|
JustinColanninoFirstPaper 17 - 24 Nov 2009 - Main.EdwardBontkowski
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
*Under Revision* | | | Brett - in terms of the incentive to create and control of the work those statements are included to introduce the topic. I don't think that I can draw them out more fully in this space and still make the point that I want to make. I know that Bradley Mullins is looking at alternatives. And others exist such as merchandising or patronage. When I revise the introduction I will keep in mind that I don't want to lead the reader down the wrong path.
-- JustinColannino - 23 Nov 2009 | |
>
> |
Justin,
While I didn't comment on the first revision of your paper, my sentiments were very similar to what Dana mentioned. Your latest revision is much, much cleaner. Getting rid of the references to "what the class thought" etc, now gives this paper much more professional legitimacy (if you get what I mean). Very well done in that respect.
As far as substantive comments, I feel that the first paragraph of the "Social Costs" section is a bit grandiose and rhetorical. Especially the last few lines and the "we are all we have" line. This is something I'd expect to hear in an Obama speech, but I think the rhetoric effect is unnecessary and ineffective here, given your audience.
Other than that, I think you're off to a very good start. I especially enjoyed the implementation of the "phase shifting" analogy, as you articulated it well and it presented it in a way that made a lot of sense.
-- EdwardBontkowski - 24 Nov 2009 | | |
\ No newline at end of file |
|
|
JustinColanninoFirstPaper 16 - 23 Nov 2009 - Main.JustinColannino
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
*Under Revision* | | | | |
<
< | When we were discussing goods reproduced at zero marginal cost two serious objections were raised. The first was that the right to control the means of distribution was a major incentive for authors to write. Granting the right to collect rent in exchange for a distribution of the work allows authors to recoup the cost (and maybe more) of the time and effort spent writing. The second objection spoke to the moral right of authors; in order to control the context of their works - how and where they are presented - authors had to be able to control the distribution pipeline. | >
> | One of the properties of the internet is that any two people are able to send bit streams to each other at zero cost. A side effect of this property is that people distribute copyrighted music, movies, and books to each other without seeking or obtaining permission of the copyright holder. Many authors (and entertainment executives) complain granting the right to collect rent in exchange for each distribution of the work is necessary for authors to recoup the cost (and maybe more) of the time and effort spent writing, and to control the presentation and context of their works. | | | I support author rights, and recognize the importance of even aesthetic contributions. The most valuable time of my day as a law student are the hours I spend listening to music while I read - it keeps me focused, gives me ideas, and calms me down. A problem we face as we transition to an internet society is ensuring that the authors we read and the musicians we like have enough money so that they will continue devoting most of their time creating works to educate, inspire, and entertain us. | |
<
< | However, if we decide as a society to stay the course so that the way to provide compensation and recognition to authors is to allow them to control and sell their distribution rights absolutely, even when making an additional copy is free, then I think that we owe it to ourselves to recognize the social costs imposed by such a system. This essay will proceed by observing how the distribution right fundamentally alters the distribution properties of works representable in digital form. Taking this observation, it will explore how a system that does not interfere with frictionless distribution could enhance our form of self-government. | >
> | However, if we decide as a society to reject alternative methods of providing compensation and stay the course so that the way we provide compensation and recognition is to allow authors to control and sell their distribution rights absolutely, even when making an additional copy is free, then I think that we owe it to ourselves to recognize the social costs imposed by such a system. This essay will proceed by observing how the distribution right fundamentally alters the distribution properties of works representable in digital form. Taking this observation, it will explore how a system that does not interfere with frictionless distribution could enhance our form of self-government. | | | Phase Transitions and Charging for Distribution
A useful way of illustrating the cost of rents on distribution is through the concept of phase transitions. A phase transition can generally be thought of as an abrupt change in the behavior of a system at a critical point. In physical science, the most common example of a phase transition is the difference between water molecules at < 0°C, ice, and water molecules at > 0°C, water. Not limited to physical science, other examples of systems possessing a phase transition include certain NP-Complete problems and certain types of graphs. | | | The Social Costs of Charging For Distribution
The fact that these properties are lost by allowing authors to charge rent on distribution has little consequence if we do not think that they are worthwhile to have. However, these properties have the potential to increase the effectiveness of our system of government. When we decided that ours would be a government by the people, we all took on the responsibility of governing, and took an interest in the education and development of ourselves and all of our fellow citizens. Every time we are confronted with a problem in this system the solution must come from us; we are all we have. | |
<
