[LINK] MEAA tells Creative Commons to get f**ed
Deus Ex Machina
vicc at cia.com.au
Mon Mar 21 16:18:59 EST 2005
Brendan Scott [brendansweb at optusnet.com.au] wrote:
> Vic's initial proposal was this: "what happens should [a derivative work]
> actually make money *and the originating work doesnt*". (my emph). Whether
> or not this is a view held by Vic, it is still a moral theory of value and
> one which is expressed often in this context. Implicitly this argument is
> saying that the originator's effort somehow infects later takers who should
> be under some (moral?) obligation to the originator.
the originators creativity is a cause for the susbsquent events.
withdraw the cause and their is no follow on. this is determines the
value of the original. its not a question of "infecting" susbsequent
works. its a question of fair value exchange. the intial work brings to
life certain value which the creator should be entitled to capitalise.
> I am saying that we don't apply this rule in respect of property, so why do
> people try to apply it in relation to works? The reason we don't apply
> this rule in respect of property is that it clogs up the economy with
> ridiculously expensive search, transaction and enforcement costs (all of
> which are borne by the ultimate purchaser).
firstly in virtual domains, replication costs are close to zero and secondly
it is not physical things you are trading but, rights.
in virtual domains the limitation of transactional and enforcement costs
also approaches zero.
so as this dead weight approaches zero an entire new avenues of wealth
opens up for benefit of all society.
>Further it is bad because it
> prevents people from reaching their full economic potential by a general
> prohibition on working with the material
rubish. it prevent people from riding on the creativity of other for free.
> This inefficiency is justified by creating copyright as a fictional asset.
all rights are cultural and legal fictions. that in no way negates a right.
>However, this has problems for two reasons. First, just because
> you call something an asset or property doesn't make it economically
the control of rights in a digital domain is economically viable and
therefore becomes extremely sensible. you have no argument.
> In the context of creators it is especially pernicious as it is used as a
> basis for reducing their rewards. By encouraging them to rely on the very
> low chance of receiving a spectacular return in the future they accept a
> lower up front payment for their work. It is also used as a means of
> luring people into the area, creating a surplus of creators, allowing
> distributors, who control demand, to further depress returns. There are
> structural reasons why the archetypal creator is poor.
you are just so last century.
I suggest you brush up on powerlaw distributions.
next youll be trying to tell me some horrible cartel is restricting
access to weblogs and creating an artificial surplus of authors and
ghastly structural inequality of popular blogs. who would of course
in a financial exchange be classed as a "cartel" structurally controling
and exploting the masses of authors and biasing the distribution of wealth
away from some gini straight line towards a riot inducing bendy gini co-eficient.
> In the context of the economy it is bad, because (in addition to the
> economic costs outlined above) it implicitly permits the creation of
is it the same cartels that restricts access to blogs?
buy this book read it. get enlightened.
Linked: How Everything Is Connected to Everything Else and What It Means
by Albert-Laszlo Barabasi
if you havnt understood the implications, read it again and again till
this book has blown your world view apart.
>The control of downstream rights necessarily requires the control
> of potential competitors. If you are large enough in the control of these
> blocking rights you can reach a truce with other large players and carve up
> territories. A competitive market cannot be achieved in these conditions.
> Historians postulate that the industrial revolution was delayed for 2000
> years because of the widespread and cheap availability of slave labour. We
> can postulate how many years the information revolution will be delayed as
> the result of cartel rights.
utterly baseless hypothetical 20th cent archaic socialistic paranoic waffle :)
More information about the Link