Source

shlomi-fish-homepage / t2 / philosophy / philosophy / closed-books-are-so-19th-century / index.html.wml

  1
  2
  3
  4
  5
  6
  7
  8
  9
 10
 11
 12
 13
 14
 15
 16
 17
 18
 19
 20
 21
 22
 23
 24
 25
 26
 27
 28
 29
 30
 31
 32
 33
 34
 35
 36
 37
 38
 39
 40
 41
 42
 43
 44
 45
 46
 47
 48
 49
 50
 51
 52
 53
 54
 55
 56
 57
 58
 59
 60
 61
 62
 63
 64
 65
 66
 67
 68
 69
 70
 71
 72
 73
 74
 75
 76
 77
 78
 79
 80
 81
 82
 83
 84
 85
 86
 87
 88
 89
 90
 91
 92
 93
 94
 95
 96
 97
 98
 99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
#include '../template.wml'

#include "toc_div.wml"

<latemp_subject "Why Closed Books are So 19th-Century" />

<latemp_meta_desc "This document will explain why it is a bad idea, in this day and age, to write a book that is not available online for everyone to see, link to, redistribute, and possibly modify." />

<toc_div />

<h2 id="abstract">Abstract</h2>

<p>
This document will explain why it is a bad idea, in this day and age, to write
a book that is not available online for everyone to see, link to, redistribute,
and possibly modify.
</p>

<h2 id="motivation">Motivation</h2>

<p>
Recently Ask Bjørn Hansen (of perl.org and Perl fame) has <a
href="http://www.askbjoernhansen.com/2008/05/16/javascript_the_good_parts.html">reviewed
the book <i>JavaScript: The Good Parts</i></a> on his blog. I <a href="http://www.askbjoernhansen.com/2008/05/16/javascript_the_good_parts.html#comment-2055840">wrote</a> the following
comment:
</p>

<blockquote>
<p>
Hi Ask!
</p>

<p>
Interesting. Is this book available online for free?
</p>

<p>
Regards,
</p>

<p>
Shlomi Fish
</p>
</blockquote>

<p>
To which he <a href="http://www.askbjoernhansen.com/2008/05/16/javascript_the_good_parts.html#comment-2056988">replied</a>:
</p>

<blockquote>
    <p>
    Why would it be available for free?
    </p>

    <p>
    Please support the publisher and the author by paying them the $20 (Amazon
    US) or the £13 (Amazon UK) to buy the book.
    </p>

    <p>
     - ask
    </p>
</blockquote>

<p>
This essay is my reply to that.
</p>

<h2 id="intro">Introduction</h2>

<p>
Since the invention of the Press, the traditional method of spreading knowledge
was to write a book, and get a publisher to publish it. Indeed, we can recall
many important and influential historical books. However, as computer
networking became faster, less error-prone, and more ubiquitous - a different
medium of communicating knowledge has emerged: the Internet. To
<a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2004/11/06/save-canadas-interne.html">quote
    Cory Doctorow</a>:
</p>

<define-tag book_examples>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophiæ_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica">Isaac
    Newton’s <i>Prinicipia</i></a>,
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Species">Charles
    Darwin’s <i>The Origin of the Species</i></a>,
<a href=""></a>
</define-tag>

<blockquote>
    <p>
    The Internet has one overarching feature that makes it superior to the
    technologies that preceded it: it can copy arbitrary blobs of data from one
    place to another at virtually no cost, in virtually no time, with virtually
    no control. This is not a bug. This is what the Internet is supposed to do.
    </p>
</blockquote>

<p>
As a result, more and more people depend on the Internet for getting
information, and getting more knowledge and understanding. Not only does the
Internet allow information to be retrieved, it also allows one to publish
information and collaborate on it. Perhaps the most prominent examples for
that are the various <a href="http://www.wikimedia.org/">Wikimedia projects</a>
of which <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/">the English wikipedia is the
largest and most popular</a>. Thousands of large-scale contributors, and
100’s of thousands of minor ones, have individually created an
online encyclopedia that contains mostly comprehensive information about
practically every imaginable topic.
</p>

<p>
And despite all that, we can often see that books are getting published
on paper, and are either completely not available online, or their free
re-distribution is restricted. They are often available on
Peer-to-Peer networks or illegally, but their use is still restricted,
and complicates things.
</p>

