Newspapers are doomed
p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- Daniel Conover incisively suggests that the online newspapers’ apparent formulation of a plan to place all their news behind a paywall constitutes a suicide pact rather than salvation.
I’d say it was more like a group of similarly afflicted purchasing a retreat in which they can end their terminal illness away from the public eye.
In the future this history of our present will be understood as obviously as children today understand that the Earth orbits the Sun. That is to say that everyone will know why newspapers were doomed, and why journalists were not.
However, if any time traveller ventured to enlighten the minds of his forefathers he would have been burnt as a heretic.
So in an attempt to avoid heresy, here is a simple test that anyone can perform upon themselves to see if they have a mind that is so supple it can quickly make the paradigm shift:
Conceive of a future without copyright, one in which authors exchange their writing for their readers’ money, but one in which printers no longer pay authors for their writing to sell copies of it to readers.
If you can open your mind to the possibility that the market for copies has ended, then your mind is open to the possibility that there remains a market for intellectual work.
Newspapers are doomed. Journalists have a bright and prosperous future. These are not contradictory statements.
So, if you are a journalist, don’t charge your readers for copies, invite them to pay you to write, to pay you for your writing. Your readers are now your customers, no longer the printer’s. That traditional publisher can no longer pay you for your writing, because they can no longer sell copies of it, they can’t sell your readers’ eyeballs, and they can’t charge your readers for reading online copies.
Newspapers are elephants in a desert of their own making, desperately wandering from watering hole to watering hole, but the revenue flowing from each tributary of their 18th century monopoly on the sale of copies is drying up. Neither fencing off the copies nor reinforcing the monopoly will help. Their business model faces absolute drought. So they collect, not to commit suicide, but to assemble their graveyard.
Our own technology reveals the fundamental natural law governing information and intellectual work. The age of commercial privilege is ending. Natural rights must resume.
[Fitch says he's researching and developing revenue mechanisms and business models for producers of digital art and in the process, 'has discovered that copyright is not only an ineffective anachronism, but is unethical and unconstitutional'.]
June, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy! Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
June 6th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
The exclusive right to market one’s works and inventions originally implied production of physical articles (books, broadsheets or doodads) on physical production lines, distribution of those works (by horse and buggy or newsboy), and sale of multiple individual copies. For digital works in the age of ubiquitous computing and connectivity, each of these three aspects of copyrights and patents have become marginal costs. As these aspects of the nature of the market have changed, so must the nature of the exclusive right.
June 6th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
I’m intrigued to know where you obtained such an understanding of ‘exclusive right’ and its ‘original implication’. Any references?
As I understand it rights do not change, or rather they only change with nature, and nature changes at a glacial rate. The author’s natural exclusive right to their writings has not changed since man first learned to scrape chalk or charcoal over rock. Electronic charge on silicon is simply a more flexible medium, and has no effect on the nature of the right.
Monopolies on the other hand, being unnatural simulacrums of rights, aka privileges, are indeed undermined by nature, by the nature of information and the tools and technologies we create to improve our facility with it.
June 6th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
True p2p.
Cheers!
June 6th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
“I’m intrigued to know where you obtained such an understanding of ‘exclusive right’ and its ‘original implication’.”
Yes, it certainly IS about time everyone started seriously re-educating themselves to the difference between “rights” and “privileges”.
This is just another classic illustration of how the masses have been “educated” over the years by absorbing the constant, repeated distortions made by the corporate world and their mainstream “reinforcement mechanisms”. They keep pumpin’ it out, and people end up not knowing the distinction between:
1) “rights” and “copyright”
2) “file sharing” (as a legal tool) and “copyright infringement” (as an act committed by a user)
3) a “civil infraction” and “criminal act”
4) the intention of copyright, and the current abuses we’re seeing now.
June 6th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
“The ‘intention’ of copyright”
Actually, it’s way past time for us to stop giving things like copy”right” and patents the “benefit of the doubt.”
