Slashdot Mirror
Boyle on Webcasters and WIPO
pjones writes "It's always amazing to see an article in Financial Times that supports webcasters and open source, but James Boyle sticks it to the World Intellectual Property Organization in his latest article, "More rights are wrong for webcasters." Boyle lays it out so that "economists, political scientists and people who simply want to make money" can get what's wrong."
then there is no law.
The only people I have seen really respect WIPO and other treaties are those who make money from or directly with IP. This is because they know they will be sued into oblivion. (and even then)
Unless governments start throwing people in jail for 25 years.. I doubt anyone in the not-for-profit blogging and web/podcasting communities really care what these people think. And even if they DO start throwing people in jail for 25 years for trivial offenses, we all know how well that worked for the war on drugs.
(sarcasm)Perhaps camps in Cuba? Syria?(/sarcasm)
Kinda sad. Oh well.
It seems logical that the FT would be on the side of business - and of course, they are. Virtually their entire readership would agree that making money is a good thing.
However, taken as a whole, entrenched monopolies and cartels are not good for business. Small businesses and startups are essential for the economy, especially in fast growing sectors. Economists know this. As such, it's not all that surprising that the FT will take a stance that is against that of the multinationals.
So where's the money in this festering mess? Is it possibly in the tax base? Expanded IP expands the tax base at a loss to the public interest. IP marks a clear paper trail as to who owns what and what can be expected in terms of revenue and, in turn, tax revenue.
Big government requires big tax revenues and what better to "sell off" than the cultural and intellectual heritage of it's constituents. The infrastructure to oversee IP is minimal while the tax gain is substantial. Basically it's a big tax grab. Maybe it'll be pay raises all around for our elected representatives.
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
We already have this. It's called road tax and fuel tax. Some goes to subsidies public transport directly, some indirectly (e.g. by paying to repair the roads that the busses use). Not that I'm against this concept - running a car is both socially and environmentally irresponsible - the problem is that the subsidy (in the UK, at least) still goes to corporate entities who funnel a chunk of it to shareholders rather than to their customers.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
> He sees law and policy as a means to an end rather than the description and implementation of a
> general principle
Well, approaching this issue in the same direction as those who pass the law is not necessarily a bad thing, especially if your goal is to deconstruct this view. You show how the policies created with this mindset fail. He seems to be doing this job fairly well. Even the constitution states that copyright law exists to further the sciences and arts thus being to achieve an objective and not to uphold principles. Perhaps the principle being upheld is that we as a society want to technologically advance thus our laws must reflect that.
He is merely stating that given the objectives, the law providing additional rights to broadcasters has failed. Stating that copyrights are wrong or extending copyrights is wrong shifts the framing of the debate to something the broadcast industry doesn't want to hear. They will be far more likely to listen to someone who says, I agree with your goals, but this isn't going to accomplish them. Often, its better to just deconstruct the views of an opponent in a debate than to repeatedly yell your view point.
but then, what do I know... my idea of debating an issue is slashdot...
When all else fails, try.
"Because it uses resources? "
No, he means because it uses a *lot* of resources in a very inefficient manner. Since those resources are finite, by using them in an inefficient way, you are denying future peoples use of those resources.
i.e. your fucking over future generation for your short term gain.
"I think what you've done with your entire life is irresponsible, but its not my business; that's up to you."
Yet you impose the results of your choices on future generations? You take more so that they can have less?