Ponder this. Let's say research becomes free because people open source and also copy what others have done.
Labor is nearly free because there are so many people willing to work for little or nothing, and automation will also take over many tasks.
So that leaves natural resources that might be scarce. Are we going to get to a point where people go to war over water, land, minerals, etc.? Probably.
Other than certain natural resources, everything else we either already have in excess or can be duplicated with minimal expense.
So where are the scarcities? Sure, you can say attention, relationships, etc. But if most of the world is unemployed, they won't have money to pay for these scarcities and will have to make due without them or with substitutions. The wealthy, on the other hand, will have an excess of money and will trade amongst themselves expensive artwork, property, etc. So their world, where they decide what is scarce and will pay for it, is pretty much uncoupled from the rest of the world.
I'm not confused by the difference between infinite goods and scarce goods. There are certain natural resources that are scarce, but labor isn't scarce. And as far as producing physical products, we're already producing more than the world can use for most items. When we have sophisticated 3d printers, the cost of an item will come down to the cost of the material used in the printer. The cost of the printer itself can be spread among many users.
We condemn these acts, even though the whole world knows we are responsible for Stuxnet doing exactly this to Iran.
Isn't that the point, though? Between governments and criminals, that which can be hacked will be hacked. What should we do? How do we, citizens of the world, protect ourselves? Or do we concede that we can't?
My point is it isn't self-evident that preventing cheap knock-offs is necessary to protect industries.
I don't think I would sugarcoat it. EXPECT massive amounts of cheap knockoffs. That's better for consumers. Drive the price of everything down. Industries that depend on patents disappear.
So how do you compensate for the low prices? You need to find ways so that the cost of developing new items is as close to nil as possible too. That means changing the nature of work and ownership. Open source everything and put as much into commons as possible. If the world needs a new invention, collectively design and make it and reduce costs along the way.
But something like this is disruptive at all levels. I don't see too many people advocating the sharing of wealth and power across society.
There is another next step which most of the new music industry and the artists haven't yet grasped: The wall between artist and audience will come down. There won't be a difference. Everyone will be creative. Sure, there will be people who do it better than others, but as the technology allows more people to create for themselves, the idea of "fans" will transform.
Given world economic conditions and the fact that work itself is changing, and who has money and who doesn't have money is also changing, the idea that there will be a vast population of fans waiting to give their money to artists is likely to change, too.
The real music revolutionaries are people like Ge Wang at Smule.
Let's say government is totally removed from cybersecurity. Is private enterprise going to keep the Internet safe? Should we all be using cash transactions to avoid having any info transmitted or stored on servers? Seems like companies are being hacked all the time, and security isn't as good as it could be in most places. So how will protections be implemented?
Just get rid of monetary system. Not impossible at all with the technology we have today. Cry me a river.
This is exactly the kind of thing I am thinking about. Let's get rid of patents, but along with that, downsize corporations, eliminate scarcity as much as possible, etc. As soon as someone produces something, make it so widely available that the price drops to next to nothing. Imagine a world where competitive advantage pretty much disappears.
I agree that the patent system is broken. And I could also agree to eliminating patents (but I also want massive changes in world economics -- far more extensive than most anti-IP people propose).
But I can't see the end of patents happening unless there is some major lobbying money put behind the idea. What companies or groups would do that? Seems like most politics in DC happen when a rich company (or group of companies) act in their self-interest. While there is a lot of grumbling about patents, which companies would choose whatever political money they have to spend to champion this versus whatever else they might want in terms of laws? That's the problem: once a company is rich enough to be able to pay for lobbyists, they are also rich enough to want to start protecting their turf.
In other words, what rich companies have decided "the end of patents" is their biggest cause and will do everything in their power to end patent laws?
How many companies actually want to get into the btoadband business?
Let's say there are no restrictions on who can enter the broadband business. How many companies will actually jump in? Lower prices would be more attractive to consumers, but how many companies want to compete in that market?
