Audiobook and E-Book Expo: Exploring Digital Books and Content will be held Friday, October 29 in East Peoria, Illinois.

It will "explore where the library field has been and where it is going in the area of audiobooks for everyone--adults, children, the visually impaired, the learning disabled, and more. Experts will share the latest in web-based ebook management systems, handheld players, and collaborative projects.

"Keynote speakers include: Tom Peters of TAP Information Services, Steve Potash, CEO of Overdrive, Inc., Jenny Levine of the Shifted Librarian and the Suburban Library System, and Judy Dixon from NLS. Other speakers include Jane Chamberlain, Adult Services Manager at the Bloomington Public Library, Sharon Ruda, Illinois State Library Talking Book and Braille Services, and Diana Sussman of Southern Illinois Talking Book Center. There will also be time for exhibits and ideas!"

Sponsors are The Alliance Library System and the Mid-Illinois Talking Book Center. Cost is $25. For more details, reach Lori Bell, 1-800-426-0709, ext. 2128.

posted by David Rothman at 11:32 PM | permanent link

Given all the questions here, it is high time that Sen. Edwards come clean with us about copyright issues and the reasons for the Bing donations. So far "The People's Senator" has yet to speak out against, say, Bono, the DMCA, or the proposed Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act. As I said, I'm going to vote for John Edwards in November since I'm not thrilled with Bush either, but I'll hold my nose very tightly.

Finally, what the devil happens if it somehow turns out that the Bing money was mob-tainted in a dangerous way? Will Sen. Edwards and the other Democrats return at least the most recent contributions, just as he did within the past week or so when questions arose about donations from a Los Angeles lawyer?

The importance of copyright law as a symptom of something wrong: In the context of Edwards' claimed populism, his silence on Bono and other elitist is totally irrational unless Hollywood cash has made him wimp out. I wish Prof. Lessig and the rest would stop being so damn polite. They need to ask if Hollywood has bought Edwards' silience and stop tolerating his cowardice, rather than accepting it as matter of fact. Without being used, the public domain will vanish. Similarly, without pesky questions being asked, our political process will lose what integrity is left. Needless to say, by taking a pro-consumer stand on copyright law, Sen. Edwards could immediately lessen many of my concerns. hey, Senator, loved your speech at the Democratic Convetion, but how come you're a tiger on HMOs and drug gouges but so far a pussy on copyright?
posted by David Rothman at 8:23 PM | permanent link

Alternative history, anyone? Might e-book enjoy billions of dollars in annual sales by now--far beyond the present $20-$30 million--without Hollywood-bought laws? And might the Net be even bigger than it actually is? I won't blame the DMCA, the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act and the like for all of the problems of the electronic media, but they didn't exactly help.

E-books are a $3-billion-a-year business now, with all the U.S. best-sellers instantly available throughout the world at affordable prices. Small wonder. The cheapest machines for reading them off high-resolution screens go for less than $50, and low-cost computer networks have penetrated even rural villages in the Haiti and Vietnam. Mass-market international Internet TV is a reality.

Thank goodness for the scandals of the motion picture industry. Those boys--and, yes, a small predominantly male group controls the big studios--couldn't get it right. Jack Valenti earlier had thought that the  video cassette recorder would kill off Hollywood, when actually the opposite happened despite his resistance. He bumbed yet again in the 90s in joining the RIAA and other copyright zealots in calling for Draconian copyright laws. Valenti and henchmen would have gotten their way except that an overeager lobbyist for Hollywood was caught providing hookers to Bill Clinton and large sums of unreported campaign cash to key members of Congress. Recording industry executives, in the tradition of the payola scandals of years back, were also implicated. Valenti the master puppetmaster had nothing to do with scandals. But their strench proved so overpowering that for years he and the rest of the copyright establishment were rendered impotent on Capitol Hill.

Greater prosperity for Hollywood

Without strict copyright laws, Napster-style endeavors boomed, and outright piracy took off. The end result? Greater prosperity for Hollywood. What happened is that venture capitalists could invest confidently in broadband and other new tech without fear of bribed legislators and thuggish Hollywood lawyers shutting down their P2P networks. That, in turn, helped justify all the nifty new pipes that telecommunications firms were building. Although the wildest predictions of growth did not pan out, companies such as JDS Uniphase indeed did prosper. The mass demand for broadband was there.

Because the embarrassing truth about Hollywood had emerged, the overpaid black suits had to seek out allies. They found them in, of all people, librarians and EFFers who helped them obtain a tax on blank CDs and hard drives through which revenue was obtained for compensation of many copyright holders. At the same time, without lobbyist-written copyright law resulting in consumer gouges, the prices of the content was kept reasonable. Consumers responded by showing support for artists they loved, especially as movie studios and record companies cluefully encouraged the formation of performer-and-fan-centered communities. They also took care to invest sufficiently in new performers, rather than frittering away so many millions on rapacious executives and, yes, lawyers. Movies and music were less of a commodity, more of a true part of consumers' lives--er, people's lives.

E-Books take off

Over in the e-book world, many of the same concepts applied. Publishers appreciated the need for a community-oriented approach and reasonable prices. What's more, publishers and writers could benefit from a well-stocked national digital library system that the librarian/content-provider coalition had brought about. While copy protection schemes existed, they were of the non-instrusive kind. The book industry unerstood that consumers would turn to illegal copies if it were not easy to buy and use the legal variety of book.