And as far as these monopolies constituting a “balance” between the interests of monopolists the the public-at-large, that’s utterly specious:
Take the issue of race-based chattel slavery: there was a vast (and extremely lucrative) structure built up around slavery, far beyond the obvious interests of slave-owners themselves, to have an unpaid workforce.
No, there was the whole infrastructure of capturing the slaves, transporting them, selling them, and this constituted a really significant aspect of the socioeconomic system of the time.
But guess what? once enough people became aware that the “peculiar institution” of slavery was damaging (not to mention morally indefensible), it was removed, “interests” of slave-holders be damned.
The bottom line in regard to copy”right”/patent monopolies is similar, in that certain parties have managed to use such monopolies as “leverage” — record companies, movie companies, lobbying groups related to both groups, as well as an entire specialty of lawyers and clearance-groups and suchlike.
Now, so long as we on the copyfight/”free Culture” side of the debate continue giving the other side the benefit of the doubt, we won’t achieve anything substantive. Why?
Because THEIR “interests” can only be served by the complete commoditization (and thus, destruction) of culture itself.
We have ample evidence for this, in that they keep buying themselves longer copy”right” terms every few years (and applying the new terms retroactively to prevent stuff from “lapsing” into the public domain.)
So it’s time to stop giving the RIAA/MPAA scumbags and their apologists the benefit of the doubt, by claiming that pernicious monopolies such as copy”right” and patents were based on “good intentions”.
June 6th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
@Henry:
Totally agree!
And, I didn’t mean to give any impression that I lend any credibility to the “intention” of copyright at this point in time. It may have had a “good intention” when it was concocted to accommodate the first era of printed product, but it really has no visible constuctive purpose in today’s digital world.
The only reason I mentioned “intention” was to illustrate one of the common misconceptions prevalent in society, in that, they seem to have been deliberately mislead from one key fact – copyright was not originally conceived to be the monster it is today, and was most likely not conceived to extend too far past the idea of *unique*, physical product (such as what comes off a printing press).
June 6th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
I’ve never heard anyone say this but I’m going to…
Classical music is public domain, is it not? You are free to play it and even charge people to see you perform it.
Is classical music really that great and the music of the 1900’s so easily forgotten that it won’t last as long as classical? Or is it the case that classical is public domain and people like it so they play it and audiences like it so they pay to see it, generation after generation? While musical works that are copyrighted up the ying-yang so no one can perform except a burnt-out ‘artist’ which turns off newer generations and hence the music “dies” with the artist, but still copyrighted?
What would music of the 1900’s be like if it were public domain and anyone could play it without paying huge royalties to the original artists? Would maybe stuff people liked in the 1920’s and 50’s and 70’s be played by many more people because they didn’t have to give up sometimes large sums of their income to some collection agency that then transfers a small fraction to the creator’s heirs?
Is classical music really so great and that’s why it has lasted so long compared to music from the 1900’s that seems forgotten, except by those from that era? Or could it be the lack of ability for people to experience it by playing it and sharing it with others?
I could be off my rocker with this logic, I’ve had a really shitty day, but I’m just wondering what others think about the argument I’ve presented. Could it be used to support reducing copy’right’ durations?
Cheers.
June 7th, 2009 at 3:05 am
The economy of information must be reinvented since the computers revolution and we should be talking about this right now.
Unfortunatly with all these copyright terrorists arround, no discussion is possible.
I agree with Bush for only one thing: We don’t negotiate with terrorists regardless of what they say they are. Sionistes, Islamistes fanatics, or white supremacists it does not matter. They look all the same.
.
Similarly we don’t negotiate with Vivendi universal nor with Sony/BMG EMI, Time Warner or Ruper Murdock.
Obviously these businesses are driven into the ground by a bunch of stupid neo-cons.
June 7th, 2009 at 3:10 am
I am sorry to say this but my opinion is that the music of the 1900’s is mostly a pile of crap with very few exceptions.
But the big bang artistic of the 21st century is comming thanks to internet!
June 7th, 2009 at 10:08 am
psst! don’t tell anyone but there are still living classical music composers…and I have to wonder what their opinion would be of Robert’s comment, which I think is very interesting.
