Re: Re: Progressives are not against IP; libertarians are not "the right"
Any true reform must be radical and based on recognizing that patent and copyright fundamentally and systematically undermine private property rights and free markets.
What about radical reform not based on private property rights but rather on a commons system and on the economics of sharing or gift economies rather than free market? What label would you give that? Does that fall within the libertarian left or something else?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here's something I just learned about from Michel Bauwens of the P2P Foundation
Here. This explains the philosophy. I have absolutely no connection to the organization. I just enjoy it as a resource. Some of what I read in Techdirt about the need to drop IP laws still seems very corporate: it's a way to enhance the business opportunities of relatively recent businesses (especially ones tied to Silicon Valley) rather than to truly transform global economics. The players have changed over the decades, but the thinking is the same: let's grow big, which will give us a competitive advantage and more clout in DC.
That's why I find the P2P Foundation more experimental in its thinking.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Here's something I just learned about from Michel Bauwens of the P2P Foundation
So it becomes the single culture network, and of course to stop darknets from cropping up, all of the culture must likewise be chained into the system, lest it be distributed over BitTorrent or on a USB key and not be subject to counting. E-readers must keep track of your reading habits to properly calculate royalty fees to authors.
I wasn't talking about the network in reference to this particular example. I was talking about a network in the grander scope addressed by the P2P Foundation. This particular concept might not work because of the problems pointed out, but what might make a global P2P society work better than past utopian experiments is an ability to know who needs what where and how to deliver it. The network itself would be decentralized as the Internet was originally conceived. The concepts proposed on the P2P site are decentralized energy production, decentralized manufacturing, decentralized agriculture, a decentralized financial system, and so on.
The reason I like this approach is that I think big tech will (and already is) making a power grab just as big corporations in the past did. I don't trust big tech any more than I trust big ag, big pharma, big energy, etc.
Re: Re: Here's something I just learned about from Michel Bauwens of the P2P Foundation
What I like about the P2P Foundation is that there is considerable discussion of potential problems with any idea that is proposed.
Trying to get an economic system largely based on commons can be utopian (and we've seen how those have fared in the past), but what might be different this time is the network (plus there's a realization that our current world economic system isn't well equipped to deal with an exploding population expecting endless growth on a planet being hit with significant environmental disruptions.
Overall, I don't like simplistic solutions to complex problems which is why I don't always buy into us-versus-them thinking I see in politics or the IP discussions that go on here.
The P2P Foundation is the one place where I have found a willingness to tackle a problem, pull it apart, look for the flaws, and give it another go.
In general I like commons-based thinking and hope there are some workable models. I'd love to see a system where there is no need for Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc. I'd like to replace big tech with very decentralized tech and no corporate ownership.
If you find this sad, I hope no one tells you that Janet Napolitano (head of D.H.S.and the person in charge of U.S. cybersecurity) is an apparent Luddite that doesn't even use email to communicate.
Given what happened to Petraeus maybe she's smart to keep as much offline as possible.
Re: Re: Re: Re: If we're going to cite IP cases here
Would it not be more appropriate to submit this as a separate story?
Yes, and if Techdirt were a bulletin board, group, or Facebook page that's exactly what I would have done. But I'm not sure how to post stuff that isn't exactly tied to specific Techdirt topics.
As we dig deeper into politics and copyright, I'm always going to lean toward an anti-corporate position. As for politics, if I could get corporate money out of campaign funding and lobbying, I would.
I don't embrace the concept that private business = good, government = bad. As I have pointed out before, I like the P2P Foundation approach to the world. It is very pro-commons, but commons are often governed by groups of people, so it does involve government in a broad definition of the word. It isn't an Ayn Rand type view of the world.
Just wanted to make sure that people know "anti-copyright" corporations will also sue over IP issues when it suits their purposes.
I'm more suspicious of corporation motivations than I am government motivations, so I will periodically point out that big corporations aren't necessarily looking out for our interests either.
Since Techdirt can be used as an equal opportunity publicity site, let's go with this one, too.
Google v Doogle: school dropout ready for legal battle with internet's Goliath | World news | The Guardian: "Google declined to answer questions about Doogle directly. Julie Taylor, a spokeswoman for the company in South Africa, said: "We can't comment on individual cases, but we are passionate about protecting the reputation of our brand as an objective and fair provider of search results. We simply ask our users not to shorten, abbreviate or create acronyms out of Google trademarks.'"
