Gwyn's Home - Latest Comments

Re: SOPA/PIPA revisited

Gwyneth Llewelyn — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 13:50:09 -0000

I agree, you're right. Instead of "art" I should have consistently used the expression "content creation", because that's what's implied under copyright laws. Software development, for instance, is content creation and protected by copyright laws, but art critics would be very reluctant to classify it as "an art form". Blogging is content creation, but it's (rarely) art, either.

I promise to be more careful in separating "art" and "artists" from "content creation" and "content creators" on further articles! It's perhaps unfortunately that there is a single term — "intelectual property" — to describe both types, which are bundled together, and SOPA (and similar activities) applies to both.

Re: SOPA/PIPA revisited

Bobo — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 13:30:56 -0000

art is a by product of design... not the other way around... from that point on, your arguments are weak. and what SOPA is about is product ands commerce, not your idea of art.

Re: SOPA/PIPA revisited

elizabeth (16) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 01:11:08 -0000

i not mean to dismiss ur suggestion in one line. just was late and i already wrote like a zillion words upto then

so am really sorry i done that and i try complete here now

+

i think ur idea has merit in that is many creatives who like the collective and pooling approach

u right in that lots of academic and scientific papers use the collective model. where is sometimes a paywall, sometimes not, and ppl can consume as much or as little as they like. and others where is pay per view as well. they all good and work well for ppl in various ways

+

i think that fundamentally the key to artisic payments is respect on a human level, and accessibility in all kinds of dif ways. so that ppl can easily respect other ppls stuff and their licenses, and also choose what ways works for them as both creators and consumers

am pro choice me. more choices the better i think

+

many artists creators use dif kinds of licenses for their dif works. some paid, some free, some free to view but not for public distribution. all kinds. if can formalise licensing so that it is an intrinsic part of the interwebz, then interwebz tools can be made that leverage off that

like content general stores as i mention last time, and also companies, government depts, schools, ngos, etc. they can then auto filter stuff using the content tags before they accept onto their servers. which they will do if is some kinda formal codec. is no compulsion for them to do this, but they will do it bc they are good community citizens and they want to be seen to be that

in time as well, makers of tools like blender, office, paintshop, flash, etc will provide content tagging facilities in their programs. defaults even, that the artist creator can choose and auto-generate licenses easily just by click the create new and/or save button. knowing that their license tags are going to be respected by most of the server owning ppl

even by search engines as well. like today if u tag ur webpage, no-spider, then google and bing respect that and not provide links to the page already. is no reason why they would not respect content tags as well. so that in some cases the page link can be searched for, found and viewed, but is no direct links provided for some content on the page bc the content items have a restricted license tag. like images as an example

am not any kind of expert on tags tho. will need lots of thought and discussion on how to do it and make like easy and simple to use and understand. is lots of good ppl tho who knows how to make this kinda thing

once we have this then will be easier for everyone. will affect behaviour and thats what its all about really i think. is not an instant fix tho. will take time. we have been using the interwebz now for like 20 something years. we have learned our current behaviours over all this time. so will take time as well to unlearn them for many of us

+

one other thing, that sometimes early adopters miss. is an huge invasion of the interwebz going on. is a vast horde of ordinary ppl, over a billion already in just the last few years. and more billions coming. they all ordinary ppl, mostly law-abiding and well-mannered. they like order and tidyness and the semblance of civilised behaviour. just like they do in other areas of their lives. they sometimes scare some of the early adopters by their very ordinariness and orderlyness. but that another story. they would tho embrace content tagging just bc they would see the point of it, and would accept the licenses and use accordingly just bc of who they are

Re: [BLOG] Google will rule the world by 2030,…

Terroristbomber — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:15:03 -0000

GOOGLE WILL RULE THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sent by terrorist bomber

Re: SOPA/PIPA revisited

elizabeth (16) — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 09:53:13 -0000

is two parts to ur question. first is piracy and how to stop it or at very least ameliorate it. second is how do we help our artists to get paid for their works

they not the same thing i dont think. they not really even the same problem. sopa like bills try to make them the same tho

so i try to say something about the first problem

sopa, and other bills like it, are drafted in a way that not address the human condition very well. it start from the premise that we all a bunch of thiefs. like u, me and everyone else on the interwebz, and we all need to be punished for it

this a terrible premise and is why ppl get really upset. not only ppl who arent thiefs in this way, but also for many ppl who think i am not a thief even if i do make copies sometimes of stuff that i know i shouldnt

is quite a normal way of thinking about themselfs for lots of ppl. most of us actual. same when we borrow pens and paper from the stock room, make photocopies for our home garage sale on the school staff photocopier, use our workphones to make personal calls, checkout our facebook in worktime when we spose be finishing a report. stuff like that. is some pious ppl who say they never ever done anything like that ever never. but is maybe only like three ppl ever never ever. maybe

so most of us arent like real thiefs who evil and go to jail. we just kinda well, not them kinds anyways. then sopa like comes along and says we are like them kinds and we going to be punished and locked up in jail

we get way way way upset about that. punished and locked up for what!!! i am not a criminal !!! when this happens we measure what we are doing against what other ppl intend to do to us by way of punishment. quite often to the point where we begin to believe we have not done anything wrong at all. just to escape the punishment. that the self-protective part of the human condition kicking in

