"Intellectual Property" Law

[AltF4]

Why should it? Why should I be able to give away other people's works for free without their permission ?

I think this statement cuts to the heart of this debate.

You say "other people's works". As if ownership is implied. As if it is simply a natural right of the owner to be able to dictate every conceivable use of the work. As if the work was a physical object like a chair that can be owned and controlled.

This is simply wrong for every reason said in the OP. There is no such thing as "Intellectual Property". Once you stop thinking of works of the mind as property, then things become clear.


We don't apply this same thinking to mathematicians do we? One could imagine a world where we call them equation manufacturers. Where mathaticians keep their equations secret and them sell them to the highest bidder. Where if you use someone else's equation without paying, you get sued.

It would be hard to say that in this world, the progress of mathematics would be improved. Furthermore, we should reject that world even if it were the case. Because it would be inherently non-free. Mathematics should not be anyone's property. And neither should culture. The proponents of the Free Culture movement want a system of laws where participating in culture is Free. (Free as in Free speech, not free as in free beer.)

This is why copyright exists in the first place, to enable the authors of the material to get their share of the proceeds.

I am not, and have never been, a copyright abolitionist. I have a complete account of how I think copyright law should look in the OP.

 

[blazedaces]

Because we prefer to live in a society where these pursuits are able to take place. This is merely the means that allows authors to pursue those ends.

You're correct that it is a means of doing so, but we're criticizing these means. In this thread we have pointed out many faults for these means. As Alt mentioned in his post, we're not advocating an abolishion of copyright entirely. The idea behind copyright is a good one, as you point out, authors need a means to pursue creative creation of their works... but somewhere along the way the purpose of copyright, which was originally intended to help society as a whole, got lost. The current system hurts society very much, and we have pointed out how over and over.

Right, commentary is mostly covered under fair use.Even if they did, not saying that they should win. In any case, the defense would be fair use.I didn't advocate the change of any law or rule, so I don't know what rules you are talking about here.Not saying you should. Even if you were, the defense would be fair use.

We don't live in a world where EVERYTHING WE DO IS FIRST ILLEGAL... and then we have a small defense if we get sued... that is judged on a case by case basis. But that is exactly what we're talking about with copyright. Fair use is a defense, it does not safeguard you from anything and it provides no guarantee.

I'm sorry, but fair use is not enough. As I've mentioned before the current copyright system is basically guilty till proven innocent. That's not how I want to go through life and it's not how I want the the individuals of my world to live.

There is no other aspect of our lives that is run this way. As I've mentioned before when we talk about books MOST things are legal, and only a small tiny specific set of actions (copying) is considered illegal... and of this set of actions, there is a smaller subset deemed "fair use".

But with any electronic media, EVERYTHING is illegal and then a tiny, almost non-existent subset is deemed "fair use". This system HURTS SOCIETY IN MANY WAYS.

I said it’s a fault, which means that it is a failing of the justice system, which is also synonymous with "flaw". [facetiousness]I suppose you think that it’s a positive characteristic of the justice system that innocent people are sentenced?[/facetiousness]

This flaw of the justice system has little to do with the current topic in my opinion. If you want to start a thread about the many flaws of our justice system you are welcome to do so.

-blazed

 

[rvkevin]

Alt,
I have one issue with your system: you say that "'As always, non-commercial use and sharing of the work is always permitted." What prevents someone copying the work and then releasing it for no cost? Doing so would be a great detriment to the author, yet it gets a free pass under your system. This is what copyright was designed for, to allow authors to learn a living off of their works (their initial ideas) because we prefer to live in a society where such pursuits take place. If we allow people to easily diminish an author's revenue so easily, then that would take away the greatest motive for producing these works, which would greatly reduce the supply thereof.

