I've noticed that over the past 10 years, paragraphs are getting shorter and shorter. It seems that even a simple sentence now constitutes a complete paragraph. I know Ernest Hemingway. Ernest Hemingway is a friend of mine. You Sir, are no Ernest Hemingway.
It's been drilled into our heads since highschool that the point of business is to make money by any means necessary, and business hasn't done anything to counter that impression. That's because they don't have to face consumer choice competition consequences when government corporate welfare intellectual monopoly protectionism is shielding them from the effects of anti-social behavior.
Don't forget the government enabling part.
Most people accept a lot of shit from big companies that they wouldn't accept from another person. Because where are you going to go when government regulation and government protectionism blocks out competition.
Modern society is incompatible with personal responsibility. False. Free trade only ever occurs when that which is voluntarily received is valued more than that which is voluntarily given away.
You don't like the license a book is published under then don't read it. If you weren't the first to organize words into a book form, just COPY others and publish a BOOK anyway, with whatever stuff in it you want to include, including words and pictures. So it's OK for authors to COPY the work of others (by, per example, organizing intellectual material into book form), but not OK for others to copy the work of those authors. That's hypocritical.
The license in invalid. The license is attempting to control the use of the eyes, ears, mouths, hands, and minds of others, on physical material property that is not owned by the authors. The license is attempting to control free speech. And the number of files created and exchanged on the internet is showing more and more every day that that attempt at control is massively failing.
And not only is it just massively failing, but copyright is already DE FACTO DEAD. It's very easy to create as many copyrighted files with whatever titles of those files you wish. And verification/tracking will be strict copyright law violations that will bankrupt those attempting to police their "intellectual property". Copyright enforcement on the internet is literally a legal minefield.
"Not that just one intentionally deceptive title program couldn't produce more income for that person than the net asset value of verifier/trackers without them ever downloading a single file on the internet.
A file deceptively titled anything which contains nothing but various versions of the content "Fuck the RIAA" can be just as copyrighted as *anything* else, and thus those verifying those files are committing strict liability offenses. Q.E.D.
If deception isn't a defense, deception isn't an offense."
And we are talking about trillions and trillions of files out on the internet, which grow daily. You think the RIAA isn't going to stumble into files they didn't create that merely appear like something that might contain their content, that might not be a fair use clip, that might not be a spoof?
Nobody knows in advance if the file they are downloading is actually the file advertised, let alon whether it is truly copyrighted or not, even if you were paying Apple ITunes money to download a track which was mistakenly owned by another copyright owner. So the RIAA is screwed. It's over. Now if they want to lose all their assets, they should attempt to police and track others.
I'll just upload one shared folder with a million different versions of original copyrighted content created by me to a million similarly titled files as works owned by the RIAA and collect their entire assets in court on the exact same grounds they sue others. If a million files isn't enough, it's enough to copy + paste a billion files with a program. Attach a tracking program to my uploaded shared folder and wait for the RIAA or their hired goons to bite the line, then real in all their assets. And it would be absolutely no different then what they do to others, except the bankruptcy of the entire music industry would probably make bigger headlines.
This is what happens when companies are allowed to make the laws. Most corporations have one goal: Make more money. The higher price and more times you pay for the same product, the better. Capitalism can be good, competition is the best, but it needs to be regulated, as has been proven time and time again. What are you talking about? Monopolies are regulated in. Competition is regulated out. Copyright/Patent Law is strict regulation on production. If you completely remove the regulations, anyone can produce whatever they want, including copying the production of others. And that production is only bought if someone voluntarily pays for it, if someone voluntarily is willing to exchange something they value less for that which they value more.
The only thing regulations can do is inhibit and prohibit free trade. Someone must use violent force to force transference of goods or services (like for "universal health care"), or someone must use force to prevent trade (like copyright law). Someone must claim to know better what subjective value is for others. And that's easily demonstrably FALSE.
It might be cute if those of the leftist/big government/socialist persuasion think they are responsible for the rally against intellectual property, but it's the libertarians who paved the road with scientific economic proof. But we can alliance on this issue, and permanently remove all restrictions on copyright with a constitutional amendment. Every major country the world over would soon follow like dominoes as everybody else copies their stuff but they try to not to copy the stuff of others.
This is one of those revolutionary falling of the Berlin Wall moments. Enjoy it. And if you don't think this is a revolutionary moment, just take a glance at all of the intellectual property content which has been dumped into the public domain sea. The "economic value" of content dumped into the public domain sea is many millions of times greater than the tea which dumped into the harbor at the Boston Tea Party. Viva la internet!
Programmers get free music. Musicians get free code. Sounds fair to me. And let me to use one of my two daily allowance negative one logged in posts to say that it's more than just even fair. As programmers are getting music, movies, photography, education, books, etc. etc., and likewise musicians are getting all of that too etc. etc. from producing music, as each additional producer of one free subject areas is getting far more in return for free. Thus if art is truly valuable, any artist is far paid in excess of what they produce themselves by the free productions of other artists. And those left producing, or all those additionally brought into the creative fold, are producing from talent and love of their work.
lol, free trade "agenda"? That's like claiming there's such a thing as a consensual sex "agenda". Exchange only occurs by voluntary means OR it occurs by violent means, just like sex is consensual or rape.
And trade has absolutely *nothing* to do with pollutions. Polluters, plain and simple, are responsible for pollution.
You're a complete moron, additionally blinded by socialist ideology, or just a liar.
Universal is now offering music through Spiral Frog as free downloads supported by advertising revenue. Now if they started offering downloaders PAYOLA money for downloading tracks, it would be *exactly* like radio. Every song played on radio is "downloaded" to all the listening users. The music industry freely "shares" it's content by playing it on the radio free of charge. Some people even "call" in to the "radio station" and request specific tracks to be played "on demand". People also switch from one track played to another track played by "changing the station".
The music industry doesn't even own the spectrum from which they broadcast, and some might say "pollute". We should eliminate the income tax and replace it with yearly market based "spectrum rent" paid by corporate leasing. Such public domain property should never be listed as an asset on a corporate balance sheet, but listed as a yearly fee liability. Let's see how much the content is worth if public petitions deny specific entities broadcasting rights. We have to wait in line every so often to renew drivers licenses. It's time for corporations to renew their broadcasting licenses, with market rate determined broadcasting fees.