+

so, first thing is to understand that in all the above situations most ppl actual stop doing it when they simply asked not to. just a simple please not do ok bc u know is wrong. this the human condition also. we not want others to think bad of us

the human condition at work as well when ppl readily accept that it is uncool to do some things. example. using the school photocopier for ur personal stuff when u already been told that the school has a small budget and asked please not do this. is way uncool and ppl feel really guilty afterwards when they do, even when they not caught. when u are caught then other ppl not very forgiving and very disapproving about what u done. we dont like that at all when it happens to us

+

ok. the solution to piracy is the human condition. there are two kinds of ppl. the ppl above, which is most us. and actual forreal thiefs who pinch anything and everything they can. if its not stuff off the interwebz, its stuff in shops, little old ladies lifesavings and all that kinds of things. they forreal actual fullon thiefs

i need go into the "imagines if was me" to explain further. imagine if was me and i owned the interwebz. what would i do?

i would make some formal interwebz and content tags and make them part of the offical markup language. allow all the various kinds of licenses to be tagged to content. public domain, creative commons, mit, zlib, lgpl, gpl, etc. all of them. make it so that ppl and orgs can create new license types if they want and register tags for them. linden starting to do this already on marketplace in an informal way. google/youtube starting to do as well with contentid. i would formalise this

i would ask browser and reader makers to mod their tools so that ppl are advised of the license type when they go to copy or dl stuff, and paste link into blogs and emails, etc

i not compel the browser and reader makers to block stuff. just to advise the user. something simple like right click image - save as - msg on save as dialog. "this content is licensed xxx. readmore button. ok saveas button, cancel button. same for right click copy and paste function

just about all service providers would like this. facebook, youtube, myspace, linden, wordpress, live, adobe, etc. in time they would stop accepting uploads of content that not formally tagged

+

is same thing as asking ppl not to do stuff after they been told. most ppl on the interwebz today when told in this way wont click saveas or copy or paste when they informed that the content is licensed in a way that is not free for them to copy, even if they can

why not? bc of the human condition like i mention above

yes ok but what about all the people who just ignore and copy anyways? well then u are a actual forreal thief who not give a chit. if u not a forreal thief then u going to get the guilts and stop clicking the button after a time all by urself

if u are a forreal actual thief who not give chit then everyone going to respect ur choice and deal with u that way. u going to get busted, convicted, fined, donked off the interwebz by ur ISP, and even end up in a rl jail sometimes

like in other areas of human interaction we inform before we even think about punish. and we give a clear choice before we do punish. interwebz makes this way easy to do. both to inform and to provide a clear choice. way more easy than pretty much in any other area

+

the problem of artists being compensated for their works fairly then doesnt require any formalised solution

Re: SOPA/PIPA revisited

Gwyneth Llewelyn — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 06:14:37 -0000

I think you're right, @facf470d827a42b6f3a51e3c5d20ff79 ... but what should the alternative be?

Clearly the current system is ripping at the seams; it cannot go on for much longer. The sales of CDs have dropped 50% in a decade, and DVDs will go the same rute (if they already didn't). Books might hold on for a while, but Amazon.com's reporting that they now sell more eBooks for Kindle than paper-based books (even though the amount of sales of paper-based books is increasing) just shows that books, as digital content, will be pirated as well: a few of my friends already send me regularly a lot of PDFs from scanned books (I don't like to read on a computer, but that's besides the point: digital piracy of books is definitely going to start soon to make an impact. and it's pointless to talk about pictures — these get copied all the time from all the places, and I have no idea how the image databanks (like Getty Images) survive and still manage to pay their photographers...

So if all that is wiped under the rug, and assuming you're right that any other system will either get gamed, or manipulated by "those in power" to exclude promising artists, I wonder what's the alternative?

When I wrote the article I had in mind that the system that works for science ought to work for art as well. Science — specially pure science, which seems to be unrelated to technology — is also the product of a civilisation that can step back and afford to pay for it, even though its benefits are not tangible (just like art). While obviously there are "power games" among scientists as well — some areas cannot be researched without bias, e.g. cold fusion or the climate — it seems far less "manipulated", in the sense that a young researcher, unknown anywhere, can indeed start to publish peer-reviewed articles, and slowly establish a reputation, and hopefully even a career. It helps that the academic world is truly international: so even if "powermongers" in your country somehow influence what you can research or not, and refuse to publish an article, or force you to publish an article under your supervisor's name, young researchers can simply push their articles to journals and conferences all over the world. They can even publish under pseudonyms! Peer-reviewing is obviously not 100% perfect — there are "fake" journals out there which will pretty much accept anything — but there are also ways to validate "serious" publications and conferences, and these have a reputation of their own to maintain, or start losing their status on a publicly published list.

