4 ms·

Go deeper. End copyright. If we had P2P publishing, the bad kind of advertising would largely go away.

by breck 4y ago

shagie 4y ago
California can't end copyright. Ending copyright as you have suggested elsewhere would take the US dropping out of several important world trade treaties and make it undesirable for any company, publisher, author, or artist that does want copyright to be here. That aside, the current copyright approach does not prohibit P2P publishing (publish with a CC0 license and you're about as disclaimed of copyright as you can be). This would do nothing to change advertising.
- alwayslikethis 4y ago
  The US is unique in its enormous bargaining power. US power underlies the whole framework of international institutions today. No international treaties poses a serious threat to the US. Just look at what consequences the US suffered for starting a war in Iraq.
  - shagie 4y ago
    Much of the US's bargaining power on the world stage comes from the bit that companies based in the US are responsible for a sizable portion of the intellectual property created in the world (patents, software, books, movies and other media). The US (and California) profits substantially from maintaining control of and allowing its citizens and companies to likewise maintain control of the IP that they create. Lets go back to the original part of this thread. California can't get rid of copyright. Suggesting it as a way of eliminating targeting advertising is a substantial leap of argumentation without any supporting material. For copyright to be gotten rid of, this would take a concerted effort from congress to withdraw from those treaties (and you can be sure that every company in California that creates copyrighted or patented works (e.g. Silicon Valley and Hollywood) would pack up their bags from what would be the the 5th largest economy in the world if California was a state and move to the other CA a few hundred miles north. Those treaties include Berne, UCC Geneva, UCC Paris, TRIPS as part of the WTO, and WCT. Meanwhile, how does copyright prevent P2P publishing? How would enabling P2P publishing (which isn't prohibited now) get rid of targeted advertising?
    - breck 4y ago
      > How would enabling P2P publishing (which isn't prohibited now) get rid of targeted advertising? Yes, P2P is prohibited now. I found this out when I was a broke college student targeted by the RIAA in 2004. If P2P publishing were legalized, I'd have a better Netflix out in a week, with no ads.
      - shagie 4y ago
        You can publish something under a CC0 license and not be constrained. Be the change that you want to see. If the US was to hypothetically back out of the copyright treaties, all the other countries would still be there to enforce it. If you want a better Netflix without the ads make that content yourself and publish it. If you attempt to take away the ability for Netflix (and others) to be able to charge for it - you're going to be seeing material that you make yourself because no one else will. Start this by going and making a movie and publishing it yourself - not by proposing that everyone else lose the ability to make a living off of content that they have created.
        breck 4y ago
        > Be the change that you want to see. I am. Everything I build is public domain. It's cost me a lot of money but I can look myself in the mirror and see an honest man. > not by proposing that everyone else lose the ability to make a living off of content that they have created. Copyright is sleazy. Plain and simple. It's indefensible. It is Intellectual Slavery. I'm just saying the truth that people don't want to hear. Stephan Kinsella is the one to read/watch/listen to for all the extended and comprehensive rebuttals.
        shagie 4y ago
        I would challenge you to first propose a structure that somehow compensates people who create artistic works now to be able to do so in the future without subjecting them to a patronage system. Figure out how to fund research that doesn't need to rely upon licensing of patents. The bold statements of "eliminate copyright and it will solve {problem}" without the corresponding steps that you would need to get there are intellectually dishonest and ignore the current economic system and wellbeing of the authors and artists who produce work. I would also note that I do value the software freedoms and without copyright there would be no way to enforce the redistribution of the source and the improvements that a company makes on it. "Here's the binary, but good luck trying to back port the bug fixes we did" is something that the licensing that copyleft provides. The approach of "burn down copyright and something wonderful will emerge from its ashes" is not a convincing argument.
AnimalMuppet 4y ago
I'm not following the logic. What's the mechanism? How, specifically, do you see and end to copyright making advertising go away?
- breck 4y ago
  If publisher X stuck ads on their content it would be an opportunity for publisher Y to come along and win consumers by offering the same content without the ads. It's illegal for publisher Y to do that now. The market is distorted by copyright law.
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    OK, I now understand what you're saying. But I don't think it works. Take Facebook, for example. Even without copyright, the only way you could offer Facebook's content is to completely scrape Facebook, because (at least currently) that's where people post their stuff, because that's where everybody who they want to reach is. Even if you consider that an ethical thing to do (I don't), you're still going to have to have servers (plural) running all the time. That's going to take a fair amount of money, and you aren't going to have the revenue, because you aren't going to be selling ads. So I don't think that your approach will actually work economically. Or take Netflix, as you mentioned in replies to other people. If copyright doesn't protect the movies, then you're left with love-of-the-art movies. And that's OK for those who like that kind of thing, but you're not going to get Star Wars or Marvel movies that way. You may consider that no loss, but the vast majority of movie watchers want to watch that kind of stuff, and don't want to watch unpaid passion projects. So your approach leaves consumers strictly worse off in terms of their preferences. (With one possible other option - that Marvel sticks enough product placement in their movies to pay for their creation.)

