That's fine, but libertarian Kinsella views you to be at least "libertarian leaning."
Whatever you want to call it, I like to share a different perspective to get people thinking about alternative economies. The shareable/P2P/commons folks also want to get rid of IP laws, but to accomplish different ends than many libertarians.
The Death Throes of Pro-IP Libertarianism - Stephan Kinsella - Mises Daily: "There are also a growing number of IP critics who are artists, philosophers, techies, or journalists, most of them at least libertarian leaning, including artist Nina Paley, philosopher David Koepsell, tech blogger Mike Masnick, and reporter Joe Mullin."
I've read a bit about it and decided I'm not one. There are societal problems which I don't think have been fully addressed in the papers I have read.
I'm interested in localization/self-reliance/sustainability, but I find myself more aligned with the left side of that equation rather than the libertarian side. I am wary of are two things with libertarianism: not sufficient attention to global environmental issues and the possibility that the status quo will be preserved (i.e., those who have property and wealth will maintain it and those without it will be stripped of any ways to obtain it).
I have intentionally tried to offer differing perspectives on Techdirt so that people will know that there are alternatives to libertarianism when it comes to copyright and IP issues. If the goal is to get rid of those primarily to reinforce the companies currently in power (e.g, big tech), then I don't think we've fundamentally changed society. We've just facilitated transfer of power from industries like big media, big pharma, and big ag, to big tech.
I just saw this today and it comes with a very cool graphic which might help to visualize what "emerging economies" and how they could differ from libertarian economics.
I though the same with mp3.com (I spent quite a bit there on independent music before the RIAA sued them out of existence.)
I suppose, but I'd rather see people find workaround solutions now rather than spending so much energy arguing for or against changing copyright laws. That will take forever and seems like a poor use of resources. YouTube exists because Google offered rights holders a cut of advertising money. It went ahead and did want it wanted and figured out how to work in a grey area.
Seems like Amoeba is doing the same thing, finding a workaround.
An article saying that they are "pretending" seems to be highlighting them intentionally, perhaps to invite lawsuits against them. Like I said, perhaps someone wants to make them a martyr for a cause. Or stop them from offering to pay rights holders they haven't be able to track down.
Maybe some folks are pissed that Amoeba is actually setting aside money for rights holders. Perhaps they worry that Amoeba is setting a precedent in being prepared to pay them rather than simply bitching that the law won't let them share the recordings.
Like I said, I would like Amoeba continue to quietly do their thing; articles highlighting their "illegal" activity isn't helpful in that regard.
It seems to be bashing Amoeba for what appears to be standing up for the public and trying to counter a broken copyright culture.
I know. I saw the excerpt below and thought, "Why is attention being brought to this? Let it continue to slide under the radar." I'd rather not see Amoeba being turned into a martyr in order to draw attention to copyright law.
Vinyl Vault lights fuse on copyright time bomb—but is it armed? - Boing Boing: "There's a problem here. There's no such provision in copyright law for such an exemption, and Amoeba could find itself in real trouble, no matter its goodwill and above-board behavior. This doesn't mean that current copyright law is reasonable on this score; it is not. Rather, that it's fairly clear that what Amoeba is doing isn't permitted.
"There's no active copyright police trolling for violations: rightsholders would have to discover Amoeba's work and decide to act, whether to claim escrow fees or file suit."
Has anyone actually considered is the attempt to have the "unflattering Images" of Beyonce actually a genuine PR screw up?
Or is it a clever marketing ploy to get the Beyonce brand free Viral publicity?
I looked at the "unflattering" photos and they reminded me of Tina Turner. I love Tina Turner, so having Beyonce move from pop icon to a rock icon like Tina is a good thing in my mind.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But if asking people to remove photos doesn't work, why would "shaming" work?
I learned about the article from a tweet from Michel Bauwens of the P2P Foundation. That's why I like his site so much. When there are criticisms of P2P ideas, he publishes those, too. If you want to change the world, you need to know how your ideas are being perceived and expand the discussions to encompass them.
Re: Re: Re: Re: But if asking people to remove photos doesn't work, why would "shaming" work?
Oh, and I should have tossed this out. Just saw it today. A piece worth reading. He questions the transformative power of the Internet, but that is as it should be. It's good to pull these ideas apart. If they can't stand up to some examination, then they won't survive the inevitable problems.
