Septemeber "Ask Dr. Internet"
Michael S. Hart
Questions and Answers for September, 1995
Since this is the first issue of "Ask Dr. Internet" more than one
a month, and since the issue of "Life Plus 70 Years" of copyright
has just become a hot issue, this month's comments were about 80%
longer than the 10K we normally limit ourselves to.
If you skip the portion about copyright, you will find this issue
shorter than average. Unless you are concerned that 99.9% of the
Information in the world will be under copyright limitations, you
can easily skip that portion.
Previous issues can be retrieved from most Project Gutenberg site
locations such as:
ftp uiarchive.cso.uiuc.edu
cd /pub/etext/gutenberg/articles
mget drnet*.*
The major questions of this installment of "Ask Dr. Internet" are
1. Is There Still Room for "us" on the Internet, Or Will the Big
Boys such as Disney, Playboy, ABC, CCI, GE-NBC, Westinghouse,
Time-Warner, CBS, TBS, etc. create another vast TV wasteland,
along with MCI, Paramount, Viacom, QVC, AT&T, America Online,
CompuServe, Prodigy, etc?
Obviously each of these companies would rather that you read only
their text, watch only their movies and videos, listen only to an
assortment of their sound bytes, and never hear anything from the
competition. . .in speaking of this competition they say: "IT IS
NOT ENOUGH FOR US TO WIN, YOU HAVE TO LOSE," meaning it can never
be enough for them to have the top rated shows; your shows should
be cancelled as well.
As Nicholas Negroponte pointed out so well in "Being Digital":
A Mickey Mouse bit is worth more than any other kind of bit. p77
2. More about last month's question:
"How Do We Make Our Presence Known on the Internet?"
3. What About the New Copyright Laws?
4. A note from Jean Armour Polly, author of Surfing the Internet
***
Questions #1 and #2 are related, so will be answered together.
Last month many of you voiced concern that the Internet would see
a "shake out" of the kind of people who built it, and replacement
by the kinds of people who are employed at millions of dollars by
the mega-merger communications conglomerates, some listed above.
The basic idea was "How can I be heard?"
A sterling example magically appeared! Net Guide's cover story on
"The 50 Best Places on the Web" [September, p 40] which mentioned
Richard Seltzer and B & R Samizdat Express as one of the top 25--
[see p 52 for the relevant portion]
In addition Richard Seltzer has an article under his own byline in
the October issue of Internet World. Pretty good for a person who
runs a 10 megabyte Web site, and mails out "Internet On A Disk" in
his basement. . .for $10 a disk to those who aren't on the Net.
If Richard Seltzer, sel...@max.tiac.net, can do it, so can you!!!
The truth is that the major computer media, and even normal media,
have been giving a lot of press to people who would normally be an
overkilled roadkill on old fashioned information highways in which
the traffic was only "one way" from them to you. . .but now that a
voice can be heard from a single person such as Richard Seltzer on
the World Wide Web, with only a 10 megabyte site. . .you are next!
Here are a few other similar references we have found to "basement
publishers" who have made some marks on the Internet:
The September Internet World also has a cover story of interest to
those with these kinds of questions, called "The Digital Press."
Last November Computer Life did a similar story entitled: "The 99
Best Places on the Net," which also included some similar basement
operations that have provided exceptional value to Net surfers.
MediaSoft and UPC of Quebec, Canada in June, 1995 Site of the Week
. . ."valeur exceptionnelle" for the same sort of thing.
We can help get you on the Web, with a pre-packaged Home Page, and
you just "fill in the blanks" with what you want it to say. Check
out "HomeBrew HomePages" at:
uiarchive.cso.uiuc.edu:/pub/etext/gutenberg/etext95
or through http://jg.cso.uiuc.edu/pg_home.html
3. What About the New Copyright Laws?
A couple days ago we heard that Germany was extending copyright to
"Life Plus 70 Years" from "Life Plus 50 years," meaning that if an
author were to write something at age 30 then live to 82, that the
total number of years of copyright on that something would be 112,
or twice as long as the 56 year United States copyright which most
of us Americans grew up with.
What can we do?
This is the longest part. . .if you are not interested in whether,
or not, virtually all the information in the world is copyrighted,
don't bother reading this section, but skip to the end.
First, challenge the law, based on the FACT that this is no longer
a "limited" period of protection when viewed from the life of that
average person for whom the law is designed. . .as follows:
"Limited" has to mean "limited in relation to the average person,"
and a "limit" of 112 years from now is hardly a "limit" to which a
normal person reading a work copyrighted this year can aspire, nor
is 100 years, nor even 80 year, nor even 50. . .because an average
person is probably "thirty-something" and cannot be expected to go
another 50 years before "Public Domain" [an opposite of copyright]
allows them to publish their own private edition of something.
This is silly in the extreme.
You might as well limit something to all people over 7 feet tall--
or those who live at elevations over 15,000 feet, or have a "speed
limit" set at 200 miles per hour. . .because the fact is that laws
written in such a manner apply to basically no one. . .and a silly
basis for such a law should be taken to court.
