violating copyright is fine because nothing is actually taken in the first place. If the same applies to counterfeiting money, then I have no problem with that either.
Well, whether something is taken is disputable. But assume for this conversation none of the physical components... the paper/ink whatever was purchased not stolen.
artificial currency... all it seems to do is cause more trouble than its worth as well as spur things such as planned obsolescence, war, artificial scarcity, environmental abuse, and pollution.
How does a paper currency do that?
Another refining question, suppose the bills were gold certificates. Would that somehow make counterfeiting wrong?
Huh? Are you arguing that the creation of a physical object is the difference (so violating copyright is fine as long as what changes is bits that are really small and hard to see on a drive, but wrong when a CD is burnt) or are you arguing that you think counterfeiting should be allowed because you think money is stupid?
Is there anyway to prove that a lack of assets is not evidence of a lack of sophistication. I mean, it's kinda ridiculous that there's a legal hurdle to people investing in hedge funds, or in your case start ups.
Err... why? I mean I understand not wanting the responsibility of handling someone's entire life savings, but all an accredited investor seems to be (according to the SEC's site) is someone who can handle the loss without going into the poorhouse.
Sometimes the idea is also important. The difference is the specificity of the idea. For instance, the linked article complains about the two brothers who claim that they deserve more than $65M from Facebook. The fact is they had a good marketing strategy. That's worth a good bit. The idea of a social network is worth nothing. If someone really had a business/marketing plan to replace Facebook, that could be worth a lot. I have no idea what it would be, but it's happened before (MySpace to Facebook) and could happen again.
I can say that I have no reason to believe our government gets any type of discount whatsoever, foreign governments do, but it's widely known that Uncle Sam doesn't mind paying MSRP
Most government contracts insist on getting the "best rate". That is, if you offer a discount to anyone, the government gets it (well, gets the best total discount you allow. If you offer 10% off for reason A, and 5% off for reason B, but still only 10% off is A and B apply, the government gets 10% off).
The government often gets bulk discounts because other customers do.
learning that the U.S. is instructing diplomats to engage in espionage against U.N. officials
To my understanding, all countries do the same. I'd be shocked if the US wasn't doing that. "We're not spying on your diplomats" seems like the polite lie. Also, gathering ways of proving that diplomats are who they say they are (cables are tied to gathering biometric IDs), well, that might prevent an 8 month negotiation with a shopkeeper.
or that our "friends" in Saudi Arabia are pushing the U.S. to attack Iran
Again, I thought this was common knowledge. Like how they publicly yelled about Islamic solidarity while begging us not to leave the country and expose them to Saddam Hussein's army.
Isn't it his job to inform me on his views on the quality of leadership in France?
Not even close. Let's say he thought the French president had BO and was lazy. There's certainly a reason that some aspects of the Canadian government would need to know (lets say, to train themselves to ignore the smell, or to keep communiques short). There is no reason to ever mention it in public though. It doesn't really help you at all, and it's one of those polite things everyone publicly pretends hasn't happened.
Now, whether the citizens of France should have access to it or not - thats a whole different story
Maybe on an intellectual level, sure. But there is no way to send that information just to Canadian citizens (and at least one Canadian must have French dual-citizenship.) The reality is either its public or its secret.
Its a representative democracy. I need to know how the people I elect to look at that data think. I need to know when the data and their decisions combine to defy their public reasoning. If these showed some horrific hypocrisy or that the US government was doing evil things, that would be meaningful. If it's just a collection of white lies and, well, the difference between diplomatic exchange and real thoughts, I could do without.
Patents aren't copyrights, that's true. However, since those are the only two ways that ideas become protected, the same analysis often applies to each. And while it is slightly tangential, interesting conversations often are.
I read the article you recommended. I had a few points about it:
The dates listed are contradicted by wikipedia. And I don't mean "minor, nitpicky errors". I mean "the dates, using his logic, prove the exact opposite point.
He talks about what happens after two major innovations. Factoring the effect of that innovation into his numbers, they're practically equal.
Watt's (patent protected) numbers take into account a 10 year period when no one was purchasing engines due to an economic slump.
MOST of the cost is NOT in production. Most of the cost are executive pay, lawyer pay and investment in the new DRM or such format pay to limit what YOU, the buyer can do with the music that this houses BUY OUT RIGHT from artists.
Well, Avatar cost $500 million. That is half a billion dollars.
And, assuming you're right, if people didn't steal then the costs would drop by more than 50%. Isn't that good?
I am, above all, a humanitarian. If a small gesture on my part can have a large impact on someone else, I will willingly and without hesitation give my time and money.
You're well within your rights to, and I certainly believe in optional copyleft licenses. But you used the word "gesture". It ceases to be as meaningful if you're forced into it.
Stopping someone from doing something that doesn't affect others is generally what needs a justification. The scarcity is what we are creating, so that is what needs something to back it up.