 

[El Nino]

Alt,
I have one issue with your system: you say that "'As always, non-commercial use and sharing of the work is always permitted." What prevents someone copying the work and then releasing it for no cost? Doing so would be a great detriment to the author, yet it gets a free pass under your system. This is what copyright was designed for, to allow authors to learn a living off of their works (their initial ideas) because we prefer to live in a society where such pursuits take place. If we allow people to easily diminish an author's revenue so easily, then that would take away the greatest motive for producing these works, which would greatly reduce the supply thereof.

I think the above is a good point. The entertainment industry is a large part of the economy in the U.S. and other parts of the world. It's expected that piracy would negatively impact not just the industry but the rest of society indirectly through economic repercussions. Regardless of the cultural benefits of free media, an economic pitfall, if severe enough, is a detriment that overrides those benefits.

The question is whether we can quantify the benefits of allowing for free media and hold it against the economic disadvantages?

One point from the OP:

An appropriate duration for distribution rights to books may be approximately 15 years. During this time, all commercial distribution of hardcopies (IE: Paper books) is prohibited. However, commercial distribution of softcopies (IE: e-books) are permitted under a compulsory license. Thus publishers are not permitted to publish a book they do not posses the right to, however an online service which distributes e-books is allowed to exist. (While simultaneously compensating the original authors adequately)

Publishing is now moving towards electronic format. In recent years, we've seen major book store chains losing money and closing down their stores. Some small magazines only publish in electronic format now. They are funded by charging subscription fees. More of them seem to close out than survive.

Most small market publishers that publish online buy electronic rights in addition to print rights. Having an e-book service that compensates the authors may be adequate for those writers, but it may harm the small markets. Without the small markets, it becomes harder for new writers to break into the field, which ultimately results in harming writers. Furthermore, if an online e-book distribution service is commercial (as in they charge buyers for their copies) is there any benefit to having this middleman take on a role that publishers normally would take on for themselves?

The outlook for new writers at this point seems dismal. In the digital age, there is a higher capacity for reaching a larger audience, but not much money to be made in doing it. So, why try? Money is more important to basic survival than culture or art. Even if it's only realistic that writers can't live solely off of their writing, if they can't make some profit off their work, they'll have to spend more time working at another job that pays, which means less time to write.

Granted, books and literature may be doomed regardless of copyright law. So the above argument might not matter at all. I guess my point is that everything is moving towards electronic format anyway. There wouldn't be a need for an e-book distribution service operating as the middleman. And because of the electronic format, it would be as susceptible to piracy and the complications that arise from it as audiovisual media. But I suspect that literature is more sensitive to these changes than the audiovisual field. There's a reason why movie studios have survived while book sellers and newspapers are closing out. End of an era, I guess. *pours malt liquor on the curb*

 

[AltF4]

What prevents someone copying the work and then releasing it for no cost?

You see, not all copying is made the same. Our current system of law does not distinguish between someone making a backup copy for their own safekeeping, a 13 year old girl giving her best friend a copy of the latest teen pop song, and a media executive at a major company distributing music they do not have a copyright to for a profit.

Don't merely say "copying" without providing some context. Because the context is everything. In my three examples, the first two should be completely legal. The last should not.

What I suppose you're talking about is websites such as The Pirate Bay, who offer music to download at no cost. My response is this:

1) Under my vision of law outlined in the OP, websites such as The Pirate Bay should have to pay a compulsory license with fees distributed to artists proportionally.

You will notice that this is exactly how radio stations work currently. If you are a radio station, all you do is pay a single fee (with a static price set by law) and you're allowed to play any music you want over the radio. The fees collected go to organizations which divide it up to artists.

Surely you wouldn't claim that radio stations are killing music? But how are they any different? Indeed the music industry tried to make radio stations illegal, and nearly succeeded. Now they are trying to make online radio stations illegal, including places like Pandora.com, not just The Pirate Bay.

2) If it were bad for labels to release their music free online, why do they do it themselves? EMI, Sony, and every other label have YouTube accounts where you can see essentially every one of their music videos for free, and legally.

