Re: Re: Another confusion of copyright with progress
Starting offhand with the premise that intellectual monopoly is not equal to property, then from a libertarian point of view, these monopolies constrain individuals from using their own bodies and physical properties in the way they wish.
In 1800 it didn't matter than much who could copy (print) and who couldn't, as it was rarely something private individuals could do. With the advent of the internet and insane performance laws, it has become quite noticeable that these laws limit our freedom to use our computers/mp3 players/DVDRs or to even sing in public, so people are questioning whether these laws are worth the tradeoff.
The internet is full of people making the same arguments (which I agree with wholeheartedly), but it's nice to see a law professor and copyright lawyer saying these things every once in a while.
Every time I read something along these lines, I have to wonder: how can one diffuse the "copyright is for the artists" lie? Sure, we can go into long-winded discourse about the history of copyright, or we can point to examples of artists making money despite a lack of government-granted monopolies, but most people don't have the patience or intelligence to listen to such things.
There *must* be a shorter, easier to grasp argument that even brain-dead politicians can understand, right?
Not quite. With beggars you have a choice if you want to give them money or not. This is called a TAX.
Since they can't work out for themselves how to make money, they try to turn themselves into some sort of quasi-socialist dictatorship where the government exists to enforce their monopolies on the people.
I'll add that the algorithms are usually pretty safe in themselves since they aren't too hard to analyse rigorously -- as long as no-one cracks them, that is.
It's the implementation that may lack in many instances, which can contain bugs and sometimes even backdoors that are usually much easier to exploit than weaknesses in the encryption scheme.
I guess the best option is to use open source tools whose code is available so we can check for ourselves it doesn't contain any "proprietary magic" compiled into the executables.
Man, you really got your facts wrong. Let's take 3d in film... the first 3d in a movie was in 1977 in Star Wars. By 1992 they could do perfectly photorealistic 3d (on the Amiga with Lightwave), and we got films like Jurassic Park and Terminator 2. Toy Story came out in 1995.
$100k to create a photograph?? What a terrible waste of money, for something that can be done for a tiny fraction of that using 3d (easily available in 1995).
And what business sense does it make to spend $100k to create a photograph? None, because it's unlikely you'll ever recover all that money -- unless you use it to sue the world for massive damages, that is.
How about: RTB -- 100% of your donation goes to the artist?
Flattr keeps a large chunk out of every donation for itself, and I think that's what is discouraging people from using it (I recall the comments on TorrentFreak when the service was announced last year were all pointing this out). It feels like the industry middlemen have been replaced by another middleman.
If such a service ever becomes large enough to survive from ad revenue and bank interest on members' monthly quotas without having to take money from the donations, I expect it will be a huge success.
Also, just as importantly, it would be awesome if a service like flattr is integrated into the Pirate Bay, and it keeps track of what you downloaded and can remind you to donate later. Of course copyright won't allow this to happen, and the labels probably wouldn't know where to begin creating a new service that does something like this.
Anyway, I feel Jamendo is taking steps in the right direction, though that is limited to Creative Commons music.
"I reckon exchange (money for the production of intellectual work not yet received) is a better transaction than a donation (reward for work already published and received)."
I agree in principle, but I think I should also point out that people will have a much harder time deciding how much a piece of art is worth if they haven't already seen it.
It's similar to cinema releases: you aren't "supposed" to know how good a movie is until after you've watched it and paid for it. Hence, the success of movies is judged by their opening weekend, which is pretty much a reflection of how well the movie was advertised, rather than the quality of the product.
Could your suggestion entail very intensive pre-production advertising and a cheap, sub-par product at the end?
This is positively a publicity stunt of some sort, though I'm confused as to what snitch/"hacker" Adrian Lamo's role is in all this.
Is he really prepared to lie in court to promote this fake organisation? If yes, what's in it for him? Who is the mastermind behind this hoax? Is the US government involved in any way?
