Shared publicly  - 
Where in the past sharing came at a price as the tools needed to reproduce books, music, movies were scarce and expensive, thus creating a whole industry and set of laws surrounding this pay-to-share model, we are now facing a digital world where sharing effectively is free of transaction costs, thus questioning the industry and its surroundling laws. That's the short form. Now start thinking about the consequences.

The "old" industry will fight hard to defend its privileges. The "new" way will be marginalised, criminalised and painted as a fundamental problem where in reality the fundaments o fthe "old" system simply stop to exist.

Whose side are you on? Yesterday we saw the energy of the occupy movement, this fundamental feeling that something is wrong, directing itself towards a protest against SOPA/PIPA whose momentum was unexpected - but a true indication of the shapes of things to come.

Policy makers will now have to decide who they fight for. Citizens or corporations. Freedom to share and tinker or criminalising their very own people. I know it will be a tough decision. But we should not hide nor feel discriminated. Let's have a fair, open and transparent discussion about the future (and th efundamental question if there is a future) for the current "intellectual property" system.

I had to get this out of my head. I am NOT a radical anti-ownership guy. I am NOT ant-patent nor anti-copyright. I do think however that the current system is getting closer to the beating a dead horse mantra and we need real change.

No flamewar, please. Share thi if you feel its worth it. Come up with good counter arguments and let's have a civilised discussion.
Andrew Bates's profile photoDanuel Emma keluo's profile photoJulian Aloofi's profile photoFabian Scherschel's profile photo
I am afraid that our lawmakers are not on the side of the citicens, and all possible lawmakers of the near future are on-track with the old priciples. Sometimes I wish we could just boot all current politicians (and their advisors) out and try a new set... without industrial payment...
+Jan Wildeboer, I have to differ here.
Let's start with where I actually agree: The "old" industry was built around the paradigm that physical media are hard to copy. Books, Film, analog audio media, printed / painted images are real world objects, the laws of trade are easily applied to them as they come in finite numbers.
Those physical objects, however, were not the product you were buying. The product was the content stored on those media, the music, the film, the story, whatever. The media, effectively, was a physical token of what was stored on it.
But: since media and content were in essence hard to separate, it didn't matter which is what. We bought LPs, CDs, DVDs, Videotapes, Books etc.
What the digital revolution has done is to create a clean format for the content alone. Gone is the physical token. The industry is fighting for a world where they can attach a token to a product that, otherwise, is infinite in number (digital copies, that is).
No matter if we're buying a song on vinyl, on CD or as a digital download, in each of these cases, the product is the song, the money we pay we pay for those who created and performed the song. For the consumer, the token is irrelevant, even hindering. For the seller, that's a different story.
If we all were perfect people, we would never strive to get something valuable for free, in an honour based society, we'd always pay the people who provide a service or a product to us. That is not the reality though, as my discussion with +Fabian Scherschel and +Andrew Bates here showed the other day, we have to accept that an honour based system doesn't work when scociety as a whole comes in. "Don't copy this floppy" didn't work 30 years ago, and it certainly hasn't worked for music and movies in the last 15 years.
So the real question, setting all black and white aside, is: how can we be fair to those who produce the music, movies, images and other arts we love, as well as to those who write the software we use and value, when physical tokens are no longer necessary and would actually be counter-productive in an increasingly mobile world.
The most successful answer so far came from Apple. It's an easy, backwards looking answer: create a new physical token. This new token is an iPod/iPad/iPhone and this is one reason why Apple is so jealously guarding it's closed ecosystem, because this closedness defines the token value. I don't accept this model since it effectively denies me ownership of both token and media. I would be much more in favour of a trust/honour based system but I doubt that, with the mindset we have overal, this can work today.

So it really doesn't come down to "who's on who's side" but to "(what) are we willing to pay for digital goods".
+Peter Jakobs Partly agree. But seeing the new paradigms from the old perspective doesn't really help. I guess we both agree.

So did we, the people, come up with new paradigms that are NOT based on old (and some of them obsolete) axioms? That's where my problem lies. IMHO we didn't.

The very short form is - in the past we needed a middle layer between creator/author and audience. It was a system of downstreaming content. That's why the middle layer could gather the powers it now has.

