CONTENT CONSUMPTION THROUGH TECHNOLOGY
Tonight I was surfing around the internet trying to find something interesting to read (one of my favorite activities) while the pseudo-sweet sounds of Amunblane and the Electrocustics (Lucas & Nate playing everything under the sun on what has become a 6-guitar collection in my house) wafted through the hallways and into my office. Amazingly, something I saw made me think — a lot. I initially dismissed the title “Publisher Tests Selling by the Chapter” in my RSS feed from the Wall Street Journal. After some introspection on the idea, I came back to the article, and was disappointed by my inability to read the full article as, of course you know, WSJ requires a subscription. So I didn’t read it. Instead I’ll go on a major rant about this and many other things tie into a general theory of how we as a society consume content through technology, and offer a historical perspective on the subject. I may be very wrong about all these things, though I think it brings up a number of interesting issues that are worthy of consideration.
A month or so ago I was sitting around the Christmas tree at my home in Oregon with my parents, siblings and some extended family of the Beardsworth variety (David, Helen, Michael and Kathleen), who were in visiting Bend from Eugene. Michael is an avid technologist and brought up the then-current introduction of various “E-Book” reading devices. My personal feeling at the time was that these devices were utter crap. However, I didn’t have any particularly well codified intellectual framework for feeling this way, so as is often the case with things that come out of my mouth I rationalized my views on the fly, pulling from anything and everything at the top of my head. This neurological transport is often aided by the introduction of alcohol into my bloodstream, and this case was no exception. At some point during the conversation, I said something to this effect: “E-Books create a new problem where none exists”. This statement may seem at first glance to have no real value, but the point of my comment was to suggest that the consumption of penned books doesn’t suffer from a content consumption problem and that the physical property associated with reading has inherent value. I did, and still, feel this way. I have always loved books, even when they are nothing more than a set of reference documents sitting gathering dust on my shelf. I find reading developed literature and non-fiction in digital form to be somewhat atrocious (yes, I still print out every scientific article I read), and much prefer to have the book in my hands.
“E-Books create a new problem where none exists”. Interesting. It would suggest that there is no inherent value in the digital distribution of large bodies of work, and that the introduction of such a mechanism has major flaws. Certainly it does have major flaws. Digital property rights (on which I have strong feelings but will not discuss them here in any detail), digital distribution, content protection; These are all important topics the majority of which are not yet well developed in our country or in others. So is there some historical precedent on which to judge the value of a paradigm shift from real property distribution to that of digital distribution in something as fundamentally important to our society as literature? Eureka! Music! Let’s take a look.
Since the decline of 19th century classical romanticism and the introduction of the phonograph, the consumption of music by the body public has been inexorably tied to technology. Previously to the 20th century the only method for hearing music was to do one of two things: create music yourself, or go to a concert. Both of these have obvious value even still: the music in my ears right now is being created on real guitars by real people who are doing so for their own enjoyment, and concert-going has a long and uninterrupted tradition throughout all musical disciplines. The record was king in this time of musical upheaval. It may not have been the best system, but it was a decent solution. And music being as important as it is to millennia of civilized human beings, an incredible community was created around the idea of the ‘record’ and perhaps specifically the idea of a codified set of individual works which made up an ‘album’. Incredible. And for quite some time, the album remained king.
It can I think be reasonably argued that the movement of music into the digital realm was necessary and obvious. Even though music was distributed through the sale of a physical product through years past, it was still connected to some mechanism for its translation from the physical product into something that that could be consumed. Thus the art itself was preserved and its basic understanding by the consumer was no different regardless of the mechanism of retrieval. Now of course, it is easy to copy digital content and the idea of a digital work as physical property is horribly flawed, but this leads me down a discussion path to which I will not venture in this post. For sake of discussion I will lump the CD and the digital MP3 download into the same category as they both suffer from these problems. They are both digital content.
