On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 03:45:34PM -0700, hal@finney.org wrote:
> I'm not sure that David's transparency would necessarily fix the IP
> problem, anyway. In a truly transparent world, shouldn't I be able to
> look over David's shoulder as he types up his latest novel? Shouldn't I
> have access to it in the files on his computer? And if I buy the book,
> shouldn't my friends be able to read it at the same time that I do,
> via my wearable webcam?
>
> I suspect that David would say that the answer to all these questions is
> no, because as I said I think his intention in proposing transparency was
> to save IP, not destroy it. I wonder how others would see the relation
> between a transparent society and intellectual property. Do they go
> together, or are they incompatible and contradictory?
I don't think that kind of total transparency is likely. People won't
voluntarily allow cameras into their homes that they can't turn off, or
allow everyone to access their hard drives across the Internet. I can't
really imagine that the technology necessary to achieve total
transparency without consent will arrive soon enough to make a difference
to the IP issue.
David Brin himself claims that he is interested in transparency as
protection against abuse by the powerful. I don't think it's the right
solution to that problem, but it seems like a more plausible motivation.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:37:49 MDT