User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

What's in a name

What's in a name

Posted Aug 14, 2008 17:16 UTC (Thu) by johnmark (guest, #47025)
In reply to: What's in a name by pdundas
Parent article: GeekPAC to fight for information rights

These are all great points.

One of the things that didn't make the article was my rant on "rental society". Because of the
EULA's attached to consumable media, we don't actually own the content and thus have no rights
to it, even though we paid for it. 

I think the framework that you've just posted actually works quite well. "Information Rights"
could be the umbrella framework which we use to define media rights, privacy rights, voter
rights, et al. 

I'd like to investigate that meme a little bit and push it to its logical conclusion. Are you
interested in working together on this?

-John Mark
GeekPAC Founder


(Log in to post comments)

What's in a name

Posted Aug 14, 2008 19:41 UTC (Thu) by BackSeat (guest, #1886) [Link]

I hope you're able to change the name. When I see a headline about equestrians, I don't pay attention because it doesn't apply to me. I can easily imagine a headline mentioning geeks that a lot of people would ignore for the same reason, espeically about an advocate group that appears to support geeks. Incidentally, I dislike being referred to as a "geek", so you're also alienating some supporters.

You have to talk to your audience in their language, not (y)ours.

What's in a name

Posted Aug 14, 2008 23:21 UTC (Thu) by pdundas (guest, #15203) [Link]

Sure - let's discuss the issues. I registered on the GeekPAC wiki, so you can reach me through
that.

Paul

Rental society

Posted Aug 15, 2008 15:18 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

Because of the EULA's attached to consumable media, we don't actually own the content and thus have no rights to it, even though we paid for it.

This is self-contradictory. According to the beginning of the sentence, we didn't pay for the content; the end says we did. The statement makes it sound like we're getting less than we paid for, but doesn't provide any support for that.

The confused wording obscures the point. Is the point that people shouldn't have the right to "rent" the content (because it creates unwanted competition for other consumers) or that consumers are being misled and paying more/getting less than they intend?

Rental society

Posted Aug 15, 2008 19:26 UTC (Fri) by johnmark (guest, #47025) [Link]

The point is that we should have the protected right to access whatever information we've
legally obtained - via our method of choice. You may agree or disagree with that, but that's
one of our key points.

The follow-on to that is calculating the opportunity and innovation cost of *not* granting the
rights outlined above. This is impossible to calculate with any accuracy, unfortunately, which
hampers our ability to put this argument into terms like "impacts x% of GDP growth." Instead,
we have to appeal to people's sense of decency and back-of-the-napkin calculations. I like
appealing to people's sense of decency, but I would love to put together a more substantial
argument.

-John Mark
http://www.geek-pac.org/

Rental society

Posted Aug 16, 2008 17:40 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

The point is that we should have the protected right to access whatever information we've legally obtained - via our method of choice. You may agree or disagree with that, but that's one of our key points.

Well, I haven't agreed or disagreed because I still don't know what your point is. Originally, you had a self-contradiction, and now you have a tautology. It seems to me to say, "we should have the right to access whatever we have the right to access."

But you do add the thing about our method of choice. Is the point that we should be able to buy the right to access a piece of information either by every method or not at all? I.e. like existing product standard laws: you don't have to buy a television set, but if you do, it has to have all the channels, closed captioning, parental controls, etc.

What's in a name

Posted Aug 15, 2008 20:20 UTC (Fri) by oak (guest, #2786) [Link]

Would something like this work as the protest "song" lyrics:

I see RED.  Lawyers from RIAA and other representatives for Corporate 
Communism are running all over the Capital Hill proclaiming legislations 
stating that the people aren't owning their media, the songs and videos 
they buy. Company owns the them.  Company owns media.

Vote NO to Corporate Communism.


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds