How about some economic and philosophical proof that copyright and patent cause technological and artistic stagnation in absolutely every case? What about proof that contrary to the original Constitutional justification for copyright and patent, to promote and advance science and the arts, the actual result is the exact opposite of the Constitutional justification?
I just have to laugh at all those who think "copying" is a bad word. All these programmers on/. complaining about people "stealing" their work are in absolutely every case similarly copying the work of others. They didn't invent the programming languages they program in. They're using someone else's work to create new work. Imagine if it was illegal to write new programs because code and the programming language were "copyrighted". It's quite obvious how much poorer society would be if we used copyright and patent violence to prohibit others from working in new ways, or prohibit others from copying others, just like they do when they live in homes with windows and doors.
If you want to do an economic or mathematical analysis, you start with the super simple observation that violent offensive force is necessary to prohibit others from copying. It's an imposition of silence. By definition, forcing people to be silent, forcing people to be deaf, dumb, and blind to what exists is a net poorer society.
There isn't a single person alive, nor will they ever be a single person alive, that is not copying others. Copyright and patent are the exact same thing as the childish game of "jinx", with bigger and badder violence backing up the claims.
How many remixes have been forsaken? How many movie spin offs and new creative stories involving copyrighted characters have been supressed? Would the gaming world be better off if nobody could copy the format of "increasing stats" and "random number generators"? All these big massive mmmorpg games raking in the hundreds of millions are copying each other, increasing competition, giving consumers better quality for a lower price. How much more cumbersome and less simple are computer programs because people have to tip toe around legal minefields? How much time and energy and resources are absolutely wasted with legal shenanigans?
A 14 year optimal compromise? How about some proof that 1 second is too long? Every great innovation has "stood upon the shoulders of giants", has copied. The greatest gift those of the 21st century could give to themselves and to future generations is a constitutional ammendment banning all copyright and patent protection. Everyone would be instantaneously wealthier (nobody can produce more content than they receive in return) and the rate of technological and artistic advancement would soar.
You shouldn't have any rights to anyone else's work just because you want it. Otherwise, I'm coming to live in your house. I don't make a distinction between work to build a sunroom and work to edit a film. You want to draw a line in there so that you don't have to feel like you're stealing; I draw no such line. Good. Then we will never have to hear you talk or write another post again. Silence is exactly what copyright and patent violently enforce, in absolutely every case, without exception. You didn't invent the English language. So, in your own words, stop "stealing" and STFU. Literally.
Legalizing the sharing would decimate every means of making money to recoup the cost of films. If people were suddenly allowed to download whatever they wanted, the services would move directly into the mainstream, increasing bandwidth consumption for one, and absolutely would impact DVD sales and rental businesses and even box office sales. What possible reason would you have to pay for something you could legally get for free? Making it not illegal to perform digital transfers off digital films would further basically guarantee that there'd never be a profitable blockbuster ever again. And if language and talking were free, nobody would ever talk or post again. Oh wait...
Why would anyone ever watch or pay to watch a live sporting event? Go to a concert? The Hollywood movie industry hasn't even killed off theater. Films can be paid for by a multitude of methods, including patronage, advertising, product placement, fame. Why do companies give out grab bags of free stuff to Hollywood celebrities at the Oscars? Why couldn't every day companies also pay every day jack and jill's with free product sample grab bags at a movie theater to see a free newly released $50 million budget film? Why would anyone ever pay for an airplane to fly up in the sky with a banner behind it? So what if $20M salaries for actors per movie drop down to the 6 figure range. There's still gonna be a ton of competition for the fame and lifestyle that goes with the job of being an actor.
Copyrights and patents create artificial scarcity through violence by prohibiting copying. Yet everyone copies, every day, all day long. Too many people have inflated egos and are oblivous as to how they copy and use the ideas of others. And your line of argument is mythical and oblivious to the economic concepts of real wealth and the marginal productivity of labor.
If somebody was to wave a magic wand today and all software became instantly unpiratable I think that a certain percentage of those 100.000 pirate consumers would (grudgingly) buy a software license because they genuinely needed the product and were saw no reason to pay for it when they could get it for free with the help of TBP. Yeah, and if you weren't a COPYCAT you wouldn't be writing *any* programs. Oh you invented code? You invented the internet? I think not, COPYCRIT. In fact, you've ripped off more than you yourself can ever create. And so has absolutely every human individual ever to live or ever who will live ripped off more than they will "create" themselves.
This is why banning all copyright and patent will enrich everyone more than they could even a fraction benefit from the state of copyright and patent enforced through pure violence. When Bill Gates is dead because the technology which would have enabled him to live for another 1,000 years has been stifled, those billions he made from Microsoft patents and copyrights pale in comparison to the wealth he has lost because of copyrights and patents.
Stop with the hypocricy. Everyone copies. All copyright does is let a select few use violence to prevent others from copying. All it is is a monopoly grant enforced by violence (not consensual voluntary trade) which stifles innovation. It is economically and philosophically provable that copyright and patent protection does the exact opposite of the intention to promote and advance science and the arts.
