I called them "somewhat overblown" and "freakouts" — not entirely ungrounded or irrelevant. I do think there are genuine privacy concerns to be considered around something like Google Glass, but unfortunately most people were unable to have any kind of rational conversation about it, and went straight to violent opposition of the technology up to and including ripping them off people's faces and smashing them (and being widely applauded online for doing so).
If you think that was a reasonable reaction, so be it. I think it was a somewhat overblown freakout.
These days, with automatic software cleanup, short retention policies, the obscurity of software data storage, inability to search for anything over a week old, and transient nature of ISPs, well...
Do you honestly believe that?
1) My automatic software also *backs up* all my data in more than one place, with stuff going back for years. My records and mementos are far more secure today than they ever have been.
2) Which short retention policies are the issue, exactly? I've never had any data that I wanted to keep disappear because of that. All my memories on Facebook are intact; all my tweets are apparently in the Library of Congress. The great thing about data retention policies is that we get to set them, instead of being tied down to the physical lifespan of the data.
3) Obscurity of storage methods may, indeed, cause some issues in the future. I'm a big supporter of the various groups working to pre-empt this issue.
4) Inability to search for anything over a week old? What? I regularly search stuff way older than that. Not only are there plenty of archives to help me find online material that's 10 or 20 years old, I can pop up Google Newspaper Archives and browse century-or-more-old newspapers from all over the world.
It seems to me your issue is that, if our civilization entirely collapses, a future one will have a harder time learning about us than we did learning about ancient civilizations. That might be true (though I've long been fascinated by the concept of a "data archaeologist" that such a future civilization might have). But honestly, is that our priority concern? Our technology has enabled us to have far, far more access to knowledge and history and communication, on a democratized global level, than ever before in history. I can go right now and look at high-resolution 3D photos of those "dropped pots" from Feudal Japan or Medieval Europe or Ancient Rome or the prehistoric stone age tribes from Mongolia to France. Then I can read academic papers about them, talk about them on a message board with career archaeologists, and book a flight and an AirBnB stay in the city where they are on display, all without leaving my chair. I can take photos of my trip and instantly share them with my friends and relatives, and put them into a permanent backed-up archive that I can then access from anywhere in the world and share with anyone I choose.
Are we going to give all that up, just to make sure that a hypothetical successor civilization to ours has more dropped pots to look at?
This is a comment I read somewhere else, on another blog, on a related topic, quite some time ago... I forget where, to be honest. But it's an excellent extension of the point you make here:
"All the rhetoric about this subject continue to miss a key objective reality: that there are two separate supply/demand interactions at work here not one. It also misunderstands the real-world facts of one of those supply/demand interactions.
One of them is the supply of artistic performance compared to the demand for it. Observing that the great majority of professional-caliber artists are paid very poorly we assume that this means that the demand curve (how much people will pay, or "how much our soecity values the arts") has been dropping. But this is factually incorrect. Both the Broadway and non-profit theater sectors nationally are vastly larger today in revenues than a generation or two ago; there are now nearly 200 salary-paying professional symphonies compared to fewer than 10 fifty years ago; annual tax-deductible contributions to arts organizations is today several times (after inflation) what it was in the 1970s; etc. Some perusal of American for the Arts annual statistical survey with an eye towards this particular question is eye-opening; the entire annual NEA budget isn't even a fraction of one percent of the nation's arts economy anymore. And that's without even considering the long-term boom of the broader "creative sector" such as the film and TV worlds.
But wait: if the total amount of money in the arts sector (that demand curve) has been rising then why do so few artists earn a living wage? Because the supply curve (of artists) has been rising even faster. Check out the stats on annual graduations from music, theater and dance conservatories. The number of arts organizations keeps rising which means that the growing contributed-support pot gets divvied up more. The number of Americans reporting on their tax returns cash income as artists double in a single generation (1970 to 1990). As a society we finished eliminating social stigmas on the pursuit of a life as an artist -- there are Evangelical musical-theater camps now! -- and, it turns out, liberated perhaps more than anticipated.
Also technology keeps tearing down barriers to entry, e.g. I just recorded, in a studio, an album with my band for a total cost that in real dollars wouldn't even have bought the snacks for a proper recording session in 1980 or 1960. Make something cheaper and cheaper to attempt and, it turns out, more and more people will put in the time and effort to attempt it. And some fraction of them will turn out to be genuinely good enough to pull it off.
