Eradicate the "Disclaimer" [Thread Closed]

[ChristianPecaut]

I love the recordings that people have made of the literature and non-fiction.

Glitteringly.

But the first time that I heard a Librivox recording, and EVERY time that I hear a Librivox recording, I am forced to listen to the annoying, completely unnecessary "disclaimer" at the beginning AND end of each mp3 file.

I quote from the FAQ:

[What is "The LibriVox Disclaimer?"
The LibriVox disclaimer is a little line our volunteers read at the beginning of every recording. It generally goes like this:

"This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information, or to volunteer, please visit librivox.org. This reading by Kara Shallenberg, www.kayray.org. A Little Princess, by Frances Hodgson Burnett. Chapter one: Sara"

We sometimes use a short version for poems: "The Cow, by Robert Louis Stevenson. Read for librivox.org by Henry Frigon..."]

First, I thought, ah ha!, so Librivox is not some community-based project after all -- and there are hidden strings to rich funders who force the kind, compliant book-worms to advertise for their pet project, in exchange for big distribution. (A deal's a deal under capitalism, ain't it?)

But, no!?

I read the FAQ, and there is, supposedly, no money backing the whole project. [Well, there is the Hewlett Foundation hosting the MP3s, but I do not think they encourage the hideous "disclaimer"]

So that means that somehow, somewhen, the founders of this project decided to force everyone to put in the "disclaimer" garbage everywhere.

Odd.

Is there a thread anywhere that discussed removing those "disclaimer" chains?

For a project that supposedly liberates literature for everyone, for free -- you then require that everyone muck up their freshly emancipated book with that horrible "disclaimer" noise.

Not consistent -- self-defeating -- NEEDS TO GO.

I figure the reason that you'd want it in there is to:

a) advertise the site
b) "protect" the public domain recordings somehow

[I leave aside the reader's name and contact information -- which I agree should be included ONCE per recording at the maximum, with no minimum of any kind, except the full, unabridged TEXT turned VOICE]

I respond:

a) ["disclaim" to advertise theory]

While shoving the whole ugly "disclaimer" junk down everyone's ear drums, before every, single, mp3 file does effectively brainwash even the thickest listener's skullcup with Librivox.org and the ability for people to volunteer ---- this brutal method of "persuasion" is unnecessary, technically.

Everyone who loves their audio books and the place where everyone gathers to record them will make sure, at the link to the mp3, to tell everyone where it came from.

The way the web works nowadays, no one is going to find all these wonderful audio book mp3s and then be unable to track down where they were created.

This point deserves more public discussion.

b) ["disclaim" to "protect" theory]

Since you have already decided to make all the recordings totally public domain (and decided correctly, to my judgment), then perhaps people think that somehow the "disclaimer" propoganda will make the job of some evil-doer who would erase the names of the hard-working audio file creators more difficult, or some such.

The previous sentence struggles to make sense, because it is already a cockeyed mis-reasoning in the first place.

GO ALL PUBLIC
NO RESTRICTIONS

That's the correct way, never practiced today, in any sphere of life.

Only fake freedom, with garbage "disclaimer" advertising thrown in -- that's 21st century innovation for ya.

---

So, those are my first theses on a proposal to:

-- erase all the "disclaimers" from the mp3 files

-- discuss publicly how to best recommend a standardized, very very short, introduction

---

Unless someone reasonable, and actually concerned with preserving literature instead of cutesy, arbitrary, domain names arises, I propose to myself download all the recordings, erase the stupid "disclaimers" and re-post the public-domain recordings to archive.org and then start a better mirror version of Librivox.org.

I'm passionate because I care about recording literature.

(Before I found you guys, I had already recorded 10s of 10s of hours of texts and uploaded them to archive.org on my own -- I love the community, but I choose to walk alone, and straight, if necessary).

