Over The Counter Culture - Latest Comments

Re: Criticism of the X Prize Foundation

Jim Thompson — Sat, 24 Aug 2013 20:12:00 -0000

Funny...you called the X Prize's Genomics failure 6 years ago. Well done. http://www.nbcnews.com/scie.... I guess history has judged Mr. Vander Ark...

I agree with your premise, the X Prize has thus far run on the rocket fuel of a fairly substantial ego..it'll take you fast, but I doubt it'll take you very far.

Re: NSFW: Oklahoma judge used penis pump during trials

AvoidingJejune — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 11:55:51 -0000

Remove his penis!

Re: The Facebook Data Protection Act letter

justextreme — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 10:07:49 -0000

Did you ever get a reply?

Re: Bastiat, the BSA, and the Sun

nemoknada — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 14:07:52 -0000

Adjust Bastiat's tacit assumptions as follows: The sun is a lightbulb of uncertain quality attached to a generator of uncertain quality operated by volunteers of uncertain commitment. The free light is still a "gratuitous gift" (is there any other kind?), but all of a sudden the externalities seem to matter. The free light is good enough to scare off entrepreneurs who would make better light. The best may be the enemy of the good, but so, too, is the mediocre if the price is right.

Perhaps John Ruskin had the better advice on this subject: "There is nothing in the world that some man cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper, and he who considers price only is that man's lawful prey."

Re: Bastiat, the BSA, and the Sun

nemoknada — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 14:07:25 -0000

[Sorry, posted twice This is edited to remove text]

Re: The Fred Wilson effect (a.k.a: social networking dividend of an open, public conversation)

dui lawyer — Sun, 24 Apr 2011 14:34:32 -0000

emergent, are you a spammer?

Re: Giving new life to damaged patented items is infringement!

Tigress — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 12:24:53 -0000

The whole container ( cage and bottle ) may hold up to nearly 2 tonnes of hazardous liquid. The cage and original manufacturer's bottle are designed to interact, and must satisfy very stringent design tests recommended by a United Nations committee. i.e. not to leak having been dropped from 1.9 metres at minus 18 degrees C!! Cross bottled containers do not offer the same performance, and there is little or no control over the manufacturing process. There is also plenty of competition in this market, and the potential user can choose from any number of suppliers. Furthermore, it is not the original purchaser of the container who wishes to extend the life of the product, it is a third party who effectively purchases components and puts them together to sell in direct competition with the original manufacturer.
Also interesting to note that this is a German company investing heavily in UK manufacturing .......................

Re: Default public licensing of copyrighted works

Crosbie Fitch — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 11:02:54 -0000

There are such things as implicit licenses, e.g. when submitting letters to a newspaper editor. Thus you could argue I have provided an implicit license with this comment (irrespective of any T&C). However, your blog article does not have such an implicit license (ephemeral copies made on its way to your readers' machines are non-infringing). Righthaven raised the issue as to whether an implicit license can be provided by inferring that an encouragement to 'share' qua link to, encouraged 'share' qua copy.

Bear in mind that copyright used to not be provided automatically. You had to register for it, or at least make it clear you were claiming/reserving the privilege annulling others' right to make copies. It's doubtful there's much of a groundswell in support of a reversion.

We're rapidly moving to 'individuals don't recognise copyright' and 'corporations obey and enforce it', with the more mercenary lawyers such as ACS:Law among the latter preying on the former. You do know that 'not recognising copyright' is effectively equivalent to 'copyleft' don't you? One has legalese, the other doesn't.

As copyright becomes more dangerous it may be recognised that FBI warnings aren't enough. Works may have to be divided into 'Harmless' and 'You are liable to end up in prison if you sing any songs on this CD in earshot of a collection society mobster'. The latter needing something like a radioactive hazard sign or black and yellow chevrons. So, just for that it may be necessary to make all works copyleft or 'non-copyrightable' by default, unless the author pays for a monopoly and 'Bankruptcy/Imprisonment Hazard!' labels.

But as I've already intimated it's likely that before that futile reform it will be realised that there shouldn't be ANY legislation that makes mankind's culture a hazard rather than a birthright. It is not a matter of ensuring that only those wealthy corporations who can afford to pay for the privilege can jeopardise the public, but that NO-ONE jeopardises the public.

