"True but I see no market solution to protect everyone."
I am not speaking against the non-Free market aspects here, just pointing them out. Many seem to have a hard time admitting that goods protected by copyrights and patents are not traded legally in a Free Market. To me, it is a separate question as to whether we think the copyright and patent solution is better than letting the Free Market try and find a solution, but at least people might try to come to grips with it not being a Free Market in those goods.
I have only just started to wonder about corporations and Free Markets. These are early musings on that subject for me.
"Corporations themself are neither pro nor anti free market"
If they didn't have limited liability, or if humans had limited liability, they may not be anti-Free Market. As it is, they are a government solution to a problem and not a market solution to a problem. (And I say this as someone who is not necessarily anti-corporation or anti limited liability.)
"Maybe, but you might also be liable for the acres around your land which burn down too. Your neighbors would be none-too-happy, and highly litigenous."
Except for the law suit bit, which I personally find zany, being from another country, that is really the neighbours problem and what the insurance boys like to call "Acts Of God" in any case right?
"You're also paying for police and military protection on that land."
Ah, aren't property taxes a county thing in the US? Here they are national. If so, it does not go to military protection and since I am not even in the state, how does police protection help me exactly?
"You're paying for the wildlife service that ensure the animals on your land don't go and eat people in the developed regions nearby."
Why should I pay for that? They aren't actually my animals. or are they?
"The assessor's offices and other local administrations which are keeping track of who owns what, and will back up your claims in 50 years."
Perhaps, but come on. How big a percentage of the property tax goes to this?
"On a higher level, you're paying for the kinds of exploratory and political actions which made your having that land possible in the first place. You're paying for upkeep and maintenence on the monetary system which made your current and future transactions possible."
See my comment above about property tax being a county thing. the counties do all of this?
"Everything has upkeep costs associated with it. Everything. Government is the way we consolidate those costs and reap significant savings."
Like I say, property tax on developed land, fine. On undeveloped land? That I find a stretch. However, I heard someone say the other day that people over there who know, get out of it by keeping a certain number of cattle on their land per acre. Do you know anything about this?
"If your pine woods turned into a burned out pile of ash, I'm sure the property value would decrease quite a bit. It may not harm you physically, but financially you would take quite a blow."
Not if I only want to sit on my land for possible use thirty or fifty years down the road. Plus, fire is a natural thing for many environments. Right?
"So, pray, tell us, what resource belonging to First Nations is being consumed, so that you have less of it the signal has passed through?"
Honestly, that part of the spectrum that the frequencies used by the phones make use of. If they want to use that spectrum for something, they will get interference. Right?
In saying this, I am not trying to bolster or diminish the validity of their claims, just to answer your question.
The US government at least has auctioned off spectrum right? It must be worth something right? After they sell it to entity A, they will use guns to prevent entities B and C from using those frequencies right?
If you want to shoot down their play, I suggest you try and find better reasons.
"You aren't paying the government to use your own property; you're paying them for the services within their jurisdiction -- usually schools, water, roads, police, streetlights, etc."
I can understand that thinking. We have property taxes down here too. However, we don't pay property tax on undeveloped land. From what I understand, you guys in the US do. What is the rationale for that?
If I live in Texas, but have a hundred acres of piney woods in Georgia, that Georgia services am I really using?
Are there any localities in the US where you don't? (Or am I completely wrong?)
First we have copyrights - Free Market not possible, government protected monopoly play.
Second we have patents - Free Market not possible, government protected monopoly play.
Third, and this one is so far only a vague thought so far, we have corporations. Another government involvement in the market?
Now, while I might be for Free Markets, I don't really like being given the answer "let the market decide" when it comes to dealing with problems with markets that are not Free in the first place. Non-Free Markets are not going to come up with the right solutions are they?
"Yes, your local grocery mart probably isn't going to provide enough fuel for everybody in town next to the dog food aisle."
Hey, if this could work except for this, your local gas stations would be happy to sell you the starch. That is fairly certain. Or your pet foor stores. Or your bottled water depots. Roadside hot dog vendors?
"Does not compute philosophically. You'd think a free market idealogue would be against copyrights..."
