Oops, I worded that too vaguely. I didn't mean: Don't spend time
creating what easily can be copied by *others.* I meant: Don't
spend time creating what *you* easily can copy.
Thus journalists won't have to rewrite every piece of source
material to make sure they're not infringing on copyright.
> My prediction: in the future there'll be big business for
> 'virtual clipping services' that seek out the specific
> information you desire, filter it, summarize it and present it to
> you in an indexed form. (Sort of like the reviewing services I
> talked about last post).
>
> If that doesn't get automated by software 'agents' that do the
> same thing, that is.
Sure, I'd expect most of it to be automated, except for cases
where the review *is* the artform, like something from
The New Yorker. I imagine there'd still be a (supplemental?)
demand for that other *person's* opinion instead of a
computer spitting out: Your request for "action+Stallone+
comic book+special effects+75 percent audience approval
among males, age 18-27" has resulted in the following
selection: Judge Dredd. Download now?
> > And yet, the very people who provide the art, the
> > information, the content, the entire *reason* for the other
> > service providers to exist and flourish ... won't get a dime,
> > except for a lucky few.
>
> Nope, you're still missing my point. I'm not talking about just
> intenet service providers and information filtering agents.
>
> I'm talking about looking at *CREATIVE WORK* AS SERVICE, not just
> looking at it as a product. Creative workers will be paid for
> their *service*, not for their product. You can't control the
> product, but you can control the service that leads to the
> product.
>
> IP is an artificial, legislated means of linking the product to
> the producer. In a post-IP future what will link the product to
> the producer is *the ability to produce*. I want a product. You
> have the ability to produce it. I pay you to produce it for me.
So creative workers will be able to make a living (or at least a
few bucks here and there), but on a much more personal,
one-on-one type basis.
(Greg: "Uh, yeah, that's kinda what I've been saying for three
days.)
> Maybe I should revise the question:
>
> In the face if the inevitable decline of centralized control of
> reproduction and distribution of creative works, why would we
> want to erect structures to try maintain the centralized status
> quo and combat the inevitable decentralization?
>
> Wouldn't that be a waste of resources that could be better spent
> on devising ways to make post-IP *services* profitable (instead
> of trying to hold onto the value of a product we can no longer
> control)?
>
> Again, it's not so much that I'm arguing this is how it *should*
> be, I'm arguing that this is inevitably how it *will* be. As
> decentralized computer networks become the main medium of mass
> communication, protecting IP will be unfeasible.
>
> Therefore, what kind of structures do we want *instead of* the
> status quo?
OK.
How 'bout shorter work weeks, more humanities requirements
in education, lots of disposable income for neat stuff from
creative people? Tax breaks for funding "creative" works?
Sure, I guess there are some answers within that context. A
society that values creativity will find a way to encourage it.
-- Dwayne Purper Chapel Hill, N.C. USA http://www.futmedia.com ---------------------------- Dumb ad slogan No. 20: "Can your beer do this?" ----------------------------