It is not necessary that -- when I propose copyright reform or repeal -- I figure out a way to make sure the same number of blockbusters movies and 3D FPS games will get made. It is actually supposed to be incumbent upon those who would restrict liberty (via copyright) to demonstrate the state's interest in those blockbusters or games.
By default, I think we should be free to share whatever works of culture we encounter. In the interest of funding some big-budget, expensive, impressive productions ('cause I like 'em too), I could understand a copyright term of 10-20 years. Matter of fact, I think a copyright term of 20 years would result in almost the same cultural landscape we've got now, since works generally turn a profit in their first decade or not at all. But that's beside the point.
If you think copyright should be as they are because otherwise the "content industry" will change, then that's just plain old protectionism.
Isn't it easier just to have university policy say "This university best viewed using Internet Explorer"? It could also say "c'mon, everyone uses windows, what are you a communist?"
"it annoys me that some people want an "amateur rules!" system which would preclude professional productions."
No offense, but this is a strawman. Go to jamendo.com, or another site where artists create things and do not reserve all rights to them. There is plenty of 'professional production' there. 90% of the population would be unable to hear any difference in musicianship/professionalism between what is there and what is on the radio -- if any difference exists.
It is true that certain kinds of artists are favored by the current copyright regime. But it is not enough to say "Group X would no longer be favored, and group Y would instead". To justify a government-granted monopoly that applies to *all people, one must demonstrate the public/State interest in group X being favored.
Let creative people do what they do, share it with each other (and the world at large) under whatever terms they can get other people to agree to. There is no State-backed copyright.
You may say "egad! under such circumstances you'll just get 'amateur' 'independent' movies, etc. No one would make something expensive like *Titanic*! Or rather, they probably wouldn't. Or rather, maybe they wouldn't."
I answer that the State doesn't really have that much interest in *Titanic* being created.
Public funding is, in my opinion, the best way to get zero-marginal-cost goods paid for, but not the only way. God bless anyone who can make another system work.
To correct your misperception, though: HBO *does need armed cops and prisons to sustain their business. Test the theory by subscribing to HBO, recording everything they broadcast, and setting up your own competitive station charging less for the same programming.
You will quickly learn that HBO *can charge for their service only because of a government-granted monopoly called copyright.
Alright there's a nonzero chance that you don't need a blog. But I think companies in general ought to wake up to the fact that markets are conversations and it's obvious to the "consumer" when the other party in the conversation is not an actual human being, but a marketing/PR committee.
Every time gimp is mentioned, some graphics guy stops by to remind us that it can't do "real" work. Okay, probably they're right and I'm not a real graphics guy, but I wonder: seriously, how many people *need the 7 or 8 things that photoshop does well that are not (yet) possible or very good in the Gimp. 2%?
Sometimes the GIMP bashing reminds me of when billgates was ragging on the OLPC for not having a hard drive and a big heavy expensive battery.
Your company needs a blog, but (and this is critical) it won't work if it's part of your corporate strategy of appearing-to-look-really-hip. It works if one of your employees creates it on her own initiative, and the strategists leaves her alone.
"...listen to 100 bad tunes to find one good one."
I put it to you that this is no different than radio, with the difference that it seems to me that 100 songs is the entire live catalog of a pop station at any given time.
yesterday's news was annoying as hell. Everyone and their dog chimed in on what caused this horrible crash, what investors should do now, how bad it might get, etc.
People: the market's been soaring for months. This is a perfect example of broadcasters' attempt to get you afraid and addicted to "news".
"Protecting innovation from getting swept up into wars of attrition against big entities with deep pockets that will see you go under while stealing your ideas..."
See, the thing is that without software patents those big pockets aren't as useful, because said entities can't just sue devs out of existence for daring to compete with them. They have to compete on the merits of their own ideas. Which, I suspect, would not be that strong if their business model consists of harvesting other people's work and putting a coat of paint on it.