This new retrieval mechanism for musical art did, as its predecessor (the vinyl record), have a major impact on the object of artistic desire. Previously it was personal creation and concert-going, which then transitioned into consumption of a physical record or album. Albums themselves had obvious worth: they were the vehicle by which the art was transformed from an abstract encoding into something you and I could actually hear. Perhaps this is much in the same way that the art museum is the vehicle for the consumption of priceless works of visual art. But the introduction of digital content moved the ball into a whole new regime: the album is no longer king. There is no longer a physical vehicle through which music is consumed. None at all. And so what becomes of the album? It dies. It has been dying and will continue to do so. Songs are now sound bytes and albums are now just a collection of songs (An acquaintance of a friend once said to me “You know albums are just a bunch of songs right? You don’t have to get the whole album!” Yes I do, Mr. acquaintance, and you’re an idiot). Much of the music elite in this country and others will tell you that an album is much more than just a collection of songs and sound bytes. Guess what? They’re right. For now. But as has happened previously with any invention of a new content-delivery system, the previous structure that once stood so tall and proud as the be-all-end-all of musical desire will gradually wither away until it is a faint memory for most and an elite preoccupation for few. Perhaps I fit into that elite category; Music is one of the most important influences in my life and I still store all my music in album form (though digitally). I will continue to do so.
So what does this have to do with books and “E-Books” (I still die a little inside each time I hear that phrase, so I quote it every time). Let’s examine the content consumption mechanism of books with perhaps slightly less intent that for music, simply because the subject historically is far easier to understand. In the year 1440, goldsmith Johann Gutenberg invented the printing press. And we haven’t looked back since. The dominant form of literature (and non-fiction) consumption has been and continues to be the printed word. Printing presses have become more complex and more efficient and applied to huge range of content. Newspapers, books, magazines … there isn’t a point in listing them all. Any reader will certainly understand its significance. And, like the record of the 20th century’s effect on music, over the last near-600 years consumption of the printed word is the single most significant mechanism for which thought and information has been presented to the public. The community that has sprung up around the printed word perhaps isn’t even worth mentioning in the same light as that associated with the musical album only because it is so unbelievably significant that no blog post can ever attempt to do it any justice. It transcends volumes of possible discussion. The shear voracity with which the printed word is regarded in civilized society is no foreign concept to any even remotely educated person. Even I suffer from the “endless library” problem. I love to have books just because I love having books. There is something about a physical collection of printed knowledge that is almost mysterious. I can’t explain it, but I have no problem letting it exploit me. For the purposes of this discussion though, it is only necessary to understand that the book, the printed word, is the vehicle, and you and I are the train station.
“E-Books create a new problem where none exists”. What happens when we move the printed word into the digital age (let’s forget about digital rights and digital property for the time being)? Perhaps the best known example of this in current discussion around the world is the “newspaper problem”. I put it in quotes only because I have no idea what a person educated in the field would call this (though perhaps my father John could better define the problem, as he is a very successful and well-established newspaper editor). Other examples (books to “e-books”, magazines to “e-magazines”) are equally well discussed within this framework and my take on it will be as general as possible.
The musical album used to be the purchased content. Now we buy individual songs, and it could be well argued that this system isn’t working all too well (or at least the RIAA would have you believe that — they’re may be right through the lens of the “old” distribution system). In the realm of the printed word, the vehicle of consumption was the physical product. It was the book, the magazine, the newspaper. When you bought one of these items, you weren’t buying it for a specific sentence, phrase, paragraph, chapter or article. The purchase of such a physical item was in fact the transfer your confidence that the physical vehicle had inherent value (I’m overusing the word ‘physical’ here, but with good reason). And almost 600 years of experience tells me that in fact, we were right. The physical vehicle great value which greatly exceeded the collected worth of the individual printed words. I would argue that this is in fact true of the music album. Albums, as any elite music connoisseur will tell you, have a worth that far exceeds the sum of its parts. When you buy a book or magazine or newspaper, you are not only summing its parts; You are putting your faith in the creation of that work as an intellectual object that has inherent value. What an incredible concept.
So for me to read an article (or, because of digital content restrictions read the first two paragraphs of said article) in the Wall Street Journal titled “Publisher Tests Selling by the Chapter” brings to me great distress. Like the album became song snippets and cell phone ring tones, book chapters will no longer be available as a small but integral part of a consistent body of work, but rather as small, insignificant objects to be judged on their own merit. How absurd. (Warning: sentence fragment ahead) The idea that we will enter complacently into a new era where a collected work no longer has value. Ridiculous. I have consistently resisted the destruction of the musical album, and I will be damned if I won’t do the same for the printed word.
