http://www.techdirt.com/ Easily digestible tech news.... http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/06185923116/rice-university-professor-skynets-gonna-take-ur-jerbs.shtml#c313 Sat, 18 May 2013 08:00:19 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/06185923116/rice-university-professor-skynets-gonna-take-ur-jerbs.shtml#c313 not to address in my lengthy rant (below). Decoupling imputed moral value from (current) economic necessity will surely be one of the hardest conceptual leaps to make. My niece is a talented violinist. That (and four bucks) will get you a latt]]> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/06185923116/rice-university-professor-skynets-gonna-take-ur-jerbs.shtml#c296 Sat, 18 May 2013 07:58:37 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/06185923116/rice-university-professor-skynets-gonna-take-ur-jerbs.shtml#c296 First, it cheaply ignores the impact every other form of technological progress has had thus far. Robots are used on assembly lines, yet there's no drastic net loss of jobs.

That's kind of wrong since in the US, we lost millions of jobs thanks to "free trade" agreements and CEOs looking to cut costs.

I recall that the NAFTA agreement during Clinton's era shipped jobs overseas and the American people didn't have anything to show for it.

Jobs were created, but it isn't a guarantee that the displacement of workers equates to better, more high skilled jobs being found here in the US.

And when you really look at the economic policies of the US, it seems more beneficial for the USG to tax people for their needing more education in order to benefit society which is a REALLY backwards equation.

We have high student debt caused by most of the money going to the wealthy while there is nothing to help the US get out of the economic austerity posed on them. It's a scary situation to be in. Cripple your future growth by giving the people few jobs, few economic opportunities, and try to keep them quiet about what's going on with your government?

Seems like a frog boiling slowly...]]> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/02413623115/bogus-lawsuit-plus-threats-to-those-who-write-about-it-leads-to-epic-response.shtml#c778 Sat, 18 May 2013 07:57:40 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/02413623115/bogus-lawsuit-plus-threats-to-those-who-write-about-it-leads-to-epic-response.shtml#c778 http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/06185923116/rice-university-professor-skynets-gonna-take-ur-jerbs.shtml#c280 Sat, 18 May 2013 07:57:08 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/06185923116/rice-university-professor-skynets-gonna-take-ur-jerbs.shtml#c280
"Intelligence" means different things to different people, and few agree upon one concise set of words, which they also agree upon, to use in said definition. This is a problem not only for discussions of AI, but elsewhere as well.

Simple projection into the future of present computerized machine usage, assuming a linear function, is plainly ill conceived and quite misleading.

As with most other attempts to predict the future, this one is most likely doomed to failure.]]> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/02413623115/bogus-lawsuit-plus-threats-to-those-who-write-about-it-leads-to-epic-response.shtml#c774 Sat, 18 May 2013 07:54:39 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/02413623115/bogus-lawsuit-plus-threats-to-those-who-write-about-it-leads-to-epic-response.shtml#c774 http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/06185923116/rice-university-professor-skynets-gonna-take-ur-jerbs.shtml#c274 Sat, 18 May 2013 07:51:52 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/06185923116/rice-university-professor-skynets-gonna-take-ur-jerbs.shtml#c274
lols]]> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/06185923116/rice-university-professor-skynets-gonna-take-ur-jerbs.shtml#c268 Sat, 18 May 2013 07:50:27 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/06185923116/rice-university-professor-skynets-gonna-take-ur-jerbs.shtml#c268 everything, right down to middle management. Even design is much less labor intensive already, but we'll just ignore those jobs as safe, since keeping such numbers won't affect mass unemployment one whit.

Yes, there will always be 5-star accommodations with a "personal" (meat-sack) touch, but how many hand-made chairs, brooms, dishes, etc. etc. are sold every year, and what is the average purchasing power of their makers? What will India look like when every basket weaver is replaced by a machine that doesn't even need a hand-full of rice per day to work? How many such producers are really Village Craftspeople producing artisanal luxury, and how many 3rd world wage slaves making "...glass dishes with tiny bubbles and imperfections, proof that they were crafted by the honest, hard-working, indigenous peoples of...wherever." And what happens when the 'bots can do it with just a solar panel?

