Well the claim changes depending on which worldview you use as a starting position. So Therefore I could turn that on it's ear and say that people who claim they can know for sure that there is not a God are not bein completely rational. Then the only raitonal people left are agnostics.
Um, respectfully, no. There's a formal term for what you just did there, IIRC it's "shifting the burden of proof", or sometimes, "argument from ignorance", when you claim that something is (or could be) true simply because it hasn't been dis-proven.
The burden of proof has to be firmly on the person who makes a claim. So if I claim "god exists", then it's up to me to prove it, not up to my opponent to disprove it.
Lastly I can tolerate that people are going to have beliefs all over the spectrum. I'm fine with that. It's when they say that everybody who doesn't think like then is a kook that I take offense.
Oh man, am I ever with you on that score.
You wanna take issue with what I say on the grounds that it's flawed reasoning, or 'cause I have the facts wrong, or because my conclusion isn't supported by the evidence, go for it. But it's the mark of a weak debater and sloppy thinking to make personal attacks, or to suggest that anyone who disagrees with you is a kook or a nutter or something.
Such a comment just confirms what I've said before about Atheists. They don't want people to really have an open mind. Yet they won't agree that everybody is open-minded until they agree with them!
Well, in the words of Richard Dawkins, "There's this thing called being so open-minded your brains drop out."
At the risk of starting a pointless discussion, the position of most atheists is that:
1) Burden of proof rests on the person making a claim
2) there isn't really any way to prove or disprove the existence of god, (depending on what you mean by 'prove', of course)
3) Given 1 and 2, anybody who believes in god is exhibiting faulty, or at least irrational, thinking.
Unfortunately, as the comment you quoted demonstrates, atheism tends to attract people who like to criticize other's beliefs in ways that are gratuitously inflammatory.
That said, it's not that 'atheists want everybody to agree with them', atheists simply see it as nonsensical or irrational to believe in invisible beings that nobody can see, without any sort of evidence.
As right-wing canadian author David Frum said recently, "If you take the sum total of what US state and federal governments spend on health care, they actually spend more per capita than Canada does, but they think they have a private system!"
Part of the Canada US price difference is the patent system. Drug patents last longer in the US, and it's easier to make a minor change and extend the patent on a given drug.
But y'know, it's not just a comparison of the USA to Canada that should be considered. It's a comparison of the USA vs the UK, France, Germany, Italy, belgium, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Japan, and Australia.
All of which have "socialized medicine", usually if anything, more 'socialized' than Canada's system. For example, the government pays for pharmaceuticals in the UK, Australia, and Japan. (not sure about other countries)
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the US is the only developed country in the world without socialized medicine. Everybody else thinks medicine should be in the same category as police and firefighters and roads and sewage.
Compare the US Postal Service to UPS or FedEx and you'll see the same thing. Yep, the government does everything else so well, let's hand over this to them too!
Compare the police or the fire department to Blackwater or KBR. They do such a good job, let's turn everything over to the private sector! That way, when you dial 911, you get a blackwater rep asking for your credit card when your house is on fire.
Whenever I hear someone assert that the private sector is always more efficient or does something better by definition, I wonder where they've worked (and if I can send a resume). In my experience, private industry (at least when a company gets beyond the ~100 employees size) is just as talented and creative when it comes to bureaucratic nonsense as the public sector.
Go ahead, take away their patents or institute price controls, and watch the money dry up. That will help everyone...not! You can't force investors to invest, no matter how much compulsion or Robin Hood economics you want to institute.
This actually sounds like a good argument for why a free market approach doesn't solve anything, particularly for medical matters. Also, let's not pretend that drug companies spend a fortune on R & D. Most drug companies spend twice as much on marketing as they do on R & D.
I just wish someone would make a list of the top 50 drugs in the last 50 years and who made them and how they were financed. I'm guessing it wasn't from a communist country.
Yeah, and what you'd find is that most drugs were hugely funded by government money, and then as soon as a drug is viable/marketable, the patents are turned over to private industry. Like the defense industry, it's a good way to have a net transfer of wealth from the government to certain companies.
If anything, what we're getting is a "robin hood in reverse". Steal from everybody and give to this group of companies/private industries.
