Pppstt, dont you know better than to bring reason into this discussion? Napster hurts the artist, but that's ok, because the industry hurts more! Never mind the fact that napster isn't a solution, seesh. ehhe
Obviously his point is that you can't look at a few successfull non-college educated people as statistical proof that a high school graduate is better off not going to college. Because those without a college degree that lack significant intelligence or the work ethic remove themselves from the IT population [if you will], it is hard to take such a trivial statistic seriously. In other words, for all you know from these examples, for every 1 successfull non-college educated [unusually intelligent] techie, there are at least 9 [not so intelligent techies] who are flipping burgers right now.
Compare this with college, where we can say definitively, that, the average starting salary of a CS graduate these days is approximately 50k (or whatever it is now). It does not necessarily mean college is better, but that it is a much more accurate statistic than what many of the proponents of forgoing college offer.
Re:Makes me think about yesterday's discussion
on
Lawsuits Suck
·
· Score: 2
Active and vocal minorities are what got us where we are (no mean feat). Active and vocal minorities will be what, if anything, saves freedom.
I disagree. It is the disproportionately vocal minorities that have done the greatest damage and distortion to our legal system, not the majority. This is not to say that the minority should keep mum; that influence should be one of persueding the public with power of reason, not of: twisting arms, propaganda, political correctness, lobbying dollars, or what have you.
And this is different from slashdot? How?
on
Lawsuits Suck
·
· Score: 2
Suck's formula has been obvious for about a year now. Since they lost some of their better writers, they have been sticking to what works for them: pick a demographic you want to attract to the site and lambast them- the group's own media will cover it and presto instant publicity.
Likewise, slashdot is on the other side of the coin. Only the here, the only content generated is self-masturbation via slogans, numerous rants, trivial comparisons, and the like. Though I disagree with suck's conclusion [that the presence of law spells the end of noble uses], they can at least be accused of generating a coherant and independant thought.
Unfortunately, I'm one of the few who do agree with you. Intellectually honest people, like us, are given short shrift here. The fact is the bulk of slashdot would rather have their "free" shit and talk to talk, but none of them are willing to walk the walk.
Although I believe college is ultimately worthwhile relative to the other options for even the brightest of students, this does not mean college is optimal at producing the best and most capable individuals for society. The chief problem, in my eyes, is the unwillingness of virtually every program in every college to seperate the students. The only real seperation of candidates between college and non-college educated people occurs during the admissions process, not throughout college. This is a mistake. In other words, the chief difference between an 18 year old kid who gets accepted to a good college and one that does not is a couple answers (not points, there is a difference) on SATs, high school performance (where grade inflation and the like play a huge factor), and participation in extracurricular activities (i.e., sports). Although there is little else that can be done by the admissions officers, it is still a poor measure of seperating out students.
Then in the college programs themselves, the schools do very little. First, the work load [i.e., quantity] in most schools is quite light--hardly a sufficient burden to filter out those who can't work "really" hard--most students still find plenty of time to party. Second, the work [i.e., quality] itself is generally too easy. Because the work has gotten less demanding, grades have inflated to high Bs in many schools. Students, in an effort to stand out from the rest of the pack, have focused more and more on making fewer and fewer mistakes, rather than focusing on achievement--the work allows little room to demonstrate exceptional understanding. Third, empirically speaking and perhaps a little redundant, there is very little attrition going on at the better schools. Almost without exception, the only kids who fail out are those who screw off too much.
The end result is sub-optimal. Rather than encouraging exceptional intelligence and exceptionally hard work, we encourage a sort of plodding mentality, that of merely going through the motions. I complain not because I feel it is "unfair", but because I think the system, as is, serves society poorly. Not only does the system have a tendency to cut out "genius" [I dislike the word, but it'll do here], but it encourages a certain mediocrity amongst all the students. Not only does it fail to expose many other kinds of intelligence, but it also doesn't expose those who are really willing to work.
This gist of this rant, is that college doesn't do enough. This is not to say that a college degree should be ignored by employeers; I still believe employeers are statistically better advised to look at college graduates, in that they have assurances that the applicant can at least perform on SOME level, albeit not necessarily high enough. Likewise, the employeer is more likely to find a person who can read and write well if the applicant is a college educated [just not enough...and the numbers are getting worse]. Similarly, even the highly intelligent and highly motivated people can ultimately benefit from college, insofar as college is the best place to acquire certain skills in today's society [i.e., reading, writing, logic, etc.] However, just because such a person is better served at college does not mean that person is going to be found at college. There are clearly many exceptional people without any college education, and in some fields it almost seems to work against you....
But does it "work"? I suppose that depends on what your definition of "work" is. If you mean the ability to merely draw people in droves, then yeah, it "works". If, on the other hand, you mean does it create much in the way of meaningful discussion, I don't think so.
In my opinion, slashdot doesn't do nearly enough to challenge the opinions of slashdot's readers; if anything, it seems to fuel this sort of "fact" by consensus approach of the majority of slashdot. If an opinion is stated and reiterated by enough people, it suddenly becomes part of slashdot party line. This skewing starts with the so-called articles. The links themselves are generally poorly written and of a certain mind frame. Then the initial commentary generally is poor, innaccurate, and biased. Once the "article" is in place, the comments start rolling in. Though anyone can submit, the majority of slashdot readers are of a certain mind frame on slashdot's popular issues. So we have a system where the same view point is uttered 25 times for everytime there is a differing one. Then we have a moderation system, which seems to be more of a popularity contest than anything else. If your view point is popular and relatively intellectual sounding, you get modded up. What's more, the system is setup such that only the comments in the first few minutes get attention, those which are written carefully and over a reasonable period of time tend to be left in the dust.
So where does this leave hard hitting alternative view points? At the bottom, where no one can see them. Between the moderation system and the sheer volume of "popular" stuff, it is rare to see honest to god discussion. If it is truth that slashdot seeks, it seems to me that you need a system where all sides of an issue have an opportunity to present their best arguments equally; slashdot is anything but. Slashdot may be entertaining and popular, but please don't confuse that as a replacement for good journalism.
No, first the government passes the law which tells companies what the rules are, then the companies follow the rules (or don't, and risk getting caught). The decision of whether to follow the rules or not is up to each individual or corporation, but the rules themselves are not in question
Of course the rules themselves are in question. It is the existence of the laws that is not in question. You act as if it is binary, you either obey a law or break it. This simply is not the case.
True, the company has to decide based on the applicable law whether they fall within the legal prerequisites for the law to apply to them.
Closer to what I was driving at, but not quite there. The "prerequisites" themselves can be in question. This case is a perfect example of them. If the prerequisite for charging sales tax in a given state is having a presence in that state, then the question of whether or not you do have presence is not just academic. The qualifications are likely not laid out nearly so clear as you would imagine. More than likely, there are a series of precedents as to what qualifies as presence, none of which are spelled out for the corporation. One may even decide to not pay in a grey area, come under the wrathe of the state's department of revenue, and, ultimately, be vindicated by the courts.
However, it is just as illegal to assume that one state's laws apply to their operations in all states as it is to assume that no laws apply to them. Determining the appropriate tax under various state laws is what the lawyers and accountants are for. Collecting a tax in the name of a state which has not enacted such a tax is at best a gross misrepresentation and hopefully illegal
Again, you're not understanding the problem. Most every state has sales taxes on intrastate sales. If the company has a presence in a given state, that state may decide to treat that sale as if it occurred entirely within the state, and then view the transaction as taxable. In such a situation, since the company cannot forsee the state's stance on the matter with 100% accuracy, the company may be better advised to just pay. The legal costs, penalties, accounting, and other related costs of disputing such a claim can easily exceed whatever benefit they're providing the customer by not paying.
