It's really easy to spot IP shills who need to fabricate strawmen to make a point.
Keep in mind that there are people who fall to the left of Techdirt on these issues.
Here's a resource I highly recommend (and I don't have any connection).
P2P Foundation: About: "... that the principles developed by the free software movement, in particular the General Public License, and the general principles behind the open source and open access movements, provides for models that could be used in other areas of social and productive life" (my emphasis)
Not it this post, but there have been posts on Techdirt questioning the value of patents and also challenging how trademarks are used. My impression has been that the overall position in Techdirt is that IP protection is bad for society and we'd be better off without it.
The flaw isn't that copyright = property, but that more property rights = better economic outcomes.
And I'm coming at these same questions from the commons perspective. I can get behind putting IP into a commons, but I'd also like to expand the concept to more use of commons for physical property, too.
I've come to think about this for three reasons:
1. Economic. I think the middle class is disappearing. Economic necessity is forcing people to share more to reduce expenses.
2. The shareable movement. A variety of trends are converging which encourage more people to think in terms of access and occasional use rather than private ownership.
3. Sustainability. Our focus on economics based on growth may not be sustainable, so it might be better to have people make, use, and buy only what they really need. Maybe it's time to outgrow the idea that our identities should be based on what we own.
what's talked about here as exactly what is: soft-lobbying for Silicon Valley.
That's been my perspective, too, which is why I continue to point people to other sites, especially the P2P Foundation.
I'm not satisfied with the idea we'll get rid of IP protection, but we'll compensate by finding ways to "sell" other stuff. When you have concentration of wealth among just a few individuals and companies, no one else has much money to buy anything. So a belief that we'll have a thriving world economic system based on consumption doesn't account for a lot of the challenges the world faces right now. I want to encourage a much broader discussion.
What led me to Techdirt were some of the posts on how musicians can make money. And then I started writing about it myself. That led me into lots of research about gift economics, free economies, the shareable movement, the P2P Foundation. And then Occupy Wall Street came.
Dropping IP protection is fine, but if all it does is make some folks in Silicon Valley all that much wealthier, we've just substituted a new power elite that operates a lot like previous power elites. That became especially evident to me when I was reading some of the justifications for Apple using cheap labor in China. It sounded a lot like justifications of colonialism back in the day.
That's what I am saying, too. IP laws aren't a big issue for most people.
Food Prices And Social Unrest [CHART] - Business Insider: "When food prices hit a certain critical level, Marco Lagi, Karla Z. Bertrand, and Yaneer Bar-Yam show, people tend to turn to violence--because their desperation hits a level at which they have nothing left to lose."
As I have said in other threads, I'm not going to argue for or against IP protection. It's of interest to me as part of a much larger economic/sustainability picture, but as an issue of itself, it isn't something I'll put much energy into.
However, what does interest me are proposals to suggest that the Republican Party might become the champion of the anti-IP coalition and therefore win new voters because of it. I'm skeptical about that because there are so many other issues the Republicans were representing that I think the Party would have to reinvent itself in many areas to be win over new voters.
And here is an excellent view of the fundamental difference between the parties right now.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Progressives are not against IP; libertarians are not "the right"
Here's another cool resource along these lines.
P2P Foundation -- Book review: Uncovering the Hidden History of Cooperation, Cooperative Movements, and Communalism in America "Likewise, today, the collapse of capital outlay requirements for production in the cultural and information fields (software, desktop publishing, music, etc.) has created a situation in which human capital is the source of most book value for many firms; consequently, workers are able to walk out with their human capital and form 'breakaway firms,' leaving their former employers as little more than hollow shells. And the rise of cheap garage manufacturing machinery (a Fab Lab with homebrew CNC tools costing maybe two months’ wages for a semi-skilled worker) is, in its essence, a return to the days when low physical capital costs made worker cooperatives a viable alternative to wage labor.
"The first Great Upheaval was defeated by the need for capital. The second one will destroy the old system by making capital superfluous.'"
