The New York Times on Hypocrisy of US IP Policies

jwinterboy writes " The New York Times has an article (free blah di blah) criticizing the intellectual property framework that the U.S. places on developing countries, given that it was a large pirate of intellectual property during it's own industrialization. "

Comments

Developing nations

[panurge]

Indeed. British authors used to get very upset over the way their books were pirated in the US, and the practice didn't really stop until the US publishing industry was sufficiently large and international to want protection of their own. But then developing nations, like entrepreneurs, always need a bit of help up the ladder. Who was it said "I never ask a man how he made his first million dollars?"

Re:Developing nations

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to add a little bit to the "happened elsewhere theme":
AFAIK in the 2nd half of 19th century Germany was widely seen as the rip-off nation building machinery, chemical and pharmaceutical industries on violating patents, only switching to international patent system after they had something to lose.

For general amusement: among my fellow german countrymen it is widely unknown, that the mark "made in germany" (which they hold in a kind of national pride) was originally forced on german goods by the British to mark them as cheap crap (anybody to remember first japanese cars?).

Re:Developing nations

[FyRE666]

Yep, yet another example of the US policy of telling everyone else "don't do as we do, do as we say". It's not enough they seem to want to police the entire planet, whilst taking no notice of anyone elses laws, seek to destroy net-radio by allowing the RIAA to dictate terms, continue to protect a criminal organisation (MSFT) which pays half it's politicians. No, now the US is preaching the word of IP, patents and general stifling of inovation to 3rd World countries.

These are the same countries US (and EU to a lesser extent) corporations dump out-of-date food and medical supplies on to claim tax breaks - use for slave labour to make "designer" trainers and generally exploit however they can.

The sad thing is, the US govt can't see why the rest of the World (except our pathetic lapdog PM) takes offence at this...

Mod me down if you like, it needed saying...

Re:Developing nations

[sql*kitten]

continue to protect a criminal organisation (MSFT) which pays half it's politicians. No, now the US is preaching the word of IP, patents and general stifling of inovation to 3rd World countries.

It's telling that the Slashbots are so upset by RIAA and MS. These things are utterly trivial. The real problems are in steel tarriffs and agricultural subsidies, that a nation that touts free trade (and the EU is just as bad here) resorts to protectionism and barely-disguised mercantilism at the first sign of trouble. Trouble's when you need your principles the most, not the least.

The developing world doesn't give a stuff what word processor you prefer or how you think it's unfair that you should have to pay, what, $15 for a CD, so you steal it instead. Look at the big picture, people.

Re:Developing nations

[Charm]

Tell that to the Asian countries. They have growing Info Tech industries that they depend on to help them climb the world economic ladder. Don't forget that America tried to impose its IP laws on Taiwan. How are countries ever meant to grow past primary industries if the first world places huge restrictions on IT?

--

Re:Developing nations

[Oscar26]

THANK YOU! Someone else here has some understandings on how free trade works. Yes, the president stands up there, claims he is for "free trade" then the next day signs a $180B farm subsidy, or a few months later imposes a 30% tarrif on foreign steal. All in an effort to get votes come November. You can't beat buying votes with American tax dollars. The government takes your $$$, then gives it back to you and say "look what I did! Vote for me!"

The EU is just as bad as the US. So much for free trade. NAFTA the only true free trade agreement that coveres all goods and labor. Of course we undermine it with subsidies, but it is a step in the right direction.

Re:Developing nations

[joelgrimes]

America may largely deserve your criticism for its IP policies, but you may want to think twice about spouting off about it.

These are the same countries US (and EU to a lesser extent) corporations dump out-of-date food and medical supplies on to claim tax breaks

Another way of putting that is that the US gives food and medicine to starving nations.

Are you actually objecting to that policy?

Oh, and you're correct. The EU commits less of this atrocity than does the US.

Re:Developing nations

[wurp]

I agree that in the short term, tariffs and subsidies are much more important than IP laws. However, in the longer term, as nanotechnology matures, absurd IP laws like the ones we have now will make the difference between a world in which everyone has plenty, and a world in which we all work for media companies so we can pay twice the development costs to get the rights to have something we developed ourselves.

Re:Developing nations

[DaytonCIM]

The developing world doesn't give a stuff what word processor you prefer or how you think it's unfair that you should have to pay, what, $15 for a CD, so you steal it instead. Look at the big picture, people.

Amen to that. I don't think someone starving to death in Asia or trying to survive yet another civial war in Africa gives 2cents about the RIAA or MPAA and the "difficulty" we Americans encounter when purchasing our vast amounts of CDs and DVDs.

Re:Developing nations

[Iguanaphobic]

The real problems are in steel tarriffs and agricultural subsidies, that a nation that touts free trade (and the EU is just as bad here) resorts to protectionism and barely-disguised mercantilism at the first sign of trouble. Trouble's when you need your principles the most, not the least.

Sigh...

This has been going on for too long in the USA and the reason is simple. Most voters in the US don't give a rats ass. Two recent situations come to mind.

The whole genetically modified foodstuff debacle. The problem is that the US has granted patents on GM strains of common foodstuffs. Then when GM strains pollute natural crops with patented genes, farmers get sued into oblivion. Then, when third world countries turn down "donations" of GM food , US aid officials criticize them. What everyone seemed to miss (unsurprisingly) is that if Zimbabwe accepted the GM maize and then their local crops "somehow" became polluted with patented GM strains, they would soon be in a position where they would have to pay IP lawyers and US corporations to enable their people to eat locally produced food.

The other issue is protectionism. I won't even touch the steel issue. It reeks too badly. Instead, let's consider the current softwood lumber dispute with Canada. (if you say "What dispute?" my point is made) The protectionism in this dispute is almost as rampant as the corruption. The bottom line being that a select group of southern lumber barons profit while average Americans pay $3000 more for new housing. Oh, don't forget the 50,000 Canadians who were put out of work. The fact that the WTO will eventually overturn this does not negate the impact it has on profits, costs and jobs in the short term. If this is how we treat our closest ally, it's no wonder our enemies hate us.

Look at the big picture, people.

Sorry, looking at the big picture is simply too difficult for most Americans. It requires critical thinking and the ability to look at our own behaviour objectively. Point being, as long as Joe Sixpack has a job and Monday Night Football, most Americans just don't care.

Re:Developing nations

[FyRE666]

Another way of putting that is that the US gives food and medicine to starving nations.

Are you actually objecting to that policy?

I was hoping someone would try this argument. Yes I do object when the pharmaceutical companies use war, famine and death as an excuse to push up their stock prices. The drugs and other garbage these companies "dump" are of absolutely no use to the people in the countries they're sending it to.

A guy called Mark Thomas here in the UK presents a programme where he tries to uncover government corruption, corporate corruption etc each week (he also has a pretty wicked sense of humour, whire really makes the show). One of these shows dealt with this issue. Here are a few quotes that you might find interesting...

During the civil war in Bosnia so much unwanted drugs were dumped that the government were forced to pay $34 million to build an incinerator just to dispose of them. One charity we spoke to, Pharmaciens Sans Frontieres, said that they had to spend £100,000 in the town of Mostar alone disposing of these drugs in lime filled buckets.
[...]
Since then, the situation has not improved. We spoke to a woman who was involved in sorting out drugs in Albania in 1999. She told us of a hospital in Tirana which had received tonnes of drugs, shown below.

[picture of tonnes of drugs]

However in sorting them out she found some nitrous oxide canisters which had an expiry date of 1989 or 1990 - ten years before they reached Albania. She also discovered sadly that of all the tonnes of drugs donated, only a small proportion could actually be termed useful, shown below.

[picture of about 150 small bottles]

There were also other companies sending sex aids, diet pills and other completely useless crap to starving nations simply to make money while leaving the huge cleanup job to those with nothing. Nice, huh?

Re:Developing nations

[Fig, formerly A.C.]

I actually have a label from a wallet I got that says Made ni Taiwan. I thought it was funny because of the stereotype about Taiwanese goods being crap. Ironically, I think the label Made in the USA is a bigger indicator of crap. Just look at our "motorcycles" compared to what the Japanese make. :-( We are still using farm equipment technology from the WW2 era in those things. Of course, most of the components for them is made overseas, only final assembly takes place here.

Re:Developing nations

[frank_adrian314159]

Point being, as long as Joe Sixpack has a job and Monday Night Football, most Americans just don't care.

Survivor. Don't forget Survivor, too.

XXX OOO,
CBS Promotions

Re:Developing nations

[fferreres]

It's telling that the Slashbots are so upset by RIAA and MS.

Nope, it's telling that the USA doesn't mind having such huge monopolies inside their country as long as they also bring money home.

With that money coming home, they can buy the world, as they are already doing as we speak. Ufff...

Now, I don't think USA is the root of all evil, they care about THEMSELVES, and they are supposed to do so. The problm is when they try to ENFORCE what is only good for them, in the name of peace, freedom and all good on earth.

Re:Developing nations

[slashdot_commentator]

Can't it be said that many countries will remain poor and on the back burner for many years because they have little natural resources and a small population? Don't you need a somewhat large population and a good supply of materiel to get things done?

The answer is no. The counter examples are Hong Kong and Singapore. They are basically city-states which attained their economic position through careful investment and development of their niche industries. Slightly larger examples which still fall under small population and limited natural resources would be South Korea and Taiwan. An example of a foundering country with a large population and plentiful natural resources would be Indonesia (and maybe Congo/Zaire).

I realize that this isn't exactly in line with IP, but I don't think that's a pressing issue for a subsistance farmer thousands of miles from most of us.

Neither is population control or education, but they are all critical issues to the economic well-being of a nation. IP doesn't affect the individual farmer or (most) individual citizens. But it does affect a nation's wealth (and thus power and economic development) and thus consequently affects those farmers and citizens. Implying that if a small, poor country should be resigned to its economic fate, and thus IP is not a contributor to its situation is fallacious.

Re:Developing nations

[aleph]

> stop beating up all americans. beat up the media
> moguls who dont have the balls or the will to tell
> everyone about this stuff. i am an american. i want
> my country to "play fair".

I don't think it has anything to do with balls. "The Media" is entirely corporate. You don't hear about protectionism and the hypocrisy of "free trade" rhetoric on television, in the newspapers or in magazines because those media are owned by large corporations that have the same interests as the companies that protectionism and "free trade" protect. If you want to learn about how powerful and corrupt corporate America and corporate politics are you're going to have to turn off the TV, because the people who own TV are never, ever going to tell you that stuff.

Re:Developing nations

[MarvinMouse]

As a Canadian, I can tell you that the US abuses NAFTA to no end as well. Constantly they place tariffs on products coming from Canada just because the industry in the states cannot handle it.

For example, when we had an excess of softwood, and just started selling it on the american market. The Americans went insane, and decided to break every section of the NAFTA agreement by imposing insanely high tariffs that put a good chunk of the Canadian softwood industry out of business. They claimed Canadians were subsidizing, even though the NAFTA committee stated that that claim was incorrect.

I am not sure if the States have backed off on their tariffs, but the damage has been done.

Yeah, NAFTA works... uhhuh. Until the states decides it's not in their best interest.

Another reason the world dislikes the Americans.

Hypocrisy?

[Isle]

As much as I dispise american (and western) IP laws and attitude. How can you hold people accountable for something someoneelse did 200 years ago, and how can it possibly be hypocrisy?

Re:Hypocrisy?

[Drahca]

What you mean to say here is times have changed? This is only true for our part of the world. We are considered developed countries, as apposed to the developing countries we are blaming. I for one can see the relevance in examining the way we got to being "developed" and how other countries, which may be some years behind, are trying to get developed now.

You could even say we are forcing a lot of countries to get developed, thanks to our globalisation efforts. It's not fair we are measuring them with standards that are based on our thinking now, apposed to our way of thinking 200 years ago. That is measuring with two different scales, and that is hypocrisy.

Re:Hypocrisy?

[ArcSecond]

Listen, when Americans can stop blathering on and on about the merits of their founding fathers, the revolution, the fight for the Union, etc. etc. then I will accept the "leave the past in the past" argument. So don't be a hypocrite and say that you accept the "good" parts of your past and reject the bad parts. History may not be objective, but it sure as hell shouldn't be forgotten.

Or maybe you would prefer to pretend that all the groups/societies in the world that are priveleged should be seen as being inherently "worthy" of that privelege, and that no historical analysis of how they got there is required? (ie: the "never ask a man how he made his first million" quote).

Re:Hypocrisy?

[back_pages]

Hi, You seem to not be aware that the United States is hardly monolithic. Our commander in chief was barely elected, in fact. Many of us disagree with the intentions of the Bush administration, and many of us would be just as critical of the IP regulation as the NYT. Some of us want the federal government to compensate Native Americans for the genocide that was comitted during the American expansion west.

