Posts by jon_knox
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
The beauty of the e-book is that it costs stuff-all to write and deliver
Though I agree with idea of delivery costs being reduced, well more the risks of physcial distribution, I don't see how the cost of writing has been impacted.
e-books also in all likelihood dilute the share of royalties to the author, unless the author is also the person who performs the reading.
The consider all the recording & proofing type activities. Add in translation to another language for another world of complexity.
Finding someone with a suitable voice and skill in reading aloud could be quite a task.
-
The other danger is that there is a proliferation of red tape.
-
Iit struck me a few days ago for authors who have already signed a publishing deal, that wising-up by getting favourable terms for subsidiary rights isn't going to make much, or even a jot of difference.
If the back catalog contains your gold, then it's to your benefit to protect a regime that protects your means of deriving an income.
Andrew Dubber's comments regarding producing works specifically for the internet come to mind.
Format shifting seems to me fairly irrelevant if the work is already available in the format that consumer wants, which is why I'm not seeing the T2S applications as a big deal. Is the price elasticity of demand so sensitive to price and insensitive to quality that a T2S version of a work is considered a reasonable threat? (and I get that T2S minimizes cost)
Of course the big fear is that those works specifically for the internet are so easily distributed via the internet that the commercial value of those works are damaged
What does "the commercial value of those works are damaged" really mean? Does it mean impossible to derive an income, or impossible to earn a living, or is simply it that the income derived is less than the work might have been worth in the mythical good ol' days?
I located a shorter (10 min) recording of the Cory Doctorow lecture on Technology & Freedom and I think it effective in exploring some of the philosophy of restriction (it even talks about gambling, so particularly relevant to this thread.)
The longer (86 min) version of Cory's lecture is well worth taking in, particularly the tail end as the context broadens out.
-
should a nation re appropriate its perceived heritage or should they buy it?
What about Sir Edmund Hillary's house and the notion that the section might be worth more if torn down in a property developer's scheme? All of which probably means that Ed's family might suffer a larger windfall.
Who get's to make the call on where the line of cultural significance becomes sufficient and whether that valuation will hold true in the future? (Oh for a good soothsayer!)
Changing tack slightly, I wonder if Sir Edmund found it objectionable or disrespectful that people that he never meet are so accustomed to referring to him as “Sir Ed”, “Ed”, “old Ed”, or any variation thereupon.
It strikes me as a little back to front that we seemingly care & afford more protection to the products of a person’s imagination (in some particular forms), than how we deal or refer to a deceased person.
-
Emma are you a weak or a strong atheist? What lead you to that view, rather than agnosticism?
-
Oh well, publish your irony & hope it's picked-up.
-
Presentation from Cory Doctorow - Freedom and technology: who's the master? 86 mins available as audio & video.
Eplores technology as an agent of transparency.
-
To mark Seaweek, Radio NZ have another podcast (mp3, 13 mins) regarding the techniques used in marine ecology research, which may (or may not) provide additional insight into the Kaipara habour segment.
-
Ta for the link Lyndon.
So identifying a topic as controversial and discussing the philosophical causes of the controversy breaches broadcasting standards regarding balance because there wasn't a creationist present.
Despite 2 out of 3 guests taking a stance supporting 2 world-views, Mr Price wrote on his blog
So, how many of Laidlaw’s three guests argued for creationism to be taught in schools? Not one.
As Bill Martin points out during the discussion, which flavour of creationist would you include and/or which would you exclude the views of?
Could it be a lawyer takes a simplistic stance to stir the pot and give himself something to blog about?
-
the preface of James Boyle's book seems worth a read.
This book is an attempt to tell the story of the battles over intellectual property, the range wars of the information age. I want to convince you that intellectual property is important, that it is something that any informed citizen needs to know a little about, in the same way that any informed citizen needs to know at least something about the environment, or civil rights, or the way the economy works. I will try my best to be fair, to explain the issues and give both sides of the argument.