Re: Re: Re: Re: If we're going to cite IP cases here
What does anti-copyright (if they are) have to do with pro-trademark?
True, a company can be anti-copyright and yet pro-trademark, but I have seen Techdirt take to task companies that legally try to protect their trademarks, so I have assumed that it's a subject that finds some disapproval within anti-IP circles.
I'm skeptical of Google's IP purity in that I think the company would like to do away with copyrights because doing so would allow it to post content without hassles, while doing away with trademarks wouldn't have any benefit for Google.
I'll support doing away with various IP laws, but I am interested in it within the context of reducing the power of big business in general. Replacing Big Hollywood with Big Tech isn't my goal.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Progressives are not against IP; libertarians are not "the right"
A rational, non-malevolent person would choose to avoid humanity's energy-starvation; and among fossil fuels, if you think they really are leading to global warming etc. (I do not) you would be all for nuclear. ...
My point is: if someone tells me they are an environemntalist, but they hate nuclear or don't even explore it as an alternatively, I konw that they are either stupid, ignorant, or a misanthrope.
You're pretty clear on where you are coming from. My original point is that different groups may come together to get rid of IP protection, but then they are likely to radically diverge on how the use this pool of info to structure the world. I'm most interested in those who seek to break down traditional corporate walls and expand the use of commons. I think the anti-IP, pro-commons folks can find ways to be pretty disruptive by making sure every innovation is available to the widest possible group of people for the lowest possible price and by using decentralized production and distribution, down to the individual level. When technology removes the need for economies of scale, the value of big corporations diminishes.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Progressives are not against IP; libertarians are not "the right"
No. It means that nuclear power is obviously better and safer for the environment than other serious competing sources; if you are really an environmentalist, you would be FOR nuclear power, unless you are ignorant--whcih is what I think is the case for most anti-nuke greens.
The environmental movement is broader than simply what we will use for energy. Therefore boiling it down to being for or against nuclear power is simplistic.
One of the big issues with nuclear power as it is currently being used is centralized energy generation. Some of us prefer finding ways for as many people as possible to generate their own energy off the grid. There are proposals for small nuclear generators which can power individual houses or neighborhoods, which could be a vastly different approach than we have now. So it is entirely possible to view the current nuclear power industry as antiquated but to still be open to future developments depending on what they are.
Perhaps a better option would be to have a nuclear plant in a very isolated area turning water into hydrogen to replace all uses of fossil fuels. But all the necessary technology is not yet in place. And the fossil fuel industry isn't likely to give up its hold US energy to quickly accommodate a switch to a hydrogen economy. What has killed nuclear power in this country is the economics. It's cheaper to build natural gas electrical plants than to bother with expensive nuclear power plants.
There are some people that are anti-nuke in all ways. There are others who are opposed to building more nuclear power plants which would require big capital investment and would continue to concentrate power ownership within a small group of hands. There are others who are open to solutions, but don't see them readily available at the moment. Rather than waiting for workable nuke solutions, there are clean technologies that can be instituted right now, so they are favored. For example, it's a whole lot easier to put a solar generator in an isolated Third World village than to set up a small, easy-to-run nuke power plant (not that they exist yet anyway).
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Progressives are not against IP; libertarians are not "the right"
In short, if Jones owns a piece of land at the present time, and we don’t know what crimes were committed to arrive at the current title, then Jones, as the current owner, becomes as fully legitimate a property owner of this land as he does over his own person. Overthrow of existing property title only becomes legitimate if the victims or their heirs can present an authenticated, demonstrable, and specific claim to the property. Failing such conditions, existing landowners possess a fully moral right to their property.
If they were on the land first, and we know that they were, then they should be able to claim it was theirs. I don't buy the "I didn't know any better than this" argument.
People opposed to nuclear power are, in my view, either not really environmentlists, or technologically illiterate. Anyone who is really in favor of environmentalism and knows a bit about science, would be in favor of nuclear power.
