The Pirate Bay is Here to Stay?

vitaly.friedman wrote to mention a Wired article about The Pirate Bay, a file-sharing crewe out of Sweden that thumbs its nose at the MPAA just for kicks and has yet to be shut down. From the article: "The Pirate Bay's legal adviser, law student Mikael Viborg, said the site receives 1,000 to 2,000 HTTP requests per second on each of its four servers. That's bad news for the content industries, which have fired off letter after menacing letter to the site, only to see their threats posted on The Pirate Bay, together with mocking replies. Viborg said that no one has successfully indicted The Pirate Bay or sued its operators in Swedish courts. Attorneys for DreamWorks and Warner Bros., two companies among those that have issued take-down demands to the site, did not return calls for comment."

Comments

(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[dada21]

I always love when people think that writing or calling their elected official makes a hill of beans of difference. For me, all it generally did was give me a nice elated feeling when I received a signed letter in the mail thanking me for my opinion, and then writing a paragraph about why their decisions would never change.

I've lately become a firm believer in wasting the time of the company that has used the power of government against me -- in this case, the content and distribution cartels (RIAA, MPAA). Instead of calling your elected official, call the companies themselves and keep moving up the ladder with the fact that you have a general complaint about their products. Don't accept the underlings and don't tell them exactly what it is you're mad about. If that doesn't work, call up their sales department and work your way up the ladder there requesting information about their services.

The slashdot effect is great on the Internet, but it is even more powerful on the phones. Each and every server request you make costs any one company very little. Each and every phone call you make gets heard, at least in the bottom line.

I'm not telling people to do anything illegal -- don't hassle, don't spam, don't swear, don't threaten -- just call. Call and tell them you don't appreciate their actions, you don't appreciate their products, and you don't appreciate their lobbying to creatre a more powerful Congress.

I know my phone calls don't make a difference -- yet. But over time, as more people realize that voting with their dollars and voting with how they spend their time, we'll see change being made through a free market of motivations.

To stay a bit on topic: I recently spent quite a bit of time researching the Swedes, and I'm very surprised at the amounts of freedoms they had in a country that has typically been considered socialist. I think they'd be a dream country for most Progressives (which means it would be a nightmare for me), but it surprises me how many rights they still retain that we gave up in the US a long, long time ago. The freedom to do what you want with products you physically own is a great freedom, in fact I believe it is the basis for freedom. The freedom to do what you want with your labor and your mind is included in that freedom, and that is why I am against intellectual property rights in every way.

Go TPB!

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[spyrochaete]

Well said! You are right on the money about the freedom to do what you wish with the products you buy. Funny how such a socialist country retains so many freedoms, yet ironically the USA moves closer and closer to the communist ideal of state-owned property.

For those too shy to call, even a posted letter speaks decibels louder than an email or online petition. It might not hurt to speak to your elected official just the same. If and when enough noise is made on both fronts they will intersect at some point and the government will tihnk to itself "hey, I've heard this issue before".

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[MikeBabcock]

You made a great comment that reminds me of something I've always been annoyed by as a canadian -- socialism is not contrary to freedom. Socialism is in fact designed to be freedom, freedom from poverty and medical expenses as well as personal freedom.

Socialism is simply contrary to pure capitalism, which obviously doesn't work (see neighbour, USA). Plenty of imprisonned people with no access to lawyers, lots of people living in complete poverty in major centers, no easy access to medical services for those without insurance, no easy access to pharmeceuticals to those not in the middle and high income brackets.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[PFI_Optix]

The freedom to do what you want with products you physically own is a great freedom

I really dislike this sentiment.

You physically own a CD. The contents of that CD, you simply own the right to listen to them. Where the RIAA is making a mistake is they are trying to limit your ability to listen to the music with DRM and copy protection, but that's another long rambling post for another time. The music is NOT yours to distribute. Other people invested large amounts of time, money, and resources into recording and producing the music that you paid for...they are the ones who paid for it, they are the ones who have a right to distribute it.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[rolfwind]

I recently spent quite a bit of time researching the Swedes, and I'm very surprised at the amounts of freedoms they had in a country that has typically been considered socialist.

Please expound on the specific freedoms. Hearing from friends - Sweden/Finland/Norway in particular of the European countries are known for being very expensive - mostly stemming from Socialism (but then, in countries without healthcare for the people, is it any cheaper just because you pay a "friendly" corp instead of a government? Most likely not.)

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[PFI_Optix]

Something I forgot:

You "physically own" a CD, and you can do whatever you want with that physical object. You can put it in a player, you can give it to a friend, you can smash it with a hammer. You can even put it in a computer and make digital copies of it. But once you make copies of those digital copies and distribute them to other people, you aren't dealing with your physical property at all, are you?

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Dachannien]

Actually, writing or calling your Congressperson can be more informative than you're giving it credit for.

• If your representative has already made up his or her mind, you can tell from the response letter, and then you can plan to vote against them at the next election.
• If they're keeping an open mind, you can usually tell from their noncommittal response, and thus you'll know that continued pressure may have a positive effect.
• If they (or their office) are completely clueless, or the issue you're concerned about isn't really on their radar, their seemingly off-topic response will clue you in.

For example, my US Representative here in Cleveland, Ohio, is Stephanie Tubbs Jones. She typically puts most of her emphasis into social programs and other issues that the Congressional Black Caucus tends to work on. Not really much of a standard bearer when it comes to technology issues. But when I sent her office an e-mail opposing the Broadcast Flag a while back, the response I got wasn't the usual anti-piracy line that comes from misunderstanding the issue. That tells me that, while the letter didn't indicate a strong position on the issue, the broadcast flag, digital TV, and other consumer issues are gaining in importance with her.

Admittedly, when it comes to action in Congress, the will of the people often takes a back seat to partisan political wrangling, especially for Congresspeople with, er, higher political aspirations. But if you stay cynical and don't do anything at all, don't be surprised when they don't take your opinion into account.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Anonymous Coward]

You made a great comment that reminds me of something I've always been annoyed by as a canadian -- socialism is not contrary to freedom. Socialism is in fact designed to be freedom, freedom from poverty and medical expenses as well as personal freedom.
Huh? How about freedom to keep what I earn and use it to pay for my own medical insurance of my choice? Freedom to not run across the border to have to use a doctor of my choice? Freedom to not be poor through the sweat of my brow? My country's a great one, but it's not all roses here.

Socialism is simply contrary to pure capitalism, which obviously doesn't work (see neighbour, USA). Plenty of imprisonned people with no access to lawyers, lots of people living in complete poverty in major centers, no easy access to medical services for those without insurance, no easy access to pharmeceuticals to those not in the middle and high income brackets.
They have problems, but it's not as grave as the world news would have one believe. They're breaking apart as they become more and more like us! Thanks God we have a good, powerful neighbor.

Look, I love my country, and we have certain "advantages," but they're heavily offset by the loss of real freedom.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Alex P Keaton in da]

I just have two points to make:
One, congress isn't going to, in my opinion, swing into action on DRM issues. The reasons may be many, but my guess is because the people who actually vote don't care. Look who votes in the U.S. It is old people. It is a generalization, but would say that to the average 50-60-70-80 year old, intellectual propertyis not a big issue. 20 somethings and other young people don't vote in any kind of appreciable number. So you are going to see prescription drugs and prune farming subsidies as big issues until generation x and y decide to vote.
Two, you say calling your congressman doesn't help? Sure it does. Not if you call (unless you are a big employer or donor), but if you are one of many callers. Politics aside- every congressman has been saying that their phones have been ringing off the hook re the Dubai ports deal. Congressman can't ignore their constituancy- If their phone rings all day, they will have to do something, or be voted out.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Lumpy]

Slashdotting phones and fax machines are extremely useful. It got many of hacker out of jail really early. It also recently helped release a man in california that was arrested for growing pot that he used medically to control his rare cancer. he fled to canada to seek asylum and canada being the United States good lap-dog sent him right back to awaiting arms of DEA officers and directly to jail.

He recently was released because of non-stop phone calls to the jail, judge, and municipality causing their phones and fax machines to be 100% useless.

I do not have any links to the above. I listened to it on several radio talk shows at the beginning of this year.

but shashdotting a companies phones and faxes for days will certianly get their attention as well as action.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Anonymous Coward]

If the CD is protected by DRM, you can't legally circumvent that, so you can't even legally make a digital dump of the CD to start with.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[fossa]

...they are the ones who paid for it, they are the ones who have a right to distribute it.

Only as far as society decides to grant (which, at this point, is quite far, causing much deteriment in my opinion).

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[mobiux]

I don't think it's state-owned property, the state allows the corporations to retain ownership and just rent/lease it out to people as they see fit.

It's more of a rentocracy than anything.

They don't want to sell you a product, they want to sell you a service.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Draek]

careful with that... murder could be said that it's "freedom from life"...

fact is, socialism and capitalism are just two different solution for the same problem, and there are many examples of failed socialist and capitalist societies, as there are examples of successful socialist and capitalist societies... besides, USA is *so* far from the capitalist ideal that it shouldn't be an example of either...

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Anonymous Coward]

You should be thanking us and appreciating the virtues of our system, since we are the ones spending all the money to develop the drugs that you get for cheap. Your medical system wouldn't work if the American consumer wasn't subsidising that research.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[dada21]

I believe (and I write often about) that Intellectual Property is nothing more than telling people what they are not allowed to do with their own labor on their own property. Imagine if lawn mowing was protected by copyright or a patent. Crazy? Yet I can't mimic the actions of others on my own property? Try singing Happy Birthday to a group of people -- its illegal.

I don't believe you can criminalize the non-violent actions of consenting adults while on their own property. I don't believe you can criminalize the copying of data as long as you're the one doing the labor.

Labor is only useful and marketable as a NOW situation. When you pay someone for their labor, you either get an immediate product (say a concert or a theater production or a lawn mowed) or you get the knowledge to do the labor yourself.

To use government to stop me or anyone else from mimicing others is criminal, in my mind. I don't believe in the right to force others to pay you residual income on past work.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[TooMuchEspressoGuy]

You obviously don't understand that the USA isn't a capitalist state. We're a "mixed economy," meaning, essentially, crony capitalism. In a real capitalist economy, the government wouldn't have the power to hand out subsidies, prevent unions from counterbalancing the power of corporations, and legislate things like copyrights. So, while you see it as capitalism that's ruining America, I see it as the elements of socialism that have been introduced into our capitalism.

As for the rest of your post, classic Orwellian statement.

"War is peace. Ignorance is strength. Having to give tons of the money that you legally earned and rightfully deserve to social programs you may not even use is freedom."

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't really see how you're prevented from visiting any doctor you please. At least in Montreal, I can go to any damn doctor I please. I'm moderately sure that most other provinces work similarly.

In fact, I think most American insurance companies force you to stick to a particular HMO - this seems like an even worse loss of freedom, since you're forced to select a doctor not from what you decide is the best option, but from the pool that your insurance company is willing to pay for.

Admittedly, you give up one freedom - the freedom to use your pay as you please - but you also gain the freedom to visit any hospital, anywhere in the country, and know that you can get health care and you won't go bankrupt for it.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Alex P Keaton in da]

Wow- I live in NE Ohio and travel to Canada often. I love Canada, and love many Canadian people that I have met.
Socialism is simply contrary to pure capitalism, which obviously doesn't work (see neighbour, USA). Plenty of imprisonned people with no access to lawyers, lots of people living in complete poverty in major centers, no easy access to medical services for those without insurance, no easy access to pharmeceuticals to those not in the middle and high income brackets.
The U.S. is not pure capitalism, we have many, many regulations on business, but that is beside the point.
I will push aside the temptation I feel to denigrate Canada's school systems based on your spelling errors and lack of knowledge about economics and government. The vast majority of Canadians that I am lucky enough to know are well educated and well informed.
But how can you say capitalism doesn't work? Are you kidding? Do you know anything about economics? (The last is a rhetorical question- the answer clearly is no).
Who are the imprisoned people with no access to lawyers?
People in poverty? Look at the studies- the average family in poverty has a color tv and other ammenities. The poorest people in the U.S. live better than 99% of the people in some countries.
No easy access to medical services? Where did you get that from? Anyone in the U.S. can walk into a hospital, and they will be treated. In fact, illegal aliens have to be treated, and the hospital can't ask about immigration status.
Have you ever been to the U.S.? Where are you getting your facts?

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Anonymous Coward]

What? Sure, if you count Viagra. No one develops cancer drugs in the USA because there's no money in it.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[ProudClod]

The communist ideal isn't state owned property - it's the dissolution of the state.

It's the transfer between private property and the shared ownership almost inevitable leads to that problem - but it's certainly not the 'ideal'.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[ProudClod]

On the contrary, I think Orwell would be disgusted by the total disregard for fellow humanity that you are suggesting is 'right'.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Scarblac]

You physically own a CD. The contents of that CD, you simply own the right to listen to them. [...] Other people invested large amounts of time, money, and resources into recording and producing the music that you paid for...they are the ones who paid for it, they are the ones who have a right to distribute it.

That is true, they do have that right - but not because they were the ones who paid for it (after all, if I manufacture chairs, pay for the cost, then sell them, I don't have that right), or because it's some sort of natural human right. They have that right because the people decided to make a copyright law, that gives them that right for a limited time. It was a good idea at the time, but, if the people decide that the balance has now gone too far towards the music industry, the laws can be changed and the "right" will be gone.

And it is a weird right - after all, as the grandparent says, something you physically own is usually yours to do with as you please. That's what ownership means, and it's a rather more fundamental right than copyright.

The problem is that the industry is trying to have it both ways. Act as if they're selling a single physical thing, then restrict your use by saying you only bought a license.

I'd be fine with buying a license for music - I'd pay for the license to listen to a song. If that means I can replace a scratched CD for a fee equal to the cost of pressing it; if I could redownload a song whenever I wanted, say if I accidentally deleted it; if I could make personal copies to listen to it on whatever gadget I may own. That'd be fair - I paid for the right to listen to it, so I can listen to it.

The problem is that the industry is trying to have it both ways.

If it's a license I bought, why did I have to buy the CD for the full price when I already owned the LP?

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[David Webb]

Actually I think the U.S. is moving towards more of a facist govenment like what was institited in Germancy crica 1930s and '40s.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's funny. In Scandinavia, I often hear complaints about privatizing too much.

I guess nobody is happy with their government

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[hyfe]

To stay a bit on topic: I recently spent quite a bit of time researching the Swedes, and I'm very surprised at the amounts of freedoms they had in a country that has typically been considered socialist.

AFAIK Europe, and especially Scandinivia, has always had very different definitions of freedom than the US.

As I see it, the American definition is pretty much 'The Freedom To Be F*cked Over'. It has led to unparallelled economic efficiency, a reasonably succesfull forced integration of minorities (no cuddling and not too much bullshit; get a job and stop complaining!), however also it has lead to corrupt(er) politicians, massive corporate power and extremely few consumer rights. Not too bad of a deal, it turned you into a superpower, but I'm really, really not sure if it gave you happiness.

You believe in the freedom of speech, but for some obscene reason it only applies to government censorship. Which, to me, seems totally ludicrous and as absurd as it gets; after all The Government is just a reasonably large corporation with you as the owner. In a liberal democrazy it's about the only thing you don't need protection from; because it's about the only thing you have control over (mark, I come from a small country. I've met ministers and high goverment officials on random places like the street, shopping at the local supermarket etc on numerous occasions (and I'm not even from the capital).. and so have pretty much everyone)

On the other hand, 'we' (I do atleast) believe in the freedom to live a nice life. Healthcare, pensions, social security and extensive consumer rights comes at a price though; economic efficiency. However, I believe we're more than rich enough to pay it. My family have no problems only having one car (walking to the grocery store isn't social suicide here either) and if the price for being 10% richer is a significant decrease in living standard for the 10% poorest, then I'm saying 'No Thank You'.

However, we have really, really large problems with immigrants coming here and seeing everything they get for free (somewhat understandably too, most of them come from shitty places). Our way of society only works as long as people accepts the implied social contract of 'You Own The Government, exploiting it hurts society and leaves us all worse off' and actually prefer working.. and it's on this background you need to analyze alot of the problems Europe is having with immigration and integration.

[/rant] :)

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[CastrTroy]

But with Sony's latest debacle, am I really free to put CDs in the player of my choice? If putting a CD in my computer installs a rootkit in my computer, then i'm not really free to do with that CD as I please.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Try getting medical care in some places. Either you've got one doctor or no doctors in your one cow town, or you're waiting for months to get a mammogram. And insurance is way too expensive. The US health system shouldn't be used as an example - it's failing.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Anonymous Coward]

Your shining jewel of a health care system is looking like it is going to be doing as well as ours soon.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[ultranova]

To stay a bit on topic: I recently spent quite a bit of time researching the Swedes, and I'm very surprised at the amounts of freedoms they had in a country that has typically been considered socialist. I think they'd be a dream country for most Progressives (which means it would be a nightmare for me), but it surprises me how many rights they still retain that we gave up in the US a long, long time ago.

It is not really very surprising. Socialism is about ensuring the welfare of people, and people in chains do not usually fair very well at all. And even communism, in its initial form, was based on the idea that people should be able to work for themselves, not be forced into virtual slavery with the fruits of their labor going to others; the state-centric dictatorship of Soviet Union was a mockery of that dream, not its fullfillment.

Don't judge socialism by the Soviet Union and the eastern block, for they have nothing to do with each other.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Jugalator]

Funny how such a socialist country retains so many freedoms, yet ironically the USA moves closer and closer to the communist ideal of state-owned property.

Umm, what's so "funny" about that? Many Swedish socialist parties have liberties as a quite high priority.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Alex P Keaton in da]

What cow town is this? You are making generalizations based in made up examples. Yes there are towns that don't have OB GYNs but that is more a function of our legal system than our medical system. With a loser pays system of legal trials, that might end.
How is the U.S. medical system failing? Did you read that on the Huffington Post or something? The U.S. has the best healthcare in the world.
There is a reason that sheiks fly to Cleveland to have heart surgery.
I will tell you what, next time you have a serious health issue, we will medevac you to Mexico, if the U.S. is so bad for healthcare.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[hkmwbz]

"Socialism is in fact designed to be freedom, freedom from poverty and medical expenses as well as personal freedom."

Somehow, I think people in the Soviet Union or China would disagree with you there...

"Socialism is simply contrary to pure capitalism, which obviously doesn't work (see neighbour, USA)."

How doesn't Capitalism work? The US is the most powerful country in the world.

That said, the US is not a Capitalist country. Over time, it has become more and more Collectivist - which happens to be what Socialism is all about: Collectivism. The masses must be controlled and led on the Right Path. If they don't, find a way to punish them. Control everything.

Socialism is inherently evil because it is a Collectivist ideology which can only work if everyone follows the same path. As we know, people won't do that of their own free will, so they will have to be forced. Enter societies like the Soviet Union or China.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[gowen]

George Orwell was a life long socialist. He wasn't a Communist, and he certainly wasn't a Stalinist, but your implicit that Orwell's ideal of statehood is unconstrained laissez-faire capitalism is utterly hilarious.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[TheGreatHegemon]

Capitalism DOES work. However, like every other system in the world, it requires the people IN it to actually participate. THAT is the problem with U.S democracy. Clearly, you know, the Socialist countries simply blow away all others in sheer GDP or economic output. Capitalism does work - it just needs people to participate.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[ek_adam]

...but would say that to the average 50-60-70-80 year old, intellectual property is not a big issue.

If you ask them what about "intellectual property", it's not a big deal. However, anything that affects their television watching is very important to a large section of the older population. Tell your grandparents that the broadcast flag will prevent them from taping shows and they will write their congressmen.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[malkavian]

Ok. Well, I suggest you go without Medical insurance, car insurance, dental insurance, house insurance and so on.
Hey, you may never need them.
But when you do, they make a hell of a difference having them there and freely available, because the time you absolutely need things most is the time you can least afford time or money (or both).

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[pizzaman100]

socialism is not contrary to freedom. Socialism is in fact designed to be freedom, freedom from poverty and medical expenses as well as personal freedom.

That may be the way socialism is designed, but it rarely works out that way in practice. I prefer having more personal freedom, and less government interference in my life, thank you. The freedom to choose what doctor I want to go to without a 6 month wait. The freedom to develop land that I own, the freedom to keep the money I earn instead of being mandated that I give it to someone else.

If you had to chose to live in North Korea or South Korea, which one would you pick?

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[tralfamador]

Go TPB!

i'm sure you wouldn't mind if someone stole all your gold then?

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Profane MuthaFucka]

My information comes from friends who are doctors. They are really concerned about the problems that they deal with every day. Medical malpractice doesn't make up much of the costs of the system. What's actually happening is that we're treating medicine like a commodity. When you are selling a product that most anybody would pay almost anything for, and everybody's going to need it eventually, you're going to see skyrocketing prices. Anybody familiar with how the supply and demand curves work is going to understand that. Yet, you blame it on malpractice. Don't you believe in the market? Are you a socialist or something?

Otherwise, your comments are really ignorant. Sheiks? Cleveland? Huffington? WTF are you talking about?

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Colonel Angus]

"The U.S. has the best healthcare in the world."

Yeah, for those rich enough to afford it. Without a doubt.

And I think that "the best healthcare in the world" is a bit ambiguous. In which way? Access to the best doctors? Doctors having access to the best equipment? What good are the previous two if Joe Citizen can't afford access to those doctors with their world-class equipment?

Should a lower/middle-class family really be forced to go bankrupt because they require medical attention? Half of U.S. bankruptcy cases are the result of medical expenses with a large percentage of those having health insurance.

I'm not slagging the quality of care that is available in the U.S. because clearly they have some of the best minds, but it's hardly accessible to Everyman.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Crizp]

Nice job invoking Godwin's law so soon... The sad thing is, I feel the same way. It'll be interesting to see how the political climate in the US is in ten years - after W's third or fourth term.

Oh, he can't sit that long, you say? Well, we'll see.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[I_am_mccool]

Relating the how powerful a few phone calls can be, do you remember the email virus saying "you have been on more than 30 illegal websites". It claimed to be from the FBI. Got people to do stupid things, etc. Well, as the bottom of the email was the contact information for the FBI with the FBI's main number. For all the people that clicked on the virus, many more called the FBI to find out if it was real. During the time when the email was at its peak, you couldn't call the FBI. Period. I tried over the course of a day. Here is the original email, and a description of the experience I got from trying to call them... http://www.usefulconcept.com/index.cfm/2005/11/23/ FBI-email-scam--DOS-phone-attack/

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[SilverJets]

Have you ever been to the U.S.? Where are you getting your facts?

Probably from television or other mainstream media. Same place Americans get their "facts" about Canadians. We don't understand you because we don't live down there. You don't understand us because you don't live up here. I'm just glad our two countries "grew up" to be friends and co-operate with one another...yeah yeah softwood lumber, war on terrorism, umbrella protection of the US Military....blah blah blah.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[mrops]

I quite agree with dada21. Here in US I feel freedom is being taken away from me day in and day out. Sometimes my freedom is taken away from me in the name of Freedom. At other times they are taken away by the likes of RIAA/MPAA. To tell you the truth this is becoming stressful. For eg: My entire CD collection of 20yrs or so, I have ripped and put on my ipod. Ever since I did that I have lost half my cds. RIAA can come tommorow and sue me because they have found MP3s on my PC, MP3s ripped from my own CDs. To prove that they are my own, I have to get a lawyer that will cost me 10 times of what I make in a month. On the other hand, homeland securities can come and say how come I got 10000$ from Saudi Arabia (my dad works in consulting firm there and often sends money). Again I will have to shell out money for lawyers, and if I am indicted in patriot act, who knows what will happen. Ofcoarse, I know sooner or later they will find out that I am innocent (still have faith in our justice system), however the process will cost me stree, time and who knows how much money. A lawyer rightfully told me that justice is not cheap, a bitter truth. Things are changing for the worst so fast that I fear how our way of life, how out society will survive. Just plain sucks. Also hoping that we don't have that crappy bird flu pendemic.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[silic0n]

"The music is NOT yours to distribute. Other people invested large amounts of time, money, and resources into recording and producing the music that you paid for...they are the ones who paid for it, they are the ones who have a right to distribute it." I just choked on my smoothie. No, 'they' are NOT the ones who paid for it, WE - the consumer - fucking well are. In my opinion nobody except the artist(s)/creator(s) involved in MAKING the music in the first place should be able to decide how and whether their music is distributed in such a manner. The rest of the cunts you refer to simply treat music as a business, and I suppose the closest thing you can liken to them 'paying for' it in the first place was their INVESTMENT on which they expected to see a RETURN, i.e. they paid for fuck all mate, think about it.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[SilverJets]

The US is the most powerful country in the world.

Define powerful. From what I understand China is buying up your debt. Which means when they want to call their marker you're screwed.

And since we seem to be arbitrarily deciding what powerful means....Canada is the most powerful country in the world!

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's funny. I sure as heck don't *feel* as though I'm living in a totalitarian state. Canada's pretty socialist, though, so I'm sure it's only a matter of time.

Flippant remarks aside, I think you're over-simplifying the situation by equating socialism to nationalized industry. Socialism simply expresses a set of values: that the fortunate should help out the unfortunate. There are, of course, many ways to accomplish this goal. China's solution ('The Great Leap Forward') was clearly sub-optimal, but Canada's solution (regulated capitalism) seems to be working out more-or-less decently.

Admittedly, it's not perfect... but hey, what system is?

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[PFI_Optix]

I believe (and I write often about) that Intellectual Property is nothing more than telling people what they are not allowed to do with their own labor on their own property. Imagine if lawn mowing was protected by copyright or a patent. Crazy? Yet I can't mimic the actions of others on my own property? Try singing Happy Birthday to a group of people -- its illegal.

We're not talking about doing something other people do. Bands sing covers of famous bands all the time. You sing in the shower, you whistle your favorite song. No one is stopping you from doing that.

Making a copy of a recording of an artist's performance is NOT the same as mimicing that performance.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[InsertCleverUsername]

I'm guessing you're a white male. Isn't that amazing I could divine that just from the content of your post?

Who are the imprisoned people with no access to lawyers?

With some of the public defenders we've got --ever hear that phrase "you get what you pay for?"

People in poverty? Look at the studies- the average family in poverty has a color tv and other ammenities. The poorest people in the U.S. live better than 99% of the people in some countries.

Yeah, yeah... But, we're a FIRST-world nation, buddy. Are you thinking our nation should be compared to countries like Ethiopia? Can't we do a little better?
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snap shots_06232004

And, although many selfish conservative types might agree that adults deserve to suffer if they aren't successful, what about the kids?
http://www.secondharvest.org/learn_about_hunger/ch ild_hunger_facts.html
http://www.savethechildren.org/usa/
Did they personally do something to you to deserve an insurmountable handicap in pursuing the American dream? You do believe in the promise of America, that everyone is given the opportunity to succeed, right?

No easy access to medical services? Where did you get that from? Anyone in the U.S. can walk into a hospital, and they will be treated.

Yeah... And maybe they'll take you to the third hospital the ambulance passes. You might even live that long. Or, if you're lucky, they'll see the insurance card in your wallet and take you to the nearest emergency room.

Have you ever been to the U.S.? Where are you getting your facts?

It's all over the Internet. However, I don't think anybody is saying the U.S. isn't a great place to live, just that we could do better. Don't you believe in self-improvement?

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[doodlebumm]

The freedom to do what you want with your labor and your mind is included in that freedom, and that is why I am against intellectual property rights in every way.

The reason we have IP laws to begin with is that the companies that used to consider their employees valuable, and tried to keep them as employees, stopped caring for them. Instead they valued the product that came from the employees more than the employees. When the employee left, they had to stop the employee from taking the idea from them and using it as competition. That is where the notion that the ideas we come up with in the employ of another belong to the one who paid us. Heaven forbid they compensate the employee for the great work they did! Just keep them from taking the idea to someone else, or from using it on their own.

IP rights should be totally reworked, but that's not going to happen until it's easy to hit the devil in the head with a snowball. Corporations have more control over our lives than we do, because they pay the politicians to work for them. Campaign reform would be the first step, but politicians aren't going to vote for something that would take money away from them. Unfortunately the first 10 dominoes are glued in place with super glue.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[hkmwbz]

Pure socialism is pure totalitarianism. Of course, most countries today are probably somewhere in the middle. Canada is probably no more pure socialist than the US is pure capitalist.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[PFI_Optix]

No, 'they' are NOT the ones who paid for it, WE - the consumer - fucking well are.

Oh? So which of the five recording sessions that I've been involved in did you finance?

We the consumers purchase the product of someone else's investment. That's how they make a profit off of THEIR investment.

In my opinion nobody except the artist(s)/creator(s) involved in MAKING the music in the first place should be able to decide how and whether their music is distributed in such a manner.

In a perfect world, that's how it would be. But artists allow others to take over those decisions because those other people finance the recording, production, and distribution of an album. The artist can't afford to themselves, the label can. It sucks but that's how it works.

The rest of the cunts you refer to simply treat music as a business, and I suppose the closest thing you can liken to them 'paying for' it in the first place was their INVESTMENT on which they expected to see a RETURN, i.e. they paid for fuck all mate, think about it.

Music is a business. The best artists can make a career out of music. Like everything else it's been industrialized so that there are far more people behind the artists than artists themselves. I'd love to see that change but I don't see how it could work any other way in today's society.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[radish]

Somehow, I think people in the Soviet Union or China would disagree with you there...

Newsflash - the Soviet Union hasn't existed for many, many years.

That aside, even when it did it wasn't Socialist, and neither is China. If you want an example of a socialist state look to Europe - Denmark, Sweden and to a lesser extent the UK, France, Netherlands, etc. They're doing OK.

How doesn't Capitalism work? The US is the most powerful country in the world.

It also has some of the higest rates of crime, violence, poverty, illiteracy and inprisonment in the western world. It's the most powerful country in the world and yet it can't (or won't) even protect it's own citizens against a storm given ample warning. It's the richest country in the world and yet it's people are still dying of malnutrition and lack of medical treatment every day.

Yes the US is rich, yes it's militarily powerful, yes it's full of itself. It's a matter of opinion as to whether that's enough to be considered "succesful".

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Eivind]

That's actually not so surprising.

The thing is, the US migth be capitalistic in principle, but in practice it's much more big-business friendly. There's nothing capitalistic about government-granted eternal-monopolies (mickey mouse act), killing first-sale (DMCA), granting big corporations the power to pretty much write law, having ineffectual anti-trust legislation, giving a patent on anything that moves (and much that does not) and so on.

Sweden (and the rest of the scandinavic countries) may have had socialist governments for most of the last 50 years. But these where freely elected governments with little in common with the dictatorships of the former east-block.

It shouldn't be much of a surprise the socialist parties are in general less willing to sacrifice the good of the community and the little man on the alter of profits for the megacorps.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[brunes69]

Socialism/Communism/Marxism are not Orwellian.

The problem with Communism is the Soviet Union and China (*neither* of which are/were communist states for the vast latter part of their existance) gave it a bad rap.

Only when you give absolute power to a minority elite do you end up with the Soviet/Orwellian paradigm. A truely democratic communist state would not have those problems.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[UncleGizmo]

It's actually not illegal to sing happy birthday to a group of people. Public domain and all.

It's also not illegal to sing a copyrighted song to a group of people. The only time copyright would come in to play is if you were charging admission. And then, it would be the venue you sing it in that would have to pay a fee [through an ascap/bmi license] They pay the royalty, not you.

Only time it'd be illegal is if you were the owner of an establishment and were making money off the performance of copyrighted songs. .

But I understand your point.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[dada21]

Making a copy of a recording of an artist's performance is NOT the same as mimicing that performance.

Yet it doesn't matter -- it is still me using my own labor, my own money and my own knowledge to perform an act, on my own property. If an architect designs a building, do you pay residuals to the architect for the work they once did? When you pay a check-out line clerk for goods that you'll use, do you pay them residuals for the work they once did?

An artist is not unique, in fact the supply of artists probably outnumbers the supply of workers as I think we all dream of making a hit album or drawing a beautiful painting or whatever. The problem I have with copyright is that it doesn't protect the creator, it protects the distributor. Over time, the distributor becomes the only powerful person in the industry. That is, until the Internet (and mechanisms like BitTorrent etc) came into view.

Now I tell bands, artists, and content creators to find new ways to capitalize on their work. Just like a hamburger flipper has to continue working to earn an income, so should anyone else unless they can find a way to sell their services at a high enough price to give them a life of luxury without work. Why is the 10 hours a band spends recording a song possibly worth millions (only with government force) but the 10 hours a hamburger flipper spends worth $80?

I'm not looking for communism -- I'm looking to level the playing field of opportunity. We all work, and we should all find ways to sell that work. Some of us go and find jobs and put the risk of finding work on the employer, in exchange for us getting a lower salary (reward). This shouldn't be different for artists -- if you like to draw, go get a job in graphic design rather than using government to protect your labor. I have no protection for my labor, and I actually repudiate copyright and patents and use my "art" as a marketing tool for my labor. I write, distribute freely, and don't accept copyright. In the long run, my labor is worth more as my customers know what they're getting, and I can charge more as the demand for my limited supply of labor goes up.

That's the end rule, actually: supply and demand. Now that data is digital, the supply is nearly infinite. When supply goes to infinity, the price drops to zero no matter the demand. Artists need to find new ways to add value to their product -- and the Internet lets us all create new ways to earn a living without government enforcing the rules.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[hkmwbz]

"Newsflash - the Soviet Union hasn't existed for many, many years."

It doesn't have to exist today for my point to be valid.

"That aside, even when it did it wasn't Socialist, and neither is China. If you want an example of a socialist state look to Europe - Denmark, Sweden and to a lesser extent the UK, France, Netherlands, etc. They're doing OK."

They are social democratic, not socialist.

"It also has some of the higest rates of crime, violence, poverty, illiteracy and inprisonment in the western world. It's the most powerful country in the world and yet it can't (or won't) even protect it's own citizens against a storm given ample warning. It's the richest country in the world and yet it's people are still dying of malnutrition and lack of medical treatment every day."

That's got nothing to do with Capitalism. I did point out that the US is not a Capitalist country. Indeed, I even explained how it becomes more and more of a Collectivist country - with the same evils that people in other Collectivist countries have to struggle with.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Chris Burke]

Freedom to not run across the border to have to use a doctor of my choice?

That's pretty hilarious, considering how many U.S. citizens organize trips to Canada in order to escape from the skyrocketing medical and pharmaceutical costs in this country.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[dada21]

Actually, that's not true at all -- if you look at the laws covering copyright, it is illegal to perform songs in private for non-commercial purposes. The law is so convoluted that it is hard to actually decipher what is legal and illegal anymore, but from what I've seen, you're stuck because someone else is given a monopoly on words, a beat and some basic notes that we all know.

There is currently an ongoing debate as to whether or not Happy Birthday To You is copywritten or not. This is by far the greatest reason why copyright is a failure: the fact that we need to debate about a stolen song that was rewritten in the 30's and might not still be singable today without a license.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Anonymous Coward]

freedom from poverty and medical expenses

You are only handing the bill to people who actually worked while others played. You didn't see them working, because you were too busy playing X-Box or stuck in a haze of booze somewhere. But they were, in fact, working hard and knowing that the government would soon take 1/3 to 1/2 of their paycheck from them to pay for your own depravity.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Anonymous Coward]

The kick is that you don't need to have shared property, just shared means of production (a big subset of property). Communism is perfectly possible in most market economies existing today through employee ownership.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're confusing "socialist" and "communist". I would expect a socialist country to have lots of freedoms. Socialism is about providing protection to the less lucky members of the population. Economically doing a bit more of distribution of wealth. I'd expect the taxes to be higher, but freedoms to be greater too. Communism is about abolishing privat ownership altogether. That only works when everything is regimented and controlled. I'm certainly not surprised to see a socialist country make life easier on the small guy at the expense of the big capitalist. I think you really need to move beyond the cold war propaganda. The big capitalist elites certainly want people to associate any socialist program with communism... they have no use for the people except as money bags. The more laws they get to force the people to give THEM money, the better. I don't know why you would associate unfettered capitalism with liberty. Yes, there is freedom for the elites, but not for the masses. Capitalism only works when limits are imposed. On its own, it always drifts towards a feodal system where the haves eventually controll all the legislative tools to make sure that the have nots owe them a life of luxury. Don't make the mistake of thinking that this is a modern phenomenon. It may only have had a name in recent history, but it has been there since the earliest civilizations.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're going to split hairs like that, they are "socialist-democratic" as opposed to "socialist-communist".

Politically they may be democratic, but that doesn't change the fact that they are fiscally socialist, any more than you calling a dog a cat makes it so.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Rich0]

What's actually happening is that we're treating medicine like a commodity. When you are selling a product that most anybody would pay almost anything for, and everybody's going to need it eventually, you're going to see skyrocketing prices.

Well, it is a commodity - there is supply and demand. Prices are only high when supply is low relative to demand - put enough doctors out there and prices will drop. A big problem is that medical schools and the AMA work to limit the supply of doctors - in order to maintain high prices.

Why is it that every medical school in the country has hundreds of applicants for each seat, and yet none seem to desire to add capcity, and no new schools open up? What would happen if there was a mob outside of CompUSA begging for computers, which sold for $10,000 the instant the truck pulled up?

The market actually works fairly well, but in this case the market is not freely operating - a number of establishments are conspiring to limit the supply side, and the overreaction on the part of government is to attempt to regulate the demand side by fixing prices. The problem with this approach is that it can lead to shortages (ie lines).

Potential health care providers aren't stupid - they figure out what people are willing to pay for, and provide this service. If people aren't willing to pay for life-saving treatments they'll apply their R&D efforts to viagra and cosmetic surgery, or they'll go into other fields of study...

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[gutnor]

"Having to give tons of the money that you legally earned and rightfully deserve to social programs you may not even use is freedom."

You already pay for tons of thing you do not directly benefit. Like Army, Police, FireFighters, Roads, ...

That's the main purpose of a society. You work and contribute to the society using your taxes. Otherwise, it's anarchy and even money does not exist. Nobody says that you need to get 1 penny worth of service for every penny you put in the system. It is globally universally accepted in western world that the more money you make the more you pay. Bill Gates has no more driving rights than you, he doesn't get what he rightfully deserves.

Now the limit you where you put public service is another matter. In Europe, it is well accepted that Health and Education are a not a priviledge of money but a service provided by the society and therefore it is included in your taxes. In the US the simple idea seems to be repulsive to many.
If the problem was simple, it would have been settle 10000 years ago.
Society need structure otherwise it's anarchy. Too much structure and nothing move. The question of Roads and Currency has been settle ages ago and everybody aggrees that it is a task beter handled by the State with tax money, Healthcare Education and the rest ? Come back in 100 years

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[dada21]

We had great health care in the US until the Federal government unconstitutionally got involved in it with the HMO Act of 1973:

Congressman Ron Paul on the problems

Congressman Ron Paul again

Dr. Larry Wilson, MD

My doctor does not accept any public health care payments for any reason -- he's about 80 years ago and a die hard free market supporter. He still makes house calls when I'm sick, he charges less than $35 for a visit, and he helps keep costs down by making sure my health is good before I get sick -- he prescribed me a lower sugar diet which fixed all my health problems (blood pressure, overweight, memory issues, anger issues, allergies and sleep problems). He also makes sure that I stay away from prescriptions as he finds them cures for the lazy man.

Medicine is failed in the US because of government's reach into it -- 40 years ago medicine was much more readily available to the poor and the minority. Today it is destroyed because of trying to fix a problem that never existed.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Nehmo]

If you had to chose to live in North Korea or South Korea, which one would you pick?

A more relevant question: If you had to live in prison in the US or be free in Canada, which would you pick?

The US locks-up an awfully large proportion of its population.

Regarding the rest of your post, pizzaman100, about the freedoms you "prefer", are you saying those freedoms exist in the US?

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[tddoog]

"You made a great comment that reminds me of something I've always been annoyed by as a canadian -- socialism is not contrary to freedom. Socialism is in fact designed to be freedom, freedom from poverty and medical expenses as well as personal freedom."

My problem with socialism is the lack of personal responsibility. Socialism is like having tax sponsored babysitters. People need to grow up and make their own decisions.

There is something to be said for the freedom to make something of or destroy yourself which capitalism provides. It just provides it along a much larger spectrum (see Bill Gates or homeless crack addict) than socialism.

For instance, in Canada, baby walkers are illegal. Are baby walkers inherently dangerous? No more than a bathtub or swimming pool. But you have government people making decisions for you, because apparently they know better. I am not interested in that.

If a homeless person wants to be homeless, let him. I may or may not be inclined The only people who need special care for the government are those who are physically or mentally handicapped and the US does a fine job of providing for most of those.

America is becoming more socialist, thanks to neo-conservatives who want to control everythign and liberals who want to give handouts to everybody. That is why I do my best to remain a libertarian.

TD

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[PastAustin]

The problem I see is in order to have socialism you have to trust the people in charge.

Americans don't trust their neighbors.

And they know them. Our Government... I trust that they aren't looking out for MY rights. That's about all I trust about them.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Rich0]

I owe you $20,000 and can't afford to pay you - I'm in big trouble.

I owe you $20,000,000,000,000 and can't afford to pay you - you're in big trouble... :)

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[mOdQuArK!]

It's actually not illegal to sing happy birthday to a group of people. Public domain and all.

"Happy Birthday" is notin the public domain, and if Disney-like companies keep on extending the copyright period, it never will be.

Having said that, however, and as you & the Snopes article describes, non-commercial use of "Happy Birthday" like singing it at a party to your friends & family fall under Fair-Use considerations - at least until "content providers/parasites" manage to kill Fair-Use.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[mjh]

socialism is not contrary to freedom. Socialism is in fact designed to be freedom, freedom from poverty and medical expenses as well as personal freedom.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Socialism is the opposite of freedom. As soon as everything is funded by the government, then every individual decision, legitimately becomes something that the government has a say in. Freedom can not long survive socialism - as has been the case historically.

As a Canadian, how free are you to get necessary but non-life threatening medical procedures without waiting?

[T]he percentage of the respondents in need of elective coronary bypass who had been waiting for more than three months was 0% in U.S., 18.2% in Sweden, 46.7% in Canada, and 88.9% in the United Kingdom" -- from an Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development study of waiting time for elective surgery in developed countries.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom is different from equality. It is not valid to judge the merit of capitalism on its success at goals which it does not try to attain.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Nondescrypt]

>>Socialism is inherently evil because it is a Collectivist ideology which can only work if everyone >>follows the same path.

gee, imagine that... ...that would mean everyone having to eat, ...or everyone needing a bed to sleep on...

ooohhh, the horror & hegemony of it all

We do all follow the same path -- to happiness that is
is it really soo scary to legislate that people have everything they *NEED*
have you ever experienced the ravages of poverty,
oh, elite american top 1% of world income bracket programmer, sir...
heh, & this coming from a country where there is only 1, 2 faced political party
only 1 view in the media
please...

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Kjella]

The problem is that the industry is trying to have it both ways.

that's the whole absurdity, you have a $15 value of music on a 15 cent piece of plastic. But when the plastic breaks, you can't replace that with another 15 cent piece of plastic. It's like buying a car where you're not allowed to charge the battery, change oil or refill the tires. Even when you see it breaking, you can't do anything about it because they come as a "set" protected by law. They want you to run it until it breaks so they can make you buy another one (which if you have kids means the following day). Their hand_waving about why you have no right to backup your media just doesn't follow any logic than their own profit motive.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Politburo]

For eg: My entire CD collection of 20yrs or so, I have ripped and put on my ipod. Ever since I did that I have lost half my cds.

So you had no problems keeping CDs before the IPod.. but once that came around you suddenly lost the ability to keep track of a piece of plastic?

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[hkmwbz]

Actually, even the non-Socialist parties, especially in Scandinavia, are considerd to be Social Democrats. So no, these countries are not Socialist countries.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[PFI_Optix]

Yet it doesn't matter -- it is still me using my own labor, my own money and my own knowledge to perform an act, on my own property. If an architect designs a building, do you pay residuals to the architect for the work they once did? When you pay a check-out line clerk for goods that you'll use, do you pay them residuals for the work they once did?

When you buy an album, do you pay residuals to the artist every time you listen to it? When you buy a broom, do you pay residuals to anyone every time you use it?

We're talking about a one-time purchase by you, the consumer. You're trying to take that apple and compare it to an orange.

Now I tell bands, artists, and content creators to find new ways to capitalize on their work. Just like a hamburger flipper has to continue working to earn an income, so should anyone else unless they can find a way to sell their services at a high enough price to give them a life of luxury without work. Why is the 10 hours a band spends recording a song possibly worth millions (only with government force) but the 10 hours a hamburger flipper spends worth $80?

The 10 hours is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it. If you aren't willing to pay their asking price, don't buy it. But that doesn't entitle you to make copies of their performance without their permission.

A burger flipper gets paid minimum wage because there are a lot of people who will flip burgers, and the one who will do it for the least money gets the job.

You can go to McDonald's and buy a hamburger for $0.85. Yet there are restaurants that sell hamburgers for $10. What's the difference? Quality. There are a lot of artists, but only a few who are very talented. If those artists can make millions of dollars doing what they do, it's because consumers are willing to pay those millions of dollars for what they percieve to be a quality product.

I'm not looking for communism -- I'm looking to level the playing field of opportunity. We all work, and we should all find ways to sell that work.

If a band has a concert and someone records it and distributes that recording, people may opt to buy tickets for a concert they haven't "seen" before and that band won't be able to sell as many tickets. Nothing is physically being taken, yet their ability to produce revenue by performing can be impacted.

Do you really think that *shouldn't* be illegal?

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Shanep]

I read your linked blog entry and you are clearly not comparing equivalent items on either sides of your comparison.

First of all, yes you own that oil, but you also do own that CD. You don't own the design of that oil (assuming it is synthetic) and you also do not own the performance embodied within the recording stored on the CD. The labour of the mechanic doing the oil change is equivalent to the labour of having the CD's built and packaged and they do both incur static fees, although obviously economies of scale can be leveraged to great effect for the latter. The artists development and performance of their music is equivalent to the R&D of the design of the oil (obviously much more costly than a bunch of muso's making music).

As is typical though, analogies often don't work very well. Because the issues on both sides often don't mesh perfectly, even if the complexities on both sides do equate to about the same in total.

I agree that not being allowed to play a CD to others is ridiculous and not being able to sing Happy Birthday is absolutely ludicrous. However distributing material against what is allowed by that materials copyright terms, deprives all those involved in bringing that material to market, of income from a potential customer who should have purchased the material in a normal legal manner. There is a huge difference between a performance by artists and a bunch of folks singing happy Bday, so these are two things at opposite ends of sanity. Copyright working well and then copyright being abused. Obviously copyright laws should be revised to bring portions of them into reality, but The Pirate Bay and the like are obviously unreasonable on the opposite end of the insanity.

Are you going to go to the trouble of copying that synthetic oil and selling or giving it away to others? Of course not, that would be ridiculous, as is the analogy.

Protecting IP is about protecting the investment of time, effort and money that is put into developing something. That is important for those individuals involved and also important for technology to advance. People won't want to go to that trouble if it ends up being worth nothing to them in the end. Much of the technology you probably love so much, could not exist to the level where it currently is without the protection of IP. Certainly this is sometimes abused by corrupt people, but corrupt people will always corrupt systems for their own gain. Just because this sometimes happens in the World of IP does not make the protection of IP itself a bad thing.

I believe (and I write often about) that Intellectual Property

Lots of people write about various things, but that does not automatically make them correct, no matter how much they might write (take Dvorak for example). If a person cannot understand why the complexities of two issues prevent an analogy from working, then they are probably not fit to be ranting about either of those issues and then being taken seriously.

I don't believe in the right to force others to pay you residual income on past work.

You willingly do it all the time with almost every product you buy. BTW, the loose lawn-mowing analogy also misses the point. Mowing your own lawn is labour you do that is equivalent to labour for making the CD media, it is NOT equivalent to writing and performing the music. If you are capable of making that music, then do so, but no matter how hard you try, you are not going to perfectly replicate the best of U2. So if you want to enjoy their music at any time of your choosing, please pay them and the rest of the people who can make that happen for you legally.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[sjames]

The RIAA, MPAA and other big supporters of IP privleges (copyright is really copyprivilege, it is nothing more than a government grant to encourage intellectual works) are largely responsible for the confusion. They cause this by attempting to claim all of the benefits and none of the drawbacks to two mutually exclusive theories of ownership.

On the one hand, they LOVE the physical object model. I bought an LP. I own that LP. If I want a CD, I have to pay for that too. However, when I try to exercize the natural rights associated with owning a physical object (copying it, re-selling it, loaning it to anyone who wants to borrow it), they cry foul and insist that what I bought was a license to listen to the recording.

So, I try to exercize the natural rights of a license holder. That is, transfer it to a new medium, make a backup copy, replace the worn out physical medium, etc, suddenly they claim that I bought a specific physical object and if I want to replace it, I must pay full price and, by the way, I have no right to transfer it to a more convieniant medium.

They might find less people would oppose them if they weren't trying to have it both ways.

In the case of the MPAA and DVDs, they are using nothing less than legal strongarm tactics to create a brand new category of ownership for themselves. They maintain that while I own the DVD player in the sense that I must pay for it, and if it breaks it's up to me to replace it, when it comes to me making MY DVD player do what I want (rather than what they want) such as skipping the un-skippable commercial at the beginning, playing a Japanese disk in North America, or dumping the data to my hard drive, THEY own it. Once again, they insist thet the benefits of ownership are theirs, but the liabilities are mine.

If we look closely, we find that they themselves haven't been all that respectful of intellectual property either. The whole reason the movie industry is primarily on the west coast is that they started there where enforcement of Edison's IP on movie projectors wasn't well enforced. The way that multiple movies (years in production) with the same theme JUST HAPPEN to come out within a week of each other tells us something. On the RIAA side of things, it's amazing the way a band can produce a double platinum album yet creative accounting says the distributor owes them no royalties. If IP rights are so important, I'd suggest they start respecting them!

Their protests are the cry of the bully that got back exactly what he gave others.

That is the sort of crap that tends to remove every last bit of sympathy for their position.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[glesga_kiss]

Pure socialism is pure totalitarianism.

Where did you study politics? I need to register a complaint about their standard of teaching. Never before have I heard such a lunatic suggestion. Socialism is an ecconomic system; it does not require or mutually exclude democracy (which is a political system). Socialsm dictates different "ownership" of property and land, and what you can do with it. If you see owning land as a "freedom", then you really ought to read up on what freedom really entails. Possessions and healthcare aren't freedom; the freedom of expression/religion and such like are.

There are many socialist countries in Europe with more freedom (i.e. less totalitarianism) than the Capitalist states of the world. And there are many capitalist states with really represive regimes. Hell, I've seen people arguing that the USA is moving closer to totalitairism every day. Two years ago, standing out against the Iraq war was a bad career move for politicians. They were deemed unpatriotic and a danger to the security of the USA and were exiled. Capitalism allows freedom only when it doesn't get in the way of a profit.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, what's so "funny" about that? Many Swedish socialist parties have liberties as a quite high priority.

Americans have been brainwashed into thinking that SOCIALISM = AUTHORITARIANISM, while CAPITALISM = FREEEEEEDOM. This is what allows them to believe that they are "free," even while inequalities and authoritarianism continues to rise in their own country. They tacitly accept wage slavery and a brutal competitive attitude that encourages stepping on everyone else to get to the top -- all under the rubric of freedom, individualism and other brain disorders of Puritanical heritage.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nonsense. If anything cancer drug development in the US is too profitable.

http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/aug20 05/pi20050825_0233_pi041.htm

Here's an article in Business Week (a US publication) extolling the profits to be had from cancer drug development.

Besides, even when drugs are developed outside the US, they are still counting on the profits in the US market to produce a return on their investment. The US is the only country that values drugs highly enough to pay for expensive research. All other first-world countries really just get a free ride, and without the US free market the research worldwide wouldn't be nearly as prolific.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[AGMW]

And it is a weird right - after all, as the grandparent says, something you physically own is usually yours to do with as you please. That's what ownership means, and it's a rather more fundamental right than copyright.

If you buy a vacuum cleaner it is not considered "OK" to take it apart and build another one so you can have a vacuum cleaner for your holiday home, or one for upstairs and one for downstairs. Why should it be OK to make a copy of a CD for the car. Why should it be OK to make a copy of the music for your mp3 player or your laptop.

If it wasn't possible (or in the case of the vacuum cleaner, it was sufficiently difficult) you would make do with the single copy. Take it with you in the car, use it in a CD walkman or in your laptop. It is only because technology makes it so easy that we think we should be allowed to do it.

Perhaps we think it is "OK" because it can't be costing the artist (or corporation backing the artist) much money can it? What's one copy worth.

Don't get me wrong, I like having copies of my music available to me in various forms, but that doesn't mean it's right.

Of course, the other side of the coin is that we get a guarentee with out vacuum cleaners, so if they break within the guarentee period they will fix or replace it. So, Music companies, you can't have it both ways. Give us a reasonable term "guarentee" on the items we purchase to allow them to be replaced if they fail.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Anonymous Coward]

To tell you the truth I think many forms of economic output are a waste of resources. Think of all the things that are used only once, but built for a few years. Then think of all the things people want to use for decades, but are, again, built for a few years. That's only the tip of the iceberg.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[mrops]

Absolutely. So let me ask you, how many audio cassetes and LPs did you purchase and how many of them have you lost. My guess would be that you don't keep them anymore (I could be wrong). reason being that I stopped using CDs. Earlier I would look for the CD pop into my CD player and listen. Now I just hook the ipod to my music system and way i go, further most time i don't even do that, I modded my xbox and just stream music via the xbox. CDs are obsolete. In car, I just plug my ipod and thats it. Basically once the CD in my iPod, thats it, I don't need the CD anymore. And hence loose track of where they are.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom is different from equality. It is not valid to judge the merit of capitalism on its success at goals which it does not try to attain.

"Freedom" to exploit is what the capitalist definition boils down to.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Politburo]

But doesn't your precious free market theory dictate that people should be willing to invest in more medical schools if there is this untapped demand? What exactly are the 'medical schools and the AMA' doing to prevent new schools from opening?

And what part of the government is fixing prices for the general population? For the most part it is HMOs that are doing this.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[arose]

[T]he percentage of the respondents in need of elective coronary bypass who had been waiting for more than three months was 0% in U.S., 18.2% in Sweden, 46.7% in Canada, and 88.9% in the United Kingdom" -- from an Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development study of waiting time for elective surgery in developed countries.

Ah, statistics... What was the percentage that couldn't aford it?

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[soliptic]

Somehow, I think people in the Soviet Union or China would disagree with you there...

Typical anti-socialist idiocy! Let's leap from the centre-left Scandinavian social democracy straight to the perversions of the USSR and China. Wtf? If I made a judgement on Reagan/Thatcher style politics based on a comparison to Nazism, based on the spurious connection that they're both very broadly right-wing, you wouldn't think that a valid leap of logic. So please don't do the same for very broadly left-wing politics.

How doesn't Capitalism work? The US is the most powerful country in the world.

That said, the US is not a Capitalist country.

No comment needed here really... you said it for yourself.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[ovit]

I can go to almost any doctor I want.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[RetroGeek]

Soooo, you want to buy some oil? But I see that you are in arrears on your debt payments, and cannot borrow any more.

Oh, and the country holding your debts? Well they want that oil too. And they have the money for it.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[AGMW]

Why is the 10 hours a band spends recording a song possibly worth millions (only with government force) but the 10 hours a hamburger flipper spends worth $80?

Hmmm. Perhaps the difference is that the band are recording there own songs (or their own arrangements of other people's songs) whereas the burger flipper is flipping someone else's burgers! Let the burger flipper come up with a way to make the burgers tastier and he may well be able to sell that idea to someone and live off the earnings. You will find that there are a lot of "burger flippers" in the music industry too. They sing the backing vocals, they are the covers bands that sing down in your local pub or club. They don't make the big bucks because they too are not recording or performing their own music, and if they are, there aren't enough people who like it to make it pay!

To continue your analagy, it's also saying you want a burger flipper to get paid the same as a brain surgeon! Who'd have the stress of a brain surgeon if you could have the same lifestyle cooking burgers!

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[prisoner]

It's interesting that you make the comment about who votes. I'm running for City Council in my city and you're not far off. It's kind of wierd being 39 years old and building my base of voters amongst 50-70 year olds. Nobody else gives a shit.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[CAPSLOCK2000]

I recently spent quite a bit of time researching the Swedes, and I'm very surprised at the amounts of freedoms they had in a country that has typically been considered socialist.

Maybe I'm just biting your bait, but it seems your still stuck in the cold war.
Socialism is not communism. Socialism is an ideology, communism is a political system, which implies a certain economic system.
Communism is rooted in socialism, but it's not representive of socialism as a whole.
The essential idea behind socialism is the protection of the common people. Therefore it feels logical that a socialist system has a lot of freedom.

Likewise, capitalism and socialism are not opposites! Capitalism is an economic system. The ideas behind capitalism and socialism are not opposed, although there are some conflicts. This conflict can be seen in the view of the government.
A typical capitalist view on the government would be that the government exists to protect and provide for businesses. If companies can work and compete freely, they will generate wealth, which will indirectly benefit all of the country.
A socialist view would be that the government should care about people, not companies. Companies will always find ways to compete and make a profit. The government shouldn't get involved, unless the people are being hurt. For example they should provide protection against price-fixing.

Offcourse there is always going to be some conflict between those views. Companies are owned by people, and without people to run them there are no companies.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[dada21]

We're talking about a one-time purchase by you, the consumer. You're trying to take that apple and compare it to an orange.

I agree, and I accept the purchase and should be free to do what I want with the item I buy. If I pay someone to have them broom my house, and then go and mimic their performance, should I pay them for that "right" to use my labor as I please?

The 10 hours is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it. If you aren't willing to pay their asking price, don't buy it. But that doesn't entitle you to make copies of their performance without their permission.

Why not? The copying is my time, the CD I buy is my property, the device I use to copy the CD is my property -- why should anyone have the right to prevent me from using my time as I please? For me, I'd rather pay someone else to perform these actions -- and The Pirate Bay is happy to do it for free. Of course, if I like the performance, I will be more than happy to pay the artist to make more performances, but I should not be required by law to do so.

A burger flipper gets paid minimum wage because there are a lot of people who will flip burgers, and the one who will do it for the least money gets the job.

Bingo! And The Pirate Bay is the distributor who charges the least amount of money for distributing a product they created with their own labor: the MP3. The burger is the end result of the purchase, and I shouldn't have to pay the meat people over and over, or the trucking company over and over. I am buying the final product -- the burger. The same is true for the CD, I am buying the final product. No one should be able to tell me how I use my labor beyond that, if I want to use my labor to recreate or mimic an item (burger, CD, whatever).

If those artists can make millions of dollars doing what they do, it's because consumers are willing to pay those millions of dollars for what they percieve to be a quality product.

And I believe this is the case if there was no copyright as well -- consumers will find the quality items they want and be willing to pay for them, regardless of what the law tells them. In fact, I don't think copyright is even working anymore -- people still pay because they know what is "right" not what they're afraid of what will happen to them.

Nothing is physically being taken, yet their ability to produce revenue by performing can be impacted.

So someone decided to sell their labor cheaper than another, and the more expensive laborer loses their job. I think this is what competition is.

A good artist doesn't sit and wait for their old art to continue to be sold -- a good artist keeps creating, giving their fans (their customers) something new to grab first. I do the same thing -- I don't charge for my writings, but people who admire my opinions pay me for access to my newest and latest thoughts. I'm currently working on a Sci-Fi novel which I will freely pass out in e-book format -- but some of the underlying politics and thoughts in the novel will be a great way to market my websites. My websites are a great way to market me. In the long run, the book will take me 300-400 hours to complete. Over my lifetime, the marketing potential is well over $100 per hour of what I'll likely gain, so I feel that the labor spent as a marketing potential is more than well spent.

The people who want to write books or write music must find new ways to market their products. Authors can do public engagements (paid), musicians can do live performances (paid) and painters can do private gallery sales (paid). If the author doesn't want to take the huge risk of his work being "stolen," he can go get a job with a newspaper or a magazine. If the musician doesn't want to take the huge risk of their work being "stolen" they can go work as a studio musician or get a job with a company that needs music (advertising agency). If the painter can't take the risk that their painting will get reproduced cheaper by another, th

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Anonymous Coward]

Please mod it down... That's all nonsense...

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[stinky wizzleteats]

Socialism is inherently evil because it is a Collectivist ideology which can only work if everyone follows the same path. As we know, people won't do that of their own free will, so they will have to be forced. Enter societies like the Soviet Union or China.

You mean I'm living in a country where I can choose my own path?

(looks around briefly for choices, sees consumer debt, Generica, and industrial stiflement of innovation and personal freedom)

Wow! Yay America!

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Anonymous Coward]

Go read "The Road to Serfdom" by FA Hayak, little Euro DJ boy.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you buy a vacuum cleaner it is not considered "OK" to take it apart and build another one so you can have a vacuum cleaner for your holiday home, or one for upstairs and one for downstairs.

Really? Why not? I'm pretty sure I can do whatever I want with my vaccum cleaner, and I do consider this to be "OK"..

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[jacem]

I've lately become a firm believer in wasting the time of the company that has used the power of government against me -- in this case, the content and distribution cartels (RIAA, MPAA). Instead of calling your elected official,

What you are suggesting sound like a something from a William Gibbson{sp} of Neal Stephenson{sp} novel. I am not yet ready to give up on the government and start petitioning the corporations themselves for my civil liberties.
Your elected offical may send the first 100 people a letter explaining why they will not change their position on an issue but after 10,000 such letters they may change their position if not use the voting booth or better yet run for an office.
But lets continue to use and have a government and not a set of corps acting like Feudal Lords.

JACEM

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, your post is the most Orwellian I have ever read - if IngSoc were IngCap you would be doubleplusgood.

You do know that Orwell was a socialist, right? That he fought in an anarchist brigade in the Spanish Civil war against Franco's capitalist/fascist/Catholic alliance and for the socialist/communist/anarchist alliance?

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you buy a vacuum cleaner it is not considered "OK" to take it apart and build another one so you can have a vacuum cleaner for your holiday home.

It is OK; patents don't apply to personal use. So you can make as many copies of your Dyson as you like.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Anonymous Coward]

use it to pay for my own medical insurance of my choice? Freedom to not run across the border to have to use a doctor of my choice?

Like how the rich are increasingly taking "medical tours" of other countries that have cheaper medicine and higher standards of care than America. Because apparently, even when you're rich and have millions to spend, you still can't buy enough medicine to get a first-world infant mortality rate here in America.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[hkmwbz]

Where are these Socialist countries in Europe you talk about? Norway? Sweden? Denmark? Holland? No, they are not Socialist. They are Social Democratic countries.

And what are these Capitalist states that you speak of?

