However, I can’t seem to find where I can send feedback to the change.gov folks – where did you see that?
-GabeW (on freenode)
Mr. Robertson, you mean that investors won’t be happy with getting $65 of the $100 they “earn” by investing? The top tax bracket now, I believe, is also 35%, so they would pay the same tax if they invested elsewhere. Why would they not invest in technology? And you assume there would be no other reason to invest in technology-do you think that that tax difference is the only reason people invest in technology now?
Also, I like the point you make in your blog post, Gabe.
“update and reform our copyright and patent systems to promote civic discourse, innovation and investment while ensuring that intellectual property owners are FAIRLY treated.”
Mr Robertson, why don’t you understand that without a middle class with money to spend online there would be no billions to collect for companies like google or facebook or youtube ?
why ? it’s pretty simple
I was excited until I read these two sections which I would argue completely undermine the plan. These two items insist on secrecy, while the others inversely, require information flows freely.
# Protect American Intellectual Property Abroad: The Motion Picture Association of America estimates that in 2005, more than nine of every 10 DVDs sold in China were illegal copies. The U.S. Trade Representative said 80 percent of all counterfeit products seized at U.S. borders still come from China. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will work to ensure intellectual property is protected in foreign markets, and promote greater cooperation on international standards that allow our technologies to compete everywhere.
# Protect American Intellectual Property at Home: Intellectual property is to the digital age what physical goods were to the industrial age. Barack Obama believes we need to update and reform our copyright and patent systems to promote civic discourse, innovation and investment while ensuring that intellectual property owners are fairly treated.
we had the opposite reaction to the same paragraph,
I see a focus on “update and reform copyright” as the only way to create a real digital economy and appreciate the reference to a “fair” use of intellectual property
what do you mean by secrecy ?
After re-reading I pretty much ignored the end of the paragraph mentioning reform and fairness. Instead, I saw two paragraphs I feared were inserted by the RIAA. I should have read more carefully.
When I first commented I was thinking something like:
I interpreted #protect intellectual property as control information.
I assume a black box tool will be required to implement the control. By secrecy I meant the black box tool will need to remain confidential in order to function. (dvd encryption for example). Also, that restricted information (you can’t read this journal article unless you pay) is secret. From there I leap to control requires secrecy.
I believe innovation and control are incompatible antagonists. In a state with some innovation and some control, the innovation will always undermine the control and tend toward a state with 0 control. Thus, attempted control fails and merely reduces to a state of staggered innovation with broken control, like we have now.
I think control is quite a bad word, what about changing it with regulation ?
as the world market proved, self regulation is kind of a myth
I agree that openness is essential to innovation but without any kind of rules there can t actually be a shape for any group of people
even html is a series of rules
finding a way to regulate the right to share online might be the most difficult balancing act we are facing
but without that we are stuck in this amateur production of knowledge where only the established advertising companies can really benefit