Without exception, every instance of patent and copyright protection hinders the advancement of science and art. And not only does it hinder the advancement of science and art, but those claiming violent enforcement to protect their intellectual creations are hypocritically ripping off the intellectual creations of others, IN ABSOLUTELY EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE of every copyright and patent grant.
We are decades and decades and decades less scientifically advanced, less culturally richer, precisely because of copyright and patent. Translation: more poor, more sicker, more dead people. More pollution too. Seriously take a look at the growth of the legal profession, which does nothing to materially improve lives, and is the result of a corrupt protection racket caused by violence begeting violence. All that energy which goes into preventing people from copying just means people have less quality stuff at a higher price because of government leaches.
By definition, consensual voluntary TRADE, *only* ever occurs because that which is received is valued more than that which is given away in exchange.
Next Constitutional Amendment: BAN all copyright and patents. The result would be an almost instantaneous humungous increase in the rate of technological and artistic advancement. It's as easy to see as merely looking at the plethora of freely available blogs and internet sites like/. There's some serious economic and philosophical intellectual advancement and upbrading occuring from the mass of competing comments which is enriching all who read them.
for Indentity Theft along with the merchants that facilitate identity theft. Problem solved. Peoples' credit problems will be fixed asap, and resources will be devoted to catching identity theft criminals at the expense of credit card companies. Put this on state by state ballot initiatives. It's ridiculous that credit companies can send snail mail spam by the truckload and not be legally liable for being complicit in fraud when it occurs.
Don't get me wrong, I, like Karl Marx, admire the US and its people, but like an illegal alien friend of mine said: "there is much we must learn from the Americans, but there is also much we MUST NOT learn from the Americans"
Well, there's your problem. If you like Karl Marx you like violence, and you certainly don't admire the Constitution of the US. You see nothing wrong with a group of people being able to use democracy to vote someone else's property to themselves. What today is preventing groups of people from using democracy to steal other groups of peoples' property? Nothing. Illegal immigrants steal from US citizens when they send their kids to school, go to the emergency room, and receive social services. That's the problem. You're an ignorant socialist who uses deceit to downplay your violent thuggish behavior. And that violent thuggish behavior was on display in the illegal immigration protest marches, with the Mexican flags, and the threats to use violent voting democracy to ram more socialist theivery down the throats of Americans. It's the opposite of freedom.
So please stopy LYING saying illegal immigrants just want to work. Perhaps we should force the IRS to grant tax examptions for the cost of illegal immigrants. Say every American gets to write off $10,000 a year in taxes. All business found to be employing illegal immigrants can be subjected to class action lawsuits (suing people is the new American business, don't more lawyers than doctors graduate these days and earn more money too?) I bet you'd see the border enforced damn fast then. But as it is, hospitals are closing down or having resources drained, schools are flooded with overcrowding, and taxes are already too damn high. And the American public saw how those illegal immigrants marched lock step with socialist organizers to threaten the America with more corruption and thievery.
Keep on pretending it has to do with "racism". It's as silly as George Bush sticking his head in the sand and claiming the terrorists "don't like our freedom". But that's what these fringe left elements do, try to incite class envy and race politics.
Or maybe we should just make Mexico the 51st State and fix their economy for them. They've already failed to enforce their own borders and sent an invasion force of 12-15 million people here. Start billing the Mexican government for services received by their citizens. If they don't pay, start annexing Mexican assets to pay for the costs of illegal immigration. Then there's no problem whatsoever with illegal immigrants becoming American citizens.
Because bringing these people into the fold does not "enrich" our country culturally and monetarily). That's the *only* reason why the vast majority of people are against the ILLEGAL (let's not forget that too) immigration bill. They aren't paying for their kids schools (and let's be honest, it's a rabbit population), aren't paying for their health care, aren't paying for their welfare. It's a massive net drain on the material prosperity of the average middle class american citizen. ILLEGALS showed their true colors with the first protests, waving those Mexican flags, trying to mobilize into a legitimate citizen granted voting block to turn this country into a socialist Mexican hell hole. Theses illegal immigrants are too stupid to understand that they left Mexico because it's a socialist hell hole. We don't want that political Che disease infecting this country any more than it already has. Civility only exists through voluntary peaceful consensual free market exchange. And socialist national universal health care is not a civil system, it's a system of violence that takes by force from some to redistribute to others. Stop LYING otherwise.
Too bad it is THE GOVERNMENT that has made neighbors enemies. That happens when you can "vote" to take your neighbor's property rather than restrict conduct to voluntary free trade actions, like consensual sex. But it's primarily stupid liberal thugs who cheer for "no rape without representation", in the form of welfare, social security, national health care. It's out of control. People are sick of other people stealing their money. People are going to revolt if you raise their income and property taxes to pay for all the schools for illegal kids, to pay for all the healthcare and welfare of illegals.
Ban the welfare state first. Then neighbors can be neighbors again, and all people freely trading will increase net society wealth in every instance. This is simple free trade economics; trade only occurs because that which is voluntarily receieved is valued more than that which is voluntarily given away. Stop LYING and pretending someone else can choose for you or others better than you or others can choose for themselves. This is the fundamental reason why the immigration bill failed.