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[hkmwbz]

I did point out that the US is becoming more and more of a Collectivist country. That is a bad thing. Socialism is a Collectivist system/ideology. It promotes "the single path", and to get people to follow that path, you will have to force them.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Pig Hogger]

To stay a bit on topic: I recently spent quite a bit of time researching the Swedes, and I'm very surprised at the amounts of freedoms they had in a country that has typically been considered socialist. I think they'd be a dream country for most Progressives (which means it would be a nightmare for me), but it surprises me how many rights they still retain that we gave up in the US a long, long time ago. The freedom to do what you want with products you physically own is a great freedom, in fact I believe it is the basis for freedom. The freedom to do what you want with your labor and your mind is included in that freedom, and that is why I am against intellectual property rights in every way.

The fact that socialism is touted as an "ennemy of freedom" is the biggest political lie westerners are spoonfed by the bourgeois. Extensive social programs, such as chidren day care, universal medical insurance and unemployment insurance go a very long way in protecting the economic freedom of the little guys.

And even then, very often, social programs are implemented to suit big companies. Take unemployment insurance in Canada, for example. It was not implemented to allow people to take time off from their job, but rather to allow seasonal industries to layoff workers without any social pangs.

Likewise, in british Hong-Kong, hardly a parangon of socialism, rents were strictly controlled, only to make sure that employers would not face strikes of their workers asking for more money to pay for their increasing rents.

And about universal medical insurance, I am willing to bet that within a few years, the USA will have a canadian-style universal health-care system, simply because the big corporations cannot pay for their employee health-care anymore.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[hkmwbz]

Hint: "Is Capitalist" vs. "was Capitalist".

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[I'm Spartacus!]

Your right to be free from poverty steps on my right to private property. Who's right? Or do you advocate the elimination of private property as well? And why is your right to be free from poverty more important than my right to retain my private property?

The U.S. is not a capitalist society; it's socialist as well. Socialism is merely a state-managed economy. We have all kinds of ways of managing the economy: minimum wage laws; equal employment opportunity laws; OSHA regulations; SEC regulations; and taxes, taxes, taxes. There is no free market in the U.S. It's a managed market, period.

Since you say capitalism doesn't work, I assume you mean people should not be free to engage and associate with whomever they please. Congratulations! That's the first step to authoritarianism.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Pofy]

>You physically own a CD. The contents of that CD, you simply own the right
>to listen to them.

No, you own a copy of the music. A copy is the work in question (music) fixed into some sort of media, the CD. That is the copy and you own it (including the copy of the music). There is no such thing as "right to listen" and you don't "own" such a thing either. There is nothing strange about that. What do exist is copyright law that forbids certain things (despite you owning a copy of the music), such as creating new copies or making public performances. That does not transform into you not owning the copy.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[kilodelta]

I agree completely. Socialism has been equated with Communism in the Unite States, same as liberal has been equated with Communist.

For example, I'd love to start my own consulting company, hire on people with skill sets that I don't have, and generally offer I.T. services to the public. But I'm reluctant to do so because first, in my state we have an onerous business tax structure, and additionally we healthcare is a necessity but I don't want to winnow business profits on healthcare. At least not under the system we have now.

Maybe someday that'll change. But it doesn't look like its going to happen in the near future. Too many hands in the pie. Billing and Insurance companies have too strong a lobby.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[hkmwbz]

Everyone can be provided with food and somewhere to live without having to force everyone to follow the same path.

Oh, and you are making too many assumptions about where I'm from and what my situation is and has been. Stop it. It only proves that you do not have valid arguments, and have to restort to getting personal.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[EllisDees]

>If you buy a vacuum cleaner it is not considered "OK" to take it apart and build another one so you can have a vacuum cleaner for your holiday home, or one for upstairs and one for downstairs.

Yes, it is. There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing so if you have the materials and the ability to recreate it. If there were replicators (ala Star Trek), I would have no moral problem with copying anything at all.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Senzei]

The problem with your argument is that vacuum cleaners and cds are sold as very different concepts. Vacuum cleaners are a product. A CD is a distrobution method for a service, much like the lines coming into my house provide power and water. I don't really care all that much HOW I get my power and water so long as the quality of those items is acceptable.

According to your argument I should not be allowed to bottle up tap water and take it with me in the car. I pay for cds only as a vehicle for distributing content. The content is what I paid for, not a stupid plastic disc, and if I want to use that in my car, my house, my mp3 player, and my laptop why should I not be able to?

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[I'm Spartacus!]

> Otherwise, it's anarchy and even money does not exist.

Sorry, this is complete bullshit. Gold has functioned as money since humans first looked for a way out of rudimentary barter economies. Mnay societies that had no semblance of what we would consider a state of any sort have managed to figure out money without the help of a state-endorsed central bank.

You really don't know what you're talking about.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, therein lies the problem, doesn't it? With any sufficiently generous system, yeah, there are going to be freeloaders. But the question that ought to be asked is, how many people are we going to let starve/suffer to prevent freeloaders?

The single largest problem I see with Libertarianism or hard-line capitalism is that, simply enough, shit happens. And without a safety net, anyone can take a fall and not be able to get back up.

(The typical Libertarian solution is to suggest that people should voluntarily give to charity. However, there are two problems: one, shit occurs at a faster rate than money is provided, and second, such 'help' is often tied to organizations built on ideology. If I had a run of really bad luck, I'd like to be able to get help without hearing religious or political propaganda, thanks.)

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Rich0]

But doesn't your precious free market theory dictate that people should be willing to invest in more medical schools if there is this untapped demand? What exactly are the 'medical schools and the AMA' doing to prevent new schools from opening?

Check out http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-03-02-doc tor-shortage_x.htm

It looks like (surprise) the cause is government regulation - although this case the absence of subsidy. Apparently medical schools undercharge for medical training, and as a result they limit seats to the number that the government is willing to subsidize...

And what part of the government is fixing prices for the general population? For the most part it is HMOs that are doing this.

The government isn't fixing prices - what I was trying to say is that the government is interested in fixing prices, which is very true (just listen to the campaign rhetoric). You are correct that HMOs fill this role currently.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[PFI_Optix]

I agree, and I accept the purchase and should be free to do what I want with the item I buy. If I pay someone to have them broom my house, and then go and mimic their performance, should I pay them for that "right" to use my labor as I please?

No, and you're free to "mimic" any music you hear.

Why not? The copying is my time, the CD I buy is my property, the device I use to copy the CD is my property -- why should anyone have the right to prevent me from using my time as I please? For me, I'd rather pay someone else to perform these actions -- and The Pirate Bay is happy to do it for free. Of course, if I like the performance, I will be more than happy to pay the artist to make more performances, but I should not be required by law to do so.

The first part, you're absolutely right. The CD is yours, the time is yours, the device is yours. Copy away. It's the distribution that is wrong.

Now, what is it the Pirate Bay is copying that you own?

Bingo! And The Pirate Bay is the distributor who charges the least amount of money for distributing a product they created with their own labor: the MP3. The burger is the end result of the purchase, and I shouldn't have to pay the meat people over and over, or the trucking company over and over. I am buying the final product -- the burger. The same is true for the CD, I am buying the final product. No one should be able to tell me how I use my labor beyond that, if I want to use my labor to recreate or mimic an item (burger, CD, whatever).

The Pirate Bay was never authorized by the artist or anyone else to distribute the music.

Again: you are implying that you have to keep buying something. Last I checked, you buy a CD and you listen to it whenever you want. No additional fees, no residuals. YOU only pay ONCE. I don't know where you get the idea that it happens any other way.

And I believe this is the case if there was no copyright as well -- consumers will find the quality items they want and be willing to pay for them, regardless of what the law tells them. In fact, I don't think copyright is even working anymore -- people still pay because they know what is "right" not what they're afraid of what will happen to them.

People pay because most of them still don't know how to get "free" music since Napster changed and Kazaa went to crap.

So someone decided to sell their labor cheaper than another, and the more expensive laborer loses their job. I think this is what competition is.

So if I take a camera into a concert and record it and sell copies of the recording for $1 a piece, that's okay? Even though my labor involved recording someone else's labor, that other person is just out of luck?

I'm currently working on a Sci-Fi novel which I will freely pass out in e-book format -- but some of the underlying politics and thoughts in the novel will be a great way to market my websites. My websites are a great way to market me. In the long run, the book will take me 300-400 hours to complete. Over my lifetime, the marketing potential is well over $100 per hour of what I'll likely gain, so I feel that the labor spent as a marketing potential is more than well spent.

And if someone decided to take your book, print it, and sell it, they should be able to without your permission. If they were to choose to change it a bit, that's up to them. After all, they're "mimicing" it, and mimicry isn't always exact.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[DarthVain]

Note you only have two examples, which are both extreem left socialist COMMUNIST states.

I think what the parent post was trying to say is that socalist leaning socities are better in general. He admitted to being from Canada (as do I) which is a socialist democratic federation (if I had to discribe it, I didn't look this up somewhere). So the parent is looking at MODERATE socialist contries and their governments such as Sweden.

It is a pretty long streach (ie. stupid) to compare Sweden to either China or old school Russia (in fact China probably has way more in common with the USA than it does with other socialist states, #1 the make up of its economey and trade, #2 guess who ranks #1 and #2 for state sponsored exacutions?, #3 both contries improsion people without trial, or reason, and doesn't always abide with international law in this respect.... etc...).

A better compairson would be to look at other moderated socialist states and see how they are doing these days. Check this link out: Best places to live in the world...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2149799.st m

See the top 3? Norway, Sweden, Canada.... all are moderate socialist states (hell Norway's tax is like 50% or something crazy but everyone gets free school and medical, so everyone likes), same can be said for Sweden and Canada. Problems with all systems of course but they seem to be trundleing along pretty good none the less...

In fact look at the entire list, I see 5 right away that could be in the same category.... I would guess the ONLY reason the USA is even there at all is it has the highest GDP by far of all those listed. However with how things are being run these days you have to wonder how long that will hold up (from my point of view you can only aquire so much debt before you start running into finicial trouble...)

Anyway thats my two cents....

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Mr. Slippery]

People in poverty? Look at the studies- the average family in poverty has a color tv and other ammenities

People give away used color TVs when they buy a newer, fancier one. Used computers, too, as available as hand-me-downs. The fact that poor people can glean fancy toys that the better-off put out in the trash, doesn't mean that they're not poor.

If only it were as easy to get nutritious food, good medical care, and sound housing.

The poorest people in the U.S. live better than 99% of the people in some countries.

I think living on a steam grate is about the same in any country. (Indeed, I'd rather be homeless in Japan than the U.S., at least I could set up a tarp-tent in a park, or hang out in a train station and not be harasses by cops.)

Anyone in the U.S. can walk into a hospital, and they will be treated.

EMTALA requires hospitals to treat emegency cases; useless for chronic conditions and for preventative care. And they can still bill you and try to squeeze whatever payment they can from you.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, yes, the classic "leftists are evil commies like the Soviets or Chinese". Let's be clear, here: socialism is not an economic policy. Socialism is a collection of social policies that happen to have an economic impact. To be clear, the Chinese are an authoritarian (some would argue totalitarian) government with a market economy. That's called capitalism. The Soviets, on the otherhand, were generally considered totalitarian under Stalin, and, later, just authoritarian. However, the USSR had a Command Economy until it's dissolution (excluding the brief interlude of the New Economy Policy, which followed War Communism). Yes, it's true that both of these countries had aspects of socialism - state ownership of businesses so that the citizenry would have equal access to goods and services.

How doesn't Capitalism work?

Well, for one, the same country (that's the US and A) that espouses capitalism restricts it. You have a central bank, and a government that regulates industry. That restricts natural market forces, and also inhibits the free flow of capital. Not exactly a capitalist thing to do, now, is it? But economic arguements aside...Capitalism doesn't work because it only allows the few to get wealthy while the mass does not.

The US is the most powerful country in the world.

Yum, the sweet smell of propaganda in the morning. The US is most definitely not the most powerful country in the world. You have a huge military that occupies large parts of the world, and is capable at projecting at least some force to most any place on the planet. That's wonderful, but a fairly outmoded view of military conflict, and how it relates to geostrategic importance. If one looks at power in relation to GNP, economic growth, or debt load, the US fails once again. You are incredibly in debt, your economy is stagnating, and your dollar is being devalued against the Euro. Not exactly peachy keen.

Interesting note: In the years after WWI, the Soviet Union, with it's Command Economy, grew faster than any other country on the planet. In three Five-Year Plans, the USSR went from being a backwards agarian country to being the second most industrialised country in the world. Indeed, the trend continued after the Second World War, and all the way up under Khrushchev - if Brezhnev had not allowed the infrastructure to crumble and the bureaucracy to stagnate, I'm sure that the economic situation of the Soviet Union in the 1980's would have been much, much better.

That said, the US is not a Capitalist country.

Yes, that's true. It's not a purely capitalist country. It's a country with a far-right wing social policy, and a market economy dominated by various corporate cartels. In that sense, the US and A is much closer to Fascist Italy than anything we've really seen to date. No, I'm not saying that Bush is a nazi or anything like that, but the economic model of Fascist Italy was that of a market economy dominated by corporations. Want to know what the english press used to call the system in Italy before fascism came into common usage? Corporatism

Over time, it has become more and more Collectivist

Excuse me? Collectivist? It sounds like you've been reading far too much Ayn Rand (she's out to lunch). There is most definitely nothing collectivist about the USA, economicly speaking.

which happens to be what Socialism is all about

Ummm, no. That's not what socialism is about. Socialism is two things, if you haven't already read up on it: a set of social policies, and, economic policies. That's how many people classify socialism, but it's not that simple. The social policies require the economic policies to work. You can't exactly have universal medicare without at least some state owned hospitals or whatever. Philosophically speaking, you are right - to a degree. Socialism, traditionally, does n

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Eivind Eklund]

"Copyright" is not a right, it's a privilege (given to them by, indirectly, pointing a gun at everybody else.) Apart from that, great post.

Eivind.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[dwandy]

Making a copy of a recording of an artist's performance is NOT the same as mimicing that performance.

...unless you are in a musical instrument shop:

100. Musical instrument shops must pay an annual royalty to cover shoppers who perform a recognisable riff before they buy, thereby making a "public performance".

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[I'm Spartacus!]

There's a market solution to your problem. It's called insurance. If government programs all went away, private insurance would fill the gap and would allow people to manage their own risk as they see fit. You have no such choice with government programs. They are enforced at gunpoint.

So you advocate robbing people at gunpoint for the good of society?

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Anonymous Coward]

How are you forced if you pay willingly? You don't even know what capitalism is. It's the free exchange of goods and services without violence or force. I ask to recieve twenty dollars for something an if you want it you pay. That is capitalism no more no less. In what way are you forced?

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[dada21]

No, and you're free to "mimic" any music you hear.

I can? Not with copyright. If I see someone shoveling a hole in the ground and I believe I can shovel a hole better, I am free to go and sell my labor (my time, my body, me) to someone else, mimicing the original guy entirely without giving him any compensation. Yet if I want to do the same thing with my voice, mimicing the voice box motions, I have to pay a fee. That isn't freedom.

Now, what is it the Pirate Bay is copying that you own?

The Pirate Bay is not stealing anything from anyone -- all they are doing is sharing the work of others -- others took the time to mimic the data that someone else decided to distribute without protecting it physically. If I want to hide my secret shovel techniques, I should put a box around it and not let anyone see. The same is true with content -- if you don't want it reproduced, don't make it.

The Pirate Bay was never authorized by the artist or anyone else to distribute the music.

And yet they didn't force the artist to lose any labor agaisnt their will -- the Pirate Bay just took the labors of others and found people interested in using that labor of others. The "others" here are labeled pirates, but I see them more as people who are selling themselves too cheaply.

So if I take a camera into a concert and record it and sell copies of the recording for $1 a piece, that's okay? Even though my labor involved recording someone else's labor, that other person is just out of luck?

First of all, when you go to a show, you're usually on someone else's property. The right to property should mean that the property owner can tell the visitor what rules to follow -- no cameras, no drugs, no clothes, no talking, no blacks, no women, no midgets, whatever. It is there property. If they say it is cool to take pictures on their property, go right ahead.

And if someone decided to take your book, print it, and sell it, they should be able to without your permission. If they were to choose to change it a bit, that's up to them. After all, they're "mimicing" it, and mimicry isn't always exact.

I openly allow this, and I actually love it when I find others mimicing my words -- it is a great form of marketing for the original author. In a free market, companies like Google would offer tools to track down who exactly originated a certain creation -- words, lyrics, tunes, whatever. If an artist wanted to make sure the world knew who wrote the song, they could register the song with a variety of Wayback Machine style sites -- archivers, cachers, whatever. When someone wanted to find out who was the first person to write "Happy Birthday" they could go to these archiving sites or companies and find the truth. Anyone else is free to mimic the tune, but they won't get the recognition, and the recognition is a key factor in selling or marketing your labor.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[I'm Spartacus!]

The U.S. is a socialist state by your own definition. You don't own land; you lease it from the state in the form of property taxes.

> Capitalism allows freedom only when it doesn't get in the way of a profit.

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. Capitalism is the very definition of freedom. Capitalism is nothing more that economic freedom of association.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[umbrellasd]

I know my phone calls don't make a difference -- yet. But over time, as more people realize that voting with their dollars and voting with how they spend their time, we'll see change being made through a free market of motivations.

You're letter does not matter, but your letter combined with 30,000 other letters saying similar things does. I think you're in the "voting doesn't matter because I'm just one person" situation. On the election level, it might be that way sometimes, but at an individual member of congress level, your voice matters somewhat more. If a large enough portion of the constituency is vocal about an issue, it may lead to a change in position.

In any case, it seems like a better bet than trying to give the bad guys a death of a thousand cuts. Especially when the bastards have no blood in their veins to begin with, ;-).

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Maxo-Texas]

Excuse me? If I buy a vacuum cleaner, lawnmower, weed eater, blender, power drill, I can do any damn thing I want to them including making new devices using parts from them, upgrading them with aftermarket parts to work better, rent them to other people, and resell them later when I'm done with them.

If they break during normal use, in the warranty period, they are repaired free by the company- sometimes with a small shipping fee.

I don't think you know what you are talking about. I think you've been brainwashed.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Politburo]

BTW this article appears to invalidate your earlier argument re: AMA.

Even the American Medical Association (AMA), the influential lobbying group for physicians, has abandoned its long-standing position that an "oversupply exists or is immediately expected." ... Last month, it recommended increasing the number of U.S. medical students by 15%.

Either way, it seems like the problem is money. Why has the market failed to provide the funds to put more people through residencies? It doesn't have to come from the government. Funny that in the OP you're essentially arguing against government regulation and here obliquely appear to be calling for more subsidies. Damned if they do, damned if they don't?

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Rick.C]

...no easy access to pharmeceuticals to those not in the middle and high income brackets.

Oh, come on! Poor people in the USA have access to some of the newest drugs out there. So new in fact, that they're still in beta test! It's just the older, proven drugs that are priced out of their reach.

(Don't mod this "funny", mod it "sad, but true".)

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[crabpeople]

"Huh? How about freedom to keep what I earn and use it to pay for my own medical insurance of my choice?"
and the freedom to have insurance companies think your too much of a risk and not insure you.

"Freedom to not run across the border to have to use a doctor of my choice?"
and the freedom to have to illegally export the drugs that doctor tells you to take from another country to the north because big pharma thinks americans should be charged more.

"Freedom to not be poor through the sweat of my brow?"
Thats called "working". something most everyone has to do.

"They're breaking apart as they become more and more like us!"
america is not breaking apart. mr klein please stop trolling slashdot.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Kennon]

Wow, reading your post makes it sound like there are no poor or homeless people in Canada...umm I have spent quite a bit of time in Toronto and the surrounding area. Needless to say either you have not or you are trying to BS everyone. And as far as pharmacuticals...yes, many Americans drive north to buy some drugs but most Canadians with any extra money drive south for surgical proceedures, even fairly minor ones. You get what you pay for, even in Socialism. Freedom can be defined in many ways. Don't try to make yourself feel better about your system of government by picking on mine. Being picked on by a Canadian for problems with government is like being called an alcoholic by one.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[JordanL]

Socialism is in fact designed to be freedom, freedom from poverty and medical expenses as well as personal freedom.

The current capitalist system in the US favors freedom of the corporation over freedom of the individual. The problem with socialism is the exact opposite. It provides almost no freedom of the corporation, and in turn, almost demands a state-controlled economy, which what the USSR really was: socialism mandated through fascism.

Most US citizens don't like the concept of socialism, because they socialism as one Congressional session away from the USSR, (and in case you didn't know, living in the USSR wasn't exactly paradise).

Socialism, in its europeon and canadian forms, is kept in check, mostly, by market forces, which are strong enough to keep them in check only because of more open markets such as the US. Ironically, many of the "freedom's" socialism enjoys, such as health care, are subsidized by free markets, such as the US, which recoups the losses of R&D for instance. Without markets like the US, markets like Canada would not exist.

If the US were little more socialist, everyone else would ahve to be a little more capitalist.

Incidentally, I've never understood how something that is only achievable through advancements in science and technology, and not through the inherent properties of being human, like health care, can ever be described as a right or freedom. It is a privilege. A privilege which incidentally helps support things that are rights, (you can't protest if you're not healthy), but protecting and proclaiming something a right, when it is in fact a corrollarry to rights is a slipperly slope... one I do not wish to tred, and one which would be very, very expensive.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[masklinn]

With some of the public defenders we've got --ever hear that phrase "you get what you pay for?"

I think that's pretty much what he was saying: if you can't pay, you're not equal to someone who can. If you can't pay, being guilty or not will not matter because you'll lose anyway. In a word, if you can't pay there is no justice for you.

I'm sure you'll find arguments to tell me that I'm wrong and that it's perfectly normal, that justice should only be upheld for the richest and that the poorest don't have any use from it, but I still find it... a fairly strange conception of the "Justice" concept.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[glesga_kiss]

You don't own land; you lease it from the state in the form of property taxes.

Land ownership is like that everywhere.

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. Capitalism is the very definition of freedom.

No it bloody well is not!! You have been brainwashed by the Cold War into thinking Capitalism == good, Socialism == evil. It's not as simple as that and Capitism IN NO WAY defines freedom. Freedom requires freedom of speach, freedom of expression and freedom of religion. They are WAY MORE IMPORTANT than owning land. I mean, come on, be serious here. You might own your own house, but you can't vote or believe in $DIETY? That is not freedom.

Freedom is also having independent thought. Most of you cold-war children seem to have a little problem with doing that...

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[metlin]

Yes. The US is most certainly successful, in ways that Denmark or Sweden would never be.

Your comparison is flawed for a number of reasons. For one, Scandinavian countries are extremely small in comparison, and they started out with a relatively higher standard of living to begin with. On the contrary, the US is a settlement of immigrants, so to speak.

Both in terms of size and number, US is much, much bigger and much more diverse.

Secondly, the US is extremely open to immigrants - the number of people of various cultures and ethnicities that move into the US every year makes it easy for us to attract new talent. In a socialist system, this would not be possible because the system would not be self-sustaining and the strain on the system would not balance itself against the benefits.

And finally, for a state of this size and this diversity, we need a system where the fittest survive - and capitalism provides that. The best come, and the best move up the ladder. If the US were a closed, monocultural society with a small (and possibly non-growing) population and a small area, then maybe a socialist state might be possible (not necessarily good, though).

Socialism in any form forgets the fact that we evolved from the fittest - capitalism is a system that lets the fittest fight his or her way to the top, and letting the rest die out. Nature does not know and does not show empathy to the weak. There are predators and there are prey.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[stanmann]

You already pay for tons of thing you do not directly benefit. Like Army, Police, FireFighters, Roads, ...

I benefit from every one of those, things, I also even as a person without children benefit from a STRONG educational system, because an educated populace is an upwardly mobile populace. And tends towards less criminality.

I don't benefit from The dole, because the dole encourages those accepting it to continue to depend on it.

I might benefit from a national health system, but nationalized medicine almost always costs more per patient than private health care.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[AK Marc]

I prefer having more personal freedom, and less government interference in my life, thank you.

Like the sweatshops, monopolies, and poor worker conditions from pure capitalism?

If you had to chose to live in North Korea or South Korea, which one would you pick?

How about capitalist Nigeria vs socialist Sweden?

And what does a communist dictatorship have to do with socialism? Just because communist dictatorships call themselves socialist does not mean they are. Are you lying about the comparison in order to make your side look better? That's always the tactic of the people that know they are wrong. I guess I should just take your purposeful swap of communism for socialism as an admission of you being wrong. Well, you may be truly ignorant over what socialism is, in which case this is all a waste of my time anyway.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Trailer Trash]

Socialism is in fact designed to be freedom, freedom from poverty and medical expenses as well as personal freedom.

How about freedom to open a private medical practice? Oops. Isn't it funny how socialism is so great that it has to destroy the competition?

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[mjh]

If we assume that the number of people who "can't afford" the procedure are the ones without health insurance, then it's about 15%, which is better than Sweden's number and WAAAY better than both Canada and the UK's number. In other words, the percentage of people who don't get coronary bypass in the US as a result of our strange capitalist leaning, but not capitalist health care system is better than all of the socialist systems. Capitalism is still the least bad option.

NOTE: I put "can't afford" in quotes. The number of people without health insurance is NOT the same as the number of people who can't afford it. The annual cost of health insurance is approximately the same as the annual cost of eating. There are certainly some people who can't afford to pay the cost of health insurance. But many (I'd like to say most) simply choose to spend their money on other things. In other words, the assumption I make above to get to 15% is extremely pessimistic to my claim and yet it still validates my claim. If I could find an accurate way of deliniating those who choose not to purchase health insurance from those who truly can not pay for health insurance, AND then if I could find a reliable statistic for the latter group, it would make my claim even stronger. How much stronger, I'm not sure, but I suspect it would cut the number in half (at least).

If you then instead substituted a real market based health insurance program instead of the strange one that we have, it'd be even better. A real health insurance program would drive down the costs of procedures, instead of what we have driving up the costs.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[bobdinkel]

Medicine is failed in the US because of government's reach into it -- 40 years ago medicine was much more readily available to the poor and the minority. Today it is destroyed because of trying to fix a problem that never existed.

I think this is an overly simplistic statement. The fact of the matter is, medical technology today just isn't comparable to what was available 40 years ago. It certainly isn't getting cheaper, but why is that? Your post implies (perhaps not intentionally) that it has primarily to do with government involvment. I would think that very significant factor (if not the most significant factor) is the expense of higher tech equipment. MRIs require very expensive equipment. The same is true of any surgery involving lasers. Also, doctors go to greater lengths to help patients because more options are available. Just look at cancer. The point at which doctors give up on treating a patient nowadays is much further along than it was 40 years ago.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Dorceon]

"Cost per patient" isn't the best metric to use on a health care system. Letting everyone die costs $0 per patient. (That's what the insurance company would spend if it could get away with it.)

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Larch]

You seem to have confused Paternalism with Socialism. That is essentially what you call the Nanny State, the Government telling you that you need to wear seatbelts or drive carefully or whatever and many people actually believe these are good things. Social welfare to some extent is Paternalist, but like you said you have no problem with disabled people getting social benefits - why shouldn't their families, or they themselves bear the burden of their condition rather than the whole of society? (Note that I do not believe this myself but I am simply raising it for the sake of example.)

Most people, even so called libertarians like yourself seem OK with socialism for a lot of things (defence, roads, police, etc.), so don't expect it to go away anytime soon.

As for the Nanny State, this will always be evaluated in terms of things like safety over personal freedom. Baby walkers as in your example have been proven to be not-safe, and the American Pediatric Association has been regularly calling for them to be banned. Does not being able to use a Baby walker really impact the lifestyle of a baby so much in exchange for the improvement in their safety? Not half as bad as some of the crap being passed in the USA lately at any rate.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[jargoone]

The problem with your argument is that making perfect copies of CDs is (almost) free. If you run a garden hose to your neighbor's house to supply him with water, it's not free (for you).

Arguing with analogies really doesn't work all that well.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Conanymous Award]

"To stay a bit on topic: I recently spent quite a bit of time researching the Swedes, and I'm very surprised at the amounts of freedoms they had in a country that has typically been considered socialist."

Gee whiz, big surprise huh? Sweden is "typically" considered socialist by American right-wingers who think a country that a) Isn't the U.S. of A., b) has a political party called Social Democrats as one of the biggest parties and c) has higher taxation than the U.S. of A. can't be anything else than socialist. Or that it probably has a German-speaking Saddam Hussein as the head-of-state.

Fact 1: There are countries which are as free, in some aspects even freer than the U.S. of A. And on the other hand they might not be as free as the U.S. of A. in some other aspects.
Fact 2: Socialism and freedom are not necessarily mutually exclusive. (And in Sweden's case, calling it a "socialist" country is pretty damn extreme anyway.)
Fact 3: Sweden is a Western democracy (note to the not-so-well-informed: a monarchy's opposite is a republic, not a democracy). Western democracies are usually very free (as in freedom, not beer) regardless of the side of the Atlantic they lie.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[I'm Spartacus!]

> Land ownership is like that everywhere.

Right. It's not really ownership. When I own something, I get to determine how I use it. Paying a tax for the right to use it is not ownership in any sense of the word.

All those other freedoms are irrelevant if there is nowhere to exercise them. I prefer not to acquiesce to the state to allow me to practice my own religion or say what I want. I'd rather do so on property that belongs to me. Every government that has ever existed is about squelching individual freedoms for the good of society - an artificial construct of real individuals.

And who the hell cares about the right to vote? I'm not interested in participating in a popularity contest to determine who gets to rule over me. I'm much more interested in making sure my family is well-provided for than who gets to take my freedoms away from me.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[AK Marc]

Socialism is like having tax sponsored babysitters.

And what if it can be proven that the tax sponsored babysitters cost $5 per day per kid, but under the capitalist system the child is without proper supervision and ends up costing society $6 per day per kid? I've seen things like that (adult education for one) where people would rather pay more in order to not help people. "I'd rather pay for them to be in jail than have provided them with support (at a lower total cost) so they didn't have to steal to eat" seems to be the capitalistic attitude. Kind of like hazing for a fraternity. It doesn't matter if it serves no purpose (oh yeah, "bonding"). Punishing someone because you had to go through the same thing is ok, even if it is counter-productive in the end.

For instance, in Canada, baby walkers are illegal.

And in TX it's illegal to have wire cutters in your back pocket. Damn those evil corporations banning our personal freedom to cary around tools on the chance that we might use those tools to harm their profits. Capitalism results in as many (or more?) stupid laws in support of capitalist ideas. But I guess you prefer DMCA and other corporate protections.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[john83]

You're thinking of Anarchism. Communism is an economic system, not a political one. There is no impetuous to dissolve the government in a communist system, whether ideal or one of the abominations of systems that have used that name in the past century.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Digz]

..and neither does your rebuttal apply to the parent.

According to your argument I should not be allowed to bottle up tap water and take it with me in the car.

Nothing there about P2P water distribution. He's already paid for the water he ran from the tap into the glass. Why should be pay again to move the water from the glass to a bottle?

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Skreems]

See, the thing is, in America we are already taxed at ridiculous levels, it's just we PRETEND that we aren't. And we don't get the benefits that countries usually do when they acknowledge their taxation levels. I made around 35k this year, and I was taxed at 30%. Why? Well, there's about 15% in federal income tax, and then theres 8% in social security and medicare taxes, and my employer pays a matching amount to that 8% -- and although that matching amount doesn't show up on my paycheck, you know they have to figure it into the cost of employing me, so it's quite literally money that I earned through my work. Taxes are really twice as high as people think, and we don't even get socialized health care out of it. How's that supposed to be "freedom" exactly?

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Telvin_3d]

I believe what you were looking for is 'fascist ideal'
Ironically, despite the historic results of communism, socialism is really about the lack of government controls. It is fascism that promotes control from the top.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[flynt]

While it's popular to bash the RIAA on this argument, apply it to software creators, especially games. The exact same argument applies, but it's $50 instead of $15, so it's an even more of an offense. Not many people complain about paying $50 for game though. I have wondered why that is. Usually people tell me that it's because software takes more money and time to create than music. I don't know if that's true or not, but it's something to think about.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[nx]

in a country that has typically been considered socialist

I'm not sure who exactly considers Sweden socialist outside McCarthyesque circles, but this has never been the case. Although, I suppose that the strong social-democratic traditions might give that impression to some, prima facie.

how many rights they still retain that we gave up in the US a long, long time ago

Drug use, prostitution, bearing arms, bypassing non-trivial copy protection and hate speech are illegal in Sweden. I'm not sure what those amazing rights we retain are. It'd be nice to hear about them though - to get some perspective on my own bleak vision of the future of this country. I guess that the existence of TPB is a good sign, but it hardly has much weight, considering that they're going to go after the individuals pretty soon. Data retention is on the way, and recently (early March) a directive was introduced by the executive branch, instructing the police to target copyright infringement on the Internet, at both large and small scale. The latter, despite the Minister of Justice's insistence that this was NOT the objective of the bill, which was passed just last July. Hello, 1984.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Anonymous Coward]

I prefer voluntary participation in a society. No one's forcing you to stay a member of that society. If you do, you have two options: you can either try to change that society, or you can leave.

Second, your market solution is the butt of many bad jokes. Like the one about the medical insurance guy who says he should get into Heaven, at which point St. Peter says, "Give him three days, then send him to Hell."

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[pizzaman100]

Nigeria vs Sweden is not apples to apples. Korea is apple to apples (one capitalist, one socialist). Socialism as a form of government lends itself to dictatorship and corruption, even if it starts out democratic. Take apples to apples and capitalism wins every time. North Korea vs South Korea. China vs Taiwain. Zimbabwe vs South Africa. Nicaragua vs Costa Rica. Canada vs USA. East Germany vs West Germany. Vermont vs New Hampshire. Ontario vs Alberta. I'll take capitalism every time, thank you.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Anonymous Coward]

The US doesnt have a higher percentage of debt than most countries in Europe.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[stanmann]

Cost per patient applies to each procedure. For example an appendectomy or 4x heart Bypass, etc.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[nx]

The fact that socialism is touted as an "ennemy [sic] of freedom" is the biggest political lie westerners are spoonfed by the bourgeois. Extensive social programs, such as chidren day care, universal medical insurance and unemployment insurance go a very long way in protecting the economic freedom of the little guys.

A welfare state, nanny state, or whatever you want to call it, is not per definition socialist. Socialism is a political ideology which is includes some sort of democratic power base (as oppose to Communism), but which does have a very extensive public economic sector. The role of private property rights is somewhat unclear, and your mileage may vary on this point.

However, if the right to private property is not included, I would very much call a socialist movement "enemies of freedom". Ownership of self, and some basic property rights is the basis for freedom. This is included in the definition of the pretty much all non-marxist, western political philosophers.

Although, as stated; how much socialism is an enemy of freedom is really dependent on how close to communism it is defined as.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Anonymous Coward]

It can be a good idea to read a post before replying to it sometimes. Try it now, and see how stupid you sound.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[I'm Spartacus!]

I prefer voluntary participation in a society. No one's forcing you to stay a member of that society. If you do, you have two options: you can either try to change that society, or you can leave.

So you do advocate robbing people at gunpoint for the good of society, eh? Thanks for clearing that up.

Second, your market solution is the butt of many bad jokes. Like the one about the medical insurance guy who says he should get into Heaven, at which point St. Peter says, "Give him three days, then send him to Hell."

As if Medicare/Medicaid are any better. Sorry. Linux aside, there's no such thing as a free lunch.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you invent or create something you deserve to have rights to it. I dont see how you can say this is 'state owned' property rights.

On another note I cant seem to understand why Canadians constantly bash the US and act like Canada is some type of paradise.

Check and see what some of your immigrants have to say about Canada:

Some Canadian immigrants have moved to the US and have had much better experience.

http://www.canadaimmigrants.com/forum_2.asp

notcanada.com

Clean up your own backyard and before you go bashing the US for capitalism.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Dantu]

That doesn't change the fact that Canadian hospitals have waiting lists that are insane. Not private business would say "Sorry about the heart problem, come back in 6 months" because you would to to another hospital - and long waiting lists only save money if people DIE before they get thier operation!

My mother (and she isn't rich) forked out several thousand a while ago for a "grey-market" MRI here in Canada because that cost less than losing another 6 MONTHS of work waiting of our public care. Frankly, for 'minor' scans and treatments, anyone making better than minimum wage can afford better treatment than our public system provides. It's only major surgery where you really get any benifit.

A while ago there was an uproar because in Vancouver you could get your pet a CAT scan (no pun intended) in 48 hours, while the waiting list for people FOR THE EXACT SAME MACHINE was several months. Because you could pay to have your pet scanned after-hours.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[jonaskoelker]

Who'd have the stress of a brain surgeon if you could have the same lifestyle cooking burgers?

Obviously people who think brain surgery is intrinsically rewarding!

It's like saying "Who'd have the stress of being a Gentoo user if you could have the same lifestyle using Debian?" I believe gentoo users waste a lot of resources on compiling things, but obviously most gentoo users disagree--so instead of saying "gee, using gentoo is really stupid!" I say "gee, I'd really like to understand--why do you use gentoo?"

Perhaps you could ask some brain surgeons that have tried flipping burgers (so they seen both sides of the deal) if they'd rather flip burgers if the salaries were the same. I predict that most of them would say "hell no!".

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Rich0]

I don't think the government should be subsidizing anything - I was pointing out that the limitation on supply was caused by a reliance on subsidy - nobody is going to fund their own residency if half of their competitors are subsidized - they would have to charge uncompetitive rates to recoup their loss.

The government should maintain licensing requirements for those who practice medicine, and basic manufacturing

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Rich0]

ugh - darn konqueror ctrl-key links! submitted prematurely.

to continue - basic manufacturing safety regulation on medical devices / drugs /etc. Basically just what is needed to maintain a good standard for patient safety where patients can't figure it out on their own (we shouldn't have to rely on provider death rates to figure out who is a reasonably good doctor, and lawsuits to keep drugs safe).

In general, though, I advocate a minimalist approach until it is shown to not work.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[MikeBabcock]

You're under 30 right?

Bullets are worth more than gold.

You can't buy me for gold if I can kill you without repercussions.

Is it worth it to you to pay your henchmen gold to protect you, or to be part of a society with social norms?

Very quickly, people group into societies with leaders and taxes so as to avoid the burden of personal protection, etc.

Its a natural (and rapid) progression.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[jafac]

...I'm very surprised at the amounts of freedoms they had in a country that has typically been considered socialist.

Wow, you mean Rush Limbaugh is exaggerating when he compares European countries to the Stalinist Soviet Union? You mean "socialist" is a word whose definition has been twisted and distorted to mean something it doesn't, and therefore is almost useless as a means to describe an economic system (let alone a system of government)? You mean that having a legislature that's wholly owned by giant multinational corporations is not the recipie to protecting our Rights?

Whoda thunk it?

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Cal Paterson]

It's actually more accurate to say that many people, Americans, in particular, fail to see the difference between social and economic policies.

Americans are fairly free; in the economic sense. Short of a few laws and such, trade is mostly untouched by government. Where they lose out is in social freedoms; gay marriage isn't possible in most (any?) states, and the opposition to open sexuality was such that half a boob on primetime tv warranted such a massive scandal. They also routinely abuse the civil rights of citizens; the PATRIOT Act for example.

France is a good example of a western country that's fairly opposite. Social freedoms are high on the list, with open sexuality on television, and except that school-headscarf law social freedoms are good (it does seem like this is starting to change, however). Look at economic freedoms though, and you'll see that there aren't many; the government has heavy taxes and a strong benefit system.
The real killer in the US is that they call the Democrats "liberals"! The democrat party are actually very conservative by international standards. Republicans seemed similar when Bush was elected the first time, but since have slipped heavily into the Authoritarian corner.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[jafac]

Healthcare, pensions, social security and extensive consumer rights comes at a price though; economic efficiency.

Ask a typical Mexican how efficient their economy is without effective public education, without public healthcare, without social security, without pensions, without labor or environmental protections. Ask them why hundreds of thousands of them are fleeing Mexico to come to America. To pick lettuce for $15 a day?

Socialism is the difference between a first-world nation, and a third world bananna-republic shithole. We've benefitted from it in America for 2/3 of a Century. Now we've apparently decided we'd rather revert to third-world status because "Socialism=Stalinism".

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[PFI_Optix]

You can do whatever you want to the original device, but copying it is a patent violation, and illegal.

Here's the concept behind copyrights/IP/patent:

If you envision, design, prototype, test, and build something, you have a significant investment in the creation of the product beyond just the manufacture of it. If someone else could simply buy your first product, copy your design, and produce the same thing a week later, then all of your work has in effect been stolen. That's why people created IP laws.

Coca Cola's success is due to two things: it has a recipe people like, and an easily identifiable package. If neither the recipe (patent?) nor the package (trademark) were protected by law, there's nothing to stop me from copying one or both and producing an identical looking or tasting product and essentially "stealing" their marketshare without any significant effort.

Applying this back to music, there's a lot more to a recording than just the investment of time spent recording. Artists have a latent talent for music. They or someone else spent a great deal of time composing lyrics and/or music, and a great deal of time was spent practicing the music to perfection. That's all before anyone sat down in front of a microphone.

The creative process, the years of learning and practicing and developing a distinct style, the effort of forming a cohesive sound in a band...that is all completely original. It's the band's recipe; everything they play is based on that. Recording/performance investment aside, we're talking about a lifetime's effort in creating what you hear when an artist plays. Copyright protects those who create and record music because most people believe that an artist should have a right to control how their work is distributed in this age of technology.

If every musician stood on a street corner playing, and no one ever gave them any money and instead just recorded their performance for later playback, how long do you think most of them would be there? They've got bills to pay, too, and if music doesn't pay the bills don't expect to hear the quantity or the quality of music to which you are accustomed.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Anonymous Coward]

Economic and political systems *do* overlap. A economic system that promotes collective ownership of all assets is also implying collective responsibility for those assets - the latter being a more political angle.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[PFI_Optix]

They might find less people would oppose them if they weren't trying to have it both ways.

I agree. The RI/MPAA should really adopt the concept of licensing. If you buy a CD, that CD is your license. If you sell the CD, you've sold your license. If the CD is damaged beyond the ability to play, they should make a CD available to you at production cost to replace the damaged one (you would have to give the damaged CD back, of course).

It shouldn't matter to the industry what I do with the content I purchased. If they want to sell me a CD for $15, then the content just happened to be there and they gave it to me for free. If they want to sell me the content for $15, then the CD is just the delivery method and the content is mine.

I've never been given an EULA with a CD. Maybe they should start.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. Sure do. My next job? I'm gonna make a bunch of guys join a country club and force them to pay their dues by any means necessary.

And just for laughs, I'm not going to let them quit or even switch to another club. I don't know how I'm gonna do that, but I'm sure I'll figure something out!

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[UncleGizmo]

...I stand corrected (via snopes.com) that HB is actually copyrighted. However, my point was that even if it is copyrighted, as long as it's non-commercial use, you can sing it. According to snopes:

"Royalties are due, of course, for commercial uses of the song, such as playing or singing it for profit...; as well, royalties are due for public performance, defined by copyright law as performances which occur "at a place open to the public, or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered.""

"So, crooning "Happy Birthday to You" to family members and friends at home is fine, but performing a copyrighted work in a public setting such as a restaurant or a sports arena technically requires a license from ASCAP or the Harry Fox Agency (although such infringements are rarely prosecuted)."

Which was my pedantic point all along. But I do agree... copyright reaches WAY too far AFAIC.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Logic and Reason]

Which, to me, seems totally ludicrous and as absurd as it gets; after all The Government is just a reasonably large corporation with you as the owner.

You're forgetting one very large thing: only governments can legally use violence. That is the difference between governments and corporations — no matter how powerful a corporation gets, you can always choose not to buy from it. You can't choose not to deal with the government, though. And the part about 'with you as the owner' is pretty much just false for any country larger than city-size. Have you every actually had one of your votes affect your country's policies directly?

On the other hand, 'we' (I do atleast) believe in the freedom to live a nice life. Healthcare, pensions, social security and extensive consumer rights comes at a price though; economic efficiency.

It comes at another price, too: asesrting a right to "live a nice life" implies a right to force other people to pay for it. In contrast, the "American" idea of rights that you mock above is that one has the right to pursue a nice life — no one is obligated to hand you one on a silver platter.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[jafac]

Usually people tell me that it's because software takes more money and time to create than music.

do software engineers get paid more than Brittney Spears?

(then again, can she download pictures of my naked boobies?)

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Chris Burke]

Not private business would say "Sorry about the heart problem, come back in 6 months" because you would to to another hospital - and long waiting lists only save money if people DIE before they get thier operation!

They certainly do if you don't have insurance. They certainly would if they didn't have the capacity -- "private business" doesn't grant them infinite capacity, just like a restaurant will put you on a wait list if they're full and probably lose a lot of business in the process.

But your point is well made. Personally, I think we should try to get the best of both worlds. We here in the U.S. spend much more per-capita (I've heard three times more) than Canadians do. You pay through taxes, we pay through insurance premiums. While neither system is inherently efficient, the insurance system is much less efficient because the insurance companies are for-profit ventures, and they explicitly do not want to spend the premiums we pay on health care for us.

If Canadians spent as much as Americans do on health care, you might find the length of those wait lists vastly reduced. You have to fund a health care system sufficiently to handle the load you want it to. This is true regardless of how you fund it. If you have long wait lists, you aren't spending enough on health care.

Americans often seem to think that moving to a Canadian system would reduce the quality of care. It wouldn't, if we didn't reduce the amount we spent. Removing the inneficiency of the for-profit middle men would allow us to cover everyone without reducing quality of care. The system probably would be badly strained at first, because of the large number of people who would require care for conditions they can't currently afford to treat. This is the hidden cost of the current system, which would have to be payed in the transition to a fairer one. Though the cost is still being payed now, mostly in extremely expensive emergency room visits by people who couldn't afford health care in the first place.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[jargoone]

He's already paid for the water he ran from the tap into the glass. Why should be pay again to move the water from the glass to a bottle?

The water company doesn't care, because once you pour the water from the glass to a bottle, the glass is empty!

I'm not trying to make the analogy work. I'm saying it's a stupid analogy to begin with.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Anonymous Coward]

No need for hard numbers, the market will sort it out. *invisible hand wave*

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[I'm Spartacus!]

Whatever. The U.S. was formed largely on anarchic principles. Society exists because the majority of people will it to exist, not because men with guns keep everyone from killing each other. If 1% of the population suddenly decided to stop obeying the law, the police would be powerless to stop them. That people do not descend to the level of animals is due to the fact that nearly all agree that society is better served by people coexisting peacefully.

BTW, what keeps the leaders from becoming the henchmen you speak of? Aren't they simply men like you and me?

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[permaculture]

So, how are movie houses doing in Sweden, and CD sales etc?

Are the music shops are all bankrupt and no-one makes music in Sweden? Or are their artists actually making more sales due to these 'free samples'?

It'd be interesting to know.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[AK Marc]

Korea is apple to apples (one capitalist, one socialist).

Uh, no. One is a dictatorship, the other is a democracy. They aren't two democracies with dissimilar economic plans. They are no closer together than comparing Nigeria and Sweden.

Socialism as a form of government lends itself to dictatorship and corruption, even if it starts out democratic.

Can you name one time where socialism started out as democracy (with more than one party) and became a dictatorship? In every case I can think of, it started out as a dictatorship that the dictator declared communism (so that the dictator then owned everything).

Oh, and your inability to understand that communism is not equal to socialism indicates that you need to learn a little more about both.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Maxo-Texas]

There are very few songs and music that I like to listen to that were first released after 1978. Most of the music i like was written and/or performed by artists who are dead or about to be dead. Most of those artists who are still living don't get a penny for their songs because the music establishment bought all rights to their songs for a pittance-- the same music establishment that is now trying to even further extend copyrights on those performances.

I agree with most on the side of the music business that -new- creations should be protected for a reasonable period of time (previously agreed to be 28 years) before being returned to the public tomain. I also think that creators should be able to sell their music for whatever they want to sell it for-- if they want to charge a million dollars a copy - that's cool.

But I also think creators should be protected from large corporations by having a limited amount of time they can sell away their rights. That way if a song turns out to be worth ten million bucks a week because the NFL picks it up as a theme song that the artist can get a fair share of that money. Right now the system rips off both the artists AND the consumers.

I look forward to the end of the current system as the cost of producing and distributing creations continues to drop.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[ray-auch]

In other words, the percentage of people who don't get coronary bypass in the US as a result of our strange capitalist leaning, but not capitalist health care system is better than all of the socialist systems.

Read the figures again. They are for waiting for more than three months, not "don't get".

In the US, if you can afford to pay you get it straight away, otherwise you don't get it. Nobody waits, but plenty of people don't get.

In the UK, if you can afford to pay you get it straight away (yep, we still have for-pay medical care, and insurance schemes to cover it, if you want to pay for it), if you can't, you wait, for up to six months. Plenty of people wait, nobody doesn't get.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[AK Marc]

While it's popular to bash the RIAA on this argument, apply it to software creators, especially games. The exact same argument applies, but it's $50 instead of $15, so it's an even more of an offense.

I call bullshit. I had an evil gf from hell. She broke one of my games when she was mad at me. I called them up and told them it broke. They had me fax a copy of the broken game, send them shipping and handling, and they sent me a replacement disk (this was Westwood). I've ordered replacement media from Microsoft all the time too. I've never had a problem with replacement media from anyone other than Dell. They won't replace media that came with a computer, you have to re-buy the $3000 computer to get the disk from Dell again. But then, they aren't a software maker, so they don't count.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[ClamIAm]

I realize that you, being the super-important anarcho-capitalist (tm)(r) that you are, feel the need to share your anti-government wankings every other YRO story. That's great, but I'd appreciate it if you'd stay on topic. Thanks.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[PFI_Optix]

But I also think creators should be protected from large corporations by having a limited amount of time they can sell away their rights.

As IP is concerned, I'd like to see contracts be required to state an expected income level, and a royalty rate for income above and beyond the projected figure.

For example, if I write a song or make a movie or invent a gadget and some department of Sony comes along and buys it from me for $40,000, the contract might specify that they expect to make $2,000,000 off my IP. If it turns out to be the most popular song ever or the next iPod and nets them $200,000,000, I'd be entitled to a portion of that $198M that is above and beyond their projections. Corporations like to take advantage of naive people by pretending to pay a fair price while knowing full well that they'd have spent a much larger amount if it was demanded.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[blakestah]

Huh? How about freedom to keep what I earn and use it to pay for my own medical insurance of my choice? Freedom to not run across the border to have to use a doctor of my choice? Freedom to not be poor through the sweat of my brow? My country's a great one, but it's not all roses here.

Hate to tell you this, but America's health care system is on a collison crash-and-burn course because it is badly broken. Health care costs rise, as a fraction of the total economy, yearly. Rapidly, in fact. Projections are we have another 10 years of business as usual, at best.

But that is not really the point. Every other westernized country has better health care than the USA. No, that doesn't mean the best doctors are there...it means they treat everyone, and in the USA 1 in 6 people has no medical insurance and receives minimal medical care.

Even ignoring 1 in 6 people, US residents spend 50% more on health care than people in virtually every other westernized nation. That's 50% more AFTER normalizing for GDP.

Our health care system sucks, If the Canadian or Swiss health care system means everyone gets health care, and as a nation we spend 33% less on health care, and our population health care stats improve, bring it on!

Also, I've worked with many Canadian doctors. They are great. The best Canadian doctors stack up with the best American doctors. I'm not saying I think the Canadian system is the best socialized medicine, but the US HAS to change, and their system is certainly one better option.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Joe the Lesser]

Thanks to Stephen Colbert and the Colbert Report, I know all about your district and Representative Tubbs-Jones! ;-)

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[EzInKy]

If you buy a vacuum cleaner it is not considered "OK" to take it apart and build another one so you can have a vacuum cleaner for your holiday home, or one for upstairs and one for downstairs.


Where did you ever get the idea that it wasn't okay to take hardware you own apart and build something new from it? People here do it all the time with computers.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[hyfe]

You're forgetting one very large thing: only governments can legally use violence.

Oh, what magical rule said so? I mean, that *you* decided to give the government several rights other corporations doesn't have is *your* decision. If the majority wants it, the governments monopoly on legal violence will end. In the end, the government is just as much bound as it owns laws as other corporations are (provided you're still living in a liberal democrazy of course).

It comes at another price, too: asesrting a right to "live a nice life" implies a right to force other people to pay for it.

A right to force people to pay for it? You make that sound like it's a bad thing, and that there is some implied right 'not to pay for others'. Morality is a fickle thing; there is no implied right for either case. The cornerstone of the democrazy is the tyrany of the majority. We choose what society we want to build, and then we live in it. There is nothing more to it.

If the majority of the citizens want everybody to do something, then that is the way it will be. If you have moral qualms about this, feel free to lobby for some other form of government (China is having quite alot of success with tyrany of the minority nowadays :))

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[hyfe]

Ask them why hundreds of thousands of them are fleeing Mexico to come to America. To pick lettuce for $15 a day?

I'd say that's the difference between a working government/society and a broken one. I've long held that competence, intelligence and honesty is way more important than political agenda for politicians, and I suspect that the same holds for nations. It doesn't matter *that* much how you go about creating a society as long as you're not bloody incompetent.

Socialism is the difference between a first-world nation, and a third world bananna-republic shithole

Yes, I agree. The US has many socialists traits that have been pivotal to your success; first and foremost excellent government funding of university research.
However, while these are certainly relevant when you're comparing West to Third World, my comment was on the other hand in the context of comparing US and European definitions of freedom. While some "socialist" traits are shared, we do have a shitload more of them :)

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Dachannien]

Crap! Wish I'd seen that one. Off to TPB with me, I suppose ;)

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[kevinbr]

Have a close read of these documents : http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual /against.htm

What we all fail to consider is that copyright allows intellectual monopolies. Are any monopolies anomolous in a free market world?

The reality is that people talk about theft .......but copying a song IS NOT theft. If I truly steal a thing from you, you no longer have that thing. When I copy a song I am breaking your monopoly.

We all seem to just reflexively accept that copying is theft without really considering it very carefully.

We seem to ignore that most of the excellent manifestations of art existing today were done without copyright.

This is slashdot......where monopolies are bad?

The other reality is that copyright in effect does nothing to enrich an artist. See: http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/

With the cost of disseminating music and books moving to zero, careful thought needs to be given by artists. Sadly they buy into the system because they hope they will be the next U2 and they see copyright as an essential tool to ensure that they become wealthy if they are popular. However the number of U2s is defined and limited by the record companies, not by the public or the talent of the band. The public has been trained to be told what they like.

As we have been trained to believe that some monopolies are good. Classic bait and switch - see the starving artist - send your cash to help him - zing cash goes to record company - artist is still starving. Public feels better cause they paid for music. Music business has you where it wants you.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Abcd1234]

EMTALA requires hospitals to treat emegency cases; useless for chronic conditions and for preventative care. And they can still bill you and try to squeeze whatever payment they can from you.

And the best part about this? Because of the cost burden (it's private, thus subject to a board who wants profits, etc), many hospitals are simply shutting down their emergency wards. Yay privatized healthcare!

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[shutdown -p now]

Soviet Union was in fact socialist. As far as that went (education, medical care etc), it worked just fine.

As for the USA being the most powerful country in the world - this says nothing about how good it is to live in such a country; nor it is evident that it is the advantage of capitalist economy. The USSR, when it existed, was also a very powerful country, arguably on par with the USA. This has nothing to do with economy, and everything with what some people call "imperial approach". The USSR and the USA are (were) both empires.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[stinky wizzleteats]

Except that all three examples I just presented are actions of an oligarchy, not a collective.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[TomatoMan]

No. Read Lenin's The State and Revolution. The "withering away of the state" is the ultimate goal of communism.

You could (correctly) argue that Lenin doesn't provide the only definition or vision of communism, but his is a widely-held one and formative of many derivatives.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Anonymous Coward]

A few years back at least I read that Sweden was the third largest
producer of music in the world. This from a country with approx 9
million inhabitants. As for sales it's hard to tell. Getting correct
information from the record companies has been rather hard. Usually
any message on this topic stops just short of claiming that all
artists will be starving to death within next month unless we stop
all forms of downloading.

Sales of physical discs have gone down over the past couple of years
(especially singles) but on the other hand the sales of digitally
distributed music have increased by some 300%.
It should also be noted that the physical sales fluctuate quite a bit
as december 2005 was a very good month (+20% compared to 2004). 41% of
the total value of sold music media in Sweden originated from swedish
artists. Source: IFPI.

As for movie sales well... Ticket sales for the Cinema are going
down; -12% in 2005 compared to 2004 (source: SFI). Compared to
some other countries (notably Germany) this is not an particularly
steep decline. On the DVD front the sales have risen 20-30% annually
but now appears to be platooing (according to official reports from
the movie studios).

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely she must have the money to get 'Tubbs' removed from her name.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[BalkanBoy]

Thank God someone with a clue.. Of course it's not pure capitalism. If it was pure capitalism, we'd still probably be running MS-DOS, because Microsoft could monopolize, using any tactics available at their disposal (corporate-ordered murder(s) included), to stay afloat and keep their monopoly.

However, the other part of your statement contained a very, extremely key word - /balance/, or equilibrium.... balance is imperative amongst all entites in the united states (or any other country) - between government, corporations and the people.... The U.S. has so far been achieving a wonderful balance, more wonderful than any other developed country even, Sweden included....

When someone comes up with a better balancing scheme, I think the US will be the first one to embrace it.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[pizzaman100]

Socialism can exist in either a democracy or dictatorship, or some combination between. Capitalism can exist in a democracy or dictatorship, or some combination between. Communism is a form of Socialism that is imposed by a dictatorship. North and South Korea are apples because they have BOTH been dictatorships, but one chose socialism, and one capitalism. In due time, S. Korea has become more of a democracy. Capitalism results in increased freedom over time, socialism less. Korea bears this out.

The problem with even democratic Socialism is that it has eventually bankrupted the countries it has been tried in, and stolen their competitive edge and productivity. That's the reason why your beloved Sweden is poorer than Mississippi in per capita income. There is no free lunch. If you want the government to control every aspect of your life, go for it, move to Sweden, the crown jewel of Socialism, and #51 in per capita income if it were a US State. I prefer to make my own choices, choose my own doctors, keep my own money, own my own land, work for a living and give to a charity of my choosing instead of the goernment dictating it to me. Countries that move toward socialism fail. Hence the causes of the decrease in productivity in Western Europe. Countries that move toward capitalism succeed. Hence the EXPLODING economies in China and India. Every time Socialism takes control, people lose freedom and the power is put into the hands of a few elite in the government, resulting in a loss of freedom for the individual, a loss of wealth for the country, and usually a brain drain where all the people that can leave. That's why people are fleeing Venezuala and Zimbabwe.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[john83]

You could (correctly) argue that Lenin doesn't provide the only definition or vision of communism, but his is a widely-held one and formative of many derivatives.

In fact, I specifically argued that very thing. :)

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[westyvw]

Not an inherited right, more like an allowance. But I dont see it that way, and I wish others woould see ift different too. I see a music CD as an Advertisement. If I wish I can go see the people WORK by performing (and oddly enough most bands make money during this part of their existance). I wish I had such a nice job that I could work a week and then charge others for years to come. Don't tolerate it anymore, its time artists work and realize that we humans like to share experiences, including listening to music.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[permaculture]

Thanks for typing that in. I wish I had points to mod your post up.

The numbers you mention don't seem hugely worse than other countries. Here's hoping Sweden doesn't stop being different :)

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[AGMW]

If I truly steal a thing from you, you no longer have that thing.
We all seem to just reflexively accept that copying is theft without really considering it very carefully.

How about if I deprive you of something that is rightfully yours? Is that theft? I'd say it is.
So if I deprive you of the income you would have got had I purchased my own copy of your CD instead of ripping a copy from a friend, that is surely theft.

What you are saying is that if the person never actually had the item being stolen, it isn't theft. So if I intercept your post before you get it, I can have it, right? Perhaps a weak analogy, but I hope you get the idea.

Other posters have complained about the big corporations buying the rights from the original artists and then creaming the public and thereby ripping both us and the artists off. Oh yes. They sure do! But it is the artist's choice to sell and whilst they hold the rights to the content they can bargain for a higher price or better deal.

There is the whole deal of supply and demand. If the artist needs to pay some bills they'll sell to a large Corp. for a smaller amount of money than it might actually be worth, but if the content is popular we'll queue up to buy it. I hate paying over £10 (10 UKP) for CDs or DVDs so I wait until they come down to below that price before I purchase. That's the price-point for me. If everyone waited until the price came down to under a tenner you can bet they'd start out in the shops at a tenner!

I'm not siding with the big Corps, but historically, they have been the ones who "find" the new artists. I guess they just need to embrace the new technology rather than trying to act like the content-luddites and try to force the world to spin back to the 60's.
They could also stop shafting us on recordings they have already made a profit on. Beatles albums for £20! Daylight Robbery!

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Anonymous Coward]

As an American, thank you for the first smart defense of public health I have ever heard. Seriously, this is not sarcasm, you may have changed my mind. I have always worried about the ability of the "average person" to get care, but you're describing a triage that makes sense and that I would be fine with as a member of such class (personally, right now as a citizen of the greatest city in the world I do not have health care, but took that as a personal failing, not one the government should correct.)

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[kevinbr]

"How about if I deprive you of something that is rightfully yours?"

You see if you sell widgets and I sell widgets I deprive you of some or all your income depending how succesful I am at widget selling.

You see, copyright is a monopoly. Pure and simple. I am NOT stealing I am breaking your monopoly.

In this world no one has a right to any income ...... the market decides who gets income. You might retort - I work therefore I deserve income. Well if your work is not accepted by the market - tough.

Artists would be better off ignoring copyright and worrying about a world where with MP3s and zero cost of reproduction, the price of a MP3 falls to zero. This is a reality that no amount of copyright will alter. Their whinging about Theft is just an evolutionary dead end.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[hkmwbz]

FYI, Norway's economy is carried by oil alone.

Other than that, Norwegian students do terribly compared to other countries, there are huge lines to get into hospitals (if you need a new heart you'll have to wait for three years or so, for example), and so on. I happen to know a lot about Norway since I know a lot of people there, and have strong ties to the country for various reasons. Norway would have been dead and buried if it didn't have the oil to keep the economy going.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Shadowlore]

And therin you bump into the main failure of socialism. It works only for small groups that are doing so voluntarily and under the notion to limit themselves while continuing to produce for others. When you start adding in anyone who doesn't follow those rules the foundation crumbles under the weight of them.

However, a key aspect that is often missed is you can say the same thing for /real/ Anarchy (note this applies to lack of formal government not the "anarchy==chaos" crap). The same conditions/requirements apply. I've seen both socialism and anarchy work in small groups of people who all understood the basic principle and (usually/mostly) abided by it.

Indeed, in economic systems the same can be said of uninhibited by government capitalism. As long as people recognize their value and do not try to take undue advantage of the others, true capitalism has no flaws or pitfalls. Again, the underlying problem is generaly size of the body in question and how well each member adheres to the "don't harm others" maxim.

