Did anyone see the Colbert Report Last Night?

[darkestfright]

One of his special guest was Sherman Alexi who wrote some book that I don't care about. Especially after what he said about FOSS.

Colbert had asked Sherman why he doesn't sell his book on Amazon Kindle, to which he replied something along the lines of "I choose not to because it's so easy to pirate digitized things" which I was totally ok with. Until he said (paraphrasing):

"Especially with the rise of Open Source which attempts to strip away your right of ownership from a product"

I almost spit up my eggnog all over the TV. I have never heard of such an ignorant statement in my entire life. Talking about piracy, and then immediately tagging FOSS as a way to strip ownership from your product, lumping FOSS in the same pile as disgusting pirates.

I'm sorry Mr. Alexi, but FOSS could never ever take away the right of ownership from your precious book and has no effect whatsoever on how you make money. Piracy =/= FOSS

You can watch this interview on the Colbert Nation website.

and Mr. Alexi's website is:
http://www.fallsapart.com/contact.html where you can find his contact information.
Snail Mail only unfortunately

This man needs to be educated. I have already gotten a few of my friends (and myself)to write in to Mr. Alexi, and I'm posting here in hopes that perhaps some people here would like to help out. I am absolutely outraged that there are people who lump Free as in Freedom Sofware in the same category as Free as in Stolen Software, thus, insulting the entire community at large...it's disgusting. This man needs to be made an example of.

[blueshiftoverwatch]

I'm sorry Mr. Alexi, but FOSS could never ever take away the right of ownership from your precious book and has no effect whatsoever on how you make money. Piracy =/= FOSS
Do people even have the right (http://libertariannation.org/a/f31l1.html) to own an idea in the first place?

[Kdar]

Now any moron can write and publish books.

[Tomone]

The exact line he used in the interview was "with the open source culture on the internet, the idea of ownership, or artistic ownership goes away."
I had some ideas about this (written below) but now I'm not sure I believe what I just wrote, or at least it's only part of the way to an actual idea. It took me some time to write it though and I didn't want to just throw it away, so here it is:

I saw the show, and the mention of "open source" caught my ear, but I don't think that he meant it the way it might have sounded. The exact line he used was "with the open source culture on the internet, the idea of ownership, or artistic ownership goes away." In context, it seems to me that he's using the phrase "open source culture on the internet" to mean a culture of sharing. If you take his statement this way and look at the files (music and video) that are shared online, he has a point: a good portion of the sharing of those files online is done illegally.
I think this is really a case of someone using a word, ignorant of the true meaning behind it.

[Frak]

EDUCATE THE BLASPHEMER!

Or, let it go.

[the yawner]

Wow. So since I use Ubuntu I'm a pirate now? Yarr!

[sites]

I have never heard of such an ignorant statement in my entire life.

If that statement is fact, then YOU, my good friend, have not watched enough TV. Nice catch, however, as i missed the part where he mentioned FOSS.

I actually saw this episode. The interview with Joseph Cirincione was hysterical.

[earthpigg]

waiting for it to show up on hulu or youtube.... link please, if you see it.

[earthpigg]

ok, well it is already on hulu.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/112161/the-colbert-report-tue-dec-1-2009 (i am sorry for those not in the US or able to access a proxy!)

the man is ignorant.

speaking about him not allowing legal digital reproduction of his book:

"I'd be really worried if i was -LIST OF BEST SELLERS STEVEN KING ETC- that when their books become completely digitized, how easy it's going to be to 'pirate' them. And, with the open source culture on the internet, the idea of ownership - of artistic ownership - goes away...." at this point, Colber says his guest is "terrified" and the banter continues.


Apparently, according to this individual, open source is all about Theft, Rape and Murder on the high seas...

...

why else would he talk about pirates, if that weren't his opinion? unless, of course, he is a robot and unable to think for himself.

[t.rei]

Oh come on. Just accept the fact that "open source", "sharing", "free" and other words realted to foss are just so far away from the exploiter-culture of the old world, they wont ever accept it.

You have a clash between the ones who learned all their life that the best is to squeeze every bit of possible money out of anything... cars, pets, humans, ideas... everything. On the other hand you have a huge concept of working together for the products sake. THAT will never match.

And its ok. So free-people and the slave-people are kind of driving each other mad and to ever new highs and achievements. :P

Lets just see where this goes and be free as long and as well as we can.

*edit*
On a side note: everything is better with pirates!

[Sealbhach]

http://imgur.com/Vc1Qv.png

[sites]

Now any moron can write and publish books.

You wrote a book?

[Exodist]

Didnt I post in here already? Or did the mobs kitty edit the thread?

