But I don't know the extent to which something like this would hold up in terms of 3D printing. I do expect that any industry that begins to lose business because people are sharing patterns and printing stuff on their own rather paying others for it will look for loopholes.
I was just reading that that there is now a material that can be used in 3D printers to make electrical circuits (I'd have to pull the article to get the actual details). I really expect entire supply chains will be disrupted in time. Anyone who tackles copyright needs to look way beyond the entertainment and publishing industries.
Except that the reason we have bigger issues to come is because Hollywood (et al.) doesn't need any paint.
I don't get what you mean.
I see 3D printing affecting many industries that produce, sell, and transport actual objects. The sophistication of 3D printers is rapidly expanding.
I was reading that you can't copyright a pattern, so perhaps that means files of printing instructions won't fall under copyright, but I'm not sure if that will be the case.
Also somewhere along the lines they got confused about what certain terms mean like "political conservative".
I'm very much in favor of sustainability, which puts me on the left of many issues. What's interesting is that the sustainability movement has a lot in common with "traditional" conservative values. There's support of localization, of being self-reliant (e.g., growing your own food, generating your own energy and getting off-grid), etc. But I have an old high school friend who apparently is a Tea Party type and she puts up links to the most outrageous conspiracy stuff. How, for example, bike paths are a plot by the UN/communists to take over America.
The whole anti-science bias of many of today's conservatives doesn't work for me, either. You can't ignore or refuse to publish research just because you don't like the results. Science evolves, so what we know now might be refuted in the future, but you have to get the info out there in order to pull it apart and test and retest.
sounds like he has not left politics, he has found an issue that fits into his own personal ethis, free market economic philosophy with dislike of monopolies. he is keeping in the game with twitter.
The big test will be 3D printing. If one is going to revise copyright laws, it should be done with 3D printing in mind and the fact that 3D printing has the potential to disrupt many traditional industries (which I hope it does).
Painting Hollywood as the enemy overlooks the bigger issues to come.
Since RSC paper came out, I've been asking about the politics behind it.
And as I read about Khanna, I was wondering what appealed to him about the Republican Party. I don't see it as a young person's party, for many many reasons. As I have written before, I don't think pushing for copyright revision would be enough in itself to win new young voters. A lot of other issues would need to be addressed too.
If there is going to be copyright reform, it should factor in what is likely to come in the near to long-term future. As I have said many times, I look forward to some major economic disruptions that reduce the power of large corporations and industry lobbying groups. But I'm not so sure they will embrace that which might make them economically unnecessary.
3D printing's forthcoming legal morass (Wired UK): "You thought Hollywood and record labels were powerful lobbyists, crushing Napster and suing file-sharers? Wait until you see what the manufacturing industry can do. The American Chamber of Commerce is the single largest lobbyist on Capitol Hill, spending $60 million a year."
That's why I think we need to be thinking decades ahead when we talk about copyright reform. If there are loopholes that affect 3D printing, it will extend far beyond the Silicon Valley/Hollywood fight.
Rolling back copyright to what was allowed in 1790 doesn't seem to me to account for changing definitions of "maps, charts and books."
If copyright is offered for books but not other forms of prose, wouldn't that just encourage people to bundle what they have as books? Of course, if copyright protection only counts if the entire work is copied, then essentially books aren't protected anyway. You could just copy 99.9% of the book.
The concept of a book has changed dramatically over recent years so even defining what a book is will be up for debate.
I personally don't think changing copyright laws will have a huge global impact right now because there is more than enough freely available content as it is.
However, I do anticipate significant impact on global economics once 3D printing becomes widely available and inexpensive. That's where I foresee copyright impacting physical property.
What I am wondering is if any industries currently involved in physical products (e.g., making them, selling them, transporting them) will look for legal ways to slow down 3D printing. Would maintaining copyright for "charts" be used to prevent makers from sharing files with instructions for printable objects?
Restrictions on Use. Unless you have received prior written authorization from Google (or, as applicable, from the provider of particular Content), you must not:
(a) copy, translate, modify, or make derivative works of the Content or any part thereof;
I believe an argument could be made that 'to promote the progress' implies 'to maximally promote the progress'.
What I am arguing is that global economics has gotten so complex that we can no longer pass laws piecemeal. Changing copyright laws by themselves does not guarantee that progress will be achieved for the greatest number of people.
Dmytri Kleiner's Critique of Peer Production Ideology - P2P Foundation: "So long as commons-based peer-production is applied narrowly to only an information commons while the capitalist mode of production still dominates the production of material wealth, owners of material property will continue to capture the marginal wealth created as a result of the productivity of the information commons. Whatever exchange value is derived from the information commons will always be captured by owners of real property, which lies outside the commons. For Peer Production to have any effect on general material wealth it has to operate within the context of a overall system of goods and services, where the physical means of production and the virtual means of production are both available in the commons for peer production."
