These words need new definitions: "public," "private," "sharing."

[joelpatterson]

A few things lately have hammered home what a different world this is-- dig: recently the avante-garde film-maker Robert Nelson died, I read about it in the paper, heard it on the radio. His most notorious film was called "Oh Dem Watermelons" (1965.)

About 40 seconds after first encountering the title "Oh Dem Watermelons" on the printed page, I am watching a Youtube upload of this movie (one of many!) and, frankly, staring kind of dumbfoundedly at this quaint oddity that's really of another era. To say no watermelons were harmed in the making of this film would be untrue. But, to the point-- for all practical purposes, we have to recognize that "Oh Dem Watermelons" has drifted into the public domain-- merely because films can be digitized and someone put it on Youtube and I know how to find it.

I sympathize with people who see a sinister aspect to this, I see it myself-- I should have to pay money if I want to watch "Oh Dem Watermelons," it's a product, dammit! What if one of the erstwhile forum members now bellowing for all they're worth on the SOPA thread had been its creator? We'd never hear the end of it! Crime of the century! Still, it's completely unremarkable that I should be able to find it, I expected to, and I did.

For people who shout and scream and rail at the "blurring" taking place, I plead with you-- let's come up with some accurate modern definition of what "public" and "private" mean in the internet realm, where information is not at all so neatly riven into those different categories as it once was.

[chrisso]

Or better still, let's come up with fair mechanisms to make all these works more available.
I really don't think it's about the words, it's about the way people feel when choice is imposed on them.

[joelpatterson]

Is there something to be said for seeing things as they are and asking "why?"?

I would say the present state of affairs is the culmination of a long process whereby information and communication have been steadily advancing until everyone is connected, just about instantaneously. The early stages of this-- transatlantic shipping, the Pony Express, telegraph cables that sing down the highway and travel each bend in the road... they were all pointing to an ideal, which is what we've got today. Real-time two-way contact.

Of course this has upended all the distribution mechanisms we used to know, the bottle-necks, delays and check-points. We need to accept these changes and build on the new possibilities they offer... or do we?

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by joelpatterson

... they were all pointing to an ideal, which is what we've got today. Real-time two-way contact.

Great, real time two way contact doesn't trump someone's rights though.
Even more we need to adjust and firm up privacy for example.
I'm very concerned about my right to privacy being infringed by web companies such as Google. Does progress mean I've lost the right to be concerned?

Of course this has upended all the distribution mechanisms we used to know, the bottle-necks, delays and check-points. We need to accept these changes and build on the new possibilities they offer... or do we?

Well in many ways some things get better, others worse.
If I have a problem with my phone I'm not talking to someone with local knowledge any more, I'm talking to an Indian call centre, which is fine, but when they need to take location directions as to where to send their engineer things get over complicated.
I went into my local 'x company' store and asked about a phone/broadband package, but they said they were no longer offering a phone service in my area. Unfortunately a local sales decision hasn't permeated the entire company because their offshore sales team call me repeatedly trying to sell me a combined phone/broadband package.
New possibilities yes.... but also new headaches.
I don't think anything has changed with sharing.
The vast majority of people are willing to share if they are treated with respect.

[joelpatterson]

Originally Posted by chrisso

... also new headaches.

I hear you loud and clear! Automated phone dialing machines are the beasts of my burden... intruding into my world uninvited and badgering me, waking me up out of a sound sleep, relentless and merciless!

Do you get guys in the Indian call centers who've adopted some kind of Anglo-Saxon name, for convenience' sake? So they don't have to say, "This is Smurbjadtag, how can I help you?"

The poor sucker who answered the Mac Mall line when I called had unfortunately picked the oddball name "Joel," and so I engaged him in a whole tete-a-tete-- I'd grown up knowing only a sparse few other Joel's, what about him?

Caught him flat-footed. I dropped the whole subject, and we went on to talk about computers...

[chrisso]

So what would you say about {re}defining sharing and private in the digital age?
-Getting back to music-

[Don Hills]

Originally Posted by chrisso

... I went into my local 'x company' store and asked about a phone/broadband package, but they said they were no longer offering a phone service in my area. Unfortunately a local sales decision hasn't permeated the entire company because their offshore sales team call me repeatedly trying to sell me a combined phone/broadband package. ...

You're too nice a guy. Take the offer from the overseas sales team. Express your disappointment, in a physical letter to the CEO of the company, when they don't deliver.

[Don Hills]

Originally Posted by chrisso

Or better still, let's come up with fair mechanisms to make all these works more available.
I really don't think it's about the words, it's about the way people feel when choice is imposed on them.

I've always understood that publishing a work - releasing it to the public domain (no, not *that* public domain) - grants people the right to experience it "in perpetuity". You used to have to deposit a copy of the work with the Library of Congress to symbolically enshrine that right. In return, you are granted the copyrights so you can recoup the costs of creation.

