The problem is the corruption in the concepts people have concerning culture through indoctrination by copyright.
We are today continually persuaded that mankind's culture is to be perceived as a commons (socially useful, consumable, depletable, exhaustible, commercially exploitable).
Copyright is then perceived as a means of protecting the cultural commons from over consumption and unfair exploitation. (!)
If culture needs any protection it is from copyright (not 'by'). Copyright should be abolished and then no-one need be concerned that they were losing access to and use of their own culture.
'Public domain' is another NewSpeak corruption. It used to mean simply 'all published works', and now the copyright cartel have managed to persuade everyone it only means those works not 'protected' by copyright.
I might as well mention the corruption of right into its opposite. Copyright is not a right, but a privilege. It is a suspension of people's right to copy, i.e. the opposite of a right.
It's those old comments turning up in Google that someone doesn't want to turn up in Google.
Consider it a crude attempt at 'reverse SEO'.
1) Post some libel in order to take it down.
2) Threaten litigation.
3) Try asking nicely.
4) Post some copyright infringing material
5) Report a DMCA violation to the ISP for instant takedown
6) Post something from WikiLeaks that the CIA wishes to stamp out
7) What next?
These tactics are from the Al Capone school of diplomacy: "You can get more with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone.”
Given this "Post anti-Semitic comments, then sue" shot has failed to remove the defamatory material that is the real objective, I suspect that the Tom Jones lyrics may well be used as the subject of a DMCA take down - as the next strategy.
Perhaps it's already been tried and failed? I suppose it's a simple matter to delete the comment.
Of course, there is a strategy that even Mike will agree has a good chance of shutting TechDirt down for at least a year, and that's the CwF+RtB sanction. No-one's had deep enough pockets to go for it yet...
At least it looks like it's morons demanding your lighthouse move out of their way rather than Machiavellian manoeuvres to extinguish your light.
Then again, who knows? The 'libel' could have been deliberately planted as a future option for plug-pulling (without raising suspicion it was on behalf of an unrelated party).
Either way, anachronistic privileges such as copyright and patent must be abolished, and laws designed for the wealthy and famous such as libel and trademark need major reform. There is no right to a reputation, only not to be deceived or defrauded.
With the disintegration of copyright we're looking at a paradigm inversion, a complete reversal of the music production line.
Instead of producing it, marketing it and charging for it, we have the fans asking for the music they want, commissioning it, and the artists accepting the commission.
Instead of labels selling copies for retail, we have discoveral agents selling their music lover members to musicians and discovering musicians that meet the tastes of their members.
If you've been indoctrinated by laws such as copyright to believe that it's possible to control people's retrieval and communication of information, then you'll think it's possible for laws to control what people read, but to also depend on the reader's context or purpose?? Now that takes the biscuit.
Copyright is a dangerous 18th century religion and it's high time we stopped preaching it.
Re: Don't complain, show the NY Times how it's done
1p2U.com is my ongoing attempt to show you how to publish news without ANY copyright. It's not finished yet tho, so I'm not making a big song & dance out of it.
I mean 'selective' as in picking and choosing which individuals to admit.
If you require the ability to eject specific individuals you should individually admit them (tickets or doorman say). If you admit the public (everyone/anyone) without consideration then you cede your premises to public occupation until such time as you wish to cease it. In such a case you lose the ability to pick and choose who you eject - you can only eject everyone as in "Ok folks, the mall is now closed to the public. Everyone leave". That's not to say you can't ask specific individuals to leave - or call the police to remedy matters.
At some point the situation changes from a collection of individual guests on private premises to the public on private premises. You can't have it both ways - invite the public, then eject unwanted guests.
Did Shakespeare have a background in copyright law?
Why do you think a monopoly for the enrichment of the press (and stability of the crown) incentivised creativity? Certainly, the consequently wealthy press effectively usurped patronage to become the author's primary market, but that doesn't mean that without monopoly no-one would have been inclined to monetarily incentivise the creativity they sought.
All that's happening today is that the monopoly is being undone by nature. It cannot be rescued by argument.
We're here to discuss how to do business without a monopoly. And yes some of us are saying that given the monopoly is ineffective (let alone unethical) it should be abolished to prevent sociopathic abuse.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: License and copyright the same !!!! NO. they are not..
Congress is empowered to secure the right.
The period over which that right is secured is naturally limited. It would be unnatural for someone to be able to exclude others from their work for a period in excess of their natural lifespan. The Constitution leaves this issue to be resolved by Congress.
Congress isn't required to secure the right at all. Thus there is no need to specify a minimum period.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: License and copyright the same !!!! NO. they are not..