The End of Rational Economics - Harvard Business Review: "We are now paying a terrible price for our unblinking faith in the power of the invisible hand. We’re painfully blinking awake to the falsity of standard economic theory—that human beings are capable of always making rational decisions and that markets and institutions, in the aggregate, are healthily self-regulating. If assumptions about the way things are supposed to work have failed us in the hyperrational world of Wall Street, what damage have they done in other institutions and organizations that are also made up of fallible, less-than-logical people? And where do corporate managers, schooled in rational assumptions but who run messy, often unpredictable businesses, go from here?"
You make it sound like economics is a hard science and there is but one economic view and you represent that.
Economics is definitely evolving. I could cite so many articles, but won't. However, these two caught my attention this week.
Is Rush Limbaugh's Country Gone? - NYTimes.com: "Not only does a plurality (49-43) of young people hold a favorable view of socialism — and, by a tiny margin (47-46), a negative view of capitalism — so do liberal Democrats, who view socialism positively by a solid 59-33; and African Americans, 55-36. Hispanics are modestly opposed, 49-44, to socialism, but they hold decisively negative attitudes toward capitalism, 55-32."
Saving Economics from the Economists - Harvard Business Review: "It is time to reengage the severely impoverished field of economics with the economy. Market economies springing up in China, India, Africa, and elsewhere herald a new era of entrepreneurship, and with it unprecedented opportunities for economists to study how the market economy gains its resilience in societies with cultural, institutional, and organizational diversities. But knowledge will come only if economics can be reoriented to the study of man as he is and the economic system as it actually exists."
The other problem is that Hollywood is the only company in town offering access to the media content people want. One source, and they can keep upping the fees each year, effectively stifling growth in companies like Pandora and Netflix.
At some point there will be enough content outside the Hollywood system that it will be a non-issue. That's what the revamped MySpace is counting on.
The fact that people still want what Hollywood offers kind of reinforces the idea that Hollywood continues to produce content that independent artists don't. I'm not sure why that continues to be the case, but whenever I ask startups why they don't just offer content they can get for free, they say they need to offer everything.
The fact that companies say they need Hollywood content reinforces Hollywood's belief that they have content people want and therefore they want to get something for it. In other words, this situation tells Hollywood there is demand for their content, so they are trying to monetize it just like the startups are trying to monetize what they do. Everyone is trying to make a buck. In contrast, I say, "Why does anyone need to make a buck? Let's figure out how to reduce the cost of everything so everyone can survive on a minimal amount of money."
So exorbitant licensing fees do stifle competition, dumb ass.
I've been saying for a few years now that I see a coming world of hypercompetition where the price of everything will be driven down and as p2p economics take over, there won't be enough profit in anything to encourage the formation of large companies.
Rather than feeling sorry for companies that can't make a profit because of licensing fees, I'd rather see a system where there is no need for those companies to exist in the first place. Any business that forms around licensed content should know what it is getting into in the first place. By the time the laws will have been changed, those companies will have lost tons of money. The legal system doesn't move fast enough to save them. So all that is really happening is that they raise money, cash out, and the company goes under.
Further, I'm not convinced that the companies and individuals that make the most money are necessarily making the best contributions to society, so the whole premise that a free market system is the best allocation of resources isn't something I buy into.
I'd like to see some tinkering so that we find ways to share productivity gains, allowing more people to work fewer hours. Instead of some people working long hours and others not working at all, we could facilitate a better balance of work, leisure, and family time.
So, reducing down everything to a sentence: I want to encourage so much competition that no company gains an edge.
I haven't shopped in an exchange for years, so I don't really know how it is structured these days. But seems like the model of an exchange can fall within two different models, neither of which is a true monopoly.
1. In-house services. If your company decides to provide what your employees need, then you might decide to do it as part of your corporate structure. Your employees buy within the company.
2. Contracts. Companies sign exclusive contracts all the time. There can be competitors, but during the length of the contract, there is only one provider.
What makes me most nervous about a monopoly situation is a company or industry big enough to control the market, control those making the laws, and the ability to stifle research linking them to negative externalities. I see that happening both with fossil fuels and with GMOs.
The biggest bunch of libertarians I know have turned copyright on its head, and do not worry about the free rider problem. They produce GNU/Linux, BSDs and related free and open source software.
And I have said that it will be interesting to see how the libertarians and the copyleft/commons folks both come at copyright, but with significantly different visions of a desirable economic outcome. The commons folks see the free and open source software movements as a model which, in time, can be a model for all forms of economic production, exchange, ownership, and access.