Maybe this has already been posted on Techdirt. I know this is about trademarks rather than copyrights, but it is an IP issue.
Google v Doogle: school dropout ready for legal battle with internet's Goliath | World news | The Guardian: "Google declined to answer questions about Doogle directly. Julie Taylor, a spokeswoman for the company in South Africa, said: 'We can't comment on individual cases, but we are passionate about protecting the reputation of our brand as an objective and fair provider of search results. We simply ask our users not to shorten, abbreviate or create acronyms out of Google trademarks.'"
I'll take libertarianism over GOP conservatism because it removes government legislation of social behavior. However, as I have read libertarian discussions, I don't find a lot of discussions of problems I'd like to see addressed.
Since my primary concern is economic and environmental sustainability, I'll toss this out and hope to get some good libertarian takes on this.
Naomi Klein on Capitalism and Climate Change | BillMoyers.com: "... one of the things about deregulated capitalism is that it is a crisis creation machine, you know? You take away all the rules and you are going to have serial crises. They may be economic crises, booms and busts. Or there will be ecological crises. You're going to have both. You're just going to have shock after shock after shock. And the more, the longer this goes on, the more shocks you're going to have.
"And the way we're currently responding to it is that with each shock, we become more divided. And the more we understand that this is what the future looks like, the more those who can afford it protect themselves and buy their way out of having to depend on the public sector and therefore are less invested in these collective responses. And that's why there has to be a whole other way of responding to this crisis."
Meanwhile, the big corporations, their chief executives, lawyers, MBAs, lobby groups, etc. skew GOP. They want less union power, more pro-IP legislation, and more international IP protection. This is generally seen as "pro business" and thus right wing.
That's what I continue to expect from the GOP. This one paper or even a major push to reform copyright alone wouldn't change that. I am interested in IP issues to the extent that they are part of a much larger movement, which is best explored over at the P2P Foundation. I see major economic and sustainability issues that will need to be solved with more global cooperation and new forms of community organization.
The GOP via RSC puts out a paper that suggests copyright reform in the direction that the Hollywood lobbyists don't want.
I'll continue to be curious about why the paper was put out if the GOP knew they'd get a negative reaction from Hollywood lobbyists. The most plausible is the official explanation (that not everyone signed off on it) but not everyone seems to buy that. Another possibility is that whoever okayed this doesn't care about Hollywood lobbyists and was willing to take the risk of irritating them.
I don't think being progressive on this one issue will be enough to counterbalance conservative stances on women's health, same sex marriage, immigration, global warming, etc.
I had assumed they had little to lose with this because they weren't benefiting from Hollywood money. But if this puts them on the wrong side of that, and if it isn't enough to win them a whole new voting block, I'm not sure what they have gained politically.
Now if the Republicans actually want to become libertarians (and all that entails, including dropping support of social behavior regulations, corporate welfare programs, and massive military spending), that would be a much bigger change for them.
As I have said, it will be interesting to see how this plays out. The timing seems unusual, given there isn't an election around the corner and it's not the most pressing issue to be solved in Washington right now. However, if the Republicans plan to embrace every issue young voters are interested in, that will mean replacing lots of current Republican politicians with an entirely new generation of them. Can we expect vastly different stories to be featured on Fox News now?
You're wrong if you think Hollywood doesn't have much sway with Republicans. Very, very wrong. SOPA was introduced by... a Republican (and given to them by the MPAA). Previous copyright bills, including the awful "INDUCE" Act were introduced by Republicans.
Given this, I'm curious why the report on copyright was even put forth by anyone at the Republican Study Committee. Surely they knew there would be a reaction. Was it a slip-up, were they testing the waters, were they hoping to get it out there with minimal notice (there have been more pressing issues to deal with in Congress right now), or is this a sign that this Republican group has fragmented and will split on this and perhaps other issues?
It depends what you mean by "Hollywood." If you include companies like Comcast, Time Warner, and News Corp, then they do give more money to Democrats. (Yes, even News Corp.)
Well, it will be interesting to see who influences whom as this plays out. My voting interests are primarily aligned with sustainability issues, so unless the Republicans draft some innovative policies there, I won't be voting for them.
Or maybe it was any company/organization that makes its money via licensing (e.g., Disney, major sports leagues, toy companies).
I just can't see how the movie and music trade groups would have so much influence with Republicans if the Republicans were fully behind this but then pulled it in response to pressure from Hollywood. The politics don't seem to add up (I don't know where the lobby money falls).
