As a preliminary note, a word on sources on this blawg. A couple of wingnuttier types (and even one ardent leftist!) have questioned why so many "general news" pieces I link to are from A Certain Somewhat Leftist UK Newspaper. Very simply, "long-term availability without monetization bullshit." Over Here, the major papers that proclaim themselves as "of record" (The Old Grey Lady, the Potomac Upstart, and a couple of others) have all joined the "monetize everything" movement, both for their current issues and their archives. There's a similar trend in English-language publications Over There — and, for that matter, Up North and Down Under and Elsewhere. This is morally (as in Berne Convention Article 6bis… and in the broader sense) unacceptable: For publications purporting to be the reference "of record," there's no excuse for user tracking, especially in the archives. So I gravitate toward a foundation-owned nonprofit source most of the time; only when the true "of record" nature of a source actually matters to the point do I go elsewhere for the actual links.
Which pools the sauce for the first link sausage on the platter rather attractively:
- The Internet
FenceryArchive hasn't had a good run of late. And deservedly so. First, it lost a major copyright-infringement suit and must suffer through a negotiated adverse judgment. That grievously flawed judgment throws authors whose books are not currently controlled by commercial publishers — whether because the publisher has gone out of business or for any other reason — entirely under the bus. It was bad faith on the part of both sides to not ensure that at-least-non-orphan rightsholders-who-aren't-publishers were represented — which, given the past conduct of both sides, is entirely unsurprising.And now music labels are suing under the same theory. On the one hand, schade. On the other hand, the music labels are even less representative of the actual creators — whether one means "performers," "composers/lyricists," or both — than are print publishers. Ordinarily, H'wood would be next but that's an area in which the I
FA has much less penetration, has an actual (if overstated) concern about deterioration of the res, and a better linkage to antitrust (and, as the subtext of the first link indicates, to the underlying labor issues) — so, naturally, the IFA is largely ignoring it. - But at least the Internet
FenceryArchive seldom concerns itself with "the original" as do the special snowflakes of Fine Art. Why yes, that is contempt and sarcasm dripping off your monitor (phone, whatever) onto the floor: Unwinding the history of "the original" in the so-called fine arts is a lurid, watching-a-train-wreckish journey through multiple axes of outright bigotry on the way to ensuring that the actual creators almost never get anything resembling a fair share of revenues. It makes N'ville and H'wood (and commercial publishing) look positively honest — starting with the centuries-old concept of "patronage" and rolling downhill rather rapidly from there. This road was not even paved with good intentions… - All of which is more honest than "regulating what's in food," either in general or regarding particular "substitutes" (trying my best on that last one to limit my sense of schadenfreude, as that particular substance is actively harmful to me).
- This next sausage may have slightly different meats (or whatever they are…) than the preceding two, but has the same spicy attitude: Authoritarianism, whether through overt intimidation or more-subtle suppression of "unorthodox" social viewpoints. So maybe, between this sausage and the preceding one, we should proclaim "Authoritarianism — it's what's for dinner (and breakfast and lunch)!"
- Very much as it was at the Coast Guard Academy (and, in all probability, still is). If you don't actually respect your "subordinates" for themselves (and their potential), and don't show that respect with your actions, you won't get the best results (probably to be confirmed starting about 0300 PDT tomorrow). This isn't the Napoleonic Era any more, and not just because that's two centuries in the past. Not just in military and other "win or go home" contexts, either… but trying to convince those with inherited senses of entitlement of that is rather futile, notwithstanding this seldom-discussed restriction that is more-frequently honored as formalism than in substance (there are several one-word practical rejoinders: "Bush," "Daley," "Kennedy"… all of which constitute, in practice, "titles of nobility" all the while snickering at post hoc repudiation that ends up in an infinite regression).