"... it seems to be something that the candidates are aware of, especially the libertarian, Gary Johnson, whose campaign is - make no bones about it - they're after what they call the cannabis vote. And they feel confident that they can make a dent in Romney's numbers."
Brad Feld, a well-known Boulder-based entrepreneur and VC, identifies five startup communities in Boulder: tech (software/Internet), biotech, clean tech, natural foods, and lifestyles of health and sustainability (LOHAS).
Jared Polis is the US Representative for the district that contains Boulder. If Polis only represented the "Internet bloc" without supporting issues that were important to the other four startup communities, he wouldn't get elected.
Internet corporations at this point can spend enough money on lobbyists to have an impact in DC, but in terms of voter priorities, I think other issues will determine how they vote. I'm pretty sure lobbyists can buy support in DC and that is probably sufficient to get certain laws changed. But I think that is different than organizing voting blocs around Internet issues.
In short, it might not matter in terms of lawmaking who gets elected if those who are elected can be "bought" by Internet companies. Pay both liberals and conservatives enough money to "see" it your way, and voila, Congress changes the laws.
Spending on entertainment and clothing have been going down, so that's not likely going to musicians. It doesn't have anything to do with piracy. People can get music for free from legal downloads, streaming, YouTube. So they save money by getting music for free, but that saved money is likely going for bills rather than the non-digital stuff that musicians sell (e.g., live music, merchandise).
What I am saying is that economic times are tough, people are cutting back on non-essential items, and paying their bills. So for the music industry to count on people supporting the musicians may not happen given a global recession.
Re: I might be pro-Internet, but am wary of corporations
It looks like I'm not the only one who thinks big companies that lobby on behalf of the Internet are probably really just lobbying on behalf of themselves.
The money people are saving by getting their recorded music for free often doesn't go to musicians in other forms. It goes to pay bills.
Cellphones Are Eating the Family Budget - WSJ.com: "Americans spent $116 more a year on telephone services in 2011 than they did in 2007, according to the Labor Department, even as total household expenditures increased by just $67.
"Meanwhile, spending on food away from home fell by $48, apparel spending declined by $141, and entertainment spending dropped by $126. The figures aren't adjusted for inflation."
I might be pro-Internet, but am wary of corporations
I'll toss this out. While I might be included in that Internet bloc, I think the big companies supporting it are or will be just as power-hungry as most (or more likely all) big corporations tend to be. So I am equally wary of the new big companies who are fighting the old big companies.
I see Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Google, etc. as today's equivalent of GM, Ford, Conoco, Exxon, Monsanto, etc.
What I support in terms of Internet issues will be moderated by who I see benefiting from the legislation.
While legalization of marijuana isn't a big Tea Party issue, it does fit in with libertarian views, so the more libertarian Tea Partiers would support it. On the other hand, I can't see a lot of Tea Party people bothering to go out of their way to support it. I don't think it's a litmus test issue for them.
I wish at this point we were free to vote on issues rather than candidates. That way I could pick and choose what I support and what I don't support per issue rather than trying to find candidates who most closely reflect my package of concerns.
And if we can't eliminate having people in office, then perhaps we can at least eliminate political parties. Republicans have moved farther to the right, so anyone who wants to run as a Republican has had to advocate for more far right policies to get his party's support. That has pretty much wiped out the moderate Republican candidate. If, on the other hand, people weren't associated with a political party, then perhaps we would get a wider array of political viewpoints, ranging from far right, far left, and everything in between.
Of course, if we got rid of representative government, we'd have a different set of problems, with big money campaigns to sway voters on those issues. We see it all the time with ballot issues. Every group with a strong stance on an issue and access to money would try to influence voters.
I wonder what would happen if we got rid of all political financing, and also required every voter to become thoroughly familiar with the issues before voting.
This all still begs the question of what weight "internet issues" carry relative to all others. Will a life-long Democrat support a Republican who shares his view on the internet but is a rabid anti-abortion, pro-gun, drill-baby-drill Teabagger? ...
For all of the overheated rhetoric surrounding IP issues, I'm not familiar with a single race where it is a major point of contention.
