Re: Re: Copyright is not constitutional in the first place
Indeed, if you read the 'BS' on the link I provided, you'll find that I demonstrate that copyright not only secures authors' exclusive right to their writings (a good thing), but also grants a transferable reproduction monopoly over such works for the benefit of printers - a monopoly the constitution neither recognised as a right, nor gave congress the power to grant.
Given the harm caused by copyright litigation against the cultural liberties enjoyed by the common man, it's probably a rather good use of your time to read that constitution a little more carefully.
PayChoice may well be in the theory stage, but the project I'm working on has plenty of code written for it (contingencymarket.com and 1p2u.com), although is still in the prototype phase.
No-one has to sign up to read, but if they truly wish to reward/commission a publisher then they only need to sign up once. After that, it's just a decision: "Do I want this site to keep on publishing such great stuff?".
If that decision never springs to mind, no worries. For some people it does.
"Comedian Lee Hurst has been fined for smashing a mobile phone belonging to
an audience member during a stand-up gig."
...
"Mr Hurst said he had broken the handset at The Stoke pub in Guildford,
Surrey because he was angry that someone might be stealing his material."
Theft of a comedian's material could only occur if he was practising in front of the mirror in the privacy of his own home, and someone had installed a hidden camera.
People passing jokes on to each other by word of mouth is one of the oldest folk traditions. Having a monopoly on the telling of a particular joke may well be lucrative, but it is not ethical. Why must all other comedians be denied a particular joke so that one comedian may enjoy a higher ticket price?
They'll be banning video cameras in cinemas and theatres next.
Perhaps 'one pee = one penny' is familiar only to long term residents of the UK?
Anyway, it's a short URL, and a site primarily for testing/demonstration/prototyping purposes - at the moment anyway.
There are no constraints of copyright or patent, and the source code is freely available, so you could reproduce a similar site at a domain of your choosing, e.g. centipaid.com
The term 'micropayment' is misapplied to what everyone is actually thinking of, i.e. microcharging.
It is a demonstrable folly for online publishers to attempt to charge people for what they already have (published works). Far better to enable people to pay for what they would like (more good works to be published).
That's why I'm working on 1p2u.com - a way for readers of blogs to pay the blogger a penny for each post they publish.
Micropayments can work when the payer and payee are HAPPY to make what should be a voluntary exchange.
The only way micropayments wouldn't work is if they were compulsory, i.e. microcharges - "You'll pay a penny whether you want to or not!".
The record labels are the ones who reap the rewards from a monopoly on the reproduction of copies of recordings. These are the guys who want copyright extended - even if they send videos purporting to be on behalf of some of the session musicians they so poorly reward.
The session musicians are paid by the labels for their performances. If the musicians want more money they should make better deals, e.g. such that they get more than a tiny fraction of the reward received by the label.
One could just as well send a video on behalf of 61 million UK citizens who'd like their cultural liberty returned to them so that they can share and build upon some of the great music published during their lifetime - ideally the moment it's published, not so many decades later that they're senile, deaf, or six foot under.
It sounds more like they've given up selling copies of software - which is pretty sensible.
I doubt they've even tried selling the software - so that would preclude them giving up what they haven't started.
At least MicroPledge.com tried enabling people to sell free software. Their hiccups in doing so are disappointing, but not yet a gravestone on the idea.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe you have based your free business models on the false premise that music is an infinite good
Scott, it's not a legal distinction but a natural one.
You can't use my CD whilst it's on my shelf.
You may well have an indistinguishably similar CD on your shelf, but these aren't the same copies, they're simply indistinguishably similar.
This remains the case even when copyright is abolished - as it should be, because it is morally wrong.
Considerations of rivalry or excludability are red herrings. The real issue is suspending the people's cultural liberty to share and build upon published intellectual works.
If I lend you one of my CDs, from where does a third party get the power to prosecute you should you make a copy?
That power isn't granted by nature, but by the mercantile privilege of copyright created to both control and reward printing press owners in 1710 (UK) and 1790 (US).
Re: Re: Maybe you have based your free business models on the false premise that music is an infinite good
Hate to break it to you Mike, but copies are actually rivalrous and excludable. ;-)
Rivalry: You can't use my copy whilst I'm using it.
Excludability: Until you've paid for my copy you can't use my copy.
Sufferers of copy-blindness believe that two indistinguishable copies represent the same good, in which case it is understandable to believe the collapsed good is non-rivalrous, and non-excludable.
One has to come to the conclusion that in the case of digital works, rivalry and excludability are more conceptually elusive than the simpler concepts they might be used to help explain.
If you are in the business of Selling Music Recordings then you need to know how to sell music rather than copies - because copyright is no longer effective as a monopoly, only as a means of punishment.