Geigner is missing the boat; it's not about welding and painting, it's EVERY JOB on the line. It's essentially EVERY JOB at Foxconn. It's not an olive tree shaker or a GPS-led plow, its ALL of agriculture. Robots to pick tomatoes, strawberries, apples...everything. All the time. Robots to drive the trucks. Automated logistics. Top to bottom AI.

It's not "but what about the machinists", it's "plausibly name a job that can't be automated away by an arbitrarily competent AI/robot, even if it doesn't have the ineffable spark of humanity." Now picture this in every sector, such that Capital will be effectively unfettered, free from the demands of Labor. Congrats Marxists: No more oppression, but at the cost of nearly all jobs.

Clarke's Law needs a corollary: Any sufficiently advanced automated system WILL take you job unless you can do it more cost-effectively. "Cheaply" ignoring history is a lesser sin than failing to grasp the nearly all-encompassing reach of even good-enough, "weak" AI.

From that point on, it will pretty much have to be redistributionist policies everywhere, all the time. "Citizen Income", here we come. Alternatives would certainly interest me, but I don't see any on the horizon.]]> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130516/07281823105/saudi-religious-police-anyone-using-twitter-has-lost-this-world-his-afterlife.shtml#c785 Sat, 18 May 2013 07:31:08 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130516/07281823105/saudi-religious-police-anyone-using-twitter-has-lost-this-world-his-afterlife.shtml#c785
Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How]]> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130516/15445423110/framework-copyright-reform.shtml#c1477 Sat, 18 May 2013 07:22:51 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130516/15445423110/framework-copyright-reform.shtml#c1477 I see your various arguments regarding copyright being a 'natural right', and raise you Karl's very well put refutation of them:

You have to understand: Crosbie believes that copyright was intended to protect unpublished writings only. In his eyes, the notion that copyright was supposed to be a post-publication monopoly is an abomination, a twisting of the intent of "copyright clause."

He is, in other words, a copyright abolitionist.

It is indeed ironic that his "natural rights" argument is echoed by copyright maximalists. But they are both wrong.

You linked to quotes about the post-publication monopoly not being a natural right. If you want to see a discussion with Crosbie directly, in which I show that the "copyright clause" was indeed talking about a post-publication monopoly, it is here:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121025/18244920850/copyright-new-mercantilism.shtml#c135]]> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130516/15445423110/framework-copyright-reform.shtml#c1468 Sat, 18 May 2013 07:11:07 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130516/15445423110/framework-copyright-reform.shtml#c1468 Incorrect. Nobody is ever forced.

All the major labels had roughly the same "standard" contract. That included assigning all the rights to the recordings, and it was not a point that the labels were willing to negotiate. There are very few cases where artists retained their copyrights, but these are all well-known, gold or platinum artists who were able to negotiate this in their second contract with the labels. You can very nearly count them on one hand.

And unless you signed with a major, you could not get on commercial radio, could not play most of the larger venues, and could not get your records into national record stores. The major labels acted (and act) collectively, essentially forming a total monopoly on music.

So, no, you weren't "forced." You were only "required" to assign the rights if you hoped to actually make a living at your art.

Many of those same artists use the work and it's wide distribution and promotion to be able to build a fan base and charge for access to their live shows.

Yes, they did, but this revenue stream is unaffected by piracy (it's actually increased in the past ten years). In fact, you don't need copyright at all to do this.

If they are forced back to working at the 7-11 after that, they likely are not the artist that the public wants to hear from, read, or buy art from, plain and simple.

We're talking artists that sold units in the tens of thousands, sometimes the hundreds of thousands. That simply isn't enough to make money under the old major label system.

There is no unlimited source of revenue to pay people who feel they are an artist, the system is built so that those who are appreciated by the public can make a living being an artist.

