I agree. Book #9 was sort of a high point - it was at least as good as the first five, and the ending was great. But 6-8 was insufferable. And I've not even bothered to try #10. When people you know who liked 6-8 tell you its boring and monotonous...
Of course, the fact that the spec rarely matches what the software actually needs to be able to do is conveniently ignored by most CxOs. After all, if they admitted that they need local talent to keep up with the changing spec and making sure the software is actually relevant... They wouldn't be able to slash 90% of their IT staff and claim the savings as extra profits this quarter. (And thus, a larger payout for themseves)
I can guarantee you there are at least a half-dozen other evil dictators who regularly do the same sorts of thing.
Heck, I'm willing to bet there's at least a half-dozen evil dictators who regularly do the same things and are best buddies with Bush. Lets start with China and Pakistan, and move on from there, shall we?
I can't believe it! I'm *actually* planning on voting NDP in the next federal election, despite the fact that I'm a small "c" conservative.
Ditto. I voted Alliance last time, because they looked like they had some good policies. Now I'm probably voting NDP, just because I don't want the same corporate wellfare loaded into our criminal code as the Bush administration's been pushing the past four years stateside. I want a government that'll stand up for my rights, especially if Bush gets another four years.
Only problem with that line of reasoning is that they could do so far more effectively with BitTorrent. Not only that, but they'd reduce the load on their servers and people would actually be able to watch the freaking trailer.
But you can bet that idea would get shot down because BitTorrent is "peer to peer".
With Studio Ghibli and Disney, its a long story... Basically, Ghibli was really pissed about the hack-job the first American distributor for Nausicaa pulled. So much so that they now refuse to acknowledge that the release even happened. Disney (technically Buena Vista, but Disney for all intents and purposes) was, IIRC, the only one that would agree to a clause that said they could make no edits or changes other than dubbing. In return (again, IIRC) they got exclusive rights for all DVD distribution outside of Japan.
Unfortunately, then anime started taking off in North America, and Ghibli started producing "children's" movies that showed just how bad the stuff Disney offered really was. So Disney started sitting on releases, either those that competed with their own offerings (Spirited Away, which was in theaters for a whole day, even in a lot of big cities) or they felt were too far outside the target market. (Whisper of the Heart)
Absolutely. The Media's currently friendly towards Bush because he's providing them with good stories and pursuing policies that benefits the big money behind the media. If or when that changes, he'll suddenly become Public Enemy #1, just like Clinton and Nixon did.
A-freaking-men, brother. I hated Clinton, and I hate Bush for the same reasons. In fact, I hate him more because he's been so damn good at convincing the American people (including some that are ordinarly very intelligent) that he's really a nice guy. He's not. So far, everything he's done has been so he can tick of a campaign promise on his list and to hell with the consequences. I almost wish he'll get a second term, just so he can be in office when all the screw-ups he's made come crashing down on his head.
This capture isn't going to change a single thing except Bush's poll numbers for the next month or so. We still got lied into war. We've still had thousands of casualties. And there's still going to be widespread armed resistance and discontent in Iraq.
The only thing he's done right is start ignoring Afghanistan, so the people there have a chance of building a real government.
The coalition didn't find them wearing anything. In fact, they didn't find them at all. The bodies mysteriously disappeared, and there's some doubt (including an account by a combat commander who was at the scene) that there were 40+ attackers period. By his account, it was more likely to be 12-18 snipers sitting in alleyways and on rooftops. The other reported dead/wounded were from when paniced American armor commanders opened fire on civillian structures and crowds.
In-battle casualty counts are always inaccurate. And since that's all there IS in this case...
Since Saddam violated the cease fire on many counts and on many occasions, the only way the continuation of hostilities by the US could be considered an illegal war would be if the first Gulf War was itself illegal.
Give me some proof. Every last one of the US's claimed reasons for going to war has been shot down. He didn't have any WMDs. He wasn't trying to acquire WMDs. He wasn't arming to attack his neighbours. He had no terror ties. Saddam did violate the cease-fire back in the late 90s, and Clinton attacked him for it, and he backed down. Many neo-cons then attacked Clinton for trying to distract attention from the whole trumped-up Lewinsky thing.
So not only was the war illegal, but you don't really have a leg to stand on when reasonable folk accuse Bush of starting the war to distract attention from his ongoing power grab and butchery of the domestic economy.