I blame movies like Ocean's Eleven for giving criminals the idea that if they're cunning, ingenious and novel they can get away with their crimes.
Such movies should be banned.
At least they should always be written such that the criminal gets caught in the end, or at worst, that they are left trapped in a dire predicament like in 'The Italian Job' (the original, Michael Caine version).
People aren't signing their rights away, they're restoring the public's rights back to them (by neutralising their privilege of copyright to published works and derivatives).
It is actually impossible to sign one's rights away - this is what is meant by inalienable.
It takes the power of a government to grant privileges that supersede individual rights.
Ahem, people already have the right to liberty (freedom of speech, etc.).
In 1710 (UK) and 1790 (US) the privilege of copyright was created to partially suspend this liberty, specifically the right for members of the public to make copies or derivatives of books that they had purchased. This 'right to copy' was then granted to publishers - hence the name 'copyright'.
So, file-sharers are actually enjoying their natural rights.
Ideally those rights are no longer suspended for the benefit of publishers, but are fully restored to the public, by abolishing copyright.
Musicians Should Sell Their Music to Their Audience
Musicians would be better off selling their music to members of their audience directly.
Only record labels are having big trouble selling copies of music recordings.
Musicians might have little bit of trouble selling music recordings, but at least they don't need to sell copies (and so don't need the monopoly of copyright).
Record labels are now competing with a musician's audience to provide musicians with value for money in terms of promotion and distribution of their music.
It shouldn't be surprising that record labels are engaging in litigation against their biggest competitors, i.e. musicians' audiences.
A musician's audience is expert at online and word-of-mouth promotion, and will gladly produce copies of a musician's work without charge.
Seems like a no-brainer to sell music to your audience.
Even so, the labels are still trying to entice new and gullible bands to sign with them. See Saving on A&R.
On the post: The Troubling Implications Of Recognizing 'Hot News' As Property
Re: Re: Copyright is not constitutional in the first place
Given the harm caused by copyright litigation against the cultural liberties enjoyed by the common man, it's probably a rather good use of your time to read that constitution a little more carefully.
On the post: The Troubling Implications Of Recognizing 'Hot News' As Property
Copyright is not constitutional in the first place
See Mythologising Copyright.
Copyrighting of published original works isn't constitutional either, let alone of published 'hot news'.
On the post: A Good Suggestion For Funding Journalism... And A Great Explanation For Why Micropayments Don't Work
Re: Re: I believe micropayments will work
No-one has to sign up to read, but if they truly wish to reward/commission a publisher then they only need to sign up once. After that, it's just a decision: "Do I want this site to keep on publishing such great stuff?".
If that decision never springs to mind, no worries. For some people it does.
It's a free world - or should be...
On the post: A Good Suggestion For Funding Journalism... And A Great Explanation For Why Micropayments Don't Work
I believe micropayments will work
People will be happy to PAY others to produce good work - always have been, always will be.
What they won't be happy about is being CHARGED before they know what they're getting, or CHARGED for what they already have.
See PayChoice for Newspapers. And everything else that's free for further discussion.
On the post: Comedian Smashes Mobile Phone; Fearing 'Joke Stealing'
Copyright culture is becoming a joke
an audience member during a stand-up gig."
...
"Mr Hurst said he had broken the handset at The Stoke pub in Guildford,
Surrey because he was angry that someone might be stealing his material."
Theft of a comedian's material could only occur if he was practising in front of the mirror in the privacy of his own home, and someone had installed a hidden camera.
People passing jokes on to each other by word of mouth is one of the oldest folk traditions. Having a monopoly on the telling of a particular joke may well be lucrative, but it is not ethical. Why must all other comedians be denied a particular joke so that one comedian may enjoy a higher ticket price?
They'll be banning video cameras in cinemas and theatres next.
On the post: Newspapers Again Thinking About Micropayments
Re: Re: Payment vs Charging
Perhaps 'one pee = one penny' is familiar only to long term residents of the UK?
Anyway, it's a short URL, and a site primarily for testing/demonstration/prototyping purposes - at the moment anyway.
There are no constraints of copyright or patent, and the source code is freely available, so you could reproduce a similar site at a domain of your choosing, e.g. centipaid.com
On the post: Newspapers Again Thinking About Micropayments
Payment vs Charging
It is a demonstrable folly for online publishers to attempt to charge people for what they already have (published works). Far better to enable people to pay for what they would like (more good works to be published).
That's why I'm working on 1p2u.com - a way for readers of blogs to pay the blogger a penny for each post they publish.
Micropayments can work when the payer and payee are HAPPY to make what should be a voluntary exchange.
The only way micropayments wouldn't work is if they were compulsory, i.e. microcharges - "You'll pay a penny whether you want to or not!".