If nothing else, the fact that Americans can drive to Canada and save an average of 80% on prescription drugs should be a sign that your free market system is not working well. If nothing else, it's not delivering the lowest possible prices, anyway. If a free market can't deliver on price, what's the point?
Cory Doctorow suggests in 'The Guardian' that the sensible thing to do is have one set of copyright rules for commercial operations and one for non-commercial situations.
Now, there's probably room for some debate, devil's in the details and all that, but seems like a reasonable course of action to differentiate in law between me borrowing a CD and ripping it onto my PC vs a commercial pirating operation that churns out hundreds of stamped CDs.
I'll only go for decriminalizing non-commercial copyright infringement if there is a mechanism in place to allow legal recourse to occur.
That's a very good point. And there may turn out to be some very non-trivial logistical and enforcement challenges there. But yeah, you're right on that count.
I'd also like to say that there's a world of difference between the piracy problems of the RIAA and those of say, the MPAA. The movie studio system will be relevant as long as people want to go see big-budget movies in theaters. Theater sales are quite good these days, so I think the MPAA doesn't really have much of a piracy problem.
Now, the RIAA, they're in a different situation. They figured out a while ago that it's easier to be profitable by controlling all the distribution channels than to find, sign, and nurture good talent. If you're the only 'store' in town, it doesn't matter if all your stuff is crap, right?
So, when talking about the RIAA, their very clear interest is in making sure that they maintain a monopoly on distribution. That's great for them, but not really great for citizens, consumers, or musicians.
The other thing going on for the RIAA is that they've been making money off a shortage of 'bandwidth' for a while, if you think of 'bandwidth' as 'shelf space at HMV etc'. Now the supply of 'bandwidth' is increasing. If the supply of something increases, the price falls. So the RIAA's efforts can be seen as an attempt to artificially maintain scarcity.
This is why I think the nature of the price needs to be re-evaluated. Yes, you still have the original up-front investment of the various infrastructure needed to produce good quality music. But once that album or song is recorded, the cost to produce 'just one more copy' approaches zero.
Generally in economics, something has value if it has utility and scarcity. So if the marginal cost of production approaches zero, (i.e., no real 'scarcity' of the good in question) how do we come up with a sensible number for price?
Oh, man, as private pilot who spent 5 years being too poor to fly at all, you don't need to tell me. So, now, we've decided somehow that it's better to make 'em overseas than to create manufacturing jobs here...
Our "global economy" seems to somehow have turned into a system of institutionalized dumping of goods.
Until then, anyone who argues for copyright reform is only doing so because they want the fruits of creative people's labors for free, damn the consequences to those industries which rely upon the protections provided by intellectual property.
Respectfully, I disagree.
My main objection to current status quo is because I don't see any way to prevent private non-commercial copyright infringement (I wanna draw a big distinction between my downloading stuff from BT vs a commercial operation cranking out DVDs or CDs) short of some very, very, draconian measures like very nasty DRM or Trusted Computing.
Let me know if you think this is a false dichotomy, but I see it as a pretty stark choice between legislation that makes the DMCA look like the Bill of Rights on one hand vs. decriminalizing private non-commercial copyright infringement. So it's not that I think that decriminalizing copyright infringement is a great idea, just that I see it as the 'least bad' way out of the current mess.
Never mind the fact that when it was originally written, copyright law basically only affected publishers, people who voluntarily decided to get into that business. Now that copying technology is ubiquitous, copyright law functions in an entirely different way, it restricts the actions of everyday citizens. Or at least it does if they wanna do something like read or use a computer.
That was a big un-intended switch. Now, if that's the way people want it to go, fine, the price you pay for living in a democracy. But I want some public debate on a very real 'stealth change' in the way copyright functions.
You got a better idea for a way out of our current mess than decriminalizing non-commercial copyright infringement? I'm all ears, 'cause I'm not by any means suggesting that a statutory license is the best ideal plan.
The law suits really hurt but the Luxury tax also did a lot of damage. It also really hurt the Yacht business. The thing is that when most people think of Yachts and Private Planes they think of the Rich People that buy them. The real truth is extra tax on them end up hurting the people that build them more than the people that buy them. If you tax them too much then people just don't buy them. That puts the people that make them out of work.
