When I was in the supply installation side of IT consulting, the company that I co-owned ran network cables (and phone cord and work with electrical contractors that laid electrical wire). Copper price could KILL us if we bid a project and then the price of copper went up. In fact, on the largest projects we actually took advantage of futures-style market provisions to pre-buy our copper at a set price (even if it fell, we still paid a certain price).
To say that copper is scarce is not really accurate -- the price of copper has gone up but not in the way you'd expect if a needed item was about to run out. I blog (and publish a print newsletter) about gold -- I do about 90% of my research trying to find the manipulators in the gold market. One of the "worst" manipulators is the mining industry itself, but I believe hiding trade facts is very important for a free market. If copper was truly disappearing, you'd see the market react by the price hyperinflating, not just steadily growing. Mining companies spend 10-15 years just opening a mine. If they knew they were running out, they wouldn't sell it so cheaply.
I believe the steady growth in the price of copper is more of an effect of fiat currency inflation causing all consumer goods and salaries to go up (basically devaluing everyone's labor even if they feel they're earning more). When copper goes up 1000% in a week, there will be a problem. 1% fluctuations is nothing.
Just as I don't believe we're anywhere near to running out of oil in the next 1000 years, I don't believe we'll be running out of copper. I study 5-10 mining reports a day and all I see is more and more oil, gold, carbon and copper being found. As we innovate and are able to drill deeper and deeper, we're finding that MOST of what geophysicists warned us about 10 years ago isn't true -- we keep finding more to consumer, not less. I think we will be able to say the same thing 10 years from now and 100 years from now -- we're amazed and what we're finding as we dig deeper.
All these "fear the scarcity" news reports on vital materials are bunk -- you'll know when there is a shortage when the price skyrockets (supply and demand is very hard to manipulate in the long run). And when the price skyrockets, it will give innovators reason to find new ways to recycle more efficiently, dig deeper or find other ways to provide the same service with a different product.
The day that copper is gone for good is the day that we take clay out of the ground and find a way to offer room temperature superconductivity. Serendipity doesn't end, and higher copper prices give innovators more reason to find new solutions to yesterday's problems. One of the reasons I formulated my anarcho-capitalist belief system is based on finding that supply and demand really does set prices in the long haul, even if government and industry tries to manipulate prices in the short run.
I don't believe you need copyright to protect your ability to make a profit from content you create. You just need to find a mechanism that utilizes the power of supply and demand without the force of government preventing people from using their time in the most efficient manner for them. If they want to spend their time bootlegging content (and trying to distribute it), I say let them. After that topic is no longer popular, they'll have to spend time (and risk) doing it with the next content they "steal."
I don't believe in intellectual property being worth anything if you don't have a solution to providing it profitably once you consider supply and demand. I repudiate the use of force in any situation -- war, copyright or rape.
I know my anti-copyright tirades seem so off-base for thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) who have read them, but the amount of e-mails I've been receiving lately supporting my ideas is really helpful. I believe slashdot has helped me bring this "fringe" idea into a form that others can understand, and maybe bring people to notice how copyright actually can be hurting them -- especially if they are artists.
In the long run I don't really know where it will all go. I am one guy with maybe 5000 supporters. We don't have the money that the big guys do, but we are transparent about our reasons whereas the big guys will continue to make others believe they are the only way to distribute information. The more people see the monopoly side effects of copyright, the more likely we are to succeed in some fashion.
In the end, it is all about money. I just want to see people receive profit for their innovation and I don't see most people getting anything out of their work -- because of copyright and how it destroys innovation and puts control in the hands of an elite few.
Doh, you're right. I meant "quantity" of inventors, not ratio. I guess I should have said "does the security bug:user ratio stay consistent?" instead of does it go up.
abuse of the commons. It only takes one non-altruistic participant (and there always is one, or one comes along) to kill the system.
I disagree. I don't believe copyright is a capitalist structure at all -- capitalism defined to me is "voluntary cooperation for the mutual profit of both parties." In any capitalist trade, both people walk away with a profit. Copyright is force -- it is using government to manipulate people's desires. This, to me, is socialism. Socialism is forcing people to do things they don't want to do, capitalism is offering voluntary cooperation or you can go elsewhere.
This is especially the case with the accelerating digitization of everything.
Yes, I agree. Before we could give out information for nearly zero cost, we had to get involved with cartels that used the force of government (copyright) to prevent people from passing on information. Heck, you couldn't even play a movie or CD in a public forum! This is also why you see 10 out of 1 million artists making the big money and the rest making nothing -- the rest of the 1 million have no ability to penetrate the cartel and use that power that is granted mostly to the most powerful. This is NOT capitalism, it is socialism at its worst.
There would have been 50 near-identical iPod clones being sold for almost nothing (Free After Rebate, anyone?) as soon as reverse engineering permitted.
Good. Let there be. Apple will continue to make their original iPod and offer people technical support, good service, updates and value added options. The iPod has dozens of competitors that don't sell because Apple has offered customers MANY good things -- not just the interface!
While the idea that you only make money producing new, innovative work is a nice one, the fact that that work will exceedingly quickly depreciate to near-zero value can completely destroy incentive to create.
No, copyright lets the rare few do a little bit of work, have a monopoly on distribution, and then make money for decades on that little bit of work by forcing others out of that market. In the long run, artists should make money just like salaried employees: continuously working on making better products. There is nothing wrong with that -- copyright just creates cartels who control distribution.
Intellectual property is a capitalistic staple
No it isn't. Intellectual property is a socialist staple -- it is the use of force to make people do something they don't want to do. Capitalism is voluntary, socialism is required actions through force. Maybe you mean "State capitalism" which is another word for socialism in the US.
I hope your endeavor works, but I believe you'll be fighting a losing battle.
I've fought those before and won about 75% of the time. This is not my biggest venture, and I already have enough interest to cover my costs in less than a year. Why others haven't tried it is beyond me. I believe I am in the right place at the right time -- the Internet is our distribution mechanism for free content. We'll take advantage of Torrenting and linking.
Great questions -- no one has an answer. Right now people are accustomed to the current processes of the content market -- usually controlled fully by the cartels.
I'm looking to change that "habit." I've found some great bands who are willing to give up control in exchange for promotional dollars towards their live performances and their official works. Everything we "release" freely will be indexed by the various Internet engines so that the lyrics or content is "dated" by the original creator. This doesn't give them a legal leg to stand on, but it will help others see who made something first. My biggest hope is to see Wal*mart or Amazon or someone else take the content, repackage it and sell it even under a different name. Will they? I doubt it, but it would only help the cause.
