Just as you cannot contract yourself into slavery, so you cannot contract your yourself into silence.
You might lose your job.
You might lose your reputation.
You might lose any hush money.
But, you can't lose your liberty to speak freely concerning information you have been made privy to.
NB You may be in a jurisdiction that has an 'official secrets act', and your silence may be so obtained. But, individuals and corporations, unlike the state, do not have such powers (yet).
Mike, I'd question the ethics of non-disclosure agreements if I were you.
Although copyright hasn't yet been successfully challenged as an abrogation of a citizen's right to free speech, and corporations have no such rights to alienate themselves from, citizens cannot otherwise alienate themselves from their freedom of speech.
An NDA is a con trick when applied to individuals.
If you voluntarily make someone privy to something, you cannot bind them to silence. You can only incentivise or appeal for their discretion.
An NDA may work against a reviewer's employing publisher if the reviewer represents them, but it cannot bind a citizen blogger.
The press started the unnatural corruption of commercial privilege that is copyright in the first place.
They're not exactly the first ones I'd to look to for unravelling the legal mess that's left behind when copyright starts creaking at the seams and the public sees that release from their rusted bonds into liberty is within reach.
The public aren't 'stakeholders' - they're the ones that are bound to the stake that everyone else is holding.
Sorry folk, but you're on your own.
The press look out for themselves.
The government look out for their corporate sponsors.
The media corporations look out for control over communications channels, the raw material they pump along them, and the advertisers that harvest the crop from the opiated masses.
The privileges of copyright and patent conflict with intellectual property rights - and as you astutely observe, for libertarians who've confused privilege as right 'end up trampling on their own concept of "freedom"'.
The ineffectiveness of copyright may confuse people into believing that sales are no longer possible, but this is not at all the case.
While there are musicians with music and fans with money, sales are eminently possible - even if the markets to facilitate them are still in the laboratory.
Yup. I think IP is real property (and I'm a libertarian too).
I'm very happy to argue why everyone's intellectual property rights should be protected just as much as their material property rights.
To see that one can both be a libertarian and in support of IP rights let’s see how, whilst still tightly adhering to the US constitution, the people’s liberty need not be unethically suspended, as it is by copyright and patent, when securing their natural intellectual property rights:
1. Authors and inventors, being human beings have a natural, exclusive right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
2. This natural right should be secured by the state – to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.
3. The natural right can last no longer than the lifetime of the author or inventor.
4. The natural right should be secured for a limited time equal to the limited lifetime of the author or inventor, except in the event of unnatural death, when this limited time should be extended to secure a now unnatural exclusive right by a further quarter of the normal lifespan.
5. The natural right ceases to be exclusive when the author or inventor voluntarily communicates (or permits the communication of) their writings and discoveries to other parties, whether by gift or exchange.
6. An author’s or inventor’s writings and discoveries naturally remain exclusive to all natural parties to whom they have been voluntarily communicated (by any such party).
7. All such communicated parties may, as a collective, be treated as if a single author or inventor and should have secured (by the state) their natural, exclusive right for as long as they each shall live.
8. No communicated party may as a consequence submit to the abridgement of their freedom of speech, which includes the freedom to further communicate (the writings and discoveries voluntarily communicated to them) to whomsoever they choose. NB This doesn’t preclude a communicant’s commercial exchange of their continued silence (confidentiality).
9. Those who are not voluntarily communicated parties, who view, remove, copy, or otherwise communicate a party’s writings or discoveries to themselves (or any other) without that party’s permission shall be penalised statutorily (for the violation of privacy) and additionally in proportion to the market value of the publication of those writings or discoveries (where publication is their exchange for money with members of the public at large), and further required to restore any removal and destroy any copies manufactured. All who have been further illegitimately communicated may also be similarly liable in so far as they are complicit, but must at least also cease and reverse any communication in so far as it is practicable.
Privileges such as copyright and patent suspend other people's rights (such as their liberty and privacy) in order to reward a favoured class (merchants with the reward of a monopoly).
Thus a libertarian is against intellectual property privileges (copyright and patent) and in favour of intellectual property rights (life, privacy, truth, liberty).
When privileged people pretend their privileges are rights, then everyone starts getting confused as to whether they're for or against 'rights', and consequently confused as to whether they are a libertarian...
"I will not accept the enslavement of my fellow man, nor any imposition upon his liberty, as reward for the publication of my art."
Even if you really did want to prevent the situation where two bots would continue to outbid each other (despite an escalating price no doubt well beyond market), you could say that an auction's maximum extension would be 24 hours.
