Spot on Jed I

We should be signing nothing at all until we’ve had a detailed public debate & then referendum on this lot. This is what the Corporation have failed to ram thru’ the WTO for the last 10 years, so the new tactic is to shove it in the back door whilst we’re all sweating over the financial mess and recession etc.

On the subject of Media (digital content) Piracy, here’s something I’ve written before:

(The moral/ethical basis for largely accepting what actually occurs now is that it is impossible and absurd to allocate exclusive intellectual property rights to one person & ignore the enormous present and past collective mass of thought and creativity that absolutely nothing new can claim not to have been drawn from somewhere, sometime.)

If we believe in the principle of democracy, then whether what is happening now is optimal, in whatever way, or not, there is no doubt a comfortable majority of citizens are actually participating. And by that fact, as a majority, giving consent.

Were we to put that consent, for what happens right now, to a simple yes/no referendum the result would be ‘yes’.

So, what remains then is to simply formalise what we have.

People want free access to media content, of all kinds, in +digital+ form.

They are happy to pay, sometimes, for the content in a +physical+ form.

It’s possible that this has resulted in a shortfall of funding, income, to the sector, in the aggregate, compared to previously.

Some providers, or distributors, of this content feel they do not get enough money. Or maybe it’s that income from the ‘business model’ is too unstable & unreliable.

Maybe valid points, and we should offer an extra possible source of Income, whilst still making digital content free to access.

That source would have to be collective then, as in ‘public’. But not under the control of some few people, whoever they are.

So, the answer is to democratise the delivery of this extra funding, using a ‘commons’ model.

The money is provided collectively, from public funds, but allocated by individuals in equal shares like a vote.

All done by internet of course, as so many funds transfers are already.

The sale of physical counterfeits continues to be illegal and prosecuted, transferring resources used at present against digital piracy, thus diverting these pirates’ incomes back to the original sources more effectively. An expected gain in income to the legal sector.

The physical media is sold at a ‘cost plus’ price.

The ‘plus’ is what the intellectual property owner, or originator gets.

Some are, as individuals getting less than they would if we could roll time back and have given our de facto consent for digital sharing.

So what?

There is no moral claim for any human to say that their personal thought has never at any time used, in part, or fully the thought of any other human that lives now, or has ever lived.

Nor is it possible to accurately quantify or determine which humans or line of ancestral inheritance has influenced the new thought, and to which is morally owed some ‘debt’.

So what to do?

Through democratic government, we simply decide what percentage of overall public/private income mix – and thus total income – the ‘media’ business should have, say, annually, like budgets now. Then knowing the total private sector income received from physical form sales, the total to be distributed from public funds and e-voucher value can then be calculated.

Our de facto position of majority consent for the present formalised, democratically, by adding an extra democratic ‘commons’ type of funding channel to the two existing possible income channels – private and(or) public.

Private sector does what does, provides protected physical content. Has no protected claim on ownership of collective thought. (Defined as that distributed freely thru’ digital channels priced only on an equal digital bit basis. $1 for ‘x’ bits, regardless of the ‘meaning’ carried.)

Public sector, if applicable, distributes public funds by representative democratic choice. (By elected politicians etc.)

Commons sector distributes an aggregate sum, determined by representative democratic choice, by equal individual choice.

A better result for the majority of people than now. Good as we can get imo.

Things you get up to without other people’s knowledge.

……..are private.

LOUD NOISES!!!!!

Attack back

How’s that old rape case going there Julian?

There is no case. He has not been charged.

We will see how the papers report it tomorrow

There is no outrage because people are kept entertained watching tv, movies and playing computer games all day every day, therefore nothing will happen until this is lost or can’t be afforded by these people anymore

It appears we cannot as that word is censored.

@Stephen I’ve not going to attempt to lecture on revamping international trade and politics in some utopian ideal, I’m not qualified. That said, we’ve all seen enough of the wrong way of doing things, where the wealthy benefit from a depression at the expense of everyone else, so there has to be a right way, or at least a better way out there.

Who thought wikileaks “irrelevant”?

What crimes has he committed?

answer the question Kenneth…….what crimes?
do you understand what’s involved and required to storm an embassy?
shouldn’t you be in school right now?