I was just filling facts in. I believe he only said he had no retail stores in the 20% in question. Thus I pointed out that, whether or not he knew it, presence expands well beyond just having stores in state. His company may be viewed as having presence in any number of those states, thus it is not necessarily a matter of laziness.
Their state governments aren't accepting it
Huh? Where did you get that from? It's not like the government is a single omniscient entity. The state's department of revenue may not necessarily know if they have a presence or not. Even if they did not think his company had a presence, they'd hardly be inclined to send the money back.
It's not up to a company to decide whether taxes should apply to everyone; in the U.S. that decision is left up to government.
Uh, no. It is largely left up to the individual companies. Only when whatever government decides that the company has erred, does the government start telling them what to do.
The reason why is because there is no law (fortunately, IMHO) taxing out-of-state internet purchases (except for states which have "use taxes").
It's not nearly so simple.
Whether it is a subsidy is beside the point - taxes are up to the government (and thus ultimately the citizenry) to decide, not some random corporation
No, you're missing my first point. There are a set of laws out there, not all of them clearly have the companies name written all over them. It is a function of the accountants and lawyers to decide which.
My second point is that this is not some moral injustice; I believe that paying the tax is more equitable than not paying it. As to whether the company should be compelled to pay that tax for moral reasons is entirely academic. However, the consumer can still decide to shop elsewhere if he chooses; companies are entitled to charge whatever they damn well please. No harm done if the consumer doesn't agree to it.
All one really needs is a presence in a state to be held liable for taxes, it need not necessarily be a retail front; a salesrep in state, a server, an office building, contracts, and god knows how many other things can taken as such. It makes both good accounting and legal sense to simply apply taxes to everyone.
It's only fair. Why should the government effectively subsidize any E-commerce firm? It simply makes no sense.
This gives online stores a disadvantage in pricing--they're forced to have HIGHER prices than brick-and-mortar stores, because they have to pay both taxes and shipping expenses.
What planet are you from? Ok, so in some instances it may cost the online company more to do business. In others it definetly does not. So what? Businesses should have to cope based on how they perform. By this same logic, should an expensive retailer located downtown on a piece of prime property get an ever larger tax break? [i.e., 0% for them, 5% for E-commerce, 10% for others] No, of course not. They're reaping the benefits of their location, and they're paying for it.
The same goes for E-commerce. They want to be online? Fine. Certain goods and services are better bought online. But they're going to pay it in shipping. Intentionally giving anyone an artificial advantage is just plain bad economics. You would effectively incentivize inefficiency, and it would only get worse. What's more, where shipping costs are higher, there is almost always an increased ENVIROMENTAL impact (nearly 1 to 1). E-commerce pays more in shipping because it is less efficient to deliver goods to individuals than massive loads to a central place.
A state tax on internet transactions, such as this one, would be a disaster to implement. If it is based on the location of the seller, all the sellers would leave that state. If it is based on the location of the buyer, it creates the problem of having to deal with different taxes in different states, which is bad for the little guys having to hire extra lawyers to keep track of what the tax laws are. If it is based on both the buyer and seller's location, then it has both problems.
Though this is the only remotely viable argument (i.e., the act of taxing online creates excessive costs), it really holds no water. There are many mail-order businesses that have to pay taxes, believe it or not. These busineses, like those in this law, have a presense in the state(s) in question, albeit nominal (i.e., sales people in that region). They do fine, I happen to work for such a company. The costs associated with taxing are negligible. If an E-commerce firm can ship, they can certainly afford the penny it costs these mail-orders. These busineses pay not just state taxes, they pay county and city taxes many times too. I know systems can be put in place at these dot-coms to handle it for even less.
FYI, It is not as if these companies run around the country finding out the latest tax rates. There are services and products (i.e., cd-roms) that you can buy complete with the latest tax codes and the like. If a company makes a reasonable effort to keep up to date, it is not an issue.
A federal tax would be more reasonable, but it would discourage the online economy and stifle its growth, which is why a moratorium was passed a while ago.
If an equally plied tax hurts E-commerce, it just means they can't provide a good alternative for the customer without artificial distinction. I say, make taxes as equal as possible, and let the cards fall where they may.
As for why Congress passed a moratorium....can you say Moooo? Like everyone for the past few years, they're afraid to speak their minds about the sacred cow that is the internet. These days, you're no more likely to find a politician "against" the internet than you are to find one "against" children.
Oh yeah, and in case you didn't know it, sales taxes comprise roughly 30% of most states revenue. If the internet is nearly as big as you think it's going to be, something has to be cut...The axe will eventually have to fall on E-commerce, and then they'll be in real trouble...as if they aren't already.... hehehe
Neither I, nor the labels [if we're to believe their legal documents], are confused about the key facts. Just because my.mp3.com is providing a service that is "fair use" for the customer, does not mean they are legally entitled to provide the service. As arbitrary as it may sound to you, it is within the rights of the intellectual property owner to make that determination. What's more, they actually have a pretty reasonable motive. I'm not sure if you noticed this or not, but my.mp3.com is a for-profit corporation. Mp3.com is not interested in charity--they have every intent to profit. These profits can come in the form of ad revenue and increased brand awareness [due to my.mp3.com]. Furthermore, if the internet is even half the boon people claim, mp3.com may be in a position to exploit this opportunity to turn themselves into a major player [not to mention marginalizing the labels in the process].
Likewise, if the labels were to put themselves in the same position [by replacing my.mp3.com], they too might enjoy the benefits. Why shouldn't they want to? Why do you assume their only reason for acting the way they have is to either be malicious or the result of ignorance? How can you still cling to this view, in light of recent efforts on the label's part to do the same thing?
Even if you are totally unappreciative of the labels' current position, a ruling in mp3.com's favor would set a precendent that might have possibly negative repercussions on future labels.
Imagine, for a moment, if the labels decided to change their business model such that they only charge, say, 4 dollars for a CD. However, they would do this under the assumption that people would utilize their cloned service on a regular basis. Though they would not force you to use it [i.e., you could theoretically just spend 4 dollars, without any tradeoff], they would, by virtue of their IP rights, be the sole provider of the transformation service for their own records. Thus people would come. They would they enjoy continuous ad revenues, marketing data, etc. They would also be in a position to capture music lovers' eyes, and reduce the very expensive marketing efforts they now need to engage in. It might even allow them to cut out the middlemen entirely [i.e., skip the CD step entirely].
The point is that, here we have a potential benefit for society that would be cut out by allowing mp3.com's interpretation that "fair use". It is not that irrational to defend IP in this application. Though I have no interest in the labels, I think this form of IP control should be allowed, and I think we should let the markets decide.
It's entirely about control, because the record companies are trying to prevent certain rights from being maintained online.
It's is crap like this which really discredits the slashdot "community". You, and those who insist on using this type language in lieu of reasoned discussion, paint everyone and everything with these little sound bites. Instead of driving at the issues, you cover it up with slogans.
There is a larger issue at work here than just this evil notion of "control". Though all intellectual property ultimately revolves around control, control is just the means by which one attains the ends (i.e., profits). This issue is really not so different. Just as the labels will not allow you to pirate music, they don't want mp3.com to provide that service. They frankly don't want to "control" for controls sake, they want to profit. The more pervasive piracy is, the less likely they are to sell CDs; the more use of my.mp3.com, the less capable they are of positioning themselves in mp3.com's position [which erodes their ability further supplement their profits and promotional opportunities].