There should also be an "advertising tax", which is determined on a per minute market rate, depending on the value of the spectrum being rented. As public spectrum is being used to deliver advertising, such annoyances should be taxed on the highest "sin tax" rates, comparable to cigarette and liquor tax percentages, which must be paid by the firms producing the advertising. So broadcast stations would pay a higher per minute tax rate for advertising their station programming. Maybe throw in some extra SPAM fees for advertising in a single hour period which exceeds some amount of "content" time, like more than 15 minutes of advertising in a one hour period triples the rate for ads broadcast in that period. All revenue collected is refunded to tax payers on a percentage of tax paid basis, so those paying the most tax as a percentage of income receive the biggest rebates.
That's why everyone of those settlement offer letters mailed, every case brought to court, is a potential class action liability costing more than the damages claimed and settlement amounts offered.
The prosecution is malicious. There is no evidence. The potential evidence gathering techniques may be unlawful and unauthorized. Even the non-evidence the RIAA might download is still not even of the minor caliber non-evidence it is *until the file is actually downloaded and verified*. And this would be admissible evidence for copyright violations suits against the RIAA and it's tracking entities. They'd better damn well log or save every file they ever downloaded, or be default held liable by the courts. I think you might find some really interesting stuff if you got a court order for the RIAA's IP logs. You think RIAA investigator's have never "accidentally" downloaded files they weren't authorized to download or found out the content was different then expected. You think they are making restitution for wrong files of content downloaded, or searching whether those files violate copyrights held by other parties? Even if the RIAA is authorized to download their own content, are they recording such downloads and paying the appropriate producer, artist, et al royalties for those "lost sale" downloads? These are questions that should be asked of those producing lists of names associated with IP addresses. I bet if you "raided" theses hired investigators offices, you would find evidence of criminal and civil copyright violations.
But who knows, they might very well be alleging charges based on file titles alone. Just as you have a first amendment speech right to name your children or your pets anything you want to name them (including mimicking artist - track names), you can also name any files whatsoever on your computer any names whatsoever (including artist - track name).
Where is the evidence of a warrant issued by a court of law for the RIAA investigator's to track the internet activity of private citizens? Couldn't they be prosecuted under illegal wiretapping statutes. Are these "investigators" even government licensed? When and where did they receive permission to snoop on private property files and folders if they are doing so, such as taking screen shots or obtaining logs.
Yet wiki has the lyrics, the sheet music, and an.mp3 link at the bottom. Perhaps this is a precedent for including all songs ever made as library.mp3 files, which can be "checked out" and "listened" to one at a time.:P We could also use a D Day beach head of digital educational material. If it can be displayed, it can be viewed and copied. It would certainly do away with the aggravation of searching for particular files and particular quality of files at random P2P sites. But educational purposes certainly qualify as fair use. So why not an online public music library?
And last but not least, FIREWORKS DISPLAYS. There's a perfect example of content being freely displayed, voluntarily paid for, which has been going on for centuries!
People TALK and people WRITE on the internet with no remunerative copyright compensation. QED. If the economic "theories" put forth by IP proponents were correct, we should never expect to see this behavior. But yet here I am, there you are, here we are, all voluntarily sharing and contributing thoughts and ideas.
Every post made increases individual subjective value, as that is a chosen action. Every post read, moderated, stopped being read in the middle, all increase subjective value, as those actions are occurring in present tense whilst the innumerable other possible actions which could have been chosen in that exact same present tense have been forsaken for the action chosen. This is all increasing economic value on the most fundamental level of economic value.
Now contrast that to prohibitions and restrictions against peaceful voluntary communication and action which are enforced or threatened to be enforced by copyright and patent, and you can clearly see that EVERY instance of copyright and patent reduces wealth, causes poverty, from what would otherwise be the case. And it's obvious, as scarcity is violently imposed, in what would otherwise be approaching infinite abundance. That's quite simply a net less subjectively wealthy world caused by copyright and patent.
To even further compound the negative effects of copyright and patent, no copyrights or patents have ever existed that have not used and built upon non-copyrighted and non-patented ideas. Whether it's public domain language, public domain mathematics, or public domain scientific principles, all patent and copyright applicants are COPYING ideas they themselves didn't create or invent in their new manifestations of inventions and creative works. Thus, the less public domain ideas there are, the less technological and artistic innovation which can occur.
Now the estimates of X trillions of dollars of wealth gained or lost are pretend estimates. Similarly, I pretend estimate society is 3-4 CENTURIES less technologically advanced than it otherwise would be because of copyright and patent since the middle ages guild system. Not even the person who benefited the most from IP (say Bill Gate's 40 billion) is better off than he would have been without copyright and patent when you factor in all the wealth which has been forsaken (such as cures for diseases and injuries, more efficient energy, etc.). Even someone as charitable as Bill Gates could never come close to making up for the net societal wealth lost from his abuse of IP from copyright and patents.
Violence always leads to a smaller net pie of wealth than non-violence. Even if those who benefit from violence get a relatively bigger piece of the pie short term, the area of that short term piece of wealth pie is many times smaller than it otherwise would be without violence long term.
From that link, well well well, look at the RIAA leading the charge of "piracy", "theft", and "stealing".
Well, the RIAA wanted to be able to distribute ringtones of its artists without having to pay them big money to do so (surprised?), and it won a decision last year before the Copyright Office saying that ringtones weren't "derivative works," meaning they didn't infringe on the copyright of the songwriter. It's a little more complicated than that, but essentially, if the RIAA hadn't won, ringtones would cost even more, since no one would be able to make them without a license from the songwriter. Not only does the RIAA (and phone companies) COPY the idea of the ring tone, but they profit from distributing ring tunes, even though they didn't create the idea of the ring tone. Not only is it OK to COPY the work of others, but it's OK to PROFIT from distributing the work of others, as EVIDENCED by the RIAA's own actions!
And let the record reflect it was not music recording companies or telephone companies that invented the ring tone. It was consumers who originated the idea of using music as ring tones. Record companies and telephone companies are just blatantly ripping off the ideas of others without paying squat to so either. If it's ok for telephone companies and music companies to profit by stealing the ideas of others, how come it isn't ok for consumers to profit by "stealing" music content?
See, the ring tone is a perfect example of how lack of copyright benefits everyone and profits all who employ the idea for their own purposes, contrary to the alleged deleterious economic effects put forth by IP proponents. Every ring tone ever sold is not benefiting the original artists of the idea of the ring tone. How come the music industry doesn't have a problem with this?