Actually, scarcity not what copyright is about. After all, sans copyright, non-disclosure agreements could fulfill the same purpose. Every purchase would be accompanied with a contract. The lack of standard terms would mean libraries would have to ascribe to the strictest terms or that they would cease to exist.
Copyright simply provides a common framework by default.
Several viable methods are available for authors to get money, and many would do things for the love of doing them, for fame, or because it enables other revenue streams
Which are? How do we encourage John Grisham to write another novel. Or how do we convince a studio to invest $200 million in a movie?
I mean, I get there are always going to be people who give away their work, and I'm not saying everyone has to be profit driven, but some people are. And even those who aren't then need to work a day job. How do we enable the great creators to have 8hrs/day to devote to projects?
We had books and music before the Statute of Anne, after all.
Some. We've had a huge amount more since then. Similar to how the industrial revolution started off with secrets, but kicked into gear after patents were invented.
I'm even more angry that they are going to start cracking down on CD bootleggers. These people perform a great service for many poor kids who don't have a computer to download files or $15 bucks to buy from the store. These kids would end up stealing and getting into much worse trouble if it weren't for the ability to buy from bootleggers for pennies on the dollar.
Those kids could, you know, just not have a copy of the music. I don't know where this divine right to have stuff comes from.
Out of curiosity, when it comes to material goods, would you describe yourself as a capitalist? Because, absent artificial scarcity, how else can an author or programmer make money?
Doesn't sound too good when sounded out like that.
Huh? That sounds great. The government is well suited for many things; one of those things is allowing people to work together so that they can achieve more with the same resources.
Only if she is in Minnesota or if her state has similar laws. FTFA:
The basis for the case is a Minnesota statute that makes it illegal to induce "any person to change from any place in any state, territory or country to any place in this state to work in any branch of labor through or by means of knowingly false representations."
That said, I don't follow the 55 is too old to get a job logic. How fucked up is our country?
If an Employer *wants* its Employees to be reading their email from cell phones and the Employee doesn't feel like using their own personal property to do so, then the Employer needs to buy the Employee a work owned device or "STFU". If the Employee doesn't want to carry around two devices then they either need to submit to their phone being wiped or "STFU" and carry around both devices.
So you want me to have to carry around a second device because some dev is too lazy to isolate the e-mail stored on my phone from everything else?
Economies of scale. Basically, you want all machines to be utilized close to 100% of the time. If each airline had its own equipment, there'd be more likely to be downtime because that airline had no flights at time X. I dislike measures concentrate market power.
Personally, I can't see why the terrorist don't attack the security checkin next
Because then we would streamline security. Surely a 30 minute reminder we're scared of them, followed by radiation/groping, given to everyone who flies in America is worth more to them then the body count from blowing up the line.
. I don't even think the TSA should be the one scanning the people at all, it should be the individual airlines.
Cannot work, because they share a "post-screened" area. Therefore, all of the planes are at the security of the lowest common denominator.
It's a waste of a terrorist organization's resources, they can accomplish much better kill and terror rates on other vectors
But empirically, that's wrong. In the 1970's there were a lot of terrorists on planes, hence security. The problem is you're neglecting the goal of behavior modification. If people are far more reticent to fly, it creates a chilling effect on the whole economy.
Profiling, how the Israelis do it, isn't what Americans consider profiling. Americans consider it "oh, he's Middle-Eastern looking, search him." What I've read is that Israeli profiling is "talk for a few minutes with a highly trained expert, who uses your reactions to profile you." I would probably work, but would also involve replacing a lot of $8/hr TSA grunts with $?/hr TSA interviewers.
Or eliminate the search completely (other than the standard Xraying of suitcases)
And the standard magnetic scan. That can catch a lot and isn't invasive.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, whether something is taken is disputable. But assume for this conversation none of the physical components... the paper/ink whatever was purchased not stolen.
How does a paper currency do that?
Another refining question, suppose the bills were gold certificates. Would that somehow make counterfeiting wrong?
Never played DnD? You kill the workers when the castle is complete. (In DnD, also trap their souls because dead men can tell tales.)
Huh? Are you arguing that the creation of a physical object is the difference (so violating copyright is fine as long as what changes is bits that are really small and hard to see on a drive, but wrong when a CD is burnt) or are you arguing that you think counterfeiting should be allowed because you think money is stupid?
Is there anyway to prove that a lack of assets is not evidence of a lack of sophistication. I mean, it's kinda ridiculous that there's a legal hurdle to people investing in hedge funds, or in your case start ups.
Or a deed to a house or a title to a car.
Please explain how copyright infringement differs from counterfeiting money.
Err... why? I mean I understand not wanting the responsibility of handling someone's entire life savings, but all an accredited investor seems to be (according to the SEC's site) is someone who can handle the loss without going into the poorhouse.
Sometimes the idea is also important. The difference is the specificity of the idea. For instance, the linked article complains about the two brothers who claim that they deserve more than $65M from Facebook. The fact is they had a good marketing strategy. That's worth a good bit. The idea of a social network is worth nothing. If someone really had a business/marketing plan to replace Facebook, that could be worth a lot. I have no idea what it would be, but it's happened before (MySpace to Facebook) and could happen again.
