4 ms·

I love you all. :-) Here we are again, and this thread is full of comments about whether this was afoul of DMCA or whether there's a way to adjust the system

by jMyles 10y ago

I love you all. :-) Here we are again, and this thread is full of comments about whether this was afoul of DMCA or whether there's a way to adjust the system so that these claims will be more costly to the claimant. We need to break open the head here, people! We're scientists, right? Step back from your political ideologies and your fears and tell me what the real problem is with this biological system. Right: it's that a single actor can make the decision to censor these things. It's fundamentally a weak link problem. Whether or not we fix DMCA, which I'm sure we will, we need to fix the problem that the weak link exists in the first place. A centralized Youtube will not do for the information age. Our organism must build immunity such that, no matter the tantrums of the state, nobody is capable of giving in and handing over the lollipop.

jnagro 10y ago
i'm interested in joining your fight club
the8472 10y ago
step 1: roll out IP multicast step 2: ...
- teekert 10y ago
  Start sing https://ipfs.io/ https://ipfs.io/
clarry 10y ago
I can't fix the problem so it's up to you. Good luck. Increasingly, we live in a world of corporate ownership. Not private property.
- whamlastxmas 10y ago
  Or more precisely, a world of rent-seeking instead of innovation. Society's consumption is constantly shifting away from traditional corporate interests. However, the one thing people will always need to consume is housing. I think this is why we're seeing property prices skyrocket - people with money realize the best and safest place for their money is property since it will always be in demand.
- oldmanjay 10y ago
  I'd love some idea of how to distinguish between corporate ownership and private property. Can you list some attributes that help toward that task?
oldmanjay 10y ago
I have great news! There are a ton of video hosts on the web, who attack the problem from all different angles. Your solution already exists! You must be thrilled.
- jMyles 10y ago
  I can't quite tell if you are being sarcastic? ...but yes, I am thrilled! The internet increasingly seems to have a will about it, and one that organizes around basic principles of freedom and decentralization. So that's good news. I haven't quite picked a video delivery solution yet; I'm still largely a YouTube user. Do you have a suggestion or guide?
  - ccvannorman 10y ago
    The solution will be in the form of AGI sold to end-users to take care of this problem. Let me explain: In 2016 you navigate to https://youtube.com https://youtube.com to browse videos in 20X6 you navigate to my_agi://videos/ to browse, and it figures out how to quickly surf youtube and many, many other platforms to present your videos In that way, personalized and ubiquitous AGI allows end users to access the plethora of video content sites in one single easy to understand endpoint that is controlled by the user. True, the Apples of the world will sell you an iAGI that is walled-garden, and then we're back to square one. damn. Well, I tried.
btown 10y ago
Both free markets and state-controlled systems reward centralized control of any given type of media. In the former case, it's the idea that a "network effect" drives revenue opportunity. There's a real sense in which, in either of these regimes, our organism cannot build an immunity to singular community-controllers deciding that they weren't going to give you the lollipop in the first place. That's their prerogative, whether or not it was written in a law. The question is, how do we economically incentivize decentralized social networks to the point where they're as feature-filled, advanced, engineered, and efficiently operated as the centralized ones? There's no simple answer to that question.
Scirra_Tom 10y ago
Isn't this going from one (perceived extreme) of making sole actors able to bring content down to another extreme where no-one can bring anything down? Does fixing the issue really mean making all material (copyrighted or not) always available and impossible to take down?
- jMyles 10y ago
  I'm less sure. I don't think that there is a per se connection between the definition of a right (ofI think that the human) or tendency (of the internet organism) as absolute with a viewpoint which is politically extreme. (In other words: sometimes the moderate position is the one which seems absolute, and the position of relativity or balance is the extreme one). The notion that speech and expression always supersede "intellectual property" seems to be the tendency of the distributed network. I'm prepared to argue that holding on to industry-age statues regarding "intellectual property" (ie, that some actors justly have authority to change the shape of the network in order to subvert access which they claim violates their IP) is an extreme position - an extreme clinging to policies which are unrealistic and inapplicable to the internet.
  - Scirra_Tom 10y ago
    I always get uncomfortable when copyright issues are conflated into free speech issues. I feel it's generally used incorrectly to give more legitimacy basically to people wanting to distribute material they are not permitted to.
    - jMyles 10y ago
      Two responses - a weaker (but still sufficient) one and then a stronger one: The weak argument is, "look at the current case! This was clearly, obviously not Samsung's IP and yet they were able to effectively erase a meme from a popular platform for a short time." This is sufficient to show that indeed it is a free speech issue. The stronger argument is that the internet doesn't seem to recognize this concept of "material that they are not permitted to distribute." Introducing it has meant (often intentionally) causing all sorts of damage to various protocols and services. Even if it makes sense in the context of industry-age culture (and I'm not sure it does), it seems to go decidedly against nature now.

