this is brilliant: http://www.goblinscomic.com/tf85.html
This is a webcomic I stumbled upon and have read off and on (more off):
The artist has figured a means of generating income for free content: the fate of the character in a particular series of comics is dependent upon public donations: if the viewers donate enough money to the author to enable him to continue producing the comic (an openly predetermined amount of money) by a set date, then the character survives that particular challenge. Otherwise, he is killed by the devious traps endangering him.
Additionally, the creators encourage participation through adding riddles and puzzles the readers have to solve to progress the story. It's a brilliant means of enabling the creator of cree content to profit by appealing to the public's sense of value as an influence upon the work directly.
Not at all. In popularity? Perhaps. But what has that ever had to do with "art"?
thank you. that was my point. The value of a book is in its content, not the typeface or the book jacket ... and so, not the t-shirt with the author's face printed on it. I have to have to have to reject any arguments to the contrary as shallow and foolish.
I didn't say VALUE, i said GOOD. The intrinsic value belongs to the creative process, as I said earlier. Freeing the content of the creative process allows its expressions to become more valuable - a book by a popular author is [generally] more collectible and has more 'value' than an unknown one.
I get that some people argue that one way to generate income from content is to sell related, ancillary, "scarce" goods, but that doesn't mean that the true value no longer lies in the original content. The value hasn't somehow been shifted to the ancillary, it's what drives the ancillary.
Again, this is EXACTLY what I said earlier in the post you seem to be criticizing.
Read:SO TO SUMMARIZE: "The creativity of any one human" is the ONLY thing that has intrinsic value.
The remaining value is derived from the public/market response to the creative work of the individual.
This may sound like nit-picking, but I think it's a vitally important point to preserve if there's to be any hope of getting the two sides to listen to one another.
I concur. Please read what I have to say BEFORE jumping on to a uncontexted sentence.
Regardless, I like what you have to say, and I thank you for forcing me to condense and clarify the essential points of my ideas.
I was thinking more along the lines of linear propogation - the book itself can be arbitrarily reproduced by a publishing company, but the text can be indefinitely propogated over the internet by any stream of people who have a copy. that is the crucial point of the "infinite good" - that supply is structured in such a way as to be unlimited in comparison to demand.
you can't say there is an arbitrary amount of sunlight, but there is an indefinite amount (as of right now - until we are consumed by the evil solar panel monarchy)
You could call a could arbitrarily reproducible, but that is a trait that is basically true of any good - the market just mediates at what point an arbitrary could will reach equilibrium.
'indefinite' is a useful term because of its transcendence and the concept of progression, which are the essential concepts distinguishing IP in the digital age.
How they are being implemented in fact? I don't know. Since most attention is given to when they are abused and misused, one would be given the impression that it doesn't "work" or "fulfill its intended purpose." But in reality, it's hard to display the sucess on the other hand. so I don't rightly know.
I would say both though.
By forcing derivatives to pay royalties, it does make sure that the actual investment of production will be geared towards goods that the market supposedly WANTS and which are FACTUALLY profitable (not just the CD's they want to sell and can't, but goods and a model that actual DO serve the market)
I also want to bring up a point that I haven't yet heard - it may be a bit of innovation (***IP patent pending***): By providing legal pressure and restricting the flow of derivative goods from a central idea, the "hydraulic pressure" of creativity is forced to find a new outlet.
Basically, if everyone could pirate the same source material without repercussions for ther derivative, then there would be little incentive to stepping outside of more traditional model. By using copyright to "staunch the flow of creativity," they are inadvertently and invariably causing it to spring up somewhere else.
And the market will follow the goods and innovation it values most.
Hate to break it to you, but this kind of immoral bullying and looking out for the bottom line occurs in almost every profession, including doctors (unnecessary operations, charges, etc.) and manufacturers (buying up a patent and stopping production to protect your bottom line). And we tolerate it.
That's a separate argument altogether.
Is there really a right to IP after the originator passes away? does the estate of CS Lewis or JRR Tolkein really have a moral right to the intellectual property forming the basis of derivative works?
Dunno. Moral right is a suspiciously religious thing. I try to avoid arguing its non-existant absolutes.
Should the heirs of Thomas Edison have a right to his highly beneficial (if legally suspect) series of hundreds of patents? {thousands?}
Where do we begin to draw the line between purely intellectual property and implementable patents?
by the by, I think I like the term 'indefinitely reproducible' more than 'infinitely reproducible,' as it more accurately captures the essence of the issue - a good that can continue to be produced indefinitely at minimal marginal cost, not that there is intrinsically an infinite supply of the good.
the data that forms the physical basis of any "art" can be propogated indefinitely with no overall loss, but is not infinite by any means.
Re: Do you consider the creativity of one human to be infinite or scarce?
explanation of your question:
"Do you consider the creativity of one human to be infinite or scarce?"
The creativity of the individual is scarce, as well as that individuals time/attention/etc.
the EXPRESSION in a DIGITAL MEDIA of that creativity is not scarce at all.
