Well then it's a fundamental human right to have human slaves. Prove that this is wrong if enough people believe it and they hold power.
--
You are wrong of-course, fundamental human right is not something that a human needs to be given, it's something that a human has that government must not be allowed to take away by force - life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.
Those are not rights, those are products and services that people need and create on their own without government.
For example health care is not something that government provides, it's something that people go into because they find it to be a good profession (being a doctor for example), and before government started meddling with health care by pouring money into monopolies and protecting those monopolies from competition, people were able to supply themselves with the health care.
I mean forget health care - the most basic of all necessities is food.
There is no basic human 'right' to food. That's a basic necessity that the market solves by simple demand/supply mechanisms, and the market allows food prices to come down while government involvement causes food prices to sky-rocket when government destroys money, puts mandates on production, bails out failing companies, subsidises any kind of farming activity and distorts the natural market in it, so wheat, corn, cotton, rice and soy are subsidised, so it's more profitable for farmers to grow those instead of other foods that people would want to buy, so prices for other foods rise, while prices for those subsidised cultures are low.
There is no natural right for one person to demand that society subsidises his food, it doesn't matter if one farmer is forced to feed that subsidised person or if everybody is forced to give up their earnings through taxes, that they could use to do their own investment and instead food markets are subsidised and distorted.
There is no such right and the meddling that government involves itself into eventually ends up as part of the reason for the economic destruction due to the imbalances and mal-investments that this creates.
Of-course it's not a zero-sum game, when iPhones were first created, they became a market in themselves, a market that didn't exist previously. Any new thing that people create where there was no such thing before is creation of new wealth, not extraction of existing wealth and redirection of it.
I don't understand how that's possible. If Apple didn't provide people with products they wanted, Apple wouldn't grow and would disappear. People own Apple. Is your idea that people shouldn't be allowed to do business to create products other people want?
that's such a backwards position. So what happens if somebody is more successful than somebody else, you are for using government force against them, to confiscate their possessions?
Yeah, we had that back in the USSR, didn't work out well.
The ability to infinitely copy something at almost no cost didnâ(TM)t exist for most of human history.
- yes, and this is the best thing for people ever.
Next best thing would be ability to copy entire products without manufacturing them, and yes, patents should be abolished and people must not be stopped by government's police, military and judicial systems against doing so.
Any amount of copying that can take place, virtual products or real ones, the economy wins. Some people decide to subsidise the original author - that's the market making a decision on whether it needs more of that product and more of the new products.
The entire problem that copyrights and patents used to be 'solving' (that's sarcasm, by the way), disappears as the means of copying become so simple and costs of copying are non-existent.
The premise that a small content holder cannot compete with a large one is thrown out, everybody can compete on the Internet, exactly because making a copy is nearly free.
Your idea is: if people invent an object multiplier, the economy will crash!
The market idea is: when the hell are we going to see object copiers, it's too hard building every copy through a complex and expensive manufacturing process, we need object copiers, so that everybody can have whatever objects.
The point of the economy is efficient distribution of everything, and that's what free copying achieves on the Internet, and that's what politicians are trying to stop, so are they serving the bigger economy and the people?
No, of-course not, they are serving special interests, who want to keep the status quo of artificial scarcity as if there is no way to copy the stuff free, and it's nonsense and it will eventually disappear and people will see this point in history as abomination, as it was trying to destroy the most efficient method of distribution of information that we have created so far.
Ok, just a stupid person then? FBI note on the site that's shut down is not an indication of government subsidy to a business interest? The courts will be used and prison space will likely be allocated for a few people caught by US gov't military force hanging overhead of other supposedly 'sovereign' nations. After all, it's not that MPAA requested New Zealand to raid and give up the Megaupload owners, it's US government.
Nonsense, those are consequences of political manipulation.
As capitalism created more investment, people were looking for more opportunities, so more ideas were implemented, which created more capital.