by jMyles 10y ago

jnagro 10y ago

i'm interested in joining your fight club

the8472 10y ago

step 1: roll out IP multicast step 2: ...

teekert 10y ago
Start sing https://ipfs.io/ https://ipfs.io/

clarry 10y ago

I can't fix the problem so it's up to you. Good luck. Increasingly, we live in a world of corporate ownership. Not private property.

whamlastxmas 10y ago
Or more precisely, a world of rent-seeking instead of innovation. Society's consumption is constantly shifting away from traditional corporate interests. However, the one thing people will always need to consume is housing. I think this is why we're seeing property prices skyrocket - people with money realize the best and safest place for their money is property since it will always be in demand.
oldmanjay 10y ago
I'd love some idea of how to distinguish between corporate ownership and private property. Can you list some attributes that help toward that task?

oldmanjay 10y ago

I have great news! There are a ton of video hosts on the web, who attack the problem from all different angles. Your solution already exists! You must be thrilled.

jMyles 10y ago
I can't quite tell if you are being sarcastic? ...but yes, I am thrilled! The internet increasingly seems to have a will about it, and one that organizes around basic principles of freedom and decentralization. So that's good news. I haven't quite picked a video delivery solution yet; I'm still largely a YouTube user. Do you have a suggestion or guide?
- ccvannorman 10y ago
  The solution will be in the form of AGI sold to end-users to take care of this problem. Let me explain: In 2016 you navigate to https://youtube.com https://youtube.com to browse videos in 20X6 you navigate to my_agi://videos/ to browse, and it figures out how to quickly surf youtube and many, many other platforms to present your videos In that way, personalized and ubiquitous AGI allows end users to access the plethora of video content sites in one single easy to understand endpoint that is controlled by the user. True, the Apples of the world will sell you an iAGI that is walled-garden, and then we're back to square one. damn. Well, I tried.

btown 10y ago

Both free markets and state-controlled systems reward centralized control of any given type of media. In the former case, it's the idea that a "network effect" drives revenue opportunity. There's a real sense in which, in either of these regimes, our organism cannot build an immunity to singular community-controllers deciding that they weren't going to give you the lollipop in the first place. That's their prerogative, whether or not it was written in a law. The question is, how do we economically incentivize decentralized social networks to the point where they're as feature-filled, advanced, engineered, and efficiently operated as the centralized ones? There's no simple answer to that question.

Scirra_Tom 10y ago

Isn't this going from one (perceived extreme) of making sole actors able to bring content down to another extreme where no-one can bring anything down? Does fixing the issue really mean making all material (copyrighted or not) always available and impossible to take down?

jMyles 10y ago
I'm less sure. I don't think that there is a per se connection between the definition of a right (ofI think that the human) or tendency (of the internet organism) as absolute with a viewpoint which is politically extreme. (In other words: sometimes the moderate position is the one which seems absolute, and the position of relativity or balance is the extreme one). The notion that speech and expression always supersede "intellectual property" seems to be the tendency of the distributed network. I'm prepared to argue that holding on to industry-age statues regarding "intellectual property" (ie, that some actors justly have authority to change the shape of the network in order to subvert access which they claim violates their IP) is an extreme position - an extreme clinging to policies which are unrealistic and inapplicable to the internet.
- Scirra_Tom 10y ago
  I always get uncomfortable when copyright issues are conflated into free speech issues. I feel it's generally used incorrectly to give more legitimacy basically to people wanting to distribute material they are not permitted to.
  - jMyles 10y ago
    Two responses - a weaker (but still sufficient) one and then a stronger one: The weak argument is, "look at the current case! This was clearly, obviously not Samsung's IP and yet they were able to effectively erase a meme from a popular platform for a short time." This is sufficient to show that indeed it is a free speech issue. The stronger argument is that the internet doesn't seem to recognize this concept of "material that they are not permitted to distribute." Introducing it has meant (often intentionally) causing all sorts of damage to various protocols and services. Even if it makes sense in the context of industry-age culture (and I'm not sure it does), it seems to go decidedly against nature now.