Though my.mp3.com certainly gave the labels a much needed kick in the butt and provided the consumer with a benefit, the body of law still looks rather favorably on the IP owners (the labels)--it seeks to protect the creator(s). It grants the labels certain rights and priviledges. Although the my.mp3.com service may not negatively affect current sales, it can affect future profits. It is of undeniable interest to the labels.
The essential question is: How do we, as a society, balance the label's interest against the consumer's interest? If you deny the interest of either party, you are avoiding the question. In my opinion, siding with my.mp3.com is to favor the short run over the long run.
If my.mp3.com goes unchecked: In the short run, you, the consumer, enjoy easier access to your music collection, and the label still seems to do okay. In the long run, the label runs the risk of being marginalized and hurt. Despite the fact that this service brings up new questions, I'd lean more towards allowing the labels the OPPORTUNITY to have some control over their properties, and thus preserve a more traditional notion of IP in a modern era, where individual sales of physical items likely wont mean what it used to. A bunch of labels have already started on a project to do their own my.mp3.com type service. Those who don't, will still face the wrath of the consumer, and will likely reduce their profitability--both in record sales and in online efforts. In short, I'd give the labels a chance.
Re:Perhaps they know a thing or two...
on
NYT On Open Source
·
· Score: 2
I'm not sure if you're trying to be facetious or not. Though I would call the lack of Open Source's ability the attain/retain qualified people on its projects an economic failing, it is hardly the only flaw I see. It was, however, the one flaw which Joy seemed to be pointing to. Given his rather unique and expert status on the matter, I thought it wise to focus in on that one.
A slip of the tongue hardly makes me ignorant. One may be entitled to recieve, but the giver may not be entitled to give. In other words, while you may entitled to listen to that music in any way you see fit, the copyright owner still may be entitled to determine who distributes that, even if it is to existing owners. It is a fine distinction. What makes it grey, is whether or not allowing control to this extent is really in the best interest of society.
Though some may claim the Seagrams et.al are doing this out of malice, I find it hard to believe. The issue, at its core, is profits, whether directly or indirectly. I know, for instance, may of the other record companies are trying to create their own my.mp3.com clones, or wish to license with my.mp3.com. That does not fit with the assertion that they're trying to make you pay twice for that same music, or that they just want control for controls sake...
Uh no, it does not "instantly" close off patents to individuals and small businesses, because they do patent. Many do well, and I count friends and family amongst that number. The legal system only comes in, in the event of a dispute where a resolution cannot be found. What's more there are other avenues for those who don't have the money, yet have to go to court. For instance, if I have a product that is worth 50m that is backed by a strong patent position, the odds are I'll find some investors who are willing to invest. There are laywers who are willing to work on contingency, pro bono, and you name it. And if I'm absolutely incapable of getting any help, the odds are that I probably couldn't develop the product anyways. Furthermore, this legal entanglement also puts the infringing company into jeopardy. In the case of outright infringement, there really is no such thing as a perfect defense. How much do they need to spend to protect themselves? 1....4m? And even then, they face a multimillion dollar award. At this point it really makes more sense for the company to try and acquire or license the patent.
The patent system works. It produces tangible and increasing benefits for society. I don't mean to say the system is perfect and that people don't get hurt. But, like anything in this world, there is only so much that can be done to prevent error and abuse. As it stands now, and has historically stood, the true essense of a patent boils down to a bunch of claims as to what makes it unique [not to mention valuable]. It generally is not a specific formula or object that one can file into a neat little cubby hole. Nor does not lend itself to programming logic. The patent office is just a place where you drop these claims off, to say I filed these claims first. The function of the patent reviewer is to basically filter out the crap, such that the signal to noise ratio isn't too horrible. As crude as it may sound crude, it is effective.
I'd be all for an improvement if I really thought something could be done to improve the situation for the inventor/innovator/risktaker. I just don't believe there is such a simple fix....
Since you seem to think there is a way to avoid the courts, I can only assume you mean giving more power to the reviewer. In which case, I'd ask you questions like: How do you propose getting skilled reviewers? How do you insure they're impartial? How do you insure they give everyone a chance to be heard, and not just close the book? Who pays for such intensive review? How do you avoid the extreme risk aversion [and its consequences] that typifies most bureaucracies? How do you insure that it is reasonably swift? How do you put all the costs on the government and not expect abuse [i.e., people filing because it costs them nothing, people complaining because it costs them nothing, etc.]? Patents are, afterall, just a bunch of claims; there is not a clear cut answer as to what is "wrong" and "right". It is a complex and naturally messy situation, despite what some may claim. Anyone who expects a clean solution to a messy problem without any significant consequences is a fool.
In any case, I've yet to hear any alternative proposal really be adequatately fleshed out by the complainers. They either say the entire system only hurts the inventor [which is not true] and should be dropped; or they say just do A, but give no compelling support for it.
Just because your life sucks, doesn't mean you're worse off, and it certainly doesn't mean companies are responsible.
Try finding a quality piece of furniture or a decent set of dishes for less than an arm and a leg. Try raising kids. Try finding a car that seats six or carries equal cargo that gets 25-35MPH. Try being a single parent. Try meeting the insane goals of the college fund expectation.
Ok so you don't like your life. How does this determine that things are worse than they used to be? How do you hold companies responsible? The price of basic goods and services (i.e., food) have relative to the wages of at least 95% the country. This is an economically provable fact.
Today you get more car for your money than you did 20, 40, or even 60 years ago. Today's cars are drastically safter, faster, and more efficient (relative to their size, weight, etc.). You just can't make that comparison.
College tuition has risen, but you really can't blame companies for this. The economy's success is largely to blame. More people are seeking and getting advanced education than ever before, and most are willing and able to pay substantially more than before. Yet we have essentially the same number of respectable schools as we did before, so this means more demand. Furthermore, there is tremendous waste going on in academia. I know, for instance, at most of the Ivy league and equivalent schools, the tuition could be reduced by roughly 10k without the need to change anything significantly (other than tuition, of course).
It actually is roughly the same as ten years ago. The supposed prosperity for Americans is mostly for those who have a jobs that give them a lot of disposable income, which many, many, many lower income people don't. In most cases, families have to have two income earners or they simply cannot make ends meet. This is in part due to the pressure that the prosperity myth puts on people to buy things which they simply cannot afford or need, but also due to the fact that marketroids see themselves as entitled to the contents of our wallets.
Maybe for you it is the same, or then again, maybe you just haven't counted. On the aggregate, however, there are thousands statistics, and other similar measures, demonstrating that life has actually gotten easier on the aggregate. You may call it a prosperity myth, but unemployment is at its lowest point in history. Most people are earning significantly more money, and not just the middle class and higher.
This depends on your point of view. My local library has levelled off in terms of non-fiction. My personal collection has grown by roughly 10 times during the same period, mostly due to inter library loan
Libraries on the aggregate, not just your local library, duh.
No. A CD costs about 50% more than it did 10 years ago. I bought the first 25-30 CDs in my collection for about 10 bucks a piece. Price fixing had more to do with it than anything else, but I don't expect the consent decree to do much about that, either.
Ok, so you once bought CDs for roughly 10 bucks a piece. You are the exception. On aggregate, after inflation has been accounted for, prices have fallen by something like 10%.
