copyright and arrogant science
Posted by earthling at 13:28, 07 Aug 2010There is an interesting article today in Der Spiegel, which reports about work by an economic historian. These people study how economies developed, rather than being plain old historians who pay attention to their cash flow and investments, nor are they studying the history of economic theories.
This particular research (by Eckhard Höffner) says that the lack of copyright in Germany in the 19th century result in the country's rapid economic development, compared to neighboring France and the then dominating England. The publishing rate of books in 1943 in Germany was more than 10 times that in England. Books were reprinted (presumably without compensation to the original author, and the original publisher), and cheap books were available to the general public.
The public then read lots of useful and useless books, invented this and that, a bunch of people started small businesses, and there you have it, a backward agricultural state develops into a major industrial power in measely 100 years. Because they didn't have copyright, or at least copyright enforcement. Meanwhile in England, publishers are driving around in guilded coaches paid for by expensive books, sold to rich aristocrats who don't read them.
So that's this theory. Well, hypothesis strictly speaking.
It got me thinking about another side effect of today's copyright, namely the high cost of real science books. Real science books are generally written for students, and the real hard core stuff for graduate students. Since that's a captive market, prices are high. Because prices are high, nobody with a more casual interests in the hard core stuff buys these books.
These high prices alienate many people, and create first the appearance of a society of scientists that is bent on excluding the public, and then create an isolated society of scientists. Many times scientists complain that the public doesn't listen to them, and that the public isn't interested. While that is true, the lack of interest is reinforced simply by making the real science books unaffordable.
In the meantime, it's not like the authors of these expensive science books are getting rich from it.
Bookmark/Search this post with
- earthling's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
14 July 2008
6 days 3 hours
Excellent subject and commentary!
If I may, I don't have anything against the idea of basic copyright protection when it comes to the result of applied thought. Certain inventions and mechanical concepts are the payday for those who think them up. Lacking this, there would be less incentive to create.
That being said, as a father with his youngest now in college, I understand just all too well the issue with the cost of scholastic text books. She pays exorbitant prices for these items for class and then gets pennies on the dollar when it comes time to return them for recirculation.
It is nothing short of a racket that makes intellectual material nearly out of reach for the common citizen.
In closing, I would also like to add that the contemporary views of intellectual property and the laws that have turned an entire generation into a class of digital criminals, has already gone far out to sea.
(*The term 'Far out to sea' is copyrighted by Redoubt - © 2010 - and cannot be used, reproduced or repeated in public without expressed, written permission. Laws regarding the unauthorized use of copyrighted materials allow for severe penalties for violators, including but not limited to fines, jail time and hangnailing.)
"The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it."
6 February 2008
13 weeks 23 hours
Wait a minute you thief, I invented the term years ago... ;)
But I agree with earthling on this one.
1 May 2004
18 hours 7 min
I have to disagree on the textbook theory. While new textbooks are wildly expensive, the used variety are very cheap and approachable. As long as you don't mind being a couple of years behind, you can generally get good deals. The textbook publishers put out new editions as frequently as possible, sometimes only with minor or even cosmetic changes. This holds true with fields that don't change as well as those that are rapidly advancing.
Unless you are following the extreme cutting edge in something like computer science or theoretical physics, my advice is to buy a used previous edition. It will save you big bucks.
12 April 2007
45 min 44 sec
Many American citizens may not be aware that, during its initial years, their nation acted like a veritable pirate industry.
America didn't respect copyrights of books and inventions published or created in Europe. And that's why, like France, it quickly developed into an industrial giant. in the late XIXth century.
This all changed when Americans started developing inventions of THEIR own, and became obsessed with copyright infringements. The best example of this is none other than the Wizard of Menlo Park: Edison —who in his later years was more concerned with defending his patents than actually INVENTING anything new.
Ironic, considering Edison *stole* the idea of the cinematograph from the Lumiere brothers :-/
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
28 June 2006
2 days 9 hours
Ironic, considering Edison *stole* the idea of the cinematograph from the Lumiere brothers :-/
He stole many of his ideas from people that worked for him and from other people that he knew. He even tried to steal the patent for the telephone from Alexander Graham Bell.
What do you think?
cnnek
{You Can Teach People How To Think Critically Or What To Think; But, You Can't Do Both! It Is Better To Teach People How To Think Critically!!!}
14 April 2009
20 min 38 sec
Ironic, considering Edison *stole* the idea of the cinematograph from the Lumiere brothers :-/
He stole many of his ideas from people that worked for him and from other people that he knew. He even tried to steal the patent for the telephone from Alexander Graham Bell.