"All applications that go through the pilot will be reviewed out of turn--in other words they'll be taken first--and if you think about the fact that there's now over a four-year backlog in this area of patents to get examined, being examined out of turn and having one's invention reviewed in the course of less than a year, which is what the commitment is, I think is a tremendous incentive to participate"
Yeah, you know patent grants are in the realm of absurdity when there's a 4 year backlog just for a review. The system is corrupt and beyond legitimacy; this is a desperation move that foreshadows similar desperation moves from all sorts of IP monopolists to retreat to a "don't throw out the baby with the bath water" stance to save the IP system from collapse. But we have all the evidence, all the case studies, all the economic and philosophical proof necessary, to show that patents and copyrights hinder technological and artistic progress, contrary to the original constitutional claim of justification.
So how many years until those patents covering Windows '95 start expiring? The "Window" for lawsuits is closing. See how generics changed the pharmaceutical industry. Maybe it's time to make a patent/countdown site for some significant software patents. You see, this is why big companies or government will never be able to control the internet, it's too easy for competitive free speech and competitive free trade to occur online. Politicians won't commit political suicide in the US by censoring content (or even allowing everyone who has downloaded something "illegal" to be punished with "theft" and sentenced to jail). In the short term people that charge to "talk" will be ignored, because they are competing against those who talk for free (how them 'pay' news sites doing?). And lack of IP on "talk" hasn't caused the production of "talk" to stop.
Artists not necessarily being millionaires anymore is just the free market correctly valuing artist's contributions to society. It's a leisure activity. They can dig ditches from 9 to 5 to put food on the table, and practice music and do shows and release mp3s at the same time other people are home from work doing their own hobbies (which could be going to your shows or buying your music). And for the sake of simply avoiding of hypocricy will the pro-copyright and patent defenders please stop communicating their thoughts in a common language, and start mumbling gibberish understood by nobody but themselves. {silence} Thank you, that's much better.
If copyrighted songs and movies were really valuable commodities like cash in a bank, why aren't people downloading 24/7? Why don't people download or make millions of copies of the exact same file?!?! The fact is IP is not property which can be stolen. When minds evolve to digital recroder like status such that songs and books and movies and ideas can be played back with perfect clarity at will, the charge that IP is an attempt to control thought and the real property of others (not the property of those claiming IP) will be perfectly clear. We already have machines as body parts, such as pace makers, artificial limbs, etc. Viva l'internet revolution!
Far too many that complain about this sort of thing on./ are the exact same people who believe in violent forced income redistribution, including registering SSN, address, age, salary, bank account #, etc. just to work at a job and be robbed by the government. Alas, their wolf "cries" of privacy violation have lost luster.
Why would anyone play a game when you can buy the end credits rolling (why bother developing any content when you can pretend cash = 1337), why would anyone play a game where some can play in relative "god mode" to other players (if they spend enough cash)? It's because of SCUM like you that I will never play another mmorpg again. How many billions of dollars in long-term losses will the multiplayer on-line gaming industry rack up because of activity like rmt when people won't pay for monthly subscriptions to "compete" against plague infested servers of cheaters (not to mention the accelarated pace at which fresh economies become stale)? Do you feel good causing game companies and all their employees lost salaries and profits? Do you feel good ruining games for "devoted gamers like yourselves?" That's more than one question, but here's one answer: FUCK YOU!
It's of course not going to be an easy task. However the results are more than worthwhile. And none of the problems you list are unable to be solved imo. The patent system needs to be better designed, and it will take some serious innovation to fix it, but a means to provide for a limited monopoly will overall lead to greater innovation. This is one of the biggest myths perpetuated. Patent protection always stifles innovation, never leads to greater innovation. Competition to sell the best quality stuff at the lowest price causes non-stop daily innovation. The incentive of competition leads to many more rapid smaller developments which *overwhelm* the huge all or nothing competition of Drug Company A and Drug Company B both spending $800 million to develop a new drug, and having one of those company's research investment be arbitrarily worth $0 because of a patent monopoly grant for the other that stifles competition and further innovation.
It's not a a result of "the market". It's the result of government interference with the market. People are prohibited from copying, prohibiting from shaping their material private property in any manner they would so choose. This stifles innovation and results in artificial scarcity. It's no different than the midevil guild system granting a select few favored the rights to conduct certain businesses, while prohibiting others from competing in those businesses.
Copying is not stealing. Copying is making a copy on and with your own property. Nobody is copy-free. It's absurd to accuse someone of "stealing" for walking from point A to point B, breathing, eating, talking, writing, posting. All those actions are *copying*. The only time theft occurs when it comes to *copying* is when violent offensive laws restrict the freedom of people to copy. It's called theft of freedom. So some people should be allowed to copy and prohibit others from copying?
I wonder what the ROI is for the legal strategy? Lawyers aren't cheap. Even judgements don't mean the RIAA will be paid if a person doesn't have the money and has to declare bankruptcy. So is it $10,000 in legal fees for every single $1 actually collected? $100,000 for every single dollar actually collected? More? It's pure despearation PR done on a small scale in hopes of influencing the behavior of the masses. Well, that behavior is more and more influenced, just not in the direction the RIAA was hoping. Now that I think about it, perhaps a lot of statistical analysis goes into which suits to pursue, to maximize the effect of FUD.