Where capitalism pulls ahead is that it can survive less than ideal even far less than ideal situations without collapsing. Socialism, however, can not. As you hint at we see this failure occurring in Europe, and we see it to a certain extent in the US as well. Socialism does not scale, partly because of increasing inefficiencies in higher population densities as well as increasing inefficiencies in ever growing bureaucracies for redistribution of resources. Capitalism's advantage in these cases is an increasing need for better efficiency and inherent ability to respond to changing conditions.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[gnud]

No, communism is not an economic system. I think it speaks volumes about the mindset capitalism creates that most people belives that.
Planned economy is the name of the economic system used by as far as I know all states that have called themselves communists.

Communism is a political system, like democracy. Planned economy is an economic system, like caitalism. There's no god-given rule I know of that says democracy can't use planned economy, and Sovjet (yes, I know they were communists only in name) never got completely rid of capitalism.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Anonymous Coward]

You can do whatever you want to the original device, but copying it is a patent violation, and illegal.

It is not. Patents have never applied to personal use.

And your assertion that most people support the right of artists to control distribution of their work is dubious. Most people don't give a shit about copyright law as long as it's not interfering with what they want to do. For example, here in the UK there is no fair use right and it is illegal to copy music from your CD collection to your iPod. Most people don't know this. Do you think they would be in favour of this law if they did?

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[mjh]

You don't know how many people in the UK or Canada or Sweden "don't get" because they die before they get. Coronary bypass surgery is only considered elective by countries with socialized medicine. Over here, that's a required life saving procedure.

I will however, concede your point that the figures are for 3 months. Still, as far as people in the US who permanantly "don't get", I would argue that the reason for that has more to do with our system having strayed from a market based system. If you look at critical service systems in the US that are totally market based, you see a different story. For example: everyone here eats. I would argue that food provision is *more* critical than health provision. The average person can live MUCH longer without healthcare than they can without food. Yet no one hear dies of involuntary starvation. No one (*).

There are simply no "don't gets" when the market is allowed to be the dominant player in provisioning of goods/services. Yet in healthcare, a less critical service, there are "don't gets". I would argue that the system of provision needs to be addressed in healthcare, and modeled after the more effective system of provision used for food.

(*) I say "involuntary starvation" because I want to exclude deaths as a result of anexoria. People who die from self starvation do not die because they don't have access to food. So those deaths, tragic as they are, should not be counted as a failure of the food provision system.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[DarthVain]

Norway's economy is heavily dependant on oil? That I would not have guessed. Is it mostly off shore operations? I don't seem to remember them having huge oil fields or sands.

As I mention I figured there would be problems, as there are here in Canada (which are perpetually trying to fix), a common one is lengh of waiting for service. However it is somewhat of a comfort to know that if you do get seriously sick, you can get help. It may take longer than you might like, but it will happen. As I said not a perfect system, but one that seems to keep on running.

To my knowlege if the same thing happend in the USA, you either don't get treatment EVER (as opposed to waiting a year or so), and die, or you go so far into debt to afford the treatment, that when you are better you might wish you had died, as you will be finicially destroyed for the rest of your days....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4073753.stm

While I don't see Norway, neither do I see the USA in those lists either... However I see Canada, and Finland, and Netherlands.... I also see China, Korea, and Japan... and Liechtenstein so I am not sure if that really means anything by itself.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[AGMW]

You see if you sell widgets and I sell widgets I deprive you of some or all your income depending how succesful I am at widget selling.
You see, copyright is a monopoly. Pure and simple. I am NOT stealing I am breaking your monopoly.

Sure, if we both get our widgets from some third party, or make them according to a "build-a-widget" pack we got from the Sunday colour supplement, but if the widget in question is something I invented, or in the case of music, a song I wrote, then I should get something in recognition of my original thought. To build one of my widgets without my permission, or to copy one of my songs, would indeed be breaking my monopoly, but the whole point is that if it is my original work then damn right I should have a monopoly on selling it!

If no one could safeguard their inventions (and I shall lump song writing, etc, in with "inventions") then you couldn't make a decent living out of doing it 'cos some bozo could always make it cheaper than you can, so fewer people would try.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[kevinbr]

I think we have to agree to disagree.

"you couldn't make a decent living out of doing it 'cos some bozo could always make it cheaper than you can, so fewer people would try."

Theory and reality - today WITH copyright most musicians make little or no money because they WAIT fot the organization to take over their copyright and exploit them, and they HOPE and HOPE that the record company will invest as much in him as they did for U2. But it never happens.

There is a stat about how during a period when 800 million CD's were sold - 2.5 billion downloads occured. Thus if you premise were true - CD sales should have dropped to zero. They did not. ( the figures above are not true they are as I remember but I am sure they are off a bit - but in essence this is true).

You ignore that copyright/monopoly is a recent phenomonem yet before people made money and made art and music and books.

The idea of Theft of Ideas is seductive but it is wrong once you realize that IP is not the same as other property. Read the US constitution - it treats property and the arts differently. because they are different.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[2obvious4u]

To add to this... what annoys me is having to buy 3 or 4 copies of a PC video game if I want to play it with my kids. I can buy a PS2 game or an XBox game and I only have to pay for it once, but if I want to buy Warcraft or some other PC title I have to buy a license for every person who wants to play. How is that owenership? So I just forked out cash for 4 computers for my personal use, they are for MY PERSONAL use yet I still have to buy 4 licenses to use it. I have never understood this limmited use of PC software. Yes it works for a business where you have X number of users, but it shouldn't work for home use, they are two different markets and should be treated that way.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[arose]

I would argue that the system of provision needs to be addressed in healthcare, and modeled after the more effective system of provision used for food.

Ever heard of farming subsidies? They are usualy weird and backed by the goverment. Either way there are few countries that don't mess with food production to some extent.

There is also the tiny problem of food beeing mostly replacable with cheaper food--you will not be choosing an appendicectomy when you need a coronary bypass.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[AGMW]

I think we have to agree to disagree.

Well yes and no [lol] because I don't disagree with everything you say!

today WITH copyright most musicians make little or no money because they WAIT fot the organization to take over their copyright and exploit them, and they HOPE and HOPE that the record company will invest as much in him as they did for U2. But it never happens.

I have a number of friends in bands, for example The Lies and Bullet Galloway, who are taking this very approach. I can see them hoping to get "signed" and I realise that having talent just isn't enough, but it is their choice to take that route. Other bands are more canny and are able to use different routes to make a living, like Marillion [*shudder*] who, granted, had mainstream "fame" first, but now have their fanbase pay in advance for the next album and use the money to make the recording and press the CDs. So there are bands out there who have found the "third way" (ie not getting "signed", and not obscurity!).

There is a stat about how during a period when 800 million CD's were sold - 2.5 billion downloads occured. Thus if you premise were true - CD sales should have dropped to zero. They did not. ( the figures above are not true they are as I remember but I am sure they are off a bit - but in essence this is true).

Yes, I remember seeing this stat and thinking the same. If downloading is killing the music business, how come the CD sales aren't dropping more steeply. I think there's a bit of a difference between the CDs sold and the downloads though. A CD is 10 to 15 songs and I wonder if a "download" isn't (often) one song?
But I don't think that is the point. Just because there are millions of people who haven't been burgled it doesn't mean that the few (in percentage terms) burglaries that do occur are OK.

You ignore that copyright/monopoly is a recent phenomonem yet before people made money and made art and music and books.

Back when Mozart was a lad and "sheet music" was the method of moving music about I don't think it was such a problem. If a musician wanted some music they purchased the music written on paper and there wasn't an easy way to copy it. There were few musicians and the sheet music was, as far as I understand, pretty cheap. People paid to see the musician play his own music more, as there weren't recording formats for the public to purchase. It has only been relatively recent that copying music has been something the public can do. This has been since the advent of tape, and probably only really a problem since cassette tape, and there was a move to slap a tax on blank tapes back in the70's and 80's.
So, yes, it is a recent phenomenon, but only because the ability to copy content in any meaningful way is also a recent phenomenon.

The idea of Theft of Ideas is seductive but it is wrong once you realize that IP is not the same as other property. Read the US constitution - it treats property and the arts differently. because they are different.

OK, first off, why would how the US constitution treats anything be anything other than "of interest" historically? It may well treat property and the arts differently because whome ever wrote it "thought they were different".
Interestingly, it is only in the last few days that I have changed camps from a "I should be able to copy my CDs into any format I want" person to a "why should I be able ..." person. That's not to say I don't enjoy the ability to do so, but I'm not sure I still think it is my "right" to do so just because it is now easy!
As I see it, the problem is that the record companies charge too much for their product. To physically produce a CD (and I don't mean the one of cost of recording the content, getting the artwork etc, just minting a copy) costs pence, and yet they charge £15 or more. If they charged £5 for a CD people would buy th

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[soliptic]

DJ? I don't DJ. WTF are you talking about. Get an account then I might care about your (presumably dribbling neocon/libertarian fetishist) book suggestions.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[Anonymous Coward]

You are an asslicker!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He He He. Man asses at that!

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[EzInKy]

If you invent or create something you deserve to have rights to it.


Of course if you invent or create something you deserve the right to it. The problem is that the government only gives that right to one person which deprives everyone else of their right to invent or create the same thing.

Re:(Don't) Call Your Congressman!

[MikeBabcock]

That's a fallacy.

Freedom is implicitly limiting.

Freedom to life precludes freedom to kill.

Freedom to have fair access to efficient medicare precludes unregulated out-of-system private practices.

There are several such (very obvious) limits when you go about having a fair system of freedoms.

I shouldn't be free to shoot you.
You shouldn't be free to move into my house.

Make a good case for your freedom to open whatever business you want, despite the effects on the society, don't just claim its a violation of your freedom.

Arrrrr

[TimeTrav]

Arrrrr, ye swabs cannot take back me booty so easily!

Re:Arrrrr

[se7en11]

that's not what she said...

*ducks*

Re:Arrrrr

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Since they're Swedes, shouldn't it really be something like:

"Yah shure, set the longship's course for England!"

"Well, yah know, Sven, I hear the MPAA and RIAA have better loot these days."

"Fer right, Olaf! Crew! Strike sails and ready yer axes!"

Re:Arrrrr

[TimeTrav]

The following link is for your enjoyment:

http://www.tiffman.com/bork.cgi?url=http://yro.sla shdot.org/yro/06/03/14/1323219.shtml

No heros to be cheered at.

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing these guys will get done, is Draconian copyright DCMA-like laws to be passed in Schweden.

So they shoot normal people in the foot, even if they use OpenBSD.

Re:No heros to be cheered at.

[slavemowgli]

I'm not sure if that's a good argument - aren't you essentially saying that we cannot exercise our rights and do what's legal because then our rights might be taken away and what we do might be made illegal? It might be true, but where's the big difference between not doing something because it's illegal and not doing something out of fear even when it *is* legal?

At the very least, let them pass laws that make things illegal and take away your rights before you give them up voluntarily.

thanks alot

[matto14]

Man i love that sight til now. Thanks alot.

pirate bay URL

[Anonymous Coward]

http://thepiratebay.org/

Re:pirate bay URL

[miscz]

:O You're linking to copyrighted stuff! I'm calling the police!

The Atlantic barrier works both ways huh?

[Tibor the Hun]

I guess the Atlantic protects the europe from its American ally, as well as vice-versa.

But, I think this issue is just waiting for MPAA and RIAA to get off their asses and start a process in Sweden.
Good luck to our pirates in Sweden.

Re:The Atlantic barrier works both ways huh?

[Threni]

> start a process in Sweden.

Afghanistan - check.
Iraq - check.
Iran - tba.
Sweden - tba.

Re:The Atlantic barrier works both ways huh?

[EraserMouseMan]

Or the **AA will just get laws passed in the US that make it illegal to use the Pirate Bay services. Then they'll go after users one by one and sue them like they did with the domestic file sharing services.

Re:The Atlantic barrier works both ways huh?

[Stavr0]

There is nothing stopping the ??AA from connecting to the tracker, logging the U.S. based IP addresses, then sending out subopenas to the ISPs of said IPs. And haven't they been doing that already?

Long live the pirate bay

[Anonymous Coward]

as long as they keep having a go at the MPAA some kind of balance will exist. if theyw ere to stop; gods forbid people might actually start taking the MPAA and there digital/legal strong arm tactics seriously.

a pirate's life

[DigDuality]

Yo ho, yo ho, a pirate's life for me.
We pillage, we plunder, we rifle, and loot,
Drink up, me 'earties, yo ho.
We kidnap and ravage and don't give a hoot,
Drink up me 'earties, yo ho.

Yo ho, yo ho, a pirate's life for me.
We extort, we pilfer, we filch, and sack,
Drink up, me 'earties, yo ho.
Maraud and embezzle, and even high-jack,
Drink up, me 'earties, yo ho.

Yo ho, yo ho, a pirate's life for me.
We kindle and char, inflame and ignite,
Drink up, me 'earties, yo ho.
We burn up the city, we're really a fright,
Drink up, me 'earties, yo ho.

We're rascals, scoundrels, villans, and knaves,
Drink up, me 'earties, yo ho.
We're devils and black sheep, really bad eggs,
Drink up, me 'earties, yo ho.

Yo ho, yo ho, a pirate's life for me.
We're beggars and blighters, ne'er-do-well cads,
Drink up, me 'earties, yo ho.
Aye, but we're loved by our mommies and dads,
Drink up, me 'earties, yo ho.

They'll lose eventually.

[Spazntwich]

Money always wins, and in our increasingly global economy, the means for the big studios to finally take them down will eventually come into being. It's just a matter of time.

I'm not saying this is a good thing. I just think it's inevitable.

Re:They'll lose eventually.

[rakkasan]

I see a future where computer skill and military experience merge to form - corporate mercenaries. A quick, forced entry, a small shaped charge and thier servers are toast. In and out in 10 minutes before the local authorities can react. Cash into the swiss account. ok.. too much Shadowrun as a teenager, but hey it could happen.

Re:They'll lose eventually.

[lixee]

Cool, let's seat on our ass and watch the world tumble down!

We demand..

[dotwhynot]

We demand that you provide us with entertainment by sending more legal threats. Please? :-)

Re:We demand..

[Jamu]

If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, ...

Oh crap, I just did. Why didn't they warn me at the start of the message!

Re:We demand..

[Odin_Tiger]

...you may not read, copy, distribute, or use this information.

[Emphasis Mine]

Uh-oh, now you're going to jail. And me to, I guess. Oh well.

In an interesting twist of English interpretation, couldn't it be said that acknowledging and abiding by the sentence in whole or in part would be a violation of the 'or use' statement, thus nullifying the whole thing?

Re:We demand..

[ZeroConcept]

Read on:


Instead of simply recommending that you sodomize yourself with a
retractable baton, let me recommend a specific model - the ASP 21". The
previous lawyers tried to use a cheaper brand, but it broke during the
action.

Re:We demand..

[dwandy]

The MPAA's MIB will be there shortly to help you with that...

Re:We demand..

[spot35]

Or the response to iRacing. Here.

Be warned, it is a png file. Harmless but great p155 take of the original letter sent in pdf (!) format.

Here's all the legal threats.

Re:We demand..

[JonXP]

Ouch....Now my head hurts....

Re:We demand..

[arwel]

One of my email signatures goes:

IMPORTANT - ANTI-DISCLAIMER - This e-mail is not and cannot, by its nature, be confidential. En route from me to you, it will pass across the public Internet, easily readable by any number of system administrators along the way. If you have received this message by mistake, it would be ridiculous for me to tell you not to read it or copy to anyone else, because, let's face it, if it's a message revealing confidential information or that could embarrass me intensely, that's precisely what you'll do. Who wouldn't?
Likewise, it is superfluous for me to claim copyright in the contents, because I own that anyway, even if you print out a hard copy or disseminate this message all over the known universe. I don't know why so many corporate mail Servers feel impelled to attach a disclaimer to the bottom of every e-mail message saying otherwise.
If you don't know either, why not e-mail your corporate lawyers and system administrators and ask them why they insist on contributing so much to the waste of bandwidth?

Gete your factes straighte

[spyrochaete]

The Pirate Bay isn't a "file sharing crewe", they're an open bittorrent tracker with a website. They're not a release group like Razor 1911 or The Humble Guys.

From the site's about page:

The Pirate Bay is the worlds largest bittorrent tracker. Bittorrent is a filesharing protocol that in a reliable way enables big and fast file transfers.

...

The Pirate Bay was started by the swedish anti copyright organization Piratbyrån in the late 2003, but is since October 2004 separated and run by dedicated individuals. Using the site is free of charge, but since running it costs money, donations are very much appreciated.

Re:Gete your factes straighte

[sn0wcrash]

The Humble Guys? They aren't till around anymore as far as I know. Such great things from a little town in Texas...

The EU will catch up

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a nice directive-in-the-making called IPRED2 which criminalises copyright infringement.

Re:The EU will catch up

[gowen]

Not strictly true. It criminalises copyright infringement on a commercial scale. That's an important distinction. That means it may be possible to share things with your friends, as long as you don't run it like a company (or on the scale of a company).

I think that's reasonable. A little sharing doesn't hurt "content providers" (an ugly phrase) much; wide ranging, large scale, profit making, illegal duplication operations can easily steal genuine sales.

Re:The EU will catch up

[Pofy]

But if something is not copyright infringement to start with, it doesn't matter if you turn copyright infringement criminal or not.

Re:The EU will catch up

[xenobyte]

But if something is not copyright infringement to start with, it doesn't matter if you turn copyright infringement criminal or not.

Exactly!

Linking to a URL which doesn't point directly to a copyrighted file cannot by any reason be considered infringing. Because if it is then all links on the entire are infringing because nothing is more than an average of 6 clicks away, including every illegal file on the net.

Making the act of linking to copyright infringements illegal is like making this statement illegal: "You can find unbelievably cheap tv's at name-of-bar". Why should it be legal to point people in the direction of stolen goods (result of real theft) but not in the direction of copyright infringements?

Not illegal

[michrech]

They aren't hosting any of the content. Only text files (as explained on their web page).

It is not illegal (Again, according to their web page) to host files that *point* to the content. Untill that changes in their country, they will stay alive (also, so long as they can keep their bills paid, that would help... :) )

Re:Not illegal

[Zeinfeld]

They aren't hosting any of the content. Only text files (as explained on their web page).

Thats sophistry. Without that information it would not be possible for people to steal the content. The information is made available in that form for the express purpose and with the express intent of facilitating theft.

It is not illegal (Again, according to their web page) to host files that *point* to the content. Untill that changes in their country, they will stay alive (also, so long as they can keep their bills paid, that would help... :) )

Seems like you were not here for the Napster affair then. During the Napster affair there was no shortage of people flaming about how the service was obviously 100% legal. After the company folded it turned out that they had never received even an internal opinion to the effect that the service was legal.

Turns out that the appeals court that gave Napster a stay of execution only did so so that the company could stay around long enough for them to make a landmark ruling on Internet copyright.

Re:Not illegal

[qeveren]

I guess TPB are lucky that they're not in some insane country like the United States, then.

Re:Not illegal

[Tarpan]

It is not illegal (Again, according to their web page) to host files that *point* to the content. Untill that changes in their country, [...]

Seems like you were not here for the Napster affair then.

Seems like you didn't read the whole thing, or believe that US is the only country in the world.

(added bold to original comment to make things clearer)

Re:Not illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow.. So Sweden while being a Civil Law system is now not only accepting precident but US precident as that!

Re:Not illegal

[hkmwbz]

"The information is made available in that form for the express purpose and with the express intent of facilitating theft."

Theft? Even if they did give you instructions on how to get to the nearest CD shop and you chose to steal a CD, that wouldn't matter. Are you saying that giving people directions should be illegal? That's silly. TPB doesn't give you driving instructions anyway.

Oh, you were talking about copyright infringement rather than actual theft (taking someone's belongings away from them), weren't you? Sorry, you got me all confused with your newspeak...

Re:Not illegal

[ajwitte]

s/theft/copyright infringement/

If you use the word "theft", you're falling for the **AA's propaganda. "Stealing music" would be if you took your neighbor's CDs, or maybe it would apply to that guy who stole your car stereo. Legally, theft and copyright infringement are different things.

IANAL.

Re:Not illegal

[spyrochaete]

Thats sophistry. Without that information it would not be possible for people to steal the content. The information is made available in that form for the express purpose and with the express intent of facilitating theft.

That's the law. In the eyes of Swedish law, TPB is not facilitating theft, they are a library of text files. TPB has mentioned that as soon as storing text files becomes illegal they will provide hyperlinks to the text files. And when hyperlinks become illegal they will provide hyperlinks to the hyperlinks. They are committed to bogging down copyright more than providing a specific service to the people.

I, for one, am glad to see the beaurocracy of law choke on its own bulk. Despite what some mega corporations are whining for these days, many countries allow their citizens to share culture openly. To share and to be shared with, not to give or take and remove from the source.

Technology is granting great freedoms to the populace, and some countries feel the public needn't put a nickel in the jar every time they whistle a tune.

Re:Not illegal

[thatguywhoiam]

They aren't hosting any of the content. Only text files (as explained on their web page).

Thats sophistry. Without that information it would not be possible for people to steal the content.

What makes you say that? More difficult, sure. Impossible? Don't think so. Its a bit of text, and it can move at supersonic speeds in several directions and forms at once. A real bitch to pin down, Pirate Bay or no.

The information is made available in that form for the express purpose and with the express intent of facilitating theft.

Well, see, that's a tricky thing. The problem with that line of thinking is again a practical one, it is very hard to hang a crime on a person who is simply indicating an easy crime opportunity. If I point out to someone in the library that the photocopier on the right is malfunctioning and does not require money to operate, am I committing a crime? So of course you are right when you say the idea is to let people download movies and software, but the facilitating of that is not a crime in and of itself.

Seems like you were not here for the Napster affair then. During the Napster affair there was no shortage of people flaming about how the service was obviously 100% legal. After the company folded it turned out that they had never received even an internal opinion to the effect that the service was legal.

Sure, that was a new ruling basically. And the original poster did say "until that changes in Sweden"; you always have the possibility of the winds of law shifting on you, no matter what the case.

Re:Not illegal

[Claws Of Doom]

Without that information it would not be possible for people to steal the content

So the files actually block accesses from anywhere but the site? I think (but don't know) that you are in error.

In fact there's a deeper point to this: you now claim that metadata is illegal to host... whereas there is no such claim in the licenses of any software/movie. Am I not allowed to mention the length of a movie? The size of a software download? Yes, spurious, but I hope you see what I'm driving at: Information about an illegal download can't always be illegal in and of itself.

Re:Not illegal

[Mordaximus]

Without that information it would not be possible for people to steal the content. The information is made available in that form for the express purpose and with the express intent of facilitating theft.

From Wikipedia theft is defined as "...the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it". Everyone's entitled to an opinion, but do have any idea what crime is allegedly being commited?

Re:Not illegal

[Aceticon]

steal the content

Thus they actually remove the bits out of other people's machines!!?

Re:Not illegal

[Zeinfeld]

Seems like you were not here for the Napster affair then. Seems like you didn't read the whole thing, or believe that US is the only country in the world.

I think it was pretty obvious in my post that what I was saying is that Slashdot is not noted for the accuracy of its legal advice, particularly where rationalizations for stealing copyright material is concerned.

Absent a favorable decision from the Sweedish courts the only conclusion that can be made at this point is that Sweedish law moves slowly.

Re:Not illegal

[Weedlekin]

"From Wikipedia"

The Internet equivalent of what a guy in a queue outside a cinema says.

Re:Not illegal

[xtieburn]

'Thats sophistry. Without that information it would not be possible for people to steal the content'

Okay. So the torrent site is now illegal for linking to illegal content.

Search engines link in to the torrent site that is illegal. So I guess now all of them are illegal.
Plenty of people link to the search engines including the Opera Internet browser. They are therefore illegal as well. Windows links me to starting Opera. I guess Windows is now illegal as well (Oh and so is Linux). Dell supplied me with Windows. The're also illegal. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Just because the companies in America have pushed through absolutely insane laws doesnt make the rest of the world quite so utterly mad.

Re:Not illegal

[Chris Burke]

Thats sophistry. Without that information it would not be possible for people to steal the content. The information is made available in that form for the express purpose and with the express intent of facilitating theft.

It's not sophistry, it's legality. Copyright infringement involves the copying of copyrighted material. No copyrighted material is sent through thepiratebay.org, ergo it is not infringing.

If providing information without which infringement could not occur is itself infringement, then the link to thepiratebay.org in the slashdot summary is also infringement. It is conceivable that even a link to bittorent binaries, or even a web browser, would be considered infringement as without either you could never recieve the pirated materials. This is the logic by which literacy itself becomes a crime, being necessary to commit many other crimes. This isn't ad absurdum; literacy was prohibited to slaves for that very reason.

Which is of course possible in a crazy country like the USA, where merely linking to a page containing the DeCSS source code is illegal.

Good thing they aren't in the US, eh?

Re:Not illegal

[Zeinfeld]

That's the law. In the eyes of Swedish law, TPB is not facilitating theft, they are a library of text files.

Sweedish law has said nothing about the matter to date. You are certainly not a Sweedish lawyer.

From a moral perspective this is theft. The Sweedish law may have a defect that means that this particular form of facilitating theft is not currently covered. But there is absolutely no reason to think that this represents a concious decision of the Sweedish lawmakers.

Re:Not illegal

[Zeinfeld]

From Wikipedia theft is defined as "...the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it". Everyone's entitled to an opinion, but do have any idea what crime is allegedly being commited?

You appear to intend permanently depriving the copyright holder of the payment that they would expect to receive for their services.

From a moral perspective this is plain theft. You know you are taking something that does not belong to you.

But you don't want to call it theft because you don't want to think of yourself as a theif. So you call it other things, you insist on calling it 'copyright infringement'.

That is exactly the type of thinking that led the Bush administration to Abu Graihb. They didn't want to think of themselves as torturers so they had a corrupt lawyer provide them with a convenient definition of torture.

Re:Not illegal

[spyrochaete]

Sweedish law has said nothing about the matter to date. You are certainly not a Sweedish lawyer.

From a moral perspective this is theft. The Sweedish law may have a defect that means that this particular form of facilitating theft is not currently covered. But there is absolutely no reason to think that this represents a concious decision of the Sweedish lawmakers.

No, IANASL.

And maybe you feel morally conflicted about libraries and lending, but you don't speak for the whole. If you don't like file sharing, don't do it. But some of us feel entitled, morally and legally, to share culture with our neighbours, and we will exercise that freedom. When a huge percentage of a country would rather risk jail than obey the law, maybe the law isn't in the best interest of the people.

Re:Not illegal

[Pofy]

>Absent a favorable decision from the Sweedish courts...

But there is such a decision, and quite old one, from the days of the BBS which is what makes it OK to make such linking as they do.

Re:Not illegal

[Pofy]

>Sweedish law has said nothing about the matter to date.

Swedish laws on theft are quite clear about the matter, it is not even close to being theft.

Re:Not illegal

[Zeinfeld]

And maybe you feel morally conflicted about libraries and lending, but you don't speak for the whole.

Neither do you.

If you don't like file sharing, don't do it. But some of us feel entitled, morally and legally, to share culture with our neighbours, and we will exercise that freedom.

Ah you are not stealling from the copyright owner who paid to create the material. You are engaging in the noble cause of freedom and culture.

What you seem to be saying here is that we should each amuse ourselves in our own way.

Fine, you amuse yourself by stealing from others and I will amuse myself by bringing the law down on you and people like you.

If you think that the most important political issue facing the world today is your right to take what does not belong to you without paying for it I really do pity you.

Re:Not illegal

[arose]

You appear to intend permanently depriving the copyright holder of the payment that they would expect to receive for their services.

Service is something you do when I ask you to, not something for which I will pay you after you have done at your own initiative. In reasonably free markets people are deprived of expected payments all the time, it's called concurrency and is considered an integral part of such markets.

Re:Not illegal

[arose]

s/concurrency/competition/

Re:Not illegal

[spyrochaete]

If you think that the most important political issue facing the world today is your right to take what does not belong to you without paying for it I really do pity you.

And if you think the most important political issue is for people to hoard what they own and make because sharing is freeloading then I pity you. But I don't have to pity you because you don't actually think that. You have a blog.

Nowhere do I say that I am against paying for things. Of course we must buy goods if we expect anyone to make them. I don't think it's unreasonable to offer the things I've bought or made, or to enjoy what other people offer. The appropriate give\take ratio is a personal opinion. Personally, I think you, Zeinfeld, are entitled to take from the digital cookie jar because you are the type of person who is kind enough to publish your knowledge and opinions for free - on /. and in your blog.

You and I may not agree, but we each have benefitted from the other's argument. Not only this, but others benefit from our argument as well because we have decided to discuss this publicly. We could sell tickets to this battle of titans or get paid to publish it in a magazine but we've chosen to do so for free, as is our right.

I'm not touting some bullshit reasoning like "movies suck so it doesn't matter if I steal them." I'm saying that every freedom we give up is a freedom lost forever, and our freedom to share, freely and anonymously, is one worth fighting for. This is precisely what the internet was designed for, and by using the internet at all you sign a contract stating your approval for sites like TPB. Furthermore, you approve of the freedom of speech for Nazis, the KKK, the Taliban, the Dalai Lama, for me, and for you.

The internet is not the real world, even though the two are tied sometimes as they are in business. The Internet Protocol transmits bits and that's it. That's how it was designed and that's all it can do. It was designed to be open, to allow anyone to create any application for it, and to allow anyone to use those applications however they wish.

An argument against file sharing is an argument against the internet. Don't you appreciate your freedom to publish your blog for free to the whole world? And the freedom of others to hyperlink to you without your written consent?

Fine, you amuse yourself by stealing from others and I will amuse myself by bringing the law down on you and people like you.

I pay levies on blank media to the Canadian Recording Industry Association even when I burn music I wrote to a CD. I pay this company money to listen to my own music on my own CD player in my own car. I pay this company money when I back up my Word documents, make a boot CD, make a DVD of my home videos, and even when the burn fails and the disc is useless. Please bring the law down on me because the law is infallable, it serves my fellow man, and it is in our best interest.

Re:Not illegal

[dwandy]

What a wonderful word ... Fabulous choice, since it's really IP laws that are sophistry ...

Re:Not illegal

[dwandy]

Assuming that "they" is Sony, yes, I think that might have been the intent.

Re:Not illegal

[Travelsonic]

From a moral perspective this is theft.

Morally... that is something called an opinion. Yes people can think it isn't equatable to theft or can there fore morally, but some of the people on both sides are so damn dogmatic about it that they forget that it is their opinion and not everybody feels (IMO shouldn't be forced to either) that way.

Re:Not illegal

[slavemowgli]

Rubbish. You could just as well argue that deciding not to buy a CD is theft, because the copyright holder doesn't get any money for it from you then, either.

Stick to condemning people for what they do; condemning them for something hypothetical that they do NOT do is both counter-productive and dangerous.

Re:Not illegal

[Have Blue]

It would still be fairly easy to demonstrate *intent* to facilitate copyright infringement, skip over all the technical details of exactly how many mouse clicks it takes to get to the actual warez, and still get the site shut down. This is the line of reasoning used in the Grokster case.

Re:Not illegal

[spyrochaete]

Well, considering how publicly TPB belittles the companies who send them legal threats I think you're right.

Re:Not illegal

[Mordaximus]

You appear to intend permanently depriving the copyright holder of the payment that they would expect to receive for their services.

If an individual downloads a copyrighted work that they would otherwise not buy, explain how that has deprived the copyright holder of income? Likewise, one individual's act of downloading a song or other work does not in any way hinder the copyright holder's ability to collect revenue from others, does it?

Theft removes the property from the owner, preventing them from enjoying ANY revenue. Starting to see a distinction?

From a moral perspective this is plain theft. You know you are taking something that does not belong to you.

In Canada, we PAY for the right to personal copies in the form of exise taxes. It is not an illegal act. If I were to download music, I'd be exercising a right. Your moral perspective is likely different than someone living in Canada, or Sweden for that matter.

But you don't want to call it theft because you don't want to think of yourself as a theif. So you call it other things, you insist on calling it 'copyright infringement'.

I don't call downloading theft or copyright infringement, it's not even a crime. The 'copyright infringment' that would have shut down the pirate's bay, and has shut down other similar sites, is providing content. I suppose that you'd call that fencing though wouldn't you? At any rate, you seem to be trying to accuse of a) the wrong crime and b) something that isn't even a crime, without even a shred of proof. Do you work for the RIAA?

That is exactly the type of thinking that led the Bush administration to Abu Graihb. They didn't want to think of themselves as torturers so they had a corrupt lawyer provide them with a convenient definition of torture.

You're the one redefining theft.

Re:Not illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, considering how publicly TPB belittles the companies who send them legal threats I think you're right.

Right that it would be easy to show their intent to facilitate copyright infringement or right in his interpretation of Swedish law that that would lead to them being shut down?

Re:Not illegal

[Zeinfeld]

Theft removes the property from the owner, preventing them from enjoying ANY revenue. Starting to see a distinction?

Information goods are not rival goods. I do not see how that changes the moral issue in the slightest.

If you look at the debates in Congress over copyright you will see this type of behavior described as outright theft. The fact that it is called something else in the criminal code is irrelevant. Theft is refered to as 'fraud', 'conversion' and numerous other terms.

I don't think the objection here is to the incorrect use of the legal term. I think that what is really objected to is the assertion that taking material without paying for it is morally wrong and should be considered a crime.

If you take something that belongs to someone else without intending to pay them for it that is theft.

Some uses of copyright material are considered to be fair use. Reasonable non-commercial sharing is not theft. But what is going on here is people trading copyright material they have access to in return for free access to other copyright material.

Re:Not illegal

[kihbord]

If it were illegal to point to copyrighted content (which a user may or may not download illegally -- similarly pointing to a CD shop which a person may or may not rob) is illegal, then does it mean that a web site or even a newspaper that publishes any story about an "Illegal pointer to copyrighted content" would be illegal.

Wow, it looks like the whole Internet is illegal.

Yes, but the only things they have

[Anonymous Coward]

Are ABBA and Ace of Base mp3s.

socialist-democratic not communist

[BoxedFlame]

The socialist-democratic movement has always been very keen on protecting the little guy, and that doesn't happen without protecting his/her rights.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[dada21]

This is a very important thing you said, moreso than the casual single line post would usually dictate. Protecting rights is the role of government -- doling them out and giving preferential rights is not their job. I think Sweden's view on not just protecting the rights of the minority, but also giving them some subsidy rights, is where they fail overall in having a much more powerful trade position as well as a more vibrant economy. I plan on hitting Sweden this year for visit -- I haven't been there for over 17 years, but I do recall loving the country's people. Except for all the 6'6" women :)

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Anonymous Coward]

So long as the little guys aren't Ukrainian peasants or Scandinavian males eh

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[OnePound]

Social-democratic, not socialist-democratic.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[manthrax3]

Of course socialism doesn't truly protect the most important of all rights: the right to earn and keep property.

You can't do a whole lot if you're taxed at 50-60% except hope that some of that money is redistributed to you in a fair way. Fair is subjective, "mine" isn't.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[raju1kabir]

I think Sweden's view on not just protecting the rights of the minority, but also giving them some subsidy rights, is where they fail overall in having a much more powerful trade position as well as a more vibrant economy.

Calling this a failure is really dependent on the assumption that their primary goal is to have "a much more powerful trade position and a more vibrant economy." I would submit that the Swedish people have decided other things are more important.

I could easily be a lot richer than I am, but the tradeoffs are not worth it to me. That doesn't mean I'm a failure at wealth acquisition, any more than you're a failure at getting sex-change operations or being a circus clown.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[dada21]

Actually, I believe that being successful at being an open in trade and having a vibrant economy is very important for the social structure of a nation or any group of people. Wealth and being rich are two different things -- and I think the best "rating" for how wealthy a country is can be rated by three items:

1. Passing on no debt to the next generation
2. Giving people the opportunity to pass on their own wealth to their descendents
3. Being able to afford to buy from others outside your country without being in their debt

The US fails on all 3 items.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Bazzalisk]

Mine is pretty subjective all told.

Money is nothing more than units of exchange issued and maintained by the government of the state in which you reside. For historical reasons it has generaly been made clear that granting people a certain share of these units in recompense for their work is a good way of ensuring that society continues functioning - that's your pay.

Similarly it has also become clear that the "obvious" way of doing this - which would be to have everybody work for an organ of the government and be payed a reasonable amount by them doesn't work much of the time (although as a research student it's notable that this is how I get paid - so it can work under certain circumstances). The alternative which seams to work is to have quasi-independent organs called "bussinesses" which overpay their workers, and then have government organs remove the excess (that's your taxes).

So your pay and taxes are realy just an organisational thing - no one is "taking things away from you" they just give you too much and then take it back.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[BVis]

Of course socialism doesn't truly protect the most important of all rights: the right to earn and keep property.

If you truly consider that the most important right of all, above every other right, you're pathologically materialistic and need an attitude adjustment.

In a society where personal property is de-emphasized, there is one benefit that you may be overlooking: nobody is subjected to the violence of poverty. There is a direct correlation between the number of freedoms enjoyed (and protected) in this country (I'm in the USA) and the income of the citizen in question. Before SLAPP legislation (and even after) people who spoke in a way that made the rich people (read: big business) look bad, or that called on them to take responsibility for their actions, were frequently named in lawsuits with no basis in the law, not designed to be won, or even tried, but intended to force the speaker to choose between shutting up and going bankrupt defending themselves. The current actions of the MPAA and the RIAA are analogous to this scenario, except the big money in this case is defending its "right" to require its customers to give them as much money as possible.

If you turn that example on its head, you'll see what I'm talking about: Let's say I'm a computer technician, with a clientele that includes small businesses and residential customers, and let's also say I'm really the only game in town. One day, someone, somewhere, invents a program that allows my customers to share information that I've given them in the course of doing my job. This is information that I've spent time and resources acquiring, and as a result of this sharing I lose business. If I tried to sue the developer of this program for my "lost business" I'd get laughed out of court, mostly because I can't afford the lawyers that have $3000 suits.

The gap between the rich and the poor in this country is widening every day, and there's really no middle class anymore; we're a country of haves and have-nots. These days it seems the only rights you have are the ones you can afford to defend. A deemphasis on personal material gain would alleviate this.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[manthrax3]

How can you have freedom of religion if you don't have enough money to donate to your church?

How can you have freedom of press if you can't buy printing presses, web servers, etc.

Freedom doesn't exist without personal property. If the government owns everything, you can only operate inside its sandbox, which is a pretty infantile version of freedom.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Ucklak]

Social security is nothing but passing dept to the next generation and the 'belief' that it's OK to be lazy.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[manthrax3]

"Give you too much"

Subjectivity. It was theirs to begin with, so they can give as much as they please.

Yes, let's bring the top down instead of the bottom up: equality through failure.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Anonymous Coward]

but passing dept to the next generation

Looks like your parents skimped on passing the gift of literacy onto you.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Anonymous Coward]

what's the difference. I'm taxed lower but instead I'll be paying of student loans well into my 50s. I'd rather be taxed higher and have no debt. The reality is I'm still broke in both systems.

(though no collection agency would be calling me in sweden...)

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[dada21]

Yet money was not a creation of government, in fact historically money was created by private citizens looking for a medium of exchange, and then over time government has destroyed money in each and every case where they've gotten involved in.

Here's a great book: free, electronic, and a very quick afternoon read: What Has Government Done To Our Money?" by Murray N. Rothbard. Go grab it, print it or send it to your PDA, and read it. It is an amazing book written decades ago that still holds true today.

Money is the most important item in society since it allows us to store the work we've performed for someone else and redeem that work for the work of another. It is only government's intrusion into money that has destroyed wealth, savings and created the class warfare that exists today.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[iminplaya]

Regardless of what is whose, you should just negociate what you take home. Whatever "excess" there is is the company's problem. Let them do the paperwork. That's all it amounts to anyway. The money doesn't really exist. If the taxes in Sweden are excessive, then I have faith that the Swedes will know how to deal with it. I haven't checked, but I don't believe that excessive taxation has put too many of them into the streets. Oh, and long live Pirate Bay! Unfortunately, I do believe that the Swedish gov't will ultimately cave to the cartels if they want to remain a "world player".

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[op00to]

How can you have freedom of religion if you don't have enough money to donate to your church?

Donate your time, or knowledge, or your living room to church groups. Religion does not require money.

How can you have freedom of press if you can't buy printing presses, web servers, etc.

Make your own paper, cheaply copy things via carbon paper if necessary.

Freedom doesn't exist without personal property. If the government owns everything, you can only operate inside its sandbox, which is a pretty infantile version of freedom.

Strawman. No one mentioned abolishing personal property. The term was de-emphasize. In the Swedish model, you can still own crap if you really want, but the government makes it not necessary to own a lot of the crap that is necessary in places like the US. Need a car? Not really, because the government requires neighborhoods to be built at a scale where one can walk, bicycle, or take public transit for most daily trips. Need a loan to get higher education? Not in the Swedish model, the government will provide that for you. You can still have your precious baubles if you'd like, but many of the common needs which can be more efficiently provided en masse are there to be used.

Have you ever actually been to one of these countries? In my experience the people enjoy their freedom from a lot of the petty issues that we in the US are concerned with like auto insurance, health insurance, and working one's self through school.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Dutchmaan]

Freedom doesn't exist without personal property. If the government owns everything, you can only operate inside its sandbox, which is a pretty infantile version of freedom.

Would the same apply when a corporation owns everything? The freedom to attain property, at a certain point, begins to infringe on other's freedom of the same.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[AK Marc]

Freedom doesn't exist without personal property. If the government owns everything, you can only operate inside its sandbox, which is a pretty infantile version of freedom.

Even in the most socialistic democracies, people own personal property. You are making a straw-man or slippery-slope out of the whole thing. 60% tax rate still allows 40% retention. 40% of my salary will still get me a house and a car, as well as enough to give to church, a web server, etc. Not to mention that at the same time, I'll have a whole lot more freedoms over my property because the business will be told to go screw themselves when they try damaging DRM and try to take away my rights of first sale, Fair Use, and such.

Maybe you focus on freedom related to property because that's the only freedom you think you have left. Take a look at the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments and tell me they are still in full effect. What's the point of property if it can be searched at any time without a warrant? It isn't yours at that point, they just let you pay for it and pay taxes on it. Might as well have the state own it for all the rights you have over it. We are moving to all the drawbacks of the worst communist nations with none of the supposed benefits.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Meneth]

What the heck are you talking about? The Swedish "social-democratic" government has long been on the forefront of restricting personal liberty.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[manthrax3]

A small, minimully funded government is a lot less able to violate your rights than a very well funded, gigantic government.

"We are moving to all the drawbacks of the worst communist nations with none of the supposed benefits."

The communist nations didn't have any benefits either.

Every little thing you hand off to government pointy heads is one fewer thing over which you have control. If you're ok with that, fine.

Socialism results in a bland, grey life.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[I'm Spartacus!]

Without private property, no other rights exist. If you don't own the land you're standing on, you don't own anything. Without private property you have to rely on others to dole out to you what you need. There's no incentive to work harder to better yourself since the fruits of your labor are not your own. You certainly can have no expectation of privacy, free speech, religion, assembly or anything other right people like to list as essential to a free society. If you don't have any place to freely exercise those rights, they essentially do not exist.

Free speech is nice, even though it's largely a myth, but the right to private property is the one thing that preserves a free society. The quickest way to destroy a seemingly strong nation is to take away the right to private property. Looking back, it's amazing that merely 40 years ago, the Soviet Union was viewed as an equal to the U.S. and that communism was looked on by many as a better economic system than capitalism. But that's what communism does. Without a free (or nearly free) market to determine prices based on the preferences of individual consumers, there is no way to establish a workable system of exchange of goods and services. China has taken the lessons of the Soviet Union to heart.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[I'm Spartacus!]

Corporations are not individuals and are thus not entitled to the rights preserved for individuals.

Corporations are constructs of government for the sake of protecting people from taking responsibilty for their own actions.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Vladimus]

[+] On the plus side, 6'6" women.

[-] On the minus side, the smallest average breast size in Europe

Hmmm...

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[manthrax3]

But corporations succeed only by offering competitive advantage. There is no such thing as a monopoly in a global economy, except governments.

Fearing a corporation is about as ridiculous as fearing your paper boy. They only exist if you want them to.

Government on the other hand exists regardless of your preference or need. As Einstein said, "government, like fire, is a useful too and a dangerous master."

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Anonymous Coward]

Sweden wins all three of them! Socialist Sweden is more free than America, OMFG!!!

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[induhvidual]

"violence of poverty"? Sorry. That phrase alone is all the information I need to understand that your head is packed full of organic fertilizer (I thought you might appreciate the reference to "organic" material - shit, in this case). All subsequent points you were trying to make were rendered irrelevant by the stupidity inherent in those two initial sentences.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Dutchmaan]

A corporation or a government or a church are all just organizations of men and as such can aquire power and autonomy. You don't fear a corporation because currently they are not power, though some may argue.

The only difference between a corporation and government is scale. The government was created at least in theory for the people, a corporation exists for its own benefit. When a corporation weilds excessive influence in government its decisions become law via a government proxy. Over time the corporation can BECOME the government if the people do nothing about it.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[I'm Spartacus!]

No one owns anything, even in the U.S. Stop paying your property taxes for a few months and see what happens. The state essentially owns everything and leases it to you. Even if you have lots of other stuff besides land, it's worthless if
you have nowhere to put it. In essence you own nothing.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Mr. Slippery]

Passing on no debt to the next generation

That would be nice.

Giving people the opportunity to pass on their own wealth to their descendents

Why should wealth be inheritable any more than any other form of power? Unearned wealth from inheritance should be taxed heavily.

Being able to afford to buy from others outside your country without being in their debt

Uh, to buy what? I can buy cheap things and not go into debt or expensive things and go into debt, whether I'm buying from my neighbor or from a guy on the other side of the planet. I don't understand your point here.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[NinjaFodder]

Passing on no debt to the next generation

This should be changed to:
Passing on minimal debt to the next generation.

Some national debt is necessary for manipulating interest rates (Fed) which can be good for lowering interest rates and fighting inflation. Too much debt though...

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[dada21]

Why should wealth be inheritable any more than any other form of power? Unearned wealth from inheritance should be taxed heavily.

Great question -- the reason is that this gives opportunity to the poor as well as the rich. I have MANY experiences with ultra rich familes and ultra poor families. The rich families often find themselves bankrupt in 3 generations because they just pass on money without teaching responsibility. The poor families who pass on responsibility and some money to their kids often see their kids succeeding because they learned how to work, save and invest in themselves. I believe the cliche is "Blue Collar to Blue Collar in 3 generations" but I could be wrong.

I can buy cheap things and not go into debt or expensive things and go into debt, whether I'm buying from my neighbor or from a guy on the other side of the planet. I don't understand your point here.

By having positive trade balances and not owing anyone anything, you give your own societal group the benefit of maximizing their own skills. When a society can buy something cheaper from another society (as long as its not debt bought), the first society can focus on new skills where they are most productive. In a society of 5 people, it is very hard for everyone to find wealth. But once that society of 5 people mixes with 10000 societies of 5 people, everyone can maximize their wealth by opening up their market to new places to sell to and new places to buy from.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[I'm Spartacus!]

No to mention that every nation that has attempted to adhere to communistic principles has turned into an economic hellhole. That's what the absence of a market leads to. Without a market to provide information to both consumers and producers through prices, economic progress is impossible. The state certainly is incapable of determining appropriate prices for every good and service. Only individual consumers can determine the approrpriate price of something.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[software_trainer]

You are absolutely correct. In the end, all rights are property rights.

When a government or society treats your land as being partially public property (property taxes are legitimized by the belief that "we all own the land"), or subject to confiscation in the name of the greater good (eminent domain), it's one step away from treating your house as public property. "You can't build that kind of house because it doesn't meet our building codes...never mind that you've agreed to assume all liability for living in it and any effects it might have on your neighbors, but no, you cannot build that straw-bale or adobe house here."

Now that you've gotten used to having your land and home treated as partially public property, it's one more step to treating your body as public property. "No, you cannot have that MS treatment because we believe it's not in your best interest. Never mind that you supposedly own your own body, and that you're an adult who is willing to assume all risk for the treatment."

And then from there, it's another step to treating your thoughts and feelings as partially public property.

And this slippery slope begins when someone violates your propert rights: land > home > body > mind.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[manthrax3]

So you agree with me then:

The problem is government, not corporations.

If you had a government that didn't have so much power to spend, it would not have so much corruption (why do you think the value of the real estate on K street in DC is directly proportional to the size of government?) and would not be able to bestown inequitable preference to any member or group.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Mr. Slippery]

Fair is subjective, "mine" isn't.

Of course "mine" is subjective. The idea that something can be "my" land, "my" idea (copyright, patent, etc.), "mine" by inheritance, and so on, is not an objective truth that's universal across cultures.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Anonymous Coward]

I have seen this too. The children of the rich grow up coddled, everything is handed to them. They quickly become indoctrinated into the mindset that they can have anything they want without earning it, including immaterial things like respect and love. From there it all falls apart, if they don't blow all the money they inherehited then their kids will because they will be even worse. Depending on how much they had to start with they will be "poor" (really, they will be upper middle-class) within a few miserable generations. Money doesn't really bring happiness unless you don't have any. If you grow up wealthy and then are handed that wealth by your parents it profoundly warps you as a human being.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as you consider about 60% net tax on a normal income coupled with alot of other things (hate speech laws, gun restrictions and alot of state monopolies) that violates your rights protections of the little guys rights you are correct. It sounds like flawed logic/knowledge or newspeak to me.

Are you perhaps writing this from your www.SAP.se account?

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Ucklak]

Good one.
I have a hard time understanding the moderation of Troll and Flamebait. I get that the mods that modded the above comment think that social security is a good system and being lazy and on welfare is a goal to reach?
Who actually thinks that social security is a good thing? It's a bunch of freaking IOU's and to be dependant on it would put you well below the poverty line.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Maradine]

but I do recall loving the country's people. Except for all the 6'6" women :)

*Except* the 6'6" women? What is this, Slashdot?

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Ucklak]

You get +3 Insightful, Interesting
I agree and get Troll and Flamebait. ??!!?!?

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[StevoJ]

Not really true. The eventual result of absolute capitalism will be that one corporation ends up owning pretty much everything and is basically the government. That's when that company's competitive advantage is that it gets to crush any potential competitors. Similarly, the result of absolute socialism is that the government owns everything. Neither situation is desirable, so it follows that the ideal situation is somewhere in the middle.

Governments keep an eye on the corporations, to make sure they don't get too powerful. Citizens keeps an eye on the government, to make sure they're not overstepping the mark. That's why legal laws apply to the government and we have things like constitutions. This way you end up with happy people, because the power eventually rests with them.

The difficulty is that corporations are good at manipulating people. This is an area that governments have to watch out for, and so they must regulate the corporations in this area. At the same time of course, the corporations do try to manipulate people, and can therefore affect government. Thus we end up with competition between governments and corporations, and everyone knows competition is good for everyone.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[dada21]

Some national debt is necessary for manipulating interest rates (Fed) which can be good for lowering interest rates and fighting inflation. Too much debt though...

I completely disagree. Since the dawn of the Federal Reserve (1913) the dollar has lost over 95% of its value. Before this time when we had free market banking, the dollar of 1800 was equal to the dollar of 1912 minus maybe 2-3%. A 100% reserve banking standard is a requirement for a healthy financial review and the Keynesian economists that teach in the colleges and run the market today are wrong 100% that government should have anything to do with money.

Money should be a free market product, not something created on the whim of those in power. I fully believe that our economy is worse today than it was in the 80s, we just haven't realized it yet. I blog about this daily, and I've modified my life to live entirely off the dollar standard and I now live on a hard currency standard.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[manthrax3]

"The difficulty is that corporations are good at manipulating people."

So is a government with its police and military.

Corporations cannot maintain complete dominance. When standard oil was broken up, its dominance was already on the decline to global competitors.

I don't think anyone would argue that breaking up ATT resulted in better service for consumers: it was innovation from copetitors. Innovation that would not have been affected had ATT remained whole. ATT could have done nothing to stop cablevision from offering phone service. It could have done nothing to stop wireless carriers from offering near DSL speed.

and on, and on.

Russia built a wall to maintain its copetitive advantage.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Hercules Peanut]

Of course socialism doesn't truly protect the most important of all rights: the right to earn and keep property...there is one benefit that you may be overlooking: nobody is subjected to the violence of poverty.

If you truly consider that the most important right of all, above every other right, you're pathologically materialistic and need an attitude adjustment.

Speaking of "attitude adjustment" your response sounds pretty harsh. You might want to better understand WHY people believe they are never free if they do not own property. I need air, water, food and shelter. I think that's the minimum requirement for survival. If I buy property, sink a well, grow some crops I become truly free. I may not have a TV or Slashdot but I can be free.

Unfortunately, here in America, I can buy a house on some land and do all of that but still not own property because my property tax will always force me to pay rent to the government (at least in my state). I would like to be free. Even if my life didn't change right away, it would still be freedom. I would know that if I lost my job (or through Eminent Domain) no one could ever kick me out of my home. Since my home is one of those basic necessities of life, I will never be truly free unless I truly own it otherwise I will always be dependent on someone else.

Does that make more sense? Freedom of expression and the freedom to share ideas are both very important but not as important as food and shelter.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Shajenko42]

A small, minimully funded government is a lot less able to violate your rights than a very well funded, gigantic government.

True, but a small, minimally funded government is far less able to stop other people from violating your rights.

For instance, the mafia. Of course, they're just another kind of "government", in the absence of a force powerful enough to oppose them.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[EatHam]

Why should wealth be inheritable . . .? Why should the government be involved with deciding what I do with my property, be it my body, my house, or my wallet?

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[StevoJ]

"So is a government with its police and military." True. "I don't think anyone would argue that breaking up ATT resulted in better service for consumers: it was innovation from copetitors. Innovation that would not have been affected had ATT remained whole. ATT could have done nothing to stop cablevision from offering phone service. It could have done nothing to stop wireless carriers from offering near DSL speed." And true (sorry, I know nothing about Standard Oil), but why could it do nothing to stop that? Regulations set by the government? This is why I argue that Government and Corporations both need to be strong. Yes, large corporations can be shot down by small innovative competitors, but a sufficiently large corporation can also just buy out the competition, then do with the technology what they will.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[BVis]

I'd like to point out for the record that that phrase is not of my invention. To put it another way, wouldn't you consider someone taking away some of your rights against your wishes a violent act? Poor people experience that every day.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[masklinn]

A small, minimully funded government is a lot less able to violate your rights than a very well funded, gigantic government.

But it doesn't have the ability to protect or help you protect and enforce your rights either, equality becomes function of your personal wealth, you're only equal to those as wealthy as you and you become inferior to everyone more wealthy than you.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[manthrax3]

And why does the mafia exist? Overregulation. They exist because of black markets created by overzealous governments.

Of course we should have strong police. Unfortunately, we spend far more on public housing than public safety.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[manthrax3]

As long as people are provided "the right to PERSUE happiness" the government has done its job.

Note, this is very different than a right to happiness itself.

There should be no arbitrary roadblocks to success.

And if we want shortcuts (social programs), realize that they do not exist in a vacuum and that they have real cost.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[sylvandb]

...one benefit that you may be overlooking: nobody is subjected to the violence of poverty.

Violence of poverty??? Poverty is in no way "violence" and attempts to equate the two demean and diminish those who have suffered as victims of violence.

sdb

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a failed transgender circus clown you insensitive clod!

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[2short]

Um, previous to the Federal reserve, the US had various forms of government sponsored "hard" currency, which was mostly pretty good, except when they tried to set the value of silver vs gold differently than the rest of the world. It also had a lot of privately issued "free-market" currencies, which were universally crap. They all lost their value in time frames that make the Fed managed dollar look like bedrock.

If you require "100% reserve", what is there for the "free market" to do? Compete on the degree they can convince people they are not cheating in a business where the only possible profit is by cheating?

"I've modified my life to live entirely off the dollar standard and I now live on a hard currency standard."

So you've convinced everyone you do business with to set prices based on fixed amounts of shiny metal?

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[BVis]

Unfortunately, we spend far more on public housing than public safety.

This, I agree with. Public safety should be funded to at least the level of public housing; ideally, both would have adequate budgets.

Oh, wait.. you meant we spend too much on public housing. OK, but you realize you're trading one problem (expensive public housing) for another (an explosion in the homeless population.) The taxpayers pay for it one way or another.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[AK Marc]

Some national debt is necessary for manipulating interest rates (Fed) which can be good for lowering interest rates and fighting inflation.

I'm not going to crack open the history books, so don't take this as gospel, but until the depression, the only debt the US entered into was war related and short term. There wasn't any debt passed on until after WWII, when the debt was constantly shrunk as a percentage GNP until Reagan and the Bushes. Isn't the debt held by the Federal Reserve technically private? The chairman sets the interest rate on that, but isn't it on the debts they issue (credits)? So we'd be passing along credits, not debts and still be able to manage the interest rate. Or are you referring to some other aspect of the system I'm not seeing?

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[vizek]

I will take your post as a troll.
You've never lived in a socialist country where private property is limited. I did for 21 years and can tell you this: It totally kills initiative and it breeds laziness. Yes, there are some people that are doing things out of passion and good will, but every one of them you have 10 that are just abusing the system, drinking on the job, slacking off and stealing.
It's the human nature. People are more willing to work for a tangible (material) goal

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Anonymous Coward]

You insenstive clod!

As a matter of fact, IAAFAACC (I am a failure as a circus clown) having been banned from Ringling Bro and 12 other circus for my clown "Goatse".

People like you who make these kinds of generalizations are no better than Geico

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Your socialist paradise fails this as well. http://www.rgk.se/oliver_upload/upl11500-statsskul d.gif
2) How does the US fail this one? It's called a will, lots of people have them. The government doesn't rob your bank account after you die.
3) Debt? And? I can buy the house from the guy next to me and be in debt, or buy 1000 plastic lighters from China and hardly notice the dip in my bank account, OR buy a house from a guy in China and be in debt.

If you're talking about a general trade defecit with any specific, then you just have a poor grasp of economics. It actually implies the opposite, that we're the wealthier trading partner. Take a rich business owner going to a resturant. He'll probably tip the waiter nicely, say $X, and then does the waiter go buy $X worth of the business man's products? No, of course not, the business man has run a trade deficit with the waiter.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[manthrax3]

Sure, I'm not saying to just cut public housing and leave the rest of the government alone.

I think we should spend more money on education than we do on medicare (ie, more money on children than old people: the richest age group), cut taxes so that people can spend more money on employees, lower the minimum wage to create more entry level jobs and cut property taxes to reduce rent and the overall cost of living.

The means by which we fund social programs are what cause them to exist in the first place. That and we have our priorities out of whack when it comes to old vs young and government spending.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Assembler]

Monopoly is definitely possible in a world economy.. just as it is possible in an economy as large as the US. Can you name one economy without a monopoly? Can you say De Beers?

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Trailer Trash]

The gap between the rich and the poor in this country is widening every day, and there's really no middle class anymore; we're a country of haves and have-nots.

And, yet a million Mexicans risk their lives swimming the Rio Grande and running through 100 miles of desert each year to become one of these poor "have-nots".

The individual wealth in this country continues to rise, even for the "have-nots". And, what, exactly, do they "not have"? Everything they want? Seriously.

There is no dictionary-definition poverty in the US. Period. There are people who want more than they can afford, but that isn't poverty. Shit, when I was young being "poor" meant that you didn't own a car. My father was a grocer near a poor neighborhood, and many of the people walked to our store.

They had no car, their houses were small, and they weren't wearing the latest fashions. They were poor.

But they had enough money to pay the rent/mortgage and eat. By definition, that's not poverty, as they were able to meet their basic needs.

In contrast, about 60 million children die every year from malnutrition afound the world. Many others end up blind or with other significant health problems.

Whaddya bet those kids wouldn't mind a taste of American-style "poverty"?

The American definition of poverty: I can't buy everything that I want.

Like most Americans, you need to get out of the country now and then to see what most of the world lives like.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Mr. Slippery]

Freedom doesn't exist without personal property.

True. But your argument then is that property is important because it suports those other freedoms.

Property is a tool we use to support those other rights, it is not properly a primary right. It can also be misused to undermine those other rights; property is a form of power, of force, and concentration of power into the hands of a few is anathema to freedom. If only a few people have most of the money to contribute to their churches, if only a few people control the media, that's property acting destructively to freedom.

Socialism doesn't mean the elimination of private property; it involves the restriction or elimination of capital - economic resources - as private property. (Yes, there are some theories at the edges that call for all private property to be eliminated, but it's sloppy thinking to attribute that attribute to all varieties of socialism.)

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[truckaxle]

Why should the government be involved with deciding what I do with my property, be it my body, my house, or my wallet?

Because the property you earned during you life work and investiments was due to a stable society, economy and government investment in infastructure. I would prefer to have a society were wealth is based more on merit and hard work and not just because some distant ancestor made it big in plastics. There are several key arguments for an estate tax.

• Continued concentrate of power in the elite. In any democracy, wealth can be translated into political power. It is a fact of life. Rememeber Bush's address to a group of wealth business men, "This is an impressive crowd -- the haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elite. I call you my base." Continued power concentrated in the hands of few will diminish the protection and representation of the unelite. Growing numbers of the very rich can give money to political candidates who support their personal agendas. "Those contributions clearly have an influence on public policy," Gates says, such as more tax breaks for the rich or weakening of regulations that protect consumers.
  
  
• Limit Innovation. A society full of undeserving rich kids travelling around collecting art work for their private collections does not induce innovation.
  
  
• Govt research and investments. Reducing taxes could crimp government research and investments in education -- the source of innovations that create jobs. With less education, growing numbers of workers can't get ahead.

Surprisingly very wealthy people such as Bill Gates Sr. and Warren Buffett support the death tax.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[aeoo]

It'd be nice if you at least understood and acknowledged the parent's conscious choice to be less rich in order to be more wealthy.

As it is, I don't think you understand wealth and you don't appreciate the choice that parent post speaks of. See, you measure everything in money, and that's not the right way to measure true wealth.

Point by point, 1 is money, 2 is money (unless you mean wisdom passing on to descendants, which I really doubt, having read quite a few of your posts), 3 money again.

