Thanks for the stats. I honestly did not do any research to qualify that statement, so I'm going on sheer intuition. That said, I did wonder where all the money that flows from itunes, amazon, and others was flowing to.
...personal digitized use is something that simply can't be stopped given the non-existent costs of duplication and distribution.
Agreed. This is the reality that creators now have to come to grips with. I'm excited to see that (with respect to techie types anyway), collectively, we are gradually realizing that these laws and the rampant lawsuits are the dying gasps of an industry that is struggling to hold onto the market that has already moved on.
Care to elucidate, then, on how you plan to protect said "digitized" goods?
Don't forget that everyone agrees that writers/musicians/artists/designers/videographers and other creators ought to be compensated. Unfortunately, that compensation is rapidly changing.
Look at it this way: their compensation is commensurate with what the market will bear. For digital goods, the value on the *free* market (I say free in the sense of free of regulation) is pretty dang low.
Sometimes, the truth hurts. But, as the earlier poster mentioned, that doesn't mean the end of said entertainment, it just means that the creators are going to have to change the way that they do business. In fact, this whole movement of the market *needs* to originate with the creators. The creators hold the reins of entertainment (no creators, no entertainment) and are therefore in the perfect position to dictate how they'd like to be compensated for their work. They can choose to try to defend an outdated, cumbersome, and downright ridiculous business model that is tied to the notion of physical media or they can move on to something that may be better.
Let me say that I agree with you. I think that reasonable compensation is justified when work is completed. Let's see your quote:
If your boss withheld your paycheck and told you that the code you wrote is now theirs free of charge because "information wants to be free," you'd sue for the wages and win.
Quite right and for a reason: the contract that exists between employer and employee. That contract is usually implied (in the US anyway) and is one that is backed up by a few labor laws. If I agree to exchange my time for your money, then I expect to be paid when I give up that time and I have the law on my side if you decide not to pay.
So, explain to me, if you would, the nature of the implicit contract between an artist (content creator) and me (the consumer)?
I'll take a stab at it, to satisfy my curiosity. If you record a few songs and spend 200 hours doing it, then what is your motivation? You have never met me. You don't know if I'll even be interested in what you recorded. You (the content creator) are a speculator. You're putting time and money into some work that you reckon will net you a return over time.
Let's look at another example of a speculator: a used car dealer. In the case of a used car dealer, the dealer spends her time and money on a vehicle that might have been acquired at auction. She buys it for a price presumably below retail market value, spends time and/or money repairing it and shining it up and displays it on her lot for sale. She is counting on me (the consumer) to come along and want to exchange my money for that car.
That example is nicely formulated and makes perfect sense to anyone with business experience. Now lets change the scenario to spice it up a bit.
Let's assume that the car dealer buys that car at auction as before and puts all that time and money into prepping that car for sale. Now, enter the new car manufacturers. The manufacturer of that line of cars has decided that they'd like to liquidate their business. They cut their prices. So much so, that now, it is cheaper to just buy a new car directly from this manufacturer rather than buy from the used car dealer. What's to be done about that poor used car dealer who spent her valuable time and money speculating on that used car? She's a victim of the market. Does she sue the car manufacturer? She might, but how will that ever restore her now antiquated business model? Maybe she should sue the buyers that are now buying new cars instead of her used one?
The point of all this is, markets change, consumers change, technology changes and every last one of those factors can wipe out my precious business model. What I don't have the right to do though, is blame anyone else. If I'm a speculator and my speculation goes bust, then its time for me to pack up and move on. Maybe even try again with a new approach.
I don't dislike content creators, but I'm not willing to stand by and allow *any* laws to be created to protect content creators' business model propped up on artificial scarcity. It is time for content creators to pack up and move on. Move on to another way to pay the bills. That doesn't mean stop creating, it means get your money first. If I get burned by employers who agree to pay me for my time and I give them my time and they back out and don't pay me, then I'll probably start demanding pay in advance and I'd be justified in doing it. I see no reason why content creators cannot do the same thing.
