Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Amazon Patents 'Maintaining Scarcity' of Goods

Posted by Unknown on from the moldy-bits dept.

theodp writes "Back in Biblical times, creating abundance was considered innovative. That was then. Last Tuesday, GeekWire reports, the USPTO awarded Amazon.com a broad patent on reselling and lending 'used' digital goods for an invention that Amazon boasts can be used to 'maintain scarcity' of digital objects, including audio files, eBooks, movies, apps, and pretty much anything else."

43 of 240 comments (clear)

  1. And of course ... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Artificial scarcity is designed to keep prices up and screw consumers.

    Tell me again how this lovely free market reaches optimal solutions and we all pay less? Someone has just patented a way to make us pay more for no other reason that corporate profit seeking.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:And of course ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wut? When does copyright, by definition a government issued monopoly, have anything to do with the free market?

    2. Re:And of course ... by captainpanic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But think of the Economy!
      All hail the Economy. Listen to your lobbyists. Listen to your advertisement. Buy, but don't complain. There is no other Economy than the one and only Economy. There is no alternative. All hail the Economy.

      LOL, people wonder why the crisis does not end. The answer is right there. Because more and more people are leeching off the few people who actually produce something tangible.

    3. Re:And of course ... by holiggan · · Score: 3, Informative

      You have a choice: do your business somewhere else. That's part of the "free market" you talk about. The freedom to do business with whoever you choose. Nobody is forcing you to buy with Amazon. Just "vote with your wallet". You are part of the free market too.

      --
      "A sysadmin is a cross between a detective, a police officer, a gardener, a doctor and a fireman"
    4. Re:And of course ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As someone who sells software online from home as a part-time business, I use artificial scarcity (a product registration keying system) to motivate consumers to pay. The best way for them to get screwed would be for me to remove all incentives for them to pay, which would remove all incentives for me to be in business at all. Then, they'd get nothing - for free.

      Imagine a world in which you had to pay for new cars but you couldn't resell the car after you used it. At that point, you'd really feel screwed.

    5. Re:And of course ... by fredprado · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not if they have exclusive rights over what you need. Then they can pretty much do whatever they want, because nobody else can compete with him. That is not even remotely a free market.

    6. Re:And of course ... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just "vote with your wallet".

      Sounds like rich people get more of a vote than poor people.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    7. Re:And of course ... by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      The entire system isn't broken, it's crooked, running as designed by the gangsters that built it.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    8. Re:And of course ... by TarPitt · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Any form of private property is a government enforced monopoly

      The owner of the property has exclusive rights to it backup up by government

      Private property is the core of "free enterprise"

      The birth of industrial capitalism was formed by the "privatization" of traditional agricultural commons, impoverishing the peasant class and creating a cheap workforce for the factories of free enterprise.

      The privatization of innovation eliminates the intellectual commons in a similar way

      --
      If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
    9. Re:And of course ... by Lisias · · Score: 2

      If the "Free Market" screws you, go for the Free and screw the Market.

      This is exactly what bittorrents and other "generics" source of intelectual goods provides to you. Your wallet is not the only way you can use to vote.

      --
      Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
    10. Re:And of course ... by EdgePenguin · · Score: 2

      In order to maintain a consistent position, you've switch from libertarianism/minarchism (a little nutty) to anarcho-capitalism (abso-fucking-lutely insane).

      If government does not back up property claims with the threat of force, individuals must do so themselves. Congratulations, you've just handed all land over to whoever has the physical power to conquer it. Exclusive rights are only possible in this world by having a massive superiority of arms over all your neighbors - which of course means that they don't have exclusive rights over 'their' land because you can just take it at your will.

      You posit a world where disputes over the positions of garden fences would be resolved at gunpoint. Thankfully, most of the rest of humanity is smart and mature enough to see that this is ridiculous, and disregard you.

    11. Re:And of course ... by fredprado · · Score: 2

      I generally agree with you, but there is no dichotomy between doing that and fighting for fair laws. Both things can be done at the same time.

    12. Re:And of course ... by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Informative

      The problem with digital media is too cheap to produce. So the idea of supply in essence goes to infinity (or at least such a high number that it doesn't matter anymore) So using good old Supply and Demand the price of all digital media goes down to 0, no matter what the demand is, or the elasticity of supply and demand.

