Seems to me that there are two separate (although probably related) issues here:
1. A somewhat philosophical question about who should pay for content and who should be paid. You write a lot about the economics associated with infinite resources, etc, and to the extent that I understand it, I agree with you. Give away the infinite stuff, charge for the scarce stuff. And while there are lots of good examples out there of that working (and I am even trying to apply it in my own business), it doesn't seem to be an approach which has gripped the public's attention. The average "man on the street" would still be of the view that artists should "get paid for what they create", and that the music (or whatever) is the thing which is being paid for.
2. A logistical question about how do people pay for content and how do the payees get paid (whoever they might be). Perhaps it is naive to think that all the stakeholders could agree on a single payment collection and distribution mechanism, but assuming they did all agree, I don't see why it has to be inefficient or bureaucratic.
The big reason I like the idea - as a consumer - is that it's a single (monthly) transaction, one-stop-shop solution. It applies to any content, regardless of format; it doesn't place any restrictions on sharing or copying or redistribution. And as a consumer who genuinely wants to see creators get paid for their creations, I feel "good" about it. It also helps those artists who are great at creating (eg: a brilliant songwriter who can't sing or gets stage fright), but shit-house at everything else - marketing, performing, business management, etc.
Years ago I read an article in The Register which presented one possible approach to dealing with downloading/file sharing/copyright, and making sure that rights holders/artists got paid. It was based on the work of Professor Terry Fisher who is the Hale and Dorr Professor of Intellectual Property Law at Harvard Law School. The article can be found here.
At the core of the article, and Professor Fisher's work, is an alternative method of paying for content:
"But what if it fell entirely on broadband users? Some might find the figure surprising: excluding all of the other penny taxes we've just mentioned, the cost will be $6 per broadband user per month. Um, is that all? Well, actually, yes it is."
The article is nearly 7 years old now, so maybe it is not even relevant any more, although IMHO it is still very relevant. I am no expert in law or economics (which basically means I don't know if Professor Fisher's ideas would even work), but I can confidently say this: If for $6 a month, on top of my current broadband fee ($69 a month, ADSL2+, 200GB quota), I was able to download/share any content I wanted (without limits) - be it music, tv shows, movies, pictures, etc - I would leap that the chance.
I gave my son a bit extra - 12 weeks. When he was 12 months old I explained to him in very clear terms that he had precisely 12 weeks to learn how to walk. I further explained that he was only going to get one shot at this so he better be prepared to put in some hard yards.
Regrettably, he didn't make it. Very disappointing. Now he is 5 and he is permanently grounded - we have him strapped to a little chair. Every now and then we have a little parade in front of him just to remind him of what he *could* have been doing if he had applied himself a bit harder. When he gets older, I might get him a wheel chair.
One thing I remember from the period shortly after 9/11 is that anyone who questioned what the Bush administration did or said was branded unpatriotic, which seemed to become some kind of euphemism for "terrorist sympathiser". "It's like déjà vu all over again".
"Note the implicit assumption: that being scanned or groped somehow makes the planes safer. The problem here is that no one has presented any evidence to back this up. Instead, TSA head John Pistole says "trust us." Yet, when people ask for evidence, they're told it's a state secret."
I know very little about airport security, but I dare say that the Israelis know a lot - more than most. And when the former head of security at Ben Gurion Airport (Rafi Ron) suggests that scanners and pat downs are not very effective, perhaps someone should listen.
A few years ago a comedy team here in Australia did an excellent job of poking a massive hole in the security measures for the APEC conference (which was being attended by George W. Bush). It seems to me that one way to destroy the TSA's credibility (or at least call it into question), is to stage a very public demonstration of how ineffective these types of screening procedures are. I imagine one could get in a lot of trouble, but it would sure make Mr Pistole's statement of "trust us" ring a little hollow.
The driver/operator of the Google street view car was given a good supply of towels by the Google HR dept. While towels are most useful for interstellar travel, they also come in handy for time travel. So the safety of the Google guy was "mostly" guaranteed. JFK - not so much.
I have a source on the "inside" who has it on very good authority that Google has a time machine which they used to travel back to November 22, 1963. They had one of their street view cars driving around Dealey Plaza, and they have got absolute proof that JFK was assassinated by Elmo.