Will we ever "quit blathering" about our founding fathers? Only when we've all conceded that we're going to Hell in a handbasket. Until then, we'll argue, disagree, and some of us will try to preserve the noble grounds on which the nation was founded. Just don't expect an immediate about face from one of the most ethnically, philosophically, religiously, and politically diverse nations on the planet. We tend to disagree like it's going out of style, a trait that seems to be missed by the rest of the world.

Thanks for your time.

Re:Hypocrisy?

[denshi]

Our commander in chief was barely elected, in fact.

And some of us would disagree with even that statement. I'll concede the 'barely', but not the 'elected'.

Re:Hypocrisy?

[milo_Gwalthny]

Americans talk about our collosal historical screwups all the time. Maybe just not to the rest of the world. Try mentioning slavery, native americans, manifest destiny or a dozen other historical topics on any college campus in the country and you'll immediately be mobbed by young people demanding justice and chaining themselves to building. Unless the interpretation of our history you are referring to is that of the 1950s or before, you don't understand the US. Take a look at some more recent scholarship, including the work of Zinn, Foner and Forrest McDonald. The only people still pushing the saccharine sweet George Washington is Hollywood. We justly celebrate his strong points (but for his forbearance, the US would have become a monarchy) but are well aware of his weaknesses (slave owner.) You've got to stop watching TV/movies and read some books.

That said, if you understand how modern democratic governments work, you know that the US can't give lip service to ignoring IP protection. But, in fact, it doesn't do a heck of a lot to enforce it in the developing world. Look at Microsoft in China. Go to India and see how easy it is to buy pirated software. Look at the response of the American government to efforts by countries around the world (including Canada :) ) to reduce drug costs by buying generics (a policy approved by the Clinton administration for Africa.) Brazil threatened to ignore US IP and, I believe, will get substantial concessions not to ditch the whole IP framework.

You forget that, as sovereigns, countries choose which laws to enforce within their own boundaries. If Brazil were to turn a blind eye to domestic companies violating US IP to manufacture affordable AIDS medication, you would hardly hear a squawk from the US. It's only when Brazil makes a big deal about nullifying the IP laws that the US feels it has to respond -- it's just a negotiating tactic on Brazil's part anyway: why else would they draw attention to it?

In short, I believe that developing countries can do to the US exactly what the US did to the developed countries of 100 years ago: ignore their IP protection, and get the exact same response as the US did: annoyance.

Re:Hypocrisy?

[fferreres]

In short, I believe that developing countries can do to the US exactly what the US did to the developed countries of 100 years ago: ignore their IP protection, and get the exact same response as the US did: annoyance.

Globalisation forbids that. You can't export unless you accept US/EU law. And that laws are writen with US/EU handwriting, not a third world one.

So either you forget about the rest of world or abide to your masters terms. Only really big moster countries sufficient power to challenge this reality.

Re:Hypocrisy?

[milo_Gwalthny]

Only really big moster countries sufficient power to challenge this reality.

Well, globalisation as a force has been around for millenia, in a smaller slower form. That didn't stop the US from challenging this reality a hundred years ago, and with its (by far) largest trading partner to boot. What I am saying is that there is a functional difference between accepting EU/US law and enforcing it. This is exactly what the US did in the 19th century and pretty much what China does today. Even if British copyright law wasn't the law of the land in the US, I am sure there were foot-dragging negotiations going on to make it so, given just enough energy and attention to prevent the British from cutting off trade entirely. If you are trying to make an issue of this distinction, then it is a political point, not a practical one. I prefer George Washington's strategy: the longer you can avoid engaging in real battle, the better the chance you have of winning the war. Somehow I doubt that if African countries started to distribute low-cost generic AIDS drugs without drawing any attention to themselves that the US or EU would cut off what little foreign trade or aid they now offer. Why should they?

Re:Hypocrisy?

[fferreres]

Only big countries can do that. Small countries can only do that if the manage to get a good deal with the "governing coutries".

Now, I do agree this is a matter of degree. If you have a relatively small country where it's citicens are willing to REALLY push the envelope (study hard, do everything the right way, sacrifice, sense of comunity over selfwelware, etc), they can grow without compling.

It takes a lot of effort, but it is possible. You only need to sacrifice your population for some decades, like Japan's.

Now not many countries are willing to do that. And the mayority rules under democracy. Under democary and an average population, you can't do anything.

This I cannot (of course) probe, but while I know I can do the effort (in my country) I don't see others willing to do it. Not only that, the most clever ones have not much moral (in general), and the ones that DO care, have all the ideas wrong.

It's very very sad. Add to that the educated ones that have all the information wrong even though they are not dumb. Many folks here bought capitalism as "market forces, free trade, goodwill of freedom", and later found that probably is only part to the game. They really can get the entire picture toghether. That is really hard. Not to mention the implementation (for example, you be slightly right about what has to be done, but they way you try to implement it / comuncate it is NO acceptable because nobody can follow you reasoning).

Living in the third world is hard, not only because of a poor/rich distinction but because of the FRUSTRATION factor. It's devastating, unless you don't give a damn and only hope to gather as much money in the least time possible by whatever means. And that's what most of the minds try to do.

Of course, there are some exceptions that give hope!

Companies and IP

[a_borowski]

When IP law was first passed, the spirit was basically "Let the guy why invented something cool have a monopoly for a while. After a decade or so, give other people a chance." The problem is now copywrite is valid for such an insane length of time that there's little competition. End result: citizen loses (I hate the word 'consumer'). When did companies earn the priviledge to own copywrite?

Re:Companies and IP

[Anonymous Coward]

copyright, dammit, as in: The right to copy.

Re:Companies and IP

[RobotRunAmok]

When did companies earn the priviledge to own copywrite?

At the point when the artist signs it over to them, in exchange for an advance and/or global distribution and promotion facilities. Or at the point when he signs a "work-for-hire" agreement, and gets a steady paycheck in exchange for a little less pressure.

When the fifes stop tweeting, the drums stop rum-tumming, and all the clenched fists make their collective way out of the air and back into blue-jeaned pockets, small children still need new shoes, and the writers, artists, and musicians who are their moms and dads have to buy them.

Re:Companies and IP

[RobotRunAmok]

If you're going to insist on participating in the conversation, jyx, do please try to follow along.

The poster to whom I was responding asked the question, in essence, "since when do companies own art?" I reminded him that it is not unusual, indeed it is the norm, for artists to sign away their copyright to these companies in exchange for, among other things, money up front.

time limited monopoly... ten years
Huh? What does monopoly have to do with anything? It sounds like you're getting your SlashDot anti-corporate buzzwords mixed up.

Not that I'm a big fan of US IP laws ....

[Titusdot Groan]

I'm not happy with where the US is going with their copyright and patent legislation, I'm even more unhappy about the fact that Canada seems to just follow the US in these matters.

but ...

My dad used to drive drunk occasionally when he was young. He's in AA now and thinks that drunk drivers should lose their licenses and go to jail.

Hypocrisy? Perhaps. But maybe he just wised up in his old age.

Re:Not that I'm a big fan of US IP laws ....

[iainf]

Hypocrisy? Perhaps. But maybe he just wised up in his old age.

It would only hypocrisy if he got where he is now because of drunk driving.

The argument is that the US only devloped as rapidly, and successfully, as it has because of weak IP control in its early years. And it's now protecting that position, and denying that route for development to others, by advocating strong IP protection. That's the hypocrisy.

Re:Not that I'm a big fan of US IP laws ....

[jgerman]

Hypocrisy? Perhaps. But maybe he just wised up in his old age.

Hypocrisy, NOT AT ALL. It would only be hypocrisy if he continued to drive drunk. A change of policy isn't hypocrisy ;)

Re:Not that I'm a big fan of US IP laws ....

[Zeinfeld]

Hypocrisy? Perhaps. But maybe he just wised up in his old age.
It would only hypocrisy if he got where he is now because of drunk driving.

No it would only be hypocrisy if he called for harsh treatment of drunk drivers while concealling his own conviction.

Countries are not hypocritical, the individual politicians running the country are.

For example the idiot in the Whitehouse is a hypocrite because he lectures on corporate ethics desite having received millions in campaign contributions from Kenny boy Lay and Enron, including the loan of a cororate jet and made his money in Harken through the same kind of corporate accounting scams.

George W's does at least have the courage of his conviction for DUI. I have not heard him call for stiffer sentences there. So he gets off on the narrow charge of hypocrisy. However the former coke addict has led the introduction of stiffer penalties for use Texas had he been caught snorting coke and his father had not been able to get him off the way he got him out of serving in Vietnam.

Oh and it goes without saying that the 'chickenhawks' who want to start Vietnam mk II to distract attention from the aforementioned corruption at Harken and Haliburton are hypocrites since none of the ring-leaders served in Vietnam unless you count being a deserter from the Texas national guard.

Re:Not that I'm a big fan of US IP laws ....

[Zeinfeld]

How does this get +1 Insightfull?

I don't know, how come you have not got -1 Troll? Only the fact that you sound just like certain Republican in laws makes me think you are for real.

President Bush is the only person standing between Handgun control Inc and a ban on high powered sniper rifles with that guy on the loose in Washington.

Bush certainly seems to be unaffected by people getting killed, not least the US military and Iraqui civilians to be killed in the war he is planning. When he was Texas govenor he made jokes about executing Faye-Tucker which is kinda wierd as was the complete lack of interest in whether the person was guilty or not - every clemency appeal was rejected. Maybe he is like the sniper and gets off on killing people.

You people always have to resort to smears and character assasinations. The SEC dismissed the Harken insider trading allegation and even wrote a letter to say that there was no case - which it does not normally do.

Every one of the allegations has been proved in the press. That he was a director of and made money in Harken which used enron style phony accounting is a fact. The dismissal of the SEC investigation was as you point out very unusual and no doubt completely unconnected with the fact his father was vice president at the time.

If it was not for the Bush tax cut the whole economy would be in the crapper as a result of the failed Clinton-Gore economic policies. That is why your guy lost and ours won.

Delusions, under Clinton-Gore the economy grew for 8 solid years and the budget was balanced. Two years after a tax cut we were assured would not create a deficit we have exactly that, and no Bush never told the voters there were any exceptions to his balanced budget commitment.

We have camps and military tribunals for folk like you so just watch it.

It is this threat that might make me think it is a troll. But let me give you a bit of my personal history.

There was a time when I used to be pretty right wing. My family connections in UK politics are similar to those of Bush senior in US politics. The reason I broke with the Conservative party was that I thought that the practice their student wing made of spying on and attempting to intimidate other students smacked of the police state. When I was at University the Federation of Conservative Students on campus let it be known that they maintained a list of 'left wing activists' which they then sold to employers. Quite a few fellow students said that they did not want to take part in student political activities in case it damaged their career prospects.

Incidentally another group doing the same thing was the Baa'th party of Iraq who were monitoring the activities of all the students from the middle east.

I thought that the FCS actions were despicable and told my cousin who at the time was the party chairman, of course they did nothing. However a couple of years later the Conservatives themselves disbanded FCS after the chair published an article accusing ex-Prime Minister Macmillan of complicity in war crimes. Ironically enough the war crimes concerned (repatriation of the Cosacks to be murdered by Stalin) is acknowledged as having occurred and Macmillan was certainly the commanding officer responsible and no evidence has ever been produced that substantiates the claim that he was elsewhere. But accusing your party leader of war crimes is not a good move for the chair of a student wing. They were replaced by 'Conservative Collegiate Forum' which promptly purged the more obnoxious liabilities.

The employee blacklist ended up completely discredited after Rupert Murdoch bought a copy and effectively published it at a Labour party conference. It turned out that the Conservative factions had been busier putting each other on the blacklist as they fell out with each other in their various faction fights.

But yes, it was hypocrisy pure and simple. The party trumpeted freedom and used the tactics of the jackboot.

For God's sake do not let Ashcroft and Bush do the same in the US.

Same as what the US did to its forests and swamps

[shoppa]

Just like how the US clearcut vast forests for the lumber and turned millions of square miles of diverse swampland into flat farmland, but we're now trying to stop Brazil from doing the same for their individual economic gains.

Dear STEVE

[smittyoneeach]

You know, some of those people behaving so hypocritically are descended from Goths who sacked Rome. Should the be equally ashamed over atrocities committed by their great^17th grandfather as by their grandfather?
This is not to say that we should blow off injustice. It really sucks to be on the receiving end, and knowledge of that suction should temper our dealings with those who claim to be feeling the vacuum.
But let's not wear the hair shirt too excessively...

Effect on Eldred v. Ashcroft

[NynexNinja]

Through this NY Times article, one could only hope that it would open some poeple's eyes enough to see the problems with copyright law in this country and have a positive effect on Eldred v. Ashcroft.