3) Music has not been harmed by the Internet. 2011 has not seen any drought of music. If anything, even more diverse genres continue to be explored.

It may be the case that major record label companies have been harmed by the Internet. And we can see why. In the 1950's, labels had a real purpose. Advertising was expensive. Printing albums was expensive. Neither an artist could do on their own. In 2011, however, this isn't the case. Any teenager who can play an instrument can put him or herself on the world's stage for zero cost through the Internet.

What purpose the labels have is being constantly eroded. These companies have a very large Congressional influence, however. So their death is being made very slow and very painful to the rest of society.

I think we'll look back on the 00's and 10's and laugh at how silly everyone was being, clutching on to these irrelevant corporate empires, refusing to embrace the most wonderful invention ever made: the Internet.

4) Musicians do not make money off of record sales. At least, the vast majority do not. Only the top top percentage ever make a dime off record sales, no more than a hundred or so at a time.

Indeed the vast majority of musicians never get signed. But even the small percentage that do, most get screwed. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...-sell-1-million-albums-still-owe-500000.shtml

Professional music and musicians existed before the recording industry, and they will exist after it.


Don't fall into the trap that the only way to profit from making music is by boxing up the music into discrete chunks and selling those chunks as manufactured quantities. That model has only existed for a historically very short amount of time. Why should we expect that it remain for the rest of human history? Even today, musicians widely profit primarily through concerts and other performances. (I hope this answers you too, El Nino)

 

[El Nino]

Don't fall into the trap that the only way to profit from making music is by boxing up the music into discrete chunks and selling those chunks as manufactured quantities. That model has only existed for a historically very short amount of time. Why should we expect that it remain for the rest of human history? Even today, musicians widely profit primarily through concerts and other performances. (I hope this answers you too, El Nino)

I assume that if a copying service were to pay a license fee, they would have to charge their customers for using the service. Typically, in terms of your typical small business that handles physical goods, license fees are paid annually (as in, a tobacco seller's license), and the money goes to the government. But if these copying services have to pay a license fee for each original work (more like what would apply to music and other audiovisual works), then that is going to add up, not to mention the extra costs in bureaucratic processing. Essentially, it's no different than buying a product at wholesale and selling it marked up. I guess I don't see how this system is more beneficial than what is currently in place, whether for audiovisual media or print/text media.

Furthermore, in publishing, authors can negotiate a contract for books. What is described here sounds like a system in which all rates are set by some universal standard. Maybe it would benefit the consumer, but I don't see it benefiting the writers. Writers don't make much money off of performances or showings, the way musicians can.

I think music will survive the Internet. I am much less sure about literature.

 

[rvkevin]

To each of your points:
1. It is not clear to me why Pirate Bay would be forced to purchase the license. Is it because they make a profit (Don’t know if they do, but one quote regarding the judgment against them said they were a commercial entity)? If they did not make a profit and were completely non-commerical, then according to what I previously quoted, it would be permitted. Or is it the size of the material being shared? If instead of a community of files, it was only me posting songs of a CD as a background to an irrelevant video, and people could simply view my youtube account (assuming I never profit from it) to listen to said CD, would I be forced to purchase the license? Is there a limit to how many songs I could upload before I would be the equivalent to a radio station or Pirate Bay and have to pay the fee?

2. That is their particular choice of business model. They can do so directly for profit (youtube accounts can earn money from having high traffic from advertisements). This would mean that other accounts posting the same material would compete with the author’s and detract from their traffic, decreasing their revenue.

3/4. I wasn’t thinking specifically about music. I’ll agree that it doesn’t make as much sense to apply copyright protection to this industry since, as you said, record sales aren’t the main source of revenue for musicians. Rather, I was thinking specifically about book writing. This would be their main source of income. Having someone replicate their book and then post it on the internet for anyone to access for free would be detrimental to their sales. Unlike musicians, book tours are not the main source of income, but are part of the marketing for the product. And unlike other physical products, the value of a book is what is written, not what it is written on. So, I fail to see how permitting someone who has not engaged in a commercial activity to post a recently published book would not drastically reduce the supply of books.

