Comments on: BitTransmitters http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/03/26/bittransmitters/ Same old blog, brand new place Mon, 13 Oct 2008 02:36:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Doc Searls http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/03/26/bittransmitters/#comment-29836 Doc Searls Thu, 27 Mar 2008 18:18:02 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/03/26/bittransmitters/#comment-29836 Subtracting value from naturally free goods to make them scarce is a clumsy way to do business. Crosbie is right about the failure of imagination here. Also about the need for a paradigm shift caused by new and better models. We're working on that. :-) Subtracting value from naturally free goods to make them scarce is a clumsy way to do business.

Crosbie is right about the failure of imagination here. Also about the need for a paradigm shift caused by new and better models.

We’re working on that. :-)

]]> By: Crosbie Fitch http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/03/26/bittransmitters/#comment-29832 Crosbie Fitch Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:41:30 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/03/26/bittransmitters/#comment-29832 Being able to distribute art freely is the natural state. Monopolies were introduced a few centuries ago to give publishers the privilege of suspending this natural liberty - because of a failure of imagination then as to how they would otherwise viably sell art. We are not only dealing with the legacy of that failure of imagination, and its consequent unethical constraint upon our cultural freedom, but also its tendency to indoctrinate and perpetuate that failure of imagation. It seems like a gargantuan paradigm shift is required for anyone to even countenance that commerce in art could be possible without copyright. Until someone actually demonstrates that commerce is possible, no-one is going to believe it is possible. And without such evidence, everyone instead believes we need a law to prohibit free cultural exchange. The frustrating thing is, once it is demonstrated (like manned flight or heliocentricity) everyone will think it obvious and anyone who stubbornly refuses to recognise it to be a buffoon. Until that point, that global paradigm shift, a handful of apparent buffoons persist in the solitary development of prototypes and demonstrations. Being able to distribute art freely is the natural state.

Monopolies were introduced a few centuries ago to give publishers the privilege of suspending this natural liberty - because of a failure of imagination then as to how they would otherwise viably sell art.

We are not only dealing with the legacy of that failure of imagination, and its consequent unethical constraint upon our cultural freedom, but also its tendency to indoctrinate and perpetuate that failure of imagation.

It seems like a gargantuan paradigm shift is required for anyone to even countenance that commerce in art could be possible without copyright.

Until someone actually demonstrates that commerce is possible, no-one is going to believe it is possible. And without such evidence, everyone instead believes we need a law to prohibit free cultural exchange.

The frustrating thing is, once it is demonstrated (like manned flight or heliocentricity) everyone will think it obvious and anyone who stubbornly refuses to recognise it to be a buffoon.

Until that point, that global paradigm shift, a handful of apparent buffoons persist in the solitary development of prototypes and demonstrations.

]]> By: Mike Warot http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/03/26/bittransmitters/#comment-29829 Mike Warot Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:09:18 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/03/26/bittransmitters/#comment-29829 Doug, Anyone can distribute programs for free, it's a choice. The question of how to make money while doing this is the existential question of the "Web 2.0" era. Perhaps a locked download which requires a separate key to unlock is a solution? This would allow the community to support a program with it's bandwidth needs, without denying the ability to use a subscription model. Things are changing, there are forces that are trying to keep us down on the farm, but we've seen Paris, and we're not going to stay away. ;-) Doug,
Anyone can distribute programs for free, it’s a choice. The question of how to make money while doing this is the existential question of the “Web 2.0″ era.

Perhaps a locked download which requires a separate key to unlock is a solution? This would allow the community to support a program with it’s bandwidth needs, without denying the ability to use a subscription model.

Things are changing, there are forces that are trying to keep us down on the farm, but we’ve seen Paris, and we’re not going to stay away. ;-)

]]> By: Doug http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/03/26/bittransmitters/#comment-29824 Doug Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:43:32 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/03/26/bittransmitters/#comment-29824 The CBC can distribute its programs for free because it is funded by the Canadian government. Private and independent producers don't have that luxury. The CBC can distribute its programs for free because it is funded by the Canadian government. Private and independent producers don’t have that luxury.

]]> By: sy http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/03/26/bittransmitters/#comment-29809 sy Thu, 27 Mar 2008 01:51:31 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/03/26/bittransmitters/#comment-29809 A small wrinkle, perhaps: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2782/125/ A small wrinkle, perhaps: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2782/125/

]]> By: Bell Canada - how much further should I bend over? | WinExtra http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/03/26/bittransmitters/#comment-29799 Bell Canada - how much further should I bend over? | WinExtra Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:27:03 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/03/26/bittransmitters/#comment-29799 [...] CBC Television Network in Canada to slap one of their shows up on a BitTorrent feed. Everyone from Doc Searls to Boing Boing to Techdirt have been singing the praises of this move. The problem is that the [...] [...] CBC Television Network in Canada to slap one of their shows up on a BitTorrent feed. Everyone from Doc Searls to Boing Boing to Techdirt have been singing the praises of this move. The problem is that the [...]

]]>