/ / Monthly Financials, News, With a Little Help

All time:
Income: $45,182.64
Outgo: $26,882.02
Net: $18,300.62


This reporting period:
Income: $3,148.69

  • Special editions: $1,925.00 (all time $200.73)
  • Lulu Paperbacks: $154.29 (all time $863.54)
  • Amazon Paperbacks: $80.08 (all time $383.27)
  • CDs: $0.00 (all time $54)
  • Donations (29 donors): $337.25 (all time $3,128.92)
  • Columns: $00.00 (all time $10,000.00)
  • Print on Demand bookstore sales: $81.00 (all time $171.00)
  • Ingram sales: $113.00 (all time $113.00)
  • BookBaby sales: $457.57 (all time $457.57)

Expenses: $1,994.53
Special editions: $1889.86 (all time $15,516.88)

  • Special edition postage: $197.62
  • Printed 10 copies: $652.50
  • Bound 10 copies: $975.00
  • SD cards: $62.85
  • Bluetack: $1.89
  • Paypal fees: $75.83

All editions: $72.00 (all time $4,734.88)

  • LightningSource fees: $72.00

Donations:$25.71 (all time $214.02)

  • Paypal fees: $25.71

Sales:*

  • Hardcovers: 7 (all time 84)
  • Paperback (Leider cover): 0 (all time 50)
  • Paperback (Rucker cover): 5 (all time 43)
  • Paperback (Wu cover): 0 (all time 50)
  • Paperback (Defendini cover): 158 (all time 382)
  • MP3 CDs: 0 (all time 16)
  • Ogg CDs: 1 (all time 8)

* Since the last reporting period, I have added several in-store PoD booksellers, all selling the Defendini cover.


Inventory:

  • 9 hardcovers
  • 50 review paperbacks
  • 50 review boxes
  • 50 review postage

/ / News

US senators are calling for action on employers’ habit of demanding employees’ Facebook passwords, but no one seems to notice that many companies configure their computers so that they can eavesdrop on your Facebook, bank, and webmail passwords, even when those passwords are “protected” by SSL. In my latest Guardian column, “Protecting your Facebook privacy at work isn’t just about passwords,” I talk about how our belief that property rights — your employer’s right to control the software load on the computer they bought for your use — have come to trump privacy, human rights and basic decency.

Firms have legitimate (ish) reasons to install these certificates. Many firms treat the names of the machines on their internal networks as proprietary information (eg accounting.sydney.australia.company.com), but still want to use certificates to protect their users’ connections to those machines. So rather than paying for certificates from one of the hundreds of certificate authorities trusted by default in our browsers – which would entail disclosing their servers’ names – they use self-signed certificates to protect those connections.

But the presence of your employer’s self-signed certificate in your computers’ list of trusted certs means that your employer can (nearly) undetectably impersonate all the computers on the internet, tricking your browser into thinking that it has a secure connection to your bank, Facebook, or Gmail, all the while eavesdropping on your connection.

Many big firms use “lawful interception” appliances that monitor all employee communications, including logins to banks, health providers, family members, and other personal sites.


Protecting your Facebook privacy at work isn’t just about passwords

/ / News, Podcast

Here’s a podcast of my last Guardian column, Copyright isn’t dead just because we’re not willing to let it regulate us:

The first time I ever heard someone declare the death of copyright, it wasn’t a dreadlocked GNU/Linux hacker or a cyberpunk in mirror shades: it was a music executive, circa 1999, responding to the launch of Napster.

I thought he was wrong then and I think he’s wrong now — as is everyone else who’s declared copyright to be dead.

The problem is in the name: copyright. The Statute of Anne and other early copyright rules concerned themselves with verbatim copying because copying was the only industrial activity associated with creative expression at the time. There were lots of crafts associated with culture, of course, – performing music, plays and dance, painting pictures, and so on – but these weren’t industrial activities.

Mastering by John Taylor Williams: wryneckstudio@gmail.com

John Taylor Williams is a full-time self-employed audio engineer, producer, composer, and sound designer. In his free time, he makes beer, jewelry, odd musical instruments and furniture. He likes to meditate, to read and to cook.

MP3 Link

/ / News

My latest Guardian column, “Copyright isn’t dead just because we’re not willing to let it regulate us,” makes the case that copyright hasn’t been killed by the Internet — it hasn’t even been threatened. Rather, the entertainment industry have made a nonsense of copyright by stubbornly (and ahistorically) insisting that this it concerns itself with controlling copying, instead of regulating competition and fairness in the entertainment industry’s supply chain. The Internet has made copying a routine part of every private person’s daily routine, and by insisting that all copying is in scope of the industrial regulation, the entertainment companies have appointed themselves the ultimate regulator of our whole Internet-enabled lives, and then declared copyright to be in terminal danger because no one was interested in giving over that control.

The internet era is not – and should not be – silent on the question: “How do we ensure that creators and investors get a chance at money?” That’s all copyright ever really wanted an answer to.

The inability of copyright to regulate cultural activity isn’t anything new. It’s probably true that this inability reduces the profitability of some entities in the entertainment industry’s supply chain, just as it increases others’. But that’s just a question of profit maximisation, not survival.

The problem is that the entertainment companies treated the increased ease of copying in the age of the internet as a signal that copyright should be expanded to cover more people and more activities, far outside of the entertainment industry. What they should have done is picked a new proxy for “this is an industrial activity within copyright’s scope” and soldiered on regulating themselves, without trying to regulate the whole world at the same time.

It’s time to stop declaring copyright dead because we aren’t willing to let it be the ultimate regulator of everything we do with a computer.

Copyright isn’t dead just because we’re not willing to let it regulate us

/ / News, Podcast

Here’s a podcast of my last Guardian column, Censorship is inseparable from surveillance:

There was a time when you could censor without spying. When Britain banned the publication of James Joyce’s Ulysses in the 1920s and 1930s, the ban took the form on a prohibition on the sale of copies of the books. Theoretically, this entailed opening some imported parcels, and it certainly imposed a constraint on publishers and booksellers. It was undoubtedly awful. But we’ve got it worse today.

Jump forward 80 years. Imagine that you want to ban www.jamesjoycesulysses.com due to a copyright claim from the Joyce estate. Thanks to the Digital Economy Act and the provision it makes for a national British copyright firewall, we’re headed for a system where entertainment companies can specify URLs that have “infringing” websites, and a national censorwall will block everyone in the country from visiting those sites.

In order to stop you from visiting www.jamesjoycesulysses.com, the national censorwall must intercept all your outgoing internet requests and examine them to determine whether they are for the banned website. That’s the difference between the old days of censorship and our new digital censorship world. Today, censorship is inseparable from surveillance.

Mastering by John Taylor Williams: wryneckstudio@gmail.com

John Taylor Williams is a full-time self-employed audio engineer, producer, composer, and sound designer. In his free time, he makes beer, jewelry, odd musical instruments and furniture. He likes to meditate, to read and to cook.

MP3 link