Copyright law is going to COMPLETELY IMPLODE eventually.
Just think: with the internet and computers, we have a medium that REMEMBERS EVERYTHING.
So, eventually, we will reach a stage in our development (barring extinction events), where artists and writers and suchnot...will never get to claim that they came up with something 'on their own' because there will be proof that it has been thought up, before.
I look forward to this time.
---------
All that lives is holy, life delights in life.
--William Blake
22 November 2004
2 weeks 14 hours
I don't think the description that the internet remembers everything is accurate, far from it.
The internet remembers next to nothing about pre-1995. People also assume that if you can't find something with the big search engines, it doesn't exist. Not that this has much to do with copyright.
There is also the fact the people do come up with the same things independently. The light bulb was invented several times, as was the automobile. Probably 10% of computer science students invent the binary search. This one has more to do with patents than copyright. Just that Alice did something first doesn't mean that Bob copied from her.
----
We are the cat.
8 August 2010
1 year 26 weeks
Are you really saying that writers and artists don't deserve to make money off their work?
These discussions always frustrates me, because no one ever considers the people who are working to create the things they want to get for free. They just steal from them via the internet and say it's not stealing but part of a general breakdown in the copyright law.
So, how would writers and artists get any compensation for their work, without copyright law? Has anyone ever thought about this? Most artists and writers don't make much money as it is, so its not like they're bilking the public now.
I wish I could say that they would stop producing anything if they stopped making money off of it, but they already work for not very much money now, and have worked for less in the past, so they will probably keep working and being screwed over by society.
I apologize for being so vitriolic but this really does frustrate me. And I really am curious how people think this would work.
22 November 2004
2 weeks 14 hours
Writers and artists make very little money, except for a very small minority, as you point out.
Most of the money is being made by publishers of the various types.
I have published a few professional articles, mostly as a graduate student or as an employee. They are copyrighted in the old fashioned way, and I have not seen 1 cent, and never will. I worked on some now patented inventions as a central contributor. Same deal, I get nothing.
Most music artists can't make a living off their music. Most science work for copyright is done by students, who get little of the credit and none of the money.
Is the copyright and patent system actually working right now to support continued invention?
Or are we seeing continued invention and creative work in spite of it?
----
We are the cat.
7 August 2004
25 weeks 1 day
Human history is riddled with men and women all vying for notoriety, standing on the backs of those less charismatic, less forceful, less domineering, yet more intelligent, more gifted than themselves...
Since we are talking about Edison, then I feel impelled here to mention Nikola Tesla. Not only was Tesla genius, he was a humble servant to humanity. His inventions were for the betterment of Mankind(Women included, "Peoplekind"..."humans"...erg), and what happened to him? Because his ideas revolved around a desire to abolish poverty, all of his financiers(who obviously recognized his genius AND his intent since he made no qualms about publicly proclaiming those intentions)abandoned him to finance the more profitable "inventor"...The thief known as Thomas Alva Edison.
His most famous quote should tell you enough about the man, "Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety-nine percent perspiration."
It did not take "perspiration" for Tesla to conceive of his myriad of inventions. They were all there in his head...he only needed the resources to realize them. Edison however, produced gallons of perspiration stealing ideas, beating his rivals to patents, and acquiring funding that would ensure that the human race would continue to pay these financiers well beyond his own death.
Thomas Edison. Master Thief. His "inventions" are STILL stealing from us.
Dustin
12 April 2007
45 min 44 sec
IMO the differences found between Edison & Tesla was the goals they had with their inventions:
Tesla wanted to change the world.
Edison wanted to build a company.
Capitalism favors only the latter.
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
21 February 2009
1 day 5 hours
Tell me about it, my first year uni general geology book cost me £45. I still have it; good book though. I guess low print volumes (by comparison with Harry Potter etc) and expensive format (lots of diagrams and pictures) guarantee that its not going to be £5.99
In a sense the capitalisation of that part of learning should be seen as going against the spirit of free education. I really don't think we're ever going to find it easy to read up on subjects when it costs that much. I guess there are libraries though.
We could pay for text books through taxation and provide them for free to anyone, plus provide free access to all scientific papers and journals. Getting rid of one nuclear submarine would probably pay for it.
Then again I see that the Iranian woman who was to be stoned to death for adultery has now had her sentence reduced to hanging. Her lawyer however has had to flee the country and his wife has been imprisoned for the past 2 weeks without charge, so if we gave up all our sticks we'd probably be dead by next week. Might give us an early chance to find out once and for all what's on the other side though. I think we all like discussing the maybe's too much though.