I see wealth as having a happy life -- the kind of life where the person feels at ease and social relations are free from strain. When people focus on making money, they make all other goals half-assed. Or spoken in different words, a person who performs some art, such as healing (like a surgeon), constructions, etc., when doing so for money, is bringing ulterior motive into their art/craft, thus invariable and necessarily degrading it. And this is what we see happening all around! Look how crappy the fruits and vegetables are in your supermarket. Shit, you may not even have seen a good looking tomato in your entire life, if you grew up in USA. What they sell in supermarkets across America is CRAP. Why? Because it's efficient -- the fruits are not tasty enough for worms, they don't rot, they last long. The main priority is quantity and lastingness. That's what happens when you do it for money. If you did it in any other way, then you'd make less money. So we have tomatoes that taste like leather, green bananas, mushy and blackened potatoes and so on. Some things you can't even buy, because they're not profitable (but damn, they are tasty). I once had to fight with the store ordering guy to get him to order some beets for the store. His argument, "No one buys beets, so we don't carry it." So what if the majority of culture is happy with just fucken' ramen? And that's likely to happen because they sell crap vegetables. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy: you sell crap produce and drive people to rely more on canned goods and cereal (5 dollars for a box of air) and pasta, etc... People buy fewer vegetables, so you have to carry a less diverse stock and less more expensive cereal. Profit. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

This is not what I'd call wealth. Lots of money flows thru a supermarket store. But everything on its shelves is CRAP and every fuckin supermarket employee I've seen has been a very SICK and unhappy person. Why is that? Because the store treats them like crap. That's why. But they don't have to be treated like that. They could be paid more (and yes, I know... I KNOW the store will make less money if they pay their clerks more, or GOD FORBID, give them part ownership of the store, so they feel responsible for what they do and they feel part of the success of their own work). The result: very very strained human relations. The result of strained relations is segregations of society into layers. The result of layering of society is formations of elites at the top and gangs who have nothing to lose and nothing to live for at the bottom.

Greed and the focus on money as exclusive measure of wealth turns everything into crap. You end up with booming economy, with lots of dollars, but all the people are pissed off, the government is bloated (YES, because, for corps to keep pumping more and more money out of public, they need to get government on board, and this is just a natural extention of doing it for money and seeing money as wealth), and all the products are of bare-minimum quality that the market will bear, and there is no point in excellence if a mediocre thing will sell too.

dada, it is people like YOU who bloat our government. You just don't see how it happens. It's a guy like you who ends up, in luckier circumstances with owning a corporation. And it's a guy like you that at the end of the day goes to the government and asks for laws that protect and ensure your business. You only talk trash when you're a small fry, but once you get more

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[BVis]

Speaking of "attitude adjustment" your response sounds pretty harsh.

Hey, I call them like I see them. I don't think it was overly harsh, but feel free to disagree.

Unfortunately, here in America, I can buy a house on some land and do all of that but still not own property because my property tax will always force me to pay rent to the government (at least in my state).

By that logic, nobody owns anything which is subject to taxation. So we're living in a country without personal property already! Sweden's got nothing on us, apparently.
 
As far as the property tax goes, would you be willing give it up knowing that it would result in no police, no fire department, no town water supply (subsidized by taxes, the balance billed), no street repair, no school system, and on and on? The money has to come out of someone's pocket. Granted, there is a lot of waste and redundancy in local governments, but no matter how efficient the system might be, those things still require money to function.
 
And I hate to sound like a broken record, but if you think we pay too much tax, try living in Europe or Canada for a while. I promise you that'll change your mind quickly.

Since my home is one of those basic necessities of life, I will never be truly free unless I truly own it otherwise I will always be dependent on someone else.

Welcome to civilization. I wouldn't consider being dependent on others for some of the necessities of life giving up your freedom. You're free to get those necessities from someone else, or try to provide your own; nothing is stopping you.

Freedom of expression and the freedom to share ideas are both very important but not as important as food and shelter.

Take that to the logical extreme; if I understand you correctly, you'd be perfectly happy with a tax-free home and a subsistence farm, and you'd be willing to trade the ability to express yourself? Doesn't sound like living to me; sounds like purgatory. Food and shelter are required to live; freedom of expression and to share ideas make life worth living.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Mr. Slippery]

Why should the government be involved with deciding what I do with my property

Once you're dead, it's not your property anymore.

be it my body, my house, or my wallet?

Your relationship with your body is much more intimate than "property".

Your house is your property only because of a government deed; those funny green pieces of paper in your wallet are government creations too.

Capitalism requires all sorts to the government involvement; contrary to the concept of "liberatrian capitalism", capitalism is not a ground state that occurs in the absence of state action. That's why anarchy is a form of socialism.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[heinousjay]

You forget the basic flaw in the socialist argument is also present here: since it's exactly what this one person wants, then everyone else should be forced to live under it as well.

That's why capitalism is the only system I can support - it gives everyone the opportunity to live as they wish, provided they are willing to obtain what is necessary to allow it. Naturally, there are lazy fuckers who want to be taken care of. Too bad, in the general sense, I say. Let them figure it out on their own. I'm not helping them.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[kz45]

But corporations succeed only by offering competitive advantage. There is no such thing as a monopoly in a global economy, except governments

what happens if one company naturally becomes a monopoly (they are just better than the rest)?

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Anonymous Coward]

i don't think the communist experiment will be tried again (in any case, it's not entirely clear communism was ever really "tried" - the so-called communist states were not so much communist as totalitarian-dictatorial), but i'm a little curious if its a question of technology.

the problem with this kind of state-planning economic activity/resource allocation is the difficulty with getting correct information etc. about what to produce and so on. information management is what technology is supposed to improve. if a state had the kind of ERP system that, say, Wal-mart has, would it be able to manage resource allocation sufficiently well?

let's not forget that capitalism is incredibly wasteful of things as well - think of all the landfills with products that nobody wants, for example. plenty of firms go bankrupt, debts go unpaid, etc. - a distinction needs to be made between "better" (as in, capitalism so far has performed better than communist states have), and "perfect/correct" (as in, "capitalism is a perfect/correct system - true or false? discuss").

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[NinjaFodder]

The fed is fairly complex. The Federal Reserver is "kinda" private. Congress keeps their hands off of the Feds pool of money because they know how disasterous it can be to handicap the fed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_reserve#Contr ol_of_the_money_supply http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_reserve#Disco unt_rates

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[manthrax3]

That's called a cartel. These don't exist without government cooperation (OPEC, etc).

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[cayenne8]

"...but I do recall loving the country's people. Except for all the 6'6" women..."

Well, just remember, when you're horizontal, height doesn't make any difference. Hell..that is just more legs to wrap around you...

:-)

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Assembler]

I noticed that you weren't able to name an economy without a monopoly

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[lowrydr310]

I fully believe that our economy is worse today than it was in the 80s, we just haven't realized it yet. I blog about this daily, and I've modified my life to live entirely off the dollar standard and I now live on a hard currency standard.

Can you elaborate on this more? What exactly do you do? (I can't open the blog now because I believe blogspot is blacklisted at work)

I share the same beliefs with you regarding our economy. I have zero economics background, but there are some things that just seem obvious. My opinion is that nearly everyone is living off of assumed wealth right now. Homes in most places are unaffordable for most people considering local salaries, and those who bought homes at realistic prices have tapped into their equity (based on their inflated home value) to live like millionaires. How do we trust so-called experts who say that our economy is doing great and that home prices aren't going to fall, rather they'll level off?

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[BVis]

I think we should spend more money on education than we do on medicare (ie, more money on children than old people: the richest age group)

Agreed. I'd include things like WIC, subsidized child care, and the like in that; those things aid the working poor.

cut taxes so that people can spend more money on employees

That's a good idea in theory; however, the money won't go to the employees, it'll go into the pockets of the executives and stockholders.

lower the minimum wage to create more entry level jobs

No minimum wage job I've ever seen is "entry level". They're "be glad we gave you a job", "raise? you're lucky we don't fire you, go mop the floor", no-advancement-possible jobs. All lowering the minimum wage will do is drag down salaries across the board. The resulting decrease in buying power could very well drag the whole economy down.

cut property taxes to reduce rent and the overall cost of living.

Again, if you're talking about a landlord-renter situation, the rents will not come down, they will stay the same, with more money staying in the pocket of the owners; in other words, the rich get richer.

The means by which we fund social programs are what cause them to exist in the first place.

Reagan tried that "trickle-down" theory in the 80s.. and it didn't work then, either. All these suggestions you've made do acheive one thing: they make more money available to the wealthy. The wealthy do not wish to have company; they'll keep the money for themselves instead of improving matters for the less fortunate. (Yes, that's a stereotype, but it's one well rooted in the facts.)

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[EatHam]

There are several key arguments for an estate tax. * Continued concentrate of power in the elite. In any democracy, wealth can be translated into political power. Well, then you're fixing the wrong problem aren't you? * Limit Innovation. A society full of undeserving rich kids travelling around collecting art work for their private collections does not induce innovation. First off, it would induce innovation in the field of art that appeals to undeserving rich kids. Second, I think you are greatly overestimating the number of undeserving rich kids that would result from the permanent abolition of the estate tax. * Govt research and investments Good. Surprisingly very wealthy people such as Bill Gates Sr. and Warren Buffett support the death tax. Surprisingly, middle class people such as EatHam could give a fuck what Bill Gates and Warren Buffet support in the way of taxation. Middle class people such as EatHam also realize that the problem isn't the tax rate, the problem is with the method of collection. If people paid their tax bill in full and didn't evade, we would still have a surplus. Don't blame Bush for that, blame your criminal tax evading neighbors.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[cayenne8]

"I get that the mods that modded the above comment think that social security is a good system and being lazy and on welfare is a goal to reach? Who actually thinks that social security is a good thing?"

Well, unfortunately, there are a LOT of people that believe in and promote the 'weath redistribution' system that SS, other entitlements, and current tax structures support.

"It's a bunch of freaking IOU's and to be dependant on it would put you well below the poverty line."

Well, that's a major problem. SS wasn't meant to be a sole source of support...it was there to help you if you were needy as an elder...and later, if you were disabled or infirmed. Now...people expect to retire and live on it...

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Assembler]

What I want you to realize is that monopoly is possible in a world economy, just as it is possible in the world's largest economy. The internet's world economy is what, effectively 10 years old? There will be monopolies. They will just be larger than the ones we have right now.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[canadian_right]

There is no relation between strong property laws and SLAPP suites.

Strong property rights can take many forms. If you have strong indivual rights, as opposed to group rights, you generally also have strong property rights. I am talking about REAL property not so called intellectual property.

SLAPP suits come about because of bad tort law, not overly strong property laws.

I'm firmly of the belief that all rights should apply to individuals only - not groups. This is the only way to prevent the majority from abusing their power. Many bad things have been done in the name of "improving society" which turned out to just be an excuse to oppress individuals.

As for the "violence of poverty". You are correct that a "deemphasis on personal material gain" could make for a better society, but you can't pass laws to bring it about. It is a cultural change. A good example is drunk driving laws. Where I live there have been laws against drunk driving since there were cars, but drunk driving was socially acceptable so the practise continued. The laws was toughed up a bit, but what actually caused a drop in drunk driving was a change in attidute in genal towards it. It came to be seen as a very dangerous, selfish act that was likely to harm innocent people. It was this change in culture that brought down the drunk driving rates.

To stop silly lawsuits you have to change the culture. Jurys have to stop handing out huge settlements (lawsuit bingo). People have to think it is wrong to use the courts to settle every little dispute. People have to despise people who abuse the courst. Abusers have to be punished by the courts.

Back to poverty. Yes, the middle class is shrinking, but most of that is driven by globalization, and technology change. These things are hard to stop. Remember, only 200 years ago over 90% of Americans worked on farms. 200 years from now the idea that a large percentage of Americans worked at high paying blue collar factory jobs will seems just as quaint.

CEO pay is disgusting. Why don't sharholders revolt against that?

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Mick Ohrberg]

Don't forget the polar bears roaming the streets and the free love.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Anonymous Coward]

not always.

you're thinking of a romanticised view of the black market being a purveyor of goods-people-really-want-and-aren't-that-harmful-a nyway a la Prohibition.

But that's not all the mafia does. Think protection money, namely, protection from having your business trashed by them. What kind of economic benefit/purpose is that? This kind of extortion occurs because of *weak* government (in that the government cannot effectively police the locale), not overzealous ones.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[enjerth]

If ever "that one corporation" owns pretty much everything, revolution will follow. In one way or another. If balance and harmony are not found, upheaval is inevitable. A great mob has power to overturn just about anything. And the greater the repression, the sooner and more violent the revolution is. The cycle will begin anew.

Governments define who may be upper class. (Oh, there you go. Bringing class into it again.) Capitalism is the only one where a man can become upper class by his own labor.

Governments that try to abolish classes still as a government body maintain a higher class than the people. The people, when they understand that they are all one class, may become lazy to no diminishment (as they perceive) of their standards of living. But as a whole society, instead of working hard to produce wealth, sink into poverty while feeling content. Contentment is easy when nobody has more than what you have. You can feel well established when your few of possessions are comparable to anyone else's. With that in mind, you also can't become any greater than your neighbor. No room for dreams or aspiration.

But these last hundred years belonged to those who dreamed of becoming more, of having more and of doing more. That is capitalism. You can't have this kind of industrial revolution without the total freedom of personal property. The more taxation and redistribution of wealth, the more you discourage people from becoming a part of this revolution.

Did I rant?

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[I'm Spartacus!]

i don't think the communist experiment will be tried again (in any case, it's not entirely clear communism was ever really "tried" - the so-called communist states were not so much communist as totalitarian-dictatorial), but i'm a little curious if its a question of technology.

People like to own things. I like to have a house that I can retreat to without being bothered. Without private property, there's no chance of privacy.

Communism requires people to forego ownership for the betterment of all. People resist this because they desire that privacy and the feeling that their efforts have resulted in their betterment. Otherwise, what's the point of laboring at all? We're all better off doing something fun (i.e. leisure) if work doesn't produce any benefits. Since people want to better themselves through work, they will resist giving up those benefits for the good of society. Since people will resist this, they must be forced to do so in order for communism to have any chance of success. Communism will always lead to totalitarianism.

the problem with this kind of state-planning economic activity/resource allocation is the difficulty with getting correct information etc. about what to produce and so on. information management is what technology is supposed to improve. if a state had the kind of ERP system that, say, Wal-mart has, would it be able to manage resource allocation sufficiently well?

The state will never allocate resources as efficiently as a private entity simply because the state relies upon violence, not free association, to achieve its ends. Wal-Mart cannot hold a gun to your head and force you to buy their products. The government can and does this every day. The state has zero incentive to do its job well. It will exist whether you like what it produces or not. Wal-Mart must do its job well to survive.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[EatHam]

Once you're dead, it's not your property anymore.
Right, it's my family's property. Not yours, keep your grubby dickbeaters off of it.

Your house is your property only because of a government deed
OR because I paid for it, tomayto, tomahto.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[cayenne8]

"See, you measure everything in money, and that's not the right way to measure true wealth....I see wealth as having a happy life"

Well, sure is hard to be happy without money. I certainly don't work because I like it...I'd much rather have great loads of money so I could just concentrate on doing what I like, and not having to worry about making a living. Money is the one thing that allows me to buy and do things I enjoy in life. With enough money, I can buy the 'toys' in life that I enjoy. I can travel. I can date numerous good looking women, take them out...etc. You just can't do that with 'wealth that is not money'.

Especially the women point...women are attracted to men that can provide what they need for their children, home, better life...etc. In the old caveman days, this was brute strength and brawn. Today, it is money. Just a fact of nature, and I don't know anyone that doesn't like getting laid by a great looking lady. It sure makes me happy.

:-)

They say money doesn't buy you happiness? Well, it sure makes misery a whole lot easier to live with I can tell ya. I like the things money enables me to do with my life...

"Shit, you may not even have seen a good looking tomato in your entire life, if you grew up in USA."

Now...I DO have to agree with you on this. I enjoy good foods, I like to cook a lot. And I am quite saddened by the lack of good produce in the normal, run of the mill grocery store. I think in addition to the reasons you mentioned above...the demand and knowledge of good produce like a good tomato, is gone due the the fact that so many families do NOT cook their own meals any more. I had to stay with a friend of mine's family post Katrina for awhile, and was shocked at how often they came home in the evenings with Sonic or other fast food. I liked to cook and did so for the family quite often. I was happy to give the wife some cooking lessons..as that she did not know very many basic cooking skills.....and this is from someone born and raised in souther Louisiana...food capital of the world!!!

But...good food CAN be found. Get out of the box grocery store and hit the farmers mkt. You can grow your own too...there are places selling sproutlings of heirloom tomatoes these days on the web...you have to look a bit harder, but, there is good produce and food out there. Hell, if you look enough, you can find good meat too....I've started seeing places that actually sell prime grade beef to general consumers. It may cost a bit more, but, I figure, when I want a good steak...it is worth the money.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Anonymous Coward]

Another stupid myth. The people you are describing are middle class. Rich people got rich by knowing how to hang onto money and they pass that on to their kids. The rich kids I know get almost nothing from their parents without some form of quid-pro-quo (like having to be top in their class). Its the middle class kids who get handed everything their parents never had and who are clueless about what it takes to get and hold onto money. They are also the ones blowing it all on credit card debt and online poker.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Intron]

Looks to me like thedollar from 100 years ago is still worth just as much.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[cayenne8]

"Regardless of what is whose, you should just negociate what you take home. Whatever "excess" there is..."

There is NO excess!!! Everything I make goes to my current living expense, things I want, and the rest goes to retirement. Now, who is to say there is excess in one single cent "I" earn and make.

Life is a competition, and I'm not here for the 'good' of my fellow man. I like to help when I can, at my choice...but, my goal is to 'win'. And that means having a comfortable life for myself and my family during and after my productive working years. While I'm not out to keep anyone down, I certainly am not responsible for propping them up at my expense.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[dada21]

It is a very complex mess of government intervention that has caused the problems that the US and many 1st world countries will soon face: someone has to continue robbing from Peter to pay Paul.

First, the inflation of currency is a double edged sword: it kills many at the profit of the few. The Fed prints new money out of thin air in the US, which is the direct cause of price increases -- home values go up, the stock market goes way up, consumer goods go way up, but salaries do not keep up enough. This means that while you earn more, you actually earn less as the dollar does not buy as much.

When you introduce a new supply of an item into any market, the price of the item will generally go down -- it will be worth less. When the Fed prints new currency, it eventually lowers the value of all the other currency out there. This is why home prices tend to go up -- the demand for dollars isn't as great. Pile on top of that the easy credit the Fed enforces (low interest rates), and people tend to buy more of something than they'd otherwise need (note the 4 bedroom, 2.5 bathroom home being the norm).

At some point in time, the creditors who helped create these dollars will demand something in return for the notes they bought (receipts against a loan). If we can't produce anything, and we aren't worth anything, they'll foreclose. I like to think of the Chinese and Indians (who save up to 40% of their disposable income only to loan it to us) coming over to the US and living in our mortgaged houses, driving our leased cars, and watching our bought-on-credit widescreen TVs, while we slave in the factories to pay it all back.

Sorry you can't access blogspot -- I'm moving my blogs to my own domain name ( www.unanimocracy.com ) very soon, hopefully you can join in the "fun" in the future! Drop me an e-mail and I'll let you know when we made the transition.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[TheDurkinBoy]

It is mildly interesting that you twist "Giving people the opportunity to pass on their own wealth to their descendents" with the response "Unearned wealth from inheritance should be taxed heavily". I earn my wealth and I earn the right to provide for those I love. Besides that, who are the morality police saying this is just too horrible to allow so we'll have to take/steal the wealth from you? Absurd.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[cayenne8]

"In a society where personal property is de-emphasized, there is one benefit that you may be overlooking: nobody is subjected to the violence of poverty."

Hey..life is tough. You're born and dealt a hand (starting spot), and you're free to work your way up from there. If you can't...well, tough luck, not my problem, I'm too busy trying to raise my standard of living for myself and family. The world owes you nothing...it is up to the individual to fight, work and innovate to make it. Material items are one way of keeping score.

If you can't succeed and do and attain things in life that make it easy and pleasurable, then what incentive is there to succeed? Do it by the rules, and anybody can do so...at least in the US.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[lixee]

People just don't wanna know; It helps them sleep at night. Thanks for reminding them aeoo!

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[TheCRAIGGERS]

I don't have any facts to back it up, but I don't think we (as a race) needed any help creating the "class warfare" that exists today. As a race, it seems that a majority of the cycles in our brains are concerned with two things: what I have that somebody else doesn't (and how to keep it that way) and what I need that somebody else has (and how to take it). If you need an example, simply watch any playground for a few minutes.

Don't forget that government isn't some malevolent alien entity; it's run by humans and reflects how we function in soceity, whether it be a small one or a big one.

As a side (and slightly off-topic) note, I wonder how much of this is hardwired into our brains, and how much is programmed into us by our culture.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> Have you ever actually been to one of these countries?
> In my experience the people enjoy their freedom from
> a lot of the petty issues that we in the US are
> concerned with like auto insurance, health insurance,
> and working one's self through school.

Well, thanks to nationalized medicine in Europe, the US has to carry the lion's share of technological development. So why not shoulder the burden of entertainment development while we're at it?

What good is free medical care in the year 2100 when you're only at year 2030 level technology? Have you helped anyone? Are you really a friend of the common man?

We now return you to your regularly scheduled quasi-religious political socialist arguments.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[vrioux]

You just made my day. This is the best comment I've ever read on slashdot. Thanks for posting it.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[lixee]

I wonder if the large group you're referring to in your sig isn't around 280 million people big.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[drinkypoo]

Well, sure is hard to be happy without money. I certainly don't work because I like it...I'd much rather have great loads of money so I could just concentrate on doing what I like, and not having to worry about making a living. Money is the one thing that allows me to buy and do things I enjoy in life. With enough money, I can buy the 'toys' in life that I enjoy. I can travel. I can date numerous good looking women, take them out...etc. You just can't do that with 'wealth that is not money'.

The fact that we in America (myself included) need a bunch of "toys" to feel good about ourselves is a symptom of cultural disease. So is drug abuse - and I have been known to use drugs. (You can get one of the most dangerous drugs known to man, and can also get one of the most addictive, at the gas station...)

Oh, and, this is slashdot, remember? There's no women, numerous or otherwise, in your folks' basement, except your mom.

But...good food CAN be found. Get out of the box grocery store and hit the farmers mkt. You can grow your own too...there are places selling sproutlings of heirloom tomatoes these days on the web...you have to look a bit harder, but, there is good produce and food out there.

The parent commenter was talking about supermarkets, where better than 99% of the population buys groceries. If everyone in the US demanded quality produce, there wouldn't be enough to go around.

Also, you give farmer's markets as an example of where to get good produce. It's quite correct, but misses a point entirely; those businesses tend to be run by the people who own them, and thus the people are more highly motivated - which proves the grandparent comment nicely.

Also, you might be interested to know that fast food is cheaper than cooking at home, at least if you want any kind of variety. Sure, you can eat pretty healthily at home for cheap, but beans, rice, and a little bit of chicken can get a bit same-y after a while. In most cases, buying fresh produce is several times more expensive than just buying processed foods.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[pthisis]

If the government owns everything, you can only operate inside its sandbox, which is a pretty infantile version of freedom.

Would the same apply when a corporation owns everything?

Yes, but even worse. With private-sector money, you often wound up with nontransferrable cash usable only at the company store. Not only did that have a much more limited selection than the general market, but it also had no competition and could set monopolistic pricing.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Bun]

Why should wealth be inheritable any more than any other form of power? Unearned wealth from inheritance should be taxed heavily.

Because the money has already been taxed during its accumulation? Because the whole point of amassing wealth is to give your children a better life? Because the government does absolutely no service of any value in the transferrence of that wealth?

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[enjo13]

There are also good opposition arguments:

Continued concentrate of power in the elite

This is the most compelling argument to me. An estate tax is a way of limiting the formation of a 'ruling class' in the form of a monetary aristocracy. There are trade-offs however.

Limit Innovation

Rich kids have a funny habit of spending a lot of money. While they are 'travelling around collection art work', they are REALLY putting a lot of money into the economy which will eventually find its way into investment. The money that the family fortune is built on is also not sitting still, in most cases the vast majority of that money is being invested in a number of places. That investment money is the fuel is for innovation as the whole point of an investment is to increase the 'value' of your wad of cash by owning something that is going to become more valuable. A good chunk of venture capital is directly tied to large amounts of cash available as part of a particular families fortune. Innovation, after all, earns the highest rewards for money invested.

  You also have to look at the flip side. By collecting money in taxes government is not in a particularly strong position to encourage innovation. I would argue the opposite, actually. By concentrating wealth in the hands of government you are putting money in an organization that has the LEAST incentive to grow that money. Instead it gets doled out in various welfare programs, public works, and other projects (note: I'm not arguing that these things aren't neccesary are good, just that they provide remarkably little in the way of innovation or wealth creation). The money is not being invested in growth, but rather in stability. This is not the recipe for innovation.

Govt research and investments

This is not an argument for an estate tax, but rather for taxes in general. The question is: When does government have 'enough' money? History has shown that more taxes does not mean a better investment in government research and education, but rather a swelling of the overall government bureaucracy. I would argue that we would better served by LIMITING government, rather than further extending its reach. Liberalizing social law (we spend BILLIONS on enforcing 'moral' like prostitution every year), limiting welfare, and limiting our expensive habits (such as nation building) make the need for high levels of tax simply go away.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[AoT]

Now...people expect to retire and live on it...

I don't know what people you have been talking to, but no one I know thinks that. My parents are damn close to retirement age and they expect did not plan on having SS be their retirement fund.

It isn't as if you get a lot of money anyway, just enough to live, sometimes barely.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Hercules Peanut]

By that logic, nobody owns anything which is subject to taxation.

No, by that logic nobody owns anything which is subject to recurring taxation. Big difference.

As far as the property tax goes, would you be willing give it up knowing that it would result in no police, no fire department, no town water supply (subsidized by taxes, the balance billed), no street repair, no school system, and on and on?

You are asking me like I have a choice, I don't. If I were free, I might. Besides, you assume that this money can only come from property tax. How about sales tax? How about licenses? How about Auto Registrations? Be creative. We are taxed a thousand different ways, I oppose one of them. Well more than one but not all of them.

And I hate to sound like a broken record, but if you think we pay too much tax, try living in Europe or Canada for a while. I promise you that'll change your mind quickly.

No, it won't. Knowing that someone or everyone has it worse than me will not stop me from striving to make my life or my family's lives better. I am not content to hear that someone else in some particular fashion has it worse off than me so stop complaining or trying to be better. Are you?

Welcome to civilization. I wouldn't consider being dependent on others for some of the necessities of life giving up your freedom. You're free to get those necessities from someone else, or try to provide your own; nothing is stopping you.

Actually, this is what the whole slashdot story is about, governments and corporations trying to stop us from just that. Many people believe that giving up their right to own a DVD is a loss of freedom. Wiretapping everyone only hurts more than just the guilty etc etc. These are all freedoms. For some reason, owning land apparently isn't one of them in your opinion.

Take that to the logical extreme; if I understand you correctly, you'd be perfectly happy with a tax-free home and a subsistence farm, and you'd be willing to trade the ability to express yourself?

No, you don't understand me correctly. I'd be perfectly happy if I had it all. I don't. If I had a choice, I'd choose the right to own my land over abolishing the DMCA, Copyright Extension Act and the other host of BS laws to protect businesses and limit our ownership and Intellectual Freedom (bringing us back on-topic). I don't. That's the missing freedom. Actually, come to think of it, I might be willing to give up voicing my opinion on /. if I and my descendants were granted permanent property tax immunity. I don't know but that's not a possibility and I don't like it.

Doesn't sound like living to me; sounds like purgatory. Food and shelter are required to live; freedom of expression and to share ideas make life worth living.

But that's your opinion and you're entitled to it but it isn't mine and it isn't others so don't be so quick to criticize our desire for freedom when it doesn't match your ideal lifestyle. Sounds like you would have us sacrifice our freedom to live in a world that you believe is better. Believe it or not, some people can be happy with nothing more than their freedom (and nothing less). Many of the people who first colonized our country wanted nothing more. I don't think they set sail believing they were headed for purgatory.

My point in all of this rambling is that we have lost all sots of freedom. Some we lost so long ago and so quietly that we don't even recognize it as freedom anymore. I believe that your response to one of the posts exemplifies this. One day, we might just have a chance to solve some of these problems that so many of us at /. agree upon but the cure may be worse than the disease if we don't understand what is important and why. You seem to feel that believing freedom is tied to owning property is "pathologically materialistic" and that it "needs an attitude adjustment". He freely expressed himself and you wan

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[BVis]

Society as a whole has decided that things like police departments, public schools, road maintenance, and so forth are worth paying for. Therefore, we have property taxes. If you don't like the system, write your elected representative; however, be aware that your fellow taxpayers like having those things( police, schools, etc.) and will not vote to remove property taxes if it means having to lose those things.

You're in the minority. The foundation of a democratic system is that majority rules. Therefore you are compelled to do things you would not otherwise want to do, ie pay property taxes. If the property taxes are too high where you are, you are free to find somewhere else to live; essentially "voting with your feet." If enough people move out of the area because of excessive property tax, the system will correct itself.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Stephan Schulz]

Calling this a failure is really dependent on the assumption that their primary goal is to have "a much more powerful trade position and a more vibrant economy." I would submit that the Swedish people have decided other things are more important.

Actually, given that nominal GDP per capita is nearly the same for Sweden and the US, the Swedish economy seems to be vibrant enough. The US is doing better in effective purchase power (as prices are higher in Sweden), but Sweden is doing quite well there as well. And given that wealth is distributed much more evenly in Sweden, nearly all Swedes have more purchase power than nearly all US Americans (but of course quite some Americans have more purchase power than nearly all Swedes, as well).

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Bun]

Corporations are not individuals and are thus not entitled to the rights preserved for individuals.

Yeah, right. Maybe that's the way it should be, but it certainly isn't the way it is.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[AoT]

If ever "that one corporation" owns pretty much everything, revolution will follow.

Would that be a revolution intended to deprive said corporation of its right to own property?

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[cayenne8]

"I don't know what people you have been talking to, but no one I know thinks that."

Well good...they are thinking smart, and planning ahead.

However, there are a lot of ill-informed people out there that think it is the govt's responsibility to take care of them when they retire. I guess they don't realize that SS probably may not even exist in a few years.

I certainly do not expect it will be there for me when I reach that age. Hell, I wished to hell I could get out of it now and save that money on my own. I'd sign away any and ALL future benefits from what I've contributed now, if I could just stop paying into the system and invest that money on my own.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[arminw]

......Because the property you earned during you life work and investiments was due to a stable society, economy and government investment in infastructure.......

If the nation as a whole is analogous to a business, then taxation is equivalent to the overhead of that business. The question then becomes: "How much overhead is too much?" Many businesses don't find this out in time and go bankrupt and cease to exist. If you study the histories of the great empires of the past, you will learn that excessive taxation was always a large contributing factor to their eventual demise.

When a society begins to forcibly take wealth from those who work harder, smarter or just are lucky, and hand it to those who do not contribute, the end of that society is guaranteed. If a person, or group of person has their wealth taken from them, either after or before death, that wealth (capital) is no longer available to provide jobs and deprives the government of far more income in the long run, than what may have been collected from the estate. The owner of a large farm dies and because of death taxes, the property must be sold, subdivided and made into housing tracts. This takes a valuable food producing asset as well as an environmentally friendlier use away from society. Taxes should be based on the CURRENT ability to pay from current income, not on what is left over after all taxes have already paid by the living.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[poopdeville]

Don't be retarded. They already tell you what you can and can't do with any firearms you might own. They already tell you that you can't drive your car on the sidewalk and hit four pedestrians. They already tell you that your home needs to pass city code inspections before a remodel is complete. There are very good reasons for each of those. The government even prohibits suicide.

The question now becomes, "What makes wealth so different that the government shouldn't be allowed to regulate its use?"

Keep in mind, as well, that the constitution does not guarantee a right to wealth.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[rrohbeck]

What's wrong with 6'6" women? Sorry, couldn't resist.

But on the topic, check out the UN's Human Development Index at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Ind ex.
Norway is #1 in the world, Canada #5, Sweden #6, and the US #10.

The more "socialist" democratic countries score more towards the top of the industrialized nations while the more capitalist countries are further down the list.
Economic power != standard of living.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Troglodyt]

Excuse me? I take offense to that. We have perfectly good medical and technological research here in Sweden. Just because you are at the cutting edge of research about viagra and weapons of mass destruction, that does not mean you are carrying the lion's share of the technological development. And quite frankly your not doing too well in the entertainment development either.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[poopdeville]

Mr. "Dada" is evidence that Ayn Rand rots your brain.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[weierstrass]

how do you blow money on credit card debt?

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[jafac]

Of course socialism doesn't truly protect the most important of all rights: the right to earn and keep property.

Neither does Capitalism. Unless you've got a funny notion of the definition of "own".

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Pearson]

The problem with estate taxes is they tax people who don't own anything close to an "estate"!

Sure, tax people like Gates or Buffett; when their heirs split $50 billion instead of $60 billion, who will care? Plus the $10B goes to "help the children".

BTW, I wonder how many suicides there will be in 2010, when the estate tax will be suspended for one year?

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Because the property you earned during you life work and investiments was due to a stable society, economy and government investment in infastructure.

Funny. Your first sentence is a complete contradiction of itself. If I "earned" my property, then it is mine by right of my hard work, shrewd investment, keen intellect, or whatever. Goverment can only hinder that by regulation, taxation, etc., but it cannot earn it for me. Yet you say it's all due to a "stable society, economy and government investment in infrastructure." It's either one or the other, but it cannot be both. If I earned it, it's mine free and clear. If government "gave" it to me through social programs, income redistribution, welfare, and so forth, I didn't earn it (if fact, somebody else earned it and had it taken away from them by the government, but that's a story for another time).

You can argue that the government's maintenance of a stable environment assists me in my hard work, and you may be corrent in some circumstances. But without effort on my part, government cannot "earn" me anything. I, on the other hand, can earn things without the need for government to do much of anything for me, although it may be more difficult for me to do so. But the important point to take from this is that government needs me to earn things more than I need government to help me earn it. Unfortunately, it seems these days the government wants me to earn things specifically so that it can take it away from me in the form of taxes and give it to someone else that hasn't earned it. Karl Marx would be proud of our Social Security system and the IRS.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[enjerth]

Yes.

However, it's unlikely that such a thing could ever happen unless such corporations are already depriving other people's rights... or the people sell themselves into a system that does not promote their own growth.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Anonymous Coward]

Reagan tried that "trickle-down" theory in the 80s.. and it didn't work then, either.

Hi, you appear to have slept through the 1990s. It was a pretty great time, sorry you missed it.

(Not sure why I'm bothering to respond to someone who says with a straight face that supply-side economic policies didn't work, but then that's why it's just a sarcastic comment.)

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[aztec rain god]

Under what definition of "estate" does an estate exceeding $2 mill (the exemption limit as of 2006) not fall? We're not talking about grandmas eating catfood here. Her kids don't have to pay.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[truckaxle]

Agreed the real question with taxes is always "How much overhead is too much?" and how well the taxes are used in furthering the roles of government, etc.

However, "When a society begins to forcibly take wealth from those who work harder, smarter or just are lucky, and hand it to those who do not contribute, the end of that society is guaranteed" The common result of inheriting wealth or receiving public assistance is that wealth is being handed to those who "do not contribute". Why should the offspring of the wealthy have inordinate advantages in life? Inordinate is the key idea here, since being born into a wealthy family alone provides many opportunities such as education, starting capital, connections, etc. regardless of estate tax or not. In a democratic society that places an priority on equality of opportunity to provide a nearly level playing field on which young people, rich and poor, can compete and reward is more merit, risk or innovation based.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[prisoner-of-enigma]

In a society where personal property is de-emphasized, there is one benefit that you may be overlooking: nobody is subjected to the violence of poverty.

No, the exact opposite happens: everyone is subjected to the exact same amount of poverty. Winston Churchill said it best: "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

The poor in the United States have televisions, cars, air-conditioning, cell phones, cable TV, and free access to health care whenever they walk into an ER. Tens of thousands of people come to this country every year from socialist countries around the world. If we're so poor and unequal, why is that?

The gap between the rich and the poor in this country is widening every day, and there's really no middle class anymore; we're a country of haves and have-nots.

The rich keep getting richer because they keep doing the things that made them rich in the first place: smart investing, good business practices, wise spending. The poor stay poor because they keep doing the things that made them poor in the first place: dropping out of school, having kids you can't afford, drifting from job to job because you have no work ethic or marketable skills, and spending your entire paycheck on beer, smokes, and pay-per-view WWF events. It's not a country of haves and have-nots, it's a country of tries and try-nots. There is room at the top for anyone. There is not room at the top for everyone.

A deemphasis on personal material gain would alleviate this.

By God, you're right! If we're too lazy or stupid to work hard and succeed like those rich bastards in their nice houses and fancy cars then we ought to tear them down from their high-achieving posts and make them just as lowly and miserable as the rest of us! God forbid that anyone who works hard should be able to enjoy the fruits of their labors. Spoken like a true comrade, you are. Now run along to your Work Workers Party meeting, you have some anti-capitalist and class-warfare slogans to chant during the Five Minute Hate.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[cayenne8]

"Also, you might be interested to know that fast food is cheaper than cooking at home, at least if you want any kind of variety."

I have to disagree with you on that...my budget proves that out week after week after week. It is not only healthier, it is cheaper to cook your own food.

Right now...when I'm on my regular schedule, I work 8 hrs, then go straight to the gym about 4 days a week...and that get me home about 6:30 or 7pm..and I'm tired. So, I don't cook as much during the week...at least not long prep time foods.

However, I do cook a LOT on the weekends. Especially on Sundays. I usually cook 3-4 main dishes...some of those might be as plain as marinated, grilled veggies and meats. I can use those as quick ingredients in a number of ways during the week. Grilled 'taco' type salads, fish tacos...toss with some quick sauteed sauces and have with pasta, maybe mix up yogurt sauces and eat on pita bread or wraps as a gyro type sandwhich. I make big batches of salads, lettuce, slaws, marinated veg. salads (sometimes roasted.). I often make home made mayo for these for real flavor. For main dishes...easy ones are chili, red gravy for pasta or meats, meatloaves (often rolled and stuffed)...pot roast. I often like to do roasted/grilled eggplant terrines or a lasagna type dish with them. I'm off pasta more on a low carb thing now...so, I avoid carbs, but, have adopted other things in place of them. When berries are in season, I cut them up, add some spenda and raspberry vinegar and have that for desserts all week, or maybe a

crustless cheesecake..etc. No, I'm not limited by anything other than imagination. I know how to cook..I've had to teach several girlfriends how to. So, I have very little boredome in food variety. Hell, when I do go out to eat, it isn't wasted on fast food...I drop some $$'s for high end service and foods that are at PITA and expense to prep at home. (Oh, forgot the smoker...that makes lots of good foods include hand ground and stuffed smoked sausages, smoked salmon..etc).

As for cost...again, much cheaper. I have a large deep freezer, and I generally ONLY buy raw ingredients that are on sale weekly. Hell, my main expense is alcohol at the store. I have a large pantry, and keep spices and all well stocked. I love Sam's store...love to buy in bulk. So, rather than spend $5-$11 daily for eat out take out foods and burgers....I generally spend about that much per meal per day (breakfast, lunch and dinner) and eat better tasting foods that cost much less and are much healthier.

And like I said, I have a pretty thick schedule...so, I don't cook from scratch as much during the week as I used to when younger...but, I have lots of stuff prepped to throw something together. I don't have kids...but, my Mom did..she worked full time AND we ate home cooked meals most every night. I started my cooking skills by helping get things ready when I came home from school before her and my Dad came home...so, it can easily be done.

Anyway...no, I don't find from personal experience that eating fast food is either cheaper, or give more variety. I don't eat out that often, not due to expense, but, mostly that not that many places can cook as good as I can....

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[loucura!]

An estate tax is a way of limiting the formation of a 'ruling class' in the form of a monetary aristocracy. There are trade-offs however.

Untrue, the estate tax is a way of limiting social mobility of the middle class. The aristocracy will always be able to circumvent restrictions on the movement of their capital to their heirs: one could set up trusts, establish a corporation solely for the purpose of holding your capital outside of your name, move the capital off-shore, hold the capital jointly amongst the family, or any number of other methods. Since it is trivial for the rich to keep the government off from their property, it stands to reason, then that the only real effect of the estate tax is to keep the middle class from raising their social class.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[BVis]

No, by that logic nobody owns anything which is subject to recurring taxation. Big difference.

That's a pretty fine hair to split, but OK.

You are asking me like I have a choice, I don't.

Sure you do. Live somewhere else where they don't have property tax; those places do exist. That's a difficult thing to do, to uproot everything and move, but if property taxes bother you that much, and you don't choose to do anything about it, then IMHO you have no right to complain.

Besides, you assume that this money can only come from property tax. How about sales tax? How about licenses? How about Auto Registrations? Be creative. We are taxed a thousand different ways, I oppose one of them. Well more than one but not all of them.

I fail to see how this is different. The money for the things currently supported by taxation has to come from somewhere; does it really make a difference where, if it's all coming out of your pocket anyway? Would you accept a $500 cut in your property taxes if it meant it cost $500 to register your car?

No, it won't. Knowing that someone or everyone has it worse than me will not stop me from striving to make my life or my family's lives better. I am not content to hear that someone else in some particular fashion has it worse off than me so stop complaining or trying to be better. Are you?

I just choose to see it as a positive that I don't pay as much tax as others, rather than a negative that I have to pay a particular tax at all.

These are all freedoms. For some reason, owning land apparently isn't one of them in your opinion.

I see the ability to own land as a freedom. I also see the right to be protected from fire, crime, unsafe roads as a freedom. There's no free lunch, and I have better ways to spend my time than trying to get something for nothing.

I'd choose the right to own my land over abolishing the DMCA, Copyright Extension Act and the other host of BS laws to protect businesses and limit our ownership and Intellectual Freedom (bringing us back on-topic).

You do own your land. The law says that you have to pay property tax on it. The law is in place to fund (broken record time) things like police, fire departments, etc. that serve the entire community. The only way for those things to exist is for everyone to contribute their fair share. And again, even if the property taxes were abolished, for town services to be maintained, other sources of revuenue, which would still be money out of your pocket, would have to be found.

The property you are so reluctant to pay your fair share of property tax on is yours to do with as you wish within the law. Sell it, improve it, fill it with trees, asphalt, windmills, whatever, it's yours. You own it. That ownership comes with conditions, but you still own it. If you own a car, you are obliged to register it in order to drive on public roads. In your view, does that mean there is a missing freedom there? I'm sure you could argue it's a safety concern, but paying property tax makes everyone safer, so that argument doesn't work IMHO.

Actually, come to think of it, I might be willing to give up voicing my opinion on /. if I and my descendants were granted permanent property tax immunity. I don't know but that's not a possibility and I don't like it.

Why isn't it possible? What are you doing to make it possible? There's any number of things that you can do; mobilize like-minded residents in your community, meet with your elected representatives to present your ideas, start a petition, etc. There is a system you can take advantage of. The risk is that your wishes may not be the same as the majority of the community, in which case, you're out of luck. That's how the system has worked as long as the US has e

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[loucura!]

The constitution does not guarantee rights, it merely restricts the powers of government.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[2short]

":I share the same beliefs with you regarding our economy. I have zero economics background"

That fits.

"Homes in most places are unaffordable for most people considering local salaries"

Simply false. In every state in the country, most people can afford a home, and do.

"How do we trust so-called experts who say that our economy is doing great and that home prices aren't going to fall, rather they'll level off?"
You shouldn't, it's not. Real, honest experts might reasonably debate whether it is doing "OK" or "sucky" but to claim the current state of the economy is "great" would require ignorance or lying. Whether home prices will fall or level off is certainly not something a responsible expert would state with any confidence.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Mr. Slippery]

Right, it's my family's property.

No, it's no one's property after you die. It becomes your family's property only through government action.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Anonymous Coward]

While I do agree with your point that Americans are much richer and better off than much of the world, I do disagree with this statement:
There is no dictionary-definition poverty in the US. Period.
Please see here for Federal Government definitions:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/06poverty.shtml

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[dingbatdr]

That is the one decent argument I have heard for ending the estate tax. Well put and insightful. Thanks for putitng it out there.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Abcd1234]

Yeah, great! Instead, the government would be so small that it wouldn't be able to protect the citizens from exploitation by the corporation. And what's the solution to this? Government regulation. Regulation which can be manipulated by... the uber-powerful corporations.

Face it, your pie-in-the-sky libertarian magic is simply not realistic. There is no perfect, solution here. Although, things like limiting campaign contributions, which amount to legalized bribary, would be a good start.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Mr. Slippery]

Because the money has already been taxed during its accumulation?

The idea that "money is taxed multiple times" is a good soundbite when speaking against taxes, but it's wrong. What's taxed are transactions: inheriting money is just another transaction like geting paid or buying something.

Because the whole point of amassing wealth is to give your children a better life?

How's that different than the king's attitude that "The whole point of amassing power is to give the prince children a better life?"

Sorry, you should no more be allowed to pass on the power of wealth to your kids than political leaders should be allowed to pass on their power.

Because the government does absolutely no service of any value in the transferrence of that wealth?

Inheritance is a government service. transfering state-created property (money, real estate, stock in state-chartered corporations, bonds) from one person to another.

Governments exist, they're a fact of life like continental drift. Governments tax, that's their nature. I'd rather have them taxing unearned income like inheritance and gambling winnings (a.k.a "capital gains"), than taxing labor.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah Americans cover the marketing costs. The rest of the world pays the production costs.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[manthrax3]

It's amazing how everyone on this site is so anti-corporation and pro-european style government.

How can you trust something with an abundace of power to apply compulsary rules to anything more than something whose only power is to offer you a product?

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Mr. Slippery]

Great question -- the reason is that this gives opportunity to the poor as well as the rich.

But the poor aren't passing on wealth - they, by definition, don't have it!

Let me be clear, when I say power in the form of wealth should not be inheritable, I'm not talking about you inheriting your parent's house and thus having a few thousand bucks towards a college fund for your own kids. The federal inheritance tax only kicks in on $1,000,000 inheritances (actually it's more like $1.5 million now IIRC); someone becoming an unearned millionare is brokne behavior in the system.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[dada21]

I can date numerous good looking women, take them out...etc. You just can't do that with 'wealth that is not money'.

This is completely untrue. I'm an average/below-average looking short guy who has always dated very attractive women, including some models. The one I chose for the rest of my life is hot AND intelligent. I never once offered that I had money, and I rarely even paid for their share of the dates. Of course I've been writing about how to date amazing women for 10 years (and now I offer the advice freely).

Also, you don't need to be rich to travel -- I've been traveling internationally on a regular basis for almost 17 years and I earn 40-60% less than the average slashdot IT reader here. You don't need to be rich for a nice home, or to eat well. I firmly believe a single guy can do VERY well on $20,000 a year in 2006.

Today, it is money. Just a fact of nature, and I don't know anyone that doesn't like getting laid by a great looking lady. It sure makes me happy.

This is wrong, completely wrong. Money can be a very big attraction for any gal initially, but the money wears off if the guy isn't able to offer the woman what she really wants -- mystery, intrigue and the chase. This continues through marriage and retirement, women want to chase. If you're rich and you have an attractive girl on your arm for your money, the marriage won't last -- look at Donald Trump for proof there. Yet I believe that a fat, bald and poor geek can still land an amazing girl -- attractive, smart, even one that earns much more than him. All they need to do is ignore what they thought the rules were and start acting like a real man.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[EatHam]

What makes wealth so different That's right. So, to use your house analogy, you need to get an inspection when the foundation is poured, when it's framed, when the electricity is run, when the plumbing is run, when it's insulated, when it's sheetrocked, when the shingles go on, when the windows go in, every time you change the carpet or re-paint, every time you open or shut the garage door, every time you lock or unlock the front door, open a window, or flush the toilet. Then after it's been inspected 8 billion times, you go to sell it, and they want to inspect it again? I'm sorry. This far, and no farther.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[cayenne8]

"Money can be a very big attraction for any gal initially, but the money wears off if the guy isn't able to offer the woman what she really wants -- mystery, intrigue and the chase. This continues through marriage and retirement, women want to chase."

Yeah, but, who wants to keep them long term? If that's your thing, then cool. But, I too prefer the chase. Fun to land them, bag them...and move on.

I know that sounds bad, but, lots of guys like that...and actually, I still am on good terms with many of my past women. They're fun to go back to on occasion, and they're good contacts for the next girlfriend. Often, women want a guy they see with a good looking woman. Hell, if you really want to attract them in a funny way, put on a wedding ring (if you're not married)...amazing how they will hit on 'you'.

I've never understood that...I'd NEVER mess with a married woman.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[fbjon]

While I'm not out to keep anyone down, I certainly am not responsible for propping them up at my expense.

Certainly, if you feel that way. It's a rather cynical way to look at society and fellow man, though. Moreover, some people want to "win" even at the expense of, and severe detriment to many others.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[fatmal]

Except for all the 6'6" women :)

Yeah, you've got to go up on them!

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Anonymous Coward]

> Of course socialism doesn't truly protect the most important of all rights:
> the right to earn and keep property.

Whether that is "the most important right" or not is a very subjective issue. However,
neither social-democracy nor socialism bans earning money and having private property.
The socialist ideology was against privately owned means of production (i.e. the way
to exploit your fellow human beings) and not private property. To make a distinction
they actually differentiated between personal property and private property.
The social-democratic or welfare state way of thinking has nothing against exploitation
and private corporations and alike.
The idea that they share with the socialist ideology though is that the right of
becoming rich is a lot less important than the right to live in peace, to live in
security, the right to receive education, to receive medical care, to have access
to basic utilities guaranteed. Whether you agree with that or not is indeed subjective.

> You can't do a whole lot if you're taxed at 50-60% except hope that some of
> that money is redistributed to you in a fair way. Fair is subjective, "mine" isn't.

Well, assuming that it is a democracy then you actually have a word about the
distribution of that money. In addition, "fair" is subjective on the individual's
level. However, if you define "fair" as "useful for the society as a whole" it is
a lot less subjective. The idea of a society or a state actually is a groupping
of people for their common good. If everybody was to look for their personal interest
exclusively there would not be much point in forming countries or states. So, if I
am taxed at 50% and in exchange I receive quality education for my kids, the peace
of mind that I know that if I get really sick my life is not going to be wrecked and
so on, I personally feel a lot better than being taxed at 15% but then have to save
money for school, have to pay for private health insurance plus gap payment if I get
sick and so on. Not to mention the Australian way where you can be taxed at almost
50% and the education is absolutely and shamefully horrible, the medical system is
average at best and is heavily being pushed towards the private insurance model and
so on.
The whole idea behind the welfare state is that it is good for the society in general
if the members of that society are healty, well educated and feel safe and secure.
On top of that they are free to pursue their dreams whether about being rich or having
an exclusive collection of paper napkins or whatever. I think that from the society's
point of view it is indeed fair.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[cayenne8]

"a rather cynical way to look at society and fellow man, though. Moreover, some people want to "win" even at the expense of, and severe detriment to many others."

Well, like I said...I like to help people when I can and to be kind. But, of my own choice.

However, life is a bit of a contest/battle...just by its nature. And if it comes down to another person vs. myself, I like most others will side with 'me and mine' if I have to. That's just nature in action, and like it or not, we're just another species of animal in this world, fighting for survival.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[EatHam]

Inheritance is a government service.

I'm pretty sure inheritance existed before governments did.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[cayenne8]

"Keep in mind, as well, that the constitution does not guarantee a right to wealth."

Actually, I would argue that it DOES. The constitution and bill of rights do not spell out what rights you have...they are there to limit what rights the federal govt. has. The bill of rights does enumerate some specific rights, but, it also has a clause saying you still have rights not enumerated by said BOR.....

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Pearson]

Admittedly, I live in CA, so YMMV, but it was only $1.5 million last year, and you can eat up a million just by owning a house here. And not an "estate" either, just a regular old suburban place with 50 square feet of lawn and neighbors less than 20' away on both sides.

And the remaining $500k sounds like a lot, but it's the cost of a condo! So with only two heirs, they could both stop renting. If you have 3 or 4 heirs, they get a house to fight over and about a year's salary...Not my idea of fabulously wealthy

I will admit, though, that I have no confidence the govenment will use the money wisely, so that factors into my feelings as well.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[drinkypoo]

Eating healthy food can sometimes be cheaper than fast food, but most people don't (for whatever reason, perhaps even their diet) have the energy to deal with work, cooking, taking care of the kids, and so on, so they go with processed foods. They're actually cheaper than buying produce and fresh meats, because they're preserved and can be shipped on any schedule you like, and require much less care in handling. So most people eat processed foods available at their local supermarket. Also, most supermarkets have absolute shit for produce (and I'm not talking about the cycle of life here, either.) I'd rather eat some preprocessed crap that's bad for me than a salad made of a bunch of unripe vegetables and scraggly greens.

If you want to get the good stuff, of course, you can't just go to the cheapest stores - their produce and meats are lousy.

Now granted, if someone really knows what they are doing in the kitchen, and can prepare their own ingredients, then yes, cooking can be cheaper than eating fast food or buying processed food. (I can get full for about $9 per day at McD's, though! Granted, it's horrible for me...) But most people don't even have a clue and I still maintain that quality ingredients are not readily available to most people.

This is why it's an extra-wonderful thing that my girlfriend is both a chef and an excellent gardener. All I have to do is weed the garden (once we have one - we're moving this weekend) and wash dishes, and I get excellent, healthy food :D

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[fbjon]

we're just another species of animal in this world, fighting for survival.

Ah, but ultimately, shouldn't we strive to get away from that kind of jungle law? Isn't that what civilization is all about? Ultimately, at least, I mean.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Anonymous Coward]

While I too have had little training in economics, all I ever see here is endless flamewars between Libertarians and Liberals. While I nominally side with the Liberals, given that these flamewars are neverending, I have to say that the question is very much still open as to what the best model of economics is. These questions are very subtle and multifaceted, and I don't think that there is really anything obvious in them. But here you can see by Liberal bent. The Libertarians here seem to claim that the economy is simple.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[cayenne8]

"Now granted, if someone really knows what they are doing in the kitchen..."

And, I'm sad to say, for some reason, that is a skill that is being lost, and I don't know why?

Both my parents worked, and yet we still had time to sit down and eat a meal together most evenings....and it was home cooked by Mom, until I got old enough to learn to help. It doesn't that all THAT much skill...just some basics. It isn't that hard to follow a recipe...and if you do it for awhile, you start to learn to make things on your own without recipes.

I basically look at the store ads each week to see what's on sale, and make my meals based on that..saves tons of money. I dunno...maybe some parts of the country get really crap food....I live in the southeastern part of the US, and the produce is generally decent down here most of the year. There are a number of grocery stores you an choose from...go look at the ones that have the best things. I often hit 2-3 stores on shopping days...to get the best sale items that week, and because some of them have better produce or meat than the others.

Cooking is not rocket science, and it isn't all the hard nor time comsuming for everything....and it can be cheaper than prepped food.

I remember one late night during finals week...my friend came over with a pizza to munch on...I'd taken a 10 min break, and had fixed some veal cutlets in a champagne cream sauce...and I paid less then he did for his meal, and it was much better. I bought every thing on sale....

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Criterion]

The people that think the gov will be taking care of them are just in for a rude awakening I guess then. If they won't research what is their own responsibility for retirement, then they deserve to be destitute.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[iminplaya]

That's just nature in action, and like it or not, we're just another species of animal in this world, fighting for survival.

That has been obvious to me for a long time. It appears that's how you want it to stay. I would prefer that we progress away from that type of thinking. I'll take my chances with the next life in order to keep peace in this one. I don't care to spend my time always looking over my shoulder. I don't see the point of fighting to maintain an advantage over others...for what? To have a slave at my beck and call? Someone to shine my shoes? Clean my house? It takes quite a bit of force to acquire those services. Economic if not physical. I recognize that 'you and yours' have exactly the same rights as 'me and mine', no more no less. Your line of thinking is turning the planet into a prison yard.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[john83]

Continued concentrate of power in the elite. In any democracy, wealth can be translated into political power. It is a fact of life. Rememeber Bush's address to a group of wealth business men, "This is an impressive crowd -- the haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elite. I call you my base." Continued power concentrated in the hands of few will diminish the protection and representation of the unelite. Growing numbers of the very rich can give money to political candidates who support their personal agendas. "Those contributions clearly have an influence on public policy," Gates says, such as more tax breaks for the rich or weakening of regulations that protect consumers.

All the more pointed when you consider Dubya's dad and grandad and great grandad... Look into the arms dealing end of the family business if you're bored.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[iminplaya]

There is NO excess!!!

You missed the point entirely. If there is a difference between what your employer tells you what you are getting paid and what you actually take home, then the employer is lying to you. What you take home is what you make. That's what you should negociate. Everything else is irrelevent. It costs the company more to employ you than what you get paid. Those details should be of no interest to you. Just stay focused on what is actually on the check. Let them deal with the accounting.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[shmelly]

Must go to land of 6'6" women! (swoon)

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Anonymous Coward]

blah blah 'store work' fuck you commie.

it's not about the work you do, it's about the wealth you create. money is a representation of wealth.

surprise, surprise. a larger, more efficient society creates more wealth. what, do you want the government /not/ to print more money, so prices and wages need to fall instead of rise?

Inflation- so simple, only a Libertarian could get confused.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Geminii]

Let's say I'm a computer technician, with a clientele that includes small businesses and residential customers, and let's also say I'm really the only game in town. One day, someone, somewhere, invents a program that allows my customers to share information that I've given them in the course of doing my job. This is information that I've spent time and resources acquiring, and as a result of this sharing I lose business. If I tried to sue the developer of this program for my "lost business" I'd get laughed out of court And rightly so. What kind of computer tech deliberately restricts access to information that can be freely found or determined by other methods anyway? Your skills lie in your ability to configure, operate, program, repair and clean their equipment better than they choose to become at doing it. Not because you're the only person around with the password that unlocks their server every morning. Disclaimer: Yes, I'm a tech.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[mfrank]

And when you're vertical, slow dancing is a lot more fun . . .

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Abcd1234]

Way to not counter my point. But, hey, I'll just try again.

How can you trust something with an abundace of power to apply compulsary rules

That "something" is something I *voted* for. I have direct control over it's operation. That's the joy of a democracy. If that doesn't work, blame your fellow citizens... your system of government is only as broken as you make it.

something whose only power is to offer you a product?

Because I have *no control* over that corporation. Can I have some amount of control over, say, Walmart, by limiting where I spend my dollars? Yes. But in the world of massive conglomerates, it's virtually impossible to differentiate between "good" corporations and "bad" corporations. Moreover, if all corporations are "bad" (which, in the absence of regulation, is what would happen, thanks to the fact these are business entities which bow to a single god: profit), then there is no way for me to affect their behaviour, aside from extracting myself from the process entirely.

Worse yet, the tendency of capitalism is toward monopoly (proven by the steady merging of telcos, among other things), and unchecked, ultimately we would be left with a system containing some limited number of massive corporations which we are completely unable to control... unfortunately, even with government regulation, we're already running down that path, though that's mainly thanks to the SEC who is, apparently, unwilling to limit the size of corporate mergers these days... which, come to think of it, just proves my point.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[BalkanBoy]

Wow.. so much verbal masturbation, egotistical musings... self-love, the all natural opiate. You, Michael Albert, and perhaps Chomsky to close the deal, would probably have the most enlightening chat amongst you all... by the time you're done, one will suffocate from all the chest thumping, the other one just be bruised from it, or hey, maybe even possibly pissed all over each other with joy over who expressed higher intellectualism and 'forward looking' prophetic statements on why capitalism sucks, and socialism is better, or "ParEcon" (a veiled socialist/communist paradigm) is the next step...

I understand your drive for higher state of being, but what I think you don't understand is that everyone who ever tried it over the last umpteenth thousand years failed, and along the way slaughtered millions of people on the account of them "not understanding" the leader...

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Gates and Warren Buffett support the estate tax because they have expensive lawyers and accountants that ensure they will pay very little in estate taxes. The people who get killed by the estate tax are the small family business and family farms. My grandfather was a farmer so I have a good idea of how it works. He was a successful farmer, but not rich. The government decides that farmland is worth alot of money and taxes the heirs, my mom and her brother, fairly excessively. How many people can keep the family farm or business going when they have to pay taxes that equal about 75% of the total value of the business? Could you come up with a million dollars or even a couple hundred thousand dollars without putting great financial stress on your family?

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[BalkanBoy]

> If you truly consider that the most important right of all, above every other right, you're
> pathologically materialistic and need an attitude adjustment.

And I think you are pathologically idealist (a.k.a. stupid, head-up-the-ass, etc), and don't understand economics one fucking bit.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Pseudonym]

Especially the women point...women are attracted to men that can provide what they need for their children, home, better life...etc. In the old caveman days, this was brute strength and brawn. Today, it is money.

Not with the women worth keeping, IMO. I married a geek. She values the fact that I can carry on a decent conversation, and I value the fact that she can help maintain our server.

I'm going all gooey inside just at the thought of it.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[BVis]

And I think you are pathologically idealist (a.k.a. stupid, head-up-the-ass, etc), and don't understand economics one fucking bit.

First of all, nice ad hominem attack. Second of all, economics is more than "how much more money do I have than the other guy."

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Snaller]

Surprisingly very wealthy people such as Bill Gates Sr. and Warren Buffett support the death tax.

Well death tax is sick twisted and amoral, so is it a suprise Bill gates supports it?

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Mr. Slippery]

I'm pretty sure inheritance existed before governments did.

Governments predate humanity - even bands of chimps and gorillas have their chieftans and their hierarchy, and I'm sure our pre-Homo ancestors did too.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Lockejaw]

How rich is "rich"? If you think a family with a household income of $250-300k isn't going to act like what you call middle class, you need to see a bit more of the world.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Lockejaw]

Untrue, the estate tax is a way of limiting social mobility of the middle class.
...
How many middle-class people die and leave estates valued on the order of millions of dollars?

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Meph_the_Balrog]

The funny green peices of paper are government creations true, but if you do a little research into why they were created it may change your view somewhat.

All currency is a convenience so that we don't have to carry around thirty chickens to buy a side of beef. Back in the dim dark past, a government decided to arbitrarily say that because a chicken is worth one thirtieth of a side of beef, then let a chicken be worth 'Y' and a side of beef be worth 30x'Y'. Thus instead of carrying a cart load of chickens, you could carry a pocket full of 'Y'.

If at this point money had never been created, would the government have a right to take four of my chickens just because I was dead? IMO no freaking way. The government didn't really help me grow, feed or maintain my chickens, my family did, so if the government wants a chicken dinner they can go grow their own.

Apologies for the slightly dodgy examples (and lack of references), and the numbers are examples only =).

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[pipingguy]

Swedish industry has always been amazing to me considering it is such a small country. At one time they had two auto manufacturers (Saab and Volvo) and built homegrown fighter aircraft and tanks. Not too shabby for a population of under 10 million.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Mr. Slippery]

If at this point money had never been created, would the government have a right to take four of my chickens just because I was dead?

If you are dead, they're not your chickens anymore. (Leaving aside for the moment the argument that animals belong to themselves, not to us.) Nothing is yours anymore.

The government didn't really help me grow, feed or maintain my chickens, my family did, so if the government wants a chicken dinner they can go grow their own.

You're arguing that labor creats property rights? That's a quite socialist argument, and I'm sympathetic to it. If we assume that labor creates ownership, and we say your family did help you perform the labor, then the chickens aren't yours, but jointly owned.

