Disqus - Latest Comments for crosbie

Re: Intellectual Property? Why Words Matter In The Copyright Debate

Crosbie Fitch — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 09:21:27 -0000

What would Jesus do eh? If he came upon a church congregation that believed they had to have the money changers' permission to sing - or at least to have the benefit of a license from them to do so, paid for by their generous king (via taxation)?

Who do you think are the ones deluded here?
Those who believe in the copyright Queen Anne instituted, or those who believe in the liberty they were imbued with by their creator?

Re: Intellectual Property? Why Words Matter In The Copyright Debate

Crosbie Fitch — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 03:16:08 -0000

They have not so much robbed as fooled everyone into believing they no longer have any cultural liberty - except with their blessing.

However, our liberty is inalienable, innate. Every child knows they're born with the right (equal power) to copy a picture with their crayons. It is only when children reach school that this is drummed out of them, that they are brainwashed to believe they must ask permission from the copyright holder first.

It then takes some time for us to undrum this out of our programming, to realise that of course we can copy, that it is vital for our learning, for our creativity, and has been since time immemorial.

The very word 'learn' comes from 'leornian' to follow in another's footsteps, to copy another's path.

Those who still believe they must ask a copyright holder before they can sing Happy Birthday, or before they can retell a particular joke, are sadly still deeply programmed - and will even often vociferously defend their deep seated programming that copyright is good and just, and vital for mankind.

We must spread the word, and demonstrate to each other that mankind cannot be denied its cultural liberty, that we have, and always have had, the innate right and imperative to share and build upon our culture.

Re: Intellectual Property? Why Words Matter In The Copyright Debate

Crosbie Fitch — Sun, 13 Sep 2015 18:38:10 -0000

The only valid rights are natural rights.

Paraphrasing Thomas Paine, the statute of Anne cannot create a right, it is rather that by annulling the right to copy in the majority, it is left, by exclusion, in the hands of a few - the holders of the people's right to copy - hence, copyright holders.

So, we have a natural right to exclude others from our homes and possessions, whether they be baskets or books, but once we give a basket or book to another, whether we wove or wrote it ourselves, we have no natural power to exclude them from what is now theirs, whether they use it, burn it, or make a copy of it.

Copyright is thus an abridgement of our liberty, specifically, our innate right to copy - that we still manifestly possess despite an 18th century privilege stating otherwise.

Re: Dress lets women change clothes in public without getting naked

Crosbie Fitch — Thu, 16 Oct 2014 16:07:02 -0000

I don't deny that many women do change into different clothes after a workout - without washing. I'm suggesting that such women should immediately spot that the undress enables this - without you needing to make it an overt feature.

Bear in mind that if the Undress becomes associated in people's minds (men & women) as something that encourages women to put clean clothes on sweaty bodies, that this will stigmatise the product. Why would a man buy this as a gift for his girlfriend if he had the idea that it meant she could workout a bit longer after work, skip the shower, and do a quick-change in the carpark, before driving to the restaurant she was going to meet him at?

Re: Dress lets women change clothes in public without getting naked

Crosbie Fitch — Thu, 16 Oct 2014 05:06:50 -0000

Show the 'undress' at the beginning of the video (not in the middle).

Are you sure it's a good selling proposition to imply that women want to put clean clothes on sweaty bodies?

How about suggesting the need to change from work clothes to casual clothes perhaps?

Re: The Internet's Original Sin

Crosbie Fitch — Sat, 16 Aug 2014 08:50:32 -0000

Allow me to introduce microcontracts....

Whilst modern civilisation is familiar with the local, offline marketplace in which people meet face to face, it is not familiar with the global, online marketplace in which people communicate via screen and keyboard – at least not from the perspective of mankind’s long history of commerce.

There remain big problems online, concerning the difficulties people face in terms of establishing each other’s identity/reputation, and how they exchange money (or ephemeral substitute), and how they exchange materials and products between each other. Laws instituting monopolies and otherwise restraining trade are a minor problem in comparison.

