Hate the artist, love the art
David Cowie
that you find disgusting and wrong, but which do not manifest themselves
in his or her books.
You want to keep on reading their books, but you don't like the thought
of giving money to someone like THAT. What would you do?
Some possibilities:
a) get their books from the library
b) second-hand
c) grit your teeth and pay up
d) steal their books off the Internet
e) persuade yourself that the books won't be the same now that you know
what Author X is really like, and stop reading him.
They all have their disadvantages, of course.
a) Availability could be the big problem here, especially with minority
authors. Even if the library has their books, you might have to wait a
long time to get them, and the book is never yours. And every time you
borrow one, you are telling the library "People like Author X, maybe you
should buy some more of his books." Not as bad as money going directly
from your pocket to his, but still ...
b) Availability is the problem again. But at least you can keep the book
if you find it.
c) you just know he'll spend your money on $EVIL.
d) Even if you don't have a moral or technological problem with this,
availability is the problem yet again. What if no one has ripped the book
you want to read?
e) Getting someone to summarise how the series ends will never be as
satisfying as reading it yourself, will it?
Any other ways around this problem?
--
David Cowie http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidcowie/
Containment Failure + 48576:20
Mike Schilling
> Suppose that your favourite author turns out to have beliefs or
> habits
> that you find disgusting and wrong, but which do not manifest
> themselves in his or her books.
> You want to keep on reading their books, but you don't like the
> thought of giving money to someone like THAT. What would you do?
To make this concrete, what if Steve Brust were a Dodgers fan? Or,
conversely, what if Orson Scott Card were still writing readable
books?
>
> Some possibilities:
> a) get their books from the library
> b) second-hand
> c) grit your teeth and pay up
> d) steal their books off the Internet
> e) persuade yourself that the books won't be the same now that you
> know what Author X is really like, and stop reading him.
I'd probably combine a and b. Given search engines like abe.com, most
things become available relatively soon.
Jim Smith
<m...@privacy.net> writes
>Suppose that your favourite author turns out to have beliefs or habits
>that you find disgusting and wrong, but which do not manifest themselves
>in his or her books.
>You want to keep on reading their books, but you don't like the thought
>of giving money to someone like THAT. What would you do?
>
>Some possibilities:
>a) get their books from the library
>b) second-hand
>c) grit your teeth and pay up
>d) steal their books off the Internet
>e) persuade yourself that the books won't be the same now that you know
>what Author X is really like, and stop reading him.
>
Sticking to principles usually involves some form of sacrifice. Either
read their books, or don't.
--
Jim Smith
Garrett Wollman
David Cowie <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>You want to keep on reading their books, but you don't like the thought
>of giving money to someone like THAT. What would you do?
Get over it. Likewise for obnoxious sports figures. You wouldn't
assume someone was a great singer merely because they agreed with you
politically, would you? The converse is equally silly.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are
wol...@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry
Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape
of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> Suppose that your favourite author turns out to have beliefs or habits
> that you find disgusting and wrong, but which do not manifest themselves
> in his or her books.
> You want to keep on reading their books, but you don't like the thought
> of giving money to someone like THAT. What would you do?
Either accept you don't like the man, but he's producing value that you
like, and pay the money, or stop reading him.
Any other approach is being a weaselly hypocrite. If you keep reading
his stuff, you clearly value his work, and you should be paying him for
that. If you can't stomach him getting any of your money, then you need
to suck it up and stop reading his material. Otherwise you're basically
saying "I want someone ELSE to pay for the luxury of my conscience".
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Andrew Plotkin
> David Cowie wrote:
> > Suppose that your favourite author turns out to have beliefs or habits
> > that you find disgusting and wrong, but which do not manifest themselves
> > in his or her books.
> > You want to keep on reading their books, but you don't like the thought
> > of giving money to someone like THAT. What would you do?
>
> Either accept you don't like the man, but he's producing
> value that you like, and pay the money, or stop reading him.
>
> Any other approach is being a weaselly hypocrite.
I don't accept that much absolutism. I get books from the library, I
get them from second-hand shops, I borrow them from friends -- and
that's for authors whom I have nothing against. It doesn't turn into
hypocrisy if I decide that the author is a jerk.
I have some internal arithmetic on "how much do I care about
maximimizing this author's income". I imagine many people do. It
influences *whether* I buy books new or used, whether I borrow, etc.
It's a vague, multifactored, and whim-subject arithmetic. Of course I
want authors to get paid and keep writing; but then I want a lot of
things, including to buy cinnamon rolls and to prevent my bookshelves
from crashing down through the floor through sheer load-density. My
feelings about the writer as a person are mixed in there too. The
writer can cope with it -- or avoid revealing any personal
information (as some authors do, even in this Netty age.)
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> Here, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> David Cowie wrote:
>>> Suppose that your favourite author turns out to have beliefs or habits
>>> that you find disgusting and wrong, but which do not manifest themselves
>>> in his or her books.
>>> You want to keep on reading their books, but you don't like the thought
>>> of giving money to someone like THAT. What would you do?
>> Either accept you don't like the man, but he's producing
>> value that you like, and pay the money, or stop reading him.
>>
>> Any other approach is being a weaselly hypocrite.
>
> I don't accept that much absolutism. I get books from the library, I
> get them from second-hand shops, I borrow them from friends -- and
> that's for authors whom I have nothing against. It doesn't turn into
> hypocrisy if I decide that the author is a jerk.
It does if it's a CONSCIOUS decision. If you just randomly get your
books from various sources, that's one thing. It's if you say "I don't
like this guy's politics/morals/etc., but I still want to read his
material which I usually buy, but I'm going to stop buying them."
Howard Brazee
<mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>To make this concrete, what if Steve Brust were a Dodgers fan? Or,
>conversely, what if Orson Scott Card were still writing readable
>books?
Card does write readable books. Trouble is, discovering which are
readable and which are not.
I wonder if there are people who don't read Brust because of his
economic system beliefs.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Howard Brazee
(Garrett Wollman) wrote:
>Get over it. Likewise for obnoxious sports figures. You wouldn't
>assume someone was a great singer merely because they agreed with you
>politically, would you? The converse is equally silly.
Lots of people wouldn't see a Jane Fonda movie back when.
Howard Brazee
(Garrett Wollman) wrote:
>Get over it. Likewise for obnoxious sports figures. You wouldn't
>assume someone was a great singer merely because they agreed with you
>politically, would you? The converse is equally silly.
Hmmm, I wonder how many people avoid Phil Spector produced songs... Or
Roman Polanski movies.
I bet not many - supporting criminals isn't a big no no, unless
there's a political belief involved.
Jon Schild
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Sat, 30 May 2009 10:39:40 -0700, "Mike Schilling"
> <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>To make this concrete, what if Steve Brust were a Dodgers fan? Or,
>>conversely, what if Orson Scott Card were still writing readable
>>books?
>
> Card does write readable books. Trouble is, discovering which are
> readable and which are not.
Yes. And while I find him personally a dangerous nutcase who probably
would really try to overthrow the government, I like to read some of his
stuff. My solution is to avoid buying it in any form, but to check it
out from the library. I get to read it without paying him any form of
royalty. Also, if the book turns out to be one of his unreadable ones, I
can take it back and not be out anything.
--
Wanted dead and/or alive: Shroedinger's cat.
Mike Schilling
> On Sat, 30 May 2009 10:39:40 -0700, "Mike Schilling"
> <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> To make this concrete, what if Steve Brust were a Dodgers fan? Or,
>> conversely, what if Orson Scott Card were still writing readable
>> books?