 

[AltF4]

1: The Pirate Bay does have revenues, clearly. It has advertisements which go to compensate the costs of running the site. It's pretty clear that if they make profits, then they must be small. In the Priate Bay trial, the prosecution asserted they've profited by millions of dollars. Which have yet to appear anywhere.

In any case, The Pirate Bay clearly crosses the fuzzy line from simply sharing files to publishing them in some semi-commercial sense. Yes, this line is fuzzy. But that's how the law works, it's always fuzzy. That's okay. I think we could have a really productive conversation about exactly what that line should look like. I would also contend that they themselves would not object to a compulsory license scheme.

2: (That was a rhetorical question) Of course I know they make money from the YouTube account. That was my point. There are more ways of making money than by boxing up bits into a container and selling them.

Books:

Great then! Books. See, I agree that each medium should be treated differently under our system of law. Why should we expect a single law to adequately encompass Music, Movies, Software, Books, etc...?

Books are still quite marketable in a physical sense. You'll note that I made sure to say in my OP that physical book copying remains prohibited in my system of law during the copyright duration. Books remain marketable for a variety of reasons that e-books don't possess.

Books have a "trophy effect". I know lots of people who own lots of books (this includes myself) that have not read most of the books on their shelves. They like to have books as a tangible trophy, a souvenir of having read the book or having merely supported the author.

People like to support the author. Authors like Cory Doctorow offer all of their books online for free under a Creative Commons license. And sell books, e-books, and audiobooks. Quite successfully. Doctorow also has a unique model where he sells special limited quantity versions at a hugely marked up quantity. He has, for example made 10 special hand-bound, on parchment paper, hardcover, signed with a personal note from himself to each individual customer, and sold them for ~$500 (iirc)

Similarly, there's authors like Eic Corley (aka:Emmanuel Goldstein), the founder of the 2600. (Probably the largest hacker organization) He edits the 2600 magazine and has written a few books on hacking and his experiences. Now, if there is one audience in the whole world who is more capable of getting his books at no cost than any other, it's the hacker community. And yet he sells out just fine.

The lesson is: don't be so quick to assume that you can't compete with free. Because you can using a variety of methods. You can provide a better service, provide a better quality product, attract customers at a personal level. Think of how many people do this today! Netflix, bottled water companies, ice manufacturers, etc...

 

[ballin4life]

Simple economics tell us that when something has a marginal cost of 0, putting a price on it is a deadweight loss.

Now, people make more complicated arguments saying that the marginal cost of the original production is high, even though the marginal cost afterwards is 0, and that the good would not be produced at all if its price must be 0.

However, I have some problems with this logic, but I especially dislike the jump from there to "we need the current patent/copyright system". First off, how do you know the right amount of patent/copyright enforcement to have? How do you know that we aren't setting prices way too high?

 

[El Nino]

Books are still quite marketable in a physical sense.

I disagree.

http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/...int-units-drop-10-in-first-half-of-2011-.html

Print media is falling to digitial, and it's been going on for a long while. Between Borders filing bankruptcy, Barnes & Noble in hot water, and newspapers are also shutting down.

Books have a "trophy effect". I know lots of people who own lots of books (this includes myself) that have not read most of the books on their shelves. They like to have books as a tangible trophy, a souvenir of having read the book or having merely supported the author.

Older people with nostalgia have a reason to buy them as collector's items. But I don't see the younger generation choosing print over digital.

People like to support the author.

Sure, but that is not a reliable base to build a market on. People like donating to charity too. But charities aren't businesses for good reason.