Brilliant! Slam debunk! Any IP lawyers out there looking for some big class action loot? Fraud is against the law. It seems to me there are tons of media companies with mega billion dollar pockets out there that are perpetrating FRAUD against the general public. Not just media companies, but sporting leagues like Major League Baseball, "prohibiting any portion from being copied" is fraud. Hell, if you've got an internet news website, and the NFL wants to prohibit you from showing highlights without payment, SUE 'em. Hell, many mega billion dollar software company's EULA's may be FRAUDulent. Cha-ching!$
It's just a matter of time until law lessons are available on-line. Really? How hard is it to read and COPY forms and procedures? We can download lessons, laws, thoughts, files very easily from P2P applications. Law, seems like one of those fields, where everything which is taught at elite 6-figure schools can be super easily replicated on-line for fractional costs. Let the sue them all business plan for the common man gold rush begin! Spam settlement offers for exhaling carbon dioxide polluting the environment!
It permits you to voice an opinion agreeing with somebody else - but in YOUR OWN WORDS. It is protection from government censorship of your OWN words, not license to copy somebody else's words for your own purposes.
Every word you used in your post is a PUBLIC DOMAIN word, usable by anybody. And look what you just did! You literally used words you didn't create, you didn't invent, "for your own purposes". You are copying someone else's words (as those words were logically created by human beings that are not YOU). And that is the strict pertinent epistemological point, superceding legal shenanigans, ALL claims of patent and copyright are using and building upon public domain technology and art. That's it's "public domain" is immaterial to your argument against COPYING. NOBODY does not copy someone else some way numerous times daily, no matter what Stalinesque Statutes forged by fools pretend, all creative claims and littered throughout with ripped off, copied ideas, from music with public domain lyrics, books with public domain words, software with public domain code, etc.
You don't need to a license to talk, PERIOD. You don't need a license to mimic someone on the street for word, or movement for movement. That's what mimes do; prohibiting mimes would indeed be prohibiting free speech. You don't need permission, you don't need Permits. That some special interests have polluted, corrupted, and bought laws is nevertheless being ignored on a mass scale that puts the original 18th century Boston Tea Party to shame.
2. Why should fair use be a consumer right?
1.) Why should copyright be a law?
The IP advocates arguments for copyright and patent have been philosophically, epistemologically, and economically destroyed. They just ignore the points which crush their arguments. It's no surprise that their tactic is to retreat to a "it's the Law, nah, nah, nah tactic", as they've been crushed on the moral and philosophical high ground.
For that matter, who actually uses fair use? Well, in order to use fair use, you have to be a creative artist of some sort, or a publisher, or a performer.
And leave it to legal psychos like you to resort to government definitions and qualifications for "artist", "publisher", "performer", so you can license those you agree with and kick to the curb those you disagree with. Sorry, but every post ever made on the internet can be and likely is a combination of art, publishing, and performance.
Downloading songs onto a computer has nothing to do with fair use, unless you then use a sound clip for another work that you are creating or distributing.
And downloading songs onto public airwaves through radio broadcast has something to do with fair use? And so indeed downloading full songs to sample clips is legitimate fair use. Recording public air waves radio broadcasts is legitimate fair use. It's too bad if the RIAA babies can't any longer get consumers to voluntarily trade money for stuff that has been freely downloaded by their very selves for decades.
The only people who need fair use in the first place are people who are reproducing sections of work for their own work, and by definition, this puts them into the ranks of the creative artists, distributors, or performers themselves.
Who made you Czar? ANYBODY, ANYTIME can be creative artists, distributors, or performers in their personal hobby time. Seriously, WTF do you think you are to declare anything about others "needs"!
So, no, fair use should not be a consumer right. Consumers do have rights, but if you are going to give a consumer a right, it has to be something that is relevant to them.
The vast majority of/. and the vast majority of leftists are in favor of spying. How else to you think your paychecks get robbed by government? How else do you think they know who to take "social security" from and who to give "social security" to. By mandatory SPYING, plain and simple.
Most of these people that complain about government wire taps are PHONIES. They're the biggest big government redistribution spies around. Most of these people should have all their conversations tapped, and if harmless posted on a public domain for their neighbors to get gossip. It's exactly how they divided the country along arbitrary "class" lines, by pointing fingers at those who make more money, by forced SPYING to reveal that information. Hell, make those Democrats sign up for full disclosure of all their "private" information whenever they sign up for any services just exactly as they made everyone sign up for financial disclosure so paychecks could be robbed.
I claim all language as public domain. Any works using public domain language cannot be copyrighted for all periods the content is using public domain language. I also claim all musical notes public domain language. Any works using public domain musical notes cannot be copyrighted for all periods the content is using public domain musical notes.
So why should anyone else "create their own data" when the artists themselves are not creating their own data either, but freely copying it and using it however they wish? Why can't I randomly mash together different artists' works the same way those artists randomly mash together public domain works?
More and more fundamental public domain is being locked away from use. Who the hell thinks they can trademark public domain names like "Apple" and "Windows" and prevent others from using those words!
If someone made a profit from your work, without your agreement, or any compensation to you except as under their terms...you wouldn't like it either. Exactly. But yet those musicians have the gall to continue to make music anyways. And they've been doing so for many centuries too, roaming, playing at festivals. And let's just not just limit it remunerative monetary compensation. How many women have been wooed?! Those romances rightfully belong to those who created the fundamentals of music! Any musician who garnered romance from playing music is literally pirating the booty!
You can't compete against an arbitrary price set by someone with no expenses. And that's why people stopped TALKING once the internet started up, since they couldn't collect royalties for their words anymore. So people just remained SILENT for over a decade now. All artistic and scientific advancement involving words ceased. Oh wait...
You can make music and price it right too if arbitrary violent restrictions aren't used to prevent you from copying others. But if you don't COPY you can't make music, or communicate in languages either.
And how about them artists that leech the notes, chords, progressions, theory, and instruments of music? How about those lyrics that leech language? Should they be shut down too?
There's no such thing as a "trade deficit", Take VIII.
Actually, I do this every time I balance my checkbook. However, it doesn't make the news. My trade deficit with the local grocery store is quite one-way, as it is with most of my trading partners.
Why do you trade currency for anything? Are you trying to say you would be better off NOT trading?
However, my "global trade balance" - the net sum of all the trades I make for goods and services, is currently a surplus.
And it never is not,by definition of trade, by definition of every either/or choice to switch possession of goods and services, or to not switch possession of goods and services. Simple A versus B, less than versus greater than MATHEMATICS. Yup, since I set myself up for, since it was DESTINY that scientific advancement only occur through this set, everybody who got it wrong can APOLOGIZE for getting it wrong. It would be the gentlemanly scientific thing to do.
When I retire, it will be a deficit - I'll be spending more than I make.
Wrong. You'll by definition increase your wealth by "spending".
You should apply for admission to a doctorate program in economics, and use this as the basis for your dissertation.