A law purporting to limit something beyond which the natural limit
simply does not go except in the rarest extreme just does not have
any basis for enforcement. . .you may as well say no one can do an
exercise which would naturally be limited to people over 7 feet or
to people living at over 15,000 feet, or to people driving over an
average speed of 200 miles per hour.
Because virtually no one will be able to qualify to pass that law.
What these laws basically say is that the only "people" who should
legally be able to reprint something published today are those who
are "legal fictions" in the eyes of the law. . .corporations.
How many of you, reading this article, are going to be alive in an
extra century and one eight from now? . . . None. . .or so close
to none as to be statistically negligible.
We don't make laws for 200 mph speed limits, even thought there is
a cadre of people who can and do drive at those speeds. Why then
should we make a law that says only a kid who saw a movie at seven
years of age, and who then lives to be 119, will have the right to
reprint that movie after s/he sees the premiere?
The only people who are going to be publishing 112 years from now?
Legally fictitious people. . .known as corporations.
***
What about profits to the authors?
1. 50% of books are out of print in 6 years.
2. 75% of books are out of print in 12 years.
3. 87% of books are out of print in 18 years.
4. 94% of books are out of print in 24 years.
5. 97% of books are out of print in 30 years.
6. 98% of books are out of print in 36 years.
7. 99% of books are out of print in 42 years.
For most authors of books there are no royalties after 6 years
and most other media go out of print even faster than 6 years:
magazines, newspapers, television shows, movies, radio, music,
and virtually every other medium has a shorter lifespan than a
book does.
Any law proposing copyrights in excess of 20 years is catering
to the top 10% of the 1% who hold copyrights, most of whom are
corporations.
***
Let's say the average person is 35 and will be 36 by the times
copyrights go into effect on New Year's day of the next year.
If we presume a life expectancy of 72, and that half die every
fie years after that, then:
1. 50% would be dead in 35 years.
2. 75% would be dead in 40 years.
3. 87% would be dead in 45 years.
4. 94% would be dead in 50 years.
5. 96% would be dead in 55 years.
6. 98% would be dead in 60 years.
7. 99% would be dead in 65 years.
And it IS true that 99% of people never live to the age of 99.
These laws are meant to do only one thing: remove possibility
of publishing Public Domain materials from all individuals and
leave it only in the hands of the corporations.
Therefore, this "limit" of "Life Plus 70 Years" is silly, and,
at least in countries purporting a "limited copyright," these,
and similar laws, should, and mush, be thrown out. . .now.
We can't rely on laws that put all the power in the hands of a
set of corporations, or rely on people who haven't aren't born
yet to think enough of what we are reading to today to publish
it for our children's children's children over 100 years later
than when we first saw it.
Publication needs continuity. . .needs to have a conversation,
a conversation that quotes and replies to other publications--
without a delay of a lifetime.
***
What are we going to do if/when 99% of the world's information
is under copyright restrictions?
How will we look up anything that isn't already 100 years old?
Half of the United States adult population is illiterate to an
extreme that they cannot read anything not extremely simple...
are we going to condemn them to even greater illiteracy by the
extension of copyrights to the point where they can't have any
free access to any information newer than 1895?
How can anyone argue with the pundits of CBS, NBC and ABC with
all the ammunition in the hands of the Big Boys and none for a
person of ordinary means?
WE NEED A LARGE AND PUBLIC LIBRARY OF INFORMATION, not a small
public library of information for US, and a large, private one
for THEM.
Some people say the amount of information is doubling every 14
years or so, others say it is around every 10 years, and newer
estimations range all the way to a doubling every 2 years.
If information is actually doubling at a rates such as these:
At 14 years, it would take only 50 years for information to be
90% less than 50 years old, and a 50 year copyright would have
the effect of keeping 90% of the information out of the public
domain and out of the hands of the Information Poor.
At 10 years, it would take only 30 years for information to be
90% less than 30 years old, and a 30 year copyright would have
the effect of keeping 90% of the information out of the public
domain and out of the hands of the Information Poor.
At 2 years, it would take only 7 years for 99% of information,
that is 99% in only 7 years. . .to be than 7 years old, and an
Awfully short 7 year copyright would still have the effect for
the rest of us of keeping 99% of all information away from the
public domain and in the hands of the copyright holders.
***
When copyright was first invented, it was a total monopoly for
the one single house that controlled it, and the total world's
population at the time was somewhere around half a billion.
Since that time the world has decided that more than one large
publishing house is a better idea, but with 10-15 times larger
populations, with a former literacy rate approaching 100%, and
with distribution networks that allow for million seller books
and records to literally happen overnight, the profits from an
already profitable enterprise have gone through the roof.
In what other industry than copyright protected ones, can some
person create one single work that results in tens of millions
of dollars of profit?
And often this work is small enough to fit in your pocket.
Consider the book, record or movie that makes $100 million for
the first couple of years of release. . .
