Crosbie Fitch 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (937) comment rss

  • On the post: Creative Commons' Branding Confusion

    Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2010 @ 03:30pm

    Cultural diversity

    Copyleft licensing worked for software primarily because:

    • Licensing legalese can be as convoluted as software (though law!=logic) and coders could discern the copyleft principle.
      Software is fundamentally derivative ? if the original author isn?t modifying it, another one is.

    • For the rest of culture, artists and the artistic process are often a little bit more organic in nature.

    Until copyright (and patent) is abolished there are only those two things the artist can do: attach something to the art that persuades the recipient they won?t end up in jail like Emmanuel Nimley if they point their iPhone at it, and ideally make it clear that this isn?t a one-off act of mercenary expediency, that the artist is indeed committed to liberating their audience (will neither sue, nor enable them to be sued, for taking liberties prohibited by copyright).

    This is one of the reasons why I created The Free Culture Logo ? a way of indicating that a work of art was ?free culture? ? no ifs or buts. Moreover, even the logo itself is free culture, just an ideogram free to evolve to the taste of each artist that touched it. The fclogo site is even a wiki. Just how free can you get?

  • On the post: Pilot Not Allowed Through Security After He Refuses 'Naked' Backscatter Scan

    Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 20 Oct, 2010 @ 11:20am

    Alan Sillitoe

    Alan Sillitoe had a pretty good grasp of the distinction between effective security measures and theatre (aka totalitarian repression). I recommend Travels in Nihilon if you want your eyes opened.

  • On the post: Pilot Not Allowed Through Security After He Refuses 'Naked' Backscatter Scan

    Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 20 Oct, 2010 @ 09:18am

    Ridiculous

    The ridiculous thing about it all is that the 9/11 'pilots' would have passed through fine. They weren't carrying guns or explosives now were they? If they took the effort to learn to fly jets they would have taken the effort to learn karate (if box cutters had been prohibited), or would have purchased a nice glass bottle of Whisky in the airport.

    The best thing to do is to put everyone's luggage on a robot controlled plane, and all the people on another, which is configured as a nudist sauna/massage parlour.

  • On the post: Death Of ACTA

    Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 20 Oct, 2010 @ 02:58am

    How long must we sing this song?

    Another song Dan Bull might consider there's a necessity for, is a "Free Emmanuel Nimley!" song - he's currently doing 6 months in prison for pointing his iPhone at a cinema screen.

    It's one thing to have your PC confiscated, or your cultural liberty constrained, but it's far more serious to lose your liberty entirely. Ask Nelson Mandela.

  • On the post: Guy Who Runs Anti-Ryanair Website Forced To Hand Over The Domain Because He Made A Little Money

    Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 18 Oct, 2010 @ 05:03am

    TechDirt sucks?

    How about creating a sister site: techdirtsucks.com

    This is filled to the brim with affiliate advertising, etc.

    Visitors to the site can register.

    Each month the entire ad revenue is directed to a random registrant.

    It could also publish comments from people (corporate shills) who hate TechDirt.

    I think TechDirt could withstand this, eh? ;-)

  • On the post: More Comics About Copyright

    Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 08 Oct, 2010 @ 08:47am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Balance? I don't see any possible balance.

    Contract is about exchange, not about binding another to silence or non-disclosure.

    One needs law to secure what we can all recognise as an author's exclusive right to their writings - not a monopoly.

    So, yes, intellectual work must be properly and rightly recognised as intellectual property - in order that it can be exchanged (for money).

    What has to disappear is the 18th century infatuation that a reproduction monopoly is also deserved.

    Once intellectual works are properly recognised as property, contract governs their exchange (without impinging upon anyone's rights, free speech, etc.). So intellectual property law is still needed, even if copyright is abolished. This is why I have arguments with those who would not only abolish copyright and patent, but would also argue against the recognition of intellectual property entirely (the argument that if a burglar steals a copy of your work, or a client rejects your work, but has retained a copy, you haven't lost anything so have no grievance).

  • On the post: More Comics About Copyright

    Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 07 Oct, 2010 @ 09:53am

    Re: Discussion of the NC issue elsewhere

    Sorry, the link to the artist's discussion is here: http://www.p2pnet.net/story/44401#comments

  • On the post: More Comics About Copyright

    Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 07 Oct, 2010 @ 08:59am

    Re:

    Have you heard of Righthaven?