In my mind, this could — to a degree — be applied to artists as well. State-sponsored science comes directly from a country's budget, because, well, individuals at home will not really be interested in sponsoring "science": it's too vague, they don't relate to it, and, most important, they do not consume the results of research. So it makes sense to have the State sponsor it instead (or, naturally, non-profit organisations, private research labs, etc.). Art — content — by contrast is consumed by pretty much everybody: just turn on the TV and you're consuming artistic content :) So it would make more sense to levy an extra tax directly on "content consumers".

I think that the only way to evade the "mandarins", as you call them, is to get artists to emulate the model used in science. They could have their own international publications, which would be peer-reviewed by panels of critics all over the world — and anonymously, so that the critics don't know who the artist is. With digital content this is far easier to do. Having a wide range of options to "publish" facsimiles of their art, peer-reviewed by panels all around the world, the amount of "madarinning" would decrease: an artist would stand alone in their reputation and not depend on anyone (but themselves) to build up credibility. And based on that, they could get a stipend. Perhaps this model would be better than to rely upon a "popularity contest" — i.e. my own suggestion of having market analysts figuring out what kind of content is being viewed, which I agree that can be too easily manipulated.

What do you think?

Re: SOPA/PIPA revisited

elizabeth (16) — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 22:46:21 -0000

as u say it will get horribly gamed. nor will it meet the expectations of many hibrow culturalists. who even now are mortified at the amount of time and money that is consumed by reality shows and mass entertainment spectacles of the titillating kind. thats what more ppl want than not tho, and the marketplace delivers that to them.

changing the payment method for makers wont change this audience, and makers will continue to cater for them regardless of how they get paid. so long as they do get paid

+

as for a consumer public broadcasting license for tv and radio, they were imposed in olden days to cover the cost of running the networks bc they were state owned. like u say a tax in another name. when private operators were granted licenses to operate their own broadcasts and were not given a share of the public broadcasting fees then the fees were pretty much phased out as being subsidisal and anti-competitive

different countries tried different ways to keep collecting the broadcast license fees. including distributing it as payments for works beneficial to the public good. some schemes with no obligation on either public or private broadcasters to actual show them

most of those systems fell over in the end bc of mandarinning. worthy citizens appointed to decide which artists and producers would get work and which would not. that still happens today where governments still fund public works out of general taxation. is often a source of great contention and virtual bloodletting between the mandarins and the artists and producers subject to their rule. mandarins can easily be as much of a bane on creative ppl as corporate middlemen

what makes these schemes even more of a bane is that when an artist or producer cannot get a broadcaster to sign up to the project prior, then they at a severe disadvantage. bc the mandarins always reluctant to pay for something that has high potential that no one hardy ever will actually see. so the producer and artists end up with even more middlemen, in the form of broadcasters, controlling their productions and works. all paid for out of the public purse by way of taxation in these cases

a interwebz public broadcasting fee will have to be mandarinned in some way. even if its a straight out popularity contest. the mandrins will determine what the rules of the contest are in that case, which will advantage some and not others. the bigger channels is who ends up on the top in those kinda contests. if an artist not on those channels then they at a severe disadvantage regardless of their own artistic merit

if not a popularity contest then by making substantial payments to those the mandarins consider worthy and less or no payments to those they consider to be unworthy in terms of reach or appeal. example. we have a production in mind in conjunction with facebook or youtube. another person has a production that will channel thru their blog or nooneknowswheresourindie channel

nothing really changes u see. the channel more important than the production to the mandarins and middlemen. the more channels there are, then the more important they become. is funny really bc stuff is thrown at holywood and traditional broadcast networks all the time for this reason. is quite blinkered that way of looking but oh well

the dinosaurs never go away. ever. bc they not any old dinosaurs. they t-rex dinosaurs with the ability to change their appearance. like into facebook, youtube, secondlife, etc. diff owners same dinosaurs. just prettier and more shiny each time they change appearance

first concert halls and galleries, then radio, then tv, then video, now interwebz. even without any kinda public interwebz fee either. t-rex nom nom nom

Re: SOPA/PIPA revisited

Gwyneth Llewelyn — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 19:22:42 -0000

... on a different note, how did you manage to keep your page on Wikipedia?? I think you have one of the WIktators as a secret boyfriend lol

Even my +user+ page, which is supposed to be something "personal", was flagged for review. I had to delete it and start it from scratch and add gazillions of references. See also an old discussion on "popularity": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

Oh, I'm just envious, that's all; I've sort of given up on updating WikiPedia. I have nothing less than three accounts there, with completely different profiles and tastes (and lifestyles!), and all of them get routinely censored. After wasting weeks of hard work in writing those articles, only to get them dumped in the bin, I gave up — my time is better employed elsewhere!

Re: SOPA/PIPA revisited

Gwyneth Llewelyn — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 19:13:50 -0000

... although the comments on that article show that artists are not exactly droolling over the idea ;)

Re: SOPA/PIPA revisited

Gwyneth Llewelyn — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 19:09:57 -0000

All right! I like that idea! It should work well and is a great suggestion!