The true revolution of the digital age is that we now have at least th epossibility to change the pure downstream architecture to a feedback cycle. Where creator/authors and audience play different roles.

The middle layer, the filtering layer, the layer that decided which downstream connections are possible by printing one author but not the other, is partly being replaced with a neutral transport layer - the internet.

This fundamentally creates a different relationship between creator and user (I do not like the term consumer as it points in the wrong direction).

What tools are needed for this new relationship? What system can offer an incentive for these new feedback cycles? THAT's what we all feel is needed but at least I fail to see a working big bang solution ATM.

Do we need a disriuptive reboot? Can we create a migration path? Hrmpf. So many questions and I only had one coffee yet.
:-) I've had two, so I win!
Look at podcasting. How many podcasters are there? How many can make a living off it? How many regain their investment? We are, in essence, a society of freeriders and as long as we don't fix that, we will always need a system that actually enforces payment if we want payment.
There's a fallacy in your argument, +Peter Jakobs. Just because someone podcasts it doesn't mean there should be an automatic (monetary) reward. If you offer something on The Market, there is no obligation for compensation. That's just the way it is. And it is part of the problem. A better example is raising children. How many single moms have to work hard to be able to raise their children? Why is there no reward for this most important task itself? Etc.
+Peter Jakobs Not sure I agree abut the copying bit. A lot of these industries came about because it was expensive to make the originals, expensive to do the delivery logistics and expensive to do the promotional work. They also had a big rôle in picking the good stuff from the crud. Copying was one minor job.

All this is however going to be just a warm up for physical 3D copying. With a kinect and a 3D printer very low quality high cost object "piracy" is already possible.

3D print it ceases to be a collision between copyright and the people, it becomes a collision between patents, safety laws, firearm control, you name it and the people.

well, yes, most podcasts are offered for free, but they serve the task of showing a freerider's economy.

That is what I think needs to change. We cannot expect others to work for free just because some actually do.

Digital distribution has great promises as well as great risks. For music, it breaks up the old establishment of record companies and radio stations who decided who would become a "signed artist" and with that, almost automatically, economically successful.
Today, as we could see with the song "someone I used to know", there's the "official" original version and there is the version by "walk off the earth" which I personally like even more. The latter went viral for a few days, showing up four or five times a day in my timeline alone. I wonder, how many people actually bought the track, though. I liked it, I wanted to say thank you and therefore I bought it. Since they offered a honour based paymet (pay what you like but pay more than 99ct), I decided I'd pay 2,5EUR, because I can.
I don't believe that this is a scalable model, though, as freeriders and "Geiz ist Geil" folks are probably a majority. So what do we really want? The much debated "Kulturflatrate" (cultural flat rate)? We have that! It's called GEZ or GEMA or VG-Wort, and don't we all hate it?
+Alan Cox Yep. And while we used to call such thing progress and innovation, we now see almost every new thing as a threat, a risk, a danger, something wrong. The "Intellectual Property" systems are metastasing in every field and produce standstill, not progress. That's the truth we need to face.
+Alan Cox

I agree with your point in general, but I'm a bit skeptical about the economics of 3D printing: by the same argument FPGAs should be dominating today, right?

Instead they are very useful generic tools but still only a niche, where the cost of production either does not matter or where equivalent free market equivalents are way too overpriced.

I'd expect 3D printing to have a similar role: for niches where the inevitably higher cost of 3D printing (compared to mass production) plays a lesser role.
+Jan Wildeboer +Alan Cox don't throw out the child with the bath!
We need to be aware that we are subject to change ourselves. More and more people do create non-physical things as a result of their work. The notion of "intellectual property", albeit usually used with a negative connotation, is important for most of us. The licensing might be different, but whether it's the linux kernel or digital music, both are the result of intellectual or creative work and both are worthy of protection against unauthorized use.
+Jan Wildeboer