Ideally, the work would be available for purchase in perpetuity, but publishers go out of business and physical media costs to store. Maybe some entity like the Library of Congress could maintain electronic copies of "out of print" works. You pay a fee, you get a copy. Some of the fee goes to the library for running the facility. If the original copyright holder has maintained a current bank account number on file with the library, they get the rest. Otherwise, it goes to a charity which they nominated when the work was originally lodged.

All of the above assumes you're not competing with free...

[chrisso]

Yes, being able to purchase work, even for a low price, in perpetuity would be good.

[Don Hills]

Joel,
I'm a literal minded person so I'm having a little trouble seeing why we need new definitions of "public", "private" and "sharing". Perhaps you could give a brief example of how you see the traditional meaning of each word doesn't work so well nowadays?

[joelpatterson]

Originally Posted by chrisso

So what would you say about {re}defining sharing and private in the digital age?
-Getting back to music-

Originally Posted by Don Hills

Joel,
I'm a literal minded person so I'm having a little trouble seeing why we need new definitions of "public", "private" and "sharing". Perhaps you could give a brief example of how you see the traditional meaning of each word doesn't work so well nowadays?

I'll try... it used to be in the nature of reality and reality's God that all data and writing and movie films began in the private domain, and the transition to the public domain was a real effort-- surrounding and attending this effort were opportunities to cash in on consumers' desire to experience this thing, whatever it was, and whatever it was you could authentically label it a 'product' whose distribution was controlled. To even say 'controlled' is a vast understatement-- it was a positive BITCH to get it out to any public! I know! I was one of these kids who pestered magazine editors with my brilliant typewritten creations!

To move on: people would "share" their copy of the latest National Lampoon magazine with me, but this was strictly one-on-one. The effort required to share it was fairly simple-- include it in an outstretched hand. In this context, the word 'sharing' could not be divorced from the word 'friend' or at least the word 'contact' or the words 'in the same room, on the same playground, at the same wild bacchanal.'

Today, because of the existence and widespread use of computers, scanners, and internet connections, my friend Dave could 'share' his National Lampoon with the 7 billion people of the world with very minimal effort. Is this 'sharing'? Isn't it more like 'broadcasting'?

Similarly, who indeed authorized "Oh Dem Watermelons" to be distributed free of charge? I suspect no one 'did' this-- it just sorta 'happened' because of the systems in place today.

The trend, then, is for EVERYTHING to become 'public' by default. The only way to keep anything 'private' is to restrict access-- try as you might-- but then once the first person gets that access, whoops, sayonara data/writing/movie.

Does this ring any chimes with you all?

[Don Hills]

Originally Posted by joelpatterson

... Does this ring any chimes with you all?

Yes, thank you. Very helpful. The 'sharing' example is good - it's only sharing if you personally reach out to each one of those 7 million people and make contact with them. If not, it's "publishing" or "broadcasting" as you say.

'Oh Dem Watermelons' was only private before it was published. I think it's one of those cases that people try to write "orphaned works" legislation for. I frequent the "old time radio" section of archive.org. There's a heck of a lot of stuff there that would have been lost for ever if fans hadn't dusted off old off-air recordings. Strictly speaking, most of it is copyright infringing but I don't see a lot of enforcement happening. There appears to be a tacit understanding that so long as people don't try to monetise the works, just enjoy them in the spirit in which they were originally produced, they'll be left alone. If only the rest of the world was such a kinder, gentler place... which is part of the nostalgic appeal of the old shows.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by Don Hills

There appears to be a tacit understanding that so long as people don't try to monetise the works, just enjoy them in the spirit in which they were originally produced,

I assume there is an understanding that the works being shared aren't depriving anyone of income.
If the latest edition of National Lampoon magazine is shared you are. Also, deleted music albums are very often re-released.
Maybe we need a new publishing law that says once something is published it can never be deleted (digitally). I mean you can't force record labels to keep selling unpopular albums, or publishers to keep printing unpopular books, but digital storage that can be accessed by enthusiasts is pretty cheap to maintain.
Of course this has the capacity to destroy the collector market.
Rare copies of an album were very valuable, maybe not so much once the album is easily obtainable in perpetuity.

[rack gear]

I think the old definitions are working just fine, but I'll play along for Joel's sake...

Public : What you don't expect to be Private

Private : What you don't expect to be Public, But now is...

Sharing : Stealing as Long as You Don't Get Caught At It

[wwittman]

Originally Posted by rack gear

I think the old definitions are working just fine, but I'll play along for Joel's sake...

Public : What you don't expect to be Private

Private : What you don't expect to be Public, But now is...

Sharing : Stealing as Long as You Don't Get Caught At It

I think that about sums it up... on both counts.


But this made me think of the famous, nearly cliché, stories of painters who only "became rich and famous' after their deaths. (you can bet Rembrandt never made the kind of money you would from owning a Rembrandt, etc.)

i don't know the real circs, but imagine, if you will, as a hypothetical, that Robert Nelson's family stood on the brink of poverty at his death, and that with the fame his death attracted they now could imagine being 'saved' by the heralded rerelease of Dem Watermelons..
but instead...


yes, it's useful to 'look at what is and ask why'
it's more useful to look at how things should be and work toward that; sometimes via legislation.