Nah. It'll grate more on the field if I don't do the PhD. I'm a pissed off smarmy mother now. The Elite of the Field had/has their chance to acknowledge perfection and greatness. People generally don't like to be EMBARRASSED; let 'em risk their "Nobel" pride in the arena of ideas. Check my sig; I plan on stripping a lot away. What am I going to do? Give lectures while the professors and doctoral committees take notes while as apprentices rubber stamping the master as apprentices whilst pretending they are the master? Maybe in the CLOSED "qualification" system of yore pre-internet (though Copernicus too succeeded in the face of glorified contemporary slander).
Don't say that two loud. There are 3 kinds of people who say they have Nobel-prize-worthy proofs:
* Nobel-prize winners
* People who deserve a Nobel prize
* People who don't
It must really suk to still be alive and have your "Nobel Prize" work proved FALSE. Plus they have to dig up some material every year to keep the streak of yearly awards going don't they? But don't ask people like Paul Samuelson to do papers on the economics of the awarding of yearly scholarship prizes; they don't even know what supply and demand really means, as evidenced by their false prognostications on trade. A fall in esteem of award bodies is synthetically the same to me as hoisting trophies and giving post dinner speeches.
Having a Ph.D. or a book used in university classrooms on your c.v. top the lists of ways to get people to take claims of Nobel-prize-worthiness seriously.
That's the pinnacle of truth? We're in the age of the internet now. I seriously doubt any professor of "esteem" likes to retreat. What was I supposed to put on my "C.V." anyways when at undergrad level I was declaring their "macro" economic theories were bullshit? How about I just whip it out, and those with basic mathematical and epistemological deduction skills can laugh at those who were wrong?
Making such a claim on/. is among the best ways to ensure people dismiss not just what you have to say here, but everything you say on the topic, ever.
Maybe that's why I found it beneficial to upgrade it from a "claim" to a PROOF? With little greater than and less than signs. I did keep my mouth shut for a while until I was *sure* I was right. Now it doesn't matter where it was first displayed, sans official academic journal. More and more people will point out and PROVE step by step, that there is no such thing as a "trade deficit".
The concept which we are talking about: the dollar/currency outflow from a country to purchase goods and services minus the dollar/inflow into a country from the sale of goods and services, exists.
Dollar/currency outflow exists from INDIVIDUAL to INDIVIDUAL only. "Countries" are just artificial labels for amalgamations of acting individuals. Only individuals trade. As there is no single instance of a "trade deficit" which results from any single instance of trade between any and all trading individuals, there is no "trade deficit" whatsoever, anywhere. In fact, examining trade between two individuals within a single artificial border country should suffice to show not just what a misnomer "trade deficit" is, but what an absurd concept it is. You walk into the grocery store and trade dollars for food. Both you and the grocer increase your wealth, PROFIT, by so trading. The same amount of dollars exist after the trade as before the trade, and the same amount of food exists after the trade as before the trade. There is no deficit anywhere! And in fact, both parties record in a strict economic analysis, an increase in subjective wealth PROFIT.
If you don't like the term, feel free to come up with a new term and get the world to adopt it.
Or get the world to admit through superior scientific and epistemological DEMONSTRATION PROOF that there is no such thing as a "trade deficit", and all who talk of such thing as a "trade deficit" are wholly and completely talking out their ASS.
In the meantime, accept that a phrase's meaning comes from how it is used, not the literal meaning of its words.
Meaning of words does not change reality or conceptions of knowledge.
As to politically loaded terms: I disagree that the term "trade deficit" has any inherent "good" or "bad" connotations to it.
Wow, you must be in an extremely small minority. The headline of the thread surely implied "bad", and most talked in just this thread about "trade deficit" with a "bad" connotation. Deficit implies LESS. That's a mathematical IMPOSSIBILITY, as I have PROVED. There is NOTHING LESS after trade in the sum total reality. And net subjective wealth INCREASES for both parties in the sum total reality. Where's the "deficit"? There is NONE. This strict mathematical, epistemological, and economic proof should get me the Noble Prize (I've replayed it many times on various internet message boards), as it really does revolutionize the entire field of economics by stripping away tons of false macroeconomic "theories". And I have 23 other Noble Prize worthy proofs that derive from this fundamental one in my repertoire. I lacked the confidence to assuredly demonstrate these claims for 5 years, and I had to study, and prove through competitive naysayers to tighten this baby up. And it's tighter than ever, and I like it. And I really do appreciate all who have tried to drill holes through it, as it forced me to back it up with ever more solid demonstrations. "I'd like to thank the Academy. Er, no.":D
It is true that politicians and others with an agenda have used the term in contexts that imply "goodness" or "badness" but on its face, it is nothing more than a neutral mathematical statement
It's a claimed DEFICIT. How is less MORE, "good"? That's an absurdity!
Country A sent more of its local currency out of the country than it brought in through trade. Likewise, "trade surplus" is equally neutral: Country A brought in more of its local currency than it sent out through trade. Despite what those with agendas may imply, there is nothing inherently good or bad about either statement.
The pertinent economic point is the goods imported are WORTH more than the currency exported, and vice versa, and it's completely artificially misleading to describe a "deficit" for something which occurs across imaginary border lines when the same description is not applied when trade occurs across other ima
That's bullshit. Nobody is a perfectly rational actor with omniscient knowledge. You are claiming that people are never cheated, fooled, or ripped off? Sorry, I don't buy it.
Nope, I've already explicitly stated everyone is not omniscient, everyone has different imperfect knowledge. (Your criticism may apply to neoclassical economics, and while I went to the #1 school in the world for economics, University of Chicago, I prove my assertions regardless of any Chicago or Austrian School influences. Took classes with multiple Nobel Prize instructors. And yes what I say here contradicts their macro economic bullshit). Of course people can be cheated, fooled, ripped off. Everyone knows with more or less uncertainty (differing amounts) that they *can* be cheated, fooled, ripped off. Even if they didn't know, the possibility that they could be would never be removed because it ALWAYS exists. People can be cheated, fooled, ripped off, WITH OR WITHOUT, government regulation. Government is run by the same exact PEOPLE who are potential trading partners. In absolutely every case whatsoever, however, transfers of things can only occur by two distinct full set possibility (mathematically, philosophically, epistemologically) methods: A.) voluntary trade OR B.) violent redistribution. There's no other possibility for the transfer of material property possession from one person to another.
