those dangerous paper cuts.
Mine's the one I can fold into a paper airplane.
14 posts • joined 10 Apr 2008
The initial article kind of missed a few important points. Must have been a deadline to meet for a space-filler I guess?
Amazon's objection wasn't entirely about the ideas of eBook pricing themselves, it was objecting to the agency model Macmillan was trying to put in place that recognizes the "new" technology. Macmillan was trying *to* adapt to new technology - but it would have meant *Amazon* didn't make as much money per copy sold.
Read Charles Stross' analysis of the whole situation for a better idea of what happened - http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/01/amazon-macmillan-an-outsiders.html
Even better, try the letter Macmillan sent out to agents and authors, there's a copy at http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=282306625809 - note that the agency model was proposing *dynamic* pricing, no different than current markdowns of physical books over time.
As a side note, Amazon didn't pull the same stunt with Hachette - http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6717788.html?desc=topstory
Bill Ray should have done some actual research for the article a little more - I've seen more balanced party political broadcasts.
Amazon is trying to be to publishing what Apple is to people deciding what to run on their i*'s. I don't know about you, but I've got about as much interest in *Amazon* deciding what I get for my books as anyone else does in Apple deciding what you can run on your iPhone or iPod.
As for why SFWA got involved - It's doing what it's supposed to do, and stand up for its members.
I can actually understand blurring out number plates, they do that with "reality" TV shows using dash-cams and the like. Those are "more" identifiable, I think, and deserve some privacy.
I'm not sure where you get being "able to take advantage of the situation" of you going out though (serious question).
I mean, if you go out, hordes of people can see you. What makes being seen in a picture on the 'net that millions of people "could" see any different than walking down the road where everyone can see you "real time"?
I'll believe they'll stop abuse of CCTV by "authorities" when I see it (no pun intended). It just means those "authorities" will need to get more creative with their justifications - especially if the DPA makes it near-impossible for people to know they were even monitored to begin with.
The downside to a totalitarian democracy is it's all too easy to say surveillance is for the ethereal "public good".
It really is hard for me to reconcile the arguments against Google Street View with the support (or at least acceptance) of governmental monitoring. One is more about the places, the other is absolutely about the people.
So people in the country with the most number of surveillance cameras per citizen in the world that aren't covered by the Data Protection Act (if they're not targeted at a specific individual) are complaining about a car driving around taking pictures?
They think that's a breach of privacy, whilst the local council making sure you bag it after your dog does it isn't?
I'm Irish, but not even I'd be able to use *this* logic!
Paris, cos I doubt she'd understand it any better than I
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019