Mark Kent wrote:
> begin oe_protect.scr
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> __/ [ Mark Kent ] on Monday 05 February 2007 15:13 \__
>>
>>> begin oe_protect.scr
>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>> Rowling: No e-book for Harry Potter VII
>>>>
>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>>| Sorry, e-book fans, whoever you are. You will be able to read the new
>>>>| Harry Potter on paper, listen to it, probably purchase it in Braille.
>>>>| But don't expect to download the text -- at least legally.
>>>>|
>>>>| J.K. Rowling has not allowed the first six Potter stories to be
>>>>| released as e-books and has no plans to change that for the seventh
>>>>| and final work, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," Neil Blair,
>>>>| a lawyer with Rowling's literary agency, told The Associated
>>>>| Press on Sunday.
>>>> `----
>>>>
>>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070204/ap_on_hi_te/harry_potter_e_books
>>>>
>>>> closed-source digital locks fail miserably. Those naive enough to adopt
>>>> them soon enough drop them. Some computer scientists already experiment
>>>> with the idea of watermarking as a replacement for DRM.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I would've thought that JK Rowling would be so rich by now that she
>>> wouldn't care, and might even think that ebooking her book could be an
>>> interesting thing to do. Personally, I'd say just put it into text and
>>> be done with it!
>>>
>>> The problem with things like watermarking is that it can only tell you
>>> the original source of something - it cannot tell you how it got to its
>>> present location, nor what monies might have changed hands in the
>>> process.
>>>
>>> I suppose you could argue that not releasing an ebook might reduce the
>>> chances of a back-street illegal publisher publishing counterfeit
>>> copies of the book, but if they were going to do that, I would imagine
>>> that scanning a book would not be so hard anyway.
>>>
>>> We are at a fascinating cross-roads in terms of authorship, ownership,
>>> copyright and so on. The traditional controls and methods are clearly
>>> broken, but it's just not so obvious as to what might replace them.
>>
>> You could OCR some books within minutes in a production-line-like
>> environment (even affordable in the developed world), so the whole
>> struggle with and fight against digitisation and sharing (simple wired
>> communication) is a miserable one. You can make things harder, but how
>> hard can it be? What you can hear and view you can also capture. Some
>> people in /. once joked about banning microspohones and cam recorders.
>> But what about scanners and printers? And what can you do in a world
>> where videos get knocked off GooTube because of some fuzzy background
>> music or a teenage girl who sings some lyrics off her head.
>>
>> This new one shocked me as well:
>>
>> 'Electric Slide' on slippery DMCA slope
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>| "You can copyright the choreography for dances and then enforce
>>| the copyright against anyone who publicly performs the dance."
>> `----
>>
>>
http://news.com.com/Electric+Slide+on+slippery+DMCA+slope/2100-1030_3-6156021.html?tag=nefd.top
>> http://tinyurl.com/28kqj5
>>
>
> Haha - this is amazing. This game really needs to end, I think - it's
> no longer sustainable. Where are some philosophers when you need them?
>
>
Maybe what will happen is that so much material is going to be copyrighted
or patented that it just dilutes the IP so much that no one will care
anymore...
--
Jerry McBride
|
|