>
> Card does write readable books.
How recently?
Wayne Throop
: I like to read some of his stuff. My solution is to avoid buying it
: in any form, but to check it out from the library. I get to read it
: without paying him any form of royalty.
You haven't avoided paying a royalty, you've just reduced it
significantly and then obscured/laundered the money trail.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Andrew Plotkin
Sorry, still not convinced. I've decided not to buy an author's work
for all sorts of reasons. The bookstore isn't a Zero Room.
Or, to put it in reverse: I've decided to *buy* an author's work (at
all, or sooner, or in hardback, or in a completist must-have-every-
obscure-fragment way) for all sorts of reasons. Including "I like the
author's blogging style", or "I want the author to be successful," or
"I like the way this person behaves in public," or "I know the person
is having financial troubles and I want to help relieve them." It
isn't always 100% about the text on the page.
David Harmon
Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com> wrote,
>I have some internal arithmetic on "how much do I care about
>maximimizing this author's income". I imagine many people do. It
>influences *whether* I buy books new or used, whether I borrow, etc.
Seems to me, if you really want to maximize an author's income, you
should borrow the books and send him a check.
Andrew Plotkin
The answer to "how much do I care..." has never been that high a
value.
William December Starr
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> said:
> Either accept you don't like the man, but he's producing value
> that you like, and pay the money, or stop reading him.
>
> Any other approach is being a weaselly hypocrite. If you keep
> reading his stuff, you clearly value his work, and you should be
> paying him for that. If you can't stomach him getting any of your
> money, then you need to suck it up and stop reading his
> material. Otherwise you're basically saying "I want someone ELSE
> to pay for the luxury of my conscience".
Since libraries (1) exist and (2) in fact do just that (no, it's not
their *mission*, but they do serve that purpose), what's weaselly
hypocritish about making use of them?
-- wds
plausible prose man
> Suppose that your favourite author turns out to have beliefs or habits
> that you find disgusting and wrong, but which do not manifest themselves
> in his or her books.
> You want to keep on reading their books, but you don't like the thought
> of giving money to someone like THAT. What would you do?
I just find the concept amazingly alien, and I think anyone who'd
stop reading books or seeing movies or listening to movies because,
say, the author married his 14 year old fourth cousin three times
removed or converted to Islam or whatever is kind of an asshole.
> Some possibilities:
> a) get their books from the library
> b) second-hand
> c) grit your teeth and pay up
> d) steal their books off the Internet
> e) persuade yourself that the books won't be the same now that you know
> what Author X is really like, and stop reading him.
A real man would steal them from the bookstore, which isn't even
difficult. Or so my friend says.
plausible prose man
> Here, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
> > David Cowie wrote:
> > > Suppose that your favourite author turns out to have beliefs or habits
> > > that you find disgusting and wrong, but which do not manifest themselves
> > > in his or her books.
> > > You want to keep on reading their books, but you don't like the thought
> > > of giving money to someone like THAT. What would you do?
>
> > Either accept you don't like the man, but he's producing
> > value that you like, and pay the money, or stop reading him.
>
> > Any other approach is being a weaselly hypocrite.
>
> I don't accept that much absolutism. I get books from the library, I
> get them from second-hand shops, I borrow them from friends -- and
> that's for authors whom I have nothing against. It doesn't turn into
> hypocrisy if I decide that the author is a jerk.
>
> I have some internal arithmetic on "how much do I care about
> maximimizing this author's income". I imagine many people do.
I suppose, but...you know, it just never crosses my mind. If I buy a
book in hardback on release day, well, it's because I want to read it
right away. If I borrow it from the library, it's because it's been
out for a good long time and I decided later I wanted to read it. If I
"buy" it from a book club so that the author pays for it, well, it's
because I assign almost no value to the book.
F. C. Moulton
>
> Seems to me, if you really want to maximize an author's income, you
> should borrow the books and send him a check.
I think Charles Stross makes an interesting point that he prefers people
buy some new book of his from the publisher rather than send him money.
See:
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/03/
reminder_why_theres_no_tipjar.html
or use tiny URL
http://preview.tinyurl.com/dj6rfq
Mike Ash
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 30 May 2009 17:47:03 +0000 (UTC), wol...@bimajority.org
> (Garrett Wollman) wrote:
>
> >Get over it. Likewise for obnoxious sports figures. You wouldn't
> >assume someone was a great singer merely because they agreed with you
> >politically, would you? The converse is equally silly.
>
> Lots of people wouldn't see a Jane Fonda movie back when.
Supporting and visiting the people who are killing American soldiers
goes way beyond the crazy stuff that most celebrities pull off.
(Not trying to start an argument about politics. Even if you disagree
with my comment on Fonda, the relevant point is that this is what the
anti-Fonda crowd thought of it.)
--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
Mike Ash
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 30 May 2009 10:39:40 -0700, "Mike Schilling"
> <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >To make this concrete, what if Steve Brust were a Dodgers fan? Or,
> >conversely, what if Orson Scott Card were still writing readable
> >books?
>
> Card does write readable books. Trouble is, discovering which are
> readable and which are not.
Plural? What's the other one? :)
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
It's making the choice to use them INSTEAD of buying, IF you were
normally buying the guy's stuff.
If you wanna make a big moral stand, make the stand. Which means paying
the price of not reading Mr. Morally Offensive.
David Cowie
> : Jon Schild <j...@xmission.com>
> : I like to read some of his stuff. My solution is to avoid buying it :
> in any form, but to check it out from the library. I get to read it :
> without paying him any form of royalty.
>
> You haven't avoided paying a royalty, you've just reduced it
> significantly and then obscured/laundered the money trail.
>
Would I be right in thinking that Jon Schild does not live in one of the
territories where libraries *do* pay royalties to authors?
--
David Cowie http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidcowie/
Containment Failure + 48598:42
David Cowie
>
> Hmmm, I wonder how many people avoid Phil Spector produced songs... Or
> Roman Polanski movies.
>
> I bet not many - supporting criminals isn't a big no no, unless there's
> a political belief involved.
On the other hand, consider Gary Glitter. Glitter was a glam-rock star in
the UK in the early 1970s, and was doing well on the nostalgia circuit,
but his career has not recovered from a child porn conviction in 1999.
--
David Cowie http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidcowie/
Containment Failure + 48598:44
Mike Schilling
> On Sat, 30 May 2009 16:04:22 -0600, Howard Brazee wrote:
>
>>
>> Hmmm, I wonder how many people avoid Phil Spector produced songs...
>> Or Roman Polanski movies.
>>
>> I bet not many - supporting criminals isn't a big no no, unless
>> there's a political belief involved.
>
> On the other hand, consider Gary Glitter. Glitter was a glam-rock
> star in the UK in the early 1970s, and was doing well on the
> nostalgia circuit, but his career has not recovered from a child
> porn
> conviction in 1999.
Though many of the sports teams that had stopped using "Rock and Roll,
Part 2" as "fire up the crowd" music went back to it.
Kurt Busiek
> On Sun, 31 May 2009 00:02:58 +0000, Wayne Throop wrote:
>
>> : Jon Schild <j...@xmission.com>
>> : I like to read some of his stuff. My solution is to avoid buying it :
>> in any form, but to check it out from the library. I get to read it :
>> without paying him any form of royalty.
>>
>> You haven't avoided paying a royalty, you've just reduced it
>> significantly and then obscured/laundered the money trail.