Greetings again, Librivox community -- I do indeed dearly love all the recordings people have made -- it's just that damned:

"This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information, or to volunteer, please visit librivox.org. This reading by Kara Shallenberg, www.kayray.org. A Little Princess, by Frances Hodgson Burnett. Chapter one: Sara"

The beating of that terrible heart!!! -- EAP

---

I invite public discussion, criticism, outrage, and solution -- and I can be reached "privately" at:

workoutwellforall@gmail.com.

Best, Christian Pecaut

P.S. I was amazed, awed, delighted most and still with the Tang Dynasty poems. And specifically in this case, listening to extraneous "disclaimer" crap before majestic, formal, ancient poetry _absolutely_ destroys the ambiance and propriety necessary to properly respect the poetry. My suggestion would be to add 20 seconds of silence before each poem so that it is impossible but to hear each poem isolated unto itself. But I'll bring that the the Tang forum.

[This message was also posted for my introduction in the Newbies forum]

[kri]

I think you would have benefited from taking a step back and thinking for a bit longer before posting this. Despite what you think, there is a valid reason for the disclaimer as it is, and there is a reason it's in every file.

The most important reason is a simple one. It is necessary for the reader in every LibriVox file to say "This recording is in the public domain." This is to protect LibriVox, so that no one can come back and complain that we stole a recording of theirs and put it into the public domain without their permission. The second part of this reason is so that it is clear to every volunteer that they are submitting their recording into the public domain in order to participate. As much as we try to make this clear and discuss it in many places, early on this gets passed by some volunteers.

Other reasons I have you may disagree with, but I have a feeling that the disclaimer will stay as it is (or in the newest incarnation, which isn't much different) for quite a while. We've actually recently had a discussion on this, and for now it stays. We may re-evaluate in the future, and you may be part of that discussion.

I love the recordings that people have made of the literature and non-fiction.

Beautiful, wonderful.

But the first time that I heard a Librivox recording, and EVERY time that I hear a Librivox recording, I am forced to listen to the annoying, completely unnecessary "disclaimer" at the beginning AND end of each mp3 file.

I quote from the FAQ:

[What is "The LibriVox Disclaimer?"
The LibriVox disclaimer is a little line our volunteers read at the beginning of every recording. It generally goes like this:

"This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information, or to volunteer, please visit librivox.org. This reading by Kara Shallenberg, www.kayray.org. A Little Princess, by Frances Hodgson Burnett. Chapter one: Sara"

We sometimes use a short version for poems: "The Cow, by Robert Louis Stevenson. Read for librivox.org by Henry Frigon..."]

First, I thought, ah ha!, so Librivox is not some community-based project after all -- and there are hidden strings to rich funders who force the kind, compliant book-worms to advertise for their pet project, in exchange for big distribution. (A deal's a deal under capitalism, ain't it?)

Is it capitalism when no money what-so-ever is involved? Can you blaim us for wanting to share our recordings? I think this is a bit over-dramatic and harsh. Below you state "supposedly" but it is true, there is no money involved. LibriVox may some day incorporate as a non-profit organization, but until then we rely completely on donated resources.

But, no!?

I read the FAQ, and there is, supposedly, no money backing the whole project. [Well, there is the Hewlett Foundation hosting the MP3s, but I do not think they encourage the hideous "disclaimer"]

So that means that somehow, somewhen, the founders of this project decided to force everyone to put in the "disclaimer" garbage everywhere.

Odd.

Is there a thread anywhere that discussed removing those "disclaimer" chains?

Nope, and I don't think I'm going too far in saying that they won't be removed. Changed maybe, but not removed.

For a project that supposedly liberates literature for everyone, for free -- you then require that everyone muck up their freshly emancipated book with that horrible "disclaimer" noise.

Not consistent -- self-defeating -- NEEDS TO GO.

I figure the reason that you'd want it in there
is to:

a) advertise the site
b) "protect" the public domain recordings somehow

[I leave aside the reader's name and contact information -- which I agree should be included ONCE per recording at the maximum, with no minimum of any kind, except the full, unabridged TEXT turned VOICE]

I respond:

a) ["disclaim" to advertise theory] While shoving the whole ugly "disclaimer" junk down everyone's ear drums, before every, single, mp3 file does effectively brainwash even the thickest listener's with Librivox.org and the ability for people to volunteer ---- this brutal method of "persuasion" is unnecessary technically.

