The highest tax bracket in the UK is 40%, any higher than that and you start running into two problems. fFrstly you start providing a disincentive to continue working hard, when you know that a significant proportion of your income is going straight out of your bank accounr. Secondly, you start running into negative marginal tax revenues. In other words adding a penny onto the tax rate reduces the total revenue collected because the wealthy find that it is better value to hire a decent accountant and employ loopholes in the tax structure to reduce their tax burden (eg. offshore banking).
Britain hasn't lost the ability to afford a decent welfare state. The bill for that welfare state is growing significantly faster than GDP, so the proportional cost is growing.
I am however in agreement with you over the amount that we spend on the military. I don't think that this expense is justified in a modern world, however the electorate in the UK demand that we have a well equipped and Large military. I think that well equipped and _specialist_ smaller force would be ample.
You have accurately expanded on what I was saying. I completely agree that thsi is not a black and white issue, and you have highlighted that in arguing against total annhiliation of IP law I have pushed the argument too far into the opposite direction. IP law at the moment may not be perfect, but it is (IMHO) better than providing no protection whatsoever for data commodities.
if you mean that technology has made it difficult for data comodoties to be practically traded, then I think you are incorrect. Technology has made it imeasurably easier for data to be traded. The reason that piracy and the tools to enable piracy should be trodden on is that if piracy becomes so widespread that any data resource is available for free, then people will cease to produce such resources. Consequently the law needs to deal with the massive threat of piracy appropriately. It would be impossible to go after the individuals because they are so numerous, but it is easily possible to go after the corporations that attempt to make money out of theft, and it is also possible to go after the mediating servers.
The technology is being developed to enable secure electronic trading of watermarked encrypted copies of data, and the sooner the better.
which, of course, removes any incentive to do anything whatsoever. The cost of operating the welfare state (at least in the UK - I don't know about the states) is enormous, and growing.
Besides which, why should those who produce data comodoties support themselves instead of relying on others to do it?
Basically history and economic theory have shown us that the market economy is the most efficient way to solve the basic economic problem of infinite wants and finite resources. Applying the ideas of the market economy to data comodoties where the worker provides not only the labour, but also the capital, it is clear that the concept of ownership must be applied to IP in order for the system to work.
me too, but that doesn't mean I can justify in any way that I am not stealing from the artist and the record company.
secondly, the main reason that I wouldn't consider buying it in a store is that it costs money that I would rather spend elsewhere. I wouldn't download it if I didn't like listening to it. Why wouldn't you buy the content in a store?
Who cares about the difference between Natural law and American Law. The point is that, for a very good reason, the law grants the author of IP the ownership of it for a set amount of time. Thus, when you copy someone's MP3s online, you are stealing in that a) you are taking something without permission of the owner, in this case a copy of the data; and b) you are depriving the owner of their due remuneration.
Of course we don't. Are you unable to grasp the concept that a word can mean two different things, each with different moral tone.
The use of the same word does not provide moral equivalence between the definitions any more than the the use of the word "nailed" implies moral equivalence between, "I nailed their quarterback" and "I nailed their quarterback to a wall" .
and guess what? That method of society supporting those that share their ideas with us is called (surprise surprise) "buying their work". That is PRECISELY what copyright is there for: to make sure that there is a method of ensuring that people who create Intellectual products like music, software, literature etc. have the right to assert their ownership over that property and sell it in order to support themselves and further development of the product.
And you think that everyone who pirates MP3s using Napster or Gnutella or whatever really cannot afford to buy the album? Crap. Let's say that there are 5 million downloads from napster per day, and that 20% of the users couldn't affort to buy the track. If a CD single costs $4 then that's $16 million per day in lost revenue.
Secondly, just because you can't afford something/wouldn't have bought it in the first place doesn't mean that you can steal it.
And you _are_ stealing, since you are depriving the owner of the copyright the licence fee that he is due.
Rubbish. You are not stealling from the person who you copied the work from, you are stealing from the author of the work, or their agents, because you have not purchased the right to use their data. You are not depriving them the use of the data, but you _are_ depriving them of their fee for using that data.
