Sure, they will 'do fine', but they could do much better and have even higher standard of living if it weren't for their insane policy of destroying their own money.
What is hard to understand that they need to buy a lot of commodities? They have a islands, they need a lot of energy and raw materials. Having strong money would let them to buy more.
If their companies think they need to sell more abroad, they shouldn't be asking gov't to destroy their currency and get more devalued yen, gov't shouldn't be allowed to do that anyway. The same result in terms of sales can be achieved with lowering prices if they want to sell more quantity.
At the same time they would be earning more valuable money and having more purchasing power and overall economy would be stronger.
At some point they will understand it, but apparently not yet, apparently 20 years is not enough.
It's not what "Japan's comparative advantage is", which is obvious - their high tech, their cars, medicine, etc.
It's what other countries can offer as competitive advantage to Japan, which is also obvious - raw materials, energy, probably food.
If Japan can't compete in terms of reduced regulations, because they are not free enough from their government in their culture, then they should at least be competing with their money - rate of return on investments.
China gained everything, the entire economy, because others are bringing their capital investments into the country.
Japan would also have huge inflow of investment capital if they allowed their money to appreciate, but their gov't wont, so after 20 years they really need to rethink this policy of strong gov't and weak people.
Keynesians are not economists, and real economists predicted economic collapse DECADES in advance, at the moment when Nixon took US (and thus the world) off the gold standard.
Japanese economy stagnated awfully, with their productivity prices should have been falling hard and instead they either had stagnating prices or even some rising prices.
Japan's population problem is not worse than of others, Japan needs strong money to buy commodities, which they lack naturally, and if Japanese companies feel they must sell more in nominal terms, they shouldn't be attacking the currency and devaluing it, they should be dropping prices.
You probably are completely ignorant on the fact, that for companies to sell more in devalued dollars is worse than to sell more with reduced prices while money is appreciating - the earnings would buy more and competing would be easier.
Japan needs to stop with the Keynesian nonsense they've been involved with for the past 2 decades, destroying their currency in this currency war, which is won by those, who hurt their own economy the most.
Trade is not about finding a foreign market for the sake of foreign market. Trade is about comparative advantage and about being able to buy something from people you trade with. NOT their worthless currency, but products that you don't make yourself.
Japan needs a lot of raw materials and energy, so they really need to trade with countries at least for those resources, and stronger currency would help Japan immensely, especially now, that they've been hit with too many natural disasters and they need all sorts of materials and energy to rebuild everything.
Japan needs to rebuild their infrastructure in many places, so they need to allow their currency to appreciate, so that more investments would be put into it, so they could buy more, and they need to stop listening the insane Keynesian charlatans, who really caused their economy to stagnate for 20 years. Nobody should be bailed out and nobody should be protected from rising currency with government intervention. Having currency fall looks good on a quarterly statement due to more sales in devalued currency, but it's terrible for the actual citizens and consumers, who have rising prices because the government destroys the money.
Maybe the Japanese should think about kicking their government in the balls for these 20 years and taking away their ability to print money in the first place and do something smart for a change and switch to saving and trading in gold and let the investments come into the country, because that's what would happen.
They would fix the unemployment in a hurry, with more investments coming in and they would be able to fix their infrastructure with strong money and they wouldn't even need to make these cuts in scientific spending.
OMG, you are buying into this complete irrevocable nonsense hook line and sinker.
USA isn't attacking Iran (and it's attacking Iran) because of any kind of 'nuclear threat'. It isn't attacking Iran because the rulers there kill their own people. It isn't attacking Iran because of Israel either.
It's attacking Iran because Halliburton and Co. and others need to make more money and because Iran has oil and that oil needs to be traded with US dollars and various companies need to get their cut.
Syria's government is killing thousands of its own people. North Koria is too. Various countries around the world are killing their own people, it's just they are not interesting enough to US and besides, Iran is very close to China and wouldn't it be great to control the Iranian oil supply to China just in case they decide to cut their US dollar denominated debt holdings? Ha.
that stupid thing says: top 0.37% based on annual income. However income is not a good approximation of wealth, because it doesn't show all of the actual investments that are not necessarily paying dividends at the moment.