You mention "Record Label Accounting" in this post, and I wonder how relevant it really is: what if the sole purpose of these lawsuits is to redistribute musician profits to lawyer firms in which the record labels or the RIAA itself somehow have investments?
For instance, can anyone verify if the lawyer firms to which the $17 million has been paid to have had any personal investments from the RIAA's leadership?
(Even regardless of that, I recall reports that the RIAA's CEO "redistributed" $2 million of artist money to himself for a year's work. Not doing too shabbily.)
I hate the idea of software patents, but I think you bring up a very interesting point that requires more debate. You say: "...It seems to indicate that entrepreneurs still believe the old claim that venture capitalists want to see patents, so they feel the need to get patents just to show to investors."
I wonder how important patents (and copyrights!) really are to investors, especially with larger ventures that involve much more risk than small start-ups.
For example, if someone wants to start making a new type of smartphone in a market full of competition from huge incumbents like Apple and Google, how can he convince investors that he has an "edge" that won't be lost before the investment is at least recovered? Even if the patent is totally worthless in itself, perhaps it provides the investors a false sense of security?
Similarly, how can someone convince investors to fund the making of a new blockbuster film, if there is no copyright protection that guarantees people will pay to watch it? Again, even if copyright is just an illusion and the film is pirated far and wide, perhaps it will encourage investors to part with their money?
Of course, if all intellectual monopolies are abolished, investors will still have to cope, right? Or, will they suddenly stop investing..? Even if some of them do stop investing, won't others rise up to take their place and exploit the opportunities they are missing? Important questions, imho.
On the post: The Cycle Of Copyright: Originally A Tool For Censorship, Attempted As A Tool For Incentives... Back To A Tool For Censorship
Re: Re: Another confusion of copyright with progress
In 1800 it didn't matter than much who could copy (print) and who couldn't, as it was rarely something private individuals could do. With the advent of the internet and insane performance laws, it has become quite noticeable that these laws limit our freedom to use our computers/mp3 players/DVDRs or to even sing in public, so people are questioning whether these laws are worth the tradeoff.
On the post: The Cycle Of Copyright: Originally A Tool For Censorship, Attempted As A Tool For Incentives... Back To A Tool For Censorship
Re: Censorship
On the post: The Cycle Of Copyright: Originally A Tool For Censorship, Attempted As A Tool For Incentives... Back To A Tool For Censorship
Every time I read something along these lines, I have to wonder: how can one diffuse the "copyright is for the artists" lie? Sure, we can go into long-winded discourse about the history of copyright, or we can point to examples of artists making money despite a lack of government-granted monopolies, but most people don't have the patience or intelligence to listen to such things.
There *must* be a shorter, easier to grasp argument that even brain-dead politicians can understand, right?
On the post: The Car That's Driven 2.8 Million Miles
On the post: Newspaper Gets Around Photography Ban At Football Event With Cartoon Illustrations
On the post: New Zealand Authors Demanding Compulsory Blanket 'You Must Be A Criminal' Internet Charge
Re: Re: This is a business model...
Since they can't work out for themselves how to make money, they try to turn themselves into some sort of quasi-socialist dictatorship where the government exists to enforce their monopolies on the people.
On the post: RIM Works Out Deal In Saudi Arabia, Causing Many To Wonder If They Can Trust Their BlackBerry
Re: Said it before and I will say it again...
I'll add that the algorithms are usually pretty safe in themselves since they aren't too hard to analyse rigorously -- as long as no-one cracks them, that is.
It's the implementation that may lack in many instances, which can contain bugs and sometimes even backdoors that are usually much easier to exploit than weaknesses in the encryption scheme.
I guess the best option is to use open source tools whose code is available so we can check for ourselves it doesn't contain any "proprietary magic" compiled into the executables.
But, yes: layering trumps all.
