#cory_doctorow

  • Livre audio : les inadmissibles conditions d’Amazon, selon Cory Doctorow (@doctorow)
    https://www.actualitte.com/article/lecture-numerique/livre-audio-les-inadmissibles-conditions-d-amazon-selon-cory-doctorow/102703?origin=newsletter

    Engagé et militant depuis des années, l’écrivain de science-fiction Cory Doctorow a décidé de contourner le géant Audible pour la version audio de son prochain roman. L’auteur souhaite retrouver sa liberté et a choisi d’organiser un financement participatif pour la sortie de l’ouvrage dans ce format.

    Cory Doctorow

    Attack Surface, le prochain roman de Cory Doctorow, devrait sortir le mois prochain. Il sera facile au lecteur de se procurer une copie physique du roman puisque le titre sera disponible en librairie, mais aussi sur les grandes plateformes comme Amazon ou Kobo. Mais pour mettre la main sur le livre audio, l’entreprise risque de se révéler un poil plus compliquée.

    Le roman ne figurera en effet pas dans le catalogue d’Audible, le plus grand vendeur de livres audio du marché. Doctorow a choisi de vendre le livre sous ce format via une campagne Kickstarter.

    Le problème de Doctorow avec Audible trouve sa source dans la politique de l’entreprise : Amazon impose en effet l’application d’un DRM, un micro logiciel de protection, au sein des œuvres audio. Ce logiciel permet de mieux contrôler le bien et évite théoriquement le piratage ou la reprise d’extraits par le consommateur. Les DRM ne sont pas nouveaux, mais sont souvent présents à la demande des éditeurs et des auteurs . Qu’une entreprise décide directement de l’intégrer pose problème à l’écrivain :

    « Nous ne devrions pas vivre dans un monde où les fabricants décident de la manière dont vous utilisez leurs produits une fois que vous les avez achetés », rugit-il. Cette politique est d’autant plus incompréhensible qu’Amazon n’impose pas de DRM au sein de ses ebooks sur Kindle.

    Une alternative ?

    Opposé depuis des années aux DRM, Doctorow n’en est pas à son coup d’essai. L’auteur garde un droit de regard sur ses œuvres et dans le cadre de son accord avec l’éditeur Macmillan, propose des enregistrements audio de ses livres exclusivement via des plates-formes non affiliées à Amazon.

    Pour ce blogueur militant, les DRM ne sont pas qu’une simple technologie, mais « une loi », un appareil juridique qui interdit au consommateur de s’approprier l’œuvre qu’il vient d’acheter. L’écrivain affirme que ces logiciels constituent une nuisance pour les consommateurs qui essaient d’accéder à du contenu acheté légitimement, tout en étant incapable d’arrêter un pirate informatique digne de ce nom.

    NUMERIQUE : Amazon, Penguin et des auteurs
    lancés dans une chasse aux pirates de livres

    Doctorow a donc lancé une campagne de financement pour promouvoir le livre via ses propres moyens. Depuis son lancement mardi, la campagne a recueilli plus de 142.000 $ sur Kickstarter de la part de plus de 3500 contributeurs, le livre audio étant disponible pour ceux qui s’engagent à hauteur d’au moins 15 $. Ce succès, l’auteur l’explique en partie par la méfiance des gens envers Amazon, laquelle s’est transformée en colère suite aux profits que l’entreprise a enregistrés depuis le début de la crise sanitaire.

    Si l’initiative donnera certainement envie de faire des émules, il reste difficile pour un auteur débutant de se lancer dans un projet similaire. C’est en grande partie sa renommée qui permet à Doctorow ce genre de coup d’éclat.

    L’écrivain a lui-même participé à la production du format audio, travaillant via Zoom avec la réalisatrice Cassandra de Cuir de chez Skyboat Media et avec l’actrice Amber Benson chargée de lire le texte.

    #Cory_Doctorow #Audible #Livres_audio #DRM

  • Cory Doctorow: Fake News Is an Oracle – Locus Online
    https://locusmag.com/2019/07/cory-doctorow-fake-news-is-an-oracle

    In the same way, science fiction responds to our societal ideomotor responses. First, the authors write the stories about the futures they fear and rel­ish. These futures are not drawn from a wide-open field; rather, they make use of the writer’s (and audience’s) existing vocabulary of futuristic ideas: robots, internets and AIs, spaceships and surveil­lance devices. Writers can only get away with so much exposition in their fiction (though I’ve been known to push the limits) and so the imaginative leaps of a work of fiction are constrained by the base knowledge the writer feels safe in assuming their readers share.