      Free stuff that is good right? Well perhaps in the short term, but in the long term it creates the problem that it isn't free to create the information. It takes time and talent for writer to write a story good enough to be well liked and published. Software takes man hours of people with skill sets. Music takes talented people who need to dedicate good portions of their life for to their art...

      My career is in writing software, I get paid to offer my services to an organization. The organization is willing to pay for my services as long as it deans my cost to be equal or less then the value I provide them. If I am producing stuff of little or no value due to a saturated market where anything I write already has a free version of it, and what ever I write must be offered for free too, means my value is 0, thus my bargaining costs will be 0 too (AKA I will not get paid for my work, or have no work).

      If out of work, I will need to change my profession to a skill that has a lower supply and a higher demand. That means giving up skills that I am good at and go to something else. Now enough people do this we loose quality digital media and we get "Fan Fiction" quality stuff where if we are lucky we may get a good product every once in a while, but most of it will be complete garbage, or just rehashing what already exists with little innovation or new ideas.

      Now here comes the Alternative Open Source business models and touting the profit of such companies such as Red Hat and IBM.... Sure Consulting services, and special distribution and configuration and training services are still in effect for some software. But that really works when you have something of a decent complexity. Now a lot of innovative stuff is too easy to use to be Consulting on. RMS who made money selling Tapes of Emacs. Well those tapes cost money to buy, and he had limited resources to create such tapes and mail them out, allowing supply and demand, as they didn't have the internet widely available at a fast enough speed, making media distribution obsolete.

      There is greed, and there is being valuable and compensated for your value. If amazon flooded the market, there will be less authors willing to make digital media and will go back to printed, just because they can make more money off of printed books, even if they sell less. As with all things in life there is a balance, Greed is the case where the balance is broken. But most people who are not greedy do want more out of their lives.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    13. Re:And of course ... by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 5, Informative

      Which planet's history did you study? Because it sure as hell wasn't this one's. With a few tiny marginal exceptions, there has never been an 'agricultural commons'. Farm land throughout the ancient and medieval world was always owned by somebody, whether it was quasi-state aristocracy, wealthy oligarchs, or more modest private farmers (the lattermost being rather rare actually before the modern capitalist world you disparage). Frequently land was awarded to soldiers (*privately* not collectively) after campaigns, Rome was famous for doing this, though it was by no means the only civilization to exercise the practice. Of course the next time those soldiers were deployed, they frequently came home to find their land had been 'reassigned' which underscores the dangers of the state. (Jefferson rightly said that any state powerful enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take everything you have.)

      I could give you a whole lecture on feudalism and how the ages of exploration and enlightenment laid the political theoretical foundations for the sea change in civic life enabled by the industrial revolution. You really need to study history in depth and realize how oppressed humanity was before the development of capitalism created a middle class society to counterbalance previous aristocratic/oligarchic power structures. Power structures that recreate themselves whenever an anti-capitalist ideology seizes control of society, since redistribution of wealth by force crucifies the middle class and puts the bulk of society under the boot of a politically empowered few.

      All this being said, any kind of intellectual property law is a farce against the nature of any truly free market because it violates real property rights. It essentially posits that I cannot use my materials to make things I want to make because somebody else "owns" the "idea" of using materials that way. No government should be able to tell somebody that they cannot make things with their own property, or configure their property in some way that another lays claim to. Either you own something (physically!) and have control over its disposition or you don't. The whole concept of "intellectual property" should be excised from society.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    14. Re:And of course ... by s0nicfreak · · Score: 2

      Oh there are people that call themselves poor, but compare them to a non-first-world country and see how rich they actually are.

    15. Re:And of course ... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Any form of private property is a government enforced monopoly

      Owning a physical object is not a monopoly. That's a natural property of the physical world around us.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    16. Re:And of course ... by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 2

      Jeff Bezos registered himself as a charity? When did that happen?