Of course, it wouldn't work over here in Portugal — nobody would make a "volutary contribution" to, gah, artists ;) even with a huge tax rebate... Portuguese are extremely avaricious and almost impossible to part "voluntarily" with their money, unless it's for a Cause. Artists and content creators are sadly still seen as the "scum of the earth" who don't want to "do real work", so it would be pretty much impossible to get anyone to contribute to them...

But fortunately the rest of the world is not so avaricious, so this idea might actually work!

Re: SOPA/PIPA revisited

KhanneaSuntzu — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 18:16:03 -0000

http://www.truth-out.org/suref...

Re: SOPA/PIPA revisited

Melissa Yeuxdoux — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 17:17:39 -0000

It's true; the examples I have read about have to do with musicians. Google "Courtney Love Does the Math" and "Steve Albini The Problem with Music" for details. My favorite: back in the early days, lacquer and shellac disks would break, and contracts had a clause deducting a charge for breakage from musicians' royalties. They don't make lacquer or shellac disks any more... but the clause is still there.

Re: SOPA/PIPA revisited

Gwyneth Llewelyn — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:53:43 -0000

Well, I'm actually not totally in favour of levying taxes on everyone to pay for property rights, but I suppose it's the easiest way out. I'm usually more aligned with the principle of "paying consumer". Nobody should be forced to consume copyrighted content — we should be given the choice to consume unlicensed content (there is plenty of that!) — and only those that want to get access to copyrighted content should pay for it. The example in Second Life is actually a good one: nobody is forced to buy clothes, you can get freebies instead. Sure, the quality might not be the same, but the choice is made by the consumer.

On the other hand, if the easiest way out is to tax everyone, so be it. So long as the value is reasonable, I wouldn't oppose such a measure.

As for your far more serious issue... there has been a lot of foul play in the pharma industry for decades. We all remember how Greenspan manipulated the US laws to make sure his company was granted effective monopolies on some substances, by having the US government "outlaw" competing products. Ulcers, which make people buy billions of lozenges to feel slightly better, but never get cured, are now proven to be little else than a bacterial infection; a cheap antibiotic should be able to make them go away. I can imagine that there might be thousands of substances able to "cure" common illnesses like the 'flu or the common cold, but since none of these diseases is lethal, "snake oil" equivalents sell by the cartload (or the container), filling the pharmaceutical industries' coffers. Remember the Avian 'Flu? It was supposed to be a global pandemic killing a substancial part of the world's population. All the Western world started building up their pharma industry in order to meet with expected demand (for decades, Portugal had no pharma industry; it was kickstarted into existence again, thanks to Government contracts to provide "vaccines" for the Avian 'Flu). Yet in the first year of the Avian 'Flu, more people died with the common cold than with the Avian 'Flu. Now isn't that ironic? We usually don't think of the common cold as being able to kill anyone. And it doesn't, except in very extreme cases (i.e. old people, people already suffering from HIV infection or similar diseases affecting the immune system). Deaths due to the Avian 'Flu were even less than that.

So I'm not surprised at your own case — just shocked, but not surprised. Maybe we should take a good luck at what the BRIC countries are doing. Russia and China tend to drop acceptance of copyrights or patents when it's not convenient for them. Brazil, some years ago, refused to accept the patent for AZT in their country, as AIDS was spreading like wildfire, and they needed a cheap medicine to keep it in check. So the Brazilian Government refused to honour the patent for AZT and started to mass-produce AZT for internal distribution at very, very low prices. There were a lot of complaints, of course. Brazil ignored them all: the health of their citizens was far more important than making some patent owner filthy rich twice over. This gave them a good sign that artificially manipulating prices of medicine in order to reap a huge profit when people are dying for lack of adequate treatment that they ought be allowed to afford will not be tolerated by Brazil. Was there any consequence? Not really, except that scattered countries in Africa did the same thing...

It will take some years until this trend continues, but I suppose that eventually we'll have no choice but to re-evaluate the way we think about intellectual property. Personally, I'm only concerned that artists and content creators get not only due credit for their creations, but can actually make a living out of it. We need them!

Re: SOPA/PIPA revisited

KhanneaSuntzu — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 09:33:58 -0000

The end result can only that IP will be universally free-to-consume and reproduce ... but that something, somehow (other than a government bureaucracy) determines what the worth of the produced IP is, levvies a common tax from everyone, and then pays the content creator of the work in a fair state pension. Or as I would have it, "a modest increase in the basic income of the recipient". This way every single person will want to produce content of some sort, because the individual will be rewarded in tangible benefits, forever (as long as that person is alive). The heirs get nothing, clearly.

The downside would be "collaborative research". If companies invest heavily in a process, and don't want this process pirated, they'd have to keep it secret. That's impractical in many cases, but the above system would be subject to incredible abuse - come up with a product lots of people use (a song everyone sings?), claim you invested a few million in its development, and claim restitution for that absurd investment. This is however exactly what now happens in pharmaceutical industries - largely because the consumers don't have a frigging choice. In many cases hideously new medical products keep people alive, so they'll pay whatever they need to to consume. So fact is collective STATE insurance systems ARE already exploited by corporate gangs scamming tax payer bases - a pharma wins by investing more research.

