Amazon just acquired Shelfari along with used and rare book company Abe Books. Abe Books has been a long-time partner with and 40% investor in LibraryThing, a Shelfari competitor, so the Abe Books acquisition also gives Amazon a 40% stake in LibraryThing. A crowded shelf indeed. Details covered by Publishers Weekly and TechCrunch.

I’ve never been a fan of Shelfari: the UI is gaudy, the site is slow, there’s no way to make edits on large numbers of books quickly, and there’s very little room for user input or modifications. As for organizing your collection, Shelfari’s use of tags is so secondary that it’s nearly useless. Plus, if Amazon isn’t selling it, good luck getting it onto your shelf.

Tim Spalding, founder and CEO of LibraryThing, has more serious issues with Shelfari that I think are worth repeating:

As I’ve said before, I have respect for LibraryThing’s 40+ competitors, but withhold it for Shelfari. They were rather famously called out by me and by others in a series of blog posts exposing a program of spamming and of “astroturfing” (paid employees posing as excited users in blog comments). They apologized on both occasions, but I have, quite frankly, the greatest contempt for them, and for what book-based social networking will become if they beat out LibraryThing.

Picture a boot stomping on a human face forever. Well, okay, not that. But picture the book social network wars ending with a site created by music people who probably wouldn’t get that allusion, with advertising all over, with “community managers” “managing” conversations between book lovers, and under the shadow of what will sell books and not books’ other, greater values. In short, I believe there’s something “to” the idea of book-based social networking which they don’t get, and to which they are a danger. Yes, I’ve drunk my own Kool-Aid.

I’ve been a long-time user of LibraryThing. It’s quick, allows users to contribute to book details, has active and thoughtful discussions that revolve around the books, and is great at allowing users to organize their books easily in a variety of ways. I tend to think of Shelfari as the choice for people who like to look at shiny book covers sitting on their shelf and LibraryThing as the choice for people who like what’s between those covers.

I do have two gripes with LibraryThing, though. While the UI is faster and more useful than Shelfari, and allows for lots of great ways to organize and benefit from the information surrounding the books, the actual look of the site could be improved, particularly if it hopes to compete with Shelfari.

More importantly, LibraryThing, after a long series of promises, discussions, and flip-flopping, decided not to create an official Facebook application. This was a serious mistake, in my opinion. While many of my friends are book-lovers, only a few have that combination of book-lover and web-geek that would compel them to enter, tag, and discuss their book collections on a books-only social network. However, many of my friends will happily share what they’re reading with others on Facebook, and since LibraryThing doesn’t have an app through which I can do that, I have to use another service if I want to join in on that sharing. That’s a lot of word-of-mouth support for LibraryThing that just ain’t happening.

I thought this comment on a TechCrunch post was wonderfully snarky (and accurate) enough to be quoted and shared:

Let me see if I have it right. The discussion centers around:

Thieves (illegal downloaders)
Freeloaders (can be thieves too, believe Everything should be freeee!!)
Stupid Mules (stubborn labels)
Artists (content producers: will play for biscuits, new strings, one sheet of toilet paper {all that’s needed} and a tank of fast food grease to get the refurbished micro bus to the next gig)
Old Fashioned (a majority of consumers, deemed moronic Luddites by the Silicon Valleratti because of their willingness to pay for content)
Econo-Mighties (my brain is bigger than yours-types who dole out a hodge podge of absolutist hoo-ha picked up the one day they didn’t fall asleep in Economic Principles 101)

Did I miss anyone?

I think he might be missing bloggers who pontificate endlessly on the topic with little/no training in relevant areas of law and economics …

I’ve been collecting posts, videos, etc. related to the copyright controversy in my Del.icio.us account, tagged copyright.

As a writer, English teacher, lover of film and literature, and friend of many artists, I’m very concerned about this issue (as a survey of recent posts here should indicate). However, the more I learn, the less sure I become of which position to take.