<p>
In this article, I’d like to note why non-open books (or at least books that
are not available online) are as pointless as
<a href="$(ROOT)/philosophy/foss-other-beasts/">non-open-source
    software</a>.
</p>

<h2 id="some-quotes">Some Quotes</h2>

<p>
In my older essay <a href="$(ROOT)/philosophy/case-for-file-swapping/">the
    Case for File Swapping</a>, I made the claim that while copyrights are
an important concept, the Law must not restrict non-commercial distribution
of copyrighted works. Naturally, due to a generation gap,
governments and copyright-owners have not yet given in to the fact that the
Internet practically changes the ability to regulate the free distribution
of copyrighted material. Therefore, the Law in most countries was still not
modified accordingly.
</p>

<p>
As producers of copyrightable works it is therefore our choice whether
what we generate will be available online for all the public to experience
(and possibly re-distribute and enhance) or that we’d rather make it an
“All-Rights-Reserved” document that is only available offline or illegally.
</p>

<p>
Here’s what Paul Graham <a href="http://www.paulgraham.com/web20.html">wrote
about online encyclopedias</a>:
</p>

<blockquote>
    <p>
    The second big element of Web 2.0 is democracy. We now have several
    examples to prove that <a
        href="http://www.paulgraham.com/opensource.html">amateurs</a> can
    surpass professionals, when they have
    the right kind of system to channel their efforts. <a
        href="http://wikipedia.org/">Wikipedia</a> may be the
    most famous. Experts have given Wikipedia middling reviews, but they miss
    the critical point: it’s good enough. And it’s free, which means people
    actually read it. On the web, <b>articles you have to pay for might as well
        not exist</b>. Even if you were willing to pay to read them yourself,
    you can’t link to them. They’re not part of the conversation.
    </p>
</blockquote>

<p>
Graham continues to <a
    href="http://www.paulgraham.com/opensource.html">say that</a>:
</p>

<blockquote>
<p>
One measure of the incompetence of newspapers is that <b>so many still
make you register</b> to read stories. I have yet to find a blog that tried
that.
</p>
</blockquote>

<p>
Mr. Graham is not the only or the first one to say things along this line.
Previously, <a
    href="http://catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a> had written his
<a href="http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html">“How to Become a Hacker”</a> (= software enthusiast), and has been propagating
    similar ideas in
<a href="http://catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/">his “The
Cathedral and the Bazaar” series of essays</a> (an older version of which was
also published as a paperback book). <a
    href="http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html#believe2">Quoting</a>
from the guide:
</p>

<blockquote>

    <p> 2. <b>No problem should ever have to be solved twice.</b>  </p>

    <p> Creative brains are a valuable, limited resource. They shouldn’t be
    wasted on re-inventing the wheel when there are so many fascinating new
    problems waiting out there.  </p>

    <p> To behave like a hacker, you have to believe that the thinking time of
    other hackers is precious — so much so that it’s almost a moral duty for
    you to share information, solve problems and then give the solutions away
    just so other hackers can solve new problems instead of having to
    perpetually re-address old ones.  </p>

</blockquote>

<p>
Now, if you ask me, publishing a non-open book is a classical example of
requiring other people to solve the problem you’ve solved again, because they
cannot share your work with other people.
</p>

<h2 id="the-problems">The Problems with Closed Books</h2>

<p>
I can think of several important problems with the fact that some books
are closed:
</p>

<h3 id="no-linking-problem">1. Their Closed Nature Makes One
Unable to Effectively Link to Them</h3>

<p>
If I want to point someone at a text on the wikipedia, I can give him a
direct link to the article, or even a sub-section of it, an anchor or
that of a previous version. On the other hand, with the online Britannica, the
link will likely not work, because my friend won’t be registered. This is
even worse for books that are not available online.
</p>

<p>
In this day and age, people give links in chats (Instant Messaging, IRC, etc.),
on web pages and other documents, in blog posts and comments, on web forums,
in emails, and in an increasing and more diverse forms of Internet mediums.
They are also given in many non-Internet methods: books, newspapers, scientific
papers, notes, voice calls, SMSes, etc. People who get these links expect
these links to just work and show them the goods - not require registration
or payment.
</p>

<p>
So if you’re making your web resource closed, you’re likely to alienate
a large amount of people who will experience it, tell it to their friends,
link to it on their blogs, etc.
</p>