      Around the same time Fox News had themselves declared the Church of the Latter Day GOP

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    17. Re:And of course ... by femtobyte · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You're making the mistake that a lot of modern Capitalist political/economic rubbish relies on: assuming that the words used to describe economic organization (in this case, "owned by"), have a universal and absolute meaning identical with their present usage.

      Yes, land just about everywhere has historically been "owned" by someone. But "ownership" is a particular bundle of de jure and de facto practices that changes with time and place --- for large segments of history, land being "owned" by some lord/king was not at all exclusive with use as "commons." Only later was the definition and practical exercise of "ownership" shifted towards our contemporary notion of "private property." But I suppose paying historical attention to the actual conditions of production "on the ground," instead of tossing around terms like "ownership" as though they were handed down immutable from God, would be too "Marxist" for you.

    18. Re:And of course ... by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 2

      Private ownership of huge swaths of land was so common in the ancient Roman world that they came up with a word for them: latifundium. Remnants and impressions of these units survive up until this day.

      Private landholding is basically as old as civilization itself, there is written evidence from the period that it was common in Mesopotamia and all the cultures that sprang from it. In Mycenaean society virtually all land is held by the nobility and the serfs are so disenfranchised as to be explicitly called slaves in the original source documents. (See page 108 of this. The next page of the same work corroborates my allusion to the formation of large private lands in Rome through military service-induced absenses. You know what? Actually, this is probably as good a source as I'm likely to find with the limited time I have online at work, so just read the whole thing. It corroborates over and over historical evidence and patterns for hierarchical landholding in society after society age after age. It might be a little dry, but real professional academic socio-historical analysis isn't meant to be thrilling.)

      Commons are a legal *fiction*. Ancient and medieval commons, as I said in a response above, were *logistical* uses of land whose ownership was still with an aristocrat or oligarch. Modern commons are again deliberate logistical considerations, US public lands are property of the government, which only in the most naive principle is property of the taxpayer, since any use outside of the parameters of government policy will result in a police action (this is a particular bone of contention in a lot of places where local law enforcement such as sheriffs thinks the federal enforcement agents are being raging jerks toward the county residents and arresting them for simply 'using' land that is 'theirs' as taxpayers... just look at the videos on constitutionalsheriffs.com).

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    19. Re:And of course ... by fredprado · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Correction: they don't have exclusive rights over anything you think you may need. You obviously have absolutely no clue about the volume of Amazon IP and even less idea about the needs of others and likely not even of yours as well.

    20. Re:And of course ... by rgbatduke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I thought that the government was, by definition, the group who has the biggest gun, for as long as that state lasts. So there is no in between.

      Life in the state of nature is ugly, nasty, brutish and short, and we all live in a state of nature at all times. All aspects of the social contract are our attempt to collectively minimize our risks and maximize our advantages and benefits, generally by ganging up on would-be bullies or out-group folks. Historically, this has been a lot easier to accomplish with memetic support structures like the illusion of human rights, religious duties and obligations, the fear of a supernatural deity with the biggest gun that one could ever conceive of (but one that is only used after you are dead), and government bureaucracy. Traditions, too.

      In the end, patent rights and copy rights are what "we" say they are, collectively, and can enforce by the direct threat of and delivery of violence on members of the herd that disagree. "We" generally establish these illusory rights according to some mushy but reasonable principles such as rewarding the inventor and/or author (so that they will continue to produce inventions and stories and so on -- it is in our own self-interest to keep them motivated). However, a much smaller set of "we" also benefit tremendously from the delivery systems for the inventions, books, music, art and so on created by the talented few but enjoyed by the greedy many. Those delivery systems have long since been co-opted as the true basis for patent and copyright law, more the latter than the former. Patents at least have a reasonable lifetime, but a copyright now is damn near forever, long past the actual lifetime of an author.

      The corporate interests of the world would, I'm certain, like to turn patents and copyrights into property forever, with no time out. That way they become pure commodities that can be bought and sold indefinitely. Imagine a world where the rights to Shakespeare's plays were still for sale, traded like pork bellies or mattresses. Imagine a world where you have to pay somebody every time you read, see, or hear one of Shakespeare's plays, where even media copies are sold per use, not as things you can own. That's the ideal of the publishing industry, with the ideal of the manufacturing sector and drug industry regarding patents close behind.