For you to make a statement like that means that you see the world in more black-and-white terms than I do. I don't think we think in the same manner. The "if you don't agree with me, I discount what you are saying" approach is one I'll pass on, thanks.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Progressives are not against IP; libertarians are not "the right"
But what about Native Americans? Do current land owners have a right to land that was once settled by others? If property has been taken by force from those who were there first, should it revert back to the original owners?
My primary concern is how to deal with global environmental problems. I've been reading how some libertarians say that the courts will deal with a property owner whose activities infringe on other people. If a company dumps pollutants into the water, those impacted should be able to collect damages. That's essentially what we have now -- a court system, lawyers, and jails for those who don't pay up. And then for that system to operate, we need taxes or fees to pay for those courts and jails. We end up with long court fights where lawyers try to prove or disprove damages.
I think I would rather see more environmental challenges dealt with as commons. We don't necessarily have to take property from current owners, but we can maintain property currently owned by the state or federal government, and we can enact stricter protections so that those who create environmental damage must pay. If the libertarian system is working properly, BP would be paying quite a bit of money to every entity damaged by the oil spill. Right now Colorado residents are battling fracking because there isn't adequate protection for citizens near fracking operations. There's little way to stop the drillers and not enough adequate provisions when damage to property, water, and air is done.
Seems like we either have more commons or more lawsuits as the world gets more populated and we become more dependent upon each other.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here's something I just learned about from Michel Bauwens of the P2P Foundation
This is a good overview of what I'd like to see. The emphasis is on commons; the network facilitates peer-to-peer everything and eliminates corporate-owned entities as much as possible (perhaps entirely).
Shareable: The Boom of Commons-Based Peer Production: "Physical production is impossible without natural resources. Therefore, peer production won’t be able to realize its full potential unless access to resources is managed according to its principles. Digital peer production treats knowledge and software as a commons. Likewise, physical peer production needs to manage resources and means of production as commons, utilizing them in a fair and sustainable way and preserving or improving their current state. For this it is important to find modes that ensure that nobody loses out and that everyone’s needs (whether productive or consumptive) are taken seriously."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Progressives are not against IP; libertarians are not "the right"
This is a good overview of what I'd like to see. The emphasis is on commons rather than private property.
Shareable: The Boom of Commons-Based Peer Production: "Physical production is impossible without natural resources. Therefore, peer production won’t be able to realize its full potential unless access to resources is managed according to its principles. Digital peer production treats knowledge and software as a commons. Likewise, physical peer production needs to manage resources and means of production as commons, utilizing them in a fair and sustainable way and preserving or improving their current state. For this it is important to find modes that ensure that nobody loses out and that everyone’s needs (whether productive or consumptive) are taken seriously."
Re: Re: Re: Re: If we're going to cite IP cases here
Since when is Google an "anti-copyright" corporation?
Is Google in the pro-copyright group? I didn't realize that.
While the company does try to stay safely within the law, it has been my impression that Google has funded, in various ways, vocal opponents to IP protection.
So is Google pro-copyright, anti-copyright (and anti-IP in general), or something in-between? Or maybe it's taking all sides of the issue as a political tactic?
Re: Re: Re: Progressives are not against IP; libertarians are not "the right"
I've been following along with the discussions by groups that would use the end of IP protection to reduce the amount of private property and to significant alter the concept of the free market system.
It will be interesting if divergent groups unite to end IP protection but then use the results to create entirely different forms of economic distribution. At a minimum I think those on the left would seek ways to significantly reduce income inequality. One way to do that is to encourage rapid dispersion of ideas/technology so that it would be difficult for any company or businessperson to provide unique goods/services for long. To the extent possible, everything would be crowdsourced and collectively owned, with little distinction between "yours" and "mine." It would all be "ours."
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
Keep in mind that there are people who fall to the left of Techdirt on these issues.
Here's a resource I highly recommend (and I don't have any connection).
