Interview With Pirate Party Leader Rick Falkvinge 515
mmuch writes "In the wake of the recent copyright debate in Swedish mainstream media, the P2P Consortium has published an interview with Rick Falkvinge, the leader of the Swedish Pirate Party. He comments on the mainstream politicians starting to understand the issues, the interplay between strict copyright enforcement and mass surveillance, and the chances for global copyright reform." Some choice Falkvinge quotes: "What was remarkable was that this was the point where the enemy — forces that want to lock down culture and knowledge at the cost of total surveillance — realized they were under a serious attack... for the first time, we saw everything they could bring to the battle. And it was... nothing. Not even a fizzle. All they can say is 'thief, we have our rights, we want our rights, nothing must change, we want more money, thief, thief, thief'... Whereas we are talking about scarcity vs. abundance, monopolies, the nature of property, 500-year historical perspectives on culture and knowledge, incentive structures, economic theory, disruptive technologies, etc. The difference in intellectual levels between the sides is astounding... When the Iron Curtain fell, all of the West rejoiced that the East would become just as free as the West. It was never supposed to be the other way around."
They're free to share... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fuck you America (Score:4, Insightful)
You're really a depressed individual. If you're so incapable of seeing the good things in life, I suggest you simply off yourself now, and put yourself out of our misery.
And Americans mostly did invent the Internet, computer (well, us and the Brits), motor car (well, us and the Brits), the light bulb and the telephone. Find some other examples if you want to prove how stupid and uncreative Americans are.
You do raise some good points, however, you're making the same fundamental mistake that many people of other countries make. That's assuming that the vast majority of Americans think one way or another, and pegging all of us as fitting some arbitrary mold that serves their own prejudices. What I find hysterical (and hypocritical) about that is that America, of pretty much all nations, is a pretty fractious affair, with most of us disagreeing with somebody else about something.
i'm all for total surveillance... (Score:2, Insightful)
this tech can be used the other way around you know
and for those who wish to inject the concept of governmental control over these devices (cell phones cameras, the internet, etc.), please don't forget that this is a thread about the pirate party, which was born of file traders doing something entrenched interests hate
in other words the control you imagine is phantom: these devices, the internet, it's out there, and it isn't being controlled
no, the west can't stop surveillance of government by its citizens. iran and china are trying to control from above. let us see just how successful they are with that. my guess is, not so much. but others will imagine that the kind of control being attempted in china and iran will begin in the west under the radar without a hiccup of notice. really?
people wring their hands about 1984 constantly. but the problem of orwell's vision is that it assumes the government has a monopoly on the technology
on the contrary, ever since rodney king in LA in 1991, the opposite has proven a more viable concept of our future
big brother is a defunct, antiquated expired model of our future
little brother is the real future
how emo (Score:3, Insightful)
Now try to change stuff instead, do something positive, join a recycle program, an SCI International Voluntary Service program. Just do stuff for yourself that makes you feel better, but in the same time helps others. I'm sure that will help you get over your angst.
Re:They're free to share... (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder if anybody is going to notice.
Re:They're free to share... (Score:2, Insightful)
What about forms of art and works that are simply not possible to perform live? Do they have no value?
Re:Yes, you are. (Score:5, Insightful)
Compare how much work there is out there now compared to five years ago and you will see that the rate hasn't significantly dropped - its grown at a rate where I have the opposite problem - there is just too much stuff out there and more than I can ever see is very, very good.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Respect to this guy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember - big businesses, media empire, the government they've all got a natural, and completely understandable, vested interest in not letting the Internet become the medium for new business and political models - and only guys like Falkvinge are standing up to them.
We may not agree with everything they say but we all need to support them vocally and financially so there are at least some counterbalances to the opposing forces.
I've always believed that the incumbents in any situation should be challenged and attacked (non-violently) - the bigger the incumbent, the greater and more vociferous the challenge.
The EFF and the Pirate Party aren't big enough yet - so let's support them - I know I'm going to right now.