I am quite sure that the people responsible for this brand new marketing idea are simply understanding a general trend and following suit. But at what cost? What are we willing to sacrifice? The longstanding traditions of the printed world are one of the fundamental driving forces in our society. These traditions are arguably among the most important single concepts in this history of mankind. Certainly I am not suggesting that the introduction of digital literature and the segmentation of the printed word will destroy the intellectual precedents upon which we base our society. And I would argue that the length and significance of the history of the printed word will necessarily slow its conversion into a group of only intellectual snippets. I hope I die before this transition takes full force in the same way that the album has been destroyed. But maybe tomorrow, maybe next week, maybe a month from now, it will be possible for you to buy and own rights to a digital copy of only “Leviticus” from the Hebrew Bible, Old Testament and the Torah.
What a sad day that will be.
—
A caveat: I am a huge open-access proponent and technologist. I spent the majority of my life dealing with technology in one way or another, whether that be how I think intellectual knowledge should be distributed or how to do a finite element calculation in a complex geometry where chaos in interfaces is important. This is my first attempt at a discussion of this problem, and my thoughts may not be totally clear. The major point of this post is to spur discussion. I want to talk about this with smart people, and if you think I’m horribly misguided, I want you to rip my ideas apart. I’m not kidding.
I enjoyed this post. I printed and read a hard copy.
In the arts and music, the machinery for dissemination or transfer directly affects the consumption. I am less likely to enjoy a concert from the nose bleed seats behind a support beam than a concert where I am front row and center. The quality of the consumption is important.
I agree that the deep, nearly inseparable connection between the `product’ and the experience of consumption is self-evident. The visceral quality is part of what is being ripped from art and music in a purely digital transfer. Another part of the experience is the connection with the artist.
The album is a physical and intellectual representation of a connection to the artist - a substitute of sorts; intellectual in the sense that the songs are a collective work, prearranged with forethought for you. Your post nicely points out how effective the different media are in transferring the quality of the experience and the human connection.
This is not necessarily the case in science. By the very nature of our work, we scientists are more able to separate the mechanism of knowledge transfer from the method of knowledge digestion (e.g., printing journal articles). I hope we can begin to flesh out these ideas within science and scientific publishing further here on vdov.net.
Another idea you flirted with is finality and that finality should be maintained to some degree. The finality of vinyl records, tapes, cds, etc adds value. We can become attached to these physical objects because they won’t be modified, reworked and redistributed millions of time a day. I doubt I’ll ever feel a fondness for any particular physical address of my hard drive.
We already seem to be in a world where a search for a song by the original creator leads only to grainy, home-recorded, poorly lit, webcam video covers. The freedom to modify, correct, rework and understand ideas of any kind is hugely important to me. This freedom must be preserved (indeed, maximized and perpetuated) within an appropriate, perhaps even dynamic structure.
How we define these freedoms and this structure will be a long and messy battle. With art and music in the advancement of the digital age, I fear loss of quality as well as our freedoms. I for one don’t want pay for books or albums in commercial size bites.
Two thoughts:
- There is no such thing as “digital property rights” and the phrase makes me red in the face
- Selling “books” by the chapter is not a new practice, only one that is no longer common; Dickens released “A Tale of Two Cities” in serial form
I was already thinking along the line of Alec’s second point. There is absolutely nothing inherently wrong with a “by the chapter” sale of books, albums, etc in some cases. A lot of it depends on the artists intent in creation of a collected work. The obvious modern example is comic books. They have value in their individual form, with each individual chapter contained in a single work. However, the intention of the artist is to have a story arc. Several individually sold chapters comprising a larger story. Having all of the individual chapters is worth more than single chapters but you break no faith with the artist or the value of the work by buying individual chapters rather than waiting for the trade paperback (several individual comic books in one larger book). Television shows work the same way.
Now it would be completely worthless to own a single “chapter” of Romeo and Juliet. It was never meant to be serialized and without the full collection of “chapters” (however you would break it down) you are breaking a certain faith with the artist. It is equal to buying only 1/5 of the Mona Lisa or only looking at Michaelangelo’s David from the calf down.