Why Social Movements Should Ignore Social Media | New Republic: "Now that Internet-centrism is not just a style of thought but also an excuse for a naive and damaging political ideology, the costs of letting its corrosive influence go unnoticed have become too high."
Re: Re: Re: But if asking people to remove photos doesn't work, why would "shaming" work?
What's really exciting and potentially very disruptive is how online collaboration is pointing the way for more discussions of P2P/sharing/commons economies. Traditional ideas of property, ownership, and governance are being re-examined.
In terms of creativity, the idea of who is a creator, who deserves credit for an idea, how we attach that credit up and down the system, and so on are worthy topics and will get discussed more and more as people discover that is art is being copied/shared/modified in many ways by both individuals and corporations.
Both Coulton and Beyonce's publicist are still operating with the idea that they have more control over their images than perhaps they do. Exposure to your fans and to the media means you are more exposed, sometimes in a good way and sometimes in a bad way. It's going to be a whole new ballgame very soon. So much to think about and talk about.
Re: Re: But if asking people to remove photos doesn't work, why would "shaming" work?
1. Involves a small time, self-made artist with a very close connection with his fans... having a situation where a large multi-national company is seen as taking advantage of his beloved creation for their own benefit (whether you believe that or not doesn't matter -- that's the perception).
Coulton contemplated legal action. That's not in the spirit of sharing.
I am concerned about big companies exploiting artists, but if you want to allow everything to freely enter into the public domain, that's going to be one of the issues. Getting your fans to crusade for you when everyone is using everyone else's stuff won't make a lot of sense. It's going to be the norm and bitching that someone "ripped you off" is not going to carry much weight.
That's what I am saying. Once it's all available to everyone, and everyone is sharing and modifying, credit isn't going to be paid to everyone involved. Accept that it's out there and in the cultural commons.
Similarly, if you're a celebrity and the media uses photos that you don't want, tough. In fact, if privacy goes out the window, it may be hard to make a case even if you aren't a celebrity if your photo is used without your permission.
I am VERY concerned about big corporations taking advantage of people, which is why I'm always advocating ways to eliminate the need for the big corporations. I'm as skeptical of big tech as I am big media.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But if asking people to remove photos doesn't work, why would "shaming" work?
In my opinion, the only workable (although not easy) approach is to put the "standards filter" on the edges of the commons, but not on the oommons itself. Social standards are maintained within the group proper, and not exerted beyond that group.
I read your comment earlier today and was pondering it, but didn't really have a response. But I just saw this and maybe it offers a different way of thinking about standards. I don't really like the "us versus them" mentality that many people and discussions fall into. Maybe this is a way to try to counteract that.
Shareable: Six Habits of Highly Empathic People: "The big buzz about empathy stems from a revolutionary shift in the science of how we understand human nature. The old view that we are essentially self-interested creatures is being nudged firmly to one side by evidence that we are also homo empathicus, wired for empathy, social cooperation, and mutual aid."
Re: Re: Re: Re: But if asking people to remove photos doesn't work, why would "shaming" work?
I thought this question was settled over a hundred years ago.
There are not.
Yes, I agree, but sometimes some of the proposed solutions don't seem to take this into account. Since I like the idea of expanding commons, I'm depending on groups of people finding ways to work together. But I am not so naive as to assume that there won't be problems along the way. I think you have to anticipate what may go wrong rather than to sell an overly simplified view of the world.
Re: Re: Re: But if asking people to remove photos doesn't work, why would "shaming" work?
I've seen plenty of cases, especially here on TD, where shaming someone else's actions comes off looking like a cry baby or a jerk.
Yes, I tend to agree, which is why I have come down pretty hard on Coulton. I can understand why people might be upset when they don't get acknowledgment for what they created, but I think that will be the norm moving forward. Stuff will increasingly be shared and it won't always be credited.
And yes, I can understand why a publicist might want to have some photos of Beyonce taken down, but there's a whole industry built around featuring celebrities in photos they don't want made public. It goes with the territory.
What I am saying is that I don't think Coulton was a "good" example and Beyonce's publicist is a "bad" example. I think they are both examples of the same thing: celebrities who want exposure, but on their terms. However, it doesn't always happen that way.
Re: Re: But if asking people to remove photos doesn't work, why would "shaming" work?