    So the writers write the stories. Then the editors choose some of those stories to publish (or the writers publish them themselves). Then readers choose some of those stories to elevate to the discourse, making them popular and integrating them into our vocabulary about possible futures, good and bad. The process of elevation is complicated and has a lot of randomness in it (lucky breaks, skilled agents, PR wins, a prominent reviewer’s favor), but the single incontrovertible fact about a SF work’s popularity is that it has captured the public’s imagination. The warning in the tale is a warning that resonates with our current anxieties; the tale’s inspiration thrums with our own aspirations for the future.

    Reading a writer’s fiction tells you a lot about that writer’s fears and aspira­tions. Looking at the awards ballots and bestseller lists tells you even more about our societal fears and aspirations for the future. The system of writers and readers and editors and critics and booksellers and reviewers act as a kind of oracle, a societal planchette that our hands rest lightly upon, whose movements reveal secrets we didn’t even know we were keeping.

    Which brings me to “fake news.”

    “Fake news” is a nearly useless term, encompassing hoaxes, conspiracy theories, unfalsifiable statements, true facts spoken by people who are seek­ing to deceive audiences about the identity of the speaker, and as a catch-all meaning, “I read a thing on the internet that I disagree with.”

    But for all that, “fake news” is useful in one regard: the spread of a given hoax, or unfalsifiable statement, or truth delivered under color of falsehood, or conspiracy, or objectionable idea undeniably tells you that the idea has caught the public imagination. The fake news that doesn’t catch on may have simply been mishandled, but the fake news that does catch on has some plausibility that tells you an awful lot about the world we live in and how our fellow humans perceive that world.

    The anti-vaxers have a point. Not about the safety of vaccines. I believe they are 100% wrong about vaccines and that everyone who can should get a full schedule of vaccines for themselves and their children.

    But anti-vaxers have a point about the process.

    About 20 years ago, Purdue Pharma introduced a new blockbuster pain­killer to replace its existing flagship product, MS Contin, whose patent had expired. The new drug, Oxycontin, was said to be safe and long-lasting, with effects that would last an incredible 12 hours, without provoking the fast adaptation response characteristic of other opioids, which drives users to take higher and higher doses. What’s more, the company claimed that the addictive potential of opioids was vastly overstated, citing a one-paragraph letter to the New England Journal of Medicine penned by Boston University Medical Center’s Dr. Hershel Jick, who claimed that an internal, un-reviewed study showed that opioids could be safely given at higher doses, for longer times, than had been previously thought.

    Purdue Pharma weaponized the “Jick Letter,” making it one of the most-cited references in medical research history, the five most consequential sentences in the history of NEJM. Through a cluster of deceptive tactics – only coming to light now through a string of state lawsuits – Purdue cre­ated the opioid epidemic, which has killed more than 200,000 Americans and counting, more than died in the Vietnam War. Purdue made $31 billion. The Sackler family, owners of Purdue, are now richer than the Rockefellers.

    The regulators had every reason to know something terrible was going on, from the small town pharmacies ordering millions of pills to the dead piling up on the streets of American cities and towns. The only way they could miss the opioid crisis and its roots in junk science was if they were actively seeking not to learn about it – and no surprise, given how many top regulators come from industry, and have worked at an opioid giant (and more: they are often married to pharma execs, they’re godparents to other pharma execs’ kids, they’re executors of pharma execs’ estates – all the normal, tight social bonds from the top players in concentrated industries).

    Ten years ago, if you came home from the doctor’s with a prescription for oxy, and advice that they were not to be feared for their addictive potential, and an admonition that pain was “the fourth vital sign,” and its under-treatment was a great societal cruelty, you might have met someone who said that this was all bullshit, that you were being set up to be murdered by a family of ruthless billionaires whose watchdog had switched sides.

    You might have called that person an “opioid denier.”

    #Fake_news #Cory_Doctorow #Science_fiction #Vaccins #Opioides

  • Opinion | I Shouldn’t Have to Publish This in The New York Times - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/24/opinion/future-free-speech-social-media-platforms.html

    Une nouvelle de Cory Doctorow sur la régulation des plateformes : briser les monopoles, ou leur laisser le choix d’être eux-mêmes les régulateurs algorithmiques de l’expression de chacun.