Some problems offline, aren’t actually problems online – we just think they are, because we try to replicate online the mechanisms we have become used to using offline.

For example, one doesn’t even need money as such (silver or gold say), because one can make exchanges without it (a loaf of bread for a cauliflower). However, people are still rather familiar with money (or the idea if not the practice). It is because it was once more convenient to make exchanges via an intermediary commodity that we developed facilities for exchanging via that commodity, i.e. silver, silver coins, dollar coins, dollar notes, dollar amounts, and finally, just amounts, e.g. BitCoin. Ultimately, you should realise that you don’t even need the intermediary quantity at all. You simply have a market of things to be exchanged (and some things are silver).

The problems of trading online can all be solved one day, but we can get a long way toward that if we solve one particular problem first.

I think this problem probably gives rise to this idea of a monied like button.

It is the problem of a paucity of mechanisms available for exchanging public works, i.e. products necessarily publicly accessible, such as drinking fountains or literature.

One can make it private, and sell it publicly, or one can sell it privately, and make it public.

In other words, exchange happens when things cross the boundary of a private domain. Money leaves someone’s pocket, or a product leaves someone’s workshop. You cannot sell something you have already given away, nor that which you will not part with. You cannot buy that which you already have, nor that which another will not part with.

In the case of public works, the recipient is effectively the public. Once one has sold a public work to those who bought it, one cannot sell it to anyone else, because everyone else already has it (or has easy access to it).

There are two approaches to the sale of public works. The first is to privatise what should be public in order to sell it back to interested members of the public. The second is to invite interested members of the public to fund the release of a private work to the public.

One can erect iron railings around a park and its fountains and charge admittance. One can invite a nearby community to fund the building of the park via subscription.

One can enact a privilege that abridges the people’s liberty to make copies in order to charge them for copies of a literary work. The author can also invite their readership to fund the writing of a sequel via subscription (or crowdfunding).

The exchange is between those interested in receiving a fountain or sequel, and those interested in supplying it. The product is consequently received by all those who funded it, but importantly, it is not necessarily denied to those who didn’t fund it.

Online, because it is not a place, but a communications medium, there are no effective fences, and no effective reproduction monopolies. So, all we have is the mechanism of subscription. There is no means of enclosure in a communications medium.

One can keep information private, or one can make it public. Of course, some try to do both, by relying upon friction and copyright to charge for copies (music) or access (paywall) even as they deliver their product to the public.

Ultimately, as attempts to enclose ‘virtual space’ or speech fail, and people recognise such attempts are doomed to failure, we revert to natural reliance upon the physical boundary of one’s private domain (office).

So, we have arrived at the private producer, those many interested in receiving their product, and the public as ultimate beneficiary.

There are four obvious ways of looking at this transition of product from private to public and remuneration in exchange:

The producer gives away their products, in hope of receiving donations as a consequence (possibly also commissions).

Those interested in the producer’s products donate in the hope this will reward, support and incentivise production.

The producer completes a product, and advertises/offers it for sale to those who may be interested (possibly subject to private preview).

Those interested in a producer’s product offer to purchase it in exchange for its production and delivery to them (possibly subject to private preview).

In all these cases, the product is considered a public work, and delivery of the product is considered publication.

A gift or donation is unconditional, i.e. is it made without any formal agreement of exchange.

A sale or purchase is conditional, i.e. money is paid on condition work is delivered and/or work is delivered on condition money is paid.

Notwithstanding the potential for altruism, there are tacit exchanges and explicit exchanges, i.e. patronage and subscription.

The facilities for tacit exchange or patronage, that is, donation for publication, are well catered for, and not particularly fraught with difficulty. I am not too concerned with them, e.g. see snowdrift.coop for a project intending to develop a rather sophisticated donation facility.

The 3rd case in which a producer has already completed a product can be considered a special case of the 4th, that has a production delay of zero.

So, we are left with subscribed production. The producer and their subscribers (interested would-be receivers) are interested in exchanging a product for money (whether respective of consequential public benefit or not).