We should also realize that efforts like SOPA/PIPA are private taxes imposed on the paying majority, taxes we don't even get to vote on because they are "owned" by rent seekers.
+Ingo Molnar there are mayn products where the transport/packaging costs far outweigh the production costs already. Think of small plastic coat hangers etc. For all of these goods, decentralised 3D printing makes also economical sense. I own a 3D printer, a reprap Huxley. And it prints stuff I would otherwise have to buy in a shop - meaning driving there by car, buying stuff that is packaged in a lot of plastics, driving back home, unpacking, throwing away the packaging etc. If I reduce that cycle to downlaod-render-print it definitely saves money, resources and time. Lots of time.
oh, and don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that all is well with the way the system works today, I'm just suggesting that we must come up with a system that does honour intellectual property (or whatever non-loaded term you wish to use for the fruits of intellectual work that doesn't create physical results)
Podcasts are not a "freeride economy". If you think that, you're an idiot. TWiT now has a revenue of more than 4 Million dollars and all their stuff is CC licensed. It's a different business model and one that current stakeholders are unable to understand and unwilling to try which is why they will die. Look at CES: as soon as every car has Internet (3-4 years from now) radio will be dead. Same for newspapers, online publications are eating their lunch. You just need to be wiling to adopt new, scary business models.
+Peter Jakobs The "property" part is the problem. It is simply wrong. Why not call it what it is? Authorship rights. Copyright. Patent. Trademark. There is absolutely no need for the term "Intellectual Property". In the worl dof immaterial rights, physical property does NOT exist. So why pretending it would in some magical way?
+Jan Wildeboer


Could you estimate the percentage of revenue that 3D printing "redirects" today in your household (where the time and gas you save is obviously money too), and also give a (very rough) estimation of how high that percentage could realistically become in the (far) future?

(A very imprecise estimation would be ok too, I'm merely curious about actual everyday numbers/percentages today, and the ceiling.)
+Jan Wildeboer I'm fine with that, call it what you want, the term "ownership" has some advantages over the other terms, but technically, you're right. But in the end, the song remains the same: how do we build a society (not just a community as in the FOSS case) that values those rights and intrinsically protects them rather than exploiting the fact that there's no technical barrier?
+Peter Jakobs I'm not clear how sustainable it is - but many of these people are getting more than they would get from the music industry by the time the industry had taken it's very large cut.

The bigger problem is going to be supply and demand. Already farcebook is the largest photographic archive on the planet.

So what happens with say music. It seems to depend how much music there is out there that would end up on the net when every band stuck all their stuff on the internet. I am guessing that there is going to be a very very plentiful supply of reasonably good, but not brilliant music, and that oversupply will mean that only a small amount of really cool stuff has a real market value, as opposed to live performances.

Definitely still an improvement, with musicians able to do and share their own stuff, to work directly with fans and to make money efficiently and keep it all. No more having to choose between long binding music industry contracts and not being heard. So at the very least it takes back the musical printing press.

It's going to be pretty hard to dig out the good stuff, although the internet seems to manage with blogs ok.
+Jan Wildeboer , +Peter Jakobs

Let's call it what it really is: it's not property but private taxes imposed on us and on future generations, for decades and possibly centuries.

Do we want to give any entity so much undemocratic power over the future, in a democracy?
+Fabian Scherschel excuse me, but how's the TWIT business model new? It's advertizing driven radio. We've had that for a few moons afaik. Yes, it's more targeted than your run off the mill radio station, but it's still using "old business" money for advertizing revenue.
+Alan Cox I believe that Music is probably the field that will benefit the most. Rather than having to go through a record company, unsigned artists can now directly interact with their listeners, which will hopefully create islands of trust where a honour based system can work. They won't get so insanously rich as Michael Jackson or other top stars, but they should be able to make a living off their art.
There are other artists and content producers who will have a much harder time. Take photographers who's work is even easier to copy than a musicians. Are photographers no longer entitled to make a living? Or look at movie production that is usually very very expensive. How will we pay for that?
+Ingo Molnar 3D print is already cheaper per unit that some low volume processes, and vastly more configurable. It's very very dependant on the object material volume. Ie it's like printing - white paper is cheap, toner is owwww... except when printing in sugar or similar. For the model making I do we just crossed the line where low volume industrial resin was cheaper than 3D print. You can also do stuff in 3D print you can't do in other processes - eg you can print chains in one part without an assembly step.

