A while back, I wrote a post centred around how authors can control the destinies of their own work. Noone is less shielded from their work being stolen than those who publish their things online. Bloggers create huge amounts of text, all of which is covered by copyright law. However, they put the text online, which often makes people say “Hey, it’s free, I can use it as I want.”
Not so. First off, if nothing else is declared, then copyright law rules supreme. Within that, there are “fair use” provisions, or its counterpart in Norwegian copyright law; the right to quotation. Beyond that, if the author does not define a license, it is covered by copyright.
That said, I honestly believe that the world would be a better place if more authors had the guts to do what Cory Doctorow has done, and make their stuff freely available online. His books are available for free, under a Creative Commons license. I love what he’s done, and he’s gained somewhat of a following internationally, most of all because the way he does it, is pretty much the embodiment of Wheaton’s law.
When I took over control of this blog for myself, I decided to do pretty much the same thing. That’s why all of my posts are covered by a Creative Commons Attribution, Share Alike license, which means that you can use my posts as you want, provided you credit me, and publish your posts under the same license or a similar one.
Category: Opinion
-
Practice what you preach
-
What I like about iOS 7
Last week’s post was dedicated to a look at what I think Apple should have done in iOS 7. Now for a look at what exites me about iOS 7:
(more…) -
What Apple should have changed in iOS 7
With last week’s iteration of Apple’s WWDC, they announced a new version of their mobile device OS, iOS 7, with the focus being on a major redesign, and a move away from skeuomorphism. Now, sure, the redesign looks nifty and all, but you know what? I was pretty happy with the old skeuomorphic design. Changing it, well, I could take it or leave it, really. There are other, more nuts and bolts things that need to change if iOS is to stand a chance in the future. Here’s what I want, in order of priority:
(more…) -
Copyright, copyleft and copywrong: the way forward
A while back, I wrote a post about how the term intellectual property theft lacks semantic foundation, and argued that no such thing actually exists. Instead, I pointed out that the correct term would be intellectual property infringement. Part of the problem, when talking about intellectual property, is that, depending on where you are, different rules exist. While that in and of itself would not necessarily be a problem, I feel it is a problem when laws in one country are changed for the sole reason of harmonisation with those of another country.
Norway, where I live, has a copyright time of the creator’s lifetime plus seventy years. It used to be fifty years, but that was changed to conform with US copyright law. Now, this wouldn’t be a problem, if it didn’t serve to hinder the spread of Norwegian culture. The way this happens is insidious and not a little nasty, and it happens the most with books. A lesser known author has a book published, which sells moderately well; enough so that he earns some money, but not enough so that the publisher wants to reprint it.
A few years pass, and interest wanes. The book is out of print, and the publisher doesn’t want to risk the cost of another edition. The author, relatively unknown as he is, does not have the clout to push the publishing house to reprint. Fast forward to the author’s death: The book is still out of print, and interest is at an all-time low, with the result that a reprint is out of the question, even if the publishing house was interested.. Fast forward another seventy years, and interest is now relatively non-existent.
Here we come to the heart of the matter: Interest is not non-existent based on the quality of the work. It is non-existent because no-one knows the book was written in the first place. I see this as a grave threat to all culture, and in particular that culture which is so tied up in the language.
In the title of this post, I mentioned a way forward. Here it is: Instead of making still stricter copyright laws, make them less strict. Make it lifetime plus, oh, I don’t know, say twenty-five years. That’s the legal side of things. However, the author can also do something here. When publishing a work, do so under a Creative Commons license. Share the work.
I can, of course, see the counter argument from the publishing house, which goes something like “What? Are you crazy? How are we to earn our money?” It’s a fair question, but the answer is as simple as I think it is obvious: When writing a contract with an author; all rights of publishing usually (in Norway, at any rate) revert to them ten years after the last edition was published. At that point, the publishing house is out of the picture, and the author is left with a choice: Cling to the right granted by law, or offer the work up to the public at large.
I’m not saying it’s a perfect solution. I’m not saying it wouldn’t lose you money. It isn’t and it might. However, if you turn it to your advantage, it might not. By giving away one book when publishing another, you can hook readers in, get them interested, and, in effect, sell more books.
There are no simple solutions. This is one suggestion. Whatever you do; make a conscious choice, and do what feels right. -
How corporate greed loses copyright holders’ sales
A while ago, I looked up a book that I like on Amazon’s Kindle store, to see if I could get it for my Kindle. Sure enough, they had it, but they wouldn’t sell it to me. Instead, I was met with this message:
To my mind, there is no good reason for this. There is, however, a very bad one: Corporate greed. Because authors generally have publishing deals with different publishing houses in different regions, they lose sales. By the same logic, I should not be allowed to buy a book in the US, and bring it back with me, or order the paperback from Amazon, yet I am.
