Given what a few people here have said about the rapid increase in smaller storage options, it seems to me the best situation will become a case where we all walk around with our data, but connect to the "apps" online. So instead of keeping your data in the cloud, you keep the applications in the cloud and your data on your...phone (as they are now becoming our centralized multi-purpose devices). Sort of like how in Neuromancer everyone had their own core device that then plugged into the network. This sounds like the the best combo to me--no one has access to your info on a continuing basis, and you can evolve what utilizes the data online. Sort of like how a CMS can update the engine of the website while not touching the data itself--we just have the data entirely separate and personal.
The problem right now is it's always in the best interest of the cloud service to try to keep both--they are businesses trying to make money.
I think the statement "Free speech does not mean you are free from the consequences of your speech." is the most important part. Many people take Free Speech to mean that there should be no consequences when you say something--and we all know that's not true. If what you have to say is important, and you can stand behind it no matter what consequences occur, then that's the cost of your speech, and you are willing to pay it.
Creeps who do stupid things need to realize that they will be paying a cost for their stupidity--and the community does a great job of making that happen--way better than a legal method.
Hi, If you go to the main page and select the "Archive" area you will see an "Event Video" section. While we can't get everything online, we do try to post as much of the panel content as we can--and it's there for free and forever. Once we get a bit more established and have a budget for more advanced things we'll be looking into live streaming and other great concepts (and better recording equipment).
Hi Everyone, this is Harknell, the author of this post and Co-Con Chair for the event.
I wanted to thank Mike for giving us the ability to get the word out about our event.
I think we can all tell which commenters on this thread need the real Intervention. For the rest of you who actually like to discuss things using logic, evidence, and analysis we'd love to see you at our event this year to continue the discussion on the difficult road ahead for all online creative people.
I actually have some some apps in the IOS app store and we ran into a somewhat related issue when we submitted an update for one of our apps. In our case our app consolidates many feeds into one place, as well as webpages. The reviewer of our app update went into our app and then navigated to the webpage being displayed (which was called using IOS's Safari viewer from within our app)and noticed that the person *on their website* had a donation button.
The reviewer disqualified our app update until this was "fixed". Obviously this wasn't part of our app, it was their website--but we asked them to remove the donation link for a week. After the approval they put the link back up.
In our case it was obvious that the reviewer had no idea how IOS works, or how it's programmed. But it's sadly typical of some of the arbitrary ways you can interpret their rules on this area.
Look, we all know Apple wants to get paid, but they do have a major issue if their own people don't understand how this "should" work.
Look, I think DRM is a bad idea, but this is simply a case of a developer signing up for a distribution method (the app store) and either not reading the docs--or disagreeing with them but going ahead anyway. It's not like Apple just recently changed the way things are distributed.
So the only thing that can be thought in this case is they did this with the desire to use it as a protest against Apple's policy. They weren't wronged since they knew the rules going in--they just ignored that.
It's a silly issue with no one being wronged, just a disagreement which can easily be fixed by the developer pulling their app from the store (which is their right and can be done literally with one click on the developer website with no interaction on Apple's part needed for approval).
Honestly, this is kind of silly. The web is the web. Since this is really simply a site you can visit you don't even need a "market place" at all. The only function this market place is doing is providing a centralized location for you to find these "apps"...and uh, there's this thing called "google" that can do that function already.
Why not have a "market place" that points out you can read different websites on your iPhone...like Techdirt. Now that would be just as useful.
There are definitely some distinct issues raised by this situation. It is an example of non-scarce goods, not infinite goods. So distribution is now a major issue, not an irrelevant one. Copyright in this case can be a consideration as to whether this market will be expanded or not. The reason is due to money. If person A originates a design and company B comes in and has way more money and resources and can make knock offs cheaper and publicize wider, they basically win in this case. If artist A sees this and realizes that their right to dictate the "right to copy" is gone they would probably consider stopping. Imagine that company B literally sits there waiting for artist A to develop a new design so they can immediately make a copy and sell it themselves--it's almost like unpaid work from artist A as a designer for company B. This is a strong influence to stop working.
While on a conceptual basis some things might be true, in the real world this is problematic.
In many cases these issues are really about job security, or the desire to keep things the same forever. Academics and librarians (many of the people pushing to keep Google from doing the digitizing) want to remain as the gatekeepers to books and published journals. They are the "experts" and their jobs (they believe) depend on them being the resource to pointing people to where to go to find data. If Google usurps this by making everything searchable these people incorrectly believe that everyone will abandon them and simply use the internet. Much like how you discuss how businesses want to simply keep their old business models forever without innovation, it's the same thing here. They got a degree 25 years ago and want to rely on that idea for their entire career and not re-access or learn and adapt new things.
Are there any equivalents to the video/movie business in this? Is a composition at all related to a script for a video? Just curious to know if we'll see any movie licensing explosions on this same angle.