Goodbye, Copyright. Farewell, Tenured Guilds.
It began with a quote from Thomas Jefferson:
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."
Previous comments... You are currently on page 4.
There's more to you John, than just a pretty face.
Ideas by their very nature are free. The proof - another matter. In have an idea relating to Dark Energy, but not the smarts to do the math. Someone will do it and I'll be able to say I was right -- or wrong.
If an artist brought his work for us to publish he received the profits and we charged a fee. If we hired him to do a job for us, we retained all the profits, if any. and he was paid a fee. An artist tried to sue us after we hired them to illustrate a book. It was thrown out.
.
If your in control of the product, patient pending is enough protection...don't be surprised if everyone wants it for free.
been perking in the back of my mind for decades.
it really is hustle time!!! -- j
.
Another interesting IP thing for DB is the typical agreement for IP universities have. Even when you pay them for work, they retain the IP rights. I sure can't do that with my customers.
I'm working on one of my own...but somehow I think it won't be of immediate interest to these groups.
as a person who collects The Original version of songs,
like the Supremes' "ain't no mountain high enough,"
I naturally cling to the original thinkers whose ideas
have impressed me in the past. . Galileo, Newton,
Heisenberg, Kirchhoff, Heinlein, Rand -- but their ideas
are, alas, free. . I have always wanted to have my
name among theirs, but have worked for others to put
bread on the table. . now, retired, I need to hustle
since time is short!!!! -- j
.
The pre-Clovis archaeologists of the New World had been pretty much shut down for more than a century by a peer-group gatekeeping mechanism. Now, a few good finds and the inability to prevent publication has opened the sluice gates and many pre-Clovis finds are reported.
It is more than just articles: scans of actual fossils (of immense importance) are being disseminated online by their discoverers. Finds that formerly would have been sequestered for generations are now being 3D printed and passed around in undergraduate classrooms.
We are in a new era, and I like it. A scientists reputation is ultimately made by his reputation and a well done experiment with valid methodology that is published online and which receives positive comments from other authorities meets all the criteria for establishing that reputation.
Jan
They seem not aware of the fact that they will starve if we don't create or produce.
And certainly the resources available to you are significantly greater than the average writer!
It really shouldn't be surprising. Peer publishing is the scientific world's version of occupational licensing. Occupational licensing leads to keeping upstarts out. Peer review keeps the upstarts of new ideas and counter thoughts out.
Another one name Gore has a money tree you pin money on it and watch him spend it.
The guy who finally figures out the cheapest safest way to transport fuel is in the form of electricity....will stand behind Edison and his light bulb
All of the component parts were laying around but it took Edison too make light switches worth flipping.
....
The real driver is technological - there is no reason for peer reviewed journals today.
In the case of scientific papers the business model is changing because of technological and social changes. On the technological side publishing scientific papers has gotten very cheap. The scientist wants the information spread as widely as possible, it is only the publisher that wants exclusive rights. The scientist does not make any money off of people buying the journal, so the market is evolving to eliminate a middle man made obsolete by technology. This is not really a copyright issue at all
Another change is that so called "peer reviewed" journals have been shown to be corrupt and no more accurate than non-peer reviewed publications. Thus destroying the only other reason for these publications
We need to devise a system where ethical moral behavior and value creation is rewarded and the opposite is not...no harm, just no gain. Right now the system rewards those that cheat, steal, usurp all by creatures that cannot create value and the value creator must be on the defensive all the time.
As the writer says- there are changes in technology that threaten existing rules by eating away the power of governments to enforce what has previously been seen as (property) rights. To me, there is both good and bad in this. In this case there is/was the monopoly, more correctly cartel, of publishers who have been able to enforce exorbitant charges. The scientists got some benefit but there are other ways to date-stamp a published work.
The writer says- the peer review process is going to collapse, - well so it should, widespread misuse close to fraud has been uncovered. What is called peer-review is really crony mutual back-scratching.
But, this trend may not last, there are changes towards erosion of the nation state towards international governance. Whatever the downside of numerous virtual nations, concentrated world government is far worse.
Yes we need to get paid; even in a world that allows us to create what ever we need ourselves. There will always be the issue of resources for those things one creates...everything cannot be free, still need some free market mechanism for resource allocation.
I am glad his observation left book authors in the clear for a while....that's how I intend to fund my retirement from working for others.
Load more comments...