To be totally fair, an awful lot (but not most) of modern Democrats I know or have heard speak are on that same page as well.
Yes, agreed. That's why some of us are pointing out that there isn't actually much support for true free market capitalism anywhere. It would disrupt current power blocks so they don't want it, and it's not the economic system of choice among those who advocate alternative economies.
Plus there is increasing awareness that we have negative externalities that are not always addressed in some economic systems.
What you characterize as a strawman was not "set up" by Mr Masnick -- support of free market capitalism is a plank in the Republican party platform and, as such, it is entirely appropriate to question whether the copyright policies they pursue reconcile with the party platform.
The politics/economics aspects of this discussion interest me. I don't think most Republicans would support what would be required to have a true free market economy. It would be too disruptive to their supporters.
A free market is like true Communism: an unrealistic philosophy because of people.
As we have often seen, people think the free market concept is great when they are making money by taking risks, but when they lose money, they often vote to have someone else pay for those risks. Or in the case of stuff like pollution, they look for ways to pass the negatives on to someone else to pay for.
"Free markets" are as much of a myth as Bigfoot or Santa Claus.
That's what was running through my mind, too. Not only don't we see any examples of free market capitalism, it's not something most people are clamoring for.
And to have true worldwide free market capitalism, lots of stuff would have to change. For example, immigration laws stifle a free flow of labor.
I gained no insights into what's happening with RSC and copyright. I'm going to accept the official explanation the from the RSC that the paper didn't reflect the thinking of the committee and shouldn't have been released on its website yet.
I don't think there's much to discuss in the comments here anymore and I'll give up with it. Return to your regularly scheduled programming and usual comments/bantering/opinions, etc.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This article needs to be tossed into the mix
20 posted links? In this article. That isn't discussion, that is pollution.
There are many discussions on Techdirt that are just people either joking back and forth or sniping at each other back and forth. Isn't there a chance that my posts might actually contribute to the quality of Techdirt comments?
Here's the deal. Techdirt has been the one to publicize the RSC issue the most. It touted the paper, then slammed the group for pulling the paper, and is now responding to people's analysis of the paper. So these seems to be the place to discuss this issue.
I am very interested in the politics of it all. There has often been confusion about where I've stood on copyright issues, so people may not have realized the copyleft/commons viewpoint and how it differs from the libertarian viewpoint, and how I don't happen to be shill for Hollywood just because I have a different view of music and arts business than Mike.
I guess I can start posting my thoughts on other copyright sites instead, but Mike has suggested that he has an inside track on the thinking over at the RSC so I have been asking lots of questions here and backing them up with some of what I am finding. And this bothers you?
Re: Re: Re: This article needs to be tossed into the mix
Here, let me explain it a different way.
Does the title "Copyright Maximalists Attempt To Downplay Significance Of RSC Report By Chanting Their Mantra: Copyright Is Property," apply to the conservatives I have cited who also view copyright as property? That's why I am tossing these articles out as I find them.
Does the term "copyright maximalist" apply to anyone who views copyright as property?
Re: Re: This article needs to be tossed into the mix
Adding thoughts with links is one thing, but you are just spamming us with shit you just ran over.
I thought the articles about conservatives saying copyright is property is really relevant because this whole event revolves around how Republicans view copyright. Considering that, I'm wondering if saying "copyright isn't property" is the right tactic to win over that group of politicians.
I'm very intrigued by why the paper was released by the RSC and why at this time. Some people are saying it's the libertarian element of the party. Others are saying it's to win over young voters. Others are saying reforming copyright is pro-business. And I thought it might have been an "in-your-face to Hollywood," but I've been informed here that the RSC was bought off by Hollywood, which is something I didn't realize.
So I want to explore all sides of the issue. And I seem to have rattled some people by saying I thought Techdirt was anti-IP. I'm surprised by that reaction so I want to know more about where Techdirt wants to go with all this and the RSC.
