Discussion of all things related to Public Domain

["Erik Sliman" <Erik AT OpenStandards.net>]

I normally don't worry about a few typos and grammar errors slipping out on
this type of medium, but this had too many, so here is the revised version.
Please accept my apology for this.

>For what it's worth, Michael, there is a growing school of thought around
the
>world, that there are alternatives to 20th Century economic theories and
>practices.  Open Source, the Internet, and the Creative Commons Project
>combine to give creativity and innovation through the Public Domain the
power
>to impact on both the patent and copyright concepts.  For companies to
>participate in this evolving economic environment, drastic changes in how
>they do business will have to be considered.  Intel is not immune, and the
>Movie Industry is the "poster child" for what is taking place.  I hope you
>look into this suggestion, and recognize what is obvious to many others.
>Tom Poe

I don't believe the problem is economics per se, but rather the perception
that (a) price theory is equal to economics, and (b) distortion of price
driven markets.

Originally I thought that price theory and economics were one and the same,
particularly since it was in economics courses where price theory was
thought.  I believe in price theory, and believe it is as real today as it
was before computers and the internet.

However, economics is about more than supply and demand meeting at a certain
price.  Fundamentally, it is about the PRODUCTION and CONSUMPTIONS of goods
and services.  Price theory is based on the presumption that what is
produced will be sold at a price before being consumed.  Obviously, this
still occurs, otherwise there would be no financial trade.  Yet, as you
point out, Tom, there is more to the invisible hand than just price.

Free open source appears to be an alternative, at least to price theory,
since there often is no price.  The internet has accelerated and magnified
something that was always there, previously in such forms as the "volunteer
fire department".

Although the notion that it is free seems to exclude it from price theory,
should this necessarily preclude it from representing free market economics
in action?  We produce and consume without a price to intervene.  There are
still costs, but the costs are often absorbed by volunteers.  Since this is
real production, has real value, and is enjoyed by us (consumed), it should
represent part of our national and international gross domestic product
figures, but does not, because it does not jive with price theory.  Isn't
GDP a measure of what is produced?  Without a clear price tag, alternative
means of delivering produced goods and services is viewed as worthless by
our current policy makers using dated economic measurements.

Conversely, value of items with a price are being distorted by government
intervention.  This effect occurs when the will of the policy makers can be
purchased, usually via campaign contributions.  It also occurs when their IQ
is continuously shrinking.  The distortion created from their irrational
decisions results in inflated perception of the value of the goods and
services they regulate.

As many have pointed out, this inflation is necessary to ensure the
continued survival and growth of an industry that just interferes with the
relationship between the artists and the consumers and public.  The
middlemen try to siphon as much revenue as they can generate from the
artists works, while simultaneously giving as little of it to the artist as
they can get away with, which often equals nothing.  They morally justify
it, and help craft legislation to support it, under the premise that they
purchased (or otherwise obtained) the intellectual property rights via
contracts with artists defining IP rights transfers from creators to
oligopolies.

This inflates the value, if in deed there still is one, of our legacy
distribution channels and their attempts to use brute force to preserve it
and extend it onto the Internet.  Thus, our economic figures do not reflect
what is produced or consumed.

Believe me, the legislation we are opposing is indeed brute force.  Besides
mandating the water marks, think about the effects when we get around the
water marks with something as simple as a magic marker (or more likely a
whistle, or something else that can hide the watermark, and then be
digitally subtracted after the analog content is digitized.)  At this point,
the technical solution has failed, leaving only criminal and civil
legislation in place.

Whether you lose to criminal prosecution, or civil lawsuit, the courts are
still given the responsibility and teeth to enforce its rulings.  Such
enforcement can severely damage your personal freedom and financial life.
Thus, the end result is brute force not simply on the technology industry,
but on the individual, as the the only means of enforcement.

I digress, but the point is that this brute force enforcement represents a
government created financial market distortion that forces us to inflate the
value of services of the content middlemen.  If I could draw a cartoon, it
would be of a judge in a courtroom whipping a lowly consumer who has already
been clearly beaten with open soars, while the consumer reaches into his
pocket to pull out the few dollars and cents he has left to give it to the
cold hearted plaintiff, Hollywood.  Is this a free market?

JMHO,

Erik
"What does a congress doll and a congress person have in common?  Both are
for sale."