First let's fix copyright. Then let's fix patents.
Fixing copyright via Congress is likely to be slower/harder than tackling software patents. So if you don't want to address software patents until you have fixed copyright, the whole process will likely to be stalled in Congress for years.
Is there anyone who isn't in favor of software patent reform? (If there are opponents, what are their concerns?)
Seems like this is the issue most likely to get bipartisan support. And, by the same token, if no progress can be made here, I don't think there's much hope for issues where there isn't as much widespread agreement.
It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
Data collection/monitoring/surveillance is everywhere these days. And since much of government data collection is being done by private contractors, I'm not sure you can say where private ends and public begins.
Re: Re: Does this also figure into the discussion?
Does being placed in such a building equate to using the services of prostitutes, or are you delivering shopping and visiting an elderly relative who just happens to live in the building.
Take it up with Eric Schmidt. Google is monitoring you to the best of its ability and what it does with that info may or may not factor in context.
As for the court, this is what I already posted in one of my comments here.
I think there is room for reform, too. But actually having that happen given the way politics works seems unlikely. I anticipate that we're more likely to see the business models and the court decisions adjust before the laws change.
As for research, I am within walking distance of the University of Colorado Boulder and have used the library there extensively (I got my master's degree there and used the library as a student and then after I got my degree).
I've done some heavily researched papers for my blog and did all of my research for those online. What I found was that in some cases people actually photocopied articles from academic journals, uploaded them, and I was able to find them via Google search. Was it legal for those people to do that? No, but I was able to do keyword searches on Google and find everything I needed. It was better than working from traditional databases because those didn't have the extensive keyword searches. It's amazing what you can find online.
I've also been able to read pages out of books using both Google and Amazon. While in the past I had to trek to the library and find the book, now I can do remote searches.
If it still isn't apparent to people, I am not fighting whatever campaigns you are all organizing for copyright reform. I'm just pointing out how little the topic comes up in the daily reading I do about politics and economics. People are concerned about guns, taxes, food and its safety, health care, fossil fuels, wars, community and urban design, and so on. Only in places like Techdirt are people saying that the copyright reform is the answer to many problems.
Copyright DOES comes up in my reading about transforming world economics because there are people pushing to create a knowledge base that is available to everyone for free. But that knowledge base isn't supposed to be there to enrich companies like Google. It's there to advance humanity, not to sell advertising and monitor users.
It's what might be considered a fairly left-wing, anti-capitalistic perspective and I bring it up quite a bit to suggest that IP reform in its various modes can also be done for something other than libertarian goals.
While Techdirt suggests copyright reform is good for business, I know other people who are suggesting it is good as a way ELIMINATE much of business as we know it, with the goal of giving as much control back to individuals, communities, and small groups as possible.
I just saw this today and it might be good for the discussion here.
Gawker publishes N.Y.C. gun-permit holders: “'In any case, it’s clear that many of the Rockland County and Westchester County gun owners who are outraged at having their addresses plastered on the internet have had those addresses plastered on the internet for years without it causing a problem.'
"... Cook’s post represents a welcome dose of skepticism vis-a-vis much-tossed-about claims that the Journal News has suddenly placed many, many people in danger."
I want to see some massive rethinking of economics. So the idea of disrupting Hollywood for the benefit of tech just strikes me as replacing one big industry for another big industry.
Therefore, demonizing Hollywood and supporting tech doesn't persuade me much.
However, if we expand the concept to how to reduce every institution (both public and private) into smaller and smaller operating units so that ownership is either shared or spread out among more people (while at the same time, using the benefits of on and offline networking), that is something I'm interested in looking into. Yes, there are problems with the idea, but places like the P2P Foundation do examine all of those too.
I'm definitely not an Ayn Rand libertarian because I think the emphasis on property rights is being used to protect the property among those who already have it rather than finding ways to bring into the system those who have nothing and don't have the resources to get anything. A true disruptive economic model would shake up a lot of current wealth in the world.
That given the political thinking in DC anything is going to get done any time soon to pass copyright reform. There are other issues that can't get passed, so I am skeptical that this one will sail through Congress.
Because Congress decided NOT to pass certain laws doesn't mean they will therefore pass laws reforming copyright. Congress has shown itself much better at saying NO than actually shaping and passing bills.
If you want to hail as a victory the fact that you've gotten Congress to maintain the status quo, then fine.
Kind of an arbitrary standard isn't it? Just because nobody is rioting about it doesn't mean it's not important.