I have to agree with the person who said go for classics
Honestly, I've read quite a bit across the spectrum of what's available and while it seems snooty to say, "I prefer the classics," it is a fact for me.
This doesn't preclude modern literature as modern classics are good reads as well. If a piece of literature is considered a classic, it is not because of its age, rather because of the quality of writing. Try Hemingway, Victor Hugo, Joyce, Dostoyevsky, Kafka, Bradbury, Twain, Ayn Rand...
Those are just the authors I've read most recently, so that's not a definitive list by any means.
I understand that the project was formed with the developing world in mind, but I think that the concept is worth pursuing in the developed world as well.
The trouble is that all of the concepts that I read about sounded like ideas for a cabana on the beach. While that may work in spots where temps stay moderate year round, the rest of us could never make that work. Also, most of the ideas I read about sounded pretty light on engineering and heavier on design (architecture).
I'd like to see this project expanded into something resembling the next generation of manufactured/modular homes. We're in sore need of reasonably priced structures that are within the realm of an average person's abilities that retain style and form beyond an ugly box.
I agree that the developing world needs cheap ways to house their citizenry, but let's not forget to solve some of the problems that we still face here at home (in the US).
You should understand that while you think that you're an indispensable part of the equation, odds are pretty heavily stacked against that notion
Give your employer some credit: they took the risk and they deserve to benefit for that (including the ideas behind the company). However, bear in mind that most employers are not opposed to paying someone more, but you will need to justify it. If you want an equity stake, then tell them why it would benefit them to do that for you. Why should they make a partial owner? Break it down into simple math.
Trust me when I say, this is the best way because this is the way I'd want this proposal presented to me (I own a small biz myself)
Wire doesn't even work well for higher frequency radio waves
Forgive my ignorance (again), but this leads me to wonder whether we just need to invent the equivalent of an optical motor (we obviously being someone smarter than me)?
Just because it is a command line interface does not necessarily elevate it to the heights that I see in these comments. I may not have that small UID to back up these claims, but I participated in that community as well. I recall some of the same types of motivations back then that I still have today (not all honorable).
If we're honest about it, then I think we'd agree that while it was a smaller, more elite group of nerds that ran the digital world back then, it wasn't necessarily better. We just remember it that way...
I think that he poses valid points in the article and perhaps he said more that this little blurb of an article didn't relate, but I have 7 words for this person who wishes to remain relevant by telling everyone that we're doing it wrong:
Cassandra appears to be a multi-dimensional datastore that does not store data in the same fashion as a typical RDBMS. It uses columns and rows both to store sets of data uniquely. If you're familiar with Big Table, then, apparently, its kinda like that.
That just means that they've added even more storage vectors to it than before...not sure why it made slashdot front page...
Patents and contracts are different subjects entirely because they relate to actual scarce products or services.
I'd like to tell you how to make your non-scarce products scarce (naturally), but after some serious thought, I realized that it just isn't possible. I used to (and still do to some degree) write software for a living and I just can't give you a way to make 1s and 0s naturally scarce. I can definitely tell you that your talent is scarce, just not your digital creations. I do think you deserve to be compensated for the work you do, but not at the end of a gun. Leave out all your notions of what you think the argument is about and answer this question: how can you honestly expect me to value your digital good higher than it is actually worth? It is just not viable. And, this system has indeed been around for 200 years, remind me why that makes it a good or viable system?
Regarding your notion of property rights and stealing and all that other tired language, I will simply say, forget about all that crap and tell me how your product or service is naturally scarce. If you can't, then its time for some serious reconsideration.
I understand that everyone does need to make money, but the reality is that we cannot afford to protect your artificial scarcity on the digital goods that you produce. It runs counter to natural economic laws (supply and demand) by generating scarcity through legislation. I honestly am not happy about this because I honestly think that there ought to be a way to produce digital work that is then naturally valuable (not artificially). However, until such time as someone figgers a way to make a digital product that is the equivalent of a physical product with all the natural protection afforded a physical product, then I truly believe that you're battling the inevitable.
