Some of David Lynch’s movies have been released without chapter stops.
some artists have done rather strange things with CDs-- negative track numbers, and the like.
(the closest I’ve come in my smallish collection is a Nine Inch Nails CD with a whole lot of padding in the middle and then tracks 9x-99)
As for books, the preferred format for so many of them is PDF. Reflow is not the default.
Sure, and the first-sale doctrine largely protects this. The difference is that with this software it isn’t you that is altering the text, but an algorithm. I assume you see and feel the difference, given that your argument is peppered with “I.”
My original analogy was about the time and money required to make the alterations. If you, as an individual, have to make the alterations, it becomes fairly expensive in terms of time and effort, and it is unlikely you will alter everything you read: you have to make decisions and prioritize. Technology, however, makes it trivially easy to automatically alter books, just as technology makes it trivially easy for police to track people in public—drastically altering the cost-benefit analysis as compared to labor-intensive stakeouts.
Your objection to this analogy was based on consent, insofar as consumers are consenting to the ebook technology. Well, just as consumers don’t need consent of the author in order to personally alter their works, police don’t need your consent to observe you in public.
I think if he had final say in his DVD releases they would all be that way. And he would also disable the pause button for multiple reasons (the DVD of Mulholland Drive digitally blurred some of Laura Harring’s anatomy that would have been imperceptible when viewed in real time, but could be seen when viewed frame-by-frame and with adjusted brightness).
You assume incorrectly. I don’t see a difference which is why in my original post I carefully indicated my comparison was in giving the text to someone else to alter for me. And no, I don’t see a difference. If I choose to alter the text directly or via a third party (whether that be an algorithm, an individual or randomly altering things with my eyes closed and a crayon in my hand) is irrelevant. I have bought something. I own it. I decide to alter it by means of my own choice. The means by which I make the alteration that I choose to make to an item that I own is not relevant to the issue unless:
Your original analogy certainly didn’t make that clear and seemed to concentrate on unwanted surveillance. If the intent was to highlight time and effort saving then I can only applaud the creators of the software that have saved some people time and effort. That is, generally speaking, the point of most software.
And so we come to…
The software allows those that own a copy of a book to choose (with full consent) to modify the thing that they own. It does so in a way that would be entirely possible with a paper book but allows them to do so a much lower cost and with much less effort.
Yay \o/ As a software developer I applaud them in reaching goals I tend to aim for a great deal of the time.
Do I want to use the software? No.
Do I think there is any issue with other people doing so? No.
Is this censorship? Possibly although not of any sort I can reasonably object to.
The thing is, people want apps for various reasons, and the apps can still exhibit problematic behavior, do things unrelated to why users wanted them, etc. (E.g. Facebook) This particular app is incredible simple and paid, yet the functionality is mostly hidden (you don’t get to pick which words get censored, only the degree of censorship and see the result). If the app had more features, had automated the word substitution and/or been “free,” it would have opened up a whole can of worms in terms of hidden functionality.
I can’t disagree with that. Those are general and well-explored issues with software under pretty much anything but an OS model.
I fully support the right of the artist to release(or not, if that’s their thing) their work however they wish(and I have a soft spot in my heart for people who creatively abuse standards to achieve effects that definitely weren’t intended by the standards body).
I just can’t imagine what mayhem would ensue if they were legally empowered to enforce those sorts of decisions on the end user. Master the DVD without chapter stops? It’s your movie, I am 100% in favor of that being your choice. Come after me because I opened VLC, went to ‘Playback’ and selected ‘Custom Bookmarks’ to define some chapter breaks? Oh No You Don’t.
Okay, I’ll put it to you, bwv812. Do you believe that equalizer apps that allow the listener to fundamentally change the nature of the music to which they’re listening are unethical?
One of the articles linked to this story mentioned Charles Stross, so I think it’s fair to link to his take.
I think he defends his moral rights quite handily.
Again, my example of police surveillance suggests that it isn’t this simple. Drone or traffic-camera surveillance doesn’t breach the law, isn’t morally reprehensible in its methodology, and doesn’t directly harm anyone… yet many still think it problematic.