Bingo! But somehow may who claim to be for Free markets somewhow can't see that letting people have these government granted monopolies messes with the Free Market. Cant' the Free Market find a solution to this problem?
"Unmetered really *isn't* a viable alternative - not unless ISPs are legally prevented from degrading the service for high bandwidth applications."
OK. If so, fine by me, pass the law. Why do you think this is a done deal though.
They should have to provide the bandwidth advertised. With some fuzz for unexpected peak times. They should not get away with false advertising that is negated by the fine print. This would not prevent overselling, but would stop cronic under provision.
"Basically, "unlimited" connections are only OK for infrastructure development if they really are unlimited, and in that case some sort of per-gig charge will end up making more sense to the ISP."
I don't buy it, but even so, I am not interested in metered access. Not when unmetered is a viable alternative.
When you buy a T1, the limit is what you can put down it. Flat rate. You wanna buy a metered T1? You want metered local phone calls? metered long distance? I don't. You want metered CD playing or video watching? A word processor where you pay per word typed?
Oh, I know that sellers will often prefer the metered game. I as a buyer don't though.
They are gonna oversell. And as a customer, you want them to. You get a better price that way. What you want though, is for them to manage the bandwidth properly. By that I mean watch usage and add more as usage patterns indicate the need, not throttle users as needed forever.
"High time ISPs charge consumers by MBytes of data transmitted."
Uh, no thanks. Not wanted here.
I will happily pay a reasonable flat rate even if I don't I don't regularly use it to the max. I don't want per minute charges, per megabyte charges, or any other metered charges where a flat rate structure can work.
Why not go back to per minute charges on all net and phone connections? Or better yet, per minute and per bit? No thanks. Not for me.
"...the owners of the sound recordings also get a piece of that income, which wouldn't affect talk radio, news and sports stations, but mostly for those stations who have a 'music format', said music being the main reason they are able to remain in business."
I guess if we do that, we will no longer need that laws against payola then?
I mean, other industris have to deal with "shelf space" charges. Why not music?
And since the stations will be paying the copyright owners to play the music, there couldn't possibly be any motivation for the copyright owners to pay the stations to play the very same music in any case. Right?
"Titles are not copyrightable, so he's not a hypocrite in that regard."
["No good case exists for the inequality of real and intellectual property, because no good case can exist for treating with special disfavor the work of the spirit and the mind."]
His argument seems to be geared to work of the spirit and mind. Titles and inventions are works of the spirit or mind. Why should titles not be copyrightable? And there are a lot of other works of the spirit and mind that are not copywritable or patentable.
"Reforming the copyright system merely to include familiar copyright control while eliminating its abuses is a big enough task."
Ah, I thought I had this in the post and you missed it. No, I had failed to include it. It may not be worded properly, so please query.
'The idea for a Copyright Offensive is this:
We need a set of proposals that we can push. They need to be such that they can make the situation better. They need to be such that we can reach a compromise on them that will still make things better.'
"Copyright holders can voluntarily release content under "copyleft" or whatever other terms, while they've got copyright control. So just reforming the term and finance of copyright is enough to fix the system."
Here is where I think:
'1. All 'non-marked' works get an automatic copyleft, not an automatic copyright.'
might help.
We would get a pool of works that could be used in other Free works but not in ARR works without bigger efforts.
Now, overall, I want to think about the bargaining process and how it will likely go down.
The problem with here is that it will fade away... If you know of a better, more permanent place...?
"The tax parts are prohibitive if they're required and based on some imaginary "market value" (without a real buyer for real numbers)."
Since the copyright holder gets to declare the value, I am not sure how. Can you explain?
"(tweakable on real economic analysis for maximized content value growth against registrar admin costs)"
Don't mind that as far as I can see.
"After copyright expires, everything automatically becomes copyleft (if that means "attribution required" is the only requirement for copying) for the same period as the medium's default copyright duration (not any economic expiration), after which it's public domain and even attribution is optional (but encouraged)."
No, to me copyleft means the worrk is Free (as in libre, possibly not gratis) and derivatives (etc) built on the work must also be copyleft, etc.