>
> Would I be right in thinking that Jon Schild does not live in one of the
> territories where libraries *do* pay royalties to authors?
Libraries buy books, therefore authors get royalties -- subject to the
same exceptions as anywhere else, like if the advance hasn't earned out
yet.
But libraries buy books, and books aren't all that sturday, so the more
times they're checked out the beatier they get, so libraries buy
replacement copies for high turnover books. And of course, multiple
copies of high-demand books.
So Wayne's point, presumably, is that by participating in the library
system, Jon is taking part in financially supporting the author. Hes'
just reduing the amount of that support significantly (by being one of
a collective number justifying purchase of the book, rather than one
guy buying one copy) and "laundering" the trail (by having the money
come out of public funds, which he presumably also contributes to)
rather than directly from him.
So the financial support represented by checking a book out of the
library is low and indirect. But it's there nonetheless.
kdb
Jack Tingle
news:g82dnTa2t6VCTrzX...@earthlink.com...
Huh! You know, I've never been concerned for an author sufficiently in
either direction to give a flying #@$% at a rolling donut about his _income_
either way. Is that shallow of me?
It goes back to the midlister complaint that they don't worry about piracy,
they worry that no one steals their books on the darknets because no one
knows they exist. We mostly don't.
Regards,
Jack Tingle
Carl Dershem
news:jaSdnTqOIYTIerzX...@giganews.com:
> On Sat, 30 May 2009 17:47:43 -0700, David Harmon wrote:
>
>>
>> Seems to me, if you really want to maximize an author's income, you
>> should borrow the books and send him a check.
>
> I think Charles Stross makes an interesting point that he prefers people
> buy some new book of his from the publisher rather than send him money.
It's a logical attitude - it profits him, and lets the publisher know he
has an audience.
There are writers whose books I will not read, even though they have
talent; and there are other writers whose books I always get, even though
they're not as talented. And there's a continuum in between.
cd
--
The difference between immorality and immortality is "T". I like Earl
Grey.
David Cowie
> On 2009-05-31 08:18:12 -0700, David Cowie <m...@privacy.net> said:
>
>> On Sun, 31 May 2009 00:02:58 +0000, Wayne Throop wrote:
>>
>>> : Jon Schild <j...@xmission.com>
>>> : I like to read some of his stuff. My solution is to avoid buying it
>>> : in any form, but to check it out from the library. I get to read it
>>> : without paying him any form of royalty.
>>>
>>> You haven't avoided paying a royalty, you've just reduced it
>>> significantly and then obscured/laundered the money trail.
>>
>> Would I be right in thinking that Jon Schild does not live in one of
>> the territories where libraries *do* pay royalties to authors?
>
> Libraries buy books, therefore authors get royalties -- subject to the
> same exceptions as anywhere else, like if the advance hasn't earned out
> yet.
>
I was referring to the system in the UK (and maybe some other places)
where libraries make a payment every time a book is borrowed. It's called
"Public Lending Right."
--
David Cowie http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidcowie/
Containment Failure + 48599:50
Kurt Busiek
I understand. But that's not what Wayne was referring to, I expect, so
I was explaining that even if Jon doesn't live in such an area, he
still hasn't avoided contributing financially.
kdb
Mike Schilling
And of course the fewer books an author sells, the less he pays in
taxes and the more likely he's on some form of public assistance, so
not buying his books increases your share of that sort of indirect
cost.
Kurt Busiek
<mscotts...@hotmail.com> said:
Dhere's chust no VINNINK!
kdb
Mike Ash
"Jack Tingle" <jti...@email.com> wrote:
> "David Harmon" <sou...@netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:g82dnTa2t6VCTrzX...@earthlink.com...
> > On Sat, 30 May 2009 19:32:45 +0000 (UTC) in rec.arts.sf.written, Andrew
> > Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com> wrote,
> >>I have some internal arithmetic on "how much do I care about
> >>maximimizing this author's income". I imagine many people do. It
> >>influences *whether* I buy books new or used, whether I borrow, etc.
> >
> > Seems to me, if you really want to maximize an author's income, you
> > should borrow the books and send him a check.
>
> Huh! You know, I've never been concerned for an author sufficiently in
> either direction to give a flying #@$% at a rolling donut about his _income_
> either way. Is that shallow of me?
I hope not because that's pretty much how I feel too. When I'm
undergoing a commercial transaction, the well-being of the other party
almost never enters into it. When I patronize my favorite restaurant I
do so because I like their food, not because I want to put money in
their pockets. If they send out a coupon or have other ways for me to
give them less money than usual, I jump on it! Their success or failure
is only very weakly linked to my own personal activity anyway, and they
ought to succeed or fail on their own merits.
I make one exception for this, a pizza and sub shop which I feel
severely undercharges for the quality and quantity of food they provide.
I'm always sure to tip them generously even in situations where it's not
expected.
Thus it is with authors. They'll succeed or fail basically the same no
matter what I do with their stuff. Whether and how I buy it is entirely
dependent on how and when I want to read it. If my library has it and I
can finish it in three weeks then I'll do that. If they don't have it,
or there's a long wait for it and I'm in a hurry, then I'll buy it (or
simply pass on it).
> It goes back to the midlister complaint that they don't worry about piracy,
> they worry that no one steals their books on the darknets because no one
> knows they exist. We mostly don't.
Certainly in the software world, the only way to avoid having your stuff
pirated is to make it so crushingly unpopular that nobody wants to use
it in the first place. I imagine the same is true in the book world.
Ahasuerus
wrote:
Or the writer may have to abandon writing full time and get a job in
the real world. In due course of time he will increase his disposable
income, which he will spend on funding the Evil Causes that he
champions. There is really only one way to be sure...
Jon Schild
No. There is no royalty on library checkouts, and libraries get a cut
rate on the purchase. I never suggest they buy one. I only read the ones
they already bought, possibly at the request of others. He gets the same
royalty whether I check it out or not, so I add nothing.
Jon Schild
David Cowie wrote:
> On Sun, 31 May 2009 00:02:58 +0000, Wayne Throop wrote:
>
>
>>: Jon Schild <j...@xmission.com>
>>: I like to read some of his stuff. My solution is to avoid buying it :
>>in any form, but to check it out from the library. I get to read it :
>>without paying him any form of royalty.
>>
>>You haven't avoided paying a royalty, you've just reduced it
>>significantly and then obscured/laundered the money trail.
>>
>
> Would I be right in thinking that Jon Schild does not live in one of the
> territories where libraries *do* pay royalties to authors?
I asked the manager of the branch in which I do business. She said there
is no royalty based on checkouts, just the usual one on purchase. She
gother library science degree in South Carolina, and has been a
librarian in SC, Texas and now Utah. I should think that royalty
payments would apply everywhere in the country, or nowhere. About
countries other than the US, I have no knowledge on this matter.
Mike Ash
Jon Schild <j...@xmission.com> wrote:
There is a small but non-zero probability that your particular check-out
is the one which causes the library to decide that they need another
copy of this book, so you do in fact contribute, in a small and
probabilistic way, to the process of causing money to move from the
library to the author.
David DeLaney
<billionaire in suitcoat and tophat, clenching fists and grimacing>
"Lucky ... DUCKY!"
</billionaire>
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
William December Starr
d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) said:
> Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> wrote:
>> "Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> said:
>>
>>> And of course the fewer books an author sells, the less he pays
>>> in taxes and the more likely he's on some form of public
>>> assistance, so not buying his books increases your share of that
>>> sort of indirect cost.
