| |
| 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. |
|