I'm trying to create a market that drives 90 degrees away from the current one. I'm trying to show artists that they can make money like normal people do -- possibly considered a salary. I'd rather help 10,000 artists make US$50,000 a year each instead of finding 10,000 artists that will accept US$100 a year each so that one of them can make US$10 million.
It is a huge risk with very little financial reward for me, but I want to put my ideas into motion.
What you're complaining about really seems to be abuses of the system by both industries and extensions they've lobbied legislatures to make.
I'm all for seeing copyright reduced to 7 years. I doubt it will ever happen, which is why I'm looking for "sideways" movement in the industry I hope to build.
I'm a book author and I've made all my money on asking people to buy a copy for themselve and pass on the free copy to the next guy. I'm sure I'm a rarity, but I would want to believe others have tried this system and succeeded.
I believe that you can charge for the physical book -- this is real property and I believe you can sell real property. I refuse to believe in intellectual property -- once it leaves your lips, others can copy it freely. All my writings are covered by the (N)o Copyright clause -- I offer others to take my creations and put their own name on them if they want. The great thing is that when people have done this, I have actually increased my customer base because the person copying my works as their own isn't able to produce new works. People who find these "bootlegs" eventually try to find more similar works and they end up finding me. The Internet has made this simple to do as I like to create new "phrases" that when Googled find my writings.
The Internet will let me produce a new industry around the repudiation of copyright and the creation of understand with your customer that their money helps you make more content. Right now very few people see this. They go to concerts and think the bands make money on CDs, but bands never do. I want to see this changed. I think I have the energy and am part of the right team to do the job.
I wish more people that I am working with would come out and promote the ideas better but few of them want to. Even within my own group there are many people who still believe in copyright, but they know I rarely fail at projects I work on. Market revolution happens by taking huge risks against the direction that markets are heading in.
As a Microsoft product user, it has always made me wonder what the User:Bug ratio might be. Do we see more bugs found BECAUSE more users are using a product?
Has Microsoft tracked the "security bug" to user ratio on their products and found that products with fewer users seem to have fewer bugs? If that is the case, I wonder if it is the normal process of higher supply leading to more people spending time looking for bugs.
It is like the population:innovation ratio -- as a population goes up, the amount of innovators being born goes up, too, leading to more innovations.
You seem to be doing everything, and in a revolutionary manner. I wonder if your therapist realizes your delusions and has proceeded towards the medication stage of treatment.
Actually, I'm not doing anything but sitting on the phone talking to people who want to be part of some new ways to do business. I help find the money and the investors and bring it to the people who understand the risks involved. Out of 100,000 people who have read my posts here, I've found 2 or 3 who are willing to get involved. Who cares if it seems delusional? Everything is coming to fruition, and I can be proud that I was there to help direct it. I won't brag if it succeeds but I'll accept responsibility if it fails. If it does succeed, it will because of dozens of other people who are out there working on the physical side of things -- I'm just the risk taker.
2006 will be the year that people take advantage of the Internet not to make millions for themselves, but help others make a good living by becoming part of the new distribution mechanisms out there.
A book author typically makes less than five grand for a GOOD selling book,
Both of my free books have earned me more than $5000 from giving them away for free to the first reader. In fact, I believe I have made over $100,000 in my life based on the business I have generated from business owners who want my opinion on subjects contained within my free books. Three of my peers have done the same, and all of them have found significant profits from giving away the generalized content while selling the specific content directly to the end customer who can pay the most.
They often make less than you would think.
Two of the most popular bands on MTV right now are people I know directly from their involvement in the Midwest music scene for years. One of the bands (I won't name them now) has brought in millions for their promotions company and has yet to make more than the $200,000 advance they received. Their album is consistently a top seller and they're relatively broke compared to those who know how to manipulate the content cartels. On the flip side, a few local bands who I have told to give their music away freely are making very good money on their local shows -- sometimes over $1000 a night. I believe I will be able to work with many bands over the next few years to making real money without using the force of government to guarantee protection.
It's that, or the galleries.
No, if you're a commercial artist, go and get a salaried job with a commercial distribution house or gallery company. That's how you can make money. Yet most artists feel they want to risk making nothing in exchange for maybe making millions? Come on, its a sucker game. Copyright makes the distribution cartels wealthy because of copyright. I'm finding ways to change that by dumping government as my "protector."
We'd have to put them on welfare if we abolished copyright law altogether.
Sure, you believe that. We'll be opening our No Copyright Studios this spring in Chicago, come and visit. I already believe we'll clear a clean million for the bands and content producers in the first year -- and every thing we record in the studio will instantly be public domain. We'll be watching for others to take the content and redo it, and then we'll be able to use that content as well for our own gain. People with talent CAN turn that into profit.
What you propose is intellectual socialism. I think we've all seen just how well things work out when "the people" collectively own all the property.
Huh? I'm talking about real capitalism. Capitalism does not need regulations or monopolies on force. Capitalism is about supply and demand. CD content or ebooks are infinitely available in supply, so the price should be $0.00. Don't put your most profitable content into CD or e-book form, sell that portion of it in a face-to-face mechanism.
A few dozen people I've met with have listened to my advice and have increased their income significantly -- enough so that they're helping to provide cash for my studio and the promotional side of things. In fact, one of the guys investing nearly $10,000 was broke 2 years ago until he gave up and started to give his products away for free, while gaining a customer base that didn't exist before (he's a painter). Now he makes close to 6 figures a year.
Don't tell me you've made millions because of copyright, no one does. Instead of 10 people making 20 million a year each, I'd rather see 100,000 people making $50,000 a year a piece by producing a live product for sale, and giving the recorded product away electronically, or trying to sell the official release for profit.
Excellent. With no copyright, the big music companies can just copy your recordings and sell them, without sending one dime to the artists. Sure, your artists can fight back by selling their music online, but the big music company will get all the CD sales because they can produce and distribute them cheaper than you can.
Let's take this debate off slashdot, if you want to go beyond the basics of my proposition.
I propose that the big music companies have a cartel over distribution because they use copyright to its fullest -- they have the law's monopoly as a strangehold on content. I can not name more than 10 artists this year who have made a living on music (except in the country music industry maybe). The majority of artists that I know make nothing as they can not get into the cartel.
