Post by chris on May 4, 2006 13:03:12 GMT -5
This is part of an e-mail back and forth I've been having today with a friend of mine from Maryland (significantly abridged). It started by talking about the Harvard sophomore who was caught plagiarizing from other novels in her latest book (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/29/books/29book.html; www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3836955.html).
Scroll down if you want to skip to the meat of the back-and-forth:
> This appears to be, like Jayson Blair, another case of a rich, privileged
> kid buying their way into book deals and jobs at fancy publications. Why
> didn't someone like you or me get a job at the NYT? Because our parents
> weren't wealthy-oh and we didn't go to Harvard or Yale.
-----
It'll be hard to top Jayson Blair's infamy, but she's getting up there. To me,
it's a combination of the uber-privilege that you mention and intellectual
laziness. Not just privilege laziness on the writer's part, but laziness on
(apparently) a lot of editors' parts. They rest on their laurels, thinking that
since they're the NYT or LB&C, they're above such petty concerns as actually
needing to do the grunt leg work of journalism and fact-checking. I'm sure
they'd cry out "not true," since journalists (and pubilshers) think they exist
in some alternate N.Y. reality, but the evidence shows otherwise. Even if it's
not privilege though, it is sheer professional laziness and/or dereliction of
duty.
I wonder how one vets a fiction book though... someday when Google's library (or
the equivalent thereof) is fully online, and every book is searchable, it'll be
just a matter of running the text through a program. Until that day, though...
Chris
-----
> > Yes, you are right re the ease of searching in the future. But
> hopefully
> > the publishers and everyone else in the world will have to pay for all
> > of that content!!
>
> Just like they have to pay for public libraries! Amen!
-----
> > Ah, but I think there's a different between limited use of a printed
> > copy of something and unlimited electronic access, is there not? You
> > check a book out at a library (admittedly, something I haven't done in
> > more than 10 years) and you only have access to that content for a
> very
> > limited time (say, two weeks) and there really isn't an easy way to
> > repurpose that content. And libraries are paying a pretty penny for
> > those books, not getting them for free. You get something on Google's
> > library now, you have access to it forever and ever and can easily
> > repurpose it for other nefarious uses. That's fine with the stuff they
> > have now, which is in the public domain. But it sounds like you're
> > advocating free everything for everyone. How would publishers stay in
> > business? Oh wait, let me guess: We're all publishers now, bloggedy
> blog
> > blog blog. But many of us are very bad publishers, aren't we? How
> would
> > publishers pay authors royalties? What's the incentive as an author to
> > publish if anyone can use their works as they choose?
-----
> Advertising.
>
> Oh, you wanted a happy answer?
>
> Chris
-----
> Does that advertising go to the publishers and the authors or just to
> Google? And how is it calculated? What if advertisers don't want to pay
> for a particular book, say because of its subject matter, but people do
> want to read it? Then we're dealing with the same freaking problems we
> have with television. I don't think you want that.
-----
Well, I was exaggerating... but I do think that, within our lifetimes (very late
in our lifetimes, but still) or shortly thereafter, the ideas we currently have
about copyright and intellectual rights and ownership are going to be rendered
quaint and moot by technology. Oh sure, there'll still be media creators who
make their money, but I think it's going to become more and more decentralized
-- it's a trend that's been evolving since the 1400s, but now it's ramped up
significantly, emerging as fast as technology can push it. It will fundamentally
alter how the world works -- information-based capitalism will be endangered,
though it has impressive adaptability and staying power. In a couple of hundred
years, who knows, maybe human-created art and content will be superceded by
automated content. Robot reporters. Books created based on algorithms. Movies or
other visual media, that looks as good or better as any real movies we have
today, created completely digitally, with no use of
real actors or locations. Maybe I'm optismistic (pessimistic?) on the timeline,
but it's only a matter of time.
-----
> I hope that the idea of
> intellectual property is never rendered moot, though I do see that day
> coming--what other personal rights should we do away with because
> technology gives us the ability to do so? All of them? Sure, why not.
You're equating property rights with personal rights, which is pretty standard
for us Americans, but not for a lot of other societies.
