|
Saturday, August 24, 2002
Previous topic
|
Next topic
|
|
 Saturday, August 24, 2002
started 8/24/2002; 1:28:42 AM - last post 8/28/2002; 2:32:50 PM
|
|
Doc Searls - Saturday, August 24, 2002 
8/24/2002; 5:28:42 AM (reads: 8366, responses: 9)
|
|
Whenever, more or less 
Babe. That's so fucked.
| | I just heard that HBO cancelled Dennis Miller. This makes no sense at all. The best thing I shouldn't have watched on the tube last night was Dennis Miller. |
Journocracy at work
| | Cone vs. Coble. Bet on Cone. Why? Because he's right and Coble is a Hollywood tool. |
If you don't want to be Mickey's puppet, keep his hand out of your ass
| | Don't let the media giants use your fine name and reputation to do their dirty work. History will not be kind to the FCC that ignored the obvious, in favor of an obsolete, corrupt oligopoly that dictated to both the FCC and the Congress. |
All that and he's a star, too
| | Leo Laporte is on stage now, giving the closing keynote. He's such a good, smart, genuine guy, exceptionally knowledgeable yet completely modest. And very funny. I've enjoyed hanging around him these past couple days. |
Hi wi-five. Much appreciated.
| | The Proxim guys turned off the thing that cares about the user's MAC addresses, and all is well. Everybody has been up and cooking live all afternoon. |
Wil's way
| | "Copyright law is a good idea. It allows actors, writers, and musicians to create and own intellectual property, and hopefully derive a living from their creations. |
| | As an actor and writer, I have a personal stake in making sure that Copyright law is enforced. If I can't own the works I create, then I can't feed my family. |
| | The music labels, publishing houses and studios who release our creative works would have you believe that unless we strengthen copyright laws, their clever euphemism for eroding your rights to parody and free expression, all artists will suffer. |
| | Don't you believe them. As a negotiator for the Screen Actors Guild, I have firsthand experience with these men who claim to care so greatly for artists, and I call shenanigans. The greatest danger to musicians is not Gnutella. It is the label. The greatest danger to actors and film makers is not DeCSS. It is the studio. These corporate masters care little for the artists who are filling their 4 car garages with new Porsches and filling their private jets with fuel and "hostesses." |
| | What they do care about is controlling how you listen to music, or watch movies, and, increasingly, how you discuss and react to our creations. |
| | Copyright law was best described as "a balance between expression that the owners can control and expression that is left open to the commons." |
| | Right now we are facing the complete destruction of that delicate balance. Corporations, and their congressional lap dogs, are doing everything in their power to ensure that the "expression left open to the commons" is forever removed, leaving only "expression the owners can control." |
| | That is a truly terrifying statement, which bears repeating: "expression only the owners can control." |
| | Right fucking on. Glad to repeat it. |
Blog on
| |  Ev is talking blogs up on stage. He's doing a great job. He just came back from Brazil, where apparently blogging is a pretty hot thing. He followed my talk, which ended with a plug for blogging and this whole new form of journalism. While Ev talks to the audience, I'm talking blogs with Chenelle Bremont, whose GirlsGotGame is quite bloglike. Chenelle sat next to me on the plane from Denver on Thursday. |
| | Next to Chenelle in the aisle seat on the plane the was Beth Goza, who's now in the same position right now at our table, listening to Ev. Beth is the person I overheard saying "Doc Searls will be there" on the plane. That's how we met. She works for Microsoft having extreme fun with portable computing thingies. Her husband Phil has this amazing site devoted to all of his apparently countless electronic fetishes — plus other cool stuff, such as caffeine soap. "It's not the paranoia that keeps me awake," he says. "It's the soap." |
Save pubic transportation
An adult's garden of clues
| | Intellectual property law (or whatever we end up calling it, which might be quite different) isn't just being discussed here in the Land 'o Blogs. It's being re-thought out. And it's an amazing thing to watch. We're here at the beginning of something. Look... |
| | Here's Larry Lessig, down from behind the podium and the lectern, asking questions, engaging in public dialog that seems to be moving somewhere. |
