RMS is suggesting that people not buy harry potter books.
If his "fatwa" was against reading the books, this might be seen as extreme. But it isn't.
I am thinking about taking this issue one step further to suggest that we (the scientists of conscience) stop buying math/science books & periodicals that are circulated under non-permissive copyright terms. Like RMS, I would not be suggesting that we cease to read these books, but that we make no further direct contributions to the lucre-over-liberty publication industry to procure them.
I'm not completely confident in issuing this as a suggestion (much less a fatwa) at this point in time. But I would like to get the idea out there to see what other people here think of it.
One logical objection is that it would be inconvenient to be unable to buy math and science books. I don't disagree with this point. Libraries are often badly understocked, and books that are in high demand are often checked out.
I'll mention, however, that when I was a grad student, I successfully negotiated for all the books that were mentioned on the exam syllabi (and that were also available in the library; there were a few that weren't; all but one of these were published on the internet) to be kept on reserve, available for overnight checkout. It is possible that sensible library practices like this one – actually having the books that people need to use available for use – could cure many of the problems we might have with using libraries.
I'll also mention that this not-yet-activated proposal seems to have a pretty powerful analogical edge to it, by which I mean that it seems to sum up, in a politically-charged way, the goals and difficulties of "free math". Libraries are public, shared, freedom-enhancing spaces. On the other hand, if we're used to paying, not for the right to read (as one might in a fee-based library) but for the right to own a copy and redistribute it (by selling it again on the used market), I fear that we'll be playing right into the publication industry's profiteering agenda. I've talked to a few people who go so far as to doubt the usefulness of "free math" because all they know is the (already proved) usefulness of mathematical consumer culture. A properly described and advertised book-buying boycott might do a bit to help these people see the difference between what they know and where we would like things to go with math in the future.
Comments are appreciated.
--jcorneli
I think this is a good idea: people should vote with their dollars against the abusive practices of Big Copyright (in all its forms). A signal can start being sent without even cutting onesself off from the resources: consumers can simply switch to purchasing used copies, which is easier to do with buyer-to-buyer systems these days.
However, the problem is a bit deeper in the library, where subscription decisions are made for entire institutions. Individual faculty members at a university don't directly "buy" any journals; the library does. And these decisions are made by a group, thus they are very politicial and have a lot of momentum. Libraries are only really angry with journals because of the sheer economics of the situation: they can't subscribe to as many of them because they are getting so expensive.
It is simply not feasible to expect a boycott en masse among working academics. I think the best we can hope for is gradual pressure over time having an effect, combined with the montonically falling budgets of libraries and growth of new publications. We need to educate scholars about copyright, an area where they have in the past had the luxury of not thinking too hard or caring much. Eventually, the votes as to which journals to subscribe to (if any), and which journals to submit to, will add up to real change.
--akrowne Tue Nov 15 18:33:00 UTC 2005
The proposed boycott doesn't apply at the level of libraries: I think libraries should be able to buy whatever the usership wants to buy. If these are expensive all-rights-reserved works, so be it. I'm just proposing here that individuals drop their subscriptions to these sorts of journals. I think that the revenues due to individual subscriptions are high for many math journals. If these individuals found a good way to share a minimal number of for-cost works (through libraries for example!), this would send a strong message to the publishers that things have got to change.
Later, I'd expect to see libraries being increasingly interested in FAIF publications and technologies that support them. I don't know how closely related this fight and the individual boycott would be.
One of the benefits of the individual boycott would be to get people thinking about sharing. Instead of 20 people in a department subscribing to the same journal, 1 or 2 persons could subscribe and put the work into a shared reading room. The remaining people might even consider donating to a fund that would make the physical environment of the reading room more pleasant.