If an artist repudiates copyright and offers their music freely, and the big music companies want to knock it off, I say let them. Most artists make their money on tour, and the big music company can't take a piece of the action. When I got my brother to start offering his music freely online, his concerts went up almost 500% in attenders. His income went up MUCH more than 500% since his overhead was fixed (gas, truck, time).
I seriously believe the money in music is in the live broadcast. In books and movies, I am not so sure. Do book authors make money by doing live book signings and question and answer sessions? Maybe. Do movie authors make money doing theater instead of movies? Maybe.
There is no answer yet because no one really has tried it. I have a HUGE amount of artist support, engineer support and live concert venue support towards my No Copyright Studios in Chicago. Most of the "peons" are normal guys who are sick that they can't make a dime because of the cartels, but these are the same people who continue support the cartel's most powerful mechanism: copyright. The Internet changes everything -- distribution is no longer "how do I get on the radio?" or "How do I get in the music store?" it is "How do I get others to promote me." I think I have some answers, I have to just follow through with my beliefs -- which I am doing.
6 figures of my own money are going to this project, you can't say I'm not trying. It isn't theory once it becomes concrete.
This is a debate I don't want to develop on slashdot as I always get e-mails telling me to stop going off topic.
I am putting my money where my mouth is -- I'm opening a studio to record music, podcasts, video shows and the rest. I'll offer professional engineers and professional hardware freely or at a great discount in exchange for the artist giving up any right to the content.
We don't know how it will work because no one has really tried it -- the Internet now lets us. In my life I have made 2 books (soon to be 4) that I have freely given away (the actual book itself). At the end of the books, I've asked people to send me $20 if they found the book useful. The $20 gets them another copy of the book and lets them give their copy to someone else. I've made thousands in those years, and now have transcribed my books into an e-book format that I will soon release (and have already sent to a few dozen slashdot and other forum readers).
Purchasing my version of the book also gets people face time with me when I am in their towns. My blogs openly allow people to take my content, put their name on it and submit it on their own sites or books as their own. The Internet is pretty well indexed, so if someone wants to try to confirm who originally came up with a particular thought or phrase, they can see it was me, but who cares? I wasn't the one who found the best form of distribution necessarily.
I truly believe in supply and demand, and I want to show people that content is worthless if you don't have the ability to regulate demand. A book used to be a good way to regulate demand -- copying that book was not cost effective. The Internet changes EVERYTHING. Now we can use our information to generate interest in people paying us for the advice face-to-face. My studio (and an anti-copyright publishing company I am trying to raise money for) should be good tests to see if the market will work when we call content "$0 value" and use that free content to still generate profits.
The cash I am investing in my No Copyright Studios this spring will be a huge learning experience. I already have numerous nightclubs/concert halls lined up around the Midwest to help promote the bands that join us in repudiating the use of copyright, and I even have record stores and websites ready to promote the music. The content is freely available and copyable, our focus is to offer fans the "official release" and to offer the "official merchandise" while also targeting people who want to openly offer their own versions (which we of course will copy!) of the music and the merchandise.
Exene from the band X recently has been releasing her own bootlegs of music that was bootlegged from her -- she's created an entire record lable to help bands release bootlegs of their bootlegs. It is funny how other artists can take your creation and find different ways of releasing it. Copyright destroys the ability of others to take what is yours and make it theres. If someone merely bootlegs your work without enhancing it, I don't see how they can really profit more than the original person can: they can't tour, they can't offer one-on-one face-to-face advice for a profit. All they can do is copy it. If you're giving away your content freely to try to get people to reimburse you through official releases or attending your public performances (and paying for it) I believe you can find a very comfortable living without having to use government force.
Taco's "review" on article formatting is one that many of us should use and learn from -- especially anyone with a blog or an opinion site themselves.
The most important thing is what I'll call my most-important-link rule I've actually been watching how articles are "formatted" for the past 2 months and tried to mimic it on one of my blogs. The result? More people clicking within that blog, staying on for up to 1/2 hour per visit. This is a good thing, it means that people like the content for whatever reason. If you're linking to other sites, make sure you find the link that really has all the information in total. Do some google searches before settling on the link you think is good. Don't link to 10 different sites all offering the same general information.
Next is proper anchor texting. I fix the hyper text on the vast majority of submissions. I find that another of my blogs has better content than the previous, but it isn't read very deeply (if even past 1 page). I seriously believe this is because I would link to "here" or "article" instead of linking to "the housing bubble is about to burst."
Another key component in Slashdot article formatting is to strip off the extra text in a submission. Of the 12 articles I've submitted to slashdot, the 3 that were accepted were posted almost verbatim -- I actually think it was because I left the editor with a good direction and a good article at link's end. The ones they rejected often were short articles, or opinion pieces with links to other sites with deeper information. I'm actually glad the editor at the time went to the link and read it (or probably did). Looking back, those submissions should have been rejected. I'd love to see an option on slashdot -- a checkbox saying "If rejected, show complete submission on user page as journal entry" so others can moderate our submissions on our journals. They won't moderate if this article is worthy, just comment on the submission. I'd love to know what others think about some of my submissions.
Anything that distracts from that, I want to chop out. If you're a blogger, definitely listen to the part of Taco's "review" that talks about making generic comments like "I found this" or "Let's get these guys!" I hate blogs that write these little side comments. If I go to a site because of an opinion, I like to stick with sites that offer non-fluff text written by the opinion writer. I've seen newspaper columns that are all fluff content like that, and it drives me crazy.
It's almost as if some percentage of the population wants to complain. I believe that to be true. The more sites (/blogs) that I work on, mine or those of others, the more complaints I see from the same people, even between two totally different sites. I have one grammar nazi (I actually appreciate his e-mails even if I don't adapt) who has probably spent hours criticizing my grammar on different sites (and on slashdot). What is the old cliche about one's importance if others are criticizing you? By the way, Google Toolbar's spell checker is pretty amazing, I'm trying to make it a habit to use it on every textbox.
Side topic: I tried Digg, but I didn't like the feel of it. Democracy, to me, is not a good solution for posting articles. I like having someone doing some work, and I completely understand the dupes we see (I've submitted a few in my life, thankfully none were accepted). Sometimes I'll post something insightful and end up with 100 e-mails in my Inbox from slashdot users, so I can completely understand how the average editor here is a bit overwhelmed.