You're looking through the wrong end of the telescope. It's not that copyright shouldn't be granted to mere mortals, but that mere mortals should be immune from privileges - instruments of injustice. If corporations truly think they do better with monopolies than without, that's their folly, but we can tolerate it only as long as they only use such unnatural weapons against unnatural persons such as themselves.

Re: Default public licensing of copyrighted works

Philippe Bradley — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 10:27:25 -0000

I agree with most of what you're saying. To cast a slightly different light on the latter part:
There's an argument for saying that all I'm arguing for is the crystallisation into statute of something which happens anyway, all the time: if I write something (e.g. a blog post, a twitter post, a facebook status) but don't state what rights I'm reserving, I'm usually implicitly granting you a licence to redistribute.

Now, I don't know if common law recognises implicit licenses of copyright, but perhaps it does. If so I'm just proposing an explicit recognition and statutory definition of UK common law.

Not very revolutionary. But perhaps subversive?

Re: Default public licensing of copyrighted works

Crosbie Fitch — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:47:18 -0000

The least you can do to copyright to make it ethical is to exempt individuals from infringement, i.e. only the legal persons known as corporations could infringe copyright.

Anything else only has potential merit in hastening copyright's demise.

I wrote the article I linked to as an example of the only kind of reform that could be accepted by the copyright cartel, i.e. as one simultaneously more draconian whilst also being copyleft by default - enabling individuals to more quickly adapt to more equitable business without it.

Unfortunately, it didn't get any traction. So what we have now is just the 'more draconian' bit, i.e. ACTA. Although, it seems that a tiny few still have some qualms about measures that see people such as Emmanuel Nimley in jail for 6 months for pointing their iPhone at the cinema screen. We'll see what happens after ACTA is ratified and each country's legislation 'harmonises' with it.

'Copyleft by default' is effectively the people's DIY legislation. The coders started the ball rolling with the Free Software Movement. Other artists will follow.

I think you're just exhibiting the 'bargaining' phase prior to the 'acceptance' phase of recognising copyright's demise. Your questions are of a hypothetical copyright reform, one that I don't think will ever come about. So, it's really rather moot.

Re: Default public licensing of copyrighted works

Crosbie Fitch — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:26:56 -0000

I've never said copyleft is wrong.

Providing a covenant not to sue, or a copyright neutralising license with one's work, is ethical. It is any attempt to exploit copyright's unethical suspension of the public's liberty that is thus also unethical.

Re: Default public licensing of copyrighted works

Philippe Bradley — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:19:17 -0000

These are the particular things I'm wondering:

Would it adequately solve some of the issues you have with copyright?
Would it provide the 'innocent reproducer' with a defence when non-commercially reproducing/modifying work they come across that isn't accompanied by a licence?
Would it boost the commons and legitimise not-for-profit sharing and reworking of more works (unless the creator express a wish to contrary?)
Would it have undesirable side-effects (such as DRM of some form? term extension? enforcement? economic effects?)
Could the idea usefully be made more sophisticated, e.g. making it such that explicit departures from the default public licence must be expressly renewed every (xx) years? That if un-renewed for (y) multiples of the (xx) period, the work falls into the public domain outright?
Would it strike a fair balance between stakeholders in the copyright debate?
Could it be implemented without a break with the UK's international copyright treaty/agreement obligations? With EU harmonisation?
Is there a particular type of copyrighted work which this could be applied to if a government wanted to experiment?

Re: Default public licensing of copyrighted works

Philippe Bradley — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:17:08 -0000

I do have issues with asking for registration though. I've not seen any feasibility studies done yet. Content production and dissemination is accelerating, fast. Self-deprecating/expiring DRM instead?

The effect of such a policy on DRM usage and development is one of the questions I have concerning this.

Re: Default public licensing of copyrighted works

Philippe Bradley — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:12:40 -0000

Ah, I get a few more web hits for "copyleft be default". Not a new idea
then, as I thought.
(I'm astounded that they came from you though!)

Not a solution that ever got traction I guess - but did it get rebuttals
(besides *your own*, which seem to be based on the premise that copyleft is
wrong because copyright is wrong)?

