What about the success of the Pirate Party in Sweden and Germany?
I have been following along, but I'm more interested in sustainability than IP issues, so the Pirate Party has been too much about something that is secondary to me for me to be excited for them.
Could something like this have traction in the US? I don't know. Here in Boulder our US Congressman is Jared Polis so there wouldn't be much incentive to replace him with a Pirate Party candidate.
Fracking has become a big issue in Colorado and our Democratic governor has been in support of the oil/gas industry over the wishes of local communities, so a candidate taking a more liberal stance than that might grab some attention. But again, this is a environmental issue rather than an IP issue.
The other point I try to make is explain why IP issues aren't a hot button for the average voter. 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.
I care about it to the extent that it could be a small piece of a very big picture -- which is why I tend to expand the discussion to encompass very big economic topics. IP as a standalone topic isn't relevant to me. IP as a factor within an economic system that allows more people to work outside the corporate, multi-national system is a BIG issue to me. Some of you can see this distinction, right?
Freeing up intellectual property to be a disruptive force is exactly what some people want to see happen. That could be a hard sell to conservative politicians.
Instead it appears to be a kind of benevolent socialism-anarchism -- i.e. something from the classic nonviolent far left. That is not so bad, it's not seen much her, but it's kind of an interesting and creative position that will have very little sympathy for classic big IP.
YES.
I am trying to offer a different perspective than what is usually presented here. Since people are interested in IP issues, I am hoping to point people to other resources. I see the world in a period as significant as the Industrial Revolution. How we distribute goods, how we protect the environment, how we view work, and how we take care of people are all being sorted out now.
It's a complex play of many factors and I don't think anything can be neatly boiled down to a few solutions. I will highlight the grey areas when I see them because I think we need to discuss them.
Let me backtrack a bit and explain why I write what I write here.
I found Techdirt because of some posting on music. By the time I got here, I had already decided fighting for or against copyright was a waste of energy.
But I have never bought into the idea that giving away content was transforming the music or creative business for the better for artists. I'd disagree with those concepts here and was repeatedly attacked for supporting the music powers-that-be. In other words, people were trying to box me into the pro-copyright group because I disagreed with Mike on opportunities to make income from creative activities.
In time, I decided to explore the concept of gift economies in great detail because some people have advocated that art should be given away as a gift. That's fine, but the basic necessities for artists still have to be met. About that time Occupy Wall Street and the Shareable Movement were happening and it made sense to me that artists can give away what they make and society, in return, would find ways to support people without traditional jobs and income.
That led me to the P2P Foundation site. It clearly says that it wants to expand the peer-to-peer approach to every facet of economic life. The info posted there is deep and the authors don't hesitate to highlight problems that can happen with proposed ideas.
Back at Techdirt I have tried to point out that those of us who have differing opinions than Techdirt can't all be dismissed as "maximalists." In fact, some of us may fall to the left of Techdirt.
I can see where Techdirt might want to disassociate from the more radical groups if it is trying to persuade conservative members of Congress to drop copyright protection and to reform patents.
In a previous discussion about the RSC there was a suggestion about how libertarians might find dropping copyright to their liking. I said that it will be interesting if the libertarian side gets rid of copyright to further private property protection and if the radical left gets rid of copyright to further less private property and more commons. They might work together to change laws, have vastly different goals.
I think it's the same with democracy. You can say everyone should be free to decide what government they want, but then some of those voters may end up picking a government not to your liking. We're seeing that democracy in the Middle East is not exactly a duplication of what it is here in the US and we'll have to live with it if we believe in the process.
As for big tech, yes, I am wary of its bigness and possible influence. It's not anything in particular. Rather it's been a lot of little things which sound so much like justifications I have read from the big industries decades gone past that I think it just comes with the territory. Once you have enough power, you tend to use it to keep yourself in business, even if that limits competition. I am happy that Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc. continue to do battle with each other rather than to form a truly united front because it keeps each of them in check.
Oh my goodness! I point to an article in which someone makes that claim and you immediately assume that I must agree wholeheartedly?