You're right, there is not an unlimited source of money. But under the old label system, the vast majority of that money did not go to the creative artist at all.

Most of the people under that system could not make a sustainable living, whether they were appreciated by the public or not. Most songwriters could not write songs unless they spent their time performing for the public; most book writers who are not good public speakers were forced to do speaking tours or lectures. The ones who didn't have to do this were a small, small, small minority of songwriters or authors. That was (and is) true even among the songwriters or authors on major labels or who were signed with big publishing houses.

Again, if you look at the top grossing artists on major labels, nearly all of them made a tiny percentage of their income from royalties. They all make their money from other things - live touring, product endorsements, etc.

The notion that copyright helps artists make money, is almost entirely a myth. It is a myth that naive artists believe, in the same way that they believe copyright is some sort of "natural right" earned by their labor, but it is a myth nonetheless. It is like the myth of the "rock star lifestyle:" something that is deliberately promulgated by people who earn their money off of artists, in order to keep a fresh supply of labor to stock the plantation.

Would you, as Mike Masnick appears to want to, deny the artists the rights to own the material they create?

Neither myself nor Mike are copyright abolitionists. Mike wants copyright to fundamentally benefit the general public - which, not coincidentally, is also copyright's Constitutional purpose.

I personally want to see copyright continue. I simply recognize that the current form is an abomination. It hurts artists more than it helps them, and it does tremendous damage to the public good.

Specifically, I would start by re-legalizing all forms of non-commercial copying and distribution. I would also like to see copyright transfers abolished by law: copyright "ownership" should remain with the artists, and only licenses should be allowed. There are a few other things I'd like to see, but listing them would make this a novel-length reply.]]> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/02413623115/bogus-lawsuit-plus-threats-to-those-who-write-about-it-leads-to-epic-response.shtml#c764 Sat, 18 May 2013 07:10:51 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/02413623115/bogus-lawsuit-plus-threats-to-those-who-write-about-it-leads-to-epic-response.shtml#c764 http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/06185923116/rice-university-professor-skynets-gonna-take-ur-jerbs.shtml#c243 Sat, 18 May 2013 07:02:45 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/06185923116/rice-university-professor-skynets-gonna-take-ur-jerbs.shtml#c243 http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130516/15445423110/framework-copyright-reform.shtml#c1458 Sat, 18 May 2013 06:56:32 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130516/15445423110/framework-copyright-reform.shtml#c1458 whatever the means."

That's kind of the problem.... the 'whatever that means' part.]]> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/06185923116/rice-university-professor-skynets-gonna-take-ur-jerbs.shtml#c231 Sat, 18 May 2013 06:55:21 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/06185923116/rice-university-professor-skynets-gonna-take-ur-jerbs.shtml#c231 We need to learn to value "non-productive" pursuitsFurther, we need to learn to value "non-productive" people. It looks like we've already hit "peak labor" but the antiquated and useless idea that "everybody has to work to live" is doing nothing but dividing people and causing further misery and strife, especially in developed nations.

In America, we have this sick Calivinist notion of "earning a living", as if the only acceptable life is a life spent toiling 70% of your waking hours to make someone in the economic elite richer.

The fact that we have people working longer hours than ever even though a greater number of people are unemployed shows just how badly we need a change of values.]]> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130516/15445423110/framework-copyright-reform.shtml#c1443 Sat, 18 May 2013 06:32:43 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130516/15445423110/framework-copyright-reform.shtml#c1443 http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/06185923116/rice-university-professor-skynets-gonna-take-ur-jerbs.shtml#c209 Sat, 18 May 2013 06:32:17 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/06185923116/rice-university-professor-skynets-gonna-take-ur-jerbs.shtml#c209 http://www.motherjones.com/media/2013/05/robots-artificial-intelligence-jobs-automation?page=1

In the interest of promoting discussion.