Nope (Score:3, Insightful)
You do however seem to exemplify the "no intellectual capital" quote. Rather than take up a single point from the interview, you invent some of your own, and then "argue" against them. I put "argue" in quotes because you don't actually argue against the points you invented, you just dismiss them. Sad really.
Re:They're free to share... (Score:2, Insightful)
So you have artists, specifically painters. What about filmmakers, animators, even video game studios?
So we get works that are funded by limited state subsidies (which will be restricted by all sorts of legal voodoo) or works produced at the behest of those rich enough to have their entertainment produced for them and philanthropic enough to not try and keep it to themselves.
An end to copyright would force all production costs to be accounted for up front. This places a huge burden on the producer, whether it be an individual or studio, and would limit the cost of production. While limited costs wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, it would also constrain the scope and ability applied to the work. This isn't to say that multi-million dollar works are better than ten thousand dollar works, but when you want something like Battlestar Galactica, you'd have to pay the 3 million per episode ahead of time since you probably won't make it back.
Re:Fuck you America (Score:3, Insightful)
I never said it was, invention is a worldwide phenomenon and always will be. But the GP seemed to think that Americans are idiots. I was contesting that perspective.
Re:They're free to share... (Score:2, Insightful)
Only because the people putting up the money see a possible return on investment (or a tax dodge, thank you uwe boll.)
So you're happy to see what you don't enjoy go away. What if something you do enjoy goes along with it?
And why should they be forced to go away altogether, it just leaves us lesser in the end.
Re:Why not leave it up to the producers? (Score:2, Insightful)
Thats very different than releasing it from copyright.
Re:Don't get political. (Score:5, Insightful)
Outside of the USA not everyone fears the words "socialist", "marxist" or even (to a lesser extent) "communist".
"People who download music and movies aren't doing it to assert their solidarity with the Sandinistas, they're doing it because they can"
And if you'd bothered to think about this, you'd realise that nobody's asking you to declare solidarity. What this part seems to be asking people is "What should the rules be?". Many people are now starting to realise that beyond wanting free stuff, the surveillance culture and the ever increasing copyright terms and assertions of ownership of intellectual property are damaging to society. Copyright is a social contract, not an absolute right. It is granted in order to enrich us all by encouraging people to produce.
Over the last few decades various corporate interests in various countries, coupled with international agreements, have seen massive, one sided change in the laws surrounding copyright. We're in the midst of many countries pushing it even further. And we live in a world where DRM means that in future, were keys to be lost, some cultural artifacts could be lost to us forever.
What this party and what many people truly believe is that it's time to examine the situation and restore some sanity and restore the balance.
"and frankly most of us don't have enough cash free to go buy the entire discography of say Miles Davis or Bob Dylan."
And some would say that those names and their work have become so much part of our culture that you shouldn't have to pay. It's been a few decades since they started. They made some money, they made their names. Now maybe it belongs to all of us.
Good luck to them (Score:5, Insightful)
But there is one argument that never fails to elicit at least a shadow of doubt in the most hardened advocate of intellectual property and I believe this "Pirate Party" not only understand it but know it is a nuclear option in this debate. It is the the apparent paradox that intellectual property is simultaneously anti-capitalistic and anti-socialistic, it cuts across orthodox political divides because it goes against our most fundamental human nature. Intellectual property damages culture and social structure, so it offends conservatives and progressives alike. Patent wars are strangling industry and holding back essential progress now. We need to revise or abolish the entire system. As said in the interview the proponents of IP really do not have any other argument that stands up, only "We want our money", "We are the self appointed gatekeepers of knowledge and culture and you will pay us or...or.... we'll shout about it even louder!!" As far as I can see the old notion that IP promotes the arts and sciences has been knocked down, it is no longer relevant in the 21st century where the means of production are commodities and there is abundance of resources. There are 6 billion of us. Our ideas, whatever our status, are no longer special, unique or valuable. That we share culture and knowledge is what makes us human, so IP, what history will show to be a short lived facet of the industrial revolution, goes against 5000 years of human culture and our needs for the future. It only remains to perpetuate growth in de-industrialised nations.