<p>
If you’re worried that without registration you won’t be able to track what
visitors do - don’t. There are several software packages that allow you to
track what every individual visitor did, and deploying and utilising
them is justifiable if you want to better monitor your visitors. I personally
don’t go to such extents, because I feel I have better ways to spend time on
making my site more attractive, like by writing more material, or by doing
white-hat publicity and <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engine_optimization">Search
Engine Optimisation</a>, but your kilometrage may vary depending on your
resources and philosophy.
</p>

<h3 id="quoting-problem">2. It Makes Quoting and Re-using The Books Harder</h3>

<p>
It’s much easier to quote an online document than an offline one. Either
by “copy-and-paste” or by inspecting the HTML markup. Compare this to a
paperback book where you have to type the text character-by-character
or use OCR. Or to <a href="http://safari.oreilly.com/">O’Reilly’s Safari
service</a>, whose pages are scrambled JavaScript junk, meant as a measure
of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management">Digital
Restrictions Management (DRM)</a>. It’s nothing the “View Formatted Source”
of some Firefox extensions cannot cope with, but it’s still annoying.
</p>

<p>
On the other hand, a freely available document can easily be quoted,
re-used and re-distributed. One can save it as a self-contained file and send
it to friends. One can refute it part by part. One can quote it in the
context of grander document (like I did earlier).
</p>

<h3 id="not-preventing-piracy-problem">3. Closing the Books Doesn’t Prevent
Illegal Use</h3>

<p>
When J. K. Rowling released the 6th Harry Potter book, she decided not to make
an Electronic version available, in order to prevent piracy. However, it took
<a href="http://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=4501">less
than 24 hours before “pirates” had made a complete
online version available</a> for everyone to read. Now, if the publishers
had made an electronic version available, then at least they could have
made money by selling many electronic copies.
</p>

<p>
It’s not hard to find books online illegitimately. There’s a
<a href="http://www.unix.com.ua/orelly/">Ukrainian site carrying many O’Reilly
titles online</a> (if you don’t like the link then send me a
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA">DMCA takedown notice</a>), which
is easily found using a Google search. Whenever people give a link to this site
on Perl IRC channels or mailing lists, many Perl hackers mention that
it is illegal and should not be used. But it’s there and accessible, and many
people, especially young ones, won’t feel or know they’re doing something
wrong. And if you ask me, there’s <a
href="$(ROOT)/philosophy/case-for-file-swapping/">nothing
wrong with non-commercial redistribution of publicly-available
content</a>.
</p>

<p>
There’s also the element of convenience. Some people will buy a book because
it is a physical object. If we take Harry Potter as an example, then most people
will not be content reading it on the computer. Moreover, Joel Spolsky
has published <a
href="http://www.joelonsoftware.com/">many articles on his
<i>Joel on Software</i> site</a>, and later compiled many of them into
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Joel-Software-Occasionally-Developers-Designers/dp/1590593898">a book</a>.
The latter has become a best-seller, and even I decided to buy it as a gift
for a previous workplace, so they could read it and learn from it.
</p>

<p>
Similarly, after reading the <a href="http://www.shlomifish.org/philosophy/books-recommends/#programming_perl">3rd
edition of <i>Programming Perl</i></a> which I borrowed from the Israeli Perl
Mongers library, I decided that I liked it so much, and so bought it so I can
read it at home.
</p>

<p>
By making your book available online, you’re giving yourself a huge publicity,
and earning a lot of repute. You can also make some extra income from
ads, store affiliations, and other revenue. If it’s under a strict-enough
licence, then you can also make money by licensing it for commercial use. And
some people will still want to buy a paperback book, an electronic copy,
or license it on commercial book-viewing sites (such as the previously
mentioned Safari).
</p>

<p>
In short, keeping your work closed undermines legitimate uses, but does not
prevent illegitimate ones. So you become bald from here and from here.
</p>

<p>
(A correspondent to this article mentioned the book <a
href="http://www.amazon.com/Madding-Gerund-Other-Dispatches-Language/dp/1590280555/ref=nosim/shlomifishhom-20/"><i>Far
from the Madding Gerund</i></a>, which is a compilation of articles from
the authors’ blog
<a href="http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/"><i>Language Log</i></a>
, which has been selling very well, as another example of a book based on
articles from a blog.)
</p>