Depends on whether the 'offence' was against the person doing the shaming, or are they trying to hide their own actions.
These examples haven't been about anyone trying to hide their own actions. It's been about artists or their representatives hoping influence the media.
I've suggested that public opinion pressuring the media in regard to celebrities and creative content may not work, especially when the public regards this stuff as public domain, whether it is or it isn't.
What I am trying to foster is a discussion about whether there really are universally accepted standards for all of this stuff. I think small communities may develop agreed upon standards within their memberships, but I'm not confident that there are worldwide standards. What is acceptable in an Islamic society, for example, is different than what is usually acceptable in the US. I'm hoping that people understand that community norms are not consistent across all groups, so hoping those standards will settle all problems may be expecting too much.
But if asking people to remove photos doesn't work, why would "shaming" work?
If people like Coulton can mount a crusade among his fans to "shame" Fox for not crediting his song, shouldn't a similar campaign on the part of Beyonce's publicist be able to "shame" a website for using unapproved photos?
I'm curious why one pressure approach is approved of and one pressure approach isn't, yet the goal is similar: getting the media to take an action that the artist wants to happen.
And in both cases, the media didn't respond as the artists wished.
No it doesn't. Every dollar the government spends, every single one, must first taken out of the economy to be spent. Taking this money out of the economy isn't free so in practice it's usually more than a dollar out for every dollar actually spent.
In terms of economic stimulation, whether the government does it or the private sector does it, the money comes from somewhere and gets spent somewhere. The difference with doing it as a government-funded service is that if the goal isn't to make a profit, the services might actually be provided cheaper. Think of it as a co-op or a commons. If it is a publicly-owned operation, it can work. The US Interstate system worked well as a public operation rather than having a system of highways run as privately-owned toll roads.
I could point you to lots of stuff on public versus private ownership in the P2P Foundation.
On the post: Ron Paul, UN Hater, Asks UN To Take RonPaul.com Forcefully From Ron Paul's Biggest Supporters
Re: Re: Re: Re: Libertarianism
That's fine, but libertarian Kinsella views you to be at least "libertarian leaning."
Whatever you want to call it, I like to share a different perspective to get people thinking about alternative economies. The shareable/P2P/commons folks also want to get rid of IP laws, but to accomplish different ends than many libertarians.
On the post: Ron Paul, UN Hater, Asks UN To Take RonPaul.com Forcefully From Ron Paul's Biggest Supporters
Re: Re: Re: Libertarianism
On the post: Ron Paul, UN Hater, Asks UN To Take RonPaul.com Forcefully From Ron Paul's Biggest Supporters
Re: Re: Libertarianism
Where would you put Techdirt politically/economically?
On the post: Ron Paul, UN Hater, Asks UN To Take RonPaul.com Forcefully From Ron Paul's Biggest Supporters
Libertarianism
I'm interested in localization/self-reliance/sustainability, but I find myself more aligned with the left side of that equation rather than the libertarian side. I am wary of are two things with libertarianism: not sufficient attention to global environmental issues and the possibility that the status quo will be preserved (i.e., those who have property and wealth will maintain it and those without it will be stripped of any ways to obtain it).
I have intentionally tried to offer differing perspectives on Techdirt so that people will know that there are alternatives to libertarianism when it comes to copyright and IP issues. If the goal is to get rid of those primarily to reinforce the companies currently in power (e.g, big tech), then I don't think we've fundamentally changed society. We've just facilitated transfer of power from industries like big media, big pharma, and big ag, to big tech.
I just saw this today and it comes with a very cool graphic which might help to visualize what "emerging economies" and how they could differ from libertarian economics.
Emerging economy Wiki
On the post: Amoeba Records Deals With Orphan Works By Pretending It Can Just Digitize & Sell Now, But Pay Later
Re: Re: Re: Confused
I suppose, but I'd rather see people find workaround solutions now rather than spending so much energy arguing for or against changing copyright laws. That will take forever and seems like a poor use of resources. YouTube exists because Google offered rights holders a cut of advertising money. It went ahead and did want it wanted and figured out how to work in a grey area.
Seems like Amoeba is doing the same thing, finding a workaround.