The other important point which is separate completely from the above argument is the worth of “physical” copies. From a purely economic standpoint the ability to freely digitally copy any work reduces its value (from a seller’s standpoint) to 0. No matter what demand is the supply has suddenly become infinite. From a consumers standpoint the price you are willing to pay for a purely digital copy is reduced to the amount of annoyance it costs you to get it.
Examples:
-I know that several of the music collectors here have several albums that they NEVER listen to and may have only listened to once. (not exactly something you would pay $15.99 for)
-If you accidentally delete your favorite album it really isn’t a big deal especially if you have a backup somewhere. (vs. if you smashed your favorite hard to find vinyl in 1968)
Physical copies often still have value even if their “digital” counterparts do not. Take, for example, art prints vs. original art work. A friend of mine has an original Carson Ellis watercolor. You can buy prints online for about $20 but the original artwork is considerably more expensive. Music is the same as long as the physical copy is not just a chit for carrying the digital copy. That is what drives modern vinyl collectors and Acosta (and myself) buying physical books.
Also as a side note your last statement is kind of funny. While the idea of buying a separate Leviticus is odd to modern Bible readers, Leviticus was most certainly written as a stand alone work. The author or authors definitely did not consider it in the context of the rest of the Old Testament let alone the whole Bible. But it does raise an interesting point. The Bible has become a complete work, even though it was not intended to be so when it was written. On what level does the literary value lie?
I guess the total work can be seen as additive vs. synergistic (excuse the word). Is the value of the complete work worth more than the sum of its parts. In the case of a random collection of short stories by author X it would seem to be additive. Then I see no problem in buying the parts separately. With respect to something like a symphony the complete symphony has more value than the sum of it’s movements. Therefore, it should be treated as a complete work.
“- There is no such thing as “digital property rights” and the phrase makes me red in the face”.
Agreed.
“- Selling “books” by the chapter is not a new practice, only one that is no longer common; Dickens released “A Tale of Two Cities” in serial form”
Sort of forgot about this, but point well taken. I suppose I should have mentioned the specific example brought up in this WSJ article was NOT something that was intended by the author to be segmented. But then again I didn’t read the article particularly carefully. Ha.
I’ll need slightly more time to respond to this and other points.
In a quick response before I have to go meet with some people afischer, …
“Also as a side note your last statement is kind of funny. While the idea of buying a separate Leviticus is odd to modern Bible readers, Leviticus was most certainly written as a stand alone work. The author or authors definitely did not consider it in the context of the rest of the Old Testament let alone the whole Bible. But it does raise an interesting point. The Bible has become a complete work, even though it was not intended to be so when it was written. On what level does the literary value lie?”
etc.etc.etc…
I expected you to bring that up actually and I thought pretty hard about an example to use. I went with a biblical example only because it is a big, important example, though the fact that it was written separately and before its ability to be widely distributed is interesting.
Ugh I really have to go. Fak.
ok so some things have occurred to me after having read your comments and after having reread my own article.
1) technologist is a stupid word.
2) the phrase “digital property rights” probably makes my face (almost) as red as it does alec’s. that being said it is not the point of this article. i’m sure both alec and myself could go on at some length on the topic, but there is no point in debating that it is a current problem … and that’s really all that need be recognized here. this was a deliberate decision on my part to leave this stuff out of the post.
3) to everyone who sort of made or directly made comments about the fact that the artist’s (or author’s) intent is important, of course you’re right. far be it for me to dictate a standard format in which someone must create … that seems to violate the entire nature of art itself. but perhaps the interpretation i was looking for was …
4) that maybe it is the vehicle that is the thing that has value. i don’t know what value artistic ideas and creative content has. this frustrates me. but the relationship between the art and the album or the idea and the book is obviously important.
5) so when i read the title of that article in the WSJ, it bothers me. it is indicative of a movement to do exactly to the book what was done to the album. this may seem a little bit of a weird statement if you know me well … i love technology and would have made the same decision to move music into the digital realm. it’s not the technology i really have a problem with (i love my digital music collection) … it’s what it does to previous content delivery mechanism, which as we have said time and time again, has inherent value. and given my belief that there is no such this as “digital property rights”, it may be the only thing that has any value at all.