Bridges of Madison County has probably sold about 10 million--
at $15-$20 per copy. . .so Robert James Waller, if he gets $1,
just one dollar per copy, still never has to do a single day's
work for the rest of his life, nor can we expect his children,
or their children, or even their children to ever have to work
under the current copyright laws, and even THEIR children. . .
if/when the new re-extended copyright laws are passed.
The same is true for recording some records or acting in movie
productions, or producing them.
No one else enjoys this kind of legal protection from working:
The world's best architects and builders have to build new and
better buildings every year.
The world's best athletes have to compete season after season,
year after year, Olympics after Olympics. . .then don't get to
keep making a profit off of that one great season.
The world's greatest engineers have to re-engineer motors, and
cars, and elevators, and airplanes. . . .
The world's greatest teachers have to teach over and over.
The world's greatest librarians have to keep working.
The world's greatest race drivers have to keep racing.
The world's greatest mountain climbers have to keep climbing.
OK. . .enough. . .but think about it. . .who else but those with
a government supported monopoly ever got to quit working, unless
they found a "diamond the size of the Ritz."
Everyone, from the highest to the lowest, has to keep working,
it is part of the way of the world, until various monopolistic
power structures get so large that certain people have totally
taken over to the extent that they maintain a power they never
really earned. . .other than through the legal machinations of
non-competition.
These power structures must be limited, or they will take over
the entire world, and we will have more and more "Fortune 500"
highest paid executives in the "Mickey Mouse Club" than in the
actual production industries.
In the case of books, movies and records, the situation is not
as simple as you might think. . .because for the first time in
all of history, the computer allows for books to be copied for
only a penny [in the case of Bridges of Madison County] and in
the case of records and movies, for only a dollar.
The powerful copyright holders are trying to grab even more as
they realize that the actual "medium" of their products is not
the limiting factor any more. . .so they are making artificial
limits to replace the forgone limits of production. . .limited
distribution is their answer to the loss of the previous limit
of production capability.
By the time we can replicate a car as easily as we can a book,
I am sure they will try to copyright everything in the world's
repertoire, whether it be humanmade or not, simply so they can
get their "piece of the action," and so they can not only have
MORE than you, but A LOT MORE than you.
***
In all the ways you can look at copyright, there is no reason,
other than those listed in the "Seven Deadly Sins," for years,
years, and more years of copyright limitations.
1. Almost everything is already out of print before copyright
ever expires, so there are zero profits for publishers and
authors of MOST materials under copyright protection for a
period longer than 6 years.
2. Since virtually no one is ever going to live long enough a
life to reprint anything published today anyway, what is a
use in extending copyrights even further [than the already
silly lengths that a already longer than the average woman
or man is going to live from today]?
3. A vast majority of this world's information is already put
under copyright restriction. . .what is the purpose of any
law that moves this majority from 97% to 99.9%? Since the
information is going out of date ever more quickly, it can
can be said that just the opposite is was SHOULD happen.
4. Copyright law already states that the purpose of copyright
is not to insure profits but rather to insure a wide range
of materials for public consumption. What possible profit
IS there other than for the one thing per thousands that a
publisher might continue to sell after a two decades? The
cost. . .all the rest of the people don't ever get to read
or see it.
5. The cost/benefit ratio here is staggering.
***
4. We received a nice note from Jean Armour Polly, who wrote:
"Surfing the Internet" over three years ago, wishing us well--
and hoping you all have a great time Surfing the Internet.
***
We received a few notes about various "jargon" terms that your
writers have used in manners in which several "techies" have a
strong aversion to.
Please let us remind you that "Ask Dr. Internet" is not jargon
directed at techies, and that just because a particular person
on a particular network uses the terms in a certain way, would
preclude normal people from using those terms in a normal way.
I am sure we all know that some, even most, computers can do a
few different things at one time, so there is no need for this
kind of jargon/techspeak to mention that a computer can do the
listserv job at the same time it does the fileserv job. These
particular mainframes we use do this quite well, but everyday,
ordinary PC's, XT's and even some better computers, might have
a little difficulty under a big load. Whether or not to do an
entire multi-threaded, multi-tasking system is up to you: but
we suggest you be well prepared before trying it. . .those are
professionals [at least wannabes] so you may not want to try a
system like that at home.
The major differences we approach here at: "Ask Dr. Internet"
are social differences. . .not technical.
***
"Our first Dr. Internet server operator in Italy
However, the server is physically in Oregon
http://promo.net/gut/
Operated by Pietro Di Miceli
old issues are at
or
uiarchive.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.14]
get /pub/etext/gutenberg/articles/drnet*.*
Testing a new one here in the US:
http://drinternet.soltec.com
This one is in Central USA
also try http://www.pobox.com/drnet
from the folks who brought permanent
email addresses to the Internet
Please reply to inte...@jg.cso.uiuc.edu
or
***
Dr. Internet files are about 10K on the average,
or 5 to 6 pages if you print them out, since the
September issue is the first in over a month, it
is a little longer. We will probably be doing a
monthly, rather than weekly issue from now on...
around the middle of each month. 9/17/95