With more capital, more people decided to replicate the success, which is obviously good for the consumers, but bad for keeping competition out, so the money that was accumulated by the early investors was used to manipulate the political process and introduce ideas of patents and copyrights to create real monopoly situation where none had existed previously.
Eventually the corruption of power lead to the economic disaster, and now the only 'assets' left are some of these ideas and old implementations (like movies, music, software, books, whatever). So with little money in manufacturing, more money is concentrated in these services instead and more opportunity was seeing in creating even more monopoly where none has existed - the Internet.
Of-course the real problem is loss of the manufacturing base, so with nothing real to make only virtual goods are left, but their value however high, the prices need to be held higher by artificial means of government power, thus FBI, prisons, courts, DMCA, ACTA, SOPA, PIPA, etc.
Of-course at the end the economy will be destroyed completely, the laws will reset and these anachronisms of the past will be abolished.
I am just offering not to wait for the economy to collapse to understand the problem and move on into building sound business models as if the economy is already past that ridiculous artificial hump of copyrights and patents being protected by government force.
Of-course the real issue is freedom - and nobody should be able to use gov't power to trump individual freedom, no group of people, no matter what.
Guys like roman_mir aim to prevent speech, prevent innovation, and prevent progress by refusing to reward and recognize the justice that creators have the right to their own creations and to make contracts in regards to them.
- really? I have over 300 DVDs on my computer - all ripped from my own DVDs.
I don't download or use torrents, in fact if everybody was doing exactly what I am doing, nobody would even know that there are such things as 'IP pirates'.
Some of the software I build is in public domain, I have copyrights on it obviously under law.
That said - I am completely against all copyrights and patents because that's a government force destroying my freedom and it's done to give the freedom that I have naturally to somebody who gives money to politicians.
Without copyright provisions nothing would be able to stop an entity from taking GPLed code and compiling it into another project and then never releasing the source code for that project. Without copyright you might be able to copy around the end result, but you would lack the source code to make any changes to it.
- sure, in many cases that's what is going to happen, and it's not a problem, it doesn't prevent people from working on free software, it likely would mean that more people would use your software that way and you'll get more market share even through those companies, and it is not written in stone anywhere that without copyrights and patents, companies that are profiting from selling some of that software would absolutely not give anything back at all.
But again, it's not a problem, not what people make it out to be.
Louis C.K. apparently doesn't see this as a problem, you do. His show is available on torrents and download sites, and he said he understands that risk and is just grateful to people who do end up buying the show for $5. He does have the copyright protection under law, but that's not what he is using in his business model, and he would still end up covering the costs and making all that money without copyright law.
Also you can buy movies, software, music and other bootleg products all over the world for a couple of bucks a disk or less (it can just be part of your ISP service, that's how it works in many countries - you pay your ISP and they throw in 'perks' like that).
Of-course there are torrents, etc. So the question then that you should be concerned with becomes: do I have a customer base big enough that a percentage of it will subsidise my work, past and future, by paying some amount of money to me as an 'inventor' and obviously an investor. You INVEST your time/money into something - you are NEVER guaranteed a return (unless you are a big bank and the Fed is printing for you like the trees are going out of style).
Whether you want to have a contract with a publisher firm - that's up to you signing a contract with them and that's where government DOES have a role - protecting personal freedoms, liberties, but also contracts.
And the copyrights and patents will be abolished anyway, people will suffer from government trying to save the business models of Hollywood and such in US and in Europe, but people who manufacture and produce the real goods don't care about your copyrights and patents, eventually they are the people with real money, savings and ability to use your material to make money. You want to think about that in reality, you want to appeal to that market BEFORE you use your government force to try and stop that and lose completely with those people.
It's fine if somebody gets 'bombed' and loses at business - it's a natural consequence of market doing its work, allocating resources in the most efficient manner.
Copyrights and patents ARE a subsidy, and if you don't understand that concept, I suggest you try and visit this site, and you will see a nice big government note there, subsidising a failing business model.
