eDigtsamlinger og Sci-Fi-noveller rykker
The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is a plurilateral international agreement, which wants to set a “gold standard” for the enforcement of intellectual property rights.
LINK to folder
Single content of folder
ACTA and its Impact on Fundamental Rights
ACTA – Innovation and Competition
ACTA and its Impact on the EU’s International Relations
—
EDRI – European Digital Rights
Losing means giving up.
The following message suits me, as it does not call for violence. It says: “Let those who oppress the People feel, what the people thinks of that.” It suits me, yes, but THERE IS NO SAFETY IN THIS!
SOPA’s attempt at protecting corporate interests may well be an abomination, but being an anonymous in the world means Think For Yourself. Feel For Yourself. Move Yourself. Act For Yourself – not on behalf of anyone else. Not from a Golden Voice and Righteous Music speaking to your innermost fear or desire for justice in life. There Is No Justice. Only People, who grant space and time to other opinions, other ways.
Be Yourself. Make up your own mind. There is Freedom in that.
So, what is this message? A genuine call from a genuine group of people concerned with corporate dictatorship and loss of Internet freedom of speech? Or Corporate Dictatorship subverting the protest by planting seeds to justify Internet censorship? Or is it one lonely person infused with mental movie iconography, crying out for freedom of speech on behalf of the world? Or is it someone trying to defend acts of greed (as in “piracy”) not taken lightly by the powers that be?
Think for Yourself.
Speak Your Own Mind.
Your Actions Count.
Your Call.
THAT is freedom of speech.
“Citizens of the United States, we are Anonymous.
This is an urgent emergency alert to all people of the United States: The day we have all been waiting for has unfortunately arrived. The United States is censoring the Internet. Our … response is that we will not sit, while our rights are taken away by the government. We trusted them to preserve.
This is not a call to arms, but a call to recognition and action. The United States government has mastered this corrupt way of giving us a false sense of freedom. We think we are free and can do what we want, but in reality we are very limited and restricted as to what we can do, how we can think and even how our education is obtained. We have been so distracted by this mirage of Freedom that we have just become, what we were trying to escape from*.
For too long we have been idle, as our brothers and sisters were arrested. During this time the government has been scheming, plotting ways to increase censorship by means of ISP blockades, DNS blockings, search engine censorship, website censorship, and a variety of other methods that directly opposes the values and ideas of Anonymous as well as the founding fathers of this country, who believed in free speech and press.
The United States has often been used as the ideal free country. When the one nation known for its freedom ans rights starts to abuse its own people, this is when you must fight back, because others are soon to follow. Do not think that because you are not a United States citizen that this does not apply to you. You cannot wait for your country to decide to do the same. You must stop it before it grows. Before it becomes acceptable. You must destroy its foundation, before it becomes too powerful.
Has the US government not learned from the past? Has it not seen the 2011 revolutions? Has it not seen that we oppose this where ever we find it and that we will continue to oppose it? Obviously the United States government thinks that it is exempt.
This is not only an Anonymous collective call to action.What will a distributed denial of service (DDOS) attack do? What is a website defacement against the corrupted powers of the government?
No. This is a worldwide internet and physical protest against the powers that be. Spread this message everywhere. Do not stand for this! Tell your parents, your neighbours, your fellow workers, your school teachers and any one else, you come in contact with. A press release document will be available at your discretion.
This affects anyone hwo desires the freedom to browse anonymously, speak freely without retribution, or protest without fear of arrest. Go to every IRC network, every social network, every online community and tell them of the atrocity that is about to be committed. If protest is not enough, the United States Government shall see that we are truly Legion, and we shall come together as one force, opposing this attempt to censor the Internet once again. And in the process discourage any of the governments from continuing to try.
We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive censorship. We do not forget the denial of our free rights as Human Beings.
To the United States government: You should have expected us.
—
* “escape from” means “run away from”. Just using “escape” in this context would mean “avoid”. Is it written by an American or by another nationality? Does it matter?