Yeah, yachts and private planes make a good target for cynical politicians, no one's likely to get upset if a guy who can afford a private plane has to pay a bit extra for one. But yeah, um, how 'bout those kick-ass, non-offshored, manufacturing jobs that are gonna disappear if those "fat cats" stop buying piper Cherokees and what-not...
"So, you're ok with revoking people's rights or just the ones you don't like others having?"
I'm OK with revoking rights that were granted to some people by copyright law. Some people in this debate, yes, in fact, have too many rights. Copyright terms are way too long, for example. You give me a reasonable term of somewhere between 5 and 20 years, then we're talking. But let's not lose sight of the point of copyright law in the first place.
Remember, copyright is something created by government action, for the purpose of promoting the useful arts and sciences. That's the goal. Not protecting anybody's income or livelihood. If the current law does not effectively do this, and in the process of doing that, gives some parties too many rights, then yes, I'm completely OK with revoking some people's rights.
I thought Piper got hit by a giant wrongful death lawsuit (on a 30-year old aircraft, FWIW, sounded like BS to me...) that pushed them over the edge? Or am I thinking of somebody else?
Blaming the problems on a poor, or outdated, business model might work to salve people's conscience but the weasel words still don't hide the fact that what is being done is illegal. From a ethical point of view they are taking the product of fellow human beings endeavours without paying for them. Somewhat of a moral dilemma.
OK, assuming you're not a shill/sockpuppet, surely you're not honestly asserting that illegal == immoral, are you?
Copyright is not a natural right or a human right. It's a balance of interests, intended to better society as a whole, not to protect a business model. Especially if the business model involves record labels having the same relationship to their artists as a pimp has to a prostitute.
As a final thought. Its now possible to buy music, on a track by track basis, for a reasonable amount of money, without DRM.
Please explain how $0.99 per song is a reasonable price for a product who's marginal cost of production approaches zero.
You want a real 'reasonable price' for downloaded tracks? Try $0.10 - $0.25 per song.
The music industry seems to think that they can still charge roughly the same amount per track for a song I download as they charge for tracks on a CD. This is highway robbery.
The elephant in the room is, as the labels lose their stranglehold on music distribution, the price per track or price per album will inevitably decrease. Y'know, when you increase the supply of something, the price falls?
This whole debate is the result of an industry that wants a free market economy for everybody else, but not for them.
How well a union functions and how big an asshole they make of themselves is largely dependent on how the employer behaves.
Like your example of Piper aircraft, if employers treat their employees well then the employees will tell the union to piss off.
However, when employers are abusing their employees, then it's a different story. I can't remember who it was that said "an employer gets the union they deserve".
Personally, I'm of the opinion that, if my employees want to form a union, then I've really fucked up, as an employer.
After reading a bit more, I figure I gotta retract my original support for this proposal.
Apparently (spoke to a friend of mine who's a musician up here in Canada) they would distribute the money collected from this based on CD sales.
So yeah, those who said this was just a cash grab are 100% right.
Yeah, that's a very good point. You don't have to "stop piracy", you just have to make it easier (that includes cheaper, btw) to get stuff legally. Use bottled water as an analogy. Tap water costs what, 1/1000 of bottled water? It's effectively 'free', for most people. But people still have no trouble selling bottled water, right?
Speaking as a frequent downloader, I know if I could get songs for $.25/song or last night's episode of 'the wire' for $1.00, then I'd be way too freakin' lazy to hunt down torrents and stuff.
The point you raise is essentially the 'elephant in the room' on this issue. RIAA types aren't concerned about piracy nearly so much as they are about their ability to charge $15/album and $1.00/song, both ridiculous prices for something when the marginal cost of production approaches zero. They want to be 'insulated' from the risks of a free market system.
The other elephant in the room is that record labels have figured out it's much easier to simply control all the distribution channels than it is to find and nurture good talent.
So if they lose their stranglehold on distribution, there goes their business model. The record labels have the same relationship to artists that a pimp has to a prostitute. And that needs to be included in any sensible discussion of this issue.