    You do realise that fair use is something a judge decides as a valid defence in court - after the litigation, after you've refused to settle, after you've appointed expensive lawyers to represent you in court, after it has been demonstrated that infringement has indeed occurred, that you are the infringer, etc.

  • On the post: As Was Predicted, Libya Is Shutting Down Some .ly Domains With No Notice

    Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 07 Oct, 2010 @ 08:24am

    Re: Re: Re:

    ACTA may bring about similar legislation (DEAct, HADOPI, etc.) based on the idea that a 'copyright' holder is god concerning a work they 'own'.

    They don't need any evidence, they just accuse anyone who offends them as an infringer (who is promptly disconnected from their ISP), and any website they don't like as promoting infringement (which is promptly censored).

    But, you're right. If you're really wealthy you might be able to afford to appeal the excommunication.

    Law should be based on the individual's natural rights, not privileges of immortal corporations nor commandments of supernatural beings.

  • On the post: More Comics About Copyright

    Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 07 Oct, 2010 @ 08:14am

    Discussion of the NC issue elsewhere

    I blogged this here: Hard about for Hårda Bud, Nina Paley!.

    It was also blogged at p2pnet here: Jolly Roger: copyright in cyberspace.

    Note that the artist discusses the use of CC-NC in the comments.

  • On the post: ACTA Analysis: You Can't Craft A Reasonable Agreement When You Leave Out Stakeholders

    Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 06 Oct, 2010 @ 01:50pm

    Re: Bait & Switch

    I mean the process remains a secret one even if drafts are leaked/released prior to the final/ratified agreement - which is of course the critical one.

  • On the post: ACTA Analysis: You Can't Craft A Reasonable Agreement When You Leave Out Stakeholders

    Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 06 Oct, 2010 @ 01:33pm

    Bait & Switch

    You do realise that this is secret?

    It's not their fault if you drop your guard in a sigh of relief at how 'mild' this leak is, and then the final draft to be 'ratified' (as if a constitution in the people's interest) is the most draconian yet.

  • On the post: Advertisers Bailing On Murdoch's Paywalls As The Company Won't Reveal How Many People See Ads

    Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 06 Oct, 2010 @ 05:45am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sorry: Murdoch can probably sustain losses indefinitely.

    Quite, this is why the recording industry wants to charge radios for playing their music, whilst at the same time wanting them played.

    If you get to charge a fee, you get to reduce or waive it. You also get to own the channel, i.e. no-one else can afford the fees apart from radio stations owned by those who get to charge it.

    Same thing works for Media moguls and the ISPs they own. They may well end up being the only ones who own ISPs able to afford the compulsory license fees.

    Draconian copyright enforcement is simply softening the public up so they'll beg for an ISP levy.

    The state lets it happen because they fancy augmenting the levy with a tax (and enjoying the ability to censor/exclude anyone from the Internet they don't like).

  • On the post: Advertisers Bailing On Murdoch's Paywalls As The Company Won't Reveal How Many People See Ads

    Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 05 Oct, 2010 @ 11:52pm

    Re: Re: Re: Sorry: Murdoch can probably sustain losses indefinitely.

    Of course he knows what he's doing.

    He's seen what the recording industry is up to (lobbying for an ISP levy), so he's doing the same: demonstrating that:
    1) News-sharing scum are ruining his business
    2) There is no possible solution viz 'paywalls don't work'
    3) He'll quietly poo-poo any idea of a free market in news
    4) He needs an ISP levy to compensate for loss of monopoly
    5) Profit!

    You can't ask for a levy unless you've been able to kid the public (& their politicians) that it's their fault your business has failed.

    Effectively shuttering online newspapers, that weren't earning much anyway, is not expensive if you're going to end up with a levy at the end of it. Remember, a levy is just a cash handout. You don't even have to do any work for it. You just have to show that people are copying your news (or olds) stories contrary to an 18th century privilege called copyright that granted a reproduction monopoly to the press*.

