Re: OT -New paper on Patents
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Robin Harding wrote:
> Hmmm. Well, I'll look forward to the future where I: (a) Write 'brought to you by the good folks at Goldman Sachs!' into every story to earn advertising revenue;Product placement is pretty unobtrusive these days, compared to what it was like in the beginning, and advertising is getting smarter. The future will see almost imperceptible ads very precisely targeted to people who are likely to be interested in that product or service. Ads will consequently become more like editorial content. You must surely be aware that much of what passes for editorial content nowadays, under the intellectual property model, is in fact _already_ advertising, or at least PR.
> (b) Write solely about a cute kittens caught up treesIf that's where your talents and interests lie, go for it. I doubt that it is fruitful to try to second-guess what the public considers worthwhile journalism -- and it's not like the current IP monopoly privilege model spares us any coverage of kittens up trees. At least under a voting model, coverage of substantive issues would respond to the public's priorities, and not solely to the narrow financial interests of advertisers and publishers. I think you might be surprised to see MORE coverage of substantive issues when those issues are not actively being suppressed to serve the interests of advertisers and publishers.
> in order to win the public vote for tax revenues;
> or (c) SelectivelyJournalists deal in information. Some information that is not of interest to the reading, viewing or listening public might be of great interest to a private party. Why not sell it to them?
> disclose any information I learn to the highest bidder.
> Alternatively, it might be worth considering that some socialThe institution of private landowning evolved to answer a genuine problem, too. So did the institution of slavery. The fact that people get accustomed to unjust institutions that evolved to answer genuine problems, and can't imagine how the world could function without them, does not constitute an argument for their preservation:
> institutions have evolved to answer genuine problems, and seek to reform rather than overturn them.
"When the emancipation of the African was spoken of, and when the nation of Britain appeared to be taking into serious consideration the rightfulness of abolishing slavery, what tremendous evils were to follow! Trade was to be ruined, commerce was almost to cease, and manufacturers were to be bankrupt. Worse than all, private property was to be invaded (property in human flesh), the rights of planters sacrificed to the speculative notions of fanatics, and the British government was to commit an act that would forever deprive it of the confidence of British subjects." Patrick Edward Dove, The Theory of Human Progression, 1850
-- Roy Langston
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" wrote:
>If in doubt, apply vouchers. I have proposed reforming our governments existing media-subsidies in a relatively simple way. Divide the budget up into a per-capita amount (one should do this with all spending items, if anything as just an exercise), and allow every voter to direct their funding to one/several qualifying institutions (has editorial content, no paywall-websites) of their choice. The undecided ones will be distributed according to the distribution of preferences of those who vote.
> I don't see anything wrong with either of them. We pay a great deal of tax money to safeguard our rights through the military. It would seem justified to spend a microscopic fraction of that amount on safeguarding our rights by keeping the voting public informed. You'd just need to make the public funding of news reporting independent of political control. That could be achieved by paying publicly employed journalists strictly according to their popularity, as measured by downloads from unique addresses, periodic surveys of readers, etc. There are technological fixes for such problems.
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "k_r_johansen" wrote:
> If in doubt, apply vouchers. I have proposed reforming our governments existing media-subsidies in a relatively simple way. Divide the budget up into a per-capita amount (one should do this with all spending items, if anything as just an exercise), and allow every voter to direct their funding to one/several qualifying institutions (has editorial content, no paywall-websites) of their choice. The undecided ones will be distributed according to the distribution of preferences of those who vote.Ah, another good solution. Even the people who actually spend their own time looking at kittens up trees will typically _vote_ for hard-hitting political journalism over kitten-up-tree stories -- a case of "Do as I say, not as I do." I can offer a personal mea culpa: I have OFTEN caught myself looking at celebrity gossip web pages that made me think, "Why would anyone put such stupid, shallow junk on the Net? Don't people have anything better to do than look at this crap?" Well, yeah, I _do_ have better things to do... but that didn't stop me from reading the latest on Selena Gomez and Justin Bieber (am I the only one who thinks he looks like a 10-year-old girl?).
-- Roy Langston