Strange Aeons

sesquipedalia verba
Simon Wells
Simon Wells

Simon Wells is an academic researching Argumentation Theory, Automated Reasoning, Intelligent Agents (IA) and MultiAgent Systems (MAS) all approached through a ludic lens.

He is particularly interested in how these tools can be usefully applied to critical literacy, security, gamification, and complex systems.

Twitter

My Other Sites

Affiliates

Tags

Archive

2012 (1)
2011 (12)
2010 (27)
2009 (3)
 

The Year We Make Contact

Media_httpwwwstrangea_bdhjq
According to Arthur C. Clarke anyway. My own blogging has had to take a back seat over the past month as I have been busy with teaching related activities and getting the websites associated with my various courses up and running again after an over enthusiastic rm-ing session on the wrong web server last summer. I had kept MySQL dumps of everything but not of the various sites themselves so I had the content but not the presentation and it takes time, a precious commodity, to get these things going. Anyway my argumentation site is up and running, as is my linux site and my agents site, covering the three broad topics that I am teaching this year. The plan has been to use publically accessible blogs, rather than blackboard, to keep a record of everything that occurs in relation to each of my modules. I have an adverse reaction to the locking up of knowledge inside little blackboard websites because they are distinctly not open. When I have been interested in various modules being delivered by my colleagues I have had to go through a process of getting added to the module lists so that I can get access. When all I really want to do is read through the slides to satisfy some sort of academic craving. What are the plans for this year you wonder. Well no resolutions. Some half-hearted, fairly vague, back of the mind ideas for things I want to do over the next year or so. Some of these things are fairly practical;
  • getting to inbox 0 (currently at inbox 2 as I have 2 emails from friends that I want to give thoughtful and considered replies to) and other hacks to increase my productivity,
  • getting a fellowship application in (although this is actually half-hearted as it would mean little or no teaching for 3 years or so and I now realise that it is the healthy balance of teaching and research activities that currently make me (reasonably) happy in my job),
  • getting some research funding (this is more whole hearted as I want to stop self-funding my visits, get some better equipment and books, and because it is a necessary part of getting onto the career ladder as a scientist - it is not solely about what you know but increasingly about how much money you can bring to the table),
  • getting those two journal papers off of my desk that have been in various states of done-ness for too long,
  • getting my small publishing business up and running (as it has been in the back of my mind for a couple of years during which time several friends have written and print-on-demanded various books but would rather have turned that over to someone they know to manage so that they could write more). It should be noted that this is also a strategic move in that it looks increasingly as though only those who have a business interest in copyright will have any say in the near future over how the copyright landscape erodes. By developing a non-traditional publishing model based off of openness and sharing perhaps it will give me a stronger basis from which to argue against increased restrictions,
  • finally get my personal consultancy changed over from a sole trader business into a limited company and try to build an extra income stream,
  • get some new websites up and running. I have one on cooking (partnering with a friends baking website (which I also have to get running)), one for the publishing company, and one for my book blogging.
I think that that is enough to get started with...
Posted
 

Musings on Copyright

I found an old post that I wrote back in 2005 about copyright:
The terms for which copyrights last are extended time and again, currently to long after the original creator has died. According to those benefiting from this regime it is to protect the copyrighted work and ensure that more works are created, not to protect an income stream or law-dependent business plan. In answer to that I say that the moment something is created, the copyright in effect at that moment was clearly sufficient for its creation. I don't need to explain that reasoning more as it is self evident. Copyright extension, especially after the fact, is the real crime of theft of copyright work. If the work is still so popular after a reasonable copyright term has expired then that work will have entered the public conciousness and imagination and belongs as much to the commons as it did to the original authors. Although the original author will always reserve the right to identify themselves as first author they lose the right to control how that work is used and built upon. This is part of the deal you make when you publish that work to the public. In exchange for some money for a limited period of time, you eventually lose control of the work. If you as an author of a work do not wish to ever lose control of that work then the solution is simple, do not release it. Any extension to the copyright term to keep that work out of the public domain is an act of theft from the public and the commons.This theft from the commons and the public imagination is what actually damages the drive to create new works as it requires that everything be created all over again. This position is based on the fact that most creative works are not truly original but benefit from the creations of all the works that have gone before.
What is interesting is that some of the mainstream media seem to be coming around to this view. Eirik Solheim of NRK was interviewed by the German website Tagesschau and said the following:
If you want control of your content you need to lock it down in a vault and never show it to anyone. We gave up control of our content the day we started broadcasting. For years our most popular content have been available on BitTorrent and on sites like YouTube anyway. DRM doesn't work. The only way to control your content is to be the best provider of it. If people want it on YouTube then you should publish it on YouTube or in a system that give the same experience. If people want it on BitTorrent then you should provide that. If you do it right people will come to your official publish point and you'll end up with more control.
Notice the recurring points about control of content, if you want to control something then you either need to lock it down, which media companies have been trying to do for years with the only result being that it alienates the law abiding customers by putting obstacles in their way and doesn't actually hinder infringement in any way. Otherwise you need to not share your copyrighted content because as soon as you share it by making it public in any form you are adding it to the creative commons in one form or another. The important point though is that there is no guarantee of an income stream. The harsh reality is that if your writing, or music, or film, or code, or anything else is not worth paying for, then people won't pay for it, but then again I don't think that you should be doing it for the money anyhow. Even if it is worth paying for then you won't get every person to pay for it. Ultimately, as NRK have realised, to best control your content you have to be the best provider of it.
Posted
Posterous theme by Cory Watilo.
​