The regulatory aspects of it are already becoming a concern. People have now 3D printed pretty much all of an AK47 except the barrel. We have a lot of law which is based upon 'you can't buy ....' and all of that law breaks down with 3D print.

(We had a fun discussion a long time back on this and the fascinating question 'If I throw a can of coke into a star trek replicator what are the legal and regulatory requirements')

+Peter Jakobs TWiT gives all of their stuff away under CC for free, that is completely new. It's also on demand. You are right, it's payed for by advertising which completely invalidates your point that it is freeride. It's no more freeride than broadcast TV is.
Interesting discussion here! There's only really one thing I'd like to add here...

I see a few people referencing the music industry as if it was something that was fair and honourable before the 'digital revolution' occurred. This is a complete fallacy.

The music industry is built on exploiting musician's abilities and skills for the profit of producers and label 'fat-cats'. There are many people that simply do not understand (and in many cases actually refuse to accept ) that if you are simply a singer, and you are signed to a record label, you actually receive the lowest royalties from sales possible. This is why TV shows like X-Factor and the like are so amusing to me - the amount of people that are under the false impression that they will become rich from winning such a contest is complete delusion!

Anyway, back to the whole digital revolution thing...As said above, the amount of money that a musician/singer gets from music sales is incredibly low (unless you handle the producer and engineer roles yourself, play all the instruments on the album, and compose the music yourself). This changes with digital distribution as has already been pointed out. No longer are you tethered to a legally binding contract with a label, you get to choose the method of distribution, and you get the best chunk of royalties from sales you're ever going to get. Of course though, this assumes that you are indeed handling all duties on the musical and production side of the tracks ;)

The argument that music 'piracy' is destroying the industry is also a fallacy, as it has been proven in studies that it actually leads to sales of music, and brings in larger crowds for live performances (which, incidentally, is where the real money is with the music industry and always has been).
+Andrew Bates is completely right. If you want to know how bad the music industry was even in the '60s read up on John Fogerty of CCR and what his erstwhile manager pulled on him.
+Andrew Bates much like the computer game industry. There is a reason that so much of the dynamism is in small Android/iphone products.

(Back in the late 80's I heard this marvellous description of a senior executive in the games industry 'He wanted to be in the music industry but had to pause for a moment before selling his grandmother')

The big games industry is an area I am glad I got out of before it turned completely evil. Now it seems to be half populated by straight out of university msc grads working insane hours for low real wages in terms of their skill level and clueless about their rights or what they could get elsewhere.
(Back in the late 80's I heard this marvellous description of a senior executive in the games industry 'He wanted to be in the music industry but had to pause for a moment before selling his grandmother')

This is amazing.
+Morgan Evans Oh dear, you're confusing copyright infringement with theft...

Not only that, but you're deluded by the very propaganda that the music industry is intending you to believe.

With regard to the comment about the economy and it's impact on musicians, I'll leave out my choice words on the lack of merit that music made for monetary reasons has.

Simply put, if you're making music in order to make money, you're not only naive, but also diluting an artform into a commodity product.
I believe it's misleading to point at the "fat cats" when we're talking about the fact that in a world where more and more products don't have a physical "token" attached to them needs to accept the fact that "digital goods" are just as valuable as physical goods and that taking them without permission amounts to the same thing as stealing a physical item. It may not be that way in the current legislations, but in essence, it's rather similar (and yes I know that this doesn't take away the original but it can reduce the trade value of the product significantly).

Call it theft, call it license violation, whatever. We need to create a society that accepts the fact that digital goods are not free to share just because they're digital.

And I believe I am preaching to the choir since we all accept the GPL on an honour based system and frown upon anyone who ignores it. We need that same stance towards people who ignore other licenses, free, free of charge or paid, no matter what the type of digital good is.
+Morgan Evans the real problem is to try to save an inadequate system on top of a fundamentally incompatible mechanism (the internet, digital data) and call the resulting failure piracy. It is a fundamental problem that cannot be solved with the existing mechanisms. So we either find new mechanisms or make the internet illegal. ATM it points to the latter with SOPA/PIPA and it is wrong IMHO.
+Peter Jakobs It's not misleading at all to point at 'fat-cats'. The music industry as we know it is based solely on exploiting musicians. This is a fact.