<h3 id="critique-problem">4. Closing the Books Makes Critique and
Commenting Harder</h3>

<p>
If you have a non-publicly-available book, and you discover an error in it,
then you must give some convoluted instructions for finding it. This is instead
of just linking to the relevant part, using a commenting service such as
<a href="http://www.stumbleupon.com/">StubmleUpon</a> or
<a href="http://digg.com/">Digg</a> or even being able to use the page’s
inline commenting system.
</p>

<p>
For example, I was once offered a contract by an O’Reilly editor to review the
new edition of
<a href="http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/9780596527327/"><i>HTML &amp; XHTML:
The Definitive Guide</i></a>. I detected a lot of problems there (in an
otherwise
good book), and reported them, and eventually received the money and a
thank-you note.
</p>

<p>
Now I hope my commentary has been integrated into the final version, but still
cannot be certain of it, and while I still have a copy of the drafts, I don’t
have access to the published book. If I were going to buy the book, and wanted
to comment on it, I wouldn’t be able to legally point my readers to the exact
place, so they can read it themselves.
</p>

<p>
No text is set in stone. It is likely that even if you don’t allow
Wiki-style editing to the document, you’d like people to comment on it, and
revise the document in the future, and allow some derivative works based
and inspired from it.
</p>

<h3 id="admission-of-failure">5. It’s an Admission of Failure</h3>

<p>
Let’s say you’ve found that the current built-in documentation of a software
project is inadequate and you’ve decided to write a closed book remedying
it. What does it say? That the online documentation is bad, and that thanks
to you, it will remain this way. So don’t do that.
</p>

<p>
On the IRC, I discussed my frustration with the current state of
of the documentation of
<a href="http://git.or.cz/">git</a>, whose commands have extremely
terse and unintelligible <tt>--help</tt> displays, and exhaustive
and confusing man pages. Then someone told me he suggested
<a href="http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/">Randal Schwartz</a> to
write an O’Reilly book about git. Now, if this book will indeed be written
(and not made available online for free), it <b>will not improve the bad
documentation</b> of the current system. Instead, it will be an admission of
failure.
</p>

<p>
I voiced similar concerns about the Perl documentation back in my time
in my old <a href="$(ROOT)/philosophy/perl-newcomers/">“Usability”
of the Perl Online World for Newcomers</a> essay. Quoting from it:
</p>

<blockquote>

<p>
I don’t have anything against people trying to make money off Perl by selling
books. But these people are the same people who are the Perl project leaders,
and so are responsible to make sure Perl is well-documented. If people get
frustrated learning Perl, and become unhappy with it, they will criticise
“Perl”. Not the Perl documentation. Not the Perl community. Not even the Perl
leaders. “Perl”. If Larry Wall et al. care enough about Perl, they should make
sure it has good online documentation.
</p>

<p>
</p>

<p>
Such books need not be available online if their authors so much don’t desire.
However, Perl is very hard to learn from public electronic resources alone. I
believe there may even be a clash of interests because the core Perl people
also write them and so may not have enough motivation to improve the online
documentation. Making them public will resolve that.
</p>

</blockquote>

<p>
I may have been a bit too blunt there, but I think you get my point.
</p>

<p>
Also consider <a href="http://www.ruby-doc.org/">Ruby-Doc</a>, which
illustrates the pathetic state of the online Ruby documentation (at
least in English). Only one available free book, and it already has two
closed newer editions, which are more up-to-date. And it doesn’t even cover
the so-called “Ruby-on-Rails”.
</p>

<p>
Many newer books were published, but none of them were made available online,
and I was told that what most Ruby newcomers do is download illegal copies of
such books.
</p>

<p>
If you care enough about your technology or topic, make sure to publish
your work online too. Otherwise, you’re admitting that the current
documentation is inadequate, that you care more for getting money than for
making your work more popular, and that you don’t care enough about the
legitimate uses that I mentioned.
</p>

<h3 id="does-not-hurt-sales">6. Keeping the books closed does not Encourage
Sales</h3>

<p>
Many books (and other works) that were made available online have become
best-sellers. <a href="http://www.nin.com/">Nine Inch Nails</a> have
placed their <a href="http://ghosts.nin.com/">Ghosts I-IV</a> album
online and made it legally distributable, and it turned out to be a huge
financial success. After I downloaded the first part, I opted to pay
5 U.S. Dollars for downloading the rest, and many people did the same.
</p>