On/Off

[jukal]

This is probably another very uneducated opinion, but IMHO the patent system is traditional On/Off system. When on, it should enforce equal rights and limitations to everyone - otherwise people will just find ways to exploit it. When off, it should be off for everyone.

Re:On/Off

[fferreres]

Yeah, but who controls the On/Off switch and why?

Broader Theme of Colonialism

[vonWoland]

It is not just IP that the US is trying to clamp down on, the whole U. S. policy towards emerging countries is hypocritical: but there has always been a good historical president for it:

Just to take one example: the U. S. is pushing for all sorts of free trade agreements. Why? Well, for the first hundred years of our existence, the main form of revenue for our government had been tariffs (taxes on imports---taxes on exports are actually prohibited by the constitution.) At the time of the Revolutionary War, the main U.S. exports were cotton, tobacco, from the South and lumber from New England. You may notice that these are either raw materials or agricultural goods. But the money is in the value added, as readers of /. know so well: silicon is litteraly dirt cheep, ic chips made from silicon are perhaps the most expensive substance by weight.
It is no secret that the U.S. used protective tariffs to protect early manufacturer's (who otherwise could not compete with England). It is also no secret that the U. S. really did not like it when others tried to do the same. Now we are doing it with GATT. Throughout the last century we were not so sublte: Marines were sent throughout this hemesphere to make sure that bananas were grown and local governments were not too concerned about the welafare of the common man at the exoence of U. S. buisness interests.
The tragic thing is, just as with development of manufacture, this colonial IP policiy hurts both the developin countries and the people in developed nations. They can't form a manufacturing base, we can't get real, honest, labor unions. And of course, by keeping so many people in the unmechanized fields and unsecured mineshafts, we are really missing out on the increadible behefits that a well educated _global_ populace could bring.

Re:Broader Theme of Colonialism

[back_pages]

Good post. I think a very pressing issue in the future will be whether future administrations follow Bush's tendency to view the entire planet as the Holy American Empire or not. Being the last remaining superpower implies many things, but I don't believe it requires ruling over every other government. It does necessitate a certain amount of cooperation and benevolence, both of which seem to be completely absent from Bush's agenda.

While we can obliterate training camps and oust dictators, we're never going to subject every man who hates us to such abject poverty that he can't buy a box cutter and a plane ticket. Fighting the signs and symptoms of terrorism may even be more damaging than taking no action at all in the long run. Who will be left? The most hardened and determined? Do we really want to galvanize the will of our enemies and force them further into desperation?

It cannot be to America's future benefit to regard the nations of the world as its subjects. Sadly, I doubt Bush even has the wit to realize that he is doing so. I sincerely hope our future President will be some sort of diplomat rather than a caricature of a Texan cowboy.

Re:Broader Theme of Colonialism

[mpe]

It is no secret that the U.S. used protective tariffs to protect early manufacturer's (who otherwise could not compete with England). It is also no secret that the U. S. really did not like it when others tried to do the same. Now we are doing it with GATT. Throughout the last century we were not so sublte: Marines were sent throughout this hemesphere to make sure that bananas were grown and local governments were not too concerned about the welafare of the common man at the exoence of U. S. buisness interests.

Hardly past tense, since the US hasn't actually stopped doing this sort of thing. Let alone make even token attempts at rectifying the problems this covert colonialism created.

Re:Broader Theme of Colonialism

[mpe]

I think a very pressing issue in the future will be whether future administrations follow Bush's tendency to view the entire planet as the Holy American Empire or not.

Were the presidents before Bush really that different. Except that with no effective opposition Bush feels able to come out and say it.

While we can obliterate training camps and oust dictators,

Very often these turn out to be traning camps which the US people paid for and dictators installed by the US.

we're never going to subject every man who hates us to such abject poverty that he can't buy a box cutter and a plane ticket.

That's probably easier than asking why they should hate you in the first place. Since the answers are probably not what most Americans would want to hear.

I sincerely hope our future President will be some sort of diplomat rather than a caricature of a Texan cowboy.

Actually her or she would probably not have to be too much of a diplomat. They would just need to be radical enough to cease all economic and military aid to all other countries. All too often this ends up keeping undemocratic governments in office. especially where there is an interest for big business involved. Effectivly what would be needed would be a US president who would put the interests of the US people before a few big corporates, before some little country in the easten mediterranian. has no interest in being an emporor and wouldn't be afraid to tell fruit companies "if you want to grow fruit in Nicaragua talk to the Nicaraguan government, don't like their terms, tough" or to tell oil companies "if you want to extract oil in Iran, talk to the Iranian government..."

Re:Broader Theme of Colonialism

[back_pages]

Yes, many previous Presidents were quite different. For most of the 20th century, there was an imminent threat from a nation representing a polar opposite of the principles on which America stood. When the US made an imperialistic move, understandably extending our sphere of influence, there was a global superpower willing to stand up and fight back. This is no more. When the Bush dictates his plans to smaller countries without veto power in the UN or representation in other global venues, he very effectively turns them into quasi-American colonies. They are ruled from Washington without representation. They must submit their sovereignty or be mowed over by force.

In the past, this would have been opposed by the nuclear force of the Soviet Union. Today, we live in American hegemony over the world. Some would say that global stability with two superpowers is far easier to achieve than with one, and I think we will see this proven true if the attitude of the Bush administration persists after he is out of office.

You are perfectly right that there is far too much corporate influence on our international politics. This should have the citizens outrage, but it isn't so. Why? Which mass media corporation is going to take the fall for getting the word out that our government has sold the safety of its citizens for the lobbying dollars of some corporations? In a sense, your logic makes the same move that mine has. I say, "Don't fight the symptoms of anti-American hatred, but rather the international policies that spawn such hatred." You say, "Don't fight the international policies, but rather the lobbying corporations that fuel those policies." Part and parcel of the same solution, I hope.

Ultimately, I will be voting for a President who views America's role in the world as the judge rather than the jury. It is unreasonable to deny our role as the executor of force and therefore justice (however it may be defined today), but we cannot afford to also convict whomever we like. Those whom we disenfranchise will be attacking with pipebombs and knives rather than aircraft carriers and warplanes. This nation is probably the most susceptible to covert terrorist attacks as a result of our liberty loving and largely anonymous society. This should necessitate that we use our might in accordance with international approval and remain sensitive to the fact that we have become The Empire to our enemies. Instead, we have policies that change the identity of America while perpetuating and in some sense justifying anti-American rage around the world. We must reflect upon our condition and ask ourselves, "For whom has this been a victory?"

Re:Broader Theme of Colonialism

[Lendrick]

The tragic thing is, just as with development of manufacture, this colonial IP policiy hurts both the developin countries and the people in developed nations. They can't form a manufacturing base, we can't get real, honest, labor unions. And of course, by keeping so many people in the unmechanized fields and unsecured mineshafts, we are really missing out on the increadible behefits that a well educated _global_ populace could bring.

What's sad is that you're absolutely right. If people around the world have more money, more people buy our products, and we benefit greatly in the long run. However, getting to that point requires patience and sacrifice--and sadly, patience and sacrifice really aren't possible for our economy.

The root of the problem here is greed. Corporations are owned by stockholders, most of whom want to make a lot of money very quickly. Because of this, they make decisions that increase profits in the short run but are detrimental in the long run.

Take the recent story about AOL, for example. They know damn well that their customers don't like pop-ups, but they stuck pop-up advertising in anyway just to make a quick buck. Now, several years later, when people are leaving in droves because they're so sick of paying extra money for an annoying, sub-standard service, AOL is stuck in a position of having to win back the trust of its customers. A much more reliable way to succeed in the long run is to provide good value to your customers by providing a high quality product. This generally entails sacrifice in the short term to ensure stronger long term gains. Sadly, when you have a mob of stockholders who want money NOW, this isn't an option.

Likewise, people don't want to give up their billions of dollars NOW, even given the possibility of making trillions later on, to the vastly increased benefit of everyone involved. I just wish there were something that could be reasonably done about it.

Re:Broader Theme of Colonialism

[back_pages]

Hi. My typing has confused you.

Yes, college educated middle class men have committed terrorist attacks on the US. You get a gold star for that observation. Now explain to me how the American military might is going to prevent this from happening in the future. How many missles does it take to stop 1 anonymous crazy man from sneaking a jagged piece of metal onto an airplane and crashing it? Oh that's right, 0 missles, because no matter how poor a man is, how poorly educated a man is, how many aircraft carriers the US has, and how many nuclear weapons we have, it only takes one crazy man, one plane ticket, and one sharp piece of metal to pull this off.

So, continue to "love the insightfulness of slashdot". I'll continue to love "reading comprehension". Guess we'll continue to live in conflict, but that's alright by me.

Re:Broader Theme of Colonialism

[back_pages]

Hey, don't write that suicide note just yet. Being wrong is tough on the pride, but it happens to everyone sometimes.

By the way, when you say I'm a winner and a retard, that implies that you're a loser and a retard. That's an odd way of insulting someone, but to each his own.

Re:Broader Theme of Colonialism

[Happy Monkey]

Perhaps you should work on reading comprehension before you tackle insightfulness. The wealth of the 9/11 terrorists is not relevant. back_pages was remarking that even the most merciless attacks will not prevent terrorism.

Re:Broader Theme of Colonialism

[Tablizer]

we are really missing out on the increadible behefits that a well educated _global_ populace could bring.

Smog?

Re:Broader Theme of Colonialism

[back_pages]

Hi. Do they teach reading comprehension where you come from? Where I'm from, our reading comprehension skills point out that there is nothing in my post indicating that the USSR had a single virtue. There was an objective observation that if the United States attempted to expand its sphere of influence (that is a pretty basic political term which has a neutral connotation) then the USSR would likely oppose it. The two superpowers kept each other in check with regards to global imperialism.

Of course, with a Soviet educational system in the shambles that you represent and an economic model doomed to cataclysmic failure, the West became the sure winner as early as the mid 1950s. Unfortunately for the Soviet people, it took another 35 years for the ill-conceived revolution to sputter to a halt, robbing an entire generation of their livelihood before realizing that the rest of the world had left them in dusty history.

In short, the West was massively more effective than anything the Soviets ever did except sacrificing its own people for fascism and depriving them of reading comprehension skills. In the future, if you'd like a slightly more complimentary commentary out of me, show the tiniest glint of decency.

Re:Broader Theme of Colonialism

[mpe]

Yes, many previous Presidents were quite different. For most of the 20th century, there was an imminent threat from a nation representing a polar opposite of the principles on which America stood. When the US made an imperialistic move, understandably extending our sphere of influence, there was a global superpower willing to stand up and fight back.

Assuming you mean the USSR, this only existed as a super power for maybe 60 years in the 20th century. But the US as an imperial power started in the late 19th century with the Spanish American war.

When the Bush dictates his plans to smaller countries without veto power in the UN or representation in other global venues, he very effectively turns them into quasi-American colonies. They are ruled from Washington without representation. They must submit their sovereignty or be mowed over by force.

The existance of the USSR didn't do much to protect the people of Chilie, Nicaragua, Guatamala, Iran, Phillipines. The UN didn't even exist when the US initially occupied the Phillipines, Cuba, Hawaii and effectivly created Panama. All of these happened long before the USSR even existed, the only part that country played was in Cuban independence some 60 years later.

Ultimately, I will be voting for a President who views America's role in the world as the judge rather than the jury. It is unreasonable to deny our role as the executor of force and therefore justice (however it may be defined today), but we cannot afford to also convict whomever we like.

The original position of the US was to try and avoid "foreign entanglements" the US has been doing much the opposite for just over a century.

Those whom we disenfranchise will be attacking with pipebombs and knives rather than aircraft carriers and warplanes.

Or truck bombs, hijacked aircraft and even human bombs.

This nation is probably the most susceptible to covert terrorist attacks as a result of our liberty loving and largely anonymous society.

You can have very tight security, all sorts of identity checks, even try and build your own version of the Berlin wall, dosn't appear to work though. Better to avoid making too many enemies.

Subtle clarification...

[fortinbras47]

jwinterboy writes " The New York Times has an article (free blah di blah) criticizing the intellectual property framework that the U.S. places on developing countries, given that it was a large pirate of intellectual property during it's own industrialization. "

The article is about a report which criticizes the intellectual property framework which the U.S. places on developing countries. The article itself is not criticizing the framework.

The NY Times can be a bit biased at times, but let's at least give them a little credit...

