tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post3951472980715293124..comments2024-01-23T07:34:52.253-08:00Comments on Copyrights & Campaigns: Authors Guild explains stance on new Kindle 2; muddies the watersBen Sheffnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-51116740174387494042009-02-13T07:49:00.000-08:002009-02-13T07:49:00.000-08:00Concerning the original content in the post (I hav...Concerning the original content in the post (I have nothing to say about whether anyone's suggestions could be accurately categorized as ludicrous or not), I think the Author's Guild is still mostly wrong. I doubt this text-to-speech function will dramatically alter the market for audiobooks. There is a huge difference between hearing Barack Obama read "Dreams from my Father" and hearing an electronic voice synthesizing the same words. <BR/><BR/>Besides, customers would probably substitute e-books for audiobooks, if anything. I can't really see that many people paying separately for both an e-book AND an audiobook.<BR/><BR/>Ultimately, I think Big Content generally suffers from a myopic perspective on IP - that they tend to focus on whether an entity has the legal right to do something with their work, rather than honestly asking how that affects the commercial market for the original. I'm not saying that under copyright law, commercial mashups are legal, but that I advocate reform that forces content owners to understand that infringment is NOT always a zero-sum game. Content owners need to coopt unforeseen uses of their works if they expect to profit from their prominent role in the information economy - the current regulatory framework for IP isn't working for content owners OR those who try to use them in creative ways.Shanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17023519482024334644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-59715725270114163842009-02-13T07:01:00.000-08:002009-02-13T07:01:00.000-08:00The only misrepresentation was your misrepresentat...The only misrepresentation was your misrepresentation of what Aiken said. You wrote that "according to Aitken [sic]," "any reading outloud from a book that is not yours is also a violation of copyright law" and "Read[ing] to your kids at night" could lead to "Authors Guild police banging down your door." That interpretation of Aiken's quotation was indeed ludicrous.<BR/><BR/>If you can't tell the difference between a substantive comment on a post and personal attacks on its author, you shouldn't bother drafting the comment, because I won't post it.Ben Sheffnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-84404805624833007302009-02-12T23:58:00.000-08:002009-02-12T23:58:00.000-08:001. Our point was to point out why what he ACTUALLY...1. Our point was to point out why what he ACTUALLY SAID is ludicrous.<BR/>2. From what he ACTUALLY SAID, you COULD easily interpret it to mean that reading to your children was infringement. That's what was ludicrous, and that is what we were pointing out.<BR/>3. Writing that wasn't to suggest that's what he actually MEANT, but as a clear DEMONSTRATION of why what he SAID was ludicrous.<BR/><BR/>To turn that around, and make it sound like we actually thought he MEANT that, is simply a fabrication. It reflects incredibly poorly on you that you insist on keeping it here.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, my previous comment was not focused on you personally, other than to point out that I was upset with the false light in which you portrayed my statements.<BR/><BR/>I will ask, once again, that you refrain from misrepresenting what I have written.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-84258052742642762062009-02-12T18:49:00.000-08:002009-02-12T18:49:00.000-08:00Your suggestion that Aiken was either stating or i...Your suggestion that Aiken was either stating or implying that "Read[ing] to your kids at night" (your words) was copyright infringement was indeed ludicrous. He did neither. In fact, you said in your comment to my previous post that you "agree [with my interpretation of] what he probably *meant*," which was that Aiken was *not* saying that reading to one's kids is copyright infringement. I didn't misrepresent anything.<BR/><BR/>Your previous comment was not published because its focus was on the personal, and not the substance of my post.Ben Sheffnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-73597483100007019422009-02-12T18:32:00.000-08:002009-02-12T18:32:00.000-08:00Mr. Sheffner, I have asked you before not to misre...Mr. Sheffner, I have asked you before not to misrepresent our positions. Amusingly, you chose not to publish that comment, telling me quite a lot about your so-called "journalistic integrity."<BR/><BR/>You say that we made a "ludicrous suggestion." That is blatantly false and misleading (and you know that). The point we made (apparently which went right over your head) was that what he SAID implied that -- which was obviously ridiculous.<BR/><BR/>I would appreciate it if you refrain from making such blatantly false implications about what I write. It reflects incredibly poorly on you and your credibility.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com