Business models need to change to cope with a technology that is far, far more deeply revolutionary than the invention of the printing press ever was; after all, for all it's percieved game-changing nature, the Gutenberg press, and all that came after it, merely puts information on paper, just like the scribes before it.
Interestingly, without changing business model to access-control-by-production (as opposed to the "current" -- now functionally obsolete -- access-control-by-individual-copy), producers faced with shortened copyright terms may not have as much money on hand to produce new works, since all the funding for new works comes from people paying for otherwise worthless copies of previous works. Hopefully there'll be a smooth transitional phase where works shift from "funded by production company" -> "funded partially by production company and partially by audience" -> "funded by audience."
Copyright as it was originally concieved, and in every evolutionary step since then, has depended intimately on the specific limitations of physical media.
Computers are designed explicitly to allow information to transcend the limitations of physical media.
It's all about access restriction.
Access restriction is what makes information valuable. You won't pay for information you already have access to, even if it's very, very useful or desirable. Once you have it, buying access to it holds no value for you. If you lose access, but still want the info, you'll be ready to pay again. There is no difference in the amount a person will pay for -- that is to say, very literally, the value of -- a copy of information you don't want, and a copy of information you already have.
Access restriction is inherent in physical copies of information. Creating analog backups is imperfect and loses information slowly over time; creating copies similar to the originals is an industrial endeavor with not only significant costs, but physical traceability. If you buy a book, and you really want to, you can track it back to where it was printed and go there. You can only read a book if you're near it, you can only play a record you can touch (or command a robot to touch, whatever). If I make a million copies of something, I've created a million times the value I started with, because there's a million times more access to the work.
Access restriction is NOT inherent in digital copies of information. Identical copies can be created and destroyed indefinitely without the slightest loss or measurable cost, by whoever has the equipment to access them in the first place. A bit cannot be traced; any information you might use to differentiate one copy from another is inherently additional information, and can in turn be copied or removed. Anyone with access to the computer system of a person with a copy, also has access to that copy. Or any number of copies. If I make a million copies of a file, I have not created a million times the value I started with.
Computers force us to confront an interesting truth about information: an individual copy of information has zero value. The creation of that information has value, and access to that information has value, and THAT'S IT. The value of a physical copy lies in granting access to the possessor. If I can't see someone play music whenever I want, but I can get a recording, that recording has value. If I CAN listen to someone play music whenever want, wherever I want, just by waving my hand, a recording of them has no value to me. If a million people want access to the file, and I make them all pay first, only then is the file valuable.
But:
Access control on digital information is essentially binary. If you give someone access, they have it, and if you take it away, they don't; and, immediately, EVERYONE with access to that party ALSO has access. DRM tries really hard to pretend that you can give and deny access to information simultaneously to the same party, but it's just a shadow play. It relies 100% on social factors to work (I don't want to break the law, I don't mind this business model, I'd rather spend the time to do something else than crack this or find someone who will). Because in the digital world, you can't grant and deny access to the same party simultaneously. Not really. You can limit access, but if the degree of access I want is the degree of access you're giving me, I've got it, full stop. And so does everyone who as access to ME.
The ONLY meaningful access restriction to digital works in the modern age is at the point of creation. The only reasonable business model is not to release a work to anyone until it is paid for, or not to CREATE it until it is paid for.
Interestingly, this is, in fact, how nearly all "Big Content" is created already. The budget for a movie doesn't come from future ticket sales, it comes from ticket sales from previous movies Big-name n
Your average 10 year old has a 3 megapixel camera on their celphone.
You'd think we'd have a lot more pictures of muggers, but when presented with an unexpected, apparently dangerous situation, most people don't go for their camera.
That's why, for example, when there's, say, a fight on a city bus, where there have to be at least twenty cellphone cameras, you get, maybe, one actual video. Sometimes.
Nobody with any sense complains about adult stem cells.
But these aren't adult stem cells, anymore, they've been turned into embryonic stem cells, which means they're each and every one a tiny little baby oh my god someone stop them WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDR......er... Sorry, "...with any sense..." My mistake, carry on.
Rotting away in the deep forest, where not one single person has ever put any effort in looking for it that lasted longer than a weekend. Except, debatably, this one time in 1967.
Remember that scene from "Project Grizzly", where they got on horseback and spent days and days wandering around bear territory but didn't manage to actually find a bear?
resistance to GMO Foods goes pretty far into unscientific scaremongering ("Frankenfoods" and anti-corporatism),
What?
"Frankenfoods" isn't a result of any kind of scaremongering. It's a result of the aforementioned corporations steadfastly refusing to label their products correctly, and even going so far as to make it legally actionable for other companies to label their products as NOT GMO. Leaving people with food allegies completely in the dark as to whether a particular thing they supposedly aren't allergic to might just up an kill them someday because "Monsanto".