6) this was pretty difficult for me to write. content has no inherent value in digital form? only the physical package does? but i love technology and open information systems … and love the physical printed word. what the hell. everything in my life is supposed to fit into a neat little theoretical package.
7) at this point i’m almost delirious and i have no idea what i’m writing. this is what matlab does to you. fak.
i also make the mistake in my last comment of associating “value” with that which can be “owned” as property. that wasn’t intentional … and i regret it. please use the broader interpretation of the word.
oh! right … in response to jason’s science comments. yes i agree. it doesn’t really apply to science. funny eh?
that being said i still want to buy a new “physical” book on differential equations this month and i would never buy an individual chapter, because i both a) want the book and b) the information in any individual chapter can likely be pieced together from snippets i find on the internet … the book as a whole is important here.
now if the whole book was available on the internet (as is the case in many instances), i would probably get it digitally only because i print and bind in my lab for free … i’d create the book. if i couldn’t create the book … i’d have to go buy it.
man i have no idea what i’m saying at this point this is frustrating as hell. none of this fits into what i thought i thought. damn it.
A few thoughts…
The great artists, be it authors or musicians, create works that have a final completeness regardless of the eras current method of distribution. Tolstoy is my example. War and Peace was released originally as a series of articles in a periodical. Later it was compiled as a book and Tolstoy wrote more notes toward the end (there is ongoing debate on which version qualifies as the complete War and Peace). However, I find it hard to imagine a reasonable argument to the tune of the original War and Peace being an independently accessible series of articles.
I’m by no means an avid ‘technologist (made up words rock, even if they are stupid),’ I know next to nothing about the practical implications of codifying a set of Digital Property Rights. However, I can say something about it abstractly. The word changed inexorably the day Physical Property Rights were established in any form. They are not inherent, all sorts of property rights, in all their forms, are responses to different economic systems and situations in order to enhance efficiency, codify a system, and protect those who physically possess physical property (I would have said ‘own,’ but my point is kind of to say ownership is a product of, not a predecessor to, physical property rights). Rights in general are a tough cookie to crack. Do you have the same right to your home (post-mortgage, of course) that you do to your life? I would say no, one doesn’t have an inherent right to either, but in our society, one probably has a varying degree of ‘right’ to each.
Rights in general are mere tools to deal with the human drive for efficiency, production, and coalition.
In this light, digital property is just the new kid on the block. To insist that DPR do not exist… well sure, as no rights do completely. But, the powers that be wish to codify the exchange of digital information and I can see no inherent non-existence of this need or any inherent reason digital property could not be successfully subscribed to a set of rules (or ‘rights’) in the same un-inherent way physical property was and is.
Lastly. eBooks… (sigh). I suppose I am throwing in with the forces of reaction here, but I detest them. I love the smell of books, of newspapers, the feeling of paper between my fingers when I turn a page, the physical properties of books and newspapers in general, and the collectability of books for display.
That being said, I’m gearing up for their take over. The fact of the matter is, assuming a development of some sort of codified system of exchange for digital information, the eBook is simply more efficient. How long does it take for an author to distribute his work after he places his last period on the last MS Word page? No time at all, assuming he isn’t proof-reading. How much raw material is required to produce 1 copy? (Assuming that everyone already has a computer and an eBook) None. How much raw material is required to produce 1 million copies? None. The forces of reaction will never succeed against increased efficiency in a capitalist society, not in the long run anyways, and the eBook is just one new upcoming example.
God damnit. There’s a typo that will actually change my argument if not pointed out. Second paragraph, third sentence, second word: WORLD*, not word.
I should also add my favorite example of the un-inherent and constantly shifting nature of physical property rights. In the 1980s the citizens of the community of Poletown in Detroit saw their community literally demolished, against their will, despite their ownership of their homes, schools, churches, and despite their please to their elected officials, all at the behest of GM who lobbied to have the city give them the area to build new plants. A true testament to the relative nature of the idea of a ‘right,’ as well as to the true nature and purpose of government (to act in the interest of the ‘haves,’ in whatever form that is, in this case, fluid capital).
I take issue with the GM/Poletown example in one aspect. Simply because their property rights were abused does not mean that they do not have them. The same is true with all rights.
Also (as I am ignorant of this example) I am assuming they were bought out, forcibly, using eminent domain?