On the post: Republican Study Committee Dumps Derek Khanna, Author Of Copyright Reform Brief, After Members Complain
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe...
On the post: Republican Study Committee Dumps Derek Khanna, Author Of Copyright Reform Brief, After Members Complain
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe...
Copyright Law - Patterns
But I don't know the extent to which something like this would hold up in terms of 3D printing. I do expect that any industry that begins to lose business because people are sharing patterns and printing stuff on their own rather paying others for it will look for loopholes.
I was just reading that that there is now a material that can be used in 3D printers to make electrical circuits (I'd have to pull the article to get the actual details). I really expect entire supply chains will be disrupted in time. Anyone who tackles copyright needs to look way beyond the entertainment and publishing industries.
On the post: Republican Study Committee Dumps Derek Khanna, Author Of Copyright Reform Brief, After Members Complain
Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe...
I don't get what you mean.
I see 3D printing affecting many industries that produce, sell, and transport actual objects. The sophistication of 3D printers is rapidly expanding.
I was reading that you can't copyright a pattern, so perhaps that means files of printing instructions won't fall under copyright, but I'm not sure if that will be the case.
On the post: Republican Study Committee Dumps Derek Khanna, Author Of Copyright Reform Brief, After Members Complain
Re: The Nixon Principle, plus neocons.
I'm very much in favor of sustainability, which puts me on the left of many issues. What's interesting is that the sustainability movement has a lot in common with "traditional" conservative values. There's support of localization, of being self-reliant (e.g., growing your own food, generating your own energy and getting off-grid), etc. But I have an old high school friend who apparently is a Tea Party type and she puts up links to the most outrageous conspiracy stuff. How, for example, bike paths are a plot by the UN/communists to take over America.
The whole anti-science bias of many of today's conservatives doesn't work for me, either. You can't ignore or refuse to publish research just because you don't like the results. Science evolves, so what we know now might be refuted in the future, but you have to get the info out there in order to pull it apart and test and retest.
On the post: Republican Study Committee Dumps Derek Khanna, Author Of Copyright Reform Brief, After Members Complain
Re: Re: Maybe...
The big test will be 3D printing. If one is going to revise copyright laws, it should be done with 3D printing in mind and the fact that 3D printing has the potential to disrupt many traditional industries (which I hope it does).
Painting Hollywood as the enemy overlooks the bigger issues to come.
On the post: Republican Study Committee Dumps Derek Khanna, Author Of Copyright Reform Brief, After Members Complain
But why was he there in the first place?
And as I read about Khanna, I was wondering what appealed to him about the Republican Party. I don't see it as a young person's party, for many many reasons. As I have written before, I don't think pushing for copyright revision would be enough in itself to win new young voters. A lot of other issues would need to be addressed too.
On the post: Why Copyright Shouldn't Be Considered Property... And Why A Return To 1790 Copyright May Be Desirable
Copyright reform should keep 3D printing in mind
Is the 3D printing industry about to start turning out lawsuits? | Digital Trends
3D printing's forthcoming legal morass (Wired UK): "You thought Hollywood and record labels were powerful lobbyists, crushing Napster and suing file-sharers? Wait until you see what the manufacturing industry can do. The American Chamber of Commerce is the single largest lobbyist on Capitol Hill, spending $60 million a year."
On the post: Why Copyright Shouldn't Be Considered Property... And Why A Return To 1790 Copyright May Be Desirable
Re: Re: Ramifications for 3D printing
Rolling back copyright to what was allowed in 1790 doesn't seem to me to account for changing definitions of "maps, charts and books."
On the post: Why Copyright Shouldn't Be Considered Property... And Why A Return To 1790 Copyright May Be Desirable
And why books?
The concept of a book has changed dramatically over recent years so even defining what a book is will be up for debate.
On the post: Why Copyright Shouldn't Be Considered Property... And Why A Return To 1790 Copyright May Be Desirable
Re: Ramifications for 3D printing
On the post: Why Copyright Shouldn't Be Considered Property... And Why A Return To 1790 Copyright May Be Desirable
Ramifications for 3D printing
However, I do anticipate significant impact on global economics once 3D printing becomes widely available and inexpensive. That's where I foresee copyright impacting physical property.
What I am wondering is if any industries currently involved in physical products (e.g., making them, selling them, transporting them) will look for legal ways to slow down 3D printing. Would maintaining copyright for "charts" be used to prevent makers from sharing files with instructions for printable objects?
On the post: Why Copyright Shouldn't Be Considered Property... And Why A Return To 1790 Copyright May Be Desirable
Why would maps continue to have copyright protection?