12 April 2007
45 min 44 sec
I have two ideas for solving the problem of expensive science books for students:
*The Uni sells them a Kindle or an iPad instead, and provides with them a password so they can upload all the science books available at the uni's database.
*The student gets charged for every day the book is left stored at his Kindle's memory —something very cheap & reasonable. At the end of the semester the student has the option to keep a permanent copy of the book for a fraction of it's original cost.
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
22 November 2004
2 weeks 14 hours
Well, you are addressing the replication cost of the book.
That's never been the issue. I don't believe it costs upwards of $80 to reproduce a good science book in small quantity.
Another point is the cost for non-students, which I originally brought up. Nobody buys these books today unless they are forced to. That is a terrible waste, at least for some of these books.
There are plenty of capable amateurs mildly curious about any field of specialty. Just that someone doesn't have a university background in, oh lets say The Nitrogen Metabolism in Rodent Anterior Cuspids doesn't mean they can't get valuable information from a book on the subject.
----
We are the cat.
27 May 2010
8 weeks 5 days
Copyright in relation to literature return very little funds to the author save for the larger production runs.
These are the approximate current factors in Ireland relative to a 100 page book and the same more or less holds true for most EU countries as we now have uniform paper and other costs, labor and taxes being the big variable between Ireland and the UK as against Greek costs or those of some of the new EU countries
1) A full color cover is a necessity to compete for display space and browser attention.
2) Perfect binding is a necessity for shelf stacking to allow titles to be read.
3) The book fill needs to be of good quality...catch 22 a good quality cover will show up a poor fill.
4) Price : this has to get the maximum return for the publisher and yet have an affordable cover price.
The mechanics of high speed printing are such that a few hundred sheets can be wasted in set up, small runs are ruled out as the various machine set up costs are fixed and can account for a considerable % of a small run total production cost.
Sales : most distributors now demand 60% of the cover price of a book leaving 40% to cover the entire production costs and a profit ( some chance) Not surprising small publishers are exiting the scene big time.
However all is not lost : quite a few of say, poets can have a few hundred sales for any collection published but only in the world wide poetic community. With modern digital printing it is possible to get books in lots of say fifty of the standard as set out one to four above where the author/publisher can recover 75% of the cover price.
The same holds true for any other specialized topic. The net can be used to advertise the product.
As a publisher, I am now about to switch over to this system completely; it means that instead of one run of five thousand books to get a good price by the conventional print system, I can have up to fifty different titles in stock x one hundred units which will give a good sales return and repeat sales on a reasonable cover price and yet only require half the financial outlay needed for a 5,000 book run.
Hope this may be of some interest to folks out there : if you have something worth putting in print
check electronic digital printing ( glorified high speck photocopying) costs, fifty to a hundred batches professionally produced can compete with the big guys on quality. There is the added advantage that mistakes can be corrected, extra pages added etc. on an ongoing basis, the system is very flexible!
Final point, big difference between submitting a manuscript to publisher and a finished book that will allow the selecting editor exactly what they are getting, if the book has potential, it can also have a professional presentation!
Hope that this is of some interest.
" Those who would give up essencial Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety " ........( Benjamin Franklin)
22 November 2004
2 weeks 14 hours
A post with real factual information, how dare you :)
It seems to me that there are two important parts of the picture for the creative side.
One is how to make a living from the creativity. Copyright and patent laws are an attempt to do something about that. However, for the majority of creative people this is not working.
Another aspect for the creative people is how to make the created stuff available to those who want it. There is hope in this area, with smaller scale publishing, electronic distribution and such things.
The anti-patent movement is mostly about the second part, lowering the legal barriers to access for the providers. Patents are a tool to keep competition out of your business sector.
What most of the anti-copyright people want is lower cost of created products. For useful stuff, like science books, home improvement manuals, books on how to start a publishing business, this will result in more useful things being done. Of course most people want cheaper created products for entertainment, as that is where consumers spend most of their energy - being entertained.
I am firmly on all sides of this issue :)
Of course many creative providers want to keep their rights to even the small income they generate now. If we give up the current system, we don't know what we will get.
But probably the train has left the station on this one.
----
We are the cat.
22 November 2004
2 weeks 14 hours
I think about alternatives to how creative work is sold. Music, computer programs, poetry, science fiction, all the stuff that can be transferred electronically.
One way that seems fair (but that people won't got for) would be something like this:
- a sharing community of producers
- contributors can get the products free
- non-contributors get product for micro-payments
This works technically when non-contributors use a different access method than contributors.
Of course there would be lots of leakage, but that could be tolerable.
Also this would make more sense for software and related things than for music. Software producers have real use for other software, it helps with producing. I'm not sure if a musician would benefit all that much by being able to get free music.