What is your position? Can you restate it or point me to where it is laid out? Or is it in flux? I'm sure I'm not the only one who has been confused by this. Is there a Techdirt position paper on IP issues?
Forgive, me then, for confusing Techdirt for being an anti-IP site. Articles like this led me to believe there was little, if any support, for patents here. We're already in the midst of discussing the evils of copyright, so I won't point to past articles on that. Haven't checked for specific trademark articles.
Products becoming cheaper as they aren't paying extortion charges means we have less money to spend?
I replied to this once, but then I didn't see it, so I figured I most not have posted it.
I wrote a second respond that it has to be approved by a moderator. If it doesn't show up, I give it another try.
Basically I was saying that it's been well-documented that incomes have been going down or stagnantly for the middle class. I like the sharable movement as a way to bring down living expenses. I don't think incomes will rise, so I want to free stuff to be available to more people. I'm a big advocate of free.
How do we get free sharing and a declining spending capacity?
I thought I had posted a response to this, but now I don't see it.
The decline in spending power has been documented many times. Good paying jobs are disappearing. As this article points out, even people with skills are being offered only $10 a hour. That's not enough to buy much. I don't think this is going to change, which is why I have embraced the shareable movement as a way to bring down living expenses. If salaries aren't going up, cost of living needs to come down. Anything people can get for free is good, so I am not fighting that concept at all. I like free. I just want lots more of it, and for more people.
This article goes even further and does say sharing results in job loss, but it creates an opportunity.
The collaborative economy is destroying jobs. So what's next?: "Let’s not be blind: yes, the collaborative economy is destroying a massive number of jobs. Is that a disaster though? It is, if we don’t redefine what ‘job’ and ‘work’ means, and how they relate to income. However, if we seriously consider the radical alternatives, this could be a great step for society."
What is he in favor of? Clarify it for me. I've read a lot of Techdirt articles and I guess I have been unclear on this. What IP laws does Techdirt defend and want to see kept in place?
How do we get free sharing and a declining spending capacity?
Sharing isn't causing the decline in income. But the decline is real.
This article explains that companies are looking for highly trained workers but they only want to pay them $10 an hour. So that means these people don't earn enough to buy much beyond the basics. I don't think the situation is going to change. So I think more people are going to have to get by with less. Anything they can get for free will contribute to that end. Rather than complaining about it, I am looking for solutions that allow lots of people to survive on little money. That means making as much of everything free as possible.
Here's another article talking about how to transform the economy based on work changes.
The collaborative economy is destroying jobs. So what's next?: "Let’s not be blind: yes, the collaborative economy is destroying a massive number of jobs. Is that a disaster though? It is, if we don’t redefine what ‘job’ and ‘work’ means, and how they relate to income. However, if we seriously consider the radical alternatives, this could be a great step for society."
So you think I am a shill for this? I have no ties to this organization, but I do read lots of what has been posted at the P2P Foundation. Here's just a bit. Basically what is happening is that it is taking the anti-IP focus advocated in Techdirt and pushing it out much further to transform everything beyond the digital world as well. While this seems to strike some of you as "anti-Techdirt," you can also just think of it as "beyond Techdirt."
Manifesto - P2P Foundation: "After describing the emergence of P2P as the dominant mode, or 'form', of our current technological infrastructure (section two), we then describe its emergence in the economic sphere (section three), as a 'third mode of production', neither profit-driven nor centrally planned, but as a decentralized cooperative way of producing software (free software and open source movements), and other immaterial products, based on the free cooperation of 'equipotential' participants. It uses copyright and intellectual propery rights to transcend the very limitations of property, because in free software, if you use it, you have to give at least the same rights to those who will use your modified version, and in open sources, you have to give them equal access to the source code.