In fact, the reason the USA invaded Iraq is that Iraq has nuclear weapons. Look back at US policy over the past fifty years. They never invade a country with nuclear weapons, no matter what that country does or how anti-American they are. (Save a direct attack on the US or one of its allies, which is yet to happen) Instead, they employ a policy of appeasement. Countries without nuclear weapons, however, get hit with the Merkin Sledgehammer and have "American-friendly" dictators installed.
Actually, it shows that they are picking apart the Ba'athist infrastructure. If most of the insurgents currently operating in Iraq are foreign Islamic fundamentalists, this says nothing about how well the special forces and intelligence agenices are doing against them. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if they were responsible for this - most of them hate Saddam just as much as the USA does.
And remember, we've still found no sign of bin Laden, and have no clue how the fundamentalist terrorist networks get or use their money. The "intelligence capabilities of the American forces" have shown themselves to be utterly incompetent at infiltrating or even understanding these networks.
but considering that many of these people were fighting to maintain their priviledges under Saddam's rule, it could also weaken the resistance considerably. We don't know what will happen at this time, and I would guess that an awful lot of it will have to do with how Saddam is handled from here on out.
Oooh. A well-reasoned contrary comment on Slashdot. That's very rare!
Yes... I'm going to have to agree here. But I'd like to further emphasize that we just don't know. Intelligence operations against the guerrillas are yet another thing the US botched. Thanks to that, I don't think we can be sure that many were fighting to get their privilages back. Its entirely possible that many are fundamentalist Islamic crusaders jumping on the opportunity to "liberate" what was once "secular" nation. If anything, Saddam's capture's only going to encourage them. Especially any Iranians with long memories - after all, the "friendly" dictator installed by Reagan to keep them contained is now gone. This seems to fit with the recent attacks - suicide bombings, hit-and-run attacks, booby traps, ambushes in populated areas...
But you're right, this might lead to the collapse of any Ba'athist (spelling probably horribly butchered) resistance. Or a blatant power-grab on their part. Instability makes things hard to call. I think its even harder to call how the population as a whole will jump... They might be more in-favour of the US now. Or they might feel more confident in opposing the foreigners, as there's now no chance of Saddam coming back when the Americans go away.
What if he were to admit to everything Bush has accused him of in return for a nice safe cell in the US instead of firing squad in Iraq? Maybe he and Noriega can start playing Pinochle? I have no illusions that Saddam wouldn't sell his buddies down the river.
Good point... But as others have pointed out, the Bush administration cannot afford to give him a fair international trial. He's got far too much dirt on the members of the Bush administration that pushed for this war in the first place. Specifically, the ones that provided him with biological and chemical weapons and delivery systems, helped him come to power, prevented the UN from intervening when he was slaughtering Kurds, and so on. If he doesn't bargain or get a show trial or conveniently commit suicide, things could get very embarassing for Bush.
Of course, they could put him on trial without playing the WMD and mass killings cards. But then they wouldn't have much to go on...
Still, this might be a good sign. Maybe the occupation forces are actually starting to listen to the Iraqis and try to win their trust instead of scaring them into compliance...
How about the widow of a Bush victim? Do they matter any less?
Lets face it: this doesn't change the fact that the US FUBAR'd the Iraq situation. Badly. This isn't going to make the guerrillas lay down their arms. If anything, its just going to get them more support. They've now got a martyr.
Bush Senior's far smarter than his son. He wrote at length about why he decided not to take down Saddam. He chose not to kill or capture him, because he knew what would happen. Apparently, Bush Junior ignored his father's advice. And guess who gets to pay the price? That's right, the thousands of Iraqis that have died (and this isn't even counting the wounded!) since April.
I'm not sure that we're more apathetic. I know a lot of fellow Canadians who are very passionate about politics, but also very logical. As opposed to the Americans I know, who tend to simply quote the party line or simply don't care. It seems more likely to me that its been so long without any serious irregularities that most of the country simply trusts Elections Canada to do their job. And if they don't... That's what the scruitineers are there for.
So there's no reasonable opportunity to stuff the ballot box.
In theory. In practice, the member of one party could be paid off, disloyal/disgruntled, not actually a member of that party, or have to get up to use the washroom. In any of the above cases, the other party still gets a chance to engage in illegal behavior. And this is ignoring the fact that both could collaborate to prevent a third party with large popular support but without the institutional support needed to count as a "major" party (and thus, have someone watching the ballot boxes) from getting votes.