    Editors’ note: This is part of a series, “Op-Eds From the Future,” in which science fiction authors, futurists, philosophers and scientists write Op-Eds that they imagine we might read 10, 20 or even 100 years from now. The challenges they predict are imaginary — for now — but their arguments illuminate the urgent questions of today and prepare us for tomorrow. The opinion piece below is a work of fiction.

    I shouldn’t have to publish this in The New York Times.

    Ten years ago, I could have published this on my personal website, or shared it on one of the big social media platforms. But that was before the United States government decided to regulate both the social media platforms and blogging sites as if they were newspapers, making them legally responsible for the content they published.

    The move was spurred on by an unholy and unlikely coalition of media companies crying copyright; national security experts wringing their hands about terrorism; and people who were dismayed that our digital public squares had become infested by fascists, harassers and cybercriminals. Bit by bit, the legal immunity of the platforms was eroded — from the judges who put Facebook on the line for the platform’s inaction during the Provo Uprising to the lawmakers who amended section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in a bid to get Twitter to clean up its Nazi problem.

    While the media in the United States remained protected by the First Amendment, members of the press in other countries were not so lucky. The rest of the world responded to the crisis by tightening rules on acceptable speech. But even the most prolific news service — a giant wire service like AP-AFP or Thomson-Reuters-TransCanada-Huawei — only publishes several thousand articles per day. And thanks to their armies of lawyers, editors and insurance underwriters, they are able to make the news available without falling afoul of new rules prohibiting certain kinds of speech — including everything from Saudi blasphemy rules to Austria’s ban on calling politicians “fascists” to Thailand’s stringent lese majeste rules. They can ensure that news in Singapore is not “out of bounds” and that op-eds in Britain don’t call for the abolition of the monarchy.

    But not the platforms — they couldn’t hope to make a dent in their users’ personal expressions. From YouTube’s 2,000 hours of video uploaded every minute to Facebook-Weibo’s three billion daily updates, there was no scalable way to carefully examine the contributions of every user and assess whether they violated any of these new laws. So the platforms fixed this the Silicon Valley way: They automated it. Badly.

    Which is why I have to publish this in The New York Times.

    The platforms and personal websites are fine if you want to talk about sports, relate your kids’ latest escapades or shop. But if you want to write something about how the platforms and government legislation can’t tell the difference between sex trafficking and sex, nudity and pornography, terrorism investigations and terrorism itself or copyright infringement and parody, you’re out of luck. Any one of those keywords will give the filters an incurable case of machine anxiety — but all of them together? Forget it.

    If you’re thinking, “Well, all that stuff belongs in the newspaper,” then you’ve fallen into a trap: Democracies aren’t strengthened when a professional class gets to tell us what our opinions are allowed to be.

    And the worst part is, the new regulations haven’t ended harassment, extremism or disinformation. Hardly a day goes by without some post full of outright Naziism, flat-eartherism and climate trutherism going viral. There are whole armies of Nazis and conspiracy theorists who do nothing but test the filters, day and night, using custom software to find the adversarial examples that slip past the filters’ machine-learning classifiers.

    It didn’t have to be this way. Once upon a time, the internet teemed with experimental, personal publications. The mergers and acquisitions and anticompetitive bullying that gave rise to the platforms and killed personal publishing made Big Tech both reviled and powerful, and they were targeted for breakups by ambitious lawmakers. Had we gone that route, we might have an internet that was robust, resilient, variegated and dynamic.

    Think back to the days when companies like Apple and Google — back when they were stand-alone companies — bought hundreds of start-ups every year. What if we’d put a halt to the practice, re-establishing the traditional antitrust rules against “mergers to monopoly” and acquiring your nascent competitors? What if we’d established an absolute legal defense for new market entrants seeking to compete with established monopolists?

    Most of these new companies would have failed — if only because most new ventures fail — but the survivors would have challenged the Big Tech giants, eroding their profits and giving them less lobbying capital. They would have competed to give the best possible deals to the industries that tech was devouring, like entertainment and news. And they would have competed with the news and entertainment monopolies to offer better deals to the pixel-stained wretches who produced the “content” that was the source of all their profits.

    But instead, we decided to vest the platforms with statelike duties to punish them for their domination. In doing so, we cemented that domination. Only the largest companies can afford the kinds of filters we’ve demanded of them, and that means that any would-be trustbuster who wants to break up the companies and bring them to heel first must unwind the mesh of obligations we’ve ensnared the platforms in and build new, state-based mechanisms to perform those duties.