Basically all this does is make the "donate" buttons a little more forceful.
As I said, people probably won't be interested. Although it is interesting that people do pay for software on their phones that they can get for free if they really want. It's just more convenient to get it through the phone, where it costs money.
----
We are the cat.
27 May 2010
8 weeks 5 days
I have a some national and International literary awards picked up over the years. Because of involvement in republican political activity, I was one of those banned from all Irish Radio, TV and de facto, any government grant aided festival for almost a quarter of a century. ( A prize for me meant reduced or no grants for them......neat censorship or what?)
One way to beat the system was to have books professionally produced books available on the night as per the system previously outlined. 75% of a € 10 cover price X 20 sales meant € 150 plus an appearance fee made the project worth while.
It also had the added attraction in that it allowed direct marketing to an audience, many of whom would not regularly frequent bookshops. However this electronic printing is still a development medium in transit and if investigated there are any number of alternatives to conventional printing available.
" Those who would give up essencial Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety " ........( Benjamin Franklin)
9 February 2009
5 weeks 6 days
with myself and both my kids in college i am well aware of the exorbitant prices of text books in particular and the pittance given when one wishes to sell them back - and for many many classes last years version just isn't acceptable...
however, science, medicine and law have always wanted to stay apart from the "riff-raff"...that's why they each have their own jargon - as you note scientists complain (heck even one of my history professors complained) that the general public isn't interested...and they are not when they are made to feel inferior and incapable of understanding concepts (which many "lay" persons DO understand)...i mean look at the relative success of t.v. shows like nova or connections...there are ways to make science accessible to the masses...
22 November 2004
2 weeks 14 hours
Well, the specialized languages do work to separate the specialists from the rest of the world. But they really are necessary to talk about specifics in the field.
Sure you can explain many things in more plain and easily understandable language, but these explanations are not very accurate. They work to give outsiders a decent impression of what is going on in the field, but they are not good enough to do actual work.
One part of it is just the length of the explanation. Often what Nova explains in a 30 minute show can be said in 3 sentences in a specialist language. That's fine to bring across the concepts, but it won't work for doing work.
----
We are the cat.
21 February 2009
1 day 5 hours
New concepts need new words. There are plenty of new names that did not exist 50 years ago.
I think your absolutely right about condensed specialist terms; when we discover new things new words are needed.
It could be made easier, we might not use Latin for example. I could probably have added 5% to my mark in every palaeontology exam if English had been the convention in naming species, but really, there is an entire world out there and surely we can't expect all of science to relabel itself with our modern English terminology. It must be much worse if you don't speak English, and really, if you have to spend 3 hours learning a concept how much harder is it to learn what it is called?
22 November 2004
2 weeks 14 hours
Well, one alternative would have been to study Latin, and get a jump on many different specialist languages :)
----
We are the cat.
28 June 2006
2 days 9 hours
Earthling,
These urls could be useful. These are good sites that are user friendly.
http://www.onlinecomputerbooks.com/
http://freecomputerbooks.com/
http://2020ok.com/13884.htm?gclid=CLK28f...
http://www.e-book.com.au/freebooks.htm
http://manybooks.net/categories
http://www.freescience.info/books.php
http://www.ebook3000.com/Science/index.html
http://e-library.net/Science.htm
What do you think?
cnnek
{You Can Teach People How To Think Critically Or What To Think; But, You Can't Do Both! It Is Better To Teach People How To Think Critically!!!}
22 November 2004
2 weeks 14 hours
Good sources, thanks for posting them.
Yes we are making progress with free or low cost books and lecture notes. This will have some beneficial effects, lowering the barriers for people who are interested.
We haven't made much progress with paying authors though. Although it is probably fair to say that being just able to publish is a step forward for authors (and other creators). Without that, their chances of generating some income from honest work may be slim, but not zero.
----
We are the cat.
28 June 2006
2 days 9 hours
Earthling,
Thie is a correction of the 5th link from the top.
http://manybooks.net/search.php?method=t...
What do you think?
cnnek
{You Can Teach People How To Think Critically Or What To Think; But, You Can't Do Both! It Is Better To Teach People How To Think Critically!!!}
12 April 2007
45 min 44 sec
You know, with all the rich dudes giving away half their
loothard-earned fortune to philantropy, someone —ehem— should probably write to one of them and make the case for the benefit of cheap science books in our modern society.It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
22 November 2004
2 weeks 14 hours
Sure, Bill Gates will listen to me, with all the advocating of Open Source Software that I've been doing. Not that he's heard about me doing that.
----
We are the cat.