After creating a hit song, does a team of singer come along and maintain it and add features? Does yet another team build the next version of that song? Or that movie?
It is fairly common to pluralize period-less abbreviations with apostrophes. The New York Times, for example, follows that standard. It is more common still for abbreviations with periods to take an apostrophe.
The New York Times doesn't do a great job of following that standard if indeed they try to. Searching for CDs gives me many more examples of "CDs" than "CD's" -- the only one I saw was a blog post, which is probably copy-edited less strictly than an article in the paper. Similarly, searching for ATMs gives "ATMs" and "A.T.M.'s", but not "ATM's". Others I found: both "GTOs" and "GTO's", "LCDs", "TVs", both "B&Bs" and "B&B's". The phrase "A's and B's", referring to grades, was always written with apostrophes, as was the phrase "P's and Q's".
One of the fun thing of doing these searches is that really old articles are mixed in with the results. Searching for LPs shows that it has been written "LPs" since at least 1955 and also yields this intriguing headline: "DIGITAL COMPACT DISKS - REPLACEMENT FOR LPs?" from 1983.
Actually, I think information theory is the only branch of science that has something genuinely useful to say about computers. Unfortunately, it has few people working on it in the context of computer systems. The world is dying for useful models of (real) CPUs and complex networks based on information theory, but that's not really happening. Computer "scientists" rather spend their time building example systems that no one will ever use, or creating theoretical models that have no connection to reality. No idea what the purpose of either is.
If a scientist is funded by the petroleum industry and publishes articles saying that climate change isn't happening, is his connection relevant?
If a doctor is funded by a drug company and publishes articles saying that the company's drugs are good, is her connection relevant?
Even the best scientists can be biased, and being aware of the biases can help one decide how much attention to give arguments. If Prashant Deva is biased by his experience and funding against the technology that he is critiquing, then that is relevant information to me and many other people who read his critique. To suppress that information, as you seem to be trying to do, would be a blow against transparency. In my opinion, that would be a bad thing.
In peer-review, the original authors are redacted, so the peer-review committee's bias is reduced (not eliminated, of course).
When a scientist is funded by the petrol industry, but has a long history of showing sound scientific results, I'd give him my full attention. Perhaps my reading of his results would be biased negatively if I would know his research is funded by a certain industry.
When that doctor publishes an article on his new drugs, I question where it is published, whether there have been similar results by other researchers, whether similar approaches have seen widespread application, whether the author can connect the results logically with other research, whether there has been a good peer review and whether I can understand his results. These metrics give me confidence. The funding of the researcher might interest me, but another researcher with a perfect clean sheet might get his funding in a more black-market way. They say you should follow the money, but generally it is difficult, if not impossible, to find the trail.
This means I question almost everything I read and unfortunately have little certainties. Then again "Nothing is so difficult as not deceiving oneself." -- Wittgenstein
This is actually an idea that I've been kicking around for a couple of weeks. My idea is slightly more complicated, but this is the gist.
I would call it a digital media consumer's union, where a person pays in a certain amount per month and then the total is allocated to the copyright holders proportionally to the amount that their media are consumed by the members of the union. Consumption statistics for music are already tracked by things like last.fm (and libre.fm), and it would not be hard to build a tracker for things like movies, books, and possibly websites and computer programs.
The monthly bundle of money would obviously be the carrot, and if one of the companies getting the money decided to sue a member for copyright infringement, then the money would be coverted into a stick in the form of a legal defense fund.
What about free riders? There would obviously be some, but I think a lot of people really do think that digital distribution is terrible and would pay if given the chance.
What about trust? Whoever was doing the collecting would have to have a great reputation and be completely transparent. It should probably be a non-profit and regularly audited.
Would it be be sued into oblivion? IANAL, but it seems like giving people money should not be actionable. The big guys would probably try to get the list of members, so being paranoid about privacy seems like it would be a good idea.
What would it do to the incentives? This is my favorite part. Instead of the publishers attempting to lock everything up, the incentive would be for them to make content that is as consumed as possible. That is, the publishers would want their stuff to get out there so that people see it and give some of their share to the publisher. Things like digital locks would become counterproductive.
Things like flattr provide some precedent for this idea, though they obviously don't go track down people that aren't part of the system.
I'd love to hear critiques of this idea, because if it can't work, then I can stop thinking about it.
Flattr is great and they actually do have something along the lines of tracking down people who aren't part of the system. You can flattr Twitter accounts and they will create a 'pending click' for that account which will only be processed if the person tries to collect the money.
The main problem I can see with your system is the difficulty in finding the appropriate person or organization to pay for every single file that the union downloads.
If it actually took off, the person(s) running it could take the sort of fee that shops/etc would normally take (probably much less) to cover time, and then "Dear Record Label, I have a cheque for $$$$$ broken down for the following artists: do you want it?"
I think the biggest problem would be convincing people to do it - right now you can get it free (or a slight fee from some download services) illegally or paid legally... how many people are going to chose the brand new third option of paid yet still illegal?
edit:
Perhaps a more viable idea would be to do the same thing, but rather than having the aim as trying to win over the likes of the RIAA/etc. just try and win over artists. The Louis CK is now pretty well known, but he had to make that decision before finding out its success. What if anybody who downloaded anything could go through a service that would give money to the artists, without legally admitting to any wrongdoing?
For example, I download a Justin Bieber album, or a Ricky Gervais stand-up DVD, go onto this site and say "here's £5 because I think the DVD/album/whatever is cool", and that money then goes directly to the artist - without me ever having to say that I actually downloaded it illegally, that's just left as an assumed fact.
Of course this becomes harder on the administration side, and much harder when it's something like a big film where you pretty much have to go through the studio or you'd never be able to split money between everyone involved. And, thinking about it, I guess even for individual singers/standups/etc, there's still the issue that not everybody who makes money from a CD without being the artist falls into the moneygrabbing category. Do sound mixers, studio techs, etc etc etc etc not deserve a cut?
Anyway, just babbling on... would love to see someone give this a real shot, but really no idea if it could have even the tiniest chance of success.