An article saying that they are "pretending" seems to be highlighting them intentionally, perhaps to invite lawsuits against them. Like I said, perhaps someone wants to make them a martyr for a cause. Or stop them from offering to pay rights holders they haven't be able to track down.
On the post: Beyonce Meet Streisand: Publicist Tries To Remove 'Unflattering' Beyonce Photos From The Internet
Re: Re: Re: But if asking people to remove photos doesn't work, why would "shaming" work?
Revenge Porn - Business Insider
On the post: Amoeba Records Deals With Orphan Works By Pretending It Can Just Digitize & Sell Now, But Pay Later
Re: Re: Confused
Like I said, I would like Amoeba continue to quietly do their thing; articles highlighting their "illegal" activity isn't helpful in that regard.
On the post: Amoeba Records Deals With Orphan Works By Pretending It Can Just Digitize & Sell Now, But Pay Later
Re: Confused
I know. I saw the excerpt below and thought, "Why is attention being brought to this? Let it continue to slide under the radar." I'd rather not see Amoeba being turned into a martyr in order to draw attention to copyright law.
Vinyl Vault lights fuse on copyright time bomb—but is it armed? - Boing Boing: "There's a problem here. There's no such provision in copyright law for such an exemption, and Amoeba could find itself in real trouble, no matter its goodwill and above-board behavior. This doesn't mean that current copyright law is reasonable on this score; it is not. Rather, that it's fairly clear that what Amoeba is doing isn't permitted.
"There's no active copyright police trolling for violations: rightsholders would have to discover Amoeba's work and decide to act, whether to claim escrow fees or file suit."
On the post: Beyonce Meet Streisand: Publicist Tries To Remove 'Unflattering' Beyonce Photos From The Internet
Re: Good or Bad PR Move?
Or is it a clever marketing ploy to get the Beyonce brand free Viral publicity?
I looked at the "unflattering" photos and they reminded me of Tina Turner. I love Tina Turner, so having Beyonce move from pop icon to a rock icon like Tina is a good thing in my mind.
On the post: Beyonce Meet Streisand: Publicist Tries To Remove 'Unflattering' Beyonce Photos From The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But if asking people to remove photos doesn't work, why would "shaming" work?
P2P Foundation � Blog Archive � Evgeny Morozov harsh critique of Steven Johnson’s Peer Progressive book
On the post: Beyonce Meet Streisand: Publicist Tries To Remove 'Unflattering' Beyonce Photos From The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: But if asking people to remove photos doesn't work, why would "shaming" work?
Why Social Movements Should Ignore Social Media | New Republic: "Now that Internet-centrism is not just a style of thought but also an excuse for a naive and damaging political ideology, the costs of letting its corrosive influence go unnoticed have become too high."
On the post: Beyonce Meet Streisand: Publicist Tries To Remove 'Unflattering' Beyonce Photos From The Internet
Re: Re: Re: But if asking people to remove photos doesn't work, why would "shaming" work?
In terms of creativity, the idea of who is a creator, who deserves credit for an idea, how we attach that credit up and down the system, and so on are worthy topics and will get discussed more and more as people discover that is art is being copied/shared/modified in many ways by both individuals and corporations.
Both Coulton and Beyonce's publicist are still operating with the idea that they have more control over their images than perhaps they do. Exposure to your fans and to the media means you are more exposed, sometimes in a good way and sometimes in a bad way. It's going to be a whole new ballgame very soon. So much to think about and talk about.
On the post: Beyonce Meet Streisand: Publicist Tries To Remove 'Unflattering' Beyonce Photos From The Internet
Re: Re: But if asking people to remove photos doesn't work, why would "shaming" work?
Coulton contemplated legal action. That's not in the spirit of sharing.
I am concerned about big companies exploiting artists, but if you want to allow everything to freely enter into the public domain, that's going to be one of the issues. Getting your fans to crusade for you when everyone is using everyone else's stuff won't make a lot of sense. It's going to be the norm and bitching that someone "ripped you off" is not going to carry much weight.
That's what I am saying. Once it's all available to everyone, and everyone is sharing and modifying, credit isn't going to be paid to everyone involved. Accept that it's out there and in the cultural commons.
Similarly, if you're a celebrity and the media uses photos that you don't want, tough. In fact, if privacy goes out the window, it may be hard to make a case even if you aren't a celebrity if your photo is used without your permission.
