5 ms·
You are correct when you say that the internet is uncharted territory, but if you look at things on the internet (protocols like smtp, http and ftp for example)
by uxp 16y ago
You are correct when you say that the internet is uncharted territory, but if you look at things on the internet (protocols like smtp, http and ftp for example) they all are abstract representations of pre-existing analog or organic items that developed countries have been using for decades if not centuries.
smtp is traditional mail. ftp is FedEx or UPS to transfer larger items. http is also like traditional mail or mass mailing catalogs. The lines between these examples are somewhat blurry, but I hope you get the idea.
There is no reason to throw out the kitchen sink and start over because the medium of communication has changed over the past 30 years. Adapting old laws is perfectly reasonable, it just needs to be done by lawmakers that are informed as to how the internet actually works.
- ignifero 16y agoYet sometimes the medium defines the message. Until the 19th century, you would pay to watch a theatrical or listen to live music because it was the only fair price available. When you wanted a picture of yourself, you had to pay Renoir to make an original portrait. The 20th century brought us the selling of copies. That was a weird mixture - you paid for the vinyl disc , or the print poster, but you knew the price was not the price of the material alone. I think the digital world provides so much opportunity to create original content, that we no more need copies. I like how economies arise in digital worlds that are based on original content or services, like online game worlds, virtual goods, software-as-a-service and web site design. I believe slowly but surely we 'll get over the economy of copies. It's like going back to pre-19th century really, but in a good way. Not arguing my case strongly here, it's just a certain point of view (after all it's Saturday) p.s. i dont really believe SMTP,FTP,or HTTP were based on the real world ontology. they were engineered out of necessity
- anamax 16y ago> Until the 19th century, you would pay to watch a theatrical or listen to live music because it was the only fair price available. Actually, no. Locals often performed for free. It was part of the whole community thing. > you wanted a picture of yourself, you had to pay Renoir to make an original portrait. Or, you did it yourself. Or your a member of your family or a neighbor did it. Drawing used to done by far more people.
- ignifero 16y agowhat if you wanted to listen to mozart himself or have an original renoir? my point is you couldn't buy a copy
- waqf 16y agoThen you were a snob and you deserved the markup. Just as today if you want your coffee beans personally picked by Howard Schultz it'll cost you more than most people think of as "a reasonable price for coffee".
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- ignifero 16y agook let me rephrase: even if you wanted to buy a reasonable copy of a renoir, the price you paid corresponded to man-hours of labour. It was a compensation for something.
- GFischer 16y agoThat's why there are so many parallelisms to Gutenberg's revolutionary invention and the modern age, for instance: http://www.amazon.com/Piracy-Intellectual-Property-Gutenberg-Gates/dp/0226401189 http://www.amazon.com/Piracy-Intellectual-Property-Gutenberg...
- anamax 16y ago> what if you wanted to listen to mozart himself or have an original renoir? Then you did as you have to do today - you went to the source. Thanks to amplification, more people can hear Bruce Springsteen live than could hear Mozart. > my point is you couldn't buy a copy That's true, but that's not your original claim or the claim above. Your original claim was that you had to pay. That claim was wrong.
- stretchwithme 16y agoyeah, there's been a huge shift from everybody being a producer to most just consuming art. The minority that still produce probably understand what a loss this is better than most.