J. Neil Schulman
@ Agorist.com
@ Agorist.com
Wrap-up of news and opinion from your not-so-humble correspondent.
“J. Neil Schulman has seen the future, and there are no books.”
— Cynthia Crossen, The Wall Street Journal,
Jan. 18, 1989
Dear Mr. Bezos,
I’m one of the pioneers of the eBook, according to a 1989 article on me in the Wall Street Journal. I’m also an award-winning author and filmmaker with nine of my books and a feature film I wrote and directed sold on Amazon.com.
In a graduate course I taught for the New School for Social Research in Spring, 1991, I wrote the following phrase: “an electronic reader weighing 9 ounces, with a high-rez, page-white screen.” I got pretty close to describing the Amazon Kindle, 16 years before it existed and three years before you started Amazon.com. Wikipedia tells me that the first Amazon Kindle weighed 10.2 ounces when released November 19, 2007, and that the latest Kindle weighs 8.5 ounces.
With foresight like that, maybe I’m worth paying attention to for a couple of minutes.
Amazon.com’s Jeff Bezos
Amazon.com and I are in a kind of symbiotic relationship.
As an author my on-demand books are placed on Amazon.com by Ingram and I link to them from my websites through an Amazon.com Associate’s account.
I’ve put one of my most popular book titles on sale in the Kindle store.
I’m also an Amazon Prime member.
As a filmmaker Amazon.com’s IMDb division lists me, personally, and my film projects.
I’m a subscriber to Amazon.com’s IMDb Pro service.
I submitted my first feature, Lady Magdalene’s, to dozens of film festivals using Amazon.com’s Withoutabox division.
Through Amazon.com’s CreateSpace division I’ve made Lady Magdalene’s exclusively available for sale through Amazon Instant Video.
CreateSpace has also made the Lady Magdalene’s soundtrack CD exclusively available on Amazon.com.
In a few months the DVD of my movie Lady Magdalene’s will be released and in anticipation of that I decided I should raise the word of mouth about Lady Magdalene’s on the web. One of the legs of that advance marketing strategy was to run some Google Adwords text ads directing people to the Amazon.com Instant Video page for my movie, with the intent of driving sales and raising its ranking. I used the link code provided me as an Amazon.com Associate to do it. Each click to the Amazon.com sales page cost me around forty-five cents.
Yesterday I received an email from the Amazon.com Associates department.
Did the email thank me for spending my own out-of-pocket money to drive business to Amazon.com?
No.
Did the email offer to enter into a co-op marketing agreement by which Amazon.com would share the costs of the ads with me?
Uh-uh.
The email bitched at me for (a) violating my Amazon Associates agreement (does anyone actually read web boilerplate before clicking “I accept”?) by using my link in an ad; and (b) infringing on Amazon.com’s trademark by using Amazon as key words in web searches. The email told me I wouldn’t be paid any commission on these sales and told me if I didn’t remove my ads my Associate affiliation would be shut down.
Dude, you have got to be kidding me. Read my articles on IP here, here, and here. I’m considered the most vociferous defender of IP in a largely anti-IP libertarian movement. I’m the last guy on earth who would consciously violate your trademark.
I bet, when you and your fellow geniuses figured out — a few years after I did — that digital media and computer networks was going to drive brick-and-mortar booksellers, record stores, and video rental stores into bankruptcy, you never figured that your anal-retentive lawyers were going to mess up your brilliant business model by discouraging your strategic allies from doing business with you by making your employees treat them like crap, but that’s what they’re doing.
I removed my ads that at no cost to you were driving sales to your shop.
Heads up from me to you, free of charge.
Sincerely,
J. Neil Schulman
I’ve been a resident of Pahrump, Nevada, since 2001. In 2006 I filmed much of Lady Magdalene’s in Pahrump, the rest in Las Vegas, at Hoover Dam, and at Front Sight, which spreads from Nevada’s Nye County (where Pahrump is) into Clark County (where Vegas is).
Pahrump is not like other places.