It's all kind of a political intrigue to me and I'm sharing what I find and seeing what you all think.
The politics of all of this intrigues me. And now I am finding that the idea that copyright is property is coming from conservatives, too. (I don't have an opinion one way or the other, but I am following allow with the discussions here because it appears to be a big issue now.) Early today I posted a link to something I found and now here's another. (I've been curious how this "is it property or isn't in property" is playing out so I have researching it.)
It's going to be interesting to see how the libertarians, the conservatives, the tech folks, and the copyleft/commons folks state their positions without tripping over each other in the process.
I've just pulled one sentence from this article, but it's worth reading in its entirety to see how a conservative writer views the paper that was put out.
I'm doing a bit of research and stumbled upon this. Seems like this is going to be a long debate.
The kind of thinking on copyright the GOP needs to move away from: "Do you see what just happened there? The implication is that Khanna in his memo, or those of us who would like to see copyright reform, don’t think there should be copyright at all or don’t think that copyright is property. That’s just not the case. In his memo, for example, Khanna explicitly proposes up to 46 years of protection for creative works. That is copyright, and that is property, and it would allow for contracts and licensing and for markets to work."
I was pretty sure I posted this here last night and yet I don't find it today, so I will try again. It's a good perspective on the left side of the equation.
If 3D printing becomes feasible, and if copyright disappears, the combination could open up a lot of interesting developments.
Shareable: Resources for Building the Solidarity Economy: "The Solidarity Economy is about building ground-up, direct-democratic organizations that can meet the needs of the community with attention paid to all ends of the economic process: from production to distribution to consumption."
The RSC stance is that the original document was not fully vetted. Are they just canning the whole issue now or are they going to try and revise and re-release? I doubt the author would have been working on the issue without some oversight as to what he was working on. Any guesses whats next?
I'm curious where this is headed, too. The politics of it all make for interesting bedfellows.
People feel passionate about it here, but the idea that most voters are going to base their voting decision on who does or doesn't support IP-related bills isn't likely.
Exhibit A: the failure of SOPA.
Exhibit B: the failure of ACTA.
I guess we'll have to wait and see how it plays out. This article suggests that supporting SOPA/ACTA didn't cost everyone their seats.
My feeling is that other issues are more likely to determine who gets re-elected. Women's rights. Gay rights. Immigration. The environment. And so on. But we'll see how it goes. The politics of it all will be interesting.
Re: Re: I just read the Groklaw coverage of the conference
It was widely panned by the experts in the audience who noted that the process she suggested would not work, because a "sense of Congress" is a totally toothless and mostly useless process.
Looks like it will probably be a long fight then. Trying to get much of anything through Congress will take time.
I just ran across this and I think it is worth sharing here because you see how it focuses on different concepts than a libertarian view of the world. The entire article is worth reading. It doesn't specifically talk about copyright but does mention digitizing and sharing collections online.
Culture Must Always Be a Commons | OpenGLAM: "So what would our Cultural Commons look like, how would it operate? I think it would look very much like the same Commons Framework that has already transformed professional communities all over the world.
At the heart of this Framework are three fundamental principles, which speak to unity and sustainability:
Equity – Everyone has a fair and just share of social and natural resources that belong to us together.
Sustainability – Our common wealth must be cared for so that it can sustain all living beings, including future generations.
Interdependence – Cooperation and connection in our communities, around our world, and with our living planet is essential for the future."
I just read the Groklaw coverage of the conference
Philosophically I side with Stallman.
Politically I probably fall here:
Groklaw - A Report on the Santa Clara Conference on Software Patents by Tkilgore ~pj: "Next up was Crystal Sheppard, University of Nebraska School of Law. In a nutshell, she said that the problem was Congressional action or, better, inaction, toward resolving a court-caused problem. ... In essence, the problem is to change the law without passing a law."
