Entertainment Industry Flips Out At The Good Parts Of Canada's New Copyright Law, Demands Changes Via TPP
from the but-of-course dept
In discussing Canada's C-11 copyright reform, we noted that while we were troubled by the "digital locks" provision that mirrors the DMCA's ridiculous anti-circumvention rules, there was actually plenty of good things in the law, that other countries should take note of. Not surprisingly, the entertainment industry feels differently. With Canada joining the TPP negotiations, entertainment industry lobbyists are seeing it as an opportunity to roll back all of the good parts of Canada's copyright law. Michael Geist has the story on how the IIPA -- an organization made up of a bunch of other copyright maximalist organizations, like the RIAA and MPAA -- have put in a filing that argues TPP should wipe out many of the reasonable parts of Canada's new copyright law:The IIPA, which recently submitted its position on Canada's entry to the TPP as part of a U.S. regulatory process, takes particular issue with the role of Internet providers in enforcing Canadian copyright law. The Canadian "notice-and-notice" approach, which requires providers to forward thousands of infringement allegation notices to their subscribers, strikes a balance between effective enforcement and free speech, while preserving users' privacy.This isn't surprising, of course. These groups have always used international trade agreements to force through IP laws that they can't get otherwise. In fact, what's slightly ironic is that the whole reason that Canada was pressured to put in place C-11 in the first place, was because all of these same trade groups kept insisting that Canada was not living up to its "international obligations" with regards to earlier copyright-related agreements. So now that Canada has updated its law with some good ideas and some bad... the industry goes running right back to international agreement negotiations to try to delete the good parts, which it doesn't like.
The model has begun to attract global attention with countries such as Chile adopting it within its own domestic law. The IIPA sharply criticizes the approach, however, calling for dramatic reforms. It argues that Canadian law "fails to provide meaningful incentives for network service providers to co-operate with copyright owners to deal with copyright infringements that take place in the digital network environment."
Instead, the copyright lobby wants Canada to implement measures that would require Internet providers "to take action to prevent recidivists from repeatedly using their services to commit copyright infringement." The plain language demand: a termination system that would cut off Internet access for subscribers accused of infringement.
The IIPA also wants Canada to undo statutory damages changes from Bill C-11 that created a liability cap of $5,000 for non-commercial infringement. It claims that the non-commercial cap renders statutory damages "ineffective in achieving its goals of full compensation and deterrence in the online environment."
Even with the change, Canada remains one of the only developed countries with statutory damages that create the prospect of multi-million dollar damage awards for commercial infringement. The government created the non-commercial cap because it was uncomfortable with rules that could spur thousands of lawsuits against individuals.
And, really, this is a big part of the problem with all the secrecy around the TPP. While the process in Canada to approve C-11 certainly had its issues, at least the bill itself was public and was open to significant discussion for quite some time. And if you look back to previous attempts to reform copyright law in Canada, the proposals had gone through significant public scrutiny. None of that will happen with the TPP, which is still being negotiated in secret, and will only be revealed as a done deal: take it or leave it. And none of it will involve real input from the public, who can give talks around the edges of the negotiation, but are never invited to comment on the actual proposals at all. Of course, the entertainment industry, being on various "advisory committees," do have full access to TPP negotiating docs.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
TBH it feels more like an AC impersonator to me :D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I find it humorous that many who express disdain for piracy are the ones who pirate the most.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As for the jobs and dollars can you at least come up with one, just one, reputable study that shows that before spouting off again? Do take your time. It's gonna take a long time to find one that fits in with your view and that of Hollywood.
Jackass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
usa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: usa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: usa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: usa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: usa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: usa
For all the control you say the Americans have over our current government Hollywood and it's Canadian allies, including the CBC, lost big time on C-11 so it's not as great an influence as many seem to think it would be.
