Who cares about killing ASCE's business model? They may care, sure, but why should we? They don't add any value anymore.
In my experience, the "final versions" are rarely, if ever, more elegant or polished than the manuscripts. It seems quite likely to me that neither the researchers nor the ASCE could tell the difference, leading to the dispute here. So, the only value the ASCE adds is distribution... and now there are better ways to distribute, so they're obsolete! There's no longer any good reason to give ASCE the sole power to distribute (or Elsevier, or anyone else). Open Access does just fine.
So the technology that was being used on everyone who wanted to fly is now being used exclusively on people considered too dangerous to let them roam free.
Whatever, are you really saying that there's a shortage of porn?
I try not to be a consumer of porn, but I have sought it out in the past, and I was always struck by how much of it there is. Even now, when I no longer seek out porn, it still finds me, and I am surprised and unsettled by the quantity and variety of smut presented to me. Even if you limit your search to very specific criteria, such as erotic novels about werewolves, there's still just so much porn out there. If you're worried about an imminent porn shortage, then all I can say is: we should be so lucky.
As to the quality, I'm happy not knowing how good any of it is, but the truth is that quality hardly matters. Taste is highly subjective and highly malleable, so whatever's out there is guaranteed to be good enough.
As for non-porn content, it has already experienced the same fate as the porn industry. There's just so much of it. So what do we have to worry about?
Re: Re: Re: Re: It doesn't matter what his motivations were
True, the term "privacy" does not appear in the Constitution. Then again, neither does the term "guns", yet people keep implying that the Second Amendment gives us a right to own and use them. Crazy, right?
The Fourth Amendment exists for the sake of privacy, and the Fifth picks up nicely where the Fourth leaves off. You might also want to think about the implications of the Ninth Amendment.
But even if the Constitution said we didn't have a right to privacy, we'd still have a real need for privacy, and we'd just have to overthrow the government and replace it with a better one. You know, like we did last time.
And as our three branches of government continue to conspire against us, it's looking like we'll need to do it again.
There is an idea that, in my opinion, is very important in any discussion of copyright/patent/IP. The idea is this: "Content creators deserve to get paid for each and every use of their content". Whether that content is a song, a program, a design, or any other kind of information, the idea is that the maker of that information has a right to be rewarded for every use of that information.
This idea appeals to our notions of fairness, especially when you consider an analogous physical situation: the skilled craftsman, whom I will call "maker" because I'm a Doctorow fanboy. A very good maker has the power to make something that no one else can make, like a Stradivarius violin, and there's no way to get a violin like that without either buying it from Stradivarius or buying it from someone else who bought one... or stealing it, of course, but we have ways of preventing theft. The point is that the maker has total control of how many copies there are of what they sell, and whenever you see a copy in the wild, you can safely assume that the maker got paid for it.
Moving back to the realm of information, we still have skilled makers, making patterns of information that no one else could have made. We value what they make, and we want them to be rewarded, just as the physical makers are rewarded... and the information makers want to get paid, so our interests line up. So far, so good.
But now we run into trouble: information, unlike physical goods, is very easy to copy. It may take a genius to write a good book, but any common scribe can copy it. And then there are the copy machines. In fact, go take a look at all the books you own, and tell me: how many of them are copies? In my case, the answer is: all of them. I don't own any original manuscripts (unless you count my own writings, but I don't consider my jumbled piles of scribblings to be books). If I want to read something by, say, Edgar Allen Poe, I don't have to ask Poe to write me a fresh copy, nor do I have to deprive anyone else of their copy. I just need someone who'll let me make a copy of their copy. And whenever I see a copy of Poe's work in the wild, I can usually assume that Poe wasn't paid for it, since the vast majority of existing copies (including the one on my hard drive) were made long after his death!
Now, this offends our notions of fairness! "How can someone get something for free? Someone had to have lost something!", we think. And so we call copying "theft of intellectual property" or "piracy", because it feels like something got stolen. But this is wrong. Nothing has been stolen. No one's purloined a violin. Neither the maker nor the customers have lost anything when one customer makes their own copies and gives them away.