1.) Copyright/Patent Proectionism (C.P.P.) creates artificial unnatural scarcity (by definition less stuff = more poverty)
2.) C.P.P causes innovation in art and science to dramatically stagnate because violence is used to by definition make people deaf, blind, and dumb to what exists in the world
3.) C.C.P. copies prior claims of C.C.P. By refusing to grant C.C.P., claimants get exactly what they ask for (damn copycats trying to copy others for copyright protection:P).
4.) C.C.P. claims are made in a commonly understood language which is not owned by anyone
5.) All C.C.P. claims have hypocritically ripped off ideas of someone else in the past which they have built upon. Logical enforcement of C.C.P. would prohibit new artistic and scientific works (like Harry Potter was the first book to talk about "dragons" and "people flying on broomsticks").
6.) Ideas are not property. Ideas are not material. Ideas can't be "stolen".
7.) Copying is a legitimate daily human activity of survival and advancement, from walking, talking, eating, to wearing clothing, using wheels, and living in houses with doors and windows. Copying is not a "dirty" word.
8.) Copyright *robs* the freedom of others to do whatever the hell they feel like doing with their own property, whether that property is blank paper or blank digital media.
9.) If you don't want to be copied, STFU. You have the right to remain silent. You do not have the right to impose silence on others.
10.) A big fat hen. It's not even close. I've been around the web and aye yie yie, winning ideas rise to the top and losing ideas fall by the wayside. Copyright/Patent proponents are getting creamed in arguments.
Socialism is violence, plain and simple, which causes poverty by definition of focrcing tranferances of physical material wealth that is not voluntarily forthcoming. Where are the calls for ending "looks" inequality? How is it "fair" or not "violent crime inducing" for one person to have exclusive access to a subjectively "prettier" woman? Because people should be free to be and give what is their's to whom they want when they want? Is "rape with representation" justified to "share the wealth"? You can vote someone into sexual servitude because that's a "positive externality that would benefit everyone"? People should be free to associate sexually when and with whom they want but not be granted the same respect with their other property? People only act, only charitably donate, when by definition it benefits them. That's why they choose particular charities and exclude other particular charities. This is a good thing, as it prevents waste and increases wealth for all who freely trade. How ironic for a "socialist" to talk about ending poverty, when absolutely every free exchange by definition makes people wealthier, ends poverty. When you use violence to rape, or violence to vote/take others property through taxation you are by definition *causing* poverty, in absolutely every instance. But sure, universal ownership works perfectly in the non-scarce realm of ideas. Banish all copyright/patent protection. Nobody can produce more quality music then they receive for free in return (least of all not "rip off" the ideas of others).
"Take my wife, please!" Not sure about "dominant", but why do most cultures tend to embrace monogamous relationships? So is the "cheater" acting "altruistically" (by giving some other pleasure) or "selfishly" (by giving themself pleasure)? Couples tend to view each other nearly universally as "exclusive property". Mating and coupling ritual disputes are still one of the biggest causes of angst and violence. I'd say that shows on a most basic fundamental level humans are "selfish". People are social creatures because the division of labor increases productivity, because trade by definition increases subjective material wealth for both parties to an exchange. That's the scientific economic reason why society exists. (Granted probably most humanities/social science university departments are ideologically oblivious.) How many homeless strangers do people allow into their homes? People are selectively voluntarily charitable by *giving* (sure, for empathetic reasons), not altruistically passive to *taking* without consent. But maybe we could vote to tax the "altruists" who vote for taxes to serve time in a public brothel without pay for a yearly stint until a day known as "tax freedom day" (when you can keep what you make for the rest of the year). They shouldn't mind now should they...
Trade always and *only* occurs because that which is received is valued more than that which is given away in exchange. That's only reason a person gives up "this" for "that". Both parties by definition benefit. It's also just a true with all actions which are chosen. As such, you are posting or reading on this thread by having traded away the possibility to have done something else at that moment.
This is also true of charity. Nor is charity universal. People don't make donations to the "general charity fund". People are more likely to get married to persons of their own race. Why also wouldn't they be more charitable to subjectively more valued "biased" charitable causes? You know, people with breast cancer or who know those with that disease seem more likely to devote resources and energy to "their" charitable cause than some other non-related charity. People discriminate against some they feel are "not worthy of charity". As such, the only way to maximize wealth *and* maximize charity is free trade. That irrefutable conclusion runs 100% counter to scripted government justifications for interference and theft.
First of all, the study is flawed, because it asks a politically motivated question to a demographically flawed sample. It's as groundbreaking a revelation as some conclusions about "white lies".
It should also be noted charity is a *voluntary* act. Voting to take others' property (for whatever reasons, including "charitable") by a means such as taxation is not altruism. But you don't hear people advocating "no rape without representation". Rape is rape, and theft is theft. So let's keep that clear when talking about alleged "altruism". That people believe they own their own bodies, that people choose, that people willingly act, is by it's very nature selfish. That's why people are pieces of meat that anyone can do whatever they feel like doing to, which would be a more true form of "altruism".
