Principles Discussion continue
This is a continuation of the discussion in the Principles
post, which is getting insanely long.
Blogger comment page for it is here.
post, which is getting insanely long.
Blogger comment page for it is here.
# posted by indrax @ 7:10 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
I have things to do today, so I will be out later.
One thing that all the people involved in the creation of a new work have in common is that they have assumed risk.
You are using a businessmodel that formed under copyright law to justify copyright law's continued existence.
There is no reason to think that all those people would not take risks and get paid in an information economy.
Your right to a business model ends at my house and my server.
My relationship with my publishers is none of your business, and none of indrax's business.
Indeed. I shall not speak of it again.
Things are not as black-and-white as you think.
The relationship between the creators, copyright holders, and publishers are none of my business, and not relevant to my case.
What is relevant is that copyright law uses force to infringe on my rights.
I'm the only thing I got, and copyright law is the ONLY remedy at my disposal.
This is not true. Privacy is at your disposal. An infinite array of free-market business models are at your disposal. you choose to use a law that violates the rights of others by force.
Did you persue legal action after the talk show incident? It seems pretty clear-cut. If not why not? If copyright didn't protect you, then what's even the point? You have other examples of people copying your work with little or no consequences. How is copyright your remedy at all?
If you're just making a moral case, that responsible people should pay and credit artists whose work they use, then great! If somebody want to release a work and ask people to contribute back to the artists and editors, etc. I think that's a fine business model, and people should give back in good faith.
Wikipedia tells a very different story about the zapruder film.
Like I said, my primary goal is contributing to a body of knowledge.
Good.
-- everything from patents to music to web to the whole range of creative expression -- then I think one has an obligation to address gaping holes, such as whether or not something falls within the model itself.
I don't even understand the question here.
You tell Leggett to go ahead and write the book, and maybe we'll pay if we like it. And if we don't, we can copy it anyway.
You misrepresent the concept of selling information. If no one is willing to pay for information, then they don't get it, and are unable to copy it.
Leggett has no name, no reputation. How can she possibly get value for her efforts?
She could show here work privately to reviewers, so that the public could it's value. Or she could release is serially. J.K. Rowlings ad little to no reputation when she came up with Harry Potter, but she could sell this last book to the public for probably anytihng she wanted. And then we would really have it.
None of these business models are right for everyone, and I wouldn't impose any on anyone, but in an information economy, you could market your information however you wanted.
If I have to spend a year writing a book, who pays for food and clothing and the kid's dentist in the meantime? This pay-you-later system just isn't viable, and fewer people will be able to assume the risk.
Who pays now?(not that I mean to butt into your private business) How is copyright less of a pay-you-later system?
In the business model I've been proposing you pay or agree to pay for information before it is delivered.
You tell that person to do their work and, and you'll determine its value and pay for it if you like it enough.
No, I pay for it if I want to see it. I plenty of people would have paid for the release of the only real-time reports from bahgdad. If anything it would be easier to market ime-critical information becasue people want it now.
I'm not demanding anything. I only ask that the work be respected. Hands off my stuff, and we'll get along fine. It doesn't belong to you.
If you are only asking, and not demanding, then I have no quarrel with you. My quarrel is with copyright law, which gives you the power to demand.
The people who created the work made their own arrangements for how they get paid, whether on salary or per-project, perhaps royalties or a percentage or whatever. That's the arrangement that they made that works for them, and nobody has the right to tell them otherwise.
Yes, I respect people's need and desire for those agreements and risks to pay off. This is why I advocate a gradual transition away from copyright. I think 20 more years on existing copyrighted works is enough to pull a profit. If for some particular work it's not, then I could even support extensions to that. You get 5 years or more to finnish off anything you've started, and 20 years (base) of copyright on that.
I'm not looking to screw over people who made investments in the current system.
One thing that all the people involved in the creation of a new work have in common is that they have assumed risk.
You are using a businessmodel that formed under copyright law to justify copyright law's continued existence.
