Comments on: Google and the World Brain

By: Ron

Ron — Thu, 16 Jan 2014 16:08:14 +0000

The desire of Google and other mega corps. to distribute material created by others is based on their desire to distribute these materials ‘as their own’, and thereby profit from that distribution. This subordinates the original authors’ ownership and sublimates the rights of the individual to distribute and profit. My question is ‘what would Kelly have to say if someone else began pulling all the twitter and google software and databases and distributing them ‘as their own’ for profit…? I would venture to say his tone would change dramatically. It’s all about greed, profit and money.

By: Bruce Hatcher

Bruce Hatcher — Thu, 09 Jan 2014 06:22:44 +0000

One of the ways to acknowledge the individual, is to witness how no two individuals perceive things in the exact same way.

The group mentality is a mass sellout of that unique perspective that we all have. It is always there in the individual, whether we care to admit it or not.

Every single thing is unique to each one of us. This can be seen even in the slant of each blogger that tries to prove the collectivist notion, they all present it in their unique way.

Without this uniqueness there would be no Dialogue at all, for they’re would be no platform or even concept to operate from.

By: OzzieThinker

OzzieThinker — Thu, 09 Jan 2014 03:57:16 +0000

Jon

Sincerely, in some ways what Kevin Kelly is saying correct. Those who step out of the populist mould tend to be rejected by the machine pretty quickly and, in the cases of scientists (sic), job’s gone.

You are undoubtedly one-of-kind but, even so, regularly regurgitate information for “credibility”. I am original too, but my credibility is arbitrary as my sources are source.

By: Don

Don — Thu, 09 Jan 2014 01:47:30 +0000

I’m in the midst of writing my first novel, and am up to 30000 words, so this topic has a lot of importance to me. Multinational corporations such as Google and Amazon are intent, each in its own way, on distributing content to their audiences at the expenses of intellectual ownership and individual gain. In their bottom-line analyses, the individual artist gets screwed on a consistent basis. Self-publishing and careful, ongoing monitoring of the dissemination of one’s works help, but it’s an uphill battle no matter how you slice it.

By: Nyal Williams

Nyal Williams — Wed, 08 Jan 2014 21:26:45 +0000

It is just an “accident” of history that someone didn’t patent the wheel or copyright the word “uh.”

By: JimD

JimD — Wed, 08 Jan 2014 16:46:04 +0000

Hi Jon,

I’ve been following you for a few years now and generally agree with you, but on this issue I have to take a slightly opposing view, or at least add another perspective. The internet has created an explosion of information, not just by making it easier to access material that has already been recorded or would have been recorded in some form anyway, but also by facilitating the process of turning thoughts and conversations into recorded form. This has undoubtedly been a net benefit for everyone.

I’m not saying that the notion of intellectual property is a dead letter, but I think how we evaluate and approach it has to be changed. The internet and associated technologies (scanning, 3D printing) have made it literally impossible to enforce, just as Gutenberg made it impossible for the Catholic church to be virtually the only custodian and arbiter of the “Word of God”.

I am pretty much a libertarian, and believe strongly in inalienable rights and free will, but I also believe that our concept of possession needs to undergo a transition if we are to survive.

By: morris kaplan

morris kaplan — Wed, 08 Jan 2014 11:25:56 +0000

the is/be that (in)forms the me/we,both dynamically yin/yanging
in pingpong matches until the idea of self and other is totally burnt out.