And no, you're wrong when you say that no modern company can exist without assets that are protected by IP laws. I know that because I own one.
Sure, that work you did twenty years ago is valued and in demand, the only problem is that there is little to no scarcity. You didn't really clarify how *much* value now did you?
Scarcity is the underlying mechanism by which value is derived. When a digital work can be copied infinitely, then there is relatively no scarcity resulting in relatively no value.
Copyright laws were invented to inject some artificial scarcity into this business. However, no artificial scarcity will ever succeed long term (as we're seeing), regardless of the draconian penalties invented to try to enforce this bogus scarcity.
Tell you what, you tell me about a digital good that has natural scarcity and I'll happily entertain this new concept. Until then, it's time to wake up and realize that digital goods are just not as valuable as you think they are.
And local (small plant) generation is the solution.
But, heaven forbid that the power companies might have customers who generate their own energy right?
Here's a clue to the hapless power companies: ever heard of renting equipment to end users?
Sure, the cost of the equipment is large (solar or wind), but not when you consider capitalization on that equipment. Rent out a windmill to a user and get it paid off a couple two or three times over its life. But wait, won't users just buy their own equipment? Maybe, but probably not. Consider support of the equipment: the power company stands behind it right?
I'd say the solution to this problem is just one that is uncomfortable for the power companies who are resistant to change. Big surprise.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the stats. I honestly did not do any research to qualify that statement, so I'm going on sheer intuition. That said, I did wonder where all the money that flows from itunes, amazon, and others was flowing to.
...personal digitized use is something that simply can't be stopped given the non-existent costs of duplication and distribution.
Agreed. This is the reality that creators now have to come to grips with. I'm excited to see that (with respect to techie types anyway), collectively, we are gradually realizing that these laws and the rampant lawsuits are the dying gasps of an industry that is struggling to hold onto the market that has already moved on.
Good point. Allow me to change that to everyone that matters.
Care to elucidate, then, on how you plan to protect said "digitized" goods?
Don't forget that everyone agrees that writers/musicians/artists/designers/videographers and other creators ought to be compensated. Unfortunately, that compensation is rapidly changing.
Look at it this way: their compensation is commensurate with what the market will bear. For digital goods, the value on the *free* market (I say free in the sense of free of regulation) is pretty dang low.
Sometimes, the truth hurts. But, as the earlier poster mentioned, that doesn't mean the end of said entertainment, it just means that the creators are going to have to change the way that they do business. In fact, this whole movement of the market *needs* to originate with the creators. The creators hold the reins of entertainment (no creators, no entertainment) and are therefore in the perfect position to dictate how they'd like to be compensated for their work. They can choose to try to defend an outdated, cumbersome, and downright ridiculous business model that is tied to the notion of physical media or they can move on to something that may be better.
Let me say that I agree with you. I think that reasonable compensation is justified when work is completed. Let's see your quote:
If your boss withheld your paycheck and told you that the code you wrote is now theirs free of charge because "information wants to be free," you'd sue for the wages and win.
Quite right and for a reason: the contract that exists between employer and employee. That contract is usually implied (in the US anyway) and is one that is backed up by a few labor laws. If I agree to exchange my time for your money, then I expect to be paid when I give up that time and I have the law on my side if you decide not to pay.
So, explain to me, if you would, the nature of the implicit contract between an artist (content creator) and me (the consumer)?
I'll take a stab at it, to satisfy my curiosity. If you record a few songs and spend 200 hours doing it, then what is your motivation? You have never met me. You don't know if I'll even be interested in what you recorded. You (the content creator) are a speculator. You're putting time and money into some work that you reckon will net you a return over time.
Let's look at another example of a speculator: a used car dealer. In the case of a used car dealer, the dealer spends her time and money on a vehicle that might have been acquired at auction. She buys it for a price presumably below retail market value, spends time and/or money repairing it and shining it up and displays it on her lot for sale. She is counting on me (the consumer) to come along and want to exchange my money for that car.
