The point trying to be made here over and over again, is that it isn't an idea, it's a fact.
And yet the digital markets haven't died. People still pay for content and software even though it is available through other means.
But the other important thing to consider, is that the friction of which I speak can be minimized--if copyright terms are reduced and if businesses learn to stop using them as a giant bludgeon there would be hope.
Instead, head the other direction and it will continue to be a giant drain on resources that could be used by producers and consumers for other things.
Technically you are correct, but you win the debate and lose the war. "Property" is a legal construct for the purpose of ownership. Using the legal construct is not, however, useful in this discussion.
Property, as it is being used in this discussion, is meant to be using the *economic* definition. The reason for this is that the discussion is not about ownership, it is about the efficient use and distribution of resources. Things that have natural scarcity require, and by their very nature enforce, mechanisms for dealing with that scarcity. Generally the laws of physics enforce those mechanisms.
Things with artificial scarcity require the ENFORCEMENT of the scarcity to be artificially generated, which is the friction and the fundamental problem here.
This is something Mike and others have addressed before if you search on "artificial scarcity." The sum up though, if you have to create artificial scarcity around a good or some form of artful content, it can't be property.
Even if there are those that can't agree on that, having to create artificial scarcity is, in economic terms, a major friction on the the economy and will prevent the efficient distribution of resources. And in business terms, it generally has a negative impact (is a friction) between you and your consumers. Consumers aren't stupid, they can tell when you are artificially restricting access to something for dubious reasons.
I agree with the sentiment, but unfortunately it doesn't take into account what we know about human behavior.
I completely subscribe to the idea that we have to be more human with one another, but accountability goes directly against this concept because it can both encourage positive behaviors and abuse. IMO, because of the risk of abuse (e.g., getting sued for saving someone's life, for example), I think it is more likely that it would encourage more ass-covering than it would positive behaviors.
So, were that approach taken, I think that we could sit back and watch as teachers and administration officials worked very hard not to intervene or get involved in any issues at school in order to avoid liability.
I'm inclined to agree, because they know the issue will *become* the politics. Meaning, the issue will quickly swerve from any reasoned analysis or debate to both sides shouting nonsense.
"A byproduct of these fake debates is the need to disregard facts or science or common sense." -- Thomas Boswell
And, it seems to me that most folks forget that in a competitive market, voids tend to be reacted to as opportunities for new or existing players. Given that, I doubt that the amount of news available via search engines will diminish, but simply shift to new and emerging sources.
Calling someone ought for foolish extremist views is certainly warranted. But can you honestly say that you believe that statement represents the entire other side of the argument or even something beyond a sliver of it?
I don't see how you can maintain intellectual honesty if your response is yes. Any reasonable person reading this site and others criticizing SOPA and copyright would not draw the same conclusions.
Fringers are just that...fringers, and guess what? They exist on your side of the argument too.
No hard feelings taken. I was imprecise at best. I believe that both statements are true--how the storage is managed has forensic standards and how the data itself is managed also has forensic standards. Plus, how either is accessed is subject to standards.
I realize you're joking, but that storage and the management of that storage would have to be certified against forensics standards, which they have not been.
I have some experience in this area. I suspect it isn't a matter of storing the information on a multi-terabyte drive bought over the counter. If they are storing the information so that it can be *investigated* and analyzed, they are storing the information in multiple hosted virtual and secure enclaves with connected electronic forensic tools.
Still not necessarily into serious money, assuming they had the capacity to begin with. Now, one other consideration would be if they had the forensic tool and storage capacity at all, and there are third-parties that have forensic capabilities that can be made available via outsourcing, which is paid for by the seat, and sometimes even by the minute of use.
So I can't go into tremendous detail but the technologies necessary to make large amounts of stored information available for forensic analysis is not easily scaled and usually expensive given the laws, policies, and procedures involved.
Remember too that they also have to make the information/tools available to the defense as well.
Perhaps, but it becomes more difficult to argue that when there are alternatives, such as the above, that can achieve the same end without sharing or distributing the information.