Authors like Cory Doctorow offer all of their books online for free under a Creative Commons license. And sell books, e-books, and audiobooks. Quite successfully. Doctorow also has a unique model where he sells special limited quantity versions at a hugely marked up quantity. He has, for example made 10 special hand-bound, on parchment paper, hardcover, signed with a personal note from himself to each individual customer, and sold them for ~$500 (iirc)

That strategy relies on being a your own trademark. My main concern is the small markets and new writers without a name.

The lesson is: don't be so quick to assume that you can't compete with free. Because you can using a variety of methods. You can provide a better service, provide a better quality product, attract customers at a personal level. Think of how many people do this today! Netflix, bottled water companies, ice manufacturers, etc...

They can compete, but they don't compete well. Small fiction magazines especially are struggling, genre magazines in particular.

http://www.locusmag.com/News/2009/01/realms-of-fantasy-closing.html:

The closure is primarily due to plummeting newsstand sales, the problem currently faced by all of the fiction magazines. "We're shelved in the back of the bookstores. Nobody can even find us."

Realms of Fantasy is a fantasy magazine, and it's still around, but it had to be saved more than once since 2009. Subscriptions are down. People just don't buy from newsstands anymore. And Realms of Fantasy is a well known magazine, which puts them slightly ahead of others.

It happened to newspapers first:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/26/business/main6433392.shtml

I bring up newspapers because journalism is one example of writing work that actually pays and can be considered a legitimate form of employment (technical writing being another). But they are in decline.

My other concern is with the destruction of small fiction markets because small markets are how new writers often break into the field.

A part of me is starting to accept that the age of print media is over.

 

[AltF4]

I don't think I'll disagree much, here. Clearly print media is in decline, especially newspapers. It isn't quite the doomsday scenario that I think some try to say.

And shouldn't they be in decline? They used to be the only dog in town. A few decades ago, newspaper was one of only a very small way to get news. The Internet changed this, now there's alternatives. Why would we regret gaining competition?

But this really doesn't have anything to do with copyright. If you're looking for a system of copyright that will restore print media to the stature they had in the 1920's, you're not going to find it. And why should we want to?

 

[El Nino]

We were discussing electronic piracy. E-piracy would apply to literature if or when it all eventually gets to e-format. In the OP there was mention of upholding copyright for print media while allowing for e-copies of the same works by licensed vendors. But now as everything moves towards digital format, allowing for e-copies of electronic literature would mean having no copyrights on any published literature.

The other question of why we should or should not want the return of print media is a separate debate. And also a pointless one since there is no return. (But part of it was addressed in my previous post regarding new writers relying on small markets to make their debut.)

 

[Reaver197]

The current patent litigation between Apple and HTC is infuriating.

http://www.dailytech.com/Apples+Plo...+HTC+Nears+Fruition+With+Win/article22173.htm

The patents describes methodologies that have pretty much been in place since the advent of the internet and cellphone networks. It's almost disgusting to me that such broad patents that is clearly describing a large part of what any networked electronic device does are allowed.

 

[blazedaces]

The current patent litigation between Apple and HTC is infuriating.

http://www.dailytech.com/Apples+Plo...+HTC+Nears+Fruition+With+Win/article22173.htm

The patents describes methodologies that have pretty much been in place since the advent of the internet and cellphone networks. It's almost disgusting to me that such broad patents that is clearly describing a large part of what any networked electronic device does are allowed.

Thank you for citing this article. I'm glad I found out about this.

It is pretty crazy, but what really grinds my gears is that apple is suing every phone manufacturer of android phones and nokia as well... it should be plainly obvious they are grasping at straws here...

All of them have counter-sued apple in response. While Apple is a gigantic company now with a lot of money it's not exactly suing tiny companies here. If it has to deal with all the cases it's making and all the counter-cases being brought against it... I believe it's bitten off quite more than it can chew...

Btw, in the article it mentions that the ITC recommended against the judges decision, which is a recommendation that should hold weight when they go for an appeal. I'm hoping and predicting this case will be appealed.