>>
>> Dhere's chust no VINNINK!
>
> <billionaire in suitcoat and tophat, clenching fists and grimacing>
> "Lucky ... DUCKY!"
> </billionaire>
You forgot to include "clutching a copy of the Wall Street Journal,
open to the editorial page." (A doubly galling omission, since fantasy
with no connection to the real world _is_ on topic in this newsgroup.)
-- wds
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
>David Cowie wrote:
>>
>> Would I be right in thinking that Jon Schild does not live in one of the
>> territories where libraries *do* pay royalties to authors?
>
>I asked the manager of the branch in which I do business. She said there
>is no royalty based on checkouts, just the usual one on purchase. She
>gother library science degree in South Carolina, and has been a
>librarian in SC, Texas and now Utah. I should think that royalty
>payments would apply everywhere in the country, or nowhere. About
>countries other than the US, I have no knowledge on this matter.
Obviously.
Canada and the UK have something called the "Public Lending Right"
that does indeed pay authors based on how often their books are
checked out of libraries. I believe there are other countries with
similar rules.
In the United States, though, that's considered a violation of
first-sale doctrine, and there is no Public Lending Right or the
equivalent anywhere in the U.S.
Mr Cowie's use of the word "territories" seems to me something of a
hint that he's not talking about the U.S.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
I'm selling my comic collection -- see http://www.watt-evans.com/comics.html
I'm serializing a novel at http://www.watt-evans.com/realmsoflight0.html
Jaimie Vandenbergh
<mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Howard Brazee wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 May 2009 10:39:40 -0700, "Mike Schilling"
>> <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> To make this concrete, what if Steve Brust were a Dodgers fan? Or,
>>> conversely, what if Orson Scott Card were still writing readable
>>> books?
>>
>> Card does write readable books.
>
>How recently?
1985 or so?
With Card, rather like Piers Anthony, I'd recommend sticking to the
early short fiction and maybe read one or two early novels.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
You're only young once, but you can remain immature indefinitely.
Quadibloc
> On Sun, 31 May 2009 00:02:58 +0000, Wayne Throop wrote:
> Would I be right in thinking that Jon Schild does not live in one of the
> territories where libraries *do* pay royalties to authors?
But they use taxpayer money to pay for the books even there, and they
buy more copies of books from authors whose books get read.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> I was referring to the system in the UK (and maybe some other places)
> where libraries make a payment every time a book is borrowed. It's called
> "Public Lending Right."
In the United States, there's something called the "First-Sale
Doctrine". Except that it doesn't apply to the Compact Disc, thanks to
the energetic lobbying efforts of the RIAA.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> <billionaire in suitcoat and tophat, clenching fists and grimacing>
> "Lucky ... DUCKY!"
> </billionaire>
Ah, yes. A local entertainment paper in my area once carried Tom, the
Dancing Bug, but does so no longer, presumably because it can no
longer afford it.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> A real man would steal them from the bookstore, which isn't even
> difficult. Or so my friend says.
But that would be harming an innocent victim in the middle in the name
of a political cause!
That's _terrorism_.
Oh, well, at least there would be one side benefit. Allowing the full
force of anti-terrorism laws to be brought to bear against shoplifters
in bookstores would result in less shrinkage losses, and thus lower
book prices.
John Savard
Quadibloc
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> Either accept you don't like the man, but he's producing value that you
> like, and pay the money, or stop reading him.
>
> Any other approach is being a weaselly hypocrite. If you keep reading
> his stuff, you clearly value his work, and you should be paying him for
> that. If you can't stomach him getting any of your money, then you need
> to suck it up and stop reading his material. Otherwise you're basically
> saying "I want someone ELSE to pay for the luxury of my conscience".
If I'm taking a moralistic stand, that makes sense.
This, though, reminds me of a political issue that took place in
Edmonton some years ago.
Catholic Social Services withdrew from the United Way, because the
United Way chose to include Planned Parenthood in it, an organization
that supports family planning without excluding abortion.
A columnist criticized CSS for being hypocritical, because they didn't
return the money they got from the United Way the previous year.
But that was silly. They weren't objecting morally to receiving
tainted money; they were simply unwilling to allow their reputation
and good works to be used to help raise money to kill unborn babies.
If I acknowledge that an author is producing value that I like, it is
indeed immoral to obtain access to his works by dishonest means.
Whether I buy his books as new hardcovers, new softcovers, used
softcovers, or read them at the library will usually depend on the
state of my purse, and the extent of my interest in his works - and
when I became aware of the author.
Those that I'm eager to have when they first come out I may even buy
as new hardcovers.
If I think an author might insidiously poison my mind, or his politics
are obtrusive in his works, I'll stop reading him. I'm not even sure
if Terry Goodkind's real-world politics are anything I'd object to,
but while his series started out entertaining, even if a bit rough for
my tastes, it reached a point where I dropped it like a hot potato.
I'm certainly not going to stop reading an author because of a minor
disagreement with his honest and principled views. I didn't start
reading the Honor Harrington series back when the sale-priced
hardcover edition of The Honor of the Queen appeared in bookstores
simply because I picked it up, glanced at it, and thought the idea of
spaceships with sails in order to write about Horatio Hornblower in
disguise was a tour de force in an uncongenial genre. Later, I heard
more about the books on the Web, and encountered some of the volumes
in the series in paperback in a thrift shop, gave it a chance, and
ended up getting interested enough to buy a couple of the more recent
ones new in hardcover.
Were I to find an author entertaining who goes around raising money
for Hamas in his spare time, though, I would have no compunction in
avoiding putting money in his pocket, irrespective of whether or not I
found his works entertaining enough to read anyways. Because this
isn't about moralizing. I'm not trying to sanctimoniously salve my
conscience, I'm trying to keep my money out of the hands of people who
will *hurt me with it*. So I'm not expecting, or interested in,
anyone's praise for how virtuous I am.
John Savard
David DeLaney
I've been reading it online for quite a while, at
http://www.gocomics.com/tomthedancingbug/
... which currently has a ... peculiar method of handling requests for
older/archived comics.
David DeLaney
>plausible prose man <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote:
>> �A real man would steal them from the bookstore, which isn't even
>> difficult. Or so my friend says.
>
>But that would be harming an innocent victim in the middle in the name
>of a political cause!
>
>That's _terrorism_.
As opposed to terraformorianism, which is the conversion of one's cities
into giant anthills.
Charlton Wilbur
DC> Suppose that your favourite author turns out to have beliefs or
DC> habits that you find disgusting and wrong, but which do not
DC> manifest themselves in his or her books. You want to keep on
DC> reading their books, but you don't like the thought of giving
DC> money to someone like THAT. What would you do?
I figure out which is more important -- not supporting someone like
THAT, or continuing to read the books. And then I act accordingly.
There are very few authors whose books I will not buy because the author
is someone like THAT, and none of them are books I have any interest in
reading. Perhaps this is just good fortune on my part.
Charlton
--
Charlton Wilbur
cwi...@chromatico.net
Steven L.
> On May 30, 1:08 pm, David Cowie <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> Suppose that your favourite author turns out to have beliefs or habits
>> that you find disgusting and wrong, but which do not manifest themselves
>> in his or her books.
>> of giving money to someone like THAT. What would you do?
>
> I just find the concept amazingly alien, and I think anyone who'd
> stop reading books or seeing movies or listening to movies because,
> say, the author married his 14 year old fourth cousin three times
> removed or converted to Islam or whatever is kind of an asshole.
I agree.