I read a lot of political and economic news. Copyright comes up primarily in forums focusing on maintaining it or eliminating it.
It virtually never comes up in other political or economic forums other than those on like the P2P Foundation which is trying to remake the entire world economy. And I am very interested in all of that (e.g., expanding commons, sharing, sustainability). One reason I keep point people here to that website is because I think the modification/elimination of IP, as done as part of a larger picture, CAN be revolutionary. But I don't want to see it merely as a way to strengthen big tech companies like Google.
Copyright, and patents, can adversely affect people putting food on the table by denying them the knowledge or the ability to make use of knowledge, that is required to improve their growing of food, or treatment of disease.
I think info people need in order to put food on the table is available to them in some form. I do a lot of research online and I can find more info now than I could in the pre-Internet days when I only had access to what was available in libraries. I have yet to run into any situation where I couldn't get what I needed because it was copyrighted.
Now patents are another matter. There may be some products not available to people because of patents.
But overall, I'm totally fine with making everything available to everyone in the world. As I have said many times, I go to this site all the time for ideas about how to share everything with everyone when possible: P2P Foundation
Copyright laws are simply not required to put food on peoples' tables. Firstly, there are countless examples out there today of people making good money from their content without relying on the protection of copyright laws, and secondly, the music and movie industries are doing better and better despite widespread copyright infringement.
But that is PRECISELY my point. The world is functioning right now. Copyright isn't a revolutionary issue because it isn't getting in the way of people. People are already working around it.
It will get reformed or done away with eventually anyway. It just isn't going to happen from Congress any time soon.
Not every one can afford a college or higher education, or even the price of books required to learn about a subject. Starving people of knowledge is a an easy way of preventing them developing skills and a love of a science or technology.
Oh, I think we should find a way to educate everyone in the world for free. Copyright certainly plays a role in that, but it is just part of a bigger issue. And once we educate everyone, we need jobs for them all.
Let's give everyone in the world the resources they need to succeed.
CES 2013: The Sensors Will Be Watching You: "... the devices that fill our living rooms, cars and backpacks are rapidly incorporating multiple sensors that can track and record our every move, according to Shawn Dubravac, chief economist at the Consumer Electronics Association, which puts on the annual Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, which officially begins tomorrow."
The companies pushing for favorable copyright laws are doing so in every major market, even China, and the money and kickbacks they make from these bad laws are being used to bankroll more bad laws. You could argue that their ROI on these laws will eventually evaporate, but considering how they specifically target avenues for marketing and publishing creative works that compete with their gatekeeper business model, I don't see their profits drying up anytime soon.
What I see happening already is that as the tech companies amass more money, they start influencing politicians to their own benefit. Then the old companies are gone, but we have a new set of big powerful companies getting the world to go in their favor.
What I want to see is a time when no company/industry can amass enough money to influence anyone. While big tech may have aspired to that once, I think now they look a lot like big companies/industries of the past. Once any company/industry amasses enough power/influence, I think it works hard to maintain the world that benefits it the most.
Not taxes, not corruption, not medical care or any of the issues that either party tried to push as important part of their platforms during the elections. The one thing that people actually did show that they really cared about was copyright!
What laws were passed? I know some potential laws were stopped. We know Congress is good at NOT passing laws. Basically people okayed the status quo. They didn't roll back anything, did they?
But, on the other hand, I am all for a total global remodeling of wealth/power, so I say let's disrupt the entire system, including the big tech companies. Let's push the envelope so there is no reason for us to have any company as big as Apple, Google, Facebook, etc. Small is beautiful, as they say.
I often mention this website as a good place to go for ideas.
I think the jist of what he's saying is 'infringers gonna infringe'. Which is a point that gets raised here pretty often. If the law is out of parity with what the populace views as just, then many will act in a way that they view as just.
I accept this as the current reality. That's why I think fighting it is a waste of resources. It is happening, so you've got to deal with it.
But, on the other hand, I think riling people up about fighting copyright also seems to be a waste of resources. I think the problem will take care of itself before it gets settled as a law. Sooner or later the big copyright holders or their organizations will disappear.
I think Google's approach to YouTube (making it attractive for rights holders to allow copyright content to be used) is more pragmatic than hoping the laws change soon.
On the post: Senator Wyden Lays Out Broad Internet Freedom Agenda, Warns Against 'Maximalist' Agenda That Harms Innovation
Re: Re: One step at a time
Fixing copyright via Congress is likely to be slower/harder than tackling software patents. So if you don't want to address software patents until you have fixed copyright, the whole process will likely to be stalled in Congress for years.