-blazed

 

[Sucumbio]

Thoughts on the new America Invents Act? This is a patent reform law in which the most notable change is going from the "first to invent" system to the "first to file" system, meaning that whoever files for a patent first is entitled to the patent regardless of who invented it first.

Personally I support this; the first to file system was used by every country except the US before this act and for good reason: the first to invent system has confusing language over whether someone "worked diligently to reduce the invention to practice" and fosters a lot of sticky situations over who actually got the idea first. I'll have to familiarize myself with other parts of the bill as well, but as I understand it, this was the main reform involved. Amazingly, this bill was actually able to receive bipartisan support, something seemingly impossible these days.

On a side note, Obama signed this bill at my high school (Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology)! I got to see him live signing it! At one point I was within 12 feet of him and it was quite awesome. I also shook hands and briefly spoke with Francis Collins, director of the NIH, at the event. Also I'd like to say hello to some people who (hopefully) still remember me, such as Sucumbio, Bob Jane T-Mart, and Dre.

KG posted this in the CE thread and I thought it'd be good to bring up here.

My question at the moment is how does this conflict, as some scholars have suggested, with Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution which states:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Supporters of the bill are pleased to see the US come in line with the rest of the world, as the US was basically the only country to use a "first to invent" precedent on determining who should get a patent. By this old and apparently out-dated standard, not only would an inventor have to file for a patent first, but also be the first to put it into practical use, and rigorously. Now, however, this bill has changed things to a "first to file" system, which says that a patent holder may be declared based on whichever inventor filed first (and in the rare case that 2 inventors should file on the same day, it would go to court.)

 

[KrazyGlue]

Yeah I've heard about that theory that it conflicts with the Constitution, but honestly I think that all the corruption under the first to invent system ultimately makes it a worse violation of that clause. Obviously there's no perfect way to do this, but I feel that the first to file system's basic, less confusing approach is a much more efficient and rational process.

 

[AltF4]

The First to File system is better, and thus I had supported this bill. Though I must be quick to say that this is only a very small improvement to a narrow band of misuses of the patent system. I'll explain:

The "First to Invent" system sounds on its face like it is more fair and appropriate than a First to File system. You naturally conjure up some hypothetical situation where two people invent something at the same time, and are then in a car race against one another toward the Patent Office to file before the other person!

Obviously, this vision fails for many reasons. For one, if something is independently invented simultaneously by two different people, then it almost surely is not patentable. There is (in theory) a high bar for non-obviousness in patent-ability. To say that two people came up with the idea at the same time says a lot about how obvious the idea is to those in the trade.

But primarily, a First to File system fixes a number of patent abuses:

1) Submarine Patents: A corporation (don't fool yourself into thinking that patents are awarded to individuals. The vast vast majority are given to a small number of major corporations) is able to create an effectively hidden patent under the First to Invent system.

You come up with an idea (in practice, this step is ignored) and document its invention. But instead of patenting it, you just sit on it. You then wait for someone else to come along and use your idea in a product, then spring the trap. Since you invented the idea first, you can get a patent and sue the producer of the competing product for a large sum of money.

If you are in business, there is no way to know if you are infringing a patent. Even if you were to have a judge declare you non-infringing individually from every patent in existence, you could still be infringing on a patent which has not yet been filed.

Furthermore, every patent currently in existence (in the First to Invent system) is on unstable ground. At any time, (usually as soon as a profitable product is released) someone can come and provide proof that they invented the idea first, and invalidate your patent. Unless you pay them lots of money.

2) In practice, determining when something was invented is highly difficult and wrought with fraud. And when you have a First to Invent system with patents worth millions of dollars, you better believe that dates will be fudged. These sorts of lawsuits where dates of decade old documents are investigated are choking the courts. A First to File system eliminates that.