There is no reason to think that all those people would not take risks and get paid in an information economy.
Your right to a business model ends at my house and my server.
My relationship with my publishers is none of your business, and none of indrax's business.
Indeed. I shall not speak of it again.
Things are not as black-and-white as you think.
The relationship between the creators, copyright holders, and publishers are none of my business, and not relevant to my case.
What is relevant is that copyright law uses force to infringe on my rights.
I'm the only thing I got, and copyright law is the ONLY remedy at my disposal.
This is not true. Privacy is at your disposal. An infinite array of free-market business models are at your disposal. you choose to use a law that violates the rights of others by force.
Did you persue legal action after the talk show incident? It seems pretty clear-cut. If not why not? If copyright didn't protect you, then what's even the point? You have other examples of people copying your work with little or no consequences. How is copyright your remedy at all?
If you're just making a moral case, that responsible people should pay and credit artists whose work they use, then great! If somebody want to release a work and ask people to contribute back to the artists and editors, etc. I think that's a fine business model, and people should give back in good faith.
Wikipedia tells a very different story about the zapruder film.
Like I said, my primary goal is contributing to a body of knowledge.
Good.
-- everything from patents to music to web to the whole range of creative expression -- then I think one has an obligation to address gaping holes, such as whether or not something falls within the model itself.
I don't even understand the question here.
You tell Leggett to go ahead and write the book, and maybe we'll pay if we like it. And if we don't, we can copy it anyway.
You misrepresent the concept of selling information. If no one is willing to pay for information, then they don't get it, and are unable to copy it.
Leggett has no name, no reputation. How can she possibly get value for her efforts?
She could show here work privately to reviewers, so that the public could it's value. Or she could release is serially. J.K. Rowlings ad little to no reputation when she came up with Harry Potter, but she could sell this last book to the public for probably anytihng she wanted. And then we would really have it.
None of these business models are right for everyone, and I wouldn't impose any on anyone, but in an information economy, you could market your information however you wanted.
If I have to spend a year writing a book, who pays for food and clothing and the kid's dentist in the meantime? This pay-you-later system just isn't viable, and fewer people will be able to assume the risk.
Who pays now?(not that I mean to butt into your private business) How is copyright less of a pay-you-later system?
In the business model I've been proposing you pay or agree to pay for information before it is delivered.
You tell that person to do their work and, and you'll determine its value and pay for it if you like it enough.
No, I pay for it if I want to see it. I plenty of people would have paid for the release of the only real-time reports from bahgdad. If anything it would be easier to market ime-critical information becasue people want it now.
I'm not demanding anything. I only ask that the work be respected. Hands off my stuff, and we'll get along fine. It doesn't belong to you.
If you are only asking, and not demanding, then I have no quarrel with you. My quarrel is with copyright law, which gives you the power to demand.
The people who created the work made their own arrangements for how they get paid, whether on salary or per-project, perhaps royalties or a percentage or whatever. That's the arrangement that they made that works for them, and nobody has the right to tell them otherwise.
Yes, I respect people's need and desire for those agreements and risks to pay off. This is why I advocate a gradual transition away from copyright. I think 20 more years on existing copyrighted works is enough to pull a profit. If for some particular work it's not, then I could even support extensions to that. You get 5 years or more to finnish off anything you've started, and 20 years (base) of copyright on that.
I'm not looking to screw over people who made investments in the current system.
kkoser:
What do you think about the principles I have up? agree/disagree? What would you change?
I personally take the extreme position, but I want these statements to have the broadest possible appeal.
What do you think about the principles I have up? agree/disagree? What would you change?
I personally take the extreme position, but I want these statements to have the broadest possible appeal.
I like dem apples fine.
kkoser:
What I take issue with is the law violating people's rights. If Citizen X proposed a copyright system that doesn't use force to control people, then I would probably have no argument against it.
I can't imagine what he has in mind to accomplish this, in general, I would think a law without penalties is fairly useless.