Anyway, that said, IP being a self-evident absurdity and the arguments of its proponents being weak does not make it just go away. There is long hard fight ahead before people start to wise up and see that concepts like copyrights, patents and trademarks are the fictions of a bygone ruling class.
So good luck to them. I believe a world without intellectual property of any kind would be a much better place. This is an issue of our time, and the main parties would do well to be bold, turn their backs on the small but powerful vested interests of the media and embrace the issue, because if we had a Pirate Party in my country I would vote for them.
Sick of hypocrisy? Look in the mirror (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sick of hypocrisy and two facedness.
So am I.
The world is full of problems. No doubt about it. But it's a mixed bag, too. Life expectancy has gone up [wikipedia.org] everywhere but in sub-Saharan Africa over the last 50 years. You're too young to remember the Cold War, but for those of us who were around, it sucked. The likelihood of a catastrophic global nuclear conflagration has gone down over the last 50 years.
You're not alone in being sick of the status quo, but I find it humorous that you equate anyone who doesn't share your opinion as being a whiner or someone with a low IQ. For example, you wrote:
Perhaps if you studied the history of systematic racism and sexism in Europe and America, you might recognize why equality of opportunity still doesn't exist in those places. Civil rights are not where they should be, but they have been advancing in the western world. America, for all its faults, has been trying to move beyond racism and sexism. America also has a far more sophisticated understanding of religious tolerance than Europe. For all the talk of naive and barbaric Americans, why is it that Western Europe is having such a difficult time integrating Muslim immigrants?
As for your bizarre comment about "women that act like men," what is that supposed to mean? Are you saying that you and those who follow your beliefs should be the arbiters of what constitutes acceptable female behavior?
If you're sick of lame TV, here's a newsflash: You don't have to watch television. Believe it or not, some of those moronic Americans (such as myself) have elected to get their news and most of their entertainment not from the idiot box, but from other sources like news magazines (one of the best is even produced in Britain) and international websites. Nobody is forcing you to watch the crap on TV.
I'm sick of Americans who cry that people hate them or are jealous of them or who are anti them because someone dares to point out that the America they've been programmed to believe in from birth bears no relation to the one that exists in real life.
There is nothing daring about anonymously pointing out in an online forum that the American government has been fearmongering and failing in its relations with the rest of the world. Here's another newsflash: When Shrub was elected the first time, half the country voted against him. When he was elected the second time, a slightly smaller percentage, but still almost half the voting public voted against him. Domestic opposition to this most pathetic American government has been loud and angry. The last seven years have been terribly divisive times in America. With any luck, this time around we'll elect a much more capable president, and we'll start restoring our reputation around the world.
Here's a tip: The next time you go ranting about hypocrisy, examine your own hypocrisy first. Then try posting with an account. It's still just a pseudonym, but at least it's a small form of taking responsibility for your writing.
Re:Fuck you America (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:They're free to share... (Score:3, Insightful)
Or for money (Score:5, Insightful)
The interesting issue is what will lack. For musicians, the underground will hardly be affected, they make their money on live performance. The established names ditto, as well as merchandise. Even the "boy bands" and other label made concept will likely continue, with other sponsors (currently TV seems to love the process of creating pop bands).
For programmers, free software is already everywhere, about half of it produced by professionals according to the EU sponsored FLOSS report [infonomics.nl]. Anything that can be created incrementally can be created by people paying for features the need.
For movies, outside the big languages (English, Spanish, Hindi) production is heavily subsidized, so generally not profitable.
Books will continue to be written (a writer has no choice but to write) but getting paid might be a problem (unless you are into propaganda). Again, for smaller languages government subsidies are already needed. In Denmark it takes the form of a library fee, authors of Danish language books gets a sum proportional to how many people borrow their books. Yes I know tax is stealing, but the majority in my country for some reason want to preserve our quaint language, even if it means higher taxes.