Of course your chicken will still be taxed somewhere along the line; taxes come with governments, and governments will be with us until we get to the Univeral Enlightenment that is prerequisite to the abolition of the State.

And of course the claim of your hypothetical labor-sharing family has nothing to do with Richie Rich inheriting millions of dollars that he didn't go a damn thing to earn.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[AEton]

the dollar of 1800 was equal to the dollar of 1912 minus maybe 2-3%

Can you explain that please? According to a reliable inflation estimate, we had significant deflation: in particular, $1 in 1800 dollars is $0.55 in 1912 dollars, or $10.84 in 2005 dollars.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Meph_the_Balrog]

You're arguing that labor creats property rights? That's a quite socialist argument, and I'm sympathetic to it. If we assume that labor creates ownership, and we say your family did help you perform the labor, then the chickens aren't yours, but jointly owned.

To a point, I'm also arguing that any child (or children) of mine will be contributing directly to my family unit from at least some point in their development. As a responsible human being, I feel that I should at least attempt to provide for their future after I am mere ashes or worm food, rather than just turning them loose into the world without a penny.

I pay tax for every dollar I earn. I also pay tax on interest earned on my savings. No doubt any of my children will also pay tax on any interest they earn from money I give them. I don't feel that the government should be able to take a chunk of that money before I give it to them, and then skim yet more from the interest earned from the remainder.

I would like the right to choose where my wealth (if any) gets spent. If I have enough money to ensure the survivability of a few generations in my family tree, then I will. Others may not take this path, and should be free to donate their millions to charities, medical research or even to burn it on the funeral pire with them should they choose.

This is my own personal opinion however, so I guess this makes me "pro choice" =)

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[ignavus]

"Your house is your property only because of a government deed
OR because I paid for it, tomayto, tomahto."

What is this "paid" thing?

Oh, I get it, you gave them some government-secured pieces of paper, while relying on a "contract of sale" which exists under the government's law .... with all the support to a relatively stable and reliable market-place that government gives us.

Government is what stops me (and people with less sensitive morals than I) from just taking your property.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[raju1kabir]

So, to use your house analogy, you need to get an inspection when the foundation is poured, when it's framed, when the electricity is run, when the plumbing is run, when it's insulated, when it's sheetrocked, when the shingles go on, when the windows go in, every time you change the carpet or re-paint, every time you open or shut the garage door, every time you lock or unlock the front door, open a window, or flush the toilet. Then after it's been inspected 8 billion times, you go to sell it, and they want to inspect it again?

I live in a country where inspections of the sort you describe are cursory at best, more often than not rendered optional by a few ducats slid in the right direction. Fatal building collapses and other tragedies make the news far more often that they should, and general shoddiness is the order of the day. It basically doesn't matter how much you spend; people have just learned to accept an absence of standards.

Turns out this is one of those things where doing things properly requires sufficiently arcane knowledge, and the consequences of doing them wrong are sufficiently unpredictable, that the market fails to match price with quality.

Give me inspections anytime.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Money for Nothin']

Continued concentrate of power in the elite.

Teddy Roosevelt supported the death tax too, to limit this effect. (Not that I necessarily agree with the death tax; I have a mixed opinion of it. I see good and bad sides to it.)

Govt research and investments. Reducing taxes could crimp government research and investments in education -- the source of innovations that create jobs. With less education, growing numbers of workers can't get ahead.

2 things:

1) Just because govn't doesn't invest in R&D doesn't mean R&D doesn't get done. Private industry can, and *does* such investment -- just look at IBM, or Microsoft, or HP, or Ford, or GM, or BMW, or... [insert company here]

True, "fundamental" R&D (e.g. nuclear physics) doesn't usually get done by business. This is due to the fact that there is no clear link between that work and a marketable product that people want; hence, businesses tend not (in reality, even though nothing prevents them in theory) to take on this kind of R&D until such a link can be reasonably-assured to exist. And there's a fair case (IMO) for govn't research of those areas -- but only if the market fails to provide it after a certain amount of time and capital has passed...

2) Just because less taxes are going to R&D now doesn't mean we need a tax increase; nor do we need a tax decrease (although, I don't see much wrong with this, so long as we have commensurate spending cuts too -- but this is exceedingly-rare, and neither major U.S. party is committed to this kind of discipline). Rather, to avoid a lot of partisan squabbling, we could do much-better with our existing tax rates by re-allocating our existing taxes to more science/tech funding.

If it were me, I'd start by decreasing the military's funding by some declining-rate figure (linearly, and keeping basing the future cuts on existing funding, we could start with 5% in year 1, then 4% in year 2, 3% in year 3, on through year 5, for a total nominal (not inflation-adjusted) cut of 15% from the original figure). Given that we spend $400 billion/year on the military, this would result in a first-year re-allocation of $20 billion; then it'd be $60 billion/year for each year after 5 years.

Now, many would argue that the military is a big source of R&D already -- that we're just taking from one source of heavy R&D spending and dumping it into another, purer (and less-militaristic) form, so it becomes effectively a shell-game. There's some truth in that, and arguably, the Internet is the perfect ironic example of that. But at the same time, the R&D the military does is, obviously, military-centric. There's no reason it must be, and there's little reason to believe that in absence of govn't spending on TCP/IP development that internetworks of networks would've arisen via private funding (however, I greatly doubt they would've been compatible with each other for several years, if ever -- just look at the various cellphone networks as an example (to say nothing of the panoply of P2P network protocols) -- and that sort of protocol compatibility is (at the Internet's core) what made the Internet the success it is).

So, in my world, we'd cut from other wasteful programs too -- like most Congressmens' pork-barrel projects (a $423 million Alaskan bridge-to-nowhere, anyone?). Govn't-funded foreign aid. Drug war enforcement. Trade barrier enforcement. Medicare. Corporate welfare. Social Security. ANYTHING the govn't deals-in which involves "no-bid" contracts with private firms (e.g. Halliburton in Iraq; Medicare prescription drugs, etc. Monopoly suppliers jack up prices, thus reaming taxpayers by govn't fiat (or outright corruption, as in the Bush administration's case)). In my book, any one of these are fair targets (to some degree) for cuts so that more R&D can occur...

Adam Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations that the *only* thing which imp

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Money for Nothin']

In terms of pure cash-flow, fast food is *not* cheaper than cooking at home. I account for every penny of every expense I have, and it is always cheaper (in purely monetary terms) for me to buy food at the grocery store and cook it myself. I can cook spaghetti ($0.88/package/4 meals/package) + meat sauce ($3/jar/4 meals/jar) for about $0.98/meal. Throw in half a bag of frozen vegetables (about $1.50) and you're looking at $1.50; approx. $2.00 with an 8oz glass of decent diet fruit juice.

Try *that* at Fazolis...

Similar math works out for hamburgers, potatoes, and diet soda. I've tried it; it works, even for better-quality burgers than you find at McD's.

Now, throw in a non-cash-flow variable -- like the value of my time, and assuming my at-home time is worth the same as my at-work time -- then yes, you're quite correct, it's cheaper to buy fast food. But since I typically don't make any extra money on the side with my time after work, my time after work is effectively worthless (in the marketplace; however, it's worth something to me in the intangible sense that I'm happier having some free time, which has positive effects on my work during at-work time)...

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[alc6379]

Because the property you earned during you life work and investiments was due to a stable society, economy and government investment in infastructure.

Many others have pointed out issues with your statements. I shall ask you one question: What about those who made money, despite there being an unstable society, economy, or infrastructure? There are rich people in 3rd world countries, for instance, that didn't get their money by dishonest means. They did so despite the poor conditions.

I'd just like to reiterate that all throughout your life, you're paying taxes on what you earn. When you earn wages, you're taxed. When you buy a house with those wages, you're taxed. Every year you own that house, you're taxed. If you sell the house, you're taxed if you made a profit from the sale.

I'm sorry, but it's just ridiculous how many taxes we pay. If we haven't contributed to the stable society, infrastructure, and economy after all of that, I question the people in charge of making the decisions. I'm certainly paying too much, and I submit it's because they're spending too much.

Do us all a favor. If you don't cite articles from a liberal propaganda machine like CommonDreams.org, I won't cite articles from everyone's neocon "news" machine, Fox News. Did you check today's headlines? OMFG! AN OIL PIPE BUSTED AMINALS R GONNA DIE!!! -- OMFG! BUSH'S POST WAR POLICY SI TEH GHEY!!! As much as I take issue with some of President Bush's actions, I think it's a bit much to draw parallels between him and Slobodan Milosevic just so you can push the idea of OMFG BUSH SI TEH GHEY!!!

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[CommieOverlord]

It's either one or the other, but it cannot be both.

Yes. Yes it can. The fact that the government provided and managed the social and economic structure does not mean you didn't earn your income/property. You put the time/effort/knowledge/whatever into obtaining something; you earned it. Yet, without the economic structure and social stability the government you would never have had the chance to earn anything substantial.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[eugene ts wong]

In Canada, you get to keep your house, if you don't pay taxes. You just can't sell it, and they watch you in some sort of way. For example, they make deductions off your pay cheque before you get it. I think that's fair.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[fferreres]

Because the goverment decides what your property is, and the people of your generation decide what your property is? Why should the current goverment decide what YOUR or HIS kids property should be? Shouldn't people elected by your kids elect that? Who do you think you are? What if people from 1500 decided what your property showld be now? Well, they decided it should be NOTHING, and that everything should be the King's Property...Of course we didn't obbey! And I am happy!

The world is not ours to appropiate. We can try, and even enforce such rights for some time...but it's not really our decision. Everything in your mind depends on either your education, beliefs or even convenience. It's really funny, although I don't complain much, I am in the "lucky side" ...(for the moment being)...and I am sure you are also happy with it. Convenience, a pretty lame belief...

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[fferreres]

> Limit Innovation. A society full of undeserving rich kids travelling
> around collecting art work for their private collections does
> not induce innovation.

I've thought about this for some time. The thing is that this guys are in effect moving their bying power to artists (or art traders). They are not changing the economy much. If i inherited 100,000,000,000,000,000 today and used the amount to buy a Monet, I am not enforcing my rights as a rich guy, but the guy I buy such Monet from. If he buys 100,000,000,000 tons of rice and dumps it on a river, we are out of luck, if they use it to better educate the masses, that's a good thing.

Anthing you do with money only has an effect when you touch a labour or capitla intensive market. It's like the guys buying art let the next in the chanin decide if being rich is bad or good. They are just trading purchasing power for pictures, songs or whatever.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Anonymous Coward]

You're one of the typical deluded idiots who spout off about SS. "Passing on dept" (sic)... you want to know where all the U.S. debt is going? It's being flushed away down the toilet of military adventuring... the Pentagon budget dwarves social security... and medicare and medicade put together... and has done for forty years. If you want to avoid passing on debt to children, then instead of cutting something that has proven to one of the most successful programs ever for raising the living standards for the poor and improving the chances and health of children, chop back the military... one of the most wasteful and stupid programs ever.

Cue long lecture on "The War on Terror" and why billion-dollar-per-item stealth planes and $50 million per bomb smart weapons are utterly essential to the hunt for Bin Laden.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[bit01]

They say money doesn't buy you happiness? Well, it sure makes misery a whole lot easier to live with I can tell ya. I like the things money enables me to do with my life...

The science disagrees with you. Above a minimum money does not buy happiness.

---

Creating simple artificial scarcity with copyright and patents on things that can be copied billions of times at minimal cost is a fundamentally stupid economic idea.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Anonymous Coward]

Not necessarily. You would be right if there was no f...ing difference in lifestyle of people who earn and people who live on welfare. It is so obvious that you live (or should live) far better life if you work then on welfare. Beeing lazy is unnatural, boring and selfdeprivating, otherwise we would see far larger percent of people voluntarily "indulging" themselves in "joys" of welfare. Woohoo! Yes, YES! Free money! In your face, you suckers! We live like kings... oh, wait...

Unless you are employer yourself (interested in making cause for smaller wages), I can't see what makes You so much at loss. But then, if you are employer, I have news for you: you are usually a minority among voters. If people are not brainwashed, their common sense would lead them to conclusion that social security system is a good thing for them (bigger salaries for one). Besides, having own business is risky - you may easily fail and be back ... on welfare.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[loucura!]

The amount of the inheritance is immaterial. If the rich are prevented from leaving their descendents the fruit of their labour, they will pay quite handsomely to circumvent the laws. The middle class do not have that option, and so that means that the laws serve only to affect them.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[cayenne8]

Well, I guess if you think of cooking as a 'chore'...then I guess you could feel that way. I like to do it...more like a hobby to me than a job.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[epee1221]

The amount of the inheritance is immaterial.
No, it really isn't. If you leave less than the minimum taxable amount, it doesn't get taxed.

The middle class do not have that option, and so that means that the laws serve only to affect them.
If the middle class isn't inheriting enough to have to pay the estate tax, how exactly is it limiting their social mobility?

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[loucura!]

According to US Code 26 2001, the tax is imposed on every transfer of taxable estate from US Citizen decedents. Furthermore, the law has no "minimum taxable amount", for inheritance less than $10,000 the tenative tax is 18%. Therefore, the middle class are inheriting enough to meet requirement to pay the Estate Tax.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[drinkypoo]

I like cooking, except when I don't, and then I just want to lie around. There are definitely those times when I just want to lay on my back and watch a movie or something. Again though, I don't have to do the cooking in my household - I'm responsible for technical stuff, construction, and repairs (furniture, walls, cars, etc) so it all balances out.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[epee1221]

According to US Code 26 2001, the tax is imposed on every transfer of taxable estate from US Citizen decedents.
According to the Tax Policy Center, it is not.
Notice how no taxes were paid on inheritances under $1 million.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[loucura!]

I referenced the law directly. You are referencing a chart sourced from a simulation.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[epee1221]

That is because I am more concerned with the effects of the law than I am with what a piece of the law says might happen.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Scroatzilla]

>> Government is what stops me (and people with less sensitive morals than I) from just taking your property.

At best government facilitates a civilized way of life, but the general population concedes that power to them. The government doesn't really stop anything, from speeding on the highway to looting graveyards for treasure.

In that balance of things, I'd say it's much fairer for the citizens, who are the people who actually manufacture things and keep the economy flowing, to do whatever they want with their property, from having it buried with them to giving it to their gay marriage partner.

Thank you government for facilitating my civilized way of life, now get the fuck out of my way.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[cayenne8]

"Again though, I don't have to do the cooking in my household - I'm responsible for technical stuff, construction, and repairs (furniture, walls, cars, etc) so it all balances out."

Hehehe...lucky you! I've had to teach my last 4-5 girlfriend HOW to cook...seems like women today just don't learn that skill from Mom anymore.....

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[arminw]

.....Why should the offspring of the wealthy have inordinate advantages in life? Inordinate is the key idea here,.......

The key idea is not the amount of wealth, but who should decide what gets done with the left over portion after all the taxes were fairly paid thereon. After the state has taken their share from the living, the person(s) who paid all the taxes already should be the one who decides what should happen to the leftovers, not the person's neighbors. Many of these super rich people know that it is not a good idea to just hand their wealth over to a son or daughter that have never learned the value of real honest work and initiative. Much wealth therefore gets turned over to worthwhile causes that the rich person believes in, rather than distributing it to "heirs" who may not be worthy. The wealth also doesn't end up in the bottomless pit of government waste, spent for things the wealthy person violently disagrees with. The bottom line is that people should have the power to decide where their money goes after they die.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[ccp]

Why should the government be involved with deciding what I do with my property, be it my body, my house, or my wallet?

Because them being yours is just a legal artifact only made possible by the existence of... government?

Unless, of course, you're keen on defending them, weapons in hand, Rambo style, against all comers?

It seems that a lot of people think that very, very recent (in historical timeframe) social conventions are a natural right that has existed almost for ever.

Cheers,

Carlos Cesar

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[drinkypoo]

That was my problem with my last girlfriend but there's also a 20 year age difference (I'm in the middle thereof.) Three guesses which direction the difference is in...

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[bob frost]

Something that smarmy gets rated a 5??

Government routinely creates property--think about patents, for example, or broadcast frequencies. More significantly, in the big historical picture, we can see that, for example, most Europeans in the Middle Ages had only the barest conception of land as susceptible to ownership. Sure, a lord had sovereignty and could exact taxes and labor services, but the land itself was encumbered with all manner of obligations and was far from alienable in the modern sense of private land. That the modern state permits inheritance (recall that democracy was once considered a counterweight to inherited wealth, which is why the rich fought for centuries against it) is simply a consequence of the abiding power of the wealthy over the state.

Every time I hear a libertarian dis the state/government, I urge him (and 99% of the time they are male) to advocate the abolition of the Register of Deeds and the Patent Office. While he's at it, he might also consider getting rid of that odd "legal person" known as the corporation (a 19th-century invention by the state), which has all of the rights of we individuals, yet can never be jailed for the crimes it may commit.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[lowrydr310]

Simply false. In every state in the country, most people can afford a home, and do.

In many places homes are affordable, but in desirable places like NY, LA, San Francisco, Miami, and several other cities, things are out of reach for most people. The average salary in the city where I live is $130,000 and the average home price is $700,000. I've crunched some numbers and I don't see how that's possible.

I know several people who make around $75K a year and bought $500,000 homes within the past three years. I simply don't understand how they do it. At this point, I wouldn't mind even buying a small house that needs some work, but even those are out of reach for me now. I earn a decent living, but the only thing I can afford are homes in very dangerous areas (with drug deals going on in the streets and regular drive-by shootings; no I'm not exaggerating or basing these statements on the news I watch or read - these areas really are bad)

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[BalkanBoy]

and I don't pretend that it is only that - but it gravitates largely toward that. Capitalism seems perfect, unless you can 'reprogram' people to be something other than what they are - large mass/group, without basic understanding of economics, psychology/sociology, science, etc. It takes more than a nice rosy rant to show understanding of how all these interact. Anyone, and most everyone on slashdot it seems, can take a stovepiped view of these concepts.... then some other geek who views the world through his B.S. in C.S. or M.S. or Ph.D in some hardcore scientific discipline prysm, reinforces him by moding up... Then a whole avalanche of mindless drivel unleashes afterwards, most of it not rooted in the realities that we face today .... Thus, the concept of self-moderation has lost credibility since long time ago, unless you have domain experts moderating posts (which this is not). Which just brings me to the fact that in one year I can count the number of times I've posted on Slashdot on both hands.... etc etc.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[Anonymous Coward]

The Constitution spells out rights that the government cannot take away. Wealth is not mentioned among these rights, and so the government can take it away.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[poopdeville]

The Constitution grants us certain rights that the government, by virtue of the Constitution, cannot take away. If a right is not mentioned in the Constitution, the government can take it away.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[2short]

Well, FWIW, average salaries & home values are a lousy place to start crunching numbers; median is much better. Nor would we expect the median income to afford a median home. Home ownership is a bit above 50% generally, a bit below in city centers, so the median income should expect to afford a cheap home.

If your job requires you to live in a place where you can't afford a home you consider acceptable based on the salary it pays, you might want to reconsider whether it represents a "decent living". Most people make enough to afford a home they consider acceptable, as evidenced by their buying it. If they didn't, housing prices would fall.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[loucura!]

You are mistaken, the 9th and 10th Amendments establish that any rights not enumerated fall to the people or the states.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[poopdeville]

Nothing I've said is incompatible with that. Indeed, states have governments too. Perhaps I was unclear when I referred to 50 state governments and the federal government as "the government", but that is common usage, and is rooted in the way these 51 governments operate. The federal government (very) often uses finance to control decision-making at the state level. The most blatant recent example I can think of is the D.O.T. threatening to withhold federal highway funds from any state that didn't change the drinking age to 21 and the maximum allowable BAC to .08 or lower. The federal government doesn't have to make laws to limit your rights. They can do it by proxy.

Do you have a point you're trying to make? (I don't mean to sound harsh. I would just rather not dance around anything you might have in mind.)

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[loucura!]

My point is that if the constitution grants rights it can revoke them. That isn't the case though, the only thing the constitution can do is grant power to the government to infringe on the rights of man. If the constitution were amended today to revoke the protection of the first amendment, we'd still have the right to free speech, because it is inately part of being human. Rights shouldn't arise out of government recognition.

Re:socialist-democratic not communist

[dubl-u]

Well, sure is hard to be happy without money. [...] Money is the one thing that allows me to buy and do things I enjoy in life.

It is not noticeably easier to be happy with a lot of money, and may be harder. I have met monks that are happy with almost nothing. I have met financial traders who made several hundred thousand dollars a year and were miserable people. International surveys show that money doesn't buy happiness, and stories of lottery winners back that up.

They say money doesn't buy you happiness? Well, it sure makes misery a whole lot easier to live with I can tell ya.

Yes, money can buy you distraction. It seems the most pure form of that is drug use. Troubled? A drink, a toke, a sniff will set you right. But it seems weird to say that if I can afford to be high all the time, I'm the happiest guy on earth.

Swag

[BlueBoxSW.com]

I tend to spend just as much on CD's even though I listen to a lot of P2P shared music. What changes is I might download the latest U2 albulm, but I then spend the money on less known bands, some of which I learn about through P2P.

The whole concept is hear to stay, whether or not PB does or not. Music companies have to stop feeling entitled to our dollars and get back into the business of finding and shaping great talent. Once they became a distribution and promotion medium, not a incubator of talent, they lost their focus.

Re:Swag

[Anonymous Coward]

Me too: "I tend to spend just as much on CD's even though I listen to a lot of P2P shared music."

Its just that the CDs I buy are blank :)

Re:Swag

[theSpaceCow]

I think that's a very very important distinction to make... The music industry always rants and raves about "music sales", but what's important to remember is that they don't care about music as a whole -- they only care about the mainstream artists on their labels.

Since indie bands get practically zero recognition in mainstream sources, the Power of the Internet (TM) can do nothing to hurt and everything to help them gain some non-zero share of the average joe's music and music-related merchandise budget, which I feel is fair to assess as being somewhat static.

Re:Swag

[Ephracis]

Its just that the CDs I buy are blank :)
Most CD's here are blank. It's kind of hard to find a CD in a local music store, since CD is a trademark which can only be used as long as the disc contains no copy-protection-mechanism.

BTW, I'm voting for Piratbyrån!

Re:Swag

[Ephracis]

s/piratbyrån/piratpartiet/

Whether or not they're wrong...

[NevDull]

Whether or not what they do is illegal or immoral, I'm glad to see people questioning their government instead of caving.

Re:Whether or not they're wrong...

[cryfreedomlove]

Gee whiz! Your argument argues for illegal and immoral behavior merely to spite government. If you follow that to its logical extreme then I imagine that you enjoy bar room disputes that end in beheadings and rape. That makes you glad. Right?

Re:Whether or not they're wrong...

[magarity]

Contract and intellectual property laws govern how private individual entities behave towards one another; it has nothing to do with "questioning government". You comment is like saying you're glad the neighborhood teens blast hip-hop at 150db out of their cars despite a quiet-time ordinance because it teaches them to "question government" when really it just teaches them to have no respect for others.
 
It makes perfect sense that music/movies/software companies want their cut for making whatever product even though their distribution and/or pricing models may suck from some points of view. Only the most hard core socialists think otherwise.

Re:Whether or not they're wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

>I imagine that you enjoy bar room disputes that end in beheadings and rape.

Where do you live? I'm moving there!

Re:Whether or not they're wrong...

[NevDull]

Contract law? How does a party who's never been in possession of the copyrighted content fall under any contract?

Intellectual property law should certainly be questioned. It is not a matter of the relationship of individuals with one another. It may be civil and not criminal law, but a) piracy often leads to criminal proceedings, and b) IP laws preserve the "rights" to control "property" for the public good. It is in the name of the citizens that IP rights are granted. The only rights preserved vehemently are those of the content creators or licensees, with very little respect for those of society.

Yeah, I don't think that anyone really believes that DivX copies of Meet the Fockers should be floating around the internet, but one can certainly argue that IP produced in the 1950s has more value as a public resource than it does commercial value preserved by the exclusivity of copyright.

Re:Whether or not they're wrong...

[dwandy]

Only the most hard core socialists think otherwise.

I'm no where near a hard-core socialist. In fact as a fairly ardent capitalist I'm against IP because it creates a monopoly -- monopoly is pretty much the great satan to a capitalist ... [unless of course you're the owner of said monopoly, in which case you lobby like hell that you're about to lose the second jet and can barely afford the yacht and so require stronger protections while you offer as little service as possible.../rant]

It's funny how for physical stuff capitalists demand competition because it makes better stuff for cheaper by forcing companies to compete with one another. But when someone wants to apply these same principles to 'ideas' these same people are called socialists... wtf?

Re:Whether or not they're wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I don't think that anyone really believes that DivX copies of Meet the Fockers should be floating around the internet

...or ever published for that matter, but we're talking IP laws here, not the merits of production.

How to be popular

[Zeinfeld]

The sad part is that a large number of slashdotters will convince themselves that this type of thing is good despite the fact that the site is very clearly engaged in theft.

Regardless of the rationalization there is no difference taking content this way and going to a store and stealing a CD or DVD.

It costs $200 million to make some movies. If people stop paying to make the movies then that type of movie will not get made in the future.

You cannot make a big budget action movie by 'touring', 'selling merchandise' or any of the self-satisfied rationalizations people have suggested that musicians turn to.

Re:How to be popular

[10Ghz]

The sad part is that a large number of slashdotters will convince themselves that this type of thing is good despite the fact that the site is very clearly engaged in theft.

really? What are they stealing?

Re:How to be popular

[kahrhoff]

they are not stealing. they are posting text files.

Re:How to be popular

[digitaldc]

It costs $200 million to make some movies. If people stop paying to make the movies then that type of movie will not get made in the future.

Well with Bombs like Taxi, Duece Bigalow, and Dukes of Hazzard, this may not be such a bad thing, eh?

Re:How to be popular

[erroneus]

No, I'm already convinced. It's good.

For all the damage these industries cause honest and would-be honest customers, they deserve a true thorn in their sides. For all the monopolistic and oligopolistic crap they pull; For all the price-fixing and other dirty tricks; For all the innocent people they have attacked with their lawsuit crusades. We have no effective weapon against their activities since they have already bought all the politicians that are for sale. All we have is our defiance.

It's good even if it's not good enough.

Re:How to be popular

[Stavr0]

The sad part is that a large number of slashdotters will convince themselves that this type of thing is good despite the fact that the site is very clearly engaged in theft. For the umpteenth time, no. Not theft. Copyright violation, or 'piracy', the land-based kind, where nobody gets boarded, killed and thrown to the sharks. And at that, they are not engaged in 'piracy' either. They are at most 'enablers' or 'accomplices'.

Re:How to be popular

[cryfreedomlove]

They are storing the creative work that resulted from several man years of effort and the tremendous financial risk the producers took to produce a film.

Re:How to be popular

[TFGeditor]

"Regardless of the rationalization there is no difference taking content this way and going to a store and stealing a CD or DVD."

But that is not what Pirate Bay does. What they do is the equivalent to you telling someone, "Hey, they have music CDs at the corner store." If the person then goes to the corner store and steals a CD, well, that's his problem, not yours.

Re:How to be popular

[dedeman]

"If people stop paying to make the movies then that type of movie will not get made in the future."

Good, perhaps Hollywood will have an incentive to produce, market, and release good movies, instead of expensive movies. It strikes me that you are the type of person to believe that the budget of a movie is an indicator of quality. You probably also believe that movies *always* net a loss, because they *always* post a loss, no matter the ticket sales, merchandizing revenue, distribution costs, etc.

So, which did you like better; Garfield, Fat Albert, or Stealth? I heard that Stealth cost a whole bunch to make.

So, stealing = bad, pointing to dl'able file = bad. Making $200 mil movie = good.

The big budget flicks will never go away, regardless of piracy. Unfortunately.

Re:How to be popular

[epiphani]

The sad part is that I have to go online to a swedish website in order to download the TV show that I missed last night. Look at iTunes. Give people a legal way to purchase things online, and people will use it. This is not about the $200 million dollars it takes to make a movie, its about the $1.50 the company could have made from me by providing an equally simple method of getting the content I want.

As the son of a professional musician, one who is barely known outside our small community, I can confidently say that there are plenty of other ways to make money without touring or selling merchandise. And $200 million movies will still get made, assuming the movie studios can keep up with the buisness models of the future.

Re:How to be popular

[Anonymous Coward]

What $200 million movie didn't make a profit? Is there a shred of evidence that the reason for that was because people were pirating it?

Re:How to be popular

[Rob T Firefly]

It costs $200 million to make some movies. If people stop paying to make the movies then that type of movie will not get made in the future.

This is as it should be, supply and demand. If a movie interests the public, they'll pay to see it in a theater with a big screen. If it's an uninteresting film that need not have been made, they won't get those ticket dollars, the movie flops and the studios hopefully learn that this isn't the sort of movie people want at the moment. I'm a bit weary of the entertaiment industry acting like it deserves our patronage whether or not the product is actually worth it.

You cannot make a big budget action movie by 'touring', 'selling merchandise' or any of the self-satisfied rationalizations people have suggested that musicians turn to.

But you can make it by selling enough tickets, tie-in merchandise, and DVDs. If this model fails for a particular film, perhaps it's a sign that this sort of film really isn't successful.

If my four-hour drama about a team of underwater basket-weavers who fight crime and play rock music is a failure, I'd take it as a sign I should maybe scrap plans for its two sequels and TV miniseries. I wouldn't keep on making them, and whine about piracy when they fail.

Re:How to be popular

[Kadin2048]

No, these guys are more like the stores that sell the little razorblade devices that shoplifters use to slash the shrinkwrap on CDs at the record store very quickly, and pocket the disc. (They were a whole lot more common before a lot of stores went to using those hard shells that have to be broken open by the cashier.) Or the head shop that sells crack pipes "for tobacco use only."

They're not actually doing the stealing/drugs for you, but they're clearly facilitating it.

That said, I don't really give a damn. I can't work up much moral outrage for some kid who rips off Vivendi or Universal, whether its using bittorrent or a tiny sliver of metal. Leech it on your parents' cable modem, or stuff it in your pants, the only question I have is whether by pirating their media, are you still indirectly supporting their grip on content creation and distribution, by giving them free advertising and mindshare. I think the jury's still out on that.

But I save my outrage for crimes that have actual victims, of which there are far too many anyway.

Re:How to be popular

[hplasm]

No, they are not.

there is no content on the site.

Re:How to be popular

[David Webb]

If there were no movies and no t.v. due to piracy? I would cheer that the world had taken a shift for the better. I on occasion watch movies, however our entertainment options are used to placate us as a people. This way we don't think about our own failings. Nor do we strive to improve ourselves educationally and compete against the wealthy for the better jobs. We stand by as companies institute 401ks and do away with defined benefits plans. As we are sold out to big business and big government. As we're told that we don't need unions. That gold and silver are things we don't want to invest in. That we should buy buy buy but you better not go bankrupt! If we could get rid of movies and T.V. then perhaps people would think for themselves a little more and be more conserned with quality education. Keeping our jobs here and not outsourced. Concerned about invasion of privacy by the NSA, FBI and whomever else wishes to use the power that they were entrusted with in a corrupt and manipulative manner. If Piracy could bring down our now traditional big businesses then let piracy reign. I understand that many people would suffer but this would only bring about a greater good. We need to teach big business and big government that the people as a whole still make and break and rewrite the rules for the greater good.

Re:How to be popular

[Anonymous Coward]

Waterworld failed because of pirates.

Re:How to be popular

[Anonymous Coward]

"""
Regardless of the rationalization there is no difference [betwixt] taking content this way and going to a store and stealing a CD or DVD.
"""

Hmmm... Interesting point. Since "my friend" is downloading an already decrypted/region-free AVI, "my friend" isn't in violation of the DMCA. So, that's one less crime "my friend" is not committing from the normal rip-a-rented-movie routine.

Re:How to be popular

[Rocketship Underpant]

"... there is no difference taking content this way and going to a store and stealing a CD or DVD."

There is an obvious difference: stealing a CD deprives the store of a physical object they bought and owned. Copying data deprives no one of anything. Feel free to preach the evils of copying, but saying there's no difference merely displays ignorance.

"If people stop paying to make [$200 million] movies then that type of movie will not get made in the future."

The imaginary "right" for Hollywood to make $200 million movies at a guaranteed profit does not trump my right to copy and share speech, data, and information with my fellow humans. I reject the arguments of copyright, and only by using threats and violence against people like me can you, the RIAA/MPAA, and their bribed politicians attempt to stop it.

Re:How to be popular

[Dachannien]

I can't work up much moral outrage for some kid who rips off Vivendi or Universal, whether its using bittorrent or a tiny sliver of metal.

I find it much easier to work up moral outrage against kids who shoplift, since retail isn't a particularly high-margin business compared to movie/music publishing. When someone pirates a CD, *maybe* it costs the record label a sale and maybe it doesn't. But when someone lifts a CD from Worst Buy, the record label already has their pound of flesh, while it *definitely* costs the retailer the amount they spent to wholesale the CD that got stolen.

Re:How to be popular

[Anonymous Coward]

No they are not. They are storing something that points to somewhere that is storing the creative work that resulted from several man years of effort and the tremendous financial risk the producers took to produce a film.

Re:How to be popular

[stinerman]

If people stop paying to make the movies then that type of movie will not get made in the future.

That is fine with me. They need me more than I need new entertainment. I'm betting they're going to blink before I do.

Re:How to be popular

[muhgcee]

Yes. That is called copyright infringement. copyright infringement != stealing

We can have a seperate argument about the morality of both, but for now it is good just to get our terminology straight.

Re:How to be popular

[richie2000]

there is no difference taking content this way and going to a store and stealing a CD or DVD.

*sigh* Yes, there is. If I have a hammer and you also want a hammer so you copy my hammer by manufacturing one yourself, just like mine, have you just stolen my hammer then? Even though I still have my hammer, right here? Because that's actually what you're saying.

You cannot make a big budget action movie by 'touring', 'selling merchandise' or any of the self-satisfied rationalizations people have suggested that musicians turn to.

No, but you can't realistically build a real movie theater at home either. Any way value is added, it can be exploited to drive sales of a good or a service. In Singapore, movie theaters have luxury seats and serve meals as an added value to the movie. Economically, there is no longer any added value in making a copy so it should not be used as the basis for value. Economics 101.

References:
Mindjack - Piracy is good?
International Herald Tribune - Imagine a world without copyright
A History And Possible Future Of Cinema
First Monday - Piercing the myths of p2p
TV Week - NBC: iPod Boosts Prime Time
Stealing Music
Roderick T. Long - The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights

Re:How to be popular

[SenorAmor]

It costs $200 million to make some movies. If people stop paying to make the movies then that type of movie will not get made in the future.

It's because of $200 million movies that it now costs $7 for a small soda in a theater. If directors were more concerned about putting actual content in their movies instead of million-dollar special effects every 17 seconds, we'd have a shitton more movies with budgets like 'Blair Witch'.

Personally, I'd be glad if they stopped making $200 million movies. Then maybe theater ticket prices would drop and people wouldn't have to resort to downloading movies illegally.

Re:How to be popular

[qeveren]

That's where you fail. They're a bittorrent tracker. They don't host any copyrighted material at all (other than what they generate themselves).

Re:How to be popular

[muhgcee]

I believe the original poster was referring to the end user, but I could be wrong.

Re:How to be popular

[mysticgoat]

The sad part is that a large number of slashdotters will convince themselves that this type of thing is good despite the fact that the site is very clearly engaged in theft.

You must be new here. Write this on the blackboard 100 times: "Copyright infringement is not theft."

Re:How to be popular

[2obvious4u]

Total crap, you've just been hoodwinked by the RIAA and MPAA. As long as the actors are making more than 50,000 per year then we the consumers are paying to much for their product. I stopped bying any and all music when napster got shut down. When napster was up and running I bought over 400 CD's from music I was sampling over torrents. I liked finding stuff I liked and supporting those artists. I still buy movies and games (just bought Galactic Civilizations 2 which has zero copyright protection!!), with movies the movies I buy it for collectable value, not because of the "art" itself. If all I wanted to do was watch it I could just Tivo it, thats not the issue at all. Don't fall for all this copyright crap, its only illegal because the music and movie industries spent millions lobing congress to make it illegal. Its time for the model to change, there are other options. Copyrights need to be shorted or changed. There are alternate methods for music and movie industries to make money without stopping all the free advertising from p2p networks. The should have exlusive rights to merchandise such as clothing, action figures, ect that are not digitally reproducable. Digital content free to duplicate (well there is bandwidth cost) but it doesn't necessitate $1 pluss download fees. If you want people to by the albums again make special inserts tot he albums, package them with band t-shirts, sell concert tickets. There are tuns of ways to make money off music and movies without charging for the actual work itself. Give the music and movies away for free and merchandise off the fanfare. Take pokemon for example, get the kids hooked on saturday morning (freely distributed content) and then hit their parents up with all the accessories and games that aren't digitally reproducable. The MPAA and RIAA are using the government to strongarm their position. The are standing on the greatest advertising tool ever and a potential booming market, but because of their closed and narrow mindedness their are missing the big picture and missing a golden opportunity to grow their market and expand, instead they are waisting their resources (and their income from legit sales) to promote a war that is being lost more rapidly than the war on drugs or the war on terror. They need to look at the world around them, see the new technologies, and then see how best to use it to their advantage, going with the flow not against it. How does that old saying go... you'll attract more bees/flies with honey than vinegar? The music and movie industries are standing on the verge of a golden age, but instead they want to drive it into the dark ages.

Re:How to be popular

[0123456]

"They need me more than I need new entertainment."

Indeed, that's what the MPAA and RIAA don't seem to get. Without customers, both organisations would die, whereas without mass-market music and movies, we'd just find something else to do with our time.

For that matter, the computer game industry has been heading in the same direction lately, with more and more invasive 'copy protection' scams required to play the games that customers have purchased. The idea seems to be that you can make more money by forcing customers to stick a red-hot poker up their ass before they're allowed to use your product... which would seem bizarre to any company that made real things, where 'the customer is always right'.

Re:How to be popular

[j-turkey]

The sad part is that a large number of slashdotters will convince themselves that this type of thing is good despite the fact that the site is very clearly engaged in theft.

Actually, I have to respectfully disagree with your assessment that they are engaged in theft. They are a site which allows users to upload trackers. Trackers do not contain any protected IP, they simply point to where the IP can be found.

Their actions are similar to pointing out the location of a brothel to an stragner. Sex with a prostitute (for money) may be illegal, however, pointing out where one can acquire a prostitute's services is not illegal. These guys at the Pirate Bay aren't even pointing out where the illegal activity is taking place. They are hosting a bulletin board where people can come and post this information.

Am I convinced that this is a "good" thing? I can't say that. Should it be legal? I certainly believe so. I'm surprised that the activity that TPB is engaged in is not legal in the United States. Perhaps is has to do with our strong tradition of copyright protection.

IANAL

Re:How to be popular

[typical]

If the person then goes to the corner store and steals a CD, well, that's his problem, not yours.

He'd need to infringe on the CD's copyright, not steal it.

Re:How to be popular

[Ceinwyn]

Actually what Pirate Bay is doing is something more like this:

"Hey, the disgrutled worker at the corner store over there is letting people steal music CDs. Oh, and here's a map to the store and a description of everything he has available."

Consumers of music and video products do not have distribution rights to those products. We are free to listen to that product, free to listen to it with our friends, free to make copies of it in case the first one breaks (at least this SHOULD be free...stupid blank cd tax), but we don't have the right to stand on the street corner handing out or selling copies of it.

Ceinwyn

Re:How to be popular

[10Ghz]

No they aren't. There is no copyrighted material on their website. And even if there were, it wouldn't be stealing. If I shoplift a DVD from a store, I'm stealing. If I copy a movie from the net, I'm NOT stealing. I might be committing a copyright infringment, but it's NOT the same thing as stealing. If I steal something, it means that I deprive someone from their property. If I make a copy of that property, no-one gets deprived of anything.

Re:How to be popular

[Gideon Fubar]

If I have a hammer and you also want a hammer so you copy my hammer by manufacturing one yourself, just like mine, have you just stolen my hammer then? Even though I still have my hammer, right here? Because that's actually what you're saying.

There are immense socio-political implications to this statement.. obviously, it applies less readily to music than to hammers.. (because a hammer is a tool.. a facilitator..) you see where i'm going with this?

without getting overly academic about the issue, i think it is quite obvious that if it were possible to file a patent for 'a hand powered device for attaching metal fasteners into solid objects' without that silly prior art stuff getting in the way, whoever managed to fight their way to the patent office first would be trying very hard to instill the idea that it was their moral right to do so.

and they'd be right... from a certain point of view..

Re:How to be popular

[Anonymous Coward]

They are storing nothing but text files (trackers). They don't actually store any copyrighted material.

Re:How to be popular

[hkmwbz]

Your honor! My client will not plead guilty to murder. He did no such thing! He simply stole the person's life. He will accept a sentence for theft, but not for murder.

Re:How to be popular

[Zeinfeld]

really? What are they stealing?

The site is engaged in theft, they are not performing the theft themselves they are helping others to steal. Sure that makes them popular with the beneficiaries of the theft but it does not make what they do right.

A person who sells spam tools to a spammer is engaged in spamming even if they never use the tool themselves. A fence who receives stolen goods is engaged in theft even though someone else does the actual stealling.

Sure you can rationalize a set of values where taking a movie off bittorrent is different from stealling a DVD off the shelf of a store. But the reason people have moderated my original comment down as troll even though it is nothing of the kind is because they know deep down that what I am saying here is correct and they don't like to hear it.

Re:How to be popular

[erroneus]

That needs to be said again and much much louder. They need me! I don't need them.

Re:How to be popular

[Anonymous Coward]

It could be argued that you are depriving the owner of the property the money that (s)he is legally entitled to for your copy of the content. It's all pedantry and petty semantics. It's (morally) wrong to infringe copyright. That said everyone does it. Just so long as you do pay for the majority of your films, music, etc. Really, just don't be a leach, if you enjoy content then the providers/artists/labels deserve some compensation.

Re:How to be popular

[Zeinfeld]

This is as it should be, supply and demand. If a movie interests the public, they'll pay to see it in a theater with a big screen.

That is the most bizare perversion of free market theology ever.

The movie will in effect face competition from the 'free' pirated version of itself.

Re:How to be popular

[10Ghz]

The site is engaged in theft

Theft means that someone deprives someone else from their property. Who is being deprived of their property here? I believe that the word you are looking for is "copyright infringment", not "theft". The two acts are called different, because they are different acts. downloading movies is not called theft because it's not theft.

Sure you can rationalize a set of values where taking a movie off bittorrent is different from stealling a DVD off the shelf of a store.

There is a huge difference between those two

But the reason people have moderated my original comment down as troll even though it is nothing of the kind is because they know deep down that what I am saying here is correct and they don't like to hear it.

Or you were modeed down because your comment was just plain WRONG, not to mention stupid? What Pirate Bay or it's users are doing is NOT theft, not even close. You can't call it theft because it's not theft.

Re:How to be popular

[Anonymous Coward]

Edit: "Hey, the disgrutled worker at the corner store over there is letting people make copies of music CDs. Oh, and here's a map to the store and a description of everything he has available."

There's a difference. Both are fundamentally unethical. Both may be ethically acceptable under certain circumstances. But there is a difference. Claiming otherwise is doing nothing other than polluting our language.

Re:How to be popular

[AC5398]

No, they're not stealing the movie, they're pointing out where illegal copies of the movie exists.

It's the same as if they were standing on a street corner telling all and sundry, including the cops, that bootleg dvds are available in stores x, y, and z. They may be responsible for customers going to stores x, y, and z, but they've also sent the cops to those stores also.

If piratebay lists where illegal copies of movies/music/etc can be found to the general internet-going public, then they're also pointing this out to the MPAA/RIAA.

Where the MPAA/RIAA are going wrong is holding the guy on the street corner responsible for the activities of the bootlegging storeowners, without building a strong link between the guy on the street corner and the storeowners.

Re:How to be popular

[thatguywhoiam]

But I save my outrage for crimes that have actual victims, of which there are far too many anyway.

*clapclap* Kip! Have the boy lay out my moderation shorts.

Re:How to be popular

[spyrochaete]

Is a library theft? If you read the book at the library doesn't that negate one sale?

Is borrowing a video game theft? If you borrow your friend's copy of Katamari Damacy and you finish the game, doesn't that negate one sale?

How about if you walk away from the TV while watching your favourite show? Don't commercials pay for the airtime?

What if you use the Adblock plugin in a web browser?
Or watch public access television without donating?
etc. etc. etc.

If you publish media in any way it is susceptible to free consumption and duplication. Nothing will ever change that as long as media is percievable by humans somewhere along the line. However, this is secondary to the point of sites like TPB. These sites are exercising the freedoms of the people to share culture with their friends. The traditional barriers of communication are breaking down and it's underground movements like P2P that facilitate this. It can't be uninvented and it can't be stopped.

It's up to media corporations to entice us to purchase its products in new ways because its monopoly on distribution is over forever.

In an ice age the rodents and cockroaches survive, not the dinosaurs.

Re:How to be popular

[Ilex]

They are storing the creative work that resulted from several man years of effort and the tremendous financial risk the producers took to produce a film.

Wow my public library's been doing that! Row upon row of Books, DVD's and Music. I really should call the RIAA / MPAA / Team America World Police. Distributing the creative works of man to a wider society it's like Murdering and Raping..... Those poor record exec's all alone and unloved in their Ivory Towers. Booo hoooo hooooo whhaaaa..

Though seriously how exactly is the P.B storing all this? They need donations for servers and bandwidth. Distributing a DVD, CD to 3000 people every second?! Ultimately it's the users that are the ones "infringing". If they want infringe and advertise it on a public web site shouldn't they be the ones to answer for it?

Personally I believe the copyright balance has tilted too far in favor of the multinationals. Copyright was only ever meant to be a temporary monopoly to allow creators to recover the cost of development. Now copyrights are effectively permanent. This is counter to why we have copyrights in the first place, to encourage innovation and creativity.

Good luck Pirate bay.

Re:How to be popular

[raju1kabir]

A fence who receives stolen goods is engaged in theft even though someone else does the actual stealling.

No, a fence is "receiving and concealing stolen goods." This is a crime that depends on theft, and which helps to make theft profitable, but it is not in itself theft.

A person who sells spam tools to a spammer is engaged in spamming even if they never use the tool themselves.

Really? Am I speeding if I tell the driver of a car to put the petal to the metal? Am I committing assault if I sell someone a set of brass knuckles?

Sure you can rationalize a set of values where taking a movie off bittorrent is different from stealling a DVD off the shelf of a store. But the reason people have moderated my original comment down as troll even though it is nothing of the kind is because they know deep down that what I am saying here is correct and they don't like to hear it.

Rather the contrary, it is starting to sound like you don't get the point.

Stealing means a certain thing. There are other things that might also be bad, but just because they are bad doesn't mean they're stealing. As someone else posted above, murder is not "stealing someone's life". Likewise littering is not "stealing cleanliness", and libel is not "stealing a reputation".

Even if I really, really, really don't like piracy, I am not going to call it stealing, because that's not the correct word for it. As long as you continue to use words for other than their intended purposes, you come off as a dogmatist fishing to score emotional points rather than a rational participant in a mature discussion.

Re:How to be popular

[drooling-dog]

There is an obvious difference: stealing a CD deprives the store of a physical object they bought and owned. Copying data deprives no one of anything.

(Arguing with myself here...) It does diminish the market value of that CD, however, which is why it may feel like theft to the producer and the store owner. On the other hand, so would competition. You could argue that because prices of CDs are determined by a cartel and not a competitive market, the existence of unauthorized copying merely brings (average) prices more into line with what they "should" be in the absence of the cartel.

For better or worse, consumer expectations and perceptions of value have changed. Many people now expect to be able to have access to (and an awareness of) a wide range of music, something that simply isn't feasible if it costs $18 a pop to check out every new or unfamiliar artist. This broadened consumer awareness and choice is something greatly feared by studios that base their success on being able to predict (and to a large extent control) what will be a "hit" and should therefore be locked up under contract.

Re:How to be popular

[stinerman]

That needs to be said again and much much louder.

I would but the lameness filter won't let me :-(

Re:How to be popular

[Dobeln]

The sad part is that Slashdotters mod a critical, but well-reasoned and coherent statement down as "troll". Sad, sad sad.

And yes, I have used TPB extensively before I got decent broadband (I now use DC++ instead - 10mbit+ hubs ftw!) - yet I never deluded myself to the point that I believed that I was involved in some sort of great cause.

Re:How to be popular

[Anonymous Coward]

If people stop paying to make the movies then that type of movie will not get made in the future.

I don't care. I don't like watching movies as they are empty shells of egocentric sociopaths (a.k.a. "actors") adding nothing to my life.
So if they stop making movies so many people in world would get the time to reflect over life, talk, listen to music, read, watch the clouds, raise their children and a lot of other good stuff.

So for my sake, they could stop making movies today. I'd be glad...

Re:How to be popular

[stud9920]

I'll pay for my software the day the guy who wrote it will get extra money for each extra sold copy. A software editor sells a million copies of a program for millions of bucks, the engineer get no extra cent. This is legally "Fair Game" because of the few $10k he got. Millions of people each share a few copies for free on the internet, it's a Crime. Probably because the editor did not make his dollars. (This is coming from a programmer)

Re:How to be popular

[Rob T Firefly]

When the experience of going to a theater equals that of watching the pirated version at home, perhaps that will be true. But until everyone has a huge home theater with large screen and surround sound, and bootlegs of pristine video and audio quality, watching a bootleg will continue to be about as close to the cinema experience as watching the flick on video or cable, flipping through the comic book version, or reading the spoilers on the Internet.

Re:How to be popular

[Eivind]

Really ? What are they helping others to steal ?

Hint: You're confusing two unrelated issues. They may be helping others to perform copyrigth-violations, but they are *not* helping others perform theft.

Despite the propaganda of the **AA these two are two completely unrelated crimes. Described in different laws, with different punishments, different rules, different *everything*.

Yes. Both are illegal. But you don't go calling "speeding" "rape" just because both are illegal.

Re:How to be popular

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, and guns don't kill people - people kill people.

Re:How to be popular

[Risen888]

If people stop paying to make the movies then that type of movie will not get made in the future.

So wait a minute...are you saying that I download and distribute, say, 10,000 copies of Legally Blonde, they won't make any more of them? Deal!

Re:How to be popular

[Jesus_666]

No, really, it is theft. The Pirate Bay has hired Magical Trevor to disappear the DVD master and all unsold copies of any software shared on TPB. Whenever something shows up on TPB you can't ever buy it again, anywhere. You can buy lots of beans, though.

Everyone loves Magical Trevor
Because the tricks that he does are ever so clever.
Look at him now, disappearing a show.
Where is the show heading right now?
Taking a bow is Magical Trevor,
Everyone has seen that the trick is clever.

Re:How to be popular

[npsimons]

Sure you can rationalize a set of values where taking a movie off bittorrent is different from stealling a DVD off the shelf of a store.

I don't have to rationalize anything because the *reality* is that copying and stealing *are* different:

steal: To take, and carry away, feloniously; to take without right or leave, and with intent to keep wrongfully; as, to steal the personal goods of another.

copy: To make a copy or copies of; to write; print, engrave, or paint after an original; to duplicate; to reproduce; to transcribe; as, to copy a manuscript, inscription, design, painting, etc.; -- often with out, sometimes with off.

Both of those definitions are the first ones that show up in Webster 1913. I might also point out a particular word used in the definition of copy: "duplicate". As in:

duplicate: To double; to fold; to render double.

As in, "where there was one, now there are two." As in, the original holder of a set of bits still has his, and now I have those bits as well. Who's lost anything? No one! Who has been harmed? Nobody! Therefore, no crime has been committed (by any rational definition of crime).

But the reason people have moderated my original comment down as troll even though it is nothing of the kind is because they know deep down that what I am saying here is correct and they don't like to hear it.

Oh yeah, sure, you're being moderated down and ignored because "people don't like what you're saying." I got news for you pal: the moderation system on slashdot works pretty well (especially with meta-moderation) and most of the time posts get modded down becaus they are just plain wrong or don't contribute anything constructive to the discussion. Are there occasional vendetta's? Yes. Is your post being modded down an example of one? No. So out of the three options for being modded down (vendetta, being wrong, not constructive), the first of which (vendetta) being eliminated, which do you think your's is? (hint: some comments fall into more than one category for being modded down).

Re:How to be popular

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh, the whole theft vs copyright infringement debate. Wouldn't it be great if all arguments could be settled by such technical hair splitting?

Example:
Common Man:
He hit me with a bat! That's assault!

Bat wielding punk:
No no, when you actually hit someone it's battery. You're stupid and wrong. *goes off to hit more people with a bat*

Further example:
Worker:
You were cooking the books and killed my pension! You stole all the money I was going to retire on!

CEO:
No no no, that's FRAUD. Although I may have taken something that belongs to you, because you used the wrong term I can laugh at you and pretend it's something different.

I've burned copies of CDs and DVDs that didn't belong to me, so I'm as guilty as the next guy. But I've never felt the need to call someone on the whole "Copyright Infringement isn't theft!" Since both boil down to "Taking something that doesn't belong to you", why the hell do people need to focus on the hair splitting rather than the crux of the argument?

Re:How to be popular

[arose]

The site is engaged in theft, they are not performing the theft themselves

Funny, that's what people say when they blow up civilians for what their goverments do...

Re:How to be popular

[arose]

Even if I really, really, really don't like piracy, I am not going to call it stealing, because that's not the correct word for it. As long as you continue to use words for other than their intended purposes, you come off as a dogmatist fishing to score emotional points rather than a rational participant in a mature discussion.

I really, really, really hope you are joking.

Re:How to be popular

[ultranova]

It costs $200 million to make some movies. If people stop paying to make the movies then that type of movie will not get made in the future.

No problem, there's more movies being made than I have time to watch anyway :).

You cannot make a big budget action movie by 'touring', 'selling merchandise' or any of the self-satisfied rationalizations people have suggested that musicians turn to.

Most movies do indeed tour in movie theaters prior to getting to DVD, and make a considerable amount of money that way. And I've seen quite a bit of merchandise as well from almost every succesfull movie.

Re:How to be popular

[Anonymous Coward]

"Theft means that someone deprives someone else from their property."

Interesting, but not quite correct. Dictionary.com provides a whole series of definitions, and the common theme is that theft involves an acquisition of goods or services without the consent of the owner.

You should note that none of the definitions explicitly provided the concept that the rightful owner is denied access to the goods or services which have been wrongfully acquired. Your definition depends on that concept.

Intellectual property is, by use of the term property, easily categorized as goods. The fact that these goods are ephemeral is a non-starter, since the same can be said of many items which qualify as services.

Intellectual property has a clearly identified owner.

Acquiring intellectual property without the consent of the owner would, therefore, be theft.

Trying to justify to yourself that you are not a thief does not mean you are correct.

Re:How to be popular

[egriebel]

But I save my outrage for crimes that have actual victims, of which there are far too many anyway.

This really is the bottom line! The courts are being wasted (and indirectly our tax dollars too!) with this drivel when we as a nation and justice system could be doing more important things. How many collective man-hours have been wasted on just this one slashdot article instead of doing something (anything!) more useful, just because some stupid-ass organization wants to maintain their slipping strangehold on music and movie profits?? Don't we as a society have something better to do? Ok, Ok, I'll sit down and shut up now :-)

Re:How to be popular

[Anonymous Coward]

Property is theft.

Re:How to be popular

[Anonymous Coward]

Great, rather than Taxi, Duece Bigalow, and Dukes of Hazzard we will just have the Dukes of Hazzard.

Movie companies will just play even safer to ensure at least average box office returns.

Re:How to be popular

[Travelsonic]

But I've never felt the need to call someone on the whole "Copyright Infringement isn't theft!" Since both boil down to "Taking something that doesn't belong to you", why the hell do people need to focus on the hair splitting rather than the crux of the argument?

Because we are talking legalities and illegalities, and when we do talk about things in such sense, specifics do matter. Call it splitting hairs if you wish, but in fact (since we are talking about legalities) your definition is pretty broad in the scope of the argument... you don't "own" the air, water from that nearby stream, or that independent artist's song you downloaded, but you aren't going to be accused for theft when it can't be done, right?,/P>

In legalities and illegalities, specifics very much matter, and in this case, we are solely talking about copyright infringement, not theft. Moralities and ethics - that is a larger issue in itself on topics like this, which is why here I think is where the broadness should remain.

Re:How to be popular

[Anonymous Coward]

Worst analogy ever.

Re:How to be popular

[Travelsonic]

Regardless of the rationalization there is no difference taking content this way and going to a store and stealing a CD or DVD.

Maybe not to you morally and ethically, but we are talking legalities here, and legally and logically speaking, there are numerous factors that nullify the exact parrallel of theft and copyright infringement beyond morals and ethics.

If people stop paying to make the movies then that type of movie will not get made in the future.

That's one hell of an if there bud... not everybody in the world owns a computer... not everybody who owns a computer is smart enugh to know how to pirate, and not everybody who has a computer - who does or does not know how to use it to its fullest extent - want to or will pirate, so this little conspiracy thought of the industry - that this might happen - should already be extinguished due to this fact... considering the billions of people on the earth, I seriously doubt this idea will ever happen,

Re:How to be popular

[Maxo-Texas]

No- you were moderated down because you said it was stealing.

The use of the word "stealing" and "theft" in this case are industry propaganda which is being vigorously resisted.

I agree with you to some extent. I think creators should be able to try to sell their work for whatever price they desire.

However, any content which has been sold that is over 28 years has no protection in my opinion. We agreed to give creators a 28 year monopoly on their creations. They have successfully increased that period to effectively "forever" legally-- but not morally.

They have placed restrictions on their product which require us to purchase them multiple times for each form of media. I disagree here as well.

If I own the DVD set for friends- I have no moral problem downloading the IPOD format episodes instead of buying them again.

If I own the CD to the beatles white album, I have no moral problem downloading it in another format.

For the most part- this is a very artificial situation and it -is- collapsing on its own. When there are a million good bands- and a million good television shows, then their monopoly will be over and they will have to compete on price again. The creators distribution companies have had a monopoly on tools to create content and on distribution to audiences but that day is ending.

Copyright has a purpose- to encourage creators to create new content. As such we should respect that for a reasonable period of time. Since our legal system is so corrupt however, we should strongly resist by any means possible, anyone who attempts to extend that copyright monopoly to an indefinate period.

It is even more galling since many of the people extending these copyrights are -not even the creators of the materials-. When people sold their rights to these materials- they sold them under terms of a limited copyright- so these companies are trying an endrun around our legal system. And our corrupt government officers are selling their votes and letting them do it.

Re:How to be popular

[10Ghz]

It could be argued that you are depriving the owner of the property the money that (s)he is legally entitled to for your copy of the content.

So the owner of the content gets deprived of sales? But even that is not "theft". And still: just because I download some song (for example) from the net does not mean that I would have bought the song legally, had it not been available illegally on the net. I admit it: I have downloaded "Reign of Fire" from the net. Had it not been available on the net, I wouldn't have bought anyway. So my downloading that movie did not deprive the creators of the movie one dime, since I wasn't going to buy it regardless. Yes, what I did was a copyright infringment, and I'm not even trying to justify it in any shape or form. I'm just showing that downloading content from the net does not automatically mean that the creators of the content were denied sales.

I also downloaded "Equilibrium". And once it became available in Finland on DVD, I went out and bought it. Were the creators of the movie denied sales? Furthermore: since the movie was never shown on cinemas in Finland, I wouldn't have bought the movie, since I had no way of telling that is it any good. Now I downloaded it, made sure it's good, and bought it the moment it became available. Were the moviemakers harmed by my downloading? Did I "steal" anything?

Re:How to be popular

[Travelsonic]

But the reason people have moderated my original comment down as troll even though it is nothing of the kind is because they know deep down that what I am saying here is correct and they don't like to hear it.

Bullshit!

You were modded down because your posts (especially the first one on this page) consisted of nothing but industry lies, FUD, and unrealistic senarios that have been dispouted and disproven. Actually bring a logical and well presented argument to the table, no matter what the position, and I am sure that there will be kind moderators to mod you up accordingly. ^_^

Re:How to be popular

[10Ghz]

Acquiring intellectual property without the consent of the owner would, therefore, be theft.

No it would not. It would be "copyright infringment". I would be infringing on the copyrights of the creator of the content. But I wouldn't be stealing anything. Really, this is all in the law-books, go look it up.

Re:How to be popular

[Zeinfeld]

However, any content which has been sold that is over 28 years has no protection in my opinion. We agreed to give creators a 28 year monopoly on their creations. They have successfully increased that period to effectively "forever" legally-- but not morally.

Here we agree on something. As I pointed out earlier today the legislative manipulations of RIAA and Disney were both wrong and counterproductive.

They were wrong in the first place because the RIAA tried to steal copyrights from its own artists by having Congress declare them to be 'works for hire'. Disney stole copyright works from the public domain.

These actions were wrong morally and they were wrong tactically. It is much harder to convince people that stealling is wrong when you are stealling yourself.

I think that the DVD zone system is foolish for the exact same reason. First it is wrong because the real purpose of the zone system is to support illegal differential pricing schemes. Once you have cheated the public by overcharging for the product it is going to be much harder to convince them that stealling content off bitorrent is wrong.

Off course people are very popular when they are giving away other people's property. The Kray twins were very popular in London's East End, Buch Cassidy, Jessie James and his gang were all pretty popular with the people who benefited from their generosity. And you will find the exact same rationalizations at work in the comments written at the time, the real criminals are the railway bosses etc etc.

Re:How to be popular

[xtracto]

Although your post has been refuted quite a lot of times now, and that you have been moded troll (which I think is not good for slashdot discussion as, it is your personal POV) I just have to make one comment.

Imagine if lets say, I have a homepage. In that homepage I list the address of all the crack houses, coke houses, weed providers, etc etc etc.

Will my page be illegal?, will the police try to put it down?. I am sure if I had that information the governmetn will be interested in telling me how did I know that. Imagine then, if it is a Wiki, where anyone can write that information. Is my page still illegal?, granted, on those places illegal activity is going (similar to the torrent network where some illegal activities are going on).

Now for another similarity, now lets assume the page only lists weed dealers/houses. My wiki is on the Internet, what happens if my server is in the Netherlands? of course people from USA can go there and read/write information about those houses. But neither I or the people writing the addresses is doing anything wrong. Also, by the eyes of the Dutch government the people on those houses is not doing anything wrong.

Who is doing wrong then?, well, it is the people smoking weed, but only if the address happens to be in a country where it is prohibited. So, lets say if people is sharing things in France (where it is legal) then, they are not making anything illegal.

I will not get into the theft thing because already a lot of people tried to explain you the difference. Although I thing you and a lot of people find it hard to understand. Let me explain it this way. Theft (the unlawful taking and carrying away of personal property with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it PERMANENTLY ;) and Copyright infringement (violation of the rights secured by a copyright ). THey are both something like rotten fruits, they are ugly and bad for your body, but theft is a rotten ORANGE and copyright infringement is a rotten APPLE.

