Very good point: If admitting you were inspired by someone gives them power over your creation, amn't I better off denying that inspiration altogether?
How can you cultivate an atmosphere of sharing, of openness, of honesty under those conditions?
Art shouldn't cost any money. Yes! He hit the nail on the head.
But...artists should cost.
If I want coffee freely available in my own kitchen, I need to get a coffee machine. Or (a better analogy) if I want delicious meals freely available in my own kitchen, I need to employ a chef.
Likewise, if I want movies, music, stories, freely available to me, I need to "employ" an artist. The costs are enormously distributed sure, but if he can afford to stand there all day until somebody requests a poem, it's got to be because his basic living expenses are looked after for him.
It's like back in the 18th century, how classical composers were employed by courts or commissioned by wealthy patrons. Only the richest could afford such an extravangance like art back then. But with the internet, we're all aristocrats now.
But guyz what if the ends don't justify the means? What if using a reference tool as though it were political activism tool is not ok? What if 'effectiveness' is not a measure of what's acceptable? What if doing all this is some kind of transgression of duty?
Also, can someone explain what's to stop this decision opening the door for subsequent political abuse of wikipedia? Pleading special circumstances? Isn't that the same logic behind why it's ok for PIPA to mangle established law and muzzle free expression?
I'm making a distinction between "Wikipedia as a thing in itself" and "the people who care about, run, maintain it".
I think the latter, the people, should do all they can to stop SOPA/PIPA because they're horrendously stupid pieces of legislation.
But I don't think the former should be involved. I don't think those people should USE their encyclopedia as another weapon to make their side win the debate.
Wikipedia is not a political tool. It's an encyclopedia.
Wikipedia's purpose isn't to preserve its own existence. It's just to exist, as an encyclopedia. It's sullying its own function with this political grandstanding.
But ok, we don't want consumers being ripped off. So standardise it: Same packaging as the Tesco Value brand (like this: http://img.metro.co.uk/i/pix/2006/11/value_175x125.jpg), the only difference between different companies' offerings is the name.
Slight tangent: This makes me wonder how things would change if it became illegal not just to advertise tobacco, but even to display logos, images, slogans, brands within each company as well.
Would such a ban affect smoking's perceived desirability?
Now I know real life's not so simple and naive, but aren't the public represented at these meetings by, uh, y'know, their politicians? Isn't that the idea of a representative democracy?
There's no need to have a bunch of consumers advising the government because the government are (/are representing) the consumers already.
"Of course, one could argue that these sites are no different than conversation was for previous generations, and that conversation seldom generated big ideas either, and one would be right."
No, man, NO. One would be horribly wrong to argue that. Conversation is where a GREAT number of big ideas are born. From the Parisian cafes of Sartre and Camus, to the English coffeehouses in the 17th century, to pubs, gelaterias, salons - where people met, ideas came about.
How could you want less conversation, and give your reason as being for the sake of more ideas??
I'm really taken by that quote:
"AT&T helped us search YouTube for every instance of fans using our music without our permission.
And then we rewarded them for it.
Thanks for being a fan."
Sometimes the best arguments are the ones implicit in the statement. I'd like to present just the above - no further explanation - to a pro-DRM/take-down individual and see what they make of it.
Re:
Yeah! Maybe it was coincidence! We can never see this hidden power of causation anyway! (Right Hume?)
Heck, personally I don't think sales went up at all, seems more plausible to me that I'm a brain in a vat who's being made think sales went up.
(Philosophical scepticism: When reality proves you wrong, just deny reality exists. Boom. Who's wrong now?)
(untitled comment)
Very good point: If admitting you were inspired by someone gives them power over your creation, amn't I better off denying that inspiration altogether?
How can you cultivate an atmosphere of sharing, of openness, of honesty under those conditions?
Coppola's got it
Art shouldn't cost any money. Yes! He hit the nail on the head.
But...artists should cost.
If I want coffee freely available in my own kitchen, I need to get a coffee machine. Or (a better analogy) if I want delicious meals freely available in my own kitchen, I need to employ a chef.