P2P Foundation: About: "... that the principles developed by the free software movement, in particular the General Public License, and the general principles behind the open source and open access movements, provides for models that could be used in other areas of social and productive life" (my emphasis)
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
Not it this post, but there have been posts on Techdirt questioning the value of patents and also challenging how trademarks are used. My impression has been that the overall position in Techdirt is that IP protection is bad for society and we'd be better off without it.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Attempt To Downplay Significance Of RSC Report By Chanting Their Mantra: Copyright Is Property
Re: Degrees of Property
And I'm coming at these same questions from the commons perspective. I can get behind putting IP into a commons, but I'd also like to expand the concept to more use of commons for physical property, too.
I've come to think about this for three reasons:
1. Economic. I think the middle class is disappearing. Economic necessity is forcing people to share more to reduce expenses.
2. The shareable movement. A variety of trends are converging which encourage more people to think in terms of access and occasional use rather than private ownership.
3. Sustainability. Our focus on economics based on growth may not be sustainable, so it might be better to have people make, use, and buy only what they really need. Maybe it's time to outgrow the idea that our identities should be based on what we own.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Attempt To Downplay Significance Of RSC Report By Chanting Their Mantra: Copyright Is Property
Re: Re: Re: Sigh
That's been my perspective, too, which is why I continue to point people to other sites, especially the P2P Foundation.
I'm not satisfied with the idea we'll get rid of IP protection, but we'll compensate by finding ways to "sell" other stuff. When you have concentration of wealth among just a few individuals and companies, no one else has much money to buy anything. So a belief that we'll have a thriving world economic system based on consumption doesn't account for a lot of the challenges the world faces right now. I want to encourage a much broader discussion.
What led me to Techdirt were some of the posts on how musicians can make money. And then I started writing about it myself. That led me into lots of research about gift economics, free economies, the shareable movement, the P2P Foundation. And then Occupy Wall Street came.
Dropping IP protection is fine, but if all it does is make some folks in Silicon Valley all that much wealthier, we've just substituted a new power elite that operates a lot like previous power elites. That became especially evident to me when I was reading some of the justifications for Apple using cheap labor in China. It sounded a lot like justifications of colonialism back in the day.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Attempt To Downplay Significance Of RSC Report By Chanting Their Mantra: Copyright Is Property
Re: Re: Re: Mental Substitution
Food Prices And Social Unrest [CHART] - Business Insider: "When food prices hit a certain critical level, Marco Lagi, Karla Z. Bertrand, and Yaneer Bar-Yam show, people tend to turn to violence--because their desperation hits a level at which they have nothing left to lose."
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Attempt To Downplay Significance Of RSC Report By Chanting Their Mantra: Copyright Is Property
What the Republicans are up against
However, what does interest me are proposals to suggest that the Republican Party might become the champion of the anti-IP coalition and therefore win new voters because of it. I'm skeptical about that because there are so many other issues the Republicans were representing that I think the Party would have to reinvent itself in many areas to be win over new voters.
And here is an excellent view of the fundamental difference between the parties right now.
What Republicans Are Really Up Against: Population Density - Politics - The Atlantic Cities: "The crux of the Republican problem is not the changing ethnic and demographic makeup of America, but their being at odds with the very logic of urbanism and economic development."
On the post: President Obama Is Not Impressed With Your Right To Modify His Photos
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If we're going to cite IP cases here
On the post: New Book Makes The Case For Why Copyright Needs To Be Reformed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Progressives are not against IP; libertarians are not "the right"
P2P Foundation -- Book review: Uncovering the Hidden History of Cooperation, Cooperative Movements, and Communalism in America "Likewise, today, the collapse of capital outlay requirements for production in the cultural and information fields (software, desktop publishing, music, etc.) has created a situation in which human capital is the source of most book value for many firms; consequently, workers are able to walk out with their human capital and form 'breakaway firms,' leaving their former employers as little more than hollow shells. And the rise of cheap garage manufacturing machinery (a Fab Lab with homebrew CNC tools costing maybe two months’ wages for a semi-skilled worker) is, in its essence, a return to the days when low physical capital costs made worker cooperatives a viable alternative to wage labor.