On the post: Oscar Winner Sues BBC & CBS For Copyright Infringement Of His Photo
Re: Re:
On the post: Oscar Winner Sues BBC & CBS For Copyright Infringement Of His Photo
And what business sense does it make to spend $100k to create a photograph? None, because it's unlikely you'll ever recover all that money -- unless you use it to sue the world for massive damages, that is.
On the post: Getting Past The Hurdles Of Micropayments
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RTB?
Flattr keeps a large chunk out of every donation for itself, and I think that's what is discouraging people from using it (I recall the comments on TorrentFreak when the service was announced last year were all pointing this out). It feels like the industry middlemen have been replaced by another middleman.
If such a service ever becomes large enough to survive from ad revenue and bank interest on members' monthly quotas without having to take money from the donations, I expect it will be a huge success.
Also, just as importantly, it would be awesome if a service like flattr is integrated into the Pirate Bay, and it keeps track of what you downloaded and can remind you to donate later. Of course copyright won't allow this to happen, and the labels probably wouldn't know where to begin creating a new service that does something like this.
Anyway, I feel Jamendo is taking steps in the right direction, though that is limited to Creative Commons music.
On the post: Getting Past The Hurdles Of Micropayments
Re: Exchange rather than donation
I agree in principle, but I think I should also point out that people will have a much harder time deciding how much a piece of art is worth if they haven't already seen it.
It's similar to cinema releases: you aren't "supposed" to know how good a movie is until after you've watched it and paid for it. Hence, the success of movies is judged by their opening weekend, which is pretty much a reflection of how well the movie was advertised, rather than the quality of the product.
Could your suggestion entail very intensive pre-production advertising and a cheap, sub-par product at the end?
On the post: ISP Accused Of Using One Unsubstantiated Strike From The ESA To Close Down Account
On the post: Is Project Vigilant A Hoax?
Is he really prepared to lie in court to promote this fake organisation? If yes, what's in it for him? Who is the mastermind behind this hoax? Is the US government involved in any way?
On the post: Appeal Of Important iiNet vs. AFACT Case Begins
Re: Thanks :)
On the post: Indonesian ISPs Ordered To Ban All Porn In Just A Few Weeks
On the post: Court Lets Venues Deduct Fees From BMI License For Directly Licensed Music
On the post: RIAA Defends Lawsuit Spending... But Reminds Everyone How It Helps Screw Over Musicians
You mention "Record Label Accounting" in this post, and I wonder how relevant it really is: what if the sole purpose of these lawsuits is to redistribute musician profits to lawyer firms in which the record labels or the RIAA itself somehow have investments?
For instance, can anyone verify if the lawyer firms to which the $17 million has been paid to have had any personal investments from the RIAA's leadership?
(Even regardless of that, I recall reports that the RIAA's CEO "redistributed" $2 million of artist money to himself for a year's work. Not doing too shabbily.)
On the post: Software Firms Overwhelmingly Against Patents
I wonder how important patents (and copyrights!) really are to investors, especially with larger ventures that involve much more risk than small start-ups.
For example, if someone wants to start making a new type of smartphone in a market full of competition from huge incumbents like Apple and Google, how can he convince investors that he has an "edge" that won't be lost before the investment is at least recovered? Even if the patent is totally worthless in itself, perhaps it provides the investors a false sense of security?
Similarly, how can someone convince investors to fund the making of a new blockbuster film, if there is no copyright protection that guarantees people will pay to watch it? Again, even if copyright is just an illusion and the film is pirated far and wide, perhaps it will encourage investors to part with their money?
Of course, if all intellectual monopolies are abolished, investors will still have to cope, right? Or, will they suddenly stop investing..? Even if some of them do stop investing, won't others rise up to take their place and exploit the opportunities they are missing? Important questions, imho.
On the post: Wikileaks Afghan War Document Leak Again Raises Questions: Treason Or Whistleblowing?
Re: Re: Mike, gotta disagree with you..
On the post: ASCAP Boss Refuses To Debate Lessig; Claims That It's An Attempt To 'Silence' ASCAP
Re:
Next >>