The PROPOGATION of that expression as an infinite good drives UP the value of other forms of expression of the scarce good, such as the hard copy, the artists signature, ancillary products associated with the good, etc.
What has worth is the limited process of creation and creativity, not the unlimited and reproducible content.
SO TO SUMMARIZE:
"The creativity of any one human" is the ONLY thing that has intrinsic value. the rest is just associative value based on the markets desire for the goods and services derived from this creativity.
By expressing the creativity in a way that is not indefinitely reproducible, the artist makes profit.
"they must do it in some way that makes something about the fruits of their creativity scarce."
sort of - they must actively pick the fruit which is intrinsically scarce, rather than trying to prevent people from gazing at the tree (pardon the conceit).
Overall, it's a decent summary though, just needs a bit of tweaking.
yes, the agenda is that of the patron, but what is the patrons agenda?
a sensible one will prioritize giving the public WHAT THEY WANT. that is how the market runs [at least naturally]. I'm pretty sure that advertising-supported media is the majority of online content. Google, Yahoo, YouTube, etc. don't generate income from nowhere. are these mediocre services?
the internet cuts down on lag time and cost of information and access to create a situation much closer to the idealized ceterus-paribus. technology makes the medium of all economic exchange (read: not just money) more efficient, equal, and effectual.
"Direct payment for the actual good produced, whether infinite or not, seems to be the most straight forward way to connect the two ends of the transaction." - that's the point - a new business model needs to deal with the fact that the good in question is no longer the book, or music, or movie, but it's ancillary worth which displays itself in a number of ways - memes, tees, products, and ultimately OTHER EXPRESSIONS OF MEDIA. you can no longer limit ideas to a single expression of media - turning it into a tshirt isn't "roundabout" - its the reality of change.
the written word and printing press "overthrew" public lectures, photography "bested" painting, and the digital realm "trumped" physical performance of music.
just find another way to express it.
The thing is, by respecting "first clone rights" on a new platform, you are encouraging EVERYONE (including the original producer) to jump on producing content and making the platform valuable. If Hasbro or Tetris could simply have the product removed when ever they felt like lumbering their gargantuan corporate bodies into the market, then the incentive for ANYONE to innovate is gone - the cloners get nothing, the companies have no pressure to move - is a classic game theory Nash equilibrium. It takes money and effort for larger companies to produce content, so they would rather not, and smaller producers are cowed by legal threats, preventing them from initial action.
Isn't scrabble just a free-form knockoff of the classic crossword puzzle put in reverse?
innovation? eh, maybe, but only in muddling with an already existant process.
connect four? a modification of tictactoe, which is a simplification of pente, which is a relative knockoff of Go, which is considered to be the Chinese Chess
Already is being done - there was an article a few weeks ago abot companies specifically created just to make patents to gain rights to derivative works they don't make - or at least to sue them for money.
so? don't nitpick - adress the actual argument - that artists who the public have chosen to value are inevitably rewarded regardless - any guess as to how many times the Harry Potter series has been pirated digitally (not by me) and yet the woman who was once living in a trailer is now worth MILLIONS based on the merit and appeal of her works.
So helping people to find a working business model is conceit and impropriety?
He is telling people that instead of fighting the tide of change and culture, ride it out - don't push against the wind, go sailing.
true, not to him directly, but to the holders of rights to that intellectual property, which is what we are really arguing anyhow - that the ones who OWN the rights to the book should make MONEY on their INVESTMENT.
On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Unpaid
webcomics
http://www.goblinscomic.com/tf85.html
This is a webcomic I stumbled upon and have read off and on (more off):
The artist has figured a means of generating income for free content: the fate of the character in a particular series of comics is dependent upon public donations: if the viewers donate enough money to the author to enable him to continue producing the comic (an openly predetermined amount of money) by a set date, then the character survives that particular challenge. Otherwise, he is killed by the devious traps endangering him.
Additionally, the creators encourage participation through adding riddles and puzzles the readers have to solve to progress the story. It's a brilliant means of enabling the creator of cree content to profit by appealing to the public's sense of value as an influence upon the work directly.
On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Unpaid
Re: Re: Re: Two edged sword
thank you. that was my point.
The value of a book is in its content, not the typeface or the book jacket ... and so, not the t-shirt with the author's face printed on it. I have to have to have to reject any arguments to the contrary as shallow and foolish.
I didn't say VALUE, i said GOOD. The intrinsic value belongs to the creative process, as I said earlier. Freeing the content of the creative process allows its expressions to become more valuable - a book by a popular author is [generally] more collectible and has more 'value' than an unknown one.
I get that some people argue that one way to generate income from content is to sell related, ancillary, "scarce" goods, but that doesn't mean that the true value no longer lies in the original content. The value hasn't somehow been shifted to the ancillary, it's what drives the ancillary.
Again, this is EXACTLY what I said earlier in the post you seem to be criticizing.
Read:SO TO SUMMARIZE: "The creativity of any one human" is the ONLY thing that has intrinsic value.