In absolutely every trade which ever occurs, everyone always has the choice to NOT trade. So many on this topic have committed the exact same fallacy which they smell a mile away in threads where the RIAA claims piracy = lost sales, by assuming preventing trade with "foreigners" means trade at better terms with "them". Copyright + Patent discussion is what brought me to/.) Why did people trade in some instances, and not trade in other instances? FOR ONE POSSIBLE REASON ONLY: that which is received or held onto is valued MORE than that which is given away (or held onto) in exchange, IN SPITE OF all the risks that a person could be cheated, fooled, ripped off. Any other possible explanation is an absurdity, such that they intentionally sought to make themselves worse off, or they randomly exchange random things at random valuations for the hell of it. QED. Each person evaluates those risks with various levels of consciousness. And ABSOLUTELY NOTHING can ever remove those risks either. Those risks of being cheated, fooled, ripped off will ALWAYS exist, no matter what. That's why people COMPETE for trade business by establishing good REPUTATION. But every time people trade, they trade with those risks subjectively evaluated and valued with more or less consciousness in the weight equation of a simple yes or no valuation question: is B worth more than A to ME (and is A worth more than B to ME for the other guy). And of course A and B both come with unknown risks, including but not limited to being cheated, fooled, ripped off, future subjective valuations diverging radically for A and B, etc.)
People see "bad" movies all the time. People eat disappointing meals. People attend sub par concert performances. The possibility that the movie will be bad, the possibility that the meal will be disappointing, the possibility that the concert will be sub par, are all reflected in the PRICE the buyer is willing to pay, now, and in the future based on previous experience feedback. And in some instances, parties, seeking REPUTATION will offer REFUNDS to garner future trade business with customers. Of course intentionally poisoning someone is criminal violence. But nothing whatsoever can remove the possibility that someone will intentionally poison another.
How an actor values a good or service depends on their circumstances *at the time*. If I were dying of thirst, I wouldn't bother applying for a job to buy some water; I would search directly for water.
It always does depend upon circumstances, *at the time*, because trade always and only occurs in the present tense. If you were dyin
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget the government enabling part. Most people accept a lot of shit from big companies that they wouldn't accept from another person. Because where are you going to go when government regulation and government protectionism blocks out competition. Modern society is incompatible with personal responsibility. False. Free trade only ever occurs when that which is voluntarily received is valued more than that which is voluntarily given away.
Please, blindfold and ear plug any parrot pets you may have, according to regulations of the Third Party Animal Content Experience Protection Act.
The license in invalid. The license is attempting to control the use of the eyes, ears, mouths, hands, and minds of others, on physical material property that is not owned by the authors. The license is attempting to control free speech. And the number of files created and exchanged on the internet is showing more and more every day that that attempt at control is massively failing.
And not only is it just massively failing, but copyright is already DE FACTO DEAD. It's very easy to create as many copyrighted files with whatever titles of those files you wish. And verification/tracking will be strict copyright law violations that will bankrupt those attempting to police their "intellectual property". Copyright enforcement on the internet is literally a legal minefield.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=311415&op=Reply&threshold=-1&commentsort=5&mode=nested&pid=20799311
"Not that just one intentionally deceptive title program couldn't produce more income for that person than the net asset value of verifier/trackers without them ever downloading a single file on the internet.
A file deceptively titled anything which contains nothing but various versions of the content "Fuck the RIAA" can be just as copyrighted as *anything* else, and thus those verifying those files are committing strict liability offenses. Q.E.D.
If deception isn't a defense, deception isn't an offense."
And we are talking about trillions and trillions of files out on the internet, which grow daily. You think the RIAA isn't going to stumble into files they didn't create that merely appear like something that might contain their content, that might not be a fair use clip, that might not be a spoof?
Nobody knows in advance if the file they are downloading is actually the file advertised, let alon whether it is truly copyrighted or not, even if you were paying Apple ITunes money to download a track which was mistakenly owned by another copyright owner. So the RIAA is screwed. It's over. Now if they want to lose all their assets, they should attempt to police and track others.
I'll just upload one shared folder with a million different versions of original copyrighted content created by me to a million similarly titled files as works owned by the RIAA and collect their entire assets in court on the exact same grounds they sue others. If a million files isn't enough, it's enough to copy + paste a billion files with a program. Attach a tracking program to my uploaded shared folder and wait for the RIAA or their hired goons to bite the line, then real in all their assets. And it would be absolutely no different then what they do to others, except the bankruptcy of the entire music industry would probably make bigger headlines.
The only thing regulations can do is inhibit and prohibit free trade. Someone must use violent force to force transference of goods or services (like for "universal health care"), or someone must use force to prevent trade (like copyright law). Someone must claim to know better what subjective value is for others. And that's easily demonstrably FALSE.
It might be cute if those of the leftist/big government/socialist persuasion think they are responsible for the rally against intellectual property, but it's the libertarians who paved the road with scientific economic proof. But we can alliance on this issue, and permanently remove all restrictions on copyright with a constitutional amendment. Every major country the world over would soon follow like dominoes as everybody else copies their stuff but they try to not to copy the stuff of others.
This is one of those revolutionary falling of the Berlin Wall moments. Enjoy it. And if you don't think this is a revolutionary moment, just take a glance at all of the intellectual property content which has been dumped into the public domain sea. The "economic value" of content dumped into the public domain sea is many millions of times greater than the tea which dumped into the harbor at the Boston Tea Party. Viva la internet!
lol, free trade "agenda"? That's like claiming there's such a thing as a consensual sex "agenda". Exchange only occurs by voluntary means OR it occurs by violent means, just like sex is consensual or rape.
And trade has absolutely *nothing* to do with pollutions. Polluters, plain and simple, are responsible for pollution.
You're a complete moron, additionally blinded by socialist ideology, or just a liar.
The music industry doesn't even own the spectrum from which they broadcast, and some might say "pollute". We should eliminate the income tax and replace it with yearly market based "spectrum rent" paid by corporate leasing. Such public domain property should never be listed as an asset on a corporate balance sheet, but listed as a yearly fee liability. Let's see how much the content is worth if public petitions deny specific entities broadcasting rights. We have to wait in line every so often to renew drivers licenses. It's time for corporations to renew their broadcasting licenses, with market rate determined broadcasting fees.
There should also be an "advertising tax", which is determined on a per minute market rate, depending on the value of the spectrum being rented. As public spectrum is being used to deliver advertising, such annoyances should be taxed on the highest "sin tax" rates, comparable to cigarette and liquor tax percentages, which must be paid by the firms producing the advertising. So broadcast stations would pay a higher per minute tax rate for advertising their station programming. Maybe throw in some extra SPAM fees for advertising in a single hour period which exceeds some amount of "content" time, like more than 15 minutes of advertising in a one hour period triples the rate for ads broadcast in that period. All revenue collected is refunded to tax payers on a percentage of tax paid basis, so those paying the most tax as a percentage of income receive the biggest rebates.