< | The different properties of writings, music, or video which can be distributed at marginal cost zero and those which can not has implications on the behavior of this political system. When authors seek rent through the distribution right, there is an artificial cost applied to reading, watching, or listening. This barrier effects the reach of the works among the citizens, prohibiting access to those who will not or can not pay rent. Writings may even be lost completely to society if an injunction against their distribution is granted on behalf of the right holder. These barriers place constraints on the ability of citizens to develop and educate themselves through digesting works, constraints which could be removed for digital goods with a different mode of artist compensation. | >
> | The different properties of writings, music, or video which can be distributed at marginal cost zero and those which can not has implications on the behavior of this political system. When authors seek rent through the distribution right, there is an artificial cost applied to reading, watching, or listening. This barrier effects the reach of the works among the citizens, prohibiting access to those who will not or can not pay rent. Writings may even be lost completely to society if an injunction against their distribution is granted on behalf of the right holder. These barriers place constraints on the ability of citizens to learn and develop through digesting works, constraints which could be removed for digital goods with a different mode of artist compensation. | | | Removing these constrains might achieve a different type of phase transition in our political economy. As Meiklejohn noted in the quote at the beginning of this essay, in self-government wisdom in action can only be found in the minds of individual citizens. If we remove the barriers to development and education for us all, the structure of how our political system behaves will be altered and unexpected solutions may be, and are more likely to be, reached. |
|
|
JustinColanninoFirstPaper 15 - 23 Nov 2009 - Main.JustinColannino
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
*Under Revision* | | | Thanks for your comments. I think the two of you are right that the way I introduce this topic leaves a bit to be desired, and that a more focused approach would be useful to the reader. Dana - the part about listening to music at home is there to try demonstrate briefly how valuable I find writings and music. I put it in to try to build agreement with skeptical readers. I am going to explore other ways of achieving this, so I would appreciate your comments on my next revision once I've finished it. | |
>
> | Brett - in terms of the incentive to create and control of the work those statements are included to introduce the topic. I don't think that I can draw them out more fully in this space and still make the point that I want to make. I know that Bradley Mullins is looking at alternatives. And others exist such as merchandising or patronage. When I revise the introduction I will keep in mind that I don't want to lead the reader down the wrong path. | | | -- JustinColannino - 23 Nov 2009
\ No newline at end of file |
|
|
JustinColanninoFirstPaper 14 - 23 Nov 2009 - Main.JustinColannino
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| |
>
> | *Under Revision* | | | | | | I would suggest that your essay is fine and addresses some valid problems and costs associated with restricted distribution and that part can stand on its own. However, if so, I would alter the opening section so that you do not imply that you are going to address issues of incentive and control; or, alternatively I believe it would be a stronger essay if you do want to address those issues to more fully develop why they are not necessary or how substitutes for restricted distribution to provide for such incentive and control could be accomplished. If your thesis is that incentive and control would be reduced in a free distribution model but the benefits derived from such model would outweigh those costs I would like to see that drawn out a little more clearly as well. | |
<
< | | | | -- BrettJohnson - 22 Nov 2009 | |
>
> | Brett and Dana,
Thanks for your comments. I think the two of you are right that the way I introduce this topic leaves a bit to be desired, and that a more focused approach would be useful to the reader. Dana - the part about listening to music at home is there to try demonstrate briefly how valuable I find writings and music. I put it in to try to build agreement with skeptical readers. I am going to explore other ways of achieving this, so I would appreciate your comments on my next revision once I've finished it.
-- JustinColannino - 23 Nov 2009 | | |
\ No newline at end of file |
|
|
JustinColanninoFirstPaper 13 - 22 Nov 2009 - Main.BrettJohnson
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
Ice-Water, Digital Distribution, and Social Costs | | | There's a lot of value here to work with, so some reworking to make sure that value is seen would be a good thing for all of us.
-- DanaDelger - 18 Nov 2009 | |
>
> |
Justin,
In your opening section you indicate that there were two objections to free distribution that were raised in class: (1) incentive for creation and; (2) control by authors. The way I read your essay you then primarily set forth some disadvantages of controlled distribution, as well as benefits of free distribution, to society as a whole. I was not satisfied, however, that you addressed the incentive or control issues other than to close by indicating that solutions to those issues may be easily reached if barriers to distribution and education related thereto were removed.
I would suggest that your essay is fine and addresses some valid problems and costs associated with restricted distribution and that part can stand on its own. However, if so, I would alter the opening section so that you do not imply that you are going to address issues of incentive and control; or, alternatively I believe it would be a stronger essay if you do want to address those issues to more fully develop why they are not necessary or how substitutes for restricted distribution to provide for such incentive and control could be accomplished. If your thesis is that incentive and control would be reduced in a free distribution model but the benefits derived from such model would outweigh those costs I would like to see that drawn out a little more clearly as well.
-- BrettJohnson - 22 Nov 2009 | | | |
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|