Suppose Khalid Sheikh Mohammed wrote a brilliant science fiction novel
while serving his time in SuperMax. The very fact that he wrote it,
proves that there's still some redeeming value in him. And that makes
it a lot easier for you to buy the book (and possibly help fund his
appeal for a new trial).
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Wayne Throop
: Suppose Khalid Sheikh Mohammed wrote a brilliant science fiction novel
Eh, that show was always too violent/surreal for me.
No wait... superMAX. Nevermind.
Oh, life on the outside ain't what it used to be
You know the world's gone crazy and it ain't safe on the street
Well it's a drag I know, there's only one place to go
I'm coming home, oh yeah, I'm coming home
--- "Coming Home", by Cheeseburger (short version)
plausible prose man
> On May 30, 8:00 pm, plausible prose man <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > A real man would steal them from the bookstore, which isn't even
> > difficult. Or so my friend says.
>
> But that would be harming an innocent victim in the middle in the name
> of a political cause!
They write it off, Jerry.
> That's _terrorism_.
I'm not sure it is, as there's no, you know, terror.
> Oh, well, at least there would be one side benefit. Allowing the full
> force of anti-terrorism laws to be brought to bear against shoplifters
> in bookstores would result in less shrinkage losses, and thus lower
> book prices.
I suppose having to take your shoes off and having your name checked
against a list isn't, strictly speaking, raising the price of buying a
book, but it is raising the cost.
ncw...@hotmail.com
> On Jun 1, 5:00 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> > On May 30, 8:00 pm, plausible prose man <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > A real man would steal them from the bookstore, which isn't even
> > > difficult. Or so my friend says.
>
> > But that would be harming an innocent victim in the middle in the name
> > of a political cause!
>
> They write it off, Jerry.
>
> > That's _terrorism_.
>
> I'm not sure it is, as there's no, you know, terror.
>
How about if you steal the books and then burn them ?
ObRutles: Nasty, in a widely quoted interview apparently had claimed
that
: The Rutles were bigger than God and had gone on to say that God had
: never had a hit record. The story spread like wild fire in America.
Many
: fans burnt their Rutles albums. Many more burnt their fingers
attempting
: to burn their albums. Rutles album sales sky rocketed - people were
: buying them just to burn them.
Cheers,
Nigel.
James Nicoll
plausible prose man <George...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Jun 1, 5:00�pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> On May 30, 8:00�pm, plausible prose man <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > �A real man would steal them from the bookstore, which isn't even
>> > difficult. Or so my friend says.
>>
>> But that would be harming an innocent victim in the middle in the name
>> of a political cause!
>
> They write it off, Jerry.
>
its theft. "Shrinkage" is one of the more annoying costs in running a
store, although happily most shoplifters share the same body language
and are fairly easy to spot once you know what to look for [1].
1: The ones who think they can hide a big box game like THE LONGEST
DAY under a t-shirt are even easier.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
Walter Bushell
David Cowie <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 30 May 2009 16:04:22 -0600, Howard Brazee wrote:
>
> >
> > Hmmm, I wonder how many people avoid Phil Spector produced songs... Or
> > Roman Polanski movies.
> >
> > I bet not many - supporting criminals isn't a big no no, unless there's
> > a political belief involved.
>
> On the other hand, consider Gary Glitter. Glitter was a glam-rock star in
> the UK in the early 1970s, and was doing well on the nostalgia circuit,
> but his career has not recovered from a child porn conviction in 1999.
And Jimmy Buffet has cleaned up his lyrics, "Let's get cowed and moo."?,
shame, shame.
Mike Schilling
> In article
> <d8e054c3-76ac-4c01...@j18g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
> plausible prose man <George...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 1, 5:00 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> On May 30, 8:00 pm, plausible prose man <Georgefha...@aol.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A real man would steal them from the bookstore, which isn't even
>>>> difficult. Or so my friend says.
>>>
>>> But that would be harming an innocent victim in the middle in the
>>> name of a political cause!
>>
>> They write it off, Jerry.
>>
> They still paid for it and they suffer a financial loss due to
> its theft.
You missed the Seinfeld reference.
plausible prose man
> On 2 June, 06:43, plausible prose man <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 1, 5:00 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> > > On May 30, 8:00 pm, plausible prose man <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > A real man would steal them from the bookstore, which isn't even
> > > > difficult. Or so my friend says.
>
> > > But that would be harming an innocent victim in the middle in the name
> > > of a political cause!
>
> > They write it off, Jerry.
>
> > > That's _terrorism_.
>
> > I'm not sure it is, as there's no, you know, terror.
>
> How about if you steal the books and then burn them ?
How about if you just sit around at the bookstore and read them
without paying for them, and make sure they're, you know, not actively
vandalized, exactly, but look like someone read them while eating and
drinking sticky things?
Tina Hall
>>>> A real man would steal them from the bookstore, which isn't
>>>> even difficult. Or so my friend says.
>>>
>>> But that would be harming an innocent victim in the middle in
>>> the name of a political cause!
>>
>> They write it off, Jerry.
>>
> They still paid for it and they suffer a financial loss due to
> its theft. "Shrinkage" is one of the more annoying costs in
> running a store, although happily most shoplifters share the same
> body language and are fairly easy to spot once you know what to
> look for [1].
> 1: The ones who think they can hide a big box game like THE
> LONGEST DAY under a t-shirt are even easier.
Apropos of the other side, elsewhere...
When I just went to the chemist's to store up on the only coffee I
like, there was some guy skulking around. Huge (as in taller than I
even, and broad), bald, somewhat exotic features (could be German,
but he wouldn't be mis-cast as a djinn from some fairy tale either),
in a business suit.
The very opposite of inconspicuous. (I guess the word is conspicuous
then, but that doesn't really say it.)
When I went to the cash desk I asked the lady whether he belongs
here (he was standing in a corner by the door then), and commented
on him looking like he's a bouncer waiting to throw someone out, and
that it's very odd.
She says he belongs there, but didn't volunteer the information as
to what his purpose is.
So I don't know whether he's supposed to scare off shop lifters, or
catch them (which his appearance would make kind of futile), or
perhaps scare off would-be robbers (but this quarter is not that
bad, I think). He just so doesn't fit into the picture at all.
(If he's there to inconspicuously keep an eye on customers, he's the
match for the box game under t-shirt guy. :) )
--
(Thay) "They wanted to visit the Quiet Sea."
(Dersia) "That is something Jeahnira should like, too, if only to yell at
it as well." -- Seasons & Elements II: Controlling the Magic
Excerpts at: <http://home.htp-tel.de/fkoerper/ath/athintro.htm>
Michael Stemper
Are you serious?
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
91.2% of all statistics are made up by the person quoting them.
MajorOz
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> David Cowie wrote:
> > Suppose that your favourite author turns out to have beliefs or habits
> > that you find disgusting and wrong, but which do not manifest themselves
> > in his or her books.
> > You want to keep on reading their books, but you don't like the thought
> > of giving money to someone like THAT. What would you do?
>
> like, and pay the money, or stop reading him.
>
> Any other approach is being a weaselly hypocrite. If you keep reading
> his stuff, you clearly value his work, and you should be paying him for
> that. If you can't stomach him getting any of your money, then you need
> to suck it up and stop reading his material. Otherwise you're basically
> saying "I want someone ELSE to pay for the luxury of my conscience".