The mere fact that you don't like the conclusions of the argument when applied to schools doesn't make the argument invalid. One shouldn't have to pay to subsidize other peoples' music downloads, and one shouldn't have to pay to subsidize other peoples' kids' educations, either.
Ok, so we found a fundamental difference of opinion here. I actually don't mind subsidizing the education of other people's children, because I figure, if they aren't educated, then the odds are good that eventually they'll be mugging me or breaking into my house and stealing my TV for crack money or something. It's one of those things like vaccinations and 'herd immunity' that makes everybody better off if we give everybody (or almost everybody) something for free. But I digress...
You're absolutely right. But I see this as a first step in that direction. By 'decriminalizing' private, non-commercial copying in exchange for $5/month, then we take the first step to breaking the Record labels' stranglehold on distribution.
You could break their distribution monopoly (i.e. copyright) a whole lot faster by simple revoking it.
Well, I basically agree with you. But I'm not quite sure what you're proposing here? Simply revoking the copyrights of the major record labels by an act of Congress or something? (sounds great, FWIW, but others may disagree with me...) Ending copyright? Putting a sane limit on copyright like 5-10 years?
The idea of revoking their distribution monopoly sounds pretty awesome to me, but unlikely, and in a day and age where you can barely get some people to concede that IP law in general needs _reform_, I'm not optimistic about getting the political will behind the idea of just _ending_ copyright. (as much as it seems like basically a sound idea.)
I know exactly what you mean. I don't have kids, and I don't ever plan on having kids. So why the fuck should I have to pay for schools? We just had area rate get passed here, can you believe it, I'm gonna have to pay an extra 20 bucks a year just so a bunch of brats can have better computers and up-to-date textbooks and stuff?
Obviously this is a great injustice for me personally, right?
All facetious rhetoric aside, if you don't like SOCAN, um, are you required by law to join SOCAN? (I really have no idea about this...) The fact that SOCAN has it's flaws doesn't necessarily mean that this is a bad idea.
As far as I can see on this issue, we have a very stark choice. We can keep trying to put toothpaste back in the tube and try and stop piracy with DRM and trusted computing and RIAA lawsuits, or we can 'stop piracy' by "decriminalizing" private non-commercial copyright infringement.
It seems like a lot of the arguments against this idea boil down to "this idea isn't perfect so therefore we should stick with the status quo". Has anybody actually looked at how awful the status quo on IP law is right now?
For just one small example, what's the total cost to the American taxpayer of the RIAA lawsuits?
Personally, I think something like this proposed "statutory license" is going to eventually be necessary. I don't see any way of stopping piracy, you certainly can't stop it by appealing to people on ethical/moral grounds, and stopping it by technical means (DRM etc) just seems like an eternal arms race that'll be a dead weight on the economy as a whole.
That said, you make an entirely valid point. Why music, and not movies? (although given there's no way to 'pirate' the 'going to a theater experience', one might argue that the MPAA doesn't really _have_ a piracy problem, at least not in the way that the RIAA does...)
Why movies, and not Windows and Photoshop?
However, I would suspect that the # of songs downloaded dwarfs the # of operating systems or movies being downloaded by an order of magnitude. So what would seem more reasonable is maybe $5/month for music, $1.50/month for movies, and $0.50/month for software.
Say Grandma has an internet connection, and uses it only for sending email. She lives on a fixed income. Why should she pay $5 a month to subsidize other people so they can get free music by violating copyright?
I know exactly what you mean. I don't have (or ever plan to have) kids, so why the hell should I have to pay taxes to pay for schools?
You can make that argument for a variety of different issues. Doesn't make it valid, or even a good idea.
Realistically, the music industry is going to have to shrink. Boo hoo. There's no law of nature that dictates that x% of GDP should be spent on recorded music.
You're absolutely right. But I see this as a first step in that direction. By 'decriminalizing' private, non-commercial copying in exchange for $5/month, then we take the first step to breaking the Record labels' stranglehold on distribution.
If I offered you the choice of selling $100 worth of your product/month with mild/moderate piracy or selling $500/month with rampant piracy, you'd probably (quite sensibly) pick the latter. But ever notice how it seems like the record labels would rather take the former?
