As someone with my second book on the way, I find myself torn between not wanting to fight with my publisher yet remaining faithful to my ideals regarding CC licensing.  After all, it is much more important to me to be read than to make a few extra sheckles off of my ideas.  Besides, I’m fairly certain that having a larger reader base will lead to more actual book sales – even if there are more people reading for free.  Finally, there is a bit of empirical evidence to back it up.

Those publishers who insist on draconian, DRM-crippled merchandise might want to consider this little gem from Brad Colbow (click to enlarge):

Not sure who to credit on this, but there is a fun little info-graphic hosted at i.imgur on the difference between a “pirated” DVD and one purchased legally.

As one who has purchased many more DVDs than than is considered healthy by the American Medical Association, I can say that the very first thing I do is rip them to a DVD-R.  The original goes straight into a drawer where it either rots for eternity or gets re-ripped if (and often when) I end up destroying the backup.  This is partly because of what is described in this picture, partly because I want to be able to play them on my computer without having to use up my 5 change limit on region-locking, and partly because the materials they use to produce these DVDs are notoriously flimsy and wouldn’t last 10 seconds with my two year old.

If you’re looking for some good software on DVD-ripping, I recommend checking out Handbrake which is a nice one-click affair (and of course free).  Also free for all of your computer region woes, you might want to grab a copy of DVD43.

In the midst of our ongoing debates over file-sharing and the latest twisted headlines from the RIAA, the discourse seems to have slipped into whether artists need to be compensated for their work (which they should) and whether the poor suicidal copyright watchdogs have gone over the deep end in attacking their own consumers (which they have).  Yet it is important to remember that this is more than just an economic debate – this is part of an ongoing struggle to determine the appropriate line between comodification and our cultural evolution.

Let’s face it – to varying degrees, we all enjoy what Hollywood spews out no matter how trite and repetitive it can be.  Such endeavours require a substantial amount of capital and investors should be able to profit from their work if we expect them to continue being produced.  Much as in the publishing and music industries, copyright law has existed for the purpose of safeguarding this monetisation.  Yet it is important to remember that copyright is meant to be of a finite duration.  This allows artists to profit from their work while also ensuring that future generations are able to continue building on this work when it enters the public domain.  As James Boyle of The Public Domain notes:

Our markets, our democracy, our science, our traditions of free speech, and our art all depend more heavily on a Public Domain of freely available material than they do on the informational material that is covered by property rights. The Public Domain is not some gummy residue left behind when all the good stuff has been covered by property law. The Public Domain is the place we quarry the building blocks of our culture. It is, in fact, the majority of our culture.

Perpetual copyright effectively consolidates our cultural heritage into the hands of a few wealthy industrialists and restricts creative expression worldwide.  This trend must be stopped. 

You can read the full Manifesto here and please take the time to sign it.