It's called FBI, federal courts, police, prisons and eventually military.
Either YOU are a liar or a very unintelligent person.
Nonsense. It's the copyright and the patent idea that is abomination and that prevents free flow of implementations and even worse - free flow of ideas. This ends up hurting the economy, and the people who will not suffer from it will be those, who will chose in their market not to care about such artificial impositions by government power over people's freedom by protecting ridiculous business models, that don't have any actual right to exist (as in to be protected by government force over freedom of the people.)
Let me put in simple terms: the majority of the planet does not care about copyright and patent law, and with less and less economic power being held by those who care and with more and more economic power being held by those who do not, this problem will eventually cease to exist, but so will the economies that use government power to protect business models and sell people's freedoms for re-election.
You what is unrealistic? Expecting other countries to give a shit about your copyrights and patents once they have all the manufacturing and you depend on them for everything.
You know what's extremist? Using government to give powers to businesses that they would not have otherwise and call that a good economic model that promotes competition and growth of economy.
There is no middle ground, the side that doesn't care about patents and copyrights will win.
Slashdot Mirror
Well then it's a fundamental human right to have human slaves. Prove that this is wrong if enough people believe it and they hold power.
--
You are wrong of-course, fundamental human right is not something that a human needs to be given, it's something that a human has that government must not be allowed to take away by force - life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.
Those are not rights, those are products and services that people need and create on their own without government.
For example health care is not something that government provides, it's something that people go into because they find it to be a good profession (being a doctor for example), and before government started meddling with health care by pouring money into monopolies and protecting those monopolies from competition, people were able to supply themselves with the health care.
I mean forget health care - the most basic of all necessities is food.
There is no basic human 'right' to food. That's a basic necessity that the market solves by simple demand/supply mechanisms, and the market allows food prices to come down while government involvement causes food prices to sky-rocket when government destroys money, puts mandates on production, bails out failing companies, subsidises any kind of farming activity and distorts the natural market in it, so wheat, corn, cotton, rice and soy are subsidised, so it's more profitable for farmers to grow those instead of other foods that people would want to buy, so prices for other foods rise, while prices for those subsidised cultures are low.
Then you find corn and wheat and soy in every product and eventually you find out that it's poison - government is poisoning you by subsidising corn.
There is no natural right for one person to demand that society subsidises his food, it doesn't matter if one farmer is forced to feed that subsidised person or if everybody is forced to give up their earnings through taxes, that they could use to do their own investment and instead food markets are subsidised and distorted.
There is no such right and the meddling that government involves itself into eventually ends up as part of the reason for the economic destruction due to the imbalances and mal-investments that this creates.
That's nonsense and has nothing to do with somebody being forced to PROVIDE you with a product or a service.
Harming another person is not a right, that's been agreed upon for a long enough time on this planet for you to miss that.
Nope, impossible, it's a temporary entitlement, not a right, it ends once the system is broke and it will go break with ideas like that.
There cannot be a right that puts an obligation on somebody to provide whoever has that 'right' with some product or service - impossible.
A fundamental right of a person cannot impose an obligation upon another person, that's all I need to say about this.
Freedom of speech does not mean that anybody must PROVIDE YOU WITH THE MEANS of speaking.
It's only that government cannot prevent you from expressing your views however you can and decide to do it.
Of-course it's not a zero-sum game, when iPhones were first created, they became a market in themselves, a market that didn't exist previously. Any new thing that people create where there was no such thing before is creation of new wealth, not extraction of existing wealth and redirection of it.
Whoever thinks that a service is a 'fundamental human right' is a fucking idiot.
A fundamental human right cannot be something that somebody must PROVIDE one with.
--
As to this bill - whatever, it's a locality business, really, it's a business of that municipality.
Look at the red border around the note, it has the word "Seized" on it.
Government seizing assets - property. Is that the idea?