That's where I fall on this. While I would fall within Internet bloc in terms of those issues, I feel far more strongly about other issues and would never vote based primarily on a candidate's Internet stance. I think the number of people who only pay attention to Internet issues and discount other factors is relatively small. However, it would be interesting to see if a candidate can win an election by making the Internet his/her primary cause.
My representative, Jared Polis, represents Boulder and has been an Internet entrepreneur, so it is a given that he is going to represent the Internet bloc, but voters who elected him also care about sustainability (probably to a greater extent than the Internet), gay rights (and Jared is openly gay), support of science research (we've got a lot of government-supported science here), etc. If Jared were a Tea Party conservative who happened to align with the Internet bloc for that one issue, he wouldn't get elected in his district.
I encourage everyone to vote, but someone like me doesn't neatly fit into an Internet vote
I take my vote seriously. I always vote. And I totally support efforts to get more people to vote.
The issue that matters most to me is sustainability, which encompasses both the environment and economics. I'm going to be most receptive to politicians who address those issues. If a politician said his/her priority was the Internet, that honestly wouldn't matter to me. It's not a positive or a negative to me. He/she would have to either support sustainability or at least not support companies that are trying to undermine sustainability efforts in order to get my vote.
I'm just tossing that out because if someone said to me how important the Internet is, I'd probably agree but would respond that I'm much more concerned about climate change, unsustainable economic growth, rigged Wall Street, etc. For other people the key issue might be health care, or gay rights, or something else.
I suppose if your job depends on Internet freedom, then that is your primary concern, but for others, maybe not so much. It's the sort of thing where a lot of people would probably support it, but not necessarily choose a candidate primarily for that reason. It's not a passionate cause for the average person.
The whole thing would have been avoided if she had offered the chance to play on stage with her as one of the reward levels on her kickstarter.
Yes, it is quite common for crowdfunding rewards to include being in a band's video, playing on a song on an album, etc.
Now, I suppose having people pay to get on stage might not have produced talented musicians, but here's what she could have done. People pay for the privilege to play at each tour top. If it turns out that those who are paying have no talent, give them something they can do on stage and then use the money they have paid to hire professionals at each stop who can play. So the fan kicks in enough money for the privilege of getting on stage and that money goes to pay the musicians who can play.
On the post: Why It Could Make Sense To Get Rid Of Patents Entirely, Even If They Work In A Few Cases
Re: Re: Re:
Labor is nearly free because there are so many people willing to work for little or nothing, and automation will also take over many tasks.
So that leaves natural resources that might be scarce. Are we going to get to a point where people go to war over water, land, minerals, etc.? Probably.
Other than certain natural resources, everything else we either already have in excess or can be duplicated with minimal expense.
So where are the scarcities? Sure, you can say attention, relationships, etc. But if most of the world is unemployed, they won't have money to pay for these scarcities and will have to make due without them or with substitutions. The wealthy, on the other hand, will have an excess of money and will trade amongst themselves expensive artwork, property, etc. So their world, where they decide what is scarce and will pay for it, is pretty much uncoupled from the rest of the world.
On the post: Why It Could Make Sense To Get Rid Of Patents Entirely, Even If They Work In A Few Cases
Re: Re: Re:
Here's what I wrote 2 1/2 years ago.
Hypercompetition, Scarcity, and the Economics of Music
On the post: White House Conveniently Confirms 'Cyberattack' Story Just As Its Pushing Cybersecurity Exec Order
Re: And what about the attack on the banks?
Isn't that the point, though? Between governments and criminals, that which can be hacked will be hacked. What should we do? How do we, citizens of the world, protect ourselves? Or do we concede that we can't?
On the post: Why It Could Make Sense To Get Rid Of Patents Entirely, Even If They Work In A Few Cases
Re: Re: Re:
I don't think I would sugarcoat it. EXPECT massive amounts of cheap knockoffs. That's better for consumers. Drive the price of everything down. Industries that depend on patents disappear.
