Hi Tuukka,
It is difficult for me to see your position in this debate as you
present both sides in a confusing way.  In this country, we have
flourished under the sense of personal responsibility and freedom to
create, where such creation brings personal rewards.  This is what, I
believe, brings about progress and a decrease in human sufferring.
Perhaps you are not against everything being free, but then I have to
ask, who is going to do the work to provide the free things if they do
not get paid?

Remember, "he who controls the information makes the rules" (this used
to be the maxim for gold (the "Golden Rule")  which I have replaced
with information).  Conversely, if the government makes the rules,
they control the information.  I am of course against this, but I am
equally against not getting rewards for hard work.  So, it is a
question of balance.  The balance is between societal dictates and
personal endeavors (and rewards).  As I have stated, this is a tricky
balance, but perhaps MoQ can provide some clarity on this.

Currently the money is in the information.  A simple analogy is as
follows:  In a manufacturing plant, we have the floor workers, and the
managers.  The managers control the information and do not do the hard
floor labor.  So, who gets paid more?  This analogy can be extended to
the trend towards an informational society.  England is ahead of the
US on this.  In fact, one could consider the control of India in the
heyday of the British Empire, to be one of informational control gone
amuck.  In the US, manufacturing is only 9% of the economy.  So even
if we double manufacturing jobs, we do not decrease our unemployment,
significantly.  I am not sure how much manufacturing plays a part in
the British economy, but my guess is that it is much less than this.

I do not quite understand how an information-based economy has
relevence to piracy.  How does an information economy prevent piracy?
Your "outdated business models" does not make much sense to me either.
Any business model is formed with the objective of making money (that
is why it is called a business model).  Making money requires that
there be no theft.  Perhaps you can suggest an alternative model.
What sort of "legal business model" are you considering?  We have more
lawyers than we need right now.  If one doesn't know what to do he
consults a lawyer.  What is THAT all about?

I agree that laws may not be the long term answer, but what do you
then do about the theft of personal property?  Aren't there any
aspects of the proposed law that you think are appropriate?  What
parts of the proposed law do you not like?

If you want to learn more about Information, I suggest you read the
recent book by Gleik on the subject.
NY Times review here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/20/books/review/book-review-the-information-by-james-gleick.html?pagewanted=all

This may answer the questions you have for Horse.

What is your proposal for the issue of piracy?  How can we bring MoQ
in to provide clarity?  This is perhaps where we can make a
difference.

Most interested,
Mark



On 1/20/12, Tuukka Virtaperko <mail@tuuk...> wrote:
> Horse,
>
>>
>> Why do we want (or need) to move to an information based economy?!? Is
>> this a real need or is it a created need - i.e. created by those that
>> stand to profit by it to the detriment of those that don't.
>
> Tuukka:
> Obviously, in the values of economy, it is better to have more money
> instead of not having more money or having less money. The information
> sector is one of the few industries that is actually still growing and
> creating jobs. It's no religion of computer nerds. It simply works, but
> currently existing large corporations want to destroy something that
> would render them mostly obsolete if it were allowed to grow into a
> large industry.
>
> However, in the absence of legal obstacles, these information based
> services would replace the current outdated business models organically
> and without requiring other kinds of interference than that of consumers
> favoring business models that serve them better. The SOPA/PIPA uproar is
> essentially about whether we favor stagnant business models and refusal
> to innovate instead of consumers, innovation and new businesses. That's
> why we want and need to move to an information based economy, and will
> actually do so unless forcefully prevented.
>
> We do not need to move to an information based economy if we don't want
> to. But that means piracy will make people have information for free. So
> basically the stagnant old world is trying to shoot down legal business
> models which would remove or alleviate the need for piracy, because they
> would have the side-effect of also removing the need for the outdated
> business models!
>
> Horse:
>> It seems to me that the main recipients of the benefits of an
>> information based economy are those that do the least in order to gain
>> the most.
>
> Tuukka:
> If we don't have much information based economy, we will have piracy and
> information available for free. I don't exactly have a problem with
> that, but most people won't agree to that. What people could conceivably
> agree to is to never allow laws like SOPA or PIPA to pass.
>
> I don't know why you think information based economy has inert people
> reaping the profit. CS and IT are very hard work, with lots of
> competition and businesses falling and new ones appearing. Do you
> actually know what kind of work it is? But I do agree programs like
> Windows and Photoshop are probably too expensive.
>
>> Here's an example:
>> Musicians are the artists that create a 'consumable product' - i.e.
>> music. The vast majority of musicians get little more than a tiny
>> fraction of the proceeds of their endeavours and yet a multi-billion
>> dollar industry revolves around what they produce. Most artists don't
>> even own the IP that is being fought over in SOPA/PIPA.
>
> Tuukka:
>
> I don't get it. What do you mean by "information based economy"? That
> selling audio CD:s in a store already is information based economy?
> Well... sure, but in that case we have already had information based
> economy for a long time. Centuries, actually, since this also includes
> books.
>
> Musicians who live by making art generally make the profit of live
> performances, not of record sales. Besides, the average income of
> musicians has constantly increased during the last decade or so despite
> allegations of piracy destroying art:
> http://www.zeropaid.com/news/90751/study-musicians-income-up-66-despite-decreased-album-sales/
>
> Horse:
>>
>> IP, like money, has a place in the world but it is not the be-all and
>> end-all of existence. A balanced economy - one that has both real
>> world and digital world good - makes more sense than an economy based
>> solely or mainly on one or the other.
>
> Tuukka:
> Meaning... what? Nobody is suggesting that because we are moving towards
> an information based economy, food will become free. It's not like we're
> actually even "moving". We are just expanding to the information
> dimension, and as a result, the real world dimension begins to appear
> proportionally smaller despite neither growing nor becoming smaller to
> any significant extent.
>
>
> The Register:
>  > Former Mozilla CEO John Lilly captured
> <http://john.jubjubs.net/2012/01/06/whats-bothering-me-about-the-sopa-discussion/>
> this best, arguing, "What’s extremely discouraging to me right now is
> that I don’t really see how we [the tech world and the US Congress] can
> have a nuanced, technically-informed, respectful
> discussion/debate/conversation/working relationship."
>
>
>
> Tuukka:
> Respect isn't something people get automatically. The point of having
> respect is that under certain circumstances, incompetence may lead to
> loss of respect.
>
> The Congress did not give due respect to the tech world in the first
> place. This is why we couldn't have a technically-informed discussion.
> Looking for scapegoats? There are plenty... such as the media, which has
> not taught citizens about the importance of the tech world and copyright
> issues, so the common public has not been able to vote the right people
> to represent them in the senate and congress. And so on. There's no one
> culprit, but the tech world needs more respect from everyone simply
> because if they don't give that respect, they will mess up their own
> matters in addition to messing up the tech world.
>
> -Tuukka
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html