So what we lose out is international blockbuster movies (which is sad, while I likes Clerks which is the type of movie that would continue to be made, I loved Lord of the Rings), some types of "movie like games" that cannot be created incrementally, and maybe a system to pay authors in some countries. Music will be mostly unaffected.
Re:Seriously need to get some perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
If it was about not being able to download movies, your reaction would be correct. In reality, it's about (some, but "any at all" is a bad enough answer) private interests and the state being allowed by law to monitor all network traffic supposedly to be able to catch any copyright infringements. Once that's actually allowed, you can imagine what people can do with that kind of power.
A break-out group of seven politicians from the dominant party in the current administration wrote an op-ed piece last Monday which outlines some of the consequences in the near future [wordpress.com] (link's to the English version). If you won't believe the rag-tag newcomer party, would you believe the largest party in the administration - the people who already *have* power?
Believe me, of all the problems this might bring, having to spend money to see "Hollywood claptrap" is not what we're worried about.
Re:They're free to share... (Score:5, Insightful)
Some people can create works. Some people are willing to pay for works. There is money to be made.
Someone will come up with a great business idea. This is what disruptive technology is about. So relax, and watch the show.
Re:They're free to share... (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine you write a song. A person listens to the song and starts whistling the tune sometime later. Does he owe you royalties?
The only way to really "own" an idea it to never tell anyone. Once a piece of "intellectual property" is released into the wild, the only to control it is to infringe on the rights of other people.
The compromise of copyright was a small and limited time infringement of the rights of the public in exchange for more creative output. When copyright creates more harm to individuals than benefit, then its only justification for existence disappears.
Re:i'm all for total surveillance... (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess you didn't notice when Burma shut down the whole cell phone network to stop pictures and video from getting out. As soon as the Western press wasn't getting spoon-fed a lot of free content, it dropped the story like a hot potato and the Burmese government happily went back to slaughtering monks.
P2P doesn't exist in a vaccuum. And because it's so pervasive, controlling copyright means significant intrusion of the state into peoples' lives in one way or another. If you want to go up against armed thugs waving a dead cell phone around and telling them, "If you kill me, I'll take pictures", you go right ahead.
Re:Fuck you America (Score:3, Insightful)
Find some other examples if you want to prove how stupid and uncreative Americans are.
Or better still, don't believe anybody's bullshit associating nationality with particular types of knowledge or skills.
Not that different (Score:5, Insightful)
Even in the past, there was the chance for "bettering" yourself-- getting yourself a knighthood, for instance. Most peasants really didn't have that chance, just as the current poor have no real chance to better themselves. Some do, certainly, but there are only a few slots available for betterment.
It's not just "fucking music files." This is about the concept of ownership of ideas. This is about the ownership of culture, the very framework of our society. (There is an intimate relationship between art, ideas, and culture.)
Anyway, we still have the assholes, and they still stand on the heads of those less fortunate than themselves. Now, property rights might not belong to those with the biggest swords or guns, but they *do* belong to those with the biggest bank account. It's less bloody, and probably a better proposition. But just because the serfs aren't beat bloody by their lords doesn't mean they aren't serfs just the same.
Re:Fuck you America (Score:3, Insightful)
Bashing The U.S.A. (one of the most diverse nations ever created) with generalizations is just the latest excuse people use to avoid having to actually think. It's all going to go to shit. The brief flirtation humanity had with freedom will end, and it'll all return to the king/serf model where the serfs don't have to think and the king is replaced by massive bureaucracy.
All you can do is keep your head down, work hard and invest, and retire as early as possible far away from it all when the whole thing does a big belly flop.
Re:They're free to share... (Score:2, Insightful)
But then how do new people get started? And how many times have I read on slashdot where people say "I'd never have bought X or Y if I hadn't downloaded it?"