That example is nicely formulated and makes perfect sense to anyone with business experience. Now lets change the scenario to spice it up a bit.
Let's assume that the car dealer buys that car at auction as before and puts all that time and money into prepping that car for sale. Now, enter the new car manufacturers. The manufacturer of that line of cars has decided that they'd like to liquidate their business. They cut their prices. So much so, that now, it is cheaper to just buy a new car directly from this manufacturer rather than buy from the used car dealer. What's to be done about that poor used car dealer who spent her valuable time and money speculating on that used car? She's a victim of the market. Does she sue the car manufacturer? She might, but how will that ever restore her now antiquated business model? Maybe she should sue the buyers that are now buying new cars instead of her used one?
The point of all this is, markets change, consumers change, technology changes and every last one of those factors can wipe out my precious business model. What I don't have the right to do though, is blame anyone else. If I'm a speculator and my speculation goes bust, then its time for me to pack up and move on. Maybe even try again with a new approach.
I don't dislike content creators, but I'm not willing to stand by and allow *any* laws to be created to protect content creators' business model propped up on artificial scarcity. It is time for content creators to pack up and move on. Move on to another way to pay the bills. That doesn't mean stop creating, it means get your money first. If I get burned by employers who agree to pay me for my time and I give them my time and they back out and don't pay me, then I'll probably start demanding pay in advance and I'd be justified in doing it. I see no reason why content creators cannot do the same thing.
I have to agree with the person who said go for classics
Honestly, I've read quite a bit across the spectrum of what's available and while it seems snooty to say, "I prefer the classics," it is a fact for me.
This doesn't preclude modern literature as modern classics are good reads as well. If a piece of literature is considered a classic, it is not because of its age, rather because of the quality of writing. Try Hemingway, Victor Hugo, Joyce, Dostoyevsky, Kafka, Bradbury, Twain, Ayn Rand...
Those are just the authors I've read most recently, so that's not a definitive list by any means.
...more smarter than itself.
uh...really?
Wait, what?
How the hell was this modded insightful?
Be gone dry humor, for you not only failed to amuse, but also to inform.
Oh, I thought we had carte blanche on inventing Ron Paul statements?
Ron Paul has said that if he is elected, then he will support the opening of two new nuclear power plants for every power plant that is decomissioned.
I understand that the project was formed with the developing world in mind, but I think that the concept is worth pursuing in the developed world as well.
The trouble is that all of the concepts that I read about sounded like ideas for a cabana on the beach. While that may work in spots where temps stay moderate year round, the rest of us could never make that work. Also, most of the ideas I read about sounded pretty light on engineering and heavier on design (architecture).
I'd like to see this project expanded into something resembling the next generation of manufactured/modular homes. We're in sore need of reasonably priced structures that are within the realm of an average person's abilities that retain style and form beyond an ugly box.
I agree that the developing world needs cheap ways to house their citizenry, but let's not forget to solve some of the problems that we still face here at home (in the US).
When common sense is outlawed, only the outlaws will have common sense.
The guy would've even found better advice in Youtube comments, given the current level here.
Well, I'd disagree. Just because the comments are negative does not necessarily mean that they're wrong.
I believe the phrase is: "Asked and answered."
You should understand that while you think that you're an indispensable part of the equation, odds are pretty heavily stacked against that notion
Give your employer some credit: they took the risk and they deserve to benefit for that (including the ideas behind the company). However, bear in mind that most employers are not opposed to paying someone more, but you will need to justify it. If you want an equity stake, then tell them why it would benefit them to do that for you. Why should they make a partial owner? Break it down into simple math.
Trust me when I say, this is the best way because this is the way I'd want this proposal presented to me (I own a small biz myself)
Wire doesn't even work well for higher frequency radio waves
Forgive my ignorance (again), but this leads me to wonder whether we just need to invent the equivalent of an optical motor (we obviously being someone smarter than me)?
