In fairness just because something is published on the web doesn't mean it is in the public domain. A manufacturer can publish blueprints but you can't build and sell an improved version of their product if they have a patent on it.
He is `set' because he continuously fulfills the expectation of the employer: he publishes (and teaches etc.). And expectations of the wide public: he provides information to us. The employer (university) is happy, because those publications bring them money, even if indirectly.
And you were going to say that's a bad thing because...?
Sure university is a somewhat special case; we don't expect everybody to become a professor. But, in similar vein, artists earn money by performing. Open source developers earn money by utilizing their knowledge and skill in paid-for projects. Etc., etc.
> Even if they were all in the public domain, he's basically "set", being a university professor with tenure.
> He is `set' because he continuously fulfills the expectation of the employer: he publishes (and teaches etc.). And expectations of the wide public: he provides information to us.
I don't think you understand what "tenure" means. Think of it like having your stock options fully vested and exercised, except that the company pays dividends every year, and you had so many options that you can live on the dividends.
If you read what I wrote, I made no criticism of him for doing his job. I said it would be a poorer world were the only people who could afford to write those with independent sources of income.
> artists earn money by performing
What you're saying, in economic terms, is that musicians have rivalrous, excludable goods they can produce: the concert experience.
That's not bad, although it would have the IMO negative effect of leaving the Brian Wilson (much more oriented towards studio work than touring) types between a rock and a hard place.
Authors don't really have that: they could sign books, but that would reduce their income drastically, as most copies would be freely had.
> Open source developers earn money by utilizing their knowledge and skill in paid-for projects.
As for the open source developers, but WHERE DOES THE MONEY COME FROM in those paid-for projects? Scarcity is where it comes from, and often, they're getting paid to work on open source by someone who deals in the artificial scarcity of intellectual property.
> Authors don't really have that: they could sign books, but that would reduce their income drastically, as most copies would be freely had.
Cory Doctorow seems to manage just fine. OK, that's not easy. But I'm not sure it's harder than earning money from a standard publisher, and it looks at least possible.
Cory Doctorow's work appears to be released under the "Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike" license, which means that only his publisher has the right to sell paper copies. Granted, he's being very generous and liberal, but he is still utilizing IP laws to create some scarcity.
Also, you have to look at these things at the margin: were all authors to do this, how many would no longer be able to support themselves with their writing, and thus be forced to stop or curtail their activities? He's a relatively well known writer: maybe it's ok for him to make, say, 100K rather than 200K a year. Some guy making 50K a year may have to give it up if his income is cut in half.
Furthermore, consider that just now the Kindle and similar systems are really starting to take off. In 2005 or so, you either bought the paper book and had yourself a nice read, or stared at an LCD for hours, which is not my idea of pleasant.
In the case of consulting, the scarcity might be expertise in putting together some kind of enterprisey system, but there is always going to be scarcity, otherwise no money will be exchanged.
And you can rest assured that IBM has made plenty of money from IP itself over the years - they're no strangers to software or any other kind of patents, nor selling software like DB2. Also: do you think that IBM's services division would make as much money if they posted all their code to the internet? I bet many of their clients believe (right or wrong) that the custom solutions they're getting are a competitive advantage and do not want to freely share them with the competition who is not shelling out big bucks to IBM.
With regards to Google's IP, you can be very sure that they would invoke all kinds of IP laws were someone to walk out of their HQ and post important bits and pieces of their search engine tech to the internet. These days, they're in a pretty good position to survive in any case, but think about trying to start a company and have no way of doing anything if people walked out and posted your "crown jewels" to the internet.
Meaning, if you want to gain any wealth, then work on something scarce, and make sure it stays scarce. Let everyone do that, and we get a world of scarcity.
There exists concept of Gift economy [1] where scarcity is not a driving factor. The (historical) implementations we had so far aren't exactly shining examples of quick development. But it may have been just partly related, or even unrelated, to the economic model.
Competition has a way of ensuring that scarce things become abundant. Look at, say, automobiles or computers or food or most normal goods. Sure, monopolies exist, but we also have laws to limit their harm as well.
You don't just get to wave your hands and make things "abundant", someone has to do the work, and in order to do the work they have to make a living at it, at the very least.
> Sure, monopolies exist, but we also have laws to limit their harm as well.
A monopoly large enough is able to self-sustain, by adjusting the environment to its needs. And let's say that openly: including adjusting the law.
Of course, at some point their growth is stopped by growing pains of internal communication & management. What does the development of management theory and practice spell for the future, we shall see.
As I've said numerous times here, I don't think that IP laws in their current form are ideal, just that the idea of tossing them out entirely is likely to have some very serious consequences in terms of the production of information goods.
Counter example - affordable new AIDS medicines Or better internet connectivity/speeds in America.
While competition does have its place for helping humanity, it should also be recognized as not being useful in the production of other types of goods.
How is throwing out IP laws completely going to get you those things? I don't see it. Who's going to bring drugs to market? Sure, government sponsors basic research, but to get there to the market is not exactly a walk in the park.
