|
DiegodelaPuenteSecondPaper 20 - 18 Mar 2012 - Main.DiegodelaPuente
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
READY FOR THIRD REVISION | | | In 1997 and in a more economic sense, Eric Schlachter described that the profit-maximizing price on the Internet will be where marginal revenue equals marginal cost, because intellectual property will be cross subsidized by other products in a manner sufficient to cover the fixed costs associated with intellectual property creation and distribution. Under this statement, Schlachter considered that a market price of zero for intellectual property can still create long-term economic profits by means of advertising, sales of upgrade models and sales of complementary technology. Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, also contribute to this economic discussion demonstrating potential profitability in an age of unrestricted copying. In their book, Against Intellectual Monopoly, they discuss several instances where the absence of copyright has not led to bankruptcy, and in the contrary some industries became profitable. For instance, consumers may often pay to get access to the breaking news stories first, even though the same will eventually be available to the public at a later time. Recently, Pandora, MOG and Spotify business models follow this path in the music industry, where users would listen for free, but they would have to submit to a few minutes of advertisement every hour.
| |
<
< | Good leaders should learn how to be governed by their citizens | >
> | Free market of ideas | | | | |
<
< | The Copyright discussion stated above is only one battle in the war that the Internet is facing against multiple rivals. The Internet has allowed freedom of expression in its maximum level, access to information and education, and eliminated the artificial boundaries that our ancestors created to divide us. Therefore, the Internet is changing the life of millions and particularly governments are not willing to lose the power and control that they have over their citizens; even traditional democratic governments are starting to be afraid of the Internet when they should not. The Internet is a tool that can help people and it's the people who will decide if it is useful or not, not the governments or other economic interests. Unfortunately, world wide governments are more willing to sacrifice their citizens freedom than their selfs to consolidate power; when their power comes from the wills of the ones they want to slave. Good leaders should learn how to be governed by their citizens and not the other way around. | >
> | The Copyright discussion stated above is only one battle in the war that the Internet is facing against multiple rivals that are trying to preserve their political and economic power. The Internet has been an unpredictable source of freedom for the people, allowing the exchange of ideas and expressions in its maximum level and eliminating artificial boundaries that our ancestors created to divide us. Therefore, the Internet is changing the way of thinking of millions and particularly governments are not willing to lose the power and control that they have gained over their citizens through the last centuries; even traditional democratic governments are starting to be afraid of the Internet when they should be the first to defend it. | | | | |
>
> | The Internet is allowing a world wide free market of ideas, strengthen individual autonomy and achieving extreme decentralization. Unfortunately, governments are willing to sacrifice their citizens' freedom to consolidate their power, when their power comes from the wills of the ones they want to slave. That is a battle
in which they are doomed to lose. The Internet is a tool that can help people in multiple ways that we cannot even imagine yet; and it's the people who must decide if it is useful or not, not the governments or other economic powers regarding their interests. New ways of government could be more useful than the current to foster innovation and new ways of freedom that were not conceived by our ancestors. | | |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. |
|
|
DiegodelaPuenteSecondPaper 19 - 08 Mar 2012 - Main.DiegodelaPuente
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| |
>
> | READY FOR THIRD REVISION | | | Copyright is no longer needed in the Internet society
-- By DiegodelaPuente - 15 Nov 2011 | | | In 1997 and in a more economic sense, Eric Schlachter described that the profit-maximizing price on the Internet will be where marginal revenue equals marginal cost, because intellectual property will be cross subsidized by other products in a manner sufficient to cover the fixed costs associated with intellectual property creation and distribution. Under this statement, Schlachter considered that a market price of zero for intellectual property can still create long-term economic profits by means of advertising, sales of upgrade models and sales of complementary technology. Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, also contribute to this economic discussion demonstrating potential profitability in an age of unrestricted copying. In their book, Against Intellectual Monopoly, they discuss several instances where the absence of copyright has not led to bankruptcy, and in the contrary some industries became profitable. For instance, consumers may often pay to get access to the breaking news stories first, even though the same will eventually be available to the public at a later time. Recently, Pandora, MOG and Spotify business models follow this path in the music industry, where users would listen for free, but they would have to submit to a few minutes of advertisement every hour.
| |
<
< | Good leaders know how to be governed
The Copyright discussion nowadays is only one little aspect of the actual battle that Internet has originated without intention. The Internet has changed millions lives and in a political sense, helping people to raise their voice against bad things that were commonly accepted.
Conclusion | >
> | Good leaders should learn how to be governed by their citizens | | | | |
<
< | We have demonstrated that Copyright is no longer needed in our actual Internet Society, where an accessible market is desired, but that unfortunately, content monopolies interest is far more important for the Government. Therefore, our obligation for the next years is to foster the elimination of intellectual monopoly, because a world without Copyright would offer the guarantee of a good income to the content industry, and would protect the public domain of knowledge and creativity. Consumers must not be forced to buy content, when the market is free, consumers will be willing to pay for value-aggregated services.
Open Source Information
- Eric Steven Raymond, The Cathedral and the Bazaar (http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/homesteading/cathedral-bazaar)
- What would Jesus hack? Cybertheology: Just how much does Christian doctrine have in common with the open-source software movement?, The Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/21527031)
Overall, I think you've done a pretty good job of expanding around the edges of the argument I offered in class. Ithiel de Sola Pool was indeed very perceptive very early, but he didn't follow up. Danny Colligan, on the other hand, has never in my recollection said anything I haven' said first. | >
> | The Copyright discussion stated above is only one battle in the war that the Internet is facing against multiple rivals. The Internet has allowed freedom of expression in its maximum level, access to information and education, and eliminated the artificial boundaries that our ancestors created to divide us. Therefore, the Internet is changing the life of millions and particularly governments are not willing to lose the power and control that they have over their citizens; even traditional democratic governments are starting to be afraid of the Internet when they should not. The Internet is a tool that can help people and it's the people who will decide if it is useful or not, not the governments or other economic interests. Unfortunately, world wide governments are more willing to sacrifice their citizens freedom than their selfs to consolidate power; when their power comes from the wills of the ones they want to slave. Good leaders should learn how to be governed by their citizens and not the other way around. | | | | |
<
< | But I think the most evident avenue to improvement of the essay is to
drop the never-accurate and now evidently imprecise analysis of the
significance of SOPA/PIPA. There's a purely US context, which has to
do with the shifting politics of Hollywood and the Net: this marks the
past-noonday start of Hollywood's decline as a political heavyweight.
Night will come on fast.
But the more important realities are international, having to do with
the overall confrontation now unrolling between states and
intermediaries: their tame telecomms, the North American data miners,
etc. In this confrontation, "copyright piracy" is just one among
many excuses for efforts to implant state power more deeply in the
Net, and by no means the most important. The real issue here, I
think, is what you want to build the second half of the paper on,
given that the US legislation is now revealed to be no part of the
major issue. | | |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. |
|
|
DiegodelaPuenteSecondPaper 18 - 05 Mar 2012 - Main.DiegodelaPuente
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | UNDER REVISION | | | Copyright is no longer needed in the Internet society
-- By DiegodelaPuente - 15 Nov 2011 | | | In 1997 and in a more economic sense, Eric Schlachter described that the profit-maximizing price on the Internet will be where marginal revenue equals marginal cost, because intellectual property will be cross subsidized by other products in a manner sufficient to cover the fixed costs associated with intellectual property creation and distribution. Under this statement, Schlachter considered that a market price of zero for intellectual property can still create long-term economic profits by means of advertising, sales of upgrade models and sales of complementary technology. Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, also contribute to this economic discussion demonstrating potential profitability in an age of unrestricted copying. In their book, Against Intellectual Monopoly, they discuss several instances where the absence of copyright has not led to bankruptcy, and in the contrary some industries became profitable. For instance, consumers may often pay to get access to the breaking news stories first, even though the same will eventually be available to the public at a later time. Recently, Pandora, MOG and Spotify business models follow this path in the music industry, where users would listen for free, but they would have to submit to a few minutes of advertisement every hour.
| |
<
< | The blindness continues | >
> | Good leaders know how to be governed | | | | |
<
< | Despite the economic and social reasons given above to eliminate Copyright; once more, as in the case of telecommunications regulation, U.S. Congress has favored private interests and is attempting to strengthen Copyright by means of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), that tries to expand the U.S. Department of Justice and copyright holders’ power allowing seeking court orders against websites outside U.S. jurisdiction accused of infringing on copyrights, or of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. Moreover, without understanding our actual technological sharing world without frontiers, Representative Lamar Smith, one of the chief sponsors of the bill, said, “SOPA is needed because rogue websites are stealing and selling American innovations”.
No. Congress wasn't
trying to do that, and isn't going to do it. Congress was trying to
take the money of people who want to do that, while also taking the
money of those who want it not to be done. They have
succeeded.