Can't run your stuff off of THz electricity.
Why not?
I know I sound like a dolt, but maybe that's the game changing question?
Anyone have any thoughts on why we can't "run our stuff off of THz electricity?"
Just because it is a command line interface does not necessarily elevate it to the heights that I see in these comments. I may not have that small UID to back up these claims, but I participated in that community as well. I recall some of the same types of motivations back then that I still have today (not all honorable).
If we're honest about it, then I think we'd agree that while it was a smaller, more elite group of nerds that ran the digital world back then, it wasn't necessarily better. We just remember it that way...
I think that he poses valid points in the article and perhaps he said more that this little blurb of an article didn't relate, but I have 7 words for this person who wishes to remain relevant by telling everyone that we're doing it wrong:
Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is.
Dr. John Connor. Paging Dr. John Connor.
Cassandra appears to be a multi-dimensional datastore that does not store data in the same fashion as a typical RDBMS. It uses columns and rows both to store sets of data uniquely. If you're familiar with Big Table, then, apparently, its kinda like that.
That just means that they've added even more storage vectors to it than before...not sure why it made slashdot front page...
Little old, but better late than never...
Patents and contracts are different subjects entirely because they relate to actual scarce products or services.
I'd like to tell you how to make your non-scarce products scarce (naturally), but after some serious thought, I realized that it just isn't possible. I used to (and still do to some degree) write software for a living and I just can't give you a way to make 1s and 0s naturally scarce. I can definitely tell you that your talent is scarce, just not your digital creations. I do think you deserve to be compensated for the work you do, but not at the end of a gun. Leave out all your notions of what you think the argument is about and answer this question: how can you honestly expect me to value your digital good higher than it is actually worth? It is just not viable. And, this system has indeed been around for 200 years, remind me why that makes it a good or viable system?
Regarding your notion of property rights and stealing and all that other tired language, I will simply say, forget about all that crap and tell me how your product or service is naturally scarce. If you can't, then its time for some serious reconsideration.
Sorry, I'm not buying it.
I understand that everyone does need to make money, but the reality is that we cannot afford to protect your artificial scarcity on the digital goods that you produce. It runs counter to natural economic laws (supply and demand) by generating scarcity through legislation. I honestly am not happy about this because I honestly think that there ought to be a way to produce digital work that is then naturally valuable (not artificially). However, until such time as someone figgers a way to make a digital product that is the equivalent of a physical product with all the natural protection afforded a physical product, then I truly believe that you're battling the inevitable.
And no, you're wrong when you say that no modern company can exist without assets that are protected by IP laws. I know that because I own one.
Sure, that work you did twenty years ago is valued and in demand, the only problem is that there is little to no scarcity. You didn't really clarify how *much* value now did you?
Scarcity is the underlying mechanism by which value is derived. When a digital work can be copied infinitely, then there is relatively no scarcity resulting in relatively no value.
Copyright laws were invented to inject some artificial scarcity into this business. However, no artificial scarcity will ever succeed long term (as we're seeing), regardless of the draconian penalties invented to try to enforce this bogus scarcity.
Tell you what, you tell me about a digital good that has natural scarcity and I'll happily entertain this new concept. Until then, it's time to wake up and realize that digital goods are just not as valuable as you think they are.
And local (small plant) generation is the solution.
But, heaven forbid that the power companies might have customers who generate their own energy right?
Here's a clue to the hapless power companies: ever heard of renting equipment to end users?
Sure, the cost of the equipment is large (solar or wind), but not when you consider capitalization on that equipment. Rent out a windmill to a user and get it paid off a couple two or three times over its life. But wait, won't users just buy their own equipment? Maybe, but probably not. Consider support of the equipment: the power company stands behind it right?
I'd say the solution to this problem is just one that is uncomfortable for the power companies who are resistant to change. Big surprise.
Self deprecation is apparently no longer funny. That is telling of this site...