For good or bad:
Look at it this way:
Regulations are made by humans to enforce behavior.
Rules are “the most commonly accepted behavior of all things and statistically spoken for mode of normalcy”
“Det er virkelig godt, hvis du kan placere dig i kategorien $0.99-12.99. Det er brug og smid væk-kategorien, hvor folk er ligeglade.”
Få en idé om, hvad en ebog skal koste.
ePublishing Workflow – How to Set Pricing for Your Digital Publications and eBooks – YouTube.
Hvordan vil du prissætte danske bøger – efter hvilke kriterier?
Skræmmekampagne tilpasset eforfattere.
The true protagonist of an sf story or novel is an idea.
Preface to The Short Happy Life of the Brown Oxford and Other Stories
By Philip K. Dick
I will define science fiction, first, by saying what sf is not. It cannot be defined as
“a story (or novel or play) set in the future,” since there exists such a thing as space adventure, which is set in the future but is not sf: it is just that: adventures, fights and wars in the future in space involving super-advanced technology. Why, then, is it not science fiction? It would seem to be, and Doris Lessing (e.g.) supposes that it is.
However, space adventure lacks the distinct new idea that is the essential ingredient.
Also, there can be science fiction set in the present: the alternate world story or novel. So if we separate sf from the future and also from ultra-advanced technology, what then do we have that can be called sf?
We have a fictitious world; that is the first step: it is a society that does not in fact exist, but is predicated on our known society; that is, our known society acts as a jumping-off point for it; the society advances out of our own in some way, perhaps orthogonally, as with the alternate world story or novel. It is our world dislocated by some kind of mental effort on the part of the author, our world transformed into that which it is not or not yet. This world must differ from the given in at least one way, and this one way must be sufficient to give rise to events that could not occur in our society — or in any known society present or past. There must be a coherent idea involved in this dislocation; that is, the dislocation must be a conceptual one, not merely a trivial or bizarre one — this is the essence of science fiction, the conceptual dislocation within the society so that as a result a new society is generated in the author’s mind, transferred to paper, and from paper it occurs as a convulsive shock in the reader’s mind, the shock of dysrecognition. He knows that it is not his actual world that he is reading about.
Now, to separate science fiction from fantasy. This is impossible to do, and a moment’s thought will show why. Take psionics; take mutants such as we find in Ted Sturgeon’s wonderful MORE THAN HUMAN. If the reader believes that such mutants could exist, then he will view Sturgeon’s novel as science fiction. If, however, he believes that such mutants are, like wizards and dragons, not possible, nor will ever be possible, then he is reading a fantasy novel. Fantasy involves that which general opinion regards as impossible; science fiction involves that which general opinion regards as possible under the right circumstances. This is in essence a judgment-call, since what is possible and what is not possible is not objectively known but is, rather, a subjective belief on the part of the author and of the reader.
Now to define good science fiction. The conceptual dislocation — the new idea, in other words — must be truly new (or a new variation on an old one) and it must be intellectually stimulating to the reader; it must invade his mind and wake it up to the possibility of something he had not up to then thought of. Thus “good science fiction” is a value term, not an objective thing, and yet, I think, there really is such a thing, objectively, as good science fiction.
I think Dr. Willis McNelly at the California State University at Fullerton put it best when he said that the true protagonist of an sf story or novel is an idea and not a person. If it is good sf the idea is new, it is stimulating, and, probably most important of all, it sets off a chain-reaction of ramification-ideas in the mind of the reader; it so-to-speak unlocks the reader’s mind so that that mind, like the author’s, begins to create. Thus sf is creative and it inspires creativity, which mainstream fiction by-and-large does not do. We who read sf (I am speaking as a reader now, not a writer) read it because we love to experience this chain-reaction of ideas being set off in our minds by something we read, something with a new idea in it; hence the very best science fiction ultimately winds up being a collaboration between author and reader, in which both create — and enjoy doing it: joy is the essential and final ingredient of science fiction, the joy of discovery of newness.