I do wholly agree with your last part though. Simply because the value of the digital copy is effectively 0 does not necessarily mean physical copies are thus reduced. As long as the physical copy is desirable and not produced in near infinite quantities then physical copies will have value.
A CD is not that great, mostly just a lot of easily breakable plastic produced in massive quantities. Therefore it is not desirable and produced in massive quantities.
Vinyl on the other hand is produced in small quantities and is desirable (at least to some). Which is why physical big black circle with grooves records are still collected for the sake of collecting them. The idea of collecting CD’s just to have CD’s is a bit… weird, especially with the advent of digital music.
I’m not sure that I care about the distinction between their existence or their abuse — it certainly doesn’t recreate their community or bar this from reoccurring. If you wish to say they exist but were abused, what meaning does their existence have? And I submitted from the beginning that the existence of a right is relative and changing, not that it does not ever exist. So, sure, under that eras version of a ‘right’ they had a right to their homes and community, then were forcibly removed while they protested to their government and to the men wielding the wrecking balls — all to no avail.
I guess we’d have to make a decision about the word ‘right’ in more general terms or we will just be going back and forth on semantics, and I’ve done enough masturbating today already.
My much broader point, which I may not have articulated, is that to get red in the face over the non-existence of digital property rights is going to be a waste of time and create nothing other than a hernia with no reasonable purpose. The word ‘rights’ here just means a method of codifying our interaction and exchange, and the word property is just an ingrained part of our society: nothing exists without ownership, so unless the digital information does not exist, or unless we do not plan to exchange it (which I think defeats the purpose), it certainly does require a codified system of rules for exchange, which sounds like property rights to me. Certainly there are BAD ways of going about it, but you’d be hard pressed to maintain a system of totally free exchange of digital information in our society without a major overhaul of deeper issues. Digital information does NOT occupy a totally independent existence from long-term societal assumptions and rules of exchange. To redefine or eliminate ownership, property, or rights for this one element of exchange is not possible without the a much broader and destabilizing shift in values — one I would completely support, by the way. I’ve been arguing against the benefits of physical property for quite some time.
And as far as that specific example, I would not have brought it up if it were an issue of ‘eminent domain.’ As I understand eminent domain that is an issue of a highway, or government project of some kind, which can reasonably be assumed to be aimed at the benefit or use of the public. A GM plant hardly fits that. Some people were bought out willingly. However, a large portion of the community refused to move yet watched their homes and churches and schools demolished despite their refusal — if I remember correctly, the last few who simply would not exit their homes were ‘forced out’ by everything around them being demolished anyways, they could not live there any longer in any reasonable fashion.
The fact that this wasn’t an issue of eminent domain is exactly why it’s worth mentioning.
The difference between non-existent “rights” or “codes of exchange” or whatever you would like to call them and the abuse of existing rights is actually very important.
The fact that in most cases public and private you are secure in your property is extremely important to the way the US economy works (for better or for worse, your world view depending). The fact that GM did this is naturally odious to most citizens. If no property rights existed then it would not seem fundamentally opposed to the US way of life. Violations of property rights (since they exist) are the exception rather than the rule.
Yes that is a wonderfully eloquent examination of surface level modern economics. Fairly irrelevant to my point, though.
My point was that a right is just a rule that is made in response to necessity in the interest of structure, efficiency, production. So that to say they can’t exist with digital property seems very false to me, as they are created and forgotten in the name of the three previously mentioned motives. My one example was of a case they were forgotten, nothing more.
And actually, GMs motives sat just fine with me, a business is in business to make money. It was the governments facilitation that left me reeling from the stench.
I see. It is interesting because a vary similar discussion came up here between myself, a bioinformatics programmer, and an applied math professor. It is very likely that soon it will be reasonably cheap and fast to have your entire genome sequenced, with the hope of finding markers of disease risks. The question then is the “digital” information of your genetic sequence then must “belong” to someone… who?
The problem with digital “property” is that it loses a lot of what makes property ownable in the first place. It becomes infinitely reproducible with no loss to the original digital copy. One of the physicists in Shawna’s program responded to the MPAA “you wouldn’t steal a handbag” ad by saying he would if he could copy the handbag completely with everything inside of it without in any way damaging the original handbag… if that was even considered stealing.