Tell this to all the people who leave the doctor's office and can't afford the 100 bucks in prescriptions. Patent medications are horrifically expensive, as is any doctor's visit. Cancer patients are sitting ducks. Let's not get into Buroughs-Wellcome and what they do to AIDS sufferers. Why do you think herbs, homeopathy, and other alternatives have sprang up with such vehemence? Why does CNN have an article about how people are buying animal medicines to treat themselves? I would say that your assertion here is misinformed.
Ahem, this is one area with which I am quite familiar. The price of the SAME medicines has gone WAY WAY down. The difference is that people are far more concerned about healthcare these days and are willing to pay more. This demand has resulted in drug companies creating drugs which would never before be economically viable, due to lack of demand, lack of technology, and lifespan of the product in question. Those cancer patients that you talk about, simply would have never even had the option for that kind of care back then. AIDS patients? Forget it.
Just because people are doing "crazy" things does not mean medicine is worse. A drug company, may, for instance realize that this treatment also works on animals, and market a version which does not cost as much. This, however, does not mean that they could just lower the price, since the costs are not the production costs, it's R&D, education, and some marketing. In addition to the increased availability of extraordinary treatments and medications [which cost more], we the HMOs to make get reimbursed terribly difficult. Doctors find it very difficult to get paid, many are leaving or want to leave the profession. Medical manufacturers also find it difficult to get reimbursed, which is also a large issue. Patients find it difficult to get the treatment they need/want, because no one can afford to do things for free.
Where did I say I advocated the so-called "obvious" patent? I did not, I was defending patents in general. Patents are still highly necessary in thousands of industries to promote innovation. Period.
However, the vast majority of the complaints about the "entire", or even the majority, patent system come from people who know absolutely zilch about it. You take a few outrageous examples, and ignore the literally thousands of worthwhile patents filed every year. You ignore the blinding innovation in the computer, engineering, bio-tech, medical devices, and other such industries. Where is the empirical evidence of damage due to growing patent abuse? Can you name one field that has actually slowed down as a result? Can you name one field in which it has caused a reduction in R&D investments? I'm not saying absolutely none exists, but it is way way overemphasized. In fact, in most, fields the key rates are only improving. You, those who scream loudest about patent damages, understand so little. You fail to understand things which an experienced and sucessful innovator does. First, it is not the PATENT that counts, it is the legal system behind it. It has always been true that it is easy to get a patent, the hard part is making it stand up in the courts. So when you parade the evil patents, you really should be looking at the damages. Second, lawsuits are going to happen no matter what. That is the nature of society and competition--people will always disagree. Even in relatively obvious areas such as real estate and property law, we see numerous lawsuits emerge amongst companies and individuals. The problems are all too often not a problem with the laws per se, but a problem with people. Yet, with patents, a far more vague area, you make a big deal of each and every dispute. You complain for the so-called "little guy", but fail to see the "little guy" complaining in every other non-IP related industry. Would you, for instance, take the word of any failed restaurateur, that it is impossible to succeed without 100 million dollars in the bank? Would you ignore the fact that 9 in 10 fail? Would you fail to question the successfull ones? If you want to judge the viability of, say, restaurant ownership, you'd be better advised to talk to the successfull ones first, not the failures....
Patents only earn money for the top dogs and lawyers, forgetting the exceptions which confirm the rule, and they like it that way... and they pay the campaign dollars to keep it that way.
Bullshit. I've known many people [who in turn founded companies] personally who've profited legitimately and substantially from patents. What's more, the vast majority of these people have taken on much larger and wealthier companies and have done very well for themselves. If you think patents are just about lawyers getting rich, you don't know the first thing about the high tech industry.
Just because there are some abuses of patents, does not mean the entire system is worthless. Just because there are some abuses, does not mean we'd be better off without it.
These are the exception, not the rule, and even then their "damage" is questionable. I think you need to take a longer view, and view them more on the aggregate. i.e., What have companies done for us vs. What have they ACTUALLY cost us?
Software EULAs: They may suck. People are certainly entitled to get upset with companies that place them. But is the mere existence of a bad EULA proof of it being bad for society? Has the quality of software truely diminished since the introduction of the EULA? The consumer still has a choice. Software still does alright by the consumer (though I'd be the first to say that software industry is terribly immature).
Stupid Patents: Again, more the exception than the rule. If you talk to any patent laywer worth his salt, he'll tell you the real test of patents is not their existence, it is how they fair in the courts. In terms of actual quantifiable dollar damage due to stupid patents the figures are pretty low. What's more, there are hundreds of thousands of usefull products and services that exist today because of the patent.
DoubleClick: Ok, they suck. On the other hand, how many other viable revenue alternatives exist on the web for budding websites? How much preference do most consumers place on their privacy? If they don't care that much, who am I to say they should?
My.MP3.com: Very grey. Here we have a for-profit corporation (mp3.com) that wants to profit off of others intellectual property. I'm not so sure that it is unreasonable for the intellectual property owners to want to determine the terms and conditions of their property where it reasonably offers to potential to affect their revenues. For instance, let's say that my.mp3.com uses this service to launch themselves into centerstage, such that the IP owners become obselete. As much as you may find the record labels distateful, is it so absolutely wrong for them to want to protect profits? I don't think so. As much as I, as a consumer, may want a service like my.mp3.com, I'd hardly say that makes RIAA evil. Also, we may well see my.mp3.com coming back soon, or if not them, then some other similar service.
And if no one were paid to write programs, no programs would be written, right
Sure, some programs may exist, but not nearly as many as we have today...or even as many free programs. What percentage of Open Source programs were written by people who've never been employed as programmers? What percentage of Open Source programs have done difficult or innovative things, without first having it done by closed source methods? There is hardly evidence that open source software would do well without it.
While this application does have "substantial noninfringing uses", it gives companies more power over the user. Based on past behavior, it seems reasonable to assume that companies will use this power to squeeze as much money from the consumer as possible without regard to their rights. And while monopolies can be dealt with as they come, it worries me when a new opportunity comes along for companies to gain more power.
Oh come on. What actual evil have these companies actions resulted in? Is your quality of life actually less? No. Is the average Americans worse? No. Have the size of libraries grown? Yes. Is music cheaper than it was before? Yes. Have the costs of specific medicines and treatments gone up on the aggregate do the corporations? No, they've gone down, it's only society's expectations that have gone up. All these, and many more, mythical complaints, yet few provably bad results.
There is one word for this: FUD.
Re:Joy speaking outside his expertise?
on
NYT On Open Source
·
· Score: 2
Yes. I, too, think famous people do speak beyond their expertise. On the other hand, though Joy is not expert on sociology, he has seen these group dynamics in a context that many others have not. This is not to say that his conclusions are right necessarily, but within the context of what he knows it in (i.e., developing complex software), he may well be right on the money.
I think an intelligent person should make every effort to listen to those people in the center of things, even if some of what they say is wrong. For instance, I might be able to learn a lot about the weather from, say, a superstitious fisherman. Not because his science is accurate [he believes in magic and the like], but because he's been there time and time again, and he's noticed a certain cause and effect. I may not listen to his views on philosophy or science, but dammit, when I see him heading back to port, I'd be well advised to check things out.
Re:Perhaps they know a thing or two...
on
NYT On Open Source
·
· Score: 2
Conversely, a few skilled programmers will never be able to match the work of a large mass of people. Thomas Alva Edison (who arguably knew what he was talking about) had some choice words on the relationship between genius, inspiration, and perspiration.