Apologies, a slight exaggeration on my part. However, that is effectively what several of the "inconsistancies" amounted to. Including counting a large number of improperly filled-out overseas ballots as votes for Bush and striking thousands of black voters from the voter registry as "convicts". And one also has to remember that the Flordia Government conveniently lost several ballot boxes as soon as people started asking for recounts.
Any paper-base receipt is suseptable to abuse. Specifically, this allows someone to confirm how another person voted.
Not if the paper's deposited in a sealed ballot box before the person leaves the voting station and has nothing to link it to the person. Of course, then you've got the "Florida Problem" - corrupt election officials stuffing ballot boxes. But you've got this even without electronic voting, so...
How does "Republicans contributing to Dean" translate to "financial shennanigans"? What Kerry was trying to say, by my reading, was that people in general are so dissatisifed with Bush's policies that even moderately hard-line Republicans will back what they see as a Democratic contender that's more true to their beliefs than their own party is. (Not to say that Dean's a moderately hard-line conservative - from everything I've seen, he's both a liberal and a conservative, depending on which belief/policy we're talking about)
I wouldn't be surprised if there was some dirty money flying around - this is, after all, American politics, and you guys have more corrupt politicans than Russia has square meters of tundra. But its nothing on the scale of some of the stuff the Republicans or other Democratic candidates have been pulling.
Except we already have that. Heck, we have that in several dozen different ways. What this provides is the ability for corporations to charge you for content whenever they feel like it, without paying for distribution themselves. Oh, and change the purchase terms, and any number of other dirty tricks.
So how exactly would this prevent me from, say, using a packet sniffer to grab the content as it comes down the wire (or grabbing it at whatever stage it exists decrypted) and redistributing THAT on Kazaa?
No, it'd pretty much have to be an executable wrapper around the content that communicates with the sound card VIA some kind of "secure" hardware path.
They demand that the US builds them a new one FOR FREE, because all that money they collect is needed to swim in (or something).
Actually, in this case, I think it would be because the US owes them several decades of back dues and would long since have been kicked out of the organization (and the security council) if the UN HQ wasn't located there. As usual, the US President/Ambassadors signed a treaty and then the Senate/Congress simply forgot to ratify it. Which means, strangely enough, that as far as the US is concerned its completely unenforcable, and can be tossed aside any time they like.
Same thing happened with NAFTA. Which, strangely enough, put the US in an incredibly advantageous position over both Canada and Mexico, even though the treaty was supposed to make all three equal.
Ah, so you claim that the ideas you used in the production of your work deserve no protection, but that you deserve absolute ownership of your own work? This seems to be even more selfish than you claim I'm being - you believe that society should be greatful to you for taking these ideas and using them to create your own works. Or do you claim that all creative works are built from the ground up? That you draw NOTHING from the public pool of knowledge, and borrow NOTHING from ideas that, in your view, would be owned by someone else?
Note that this includes such basics as language.
Face it, you ARE getting compensated. That's what copyright IS. You're granted a brief monopoly over the redistribution of your derivative idea in exchange for releasing it to the public, to compensate you for the cost of doing so.
Now, as for your accusation that, without "intellectual property" laws, we would be in a situation of mindless consumerism, I invite you to consider history. When IP protection is weak, as it was in (say) Germany at the turn of the century, innovation booms. Why? Because people have to keep innovating and creating to keep ahead. The protection and the expiration of that protection not only gives them incentive to create more, it gives them an ever-growing base of public knowledge (owned by society) to use in the creation of their works. Wheras in countries with strong IP protection, like Britain at the same time or the United States now, consumerism runs rampant, big companies control everything, and no-one has any incentive to innovate.
Yes, you're right. That is a clearer way of expressing what I was trying to get at. I'll try and remember that language in the future.
Basically, it makes no sense to speak of an idea as property, because ideas themselves can be infinitely reproduced without any loss. Where the scarcity (and thus, economics) comes into things is the reproduction. When you wind up with a medium where this cost is negligible (the Internet), monopolies on reproduction stop making sense and another way is needed to compensate artists and authors for their work.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. Book #9 was sort of a high point - it was at least as good as the first five, and the ending was great. But 6-8 was insufferable. And I've not even bothered to try #10. When people you know who liked 6-8 tell you its boring and monotonous...