[joelpatterson]

But in all this, let's make sure we're not debating the merits of an ideal world that we wish existed in place of the real world that does exist.

"Strictly speaking, it's copyright infringement" is a great description of the overwhelmingly vast majority of content on the internet. In fact-- you could boil it all down: "the internet is one giant copyright infringement machine."

Any argument there, any at all? So, to me it looks like these battles to parry the infringing aspects are not just doomed and futile, they're senseless. Like saying-- we will save New York City from the effects of rising sea levels by piling up the sandbags. Theoretically, sure, sandbags are the answer-- maybe they would even show some promise, briefly-- but eventually everyone is going to have to agree: this notion that data can be doled out, piecemeal, like it was in the good old days... poof!

If something can be digitized, it will become public, sooner or later... but probably immediately!

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by joelpatterson

But in all this, let's make sure we're not debating the merits of an ideal world that we wish existed in place of the real world that does exist.

"Strictly speaking, it's copyright infringement" is a great description of the overwhelmingly vast majority of content on the internet. In fact-- you could boil it all down: "the internet is one giant copyright infringement machine."

Any argument there, any at all? So, to me it looks like these battles to parry the infringing aspects are not just doomed and futile, they're senseless. Like saying-- we will save New York City from the effects of rising sea levels by piling up the sandbags. Theoretically, sure, sandbags are the answer-- maybe they would even show some promise, briefly-- but eventually everyone is going to have to agree: this notion that data can be doled out, piecemeal, like it was in the good old days... poof!

If something can be digitized, it will become public, sooner or later... but probably immediately!

and that joel is why you are a nihilist and I'm not. no law ever stopped any crime and we've not stopped making laws. saying that you can't stop people from killin each other so we shouldn't have laws against it is nihilism.

Nihilism | Define Nihilism at Dictionary.com

[joelpatterson]

I do think it's awfully idealistic to surmise that there's some way to inhibit the flow of information in, around and through the internet, even with the full force of morality and ethics and Eric Holder on your side.

I know, how about a War on Piracy?

[wwittman]

Originally Posted by joelpatterson

...What if one of the erstwhile forum members now bellowing for all they're worth on the SOPA thread had been its creator? ...

oh, by the way,
are we also redefining 'erstwhile'?

or do you really mean former forum members?



while sandbags might not be effective, the 'answer' is probably not to shrug and say essentially "well, we'll have water up to our armpits, but hey! that's the new world. get used to it old guy"

[chrisso]

You never want to see yourself filing things that important into the too hard basket

[joelpatterson]

Well, what is the word I mean instead of 'erstwhile'? It's on the tip of my tongue... it sounds like 'erstwhile'... if we could round up a couple people for Charades, we might get somewhere.

I guess that maybe I do think that getting used to it is a rational course of action, as opposed to fighting this militant crusade whose central animating principle is a firmly entrenched sense of denial.

Because I do think that when in the course of human events there are fundamental changes to the way society operates, and heretofore unimaginable upheavals occur, and the hands of time resist being turned back... roll with the changes. Baby.

[chrisso]

Earnest?

Marked by or showing deep sincerity or seriousness

[joelpatterson]

Sorta... the word I meant was more synonymous with "respectable, long-time, model citizens."

[chrisso]

Esteemed.

I could keep going through the E's if you like?

[joelpatterson]

That's it!

[Don Hills]

Originally Posted by chrisso

I assume there is an understanding that the works being shared aren't depriving anyone of income.
If the latest edition of National Lampoon magazine is shared you are. Also, deleted music albums are very often re-released.

Well, of course. Fans usually have more respect for the artists than the average downloader - they are fans. Not all fan sites offer downloads of rare work. Of those that do, many delete the downloadable version if the work is re-released. In theory, the availability of a download might prejudice the viability of a re-release. In practice, many fans are completists and will buy the re-release anyway. Browse the music section at stevehoffman.tv to see the lengths fans will go to to obtain physical copies.

Originally Posted by chrisso

Maybe we need a new publishing law that says once something is published it can never be deleted (digitally). I mean you can't force record labels to keep selling unpopular albums, or publishers to keep printing unpopular books, but digital storage that can be accessed by enthusiasts is pretty cheap to maintain.

Maybe a system where public libraries have access to a repository, and will copy a work to a USB drive on payment of a small fee along the lines I suggested earlier.

Originally Posted by chrisso

Of course this has the capacity to destroy the collector market.
Rare copies of an album were very valuable, maybe not so much once the album is easily obtainable in perpetuity.

My impression is that collectors of rare albums usually want the physical media. I certainly haven't noticed anyone complaining. I'm due to take a stack of vinyl to the vinyl speciality shop around the corner, I'll ask them.

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by chrisso

Maybe we need a new publishing law that says once something is published it can never be deleted (digitally). I mean you can't force record labels to keep selling unpopular albums, or publishers to keep printing unpopular books, but digital storage that can be accessed by enthusiasts is pretty cheap to maintain.

believe it or not, this clause has been in a few contracts I've been doing and will probably get worked into the boiler plate this year.