Years and years ago, it was considered that one day we would have a convenient and efficient way to make micro-payments on line. Didn't William Gibson's novels foresee such a world? Anyhow, suppose news articles had a real "Like" button, not the Facebook Like. If you liked the story, you could click this button and give it a voluntary micro-payement of from a fraction of a cent to a few cents or as high as you wish. From time to time I have seen some excellent articles by some of the best professional journalists in the world that had a profound impact on my consciousness. In these cases, if there was a simple way as desribed above to show my appreciation I would certainly donate.
Interesting comment, but your link didn't work for me.
I also read every one of the comments, on into the night. My impression is here. I concluded that this guy should feel so humiliated after reading all those comments he should want just crawl up in a hole somewhere and die.
I wouldn't worry that you discovered you were wrong about some little point. The point is that having the RIAA dictating legislation is wrong to the point of absurdity. Nothing good could have ever come of it. It had to be discarded like tainted evidence brought to a trial, on principal alone, in a swift summary judgment.
What struck me was how his reaction was so reminiscent of Former Senator Chris Dodd, the Chairman and CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America, when he felt betrayed after the defeat of SOPA and PIPA in spite of having paid millions in "bribes" to congressmen and senators. He said to them, "Those who count on 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake," Many feel this is an open admission of bribery.
The game has changed, the vast majority are still misinformed and greatly outnumber the handful of people who actually see and can understand what is actually going on, so the powers that be pretty much can just ignore them.
I would suggest that you underestimate the intelligence and capability of citizens these days. In the first place, they are better educated than ever before in the entire history of mankind. Furthermore, having a myriad of sources for information, rather than confuse, I would suggest allows us to form an educated opinion far faster than ever before. Thirdly, we have instant access these days to our trusted social networks through which we may filter our opinions. Clearly I take an optimist view here. Let me give you a practical example of what kind of thing I base my optimism on...
Late last night, I read the piece by Cary Sherman, than for the next two hours I read every single comment below it, some 250 comments at that point (and closed off to further comments). I was absolutely amazed and astonished at how well informed the overwhelming number comments were. Furthermore, they all were overwhelmingly well thought out - the product of well digested thought. They were also overwhelmingly critical of Cary Sherman, I would say > 95%, and based on rational argument.
I would think after that Cary Sherman wouldn't dare raise his head up again in public if he read through those comments. He should feel thoroughly humiliated.
I was very, very encouraged, so much so that I will stop proselytizing my little manifesto. (I expect this to be the last link to it I'll bother to post, at least here.) People have moved past that now, and have already moved on to reshaping the future of copyright law reforms. There is a revolution underway, and there is no turning back. The people won't stand for it.
I have followed this Slashdot discussion up to here, and I see it has gone off on interesting little side trips. I strongly recommend anybody to read the discussion over at the NYT article, which stays on focus, for an eye opener. It is a wonderful and glorious piece of contemporary collective consciousness.
I'd view this with a healthy dose of suspicion. I'm in Canada. We are a small country population-wise, and subjected to bullying in trade negotiations by our neighbour, the USA. We are eternally pressured to enact stronger copyright laws for example.
One fine day, our government decided we needed to update our copyright laws. They sought broad public input. Now we are at the point of passing these new laws. Wouldn't you know it, though they consulted broadly, in the end they simply ignored any input that did not correspond with their hidden agenda. It was all a sham. Their hidden agenda was dictated by the US based corporate lobby. Even worse, after going through that process, at last minute they now want to sneak in new provisions that weren't even discussed, like DMCA laws. Worse yet, we don't have the fair use laws here that make the DMCA laws palatable in the US.
The bottom line is, this is probably what you can expect in Ireland, and is what has already happened in countries like Australia and New Zealand. We just cannot defend ourselves from Yankee Imperialism.
The problem begins in the USA, and it must be solved there. We must give our American friends who are fighting against this our full support.
I said "We must be on eternal guard for some group that would attempt to co-opt it and pre-empt it.", but I should have added for nefarious purpose. I thought my intent would be obvious at the time of writing, then later realized in horror that it could have been misconstrued.
This is just the sort of thing we have been vigorously advocating at WhyNotAskMe.org
To quote from our manifesto, "Given the opportunity, people are quite capable of working things out among themselves and coming to consensus. Crowd source the question, then leverage the wisdom of the crowd. Politicians are skilled at discerning the will of the people when their attention is properly focused and they are encouraged to do so. We must give them that encouragement and focus, by whatever means we have at our disposal."