So when are they going to investigate the actual definition of a pump and dump scheme ran by NIA, everything that they do, from Agria Corp (GRO) and Mega Precious Metals (MGP:CN) and now to Broadvision (BVSN)? They had plenty of notifications on this, it doesn't bother them or are they in on it?
Between WWII and 1980, the growth in the median family income matched the growth in GDP almost perfectly
1. End of WWII allowed the depression to end, cutting gov't spending by 62% (from 95 to 36 billion USD/year) and taxes by 30%.
2. 1971 Nixon defaulted on dollar and the seventies was a period of stagflation until the interest rates were sharply raised to 21.5% in 1982, this stopped the bleeding of the economy but very soon the interest rates started going down again, and the bleeding restarted.
Using government numbers to measure GDP is completely useless, you should realise that with 11-15% per year inflation for the past 20 years, the real GDP has been shrinking, not growing, the US economy is definitely not better today than for example 3 years ago, fewer people are working today than 3 years ago, yet GDP is reportedly higher. Don't tell me that US workers are much more productive today than they were 3 years ago.
The real GDP must be reduced by the deflator, and when inflation is calculated incorrectly on purpose with all the substitutions and hedonics, you cannot rely on those numbers at all. They use even a smaller deflater by the way, than the CPI, and CPI was reported about 3-4% last year by the government, and real inflation was closer to 15%.
US had high employment after war since it had a near monopoly on manufacturing, while gov't was cut by 62% and taxes by 30%, which allowed quick recovery. US workers could afford out of pocket medical care, health insurance, retirement plans, they owned houses and cars and even second property without debt, they went to vacations, saved for kid's education and all of this was done on one man's salary, the wives stayed home if they wanted to and they mostly did.
Enter the age of big government and big business coming to a criminal understanding and using the crowd as is described here to get the socialist agenda moving, with terrible mistakes being allowed: SS (started a couple of decades earlier, but it really was very tiny percentage wise for the first 20 years), Medicare, all the wars and finally Nixon crashed the dollar, defaulted on the promise to pay gold and the printing really started, which pushed prices up and then came the price fixing.
Fixing prices on everything, from food to wages, setting gov't controlled minimum wage (1938) but raising it during Nixon, setting price of money (interest rates) at record low levels for the time.
Nixon introduced wage and price controls when official inflation number hit 4%.
FOUR PERCENT lead to wage and price controls at the time. Today the real interest rate is 3-4 times as great and official interest rate is 3-4% and everybody says: oh, it's not a problem.
Not a problem my ass, the results are catastrophic, that's what created the Internet bubble and the housing bubble and now the bond and USD bubble.
Between 1980 and 2000, after the switch to "supply-side" economics
- I bet you think that 'supply-side' was actually practised in USA.
Supply side economics is the only real economics, and it worked just fine but the suppliers were not located IN USA and thus USA became a CONSUMER, not a supplier, and consumer only gets consumables from that kind of a fake trade, but the suppliers are growing their manufacturing capacity and are actually driving the economy and increasing their own standard of living, that's why China can actually AFFORD the infrastructure it's building and USA can only pay lip service to it while only exporting counterfeit currency.
Between 2000 and the crash, the benefit contracted even further. Only the top 0.1% saw income growth.
- of-course.
OF-COURSE.
You can't have a non-productive population actually increasing their purchasing power. OF-COURSE the productive part of the population saw large increases, because they moved their savings and
Those differences are irrelevant in the face of one striking similarity: both are granted by government, both are protected with the force of government, both are a subsidy to specific business models and both must go.
Actually, while debt is cheap (low interest) and unemployment high (low inflation) is precisely when stupid big government projects are wise. When the economy is healthy and unemployment low is when the government should be paying down debt and reducing spending.
- no, this Keynesian type of thinking is exactly what turns a recession into a depression. This constant 'bail out' and destruction of currency prevents any savings, moves real capital out of the economy into other, better economies, better currencies, and the poverty spreads.
USSR could send the first man into space and have thousands of weapons etc., but the country couldn't feed its people, and it was 75 YEARS OF THIS "STIMULUS".
75 years for USSR, 40 years for USA. Exactly how long do you want to try?
As always people are not being logical and are not looking at the root of the problem, which is the fact that copyrights and patents are enforced by government in detriment to the individual rights of the people in the first place.
