Question is... are banks the best intermediary for determining who is capable of creating value? Perhaps in traditional established commercial lending, but would challenge its efficiency on newer orgs.
One benefit of basic income would be that consumption is about as close to market driven as it gets. So naturally the money would flow to companies providing value to individuals based on their needs.
I've been considering this very concept as well, and while don't claim to understand all of the ramifications behind it, I would love to hear experts discuss SWOT.
My mental model always breaks down when considering international impacts to such a strategy. Currency, trade, and capital investment shifts.
If someone could provide further detail as to the benefit of this, I might be willing to consider signing. I just dont know enough about both arguments to make a determination.
Well, considering that White House Petitions don't work. I wouldn't worry about this one...
To simplify the arguments:
Pro (Current) Copyright: We need to protect artists. We need to protect the invested parties interests.
Against (Current) Copyright: Internet. It's companies who Copyright protects not Artists. Copyright actually stifles creativity and application of invention.
That's my take of this whole thing anyway. I don't care either way to be honest. It's all high level creation issues, and I've never had a personal run in to warrant an extreme positioning either way. I'd like is someone could give a more detailed explanation or correct any of my takeaways.
Those are not the arguments that people in the real world (tm) use.
Pro current or longer copyright terms: I made something, it's mine, I should be able to control it. Forever. Forever minus 1 day, to make it "limited times".
Opposing current or longer copyright terms: We (society) make deals with artists to incentivize the creation of works. Current copyright terms for most works, life + 70 years for works by individuals or 95 years for corporations, are 70-130[1] and 81 years, respectively, longer than necessary to incentivize the creation of new works.
"Pro (Current) Copyright: We need to protect artists. We need to protect the invested parties interests."
Eh, I don't think you'll hear much talk about artists when the copyright lobbyists meet with our elected representatives. More likely, you'll hear this: copyrights are an important source of revenue for a major part of the US economy. We need stronger copyrights to protect that revenue stream. The only time people talk about artists is when they are appealing to the general public's moral sentiments.
"Against (Current) Copyright: Internet. It's companies who Copyright protects not Artists. Copyright actually stifles creativity and application of invention."
It depends on who you ask. People in the anti-copyright crowd (like myself) are not all united on what should change. RMS has said that copyright can be good e.g. when applied in the way that the GPL applies it, or that it can be bad, so the system should be reformed to ensure that GPL-style application is promoted (or GFDL for written documents, or creative commons, etc.). My view is that copyright was made obsolete by the development of PCs and global computer networks, and that a new system must be developed to ensure that artists are paid, that scientists can publish papers, and that the utility of PCs and the Internet must be legally protected (e.g. we must ensure that we, the general public, have access to computers that are not restricted or designed to fight us, and we must ensure that we continue to have access to a global communication network that makes no distinction between the nodes connected to it). There are some who want to create a complete anarchy, where copying is entirely unregulated -- where no system for ensuring access to creative works exists.
"It's all high level creation issues"
That is not really true. Copyright is about you, even if you do not personally do the sort of work that copyrights cover. Copyright is about your ability to access human knowledge; it is about your right to sing "Happy Birthday;" it is about your continued access to things like the Internet, and ensuring that the Internet does not degenerate into a cable TV network (which is a system designed with copyrights in mind). The combination of PCs and the Internet has the potential to upend copyrights and completely change the way in which knowledge and entertainment spread, having an impact as broad and lasting as the printing press (which was the reason copyright was first created) or as writing itself (which forever changed the way information was passed from generation to generation). Human civilization is made possible by communication, and copyrights are about communication; if you do not care about copyrights today, you will eventually be forced to care, should copyright law continue its outrageous expansion (and there is no reason to think the expansion will stop any time soon).
Thank you for the insightful elaborations and clarifications.
Regarding the expansion of copyright in the near future, do you think that the general public of the US will simply allow things to get out of hand before making concessions like you suggested (GFDL/GPL), or will the internet (software?) as we know it simply be overtaken, with the only recourse to simply use another paradigm for open communication and sharing.
My opinion is that, with more and more older people adopting technology, and younger people being born (obviously, right?), we'll in a general public sense, shift our priorities to a more logical and open copyright system. I would give it 20-30 years though...
One benefit of basic income would be that consumption is about as close to market driven as it gets. So naturally the money would flow to companies providing value to individuals based on their needs.