I am VERY concerned about big corporations taking advantage of people, which is why I'm always advocating ways to eliminate the need for the big corporations. I'm as skeptical of big tech as I am big media.
On the post: Beyonce Meet Streisand: Publicist Tries To Remove 'Unflattering' Beyonce Photos From The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But if asking people to remove photos doesn't work, why would "shaming" work?
I read your comment earlier today and was pondering it, but didn't really have a response. But I just saw this and maybe it offers a different way of thinking about standards. I don't really like the "us versus them" mentality that many people and discussions fall into. Maybe this is a way to try to counteract that.
Shareable: Six Habits of Highly Empathic People: "The big buzz about empathy stems from a revolutionary shift in the science of how we understand human nature. The old view that we are essentially self-interested creatures is being nudged firmly to one side by evidence that we are also homo empathicus, wired for empathy, social cooperation, and mutual aid."
On the post: Beyonce Meet Streisand: Publicist Tries To Remove 'Unflattering' Beyonce Photos From The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: But if asking people to remove photos doesn't work, why would "shaming" work?
There are not.
Yes, I agree, but sometimes some of the proposed solutions don't seem to take this into account. Since I like the idea of expanding commons, I'm depending on groups of people finding ways to work together. But I am not so naive as to assume that there won't be problems along the way. I think you have to anticipate what may go wrong rather than to sell an overly simplified view of the world.
On the post: Beyonce Meet Streisand: Publicist Tries To Remove 'Unflattering' Beyonce Photos From The Internet
Re: Re: Re: But if asking people to remove photos doesn't work, why would "shaming" work?
Yes, I tend to agree, which is why I have come down pretty hard on Coulton. I can understand why people might be upset when they don't get acknowledgment for what they created, but I think that will be the norm moving forward. Stuff will increasingly be shared and it won't always be credited.
And yes, I can understand why a publicist might want to have some photos of Beyonce taken down, but there's a whole industry built around featuring celebrities in photos they don't want made public. It goes with the territory.
What I am saying is that I don't think Coulton was a "good" example and Beyonce's publicist is a "bad" example. I think they are both examples of the same thing: celebrities who want exposure, but on their terms. However, it doesn't always happen that way.
On the post: Beyonce Meet Streisand: Publicist Tries To Remove 'Unflattering' Beyonce Photos From The Internet
Re: Re: But if asking people to remove photos doesn't work, why would "shaming" work?
These examples haven't been about anyone trying to hide their own actions. It's been about artists or their representatives hoping influence the media.
I've suggested that public opinion pressuring the media in regard to celebrities and creative content may not work, especially when the public regards this stuff as public domain, whether it is or it isn't.
What I am trying to foster is a discussion about whether there really are universally accepted standards for all of this stuff. I think small communities may develop agreed upon standards within their memberships, but I'm not confident that there are worldwide standards. What is acceptable in an Islamic society, for example, is different than what is usually acceptable in the US. I'm hoping that people understand that community norms are not consistent across all groups, so hoping those standards will settle all problems may be expecting too much.
On the post: Beyonce Meet Streisand: Publicist Tries To Remove 'Unflattering' Beyonce Photos From The Internet
But if asking people to remove photos doesn't work, why would "shaming" work?
I'm curious why one pressure approach is approved of and one pressure approach isn't, yet the goal is similar: getting the media to take an action that the artist wants to happen.
And in both cases, the media didn't respond as the artists wished.
On the post: The Real Story Behind 'Super WiFi' And The Fight Over Spectrum; It's Not What You Read Yesterday
For your reading
But if you want to explore the subject, here is a recent piece.
When Privatization Works, and Why It Doesn’t Always - NYTimes.com
On the post: The Real Story Behind 'Super WiFi' And The Fight Over Spectrum; It's Not What You Read Yesterday
Re: Re: Re:
In terms of economic stimulation, whether the government does it or the private sector does it, the money comes from somewhere and gets spent somewhere. The difference with doing it as a government-funded service is that if the goal isn't to make a profit, the services might actually be provided cheaper. Think of it as a co-op or a commons. If it is a publicly-owned operation, it can work. The US Interstate system worked well as a public operation rather than having a system of highways run as privately-owned toll roads.
I could point you to lots of stuff on public versus private ownership in the P2P Foundation.
Next >>