I don't think the internet is based on freedom of information, but I would say that computers let people see the inherent copiability of information. Computer see everything as bits, and copying bits is cheap. The internet makes distribution cheap as well. Almost 'too cheap to meter', so most places give tons of information for free.
I think that as copyright is increasingly disused and repealed, the media industry will become larger. Some individual companies might become smaller.
Copyright violates the free market, and that hurts everbody. In an information economy, you could buy almost any work from awide variety of publishers, at varying levels of manufacturing quality. $5 paperback or massive $200 leather-bound volume.
At the same time, you could directly pay the artists for producing works, and get the information at internet-level costs.
The industry will be alot bigger once people can buy and sell information in a way that means something.
I think sheer bandwidth monitoring will give you too many false positives. my real question would be what do you do once you find them?
I think you wrote somewhere about stopping the pirates.
I don't think they should be stopped. I don't think it's right to go and fine and arrest people just to support a business model.
You might make a moral argument that it's wrong to profit or without supporting the artist, but there is alot of morality that should not be legislated.
I welcome disagreement. As i said, I put myself at the far end of the spectrum, and at this point I'm not going to alienate anyone else who's looking for reform.
kkoser:
What I take issue with is the law violating people's rights. If Citizen X proposed a copyright system that doesn't use force to control people, then I would probably have no argument against it.
I can't imagine what he has in mind to accomplish this, in general, I would think a law without penalties is fairly useless.
I don't think the internet is based on freedom of information, but I would say that computers let people see the inherent copiability of information. Computer see everything as bits, and copying bits is cheap. The internet makes distribution cheap as well. Almost 'too cheap to meter', so most places give tons of information for free.
I think that as copyright is increasingly disused and repealed, the media industry will become larger. Some individual companies might become smaller.
Copyright violates the free market, and that hurts everbody. In an information economy, you could buy almost any work from awide variety of publishers, at varying levels of manufacturing quality. $5 paperback or massive $200 leather-bound volume.
At the same time, you could directly pay the artists for producing works, and get the information at internet-level costs.
The industry will be alot bigger once people can buy and sell information in a way that means something.
I think sheer bandwidth monitoring will give you too many false positives. my real question would be what do you do once you find them?
I think you wrote somewhere about stopping the pirates.
I don't think they should be stopped. I don't think it's right to go and fine and arrest people just to support a business model.
You might make a moral argument that it's wrong to profit or without supporting the artist, but there is alot of morality that should not be legislated.
I welcome disagreement. As i said, I put myself at the far end of the spectrum, and at this point I'm not going to alienate anyone else who's looking for reform.
You would think that instead of them figuring out ways to control it, they would embrace it and flow with it.
I don't know what "it" is.
Editing and design are 2 of your concerns. Do you think it will be possible in the future to achieve the quality results of your work using this venue?
15 years ago it was all about e-books. Publishers were trying to figure out how to do it. A lot of publishers invested in e-book technology. It's a completely different format and production process. A lot of contracts included provisions for e-books. Textbook publishers panicked because they depend on bulk sales. A school may use 300 textbooks and over a couple of years some will invariably get destroyed or lost, and the school can't just buy 5 or 10 because meanwhile the publisher has produced an updated edition, so they have to buy 300 again. With e-books, you could update content for large numbers very quickly at a lower price, even customize content to match local curricula. You don't want evolution taught in that district, take that out.
What happened? People don't like reading large amount of text on a screen like that.
Lately it seems that a lot of people are turning to PDF documents. These are more universal, although there are some limitations, and allow the publisher to format and design the pages. There are also some ways to control the documents.
There are schemes that allow a plain word document to have a sort of embedded licensing code that would prevent it from being shared or copied a certain number of times.
There are also people developing "electronic ink," a flexible material like a piece of paper with content you can change. I think the not-too distant future will be something like this.
Years and years ago I predicted the merging of video, computers and cell phones. I predicted there would one day be a device that you could hold in your hand, with a screen, and use as a computer or phone or watch television.