Whether it is patented or copyrighted, the concept is the same. You have the rights to determine the terms under which your ideas are released and used.
it seems that there is quite a bit of money to be made in open-source
Where? Has anyone made a profit yet? The profitable IT companies are all closed source and for a good reason. Do you think that IBM would bother developing new versions of Notes or ViaVoice or any other development intensive app if the minute they released it, anyone could grab a copy. They simply wouldn't bother if there was no profit in it.
You might have apoint about the length of time that material is copyrighted for, but that's a seperate debate, and I don't know enough about it.
The purpose is to provide incentive for you to do it in the first place. Most, but not all, people are motivated by self interest above all else. These people would not create software if they could not make a living out of it. With reference to music, they would not have as much time of freedom to make music if they could not make money out of it because thay would have to spend their time holding down a job to fund making music. I would guess that most of the software we have today, and almost all of the hardware would be years behind in its development if the designs were not owned by anyone, but were in the public domain. The reason: there is no incentive for anyone to slave away to improve something without profit motive. This is on of the reasons why communist countries failed economically. They had very good schools and academies, but because it was of no personal benefit to work hard or strain yourself, people didn't, and consequently the production efficiency was apalling.
To summarise: information ownership provides the incentive to make that information better. It exposes design to market forces, and the market has been shown time and again to be the best way to spark progress.
When RMS suggests that using the word piracy is implicitly slanting the Napster/Gnutella/DMCA/whatever debate because of its other meaning he is making two mistakes. Firstly the word piracy clearly has two definitions: thieving on the oceans, and unlawfully copying information that you do not own. The use of the same word does not provide moral equivalence between the definitions any more than the the use of the word "nailed" implies moral equivalence between, "I nailed their quarterback" and "I nailed their quarterback to a wall"
Much data has a value, for example contact databases, code, and indeed music. The owner of that information has a right to control the terms under which it is used. Some people choose to release their code under [insert GPL-alike licence here], whilst others charge for it. Likewise some musicians release their information (recordings) for free, whilst others make a living out of selling that information at a rate that the market determines. That is clear from the fact that a CD costs cents to burn, whilst a music CD costs Dollars to buy. The difference is the market attributed value that has been attached the data contained on the CD. Just because music is now frequently stored on media other than CDs it doesn't reduce its value.
Secondly, he has not made the distinction between sharing and copying data. When RMS says that using the term "piracy" is wrong to refer to _sharing_ data that is copyrighted he is clearly correct, however it can be accurately applied to the _unlawful downloading/copying_ of material that you do not have a right to use. He has blurred these two _different_ acts, possibly in order to shift the debate onto safer ground.
The essence of the Napster debate is the question of whether providing tools to help people pirate (used deliberately) IP is in itself unlawful, especially when you provide such tools under a profit motive. This is a completely separate debate to whether the free sharing of information should be restricted, and to whether I have a right to steal data by downloading IP that I do not have licence to use (for example if I already own a copy of the material on a CD).
The record companies are not saying that sharing information is piracy, but that unlawfully downloading it is. Separately they are challenging the ability to provide tools that enable the unlawful copying of protected information without any kind of mechanism to protect against IP theft.
My position on this is that the sharing of information is clearly a good thing (tm), however there must be some protection against the theft of IP or the profit incentive for producing data will be seriously eroded. Secondly, I think that Napster have been irresponsible in attempting to profit (though indirectly) through providing a tool that enables piracy on a massive scale without any kind of protection for the owners of the information that is shared.
The issue of whether allowing some level of piracy as a "taster" actually increases CD sales is, again, another debate. The studies that related copying tapes to increased CD sales are not relevant to whether MP3 sharing will increase CD sales because of the difference in scale, and because this ignores the fact that CDs provide significantly better quality and practicality than tapes (ie. instant track access etc). MP3s provide near CD quality, and with the advent of portable MP3 players, the same portability features as CDs. It would also take a vast amount of time and effort to amass a large collection of bootlegged tapes (not to mention a large number of tapes), whereas Napster (etc. etc.) allow the easy collection of a massive number of tracks that can then be easily archived and stored in a small space, available for instant replay. So whereas buying a CD if you already have a taped copy provides you with additional quality and benefits, buying a CD when you already have an MP3 copy does not provide any additional benefit. As an example, the only music I buy now is on Vinyl, as that provides the additional benefit of being able to mix it on a pair of turntables, whereas if I want any non-dance music, it is freely available for me to steal using Napster or whatever other method you choose.