Typefaces and IP

[munro]

Typefaces/fonts are an interesting area. American companies apparently used typefaces (which tradionally all came from European type design houses) without paying any royalties or licences, but are now starting to try to get protection.

http://nwalsh.com/comp.fonts/FAQ/cf_14.htm

"The reluctance of Americans to press for typeface copyright may have been influenced by a feeling that typeface plagiarism was good for U.S. high-tech businesses who were inventing new technologies for printing, and plagiarizing types of foreign origin (Europe and England). If the situation becomes reversed, and foreign competition (from Japan, Taiwan, and Korea) threatens to overcome American technological superiority in the laser printer industry, then American firms may do an about-face and seek the protection of typeface copyright to help protect the domestic printer industry. Such a trend may already be seen in the licensing of typeface trademarks by Adobe, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Imagen, and Xerox in the U.S. laser printer industry."

Adam Smith and *Intellectual monopoly*

[NZheretic]

From The Relevance of Adam Smith by Robert L. Hetzel.
With added commentary by yours truly...

MONOPOLY AND GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES: The principal theme set forth in The Wealth of Nations is that a country most effectively promotes its own wealth by providing a framework of laws that leaves individuals free to pursue the interest they have in their own economic betterment. This self-interest motivates individuals? propensity to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another and thereby leads them to meet the needs of others through voluntary cooperation in the market place:

...man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and shew them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. (p. 14)

Everyone realises and acknowledges that Microsoft is a business, there to make a profit to share with it's marjor stakeholders, from it's shareholders to it's employees. However ...

Smith also argues that the harmony between private goals and larger socially desirable goals promoted by voluntary cooperation between individuals in the market place is interfered with by monopoly and government subsidies. In contrast to competition, monopoly and government subsidies cause individuals to devote either too few or too many resources to particular markets:

....the private interests and passions of individuals naturally dispose them to turn their stock towards the employments which in ordinary cases are most advantageous to the society. But if from this natural preference they should turn too much of it towards those employments, the fall of profit in them and the rise of it in all others immediately dispose them to alter this faulty distribution. Without any intervention of law, therefore, the private interests and passions of men naturally lead to divide and distribute the stock of every society, among all the different employments carried on in it, as nearly as possible in the proportion which is most agreeable to the interest of the whole society.

All the different regulations of the mercantile system, necessarily derange more or less this natural and most advantageous distribution of stock. (pp. 594-5)
Every derangement of the natural distribution of stock is necessarily hurtful to the society in which it takes place; whether it be by repelling from a particular trade the stock which would otherwise go to it, or by attracting towards a particular trade that which would not otherwise come to it. (p. 597)

.... sometimes, because of the overiding profit motive, the end consumer can be put at a disadvantage, and the natural model can become unbalanced. This often happens in tha case of several types of monopoly...

Smith describes the actions of monopolists as follows:

The monopolists, by keeping the market constantly under-stocked, by never fully supplying the effectual demand, sell their commodities much above the natural price, and raise their emoluments, whether they consist in wages or profit, greatly above their natural rate. (p. 61)

The natural price is the lowest which the sellers can commonly afford to take, and at the same time continue their business. (p. 61) Today we would use the word competitive for natural. The effectual demand is the demand of those who are willing to pay the natural price of the commodity. (p. 56) Monopoly, as well as a governmentally subsidized activity, contrasts with a competitive market where a commodity is...sold precisely for what it is worth, or for what it really costs the person who brings it to market. (p. 55)
The Wealth of Nations contains three general kinds of criticism of monopolies. The first is that the higher prices in a monopolized market reduce the welfare of consumers:

If...capital is divided between two different grocers, their competition will tend to make both of them sell cheaper, than if it were in the hands of one only; and if it were divided among twenty, their competition would be just so much the greater, and the chance of their combining together, in order to raise the price, just so much the less. Their competition might perhaps ruin some of themselves; but to take care of this is the business of the parties concerned, and it may safely be trusted to their discretion. It can never hurt either the consumer, or the producer; on the contrary, it must tend to make the retailers both sell cheaper and buy dearer, than if the whole trade was monopolized by one or two persons. (pp. 342-3)
In every country it always is and must be the interest of the great body of the people to buy whatever they want of those who sell it cheapest. The proposition is so very manifest, that it seems ridiculous to take any pains to prove it; nor could it ever have been called in question, had not the interest sophistry of merchants and manufacturers confounded the common sense of mankind. Their interest is, in this respect, directly opposite to that of the great body of the people. As it is the interest of the freemen of a corporation to hinder the rest of the inhabitants from employing any workmen but themselves, so it is the interest of the merchants and manufacturers of every country to secure to themselves the monopoly of the home market. (p. 461)

.... like deals made between vendors to set prices, which RAND "reasonable" licensing systems effectively does.

The second criticism of monopoly is that it engenders inefficient management:

Monopoly...is a great enemy to good management, which can never be universally established but in consequence of that free and universal competition which forces everybody to have recourse to it for the sake of self-defence. (p. 147)

For example, Microsoft's Internet Explorer containscurrently 20 unpatched vulnerabilities, a disproportionately high number in comparison to all the other browers on the market today. Also, because of a general disregard for security in the past, many of those same vulnerabilities are exploitable though other Microsoft applications.

The third criticism of monopoly is that it is inequitable because it increases arbitrarily the inequality in individuals? incomes:

...The policy of Europe occasions a very important inequality in the whole of the advantages and disadvantages of the different employments of labour and stock, by restraining the competition in some employments to a smaller number than might otherwise be disposed to enter into them. (pp. 118-19)

And there is many a CIO discovering that the new Microsoft enterprise licensing agreement is far more expensive than before.

Monopoly has always been a contentious issue in debates on public policy in the United States. It is interesting to examine the way in which the ideas of Smith appear in current debates over monopoly. In general, proponents of government intervention in the market place argue that monopoly is endemic in capitalism and that its elimination requires significant intervention by the government in the market place. An opposing group argues that free markets effectively restrain monopoly power and that it is in fact government intervention in the market place that is chiefly responsible for monopoly. The first group assumes that large size, fewness of firms, and operation over an extensive geographic area automatically imply monopoly power and thus supports its position by citing the existence of industries dominated by a few large firms and the existence of multinational corporations. The opposing group supports its position by trying to show that where monopoly power exists it is made possible by particular governmental actions, e.g., in the United States by marketing orders that fix the price of milk above what it would be otherwise, or FCC regulations restricting the growth of cable TV, thereby preventing competition with the established networks.

The view of the world suggested in The Wealth of Nations is that monopoly power cannot persist without the assistance of government. The specific examples of monopoly that Adam Smith attacked required the police power of the state for their maintenance. These monopolies were of three kinds. One kind of monopoly depended upon the mercantilistic system of laws which England used to monopolize trade with its colonies: Monopoly of one kind or another, indeed, seems to be the sole engine of the mercantile system. (p. 595) Another kind arose from the monopoly power granted guilds (referred to by Smith as corporations), which allowed them exclusive rights to produce a given commodity:

The exclusive privilege of an incorporated trade necessarily restrains the competition, in the town where it is established, to those who are free of the trade. To have served an apprenticeship in the town, under a master properly qualified, is commonly the necessary requisite for obtaining this freedom. The bye-laws of the corporation regulate sometimes the number of apprentices which any master is allowed to have, and almost always the number of years which each apprentice is obliged to serve. The intention of both regulations is to restrain the competition to a much smaller number than might otherwise be disposed to enter into the trade. The limitation of the number of apprentices restrains it directly. A long term of apprenticeship restrains it more indirectly, but as effectually, by increasing the expence of education. (p. 119)
The government of towns corporate was altogether in the hands of traders and artificers; and it was the manifest interest of every particular class of them, to prevent the market from being overstocked, as they commonly express it, with their own particular species of industry; which is in reality to keep it always understocked. (p. 124)

A final kind of monopoly depended upon tariffs and quotas that prevented foreign producers from competing with domestic producers:

The superiority which the industry of the towns has every-where in Europe over that of the country, is not altogether owing to corporations and corporation laws. It is supported by many other regulations. The high duties upon foreign manufactures and upon all goods imported by alien merchants, all tend to the same purpose. Corporation laws enable the inhabitants of towns to raise their prices, without fearing to be under-sold by the free competition of their own countrymen. Those other regulations secure them equally against that of foreigners. (p. 127)

Competitive markets restrain monopoly because the above-average profits associated with the exercise of monopoly power attract new producers who increase output and thereby lower prices:

When by an increase in the effectual demand, the market price of some particular commodity happens to rise a good deal above the natural price, those who employ their stocks in supplying that market are generally careful to conceal this change. If it was commonly known, their great profit would tempt so many new rivals to employ their stocks in the same way, that, the effectual demand being fully supplied, the market price would soon be reduced to the natural price.... Secrets of this kind, however, it must be acknowledged, can seldom be long kept; and the extraordinary profit can last very little longer than they are kept. (p. 60)

The next section is very IMPORTANT.

Monopolists can preserve their favorable position only if the government prevents potential competitors from entering the monopolized activity:

The exclusive privileges of corporations, statutes of apprenticeship, and all those laws which restrain, in particular employments, the competition to a smaller number than might otherwise go into them, have the same tendency...They...may frequently, for ages together, and in whole classes of employments, keep up the market price of particular commodities above the natural price, and maintain both the wages of the labour and the profits of the stock employed about them somewhat above their natural rate.

Such enhancements of the market price may last as long as the regulations of police which give occasion to them. (pp. 61-2)

In fact, the term "intellectual property" is a misnomer, a more correct term would be intellectual monopoly. Patents, Copyrights and even Trademarks are a government granted monopoly, they do not occur naturally. That does not mean that they are a bad thing per-say, but their use should be dictated by the benefit to socitety in general, with approprate limits so their use cannot be abused.
These statutes give the power that the ol' Mercantile laws gave to those monopolies. There is no true effective choice in the market. Compainies like Microsoft are sustaining it's dominate position in the markerplace by using a state-constructed and granted monopoly, which gives Microsoft the monopoly over it's protocols, effectively just as restrictive as the East India Trading Company trading zone monopoly of the Orient.

Free markets make the formation of monopoly difficult because monopoly requires the adherence of all actual and potential sellers in a market. Self-interest makes achievement of such adherence difficult because each seller has an incentive to undercut the monopoly price in order to increase his share of the market. Monopoly power is increased or made possible if enforced by the government. In the following passage Smith refers to the guilds, or corporations, of his day:

An incorporation...makes the act of the majority binding upon the whole. In a free trade an effectual combination cannot be established but by the unanimous consent of every single trader, and it cannot last longer than every single trader continues of the same mind. The majority of a corporation can enact a bye-law with proper penalties, which will limit the competition more effectually and more durably than any voluntary combination whatever. (p. 129)

Smith?s ideas appear in current public debate over monopoly. Advocates of deregulating the transportation and communications industries by eliminating or reducing the power of Federal regulatory agencies argue that these agencies promote monopoly by limiting the entry of new firms and by fixing prices for all producers. Government regulations enforced upon all firms in an industry have the effect of allowing producers to eliminate competition and to raise prices. At the same time, lack of competition reduces incentives for efficient production.

Re:Adam Smith and *Intellectual monopoly*

[Xylantiel]

Very interesting to read, and quite enlightening on how monopolies work.

However, your representation of the piece and Hetzel's position is that government-granted monopolies such as patent and copyright are what allow the creation of business "monopolies".

This is simply not true. The monopolies discussed on slashdot are mainly Microsoft's monopoly on compatibility and the RIAA's monopoly on distribution. Both of these are maintained by contracts, (sometimes illegal) practices, and even collusion, with patents and copyrights playing only a small role. Copyright simply provides a "default" contract for the exchange of the work, an actual contract would substitute just fine.

Constructing a monopoly on a resource is a simple matter of shrewdly buying up all the sources of that resource. Government has nothing to do with this. The monopolists read Adam Smith too, and know if they can create a monopoly they stand to make a lot of money.

Re:Adam Smith and *Intellectual monopoly*

[NZheretic]

Xylantiel wrote:

However, your representation of the piece and Hetzel's position is that government-granted monopolies such as patent and copyright are what allow the creation of business "monopolies".

Thats why my comment to the article reads

Compainies like Microsoft are sustaining it's dominate position in the markerplace by using a state-constructed and granted monopoly, which gives Microsoft the monopoly over it's protocols, effectively just as restrictive as the East India Trading Company trading zone monopoly of the Orient.

And why Hetzel and Adams stated

Free markets make the formation of monopoly difficult because monopoly requires the adherence of all actual and potential sellers in a market. Self-interest makes achievement of such adherence difficult because each seller has an incentive to undercut the monopoly price in order to increase his share of the market. Monopoly power is increased or made possible if enforced by the government. In the following passage Smith refers to the guilds, or corporations, of his day:
An incorporation...makes the act of the majority binding upon the whole. In a free trade an effectual combination cannot be established but by the unanimous consent of every single trader, and it cannot last longer than every single trader continues of the same mind. The majority of a corporation can enact a bye-law with proper penalties, which will limit the competition more effectually and more durably than any voluntary combination whatever. (p. 129)

These also refer to the "sustaining" of a monopoly.