So how do you compensate for the low prices? You need to find ways so that the cost of developing new items is as close to nil as possible too. That means changing the nature of work and ownership. Open source everything and put as much into commons as possible. If the world needs a new invention, collectively design and make it and reduce costs along the way.
But something like this is disruptive at all levels. I don't see too many people advocating the sharing of wealth and power across society.
On the post: Out With The Old, In With The New: How Innovation Has Completely Changed The Music Business
The envelope isn't being pushed enough
Given world economic conditions and the fact that work itself is changing, and who has money and who doesn't have money is also changing, the idea that there will be a vast population of fans waiting to give their money to artists is likely to change, too.
The real music revolutionaries are people like Ge Wang at Smule.
On the post: White House Conveniently Confirms 'Cyberattack' Story Just As Its Pushing Cybersecurity Exec Order
So what is being done about cybersecurity?
On the post: Why It Could Make Sense To Get Rid Of Patents Entirely, Even If They Work In A Few Cases
Re:
This is exactly the kind of thing I am thinking about. Let's get rid of patents, but along with that, downsize corporations, eliminate scarcity as much as possible, etc. As soon as someone produces something, make it so widely available that the price drops to next to nothing. Imagine a world where competitive advantage pretty much disappears.
On the post: Why It Could Make Sense To Get Rid Of Patents Entirely, Even If They Work In A Few Cases
Who is going to lobby for this?
But I can't see the end of patents happening unless there is some major lobbying money put behind the idea. What companies or groups would do that? Seems like most politics in DC happen when a rich company (or group of companies) act in their self-interest. While there is a lot of grumbling about patents, which companies would choose whatever political money they have to spend to champion this versus whatever else they might want in terms of laws? That's the problem: once a company is rich enough to be able to pay for lobbyists, they are also rich enough to want to start protecting their turf.
In other words, what rich companies have decided "the end of patents" is their biggest cause and will do everything in their power to end patent laws?
On the post: More People Realize The Obvious: Telco Regulatory Capture Is Why We Have Crappy, Expensive Broadband
How many companies actually want to get into the btoadband business?
On the post: The Internet Savvy Appear To Agree On A Lot Of Policy Ideas
And there is also the "cannabis vote."
"... it seems to be something that the candidates are aware of, especially the libertarian, Gary Johnson, whose campaign is - make no bones about it - they're after what they call the cannabis vote. And they feel confident that they can make a dent in Romney's numbers."
On the post: The Internet Savvy Appear To Agree On A Lot Of Policy Ideas
Re: Re:
Jared Polis is the US Representative for the district that contains Boulder. If Polis only represented the "Internet bloc" without supporting issues that were important to the other four startup communities, he wouldn't get elected.
Internet corporations at this point can spend enough money on lobbyists to have an impact in DC, but in terms of voter priorities, I think other issues will determine how they vote. I'm pretty sure lobbyists can buy support in DC and that is probably sufficient to get certain laws changed. But I think that is different than organizing voting blocs around Internet issues.
In short, it might not matter in terms of lawmaking who gets elected if those who are elected can be "bought" by Internet companies. Pay both liberals and conservatives enough money to "see" it your way, and voila, Congress changes the laws.
On the post: So What Can The Music Industry Do Now?
Re: Re: This is where the money is going
What I am saying is that economic times are tough, people are cutting back on non-essential items, and paying their bills. So for the music industry to count on people supporting the musicians may not happen given a global recession.
On the post: The Internet Savvy Appear To Agree On A Lot Of Policy Ideas
Re: I might be pro-Internet, but am wary of corporations
The Tech World Gets a New Trade Association, Or “How to Read a DC Press Release” | Bytegeist: "In short: the Internet Association is a group formed by Google and other like-minded companies to soothe the hurt feelings of key House Republicans who had their feathers singed on SOPA."
On the post: So What Can The Music Industry Do Now?
This is where the money is going
Cellphones Are Eating the Family Budget - WSJ.com: "Americans spent $116 more a year on telephone services in 2011 than they did in 2007, according to the Labor Department, even as total household expenditures increased by just $67.