So in this exchange we can easily identify four things, the two parties making the exchange, and the two items each party has to exchange:

Producer – The producer of a public work (an individual or team thereof)

Product – The public work (a complete work, or a part, or an improvement thereof)

Subscribers – Persons interested in the production of the product

Commission – The total amount offered to be paid by the subscribers in exchange

We can also identify other things that may be involved:

Production – the producer’s process of producing a product

Subscription – the subscribers’ process of commissioning a producer/product

Price – the amount the producer would readily accept in exchange

Pledge – the amount offered by a subscriber

Subscription fee – the amount paid by each subscriber (if only one or more amounts are available), which does not exceed the amount pledged.

Public – the ultimate beneficiaries

Auditor – the persons involved in any preview of product or sponsorship on behalf of producer/sponsor.

Having examined the elements of the bargain between producer and subscribers, the next thing is to look to how we facilitate this online.

We are not dealing with a town hall of 200 people, a debate and a show of hands concerning a subscription for the building of a bridge (or repairs thereof).

An online subscription facility must cater for potentially vast set of geographically and politically disparate people, whose only commonality is a shared interest in the producer and/or their products. There is no practical opportunity to facilitate internal debate between them, or haggling on their behalf with the producer.

Each potential subscriber must also be considered to have a minuscule budget in terms of time and money. The subscription decision cost must therefore be negligible, and the expenditure must be disposable (‘fire & forget’ as it were). That is not to say that facilities cannot cater for those with more time and money than most.

We are also not primarily concerned with how to optimise the facility for rapid popular take-up, but how it must operate in the long term, and on a large scale.

Let us imagine a button that a producer can place on their website (effectively and incidentally identifying the producer) that invites the interested members of their audience (would-be subscribers) to pledge $1 in exchange for the production and publication of their next product.

A pledge is just a promise, the expression of an intention to pay money in exchange for something. It doesn’t need any commitment, beyond the initial, one-time registration at the subscription facility’s website. The subscriber’s micro-contract is “I offer $ in exchange for delivery, so if I don’t pay, I don’t receive delivery”. Thus each subscriber can make good their pledges at their convenience (and in accord with their enthusiasm to receive delivery of what they have subscribed to).

Now we can deconstruct monied like. The would-be subscriber is someone who is interested in the producer and their work, therefore they ‘like’ the producer and their work. The would-be subscriber is so interested that they can easily decide to offer a small amount of money in exchange for delivery of more of what they are interested in, more of what they like. Hence, their ‘like’ is a monied one – a ‘monied like’.

It is important to note that the ‘monied’ part is not a donation, nor, more critically, is it the relinquishing of monies. Thus making pledges does not consume the subscriber’s funds. Nor even does delivery. It is receipt that does so, and receipt is in the control of the subscriber. So pledges or ‘likes’ are effectively consequence-free, but they are nevertheless monied.

Conversely, the producer should always be fully informed as to the constituency of their current subscriber base, i.e. in terms of their subscribers’ status.

Examples of subscriber status

New = not yet provided any funds

Producer = have received funds as a producer

Good = have provided funds at some time

Unfunded = have no funds

Part-funded = have insufficient funds for this subscription

Funded = have sufficient funds for this subscription at certain fee levels (within amount pledged).

Fully-funded = have sufficient funds for this subscription at all fee levels (within amount pledged).

It is important to note that a subscriber can have a single dollar funding their account, and appear as a Good, Funded subscriber to a million producers (for dollar subscriptions). That therefore magnifies the power of a subscriber’s funds immensely, whereas donation consumes them and renders them insignificant drops in the ocean.

Re: Thoughts on the Great IP Debate

Crosbie Fitch — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:54:19 -0000

JanC71, the esoteric meanings of 'scarcity' and 'rivalrous' are vacuous concepts, i.e. they do not help explain or justify property, but, when not causing confusion, they at best provide a redundant means of recognising the characteristics of things that exist vs those that don't (physical vs abstract).