Now how do we go about charging AG's with "oversuing"? Somebody can either buy the product or not buy the product. Best Buy forces nobody to buy anything. It's always in absolutely every single case a *voluntary* transaction. Best Buy loses business if they mislead and word gets out. How many lawyers graduate per year these days? How many doctors? How many engineers? This is a ridiculous waste of taxpayer resources. FREEDOM means the right to sell or buy something for any price whatsoever, and to change your mind or change the price at any time whatsoever. No exchange ever occurs unless both parties agree to the exchange. By definition both parties to the exchange *profit* from that exchange, in absolutely every single case.
The statement sounds like Blu-Ray and HD DVD are massive successes, and this is a new "bonus" feature. People don't want corporate cameras or tracking technology in their homes. This is just a desperate *market* concession. My bet is DVD sales are well past peak, and this is just further gimick to get you to to buy The Matrix again. People don't have enough time for all the content that is out there as it is. Supply gets more and relatively infinite, and demand is limited by time.
Slashdot Mirror
How about some economic and philosophical proof that copyright and patent cause technological and artistic stagnation in absolutely every case? What about proof that contrary to the original Constitutional justification for copyright and patent, to promote and advance science and the arts, the actual result is the exact opposite of the Constitutional justification?
/. complaining about people "stealing" their work are in absolutely every case similarly copying the work of others. They didn't invent the programming languages they program in. They're using someone else's work to create new work. Imagine if it was illegal to write new programs because code and the programming language were "copyrighted". It's quite obvious how much poorer society would be if we used copyright and patent violence to prohibit others from working in new ways, or prohibit others from copying others, just like they do when they live in homes with windows and doors.
I just have to laugh at all those who think "copying" is a bad word. All these programmers on
If you want to do an economic or mathematical analysis, you start with the super simple observation that violent offensive force is necessary to prohibit others from copying. It's an imposition of silence. By definition, forcing people to be silent, forcing people to be deaf, dumb, and blind to what exists is a net poorer society.
There isn't a single person alive, nor will they ever be a single person alive, that is not copying others. Copyright and patent are the exact same thing as the childish game of "jinx", with bigger and badder violence backing up the claims.
How many remixes have been forsaken? How many movie spin offs and new creative stories involving copyrighted characters have been supressed? Would the gaming world be better off if nobody could copy the format of "increasing stats" and "random number generators"? All these big massive mmmorpg games raking in the hundreds of millions are copying each other, increasing competition, giving consumers better quality for a lower price. How much more cumbersome and less simple are computer programs because people have to tip toe around legal minefields? How much time and energy and resources are absolutely wasted with legal shenanigans?
A 14 year optimal compromise? How about some proof that 1 second is too long? Every great innovation has "stood upon the shoulders of giants", has copied. The greatest gift those of the 21st century could give to themselves and to future generations is a constitutional ammendment banning all copyright and patent protection. Everyone would be instantaneously wealthier (nobody can produce more content than they receive in return) and the rate of technological and artistic advancement would soar.
Why would anyone ever watch or pay to watch a live sporting event? Go to a concert? The Hollywood movie industry hasn't even killed off theater. Films can be paid for by a multitude of methods, including patronage, advertising, product placement, fame. Why do companies give out grab bags of free stuff to Hollywood celebrities at the Oscars? Why couldn't every day companies also pay every day jack and jill's with free product sample grab bags at a movie theater to see a free newly released $50 million budget film? Why would anyone ever pay for an airplane to fly up in the sky with a banner behind it? So what if $20M salaries for actors per movie drop down to the 6 figure range. There's still gonna be a ton of competition for the fame and lifestyle that goes with the job of being an actor.
Copyrights and patents create artificial scarcity through violence by prohibiting copying. Yet everyone copies, every day, all day long. Too many people have inflated egos and are oblivous as to how they copy and use the ideas of others. And your line of argument is mythical and oblivious to the economic concepts of real wealth and the marginal productivity of labor.
This is why banning all copyright and patent will enrich everyone more than they could even a fraction benefit from the state of copyright and patent enforced through pure violence. When Bill Gates is dead because the technology which would have enabled him to live for another 1,000 years has been stifled, those billions he made from Microsoft patents and copyrights pale in comparison to the wealth he has lost because of copyrights and patents.
Stop with the hypocricy. Everyone copies. All copyright does is let a select few use violence to prevent others from copying. All it is is a monopoly grant enforced by violence (not consensual voluntary trade) which stifles innovation. It is economically and philosophically provable that copyright and patent protection does the exact opposite of the intention to promote and advance science and the arts.
/. There's some serious economic and philosophical intellectual advancement and upbrading occuring from the mass of competing comments which is enriching all who read them.
Without exception, every instance of patent and copyright protection hinders the advancement of science and art. And not only does it hinder the advancement of science and art, but those claiming violent enforcement to protect their intellectual creations are hypocritically ripping off the intellectual creations of others, IN ABSOLUTELY EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE of every copyright and patent grant.