    Our first mistake was giving the platforms the right to decide who could speak and what they could say. Our second mistake was giving them the duty to make that call, a billion times a day.

    Still, I am hopeful, if not optimistic. Google did not exist 30 years ago; perhaps in 30 years’ time, it will be a distant memory. It seems unlikely, but then again, so did the plan to rescue Miami and the possibility of an independent Tibet — two subjects that are effectively impossible to discuss on the platforms. In a world where so much else is up for grabs, finally, perhaps, we can once again reach for a wild, woolly, independent and free internet.

    It’s still within our reach: an internet that doesn’t force us to choose between following the algorithmically enforced rules or disappearing from the public discourse; an internet where we can host our own discussions and debate the issues of the day without worrying that our words will disappear. In the meantime, here I am, forced to publish in The New York Times. If only that were a “scalable solution,” you could do so as well.

    Cory Doctorow (@doctorow) is a science fiction writer whose latest book is “Radicalized,” a special consultant to the Electronic Frontier Foundation and an M.I.T. Media Lab research affiliate.

    #Cory_Doctorow #Régulation_internet #Plateformes #Liberté_expression #Monopoles

  • ”Who Says #Violence Doesn’t Solve Anything?” A Review of Radicalized: Four Tales of Our Present Moment by #Cory_Doctorow | naked capitalism
    https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/05/who-says-violence-doesnt-solve-anything-a-review-of-radicalized-fou

    La #radicalisation ("#terrorisme") comme seul moyen de lutter efficacement contre l’#enfer du #néolibéralisme.

    Doctorow, we must be careful to note, even as he guides us through various circles of Neoliberal hell, realms which are in some ways, precisely because of their familiarity to us, worse than Orwellian, worse than Kafkaesque, is nevertheless not counseling us to abandon all hope as we enter therein, but just the opposite: For Doctorow envisions the possibility of victory in the #brutal struggle against evil.

    Thus we come to the tale “Radicalized,” from which the book takes its title. “Radicalized” does indeed give us a hopeful, even a happy ending, but only in the most gruesome way possible.

  • Cory Doctorow’s ’Fully Automated Luxury Communist Civilization’ - Reason.com
    http://reason.com/archives/2017/07/12/cory-doctorows-fully-automated

    But I also think that prediction is way overrated. I like what Dante did to the fortune tellers. He put them in a pit of molten shit up to their nipples with their heads twisted around backwards, weeping into their own ass cracks for having pretended that the future was knowable. If the future is knowable then it’s inevitable. And if it’s inevitable, why are we even bothering? Why get out of bed if the future is going to happen no matter what we do? Except I guess you’re foreordained to.

    I’m not a fatalist. The reason I’m an activist is because I think that the future, at least in part, is up for grabs. I think that there are great forces that produce some outcomes that are deterministic or semi-deterministic. And there are other elements that are up for grabs.

    But I think Uber is normal and dystopian for a lot of people, too. All the dysfunctions of Uber’s reputation economics, where it’s one-sided—I can tank your business by giving you an unfair review. You have this weird, mannered kabuki in some Ubers where people are super obsequious to try and get you to five-star them

    Google runs this data center in Belgium in a place where two-thirds of the time it’s so cool that they don’t need the air conditioning, and the other third of the time they just turn [the data center] off. And their file system is so good at migrating data away from places that are shutting down and into places that are running that it doesn’t really matter.

    A lot of places that do aluminum smelting, because it’s so energy intensive, they use aluminum smelting as a kind of battery. They say: We need to smelt so many tons of this this year, and when we have lots of solar or lots of wind or lots of tidal power, and we don’t have anything to use it for, we smelt the aluminum then, and not at the moment when other people are trying to turn on their lights or run their air conditioning or run their Google data centers.

    That kind of coordination—where at the moment that something is needed, and at the moment where it’s cheap to do it, it’s done—is characteristic of the efficient-market hypothesis. It’s characteristic of planned economy theory. It’s the thing that everyone is shooting for.

    The thing that free and open-source software has given us is the ability to coordinate ourselves very efficiently without having to put up with a lot of hierarchy. To be able to take things that we’ve done together, where we’ve reached a breaking point, and split them in two and have each of us pursue it in our own direction, without having to pay too high a cost or even have a lot of acrimony.