Ebooks are by no means alone in having this kind of problem. The best example I have, is regions on DVDs and Blu-Rays. The historical background is the divide between NTSC and PAL; two different systems for video tapes. NTSC tapes would be recorded and played back at 60 frames per second, while PAL tapes would be recorded and played back at 50 frames per second. The reason is simply that the electrical grid in the US transfers AC power at 60 hertz, while the grid in European countries transfers AC power at 50 hertz.
Now, while there was a good reason way back when, there is no good reason now, and this silliness needs to stop. -
On theft, intellectual property and semantics
I believe strongly in the power of words. They can hurt and heal, and they are our primary mode of communication. When discussing any topic, accuracy is very important, and using accurate and appropriate words for what you mean to describe improves your arguments. By the same token, using words that do not accurately describe what you mean to describe, while possibly an effective rhetorical device, weakens your argument.
-
Don’t break the chain, part 2
Back in September, I wrote about a post at one of the blogs I follow, which extolled the virtues of just doing whatever it is you want to get better at, and keep doing. I also recommended an app called “Don’t break the chain!”, which I had been using for a while. This follow-up comes because I have actually stopped using that app, and replaced it with another…
I had been less than happy with two aspects of “Don’t break the chain!”; first, I felt the feedback it offered was not enough, and didn’t really help encourage me at all. Secondly, I felt I lacked a possibility to track more than one task. In comes Lift.do. Coupled with a website of the same name, Lift.do offers a community of users, and allows you to track as many tasks as you wish. The interface is simple and intuitive, and works very well. In addition, there are no ads.
There you have it; a simple way to keep motivated, along with a community to help. -
Don’t break the chain!
For anyone who has been following this blog since I started it, it should come as no surprise to learn that I have had long periods of not posting. I was simply not motivated to write, and even though I kept jotting down ideas for posts, they just never made it onto the blog. That all changed in the end of May, when one of the Norwegian tech blogs I follow posted an entry called “Bare skriv!” or “Just write!” in English. It tells the story about Brad Isaacs, who met Jerry Seinfeld, and asked him to give a pointer or two to a young, struggling comedian.
According to the story, Jerry Seinfeld responded that, in order to become a better comedian, you need to write better jokes. In order to write better jokes, you need to write every day. He then told Isaacs about a method he used to motivate himself. He would get a big wall calendar that had the whole year on it, and for every day that he wrote, he got to mark the day with a big red X.
(more…) -
A new iPad
So, the latest iteration of iPad was announced last week. The new iPad, as it is named, is supposed to “have redefined yet again the category that Apple created just two years ago with the original iPad.”
Me, I’m not convinced. Let’s have a look at the facts, the improvements announced are as follows: (more…) -
I am not Anon
I do not think there has ever been any confusion on this; This site is a good example of why not. I post under my full name, standing firmly behind my opinions. The same thing goes for other websites. I am registered with my name on all of the sites on my Online Profiles section of the links page where it is possible. I do not hide behind a moniker or nom de plume. There are several reasons for this. It is not coincidental, it is by choice. I believe strongly in the right to freedom of speech, but I also believe that debate only really becomes useful when people understand that words may have consequences. I think that, by posting my opinion using my name, I keep myself honest and accountable. I do not post things I do not believe, and I do not post things solely to embarass someone.
A sometime participant in public debate, my opinions are my own. I claim them as such, and share them freely. I believe in sharing, free use and attribution, and I believe that, while copyright laws are useful, and sometimes necessary, there are better alternatives out there. Specifically, I think Creative Commons does a better job of defining exactly what rights you claim, and how you allow other people to use your content. The counter argument is that people can just go ahead and take your content. While that may, to some extent, be true, it is no more true than it would be if you claimed full copyright, unless you start using some fairly draconian measures to protect your content, measures which I, for one, am not comfortable with.
While I may disagree with the tactics and approach of Anon, I do understand them. I think doing things “for the lulz”, is the worst kind of reasoning there is. Doing them because you believe it is right, even if there is also an element of lulz is fine, but the root of it, the driving force and thought behind it, should always be that it makes the world better, that it is the right thing to do.
I am not Anon, but I think they have their place. -
What you need to know about SOPA
You will hopefully already have heard a lot about SOPA, the Stop Online Piracy Act, which is currently working its way through the US Senate, and if we do not take a stand RIGHT NOW, we may lose the internet as we know it. The irony of it all, is that the US State Department is currently very outspoken against internet censorship, as they should be.
The below infographic was created by activist group organized by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Creative Commons, Mozilla, Public Knowledge, the Free Software Foundation and others who oppose the bill. Please share it, please make sure people know what is happening. Follow the links in this post, and do your part. SPEAK OUT!