..but I also suspect you're at least partly right.
e.g. in the face of mounting evidence that the U.S. "intellectual property" regime is a big contributor to the stagnation of innovation, BG's opinion is that "Government investment in research, strong intellectual property laws and efficient capital markets are among the reasons that America has for decades been best at transforming new ideas into successful businesses."
The guy's recommending that we foster more innovation by buying more-completely into the rampant delusions of the "content industry" and the patent trolls.
Don't be silly; the mechanism of funding artistic creation *always influences its content. Patronage does so -- as you point out -- and *so *does a conventional/societal "property right" in the creation, by which the work becomes an economic commodity.
If you think there isn't a censorship mechanism in the "content industry" we presently have, you're... well, I better not finish that sentence in the interest of maintaining karma.
As a free-culture advocate, here's what I do upon pointing out that the marginal cost of digital goods is zero. I get out my pencil and start trying to think of ways to cover the Initial Cost.
If I've been drinking, the first thing I jot down might be: "get everyone on the planet to mail you 1/10 of a cent up front". But (even if I've been drinking) I quickly cross that out as unrealistic.
I jot down stuff about patronage by rich individuals, by well-to-do groups and how these might be organized. I jot down stuff about tangential, rivalrous goods that could be sold (ye olde T-shirts and swag strats) to wider audiences. I jot down stuff about reducing the cost of production...
Generally, about this time, some "Insightful +3" comes by and contributes, thus:
Hey, you idiot! The marginal cost is zero, but the initial cost isn't!! So you're wrong!! or
Idiot! Getting everyone to mail you 1/10 of a cent is unrealistic!!!!!
I have bad news for the author: information still wants to be free
"There are some people out there, possessed by the firm delusion that "information wants to be free"--as if bits of data had legs and went walking about on their own..."
This is a strawman, and dumb. The contention that "information wants to be free" is a catchy way of saying "the properties of digital goods are such that their natural marginal cost is zero or practically indistinguishable from zero."
Bad news for most people who would like to marginalize/otherwise dismiss the free culture argument: the economic basis for the contention that "information wants to be free" is rock solid. Scientific. To escape it you have to resort to name-calling etc., as here.
I understand your argument but think it needs fine tuning.
"When "mom" wants to give someone a movie, she only needs to give them a DVD"
True in the most common situation: sending within the DVD region. But mom might have kids in other regions, at which time she has to learn a tiny bit about formats. Music and paper letters also require you to learn something before you click on the "advanced" tab, so to speak.
"When "mom" wants to send a document through email, she either has to.."
See I think of this as an uncommon case. 90% of the time, mom's email is plain text. 90% of the 10% of the time that she attaches something, it's a single image file. Our current crop of technologies does a *good job of making the basic 99% of use-cases into no-brainers.
Don't get me wrong; I'm am 100% in favor of a great, open document standard being widely dispersed. But I don't consider it "a big problem" insofar as I don't believe mom is often sending out spreadsheets with complicated macros in them. It's a problem for power users, and they'll probably solve it this year.
I don't think it goes without saying that all applications are targeted the same. They're not; certain companies, for whatever reason, have pissed more people off than others. Fact is, Firefox is a community-oriented, community-developed piece of software. It's not a plannedly-obsolete product designed to improve someone's bottom line. As such, it doesn't foment the kind of animosity that certain other pieces of software I could name do...
Slashdot Mirror
"You're again lacking genericity"
It is not necessary that -- when I propose copyright reform or repeal -- I figure out a way to make sure the same number of blockbusters movies and 3D FPS games will get made. It is actually supposed to be incumbent upon those who would restrict liberty (via copyright) to demonstrate the state's interest in those blockbusters or games.