The brief was vetted; then pulled, at least in part (if not mostly), because "industry lobbyists" went ballistic about it.
But I'm curious which lobbyists that might be. Seems like Hollywood lobbyists wouldn't have much sway with Republicans. What about more right-leaning news organizations?
On the post: New Book Makes The Case For Why Copyright Needs To Be Reformed
Re: Re: Progressives are not against IP; libertarians are not "the right"
What about radical reform not based on private property rights but rather on a commons system and on the economics of sharing or gift economies rather than free market? What label would you give that? Does that fall within the libertarian left or something else?
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
That's why I find the P2P Foundation more experimental in its thinking.
P2P Foundation:About - P2P Foundation
On the post: US Patent Boss Completely Clueless: Insists That Patent Fights Show The System 'Wires Us For Innovation'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Here's something I just learned about from Michel Bauwens of the P2P Foundation
I wasn't talking about the network in reference to this particular example. I was talking about a network in the grander scope addressed by the P2P Foundation. This particular concept might not work because of the problems pointed out, but what might make a global P2P society work better than past utopian experiments is an ability to know who needs what where and how to deliver it. The network itself would be decentralized as the Internet was originally conceived. The concepts proposed on the P2P site are decentralized energy production, decentralized manufacturing, decentralized agriculture, a decentralized financial system, and so on.
The reason I like this approach is that I think big tech will (and already is) making a power grab just as big corporations in the past did. I don't trust big tech any more than I trust big ag, big pharma, big energy, etc.
On the post: US Patent Boss Completely Clueless: Insists That Patent Fights Show The System 'Wires Us For Innovation'
Re: Re: Here's something I just learned about from Michel Bauwens of the P2P Foundation
Trying to get an economic system largely based on commons can be utopian (and we've seen how those have fared in the past), but what might be different this time is the network (plus there's a realization that our current world economic system isn't well equipped to deal with an exploding population expecting endless growth on a planet being hit with significant environmental disruptions.
Overall, I don't like simplistic solutions to complex problems which is why I don't always buy into us-versus-them thinking I see in politics or the IP discussions that go on here.
The P2P Foundation is the one place where I have found a willingness to tackle a problem, pull it apart, look for the flaws, and give it another go.
In general I like commons-based thinking and hope there are some workable models. I'd love to see a system where there is no need for Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc. I'd like to replace big tech with very decentralized tech and no corporate ownership.
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: US Patent Boss Completely Clueless: Insists That Patent Fights Show The System 'Wires Us For Innovation'
Here's something I just learned about from Michel Bauwens of the P2P Foundation
On the post: US Patent Boss Completely Clueless: Insists That Patent Fights Show The System 'Wires Us For Innovation'
Re: US Patent Boss Completely Clueless
Given what happened to Petraeus maybe she's smart to keep as much offline as possible.
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
Yes, and if Techdirt were a bulletin board, group, or Facebook page that's exactly what I would have done. But I'm not sure how to post stuff that isn't exactly tied to specific Techdirt topics.
As we dig deeper into politics and copyright, I'm always going to lean toward an anti-corporate position. As for politics, if I could get corporate money out of campaign funding and lobbying, I would.
I don't embrace the concept that private business = good, government = bad. As I have pointed out before, I like the P2P Foundation approach to the world. It is very pro-commons, but commons are often governed by groups of people, so it does involve government in a broad definition of the word. It isn't an Ayn Rand type view of the world.
On the post: President Obama Is Not Impressed With Your Right To Modify His Photos
Re: Re: If we're going to cite IP cases here
I'm more suspicious of corporation motivations than I am government motivations, so I will periodically point out that big corporations aren't necessarily looking out for our interests either.
On the post: President Obama Is Not Impressed With Your Right To Modify His Photos
If we're going to cite IP cases here
Google v Doogle: school dropout ready for legal battle with internet's Goliath | World news | The Guardian: "Google declined to answer questions about Doogle directly. Julie Taylor, a spokeswoman for the company in South Africa, said: "We can't comment on individual cases, but we are passionate about protecting the reputation of our brand as an objective and fair provider of search results. We simply ask our users not to shorten, abbreviate or create acronyms out of Google trademarks.'"
On the post: That Was Fast: Hollywood Already Browbeat The Republicans Into Retracting Report On Copyright Reform
On big corporations bullying little guys
Google v Doogle: school dropout ready for legal battle with internet's Goliath | World news | The Guardian: "Google declined to answer questions about Doogle directly. Julie Taylor, a spokeswoman for the company in South Africa, said: 'We can't comment on individual cases, but we are passionate about protecting the reputation of our brand as an objective and fair provider of search results. We simply ask our users not to shorten, abbreviate or create acronyms out of Google trademarks.'"
