3 ms·

A court order is not arbitrary. The problem that's trying to get solved is a major corporation using its power to unilaterally perform an adverse action against

by Kranar 6y ago

A court order is not arbitrary. The problem that's trying to get solved is a major corporation using its power to unilaterally perform an adverse action against an individual that may or may not be legal. The author in this case has very little power to fight Disney; they could try to sue them and spend years and a lot of money to recoup the royalties and potentially fail... but that's a major burden to place on someone. Alternatively there could be a technology that levels the playing field so that instead of Disney being allowed to act unilaterally, the burden would be on Disney to first seek a court order allowing them to halt royalties and then present it to the author, who can then choose to challenge it in court or comply. In other words, we don't know if Disney is legally justified to halt royalties, maybe they are, maybe they aren't. But Disney is powerful enough to behave as if they are legally justified and give a huge middle finger to anyone who doesn't have the resources to fight back. The burden should be on the one changing the terms of an agreement to go through the process of establishing the legitimacy of that change, instead of the current system where the more powerful player just does what they feel like until they're forced to do otherwise.

ska 6y ago
> Alternatively there could be a technology that levels the playing field so that instead of Disney being allowed to act unilaterally, Such technology does not exist, and none of the proposals I've heard of implement it. I'm not defending Disney at all, I'm saying that if you routed everything through that DAO one day Disney could change to not routing in that way - and we're in the same situation as today. The fallback is the court system, and that wouldn't change. I mean you can wave your hands about some theoretical system of the future that has address this, but none of them are really actionable.
- Kranar 6y ago
  We agree, that technology does not yet exist which is why Disney can screw people over unilaterally. >Disney could change to not routing in that way Yes but the point is that if the DAO comes to represent a large volume of intellectual property, then the DAO becomes valuable in and of itself. If Disney chooses one day to no longer participate that's perfectly fine, another company can come and take Disney's place and distribute whatever movies, books, music is represented by the DAO. DAOs, as they exist today, have mechanisms in place to allow new participants to enter as well as ways to kick out existing participants in much the same way a contract has such mechanisms. >I mean you can wave your hands about some theoretical system... This is akin to a thought terminating cliche. Creative discussions about future technologies are valuable ways to stimulate ideas and I know just personally as a business owner I have benefited tremendously from them. If you don't find them valuable you can choose not to participate in it from the get go, but it's kind of awkward to start a discussion about the future and then turn around and dismiss the conversation as a whole. Having said that, objecting to this kind of technology by pointing out potential problems and concerns is absolutely valuable and should be welcomed... my only objection is dismissing a conversation altogether whose very nature is exploratory and hence vague and open ended.
  - ska 6y ago
    > This is akin to a thought terminating cliche. I disagree, because you trimmed to me the most important part " none of them are actionable". I find these conversations interesting and sometimes educational, which is great. But the hard part of such a change is generally not technological, so when it evolves hand-waving about potential future technologies and then tweaks to them rapidly becomes less interesting because it avoids the core of the problems. Technological discussion involving mechanisms to discuss evaluating/exchanging/etc. property right that does not at least try address the fundamental practical sources and control mechanisms of those rights seems doomed to be superficial.
castlecrasher2 6y ago
>The problem that's trying to get solved is a major corporation using its power to unilaterally perform an adverse action against an individual that may or may not be legal. I may be wrong here but if power is the problem and it becomes centralized in a system such as what you're proposing there will inevitably be similar, or worse, situations than the one being discussed. This solution would only expand their opportunity to exploit.
- Kranar 6y ago
  Yes there is a worse outcome from the use of this technology, there's a worse outcome for Disney. How do you see a system that automatically distributes royalties to authors without having to go through Disney as being worse for the authors or better for Disney? One worse outcome would be a bug in the system like the infamous DAO failure back in 2016. So definitely we need to consider potential problems, but I can't identify any problem in principle from this sytem.
  - acdha 6y ago
    > How do you see a system that automatically distributes royalties to authors without having to go through Disney as being worse for the authors or better for Disney? Phrased like that, sure, it sounds great — but that's because it's begging the question of how you'd dictate terms to Disney. Once you start thinking about how that'd work in the real-world, it's obvious why it won't: no buyer needs a particular DAO and major sellers have no advantage to offering their content on a new system unless it delivers tangible benefits for them. That lack of demand and ease of replacement prevents DAOs from getting enough marketshare to be influential and, if it did, you'd either see them switch to a different platform. Think about what happened with Netflix, which had far more loyal users and much greater marketshare, and ask what reason you have to think this would be different. The fundamental problem is that this is not a technology problem. These are large companies with a massive revenue stream to protect and strong consumer demand. Optional systems which are struggling even to be cost-effective, much less compelling, are not going to disrupt that power imbalance.
    - 6y ago