IIRC, wasn't average volume level how some DVRs were able to auto-skip commercials?
Most government contracts insist on getting the "best rate". That is, if you offer a discount to anyone, the government gets it (well, gets the best total discount you allow. If you offer 10% off for reason A, and 5% off for reason B, but still only 10% off is A and B apply, the government gets 10% off).
The government often gets bulk discounts because other customers do.
To my understanding, all countries do the same. I'd be shocked if the US wasn't doing that. "We're not spying on your diplomats" seems like the polite lie. Also, gathering ways of proving that diplomats are who they say they are (cables are tied to gathering biometric IDs), well, that might prevent an 8 month negotiation with a shopkeeper.
Again, I thought this was common knowledge. Like how they publicly yelled about Islamic solidarity while begging us not to leave the country and expose them to Saddam Hussein's army.
Not even close. Let's say he thought the French president had BO and was lazy. There's certainly a reason that some aspects of the Canadian government would need to know (lets say, to train themselves to ignore the smell, or to keep communiques short). There is no reason to ever mention it in public though. It doesn't really help you at all, and it's one of those polite things everyone publicly pretends hasn't happened.
Maybe on an intellectual level, sure. But there is no way to send that information just to Canadian citizens (and at least one Canadian must have French dual-citizenship.) The reality is either its public or its secret.
Its a representative democracy. I need to know how the people I elect to look at that data think. I need to know when the data and their decisions combine to defy their public reasoning. If these showed some horrific hypocrisy or that the US government was doing evil things, that would be meaningful. If it's just a collection of white lies and, well, the difference between diplomatic exchange and real thoughts, I could do without.
Patents aren't copyrights, that's true. However, since those are the only two ways that ideas become protected, the same analysis often applies to each. And while it is slightly tangential, interesting conversations often are.
I read the article you recommended. I had a few points about it:
Well, Avatar cost $500 million. That is half a billion dollars.
And, assuming you're right, if people didn't steal then the costs would drop by more than 50%. Isn't that good?
You're well within your rights to, and I certainly believe in optional copyleft licenses. But you used the word "gesture". It ceases to be as meaningful if you're forced into it.
Actually, scarcity not what copyright is about. After all, sans copyright, non-disclosure agreements could fulfill the same purpose. Every purchase would be accompanied with a contract. The lack of standard terms would mean libraries would have to ascribe to the strictest terms or that they would cease to exist.
Copyright simply provides a common framework by default.
Which are? How do we encourage John Grisham to write another novel. Or how do we convince a studio to invest $200 million in a movie?
I mean, I get there are always going to be people who give away their work, and I'm not saying everyone has to be profit driven, but some people are. And even those who aren't then need to work a day job. How do we enable the great creators to have 8hrs/day to devote to projects?
Some. We've had a huge amount more since then. Similar to how the industrial revolution started off with secrets, but kicked into gear after patents were invented.
Those kids could, you know, just not have a copy of the music. I don't know where this divine right to have stuff comes from.
Out of curiosity, when it comes to material goods, would you describe yourself as a capitalist? Because, absent artificial scarcity, how else can an author or programmer make money?
Never control-clicking. Middle-click... otherwise I have to use two hands.
Huh? That sounds great. The government is well suited for many things; one of those things is allowing people to work together so that they can achieve more with the same resources.
Only if she is in Minnesota or if her state has similar laws. FTFA:
The basis for the case is a Minnesota statute that makes it illegal to induce "any person to change from any place in any state, territory or country to any place in this state to work in any branch of labor through or by means of knowingly false representations."
That said, I don't follow the 55 is too old to get a job logic. How fucked up is our country?
So you want me to have to carry around a second device because some dev is too lazy to isolate the e-mail stored on my phone from everything else?
Economies of scale. Basically, you want all machines to be utilized close to 100% of the time. If each airline had its own equipment, there'd be more likely to be downtime because that airline had no flights at time X. I dislike measures concentrate market power.
Because then we would streamline security. Surely a 30 minute reminder we're scared of them, followed by radiation/groping, given to everyone who flies in America is worth more to them then the body count from blowing up the line.
Cannot work, because they share a "post-screened" area. Therefore, all of the planes are at the security of the lowest common denominator.
But empirically, that's wrong. In the 1970's there were a lot of terrorists on planes, hence security. The problem is you're neglecting the goal of behavior modification. If people are far more reticent to fly, it creates a chilling effect on the whole economy.
Profiling, how the Israelis do it, isn't what Americans consider profiling. Americans consider it "oh, he's Middle-Eastern looking, search him." What I've read is that Israeli profiling is "talk for a few minutes with a highly trained expert, who uses your reactions to profile you." I would probably work, but would also involve replacing a lot of $8/hr TSA grunts with $?/hr TSA interviewers.
And the standard magnetic scan. That can catch a lot and isn't invasive.