There you go folks - you heard it here first.
Incidentally, I hereby trademark, copyright and patent the above information. If you want to repeat it, please send me a cheque for $250.
It seems to me that there is a serious problem with the way that transport security is being handled. I don't quite understand why the TSA places so much emphasis on airport security when there are so many other (better) options for a terrorist to target. How many people on the average domestic flight? 150? 200? How many people on an average commuter train at say 7:30 AM? 2000?
If I was a terrorist (and I'm not), and I wanted to cause as much carnage as possible, I would probably opt for a crowded passenger train in a tunnel (anyone remember London a couple of years ago?). In my experience (and I've travelled on trains in lots of big cities around the world), the security associated with boarding a train (especially a regular commuter train at peak hour in a big city) is negligible. Why ignore trains, which carry a lot more people than planes? I understand that there is a certain amount of fear and symbolism associated with plane hijackings - confined space, 30,000 feet in the air with nowhere to go, memorable images of gun wielding terrorists telling everyone to remain seated, etc, etc. And of course, we can't forget 9/11. But in a post-9/11 world, if your goal is maximum carnage and not a Hollywood action movie, wouldn't you target something with little to no security? It just seems weird.
Can you imagine if they tried to implement pat-downs for all passengers at Grand Central Station before they got on a train? It would be pandemonium. And yet, no-one even thinks twice if someone gets on a train with a backpack. Or even a suit case. Heck - I've done it heaps of times. There are no baggage checks, no scanners, no-one checking ID, nothing. But to get on a plane, you have to jump through all these hoops and be subjected to all kinds of inconvenience (and now humiliation). It seems that the effort being invested in airport security is completely disproportionate to the risk, when compared to the complete lack of effort being invested in securing other forms of transport.
Sir Thomas More: And go he should, if he were the Devil himself, until he broke the law!
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's, and if you cut them down -- and you're just the man to do it -- do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
Re: HTML is not "the web".. Do you KNOW anything ??? !!!!!!
Jeeezus! I don't know what to think about your comments. I can't figure out if you're just taking the piss, or if you're "genuinely" upset about something, or if you're just a 6-year-old with really poor grammar. But I do know this - your comments are funny! It's like you whinge in a stream of consciousness kind of way...
"Mike, you just have no idea, but then there was this cat, and then the other day I saw this car accident and all I could think of was that Mike claims that Einstein invented the Interweb, but of course everyone knows Newton discovered pizza, hmmm, I'm hungry. Hungry for justice! Cos Mike, we all know you eat kittens, and by crikey someone has to take a stand or ... hang on ... where was I? Oh yeah, Mike, you suck".
First of all, take a chill pill. And second, "the darryl doth protest too much, methinks." I realise I am misquoting the Bard, but your objections/comments have a distinctly contrived air about them. I can't help thinking you enjoy the attention you receive from other commenters as a result of your obviously inflammatory comments.
You don't by any chance live under a bridge and harass passing billy goats?
Why should the USPTO care whether it can patent genes or not? Doesn't that suggest they have a vested interest in patenting genes? I would have thought that they would be impartial on a question like this, and that they "simply" implement the rules/guidelines/regulations as legislated by the government of the day (or as mandated by the courts).
Presumably they charge a (hefty?) fee when someone lodges an application for a patent, and perhaps they will lose out on revenue if no-one bothers to apply for gene patents. But are they a profit centre or a public service?
Hell yeah! My slaves are awesome - they mow the lawn, clean the pool, wipe my bum. Best invention ever - couldn't live without them. Are you saying you don't have any slaves?
Re: Re: Re: Hi Mike guard dog.. I dont have to make anything up, Mike does that for me.
Actually, wanker is Australian for idiot. I should know - I've been training for years.
Darryl, on the other hand, is a name specially reserved for knob jockeys who don't know shit from clay. Parents have to apply when their child is born to use the name Darryl and they receive special training on how to pronounce it with an annoying nasal twang (hold your nose and say "Darryl", but pronounce it sort of like "dare-il").
On the post: Dutch Court Says That Copyright Owners Are Better Off When People Are Downloading From Unauthorized Sources
Re: Re: Why can't this idea work?