For example, there are some government agencies that have an arrangement with cruise lines to look for possible terrorists on their passenger and crew lists, but they do this without sharing their respective lists with one another. They do it through double-blind anonymization and comparisons of hashes. If there is a hit, they can contact the cruise line and discuss that specific hit, but otherwise the list is encrypted and not available for any other use.
Sorry, I should have clarified, the reason I believe this is that Kickstarter campaigns are nothing more than that, starter campaigns. If we are really going to compare the two approaches, I think we need to compare an ad-supported business that is well beyond the startup stage and a fee-based business that is well beyond the startup stage. I think if we did that the number of influencing parties would be far less clean.
I appreciate the response, but I don't see how you can validly make an argument comparing the number of parties involved in each scenario when you left out key parties, regardless of what the OA did.
I was actually very interested in the approach you took to the analysis (e.g., clearly comparing interested parties), but I can't support what you concluded ultimately b/c while I grant that three parties are weaker than two, that's irrelevant here b/c no model discussed has only two parties.
I don't think you've successfully argued your point. First, it assumes they stay private be/c once you have shareholders, you have misaligned interests.
Second, even if they stay private, the investors are going to want their returns, so unless you can tell me that the start-up and revenue model by definition either, ensures that consumer interests come first, or provides a much greater incentive for those interests to come first, I can't agree with you.
The bottom line, which is Mike's point: neither model has an obvious or easily shown incentive structure that makes consumer interests take such greater precedence that you could feel confident it would never radically change.
No, believe me, I spend my days interacting with plenty of people that disagree with me, they just do it in a mature manner--by not denigrating me or others and by actively trying to find areas where we might come to agreement.
But you do none of that--it is plain from your tone, choice of words, and lack of specifics. Your arguments, sadly, boil down to, "I know you are but what am I."
The fact that you believe the only way I can write what I did is that I am sheltered and surrounded by similar opinions proves this. You cannot conceive that there is any other way to argue or debate--and that is because you haven't experienced anything else more enlightened.
Gods, you're a child. I bet it sounded all awesome when you said it to yourself out loud. Sucks when the reality is quite different eh? Oh well, as you grow up, you'll begin to understand.
On the post: Anyone Who Says Copyright Cannot Be Used For Censorship Has No Credibility
Re: Re: Re:
And yet the digital markets haven't died. People still pay for content and software even though it is available through other means.
But the other important thing to consider, is that the friction of which I speak can be minimized--if copyright terms are reduced and if businesses learn to stop using them as a giant bludgeon there would be hope.
Instead, head the other direction and it will continue to be a giant drain on resources that could be used by producers and consumers for other things.
On the post: Anyone Who Says Copyright Cannot Be Used For Censorship Has No Credibility
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Property, as it is being used in this discussion, is meant to be using the *economic* definition. The reason for this is that the discussion is not about ownership, it is about the efficient use and distribution of resources. Things that have natural scarcity require, and by their very nature enforce, mechanisms for dealing with that scarcity. Generally the laws of physics enforce those mechanisms.
Things with artificial scarcity require the ENFORCEMENT of the scarcity to be artificially generated, which is the friction and the fundamental problem here.
On the post: Anyone Who Says Copyright Cannot Be Used For Censorship Has No Credibility
Re:
Even if there are those that can't agree on that, having to create artificial scarcity is, in economic terms, a major friction on the the economy and will prevent the efficient distribution of resources. And in business terms, it generally has a negative impact (is a friction) between you and your consumers. Consumers aren't stupid, they can tell when you are artificially restricting access to something for dubious reasons.
On the post: Hachette Hits Libraries With 220% Price Increase On Its Ebooks
Re: Re: Say it with me!!!!!
On the post: Demanding A Student's Facebook Password A Violation Of First Amendment Rights, Judge Says
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I completely subscribe to the idea that we have to be more human with one another, but accountability goes directly against this concept because it can both encourage positive behaviors and abuse. IMO, because of the risk of abuse (e.g., getting sued for saving someone's life, for example), I think it is more likely that it would encourage more ass-covering than it would positive behaviors.
So, were that approach taken, I think that we could sit back and watch as teachers and administration officials worked very hard not to intervene or get involved in any issues at school in order to avoid liability.