Now, attribution may be required if desired.
"Unregistered works find the burden of proof on the holder of the work to document all the dates/amounts they could have registered."
In my initial proposal, unregistered works go copyleft, not copyright, if no name is attached, attribution is not required.
Please note, I think a disticntion should be made between lack of attribution and claiming that the work is original with yourself.
That is, I can write a book and claim that it has various quotes from and referecnes to the works of others, some of whom I can't pin down. This should be seen differently that claiming that the work is entirely original with me. (Sensible? No?)
"That regime would transform America's info economy to lead the world."
"In fact, now that I think about it, nothing that was copyrighted after I was born will move into the public domain before I die of old age..."
Indeed and so, these days, copyrighted works (certainly those without a Free license) actually pollute your brain. I know it is a bit of an odd thought, but I have been kicking it around for a while now and it does sort of fit.
"If the government ever really wants to address Microsoft as a monopoly, they should realize that the underlying monopolies are granted by the government."
Bingo!
MOD parent up!
And government granted monopoly means that the Free Market cannot fix the problems. The government will have to do that.
Slashdot Mirror
"True but I see no market solution to protect everyone."
I am not speaking against the non-Free market aspects here, just pointing them out. Many seem to have a hard time admitting that goods protected by copyrights and patents are not traded legally in a Free Market. To me, it is a separate question as to whether we think the copyright and patent solution is better than letting the Free Market try and find a solution, but at least people might try to come to grips with it not being a Free Market in those goods.
I have only just started to wonder about corporations and Free Markets. These are early musings on that subject for me.
all the best,
drew
"Corporations themself are neither pro nor anti free market"
If they didn't have limited liability, or if humans had limited liability, they may not be anti-Free Market. As it is, they are a government solution to a problem and not a market solution to a problem. (And I say this as someone who is not necessarily anti-corporation or anti limited liability.)
all the best,
drew
"Maybe, but you might also be liable for the acres around your land which burn down too. Your neighbors would be none-too-happy, and highly litigenous."
Except for the law suit bit, which I personally find zany, being from another country, that is really the neighbours problem and what the insurance boys like to call "Acts Of God" in any case right?
"You're also paying for police and military protection on that land."
Ah, aren't property taxes a county thing in the US? Here they are national. If so, it does not go to military protection and since I am not even in the state, how does police protection help me exactly?
"You're paying for the wildlife service that ensure the animals on your land don't go and eat people in the developed regions nearby."
Why should I pay for that? They aren't actually my animals. or are they?
"The assessor's offices and other local administrations which are keeping track of who owns what, and will back up your claims in 50 years."
Perhaps, but come on. How big a percentage of the property tax goes to this?
"On a higher level, you're paying for the kinds of exploratory and political actions which made your having that land possible in the first place. You're paying for upkeep and maintenence on the monetary system which made your current and future transactions possible."
See my comment above about property tax being a county thing. the counties do all of this?
"Everything has upkeep costs associated with it. Everything. Government is the way we consolidate those costs and reap significant savings."
Like I say, property tax on developed land, fine. On undeveloped land? That I find a stretch. However, I heard someone say the other day that people over there who know, get out of it by keeping a certain number of cattle on their land per acre. Do you know anything about this?
all the best,
drew
"If your pine woods turned into a burned out pile of ash, I'm sure the property value would decrease quite a bit. It may not harm you physically, but financially you would take quite a blow."
Not if I only want to sit on my land for possible use thirty or fifty years down the road. Plus, fire is a natural thing for many environments. Right?
all the best,
drew
Huh, my pine woods burning down in GA is going to harm me in TX how exactly?
If they want to put out the fire for their own sake, fine.
all the best,
drew
"Are they Sirius?"
Yes! Everything is going to the dogs! Haven't you heard?
all the best,
drew
1. no compensation ensues;
2. First Nations records all calls;
3. Calls sold to highest bidder;
Possible?
What I keep wondering is why such groups don't get into offering passports. (Serious. Does anyone know?)
all the best,
drew
"So, pray, tell us, what resource belonging to First Nations is being consumed, so that you have less of it the signal has passed through?"