My Solution

[Lonath]

Compulsory licensing of IP at a rate like this:

Take the lowest bulk licensing rate in the G8 (if they don't license, then the lowest rate per pill or copy of the software or whatever minus the expected costs of producing each copy).

Multiply this by the ratio of country Foo's MIN(mean, median) income over the G8's MAX(mean, median) income.

Then the industrialized nations have a reason to increase their income equality and they have a reason to make poorer nations less poor. And, poorer nations have the chance to make things without being overburdoned by the IP laws of the rich nations.

And for those of you keeping score at home, YES this is effectively giving away IP to poorer nations, but so what? The richer nations should be paying for their own IP within their own economies and they should look at any money gotten from poorer nations only as gravy.

Why does it take AIDS to let go?

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting use of the AIDS drug issue to highlight the possible negative effects of strong IP. The author got one thing on AIDS in Africa wrong when he said: an estimated 30 million people have H.I.V. in Africa. That is just plain wrong and is an indication of the ignorance of the problem. Zambia, Zimbabwe, Botswana, South Africa and Malawi together probably has that amount on their own! And on top of that people are starving right now, so AIDS-deaths are only really starting to impact right now. These people do not have the money to pay IP cost on top of the manufacturing cost of a drug - and usually IP is 95% of that. This huge tragedy prompted the scrapping of IP on those products.

Now we ask ourselves - WHY does it take something of this scale for people to let go of IP? and then only after lots of lobbying, pressure and pleading. I mean W.T.F.!!!

Re:Why does it take AIDS to let go?

[sql*kitten]

That is just plain wrong and is an indication of the ignorance of the problem. Zambia, Zimbabwe, Botswana, South Africa and Malawi together probably has that amount on their own! And on top of that people are starving right now, so AIDS-deaths are only really starting to impact right now.

The people of Africa don't need AIDS drugs. What they need is to start using contraception! The AID epidemic will never be solved until the widespread belief there that using a condom makes you less of a man is eradicated. All the medicine in the world is literally treating the symptoms rather than the cure in Africa.

Of course, what they also need to stop their constant civil wars, and establish democratic governments with universal suffrage. Most African countries like Zimbabwe could easily feed their own people and even be very wealthy from mineral resources, but they can't stop centuries-old tribal conflicts long enough to do it.

Until Africa sorts itself out, the West should not donate another penny - it'll only get siphoned off into a dictator's Swiss account or get spent on arms.

The first industrial spy?

[ProfessorPuke]

For a specific example of how America's development was spurred by IP violations, run a websearch on "Francis Cabot Lowell spy".

Tis said that in ~1810 he memorized the schematics to the automated weaving machine to get around the British prohibition on the export of technical schematics.

Whole cities (some bearing his name) in Massachusetts sprung up around this invention, and it lead to a spread of large scale agriculture in the south and west. Previously textile raw materials had to be exported to England for manufacture into garments, then imported back to the US for sale- and enormous impediment for efficiency and growth.

The development of American factories also changed the face of urban demographics- large quantities of the lower classes were pulled into dense cities that were previously enclaves of the wealthy (and their abundant domestic help). Since the best (most nimble & most managable) factory workers were girls, unmarried single women finally got the opportunity to support themselves financially while mantaining their virtue.

The violation of patents lead to progress like this, which had a much greater impact than breaking copyright and reading Dickins on the cheap.

Re:Same as what the US did to its forests and swam

[Melantha_Bacchae]

shoppa wrote:

> Just like how the US clearcut vast forests for the
> lumber and turned millions of square miles of
> diverse swampland into flat farmland, but we're
> now trying to stop Brazil from doing the same for
> their individual economic gains.

Make that clearcuts and turns. It is still going on today. Didn't you hear that our fearless President's excellent plan to prevent forest fires is to let the logging companies into the national forests to give them a "trim" (cut them all down)? As for the wetlands, I don't see them surviving the West Nile virus hysteria.

But that's nothing to worry about. Our glorious president (being fitted for his halo even as we speak) has championed the great Yucca Mountain Project. Basically, we take a bigger amount of nuclear waste than the largest Godzilla (77,000 tons vs. 66,000 tons), and stuff it all into a sacred mountain we don't even own, a hundred miles from a major city, in an unstable, earthquake prone area. And we hope nothing bad happens in the next 10,000 years (worse case scenario has the thing making life on this planet impossible). I just hope the gods to whom the mountain is sacred and Godzilla, a Shinto deity in a rubber suit, shake that mountain until they shake some sense into somebody.

If you want an example of a country that wisely manages its resources and takes good care of the environment, the USA under the Bush administration is not the place to look, I am very sad to say. :(

Sonora:"New Godzilla reading. He's moving inward toward Tokai."
Shinoda: "The nuclear plants, I knew it.
Sonora: "Afraid so."
Yuki: "Well, that's just lovely. Another Chernobyl."
"Godzilla 2000" (US version dialog)

Search google for 'Tokai criticality 1999'.

Re:Same as what the US did to its forests and swam

[Savage-Rabbit]

That really gets on my nerves too. Take that whole Save the Whales thing. It is easy to be an enviromentalist when you are just trying to forbid a bunch of Scandinavian Rednecks from killing some whales or shooting a few sealinos because they are so cute. It is even easyer to jump all over African or Pakistani tribesmen for shooting mountain sheep. But when it comes to the Germans, French English or Americans paying 3% more for the Kg of meat so an animal can be kept in a pen that is not full of filth and so narrow the animal can not even lie down with the result that it gnaws the skin off its neighbors shoulders crazed with the monotony of its existance that is an outrage. In the idealism of most enviromentalists ends at the point where they have to pay for their ideals in hard or $$$.

Back to the Future Reference

[Corporate Troll]

"Made in Japan"? No wonder it broke! -- Doc

Or at least something like that: I quote out of memory.

Re:Developing nations (the Mauser)

[JThaddeus]

So the Germans stole from the Brits but the Yanks stole from the Germans. I recall that the Germans invented the Mauser bolt-action rifle mechanism, considered the finest in the world at the that time. After the First World War, the US Springfield arsenal was sued for failing to pay royalties on their wartime production of the 1903 Springfield rifle, the standard US Army rifle for WWI. Of course, this was heard in a US court that was not sympathetic to a German claim.

terrorism

[SubtleNuance]

on that topic, of hypocrisy wrt ones past, it brings up another point... more recent world events...

Funny, and they are also (because they were victors (those who control the present control the past)) describe their Revolution is a just and honourable war.

The US Revolution was really a terrorist effort. Disproportional warfare was fought by the Americans, the British, and other power powers of the time had strict rules of engagement. Certain things were "allowed" and "unallowed" during warfare. The Americans, outmatched by the British Forces employed distinctly divergent tactics (raids, ambushes etc) that were -- at the time -- considered barbaric, disgraceful and un-honourable.... Terrorism.

Today, the US, faced with a rebellion; fought against them by a weaker force -- required to employ techniques that change the rules of engagement -- the Americans are now condemning them as barbaric, disgraceful: terrorists.

Am i trying to justify recent acts of violence? No. I just find it INCREDIBLY amazing that a country, that has, to be exceeded by no other -- Chosen to live by the sword -- are so self-righteous and smug wrt the barbarians at the gate. My American neighbours: Witness the fruits of Neo-Imperialism. BTW, anyone who harms another is barbarian - you cannot except yourself from the label just because you tell yourselves so on CNN.

What else do you expect the US to do today wrt IP? We have not progressed beyond State-Politics to the point where international or non-national policies are employed. Presently, the Americans enjoy a great deal of influence in a world's dynamics that they have spent a great deal influencing. "They've made the rules", within the framework of national power (recent history)... America, the present world power is the only one (short of revolution and uprising or a challenge of that power, often bloody - but not absolutely mandatory. The Americans have the opportunity to ADJUST THE SYSTEM OF POWER. To say finally, the present system is broken (look at the war, famine, etc etc) and we will be a part of devising a NEW system.... they shun most all international effort that doesn't serve them explicitly. So, am i surprised that the NYT sees Yankee IP law as hypocrisy? not at all, its more of the same, and not at all unique.

Re:terrorism

[sql*kitten]

The US Revolution was really a terrorist effort. Disproportional warfare was fought by the Americans, the British, and other power powers of the time had strict rules of engagement. Certain things were "allowed" and "unallowed" during warfare. The Americans, outmatched by the British Forces employed distinctly divergent tactics (raids, ambushes etc) that were -- at the time -- considered barbaric, disgraceful and un-honourable.... Terrorism.

As far as I am aware, the American revolutionaries tended to attack military and government targets. Contrast them with modern-day terrorists such as the IRA who focus their attacks primarily on the civilian population. That's the real difference between freedom fighters and terrorists, not their tactics, not their strategy, but their choice of target.

Note that the Taliban/al-Queda were freedom fighters while they only attacked Soviet military forces, but exactly the same people using exactly the same techniques became terrorists when they turned their attention to noncombatants.

Re:terrorism

[fferreres]

If the British would have had 1000x superior weapons, I am pretty sure that either:
a) america would not be an independent nation today. Or...
b) They would have tried to resort to other tactics (like killing british citicens living in the US, or worst).

I do not sympathize with terrorist. Who do they think they are to try an impose will over all others will?

But the problem comes when there should be a "freddom-fighters" war (and some times, they are needed, like the US independence war was needed) and the "freedom-fighters" have the rocks and the tyrants have the nukes.

Re:terrorism

[3Bees]

That's the real difference between freedom fighters and terrorists, not their tactics, not their strategy, but their choice of target.

The terrain might have some impact on this classification as well. It is difficult to target civilian populations successfully when you are fighting over political control of those civilian populations. That is, a war of rebellion will tend not to target it's own members (even in the case, as in the US Revolution when only 1/3 of the populace could have been considered supporters of the cause).

Otherwise, the firebombing of Tokyo in WWII could properly be labeled as a terrorist act. (Hmmm....was the US the first to use Nukes in a terrorist attack at Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Interesting flip of the mind-switch...)

Re:Same as what the US did to its forests and swam

[tshoppa]

I agree with you that

I think they are right. We as mankind have already destroyed more forests than we need.

but agreement as to what the policy should or shouldn't be isn't my issue. My issue is that the US, a country of rich fat people, is trying to tell poor starving people in foreign countries what they cannot do to improve their lives.

The example you give of economic incentives to do the "right thing" is the best route, but I don't see this happening as much as it should.

Get to full report here

[scottme]

At the Commission on Intellectual Copyright website.

You can download the whole thing in PDF format, or browse online.

(btw I submitted a story about this over a month ago)

Developing countries and IP laws

[jcam2]

I'm not sure if developing countries really benefit from not having IP laws in the long run. For example, I know people in Malaysia (a country where almost all software and movies are sold openly by pirates) who tried to produce a home-grown music videotape of songs by local singers.

Guess what happened - pirated immediately copied it, and the original producers ended up with thousands of unsellable tapes! So maybe the US is actually doing these countrys a favour by encouraging them to enforce IP laws.

Re:Developing countries and IP laws

[fferreres]

They can chose to protect selected industries. After all, they can't compete in all fields at the same time.

Also, copying makes you learn a lot.

Disney, I'm looking at YOU

[Thud457]

Disney has a long, glorious histroy of stripmining the public domain:

• Snow White and the Seven Dwarves - stolen
• Pinnochio - stolen
• Cinderella - stolen
• Mary Poppins -stolen
• 20,000 Leagues under the sea - stolen
• Beauty and the Beast - stolen
• Robinhood - stolen
• The Jungle Book - stolen
• Tarzan -I believe they actually pay royalties to the Burroughs estate -- and hate having to do it
• The Little Mermaid - stolen
• Mary Poppins - stolen
• Peter Pan - stolen

The list goes on and on. In fact, it appears that the whole success of the second phase of the Disney corp (The first wave of animated features) rides firmly on the back of the public domain. When they start producing their own stories in the 70's they fail miserably ("Escape from Witch Mountain", "The World's Greatest Athelete", ad nauseum).

It's not so much the re-using the public domain for source material that I have a problem with, it's the bald-faced refusal to let "their" "intellectual property" loose when it's legitimately part of the common public culture. For damn sure now, every westerner knows who Mickey Mouse is, that's why he's worth so much. But he wouldn't be worth so much if everyone didn't know him. That is exactly the same reason why Disney found value in the commons when it was establishing itself as a company. The same reason their first feature was "Snow White".

Re:Disney, I'm looking at YOU

[DEBEDb]

How is this for an argument against
copyright extensions? This data makes
a good case for a letter to elected
officials and newspapers.

