| null | |
|---|---|
Scrivener's Error |
Law and reality in publishing (seldom the same thing) from the author's side of the slush pile, with occasional forays into military affairs, censorship and the First Amendment, legal theory, and anything else that strikes me as interesting. |
link to: 11:45 [GMT-6]
Today's sausages are exceptionally chunky on this first day of school for both remoras. Now I have the house back during the day! But these chunky sausages come with more than the usual disclaimers.
Surprised?
Next up, the fight at recess over 'net neutrality is turning into a Sharks v. Jets encounter, but without the musical score. Some groups (like the Creature That Devoured Nashville) are urging special treatment, not neutrality, for music... while they're still not equitably distributing their fees to captive artists. Meanwhile, competitors are filing objections to the NBCU-Comcast transaction. This is much more an instance of "the enemy of my enemy acts like my friend" than anything else Earthlink's notorious silent censorship (and origin) make it not a friend of free speech and/or open competition.
But just making the haystack available for searching with a magnet doesn't mean that you'll find a useful needle — just that you'll find some piece of ferric or otherwise-magnetized metal in there. That's what Google Book Search does, and some scholars are quite displeased. There's a fundamental reason that this matters: The limits of language-based searching. Even more than in scientific inquiries (let alone the social sciences and humanities!), the quality of the question determines — not just influences — the quality of the response in a natural-language search. For example, compare the search results for a common misquotation of 1984 with those for the correct quotation:
and note that even many of the responses to the correct quotation refer to the incorrect version!
Combine this with the loss of economies of scale in the distribution of copyrighted material and things get really, really interesting. One implication — and it's on balance a good thing — is that "management consultants" will no longer be in a position to come in and either asset-strip (as Burkle wants to do formally at B&N, in opposition to the more-subtle effort that the Riggio family has been engaged in for years) or apply nonjudgmental, numerical-predictor models as the only criterion for successful management in the entertainment industry. That's not to say that the profit motive is going to go away; it's just that the entertainment industry (even more than the automobile industry!) will demonstrate that it requires actual judgment to maintain long-term success, not numeric models drawn from dubious datasets by B-school denizens with no knowledge of the underlying math. (Hint: Leaving aside the GIGO problem, divide-by-zero is still undefined, even if your spreadsheet implies that you can cancel it out against something else most of the time.)
I suppose that's better than trusting art dealers, though, which exposes the next level of inquiry: What kind of judgment matters? Unfortunately, I don't have a good answer for that one... which is precisely the impetus for the numerical methods that try to take judgment out of the decision-making process.
Labels: civil rights, copyright, intellectual property, internet, jurisprudence, publishing
Ritual disclaimer: This blog contains legal commentary, but it is only general commentary. It does not constitute legal advice for your situation. It does not create an attorney-client relationship or any other expectation of confidentiality, nor is it an offer of representation.
All material © 200312 except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved. This blawg does not use the Creative Commons License, although I'm usually pretty good-natured about permissions for attributed reuse.
I approve of no advertising appearing on or through syndication for anything other than the syndication itself; any such advertising violates the limited reuse license implied by voluntarily including syndication code on this blawg, and I do not approve aggregators and syndicators whose page design reflects only an intent to use the reference(s) to this blawg without actually providing the content from this blawg.
Sausages?
Internet link sausages, as frequently appear here, are gathered from uninspected meaty internet products and byproducts via processes you really, really don't want to observe; spiced with my own secret, snarky, sarcastic blend; quite possibly extended with sawdust or other indigestibles; and stuffed into your monitor (instead of either real or artificial casings). They're sort of like "link salad" or "pot pourri" or "miscellaneous musings" (or, for that matter, "making law"), but far more disturbing.
I am not responsible for any changes to your lipid counts or blood pressure from consuming these sausages... nor for your monitor if you insist on covering them with mash or sauce.
| Archives |
|---|
Warped Weft
Now live at the new site. I have arranged some of
the more infamous threads that have appeared here
by unravelling them from the blawg tapestry (and hopefully eliminating some
of the sillier typos). Sometimes, the threads have been slightly reordered for clarity.
Links of Interest
Links open in a new window.
Other Blawgs, Blogs, and Journals
These may be of interest; I do not necessarily agree with opinions expressed in them, although the reasoning and writing are almost always first-rate (and represent a standard seldom, if ever, achieved in "mainstream" journalism). I'm picky, and have eclectic tastes, so don't expect a comprehensive listing.
A blawg is sort of like a blog on legal issues, but usually has a lot more links to outside resources (other than other blogs) than does a typical blog. Scrivener's Error is a blawg, not just a blog. You can find other blawgs at < ? law blogs # >.