Content industries monopolies, particularly represented by the Motion Picture Association of America, Recording Industry Association of America and Business Software Alliance have rejected the discussed vision of a world with the absence of Copyright, primarily by their fear to loose the millionaire earnings they received under the current ownership system and try to district public attention and opinion disguising their intentions stating that Copyright will protect artist’s intellectual property, including the resultant revenue and jobs. Even the Obama Administration itself has played an active role in secret negotiations between Hollywood, the recording industry and ISPs in this matter as Wired Magazine has revealed recently. | >
> | The Copyright discussion nowadays is only one little aspect of the actual battle that Internet has originated without intention. The Internet has changed millions lives and in a political sense, helping people to raise their voice against bad things that were commonly accepted. | | | | |
<
< | Actually, the primary
difference between the WH and the Congress here was only that the WH
tried to take both sides' money while also engaging in responsible
policy-making. But, having in mind that it's an election year, which
means that anybody with any muscle and skill can stop anything, it
was really a rigged game in the first place. Your analysis, like
most of what's been written about this, has not the slightest tinge
of reality to it.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act
- http://americancensorship.org | | | Conclusion
| | | | |
<
< | Stop Online Piracy Act
- Stop Online Piracy Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act)
- http://americancensorship.org
- David Kravets, Chief Sponsor Wavers on Web Censorship Bill in Charged Hearing, Wired (November 16, 2011) (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/11/piracy-blacklisting-bill)
- SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) debate: Why are Google and Facebook against it? (November 17, 2011) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/sopa-stop-online-piracy-act-debate-why-are-google-and-facebook-against-it/2011/11/17/gIQAvLubVN_story.html)
- Caitlin Bronson, Online Piracy Act Struggles in Congress (November 29, 2011) (http://www.thirdage.com/news/online-piracy-act-struggles-in-congress_11-29-2011)
- Stop the Stop Online Piracy Act Now (November 21, 2011) (http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/11/21/stop-the-stop-online-piracy-act-now.aspx)
- Timothy B. Lee, The Stop Online Piracy Act: Big Content's full-on assault against the Safe Harbor, ARS Technica (November 2011) (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/11/the-stop-online-piracy-act-big-contents-full-on-assault-against-the-safe-harbor.ars
- David Cravets, U.S. Copyright Czar Cozied Up to Content Industry, E-Mails Show, Wired (October 14, 2011) (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/10/copyright-czar-cozies-up)
Copyright and Freemium
- Kevin Kelly, Better than Free (January 31, 2008) (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/kelly08/kelly08_index.html)
- Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, Against Intellectual Monopoly (November 11, 2005) (http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm)
- Richard Stallman, Misinterpreting Copyright (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html)
- Mike Masnik, Saying You Can't Compete With Free Is Saying You Can't Compete Period, Techdirt (February 15, 2007) (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070215/002923.shtml)
- Fred Wilson, Freemium and Freeconomics (July 4, 2009) (http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2009/07/freemium-and-freeconomics.html)
- Fred Wilson, My Favorite Business Model (March 23, 2006) (http://avc.blogs.com/a_vc/2006/03/my_favorite_bus.html)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemium
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ithiel_de_Sola_Pool
- Ithiel de Sola Pool, Technologies of Freedom (1983). (http://books.google.com/books?id=BzLXGUxV4CkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Technologies+of+freedom&hl=en&ei=8M_WTpr_IIbi0QGU2NnoAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false)
- Eric Schlachter, The Intellectual Property Renaissance in Cyberspace: Why Copyright Law Could Be Unimportant on the Internet, Berkeley Technological Law Journal (1997) (http://www.law.berkeley.edu/journals/btlj/articles/vol12/Schlachter/html/reader.html)
- Danny Colligan, What We Lose When We Embrace Copyright (February 11, 2010) (http://questioncopyright.org/what_we_lose_when_we_embrace_copyright)
- Melody Walker, Economists say copyright and patent laws are killing innovation; hurting economy (March 5, 2009) (http://www.physorg.com/news155495067.html)
- Scott Timberg, Does culture really want to be free? (November 1, 2011) (http://www.salon.com/2011/11/01/does_culture_really_want_to_be_free/singleton)
- Joost Smiers and Marieke van Schijndel, Imagine a world without copyright, New York Times (October 8, 2005) (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/07/opinion/07iht-edsmiers.html?pagewanted=all)
- Nico van EIJK, Legal, Economic and Cultural Aspects of File Sharing (March 30, 2010) (http://www.ivir.nl/publications/vaneijk/Communications&Strategies_2010.pdf)
- Mark A. Lemley, Is the Sky Falling Dawn on the Content Industries? (2011) (http://www.jthtl.org/content/articles/V9I1/JTHTLv9i1_Lemley.PDF)
- Steven Levy, Facebook, Spotify and the Future of Music (October 21, 2011) (http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/10/ff_music)
- Nate Anderson, Big Content to FCC: don't kill our ISP filtering dream!, ARS Technica (2009) (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/09/big-content-still-cant-compete-with-free.ars)
- JRC Scientific and Technical Reports, The Future Evolution of the Creative Content Industries (2008) (http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC47964.pdf)
- Anita Elberse, Bye Bye Bundles: The Unbundling of Music in Digital Channels (November 1, 2009) (http://www.people.hbs.edu/aelberse/papers/Elberse_2010.pdf)
- Scott Berinato, The iTunes Effect and the Future of Content, Havard Business Review (http://blogs.hbr.org/research/2010/01/the-itunes-effect-and-the-futu.html)
- Gerd Leonhard, The Future of the Content Industries (April 2011) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLxEqy3lngk)
- Gerd Leonhard, Free & Freemium Business Models (June 2011) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uOsLgTMGqc) | | | Open Source Information
- Eric Steven Raymond, The Cathedral and the Bazaar (http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/homesteading/cathedral-bazaar) | | |
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list. | |
<
< | COMMENTS
I think artists stand to gain the least from copyright law protection. Artists make the least amount of money on album sales as it is. This is not because too many people are downloading their albums instead of buying them. Its largely because there isn't as much money in the record business in general. Most artists make the most off of touring, merchandise, etc. I was watching a 60 minutes episode on Taylor Swift recently, and it said that her tour made between $100 and $150 million. She likely did not receive even a small fraction of that from her record deals. Its annoying that record labels want to disguise these laws as protections for the artist. The record labels largely exist to exploit the artists, not protect them and this is evident by the many suboptimal deals artists get on their record deals. The SOPA law would serve not to protect actors, singers, etc...It is meant to protect the industry monopolies behind the artists.
-- Austin Klar |
|
|
DiegodelaPuenteSecondPaper 17 - 30 Jan 2012 - Main.DiegodelaPuente
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
UNDER REVISION | | | You can compete with zero
| |
<
< | Copyright is no longer needed in the Internet society. It is outdated and lacks of effectiveness, because it does not consider the social changes that technology has generated. When Copyright was born it was believed that monopolistic financial incentives stimulate artistic production and that it will guarantee artists a decent income. However, as Ithiel de Sola Pool conceived in 1983, copyright practices become unworkable with the arrival of electronic reproduction. Moreover, in recent years, some scholars such as Danny Colligan had written about why Copyright is detrimental to society, referring that its enforcement by the government necessarily entails monitoring computer communications and erodes public domain and free culture. | >
> | Copyright is no longer needed in the Internet society. It is outdated and lacks of effectiveness, because it does not consider the social changes that technology has generated. When Copyright was born it was believed that monopolistic financial incentives stimulate artistic production and that it will guarantee artists a decent income. However, as Ithiel de Sola Pool conceived in 1983, copyright practices become unworkable with the arrival of electronic reproduction. Moreover, in recent years, Richard Stallman had written about the misinterpretation of Copyright and it's purpose, referring that Copyright was created to serve the public interest and not publishers or authors, and that the Government, instead of trying to change the situation according to new circumstances is adding more restrictions against the users freedom. | | | In this new age, content is information and on a computer, information is anything that can be digitized, that is, encoded in a sequence of zeros and ones. In that order of ideas, information has two important properties that modify the foundations of Copyright: it is both non-exclusive (any number of people can access and use it simultaneously) and non-rivalrous (the fact that one person has more information does not imply that another person has less).
Under this new scenario, the ownership idea must be change for access, sharing and selling added value. For example, Michael Masnik (Techdirt) explains that people do not buy “a movie”; they buy the “experience” of going to the theater. They like the differentiated value they can get from bundled goods and services that helps justify a price that is more than $0. Kevin Kelly (Wired Magazine) clarifies this approach and sustained that under actual technological circumstances, the idea is not to sell books or music copies, because they must be available to everyone, instead content industry should follow the path of attention to consumer preferences and provide intangible value to the content. In that sense, Kelly defined eight categories of intangible value that consumers will buy when they consider that it is worth value to pay for: immediacy, personalization, interpretation, authenticity (quality), accessibility, embodiment, patronage and findability. These generatives demand an understanding of how abundance breeds a sharing mindset. | |
<
< | In accordance to the referred economical model, and proposing the freemium business model (combination of free and premium), Fred Wilson stated that the market will identify the right point to pay money to information providers, when they see a real value: “free gets you to the place where you can ask to get paid.” Wilson’s model realizes that the cost of delivering many services over the Internet has decreased significantly from what it cost to deliver them in the analog world. Thus, once you have built a large audience providing free content, then you can offer premium priced value added services or an enhanced version of your service to your customer base. | >
> | In accordance to the referred economic model, and proposing the freemium business model (combination of free and premium), Fred Wilson stated that the market will identify the right point to pay money to information providers, when they see a real value: “free gets you to the place where you can ask to get paid.” Wilson’s model realizes that the cost of delivering many services over the Internet has decreased significantly from what it cost to deliver them in the analog world. Thus, once you have built a large audience providing free content, then you can offer premium priced value added services or an enhanced version of your service to your customer base. | | | | |
<
< | In 1997 and in a more economical sense, Eric Schlachter described that the profit-maximizing price on the Internet will be where marginal revenue equals marginal cost, because intellectual property will be cross subsidized by other products in a manner sufficient to cover the fixed costs associated with intellectual property creation and distribution. Under this statement, Schlachter considered that a market price of zero for intellectual property can still create long-term economic profits by means of advertising, sales of upgrade models and sales of complementary technology. Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, also contribute to this economical discussion demonstrating potential profitability in an age of unrestricted copying. In their book, Against Intellectual Monopoly, they discuss several instances where the absence of copyright has not led to bankruptcy, and in the contrary some industries became profitable. For instance, consumers may often pay to get access to the breaking news stories first, even though the same will eventually be available to the public at a later time. Recently, Pandora, MOG and Spotify business models follow this path in the music industry, where users would listen for free, but they would have to submit to a few minutes of advertisement every hour. | >
> | In 1997 and in a more economic sense, Eric Schlachter described that the profit-maximizing price on the Internet will be where marginal revenue equals marginal cost, because intellectual property will be cross subsidized by other products in a manner sufficient to cover the fixed costs associated with intellectual property creation and distribution. Under this statement, Schlachter considered that a market price of zero for intellectual property can still create long-term economic profits by means of advertising, sales of upgrade models and sales of complementary technology. Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, also contribute to this economic discussion demonstrating potential profitability in an age of unrestricted copying. In their book, Against Intellectual Monopoly, they discuss several instances where the absence of copyright has not led to bankruptcy, and in the contrary some industries became profitable. For instance, consumers may often pay to get access to the breaking news stories first, even though the same will eventually be available to the public at a later time. Recently, Pandora, MOG and Spotify business models follow this path in the music industry, where users would listen for free, but they would have to submit to a few minutes of advertisement every hour. | | | | |
<
< | - Richard Stallman, Misinterpreting Copyright (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html)
Once again, you should
rewrite in actual hypertext, putting the links in the text where they
can be consulted with minimal breakage of flow in reading. They're
very much less useful here. You use "economical" throughout these
grafs where "economic" is colloquial. | | | The blindness continues
| |
<
< | Despite the economical and social reasons given above to eliminate Copyright; once more, as in the case of telecommunications regulation, U.S. Congress has favored private interests and is attempting to strengthen Copyright by means of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), that tries to expand the U.S. Department of Justice and copyright holders’ power allowing seeking court orders against websites outside U.S. jurisdiction accused of infringing on copyrights, or of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. Moreover, without understanding our actual technological sharing world without frontiers, Representative Lamar Smith, one of the chief sponsors of the bill, said, “SOPA is needed because rogue websites are stealing and selling American innovations”. | >
> | Despite the economic and social reasons given above to eliminate Copyright; once more, as in the case of telecommunications regulation, U.S. Congress has favored private interests and is attempting to strengthen Copyright by means of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), that tries to expand the U.S. Department of Justice and copyright holders’ power allowing seeking court orders against websites outside U.S. jurisdiction accused of infringing on copyrights, or of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. Moreover, without understanding our actual technological sharing world without frontiers, Representative Lamar Smith, one of the chief sponsors of the bill, said, “SOPA is needed because rogue websites are stealing and selling American innovations”. | | | No. Congress wasn't
trying to do that, and isn't going to do it. Congress was trying to | | | We have demonstrated that Copyright is no longer needed in our actual Internet Society, where an accessible market is desired, but that unfortunately, content monopolies interest is far more important for the Government. Therefore, our obligation for the next years is to foster the elimination of intellectual monopoly, because a world without Copyright would offer the guarantee of a good income to the content industry, and would protect the public domain of knowledge and creativity. Consumers must not be forced to buy content, when the market is free, consumers will be willing to pay for value-aggregated services.