Dare we believe this was inspired by our manifesto?
I heard nothing of this organization until now. Apparently Harold Feld is the inspiration behind Internet Blueprint, and this site says...
Harold Feld is legal director of Public Knowledge. Until 2009, he was Senior Vice President of the Media Access Project (MAP), a non-profit, public interest telecommunications law firm that promotes the public's First Amendment right to hear and be heard on the electronic media of today and tomorrow. An activist lawyer, he received his B.A. from Princeton University his J.D. from Boston University Law School. Haroldjoined MAP in August 1999 after practicing communications, Internet, and energy law at Covington & Burling. He also served as co-chair of the Federal Communications Bar Association's Online Committee and has written numerous articles on Internet law and communications policy for trade publications and legal journals. Harold has clerked for the Hon. John M. Ferren of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
We know nothing of any substance about his organization beyond a superficial glance. It can take quite some times for a person's motives and connections to become clear, but in the meantime mere discussion can do no harm.
The difficulty with the campaigns against SOPA and PIPA was that they attacked provisions in these proposals, rather than the entire process. Then proponents of those bills were able to parry and thrust with slogans such as "If you are against SOPA, then you are in favour of piracy!".
Our manifesto was constructed in such a way as to be invulnerable to attack, because it takes no stand on what shape copyright reforms should take beyond the most obvious need. Instead, it merely advocates for democratization of copyright laws. At first it was thought there is no way to attack it. We could say to the critics, If you are against it, you are against democracy.
However, there is a way to attack it. We must be on eternal guard for some group that would attempt to co-opt it and pre-empt it.
Until we find reason not to, we applaud the efforts of Internet Blueprint. It is exactly the kind of thing we hope to inspire. However, just because this group is out there, it doesn't mean there isn't room for more. We would like to see groups like this spring up all over the internet, and vigorous discussions taking place everywhere.
In the end, our political representative have time-tested methods of discerning the will of the people, by employing a broad range of tools from Gallop poles, town hall meetings, down to feedback from the constituencies. There is no need to invent new unproven mechanisms if there is goodwill on the part of our elected representatives.
I put this out to provoke discussion only. I does not represent our views, which take no stand on the questions raised below...
Nearly every book you read, every song you sing, every poem, thesis, play, movie, dance, audio recording, painting, drawing, sculpture, photograph, radio and television broadcast, and even the software on your computer "belongs" to somebody. All our academic knowledge is locked behind paywalls. Your entire culture has been commercialized and sold to the highest bidder. Did anybody ask you if this is what you wanted?
While copyrights may have been a workable notion at one time "To promote the Progress of... the useful Arts", the interpretation of that has broadened to encompass almost all forms of expression written or recorded on some physical medium, utilitarian or not. This has produced a vast artificial economy that seeks to grow and perpetuate itself at the expense of the potential of modern technologies. The whole idea of parceling up the creative commons and granting monopolies on the fragments of our culture to individuals and corporations needs to be rethought.
We have lost our way. The institutionalized Ferengi culture imposed by copyright legislation has created a hideous distortion of human values. It is an anathema to genuine human culture, which is at its base freely shared experience and expression. We must renounce this mercantile obsession with profit and trade and find our way back to innocence and truth.
If copyrights were dismantled tomorrow, would people suddenly stop singing, writing books, or quit participating in the multitude of forms of cultural expression available? Do we need to provide financial incentives to grow our own culture? Is it heresy to ask such questions, or even useful? It certainly is useful as a thought experiment even if just to overcome the propaganda the rights groups have been feeding us all these years. Beyond that, though copyright is already enshrined in our constitutions, these rights can be pared back just as easily as they were expanded previously.
Countries like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are very vulnerable to pressure from the USA, who's trade representatives use strong arm tactics to further their ends. They think nothing of inventing issues like this to further their goals. The problems begin with corruption of the legislative process in the USA, and is exported from there all over the world.
ACTA is the product of a corrupted legislative process in the USA. It is appalling that a country that professes to uphold democratic ideals so dearly would force this accord on the world via undemocratic, secret negotiations. As tainted evidence that reveals even a ruthless criminal must be discarded to serve the greater good - Democracy itself, ACTA must be discarded for the same reason. No good can ever come from it. See our manifesto at http://whynotaskme.org/
Slashdot Mirror
Years and years ago, it was considered that one day we would have a convenient and efficient way to make micro-payments on line. Didn't William Gibson's novels foresee such a world? Anyhow, suppose news articles had a real "Like" button, not the Facebook Like. If you liked the story, you could click this button and give it a voluntary micro-payement of from a fraction of a cent to a few cents or as high as you wish. From time to time I have seen some excellent articles by some of the best professional journalists in the world that had a profound impact on my consciousness. In these cases, if there was a simple way as desribed above to show my appreciation I would certainly donate.