> Automated content is already a reality on the web, where a lot of
> content is database-driven. The idea that computers would create books
> and art such as films is not something to be optimistic about. Do you
> really think a computer could create a better movie than you could?
Yes, actually, I do think that. If a computer can beat the best human at chess
(not just beat, but embarrass), then it's only a matter of time before a
computer can make a better movie than Spielberg.
But remember, the human element here is "better." The end product is always
meant to be consumed by a human.
> As is the computer creating it or is the
> person operating the computer? Regardless of the answers to those
> questions, without the drive to create art, be it films, books,
> pictures, and IDEAS, what's the point of our even existing?
You saw "AI," didn't you? Who said there has to be a point? Besides, it takes
human ingenuity to create computers and digitization; no matter how far removed
human content is to future media, the simple fact remains that the basis of it
was humanity. The point of our existing then would solely be to consume! But,
that is the death of capitalism, which is a bit farther off than we'll ever see.
I'm actually not too worried. If computers become regularly able to beat
grandmasters at chess... well, then we'll just stop playing computers. There is
still the fundamental interest in seeing the human element of competition and
creation. Let's say movies are made by automation... there would be a strong
subset of people who want to watch "hand-made" films.
Perhaps the difference would be that no artist would be making money off their
art... which would only be sustainable in quasi-socialism... another economics
tangent...
-----
>You're equating property rights with personal rights, which is pretty
>standard for us Americans, but not for a lot of other societies.
You're damn right I'm equating property rights with personal rights. If
I create something, it's mine. I can keep it to myself, I can share it
with the world, whatever. It's mine. I realize that's not a socialist
idea. But that's OK because I am not a socialist and we're not a
socialist country. The Chinese feel free to translate American books and
sell them, with no profit to the publisher or author. If that's the
socialist notion of intellectual property, I'll take mine.
>You saw "AI," didn't you?
I almost referred to AI in my previous message. AI was a very sad movie
(and not only because of poor Teddy all by himself). If that's the
future, I'm glad that I'll be dead by then. A computer winning at chess
if very different from the notion that a computer could create the Great
American Novel. Chess, and correct me if I'm wrong, is patterns and
math. It's not surprising that a machine would eventually get it right.
It's all about programming. But there isn't any formula for a great
novel, and that's the beauty of it.
Scroll down if you want to skip to the meat of the back-and-forth:
> This appears to be, like Jayson Blair, another case of a rich, privileged
> kid buying their way into book deals and jobs at fancy publications. Why
> didn't someone like you or me get a job at the NYT? Because our parents
> weren't wealthy-oh and we didn't go to Harvard or Yale.
-----
It'll be hard to top Jayson Blair's infamy, but she's getting up there. To me,
it's a combination of the uber-privilege that you mention and intellectual
laziness. Not just privilege laziness on the writer's part, but laziness on
(apparently) a lot of editors' parts. They rest on their laurels, thinking that
since they're the NYT or LB&C, they're above such petty concerns as actually
needing to do the grunt leg work of journalism and fact-checking. I'm sure
they'd cry out "not true," since journalists (and pubilshers) think they exist
in some alternate N.Y. reality, but the evidence shows otherwise. Even if it's
not privilege though, it is sheer professional laziness and/or dereliction of
duty.
I wonder how one vets a fiction book though... someday when Google's library (or
the equivalent thereof) is fully online, and every book is searchable, it'll be
just a matter of running the text through a program. Until that day, though...
Chris
-----
> > Yes, you are right re the ease of searching in the future. But
> hopefully
> > the publishers and everyone else in the world will have to pay for all
> > of that content!!
>
> Just like they have to pay for public libraries! Amen!
-----
> > Ah, but I think there's a different between limited use of a printed
> > copy of something and unlimited electronic access, is there not? You
> > check a book out at a library (admittedly, something I haven't done in
> > more than 10 years) and you only have access to that content for a
> very
> > limited time (say, two weeks) and there really isn't an easy way to
> > repurpose that content. And libraries are paying a pretty penny for
> > those books, not getting them for free. You get something on Google's
> > library now, you have access to it forever and ever and can easily
> > repurpose it for other nefarious uses. That's fine with the stuff they
> > have now, which is in the public domain. But it sounds like you're
> > advocating free everything for everyone. How would publishers stay in
> > business? Oh wait, let me guess: We're all publishers now, bloggedy
> blog
> > blog blog. But many of us are very bad publishers, aren't we? How
> would
> > publishers pay authors royalties? What's the incentive as an author to
> > publish if anyone can use their works as they choose?