The remaining value is derived from the public/market response to the creative work of the individual.
This may sound like nit-picking, but I think it's a vitally important point to preserve if there's to be any hope of getting the two sides to listen to one another.
I concur. Please read what I have to say BEFORE jumping on to a uncontexted sentence.
Regardless, I like what you have to say, and I thank you for forcing me to condense and clarify the essential points of my ideas.
On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Unpaid
Re: Re: side note
you can't say there is an arbitrary amount of sunlight, but there is an indefinite amount (as of right now - until we are consumed by the evil solar panel monarchy)
You could call a could arbitrarily reproducible, but that is a trait that is basically true of any good - the market just mediates at what point an arbitrary could will reach equilibrium.
'indefinite' is a useful term because of its transcendence and the concept of progression, which are the essential concepts distinguishing IP in the digital age.
On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Unpaid
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bookselling movies?
I would say both though.
By forcing derivatives to pay royalties, it does make sure that the actual investment of production will be geared towards goods that the market supposedly WANTS and which are FACTUALLY profitable (not just the CD's they want to sell and can't, but goods and a model that actual DO serve the market)
I also want to bring up a point that I haven't yet heard - it may be a bit of innovation (***IP patent pending***): By providing legal pressure and restricting the flow of derivative goods from a central idea, the "hydraulic pressure" of creativity is forced to find a new outlet.
Basically, if everyone could pirate the same source material without repercussions for ther derivative, then there would be little incentive to stepping outside of more traditional model. By using copyright to "staunch the flow of creativity," they are inadvertently and invariably causing it to spring up somewhere else.
And the market will follow the goods and innovation it values most.
On the post: Woman Sues Mayor For Order Demanding She Remove City Links From Her Website
Re: Utopia
On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Unpaid
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bookselling movies?
Is there really a right to IP after the originator passes away? does the estate of CS Lewis or JRR Tolkein really have a moral right to the intellectual property forming the basis of derivative works?
Dunno. Moral right is a suspiciously religious thing. I try to avoid arguing its non-existant absolutes.
Should the heirs of Thomas Edison have a right to his highly beneficial (if legally suspect) series of hundreds of patents? {thousands?}
Where do we begin to draw the line between purely intellectual property and implementable patents?
On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Unpaid
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TV
On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Unpaid
side note
the data that forms the physical basis of any "art" can be propogated indefinitely with no overall loss, but is not infinite by any means.
On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Unpaid
Re: Do you consider the creativity of one human to be infinite or scarce?
On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Unpaid
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TV
again, please bring some substance, kind sir.
or howsabout a name?
On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Unpaid
Re: Two edged sword
a sensible one will prioritize giving the public WHAT THEY WANT. that is how the market runs [at least naturally]. I'm pretty sure that advertising-supported media is the majority of online content. Google, Yahoo, YouTube, etc. don't generate income from nowhere. are these mediocre services?
the internet cuts down on lag time and cost of information and access to create a situation much closer to the idealized ceterus-paribus. technology makes the medium of all economic exchange (read: not just money) more efficient, equal, and effectual.
"Direct payment for the actual good produced, whether infinite or not, seems to be the most straight forward way to connect the two ends of the transaction." - that's the point - a new business model needs to deal with the fact that the good in question is no longer the book, or music, or movie, but it's ancillary worth which displays itself in a number of ways - memes, tees, products, and ultimately OTHER EXPRESSIONS OF MEDIA. you can no longer limit ideas to a single expression of media - turning it into a tshirt isn't "roundabout" - its the reality of change.
the written word and printing press "overthrew" public lectures, photography "bested" painting, and the digital realm "trumped" physical performance of music.
just find another way to express it.
smell-o-vision? anyone?
On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Unpaid
Re: Re: Re: Re: TV
I mean, really, give us at least SOME substance, rather then just goading people for the heck of it.
On the post: Another Game Innovator Is Shut Down By Copyright Claims
Re: Clones, anyone?
On the post: Another Game Innovator Is Shut Down By Copyright Claims
Re: Wait... scrabble?
Scrabblous has [had] multiple features not contained in any scrabble clone. it was a different interface on the standard scrabble board.
On the post: Another Game Innovator Is Shut Down By Copyright Claims
Wait... scrabble?
innovation? eh, maybe, but only in muddling with an already existant process.
connect four? a modification of tictactoe, which is a simplification of pente, which is a relative knockoff of Go, which is considered to be the Chinese Chess
On the post: Another Game Innovator Is Shut Down By Copyright Claims
Re: Copyright as a Sticky Web
On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Unpaid
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bookselling movies?
THAT is how the market works.
On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Unpaid
Re: Re: Bookselling movies?
or just not care about making a living - care about the art.
On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Unpaid
Re: Re: angry dude
He is telling people that instead of fighting the tide of change and culture, ride it out - don't push against the wind, go sailing.
On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Unpaid
Re: Re: Bookselling movies?
Next >>