But in reality you are probably right. Digital information doesn’t really have any sort of mythical property of “needing to be free” and we will eventually come up with a widely accepted set of rules and regulations that govern how we deal with it.
Well you pretty much said what I would say. It is a relatively new issue, and therefore regulating it has unique obstacles — obstacles I’m not terribly familiar with (your example of the genetic sequence is particularly interesting, though I would submit the digital product belongs to the person whose genetic sequence was copied, and the copier would be paid as if performing a service — just as someone who gets a hip replacement owns the new hip, the doctor just rendered a service for pay). But I am quite certain that as issues of physical property have evolved drastically over the past millennium, digital property will evolve and codify and in time, no one will be able to understand why it was ever an issue; a few generations from now owning something with no physical representation will seem quite common place, and those of you fighting are surely laying the groundwork for that generation’s subversives, huzzah!.
“your example of the genetic sequence is particularly interesting, though I would submit the digital product belongs to the person whose genetic sequence was copied”
As would I, but consider this… If a hospital removes a tumor from you it becomes their property.
I imagine that when this issue becomes commonplace and fought over, and those fighting for hospital/doctor/scientist ownership use the tumor as an position booster, policy will change on that. It’s my guess that to date, no post-op patient has become incensed over his/her property loss, and therefore there has been no reason for the rules to be any different.
Just a guess.
wow so this topic is popular eh? at least it accomplished what i set out to do. i have so much to respond to … yet i have meetings and work through the rest of the day/night. soon though. does anyone actually work around here?
In trying to access the references to an article published in the Journal of Chemical Physics I received the message: “Error has occurred in eRights.” I have never seen this before. Apparently my institution hasn’t paid enough for my “eRights” to extend to citations. What does that right cost?
well, ok so this comment is fairly difficult for a number of reasons:
1) this conversation has evolved into something quite wonderful … a discussion of the ideas of property. i think this warrants a lot more discussion (that’s an obvious understatement), but as the teebs-afischer exchange here as been excellent especially as i think it might be applied to digital property, i am currently writing myself an email to write a post about digital property.
2) i’m very happy that conversation has evolved here … that was my main objective with the post. even though i now have rethought a lot of the things in the post by encouragement of the comments, i am counting this as an overwhelming success. i hope you agree. i haven’t posted here … and for that i am somewhat of a hypocrite (though that’s not perhaps the correct term) … but i have work. what the hell do you guys do in the middle of the day? (some of excluded … i know what you do and why you have time).
3) jrgreen comment #26 … this is terrible. i assume this is work funded by the public (as almost all fundamental work is these days … however we might all feel about that) and to suggest that i don’t even have the right to know about what the work is *based on* is completely absurd. the fact that someone even wrote that code is somewhat deplorable. but more importantly …
4) post the links you sent to me (eureka, etc.) and describe the significance scientifically. this is tremendously interesting, especially in the light of current projects between you, me, and some members of the vdov.net audience.
5) i would love alec to comment here. he was the initial reason we really started talking about the issue of digital property and property in general, and i’m quite certain he would have some insight. sorry to call you out …
6) tomorrow morning (assuming i don’t get pulled away by stupid lab crap … which is quite honestly very likely), i plan on rereading all of this and reposting. but … knowing that probably won’t happen, please proceed without my input. i know lame. back to fighting matlab and new government-funded proposals.
cheers.
These long, convoluted–but nevertheless important–philosophical discussions would be so much better in a salon,a club,a pub or in any case over a beer. See how captured by the digital age you already are? What you have gained in access to each other over greater distances, you have lost in “quality” of the experience. No beer!
I don’t mean to be fascetious. There is a different quality to the interaction which has both pros and cons. As a mostly pre-digital person (a/k/a a dinosaur), I am not that qualified to explore this issue. Only once have I resorted to what amounts to an E-Book, and that was only in an emergency in the middle of the night when both libraries and bookstores were closed.
But sorry Costa, this is a digression from the message to the medium.
“These long, convoluted–but nevertheless important–philosophical discussions would be so much better [... in a ...] pub or in any case over a beer.”
…. as they so often are. Ha.
Don’t worry Mb my guess is that Costa was plenty drunk when he wrote this so you have at least that taken care of.