My final remark is one question I haven't seen an answer to -- are slashdot editors paid, and is it reasonable compared to the amount of work they perform? If they're not paid (or if they're employees of the bigger picture), why do they put up with us?
I promised not to go off topic, so I won't. Hit me up with an e-mail though sometime regarding this issue. I'm working on a deep article about banning copyright (I'm opening a 6 figure music studio in Chicago this spring called No Copyright Studios) for artists who want to succeed without the cartels and their lifetime monopoly granted by government.
Maybe, maybe, the music industry could learn something from this.
They will. I've been "crying" at slashdot about how I feel copyright should go away and never come back. Search engines and other "find an answer" utilities will help us get there.
You shouldn't give all your answers on any transportable media format. If you have something to offer, give people an appetite to come and see you and pay you for the rest. If you're a band, put up a bunch of your catchy tunes on BitTorrent and tell people to come and see your shows. If you're an author, put up some catchy story portions with cliff hangers and sell the rest of the book direct to users interested (ending in another cliff hanger maybe). Sure, the information will leak out freely after that, but in the long haul you'll get customers who want it first (or want some added features such as one-on-one question and answer sessions when you do a book tour).
If you create content that is mass produceable, don't give out all your answers in that mass produced content. Hold some back, hold the most important parts back, for one-on-one or face-to-face interaction!
Google is the new content distribution provider -- but they aren't a cartel like the RIAA, MPAA or author's unions.
This is likely why Google and Yahoo are offering monetization options for content publishers (and creators). Plus, if you don't like search engines "leeching" from you, just set up robots.txt and say no to everything -- they'll go away.
I find that search engines account for nearly 70% of my visitors overall, and account for nearly 60% of my return visitors. I don't believe I can rely on my websites to generate income for me (even if I start selling more products on some sites). As I don't copyright any of my text (I am anti-copyright and put all my creations into the public domain immediately), I use my writings to try to increase my income in my regular life -- speaking engagements, one-on-one consulting, and professional advice to companies and individuals in the markets that I'm valuable in.
Nielsen is nuts if he thinks that the web should scoff at search engines. Search engines are (to me) the biggest reason for the web's overall explosion. Bookmarks help, links from other sites are great, but Google, MSN and Yahoo are the big reasons people can find what we want when we want. If they can't index our sites, how can they send us traffic? Sure, he acknowledges this in his article, but he says that web sites are going from information stores to answer engines. This is completely true, and we all fall victim to our own stupidity when it comes to creating content in an "answer" fashion. I've been working over the past few months to try to create extended interest in my most popular pages (found via search engines) by offering crosslinks to other articles. The longer I can keep the people interested, the more likely I am to see them come back again and again. If you make old "answer" pages, offer links out of those pages that give people MORE information, or give them more questions to find answers to.
Content is worthless without distribution. I prefer face-to-face distribution for profit by using more generic information to "catch" the customer who will hire me. Yet without the search engines, how will I get the word out? Hire a publicist?
Slightly off-topic here: I think its crazy to put quality profitable information on a website (or even in a book, on a CD or in a movie) that you don't want used by others. Copyright may "protect" you from someone knocking it off in high quantity, but that isn't always where information is the most valuable. Using information in an expert situation is how you can turn quality profitable information into that quality profit -- by selling your advice on a person-to-person level (I call it a performance).
This feature is extremely useful for any website that wants to give their users better content by parsing what they're going through. It also lets you figure out who is clicking advertisements (which are usually off site) and even gives you the ability to run a multitude of websites but aggregate all the statistics on one of your machines.
Sure it can be abused -- I don't see why more of these abusive features can't be set up in a whitelist fashion. I'm already shocked that web browsers make it so difficult to white lists sites you feel are safe (or don't mind giving up some information to make your experience better).
That comes to the point of this post -- how about a standard "setup" logo/button committee that helps create a "setup" web profile that sites can use to give the users options on how they want to be configured? We've got some standard buttons already (RSS feed, etc), why not one that users could be familiar with so that they can white list or opt-in to certain additional "anti-privacy" features?
I know many websites (including a few of mine) could use more user information, and I don't see why we can't work to just setting a standard for how to do it.
coupled with Congress's ability to set tariffs, means they do have the power to regulate any business activity which crosses internal or external borders.
Interesting. I'll not continue to argue the "commerce" definition as my poor PDA can't pull up my defense. I don't see how Congress can prevent a company from investing in another country and developing business there. If you think Congresss can prevent me, a free citizen, from starting businesses elsewhere with my money, I'm freaked. That is tyranny. Let them prevent my product from coming back to the US -- I'm selling it elsewhere anyway.
Ergo, we have an interest in fostering freedom around the world.
By quartering our troops in ~135 nations? If I want more peace, I'll consider the better way to spread it -- buy the products of the poorest people to help them gain wealth. That's capitalism at its finest!
China will gain liberty from free trade, not from Congressional threats and our troops forcing the issue.
If you believe Congress can regulate trade ("commerce") between nations, fine. How does that give them the power to regulate a business, again?
Creating software is not commerce -- transporting that software might be, but what about a company opening an operation in China and developing there?
That, to me, is not commerce -- it's business. I still believe the commerce clauses dealt with preventing states from aggressively taxing and tariffing exports and imports ("commerce") and had nothing to do with enforcing product standards and business practices.
Regulating trade practices is not the same as regulating business production.
I do a free clinic in the Chicago area to help people lose debt and build wealth. Most of my attenders are geeks earning $60k a year, and I turn away 3 geeks for every 1 I can help.
I'm blown away by the foreclosure listings I receive from local banks. One local bank discloses a little more than it should regarding the current "owners" and I'd say 50% are in the IT field.
The clause was usurped by FDR when he stacked the SCOTUS to keep the New Deal alive. It is too bad you had to hide behind AC as I have about 400 letters and speeches during the debate on the Constitution dealing with Congress' powers being explicitly limitee by the rights of the Independent States.
Slashdot Mirror
When I was in the supply installation side of IT consulting, the company that I co-owned ran network cables (and phone cord and work with electrical contractors that laid electrical wire). Copper price could KILL us if we bid a project and then the price of copper went up. In fact, on the largest projects we actually took advantage of futures-style market provisions to pre-buy our copper at a set price (even if it fell, we still paid a certain price).