In January, 2011 the Pahrump Town Manager, Bill Kohbarger, recommended to the Pahrump Town Council that privately owned firearms be banned at town-sponsored events and on official town property.
The next town council meeting Pahrump gun owners, speaking from the floor, refused to let any other town business proceed until that proposal was rejected by the town council. The Pahrump town council permanently tabled the proposal.
At the February 12 town council meeting an extension of Bill Kohbarger’s contract as town manager was voted down, 3-2. Without that vote his contract would have automatically extended another three years. This firing was despite all the town bureaucracy speaking in favor of what a great boss Kohbarger was.
Despite being a decent town manager by all accounts Bill Kohbarger made a fatal political mistake, the sort of thing that in olden days got people tarred, feathered, and ridden out of town on a rail.
Bill Kohbarger forgot where he lived and who his employers ultimately were. He forgot that Pahrump comes from a tradition that prizes individual autonomy and individual freedom. He forgot that outside Las Vegas — which is filled with a bunch of California immigrants who still haven’t melted into the culture — Nevada is still very much the Old West.
Nevada Senator Harry Reid just made the same mistake.
Senator Harry Reid (D, NV)
To quote Mark Waite’s story in Wednesday’s Pahrump Valley Times:
U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., appeared to pause for a moment during his speech to the Nevada Legislature Tuesday after he said the state should outlaw prostitution, as if to anticipate some applause.
There was none. There wasn’t any applause either from officials representing Nye County or a prominent brothel owner who commented on the senator’s remarks to the Pahrump Valley Times.
My house in Pahrump is a mile from two brothels. They’re not near any schools. The women who work there aren’t allowed into town except one day a week, to visit the doctor for STD tests. They pay taxes and they don’t bother anyone.
Nevada is the only state in the union that still allows its counties the option to allow legal brothels (Nye County does, Clark County doesn’t), which are legal in the UK, European countries like Germany, and in Asian countries like Thailand. Prostitution is illegal in Muslim countries that operate under Shariah law, and in places whose laws are still influenced by other sexually restrictive religious codes.
In this last election for the Nevada Senate seat, Republican “Tea Party” candidate, Sharron Angle, was not only opposed to legal prostitution in Nevada, and — incredibly — even legal gambling in Nevada, but opined in one interview that if bringing back alcohol prohibition was the only way to keep marijuana illegal in Nevada, she would favor bringing back Prohibition.
It was nutty stuff like that which got Harry Reid re-elected in a year when fiscal conservatives were regularly retiring big government spenders.
So now the winner adopts the loser’s platform, in a state which has little tolerance for its elected representatives infringing on what they see as their liberty.
It might take a while, Harry, but wave to Bill Kohbarger on your way out, because if I have to choose between the honest working women of Pahrump or the whore currently representing the State of Nevada in Washington, I choose the honest working women of Pahrump.
Anybody besides me watching Kathy Bates’ new legal drama, Harry’s Law?
In the fifth episode titled “A Day in the Life,” Kathy Bates’s character, storefront lawyer Harriet Korn — new to criminal law — tries to resign from representing a client charged with murder when she finds out her client really did it. Since the jury has already been empaneled the judge won’t let her — so Harry deliberately scuttles her case by telling the jury her client is guilty, causing a mistrial, a contempt of court citation, and a hearing to disbar her for inexcusable misconduct.
You see, when you’re a lawyer representing a client, you’re supposed to represent your client to the best of your ability, no matter how much you hate the scumbag.
Funny that this standard didn’t apply when California Attorney General Jerry Brown (now the California governor again) — charged to defend the majority of California voters who had passed a proposition amending the state’s constitution to forbid issuing of marriage licenses to same-sex couples — threw the case.
Don’t sidetrack me; I don’t consider that any government should be licensing marriage in the first place, for the exact same reasons I don’t want my own state intruding into the private consentual relations between a man, a woman, and a MasterCard. Or two women, a man, and a MasterCard. Or Two Men and a MasterCard. Or whatever party the holder of the MasterCard can afford. And I apply the same moral and ethical standards to longer-term contracts, like marriage.