On the post: Senator Wyden Lays Out Broad Internet Freedom Agenda, Warns Against 'Maximalist' Agenda That Harms Innovation
Re: One step at a time
Seems like this is the issue most likely to get bipartisan support. And, by the same token, if no progress can be made here, I don't think there's much hope for issues where there isn't as much widespread agreement.
It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
On the post: Yes, You've Got Something To Hide
It's built into the system now
CES: Technology Moves Off the Screen, Into Your Stuff
On the post: Yes, You've Got Something To Hide
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would say that any company (Google included) that pours a lot of money into lobbying IS the government these days.
On the post: Yes, You've Got Something To Hide
Re: Re: Does this also figure into the discussion?
Take it up with Eric Schmidt. Google is monitoring you to the best of its ability and what it does with that info may or may not factor in context.
On the post: Yes, You've Got Something To Hide
Does this also figure into the discussion?
“'If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.'”
On the post: Techdirt Interview With Derek Khanna, Author Of The RSC 'Fix Copyright' Policy Briefing
Re: Suzanne Lainson-- Replies to Various Issues.
I think there is room for reform, too. But actually having that happen given the way politics works seems unlikely. I anticipate that we're more likely to see the business models and the court decisions adjust before the laws change.
As for research, I am within walking distance of the University of Colorado Boulder and have used the library there extensively (I got my master's degree there and used the library as a student and then after I got my degree).
I've done some heavily researched papers for my blog and did all of my research for those online. What I found was that in some cases people actually photocopied articles from academic journals, uploaded them, and I was able to find them via Google search. Was it legal for those people to do that? No, but I was able to do keyword searches on Google and find everything I needed. It was better than working from traditional databases because those didn't have the extensive keyword searches. It's amazing what you can find online.
I've also been able to read pages out of books using both Google and Amazon. While in the past I had to trek to the library and find the book, now I can do remote searches.
If it still isn't apparent to people, I am not fighting whatever campaigns you are all organizing for copyright reform. I'm just pointing out how little the topic comes up in the daily reading I do about politics and economics. People are concerned about guns, taxes, food and its safety, health care, fossil fuels, wars, community and urban design, and so on. Only in places like Techdirt are people saying that the copyright reform is the answer to many problems.
Copyright DOES comes up in my reading about transforming world economics because there are people pushing to create a knowledge base that is available to everyone for free. But that knowledge base isn't supposed to be there to enrich companies like Google. It's there to advance humanity, not to sell advertising and monitor users.
It's what might be considered a fairly left-wing, anti-capitalistic perspective and I bring it up quite a bit to suggest that IP reform in its various modes can also be done for something other than libertarian goals.
While Techdirt suggests copyright reform is good for business, I know other people who are suggesting it is good as a way ELIMINATE much of business as we know it, with the goal of giving as much control back to individuals, communities, and small groups as possible.
I just saw this today and it might be good for the discussion here.
P2P Democratisation of the State vs. anarcho-capitalist libertarianism
On the post: Blowback From Publication Of Gun Owner Data Continues -- Threats, Lawsuits And Rejected FOIA Requests
This info has already been online for awhile now
"... Cook’s post represents a welcome dose of skepticism vis-a-vis much-tossed-about claims that the Journal News has suddenly placed many, many people in danger."
On the post: Techdirt Interview With Derek Khanna, Author Of The RSC 'Fix Copyright' Policy Briefing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Therefore, demonizing Hollywood and supporting tech doesn't persuade me much.
However, if we expand the concept to how to reduce every institution (both public and private) into smaller and smaller operating units so that ownership is either shared or spread out among more people (while at the same time, using the benefits of on and offline networking), that is something I'm interested in looking into. Yes, there are problems with the idea, but places like the P2P Foundation do examine all of those too.
I'm definitely not an Ayn Rand libertarian because I think the emphasis on property rights is being used to protect the property among those who already have it rather than finding ways to bring into the system those who have nothing and don't have the resources to get anything. A true disruptive economic model would shake up a lot of current wealth in the world.
On the post: Techdirt Interview With Derek Khanna, Author Of The RSC 'Fix Copyright' Policy Briefing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That given the political thinking in DC anything is going to get done any time soon to pass copyright reform. There are other issues that can't get passed, so I am skeptical that this one will sail through Congress.