    That’s the free software world I’m trying to imagine. What would it be like to build skyscrapers the way we make encyclopedias in the 21st century?

    #Cory_Doctorow #Science-fiction

  • Le combat pour Internet est un combat pour des personnes
    http://www.framablog.org/index.php/post/2014/09/14/Le-combat-pour-Internet-pour-des-personnes

    Je n’ai pas consacré ma vie à militer contre les DRM parce que je veux aider l’information à être libre. C’est un combat qui concerne les gens ; et les gens veulent être libres. À l’ère de l’information, vous ne pouvez être libre que si vous avez des systèmes d’information libres et équitables. Source : Framablog

  • The Internet’s Own Boy HD VOSTFR - YouTube
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZBe1VFy0gc

    "Ce film raconte l’histoire de Aaron Swartz, programmeur de génie et activiste de l’information. Depuis l’aide qu’il a apporté au développement de RSS, l’un des protocoles à la base d’Internet, à la co-fondation de Reddit, son empreinte est partout sur Internet. Mais c’est le travail révolutionnaire de Swartz autour des questions de justice sociale et d’organisation politique, combiné à son approche sans concession de l’accès à l’information pour tous, qui l’a pris au piège dans un cauchemar légal de deux années. Cette bataille s’est terminée par son suicide à 26 ans. L’histoire d’Aaron touche une corde sensible chez des personnes même éloignées des communautés online parmi lesquelles il était une célébrité. Ce film est une histoire personnelle à propos de ce que nous perdons lorsque nous restons (...)

  • Tarir le flux et verrouiller le code. Web is Dead.
    http://affordance.typepad.com//mon_weblog/2013/03/web-is-dead.html

    La seconde nouvelle est hélas bien plus inquiétante. Il s’agit d’inclure au coeur même d’HTML 5 des options DRMisables. Des DRM (Digital Rights Management) au coeur du code. Lawrence Lessig, auteur de « Code is Law » doit en être tout retourné ... De quoi se rappeler que DRM est surtout l’acronyme de Droit de Regard de la Machine.

    via @homlett

    • Et dans les commentaires à posteriori sur les raisons de la fermeture de Google reader :

      il s’agit bien là d’une logique de « raréfaction », et qu’elle marque clairement l’entrée dans une phase « adulte » de l’économie des médias pour Google. C’est à dire passer de l’économie de l’abondance aux moyens d’organiser et de gérer la rareté. Et que cela confirme également que le modèle de Google (dans la théorie Vu Lu Su de Jean Michel Salaun) est bien celui de la bibliothèque (organiser la rareté donc).

      #google #modèle_économique #rareté

      Pour l’intégration des DRM dans HTML 5, voir aussi la réponse de Cory Doctorow à Tim Berner Lee (basée entre autre sur les constats tirés de l’intégration des DRMs aux DVD et du blocage des innovations qui en a résulté) : traduction sur https://framablog.org/2013/03/14/drm-html5-doctorow
      #innovation #DRM #DVD #Cory_Doctorow #Tim_Berner_Lee

  • Le souci des #geeks (avec la politique) | Xavier de la Porte
    http://owni.fr/2012/06/12/le-souci-des-geeks-avec-la-politique

    Journaliste à France Culture, Xavier de la Porte s’est fendu de la traduction d’un billet récent de Cory #Doctorow, activiste, auteur de science-fiction et co-éditeur du site Boing Boing. Publié initialement sur The Guardian puis sur #Internet Actu pour la version française, nous rééditons cette réflexion politique et philosophique sur la place des « geeks » dans la marche du monde.

    #Geeks #Réédition #Cory_Doctorow #déterminisme #fatalisme #geek #nerd #philosophie #philosophie_politique #Politique #sopa

  • Pirates de tous les pays ! | Aidan MacGuill
    http://owni.fr/2012/04/16/pirates-de-tous-les-pays

    Objectif : les Partis Pirates au Parlement européen en juin 2014. Ce week-end à Prague, nous avons suivi la conférence du Parti Pirate international, marquée par une ambiance euphorique et des débats très stratégiques. En Allemagne, le Parti Pirate devient la troisième force politique du pays. Ailleurs, comme en Catalogne, il s’impose comme une alternative sérieuse. De quoi justifier de grosses ambitions.

    #Politique #Pouvoirs #Reportage #allemagne #Cory_Doctorow #parti_pirate #pirates