By default, I think we should be free to share whatever works of culture we encounter. In the interest of funding some big-budget, expensive, impressive productions ('cause I like 'em too), I could understand a copyright term of 10-20 years. Matter of fact, I think a copyright term of 20 years would result in almost the same cultural landscape we've got now, since works generally turn a profit in their first decade or not at all. But that's beside the point.
If you think copyright should be as they are because otherwise the "content industry" will change, then that's just plain old protectionism.
Isn't it easier just to have university policy say "This university best viewed using Internet Explorer"? It could also say "c'mon, everyone uses windows, what are you a communist?"
I've used PHP5 exclusively for over a year, for well-publicized reasons.
"it annoys me that some people want an "amateur rules!" system which would preclude professional productions."
No offense, but this is a strawman. Go to jamendo.com, or another site where artists create things and do not reserve all rights to them. There is plenty of 'professional production' there. 90% of the population would be unable to hear any difference in musicianship/professionalism between what is there and what is on the radio -- if any difference exists.
It is true that certain kinds of artists are favored by the current copyright regime. But it is not enough to say "Group X would no longer be favored, and group Y would instead". To justify a government-granted monopoly that applies to *all people, one must demonstrate the public/State interest in group X being favored.
Not a business model, though.
Let creative people do what they do, share it with each other (and the world at large) under whatever terms they can get other people to agree to. There is no State-backed copyright.
You may say "egad! under such circumstances you'll just get 'amateur' 'independent' movies, etc. No one would make something expensive like *Titanic*! Or rather, they probably wouldn't. Or rather, maybe they wouldn't."
I answer that the State doesn't really have that much interest in *Titanic* being created.
You're right but I think that "business model" is not the correct term at that point.
You can make money by robbing banks and bribing all the judges and cops, but that's more of a battle plan than a business model.
(Yes, you may infer from this that I think the MAFIAA are essentially thugs)
"The companies at the top are much bigger in this area and their software more widely deployed..."
For now.
...they just write letters.
Public funding is, in my opinion, the best way to get zero-marginal-cost goods paid for, but not the only way. God bless anyone who can make another system work.
To correct your misperception, though: HBO *does need armed cops and prisons to sustain their business. Test the theory by subscribing to HBO, recording everything they broadcast, and setting up your own competitive station charging less for the same programming.
You will quickly learn that HBO *can charge for their service only because of a government-granted monopoly called copyright.
And national defense
..is the perfect way to fund public goods, like information.
Alright there's a nonzero chance that you don't need a blog. But I think companies in general ought to wake up to the fact that markets are conversations and it's obvious to the "consumer" when the other party in the conversation is not an actual human being, but a marketing/PR committee.
I meant no offense
Every time gimp is mentioned, some graphics guy stops by to remind us that it can't do "real" work. Okay, probably they're right and I'm not a real graphics guy, but I wonder: seriously, how many people *need the 7 or 8 things that photoshop does well that are not (yet) possible or very good in the Gimp. 2%?
Sometimes the GIMP bashing reminds me of when billgates was ragging on the OLPC for not having a hard drive and a big heavy expensive battery.
Your company needs a blog, but (and this is critical) it won't work if it's part of your corporate strategy of appearing-to-look-really-hip. It works if one of your employees creates it on her own initiative, and the strategists leaves her alone.
"...listen to 100 bad tunes to find one good one."
I put it to you that this is no different than radio, with the difference that it seems to me that 100 songs is the entire live catalog of a pop station at any given time.
May I recommend
http://www.jamendo.com/
They have an embeddable player, ratings, everything you need. No DRM anywhere in sight; in fact most of the music is free to share
yesterday's news was annoying as hell. Everyone and their dog chimed in on what caused this horrible crash, what investors should do now, how bad it might get, etc. People: the market's been soaring for months. This is a perfect example of broadcasters' attempt to get you afraid and addicted to "news".
"Protecting innovation from getting swept up into wars of attrition against big entities with deep pockets that will see you go under while stealing your ideas..."