You will find that the only things that are non-scarce and non-rivalrous are those things that don't exist, i.e. abstractions such as shapes, patterns, concepts, ideas, angels, etc. But, given that neither we nor the law can be concerned with recognising property in that which doesn't exist, it's a bit of a conceptual blind alley.

If it exists you can put it in a box, or enclose it with a fence - and claim it as your property - whether material or intellectual work.

Originally, copyright and patent were overtly described as state granted monopolies (abridgements of liberty to produce copies or similar designs). However, now their supporters realise they need all the spin they can get to maintain popular support for them, they reframe them as property - and we all know that while monopolies have a bad name, property is pure as the driven snow. Thus copyright and patent are now described by their supporters as laws that protect intellectual property (as opposed to protecting monopolies).

And this then leads those brought up on the notion that intellectual property (qua monopoly) is a priori valid to explore/understand how IP fits into anarchism or libertarianism.

Which is like trying to figure out how to get a rocket to the moon based on a geocentric orrery.

It can't be done.

Either you support the abridgement of the people's liberty to enable the few to enjoy lucrative monopolies, or you do not. You cannot have both - even if you call the monopolies 'property', and redefine liberty to exclude 'making a copy or something similar'.

Human beings are not mutable devices. Liberty describes the fundamental nature of the individual, their vital power to learn (from leornian - to copy another's path), improve and communicate. However, much you may like the idea of disabling those features, such that the individual becomes a mere worker bee, consuming content at one end and excreting work at the other, any attempt to achieve that disablement is doomed to failure.

Re: Thoughts on the Great IP Debate

Crosbie Fitch — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 18:37:14 -0000

You can either keep something secret OR you can confide in another at liberty to reveal it. You cannot disclose the secret to another AND abrogate their liberty to disclose it further.

Contract concerns the exchange of property (alienable, physical), it's not a means of surrendering liberty (however attractive that might be to some).

You do realise that there is nothing stopping someone engaging in 10,000 simultaneous contracts to publish an intellectual work in exchange for 10,000 x $10. Ask Amanda Palmer how that works. No-one was asked to pretend they could surrender their liberty. Amanda Palmer didn't even need the state to abridge their liberty via copyright.

Re: Thoughts on the Great IP Debate

Crosbie Fitch — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 03:00:09 -0000

Marc, copyright and patent are state granted monopolies. They (and similar powers/privileges/prerogatives) only come into being with the power of the state (crown, church, etc.).

To abridge an individual's liberty to communicate or make copies of that which they receive requires either the power of the state to annul this liberty from the law or it requires that liberty is alienable such that it can be surrendered in a contract.

A libertarian that recognises liberty as alienable is a contradiction in terms.

However, I suppose it is possible that non-libertarian anarcho-capitalists have no compunction with the idea of alienable liberty. They may therefore theorise that something similar to copyright can be recreated via contract (or micro-legislation, as it would become). However interesting in theory, it is doomed to failure in practice. Liberty is not inalienable because ethicists think it should be, but because this is the fundamental nature of the individual.

So, non-libertarian anarcho-capitalists then face the same issues as statist utilitarians: Is it really worth it? Even if it appeared to be viable in the 18th century, will it be viable in the 21st?

I have come across only one person who professes to live their life with strict adherence to copyright (as if it was an ethical principle as opposed to a privilege). This was a lawyer.

A community that sets itself up on the (copyright inculcated) notion that copying without permission is a mortal sin is the starting of a cult, not a civilisation.

Re: Thoughts on the Great IP Debate

Crosbie Fitch — Sun, 14 Apr 2013 17:29:08 -0000

Supporters of state granted monopolies will say anything, corrupt anything, if they think it helps their cause. Thus, in realising that 'monopoly' (however useful they argue it is) isn't quite as reputable as 'property', they have adopted the latter term - however much a malapropism.

They don't rest. They have already begun the process of 'establishing' that copyright is a human right, a natural right.