Of course, who says that it is bad for your body is the government.

Re:How to be popular

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazing. I provided you a direct reference to a specific source, I provided the flow of logic from that source to a conclusion, and your response is "Nah! You're wrong!"?

Provide a specific reference in order to demonstrate a minimum of effort to maintain a balanced conversation.

Re:How to be popular

[dwandy]

Had it not been available on the net, I wouldn't have bought anyway. So my downloading that movie did not deprive the creators of the movie one dime, since I wasn't going to buy it regardless. ... and I'm not even trying to justify it in any shape or form.

I recently borrowed Firefly DVD set from a friend. I really liked it, and mentioned it to another friend who wanted to borrow it from me. The two friends don't know each other, yet there is absolutely no one who would say that if I re-lend the DVDs there is some kind of copyright infringment.
...so you also recently borrowed Reign of Fire from a friend-you-have-never-met.

I'm just showing that downloading content from the net does not automatically mean that the creators of the content were denied sales

For the whole deprived argument to hold any kind of water, lending out material would also be depriving the creator...

What all this does is show the very real problems in trying to treat ideas as physical things...

Re:How to be popular

[salemnic]

Not quite - you provided him a reference to a definition for common language, not legal language, which are completely different things.

If you're arguing that downloading music and movies is morally theft, then sure, you're right, I'll agree to that. But legally, it's not the same thing. For something to be legally theft, a physical item must be taken away from someone. In any other case you're looking at fraud or copyright infringement, or destruction of property, or whatever, but by the legal description of things, it is not theft.

Sorry, your argument doesn't wash that way.
s

Re:How to be popular

[Anonymous Coward]

"Am I convinced that this is a "good" thing? I can't say that. Should it be legal? I certainly believe so. I'm surprised that the activity that TPB is engaged in is not legal in the United States. Perhaps is has to do with our strong tradition of copyright protection."

Hmmm . . ..

Well, as a rather conservative American, I don't WANT it to be legal in the United States.

Why?

Because the guy who enables a crime needs to be held responsible for doing so.

To use some examples posted earlier: The guy who tells somebody that wants to solicit sex where to find willing agents is explicitly choosing to assist in the execution of a crime. Whether the indivdual who receives the answer chooses to go and and actually perform the crime or not, the enabler has actively supported the criminal act.

The guy who runs a head shop selling paraphenalia that he knows is going to be used to consume illegal drugs is explicitly supporting illegal activity. He knows that laws will be broken, and is trying to make a living by helping people break them, while trying to claim that he has no moral or ethical responsibility for the actions he has chosen to support.

I WANT these people to be criminally responsible for supporting illegal activity.

I don't understand why people expect blatant support of and dependence on illegal activity to be legal.

Re:How to be popular

[dwandy]

He will accept a sentence for theft, but not for murder.

I can only assume that you are trying to make some kind of funny here, but I think you only succeed in disproving your own point.
There are different words to describe different actions for precisely the reason you are illustrating. Despite what the *AA's want you to believe, the specific action is called copyright infringment, and is very different from 'theft' or 'piracy' (which generally requires a boat, and sometimes a parrot). Just as armed robbery is different from theft, and joy-riding different from grand theft auto. (the action, not the game...)

It's imporant to keep the language pure, because the *AAs have no end of money to hire marketers to turn restrictive technologies into 'features' using words like 'rights' instead of 'restrictions' and phrases like 'plays-for-sure' instead of 'plays-if-we-let-it'.

While you are free to disagree with my disagreement of IP law, let's at least ensure that any conversation we have uses terms that accurately reflect what is happening, as opposed to the marketing spin they are selling.

Re:How to be popular

[Turn-X Alphonse]

You've not seen roms sits lately have you? GBA is cracked like a whore with a needle in her arm.

The reason pokemon sells so well to people who can pirate stuff (like myself) is that it feels better on a handheld, we get to keep our pokemon even if our PCs crash, we can still play the games for years and such. Basicly the content is superior on a portable, so we pay for a good portable RPG. The merchandise and anime are aimed more at children, but don't think they're the only reason the games sell.

Pokemon is one of them strange popular series which is damn good. It takes a classic theme (monster/bug/demon/whatever collecting) and does it really well. It's deep enough for hardcore RPG players (lots of various hidden stats, move combos and such), while still being simple enough that with some basic common sense (replace old moves with better ones, use the right types against the right monsters) that you can brute force your way through the game.

Re:How to be popular

[Have Blue]

You already have a far more powerful weapon that is absolutely 100% guaranteed to not break any laws, in the opinion of anyone anywhere: DO NOT BUY THEIR PRODUCTS.

(Of course, that means doing without the latest movies, music, and games, but your principles are more important than that, right?)

Re:How to be popular

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is, they need to bump up the quality of itunes. I was going to use them to get Boston Legal episodes, but the divx rips are much better.

Re:How to be popular

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, now you're just being obtuse. The argument of "Stealing something off the shelf is the same as downloading files" vs "Stealing something off the shelf is not the same as downloading files" doesn't have much to do with breathing or drinking water. If you explain to a 5 year old that "Taking something that doesn't belong to you is wrong", they know what you mean. I'm pretty damn sure every else knows what I mean too.

The GP poster that started this whole thread (at this point it's probably the great, great, great grandparent poster) got marked as a troll for saying "Regardless of the rationalization there is no difference taking content this way and going to a store and stealing a CD or DVD." People fired back with "Screw you, it's not theft. End debate." So rather then focus on the ethical they just picked the legal, and used that to flame away. Kind of like saying "You used the wrong legal term for what you are doing, so that makes your argument wrong. You're stupid. Blah blah blah." Hence, the man with the bat and the corrupt CEO examples. Just because someone uses the wrong legal term for something does not immediately invalidate his or her argument.

I'm arguing for following copyright law on Slashdot, which is like arguing for gay marriage at a Southern Baptist Church, so I lose before I even start the argument. Not that copyright law (or gay marriage!) is wrong, but the group think will cut you down or drown you out before you can even get started.

Think of it this way:
If someone stole* a term paper you spent 6 months working on to turn it in before you, would it be wrong? According SlashLogic, it wouldn't be. It would just be copyright infringement.

*Stole in this case would mean "Grabbed a copy off of your hard drive, while not removing the original." I know, I know, "Not theft, I'm stupid, blah blah blah."

Re:How to be popular

[Travelsonic]

the group think will cut you down or drown you out before you can even get started.

Well, I would think that using industry groupthink to argue your point would make you unpopular - groupthink combatting groupthink, in a way. I don't nessecarily think that copyrights are bad, only the way it is implemented now.

Think of it this way: If someone stole* a term paper you spent 6 months working on to turn it in before you, would it be wrong? According SlashLogic, it wouldn't be. It would just be copyright infringement. *Stole in this case would mean "Grabbed a copy off of your hard drive, while not removing the original." I know, I know, "Not theft, I'm stupid, blah blah blah."

This isn't really a case of groupthink more than it is just mis-using language - more dishonesty and fraud in play. Still doesn't take on the definition I was taught as a child (going back to that mentioned in your post) where your definition was always explained to our generation(s) and generations past using examples where people always lost something they had - which is most likely the reason for this line of thinking here on /.

Re:How to be popular

[dwandy]

between youtube and democracy player and all the people out there publishing stuff today, I'm having a harder and harder time fitting in time for the hollywood trash... sure, the downside is it's raw, some of it sucks, sometimes the quality isn't all that great, but it's raw and pure and made for their own reasons - to entertain, to be artists etc and that really shows through ... Art can't be made for 'profit'. Art can only be made to free the soul.

Re:How to be popular

[dwandy]

It costs $200 million to make some movies. If people stop paying to make the movies then that type of movie will not get made in the future.

I think the real problem in the system today is that it doesn't allow for $800 million movies to be made.

Clealy we should enact legislation that ensures a profitable return on any film made, even if that means that we drop tax dollars. Maybe a new tax. This is important people! We are on the brink of losing even the possibility of having $1-billion costing movies to be made! Think of the children! oh won't someone please think of Lucas' children!

Re:How to be popular

[Anonymous Coward]

"Not quite - you provided him a reference to a definition for common language, not legal language, which are completely different things."

So, on a board which serves geeks, not lawyers, in a conversation filled with people demanding that they are not lawyers, you want to restrict the language used to legalese?

Which one of us has an unusual expectation of behavior?

I'm expecting normal people to use normal language, you expect normal people to correctly use legalese.

As for this quote:

"If you're arguing that downloading music and movies is morally theft, then sure, you're right, I'll agree to that."

Uhmm . . .. I thought the whole point of laws was SUPPOSED to be to set a moral standard that we force as a minimu set of acceptable behaviors. True, our legal system has failed to maintain this status, but that doesn't forgive accepting it as being anything less.

Re:How to be popular

[dwandy]

C'mon, these guys are pros, and have a long history of understanding their market.

Re:How to be popular

[bitspotter]

"Leech it on your parents' cable modem, or stuff it in your pants, the only question I have is whether by pirating their media, are you still indirectly supporting their grip on content creation and distribution, by giving them free advertising and mindshare. I think the jury's still out on that."

I used to agree wholeheartedly with this take. I thought we needed to get over piracy, and start enriching the commons, instead.

Then I read this:

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/26/146221 &tid=98&tid=95

It appears that sharing does indeed hurt the cartel's bottom line, rather than supporting their cultural hegemony. You might be perpetuating their popularity, but piracy really DOES hurt their bottom line - and those are the dollars that go toward bribing politicians. At the same time, smaller indy and commons acts are actually aided by increased sales as more people share them. The difference is scale. Once you get too popular, sharing backfires, but it's actually around the 75th percentile of artists.

So, for those who are aimed at bringing down the Hollywood plutocracy, the tactic seems to be: share. pirate. Share the indies and commonists you do like, and //even the pop sugar you don't//, because every lost boy band album sale is that much less revenue that can be used against us in our legislature.

Re:How to be popular

[RedWizzard]

Worker:
You were cooking the books and killed my pension! You stole all the money I was going to retire on!

CEO:
No no no, that's FRAUD. Although I may have taken something that belongs to you, because you used the wrong term I can laugh at you and pretend it's something different.

If the CEO in your example was charged with theft, they would (should) be found not guilty. They didn't commit theft. We have different crimes with different definitions because those crimes have different effects and warrant different punishments. One of the ironies of this debate is that according to the law copyright infringement is already considered to be much more serious than theft. If I steal a DVD from a store I am likely to get banned from the store and perhaps a minimal fine. If I make a copy of the same DVD I could be fined $50,000 and go to jail.

why the hell do people need to focus on the hair splitting rather than the crux of the argument?

Because it is the crux of the matter. Theft is clearly morally and ethically wrong. If you accept that copyright infringement is theft then what argument remains?

By conflating theft and copyright infringement groups with vested interests seek to take advantage of the public view of the effects of theft, i.e. the obvious loss of something tangible, so that copyright infringement is seen the same way even though there is no obvious loss with copyright infringement. They want people who copy movies and songs to be branded criminals in the minds of the people. They are trying to change the public perception of copyright infringement via the use of emotive terms rather than logical argument. That sort of underhanded tactic deserves active resistance IMHO. Also, to accept the conflation of theft and copyright infringement as you apparently do is to accept the argument that an unauthorised copy represents the loss of revenue equal to the retail price of the original. The groups in question want you believe that, but it is still very debatable.

Re:How to be popular

[10Ghz]

I'm expecting normal people to use normal language, you expect normal people to correctly use legalese.

And in my "normal language", downloading movies/music from the net does not equal "theft". And, as it happens, legalese shares my viewpoint on the matter.

You are then free to say that in YOUR "normal language" it does equal "theft", but your definition is not my definition. And just about all the people I have talked with equal "theft" with actual removal of someones property. And that's something that making a digital copy of a song (for example) is not.

Few definitions of "theft". From dictionary.com:

"the act of taking something from someone unlawfully".

If I copy a song from the net, the original owner of the song still has the song, so I'm not "taking" anything from him.

  From wikipedia:

"In the criminal law, theft (also known as stealing) is the wrongful taking of someone else's property without that person's freely-given consent. As a term, it is used as shorthand for all major crimes against property, encompassing offences such as burglary, embezzlement, larceny, looting, robbery, trespassing, shoplifting, intrusion, fraud (theft by deception) and sometimes criminal conversion. In some jurisdictions, theft is considered to be synonymous with larceny, in others theft has replaced larceny."

Again: if I download a song from the net, the owner of that song still has his copy of the song, so I have NOT taken his property. Hell, he might not even know that I have a copy if his song.

Re:How to be popular

[Anonymous Coward]

Since both boil down to "Taking something that doesn't belong to you", why the hell do people need to focus on the hair splitting rather than the crux of the argument?

Because they want to justify their immoral actions. Like in your examples, people love to pick the best definition/meaning --for them-- so that they can rationalize it off. It is a lot easier to shrug of "copy right infringement" then "theft".

I illegally download and use stuff that I didn't pay for, nor have permission to use. Yet like the parent poster acknowledge what I am doing is theft. Come on people, lets be more honest here...

Re:How to be popular

[permaculture]

"The sad part is that a large number of slashdotters will convince themselves that this type of thing is good despite the fact that the site is very clearly engaged in theft." Is it a good thing? This free advertising may be just what Swiss kids need to find what DVD they should get, what album they should buy. Are music sales in Sweden going up, or down? I'd be interested to know.

Re:How to be popular

[Joe the Lesser]

CD = tangible item.

mp3 = intangible string of 1s and 0s.

Comparing the theft of the two is silly, as stealing tangible items is often much more problematic to the victims than intangible items, when all that is lost is the possibility of extra money, but nothing that they current have is lost.

Re:How to be popular

[Peaker]

Do you believe it is possible to hold the following two opinions at the same time:

1. Tangible property theft is morally wrong.
   
2. Copying data from a friend in his home to your home for your private use is not morally wrong.
   

What you say means that one cannot concurrently hold these two opinions, but you are wrong. In order to be able to speak a common language and debate the matter you must separate the two because they are different!

The brainwash work the copyright folks managed to pull off on an entire population is impressive.

Re:How to be popular

[Peaker]

If someone stole* a term paper you spent 6 months working on to turn it in before you, would it be wrong? According SlashLogic, it wouldn't be. It would just be copyright infringement.

*Stole in this case would mean "Grabbed a copy off of your hard drive, while not removing the original." I know, I know, "Not theft, I'm stupid, blah blah blah."

So you know that the distinction is important (you bothered to make it) but you still used the word "stole" in order to equate the two. You are being dishonest already, and then you complain that people don't even argue with you on the merit of your arguments. If the argument IS whether copyright infringement is wrong or not, by calling it theft during the same argument even though you know there is a distinction, you are simply invalidating your whole argument.

In your example, by the way, the wrongdoing is neither copyright infringement nor theft: It is breaking & entering, or a computer violation. Its wrong, but it doesn't make copyright infringement wrong because it has little to do with it.

Re:How to be popular

[Peaker]

Interesting, but not quite correct. Dictionary.com provides a whole series of definitions, and the common theme is that theft involves an acquisition of goods or services without the consent of the owner.

For the sake of moral discussion of copyright (whether infringement is right or wrong) you should not clump in the two meanings of the word theft at the same time. Or ofcourse you can, but I can simply reply with "data theft" is not morally wrong while "tangible property theft" is morally wrong, because the two are distinct.
By using the same word, however, you do make the discussion more difficult and imply the wrong ideas to people not in the know about the subject (that there is conceptual moral equivalence between copying against copyright law and taking someone's tangible property against property law - which is wrong even if you believe that such actual moral equivalence exists).

You should note that none of the definitions explicitly provided the concept that the rightful owner is denied access to the goods or services which have been wrongfully acquired. Your definition depends on that concept.

The original definition of the word theft (before being overloaded with the copyright infringement meanings, before the term "intellectual property" was coined) spoke of only physical tangible things which are implicitly unavailable to their owner if taken without permission by someone else. This is the picture people have in their mind when they hear the word "theft". This is what it communicates.

Intellectual property is, by use of the term property, easily categorized as goods. The fact that these goods are ephemeral is a non-starter, since the same can be said of many items which qualify as services.

That is, ofcourse, if you don't reject the whole notion of "intellectual property" like the framers of the US constitution did.

Intellectual property has a clearly identified owner.
When copyright law is applied, yes. But whether it should or should not be applied is what the discussion is about.

Acquiring intellectual property without the consent of the owner would, therefore, be theft.

According to one of the definitions of theft, yes. But to use this definition in a discussion of this nature is confusing, so please don't.

Trying to justify to yourself that you are not a thief does not mean you are correct.

If copyright infringement makes someone a "thief" or not is a matter of interest to language philosophers. Ask a random person you know what he would think if he was told person X was a thief - and you will see that he gets the wrong idea. He would not say: "Person X is probably a Kazaa downloader" but would more likely say "I better watch out for my purse".

By calling infringement theft and infringers thieves, you are being academically correct while communicating everyone the wrong ideas. I believe language is more about communicating ideas than about being correct academically, but maybe that's just me.

Re:How to be popular

[EzInKy]

I don't understand why people expect blatant support of and dependence on illegal activity to be legal.


Probably because they don't believe having sex, smoking weed, or sharing files should be illegal activities.

Re:How to be popular

[Shaklee39]

Which is why he isn't buying the products you fucking douchebag. Read the post.

Re:How to be popular

[richie2000]

There are immense socio-political implications to this statement.

I should hope so. But it's simply re-stating the obvious - that copying can never be theft in any way, shape or form. You can not steal what you leave behind and no man can exclusively own immaterial values, ideas, knowledge or culture. Copyrights are voodoo economics, plain and simple. There are numerous values in life that are not bound by a magical "right to profit" by someone.

whoever managed to fight their way to the patent office first would be trying very hard to instill the idea that it was their moral right to do so.

Yep. Not to mention that it was "their moral right" simply because they got there first, thereby reducing the whole lofty notion of "inventor's rights" to a simple driving contest. Stuff that in yer morality pipe and smoke it, Ayn Rand!

Re:How to be popular

[hkmwbz]

Eh? The point is that some call copyright infringement "theft", which it isn't. The industry uses "theft" to make copyright infringement sound worse than it really is. In my little text, the murderer used "theft" instead of "murder". He was wrong in doing that, just like people who call copyright infringement "theft" are wrong.

Re:How to be popular

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed it is. Unfortunately for them, it's not working very well. The trend *I* see (yes, really) is that of more and more people questioning the reasoning (and obviously faulty logic) of the media conglomerates and their speaking mouths. It's not going (nearly) fast (enough) for my tastes, but it's happening. The brainwash *will* fail. How painful it will be for the instigators remains to be seen.

Re:How to be popular

[Anonymous Coward]

When you say "I believe language is more about communicating ideas than about being correct academically, but maybe that's just me." I know (think) that you're being ironic/sarcastic. I'd just like to add that whether one subscribes to that opinion or not can be heavily influenced by you having a specific agenda. Not that your counterpart in argument would have any reason to be suspected of that...

Re:How to be popular

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not as cut and dry as you make it.

When you copy someone's movie off the Internet, you're still not buying their movie just the same as if you boycotted it. If you honestly believe the creator's rights as granted by law are unjust, and that it is ethical to defy an unjust law, then it is neither more nor less "principled" on your part whether you boycott the movie or you copy it.

Re:How to be popular

[Laurence0]

I suspect a better analogy would be to say that you see the hammers I'm making, and decide that they're really good, so you go to make one for yourself, instead of asking me to make you one, and giving me half a sheep in return. That said, the point is very much correct, and I'm probably just nit picking. Sorry! And I'd like the right half of the sheep please.

Whiners!

[erroneus]

When finally reached for comment, representatives of **AA groups were reportedly in tears saying, "...they won't bow to our threats and demands! We don't know what else to do!!"

Uh... STUPID! BUY them out. With all the money those guys dump on lawyers, they should simply BUY their operation with a contract stating they will never again be involved in such activity and, of course, cannot ever discuss the terms. They would silently disappear and people would fear the worst had happened.

Re:Whiners!

[donutface]

That has to be the stupidest thing I have heard all day, can you imagine how many other people would try and open up torrent sites just to get shut down and a bit of money for it? Even if the terms cant be discussed, you should know damn well news will spread

Re:Whiners!

[cHALiTO]

yay!

1) set up torrent site with copyrighted material
2) piss off MPAA/RIAA
3) wait to get bought
4) ???
5) PROFIT!!

If they buy out the pirate bay, I predict gazillions of torrent sites sprouting spontaneously everywhere (or at least in sweden) ;)

Re:Whiners!

[muyuubyou]

I'm working on mine already just in case.

Re:Whiners!

[Nehmo]

Me too. I started but then abandoned the project a few months ago. I need to re-start now. At least now I know where to locate the servers. If anybody wants to collaborate on this, let me know. Oh, BTW, unless someone wants to invest, we have to do this on a little shoestring.

Re:Whiners!

[mwvdlee]

Reading your comment, all of a sudden the OP's idea becomes pure genius!

Re:Whiners!

[Jesus_666]

Uh-huh. A hostile takeover will work really well there, the fact that TPB is not a public company nonwithstanding.

Really, how are the *AAs supposed to buy TPB out if the people running it don't want to sell it? This works with public companies because you can just buy all their stock until you have 51%, but you can't force a private person to sell you anything. At least not legally.

Re:Whiners!

[Quila]

Sounds interesting and practical for the copyright cartel. But looked at another way it's basically extortion.

Re:Whiners!

[erroneus]

it would be just offering them enough money that they couldn't say no to it... maybe it is a stupid idea, but at some point, I know *I* would take the bait.

Re:Whiners!

[Jesus_666]

1.) Gather people who would continue running the site
2.) Give a copy of all your data to those people, excluding the site design
3.) Receive ten million dollars from *AA
4.) Give enough money to the people from step 1 to afford new servers
5.) "Wow! I'd never have thought that $PERSON would start a new tracker!"
6.) Use the mones the *AA gave you to fund an anti-copyright media campaign.

If done right, this could effectively leave the site in place while getting the *AA to spend millions funding an anti-*AA campaign without you committing a crime.

hmm.

[user24]

from tfa:

"Copyright laws are being enforced and upheld in countries all over the world and when you facilitate the illegal file swapping of millions of people around the world, you are subject to those laws", (said MPAA spokeswoman Kori Bernards)

so ISPs are liable?
computer manufacturers are liable?
the guy who designed your file system?
soundcard makers? video cards? screens?

of course, it all depends how far you're willing to take 'facilitating', but that statement just sounds dodgy, especially considering they're talking about applying US law internationally...

Re:hmm.

[qeveren]

The US is the world, silly!

Re:hmm.

[spyrochaete]

How about your kindergarten music teacher for making you appreciate music?
Your English teacher for developing your love of poetry?
Your doctor for giving you ear medicine?
Your car manufacturer for installing a CD player that reads CDRW?
Your mayor for not reducing traffic, forcing you to listen to music?
JBL for making speakers?
How about Beethoven for making music famous?
Or suing the artists themselves for making something worth stealing?!
The inventor of the Internet Protocol?
D-Link for making ethernet cards? Linksys for making routers?

Who's up for an invigorating game of Pass the Buck?

Re:hmm.

[stubear]

Most of the western world is a signatory of the Berne Convention (which, by the way, was what made copyright extension in the US what it is today, not Disney), meaning US Copyright does apply to a certain extent.

Re:hmm.

[Quila]

the Berne Convention (which, by the way, was what made copyright extension in the US what it is today, not Disney),

That's the excuse, not the reason. The Copyright Act of 1976 already had the US complying with the Berne Convention (life + 50).

Of course, whether we should comply at all is a significant question. US copyright is based on the Constitution, where it is a temporary monopoly grudgingly allowed only in order to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times..." Other countries, including those who wrote the Berne Convention, have a different view of copyright, such as the concept of natural rights or droit d'auteur.

These are different ideals of copyright that cannot be reconciled.

Re:hmm.

[Blakey Rat]

Remember the last presidential election here in the US where some citizens of the UK said that *they* should have the right to vote in *our* election because, as a superpower, what the US does influences the rest of the world?

Long Live the Pirate Bay!

[David Webb]

it's great to see someone that is anti esteblishment stay strong and alive in the face of big business and big government. Power to the People!

No success in Swedish courts

[Billosaur]

Viborg said that no one has successfully indicted The Pirate Bay or sued its operators in Swedish courts.

RIAA Lawyer: We are petitioning the court to shut down this illegal operation, called The Pirate Bay, on the grounds they are trafficking in illegally obtained and downloaded material.

Swedish Judge: Worrrr dooooo ishky dishky mooooovvvviesss kannnnshhhhhh veeeeeeeee downshky looooooodshky?

RIAA Lawyer: What?

Swedish Judge: Worrrr dooooo ishky dishky mooooovvvviesss kannnnshhhhhh veeeeeeeee downshky looooooodshky?

RIAA Lawyer: I don't understand!

Swedish Judge: Caaaaaaaaasssssshhhh dushmiskked, bork, bork, bork!

Re:No success in Swedish courts

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry but that is only Mock Swedish. Would that make it a mock trial?

Re:No success in Swedish courts

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know who should be more offended by that post:

Swedes or the Muppets!

Hope they stay well...

[ursabear]

It seems (to me, a musician, not an intellectual property lawyer) that what they're doing is technically safe from getting nailed. However... laws governing the physical world are rife with clauses concerning "aiding and abetting."

I think I'd probably wager that the entertainment industry will discern or lobby a means of providing either law or precedence that will enable the industry to go after folks that enable non-sanctioned file sharing services. Has there already been precedence for shutting down servers like The Pirate Bay? For now, it seems, hosting and transmitting (catalogues of?) information isn't getting slammed.

Re:Hope they stay well...

[Anonymous Coward]

To me, a musician, not an intellectual property lawyer this means another year of making popular albums, but getting fuck all CD sales.

It's really sad when you get people loads of people coming up to you and saying they like the album, when you know you have only sold 500 or so copies, and most of them abroad. It's also really annoying when some of them have a pre release version which was not the final CD, with dodgy mastering/mixes, and you get criticised it for it.
I've even had reviews with descriptions of tracks that were not even on the fucking final album.

I have never had any dealings with *AA or whoever they are, nor has my record company. We are strictly small time.
I know there is is not a popular view here, but that's how it goes.
People love the whole riaa thing because it gives them a faceless corporation to steal off. Makes no difference. You copy my CD, I don't get royalties.

Re:Hope they stay well...

[Crizp]

Has there already been precedence for shutting down servers like The Pirate Bay? For now, it seems, hosting and transmitting (catalogues of?) information isn't getting slammed.

In Sweden there seems to be precedence for allowing things like they do; in some of the replies TPB have sent out to various legal threats they refer to a court case in 1996 regarding bulletin board systems.

Thus, in Sweden merely hosting pointers to information about a subject (or file, in this case) is not illegal. The users actually seeding the files and downloading them are the law-breakers.

Should I be arrested for telling you which book to get from the library to learn how to make drugs, or should you be arrested after you get the book and actually make/use/sell said drugs?

The pirates are here to stay

[pheco]

No matter how many letters they send out calling for a shut down, no matter how many people they fine/arrest, no matter how many people they take to court, the record and movie industry should realize they are never going to stop bootlegs. It's like the war on drugs, except 10x more pointless.

Re:The pirates are here to stay

[Kadin2048]

It's so much more worse than drugs, from an enforcement perspective. Drugs are at the end of the day a physical commodity. If you have a bag of weed, you can't give me that bag of weed and still smoke it yourself. With data, you can. You can share it with as many friends as you want, and not change what you have yourself.

The analogy of the war on drugs is one we ought to keep in mind, because it puts in perspective exactly how ridiculous stopping the flow of information is.

Re:The pirates are here to stay

[murderlegendre]

It's like the war on drugs, except 10x more pointless.

That's exactly right, Gary.. and the war on drugs was 10X more pointless than the war on poverty, leaving the war on piracy somewhere between 20X and 1000X more pointless than that.

Re:The pirates are here to stay

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems that the War on Education is proceeding well.

Further up, further in.

[Chas]

Apologies to C.S. Lewis.

Okay, this is a tracker site. It's going to be harder to justify pulling the whole site down because of the torrents it tracks.

However, if the companies are determined enough, they'll get the site yanked.

First they go to the tracker site itself.
Then they go to their provider.
Then they go to the provider upstream.
And up, and up the chain until they reach someone who WILL yank the plug.

Granted, if they proceed above a multi-homed provider, they have to go to an increasing number of upstream providers. At which point, it becomes a MASSIVE hassle. But, as I said, it all depends on how determined they are to down a site.

Not that I'd know anything about downing a site in this fashion....

Re:Further up, further in.

[jnkt]

However, if the companies are determined enough, they'll get the site yanked.

Yanked, on what grounds? If you read TFA it would be apparent to you that what TBP is doing is not illegal in Sweden.

Re:Further up, further in.

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be a us citizen.

Re:Further up, further in.

[Anonymous Coward]

But lets not foget that the company that owns the fiber that goes across the ocean doesn't want to lose the support of the US. so they may yank it just to stay in good terms.

Re:Further up, further in.

[edunbar93]

First they go to the tracker site itself.
Then they go to their provider.
Then they go to the provider upstream.
And up, and up the chain until they reach someone who WILL yank the plug.

I'm afraid that they'll likely have to find someone who will yank the plug on Sweden before that happens. As TPB has pointed out, what they're doing isn't illegal in Sweden.

And a multi-homed provider indeed! That'll be a tough nut to crack...

Re:Further up, further in.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you insane, American (of US-ian type) or both?

OT: You know you are old when...

[GuyWithLag]

... your mind can't grasp the idea that ABBA and Ace of Base are considered... vitage?

Sweden vs US Capitalism

[Bluude]

My favorite was when they moved the servers to a new location across town. They even put up a GPS map showing their exact location so everyone would know how soon the site would be back up.

They must believe their country will protect them instead of hunting them down and arresting them.

I wonder if their government will still protect them when the US threatens to impose trade sanctions if they do not get rid of The Pirate Bay. Janet Reno did that with Australia and they caved soon after. Now Australia has some of the toughest copyright laws in the world. I think they are even harsher than the US equivalents.

Re:Sweden vs US Capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh, I saw that too. These people are pretty daring in doing so. I wonder if the **AA cartel would hire hitmen to down the server. Accidents do happen, you know...

it would seem like the only way to bring them down, for the time being; albeit, a bit on the illegal side...

Re:Sweden vs US Capitalism

[liangzai]

The Swedish government is not known to protect its citizens very well. Recently, the Justice Department and the security police caused the shut-down of a political party's website because of a cartoon of Muhammed looking at himself in the mirror with a blindfold, with the accompanying text "self-censorship". That is just about the tolererance level the Swedish government has.

Sweden is also notorious for being a leader in the EU implementing repressive laws in general and on the Internet in particular. The recent EU Data Directive is essentially one man's work, Swedish Justice minister Thomas Bodstrom, a former football player who smoked dope, somehow managed to become a lawyer and then to everybody's surprise was turned into minister of justice, on which position he has drafted more laws than anyone in history and effectively flushed personal integirty down the toilet. The directive, since long before in effect in Sweden, makes it mandatory for ISP:s to save customers' internet traffic data for at least two years. Other repressive measures in Sweden include a law against writing about other persons without their express permission unless being a journalist.

Sweden has also joined the ranks of the filter regimes, using DNS spoofing and other sabotages to the infrastructure to redirect pornsurfers looking for kiddie porn to a government website. It is not by law, but by cooperation with all the larger ISP:s (under threat of legislation).

You might also wonder why Sweden has not voiced concern over Chinese journalists being jailed in China. Well, that is because Sweden has had its own Shi Tao since the 70s, Jan Guillou (and Peter Bratt), who investigated and reported about an illegal spy organisation (Inormation Bureau) and subsequently was put to jail for espionage.

One might have the impression that Sweden is a free and modern welfare state, but those days are since long gone. Today's Sweden is the leading oppressor in Europe, with no-tolerance laws on everything from gambling to prostitution and drugs. The Swedish government sees the Internet mostly as an outlet for hate speech, porn and illegal downloading, and if they would decide to shut down the Pirate Bay during a lunch break, it would be done in a matter of minutes by a simple phone call.

Re:Sweden vs US Capitalism

[Jugalator]

They must believe their country will protect them instead of hunting them down and arresting them.

They believe so because they are protected.

Laws not working against you + privacy laws working for you = law is protecting you.

I wonder if their government will still protect them when the US threatens to impose trade sanctions if they do not get rid of The Pirate Bay.

As long as these sites are legal, you can bet another one is already up when the time comes to shut down the first.

What needs to be done is obviously to illegalize generic search sites if they merely aid in mapping illegal content, but how many sites would that cover anyway?

Re:Sweden vs US Capitalism

[drstock]

Yeah, soon all americans will be eating freedom meatballs while watching the freedom chef on the muppet show.

Re:Sweden vs US Capitalism

[Gideon Fubar]

And here applied never they were...

Re:Sweden vs US Capitalism

[R2.0]

"Janet Reno did that with Australia and they caved soon after"

You must be mistaken. Janet Reno was the Attorney General in the Clinton Administration, and since only the Bush Administartion suppresses human rights and eats babies for brunch, she couldn't possibly have applied the pressure you attribute to her.

Re:Sweden vs US Capitalism

[Markus Landgren]

Today's Sweden is the leading oppressor in Europe

Umm, have you ever heard of Belarus?

Re:Sweden vs US Capitalism

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

One might have the impression that Sweden is a free and modern welfare state, but those days are since long gone. Today's Sweden is the leading oppressor in Europe, with no-tolerance laws on everything from gambling to prostitution and drugs.

Look, things are far from perfect, and Bodström does need a reality check, but things are far from as bad as you make them out to be. In fact Sweden still receives top marks for freedom.

And Guillou and Bratt served two years for not revealing their sources and are long since out of prison. In fact, the Swedish consitution again receives top marks for protection of the press, even though you're not allowed to perform espionage, which one can debate is exactly what they did (even though their actions were IMHO justified).

Also, the data processing directive, while misguided in implementation, is actually there to protect you, from corporations and the like. Really a blessing, but alas heavily disguised.

Re:Sweden vs US Capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry to say but I'm not that sure trade sanctions will do any real harm. As most of Sweden's trading is with other countries, that will be only a drop in a bucket. Besides, a trade sanctions because of a website? You _gotta_ be kidding me.

Re:Sweden vs US Capitalism

[glesga_kiss]

Janet Reno was the Attorney General in the Clinton Administration, and since only the Bush Administartion suppresses human rights and eats babies for brunch, she couldn't possibly have applied the pressure you attribute to her.

As long as most USA political debates inevitably decend into red/blue bashing, BOTH political parties will continue eating babies AND getting away with it. Everyone is too busy mudslinging and "but you were worse"'ing to actually do anything useful.

Have you ever considered the implications of this, and what might be driving it in the first place?

Re:Sweden vs US Capitalism

[prurientknave]

oho! a gps map! time for a rendition flight

Away Message:
Off being a corporate goon

Re:Sweden vs US Capitalism

[JaxWeb]

You've just spoilt it. I always looked up to Sweden as an example of what a country can be.

Still, I don't think it is quite as bad as you make out perhaps, at least compared to the rest of the world. I have no problem with The Pirate Bay being closed down either, in fact I think it should (although I have used it a few times, I do not pretend it is not immorial. I used it to download BBC documentaries though which makes me feel not so terrible.)

Re:Sweden vs US Capitalism

[iocc]

Here is the FAQ about the move: tpb-car-faq.thepiratebay.org

Re:Sweden vs US Capitalism

[cdrdude]

"Janet Reno did that with Australia and they caved soon after."

Could you provide a link to that? I'm not familiar with the issue, and a quick Google search didn't seem to have any relevant results

Let's just hope then ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether or not what they do is illegal or immoral, I'm glad to see people questioning their government instead of caving.

Let's see if you still feel that way if they decide to question the govt's stance on keeping peoples personal information personal (like cc#'s, medical info, etc). It's always cool until they do something that affects YOU negatively, then it's not so cool any more.

But the article said...

[WormholeFiend]

that the companies did not return calls for comment.

What makes you think they actually listen to their voicemail messages?

Re:But the article said...

[dada21]

All it takes is one insider giving out the direct phone number to change that. Even more fun is playing "Find a real extension" on the automated attendent -- I'm surprised how many Presidents of big companies are reachable at extension 101, 1001 or 111.

yarh, futurama has it

[joe 155]

Too late I realise, my children are my only real treasure...

First you get the money, then you get the power

[theSpaceCow]

I wholeheartedly support TPB in their continued legal tensions, and I wholeheartedly support their goals and ideals, even if what they were doing were against the law. The thing that bothers me about this situation, though, is the fact that our Swedish friends' greatest legal mind is a law student. Maybe even a kid about my age. Frankly, I'd be scared out of my wits if the American media cartel / extortion machines were knocking at my door, law or no law.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, since American corporations write the laws here, and since our capitalist warlords have no problem negotiating international deals in the name of the almighty dollar, how long will it be until the USA starts making politicorporate deals with the Swedish industry / government like the ones we've had (or tried) with China, UAE, India, and any other place with oil or cheap labor?

The future of movies

[typical]

The sad part is that a large number of slashdotters will convince themselves that this type of thing is good despite the fact that the site is very clearly engaged in theft.

Copyright infringement. If you're complaining about people playing mind games, you can at least have the decency to avoid doing the same thing yourself in the same sentence.

It costs $200 million to make some movies. If people stop paying to make the movies then that type of movie will not get made in the future.

This is the real issue. Not whether something is "right" or "wrong" -- those are just social norms that have been instilled in people -- but the pragmatic issues.

Currently, the fact that people pay to see movies allows the funding of the creation of said movies. If you endorse infringement, you need one of a couple of justifications:

(a) It's going to happen anyway -- in the presence of a worldwide system (the Internet) designed to cheaply replicate and distribute data, content funded on the predicate that duplication is hard and expensive cannot exist. That means an end is going to come to this funding system, at least for movies in the $200 million scale. Regardless of the methods used, social pressure to not infringe is not going to be effective. We will not be able to make movies that require $200 million in resources in the future -- movie prices will have to drop far enough that the convenience is worth the purchase. Future movies will have to be more thrift-oriented -- if this causes a drop in the enjoyment factor of movies, then that drop will occur. I know some people that dislike those "big budget action movies" that would probably fall into (a).

(b) Infringing movie usage does not damage movie sales. People will continue to go to theaters as the same level as before (well, sans the bite taken away by home theaters), but just spend a larger amount of time viewing movies, as they will infringe on some additional movies.

(c) Movies will continue to make as much money, but by using alternate approaches (like product placement or commercials) that are not affected by redistribution.

(d) Movies can be sold on a viable non-redistributable medium, but some type of DRM-enabled device will be used and this one will actually work.

Remember that, as technologies change, policies we use have adapted to fit the times. I'm quite certain that, in one form or another, the movie-making industry will be around in fifty years. The printing press, the cassette recorder, the VHS tape, home entertainment systems -- all have had significant impact on how content was provided, but content continued to be provided via one mechanism or another.

For example, the drive-in theater is pretty much dead today because of TVs and movie-playing systems at home. People rent tapes, which was a mechanism that really wasn't expected by anyone to make a lot of money at one point (and, in fact, was expected to kill the movie industry at one point).

It may be by simply instituting policy capable of fighting off all infringement; my personal guess is that the movie industry will instead morph and twist and adapt in one way or another. It may even be one that we haven't dreamed of yet. History supports this idea.

If they fly to the U.S.

[mindaktiviti]

Would they be prosecuted? And if so, then that would be a bad thing.

I'm just curious in case they ever in their life times ever want to visit the U.S. for whatever reason, and then they end up being on some terrorist watch list because of their involvement with the Pirate Bay.

From the pdf announcement:

...Newsgroups are electronic bulletin boards which in recent years have become a major source of pirated content as users are able to attach movie, music and games files to their messages. The following is a list of the sites being sued by the MPAA and its member companies.

Recent years? Try over 10 years ago. (from my knowledge anyway, probably closer to 15-20)

Re:If they fly to the U.S.

[ClamIAm]

If I punched an old lady in the face, and traveled to another country, would I be prosecuted there? I didn't think so.

Perfectly legal in Sweden.

[Trash]

By Swedish this is perfectly legal. Some years ago a guy was sued for posting links to mp3's on his web page. And the Swedish court desided that it was nothing wrong with that. He didn't ditribute the mp3's only showing were they where. And the same thing is pirate bay doing now.

Hope my english is better the Swede in the muppets show.

Re:Perfectly legal in Sweden.

[emil]

Your English is really good. Very understandable; just a few errors:

By Swedish law this is perfectly legal. Some years ago a guy was sued for posting links to mp3's on his web page. And the Swedish court desided (sp. - decided) that it (that there was nothing) was nothing wrong with that. He didn't ditribute the mp3's only showing (but only showed) were they where (were). And the same thing is pirate bay doing now.

Hope my english is better than the Swedeish in the muppets show.

Re:Perfectly legal in Sweden.

[caffeination]

Pfft. By Swedish is a brilliant phrase, referring specifically to The Pirate Bay. It means that the subsequent phrase is true because everyone wants it to be. Examples:

• By Swedish, that guy can't have kids. What a dumbass!
• By Swedish, copying music is perfectly legal.
• By Swedish, they're going to make a new series of Futurama.

On a more serious note, why the fuck do all Swedish people always have such good English?

Re:Perfectly legal in Sweden.

[Crizp]

On a more serious note, why the fuck do all Swedish people always have such good English?

Perhaps it's because they learn English as a second language quite early in school? This is the norm in Scandinavia; I started in fourth grade (in Norway) but it could be third these days.

Also, we do get lots of TV and music from the US, Great Britain and Canada. Kids are fed English since day 0. I know I learned English watching The DJ Kat Show on Sky back in the day, and already had a decent oral knowledge of the language before learning it in school. I would think this is the case with most European kids nowadays.

Re:Perfectly legal in Sweden.

[milimetric]

I agree, you're doing well with your english, but here's how I'd say it:

According to Swedish law, this is perfectly legal. A few years ago, someone was sued for posting links to mp3s on his web page. The Swedish court decided that it was nothing wrong with that. He didn't distribute the mp3s, he was only showing where they were. The Pirate Bay is doing the same thing now. I hope my English is better than the Swedish character in The Muppets.

but really, great English.

Re:Perfectly legal in Sweden.

[TheoMurpse]

Hope my english is better than the Swedeish in the muppets show.

Don't listen to the parent. "Swede" is indeed the correct word to use to describe someone from Sweden. Aside from that, he did a nearly wonderful job of correcting spelling errors. I just can't believe that the parent attempted to "fix" the correct usage of "Swede" into a literally nonexistant word "Swedeish".

Did anyone else...

[stevenharman]

read that as "The Pirate e-Bay is Here to Stay?"

I had images of eye patches, rusty swords, and Davey Jones' Locker for sale... Arghhh!

Re:Did anyone else...

[jonaskoelker]

Funny, I thought of proper robes for teaching the gospel of the flying spaghetti monster (http://www.venganza.org/)...

Complete hogwash!

[cypherz]

"Regardless of the rationalization there is no difference taking content this way and going to a store and stealing a CD or DVD."

Complete and utter hogwash! Stealing the CD or DVD deprives the merchant of goods, copying a CD or DVD doesn't deprive anyone of goods!

Depriving someone of their property equals stealing
Copyright infringement does NOT equal stealing, because no one is deprived of their goods or access to their goods. It MIGHT deprive retailers etc of sales. Deprivation of sales does NOT equal theft.

HTH

Re:Complete hogwash!

[Anonymous Coward]

Show me where, in a referenced definition of either Theft or Steal, there is a requirement that the owner lose access to the goods or services being stolen.

The series of definitions for each on Dictionary.com refers to acquiring goods or services without the consent of the owner.

Making (and keeping) a copy of a set of bits where those bits make up something of aknowledged value is acquiring something of value.

If the initial set of bits are owned by someone else, and they do not give you permission to acquire a copy of them, then you have acquired that value without the permission of the owner.

The owner is still in possession of the original, but you will still have stolen the item from the owner.

Re:Complete hogwash!

[hanshotfirst]

Part of the price of that item is the royalty to the conceiver and creator of that item. The studio gets some, **AA gets some, the plastic manufacturer gets some, the cover printer gets some, and the creator gets a fraction too - that is their livelihood. While you are not stealing a CD - you are not depriving the retailer, plastic manuafacturer, or cover printer of livelihood, BUT you are depriving the original creator of their royalty. That is where the stealing happens in copying. It is why copyright laws were established, to protect the right of the creator of a work to earn a profit from its use for a period of time (I'm ignoring the problems created by mucking with the copyright length - that's a separate issue).

Justify all you want.

Re:Complete hogwash!

[cypherz]

I'm not taking up for the pirates. I buy all my media content. I am trying to point out (as are many many other posters in this thread) that:

A) Copyright infringement is not theft. It is usually a tort unless the person doing the infringing is selling the copied product. (IANAL)

B) You have been duped into believing that piracy = theft. This is what the RIAA/MPAA want you to believe. Its easier for the masses to grasp than the actual legal definition AND it plays into their game better.

HTH

Re:Complete hogwash!

[hanshotfirst]

A) Copyright infringement is not theft. It is usually a tort unless the person doing the infringing is selling the copied product. (IANAL)

I can't (and don't care to) argue this effectively one way or the other. It is very much related to point-of-view and semantics, in my observation.

B) You have been duped into believing that piracy = theft. This is what the RIAA/MPAA want you to believe. Its easier for the masses to grasp than the actual legal definition AND it plays into their game better.

Sorry to disappoint, but I am not duped. My views come from my own study of the industry and experience with copyright issues for recording projects I have done. I don't side with the RIAA by any means, but I know enough to be able to follow the money. I followed enough to know I couldn't make a decent career of it, myself.

In truth, the artists' cut of a recording is very small. The songwriter's cut is often split with the publisher, so their cut per copy is also tiny. Those are the two people that are hurt by piracy, and then only minimally. Artists see pretty much nothing until they repay their advance from the record company, and most chance for profits come from merchandise and appearances, in that order, with record sales a distant third in the income stream.

The net affect, which we agree on, is the impact of piracy on the artists is a lot less than the RIAA would have you believe. The Record labels are the biggest losers in the equation, so they raise the biggest stink.

Now I've gone all wordy.. Sorry 'bout that.

Yeah, but maybe those movies suck.

[vertinox]

It costs $200 million to make some movies. If people stop paying to make the movies then that type of movie will not get made in the future.

1. Many large budget movies lately have been sucking and maybe should go away.
2. Directors with vision will still get money somehow because they make good movies (Peter Jackson and Steven Spielberg for example)
3. People will still pay to watch movies in theaters and buy DVDs.

Seriously... I think a lot of crap gets churned out in the theaters is because Movie Execs throw money left and right and into fireplaces because some hack director *coughs* Uwe Boll *coughs* gave a fancy powerpoint presentation.

If these piss poor movie makers didn't get those big budgets we'd see more room for smaller more entertaining movies with reasonable budgets.

But then again... Maybe that would just lead to more smaller budget crap movies.

Re:Yeah, but maybe those movies suck.

[Aumaden]

... some hack director *coughs* Uwe Boll *coughs* ...

I had to look him up on IMDB.

• Hunter: The reckoning
• In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale
• BloodRayne
• Alone in the Dark
• House of the Dead

He makes movies from video games. Calling him a "director" is like calling the guy who writes the novelization of a movie an "Author".

(Legal) Mails to and from The Pirate Bay

[lemmen]

There are some legal complaints and the response from TPB posted at their website: http://thepiratebay.org/legal.php Funny to read them though.

Fixing the holes in the system

[uab21]

What the Pirate Bay is doing is...well, shady at the very least. However they are actually doing their part for democracy. There is a disconnect between what "fair use" currently means between the content providers (*AA and their ilk), and the content users (us). The law, as it is currently written in their country allows what they are doing. If enough legislators disagree with that, the law will be changed, but they are pointing out the discrepancy in such a public way, that the law cannot be changed on the QT, and so the voice of the people here really matters. They are pointing out the discrepancies in the law so that enforcement will be consistent - do you really want the law to read this instead of that? Are you sure? Because look what that will mean when it is enforced. Good for them.

You may freely...

[2443W]

...copy and transport the data in this post in any way you could possibly think of, the only restriction being that if you think of a really cool way to do it that you tell me. In all seriousness (kind of) the replies were great, im really glad someone is taking a major stand against the **AA.

A silly question but ...

[pandrijeczko]

... why would a web site trying to avoid being shut down by the MPAA/RIAA/etc. give itself a name called "The PIRATE Bay"??? Isn't this just a case of "Waving a red flag at the bull"?

Re:A silly question but ...

[murderlegendre]

Exactly. If they'd used a name like Suprnova or something, everyone would have just left well enough alone.

I think you are missing a crucial point here, in addition to a smidge of irony.

Re:A silly question but ...

[Scarblac]

... why would a web site trying to avoid being shut down by the MPAA/RIAA/etc. give itself a name called "The PIRATE Bay"??? Isn't this just a case of "Waving a red flag at the bull"?

Have you read their legal page? They're just taunting them, yes. Apparently they have some pretty strong precedent in Swedish law to back them.

Re:A silly question but ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps because their goal isn't free movies, but civil disobediance?

Re:A silly question but ...

[Anonymous Coward]

They're not trying to avoid being shut down by the MPAA. They're trying to serve the Internet with a good tracker. Being shut down by the MPAA is nothing to worry about.

Re:A silly question but ...

[heinousjay]

Yeah, exactly. Civil disobediance towards the end of free entertainment.

These Swedes are going to make the world safe for everyone to listen to all the MP3s they want with their selfless display of personal endangerment for the good of mankind (excluding musicians, filmmakers, tv producers, software engineers, and associates.)

Entertainment wants to be free!

Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[babbling]

I'm an Australian who has just returned to Australia from a 1.5-month long trip to Sweden. Sweden is doing so many things right and it's really unfortunate that Australia isn't a bit more like Sweden.

First of all, there's not nearly as much crime in Sweden as there is in Australia. The Swedish government takes proper care of their people, so no one feels a need to commit crime. There's no homeless people sleeping in parks at night. People are much, much friendlier.

They also don't have any terrorist panic. There's no "terrorism alert levels", and there isn't much security. There's not even nearly as many police around as there is in Australia. The Swedes haven't made enemies for themselves by invading other countries, so they don't need to be afraid of any terrorists attacking them. The Swedes are more "free" than Americans are, which proves that terrorists don't hate America because they "hate freedom", as George Bush wants everyone to think. They attack America because America attacked them and is occupying their countries.

Sweden will probably also now lead the way in having free culture. They will soon show that money can be made even from creating free culture. Hopefully the rest of the world will follow their lead. Unfortunately, the rest of the world seems to be going crazy.

I just hope everyone who reads this post can imagine what life would be like to live in a country where you don't need to be afraid of terrorism or crime, a country where almost all of the population gets a good education, and all this despite alcohol (and probably other drugs) being more easily accessible in this country. Americans have been brainwashed into thinking that such a country can't exist, but it's important that everyone knows it does, for that is how other countries can follow the Swedes' lead in being a more peaceful, calmer, and better educated population.

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[Dobeln]

Did you like, actually live in Sweden? You have to wonder after reading something like this:

"And all this despite alcohol (and probably other drugs) being more easily accessible in this country".

Sweden employs strict drug laws, both for dealing and possession, concerning both 'soft' and 'hard' drugs. We also run a government-owned alcohol monopoly ("Systembolaget"), with restricted opening hours and several hundered percent penalty taxes on hard liquor. What do you have in Oz? Prohibition?

As for crime, etc. Sweden is definately a decent place, about in level with the rest of Europe when it comes to crime victimization rates, etc. (Australia does stand out as having somewhat more baddies than average. Renegade surfers? Or all those backpackers?)

(Statistics from here: http://www.unicri.it/wwd/analysis/icvs/statistics. php)

Finally, it's interesting to see how lefties always recoil at the suggestion that they are terrorist sympathizers, then happily spout off stuff that sounds like the latest communique from the local Al Qaeda branch office.

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[davez0r]

plus (as someone else noted on digg i think) cute blonde girls

word to sweden.

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[DebianDog]

> They attack America because America attacked them and is occupying their countries.

UHHH? Which part of the Middle East were we occupying before 9/11?

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[Anonymous Coward]

they hate us for trying to spread freedom

No, they hate you for stealing oil and arming the terrorist state
of Israel. It may give you the warm and fuzzies to fantasize about
the evil motives of Middle-Eastern freedom fighters, but it degrades
your ability fight them.

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[leonmergen]

UHHH? Which part of the Middle East were we occupying before 9/11?

Ever considered your relation with Israel and the amount of hate that caused against the US by middle eastern countries ?

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[Anonymous Coward]

UHHH? Which part of the Middle East were we occupying before 9/11?

Well, considering only the last fifty years: Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and of course the jewel in the crown; Israel. And those are only the highlights. Google for "us intervention middle east".

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[danro]

I'm swedish, and obviously I'm flattered by your opinion. However, you paint a little to rosy a picture. Countrary to popular opinion there are some homeless here, and if you visited Stockholm or Malmö I am surprised you didn't see any. Not homelessness on an US scale maybe, but the problem still exists. Also, the the privacy and freedoms you speak of is under threat here, just as it is anywhere else in the west. The swedish government is leading an effort to increase electronic surveillance in the entire EU, for example. (The opposition basically agrees, so I guess privacy will just have to take one for the team, no matter what happens in the upcoming election.) On the whole, this is a good place to live, and stand up well in comparison to just about anything out there. Just don't expect heaven on earth.

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[Zuke8675309]

They also don't have any terrorist panic. There's no "terrorism alert levels", and there isn't much security. There's not even nearly as many police around as there is in Australia. The Swedes haven't made enemies for themselves by invading other countries, so they don't need to be afraid of any terrorists attacking them. The Swedes are more "free" than Americans are, which proves that terrorists don't hate America because they "hate freedom", as George Bush wants everyone to think. They attack America because America attacked them and is occupying their countries.

That's rather myopic. Sweden isn't an influential country in business and culture. If Sweden had greater influence in terms of its values and culture on the world stage, I guarantee you that radical islam would be violently opposed to it. Radical islam does not have a "live and let live" mindset.

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[wootest]

As a swede, it's a strange feeling reading these kinds of comments.

To say that I voraciously live through the Internet would be wrong, but I do practically live in some sort of pseudo-american culture when I'm spending any amount of time online. Swedish, real life friends, sure, they're there too, but my AIM buddy list (the one I use to keep in touch with online friends) is longer by far than the MSN Messenger list (swedish friends).

Every day I read on Slashdot and on other sites about how freedoms are in the process of being taken away. Mostly, the problems are international or apply globally in some ways, but a surprisingly big chunk is US domestic. I'm really quite surprised you haven't risen up, shook your heads and beaten the crap out of your established political system yet - as an outsider, it seems like the "American" thing to do, if I'm to believe various over-patriotic messages relayed to me over the years.

What I think is happening is this: the US is more and more about its government. Two major political parties and a winner-takes-all system in general does that. The "American" thing has evolved towards supporting the government, instead of the government supporting the people. And any government today - especially Republican, *it seems* - "are not above a little bribery and corruption in the same way that the sea is not above the clouds" (thanks, Douglas Adams). What you have is the government, who is either to be awed or to be ignored, played around by the corporations while your civil rights go straight down the can and anyone who opposes is a communist^Wterrorist. (McCarthy would have been proud, from all I hear.)

I'm not saying my analysis is right. I'm currently not 'rooting' for one of the major american parties, though I am certainly rooting against the current administration. I'm just saying that it's odd that Sweden's the one following the 'socialism' ideology branch, while it's the american citizens who have to take in in the hiney from their government.

And for what it's worth, Sweden is far from perfect. But there's no doubt in my mind that it's the american citizen that's worse off of the two.

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[Lars Arvestad]

As a Swede, I have to comment on some things.

First of all, there's not nearly as much crime in Sweden as there is in Australia. The Swedish government takes proper care of their people, so no one feels a need to commit crime. There's no homeless people sleeping in parks at night. People are much, much friendlier.

It is too cold to sleep in the parks, that is the main reason you don't see them there. It might be that we have fewer homeless people here than in other countries, but they certainly exist and the situation is not nearly as good as you suggest.

And there are many who feel that Swedes are cold, more so than friendly.

I don't have any crime statistic, but I would be surprised if it was much lower than for comparable European countries. The most scary thing to me is that we have an unemployment rate of about 15% today and this hasn't changed for several years. It is a social bomb ticking away.

They also don't have any terrorist panic. There's no "terrorism alert levels", and there isn't much security. There's not even nearly as many police around as there is in Australia.

I haven't been to Australia, but aren't you describing most of Europe here? I can tell you that many Swedes would actually like to see more police on the streets.

I just hope everyone who reads this post can imagine what life would be like to live in a country where you don't need to be afraid of terrorism or crime, a country where almost all of the population gets a good education, and all this despite alcohol (and probably other drugs) being more easily accessible in this country.

Are you suggesting that alcohol is easy to get in Sweden?! The alcohol taxes are among the highest in the world, and you can only buy alcohol in special government stores. They are closed on Sundays and it was only last year that they started being open on Saturdays.

I like Sweden, but I have to say that you have a very unusual view of my country. Either that or you are astroturfing for the government...

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[liangzai]

Dude, you seriously need to WAKE UP!

There are PLENTY of homeless people in Sweden, but they sleep where you can't see them, because if they sleep in the park there might be some teenagers having some fun burning them to death (yeah, there is no police protecting anyone in Sweden).

Crime in Sweden is notorious and ever on the rise. The police is mostly concerned about filming prostitutes having sex (so that they can convict the buyer) or dismantling illegal gambling from public squares. 80% of all crimes are never solved. This all goes in hand with the increase of poor people in the so called welfare state, making people desperate. Not a day goes by without a security transport loaded with money being robbed. Petty crime is of course notorious; buy a bike and see for yourself.

The "terrorist panic" is alive and well in Sweden, although we are not at risk. This is manifested in a whole slew of new laws effectively abolishing personal integrity, allowing the police to bug and surveill each and everyone for virtually no reason; this includes news paper agencies. Yes, you heard me right: the media can be bugged by Swedish police. And all this is motivated by the fucking "terrorist threat", that has only served as an excuse to finally install a fucking camera everywhere. I must congratulate Osama to the convincing victory.

Sweden in my mind, and I am a Swede, is a totalitarian cradle-to-grave one-party state with no future.

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[Politburo]

Care to show me the AQ communique that sounds like the GP post? That's right, you can't.

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[Politburo]

UHHH how about the military bases that were in Saudi Arabia that bin Laden SPECIFICALLY called out as being a problem? FYI, those bases were quietly removed after 9/11. It wasn't until then that OBL started using the Palestinian conflict as a boogeyman.

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[darkgray]

While I'm glad you enjoyed your stay in this country, I feel obliged to point out that you're not entirely qualified to put out these "facts" about Sweden. We do have homeless people, at least in Stockholm (the capital), crime and lots and lots of young people getting drunk every weekend. Um, and adults too.

I think Sweden is nearing a cliff with a long fall within a decade or two, as the older generation retires, and us youngsters are supposed to take over. Further, I think we're a bit too comfortable to take the workload they've had, which should have the wheels creaking. We've also dug ourselves into a bureaucracy that's getting incapable of even taking care of itself, let alone an entire population.

So this might seem like a slice of heaven to you, but I'm afraid it won't last.

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[op00to]

Does the name Saudi Arabia ring a bell?

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes you are correct. Bin Laden and his allies detest the Western presence in Saudi Arabia including military bases. But did we invade Saudi Arabia? Far from it. We are allies of the sovereign government of Saudi Arabia. I don't see the Germans, Italians or Japanese attacking the United States because of our military presence in their nations. Bin Laden is a radical, and the fact that we have bases in Saudi Arabia does not justify his actions.

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[GR1NCH]

They also don't have any terrorist panic. There's no "terrorism alert levels", and there isn't much security. There's not even nearly as many police around as there is in Australia. The Swedes haven't made enemies for themselves by invading other countries, so they don't need to be afraid of any terrorists attacking them. The Swedes are more "free" than Americans are, which proves that terrorists don't hate America because they "hate freedom", as George Bush wants everyone to think. They attack America because America attacked them and is occupying their countries.

What you seem to be missing here is that because of our influence on western culture, Al Queda and company see America as a prime target. Notice what happened when Denmark published a certain cartoon? Their embassies were attacked... and so were US Embassies.

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[DebianDog]

We occupy Saudi Arabia? No... we have forces there because the Saudi Arabian government wants us there. A -tad- different.

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing the GP is missing is that it is the additude of the people that makes the difference. If you take the population of Sweden out and swap them with people from the United States or Pakastan, it would be a crime infested equivelent just as bad as the places they came from.

Laws are only effective if people are willing to abide by them.

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[DebianDog]

We "occupied" NONE of those countries.

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[Politburo]

Right. Anyone construing my post as a justification for any actions is mistaken.

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[glesga_kiss]

We "occupied" NONE of those countries.

You are sooo stuck in the past. Modern occupation is the installment of a pro-you government, with an accessible ecconomic system. You fund the candidates you want (or kill their opponents), get them into power, then step four: profit!

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[glesga_kiss]

We are allies of the sovereign government of Saudi Arabia. I don't see the Germans, Italians or Japanese attacking the United States because of our military presence in their nations.

That's because those other countries approve of the governments, and all in all they are relatively "nice" to the population. The same cannot be said for the Saudi's, who are a bunch of repressive, militaristic dictators. That's not specifically what Osama doesn't like however, his beef is with the rampant consumerism and greed, along with the "corruption" of western society. On Archive.org, you'll find a great BBC documentary "The Power Of Nightmares" on the subject of where & how the war on terror started.

As long as the US backs up this government, you will be his enemy. But to be honest, since he hit the big time, Osama would likely say anything now that might get him support.

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[glesga_kiss]

Radical islam does not have a "live and let live" mindset.

Yes it does. The number of radical islamist who want to spread their beliefs outside of their own countries is remarkably small. On the other hand, most if not all of our leaders want to spread our own values culture accross the whole planet. Each group has this weird idea that their ideas are superiour and that they have some form of devine right to promote. We are the only ones currently invading other countries to do so.

Where's our "live and let live" mindset?

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[JonToycrafter]

I'm so being trolled, but...

This is a semantic argument. Did we militarily occupy Iran? Guess not, though Allied forces did in WW2. That's 65 years ago though. However, here's a Wikipedia link for you: Operation Ajax.

It's easy to attack the GP post for sloppy wording, but the idea that Iranians and the neighboring countries don't like the U.S. because we "spread freedom" would be funny if it didn't kill so many people.

As for the other countries named...well, the idea that we didn't occupy Iraq is laughable. I'll leave the history of U.S. involvement in the last country named (Saudi Arabia) to you, but here's a starter question for you: What does the relationship between noted freedom spreaders Prince Abdullah and George W. Bush look like?