>
> Sea Wasp
Well said, and I agree, even though it hurts to pay to see a Jane
Fonda movie or listen to a Joan Baez recording.
cheers
oz, who never did like the Chicksie Dicks
John F. Eldredge
There was a news article recently about an inept smuggler who was caught
trying to bring live birds in through US Customs, concealed in his baggy
pants. He was caught because his pants were chirping, and the tops of
his shoes were covered by feathers and bird droppings.
--
John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
PGP key available from http://pgp.mit.edu
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better
than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
Quadibloc
> She says he belongs there, but didn't volunteer the information as
> to what his purpose is.
The inconspicuous guy looking for the shoplifters watches everyone to
see who notices him (and especially who notices him and tries to hide
it that they've noticed him). That's my guess.
And if there's still any shoplifting, he can be the muscle to catch
the guy so that the inconspicuous one can remain anonymous.
John Savard
Michael Grosberg
> Suppose that your favourite author turns out to have beliefs or habits
> that you find disgusting and wrong, but which do not manifest themselves
> in his or her books.
> You want to keep on reading their books, but you don't like the thought
> of giving money to someone like THAT. What would you do?
On May 30, 8:08 pm, David Cowie <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> Suppose that your favourite author turns out to have beliefs or habits
> that you find disgusting and wrong, but which do not manifest themselves
> in his or her books.
> You want to keep on reading their books, but you don't like the thought
> of giving money to someone like THAT. What would you do?
I'm having this problem right now with Steven Brust.
First of all you need some background about me: I'm a secular jew who
lives in Israel.
Steven is also of Jewish descent, and as you all probably know he's a
Trotskyist, so he's not at all big on Zionism or any other kind of
nationalism. I have no problem with that: I'm not much of a
nationalist myself and I do have some mild socialist leanings.
A few months ago Steven was a GOH in a con in Israel. I volunteered to
be his handler (is that the correct term?) and carted him around for a
few days during his stay in Tel Aviv. He's a great guy and it was a
lot of fun.
More recently he posted a short message on his blog about this. The
discussion inevitably turned to Israel, zionism and anti-zionism in
general, at which point Steve's sister turned up and told a story of
why their family wasn't zionist:
It appears their grandpa was disgusted with zionism when, during World
War II, he heard that the zionist leaders convinced the leaders of the
free world (Churchill and Roosvelt) to close their borders to Jews, so
Jews will have no option but to emigrate illegally to Palestine. She
claimed zionist leaders preferred that Jews die in the camps rather
than emigrate to anywhere other than Palestine.
Now this is a preposterous claim, and amounts to a blood libel, and I
said something to this effect (I now believe the source of the claim
could be not from people who wished to exonerate the two leaders of
their guilt in letting those people die by the Nazis as I initially
thought, but from ultra-orthodox jews, who hated the zionists with a
fervor matched only by actual antisemites).
Anyway Brust gave no sign he disagreed with the authenticity of the
claim, nor gave any hint that there was anything wrong in believing it
true. After another post I decided to stop visiting his blog. I can
stand dissenting opinion. How you interpret reality is your own
business; but I can't stand people who base their beliefs on lies and
this one is too big for me to swallow. Blaming Jews for some of the
deaths in the Holocaust... even if the person blaming is of Jewish
descent... that's too much for me. Especially when done in such an off
handed way, as if it's a known fact that doesn't even require and type
of evidence.
I'm not sure what I'm going to do when the next Vlad novel comes out.
I don't think the money given or not to Brust has anything to do with
it. For me, if I read his work, I can't help thinking about this, so
I don't think I'll be able to enjoy the novel.
Brust's a good guy and all, I'm not saying he's not, but it's like
finding out your best friend is a scientologist. It colors your
perception of him and his work.
Walter Bushell
mste...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote:
> In article <proto-5C020B....@news.panix.com>, Walter Bushell
> <pr...@panix.com> writes:
> >In article <78fln2F...@mid.individual.net>, David Cowie
> ><m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> >> On the other hand, consider Gary Glitter. Glitter was a glam-rock star in
> >> the UK in the early 1970s, and was doing well on the nostalgia circuit,
> >> but his career has not recovered from a child porn conviction in 1999.
> >
> >And Jimmy Buffet has cleaned up his lyrics, "Let's get cowed and moo."?,
>
> Are you serious?
Something like that, kid friendly lyrics. His fans are bringing the
results to the concerts, you see. I wasn't there, I read it in a review.
Walter Bushell
<9cd73086-105a-4bbd...@o18g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
plausible prose man <George...@aol.com> wrote:
Ha, there is a bookstore not too far from me that has a cafe which is
the only seating in the store and you have to get something from the
store to sit there. I wonder what the rate of that happening in that
store is? I would imagine they get a lot of chocolate stains.
Quadibloc
> Something like that, kid friendly lyrics. His fans are bringing the
> results to the concerts, you see. I wasn't there, I read it in a review.
Oh, my. Changing lyrics. That reminds me of an artist with whom I do
have such a problem - but to a very limited extent.
He just changed the way he sang his version of the "Banana Boat Song"
so as to use proper English; this was to promote greater respect for
people of color such as live in Jamaica. Nothing wrong with that...
but what he said about Colin Powell was rather annoying to me.
But the problem is hardly a serious one, as I don't expect politics to
play any role in a decision I might make to buy any new recordings of
his - and I will happily buy CD reissues of his older recordings too.
I don't find him "evil" just because I disagree with him about certain
things and find some of his actions injudicious.
John Savard
Mike Schilling
> On Jun 3, 6:34 am, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> Something like that, kid friendly lyrics. His fans are bringing the
>> results to the concerts, you see. I wasn't there, I read it in a
>> review.
>
> Oh, my. Changing lyrics. That reminds me of an artist with whom I do
> have such a problem - but to a very limited extent.
>
> He just changed the way he sang his version of the "Banana Boat
> Song"
> so as to use proper English; this was to promote greater respect for
> people of color such as live in Jamaica.
Stan Freberg did the same thing for Old Man River. Of course, he was
being deliberately silly:
Elderly man river, that elderly man river
He must know something, but he doesn't say anything
He just keeps rollin'-- rolling,
He just keeps rolling along.
James Nicoll
I am suddenly having a flashback to an old comedy show where
some white guy finds himself sharing a cell with a black guy. The
black sings Nobody Knows the Trouble I've Seen in a manner similar
to the above: Nobody is Aware of the Difficulties I Have Observed.
I think there was a bit where the white guy asks the black guy
what he does and the black guy says "I ran in the election for Mayor
in [Southern city here]" and then the white guy asks how the black
guy came to be in jail and he answers "I won the election for Mayor
in [Southern city here]."
I bet it was on LAUGH IN. Maybe the Smothers Brothers but it
feels more Rowan and Martiny.
William George Ferguson
He don't-- doesn't plant 'taters-- potatoes
He doesn't plant cotten-- cotting
When these-- those-- them-- that plant them
Are long forgotting
--
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
(Bene Gesserit)
trag
> Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >That's _terrorism_.
>
> As opposed to terraformorianism, which is the conversion of one's cities
> into giant anthills.
<snicker><chuckle><snort>
trag
> And Jimmy Buffet has cleaned up his lyrics, "Let's get cowed and moo."?,
> shame, shame.
I really really hope you're joking. Please tell me he didn't perform
a version of that song with the above lyrics.
trag
> Well said, and I agree, even though it hurts to pay to see a Jane
> Fonda movie or listen to a Joan Baez recording.
I think it hurts to listen to a Joan Baez recording just because they
sound bad. I never did see the appeal of Janice Joplin's music
either.
mimus
The voice, of course.