| |
<
< | Information sources | | | | |
<
< | Once again, you should incorporate the links into the text. If they on't help with what you've written, this isn't the place for them, either. | | | Stop Online Piracy Act |
|
|
DiegodelaPuenteSecondPaper 16 - 28 Jan 2012 - Main.DiegodelaPuente
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
UNDER REVISION | | | You can compete with zero
| |
<
< | Copyright is no longer needed in the Internet society where we live in. It is outdated and lacks of effectiveness, because it does not consider the social changes that technology has generated. When Copyright was born it was believed that monopolistic financial incentives stimulate artistic production and that it will guarantee artists a decent income. However, as Ithiel de Sola Pool conceived in 1983, copyright practices become unworkable with the arrival of electronic reproduction. Moreover, in recent years, some scholars such as Danny Colligan had written about why Copyright is detrimental to society, referring that its enforcement by the government necessarily entails monitoring computer communications and erodes public domain and free culture. | >
> | Copyright is no longer needed in the Internet society. It is outdated and lacks of effectiveness, because it does not consider the social changes that technology has generated. When Copyright was born it was believed that monopolistic financial incentives stimulate artistic production and that it will guarantee artists a decent income. However, as Ithiel de Sola Pool conceived in 1983, copyright practices become unworkable with the arrival of electronic reproduction. Moreover, in recent years, some scholars such as Danny Colligan had written about why Copyright is detrimental to society, referring that its enforcement by the government necessarily entails monitoring computer communications and erodes public domain and free culture. | | | In this new age, content is information and on a computer, information is anything that can be digitized, that is, encoded in a sequence of zeros and ones. In that order of ideas, information has two important properties that modify the foundations of Copyright: it is both non-exclusive (any number of people can access and use it simultaneously) and non-rivalrous (the fact that one person has more information does not imply that another person has less). | |
<
< | Under this new scenario, the ownership idea must be change for access, sharing and selling added value. For example, Michael Masnik (Techdirt) explains that people do not buy “a movie”; they buy the “experience” of going to the theater. They like the differentiated value they can get from bundled goods and services that helps justify a price that is more than $0. Kevin Kelly (Wired Magazine) clarifies this approach and sustained that under actual technological circumstances, the idea is not to sell books or music copies, because they must be available to everyone, instead content industry should follow the path of attention to consumer preferences and provide intangible value to the content. In that sense, Kelly defined eight categories of intangible value that consumers will buy when they consider that it is worth value to pay for: immediacy, personalization, interpretation, authenticity (quality), accessibility, embodiment, patronage and findability. These generatives demand an understanding of how abundance breeds a sharing mindset. | >
> | Under this new scenario, the ownership idea must be change for access, sharing and selling added value. For example, Michael Masnik (Techdirt) explains that people do not buy “a movie”; they buy the “experience” of going to the theater. They like the differentiated value they can get from bundled goods and services that helps justify a price that is more than $0. Kevin Kelly (Wired Magazine) clarifies this approach and sustained that under actual technological circumstances, the idea is not to sell books or music copies, because they must be available to everyone, instead content industry should follow the path of attention to consumer preferences and provide intangible value to the content. In that sense, Kelly defined eight categories of intangible value that consumers will buy when they consider that it is worth value to pay for: immediacy, personalization, interpretation, authenticity (quality), accessibility, embodiment, patronage and findability. These generatives demand an understanding of how abundance breeds a sharing mindset. | | | | |
<
< | In accordance to the referred economical model, and proposing the freemium business model (combination of free and premium), Fred Wilson stated that the market will identify the right point to pay money to information providers, when they see a real value: “free gets you to the place where you can ask to get paid.” Wilson’s model realizes that the cost of delivering many services over the Internet has decreased significantly from what it cost to deliver them in the analog world. Thus, once you have built a large audience providing free content, then you can offer premium priced value added services or an enhanced version of your service to your customer base. | >
> | In accordance to the referred economical model, and proposing the freemium business model (combination of free and premium), Fred Wilson stated that the market will identify the right point to pay money to information providers, when they see a real value: “free gets you to the place where you can ask to get paid.” Wilson’s model realizes that the cost of delivering many services over the Internet has decreased significantly from what it cost to deliver them in the analog world. Thus, once you have built a large audience providing free content, then you can offer premium priced value added services or an enhanced version of your service to your customer base. | | | | |
<
< | In 1997 and in a more economical sense, Eric Schlachter described that the profit-maximizing price on the Internet will be where marginal revenue equals marginal cost, because intellectual property will be cross subsidized by other products in a manner sufficient to cover the fixed costs associated with intellectual property creation and distribution. Under this statement, Schlachter considered that a market price of zero for intellectual property can still create long-term economic profits by means of advertising, sales of upgrade models and sales of complementary technology. Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, also contribute to this economical discussion demonstrating potential profitability in an age of unrestricted copying. In their book, Against Intellectual Monopoly, they discuss several instances where the absence of copyright has not led to bankruptcy, and in the contrary some industries became profitable. For instance, consumers may often pay to get access to the breaking news stories first, even though the same will eventually be available to the public at a later time. Recently, Pandora, MOG and Spotify business models follow this path in the music industry, where users would listen for free, but they would have to submit to a few minutes of advertisement every hour. | >
> | In 1997 and in a more economical sense, Eric Schlachter described that the profit-maximizing price on the Internet will be where marginal revenue equals marginal cost, because intellectual property will be cross subsidized by other products in a manner sufficient to cover the fixed costs associated with intellectual property creation and distribution. Under this statement, Schlachter considered that a market price of zero for intellectual property can still create long-term economic profits by means of advertising, sales of upgrade models and sales of complementary technology. Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, also contribute to this economical discussion demonstrating potential profitability in an age of unrestricted copying. In their book, Against Intellectual Monopoly, they discuss several instances where the absence of copyright has not led to bankruptcy, and in the contrary some industries became profitable. For instance, consumers may often pay to get access to the breaking news stories first, even though the same will eventually be available to the public at a later time. Recently, Pandora, MOG and Spotify business models follow this path in the music industry, where users would listen for free, but they would have to submit to a few minutes of advertisement every hour. | | |
- Richard Stallman, Misinterpreting Copyright (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html) | |
<
< | - Kevin Kelly, Better than Free (January 31, 2008) (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/kelly08/kelly08_index.html)
- Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, Against Intellectual Monopoly (November 11, 2005) (http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm)
- Mike Masnik, Saying You Can't Compete With Free Is Saying You Can't Compete Period, Techdirt (February 15, 2007) (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070215/002923.shtml)
- Fred Wilson, Freemium and Freeconomics (July 4, 2009) (http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2009/07/freemium-and-freeconomics.html) | | | Once again, you should
rewrite in actual hypertext, putting the links in the text where they |
|
|
DiegodelaPuenteSecondPaper 15 - 23 Jan 2012 - Main.DiegodelaPuente
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| |
>
> | UNDER REVISION | | | | |
<
< | Copyright is no longer needed in the Internet society where we live in
"Where we live in" doesn't work. "In which we live," or "where we live" or even "society" full stop would be better choices. | >
> | Copyright is no longer needed in the Internet society | | | -- By DiegodelaPuente - 15 Nov 2011 |
|
|
DiegodelaPuenteSecondPaper 14 - 19 Jan 2012 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | READY FOR FIRST REVISION | >
> | | | | Copyright is no longer needed in the Internet society where we live in | |
>
> | "Where we live in" doesn't work. "In which we live," or "where we live" or even "society" full stop would be better choices. | | | -- By DiegodelaPuente - 15 Nov 2011 | | | - Fred Wilson, Freemium and Freeconomics (July 4, 2009) (http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2009/07/freemium-and-freeconomics.html) | |
>
> | Once again, you should
rewrite in actual hypertext, putting the links in the text where they
can be consulted with minimal breakage of flow in reading. They're
very much less useful here. You use "economical" throughout these
grafs where "economic" is colloquial. | | | The blindness continues
Despite the economical and social reasons given above to eliminate Copyright; once more, as in the case of telecommunications regulation, U.S. Congress has favored private interests and is attempting to strengthen Copyright by means of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), that tries to expand the U.S. Department of Justice and copyright holders’ power allowing seeking court orders against websites outside U.S. jurisdiction accused of infringing on copyrights, or of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. Moreover, without understanding our actual technological sharing world without frontiers, Representative Lamar Smith, one of the chief sponsors of the bill, said, “SOPA is needed because rogue websites are stealing and selling American innovations”. | |
>
> | No. Congress wasn't
trying to do that, and isn't going to do it. Congress was trying to
take the money of people who want to do that, while also taking the
money of those who want it not to be done. They have
succeeded. | | | Content industries monopolies, particularly represented by the Motion Picture Association of America, Recording Industry Association of America and Business Software Alliance have rejected the discussed vision of a world with the absence of Copyright, primarily by their fear to loose the millionaire earnings they received under the current ownership system and try to district public attention and opinion disguising their intentions stating that Copyright will protect artist’s intellectual property, including the resultant revenue and jobs. Even the Obama Administration itself has played an active role in secret negotiations between Hollywood, the recording industry and ISPs in this matter as Wired Magazine has revealed recently.
| |
>
> | Actually, the primary
difference between the WH and the Congress here was only that the WH
tried to take both sides' money while also engaging in responsible
policy-making. But, having in mind that it's an election year, which
means that anybody with any muscle and skill can stop anything, it
was really a rigged game in the first place. Your analysis, like
most of what's been written about this, has not the slightest tinge
of reality to it. | | | - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act | | | Information sources | |
>
> | Once again, you should incorporate the links into the text. If they on't help with what you've written, this isn't the place for them, either. | | | Stop Online Piracy Act
- Stop Online Piracy Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act) | | | - What would Jesus hack? Cybertheology: Just how much does Christian doctrine have in common with the open-source software movement?, The Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/21527031) | |
>
> | Overall, I think you've done a pretty good job of expanding around the edges of the argument I offered in class. Ithiel de Sola Pool was indeed very perceptive very early, but he didn't follow up. Danny Colligan, on the other hand, has never in my recollection said anything I haven' said first.
But I think the most evident avenue to improvement of the essay is to
drop the never-accurate and now evidently imprecise analysis of the
significance of SOPA/PIPA. There's a purely US context, which has to
do with the shifting politics of Hollywood and the Net: this marks the
past-noonday start of Hollywood's decline as a political heavyweight.
Night will come on fast.
But the more important realities are international, having to do with
the overall confrontation now unrolling between states and
intermediaries: their tame telecomms, the North American data miners,
etc. In this confrontation, "copyright piracy" is just one among
many excuses for efforts to implant state power more deeply in the
Net, and by no means the most important. The real issue here, I
think, is what you want to build the second half of the paper on,
given that the US legislation is now revealed to be no part of the
major issue. | | |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. |
|
|
DiegodelaPuenteSecondPaper 13 - 05 Dec 2011 - Main.DiegodelaPuente
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | The Stop Online Piracy Act: the blindness continues | >
> | READY FOR FIRST REVISION
Copyright is no longer needed in the Internet society where we live in | | | -- By DiegodelaPuente - 15 Nov 2011 | |
<
< | The Futile Stop Online Piracy Act discussion | >
> | You can compete with zero | | | | |
<
< | U.S. Congress’ discussion about the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) does not contribute to the Net’s growth; on the contrary, it distracts public attention to the real issue: copyright is no longer needed in the Internet society where we live in. SOPA tries to expand the U.S. Department of Justice and copyright holders’ power allowing seeking court orders against websites outside U.S. jurisdiction accused of infringing on copyrights, or of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. Without understanding our actual technological sharing world without frontiers, Representative Lamar Smith, one of the chief sponsors of the bill, said, “SOPA is needed because rogue websites are stealing and selling American innovations”. Moreover, even SOPA’s most famous detractors, Google, Facebook, AOL and Twitter, are only arguing about Internet censorship or chilling effects on speech, rather than proposing a radical change to the actual copyright framework in accordance with new technological trends, which is intended by many recognized scholars and scientists, such as Kevin Kelly (Wired Magazine), Richard Stallman (Free Software Foundation), Fred Wilson (Union Square Ventures) and Mike Masnick (Techdirt).
