|
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Previous topic
|
Next topic
|
|
 Thursday, March 29, 2007
started 3/29/2007; 1:35:58 PM - last post 3/29/2007; 7:18:25 PM
|
|
Doc Searls - Thursday, March 29, 2007 
3/29/2007; 5:35:58 PM (reads: 6226, responses: 5)
|
|
Friends in wide places 
| | And never mind that Iraq the Model isn't merely an "opinion" blog reacting to news, as the snobs at the AP would have you believe. They are reporting news from the ground--which is a serious threat to MSM outlets like the AP that continue to rely on anonymous stringers relying on anonymous sources feeding them unverified statements. |
| | Meanwhile, Riverbend hasn't blogged a word in more than a month. She tends to go long between posts, but I'm still concerned. |
Am immodest proposal
| | In Linux Journal, A Public Market for Public Music. Let's create a new and truly open market for music that's led by listeners rather than followed by them. Let's solve common problems in ways that work for everybody because they're conceived as common opportunities. |
Making meaningful all the world's information
| | When information has meaning it can become knowledge, and that is perhaps the most important process humankind has ever practiced, to learn. |
| | Why is it then that our current most modern Meaning Economy is a text box dictatorship? Why in such an advanced civilization have we become Knowledge Peasants whom are so easily placated by the black magic of our Goovernor? Am I the only one wondering why these commercial boxes own such an important social function: what everything means? |
| | We're safe because it's a free world marketplace on the Net, and anyone can compete if something goes wrong, right? Not quite, 'compete' itself tells you why, the competition will just be another commercial box, how else do you pay for all those servers and bandwidth it takes? I'm glad you asked! |
| | Open open open! Open source, open distributed grids, open algorithms, open rankings, open networks of people cooperating to provide resources. The future of search is in open cooperation (and competition) based on a Meaning Economy, create meaning, exchange meaning, serve meaning. |
| | My vision begins with an open protocol, allowing independent networks of search functions (crawling, indexing, ranking, serving, etc) to peer and interop. All relationships between these networks are always fully transparent and openly published. Networks exchange knowledge between them, each adding new meaning to the information, each of them responsible for the reputations of their participants and peers. This is the very foundation of a Meaning Economy. |
| | Jeremie is going deep and wide here. He's done it before. Can't wait to see more of what he means. |
discuss
|
|
Eric Norman - Knowledge ain't property
3/29/2007; 8:53:27 PM (reads: 1036, responses: 3)
|
|
|
How can knowledge be open as long as it's considered "property". Knowledge can't possibly be property. Property is something you can build a fence around and enclose. Property is something you can transfer (sell) to someone else. But then you don't have it anymore. After I teach you that 2 + 2 = 4, I haven't lost that knowledge and I haven't lost the ability to enjoy it and exploit it.
"Intellectual property" is an oxymoron!
And finally some chain-yanking. How can Doc Searls claim copyright on this comment (see below) when he wasn't even the author?
discuss
|
|
Mike Warot - Re: Thursday, March 29, 2007
3/29/2007; 11:18:25 PM (reads: 962, responses: 0)
|
|
|
Imagine napster... with the added dimension of being able to attach signed metadata to it. Things like copyright status, reviews, etc.
The repuation of the signer could be networked (like the "web of trust" in PGP) so that a bad reviewer, spammer, or otherwise undesired signer could be filtered out.
Signed metadata, with reputation... it's what we need.
--Mike--
PS: It'll solve a big chunk of the VRM puzzle too.
discuss
|
|
Doc Searls - Re: Knowledge ain't property
3/30/2007; 12:40:32 AM (reads: 1138, responses: 1)
|
|
|
You're right.
As for claiming copyright, I can't, and I don't, beyond the creative commons license I adopted last year to discourage "content creeps" from harvesting text from this blog and trolling for AdSense dollars with it. Before that I had a public domain declaration there.
Maybe I should go back to it.
discuss
|
|
Eric Norman - Re: Knowledge ain't property
3/30/2007; 10:41:30 PM (reads: 1209, responses: 0)
|
|
|
Like I said, it was just chain-yanking. No reason to get bent out of shape; no reason to change anything. Keep up the good work.
discuss
|
|
Crosbie Fitch - Re: Knowledge ain't property
4/3/2007; 6:24:13 PM (reads: 1162, responses: 0)
|
|
|
Knowledge IS property.
The fact that one typically transfers a reproduction of the knowledge, or communicates the knowledge, consequently without necessarily removing the knowledge from its original repository, does not stop the knowledge being property.
If you teach someone the knowledge of arithmetic, you then both possess the knowledge of arithmetic. Each of you owns your own knowledge. Each of you can decide whether or not to sell it to anyone else. Each of you can decide whether to copy it onto paper in case you might otherwise forget it.
We all have fences around our knowledge (privacy), whether the bone of one's skull, or the bricks in one's walls.
Intellectual property is not an oxymoron.
Contradiction arises not because of its intellectual nature, but because people continue to claim ownership of their IP even after they've sold it to you. That is clearly nonsensical, and, unethical.
If I print "2+2=4" on a set of 10 cards, I own this IP. If I give you one of these cards then you own that card and the IP upon it. However, I still own 9 cards and the IP upon them. If I sell 8 more of those cards, then 10 people can end up owning the IP. If I sell my last card, then although I no longer own any cards, I still own the residual IP I used to create the card that yet remains within my intellect - until I forget it.
The madness that makes people think they continue to own IP even after they've sold it is caused by copyright and patent law.
discuss
|
|
|
Copyright 2009 The Doc Searls Weblog
|