And she was pretty.
And wild.
And dead.
--
"You are either insane or a fool."
"I am a sanitary inspector."
< _Maske: Thaery_
Quadibloc
> The
> black sings Nobody Knows the Trouble I've Seen in a manner similar
> to the above:
I fondly remember a movie in which a lovely (and Caucasian - although
I think she might belong to another ethnic group that has historically
been the target of discrimination) young woman sang that song (in an
unusually deep voice; perhaps her character sang the song, but someone
else, rather than the actress herself, supplied the voice - after all,
it _was_ intended as a joke).
It also contained a reference to "One Froggy Night" (closely
associated to a reference to the movie Alien) and another joke
referencing the shock ending of the original Planet of the Apes movie.
That is, of course, the Mel Brooks space satire "Spaceballs".
John Savard
Quadibloc
> a lovely (and Caucasian - although
> I think she might belong to another ethnic group that has historically
> been the target of discrimination) young woman
Daphne Zuniga is Hispanic, I see, not Jewish, although Hispanics have
also suffered discrimination.
John Savard
David Johnston
>Suppose that your favourite author turns out to have beliefs or habits
>that you find disgusting and wrong, but which do not manifest themselves
>in his or her books.
I'd be very surprised indeed if that was the case. Everything I'd
react to that way, seems like something that would inevitably be
apparent in their writing.
But if there was an author about whom I knew something that made me
dislike them greatly, but I liked the work, <shrug> I wouldn't change
my habits.
Howard Brazee
<mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Stan Freberg did the same thing for Old Man River. Of course, he was
>being deliberately silly:
>
>Elderly man river, that elderly man river
>He must know something, but he doesn't say anything
>He just keeps rollin'-- rolling,
>He just keeps rolling along.
On a different tack - do you actually hear the difference in songs
between "rollin'" and "rolling"? I see so many lyrics that drop the
"g", but I don't hear the difference.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Dave Hansen
I don't much like Jane Fonda's politics, but that doesn't stop me from
enjoying "On Golden Pond". Or "Barberella". Except I didn't like
Barberella much. And those are the only two Jane Fonda movies I
remember seeing.
I kind of liked "The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down", but I can't
remember anything else Joan Baez did.
Janis Joplin is popular for the same reason any good Blues performer
is popular -- She makes you _feel_ it. You can tell she put
everything she had into her songs. Definitely "Piece of my Heart"
rather than "Peace of my Heart"...
I guess in general, I'm able to seperate the artist from the
politics. As long as the artists is able to seperate the politics
from the art. Some of Pete Seeger's stuff is hard to stomache, even
if the tune is catchy. Same for Bruce Springsteen...
Regards,
-=Dave
William George Ferguson
wrote:
>On Jun 3, 12:23�pm, trag <t...@io.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 2, 12:01 pm, MajorOz <Majo...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Well said, and I agree, even though it hurts to pay to see a Jane
>> > Fonda movie or listen to a Joan Baez recording.
>>
>> I think it hurts to listen to a Joan Baez recording just because they
>> sound bad. � I never did see the appeal of Janice Joplin's music
>> either.
>
>I don't much like Jane Fonda's politics, but that doesn't stop me from
>enjoying "On Golden Pond". Or "Barberella". Except I didn't like
>Barberella much. And those are the only two Jane Fonda movies I
>remember seeing.
You didn't see...?
It's a hanging day
In Wolf City Wyoming, Wolf City Wyoming
Eighteen Ninety-Four
They're gonna drop Cat Ballou
Through the gallows floor.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<id...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I kind of liked "The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down", but I can't
>remember anything else Joan Baez did.
"The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down" was originally by The Band, and
Baez learned it by listening, not from written lyrics. As a result
she got half the words wrong and made a historically-accurate song
into nonsense.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
I'm selling my comic collection -- see http://www.watt-evans.com/comics.html
I'm serializing a novel at http://www.watt-evans.com/realmsoflight0.html
Mike Schilling
> On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 16:12:18 -0700 (PDT), Dave Hansen
> <id...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I kind of liked "The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down", but I can't
>> remember anything else Joan Baez did.
>
> "The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down" was originally by The Band,
> and
> Baez learned it by listening, not from written lyrics. As a result
> she got half the words wrong and made a historically-accurate song
> into nonsense.
That's a bit harsh. She fouled up a few words, but it's hardly
"Louie, Louie."
Ahasuerus
wrote:
[snip]
> I'm having this problem right now with Steven Brust.
> First of all you need some background about me: I'm a secular jew who
> lives in Israel.
> Steven is also of Jewish descent, and as you all probably know he's a
> Trotskyist, so he's not at all big on Zionism or any other kind of
> nationalism. I have no problem with that: I'm not much of a
One may find Trotskyism repugnant in theory, but it is fairly quaint
and harmless these days. I doubt that Brust and Flint are actively
plotting to overthrow the government and establish a dictatorship :)
ObSF: Lovecraft wrote in 1929 that "[m]ost aesthetic radicals ... be
they socialists, bolsheviks, or anarchists in truth, they are very
harmless folks. ... They are as sincerely well-meaning as any other
reformer, & like all such are at once comic and pathetic because of
their belief in human perfectibility. Despite their bold talk they are
timid and ineffectual creatures, most of whom would not hurt a fly if
they could. .. The real trouble with Greenwich Village "radicals"
isn't any real radicalism, but a slovenly insincerity & cheap posing
habit which merely uses the guise of radicalism as an easy way of
attracting attention."
> [snip Brust and the Holocaust]
> I can
> stand dissenting opinion. How you interpret reality is your own
> business; but I can't stand people who base their beliefs on lies and
> this one is too big for me to swallow. Blaming Jews for some of the
> deaths in the Holocaust... even if the person blaming is of Jewish
> descent... that's too much for me. [snip]
Oh well, yet another potential customer lost by James P. Hogan...
W. Citoan
> On May 31, 10:27�am, David Cowie <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> > I was referring to the system in the UK (and maybe some other
> > places) where libraries make a payment every time a book is
> > borrowed. It's called "Public Lending Right."
>
> In the United States, there's something called the "First-Sale
> Doctrine". Except that it doesn't apply to the Compact Disc, thanks
> to the energetic lobbying efforts of the RIAA.
Yes, it does apply to music CDs. Our used music stores wouldn't exist
without it. You may be confusing software CDs, but that one is not the
RIAA's fault.
- W. Citoan
--
Now, it's quite simple to defend yourself against a man armed with a
banana. First of all you force him to drop the banana; then, second, you
eat the banana, thus disarming him. You have now rendered him helpless.
-- Monty Python
Mike Schilling
> One may find Trotskyism repugnant in theory, but it is fairly quaint
> and harmless these days. I doubt that Brust and Flint are actively
> plotting to overthrow the government and establish a dictatorship :)
The really repugnant ones are the ex-Trotskyites like Norman
Podhoretz. They are, alas, anything but harmless.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
She fouled up a LOT. "Stoneman's cavalry" became "so much cavalry,"
when the action described was actually carried out by the engineers
attached to Stoneman's regiment and not by cavalry at all; "Robert E.
Lee" became "the Robert E. Lee," which meant somehow putting a
steamboat on dry land a hundred miles from the Mississippi; and so on.
Mike Ash
"W. Citoan" <wci...@NOSPAM-yahoo.com> wrote:
> Quadibloc wrote:
> > On May 31, 10:27�am, David Cowie <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >
> > > I was referring to the system in the UK (and maybe some other
> > > places) where libraries make a payment every time a book is
> > > borrowed. It's called "Public Lending Right."