That's why everyone of those settlement offer letters mailed, every case brought to court, is a potential class action liability costing more than the damages claimed and settlement amounts offered.
The prosecution is malicious. There is no evidence. The potential evidence gathering techniques may be unlawful and unauthorized. Even the non-evidence the RIAA might download is still not even of the minor caliber non-evidence it is *until the file is actually downloaded and verified*. And this would be admissible evidence for copyright violations suits against the RIAA and it's tracking entities. They'd better damn well log or save every file they ever downloaded, or be default held liable by the courts. I think you might find some really interesting stuff if you got a court order for the RIAA's IP logs. You think RIAA investigator's have never "accidentally" downloaded files they weren't authorized to download or found out the content was different then expected. You think they are making restitution for wrong files of content downloaded, or searching whether those files violate copyrights held by other parties? Even if the RIAA is authorized to download their own content, are they recording such downloads and paying the appropriate producer, artist, et al royalties for those "lost sale" downloads? These are questions that should be asked of those producing lists of names associated with IP addresses. I bet if you "raided" theses hired investigators offices, you would find evidence of criminal and civil copyright violations.
But who knows, they might very well be alleging charges based on file titles alone. Just as you have a first amendment speech right to name your children or your pets anything you want to name them (including mimicking artist - track names), you can also name any files whatsoever on your computer any names whatsoever (including artist - track name).
Where is the evidence of a warrant issued by a court of law for the RIAA investigator's to track the internet activity of private citizens? Couldn't they be prosecuted under illegal wiretapping statutes. Are these "investigators" even government licensed? When and where did they receive permission to snoop on private property files and folders if they are doing so, such as taking screen shots or obtaining logs.
Yet wiki has the lyrics, the sheet music, and an .mp3 link at the bottom. Perhaps this is a precedent for including all songs ever made as library .mp3 files, which can be "checked out" and "listened" to one at a time. :P We could also use a D Day beach head of digital educational material. If it can be displayed, it can be viewed and copied. It would certainly do away with the aggravation of searching for particular files and particular quality of files at random P2P sites. But educational purposes certainly qualify as fair use. So why not an online public music library?
And last but not least, FIREWORKS DISPLAYS. There's a perfect example of content being freely displayed, voluntarily paid for, which has been going on for centuries!
People TALK and people WRITE on the internet with no remunerative copyright compensation. QED. If the economic "theories" put forth by IP proponents were correct, we should never expect to see this behavior. But yet here I am, there you are, here we are, all voluntarily sharing and contributing thoughts and ideas.
Every post made increases individual subjective value, as that is a chosen action. Every post read, moderated, stopped being read in the middle, all increase subjective value, as those actions are occurring in present tense whilst the innumerable other possible actions which could have been chosen in that exact same present tense have been forsaken for the action chosen. This is all increasing economic value on the most fundamental level of economic value.
Now contrast that to prohibitions and restrictions against peaceful voluntary communication and action which are enforced or threatened to be enforced by copyright and patent, and you can clearly see that EVERY instance of copyright and patent reduces wealth, causes poverty, from what would otherwise be the case. And it's obvious, as scarcity is violently imposed, in what would otherwise be approaching infinite abundance. That's quite simply a net less subjectively wealthy world caused by copyright and patent.
To even further compound the negative effects of copyright and patent, no copyrights or patents have ever existed that have not used and built upon non-copyrighted and non-patented ideas. Whether it's public domain language, public domain mathematics, or public domain scientific principles, all patent and copyright applicants are COPYING ideas they themselves didn't create or invent in their new manifestations of inventions and creative works. Thus, the less public domain ideas there are, the less technological and artistic innovation which can occur.
Now the estimates of X trillions of dollars of wealth gained or lost are pretend estimates. Similarly, I pretend estimate society is 3-4 CENTURIES less technologically advanced than it otherwise would be because of copyright and patent since the middle ages guild system. Not even the person who benefited the most from IP (say Bill Gate's 40 billion) is better off than he would have been without copyright and patent when you factor in all the wealth which has been forsaken (such as cures for diseases and injuries, more efficient energy, etc.). Even someone as charitable as Bill Gates could never come close to making up for the net societal wealth lost from his abuse of IP from copyright and patents.
Violence always leads to a smaller net pie of wealth than non-violence. Even if those who benefit from violence get a relatively bigger piece of the pie short term, the area of that short term piece of wealth pie is many times smaller than it otherwise would be without violence long term.
And let the record reflect it was not music recording companies or telephone companies that invented the ring tone. It was consumers who originated the idea of using music as ring tones. Record companies and telephone companies are just blatantly ripping off the ideas of others without paying squat to so either. If it's ok for telephone companies and music companies to profit by stealing the ideas of others, how come it isn't ok for consumers to profit by "stealing" music content?
See, the ring tone is a perfect example of how lack of copyright benefits everyone and profits all who employ the idea for their own purposes, contrary to the alleged deleterious economic effects put forth by IP proponents. Every ring tone ever sold is not benefiting the original artists of the idea of the ring tone. How come the music industry doesn't have a problem with this?
Brilliant! Slam debunk! Any IP lawyers out there looking for some big class action loot? Fraud is against the law. It seems to me there are tons of media companies with mega billion dollar pockets out there that are perpetrating FRAUD against the general public. Not just media companies, but sporting leagues like Major League Baseball, "prohibiting any portion from being copied" is fraud. Hell, if you've got an internet news website, and the NFL wants to prohibit you from showing highlights without payment, SUE 'em. Hell, many mega billion dollar software company's EULA's may be FRAUDulent. Cha-ching!$
It's just a matter of time until law lessons are available on-line. Really? How hard is it to read and COPY forms and procedures? We can download lessons, laws, thoughts, files very easily from P2P applications. Law, seems like one of those fields, where everything which is taught at elite 6-figure schools can be super easily replicated on-line for fractional costs. Let the sue them all business plan for the common man gold rush begin! Spam settlement offers for exhaling carbon dioxide polluting the environment!
It permits you to voice an opinion agreeing with somebody else - but in YOUR OWN WORDS. It is protection from government censorship of your OWN words, not license to copy somebody else's words for your own purposes.
Every word you used in your post is a PUBLIC DOMAIN word, usable by anybody. And look what you just did! You literally used words you didn't create, you didn't invent, "for your own purposes". You are copying someone else's words (as those words were logically created by human beings that are not YOU). And that is the strict pertinent epistemological point, superceding legal shenanigans, ALL claims of patent and copyright are using and building upon public domain technology and art. That's it's "public domain" is immaterial to your argument against COPYING. NOBODY does not copy someone else some way numerous times daily, no matter what Stalinesque Statutes forged by fools pretend, all creative claims and littered throughout with ripped off, copied ideas, from music with public domain lyrics, books with public domain words, software with public domain code, etc.
