New York Times is reporting that Downloading Music off P2P networks is legal under Canadian law. Problem is: uploading music is illegal under Canadian law. Simple point: There is an inherent contradiction in their position. At least a few people would have to be illegally uploading music in order to enable the perfectly legal downloading!
I too believe downloading should be legal, but this position makes little sense.
Oh my goodness. I have no idea who these people are or what they are up to, but this video/animation is mighty funny.
For no particular reason, I’d like to recommend to you maybe my favorite book. It’s a collection of short stories. I keep several paperback copies on hand in order to give to people who I think might read it. Charlotte is the story that I read by Earley first, and it is so well-crafted I had to find more. This is not a detailed review. Just trust me. You need to read this. You’ll love it (or you should give up fiction reading). It’s even inexpensive. If you click on the link above or the photo of the cover to the left, you’ll be taken to bn.com where you can grab a copy. Or, visit your local bookstore and have them order it. That’d work. I bet bn.com and amazon even have lots of gushing reviews on their site for it. I haven’t checked, but believe them if they say it’s good, and don’t listen to a word from those liars if they don’t like it. 
Dan Bricklin, best known as a co-creator of VisiCalc, the first electronic spreadsheet, has posted a great essay entitled How will the Artists Get Paid?. Bricklin looks at the issue from a historical perspective and is optimistic that new technologies do not doom creative people to a penniless existence. Here’s a little taste:
In computers, we’ve seen that fluid, general purpose programs like word processors and spreadsheets have usually prevailed over the more structured systems. People do with them what they want, not what the creator envisioned. (I can tell you that first hand with the spreadsheet…) DRM systems we hear about are based on a particular model of use, with an aim for absolute control to that model.
With art, which is usually used or experienced by others for their own purposes, there must be generality and lack of control to let others do what they want with it. An ecosystem with many ways for unintended free-release is a requirement. Therefore, an ecosystem which looks to a mixture of the traditional amateur, performance, patronage, and commission forms of payment is a requirement. Depending upon rigid enforcement of performance payments will disrupt the balance.
Listening to representatives from the recording and movie industries, you would think that selling fixed artifacts is the only way that artists can get paid. That has never been the case, and should not be in the future or else society and art itself will suffer. Those publishing businesses may be based on that one form of payment, but the artists’ livelihood need not.
For now anyway, I’m calling this blog “Share Alike”. What’s that supposed to mean? Well, it comes from the common bit of advice, “Share and share alike”. When people say this, they mean two things. The first part of that phrase is an imperative. It, like your kindergarten teacher, is saying: Share. The second part too is an imperative. It suggests that you “share alike” or “share as you have been shared with” or maybe even “share in the manner in which you have been shared with”.
These are both good advice.
The first piece of advice, “Share” is good advice because sharing makes the world a nicer place to live. It’s not a notion that economists can understand, as they tend to falsely assume that everything that humans do is driven by a profit motive. I think they just had bad kindergarten teachers.
The second piece of advice, “Share alike” is also good advice, and maybe even more important. Once someone shares with you, you ought to take it to be your duty to share with others in the same way that you have been shared with. This amplifies the good done by sharing and makes the world even nicer. Let me give you a simple example:
Yesterday I went to fix my wife’s computer at the University where she studies. (Release,Renew,I’m done.–Another story.) As I was sitting in my car in the short-term metered parking area waiting for a spot to become available, a guy who was leaving took the little parking meter slip out of his car, walked over to my car, and said, “Here. It’s good for all day.” He shared. It made my world much nicer.
As I was leaving, I saw a woman in her truck waiting for my spot. I took the parking meter slip out of my car, walked over to her truck, and said, “Here. It’s good for all day.” I shared alike. She smiled a really big smile. I am confident it made her world much nicer. (Now, it may even be against the University’s parking policies to do that, but don’t get me started on the parking nazis.)
Now, if I were merely driven by a profit motive, I could have told her, “Hey! I’ve got this parking pass good for all day that I’ll sell to you for a dollar. It would normally cost you $6!” I am a walking counter-example to classical economic assumptions. There are lots more just like me.
This “Share Alike” notion has also caught on within certain licensing practices. Free Software licenses, like the GNU General Public License, have a “share alike” provision. They encourage you to share the software with others, but require you to share the software on the same terms that you received it. You cannot place additional restrictions on the use of the software. This keeps the software maximally shareable, and makes the world a much nicer place.
The Creative Commons has a license that they actually call “Share Alike” which this very blog is licensed under. (See sidebar.) It means that you can re-use what you find here, under certain specified conditions, so long as you also allow others to use it under those same conditions. This keeps my random musings here shareable, and I hope, makes the world a nicer place.
Hello world.