tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27290920.post4713968664679758631..comments2024-01-06T03:54:46.267-05:00Comments on the sceptical futuryst: Permission CultureStuart Candyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11847397597090443677noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27290920.post-41394840055001404662008-11-19T05:39:00.000-05:002008-11-19T05:39:00.000-05:00Paul, this sounds interesting. Could you elaborate...Paul, this sounds interesting. Could you elaborate on the analogy you see at work here?Stuart Candyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11847397597090443677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27290920.post-27315567645975660522008-11-19T03:24:00.000-05:002008-11-19T03:24:00.000-05:00Well how's about that? Oddly enough I am (slowly)...Well how's about that? Oddly enough I am (slowly) reading through a recent article published by Michael Heller and Rick Hills in the Harvard Law Review where they put forward the theoretical LAD, Land Assembly District.<BR/>This is a strategy for minimizing the negatives of government condemning land (taking away your property) and maximizing the positives to the commonwealth (building a new airport, say).<BR/>I got it free at www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/april08/heller_hills.pdfAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06232197401498901467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27290920.post-50891717371906655262008-11-18T15:35:00.000-05:002008-11-18T15:35:00.000-05:00Hi Victor,I've looked into it, and the AudioSwap s...Hi Victor,<BR/><BR/>I've looked into it, and the AudioSwap service is free -- you get licensed music with attribution -- so it's not (yet) a retail music business in the way you seem to have in mind.<BR/><BR/>In February 02007, when YouTube rolled out AudioSwap, internet news blog <A HREF="http://mashable.com/2007/02/23/youtube-audioswap/" REL="nofollow">Mashable</A> suggested that this was "more about appeasing the music labels than providing great music for your videos". I find myself agreeing with that.<BR/><BR/>The record industry's business model has two prongs, as far as I can see. The first is its actual revenue stream, which comes from charging for music in whatever medium (CD, mp3, streaming, and licensing for things like films and advertisements). The second is preventing or punishing unlicensed uses, which maintains control and protects that revenue stream from being undermined; the logic there being that if people can hear the same recordings without paying for them, they won't pay for them. This latter, protecting function is increasingly important because, going back to the Lessig quote, the nature of the Internet (any part being accessible from any point) has made "the ordinary ways in which individuals create and share culture fall within the reach of the regulation of the law". <BR/><BR/>If they're not yet turning unlicensed uses into (micro) revenue opportunities, I doubt it's for lack of desire or interest; more likely the infrastructure for micropayments isn't ready, or they realise people aren't fully primed for a full-blown Permission Culture.<BR/><BR/>But clearly, they're working on it. Therefore, to me, whether the policing of copyright breaches counts as "traditional" in non revenue-affecting, everyday situations (e.g., homemade movies) is less important than the fact that it's patently a case of overkill: requiring and denying permission in a trivial situation where the hounds of copyright law ought not to be released.Stuart Candyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11847397597090443677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27290920.post-75244495321793395762008-11-18T12:26:00.000-05:002008-11-18T12:26:00.000-05:00My perception of this is that it's not the traditi...My perception of this is that it's not the traditional copyright enforcement. Organizations like ASCAP and BMI who usually administer this for musicians would like to collect royalties, <STRONG>not</STRONG> suggest you use a different track.<BR/><BR/>This to me looks like YouTube has created a retail music business and asked, "How can we sell it to our giant installed base of customers?" As YouTube says, it's not legal action they're threatening but use of their hosting service.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com