You don't need to a license to talk, PERIOD. You don't need a license to mimic someone on the street for word, or movement for movement. That's what mimes do; prohibiting mimes would indeed be prohibiting free speech. You don't need permission, you don't need Permits. That some special interests have polluted, corrupted, and bought laws is nevertheless being ignored on a mass scale that puts the original 18th century Boston Tea Party to shame.
2. Why should fair use be a consumer right?
1.) Why should copyright be a law?
The IP advocates arguments for copyright and patent have been philosophically, epistemologically, and economically destroyed. They just ignore the points which crush their arguments. It's no surprise that their tactic is to retreat to a "it's the Law, nah, nah, nah tactic", as they've been crushed on the moral and philosophical high ground.
For that matter, who actually uses fair use? Well, in order to use fair use, you have to be a creative artist of some sort, or a publisher, or a performer.
And leave it to legal psychos like you to resort to government definitions and qualifications for "artist", "publisher", "performer", so you can license those you agree with and kick to the curb those you disagree with. Sorry, but every post ever made on the internet can be and likely is a combination of art, publishing, and performance.
Downloading songs onto a computer has nothing to do with fair use, unless you then use a sound clip for another work that you are creating or distributing.
And downloading songs onto public airwaves through radio broadcast has something to do with fair use? And so indeed downloading full songs to sample clips is legitimate fair use. Recording public air waves radio broadcasts is legitimate fair use. It's too bad if the RIAA babies can't any longer get consumers to voluntarily trade money for stuff that has been freely downloaded by their very selves for decades.
The only people who need fair use in the first place are people who are reproducing sections of work for their own work, and by definition, this puts them into the ranks of the creative artists, distributors, or performers themselves.
Who made you Czar? ANYBODY, ANYTIME can be creative artists, distributors, or performers in their personal hobby time. Seriously, WTF do you think you are to declare anything about others "needs"!
So, no, fair use should not be a consumer right. Consumers do have rights, but if you are going to give a consumer a right, it has to be something that is relevant to them.
Rights are INALIENABLE, not "given" dummy.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inalienable
inalienable
not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated: inalien
The vast majority of /. and the vast majority of leftists are in favor of spying. How else to you think your paychecks get robbed by government? How else do you think they know who to take "social security" from and who to give "social security" to. By mandatory SPYING, plain and simple.
Most of these people that complain about government wire taps are PHONIES. They're the biggest big government redistribution spies around. Most of these people should have all their conversations tapped, and if harmless posted on a public domain for their neighbors to get gossip. It's exactly how they divided the country along arbitrary "class" lines, by pointing fingers at those who make more money, by forced SPYING to reveal that information. Hell, make those Democrats sign up for full disclosure of all their "private" information whenever they sign up for any services just exactly as they made everyone sign up for financial disclosure so paychecks could be robbed.
I claim all language as public domain. Any works using public domain language cannot be copyrighted for all periods the content is using public domain language. I also claim all musical notes public domain language. Any works using public domain musical notes cannot be copyrighted for all periods the content is using public domain musical notes.
So why should anyone else "create their own data" when the artists themselves are not creating their own data either, but freely copying it and using it however they wish? Why can't I randomly mash together different artists' works the same way those artists randomly mash together public domain works?
More and more fundamental public domain is being locked away from use. Who the hell thinks they can trademark public domain names like "Apple" and "Windows" and prevent others from using those words!
You can make music and price it right too if arbitrary violent restrictions aren't used to prevent you from copying others. But if you don't COPY you can't make music, or communicate in languages either.
And how about them artists that leech the notes, chords, progressions, theory, and instruments of music? How about those lyrics that leech language? Should they be shut down too?
That's obvious. Your point?
There's no such thing as a "trade deficit", Take VIII.
Actually, I do this every time I balance my checkbook. However, it doesn't make the news. My trade deficit with the local grocery store is quite one-way, as it is with most of my trading partners.
Why do you trade currency for anything? Are you trying to say you would be better off NOT trading?
However, my "global trade balance" - the net sum of all the trades I make for goods and services, is currently a surplus.
And it never is not,by definition of trade, by definition of every either/or choice to switch possession of goods and services, or to not switch possession of goods and services. Simple A versus B, less than versus greater than MATHEMATICS. Yup, since I set myself up for, since it was DESTINY that scientific advancement only occur through this set, everybody who got it wrong can APOLOGIZE for getting it wrong. It would be the gentlemanly scientific thing to do.
When I retire, it will be a deficit - I'll be spending more than I make.
Wrong. You'll by definition increase your wealth by "spending".
You should apply for admission to a doctorate program in economics, and use this as the basis for your dissertation.
Nah. It'll grate more on the field if I don't do the PhD. I'm a pissed off smarmy mother now. The Elite of the Field had/has their chance to acknowledge perfection and greatness. People generally don't like to be EMBARRASSED; let 'em risk their "Nobel" pride in the arena of ideas. Check my sig; I plan on stripping a lot away. What am I going to do? Give lectures while the professors and doctoral committees take notes while as apprentices rubber stamping the master as apprentices whilst pretending they are the master? Maybe in the CLOSED "qualification" system of yore pre-internet (though Copernicus too succeeded in the face of glorified contemporary slander).
Don't say that two loud. There are 3 kinds of people who say they have Nobel-prize-worthy proofs:
* Nobel-prize winners
* People who deserve a Nobel prize
* People who don't
It must really suk to still be alive and have your "Nobel Prize" work proved FALSE. Plus they have to dig up some material every year to keep the streak of yearly awards going don't they? But don't ask people like Paul Samuelson to do papers on the economics of the awarding of yearly scholarship prizes; they don't even know what supply and demand really means, as evidenced by their false prognostications on trade. A fall in esteem of award bodies is synthetically the same to me as hoisting trophies and giving post dinner speeches.
Having a Ph.D. or a book used in university classrooms on your c.v. top the lists of ways to get people to take claims of Nobel-prize-worthiness seriously.
That's the pinnacle of truth? We're in the age of the internet now. I seriously doubt any professor of "esteem" likes to retreat. What was I supposed to put on my "C.V." anyways when at undergrad level I was declaring their "macro" economic theories were bullshit? How about I just whip it out, and those with basic mathematical and epistemological deduction skills can laugh at those who were wrong?
Making such a claim on /. is among the best ways to ensure people dismiss not just what you have to say here, but everything you say on the topic, ever.