    * No-one ever says "Er, hang on? Why did anyone think it was a good idea to sacrifice the public's liberty to share news with each other in order to enrich the press?". The answer is it fitted the desires of the state to suppress sedition (which a beholden press would do). ACTA is a reprise.

  • On the post: Advertisers Bailing On Murdoch's Paywalls As The Company Won't Reveal How Many People See Ads

    Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 05 Oct, 2010 @ 03:23pm

    We could give him some advice

    He could always bung some dosh our way...

  • On the post: Washington DC Pulls Down Internet Voting Trial After Hackers Program It To Play UMich Fight Song

    Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 05 Oct, 2010 @ 12:10pm

    Re: Re: Re: Possible, but intolerable

    The state loves e-voting precisely because it's so amenable to their control (fixing/monitoring).

    If anything the only thing spurring the people's development of a secure/save system is to preclude the state using its unsafe/insecure system.

    A secure/safe e-voting system will be transparent, copyleft, distributed/p2p, and usable at any web browser. Moreover, everyone will be able to count the votes (past a specific time) and everyone will be able to assure themselves that their vote was counted. Among many other things necessary for safety/security, etc.

    A system that uses black box e-voting machines is not the voting system you're looking for.

  • On the post: Washington DC Pulls Down Internet Voting Trial After Hackers Program It To Play UMich Fight Song

    Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 05 Oct, 2010 @ 11:31am

    Re: Possible, but intolerable

    Some commenters understood my comment quite sufficiently.

    A voting system that is secure from tampering/fixing/tracing is not really desired by the state. They just want a system that is secure from everyone APART from a few 'authorities' trusted by the state.

    A voting system that is safe for the voter (from persecution/coercion) means the voter is safe from the government. No, the state just wants a system that the voter will feel safe using.

    A voting system that is transparently secure, safe and assured to be a true vote of the participants is dangerous to any state that would remain in power.

    However, a voting system that is so efficient/economic it can be used not just to elect the people's representatives, but also to conduct instant referenda on almost any issue or decision risks descending government into mobocracy/demagoguery rather than scrupulous protection of individuals' natural rights.

    It's one thing to get a tamper-free multiple choice answer from the populace. It's another thing to make intelligent and conscientious decisions regarding use of tax and making of ethical laws.

    It's quite easy to rouse the mob into executing anyone suspected of paedophilia, witchcraft, terrorism, communism, Judaism, file sharing, etc. Not least, invading any country they fancy. And if the mob don't fancy invading anyone, explode a bomb somewhere and blame it on the enemy.

    Even given perfect voting technology, big problems remain.

  • On the post: Washington DC Pulls Down Internet Voting Trial After Hackers Program It To Play UMich Fight Song

    Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 05 Oct, 2010 @ 10:02am

    Possible, but intolerable

    It is possible to develop a "secure and safe way to conduct voting over the internet".

    Unfortunately, no government would permit such a 'dangerous' system to get started, let alone exist.

  • On the post: How Many Logical Fallacies Can You Make In A Single Column Defending A Paywall?

    Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 05 Oct, 2010 @ 08:02am

    Information has no brain with which to want

    It is not information but people who wish to be free - free to share the news, disseminate copies, abridge, extend, include, and present it in their own way.

    That's natural.

    What's unnatural is an 18th century privilege that prohibits people from doing so.

    Given the Internet has rendered copyright's prohibition ineffective (it was always an unnatural and unethical anachronism), it's not surprising if newspapers keep thinking that if copies are free their journalism cannot be sold.

    Au contraire, the journalism can be sold. What can't be sold are digital copies of it (well, not economically).

    There is an opposite and far superior model to the paywall, and this is the publication model. Instead of charging people to come across the paywall to read the news, you charge them to allow the news to come across the paywall to the public. In other words you invite those who want the journalists to work, to sponsor the production and publication of their work. The benefit is, by being freely copyable it acts as its own promotion.

    The newspapers have got the paywall completely back to front, but then that's copyright inculcated anal retentiveness for you.

  • On the post: Supreme Court Agrees To See Whether Or Not AT&T Has 'Personal Privacy' Rights

    Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 29 Sep, 2010 @ 12:36pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No shame

    Yup, I should have preceded it with something clarifying my agreement.

Next >>