I've read the thread again, could you tell me where I came across as "throwing out IP Laws completely"?.
I think -
A) Competition is good for some types of goods, not all. (I don't remember/know the correct economic criteria to define this.)
B) IP laws are good/great for some research, and bad/terrible for others.
C) I do not see the current system incentivizing humanity's good over personal/shareholder profit.
D) The current system has 'Human Good' occur as a side effect of rewarding people to do their best. It is vastly better than any system which has existed before. it will be better if we can fix C).
The original article was about Chomsky saying IP was a bad thing, and a lot of commenters here seem to like the idea of ditching it, lock stock and barrel.
I agree with your points, and think that D and C are incremental improvements to the existing system to try and make with time, rather than a reason to junk the entire thing.
I agree that ditching the whole thing would be ineffective. Even if we did, I would bet that the new system would be the old system with minor differences.
There is good in the system, it needs more people to help managed and identify fraudulent/cheating behavior which is aimed at gaming the system.
I also think we need a smaller net so that fewer things can be patented. Again, this is for the freedom to exchange information and ideas, which leads to the betterment of humanity as a whole.
Everything we do has been built on the ideas and labor of others before us.
It makes little sense to me to imagine we will be better off by not letting future generations do the same.
There are proposed alternatives to IP protections. For example, a society could decide to fund these as public goods. (Say, in a participatory bottom-up manner.)
Then you don't have the stick-filesharers-in-jail problem.
I would champion this point - at least in terms of research and science.
On the other hand when it comes to artists and sharing of other similar IP, the current system can do with shorter copyright terms. At least thats my non-nuanced starting point on these discussions.
Man, Does he "fulfill the expectation of the employer"? This guy rocks:
According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index in 1992, Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any other living scholar from 1980 to 1992. He is also the eighth most cited source of all time, and is considered the "most cited living author".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky
Chomsky is talking about institutional factors. He typically admits he is affected by them the same as anyone else. What kind of readership can a public domain book get? How would publishing it be funded? If it was a success, another publisher could just begin a print run. Old public domain books manage to get published, but, they have the advantage that they don't need to be advertised, have shelf space speculatively bought, etc. etc.
Chomsky also doesn't believe we should have regular property (at least not in the "rights" sense), but he still owns stuff.
Putting work into the Public Domain is ironically not the best way to serve the public good. It's much safer to have a permissive license. Chomsky's answer here might have unintentionally passed the wrong idea in that sense.
There's always someone trying to make everyone out to be a hypocrite. It is not a conflict to both have a belief and not act within that belief. If the world suddenly started working the way he described and he still tried to sell things he expected others to give away then it would be hypocritical behavior.
There's always someone trying to make everyone out to be a hypocrite. It is not a conflict to both have a belief and not act within that belief.
It is only not a conflict if you are, in fact, a hypocrite, and do not bother to judge yourself by your own standards.
If the world suddenly started working the way he described and he still tried to sell things he expected others to give away then it would be hypocritical behavior.
This is the shelter that most hypocrites hide under, claiming that they can't possibly be expected to live by their own high ideals until all men are good and fair and wise. It is the claim of every communist dictator who hoards the wealth he denies his citizens, and every capitalist who colludes with government for protectionism and corporate welfare while crying for free-markets, and every cheap preacher who slinks around with prostitutes while bleating about the sexualization of our culture.
If you dedicate yourself to high ideals, then dedicate yourself to them, and show the world that they are ideals that humans can live up to. If you are too enamored of worldly ways to do so, then be willing to forgive others of the same.
One can easily believe "X is good." without believing "X is what everyone should do in all situations." So to, one can believe "it would be better in numerous important ways if everyone did Z all the time." without believing "it would be better in all situations on all important measures if one more person did Z." You are advocating we judge others using a simplistic abstraction of what principles are. Good rhetoric perhaps, but not good thinking.
Put another way, it is untrue to think that principles can only be beliefs without conditionals.
I disagree with this bit of hyperbole. You only live one time. Living the life of a pauper because of some ideals if just not practical. Most people will never hear of your sacrifice and those who do will write you off as a nutter. Chomsky is doing what he can by delivering his message to the youth, the future. He wouldn't be in a position to deliver that message if he were off trying to start a one-man revolution.
Any published work is copyrighted by default. Are you aware of Chomsky making any effort to keep his books out of people's hands? Has he sued anyone for copying or distributing his books?
But it is easy enough to declaim the restriction to copying if one wishes CC-SA, CopyLeft, CC0¹, PD etc.. Chomsky is likely contractual obligated, at least in part, if he holds a tenured professorship and may not be able to do this without leaving that post.
If he's contractually bound then I think it would be fair to say that he is railing against the restrictions imposed upon him rather than being hypocritical.
Of course, this is all speculation until someone either gets a response out of him on the issue, or he starts chasing down "pirates".
They don't make any economic sense or any other sense.
Then this:
They should be working for the public good. (Applause) And that means it should be available to the public. So...
So...why aren't any of these (his 145 books):
http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_tc_2_0?rh=i%3Astripbo...
in the public domain?