Doesn't "Standards" also imply a certain level of quality? In IT, it has been bastardized to mean ownership or control or dominance. What a piece of crap.
If a medium (book, cinema, music...) is ultimately a representation of the writer's outside and inside, then the future internet will be no different from today's (maybe different from a technology perspective, but not fundamentally in terms of its purpose). I think the more important question is, will the future generations of humans be different because of the internet? Already, people are beginning to think that paying for a CD or news or financial advice is something old-fashioned and unnecessary. Just imagine - a world where no company charges for any of its produce - a world where we all work for free, no bills to pay, everyone does things because everyone forms a critical part of the human supply chain. The Pharmaceuticals stop charging for medicines, cure for cancer becomes free, rock groups do not care for royalties and money, my ISP stops charging me for the service...will the internet actually make the world a better place? And make the future generations happier and freer? Maybe not, but in my fantasies, that's where we are going!
We copyright because we are greedy. As simple as that. Why isn't Socrates copyrighted anymore? How and why is the Bard "open source"? (you could make a movie called Romeo and Juliet based on the same story and no one would sue you for doing that). Simple. Cause its been so goddamm long, it doesn't matter anymore. But publishing houses still make money publishing his works, don't they? How much money did Shakespeare make from his writings? Looking back, does that make any difference at all? What is a sonnet worth? What is Enter Sandman worth? 50 years from now, would the Beatles' music be treated like Beethoven's and Bach's? Whether we agree with it or not, copyright of art is a meaningless, nauseating concept. Sooner or later, it will go.
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't "Standards" also imply a certain level of quality? In IT, it has been bastardized to mean ownership or control or dominance. What a piece of crap.
If a medium (book, cinema, music...) is ultimately a representation of the writer's outside and inside, then the future internet will be no different from today's (maybe different from a technology perspective, but not fundamentally in terms of its purpose). I think the more important question is, will the future generations of humans be different because of the internet? Already, people are beginning to think that paying for a CD or news or financial advice is something old-fashioned and unnecessary. Just imagine - a world where no company charges for any of its produce - a world where we all work for free, no bills to pay, everyone does things because everyone forms a critical part of the human supply chain. The Pharmaceuticals stop charging for medicines, cure for cancer becomes free, rock groups do not care for royalties and money, my ISP stops charging me for the service...will the internet actually make the world a better place? And make the future generations happier and freer? Maybe not, but in my fantasies, that's where we are going!
We copyright because we are greedy. As simple as that. Why isn't Socrates copyrighted anymore? How and why is the Bard "open source"? (you could make a movie called Romeo and Juliet based on the same story and no one would sue you for doing that). Simple. Cause its been so goddamm long, it doesn't matter anymore. But publishing houses still make money publishing his works, don't they? How much money did Shakespeare make from his writings? Looking back, does that make any difference at all? What is a sonnet worth? What is Enter Sandman worth? 50 years from now, would the Beatles' music be treated like Beethoven's and Bach's? Whether we agree with it or not, copyright of art is a meaningless, nauseating concept. Sooner or later, it will go.