Yes and no. First, I don't believe Joy ever claimed that these masses could do nothing worthwhile; rather, he asserted that it is not a magic bullet.
Second, Joy did not refute that Open Source had some merit. He was, in fact, one of the original open source developers. He did say that there were some time savings involved. No doubt he was referring to lessening of duplication of work.
Third, Edison's view on exertion is hardly relevent to this situation. He never, to my knowledge, stated anything about large groups of people combining their efforts. In other words, just because invention is 99% effort, does not mean you can add up that effort amongst people.
In fact, it is somewhat ironic that you bring Edison up. It is Edison, and those like him, who I'd first call up in defense on the singular driven closed source model. They were all, after all, individuals who brought about great progess by really throwing themselves into the problem. In my view, Open Source's problem is less that a bunch of people want to contribute, then it is the fact that it LACKS those few key individuals working full time on the task at hand. Though I object to the word genius, it is foolish to underestimate the value of maximizing the output of these key men, especially when taken in context of the thousands of fools in their same day who could not, or would not, do it.
Image a world where ALL textbooks are free. How do the author(s) and editor(s) get reimbursed for their efforts? How do students get new textbooks? It is obvious that any extreme is very harmfull. Focusing on that, and that alone, only serves confuse the issues.
For one, you fail to see this method of distribution as an opportunity for would-be authors. There are literally thousands of worthy topics and authors that cannot be published because the current textbook economics do not allow for it. If the market that that book is not sufficiently large, it simply won't get published. This would allow for many more alternatives.
Secondly, you err when you say that "There is no way to say 'a rising tide lifts all boats' in Capitalismese". One of the beautiful things about capitalism is that it doesn't need to be expressly dictated all the time. The businessman need not know, or even particularly care, about the good of the common man. The "invisible hand" largely sees to that, or at least more effectively than any other previous method. By providing goods and services far more efficiently and cheaply than in any other system, we simply have more to offer everyone.
In this particular situation, I see no reason whatsoever to believe that books will become any less accessible or affordable on the aggregate. In fact, I believe a digital/per use system would, in fact, create a vastly more efficient market with even more competition, which would lead to a significantly better system for everyone. Though I am well aware that all too many slashdot readers claim that intellectual property is leading to the lockup or ownership of all knowledge, there is little evidence of it. One may own a particular phrase, method, song, or you name it, but those are only the means by which you obtain the end, not the end unto itself. Because there is almost always more than one way to do a thing, there will be competition. Prices will fall, just as they always have. [Where monopolies may form, they can be dealt with]
Did you ever consider the possibility that the old guard does know what they're talking about? Or that recently acclaimed "Open Source" accomplishments are not, in fact, that much of an accomplishment [in terms of technical ability/effort/innovation]? Though I'm not nearly old guard (in the way that Bill Joy, et. al, is), I do agree with his perspective that a large mass of people will simply never be able to match the work a few skilled programmers. Where highly modularized code like Linux may do okay in a decentralized open source environment, there are many [dare I even say most] areas where this simply does not work.
If you can't respect Bill Joy's opinion, whose can you respect? Bill Joy is an accomplished programmer and he's been there and done that, so to speak, with Open Source software. How many other people can really claim that level of experience? How many people who have tend to fall in line with his? It seems to me the majority of the views of those whom I respect fall in line with Joy's. I'm not saying you necessarily need to agree with him, but I do think it wise to give his view some significant weight.
Slashdot Mirror
Pppstt, dont you know better than to bring reason into this discussion? Napster hurts the artist, but that's ok, because the industry hurts more! Never mind the fact that napster isn't a solution, seesh. ehhe
Obviously his point is that you can't look at a few successfull non-college educated people as statistical proof that a high school graduate is better off not going to college. Because those without a college degree that lack significant intelligence or the work ethic remove themselves from the IT population [if you will], it is hard to take such a trivial statistic seriously. In other words, for all you know from these examples, for every 1 successfull non-college educated [unusually intelligent] techie, there are at least 9 [not so intelligent techies] who are flipping burgers right now.
Compare this with college, where we can say definitively, that, the average starting salary of a CS graduate these days is approximately 50k (or whatever it is now). It does not necessarily mean college is better, but that it is a much more accurate statistic than what many of the proponents of forgoing college offer.
Unfortunately, I'm one of the few who do agree with you. Intellectually honest people, like us, are given short shrift here. The fact is the bulk of slashdot would rather have their "free" shit and talk to talk, but none of them are willing to walk the walk.
Although I believe college is ultimately worthwhile relative to the other options for even the brightest of students, this does not mean college is optimal at producing the best and most capable individuals for society. The chief problem, in my eyes, is the unwillingness of virtually every program in every college to seperate the students. The only real seperation of candidates between college and non-college educated people occurs during the admissions process, not throughout college. This is a mistake. In other words, the chief difference between an 18 year old kid who gets accepted to a good college and one that does not is a couple answers (not points, there is a difference) on SATs, high school performance (where grade inflation and the like play a huge factor), and participation in extracurricular activities (i.e., sports). Although there is little else that can be done by the admissions officers, it is still a poor measure of seperating out students.
Then in the college programs themselves, the schools do very little. First, the work load [i.e., quantity] in most schools is quite light--hardly a sufficient burden to filter out those who can't work "really" hard--most students still find plenty of time to party. Second, the work [i.e., quality] itself is generally too easy. Because the work has gotten less demanding, grades have inflated to high Bs in many schools. Students, in an effort to stand out from the rest of the pack, have focused more and more on making fewer and fewer mistakes, rather than focusing on achievement--the work allows little room to demonstrate exceptional understanding. Third, empirically speaking and perhaps a little redundant, there is very little attrition going on at the better schools. Almost without exception, the only kids who fail out are those who screw off too much.
The end result is sub-optimal. Rather than encouraging exceptional intelligence and exceptionally hard work, we encourage a sort of plodding mentality, that of merely going through the motions. I complain not because I feel it is "unfair", but because I think the system, as is, serves society poorly. Not only does the system have a tendency to cut out "genius" [I dislike the word, but it'll do here], but it encourages a certain mediocrity amongst all the students. Not only does it fail to expose many other kinds of intelligence, but it also doesn't expose those who are really willing to work.
This gist of this rant, is that college doesn't do enough. This is not to say that a college degree should be ignored by employeers; I still believe employeers are statistically better advised to look at college graduates, in that they have assurances that the applicant can at least perform on SOME level, albeit not necessarily high enough. Likewise, the employeer is more likely to find a person who can read and write well if the applicant is a college educated [just not enough...and the numbers are getting worse]. Similarly, even the highly intelligent and highly motivated people can ultimately benefit from college, insofar as college is the best place to acquire certain skills in today's society [i.e., reading, writing, logic, etc.] However, just because such a person is better served at college does not mean that person is going to be found at college. There are clearly many exceptional people without any college education, and in some fields it almost seems to work against you....
...anyways, i've gotta run.
But does it "work"? I suppose that depends on what your definition of "work" is. If you mean the ability to merely draw people in droves, then yeah, it "works". If, on the other hand, you mean does it create much in the way of meaningful discussion, I don't think so.