Changing that would mean the opposition parties would have to get their acts together so there was an option too. We'll have to see what the NDP have to offer now that Jack Layton's gone. The Liberals are a totally lost cause for one or two more elections if not permanently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Frankly, I'd like to see them suggest legislation that will be effective. I know that no one can see what's in the TPP, but when even brutal public torture and execution don't stop infringement, I find it laughable that they think they can provide a "deterrent" that will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm not sure if money is involved, but that's the main factor for why the American government let's the RIAA/MPAA turn their butt into a diddle factory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Truth be known I don't think they did and when we and Mexico joined we were given a card table down the door from the conference room and not let in. We're there in our own interests and those interests include increasing trade with nations other than the United States.
Our interests in this are different than American interests. The US is having to contend with the one massive player who isn't at the table at TPP who may overtake them as the largest player on the Pacific Rim in the next decade. China. And China has no interest in playing this silly game. (Though I bet Chinese intelligence has all the documents down to the last comma and accent grave in them so far.)
In fact, TPP is a large joke without the Chinese there.
As for Hollywood -- stuff it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The only thing wrong with Bill C-11 is the DRM restrictions. That law goes against the right to make a backup copy of something YOU OWN.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As will the ratification process. Seriously Canada, just don't sign on to TPP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Are you kidding? The rest of the world already has an entertainment industry and judging from its popularity, I'd say it stinks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Access to US markets. Foreign aid. Joining the WTO. Not appearing on lists of "problem countries" that don't respect imaginary property rights (even if they do). There's dozens of things used to pressure other countries short of military action.
TPP is a package. Each country needs to decide if that package is a net benefit or not.
Yet what is in the package is negotiated in complete secrecy, while the negotiators are lying and saying they are being completely transparent. At the end, it is a take it or leave it thing - you get it all, or get none. So while 95% might be great things for trade and policy, there's this 5% that is completely horrible and which will lock everyone who signs it into that bit of horribleness for years or decades if they want the good stuff. The other option is to drop the whole thing and admit that all the years and man hours that went into negotiation was a complete waste - which no one wants to do.
Why are you so against the transparency and openness that might let us fix those horrible bits so we don't have to kill the whole thing off?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Access to US markets. Foreign aid. Joining the WTO. Not appearing on lists of "problem countries" that don't respect imaginary property rights (even if they do). There's dozens of things used to pressure other countries short of military action.
These are simply advantages and disadvantages. If you want all of the goodies, you have to assume the responsibilities too.
"TPP is a package. Each country needs to decide if that package is a net benefit or not."
Yet what is in the package is negotiated in complete secrecy, while the negotiators are lying and saying they are being completely transparent. At the end, it is a take it or leave it thing - you get it all, or get none. So while 95% might be great things for trade and policy, there's this 5% that is completely horrible and which will lock everyone who signs it into that bit of horribleness for years or decades if they want the good stuff. The other option is to drop the whole thing and admit that all the years and man hours that went into negotiation was a complete waste - which no one wants to do.
The participating nations are the ones negotiating the agreement. They see it. And after they cut the best deal they can, their nation's legislature votes to ratify or not.
Why are you so against the transparency and openness that might let us fix those horrible bits so we don't have to kill the whole thing off?
The are literally hundreds of narrow special interests like yours clamoring for a seat at the table. The negotiators are well aware of the issues raised by the special interests and presumably take stock of it. The TPP is not going to negotiated from the EFF point of view, any more than it will be negotiated from the Earth First outlook. These nutty calls for crowd sourced trade agreements are absurd and counterproductive. In the end, a package of conditions will comprise the proposed agreement and countries will all have an opportunity to engage in fully transparent discussions of a fully articulated treaty before ratifying or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TPP
I encourage everyone to stop buying or going to see movies for one month. Send them a message. Cancel your cable, cancel your HBO and stop buying from iTunes. Free yourself for a month. Read an actual book or at least go outside and get some fresh air.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TPP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TPP
That was supposed to happen last March. It was a spectacular failure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: TPP
It never happens all at once. There is no National Union for the people to make massive changes like this. But each time it's said, someone might read it and think, "yes" I might do that now or just curb my spending or maybe even say something about it to my local MP or Congressman. It's the most effective solution and in the long run, the industry will force people to go under ground for their entertainment and knowledge.