"Such commons-based peer production has other important innovations, such as it taking place without the intervention of any manufacturer whatsoever. In fact the growing importance of 'user innovation communities' (section 3.1.B), which are starting to surpass the role of corporate sponsored marketing and research divisions in their innovation capacities, show that this formula is poised for expansion even in the world of material production, provided the design phase is separated from the production phase. It is already producing major cultural and economic landmarks such as GNU/Linux, the Wikipedia encyclopedia, the Thinkcycle global cooperative research projects, and a Writeable Web/Participative Internet/Global Alternative Communications infrastructure that can be used by all, beyond the corporate stranglehold on mass media. Finally, CBPP exemplifies a new work culture (section 3.1.C), that overturns many aspects of the Protestant work ethic as described by Max Weber. In the world of development, it is exemplified by the emerging 'edge to edge development partnerships' as theorized by Jock Gill. In section three, we also discuss the evolution of forms of cooperation (3.4.A), and of collective intelligence (3.4.B). It is also here that we are starting to address key analytical issues: 1) what are the specific characteristics of the ideal-type of the P2P form (3.4.C), namely de-institutionalisation (beyond fixed organizational formats and fixed formal rules), de-monopolisation (avoid the emergence of collective individuals who monopolise power, such as nation-state and corporation), and de-commodification (i.e. production for use-value, not exchange value); 2) we then demonstrate that P2P cannot be explained by the gift economy model of equal sharing and 'exchange of similar values', but rather by a model of communal shareholding (section 3.4.D), i.e. the creation of a Commons based on free participation both regarding input, and output (free usage even by non-producers). We use Alan Page Fiske's fourfold model of intersubjective relationships to ground this comparison; 3) we pay attention to the current power structure of cognitive capitalism, with a discussion of the thesis of McKenzie Wark's Hacker's Manifesto (section 3.4.E.)."
Remind us again why we should paint Google or Apple or Samsung in a poor light when patents don't do anything for society?
I'm confused. What are you saying?
If I haven't made myself abundantly clear, I am in favor of putting the entire world into one big commons if possible: IP, land, water, air, natural resources, etc.
Dividing everything up into property isn't something I support. The more we treat as much as possible as common property, the better we might be able to find solutions to global problems. Yes, I realize this is easier said than done, but that's why I find the P2P Foundation and the shareable movement to be useful. They are trying to address these issues.
I rather enjoy watching Apple, Google, Amazon and the other big tech companies fight amongst themselves. It keeps them in check.
I don't get it, you interprete someone's (who is not affiliated with Techdirt in any way) extreme position as proof of the strawman that you paint Techdirt's position to be? Yeah, I'll stick with my original comment: you IP shills are really easy to spot.
What are you talking about? Techdirt has published many articles criticizing patents and trademark protection. Are you saying Techdirt only wants to get rid of copyright and not patents? Are you sure about this?
All it shows to me is that current copyright system is slowly breaking apart.
I'm going to toss out what might be perceived as a "radical" theory.
My attitude about copyright/piracy is that it's already a reality and not worth expending lots of time/resources/legalities fighting for or against it. I think it will disappear on its own as a cause anyway.
But let's say all the anti-copyright folks get mobilized and get international laws overturned.
And you know what I think will happen? Not much. The industries fighting to protect their content are on the decline anyway. The industries benefiting from free sharing of content aren't going to get much additional mileage because what they have to offer around that content isn't worth much in a world where people have declining spending capacity. Think about it. Let's say Google can put up everything online without having to fight in court about it. There's still the problem of how to monetize all of that now free content. What is Google going to do? Sell more ads? To people who don't have money to spend?
A world of free, copyright-less content isn't going to change world economics hugely. Most people already have more to read, listen to, and watch than they have time to do so. Making even more of it available to them isn't going to alter their lives all that much.
Where having no copyrights might make a difference is when we have 3D printers that can cheaply make what people want without them having to go through manufacturers, retailers, shippers, etc. And that's the world I am advocating -- a world that no longer needs mega corporations because they don't offer anything of value anymore. I realize that the companies that supply the printing materials might still have an advantage, but beyond that, hopefully we'll enable a world of "makers" who meet their own needs as much as possible. And if we don't have big corporations, perhaps that will end the concentration within the realm of finance as well. I'd really like to see some major disruptions.
(I realize it's not all quite that simple. We still need people to perform surgeries. We still need facilities that produce medicines in sterile conditions. We aren't yet at a point where people can do everything for themselves.)
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 have been following along, but I'm more interested in sustainability than IP issues, so the Pirate Party has been too much about something that is secondary to me for me to be excited for them.
