Re: [DMCA_discuss] Re: Buy DVDs and games abroad - and break the law (fwd)
On Sunday, January 27, 2002, at 05:36 AM, Mikko Särelä wrote: On Sun, 27 Jan 2002, Jei wrote: Copyright holder in fact is the same as a publisher (in general terms), and is just a business entity, which tries to exploit author (it works even in those cases when author and publisher is the same person). Author, generally speaking, does not depend on businessman in order to create. Author is the only one,who needs protection. And the only danger he or she needs to be protected from is a publisher, which intents to still name. This talk about exploitation is purely Marxist dogma that has been refuted many times. What happens between the business man and the author is voluntary contract that benefits both. Not always. While I agree that exploitation is not the correct term, and that yes the contract between Publisher and Author is voluntary, there are certain areas where legislation has created functional monopolies whereby a creator has, if they wish their creation to be widely available, little or no choice but to turn over their copyrights to a small number of companies (I'm thinking of the music publishing biz. in the US.) But this is usually the government sticking it's nose into private dealings of individuals. -- Crypto is about a helluva lot more than just PGP and RSA...it's about building the I-beams and sheetrock that will allow robust structures to be built, it's about the railroad lines and power lines that will connect the structures, and it's about creating Galt's Gulch in cyberspace, where it belongs.--Tim May
Re: [DMCA_discuss] Re: Buy DVDs and games abroad - and break the law (fwd)
On Sun, 27 Jan 2002, [ISO-8859-1] Mikko Särelä wrote: This talk about exploitation is purely Marxist dogma that has been refuted many times. Where? I've certainly seen it claimed but never proven. What happens between the business man and the author is voluntary contract that benefits both. Ah, logical failure number one. IP isn't a two party system, it's a three party system. -- Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind. Bumper Sticker The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
Re: [DMCA_discuss] Re: Buy DVDs and games abroad - and break the law (fwd)
On Sun, 27 Nan 2002, Mikko Särelä wrote: On Sun, 27 Jan 2002, Jei wrote: Copyright holder in fact is the same as a publisher (in general terms), and is just a business entity, which tries to exploit author (it works even in those cases when author and publisher is the same person). Author, generally speaking, does not depend on businessman in order to create. Author is the only one,who needs protection. And the only danger he or she needs to be protected from is a publisher, which intents to still name. This talk about exploitation is purely Marxist dogma that has been refuted many times. What happens between the business man and the author is voluntary contract that benefits both. Naive authors often make those unwise voluntary contracts that benefit the businessman disproportionately. One of the most powerful forces, which encourage creativity is an audience. This means that ANY limitation on distribution of any idea, art work, invention, music, article, etc. causes damage to public. Who is this public you are talking about? You, me, everyone else. Last time I checked only individual people existed. There is no hive mind called public that can think, feel, benefit or be damaged. Right on the first two, wrong on the last two. But we must talk not only about protection of society. We must think how to enforce its development. And one easy answer for this question does exist: Eliminate any possible limitation on circulation of ideas, works of art, music, inventions, etc. I think you are on very dangerous waters here, when you claim that we must think how to enforce society's development. If I understand correctly, you are advocating government regulation that orders people to behave in certain way (in this case eliminating freedom of contract with regards to circulation of ideas, works, etc). You are not reading correctly. Eliminate any possible limitation... does not mean regulation, governmental or otherwise. It means limits on government and other dampers on creative processes that feed into society. The rest deleted.
Re: [DMCA_discuss] Re: Buy DVDs and games abroad - and break the law (fwd)
On Sun, 27 Jan 2002, [ISO-8859-1] Mikko Särelä wrote: If you read my message a little bit more downwards, you would have seen that I am all for getting rid of IP laws. shrug What I oppose is restrictions on the contracts that the business man, and the author may do as well as restrictions on what kinds of contracts the business man (be he same entity as author, or separate) may offer to customers. Let me say this again, the contract is between the author, business, and society at large. It *IS* a three party system. That society at large puts limits on that contract is perfectly acceptable, at least in theory. The ultimate goal of IP law is NOT to allow the author or the business to make money. It *IS* to add another technological survival strategy to our ever growing toolbox. In order to do that we must motivate people to perform in (hopefully) exceptional ways. The way we do that is through the concept of 'wealth'. The wealth and contract aren't the point, they're the mechanism. IP makes sense when the resources are hard to get or the time to market is exceptionaly long. It keeps somebody else from capitalizing on your prior efforts, the first come, first served principle. If you're number 2 or greater you need to pick a new problem. The ultimate problem with this approach is the psychological side of the agents. These rules all work perfectly fine if all is rational and 'fair'. But people aren't rational and there is no such thing as fair in most situations (eg Arrows). As a result it's always a question of how unfair is it. As a result special interest groups form and begin to manipulate the system. These groups focus both economic and political power, autocatalysis - monopolization. IP works fine as long as the population is small, like most great ideas that work writ small they don't scale well. There is an additional facet related to the technology itself. As the technology level increases the need for IP decreases. Why? Because the rate of technology change makes any given level obsolete and therefore any effort put into protecting it would be better spent going to the next step technology wise. Another factor is the resource collection and manufacturing aspect. IP makes sense when these jobs are 'hard', once they become 'easy' they are no longer a factor. Then the communications aspect argues that IP should be regional, not global. This allows society at large to develop a technology in parallel (at least economicaly speaking) provided it doesn't do things like world governments or global trade treaties. This complete breaks down the market from its natural state and imposes an artificial level of control. This actually decreases the stability of the system because of delays in the various feed-back and forward loops that form. 'Control' is a hopeless figment of mankinds greed. -- Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind. Bumper Sticker The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
Re: [DMCA_discuss] Re: Buy DVDs and games abroad - and break the law (fwd)
On Sun, 27 Jan 2002, [ISO-8859-1] Mikko Särelä wrote: Logical fallacy number one, there is no such thing as society at large. There are only individuals. If there are only individuals then you can't believe in 'economics' since you can't have a 'market' under your definition. -- Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind. Bumper Sticker The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