We are decades and decades and decades less scientifically advanced, less culturally richer, precisely because of copyright and patent. Translation: more poor, more sicker, more dead people. More pollution too. Seriously take a look at the growth of the legal profession, which does nothing to materially improve lives, and is the result of a corrupt protection racket caused by violence begeting violence. All that energy which goes into preventing people from copying just means people have less quality stuff at a higher price because of government leaches.
By definition, consensual voluntary TRADE, *only* ever occurs because that which is received is valued more than that which is given away in exchange.
Next Constitutional Amendment: BAN all copyright and patents. The result would be an almost instantaneous humungous increase in the rate of technological and artistic advancement. It's as easy to see as merely looking at the plethora of freely available blogs and internet sites like
Another important percentage of which you should take note: The percentage of people who make their living COPYING others holds steady at 100%.
for Indentity Theft along with the merchants that facilitate identity theft. Problem solved. Peoples' credit problems will be fixed asap, and resources will be devoted to catching identity theft criminals at the expense of credit card companies. Put this on state by state ballot initiatives. It's ridiculous that credit companies can send snail mail spam by the truckload and not be legally liable for being complicit in fraud when it occurs.
Don't get me wrong, I, like Karl Marx, admire the US and its people, but like an illegal alien friend of mine said: "there is much we must learn from the Americans, but there is also much we MUST NOT learn from the Americans"
Well, there's your problem. If you like Karl Marx you like violence, and you certainly don't admire the Constitution of the US. You see nothing wrong with a group of people being able to use democracy to vote someone else's property to themselves. What today is preventing groups of people from using democracy to steal other groups of peoples' property? Nothing. Illegal immigrants steal from US citizens when they send their kids to school, go to the emergency room, and receive social services. That's the problem. You're an ignorant socialist who uses deceit to downplay your violent thuggish behavior. And that violent thuggish behavior was on display in the illegal immigration protest marches, with the Mexican flags, and the threats to use violent voting democracy to ram more socialist theivery down the throats of Americans. It's the opposite of freedom.
So please stopy LYING saying illegal immigrants just want to work. Perhaps we should force the IRS to grant tax examptions for the cost of illegal immigrants. Say every American gets to write off $10,000 a year in taxes. All business found to be employing illegal immigrants can be subjected to class action lawsuits (suing people is the new American business, don't more lawyers than doctors graduate these days and earn more money too?) I bet you'd see the border enforced damn fast then. But as it is, hospitals are closing down or having resources drained, schools are flooded with overcrowding, and taxes are already too damn high. And the American public saw how those illegal immigrants marched lock step with socialist organizers to threaten the America with more corruption and thievery.
Keep on pretending it has to do with "racism". It's as silly as George Bush sticking his head in the sand and claiming the terrorists "don't like our freedom". But that's what these fringe left elements do, try to incite class envy and race politics.
Or maybe we should just make Mexico the 51st State and fix their economy for them. They've already failed to enforce their own borders and sent an invasion force of 12-15 million people here. Start billing the Mexican government for services received by their citizens. If they don't pay, start annexing Mexican assets to pay for the costs of illegal immigration. Then there's no problem whatsoever with illegal immigrants becoming American citizens.
Because bringing these people into the fold does not "enrich" our country culturally and monetarily). That's the *only* reason why the vast majority of people are against the ILLEGAL (let's not forget that too) immigration bill. They aren't paying for their kids schools (and let's be honest, it's a rabbit population), aren't paying for their health care, aren't paying for their welfare. It's a massive net drain on the material prosperity of the average middle class american citizen. ILLEGALS showed their true colors with the first protests, waving those Mexican flags, trying to mobilize into a legitimate citizen granted voting block to turn this country into a socialist Mexican hell hole. Theses illegal immigrants are too stupid to understand that they left Mexico because it's a socialist hell hole. We don't want that political Che disease infecting this country any more than it already has. Civility only exists through voluntary peaceful consensual free market exchange. And socialist national universal health care is not a civil system, it's a system of violence that takes by force from some to redistribute to others. Stop LYING otherwise.
Too bad it is THE GOVERNMENT that has made neighbors enemies. That happens when you can "vote" to take your neighbor's property rather than restrict conduct to voluntary free trade actions, like consensual sex. But it's primarily stupid liberal thugs who cheer for "no rape without representation", in the form of welfare, social security, national health care. It's out of control. People are sick of other people stealing their money. People are going to revolt if you raise their income and property taxes to pay for all the schools for illegal kids, to pay for all the healthcare and welfare of illegals.
Ban the welfare state first. Then neighbors can be neighbors again, and all people freely trading will increase net society wealth in every instance. This is simple free trade economics; trade only occurs because that which is voluntarily receieved is valued more than that which is voluntarily given away. Stop LYING and pretending someone else can choose for you or others better than you or others can choose for themselves. This is the fundamental reason why the immigration bill failed.