[openuniverse]

.

[yossell]

I'm a big fan of the open source culture and its values...

but it is true that a sub-culture has been created containing people who think they are entitled to free music, ebooks, programs, etc. and that people who wish to make a living through their work deserve to be pirated. And there is a danger that a certain attractive and important ways of making a living - through one's ideas and creations whose form is copyable - are going to dsappear from the world because it is not sustainable. And this troubles me.

He didn't put it very well though, the dope.

[Chame_Wizard]

I would patent something but let people using it for a small fee.

[openuniverse]

.

[yossell]

@openuniverse

It's an interesting question what would happen if nobody paid for music, software books - whether the overall benefits to society would outweigh the drawbacks - if indeed there would be any drawbacks.

Older vs younger stuff isn't relevant and will only end in name-calling, insults and general bad feeling.

[pwnst*r]

You wrote a book?

ahahhaha

[laceration]

but it is true that a sub-culture has been created containing people who think they are entitled to free music, ebooks, programs, etc. and that people who wish to make a living through their work deserve to be pirated. And there is a danger that a certain attractive and important ways of making a living
The vast majority of artists--musicians, authors, software creators, etc-- would simply be gratified if people would just read/listen/use their creative endeavors. I do not think the drive to create is substantially limited to commercial motivations. These creative products historically have been within a commercial envelope as this system is what rose to distribute these goods. Now that art can be now distributed virtually for free over the www makes the vestiges of this system nothing but pimp-daddies preserving their slice of the action with laws preserved by bought and paid for politicians. It is a struggle betwen a vested entitled class that add nothing to the mix and the now real possibility of "Free Culture".

[yossell]

The vast majority of artists--musicians, authors, software creators, etc-- would simply be gratified if people would just read/listen/use their creative endeavors. I do not think the drive to create is substantially limited to commercial motivations.

Agreed, drive to create is not limited to commercial motivations. Many of my creative friends have eschewed big bucks in order to pursue their creations. But they have to live, eat, survive - they might even want families. And they work very hard at their creations - they could not create what they do without devoting a great deal of time to their projects.

[meho_r]

Who is Sherman Alexi?

[t0p]

Who is Sherman Alexi?

Yeah right, and what's the Colbert Report?* Why's any of this important?

Clue: some of us have better things to do than watch or care about American TV.

[* rhetorical question - please don't bother to post a link to a Wikipedia or other article explaining what the Colbert Report is. I don't really care.]

[LinuxFanBoi]

Now any moron can write and publish books.

Books? well technicaly yes, but people like to call books that are not "bound" down the spine manifestos or dossiers, which tends to cast them in a negative light and cast discredit on them.

[ElSlunko]

It's not like closed source projects give you any more ownership than open source ones. You don't have the right to modify (legally) software that is closed source. So open source hints towards ownership MORE than closed source software since all you buy is a license.

On associating pirates w/ FOSS, that's ridiculous.

[openuniverse]

.

[laceration]

better things to do than watch or care about American TV.
In general yes, but there always seems to be a few exceptions, The Colbert Report is one of them.

[ticopelp]

Yeah right, and what's the Colbert Report?* Why's any of this important?

Clue: some of us have better things to do than watch or care about American TV.

Like complaining about things you supposedly don't care about on Internet forums, I guess?

If you don't care, please don't click the thread, and especially please don't waste everyone's time (including your own) by posting useless things like "hey guys it's important you all know that I'm better than you." If your time was that important, I'm willing to wager you wouldn't be using it to crow about your superiority in the community area of a Linux board.

[chillicampari]

I'm wondering if some of the confusion is in the terms.

From what I understand of Open Source Culture (which yosell and openuniverse mention) it includes but are not limited to software, and in the arts category core ideas are a strong use of appropriation/derivative art, copyright to copyleft/CC and that everything belongs (or should belong) in the public domain.

For one example, Open Source Cinema (in openuniverses sig) with Rip: A Remix Manifesto adds to the confusion by way of focusing on appropriation of copyrighted materials for new art via fair use, the RIAA and MPAA and p2p and gray area use (they are mixing a few things in, as, well, a lot of it is about remix culture, which to my best interpretation isn't open source, but no one really owns that term). Also, how the digital revolution will change everything as far as content ownership is concerned.

And within itself, there is confusion of even using that phrase in regards to the film: http://boingboing.net/2008/10/16/rip-remix-manifesto.html (see the comments).


Then on another side you also have the bootleggers using the same catch phrases used in open source like "sharing is caring". Can't do much about that, but it makes it blurrier to both the general public and content creators.