On the post: New Book Makes The Case For Why Copyright Needs To Be Reformed
Re: Progressives vs. Libertarians on Copyright
Since my primary concern is economic and environmental sustainability, I'll toss this out and hope to get some good libertarian takes on this.
Naomi Klein on Capitalism and Climate Change | BillMoyers.com: "... one of the things about deregulated capitalism is that it is a crisis creation machine, you know? You take away all the rules and you are going to have serial crises. They may be economic crises, booms and busts. Or there will be ecological crises. You're going to have both. You're just going to have shock after shock after shock. And the more, the longer this goes on, the more shocks you're going to have.
"And the way we're currently responding to it is that with each shock, we become more divided. And the more we understand that this is what the future looks like, the more those who can afford it protect themselves and buy their way out of having to depend on the public sector and therefore are less invested in these collective responses. And that's why there has to be a whole other way of responding to this crisis."
On the post: That Was Fast: Hollywood Already Browbeat The Republicans Into Retracting Report On Copyright Reform
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A recent update
That's what I continue to expect from the GOP. This one paper or even a major push to reform copyright alone wouldn't change that. I am interested in IP issues to the extent that they are part of a much larger movement, which is best explored over at the P2P Foundation. I see major economic and sustainability issues that will need to be solved with more global cooperation and new forms of community organization.
On the post: That Was Fast: Hollywood Already Browbeat The Republicans Into Retracting Report On Copyright Reform
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: References
I'll continue to be curious about why the paper was put out if the GOP knew they'd get a negative reaction from Hollywood lobbyists. The most plausible is the official explanation (that not everyone signed off on it) but not everyone seems to buy that. Another possibility is that whoever okayed this doesn't care about Hollywood lobbyists and was willing to take the risk of irritating them.
On the post: That Was Fast: Hollywood Already Browbeat The Republicans Into Retracting Report On Copyright Reform
Re: Re:
I had assumed they had little to lose with this because they weren't benefiting from Hollywood money. But if this puts them on the wrong side of that, and if it isn't enough to win them a whole new voting block, I'm not sure what they have gained politically.
Now if the Republicans actually want to become libertarians (and all that entails, including dropping support of social behavior regulations, corporate welfare programs, and massive military spending), that would be a much bigger change for them.
As I have said, it will be interesting to see how this plays out. The timing seems unusual, given there isn't an election around the corner and it's not the most pressing issue to be solved in Washington right now. However, if the Republicans plan to embrace every issue young voters are interested in, that will mean replacing lots of current Republican politicians with an entirely new generation of them. Can we expect vastly different stories to be featured on Fox News now?
On the post: That Was Fast: Hollywood Already Browbeat The Republicans Into Retracting Report On Copyright Reform
Re: Re: Re: Re: A recent update
Given this, I'm curious why the report on copyright was even put forth by anyone at the Republican Study Committee. Surely they knew there would be a reaction. Was it a slip-up, were they testing the waters, were they hoping to get it out there with minimal notice (there have been more pressing issues to deal with in Congress right now), or is this a sign that this Republican group has fragmented and will split on this and perhaps other issues?
On the post: That Was Fast: Hollywood Already Browbeat The Republicans Into Retracting Report On Copyright Reform
Re: Re: Re: Re: A recent update
Well, it will be interesting to see who influences whom as this plays out. My voting interests are primarily aligned with sustainability issues, so unless the Republicans draft some innovative policies there, I won't be voting for them.
On the post: That Was Fast: Hollywood Already Browbeat The Republicans Into Retracting Report On Copyright Reform
Re: Re: Re: A recent update
I just can't see how the movie and music trade groups would have so much influence with Republicans if the Republicans were fully behind this but then pulled it in response to pressure from Hollywood. The politics don't seem to add up (I don't know where the lobby money falls).
On the post: That Was Fast: Hollywood Already Browbeat The Republicans Into Retracting Report On Copyright Reform
Re: Re: A recent update
But I'm curious which lobbyists that might be. Seems like Hollywood lobbyists wouldn't have much sway with Republicans. What about more right-leaning news organizations?
On the post: That Was Fast: Hollywood Already Browbeat The Republicans Into Retracting Report On Copyright Reform
Re: Derek Khanna on the paper
Next >>