I join my voice to that of countless others who fight to, among other things, keep the internet open and accessible to all, instead of a crippled chimera of corporate interests, where you are guilty until proven innocent---and all in the name of profit of a select few, who are already so wealthy that they can afford to sidestep democracy when that suits their purposes.
More information here: http://www.laquadrature.net/ACTA
Showing posts with label privacy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label privacy. Show all posts
Sunday, 6 November 2011
Sunday, 30 October 2011
On selling, part II
In the previous post, I argued that there's not much point in selling information, the same way you sell books, essentially because you can replicate information ad nauseaum. In this post I wish to make the point that, while it is indefensible to argue that exchange of information between private parties without commercial interest should be regulated, there is a case to made regarding regulations of exchanged information in the context of business.
Before delving deeper into this, I'll just give two examples: I can buy a book, and digitize its information and give to someone else. No law should stop this behaviour. But I should not be allowed to sell that information, for the right to commercialize it should (during some time) be an exclusive of the book's writer. The same could be said about software. While it is unjustifiable to have the legal system meddle in a private individual's communications just to protect economic interests, it is justifiable to do so in order to regulate commercial activity. This was the original scope of copyright law. Of course, back then, there was no easy way to exchange huge amounts of information (whether for commercial purposes or not). But nowadays there is, and so the only way to enforce a monopoly on information trade (which is what copyright essentially is) is to regulate the communication between the parties that are trading it. Which is, like I said above, acceptable for business, but unacceptable for the private communications of the citizenry.
What this means is that you can establish a functioning marketplace, without trumping basic privacy rights. But wait, does that mean that someone might try to corrupt the idea outlined above, and declare that to buy a book, you must first sign a form declaring that you will not share with anyone? After all, buying a book is a commercial transaction, right? Well yes, but unless you're buying it to be used in a (for-profit) enterprise, then the transaction should fall outside the scope of copyright. To put this another way, if you are using someone else's work (or more accurately, the information produced from it) to make a profit, then it is acceptable to have the law regulate that process, and guarantee a fair retribution to that someone else (as long as the copyright has not expired). This incentives innovation, and the creation of new works---exactly the result one expects from copyright.
Remember that we are talking about information that was published (i.e. made available for sale) voluntarily: at no point was there anything resembling information theft. What I propose is that information made available in such a fashion can be used and distributed by private parties with no commercial intent, and no interference from the law. It is only when using such information in profit-seeking enterprises that it becomes justifiable to regulate the process through legislation.
Before delving deeper into this, I'll just give two examples: I can buy a book, and digitize its information and give to someone else. No law should stop this behaviour. But I should not be allowed to sell that information, for the right to commercialize it should (during some time) be an exclusive of the book's writer. The same could be said about software. While it is unjustifiable to have the legal system meddle in a private individual's communications just to protect economic interests, it is justifiable to do so in order to regulate commercial activity. This was the original scope of copyright law. Of course, back then, there was no easy way to exchange huge amounts of information (whether for commercial purposes or not). But nowadays there is, and so the only way to enforce a monopoly on information trade (which is what copyright essentially is) is to regulate the communication between the parties that are trading it. Which is, like I said above, acceptable for business, but unacceptable for the private communications of the citizenry.
What this means is that you can establish a functioning marketplace, without trumping basic privacy rights. But wait, does that mean that someone might try to corrupt the idea outlined above, and declare that to buy a book, you must first sign a form declaring that you will not share with anyone? After all, buying a book is a commercial transaction, right? Well yes, but unless you're buying it to be used in a (for-profit) enterprise, then the transaction should fall outside the scope of copyright. To put this another way, if you are using someone else's work (or more accurately, the information produced from it) to make a profit, then it is acceptable to have the law regulate that process, and guarantee a fair retribution to that someone else (as long as the copyright has not expired). This incentives innovation, and the creation of new works---exactly the result one expects from copyright.
Remember that we are talking about information that was published (i.e. made available for sale) voluntarily: at no point was there anything resembling information theft. What I propose is that information made available in such a fashion can be used and distributed by private parties with no commercial intent, and no interference from the law. It is only when using such information in profit-seeking enterprises that it becomes justifiable to regulate the process through legislation.
Wednesday, 21 September 2011
Not Google+
An excellent parody of G+, and, indirectly, of all other social networks. Also, if you can read portuguese, this is a very good reading (the video embedded was in one of the comments).
Wednesday, 3 August 2011
Yoono!
Is an amazing Firefox extension (among a couple of other things...), that although intended to ease the management of the ever-growing plethora of social networks we are immersed in, has the über-cool feature of allowing you to use a different profile per Firefox tab! Epic win! Checkout the screencast:
Saturday, 30 July 2011
Blogger, blogspot, and comments
As detailed elsewhere, blogger needs to have third-party cookies enabled for comment posting to work properly. But instead of enabling for the whole wide web, you can authorize them only for blogger.com. Reproducing my second comment in the above post in my former blog:
The problem cause is described here, and a simple fix (in Firefox) is to do this: Edit -> Preferences -> Privacy. Select “Accept cookies from sites”, UNCHECK “Accept third-party cookies”, and on “Exceptions” add blogger.com, and click “Allow”. Now you can comment on blogspot.com blogs.
Untested for blogs hosted outside blogspot.
If after the first attempt to comment a red square appears, hit Submit again, and it should work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)