(in a letter) May 14,1981
Ved hvilken temperatur brænder en iPad eller en Kindle?
Ray Bradbury er kendt for at afsky ebøger. Ved genforhandling af sine bogkontrakter lykkedes det Simon & Schuster at få hans tilladelse til at udgive Fahrenheit 451 som ebog. Deres argumentet lød: “20% af alle udgivelser er ebøger”.
Fahrenheit 451 (1953) er fortællingen om overvågningssamfundet, som jagter og brænder alle bøger, fordi effekten af den indeholdte erfaring og viden ikke kan kontrolleres af myndighederne.
På dansk kom den til at hedde “233 grader Celcius”. Strengt taget korrekt, men ikke just Ikonisk!
Fra et interview med Jonathan R. Eller, med-skaber og leder af The Center for Ray Bradbury Studies:
Jonathan R. Eller: Are E-books the future of reading?
Ray Bradbury: Absolutely not. Three different groups have called me during the last three weeks. I had another offer last week from a big company back East. But my response was, “Prick up your ears, and go to hell.” That was my response.
JE: So they will not replace the book?
RB: They don’t smell good. Books have two smells—a new book smell is very good, but an old book smell is even better. It smells like ancient Egyptian dust. That’s why I think the book is important.
…
JE: Do you think E-books will affect censorship and the banning of controversial books? Do you think they’ll try to censor E-books, or do you think E-books will help do away with censorship?
RB: There is no censorship. There’s no censorship in this country. In China, yes.
[Læs hele interviewet på engelsk hér]
—
Ray Bradbury er 91 i dag. Og kendt for kontroversielle holdninger i forhold til mange ting. Ikke at ordet “kontroversiel” betyder at være på forkant. I Bradburys tilfælde betyder det, at han er blevet hængende i fortiden.
F.eks. romantiserer han børn og børns evner og videbegær i en grad, der kun kan ses som en egen længsel efter uskyldighedens opdagelse af verden. “Man behøver ikke undervise børn efter 6-års-alderen. Man kan bare slippe dem løs i et bibliotek”. Men denne romantiske forestilling er samtidig et drivende element i især hans tidlige bøger, som gør ham til en væsentlig fortæller. Læs f.eks. “Something wicked this way comes”.
Når han derimod siger, at Internettet er en stor distraktion, han han fat i noget. Hvor mange af os bruger ikke flere timer dagligt på at tale med mennesker, vi aldrig hverken ser eller hører? Dét er vilkårene, når vi har muligheden for at fravælge fysisk kontakt til naboen. Og gør det.
Ray Bradbury bor i Los Angeles, har skrevet mere end 500 noveller, romaner og skuespil – og faktisk en science fiction-digtsamling, jeg engang har holdt i hånden! – vundet en Emmy for et filmmanuskript over “The Halloween Tree”, og 2007 fået en Pulitzer for sin fremragende karriere.
Han er en af mine yndlingsforfattere.
(Papir brænder altså ved 450 grader Celcius, Ray. ikke Fahrenheit.)
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/70bf2e4f05/fuck-me-ray-bradbury
Hvor ER grænsen mellem det offentlige og det private rum, på internettet?
Hvem ejer rettighederne til et manuskript, som er blevet til i fællesskab med et debatforums brugere?
Alle debatfora i dag – Twitter, Facebook, Reddit osv – forbeholder sig ueksklusiv brug af alle indlæg fra deres brugere, sådan at forstå at forummets ejere må anvende sine brugeres produktion på alle måder, de, forummets ejere, føler det for godt befindende, uden hensyntagen til skabernes nuværende eller senere anvendelse andetsteds af produkter skabt i fuld offentlighed i et forum.