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[op00to]

The mere presence of our forces there pisses people off. It's their land, and they're free to get pissed if they only want their people there...

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[joekampf]

Funny, I don't remember the US invading any countries before the September 11th attacks. We also didn't have any terror levels then either. There are also other countries that don't invade other countries that are under constant threat by terrorist attacks. (Israel, Philippines, Pakistan, India, Greece, just to name a few.) The reason the US was attacked was because a certain religious group doesn't like our way of life and they didn't like that a soverign govornment WANTED/ASK/APPROVED the US to keep a military base on thier soil because they FEARED the nation to thier east. That is equivalent to me saying, I don't like the Sweedes and all thier social freemdom, so I'm gonna crash a plane into some building and cause almost 4000 deaths. Joe

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[deesine]

Ever heard of shifting goal posts?

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[deesine]

...and the Anti-Semitic Post of the Day Award goes to...YOU!

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[Dr. Cody]

I am a Swedish-speaking American expat...

There's no homeless people sleeping in parks at night. ...that's the beauty of it Lisa, as soon as winter comes around, they all freeze to death.

People are much, much friendlier.

Not even the Swedish tourist agency would lie like this. Anybody but the most dishonest of men would blush so hard saying this that you could hear it over the internet.

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[Mindjiver]

I really like that you are moderated as a troll for saying something outside of the Slashdot-groupthink of Sweden. :)

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[Anonymous Coward]

And there are many who feel that Swedes are cold
Must... resist... urge to joke!

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[releppes]

Not really true. I think alot of American's know just how (un)free America is. For one, the country has a heavy influence from puritans. We have all these restrictive laws on drinking and censorship. I remember my stay in Germany as a teenager. It completely blew me away to see beer so freely availible. Yet the odd thing is I never saw a drunk teenager. I was told it was an embarrasment to be drunk, so people were generally more mindful of their consumption. Not like America were the goal is to be drunk and stupid. In America, we spend so much time trying to dictate how people should act...I think it just works against us.

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, I don't remember the US invading any countries before the September 11th attacks.

From the top of my head: Nicaragua, Liberia, Kuwait, Angola, Haiti, Grenada, Vietnam, Japan, Texas.

And US have financed a lot of "terrorism" in other countries. They seem to have a particulary dislike to democratic movements and governments. Dictators are, perhaps, easier to do buisness with.

There are also other countries that don't invade other countries that are under constant threat by terrorist attacks. (Israel, Philippines, Pakistan, India, Greece, just to name a few.)

Israel? Not invading other countries territory. You must be kidding.

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude,
I don't think you realize how good you have it.
The reason everyone talks about how much better it is
in sweden (most of scandanavia really) is because it IS
better than everywhere else. maybe not perfect, but
why complain when everyone else has it worse?

I sympathize with your complaints about expensive beer,
but here in the US you can't buy beer most places on sunday,
AND the taxes are high, AND the beer sucks, AND you have to
be 21 AND there's no state health care.

(in Utah, the beer is only 3% alcohol by law!)

When the rest of the world is as well off as scandanavia, THEN
you can complain about the expensive beer.

kinda like when everyone is using apple, it will be time to
start complaining about OS X.

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[Symp0sium]

"we have an unemployment rate of about 15%" "I can tell you that many Swedes would actually like to see more police on the streets" Is this one of those magic eye things? I think I can see a solution or maybe its a sailboat... sorry a schooner.

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[Ahnteis]

I just hope everyone who reads this post can imagine what life would be like to live in a country where you don't need to be afraid of terrorism or crime, a country where almost all of the population gets a good education, and all this despite alcohol (and probably other drugs) being more easily accessible in this country. Americans have been brainwashed into thinking that such a country can't exist

I think you're the one who's been brainwashed. I happen to live in the U.S. and you just described my country perfectly. Oh, it's true we have our problems, but we're hardly the terrified, ignorant, oppressed, criminal nation you seem to imagine. Your view seems to be shaped entirely around a select few giant cities. We aren't all like that.

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[jafac]

Such subtleties may be lost on someone like you, but you seem to be well informed on the whole bin Laden thing, yet you ignore the fact that he sees the Saudi monarchy as an illegitimate government propped up by the West (which is to some degree true: go rent Lawrence of Arabia for the background on that). While most reasonable people would see that a Western-supported puppet dictatorship as a far cry from "occupation" - it was standing in the way of bin Laden's Pan-Islamist dream of uniting the Islamic world under a Caliphate, which could pass down sharia law, and stand up against the west as a superpower, obtain a "fair" price for oil, and distribute the wealth among all muslims.

(Personally, I'd love for us (UK/Israel/USA) to have stepped aside, watched him try to build such an empire, and watch it fail miserably: most of his own Al Qaeda followers instead believe in a Pan-Arabism, and wouldn't accept a unification with the likes of Persians (Iran), Africans (Somalia, Libya, etc.) and even Palestinians. Way too much tribal, ethnic, and especially sectarian strife for such a thing to ever work. Bin Laden may be a "true believer" to think that Allah would move to unite his "people" - but he's the very rare exception).

Even with his hatred of the Saudi monarchy, they were probably his best friend, because of the money that individual Saudi royals (of course, never "officially" as a house-of-Saud activity) pumped into madrassas which were used as a worldwide Al Qaeda recruiting network, as well as some well-documented and proven direct support for terror operations, including 9/11.

The question of how we (US/UK/Israel) got wrapped up in this bizzarre internal power struggle is and why we're impacted by this - is pretty obvious; it's all about oil, oil profits. We've drawn boundries, created dictatorships, and propped them up since the fall of the Ottoman Empire in WWI. Whether or not it was a good thing or a smart thing to do, or our right, is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that when a whack-job like Bin Laden comes along, and is looking for a follower, he's got a completely credible scapegoat for all of his young recruits to focus their range upon. The West set themselves up to be the scapegoat. And the slippery slope of political meddling gets steeper and steeper. And now we're spending (borrowing) $100 Billion per year just trying to maintain a token presence in one country over there. With no end in sight.

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The most scary thing to me is that we have an unemployment rate of about 15% today and this hasn't changed for several years"

You really should have made it clear that the number is for jobless 16-24 year olds (15,6% in August 2005). The overall unemployment rate was 6.5% in August 2005. The number for unemployed youths has recently changed for the worse, but that's because Swedish statistics were harmonized with EU practices when the AKU system was introduced in April 2005. Under the new statistical practices students are counted in the national unemployment statistics during their summer break if they are registered jobseekers but fail to get a summer job.

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're dead on in your observations. I read recently that America does not really have two opposing political parties; it's more like we have two divisions of the same corporation. They may compete at times, but they still want the same things in the end.

Sadly, I don't know that the Democrats are any better about graft and corruption. It's just that the current administration is so incredibly obvious about its corruption and bribery that it's causing other Republicans to be more open about their graft...and get caught as a result. Note that not a single Republican has been charged on the Federal level...it's always state law that brings them down. The Federal courts are completely compromised, and will not lift a finger against the adminstration or its friends.

I don't know that we have an answer. Got any room over there in Sweden for some disaffected techies?

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't have to "occupy" them, you had the CIA fuck each and every one of 'em over instead. Every hour on the hour since back to WW2.

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[jafac]

The reason the US was attacked was because a certain religious group doesn't like our way of life....

You must be talking about the Oklahoma City bombing?

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[Anonymous Coward]

"We also run a government-owned alcohol monopoly ("Systembolaget"), with restricted opening hours and several hundered percent penalty taxes on hard liquor."

Canada has the exact same setup.

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

The America, and Americans you speak of, no longer exist. We're slaves to the system now.

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[wootest]

Got any room over there in Sweden for some disaffected techies?

The good news: yes. The bad news: it's probably in the unemployment queue.

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you suggesting that alcohol is easy to get in Sweden?! The alcohol taxes are among the highest in the world, and you can only buy alcohol in special government stores. They are closed on Sundays and it was only last year that they started being open on Saturdays.

This is really laughtastic considering that beer and liquor are sold in an almost identical fashion here in Pennsylvania in the good ol' US of A. Now laws concerning alcohol do vary by state and PA has some of the most restrictive laws governing the sale of such in the US, but it still warms my heart to see this little bit of socialism in my home.

On a related note, guess which single agency purchases the most wine, liquor and spirits in the US.

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[Anonymous Coward]

Only the most ignorant Americans claim the root of terrorism is "they hate freedom'. On the other side, claiming that US policy towards the middle east causes terrorism is naive. Without defending many of our policy decisions, I hope we can rationally come towards some middle ground. 1) US (and Western) policies toward the middle east certainly reinforced malcontent against the US (resp. the West). 2) the agenda of the current wave of Islamic terrorism are an effort to control the direction of Islamic world and not the West. And 3) no foreign policy short of systematic genocide or war justifies the widespread indiscriminate killing of civilians. But to address Sweden...

Sweden's freedom from 1) does not prevent them from being subject to 2). And futhermore, I'll reiterate 3).

The people of Sweden have made choices to create the society they want to life in. The method of decision was in agreement with the Swedish people. We should all be lucky to live in such a society that has made a conscious choice in that manner.

On a more personal note, social democracy is a very legitimate political and economic system. I tend to lean more towards the libertarian end of the political spectrum. But I'm not Swedish, so I don't believe I get to influence their government.

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[mikehunt]

Although Sweden is way ahead of many countries when it comes to personal freedom and rights, you should do a bit more research before making sweeping statements. For example, there are over 3800 homeless people in Stockholm alone. They don't sleep in parks at the moment as they would be frozen to death if they tried!

Furthermore, note that Sweden's current justice minister Thomas Bodström has been one of the driving powers behind the EU's data retention directive among other freedom restricting laws.

Alcohol is not more easily available in Sweden than other countries. Didn't you notice that only the Government shops can sell alcohol? And that they don't open on Sundays or after 3 on Saturdays? Didn't you notice how expensive it is to drink in Sweden?

As regards other drugs, Sweden has some of the most backwards policies in the world; they don't even have a needle exchange in Stockholm, resulting in more deaths caused by heroin addiction per 100 addicts than any other European country.

There are many things that are good about Sweden, but try taking off the rose coloured glasses.

Mike. (resident in Sweden for 15 years)

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[Shadowlore]

I've travelled the US a lot (all but three states), as well as foreign countries (German, France, England, Scotland, Greenland, Iceland ... a few others I've forgotten), and I've not seen homeless "on the level of the US" anywhere, not in the US or out of it. There are pockets, but almost always in areas of high population density.

Population density is often noted as the single largest factor in crime rates. Yes, more so than poverty. As I recall, some of the highest density in Sweden is Stockholm, w/something like 4,000 per square kilometer, right? It may be a bit more or less now, I'm not sure. But you can't discount the effects of lower density on crime rates. That said, AIUI, crime is on the rise in Sweden and the victimization rate is on par with that of the US. I'd bet it is in the more densely populated areas.

Another major factor in crime rates is defensive capability of would be targets. While Sweden seems to have some rather restrictive laws, they are also very high in gun ownership rates. Another factor known to decrease person to person crime. High gun ownership rates nearly always shifts crime from muggings, assaults, rapes, and murders to larceny and burglary type crimes. Here, weather plays a factor. Colder weather tends to emphasize the opposite types of crime: person to person crimes. The resulting combination of generally cold weather and high gun ownership, in a generally lowe-density area is a powerful decrease in crime rates regardless of governmental type and laws.

Meanwhile, here in the US we have the Democrats and so-called "environmentalists" pushing against "urban sprawl", which actually produces lower population density. Why? I suspect the fact that the higher the population density the greater the likelihood of voting Democrat has a significant factor here.

Overall I'd suspect that if you compare Sweden to areas in the US of comparable crime rates you'd find them much closes than you might think.

Add into this the fact the the higher the population density the higher the homeless rate and more things will start to make sense. As that parent poster said, Sweden has them. Note where he said they would be expected to be seen. The higher density areas. Most of America is not high-density. As such, comparatively you won't see the "US level" of homeless everyone likes to believe exists. I'd bet that in Northern Sweden there is no or practically no homelessness.

If you want to make the most major (positive) impact in crime and homeless levels, and you believe government is the way to do it, then you should push for population density limits. Good luck though. Oddly enough, if you want a smaller government, putting in place population density limits will acheive much toward that goal. The lower the density, the less people turn to goverment as the solution.

Re:Sweden is far ahead of the rest of the world.

[danro]

On the whole, I agree with your reasoning about population density.
However, be careful with what you read into the gun-ownership statistics. Sweden has a very different gun-culture compared to the US (trust me on this).
It is hard to make a fair comparison just from the numbers of guns per capita.

Insightful comment is true in other countries too:

[davidmb]

"It has in many ways been obvious to the public that the anti-piracy lobby is also operating in their own, very doubtful, legal gray zone," said Piratbyrån member Rasmus Fleischer. "They are dependent on the existence of police officers willing to give priority to the hunting of file sharers over real criminality."

I think it's true that our law-makers and enforcers have a skewed set of priorities when it comes to copyright infringement vs. real crime.

Steve Kubby?

[mindaktiviti]

Steve Kubby maybe?

Re:Steve Kubby?

[Lumpy]

Yes exactly! If everyone blasted sony's phone lines and fax machines when they pulled their CD rootkit stunt the whole issue would have been very different today and companies looking at DRM would really think twice before risking losing days even weeks of productivity over adding DRM to a product that really does not need it.

If people do all 3 phone,fax,email it will get the management's attention and force them to respond.

Re:Steve Kubby?

[November 1, 2005]

Tim - tell your wife to shut her legs. I can smell the putrid waste that is her whore-hole from here.

Do Call Your Congressman!

[lawpoop]

As far as what you get in return from your congress person, you do get a form letter. As far as the effect of you contacting you congress person, a letter means very much. Remember, congresspeople have to get elected at the next go-around, so they won't stick to positions that are seen as unpopular.

Congressional offices do an estimation for each contact they receive. Each type of correspondence carries a number of constitutents it is thought to represent. For instance, a letter might be 100, a fax, 50, a phone call, 25, an email, 10. When you write a letter, the office assumes you represent, say, 100 other people. So individually, your voice won't count much, but if you get four other people to write a letter, the congressperson will start to wonder if sticking to this position will cost them the next election.

As far as your single letter changing your congress persons' position, I'm glad you're not that powerful, esp. if I disagree with you. Nobody voted for you. A congressperson ran and was elected on a platform, amd presumably that's what the voting constituents want to see happen.

Worst?

[Jearil]

"My guess is that Sweden is one of the worst places in the world when it comes to illegal sharing," said Martensson.

worst? or best? =D

Maybe, but not in canada

[romka1]

While the site might still be accessible to millions of users worldwide, here in Canada after you try to download anything from their website you won't get far.
Due to Rogers (Canadian Cable ISP) throtling down torrent packets it becomes impossible to download anything

Probably a lot more ISP around the world will start doing simular action to cut down on the bandwidth usage in the name of "fighting piracy" while just savin themselfs bandwidth which they over sold

Re:Maybe, but not in canada

[Scrameustache]

Rogers (Canadian Cable ISP) throtling down torrent packets it becomes impossible to download anything

Switch to an encrypted torrent program.

Re:Maybe, but not in canada

[bjoeg]

That issue has the work around of using encrypted torrent traffic. A "new" feature implemented in many torrent clients today.

Regarding Rogers blocking the website of pirate bay, I guess can easily work around by using a proxy server.

Re:Maybe, but not in canada

[McGiraf]

Change provider, I live in Canada and my bittorent ports are not throtled.

Re:Maybe, but not in canada

[Anonymous Coward]

same, no throttling here either using Cogeco as ISP

Re:Maybe, but not in canada

[Anonymous Coward]

Same here. I use Videotron (in quebec), and bittorrent runs fine.

Re:Maybe, but not in canada

[Colonel Angus]

Have you tried changing your BT client to use port 1720?

Though I've read that they (Rogers) have started throttling that, too. I don't do much in the way of BT'ing so I can't give any first-hand experiences, but my buddy did the 1720 switch when he noticed his speeds dwindling and has been flying again as before ever since.

Re:Maybe, but not in canada

[Anonymous Coward]

why not check out Azureus, it comes with packet header encryption thus screwing over your isp's attempts to filter your traffic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azureus

Publishing Fees

[n00tz]

"Let me quote my previous response: 'You should understand that your email and all further communication with us will be published at http://thepiratebay.org/legal.php , and that we will charge you for the web publishing and hosting services. Should I send the invoice to your address above?' So, where should I send the invoice? Our standard web publishing fee is 10E (or USD 15) per e-mail, plus an invoicing/S&H fee of 1E per invoice. If you decide to continue using our web publishing services, ask us about our great bulk rates!"

Copyright infringement is not 'stealing'

[NixLuver]

See above. The confusion of copyright and trademark with physical properties (partly through propaganda from the media and software companies, who successfully got copyright infringement first branded "piracy" and then "theft", in part by getting people to accept the innacurate appellation "Intellectual Properties") leads to egregious abuses of the system. It also leads to confused ontology. I'm sure, if you think about it, you can think of at least three ways that so called 'Intellectual Properties' differ from 'real properties'.

Others have already reprimanded you for incorrect attempted application of American precedent to a foreign Sovereignity.

Social Democracy = Freedom

[aussersterne]

I'm very surprised at the amounts of freedoms they had in a country that has typically been considered socialist

Your ignorance is showing. Why, pray, is it so shocking that you should see freedom in a social democracy (hmm, see also: UK, Canada) apart from the fact that you've believed every bit of pro-capitalist propaganda you've heard inside the crucible of American propagandism?

While the U.S. was busy telling its citizens that all socialists lived inside a grey dystopia of corruption and death, much of the industrial world was getting on with things nicely and developing a benign socialism that keeps much of Europe and Australia at the very top of the UN Human Development Index, ahead of everyone else year after year. These otherwise known to the popular press in the U.S. as the "UN standard of living rankings."

Their quality of life is very high, yet they are socialist-democratic. This makes all many US conservatives heads' explode, because without socialism as the "greater of two evils," their rape-and-pillage capitalism doesn't sound so great. So they simply pretend like Europe doesn't exist, or like it is entirely composed of naked gay French people.

The comment one always receives on Slashdot (and really elsewhere in the US) when wondering aloud why basic things like healthcare, impoverished wage slavery, homelessness, etc., are allowed to persist, is "Well it's the only working system the world has got. The [authors note: who?!?!] tried socialism, and it failed. So now we can't help anybody, or we'll fail, too." They say this because they're told this by a corrupt government and by capital, and somehow these critical Americans listen to the megacorporations and to the career politicians on the other side of the revolving door believe every word, while believing that the rest of the people on the planet are deluded or lying.

Re:Social Democracy = Freedom

[linguae]

My only problem with social democracy (I am a libertarian [but in Europe, I would be called a liberal]) is that social democrats and classical liberals/libertarians have a very different definition of freedom. Social democrats recognize civil liberties and are great at defending them, but they don't believe in free markets at all. Classical liberals/libertarians, however, recognize that freedom is the sum of both civil liberties and free markets. Free-markets are not about exploitation, despite what Marx and other leftists say. Free markets solutions work very well in most issues as long as there are some checks on growth of monopolies (which is where I disagree with some of my fellow libertarians here).

However, I am not completely anti-social democratic. (That statement alone has probably raised the eyebrows of a few readers here). Their social programs run circles around our hodgepodge of federal and state social programs in the US. Why do they work so well? I believe that the reason why it works well in European countries is because of two reasons; the smaller sizes of the nations, and the breakup of those countries. It is easier to tax and redistribute wealth in a smaller area than in a larger area. European nations are also very small and are about equivalent to an individual state in the US, except each individual state is a soverign nation. Since those countries are small "soverign states," policies can be implemented based on the culture of that nation-state. Since European cultures are generally more collectivist, and there is a larger number of collectivists living in a nation-state, they are open to social democracy. It actually works, provided that they either don't overtax its citizens or have an influx of right-wing candidates.

Why wouldn't it work in the United States? Ideally, the United States is supposed to be a collection of states, each with its own culture and way of doing things. In an ideal libertarian framework for the US, the federal government will have very little control over the states and its core functions would be reduced to the military, the courts, and the interstate highway system, while the states, counties, and cities take care of the rest. If a state wanted to implement social democracy within the state, it should do so as long as none of its policies violates the Constitution of the United States. Likewise, you can have conservative states, libertarian states, progressive states, etc. That is the way this country is supposed to work, and it works best this way, IMO.

However, certain social programs such as Medicare, Social Security, nationalized education, nationalized welfare, etc. are not doing well. They are way too big, overtly bureaucratic, and actually degraded the quality of the services and increased the costs in this country. For example, education in the US is getting worse each year. Why, even though we're spending more on education each year? It's not the amount of funding; it is the bureaucracy of the programs in general. Education was much better when it was left to the individual states.

So, social democracy can work in small areas, but it doesn't work well in large areas. However, if social democracy is implemented, it should use market techniques. For example, instead of thinking in terms of public schools, socialized medicine, welfare, and Social Security, think of school vouchers, health care vouchers, negative income taxes, and private pensions for elderly and disabled workers. My suggestions not only provide a good safety net for the citizens in a state, but it is also compatible with free markets as well. Milton Friedman has written about much of the ideas that I suggested; you can read Capitalism and Freedom and Free to Choose to find out more if these ideas seem intriguing. Citizens under these suggestions aren't restricted to a government monopoly of services; they can pick and choose.

Who pirates now adays?

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone explain the piracy mindset to me, because I must be so far out of it now I just don't get it.

I used to pirate software as a kid - Turbo Pascal, Borland/Watcom C, Visual Studio, Photoshop, 3DS Max, unpaid shareware, and rarely games. It's kinda hard for a jobless kid to learn computers without software. Piracy is what allowed me to learn things above my means and become a super-geek. But I never pirated music. Who are the people who are so poor they can't afford music and so addicted that they must have it?

Maybe some swedish pirate please explain the mindset to me? :-)

Re:Who pirates now adays?

[pandrijeczko]

Who are the people who are so poor they can't afford music and so addicted that they must have it?

People tend to "justify" piracy in the mistaken belief that they're outlaws, fighting the cause of the common man against the evils of the mega-corporations. In reality, all they are doing is giving those same corporations justification for not actually fixing the core problems which are hype, over-marketing, inflated prices & poor quality products.

If everyone was more discerning, read reviews of products before buying and treated their money with a little more respect, nothing would force those corporations to clean up their act more than seeing their profits dwindle because people simply don't believe what they produce to be worth the money.

Re:Who pirates now adays?

[Smuffe]

I suspect a large (ok, maybe not that large) section of pirated downloads would disappear if they only distributed the same bloody content in a lawful, paid-for manner over the internet themselves!

Perhaps I'm only speaking for myself, but I hate having to wait 4 months for the latest hollywood blockbuster to open in the theaters here in Sweden, then wait another 4 months for it to appear on an (overpriced DVD), then waiting another 4 months for the price to drop to reasonable levels. If I could pay $20 to download the movie legally after a few days of its release, I would gladly do so!

Of course this doesn't justify piracy in any shape or form, but if the industry would only realize that half the downloading is about convenience, maybe we could get somewhere?

Re:Who pirates now adays?

[Slashcrap]

In reality, all they are doing is giving those same corporations justification for not actually fixing the core problems which are hype, over-marketing, inflated prices & poor quality products.

So what you are saying is that if there was no piracy, the corporations wouldn't be able to justify producing low quality products and selling them for high prices?

To which I would have to point out that no-one has ever pirated a WinModem but they are still produced.

Actually the WinModem line came to me at the last second. I was just going to point out that you were fucking deluded, but some mods consider that flamebait, even when it is amply justifed by the original post.

Re:Who pirates now adays?

[pandrijeczko]

I find it very difficult to justify within myself paying money for something that isn't tangible.

I'm in my 40s, I've been into computing for over 20 years now but I still find it very difficult to pay money for something that isn't tangible. Aside from a handful of Windows utilities that I have registered correctly, I cannot bring myself to pay for a music or movie download - I need a nice shiny disk & a case, I'm afraid! :-)

On Usenet, occasionally, I download the MP3s of a CD I'm interested in buying. If I like what I've downloaded, I buy the CD because I like sleeve notes and a disk; if not, I delete the MP3s because there's no point wasting disk space. Because I live in the UK and listen to some obscure rock music, I never get to hear those same CDs on the radio so as a result "previewing" the MP3s, I've save myself a lot of money because I now I just buy stuff I know is good as opposed to just "taking a chance" and being disappointed. Then I buy all my CDs on eBay or other online sellers, I get a price I'm satisfied with and everyone is happy. I'm happy, the seller is happy & the record company is happy.

I buy DVD movies the same way except that I don't mind waiting a year or two for price drops & special offers.

So downloading is not for me although I can appreciate why others like the convenience of it. And whether you download or buy disks, it still comes down to not parting with your money until you are *sure* what you are buying is worth it.

Re:Who pirates now adays?

[pandrijeczko]

So what you are saying is that if there was no piracy, the corporations wouldn't be able to justify producing low quality products and selling them for high prices? No, I'm saying piracy achieves nothing apart from fulfilling a personal desire to get something for nothing & giving the corporations someone to blame for the fact that their profits aren't as big as they think they should be.

This in turn makes life more difficult for people like me who are happy to pay fair prices for good quality products because the corporations can always blame piracy & loss of revenue for selling second-rate products.

I was just going to point out that you were fucking deluded,

You're entitled to your opinion but your argument is lessened by the fact that you need to resort to insults to get your point across. And can you also please explain to me why on some DVDs I have legitimately bought (like CSI and The Simpsons), I have to sit through the whole of a "Piracy is a crime" advertisement when any pirate who copied those DVDs would probably strip that advert out anyway? Things like that detract from MY legitimate enjoyment of the product & the blame for that falls equally on the creator of those DVDs and the pirates who create the need for the advert in the first place.

To which I would have to point out that no-one has ever pirated a WinModem but they are still produced.

A TOTALLY irrelevant comparison. Piracy assumes easy and cheap access to a duplicating mechanism - most people have CD/DVD burners, very few I know have machines in their garage to create component-filled circuit boards.

Re:Who pirates now adays?

[Mauvaisours]

If everyone was more discerning

Short version : Pokemon

Long version :
This is were you loose. People are just NOT discerning, otherwise marketing people wouldn't be needed : the products would just be bought on their qualities. It just doesn't work.

Re:Who pirates now adays?

[Pofy]

>Who are the people who are so poor they can't afford music and so addicted
>that they must have it?

Completely unrelated, but have you EVER borrowed something from someone instead of going out and buying it yourself? Have you ever, for example, read the newspaper at someone elses place instead of buying your own copy? Have you ever done anything without paying when there have been an alternative were you could pay instead? Or are you so poor that you can't afford to pay for any of that yet must have it?

Re:Who pirates now adays?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's really quite simple; I like Dragonforce but I somehow cant bring myself to go to a shop and be seen buying their album.

Re:Who pirates now adays?

[pandrijeczko]

This is were you loose. People are just NOT discerning, otherwise marketing people wouldn't be needed :

Well piracy has been going on for 20+ years now and that's achieved nothing apart from restricting the freedoms of honest consumers.

Short version : Pokemon

That's simply down to clever corporations capitalising on parents' guilt at not buying little Johnny the latest over-hyped gimmick when all his friends might have one. Blame parents for that.

Re:Who pirates now adays?

[Eivind Eklund]

What you're describing increase transaction costs so much that it wouldn't be worth it to consumers. Or at least that is clearly the perception of consumers, or they wouldn't buy second rate "content".

And I don't care about what justification they use - I care about being allowed to release materials I produce myself, being able to use things that I have bought the way I want to (No stupid advertisements I have to watch. No forced subtitles to avoid it being sold in a different area. No stupid zone coding.)

I also believe that a certain amount of what is presently illegal copying is to the benefit of everybody, and just releasing it all (removing all protections for digital copying for private use) might be to the benefit of society.

Also, I happen to buy roughly everything except books, which I borrow. I've copied about three movies in my life, and the last year I think it's about three CDs, buying about 10 - down from about 100 the year I copied 50.

Eivind.

Re:Who pirates now adays?

[pandrijeczko]

What you're describing increase transaction costs so much that it wouldn't be worth it to consumers.

Explain?

I care about being allowed to release materials I produce myself,

What stops you releasing an unencrypted or Region 0 DVD for material that you own?

I also believe that a certain amount of what is presently illegal copying is to the benefit of everybody

Well, whether it's a benefit or not depends on the honesty of the individual. I don't personally download movies or video content, I download some MP3s from Usenet and if I like what I downloaded, I buy it; otherwise, I delete it. No different to 30 years ago when I could go into a record shop in the UK and listen to part of an album before deciding to buy it.

the last year I think it's about three CDs, buying about 10 - down from about 100 the year I copied 50.

Same for me now I know what I am buying beforehand. It means I'm happier with what I buy and therefore have no objections to the record company making money from my purchase.

Re:Who pirates now adays?

[Eivind Eklund]

Checking out reviews, sampling material beforehand, etc - it all takes time and effort from the consumer. That's a transaction cost. The consumers obviously feel this cost is so high that it is more worthwhile to risk the money at hand and possibly buy crap, otherwise they would be sampling and reading reviews.

Nothing presently prevent me from releasing region 0 DVDs. I am not sure that is going to be kept up, though. And there are things the prevent me from referencing most of the culture that people actually are part of, which is a significant new restriction (added in the last century or so.)

To be more specific on what parts of copying is beneficial and which are potentially negative, see my previous comment.

As for buying things: I sample much less music now that it's not as easily available, so there's less that I'm interested in buying. I want the artists to get money from me; I'm not so hot on the record companies, because I feel they abuse the position they are in. The last CD I bought was directly off a band member - I feel good about that :)

Eivind.

Re:Who pirates now adays?

[Mauvaisours]

Well piracy has been going on for 20+ years now and that's achieved nothing apart from restricting the freedoms of honest consumers.

Marketing has been going on for 100+ years and people still don't choose on merit.

Blame parents for that.

Thanks, you just made my point.

Pirate Bay mirror and database distribution/backup

[Anonymous Coward]

We need to somehow make sure that the Pirate Bay's database survives in the unlikely event that their site gets shut down. How about a mirror in a select country or distributing the database on various P2P networks?

the real trouble with IP

[Anonymous Coward]

The real trouble with IP is that it's very messy. I'm just waiting for the day when its possible to catalog everything IP on blazingly fast computers. After it spits out a listing of all the infringers (ie people who patented something already covered by an earlier patent, copyrighted music that contains rythms/lyrics from other copyrighted music) - HEADS WILL ROLL. Maybe even your own head. Being a computer programmer my self, my own head may be on the chopping block. That one piece of logic I took as common sense, may just do me in.

It's going to happen. Those with enough money to buy out the others will survive the fallout, they will be the landowners in the new age of feudalism. The rest of us will be serfs.

Let me try the last paragraph again.

[aussersterne]

I did preview, I swear, but somehow I made a mess of it. Replacement final paragraph:

The comment one always receives on Slashdot (and really elsewhere in the US) when wondering aloud why basic things like healthcare, impoverished wage slavery, homelessness, etc., are allowed to persist, is "Well it's the only working system the world has got. They [authors note: who?!?!] tried socialism, and it failed. So now we can't help anybody, or we'll fail, too." They say this because they're told this by a corrupt government and by capital, and somehow these critical Americans listen to the megacorporations and to the career politicians on the other side of the revolving door and believe every word, while also believing that the rest of the people on the planet are deluded or lying.

Cut off one head and 2 more take its place

[Kilz]

The MPAA and RIAA haven't got a clue. They think that if they keep closing down the sites they will eventually win. The problem is that when they close down one big site a lot of little sites pop up to try and take their place. Suprnova was an example of this in some respects. After it closed a lot of other sites popped up to replace it. If they succeed in shutting down one type of program. Another will program will replace it. If they get the trusted computing platform in place Linux will grow. Its kind of like a balloon. Squeeze it in one place and the other ends swell.

omg...

[veeoh]

this is so like two day old news!!!11111one ;)

Actually, "Stores that are easy to steal from"

[Anonymous Coward]

It is more like, "Here is a list of music stores that are easy to steal music from."

arf arf !

[phreakv6]

The ms love letter was funnier than its EULA..

IFPI is right!

[Anonymous Coward]

From tfa: "He said file sharing is widespread in Sweden because almost every household owns a computer and can get a cheap 100-Mbps broadband fiber connection from their ISP for 70 euros a month. "My guess is that Sweden is one of the worst places in the world when it comes to illegal sharing,""
I agree completely, only changing the word 'worst' for 'best'

thanks m$ for the links

[phreakv6]

thanks to m$ love letter for the nice links to sources of windows 98, NT and 2000.

These guys really aren't helping

[edremy]

The first time I went there, I had to laugh at the list of threat letters and their responses. Stickin' it to the man, and there's nothing RIAA can do about it. Cool!

But long term, this attitude is just self-defeating. It makes it really easy for the RIAA/MPAA to paint anyone who actually wants to use P2P or or download non-DRM infested music legally as just another pirate. I despise both organizations to the extent I pretty much don't buy their stuff anymore (I make an exception for my kids-they're too young to understand), but I'm not going to go to the Piratebay to download it. I'll just do without.

You really want to stick it to the man? Don't torrent something from Piratebay. Go buy something off of Magnatune or eMusic instead. Prove the RIAA wrong when they say that non-DRM music can't possibly work. Even buying music or a video from the iTunes store is vastly preferable

Bittorrent improvement to help defense cases?

[MadCow42]

Bittorrent trackers don't host any data, just links - so they could theoretically be ok under Sweedish Law. However, hosting Bittorrent data isn't so innocent, and easy to track if you get the locations from the tracker.

However - what if you "improved" the bit-torrent protocol so that when a file is split up and distributed amongst hosts, that some of the files are NOT part of the original data. When recombining the pieces, they're discarded. If encrypted, you couldn't tell which were real, and which were not... making it difficult to prove that someone was hosting copyrighted data. It's sort of like a firing squad - one rifle is loaded with a blank so you don't know if you're the one that killed they guy or not.

Just a thought (un-informed, but inspired. :)

MadCow.

Re:Bittorrent improvement to help defense cases?

[KnightStalker]

I doubt that would be an effective defense. There's no lesser "Attempted copyright infringement" statute that I'm aware of... and the inability to commit a crime is generally no defense when it's clear that you intended to and took steps to commit it.

Discretion is the better part of valour, Pirate.

[fygment]

If the case industry has against Pirate Bay were to go public, what would Pirate Bay look like? A group of immature adolescents making sport of mocking authority. Not defenders of freedom, etc. Losing public support means potentially losing whatever legislative support keeps the site running. Is it worth the lame jokes to lose such a site?

The Pirate Bay is identical in nature to Google

[Anonymous Coward]

It's important to realize that The Pirate Bay does not host any infringing content on its servers.

The Pirate Bay is identical in nature to Google:

Both sites allow users to enter searches from a web page, and both return a list of links to (sometimes infringing) content.

If The Pirate Bay can be shut down, then Google can be shut down.

Re:The Pirate Bay is identical in nature to Google

[Anonymous Coward]

That defense didn't work for Napster or Grokster.

Re:The Pirate Bay is identical in nature to Google

[caffeination]

Does TPB index content by having spiders randomly follow links? I honestly don't know. If they don't, analogy destroyed.

Re:The Pirate Bay is identical in nature to Google

[Anonymous Coward]

> That defense didn't work for Napster or Grokster.

True.

But I'm actually more concerned about defending Google.

If the **AA can shut down The Pirate Bay, then why would they stop there?

Their next logical target would be Google. Google can be used to find infringing content, and provides a service that's substantially identical in nature to The Pirate Bay.

Re:The Pirate Bay is identical in nature to Google

[MrWorf]

Google does allow direct submittance of websites (ie, content) just like TPB, so the analogy still holds some water.

Re:The Pirate Bay is identical in nature to Google

[Stops4spotS]

I agree, quite similar. Illegal content can -easily- be gotten from both. Shut one down, shut the other down. But I guess we know that won't happen. BTW, Google, or the powers that be (RIAA, others?), are removing and/or forcing the removal of links to illegal content from Google search results - I see it all the time in my "wanderings" :o(

-4

Re:The Pirate Bay is identical in nature to Google

[catch23]

Either way, one could say Google is violating copyright laws by caching content of the website. Suppose someone creates a book on the web, and Google randomly cached it. Whether it was deliberate or not, Google violated copyright laws. This is where I think Lessig has the right idea about how copyright should be handled in this country, we're all becoming a bunch of anal assholes that are ready to sue anyone that even has links to our content.

Re:The Pirate Bay is identical in nature to Google

[Telvin_3d]

The difference? Google can afford a more lawyers than could fit into the court room. The Pirate Bay is using a law STUDENT as its legal council. This is why even if TPB goes down, Google never will.

Re:The Pirate Bay is identical in nature to Google

[Anonymous Coward]

> Does TPB index content by having spiders randomly follow links? I honestly don't know. If they don't, analogy destroyed.

I don't understand why the analogy would be destroyed.

Does it really make any difference whether the search database is populated from a spider, or from e-mail submissions, or from some poor guy entering all the data by hand?

Data is data, regardless of how it's collected.

The fact remains that, from the user's perspective, The Pirate Bay and Google are identical in nature.

Re:The Pirate Bay is identical in nature to Google

[kula.shinoda]

However, this is not the case in Australia, where they have had a landmark case on this issue already - a guy who ran a website linking to MP3s was shut down and bankrupted. It's a pity I can't remember the details, the article was in the APC magazine last year sometime. Point is, different countries will enforce this differently.

Re:The Pirate Bay is identical in nature to Google

[kula.shinoda]

Here, I found a story link: http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/6649.cfm

Re:The Pirate Bay is identical in nature to Google

[BBobberson]

if you don't want your content indexed, either:

A) add it to your robots.txt file

or

B) don't put it on a publicly accessible directory on your server

Re:The Pirate Bay is identical in nature to Google

[AK Marc]

if you don't want your content indexed,

It isn't about indexed. It is about cached. Google has no right to cache copyrighted material. it doesn't matter if a publisher leaves a book on their front steps, it is copyrighted and no one has the right to copy it. It doesn't matter if you don't have a robots.txt on a publicly accessible server, Google is still copying it without your permission, which is a violation of copyright. You have to get permission, and there is no such thing as implied permission for not going through the trouble of locking something down.

where do you live?; impose views; schoolyard bully

[PhYrE2k2]

Huh? How about freedom to keep what I earn and use it to pay for my own medical insurance of my choice? Freedom to not run across the border to have to use a doctor of my choice? Freedom to not be poor through the sweat of my brow? My country's a great one, but it's not all roses here.

What crazy impression of Canadians do you have?
  - keep what I earn: Yeah the tax bracket system does have a higher top value than in the USA. Yippie. If you're in that bracket, a good financial advisor can make you minimize any taxible income. Additionally, there have been countless comparisons that all show that by the time all is said and done (adding in health care, education, etc) we're not far off in the purchasing power of your income
  - pay for your own medical insurance : why would you want to? I'm offering to give you an amazing doctor and the services you need, and you'd rather 'shop around'? It's there when you need it. You're not buying a car. You're not looking for a better deal. Everyone is entitled to a standard of health care. Note that there are 'extras' such as private rooms, that can be paid directly of through insurance, but why would anyone want to shop around for anything but a good grade of health care?
  - Run across the border to have to use a doctor of my choice: You sir watch too much Dateline
  - be poor through the sweat of my brow: see comment # 1

They're breaking apart as they become more and more like us!

Going hunting on a full stomach? Imposing our views on others who couldn't care less what we think? Let's jump for joy!

Thanks God we have a good, powerful neighbor.

Yeah- nothing quite like hanging out with the schoolyard bully. That'll just get us in detention as well , or put us near the line of fire when someone shows up at school with a weapon.

-M

Clearly you're mistaken!

[_EternaL_]

"Regardless of the rationalization there is no difference taking content this way and going to a store and stealing a CD or DVD."

- There is a clear difference. It's much easier to get into legal trouble by stealing the physical media from a store!

Oh, and.. When they can no longer afford to make the CRAP they are trolling now, they will go back to making quality films. When they go back to making quality films that aren't pathetic remakes of 1970's TV shows, I will go back to paying for movies. See.. this is how it's SUPPOSED to work. Behold, the power of the dollar!

Whoops, I'm Back . . .

[Newt-dog]

. . . Sorry, I got a little sidetracked there for a few. I haven't browsed PirateBay for a quite a while. ;-)

not quite

[Anonymous Coward]

"The Swedes are more "free" than Americans are, which proves that terrorists don't hate America because they "hate freedom", as George Bush wants everyone to think. They attack America because America attacked them and is occupying their countries."

No, they don't hate us for being free, they hate us for trying to spread freedom. Sweden is free, but they are not trying to spread it. Theres the difference.

Re:not quite

[Anonymous Coward]

If by "spreading freedom" you mean "building miltary bases in every corner of the world that's not ours", I think you've nailed it.

Re:not quite

[glesga_kiss]

No, they don't hate us for being free, they hate us for trying to spread freedom.

Your post makes me sad. You really ought to pick up a history book if you think the US spreads freedom. South America is a good place to start reading.

Freedom nope. Profit yes. Profit is the only thing the US spreads. If there is a profit to be made with a represive regime, you'll sell all the weapons/antrax they can buy. Conversly, if a free and open political party is democratically voted in, but makes the mistake of harming America's profits, well can you say political coup? Hell, you kidnapped the president of Venezuela just four years ago in an attempt to realise this goal.

You guys really ought to put down CNN and Fox News to see what your country is really up to. Do you HONESTLY believe people fly planes into buildings "because they hate freedom"? Are you really that gulible? Please someone tell me that all of America isn't sitting there believing all of this propaganda.

They HATE your foreign policy. I suggest you read up on that policy that is being carried out in your name. Then you might realise why people are willing to die to get some small form of petty revenge on the country that has screwed them over in some way. If you don't do this, sooner or later the world will be completely fuxored, and you are the only one that can do anything about it.

Re:not quite

[prisoner]

In general I agree with most of your comment. Our government has made some pretty whacked out moves and seems intent on steam-rolling the rest of the world for a buck. Interestingly, China is probably doing a better job right now of enforcing all-out capitalism than we are.

The only part that I disagree with is the part about hating the US. The terrorists are happy to hate whomever is in their way: Russians, Americans, Turks, etc. This isn't anything but a naked power grab on their part. They want an islamic state to live in and they aren't very particular about who they have to kill to get it.

Re:not quite

[Jim_Callahan]

In our defense, profit = mobility and infrastructure, which are my personal favorite forms of freedom. And we did make people pretend to have elections, which was an increase in popular power, though it's most definitely a mistake to equate such power with freedom.

Re:No really, heroes

[Marce1]

Some people beleive that they can be of service to goverments which have the right to tell them (and you) what to do.

Some people treat their government as a public service, which is told what to do by the people.

Guess which type of people the Swedes are?

Saying what you have about the draconian backlash is like saying that there would be a backlash of bull-fighting and bear-baiting in the UK after banning fox-hunting, or a backlash of 'gun-control' in all the other US states if one was more permissive than the rest about automatics. It is possible, but it's not in the nature of that culture.

As an example, 10 or so years after the abolition of free public transport in Amsterdam, it is still culturally acceptable to ignore buying a ticket, and ride for free. Most choose to comply with the imposed laws, but that doesn't mean they will stop you, and they would think you a better person for doing what you believe, even if they personally dissagree with it.

Because they can

[m50d]

Yes it is. They're doing precisely that. And they're *still here*. And they're showing everyone you can do this and still be there. The MPAA would very much like people to think that what they were doing was illegal, but it isn't, and by being very blatant about what they're doing, they make more people aware of this fact.

And this my friends...

[stubear]

...is exactly why things like the DMCA get passed and we're stuck with DRM systems that overcomplicate playing a CD or DVD. You have no rights to distribute intellectual property in any way shape or form, period. To go beyond that and thumb your nose at the MPAA only exacerbates the problem. You want legal digital downloads and on demand content from the MPAA? Then the online community is going to have to prove that they are a responsible group and are willing to play by the rules. So far, the willingness of the community to replace P2P distribution servers which were know for illegally distributed intellectual property only serves to strengthen the argments the MPAA.

Re:And this my friends...

[Zed2K]

I agree, but piratebay does not distribute any intellectual property at all. All they do is provide torrent files. Which as we all know is not anyones property. They are a search engine. Go ahead and type in a name of a recent cd or game into google followed by the word "torrent". You will have exactly the same outcome and going to pirate bay and entering the same name ofthe cd or game in their search box.

Re:And this my friends...

[Anonymous Coward]

the riaa will die if everyone follows my example. i stopped listening to shitty mainstream music and therefor dont need to copy or buy any of their overpriced products. The new laws only make their products less valuable to me aswell. Maybe i will look again for 1 euro per medium and the right to do with it what i want.

Re:And this my friends...

[Ahnteis]

You and the **AA seem to be assuming that I HAVE to have their content.

My favorite snipplet from TFA:

[VMaN]

-- Antipiratbyrån's efforts to halt file sharing have prompted Sweden's outspoken pirates to run for office as the Pirate Party. Party spokesman Mika Sjöman said pirates are alarmed by both the IP tracking and Sweden's newly expanded surveillance and wiretapping laws.

"People are getting scared," said Sjöman. "The two issues are really connected because copyright organizations are telling the government you have to invade the right to privacy if you want to defend copyright. That's really destructive for democracy because when you make lists of people that will be the end of privacy."

It may sound like a joke, but Sjöman said the Pirate Party has 1,500 members, and has gathered enough signatures to participate in the Swedish general election in September. He said the government estimates that there are 1.2 million file sharers over the age of 18 in Sweden, and the Pirate Party needs only four percent, 225,000 votes, to get seats in the country's parliament. According to Sjöman, the success of The Pirate Bay illustrates just how embedded file sharing has become in Swedish culture. --

now THAT could be democracy in action!

"despite alcohol being accesible" - NO

[willthisnickwork]

I am a 19 year old swede, and I wouldn't say Alcohol (and definatly NOT other drugs) r easy to obtain in sweden.. In sweden u have to be at least 20 year old to buy alcohol in a liquor-store (The only stores that are allowed to sell anything with >2.5 % alc (% of volume) is owned by the state and r way too often closed). To buy beer/booze in a bar u need to be 18, at least that is reasonable..

Re:"despite alcohol being accesible" - NO

[op00to]

... the age to purchase any alcohol in the US (if your state wants federal highway funds) is 21, and states are free to determine their own alcohol rules. In New Jersey, even individual counties (subdivision of a state) have strange 'blue laws' that prohibit the selling of alcohol at certain times and on certain 'holy' days, like Sundays!

Re:"despite alcohol being accesible" - NO

[willthisnickwork]

Well, I forgot to mention that we also got some of the highest alcohol-taxes in the world. And compare that to Denmark, there u can buy alcohol in any grocery store at an age of 16 ! ; )

Socialism != social democracy!

[Jesus_666]

If you want an example of a socialist state look to Europe - Denmark, Sweden and to a lesser extent the UK, France, Netherlands, etc.

Those are not socialist states. Social democratic, yes, but not socialist. Just because those two terms sound similar doesn't mean that they're synonymous.

Re:Socialism != social democracy!

[AoT]

Hey genius, Socialism refers to an ECONOMIC SYSTEM.

So you are right Socialism != social democracy.

It's like saying that the US isn't capitalist, it's democratic.

Re:Socialism != social democracy!

[Jesus_666]

Socialism is an ideology of a social and economic system in which the means of production are collectively owned and administered democratically by all of society.

The term not only is also used to describe a political ideology, it's also used to describe an ideology not found in Europe.

Sweden is as bad as Bulgaria with piracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Sweden, and the rest of the nordic countries, is as bad as Bulgaria with piracy. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but that this one particular warez host is getting away with it does not surprise me any more than all the sites in Bulgaria getting away with it. I don't mean to pick on little Bulgaria. It's just well-known that it has a 100% piracy rate.

Law student as legal advisor?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, at least if he was in the US and giving legal advice before he was actually a lawyer he'd be SOL as soon as he wanted to take the bar and become a real lawyer. They're not too keen on the unauthorized practice of law.

How do you know?

[Illbay]

Call and tell them you don't appreciate their actions, you don't appreciate their products,...

How do you know you don't appreciate their products unless you have been BUYING them?

Wait a minute, what th...!!!

You haven't been PURCHASING the enemies' WARES have you? For shame!

No, it couldn't be. You must be a "purist." You're just PIRATING their products, and THEN calling them to tell them of your lack of appreciation, aren't you!

Way to go, sport!

Filtering of these sites by law

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how long will it take the industry to force the ISP's by law to filter these kind of sites.
I think this will happen eventually.

Yeah!

[Greyfox]

Like how I wrote to mine on the subject of IP laws and got a nice form letter thanking me for my opinion on abortion. Obviously they realized that I thought that abortion should be allowed to be retroactive in some cases...

Nope, money talks. If you really want your Congressman to know your opinion you have to drop $1500 for one of their fund raising dinners and corner the bastard in person. Just be careful not to use any logical paradoxes within their hearing or you'll overload their circuits and their head will explode. That's always awkward at a $1500 fund raising dinner...

Boycott content companies

[fccoelho]

We should boycott RIAA and MPAA affiliated companies until they go bankrupt. it would take a year at most... That would salove the problems without breaking any law...

Re:Boycott content companies

[Ilex]

Unfortunately you're preaching to the choir here. Tell it to Joe Six Pack, Suzy Soccer Mom and their SUV full of kids.

Re:Boycott content companies

[slothman32]

He is preaching to it but the choir is also ignoring that preach.
How many /.ers went to see Lord of the Rings 5 times?
I even go to movies every once in a while, 2 per solstice last year.
I do rent them though.
I think I spend less on movies in one decade than most Slashdotters did just on LOTR.
As it is paraphrased in the FAQ, "Why does Slashdot still go to movies but against the MPAA?"
I don't know the answer but for some things it is true.

Slashdotting retail establishments

[quokkapox]

I've always wanted to try this, to get together a flash mob or even just a few people, and go in to a large franchise grocery store (SFW, Giant, Walmart, whatever).

If you have enough people, this type of DOS attack could be devastating. Everybody goes around picking out non-perishable items in large quantities and putting them into their carts. Go for the cat food cans (50 varieties!), the spice aisle, maybe the Jello aisle, and top off your cart with a few large 50-lb bags of kitty litter or something. At a predetermined time, everybody drives their loaded carts up to the front, parks them randomly in the way, and exits the store. It takes them forever to put everything back correctly. And if your group has a message, the management gets it because you can leave flyers everywhere on the shelves or at the bottom of the carts. Fun fun fun.

Re:Slashdotting retail establishments

[JonTurner]

Sorry, that's not "fun fun fun" it's vandalism.

You have a right to speak your mind. You don't have a right to harm someone else. Organizing an effort to mess up a store stocking system is injurious and you would, rightly so, be liable in court for the cost incurred to make things right.

If you have something to say, then say it. If your audience chooses not to listen, then that's the end of it. Don't be a vandal. Don't be a prick.

Re:Slashdotting retail establishments

[slazzy]

That's right, and if they say you have to head to the back of the bus because of the colour of your skin, just do it and don't say a word.

Re:Slashdotting retail establishments

[kubrick]

Sorry, that's not "fun fun fun" it's vandalism.

You must have missed the memo.

These days we call it "economic terrorism". (Because anything that the property-owning classes don't like must be demonised.)

Re:Slashdotting retail establishments

[Mad_Rain]

Sorry, that's not "fun fun fun" it's vandalism.

Sounds like you are unfamiliar with the history of Civil Disobedience.

"Those who profess to favor freedom, yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." - Frederick Douglass

Think about Tom Cruise ...

[ta ma de]

The bay and its band of pirates might eventually damage the finances of Tom Cruise and Scientology ... that can't be tolerated and must be stopped. I can't afford for the cost increases on my e-meter that are sure to come as a result of lost licensing revenue.

As a counterarguement...

[Churla]

If you write a 20 page paper and turn in for a course and get an A, then someone photocopies your paper and turns it in and also gets an A are they doing something wrong or unethical?

Translation:

If you for then someone and gets have they done something wrong or unethical?

There are a lot of ways I think that the recording and media industries are doing things the wrong way, but I am not about to stand here and argue that it's a persons right to copy something which someone else makes their livelyhood off of with the pretense of "it wants to be free".

Re:As a counterarguement...

[Churla]

OK, ignore the translation part as I forgot about not using certain characters which made things look like tags.. heh

Re:As a counterarguement...

[nsayer]

Just to play devil's advocate here...

If someone copies the paper that you got an A on, then they must be doing so after you got your grade. In this instance, you are not harmed in the slightest. The person who copied did do wrong, but in actual fact the only person they've harmed is themselves (because they won't learn anything) and possibly their classmates (if the course is being graded on a curve).

This does not parallel the copyright cartels very well because if someone copies an MP3 rather than buy it from the copyright holder, then the copyright holder loses the price of the MP3.

The real questions in the copyright debate are the value of an MP3 and how to insure that the copyright holders can be assured of payment if the file format is open. Right now the problem is that on the latter question there is no good answer.

Re:As a counterarguement...

[crabpeople]

"If you write a 20 page paper and turn in for a course and get an A, then someone photocopies your paper and turns it in and also gets an A are they doing something wrong or unethical?"

When i start claiming that i wrote the new metalica album, then your example would make sense. People arent passing off other peoples work as their own, they are merely disseminating other peoples content, almost always with credit to the original author. Thats why when you download an episode of lost it doesnt say "Churla's magic island of doom.avi" it says "lost.avi". IF you tried to pass off an episode of lost as your creation people would laugh at you. in other words, your analogy falls very far short.

Considering the rest of your post seems to be random words thrown together, i think we are done here.

Re:As a counterarguement...

[Anonymous Coward]

If your argument was parallel to the original article then I think you'd be asking if it would do any good to shut down the photocopy machine because the person doing the copying might (or might not be) doing something illegal/unethical. Is it the photocopy machine's job to make that distinction or just to make the copy?

Limiting technology doesn't make people any more (or less) ethical.

Re:As a counterarguement...

[PagosaSam]

If you write a 20 page paper and turn in for a course and get an A, then someone photocopies your paper and turns it in and also gets an A are they doing something wrong or unethical?

This would be more accurate as:
If you write a 20 page paper and turn in for a course and get an A, then 100 people copy it, read it and throw it away, is this wrong or unethical?

You still got your A!

Doesn't quite work like that...

[Colonel Angus]

If everyone who smokes pot voted for the Marijuana party in Canada then they'd have some seats in parliament.

While there may be millions of downloaders in Sweden, I highly doubt that a) they're all of legal voting age and b) concerned as much about downloading copyrighted music as they are other issues.

Re:Doesn't quite work like that...

[VMaN]

you don't expect at pothead party to get their members of their asses, do you? ;)

and they have a pirate ship dammit:

If elected, the Pirate Party promises to strengthen Swedish privacy protections, weaken copyright laws, abolish the EU Data Retention Directive and roll back government surveillance legislation, said Sjöman. The party plans to hold its first convention in April, aboard a pirate ship.

but seriously, those issues feel very "real" to alot of young people, more tangible than many other election promises. and the scandinavian countries have relatively high voter turnouts.

Re:Doesn't quite work like that...

[Husgaard]

It is my impression that in Scandinavia there is a growing awareness of these issues, in particular in the young voter population.

In Sweden there has been a TV show going on for some time called Toppkandidaterna (The Top Candidates). In this program six young politically interested persons debated the political issues they felt important. Two days ago the show was concluded with a viewer vote, and the "candidate" with the most votes won 250,000 swedish kroner. The winner had openly supported The Pirate Bay and said that he would donate 50,000 swedish kroner to them if he won. He won with 57.8 percent of the votes.

Has some notes on the Pirate Party, too

[CrystalFalcon]

The story has some notes on the Pirate Bureau and the Pirate Party, too.

Overall, the pirate movement is very strong in Sweden. And I'm damn proud of that.

(Yes, that's Pirate Party as in political party. Pirates are running for office. Not a joke and they're serious about getting a foot in the door - they only need 225,000 votes, in a country with 1,2 million file sharers.)

Impressive

[Mark_MF-WN]

Spoken like a true idealogue. Next I suppose you'll tell us that all liberals are just jealous of the rich? That environmentalism is just a scam to destroy the American economy? Save it for the Spin-Zone, and all the other Bill "Blubbering Vagina" O'Reilly.

Socialism is about trying to elevate the lives of everyone, rather than letting the rich grind the poor into dust. If keeping the sick, the disabled, and the elderly alive means slightly decreasing the affluence of a few millionaires, I'd call that a bargain.

Besides, look at Canada or Sweden -- supposedly socialist countries. Where is the "collectivism"? There's a great deal of debate and diversity in both of those countries. It's fascist states the US that force everyone to follow the same path of greed, hatred, and destruction.

Re:Impressive

[hkmwbz]

Liberals? Liberal Socialists or Liberal Capitalists?

Canada and Sweden are far from pure Socialist countries. They are, in fact, probably equally Capitalist as they are Socialist. Somewhere in the middle.

As for Socialism "trying to elevate the lives of everyone", it will never manage to do so by itself. You'll need Capitalism to make the money and create economic growth. Just shuffling riches won't help. You need to create new ones.

I don't know who you think is "letting the rich grind the poor into dust", but you don't have to be rich to be a Capitalist. In fact, if you believe in private ownership, and that two people should be able to trade freely between them, you are a Capitalist.

I'm sure you're helping their chances...

[macserv]

Let's give them lots of media attention. That's sure to help a site like this stay active.

Define "powerful" please

[mrraven]

If you mean military power you are WAY off the mark, we can't even hold the 5 mile stretch of road between the heavily fortified "green zone," and the airport with our maximum number of military people deployed to the point where some military commanders think the military is dangerously close to broken. Even hard core neo-cons like William Buckly are conceding the war in Iraq is most likely lost and it's time to withdraw.

Nor are we even economically powerful our economy is propped up by a 750 million dollar trade gap with China PER DAY. In addition we are a nation of people in heavy credit card debt, with no manufacturing base, a declining IT base, and 1/6th of whose people have no health insurance and who could die of a simple infection. Furthermore compared to Japan or Europe our transport infrastructure is dangerously dependent on cheap oil.

Powerful my ass, more like arrogant and full of the hubris that happens before a great fall. Humpty Dumpty probably thought he was powerful too...

Re:Saudi Arabia

[vertinox]

UHHH? Which part of the Middle East were we occupying before 9/11?

Well it is a more consensual thing, but one of the reasons of 9/11 was Al Queada's desire to get the Americans out of Saudi Arabia so they could topple the Saudi Royal family.

Secondly, our support for Isreal is pretty much seen as American backed occupation. And don't forget what happened with Iran and the Shah.

My suggestion is that we stop publicly supporting Israel. Doesn't mean you can send money, weapons, and secret CIA type of assistance, but not so out in the open.

For what I hope is the last time

[rsilvergun]

1. China and the USSR were not Communist nations. They were facist dictatorships that borrowed communist rhetoric to justify the horrible things they did.

2. Globalism breaks Capitalism. Adam Smith envisioned a world where capitalists would act responsible because they lived right next to the squalor they create. Capitilism was layed out in an era before global transportation and telecommunications, not to mention before modern militaries eclipsed what a civilian militia could stand up aganst and modern propaganda/populace management techniques existed. These things combined mean a modern capitalist can live detached from the hellhole he creates, pit labor in one country aganst another to lower everyone's standard of living, and use the military and gov't propaganda engines to put down any serious challenge to his power.

3. The US became the most powerful country because we're on a continent with two really weak countries at either end. We have no serious rivals, and could prosper as such. While the rest of the world was reeling from WWII, we just kept on growing. It has nothing to do with Capitalism and everything to do with Geography and dumb luck.

Re:For what I hope is the last time

[hkmwbz]

1. China and the USSR were the result of Socialism/Collectivism. For Collectivism to work, everyone has to follow the same path. A lot of people will refuse, and will have to be forced.

2. Globalism means that you can't exploit people, as there won't be dirt poor people who will do anything to survive. Ideally, of course. It's all a theory, like Socialism.

3. Right, the US is not a Capitalist country, as I pointed out.

Re:For what I hope is the last time

[rsilvergun]

1. China and the USSR where dictatorships. You can make that comment about following the same path about any society. We can't all murder or rob each other. Your confusing the way a society governs itself (dictatorship, democracy, oligarchy, theocracy, etc) with how it allocates it's limited resources (Capitalism, Socialism, Comunnism, etc). There's some overlap, so it's an easy enough mistake to make, but ultimately they're different things. A society can be Democratic and Socialist, the USSR and China are neither.

2. That's a non sequitur. You seem to be implying that a theory, even one with imperical evidence backing it up, is inherently worthless. What evidence that Socialism works we do have looks pretty good (Canada's doing fine, so's France, they've got problems but then, who doesn't?). What evidence we have about Global Capitalism (that's really what we're talking about when we say 'Globalism') shows that Capital flows whereever labor is cheapest, keeping wages and standards of living down while a few grow stronger and use brutality and power to protect themselves (Mexico's a prime example, as is most of China. India's growth is slowing as wages rise and work moves to Malaysia).

3. The US is the closest to the Ideal we've got right now, and that's quite enough thank you. Check up Upton Sinclare's "The Jungle" if you want to get an eye full of unfettered capitalism.

Re:For what I hope is the last time

[hkmwbz]

You don't get it do you? Canada and France are not Socialist countries!

And capital flows wherever labor is cheapest, and thus people there make more money. Indeed, countries that are used for outsourcing are getting more expensive, so they are trying to find new places. Globalism works. When money flows somewhere, people will benefit from it and wages will go up.

"India's growth is slowing as wages rise"

My point exactly! Thanks for supporting me :)

No problem,

[Anonymous Coward]

As it happens, we have reliable information that the two countries in question have been: committing ethnic cleansing, producing weapons of mass destruction, gassing their own people, promoting instability, undermining the spread of democracy, funding osama bin laden, and are threats to freedom.

Colin Powell will now show the photographic proof of two trucks they have been clandestinely driving around in order to commit these heinous acts. We also have some memos from Nigeria that were sent anonymously by email, all totally legit.

Regime change starts on Monday.

Capitalism

[Mark_MF-WN]

That's precisely why idealogues are so stupid and dangerous. While Canada and Sweden beautifully combine the superb tool that is capitalism with the aims of socialism, Neocons try to elevate capitalism into some deranged ideal.

But yes, capitalism-the-ideal does grind the poor into the dust. If you believe in private ownership, it generally follows that you don't believe in redistributing wealth when a minority of people have so much wealth that the trickle-down effect no longer functions -- after all, no one spends 100 million dollars in one year. Even people making a quarter of million dollars spend only a small proportion of it. The rest gets hoarded. And that causes the economy to grind to a halt and the poor to suffer. Creating wealth is worthless when all of the new wealth just goes straight into the hoards of the rich.

Not to mention the fact that capitalists invariably oppose any form of organized behaviour on the part of workers that might give them enough power to successfully bargain for better wages/work conditions/rights/whatever with their employers. Anyone who would deprive people of the right to organize and peacably assemble is monstrous, and that's what capitalists want to do.