For example, I find myself consuming a medical product a few years ago that comes in a plastic box at 6 tablets for 33 euro. Then a few years ago I found that it started damaging my organs, and just a year from its IP expiration it started giving me a load of side effects. And I clearly wasn't the only person experiencing the same. So I HAD to switch to a product that now costs 57 euro per 6 tablets. And when I say - I have no choice, trust me I have absolutely no choice. Just compare - rizatriptan and eletriptan. And right now I consume several pills a week - in some weeks close to 100 euro of these tablets a week.

This has basicly "corporate scam" written all over it, and after 2 decades of this I am now effectively a junky with a damaged liver and kidneys.

So I'd love a reliable under-the-counter 50 cents eletriptan tablet. If I were confident it worked, it had the dose right, it wasn't toxic, I'd resort to pharma piracy. Or better, I'd love see a system that doesn't reward corporations turning me in to a crowbar forcibly raping the collectivist medical services in my country. I am happy eletriptan exists. I am not so happy it costs close to 10 euro a pill. And I am not so happy with just the suspicion somehow the pharma industries might have conspired systemically to aggravate my medical condition as to make me need ever more expensive and toxic products.

What we'd need would be a global alternative to corporatized production, and as far as I am concerned piracy is the market-based pressure release valve for excesses. Of course my heart bleeds for a stay-at-home mom who makes some money in Second Life creating nicely textured skins on the side, especially if she gets her stuff pirated in to worthlessness. That is just mean. But on the other hand, IP *is* a rather arbitrary convention, and it clearly is based on rather shaky moral premises.

If one day a number of countries decided to unilaterally secede from the whole IP crap, and declare all intellectual properties null and void (free to use by The People) then IP as a system would quickly either end, or end in wars. So think about it - we'd be using the technology to kill people over basicly data - ideas - and how to dictate other people how to use it.

This is why I again state that the current model of corporate - judicial state enforcement of bloated IP's isn't going to last much longer. Not without turning the world in to a fascist autocracy where people are effectively indentured labour batteries who have little choice but to work to consume a range of scarce but essential products?

And my greatest fear would then be - isn't that what they'd want anyway?

Re: SOPA/PIPA revisited

Gwyneth Llewelyn — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 06:47:31 -0000

On the issue of "flat taxes", this is pretty much what Russia is experimenting with. There are no exemptions, and all people and corporations are taxed in the same way. This simplifies a lot of things, although some people might complain that it doesn't protect minorities — e.g. someone who is disabled in some way, and has a lot of difficulties to get any kind of job, would be taxed in the same percentage as someone with full abilities and no difficulties. It's a philosophical issue really.

A good friend of mine suggested once a more interesting alternative. As money gets more and more electronic and less based on paper and coins — at least, for substantial amounts of money transfers — the flat tax could be placed on electronic money transactions. I remember that he once did some math and came out with this interesting result: Portugal, at that time, had an income tax of 42% on average (it's much higher these days), and by adopting a "electronic funds transfer tax", this could go down to 6-8% to gather the same amount of taxes. The reasoning behind it is that nobody really withdraws large amounts of money from ATMs any more — so in the worst-case scenario, e.g. people actually withdrawing their money once a month, they would be taxed only twice (employer -> employee; ATM withdrawal), but not any longer. Since all companies are required by law to have a bank account, this would mean that they couldn't put all the paper/coin money in a vault — they would have to make a deposit sooner or later, and this would then be taxed. Routinely, credit/debit card payments, electronic transfers to pay for utilities and regular services, would all be taxed this way — it would be simple to mandate that every public utility would be required to go through bank wiring (it's pretty much close to be universally done so these days). So of course a few people would avoid all taxes, and try to keep as much paper money and coins around — easy if you don't have a home, don't need to pay mortgages or rent, don't have power or water or Internet or TV at home, etc., but not so easy if you have any of those things. So the majority of citizens would be taxed in a way or other — only extremely poor and homeless people, or criminals, or eventually very clever tax-avoiding citizens would be exempt. But perhaps that's not so bad. Also, the more people would use electronic fund transfer, the lower the tax could be.

Death penalties for moving the money offshore is tough :) Why not simply tax it? Remember, there is a legitimate need to move money outside a country: when you wish to make investments or import things from other countries. One might claim that the best way is to close down an economy to the outside world, but only Cuba and North Korea do that (and Cuba allows some investments...), and they're certainly not examples worth to follow. No, I say, let them move their money out if they wish — the more they move, the more gets taxed... and every time they use a credit card from an offshore bank account, the more often they get taxed in the country where they use it, so that would become irrelevant anyway.

Under this model, there wouldn't be any tax on money that is sitting in a bank doing anything, so there would be little incentive to move it offshore anyway. Money earning interest, of course, would be taxed as soon as the interest is moved to a bank account. So there would be a small incentive to move that offshore first and avoid being taxed on the interest earned... but, as said, sooner or later you'd have to go to a supermarket to buy food, or withdraw some money to buy groceries, and this transaction would be taxed as well.