Re:Disney, I'm looking at YOU

[macdaddy357]

Walt Disney took from the public domain, but Michael Eisner poo-poos on the very idea of the public domain. The term "intellectual property" was coined by crooks who want to continue robbing us all. Copyrights and patents are a loan from the public domain, to artists and inventors for a limited time to promote the progress of science and the useful arts, they are not property. Check out this lampoon of Michael Eisner.

Re:Disney, I'm looking at YOU

[MadAhab]

Peter Pan wasn't stolen - it was licensed. Disney has permanent rights covering the movie and their depiction of Tinkerbell, but must pay royalties on merchandise... The children's hospital (!!!) which is the beneficiary of said royalties actually had to sue Disney a few years ago (and won about $16M), because Disney was STEALING - i.e. cooking the books to avoid paying royalties. So your basic point is correct: they are thieves.

As a company, they have absolutely zero respect for intellectual property outside their own. At lawyerpoint they will submit to it, and when it benefits them they cry about it like fucking babies, but it's a big, phony, unprincipled act. Next time you hear Eisner whining about piracy, just imagine Mike Tyson complaining about violent behavior.

Re:Same as what the US did to its forests and swam

[TheOneEyedMan]

I this Shoppa is mistaken. Brazil clear-cuts most (approximately 95%) of the forests it cuts down for domestic wood consumption (mostly cooking wood and to farm the land in non-intensive modern farming. They use very little for paper exports.
Sure, we chopped down a huge amount of US forests for paper, furniture, cooking and ship building purposes. But then we got rich. Then this happened:

<i>Today, the volume of wood in U.S. forests is about 25 percent greater than it was 40 years ago. The United States has about the same amount of land covered by trees today as it did 80 years ago. In Vermont, for example, forest cover has more than doubled - from 37 percent in 1850 to 77 percent forest today. In New Hampshire, forest cover was 50 percent in 1850 compared to 87 percent today.
Each year, there are 1.5 billion tree seedlings planted in the United States - that's more than five new trees for each American, and nearly 2,000 for every bear. Forest planting in the United States currently averages about 2.4 million acres per year. </I>

http://www.timberhunt.com/country_report/country _r eport_america/resources.html

AND furthermore...

[Thud457]

I just did a quick check on IMDB, and it appears that the case is even stronger that I had thought. Just looking at Walt Disney's credits, it is striking how much of his early work was taken from the public domain. What he does to poor Alice for "Alice in Wonderland" is amazing -- 47 short subjects based around putting somebody else's character in new stories!!! It will take some work, but I bet that it can be proven that half his work from before 1965 is in some way derivative of the public domain!

Talk about slamming the door in the face of the people behind you! What hypocrisy!

Allowing use of IP by developing nations

[Tobias Lobster]

A scheme where the developing nations were allowed to ignore IP and Copyright law while producing goods to be used only in their own internal markets could be introduced with minimal cost to the IP owners.

The G8 countries wouldn't make significant loss, because the developing nations are generally unable to afford the licensed products anyway. Piracy would be no worse, because the pirates already ignore Copyright and IP law.

Re:Made in... [urban legend alert!]

[cduffy]

Which of course is the reason that the japanese put their electronics industry in the city "Usa", so they could put "Made in Usa" on everything.

Not true! See http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/usa.htm

Looks like the tide has changed

[jeti]

Have a look at was the US did to Enercon.
This is one of the few english language
articles I found:

Farm subsidies

[zenyu]

I used to be one of those people who thought those anti-globalization protesters were just treehugging tenderhearts looking for something to do. Mostly because I'm for free trade on principle. But then I realized how our farm subsidies caused starvation in poorer countries by destroying local food production industries. But our attack on those countries industrial sector with IP laws is part of the same picture.

The IMF orders those same third world countries we dump our subsidized food into on good years to stop helping local farmers buy chickens with something as simple as insurance that if the chick they buy doesn't become a 1 year old chicken it will be replaced. Then the free trade negotiators show up and tell them they can get rid of that 33% tariff on the president's widgets if he will just get rid of that tariff that protects his countries maize production and well prevents his family's competitors from coming out with better widgets by making those patent laws stronger, err in line with American standards.

What does it mean when we complain about a 55 year copyright in Taiwan, which hasn't even been around that long, much less democratic in that time? They are in line with international standards, and have trouble policing such an overlong copyright already, much less the kind of permanent monopoly the US wants them to establish on words.

PS As I understand it the farm subsidies are even worse in the EU, esp France, and this is causing problems with Eastern European countries who wouldn't get the subsidies if they joined the EU. This is from the economist which isn't an unbiased source; is it true?

Re:Farm subsidies

[sql*kitten]

I used to be one of those people who thought those anti-globalization protesters were just treehugging tenderhearts looking for something to do. Mostly because I'm for free trade on principle. But then I realized how our farm subsidies caused starvation in poorer countries by destroying local food production industries.

Ironically, by campaigning against agricultural subsidies and for "fair prices" for the developing world, the anti-globalization movement is agitating in favor of more globalization! That would homogenize prices across the market.

Actually, the whole movement is like that. They are anti-profit, but pro-tax. Anti-monopoly, but pro-government. Anti-capitalist, but pro-freedom.

Really, the corporate CEO and the tree-hugger want the same things, neither of which are in the interests of the government, which does its best to set them against each other.

As I understand it the farm subsidies are even worse in the EU, esp France, and this is causing problems with Eastern European countries who wouldn't get the subsidies if they joined the EU. This is from the economist which isn't an unbiased source; is it true?

Yup, google for "Common Agricultural Policy". You can get the raw figures from the EU website itself, then do the analysis yourself (compare, say, the CAP to the value of the agricultural sector in one of the aspiring members). I won't post a link, I want you to look for yourself so you know that I'm not biased the other way.

Re:Farm subsidies

[Lemmy Caution]

Really, the corporate CEO and the tree-hugger want the same things

That is not true. The corporate CEO wants profits, and will be selective about their globalism as long as it protects profits. They will gladly accept subsidies to save their asses - in steel, the airline industry, agribusiness - while providing lip service to an open market. They are happy to enjoy all the benefits of government intervention to ensure their immediate profitability. And, since corporate money bankrolls the political process, what is in the interests of the government is usually what is in the interests of the CEO. The tree-hugger wants the prosperity of the 3rd world (and may not always be clear how to do that).

Re:Farm subsidies

[sql*kitten]

I don't know where you get the ridiculous idea that the corporate CEO and the "tree hugger" want
the same thing. Because you don't back it up, I don't know where to start critiquing it; its fallacy is self-evident to anyone who has the slightest knowledge of the movement.

Altho' they don't realize it, the "tree huggers" campaigning for "fair trade" are in fact campaigning for the removal of trade barriers and subsidies, which is the definition of globalization and free trade. Yet these same people will turn around and say that free trade is bad. But fair trade and free trade are the same thing, since you can't have "unfair" trade in a free market; buyers and sellers will simply disintermediate you.

And what is exactly the point here?

[the eric conspiracy]

These developing countries are soveriegn nations, after all. They can adopt any internal IP polices they want, much like the US did in it's past. And the fact is that they do. It's up to these countries to decide what is in their own self-interest,

Re:Hypothically Speaking .....

[the eric conspiracy]

What would the world be like if there was no IP to speak of?

We can take an example from England early in the industrial revolution, where machinery was sealed in iron boxes, or even further back in time when Kings would intentional cripple their blacksmiths so their sword making technology couldn't escape.

Everything would be kept as trade secrets, under non-disclosure agreements.

Anyone remember the wheel, the steam engine, + others.

The steam engine was patented, as was pretty much all technology developed after 1700.

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bls te amengine.htm
http://www.gsn.uk.com/watt.html

The fact is that the patent system has been around since the early industrial revolution, and a lot of historians cite the development of the patent system as the root cause of the rapid development of technology in the industrial world over the past 300 years. Anyone proposing that patents be abandonded really needs to consider the early history of the patent system, and what went on before patents were introduced.

J.R.R. Tolkien...

[Storm Damage]

...was rather bothered by American bootleggers, too. But unlike Charles Dickens, he didn't go on a big U.S. tour to lobby for stronger international copyright protection. He and his publisher issued a higher-quality print of his novels, sold them for a reasonable price (a bit higher than the bootlegs, but not much), and made an appeal to his fanbase to boycott the unauthorized version.

The result was, he made a lot of money, and the unauthorized version didn't sell very well.

Neat, huh?

This makes sense, as the superpower we are

[Servo]

The US certainly doesn't want third world countries copying all of our things. Then we can't sell them anything, and they can actually start to COMPETE with us.

To stay rich, you have to keep 'em poor.

Yet another view

[Steve525]

This is a long rant, late in the game, but here goes...

(In my mind) the ideal solution would be to let any nation violate other nation's technology IP, as long as any immediate fruits of that IP remain in that nation. So, if a nation wants to steal IP to make a drug or food to save its own people, fine. If they want to make technology for their own use, fine. If they want to use steal MS word, it might be fine under some circumstances. However, if the software or technology is used to create products that are exported, the nation receiving the products is justified by levying a tax to make up for the stolen IP. The point is to allow the poor nations to be able to afford products. However, it is not unreasonable for the richer nations to protect their economies. (It is simply unreasonable for the richer nations to rape the poorer ones).

You'll note that this conflicts with of free trade. Free trade is a great thing, but it does not actually exist unless all the nations involved level the playing field. (I. e., similar incomes and employee treatment, similar IP rules, similar environmental rules, etc). If the playing field isn't level, then what you call free trade isn't free trade at all. It's free trade of one product (the piece actually sold) without free trade of whatever went into making this product. So, let's just throw away any illusions of free trade between rich and poor nations, and say that the goal should be maximum benefit in trade for all countries. Or, at least, maximum benefit for the poorer nations without adversely affecting the richer ones.

Just one comment about entertainment, (books, movies, etc). I don't think we should care about what happens within a poor nation. Most of the people in such a nation have no money anyway, so if entertainment can't be stolen, they'll just go without.

There are problems with this idea. For one thing, creating import taxes that are fair (and divvying them up to the right people) may be difficult. The idea is to compensate the companies that created the IP. The idea is not to protect companies against cheaper imports. Of course, the biggest issue may be the black market. If you are selling products within a poor nation cheaply, there's a lot of incentive to try to get them to a rich nation, illegally. I'm not going to suggest I know any solutions for these issues, I am just suggesting what I think is a reasonably ethical starting point.

One last comment to the people who think that pharmaceutical companies won't invest in research for drugs which would mostly help third world nations. You are absolutely right, but unfortunately there's not much that can be done about it. The reality is that what you are asking is the company to spend millions of dollars to simply help someone else. Where I come from we call this charity. Don't get me wrong, charity is a great thing, but please recognize what you are asking for. The most we can hope for is that companies will create drugs that will help them, and, as a side benefit, can be used by poor countries.

Re:Who gives a fuck about income equality?

[Lonath]

I expect the mean/median ratios to be about the same for most countries. What I want to avoid is a company or companies pumping a ton of money into a country to a single individual then declaring that the country has enough money that they can join the big boys.

For example, you have a country of 10 million. The companies of the industrialized world give one person in that country (the leader) a salary of 300 billion for a year. They have some contracts that state that this person will buy something for an exhorbitant amount of money and at the end of the year. This contract is backed up by the military. At the end of the year, that person buys this overpriced thing and gives most of the money back, but in the mean time, the country has gone over the limits and has been put back into the companies' coffers.

Perhaps you're right about the min/max aspect. I could settle for a weighted average of the mean/median just so that it's harder to game the system. But the point is still to encourage rich nations to do other things than screwing over poor nations for a quick buck today. I'm also assuming that over the long term, there will be larger markets filled with people with more money which means that companies can make more in the long run. Silly me. I had assumed that it was good to think long-term. Sometimes not treating people like shit for a quick buck today can be a good long-term corporate policy.

Asprin

[swb]

Wasn't the Asprin patent also swiped from Bayer AG in WWI? I seem to recall there were a number of German patents that were basically nullified in WWI.

I don't know how many were related to war materiels specifically and how many were just US businesses looking for a reason to steal something.

Re:Same as what the US did to its forests and swam

[dalassa]

Actually I'm happy to pay more. That's why I don't buy supermarket meat anymore. Don't pigeonhole a group just because you've had some bad expiriences.

Disney in China is doing the same.

[taweili]

In China, Disney's DVD is sold in department stores and music stores for merely US$3, slightly higher than the pirated version of $1.5 dollars.

I think Disney fully regonizes it can't play the Chinese government as it has been with US government. It goes down to play head-to-head with the pirating industry.

Be a bit more cynical

[0x0d0a]

The whole "free enterprise" and whatnot that's supposed to encourage entrepreneurship is nothing more than national propoganda.

the US govt can't see why the rest of the World...takes offense at this

You really think that the US govt can't see? It's the normal US citizenry that can't see, because they get fed piles upon piles of propoganda.