Go deeper. End copyright. If we had P2P publishing, the bad kind of advertising would largely go away.

by breck 4y ago

Go deeper. End copyright. If we had P2P publishing, the bad kind of advertising would largely go away.

California can't end copyright. Ending copyright as you have suggested elsewhere would take the US dropping out of several important world trade treaties and make it undesirable for any company, publisher, author, or artist that does want copyright to be here. That aside, the current copyright approach does not prohibit P2P publishing (publish with a CC0 license and you're about as disclaimed of copyright as you can be). This would do nothing to change advertising.

alwayslikethis 4y ago
The US is unique in its enormous bargaining power. US power underlies the whole framework of international institutions today. No international treaties poses a serious threat to the US. Just look at what consequences the US suffered for starting a war in Iraq.
- shagie 4y ago
  Much of the US's bargaining power on the world stage comes from the bit that companies based in the US are responsible for a sizable portion of the intellectual property created in the world (patents, software, books, movies and other media). The US (and California) profits substantially from maintaining control of and allowing its citizens and companies to likewise maintain control of the IP that they create. Lets go back to the original part of this thread. California can't get rid of copyright. Suggesting it as a way of eliminating targeting advertising is a substantial leap of argumentation without any supporting material. For copyright to be gotten rid of, this would take a concerted effort from congress to withdraw from those treaties (and you can be sure that every company in California that creates copyrighted or patented works (e.g. Silicon Valley and Hollywood) would pack up their bags from what would be the the 5th largest economy in the world if California was a state and move to the other CA a few hundred miles north. Those treaties include Berne, UCC Geneva, UCC Paris, TRIPS as part of the WTO, and WCT. Meanwhile, how does copyright prevent P2P publishing? How would enabling P2P publishing (which isn't prohibited now) get rid of targeted advertising?
  - breck 4y ago
    > How would enabling P2P publishing (which isn't prohibited now) get rid of targeted advertising? Yes, P2P is prohibited now. I found this out when I was a broke college student targeted by the RIAA in 2004. If P2P publishing were legalized, I'd have a better Netflix out in a week, with no ads.
    - shagie 4y ago
      You can publish something under a CC0 license and not be constrained. Be the change that you want to see. If the US was to hypothetically back out of the copyright treaties, all the other countries would still be there to enforce it. If you want a better Netflix without the ads make that content yourself and publish it. If you attempt to take away the ability for Netflix (and others) to be able to charge for it - you're going to be seeing material that you make yourself because no one else will. Start this by going and making a movie and publishing it yourself - not by proposing that everyone else lose the ability to make a living off of content that they have created.
      - breck 4y ago
        > Be the change that you want to see. I am. Everything I build is public domain. It's cost me a lot of money but I can look myself in the mirror and see an honest man. > not by proposing that everyone else lose the ability to make a living off of content that they have created. Copyright is sleazy. Plain and simple. It's indefensible. It is Intellectual Slavery. I'm just saying the truth that people don't want to hear. Stephan Kinsella is the one to read/watch/listen to for all the extended and comprehensive rebuttals.
        shagie 4y ago
        I would challenge you to first propose a structure that somehow compensates people who create artistic works now to be able to do so in the future without subjecting them to a patronage system. Figure out how to fund research that doesn't need to rely upon licensing of patents. The bold statements of "eliminate copyright and it will solve {problem}" without the corresponding steps that you would need to get there are intellectually dishonest and ignore the current economic system and wellbeing of the authors and artists who produce work. I would also note that I do value the software freedoms and without copyright there would be no way to enforce the redistribution of the source and the improvements that a company makes on it. "Here's the binary, but good luck trying to back port the bug fixes we did" is something that the licensing that copyleft provides. The approach of "burn down copyright and something wonderful will emerge from its ashes" is not a convincing argument.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago

I'm not following the logic. What's the mechanism? How, specifically, do you see and end to copyright making advertising go away?

breck 4y ago
If publisher X stuck ads on their content it would be an opportunity for publisher Y to come along and win consumers by offering the same content without the ads. It's illegal for publisher Y to do that now. The market is distorted by copyright law.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  OK, I now understand what you're saying. But I don't think it works. Take Facebook, for example. Even without copyright, the only way you could offer Facebook's content is to completely scrape Facebook, because (at least currently) that's where people post their stuff, because that's where everybody who they want to reach is. Even if you consider that an ethical thing to do (I don't), you're still going to have to have servers (plural) running all the time. That's going to take a fair amount of money, and you aren't going to have the revenue, because you aren't going to be selling ads. So I don't think that your approach will actually work economically. Or take Netflix, as you mentioned in replies to other people. If copyright doesn't protect the movies, then you're left with love-of-the-art movies. And that's OK for those who like that kind of thing, but you're not going to get Star Wars or Marvel movies that way. You may consider that no loss, but the vast majority of movie watchers want to watch that kind of stuff, and don't want to watch unpaid passion projects. So your approach leaves consumers strictly worse off in terms of their preferences. (With one possible other option - that Marvel sticks enough product placement in their movies to pay for their creation.)