Unfortunately, this new vision of content industries with the absence of copyright law has been rejected by content industries monopolies, represented by the Motion Picture Association of America, Recording Industry Association of America or Business Software Alliance and the American Government itself as Wired Magazine have revealed recently. Principally, these monopolies feared to loose the millionaire earnings they received under the current ownership system and disguise their intentions stating that Copyright will protect artist’s intellectual property, including the resultant revenue and jobs. I disagree with that idea and will prove that without Copyright, artists will continue to have incentives to innovate and produce culture.
| >
> | Copyright is no longer needed in the Internet society where we live in. It is outdated and lacks of effectiveness, because it does not consider the social changes that technology has generated. When Copyright was born it was believed that monopolistic financial incentives stimulate artistic production and that it will guarantee artists a decent income. However, as Ithiel de Sola Pool conceived in 1983, copyright practices become unworkable with the arrival of electronic reproduction. Moreover, in recent years, some scholars such as Danny Colligan had written about why Copyright is detrimental to society, referring that its enforcement by the government necessarily entails monitoring computer communications and erodes public domain and free culture. | | | | |
<
< | Stop Online Piracy Act | >
> | In this new age, content is information and on a computer, information is anything that can be digitized, that is, encoded in a sequence of zeros and ones. In that order of ideas, information has two important properties that modify the foundations of Copyright: it is both non-exclusive (any number of people can access and use it simultaneously) and non-rivalrous (the fact that one person has more information does not imply that another person has less). | | | | |
<
< | - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act | >
> | Under this new scenario, the ownership idea must be change for access, sharing and selling added value. For example, Michael Masnik (Techdirt) explains that people do not buy “a movie”; they buy the “experience” of going to the theater. They like the differentiated value they can get from bundled goods and services that helps justify a price that is more than $0. Kevin Kelly (Wired Magazine) clarifies this approach and sustained that under actual technological circumstances, the idea is not to sell books or music copies, because they must be available to everyone, instead content industry should follow the path of attention to consumer preferences and provide intangible value to the content. In that sense, Kelly defined eight categories of intangible value that consumers will buy when they consider that it is worth value to pay for: immediacy, personalization, interpretation, authenticity (quality), accessibility, embodiment, patronage and findability. These generatives demand an understanding of how abundance breeds a sharing mindset. | | | | |
<
< | - http://americancensorship.org
The new model
Copyright is outdated and lacks of effectiveness, because it does not consider the social changes that technology has generated. When Copyright was born it was believed that monopolistic financial incentives stimulate artistic production and that it will guarantee artists a decent income. As Ithiel de Sola Pool conceived in 1983, copyright practices become unworkable with the arrival of electronic reproduction. In recent years, some scholars such as Danny Colligan had written about why Copyright is detrimental to society, referring that its enforcement necessarily entails monitoring computer communications and erodes public domain and free culture. In this new age, content is information and on a computer, information is anything that can be digitized, that is, encoded in a sequence of zeros and ones. In that order of ideas, information has two important properties that modify the foundations of Copyright: it is both non-exclusive (any number of people can access and use it simultaneously) and non-rivalrous (the fact that one person has more information does not imply that another person has less).
Under this new scenario, the ownership idea must be change for access, sharing and selling added value. For example, Michael Masnik explains that people do not buy “a movie”; they buy the “experience” of going to the theater. They like the differentiated value they can get from bundled goods and services that helps justify a price that is more than $0. Kevin Kelly clarifies this approach and sustained that under actual technological circumstances, the idea is not to sell books or music copies, because they must be available to everyone, instead content industry should follow the path of attention to consumer preferences and provide intangible value to the content. In that sense, Kelly defined eight categories of intangible value that consumers will buy when they consider that it is worth value to pay for: immediacy, personalization, interpretation, authenticity (quality), accessibility, embodiment, patronage and findability. These generatives demand an understanding of how abundance breeds a sharing mindset. In accordance to this economical model, and proposing the freemium business model (combination of free and premium), Fred Wilson stated that the market will identify the right point to pay money to information providers, when they see a real value: “free gets you to the place where you can ask to get paid.” Wilson’s model realizes that the cost of delivering many services over the Internet has decreased significantly from what it cost to deliver them in the analog world. Thus, once you have built a large audience providing free content, then you can offer premium priced value added services or an enhanced version of your service to your customer base. | >
> | In accordance to the referred economical model, and proposing the freemium business model (combination of free and premium), Fred Wilson stated that the market will identify the right point to pay money to information providers, when they see a real value: “free gets you to the place where you can ask to get paid.” Wilson’s model realizes that the cost of delivering many services over the Internet has decreased significantly from what it cost to deliver them in the analog world. Thus, once you have built a large audience providing free content, then you can offer premium priced value added services or an enhanced version of your service to your customer base. | | | In 1997 and in a more economical sense, Eric Schlachter described that the profit-maximizing price on the Internet will be where marginal revenue equals marginal cost, because intellectual property will be cross subsidized by other products in a manner sufficient to cover the fixed costs associated with intellectual property creation and distribution. Under this statement, Schlachter considered that a market price of zero for intellectual property can still create long-term economic profits by means of advertising, sales of upgrade models and sales of complementary technology. Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, also contribute to this economical discussion demonstrating potential profitability in an age of unrestricted copying. In their book, Against Intellectual Monopoly, they discuss several instances where the absence of copyright has not led to bankruptcy, and in the contrary some industries became profitable. For instance, consumers may often pay to get access to the breaking news stories first, even though the same will eventually be available to the public at a later time. Recently, Pandora, MOG and Spotify business models follow this path in the music industry, where users would listen for free, but they would have to submit to a few minutes of advertisement every hour.
| |
<
< | New model | >
> | - Richard Stallman, Misinterpreting Copyright (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html) | | | - Kevin Kelly, Better than Free (January 31, 2008) (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/kelly08/kelly08_index.html)
- Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, Against Intellectual Monopoly (November 11, 2005) (http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm) | |
<
< | - Richard Stallman, Misinterpreting Copyright (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html) | | | - Mike Masnik, Saying You Can't Compete With Free Is Saying You Can't Compete Period, Techdirt (February 15, 2007) (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070215/002923.shtml)
- Fred Wilson, Freemium and Freeconomics (July 4, 2009) (http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2009/07/freemium-and-freeconomics.html) | |
>
> | The blindness continues
Despite the economical and social reasons given above to eliminate Copyright; once more, as in the case of telecommunications regulation, U.S. Congress has favored private interests and is attempting to strengthen Copyright by means of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), that tries to expand the U.S. Department of Justice and copyright holders’ power allowing seeking court orders against websites outside U.S. jurisdiction accused of infringing on copyrights, or of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. Moreover, without understanding our actual technological sharing world without frontiers, Representative Lamar Smith, one of the chief sponsors of the bill, said, “SOPA is needed because rogue websites are stealing and selling American innovations”.
Content industries monopolies, particularly represented by the Motion Picture Association of America, Recording Industry Association of America and Business Software Alliance have rejected the discussed vision of a world with the absence of Copyright, primarily by their fear to loose the millionaire earnings they received under the current ownership system and try to district public attention and opinion disguising their intentions stating that Copyright will protect artist’s intellectual property, including the resultant revenue and jobs. Even the Obama Administration itself has played an active role in secret negotiations between Hollywood, the recording industry and ISPs in this matter as Wired Magazine has revealed recently.
| | | Conclusion
| |
<
< | We have demonstrated that Copyright is no longer needed in our actual Internet Society, where an accessible market is desired. Therefore, our obligation for the next years is to eliminate intellectual monopoly, because a world without copyright would offer the guarantee of a good income to the content industry, and would protect the public domain of knowledge and creativity. Consumers must not be forced to buy content, when the market is free, consumers will be willing to pay for value-aggregated services. | >
> | We have demonstrated that Copyright is no longer needed in our actual Internet Society, where an accessible market is desired, but that unfortunately, content monopolies interest is far more important for the Government. Therefore, our obligation for the next years is to foster the elimination of intellectual monopoly, because a world without Copyright would offer the guarantee of a good income to the content industry, and would protect the public domain of knowledge and creativity. Consumers must not be forced to buy content, when the market is free, consumers will be willing to pay for value-aggregated services. | | |
Information sources |
|
|
DiegodelaPuenteSecondPaper 12 - 01 Dec 2011 - Main.DiegodelaPuente
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
The Stop Online Piracy Act: the blindness continues
-- By DiegodelaPuente - 15 Nov 2011 | |
<
< | The Futile Stop Online Piracy Act's discussion | >
> | The Futile Stop Online Piracy Act discussion | | | | |
<
< | U.S. Congress’ discussion about the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) does not contribute to the Net’s growth; on the contrary, it distracts public attention to the real issue: copyright is no longer needed in the Internet society where we live in. SOPA tries to expand the U.S. Department of Justice and copyright holders’ power allowing seeking court orders against websites outside U.S. jurisdiction accused of infringing on copyrights, or of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. Without understanding our actual technological sharing world without frontiers and different ownership rules, Representative Lamar Smith, one of the chief sponsors of the bill, said, “SOPA is needed because rogue websites are stealing and selling American innovations”. Moreover, even SOPA’s most famous detractors, Google, Facebook, AOL and Twitter, are only arguing about Internet censorship or chilling effects on speech, rather than proposing a radical change to the actual copyright framework in accordance with new technological trends, which is intended by many recognized scholars and scientists, such as Kevin Kelly (Wired Magazine), Richard Stallman (Free Software Foundation), Fred Wilson (Union Square Ventures), Mike Masnick (Techdirt) and James Allsworth (Harvard Business School). | >
> | U.S. Congress’ discussion about the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) does not contribute to the Net’s growth; on the contrary, it distracts public attention to the real issue: copyright is no longer needed in the Internet society where we live in. SOPA tries to expand the U.S. Department of Justice and copyright holders’ power allowing seeking court orders against websites outside U.S. jurisdiction accused of infringing on copyrights, or of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. Without understanding our actual technological sharing world without frontiers, Representative Lamar Smith, one of the chief sponsors of the bill, said, “SOPA is needed because rogue websites are stealing and selling American innovations”. Moreover, even SOPA’s most famous detractors, Google, Facebook, AOL and Twitter, are only arguing about Internet censorship or chilling effects on speech, rather than proposing a radical change to the actual copyright framework in accordance with new technological trends, which is intended by many recognized scholars and scientists, such as Kevin Kelly (Wired Magazine), Richard Stallman (Free Software Foundation), Fred Wilson (Union Square Ventures) and Mike Masnick (Techdirt). | | | | |
<
< | Unfortunately, this new vision of content industries (film, television, books, software, music and others), with the absence of copyright law has been rejected by content industries monopolies represented by the Motion Picture Association of America, Recording Industry Association of America or Business Software Alliance and the American Government itself as Wired Magazine have revealed recently. Principally, these monopolies feared to loose the annual millionaire earnings they received under the current ownership system and disguise their intentions stating that SOPA will protect artist’s intellectual property, including the resultant revenue and jobs. Moreover, in respect to the music industry, Dr. Robert Levine (former Billboard executive editor), said that the best way to save artists’ jobs is to strengthen copyright law. I disagree with that mistaken idea and will try to prove that without copyright, artists will continue to have incentives to innovate and produce culture. | >
> | Unfortunately, this new vision of content industries with the absence of copyright law has been rejected by content industries monopolies, represented by the Motion Picture Association of America, Recording Industry Association of America or Business Software Alliance and the American Government itself as Wired Magazine have revealed recently. Principally, these monopolies feared to loose the millionaire earnings they received under the current ownership system and disguise their intentions stating that Copyright will protect artist’s intellectual property, including the resultant revenue and jobs. I disagree with that idea and will prove that without Copyright, artists will continue to have incentives to innovate and produce culture. | | | | |
<
< | | | | Stop Online Piracy Act
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act | | | The new model
| |
<
< | Copyright is outdated and lacks of effectiveness, because it does not consider the social changes that technology has generated. When Copyright was born it was believed that monopolistic financial incentives stimulate artistic production and that it will guarantee artists a decent income and subsidize certain professions. As Ithiel de Sola Pool conceived in 1983, with the arrival of electronic reproduction, copyright practices become unworkable. In recent years, some scholars such as Danny Colligan had written about why copyright is detrimental to society nowadays, referring that Copyright enforcement necessarily entails monitoring of all computer communications, and therefore the destruction of online privacy, erodes the public domain and free culture, criminalizes a large percentage of the population and poses large economic costs to society. Also economists, such as Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, from Washington University, published a book, Against Intellectual Monopoly, where they described that the current copyright system discourages and prevents inventions from entering the marketplace. In this new age, content is information and on a computer, information is anything that can be digitized, that is, encoded in a sequence of zeros and ones. In that order of ideas, information now has two important properties that modify the foundations of Copyright: it is both non-exclusive (any number of people can access and use it simultaneously) and non-rivalrous (the fact that one person has more information does not imply that another person has less). | >