| | Here's Alex Golub with what Larry calls a "scathing review" of Larry's in/famous OSCON speech. But rather than the autopsy that most reviews tend to be, Alex's is more of biopsy on a living set of ideas, by a living human being, offering both prescriptive as well as diagnostic ideas. Larry calls it "completely right." |
| | Note the complete absence of that harrumphy editorial style we've been getting in newspapers for two centuries. Also of the back-and-forth yelling we get from Crossfire and its clones on the cable news channels. |
| | That shits over. Yes, it'll still be around for another decade or two, but the undermining has begun. People are informing themselves and each other. They aren't just consuming other people's final opinions. |
| | This is unlike anything we've seen in journalism before. And there's no going back. The big periodical publishers can't do a damn thing about it. Unlike the Big Five record companies, with the RIAA as their enforcement arm, the publishers' army of "content producers" never got into the business with the intent to become blockbuster stars. They're journalists. Like teachers, they never expected to make a lot of money. Also like teachers, they're in the knowledge-spreading business. As more of them get into the knowledge-growing and knowledge-exchanging business that blogging's all about, the business itself will change completely. |
| | It'll happen in entertainment eventually too. But right now the old star-maker machinery has too much power, and too many of the artists it mills are still too attached to that system and the big-money pay that goes to its most fortunate products. |
| | People tend to be so linear and it's bullshit. Either you're for me or against me. Nope. Sometimes it's "I'm just trying to find out who the fuck you are." |
Maybe I should send money too
| | With his customary humor and style, Tony Pierce is raising money for his own blog. I also just discovered that I'm his top Hit Contest Winner. |
| | Tony pushes Blogger to the creative limit. That's my segue to Ev's talk today at Gnomedex, which follows mine. My topic is Linux, his is weblogs. |
discuss
|
|
Dave Winer - Re: Saturday, August 24, 2002
8/24/2002; 1:20:33 PM (reads: 1361, responses: 1)
|
|
|
Doc thanks for doing this review of Lessig-mania on the Web.
So many of his supporters have been hostile about my examination of a small portion of his ideas. A few have realized that by discussing these things in polarizing terms, I created the pull for other points of view, and all of a sudden the stuffy professor that no one understood is a hot topic on the weblog circuit.
People tend to be so linear and it's bullshit. Either you're for me or against me. Nope. Sometimes it's "I'm just trying to find out who the fuck you are."
Yours truly,
Uncle Gravy
discuss
|
|
George P - Re: Saturday, August 24, 2002
8/24/2002; 2:25:31 PM (reads: 830, responses: 0)
|
|
|
Looking forward to hearing you and Ev.
discuss
|
|
Ryan Irelan - Ford hires Hillary Rosen for ride sharing crackdown
8/24/2002; 4:49:02 PM (reads: 863, responses: 0)
|
|
|
One of the best things about satire is that it puts the *real* situation into perspective, illustrating how silly it really is.
discuss
|
|
Fred Grott - Re: Saturday, August 24, 2002
8/25/2002; 12:33:02 AM (reads: 1154, responses: 0)
|
|
|
Doc and Dave some of Lessig's reading of what other people's quotes are may be wrong as well..
as complex a syatem as a computer system, computer Os and applicaitons all working together for ane end user task I don't think you can claim the statement "binaries reveal all without revealing source" as meaning source does nto matter. I look at it as uninformed misunderstanding of what meta-message systems are all about...
But maybe I am wrong.. my programming comes from a bio-infomratics point or area of examples..
I think of the source of a computer program and its OS its operating on as a pair of meta messages in a very comlex system..
The source has no meaning without the OS it urns in and the os has no meaning without source to run..
Maybe I am oversimplying it..
Also how does Lessig views fit into other countries lawmakers views? Someone mention or excepted a portion of the Russian copyright lwa and it sounds like a computer professional wrote it.. due to the features it had legalized..
I mean Copyright is not a National entity its almost a complete World entity in that most Countires have signed specific Copyright treaties..
Hmm need to ask more questions..
Like is a mp3 file a deriviative work?
See thats the problem we have people knwoledgeable in law but not technology and people knowledgeable in technology but not law..