The exclusive right isn't guaranteed by the Constitution, but recognised by it. It empowers Congress to secure it.
It should be secured for as long as the individual could expect to defend it, i.e. limited by mortal lifespan. This may be beyond their actual lifetime in the event of unnatural death.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: License and copyright the same !!!! NO. they are not..
Here's a précis (not that I want to resume discussion here):
Individuals have a natural right to exclude others from their private space and material/intellectual works therein, which includes the right to exclude others from making/removing/communicating copies thereof, etc.
The Constitution is therefore correct in recognising an individual's exclusive right to their intellectual work.
However, Congress is corrupt in its apparent inference that the recognition of such a natural right empowers it to grant monopolies in literary works, etc. Thus copyright (a blatant copy of the Statute of Anne) enacted subsequent to the Constitution is an unconstitutional privilege - an instrument of injustice.
However, none of the above has relevance to the copyright/licensing issue. Copyright licensing is about restoring the liberty suspended by copyright.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: License and copyright the same !!!! NO. they are not..
Irrespective of your inaccurate summation of my views concerning natural rights, I can agree with you that one cannot separate copyright and licensing and treat them as separate and distinct issues.
The rule should be that if you make no attempt to exclude the public (fence, selective admission) your 'private' premises are to be considered public domain (until you resume excluding all public).
So if you are not selective on admission, you cannot be selective on ejection - if you wish to eject one, you have to eject all. In such a case only police can be selective.
If as a computer scientist I predict the abolition of copyright and no-one believes it at all likely to happen in their lifetimes, is that science fiction?
I predict that journalists will soon get paid directly by their keenest readers, despite their published work being free.
Perhaps the question is not whether science fiction can predict the future for journalism, but whether predictions of its future must necessarily be regarded as science fiction?
Any sufficiently advanced business model for the exchange of intellectual work is indistinguishable from charlatanism.
On the post: Southern African Music Collection Society Fighting Attempt To Put Public Domain Works Under Copyright
The problem is mis-conception
We are today continually persuaded that mankind's culture is to be perceived as a commons (socially useful, consumable, depletable, exhaustible, commercially exploitable).
Copyright is then perceived as a means of protecting the cultural commons from over consumption and unfair exploitation. (!)
This is of course complete NewSpeak.
If culture needs any protection it is from copyright (not 'by'). Copyright should be abolished and then no-one need be concerned that they were losing access to and use of their own culture.
'Public domain' is another NewSpeak corruption. It used to mean simply 'all published works', and now the copyright cartel have managed to persuade everyone it only means those works not 'protected' by copyright.
I might as well mention the corruption of right into its opposite. Copyright is not a right, but a privilege. It is a suspension of people's right to copy, i.e. the opposite of a right.
On the post: Legal Threat Demands We Shut Down Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Um...
Consider it a crude attempt at 'reverse SEO'.
1) Post some libel in order to take it down.
2) Threaten litigation.
3) Try asking nicely.
4) Post some copyright infringing material
5) Report a DMCA violation to the ISP for instant takedown
6) Post something from WikiLeaks that the CIA wishes to stamp out
7) What next?
These tactics are from the Al Capone school of diplomacy: "You can get more with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone.”
On the post: Legal Threat Demands We Shut Down Techdirt
DMCA coming soon
Perhaps it's already been tried and failed? I suppose it's a simple matter to delete the comment.
Of course, there is a strategy that even Mike will agree has a good chance of shutting TechDirt down for at least a year, and that's the CwF+RtB sanction. No-one's had deep enough pockets to go for it yet...
On the post: Legal Threat Demands We Shut Down Techdirt
Morons rather than Machiavelli
Then again, who knows? The 'libel' could have been deliberately planted as a future option for plug-pulling (without raising suspicion it was on behalf of an unrelated party).
Either way, anachronistic privileges such as copyright and patent must be abolished, and laws designed for the wealthy and famous such as libel and trademark need major reform. There is no right to a reputation, only not to be deceived or defrauded.
On the post: Rather Than A Record Label, How About A Musical Affinity Group?
Re: Re: I called them 'discoveral agents'
On the post: Rather Than A Record Label, How About A Musical Affinity Group?
Re: I called them 'discoveral agents'
Art for Money, Money for Art
Artist and Audience Alone
Also see Lucas Gonze's blog article & comments:
the mo bettah label.
On the post: Rather Than A Record Label, How About A Musical Affinity Group?
I called them 'discoveral agents'
Instead of producing it, marketing it and charging for it, we have the fans asking for the music they want, commissioning it, and the artists accepting the commission.
Instead of labels selling copies for retail, we have discoveral agents selling their music lover members to musicians and discovering musicians that meet the tastes of their members.