by Kranar 6y ago

ska 6y ago

> Alternatively there could be a technology that levels the playing field so that instead of Disney being allowed to act unilaterally, Such technology does not exist, and none of the proposals I've heard of implement it. I'm not defending Disney at all, I'm saying that if you routed everything through that DAO one day Disney could change to not routing in that way - and we're in the same situation as today. The fallback is the court system, and that wouldn't change. I mean you can wave your hands about some theoretical system of the future that has address this, but none of them are really actionable.

Kranar 6y ago
We agree, that technology does not yet exist which is why Disney can screw people over unilaterally. >Disney could change to not routing in that way Yes but the point is that if the DAO comes to represent a large volume of intellectual property, then the DAO becomes valuable in and of itself. If Disney chooses one day to no longer participate that's perfectly fine, another company can come and take Disney's place and distribute whatever movies, books, music is represented by the DAO. DAOs, as they exist today, have mechanisms in place to allow new participants to enter as well as ways to kick out existing participants in much the same way a contract has such mechanisms. >I mean you can wave your hands about some theoretical system... This is akin to a thought terminating cliche. Creative discussions about future technologies are valuable ways to stimulate ideas and I know just personally as a business owner I have benefited tremendously from them. If you don't find them valuable you can choose not to participate in it from the get go, but it's kind of awkward to start a discussion about the future and then turn around and dismiss the conversation as a whole. Having said that, objecting to this kind of technology by pointing out potential problems and concerns is absolutely valuable and should be welcomed... my only objection is dismissing a conversation altogether whose very nature is exploratory and hence vague and open ended.
- ska 6y ago
  > This is akin to a thought terminating cliche. I disagree, because you trimmed to me the most important part " none of them are actionable". I find these conversations interesting and sometimes educational, which is great. But the hard part of such a change is generally not technological, so when it evolves hand-waving about potential future technologies and then tweaks to them rapidly becomes less interesting because it avoids the core of the problems. Technological discussion involving mechanisms to discuss evaluating/exchanging/etc. property right that does not at least try address the fundamental practical sources and control mechanisms of those rights seems doomed to be superficial.

castlecrasher2 6y ago

>The problem that's trying to get solved is a major corporation using its power to unilaterally perform an adverse action against an individual that may or may not be legal. I may be wrong here but if power is the problem and it becomes centralized in a system such as what you're proposing there will inevitably be similar, or worse, situations than the one being discussed. This solution would only expand their opportunity to exploit.

Kranar 6y ago
Yes there is a worse outcome from the use of this technology, there's a worse outcome for Disney. How do you see a system that automatically distributes royalties to authors without having to go through Disney as being worse for the authors or better for Disney? One worse outcome would be a bug in the system like the infamous DAO failure back in 2016. So definitely we need to consider potential problems, but I can't identify any problem in principle from this sytem.
- acdha 6y ago
  > How do you see a system that automatically distributes royalties to authors without having to go through Disney as being worse for the authors or better for Disney? Phrased like that, sure, it sounds great — but that's because it's begging the question of how you'd dictate terms to Disney. Once you start thinking about how that'd work in the real-world, it's obvious why it won't: no buyer needs a particular DAO and major sellers have no advantage to offering their content on a new system unless it delivers tangible benefits for them. That lack of demand and ease of replacement prevents DAOs from getting enough marketshare to be influential and, if it did, you'd either see them switch to a different platform. Think about what happened with Netflix, which had far more loyal users and much greater marketshare, and ask what reason you have to think this would be different. The fundamental problem is that this is not a technology problem. These are large companies with a massive revenue stream to protect and strong consumer demand. Optional systems which are struggling even to be cost-effective, much less compelling, are not going to disrupt that power imbalance.
  - 6y ago