Any chance we can have a copyright conference put on by oreilly just for lawyers, lawmakers, technology experts, and exclude all lobbyists?
discuss
|
|
Timothy Phillips - Will Wheaton is wrong on one point
8/25/2002; 12:44:52 PM (reads: 2328, responses: 4)
|
|
|
Wil Wheaton's speech contains a number of good points. I thank Doc for pointing us to it.
However, Wil Wheaton's speech also includes the following words:
[Copyright law] exists to protect and promote artists. Don't ever forget that.
This is wrong. Copyright law exists to enlarge the public domain. That's all. Don't you forget that, Wil.
One of the clearest statements of the principles underlying copyright and patent law is the following dictum from the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion the patent-law case of Scott Paper v. Marcalus--words that apply mutatis mutandis to copyright law as well:
"The aim of the patent laws is not only that members of the public shall be free to manufacture the product or employ the process disclosed by the expired patent, but also that the consuming public at large shall receive the benefits of the unrestricted exploitation, by others, of its disclosures....The public has invested in such free use by the grant of a monopoly to the patentee for a limited time."-- Scott Paper Co. v. Marcalus Mfg. Co., Inc., 67 USPQ 193, at 196 (S. Ct., 1945. Stone, J.) Emphasis added.
>>>
Revision history: This post was edited on 29 August 2002 (Gregorian Lunar Almanac: 9th Moon, 21st day until sunset) to correct the spelling of Wil Wheaton's first name, and to add a missing space between two words.
<<<
discuss
|
|
Dave Winer - Re: Will Wheaton is wrong on one point
8/27/2002; 10:56:24 PM (reads: 1181, responses: 1)
|
|
|
I think Will Wheaton is right. I think Timothy Phillips is a bastard.
discuss
|
|
Iain Tucker - Re: Will Wheaton is wrong on one point
8/28/2002; 2:08:41 PM (reads: 1503, responses: 1)
|
|
|
Not sure I agree with Mr Phillips that this statement on patents applies mutatis mutandis to copyright. I'd always thought the ideas behind the two concepts were quite distinct.
Patent is for inventions. To get a patent for something, you have to apply for it, by disclosing to the patent office how to make the invention. Then no-one except you can do it for a pretty short period (7 years or something, isn't it?) after which, anyone can do it, and the instructions of HOW to do are freely available. So the idea is to get people to make the thinking behind their inventions public domain so that the field can be advanced by those who read the patents and make their own inventions.
On the other hand, copyright applies automatically, without requiring any application to be made, to works of artistic creativity. I have copyright over my novel even if it sits in my bottom drawer and never enters the public domain. It lasts much longer (about 10 times longer than patent, as I recall). I think Wil makes a fair point - at least the primary purpose of copyright is for the benefit of artistic creators, to stop people stealing their work.
discuss
|
|
e rowe - Re: Will Wheaton is wrong on one point
8/28/2002; 6:27:19 PM (reads: 1255, responses: 0)
|
|
|
Tim's "bastardness" has nothing to do with it: checkout
Art. I, Sect. 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution:
The Congress shall have power to . . . promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries
Improving the public domain after affording a limited exclusivity
is a power granted by the people of the United States to the Federal government. It is not required that it be implemented.
Exclusive limited ownership is not inherent in creating
something. That is a tradeoff against keeping something a secret
in order to have exclusive use.
discuss
|
|
e rowe - Re: Will Wheaton is wrong on one point
8/28/2002; 6:32:50 PM (reads: 1270, responses: 0)
|
|
|
These properties are not inherent in the idea of copyright. They
come from the choices made in writing Title 17 of the US Code
(which has changed the terms often). Both kinds of creation are
covered by the same grant of power in the Constitution. Neither
has to be implemented unless the tradeoff is worthwhile. And the
argument in the case of software has always been difficult (just
review the history of the changes in patent and copyright laws
over the past few decades).
A patent needs disclosure separate from the use of the patent.
A copyrighted writing reveals its "secrets" in its use and needs
no separate disclosure.
discuss
|
|
|
Copyright 2009 The Doc Searls Weblog
|