Could something like this have traction in the US? I don't know. Here in Boulder our US Congressman is Jared Polis so there wouldn't be much incentive to replace him with a Pirate Party candidate.
Fracking has become a big issue in Colorado and our Democratic governor has been in support of the oil/gas industry over the wishes of local communities, so a candidate taking a more liberal stance than that might grab some attention. But again, this is a environmental issue rather than an IP issue.
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: Sigh
I care about it to the extent that it could be a small piece of a very big picture -- which is why I tend to expand the discussion to encompass very big economic topics. IP as a standalone topic isn't relevant to me. IP as a factor within an economic system that allows more people to work outside the corporate, multi-national system is a BIG issue to me. Some of you can see this distinction, right?
Freeing up intellectual property to be a disruptive force is exactly what some people want to see happen. That could be a hard sell to conservative politicians.
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: Sigh
YES.
I am trying to offer a different perspective than what is usually presented here. Since people are interested in IP issues, I am hoping to point people to other resources. I see the world in a period as significant as the Industrial Revolution. How we distribute goods, how we protect the environment, how we view work, and how we take care of people are all being sorted out now.
It's a complex play of many factors and I don't think anything can be neatly boiled down to a few solutions. I will highlight the grey areas when I see them because I think we need to discuss them.
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: Sigh
I found Techdirt because of some posting on music. By the time I got here, I had already decided fighting for or against copyright was a waste of energy.
But I have never bought into the idea that giving away content was transforming the music or creative business for the better for artists. I'd disagree with those concepts here and was repeatedly attacked for supporting the music powers-that-be. In other words, people were trying to box me into the pro-copyright group because I disagreed with Mike on opportunities to make income from creative activities.
In time, I decided to explore the concept of gift economies in great detail because some people have advocated that art should be given away as a gift. That's fine, but the basic necessities for artists still have to be met. About that time Occupy Wall Street and the Shareable Movement were happening and it made sense to me that artists can give away what they make and society, in return, would find ways to support people without traditional jobs and income.
That led me to the P2P Foundation site. It clearly says that it wants to expand the peer-to-peer approach to every facet of economic life. The info posted there is deep and the authors don't hesitate to highlight problems that can happen with proposed ideas.
Back at Techdirt I have tried to point out that those of us who have differing opinions than Techdirt can't all be dismissed as "maximalists." In fact, some of us may fall to the left of Techdirt.
I can see where Techdirt might want to disassociate from the more radical groups if it is trying to persuade conservative members of Congress to drop copyright protection and to reform patents.
In a previous discussion about the RSC there was a suggestion about how libertarians might find dropping copyright to their liking. I said that it will be interesting if the libertarian side gets rid of copyright to further private property protection and if the radical left gets rid of copyright to further less private property and more commons. They might work together to change laws, have vastly different goals.
I think it's the same with democracy. You can say everyone should be free to decide what government they want, but then some of those voters may end up picking a government not to your liking. We're seeing that democracy in the Middle East is not exactly a duplication of what it is here in the US and we'll have to live with it if we believe in the process.
As for big tech, yes, I am wary of its bigness and possible influence. It's not anything in particular. Rather it's been a lot of little things which sound so much like justifications I have read from the big industries decades gone past that I think it just comes with the territory. Once you have enough power, you tend to use it to keep yourself in business, even if that limits competition. I am happy that Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc. continue to do battle with each other rather than to form a truly united front because it keeps each of them in check.
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: Sigh
What is your position? Can you restate it or point me to where it is laid out? Or is it in flux? I'm sure I'm not the only one who has been confused by this. Is there a Techdirt position paper on IP issues?
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: Sigh
Okay. This is something definitive. The goal isn't to lobby Congress to drop restrictions yet, but to encourage them to study the issues further?
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: Sigh
Scientists Feel That Patents Cause Significant Harm To Research | Techdirt
Is It So Crazy For A Patent Attorney To Think Patents Harm Innovation? | Techdirt
Research Shows Little Relationship Between Stricter IP Laws And Innovation Or Economic Growth | Techdirt
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: Sigh
What do you think?