To say that copper is scarce is not really accurate -- the price of copper has gone up but not in the way you'd expect if a needed item was about to run out. I blog (and publish a print newsletter) about gold -- I do about 90% of my research trying to find the manipulators in the gold market. One of the "worst" manipulators is the mining industry itself, but I believe hiding trade facts is very important for a free market. If copper was truly disappearing, you'd see the market react by the price hyperinflating, not just steadily growing. Mining companies spend 10-15 years just opening a mine. If they knew they were running out, they wouldn't sell it so cheaply.
I believe the steady growth in the price of copper is more of an effect of fiat currency inflation causing all consumer goods and salaries to go up (basically devaluing everyone's labor even if they feel they're earning more). When copper goes up 1000% in a week, there will be a problem. 1% fluctuations is nothing.
Just as I don't believe we're anywhere near to running out of oil in the next 1000 years, I don't believe we'll be running out of copper. I study 5-10 mining reports a day and all I see is more and more oil, gold, carbon and copper being found. As we innovate and are able to drill deeper and deeper, we're finding that MOST of what geophysicists warned us about 10 years ago isn't true -- we keep finding more to consumer, not less. I think we will be able to say the same thing 10 years from now and 100 years from now -- we're amazed and what we're finding as we dig deeper.
All these "fear the scarcity" news reports on vital materials are bunk -- you'll know when there is a shortage when the price skyrockets (supply and demand is very hard to manipulate in the long run). And when the price skyrockets, it will give innovators reason to find new ways to recycle more efficiently, dig deeper or find other ways to provide the same service with a different product.
The day that copper is gone for good is the day that we take clay out of the ground and find a way to offer room temperature superconductivity. Serendipity doesn't end, and higher copper prices give innovators more reason to find new solutions to yesterday's problems. One of the reasons I formulated my anarcho-capitalist belief system is based on finding that supply and demand really does set prices in the long haul, even if government and industry tries to manipulate prices in the short run.
I don't believe you need copyright to protect your ability to make a profit from content you create. You just need to find a mechanism that utilizes the power of supply and demand without the force of government preventing people from using their time in the most efficient manner for them. If they want to spend their time bootlegging content (and trying to distribute it), I say let them. After that topic is no longer popular, they'll have to spend time (and risk) doing it with the next content they "steal."
I don't believe in intellectual property being worth anything if you don't have a solution to providing it profitably once you consider supply and demand. I repudiate the use of force in any situation -- war, copyright or rape.
Whoops, didn't notice your comment here.
I know my anti-copyright tirades seem so off-base for thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) who have read them, but the amount of e-mails I've been receiving lately supporting my ideas is really helpful. I believe slashdot has helped me bring this "fringe" idea into a form that others can understand, and maybe bring people to notice how copyright actually can be hurting them -- especially if they are artists.
In the long run I don't really know where it will all go. I am one guy with maybe 5000 supporters. We don't have the money that the big guys do, but we are transparent about our reasons whereas the big guys will continue to make others believe they are the only way to distribute information. The more people see the monopoly side effects of copyright, the more likely we are to succeed in some fashion.
In the end, it is all about money. I just want to see people receive profit for their innovation and I don't see most people getting anything out of their work -- because of copyright and how it destroys innovation and puts control in the hands of an elite few.
Doh, you're right. I meant "quantity" of inventors, not ratio. I guess I should have said "does the security bug:user ratio stay consistent?" instead of does it go up.
Thanks for pointing that out.
abuse of the commons. It only takes one non-altruistic participant (and there always is one, or one comes along) to kill the system.
I disagree. I don't believe copyright is a capitalist structure at all -- capitalism defined to me is "voluntary cooperation for the mutual profit of both parties." In any capitalist trade, both people walk away with a profit. Copyright is force -- it is using government to manipulate people's desires. This, to me, is socialism. Socialism is forcing people to do things they don't want to do, capitalism is offering voluntary cooperation or you can go elsewhere.
This is especially the case with the accelerating digitization of everything.
Yes, I agree. Before we could give out information for nearly zero cost, we had to get involved with cartels that used the force of government (copyright) to prevent people from passing on information. Heck, you couldn't even play a movie or CD in a public forum! This is also why you see 10 out of 1 million artists making the big money and the rest making nothing -- the rest of the 1 million have no ability to penetrate the cartel and use that power that is granted mostly to the most powerful. This is NOT capitalism, it is socialism at its worst.
There would have been 50 near-identical iPod clones being sold for almost nothing (Free After Rebate, anyone?) as soon as reverse engineering permitted.
Good. Let there be. Apple will continue to make their original iPod and offer people technical support, good service, updates and value added options. The iPod has dozens of competitors that don't sell because Apple has offered customers MANY good things -- not just the interface!
While the idea that you only make money producing new, innovative work is a nice one, the fact that that work will exceedingly quickly depreciate to near-zero value can completely destroy incentive to create.
No, copyright lets the rare few do a little bit of work, have a monopoly on distribution, and then make money for decades on that little bit of work by forcing others out of that market. In the long run, artists should make money just like salaried employees: continuously working on making better products. There is nothing wrong with that -- copyright just creates cartels who control distribution.
Intellectual property is a capitalistic staple
No it isn't. Intellectual property is a socialist staple -- it is the use of force to make people do something they don't want to do. Capitalism is voluntary, socialism is required actions through force. Maybe you mean "State capitalism" which is another word for socialism in the US.
I hope your endeavor works, but I believe you'll be fighting a losing battle.
I've fought those before and won about 75% of the time. This is not my biggest venture, and I already have enough interest to cover my costs in less than a year. Why others haven't tried it is beyond me. I believe I am in the right place at the right time -- the Internet is our distribution mechanism for free content. We'll take advantage of Torrenting and linking.
Great questions -- no one has an answer. Right now people are accustomed to the current processes of the content market -- usually controlled fully by the cartels.
I'm looking to change that "habit." I've found some great bands who are willing to give up control in exchange for promotional dollars towards their live performances and their official works. Everything we "release" freely will be indexed by the various Internet engines so that the lyrics or content is "dated" by the original creator. This doesn't give them a legal leg to stand on, but it will help others see who made something first. My biggest hope is to see Wal*mart or Amazon or someone else take the content, repackage it and sell it even under a different name. Will they? I doubt it, but it would only help the cause.