"Meanwhile, spending on food away from home fell by $48, apparel spending declined by $141, and entertainment spending dropped by $126. The figures aren't adjusted for inflation."
On the post: The Internet Savvy Appear To Agree On A Lot Of Policy Ideas
I might be pro-Internet, but am wary of corporations
I see Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Google, etc. as today's equivalent of GM, Ford, Conoco, Exxon, Monsanto, etc.
What I support in terms of Internet issues will be moderated by who I see benefiting from the legislation.
On the post: The Internet Savvy Appear To Agree On A Lot Of Policy Ideas
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Internet Savvy Appear To Agree On A Lot Of Policy Ideas
If we could just vote on an issue-by-issue basis
And if we can't eliminate having people in office, then perhaps we can at least eliminate political parties. Republicans have moved farther to the right, so anyone who wants to run as a Republican has had to advocate for more far right policies to get his party's support. That has pretty much wiped out the moderate Republican candidate. If, on the other hand, people weren't associated with a political party, then perhaps we would get a wider array of political viewpoints, ranging from far right, far left, and everything in between.
Of course, if we got rid of representative government, we'd have a different set of problems, with big money campaigns to sway voters on those issues. We see it all the time with ballot issues. Every group with a strong stance on an issue and access to money would try to influence voters.
I wonder what would happen if we got rid of all political financing, and also required every voter to become thoroughly familiar with the issues before voting.
On the post: The Internet Savvy Appear To Agree On A Lot Of Policy Ideas
Re:
For all of the overheated rhetoric surrounding IP issues, I'm not familiar with a single race where it is a major point of contention.
That's where I fall on this. While I would fall within Internet bloc in terms of those issues, I feel far more strongly about other issues and would never vote based primarily on a candidate's Internet stance. I think the number of people who only pay attention to Internet issues and discount other factors is relatively small. However, it would be interesting to see if a candidate can win an election by making the Internet his/her primary cause.
My representative, Jared Polis, represents Boulder and has been an Internet entrepreneur, so it is a given that he is going to represent the Internet bloc, but voters who elected him also care about sustainability (probably to a greater extent than the Internet), gay rights (and Jared is openly gay), support of science research (we've got a lot of government-supported science here), etc. If Jared were a Tea Party conservative who happened to align with the Internet bloc for that one issue, he wouldn't get elected in his district.
On the post: Can 'The Internet Vote' Be The Next Important Voting Bloc?
I encourage everyone to vote, but someone like me doesn't neatly fit into an Internet vote
The issue that matters most to me is sustainability, which encompasses both the environment and economics. I'm going to be most receptive to politicians who address those issues. If a politician said his/her priority was the Internet, that honestly wouldn't matter to me. It's not a positive or a negative to me. He/she would have to either support sustainability or at least not support companies that are trying to undermine sustainability efforts in order to get my vote.
I'm just tossing that out because if someone said to me how important the Internet is, I'd probably agree but would respond that I'm much more concerned about climate change, unsustainable economic growth, rigged Wall Street, etc. For other people the key issue might be health care, or gay rights, or something else.
I suppose if your job depends on Internet freedom, then that is your primary concern, but for others, maybe not so much. It's the sort of thing where a lot of people would probably support it, but not necessarily choose a candidate primarily for that reason. It's not a passionate cause for the average person.
On the post: Amanda Palmer Destroys/Saves Musicians; Chances Of 'Hitting It Big' As An Artist Remain Unchanged
Re:
Yes, it is quite common for crowdfunding rewards to include being in a band's video, playing on a song on an album, etc.
Now, I suppose having people pay to get on stage might not have produced talented musicians, but here's what she could have done. People pay for the privilege to play at each tour top. If it turns out that those who are paying have no talent, give them something they can do on stage and then use the money they have paid to hire professionals at each stop who can play. So the fan kicks in enough money for the privilege of getting on stage and that money goes to pay the musicians who can play.
Next >>