> 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?
I think it will be pretty hard to program software agents to make
specific kind of aesthetic judgments. Yes? No? I mean it's damn
hard for people to concretely express why they like what they
like, so it's gotta be even harder to get a computer to
understand what you like. However, it's not that hard to find a
human who has similar tastes as you and exchange recommendations.
> > 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.
Yeah, that's kinda what I've been talking about for the last
three days.
> (Greg: "Uh, yeah, that's kinda what I've been saying for three
> days.)
Oh. :)
> > 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.
Good gravy, I think he's coming around! ;)
-- Greg Ritter gritter@saturn.vcu.edu <--NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS! ritter@urvax.urich.edu http://www.urich.edu/~ritter-- CompLink (a comprehensive resources for Rhetoric & Composition teachers) http://www.urich.edu/~ritter/CompLink.html