Conversation
Notices
-
A) Persuade 7 billion people not to use modern technology to share their own culture. B) Abolish #copyright. Only one of these is possible.
-
Not enough space to add: C) Prohibit use of modern technology by unlicensed individuals. D) Add death penalty for #copyright infringement.
-
@crosbie nor does enforcement only in large $ commercial scenarios fall into your "persuade everyone to stop using tech to share" bucket.
-
@crosbie and will continue to not work, and continue to lead to neither universal abstention nor abolition.
-
@crosbie they SAY they need to eliminate filesharing, but commercial-only © monopoly perfectly viable.
-
@mlinksva Here I have to agree with the #copyright cartel that a commercial-only monopoly is not a monopoly. #PirateParty likes it tho. :-)
-
@crosbie I get your facile point.
-
@crosbie I'm not going to argue definition of 'monopoly'. much © restriction based business would persist if © only restricted $$ uses.
Marjolein Katsma likes this. -
@crosbie leaving out all likely scenarios too facile, doesn't make you more convincing. OTOH, preachers convince many, so godspeed!
-
@crosbie only where NC uses compete effectively and at scale with biz/biz facilitated ones. I think you vastly overestimate extent of this.
-
@mlinksva The mulct (ISP tax) is a no go too (but less obviously so), which is why I omitted it.
-
@mlinksva I think you vastly underestimate the ramifications of exempting NC uses (whenever NC is actually defined) from #copyright.
-
@crosbie yet another likely you ignore: GOOG et al maintain what they need to facilitate "sharing", law/social practice continue at odds
-
@crosbie not at all; excluding NC uses from © restriction would be a HUGE change. much © biz would wither. but much would persist as well.
-
@crosbie thus scare quotes: "sharing". but they're interested in more than just indexing, and even that not wholly free of © attacks
-
@crosbie the overwhelming part that relies on coercion, not persuasion.
-
@crosbie admittedly you might say coercion subset of persuasion. selective, harsh, profitable persuasion doesn't require convincing society
-
@mlinksva I include fines/violence/force/imprisonment/coercion/terror/'education' within my use of 'persuasion'. See http://bit.ly/molsxX
-
@crosbie read charitably, I can agree with both of your sentences here. Uncharitable readings exist, but I ought stop now.
-
@mlinksva That's 140 chars for you. No doubt wars will one day be started through insufficiently nuanced and qualified tweets.
-
♻ @crosbie: A) Persuade 7 billion people not to use modern technology to share their own culture. B) Abolish ©. Only 1 of these is possible.
-
@crosbie here I have to disagree. “poly” in monopoly is about selling. giving away is not selling, so it doesn't break the monopoly
-
@crosbie how card can it be to distinguish C from NC? how about s/C/P/ and take from CS research about P =? NP? :-)
-
@crosbie no, it's just that strictly speaking monopoly doesn't extent as far as what MAFIAA wants; they want that + full control
-
@crosbie I sort of agree, there's more to commerce and trading than $ changing hands; value goes both ways. P/NP is unrelated joke :-)
-
@crosbie the point of the C/NC vs P/NP joke is that CS scientists couldn't prove whether P = NP yet, and C =? NC may be as hard to prove
-
actually it could be interesting given the definitions. is having an ad on the same site as an nc work commercial?How about a donate button?
-
@tekk I don't know, and I'm not sure I want to spend time trying to draw such an artificial line ;-)
-
How much would you pay for a monopoly on the sale of sand to Saharans if you couldn't sue people for helping themselves or giving it away?
-
@crosbie I think you're missing the point. I'm contrasting the meaning of the term monopoly with what MAFIAA wants
-
@crosbie consider monopolies on bottled water, oil, or electricity; people can still drink tap water, give oil and batteries away
-
@lxoliva I don't know how easy N=NP is so I can't say whether C=NC is easier to prove, but NC I'd say is indeed a nonsense.
-
@lxoliva Actually, I've just thought of a neat proof of P=NP, but there aren't enough chars in this tweet to include it.
-
@crosbie oh, really?, Mr Fermat :-)
-
@lxoliva A monopoly without teeth against NC supply/exchanges (whatever the heck they are) is not a monopoly. That's my point.
-
@lxoliva A company was once given a monopoly over water supply (in some south american country) and sued people for collecting rainwater.
-
@crosbie I know that's your point, but it's based on an expansionist view of “monopoly”. monopoly means literally “[only] one sells”
-
@crosbie if they succeeded, then they were given *more* than a monopoly, that's my point
-
@lxoliva But did the Greeks really mean 'sells' as opposed to 'supplies'? http://identi.ca/url/61295755
-
@crosbie now that's an interesting question. I don't know the answer. heck, it was not long ago that I found out about “monopsony”
-
@crosbie now I'm wondering if ”monopsony” means “only one buys” or “only one receives”... pls let me know if you find something out
-
@crosbie but still, is it no longer a monopoly if you can purchase something to then give it away?
-
@lxoliva Complete control of any commodity is a bad thing regardless of current benevolence. A whim could completely restrict access.
All Identi.ca content and data are available under the