Of course, the fact that the spec rarely matches what the software actually needs to be able to do is conveniently ignored by most CxOs. After all, if they admitted that they need local talent to keep up with the changing spec and making sure the software is actually relevant... They wouldn't be able to slash 90% of their IT staff and claim the savings as extra profits this quarter. (And thus, a larger payout for themseves)
I can guarantee you there are at least a half-dozen other evil dictators who regularly do the same sorts of thing.
Heck, I'm willing to bet there's at least a half-dozen evil dictators who regularly do the same things and are best buddies with Bush. Lets start with China and Pakistan, and move on from there, shall we?
I can't believe it! I'm *actually* planning on voting NDP in the next federal election, despite the fact that I'm a small "c" conservative.
Ditto. I voted Alliance last time, because they looked like they had some good policies. Now I'm probably voting NDP, just because I don't want the same corporate wellfare loaded into our criminal code as the Bush administration's been pushing the past four years stateside. I want a government that'll stand up for my rights, especially if Bush gets another four years.
Only problem with that line of reasoning is that they could do so far more effectively with BitTorrent. Not only that, but they'd reduce the load on their servers and people would actually be able to watch the freaking trailer.
But you can bet that idea would get shot down because BitTorrent is "peer to peer".
With Studio Ghibli and Disney, its a long story... Basically, Ghibli was really pissed about the hack-job the first American distributor for Nausicaa pulled. So much so that they now refuse to acknowledge that the release even happened. Disney (technically Buena Vista, but Disney for all intents and purposes) was, IIRC, the only one that would agree to a clause that said they could make no edits or changes other than dubbing. In return (again, IIRC) they got exclusive rights for all DVD distribution outside of Japan.
Unfortunately, then anime started taking off in North America, and Ghibli started producing "children's" movies that showed just how bad the stuff Disney offered really was. So Disney started sitting on releases, either those that competed with their own offerings (Spirited Away, which was in theaters for a whole day, even in a lot of big cities) or they felt were too far outside the target market. (Whisper of the Heart)
Absolutely. The Media's currently friendly towards Bush because he's providing them with good stories and pursuing policies that benefits the big money behind the media. If or when that changes, he'll suddenly become Public Enemy #1, just like Clinton and Nixon did.
A-freaking-men, brother. I hated Clinton, and I hate Bush for the same reasons. In fact, I hate him more because he's been so damn good at convincing the American people (including some that are ordinarly very intelligent) that he's really a nice guy. He's not. So far, everything he's done has been so he can tick of a campaign promise on his list and to hell with the consequences. I almost wish he'll get a second term, just so he can be in office when all the screw-ups he's made come crashing down on his head.
This capture isn't going to change a single thing except Bush's poll numbers for the next month or so. We still got lied into war. We've still had thousands of casualties. And there's still going to be widespread armed resistance and discontent in Iraq.
The only thing he's done right is start ignoring Afghanistan, so the people there have a chance of building a real government.
The coalition didn't find them wearing anything. In fact, they didn't find them at all. The bodies mysteriously disappeared, and there's some doubt (including an account by a combat commander who was at the scene) that there were 40+ attackers period. By his account, it was more likely to be 12-18 snipers sitting in alleyways and on rooftops. The other reported dead/wounded were from when paniced American armor commanders opened fire on civillian structures and crowds.
In-battle casualty counts are always inaccurate. And since that's all there IS in this case...
Since Saddam violated the cease fire on many counts and on many occasions, the only way the continuation of hostilities by the US could be considered an illegal war would be if the first Gulf War was itself illegal.
Give me some proof. Every last one of the US's claimed reasons for going to war has been shot down. He didn't have any WMDs. He wasn't trying to acquire WMDs. He wasn't arming to attack his neighbours. He had no terror ties. Saddam did violate the cease-fire back in the late 90s, and Clinton attacked him for it, and he backed down. Many neo-cons then attacked Clinton for trying to distract attention from the whole trumped-up Lewinsky thing.
So not only was the war illegal, but you don't really have a leg to stand on when reasonable folk accuse Bush of starting the war to distract attention from his ongoing power grab and butchery of the domestic economy.