I do not have any recollection of the necessary pass phrase.
I don't understand how that's possible. If Apple didn't provide people with products they wanted, Apple wouldn't grow and would disappear. People own Apple. Is your idea that people shouldn't be allowed to do business to create products other people want?
that's such a backwards position. So what happens if somebody is more successful than somebody else, you are for using government force against them, to confiscate their possessions?
Yeah, we had that back in the USSR, didn't work out well.
Try this, you may learn something.
Note that none of those overlap in any way with what you describe.
- I'll define it for you: government allocated resources used to provide an entity with an unfair advantage in the market place.
FBI, court system, prison system fall right under the definition.
Bugger off.
The ability to infinitely copy something at almost no cost didnâ(TM)t exist for most of human history.
- yes, and this is the best thing for people ever.
Next best thing would be ability to copy entire products without manufacturing them, and yes, patents should be abolished and people must not be stopped by government's police, military and judicial systems against doing so.
Any amount of copying that can take place, virtual products or real ones, the economy wins. Some people decide to subsidise the original author - that's the market making a decision on whether it needs more of that product and more of the new products.
The entire problem that copyrights and patents used to be 'solving' (that's sarcasm, by the way), disappears as the means of copying become so simple and costs of copying are non-existent.
The premise that a small content holder cannot compete with a large one is thrown out, everybody can compete on the Internet, exactly because making a copy is nearly free.
Your idea is: if people invent an object multiplier, the economy will crash!
The market idea is: when the hell are we going to see object copiers, it's too hard building every copy through a complex and expensive manufacturing process, we need object copiers, so that everybody can have whatever objects.
The point of the economy is efficient distribution of everything, and that's what free copying achieves on the Internet, and that's what politicians are trying to stop, so are they serving the bigger economy and the people?
No, of-course not, they are serving special interests, who want to keep the status quo of artificial scarcity as if there is no way to copy the stuff free, and it's nonsense and it will eventually disappear and people will see this point in history as abomination, as it was trying to destroy the most efficient method of distribution of information that we have created so far.
Cheers.
Ok, just a stupid person then? FBI note on the site that's shut down is not an indication of government subsidy to a business interest? The courts will be used and prison space will likely be allocated for a few people caught by US gov't military force hanging overhead of other supposedly 'sovereign' nations. After all, it's not that MPAA requested New Zealand to raid and give up the Megaupload owners, it's US government.
THAT is called a subsidy, you lying crazy person.
Nonsense, those are consequences of political manipulation.
As capitalism created more investment, people were looking for more opportunities, so more ideas were implemented, which created more capital.
With more capital, more people decided to replicate the success, which is obviously good for the consumers, but bad for keeping competition out, so the money that was accumulated by the early investors was used to manipulate the political process and introduce ideas of patents and copyrights to create real monopoly situation where none had existed previously.
Eventually the corruption of power lead to the economic disaster, and now the only 'assets' left are some of these ideas and old implementations (like movies, music, software, books, whatever). So with little money in manufacturing, more money is concentrated in these services instead and more opportunity was seeing in creating even more monopoly where none has existed - the Internet.
Of-course the real problem is loss of the manufacturing base, so with nothing real to make only virtual goods are left, but their value however high, the prices need to be held higher by artificial means of government power, thus FBI, prisons, courts, DMCA, ACTA, SOPA, PIPA, etc.
Of-course at the end the economy will be destroyed completely, the laws will reset and these anachronisms of the past will be abolished.
I am just offering not to wait for the economy to collapse to understand the problem and move on into building sound business models as if the economy is already past that ridiculous artificial hump of copyrights and patents being protected by government force.
Of-course the real issue is freedom - and nobody should be able to use gov't power to trump individual freedom, no group of people, no matter what.
Guys like roman_mir aim to prevent speech, prevent innovation, and prevent progress by refusing to reward and recognize the justice that creators have the right to their own creations and to make contracts in regards to them.