Maybe that's why I found it beneficial to upgrade it from a "claim" to a PROOF? With little greater than and less than signs. I did keep my mouth shut for a while until I was *sure* I was right. Now it doesn't matter where it was first displayed, sans official academic journal. More and more people will point out and PROVE step by step, that there is no such thing as a "trade deficit".
It is artificial. However, your premise t
The concept which we are talking about: the dollar/currency outflow from a country to purchase goods and services minus the dollar/inflow into a country from the sale of goods and services, exists.
Dollar/currency outflow exists from INDIVIDUAL to INDIVIDUAL only. "Countries" are just artificial labels for amalgamations of acting individuals. Only individuals trade. As there is no single instance of a "trade deficit" which results from any single instance of trade between any and all trading individuals, there is no "trade deficit" whatsoever, anywhere. In fact, examining trade between two individuals within a single artificial border country should suffice to show not just what a misnomer "trade deficit" is, but what an absurd concept it is. You walk into the grocery store and trade dollars for food. Both you and the grocer increase your wealth, PROFIT, by so trading. The same amount of dollars exist after the trade as before the trade, and the same amount of food exists after the trade as before the trade. There is no deficit anywhere! And in fact, both parties record in a strict economic analysis, an increase in subjective wealth PROFIT.
If you don't like the term, feel free to come up with a new term and get the world to adopt it.
Or get the world to admit through superior scientific and epistemological DEMONSTRATION PROOF that there is no such thing as a "trade deficit", and all who talk of such thing as a "trade deficit" are wholly and completely talking out their ASS.
In the meantime, accept that a phrase's meaning comes from how it is used, not the literal meaning of its words.
Meaning of words does not change reality or conceptions of knowledge.
As to politically loaded terms: I disagree that the term "trade deficit" has any inherent "good" or "bad" connotations to it.
Wow, you must be in an extremely small minority. The headline of the thread surely implied "bad", and most talked in just this thread about "trade deficit" with a "bad" connotation. Deficit implies LESS. That's a mathematical IMPOSSIBILITY, as I have PROVED. There is NOTHING LESS after trade in the sum total reality. And net subjective wealth INCREASES for both parties in the sum total reality. Where's the "deficit"? There is NONE. This strict mathematical, epistemological, and economic proof should get me the Noble Prize (I've replayed it many times on various internet message boards), as it really does revolutionize the entire field of economics by stripping away tons of false macroeconomic "theories". And I have 23 other Noble Prize worthy proofs that derive from this fundamental one in my repertoire. I lacked the confidence to assuredly demonstrate these claims for 5 years, and I had to study, and prove through competitive naysayers to tighten this baby up. And it's tighter than ever, and I like it. And I really do appreciate all who have tried to drill holes through it, as it forced me to back it up with ever more solid demonstrations. "I'd like to thank the Academy. Er, no." :D
It is true that politicians and others with an agenda have used the term in contexts that imply "goodness" or "badness" but on its face, it is nothing more than a neutral mathematical statement
It's a claimed DEFICIT. How is less MORE, "good"? That's an absurdity!
Country A sent more of its local currency out of the country than it brought in through trade. Likewise, "trade surplus" is equally neutral: Country A brought in more of its local currency than it sent out through trade. Despite what those with agendas may imply, there is nothing inherently good or bad about either statement.
The pertinent economic point is the goods imported are WORTH more than the currency exported, and vice versa, and it's completely artificially misleading to describe a "deficit" for something which occurs across imaginary border lines when the same description is not applied when trade occurs across other ima
That's bullshit. Nobody is a perfectly rational actor with omniscient knowledge. You are claiming that people are never cheated, fooled, or ripped off? Sorry, I don't buy it.
Nope, I've already explicitly stated everyone is not omniscient, everyone has different imperfect knowledge. (Your criticism may apply to neoclassical economics, and while I went to the #1 school in the world for economics, University of Chicago, I prove my assertions regardless of any Chicago or Austrian School influences. Took classes with multiple Nobel Prize instructors. And yes what I say here contradicts their macro economic bullshit). Of course people can be cheated, fooled, ripped off. Everyone knows with more or less uncertainty (differing amounts) that they *can* be cheated, fooled, ripped off. Even if they didn't know, the possibility that they could be would never be removed because it ALWAYS exists. People can be cheated, fooled, ripped off, WITH OR WITHOUT, government regulation. Government is run by the same exact PEOPLE who are potential trading partners. In absolutely every case whatsoever, however, transfers of things can only occur by two distinct full set possibility (mathematically, philosophically, epistemologically) methods: A.) voluntary trade OR B.) violent redistribution. There's no other possibility for the transfer of material property possession from one person to another.
/.) Why did people trade in some instances, and not trade in other instances? FOR ONE POSSIBLE REASON ONLY: that which is received or held onto is valued MORE than that which is given away (or held onto) in exchange, IN SPITE OF all the risks that a person could be cheated, fooled, ripped off. Any other possible explanation is an absurdity, such that they intentionally sought to make themselves worse off, or they randomly exchange random things at random valuations for the hell of it. QED. Each person evaluates those risks with various levels of consciousness. And ABSOLUTELY NOTHING can ever remove those risks either. Those risks of being cheated, fooled, ripped off will ALWAYS exist, no matter what. That's why people COMPETE for trade business by establishing good REPUTATION. But every time people trade, they trade with those risks subjectively evaluated and valued with more or less consciousness in the weight equation of a simple yes or no valuation question: is B worth more than A to ME (and is A worth more than B to ME for the other guy). And of course A and B both come with unknown risks, including but not limited to being cheated, fooled, ripped off, future subjective valuations diverging radically for A and B, etc.)
In absolutely every trade which ever occurs, everyone always has the choice to NOT trade. So many on this topic have committed the exact same fallacy which they smell a mile away in threads where the RIAA claims piracy = lost sales, by assuming preventing trade with "foreigners" means trade at better terms with "them". Copyright + Patent discussion is what brought me to
People see "bad" movies all the time. People eat disappointing meals. People attend sub par concert performances. The possibility that the movie will be bad, the possibility that the meal will be disappointing, the possibility that the concert will be sub par, are all reflected in the PRICE the buyer is willing to pay, now, and in the future based on previous experience feedback. And in some instances, parties, seeking REPUTATION will offer REFUNDS to garner future trade business with customers. Of course intentionally poisoning someone is criminal violence. But nothing whatsoever can remove the possibility that someone will intentionally poison another.
How an actor values a good or service depends on their circumstances *at the time*. If I were dying of thirst, I wouldn't bother applying for a job to buy some water; I would search directly for water.
It always does depend upon circumstances, *at the time*, because trade always and only occurs in the present tense. If you were dyin