Why don't we have more signatures on this petition to have him investigated for bribery?
Interesting comment, but your link didn't work for me.
I also read every one of the comments, on into the night. My impression is here. I concluded that this guy should feel so humiliated after reading all those comments he should want just crawl up in a hole somewhere and die.
I wouldn't worry that you discovered you were wrong about some little point. The point is that having the RIAA dictating legislation is wrong to the point of absurdity. Nothing good could have ever come of it. It had to be discarded like tainted evidence brought to a trial, on principal alone, in a swift summary judgment.
What struck me was how his reaction was so reminiscent of Former Senator Chris Dodd, the Chairman and CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America, when he felt betrayed after the defeat of SOPA and PIPA in spite of having paid millions in "bribes" to congressmen and senators. He said to them, "Those who count on 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake," Many feel this is an open admission of bribery.
The game has changed, the vast majority are still misinformed and greatly outnumber the handful of people who actually see and can understand what is actually going on, so the powers that be pretty much can just ignore them.
I would suggest that you underestimate the intelligence and capability of citizens these days. In the first place, they are better educated than ever before in the entire history of mankind. Furthermore, having a myriad of sources for information, rather than confuse, I would suggest allows us to form an educated opinion far faster than ever before. Thirdly, we have instant access these days to our trusted social networks through which we may filter our opinions. Clearly I take an optimist view here. Let me give you a practical example of what kind of thing I base my optimism on...
Late last night, I read the piece by Cary Sherman, than for the next two hours I read every single comment below it, some 250 comments at that point (and closed off to further comments). I was absolutely amazed and astonished at how well informed the overwhelming number comments were. Furthermore, they all were overwhelmingly well thought out - the product of well digested thought. They were also overwhelmingly critical of Cary Sherman, I would say > 95%, and based on rational argument.
I would think after that Cary Sherman wouldn't dare raise his head up again in public if he read through those comments. He should feel thoroughly humiliated.
I was very, very encouraged, so much so that I will stop proselytizing my little manifesto. (I expect this to be the last link to it I'll bother to post, at least here.) People have moved past that now, and have already moved on to reshaping the future of copyright law reforms. There is a revolution underway, and there is no turning back. The people won't stand for it.
I have followed this Slashdot discussion up to here, and I see it has gone off on interesting little side trips. I strongly recommend anybody to read the discussion over at the NYT article, which stays on focus, for an eye opener. It is a wonderful and glorious piece of contemporary collective consciousness.
I'd view this with a healthy dose of suspicion. I'm in Canada. We are a small country population-wise, and subjected to bullying in trade negotiations by our neighbour, the USA. We are eternally pressured to enact stronger copyright laws for example.
One fine day, our government decided we needed to update our copyright laws. They sought broad public input. Now we are at the point of passing these new laws. Wouldn't you know it, though they consulted broadly, in the end they simply ignored any input that did not correspond with their hidden agenda. It was all a sham. Their hidden agenda was dictated by the US based corporate lobby. Even worse, after going through that process, at last minute they now want to sneak in new provisions that weren't even discussed, like DMCA laws. Worse yet, we don't have the fair use laws here that make the DMCA laws palatable in the US.
The bottom line is, this is probably what you can expect in Ireland, and is what has already happened in countries like Australia and New Zealand. We just cannot defend ourselves from Yankee Imperialism.
The problem begins in the USA, and it must be solved there. We must give our American friends who are fighting against this our full support.
WhyNotAskMe.org
I said "We must be on eternal guard for some group that would attempt to co-opt it and pre-empt it.", but I should have added for nefarious purpose. I thought my intent would be obvious at the time of writing, then later realized in horror that it could have been misconstrued.
This is just the sort of thing we have been vigorously advocating at WhyNotAskMe.org
To quote from our manifesto, "Given the opportunity, people are quite capable of working things out among themselves and coming to consensus. Crowd source the question, then leverage the wisdom of the crowd. Politicians are skilled at discerning the will of the people when their attention is properly focused and they are encouraged to do so. We must give them that encouragement and focus, by whatever means we have at our disposal."
Dare we believe this was inspired by our manifesto?