- really? I have over 300 DVDs on my computer - all ripped from my own DVDs.
I don't download or use torrents, in fact if everybody was doing exactly what I am doing, nobody would even know that there are such things as 'IP pirates'.
Some of the software I build is in public domain, I have copyrights on it obviously under law.
That said - I am completely against all copyrights and patents because that's a government force destroying my freedom and it's done to give the freedom that I have naturally to somebody who gives money to politicians.
That's all that matters - freedom stolen.
Without copyright provisions nothing would be able to stop an entity from taking GPLed code and compiling it into another project and then never releasing the source code for that project. Without copyright you might be able to copy around the end result, but you would lack the source code to make any changes to it.
- sure, in many cases that's what is going to happen, and it's not a problem, it doesn't prevent people from working on free software, it likely would mean that more people would use your software that way and you'll get more market share even through those companies, and it is not written in stone anywhere that without copyrights and patents, companies that are profiting from selling some of that software would absolutely not give anything back at all.
But again, it's not a problem, not what people make it out to be.
Louis C.K. apparently doesn't see this as a problem, you do. His show is available on torrents and download sites, and he said he understands that risk and is just grateful to people who do end up buying the show for $5. He does have the copyright protection under law, but that's not what he is using in his business model, and he would still end up covering the costs and making all that money without copyright law.
Also you can buy movies, software, music and other bootleg products all over the world for a couple of bucks a disk or less (it can just be part of your ISP service, that's how it works in many countries - you pay your ISP and they throw in 'perks' like that).
Of-course there are torrents, etc. So the question then that you should be concerned with becomes: do I have a customer base big enough that a percentage of it will subsidise my work, past and future, by paying some amount of money to me as an 'inventor' and obviously an investor. You INVEST your time/money into something - you are NEVER guaranteed a return (unless you are a big bank and the Fed is printing for you like the trees are going out of style).
Whether you want to have a contract with a publisher firm - that's up to you signing a contract with them and that's where government DOES have a role - protecting personal freedoms, liberties, but also contracts.
And the copyrights and patents will be abolished anyway, people will suffer from government trying to save the business models of Hollywood and such in US and in Europe, but people who manufacture and produce the real goods don't care about your copyrights and patents, eventually they are the people with real money, savings and ability to use your material to make money. You want to think about that in reality, you want to appeal to that market BEFORE you use your government force to try and stop that and lose completely with those people.
You are a short-sighted person.
It's fine if somebody gets 'bombed' and loses at business - it's a natural consequence of market doing its work, allocating resources in the most efficient manner.
Copyrights and patents ARE a subsidy, and if you don't understand that concept, I suggest you try and visit this site, and you will see a nice big government note there, subsidising a failing business model.
It's called FBI, federal courts, police, prisons and eventually military.
Either YOU are a liar or a very unintelligent person.
Nonsense. It's the copyright and the patent idea that is abomination and that prevents free flow of implementations and even worse - free flow of ideas. This ends up hurting the economy, and the people who will not suffer from it will be those, who will chose in their market not to care about such artificial impositions by government power over people's freedom by protecting ridiculous business models, that don't have any actual right to exist (as in to be protected by government force over freedom of the people.)
Let me put in simple terms: the majority of the planet does not care about copyright and patent law, and with less and less economic power being held by those who care and with more and more economic power being held by those who do not, this problem will eventually cease to exist, but so will the economies that use government power to protect business models and sell people's freedoms for re-election.
Only way the GPL works is with copyright law to back it up and enforce it.
- that's a feature, not a bug. GPL is unnecessary if there is no copyright and it's a good thing.
You what is unrealistic? Expecting other countries to give a shit about your copyrights and patents once they have all the manufacturing and you depend on them for everything.
You know what's extremist? Using government to give powers to businesses that they would not have otherwise and call that a good economic model that promotes competition and growth of economy.
There is no middle ground, the side that doesn't care about patents and copyrights will win.