"The first Great Upheaval was defeated by the need for capital. The second one will destroy the old system by making capital superfluous.'"
On the post: President Obama Is Not Impressed With Your Right To Modify His Photos
Re: Re: Re: Re: If we're going to cite IP cases here
True, a company can be anti-copyright and yet pro-trademark, but I have seen Techdirt take to task companies that legally try to protect their trademarks, so I have assumed that it's a subject that finds some disapproval within anti-IP circles.
I'm skeptical of Google's IP purity in that I think the company would like to do away with copyrights because doing so would allow it to post content without hassles, while doing away with trademarks wouldn't have any benefit for Google.
I'll support doing away with various IP laws, but I am interested in it within the context of reducing the power of big business in general. Replacing Big Hollywood with Big Tech isn't my goal.
On the post: New Book Makes The Case For Why Copyright Needs To Be Reformed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Progressives are not against IP; libertarians are not "the right"
My point is: if someone tells me they are an environemntalist, but they hate nuclear or don't even explore it as an alternatively, I konw that they are either stupid, ignorant, or a misanthrope.
You're pretty clear on where you are coming from. My original point is that different groups may come together to get rid of IP protection, but then they are likely to radically diverge on how the use this pool of info to structure the world. I'm most interested in those who seek to break down traditional corporate walls and expand the use of commons. I think the anti-IP, pro-commons folks can find ways to be pretty disruptive by making sure every innovation is available to the widest possible group of people for the lowest possible price and by using decentralized production and distribution, down to the individual level. When technology removes the need for economies of scale, the value of big corporations diminishes.
On the post: New Book Makes The Case For Why Copyright Needs To Be Reformed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Progressives are not against IP; libertarians are not "the right"
The environmental movement is broader than simply what we will use for energy. Therefore boiling it down to being for or against nuclear power is simplistic.
One of the big issues with nuclear power as it is currently being used is centralized energy generation. Some of us prefer finding ways for as many people as possible to generate their own energy off the grid. There are proposals for small nuclear generators which can power individual houses or neighborhoods, which could be a vastly different approach than we have now. So it is entirely possible to view the current nuclear power industry as antiquated but to still be open to future developments depending on what they are.
Perhaps a better option would be to have a nuclear plant in a very isolated area turning water into hydrogen to replace all uses of fossil fuels. But all the necessary technology is not yet in place. And the fossil fuel industry isn't likely to give up its hold US energy to quickly accommodate a switch to a hydrogen economy. What has killed nuclear power in this country is the economics. It's cheaper to build natural gas electrical plants than to bother with expensive nuclear power plants.
There are some people that are anti-nuke in all ways. There are others who are opposed to building more nuclear power plants which would require big capital investment and would continue to concentrate power ownership within a small group of hands. There are others who are open to solutions, but don't see them readily available at the moment. Rather than waiting for workable nuke solutions, there are clean technologies that can be instituted right now, so they are favored. For example, it's a whole lot easier to put a solar generator in an isolated Third World village than to set up a small, easy-to-run nuke power plant (not that they exist yet anyway).
On the post: New Book Makes The Case For Why Copyright Needs To Be Reformed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Progressives are not against IP; libertarians are not "the right"
Failed Philosophies of Property Rights | The Firebrand Magazine
On the post: New Book Makes The Case For Why Copyright Needs To Be Reformed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Progressives are not against IP; libertarians are not "the right"
If they were on the land first, and we know that they were, then they should be able to claim it was theirs. I don't buy the "I didn't know any better than this" argument.
People opposed to nuclear power are, in my view, either not really environmentlists, or technologically illiterate. Anyone who is really in favor of environmentalism and knows a bit about science, would be in favor of nuclear power.
For you to make a statement like that means that you see the world in more black-and-white terms than I do. I don't think we think in the same manner. The "if you don't agree with me, I discount what you are saying" approach is one I'll pass on, thanks.