I'm trying to create a market that drives 90 degrees away from the current one. I'm trying to show artists that they can make money like normal people do -- possibly considered a salary. I'd rather help 10,000 artists make US$50,000 a year each instead of finding 10,000 artists that will accept US$100 a year each so that one of them can make US$10 million.
It is a huge risk with very little financial reward for me, but I want to put my ideas into motion.
What you're complaining about really seems to be abuses of the system by both industries and extensions they've lobbied legislatures to make.
I'm all for seeing copyright reduced to 7 years. I doubt it will ever happen, which is why I'm looking for "sideways" movement in the industry I hope to build.
I'm a book author and I've made all my money on asking people to buy a copy for themselve and pass on the free copy to the next guy. I'm sure I'm a rarity, but I would want to believe others have tried this system and succeeded.
I believe that you can charge for the physical book -- this is real property and I believe you can sell real property. I refuse to believe in intellectual property -- once it leaves your lips, others can copy it freely. All my writings are covered by the (N)o Copyright clause -- I offer others to take my creations and put their own name on them if they want. The great thing is that when people have done this, I have actually increased my customer base because the person copying my works as their own isn't able to produce new works. People who find these "bootlegs" eventually try to find more similar works and they end up finding me. The Internet has made this simple to do as I like to create new "phrases" that when Googled find my writings.
The Internet will let me produce a new industry around the repudiation of copyright and the creation of understand with your customer that their money helps you make more content. Right now very few people see this. They go to concerts and think the bands make money on CDs, but bands never do. I want to see this changed. I think I have the energy and am part of the right team to do the job.
I wish more people that I am working with would come out and promote the ideas better but few of them want to. Even within my own group there are many people who still believe in copyright, but they know I rarely fail at projects I work on. Market revolution happens by taking huge risks against the direction that markets are heading in.
Thanks Kevin, good point. I'll try to remember to say "make available as a torrent" instead of "put on bittorrent" :)
Actually you remind me of a feature I'd like to see:
New moderation called -2: RTFA
You're right though, sometimes TFA doesn't answer those questions.
As a Microsoft product user, it has always made me wonder what the User:Bug ratio might be. Do we see more bugs found BECAUSE more users are using a product?
Has Microsoft tracked the "security bug" to user ratio on their products and found that products with fewer users seem to have fewer bugs? If that is the case, I wonder if it is the normal process of higher supply leading to more people spending time looking for bugs.
It is like the population:innovation ratio -- as a population goes up, the amount of innovators being born goes up, too, leading to more innovations.
You seem to be doing everything, and in a revolutionary manner. I wonder if your therapist realizes your delusions and has proceeded towards the medication stage of treatment.
Actually, I'm not doing anything but sitting on the phone talking to people who want to be part of some new ways to do business. I help find the money and the investors and bring it to the people who understand the risks involved. Out of 100,000 people who have read my posts here, I've found 2 or 3 who are willing to get involved. Who cares if it seems delusional? Everything is coming to fruition, and I can be proud that I was there to help direct it. I won't brag if it succeeds but I'll accept responsibility if it fails. If it does succeed, it will because of dozens of other people who are out there working on the physical side of things -- I'm just the risk taker.
2006 will be the year that people take advantage of the Internet not to make millions for themselves, but help others make a good living by becoming part of the new distribution mechanisms out there.
A book author typically makes less than five grand for a GOOD selling book,
Both of my free books have earned me more than $5000 from giving them away for free to the first reader. In fact, I believe I have made over $100,000 in my life based on the business I have generated from business owners who want my opinion on subjects contained within my free books. Three of my peers have done the same, and all of them have found significant profits from giving away the generalized content while selling the specific content directly to the end customer who can pay the most.
They often make less than you would think.
Two of the most popular bands on MTV right now are people I know directly from their involvement in the Midwest music scene for years. One of the bands (I won't name them now) has brought in millions for their promotions company and has yet to make more than the $200,000 advance they received. Their album is consistently a top seller and they're relatively broke compared to those who know how to manipulate the content cartels. On the flip side, a few local bands who I have told to give their music away freely are making very good money on their local shows -- sometimes over $1000 a night. I believe I will be able to work with many bands over the next few years to making real money without using the force of government to guarantee protection.
It's that, or the galleries.
No, if you're a commercial artist, go and get a salaried job with a commercial distribution house or gallery company. That's how you can make money. Yet most artists feel they want to risk making nothing in exchange for maybe making millions? Come on, its a sucker game. Copyright makes the distribution cartels wealthy because of copyright. I'm finding ways to change that by dumping government as my "protector."
We'd have to put them on welfare if we abolished copyright law altogether.
Sure, you believe that. We'll be opening our No Copyright Studios this spring in Chicago, come and visit. I already believe we'll clear a clean million for the bands and content producers in the first year -- and every thing we record in the studio will instantly be public domain. We'll be watching for others to take the content and redo it, and then we'll be able to use that content as well for our own gain. People with talent CAN turn that into profit.
What you propose is intellectual socialism. I think we've all seen just how well things work out when "the people" collectively own all the property.
Huh? I'm talking about real capitalism. Capitalism does not need regulations or monopolies on force. Capitalism is about supply and demand. CD content or ebooks are infinitely available in supply, so the price should be $0.00. Don't put your most profitable content into CD or e-book form, sell that portion of it in a face-to-face mechanism.
A few dozen people I've met with have listened to my advice and have increased their income significantly -- enough so that they're helping to provide cash for my studio and the promotional side of things. In fact, one of the guys investing nearly $10,000 was broke 2 years ago until he gave up and started to give his products away for free, while gaining a customer base that didn't exist before (he's a painter). Now he makes close to 6 figures a year.
Don't tell me you've made millions because of copyright, no one does. Instead of 10 people making 20 million a year each, I'd rather see 100,000 people making $50,000 a year a piece by producing a live product for sale, and giving the recorded product away electronically, or trying to sell the official release for profit.
Excellent. With no copyright, the big music companies can just copy your recordings and sell them, without sending one dime to the artists. Sure, your artists can fight back by selling their music online, but the big music company will get all the CD sales because they can produce and distribute them cheaper than you can.
Let's take this debate off slashdot, if you want to go beyond the basics of my proposition.
I propose that the big music companies have a cartel over distribution because they use copyright to its fullest -- they have the law's monopoly as a strangehold on content. I can not name more than 10 artists this year who have made a living on music (except in the country music industry maybe). The majority of artists that I know make nothing as they can not get into the cartel.