I happen to disagree. With the disjointed nature of the internet, who knows where our recordings will end up. Part of the hope in putting reference to librivox.org in the disclaimer is that it will help someone who has found a recording separated from its whole (or the LV website) so they can find the rest of their recordings.

Everyone who loves their audio books and the place where everyone gathers to record them will make sure, at the link to the mp3, to tell everyone where it came from.

Of course, because everyone on the internet is honest and wants to help a project that is attempting to do something for the good of everyone. Forgive my sarcasm, but I can't think that you actually believe that everyone will make sure to let people know about librivox.org if they are distributing recordings from LV elsewhere.

The way the web works nowadays, no one is going to find all these wonderful audio book mp3s and then be unable to track down where they were created.

This point deserves more public discussion.

b) ["disclaim" to "protect" theory] Since you have already decided to make all the recordings totally public domain (and decided correctly, to my judgment), then perhaps people think that somehow the "disclaimer" propoganda will make the job of some evil-doer who would erase the names of the hard-working audio file creators more difficult, or some such.

It would be naive of us to think so, and I will say that is not the reason the disclaimer is in there. The disclaimer is there for the reason stated above, as well as to point people to move recordings at librivox.org, state the book author and chapter (which some without screens on their MP3 players, or seeing impaired need), as well as state who made the recording.

The previous sentence struggles to make sense, because it is already a cockeyed mis-reasoning in the first place.

Go PUBLIC totally in every way.

NO RESTRICTIONS

That's the correct way, never practiced today, in any sphere of life.

Only fake freedom, with garbage "disclaimer" advertising thrown in -- that's 21st century innovation for ya.

---

So, those are my first theses on a proposal to:

-- erase all the "disclaimers" from the mp3 files

-- discuss publicly how to best recommend a standardized, very very short, introduction

---

Unless someone reasonable, and actually concerned with preserving literature and not cutesy, arbitrary, domain names, I propose to myself download all the recordings, erase to stupid "disclaimers" and re-post the public-domain recordings to archive.org and then start a better mirror version of Librivox.org.

You have a distinct lack of respect that I very much dislike. I hope you don't intend on posting more in this tone. There is nothing we can do to stop you from erasing the "stupid" disclaimers and re-posting them. The more the merrier!

I'm passionate because I care about recording literature. (Before I found you guys, I had already recorded 10s of 10s of hours of texts and uploaded them to archive.org on my own -- I love the community, but I choose to walk alone, and straight, if necessary).

Greeting again, Librivox community -- I do indeed dearly love all the recordings people have made -- it's just that damned:

"This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information, or to volunteer, please visit librivox.org. This reading by Kara Shallenberg, www.kayray.org. A Little Princess, by Frances Hodgson Burnett. Chapter one: Sara"

The beating of that terrible heart!!! -- EAP
---

I invite public discussion, criticism, outrage, and solution -- and I can be reached "privately" at:
workoutwellforall@gmail.com.

Best, Christian Pecaut

Next time try to avoid inciting "outrage". It's completely unproductive, and just plain makes me angry. One of the things that I like about the LibriVox community on the forums is that we have a general tone of respect, and "niceness". Your post borders on disrespect.

[kayray]

Feel free to download your free audiobooks from some other source :)

Or, start your own project and make your own guidelines.

[ChristianPecaut]

The most important reason is a simple one. It is necessary for the reader in every LibriVox file to say "This recording is in the public domain." This is to protect LibriVox, so that no one can come back and complain that we stole a recording of theirs and put it into the public domain without their permission. The second part of this reason is so that it is clear to every volunteer that they are submitting their recording into the public domain in order to participate. As much as we try to make this clear and discuss it in many places, early on this gets passed by some volunteers.