You really think it's OK for Microsoft to make money from your code without your making a dime from it?
- sure, it's called competition, and government isn't supposed to be there to promote one business model over another, doing so destroys the economy and society and then your so called 'empathy' stops meaning a thing when nobody has anything to eat.
It took me NINE YEARS to come up with the core algorithm.
- yeah, well, you ain't that smart.
I have a company building software to integrate business processes, right now selling in retail, and about half of the code in the systems *including back and front end code* is generated with libraries that I have put together in just under 3 months, and it saves me tons of time, literally cuts time by a factor of 5.
Without copyright, a contract or license would be completely unnecessary.
- that is not true at all. Contracts and licenses are very much necessary specifically when there are no all-encompassing laws set by government to protect certain business models. A non-disclosure agreement is a contract, didn't you know?
Without patents an invention would die when its inventor died, as he would keep it secret. You obviously haven't given it much thought.
- do you want a bet that I thought about it way before you said it here, and I can bring up my comments from way back on this topic?
Trade secrets serve multiple purposes:
1. Trade secrets prevent destruction of our freedoms by the government enforcing copy-entitlements and patents.
2. Trade secrets encourage competition unlike copy-entitlements and patents, because people know that something is possible and profitable and thus they do research in that area and either stumble upon the same solution (and they don't have to pay anything to anybody just because they independently discovered it) or they come up with another solution altogether, maybe something that wasn't even thought of previously. This creates more business activity and more wealth, not less.
As to a person dying - in most cases the company would not die just because a person would die, I believe they were able to solve this insignificant little problem at Coca Cola, so I am sure other's are at least as smart as sugar-water merchants.
As to Atlas Shrugged - I just read it because I got tired of people throwing comments around saying things like: 'put away Atlas Shrugged'. Apparently it's a good book and your disagreement doesn't change that fact. Saying that it promotes 'lack of empathy' is completely missing the main thesis in it, as empathy cannot be promoted by destroying the economy and society and self-sacrificing is the worst enemy of justice, I could not agree with Rand more on this.
Correct, copyright is theft. However it's even worse than that - it's not just theft of somebody's property, it's theft of principles of freedom.
It's using government to protect business models while destroying individual freedoms all with the force of government.
We are in a story about some trying to destroy the purpose of the search engines and of the Internet itself all by using copyright to its logical maximum and look at this thread and the moderation of comments of certain individuals who insist that their copy-entitlement trumps everybody's individual rights.
Obviously people get the government they deserve and obviously people still deserve what they are getting here.
Why are all freetards arguing the same selfish greedy viewpoint in the end?
- no, you are the one who doesn't even begin to understand the consequences of your sense of self-entitlement.
You believe that your business model must be subsidised by the individuals giving up their freedoms.
"But I WANT it! I should be able to have it if I WANT it! The world isn't FAIR! I WANT it! I WANT it! I WANT it!. *looks around* Fine, I'll STEAL it!"
- I don't know what "it" is, and I really don't give a fuck about your wonderful software, and it is not about your silly software and your silly sense of entitlements to everybody's individual freedoms.
This is about the principle that nobody must be able to claim a business subsidy in exchange for everybody's individual freedom, and I am sure that 99.999999% of people on this planet have never heard of you and of your software, and you are not important and nobody is important enough to give up individual freedoms of people.
All copyrights and patents must be abolished. You can eat your software all you want and you must not be able to get any special subsidy from government, because it's people's freedoms we are discussing, not your software, you dumb idiot.
Fine, don't use the software. I don't care. I can't FORCE you to use it or my services.
- correct.
But as the offer is out there, I do believe I DID give the world something rather substantial, even if it doesn't realize it yet.
- no you did not.
You think you gave something to somebody, however you are wrong.
1. Either you worked for hire (perm/contractor/whatever) and thus you were paid to produce something
2. Or you did some work on your own time, possibly with your own money.
In case of 1 you already got what you deserved.
In case of 2 you have to do something to get paid, if that is your intention and if your business model relies simply on giving stuff out and then hoping for somebody to pay for it, well, somebody may pay you. Somebody may not.