I predict now that the future is a thin, flexible plasma-like screen that you can fold and fit into your pocket. There will be no computer per se, but an ultra-thin CPU built in. Open it to a magazine-size touch-sensitive page (people still like to turn pages) and electronic ink will change the content. Merging computers/TV with the printed page.
But please don’t turn away from something that is going to affect your livelihood. Please don’t run away from it.
What is it you think I'm running away from or not embracing? I was online when you were shittin' green, bub. Before you were born. I was using an IBM mainframe at Cornell via modem on a teletype terminal back in 1973. I started getting into BBSs around 1982 or so, used email back when it was still DARPANET, moderated discussion forums in 1985, glimpsed the World Wide Web when it was literally months old with a demo of Mosaic in 1992, had my first web page up not much after that, done a slew of web projects since then, and even launched (and sold) a web publication covering the business of molecular biology. I was writing in BASIC before you could read, uploading and downloading over a 300-baud modem. First of my circle of friends to use email, first among many of the publications to turn in assignments electronically (had to deal with techies to find out the settings and numbers to dial in because the editors had no idea what I was talking about), first of my colleagues to have my own web site.
Does that sound like running away to you? I know a thing or two.
But your publisher and business model, because of a definite unwillingness to change
Dude, you do not know what you're talking about. Whe are the biggest players in online content today?
If you think you have a better model, a better way, go for it.
But the idea of abolishing IP laws and everybody puts everything online for everybody -- that's just silly. The idea of changing the Constitution and overturning 200-plus years of IP law so you can download the latest Ashlee Simpson remix is a little selfish, unreasonable, and unrealistic.
I don't know what "it" is.
Editing and design are 2 of your concerns. Do you think it will be possible in the future to achieve the quality results of your work using this venue?
15 years ago it was all about e-books. Publishers were trying to figure out how to do it. A lot of publishers invested in e-book technology. It's a completely different format and production process. A lot of contracts included provisions for e-books. Textbook publishers panicked because they depend on bulk sales. A school may use 300 textbooks and over a couple of years some will invariably get destroyed or lost, and the school can't just buy 5 or 10 because meanwhile the publisher has produced an updated edition, so they have to buy 300 again. With e-books, you could update content for large numbers very quickly at a lower price, even customize content to match local curricula. You don't want evolution taught in that district, take that out.
What happened? People don't like reading large amount of text on a screen like that.
Lately it seems that a lot of people are turning to PDF documents. These are more universal, although there are some limitations, and allow the publisher to format and design the pages. There are also some ways to control the documents.
There are schemes that allow a plain word document to have a sort of embedded licensing code that would prevent it from being shared or copied a certain number of times.
There are also people developing "electronic ink," a flexible material like a piece of paper with content you can change. I think the not-too distant future will be something like this.
Years and years ago I predicted the merging of video, computers and cell phones. I predicted there would one day be a device that you could hold in your hand, with a screen, and use as a computer or phone or watch television.
I predict now that the future is a thin, flexible plasma-like screen that you can fold and fit into your pocket. There will be no computer per se, but an ultra-thin CPU built in. Open it to a magazine-size touch-sensitive page (people still like to turn pages) and electronic ink will change the content. Merging computers/TV with the printed page.
But please don’t turn away from something that is going to affect your livelihood. Please don’t run away from it.
What is it you think I'm running away from or not embracing? I was online when you were shittin' green, bub. Before you were born. I was using an IBM mainframe at Cornell via modem on a teletype terminal back in 1973. I started getting into BBSs around 1982 or so, used email back when it was still DARPANET, moderated discussion forums in 1985, glimpsed the World Wide Web when it was literally months old with a demo of Mosaic in 1992, had my first web page up not much after that, done a slew of web projects since then, and even launched (and sold) a web publication covering the business of molecular biology. I was writing in BASIC before you could read, uploading and downloading over a 300-baud modem. First of my circle of friends to use email, first among many of the publications to turn in assignments electronically (had to deal with techies to find out the settings and numbers to dial in because the editors had no idea what I was talking about), first of my colleagues to have my own web site.