Re: SOPA/PIPA revisited

Gwyneth Llewelyn — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 06:30:31 -0000

Hear, hear! Governments have been able to slip in the notion that common citizens can be deemed to be guilty without a fair trial using all sorts of dirty tricks: first, 9/11; then the financial crisis; and whatever comes next... the problem is that when this kind of thing becomes acceptable, governments become bolder and bolder in eliminating basic rights, "for the sake of protection" or "for the sake of efficiency/speed in catching 'criminals'".

I might not be so demanding that reps get shot for being ignorant :) (although it would go a long, long way to solve a lot of problems... hehe) but it would be interesting to require from them at least some basic skills, like on any job. One might claim, "but this is undemocratic! We would have rules to exclude some people from being elected! How dare you propose something like that!"

Not so. In most democracies, what we give is equality of opportunities. This would mean, under that proposed system, that anyone that wants to be elected has the opportunity to get educated, pass some sort of "admission exam" to politics, and be fully eligible. So nobody who would be willing to get educated would be excluded. But if you aren't willing to get educated, well, tough luck — you'd be out of the process. This is not exactly "undemocratic". Rather the contrary: it allows anyone to apply, and give them equal opportunities, so long as they're willing to learn something. If they're unwilling to learn... well, why should they be willing to serve, then?

This would definitely make a nice new article :)

Re: SOPA/PIPA revisited

Ann Otoole InSL — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 06:17:15 -0000

First issue with this new gestapo style legislation that has become popular since insane retards crashed jets into buildings: Due Process being erased from our legal system. Eric Holder has to be removed and due process put back. If someone makes an accusation they can sue in civil court. If the judge and jury find in the plaintiff's favor then the site operator has to safely shut down and then Holder can sic is german shepherds on them.

Second issue is fucking up the internet and forcing tech companies to use all their profits to support eric holder's 4th Reich crap.

The short of the matter is we need legislation making it a death penalty offense for elected reps to accept bribes. Further we need legislation that denies the right of elected reps to work on or vote on anything they are not a 1st hand expert with. Which means the US congress could make no laws in respect to even use of a calculator since elected reps are generally retarded cluster B narcissists that only know how to commit organized crime.

Yes the entire government has to be fully reformed and the oligarchy be removed and prevented from having any influence in anything. Oh and the tax code be set to flat tax rates with no exemptions and death penalties for moving money offshore.

Why not switch to a full democracy while we are at it. Just wipe the entire failed experiment out.

Re: SOPA/PIPA revisited

Gwyneth Llewelyn — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 06:00:43 -0000

Thanks for your comment, @c05f550879ef5216f573fe00999d1ec5! In all this "war", the issue I usually have is that the people discussing the merit of any anti-theft measures are seldom the content producers, but either free-for-all-content advocates, or intermediaries (publishers, editors, agents). Consumers, of course, want everything for free, and most of the time don't even see is at "wrong" — it always feels very awkward to me listening to lectures from my teachers on "not stealing" being full aware they have their computers running 24h/day downloading pirated movies and eBooks — the problem being that the common consumer doesn't even understand what's behind all this. For them, the 'net is just an easy way to sidestep intermediaries to get access to content (some might even justify themselves with "I already pay for Internet access so I'm allowed to copy whatever I find on the 'net"). Artists and content creators are kept at bay by intermediaries — "if you're not with us, we will cancel your contract!" — and made to fear the Evil Internet and All Its Pirates.

I wasn't aware that publishers/editors sort of give out an advance on a loan under usury terms! That's truly shocking — but I'm not surprised. I have only a single experience when publishing a book in my country: the editor first calculates the production costs, and tells me how many books have been sold, and how much my alleged royalties have paid for the publishing costs. The first year or two they were happy to send me a report on how much I "owed" to them — because the scattered few sales of that book would come nowhere near to pay for the publishing costs. This is an usual procedure around here, and amateur writers like me are aware that they will never see any money from royalties. I got lucky once, actually — a book co-authored by some 12 authors or so managed to sell 3,000 copies, so I got paid — about 100 Euros. Hooray :-) Obviously nobody can make a living out of writing in Portugal, and that's why the only professional author — José Saramago — actually won a Nobel prize (!). Since he died, there are no professional authors any more, just amateurs, all with a day job, and just writing in their spare time...

While my suggestions might not be overwhelmingly good, and middlemen will still get a huge part of the overall fee revenue, I think that a bit of those US$20 billion a year might trickle down even to the smallest content producers. As more and more become "known" and popular, they will be able to increase their market share, and rely only on Internet distribution of their works. But the system is not perfect, because it can be "gamed": intermediaries could naturally set up huge promotion strategies for their content creators, acquiring their copyrights, increase markt share, and thus getting bigger slices of the collected fees — which they may, or may not, pay to their artists. So it's a skewed model and not a perfect one. But it might at least get rid of the notion of "piracy" and "theft" by requiring all consumers of digital content over the Internet to pay for what they download — automatically, every month, without exceptions. That was mostly my focus here...

