No, the bootstrapping is taking an opinion piece, and then link to it as if it is face. It was a post about the "concept of a copyright bubble", but rather stated as a fact "the copyright bubble".
The original post on techdirt is an opinion of an opinion piece from another writer, not fact. The link in this post makes it appear that a copyright bubble is a fact, not just a concept from a writer.
Are you under the impression that generations growing up with the internet do have a great respect for intellectual property?
Actually, something I noticed recently is that when people really like something or think something is great, they will purposely go out and pay for it, even if they could download it for free. I think they still respect the creators and understand the ideas, but they have been brought up in a mob mentality that makes copyright an optional concept. It is something that they will grow out of when they start actually producing their own stuff and realize that they can't follow their dreams if they can't make a living at it.
The first increases activity in an area due to the promise of monopoly rents and monopoly profits. The latter decreases activity in an area due to the limitations created by a monopoly, and the power for such monopolies to prevent competition and continued innovation.
You got the first part right, but you sort of fail on the second part. You pretty much hit this mental road block every time you talk about patents.
One of the things patents do is expose a new idea to the market place. Even in software, there is often more than one way to get to a desired destination, and plenty of different models and concepts that can come as a result of that patent being out there. I consider it the "better mousetrap" theory, which explains why there are thousands of mouse trap patents, and not a single mouse trap patent with everyone else blocked out of a market.
True innovation often happens when companies look for different ways to accomplish the same end goal (and more). This is why, example, we have hybrid cars with wheel motors, parallel drive motors, inline electric motors, motors integrated into the transmission, etc. Even if an entire hybrid design was patent, there are still many other ways to accomplish the job, and some of those methods are more effecient or package things better.
In software, you can accomplish things in many different ways. The existance of Facebook and it's single status line didn't stop Tweeter people from coming up with their single status line messaging system.
In the end, there is that third force: publishing a patent (and more so if it is put into service) may encourage others to want a piece of that market, and they then have to actually innovate to come up with a different (and usually improved) way to accomplish this same thing. Patents do not create black boxes that people are not allowed to examine. They create real world products that other strive to beat.
As some inventors have noted, the lack of a patent system would likely lead to companies and individuals hiding developments until they have a product going to market. As that often takes many years past the date of patent, society as a whole would be kept from knowing that an advance had occurred, because the inventor is too scared that someone else will take their work and profit from it.
So claiming there are only 2 potential outcomes from a patent is just not right.
Mike, it isn't a false statement. By it's very nature, a "limited run" of something that could be widely reproduced is an artificial scarcity. It isn't scarce because you couldn't make more, it isn't scarce because you used up all the cotton in the world, it's because you arbitrarily said "only 200 will be made". That is the very essence of an artificial construct.
There is nothing that stops someone else from producing and endless number of copies of that t-shirt, using the same shirts and the same design, in a manner that would make it impossible to know the real ones from the copies. There is nothing that stops the company printing the t-shirts to just keep printing them, giving you only the 200 to sell, but actually flooding the market behind you with tens of thousands more.
The limited edition of t-shirts is artificial. There is no shortage of t-shirts, there is no shortage of printer ink, and the silk screen machines are all still working. The limit is only created by your desire to make something more or less scarce.
I didn't debate the idea of digital music being "infinite", rather than many of the things that you point out as scarce are that way only by artificial construct, not by any true scarcity.
Techdirt.com is an artificial construct, internet domain names exist only in the digital plain. Yet, they are as real a construct as a street address or a PO box.
The confusion is thinking that copyright is about the physical, which it is not. It's about the underlying content.
Heck, think about it this way: How does Mike's story start?
Marcus Carab points us to a rather horrifying story about a family suing a funeral home after the funeral home put their grandmother's brain in a bag of personal effects and sent it to them.
The original story?
Members of a New Mexico family are suing an Española funeral home after they found their grandmother's brain in the bag of personal effects given to them after her death.
Do you see the difference? Mike is writing his own summary of what a story says, the second one would just be a copy of how the story starts. One required actual effort, the second one required the ability to do a copy / paste.
Actually, sending it to a collection agency isn't fraud.
If you receive a notice saying "you owe us $500", you have two courses of action: Ignore it, or send back a "I don't owe you a thing". If you fail to act, the bill can be given to collection without needing a lawsuit. Heck, companies do it all the time.