Which seems to me to be a totally reasonable reason to be anti-them. Fuck them. If they're worried that honestly labelling their shit might reduce their business, maybe they shouldn't make shit people don't want.
If you're not a massive minority, why are 8 out of 9 republican presidential candidates opposing pretty much everything science and economics has taught us in the last 100 years?
Because the huge majority of Republicans are "Well educated, fiscal conservatives who "deal in facts" every day" -- but just happen to all be shit-their-pants terrified that the "other guys" might win an election.
So no matter how individually sensible they may be, collectively, they're as batshit insane as their least-stable denominator. They'd rather stand firm against what they don't believe in, rather than risk actually voting FOR what they DO believe in.
The top 50% supply 97% of all personal tax revenue to the Federal Governent. The bottom half pay 3%
Out of curiosity, what's the wealth distribution between the two? If you have 97% of the money, you HAVE to pay 97% of the tax. Nobody else can afford to.
You want a real number? Tax capital gains as income.
No sane person decides that cold-blooded mass murder (often of people only tangentially related to the source of their anger) is the best way to accomplish their goals.
Slashdot Mirror
About thirty years from now.
I'd go so far as to say there's no reason to have copyright for ANY number of years.
The discrete value of a copy of information is zero.
Business models need to change to cope with a technology that is far, far more deeply revolutionary than the invention of the printing press ever was; after all, for all it's percieved game-changing nature, the Gutenberg press, and all that came after it, merely puts information on paper, just like the scribes before it.
Interestingly, without changing business model to access-control-by-production (as opposed to the "current" -- now functionally obsolete -- access-control-by-individual-copy), producers faced with shortened copyright terms may not have as much money on hand to produce new works, since all the funding for new works comes from people paying for otherwise worthless copies of previous works. Hopefully there'll be a smooth transitional phase where works shift from "funded by production company" -> "funded partially by production company and partially by audience" -> "funded by audience."
Probably not, though.
Is it ethical to deny someone the opportunity to work to produce their own food? If you're farming that land, he can't.
We no longer live in a world where you can just go west and stake a claim. Time to adapt.
It just isn't.
Copyright as it was originally concieved, and in every evolutionary step since then, has depended intimately on the specific limitations of physical media.
Computers are designed explicitly to allow information to transcend the limitations of physical media.
It's all about access restriction.
Access restriction is what makes information valuable. You won't pay for information you already have access to, even if it's very, very useful or desirable. Once you have it, buying access to it holds no value for you. If you lose access, but still want the info, you'll be ready to pay again. There is no difference in the amount a person will pay for -- that is to say, very literally, the value of -- a copy of information you don't want, and a copy of information you already have.
Access restriction is inherent in physical copies of information. Creating analog backups is imperfect and loses information slowly over time; creating copies similar to the originals is an industrial endeavor with not only significant costs, but physical traceability. If you buy a book, and you really want to, you can track it back to where it was printed and go there. You can only read a book if you're near it, you can only play a record you can touch (or command a robot to touch, whatever). If I make a million copies of something, I've created a million times the value I started with, because there's a million times more access to the work.
Access restriction is NOT inherent in digital copies of information. Identical copies can be created and destroyed indefinitely without the slightest loss or measurable cost, by whoever has the equipment to access them in the first place. A bit cannot be traced; any information you might use to differentiate one copy from another is inherently additional information, and can in turn be copied or removed. Anyone with access to the computer system of a person with a copy, also has access to that copy. Or any number of copies. If I make a million copies of a file, I have not created a million times the value I started with.
Computers force us to confront an interesting truth about information: an individual copy of information has zero value. The creation of that information has value, and access to that information has value, and THAT'S IT. The value of a physical copy lies in granting access to the possessor. If I can't see someone play music whenever I want, but I can get a recording, that recording has value. If I CAN listen to someone play music whenever want, wherever I want, just by waving my hand, a recording of them has no value to me. If a million people want access to the file, and I make them all pay first, only then is the file valuable.
But:
Access control on digital information is essentially binary. If you give someone access, they have it, and if you take it away, they don't; and, immediately, EVERYONE with access to that party ALSO has access. DRM tries really hard to pretend that you can give and deny access to information simultaneously to the same party, but it's just a shadow play. It relies 100% on social factors to work (I don't want to break the law, I don't mind this business model, I'd rather spend the time to do something else than crack this or find someone who will). Because in the digital world, you can't grant and deny access to the same party simultaneously. Not really. You can limit access, but if the degree of access I want is the degree of access you're giving me, I've got it, full stop. And so does everyone who as access to ME.