Orwell's Newspeak has arrived.

The original meanings of 'right' and 'property' are being dissolved from the English language.

I'd try and rescue those endangered species - not introduce esoteric concepts of 'scarcity' and 'rivalrous, which don't help people understand the difference between natural property and state granted monopoly.

Re: Thoughts on the Great IP Debate

Crosbie Fitch — Sun, 14 Apr 2013 10:58:42 -0000

"there is a general consensus among libertarians that intellectual property is an illegitimate concept"

It doesn't matter whether it's an illegitimate concept. What matters is whether property in intellectual works naturally exists - as property in material works naturally exists.

Cavemen didn't argue with each other as to whether flint stones were scarce or not. Property in their physical possessions was a natural ephiphenomenon, not something that arose through praexological debate.

If an author has written a manuscript and keeps it in their desk drawer, it's as much their physical property as a caveman's flint axe. In 1787 every author instinctively knew that they had an exclusive right to their writings - a natural right to exclude any other, not only from making off with the ink & paper, but also from manufacturing a copy.

What authors may not have realised was that James Madison wasn't interested in the author's exclusive right to their writings, but in the lucrative monopolies enjoyed by the British Press at Queen Anne's pleasure. That is why he suggested copyright was a common law right, and why the first US copyright act was almost identical to the Statute of Anne. But, as we know, the author's natural right to exclude others from their writings is not at all the same as the grant of a monopoly that annuls the people's liberty and right to copy (to leave it, by exclusion, in the hands of a few - copyright holders).

The information age doesn't demonstrate that intellectual property doesn't exist. It demonstrates that reproduction monopolies in the 'hands' of a few corporations cannot co-exist with reproduction technologies in the hands of the people (having a natural liberty and imperative to share and build upon each other's works).

Authors can, and will always be able to, lock up their manuscripts as their intellectual property, but they cannot, and never could, give their manuscripts to another and alienate from the recipient their liberty to copy them.

Also see my comments: http://www.stephankinsella....

Re: EU Copyright Dialogue: The Great Sham(e)

Crosbie Fitch — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 02:57:46 -0000

The debate is one-sided because one side is conciliatory, seeking the smallest of mercies, whilst the other side is a cartel of psychopathic corporations that recognise the only thing holding back their demands is whether they'd result in immediate profit.

The abolition of monopolies, the restoration of the people's liberty, is the only viable position to take against the extension and enhancement of monopolies.

If you accept monopolies, with or without small mercies such as 'fair use', then you've already surrendered your liberty - the cartel is just suggesting you bend over a little further.

Re: Motivating Yourself Every Day To Fight The Copyright Monopoly

Crosbie Fitch — Mon, 18 Feb 2013 12:54:25 -0000

I have heard it said that there are more descendants of slaves in US prisons doing compulsory/unpaid labour today than there were slaves in its history.

However, those imprisoned or subject to slavery remain a minority. That there were (or are) therefore relatively few of the population subject to slavery does not trivialise slavery, nor for that matter does 'few' trivialise 'torture' or 'ethnic cleansing'.

That relatively few copyright infringers are singled out for draconian treatment to serve as a lesson to the population at large, does not mean copyright can be trivialised as merely telling people how to 'consume' artistic products.

Copyright is an instrument of injustice, and, yes, if you're singled out for draconian treatment, it may well mean being kidnapped and imprisoned in a labour camp (by the state, instead of a slaver).

Re: Motivating Yourself Every Day To Fight The Copyright Monopoly

Crosbie Fitch — Mon, 18 Feb 2013 03:28:01 -0000

Whereas slavery takes all liberties from a few, copyright takes a few liberties from us all.

Being arrested and sent to prison for sharing your own culture is pretty much equivalent to kidnapping and unpaid labour - unless you're a copyright supporter, in which case it's "justice and re-education".

Million dollar fines, extradition, 35 year prison terms, SWAT raids? How harsh do you think copyright persecution needs to become before it ceases to meet your definition of trivial?