Frankly, I expect it would rarely exceed 30 mins.
Remember, an auction is traditionally MEANT to enable bidders to agree that no higher bids are forthcoming. The auctioneer slams his gavel down when such agreement is evident - not because he's decided time's up.
A better solution is not to sell tickets in the first place, but to hold an auction for all the seats/spaces, or better still to create an online market and let all comers (including the venue and event organisers) buy and sell as many times as they want.
If by 'The recording industry' you mean members of RIAA, we need not concern ourselves with their fate. If they can have brain surgery to recognise the opportunities and make the paradigm shift, well, great, they can get with the program, but otherwise they'll simply wither.
Speaking with someone else's voice ruins your own.
One of the few times money doesn't corrupt an artist is if it is from their audience in support of the artist to continue speaking with their own, authentic voice.
So, there are still ways artists can make money selling themselves and their digital art on the Internet without the money getting in the way.
Grand Moff Tarkin: Princess Leia. Before your execution, I would like you to be my guest at a ceremony that will make this battle station operational. No star system will dare oppose the emperor now.
Princess: The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
Just change the names to RIAA/MPAA and PirateBay and the way the story plays out makes it clear why their corporate qua imperial mindset forced them into contriving their own doom.
Recently I’ve noticed a fair bit of ‘data envy’ going on – suspicion and concern about the personal data silos being constructed for commercial motives. While it may be wise to remain suspicious and concerned about any corporation’s motives, many people appear to feel that personal data about them naturally remains private to them and should rightfully be surrendered, deleted, or tightly controlled at the subject’s behest by any entity who collects it.
In the context of personal data, privacy is not the right to control what other people record or say about you (even if of a personal nature), but to prevent others having access to your private domain and all your personal data or secrets within it, and if they do via unauthorised access obtain such information, to prevent them revealing it further.
Despite an understandable desire by people to have control over circulation of their disclosed secrets and their confidants’ statement of them, moreover to have control over others’ data and databases that may be relied upon to make such statements, there is no such natural right, nor sanction for such an unnatural privilege to be created.
Conspiracy to induce suicide or suicidal tendencies?
Perhaps a new crime: Conspiracy to induce suicide or suicidal tendencies?
It is probably irrelevant whether this is achieved via real or virtual identities.
It would be comparable to inciting violence or racial hatred say. But in this case, it's like inciting self-violence or self-hatred.
Compare with anti-terrorism laws that prohibit inducing suicide bombers, i.e. in this case inducing someone to commit an act of suicidal 'terrorism' where the only victim is the 'terrorist' themselves.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not cultural works, but commercial
But, remember, we're not talking about Robin Hood's gang stealing gold from the sheriff of Nottingham to give to the poor. We're not talking about theft here. No-one's stealing food from one bunch of cartoonists to give it to children with cancer.
This is the public's culture and their cultural freedom at stake.
We're only talking about one bunch of cartoonists reproducing the characters that many children have become familiar with over their short lifetimes thanks to another bunch of cartoonists.
Copyright advocates say "Either pay the first bunch whatever they demand or create new characters - you thieving bastards - and tough luck if the kids prefer our work to yours".
Something's gone terribly wrong if this is what copyright is about - don't you think?
By suggesting that I despise the public I think you've assumed I'm in support of the people recognising that the last century's published works remain commercial property rather than public culture.
I'm not in support of this recognition at all. In fact I'm horrified that so many people seem so willing and compliant in this respect.
I quite agree with you. There is no plagiarism here, nor any misrepresentation. If anything, it's a tribute to Warner's work.
Such a pity Warner so selfishly tries to prohibit anyone else using the characters they gave to the world.
But then they'll argue "Oh no, we just said you can look, but not touch. We didn't say you could share them or build them into your own works. These are sacred icons that remain our commercial property - not part of your culture. Whatever gave you that idea?"
On the post: Metallica Still Doesn't Get It: Forces Early Reviews Of Latest Album Offline
Re: Re:
You might lose your job.
You might lose your reputation.
You might lose any hush money.
But, you can't lose your liberty to speak freely concerning information you have been made privy to.
NB You may be in a jurisdiction that has an 'official secrets act', and your silence may be so obtained. But, individuals and corporations, unlike the state, do not have such powers (yet).
On the post: Metallica Still Doesn't Get It: Forces Early Reviews Of Latest Album Offline
Although copyright hasn't yet been successfully challenged as an abrogation of a citizen's right to free speech, and corporations have no such rights to alienate themselves from, citizens cannot otherwise alienate themselves from their freedom of speech.