The people sending out the notices must feel they have enough proof to support their invoices, or have enough backing information to support their claims.
I have to say that I don't think we are getting the whole story here.
It seems much wiser to focus on the markets that actually have much more potential than the one that tries to just recreate the old world by applying artificial scarcities.
There are very few true scarcities in the music world. Certainly not t-shirts or the like, those are artificially scarce because you only create a certain number, yet they can easily be duplicated and made for much less than your scarce price, example.
Concert tickets are rare in theory, but only if the artist is playing the biggest venue possible, otherwise the scarcity is artificial (picking too small of a venue to artificially create a shortage). Heck, during the summer or warm season, the artist could perform outdoors, with the potential of an unlimited or infinite number of tickets.
In the end, pretty much all scarcities are created by choice and not by actually being scarce. Limited editions are limited by choice, not by any great cosmic restriction.
So perhaps Mike you would prefer to chance the idea of pushing those scarcities, as most of them are artificially scarce as well?
No, what I am saying is that Google's business model is to "get in the middle" of a whole bunch of stuff. Actually paying for content is pretty much not the way they do business.
Google wants to "help" you find the news, and expose you to as many of their ads as they can without making you hate them on the way. If they don't serve ads, they will still offer you up links that will get your somewhere in their system that will.
Google does well of of providing easier access to other people's content. It's their business model in a nutshell. It's the reason why YouTube fits them so well.
On the post: Fair Use And Films: Does Running Everything By The Lawyers Really Improve Your Film?
Re: Re:
The original post on techdirt is an opinion of an opinion piece from another writer, not fact. The link in this post makes it appear that a copyright bubble is a fact, not just a concept from a writer.
Are you under the impression that generations growing up with the internet do have a great respect for intellectual property?
Actually, something I noticed recently is that when people really like something or think something is great, they will purposely go out and pay for it, even if they could download it for free. I think they still respect the creators and understand the ideas, but they have been brought up in a mob mentality that makes copyright an optional concept. It is something that they will grow out of when they start actually producing their own stuff and realize that they can't follow their dreams if they can't make a living at it.
On the post: Reading Between The Still Secret Lines Of The ACTA Negotiations
You let opinion and fear mongering scare you, which is never a good thing to do.
On the post: Fair Use And Films: Does Running Everything By The Lawyers Really Improve Your Film?
Can you say "bootstrapping"? I knew you could.
On the post: IP Lawyer: If You Are Against Software Patents, You Are Against Innovation
Re: Cue TAM rant in
On the post: AP Summarizes Other Journalists' Article; Isn't That What The AP Says Violates The Law?
Re: Re: Re:
Mike's presentation creates signal.
Just quoting the story creates noise.
The signal to noise ratio on information is key.
On the post: IP Lawyer: If You Are Against Software Patents, You Are Against Innovation
You got the first part right, but you sort of fail on the second part. You pretty much hit this mental road block every time you talk about patents.
One of the things patents do is expose a new idea to the market place. Even in software, there is often more than one way to get to a desired destination, and plenty of different models and concepts that can come as a result of that patent being out there. I consider it the "better mousetrap" theory, which explains why there are thousands of mouse trap patents, and not a single mouse trap patent with everyone else blocked out of a market.
True innovation often happens when companies look for different ways to accomplish the same end goal (and more). This is why, example, we have hybrid cars with wheel motors, parallel drive motors, inline electric motors, motors integrated into the transmission, etc. Even if an entire hybrid design was patent, there are still many other ways to accomplish the job, and some of those methods are more effecient or package things better.
In software, you can accomplish things in many different ways. The existance of Facebook and it's single status line didn't stop Tweeter people from coming up with their single status line messaging system.
In the end, there is that third force: publishing a patent (and more so if it is put into service) may encourage others to want a piece of that market, and they then have to actually innovate to come up with a different (and usually improved) way to accomplish this same thing. Patents do not create black boxes that people are not allowed to examine. They create real world products that other strive to beat.
As some inventors have noted, the lack of a patent system would likely lead to companies and individuals hiding developments until they have a product going to market. As that often takes many years past the date of patent, society as a whole would be kept from knowing that an advance had occurred, because the inventor is too scared that someone else will take their work and profit from it.