I do have a right to try. But it's hard to try when you have to compete with your own work being traded freely or (worse yet) being sold for a pittance by knock-offs (which we have now but not nearly as badly as we would without copyright.)
So what you're saying is that we've already produced our best, and won't produce anything better or equal in the next few decades, and thus hindering the production of new works is a good thing?
Fixing the law would do the same job, and more. And believe me, if you're in a position to eliminate it you can fix it.
Money goes to those with money (Score:3, Insightful)
The world is much more complex than simply, "musicians should be paid." If that were true, they'd actually get *paid* for their artistic output, rather than the middle-man. The discussion of musicians and payment is a simple one of business models, which may or may not work in an emerging culture where freedom of speech allows easy copying and distribution.
The discussion as framed is more about the curtailing of liberty and freedom in subservience to the interests of big business, due to the strawman of copyright infringement. As this also serves the interest of government (the constant surveillance of citizens), it's easy enough for these cartels to get their way, at the expense of culture and individuals.
I personally believe that individuals are more important than business. I am also of the opinion that businesses are actually *hurting* the economy by insisting on their own dominance. But that is secondary. The real issue is liberty (and by extension, democracy), and whether or not we'll give that up.
Copyright has gone wild - we must tame it! (Score:5, Insightful)
We also quite often forget that preventing people from speaking, or singing, or playing an instrument, or creating a DVD or using a photocopier in a way they deem proper takes away from their personal freedom and their economic freedom. Does anyone take into account the money saved on allowing people to use more copyrighted, trademarked and patented concepts with greater ease. Does the $15 I save because an album is 30 years old and 'could' be actually out of copyright count? Take that $15 and multiply is by 10 million. Now people have saved $150 million. You have to weigh their costs and benefits against the artists. And let us not forget that the artist and the corporation that has been putting out their music has been making money off the copyright for 30 years. They have made a fortune.
What about the right to use copyrighted material as part of a large of a larger whole? Eg a documentary film that wants to use short copyrighted clips. Often the cost of obtaining them makes their use uneconomic [upenn.edu]. Here commercial prorogation of something new is inhibited by 'Copyright' despite the fact that the reason d'etre of 'Copyright' was to encourage commercial prorogation of new ideas and art. Copyright owners who extol the value of copyright often 'forget' quite conveniently that IP may actually supress creativity. Often copyright is used simply to deny public use of material. So let me get this right. You need copyright law that allows the complete prevention of artistic material from circulating at all so you can encourage future creativity. Because mr/ms creative would only produce something for the public if they knew they could prevent any public dissemination. Right?!
I always get a laugh out of the heirs who already enjoy copyright revenues. So they didn't do jack sh*t but they are an heir so they should rake in cash for doing nothing. There was a New York Times article [nytimes.com] that had the audacity to argue for perpetual copyright. So you want to put on a Shakespeare play - better pay his descendants or some rich corporation. You want to read your bible in the church. Not before you hand over some cash. This idea is absurd but it's scary that the copyright crazies are advocating it. They claim they own ideas. We get this...no-one owns ideas! IP is not susceptible to ownership. We just put restrictions on IP for societal benefit not for the narcissistic desires of the original producer and certainly not their descendants.
Some of the restrictions of IP impinge on free speech. Sometimes you need to be able to film some event that has political implications without worrying about the 'person' rights. Eg Police brutality. Think this is an exaggeration? Just wait till you hear that free speech is cool but because some political speech intruded on commercial ri
Re:They're free to share... (Score:3, Insightful)
How lovely for you, I'm happy to have been able to support your interests with my taxes. In the meantime, some of us quite enjoy the odd Hollywood blockbuster or music video or album or novel that someone could afford to produce only because copyright law enabled them to choose how they wanted to sell the work. Because that's what copyright does - it lets people choose how to sell their work. It does not fix a price or determine terms and conditions or any other enforced way of doing business, it just expands the content producer's options. The rest is negotiation with the public over cost and terms. If we don't like either, we don't buy, but at least negotiation is possible. Without the possibility of negotiation there are only going to be two options to an artist - produce and pray or don't produce.