Because Congress decided NOT to pass certain laws doesn't mean they will therefore pass laws reforming copyright. Congress has shown itself much better at saying NO than actually shaping and passing bills.
If you want to hail as a victory the fact that you've gotten Congress to maintain the status quo, then fine.
On the post: Techdirt Interview With Derek Khanna, Author Of The RSC 'Fix Copyright' Policy Briefing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I read a lot of political and economic news. Copyright comes up primarily in forums focusing on maintaining it or eliminating it.
It virtually never comes up in other political or economic forums other than those on like the P2P Foundation which is trying to remake the entire world economy. And I am very interested in all of that (e.g., expanding commons, sharing, sustainability). One reason I keep point people here to that website is because I think the modification/elimination of IP, as done as part of a larger picture, CAN be revolutionary. But I don't want to see it merely as a way to strengthen big tech companies like Google.
On the post: Techdirt Interview With Derek Khanna, Author Of The RSC 'Fix Copyright' Policy Briefing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think info people need in order to put food on the table is available to them in some form. I do a lot of research online and I can find more info now than I could in the pre-Internet days when I only had access to what was available in libraries. I have yet to run into any situation where I couldn't get what I needed because it was copyrighted.
Now patents are another matter. There may be some products not available to people because of patents.
But overall, I'm totally fine with making everything available to everyone in the world. As I have said many times, I go to this site all the time for ideas about how to share everything with everyone when possible: P2P Foundation
On the post: Techdirt Interview With Derek Khanna, Author Of The RSC 'Fix Copyright' Policy Briefing
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But that is PRECISELY my point. The world is functioning right now. Copyright isn't a revolutionary issue because it isn't getting in the way of people. People are already working around it.
It will get reformed or done away with eventually anyway. It just isn't going to happen from Congress any time soon.
On the post: Techdirt Interview With Derek Khanna, Author Of The RSC 'Fix Copyright' Policy Briefing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, I think we should find a way to educate everyone in the world for free. Copyright certainly plays a role in that, but it is just part of a bigger issue. And once we educate everyone, we need jobs for them all.
Let's give everyone in the world the resources they need to succeed.
On the post: Techdirt Interview With Derek Khanna, Author Of The RSC 'Fix Copyright' Policy Briefing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright matters to those who make their money from copyrighted items; others not so much.
No, not every business does. And it's good when companies don't solely depend on ad money to keep them afloat. I think the ad model has limitations.
On the post: Blowback From Publication Of Gun Owner Data Continues -- Threats, Lawsuits And Rejected FOIA Requests
Re: Re: The more I think about it
On the post: Techdirt Interview With Derek Khanna, Author Of The RSC 'Fix Copyright' Policy Briefing
Re: Re: Re: Re: [B&W copyright arguement]
What I see happening already is that as the tech companies amass more money, they start influencing politicians to their own benefit. Then the old companies are gone, but we have a new set of big powerful companies getting the world to go in their favor.
What I want to see is a time when no company/industry can amass enough money to influence anyone. While big tech may have aspired to that once, I think now they look a lot like big companies/industries of the past. Once any company/industry amasses enough power/influence, I think it works hard to maintain the world that benefits it the most.
On the post: Techdirt Interview With Derek Khanna, Author Of The RSC 'Fix Copyright' Policy Briefing
Re: Re: Re:
What laws were passed? I know some potential laws were stopped. We know Congress is good at NOT passing laws. Basically people okayed the status quo. They didn't roll back anything, did they?
On the post: Techdirt Interview With Derek Khanna, Author Of The RSC 'Fix Copyright' Policy Briefing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copyright is holding it back.
I haven't seen evidence of that.
But, on the other hand, I am all for a total global remodeling of wealth/power, so I say let's disrupt the entire system, including the big tech companies. Let's push the envelope so there is no reason for us to have any company as big as Apple, Google, Facebook, etc. Small is beautiful, as they say.
I often mention this website as a good place to go for ideas.
P2P Foundation
On the post: Techdirt Interview With Derek Khanna, Author Of The RSC 'Fix Copyright' Policy Briefing
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I accept this as the current reality. That's why I think fighting it is a waste of resources. It is happening, so you've got to deal with it.
But, on the other hand, I think riling people up about fighting copyright also seems to be a waste of resources. I think the problem will take care of itself before it gets settled as a law. Sooner or later the big copyright holders or their organizations will disappear.
I think Google's approach to YouTube (making it attractive for rights holders to allow copyright content to be used) is more pragmatic than hoping the laws change soon.
Next >>