      This leaves the problem of enforcement, the big guns. Any law that is ignored as universally as the copyright laws are currently ignored is no law. They are unenforceable, and everybody hates them. The illusion that they are somehow necessary in order to reward the actual creators of IP, carefully fostered by the media industry, is finally breaking down as well. At some point in the evolution of the digital Universe we will probably find some way of directly rewarding the authors of books, creators of music, inventors of fabulous machines only but in a way that strips away the guarantee of huge profits for the (largely unnecessary) middlemen. But to get there, we have to pry congress away from the clutches of the large, wealthy, and loud lobbying groups that advocate for the protection of their "rights" to charge the moral equivalent of a toll for going down a public road.

      rgb

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    21. Re:And of course ... by rgbatduke · · Score: 2

      All this being said, any kind of intellectual property law is a farce against the nature of any truly free market because it violates real property rights. It essentially posits that I cannot use my materials to make things I want to make because somebody else "owns" the "idea" of using materials that way. No government should be able to tell somebody that they cannot make things with their own property, or configure their property in some way that another lays claim to. Either you own something (physically!) and have control over its disposition or you don't. The whole concept of "intellectual property" should be excised from society.

      Good luck with books, movies, and so on, then. It takes millions to make a good movie. Once digitized, it takes zero dollars (not really, but a number asymptotically approaching zero) to make and distribute one billion copies of it. If I have to right to use my own materials (my computer) to make anything I want (a copy of the movie) and sell it (although god knows what I'm selling, a pattern of electrical energy that happens to have meaning and hence value?) without restriction, then there will be no more movies that are more creative than stupid pet tricks or youtube. There will be no more books -- as an author, I can tell you that it takes an enormous amount of hard work to write a book, and to write it with no possibility of reward makes it too big a waste of time (and requires one to have a day job to support it, leaving one with even less time). There will be an enormous impoverishment in music, in art, in literature, in film, in theater -- even the author of a play needs to make money or it isn't worth it to write plays.

      Good luck with drugs, too. It requires order of a billion dollars to develop a new drug and bring it to market. Once that is done, of course, the synthesis chain is known and anybody can make it for a fraction of the development cost. Companies take huge risks now developing drugs and without some protected period to make back their investment and a sufficient profit before companies with no actual investment at all in the development can make the product and undersell them we won't see any more new drugs. It won't be worth it. One can go right on down the line with inventions of all sorts. Inventing them is one thing, investing money in bringing them to market another, but once they are proven it is invariably trivial to clone them at a fraction of the development cost and with none of the risk.

      The problem with patent and copyright IP laws isn't that they aren't valuable and necessary. It is that they have long gone from protecting the legitimate right of the inventor author to make a protected profit from the time and money they risked creating something new that benefits everybody to protecting the "rights" of an entire legion of bloodsucking parasites that have attached themselves to every aspect of delivery of that benefit to the consumer and who want their right to the protected profit stream to exist independent of the original purpose, that is, the reward of the original creators and risk takers.

      We already have the concept of taxation of things "at risk" in a way that is differentiated from riskless taxation in corporate investment. We need to apply this same concept to copyright and patent protection, and issue it in such a way that it only applies as long as the original risk takers are receiving some predefined fraction of the income, and then only for a finite period of time.

      rgb

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
  2. For real? by Quakeulf · · Score: 3, Funny

    I... I don't even want to know anymore.

  3. Ultimatly, it will fail by Stu101 · · Score: 2

    I have an Amazon account and a Nexus with Kindle reader. They go together good. I buy the odd book here or there, between a few books of varying prices. A fair exchange for a fair price. This kind of stuff really annoys me though. It is as if they wanted to annoy people to go the root of firing up a browser and typing "latest best seller torrent" and side loading it.

    I admit I have sideloaded a lot of stuff, but mainly stuff that is useful, but in PDF (i.e. tech docs).

    Ultimately, a few people will put up with it, but when you are part of a group of "digitally intelligent" people, they will just rip and share their stuff, either through online or large removable media.

    --
    http://www.writeitfor.us - Writing IT for the IT generation.
    1. Re:Ultimatly, it will fail by Alain+Williams · · Score: 2

      I have an Amazon account and a Nexus with Kindle reader.