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder
But now U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder — the lawyer whose client is Congress when its elected representatives pass a law — has done what Jerry Brown did — what Harry Korn did in a weekly TV drama: betrayed the client and thrown the case, for no other reason than that he doesn’t like it.
I don’t like it, either, but WTF? Are the lawyers who are supposed to be in the business of defending the law now allowed to throw any case they don’t happen to like?
Even an anarchist lawyer in a private arbitration would get sanctioned for that.
Wisconsin Education Association Council
My mother told me as recently as yesterday at dinner that some of the first words out of my mouth when I first learned to speak were, “That lousy union!”
No, I wasn’t regurgitating an incident from a past life. My father, concert violinist Julius Schulman, had been the concertmaster and featured soloist of the WOR Mutual Network Symphony Orchestra when it had higher ratings than the rival NBC Symphony Orchestra under Arturo Toscanini. I picked the phrase up from my dad because he was still complaing about losing that job — at the time the pinnacle of his musical career — when Musicians Local 802 of the American Federation of Musicians struck WOR because the network tried to fire several musicians who got full salary but never were called in actually to perform. In other jobsite situations this is called featherbedding.
The strike was never settled. WOR simply gave up its orchestra and went to “canned” music.
That lousy union.
Like my father, I’m a union member: the Writers Guild of America, East, affiliated wth the AFL-CIO. I have no particular beef with my union, aside from them striking twice within my first few years of membership and the six-month-long strike that wiped out the only job I’d been contracted to write a movie for TV and my never getting another paid job screenwriting for someone else’s company, since. I have a talent agent and a literary manager representing me, plus my own production company. I’ve never understood what a union can do for me that my reps and I can’t do without their help — except lose me job offers from producers who don’t want to sign a union contract.
Everybody misses the point about what a union is and what it does. Unions supposedly raise wages and working conditions by collective bargaining, which supposedly places them on an equal footing with big employers. The natural laws of economics are described to say that when the price of anything, including labor, is raised above what the market will bear the market will replace it with something else or somewhere else. Collective bargaining can’t raise the market value of a worker for a particular job any more than it could alter the laws of motion or thermodynamics. If wages and benefits get too high, jobs are eliminated (like my dad’s job) or outsourced to places which don’t have rules making them bargain with unions.
This too theoretical and complex for you? Try this on for size. Unions have no word for management or bosses as insulting as the word they use for non-union workers: scab. Unions are not organized against management and bosses. Unions are organized to regulate workers and to use force against unregulated workers.
Now, in the private sector — where any “job” is nothing more than a trade of work in exchange for money — interfering with the trade is tyrannical.
Workers should be free to bargain collectively or not to bargain collectively.
Employers should be free to bargain collectively or not to bargain collectively.
Anything that anyone – government or goon — does by force or threat of force or even the implication that force might be used — to compel either side either to bargain collectively, or not to bargain collectively — is tyrannical.
But when the “trade” is between a government and an individual, anything the individual can do to even the odds is an improvement. That includes organizing the government workforce and collective bargaining. It’s just one more separation of powers. It’s one more limitation on government power. It’s one more monkey wrench thrown into the machinery of Leviathan.
Government is force. It is tyrannical and coercive by its nature. It takes its money by force and spends it by fiat. Only the delusion of its officials and employees that they are doing something worthwhile that can’t be done in a private transaction separates government from being a purely criminal operation.
So this pro-capitalist libertarian wishes to extend his support to the members of the Wisconsin Education Association Council in its struggle against the Wisconsin Republicans led by Governor Scott Walker to eliminate their collective bargaining powers.
This article is Copyright © 2011 The J. Neil Schulman Living Trust. All rights reserved.
Winner of the Special Jury Prize for Libertarian Ideals from the 2011 Anthem Film Festival! My comic thriller Lady Magdalene’s — a movie I wrote, produced, directed, and acted in it — is now available free on the web linked from the official movie website. If you like the way I think, I think you’ll like this movie. Check it out!