That doesn't make any sense, until you realize that the most important thing for the labels to maintain is control over distribution channels. So a critical first step in breaking up the RIAA cartel/monopoly is decriminalizing private, non-commercial copyright infringement.
Sixty bucks a month, and no more legal or ethical gray areas about p2p filesharing?
For sixty bucks a month, we could essentially 'decriminalize' private non-commercial copyright infringement?
How is that not an example of money well spent?
Download all I like for $5/month sounds like a kick-ass buy to me. OK, maybe I won't use it, but hey, I don't have kids, and I don't mind paying taxes for schools, because (and this is the important part) it's a good idea to educate kids, even if I don't want or have them myself.
Y'know, the idea that, there's sometimes more important things than just my own selfish interests? I know the rhetoric of our time says that we're not supposed to care about anything other than our own selfish interests, but didn't FDR say something about how "naked self-interest is not only bad morals, but bad economics, too?"
Or is it that these guys have come to the conclusion that you can't stop piracy short of incredibly draconian trusted computing, and figured out that a statutory license is a better idea?
I'd make the analogy with the royalty system for radio airplay. When radio first came out, copyright holders didn't want to allow their songs to be played on the radio for free. Eventually in most jurisdictions the current system of X number of cents per airplay had to be imposed on copyright holders.
Slashdot Mirror
Is is just me, or is "MicroYahoo" a much funnier name?
What about 2nd-hand smoke zealots, while we're on the subject of flamebait? *ducks*
Um, respectfully, no. There's a formal term for what you just did there, IIRC it's "shifting the burden of proof", or sometimes, "argument from ignorance", when you claim that something is (or could be) true simply because it hasn't been dis-proven.
The burden of proof has to be firmly on the person who makes a claim. So if I claim "god exists", then it's up to me to prove it, not up to my opponent to disprove it.
Oh man, am I ever with you on that score.
You wanna take issue with what I say on the grounds that it's flawed reasoning, or 'cause I have the facts wrong, or because my conclusion isn't supported by the evidence, go for it. But it's the mark of a weak debater and sloppy thinking to make personal attacks, or to suggest that anyone who disagrees with you is a kook or a nutter or something.
Well, in the words of Richard Dawkins, "There's this thing called being so open-minded your brains drop out."
At the risk of starting a pointless discussion, the position of most atheists is that:
1) Burden of proof rests on the person making a claim
2) there isn't really any way to prove or disprove the existence of god, (depending on what you mean by 'prove', of course)
3) Given 1 and 2, anybody who believes in god is exhibiting faulty, or at least irrational, thinking.
Unfortunately, as the comment you quoted demonstrates, atheism tends to attract people who like to criticize other's beliefs in ways that are gratuitously inflammatory.
That said, it's not that 'atheists want everybody to agree with them', atheists simply see it as nonsensical or irrational to believe in invisible beings that nobody can see, without any sort of evidence.
As right-wing canadian author David Frum said recently, "If you take the sum total of what US state and federal governments spend on health care, they actually spend more per capita than Canada does, but they think they have a private system!"
Part of the Canada US price difference is the patent system. Drug patents last longer in the US, and it's easier to make a minor change and extend the patent on a given drug.
But y'know, it's not just a comparison of the USA to Canada that should be considered. It's a comparison of the USA vs the UK, France, Germany, Italy, belgium, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Japan, and Australia.
All of which have "socialized medicine", usually if anything, more 'socialized' than Canada's system. For example, the government pays for pharmaceuticals in the UK, Australia, and Japan. (not sure about other countries)
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the US is the only developed country in the world without socialized medicine. Everybody else thinks medicine should be in the same category as police and firefighters and roads and sewage.
Compare the police or the fire department to Blackwater or KBR. They do such a good job, let's turn everything over to the private sector! That way, when you dial 911, you get a blackwater rep asking for your credit card when your house is on fire.
Whenever I hear someone assert that the private sector is always more efficient or does something better by definition, I wonder where they've worked (and if I can send a resume). In my experience, private industry (at least when a company gets beyond the ~100 employees size) is just as talented and creative when it comes to bureaucratic nonsense as the public sector.