      But when you have finished reading your book(s), can you freely give them to a friend ? I can do that with the paper books that I have, but electronic ones ?

    2. Re:Ultimatly, it will fail by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Informative

      But when you have finished reading your book(s), can you freely give them to a friend ? I can do that with the paper books that I have, but electronic ones ?

      I use an old Sony eReader. It supports ePub format, with or without DRM.

      And I also have Calibre, which can remove DRM for legally acquired eBooks.

      So, yes, I can give my ebooks freely to friends.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  4. Value beyond money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The phrase “maintain scarcity” has the same feel as "monatize" to me - it indicates a world view where commerce is the be all and end all of existance.

    "Maintaining scarcity" is in essence the exact reason our copyright laws on this planet are so messed up - the notion that something that is no longer commercially viable might still be of historical or cultural interest is heresy. In fact, availability of "assets" without requiring payment from users of those assets is an active attack on capitalism and our way of life, according to some people.

    I know what kind of world I want to live in, and it isn't one where the goal is to "monatize" art, culture, history and literature to line our pockets. Maybe, just maybe, those things have a value that transends price tags - maybe intellectual stimulation, artistic enjoyment, and knowledge have their own intrinsic worth that doesn't rest soly on whether people have paid to acquire them.

    Although I think this is a sleezy smelling move on Amazon's part, it's more properly seen as a reflection of our broader culture. What kind of world do we want to live in?

  5. To promote the progress of by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    science and useful arts.

    USPTO, please read the Goddamn Constitution.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  6. Patents are by definition not the free market by hawks5999 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Patents are a monopoly issued by government. They are the antithesis of the free market. This government intervention in the free market leads to ridiculous patents like this.

    Many patents are filed defensively since someone else could use the force of government to prevent Amazon from conducting free market business in the future by getting this patent.

    The patent, copyright and entire IP systems is not a construct of the free market and we could be so much further advanced without these government interventions.

    1. Re:Patents are by definition not the free market by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's true that they are anti-free market. But no sociological construct can be pure. The patent system could work if the government or businesses had any interest in it working properly. But they don't. What we have no allows them to manipulate the market, drive out upstart companies, and drive up prices. Amazon takes more of the profit from digital books than real ones. Figure that one out for me.

    2. Re:Patents are by definition not the free market by EdgePenguin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      False.

      The 'free market' is not a real entity, its a social construct, and it can only exist where property rights are defined and defended - by government force. ALL property, patents or land, is created in this way. Its called enclosure (or inclosure, as it was spelt when this first happened to land in England.

      What is going on here is entirely consisted with the 'free' market (quotes because I refuse to pass on the propagandistic notion that markets have anything to do with freedom) - it is in fact what has been going on since the very dawn of capitalism. You secure exclusive access to something by force (generally via a government, which markets cannot exist without) and then you sell it back to the people you have denied it to.

    3. Re:Patents are by definition not the free market by EdgePenguin · · Score: 2

      "logical principles that govern reality"? That is meaningless. Logic is a process of inference, and its ability to correctly derive principles depends solely on the assumptions it begins withs. Economics and politics are invented by humans, and have nothing to do with the principles that govern reality (i.e. physics) - the notion that does is an attempt to bolster a particular social model via a naturalistic fallacy.

  7. Yeah sure go ahead by fleeped · · Score: 2

    For my digital goods, I can find other ... marketplaces. Without DRM, reselling issues, artificial 'used' tags and more neverending crap. Guess what, they are cheaper too.

  8. Sure, give us ANOTHER reason to prefer piracy... by pla · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Psst - Dear merchants and content providers...

    You will sell countless millions of your products at under a buck each. At >$10 each, a significant number of people will pirate it. And if you don't even offer it for sale (or play tricks to have a limited number of copies available), you guarantee everyone who wants it will just pirate it.

    Don't like it? Starve in the gutter. We don't care. Give us what we want or vanish, simple as that.