I’m semi-clear on a few things:

• The original intent was to provide incentives for inventors and artists to share their work with the public by providing a limited monopoly. This provision was not understood as a “natural” right by the founders, and the concern was more about the common good than the individual inventors and artists.¹
• Current copyright law, wielded less by individuals than by corporations, is restricting the benefits that the commons can derive from art, and it is doing so to an ever greater degree as controls tighten and copyrights are extended.
• Further restrictions on fair use only make this matter worse.
• We (the commons) should be concerned with our collective good, the right to build on the works of others, the freedom of information, and the right to “share culture” freely (as in libre).
• On the other hand, we should also be worried about reducing or eliminating incentives for artists and inventors to create and share their creations. Similarly, we should be concerned about the impact this will have on journalism and journalists.²

When I argue, I tend to argue from this last point. Art, literature, film, etc. … these are vital and important aspects of culture, though you’ll get no argument from me that too much has been co-opted by the corporations.³ Still, the artists themselves are not (and should not be) the enemy. We, the commons, should be interested in their success even as we actively fight against the legal and corporate limitations that have been built around them.

Collectively, I believe we can find a solution to these difficulties, but only if we are focusing on building solutions rather than, or at least in addition to, destroying the problems. If we just storm the walls and tear down the keep, the artists, inventors, and journalists are also likely to be crushed in the process.⁴

One example I applaud is Google’s recently-stated approach to newspapers, saying they have a “huge moral imperative to help.”⁵ I think this approach — the new industries, technologies, and markets reaching out to and working with the existing ones to help them make the transition effectively — is the most responsible one, and the one most likely to bring success to both the artists and the commons who benefit from their creations. I hope to see more examples like this.

Footnotes:

1. Ultimately, the goal was to get artists to share so that there would be more works for the commons to build upon, thereby improving the common good. The incentive, though directed at the artist, was to indirectly further the common good.
2. The many problems with corporate media’s “infotainment” approach to journalism is also a huge problem, but one I’m not going to address here. Still, the fact that we need good journalists, and that good journalists need to be paid for their work if they’re going to be able to do it well, should require no argument.
3. The AP’s recent insanity surrounding fair use by bloggers is an excellent worst-case example of the problem.
4. And, for the frauds and sell-outs, that might be fine … but for the rest? I’m not willing to destroy the many for the sins of the few.
5. Google CEO: “Moral Imperative” To Help Newspapers - Media on The Huffington Post

Paul Krugman has an op-ed piece entitled “Bits, Bands, and Books” in The New York Times today about the influence of digital content on existing business models. His focus is on “books.”

The basic argument is that, as it becomes easier to duplicate and distribute digital content, the ability to make money from that content will fall. Eventually, income will have to be generated indirectly. In his words (in which he also quotes Esther Dyson):

Whatever the product — software, books, music, movies — the cost of creation would have to be recouped indirectly: businesses would have to “distribute intellectual property free in order to sell services and relationships.”

He then turns to examine books more specifically, considering the potential impact of e-books. He comes to this conclusion:

Indeed, if e-books become the norm, the publishing industry as we know it may wither away. Books may end up serving mainly as promotional material for authors’ other activities, such as live readings with paid admission.

I think this idea works just fine for writers of nonfiction (excluding memoirs). I can’t see this working, in any financially successful way, for fiction writers. Except for a few highly successful authors like Stephen King, who’s going to go see a live reading with paid admission? And what “other activities” could apply here, besides “the day job”? As for the ancillary market Krugman references, how would that apply to fiction? I mean, I love Faulkner, but I won’t be buying any Faulkner t-shirts!

Krugman admits as much:

Now, the strategy of giving intellectual property away so that people will buy your paraphernalia won’t work equally well for everything.

The other problem with this is that it’s an implicit admission that an entire segment of the market will simply disappear. Here’s why: the ancillary market has always been part of the business strategy, and it’s called ancillary because it isn’t the primary source of revenue. If “the ancillary market is the market,” in Dyson’s words, then that’s a crushing blow to the market.