Er. Iraq has NO nuclear weapons. That'll teach me not to hit preview first.
In fact, the reason the USA invaded Iraq is that Iraq has nuclear weapons. Look back at US policy over the past fifty years. They never invade a country with nuclear weapons, no matter what that country does or how anti-American they are. (Save a direct attack on the US or one of its allies, which is yet to happen) Instead, they employ a policy of appeasement. Countries without nuclear weapons, however, get hit with the Merkin Sledgehammer and have "American-friendly" dictators installed.
Actually, it shows that they are picking apart the Ba'athist infrastructure. If most of the insurgents currently operating in Iraq are foreign Islamic fundamentalists, this says nothing about how well the special forces and intelligence agenices are doing against them. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if they were responsible for this - most of them hate Saddam just as much as the USA does.
And remember, we've still found no sign of bin Laden, and have no clue how the fundamentalist terrorist networks get or use their money. The "intelligence capabilities of the American forces" have shown themselves to be utterly incompetent at infiltrating or even understanding these networks.
Don't expect peace anytime soon.
but considering that many of these people were fighting to maintain their priviledges under Saddam's rule, it could also weaken the resistance considerably. We don't know what will happen at this time, and I would guess that an awful lot of it will have to do with how Saddam is handled from here on out.
Oooh. A well-reasoned contrary comment on Slashdot. That's very rare!
Yes... I'm going to have to agree here. But I'd like to further emphasize that we just don't know. Intelligence operations against the guerrillas are yet another thing the US botched. Thanks to that, I don't think we can be sure that many were fighting to get their privilages back. Its entirely possible that many are fundamentalist Islamic crusaders jumping on the opportunity to "liberate" what was once "secular" nation. If anything, Saddam's capture's only going to encourage them. Especially any Iranians with long memories - after all, the "friendly" dictator installed by Reagan to keep them contained is now gone. This seems to fit with the recent attacks - suicide bombings, hit-and-run attacks, booby traps, ambushes in populated areas...
But you're right, this might lead to the collapse of any Ba'athist (spelling probably horribly butchered) resistance. Or a blatant power-grab on their part. Instability makes things hard to call. I think its even harder to call how the population as a whole will jump... They might be more in-favour of the US now. Or they might feel more confident in opposing the foreigners, as there's now no chance of Saddam coming back when the Americans go away.
What if he were to admit to everything Bush has accused him of in return for a nice safe cell in the US instead of firing squad in Iraq? Maybe he and Noriega can start playing Pinochle? I have no illusions that Saddam wouldn't sell his buddies down the river.
Good point... But as others have pointed out, the Bush administration cannot afford to give him a fair international trial. He's got far too much dirt on the members of the Bush administration that pushed for this war in the first place. Specifically, the ones that provided him with biological and chemical weapons and delivery systems, helped him come to power, prevented the UN from intervening when he was slaughtering Kurds, and so on. If he doesn't bargain or get a show trial or conveniently commit suicide, things could get very embarassing for Bush.
Of course, they could put him on trial without playing the WMD and mass killings cards. But then they wouldn't have much to go on...
Still, this might be a good sign. Maybe the occupation forces are actually starting to listen to the Iraqis and try to win their trust instead of scaring them into compliance...
How about the widow of a Bush victim? Do they matter any less?
Lets face it: this doesn't change the fact that the US FUBAR'd the Iraq situation. Badly. This isn't going to make the guerrillas lay down their arms. If anything, its just going to get them more support. They've now got a martyr.
Bush Senior's far smarter than his son. He wrote at length about why he decided not to take down Saddam. He chose not to kill or capture him, because he knew what would happen. Apparently, Bush Junior ignored his father's advice. And guess who gets to pay the price? That's right, the thousands of Iraqis that have died (and this isn't even counting the wounded!) since April.
I'm not sure that we're more apathetic. I know a lot of fellow Canadians who are very passionate about politics, but also very logical. As opposed to the Americans I know, who tend to simply quote the party line or simply don't care. It seems more likely to me that its been so long without any serious irregularities that most of the country simply trusts Elections Canada to do their job. And if they don't... That's what the scruitineers are there for.
So there's no reasonable opportunity to stuff the ballot box.