Now this is the point in the discussion where pro-copyright folks bring up sunk costs. It takes time, talent, and energy to make good content, just as it does to make a good violin. Surely the content deserves some protection, yes? But wait! Somebody moved the goalposts. "Sunk costs" didn't even come up when we were discussing the Stradivarius. Why bring them up now?
But more generally, sunk costs are irrelevant, for 2 reasons: 1. There is no direct relation between sunk costs and quality. There's a lot of literature on this subject, but here's my favorite piece of evidence: going by official records, the most expensive film in history was Spider-Man 3. Whether you count inflation or not, that's the top. Worth the investment? I didn't think so. 2. There is no end to the amount of monopoly that we can justify by appealing to fixed costs. We could even justify slavery (The landowners put a lot of time and money into raising those negroes, so don't they have a natural right to claim the product of the negroes' labor?). Unless we're trying to justify the total state, we need to do better than to appeal to costs.
In fact, let me harp on that second point some more. Sunk costs were the justification for DRM. And what is DRM? It is the loss of control of your own computer. It invades your privacy and takes over your property. Snowden's leaks are only the latest reminder of how dangerous this sort of thing is. Crooks and elites are all too eager to gain control of our lives, and we shouldn't be giving them any opportunity to do so. That's why DRM is inherently bad (Why, Mozilla? Why?). I won't let anyone try to justify it with a sob story of how much it costs to make good cinema.
Now then, if DRM can't be justified on the basis of sunk costs, what can be justified? For the effects of copyright are in need of justification.
Remember the central idea, that content creators deserve to get paid for each and every use of their content (or at least, for every copy). The practical effect of this is to deny customers their freedom to communicate. They must either report to the creator for every copy they make and submit to a fine, or they must refrain from copying at all. This is a broad prior restraint on speech and press. Is it justified?
It gets worse. All manner of communication goes on in private, and all of it is potentially full of illicit copies. If we want to pay the creators for every copy, we'll have to either revoke the right to privacy in order to track down the copies, or we'll have to pass a blanket tax on private communication (in effect, assume that all people are guilty and punish them in advance). The current U.S. legal system has both the loss of privacy and the punitive tax. Are either of these justified?
In summary, the idea of getting paid for every copy is nice, but there's no way to implement it without compromising or abandoning other nice ideas, such as free speech, privacy, presumption of innocence, and secure ownership of personal property. That's a lot to give up, and for very questionable benefits, too.
That's why I have no qualms with "piracy", and I refuse to condemn the file-sharers. Not because they're heroic or anything like that, but just because they're doing nothing wrong. Copying, sharing, and ruining people's business plans are natural human activities, and no one has any business trying to outlaw them.
P.S. Given the opportunity, I would download a car. Wouldn't you?
This kind of betrayal by the executive branch is nothing new, nor is Congress's failure to do anything about it. Gene Healy laid out the problem rather nicely in his book:
Remember that the victims here are the academics who were forced to un-publish their own papers. These were papers they made themselves, delivering the knowledge they had worked to bring forth. Are you saying that these people haven't paid, or that they aren't smart?
Or are you saying that it was wrong of them to publish? Was it wrong for them to freely share their own knowledge? Your words seem to imply this: if someone can't afford to pay ASCE for access, then they don't deserve to have knowledge. Is that what you mean?
Like many others, I have received much of my knowledge for free. My parents never billed me, my college education was covered by scholarships, my libraries only fine me if I return books late, and most of the websites I visit cost me nothing. I have received free gifts in abundance, and I see nothing wrong with this. In fact, I try to pay it forward, so that other people can learn for free. Does that bother you?
These academics tried to add to the pool of free knowledge in the world, and they were denied. I don't see justice in that. Do you?
The IP maximalists allege that the purpose of copyright and similar laws is to encourage the creation and distribution of knowledge. A fine justification, indeed. Surely it must trouble them to see copyright holders 1) doing nothing to create knowledge and then 2) actively opposing the distribution of knowledge?
But no. They don't seem troubled at all. "They have the right", I hear. "It's their property."
LIES. There is no "property" in publication. Copyright can only exist as a special privilege, created by state fiat, and I see now that the actual effects of granting this privilege are what we see today: the exact opposite of the effect we desired. (See also: patents)
There is no way to balance this system. There is no way to reform it. We should reject the very idea. I think it's time to start pirating ASCE papers.