In my opinion, slashdot doesn't do nearly enough to challenge the opinions of slashdot's readers; if anything, it seems to fuel this sort of "fact" by consensus approach of the majority of slashdot. If an opinion is stated and reiterated by enough people, it suddenly becomes part of slashdot party line. This skewing starts with the so-called articles. The links themselves are generally poorly written and of a certain mind frame. Then the initial commentary generally is poor, innaccurate, and biased. Once the "article" is in place, the comments start rolling in. Though anyone can submit, the majority of slashdot readers are of a certain mind frame on slashdot's popular issues. So we have a system where the same view point is uttered 25 times for everytime there is a differing one. Then we have a moderation system, which seems to be more of a popularity contest than anything else. If your view point is popular and relatively intellectual sounding, you get modded up. What's more, the system is setup such that only the comments in the first few minutes get attention, those which are written carefully and over a reasonable period of time tend to be left in the dust.
So where does this leave hard hitting alternative view points? At the bottom, where no one can see them. Between the moderation system and the sheer volume of "popular" stuff, it is rare to see honest to god discussion. If it is truth that slashdot seeks, it seems to me that you need a system where all sides of an issue have an opportunity to present their best arguments equally; slashdot is anything but. Slashdot may be entertaining and popular, but please don't confuse that as a replacement for good journalism.
Closer to what I was driving at, but not quite there. The "prerequisites" themselves can be in question. This case is a perfect example of them. If the prerequisite for charging sales tax in a given state is having a presence in that state, then the question of whether or not you do have presence is not just academic. The qualifications are likely not laid out nearly so clear as you would imagine. More than likely, there are a series of precedents as to what qualifies as presence, none of which are spelled out for the corporation. One may even decide to not pay in a grey area, come under the wrathe of the state's department of revenue, and, ultimately, be vindicated by the courts.
Again, you're not understanding the problem. Most every state has sales taxes on intrastate sales. If the company has a presence in a given state, that state may decide to treat that sale as if it occurred entirely within the state, and then view the transaction as taxable. In such a situation, since the company cannot forsee the state's stance on the matter with 100% accuracy, the company may be better advised to just pay. The legal costs, penalties, accounting, and other related costs of disputing such a claim can easily exceed whatever benefit they're providing the customer by not paying.
Huh? Where did you get that from? It's not like the government is a single omniscient entity. The state's department of revenue may not necessarily know if they have a presence or not. Even if they did not think his company had a presence, they'd hardly be inclined to send the money back.
Uh, no. It is largely left up to the individual companies. Only when whatever government decides that the company has erred, does the government start telling them what to do.
It's not nearly so simple.
No, you're missing my first point. There are a set of laws out there, not all of them clearly have the companies name written all over them. It is a function of the accountants and lawyers to decide which.
My second point is that this is not some moral injustice; I believe that paying the tax is more equitable than not paying it. As to whether the company should be compelled to pay that tax for moral reasons is entirely academic. However, the consumer can still decide to shop elsewhere if he chooses; companies are entitled to charge whatever they damn well please. No harm done if the consumer doesn't agree to it.
All one really needs is a presence in a state to be held liable for taxes, it need not necessarily be a retail front; a salesrep in state, a server, an office building, contracts, and god knows how many other things can taken as such. It makes both good accounting and legal sense to simply apply taxes to everyone.
It's only fair. Why should the government effectively subsidize any E-commerce firm? It simply makes no sense.
The same goes for E-commerce. They want to be online? Fine. Certain goods and services are better bought online. But they're going to pay it in shipping. Intentionally giving anyone an artificial advantage is just plain bad economics. You would effectively incentivize inefficiency, and it would only get worse. What's more, where shipping costs are higher, there is almost always an increased ENVIROMENTAL impact (nearly 1 to 1). E-commerce pays more in shipping because it is less efficient to deliver goods to individuals than massive loads to a central place.
Though this is the only remotely viable argument (i.e., the act of taxing online creates excessive costs), it really holds no water. There are many mail-order businesses that have to pay taxes, believe it or not. These busineses, like those in this law, have a presense in the state(s) in question, albeit nominal (i.e., sales people in that region). They do fine, I happen to work for such a company. The costs associated with taxing are negligible. If an E-commerce firm can ship, they can certainly afford the penny it costs these mail-orders. These busineses pay not just state taxes, they pay county and city taxes many times too. I know systems can be put in place at these dot-coms to handle it for even less.
FYI, It is not as if these companies run around the country finding out the latest tax rates. There are services and products (i.e., cd-roms) that you can buy complete with the latest tax codes and the like. If a company makes a reasonable effort to keep up to date, it is not an issue.
If an equally plied tax hurts E-commerce, it just means they can't provide a good alternative for the customer without artificial distinction. I say, make taxes as equal as possible, and let the cards fall where they may.
As for why Congress passed a moratorium....can you say Moooo? Like everyone for the past few years, they're afraid to speak their minds about the sacred cow that is the internet. These days, you're no more likely to find a politician "against" the internet than you are to find one "against" children.
Oh yeah, and in case you didn't know it, sales taxes comprise roughly 30% of most states revenue. If the internet is nearly as big as you think it's going to be, something has to be cut...The axe will eventually have to fall on E-commerce, and then they'll be in real trouble...as if they aren't already.... hehehe
Neither I, nor the labels [if we're to believe their legal documents], are confused about the key facts. Just because my.mp3.com is providing a service that is "fair use" for the customer, does not mean they are legally entitled to provide the service. As arbitrary as it may sound to you, it is within the rights of the intellectual property owner to make that determination. What's more, they actually have a pretty reasonable motive. I'm not sure if you noticed this or not, but my.mp3.com is a for-profit corporation. Mp3.com is not interested in charity--they have every intent to profit. These profits can come in the form of ad revenue and increased brand awareness [due to my.mp3.com]. Furthermore, if the internet is even half the boon people claim, mp3.com may be in a position to exploit this opportunity to turn themselves into a major player [not to mention marginalizing the labels in the process].
Likewise, if the labels were to put themselves in the same position [by replacing my.mp3.com], they too might enjoy the benefits. Why shouldn't they want to? Why do you assume their only reason for acting the way they have is to either be malicious or the result of ignorance? How can you still cling to this view, in light of recent efforts on the label's part to do the same thing?
Even if you are totally unappreciative of the labels' current position, a ruling in mp3.com's favor would set a precendent that might have possibly negative repercussions on future labels.
Imagine, for a moment, if the labels decided to change their business model such that they only charge, say, 4 dollars for a CD. However, they would do this under the assumption that people would utilize their cloned service on a regular basis. Though they would not force you to use it [i.e., you could theoretically just spend 4 dollars, without any tradeoff], they would, by virtue of their IP rights, be the sole provider of the transformation service for their own records. Thus people would come. They would they enjoy continuous ad revenues, marketing data, etc. They would also be in a position to capture music lovers' eyes, and reduce the very expensive marketing efforts they now need to engage in. It might even allow them to cut out the middlemen entirely [i.e., skip the CD step entirely].
The point is that, here we have a potential benefit for society that would be cut out by allowing mp3.com's interpretation that "fair use". It is not that irrational to defend IP in this application. Though I have no interest in the labels, I think this form of IP control should be allowed, and I think we should let the markets decide.
There is a larger issue at work here than just this evil notion of "control". Though all intellectual property ultimately revolves around control, control is just the means by which one attains the ends (i.e., profits). This issue is really not so different. Just as the labels will not allow you to pirate music, they don't want mp3.com to provide that service. They frankly don't want to "control" for controls sake, they want to profit. The more pervasive piracy is, the less likely they are to sell CDs; the more use of my.mp3.com, the less capable they are of positioning themselves in mp3.com's position [which erodes their ability further supplement their profits and promotional opportunities].
