| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti wrote:
| |
As far as keeping things “status = out” via a pause button or something, this
could be prevented by an automatic system that allows an item to be checked
out for an absolute maximum of 50% again the time it would take to view or
|
| |
I’m a little disturbed by what this might mean to the creation of art or
informational media. I do think that people have the right to earn something
for their labors and I am not so bent on the entry of everything immediately
into the commons that we disparage the arts and progress overall.
|
| |
And for the library to work, at least some copies would have to be purchased
to stock it’s supplies of a given item -- some but not probably that many
copies.
|
| |
I dunno. Maybe we will eventually have to move away from capitalism as we
know it and more towards something more like Star Trek -- whatever the heck
their economy is based on.
|
Do IP rights have to be bought the way they are now? The reason this library
idea is very cool is because it follows the law of today, yet gets more media to
more people...right? Why not just set up this giant media database but charge
microfees for use? In this scenario, the IP is just being temporarily licensed
to the user.
Also, I’m not seeing how being less capitalistic is beneficial in this case.
You also wouldn’t need to limit the checkout time for a given piece if you were
just charging a cent per hour or whatever and the artists get paid. I’m
envisioning everyone having an account; money flows out of your account and into
the DB which takes a cut -- and then back out to the content providers.
It would be cleaner if everything had the same cost per unit time, but I’m not
sure there’s any really good reason to do that. The content providers could
price their work however they wanted so whether you wanted to listen to a
particular song or not might be based in part on the cost.
Another great thing about such a DB-driven library (regardless of cost to user)
is that user profiles could be compiled by those who wanted to rate the works
they accessed and the profiles could be matched up for intelligent
recommendations.
If such a “library” were providing remuneration to the artists/producers, would
it stifle the arts industries? It seems as likely to provide the fertile ground
needed for a renaissance.
Chris
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Possession
|
| "Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:HGvwK1.wIv@lugnet.com... (...) library (...) media to (...) charge (...) licensed (...) case. (...) were (...) and into (...) not (...) could (...) user) (...) works (...) would (...) (...) (21 years ago, 22-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Possession
|
| (...) I would like to see a revolution in the entire entertainment field based on something like this. Instead of paying an actor 20 mil to make a picture, pay the actor(s) based on the revenue that the motion picture makes (a la Nicolson in (...) (21 years ago, 24-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: Possession
|
| (...) Yeah, elsewhere in this thread I mentioned the same thing. If one considers the elmination of the middlemen publishers/distributors then the creator reaps the ENTIRE reward of what is being offered by the Library. Let's say an artist creates a (...) (21 years ago, 24-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Possession
|
| Tom: I found much of your post deeply interesting and thought provoking. Your idea of the giant archive/database is truly compelling and shows the enormous flaw in the many schemes that publishers are pursuing. Sure, the publishers are pursuing the (...) (21 years ago, 21-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
31 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