This actually sounds like a good argument for why a free market approach doesn't solve anything, particularly for medical matters. Also, let's not pretend that drug companies spend a fortune on R & D. Most drug companies spend twice as much on marketing as they do on R & D.
Yeah, and what you'd find is that most drugs were hugely funded by government money, and then as soon as a drug is viable/marketable, the patents are turned over to private industry. Like the defense industry, it's a good way to have a net transfer of wealth from the government to certain companies.
If anything, what we're getting is a "robin hood in reverse". Steal from everybody and give to this group of companies/private industries.
If nothing else, the fact that Americans can drive to Canada and save an average of 80% on prescription drugs should be a sign that your free market system is not working well. If nothing else, it's not delivering the lowest possible prices, anyway. If a free market can't deliver on price, what's the point?
Cory Doctorow suggests in 'The Guardian' that the sensible thing to do is have one set of copyright rules for commercial operations and one for non-commercial situations.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/29/copyright.law
Now, there's probably room for some debate, devil's in the details and all that, but seems like a reasonable course of action to differentiate in law between me borrowing a CD and ripping it onto my PC vs a commercial pirating operation that churns out hundreds of stamped CDs.
That's a very good point. And there may turn out to be some very non-trivial logistical and enforcement challenges there. But yeah, you're right on that count.
I'd also like to say that there's a world of difference between the piracy problems of the RIAA and those of say, the MPAA. The movie studio system will be relevant as long as people want to go see big-budget movies in theaters. Theater sales are quite good these days, so I think the MPAA doesn't really have much of a piracy problem.
Now, the RIAA, they're in a different situation. They figured out a while ago that it's easier to be profitable by controlling all the distribution channels than to find, sign, and nurture good talent. If you're the only 'store' in town, it doesn't matter if all your stuff is crap, right?
So, when talking about the RIAA, their very clear interest is in making sure that they maintain a monopoly on distribution. That's great for them, but not really great for citizens, consumers, or musicians.
The other thing going on for the RIAA is that they've been making money off a shortage of 'bandwidth' for a while, if you think of 'bandwidth' as 'shelf space at HMV etc'. Now the supply of 'bandwidth' is increasing. If the supply of something increases, the price falls. So the RIAA's efforts can be seen as an attempt to artificially maintain scarcity.
This is why I think the nature of the price needs to be re-evaluated. Yes, you still have the original up-front investment of the various infrastructure needed to produce good quality music. But once that album or song is recorded, the cost to produce 'just one more copy' approaches zero.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_cost
Generally in economics, something has value if it has utility and scarcity. So if the marginal cost of production approaches zero, (i.e., no real 'scarcity' of the good in question) how do we come up with a sensible number for price?
Oh, man, as private pilot who spent 5 years being too poor to fly at all, you don't need to tell me. So, now, we've decided somehow that it's better to make 'em overseas than to create manufacturing jobs here... Our "global economy" seems to somehow have turned into a system of institutionalized dumping of goods.
Respectfully, I disagree.
My main objection to current status quo is because I don't see any way to prevent private non-commercial copyright infringement (I wanna draw a big distinction between my downloading stuff from BT vs a commercial operation cranking out DVDs or CDs) short of some very, very, draconian measures like very nasty DRM or Trusted Computing.
Let me know if you think this is a false dichotomy, but I see it as a pretty stark choice between legislation that makes the DMCA look like the Bill of Rights on one hand vs. decriminalizing private non-commercial copyright infringement. So it's not that I think that decriminalizing copyright infringement is a great idea, just that I see it as the 'least bad' way out of the current mess.
Never mind the fact that when it was originally written, copyright law basically only affected publishers, people who voluntarily decided to get into that business. Now that copying technology is ubiquitous, copyright law functions in an entirely different way, it restricts the actions of everyday citizens. Or at least it does if they wanna do something like read or use a computer.
That was a big un-intended switch. Now, if that's the way people want it to go, fine, the price you pay for living in a democracy. But I want some public debate on a very real 'stealth change' in the way copyright functions.
You got a better idea for a way out of our current mess than decriminalizing non-commercial copyright infringement? I'm all ears, 'cause I'm not by any means suggesting that a statutory license is the best ideal plan.