Carl, I've seen your comments here and at C4SS.org, so let me start by saying: you got screwed, and that ain't right. You tried to play by the rules of the system, and the system played you. Your situation sucks, and it's not your fault, and it makes you a perfect candidate for the kind of protection that copyright and trademark are supposed to provide. Indeed, whenever IP comes up for debate, its advocates always draw our attention to the plight of folks like you when they demand action.
And so they act, and they extend copyright and related rights, and they hunt down pirates and plagiarists, and yet, somehow, help never comes your way.
Help's not coming, Carl. It never was. The IP system really, truly doesn't care about you, because it can't. IP was made from the start to defend the big guys from the common folk. It will never serve you. It cannot be changed into something that will help you. It can only be destroyed, so that it can no longer make you false promises.
You and your work deserved better, but we so rarely get what we deserve. The only thing to do now is to figure out how to do without.
I give Snowden the benefit of the doubt here. What nations can he turn to for support here? As many have pointed out, there are very few countries today that aren't oppressing their own people in ways similar to what Snowden exposed, and there are very few countries that can stand up to the overwhelming might of the United States. He had to leave the United States, but where could he go? I still don't know of any good options for him now.
It may be that the First Amendment and Fifth Amendment do not protect a person's right to be silent about whom they've been talking to, and perhaps the Fourth Amendment does not either. But there's one more to consider here, namely the Ninth Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
I think that it is a natural right to keep secrets on whom you associate with, or what you see. There is a substantial difference between covering up wrongdoing and simply not talking about it. We rightfully condemn people for doing the former, in that they have actively prevented others from discovering the truth, but we have no right to condemn others for doing the latter, which involves no deceit at all.
Frankly, I don't like seeing anyone being compelled to testify under any circumstances, reporter or not. If our laws do not protect people from such compulsion, our laws are inadequate, or outright unjust.
Also, I find it telling that that compulsory testification has been used to enforce drug laws (which are themselves unjust) and to root out whistleblowers (who are revealing truths that the government wishes to keep secret).
On the post: Shameful: American Society Of Civil Engineers Issues DMCA Notices Against Academics For Posting Their Own Research
Re: Re: as a scientist...
In my experience, the "final versions" are rarely, if ever, more elegant or polished than the manuscripts. It seems quite likely to me that neither the researchers nor the ASCE could tell the difference, leading to the dispute here. So, the only value the ASCE adds is distribution... and now there are better ways to distribute, so they're obsolete! There's no longer any good reason to give ASCE the sole power to distribute (or Elsevier, or anyone else). Open Access does just fine.
On the post: Expensive TSA Nudie Scanners Find A New Home: Prisons
Thank you for flying Penitentiary Air
Fascinating.
On the post: Decade-Long Courtroom Battle Between Movie Studios And High-End DVD Jukebox Manufacturer Ends In A Draw
Oh my God... it's full of dicks!
I try not to be a consumer of porn, but I have sought it out in the past, and I was always struck by how much of it there is. Even now, when I no longer seek out porn, it still finds me, and I am surprised and unsettled by the quantity and variety of smut presented to me. Even if you limit your search to very specific criteria, such as erotic novels about werewolves, there's still just so much porn out there. If you're worried about an imminent porn shortage, then all I can say is: we should be so lucky.
As to the quality, I'm happy not knowing how good any of it is, but the truth is that quality hardly matters. Taste is highly subjective and highly malleable, so whatever's out there is guaranteed to be good enough.
As for non-porn content, it has already experienced the same fate as the porn industry. There's just so much of it. So what do we have to worry about?
On the post: Snowden Ran A Major Tor Exit Relay, Hosted CryptoParty In Hawaii While Waiting For Greenwald To Reply
Re: Re: Re: Re: It doesn't matter what his motivations were
The Fourth Amendment exists for the sake of privacy, and the Fifth picks up nicely where the Fourth leaves off. You might also want to think about the implications of the Ninth Amendment.
But even if the Constitution said we didn't have a right to privacy, we'd still have a real need for privacy, and we'd just have to overthrow the government and replace it with a better one. You know, like we did last time.
And as our three branches of government continue to conspire against us, it's looking like we'll need to do it again.