On the post: New Book Makes The Case For Why Copyright Needs To Be Reformed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Progressives are not against IP; libertarians are not "the right"
My primary concern is how to deal with global environmental problems. I've been reading how some libertarians say that the courts will deal with a property owner whose activities infringe on other people. If a company dumps pollutants into the water, those impacted should be able to collect damages. That's essentially what we have now -- a court system, lawyers, and jails for those who don't pay up. And then for that system to operate, we need taxes or fees to pay for those courts and jails. We end up with long court fights where lawyers try to prove or disprove damages.
I think I would rather see more environmental challenges dealt with as commons. We don't necessarily have to take property from current owners, but we can maintain property currently owned by the state or federal government, and we can enact stricter protections so that those who create environmental damage must pay. If the libertarian system is working properly, BP would be paying quite a bit of money to every entity damaged by the oil spill. Right now Colorado residents are battling fracking because there isn't adequate protection for citizens near fracking operations. There's little way to stop the drillers and not enough adequate provisions when damage to property, water, and air is done.
Seems like we either have more commons or more lawsuits as the world gets more populated and we become more dependent upon each other.
On the post: US Patent Boss Completely Clueless: Insists That Patent Fights Show The System 'Wires Us For Innovation'
Re: Here's something I just learned about from Michel Bauwens of the P2P Foundation
The commons:(co)managing commonly owned resources
On the post: New Book Makes The Case For Why Copyright Needs To Be Reformed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Progressives are not against IP; libertarians are not "the right"
The commons:(co)managing commonly owned resources
On the post: US Patent Boss Completely Clueless: Insists That Patent Fights Show The System 'Wires Us For Innovation'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here's something I just learned about from Michel Bauwens of the P2P Foundation
Shareable: The Boom of Commons-Based Peer Production: "Physical production is impossible without natural resources. Therefore, peer production won’t be able to realize its full potential unless access to resources is managed according to its principles. Digital peer production treats knowledge and software as a commons. Likewise, physical peer production needs to manage resources and means of production as commons, utilizing them in a fair and sustainable way and preserving or improving their current state. For this it is important to find modes that ensure that nobody loses out and that everyone’s needs (whether productive or consumptive) are taken seriously."
On the post: New Book Makes The Case For Why Copyright Needs To Be Reformed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Progressives are not against IP; libertarians are not "the right"
Shareable: The Boom of Commons-Based Peer Production: "Physical production is impossible without natural resources. Therefore, peer production won’t be able to realize its full potential unless access to resources is managed according to its principles. Digital peer production treats knowledge and software as a commons. Likewise, physical peer production needs to manage resources and means of production as commons, utilizing them in a fair and sustainable way and preserving or improving their current state. For this it is important to find modes that ensure that nobody loses out and that everyone’s needs (whether productive or consumptive) are taken seriously."
On the post: President Obama Is Not Impressed With Your Right To Modify His Photos
Re: Re: Re: Re: If we're going to cite IP cases here
Is Google in the pro-copyright group? I didn't realize that.
While the company does try to stay safely within the law, it has been my impression that Google has funded, in various ways, vocal opponents to IP protection.
So is Google pro-copyright, anti-copyright (and anti-IP in general), or something in-between? Or maybe it's taking all sides of the issue as a political tactic?
On the post: New Book Makes The Case For Why Copyright Needs To Be Reformed
Re: Re: Re: Progressives are not against IP; libertarians are not "the right"
It will be interesting if divergent groups unite to end IP protection but then use the results to create entirely different forms of economic distribution. At a minimum I think those on the left would seek ways to significantly reduce income inequality. One way to do that is to encourage rapid dispersion of ideas/technology so that it would be difficult for any company or businessperson to provide unique goods/services for long. To the extent possible, everything would be crowdsourced and collectively owned, with little distinction between "yours" and "mine." It would all be "ours."
Next >>