Re: The kind of thinking on copyright the GOP needs to move away from

Crosbie Fitch — Wed, 21 Nov 2012 18:25:53 -0000

It would be better if this ceased being a matter of belief.

Property arises from natural law (the individual's innate power to exclude others from the objects they possess and the spaces they inhabit). State granted monopolies arise from the state, and constitute abridgements of liberty.

Unlike the unscrupulous mercenaries that exploit them, the only supporters of monopolies such as copyright and patent who possess anything remotely resembling principles are utilitarians, who claim society benefits from such 'sacrifices' of individual liberty.

As far as copyright goes, the state benefits, from implicit control over an enriched and consequently beholden press, but that's about it. The people consequently survive on a constrained culture of populist pulp and dire threats against unauthorised participation, and dutifully believe the lie that copyright's cultural constraint is good for them (might even one day make them a star).

Re: Republicans Repudiate 40 Years of Tougher Copyright Laws

Crosbie Fitch — Sun, 18 Nov 2012 17:45:42 -0000

http://culturalliberty.org/...

Re: The Story Behind the SOPA Blackout

Crosbie Fitch — Sat, 17 Nov 2012 12:41:21 -0000

It may well sound like sophism to someone indoctrinated to believe in the holy goodness of copyright, but you have a right to copy as much as you have a right to pick your nose, or sing a lullaby your mother sung to you. Privileges annul rights in the majority to leave them by exclusion in the hands of a few. Many copyright supporters recognise this, but then claim that to annul this right is better for society, to incentivise publishers to print novels.

You can 'parasite' off Einstein's work by visiting your local library? Is that fair?

To freely share and build upon our own culture and knowledge is mankind's nature. It is the church or state that makes prohibitions for whatever purpose, e.g. to prohibit copying to grant a monopoly of copyright, or to prohibit use to grant a monopoly of patent.

Re: Is There ANY Part Of The Copyright Monopoly That Meets Legislative Quality Bars?

Crosbie Fitch — Sun, 12 Aug 2012 17:44:17 -0000

Firstly, don't confuse moral rights (which are actually rights) with copyright which is a privilege (our right to copy annulled, to be left, by exclusion, in the hands of a few - copyright holders).

Secondly, believe it or not, but there are actually natural monopolies. Only Rick Falkvinge can author writings by Rick Falkvinge. No-one else can truthfully claim to do so. Therefore Rick Falkvinge has a monopoly on the production of writings by Rick Falkvinge. Because this monopoly is natural it cannot be abolished. Copyright, being a state granted monopoly can and should be abolished.

The moral right to integrity is simply about the inviolable truth. You cannot abridge this comment and truthfully claim it is the comment I posted.

That said, the legislation protecting moral rights (where it exists) often goes above and beyond securing the natural right and privileges the author with unnatural power, e.g. providing them with a veto over derivatives they feel impugn their reputation. Of course, we have no natural right to protect our reputation, but the powerful don't hesitate to make laws that have it otherwise, e.g. defamation.

Law is not determined by 'necessity/effectiveness/proportionality', but by the people's empowerment of a government to secure the people's natural rights. Anything more than that is corruption. http://www.law.indiana.edu/...

Re: Curiosity landing removed from YouTube after bogus copyright claim by Scripps

Crosbie Fitch — Fri, 10 Aug 2012 10:43:16 -0000

"programmed to deny the idea that copying can be controlled"
should be
"programmed to deny the idea that copying cannot be controlled"
or
"programmed to uphold the idea that copying can be controlled"

Re: Small Copyleft.next Open Source Software License Project Attracts Big Interest

Crosbie Fitch — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 02:13:19 -0000

Here's a concise copyleft license - I call it the libertarian license:

You are free to take any liberties you wish with my published work, with but one constraint: The liberties you take may not be withheld from those to whom you give my work (or your combined/derivative work), who you must similarly constrain.
Alternatively:
Naturally, you are free to take any liberties you wish with these published works. However, should a privilege ever be granted to constrain your liberty then its holders constrain you thus: the liberties you take may not be withheld from those to whom you give these works (or your combined/derivative works), who you must similarly constrain.