So claiming there are only 2 potential outcomes from a patent is just not right.
On the post: European Rights Holders Drastically Increase Borderline Extortion Pre-Settlement Letters
Re:
On the post: Growth Of Music Digital Sales Is Slowing Down
Re: Re:
There is nothing that stops someone else from producing and endless number of copies of that t-shirt, using the same shirts and the same design, in a manner that would make it impossible to know the real ones from the copies. There is nothing that stops the company printing the t-shirts to just keep printing them, giving you only the 200 to sell, but actually flooding the market behind you with tens of thousands more.
The limited edition of t-shirts is artificial. There is no shortage of t-shirts, there is no shortage of printer ink, and the silk screen machines are all still working. The limit is only created by your desire to make something more or less scarce.
I didn't debate the idea of digital music being "infinite", rather than many of the things that you point out as scarce are that way only by artificial construct, not by any true scarcity.
On the post: European Rights Holders Drastically Increase Borderline Extortion Pre-Settlement Letters
Re: Re: Re: Re: mike is against rights enforcement
On the post: AP Summarizes Other Journalists' Article; Isn't That What The AP Says Violates The Law?
Re: hypocrites
On the post: Explaining The Copyright Bubble... And Why Big Corporations Want To Keep ACTA Secret
Re: Re:
The confusion is thinking that copyright is about the physical, which it is not. It's about the underlying content.
On the post: AP Summarizes Other Journalists' Article; Isn't That What The AP Says Violates The Law?
Re:
Marcus Carab points us to a rather horrifying story about a family suing a funeral home after the funeral home put their grandmother's brain in a bag of personal effects and sent it to them.
The original story?
Members of a New Mexico family are suing an Española funeral home after they found their grandmother's brain in the bag of personal effects given to them after her death.
Do you see the difference? Mike is writing his own summary of what a story says, the second one would just be a copy of how the story starts. One required actual effort, the second one required the ability to do a copy / paste.
On the post: Growth Of Music Digital Sales Is Slowing Down
On the post: Dear Rock Stars: Please Stop Claiming You're Just Interested In Helping Up-And-Coming Artists
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's just stink troll bait, and I for one am not biting.
FOAD fool.
On the post: Grooveshark Sued Again... Negotiating Via Lawsuit Continues
Re: You ripe what you saw.
On the post: European Rights Holders Drastically Increase Borderline Extortion Pre-Settlement Letters
Re: Re: mike is against rights enforcement
If you receive a notice saying "you owe us $500", you have two courses of action: Ignore it, or send back a "I don't owe you a thing". If you fail to act, the bill can be given to collection without needing a lawsuit. Heck, companies do it all the time.
The people sending out the notices must feel they have enough proof to support their invoices, or have enough backing information to support their claims.
I have to say that I don't think we are getting the whole story here.
On the post: AP Summarizes Other Journalists' Article; Isn't That What The AP Says Violates The Law?
On the post: Growth Of Music Digital Sales Is Slowing Down
There are very few true scarcities in the music world. Certainly not t-shirts or the like, those are artificially scarce because you only create a certain number, yet they can easily be duplicated and made for much less than your scarce price, example.
Concert tickets are rare in theory, but only if the artist is playing the biggest venue possible, otherwise the scarcity is artificial (picking too small of a venue to artificially create a shortage). Heck, during the summer or warm season, the artist could perform outdoors, with the potential of an unlimited or infinite number of tickets.
In the end, pretty much all scarcities are created by choice and not by actually being scarce. Limited editions are limited by choice, not by any great cosmic restriction.
So perhaps Mike you would prefer to chance the idea of pushing those scarcities, as most of them are artificially scarce as well?
On the post: Dear Rock Stars: Please Stop Claiming You're Just Interested In Helping Up-And-Coming Artists
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Go to bed little boy.
On the post: Google Stops Hosting AP News
Re: Re:
Google wants to "help" you find the news, and expose you to as many of their ads as they can without making you hate them on the way. If they don't serve ads, they will still offer you up links that will get your somewhere in their system that will.
Google does well of of providing easier access to other people's content. It's their business model in a nutshell. It's the reason why YouTube fits them so well.
Next >>