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Attempt To Downplay Significance Of RSC Report By Chanting Their Mantra: Copyright Is Property
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mental Substitution
Should have been stagnating.
At any rate, I really like free. Let there be no confusion about that. I believe people can give away a lot if they don't have to buy much.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Attempt To Downplay Significance Of RSC Report By Chanting Their Mantra: Copyright Is Property
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mental Substitution
I replied to this once, but then I didn't see it, so I figured I most not have posted it.
I wrote a second respond that it has to be approved by a moderator. If it doesn't show up, I give it another try.
Basically I was saying that it's been well-documented that incomes have been going down or stagnantly for the middle class. I like the sharable movement as a way to bring down living expenses. I don't think incomes will rise, so I want to free stuff to be available to more people. I'm a big advocate of free.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Attempt To Downplay Significance Of RSC Report By Chanting Their Mantra: Copyright Is Property
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mental Substitution
I thought I had posted a response to this, but now I don't see it.
The decline in spending power has been documented many times. Good paying jobs are disappearing. As this article points out, even people with skills are being offered only $10 a hour. That's not enough to buy much. I don't think this is going to change, which is why I have embraced the shareable movement as a way to bring down living expenses. If salaries aren't going up, cost of living needs to come down. Anything people can get for free is good, so I am not fighting that concept at all. I like free. I just want lots more of it, and for more people.
Skills Don’t Pay the Bills - NYTimes.com
This article goes even further and does say sharing results in job loss, but it creates an opportunity.
The collaborative economy is destroying jobs. So what's next?: "Let’s not be blind: yes, the collaborative economy is destroying a massive number of jobs. Is that a disaster though? It is, if we don’t redefine what ‘job’ and ‘work’ means, and how they relate to income. However, if we seriously consider the radical alternatives, this could be a great step for society."
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: Sigh
What IP protections does Techdirt advocate?
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: Sigh
What is he in favor of? Clarify it for me. I've read a lot of Techdirt articles and I guess I have been unclear on this. What IP laws does Techdirt defend and want to see kept in place?
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Attempt To Downplay Significance Of RSC Report By Chanting Their Mantra: Copyright Is Property
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mental Substitution
Sharing isn't causing the decline in income. But the decline is real.
This article explains that companies are looking for highly trained workers but they only want to pay them $10 an hour. So that means these people don't earn enough to buy much beyond the basics. I don't think the situation is going to change. So I think more people are going to have to get by with less. Anything they can get for free will contribute to that end. Rather than complaining about it, I am looking for solutions that allow lots of people to survive on little money. That means making as much of everything free as possible.
Skills Don’t Pay the Bills - NYTimes.com
Here's another article talking about how to transform the economy based on work changes.
The collaborative economy is destroying jobs. So what's next?: "Let’s not be blind: yes, the collaborative economy is destroying a massive number of jobs. Is that a disaster though? It is, if we don’t redefine what ‘job’ and ‘work’ means, and how they relate to income. However, if we seriously consider the radical alternatives, this could be a great step for society."
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: Sigh
Why It Could Make Sense To Get Rid Of Patents Entirely, Even If They Work In A Few Cases | Techdirt
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: Sigh
Why It Could Make Sense To Get Rid Of Patents Entirely, Even If They Work In A Few Cases | Techdirt
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: Sigh
Manifesto - P2P Foundation: "After describing the emergence of P2P as the dominant mode, or 'form', of our current technological infrastructure (section two), we then describe its emergence in the economic sphere (section three), as a 'third mode of production', neither profit-driven nor centrally planned, but as a decentralized cooperative way of producing software (free software and open source movements), and other immaterial products, based on the free cooperation of 'equipotential' participants. It uses copyright and intellectual propery rights to transcend the very limitations of property, because in free software, if you use it, you have to give at least the same rights to those who will use your modified version, and in open sources, you have to give them equal access to the source code.