In theory. In practice, the member of one party could be paid off, disloyal/disgruntled, not actually a member of that party, or have to get up to use the washroom. In any of the above cases, the other party still gets a chance to engage in illegal behavior. And this is ignoring the fact that both could collaborate to prevent a third party with large popular support but without the institutional support needed to count as a "major" party (and thus, have someone watching the ballot boxes) from getting votes.
Apologies, a slight exaggeration on my part. However, that is effectively what several of the "inconsistancies" amounted to. Including counting a large number of improperly filled-out overseas ballots as votes for Bush and striking thousands of black voters from the voter registry as "convicts". And one also has to remember that the Flordia Government conveniently lost several ballot boxes as soon as people started asking for recounts.
Any paper-base receipt is suseptable to abuse. Specifically, this allows someone to confirm how another person voted.
Not if the paper's deposited in a sealed ballot box before the person leaves the voting station and has nothing to link it to the person. Of course, then you've got the "Florida Problem" - corrupt election officials stuffing ballot boxes. But you've got this even without electronic voting, so...
How does "Republicans contributing to Dean" translate to "financial shennanigans"? What Kerry was trying to say, by my reading, was that people in general are so dissatisifed with Bush's policies that even moderately hard-line Republicans will back what they see as a Democratic contender that's more true to their beliefs than their own party is. (Not to say that Dean's a moderately hard-line conservative - from everything I've seen, he's both a liberal and a conservative, depending on which belief/policy we're talking about)
I wouldn't be surprised if there was some dirty money flying around - this is, after all, American politics, and you guys have more corrupt politicans than Russia has square meters of tundra. But its nothing on the scale of some of the stuff the Republicans or other Democratic candidates have been pulling.
Except we already have that. Heck, we have that in several dozen different ways. What this provides is the ability for corporations to charge you for content whenever they feel like it, without paying for distribution themselves. Oh, and change the purchase terms, and any number of other dirty tricks.
So how exactly would this prevent me from, say, using a packet sniffer to grab the content as it comes down the wire (or grabbing it at whatever stage it exists decrypted) and redistributing THAT on Kazaa?
No, it'd pretty much have to be an executable wrapper around the content that communicates with the sound card VIA some kind of "secure" hardware path.
They demand that the US builds them a new one FOR FREE, because all that money they collect is needed to swim in (or something).
Actually, in this case, I think it would be because the US owes them several decades of back dues and would long since have been kicked out of the organization (and the security council) if the UN HQ wasn't located there. As usual, the US President/Ambassadors signed a treaty and then the Senate/Congress simply forgot to ratify it. Which means, strangely enough, that as far as the US is concerned its completely unenforcable, and can be tossed aside any time they like.
Same thing happened with NAFTA. Which, strangely enough, put the US in an incredibly advantageous position over both Canada and Mexico, even though the treaty was supposed to make all three equal.
Ah, so you claim that the ideas you used in the production of your work deserve no protection, but that you deserve absolute ownership of your own work? This seems to be even more selfish than you claim I'm being - you believe that society should be greatful to you for taking these ideas and using them to create your own works. Or do you claim that all creative works are built from the ground up? That you draw NOTHING from the public pool of knowledge, and borrow NOTHING from ideas that, in your view, would be owned by someone else?
Note that this includes such basics as language.
Face it, you ARE getting compensated. That's what copyright IS. You're granted a brief monopoly over the redistribution of your derivative idea in exchange for releasing it to the public, to compensate you for the cost of doing so.
Now, as for your accusation that, without "intellectual property" laws, we would be in a situation of mindless consumerism, I invite you to consider history. When IP protection is weak, as it was in (say) Germany at the turn of the century, innovation booms. Why? Because people have to keep innovating and creating to keep ahead. The protection and the expiration of that protection not only gives them incentive to create more, it gives them an ever-growing base of public knowledge (owned by society) to use in the creation of their works. Wheras in countries with strong IP protection, like Britain at the same time or the United States now, consumerism runs rampant, big companies control everything, and no-one has any incentive to innovate.
Yes, you're right. That is a clearer way of expressing what I was trying to get at. I'll try and remember that language in the future.
Basically, it makes no sense to speak of an idea as property, because ideas themselves can be infinitely reproduced without any loss. Where the scarcity (and thus, economics) comes into things is the reproduction. When you wind up with a medium where this cost is negligible (the Internet), monopolies on reproduction stop making sense and another way is needed to compensate artists and authors for their work.