On the post: The End Of Maximalist Copyright?
In defense of pirates
This idea appeals to our notions of fairness, especially when you consider an analogous physical situation: the skilled craftsman, whom I will call "maker" because I'm a Doctorow fanboy. A very good maker has the power to make something that no one else can make, like a Stradivarius violin, and there's no way to get a violin like that without either buying it from Stradivarius or buying it from someone else who bought one... or stealing it, of course, but we have ways of preventing theft. The point is that the maker has total control of how many copies there are of what they sell, and whenever you see a copy in the wild, you can safely assume that the maker got paid for it.
Moving back to the realm of information, we still have skilled makers, making patterns of information that no one else could have made. We value what they make, and we want them to be rewarded, just as the physical makers are rewarded... and the information makers want to get paid, so our interests line up. So far, so good.
But now we run into trouble: information, unlike physical goods, is very easy to copy. It may take a genius to write a good book, but any common scribe can copy it. And then there are the copy machines. In fact, go take a look at all the books you own, and tell me: how many of them are copies? In my case, the answer is: all of them. I don't own any original manuscripts (unless you count my own writings, but I don't consider my jumbled piles of scribblings to be books). If I want to read something by, say, Edgar Allen Poe, I don't have to ask Poe to write me a fresh copy, nor do I have to deprive anyone else of their copy. I just need someone who'll let me make a copy of their copy. And whenever I see a copy of Poe's work in the wild, I can usually assume that Poe wasn't paid for it, since the vast majority of existing copies (including the one on my hard drive) were made long after his death!
Now, this offends our notions of fairness! "How can someone get something for free? Someone had to have lost something!", we think. And so we call copying "theft of intellectual property" or "piracy", because it feels like something got stolen. But this is wrong. Nothing has been stolen. No one's purloined a violin. Neither the maker nor the customers have lost anything when one customer makes their own copies and gives them away.
Now this is the point in the discussion where pro-copyright folks bring up sunk costs. It takes time, talent, and energy to make good content, just as it does to make a good violin. Surely the content deserves some protection, yes? But wait! Somebody moved the goalposts. "Sunk costs" didn't even come up when we were discussing the Stradivarius. Why bring them up now?
But more generally, sunk costs are irrelevant, for 2 reasons:
1. There is no direct relation between sunk costs and quality. There's a lot of literature on this subject, but here's my favorite piece of evidence: going by official records, the most expensive film in history was Spider-Man 3. Whether you count inflation or not, that's the top. Worth the investment? I didn't think so.
2. There is no end to the amount of monopoly that we can justify by appealing to fixed costs. We could even justify slavery (The landowners put a lot of time and money into raising those negroes, so don't they have a natural right to claim the product of the negroes' labor?). Unless we're trying to justify the total state, we need to do better than to appeal to costs.
In fact, let me harp on that second point some more. Sunk costs were the justification for DRM. And what is DRM? It is the loss of control of your own computer. It invades your privacy and takes over your property. Snowden's leaks are only the latest reminder of how dangerous this sort of thing is. Crooks and elites are all too eager to gain control of our lives, and we shouldn't be giving them any opportunity to do so. That's why DRM is inherently bad (Why, Mozilla? Why?). I won't let anyone try to justify it with a sob story of how much it costs to make good cinema.
Now then, if DRM can't be justified on the basis of sunk costs, what can be justified? For the effects of copyright are in need of justification.
Remember the central idea, that content creators deserve to get paid for each and every use of their content (or at least, for every copy). The practical effect of this is to deny customers their freedom to communicate. They must either report to the creator for every copy they make and submit to a fine, or they must refrain from copying at all. This is a broad prior restraint on speech and press. Is it justified?
It gets worse. All manner of communication goes on in private, and all of it is potentially full of illicit copies. If we want to pay the creators for every copy, we'll have to either revoke the right to privacy in order to track down the copies, or we'll have to pass a blanket tax on private communication (in effect, assume that all people are guilty and punish them in advance). The current U.S. legal system has both the loss of privacy and the punitive tax. Are either of these justified?
In summary, the idea of getting paid for every copy is nice, but there's no way to implement it without compromising or abandoning other nice ideas, such as free speech, privacy, presumption of innocence, and secure ownership of personal property. That's a lot to give up, and for very questionable benefits, too.