"All applications that go through the pilot will be reviewed out of turn--in other words they'll be taken first--and if you think about the fact that there's now over a four-year backlog in this area of patents to get examined, being examined out of turn and having one's invention reviewed in the course of less than a year, which is what the commitment is, I think is a tremendous incentive to participate"
Yeah, you know patent grants are in the realm of absurdity when there's a 4 year backlog just for a review. The system is corrupt and beyond legitimacy; this is a desperation move that foreshadows similar desperation moves from all sorts of IP monopolists to retreat to a "don't throw out the baby with the bath water" stance to save the IP system from collapse. But we have all the evidence, all the case studies, all the economic and philosophical proof necessary, to show that patents and copyrights hinder technological and artistic progress, contrary to the original constitutional claim of justification.
So how many years until those patents covering Windows '95 start expiring? The "Window" for lawsuits is closing. See how generics changed the pharmaceutical industry. Maybe it's time to make a patent /countdown site for some significant software patents. You see, this is why big companies or government will never be able to control the internet, it's too easy for competitive free speech and competitive free trade to occur online. Politicians won't commit political suicide in the US by censoring content (or even allowing everyone who has downloaded something "illegal" to be punished with "theft" and sentenced to jail). In the short term people that charge to "talk" will be ignored, because they are competing against those who talk for free (how them 'pay' news sites doing?). And lack of IP on "talk" hasn't caused the production of "talk" to stop.
Artists not necessarily being millionaires anymore is just the free market correctly valuing artist's contributions to society. It's a leisure activity. They can dig ditches from 9 to 5 to put food on the table, and practice music and do shows and release mp3s at the same time other people are home from work doing their own hobbies (which could be going to your shows or buying your music). And for the sake of simply avoiding of hypocricy will the pro-copyright and patent defenders please stop communicating their thoughts in a common language, and start mumbling gibberish understood by nobody but themselves. {silence} Thank you, that's much better.
If copyrighted songs and movies were really valuable commodities like cash in a bank, why aren't people downloading 24/7? Why don't people download or make millions of copies of the exact same file?!?! The fact is IP is not property which can be stolen. When minds evolve to digital recroder like status such that songs and books and movies and ideas can be played back with perfect clarity at will, the charge that IP is an attempt to control thought and the real property of others (not the property of those claiming IP) will be perfectly clear. We already have machines as body parts, such as pace makers, artificial limbs, etc. Viva l'internet revolution!
Far too many that complain about this sort of thing on ./ are the exact same people who believe in violent forced income redistribution, including registering SSN, address, age, salary, bank account #, etc. just to work at a job and be robbed by the government. Alas, their wolf "cries" of privacy violation have lost luster.
Why would anyone play a game when you can buy the end credits rolling (why bother developing any content when you can pretend cash = 1337), why would anyone play a game where some can play in relative "god mode" to other players (if they spend enough cash)? It's because of SCUM like you that I will never play another mmorpg again. How many billions of dollars in long-term losses will the multiplayer on-line gaming industry rack up because of activity like rmt when people won't pay for monthly subscriptions to "compete" against plague infested servers of cheaters (not to mention the accelarated pace at which fresh economies become stale)? Do you feel good causing game companies and all their employees lost salaries and profits? Do you feel good ruining games for "devoted gamers like yourselves?" That's more than one question, but here's one answer: FUCK YOU!
It's not a a result of "the market". It's the result of government interference with the market. People are prohibited from copying, prohibiting from shaping their material private property in any manner they would so choose. This stifles innovation and results in artificial scarcity. It's no different than the midevil guild system granting a select few favored the rights to conduct certain businesses, while prohibiting others from competing in those businesses.
Copying is not stealing. Copying is making a copy on and with your own property. Nobody is copy-free. It's absurd to accuse someone of "stealing" for walking from point A to point B, breathing, eating, talking, writing, posting. All those actions are *copying*. The only time theft occurs when it comes to *copying* is when violent offensive laws restrict the freedom of people to copy. It's called theft of freedom. So some people should be allowed to copy and prohibit others from copying?
I wonder what the ROI is for the legal strategy? Lawyers aren't cheap. Even judgements don't mean the RIAA will be paid if a person doesn't have the money and has to declare bankruptcy. So is it $10,000 in legal fees for every single $1 actually collected? $100,000 for every single dollar actually collected? More? It's pure despearation PR done on a small scale in hopes of influencing the behavior of the masses. Well, that behavior is more and more influenced, just not in the direction the RIAA was hoping. Now that I think about it, perhaps a lot of statistical analysis goes into which suits to pursue, to maximize the effect of FUD.
1.) Copyright/Patent Proectionism (C.P.P.) creates artificial unnatural scarcity (by definition less stuff = more poverty) 2.) C.P.P causes innovation in art and science to dramatically stagnate because violence is used to by definition make people deaf, blind, and dumb to what exists in the world 3.) C.C.P. copies prior claims of C.C.P. By refusing to grant C.C.P., claimants get exactly what they ask for (damn copycats trying to copy others for copyright protection :P).
4.) C.C.P. claims are made in a commonly understood language which is not owned by anyone
5.) All C.C.P. claims have hypocritically ripped off ideas of someone else in the past which they have built upon. Logical enforcement of C.C.P. would prohibit new artistic and scientific works (like Harry Potter was the first book to talk about "dragons" and "people flying on broomsticks").
6.) Ideas are not property. Ideas are not material. Ideas can't be "stolen".