An NDA is a con trick when applied to individuals.
If you voluntarily make someone privy to something, you cannot bind them to silence. You can only incentivise or appeal for their discretion.
An NDA may work against a reviewer's employing publisher if the reviewer represents them, but it cannot bind a citizen blogger.
On the post: Why Is ACTA Being Negotiated In Secret?
The press?
They're not exactly the first ones I'd to look to for unravelling the legal mess that's left behind when copyright starts creaking at the seams and the public sees that release from their rusted bonds into liberty is within reach.
The public aren't 'stakeholders' - they're the ones that are bound to the stake that everyone else is holding.
Sorry folk, but you're on your own.
The press look out for themselves.
The government look out for their corporate sponsors.
The media corporations look out for control over communications channels, the raw material they pump along them, and the advertisers that harvest the crop from the opiated masses.
Who else is there?
On the post: Libertarian VP Candidate... Patent Hoarder?
Re: Libertarian Schism
The privileges of copyright and patent conflict with intellectual property rights - and as you astutely observe, for libertarians who've confused privilege as right 'end up trampling on their own concept of "freedom"'.
On the post: Trent Reznor's Path To Accepting And Embracing New Business Models
Re:
Granted, very few people are exploring 'sales', but believe me, people are working on it.
See http://www.quidmusic.com for one of my prototypes.
More at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fund_and_release
The ineffectiveness of copyright may confuse people into believing that sales are no longer possible, but this is not at all the case.
While there are musicians with music and fans with money, sales are eminently possible - even if the markets to facilitate them are still in the laboratory.
On the post: Libertarian VP Candidate... Patent Hoarder?
Re: Re:
I'm very happy to argue why everyone's intellectual property rights should be protected just as much as their material property rights.
To see that one can both be a libertarian and in support of IP rights let’s see how, whilst still tightly adhering to the US constitution, the people’s liberty need not be unethically suspended, as it is by copyright and patent, when securing their natural intellectual property rights:
1. Authors and inventors, being human beings have a natural, exclusive right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
2. This natural right should be secured by the state – to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.
3. The natural right can last no longer than the lifetime of the author or inventor.
4. The natural right should be secured for a limited time equal to the limited lifetime of the author or inventor, except in the event of unnatural death, when this limited time should be extended to secure a now unnatural exclusive right by a further quarter of the normal lifespan.
5. The natural right ceases to be exclusive when the author or inventor voluntarily communicates (or permits the communication of) their writings and discoveries to other parties, whether by gift or exchange.
6. An author’s or inventor’s writings and discoveries naturally remain exclusive to all natural parties to whom they have been voluntarily communicated (by any such party).
7. All such communicated parties may, as a collective, be treated as if a single author or inventor and should have secured (by the state) their natural, exclusive right for as long as they each shall live.
8. No communicated party may as a consequence submit to the abridgement of their freedom of speech, which includes the freedom to further communicate (the writings and discoveries voluntarily communicated to them) to whomsoever they choose. NB This doesn’t preclude a communicant’s commercial exchange of their continued silence (confidentiality).
9. Those who are not voluntarily communicated parties, who view, remove, copy, or otherwise communicate a party’s writings or discoveries to themselves (or any other) without that party’s permission shall be penalised statutorily (for the violation of privacy) and additionally in proportion to the market value of the publication of those writings or discoveries (where publication is their exchange for money with members of the public at large), and further required to restore any removal and destroy any copies manufactured. All who have been further illegitimately communicated may also be similarly liable in so far as they are complicit, but must at least also cease and reverse any communication in so far as it is practicable.
On the post: Libertarian VP Candidate... Patent Hoarder?
IP Rights vs Privileges
Privileges such as copyright and patent suspend other people's rights (such as their liberty and privacy) in order to reward a favoured class (merchants with the reward of a monopoly).
Thus a libertarian is against intellectual property privileges (copyright and patent) and in favour of intellectual property rights (life, privacy, truth, liberty).
When privileged people pretend their privileges are rights, then everyone starts getting confused as to whether they're for or against 'rights', and consequently confused as to whether they are a libertarian...
"I will not accept the enslavement of my fellow man, nor any imposition upon his liberty, as reward for the publication of my art."
On the post: Online Auctions No Longer Fun?