You, however, didn't produce any single thing of value that deserves to be protected with government subsidy while simultaneously undermining the freedoms of the individuals.
Whatever you think your contribution is, it is of no consequence to most of the people, and your requirement that the government steals everybody's freedoms, just so that in the process you get some form of protection in exchange for EVERYBODY'S freedoms, well, you have too high of an opinion of yourself and whatever you think you 'gave' to somebody somewhere.
You may not understand it, but whatever you think your piece of wonderful software is worth, it is absolutely not worth any loss of individual freedoms, which apparently your entire business model depends on.
Your business model depends on government police force, justice system, everything to be undermined just so that your precious activity can become a sustainable business? That is very interesting and everybody should pay attention to that point of view - here is msobkow and he wants you to give up your freedoms to your government just so that he gets paid.
Without government enforced copyright crippling the individual liberties and freedoms there would be much more software in the public domain under whatever license agreements that wouldn't need copyright to function.
You didn't give anything to anybody. Moreover, if you released something that cost you a lot of money to produce, nobody is responsible for your business decision and nobody owes you an entitlement of maintaining your copy-entitlement over it. It's your business decision, it's your responsibility to do something about it.
Plenty of people waste plenty of money on various business ideas, some go bust and some succeed, not one of them deserves any subsidy from government, this includes subsidy of government protection.
well yes, copyright is a misnomer, it must be called its true name: copy-entitlement.
But so are any other so called 'rights', that are in reality entitlements - any sort of a group 'right' is actually a group-entitlement, be it for the benefit of whoever, genders, various races, labour or business owner, etc.
Of-course, and it's not a copyright, it's copy-entitlement, and it doesn't increase innovation, it prevents innovation as it prevents information freedom.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, they will 'do fine', but they could do much better and have even higher standard of living if it weren't for their insane policy of destroying their own money.
What is hard to understand that they need to buy a lot of commodities? They have a islands, they need a lot of energy and raw materials. Having strong money would let them to buy more.
If their companies think they need to sell more abroad, they shouldn't be asking gov't to destroy their currency and get more devalued yen, gov't shouldn't be allowed to do that anyway. The same result in terms of sales can be achieved with lowering prices if they want to sell more quantity.
At the same time they would be earning more valuable money and having more purchasing power and overall economy would be stronger.
At some point they will understand it, but apparently not yet, apparently 20 years is not enough.
It's not what "Japan's comparative advantage is", which is obvious - their high tech, their cars, medicine, etc.
It's what other countries can offer as competitive advantage to Japan, which is also obvious - raw materials, energy, probably food.
If Japan can't compete in terms of reduced regulations, because they are not free enough from their government in their culture, then they should at least be competing with their money - rate of return on investments.
China gained everything, the entire economy, because others are bringing their capital investments into the country.
Japan would also have huge inflow of investment capital if they allowed their money to appreciate, but their gov't wont, so after 20 years they really need to rethink this policy of strong gov't and weak people.
Keynesians are not economists, and real economists predicted economic collapse DECADES in advance, at the moment when Nixon took US (and thus the world) off the gold standard.
Keynesians have no predicting power at all, their 'predictions' are akin to their 'solutions' - start wars, even if with aliens.
Japanese economy stagnated awfully, with their productivity prices should have been falling hard and instead they either had stagnating prices or even some rising prices.
Japan's population problem is not worse than of others, Japan needs strong money to buy commodities, which they lack naturally, and if Japanese companies feel they must sell more in nominal terms, they shouldn't be attacking the currency and devaluing it, they should be dropping prices.
You probably are completely ignorant on the fact, that for companies to sell more in devalued dollars is worse than to sell more with reduced prices while money is appreciating - the earnings would buy more and competing would be easier.
h. Another moron wh
- Oh, just got to that part.
Goodbye.
Japan needs to stop with the Keynesian nonsense they've been involved with for the past 2 decades, destroying their currency in this currency war, which is won by those, who hurt their own economy the most.
Trade is not about finding a foreign market for the sake of foreign market. Trade is about comparative advantage and about being able to buy something from people you trade with. NOT their worthless currency, but products that you don't make yourself.
Japan needs a lot of raw materials and energy, so they really need to trade with countries at least for those resources, and stronger currency would help Japan immensely, especially now, that they've been hit with too many natural disasters and they need all sorts of materials and energy to rebuild everything.