1. A somewhat philosophical question about who should pay for content and who should be paid. You write a lot about the economics associated with infinite resources, etc, and to the extent that I understand it, I agree with you. Give away the infinite stuff, charge for the scarce stuff. And while there are lots of good examples out there of that working (and I am even trying to apply it in my own business), it doesn't seem to be an approach which has gripped the public's attention. The average "man on the street" would still be of the view that artists should "get paid for what they create", and that the music (or whatever) is the thing which is being paid for.
2. A logistical question about how do people pay for content and how do the payees get paid (whoever they might be). Perhaps it is naive to think that all the stakeholders could agree on a single payment collection and distribution mechanism, but assuming they did all agree, I don't see why it has to be inefficient or bureaucratic.
The big reason I like the idea - as a consumer - is that it's a single (monthly) transaction, one-stop-shop solution. It applies to any content, regardless of format; it doesn't place any restrictions on sharing or copying or redistribution. And as a consumer who genuinely wants to see creators get paid for their creations, I feel "good" about it. It also helps those artists who are great at creating (eg: a brilliant songwriter who can't sing or gets stage fright), but shit-house at everything else - marketing, performing, business management, etc.
On the post: While TSA Looks At You Naked, Child Finds Loaded Gun Magazine Left On Southwest Plane
Re: Failure of Terry Wrist and Al Kyder
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdnAaQ0n5-8
On the post: Dutch Court Says That Copyright Owners Are Better Off When People Are Downloading From Unauthorized Sources
Why can't this idea work?
At the core of the article, and Professor Fisher's work, is an alternative method of paying for content:
"But what if it fell entirely on broadband users? Some might find the figure surprising: excluding all of the other penny taxes we've just mentioned, the cost will be $6 per broadband user per month. Um, is that all? Well, actually, yes it is."
The article is nearly 7 years old now, so maybe it is not even relevant any more, although IMHO it is still very relevant. I am no expert in law or economics (which basically means I don't know if Professor Fisher's ideas would even work), but I can confidently say this: If for $6 a month, on top of my current broadband fee ($69 a month, ADSL2+, 200GB quota), I was able to download/share any content I wanted (without limits) - be it music, tv shows, movies, pictures, etc - I would leap that the chance.
On the post: What If We Gave Toddlers An 'F' In Walking?
Regrettably, he didn't make it. Very disappointing. Now he is 5 and he is permanently grounded - we have him strapped to a little chair. Every now and then we have a little parade in front of him just to remind him of what he *could* have been doing if he had applied himself a bit harder. When he gets older, I might get him a wheel chair.
Sheesh! The kids now-a-days.
On the post: Newspapers Say: Shut Up And Get Scanned And Groped
What if...
"Note the implicit assumption: that being scanned or groped somehow makes the planes safer. The problem here is that no one has presented any evidence to back this up. Instead, TSA head John Pistole says "trust us." Yet, when people ask for evidence, they're told it's a state secret."
I know very little about airport security, but I dare say that the Israelis know a lot - more than most. And when the former head of security at Ben Gurion Airport (Rafi Ron) suggests that scanners and pat downs are not very effective, perhaps someone should listen.
A few years ago a comedy team here in Australia did an excellent job of poking a massive hole in the security measures for the APEC conference (which was being attended by George W. Bush). It seems to me that one way to destroy the TSA's credibility (or at least call it into question), is to stage a very public demonstration of how ineffective these types of screening procedures are. I imagine one could get in a lot of trouble, but it would sure make Mr Pistole's statement of "trust us" ring a little hollow.
On the post: Paul Chambers Planning To Blow His Twitter Joke Trial Sky High...
Re: Where is the joke Mike ??
On the post: TSA Does Full Grope Search On Screaming Three Year Old [Update]
Re: Re: Just say no!
On the post: Police Credit Google Street View For Helping Catch Drug Ring
Re: Re: It gets better..
On the post: Police Credit Google Street View For Helping Catch Drug Ring
It gets better..
There you go folks - you heard it here first.
Incidentally, I hereby trademark, copyright and patent the above information. If you want to repeat it, please send me a cheque for $250.
On the post: TSA Does Full Grope Search On Screaming Three Year Old [Update]
Perhaps I just don't get it, but...