> | Copyright is outdated and lacks of effectiveness, because it does not consider the social changes that technology has generated. When Copyright was born it was believed that monopolistic financial incentives stimulate artistic production and that it will guarantee artists a decent income. As Ithiel de Sola Pool conceived in 1983, copyright practices become unworkable with the arrival of electronic reproduction. In recent years, some scholars such as Danny Colligan had written about why Copyright is detrimental to society, referring that its enforcement necessarily entails monitoring computer communications and erodes public domain and free culture. In this new age, content is information and on a computer, information is anything that can be digitized, that is, encoded in a sequence of zeros and ones. In that order of ideas, information has two important properties that modify the foundations of Copyright: it is both non-exclusive (any number of people can access and use it simultaneously) and non-rivalrous (the fact that one person has more information does not imply that another person has less). | | | | |
<
< | Under this new scenario, the ownership idea must be change for access, sharing and selling added value. For example, Michael Masnik explains that people do not buy “a movie”; they buy the “experience” of going to the theater. They like the differentiated value they can get from bundled goods and services that helps justify a price that is more than $0. Kevin Kelly clarifies and gives more detail that under actual technological circumstances, the idea is not to sell books or music copies, because they must be available to everyone, instead artists and industry rather should follow the path of attention to consumer preferences and provide intangible value to the content in order to gain incomes. In that sense, Kelly defined eight categories of intangible value that consumers will buy when they consider that it is worth value to pay for: immediacy, personalization, interpretation, authenticity (quality), accessibility, embodiment, patronage and findability. These generatives demand an understanding of how abundance breeds a sharing mindset. In accordance to this new economical model, and proposing the freemium business model (combination of free and premium), Fred Wilson stated that the market will identify the right point to pay money to information providers, when they see a real value: “free gets you to the place where you can ask to get paid.” Wilson’s model realizes that the cost of delivering many services over the Internet has decreased significantly from what it cost to deliver them in the analog world. Thus, once you have built a large audience providing free content through word of mouth, referral networks or marketing techniques, then you can offer premium priced value added services or an enhanced version of your service to your customer base. | >
> | Under this new scenario, the ownership idea must be change for access, sharing and selling added value. For example, Michael Masnik explains that people do not buy “a movie”; they buy the “experience” of going to the theater. They like the differentiated value they can get from bundled goods and services that helps justify a price that is more than $0. Kevin Kelly clarifies this approach and sustained that under actual technological circumstances, the idea is not to sell books or music copies, because they must be available to everyone, instead content industry should follow the path of attention to consumer preferences and provide intangible value to the content. In that sense, Kelly defined eight categories of intangible value that consumers will buy when they consider that it is worth value to pay for: immediacy, personalization, interpretation, authenticity (quality), accessibility, embodiment, patronage and findability. These generatives demand an understanding of how abundance breeds a sharing mindset. In accordance to this economical model, and proposing the freemium business model (combination of free and premium), Fred Wilson stated that the market will identify the right point to pay money to information providers, when they see a real value: “free gets you to the place where you can ask to get paid.” Wilson’s model realizes that the cost of delivering many services over the Internet has decreased significantly from what it cost to deliver them in the analog world. Thus, once you have built a large audience providing free content, then you can offer premium priced value added services or an enhanced version of your service to your customer base. | | | | |
<
< | Back in 1997 and in a more economical approach, Eric Schlachter described that the profit-maximizing price on the Internet will be where marginal revenue equals marginal cost, because intellectual property will be cross subsidized by other products in a manner sufficient to cover the fixed costs associated with intellectual property creation and distribution. Under this statement, Schlachter considered that a market price of zero for intellectual property can still create long-term economic profits by means of advertising, sales of upgrade models and sale of complementary technology. Boldrin and Levine also contribute to this economical discussion in demonstrating potential profitability in an age of unrestricted copying. In their previously referred book, they discuss several instances where the absence of copyright has not led to bankruptcy, and in the contrary some industries became profitable. For instance, consumers many often pay to get access to the breaking news stories first, even though the same will eventually be available to the public at a later time. Some actual business models in the music industry that follow this path are Pandora, MOG and Spotify, where users would listen for free, but they would have to submit to a few minutes of advertisement every hour. | >
> | In 1997 and in a more economical sense, Eric Schlachter described that the profit-maximizing price on the Internet will be where marginal revenue equals marginal cost, because intellectual property will be cross subsidized by other products in a manner sufficient to cover the fixed costs associated with intellectual property creation and distribution. Under this statement, Schlachter considered that a market price of zero for intellectual property can still create long-term economic profits by means of advertising, sales of upgrade models and sales of complementary technology. Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, also contribute to this economical discussion demonstrating potential profitability in an age of unrestricted copying. In their book, Against Intellectual Monopoly, they discuss several instances where the absence of copyright has not led to bankruptcy, and in the contrary some industries became profitable. For instance, consumers may often pay to get access to the breaking news stories first, even though the same will eventually be available to the public at a later time. Recently, Pandora, MOG and Spotify business models follow this path in the music industry, where users would listen for free, but they would have to submit to a few minutes of advertisement every hour. | | |
New model | | | - Fred Wilson, Freemium and Freeconomics (July 4, 2009) (http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2009/07/freemium-and-freeconomics.html) | |
<
< | Conclusions | >
> | Conclusion | | | | |
<
< | We have demonstrated that Copyright is no longer needed under our actual Internet Society, where an accessible market is desired. Therefore, our obligation for the next years is to eliminate intellectual monopoly, because a world without copyright would offer the guarantee of a good income to artists, and would protect the public domain of knowledge and creativity. Consumers must not be forced to buy content, when the market is free, consumers will be willing to pay for value-aggregated services. | >
> | We have demonstrated that Copyright is no longer needed in our actual Internet Society, where an accessible market is desired. Therefore, our obligation for the next years is to eliminate intellectual monopoly, because a world without copyright would offer the guarantee of a good income to the content industry, and would protect the public domain of knowledge and creativity. Consumers must not be forced to buy content, when the market is free, consumers will be willing to pay for value-aggregated services. | | |
Information sources |
|
|
DiegodelaPuenteSecondPaper 11 - 01 Dec 2011 - Main.DiegodelaPuente
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
The Stop Online Piracy Act: the blindness continues | | | The Futile Stop Online Piracy Act's discussion
| |
<
< | U.S. Congress’ discussion about the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) does not contribute to the Net’s growth; on the contrary, it distracts public attention to the real issue: copyright is no longer needed in the Internet society where we live in. SOPA tries to expand the U.S. Department of Justice and copyright holders’ power allowing seeking court orders against websites outside U.S. jurisdiction accused of infringing on copyrights, or of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. Without understanding our actual technological sharing world without frontiers and different ownership rules, Representative Lamar Smith, one of the chief sponsors of the bill, said, “SOPA is needed because rogue websites are stealing and selling American innovations”. Moreover, even SOPA’s most famous detractors, Google, Facebook, AOL and Twitter, are only arguing about Internet censorship or chilling effects on speech, rather than proposing a radical change to the actual copyright framework in accordance with new technological trends, which is intended by many recognized scholars and scientists, such as Kevin Kelly (Wired Magazine), Richard Stallman (Free Software Foundation), Fred Wilson (Union Square Ventures), Mike Masnick (Techdirt) and James Allsworth (Harvard Business School). Unfortunately, this new vision of content industries (film, television, books, software, music and others), with the absence of copyright law has been rejected by content industries monopolies represented by the Motion Picture Association of America, Recording Industry Association of America or Business Software Alliance and the American Government itself as Wired Magazine have revealed recently. Principally, these monopolies feared to loose the annual millionaire earnings they received under the current ownership system and disguise their intentions stating that SOPA will protect artist’s intellectual property, including the resultant revenue and jobs. Moreover, in respect to the music industry, Dr. Robert Levine (former Billboard executive editor), said that the best way to save artists’ jobs is to strengthen copyright law. I disagree with that mistaken idea and will try to prove that without copyright, artists will continue to have incentives to innovate and produce culture. | >
> | U.S. Congress’ discussion about the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) does not contribute to the Net’s growth; on the contrary, it distracts public attention to the real issue: copyright is no longer needed in the Internet society where we live in. SOPA tries to expand the U.S. Department of Justice and copyright holders’ power allowing seeking court orders against websites outside U.S. jurisdiction accused of infringing on copyrights, or of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. Without understanding our actual technological sharing world without frontiers and different ownership rules, Representative Lamar Smith, one of the chief sponsors of the bill, said, “SOPA is needed because rogue websites are stealing and selling American innovations”. Moreover, even SOPA’s most famous detractors, Google, Facebook, AOL and Twitter, are only arguing about Internet censorship or chilling effects on speech, rather than proposing a radical change to the actual copyright framework in accordance with new technological trends, which is intended by many recognized scholars and scientists, such as Kevin Kelly (Wired Magazine), Richard Stallman (Free Software Foundation), Fred Wilson (Union Square Ventures), Mike Masnick (Techdirt) and James Allsworth (Harvard Business School).
Unfortunately, this new vision of content industries (film, television, books, software, music and others), with the absence of copyright law has been rejected by content industries monopolies represented by the Motion Picture Association of America, Recording Industry Association of America or Business Software Alliance and the American Government itself as Wired Magazine have revealed recently. Principally, these monopolies feared to loose the annual millionaire earnings they received under the current ownership system and disguise their intentions stating that SOPA will protect artist’s intellectual property, including the resultant revenue and jobs. Moreover, in respect to the music industry, Dr. Robert Levine (former Billboard executive editor), said that the best way to save artists’ jobs is to strengthen copyright law. I disagree with that mistaken idea and will try to prove that without copyright, artists will continue to have incentives to innovate and produce culture. | | | | |
>
> | | | | Stop Online Piracy Act
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act | | | - http://americancensorship.org | |
<
< | The new legal and economical model | >
> | The new model | | | | |
<
< | Copyright is outdated and lacks of effectiveness, because it does not consider the social changes that technology has generated. When Copyright was born it was believed that monopolistic financial incentives stimulate artistic production and that it will guarantee artists a decent income and subsidize certain professions. As Ithiel de Sola Pool stated in 1983, with the arrival of electronic reproduction, copyright practices become unworkable. In that sense, some scholars such as Danny Colligan had written about why copyright is detrimental to society nowadays, referring that Copyright enforcement necessarily entails monitoring of all computer communications, and therefore the destruction of online privacy, erodes the public domain and free culture, criminalizes a large percentage of the population and poses large economic costs to society. In this new age, content is information and on a computer, information is anything that can be digitized, that is, encoded in a sequence of zeros and ones. In that order of ideas, information now has two important properties that modify the foundations of Copyright: it is both non-exclusive (any number of people can access and use it simultaneously) and non-rivalrous (the fact that one person has more information does not imply that another person has less).
| >
> | Copyright is outdated and lacks of effectiveness, because it does not consider the social changes that technology has generated. When Copyright was born it was believed that monopolistic financial incentives stimulate artistic production and that it will guarantee artists a decent income and subsidize certain professions. As Ithiel de Sola Pool conceived in 1983, with the arrival of electronic reproduction, copyright practices become unworkable. In recent years, some scholars such as Danny Colligan had written about why copyright is detrimental to society nowadays, referring that Copyright enforcement necessarily entails monitoring of all computer communications, and therefore the destruction of online privacy, erodes the public domain and free culture, criminalizes a large percentage of the population and poses large economic costs to society. Also economists, such as Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, from Washington University, published a book, Against Intellectual Monopoly, where they described that the current copyright system discourages and prevents inventions from entering the marketplace. In this new age, content is information and on a computer, information is anything that can be digitized, that is, encoded in a sequence of zeros and ones. In that order of ideas, information now has two important properties that modify the foundations of Copyright: it is both non-exclusive (any number of people can access and use it simultaneously) and non-rivalrous (the fact that one person has more information does not imply that another person has less).