Let's take a look: ::IRAQ::

Gov't line: We need to bomb them to protect the freedoms of the Kuwaiti people

Reality: we have big oil ties with the whole area, and any one country becoming dominant enough to be able to set oil prices or do anything but lie their passively while we import their national resources at dirt-cheap prices would be an economic unpleasantness. Much better to keep them afraid (at least for fifty years, until their oil runs out, at which point we couldn't care less what happens, just like we don't care what happens in places like Africa). ::PANAMA (oldie but goodie)::

Gov't line: We need to suppress rebels and ensure stability, so we're moving in troops.

Reality: We want to build a canal at some really awful terms for Panama. Panama doesn't bite. We fund rebel groups, stir up a bit of unrest, move in troops to "maintain Western Hemisphere stability", and build the canal in the middle of their country, letting Panama know that they can have it back in a hundred years. Quite profitable for us. ::VIETNAM::

Government line: we want to protect democratic rights in Vietnam, so we're helping fund a fair government

Reality: we want a lapdog government on the borders of communist nations to stop the spread of communism. ::BOMBING AFGHANISTAN::

Government line: We're bombing terrorist camps, protecting the human rights of women and others who the Taliban is suppressing.

Reality: There's no big signs on people saying "I am a terrorist." There are a shitload of warlords and private groups and villages. Basically, any faction that doesn't buy into the lapdog government that we're in the process of setting up is portrayed on CNN as a "terrorist group" that we're bombing. Of course, this kills lots of women and children and people that have never had the slightest to do with bombing things in the United States, but we can make up for it by finding the occasional poster person in Afghanistan who is now "freed from the bonds of the veil" and can partake of Western products. ::ISRAEL/PALESTINE::

Government line: we're "facilitating the peace process" because we're concerned about the parties involved. Palestine keeps breaking the peace agreements.

Reality: We didn't care in the least about Israel back in the Six Day War, when Israel was about to get invaded by five or so armies. Why? Because we were convinced that Israel was about to get toasted, and we don't really have any interest in pulling anyone's feet out of the fire. After Israel pulled off the most stunning military feat in the last century and won, we decided that Israel was the person to buddy up to. Both Palestine and Israel have regularly violated the rights of each other's people, and both hate each other's guts -- Palestine is no worse here than Israel -- but because Israel is currently the top dog, we villify Palestine.

It goes on and on. US World War II propoganda is particularly amusing, if you ever look back at it, because it's so ridiculous. Speaking of which: ::WORLD WAR II:

Government line: we need to go after Germany because they're evil and empire-building (in modern times, there is a perception that we got involved to "save the Jews").

Reality: Most people in the US were entirely uninterested in helping any Jews out, which were pretty much seen as job-taking immigrants. Germany's building an empire...but we didn't care when France was doing the same. No, we just happened to have significantly more economic ties to England and France. ::REVOLUTIONARY WAR::

Modern propoganda spin: Our Founding Fathers were noble idealists who were throwing off the shackles of an unjust government.

Reality: Our Founding Fathers were vandals (sorry, that's just what the Boston Tea Party was) who didn't want to pay taxes to pay for the military protection that they had had from Indians for decades. ::CIVIL WAR::

Modern spin: fought to save the country from slavery

Reality: Slavery not primary issue to the majority of people fighting, Union or Confederacy. Union cared mostly about not allowing any states to leave the United States (which would weaken the states as a whole), and the Confederacy was mostly interested in being able to have much more power at a state level. ::THE ENVIRONMENT::

Government line: the US is the most environmentally conscious of nations, putting out extreme efforts to product emissions-free cars, and using as much clout as it can to require developing nations to be clean.

Reality: The US is quite interested in countries being environmentally conscious -- as long as it isn't us. It's in our interests to drive up their costs and down ours. We've been the single major holdout against international antipollution agreements over the past few years. We *do* care about polution that immediately impacts US citizens (dumping chemicals in rivers that go to reseviours), but as for conservation of international resources...we use so many times our share of energy that it's ridiculous. ::BIOLOGICAL WARFARE (this is reaching into speculation, mind you)::

Government line: We stopped offensive germ warfare efforts about twenty years ago. We focus only on defense now.

Reality: Not sure one way or another, but if you remember, when we were proposing the (very sweet for us economically) "food for oil" trade agreement after we arranged for an international embarge of Iraq, and Iraq was holding out, claiming that they had plenty of food resources, there was a very unusual sudden mass outbreak of hoof-and-mouth disease throughout Iraq's cattle. Go figure. ::NUCLEAR WEAPONS::

Government line: The US government wants to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of "rogue states" and terrorists to keep the world safe for everyone.

Reality: The US wants to keep nuclear weapons away from *anyone else*. Our current nuclear weapon reductions are meaningless -- both Russia and us have easily enough to destroy the other, even enough to overwhelm antimissile defenses. We just ignore allies that have nukes. Yet a nuclear weapon is just about the only meaningful resistance a country can put up in case of a US attack -- the US doesn't want any resistance to be possible. We have overwhelming conventional force, and we want things to stay that way. ::MILITARY STRUCTURE::

Government line: "Defense spending". Our military is for "defense".

Reality: And yet, over the last fourty years, almost all our military spending has gone into making our military faster, lighter, and easier to move around the world via ships in battle groups. Why? Not cost effective at all for defense -- we can defend our shores just fine traditional approaches -- but amazingly good at bombardment and intimidation of countries that we aren't getting along with. ::AL QAEDA::

Government line: Al Queda is a bunch of cowards who can't take an honest fight who went after innocent people.

Reality: Assuming bin Laden himself was behind Sept. 11, he's one of the most successful military tacticians in the last hundred years. Think about it. He has a force that is outgunned, and outmanned. The people he's working with, Afghanis, have been used by the US governent as disposable tools against US enemies and then dropped when they were no longer useful (much like the Kurds, the Cuban revolutionaries at the Bay of Pigs). The understandably feel some resentment. Their religion (at least the political side of said religion) has been rather oppressed and attacked by Western culture that seems quite evil to them (loss of emphasis on the family, sexual promiscuity, etc). Most of the eastern countries being exploited for their oil are Islamic, and the US has had quite a hand in dirty work in the region. So what does he do, with no tanks, airplanes, or anything else? He uses our own airplanes against us. Who does he attack? Not the US soldiers, the grunts who are being paid to attack other countries, but against the people who are directly responsible for the decisions that caused so much damage to his country and people -- US politicians (the White House), the overbearing US military (the Pentagon), and the powerful corporations that have been encouraging said oil exploitation (rich suits in the World Trade Center).

The US government is just as guilty as the Soviets, the Chinese, and anyone else in putting out bogus propoganda. It's more successful because people are happy and rich. If you think that people that bought into Soviet or North Korean propoganda must have been incredibly stupid ...well, look no further than right here at home.

Now, that doesn't mean that US propoganda is *bad* for us. US citizens enjoy an extremely high standard of living, rights (even in other countries) to ignore local laws that are simply unheard of (Clinton can get a vandal off in Singapore from being punished for his crimes, but if Taiwan tried to get someone off for copyright infringement, I doubt they'd have any success). Most of this comes, counter to said propoganda, not from "rights" or the long-dead "American self-sufficiency" or anything along those lines. It's because we're happy to use our military power to whack people if it gives us an economic benefit. You get to live the good life because there are people in our government who are willing to do the dirty, unethical work that keeps you enjoying your life.

What let most of our modern economy be built? Roads and fuel. Centralization of manufacturing and specialization came directly from those. Why do we get our oil so much cheaper than people in any other countries? Because we club the crap out of anyone that opposes us exporting their oil at dirt-cheap prices. We happily put tariffs up against countries importing, but use every last bit of our clout to prevent countries from taxing US imports. And it's been enormously successful over the past two centuries, making us the dominant economic power, and making us extremely successful.

No, I'm not arguing that this should stop. I'd just like to see that people be aware of what we're doing, and make a conscious decision to do what they're doing. Being the bully on the block can be pretty pleasant, but something feels vaguely wrong about being the bully on the block and thinking that you're the saint.

Re:Be a bit more cynical

[0x0d0a]

the following things had nothing to do with it:

The Quebec act, which prevented expansion west of the Appalachians

Part of the protection from Indians I mentioned. The colonists had been running into trouble with natives that they had ripped off in land deals. The British, in an attempt to stop raids and war, had tried to finally make a land agreement that wouldn't be violated, and let the Indians have a chunk of land.

Mercantilist trade barriers

Which came up *after* the colonists refused to pay for their military protection in order to punish them for not paying.

The fact that the windfall made by the British was much more than the cost they incurred guarding the place

I honestly don't know whether this is true, though it might be. The way they made money, however, was through taxes...

the Confederate side is not

All I really needed for my point was that the Union not to be primarily fighting against slavery, but I'll see if I can still argue this. It's true that slavery was an underlying cause of many of the Confederacy's actions, but I believe that there were other issues quite aside from that.

What government line are you listening to?

I'm not trying to sum up the complete position, just the bits that are frusteratingly and egregiously wrong or distorted. I've heard at many times justification of bombing "terrorist camps" and seen the human rights issued played up quite a bit.

However, the Taliban and Al Qaeda is not running the place anymore. And that is a Good Thing

Wow..someone else uses the "Good Thing" capitalization. I love that. :-)

Anyway, Al Qaeda was hardly running the country. The worst you can claim is that the Taliban (which *was* running the country) wouldn't hand them over to us. And given that bin Laden has been a major figure to the fighters in that country in their decades long struggle against Soviet occupation...it'd be like us handing over George Washington.

That wasn't the Government line, never was. The Government line was that if they conquered France and England, soon they will be trying to conquer us.

Yes. Empire-building, as I wrote in my post.

Re:Be a bit more cynical

[0x0d0a]

Afghanastan: Your first two sentences about not knowing who is a terrorist, and it's all warlords and villages is correct. But then you went off about the US killing innocent people, etc, and that's bunk.

Why are they not innocent? We are killing many people in Afghanistan who have nothing whatsoever to do with September 11th. I mean, given the number of weapons floating around in Afghanistan, I suspect that a lot of them might have killed *someone* at some point, but it wasn't brokers in NYC...as a matter of fact, given the region, it was much more likely to be US-encouraged violence against Soviet soldiers.

But lets face it, Afghanastan is a mess. Any new government, no matter how benign, will end up causing some bloodshed. There are just too many warlords who don't want to loose power. I'm not sure what the solution is, or if Karzai will succede. But I honestly believe that he has his people's best interest at heart. Getting him into power should be a good thing for Afghanastan, and it was the right thing for the US to do. What I fear now is that the US will leave him to languish as he faces the difficult job of running such a messed up country.

Maybe. But dammit, Bush is supposed to be avoiding more terrorism. And in the past we've fostered a tremendous amount of dislike by charging into countries and then setting up (and providing muscle to keep in power) puppet governments. Iran. Saudi Arabia probably wouldn't keep the present regime if we exited the region.

So you kill a lot of people in a country, occupy it, and set up a new government for it? I mean, if that isn't a *recipe* for generating lots more terrorists, I can't imagine what is. What if *you* lived in some country, and a huge, powerful nation came in, bombed your house and killed your parents, wiped out the people that you consider your religious leaders, then occupied your country and set up a notoriously corrupt government (this *could* end up being a clean one, but it'd be a first for US-set-up governments). What are you going to do? I can't think of a better way to get people who are willing to die to hurt the country that's commiting such atrocities.

And now we have to put up with a whole generation of people willing to die to hurt the US. At least 50 years of problems generated by Bush's ("They're friends with someone who hit us, so let's clobber them because it feels good.") Insane.

Stupid Slashdot filters

[0x0d0a]

Those ::HEADER:: lines should each be on their own line. Slashcode likes randomly stripping lines to make things "more concise". Dammit.

Re:Same as what the US did to its forests and swam

[Savage-Rabbit]

I am not pigholing anyone. I shell out more money myself since I always buy products with an ecostamp. I have just seen too many European and American armchair enviromentalists shoulder their picket signs and merrily see to it that a couple of thousand people somewhere in Scandinavia, Greenland, Canada or Africa have to go witout a job to pacify their own guilty consience; only to see these same so called enviromentalists discrard their high and lofty ideals as soon as it ist THEY who have to pay more for their food or suffer in some way. For every person like us who is willing to pay more for Enviromentally friendly products there are 10 people whos concern for the enviroment ends at the clasp of their own wallet. Case in point the German "Green" party who has changed its tune considerably since the came into the government

Another thing I watched with a certain amount of sarcastic amusement was for example Greenpeace and its save the whales campaign. They went after Little Iceland who was just about the only country in the world to issue quotas on Whaling ships based on Scientific studys of population size. At the same time Greenpeace ignored large Pirate fleets of whalers who unlike the Icelanders and the Norwegians were killing large numbers of endangered species completely without control including animals that were had not even reached reproductive age. In Norway and Iceland you can actually end up doing hard time if you get cought catching fish under reproductive age. Examples of this sort of lynchmob behavior among enviromentalist groups are Legion, example of some or the other misguided Enviromentalist group going after somebody without even bothering to check their facts and sometimes and this includes Greenpeace, falsifying and fabricting evidence if they can't find any. Sadly enough the people who really know what they are talking about in matters enviroment regularly get shouted down by the Industrial lobby as well as the Fundamentalist Eviromentalists like Greenpeace.