This "simple", "most important", reason
that our
permanentized clangoring ringing
of the
"disclaimer" monstrosity

at the very least

"MUST BE ON ALL CHAPTERS"
is best presented by
("what works") Hugh

at last December's
"practical legal" chat

David

so kindly linked.

the disclaimer must be on all chapters, at the very least for a practical legal reason: by reading the disclaimer, the reader/volunteer is releasing the individual file into the public domain. without doing that, the files remain under copyright, owned by that reader. which does not work.

[ChristianPecaut]

Feel free to download your free audiobooks from some other source

Or, start your own project and make your own guidelines.

I - http://www.archive.org/details/DudjomRinpoche - have and do, many! <> <> <> - <> <> <> - <> <> <> Wanna help?

As someone reasonable, and actually concerned with preserving literature instead of cutesy, arbitrary, domain names, I propose to myself download all the recordings, erase the stupid "disclaimers" and re-post the public-domain recordings to archive.org and then start a better mirror version of Librivox.org.

[ChristianPecaut]

Unless someone reasonable, and actually concerned with preserving literature and not cutesy, arbitrary, domain names, I propose to myself download all the recordings, erase to stupid "disclaimers" and re-post the public-domain recordings to archive.org and then start a better mirror version of Librivox.org.

Wow. For everyones' sakes, I hope you don't waste the massive amount of time that would require when you could actually be doing something useful like preserving literature, regardless of what form that may take for you personally. Now that would be unreasonable.

I hereby admit to:

Megalomania and Masochism in a Patient with Hyper-Perceptive Schizophrenic Disorder and Compound Panic States

when it comes to accuracy; literature that is.

But I can play by da rules too.

Here.

http://www.archive.org/details/revoltofislam

That poem.

a)accords with divine legal statutes
b)is identityless in essence as it appears
c)has a creator just dyin' for stardom

So, waddya say?

Post Shelley's (1818) Revolt to Librivox.org, without modifying in any way the current audio, and let's just chalk up the owner as "Anonymous", just between me and you all here.

And if them lawyers come a knockin' at our door, we just tell 'em, what that dang Kid wrote on this here note I have in my hand.

Can 'ardly make out the words he skrit,
but I'z pretty sure it says,

"I, Christian Alexander Pecaut, hereby renounce all copyrights to my audio recording of Shelley's "Revolt of Islam", enshrined publically on the Internet, on this Friday of our Lord, January 19th, MMVII"

So, how'za bout it?

You just make it nice and easy, and we can all sit back and listen, together.

[Starlite]

Feel free to download your free audiobooks from some other source

Or, start your own project and make your own guidelines.

I - http://www.archive.org/details/DudjomRinpoche - have and do, many! <> <> <> - <> <> <> - <> <> <> Wanna help?

I'm sorry but I would not like to work with someone who takes your tone. This is a wonderfull caring community and no one ever says "you suck". I would feel very afraid to contribute to a project where the organizer is using words like "CRAP, garbage, annoying and damned" I personaly, will NEVER contribute to your project.

Esther

[ductapeguy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum and intentionally tries to cause disruption, often in the form of posting messages that are inflammatory, insulting, or off-topic, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others.

---
Take a deep breath everybody. I do have some direct responses to this but I think our 'hot buttons' are being pushed disingenuously. This is a discussion central to Librivox which we have had many times and will have many times more, but we don't have to rise to the occasion every time someone unfamiliar with our origins and procedures challenges us.

[hugh]

hi christian: these guys strip out the disclaimer:
http://www.freeclassicaudiobooks.com/
i'm not sure if they have a forum, but you might email them and thank them perhaps.

you could mirror too, though i would suggest that mirroring somewhere other than archive.org would be more useful.

[Peter Why]

The question of the disclaimer can be (and has been) discussed and criticised here in the forum. No problems there.

The difficulty here comes from the original poster's willingness to behave with insult and aggression here rather than with calm and reason. There's an implicit agreement in this forum that we take care not to be unpleasant to those around us. As in any close relationship between people, we each try to consider the feelings of the people we're dealing with. So far, it's working well, and has led to very few of our members leaving in anger.