It might be argued that the individual copies of the work on display in the reading room are "rival goods", and that it won't do to have only one copy on hand. But the fact of the matter is, it might be even better to have only one copy, if it gets people who would otherwise be reading alone in their own rooms talking to each other about the material. I could imagine placing that one scarce copy onto one of those document projecting devices and having a nice little live discussion about it as it is deciphered. Indeed, today's seminars are a lot like this (and perhaps motivated my similar economics of scarcity).
--jcorneli
My 2 cents: The context of the IP wars involving copyrights, patents and trademarks is Post-Capitalism, at least in the U.S. What is "Post-Capitalism"? Official Cronyism and Looting. Copyrights were extended to 99 years so that Disney Corp. could retain the rights to Mickey Mouse, not because of "the common good". Corporations rule the US today. Politicians are not selected by the voters anymore. Gerrymandering is used by the politicians to select their voters. This is the end game for America, the once mighty empire, and now it is every man, woman and child for him or herself (unless they choose to work together for their mutual benefit). So if, say, Mr. X wishes to charge $Y for Book Z who am I to complain? I just won't be buying a copy, in part because $Z represents about N months worth of my "People Chow" (tm), and I take eating very seriously :) Going forward the "game" is about doing guerrilla capitalism within the overall context of Government by Looters during the long term fall of the U.S. into 2nd World status. Now, if "democracy" and the Constitution are restored one day, then I'll be the first to start generating tax revenues again and going shopping. During the Clinton years I paid huge wheelbarrows full of tax dollars. It was massive! So I am not against paying taxes. I am against supporting a corrupt regime of Looters. I recommend forming groups and associations to assist you in achieving your objectives, including getting fed. Vote not just with your wallets, but with your feet, and by the way you invest your intellectual energies. --ocat
I agree with Ocat about camaraderie; and also with Burning Spear, who said "social living is the best." Culture building has been discussed on this wiki some before and IMO it would be swell to see more of that. I'm a strong investor in my shared kitchen and have a number of other neighbor-relationship-building activities in the works. Oddly enough, I was never half as successful with these sorts of things in school. Maybe because school culture is a sort of top-down culture; even my reasonable-seeming efforts to make the math library work well for math students met with tons of resistance from the local Honchos. --jcorneli
The market for specialized scientific books is primarily university libraries, along with a few interested researchers who will buy a copy for their departments. Even at that price, these books often don't make a profit after the editors and proofreaders are paid, in addition to production and marketing expenses. If Mladen's book is successful, I would guess a more reasonably priced paperback version might appear. In the meantime, it is the kind of book that most people will just check out of their university libraries. Of course some professors "market" their books by making it required reading for their courses - but that's another issue.
This is a far, far different situation from Harry Potter. I lost respect for the author when I read she was threatening a lawsuit against some child who posted her homework about Harry Potter on the internet. When someone has already made more money off of it than 1000 average people will see in their lifetimes, something like this seems, well, petty. She'll probably say it's protecting the brand name or maintaining artistic purity or some such. But to me it seems to point to some kind of deep personality defect I don't quite understand. Greed does funny things to people.
In any case I removed my announcement of the book in case it is construed as an advertisement, which has no place on this forum. You'll forgive my exuberance since I put a bit of work into the book myself (on a volunteer basis, with no financial remuneration). --norm 15-Nov-2005
If this book is relevant to research on Metamath then I don't see any reason not to cite it on AM. The above wasn't directed against any book in particular, indeed, it isn't directed against books per se at all. I think it is fine to recommend books you contributed to; why not?
But I'm not convinced that the difference between Potter and, say, Springer, is really all that different. Both organizations (might as well use that word to describe the Potter Empire) enforce terms that restrict the rights of buyers. Springer's version of "buyer's rights" is is pretty clearly within the law (at least, thus far), whereas Potter version has at least part of its foundations nearer to the boundary (per the lawsuit that RMS got riled about).
While it might be true that "the market for specialized scientific books is primarily university libraries", I'm sure that if students refused to buy non-free textbooks, that would have a huge impact on the publishing industry (and academia as a whole, besides). --jcorneli