Really? And this contributes what to the debate? Are you arguing that there is too much artistic production? Are you saying that the state should limit the amount of literature that is produced, or movies, or songs because it's too confusing for our little brains? That is bollocks. Sounds like some sort of Orwellian Hell. People can make their own choices.
It's all academic, it's not going to happen. All we can do is influence the implementation of the principle of copyright, e.g. argue for shorter copyright terms, refuse DRM and advocate watermarks. These are practical things. Wanting to abolish copyright law in favour of all arts being state-funded is just a misguided pipe-dream.
Re:Fuck you America (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:They're free to share... (Score:3, Insightful)
So exactly how many iterations do you think it would take for Peter Jackson to go from selling his home videos to raising the $430 million dollars up front it would require to produce the Lord of the Rings trilogy?
As an aside, not that the argument requires more counter-points, you're shifting the basis of the market to one in which the consumer (you) bare the risk. After all, if everyone gets together to pay into the "We'd Like a LotR Trilogy" fund, that's $430 million you're not going to get back if the films are crap. Don't you prefer the risk to be on the producers' side rather than the customers?
Re:Not if you don't want to (Score:5, Insightful)
Piracy _does_ involve two consenting people doing things in private (exchanging digital information). The person who objects is a third party.
Re:Respect to this guy... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The future? (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree to some extent, but don't act like it would be all sunny and rosy if copyright was abolished. Many excellent groups or artists may not have the ability to travel all year, such as older artists or people with physical disabilities. Others make music that relies on studio techniques that can't be replicated well in live settings.
And most of the people that make those recordings we hate so much also tour. Britney Spears, Hannah Montana, etc. all make obscene amounts of money from touring, so it's not like that shit will go away.
These are the top ten grossing tours of 2007:
1. The Police ($212 million) 2. Genesis ($129 million) 3. Justin Timberlake ($126.8 million) 4. Kenny Chesney ($71.2 million) 5. Rod Stewart ($70 million) 6. Cirque Du Soleil's Delirium ($59.4 million) 7. Roger Waters ($53.2 million) 8. Tim McGraw/Faith Hill ($52.3 million) 9. Christina Aguilera ($48.1 million) 10. Rascal Flatts ($41.6 million)
Two washed up groups that were never that good on reunion tours, two washed up musicians that used to be excellent, a skanky female pop star, a mediocre male pop star, three shitty country acts and the goddamn circus. It's not exactly a killer's row of quality music.
Re:They're free to share... (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm an artist too. And you do have control over your work. You can keep it to yourself.
Or... you can set it out in the public and, just like any idea, it is then out of your hands. This is a trait of information in general, unfortunately. Sordid details of my life are the same thing: I can control them as long as I keep them to myself, but once I put them out there, they just can't practically be controlled. Be angry at the way the universe functions. Hell if I know why information is so different from physical materials, but it is.
That said, it was collectively determined that a short copyright period was a good thing, because it encouraged creating stuff. But then some people got greedy, wanted to be able to be paid forever for a single piece of work, and now there's a huge backlash.
Re:Sick of hypocrisy? Look in the mirror (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:They're free to share... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd go as far as to state that plastic art in general is almost entirely unaffected by piracy, like actual shows of performance arts.
I haven't bought a CD in ages, getting most music I listen to off the intertubes in one manner or another. Yet, in the last month I went to a presentation of Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (the musical, not the film. Though I plan on watching that too), and today I attended the world-wide second presentation of Terry Jones's (of Monty Python fame) Evil Machines (a musical). Only missed the première because I had my birthday party last night. I also have tickets for another play in a few weeks' time.