If you feel angry and frustrated about the way Librivox operates, feel free to vent this in your own blog, but please when you are here, treat us more rationally and less emotionally. If you visited someone's home and they asked you to take your shoes off before you went in, would you insist on stamping mud into their carpets?

Peter

[ChristianPecaut]

Feel free to download your free audiobooks from some other source

Or, start your own project and make your own guidelines.

I - http://www.archive.org/details/DudjomRinpoche - have and do, many! <> <> <> - <> <> <> - <> <> <> Wanna help?

I'm sorry but I would not like to work with someone who takes your tone. This is a wonderfull caring community and no one ever says "you suck". I would feel very afraid to contribute to a project where the organizer is using words like "CRAP, garbage, annoying and damned" I personaly, will NEVER contribute to your project.

Esther

KayRay, politely, expressed the options for those who feel strongly against someone's project.

Uh huh?

Is that why you claim to be its author?

Whatever you think of LibriVox, at least we have the decency to credit the authors of the pieces we record.

No. I clearly indicated Shelley is the Author.

I reserved the term 'creator' for the pronouncer of the text.

I merely offer the example of an audio-book manufacturer who wants to join the fun but requests, on aesthetic grounds, to be relieved of the requirement for adding the "disclaimer" to his artwork.

Illuminating, isn't it?

But what do we see? Let's take another angle.

Since you too, David, cling to the protective conjuring trick of the "disclaimer", I demand that you hold fast to your convictions.

Why don't you call up Mr Zhuang Shiguang and force him to sing the "disclaimer" ditty?

And make sure to threaten you'll remove his poetry from the catalog unless he complies.

That'll encourage him.

Since he nowhere chants our practical little "disclaimer" mantra, how are we to know if that Hokkien crooner won't just up and sue even the good-intentioned minor officials here at the online Athenaeum?

Can never be too careful nowadays.

Take a deep breath everybody. I do have some direct responses to this but I think our 'hot buttons' are being pushed disingenuously. This is a discussion central to Librivox which we have had many times and will have many times more, but we don't have to rise to the occasion every time someone unfamiliar with our origins and procedures challenges us.

In all the discussions on the metastasizing "disclaimer" cancer, I am the only person to ever take the hard, purist stance towards recording literature.

"No unnecessary words" is a commonly acknowledged root principle for what distinguishes good literature from less successful efforts.

Transposed into the technical problem of identifying free floating audio files, that means no extraneous "disclaimer" rubbish.

How you identify the audio file within the recording itself is equivalent to the binding of a printed book.

It appears that you and others support stamping our finest literature with garish jargon and forcing artists to intone your bureaucratic credo, otherwise, no "participation" allowed.

The barbarism of administered commodity production will not disappear just because you designate the assembly line a "community" and its coerced artisans "volunteers".

As my rustic alter-ego indicated above, I refuse to allow an unjustified bad idea to mar my carefully wrought poetry and prose, and I refuse to inflict that indignity on its listeners.

Thus, am I excluded from the crowds on this site.

The problem of literature's attitude towards ownership is a crisis that defines art, different from religious dogma or alienated products on a supermarket shelf.

Not only "central to Librivox" but threatening the very possibility for artistic advance and the preservation of our common heritage.

And with yet no peers, and a growing mob of angry "team" administrators, (even the once courteous David!), it looks like I'll be banned from these forums and refused entrance to our digital Elysium.

"Good riddance! Lousy trolls!" you in"direct"ly coo, and wipe your hands with a satisfied grin.

Sigh.

[Le Marteau]

Why someone would persist in haunting a peaceful place of peaceful people when he is not wanted is beyond me. A gentleman goes where he is wanted, and when he has worn out his welcome, gladly moves on. It is the child or the brute who insists on thrusting himself into places where he is not warmly welcomed.

[fae]

And with yet no peers, and a growing mob of angry "team" administrators, (even the once courteous David!), it looks like I'll be banned from these forums and refused entrance to our digital Elysium.