In fact Peano defined equality of natural number slightly differently.
1 is a natural number (axiom 1). for any number x there exists exactly 1 number x' that is its successor (axiom 2). x' != 1 (axiom 3). If y' = x' , then x=y (axiom 4).
that's how he defined number equality anyway, and went on to derive the whole of number theory of his time on the basis of these and the axiom of induction alone. Poincaré argued, however, that he used a cyclical arguament to show the principle of induction.
There is an article on Wired about the use of FlyWheels as batteries for exactly this kind of operation. There are several companies mentioned in the article, of which at least two are talking to NASA about putting these things on satellites precisely because they have a longer lifespan.
The basic principle is use modern materials to ensure that ou can spin the thing much faster than traditional flywheels, whilst making sure that in the event of catastrophic failure it doesn't kill any people near it (which won't be a problem on a sat). Using magnetic bearings and mounting the wheel in vacuo, there is very little frictional energy loss.
IIRC IBM has filed more patents per year than any other company for at least the last decade. Further to that they make at least $1Bn per year from licensing that Intellectual Property. Not a bad earner for a company that does R&D very well.
Secondly, for the last 8 or so years since Lou Gerstner got in, things seem to have turned around. Look at the success of Lotus Notes since they bought Lotus. Look at Copper Chips, speech reco, RS/6000 posing a real threat to E10k's, S/390's are still used by all the banks, as is CICS. They have been very active in providing Linux solutions, they are onboard Monterey, AIX is still going strong. HDDs are amongst the best out there, they are making innovative PCs (see the NetVista) and very good flat screens. CATIA is widely used, their business PC's are rock solid (but pricey) and Thinkpads are the best laptops I've used.
according to Wired news they're also gonna make them for HP
A source familiar with the products confirmed that IBM will this week unveil an agreement to use its copper and silicon-on-insulator technology to make chips for Hewlett-Packard
What has that got to do with IBM apart from the fact that they generously host a web searchable patents database in order to show off DB2/UDB and their high end kit?
Who cares if it is not the fastest academic computer in the world (although the UK met office do use them for their forecasting work). The point is that S/390s are used in the real world because they have five nines _PLUS_ reliability, and are hugely scaleable. IIRC you buy them with 10 processors installed, but only pay for the processors that you are using. If you ned to up the MIPS, you pay the money and turn another CPU on.
This is far more important to Linux as a community as it shows the big businesses that Linux is REAL, in a way that they understand. The fact that almost no one will actually use Linux on S/390s (apart from over a VM) is irrelevant, the execs will see that Linux is now available on the most hard core piece of big iron in the world, and so it is no longer just a toy.
Secondly, IT budgets aren't spent by old farts. They are spent by CTOs who really know their stuff, and they buy S/390s because they provide unparalled reliability, scaleability and cost effectiveness when used for server consolidation within large corporations.
What do you mean "what about IBM's best hardware?"
An S/390 the top of the range, market leading enterprise server.
where don't you see then in the F500?
accoring to computer associates: "International Data Corporation estimates that at least 85 percent of Fortune 500 companies rely on OS/390 for their mission-critical business functions."
How about Nabisco, Charles Schwab, Merill Lynch, The US Postal Service, Motorola, Mazda and Bank of America for a start. S/390's are very serious pieces of kit.
I completely agree with the sentiment that the posts that are illegally infringing Microsoft's copyright should be removed, since this is an infringement of the law in the US, and it is the responsibility of Andover as a law abiding corporation to obey the law.
What is important here is that the Slahsdot community recognise that a precedent will be set by whatever action is taken, and that it will be difficult to go back on this precedent when similar situations arise in the future as they inevitably will. Consequently the response must be especially well considered. Here's what I think should be done:
A general policy statement from Andover/Slashdot should be authored and made available on the site, describing in lay terms how the DMCA applies to Slashdot posts, and what might infringe other individuals'/corporations' rights as copyright holders. This may include a statement detailing any objection to the law on the part of slashdot, but explain that nevertheless as a company, Andover must abide by the DMCA.
The copyrighted material should be removed from the servers and replaced with a post explaining why it has been removed. ie. under what section of the DMCA etc, and possibly linking to the general policy on such infringements at Slashdot.
A decision must be made as to whether links to sites that contain information that could not be posted on/. are allowed. I suspect that given the nature of the community, this will be supported on the grounds of freedom of speech.