See, the thing is that without software patents those big pockets aren't as useful, because said entities can't just sue devs out of existence for daring to compete with them. They have to compete on the merits of their own ideas. Which, I suspect, would not be that strong if their business model consists of harvesting other people's work and putting a coat of paint on it.
We are going DRM-less in droves. EMI and friends can go with us or not.
..but I also suspect you're at least partly right.
e.g. in the face of mounting evidence that the U.S. "intellectual property" regime is a big contributor to the stagnation of innovation, BG's opinion is that "Government investment in research, strong intellectual property laws and efficient capital markets are among the reasons that America has for decades been best at transforming new ideas into successful businesses."
The guy's recommending that we foster more innovation by buying more-completely into the rampant delusions of the "content industry" and the patent trolls.
Don't be silly; the mechanism of funding artistic creation *always influences its content. Patronage does so -- as you point out -- and *so *does a conventional/societal "property right" in the creation, by which the work becomes an economic commodity.
... well, I better not finish that sentence in the interest of maintaining karma.
If you think there isn't a censorship mechanism in the "content industry" we presently have, you're
Exactly, sorta.
As a free-culture advocate, here's what I do upon pointing out that the marginal cost of digital goods is zero. I get out my pencil and start trying to think of ways to cover the Initial Cost.
If I've been drinking, the first thing I jot down might be: "get everyone on the planet to mail you 1/10 of a cent up front". But (even if I've been drinking) I quickly cross that out as unrealistic.
I jot down stuff about patronage by rich individuals, by well-to-do groups and how these might be organized. I jot down stuff about tangential, rivalrous goods that could be sold (ye olde T-shirts and swag strats) to wider audiences. I jot down stuff about reducing the cost of production...
Generally, about this time, some "Insightful +3" comes by and contributes, thus:
Hey, you idiot! The marginal cost is zero, but the initial cost isn't!! So you're wrong!!
or
Idiot! Getting everyone to mail you 1/10 of a cent is unrealistic!!!!!
It's really frustrating.
I have bad news for the author: information still wants to be free
"There are some people out there, possessed by the firm delusion that "information wants to be free"--as if bits of data had legs and went walking about on their own..."
This is a strawman, and dumb. The contention that "information wants to be free" is a catchy way of saying "the properties of digital goods are such that their natural marginal cost is zero or practically indistinguishable from zero."
Bad news for most people who would like to marginalize/otherwise dismiss the free culture argument: the economic basis for the contention that "information wants to be free" is rock solid. Scientific. To escape it you have to resort to name-calling etc., as here.
I understand your argument but think it needs fine tuning.
.."
"When "mom" wants to give someone a movie, she only needs to give them a DVD"
True in the most common situation: sending within the DVD region. But mom might have kids in other regions, at which time she has to learn a tiny bit about formats. Music and paper letters also require you to learn something before you click on the "advanced" tab, so to speak.
"When "mom" wants to send a document through email, she either has to
See I think of this as an uncommon case. 90% of the time, mom's email is plain text. 90% of the 10% of the time that she attaches something, it's a single image file. Our current crop of technologies does a *good job of making the basic 99% of use-cases into no-brainers.
Don't get me wrong; I'm am 100% in favor of a great, open document standard being widely dispersed. But I don't consider it "a big problem" insofar as I don't believe mom is often sending out spreadsheets with complicated macros in them. It's a problem for power users, and they'll probably solve it this year.
"Conclusion? Apache has predictably shown more vulnerabilities than IIS versions over the same time period"
Conclusion? Apache has predictably reported more vulnerabilities than IIS versions over the same time period
FYP
I don't think it goes without saying that all applications are targeted the same. They're not; certain companies, for whatever reason, have pissed more people off than others. Fact is, Firefox is a community-oriented, community-developed piece of software. It's not a plannedly-obsolete product designed to improve someone's bottom line. As such, it doesn't foment the kind of animosity that certain other pieces of software I could name do...