June 7th, 2009 at 10:36 am
im a ‘dont know’.
i think there are three kinds of people, those that know about copyrights true intentions (Robert, Henri, Crosby, [and I have to include here the MAFIAA thug lawyers, otherwise they would not be fighting so hard for their extensions, blah]), sheeple that only know what is brainwashed into them by similiar fecal material as the lawyers, big $ et al.., and the dont knows.
im a degreed software engineer of over 20 yrs and 8 languages, capable of being an ‘expert witness’ in any of these RIAA circus acts currently in the court system, and not an artist. however, the other day, i was talking to a collegue and he suggested that i patent a particular software package i ’shrink-wrapped’ years ago. i found a copy laying around and thought mebbe i should update its version with a re-write and put it back on the market. patent it? never thought of that.. i continued the conversation that in during the diligence, i only found another minor player in usa that had a similiar idea, and there would still be demand for this software i designed. even if there was another package like mine, it would be good competition to make mine better.
then i realized, i was an artist, and all the articles on ars, /., techdirt and here reminded me of patent trolls, copyright propoganda, ad nauseum.. so, if i patent the ‘idea’, which im sure is easy as fuck to do, then i can lock out innovation entirely, and everyone would be at my whim when i felt like upgrading my software. for the price i demanded, gee, that sounded all too familiar… even if I DIDNT, someone else could, and then force mine off the market.., if only for protecting my right to offer a better software package for a reasonable fee i HAVE to patent it. thats fucked up when a system is so screwed, you HAVE to play their way, or not be allowed into the game at all.
it really hits home hard when the realizations of how fucked up the patent and copyright system is in its current state, lemme tell ya.
love your articles Crosbie.
stw
June 7th, 2009 at 11:33 am
Thanks stw. NB The best thing to do with respect to patents is to publish your patentable work in order to establish it as prior art, i.e. unless some blighter has already patented it. This helps defend yourself should you ever have a thriving business based upon your ideas (or those you assumed were ancient or unpatentable). Unfortunately, patent battles are not really won based on merit but on size of litigation budget. I suggest the alternative strategy to hiring lawyers (or building up a patent portfolio) is to ensure you are always so nimble you can dodge any patent claim levelled against you. There are other techniques too, such as enabling your customers to infringe any patents where you cannot. It’s difficult for trolls to prosecute a million users.
June 7th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
ok, so the old version, that I sold about 100 copies of is considered ‘prior art’, and I dont really have to worry about patent trolls because of this? if put into that position, i could claim prior art on the previous version in defense of ‘grandfather’ clause? i.e. i can prove I built it first.
its a niche market this software applys, there isnt a big million user demand for this, but I would like to sell a few hundred more at 5K a pop as well. i hope i understand this right, it will directly affect whether or not i decide to continue writing newer versions. amazing, patent bullshit is already impeding my innovation, and I havent even written it yet.
call me surfer Crosbie, stw stands for share the wealth, a file sharing philosophy and signature, not in fact my ‘handle’. I have been reading your publishings for quite some time on many websites and enjoy your ideas very much. not so much on understanding the ideology, but do in fact understand the application. Henri confused me as well, but with research, im starting to ‘get it’. thanks for the post.
share the wealth
June 7th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Surfer, it’s a little hard to reconcile your claim of being qualified as an expert witness in IP litigation with your misconceptions about patents. For starters, you can’t patent an “idea.” It’s actually got to be an invention; if you need help with the distinction, talk to an actual expert. Also, if you offered a product “years ago” but failed to patent it at the time, your chance is gone. Updating it does not help. Once an invention has been made public, you only have a year to file.
June 7th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
my degrees are in computer science, mechanical and software engineering, not patents. I could easily dispute the RIAA experts testimony and evidence as fabricated bullshit set in a box of smoke and mirrors enjoyed to elevator music. during a court session, i could be provided a laptop, and in minutes, download unauthorized material impersonating riaa.org IP address.
so, if you dont mind the adults were having a conversation….