-----
> Advertising.
>
> Oh, you wanted a happy answer?
>
> Chris
-----
> Does that advertising go to the publishers and the authors or just to
> Google? And how is it calculated? What if advertisers don't want to pay
> for a particular book, say because of its subject matter, but people do
> want to read it? Then we're dealing with the same freaking problems we
> have with television. I don't think you want that.
-----
Well, I was exaggerating... but I do think that, within our lifetimes (very late
in our lifetimes, but still) or shortly thereafter, the ideas we currently have
about copyright and intellectual rights and ownership are going to be rendered
quaint and moot by technology. Oh sure, there'll still be media creators who
make their money, but I think it's going to become more and more decentralized
-- it's a trend that's been evolving since the 1400s, but now it's ramped up
significantly, emerging as fast as technology can push it. It will fundamentally
alter how the world works -- information-based capitalism will be endangered,
though it has impressive adaptability and staying power. In a couple of hundred
years, who knows, maybe human-created art and content will be superceded by
automated content. Robot reporters. Books created based on algorithms. Movies or
other visual media, that looks as good or better as any real movies we have
today, created completely digitally, with no use of
real actors or locations. Maybe I'm optismistic (pessimistic?) on the timeline,
but it's only a matter of time.
-----
> I hope that the idea of
> intellectual property is never rendered moot, though I do see that day
> coming--what other personal rights should we do away with because
> technology gives us the ability to do so? All of them? Sure, why not.
You're equating property rights with personal rights, which is pretty standard
for us Americans, but not for a lot of other societies.
> Automated content is already a reality on the web, where a lot of
> content is database-driven. The idea that computers would create books
> and art such as films is not something to be optimistic about. Do you
> really think a computer could create a better movie than you could?
Yes, actually, I do think that. If a computer can beat the best human at chess
(not just beat, but embarrass), then it's only a matter of time before a
computer can make a better movie than Spielberg.
But remember, the human element here is "better." The end product is always
meant to be consumed by a human.
> As is the computer creating it or is the
> person operating the computer? Regardless of the answers to those
> questions, without the drive to create art, be it films, books,
> pictures, and IDEAS, what's the point of our even existing?
You saw "AI," didn't you? Who said there has to be a point? Besides, it takes
human ingenuity to create computers and digitization; no matter how far removed
human content is to future media, the simple fact remains that the basis of it
was humanity. The point of our existing then would solely be to consume! But,
that is the death of capitalism, which is a bit farther off than we'll ever see.
I'm actually not too worried. If computers become regularly able to beat
grandmasters at chess... well, then we'll just stop playing computers. There is
still the fundamental interest in seeing the human element of competition and
creation. Let's say movies are made by automation... there would be a strong
subset of people who want to watch "hand-made" films.
Perhaps the difference would be that no artist would be making money off their
art... which would only be sustainable in quasi-socialism... another economics
tangent...
-----
>You're equating property rights with personal rights, which is pretty
>standard for us Americans, but not for a lot of other societies.
You're damn right I'm equating property rights with personal rights. If
I create something, it's mine. I can keep it to myself, I can share it
with the world, whatever. It's mine. I realize that's not a socialist
idea. But that's OK because I am not a socialist and we're not a
socialist country. The Chinese feel free to translate American books and
sell them, with no profit to the publisher or author. If that's the
socialist notion of intellectual property, I'll take mine.
>You saw "AI," didn't you?
I almost referred to AI in my previous message. AI was a very sad movie
(and not only because of poor Teddy all by himself). If that's the
future, I'm glad that I'll be dead by then. A computer winning at chess
if very different from the notion that a computer could create the Great
American Novel. Chess, and correct me if I'm wrong, is patterns and
math. It's not surprising that a machine would eventually get it right.
It's all about programming. But there isn't any formula for a great
novel, and that's the beauty of it.