  9. Physical objects wear out, digital objects don't by markdj · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This has to do more with the fact that physical objects wear out and digital objects don't. Publishers have complained that when a library lends a physical book, it can only do so for a limited number of times before it has to buy another copy because the first wore out. When libraries lend digital objects, they never have to buy another again. So publishers want a limit to the number of times that a digital object can be lent before requiring a repurchase. The same goes for CDs/DVDs.

  10. The corporations are our enemy by Morgaine · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Terminator was far too optimistic in portraying our future as the War Against the Machines, a nice and clean them-versus-us scenario in which the machines would be non-human. The enemy would be easy to identify.

    The reality is likely to be rather more ugly and messy. It'll be a War Against the Corporations, and unfortunately they are us. It will be man against man, those who care about their fellow humans versus those who perceive their only duty is to be a cog in their corporate machine, and society be damned.

    It's all a bit bleak, and every day seems to carry us closer to that nightmare instead of towards a post-scarcity civilized future.

    Thank you Amazon. Not.

    --
    "The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
    1. Re:The corporations are our enemy by ph0rk · · Score: 4, Funny

      Terminator was far too optimistic in portraying our future as the War Against the Machines, a nice and clean them-versus-us scenario in which the machines would be non-human. The enemy would be easy to identify.

      Uh, yeah. Did you actually see Terminator?

      --
      semantics are everything!
  11. Artificial scarcity by AndyKron · · Score: 2

    Artificial scarcity is not new and the patent office is beyond broken IMO.

  12. Obvious, Novel, and Prior Art aren't just digital by ZahrGnosis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The patent office needs to adopt a simple fact: doing something digitally that has been done physically before (like lending purchased objects just like a used book and music store, or having a digital "shopping cart" like, you know, a shopping cart) is "obvious". Someone will eventually get around to implementing it, so it is not novel and should not be patentable. At best maybe the site should get design patent coverage, or some very specific encryption algorithms should be protected in some way if in fact they are proprietary, but the idea of patenting an entire store concept should be ridiculous.

  13. Re:Physical objects wear out, digital objects don' by s0nicfreak · · Score: 2

    This isn't about libraries lending out devices with digital items on them. What's being talked about is the system where a patron goes to the library web site, logs in using their library card number, and downloads the digital files they "check out". It is then marked as checked out in the system - despite the fact that if it weren't, other patrons could download the same file just the same. The downloaded file has DRM that causes it to stop opening after the check out period (there are several ways around this, even without stripping the DRM, but I digress). At the same time (the end of the check out period) the digital item is marked as available in the library's system, and another patron is allowed to download it. Publishers are enforcing not only this limited number of people that can "check out" the digital copies at once, but the number of people that can check it out before the library must purchase a new licence. It's completely artificial scarcity.

    For libraries that do lend out devices, the digital files are still separate from the devices (so you'd be checking out the same way as above, just putting it on the library's device instead of your own), so even if the device is lost, the library still has rights to the files and can lend them out again once the loser's checkout period ends. The devices do have scarcity; they get worn out, as do any physical object, and then the library must replace them - but the digital files can (physically) be copied an infinite amount of times without deteriorating.

  14. Commons by sourcerror · · Score: 3, Informative

    With a few tiny marginal exceptions, there has never been an 'agricultural commons'. ...
    I could give you a whole lecture on feudalism and how the ages of exploration and enlightenment laid the political theoretical foundations for the sea change in civic life enabled by the industrial revolution.

    You better not, because you're not qualified to do so.

    "Originally in medieval England the common was an integral part of the manor, and was thus legally part of the estate in land owned by the lord of the manor, but over which certain classes of manorial tenants and others held certain rights. By extension, the term "commons" has come to be applied to other resources which a community has rights or access to. "

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons#English_commons

    1. Re:Commons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      and was thus legally part of the estate in land owned by the lord of the manor,

      So, you prove his claim, while arguing that he is unqualified and that your quote somehow disproves his claim?

  15. Re:That's How It Is Anyway by EdgePenguin · · Score: 2

    There is a world of difference between 1) A person enforcing their own property claim themselves, and everyone else doing likewise and 2) a democratic government, maintaining a monopoly on force, arbitrating property claims. The latter might not be perfect, but it is a hell of a lot better than the Mad Max world that results from the former.