Japan needs to rebuild their infrastructure in many places, so they need to allow their currency to appreciate, so that more investments would be put into it, so they could buy more, and they need to stop listening the insane Keynesian charlatans, who really caused their economy to stagnate for 20 years. Nobody should be bailed out and nobody should be protected from rising currency with government intervention. Having currency fall looks good on a quarterly statement due to more sales in devalued currency, but it's terrible for the actual citizens and consumers, who have rising prices because the government destroys the money.
Maybe the Japanese should think about kicking their government in the balls for these 20 years and taking away their ability to print money in the first place and do something smart for a change and switch to saving and trading in gold and let the investments come into the country, because that's what would happen.
They would fix the unemployment in a hurry, with more investments coming in and they would be able to fix their infrastructure with strong money and they wouldn't even need to make these cuts in scientific spending.
It's like this article was written by a villain dreamed up by Ayn Rand.
- it would be great if the villains in Rand's writing were all dreamed up by her, unfortunately for everybody on this planet, that's not the case.
You see, she didn't actually invent anything, she just looked at the reality of the place she left, and the reality was what she wrote.
OMG, you are buying into this complete irrevocable nonsense hook line and sinker.
USA isn't attacking Iran (and it's attacking Iran) because of any kind of 'nuclear threat'. It isn't attacking Iran because the rulers there kill their own people. It isn't attacking Iran because of Israel either.
It's attacking Iran because Halliburton and Co. and others need to make more money and because Iran has oil and that oil needs to be traded with US dollars and various companies need to get their cut.
Syria's government is killing thousands of its own people. North Koria is too. Various countries around the world are killing their own people, it's just they are not interesting enough to US and besides, Iran is very close to China and wouldn't it be great to control the Iranian oil supply to China just in case they decide to cut their US dollar denominated debt holdings? Ha.
that stupid thing says: top 0.37% based on annual income. However income is not a good approximation of wealth, because it doesn't show all of the actual investments that are not necessarily paying dividends at the moment.
So when are they going to investigate the actual definition of a pump and dump scheme ran by NIA, everything that they do, from Agria Corp (GRO) and Mega Precious Metals (MGP:CN) and now to Broadvision (BVSN)? They had plenty of notifications on this, it doesn't bother them or are they in on it?
Between WWII and 1980, the growth in the median family income matched the growth in GDP almost perfectly
1. End of WWII allowed the depression to end, cutting gov't spending by 62% (from 95 to 36 billion USD/year) and taxes by 30%.
2. 1971 Nixon defaulted on dollar and the seventies was a period of stagflation until the interest rates were sharply raised to 21.5% in 1982, this stopped the bleeding of the economy but very soon the interest rates started going down again, and the bleeding restarted.
Using government numbers to measure GDP is completely useless, you should realise that with 11-15% per year inflation for the past 20 years, the real GDP has been shrinking, not growing, the US economy is definitely not better today than for example 3 years ago, fewer people are working today than 3 years ago, yet GDP is reportedly higher. Don't tell me that US workers are much more productive today than they were 3 years ago.
The real GDP must be reduced by the deflator, and when inflation is calculated incorrectly on purpose with all the substitutions and hedonics, you cannot rely on those numbers at all. They use even a smaller deflater by the way, than the CPI, and CPI was reported about 3-4% last year by the government, and real inflation was closer to 15%.
US had high employment after war since it had a near monopoly on manufacturing, while gov't was cut by 62% and taxes by 30%, which allowed quick recovery. US workers could afford out of pocket medical care, health insurance, retirement plans, they owned houses and cars and even second property without debt, they went to vacations, saved for kid's education and all of this was done on one man's salary, the wives stayed home if they wanted to and they mostly did.
Enter the age of big government and big business coming to a criminal understanding and using the crowd as is described here to get the socialist agenda moving, with terrible mistakes being allowed: SS (started a couple of decades earlier, but it really was very tiny percentage wise for the first 20 years), Medicare, all the wars and finally Nixon crashed the dollar, defaulted on the promise to pay gold and the printing really started, which pushed prices up and then came the price fixing.