Re: SOPA/PIPA revisited

Miso Susanowa — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 20:58:20 -0000

Very well researched and thought-out article. As both an artist & musician, I have done my homework on these and similar legislation. You can find MANY articles online debunking the figures the RIAA & MPAA keep tossing out as "losses" and "income revenue."

From having worked in the music/entertainment industry from bottom to top (retail through distribution, contracts and promotion), the biggest loss is not to artists, who are already scammed to the eyebrows with "Hollywood accounting" but to the middlemen, who have made it their business to be the arbiters of culture. That was a mistake. Instead of encouraging culture and aiding it (which would increase their profits) they have taken the road of "we know what you will like" which has proved fatal to them.

There are also many articles online that will support (with facts & figures) the assertion that musicians and artists are making MORE money than ever... because they've cut out the middlemen-leeches. This is what The Industry is screaming about; they are using artists shamelessly to plug their own jobs (which they don't do; the reason people quit buying product is that they are offering crappy product in their Drive To Monetize. I, for one (and I share this feeling with many, many musicians I know) will be glad to see these middlemen gone.

One example: yes, the recording industry advances you a loan ("advance"). So what? If a band can get that kind of credit/advance from a record company, they probably qualify for a MUCH less usurious, straightforward LOAN that is 10-40% cheaper for them over the length of a loan than what the Industry "advances" them. They also get REAL accounting, from a bank, about where their money is going. This is something new musicians are coming to understand. It's simple economics.

Crappy product, shady "accounting," outright lies, theft (look up the Canadian lawsuit against the RIAA for not paying royalties to artists for compilation/reissues) & the rest of the Hollywood Issues are the fault of the industry, not copyers ("pirates"). And as you point out so well, SOPA, PIPA and their like; the whole BS argument about "piratz iz ruining our biz!" is not only questionable but overkill, like killing a fly with an atomic bomb.

And... why would I listen to Prokofy Neva's arguments about copyright when Prok has admitted, time and again, on his own blog, to taking freebies, released by the artists for the benefit of the community, and selling them? He makes a big crow about it even! He can play any word-games he likes, but that I would consider "piracy" or "theft" and I can hadly credit anyone's point of view who is so oblivious to their own shady practices.

Re: Tackling the Self

Gwyneth Llewelyn — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 08:09:01 -0000

Dang! I tried to reply to this, but Disqus ate my comment. Here goes attempt #2!

First, yes, I'm assuming (with rather good parochial evidence :) ) that most people think there is a "core self" beneath all those layers of masks. Some might not truly think that they use any kind of "masks" at all; these people are often seen in SL claiming that "there is absolutely no difference between 'me' in the RL as well as in SL". They might claim that, but after a little discussion, they will admit that they talk and behave differently among family, friends, and at the workplace (so eventually they will also admit they talk and behave differently in SL as well). They might nevertheless refuse to "split" the idea of a 'core self' from a 'set of masks' to be worn depending on the occasion. In a sense, that might actually be a good insight, i.e. all that is "part of the self" and separating the notion of "core self" from "masked self" might not make that much sense at all. Nevertheless, most people accept the notion that they require (due to social constraints) to "wear masks" which are not their "true, core selves". These people are very commonly found in SL and many online communities.

Good analogy between "search for self" and "search for an independent truth". I totally agree with the notion of an interdependent truth, i.e. we can only define "selves" in dependence of other selves and their reactions/interactions with a commonly shared environment. I think you summarised that admirably well! :) I wish I hadn't been so long-winded to pretty much say the same...

My goal is definitely to improve myself, but with a twist: it doesn't stop there. Improve myself for what? And the answer is simple: to aid others to do precisely the same thing. But if I don't know how to do that — or just read some high-brow mumbo-jumbo from a book — that won't work: the road to self-improvement requires practice. My point is that this practice can be done inside SL very neatly, because there is an amount of time you have between "reading" the environment, think about your reactions to others, and "act" (not react!) according to their best interests. This is a simple training, actually — but far more effective than what it looks like. In fact, most people wouldn't call it a "training in self-improvement" at all. But it is, even if it doesn't look like it, and it has immediate effects: people around you, because you managed to reflect a tiny instant before typing/acting away, will perceive you as friendly and nice. That's the whole point really.

It's a bit irrelevant for me if the self is "proven" or not to exist. What is important is that people, through some simple training, start to understand that the idea they have of a "core self", hard-coded in their neurons, which is unchangeable, is a fallacy — we can change our selves — in fact we do that all the time! — but we just don't realise that it's actually possible (and even relatively simple to do). Under some philosophies, the word "existence" implies that "it exists by itself" in the sense of an "ultimate, unchanging, absolute truth". But that requires that such a thing does not change at all. By looking very deeply at a "changing self" — and as deep as we go, in search for that "core self", all we find is layers and layers of masks that we can actually change at will, so they are not immutable nor absolute nor hard-wired — what we realise is that the deeper we go, the less we find anything remotely familiar with a "core self". What we extrapolate from that is a bit irrelevant; some might conclude it's a "proof" that such a thing as a "core self" doesn't truly exist. Others might be happy to ignore that "proof", assume there is a "core self" they cannot find, and just work on the layers in-between — which can be changed — to improve themselves. Whatever the philosophical stance might be, what matters is the practical experience in changing aspects of those layers and masks so that we are actually able to interact better (more functionally) with others. That's the whole point. And the method to kickstart this "self-exploration" can be done in SL, where we certainly are aware that we can change our maks at will, and that's a great starting point.