On the post: Once More, With Feeling: Copyright Is Not A Welfare System For Musicians
61 million people want their liberty back
The session musicians are paid by the labels for their performances. If the musicians want more money they should make better deals, e.g. such that they get more than a tiny fraction of the reward received by the label.
One could just as well send a video on behalf of 61 million UK citizens who'd like their cultural liberty returned to them so that they can share and build upon some of the great music published during their lifetime - ideally the moment it's published, not so many decades later that they're senile, deaf, or six foot under.
On the post: You Don't Have To Sell Software
Sounds Like They've Given Up Selling Copies
I doubt they've even tried selling the software - so that would preclude them giving up what they haven't started.
At least MicroPledge.com tried enabling people to sell free software. Their hiccups in doing so are disappointing, but not yet a gravestone on the idea.
On the post: Yes, Actually, Music Can Be Free
Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe you have based your free business models on the false premise that music is an infinite good
You can't use my CD whilst it's on my shelf.
You may well have an indistinguishably similar CD on your shelf, but these aren't the same copies, they're simply indistinguishably similar.
This remains the case even when copyright is abolished - as it should be, because it is morally wrong.
Considerations of rivalry or excludability are red herrings. The real issue is suspending the people's cultural liberty to share and build upon published intellectual works.
If I lend you one of my CDs, from where does a third party get the power to prosecute you should you make a copy?
That power isn't granted by nature, but by the mercantile privilege of copyright created to both control and reward printing press owners in 1710 (UK) and 1790 (US).
On the post: Yes, Actually, Music Can Be Free
Re: Re: Maybe you have based your free business models on the false premise that music is an infinite good
Rivalry: You can't use my copy whilst I'm using it.
Excludability: Until you've paid for my copy you can't use my copy.
Sufferers of copy-blindness believe that two indistinguishable copies represent the same good, in which case it is understandable to believe the collapsed good is non-rivalrous, and non-excludable.
One has to come to the conclusion that in the case of digital works, rivalry and excludability are more conceptually elusive than the simpler concepts they might be used to help explain.
A copy is a copy. Music is music.
On the post: Yes, Actually, Music Can Be Free
A Distinction Between Music and Copies Please
Punish your audience or make music for them?
It's a bit of a no brainer isn't it?
On the post: Napster Judge's Suggestions On How To Fix Copyright: Massive Bureaucracy
Is Abolition 'out of the box'?
On the post: Newspapers Are Souvenirs
Trackback
On the post: Old School Comedians Complain About The Internet
Re: Re: What happened to irony?
I'm only concerned about those few that don't, and fascinated that this deficiency seems to be culturally determined, and quite subtly so.
On the post: Old School Comedians Complain About The Internet
What happened to irony?
Too many folk are irony deficient these days, especially Americans.
There's an entire class of satire that becomes inaccessible to those unable to digest irony - having not been fed it when young.
On the post: Yet Another WiFi-Borrowing Criminal Caught
I blame movies like Ocean's Eleven
Such movies should be banned.
At least they should always be written such that the criminal gets caught in the end, or at worst, that they are left trapped in a dire predicament like in 'The Italian Job' (the original, Michael Caine version).
On the post: UK ISPs Looking To Work With Entertainment Industry; But What About Consumers?
Re: Re: Re:
It is actually impossible to sign one's rights away - this is what is meant by inalienable.
It takes the power of a government to grant privileges that supersede individual rights.
On the post: UK ISPs Looking To Work With Entertainment Industry; But What About Consumers?
Re:
In 1710 (UK) and 1790 (US) the privilege of copyright was created to partially suspend this liberty, specifically the right for members of the public to make copies or derivatives of books that they had purchased. This 'right to copy' was then granted to publishers - hence the name 'copyright'.
So, file-sharers are actually enjoying their natural rights.
Ideally those rights are no longer suspended for the benefit of publishers, but are fully restored to the public, by abolishing copyright.
On the post: UK ISPs Looking To Work With Entertainment Industry; But What About Consumers?
Musicians Should Sell Their Music to Their Audience
Only record labels are having big trouble selling copies of music recordings.
Musicians might have little bit of trouble selling music recordings, but at least they don't need to sell copies (and so don't need the monopoly of copyright).
Record labels are now competing with a musician's audience to provide musicians with value for money in terms of promotion and distribution of their music.
It shouldn't be surprising that record labels are engaging in litigation against their biggest competitors, i.e. musicians' audiences.
A musician's audience is expert at online and word-of-mouth promotion, and will gladly produce copies of a musician's work without charge.
Seems like a no-brainer to sell music to your audience.
Even so, the labels are still trying to entice new and gullible bands to sign with them. See Saving on A&R.
Next >>