Those are two examples where patents kind of worked as expected, and they are rare examples because I've also yet to meet any small-timers who benefited from patents.
At the end of the day, we need to ask, are those examples the exception or the rule? Can we really justify the millions of dead-weight patents that are there only to block possible avenues of innovation, and/or are abused by organisations like Intellectual Ventures? Are patents holding back rather than enabling innovation?
I agree. Patents are of no value to the small-time inventor. They are, however, invaluable to incumbent companies who wish to lock the up-and-comers out of the market, and of course patent trolls.
In other words, patents are a pure deficit for the public who have to pay for the bureaucracy, the unnecessary litigation and the lack of competition that results from this system. The empirical evidence is piling up against patents (like this article says), and unless someone steps up and shows some proof that this system resulted in more innovation, the whole thing will have to be thrown out the window.
And honestly, I don't expect patent supporters have any proof to show, so the question is -- how long will it take for the patent system to be taken down? There is no question that the patent supporters are rich and powerful (that includes Microsoft, btw, who say they just wuv patents), and those people can be very "persuasive"...
I can never make up my mind about Sharkey. There are a few times when he comes off as someone genuinely interested in the wellbeing of British musicians, and there are other times when he comes off as an arrogant prick interested only in the global domination of the BPI. I know one thing for sure: he's not the type who can handle being wrong, and as long as he still stands he will fight for copyright, even if reason and evidence suggest that copyright is a bad thing for musicians and a bad thing for the British people.
In my opinion, his actions have been impulsive, shallow and unpredictable, and I hope he stays out of this debate -- even if he means well at heart. You know what they say about that road paved with good intentions...
I was talking about my proposal. I completely agree with you that as things are right now, publishers control who buys what and where, and they are being dicks about it too.
If however the developers/artists release a portion of their work for everyone to download and copy and ask their fans for donations in order to produce the remainder, you can give them money on whatever terms you like: if you prefer to pay them for the work they've already done, you are free to do so; if you want to give them money because you want them to produce more, that's also a possibility.
I'm not sure if I'm expressing this very well, but I think it's quite a feasible business model. I'll attempt a more intuitive example:
You want to produce a TV series. You put down some money yourself to create a pilot episode, and also spend money advertising your product (no difference from how it's usually done, so far). Then, you release this pilot episode on the internet for free, and ask the people who watch it for donations to create the next episode. If enough people like it and want to watch the rest, they'll give you money; if they hate it, they won't.
I'm not describing "pay what you want". It's "if you liked this and/or want to see more, then make a donation for $xx".
This is the fault of grandstanding state attorneys, who are trying to make noise to get votes -- who should all just stfu and leave the internet alone.
Not only are they politicians, they are lawyer politicians!
If you want to pay the artists for the missions they HAVE already created, there's no-one stopping you. What I'm proposing gives you that freedom -- the system right now is, either you pay to get a copy or gtfo.
Well, my suggestion was:
1) They create a few missions, release them.
2) You play them, like them. Donate to create more.
3) They create a few more missions.
4) Goto 2
So, you do get to play before you buy. Also, I don't see why more polished games shouldn't be possible with this system -- the best products will draw more attention and will get more donations.
Note that what I am suggesting is not "pay what you want". That's an entirely different business model, which is a crap shoot imho. When I say "donate" I basically mean something like "preorder".
And I really believe what I'm saying definitely does not imply "a society where only the rich can have really nice things because only they can hire people to make them". Quite the opposite, in fact! Those who can afford to will pay for stuff to be created, but after it's done no copyright is needed to protect the work, because the artists have already been compensated. In other words, art can be released directly in the public domain for everyone--rich or poor--to enjoy, which is surely not the case right now.
I think this sort of system is quite beautiful, tbh, and may be the only way forward as far as I can see.
Are you paying your musicians to perform on stage, or are you paying them so they can keep composing? When an artist you like asks for donations to record his next album, you have a choice: either pay or not pay. If you don't pay, the album won't be created in the first place. The idea is that musicians need to learn to interact with their audience and make them want to give them money, not demand payment from their ivory tower.
They made millions to the detriment of other smaller artists. Back then the label/distributor system was absolute: there was no way into the music industry without being signed. The labels would only take up so many artists, who they promoted the hell out of, while all other artists were forced into obscurity.
That's a terrible system, because there's less music being made that way, and people are spoon-fed only what the labels want them to listen to.
Today things are changing, because the labels' promotional machine is being overridden by more open distribution systems. So--- today it's not about making millions, it's about making a fair living (fairer distribution of wealth, and a level playing field) and having a chance to fame based on the quality of your work rather than dumb luck of getting picked up by a bunch of professional marketeers.
I think Brazil has the right idea, and I'll really really hate it when the big WIPO/ACTA/TRIPPS bullies shit their usual brick.
I bet putting up "a 540-square-foot video billboard advertisement in Times Square, New York" costs a small fortune. So, where did a consumer group get that kind of money?
No doubt, from a hostile company. But who? Microsoft? Apple? Viacom?