"Such commons-based peer production has other important innovations, such as it taking place without the intervention of any manufacturer whatsoever. In fact the growing importance of 'user innovation communities' (section 3.1.B), which are starting to surpass the role of corporate sponsored marketing and research divisions in their innovation capacities, show that this formula is poised for expansion even in the world of material production, provided the design phase is separated from the production phase. It is already producing major cultural and economic landmarks such as GNU/Linux, the Wikipedia encyclopedia, the Thinkcycle global cooperative research projects, and a Writeable Web/Participative Internet/Global Alternative Communications infrastructure that can be used by all, beyond the corporate stranglehold on mass media. Finally, CBPP exemplifies a new work culture (section 3.1.C), that overturns many aspects of the Protestant work ethic as described by Max Weber. In the world of development, it is exemplified by the emerging 'edge to edge development partnerships' as theorized by Jock Gill. In section three, we also discuss the evolution of forms of cooperation (3.4.A), and of collective intelligence (3.4.B). It is also here that we are starting to address key analytical issues: 1) what are the specific characteristics of the ideal-type of the P2P form (3.4.C), namely de-institutionalisation (beyond fixed organizational formats and fixed formal rules), de-monopolisation (avoid the emergence of collective individuals who monopolise power, such as nation-state and corporation), and de-commodification (i.e. production for use-value, not exchange value); 2) we then demonstrate that P2P cannot be explained by the gift economy model of equal sharing and 'exchange of similar values', but rather by a model of communal shareholding (section 3.4.D), i.e. the creation of a Commons based on free participation both regarding input, and output (free usage even by non-producers). We use Alan Page Fiske's fourfold model of intersubjective relationships to ground this comparison; 3) we pay attention to the current power structure of cognitive capitalism, with a discussion of the thesis of McKenzie Wark's Hacker's Manifesto (section 3.4.E.)."
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Attempt To Downplay Significance Of RSC Report By Chanting Their Mantra: Copyright Is Property
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sigh
I'm confused. What are you saying?
If I haven't made myself abundantly clear, I am in favor of putting the entire world into one big commons if possible: IP, land, water, air, natural resources, etc.
Dividing everything up into property isn't something I support. The more we treat as much as possible as common property, the better we might be able to find solutions to global problems. Yes, I realize this is easier said than done, but that's why I find the P2P Foundation and the shareable movement to be useful. They are trying to address these issues.
I rather enjoy watching Apple, Google, Amazon and the other big tech companies fight amongst themselves. It keeps them in check.
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: Sigh
What are you talking about? Techdirt has published many articles criticizing patents and trademark protection. Are you saying Techdirt only wants to get rid of copyright and not patents? Are you sure about this?
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Attempt To Downplay Significance Of RSC Report By Chanting Their Mantra: Copyright Is Property
Re: Re: Mental Substitution
I'm going to toss out what might be perceived as a "radical" theory.
My attitude about copyright/piracy is that it's already a reality and not worth expending lots of time/resources/legalities fighting for or against it. I think it will disappear on its own as a cause anyway.
But let's say all the anti-copyright folks get mobilized and get international laws overturned.
And you know what I think will happen? Not much. The industries fighting to protect their content are on the decline anyway. The industries benefiting from free sharing of content aren't going to get much additional mileage because what they have to offer around that content isn't worth much in a world where people have declining spending capacity. Think about it. Let's say Google can put up everything online without having to fight in court about it. There's still the problem of how to monetize all of that now free content. What is Google going to do? Sell more ads? To people who don't have money to spend?
A world of free, copyright-less content isn't going to change world economics hugely. Most people already have more to read, listen to, and watch than they have time to do so. Making even more of it available to them isn't going to alter their lives all that much.
Where having no copyrights might make a difference is when we have 3D printers that can cheaply make what people want without them having to go through manufacturers, retailers, shippers, etc. And that's the world I am advocating -- a world that no longer needs mega corporations because they don't offer anything of value anymore. I realize that the companies that supply the printing materials might still have an advantage, but beyond that, hopefully we'll enable a world of "makers" who meet their own needs as much as possible. And if we don't have big corporations, perhaps that will end the concentration within the realm of finance as well. I'd really like to see some major disruptions.
(I realize it's not all quite that simple. We still need people to perform surgeries. We still need facilities that produce medicines in sterile conditions. We aren't yet at a point where people can do everything for themselves.)
Next >>