Actually that quote is variously attributed to Mark Twain or the British Prime Minister Disraeli.
anyway, the point is that stats can be used to lie, but equally they can be used to extract the truth. For example much of modern materials science is based on statistics. Likewise economic forecasting techniques. Stats aren't always bad, it's just that they can be misused.
Slashdot Mirror
Britain hasn't lost the ability to afford a decent welfare state. The bill for that welfare state is growing significantly faster than GDP, so the proportional cost is growing.
I am however in agreement with you over the amount that we spend on the military. I don't think that this expense is justified in a modern world, however the electorate in the UK demand that we have a well equipped and Large military. I think that well equipped and _specialist_ smaller force would be ample.
The technology is being developed to enable secure electronic trading of watermarked encrypted copies of data, and the sooner the better.
Besides which, why should those who produce data comodoties support themselves instead of relying on others to do it?
Basically history and economic theory have shown us that the market economy is the most efficient way to solve the basic economic problem of infinite wants and finite resources. Applying the ideas of the market economy to data comodoties where the worker provides not only the labour, but also the capital, it is clear that the concept of ownership must be applied to IP in order for the system to work.
secondly, the main reason that I wouldn't consider buying it in a store is that it costs money that I would rather spend elsewhere. I wouldn't download it if I didn't like listening to it. Why wouldn't you buy the content in a store?
hence copying copyrighted materials is stealing.
The use of the same word does not provide moral equivalence between the definitions any more than the the use of the word "nailed" implies moral equivalence between, "I nailed their quarterback" and "I nailed their quarterback to a wall" .
No one said that it did equate to murder.
Secondly, just because you can't afford something/wouldn't have bought it in the first place doesn't mean that you can steal it.
And you _are_ stealing, since you are depriving the owner of the copyright the licence fee that he is due.
it seems that there is quite a bit of money to be made in open-source
Where? Has anyone made a profit yet? The profitable IT companies are all closed source and for a good reason. Do you think that IBM would bother developing new versions of Notes or ViaVoice or any other development intensive app if the minute they released it, anyone could grab a copy. They simply wouldn't bother if there was no profit in it.
You might have apoint about the length of time that material is copyrighted for, but that's a seperate debate, and I don't know enough about it.
To summarise: information ownership provides the incentive to make that information better. It exposes design to market forces, and the market has been shown time and again to be the best way to spark progress.
Much data has a value, for example contact databases, code, and indeed music. The owner of that information has a right to control the terms under which it is used. Some people choose to release their code under [insert GPL-alike licence here], whilst others charge for it. Likewise some musicians release their information (recordings) for free, whilst others make a living out of selling that information at a rate that the market determines. That is clear from the fact that a CD costs cents to burn, whilst a music CD costs Dollars to buy. The difference is the market attributed value that has been attached the data contained on the CD. Just because music is now frequently stored on media other than CDs it doesn't reduce its value.
Secondly, he has not made the distinction between sharing and copying data. When RMS says that using the term "piracy" is wrong to refer to _sharing_ data that is copyrighted he is clearly correct, however it can be accurately applied to the _unlawful downloading/copying_ of material that you do not have a right to use. He has blurred these two _different_ acts, possibly in order to shift the debate onto safer ground.
The essence of the Napster debate is the question of whether providing tools to help people pirate (used deliberately) IP is in itself unlawful, especially when you provide such tools under a profit motive. This is a completely separate debate to whether the free sharing of information should be restricted, and to whether I have a right to steal data by downloading IP that I do not have licence to use (for example if I already own a copy of the material on a CD).
The record companies are not saying that sharing information is piracy, but that unlawfully downloading it is. Separately they are challenging the ability to provide tools that enable the unlawful copying of protected information without any kind of mechanism to protect against IP theft.
My position on this is that the sharing of information is clearly a good thing (tm), however there must be some protection against the theft of IP or the profit incentive for producing data will be seriously eroded. Secondly, I think that Napster have been irresponsible in attempting to profit (though indirectly) through providing a tool that enables piracy on a massive scale without any kind of protection for the owners of the information that is shared.