So what it seems to boil down to is - either you're supporting the fat-cats in their exploitation of musicians, or you're not familiar with how seedy the music industry actually is.
+Andrew Bates I'm not (only) talking about the MI. I'm talking about a system where we all produce digital goods as a result of our work. I don't want revenge from the MI for all the bad things they did in the past, I want a world that values the fact that if you write a book, take a photo, record a song or create a movie, the value of the result doesn't depend on the physical representation.
+Peter Jakobs I understand (and agree) with your main point. But your last comment directly referenced my own comment, which was pertinent to the music industry.

We're in a very interesting time period at the moment, one where musicians finally have the tools they need to not only produce quality recordings from the comfort of their own bedrooms (or even while on the train), but also have access to the most efficient delivery method ever conceived. The labels are shitting themselves because they are becoming increasingly irrelevant, and it's too late. The only thing that could even possibly keep the labels afloat in the years ahead is services such as Spotify, but Spotify is actually worse than music 'piracy' (for reasons that I won't go into here as I could end up making this post an essay!).

The music industry as we know it is hearing it's death knell.

As +Jan Wildeboer has already mentioned in his last comment, it seems that people keep trying to attach 'old-world' thinking and paradigms onto cyberspace and the two are mutually exclusive. They are incompatible.
+Morgan Evans I don't agree with piracy. But let's face it: it isn't a big problem for neither the music nor the movie industries, they are making loads of money. I would like to refer you to what +Tim O'Reilly said on the last TWiT. He can articulate it infinitely better than me...
+Fabian Scherschel th Mi is bad an making shitloads of money, therefore ignoring the license on their product is not an issue?
+Peter Jakobs I never said that. It is an issue, but a much smaller one than they make out to be. If it threatens anyone at all, it's the small, independent guys.
+Fabian Scherschel I think you'll find that the majority of independent musicians who understand the internet would welcome the exposure from music 'piracy', and would understand that those who copy and don't buy weren't customers in the first place.

As I've said before, studies have shown that music 'piracy' actually increases sales.
I'm talking of the people not even getting exposure because of the chilling effect that the RIAA puts on the whole Internet with the crap they pull.
+Fabian Scherschel we've had this before, I'm not going there again, just so much: this is bigger than just the music industry. It's true that some benefit from the exposure, but the lacking understanding of what is free to take and what isn't is threatening everybody who creates digital goods.
+Peter Jakobs As I have explained numerous times by now, you do not create digital "goods" that can be "pirated". The result of a creators work is a bunch of bits and bytes that happens to be copied all the time. From your text program or music program to a file, from a file to memory etc. Piracy is definitely not the adequate word and digital "goods" simply do not exist.
+Andrew Bates and I do so on purpose because once a digital good is used outside it legal realm, widely distributed without giving back to the creator, it significantly loses marketable value as people can,essentially, get it for free. And don't tell me peope who copy digital stuff for free would not have been potential customers in the first place. Why pay for what I can haz for free?
The other reason why I keep using terminology from the world of physical goods (take, steal, own) is this: we need a society that values digital goods as we value physical goods. If you find 50 unlocked bikes by a train station, you wouldn'd find it acceptable to take one. That's how we function as a society: we value property. We need to value digital property just the same way. Downplaying the issue does not help building a honour based system.
+Andrew Bates and I do so on purpose because once a digital good is used outside it legal realm, widely distributed without giving back to the creator, it significantly loses marketable value as people can,essentially, get it for free. And don't tell me peope who copy digital stuff for free would not have been potential customers in the first place. Why pay for what I can haz for free?
The other reason why I keep using terminology from the world of physical goods (take, steal, own) is this: we need a society that values digital goods as we value physical goods. If you find 50 unlocked bikes by a train station, you wouldn'd find it acceptable to take one. That's how we function as a society: we value property. We need to value digital property just the same way. Downplaying the issue does not help building a honour based system.
+Peter Jakobs I'm not downplaying anything. And you seem to be, at best, mildly confused about the realities of how things are, why they are the way they are, and why the internet and cyberspace is revolutionary.
I think it makes no sense to argue about terminology here, as I guess you all understand what +Peter Jakobs tried to say.
I like the analogy to property, as the point of copyright laws is to give authors cetain rights over the works they produce, and just because new technology makes it easy to ignore these rights doesn't mean these rights themselves are bad.