June 7th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
” my degrees are in computer science, mechanical and software engineering, not patents. I could easily dispute the RIAA experts testimony and evidence as fabricated bullshit set in a box of smoke and mirrors enjoyed to elevator music. during a court session, i could be provided a laptop, and in minutes, download unauthorized material impersonating riaa.org IP address. ”
Then why don’t you ?
June 7th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
damn good question !
June 7th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
IP Address Host Name
76.74.24.200 http://www.riaa.org
City Region/State Postal Code Country Name
SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA 94101 UNITED STATES
Country Code Time Zone Latitude Longitude
US -08:00 37.7002 -122.406
ISP Domain Name Net Speed IP Decimal
RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOC OF AMERICA - - 1279924424
Reliance Globalcom Services, Inc RGS-BLK10 (NET-76-74-0-0-1)
76.74.0.0 – 76.74.127.255
RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOC OF AMERICA YIPS-RIAA-S06052007 (NET-76-74-24-0-1)
76.74.24.0 – 76.74.24.255
pick one…
stw
June 7th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
Do it, as an expert witness infront of a judge.
Doing it here helps no one.
June 7th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
well, particularly, in my case, i am a file sharing server, with about 15 years of internet ’shennegains’. I cannot connect my irl (in real life) with my internet persona. with over 275,000 bachelor degrees in computer science being pumped out in the usa a year, i am not a rare commodity.
and to be blunt, i have no moral compunction to help the uninformed. the MAFIAA campaign has been against printers, and dead people. and the low hanging fruit they sack using kazaa. honestly, understand an application if you plan on using it. dont take this the wrong way, but cmon. i banned bittorrent usage in 2003 because i knew it would leave footprints back to my server(s). i have no sympathy for those not paying attention.
just because i am literate i should step forward? see this is a big mistake in the world. science doesnt invent for the ‘better good’ of man, they invent for $$$, period. the intelligent of the world rules the world, you find them in politicians, lobbyists, lawyers, doctors, geneticists, et al. do you really think that a genetic biologist has any clue what the world will do with his discoveries? he doesnt care, he is discovering, thats it. the lawyers take over once the breakthru is achieved.
so i behooves some kind of duty i owe society because of my ability, that is as hypocrital as charging for my services. shit, should i offer my amicus pro bono? sure, why not, in your comprehension, i already ‘owe’ something, cause i ‘know’ something. hogwash.
the world will exist long after my stay….
stw
June 7th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
google surfers serials, and reconsider your demands….
June 7th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
i think i have already ‘contributed’.
June 7th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
Unmask his ego and you expose a coward disguised as a monkey
June 8th, 2009 at 8:53 am
Surfer, you sound a little bit bitter and you seem to demonstrate that Share The Wealth is not really your motto when it comes to something that is yours, ie: your intellect.
Sure others *could* learn it themselves as you have, but many are not like you. Many are not self-teachers. Does that mean they don’t deserve to learn new things, especially knowledge that could save them from a common enemy (**AA groups)?
I am not saying you owe anyone anything, I just find it interesting you support sharing the wealth with regards to that which was created by someone else only. It doesn’t really separate you from the pack of IP patent folks who don’t want to freely share that which they created.
Also, I respectfully disagree with the claim that people invent for $$$. People invent because they are inspired and challenged and like the feeling of creating something new or doing the impossible. True, they don’t necessarily think what their invention could be used for in the “wrong” hands and some are in it for money, but most are in it for the thrill of creation.
To think otherwise is to say that musicians create for $$$ and let’s face it, Radiohead is not Nickelback, where the latter is only interested in the money.
June 8th, 2009 at 9:03 am
alot could have been done long before the situation got to this point, it isnt bitterness more than resolute disgust for the world. the MAFIAA campaign has been going on since 2000, that was 9 years ago, so all of the sudden, im the bad guy cause i wont offer up my assistance in defeating the juggernaut?
in the giant picture of things, my help/no help is an insignificant thing. this is my motivation of apathy, nothing more.