At the same time the Napster-fueled explosion in broadband worked to the advantage of book publishers, not just movie and recording studios. Most of the devices bought for viewing movies via the Net were also superb for reading electronic books. What's more, broadband connections were almost all of the "always on" variety. So it was easy for e-books to link to each other, especially with WiFi-style technology in popular demand far earlier than if the copyright zealots had prevailed. Needless to say, the overnight success of broadband also fueled the rise of multimedia e-books.

Edwards turns back on old farts

As the 2004 election approached, some old farts in Hollywood tried to shove massive cash in the direction of North Carolina Sen. John Edwards and other candidates. Edwards turned them down. "I've got to stay true to my populist roots," he said when one pushy lobbyist called him. "Besides, the system works." And it did and does. Helped by the ease of downloading and the superb display technology developed, his trial-lawyer memoirs are selling twice as well as they would have with Hollywood-bought laws wreaking havoc on electronic books and the Net.

Hollywood reality: So much for fantasy. Now read up on reality--the Hollywood-inspired FBI raid on the SG1Archive.com website, which happened even though the fan site had helped to move more than $100K in CDs. Love the way Hollywood cooperates with fans to create a sense of community, eh?
posted by David Rothman at 3:56 AM | permanent link

Washington's medieval policies on stem-cell research are one reason why many of the world's best bioscientists are ending up in Singapore rather than the States. Alluding to those researchers, a headline in the August issue of Wired even reads: "Singapore Wants You!" The man who cloned Dolly has already moved to Singapore.

Now apply this concept to the INDUCE debate over technologies such as P2P. Will the world's best tech brains stop coming to the United States because Hollywood greedsters dictate our copyright laws? Will they go to Singapore instead? I'm not sure about Singapore, given P2P's inherent threat to the top-down pols everywhere, not just Hollywood. But I can envision another country somewhere being clueful enough to exploit the inanities of Senators Hatch and likeminded fools and greedsters."Come here!" this country might say. "We'll give you some true 'freedom to innovate.'" U.S. techies may or may not take up the offer, but they'll be badly tempted, considering the dire effects that an unmitigated INDUCE could have on our tech community. And other countries' best brains just might to skip us. Who needs thuggish lawyers and bought pols and laws to disrupt their research?

Meanwhile, you can join more than 30,000 people who have already sent letters to Congress to express their nausea over INUDCE-tyle legislation.

Will John Edwards, on the copyright-related Judiciary Committee, speak up on INDUCE despite the millions that the Kerry-Edwards campaign already has raked in from Hollywood? I'm skeptical but would love to be proven wrong. 

posted by David Rothman at 2:13 AM | permanent link

"Senator John Edwards returned $44,000 in campaign contributions on Saturday after learning that the prominent corporate lawyer in Los Angeles who raised the money is facing misdemeanor campaign-finance charges in California. The lawyer, Pierce O'Donnell, was charged two months ago by the Los Angeles district attorney with violating California election laws." - New York Times.

The TeleRead take: Perhaps the Times can now ask Sen. Edwards about the more than $900K that Edwards' New American Optimists PAC received from Hollywood producer Steve Bing early in the campaign under circumstances that neither will explain. Is Hollywood money why "The People's Senator" won't speak out on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act and other anti-consumer legislation even though he sits on a copyright-related Senate committee? No illegalities claimed here. But so far the media seem not to be asking the essential questions--and pressing Bing and Edwards on the "why" behind the $900K and his silence on the DMCA and the rest. Did important figures in the movie industry suggest to Bing in a pushy way that it would be awesome for his career if he coughed up the money so early in the Edwards campaign? Why should a Hollywood producer have cared so much in 2002 about a freshman North Carolina senator's long-shot bid for the presidency?

Relevant or not: What's interesting is that Pierce O'Donnell is a noted intellectual property lawyer, among his other specialties, and has represented such clients as Art Buchwald and Faye Dunaway. I have no idea if he had any role in the Bing-related matters. Interestingly, O'Donnell's Web site says he "served as a consultant to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on federal criminal law reform." Sen. Edwards sits on Judiciary, which also handles copyrights and other issues, incuding consumer matters that the DMCA could affect through its anti-competitive nature.

Further info from the Times: The Los Angeles ethics commission "accused Mr. O'Donnell of reimbursing 22 employees and others for $25,500 in contributions to the 2001 mayoral campaign of James K. Hahn, in violation of a $1,000 per person limit." Remember, the commission's actions involve Hahn's campaign, not Edwards', although some of the supposed "straw" givers to Hahn reportedly also gave the $2,000 maximum in personal contributions to the Edwards campaign organization (technically a different creature from the political action committee to which Bing contributed). 

And also in fairness to Edwards: If improprieties did happen, he may not necessarily have been aware of them. But even if he isn't aware of the details, isn't it possible that general fear of Hollywood money is causing him to wimp out on Bono?

Related: Edwards Returning $44,000 in Donations, from the Associated Press.

Reminder: I'm a lifelong liberal Democrat who will hold his nose and vote for Kerry-Edwards in November. My intent here is not to hurt Kerry-Edwards but to encourage them to live up to their rhetoric. Why should "populists" like Edwards not care about stupid copyright laws that will cost consumers billions? I'm less interested in the full story of the Bing contributions than in Edwards pledging to take and maintain pro-consumer positions on Net-related copyright issues.
posted by David Rothman at 5:29 AM | permanent link