You might claim I'm hurting the music industry for not buying their wares, and that poor old artists are starving (incidentally, my girlfriend is a professional classical musician), yet I'm willing to pay about as much for a ticket for a one-night show as would be charged for a CD I'd keep for aeons (have quite a few CDs around going on 15 years old, not counting my parents').
When a download off the internet can actually lean towards me, personally, and threaten me with shiny silver razors (the guy who played Sweeney was creepy, damn him), piracy might be able to "replace" the value of a live performance. Until then, the music industry is just crying about not wanting to invest in the real deal and the pale imitation being upstaged by a more practical pale imitation. In the meanwhile, plastic arts happily plod along just fine because nobody in their right mind would compare looking at a painting proper with seeing a photograph (no matter how high resolution) of it. Or a statue (though I have a large set of photos of a visit to a sand sculpture exhibit I saw this summer -- for which I gladly paid entrance fees).
Re:Fuck you America (Score:3, Insightful)
It ended before you were born. But like those who believe in their god while thinking everyone else worships false gods, a lot of people in the US believe in their media while thinking everyone else watches "propaganda". As Goethe said, none are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free.
Re:Fuck you America (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, the idea that most of humanity has a world view composed of little more than myth, lies and wholesale bullshit is hardly new, but people will gape at you with drooling expressions if you ever suggest it
And the information age hasn't helped on bit. If anything, it's made it worse. Now people can be totally ignorant about thing they never used to know existed!
Re:Fuck you America (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Fuck you America (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Fuck you America (Score:1, Insightful)
When a technology is developed, there is usually an initial intellectual idea. Then a few people start using the idea, and for a while there are people round the world trying it out. Finally, it becomes established and commercially viable. The person who had the idea is rarely associated with the (rich) person who makes a commercial success.
I think that the true inventor is the person with the original idea. (That would make Turing the inventor of the computer, and Sir George Cayley the inventor of the airplane). But the Americans pick and chose the first American in this mix or people and claim that they are the true inventor. So the Wrights are feted because they were trying aviation out (and were American), or Henry Ford because he made the automobile commercially viable (and was American).
Don't get me wrong. The Wrights did advance the cause of aviation (though not by much), and Henry Ford was responsible for a revolution in world commercial industrialisation (much more important!). But for some reason Americans seem to want to claim that they were totally responsible for everything!
I think it is to do with the isolationist mentality of the US. Britain was an island, but when it acquired an empire it became much more internationalist in its outlook. Unfortunately, I can see no indication that America is growing up the same way.
Re:Respect to this guy... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They're free to share... (Score:3, Insightful)
- Copyright necessitates widespread government surveillance of communication.
- It necessitates strict control over innovation, many technologies have to be made illegal, and there have to be extensive restrictions on the kinds of new technology that can be developed.
- It requires stripping people of the right to free speech and free expression -- because, by definition, copyright law forbids people to express certain things.
- It requires entrusting the government, of all things, with the power to prevent people from exercising their right to free expression. Of all the powers that governments shouldn't have, that's near the top.
It requires doing all of those things, even though the majority of people don't agree with copyright laws at all. And all just so that a small minority of people can make money from artificial scarcity.You may not feel any particular attachment to freedom of expression, but a lot of people do. I don't feel that the government has any right to decide which bits travel over my LAN, which bits gets duplicated from my DVDs to my iPod, which bits travel over my usb cable from my laptop to my associate's laptop.
If Britney Spears needs there to be a government monitoring chip in my PC if she's to make money, then too bad for Britney Spears. If the existence of bittorrent means that Thomas Pynchon has to go out and start charging fans for autographs, tough. Frankly, the need of some rapper to buy himself a set of gold teeth just isn't worth it giving up my freedom, nor is it worth accepting constant government surveillance.
You're on the side of prohibition here. Too few people accept it, too few people benefit from it, and too many people would rather be free. ThePirateBay is a modern speakeasy, bootleggers ride on bittorrent, and DVD Jon is handing out homebrew kits for Zinfandel and Moonshine.