Some of his points make sense. Let's hope the Stockholm syndrome works, because his hostages probably got a bit of inverse Pavlov's dog reinforcement on the things he was trying to tell them. Now, Discovery channel will probably turn into Vatican TV or something.
As a race, we may be naturally predisposed to be religious -- a very unfortunate remnant of the evolutionary process that has brought us this far. As fun as it is to mock the christians (or whoever else believes in similar fairy-tales), we should never forget that some atheists can also bastardise science and turn it into a religion. Atheists can also be religious zealots, who blindly cling onto their beliefs, who unquestionably believe in old scientific texts like Darwin, and who are prepared to use force to impose their beliefs on others... which is totally ironic. Those people are probably psychologically damaged (or very stupid, or both), because that's EXACTLY what the scientific method and critical thinking are supposed to discourage.
If only I could erase the genes that create people like him, the world would be a much happier place...
I'm sorry, but fuck that. There's a huge difference between Al Qaeda and Wikileaks -- one is blowing people up, while the other is making sure the government is transparent.
And yes, the more people know what their governments are doing, the more likely it is they'll step up and say "stop it" when the government starts bombing hospitals. Shutting people up by keeping them ignorant is evil no matter what spin you put on it. It's plain stupid when you shrug and say "it's inevitable" -- like you did.
I'm aware of that. If Assange stays around, he'll be sure to release a LOT more classified stuff over the years than what there is in that archive. It's a game of Chicken, really -- Assange stays around and keeps releasing stuff forever, or Assange is taken care of now and there's only a limited spill.
Though, even if Assange is killed off, there's bound to be someone else who'll take his place. What's more, the new guy will be a lot more careful to hide his identity and whereabouts...
Fact is, Assange stays alive as long as he's in the news. The moment he fades out of the public's eye, he'll probably be assassinated -- or worse. There is a possibility that the rape charges are meant to keep him in the spotlight, but there's also a chance they are meant to smear his name... who knows?
And Gawker can kiss my shiny metal ass. Wikileaks attacks nasty governments all over the world, "Wkileakileaks" attacks a single organisation that is already under fire by said nasty governments. I hope you can see the difference, and I hope you'll understand why I don't think it's very funny.
Slashdot Mirror
Those are two examples where patents kind of worked as expected, and they are rare examples because I've also yet to meet any small-timers who benefited from patents.
At the end of the day, we need to ask, are those examples the exception or the rule? Can we really justify the millions of dead-weight patents that are there only to block possible avenues of innovation, and/or are abused by organisations like Intellectual Ventures? Are patents holding back rather than enabling innovation?
If you can have no expectation of privacy when you send information to your ISP, then use a fucking VPN, proxy, etc.
I agree. Patents are of no value to the small-time inventor. They are, however, invaluable to incumbent companies who wish to lock the up-and-comers out of the market, and of course patent trolls.
In other words, patents are a pure deficit for the public who have to pay for the bureaucracy, the unnecessary litigation and the lack of competition that results from this system. The empirical evidence is piling up against patents (like this article says), and unless someone steps up and shows some proof that this system resulted in more innovation, the whole thing will have to be thrown out the window.
And honestly, I don't expect patent supporters have any proof to show, so the question is -- how long will it take for the patent system to be taken down? There is no question that the patent supporters are rich and powerful (that includes Microsoft, btw, who say they just wuv patents), and those people can be very "persuasive"...
Why is the focus on software patents? Doesn't this show that the patent system in general doesn't scale up and needs fixing?
I can never make up my mind about Sharkey. There are a few times when he comes off as someone genuinely interested in the wellbeing of British musicians, and there are other times when he comes off as an arrogant prick interested only in the global domination of the BPI. I know one thing for sure: he's not the type who can handle being wrong, and as long as he still stands he will fight for copyright, even if reason and evidence suggest that copyright is a bad thing for musicians and a bad thing for the British people.
In my opinion, his actions have been impulsive, shallow and unpredictable, and I hope he stays out of this debate -- even if he means well at heart. You know what they say about that road paved with good intentions...
Not if you are in Europe.
It's Saturday evening... maybe linux users have lives? ;)
It's still a beta.
I was talking about my proposal. I completely agree with you that as things are right now, publishers control who buys what and where, and they are being dicks about it too.
If however the developers/artists release a portion of their work for everyone to download and copy and ask their fans for donations in order to produce the remainder, you can give them money on whatever terms you like: if you prefer to pay them for the work they've already done, you are free to do so; if you want to give them money because you want them to produce more, that's also a possibility.
I'm not sure if I'm expressing this very well, but I think it's quite a feasible business model. I'll attempt a more intuitive example:
You want to produce a TV series. You put down some money yourself to create a pilot episode, and also spend money advertising your product (no difference from how it's usually done, so far). Then, you release this pilot episode on the internet for free, and ask the people who watch it for donations to create the next episode. If enough people like it and want to watch the rest, they'll give you money; if they hate it, they won't.
I'm not describing "pay what you want". It's "if you liked this and/or want to see more, then make a donation for $xx".
This is the fault of grandstanding state attorneys, who are trying to make noise to get votes -- who should all just stfu and leave the internet alone.
Not only are they politicians, they are lawyer politicians!