If you have a better idea, please post it, as negative responses with no solutions is really just being a pessimist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: TPP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem is property.
What we really need to be truly free is for everyone to have the independent ability to produce everything they need. That means each person can produce their own energy, food, and shelter easily and efficiently without the need to submit their labor to the will of an employer. It has to be designed from the ground-up to be focused on achieving efficiency, sustainability, and abundance. Once we establish that, we no longer need the idea of private property, of any kind. Once we get rid of this sickness that is the desire to own things, we have no need for a government. Our laws are seated in the need to protect property.
Take for example, transportation. Many feel the need to own a car because it provides on-demand access to transportation. What if the car could drive itself? Better yet, what if there were many cars that could drive themselves, just waiting to be called on to transport you at your whim? You wouldn't need to own a car if you knew that at any moment, a car would come when you call for it, take you to your destination, and then drop you off to transport another. Then, when you are ready to depart again, rinse and repeat.
What if all goods were like that? You use them while you have need of them and then they go back to be used by someone else. It's kind of like a library of goods that can be checked out and used as needed. When you aren't using it, someone else can instead. Certainly, there may be things you absolutely would like to keep in your possession, things that are of more use to you than others, but that would likely be a small number of aesthetic goods rather than practical goods.
This is the world we should really be striving for rather than trying to prop up an economy and sociopolitical structure that is thousands of years old and out of date in relation to the pace of technology. Then stupid little things like terrorism, copyright, trademark/patent law, civil rights issues wouldn't be the tragic center of a never-ending struggle against those that own (capitalists) and those that are owned (everyone else).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The problem is property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The problem is property.
You mean like collection agencies who engage in redistribution?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The problem is property.
So the problem is finding a system under which to achieve the necessary transition from capitalism to post-scarcity.
It's neither socialist nor a utopia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The problem is property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem is property.
You don't live in the real world. You live in a world that is designed to benefit a handful of people and it befits them to make you believe that it is reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem is property.
Rhetoric. Always more rhetoric.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem is property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The problem is property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem is property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The problem is property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The problem is property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The problem is property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem is property.
The human involvement in driving will be minuscule to the point that there is a statistically insignificant chance of collision. It's as unlikely as a computer making a math error.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem is property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem is property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem is property.
True-Scotsman fallacy.
Maybe the point should be - if we use caution and automated safties and overrides the number of errors caused by bad human programming will be minimal. The macines will only deviate from the programming in miniscule cases (at least until the become self aware).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem is property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem is property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The problem is property.
You've got to be out of your mind. Everyone is going to build their own home, farm and create their own energy????? Are they going to fabricate their own building material and farming equipment too? You have a distinguished history of saying really stupid shit, but this is one for the record book.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The problem is property.
It's with in reason and attainable. There are many people today that produce their own food and energy, build their own homes, hold their own library of information and make their own tools. The idea isn't too completely separate individuals from the "Free Market", it's to free them from slavery of Big Business controlling the government.
Keep in mind that most of the spending power that the public holds, is being funneled into a small group of big businesses and these business models are designed to trap people into dependency and politically (whether through legislation, courts or police) bully out alternatives. The best example is always the dependency on Oil for transportation and just about everything else, but in the last decade, cell phones and the internet is an excellent example now. How many people are stuck in contracts that are expensive to get out of? How many people purchase a song or a movie, only to find that they can't play it on other devices and now, can not copy it to a different medium to use it on other devices? They can't even sell it to someone else when they are done! They can't even give it to their children!
The whole business model is designed to enslave people financially to their products and to bully out any alternatives (and don't think for a minute they don't!). This financial slavery reduces the public's spending power and hence reduces the spending pool that new industries or products can pull from... unless there is a para-dime shift.
IP protection is the new "Oil" where companies on top want to stop all other competitors from inventing or growing because of fear of the Law. Fear of the law comes in the form of copyright infringement, patent protection or piracy claims, all to suit the needs of Big Business.