Also, I'd just like to quickly thank everyone for this open discussion, it really helps me to make my mind up about the topic.
+Jan Wildeboer come on, that's just like saying that music is just an assortment of ink blotches on five line paper. It is an absolute trueism but entirely useles. I know how digital information is stored (heck, in an other life I could read a ppp negotiation in hex representation) but that is just this: a representation! Most of us would be utterly incapable to recreate it without having the original. The media is just the carrier and as I said in my initial response, the main difference to old media is, that it cannot double as a
+Peter Jakobs It's the same in the publishing industry. You keep saying things are "threatened" without providing hard evidence. As far as I'm concerned, you're blindly parroting propaganda.
+Julian Aloofi Actually I wholeheartedly disagree. We have SOPA / PIPA because people don't know the specifics involved. The same applies here, especially when so many people are so quick to confuse copyright infringement with theft (and variations of that word).
+Andrew Bates today it seems to be you who is jumping to conclusions. Just because I do not agree with the way you (and +Fabian Scherschel ) put things doesn't mean that I don't understand things, I may just have come to a different conclusion because I have a different vantage point.
+Peter Jakobs If I'm jumping to conclusions it's because you're putting stepping stones to those conclusions.

"Why pay for what I can haz for free?" Is an example of how you totally do not get it.
+Peter Jakobs Then make an argument. Tell me exactly where those ominous lost sales are that are loosing content creators millions each month.
Folks, am I writing some weird chinese dialect or what?
I'll use simple words:
We need to create a society that respects the result of an artistic or creative process, regardless of the format it's presented in and complies to the license of the creator or his/her chosen intermediary. What's so difficult about this?
+Andrew Bates The general public uses the term theft because they apply certain principles of property to works of art, and theft is just normal terminology regarding property.
If you reject the idea of applying these principles to digital works, then I understand why you are rejecting the term, but then you also have to acknowledge that your understanding of what is just (in the specific area of digital works of art at least) differs from that of people using the property-related terminology (who are, by the way, in the majority).
+Peter Jakobs Are you insane? What else do you want? Gold Lambos for everyone? You've read too much Engels, man.... Oo
+Julian Aloofi The general public uses the term theft because they have no fucking clue what they are talking about and don't even care to think about it. Let alone do research.
I am with Tim O'Reilly on this and what he said on the last TWiT:

The old school content companies are so mortified of "pirates" that they lost what is important: first mover advantage. Their fear has made them fuck up. That's why they are loosing money. They are not serving their customers needs.
+Peter Jakobs There will always be people that, if the opportunity arises, will do what they can to get something without having to pay.

There is no way around this.

The only way to even slightly mitigate this is to provide more value for paying customers. Trent Reznor figured this out when he went rogue.

+Julian Aloofi as +Fabian Scherschel has just eloquently put, the general public are morons. That being said, this is why we have things such as Spotify and Netflix and LoveFilm.
Or to put it this way: In a world where I go to YouTube to play a song that I actually own on a CD, a DVD and a Bluray, not to be a pirate or evil, but because it is easier, something is wrong. And that something is Sony Music Entertainment's business model. They are the ones breeding disrespect of their licensing models because these models suck and aren't timely anymore. They haven't been for decades and now the Internet is giving everyone the tool they need to fix this.
I think both of you are underestimating the general public. They are using the terminology that fits their way of thinking, and just because they want to apply certain aspects of physical property to works of art doesn't make them morons (as people tried to discuss before everyone started insulting each other)
+Fabian Scherschel You are correct. The business model of the big labels and rights holders is flawed and will go away. But this is a seperate issue from copyright.
+Julian Aloofi Doesn't change the fact that the general public are wrong.