Of course the major issues with patents remain. Patents are unreadably vague such that they can be applied to anything. Patents apply too broadly to things like software and business models. Penalties for patent infringement are so severe that the threat of a lawsuit will cause million dollar settlements.

 

[AltF4]

Also: German Pirate Party wins big in election. 9% of total vote, 15 members of parliament.

https://torrentfreak.com/tomorrow-pirates-write-history-again-110917/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...ee-democrats/2011/09/18/gIQAdVKdbK_story.html

I hope to see good things come of them. I also hope that the same movement can spread here to the US and beyond. They have my votes and support.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

The german pirate party is naive and stupid. Their platform beyond freedom of information consists mostly of utopian ideals that we cannot realistically reach. Just sayin'.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Simple economics tell us that when something has a marginal cost of 0, putting a price on it is a deadweight loss.

Now, people make more complicated arguments saying that the marginal cost of the original production is high, even though the marginal cost afterwards is 0, and that the good would not be produced at all if its price must be 0.

However, I have some problems with this logic, but I especially dislike the jump from there to "we need the current patent/copyright system". First off, how do you know the right amount of patent/copyright enforcement to have? How do you know that we aren't setting prices way too high?

Which is exactly why said economic theory is oversimplified to the point of near uselessness.

It can't explain basic effects like conspicuous consumption or charity which we know are effects in the real world.

This is the same reason why realism and neo-realism are near useless in terms of policy discussion.

 

[#HBC | Mac]

Does anyone support SOPA?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

"Does anyone support Genocide?"

 

[Suntan Luigi]

I'm glad Congress is focusing on important things like protecting big corporations' financial interests, and not wasting time on silly, unimportant things like the economy.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

But... But... But...

BUT PIRACY IS THEFT GAIZ!

 

[AltF4]

Another victim: Grooevshark is shutting down.

http://gizmodo.com/5862026/grooveshark-will-soon-be-destroyed

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

It will probably take a while, but the only real solution is simply to wait for the older generation to die off. These new laws/acts/proposals/tantrums are indicative of the candle flickering violently just before going out entirely. The rising generation gets the Internet. The legacy industries simply do not. "This is how we've always done things; this is how we will continue to do things." Fair enough. Bankruptcy awaits.

I love where the modern world is headed. Lots of games are going free and instead choosing to monetize actual scarcities. Musicians are posting their music for free. Content creators are connecting with their fans directly. The best part? They are making more money than they ever did before! Just one example with me: League of Legends. The game is free. With such a low barrier of entry, I safely became addicted to the game. Now? I've spent $25 on the game so far. I'm sure I'll spend more in the future.

I am intrigued to see where cinema will head. Movies have probably the fewest options in terms of "put it out for free and monetize other aspects", but I'm sure a few innovative startups will change that.

 

[#HBC | Mac]

It will probably take a while, but the only real solution is simply to wait for the older generation to die off. These new laws/acts/proposals/tantrums are indicative of the candle flickering violently just before going out entirely. The rising generation gets the Internet. The legacy industries simply do not. "This is how we've always done things; this is how we will continue to do things." Fair enough. Bankruptcy awaits.

I used to think this but I don't think we should rely on this as a solution.

The idea is that the older generation doesn't understand the internet/new technologies and are resistant to change. Which is true, but I believe it's more than that. They are also profiting heavily from the old model and they would rather shut down anything that may change that. So even if they all die off, more younger people will take their place in those industries. Since they'll be profiting from the old model, what's gonna make them not follow in the older generations footsteps?

Hopefully the thought process of the older regime won't remain once the new generation comes in. But we shouldn't hedge our bets on it and we should continue to fight oppressive laws/acts and actively try to make sure these older industries don't get their way at the expense of the people.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

I'm not suggesting we sit and do nothing. I'm only implying that enough of the legacy regime is stubborn enough to resist change, and the only way to eliminate those ones is let them die slowly.