Becoming self sufficient is not a Socialist idea, it's a "Free Market" idea and is completely Capitalist! Except the big boys on the heap don't want people doing this at all. They are the ones calling it "Socialist" or "anti-Capitalist". This rhetoric seems to sway a verbose list of "pocketed" politicians and their crony followers, but it's not following everyone by far.
Complain all you want, in the end it's the human race that is suffering and lagging behind what we could be, all for the sake of benefiting the "big Boys" profit over the common good for everyone.
Isn't that what the people of the original 13 Colonies rebelled against? the Financial and political Slavery of some one else's rules and capital? and I'm not talking about the Cylons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The problem is property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The problem is property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem is property.
So don't pretend that scarcity is a constant and absolute fact, it's not. Also, technology is not tied to capitalism. You should really look up the true definition of technology. Technology is any tool that solves a problem or increases the efficacy of a particular task. By that measure, a stick used to dig a hole is technology. We've been developing technology long before trade existed, long before capitalism existed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology
Educate yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem is property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem is property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem is property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem is property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem is property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem is property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The problem is property.
What I suggest is an infrastructure that distributes the means of production across the population and provides automation so that people can easily create what they need, on the spot, without being dependent (thus making them subservient) on those that control the means of production.
It's not stupid. What's stupid is to think that we could apply centuries old production methods to social models that don't fit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The problem is property.
Trapped on a desert island with engineers and physicists and only canned food to eat, Greevar the economist says, "assume a can opener!" and saves everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem is property.
"Assume a can opener"? Fuck you. If it isn't there, then it isn't there and do you know what you do instead? You make a fucking can opener out of what you do have you jackass! If you lack a certain resource you don't piss and moan like an impotent jerk, you find another solution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem is property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem is property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem is property.
This is why it will never be true that we can help the existing people escape global warming, etc. by colonizing other planets. It is mathematically impossible to move large numbers (even thousands) to other planets.
Mining and acquiring scarce resources from off-planet is nothing more than science fiction and a fool's dream. If it is ever viable, it will only be viable to provide resources for efforts that are local to the mining and acquisition itself, not to bring back to earth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem is property.
Currently it is out of our reach to transport humans to other planets. There's no denying that. However, only a fool would make an absolute assertion that interplanetary travel will never happen. I'm no physicist, but I know enough that nothing is impossible until you have all the facts and we are infants in our understanding of our universe.
At one time we "knew" the earth was flat. That was proven wrong. At one time we "knew" that we were the center of the universe. Yet, given that, you can still claim that you know we will never be able to travel to other planets? How arrogant you must be. Today it may be beyond us, but it was also beyond us to go to the moon, yet we did. Who are you to make proclamations of what we can or can't do?
Actually, it was estimated for 2025:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/04/asteroid-takeout-a-one-billionaire-mission-to-bring-a- 500-ton-asteroid-to-high-earth-orbit-by-2025/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem is property.
You can choose to ignore whatever fundamental laws of thermodynamics you want, but I'm betting on the laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem is property.
Suffice to say, there's a lot of things being studied that could prove thermodynamics wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem is property.
Which is also why we will never agree. You assume that everyone else is wrong because they operate within known constraints. You choose to ignore those constraints. Neither is right or wrong, just a difference in fundamental assumptions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem is property.
You give up too easily. There are a great many things people like you thought impossible that merely needed the right technology to come along, which it did. Now we can fly, communicate great distances, go to space, etc. You cite current constraints, but you ignore the abundant history of mankind breaking through those constraints over and over again. If there's something we can't do right now, it's because we just don't know enough about the problem to solve it. The first step to problem solving (and the first step in the scientific method): Understand the problem. If you don't see a solution, then you don't understand the problem (i.e. insufficient data). One path might be a dead end, but that doesn't negate the possibility of another path that leads to a solution.
Everything I have suggested can be done, some of it is just beyond our technical means at this time, a lot of it is contingent on human kind letting go of our petty attachments to materialism and cease our wasteful design habits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem is property.