Fixing prices on everything, from food to wages, setting gov't controlled minimum wage (1938) but raising it during Nixon, setting price of money (interest rates) at record low levels for the time.
Nixon introduced wage and price controls when official inflation number hit 4%.
FOUR PERCENT lead to wage and price controls at the time. Today the real interest rate is 3-4 times as great and official interest rate is 3-4% and everybody says: oh, it's not a problem.
Not a problem my ass, the results are catastrophic, that's what created the Internet bubble and the housing bubble and now the bond and USD bubble.
Between 1980 and 2000, after the switch to "supply-side" economics
- I bet you think that 'supply-side' was actually practised in USA.
Supply side economics is the only real economics, and it worked just fine but the suppliers were not located IN USA and thus USA became a CONSUMER, not a supplier, and consumer only gets consumables from that kind of a fake trade, but the suppliers are growing their manufacturing capacity and are actually driving the economy and increasing their own standard of living, that's why China can actually AFFORD the infrastructure it's building and USA can only pay lip service to it while only exporting counterfeit currency.
Between 2000 and the crash, the benefit contracted even further. Only the top 0.1% saw income growth.
- of-course.
OF-COURSE.
You can't have a non-productive population actually increasing their purchasing power. OF-COURSE the productive part of the population saw large increases, because they moved their savings and
Those differences are irrelevant in the face of one striking similarity: both are granted by government, both are protected with the force of government, both are a subsidy to specific business models and both must go.
Actually, while debt is cheap (low interest) and unemployment high (low inflation) is precisely when stupid big government projects are wise. When the economy is healthy and unemployment low is when the government should be paying down debt and reducing spending.
- no, this Keynesian type of thinking is exactly what turns a recession into a depression. This constant 'bail out' and destruction of currency prevents any savings, moves real capital out of the economy into other, better economies, better currencies, and the poverty spreads.
USSR could send the first man into space and have thousands of weapons etc., but the country couldn't feed its people, and it was 75 YEARS OF THIS "STIMULUS".
75 years for USSR, 40 years for USA. Exactly how long do you want to try?
While artists and such do deserve a right to be able to make a fair shake on what they produce
- what does that have to do with government enforcing copyright?
As always people are not being logical and are not looking at the root of the problem, which is the fact that copyrights and patents are enforced by government in detriment to the individual rights of the people in the first place.
Don't worry, I think maybe 9 years from now he'll get it.
I'm not sure what you mean by "governments must be stopped"
- it's fairly simple, nothing to do with 'anarchy'.
You really think it's OK for Microsoft to make money from your code without your making a dime from it?
- sure, it's called competition, and government isn't supposed to be there to promote one business model over another, doing so destroys the economy and society and then your so called 'empathy' stops meaning a thing when nobody has anything to eat.
It took me NINE YEARS to come up with the core algorithm.
- yeah, well, you ain't that smart.
I have a company building software to integrate business processes, right now selling in retail, and about half of the code in the systems *including back and front end code* is generated with libraries that I have put together in just under 3 months, and it saves me tons of time, literally cuts time by a factor of 5.
Without copyright, a contract or license would be completely unnecessary.
- that is not true at all. Contracts and licenses are very much necessary specifically when there are no all-encompassing laws set by government to protect certain business models. A non-disclosure agreement is a contract, didn't you know?
Without patents an invention would die when its inventor died, as he would keep it secret. You obviously haven't given it much thought.
- do you want a bet that I thought about it way before you said it here, and I can bring up my comments from way back on this topic?
Trade secrets serve multiple purposes:
1. Trade secrets prevent destruction of our freedoms by the government enforcing copy-entitlements and patents.
2. Trade secrets encourage competition unlike copy-entitlements and patents, because people know that something is possible and profitable and thus they do research in that area and either stumble upon the same solution (and they don't have to pay anything to anybody just because they independently discovered it) or they come up with another solution altogether, maybe something that wasn't even thought of previously. This creates more business activity and more wealth, not less.
As to a person dying - in most cases the company would not die just because a person would die, I believe they were able to solve this insignificant little problem at Coca Cola, so I am sure other's are at least as smart as sugar-water merchants.