"Good riddance! Lousy trolls!" you in"direct"ly coo, and wipe your hands with a satisfied grin.

Sigh.

There is a reason why you have no peers in this discussion and that is because of the way you are arguing your point.

You are being deliberately incisive and that is no way to get any support.

I am asking you now to desist with these flaming replies. If my request is not heeded to please discuss the matter at hand and not insult or belittle the people on this forum, it will result in more drastic action on the part of the admins.

No one has insulted you and no one has been in the least disrespectful to your aggressive and over bearing replies.

[ChristianPecaut]

hi christian: these guys strip out the disclaimer:
http://www.freeclassicaudiobooks.com/
i'm not sure if they have a forum, but you might email them and thank them perhaps.

Those folks are the worst species of criminal: strip and sell.

As I summarized in the initial manifesto:
GO ALL PUBLIC
NO RESTRICTIONS

The first guideline includes the proviso:
NO PIG COMMERCE

You summed up society's prevailing wisdom, Hugh, in your last blog entry, entitled, "Idealism vs Pragmatism (Inspired by Idealism)":

I think the only effective way to change things is to build tools and mechanisms to do things differently, and build them bit by bit. If they are successful, then they will win admirers; if they are not, then they will fall away (as they should)

Will the "disclaimer" fall away, as it should?

No.

On the contrary, it is the most helpful and accurate ideas that are found most threatening.

And the most arbitrary, bulky, annoying, repetitive, unnecessary, and inconsistent ideas that hold sway, again, in every sphere of human life today.

I envision, essentially, a sort of democratic/anarchist means of collecting and distributing money to projects. It’s a crazy idea, and I have no idea if it could work.

Leftists call it "utopian socialism", and it does not work.

Your solution needs to be at the same level and higher than your problem.

It's not that nobody keeps on not thinking up a better way to arrange things.

You must seize power, that's what the Communists knew.

http://librivox.org/from-october-to-brest-litovsk-by-leon-d-trotsky/

Down with "disclaimers"! All power to the literature alone! But how?

The most effective way to change people’s minds is to demonstrate that another way is better than the one they are using. If you describe a carrot to me (it’s a root, from the ground, it’s orange, tastes good!) I probably would not be inspired to seek one out. Give me one, let me taste it, and i’ll say yum! Gimme more.

That's why I offered to do all the editing and uploading myself, figuring I'd end up here again, all alone in the spotlight, without a peep from the gallery that the ideal is correct and obvious.

And with yet no peers, and a growing mob of angry "team" administrators, (even the once courteous David!), it looks like I'll be banned from these forums and refused entrance to our digital Elysium.

"Good riddance! Lousy trolls!" you in"direct"ly coo, and wipe your hands with a satisfied grin.

Sigh.

There is a reason why you have no peers in this discussion and that is because of the way you are arguing your point.

You are being deliberately incisive and that is no way to get any support.

You are mistaken.

No one chimes in here to defend literature without "disclaimers" because:

a) determining that we'd all be better off with our literature purified of ads would also entail glimpsing the large pile of editing and uploading that will be necessary to fix the whole catalog (not really too bad, together)

b) six (count 'em) Librivox administrators have publically spoken against the plan -- and we all know that whoever has power must be right (Le Marteau's Gentleman)

c) a careful reading of all of my posts reveals that the only target of my "deliberately incisive" (You flatter me, madame!) ridicule is the hated "disclaimer" and all the contradictory smoke-and-mirrors regurgitated in defense

I would go on, but Administrator Fae's ultimatum has frightened me into keeping quiet about the embarrasing hypocrisy of "proving" you are right by threatening to harm.

I am asking you now to desist with these flaming replies. If my request is not heeded to please discuss the matter at hand and not insult or belittle the people on this forum, it will result in more drastic action on the part of the admins.

No one has insulted you and no one has been in the least disrespectful to your aggressive and over bearing replies.

[Stephan]

@ChristianPecaut
Boy, am i too angry to read or discuss this! You just pushed buttons and got ignored - wrong form to talk to people like this, people that would deserve at least some respect.