Also, where are the insults? I see none in this thread.
+Andrew Bates I recall seing "idiot" and "moron" (although moron at least wasn't directed at participants of the discussion), should show up with Ctrl+F ;)
+Julian Aloofi The terminology they are using is wrong in a legal, semantic and structural sense. It fits their way of thinking alright but their way of thinking is wrong. It isn't stealing!!! If we can just make up terms, I'd say piracy is muder. Just because I believe that to be right doesn't mean it is or the use of the term should be defended.
+Fabian Scherschel Well, funny enough, that's just the type of respect for other people's work that makes free software successful, don't you agree?
+Julian Aloofi No, it's not. They perverted copyright to save their business model, you're not looking far enough into the future.
+Peter Jakobs Exactly. But the GPL gets violated all the time. I personally respect copyright but to think you'll achieve it that everyone will is just laughable.
+Fabian Scherschel Nobody is denying there is a legal, semantic or structural difference. The terminology is trying to reflect the expectations people have from copyright.

Anyway, I'll stop discussing with you now. As always, you are driving the discussion into some kind of heated off-topic nitpicking.
And don't worry, I don't feel insulted by you. :-)
Podcasts are not a "freeride economy". If you think that, you're an idiot.
That was before I even joined the discussion.
"you are driving the discussion into some kind of heated off-topic nitpicking."

prefaced with talk of insults being bandied around? ಠ_ಠ
+Peter Jakobs you don't want to arbitarily follow and honour copyright and copyright conditions. That's the big media world. The "it's mine, I control it, you obey" world.

We don't allow invalid contracts, and we should continue to drive things like DRM being used to make otherwise invalid things enforcable into oblivion.

Copyright is a deal between society and a creator to promote the creation of works. Copyright extremism isn't in the interest of society, so it should not be part of the deal.

The same goes for anything else content creators demand which isn't in the interest of society such as breaking the internet, destroying freedom of speech, locking people up for years for what are trivial offences and so on.

Note also it's supposed to be a deal between the creators and the society, not big media companies. They are an accidental adjunct and their existence and feelings should be irrelevant to the real question. If big media is not in the interest of the copyright deal between society and creators then tough, they're obsolete.
+Alan Cox I couldn't agree more! Well put!
However, and I believe that's why I tend to get into those discussions, there's a different side to this:
(trying to avoid semantical points now)
In our outrage about the music and movie industrie trying desparately to rescue their business model with means that are fundamentally incompatible with the new model we consume those media.
As I said way up there somewhere, the old model of media distribution was one where there was a physical token that was hard attached to the media. A CD, a DVD, a book, you name it. Buying the contents of a book meant buying the book, and as +Jan Wildeboer correctly said in his initial post, the difficulties of copying such a physical representation of the content was a naturally limiting factor for non-authorized reproduction.
This is no more.
BUT, and that's my point:
It's not only the "fat cats" who suffer.
I actually agree that musicians probably have the best model to leverage the change the internet brought. Other artists, like photographers, still face challenges. It's not the "fat cats" I defend in their struggle to control their digital goods, it's the small guys and gals, the single content producer!

So in a nutshell, here's what I say: when fighting SOPA, PIPA, the RIAA, the IFPI and who else they might be, I don't think it's fair game to fight copyright as a concept!

I think we all would love to see a world where information is free, no DRM, no useless tokens tying it to the physical world. But this requires that we honour the fact that it isn't free as in free lunch! Let's get rid of the intermediaries, great! I'm all for it! BUT: if we're directly dealing with Artists and Creators, they need to be able to trust their customers to be honest.

I believe that FOSS code isn't a bad model for that. If anyone in the FOSS community used GPLed code in a proprietary product, that would not just be prosecuted as a violation of the GPL but the person would also be frowned upon in a rather massive way. There's not just a legal barrier to doing this but also the risk of losing all respect from your peers. If we as a society would react the same to people who use cc or commercially licensed artwork outside the license, I think we would be in much better shape to foster the type of artistic contract we would want to see.

It's not just the "fat cats" who need to change (or go away)
+Peter Jakobs the two big challenges for photographers appear to be the fact that general quality material is available in such vast quantities it has no real value, and that the big media companies (press especially) like ripping them off and using the fact only rich people can afford to go to court to get away with it.

