Would the Bard Have Survived the Web?
O New York Times tem um artigo de opinião de hoje entitulado Would the Bard Have Survived the Web? (“Teriam os menestréis sobrevivido a Internet?”, tradução livre). Vcs podem ler o artigo em Inglês seguindo o link acima, ou, se preferirem, podem ler a tradução para
pt_BR via Google Translate.
Aqui vão meus comentários sobre o assunto:
- Poor understanding of the concept of “market”, as it was done in the past and as it is done today, in our “Information Era”;
- Poor understanding of the concept of “intellectual property” and “copyright”;
- Pathetically dismissive argument against “[a] handful of law professors and other experts”: a 6-line paragraph? Out of which, only a single phrase address the actual point?! Seriously, this is the best these 3 people could do to ground their defense in solid and robust arguments?! They couldn’t even come up with a typical list of pros and cons? Deconstructing this 1-paragraph argument is really a silly exercise: the misunderstanding of the differences between “Science” and “Technology” is enough to make this 1-paragraph self-destructive. This is pretty shameful… 😦
- Here are a couple of question that i would like answer: if “Science” had patented some of its *basic* and *fundamental* research outcomes, like the following, what would these same folks be saying, what would their tune be: electromagnetism (TV, radio), quantum mechanics (modern electronics, semiconductor devices, X-rays, MRIs, etc), general relativity (GPS; fluid mechanics: think missiles and torpedos)? What would happen if all of these *fundamental research* discoveries had been patented, copyrighted and “intellectual property-ed”?! Science, Physics in fact, would definitely not need any government support today, nor run the risk to have DOE’s budget completely slashed (regarding research support).
- And, the cherry on the top of this piece, is the constant comparison with the Dark Ages, with the Medieval Times… seriously: the world really did not change since then?! Over 300 years have passed and the best these 3 gentlemen can do is propose a “market” as it was done over 3 centuries ago? This is their *very best* solution to address their “problem”? Do they even understand that the very concept of “market” has changed in these 3 centuries? Do they understand that the very core of their issue is exactly the grasping to understand what the “Web” really means and how to best use it? Do they realize that people don’t quite know what to do with this deluge of information and possibilities coming from the Web? :sigh: 😦