Likewise, if I want movies, music, stories, freely available to me, I need to "employ" an artist. The costs are enormously distributed sure, but if he can afford to stand there all day until somebody requests a poem, it's got to be because his basic living expenses are looked after for him.
It's like back in the 18th century, how classical composers were employed by courts or commissioned by wealthy patrons. Only the richest could afford such an extravangance like art back then. But with the internet, we're all aristocrats now.
Re: Re:
What about accurate or supported information being carefully reworded or removed from the article?
THAT'S what I find unsure about this. Not which information PR-folk would add, but which they'd take away.
Can I stop us a moment..
...to appreciate that one line:
"A good idea doesn't need protection".
Besautiful and true.
Re: Re: Hrm
Agreed.
But you're conflating "wikipedia the website & reference tool" with "wikipedia the organisation & people who maintain it".
Should the latter get involved in politics? Definitely.
Should the former? I kinda think 'no'.
Hrm
But guyz what if the ends don't justify the means? What if using a reference tool as though it were political activism tool is not ok? What if 'effectiveness' is not a measure of what's acceptable? What if doing all this is some kind of transgression of duty?
Also, can someone explain what's to stop this decision opening the door for subsequent political abuse of wikipedia? Pleading special circumstances? Isn't that the same logic behind why it's ok for PIPA to mangle established law and muzzle free expression?
Re: Re: Dissenting Voice
I'm making a distinction between "Wikipedia as a thing in itself" and "the people who care about, run, maintain it".
I think the latter, the people, should do all they can to stop SOPA/PIPA because they're horrendously stupid pieces of legislation.
But I don't think the former should be involved. I don't think those people should USE their encyclopedia as another weapon to make their side win the debate.
Wikipedia is not a political tool. It's an encyclopedia.
Dissenting Voice
No.
Wikipedia's purpose isn't to preserve its own existence. It's just to exist, as an encyclopedia. It's sullying its own function with this political grandstanding.
Re: Re:
That's kind of the point...
But ok, we don't want consumers being ripped off. So standardise it: Same packaging as the Tesco Value brand (like this: http://img.metro.co.uk/i/pix/2006/11/value_175x125.jpg), the only difference between different companies' offerings is the name.
(untitled comment)
Slight tangent: This makes me wonder how things would change if it became illegal not just to advertise tobacco, but even to display logos, images, slogans, brands within each company as well.
Would such a ban affect smoking's perceived desirability?
Re:
Irony much?
"We need this law in order to keep making quality content"
...yet the video they make in order to express that is nothing but poorly put-together docu-style amateurism.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But he didn't say "share",did he?
"Ownership of your work"
I'm sorry, maybe I'm stupid. But what's that phrase mean? How can you cash it out?
(untitled comment)
This is Dylan.
Interpret the character behind it however you want, but this is how Dylan makes his art.
So how ought he be dealt with?
Represented
Now I know real life's not so simple and naive, but aren't the public represented at these meetings by, uh, y'know, their politicians? Isn't that the idea of a representative democracy?
There's no need to have a bunch of consumers advising the government because the government are (/are representing) the consumers already.
Well it's true what they say
No atheists in fox holes...(cos they get torn to pieces down there)
Fallacy
"Of course, one could argue that these sites are no different than conversation was for previous generations, and that conversation seldom generated big ideas either, and one would be right."
No, man, NO. One would be horribly wrong to argue that. Conversation is where a GREAT number of big ideas are born. From the Parisian cafes of Sartre and Camus, to the English coffeehouses in the 17th century, to pubs, gelaterias, salons - where people met, ideas came about.
How could you want less conversation, and give your reason as being for the sake of more ideas??
Re: harden up and start swinging back
May I introduce you to the word "perpetuate"?
Re:
Wait...because a word is too generic, you should avoid it or risk infringement??
(untitled comment)
I'm really taken by that quote:
"AT&T helped us search YouTube for every instance of fans using our music without our permission.
And then we rewarded them for it.
Thanks for being a fan."
Sometimes the best arguments are the ones implicit in the statement. I'd like to present just the above - no further explanation - to a pro-DRM/take-down individual and see what they make of it.