Re: Default public licensing of copyrighted works

Crosbie Fitch — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:02:54 -0000

See: http://www.digitalproductio...

Copyleft by default, and a monopoly granted only upon payment (increasing exponentially per term requested), is certainly an idea that might appeal to some, but really monopolies are simply unethical derogations of people's cultural liberty and cannot be countenanced even upon payment. It's like "We've established you're willing to sell yourself into slavery, we're just haggling over the price".

Re: Mulve: oh, for f***’s sake.

Crosbie Fitch — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 20:24:17 -0000

You know that all culture is destined to be free(libre) again as it was until only 300 years ago.

Next year there'll be a black market in optical disk sets (super DVD) of all CDs ever released (probably subdivided into genres) as MP3 files.

Then we can get over this stupid notion given to us by Queen Anne that to share culture without permission from the Stationers' Company is a crime.

A return to a free market in culture, i.e. not art for liberty, nor art for tax, but art for money, money for art. The future of cultural commerce is in the exchange of intellectual work for money, not copies.

A far better incentive to the artist than the suspension of all others' liberty, is the money of an enthusiastic audience. They deserve the restoration of their liberty, and the artist deserves a better deal than the crumbs the label would leave them.

Re: The Facebook Data Protection Act letter

Adam H — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 06:17:59 -0000

Hell hath no fury like an indignant Bradley with time on his hands.

Re: Official: government now certified batshit insane

Philippe Bradley — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:04:03 -0000

Care to argue, instead of preach?

If you do, please take into account my membership of Creative Commons, and consider the middle ground...

Re: Official: government now certified batshit insane

Crosbie Fitch — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:12:33 -0000

Sorry Philippe, until you snap out of the doublethink that an 18th century suspension of the public's liberty to share and build upon published culture is a good thing, you, as most people, will remain mystified at how cruel the enforcement of this unethical privilege has become.

When enlightenment strikes you and your fellows in that other place another time, in the bottom of the oubliette awaiting your inquisition, it will be too late.

Re: Official: government now certified batshit insane

Philippe Bradley — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:03:45 -0000

I disagree that copyright is fundamentally a bad thing in a modern society -
and so would most people. That's a debate to be held in another place, at
another time.

What I *do* resent is atrocious legal precedents being set in response to
minor problems that are going away of their own accord IN SPITE OF already
extravagant and archaic copyright frameworks (one shudders to think what
issues the many new era music services - last.fm, spotify, we7 etc have to
put up with) - especially when the limited measures already proposed
infringe human rights and cost rights owners more money (
http://www.guardian.co.uk/t...
than
they would return to them - "it would cost £420m annually to run a system to
defeat a problem the music industry complains costs it £200m per year."

2009/11/23 Disqus <>

Re: Official: government now certified batshit insane

Crosbie Fitch — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 04:38:06 -0000

The problem is copyright - it's fundamentally unethical.

All those who support copyright will simply continue to reinforce its suspension of the people's cultural liberty.

There are no 'go easy' or 'go slightly less harsh' options. If copyright is good then the harder it is enforced the better.

It's only when enough people eventually realise that copyright is fundamentally unethical that we will see the ethical solution: the abolition of copyright - and the draconian enforcement to end with it.

What astounds me is that the Pirate Parties are still supporting copyright, or at least still paying lip service to its continuation (even if unconscionably reduced in term and scope).

Re: BNP disgraced by the Royal British Legion

binerobinerobinero — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 07:52:28 -0000

As an aside Bradlima

surely the greater humour being the use of the polish free squadron spitfire as the emblem of the party/tir in to wwII churchill.....

could have picked any spitfire but not 303 squadron

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

Re: India on the road – Part 2

glasswool — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 02:25:58 -0000

I had to travel this same route to recover my bike, stolen from my home in Goa. I really enjoyed the drive, more so pleasently surprised by how the local police went out of the way to help me with police and court procedures to claim my bike back, for nothing in return!

Re: Urban Rot

UK Urban Photographer — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 11:53:38 -0000

Take a look at some of my Urban pics at UnseenBritain.co.uk. Obviously, not as good as those.

Re: Manifesto for Microphilanthropy

jennifer gree — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 10:35:16 -0000

http://www.changingtheprese... is a non profit website with micro- philanthropic gift ideas for the holiday season