Under this new scenario, the ownership idea must be change for access, sharing and selling added value. For example, Michael Masnik explains that people do not buy “a movie”; they buy the “experience” of going to the theater. They like the differentiated value they can get from bundled goods and services that helps justify a price that is more than $0. Kevin Kelly clarifies and gives more detail that under actual technological circumstances, the idea is not to sell books or music copies, because they must be available to everyone, instead artists and industry rather should follow the path of attention to consumer preferences and provide intangible value to the content in order to gain incomes. In that sense, Kelly defined eight categories of intangible value that consumers will buy when they consider that it is worth value to pay for: immediacy, personalization, interpretation, authenticity (quality), accessibility, embodiment, patronage and findability. These generatives demand an understanding of how abundance breeds a sharing mindset. In accordance to this new economical model, and proposing the freemium business model (combination of free and premium), Fred Wilson stated that the market will identify the right point to pay money to information providers, when they see a real value: “free gets you to the place where you can ask to get paid.” Wilson’s model realizes that the cost of delivering many services over the Internet has decreased significantly from what it cost to deliver them in the analog world. Thus, once you have built a large audience providing free content through word of mouth, referral networks or marketing techniques, then you can offer premium priced value added services or an enhanced version of your service to your customer base. | | | | |
>
> | Back in 1997 and in a more economical approach, Eric Schlachter described that the profit-maximizing price on the Internet will be where marginal revenue equals marginal cost, because intellectual property will be cross subsidized by other products in a manner sufficient to cover the fixed costs associated with intellectual property creation and distribution. Under this statement, Schlachter considered that a market price of zero for intellectual property can still create long-term economic profits by means of advertising, sales of upgrade models and sale of complementary technology. Boldrin and Levine also contribute to this economical discussion in demonstrating potential profitability in an age of unrestricted copying. In their previously referred book, they discuss several instances where the absence of copyright has not led to bankruptcy, and in the contrary some industries became profitable. For instance, consumers many often pay to get access to the breaking news stories first, even though the same will eventually be available to the public at a later time. Some actual business models in the music industry that follow this path are Pandora, MOG and Spotify, where users would listen for free, but they would have to submit to a few minutes of advertisement every hour.
| | | New model | | | - Fred Wilson, Freemium and Freeconomics (July 4, 2009) (http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2009/07/freemium-and-freeconomics.html)
Conclusions | |
<
< |
Subsection B
Conclusions | >
> |
We have demonstrated that Copyright is no longer needed under our actual Internet Society, where an accessible market is desired. Therefore, our obligation for the next years is to eliminate intellectual monopoly, because a world without copyright would offer the guarantee of a good income to artists, and would protect the public domain of knowledge and creativity. Consumers must not be forced to buy content, when the market is free, consumers will be willing to pay for value-aggregated services.
| | | Information sources |
|
|
DiegodelaPuenteSecondPaper 10 - 01 Dec 2011 - Main.DiegodelaPuente
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
The Stop Online Piracy Act: the blindness continues | | | The Futile Stop Online Piracy Act's discussion
| |
<
< | Unfortunately, the U.S. Congress’ actual discussion about the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), does not contribute to the Net growth and the society’ development; on the contrary, it distracts the public attention on real matters: copyright is no longer needed under the Net’s conception. In sum, SOPA tries to expand the U.S. Department of Justice and copyright holders’ power allowing seeking court orders against websites outside U.S. jurisdiction accused of infringing on copyrights, or of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. As Representative Lamar Smith, one of the chief sponsors of the bill, said, SOPA is needed because rogue websites are “stealing and selling American innovations”. Moreover, even SOPA’s most important detractors, Google, Facebook, AOL and Twitter, are only talking about Internet censorship or a chilling effect on speech, rather than proposing a radical change from the actual copyright framework in accordance of the new technological trends, which is being proposed by many scholars, such as James Allsworth (Harvard Business School), Kevin Kelly (Wired Magazine), Fred Wilson (Union Square Ventures) or Mike Masnick (Techdirt). | >
> | U.S. Congress’ discussion about the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) does not contribute to the Net’s growth; on the contrary, it distracts public attention to the real issue: copyright is no longer needed in the Internet society where we live in. SOPA tries to expand the U.S. Department of Justice and copyright holders’ power allowing seeking court orders against websites outside U.S. jurisdiction accused of infringing on copyrights, or of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. Without understanding our actual technological sharing world without frontiers and different ownership rules, Representative Lamar Smith, one of the chief sponsors of the bill, said, “SOPA is needed because rogue websites are stealing and selling American innovations”. Moreover, even SOPA’s most famous detractors, Google, Facebook, AOL and Twitter, are only arguing about Internet censorship or chilling effects on speech, rather than proposing a radical change to the actual copyright framework in accordance with new technological trends, which is intended by many recognized scholars and scientists, such as Kevin Kelly (Wired Magazine), Richard Stallman (Free Software Foundation), Fred Wilson (Union Square Ventures), Mike Masnick (Techdirt) and James Allsworth (Harvard Business School). Unfortunately, this new vision of content industries (film, television, books, software, music and others), with the absence of copyright law has been rejected by content industries monopolies represented by the Motion Picture Association of America, Recording Industry Association of America or Business Software Alliance and the American Government itself as Wired Magazine have revealed recently. Principally, these monopolies feared to loose the annual millionaire earnings they received under the current ownership system and disguise their intentions stating that SOPA will protect artist’s intellectual property, including the resultant revenue and jobs. Moreover, in respect to the music industry, Dr. Robert Levine (former Billboard executive editor), said that the best way to save artists’ jobs is to strengthen copyright law. I disagree with that mistaken idea and will try to prove that without copyright, artists will continue to have incentives to innovate and produce culture. | | | | |
<
< | | | | Stop Online Piracy Act
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act | | | - http://americancensorship.org | |
<
< | The intellectual property market | >
> | The new legal and economical model | | | | |
<
< | SOPA’s proponents, mainly, the Motion Picture Association of America, Recording Industry Association of America, Business Software Alliance and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, say the bill will protect intellectual property market, including the resultant revenue and jobs; however, it is really protecting and preserving the earnings of the content industries monopolies. Once again, as in the wireless telecommunications industry, the Law, in this case Copyright Law, is outdated and lacks of effectiveness, because it does not consider the social changes that advanced technology is generating. For instance, regarding the music industry, SOPA is supposed to protect singers’ intellectual property, enabling them to pursue a profit. Some journalist in SOPA’s favor, such as Dr. Robert Levine (former Billboard executive editor), thinks that the best way to save artists’ jobs is to strengthen copyright laws, by the way also opposing to the idea of a free an open Internet. I disagree with that statement and that opinion current, and consider that the actual copyright policy should change, since there can be incentives and artists can maintain or even improve their jobs quality in a share XXX.
In the particular case of the content industries (film, television, books, music and others), there should be an economical model modification. Ownership idea must be change for access, sharing and selling added value services. The market will identify the right point to pay money to information providers, when they see a real value. In this concern, in 2006 Fred Wilson propose the freemium business model, that is a combination of free and premium, in short words, free gets you to the place where you can get paid. Additionally, Kevin Kelly, other scholar from XXXX, established that in this new model, the idea is not to sell copies, because they must be available to everyone and provide some alternatives to allow money earnings to artists and the industry: immediacy, personalization, authenticity (quality), attention, interpretation, accessibility, embodiment, and findability. Moreover, in 2005 Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, two economists at Washington University, published a book, Against Intellectual Monopoly, where they described that the current patent/copyright system discourages and prevents inventions from entering the marketplace. | >
> | Copyright is outdated and lacks of effectiveness, because it does not consider the social changes that technology has generated. When Copyright was born it was believed that monopolistic financial incentives stimulate artistic production and that it will guarantee artists a decent income and subsidize certain professions. As Ithiel de Sola Pool stated in 1983, with the arrival of electronic reproduction, copyright practices become unworkable. In that sense, some scholars such as Danny Colligan had written about why copyright is detrimental to society nowadays, referring that Copyright enforcement necessarily entails monitoring of all computer communications, and therefore the destruction of online privacy, erodes the public domain and free culture, criminalizes a large percentage of the population and poses large economic costs to society. In this new age, content is information and on a computer, information is anything that can be digitized, that is, encoded in a sequence of zeros and ones. In that order of ideas, information now has two important properties that modify the foundations of Copyright: it is both non-exclusive (any number of people can access and use it simultaneously) and non-rivalrous (the fact that one person has more information does not imply that another person has less). | | | | |
<
< | Copyright and Freemium | >
> | New model | | | - Kevin Kelly, Better than Free (January 31, 2008) (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/kelly08/kelly08_index.html) |
|
|
DiegodelaPuenteSecondPaper 8 - 30 Nov 2011 - Main.DiegodelaPuente
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
The Stop Online Piracy Act: the blindness continues | | | - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act | |
<
< | - David Kravets, Chief Sponsor Wavers on Web Censorship Bill in Charged Hearing, Wired (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/11/piracy-blacklisting-bill) | | | - http://americancensorship.org | |
<
< | - SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) debate: Why are Google and Facebook against it? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/sopa-stop-online-piracy-act-debate-why-are-google-and-facebook-against-it/2011/11/17/gIQAvLubVN_story.html) | | | The intellectual property market
| | | In the particular case of the content industries (film, television, books, music and others), there should be an economical model modification. Ownership idea must be change for access, sharing and selling added value services. The market will identify the right point to pay money to information providers, when they see a real value. In this concern, in 2006 Fred Wilson propose the freemium business model, that is a combination of free and premium, in short words, free gets you to the place where you can get paid. Additionally, Kevin Kelly, other scholar from XXXX, established that in this new model, the idea is not to sell copies, because they must be available to everyone and provide some alternatives to allow money earnings to artists and the industry: immediacy, personalization, authenticity (quality), attention, interpretation, accessibility, embodiment, and findability. Moreover, in 2005 Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, two economists at Washington University, published a book, Against Intellectual Monopoly, where they described that the current patent/copyright system discourages and prevents inventions from entering the marketplace.
