fuck copyright (Re: Advertising Creepiness)

[Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>]

Declan McCullagh writes:
> Whether you love or hate current copyright laws, it's a stretch to argue
> that it's legal to republish (by forwarding) articles in full.

Who cares if it's legal or not.

Copyright only "works" to the extent of readers good-will
(beggarware/shareware approach "please don't copy") and to the extent
that thugs from your local force monopoly can enforce it at gun-point.

I think the conclusion of crypto-anarchy is that copyright seems
unlikely to survive as a schelling point for making money from
publications.

You can make money from information provision by charging extra for
up-to-date news, or by charging so little that the cost from the
original provider is so low that it's not worth anyones time to
redistribute it, or by providing higher bandwidth connection to the
net than the mirrors, or by making do with click throughs from the
percentage of people who use the original rather than the cheaper
mirror.

Recursive auction market is a statement of reality if you make things
too expensive to the reader.  Overdoing the banners may be overdoing
it already, viz the banner stripping attempts.

The problem from wireds point of view is that they want their 1% click
through rate to derive their funds.  But that is their problem, and
for them to develop strategies for obtaining funds in this landscape.
To say it's "not legal to republish" is saying what? that you think
thugs with guns should enforce bit flow controls?  That wired plans to
make use of these force monopoly services?

I agree with Jim and Vladimir, I find it annoying to see URLs only,
and the teasers (5 lines telling cut off just where it may or may not
get interesting) are irritating too, as they tell you almost nothing.

I'd rather see nothing or someone summarise or post the whole thing,
or at least the interesting bits if it is highly relevant.  Mostly it
is just background clutter, most "news" isn't interesting at all.

Adam