This article says the same thing actually except that our jobs will eventually be replaced with robots and while it will be slow and will be a dark time for us meat-bags we will eventually be able to co-exist with the machines that took our jobs.]]> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130516/15445423110/framework-copyright-reform.shtml#c1440 Sat, 18 May 2013 06:31:28 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130516/15445423110/framework-copyright-reform.shtml#c1440 He'll never put things into perspective or acknowledge that there are even positives.


You are the one looking at this issue with blinders on, most likely because you wish copyright to continue as an income stream for the lawyers.

Mike advocates that copyright should promote progress, whatever the means. You are the one who has decided that granting authors exclusive is the *only* path. Your narrow view leaves out way too many possibilities that could achieve the same ends.]]> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130508/10233423003/bug-allows-same-sex-marriage-nintendo-game-nintendo-releases-patch-to-fix-it.shtml#c3661 Sat, 18 May 2013 06:30:15 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130508/10233423003/bug-allows-same-sex-marriage-nintendo-game-nintendo-releases-patch-to-fix-it.shtml#c3661
About the oft-trotted 'two consenting adults' argument: what, one adult is bad but two is ok? What genius came up with that logic fail? So if two adults decide that they want to marry their dog, that should be ok, right?

As far as people's 1st Amendment rights go, yes, that's correct about not bringing religion into the classroom. However, it's also true that the taxpayers aren't paying for the public schools to indoctrinate children with the gay lifestyle; this constitutes an infringement upon their religious freedom, 1A rights.

Here, enjoy your gay parade:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VE3XFJzdgZo]]> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/02413623115/bogus-lawsuit-plus-threats-to-those-who-write-about-it-leads-to-epic-response.shtml#c760 Sat, 18 May 2013 06:25:20 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/02413623115/bogus-lawsuit-plus-threats-to-those-who-write-about-it-leads-to-epic-response.shtml#c760
And as for Monsarrat showing up at people's houses at night, apparently he's unfamiliar with Massachusetts anti-stalking laws.

Regarding the sale of Monsarrat's former company for 160 Million Dollars, I am still waiting to see this number confirmed by anyone besides Monsarrat himself.]]> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130516/15445423110/framework-copyright-reform.shtml#c1422 Sat, 18 May 2013 06:18:35 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130516/15445423110/framework-copyright-reform.shtml#c1422 Under copyright law, most artists did not have ownerhip or control over the end product. They were forced to assign ownership and control of their copyrights to a third party (record labels, publishers, or studios), and merely received some form of royalties due to the copyright owner's exploitation of these rights.

Incorrect. Nobody is ever forced. There is no law that says you must sell your work to someone else to exploit. That is a choice, not a legal requirement.

As for Mr McCartney, he makes quite a bit performing concerts as a result of his reputation built up through the copyright works he wrote and recorded over his career. On the years that he does not tour, his income from royalties is significantly higher. It should also be pointed out that in 2004, the Beatles catalog was not available on Itunes and other places.

Less than 10% of artists on a major label wer ever able to recoup their costs, meaning that they made not one cent on artist royatlies.

Many of those same artists use the work and it's wide distribution and promotion to be able to build a fan base and charge for access to their live shows. You seem to have a very limited understanding of what a label deal involves and what artist can get as a result. If they are forced back to working at the 7-11 after that, they likely are not the artist that the public wants to hear from, read, or buy art from, plain and simple. You don't see successful and popular bands working at the 7-11 (except for fun).

Even with this protection, the vast majority of creative artists were forced to make their living "in other ways."

it depends on what you consider as a creative artist. There is no unlimited source of revenue to pay people who feel they are an artist, the system is built so that those who are appreciated by the public can make a living being an artist. Copyright and all that goes with it means that song writers can write songs without having to spend their time performing for the public, or that book writers who are not good public speakers aren't forced to do speaking tours or lecture for a living in order to be able to support their hobby of writing.

Would you, as Mike Masnick appears to want to, deny the artists the rights to own the material they create? Are musical artists lesser than a painter or a sculptor? Does a writer lose ownership once he publishes a single copy of his book? Is a singer forced to sing for their supper because they have no way to own their works and creations?]]>