 

[AltF4]

Real change may in fact require that the establishment go out of business. Historically, this is how every new technology worked. The old and established are replaced by the new and innovative.

But now we're stuck in a terrible situation where the establishment which ought to be failing is propped up arbitrarily by corrupt lawmakers.

This is the exact reason why Larry Lessig migrated from publicly speaking out on behalf of Copyright reform to Congressional finance reform. He correctly realized that copyright law may never be made in the public interest so long as corporate Congressional pressure exists as it is today.


One of my other fears is that the issue of Free Culture is becoming a partisan political issue. (In terms of traditional "right vs left" politics) Net Neutrality is seen as a leftist idea. And some people see Free and Open Source software as some kind of hippy "free love" idea.

The truth is that these political issues surrounding technology have no consistent partisan support amongst people who actually know the concepts. A large majority of the hacker community that actually keeps the Internet running are strong libertarians. Almost none of them share what could be considered a liberal's optimism about the use of governmental powers. And yet there are many leftist leaders amongst the same crowd, like Richard Stallman and Emmanuel Goldstein.

Earlier this year, there was a lot of public debate about Wikileaks, and in particular Julian Assange. Michael Moore (a well known speaker for the left) had famously posted some thousands of dollars for Assange's bail. Ralph Nader (formerly of the Green Party, fairly left leaning) also spoke out with much support for Assange and Wikileaks.

Later, when Ron Paul came out to speak in favor of Wikileaks, I remember a reporter coming to him and asking him (not a complete quote)

"How do you feel being on the same side as Michael Moore?"

And I wanted to smack that reporter so hard. For stoking the flames of idiotic partisanship.

 

[#HBC | Mac]

Random question: do either you or buzz go on hacker news at all?

 

[AltF4]

Ehh, no. If you want good news from the hacker world, listen to Off the Hook. http://www.2600.com/offthehook/

EDIT: Wow, time to move to Switzerland: https://torrentfreak.com/swiss-govt-downloading-movies-and-music-will-stay-legal-111202/

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

...That is awesome.

 

[Aesir]

The northern European countries are years a head in the evolution of man.

 

[rvkevin]

The northern European countries are years a head in the evolution of man.

Are you referring to this? If so, I agree.

 

[AltF4]

It's heartening to see some relatively mainstream publications running stories that hit the head on the nail really well such as this:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...e-movie-industrys-failure-to-innovate/250967/

Of course techie sites have for some time now. All the exposure of the issues behind copyright enforcement and its consequences on freedom of speech are a silver lining behind SOPA. Now if only we can defeat it...

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

You guys heard about Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Yahoo threatening to go offline in protest for a day? Pretty ****ing amazing, if you ask me. It's exactly what needs to happen.

 

[blazedaces]

My friend sent me this interesting article: File Sharing Recognized as a religion in Sweden.

And that rocks that those top sites are willing to protest this so strongly.

-blazed

 

[AltF4]

Just short of $100 Million were donated through Kickstarter in 2011!
http://www.kickstarter.com/blog/2011-the-stats

What a great way to get a project in Free Culture off the ground. You know, I've mused about starting one myself for a long time. (A Kickstarter project, that is. Not a project generally. I've got plenty of those)

 

[AltF4]

Thank you MLG and Smashboards:

http://www.majorleaguegaming.com/news/mlg-moves-all-domains-off-godaddy-com
http://www.majorleaguegaming.com/news/mlgs-network-will-go-black-on-jan-18-to-protest-sopa

I was already a Gold member subscriber to MLG, but now you've got me for life.

 

[blazedaces]

Thank you MLG and Smashboards:

http://www.majorleaguegaming.com/news/mlg-moves-all-domains-off-godaddy-com
http://www.majorleaguegaming.com/news/mlgs-network-will-go-black-on-jan-18-to-protest-sopa

I was already a Gold member subscriber to MLG, but now you've got me for life.

That's awesome. I hope more sites join the blackout.

-blazed