To change the world – new actor-worlds have to come into being – the rub is that existing actor-worlds resist the changes – what else is new here?


House Republicans in the United States last week released a report on copyright that was amazing in its understanding of the topic, but also mind-blowing. It was so forward-thinking, the party’s study committee had no choice but to retract it the very next day, likely because of pressure from frothing-mad copyright lobbyists.

But consider the doo-doo stirred. The report suggests some pretty incredible ideas, which are even more incredible given that they’re coming from politicians. As TechDirt noted, the report says current copyright law is anti-competitive and hurting innovation and consumers, so it’s therefore a sin against Capitalism. It goes so far as to suggest that entirely new industries aren’t happening because of the monopolies granted by copyright law.

The report then proposes a few concrete reforms, such as lowering the length of copyright, creating disincentives to renewing it, expanding fair-use principles and punishing false claims.

Whether or not anything…

View original post 478 more words

2 thoughts on “

  1. Moss Turner says:

    Its an interesting idea, Donovan. I must confess that my mind is still in paradigm lag with the notion, but I can see the benefits. The idea extending to the notion of tangible ownership (robot cars, tech appliances) is something already gaining traction in Japan (I’ve read) People don’t buy lights, they buy ‘lighting’, the don’t buy a vacuum cleaner, they buy ‘cleaning’. We could buy ‘transport’ instead of cars and ‘cloud access’ instead of computers. Maybe it is an idea who’s time has come. Right now, we could hook a generator up to Steve Job’s grave and run a small city off the energy from him rolling in his grave.

  2. Urban Choreography says:

    HI Jason, Yes I’d always thought about how property owners are loath to spend capital on Landscape Architecture and wondered how it would be possible to hire landscapes and public space to them and fund the capital costs differently , maybe by charging users or street market traders a fee?
    The model is well established in some quarters i.e. buildings, cars, machinery etc, how could landscapes and public space be rendered “hire-able” would different governance and management systems make it available like one hires stadiums etc – would this be fair to the more disadvantaged and some of the “undesirable” elements such as skateboarders etc who are precluded from public spaces in the city with its CID’s?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s