Spørgsmålet er interessant af flere årsager: Fokus på retten til at udnytte rettigheder i dag er meget stort. Ikke mindst pga. mediepirateri, der har affødt retsforfølgelse af mediepirater – i rettighedshavernes øjne for at kunne fastholde indtægtsniveauet på egne produkter og for at få lov af aktionærer til at investere i nye produktioner. Tvivl får ikke lov at spille ind; enten har man rettighederne, eller også har man dem ikke.
Nærværende sag handler om undfangelsen og udviklingen af et filmmanuskript.
En ret ukendt forfatter, James Erwin, havde posteret ideer og scener fra et manuskript, “Rome, Sweet Rome”, på et socialt forum, Reddit. Om end ideen er James Erwins egen og han selv har sammenskrevet brudstykkerne til en færdig pitch (idéramme med omdrejningspunkter og slutning), har Reddits brugere bidraget markant til skabelsen, og iden har han solgt sin pitch som filmoption til Warner Bros.
Nu er spørgsmålet, hvem der ejer udnyttelses- og udviklingsrettighederne hen imod en færdig film. Warner er ikke i tvivl. Det gør dé, for de har betalt for udviklingsretten; ikke et færdigt manuskript. Men spørgsmålet er, om ikke Reddit kan sammenskrive og forandre de offentliggjorte dele af manuskriptet og sælge en filmoption på en lignende film til en anden filmproducent. I følge Reddits egne betingelser for brug af stedets debatfora, som alle brugere klikker ja til ved profiloprettelse, så jo. Det har de ret til. De har jo fået “ueksklusiv brugsret” over alt, der posteres på Reddit.
Og de brugere, der har bidraget til manuskriptets skabelse, ikke mindst med formulering af en stærkere slutning; hvad med dém? Måske det ikke så meget er et spørgsmål om penge som om anerkendelse:
Er et (internet)forum kun et ligeværdigt fællesskab så længe, at ingen har (synlig) fordel af de andres input? Eller fordrer bidragende deltagelse på Internettet en særlig form for ydmyghed eller godgørenhed, der skal læres? Aldrig at lægge anfordring på dét, som allerede ér givet frit?
James Erwin har trukket sig fra Reddit efter salget af udviklingsaftalen til Warner Bros. Angiveligt fordi “det er et helvede det her med internetrettigheder”. Ja, hvem ud over skaberen har retten til en idé, der er offentliggjort, før den er solgt? Øe… Eller, hvem kan sælge noget, der har været offentliggjort? Ja, dét kan skaberen. Eller skaberNE. Og altså også det offentlige sted, hvor det er blevet skabt.
Måske var det noget for opretholderne af de offentlige rum, man betaler adgang til?
I fremtiden, hvis du taler om dine planer og idéer uden for hjemmets vægge, giver du ejerne af bus og tog og metro og biografer og caféer og restauranter og museer ogsåvidere retten til at udnytte, videreudvikle og sælge dine idéer, og bryder du dig ikke om dét, kan du bare fise hjem.
Nåe, nej, man må jo ikke overvåge folk… jo, vent! Det må man jo godt på privat grund. Men jeg har jo ikke givet nogen lov til at overvåge mig dér… Jo, ved at betale min adgangsbillet og accepteret de små ikoner på væggene har jeg sagt ja til overvågning. Men hvad så med det offentlige rum uden for? Det betaler jeg jo også for. Hér er det bare flertallets stemme i det danske demokrati, som bestemmer? Hvis jeg således er uenig eller bange for at andre skal udnytte mine idéer uden at kreditere eller honorere mig, som f.eks. mange skrivende personer frygter, skulle jeg ikke bare fise hjem til mig selv? Eller simpelthen forlade landet til fordel for en banarepublik, hvor jeg bare skal have penge nok, hvis jeg vil være i fred?
