[pp.int.general] Content [Was: trademarks]

[Scott Elcomb]

On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Edison Carter
<the.real.edison.carter at gmail.com> wrote:
> Copyright law in general is also not entirely bad law, insofar as it
> provides a means for content creators to share the profits from
> commercial publication.

J.P. Barlow, in the introduction to Cory Doctorow's "Content"[1]
(which I just started reading), has some interesting things to say
about "content":

"It's this simple: the new meaning of the word "content," is plain
wrong. In fact, it is intentionally wrong. It's a usage that only
arose when the institutions that had fattened on their ability to
bottle and distribute the genius of human expression began to realize
that their containers were melting away, along with their reason to be
in business. They started calling it content at exactly the time it
ceased to be. Previously they had sold books and records and films,
all nouns to be sure. They didn't know what to call the mysterious
ghosts of thought that were attached to them.

Thus, when not applied to something you can put in a bucket (of
whatever size), "content" actually represents a plot to make you think
that meaning is a thing. It isn't. The only reason they want you to
think that it is because they know how to own things, how to give them
a value based on weight or quantity, and, more to the point, how to
make them artificially scarce in order to increase their value.

That, and the fact that after a good 25 years of advance warning, they
still haven't done much about the Economy of Ideas besides trying to
stop it from happening."

Cheers

[1] <http://craphound.com/content/download/>

-- 
  Scott Elcomb
  http://www.psema4.com/   @psema4

  Member of the Pirate Party of Canada
  http://www.pirateparty.ca/