Re: Re: Re: Cure for sniping
Even if you really did want to prevent the situation where two bots would continue to outbid each other (despite an escalating price no doubt well beyond market), you could say that an auction's maximum extension would be 24 hours.
Frankly, I expect it would rarely exceed 30 mins.
Remember, an auction is traditionally MEANT to enable bidders to agree that no higher bids are forthcoming. The auctioneer slams his gavel down when such agreement is evident - not because he's decided time's up.
On the post: Online Auctions No Longer Fun?
Cure for sniping
On the post: How A Big Record Label Could Make Itself Useful: Act As The Filter
4AD was one of the best ever affinity labels
Cocteau Twins
Dead Can Dance
Clan of Xymox
This Mortal Coil
Wolfgang Press
On the post: ACLU Joins In On Media Ownership Hysteria
Copyright and Patent suspend liberty
The ACLU should get a clue as to whose liberty it's defending rather than whose money it's chasing.
On the post: Chicago Wants To Double-Collect Taxes On Event Ticket Sales
Use an auction instead
On the post: No, iTunes And Amazon Downloads Are Not The Answer For The Recording Industry
The Industry is Redundant
If by 'The recording industry' you mean members of RIAA, we need not concern ourselves with their fate. If they can have brain surgery to recognise the opportunities and make the paradigm shift, well, great, they can get with the program, but otherwise they'll simply wither.
On the post: Money Can Get In The Way Sometimes But It Doesn't 'Ruin Everything'
Accepting bribes to plug
One of the few times money doesn't corrupt an artist is if it is from their audience in support of the artist to continue speaking with their own, authentic voice.
So, there are still ways artists can make money selling themselves and their digital art on the Internet without the money getting in the way.
On the post: How The RIAA/MPAA Helped Catapult The Pirate Bay Into Being One Of The World's Most Popular Sites
Princess: The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
Just change the names to RIAA/MPAA and PirateBay and the way the story plays out makes it clear why their corporate qua imperial mindset forced them into contriving their own doom.
On the post: Data Ownership Might Not Work for Social Networking Sites
The Natural Rights of Data Ownership
Excerpt:
Recently I’ve noticed a fair bit of ‘data envy’ going on – suspicion and concern about the personal data silos being constructed for commercial motives. While it may be wise to remain suspicious and concerned about any corporation’s motives, many people appear to feel that personal data about them naturally remains private to them and should rightfully be surrendered, deleted, or tightly controlled at the subject’s behest by any entity who collects it.
In the context of personal data, privacy is not the right to control what other people record or say about you (even if of a personal nature), but to prevent others having access to your private domain and all your personal data or secrets within it, and if they do via unauthorised access obtain such information, to prevent them revealing it further.
Despite an understandable desire by people to have control over circulation of their disclosed secrets and their confidants’ statement of them, moreover to have control over others’ data and databases that may be relied upon to make such statements, there is no such natural right, nor sanction for such an unnatural privilege to be created.
On the post: Prosecutors Go Overboard In Indicting Woman Involved In MySpace Hoax That Resulted In Suicide
Conspiracy to induce suicide or suicidal tendencies?
It is probably irrelevant whether this is achieved via real or virtual identities.
It would be comparable to inciting violence or racial hatred say. But in this case, it's like inciting self-violence or self-hatred.
Compare with anti-terrorism laws that prohibit inducing suicide bombers, i.e. in this case inducing someone to commit an act of suicidal 'terrorism' where the only victim is the 'terrorist' themselves.
On the post: Warner Brothers Shuts Down Auction For Children's Cancer Charity
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not cultural works, but commercial
This is the public's culture and their cultural freedom at stake.
We're only talking about one bunch of cartoonists reproducing the characters that many children have become familiar with over their short lifetimes thanks to another bunch of cartoonists.
Copyright advocates say "Either pay the first bunch whatever they demand or create new characters - you thieving bastards - and tough luck if the kids prefer our work to yours".
Something's gone terribly wrong if this is what copyright is about - don't you think?
On the post: Warner Brothers Shuts Down Auction For Children's Cancer Charity
Re: Never
I'm not in support of this recognition at all. In fact I'm horrified that so many people seem so willing and compliant in this respect.
On the post: Warner Brothers Shuts Down Auction For Children's Cancer Charity
Re:
Such a pity Warner so selfishly tries to prohibit anyone else using the characters they gave to the world.
But then they'll argue "Oh no, we just said you can look, but not touch. We didn't say you could share them or build them into your own works. These are sacred icons that remain our commercial property - not part of your culture. Whatever gave you that idea?"
Next >>