I agree we still need copyright but it needs to be back in balance, where the penalties are in proportion to other crime given how little damage it usually does, and where the restrictions of copyright are balanced by rights and a fair deal for both parties.

My guess is however that the copyright maximalists are going to trigger a copyright minimalist backlash and that may lead to a strong swing beyond the economic ideal when they finally take control of the state, which will happen - simply on demographic grounds.
+Alan Cox +Peter Jakobs quite some photographers I know are going back to using film and selling prints. And I like that :-) I also have recently bought a vinyl LP of a band that refuses to release MP3s or even CDs. The "old" system still works when using the old tools. This Retro Trend will get stronger, trust me.
+Jan Wildeboer errmm... admit defeat and go back to the old model? Just because we cannot fix the issue that digital good are essentially regarded as "free"?
Call me a notorious optimist, but I believe that people generally want to live in a respectful, trusting and honest society (unless they are politicians, record managers or insurance sales people)
Still saying there is no actual issue. You can hardly be an optimist if you call up scary spectres of danger for no reason all the time...
+Peter Jakobs not at all. All I am saying is that the old-school copyright and business models associated with it still work when you use the old-school tools. But trying to treat everything as a nail just because you have a hammer doesn't work.
+Jan Wildeboer but saying there can't be no nails anymore because you don't have a hammer isn't helping either ;-)
+Andrew Bates I like the video, but books are still a special case because the actual book has a much higher quality and value to the buyer than just another copy of the same music or movie (because reading books on PCs sucks).
+Julian Aloofi have you ever heard of eBooks? Also, I have had conversations with established musicians who have seen significant boosts to revenue from the effects of 'piracy'.
+Andrew Bates eBooks have much less utility to people than normal books (unless you own an eBook reader of course). I don't deny that piracy can have that effect on sales, but neither of us has enough data to back that up and make a general statement about it.
eBooks have much less utility to people than normal books (unless you own an eBook reader of course).

That sentence doesn't make any sense at all.
Reading eBooks sucks on PCs. Therefore, people will still have an incentive to buy real books. Music in digital form can be enjoyed on the PC, and easily copied onto music players, with the same quality and ease of a normal CD. I hope this explains the sentence :)
That's like saying books are useless to you if you don't have eyes.
No it isn't. Books have many features over eBooks. You can carry them around, and they are much easier on the eyes. Pirated music on the other hand has all the features of the music sold on CDs.
No it doesn't the quality is a lot lower. But that's beside the point. I'm not sure what the point is, actually.

"Hey, tires are absolutely useless to people without cars!"
I think you are misunderstanding me. And the quality differences between average- or good-quality MP3s/AACs/OGGs and the original music is not relevant for most people (they listen to lossy music most of the times anyway)
So there is a difference, then. Most people don't care about those dead-tree book features either. The only reason ebooks aren't more widespread i9s because they're new. Give it ten years, paper-based books will be almost gone by then.
Talk to me please,if I am not real please delete me out of your contact and do report me.
You have been reported. Now shut the fuck up or I'll block you, punk.
oh wow, this is hilarious! I wonder if they'll put this kind of software in the T-800
Do not insult people if you have not gotten evidence that they are fake.I am not fake please report me well I guest you are not business man.i am only canvassing for business.You may block or not please learn manner because everybody is not a spammer.Thanks for your little opportunity of talking with me.
+Danuel Emma keluo I will trade gold for the same value in Viagra. Trust me, I have several members of royal African families who can vouch for me.

+Fabian Scherschel People of course care for the features of dead-tree books. Infinite battery life, portability, easy on the eyes. I agree that eBook readers will replace normal books, because they also have these features. If your only displaying device was a tablet with 8 hours of battery life and an LCD display, eBooks would have no chance though.
Have you used a Kindle? The battery life is pretty much a non-issue. And it's a lot more portable than those real-life books. They weigh tons. The eyes thing is also pretty much solved with current e-ink.
+Fabian Scherschel That's what I'm saying! :)
I got a Kindle Keyboard for christmas by the way, a very nice device, am using it almost every day.
BTW, you can increase text size, which makes it a lot more accessible than books for people with low eyesight.
Add a comment...