Nu har jeg lige givet rammen til en science fiction-fortælling hér, som er publiceret i det offentlige rum. Men det er min server og min blog, og jeg har ikke afgivet den intellektuelle rettighed til udnyttelsen af min idé. Faktisk bliver rettighedslovgivningen en bedre ven jo mere detaljeret min idé er. Undlader jeg således, som hér, at detaljere min idé, er den ikke (juridisk) svær for andre at overtage og brygge videre på.
Man kunne også sige det således – som brugernes arbejde på Reddit bygger på:
Idéer er gratis. Og læring tager tid, og hvor ud over i et socialt forum kan man blive dygtigere til at forstå fællesskabets behov, herunder hvad et interessant manuskript er? Det er færdigudviklingen af idéer til kommerciel afsætning, der er det hårde og omkostningsfulde slid, og dén eller dé, der laver det arbejde, må belønnes.
Så, selvfølgelig skal filmselskabet betale Edwards for at kunne udvikle hans idé (incl. Reddits brugeres input) til et produkt, der kan markedsføres og sælges og vises i biograferne.
Men hvad så med alt det, der hele tiden kommer ud at ligge på nettet? Er nettet et offentligt forum eller er det ikke? Er nettets indhold for alle, eller ikke? Er tilgangen til alt digitalt et offentligt læringsrum eller ikke? Hvad ér Internettet – vej, bibliotek, læsesal, vinduesudstilling, ét stort rum med fordøre til private eller offentlige rum eller bare det hele? SKAL idéer egentlig kunne behæftes med juridiske genbrugsbegrænsninger, eller gælder dét kun udførelsen af idéen, realiseringen:
I den taktile verden er idéerne pr. definition udkrystalliseret i form, vi kan røre ved, lugte til, smage på, udbygge, formindske, destruere formen, der rummer IDÉEN. Idéen er her en 3dimensionel, taktil form; blot at forsøge at efterligne idéens udførelse, dvs. form, er at skride ind over grænsen ml offentligt og privat rum. Men på internettet, i den ikke-taktile verden, hvor produkterne kun kan røres med sindet, og hvor kopiering er et spørgsmål om at have forstået idéen snarere end déns udførelse – hvor er SÅ grænsen mellem det offentlige og det private rum? …
Nej. Jeg tror ikke, jeg KAN fatte det! Kan du?
—
Rome, Sweet Rome (links)
Does Warner Bros. Really Have Exclusive Movie Rights to a Story Posted on Reddit? (Analysis) – Hollywood Reporter.
Godt 33% af variationen i folks glæde er nedarvet.
Serotonin is involved in mood regulation. Serotonin transporters are crucial to this job. The serotonin-transporter gene comes in two functional variants—long and short. The long one produces more transporter-protein molecules than the short one. People have two versions (known as alleles) of each gene, one from each parent. So some have two short alleles, some have two long ones, and the rest have one of each.
The adolescents in Dr De Neve’s study were asked to grade themselves from very satisfied to very dissatisfied. Dr De Neve found that those with one long allele were 8% more likely than those with none to describe themselves as very satisfied; those with two long alleles were 17% more likely.
via The genetics of happiness: Transporter of delight | The Economist.
Why don’t they listen? (Because it’s not in their interest.)
“Using DRM to combat piracy has many critics, such as Bill Gates and Cory Doctorow. A central problem with current DRM solutions is that although they may make piracy more costly and difficult, they also impose costs on legal users who have no intentions of doing anything illegal. Moreover, because a DRM- restricted product will only be purchased by a legal user, in a perverse sense, only the legal users pay the price and suffer from the restrictions; illegal users will not be affected because the pirated product does not have DRM restrictions. As a result, opponents of DRM argue that eliminating DRM will improve the value of the product for legal users, increase their willingness to pay, and thus increase industry profits.”
http://static.arstechnica.net/2011/10/10/2011-10-10-VernikDRM.pdf
Pure Poetry.
![DRM punishes buyers and rewards pirates [pdf]](https://krabat.menneske.dk/kkblog/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/drm.gif)
