From: Eugene Leitl (eugene.leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de)
Date: Thu Jul 27 2000 - 22:35:24 PDT
Adam L. Beberg writes:
> Soon you will be able to get thousands of copies of the same information
> from anonymous and double-blind sources no matter if you want it or not.
> Untraceably of course :)
No problem, if content crypto-hashes to same digest. Use a procmail
dupe filter recipe (I'm already running one based on Message-Id, it
works like a charm, but listservs do change Message-Id, so it's not
perfect. Something based on md5sum of message body would do a lot
better).
> Separating the product and the payment is both critical for bits and not
> new (for example ISBN: 0201502089). It's critical because as many people
> are starting to realize it's not possible under the laws of physics we
> live in to link the content and payment in a secure way. Ya cant force
I wouldn't invoke the laws of physics. I don't think the problem is
that fundamental.
> people to pay for bits, and the youngins are anti-payment and completely
> unaware of "property rights" anyway. Eventually, all the bits will have
The kids are niche markets. I haven't listened to fresh music in a
while, nor bought fancy designer clothes recently.
They do own money, but they rarely earn it themselves. If sugardaddy
is on the dole, the whole dream castle suddenly collapses.
> voluntary payments, but will be low quality because you wont be able to
> get rich off bits, so why bother.
OpenSource stuff can be of quite high quality, you know. As soon as
everybody profits from essentially free bits, it makes sense to pool
resources. With superthreshold cooperation, the whole is more than the
sum of their parts. Trivially true, but some people still seem not to
be able to get it that when it comes to bits you can eat your cake,
and have it, too.
If only more scientists would publish their research on the Net,
chemical abstracts and reaction database searches are so ridiculously
expensive. I do not not see how publishers contribute to the quality
of content, and peer-review is something which is media-independant.
> So does this RIAA boycot mean you don't buy any CD's, or watch any MTV,
I haven't bought any CDs in a while, because they're simply too
expensive (especially in Euroland), and looking for worthwhile stuff
is simply too much trouble. My mp3 collection is 95% ripped from those
CDs I own.
> or listen to the radio, or even listen to the elevator music. No TV,
> that has music in the shows. No movies either, those have songs. No
> going to concerts of course. Have fun doing nothing, the RIAA is one of
Aw, come on. Fresh bits are worth a lot more than stale ones, and
there is something in a concert which cannot be yet
canned. Transparent digicash micropayments to mass-demand content
creators built into browsers would work as a charm. If it hasn't
worked in the past it doesn't mean the whole concept is somehow
flawed.
> those organizations that owns you.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 23:40:24 PDT