Though my.mp3.com certainly gave the labels a much needed kick in the butt and provided the consumer with a benefit, the body of law still looks rather favorably on the IP owners (the labels)--it seeks to protect the creator(s). It grants the labels certain rights and priviledges. Although the my.mp3.com service may not negatively affect current sales, it can affect future profits. It is of undeniable interest to the labels.
The essential question is: How do we, as a society, balance the label's interest against the consumer's interest? If you deny the interest of either party, you are avoiding the question. In my opinion, siding with my.mp3.com is to favor the short run over the long run.
If my.mp3.com goes unchecked: In the short run, you, the consumer, enjoy easier access to your music collection, and the label still seems to do okay. In the long run, the label runs the risk of being marginalized and hurt. Despite the fact that this service brings up new questions, I'd lean more towards allowing the labels the OPPORTUNITY to have some control over their properties, and thus preserve a more traditional notion of IP in a modern era, where individual sales of physical items likely wont mean what it used to. A bunch of labels have already started on a project to do their own my.mp3.com type service. Those who don't, will still face the wrath of the consumer, and will likely reduce their profitability--both in record sales and in online efforts. In short, I'd give the labels a chance.
I'm not sure if you're trying to be facetious or not. Though I would call the lack of Open Source's ability the attain/retain qualified people on its projects an economic failing, it is hardly the only flaw I see. It was, however, the one flaw which Joy seemed to be pointing to. Given his rather unique and expert status on the matter, I thought it wise to focus in on that one.
A slip of the tongue hardly makes me ignorant. One may be entitled to recieve, but the giver may not be entitled to give. In other words, while you may entitled to listen to that music in any way you see fit, the copyright owner still may be entitled to determine who distributes that, even if it is to existing owners. It is a fine distinction. What makes it grey, is whether or not allowing control to this extent is really in the best interest of society.
Though some may claim the Seagrams et.al are doing this out of malice, I find it hard to believe. The issue, at its core, is profits, whether directly or indirectly. I know, for instance, may of the other record companies are trying to create their own my.mp3.com clones, or wish to license with my.mp3.com. That does not fit with the assertion that they're trying to make you pay twice for that same music, or that they just want control for controls sake...
Uh no, it does not "instantly" close off patents to individuals and small businesses, because they do patent. Many do well, and I count friends and family amongst that number. The legal system only comes in, in the event of a dispute where a resolution cannot be found. What's more there are other avenues for those who don't have the money, yet have to go to court. For instance, if I have a product that is worth 50m that is backed by a strong patent position, the odds are I'll find some investors who are willing to invest. There are laywers who are willing to work on contingency, pro bono, and you name it. And if I'm absolutely incapable of getting any help, the odds are that I probably couldn't develop the product anyways. Furthermore, this legal entanglement also puts the infringing company into jeopardy. In the case of outright infringement, there really is no such thing as a perfect defense. How much do they need to spend to protect themselves? 1....4m? And even then, they face a multimillion dollar award. At this point it really makes more sense for the company to try and acquire or license the patent.
The patent system works. It produces tangible and increasing benefits for society. I don't mean to say the system is perfect and that people don't get hurt. But, like anything in this world, there is only so much that can be done to prevent error and abuse. As it stands now, and has historically stood, the true essense of a patent boils down to a bunch of claims as to what makes it unique [not to mention valuable]. It generally is not a specific formula or object that one can file into a neat little cubby hole. Nor does not lend itself to programming logic. The patent office is just a place where you drop these claims off, to say I filed these claims first. The function of the patent reviewer is to basically filter out the crap, such that the signal to noise ratio isn't too horrible. As crude as it may sound crude, it is effective.
I'd be all for an improvement if I really thought something could be done to improve the situation for the inventor/innovator/risktaker. I just don't believe there is such a simple fix....
Since you seem to think there is a way to avoid the courts, I can only assume you mean giving more power to the reviewer. In which case, I'd ask you questions like: How do you propose getting skilled reviewers? How do you insure they're impartial? How do you insure they give everyone a chance to be heard, and not just close the book? Who pays for such intensive review? How do you avoid the extreme risk aversion [and its consequences] that typifies most bureaucracies? How do you insure that it is reasonably swift? How do you put all the costs on the government and not expect abuse [i.e., people filing because it costs them nothing, people complaining because it costs them nothing, etc.]? Patents are, afterall, just a bunch of claims; there is not a clear cut answer as to what is "wrong" and "right". It is a complex and naturally messy situation, despite what some may claim. Anyone who expects a clean solution to a messy problem without any significant consequences is a fool.
In any case, I've yet to hear any alternative proposal really be adequatately fleshed out by the complainers. They either say the entire system only hurts the inventor [which is not true] and should be dropped; or they say just do A, but give no compelling support for it.
Ok so you don't like your life. How does this determine that things are worse than they used to be? How do you hold companies responsible? The price of basic goods and services (i.e., food) have relative to the wages of at least 95% the country. This is an economically provable fact.
Today you get more car for your money than you did 20, 40, or even 60 years ago. Today's cars are drastically safter, faster, and more efficient (relative to their size, weight, etc.). You just can't make that comparison.
College tuition has risen, but you really can't blame companies for this. The economy's success is largely to blame. More people are seeking and getting advanced education than ever before, and most are willing and able to pay substantially more than before. Yet we have essentially the same number of respectable schools as we did before, so this means more demand. Furthermore, there is tremendous waste going on in academia. I know, for instance, at most of the Ivy league and equivalent schools, the tuition could be reduced by roughly 10k without the need to change anything significantly (other than tuition, of course).
Maybe for you it is the same, or then again, maybe you just haven't counted. On the aggregate, however, there are thousands statistics, and other similar measures, demonstrating that life has actually gotten easier on the aggregate. You may call it a prosperity myth, but unemployment is at its lowest point in history. Most people are earning significantly more money, and not just the middle class and higher.
Libraries on the aggregate, not just your local library, duh.
Ok, so you once bought CDs for roughly 10 bucks a piece. You are the exception. On aggregate, after inflation has been accounted for, prices have fallen by something like 10%.
Ahem, this is one area with which I am quite familiar. The price of the SAME medicines has gone WAY WAY down. The difference is that people are far more concerned about healthcare these days and are willing to pay more. This demand has resulted in drug companies creating drugs which would never before be economically viable, due to lack of demand, lack of technology, and lifespan of the product in question. Those cancer patients that you talk about, simply would have never even had the option for that kind of care back then. AIDS patients? Forget it.
Just because people are doing "crazy" things does not mean medicine is worse. A drug company, may, for instance realize that this treatment also works on animals, and market a version which does not cost as much. This, however, does not mean that they could just lower the price, since the costs are not the production costs, it's R&D, education, and some marketing. In addition to the increased availability of extraordinary treatments and medications [which cost more], we the HMOs to make get reimbursed terribly difficult. Doctors find it very difficult to get paid, many are leaving or want to leave the profession. Medical manufacturers also find it difficult to get reimbursed, which is also a large issue. Patients find it difficult to get the treatment they need/want, because no one can afford to do things for free.
Where did I say I advocated the so-called "obvious" patent? I did not, I was defending patents in general. Patents are still highly necessary in thousands of industries to promote innovation. Period.