I think it was pretty clear. Here’s what I wrote:
Well, I guess the question is whether is really does fundamentally change the nature of the music. Legally speaking, equalizers wouldn’t fundamentally change the nature of the music (cover versions of songs are only possible without consent if they don’t fundamentally change the original songs—if they do change the “fundamental character of the song” then they are derivative works and need permission—yet we have a lot of very different cover versions that generally aren’t considered derivative works), but I do think a lot of artists would like it if they could specify reference equipment in order to reproduce their intended sound. For the most part I think transparent high-fidelity equipment—in the literal and original sense of the term—is what most artists would prefer, while adjustments are used as a way to overcome the technical limitations of the equipment.
Thanks for the reply, but that didn’t answer my question: Is it unethical to sell an app that allows or encourages changes in the nature of the work? (As for changing the fundamental nature, surely the artist is the one to make that call.)
As a youth, I knew a few people who played music in a manner that I’m pretty certain the creator didn’t intend. (Including playing it at twice speed, playing it backwards, but mostly horribly mutilating the equalization.)
Is it unethical to sell a tool that helps the users distort the music easily? Does the artist have a fundamental moral right to demand that people listen to the work in a manner that captures what the artist feels is essential to the music?
(Obviously we’re talking moral, not legal.)
And if not, why does literature merit special treatment?
Edit: Clarity
An app that simply allows or encourages changes? No, I don’t think that’s inherently unethical.
Again, I think there’s a fundamental difference in what is being done. Labor-intensive experimentation that requires the direct oversight of the consumer is different than an algorithm done without real user input or supervision. If, for example, people were auto-tuning records via software without even listening to the original first, or were automatically censoring certain lyrics, then yeah I think there might be some ethical problems with it.
To be honest, we certainly seem to feel that way we hear about politicians using certain artists’ songs without permission, or songs being used in commercials without authorization, etc. This recontextualization of songs seems immoral in those contexts, and I don’t think it’s all that different.
And in those situations, there’s no legal issue. If the pay royalties, they can legally use the song. Campaigns usually stop to avoid bad publicity, not because they have to…again, there’s a difference between “bad” and “illegal”. I’m dismayed at how many artists don’t give a damn about consumer freedom and seem perfectly willing to force people to bow to their discomfort.
Reading Romances with Clean reader
I found reading books with redacted words to be extremely choppy and uncomfortable. In most cases (unless it was in dialogue), it is not easy to figure out what the sentence is supposed to mean. This makes it often a requirement for readers to click on the dot and see the suggested word. And while some word suggestions do not change the meaning of the sentence, some change it entirely - with almost hilarious results. But seriously, the word suggestions are vital to the story. I mostly joke here, but this is seriously wrong on many levels.
The most egregious example of this is the fact that all words for female genitalia (vagina and pussy) are replaced with bottom. Take the following:
“Where shall I [freak] you, Victoria? Where do you want my [groin]?”
“I want it in . . . my [bottom].” from Jackie Ashenden’s Living in Secret
Apparently, all sex (which of course is a bad word itself) is actually anal sex (or bottom love) as vaginas are entirely erased by the Clean Reader app. I am willing to be that this wasn’t intentional but it makes a very profound and dismissive statement about female sexuality.
Readers of a certain Francine Prose novel will recall that chicken breasts can be put to erotic use, which perhaps might explain why chicken chest is the preferred term of art.
Thank you for sharing the fruits of your research.
I was answering a specific question about the morality—not legality—of unauthorized or unintended uses of music.
But putting aside the moral obligations, there may be legal objections to political co-opting of songs recorded by famous artists, as these artists have publicity rights (which, unlike copyright, vary from state to state): if you use it as a theme song or the like, with the impression that the artist endorses the campaign or candidate, you can run afoul of publicity rights. And it’s even more clearcut if you try to make an ad or video with that music, as copyright law requires a sync license when the audio is combined with visual images, and this sync license isn’t mandatory like audio-only license are but must be directly negotiated with the copyright holder (which is why the Beastie Boys can prevent you from using their music in TV ads or in films, even though they can’t prevent their music from being played at sporting events or as muzak).
All this is a bit tangential to the original answer, which was about the moral implications, though.
I would have assumed someone with your username was already familiar with this.
Interesting…was not aware of some of those points!
Do your “artistic rights” extend to e.g. me asking a friend to read me a story with certain parts skipped or words substituted (e.g. a character name that evokes wrong memories)? Or just select certain parts? If not, why?
And if a person can do that for a request, why not a computer?
You have a right to produce content as you see fit.
I have a right to consume content as I see fit. If it involves skipping/altering its parts, so be it.
The beauty of text-based works, especially the electronic ones, is that these rights are not mutually exclusive.
Yay!!!
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
