone up, or to remove their comments from the flow of the discussion makes them harder to see, and that is censorship.
You may not like it, but that's the Techdirt logic for ya.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"That point being that a flagged/reported comment is NOT in any way censorship on the part of Techdirt or the people flagging/reporting said comment."
Sure it is. It's say that, if enough people click the button, your words don't matter and won't be included in the discussion.
If you cannot see that as censorship, well, you missed a lot of things in life I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah. Clearly the comments that have been blocked don't end up being discussed at all. Just look at this thread for example...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, you fucking idiot (and, you ARE being an idiot now) I am not trying to censor you. Flagging your comment (which, by the way, is still viewable) as being bad/abusive/off topic/whatever is not censoring. Censoring would be REMOVING your comment, or trying to ALTER or outright PREVENT your commenting. Clicking "report"
IS
OPPOSING
IT.
When you learn what censorship means, you can come back and talk with the grown ups.
Until then, stop being a fucking idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, but Lobo, you forget, its different when you add "on the internet" to it. In real life, that sort of tactic usually works. "On the internet" however, it only serves to embolden the tantrum-throwers as they will just get louder and post more frequently (and, lets face it, its a LOT easier to click a button and post than it is in real life), like a baby that can't get attention and only knows it wants NOW NOW NOW and doesn't care about anything or anyone else. The Internet is Baby Tantrum Enabling Device(tm), and our illustrious AC has discovered its power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Stop talking to yourself, idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Great comeback! What are you, 8 years old?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If the comment is still viewable (which it is, by a simple click) then by default it has NOT been censored.
If the comment were to be censored, in the manner that you mistakenly think it means, then the comment would disappear into the digital nether. To put that in simple terms for you... the comment would disappear and would never be seen at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If the comment is still viewable (which it is, by a simple click) then by default it has NOT been censored.
If the comment were to be censored, in the manner that you mistakenly think it means, then the comment would disappear into the digital nether. To put that in simple terms for you... the comment would disappear and would never be seen at all.
Then neither is delisting a website from search results. It's still there. Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except you can't relist the sites gone from the search results in one click, so.. wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We're really talking about what level of inconvenience rises to the level of censorship. I'd also note that comments censored on this site are done in a totally arbitrary and capricious manner (often simply due to who posted), not as a result of a court's decision. So.. wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When the shoe is on the other foot, you guys are all fast to shout censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I did not make a generalization about a single thing, nor leave room for my words to be as misinterpreted or spun to mean something else as you are obviously attempting to do.
No one needs to respond to my claim because it is rather obvious and abundantly clear what I was talking about and what I meant, your comment and how it was still viewable thus negating the tired talking point of yours that it was "censored".
You should just stop before you start. And also, notice what you did in this thread? Much like you've done in others where an actual creator does something unique and even participates in the discussion. You've derailed the thread with your stupidity and are attempting (and have succeeded) to railroad the conversation to something completely irrelevant. For someone who claims the rest of us are pirates and hypocrites and whatnot, you certainly DO NOT seem to be trying to help any artists whatsoever (at least not by shifting the attention to you and making the rest of us explain how stupid your viewpoints are and why they are incorrect). You freaking creator hater (to borrow a phrase from a troll like you).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, I fail to see how purchasing and using Rosetta Stone (I'm not a pirate... not sure where you got that idea, then again you ACs assume if anyone isn't on your side, which I'm most definitely not, that they are pirates) a program that teaches one a language (and not necessarily how to communicate properly using said language, because you for example clearly speak English but what you say makes little to no sense and is easily viewed as the ramblings and rantings of a Copyright Maximalist Without A Clue) would help you get past your reading comprehension fail.
Regarding high school. Yeah, graduated years ago. Top 10% of my class (it'd have been top 1% but I slacked the last three years and brought myself down). I'd love to post pics of my ACT/SAT scores and an IQ test (as well as high school transcript backing all this up) that I was given, but frankly I see no reason to prove just how intelligent I am to a troll (and it's probably leaps and bounds above you).
And sorry to say, but you did not respond at all even remotely to what I said. I even quoted it again in the comment you now replied to. I spoke specifically about a comment still being viewable and you spun that into domain/website. Not sure how. I was quite specific. So you see the problem lies with you (as I'd like to make clear, yet again) and your lack of reading. Perhaps you should take a class at your nearest local annex on English. They will teach you how to write clearly and concisely, reading comprehension, and a plethora of other skills you quite obviously never learned at any point in your life. It could be helpful. It might even make you a better troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
God man. You are seriously starting to tick me off. That you are so thick and so intent at grasping at straws that you resort to such stupidity in a pathetic attempt to make a point.
I'm going to explain this to you. Do try and keep up, as hard as that may be for you to do.
When a website is delisted, it is effectively censored. It may still be there, but only for those who are in fact aware it is still there. For those who DO NOT and rely on something like Google search to find it, it is completely removed. That is censorship. A website is now unviewable by people.