Re:Capitalism

[woztheproblem]

Unless they are hiding $20's under their bed, this "hoarding" you speak of is called "investing" and in no way causes the economy to grind to a halt.

Re:Capitalism

[Mark_MF-WN]

That's assuming that you believe that investing in publically owned corporations benefits the economy, rather than simply transferring money to other millionaire CEOs as they lay off their employees and stifle innovation.

Re:Capitalism

[heinousjay]

Considering the massive size and enormous growth rate of the US economy, plus the fact that there are new 'millionaire CEOs' created all the time, I'd say investing in publically owned corporations has a lot of benefits all around.

Of course, maybe you'd rather force that money to be handed to people who don't feel like doing for themselves. I can't tell from your post, so I admit that I am inferring this. Is it true?

Re:Capitalism

[Peaker]

Even people making a quarter of million dollars spend only a small proportion of it. The rest gets hoarded. And that causes the economy to grind to a halt and the poor to suffer.

Not that I love capitalism so much, but I would guess that Bill Gates puts his money in the bank and not in his sock drawer.
That means that his money is being re-invested in the economy which means it does not grind to a halt.

$200 million

[phorm]

It seems when something has gone on long enough people or even groups automatically consider it a right. This is something akin to the hockey strike (which was forever in the Canadian headline while it was on). Players, even rookies, were getting exorbitant amounts of money. Yes, they were skilled, but where they *that* skilled. At some point, the game has gone from something that everyone could watch to something that only the wealthy can afford to see (live) on a regular basis. Moreso, most of the big seats are purchased by corportations.

Movies, and many other industries, are the same. The massive multi-million dollar paycheques that movie stars receive, record execs (not the musicians in most cases, unfortunately), and others has gone on for so long that it seems normal, and they consider it a right. You'll see them blowing away that money on private jets, hookers, and crack, and then they will complain that it's our fault when people have had enough of their washed-out lack-of-talent and are no longer willing to pay such increasing amounts.

There is nothing that requires a movie cost $200 million. Go watch some classics like "Clerks," which was popular despite it's rather low budget. Better yet, go download (or if you're really into supporting the true artists, buy) a copy of Star Wreck, at least to view the SFX. You know what... the acting isn't bad at all, and the effects... pretty damn good if you ask me. All that down with hard work and a passion for what was being done. Sorry, but I'm down with paying for a movie in order to see a ruined reversion of a book, a dozen previews/commercials, and some idiot telling me that I shouldn't pirate movies (if I was, would I be sitting in the damn theatre watching that crap) and equating it to stealing a purse.

Re:$200 million

[Eivind Eklund]

Good examples; for a fairly mainstream and recent example, I like to point out Rodrigues' "Sin City" - budget of $5 (five) million, actually finished for $4 (four) million.

Eivind.

Re:$200 million

[Maxo-Texas]

You know the four hours I've spent watching Star Wreck so far were four hours that I didn't spend consuming hollywood entertainment too.

Star Wreck is uneven- some of it is professional level. Some of it is professional level six or seven years ago. Some of it is "low-budget". None of it feels like a home movie tho.

The action was pretty good- there were some choices they made as a comedy that I could do without. I guess the tone switches from drama to farce too quickly at times so it is a bit jarring.

On the other hand- the battle scenes are the kind I've been waiting for hollywood to put out for the last decade but they never did. ExTREMEly satisfying battle scenes. Likewise- the character conflict in Star Wreck between Pirk and Cherrypie? (sheridan) exceeded the amount of character conflict in starwars I,II, and III combined.

And that is where the meat comes from- getting you to identify with characters- then setting them against each other now that you care about them. Showing a bunch of battles before you care about anyone involved in them is worthless (aka recent star wars again).

I would happily pay 6 bucks for Star Wreck at the theatre.

Record companies soon to obsolete

[mrraven]

What a load of crap, even basic commodity p.c.'s can record BETTTER than c.d. sound as in 24 bit samples at 96,000 samples per second. On a Mac it's even pretty easy to record a professional sounding cd on say pro tools. Yes there is maybe a 6 month learning curve to learn about things equalization, how to mic drums, whether or not to use compression, etc. After that you are good to go. Then it's just a question of getting the word out and gigging and selling cds. And hint if there is no middle man gouging 90% of the sale price of the cd into their greedy little pockets you have to sell far fewer cds to make money.

Artists from Public Enemy to The Throwing Muses are figuring this out and telling the record companies to bite them.

Don't forget about Microsoft

[woolio]

It's not just the music industry... Don't forget software....

Microsoft sells "OEM" versions of Windows, Office, etc for 1/2 - 1/3 the price of their "Retail" versions. The OEM has all the functionality of the retail version except its EULA states that you cannot transfer it to another computer after you install it. The EULA also states software is licensed, not sold.

But in this case, the PRIVATE COMPANY is dictating how you may use the LICENSE that you OWN.

Yes, the state government says I can't transfer my driver's license to someone else and they use it. But IP licensing is the old kind of license [that I can think of] that is not given out by a government entity. When did private companies acquire the ability to do this?

Can you imagine a furniture company "licensing" its tables & chairs to customers? Under the agreement that if they move the chair or table to another room, they must purchase another "license"? Or to give them the option of paying 2-3x as much for the ability to transfer their "license" to other rooms in their house or to other houses?

After all, the design and construction of that furniture is a trade secret. We simply can't have people using it as they please...

An interview with an actual Swedish Citizen

[Mr. Cancelled]

With all the TPB news going around lately, I thought it might be interesting to get an opinion on the whole thing from an actual Swedish citizen. It took a bit of translating to bring this to you, but here's an excerpt from the interview:

Q: Hello, and thanks for taking a moment out of your busy schedule to discuss The Pirate Bay, and your opinions on it. Would you care to introduce yourself to our audience?

A: Thunk yuoo! I em zee vurld femuoous "Svedeesh Cheff", und vheele-a I oofftee du vurk ooootseede-a ooff my neteefe-a cuoontry, I em a pruood ceetizee ooff Svedee.

Persunelly, I feeoo zee Purete-a Bey vebseete-a seemiler tu hoo I feeoo fuud: It's oone-a ooff zee theengs vheech meke-a leeffe-a a leettle-a better fur iferyune-a. Bork Bork Bork!

Q: I see. And can you expound upon that?

A: Certeeenly! Yuoo see-a... Fuud is a necceseety ooff leeffe-a, boot in thet sense-a it's joost nuooreeshment. Fuud leeke-a I meke-a is but better fur yuoo, und better testeeng. Thoos it mekes ieteeng mure-a thun joost tekeeng in nuooreeshment, toorneeng it intu un ifent untu itselff.

Seemilerly, teecheeng, und shereeng inffurmeshun is sumetheeng thet dues, oor et leest shuoold effffect iferyune-a iqooelly. A better idooceted suceeety veell hefe-a mure-a deeferse-a interests, es vell es a mure-a stebeel icunumy.

TPB is ectooelly feceeliteting zee free-a ixchunge-a ooff inffurmeshun. Zee RIEA oon zee oozeer hund is tryeeng tu steeffle-a thet floo, ellooeeng inffurmeshun tu oonly be-a geefee tu zee preefeledged foo vhu ere-a veelling und eble-a tu effffurd it. Bork Bork Bork!

Q: That makes perfect sense. What do you think sets Sweden apart from the rest of the world, as far as the attitude towards music piracy, and data sharing goes?

A: Ve-a Svedes leefe-a fur foon und interteeenment. Joost luuk et sume-a ooff oooor iruteec feelms... Ve-a Svedes trooly beleeefe-a thet inffurmeshun vunts tu be-a free-a, und ve-a beleeefe-a thet shereeng thet inffurmeshun cun oonly leed tu a mure-a ceefil, better idooceted suceeety.

Und Muuse-a. Ve-a Svede-a's lufe-a a guud chucelte-a muuse-a ifery noo und zeen. In fect iff yuoo'fe-a cooght my shoo, yuoo'll knoo thet I meke-a oone-a meun muuse-a!

Q: Finally Mr. Chef, I'd like to ask you one last question: Have you yourself ever downloaded anything illegally?

A: Ooh yes! Joost zee oozeer dey I doonlueded a cullecshun ooff receepes, und yesterdey I ves vetcheeng sume-a ooff zee Treeeler Perk Buys ipeesudes I'fe-a doonlueded. Thuse-a gooys... Zeey're-a joost leeke-a me-a und my freeends, oonly insteed ooff treeeler perks, ve-a ell leefe-a in chelet's. Thet Reecky... He-a's sumetheeng ilse-a. Bork Bork Bork!

So there you have it... An honest opinion from a totally non-bias'd Swedish citizen. Love live the Swedes!

Poor Hollywood ... they can't do more crap movies

[jbssm]

Way to go guys at The Pirate Bay. Make those money amassing idiots at the USA understand that their corrupt government can only assure them that they have all the rights to explore and steal the people that are living in the USA.

About the stupid lies that Hollywood keeps telling you, that they don't have money to make movies if you don't allow them to steal you every penny.
How did you managed to survive all those years until the VHS and DVD apeared?

If you do bad movies ... to hell with you.
If you do mediocre movies that I have interest to see you it goes ... you know what I do!
If you do good movies I'll go the the cinema (although I already feel that 5 is too much)!
If you do excellent movies I'll go to the cinema and I'll buy the DVD ... if you add something to the DVD, a booklet would be nice!

So you morons at Hollywood stop stealing us, you already earn much more that is acceptable, do you know that are people dying of hunger out there?

Why not abstract it one further level?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think a tracker site would be at quite as much legal risk if it just hosted LINKS to trackers. Those links could be moved around as required by RIAA and MPAA pressure, but there would still be a single URL for everyone looking for trackers to bookmark and return to.

Such a site might even be possible to maintain in the US, since it gets pretty hard to argue against making something illegal that just links to something that is itself not illegal but only provides people with the information needed to illegally copy material distributed across thousands of machines all over the world.

The rich getting richer, where does it come from?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was reading Forbes and how the billionares list got 18% richer over the previous year. Last I looked, Im going to say that the world's GDP could not be more than 5%. Exactly where is all this revenue coming from?

Too limited - that's the problem

[denoir]

I work for a Swedish software development company, and we have no issues with PirateBay and similar sites. Our software is used basically by three categories of people - academic researchers, students and industry. Only the latter can afford it anyway and they generally don't get their stuff from warez sites. The other two, especially students can't afford it anyway, so there is no loss of profit if they use 'illegal' copies of our software. On the contrary, they get to know our product so when they start working there's a good chance that they'll buy software they are used to working with.

So why don't we give out the software with a non-commercial use restriction? We tried that for a while and it was a disaster - the commercial users ignored the license restriction and used the free version instead of buying it.

As it is now, we do provide a free student version, but only through their universities - which is a load of extra work for us and inconvenient for the students. So it's actually much less of a hassle for us if they obtain the software in other ways.

However, this is not good enough, especially when it comes to academic research licenses. We provide them at a lower price, but would in reality like much more control over that. A European or US university can afford our software for research use (discounted), while a university in a third-world country can't. We'd like to charge the former and give it for free to the latter (again, we may as well give it to people who wouldn't buy it anyway). This is fairly impossible today without lots of manual work on our part.

Ideally, the system should be socialized and automated. Our goals are that we 1) Get as much money as possible (duh!) 2) Get as many people as possible to use (and benefit) from our product. The old Karl Marx quote "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." fits quite well in that context. Basically the ideal solution is that people pay for the product relative to their income. (Even more ideally, the return-on-investment should be factored in, but that's nearly impossible to measure.) Although unrealistic, the automated part would be possible with verifiable global digital IDs and verifiable income statistics. Some form of market regulation of that type of pricing would have to be invented as well.

Utopian ineed, but one can dream. ;)

Re:Too limited - that's the problem

[Crizp]

I work for a Swedish software development company, and we have no issues with PirateBay and similar sites. Our software is used basically by three categories of people - academic researchers, students and industry. Only the latter can afford it anyway and they generally don't get their stuff from warez sites. The other two, especially students can't afford it anyway, so there is no loss of profit if they use 'illegal' copies of our software. On the contrary, they get to know our product so when they start working there's a good chance that they'll buy software they are used to working with.

If that's your company's official opinion, and not only yours, congratulations! It's the first time I've heard of a company holding this view. Most people are law-abiding - when they can afford it.

Most people I know that run businesses use warezed copies of new versions of $favourite_software, and buy it if they feel the need to use it instead of their current (bought) version. While trying the warezed copy, they also make sure no commercial works are created with it - it's purely "in-house" testing.

Granted, many softwares have a two-week "pre-activation" test period after you bought it (like WinXP), but try and get your money back if you decide you don't want it. It's meant to be a grace period for phone/fax registrations, not evaluation. And no true eval copies exist.

Re:Too limited - that's the problem

[denoir]

It's an unofficially official policy, so to say. You won't find it expressly written on our website or in a press release or something like that, but it is the policy we follow.

It is however not an altruistic policy - on the contrary it's entirely business oriented. If you are confident that the market segment that actually buys your software won't use pirated, cracked versions of your software then there are two possible ways at looking at the rest. You can either try to go after them with legal means and get nothing out of it, as they most likely wouldn't have bought the software anyway - or you can see it as a long-term investment. Just the fact that more people use your software is beneficial for the company. Non-paying customers strengthen the reputation of the software as well - which in turn leads to more paying customers. If nothing else, it promotes the technology. In addition, if the non-paying user (like a student) comes to a point where he actually can buy some software, chances are he'll pick yours as he already knows how to use it.

Re:Too limited - that's the problem

[blight]

Yes, non-paying customers strengthen the reputation... as long as the software is good. If it isn't good, then the opposite is true.

Makes you wonder about all the companies crying foul at infringment... :)

More cash to TPB

[foolip]

A few days a go a swedish reality series (on public service TV) called "toppkandidaterna" (top candidates) with young people with political ideas competed was finished. The winner was a leftist guy who will give 50000 SEK (US$6270) of the cash prize (250000 SEK in total, the rest will go elsewhere) to the pirate bay. The money is to be used for new hardware (the site has been running a bit slow lately and the search function has frequently been unavailable). That's public service money well spent!

Actually, France is #1, US is #37

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, France has the best healthcare system in the world. The World Health Organization rates France as the best nation for health care. Despite spending half of what the US does on health care, France has a higher average lifespan and much lower infant mortality rates. In fact, France beats the US on just about every health statistic. See http://www.nationmaster.com/ for an online reference.

The US ranks #37 in the world in terms of health care, though it ranks #1 in both total and per-capita spending on health care. The second fact is the reason that Americans fly to India to have heart surgery. See http://www.voanews.com/burmese/archive/2005-04/200 5-04-09-voa10.cfm?CFID=35543148&CFTOKEN=24153006 and many other references.

If I had an acute health problem, I'd take the US over Mexico, but I'd take France over the US too.

Why "theft" vs "copyright infringement" matters

[typical]

The reason people care is because the *AAs are trying to leverage negative public opinion of things that the public does *not* like -- like, say, pursesnatching -- to push their take on other things.

If the public doesn't like copyright infringement, then it's just fine to call the act "copyright infringement" and let popular support handle things.

The only reason not to do this is if you think you can't muster enough popular support for your position while calling something what it is.

So the *AAs steadfastly keep intentionally misusing the word "theft" to try to garner public support. That, to me, is a bit of an indictment of how little even *they* believe that the public wants to clobber copyright infringers.

You don't call someone who accidently killed someone while driving recklessly a "murderer". Don't call copyright infringement theft.

Now, copyright infringement *is* a civil offense (and can even be criminal in some cases). But one thing it certainly is not is theft. And people who are interested in honest, productive debate on the topic do not insist in injecting the word "theft" constantly into the discussion.

The example you gave is absurd. Nobody is "getting away with anything" by insisting on correct definitions.

[OT] voraciously

[Zirtix]

Nice post, but

I voraciously live through the Internet

The word you are looking for here is vicariously. So close!

Re:[OT] voraciously

[wootest]

Right. Although...

voracious adjective
[..]
having a very eager approach to an activity : his voracious reading of literature.

vicarious adjective
experienced in the imagination through the feelings or actions of another person : I could glean vicarious pleasure from the struggles of my imaginary film friends.

For what it's worth, *if* I were living through it (which I'm not), I would almost certainly live both voraciously and vicariously through it. :)

[summary to check understanding]

[Spaceman40]

So, you mean: of the three major possessive freedoms (life, liberty, property), property is the least important to the Swedes because there is less that they need?

Re:[summary to check understanding]

[Anonymous Coward]

"So, you mean: of the three major possessive freedoms (life, liberty, property), property is the least important to the Swedes because there is less that they need?"

Isn't it life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I think they have it exactly right.

Re:[summary to check understanding]

[JesseMcDonald]

The original wording was "life, liberty, and property." They changed it because a few of the signers were worried that it would imply that everyone deserved to own "their share" of property, not just that property rights would be protected. The intention, however, was that private property rights would be respected under the Constitution. The phrase "pursuit of happiness" is actually only a rephrasing, not a fundamental change from the original intent. It refers to a pattern of individual voluntary exchanges and contracts intended to maximize each individual's subjective utility (happiness), a.k.a the "free market", which is something that cannot exist in the absence of property rights.

Re:Not illegal- Yes it IS!

[Dice Fivefold]

That is not correct. They are running the worlds largest tracker, not just hosting the torrent files. The tracker is organizing every single download from the page. If they would turn the tracker off, the dowloading would stop.

Whatever they say, running this kind of massive distribution of copyrighted content is NOT legal in Sweden. The only reason they have been allowed to run it this long, is because the guys that is supposed to stop them is incompetent idiots that don't understand the technology.

But now, with this massive attention it's been getting, it is only a matter of time before the site is down, probably in less than two months. And the guys running it will not get away unpunished. I would bet on a year in prison for each of them. I think they have been very naive about how the law works in Sweden.

A bit off, but still on

[Brothernone]

I cannot explain how much much i dislike and hate the content comming out currently. Movies, Mucis, TV, Blah blah blah. It's all crap. I don't spend my money on the latest boy band or some teen whore. I don't spend my money watching crap movies that get fluff reviews just so the reviewers can keep thier job. I spend my money procurring acess to the interent. I spend my money on imported CD's because PEOPLE, not instruments and soundboards, make music. Today's america is full of one problem: Too much. There is simply too much to do, too many bills to pay, too many debts to correct, too many cars in the traffic jam, too many people in your department. People are so sidetracked with their wordly shit that they spend their hard earned money on crap that makes them feel better for 20 minutes. That being said, i'm all for piracy. Not only do i support TFSM (The flying spaggehti monser) i'm all for mass digital content delivery. Since studios and content makers feel it is their right to demand my money for crap i don't even want, I go out of my way to avoid paying for the content I do want. Movies, TV Shows, it's all about what the CONSUMER wants, not what they think we want. Instead of handling this technology like mature people, they have chosen to sit on their Copy Rights like the fat kid hoarding his cake. Instead of being smart and offering their own way of digital converstion and distrobution, they choose to stick to old methods that are simply obsolete in today's world. TPB is not just a piracy site, it's a community. Real people have real opinions and are making it known in real ways. They are executing their powers under their laws, and I think it's fantastic.

Distribution Problems

[Spaceman40]

First off, we both believe that artists should be compensated for their work, right? As in, the more people enjoy what they produce, the more they should get paid (this should really get worked out in the marketplace, like the burger example; it costs such-and-such to make the burger, consumers pay extra for quality).

The problem that comes up when you move to things with marginal material components (an album, or a song) to those with substantial material components (a burger) is that the cost (material and spent time) of reproduction approaches zero for no difference in quality. With burgers, a consumer is almost never going to get one from a producer (McDonalds) to save money, but to save time, or to save effort while retaining quality. With an album or a song, there is no real time saved by getting it from the producer (might actually be faster to look online these days, perhaps that's why iTMS is doing alright), and there is no loss in quality. Outside of morality, there is no market reason to bother with the original producer.

I'm a believer in the simple and elegant. I also like to support the artists that provide me with music I enjoy. However, I know that with a majority of artists that I like, money I use to purchase albums will almost entirely go someplace else (like the RIAA, which I don't support), and not to the artist that I want to help out.

Perhaps what we need is a way to be a patron to certain artists. Instead of the old patronage system (one patron to many artists), we could use a new subscription-based system (many to many). This way, I could support my favorite artists directly, and perhaps recieve new albums early, or have better contact with them. Artists would also have income direct from people who enjoyed their music.

The problem then (on the artists' side, anyway) becomes one that has plagued artists forever; how does one get a fan base? That's really why artists put up with people like the RIAA anyway, right? That's the problem I think we should be trying to solve; the solution to that will put a lot of the meddling middle-men out of business.

In summary:
The consumer should only support artists they enjoy, and should get benefits from that support.
The artist should get support based on the number of consumers that enjoy them.
The problem is the initial PR work and the middle-men, and only indirectly the compensation model.

An Indirect Reply

[Anonymous Coward]

When I was having trouble collecting money from an eBay sale, I researched the person who owed me money, found out he was a pastor of a church, and have asked his co-pastors, and his secretary to help me motivate him to settle debts.

Sometimes indirect approaches work. And so.. I had a thought.

Pirate Bay clearly has a lot of energy, and will get a lot of news coverage. This public awareness can be useful. What if they partnered with some business-savvy new college grads and wrote a business case study (5-10 pages long) showing how the record companies were ripping off the artists.

Then send a copy of each threatening letter, along with the business study, to every artist who's material is referenced in a threatening letter. It will make the original authors think, and they may realize there are better ways to distribute their work or make money from their work.

Done well, this could dry up the people in the middle screaming "violation". I have pursued protection of some material I wrote, so I understand from the artists' point of view. I honestly want to compensate them for their added-value into my life. But I sure don't like the intermediaries.

Money

[Mark_MF-WN]

I'd like a tiny fraction of that money handed to people who CAN'T earn money for themselves. I know neocons don't believe in the existence of disability or old-age, but I assure that they do exist, and are quite effective at making people unemployable.

And regarding US economic growth, apparently you've failed to notice that the US economy is in the process of collapsing under the pressure of a massive deficit and widespread corporate corruption and incompetence. But if you really haven't noticed that most new investment is taking place in privately owned companies in China and India, then I doubt you're capable of even questioning your religious conviction in the infallability greed to solve the world's problems.

Re:Money

[Bull999999]

I'd like a tiny fraction of that money handed to people who CAN'T earn money for themselves.

You are more than free to hand your own money to those people who CAN'T earn money for themselves.

Re:Money

[Mark_MF-WN]

And you're free to hand your own money to your military, to the companies that win your government's no-bid contracts, and to Iraq. And yet you love to force your fellow citizens to help support those doomed crusades. Why is charity so undeserving of federal organisation, but not slaughter and cronyism?

Re:Money

[Bull999999]

Really, people are you are no better than the right-wingers that you supposedly oppose. Bush said "You are either with us or against us." When did I ever say I love to force my fellow citizens to help those doomed crusades? Or is that because you group anyone who opposes your self-righteous ideas are the "foes"?

I don't AC or Cable TV because I consider them as wants, not needs. The fact is that majority of people who live below so called "poverty line" do have them. So we should pump them up with more money because they mishandle money so well? The real problem is excessive consumberism and without taking care of that give the "poor" more money won't increase their wealth. They will just blow their money on unless crap and make those corporations even more rich.

Don't focus on the symptoms, cure the disease. Try checking books out like "The Millionaire Next Door". There are millionaires who made it without cheating just as there are poor who are poor through no fault of their own.

offtopic: sig

[Jelizabug]

Thanks for the laugh - that's one of my favorite quotes from one of the better tv shows ever made. :)

Canadas awful medical system

[lorcha]

You sir watch too much Dateline

Well, I don't watch Dateline, but I do read posts on this very forum of folks in Canada who can't get basic medical diagnostic care, let alone medical care. People routinely post personal accounts of wait times of 6 months to a year in order to get an MRI. And I'm not referring to posts like: "Well, I saw on TV that it's tough to get an MRI." I'm talking about people posting things like: "I personally waited for months while in severe pain just to get an MRI."

In the states, I can schedule an MRI for the same day. Why does it take 6-12 months in Canada? My guess is your family dog Rufus gets better medical care than you do.

a voice from behind the iron curtain (Moscow, ru)

[vleo]

I have spent 13 years of my life in the US and moved back to Moscow, Russia recently. The reason was that from day one in the US I felt like I'm "back in the USSR" in some strange way - capitalizm, sure, but also lack of freedom,and there was much more freedom in Russia in 1992, and it is still lots left, although the constant anti-freedom pressure from the West and US on these topics is felt:
a) copyright (although, my economical and political beliefs are Linux/GNU/FSF, and repressive law against Windows lusers benefits me economically). And prohibiting hollywood movies and music would only benefit (any) country.
b) war on (some) drugs - overall policy that results in black market prices grouth for said products, with strong govt. corruption and consumption grow, accoppanied by constant media hypocrasy.
c) human rights erosion under the pretext of "war on terror" - like x-raying my boots and stealing my nail-clippers at the airports, phone and internet surveillance. Although - right now in Moscow you can buy 1) anonymous GSM phone card 2) anonymous internet access card 3) anonumous electronic cash cards 4) cannabis seeds selling and buying is legal
d) prostitution - at least it's still not a criminal offense in Russia, for private, individual relation between two (or more :-) conscenting adults. There are so many reasons why people might want to have sex, I don't see why govt. should be involved at all. And the girls are very good IMHO. Just look up on the Web.
e) erosion of state/church separation - but at least in Russian schools children are not forced to pledge submission to Govt. and GOD on a daily basis
f) untill now complete databases for all private information from phone numbers, to passport, drivers license, property, taxes paid were available for no more then $30 complete set. Unfortunately lately FSB(KGB) got upset that such complete information discosure was available to anybody, not just them. But, Westen position on this is such - give that wealth of information only to Govt. agencies. Whereas, if there is no choice, better everybody has it, rather then only Govt.

Speaking of "Pirate Bay" - well, firstly, I prefer eMule. Secondly, I never bother to download movies since on every metro station there are kiosks that sell DVDs with up to 8-6 latest Holywood shit movies on a two sided disk (russian creativity! :) for $3 each. And most latest software for evil OS (MS-Windows).

p.s. my wife delivers a baby in 10 days and althouth I can't say it was not without a hassle to get all paperwork and state medical insurance papers - it's free. We probably feel obligated to tip doctor with $200-$300 for delivery, but that's our choice and in case we were broke it would still be the same hospital and doctor. And Govt. gives a $250 bonus for a newborn baby. Of course it costs a hell more to rise a child, but :-)

Now, I do hate socializm :-) "Those that trade freedom for some security end up with neither"

Blueray/HD-DVD

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm asking RIAA and the fellows: why would I want to pay for Blueray and HD-DVD movies, which I cannot watch in Hi-Definition due to copy-protection? I go and pay money for hidef dvd player. Then I go and pay money for the films, while boys with *PIRATED* movies can watch these movies in hi-def, while me, a paying customer cannot?

I mean, where's the inclination to actually go and pay for stuff that is *inferior* to what pirates provide FOR FREE!?

(I have a Pioneer 50" Plasma Screen, the 720P and 1080I inputs are.. component video = analogic = no HDCP = no hidef playback, or playback AT ALL!)

Ofcourse! I don't have to buy these films if I don't have the *equipment* to watch them! *slaps the forehead* No one is holding a gun in my head, afterall, oh well, neither is anyone holding a gun on my forehead for going out and pirating the stuff. :)

Good job RIAA! In your *greed* you fucked this up royally! I have like, 200+ original DVD's.. guess how many original BlueRay or HD-DVD movies I will have? :) Stay cool boys, pass up new bills and go invent more copy protections. Like the one in DVD's.. wasn't that hacked by a teenager schoolboy from Norway? Go figure. Well, anyway, good luck to your amazing plans. :)

Re:Blueray/HD-DVD

[PFI_Optix]

I think you mean to address the MPAA.

The RIAA doesn't really have a lot to do with DVDs.

Re:The rich getting richer, where does it come fro

[Goose In Orbit]

Best guess - everyone else got poorer

So much for a free society, then

[Vlad2.0]

This is an argument a hear a lot in rallys/debates by the democratic group at my college. That it is somehow the government's job to run around the school yard and topple anyone who gets too big.

The Death tax hurts little people, too. I have a friend who's parents died recently, and as an only child, left him pretty much everything. Unfortunately, he couldn't afford the taxes associated with his parent's estate, mainly the house his parents were living in - a house that had been in their family for four generations. Yeah, that death tax was real fair!

Because the property you earned during you life work and investiments was due to a stable society, economy and government investment in infastructure.

Indeed, that is why your parents pay taxes during their entire working lives. And that is why I'll also be paying taxes my entire working life.

I would prefer to have a society were wealth is based more on merit and hard work and not just because some distant ancestor made it big in plastics. There are several key arguments for an estate tax.

Great, so teach your kids the value of a dollar and a hard days work. My parents did. Not everyone has megawealthy ancestors who are responsible for their wealth - my parents simply worked their entire lives for it (and were the first generation to ever graduate high school, let alone college).

Continued concentrate of power in the elite...

It is undeniable that there is a connection between wealth and political power. And unfortunately, no one, not democrat, and not republican, seems willing to separate the two, by any means. I don't think the solution, however, is letting the gov't jump in and say "HA! You died, now gimme half!!!1" Protecting consumers has nothing to do with an Estate tax and everything to do with regulatory bodies such as the FTC. There are other ways with dealing with such issues and a Death Tax is certainly an indirect and overly broad method.

Limit Innovation.

Please, it is a gross generalization that all rich kids are snobs and do nothing with their lives, and some kid being rich hardly limits your ability to innovate. If anything, your argument would eliminate your competition and make it easier for you to innovate!

Govt research and investments. Reducing taxes could crimp government research and investments in education -- the source of innovations that create jobs. With less education, growing numbers of workers can't get ahead.

Neither of which, I would argue, are the purpose of government. With the exception of military research, the government has no business funding research. Sure, it's a great pie-in-the-sky concept, the government dumping billions of dollars into cancer research to help humanity. But is that their job? No. If I want to fund cancer research I'll fund it myself knowing that it was *my* decision, not the government's, to do good.

Clearly, education has worked its way into the purpose of government (and it has done a terrible job) and that fact wont be changing. I would love to see the government give interest free loans to ANYONE, regardless of race/ethnicity/class/religion/sexual orientation/geographic location, who wishes to go to college (I'd say you need to be a citizen, however). But that's pretty pie-in-the-sky as well, isn't it?


Instead of solving the problems of society by giving the single thing we should keep in check the most - the federal government - why do people (especially democrats, who always say they are looking out for the "little guy") insist that giving more wealth, and by your own statement, power, to the government is the solution to all of societies ills? When did we stop being grown ups and instead being children of the government our parents gave their blood and sweat for? Giving the government more power is a sure fire wire to give yourself less.

Re:So much for a free society, then

[truckaxle]

Concerning the comment on the "little guy". Keep in mind estate taxes are paid by few Americans because they are not assessed on the first $1.35 million of net worth. Also there are provisions for parents to gift certain amount of wealth to children tax free. So the term little guy is relative (excuse the pun) here. Concerning Innovation. You seem to prefer that rich kids have an advantage to innovate. I prefer a society that levels the playing field and rich and poor have opportunities to innovate and earn their wealth based on merit and individual contribution and initiative. This is a conservative, not a liberal or democrat notion.

Re:So much for a free society, then

[Zeinfeld]

The Death tax hurts little people, too. I have a friend who's parents died recently, and as an only child, left him pretty much everything. Unfortunately, he couldn't afford the taxes associated with his parent's estate, mainly the house his parents were living in - a house that had been in their family for four generations. Yeah, that death tax was real fair!

The inheritance tax in the US only starts at $2 million. So I get the feeling that either your anecdote is untrue or you are leaving out some pretty important information about the size of the estate.

If the kid could not afford to pay inheritance taxes there would be no way they could afford a fair property tax on a $2 million house. It probably happens on occasion but nobody has yet identified a real case of the other popular anecdote where a family has been forced to sell the family farm as a result of death duties. There are plenty of cases in Colorado where folk inherit a small, uneconomic farm which they promptly sell to a property developer for several millions but taxes are not the principle cause.

This country is currently in the middle of a very expensive war, there is a massive budget deficit. 42% of taxes go to pay for the military directly or indirectly. Only about 15% of the budget is discretionary spending. An inheritance tax is a lot less unfair and a lot less burdensome on the economy as a whole than payroll taxes.

Re:So much for a free society, then

[das_cookie]

The Death tax hurts little people, too. I have a friend who's parents died recently, and as an only child, left him pretty much everything. Unfortunately, he couldn't afford the taxes associated with his parent's estate, mainly the house his parents were living in - a house that had been in their family for four generations. Yeah, that death tax was real fair!

According to this, at least the first $1M in an estate is exempt from estate tax. To say he "couldn't afford the taxes" is a bit misleading. I could believe that he was forced to sell the house to cover the taxes on the excess value over $1M, but that's not the same thing, and it's not a problem most people would be afraid to face.

That said, I would have no problem supporting heavy estate taxes if I thought the government would do a better job of handling the money than most heirs do, but sadly, nothing is further from the truth. Frankly, I'd rather some spoiled rich brat spend it than Robert Byrd and his ilk.

It DOES...

[mliikset]

...take a certain amount of money to be happy, physical needs (housing, healthcare, food, medical care, a couple others that aren't coming to me right now)must be met fairly easily. After that, more money doesn't equate to more happiness. You can be homeless and happy, but that kind of happy ebbs and flows with circumstances, ditto poor health or regular meals.

I make 6-7K a year less than I did in 1997, but I'm happier, have more toys and tools, eat better, spend more regularly on diversions and hobbies, help my kids out more constructively, and I think that makes me wealthier and definitely more prosperous.

BTW, I like my job enough that I never get pissed off or frustrated, I just wish the overtime would drop a little (I don't work the hours some IT guys do, but they don't fit up steel building assemblies, so on some level it probably evens out). If I die today, I die wealthy. And happy.

I, I, I

[PhYrE2k2]

You'll notice a lot of 'I', 'I', 'I' in that statement.

YOU only are able to get that MRI the same day because someone else who needs it won't, because that system doesn't allow them to. Health care is every citizen's right in Canada. If you don't like the system, go somewhere that has different values, or try to influence those values.

And where are you waiting 6-12 months for an MRI? Various family members have got them in local Toronto hospitals over the past few years within days if not hours? It sounds like you're toutting the latest news sob story. Do you actually have first hand experience getting an MRI in Canada?

Re:How to be popular... So...

[Anonymous Coward]

so... are you tired or rested?

Thread Summary Here

[permaculture]

Quick Precis:

1) That's theft!
2) No, copywrite infringement.
3) It's legal in Sweden anyway.

I wonder if CD sales are down over there? It's good their example gives us something to learn, either way. :)

I wish it worked that way.

[Stoutlimb]

I happen to be an estate planner, and I can say that the current system doesn't work that way. The rich, who use good financial planners (like me) never have to pay estate taxes. There are way too many loopholes, and a bit of good planning can usually elimate most death taxes. It's only the financially uneducated middle class that usually ends up paying death taxes. And what that usually means is the difference between their kids or grandkids going to college, versus getting mcjobs when they drop out of high school.

The system looks good from afar, but in reality it's just a clusterfuck. I try to help, by giving my services for free to the middle class as well, but there's only so many people I can educate.

Re:I wish it worked that way.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well get yourself a web site on that there intarweb and write it down for us! Some of us write code for you to use, you can write us some good tax advice.

Re:I wish it worked that way.

[Stoutlimb]

This kind of stuff doesn't lend itself well to online work, as everyone's situation is unique, and deserves special attention. However, the industry provides for free and unbiased advice in person all across USA and Canada, no strings attached. Normally this advice is reserved for the rich, there are very few companies who will provide it to anyone. This is my company, and it's likely there are agents in your area.

http://wfg-online.com/WFG_Public2004/wfghome.asp?l oc=us

Having it explained to you in person costs nothing, and there are no strings attached. An agent would be happy to sit down with you and educate you on the strategies, because we think that people who don't even know what's possible can't possibly become customers. Goodwill goes a long way.

dada21: fucking TROLL

[Anonymous Coward]

government has destroyed money in each and every case where they've gotten involved in.

They sure pissed away the money spent on your education.

Re:No really, heroes

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

Some people beleive that they can be of service to goverments which have the right to tell them (and you) what to do.

Some people treat their government as a public service, which is told what to do by the people.

Well we were told not to ask what our country could do for us, but to ask what we could do for our ccuntry....

Re:No really, heroes

[Marce1]

I was told to shut up and eat my greens.

Bad Guessing

[Physician]

"My guess is that Sweden is one of the worst places in the world when it comes to illegal sharing," said Martensson." And yet "He said file sharing is widespread in Sweden because almost every household owns a computer and can get a cheap 100-Mbps broadband fiber connection from their ISP for 70 euros a month." I'm guesing that Sweden is one of the best places in the world when it comes to so-called "illegal sharing".

They will close in time

[Snaller]

Sweden too has signed the Berne convention, the government is generally too afraid to get in a fight with anyone, its unlikely they will make a stand on something as this.

Re:They will close in time

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt the Berne Convention says anything about torrent trackers though.

I changed my mind today!

[Peaker]

Before, I used to think copyright infringement is not "theft".
Now after more careful study of the word "theft", I know copyright infringement is, by the book, a type of "theft".

It is the good kind of theft though, and people calling it "theft" imply that it is bad theft. So people, please stop and use a more specific word!

If the word "rape" is overloaded to also mean "eating cupcakes" would it become morally wrong to eat cupcakes? A lot of posters here sure would think so. I would say it would be stupid to use the word "rape" in a discussion about the morality of eating cupcakes in such a case.

I applaud TPB for their continuing support of good moral "data theft" for information freedom for the masses! Good work!

Why would I?

[lorcha]

Do you actually have first hand experience getting an MRI in Canada?

Why would I wait 6-12 months to get an MRI in Canada when I can get one the same day in the US?

Disease

[Mark_MF-WN]

I'm not talking about handing out coupons for iPods to anyone who is poor. I'm talking about providing them with the things that they couldn't afford no matter how well they budget, like health insurance that doesn't disappear as soon as you get sick, legel representation when they need it, and that kind of thing. And moreoever, supporting those who simply can't work -- do you honestly believe that they don't exist? This isn't about some weird idea of a "poverty-line", but real assessments of who can and can't afford food and a home, who can and can't afford treatment for deadly but treatable diseases, who can and can't afford an education, and so on.

I define my "foes", as you call them, as anyone who thinks that the disabled should be left to die if they don't know anyone rich and generous enough to support them. Knowing some seriously disabled people myself and having seen the inside of psych hospitals while visiting relatives employed at them, I can say with absolute moral authority that anyone who wants to abandon these people for the sake of slightly faster rate of economic growth is monstrous. Having such a profound lack of empathy marks neocons and libertarians as barely Human.

Check out how much of your tax money actually goes to welfare programs, and how much goes to farm subsidies to support people who want to keep living on barren patches of dirt that no longer support life, subsidies for corporations that haven't been profitable in decades but happen to have a CEO who is friends with a politician, how much goes towards buying useless missile defence systems like the PATRIOT or shitty naval helicopters that crash more often than they land. It costs practically nothing to help the needy -- what exactly makes you think it's such a terrible idea?

Re:Disease

[Bull999999]

I'm not against helping people who are down because of events beyond their control (i.e. born disabled), but I to have problem with help out lazy leeches. There was a case in New York where former Mayer Giuliani wanted drug testing for welfare recipiants, which was struck down by the courts. Doesn't it make you sick that they can test you for drug useage when you apply for a job but not when you apply for welfare? How can you pour more money into welfare without making sure that the food stamps don't end up with drug dealers? If we can cut aid to the leeches, there will be more money for the truely needy.

Here are some of my real life examples:

I had a roommate that spend around $200 in video games per month (that doesn't even account for the costs of consoles or computers). He was young and healthy so I couldn've gotten basic health insurance for less than $100 a month but spent the money on games instead. Should the taxpayers pay for his healthcare because he'd rather spend his money on games?

Paradoxical Centrism as applied to Economics

[Pfhorrest]

The communist ideal isn't state owned property - it's the dissolution of the state.

And if you look at the anarcho-capitalist libertarians, they too seek the dissolution of the state. How can it be that two such seemingly different approaches seek the same goal?

That's a rhetorical question, mind you - I see perfectly well how they can reach the same goal, and I myself preach (and try to practice) in all matters something which I've just now coined a term for, "paradoxical centrism". This is basically the notion that a balance has to be struck, not between the two extremes, but entirely encompassing them. The solution is not to compromise, but to take both extremes to their ends at the same time. Resolving the differences between two positions just entails seeing that they are not actually different.

The economic system I advocate is one in which there is no such thing as government-owned property. No central planning of anything. No government programs. From this angle it is an entirely free-market capitalist system. However, analogous to the basic civil rights to liberty (the right act according to your will) and security (the right not to be acted upon against your will), which limit one another, there are economic rights that might be called property and prosperity - though I've not really settled on a good name for the latter right. And while free markets satisfy the right to property, they alone do not satisfy the right to prosperity, and so to compensate for that, I advocate a form of wealth redistribution that will be detailed at the end of this post.

The right to property is not, as most conservatives and libertarians make it out to be, analogous with the right to liberty. Property is not about your right to do with your stuff as you please - that's just liberty itself, your right to do whatever except as limited by other rights. Property is primarily a negative right, one which limits necessarily limits liberty, just like security does, in the sense that it is your right keep others from doing something. In particular, it is your right to keep others from doing what they please to "your" property.

But just as liberty is the more primitive of the civil rights (in that in a completely lawless primal anarchy, everyone has liberty, but no one has security), and security is brought in to counterbalance it and ensure mutual liberty for everyone (as opposed to the liberty of just a few powerful people), so property is a secondary right brought about to counterbalance the basic, primal state of everybody taking and using or abusing whatever they want. In a sense, the same way security rights are rights against crimes like assault, property rights are rights against theft and vandalism. And the purpose of property rights are to ensure the mutual enjoyment of the more basic economic right to prosperity (though be careful, that's just a name) - to have and use the available resources around you.

From a procedural and legalistic point of view, this notion of property as a negative right analogous to security, and of a right to prosperity analogous to a right to liberty, has two consequences. One is that a person has a responsibility not to deprecate public resources - basically, we have a responsibility to our environment and ecology. This ties in to Green Economics (from that Wiki link: "a theory of economics by which an economic system is considered to be a component of the ecosystem in which it resides").

But beyond that, and the real point I'm driving at here, is the system of wealth redistribution laid upon a free market, which I promised a description of earlier. What I advocate is a system whereby exactly one half of every person's income (from any source, sale of product or service, gift, inheritance, etc) is "taxed", the result of these taxes pooled, and then evenly redistributed back to those same people. I'm sure the capitalists and such in the audience are shrieking right now, but consider: if ever

Dumbass, Strawman, Not sure. Yep. Dumbass.

[Dr.Zong]

Dumbass... He asked if you have first hand knowledge - not if you would go over the border or not in a hypothetical situation. And being a canuck myself, I can pretty much tell you what he is saying is spot on, and you sir, are frankly an idiot.

I used to have passing out spells, I got an MRI scheduled 5 business days AFTER I was diagnosed. This 6-12 month bullshit just doesn't happen - except only to be trumpeted by puppets who are trying to make the system look bad and come in and try and get for-profit healthcare instituted.

It seems those with the biggest pocketbooks always buy everything, including overhyped and false information into the media.

I got twenty canadian that say's you aren't even a canuck... so seriously, shut the hell up.

Who the hell...

[lorcha]

Who the hell ever said I was Canadian?

Anyhow, waitlists are a big problem in Canada. For instance, from the British Columbia Ministry of Health website (I picked BC because that's what google gave me first), let's say I want to have Knee Replacement Surgery. At this point, I'm needing a new knee, so I can't frickin' walk, and I'm in a metric shitload of pain (I'm told in Canada they use the metric system). So, picking a random hospital, I see that the wait time is currently 58 weeks with one surgeon and 99.1 weeks with the other surgeon. The third doctor does not perform knee replacement surgery, it seems.

Do you really feel that waiting between 1-2 years for essential surgery is acceptable? That kind of shit would never fly in the US. We do not sit around here for 1-2 years with busted knees. We get them fixed.

Maybe that's the cause of your dizzy spells. The knowledge that if you were to have a health problem in Canada, you will be unable to obtain prompt treatment at any price. Well, I shouldn't say "at any price". You can always seek treatment down here in America. Growing up in Minnesota, I knew of many wealthy Canadians who obtained heart surgery in the US because they did not want to die in Canada on some waitlist.

I can't believe you fail to see the problem here. In the US, we don't have waitlists. We just call the hospital and make an appointment. We look at your waitlists (with waits measured in years) up in Canada with sheer horror that you would tolerate such a system. The last place on earth I'd want to fall ill is Canada.

Re:Who the hell...

[Dr.Zong]

The last place on earth I'd want to fall ill is Canada.

The first place I would want to fall ill, is Canada (being a canadian citizen). The last place I would ever want to fall ill is the US. I'd go broke... I'd rather put a bulet through my head.

What your "statistics" fail to show is the P2/P3 Level that you quote. THOSE ARE ELECTIVE SURGERIES DUMBASS. Not sure if you know what an elective surgery is, but according to the text about one imperial inch (on my screen, I'm told you guys use some archaic measuring system down there that nobosy else on the planet uses) it says....

Priority 1 (Urgent) - in the opinion of the physician, the individual's health may be significantly compromised if the procedure is not performed within about two weeks of submitting the booking form to the hospital.

Priority 2 & 3 - in the opinion of the physician, the surgery can be appropriately scheduled two weeks or more after submitting the booking form to the hospital.

As with ANY electives, the doctor/surgeon can have it moved in priority if the patient is in dire need. A fucked up knee, yeah, that ain't dire....

Oh, and one other peice of information you missed from your quoted page: Of all the people who have had their surgery in the past three months, half will have waited less than the median wait time.

I'm also not going to bother pointing out the fact that you picked DUNCAN. One of the smallest, tiniest towns on Vancouver island, with a not-so-big hospital, but several major VERY Big hospitals within a two hour driving distance. Take Vancouver General, median of 22 weeks and only one P1 (URGENT) and that patient is going to get less than .1 weeks of wait (ie next day).

What about your cardiac surgery you were talking about previously (like my issue, it turned out I have heart problems), in BC, according to your webpage, the median wait time is 6 weeks. Again, if the doctor feels it appropriate and the patient is going to die the next day, they will move it up.

So your "statistics" were a bit off, and considering you fail to take a large urban centre and small urban centre into account, I cannot totally fail you on that - however a little research would have been able to clear this up - on your part.

So give it up, you're wrong. Plain and simple. Your own data that you point at shows your argument to be false. And you know what? Having been there myself, I can personally attest that your data is false. Utterly false. Anyone trumpeting otherwise is an impatient, arrogant, or otherwise uninformed ass. Please take your Americana "only we can do it right" mindset somewhere else, you're not wanted here. And yes, Chalouli (the decision that stated wait times were too long in Quebec about 6 months ago), that doctor, as much as he intends well, is an arrogant ad impatiet ass.

Re:Who the hell...

[lorcha]

THOSE ARE ELECTIVE SURGERIES DUMBASS.

Heh. That's just great. They've already got you convinced that a knee replacement surgery is "elective". Here in the US, if you destroy your knee, the surgery is surely not elective, and you surely are not going to wait 1-2 years for it.

'm also not going to bother pointing out the fact that you picked DUNCAN. One of the smallest, tiniest towns on Vancouver island,

I picked a hospital at random. I couldn't possibly care less about the city of Duncan. If you asked me tomorrow, I guarantee I wouldn't remember what I clicked on. I just gave a click and that's what I saw.

Please take your Americana "only we can do it right" mindset somewhere else, you're not wanted here.

I have received medical care in Belgium, Hungary, Thailand, and America. Of those, I liked Thailand's system the best. They have a two-tier system: public and private. Anyone can obtain a level of care in the public system, but for folks who are inclined, for whatever reason, to pay for their own care, they can use the private system. I chose the private system because they treat you like a king there. And the private system is quite affordable--most procedures cost a few hundred dollars. They have many efficiencies built into the system, such as: prescription medications can be prescribed free of charge by a pharmacist, eliminating the need for a doctor's visit (and the inherent wait times, costs to the system, etc.) for basic prescriptions.

And yes, Chalouli (the decision that stated wait times were too long in Quebec about 6 months ago), that doctor, as much as he intends well, is an arrogant ad impatiet ass.

I've found your characterization of "Chalouli", whatever the fuck that is, to be typical of most Canadians, yourself included.

Re:Who the hell...

[Dr.Zong]

First off: Chalouli was a case brought in the SCC several months ago about waiting times, and is what most people like you try to use as fodder in your arguments, I'm surprised you didn't know of it, research it and maybe next time you will come off as a more intelligent debater. Cause' right now my friend, you ain't exactly a shining star.

And for the rest of your argument with me, and the original poster, you do nothing more than strawman the argument. You don't address the original questions or facts, you only go off on a tangent and re-repeat what you previously stated (although I am sure anyone else following this thread can ascertain that for themselves quite easily)

So I call you for what you are: A Dumbass Strawman

Every statement you make, never actually addresses the facts. What's with your kind huh? Do you actually have any logic to you?

Please go away now, I will respond no further until you actually address my statements directly, or the statements of the great-granddaddy, if you have nothing intelligent or useful to say through the smoke over your eyes, please don't.

Thanks.

Re:Who the hell...

[lorcha]

You obviously care very deeply about this issue. I don't blame you. If I were Canadian, I'd be pissed about the wait times as well.

I'm sure I could go through every doctor's waitlist in every hospital in every city in every province and do a real study of the issue. Frankly, I don't care enough about the subject to do that.

My point is this, and only this: in Canada, you have to go on a waitlist for medical treatment. In the US, we have no such thing as a waitlist, and consider having to be on a waitlist for treatment to be shocking and inhumane. Hell, my dog doesn't even have to go on a waitlist for medical procedures, and she's just a goddamn dog. These are people we're talking about here.

If you're more interested in this issue, feel free to google for some articles and/or research on the subject. For instance, I found an article about illegal private hospitals in Canada. Here's a quote from the article:

But a Supreme Court ruling last June -- it found that a Quebec provincial ban on private health insurance was unconstitutional when patients were suffering and even dying on waiting lists -- appears to have become a turning point for the entire country.

"The prohibition on obtaining private health insurance is not constitutional where the public system fails to deliver reasonable services," the court ruled.

While I don't give enough of a fuck about your lousy healthcare system to research it myself, I'm guessing the supreme court researched the issue when it said that your public health system "fails to deliver reasonable services".

This isn't some sensationalized media report. It's the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada that your healthcare system "fails to deliver resonable services." The sooner you admit you have a problem, the sooner you can go about solving it.

Feel free to research the issue. It's happening in your own backyard.

Re:Who the hell...

[EzInKy]

Do you really feel that waiting between 1-2 years for essential surgery is acceptable? That kind of shit would never fly in the US. We do not sit around here for 1-2 years with busted knees. We get them fixed.


We get them fixed if we have insurance, otherwise we go on disability.

Re:Who the hell...

[MikeBabcock]

Lets do this one.

You're a a pregnant wife on a fixed low-wage income living in an apartment.

Go to the hospital for your birth.

Have fun without money to pay for good medical care.

We believe people should be treated well for the essentials first. More money is needed, more money is coming, accountability is key too. How many people in the US who can't afford to pay for their health care have none? You ignore those.

For many people in the US the waiting list is infinitely long, because they can't afford the procedure. Pretty awsome curve to picture.

Re:Who the hell...

[lorcha]

This is a common misconception about US health care. Here are some facts for you to ponder:

1. If a woman in active labor enters a hospital, her baby is getting delivered without regard to money or insurance. Did you think we kick women in labor to the curb if she doesn't carry an American Express card?
2. Most hospitals are required to treat anyone in an emergency situation without regard to money or insurance. If you walk into one of these US hospitals bleeding out your eyes, you will get treatment. Did you think that we kick people bleeding out there eyes to the curb?
3. We have this program for poor people called Medicaid. It provides medical care for those who cannot afford it.
4. We also have a program called SSI which gives disabled people money each month to live off of.

Before you tell me that these programs don't work, let me tell you that I own apartment buildings and there are plenty of pregnant women (few of them are actually married...) with low income living in my apartments having plenty of babies. They have incredible numbers of babies. And they aren't having them in the parking lot. They're having them in hospitals with real doctors and nurses and things of that nature.

Your grim picture of people in the US with no access to health care is totally inaccurate. Perhaps you watch too much TV.

yes and no

[Khashishi]

The internet is a different beast than the book. In the internet, information is copied ALL THE TIME. Every time somebody reads a web page, they aren't accessing the original content, but a COPY of the content, cached on the user's computer. Every bit of information passes through many nodes and is temporarily stored as a copy in memory, or in wires, or airwaves.

The content of the internet was designed to be copied. This doesn't mean it's ok to steal a work and present it as your own. But providing a mirror of content while providing citation is simply part of the flow of things. There's hardly a difference between being a mirror of a site, and being a proxy server that will communicate with the site and pass it to the user. And if the proxy caches a copy, there's no difference.

Healthcare

[Mark_MF-WN]

The problem with your roommate could be resolved by simply taxing him the cost of healthcare (or part of it, if you cotton to the idea of non-flat taxes), and then ensuring that he receives said healthcare in a reasonably efficient manner. Even the most generous welfare programs need sense.

Helping out lazy leeches? Of course that's a problem. Here in BC, you can't receive income assistance (a more flexible variant that also covers people who earn too little money to support themselves) unless you apply for a certain number of jobs each week (they even check with the businesses you applied at from time to time), complete employability courses, and demonstrate a reasonable level of effort at job hunting. Disability assistance and persistent-multiple-barriers assistance aren't quite as demanding; they provide the same employability courses (the majority of disabled people actually want to work), they're just not mandatory. It's still far from perfect, but at least the beauracrats are thinking, and that's far better than the customary alternative.

On the specific topic of drug testing, I'd say that the Giuliani approach is a bit backwards. It keeps with the harmful notion of treating drug addiction as a criminal activity, rather than a mental illness. Putting drug addicts in psych hospitals and rehabilitating them is far better than making them homeless. You are right about treating the disease. My dispute is with the idea that you should stop treating the symptoms as well. If you don't treat symptoms, patients wont last long enough to ever be cured.

Strictly speaking though, what is the difference between a welfare recipient who rents $5 worth of movies each week as recreation, a welfare recipient who leases a $20 internet connection each month for recreational web surfing, and a welfare recipient who buys a joint each week to relax with? Just because someone has no job doesn't mean that they shouldn't be free to spend a small reasonable amount of their money on R&R in a manner of their chooosing. That's setting aside the ridiculous fact that non-harmful drugs like pot are illegal of course.

Re:Healthcare

[Bull999999]

resolved by simply taxing him the cost of healthcare

That is a good idea, although a selective tax like that will cause a protest because a lot of Americans want something for nothing.

Here in BC, you can't receive income assistance (a more flexible variant that also covers people who earn too little money to support themselves) unless you apply for a certain number of jobs each week (they even check with the businesses you applied at from time to time), complete employability courses, and demonstrate a reasonable level of effort at job hunting.

That's another good idea but I'm not sure if it really works in the US. During the summer of 1996, congress pass and President Clinton signed the "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996." but as you can see, the problem remains.

That's setting aside the ridiculous fact that non-harmful drugs like pot are illegal of course.

I'm not opposed to legalizing pot in the US, one thing I noticed among many of my stoner friends is that pot seems to inhibit ambition. I believe that being poor and having no ambition will just keep you there. Besides, $5 won't even come close to supporting a pot habit for a week here in the US.

No but...

[mindaktiviti]

These Russian Hackers sure did.

Re:No but...

[ClamIAm]

There's no evidence in your link that those people committed those crimes solely in Russia.

errata

[Jesus_666]

s/found/lived/

Good Post

[Makarakalax]

Great post.

Here in the UK it seems to me the immigrants have a better work ethic than the native white-trash (chavs).

My gf's father described how his country-village has given all the jobs to the polish immigrants because they work harder and for less. The english they replaced just sit around in pubs nowadays moaning about it.

Somehow we have to figure out how to persuade the chav-populace to stop living on benefits and give back to society before it all crashes due to too many people living on benefits and not enough work getting done to pay for it.

Otherwise I may emmigrate, things always seemed better on the continent, although I don't think I should make conclusions based on a few weeks here and there. I owe this country the cost of my education, so I'll pay that off and then skidaddle if things haven't improved.

Re:By Swedish

[LordSnooty]

Heheh, I spy a new Slashdot meme...

"By Swedish, I am entitled to Halo 2!"

Support?

[cdrguru]

Do you provide free support to non-paying users?

If not, and they have problems or issues understanding your product, what is to prevent them from just telling everyone that your product is crap because they can't make it work?

Assuming even a small ratio of 2 non-paying users for every supported paying user you could have a real problem on your hands.

Death Tax alternatives, Question on Bush quote

[Vexar]

Although it was entertaining, your quote from President Bush seems off-color, but if it was indeed factual, it would be immensely telling. Would you care to cite the event? I can dig up transcripts on my own off whitehouse.gov, if you don't have them handy.

The estate tax is unpopular in two situations: the average small farmer or small business owner, and anyone whose parents live in California and own a moddest home, but die, leaving it to their children. Here's a question for the vast right-wing conservative Christian majority: if the Death Tax were to die, how would that impact charitable organizations? For my own self, I can envision a scenario where I have "just over the limit" to distribute to my surviving family, and I just lop off enough to give to a charity so that I don't deal with the tax. Alternately, a truly clever, humble, and wealthy person (perhaps few exist) would, prior to a death by old age or chronic disease, transfer asset holdings to his/her surviving family, and effectively die poor. In fact, I think back 100 years ago in the USA, this may have been done, as grandparents often lived with their families toward the twilight of their years. I do know that if you have at least $1,000,000 in holdings, you can create a trust fund, and assign your surviving family to be participants/executors in it.

We all know what fun those kids can be in school. I knew this one guy, he got something like $1400 a month plus rent off his family's trust fund. The guy lost his freaking mind with no job to cement his purpose, and joined some armed sedition force in Southern California. Suffice it to say, thanks to my exposure and efforts, the local FBI knows a lot more about this secret organization.

So, to all you venerate, wealthy slashdotters, learn from this suggestion, and die humbly and in the care of loved ones, giving freely to charities. It will drive the lawyers nuts and simultaneously help keep your kids out of cults seeking a bankroll, and that may be the greatest thing you can give to the world upon your death!

Send as often as you like!

[Anonymous Coward]

RIAA: 1.800.BAD.BEAT badbeat@riaa.com cdreward@riaa.com 202.775.0101 isrc@riaa.com bblock@riaa.com cgarza@riaa.com 202-775-7253(fax)
MPAA: 202-293-1966 202-296-7410(fax) (818) 995-6600 (818) 382-1795 (fax) (914) 378-0800 (914) 378-0048(fax) Canada: (416) 961-1888 (416) 968-1016 (fax)

If the line is busy, just call the next number down.

Hope he was joking...

[yndrd1984]

I hope so, too.

On the other hand, maybe he had a bad experience with the "International Talk Like a Pirate Day", and now fears one-eyed men with parrots.

On the third hand, if that's true, how is piracy not stealing?

Just to settle the matter, I could show up on his doorstep tomorrow with my three hands, my parakeet, an eye patch, and some o' me swarthy mates (you should see what my ex-girlfriends look like). We'll tell him to stop slandering our royally-sanctioned profession, or be keelhauled. Then he'll either run away in fear, or stop being a hypocrite - either way, we'll have our answer.

Avast ye!

It's a very famous quote...

[blorg]

...from the 2000 campaign, that was featured in Fahrenheit 9/11. Two seconds on Google will get you plenty of info. It was intended as a joke, but was jumped on by Bush's opponents, probably because it just rang too true.

Re:It's a very famous quote...

[Vexar]

Thank you. I hadn't seen that movie. Someone called it propaganda to me once and I pretty much said "no thanks" after that. Too feisty for my liking, I guess. Thank you for taking the time to explain, that was very thoughtful of you.

A mexican answers

[Kyusaku Natsume]

On the question, yes, our economy is not efficient at all, and yes,for those reasons; thats why our people risk their lives to work in USA.

Our economy, despite being the 13th largest in the world, is going down the tubes; massive concentration of wealth; (sp?),INCREDIBLY,AMAZINGLY corrupt politicians; worthless, bad joke political parties -a side note, a very small, but increasing minority is in favor of a military goverment, since they are the only members of goverment that deserve respect-; a vanishing middle class,the only improvements in the standard of life come from technology; a shickening, american style individualism without (sp?) american style passion for hard work, coupled with cronyism, nepotism and corruption at all social levels, from poor to rich.

The worst part is that instead of Mexico becoming like USA, the USA are becoming North Mexico, and usians can't blame that to the immigrants.

Post Data:
  I always thougth from your posts that you were from Canada, I guess then that you are from Washington or Wisconsin

Re:A mexican answers

[jafac]

California. :)

Don't mistake me for an anti-immigration nazi either. (just in case).

I have many close hispanic freinds, I enjoy Mexican food, I love Mexican painted tiles, and decorated my house with them, (though my house is not really a "Spanish Casa-style" house), my kids pop pinatas on their birthday, and of course, everybody gets drunk on Cinco de Mayo!

My rant was a political one, not a cultural one. Just wanted to make that clear.

In fact, after a few more years of Bush-style Republicanism, I'm sure that there will be Americans flooding into Canada looking for jobs. We'll be the new "wetbacks". And with Global Warming, we won't have to worry so much about the brutal Canadian winters.

Evil death tax

[Snaller]

Well death tax is sick twisted and amoral, so is it a suprise Bill gates supports it?

Re:a voice from behind the iron curtain (Moscow, r

[One Blue Ninja]

Congratulations on the new baby!

I found your comments interesting - I was just ranting the other day somewhere on my site that the Iron Curtain wasn't destroyed, it was just imported into the US. While your country is gaining freedom and respect throughout the world, ours is losing it at a frightening pace. A few years from now, you might look back and be glad you got out while you still could!

It will be ironic to our children, years from now, that all the old American movies showed Russia to be an evil empire police-state, versus the benevolent, free United States. That idea will surely seem ludicrous when your country is prospering nicely and enjoying your new-found freedoms, and American children are providing a DNA sample to their video player's DRM system just to be able to WATCH those old movies.

Re:a voice from behind the iron curtain (Moscow, r

[Dynotrick]

"We probably feel obligated to tip doctor with $200-$300 for delivery, but that's our choice and in case we were broke it would still be the same hospital and doctor." In my inlaws experiance in a smaller russian city (about 8hours drive from Moscow) that "tip" is manditory to get the doctors to give anything but the worst treatment.

Re:a voice from behind the iron curtain (Moscow, r

[vleo]

I do believe that people in the US would be able to stop the slide away from freedom and democracy without going the the lows that Europe (inluding Russia) had to suffer in the 20th century.