Yeah, yachts and private planes make a good target for cynical politicians, no one's likely to get upset if a guy who can afford a private plane has to pay a bit extra for one. But yeah, um, how 'bout those kick-ass, non-offshored, manufacturing jobs that are gonna disappear if those "fat cats" stop buying piper Cherokees and what-not...
I'm OK with revoking rights that were granted to some people by copyright law. Some people in this debate, yes, in fact, have too many rights. Copyright terms are way too long, for example. You give me a reasonable term of somewhere between 5 and 20 years, then we're talking. But let's not lose sight of the point of copyright law in the first place.
Remember, copyright is something created by government action, for the purpose of promoting the useful arts and sciences. That's the goal. Not protecting anybody's income or livelihood. If the current law does not effectively do this, and in the process of doing that, gives some parties too many rights, then yes, I'm completely OK with revoking some people's rights.
I thought Piper got hit by a giant wrongful death lawsuit (on a 30-year old aircraft, FWIW, sounded like BS to me...) that pushed them over the edge? Or am I thinking of somebody else?
OK, assuming you're not a shill/sockpuppet, surely you're not honestly asserting that illegal == immoral, are you?
Copyright is not a natural right or a human right. It's a balance of interests, intended to better society as a whole, not to protect a business model. Especially if the business model involves record labels having the same relationship to their artists as a pimp has to a prostitute.
Please explain how $0.99 per song is a reasonable price for a product who's marginal cost of production approaches zero.
You want a real 'reasonable price' for downloaded tracks? Try $0.10 - $0.25 per song.
The music industry seems to think that they can still charge roughly the same amount per track for a song I download as they charge for tracks on a CD. This is highway robbery.
The elephant in the room is, as the labels lose their stranglehold on music distribution, the price per track or price per album will inevitably decrease. Y'know, when you increase the supply of something, the price falls?
This whole debate is the result of an industry that wants a free market economy for everybody else, but not for them.
How well a union functions and how big an asshole they make of themselves is largely dependent on how the employer behaves.
Like your example of Piper aircraft, if employers treat their employees well then the employees will tell the union to piss off.
However, when employers are abusing their employees, then it's a different story. I can't remember who it was that said "an employer gets the union they deserve".
Personally, I'm of the opinion that, if my employees want to form a union, then I've really fucked up, as an employer.
After reading a bit more, I figure I gotta retract my original support for this proposal. Apparently (spoke to a friend of mine who's a musician up here in Canada) they would distribute the money collected from this based on CD sales. So yeah, those who said this was just a cash grab are 100% right.
Yeah, that's a very good point. You don't have to "stop piracy", you just have to make it easier (that includes cheaper, btw) to get stuff legally. Use bottled water as an analogy. Tap water costs what, 1/1000 of bottled water? It's effectively 'free', for most people. But people still have no trouble selling bottled water, right?
Speaking as a frequent downloader, I know if I could get songs for $.25/song or last night's episode of 'the wire' for $1.00, then I'd be way too freakin' lazy to hunt down torrents and stuff.
The point you raise is essentially the 'elephant in the room' on this issue. RIAA types aren't concerned about piracy nearly so much as they are about their ability to charge $15/album and $1.00/song, both ridiculous prices for something when the marginal cost of production approaches zero. They want to be 'insulated' from the risks of a free market system.
The other elephant in the room is that record labels have figured out it's much easier to simply control all the distribution channels than it is to find and nurture good talent.
So if they lose their stranglehold on distribution, there goes their business model. The record labels have the same relationship to artists that a pimp has to a prostitute. And that needs to be included in any sensible discussion of this issue.
Ok, so we found a fundamental difference of opinion here. I actually don't mind subsidizing the education of other people's children, because I figure, if they aren't educated, then the odds are good that eventually they'll be mugging me or breaking into my house and stealing my TV for crack money or something. It's one of those things like vaccinations and 'herd immunity' that makes everybody better off if we give everybody (or almost everybody) something for free. But I digress...
Well, I basically agree with you. But I'm not quite sure what you're proposing here? Simply revoking the copyrights of the major record labels by an act of Congress or something? (sounds great, FWIW, but others may disagree with me...) Ending copyright? Putting a sane limit on copyright like 5-10 years?