June 8th, 2009 at 9:03 am
er, I wrote the above…
June 8th, 2009 at 9:58 am
I never claimed you to be the bad guy, I hope you didn’t think otherwise, I was just curious as to why you feel as you do.
Thank you for explaining.
I suffer from the opposite syndrome, where I like to offer information so much, in my attempt to educate everyone, it often backfires! And by often I mean 75% of the time.
People a) don’t care b) feel my excitement is “know it all” attitude c) are overloaded with info they stress out. But I really don’t care if there are some that don’t like it, by some I mean 75%. I feel, for me only, that I must learn how people think and feel and learn, so that I can manage my mental database appropriately. That process includes figuring out how different people learn and figuring out I can teach those that feel a, b, or c. Everyone has things that intrigue them and I want to know what that is for those I meet or interact with, then I can try to educate in way that does not cause a, b or c.
I expect the same in return, though I seldom get it unless I ask. I personally feel that we need to better educate ourselves and those around us for society as a whole to be better educated. The more we know the better we think and thus the better we act.
There is a grand amount of ignorance out there and it is disturbing. People that actually believe half of what CNN of Fox News says are voters and well… their daily actions and comments in the media reflect what education they’ve acquired. It is very scary.
Think of all the things that disgust you about the human race and then think about the last Fox News interview with the “average” citizen and you no longer need to wonder why the disgust exists.
June 8th, 2009 at 10:53 am
i used to be like you Robert, once upon a time, long ago. I found it very counter productive, and flat out pissed me off on occasion, so chalk it up to experience I guess. Yes, the world is full of sheeple that dont get it. I saw a statistic the other day, that 80% of Fa$ebook have less than 10 friends, and 30% of them have less than 2. This tells you that the millions and millions using this app are mindless sheeple, kowtoting the imaginary ’social’ line with nary an independent thought among them. ‘Link can I buy a vowel?’.
my responses are typically edged with the underpinnings of annoyance towards this class of people. they bitch, they complain, but cant be bothered to do anything about it other than bitch and complain.
I like to think I make educated decisions, ones that are based on research or fact, and not the mindless dribble known as the mainstream media. this is a terse point in my mind, and I have no compunction to educate the morons that are too lazy to go figure it out for themselves.
and for the record, I do respect your posts, obviously, as I respond to them.
stw
June 8th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
@surfer:
I think you’ve just outlined something I find to be one of the key factors in any battle over issues that affect us all – the “General Mentality” – those who want change or support, but won’t help themselves or learn enough to understand why they need to, etc. (”seeders vs. leachers”, so to speak?), and (sadly) often make up the greatest percentage of the whole.
The only way things are going to change in a lot of these battles we’re having now is for people to start CATCHING UP to where things are in the first place. There’s absolutely NO EXCUSE for anyone in this current “generation”, who are using computers to accomplish all the things they do now, to be sitting back riding on the coattails of those they would call “geeks”.
The knowledge to empower themselves and take control of their boxes is all out there, if they’re really interested in being involved and want to make a real difference. And, it’s not anyone’s business to pass judgement on those who ARE doing things, and try to inflict some self-perceived “agenda of responsibility” on them .
June 8th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
@DA
People want the benefits without the work involved to really understand what they are doing. People won’t switch to GNU/Linux en-mass because it requires more work to understand and use than Windows, which they have been using.
In short, many people just don’t like change.
I firmly believe in self-education, but so many people I talk to say that is rare. They don’t want to educate themselves at levels above what they would normally require. How many drivers out there really understand what’s going on under the hood? They feel all they need to know to drive is “gas, brake, steer, mirror” and some vague understanding of Park versus Drive or Neutral. That’s it. It’s all they want.
I am not pushing anything on anyone, but I do try, when asked for help, to motivate them to teach themselves. My mother just gets turned off all together. I haven’t quite figured out how to motivate her to learn more. She does get really proud when she can book a hotel online and use Mapquest or Google Maps to find directions to the hotel and destinations. To me that’s nothing, but to a non-technical person, it is a big deal.
