Posts by jon_knox
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
This lecture (also from Nat'l radio) regarding "Pardise Lost" and Evolution is one of the better Darwin & Evolution pieces that I have come across in years.
-
Here's another interesting Lessig article from Wired a couple of years back, but relevant in NZ because of the Freebeer launch from Artspace this week.
-
Have just watched the Lessig at TED link that Jason provided way up-thread.
That presentation is even more compelling/coherent around the need for change, despite similarities with the Auckland presentation....and provides a bit more insight regarding why Prof Lessig is heading off to deal with the corrupting of Congress.
-
Another Kim Hill interview on the subject of Water Resourcing, off topic, but I think there are some pretty interesting (structural) parallels, such as the need for an integrated approach.
I probably need to listen to Kim's interview of Prof Lessig again, but I wish she'd asked some probing questions regarding the range of alternatives to the current copyright situation.
-
this is wrong.
we all benefit from ip law because we all can create ip and then benefit from it.hmmm...perhaps what you read, is different from what I wrote, perhaps I need to add emphasis. Perhaps sadly, we don't all derive benefit as creators of IP as creators of IP.
Just because we have the option of creating IP, doesn't mean that people are doing it and if they are creating IP, many are not seeking protection. Recall that most output is of little realised commercial value, despite or perhaps regardless of other value.
If you think your shiz is worth protecting, protect it, don't pass the burden of responsiblity on to me, coz that seems more than a tad lazy...And if the protection you choose to pay for results in increasingly alienating you from your fan base, that value is called a lesson.
-
That's like saying you can build a house but if you let the location of that house out then you are responsible for people who rob it.
Locks on doors, or perhaps just doors is perhaps a better analogy. Or how about the farmer's fence around the stock, or should society pay also pay for that?
Property rights & the rule of law are a citizen thing, we all benefit from them and that's why I'd suggest our taxes pay to uphold them. Perhaps sadly, we don't all derive benefit as creators of IP, which is why I'd suggest society justifies not using taxes to fund the activities of a smaller (albeit important) subset of society. Actually everybody needs doors and all stock need fences...people who've paid for doors and farmers who've paid for fences, reckon society owes you a refund for any unnecessary expenditure.
doesn't address their right to derive income
If you want to derive income from it, there is an option to allow you to protect your rights. If you don't want to protect your rights, including the right to derive income from a work, you don't have to pay. Seems quite simple.
Continue protection for as long as protection has been paid for.
I don't see why "forever" should be used, as there has been no consideration provided by the creative for the term being forever. Lock & key will last for a good long time, forever if you want to keep upgrading the lock & key.Part of me is loathe to admit, that there is an elegance of an opt-in model that the ISP responsibilities type solution just fails to have....though I think this is more regarding being an advocate for a user pays model, well that's what I've labelled in several comments above.
-
I'm not entirely sure that an alternative to the existing copyright needs a user-pays option, but it kinda seems like a handy option/detail if the quotation for the modern age type scenario is to be considered.
So having now identified that an opt-in scenario is an alternative to the current opt-out (well opt-out by choosing not to enforce infringement) scenario, are there other altenratives such as...ah-um hybrids, or should we attempt to consider Fair Use?
-
his stock.
er..sorry I did mean "his/her stock".
-
the term remixing to refer to recombining various media like doing a silly dance to a song and putting it on you tube
gee, lets hope this is not the high water mark for the peak of civilisation in our time. Slick & cool presentation though it was, but should we be really signing up for Lessig's "quotation for the modern age" based on a few amusing examples?
why are you paying for something that should be inherently yours to do what you want with?
keep it, leave it to your family, sell it.You have all those rights, so long as you chose not to share it/break the monopoly of the physical....under what I'd call the lock & key approach.
Just because a creative chooses to share their work, does that mean that they should reasonably expect enforcement of rights without direct cost?
Break the monopoly of the physical at your own risk. If you do want additional rights, pay for them and ensure that the little symbol indicating you've paid the priviledge of enforcing your rights is used on all occassions.....(that's something I don't really understand about the existing copyright symbol usage, if all works inherently have copyright, why do we need the little symbol?)
who gets the money?
Serivces to assist creatives with enforcement get the money, but mainly the admin, invoicing & accounts receivable functions of the service provider. The more you pay, the more enforcement you get. When you stop paying for a particular work, so does your ability to use the services for that work (or those works).
sure, if you want to pay for your right to not be mugged or burgled
We do pay for these already. If you're not happy with the level of service provided by the state scheme, you can pay for additional services.
Under a user-pays system we move away from everything having rights, to only those works that the creators themselves deem sufficently important to protect, or to continue protecting.
Consider those rights to be like a fence, like the one that a farmer maintains around his stock. There is little doubt that the stock belongs to the farmer, but yet the farmer still has to pay to build & maintain the fence.
-
Now that is a can of worms that I don't want to go near, but why not turn the responsibility for determining which works to protect and which to allow the right to protection to be avoided, or for the right to protection to lapse (and perhaps this needs to also allow for the situation where a work created for non-commercial reasons acquires (sudden) commercial value)...again the "user-pays" idea begins to loom large in my mind.
Sorry I meant indicate above that if anyone should be determining which works should be protected, then it should be the artist making that determination, not anyone else....Then back-up that desire for protection with some con$ideration. (gee I am quite beginning to enjoy this new brush/philosophy).