The issue of whether allowing some level of piracy as a "taster" actually increases CD sales is, again, another debate. The studies that related copying tapes to increased CD sales are not relevant to whether MP3 sharing will increase CD sales because of the difference in scale, and because this ignores the fact that CDs provide significantly better quality and practicality than tapes (ie. instant track access etc). MP3s provide near CD quality, and with the advent of portable MP3 players, the same portability features as CDs. It would also take a vast amount of time and effort to amass a large collection of bootlegged tapes (not to mention a large number of tapes), whereas Napster (etc. etc.) allow the easy collection of a massive number of tracks that can then be easily archived and stored in a small space, available for instant replay. So whereas buying a CD if you already have a taped copy provides you with additional quality and benefits, buying a CD when you already have an MP3 copy does not provide any additional benefit. As an example, the only music I buy now is on Vinyl, as that provides the additional benefit of being able to mix it on a pair of turntables, whereas if I want any non-dance music, it is freely available for me to steal using Napster or whatever other method you choose.
1 is a natural number (axiom 1). for any number x there exists exactly 1 number x' that is its successor (axiom 2). x' != 1 (axiom 3). If y' = x' , then x=y (axiom 4).
that's how he defined number equality anyway, and went on to derive the whole of number theory of his time on the basis of these and the axiom of induction alone. Poincaré argued, however, that he used a cyclical arguament to show the principle of induction.
The basic principle is use modern materials to ensure that ou can spin the thing much faster than traditional flywheels, whilst making sure that in the event of catastrophic failure it doesn't kill any people near it (which won't be a problem on a sat). Using magnetic bearings and mounting the wheel in vacuo, there is very little frictional energy loss.
Secondly, for the last 8 or so years since Lou Gerstner got in, things seem to have turned around. Look at the success of Lotus Notes since they bought Lotus. Look at Copper Chips, speech reco, RS/6000 posing a real threat to E10k's, S/390's are still used by all the banks, as is CICS. They have been very active in providing Linux solutions, they are onboard Monterey, AIX is still going strong. HDDs are amongst the best out there, they are making innovative PCs (see the NetVista) and very good flat screens. CATIA is widely used, their business PC's are rock solid (but pricey) and Thinkpads are the best laptops I've used.
Doesn't sound like making a mess of it to me.
A source familiar with the products confirmed that IBM will this week unveil an agreement to use its copper and silicon-on-insulator technology to make chips for Hewlett-Packard
They didn't make the application.
This is far more important to Linux as a community as it shows the big businesses that Linux is REAL, in a way that they understand. The fact that almost no one will actually use Linux on S/390s (apart from over a VM) is irrelevant, the execs will see that Linux is now available on the most hard core piece of big iron in the world, and so it is no longer just a toy.
Secondly, IT budgets aren't spent by old farts. They are spent by CTOs who really know their stuff, and they buy S/390s because they provide unparalled reliability, scaleability and cost effectiveness when used for server consolidation within large corporations.
An S/390 the top of the range, market leading enterprise server.
where don't you see then in the F500?
accoring to computer associates: "International Data Corporation estimates that at least 85 percent of Fortune 500 companies rely on OS/390 for their mission-critical business functions."
How about Nabisco, Charles Schwab, Merill Lynch, The US Postal Service, Motorola, Mazda and Bank of America for a start. S/390's are very serious pieces of kit.
What is important here is that the Slahsdot community recognise that a precedent will be set by whatever action is taken, and that it will be difficult to go back on this precedent when similar situations arise in the future as they inevitably will. Consequently the response must be especially well considered. Here's what I think should be done:
A general policy statement from Andover/Slashdot should be authored and made available on the site, describing in lay terms how the DMCA applies to Slashdot posts, and what might infringe other individuals'/corporations' rights as copyright holders. This may include a statement detailing any objection to the law on the part of slashdot, but explain that nevertheless as a company, Andover must abide by the DMCA.
The copyrighted material should be removed from the servers and replaced with a post explaining why it has been removed. ie. under what section of the DMCA etc, and possibly linking to the general policy on such infringements at Slashdot.
A decision must be made as to whether links to sites that contain information that could not be posted on /. are allowed. I suspect that given the nature of the community, this will be supported on the grounds of freedom of speech.
anyway, the point is that stats can be used to lie, but equally they can be used to extract the truth. For example much of modern materials science is based on statistics. Likewise economic forecasting techniques. Stats aren't always bad, it's just that they can be misused.