He ends with a statement that is unhelpful, but also hard to argue with:

Bit by bit, everything that can be digitized will be digitized, making intellectual property ever easier to copy and ever harder to sell for more than a nominal price. And we’ll have to find business and economic models that take this reality into account.

I don’t have an answer, either, but I do worry. Even moderately successful authors are paid a pittance of the current market revenue. What’s a pittance of the ancillary market … ?

I keep trying to understand the position of the “copyright abolitionists,” but so far, I’m still not convinced. Here are a few points I’m stuck on … and there are probably others as well. I think this is an extremely important issue, though, so I’ll continue to learn and think about it.

Freely Sharing Ideas

Thomas Jefferson is often quoted in the copyright debates, particularly this quote:

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.

I understand this quote, but I don’t understand how some people use it as an attack on copyright. Copyright law already recognizes that ideas cannot be protected. What copyright protects is the fixed expression of an idea. So, my idea for a story about a couple trapped in a house and terrorized by strangers cannot be protected. The specific expression of that idea, on the other hand, can, whether it’s the film Funny Games or the film The Strangers.

Copyright is Unethical

I’m still struggling with this one. If this is supposed to mean “preventing people from sharing ideas is unethical,” then I agree. But what people mean when they say this, whether they realize it or not, is usually that “preventing people from freely distributing copies of a fixed expression of an idea is unethical” … which doesn’t make any sense to me.

Usually, this argument is closely linked to the argument that “the cost of reproduction is effectively zero.” In other words, since it doesn’t really cost anyone anything to copy a fixed expression, it’s therefore ethical to make those copies without paying anyone anything.

Both cases ignore what I see as a vital part of the equation: namely, the efforts of the creator in creating that fixed expression, his/her right to maintain control and ownership over his/her creations, and the ethical principle of trade. Specifically: this guy spent time doing X … time he didn’t spend doing other things to provide for his basic needs (food, shelter, etc.). Therefore, since I enjoy and/or benefit from X, if I want him to continue doing more things like X, I need to help him provide for his basic needs.

Put differently, I don’t see why people have a problem with the idea of paying some reasonable amount of money to the creators of things they enjoy. I don’t see what’s unethical about a law that requires this to happen.

Before the rebuttals begin, let me say that I understand and agree that current copyright law says more than that and is, in many ways, corrupt. I’m in favor of copyright reform. What I’m addressing is the idea that no sort of copyright should exist at all.

Other Business Models

I think other business models are definitely necessary, but not ones that rely on something other than the original creation to generate the income.

I often hear the argument that musicians can make money from concerts and merchandise. Well, that’s fine if the musician wants to tour and sell T-shirts. But primarily what the musician does is create music. The music itself should be the basis of whatever money is generated. If it’s not, then the musician is forced to become something other than a musician … which kinda defeats the point.

Still Thinking

At any rate, I’ve still got a lot of thinking and reading to do on all this. I don’t have answers, and I’m pretty sure I don’t even have all the right questions yet.

Any recommendations on authoritative books, articles, or studies are definitely welcome.

For my needs, Windows Live Writer (WLW) is the best desktop blogging application I’ve found.¹ WLW makes it easy to insert elements and format posts, even allowing you to write using your blog’s stylesheet so you know exactly how the post will look once it’s published. I also appreciate the easy access to drafts and former posts, though WLW won’t sync all posts with your blog database as some other tools will. Still, its interface is slick and familiar, its WYSIWYG editor is smart and produces fewer code errors than most others, it communicates well with most blog platforms, and it has a growing selection of plugins to improve its functionality. Importantly, it’s also free.

Before I discovered WLW, I used browser plugins like ScribeFire for Firefox or Flock’s built-in Blog Editor. They’re both nice, but neither are as feature-rich or as slick as WLW. ScribeFire’s best feature is that it can split the browser window and sit on the bottom, allowing you to search, write, and pull text and images right into the post without having to switch windows. Flock’s Blog Editor can do the same thing with the Blog Plus addon, and the Flock browser has the handy Web Clippings sidebar to help you collect text, images, and videos for a post. Unfortunately, neither tool handles images very well and both lack the extended functionality that WLW plugins offer.