7.) Copying is a legitimate daily human activity of survival and advancement, from walking, talking, eating, to wearing clothing, using wheels, and living in houses with doors and windows. Copying is not a "dirty" word.
8.) Copyright *robs* the freedom of others to do whatever the hell they feel like doing with their own property, whether that property is blank paper or blank digital media.
9.) If you don't want to be copied, STFU. You have the right to remain silent. You do not have the right to impose silence on others.
10.) A big fat hen. It's not even close. I've been around the web and aye yie yie, winning ideas rise to the top and losing ideas fall by the wayside. Copyright/Patent proponents are getting creamed in arguments.
Socialism is violence, plain and simple, which causes poverty by definition of focrcing tranferances of physical material wealth that is not voluntarily forthcoming. Where are the calls for ending "looks" inequality? How is it "fair" or not "violent crime inducing" for one person to have exclusive access to a subjectively "prettier" woman? Because people should be free to be and give what is their's to whom they want when they want? Is "rape with representation" justified to "share the wealth"? You can vote someone into sexual servitude because that's a "positive externality that would benefit everyone"? People should be free to associate sexually when and with whom they want but not be granted the same respect with their other property? People only act, only charitably donate, when by definition it benefits them. That's why they choose particular charities and exclude other particular charities. This is a good thing, as it prevents waste and increases wealth for all who freely trade. How ironic for a "socialist" to talk about ending poverty, when absolutely every free exchange by definition makes people wealthier, ends poverty. When you use violence to rape, or violence to vote/take others property through taxation you are by definition *causing* poverty, in absolutely every instance. But sure, universal ownership works perfectly in the non-scarce realm of ideas. Banish all copyright/patent protection. Nobody can produce more quality music then they receive for free in return (least of all not "rip off" the ideas of others).
"Take my wife, please!" Not sure about "dominant", but why do most cultures tend to embrace monogamous relationships? So is the "cheater" acting "altruistically" (by giving some other pleasure) or "selfishly" (by giving themself pleasure)? Couples tend to view each other nearly universally as "exclusive property". Mating and coupling ritual disputes are still one of the biggest causes of angst and violence. I'd say that shows on a most basic fundamental level humans are "selfish". People are social creatures because the division of labor increases productivity, because trade by definition increases subjective material wealth for both parties to an exchange. That's the scientific economic reason why society exists. (Granted probably most humanities/social science university departments are ideologically oblivious.) How many homeless strangers do people allow into their homes? People are selectively voluntarily charitable by *giving* (sure, for empathetic reasons), not altruistically passive to *taking* without consent. But maybe we could vote to tax the "altruists" who vote for taxes to serve time in a public brothel without pay for a yearly stint until a day known as "tax freedom day" (when you can keep what you make for the rest of the year). They shouldn't mind now should they ...
Trade always and *only* occurs because that which is received is valued more than that which is given away in exchange. That's only reason a person gives up "this" for "that". Both parties by definition benefit. It's also just a true with all actions which are chosen. As such, you are posting or reading on this thread by having traded away the possibility to have done something else at that moment. This is also true of charity. Nor is charity universal. People don't make donations to the "general charity fund". People are more likely to get married to persons of their own race. Why also wouldn't they be more charitable to subjectively more valued "biased" charitable causes? You know, people with breast cancer or who know those with that disease seem more likely to devote resources and energy to "their" charitable cause than some other non-related charity. People discriminate against some they feel are "not worthy of charity". As such, the only way to maximize wealth *and* maximize charity is free trade. That irrefutable conclusion runs 100% counter to scripted government justifications for interference and theft. First of all, the study is flawed, because it asks a politically motivated question to a demographically flawed sample. It's as groundbreaking a revelation as some conclusions about "white lies". It should also be noted charity is a *voluntary* act. Voting to take others' property (for whatever reasons, including "charitable") by a means such as taxation is not altruism. But you don't hear people advocating "no rape without representation". Rape is rape, and theft is theft. So let's keep that clear when talking about alleged "altruism". That people believe they own their own bodies, that people choose, that people willingly act, is by it's very nature selfish. That's why people are pieces of meat that anyone can do whatever they feel like doing to, which would be a more true form of "altruism".
Now how do we go about charging AG's with "oversuing"? Somebody can either buy the product or not buy the product. Best Buy forces nobody to buy anything. It's always in absolutely every single case a *voluntary* transaction. Best Buy loses business if they mislead and word gets out. How many lawyers graduate per year these days? How many doctors? How many engineers? This is a ridiculous waste of taxpayer resources. FREEDOM means the right to sell or buy something for any price whatsoever, and to change your mind or change the price at any time whatsoever. No exchange ever occurs unless both parties agree to the exchange. By definition both parties to the exchange *profit* from that exchange, in absolutely every single case.
The statement sounds like Blu-Ray and HD DVD are massive successes, and this is a new "bonus" feature. People don't want corporate cameras or tracking technology in their homes. This is just a desperate *market* concession. My bet is DVD sales are well past peak, and this is just further gimick to get you to to buy The Matrix again. People don't have enough time for all the content that is out there as it is. Supply gets more and relatively infinite, and demand is limited by time.