Have you ever noticed that in a discussion you have (mostly in Twitter) and it’s an actual discussion that goes to the core of a persons views, there are two options, either the person is a big enough person to “expose” themselves and stand behind their viewpoint.
Or, and this is what usually happens, they’ll cry “troll” pretty quickly and thereby put the other person under pressure, to say the least, by discrediting and shaming them.
This is a pattern that I have observed many many times in the discussions surrounding authors rights: whenever I stand up for my assertion that a strong individual authors right modeled after the European legal system empowers the individual and forces “bigger” business partners to actually having to negotiate. Whereas a simple copyright as in the Anglo-American legal system favors the aggregators (labels, publishers, film studios), infrastructure providers (ISPs, hosting providers) and media services (YouTube, Spotify etc).
So when I ask individuals who work in promoting the copyleft movement, what their thinking, motivation and benefit behind weakening the authors rights are, I get attacked and called a troll.
I can openly say what the benefits of a strong authors right to both the individual and the culture businesses are. Why can’t my “opponents” practice the same openness and have to resort to attacking me? And in this case the “me” and “them” is the collective behind each movement. But it speaks volumes that the copyleftists don’t really name their motivation: because their motivation is targeted at destroying a market.
I have to get something off my chest that has bothered me for quite some time. To start I have to mention that my cousin wrote the fantastic book “Albtraum Sicherheit – Interessen und Geschäfte hinter der Sicherheitspolitik” (nightmare security – interests and business behind the politics of security). The book was available on Amazon from day one and also from day one there were offers for € 0,99 cents of used copies of the book. Leaving the question aside where those used copies came from I want to focus on a more capitalistic aspect of those used books.
Let’s suppose a book costs € 12.99 on the day it is published. Right next to it, Amazon allows a third party store to sell used books. These used books typically start at € 0.99 + € 3.00 shipping.
Why does the used book seller not operate with the following equation in mind:
€ 12.99 cost of the new book
– € 3.00 shipping
– € 3.90 (30% discount towards the price of the new book, assumed a mint condition)
This means that even with a 30% discount towards the original price of the book the used book seller could have a 5 times higher revenue to the tune of € 6.09 – € 0.99 = € 5.10
Can someone please explain to me, how it makes sense financially to leave this money on the table? You would still undercut the new version of the book. You would not even have to share the extra revenue with the author or the publisher (which I personally think is a shame, but that’s a different story).
Please leave a comment to get me to understand the thinking behind this!
Today I was wondering how fast my old MacPro (my main production machine) really is compared to the MacMini that I recently bought. And here are the results:
Now I’m not the biggest hardware geek but I do understand that architectures vary quite a bit and have a substantial influence over computing performance. But a 6 year old machine beating a 2 year old machine by such a big margin may be part of the reason why hardware development feels stalled: We have reached machines that are incredibly powerful.
Granted: for real-time things such as music production we would still like to squeeze every CPU cycle that we can, but hey: at least in my case I still get by with that machine and it doesn’t slow me down too much.