Honestly, that part of the spectrum that the frequencies used by the phones make use of. If they want to use that spectrum for something, they will get interference. Right?
In saying this, I am not trying to bolster or diminish the validity of their claims, just to answer your question.
The US government at least has auctioned off spectrum right? It must be worth something right? After they sell it to entity A, they will use guns to prevent entities B and C from using those frequencies right?
If you want to shoot down their play, I suggest you try and find better reasons.
all the best,
drew
"You aren't paying the government to use your own property; you're paying them for the services within their jurisdiction -- usually schools, water, roads, police, streetlights, etc."
I can understand that thinking. We have property taxes down here too. However, we don't pay property tax on undeveloped land. From what I understand, you guys in the US do. What is the rationale for that?
If I live in Texas, but have a hundred acres of piney woods in Georgia, that Georgia services am I really using?
Are there any localities in the US where you don't? (Or am I completely wrong?)
all the best,
drew
Free Markets?
Well, let's see...
First we have copyrights - Free Market not possible, government protected monopoly play.
Second we have patents - Free Market not possible, government protected monopoly play.
Third, and this one is so far only a vague thought so far, we have corporations. Another government involvement in the market?
Now, while I might be for Free Markets, I don't really like being given the answer "let the market decide" when it comes to dealing with problems with markets that are not Free in the first place. Non-Free Markets are not going to come up with the right solutions are they?
all the best,
drew
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biOFnAlXrV8
A UFO takes a potcake for nefarious purposes.
Easy.
I would guess the agreement came about under pressure of copyrights.
Copyrights are monopoly rights. No Open or Free Market in those goods.
all the best,
drew
"Yes, your local grocery mart probably isn't going to provide enough fuel for everybody in town next to the dog food aisle."
Hey, if this could work except for this, your local gas stations would be happy to sell you the starch. That is fairly certain. Or your pet foor stores. Or your bottled water depots. Roadside hot dog vendors?
all the best,
drew
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biOFnAlXrV8
A UFO takes a potcake for nefarious purposes.
"Does not compute philosophically. You'd think a free market idealogue would be against copyrights..."
Bingo! But somehow may who claim to be for Free markets somewhow can't see that letting people have these government granted monopolies messes with the Free Market. Cant' the Free Market find a solution to this problem?
MOD PARENT UP.
all the best,
drew
There are a couple of sayings down this way:
Mouth say anything.
Paper will sit still and let you write anything on it.
You can short circuit such games without resorting to metered access.
all the best,
drew
"Unmetered really *isn't* a viable alternative - not unless ISPs are legally prevented from degrading the service for high bandwidth applications."
OK. If so, fine by me, pass the law. Why do you think this is a done deal though.
They should have to provide the bandwidth advertised. With some fuzz for unexpected peak times. They should not get away with false advertising that is negated by the fine print. This would not prevent overselling, but would stop cronic under provision.
all the best,
drew
"Basically, "unlimited" connections are only OK for infrastructure development if they really are unlimited, and in that case some sort of per-gig charge will end up making more sense to the ISP."
I don't buy it, but even so, I am not interested in metered access. Not when unmetered is a viable alternative.
When you buy a T1, the limit is what you can put down it. Flat rate. You wanna buy a metered T1? You want metered local phone calls? metered long distance? I don't. You want metered CD playing or video watching? A word processor where you pay per word typed?
Oh, I know that sellers will often prefer the metered game. I as a buyer don't though.
They are gonna oversell. And as a customer, you want them to. You get a better price that way. What you want though, is for them to manage the bandwidth properly. By that I mean watch usage and add more as usage patterns indicate the need, not throttle users as needed forever.
all the best,
drew
"High time ISPs charge consumers by MBytes of data transmitted."
Uh, no thanks. Not wanted here.
I will happily pay a reasonable flat rate even if I don't I don't regularly use it to the max. I don't want per minute charges, per megabyte charges, or any other metered charges where a flat rate structure can work.