The idea of revoking their distribution monopoly sounds pretty awesome to me, but unlikely, and in a day and age where you can barely get some people to concede that IP law in general needs _reform_, I'm not optimistic about getting the political will behind the idea of just _ending_ copyright. (as much as it seems like basically a sound idea.)
I know exactly what you mean. I don't have kids, and I don't ever plan on having kids. So why the fuck should I have to pay for schools? We just had area rate get passed here, can you believe it, I'm gonna have to pay an extra 20 bucks a year just so a bunch of brats can have better computers and up-to-date textbooks and stuff?
Obviously this is a great injustice for me personally, right?
All facetious rhetoric aside, if you don't like SOCAN, um, are you required by law to join SOCAN? (I really have no idea about this...) The fact that SOCAN has it's flaws doesn't necessarily mean that this is a bad idea.
As far as I can see on this issue, we have a very stark choice. We can keep trying to put toothpaste back in the tube and try and stop piracy with DRM and trusted computing and RIAA lawsuits, or we can 'stop piracy' by "decriminalizing" private non-commercial copyright infringement.
It seems like a lot of the arguments against this idea boil down to "this idea isn't perfect so therefore we should stick with the status quo". Has anybody actually looked at how awful the status quo on IP law is right now?
For just one small example, what's the total cost to the American taxpayer of the RIAA lawsuits?
Personally, I think something like this proposed "statutory license" is going to eventually be necessary. I don't see any way of stopping piracy, you certainly can't stop it by appealing to people on ethical/moral grounds, and stopping it by technical means (DRM etc) just seems like an eternal arms race that'll be a dead weight on the economy as a whole.
That said, you make an entirely valid point. Why music, and not movies? (although given there's no way to 'pirate' the 'going to a theater experience', one might argue that the MPAA doesn't really _have_ a piracy problem, at least not in the way that the RIAA does...)
Why movies, and not Windows and Photoshop?
However, I would suspect that the # of songs downloaded dwarfs the # of operating systems or movies being downloaded by an order of magnitude. So what would seem more reasonable is maybe $5/month for music, $1.50/month for movies, and $0.50/month for software.
What's wrong with that?
I know exactly what you mean. I don't have (or ever plan to have) kids, so why the hell should I have to pay taxes to pay for schools?
You can make that argument for a variety of different issues. Doesn't make it valid, or even a good idea.
You're absolutely right. But I see this as a first step in that direction. By 'decriminalizing' private, non-commercial copying in exchange for $5/month, then we take the first step to breaking the Record labels' stranglehold on distribution.
If I offered you the choice of selling $100 worth of your product/month with mild/moderate piracy or selling $500/month with rampant piracy, you'd probably (quite sensibly) pick the latter. But ever notice how it seems like the record labels would rather take the former?
That doesn't make any sense, until you realize that the most important thing for the labels to maintain is control over distribution channels. So a critical first step in breaking up the RIAA cartel/monopoly is decriminalizing private, non-commercial copyright infringement.
Sixty bucks a month, and no more legal or ethical gray areas about p2p filesharing?
For sixty bucks a month, we could essentially 'decriminalize' private non-commercial copyright infringement?
How is that not an example of money well spent?
Download all I like for $5/month sounds like a kick-ass buy to me. OK, maybe I won't use it, but hey, I don't have kids, and I don't mind paying taxes for schools, because (and this is the important part) it's a good idea to educate kids, even if I don't want or have them myself.
Y'know, the idea that, there's sometimes more important things than just my own selfish interests? I know the rhetoric of our time says that we're not supposed to care about anything other than our own selfish interests, but didn't FDR say something about how "naked self-interest is not only bad morals, but bad economics, too?"
Is it really rent-seeking?
Or is it that these guys have come to the conclusion that you can't stop piracy short of incredibly draconian trusted computing, and figured out that a statutory license is a better idea?
I'd make the analogy with the royalty system for radio airplay. When radio first came out, copyright holders didn't want to allow their songs to be played on the radio for free. Eventually in most jurisdictions the current system of X number of cents per airplay had to be imposed on copyright holders.