Rufus argues powerful platforms (markets..) not new. What changes everything is “costless copying”
infinite economies of scale. Combined w old protection of intellectual property thru patents, copyright
Unprecedented profits for @google, @facebook @apple @amazon etc
-
-
-
Innovation
needs
. But treating information like physical property creates monopolies - hinders innovation, raises prices, constrains access. Open Revolution proposes to replace monopoly approach to IP with market-driven remuneration rights (like @Spotify of-everything)Show this thread -
The idea: New rights like patent/copyright make valuable information freely available to use & adapt and pay
to creators on a use basis . Private data (personal emails, photos, health records, bank statements, purchases) remain privateShow this thread -
For
could be Spotify style per-play. For
payments from a central fund in proportion to the health benefits (QALYs). Can also distribute some remuneration up-front e.g. expert selected grants (Arts Council style) and User choice (“Kickstarter” or “X-Factor” style).Show this thread -
The money:



users pay a small all-you-can-eat fee/levy/tax. He also suggests tax on online ad revenue. 
international agreement - countries commit (NATO style) to minimum levels of medical innovation funding
e.g. 0.5% of GDP for richer countries).Show this thread -
Practical issue he identifies: 1. Demarcation. Which
belongs to which
? 2. Reuse. How to attribute value when
are adapted? 3. Distribution. How to allocate
to
? 4. Evaluation. How to determine how much
spend on different kinds of information (


etc..)Show this thread -
The book is well worth reading. You can buy it from Amazon or download it and pay-what-feels-right https://openrevolution.net/
Show this thread -
My thoughts: (1) The practical issues are going to need a lot of working out (especially number two I think), but as he argues this doesn’t need to be a big bang – trial and error by region and industry.
Show this thread -
(2) Advertising supported remains deeply problematic (As Jaron Lanier says “We cannot have a society in which, if two people wish to communicate, the only way that can happen is if it's financed by a third person who wishes to manipulate them”)
Show this thread -
(3) The principle of the public – private distinction is right, but the devil is in the details… (see the debates over public beneficial ownership information…)
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.