Re: UPDATED: Home Secretary to UK net activists

Crosbie Fitch — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 06:01:38 -0000

NB Inspired by this Tweet: https://twitter.com/x7o/sta...

Re: UPDATED: Home Secretary to UK net activists

Crosbie Fitch — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 05:54:48 -0000

Cory, it wasn't too long ago that the thirteen united States of America declared independence from the King of Great Britain based on a series of complaints including the pertinent "For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences", which is eminently applicable to Richard O'Dwyer's case.

The copyright cartel have evidently realised the UK's grant to the US of a 'no quibble' extradition treaty in light of 9-11, is an ideal weapon of terror against UK based disrespectors of their 18th century privilege (granted by Britain's Queen Anne in 1709 & again by James Madison in 1790).

Just who is running the US? Immortal corporations, or 'We the people'?

At this rate perhaps Canada and Britain will soon consider coming up with their own Declarations of Independence - from the US.

Re: The Rule of Transformation

Crosbie Fitch — Fri, 29 Jun 2012 18:14:40 -0000

The issue is not whether a copy is good or bad, but whether Queen Anne's 18th century privilege annulling people's right to copy was good or bad. Copyright doesn't make copying bad, it makes it a matter of permission. See http://culturalliberty.org/...

Re: Music Industry Quixotism
(Or Why Emily White Is Right, And David Lowery Is wrong)

Crosbie Fitch — Sat, 23 Jun 2012 15:01:24 -0000

Bear in mind this is what I've been able to do over the years in my spare time with no funding, bar savings. And I've run out of both.

Re: Music Industry Quixotism
(Or Why Emily White Is Right, And David Lowery Is wrong)

Crosbie Fitch — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:15:26 -0000

Well, there will still be the outliers, e.g. Amanda Palmer.

'Enticement' isn't the word I'd use. It's about a producer offering their product to those who'd like it produced, and about those who'd like it produced offering their money in exchange - and both artist and fans coming to an equitable agreement.

Disqus - Latest Comments for crosbie

Re: Intellectual Property? Why Words Matter In The Copyright Debate

Re: Intellectual Property? Why Words Matter In The Copyright Debate

Re: Intellectual Property? Why Words Matter In The Copyright Debate

Re: Dress lets women change clothes in public without getting naked

Re: Dress lets women change clothes in public without getting naked

Re: The Internet's Original Sin

Re: Thoughts on the Great IP Debate

Re: Thoughts on the Great IP Debate

Re: Thoughts on the Great IP Debate

Re: Thoughts on the Great IP Debate

Re: Thoughts on the Great IP Debate

Re: EU Copyright Dialogue: The Great Sham(e)

Re: Motivating Yourself Every Day To Fight The Copyright Monopoly

Re: Motivating Yourself Every Day To Fight The Copyright Monopoly

Re: The kind of thinking on copyright the GOP needs to move away from

Re: Republicans Repudiate 40 Years of Tougher Copyright Laws

Re: The Story Behind the SOPA Blackout

Re: Is There ANY Part Of The Copyright Monopoly That Meets Legislative Quality Bars?

Re: Curiosity landing removed from YouTube after bogus copyright claim by Scripps

Re: Small Copyleft.next Open Source Software License Project Attracts Big Interest

Re: UPDATED: Home Secretary to UK net activists

Re: UPDATED: Home Secretary to UK net activists

Re: The Rule of Transformation

Re: Music Industry Quixotism (Or Why Emily White Is Right, And David Lowery Is wrong)

Re: Music Industry Quixotism (Or Why Emily White Is Right, And David Lowery Is wrong)

Re: Music Industry Quixotism
(Or Why Emily White Is Right, And David Lowery Is wrong)

Re: Music Industry Quixotism
(Or Why Emily White Is Right, And David Lowery Is wrong)