It's all back to front.
On the post: Proposed German Law Says Employers Can't Review Applicants On Facebook... But Googling Them Is Fine
Indoctrinated by Copyright
Copyright is a dangerous 18th century religion and it's high time we stopped preaching it.
On the post: NY Times Comes Out In Favor Of Fixing Small Parts Of Copyright Law
Re: Don't complain, show the NY Times how it's done
On the post: The Many Ways In Which Fashion Copyrights Will Harm The Fashion Industry
This argument is blown out of the water by copyright itself
If fashion copyright is defeated by argument then that undermines the argument for copyright on anything, and THAT CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN.
Copyright is A PRIORI GOOD for all industries.
Therefore the fashion industry will get copyright irrespective of detractors and it WILL LIKE IT!
On the post: Court Tells Mall That It Cannot Ban Customers From Talking To Strangers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't find the case but ...
If you require the ability to eject specific individuals you should individually admit them (tickets or doorman say). If you admit the public (everyone/anyone) without consideration then you cede your premises to public occupation until such time as you wish to cease it. In such a case you lose the ability to pick and choose who you eject - you can only eject everyone as in "Ok folks, the mall is now closed to the public. Everyone leave". That's not to say you can't ask specific individuals to leave - or call the police to remedy matters.
At some point the situation changes from a collection of individual guests on private premises to the public on private premises. You can't have it both ways - invite the public, then eject unwanted guests.
On the post: The Insanity Of Music Licensing: In One Single Graphic
Re: Don't write about what you don't understand.
Why do you think a monopoly for the enrichment of the press (and stability of the crown) incentivised creativity? Certainly, the consequently wealthy press effectively usurped patronage to become the author's primary market, but that doesn't mean that without monopoly no-one would have been inclined to monetarily incentivise the creativity they sought.
All that's happening today is that the monopoly is being undone by nature. It cannot be rescued by argument.
We're here to discuss how to do business without a monopoly. And yes some of us are saying that given the monopoly is ineffective (let alone unethical) it should be abolished to prevent sociopathic abuse.
On the post: The Insanity Of Music Licensing: In One Single Graphic
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: License and copyright the same !!!! NO. they are not..
The period over which that right is secured is naturally limited. It would be unnatural for someone to be able to exclude others from their work for a period in excess of their natural lifespan. The Constitution leaves this issue to be resolved by Congress.
Congress isn't required to secure the right at all. Thus there is no need to specify a minimum period.
On the post: The Insanity Of Music Licensing: In One Single Graphic
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: License and copyright the same !!!! NO. they are not..
On the post: The Insanity Of Music Licensing: In One Single Graphic
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: License and copyright the same !!!! NO. they are not..
It should be secured for as long as the individual could expect to defend it, i.e. limited by mortal lifespan. This may be beyond their actual lifetime in the event of unnatural death.
On the post: The Insanity Of Music Licensing: In One Single Graphic
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: License and copyright the same !!!! NO. they are not..
Individuals have a natural right to exclude others from their private space and material/intellectual works therein, which includes the right to exclude others from making/removing/communicating copies thereof, etc.
The Constitution is therefore correct in recognising an individual's exclusive right to their intellectual work.
However, Congress is corrupt in its apparent inference that the recognition of such a natural right empowers it to grant monopolies in literary works, etc. Thus copyright (a blatant copy of the Statute of Anne) enacted subsequent to the Constitution is an unconstitutional privilege - an instrument of injustice.
However, none of the above has relevance to the copyright/licensing issue. Copyright licensing is about restoring the liberty suspended by copyright.
On the post: The Insanity Of Music Licensing: In One Single Graphic
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: License and copyright the same !!!! NO. they are not..
On the post: Court Tells Mall That It Cannot Ban Customers From Talking To Strangers
Re: Re: Re: Can't find the case but ...
So if you are not selective on admission, you cannot be selective on ejection - if you wish to eject one, you have to eject all. In such a case only police can be selective.
On the post: BitTorrent Begins Directly Promoting Content Creators Willing To Embrace New Forms Of Distribution
Re:
Remember 'free software' is free as in 'free speech', not as in 'free beer'.
Do you really believe those who produce software that is GPL licensed are somehow unable to be sufficiently compensated?
On the post: Can Science Fiction Predict The Future Of Journalism?
I predict the abolition of copyright
I predict that journalists will soon get paid directly by their keenest readers, despite their published work being free.
Perhaps the question is not whether science fiction can predict the future for journalism, but whether predictions of its future must necessarily be regarded as science fiction?
Any sufficiently advanced business model for the exchange of intellectual work is indistinguishable from charlatanism.
(cf Clarke's Third Law)
Next >>