February 26, 2011 - 5:29 am
Your analogy in “Holder’s Law” about the Defense of Marriage Act doesn’t work. (On either the federal or the state level, but I discuss the federal level below.)
First, the US government isn’t a criminal defendant. Those challenging DOMA are contending that the law is unconstitutional, and that is a matter of potential exceeding of allowed lawmaking authority under the Constitution, not one of violated laws. Interpretation of the controlling document is at issue, not “faithful execution” of the laws.
Second, presidents of all parties have long demurred from pressing forward with the defense of laws they deem to be unconstitutional. Such check-and-balance actions, unlike the Supreme Court’s assertion in 1803 of the power of judicial review, were explicitly anticipated when the document was framed.
And third, the injuries involved are only increased by insisting that DOJ lawyers waste their time and the taxpayers’ money to defend a law which they do not see as passing constitutional muster. (Andrew Napolitano stressed this in detail on the day of the DOJ’s decision.)
Is this selective pursuit of political ends? Perhaps. What casts substantial doubt on DOJ’s and Obama’s consistency (and good faith) is that they are only ending any defense of Section 3 of DOMA, which denies federal benefits and recognition to same-sex spouses, and which may indeed go against past equal-protection case law as to constitutional interpretation.
Yet they are not (yet) doing so with Section 2, which blatantly violates the “full faith and credit” requirement upon the states to honor marriages (as official licensed acts) made in other states. And this is far more susceptible to challenge.
Beyond all of this, I’m dismayed that you’re choosing to endorse the viewpoints of the homophobes infesting the Congress, past or present — including the execrable and ignorant Gingrich, who today insisted that refraining from defending DOMA is one ground for impeachment of Obama.
That’s as pointless as was bringing down the impeachment hammer on Clinton, not for malfeasance or war crimes (both also being true for Obama), but for the relatively minor felonies of perjury and suborning perjury, about an intern that he schtupped under his desk. If Eye of Newt wants to haul out such heavy artillery, do it for something of consequence, methinks.
February 26, 2011 - 5:40 am
Steve, your entire comment is 100% beside the point. The merits of the case are not the issue. Neither is the constitutionality of the law.
The only issue I raised is that a lawyer’s job is to represent his client. Period. Care to address the point of my article, which is the legal malfeasance of a lawyer throwing a case because s/he doesn’t like it? Or are you too invested in an outcome pleasing to you to defend the concept of procedural fairness?
John Adams defended the British soldiers charged with firing on the citizens of Boston, even though doing so was dangerous and unpopular He thought they deserved a defense.
Then there are lawyers who defend clients imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, and make sure they get charged with a crime or released, because they believe the Constitutional clause regarding the right of Habeas corpus.
Now those are lawyers, not Brown and Holder, the type who take a dive in the ring, or throw the 1919 World Series.
It’s not an advocate’s job to determine the merits of a case. It’s to advocate for the client — in Brown’s case, California voters; in Holder’s case, a law passed by Congress and signed by the President.
You know where the word “attorney” comes from? From the word “tournament.” They’re gladiators, hired guns. I don’t know about you but if I give someone a job defending my interests and they sell me out to the other side, they’re subhuman scum — Benedict Arnolds.
Forget for a second that we’re anarchists and we think Congress is a criminal conspiracy. Don’t you believe even criminals get their day in court, with their lawyers presenting the most persuasive case possible?
[Later added in response to Steve Reed’s comments on Facebook]
——————————————
Your only point appears to be that you think both the California proposition and the Defense of Marriage Act are wrong, so you don’t want them upheld. But those issues were supposed to to be heard in court with both sides being presented so judges could decide. If both sides are in collusion one side has no representation.
Now that’s a bad precedent, pal.
——————————————
You wasted your time because you assumed I was defending the specific laws, when I was defending due process.
October 7, 2011 - 6:01 am
I understand how frustrating it is to receive such emails from a great company like Amazon. Today, amazon is the world leader in affiliate network companies and offers good service to all affiliates around the world.