> >
> > In the United States, there's something called the "First-Sale
> > Doctrine". Except that it doesn't apply to the Compact Disc, thanks
> > to the energetic lobbying efforts of the RIAA.
>
> Yes, it does apply to music CDs. Our used music stores wouldn't exist
> without it. You may be confusing software CDs, but that one is not the
> RIAA's fault.
The doctrine of first sale applies to software too, actually. The waters
get murky because software makers try to claim that they do not sell
their software, but merely license it, in which case the doctrine would
not apply. Courts have disagreed over whether this dodge actually works
or not. Since virtually every software seller attempts this dodge, from
a practical standpoint the question is up in the air. From a theoretical
standpoint, if you actually *purchase* (as opposed to simply licensing)
software, you can resell it.
--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
Ahasuerus
wrote:
That's the thing about our perception of "relative repugnance" -- it's
modified by our perception of how harmful the author's views are.
"Harmless nuts" get a pass because we think that they are, well,
harmless.
BTW, Podhoretz was too young to go through a Trotskyist phase so
common in his circle just a decade earlier. He was a fellow-traveling
liberal until ca. 1948, having grown up, as he would describe it, "in
the Brownsville section of Brooklyn and among struggling Jewish
immigrants from Eastern Europe [where] everybody worshiped President
Roosevelt and loved his great friend "Uncle Joe" Stalin, who were
working together against the "reactionaries" to establish a new era of
peace and friendship after the end of the war".
Mike Schilling
>
> BTW, Podhoretz was too young to go through a Trotskyist phase so
> common in his circle just a decade earlier. He was a
> fellow-traveling
> liberal until ca. 1948, having grown up, as he would describe it,
> "in
> the Brownsville section of Brooklyn
The home, appropriately enough, of Murder Incorporated. (My father
was from East New York, the next neighborhood to the east. When my
Mom was mad at him, she'd accuse him of really being from
Brownsville.)
Michael Grosberg
> Oh well, yet another potential customer lost by James P. Hogan...
Hogan lost me on the force of his awful writing alone. His crackpot
opinions (which these days also include Holocaust denial, and I
wouldn't rule out hollow earth and Thule in the near future) are just
topping.
Quadibloc
> Quadibloc wrote:
> > On May 31, 10:27 am, David Cowie <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> > > I was referring to the system in the UK (and maybe some other
> > > places) where libraries make a payment every time a book is
> > > borrowed. It's called "Public Lending Right."
>
> > In the United States, there's something called the "First-Sale
> > Doctrine". Except that it doesn't apply to the Compact Disc, thanks
> > to the energetic lobbying efforts of the RIAA.
>
> Yes, it does apply to music CDs. Our used music stores wouldn't exist
> without it. You may be confusing software CDs, but that one is not the
> RIAA's fault.
But there is a law in the United States and Canada prohibiting
_rental_ of music CDs, and that is a departure from the first-sale
doctrine. Libraries, however, can still lend them without charge.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> The waters
> get murky because software makers try to claim that they do not sell
> their software, but merely license it, in which case the doctrine would
> not apply.
The basis of this, of course, is that you need to _copy_ the software
(specifically, to your hard drive, or at least to your computer
memory) in order to use it.
If the software could be used without being copied, the way you can
read a book or listen to a record, you wouldn't need a license to use
it.
So individual copies of software distributed on ROM cartridges, where
the CPU fetches individual instructions of the program to execute,
rather than copying the entire content of the cartridge to somewhere
else, tend to be sold, not licensed.
Mike Ash
<8c1e3036-be22-4b33...@q14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Jun 3, 9:57�pm, Mike Ash <m...@mikeash.com> wrote:
> > The waters
> > get murky because software makers try to claim that they do not sell
> > their software, but merely license it, in which case the doctrine would
> > not apply.
>
> The basis of this, of course, is that you need to _copy_ the software
> (specifically, to your hard drive, or at least to your computer
> memory) in order to use it.
>
> If the software could be used without being copied, the way you can
> read a book or listen to a record, you wouldn't need a license to use
> it.
Well no. The basis of this is the EULA (end-user license agreement) that
gets activated by clicking a button while you install, by breaking a
seal when you open the box, or some other similar mechanism. This causes
you to agree to a contract wherein you license the software rather than
having purely purchased it. The courts have generally, although not
universally, upheld the use of EULAs in this way.
Copying software for the purposes of executing it is generally, although
not universally, upheld by the courts to be fair use and thus does not
require an explicit license from the manufacturer.
(In other countries the necessity of copying the program in order to use
it has been used, successfully, as a legal reason why the license is
binding, but as far as I know this has not been all that successful in
the US.)
plausible prose man
> In article <d8e054c3-76ac-4c01-9d33-8f01ee6e8...@j18g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
> plausible prose man <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote:>On Jun 1, 5:00 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >> On May 30, 8:00 pm, plausible prose man <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> > A real man would steal them from the bookstore, which isn't even
> >> > difficult. Or so my friend says.
>
> >> But that would be harming an innocent victim in the middle in the name
> >> of a political cause!
>
> > They write it off, Jerry.
>
> They still paid for it and they suffer a financial loss due to
> its theft.
If I felt strongly enough about some artist's politics that I felt he
should be actively deprived of the fruits of his labor, I would think
the same would go for any bookstore that chose to carry his works. I'm
probably not alone in this; probably the person who would follow a
fatwah on Salman Rushdie would also have it in for any bookstore
carrying the Satanic Verses. Conversely, a store that specialized in
notorious or politically correct authors might extract extra rents
from its customers.
No warranty is expressed or implied as to the morality of such
actions. Fax mentis incendium gloria cultum; memo bis punitor
delicatum!
> "Shrinkage" is one of the more annoying costs in running a
> store,
Shrinkage, Jerry!
Mike Schilling
I'm actually unsure how royalties work for stolen books. The book was
shipped to the store and not returned, so doesn't it count as a sale?
William December Starr
trag <tr...@io.com> said:
> I never did see the appeal of Janice Joplin's music either.
[ adds trag's name to the "not human" list ]
-- wds
Ahasuerus
wrote:
Oh yes, it was a rough neighborhood. Sammy Aaronson once wrote "The
first time I saw a man killed in the street [was] at the corner of
Osborne Street and Sutter Avenue in Brownsville, which was maybe the
toughest neighborhood in the whole United States". Podhoretz missed
the heyday of Murder Inc., but, as he wrote in "Making It", his was a
"life of street corners, pool rooms, crap games [and] poker games." A
few years later, when he went to college, it took him some time to
catch up with his new peers, who had a less colorful childhood.
plausible prose man
wrote:
I'm not even totally sure they worry about that stuff so much
anymore. My friend who runs a comic store tells me a store like Barnes
and Noble is never actually charged for books, but rather sells them
on a consignment basis, whis is apparently why you can spend hours
there reading in comfy furniture all for the price of a fancy coffee
drink, and no one says "hey, this ain't no liberry!" like they used to
when they'd chase me out of the newsstand after reading my way through
my seventh or eighth comic.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
You already have mine on there, right?
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Anthony Nance
> William December Starr wrote:
>> In article <74af7d22-33b6-4f40...@s16g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
>> trag <tr...@io.com> said:
>>
>>> I never did see the appeal of Janice Joplin's music either.
>>
>> [ adds trag's name to the "not human" list ]
>
> You already have mine on there, right?
Well duh, you're a cubozoan.