However, the vast majority of the complaints about the "entire", or even the majority, patent system come from people who know absolutely zilch about it. You take a few outrageous examples, and ignore the literally thousands of worthwhile patents filed every year. You ignore the blinding innovation in the computer, engineering, bio-tech, medical devices, and other such industries. Where is the empirical evidence of damage due to growing patent abuse? Can you name one field that has actually slowed down as a result? Can you name one field in which it has caused a reduction in R&D investments? I'm not saying absolutely none exists, but it is way way overemphasized. In fact, in most, fields the key rates are only improving. You, those who scream loudest about patent damages, understand so little. You fail to understand things which an experienced and sucessful innovator does. First, it is not the PATENT that counts, it is the legal system behind it. It has always been true that it is easy to get a patent, the hard part is making it stand up in the courts. So when you parade the evil patents, you really should be looking at the damages. Second, lawsuits are going to happen no matter what. That is the nature of society and competition--people will always disagree. Even in relatively obvious areas such as real estate and property law, we see numerous lawsuits emerge amongst companies and individuals. The problems are all too often not a problem with the laws per se, but a problem with people. Yet, with patents, a far more vague area, you make a big deal of each and every dispute. You complain for the so-called "little guy", but fail to see the "little guy" complaining in every other non-IP related industry. Would you, for instance, take the word of any failed restaurateur, that it is impossible to succeed without 100 million dollars in the bank? Would you ignore the fact that 9 in 10 fail? Would you fail to question the successfull ones? If you want to judge the viability of, say, restaurant ownership, you'd be better advised to talk to the successfull ones first, not the failures....
...anyways, I've got to run, maybe later.
Just because there are some abuses of patents, does not mean the entire system is worthless. Just because there are some abuses, does not mean we'd be better off without it.
These are the exception, not the rule, and even then their "damage" is questionable. I think you need to take a longer view, and view them more on the aggregate. i.e., What have companies done for us vs. What have they ACTUALLY cost us?
Software EULAs: They may suck. People are certainly entitled to get upset with companies that place them. But is the mere existence of a bad EULA proof of it being bad for society? Has the quality of software truely diminished since the introduction of the EULA? The consumer still has a choice. Software still does alright by the consumer (though I'd be the first to say that software industry is terribly immature).
Stupid Patents: Again, more the exception than the rule. If you talk to any patent laywer worth his salt, he'll tell you the real test of patents is not their existence, it is how they fair in the courts. In terms of actual quantifiable dollar damage due to stupid patents the figures are pretty low. What's more, there are hundreds of thousands of usefull products and services that exist today because of the patent.
DoubleClick: Ok, they suck. On the other hand, how many other viable revenue alternatives exist on the web for budding websites? How much preference do most consumers place on their privacy? If they don't care that much, who am I to say they should?
My.MP3.com: Very grey. Here we have a for-profit corporation (mp3.com) that wants to profit off of others intellectual property. I'm not so sure that it is unreasonable for the intellectual property owners to want to determine the terms and conditions of their property where it reasonably offers to potential to affect their revenues. For instance, let's say that my.mp3.com uses this service to launch themselves into centerstage, such that the IP owners become obselete. As much as you may find the record labels distateful, is it so absolutely wrong for them to want to protect profits? I don't think so. As much as I, as a consumer, may want a service like my.mp3.com, I'd hardly say that makes RIAA evil. Also, we may well see my.mp3.com coming back soon, or if not them, then some other similar service.
Oh come on. What actual evil have these companies actions resulted in? Is your quality of life actually less? No. Is the average Americans worse? No. Have the size of libraries grown? Yes. Is music cheaper than it was before? Yes. Have the costs of specific medicines and treatments gone up on the aggregate do the corporations? No, they've gone down, it's only society's expectations that have gone up. All these, and many more, mythical complaints, yet few provably bad results.
There is one word for this: FUD.
Yes. I, too, think famous people do speak beyond their expertise. On the other hand, though Joy is not expert on sociology, he has seen these group dynamics in a context that many others have not. This is not to say that his conclusions are right necessarily, but within the context of what he knows it in (i.e., developing complex software), he may well be right on the money.
I think an intelligent person should make every effort to listen to those people in the center of things, even if some of what they say is wrong. For instance, I might be able to learn a lot about the weather from, say, a superstitious fisherman. Not because his science is accurate [he believes in magic and the like], but because he's been there time and time again, and he's noticed a certain cause and effect. I may not listen to his views on philosophy or science, but dammit, when I see him heading back to port, I'd be well advised to check things out.
Second, Joy did not refute that Open Source had some merit. He was, in fact, one of the original open source developers. He did say that there were some time savings involved. No doubt he was referring to lessening of duplication of work.
Third, Edison's view on exertion is hardly relevent to this situation. He never, to my knowledge, stated anything about large groups of people combining their efforts. In other words, just because invention is 99% effort, does not mean you can add up that effort amongst people.
In fact, it is somewhat ironic that you bring Edison up. It is Edison, and those like him, who I'd first call up in defense on the singular driven closed source model. They were all, after all, individuals who brought about great progess by really throwing themselves into the problem. In my view, Open Source's problem is less that a bunch of people want to contribute, then it is the fact that it LACKS those few key individuals working full time on the task at hand. Though I object to the word genius, it is foolish to underestimate the value of maximizing the output of these key men, especially when taken in context of the thousands of fools in their same day who could not, or would not, do it.
Image a world where ALL textbooks are free. How do the author(s) and editor(s) get reimbursed for their efforts? How do students get new textbooks? It is obvious that any extreme is very harmfull. Focusing on that, and that alone, only serves confuse the issues.
For one, you fail to see this method of distribution as an opportunity for would-be authors. There are literally thousands of worthy topics and authors that cannot be published because the current textbook economics do not allow for it. If the market that that book is not sufficiently large, it simply won't get published. This would allow for many more alternatives.
Secondly, you err when you say that "There is no way to say 'a rising tide lifts all boats' in Capitalismese". One of the beautiful things about capitalism is that it doesn't need to be expressly dictated all the time. The businessman need not know, or even particularly care, about the good of the common man. The "invisible hand" largely sees to that, or at least more effectively than any other previous method. By providing goods and services far more efficiently and cheaply than in any other system, we simply have more to offer everyone.
In this particular situation, I see no reason whatsoever to believe that books will become any less accessible or affordable on the aggregate. In fact, I believe a digital/per use system would, in fact, create a vastly more efficient market with even more competition, which would lead to a significantly better system for everyone. Though I am well aware that all too many slashdot readers claim that intellectual property is leading to the lockup or ownership of all knowledge, there is little evidence of it. One may own a particular phrase, method, song, or you name it, but those are only the means by which you obtain the end, not the end unto itself. Because there is almost always more than one way to do a thing, there will be competition. Prices will fall, just as they always have. [Where monopolies may form, they can be dealt with]
Did you ever consider the possibility that the old guard does know what they're talking about? Or that recently acclaimed "Open Source" accomplishments are not, in fact, that much of an accomplishment [in terms of technical ability/effort/innovation]? Though I'm not nearly old guard (in the way that Bill Joy, et. al, is), I do agree with his perspective that a large mass of people will simply never be able to match the work a few skilled programmers. Where highly modularized code like Linux may do okay in a decentralized open source environment, there are many [dare I even say most] areas where this simply does not work.
If you can't respect Bill Joy's opinion, whose can you respect? Bill Joy is an accomplished programmer and he's been there and done that, so to speak, with Open Source software. How many other people can really claim that level of experience? How many people who have tend to fall in line with his? It seems to me the majority of the views of those whom I respect fall in line with Joy's. I'm not saying you necessarily need to agree with him, but I do think it wise to give his view some significant weight.