Last but not least, you're definitely right. A philosophical quest to find some sort of absolute truth — a core self, a soul, whatever — is purely an intellectual exercise. It might bring some results, or merely a few insights, but ultimately, it's not interesting in itself. What matters is how we react (or, better, act) towards others — what you describe as "living your life". If all you can do is react to emotions and justify that reaction as "this is the way I am, I cannot react otherwise, my aversion to person X or situation Y is hard-written in my core self", then you're not leading a functional life: you're justifying your aggressivity or passivity towards others by claiming that your self is unchangeable and that you have to follow your compulsions, because that's how they're genetically encoded in the neurons that make up your brain. But this is an absolute fallacy! SL, by allowing us to question that at least the "external façade" — the outmost mask, if you wish — is under our control and can be changed (because we can choose in SL how to act and react towards others) — shows that this "immutable self" (at least at a very superficial level, but that's the level we use to interact with others) is nothing but changeable (and not immutable at all). Leading a better life is one where we reject the "immutability" of at least our outer layer, and, thanks to the short delays in reacting to others in SL, we are able to interact with them in a manner that will be more functional. Thus, even if we have a profound aversion towards person X or situation Y, in SL we can at least stop for half a second, and instead of venting our anger and rejection at others, we can... remain silent. With a bit more training, we might even be neutral and say "I understand that's your opinion; I just happen not to agree with it". This leads to better interaction with others — they might not feel so angry back at you.

And this "fraction of a second" thinking is crucial, because it translates in RL as well. We might not have the luxury of being able to stop for a fraction of a second when replying — because things in RL happen so quickly! From a strong emotion like anger to an insult in far less than a fraction of a second! — but the point is that we can train it. We can start that training with SL and slowly get better and better at it. We might be able to see that the "fraction of a second" is actually a long time to think a bit before replying with aggressivity or passivity — we just don't think it's time enough for that (and regret it afterwards...). So we need some training. Well, perhaps a lot of training. But with training comes perfection, and, slowly, thinking before we insult others becomes natural to us.

We might still insult others, of course (or at least be unable to prevent them from getting insulted or angry at us). But viewed as a process where we slowly build up more and more confidence that we're able to act in a way to benefit others more than making them angry or sad at us, we can see how this method not only improves ourselves, but it also leads to better interaction with others, who will also feel more happy (and less angry!) in our presence.

All this is not really mumbo-jumbo psychology or some kind of intellectual exercise. It's a relatively simple method to understand and put into practice (although very hard to master!) which actually leads to very practical results.

That's all I meant with the above article :)

Re: SOPA will backfire

Gwyneth Llewelyn — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 11:22:57 -0000

And tomorrow is the day of the strike: http://www.sopastrike.com/

Re: SOPA will backfire

Gwyneth Llewelyn — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:16:17 -0000

Personally, as a non-US citizen, I feel awkward to pester US representatives :) since I haven't elected them and don't even live under their jurisdiction... but there is an alternative for non-US citizens to complain: sending emails to the US State Department.

From the AmericanCensorship.org site:

The US State Department constantly speaks out against internet censorship in other countries. Pressure them to speak out against America’s new domestic censorship system.

They have a form that sends an email to them.

Re: Google Translator becomes a paid service

Vanadis Falconer — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 02:18:43 -0000

If they gone to charge for a Google translation we are in the right to demand better translations. English and Swedish gramar is to 85% the same but to often the translations are realy rediculous. German to English or German to Swedish are even worse.

Re: SOPA will backfire

Eloise Pasteur — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 15:01:49 -0000

You said: are legislators so stupid as not to foresee that all this will backfire?

Foolish question. Yes, they really are that stupid. One of the representatives questioning people for the bill asked one of the foremost experts on internet security a couple of questions about how DNSs etc. work. He got what I would consider a totally non-controversial answer. No problem so far - legislators can't be experts on everything and so they ask experts to advise them. He then stated, for the record, that he just didn't believe the answer - how could the internet work like that. Apparently web-sites, in his mind, all have real, physical existence and tracking sources of cyber-attacks to the specific computer is easy. Right...

I think SOPA will just prove unenforceable, probably within the US in short order. Disney take on Google and Facebook. It will not be that one-sided, there's a lot of money on both sides.

Re: SOPA will backfire

Nalates U — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 14:33:29 -0000

Or flood Congress with your protests by directly emailing Congressional members. Writing letters has more effect as I suspect most email is tabulated only. Write the bill sponsors.

Find Congress people: http://capwiz.com/consumeracti...

The bill: HR 3261 - http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongr...

Bill Sponsors: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/...