That's why I have no qualms with "piracy", and I refuse to condemn the file-sharers. Not because they're heroic or anything like that, but just because they're doing nothing wrong. Copying, sharing, and ruining people's business plans are natural human activities, and no one has any business trying to outlaw them.
P.S. Given the opportunity, I would download a car. Wouldn't you?
On the post: As Feared: House Guts USA Freedom Act, Every Civil Liberties Organization Pulls Their Support
Shameless plug for "Cult of the Presidency"
http://www.cato.org/cult-of-the-presidency
I don't always see eye to eye with the Cato Institute, but I really admire what they put together in that book.
On the post: Shameful: American Society Of Civil Engineers Issues DMCA Notices Against Academics For Posting Their Own Research
Re: nice story, but
Remember that the victims here are the academics who were forced to un-publish their own papers. These were papers they made themselves, delivering the knowledge they had worked to bring forth. Are you saying that these people haven't paid, or that they aren't smart?
Or are you saying that it was wrong of them to publish? Was it wrong for them to freely share their own knowledge? Your words seem to imply this: if someone can't afford to pay ASCE for access, then they don't deserve to have knowledge. Is that what you mean?
Like many others, I have received much of my knowledge for free. My parents never billed me, my college education was covered by scholarships, my libraries only fine me if I return books late, and most of the websites I visit cost me nothing. I have received free gifts in abundance, and I see nothing wrong with this. In fact, I try to pay it forward, so that other people can learn for free. Does that bother you?
These academics tried to add to the pool of free knowledge in the world, and they were denied. I don't see justice in that. Do you?
On the post: Shameful: American Society Of Civil Engineers Issues DMCA Notices Against Academics For Posting Their Own Research
It had to happen eventually
But no. They don't seem troubled at all. "They have the right", I hear. "It's their property."
LIES. There is no "property" in publication. Copyright can only exist as a special privilege, created by state fiat, and I see now that the actual effects of granting this privilege are what we see today: the exact opposite of the effect we desired. (See also: patents)
There is no way to balance this system. There is no way to reform it. We should reject the very idea. I think it's time to start pirating ASCE papers.
On the post: James Clapper Giving Speeches To Students, Begging Them To Stop Thinking Of Ed Snowden As A Hero
On the post: YouTube Video Taken Down Because Of Background Street Performer Impersonating Michael Jackson
Alternative headlines
Singing Michael Jackson in a Public Space? That's a Takedown
YouTube Says "Beat It" to Copyrighted Background Noises
Secondhand Infringement Spurs Takedown
On the post: Animator Sues Disney For Allegedly Ripping Off Her Short Film For Its 'Frozen' Trailer
Re: But, but...
And so they act, and they extend copyright and related rights, and they hunt down pirates and plagiarists, and yet, somehow, help never comes your way.
Help's not coming, Carl. It never was. The IP system really, truly doesn't care about you, because it can't. IP was made from the start to defend the big guys from the common folk. It will never serve you. It cannot be changed into something that will help you. It can only be destroyed, so that it can no longer make you false promises.
You and your work deserved better, but we so rarely get what we deserve. The only thing to do now is to figure out how to do without.
On the post: DOJ Describes Its Use Of Malware As 'Augmenting Content' As It Pushes For Great Ability To Hack Computers
On the post: Snowden's 'Dead Man's Switch' May Just Make Him A Bigger Target
Re:
On the post: Court Says Reporters Can Be Compelled To Give Up Sources In Whistleblowing Cases
Bill of Rights vs. Natural rights
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
I think that it is a natural right to keep secrets on whom you associate with, or what you see. There is a substantial difference between covering up wrongdoing and simply not talking about it. We rightfully condemn people for doing the former, in that they have actively prevented others from discovering the truth, but we have no right to condemn others for doing the latter, which involves no deceit at all.
Frankly, I don't like seeing anyone being compelled to testify under any circumstances, reporter or not. If our laws do not protect people from such compulsion, our laws are inadequate, or outright unjust.
Also, I find it telling that that compulsory testification has been used to enforce drug laws (which are themselves unjust) and to root out whistleblowers (who are revealing truths that the government wishes to keep secret).
Next >>