<p>
I also mentioned the <i>Joel on Software</i> book and also of note is
<a href="http://paulgraham.com/hackpaint.html">Paul Graham’s Hackers
&amp; Painters Book</a>, which contains essays he had written on his
site or placed there since.
</p>

<p>
There are many other examples. Generally, most closed books fail in the
marketplace, so keeping them closed won’t likely make them more popular.
Making your book available online can also give you free publicity, and allow
people to experience it before buying it, which may also help your book
succeed eventually.
</p>

<h2 id="conclusion">Conclusion</h2>

<p>
In this day and age, you should look into online publishing as another
way to reach your audience, and to allow them to experience what you
had to say. As a creative person, I want the maximal possible number of people
to experience and make use of my work, and I’m sure it’s the same for you.
</p>

<p>
Putting legal and technical obstacles in the way of people who want to
share, comment, expand upon and refer others to your work, is something that
you should know better than to do.
</p>

<p>
Optionally, you should consider applying more elements of
<a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html">freedom-as-in-speech</a>
to your work’s legal status, as this will make it even more usable. Refer to
such projects as <a href="http://creativecommons.org/">the
Creative Commons</a> for more information.
</p>

<h2 id="thanks">Thanks</h2>

<p>
Thanks to <a href="http://jwn.name/">firespeaker</a> for doing some
copy-editing of this document.
</p>

<h2 id="links">Links</h2>

<ul>

<li>
<a href="http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/">The Online Books Page</a>
- an index of over 30,000 gratis books on the Web.
</li>

<li>
<a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/">Project Gutenberg</a> - a collection
of free texts of books that have become Public Domain.
</li>

<li>
<a href="http://en.wikibooks.org/">Wikibooks</a> - a wiki for collaborating
on free (GNU FDL) online books.
</li>

<li>
<a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html">“Free
Software and Free Manuals”</a> - Richard Stallman’s call-for-arms for good
free documentation.
</li>

<li>
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/">Creative Commons</a> - license
works under free or semi-free licences, and search for such works.
</li>

</ul>

<h2 id="coverage">Coverage</h2>

<ul>

<li>
<a href="http://use.perl.org/~Shlomi+Fish/journal/36730">on my use.perl.org Journal</a>
</li>

<li>
<a href="http://use.perl.org/~chromatic/journal/36732">on chromatic’s Blog</a>
</li>

<li>
<a href="http://use.perl.org/~gizmo_mathboy/journal/36815">on gizmo-mathboy’s
Journal</a> (in response to what chromatic wrote.)
</li>

<li>
<a href="http://use.perl.org/~Shlomi+Fish/journal/36812">“Dealing with
Approval Addiction (and Implied Stress Periods)”</a> - note on my use.perl.org
blog in reflection to what chromatic said.
</li>

<li>
<a href="http://www.reddit.com/info/6qr1x/comments/">On Reddit.com</a>
</li>

</ul>

<h2 id="licence">Licence</h2>

<cc_by_british_blurb year="2008" />

<h2 id="meta_info">Meta Information</h2>

<dl>
<dt>Written By:</dt>
<dd><a href="http://www.shlomifish.org/">Shlomi Fish</a></dd>
<dt>Publication Date:</dt>
<dd>19-June-2008</dd>
<dt>Last Updated:</dt>
<dd>05-June-2011</dd>
<dt>Licence:</dt>
<dd><!--Creative Commons License--><a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/">Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Licence</a> (or at your option, any later version).<!--/Creative Commons License--></dd>
</dl>
Tip: Filter by directory path e.g. /media app.js to search for public/media/app.js.
Tip: Use camelCasing e.g. ProjME to search for ProjectModifiedEvent.java.
Tip: Filter by extension type e.g. /repo .js to search for all .js files in the /repo directory.
Tip: Separate your search with spaces e.g. /ssh pom.xml to search for src/ssh/pom.xml.
Tip: Use ↑ and ↓ arrow keys to navigate and return to view the file.
Tip: You can also navigate files with Ctrl+j (next) and Ctrl+k (previous) and view the file with Ctrl+o.
Tip: You can also navigate files with Alt+j (next) and Alt+k (previous) and view the file with Alt+o.