Basically no matter how fast the demand for artistic performance has grown and is growing, the supply of artists has grown more. And what is supply from this angle is demand from another: the demand for a life as an artist. We have fully liberated that demand: now, for the first time in the history of Western civilization, essentially every person who possesses the raw talent to potentially become a professional-caliber performing artists attempts to do so. That's a genie which won't go back into the bottle willingly: are you willing to subtract yourself from that pool? I'm sure not.
Unless we're willing to put back up some of the barriers which had always artificially reduced the supply of professional-caliber artists [go back to viewing actresses and actors as just one step above prostitutes and pimps, get the aspiration to sing or dance for fame and fortune back off of our public airwaves, cut the number of conservatories back to 1950s levels, institute genuine hard artist guilds, etc], then this is the reality going forward. We're not as a society going to do any of those things, so the demand for life as an artist will keep rising faster than the demand for art. Or, put the other way, the supply of terrific and/or amazing artists will keep rising faster than the supply of the society's interest in them. Neither is actually falling or likely to anytime soon, but one is rising faster. That's a broad reality which all the well-meaning policy rhetoric in the world can't overcome."
Those are public performance royalties for composers and publishers. That's not the same thing as royalties that go to the performers of the recordings. Recording artists don't get any money for terrestrial radio plays (unless they are also the owners of the composition).
You honestly view that as "hijacking" the english language?
This is how English works. Words adapt over time. Nuances emerge between words that were once synonymous, or disappear between words that were once distinct. And the innovation/invention distinction is a very useful one that a lot of people are very familiar with, and one which is becoming increasingly more mainstream as the world of technology and economics from which it emerges becomes increasingly mainstream.
There is almost no such thing as a word whose definition is "universally accepted"
And hey, if you want to go even further, the Latin root inventio means a finding or discovery, while innovatio means to renew, restore or change. So aren't the people who believe they have the same meaning the ones getting it wrong?
I'm not sure people will view it that way, though. At first, lower premiums for autonomous cars will be seen as a nice way to save some money — but as they become more common and more of the norm, that perception will likely flip, and the cost of insuring a human driver will seem prohibitive and unnecessary. All it will likely take is the first generation of parents who are buying & insuring a car for their kids (or at least subsidizing all those costs for them) when autonomous cars are an option, and I think we'll see the viewpoint start shifting pretty rapidly.
What about it? We considered trying to relaunch it as part of Copia, but decided not to split our focus. There's no denying that it was something of a failure. Thankfully, Copia's launch has been much more successful! You can check out videos of our well-attended two-day inaugural summit in March, if you like.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Do you really think that people here are concerned about being able to download and share The Wizard Of Oz, not about the many potentially awesome reimaginings of it that could still happen?
This was pretty much confirmed when the discussion started focusing on how you can't really do anything with public domain anyway
Not sure what you mean here. That discussion started not as something people are accepting -- but as yet another thing that needs to be fixed about copyright law. You're focusing solely on the question of reducing copyright terms and we're talking about so much more than that - such as strengthening the sanctity of the public domain, clamping down on attempts to effectively re-copyright it, drastically strengthening fair use and transformative work defences when it comes to stuff that *isn't* in the public domain, adopting more compulsory licensing schemes to remove most/all issues of "permission" from copyright, and still more beyond...
Settle down, I realize that in this particular case the behaviour of the other studio was fairly egregious.
There's also Disney and Warner Bros. fighting over Wizard of Oz trademarks, with the latter especially aggressively opposing things at the trademark office (which, again I realize, is about opposing new trademarks, not trying to block creation of the works).
While your very narrowly defined statement -- that there are no instances of someone blocking a movie based entirely on a trademark claim -- appears true, the extrapolation that as such trademark represents no threat and creators don't have anything to worry about (or to spend money and time preparing for / thinking about / defending against) is not.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
What do you want to do with public domain works?
Enjoy them, remix them, distribute them, derive things from them, mash them together, update them, present them in new lights, produce the next Apocalypse Now. Y'know, the stuff you're allowed to do with public domain works. Why, what do you want to do with them?