If you want to pay the artists for the missions they HAVE already created, there's no-one stopping you. What I'm proposing gives you that freedom -- the system right now is, either you pay to get a copy or gtfo.
After all, open is always better.
Well, my suggestion was:
1) They create a few missions, release them.
2) You play them, like them. Donate to create more.
3) They create a few more missions.
4) Goto 2
So, you do get to play before you buy. Also, I don't see why more polished games shouldn't be possible with this system -- the best products will draw more attention and will get more donations.
Note that what I am suggesting is not "pay what you want". That's an entirely different business model, which is a crap shoot imho. When I say "donate" I basically mean something like "preorder".
And I really believe what I'm saying definitely does not imply "a society where only the rich can have really nice things because only they can hire people to make them". Quite the opposite, in fact! Those who can afford to will pay for stuff to be created, but after it's done no copyright is needed to protect the work, because the artists have already been compensated. In other words, art can be released directly in the public domain for everyone--rich or poor--to enjoy, which is surely not the case right now.
I think this sort of system is quite beautiful, tbh, and may be the only way forward as far as I can see.
Are you paying your musicians to perform on stage, or are you paying them so they can keep composing? When an artist you like asks for donations to record his next album, you have a choice: either pay or not pay. If you don't pay, the album won't be created in the first place. The idea is that musicians need to learn to interact with their audience and make them want to give them money, not demand payment from their ivory tower.
Create the first few missions and release them. Tell people that if they like what they see, they should pay/donate to you to create more.
Isn't that much better? We pay artists to create, not to make copies
They made millions to the detriment of other smaller artists. Back then the label/distributor system was absolute: there was no way into the music industry without being signed. The labels would only take up so many artists, who they promoted the hell out of, while all other artists were forced into obscurity.
That's a terrible system, because there's less music being made that way, and people are spoon-fed only what the labels want them to listen to.
Today things are changing, because the labels' promotional machine is being overridden by more open distribution systems. So--- today it's not about making millions, it's about making a fair living (fairer distribution of wealth, and a level playing field) and having a chance to fame based on the quality of your work rather than dumb luck of getting picked up by a bunch of professional marketeers.
I think Brazil has the right idea, and I'll really really hate it when the big WIPO/ACTA/TRIPPS bullies shit their usual brick.
The ads are more relevant to my post than your reply.
I bet putting up "a 540-square-foot video billboard advertisement in Times Square, New York" costs a small fortune. So, where did a consumer group get that kind of money?
No doubt, from a hostile company. But who? Microsoft? Apple? Viacom?
In related news, today TechDirt posted about scammers starting to send out fake Hadopi notices asking random people for money.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100902/02075110872.shtml
This is really turning out to be a FAIL of EPIC proportions.
Don't look a gift horse in the mouth, unless it's infected with Norton Internet Security.
Some of his points make sense. Let's hope the Stockholm syndrome works, because his hostages probably got a bit of inverse Pavlov's dog reinforcement on the things he was trying to tell them. Now, Discovery channel will probably turn into Vatican TV or something.
As a race, we may be naturally predisposed to be religious -- a very unfortunate remnant of the evolutionary process that has brought us this far. As fun as it is to mock the christians (or whoever else believes in similar fairy-tales), we should never forget that some atheists can also bastardise science and turn it into a religion. Atheists can also be religious zealots, who blindly cling onto their beliefs, who unquestionably believe in old scientific texts like Darwin, and who are prepared to use force to impose their beliefs on others... which is totally ironic. Those people are probably psychologically damaged (or very stupid, or both), because that's EXACTLY what the scientific method and critical thinking are supposed to discourage.
If only I could erase the genes that create people like him, the world would be a much happier place...
If Obama fears Wikileaks more than terrorist psychopaths, then he should stop chasing Assange and start seriously cleaning up his act.
I'm sorry, but fuck that. There's a huge difference between Al Qaeda and Wikileaks -- one is blowing people up, while the other is making sure the government is transparent.
And yes, the more people know what their governments are doing, the more likely it is they'll step up and say "stop it" when the government starts bombing hospitals. Shutting people up by keeping them ignorant is evil no matter what spin you put on it. It's plain stupid when you shrug and say "it's inevitable" -- like you did.
I'm aware of that. If Assange stays around, he'll be sure to release a LOT more classified stuff over the years than what there is in that archive. It's a game of Chicken, really -- Assange stays around and keeps releasing stuff forever, or Assange is taken care of now and there's only a limited spill.
Though, even if Assange is killed off, there's bound to be someone else who'll take his place. What's more, the new guy will be a lot more careful to hide his identity and whereabouts...
Fact is, Assange stays alive as long as he's in the news. The moment he fades out of the public's eye, he'll probably be assassinated -- or worse. There is a possibility that the rape charges are meant to keep him in the spotlight, but there's also a chance they are meant to smear his name... who knows?
And Gawker can kiss my shiny metal ass. Wikileaks attacks nasty governments all over the world, "Wkileakileaks" attacks a single organisation that is already under fire by said nasty governments. I hope you can see the difference, and I hope you'll understand why I don't think it's very funny.