For collaborative blogging projects, online tools like Google Docs or Zoho Writer will post the final draft directly to your blog. Being able to access the drafts from any networked computer, view the history of the drafts, and collaborate with other writers are great features, but in my experience, the formatting wasn’t always preserved when the document was sent to the blog. Also, unless there’s a need for collaboration, if I’m going to compose a blog post online, I’m probably going to use the “write” page of my blogging platform to take advantage of any features it might offer.

There are many other tools out there, some free, some not.² One tool I find particularly impressive, and my “runner up” for blog-writing tools, is Zoundry Raven. It’s open-source freeware that lets you manage multiple profiles and multiple blogs, sync all of your posts with the desktop version, and browse posts by categories, tags, links, or images. If you’re a WordPress user, Raven will even manage your pages. Its composing features are rich and work well, and it can even be installed on a flash drive so you can take your posts with you. WLW still wins for its plugins, stability, and the ease of use of its features, but Zoundry Raven’s management features and portability make it a close second.

Footnotes:

1. Obviously, if you’re a Mac user, you might not feel the same and will probably opt for Ecto or Mars Edit 2.
2. Deepest Sender (a simple Firefox plugin), Thingamablog, Rocket Post 2, w.bloggar, Qumana, and BlogJet, to name a few

I received an email from a teacher/friend asking for tips on script format to pass on to her creative writing students. I sent a quick reply,¹ but I also mentioned that the students should consider using some software that was developed specifically for writers (instead of business professionals).

I’ve tried a number of these tools, but the email motivated me to go back and review the offerings. It also motivated me to think about what tools I would recommend to student writers in a few categories: blog-writing tools, word processors, research and note-taking tools, and creative writing tools.

In a few upcoming posts, I’ll give a brief overview of the tools in each category and provide a justification for my tool of choice. The posts aren’t meant to be exhaustive, but they will include what I’ve found to be the more popular options in each category. Comments and additional tools or resources are welcome.

If you just want the quick list of my chosen tools, here it is:

• Blogging: Windows Live Writer
• Word Processors: OpenOffice.org (runner up: Zoho Writer² )
• Research & Note-Taking: Zotero³ (runner up: Diigo)
• Creative Writing: Rough Draft⁴ (runner up: Celtx for script, yWriter for prose, and Zhura for online, collaborative script-writing)

Details coming soon …

Image: 2/365 Days - Pen and Paper by Athena

Footnotes:

1. How to Format a Screenplay; A Few Notes on Formatting; How to Format A Stage Play; BBC’s Script Formats
2. This announcement gives it a distinct advantage over Google Docs.
3. Particularly when installed on a USB drive with portable Firefox and portable OpenOffice.org.
4. It’s not as powerful as the other tools, and it’s no longer being actively developed, but it can equally handle both script format and prose. It will remain my default choice until I find another program that can do both well.

In mythology, crows are bad news. In the Resident Evil games, crows are things you shoot for fun and occasional reward. But Joshua Klein has some ideas that might turn these creepy winged pests into humanity’s helpers. This TED Talk shows how smart, and potentially useful, crows can be.

Still, it’s best not to get them angry at you …

Neil W. Netanel defines the problem newspapers face in the digital age:

Newspapers thus suffer from the classic public goods problem. Producers of quality journalism invest heavily in investigating, reporting, editing, and fact checking. But once they make their work product available, they cannot prevent many others from copying from and reading their work without payment. In the long run, they will lose out to competitors who build on their investment in quality journalism without making a similar investment in original reporting. In fact, newspapers’ public goods problem extends even wider. We all benefit from a society in which quality reporting is produced and disseminated even if we don’t actually read that reporting ourselves.¹

This is one of my main concerns in the copyright debate. I believe there should be a genuine and tangible incentive potential for the creators of original, quality work. If our concern is the good of the commons, then we should provide incentives for others to contribute to the common good and take steps to protect those incentives.