Re:Made in... [urban legend alert!]

[aminorex]

Pardon me, but Snopes is full of bull.
Many of their articles are pure political spin
pieces. All of them are supercilious tripe, even
when they manage to get the facts right, but
worse they go on to derive invalid conclusions
from their "facts", in order to refute their
straw-man "legends".

Besides which, there was nothing -- nada -- zip --
zilch -- about the post to which you respond to
give it the credibility which would merit a
refutation, thus making your response a tendentious
pedantry up with which I cannot put.

Be even more cynical

[0x0d0a]

Well, that last post seemed to go over unexpectedly well, so lets see how Slashdotters react to an expose of *Slashdot* propoganda. :-)

::MUSIC PROPOGANDA::

The Slashdot line: We want to protect starving artists who are being exploited by the RIAA.

Reality: Almost everyone on Slashdot pushing this has vague notions of "unlimited free music" available, without them having to put any resources into production of future music. As for people that claim (and frequently have rationalized their behavior to the point of believing it) that their goals really *are* to defend the artist rather than get free music...I ask, how many of you were crusading against the recording industry's exploitation of the artist *before Napster was around*?

::WINDOWS SECURITY::

The Slashdot line: Windows is highly insecure. Anyone using it is asking to get broken in to. Linux/Unix is much better.

Reality: Windows and other Microsoft products have had security holes, the same as Unix/Linux has. For every egregious MS bug (active content), there's an equally egregious Unix/Linux bug (massive numbers of buffer overflows in ssh, which is frequently deployed at secure sites and is relied upon to be solid). For every MS program with a miserable security history that runs with administrative permissions (IIS), there's a Unix program that does the same (sendmail).

::H1B WORK VISAS::

Slashdot line: H1Bs exploit foreign workers by bringing them to come to the United States and then work at lower wages than other US workers. H1Bs produce workers that produce code of abysmal quality. H1Bs should be eliminated to protect the workers that are being exploited. The US economy would be better (by employing more US workers) if we got rid of the H1Bs.

Reality: H1Bs let people get into the country. Workers coming to the US are quite happy to work at lower wages for a period of time if it means they get their foot in the door and can get permanent residency. People aren't being forced to take H1Bs -- they want them! They work at lower wages than US workers because US tech wages are astronomical compared to the amount of effort required to gain the skillset necessary to do the job. Many H1B workers are *very* skilled, more so than their US counterparts. If a company is going to go all the way over to another country *and* sponsor a worker, it is damn well going to do an even more stringent examination of the worker's competence than it would a domestic worker. Eliminating H1Bs wouldn't make any H1B-users happy at all -- they *choose* to come to the United States and work at 90% the normal US wage because it beats the snot out of working at 10% the normal US wage in a foreign country. As for the US economy being better by helping domestic workers...that's simply not true. What US workers want is guaranteed jobs (or at least jobs with a heavy edge given them in hiring). Costs of paying US workers more is then passed down to the consumer. So people in favor of labor protectionism are asking the entire United States to subsidize their highly-paid lifestyle when there's a more efficient alternative. Plus, it's easy to move software development to another country -- everyone speaks C++, work is fairly independent, and collaboration (and tools for collaboration) are pretty good and easy. If the US does labor protection, in the long term, companies will either move to other countries or go out of business, beaten by companies in countries with cheaper workers. That's *bad* for the economy.

::SWEATSHOPS::

Slashdot line: Sweatshops are evil. They exploit the foreign worker. They should be eliminated.

Reality: This is mostly AFL/CIO-initiated propoganda. Sweatshops are hiring foreign workers at low prices because that's the only way they can be competitive. If you want to pay $50 more for your hard drive, go for it...but competition on price is what has driven down wages. Eliminating sweatshops, as some have proposed, wouldn't do anything to help the foreign worker -- they're willing to work at inhumanly low rates because that's the only way they can get enough for food. Wipe the sweatshops out, and they simply starve. The only people to benefit are US unskilled labor, which gets a short term boost in hiring. This is much the same as the H1B item mentioned above.

::DRUG LEGALIZATION::

Slashdot line: Drug legalization is good because I'm concerned about the human rights of the nonviolent offenders that are put in jail. The Constitution doesn't give the federal government the right to ban drugs.

Reality: Most people taking this view are interested in smoking up, not primarily concerned about potential constitutional violations. Why? I don't see complaints of constitutional violations (libertarian types aside), despite the fact that most of the Bill of Rights is pretty much ignored by the federal government (I remember doing a breakdown at one point of how many are actually strictly followed...something like two of the amendments.)

Re:Be even more cynical

[Sentry21]

::SWEATSHOPS::

Slashdot line: Sweatshops are evil. They exploit the foreign worker. They should be eliminated.

Reality: This is mostly AFL/CIO-initiated propoganda. Sweatshops are hiring foreign workers at low prices because that's the only way they can be competitive. If you want to pay $50 more for your hard drive, go for it...but competition on price is what has driven down wages. Eliminating sweatshops, as some have proposed, wouldn't do anything to help the foreign worker -- they're willing to work at inhumanly low rates because that's the only way they can get enough for food. Wipe the sweatshops out, and they simply starve. The only people to benefit are US unskilled labor, which gets a short term boost in hiring. This is much the same as the H1B item mentioned above.

Having just suffered through a third of a semester of junk on child labour and the like, I'd like to point out some points that are often overlooked.

First of all, sweatshops aren't necessarily just a matter of paying people less. In many cases, you can't just leave and not get paid - they'll have you killed. You don't get any sort of humane treatment (lunch breaks, bathroom breaks, holidays, paid or unpaid, and sometimes even a 7 day work week), you don't get paid well, even factoring in cheaper, smaller economies. Most of the time, it's a large multinational corporation that rakes in billions of dollars before taxes, it usually doesn't pay taxes anyway because of legal loopholes, and the only reason they'd have to raise prices is to keep up huge profits and huge CEO benefits. And besides, can anyone possibly say that e.g. SCSI hard drive prices aren't already artifically inflated?

On a side note, I've found that the drop in price of 'consumer electronics' has, by and large, resulted in most people buying absolute crap, and the most important feature being a low price (which is fine) - people don't understand that with current technology, you can't get quality for cheap. Would you rely on an $800 car? Chances are not, but people go on and on about how you can get a $300 PC, yet for a good system, you pay for it. When you buy cheap goods, it's not because they've cut back wages in some starving village in Indonesia - they never offered wages high enough that they could cut back from in the first place - rather, it's because they're pawning cheap crap off on you.

--Dan

Re:Made in... [urban legend alert!]

[kesuki]

In this case, snopes is right, Japan Has never imported anything under "made in USA." However, there ARE some small commonweaths and countries that can import as Made in USA or Made in US. (the latter more prevalent, but ignored in snopes article.) Contrary to some people's belief the United States of America does not OWN international rights to the letters US or USA, and some countries are legally capable of importing goods into the US as 'made in US' or made in 'USA' Japan, however Is Not one of those countries. Also, remember that the initials are generally produced from the native toung's native spelling, not the english translation. So while you may be used to looking a a map full of 'english' spelling those don't correlate to many countries abbreviations.

Another way to look at it

[enjo13]

America in the 19th century was able to do this because they had very little in the way of dependency on foreign nations. The British cried bloody murder while Americans pirated books... but they where powerless to do anything about it. America didn't ask for a loan, protection, or anything else..

At the end of the day, America is not going to invade another country over music piracy. They may decide not to trade with them, but those countries are free to make their own laws. Where this gets sticky is when those countries want to borrow American money and particpate in the American economy, but don't want to play by American rules. They can simply do what America did, and play by their own rules but accept the economic repurcussions of it. They might just end up in the same spot America is 100 years down the road.

Prove it.

[Inoshiro]

Snopes is the calm voice of reason that people seem to ignore, in HTML form. People who are way too gullible for their own good will believe practically anything told to them by "trusted friends" (who, in turn heard it from "another friend"), even if it contradicts logic, facts, and everything else. They sum it all up in an easy-to-read format.

As for his/her post not being a response, I'd say you're wrong. It was a response to the fact that this person was repeating a lie like it was a fact. Stopping the spread of lies, and general enlightenment, is something that everyone in society should try to do. By ending stupidmemes like the girl who masturbated with a lobster dieing with baby-lobsters in a sensitive place, you make the society a better place to be.

Re:Prove it.

[aminorex]

Personally, I'd rather live in a society rich with
mythology and legend than in a sterile cube.

Oh, and there *is* a town in Japan named Usa which
does have electronics manufacturing facilities.
Read the snopes link. The *only* factual complaint
against the legend in this instance was due to the
way they phrased it, i.e. that the name of the town
was *changed* to Usa after World War II. The rest
of the snopes article is interpretation,
speculation, and spin.

Re:Prove it.

[Inoshiro]

Rich with mythology, or rich with widely-believed lies?

Don't shave, your hair will grow faster!

I'm aware of Usa (pronouced OO-sah). If you read their pages, you'll see they even include references at the end of their pages. Their credibility is firmly established in my mind, yours is not.

Re:Prove it.

[cduffy]

Certainly, Usa exists -- but primary to the claim is that goods imported from there are falsely stamped as to indicate that they are made within the United States of America. This is incorrect.

Please quote some of this "interpretation" and "speculation" of which you speak -- reading the same article, I see precious little of it.

Having legends is fine, so long as distinction is made between legend and reality. This is particularly true in cases where (like this one) false legends, if believed to be literally true, could result in an individual or group falsely defamed.

Thank God...

[dacarr]

...for the first amendment.

disagree in two important facets

[GunFodder]

1. A CEO does not respect the environment if it stands in the way of profit. You don't see McDonalds campaigning to save the Amazon rainforest since it is being destroyed by Brazilian ranchers providing them with cheap beef.

2. A CEO demands military intervention if international interests are threatened. Nothing scares a multinational corporation more than a socialist uprising that limits their supply of cheap labor and/or raw materials. Or defaults on large loans.

Not too many tree-huggers promote military interventionism or discourage enironmental protection.

Re:which /.?

[0x0d0a]

Common Slashdot sentiments.

Just because Slashdot readers have a variety of opinions doesn't mean that there aren't some overarching feelings. Linux is good. MS is bad. LEGOs are cool. H1Bs are bad.

totally misinformed

[GunFodder]

The US doesn't even come close to being self sufficient in oil, so I doubt we are involved in the Middle East just for our allies.

From what I've read and seen in the world press most of the world wants the US to mind their own business.

And finally the real issue is that the US has made the rest of the world their business. The American economy would collapse if we stopped importing raw materials and exporting trade goods. Isolationism is an anachronism in this era of cheap shipping and cheaper foreign labor. So the US will continue to involve itself around the world not because the world sees the US as their knight in shining armor but because Coca-Cola is having labor problems or Chevron might have to pay an extra pennie per barrel of oil.

But thanks for flashback to 1950. Sometimes it is important to remember where we came from if we want to move ahead.

Re:Developing nations (the Mauser)

[mgblst]

I believe that the US stole the magnetic tape, originally created by BASF from the germans after the 2nd world war...

Re:Not a real troll, so biting:

[0x0d0a]

Yes, the RIAA is exploiting artists.

I didn't claim they weren't. I am claiming that this fact is not the real reason that most Slashdotters are up in arms about music distribution. Check the post...as I said, how many people that suddenly took up the cause were crusading against the RIAA's exploitation of the artist before Napster was around?

ISS is enabled by default on most installation of win2k

It hasn't been installed by default on any of the installations of W2k Pro *I've* done in the last month. (And how is it enabled "by default on most"?)

If you think this is propaganda think again, in some sweatshops people have to work 12h+ in a row with no break whatsoever, even toilet breaks.

Yes, I know. Read my post -- that wasn't my objection. My point is that if you buy from companies that do US-based production instead of those that have foreign sweatshops, instead of the worker "working inhuman hours" which they were *willingly*, (though probably not *happily*) working, you simply take away what meager source of income they have and give it to some (relatively) wealthy citizen of the US.