The simple answer is that there is a history there (ditto with Suzanne). That's not a good answer, but it is the answer. After debating with them for years, I am frustrated by their willful misrepresentation of what I say. It is at that point that it has gone on for years that it can not just be that I have not communicated clearly, but that they seem to purposely misrepresent my positions.
We have disagreed about music industry stuff and I will continue to present my view, which is that music is ubiquitous, is great for society, and is something the widest possible group of people should be making. The most revolutionary/exciting thing about music today in my mind is the technology that lets so many people make music for themselves.
What I don't embrace is the split between music maker and music fan. That's why I don't go along with the idea that direct-to-fan is the way to replace the old music business. In my mind, that's really the same old music business on a smaller scale.
I want participatory music.
Similarly, my economics and politics follow along that same line. Flatten business hierarchies. Remove them as much as possible. I embrace the maker movement. I look forward to whatever 3D printing can do to change economics. I hope the days of Wall Street are ending because we'll no longer need concentrated capital.
Whenever I disagree with Mike, he and his fans have accused me of (1) supporting the traditional music establishment or (2) being difficult. I am neither, but I do have a perspective that is different than what is commonly found here.
But it flies against established interests, so no chance it will be supported by the actual Republican Party, as opposed to some of its more idealistic members.
I thought I had responded to this, but I don't see it posted, so I'll try again.
The GOP as it is currently configured isn't libertarian enough to be the libertarian party, so I'm not sure how many votes it can count on from that group unless it significantly reinvents itself.
As third parties go, I'm closest in philosophy to the Green Party. While a libertarian GOP would appeal to me more than the conservative views it supports now, I probably wouldn't align with libertarians if I had a more sustainability-focused group to support. From what I have read about libertarian ideas to deal with pollution, it sounds like a lot of lawyers suing property owners for damages inflicted on other property owners. I'd rather try to head off the problems before they happen than to police problems after the fact with lawsuits.
On the post: Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?
Re: Re: Re: It is not a strawman.
Yes, agreed. That's why some of us are pointing out that there isn't actually much support for true free market capitalism anywhere. It would disrupt current power blocks so they don't want it, and it's not the economic system of choice among those who advocate alternative economies.
Plus there is increasing awareness that we have negative externalities that are not always addressed in some economic systems.
On the post: Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?
Re: It is not a strawman.
The politics/economics aspects of this discussion interest me. I don't think most Republicans would support what would be required to have a true free market economy. It would be too disruptive to their supporters.
On the post: Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As we have often seen, people think the free market concept is great when they are making money by taking risks, but when they lose money, they often vote to have someone else pay for those risks. Or in the case of stuff like pollution, they look for ways to pass the negatives on to someone else to pay for.
On the post: Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?
Re: Re: Re:
That's what was running through my mind, too. Not only don't we see any examples of free market capitalism, it's not something most people are clamoring for.
And to have true worldwide free market capitalism, lots of stuff would have to change. For example, immigration laws stifle a free flow of labor.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Attempt To Downplay Significance Of RSC Report By Chanting Their Mantra: Copyright Is Property
I might as well shelve the discussion
I gained no insights into what's happening with RSC and copyright. I'm going to accept the official explanation the from the RSC that the paper didn't reflect the thinking of the committee and shouldn't have been released on its website yet.
I don't think there's much to discuss in the comments here anymore and I'll give up with it. Return to your regularly scheduled programming and usual comments/bantering/opinions, etc.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Attempt To Downplay Significance Of RSC Report By Chanting Their Mantra: Copyright Is Property
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This article needs to be tossed into the mix
There are many discussions on Techdirt that are just people either joking back and forth or sniping at each other back and forth. Isn't there a chance that my posts might actually contribute to the quality of Techdirt comments?
Here's the deal. Techdirt has been the one to publicize the RSC issue the most. It touted the paper, then slammed the group for pulling the paper, and is now responding to people's analysis of the paper. So these seems to be the place to discuss this issue.