As to Atlas Shrugged - I just read it because I got tired of people throwing comments around saying things like: 'put away Atlas Shrugged'. Apparently it's a good book and your disagreement doesn't change that fact. Saying that it promotes 'lack of empathy' is completely missing the main thesis in it, as empathy cannot be promoted by destroying the economy and society and self-sacrificing is the worst enemy of justice, I could not agree with Rand more on this.
Correct, copyright is theft. However it's even worse than that - it's not just theft of somebody's property, it's theft of principles of freedom.
It's using government to protect business models while destroying individual freedoms all with the force of government.
We are in a story about some trying to destroy the purpose of the search engines and of the Internet itself all by using copyright to its logical maximum and look at this thread and the moderation of comments of certain individuals who insist that their copy-entitlement trumps everybody's individual rights.
Obviously people get the government they deserve and obviously people still deserve what they are getting here.
Why are all freetards arguing the same selfish greedy viewpoint in the end?
- no, you are the one who doesn't even begin to understand the consequences of your sense of self-entitlement.
You believe that your business model must be subsidised by the individuals giving up their freedoms.
"But I WANT it! I should be able to have it if I WANT it! The world isn't FAIR! I WANT it! I WANT it! I WANT it!. *looks around* Fine, I'll STEAL it!"
- I don't know what "it" is, and I really don't give a fuck about your wonderful software, and it is not about your silly software and your silly sense of entitlements to everybody's individual freedoms.
This is about the principle that nobody must be able to claim a business subsidy in exchange for everybody's individual freedom, and I am sure that 99.999999% of people on this planet have never heard of you and of your software, and you are not important and nobody is important enough to give up individual freedoms of people.
All copyrights and patents must be abolished. You can eat your software all you want and you must not be able to get any special subsidy from government, because it's people's freedoms we are discussing, not your software, you dumb idiot.
I "didn't give anything to anybody"?
- correct.
Fine, don't use the software. I don't care. I can't FORCE you to use it or my services.
- correct.
But as the offer is out there, I do believe I DID give the world something rather substantial, even if it doesn't realize it yet.
- no you did not.
You think you gave something to somebody, however you are wrong.
1. Either you worked for hire (perm/contractor/whatever) and thus you were paid to produce something
2. Or you did some work on your own time, possibly with your own money.
In case of 1 you already got what you deserved.
In case of 2 you have to do something to get paid, if that is your intention and if your business model relies simply on giving stuff out and then hoping for somebody to pay for it, well, somebody may pay you. Somebody may not.
You, however, didn't produce any single thing of value that deserves to be protected with government subsidy while simultaneously undermining the freedoms of the individuals.
Whatever you think your contribution is, it is of no consequence to most of the people, and your requirement that the government steals everybody's freedoms, just so that in the process you get some form of protection in exchange for EVERYBODY'S freedoms, well, you have too high of an opinion of yourself and whatever you think you 'gave' to somebody somewhere.
You may not understand it, but whatever you think your piece of wonderful software is worth, it is absolutely not worth any loss of individual freedoms, which apparently your entire business model depends on.
Your business model depends on government police force, justice system, everything to be undermined just so that your precious activity can become a sustainable business? That is very interesting and everybody should pay attention to that point of view - here is msobkow and he wants you to give up your freedoms to your government just so that he gets paid.
Without government enforced copyright crippling the individual liberties and freedoms there would be much more software in the public domain under whatever license agreements that wouldn't need copyright to function.
You didn't give anything to anybody. Moreover, if you released something that cost you a lot of money to produce, nobody is responsible for your business decision and nobody owes you an entitlement of maintaining your copy-entitlement over it. It's your business decision, it's your responsibility to do something about it.
Plenty of people waste plenty of money on various business ideas, some go bust and some succeed, not one of them deserves any subsidy from government, this includes subsidy of government protection.
as I said - an entitlement, because it's done with government force at the expense of individual rights of others.
well yes, copyright is a misnomer, it must be called its true name: copy-entitlement.
But so are any other so called 'rights', that are in reality entitlements - any sort of a group 'right' is actually a group-entitlement, be it for the benefit of whoever, genders, various races, labour or business owner, etc.
Of-course, and it's not a copyright, it's copy-entitlement, and it doesn't increase innovation, it prevents innovation as it prevents information freedom.