| |
>
> | Copyright and Freemium | | | | |
<
< | Freemium | >
> | - Kevin Kelly, Better than Free (January 31, 2008) (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/kelly08/kelly08_index.html) | | | | |
>
> | - Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, Against Intellectual Monopoly (November 11, 2005) (http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm) | | | | |
<
< | - Fred Wilson, My Favorite Business Model (March 23, 2006) (http://avc.blogs.com/a_vc/2006/03/my_favorite_bus.html) | >
> | - Richard Stallman, Misinterpreting Copyright (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html) | | | | |
<
< | - Fred Wilson, Freemium and Freeconomics (July 4, 2009) (http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2009/07/freemium-and-freeconomics.html)
- Does culture really want to be free? (November 1, 2011) (http://www.salon.com/2011/11/01/does_culture_really_want_to_be_free/singleton)
- Gerd Leonhard, The Future of the Content Industries (April 2011) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLxEqy3lngk) | >
> | - Mike Masnik, Saying You Can't Compete With Free Is Saying You Can't Compete Period, Techdirt (February 15, 2007) (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070215/002923.shtml) | | | | |
<
< | - Gerd Leonhard, Free & Freemium Business Models (June 2011) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uOsLgTMGqc) | >
> | - Fred Wilson, Freemium and Freeconomics (July 4, 2009) (http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2009/07/freemium-and-freeconomics.html) | | | | |
<
< | Section III | >
> | Conclusions | | | | |
<
< | Subsection A | | | Subsection B | | | - Stop Online Piracy Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act) | |
<
< | - David Kravets, Chief Sponsor Wavers on Web Censorship Bill in Charged Hearing, Wired (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/11/piracy-blacklisting-bill) | >
> | - http://americancensorship.org
- David Kravets, Chief Sponsor Wavers on Web Censorship Bill in Charged Hearing, Wired (November 16, 2011) (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/11/piracy-blacklisting-bill) | | | | |
<
< | - SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) debate: Why are Google and Facebook against it? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/sopa-stop-online-piracy-act-debate-why-are-google-and-facebook-against-it/2011/11/17/gIQAvLubVN_story.html) | >
> | - SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) debate: Why are Google and Facebook against it? (November 17, 2011) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/sopa-stop-online-piracy-act-debate-why-are-google-and-facebook-against-it/2011/11/17/gIQAvLubVN_story.html) | | | - Caitlin Bronson, Online Piracy Act Struggles in Congress (November 29, 2011) (http://www.thirdage.com/news/online-piracy-act-struggles-in-congress_11-29-2011)
- Stop the Stop Online Piracy Act Now (November 21, 2011) (http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/11/21/stop-the-stop-online-piracy-act-now.aspx) | |
<
< | - http://americancensorship.org | >
> | - Timothy B. Lee, The Stop Online Piracy Act: Big Content's full-on assault against the Safe Harbor, ARS Technica (November 2011) (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/11/the-stop-online-piracy-act-big-contents-full-on-assault-against-the-safe-harbor.ars | | | | |
<
< | Media content | >
> | - David Cravets, U.S. Copyright Czar Cozied Up to Content Industry, E-Mails Show, Wired (October 14, 2011) (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/10/copyright-czar-cozies-up) | | | | |
<
< | - Scott Timberg, Does culture really want to be free? (http://www.salon.com/2011/11/01/does_culture_really_want_to_be_free/singleton) | >
> | Copyright and Freemium | | | | |
<
< | - Melody Walker, Economists say copyright and patent laws are killing innovation; hurting economy (http://www.physorg.com/news155495067.html) | >
> | - Kevin Kelly, Better than Free (January 31, 2008) (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/kelly08/kelly08_index.html) | | | | |
<
< | - Steven Levy, Facebook, Spotify and the Future of Music (http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/10/ff_music) | >
> | - Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, Against Intellectual Monopoly (November 11, 2005) (http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm) | | | | |
<
< | - Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, Against Intellectual Monopoly (http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm) | >
> | - Richard Stallman, Misinterpreting Copyright (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html) | | | | |
<
< | - Danny Colligan, What We Lose When We Embrace Copyright (http://questioncopyright.org/what_we_lose_when_we_embrace_copyright) | >
> | - Mike Masnik, Saying You Can't Compete With Free Is Saying You Can't Compete Period, Techdirt (February 15, 2007) (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070215/002923.shtml) | | | | |
<
< | - Joost Smiers and Marieke van Schijndel, Imagine a world without copyright, New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/07/opinion/07iht-edsmiers.html?pagewanted=all) | >
> | - Fred Wilson, Freemium and Freeconomics (July 4, 2009) (http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2009/07/freemium-and-freeconomics.html) | | | | |
<
< | - David Cravets, U.S. Copyright Czar Cozied Up to Content Industry, E-Mails Show, Wired (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/10/copyright-czar-cozies-up) | >
> | - Fred Wilson, My Favorite Business Model (March 23, 2006) (http://avc.blogs.com/a_vc/2006/03/my_favorite_bus.html) | | | - Eric Schlachter, The Intellectual Property Renaissance in Cyberspace: Why Copyright Law Could Be Unimportant on the Internet, Berkeley Technological Law Journal (http://www.law.berkeley.edu/journals/btlj/articles/vol12/Schlachter/html/reader.html) | |
<
< | - Nate Anderson, Big Content to FCC: don't kill our ISP filtering dream!, ARS Technica (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/09/big-content-still-cant-compete-with-free.ars) | >
> | - Danny Colligan, What We Lose When We Embrace Copyright (February 11, 2010) (http://questioncopyright.org/what_we_lose_when_we_embrace_copyright) | | | | |
<
< | - Timothy B. Lee, The Stop Online Piracy Act: Big Content's full-on assault against the Safe Harbor, ARS Technica (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/11/the-stop-online-piracy-act-big-contents-full-on-assault-against-the-safe-harbor.ars | >
> | - Melody Walker, Economists say copyright and patent laws are killing innovation; hurting economy (March 5, 2009) (http://www.physorg.com/news155495067.html) | | | | |
<
< | - Nate Anderson, File-sharers are content industry's "largest customers", ARS Technica (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/05/file-sharers-are-content-industrys-largest-customers.ars) | >
> | - Scott Timberg, Does culture really want to be free? (November 1, 2011) (http://www.salon.com/2011/11/01/does_culture_really_want_to_be_free/singleton) | | | | |
<
< | - Nico van EIJK, Legal, Economic and Cultural Aspects of File Sharing (http://www.ivir.nl/publications/vaneijk/Communications&Strategies_2010.pdf) | >
> | - Joost Smiers and Marieke van Schijndel, Imagine a world without copyright, New York Times (October 8, 2005) (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/07/opinion/07iht-edsmiers.html?pagewanted=all) | | | | |
<
< | - Eric Steven Raymond, The Cathedral and the Bazaar (http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/homesteading/cathedral-bazaar) | >
> | - Nico van EIJK, Legal, Economic and Cultural Aspects of File Sharing (March 30, 2010) (http://www.ivir.nl/publications/vaneijk/Communications&Strategies_2010.pdf) | | | | |
<
< | - What would Jesus hack? Cybertheology: Just how much does Christian doctrine have in common with the open-source software movement?, The Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/21527031) | >
> | - Mark A. Lemley, Is the Sky Falling Dawn on the Content Industries? (2011) (http://www.jthtl.org/content/articles/V9I1/JTHTLv9i1_Lemley.PDF)
- Steven Levy, Facebook, Spotify and the Future of Music (October 21, 2011) (http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/10/ff_music) | | | | |
<
< | - Mark A. Lemley, Is the Sky Falling Dawn on the Content Industries?, 9 Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology Law 125 (http://www.jthtl.org/content/articles/V9I1/JTHTLv9i1_Lemley.PDF) | >
> | - Nate Anderson, Big Content to FCC: don't kill our ISP filtering dream!, ARS Technica (2009) (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/09/big-content-still-cant-compete-with-free.ars) | | | | |
<
< | - Mike Masnik, Saying You Can't Compete With Free Is Saying You Can't Compete Period, Techdirt (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070215/002923.shtml) | >
> | - JRC Scientific and Technical Reports, The Future Evolution of the Creative Content Industries (2008) (http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC47964.pdf) | | | | |
<
< | - JRC Scientific and Technical Reports, The Future Evolution of the Creative Content Industries (http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC47964.pdf) | >
> | - Anita Elberse, Bye Bye Bundles: The Unbundling of Music in Digital Channels (November 1, 2009) (http://www.people.hbs.edu/aelberse/papers/Elberse_2010.pdf) | | | - Scott Berinato, The iTunes Effect and the Future of Content, Havard Business Review (http://blogs.hbr.org/research/2010/01/the-itunes-effect-and-the-futu.html) | | | - Gerd Leonhard, Free & Freemium Business Models (June 2011) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uOsLgTMGqc) | |
<
< | - Fred Wilson, Freemium and Freeconomics (July 4, 2009) (http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2009/07/freemium-and-freeconomics.html) | >
> | Open Source Information
- Eric Steven Raymond, The Cathedral and the Bazaar (http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/homesteading/cathedral-bazaar)
- What would Jesus hack? Cybertheology: Just how much does Christian doctrine have in common with the open-source software movement?, The Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/21527031) | | | | |
<
< | - Fred Wilson, My Favorite Business Model (March 23, 2006) (http://avc.blogs.com/a_vc/2006/03/my_favorite_bus.html) | | |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. |
|
|
DiegodelaPuenteSecondPaper 7 - 30 Nov 2011 - Main.DiegodelaPuente
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
The Stop Online Piracy Act: the blindness continues
-- By DiegodelaPuente - 15 Nov 2011 | |
<
< | The Unfortunate Stop Online Piracy Act's discussion | >
> | The Futile Stop Online Piracy Act's discussion | | | | |
<
< | Unfortunately, the U.S. Congress’ actual discussion about the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), does not contribute to the Net development; on the contrary, it distracts the attention on real matters: copyright is no longer needed under the Net’s conception. In sum, SOPA tries to expand the U.S. Department of Justice and copyright holders’ power allowing seeking court orders against websites outside U.S. jurisdiction accused of infringing on copyrights, or of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. As Representative Lamar Smith, one of the chief sponsors of the bill, said, SOPA is need because rogue websites are stealing and selling American innovations. Moreover, even SOPA’s most important detractors, Google, Facebook, AOL and Twitter, are only talking about Internet censorship or a chilling effect on speech, rather than proposing a change from the actual copyright framework in accordance of the new technological trends. | >
> | Unfortunately, the U.S. Congress’ actual discussion about the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), does not contribute to the Net growth and the society’ development; on the contrary, it distracts the public attention on real matters: copyright is no longer needed under the Net’s conception. In sum, SOPA tries to expand the U.S. Department of Justice and copyright holders’ power allowing seeking court orders against websites outside U.S. jurisdiction accused of infringing on copyrights, or of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. As Representative Lamar Smith, one of the chief sponsors of the bill, said, SOPA is needed because rogue websites are “stealing and selling American innovations”. Moreover, even SOPA’s most important detractors, Google, Facebook, AOL and Twitter, are only talking about Internet censorship or a chilling effect on speech, rather than proposing a radical change from the actual copyright framework in accordance of the new technological trends, which is being proposed by many scholars, such as James Allsworth (Harvard Business School), Kevin Kelly (Wired Magazine), Fred Wilson (Union Square Ventures) or Mike Masnick (Techdirt). | | | | | | - SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) debate: Why are Google and Facebook against it? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/sopa-stop-online-piracy-act-debate-why-are-google-and-facebook-against-it/2011/11/17/gIQAvLubVN_story.html)
The intellectual property market | |
<
< | | | | | |
<
< | SOPA’s proponents, mainly, the Motion Picture Association of America, Recording Industry Association of America, Business Software Alliance and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, say the bill will protect intellectual property market, including the resultant revenue and jobs; however, it is really protecting the earnings of the content industries monopolies. It seems that once again, as in the wireless telecommunications industry, the Law, in this case the copyright law, is the last to take notice of the changes that are taking place in the real world, because it is outdated and lacks of effectiveness in the Net. | | | | |
<
< | For instance, discussing the music industry, SOPA is supposed to protect singers’ intellectual property, enabling them to pursue a profit. Some journalist, such as Dr. Robert Levine (former Billboard executive editor), thinks that the best way to save artists’ jobs is to strengthen copyright laws, by the way also opposing to the idea of a free an open Internet. I disagree with that statement and that opinion current opinion and consider that the actual copyright policy should change. | >
> | SOPA’s proponents, mainly, the Motion Picture Association of America, Recording Industry Association of America, Business Software Alliance and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, say the bill will protect intellectual property market, including the resultant revenue and jobs; however, it is really protecting and preserving the earnings of the content industries monopolies. Once again, as in the wireless telecommunications industry, the Law, in this case Copyright Law, is outdated and lacks of effectiveness, because it does not consider the social changes that advanced technology is generating. For instance, regarding the music industry, SOPA is supposed to protect singers’ intellectual property, enabling them to pursue a profit. Some journalist in SOPA’s favor, such as Dr. Robert Levine (former Billboard executive editor), thinks that the best way to save artists’ jobs is to strengthen copyright laws, by the way also opposing to the idea of a free an open Internet. I disagree with that statement and that opinion current, and consider that the actual copyright policy should change, since there can be incentives and artists can maintain or even improve their jobs quality in a share XXX.
In the particular case of the content industries (film, television, books, music and others), there should be an economical model modification. Ownership idea must be change for access, sharing and selling added value services. The market will identify the right point to pay money to information providers, when they see a real value. In this concern, in 2006 Fred Wilson propose the freemium business model, that is a combination of free and premium, in short words, free gets you to the place where you can get paid. Additionally, Kevin Kelly, other scholar from XXXX, established that in this new model, the idea is not to sell copies, because they must be available to everyone and provide some alternatives to allow money earnings to artists and the industry: immediacy, personalization, authenticity (quality), attention, interpretation, accessibility, embodiment, and findability. Moreover, in 2005 Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, two economists at Washington University, published a book, Against Intellectual Monopoly, where they described that the current patent/copyright system discourages and prevents inventions from entering the marketplace. | | | | |
<
< | Free media content | >
> | Freemium
- Fred Wilson, My Favorite Business Model (March 23, 2006) (http://avc.blogs.com/a_vc/2006/03/my_favorite_bus.html)
- Fred Wilson, Freemium and Freeconomics (July 4, 2009) (http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2009/07/freemium-and-freeconomics.html) | | | - Does culture really want to be free? (November 1, 2011) (http://www.salon.com/2011/11/01/does_culture_really_want_to_be_free/singleton) | | | - Gerd Leonhard, Free & Freemium Business Models (June 2011) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uOsLgTMGqc) | |
>
> | - Fred Wilson, Freemium and Freeconomics (July 4, 2009) (http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2009/07/freemium-and-freeconomics.html)
- Fred Wilson, My Favorite Business Model (March 23, 2006) (http://avc.blogs.com/a_vc/2006/03/my_favorite_bus.html) | | |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines: |
|
|
DiegodelaPuenteSecondPaper 6 - 30 Nov 2011 - Main.AustinKlar
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
The Stop Online Piracy Act: the blindness continues | | |
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list.