I am very interested in the politics of it all. There has often been confusion about where I've stood on copyright issues, so people may not have realized the copyleft/commons viewpoint and how it differs from the libertarian viewpoint, and how I don't happen to be shill for Hollywood just because I have a different view of music and arts business than Mike.
I guess I can start posting my thoughts on other copyright sites instead, but Mike has suggested that he has an inside track on the thinking over at the RSC so I have been asking lots of questions here and backing them up with some of what I am finding. And this bothers you?
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Attempt To Downplay Significance Of RSC Report By Chanting Their Mantra: Copyright Is Property
Re: Re: Re: Re: This article needs to be tossed into the mix
What have I done which you want me to stop doing here? Asking questions? Giving a differing opinion? Citing sources that might have been overlooked?
Your response in itself is intriguing. Elaborate.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Attempt To Downplay Significance Of RSC Report By Chanting Their Mantra: Copyright Is Property
Re: Re: Re: This article needs to be tossed into the mix
Does the title "Copyright Maximalists Attempt To Downplay Significance Of RSC Report By Chanting Their Mantra: Copyright Is Property," apply to the conservatives I have cited who also view copyright as property? That's why I am tossing these articles out as I find them.
Does the term "copyright maximalist" apply to anyone who views copyright as property?
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Attempt To Downplay Significance Of RSC Report By Chanting Their Mantra: Copyright Is Property
Re: Re: This article needs to be tossed into the mix
I thought the articles about conservatives saying copyright is property is really relevant because this whole event revolves around how Republicans view copyright. Considering that, I'm wondering if saying "copyright isn't property" is the right tactic to win over that group of politicians.
I'm very intrigued by why the paper was released by the RSC and why at this time. Some people are saying it's the libertarian element of the party. Others are saying it's to win over young voters. Others are saying reforming copyright is pro-business. And I thought it might have been an "in-your-face to Hollywood," but I've been informed here that the RSC was bought off by Hollywood, which is something I didn't realize.
So I want to explore all sides of the issue. And I seem to have rattled some people by saying I thought Techdirt was anti-IP. I'm surprised by that reaction so I want to know more about where Techdirt wants to go with all this and the RSC.
It's all kind of a political intrigue to me and I'm sharing what I find and seeing what you all think.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Attempt To Downplay Significance Of RSC Report By Chanting Their Mantra: Copyright Is Property
This article needs to be tossed into the mix
It's going to be interesting to see how the libertarians, the conservatives, the tech folks, and the copyleft/commons folks state their positions without tripping over each other in the process.
I've just pulled one sentence from this article, but it's worth reading in its entirety to see how a conservative writer views the paper that was put out.
Myths and Facts about Copyright - James V. DeLong - National Review Online: "Despite all these concerns, the temptation for Republicans to reflexively embrace the foes of copyright should be resisted, because the church of property rights is greater than its servants."
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Attempt To Downplay Significance Of RSC Report By Chanting Their Mantra: Copyright Is Property
I just found this
The kind of thinking on copyright the GOP needs to move away from: "Do you see what just happened there? The implication is that Khanna in his memo, or those of us who would like to see copyright reform, don’t think there should be copyright at all or don’t think that copyright is property. That’s just not the case. In his memo, for example, Khanna explicitly proposes up to 46 years of protection for creative works. That is copyright, and that is property, and it would allow for contracts and licensing and for markets to work."
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Attempt To Downplay Significance Of RSC Report By Chanting Their Mantra: Copyright Is Property
Another resource
If 3D printing becomes feasible, and if copyright disappears, the combination could open up a lot of interesting developments.
Shareable: Resources for Building the Solidarity Economy: "The Solidarity Economy is about building ground-up, direct-democratic organizations that can meet the needs of the community with attention paid to all ends of the economic process: from production to distribution to consumption."