If I was a terrorist (and I'm not), and I wanted to cause as much carnage as possible, I would probably opt for a crowded passenger train in a tunnel (anyone remember London a couple of years ago?). In my experience (and I've travelled on trains in lots of big cities around the world), the security associated with boarding a train (especially a regular commuter train at peak hour in a big city) is negligible. Why ignore trains, which carry a lot more people than planes? I understand that there is a certain amount of fear and symbolism associated with plane hijackings - confined space, 30,000 feet in the air with nowhere to go, memorable images of gun wielding terrorists telling everyone to remain seated, etc, etc. And of course, we can't forget 9/11. But in a post-9/11 world, if your goal is maximum carnage and not a Hollywood action movie, wouldn't you target something with little to no security? It just seems weird.
Can you imagine if they tried to implement pat-downs for all passengers at Grand Central Station before they got on a train? It would be pandemonium. And yet, no-one even thinks twice if someone gets on a train with a backpack. Or even a suit case. Heck - I've done it heaps of times. There are no baggage checks, no scanners, no-one checking ID, nothing. But to get on a plane, you have to jump through all these hoops and be subjected to all kinds of inconvenience (and now humiliation). It seems that the effort being invested in airport security is completely disproportionate to the risk, when compared to the complete lack of effort being invested in securing other forms of transport.
On the post: Australia Says No Warrants Necessary If Law Enforcement Thinks You're A Terrorist
It's a slippery slope...
Sir Thomas More: And go he should, if he were the Devil himself, until he broke the law!
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's, and if you cut them down -- and you're just the man to do it -- do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
On the post: 20 Years Ago Today: The Web Was Proposed
Re: HTML is not "the web".. Do you KNOW anything ??? !!!!!!
"Mike, you just have no idea, but then there was this cat, and then the other day I saw this car accident and all I could think of was that Mike claims that Einstein invented the Interweb, but of course everyone knows Newton discovered pizza, hmmm, I'm hungry. Hungry for justice! Cos Mike, we all know you eat kittens, and by crikey someone has to take a stand or ... hang on ... where was I? Oh yeah, Mike, you suck".
On the post: UK High Court Announces Judicial Review Of The Digital Economy Act
Re: Nothing to see here !!! move along !
First of all, take a chill pill. And second, "the darryl doth protest too much, methinks." I realise I am misquoting the Bard, but your objections/comments have a distinctly contrived air about them. I can't help thinking you enjoy the attention you receive from other commenters as a result of your obviously inflammatory comments.
You don't by any chance live under a bridge and harass passing billy goats?
On the post: Sorry, Net Neutrality Simply Was Not An Important Issue In This Year's Election
Re: Re: long history of making absolutely ridiculous claims--- who does ?? You Mike :)
Soooo not true. We've given the world Crocodile Dundee, Hugh Jackman, Vegemite, the dual flush toilet, and budgie smugglers (look it up).
Besides, "What Have the Americans Ever Done For Us?"
On the post: USPTO Not At All Happy About Justice Department Saying Genes Shouldn't Be Patentable
Maybe I don't get it
Presumably they charge a (hefty?) fee when someone lodges an application for a patent, and perhaps they will lose out on revenue if no-one bothers to apply for gene patents. But are they a profit centre or a public service?
On the post: FTC Concludes Investigation Into Google's Street View Data Collection Without Penalties
Re: Re: So much in favor of Google
On the post: Myriad Appeals, Says Gene Patents Should Be Allowed
Re: Absolutely It Should Be Patentable
On the post: Not Very Biblical: Investor Sues Bible.com For Not Being Profitable Enough
Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
On the post: Visiting Australia? Make Sure You Tell The Customs Officials About The Porn On Your Hard Drive
Re: Re: Re: Hi Mike guard dog.. I dont have to make anything up, Mike does that for me.
Darryl, on the other hand, is a name specially reserved for knob jockeys who don't know shit from clay. Parents have to apply when their child is born to use the name Darryl and they receive special training on how to pronounce it with an annoying nasal twang (hold your nose and say "Darryl", but pronounce it sort of like "dare-il").
On the post: Broadway Actor Sues To Find Out Anonymous Tweeter Who Says He Has Crabs
Re: Re: Re: Curious...
Next >>