If an artist repudiates copyright and offers their music freely, and the big music companies want to knock it off, I say let them. Most artists make their money on tour, and the big music company can't take a piece of the action. When I got my brother to start offering his music freely online, his concerts went up almost 500% in attenders. His income went up MUCH more than 500% since his overhead was fixed (gas, truck, time).
I seriously believe the money in music is in the live broadcast. In books and movies, I am not so sure. Do book authors make money by doing live book signings and question and answer sessions? Maybe. Do movie authors make money doing theater instead of movies? Maybe.
There is no answer yet because no one really has tried it. I have a HUGE amount of artist support, engineer support and live concert venue support towards my No Copyright Studios in Chicago. Most of the "peons" are normal guys who are sick that they can't make a dime because of the cartels, but these are the same people who continue support the cartel's most powerful mechanism: copyright. The Internet changes everything -- distribution is no longer "how do I get on the radio?" or "How do I get in the music store?" it is "How do I get others to promote me." I think I have some answers, I have to just follow through with my beliefs -- which I am doing.
6 figures of my own money are going to this project, you can't say I'm not trying. It isn't theory once it becomes concrete.
Haha, you're right, I'm a jackass.
;)
You know, the word symbiant looked wrong to me, but I looked it over twice before submitting and I just couldn't think of why it looked wrong.
Thanks for the correction. I'll go back and edit my post
This is a debate I don't want to develop on slashdot as I always get e-mails telling me to stop going off topic.
I am putting my money where my mouth is -- I'm opening a studio to record music, podcasts, video shows and the rest. I'll offer professional engineers and professional hardware freely or at a great discount in exchange for the artist giving up any right to the content.
We don't know how it will work because no one has really tried it -- the Internet now lets us. In my life I have made 2 books (soon to be 4) that I have freely given away (the actual book itself). At the end of the books, I've asked people to send me $20 if they found the book useful. The $20 gets them another copy of the book and lets them give their copy to someone else. I've made thousands in those years, and now have transcribed my books into an e-book format that I will soon release (and have already sent to a few dozen slashdot and other forum readers).
Purchasing my version of the book also gets people face time with me when I am in their towns. My blogs openly allow people to take my content, put their name on it and submit it on their own sites or books as their own. The Internet is pretty well indexed, so if someone wants to try to confirm who originally came up with a particular thought or phrase, they can see it was me, but who cares? I wasn't the one who found the best form of distribution necessarily.
I truly believe in supply and demand, and I want to show people that content is worthless if you don't have the ability to regulate demand. A book used to be a good way to regulate demand -- copying that book was not cost effective. The Internet changes EVERYTHING. Now we can use our information to generate interest in people paying us for the advice face-to-face. My studio (and an anti-copyright publishing company I am trying to raise money for) should be good tests to see if the market will work when we call content "$0 value" and use that free content to still generate profits.
The cash I am investing in my No Copyright Studios this spring will be a huge learning experience. I already have numerous nightclubs/concert halls lined up around the Midwest to help promote the bands that join us in repudiating the use of copyright, and I even have record stores and websites ready to promote the music. The content is freely available and copyable, our focus is to offer fans the "official release" and to offer the "official merchandise" while also targeting people who want to openly offer their own versions (which we of course will copy!) of the music and the merchandise.
Exene from the band X recently has been releasing her own bootlegs of music that was bootlegged from her -- she's created an entire record lable to help bands release bootlegs of their bootlegs. It is funny how other artists can take your creation and find different ways of releasing it. Copyright destroys the ability of others to take what is yours and make it theres. If someone merely bootlegs your work without enhancing it, I don't see how they can really profit more than the original person can: they can't tour, they can't offer one-on-one face-to-face advice for a profit. All they can do is copy it. If you're giving away your content freely to try to get people to reimburse you through official releases or attending your public performances (and paying for it) I believe you can find a very comfortable living without having to use government force.
Taco's "review" on article formatting is one that many of us should use and learn from -- especially anyone with a blog or an opinion site themselves.
The most important thing is what I'll call my most-important-link rule
I've actually been watching how articles are "formatted" for the past 2 months and tried to mimic it on one of my blogs. The result? More people clicking within that blog, staying on for up to 1/2 hour per visit. This is a good thing, it means that people like the content for whatever reason. If you're linking to other sites, make sure you find the link that really has all the information in total. Do some google searches before settling on the link you think is good. Don't link to 10 different sites all offering the same general information.
Next is proper anchor texting. I fix the hyper text on the vast majority of submissions.
I find that another of my blogs has better content than the previous, but it isn't read very deeply (if even past 1 page). I seriously believe this is because I would link to "here" or "article" instead of linking to "the housing bubble is about to burst."
Another key component in Slashdot article formatting is to strip off the extra text in a submission.
Of the 12 articles I've submitted to slashdot, the 3 that were accepted were posted almost verbatim -- I actually think it was because I left the editor with a good direction and a good article at link's end. The ones they rejected often were short articles, or opinion pieces with links to other sites with deeper information. I'm actually glad the editor at the time went to the link and read it (or probably did). Looking back, those submissions should have been rejected. I'd love to see an option on slashdot -- a checkbox saying "If rejected, show complete submission on user page as journal entry" so others can moderate our submissions on our journals. They won't moderate if this article is worthy, just comment on the submission. I'd love to know what others think about some of my submissions.
Anything that distracts from that, I want to chop out.
If you're a blogger, definitely listen to the part of Taco's "review" that talks about making generic comments like "I found this" or "Let's get these guys!" I hate blogs that write these little side comments. If I go to a site because of an opinion, I like to stick with sites that offer non-fluff text written by the opinion writer. I've seen newspaper columns that are all fluff content like that, and it drives me crazy.
It's almost as if some percentage of the population wants to complain.
I believe that to be true. The more sites (/blogs) that I work on, mine or those of others, the more complaints I see from the same people, even between two totally different sites. I have one grammar nazi (I actually appreciate his e-mails even if I don't adapt) who has probably spent hours criticizing my grammar on different sites (and on slashdot). What is the old cliche about one's importance if others are criticizing you? By the way, Google Toolbar's spell checker is pretty amazing, I'm trying to make it a habit to use it on every textbox.