The ONLY meaningful access restriction to digital works in the modern age is at the point of creation. The only reasonable business model is not to release a work to anyone until it is paid for, or not to CREATE it until it is paid for.
Interestingly, this is, in fact, how nearly all "Big Content" is created already. The budget for a movie doesn't come from future ticket sales, it comes from ticket sales from previous movies Big-name n
People who illegally download music, as a group, also buy more than, collectively, people who don't.
They also buy actual stuff over the internet.
They also express themselves online, contributing to the culture.
That enough detail for you?
Your average 10 year old has a 3 megapixel camera on their celphone.
You'd think we'd have a lot more pictures of muggers, but when presented with an unexpected, apparently dangerous situation, most people don't go for their camera.
That's why, for example, when there's, say, a fight on a city bus, where there have to be at least twenty cellphone cameras, you get, maybe, one actual video. Sometimes.
Just try not to make yourself sound like a scientist because that tarnishes the real science going on things like dark energy...
I don't have a comment, here, I just want to enshrine this awesome bit of shining wisdom for future generations to behold.
As a warning.
Libertarians have their ideal, utopian state - its called Somalia. Kindly go live there.
No matter how good someone's argument is, they always feel compelled to demolish every scrap of credibility they ever had by saying this.
"Holde it juste exactlie thisse waye or yon WiFi will take a shite."
Ever had sex?* Turns out if you do that, it's really hard not to turn an egg into an embryo.
...Unless it's not really hard, then it's really hard.
Nobody with any sense complains about adult stem cells.
But these aren't adult stem cells, anymore, they've been turned into embryonic stem cells, which means they're each and every one a tiny little baby oh my god someone stop them WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDR... ...er... Sorry, "...with any sense..." My mistake, carry on.
Will this help us leave this rock and get mass off this mud ball?
You'll never find out, mortal!
...if you take a check (from a different bank), to your bank and deposit it in your account, there's no fee for this service?
That doesn't fit the definition of "cashing".
Rotting away in the deep forest, where not one single person has ever put any effort in looking for it that lasted longer than a weekend. Except, debatably, this one time in 1967.
Remember that scene from "Project Grizzly", where they got on horseback and spent days and days wandering around bear territory but didn't manage to actually find a bear?
Remember when you could go to a mall and go into dozens of stores and shop for clothes and get them that day?
I remember when I could go to a mall and go into dozens of stores and look at a bunch of shite I didn't care for and come home with nothing.
Thank God someone came up with a solution to THAT problem...
Once I started using Launchy...
...am surprised by how much stuff I have installed.
I'm not.
resistance to GMO Foods goes pretty far into unscientific scaremongering ("Frankenfoods" and anti-corporatism),
What?
"Frankenfoods" isn't a result of any kind of scaremongering. It's a result of the aforementioned corporations steadfastly refusing to label their products correctly, and even going so far as to make it legally actionable for other companies to label their products as NOT GMO. Leaving people with food allegies completely in the dark as to whether a particular thing they supposedly aren't allergic to might just up an kill them someday because "Monsanto".
Which seems to me to be a totally reasonable reason to be anti-them. Fuck them. If they're worried that honestly labelling their shit might reduce their business, maybe they shouldn't make shit people don't want.
I have seen non-Republicans guilty of some serious anti-science because it didn't gel with their view of the world.
Weapons are a biggie.
Democrats would have a lot more rational people on board if they'd tone down their hoplophobia.
If you're not a massive minority, why are 8 out of 9 republican presidential candidates opposing pretty much everything science and economics has taught us in the last 100 years?
Because the huge majority of Republicans are "Well educated, fiscal conservatives who "deal in facts" every day" -- but just happen to all be shit-their-pants terrified that the "other guys" might win an election.
So no matter how individually sensible they may be, collectively, they're as batshit insane as their least-stable denominator. They'd rather stand firm against what they don't believe in, rather than risk actually voting FOR what they DO believe in.
Teachers are so concerned with job security and risk avoidance BECAUSE of the parents, students, and community.
There's a word for teachers who concentrate on teaching: "unemployed."
You do realize he offered a fairly specific prediction in the sentence immediately following the one you quoted, right?
I wait with bated breath
You see this, Internet?
You fucking see this?!
THIS is how it is done.
Sir, I thank you...
The top 50% supply 97% of all personal tax revenue to the Federal Governent. The bottom half pay 3%
Out of curiosity, what's the wealth distribution between the two? If you have 97% of the money, you HAVE to pay 97% of the tax. Nobody else can afford to.
You want a real number? Tax capital gains as income.
Didn't he get the memo about how SUICIDE bombers work?
Once?
I'm just sayin'.
No sane person decides that cold-blooded mass murder (often of people only tangentially related to the source of their anger) is the best way to accomplish their goals.
*cough*Hiroshima*cough*