\ No newline at end of file | |
>
> | COMMENTS
I think artists stand to gain the least from copyright law protection. Artists make the least amount of money on album sales as it is. This is not because too many people are downloading their albums instead of buying them. Its largely because there isn't as much money in the record business in general. Most artists make the most off of touring, merchandise, etc. I was watching a 60 minutes episode on Taylor Swift recently, and it said that her tour made between $100 and $150 million. She likely did not receive even a small fraction of that from her record deals. Its annoying that record labels want to disguise these laws as protections for the artist. The record labels largely exist to exploit the artists, not protect them and this is evident by the many suboptimal deals artists get on their record deals. The SOPA law would serve not to protect actors, singers, etc...It is meant to protect the industry monopolies behind the artists.
-- Austin Klar |
|
|
DiegodelaPuenteSecondPaper 5 - 30 Nov 2011 - Main.DiegodelaPuente
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
The Stop Online Piracy Act: the blindness continues | | | The Unfortunate Stop Online Piracy Act's discussion | |
>
> | | | | Unfortunately, the U.S. Congress’ actual discussion about the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), does not contribute to the Net development; on the contrary, it distracts the attention on real matters: copyright is no longer needed under the Net’s conception. In sum, SOPA tries to expand the U.S. Department of Justice and copyright holders’ power allowing seeking court orders against websites outside U.S. jurisdiction accused of infringing on copyrights, or of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. As Representative Lamar Smith, one of the chief sponsors of the bill, said, SOPA is need because rogue websites are stealing and selling American innovations. Moreover, even SOPA’s most important detractors, Google, Facebook, AOL and Twitter, are only talking about Internet censorship or a chilling effect on speech, rather than proposing a change from the actual copyright framework in accordance of the new technological trends. | |
>
> | | | | Stop Online Piracy Act | | | The intellectual property market | |
>
> | | | | SOPA’s proponents, mainly, the Motion Picture Association of America, Recording Industry Association of America, Business Software Alliance and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, say the bill will protect intellectual property market, including the resultant revenue and jobs; however, it is really protecting the earnings of the content industries monopolies. It seems that once again, as in the wireless telecommunications industry, the Law, in this case the copyright law, is the last to take notice of the changes that are taking place in the real world, because it is outdated and lacks of effectiveness in the Net.
For instance, discussing the music industry, SOPA is supposed to protect singers’ intellectual property, enabling them to pursue a profit. Some journalist, such as Dr. Robert Levine (former Billboard executive editor), thinks that the best way to save artists’ jobs is to strengthen copyright laws, by the way also opposing to the idea of a free an open Internet. I disagree with that statement and that opinion current opinion and consider that the actual copyright policy should change. | |
>
> | | | | Free media content |
|
|
DiegodelaPuenteSecondPaper 4 - 30 Nov 2011 - Main.DiegodelaPuente
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | The Stop Online Piracy Act and the Copyright problems | >
> | The Stop Online Piracy Act: the blindness continues | | | -- By DiegodelaPuente - 15 Nov 2011 | |
<
< | Section I | >
> | The Unfortunate Stop Online Piracy Act's discussion | | | | |
<
< | Subsection A | >
> | Unfortunately, the U.S. Congress’ actual discussion about the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), does not contribute to the Net development; on the contrary, it distracts the attention on real matters: copyright is no longer needed under the Net’s conception. In sum, SOPA tries to expand the U.S. Department of Justice and copyright holders’ power allowing seeking court orders against websites outside U.S. jurisdiction accused of infringing on copyrights, or of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. As Representative Lamar Smith, one of the chief sponsors of the bill, said, SOPA is need because rogue websites are stealing and selling American innovations. Moreover, even SOPA’s most important detractors, Google, Facebook, AOL and Twitter, are only talking about Internet censorship or a chilling effect on speech, rather than proposing a change from the actual copyright framework in accordance of the new technological trends. | | | | |
>
> | Stop Online Piracy Act | | | | |
<
< | Subsub 1 | >
> | - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act | | | | |
<
< | Subsection B | >
> | - David Kravets, Chief Sponsor Wavers on Web Censorship Bill in Charged Hearing, Wired (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/11/piracy-blacklisting-bill)
- http://americancensorship.org
- SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) debate: Why are Google and Facebook against it? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/sopa-stop-online-piracy-act-debate-why-are-google-and-facebook-against-it/2011/11/17/gIQAvLubVN_story.html)
The intellectual property market
SOPA’s proponents, mainly, the Motion Picture Association of America, Recording Industry Association of America, Business Software Alliance and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, say the bill will protect intellectual property market, including the resultant revenue and jobs; however, it is really protecting the earnings of the content industries monopolies. It seems that once again, as in the wireless telecommunications industry, the Law, in this case the copyright law, is the last to take notice of the changes that are taking place in the real world, because it is outdated and lacks of effectiveness in the Net.
For instance, discussing the music industry, SOPA is supposed to protect singers’ intellectual property, enabling them to pursue a profit. Some journalist, such as Dr. Robert Levine (former Billboard executive editor), thinks that the best way to save artists’ jobs is to strengthen copyright laws, by the way also opposing to the idea of a free an open Internet. I disagree with that statement and that opinion current opinion and consider that the actual copyright policy should change. | | | | |
>
> | Free media content | | | | |
<
< | Subsub 1 | >
> | - Does culture really want to be free? (November 1, 2011) (http://www.salon.com/2011/11/01/does_culture_really_want_to_be_free/singleton) | | | | |
>
> | - Gerd Leonhard, The Future of the Content Industries (April 2011) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLxEqy3lngk) | | | | |
<
< | Subsub 2 | >
> | - Gerd Leonhard, Free & Freemium Business Models (June 2011) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uOsLgTMGqc)
Section III | | | | |
<
< | Section II | | | Subsection A
Subsection B | |
>
> | Conclusions | | | Information sources | |
>
> | Stop Online Piracy Act | | | - Stop Online Piracy Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act)
- David Kravets, Chief Sponsor Wavers on Web Censorship Bill in Charged Hearing, Wired (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/11/piracy-blacklisting-bill)
- SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) debate: Why are Google and Facebook against it? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/sopa-stop-online-piracy-act-debate-why-are-google-and-facebook-against-it/2011/11/17/gIQAvLubVN_story.html) | |
<
< | - Stop the Stop Online Piracy Act Now (http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/11/21/stop-the-stop-online-piracy-act-now.aspx) | >
> | - Caitlin Bronson, Online Piracy Act Struggles in Congress (November 29, 2011) (http://www.thirdage.com/news/online-piracy-act-struggles-in-congress_11-29-2011)
- Stop the Stop Online Piracy Act Now (November 21, 2011) (http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/11/21/stop-the-stop-online-piracy-act-now.aspx)
- http://americancensorship.org
Media content
- Scott Timberg, Does culture really want to be free? (http://www.salon.com/2011/11/01/does_culture_really_want_to_be_free/singleton) | | | - Melody Walker, Economists say copyright and patent laws are killing innovation; hurting economy (http://www.physorg.com/news155495067.html) | | | - Scott Berinato, The iTunes Effect and the Future of Content, Havard Business Review (http://blogs.hbr.org/research/2010/01/the-itunes-effect-and-the-futu.html) | |
<
< | - Gerd Leonhard, The Future of the Content Industries: Futurist & Keynote (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLxEqy3lngk) | >
> | - Gerd Leonhard, The Future of the Content Industries (April 2011) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLxEqy3lngk)
- Gerd Leonhard, Free & Freemium Business Models (June 2011) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uOsLgTMGqc) | | |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. |
|
|
DiegodelaPuenteSecondPaper 2 - 28 Nov 2011 - Main.DiegodelaPuente
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< |
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.
Paper Title | >
> | The Stop Online Piracy Act and the Copyright problems | | | -- By DiegodelaPuente - 15 Nov 2011 | | | Subsection B | |
>
> | Information sources
- Stop Online Piracy Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act)
- David Kravets, Chief Sponsor Wavers on Web Censorship Bill in Charged Hearing, Wired (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/11/piracy-blacklisting-bill)
- SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) debate: Why are Google and Facebook against it? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/sopa-stop-online-piracy-act-debate-why-are-google-and-facebook-against-it/2011/11/17/gIQAvLubVN_story.html)
- Stop the Stop Online Piracy Act Now (http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/11/21/stop-the-stop-online-piracy-act-now.aspx)
- Melody Walker, Economists say copyright and patent laws are killing innovation; hurting economy (http://www.physorg.com/news155495067.html)
- Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, Against Intellectual Monopoly (http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm)
- Danny Colligan, What We Lose When We Embrace Copyright (http://questioncopyright.org/what_we_lose_when_we_embrace_copyright)
- Joost Smiers and Marieke van Schijndel, Imagine a world without copyright, New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/07/opinion/07iht-edsmiers.html?pagewanted=all)
- David Cravets, U.S. Copyright Czar Cozied Up to Content Industry, E-Mails Show, Wired (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/10/copyright-czar-cozies-up)
- Eric Schlachter, The Intellectual Property Renaissance in Cyberspace: Why Copyright Law Could Be Unimportant on the Internet, Berkeley Technological Law Journal (http://www.law.berkeley.edu/journals/btlj/articles/vol12/Schlachter/html/reader.html)
- Nate Anderson, Big Content to FCC: don't kill our ISP filtering dream!, ARS Technica (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/09/big-content-still-cant-compete-with-free.ars)
- Timothy B. Lee, The Stop Online Piracy Act: Big Content's full-on assault against the Safe Harbor, ARS Technica (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/11/the-stop-online-piracy-act-big-contents-full-on-assault-against-the-safe-harbor.ars
- Nate Anderson, File-sharers are content industry's "largest customers", ARS Technica (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/05/file-sharers-are-content-industrys-largest-customers.ars)
- Nico van EIJK, Legal, Economic and Cultural Aspects of File Sharing (http://www.ivir.nl/publications/vaneijk/Communications&Strategies_2010.pdf)
- Eric Steven Raymond, The Cathedral and the Bazaar (http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/homesteading/cathedral-bazaar)
- What would Jesus hack? Cybertheology: Just how much does Christian doctrine have in common with the open-source software movement?, The Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/21527031)
- Mark A. Lemley, Is the Sky Falling Dawn on the Content Industries?, 9 Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology Law 125 (http://www.jthtl.org/content/articles/V9I1/JTHTLv9i1_Lemley.PDF)
- Mike Masnik, Saying You Can't Compete With Free Is Saying You Can't Compete Period, Techdirt (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070215/002923.shtml)
- JRC Scientific and Technical Reports, The Future Evolution of the Creative Content Industries (http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC47964.pdf)
- Scott Berinato, The iTunes Effect and the Future of Content, Havard Business Review (http://blogs.hbr.org/research/2010/01/the-itunes-effect-and-the-futu.html)
- Gerd Leonhard, The Future of the Content Industries: Futurist & Keynote (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLxEqy3lngk) | | |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines: |
|
|
DiegodelaPuenteSecondPaper 1 - 15 Nov 2011 - Main.DiegodelaPuente
|
|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.
Paper Title
-- By DiegodelaPuente - 15 Nov 2011
Section I
Subsection A
Subsub 1
Subsection B
Subsub 1
Subsub 2
Section II
Subsection A
Subsection B
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list. |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|