Side topic:
I tried Digg, but I didn't like the feel of it. Democracy, to me, is not a good solution for posting articles. I like having someone doing some work, and I completely understand the dupes we see (I've submitted a few in my life, thankfully none were accepted). Sometimes I'll post something insightful and end up with 100 e-mails in my Inbox from slashdot users, so I can completely understand how the average editor here is a bit overwhelmed.
My final remark is one question I haven't seen an answer to -- are slashdot editors paid, and is it reasonable compared to the amount of work they perform? If they're not paid (or if they're employees of the bigger picture), why do they put up with us?
I promised not to go off topic, so I won't. Hit me up with an e-mail though sometime regarding this issue. I'm working on a deep article about banning copyright (I'm opening a 6 figure music studio in Chicago this spring called No Copyright Studios) for artists who want to succeed without the cartels and their lifetime monopoly granted by government.
Maybe, maybe, the music industry could learn something from this.
They will. I've been "crying" at slashdot about how I feel copyright should go away and never come back. Search engines and other "find an answer" utilities will help us get there.
You shouldn't give all your answers on any transportable media format. If you have something to offer, give people an appetite to come and see you and pay you for the rest. If you're a band, put up a bunch of your catchy tunes on BitTorrent and tell people to come and see your shows. If you're an author, put up some catchy story portions with cliff hangers and sell the rest of the book direct to users interested (ending in another cliff hanger maybe). Sure, the information will leak out freely after that, but in the long haul you'll get customers who want it first (or want some added features such as one-on-one question and answer sessions when you do a book tour).
If you create content that is mass produceable, don't give out all your answers in that mass produced content. Hold some back, hold the most important parts back, for one-on-one or face-to-face interaction!
Google is the new content distribution provider -- but they aren't a cartel like the RIAA, MPAA or author's unions.
This is likely why Google and Yahoo are offering monetization options for content publishers (and creators). Plus, if you don't like search engines "leeching" from you, just set up robots.txt and say no to everything -- they'll go away.
I find that search engines account for nearly 70% of my visitors overall, and account for nearly 60% of my return visitors. I don't believe I can rely on my websites to generate income for me (even if I start selling more products on some sites). As I don't copyright any of my text (I am anti-copyright and put all my creations into the public domain immediately), I use my writings to try to increase my income in my regular life -- speaking engagements, one-on-one consulting, and professional advice to companies and individuals in the markets that I'm valuable in.
Nielsen is nuts if he thinks that the web should scoff at search engines. Search engines are (to me) the biggest reason for the web's overall explosion. Bookmarks help, links from other sites are great, but Google, MSN and Yahoo are the big reasons people can find what we want when we want. If they can't index our sites, how can they send us traffic? Sure, he acknowledges this in his article, but he says that web sites are going from information stores to answer engines. This is completely true, and we all fall victim to our own stupidity when it comes to creating content in an "answer" fashion. I've been working over the past few months to try to create extended interest in my most popular pages (found via search engines) by offering crosslinks to other articles. The longer I can keep the people interested, the more likely I am to see them come back again and again. If you make old "answer" pages, offer links out of those pages that give people MORE information, or give them more questions to find answers to.
Content is worthless without distribution. I prefer face-to-face distribution for profit by using more generic information to "catch" the customer who will hire me. Yet without the search engines, how will I get the word out? Hire a publicist?
Slightly off-topic here:
I think its crazy to put quality profitable information on a website (or even in a book, on a CD or in a movie) that you don't want used by others. Copyright may "protect" you from someone knocking it off in high quantity, but that isn't always where information is the most valuable. Using information in an expert situation is how you can turn quality profitable information into that quality profit -- by selling your advice on a person-to-person level (I call it a performance).
This feature is extremely useful for any website that wants to give their users better content by parsing what they're going through. It also lets you figure out who is clicking advertisements (which are usually off site) and even gives you the ability to run a multitude of websites but aggregate all the statistics on one of your machines.
Sure it can be abused -- I don't see why more of these abusive features can't be set up in a whitelist fashion. I'm already shocked that web browsers make it so difficult to white lists sites you feel are safe (or don't mind giving up some information to make your experience better).
That comes to the point of this post -- how about a standard "setup" logo/button committee that helps create a "setup" web profile that sites can use to give the users options on how they want to be configured? We've got some standard buttons already (RSS feed, etc), why not one that users could be familiar with so that they can white list or opt-in to certain additional "anti-privacy" features?
I know many websites (including a few of mine) could use more user information, and I don't see why we can't work to just setting a standard for how to do it.
coupled with Congress's ability to set tariffs, means they do have the power to regulate any business activity which crosses internal or external borders.
Interesting. I'll not continue to argue the "commerce" definition as my poor PDA can't pull up my defense. I don't see how Congress can prevent a company from investing in another country and developing business there. If you think Congresss can prevent me, a free citizen, from starting businesses elsewhere with my money, I'm freaked. That is tyranny. Let them prevent my product from coming back to the US -- I'm selling it elsewhere anyway.
Ergo, we have an interest in fostering freedom around the world.
By quartering our troops in ~135 nations? If I want more peace, I'll consider the better way to spread it -- buy the products of the poorest people to help them gain wealth. That's capitalism at its finest!
China will gain liberty from free trade, not from Congressional threats and our troops forcing the issue.
Great post, btw.
We're still on differences pages.
If you believe Congress can regulate trade ("commerce") between nations, fine. How does that give them the power to regulate a business, again?
Creating software is not commerce -- transporting that software might be, but what about a company opening an operation in China and developing there?
That, to me, is not commerce -- it's business. I still believe the commerce clauses dealt with preventing states from aggressively taxing and tariffing exports and imports ("commerce") and had nothing to do with enforcing product standards and business practices.
Regulating trade practices is not the same as regulating business production.
I do a free clinic in the Chicago area to help people lose debt and build wealth. Most of my attenders are geeks earning $60k a year, and I turn away 3 geeks for every 1 I can help.
I'm blown away by the foreclosure listings I receive from local banks. One local bank discloses a little more than it should regarding the current "owners" and I'd say 50% are in the IT field.
You're wrong.
c e.html
http://www.landmarkcases.org/landmarkframe_commer
The clause was usurped by FDR when he stacked the SCOTUS to keep the New Deal alive. It is too bad you had to hide behind AC as I have about 400 letters and speeches during the debate on the Constitution dealing with Congress' powers being explicitly limitee by the rights of the Independent States.