actually, "infringers" is more of the "property" language, like "tresspassing".
A new way to describe copyright/patent systems is as a "bounty" or reward for an author or inventor. A bounty hunter doesn't get paid life plus 90 years. they get a reward that covers their expenses plus enough profit to make a living if they keep writing and inventing.
In that language, there is no "property" except as a temporary reward or bounty.
I don't think they're apathetic. I just think that IP holders have monopolized the language to describe intellectual works with "property", "theft", and "piracy". I think if we replaced that language with more accurate descriptions, then the average voter would see how messed up it really is.
Since I'm not making money on the work, since I'm not making money on advertising, and since the webpage I pointed to is licensed one step removed from public domain (CC-Attribution), I'm not sure what the problem is. I could cut and paste the relevant paragraphs from the article to here, but a link is easier.
The problem is mostly that your average voter doesn't understand the abstract concept of intellectual works, so they simply accept IP holder's view of "property".
The point of "Bounty Hunters" is to try and eject that view in exchange for one that is easy for your average voter to understand, and replaces the "property" view with something more realistic.
Bounty Hunters are offered a reward by the public to do some task. Same with authors and inventors. The community sets the bounty as low as possible to get the job done. The same should be true for copyright terms and rights given to authors. It should be the minimum amount of rights and the minimum terms that will still encourage people to write.
Open Source shows that the minimum needed for software is a lot lower than Microsoft claims.
IP law has become a corporate pork belly via political donations. But nothing changes the hard requirement that everything congress enacts must meet the Constitution's requirement that it promote (not inhibit) science. And Congress should be giving the job to the lowest bidder. In the case of software, open source is the lowest bidder. Therefore congress should be protecting open source because it promotes science faster and cheaper than any other solution.
Copyright and Patent law can only be enacted to promote science and the useful arts. And congress should promote science and the useful arts as cheaply as possible. Therefore Congress should be protecting Open Source, not feeding it to the Proprietary dogs.
http://www.greglondon.com/bountyhunters/
Slashdot Mirror
actually, "infringers" is more of the "property" language, like "tresspassing". A new way to describe copyright/patent systems is as a "bounty" or reward for an author or inventor. A bounty hunter doesn't get paid life plus 90 years. they get a reward that covers their expenses plus enough profit to make a living if they keep writing and inventing. In that language, there is no "property" except as a temporary reward or bounty.
I don't think they're apathetic. I just think that IP holders have monopolized the language to describe intellectual works with "property", "theft", and "piracy". I think if we replaced that language with more accurate descriptions, then the average voter would see how messed up it really is.
Since I'm not making money on the work, since I'm not making money on advertising, and since the webpage I pointed to is licensed one step removed from public domain (CC-Attribution), I'm not sure what the problem is. I could cut and paste the relevant paragraphs from the article to here, but a link is easier.
The problem is mostly that your average voter doesn't understand the abstract concept of intellectual works, so they simply accept IP holder's view of "property". The point of "Bounty Hunters" is to try and eject that view in exchange for one that is easy for your average voter to understand, and replaces the "property" view with something more realistic. Bounty Hunters are offered a reward by the public to do some task. Same with authors and inventors. The community sets the bounty as low as possible to get the job done. The same should be true for copyright terms and rights given to authors. It should be the minimum amount of rights and the minimum terms that will still encourage people to write. Open Source shows that the minimum needed for software is a lot lower than Microsoft claims.
IP law has become a corporate pork belly via political donations. But nothing changes the hard requirement that everything congress enacts must meet the Constitution's requirement that it promote (not inhibit) science. And Congress should be giving the job to the lowest bidder. In the case of software, open source is the lowest bidder. Therefore congress should be protecting open source because it promotes science faster and cheaper than any other solution.
Copyright and Patent law can only be enacted to promote science and the useful arts. And congress should promote science and the useful arts as cheaply as possible. Therefore Congress should be protecting Open Source, not feeding it to the Proprietary dogs. http://www.greglondon.com/bountyhunters/