I heard nothing of this organization until now. Apparently Harold Feld is the inspiration behind Internet Blueprint, and this site says...
Harold Feld is legal director of Public Knowledge. Until 2009, he was Senior Vice President of the Media Access Project (MAP), a non-profit, public interest telecommunications law firm that promotes the public's First Amendment right to hear and be heard on the electronic media of today and tomorrow. An activist lawyer, he received his B.A. from Princeton University his J.D. from Boston University Law School. Haroldjoined MAP in August 1999 after practicing communications, Internet, and energy law at Covington & Burling. He also served as co-chair of the Federal Communications Bar Association's Online Committee and has written numerous articles on Internet law and communications policy for trade publications and legal journals. Harold has clerked for the Hon. John M. Ferren of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
We know nothing of any substance about his organization beyond a superficial glance. It can take quite some times for a person's motives and connections to become clear, but in the meantime mere discussion can do no harm.
The difficulty with the campaigns against SOPA and PIPA was that they attacked provisions in these proposals, rather than the entire process. Then proponents of those bills were able to parry and thrust with slogans such as "If you are against SOPA, then you are in favour of piracy!". Our manifesto was constructed in such a way as to be invulnerable to attack, because it takes no stand on what shape copyright reforms should take beyond the most obvious need. Instead, it merely advocates for democratization of copyright laws. At first it was thought there is no way to attack it. We could say to the critics, If you are against it, you are against democracy.
However, there is a way to attack it. We must be on eternal guard for some group that would attempt to co-opt it and pre-empt it.
Until we find reason not to, we applaud the efforts of Internet Blueprint. It is exactly the kind of thing we hope to inspire. However, just because this group is out there, it doesn't mean there isn't room for more. We would like to see groups like this spring up all over the internet, and vigorous discussions taking place everywhere.
In the end, our political representative have time-tested methods of discerning the will of the people, by employing a broad range of tools from Gallop poles, town hall meetings, down to feedback from the constituencies. There is no need to invent new unproven mechanisms if there is goodwill on the part of our elected representatives.
The Director,
WhyNotAskMe.org
I put this out to provoke discussion only. I does not represent our views, which take no stand on the questions raised below...
Nearly every book you read, every song you sing, every poem, thesis, play, movie, dance, audio recording, painting, drawing, sculpture, photograph, radio and television broadcast, and even the software on your computer "belongs" to somebody. All our academic knowledge is locked behind paywalls. Your entire culture has been commercialized and sold to the highest bidder. Did anybody ask you if this is what you wanted?
... the useful Arts", the interpretation of that has broadened to encompass almost all forms of expression written or recorded on some physical medium, utilitarian or not. This has produced a vast artificial economy that seeks to grow and perpetuate itself at the expense of the potential of modern technologies. The whole idea of parceling up the creative commons and granting monopolies on the fragments of our culture to individuals and corporations needs to be rethought.
While copyrights may have been a workable notion at one time "To promote the Progress of
We have lost our way. The institutionalized Ferengi culture imposed by copyright legislation has created a hideous distortion of human values. It is an anathema to genuine human culture, which is at its base freely shared experience and expression. We must renounce this mercantile obsession with profit and trade and find our way back to innocence and truth.
If copyrights were dismantled tomorrow, would people suddenly stop singing, writing books, or quit participating in the multitude of forms of cultural expression available? Do we need to provide financial incentives to grow our own culture? Is it heresy to ask such questions, or even useful? It certainly is useful as a thought experiment even if just to overcome the propaganda the rights groups have been feeding us all these years. Beyond that, though copyright is already enshrined in our constitutions, these rights can be pared back just as easily as they were expanded previously.
Please see our manifesto at http://whynotaskme.org/
Countries like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are very vulnerable to pressure from the USA, who's trade representatives use strong arm tactics to further their ends. They think nothing of inventing issues like this to further their goals. The problems begin with corruption of the legislative process in the USA, and is exported from there all over the world.
ACTA is the product of a corrupted legislative process in the USA. It is appalling that a country that professes to uphold democratic ideals so dearly would force this accord on the world via undemocratic, secret negotiations. As tainted evidence that reveals even a ruthless criminal must be discarded to serve the greater good - Democracy itself, ACTA must be discarded for the same reason. No good can ever come from it. See our manifesto at http://whynotaskme.org/
Oops - sorry - I'm in the wrong forum. Please mark me off topic. Thanks.
Here is your answer: http://whynotaskme.org/