Communications standards have to be open. Everyone understands that. It applies to everything: DSL, IP, CCS#7, Morse code....
Generally, the people who create them are employed by organisations whose income does not depend on the standard itself, but by the sale of some other product or service that the existence of the standard enables.
In the case of Nathaniel Borenstein, I believe he was employed by Bell Labs.
In the case of Tim Berners-Lee, he was employed by CERN, so his income did not depend on WWW, and CERN's income depends on scientific success which is assisted by easier sharing of info between scientists.
I can see there are lots of problems with the patent system, but I am not sure that this example undermines the value of patents in other cases, where the inventor's income is actually dependent on the sale of the invention.
Of course it is not. However that does not mean that violating it should not be illegal. Lots of things that are not stealing physical objects are illegal: fraud, false advertising, discrimination....
I don't see why people seem to get so het up about this point, as to me it does not affect the basic issue, which is whether copyright is valuable in enabling the market to operate the way we want it to.
There is a lot of muddled thinking here. The cost of a book, print etc always reflected two components: the cost of the physical copy, and a payment to the originator. That payment represents an award for creating the material and an inducement to create more. There is no reason for the payment to the originator to become zero just because the cost of the physical copy becomes zero.
Before we accept that 'sharing' really is inevitable we should consider if that is what we really want. We do not have to accept things just because they are technically possible. Technically I could drive my car at 135 mph, or stab a passer-by in the street. However there are laws against these actions that are generally accepted and obeyed.
I have seen no attempt to show that it is technically impossible to prevent sharing, just a lot of moaning about the methods that have been tried.
For hundreds of years, content creators have been paid by their customers for the right to have a copy of their work. This seems a very well accepted and direct way of rewarding them in proportion to how many people value the work, and by how much. The principle of a purchaser re-basing the copy for their own use has been accepted since the advent of VCRs. However, the offering a copy of the work to World+Dog for free, against the wishes of the creator, is theft of the creator's ability to earn a living. 'Alternative Business Models' is nothing but a truism - if piracy/sharing is rife and accepted, then there is no alternative. But why should we accept the destruction of a perfectly good business model - the selling of copies? 'Alternative Business Models' may be possible for Rock Musicians, but what about Novelists, poets, artists, protographers, journalists...?
Rather that criticise all attempts to police the violation of copyright, why not have some constructive suggestions? It cannot be beyond the wit of man, even in the age of the Internet.
Won't metering get us out of the stupid situation that, unlike any other business, the suppliers physically prevent you from using more of their product or charge you at a higher rate when you use more? With the ability to charge for data, caps would make no sense, and high volume users should get a discount.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Ian Kerr.
Berners Lee
Communications standards have to be open. Everyone understands that. It applies to everything: DSL, IP, CCS#7, Morse code....
Generally, the people who create them are employed by organisations whose income does not depend on the standard itself, but by the sale of some other product or service that the existence of the standard enables.
In the case of Nathaniel Borenstein, I believe he was employed by Bell Labs.
In the case of Tim Berners-Lee, he was employed by CERN, so his income did not depend on WWW, and CERN's income depends on scientific success which is assisted by easier sharing of info between scientists.
I can see there are lots of problems with the patent system, but I am not sure that this example undermines the value of patents in other cases, where the inventor's income is actually dependent on the sale of the invention.
Copyright is not property
Of course it is not. However that does not mean that violating it should not be illegal. Lots of things that are not stealing physical objects are illegal: fraud, false advertising, discrimination....
I don't see why people seem to get so het up about this point, as to me it does not affect the basic issue, which is whether copyright is valuable in enabling the market to operate the way we want it to.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Where do you stand?
There is a lot of muddled thinking here. The cost of a book, print etc always reflected two components: the cost of the physical copy, and a payment to the originator. That payment represents an award for creating the material and an inducement to create more. There is no reason for the payment to the originator to become zero just because the cost of the physical copy becomes zero.
Before we accept that 'sharing' really is inevitable we should consider if that is what we really want. We do not have to accept things just because they are technically possible. Technically I could drive my car at 135 mph, or stab a passer-by in the street. However there are laws against these actions that are generally accepted and obeyed.
I have seen no attempt to show that it is technically impossible to prevent sharing, just a lot of moaning about the methods that have been tried.
Re: Re: Where do you stand?
For hundreds of years, content creators have been paid by their customers for the right to have a copy of their work. This seems a very well accepted and direct way of rewarding them in proportion to how many people value the work, and by how much. The principle of a purchaser re-basing the copy for their own use has been accepted since the advent of VCRs. However, the offering a copy of the work to World+Dog for free, against the wishes of the creator, is theft of the creator's ability to earn a living. 'Alternative Business Models' is nothing but a truism - if piracy/sharing is rife and accepted, then there is no alternative. But why should we accept the destruction of a perfectly good business model - the selling of copies? 'Alternative Business Models' may be possible for Rock Musicians, but what about Novelists, poets, artists, protographers, journalists...?
Rather that criticise all attempts to police the violation of copyright, why not have some constructive suggestions? It cannot be beyond the wit of man, even in the age of the Internet.
Where do you stand?
Can I take it from this that, if Copyright was reduced to a reasonable term, Techdirt would accept that it is right and agree that piracy is wrong?
Metering
Won't metering get us out of the stupid situation that, unlike any other business, the suppliers physically prevent you from using more of their product or charge you at a higher rate when you use more? With the ability to charge for data, caps would make no sense, and high volume users should get a discount.