I lose my patience a lot with people asking for help because, in my opinion, they don’t do enough research themselves first. That includes engineers I’ve worked with and work with at the new job. Each person has the ability to learn but their motivation levels are different. They want to learn what they need for their job, nothing more.
I must be quite different because I like to know everything about everything, whether I need it or not, but even I am not always receptive to info I don’t need, as much as I try to be.
Again, for those who want to educate or when asked to help (assuming you agree to help) the real struggle is figuring out how to motivate that person to teach themselves. There has to be some method of igniting the fire, and it usually comes from them being proud for doing something for themselves.
And finally, as always, there are people that you just can’t motivate at all, no matter what you do. “learn the bash command line for loading kernel modules, it’s only one command, or die” response: “hmm, I’d like a supersized death with a Coke”
June 8th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
@surfer:
Perhaps after they have finished bitching and complaining, and they are less stressed over whatever is bothering them, they might be open to the right method of motivation. “might” is the key word. I know my family members are seldom interested, but I try anyway and sometimes it actually works (though they still all use Windows so I have a long way to go).
June 8th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Anyone I talk to about copyright says “Well, I might get interested if it ever starts to affect ME”.
June 8th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
i try to contribute to the self awareness of others intellect by posting information gathered in my travels, and by evaluating the information from a technical point of view the masses may never consider. this is my share the wealth, get what you need, contribute how you are able.
i can create the watering hole, nothing more.
and i love sheeple that post things like ‘Unmask his ego and you expose a coward disguised as a monkey’, of course, unsigned. if this was an attempt to rile my goat or abrade me personally, you had the opposite effect. to me, you only proved yourself quite ignorant in only 12 words. and then I laughed, AT you. please continue with the bland comedic repetroire, you are the statistic, not me.
stw
June 8th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
@Surfer:
I appreciate your articles, I really do. I will admit that I am not the most secure computer user/developer (I don’t use home encryption or IP anonymizers or email client bouncing or PGP or proxy servers with firewalls, I use sw firewalls and keep my system up to date, and I don’t use Windows), but I still really enjoy your information. You provide a lot of food for thought.
Great article on the 8-track tapes by the way. I always thought those were cool while growing up. Hell, my uncle has Van Halen’s first release on 8-track, how cool is that? My cousin, who’s a little younger and not into VH, didn’t appreciate the uniqueness of the VH 8-track.
I know others will too! So you’re doing a good job with the watering hole, not all will come to drink.
As for me, I don’t have enough knowledge for a watering hole, so I have to rely on door-to-door sales of whatever I can carry in my backpack
June 8th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
@Robert:
Just a few points of interest (and NOT a cut-up of anything you’ve voiced)…
“People won’t switch to GNU/Linux en-mass because it requires more work to understand and use than Windows”
- People could still try learning even the basics of Windows itself. That would help.
Sure, it would be nice if more opened their minds to Linux (or even MAC!). But, then again, if they can’t be bothered to nail down Windows, or at least learn how to get a satisfactory experience out of it, you can’t expect them to be any less “dependent on others” when given another OS.
“…many drivers out there really understand what’s going on under the hood?”
- Many drivers don’t truly aquaint themselves with what happens behind the wheel itself.
That’s why we have many road tragedies. Some people really could be much better drivers, without much additional training or thought.
Once again, a classic example of how people put many “other things” ahead of even their own safety, in terms of priority. It generally takes a “catastrophic event” to change their thinking.
June 8th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
historically, people are not laggard, they grew this way with big brother holding their hand with laws, and giving the retards settlements cause the McDonalds coffee was hot and they burned their nuts, to automatic transmission, dry cleaning, pet grooming, day care, the list goes on and on.
one time in our history, men took pride in their work and machinery was built to last forever. the light bulb that Thomas Edison invented STILL works. where is that nowadays?
now gargantuan companies like Phillips spend 2.1 million engineering a light bulb that will burn out after 180 hours of use, ±1 hour so you have to go buy another light bulb.
the world is a fucked up place, and if your not outraged, your not paying attention.
@Robert
im not bitter, just cynical.
glad you like my articles, mebbe you got something from it, that was the point
stw
stw