I was curious what Google's policy is for maps and found this:
Google Maps/Google Earth Terms and Conditions
Restrictions on Use. Unless you have received prior written authorization from Google (or, as applicable, from the provider of particular Content), you must not:
(a) copy, translate, modify, or make derivative works of the Content or any part thereof;
On the post: Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What I am arguing is that global economics has gotten so complex that we can no longer pass laws piecemeal. Changing copyright laws by themselves does not guarantee that progress will be achieved for the greatest number of people.
Dmytri Kleiner's Critique of Peer Production Ideology - P2P Foundation: "So long as commons-based peer-production is applied narrowly to only an information commons while the capitalist mode of production still dominates the production of material wealth, owners of material property will continue to capture the marginal wealth created as a result of the productivity of the information commons. Whatever exchange value is derived from the information commons will always be captured by owners of real property, which lies outside the commons. For Peer Production to have any effect on general material wealth it has to operate within the context of a overall system of goods and services, where the physical means of production and the virtual means of production are both available in the commons for peer production."
On the post: Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But that has evolved as we know more about human behavior. We know now that people often behave in economically "irrational" ways.
On the post: Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Economics is definitely evolving. I could cite so many articles, but won't. However, these two caught my attention this week.
Is Rush Limbaugh's Country Gone? - NYTimes.com: "Not only does a plurality (49-43) of young people hold a favorable view of socialism — and, by a tiny margin (47-46), a negative view of capitalism — so do liberal Democrats, who view socialism positively by a solid 59-33; and African Americans, 55-36. Hispanics are modestly opposed, 49-44, to socialism, but they hold decisively negative attitudes toward capitalism, 55-32."
Saving Economics from the Economists - Harvard Business Review: "It is time to reengage the severely impoverished field of economics with the economy. Market economies springing up in China, India, Africa, and elsewhere herald a new era of entrepreneurship, and with it unprecedented opportunities for economists to study how the market economy gains its resilience in societies with cultural, institutional, and organizational diversities. But knowledge will come only if economics can be reoriented to the study of man as he is and the economic system as it actually exists."
On the post: Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
At some point there will be enough content outside the Hollywood system that it will be a non-issue. That's what the revamped MySpace is counting on.
The fact that people still want what Hollywood offers kind of reinforces the idea that Hollywood continues to produce content that independent artists don't. I'm not sure why that continues to be the case, but whenever I ask startups why they don't just offer content they can get for free, they say they need to offer everything.
The fact that companies say they need Hollywood content reinforces Hollywood's belief that they have content people want and therefore they want to get something for it. In other words, this situation tells Hollywood there is demand for their content, so they are trying to monetize it just like the startups are trying to monetize what they do. Everyone is trying to make a buck. In contrast, I say, "Why does anyone need to make a buck? Let's figure out how to reduce the cost of everything so everyone can survive on a minimal amount of money."
On the post: Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've been saying for a few years now that I see a coming world of hypercompetition where the price of everything will be driven down and as p2p economics take over, there won't be enough profit in anything to encourage the formation of large companies.
Rather than feeling sorry for companies that can't make a profit because of licensing fees, I'd rather see a system where there is no need for those companies to exist in the first place. Any business that forms around licensed content should know what it is getting into in the first place. By the time the laws will have been changed, those companies will have lost tons of money. The legal system doesn't move fast enough to save them. So all that is really happening is that they raise money, cash out, and the company goes under.
Further, I'm not convinced that the companies and individuals that make the most money are necessarily making the best contributions to society, so the whole premise that a free market system is the best allocation of resources isn't something I buy into.
I'd like to see some tinkering so that we find ways to share productivity gains, allowing more people to work fewer hours. Instead of some people working long hours and others not working at all, we could facilitate a better balance of work, leisure, and family time.
So, reducing down everything to a sentence: I want to encourage so much competition that no company gains an edge.
On the post: Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I haven't shopped in an exchange for years, so I don't really know how it is structured these days. But seems like the model of an exchange can fall within two different models, neither of which is a true monopoly.
1. In-house services. If your company decides to provide what your employees need, then you might decide to do it as part of your corporate structure. Your employees buy within the company.
2. Contracts. Companies sign exclusive contracts all the time. There can be competitors, but during the length of the contract, there is only one provider.
What makes me most nervous about a monopoly situation is a company or industry big enough to control the market, control those making the laws, and the ability to stifle research linking them to negative externalities. I see that happening both with fossil fuels and with GMOs.
On the post: Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?
Re: Re: "Intellectual Communism"
And I have said that it will be interesting to see how the libertarians and the copyleft/commons folks both come at copyright, but with significantly different visions of a desirable economic outcome. The commons folks see the free and open source software movements as a model which, in time, can be a model for all forms of economic production, exchange, ownership, and access.
Next >>