Does that sound like running away to you? I know a thing or two.
But your publisher and business model, because of a definite unwillingness to change
Dude, you do not know what you're talking about. Whe are the biggest players in online content today?
If you think you have a better model, a better way, go for it.
But the idea of abolishing IP laws and everybody puts everything online for everybody -- that's just silly. The idea of changing the Constitution and overturning 200-plus years of IP law so you can download the latest Ashlee Simpson remix is a little selfish, unreasonable, and unrealistic.
copyright law uses force to infringe on my rights.
That assumes that you have the right to duplicate and distribute other people's work.
You don't.
Don't even bother with that blab blab blab about human nature and rights to free speech.
You don't have that right. End of discussion.
That assumes that you have the right to duplicate and distribute other people's work.
You don't.
Don't even bother with that blab blab blab about human nature and rights to free speech.
You don't have that right. End of discussion.
The idea of changing the Constitution
Who said anything about changing the constitution?
And who the fuck is Chris Williams?
Who said anything about changing the constitution?
And who the fuck is Chris Williams?
kkroser: You spoke on Citizen X's blog about linking to forum where he and I have been hashing it out. I don't think any such link would stay up.
The bulk of this post has been deleted 3 times now from citizen x's blog.
---
Thank you.
Good luck with your experiment,
but I have the same information available for free.
I stand by every word I put in that thread. You still have no case.
Get that? Using a photocopier is creative expression.
I'm baffled on how you can imply this is my opinion immediately after quoting me saying essentially the opposite. I've already spelled this out for you in the thread, which means this is an intentional lie.
I am exeedingly thorough, and it is a fault, but I think psychological analysis is beyond you.
The only thing I like more than having one of my arguments debunked is to learn something that actually changes my mind on a topic. I love to learn.
I had hoped that someone would present a real challenge, you were a disapointment.
That said, if anyone has questions or challenges, my forum is open.
---
Unfortunately Citizen X's forum is not so open.
Citizen X
I'm happy to leave you alone, frankly I've had enough antagonism for this year, but I will not be intimidated. As I have stated, we shouldn't make this personal. It's just a web debate. If you will not allow me a response, or to even link to a response, then I will use this forum to respond to you.
You need to either show that you are not afraid of open debate by linking to a open forum (or opening yours) or show that you stand by your position by writing an article that makes your case, you could even get paid for it. In any case I have no desire to reveal your identity.
If you are not willing to do either of these then it shows that you are not committed to either your ideas or to honesty.
Post a Comment
The bulk of this post has been deleted 3 times now from citizen x's blog.
---
Thank you.
Good luck with your experiment,
but I have the same information available for free.
I stand by every word I put in that thread. You still have no case.
Get that? Using a photocopier is creative expression.
I'm baffled on how you can imply this is my opinion immediately after quoting me saying essentially the opposite. I've already spelled this out for you in the thread, which means this is an intentional lie.
I am exeedingly thorough, and it is a fault, but I think psychological analysis is beyond you.
The only thing I like more than having one of my arguments debunked is to learn something that actually changes my mind on a topic. I love to learn.
I had hoped that someone would present a real challenge, you were a disapointment.
That said, if anyone has questions or challenges, my forum is open.
---
Unfortunately Citizen X's forum is not so open.
Citizen X
I'm happy to leave you alone, frankly I've had enough antagonism for this year, but I will not be intimidated. As I have stated, we shouldn't make this personal. It's just a web debate. If you will not allow me a response, or to even link to a response, then I will use this forum to respond to you.
You need to either show that you are not afraid of open debate by linking to a open forum (or opening yours) or show that you stand by your position by writing an article that makes your case, you could even get paid for it. In any case I have no desire to reveal your identity.
If you are not willing to do either of these then it shows that you are not committed to either your ideas or to honesty.
<< Home