There is a factor here you seem to ignore, which is time.
It is pointless to dismiss a current constraint by saying we'll somehow circumvent the constraint via future research and discovery when that discovery might be 10,000 years from now. There are many problems we face where time is definitely against us.
Hooray, we don't have scarcity! Oh wait, we ran out of resources long before we ever got to outer space. [sad face]
But, I'm sure you'll just say that someday we'll be able to circumvent time, and dismiss that too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem is property.
Yes, we have issues that we must face right now, but we can do a lot to change that. Independent, distributed means of producing energy abundantly and sustainably would not be in the best interest of the energy industry, therefore they will never make it happen and would actually fight against its deployment. So would be the case with other industries.
"Hooray, we don't have scarcity! Oh wait, we ran out of resources long before we ever got to outer space."
That's bullshit. We're not going to run out of resources if we change our industry habits. We're highly inefficient in our production and product design methods. We create wasteful products. We need to stop doing that. We need to make things universally recyclable. We have more than enough to support the number of people we already have or we'd already be dead.
Time cannot be changed. If you go back in time to change something, you create another universe parallel to the original. The original stays the same and you would exist in the new timeline.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem is property.
a) you can run out of resources
b) Time is an immutable factor.
I agree that:
c) technology will continue to improve on and solve many of our current problems
It looks like the only thing we disagree on is whether or not we are likely to accomplish c) before a) occurs due to running out of b).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem is property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The problem is property.
There's one gaping hole in your theory of markets and that's that the wasteful options often or even occasionally generate more profit. That's simply not a good assumption when someone else can just as easily waste less and thereby turn a bigger profit than you. Waste is lost opportunity to profit. Minimizing wasted resources is the objective of profit seeking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem is property.
People in the paste have had the capability to survive among their own families, clans or as an individual with the skills available to them. Believe it or not, but a skill is also technology. Man builds a fire, from fire he smelts ore, from ore he makes a hammer, from the hammer he makes a cart, from the cart he farms his food, for need of more food, he uses his hammer and makes a car....it goes on. Being self sufficient, doesn't mean that we drop the hammer and head to the hills abandoning the current technology.
Becoming self sufficient means getting off the economical "Crack" and stop being slaves to big industry bullies. You can go home today and look into setting up cheap energy sources for your home, to power your electronics, your washers and stoves. You can look to build a green house and grow your own food. Harvest your own clean water. You get the drift. From these basic skills, where you don't have an area covered, you trade with your neighbour of the family down the street.
My original point was to outline how much of big business has cornered people into purchasing fewer options for each type of technology. Why are most cars by far still gas dependent? Why aren't all batteries rechargeable? Why are printer cartridges not refillable by default? And why are we letting companies sue the public or other companies for the smallest (and stupidest) grounds under IP protection. Round corners is not a patentable feature! $22,000 per song being shared is an outrageous offense to the public! 3 year contracts that can change with out approval by the client and costs the client extra money to get out of it, it totally unfair! Where are the politicians and courts for the people?
That's the freedom we need and that's something we have to stand up for and if you can defend big industry as to why the public is bullied, then I'd like to hear your argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The problem is property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The problem is property.
The ownership of property causes huge amounts of waste and mismanagement of resources. Many, many items we fill our homes with sit unused for long periods of time (Have you ever seen the inside of someone's garage, packed with shit that's only used once in a great while?). However, we hoard this stuff like pack rats so that they can be available to us at any time we desire.
Well, what if we had a repository of items that are seldom used that makes those items available when needed and are stored when they are not? Or, what if we had the capability to manufacture certain goods on the spot automatically when we need them and then return them for reclamation of the raw materials when we are done with them? You could 3D print some folding chairs when you have need of them and they could be broken down to their raw materials when they are no longer needed. Also, you could manufacture a device that you use regularly and then reclaim the raw materials from it when it becomes outdated or ceases to function.
When you realize that is not only feasible, but a good idea, you also realize that most forms of property are completely pointless and negates the scarcity of goods.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]