On the post: Your Cynicism About Lobbyists Only Helps The Lobbyists Win
Re:
"A byproduct of these fake debates is the need to disregard facts or science or common sense." -- Thomas Boswell
On the post: French Publishers Want In On German Plan To Force Everyone To Pay To Link To News
Re: And Google is in a catch 22
And, it seems to me that most folks forget that in a competitive market, voids tend to be reacted to as opportunities for new or existing players. Given that, I doubt that the amount of news available via search engines will diminish, but simply shift to new and emerging sources.
On the post: Copyright Enforcement Bots Seek And Destroy Hugo Awards
Re: Re: time to react violently
I don't see how you can maintain intellectual honesty if your response is yes. Any reasonable person reading this site and others criticizing SOPA and copyright would not draw the same conclusions.
Fringers are just that...fringers, and guess what? They exist on your side of the argument too.
On the post: DEA Gets Lawsuit Dismissed Because It Couldn't Cope With Two Terabytes Of Evidence
Re: Re: It has much to do with how they store it
Even then, there is still significant overhead to meet forensic standards, but it would not be orders of magnitude greater.
On the post: DEA Gets Lawsuit Dismissed Because It Couldn't Cope With Two Terabytes Of Evidence
Re: Re: Re: Ask Google
On the post: DEA Gets Lawsuit Dismissed Because It Couldn't Cope With Two Terabytes Of Evidence
Re: Ask Google
On the post: DEA Gets Lawsuit Dismissed Because It Couldn't Cope With Two Terabytes Of Evidence
Re: Chain of custody
On the post: DEA Gets Lawsuit Dismissed Because It Couldn't Cope With Two Terabytes Of Evidence
It has much to do with how they store it
Still not necessarily into serious money, assuming they had the capacity to begin with. Now, one other consideration would be if they had the forensic tool and storage capacity at all, and there are third-parties that have forensic capabilities that can be made available via outsourcing, which is paid for by the seat, and sometimes even by the minute of use.
So I can't go into tremendous detail but the technologies necessary to make large amounts of stored information available for forensic analysis is not easily scaled and usually expensive given the laws, policies, and procedures involved.
Remember too that they also have to make the information/tools available to the defense as well.
On the post: New Documents Show That Feds Share License Plate Scanning Data With Insurance Firms
Re: Re: Re: License plate sharing
For example, there are some government agencies that have an arrangement with cruise lines to look for possible terrorists on their passenger and crew lists, but they do this without sharing their respective lists with one another. They do it through double-blind anonymization and comparisons of hashes. If there is a hit, they can contact the cruise line and discuss that specific hit, but otherwise the list is encrypted and not available for any other use.
On the post: A Fee-Based Twitter Is No More Ideologically Pure Than An Ad-Supported Twitter
Re: Re: Re: Re: Three Parties are Weaker Than Two
On the post: A Fee-Based Twitter Is No More Ideologically Pure Than An Ad-Supported Twitter
Re: Re: Re: Three Parties are Weaker Than Two
I was actually very interested in the approach you took to the analysis (e.g., clearly comparing interested parties), but I can't support what you concluded ultimately b/c while I grant that three parties are weaker than two, that's irrelevant here b/c no model discussed has only two parties.
On the post: A Fee-Based Twitter Is No More Ideologically Pure Than An Ad-Supported Twitter
Re: Three Parties are Weaker Than Two
On the post: A Fee-Based Twitter Is No More Ideologically Pure Than An Ad-Supported Twitter
Re:
Second, even if they stay private, the investors are going to want their returns, so unless you can tell me that the start-up and revenue model by definition either, ensures that consumer interests come first, or provides a much greater incentive for those interests to come first, I can't agree with you.
The bottom line, which is Mike's point: neither model has an obvious or easily shown incentive structure that makes consumer interests take such greater precedence that you could feel confident it would never radically change.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But you do none of that--it is plain from your tone, choice of words, and lack of specifics. Your arguments, sadly, boil down to, "I know you are but what am I."
The fact that you believe the only way I can write what I did is that I am sheltered and surrounded by similar opinions proves this. You cannot conceive that there is any other way to argue or debate--and that is because you haven't experienced anything else more enlightened.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>