Regarding newspapers, Thomas Jefferson said:

… were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them.²

But he also said:

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.³

I think Jefferson would be thrilled at the possibilities that blogs and other social web tools provide for disseminating information, verifying its accuracy, and debating its significance. On the other hand, I also think he would be concerned about the loss of potential incentives for the investigating, verifying, and editing that Netanel mentions.

I don’t believe that “saving the fourth estate” is the answer, though. I see two currents in media: the concentration of mainstream media under ever-smaller numbers of major corporations, and the distribution of that content online through ever-larger networks. These two currents are in direct opposition, but I hope this won’t mean that either side “wins.”

Instead, I hope the monopoly over mainstream media is broken, resulting in new business models that can provide economic incentives to trained professionals to continue the work of the old estate, but with more freedom than the old estate could afford to allow, resulting in the freedom of content/information sharing paired with the potential economic incentives and other necessary resources of media corporations.

How this might happen, I’m still not sure, though I’ve heard a few good ideas.

Footnotes:

1. The Demise of Newspapers: Economics, Copyright, Free Speech
2. http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1600.htm
3. http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Thomas_Jefferson

“Closer to Fine,” the first hit from the Indigo Girls‘ first album, is a song that I’ve returned to at different points in my life.  Recently, while searching around for what others have said about this song, I was surprised to find a sermon [doc] online based on the lyrics, so I gave it a read.  These lines stuck out for me:

Unfortunately, being OK with being OK is a trend that runs against the dominant narrative of American life.  Over and over again, we get told that it’s not enough to be fine, we’ve got to be perfect.

On TV, in shows and ads, and in our mail, we get told: you don’t make enough money.  Your things aren’t nice enough.  You don’t take fancy enough vacations.

I think the pressure for perfection, at least for me, comes both from within and without.  My internal ideals of what could be and the external glamorization of “the good life” often combine to  choke me in my present reality.

This is also true of artistic pursuits.  While perfection (under the name of “beauty”)¹ is the goal of art, fear of falling short of that often stops me from even getting started, as does the fear that there’s only one way to reach that perfection … and what if I choose the wrong path?  And who decides whether or not “beauty” has been achieved?

From later in the sermon …

We can’t answer the call of the holy to service [sic] justice and mercy by showing ourselves no justice, no mercy.  We’re no good to anyone if we are always after perfection, if we are trying to impose a single answer on the problems of the world.

To rephrase for the artist: we can’t answer the call of art if fear of failure, fear of taking the wrong approach to the subject, keeps us from ever creating.

To rephrase for the educator: we can’t answer the call of teaching if …

To rephrase for an educational system: we can’t educate students if we make them fear failure and teach them there is a single, definitive answer to every problem, which corresponds to a bubble on an answer sheet.

The ultimate advice offered in the sermon is that we should stop doing the things that don’t bring happiness and learn to appreciate being “fine,” or at least, drawing closer to “fine.”  I think this is pretty good advice, and obvious, which makes it easy to forget.  I would change happiness for peace, though; the emotion of happiness is a bit too fleeting and focused on the self, but peace is generally grounded in deeper soil and a closer synonym to what I think the Indigo Girls mean by “fine” in that song.

As for the things that bring me closer to fine: family and friends, of course, and then writing, education, activism, and travel. I want a life that involves all of those things, that does some good for others, and that leaves some legacy.  There need not be one path to reach those goals, nor one definitive answer about whether or not I ever succeed.

Leeson, Evan.  “Light Forge.” Flickr. 6 Dec 2006. 18 Apr 2008 <http://flickr.com/photos/ecstaticist/315411328/>.

Footnotes:

1. To artists and art critics: by beauty here, I’m not talking about appeal but about the ideal representation of the subject.  An ideal representation of a grotesque subject is still, in terms of art, beautiful.