And now you have some guy who just wants to sell his book and make some money from it and not be pushed into the digital frontier where he probably thinks he'll lose money or perceived rights to his book. He might actually lose some money from those who'd buy it as a download, and I don't think he should be "punished" or harassed for not releasing it digitally. It's his choice as the author.

[expxe]

lol this thread is funny. we should all contact mr alexie and educate him. does anyone have his contact info?

[chillicampari]

lol this thread is funny. we should all contact mr alexie and educate him. does anyone have his contact info?

Haven't looked (don't care to) but from what the OP wrote it sounds like the guy is smart enough to not even have a public email address.

[openuniverse]

.

[chillicampari]

EDIT- openuniverse started a new branch off thread and I moved my response here:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=8435825

[murderslastcrow]

Every Linux user owns Linux, which would mean any Linux user can sue this guy for public defamation. :O

If we were zealotrous crabs. >:C

Most people are more informed than this guy. It's still offensive, but it's not a dominant viewpoint. People make wild assumptions of the things they don't understand merely because they're unfamiliar, and figure it should be common to be anything but EVIL PIRACY OF DOOM!

Just an silly misinterpretation of a wider reality.

[openuniverse]

.

[meho_r]

Like complaining about things you supposedly don't care about on Internet forums, I guess?

If you don't care, please don't click the thread, and especially please don't waste everyone's time (including your own) by posting useless things like "hey guys it's important you all know that I'm better than you." If your time was that important, I'm willing to wager you wouldn't be using it to crow about your superiority in the community area of a Linux board.

What was THAT? What are you talking about?

[sbelz79]

Do people even have the right (http://libertariannation.org/a/f31l1.html) to own an idea in the first place?

Great link!

Personally, my view is that it should not be the role of Government to protect companies' profits in a changing marketplace. If your company makes a product that can be easily duplicated, that's your problem. Adapt or go extinct.

The recording industry seems to think it has the right to continue making a profit without adapting to the current environment- but the fact is they're obsolete. When the record industry came about, building a recording studio was ridiculously expensive- as was pressing vinyl. The industry was essential for any artists who were interested in recording and distributing their music, and they were producing a product that people couldn't make for themselves. Not so, today.

Profit is not a right- it's a privilege reserved for those innovative enough to adapt to the current marketplace. And it's completely possible for musicians to profit from their work while sharing their music for free on-line. Tour like crazy, and produce a CD package that people want to buy. Hell- solicit donations. Bittorrent technology can be used for a kind of high-tech busking. In the case of the author mentioned by the OP, he's wise not to release his work in a digital format since he clearly doesn't want it copied.

But it should not be the role of government to create an artificial legal environment that guarantees the "right" of corporations or individuals to profit without adapting.

That being said, I do believe that those who feel they deserve credit for their creations should be able to apply for a copyright that prevents others from taking credit for their work, which would also prevent others from reproducing that work commercially. That is, if I record a song and get it copyrighted, I could sue another artist going around singing the song I wrote and claiming it was their own, and would prevent people from burning a bunch of copies of my CD and selling it- or from a director putting it into a movie, TV show or commercial without permission. Basically, I believe that the Collective Commons licence that Nine Inch Nails has recorded its most recent work under should be the upper limit of what a copyright can do.

[nmccrina]

The vast majority of artists--musicians, authors, software creators, etc-- would simply be gratified if people would just read/listen/use their creative endeavors. I do not think the drive to create is substantially limited to commercial motivations. These creative products historically have been within a commercial envelope as this system is what rose to distribute these goods. Now that art can be now distributed virtually for free over the www makes the vestiges of this system nothing but pimp-daddies preserving their slice of the action with laws preserved by bought and paid for politicians. It is a struggle betwen a vested entitled class that add nothing to the mix and the now real possibility of "Free Culture".

I agree that the drive to create is not limited to commercial motivations; however, actually creating anything requires something a bit more tangible. As an example, the Fairlight CMI synthesizer used by a lot of musicians in the '80s cost upwards of 20,000 pounds. An amateur musician just making music for the gratification of having people listen to it is not going to be able to afford that. And how are you going to raise money by touring if you need the instrument in the first place? Somebody with capital has to make an investment. Who is that going to be? Correct, often it's the label that signed the musician.

[laceration]

OMG forget about Free Culture. Music, Art and my life would be worthless without that '80's synthesizer music! (heavy sarcasm smily goes here)

Isn't that the the kind of overproduced bulls*** that punk rock sprang from?

That is the worst argument I have read. Music in this day and age absolutely does not need any controlling or financing organizations like recording cos. Perhaps you could make that argument for TV and Movies, but given the dearth of worthwhile product there, I would not sign on to that either.