On the post: Some Thoughts On Fixing Problems In The Patent System
Re:
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Attempt To Downplay Significance Of RSC Report By Chanting Their Mantra: Copyright Is Property
Re: Release of vetted document?
I'm curious where this is headed, too. The politics of it all make for interesting bedfellows.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Attempt To Downplay Significance Of RSC Report By Chanting Their Mantra: Copyright Is Property
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sigh
Exhibit A: the failure of SOPA.
Exhibit B: the failure of ACTA.
I guess we'll have to wait and see how it plays out. This article suggests that supporting SOPA/ACTA didn't cost everyone their seats.
My feeling is that other issues are more likely to determine who gets re-elected. Women's rights. Gay rights. Immigration. The environment. And so on. But we'll see how it goes. The politics of it all will be interesting.
Most SOPA/PIPA Supporters Survive The Election | TorrentFreak
On the post: Some Thoughts On Fixing Problems In The Patent System
Re: Re: I just read the Groklaw coverage of the conference
Looks like it will probably be a long fight then. Trying to get much of anything through Congress will take time.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Attempt To Downplay Significance Of RSC Report By Chanting Their Mantra: Copyright Is Property
A good discussion of a cultural commons
Culture Must Always Be a Commons | OpenGLAM: "So what would our Cultural Commons look like, how would it operate? I think it would look very much like the same Commons Framework that has already transformed professional communities all over the world.
At the heart of this Framework are three fundamental principles, which speak to unity and sustainability:
Equity – Everyone has a fair and just share of social and natural resources that belong to us together.
Sustainability – Our common wealth must be cared for so that it can sustain all living beings, including future generations.
Interdependence – Cooperation and connection in our communities, around our world, and with our living planet is essential for the future."
On the post: Some Thoughts On Fixing Problems In The Patent System
I just read the Groklaw coverage of the conference
Politically I probably fall here:
Groklaw - A Report on the Santa Clara Conference on Software Patents by Tkilgore ~pj: "Next up was Crystal Sheppard, University of Nebraska School of Law. In a nutshell, she said that the problem was Congressional action or, better, inaction, toward resolving a court-caused problem. ... In essence, the problem is to change the law without passing a law."
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Attempt To Downplay Significance Of RSC Report By Chanting Their Mantra: Copyright Is Property
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We have disagreed about music industry stuff and I will continue to present my view, which is that music is ubiquitous, is great for society, and is something the widest possible group of people should be making. The most revolutionary/exciting thing about music today in my mind is the technology that lets so many people make music for themselves.
What I don't embrace is the split between music maker and music fan. That's why I don't go along with the idea that direct-to-fan is the way to replace the old music business. In my mind, that's really the same old music business on a smaller scale.
I want participatory music.
Similarly, my economics and politics follow along that same line. Flatten business hierarchies. Remove them as much as possible. I embrace the maker movement. I look forward to whatever 3D printing can do to change economics. I hope the days of Wall Street are ending because we'll no longer need concentrated capital.
Whenever I disagree with Mike, he and his fans have accused me of (1) supporting the traditional music establishment or (2) being difficult. I am neither, but I do have a perspective that is different than what is commonly found here.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Attempt To Downplay Significance Of RSC Report By Chanting Their Mantra: Copyright Is Property
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sigh
I thought I had responded to this, but I don't see it posted, so I'll try again.
The GOP as it is currently configured isn't libertarian enough to be the libertarian party, so I'm not sure how many votes it can count on from that group unless it significantly reinvents itself.
As third parties go, I'm closest in philosophy to the Green Party. While a libertarian GOP would appeal to me more than the conservative views it supports now, I probably wouldn't align with libertarians if I had a more sustainability-focused group to support. From what I have read about libertarian ideas to deal with pollution, it sounds like a lot of lawyers suing property owners for damages inflicted on other property owners. I'd rather try to head off the problems before they happen than to police problems after the fact with lawsuits.
Next >>