While it might still be there for those in the know, for the vast majority it has effectively disappeared completely. Which is the definition of censorship. Removing something completely.
That is the difference.
Now, the difference between the reported/flagged comments is completely different. The comment is still there. It has not been delisted or any such thing. In fact, it is clearly still there as evidenced by, "This comment has been flagged by the community. Click to show it."
Can you understand that? Do you see the difference? In your example, the delisted website is completely unviewable to the average person. There is no NOTE* or something similar saying, "Hey, the page is still there. It can be found by typing the following address into your browser and hitting enter. Or, to access said page please click here." That is not there. On a comment, it has exactly that. "Hey, there's something here that a lot of people found off topic or offensive. Feel free to check it out for yourself. To do so, CLICK HERE."
Now seriously, stop grasping at straws and trying to make a point. You're not accomplishing it anyway. And you're just giving the rest of us here even more reasons to just report/flag your comments and to think you're an idiot and a troll (again, not to say we don't think that already, but now even new people to the site will quickly see your comments and say oh "that guy's an asshat and not worth paying attention to", you do yourself and side a great disservice by acting the way you do).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wait, your version of censorship appears to be "when I agree with it, making it harder to get to is censorship. When it's someone I disagree with, let's just wipe them from the face of the earth".
RD, you should just stay logged in as yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
First, you seem to think that removing a website from search ranking without notice or redirection (so that the speech cannot be found) is fine, but replacing a forum post with an easily bypassed warning (so that it can easily be found) is unforgivable censorship. Classic.
Then, you completely distort the other AC's point into something completely different, and then attack that, in a glorious example of a foolish strawman attack.
Then, you pretend you know exactly who it is posting, even though you know just as much about him in reality as we do about you. But, I'm sure you'll get mardy if one of us confuses you with one of the other ACs, right?
Yet, this is what you think represents "truth", and think that your word should be taken as gospel. Hilarious! I only despair that my social life will interfere with my comedy intake once I leave work in a few minutes... Have a good weekend, try not to obsess over imagined wrong for too long - it's sunny outside!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That one wasnt me, but thanks for the props!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Secondly, while the website is still there technically and free speech can continue on it, you're deliberately ignoring a rather significant portion of my comment. That being that the average person who attempted to get to said website is NOT able to because it's not showing up in the search results. And as I pointed out, while this would pose no problem for someone aware of other ways of reaching the site, for the average person who isn't aware of such means or that the site may have another address entirely, the website is effectively censored and gone from the web.
Which is rather different than a reported/flagged comment that literally has something say, yet again, "Hey look at me! There's something here! Click to view!" It's right there, it is NOT censored. It is very much viewable. That makes it not censorship. For the upteenth time.
Regarding your "when I agree with it" bit, wtf are you talking about? Seriously. That is not me being sarcastic or rude, I honestly have no idea wtf you're talking about. I said no such thing, nor did I say anything that could be interpreted as such. I quite clearly, again, explained the difference between actual censorship and a reported/flagged comment. That difference being one is completely gone/wiped from existence (censorship) and the other is still there and completely viewable at the click of a button (reported/flagged). That you still can't discern the difference leads me to wonder just how intelligent you are. I no longer believe you're just trolling. I genuinely believe you cannot grasp the difference, and the only logical reason for that is that you potentially suffer from either a lack of intelligence (highly likely) or you suffer from some genetic defect that limits your ability to understand reason and logic (highly doubtful).
AC, you should just stop already. The point has been abundantly explained. And, again, you're just showing to others that you're either a troll or an idiot. Which is great. Doesn't bother me in the least. You be proud of who you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Anonymous Coward, Jun 7th, 2012 @ 3:33pm
I'll bet this thing stinks worse than Sita Sings The Blues; as hard as that is to imagine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Now, in case you didn't learn your lesson the last time. If you keep reposting already reported/flagged comments then your reposted ones will just flagged too. Get that through your thick skull. And stop with the "wah wah censorship" bullshit. It's not censorship, it never has been. And if you don't like it then fucking leave already. No one's got a gun to your head and is forcing you to come to a site where your comments will be "censored" (I put that in quotes because they're not being censored but you're too stupid to figure that out, so I had to put it in a way your feeble and pathetic little mind would understand).
Oh, and I reported your comment before I bothered to reply. Why? Because you're an idiot who cannot understand what real censorship is. That'd be something you positively and whole heartedly supported with things like SOPA. It's amusing how pathetically you try and grasp at straws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Right, just like search engine delisting of websites adjudicated as being dedicated to infringing. Glad to see you embracing the tenets of SOPA when it suits you. According to you, if a website "is still viewable in any way, shape or form then it is not being censored". Fucking hypocrite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
me too!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't read ebooks, so I guess I'll be buying this..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
though the bloody Canadians can get it???
right!!!!
*stews and revels in my insane anger and wonders how to contact these aliens who owe the USA royalties and wonders if I should point out that Canada is America, just with different spelling and funny accents..... damn did I just type that out loud?*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keep it up guys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]