Why not go back to per minute charges on all net and phone connections? Or better yet, per minute and per bit? No thanks. Not for me.
all the best,
drew
"...the owners of the sound recordings also get a piece of that income, which wouldn't affect talk radio, news and sports stations, but mostly for those stations who have a 'music format', said music being the main reason they are able to remain in business."
I guess if we do that, we will no longer need that laws against payola then?
I mean, other industris have to deal with "shelf space" charges. Why not music?
And since the stations will be paying the copyright owners to play the music, there couldn't possibly be any motivation for the copyright owners to pay the stations to play the very same music in any case. Right?
all the best,
drew
"Titles are not copyrightable, so he's not a hypocrite in that regard."
["No good case exists for the inequality of real and intellectual property, because no good case can exist for treating with special disfavor the work of the spirit and the mind."]
His argument seems to be geared to work of the spirit and mind. Titles and inventions are works of the spirit or mind. Why should titles not be copyrightable? And there are a lot of other works of the spirit and mind that are not copywritable or patentable.
all the best,
drew
"Perpetual copyright wouldn't necessarily be retroactive. They could apply only to works created after a certain date."
Yes they could, but only at the expense of giving up their claimed "moral high ground"...
Not that I think it is the moral high ground in any case...
all the best,
drew
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biOFnAlXrV8
UFO Potcake Film! Check it out!
"Reforming the copyright system merely to include familiar copyright control while eliminating its abuses is a big enough task."
Ah, I thought I had this in the post and you missed it. No, I had failed to include it. It may not be worded properly, so please query.
'The idea for a Copyright Offensive is this:
We need a set of proposals that we can push. They need to be such that they can make the situation better. They need to be such that we can reach a compromise on them that will still make things better.'
"Copyright holders can voluntarily release content under "copyleft" or whatever other terms, while they've got copyright control. So just reforming the term and finance of copyright is enough to fix the system."
Here is where I think:
'1. All 'non-marked' works get an automatic copyleft, not an automatic copyright.'
might help.
We would get a pool of works that could be used in other Free works but not in ARR works without bigger efforts.
Now, overall, I want to think about the bargaining process and how it will likely go down.
all the best,
drew
The problem with here is that it will fade away... If you know of a better, more permanent place...?
"The tax parts are prohibitive if they're required and based on some imaginary "market value" (without a real buyer for real numbers)."
Since the copyright holder gets to declare the value, I am not sure how. Can you explain?
"(tweakable on real economic analysis for maximized content value growth against registrar admin costs)"
Don't mind that as far as I can see.
"After copyright expires, everything automatically becomes copyleft (if that means "attribution required" is the only requirement for copying) for the same period as the medium's default copyright duration (not any economic expiration), after which it's public domain and even attribution is optional (but encouraged)."
No, to me copyleft means the worrk is Free (as in libre, possibly not gratis) and derivatives (etc) built on the work must also be copyleft, etc.
Now, attribution may be required if desired.
"Unregistered works find the burden of proof on the holder of the work to document all the dates/amounts they could have registered."
In my initial proposal, unregistered works go copyleft, not copyright, if no name is attached, attribution is not required.
Please note, I think a disticntion should be made between lack of attribution and claiming that the work is original with yourself.
That is, I can write a book and claim that it has various quotes from and referecnes to the works of others, some of whom I can't pin down. This should be seen differently that claiming that the work is entirely original with me. (Sensible? No?)
"That regime would transform America's info economy to lead the world."
Well, being from the Bahamas and all... ~;-)
all the best,
drew
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/2007/04/some-thoughts- on-copyright-offensive.html
If so, please leave a comment over there. We might get a brainstorm going...
all the best,
drew
"In fact, now that I think about it, nothing that was copyrighted after I was born will move into the public domain before I die of old age..."
Indeed and so, these days, copyrighted works (certainly those without a Free license) actually pollute your brain. I know it is a bit of an odd thought, but I have been kicking it around for a while now and it does sort of fit.
all the best,
drew
"If the government ever really wants to address Microsoft as a monopoly, they should realize that the underlying monopolies are granted by the government."
Bingo!
MOD parent up!
And government granted monopoly means that the Free Market cannot fix the problems. The government will have to do that.
all the best,
drew