If you want to read the same sort of critique, but written clearly, check out Lewis Mumford's "Myth of the Machine", particularly Vol. II.
Some of it is foggy writing (to cover up the fact that they are re-treading old stuff), but some of it is the critics' willful ignorance to the concerns and questions expressed. A lot of people would say that Maxwell's equations are needlessly complicated and incomprehensible, and they would be wrong. The social and ethical aspects of technology are very real, and we shouldn't ignore them just because we don't have closed form solutions.
The FSF does more than encourage. It acts as a clearinghouse for copyrights, which they have accrued quite a few. That is, it's not a pure advocacy group - they have intentionally acquired quite a bit of capital as well.
By re-organize I meant to include things like splitting the FSF into an "advocacy" part (free speech), and "capital" part, and then absorbing the capital. Or more directly, just nationalizing the copyrights (this has been done before).
Clearly this is a difference, if the copyrights holder is in a country which recognizes his copyright, versus one which doesn't.
Perhaps ideally there wouldn't be, but there is a difference. To see why, read the FSF's page on "why someone should assign their copyright to FSF". It's the same principle.
Like with most unbelievably large figures, there is "fudging" going on.
In NYC (hardly known for its lax regulations...) an on-premises liquor license (=full bar) costs a staggering $4,352 for two years. $2K/year is nothing.
The problem is that the # of licenses is capped which means that the aftermarket in trade is very steep. Up to $200K. But this is a one-time charge, and it doesn't go to the government. It could be worse - they could be non-transferable.
Anyway, it was harder to start a brewery in the 60s (not to mention the 20s), so it's not like we're on a one-way trip toward less freedom here...
I don't understand. I certainly do not conflate "IP" with other forms of property. Further, your explanation is contrary to your claim. Our harmonized copyright laws are compatible with (or even require) the notions of 1) rightsholder; 2) transference of rights. This is all that is needed. The US will be stuck with the source forked at whatever point things went south, and development can continue elsewhere with a patched version of the GPL which takes care of this problem. It goes without saying that FSF will go somewhere with a strong copyright law, but more sympathy to its goals. This means the EU.
Of course, there will be a black market demand in the US for the software (as there already is for illegal softwares such as deCSS implementations and VLC); and also the US will inevitably bellow about breaking the treaty or commence some other kind of pissing match. These are the details that make life interesting, and don't a priori negate the strategic value of international copyright transfer. On the bright side, the world will finally, to a man, learn about free software...
OK, to be fair it wasn't exactly my point at first; I just changed my point a little while replying and hoped you wouldn't notice.;-)
Hopefully this won't come to pass. I just have this horrific twisted image of the US deciding to coast along as a two-penny tyrant, on its increasingly-empty "brand" of technological innovation and militarism.
I understand that there are big business forces at work and this is nothing new. My point is that our economic instability (due at root, to lack of manufacturing and savings) might cause the general public opinion to swing strongly toward supporting something like this, without an understanding of the issues at hand.
To be fair, I don't think it's "evil". It may have overall positive effects for social equality and overall safety. I may even benefit from it personally since my education and training is, overall, more suited for an "establishment" position than an independently-innovative one. (Although I'd be somewhat pissed if, for my nation's well-being I had to get a linux license, or buy windows.)
I'm just saying it's a premature optimization which, like any economic policy, will have a large number of supporters who perhaps don't see the entire picture, and don't feel like listening to alternative viewpoints.
I'd like to find a middle-ground, but when the middle-ground is shelter from a storm you need to look to the horizon first. (or something like that; I'm not very good with metaphors)
Please explain what is unconstitutional about nationalization? Also please note distinct lack of change, in re: torture policy, U SAP AT RIOT Act, telecom immunity, &c.
Though, I suspect that FSF would take a page from the corporate playbook and re-incorporate in a friendlier country, transfer the FSF copyrights there, leaving a powerless shell-subsidiary in the US.
I dunno. It could be something else, or just a coincidence, but this does seem to be the simplest explanation among those them...
Speaking abstractly, it's not a bad national strategy in a way. We're fucked economically, and have no manufacturing base to speak of. There's not much we can do except enforce "intellectual property" overseas. The downside is the implicit effect that this will have on domestic freedom and true innovation. I suspect we (as knowledge workers) will be learning some hard lessons in the next few years. I would not be surprised if the FSF and EFF (among others) are forcibly nationalized and destroyed/reorganized within four years.
The problem with that is that there are only so many dog pictures. Once one group of spammers classifies most of them by hand, they can sell/trade that database and get a near-perfect success rate.
The "solution" is to deform the dog pictures so that they look different each time, but then...
I have met Republicans who knew absolutely nothing about what Republicanism was supposed to mean. And I can say the same thing about Libertarians, Democrats, and Anarchists.
Which makes me wonder whether it's really worth spending even a minute on abstract political issues...
Ah, but if historical trends are an indicator, there is hope springing for the anti-patent side. From wikipedia:
"The 1890 depression resulted in an unfavorable view of patents. The depression was marked by a strained economy in which patents were perceived as a method of promoting monopolies. This negative attitude towards patents led to the inception of the Sherman Antitrust Act. During the depression, many opposed patents, and this is depicted in the tendency of courts to invalidate patents. The conclusion of the depression also ended the negative attitudes towards patents; however, the Patent Law underwent oppostion again in the Great Depression. This skepticism towards patents again returned after World War II in another period of economic depression."
But today the world, not just the internet, runs in internet years!
The 17 years-thing comes from an age preceding internal combustion (for transportation) or even the electric telegraph, let alone mass production, and you can forget about getting 10000 units shipped out of Shenzhen within a day of scp'ing over a design. Back then, it'd take maybe a year or two to work out how to produce the darned thing in quantity; a few years before anyone outside a few miles radius even heard about your invention; and at the end of 17 years you were likely still finding new customers from all the way over there, four states away...
If the patent period were to have shrunk in proportion with the accelerated rate of discovery; manufacture; advertising; &c., complaints would be mostly academic since patents would last for, oh I don't know, two years on the outside? I've made up all of my figures which is unfortunate and this deserves a proper study (if you know of one, please link me to it). Still, you'd be daft to think a 17-year monopoly back then was as much of a government interference as 17 years today. I mean, 17 years ago we didn't even have consumer video cards. MP3s, which are now to the internet what water is to organic life, are still "novel". Entire generations of technology put into the hands of a lucky few, not (necessarily) by merit but by state intervention.
But of course, complain about a state-granted seventeen-year monopoly and you get called a communist. Go figure.
You have it backwards. Breaching the contract is (probably) illegal, though it doesn't fall in the category of a crime. It's (probably) a civil violation nonetheless.
Thanks anyway, u illiterate fuckwit. Die in a fire.
Now that it's a D, Fox News has gone from shrill apologetics; pandering; and establishment fear-mongering, to shrill criticism.
All in all, it's a small improvement. My theory was that Fox News would become a democrat yellow-journalism channel; I like it more this way and hope it lasts. As things stand now, it seems that the R's (at least the popular R machine/media) work better in opposition, than in control.
It's funny that a knee-jerk reaction to that today, is to call it systemized corruption. Politicians representing their constituents? But what about the global imperative?
Slashdot Mirror
If you want to read the same sort of critique, but written clearly, check out Lewis Mumford's "Myth of the Machine", particularly Vol. II.
Some of it is foggy writing (to cover up the fact that they are re-treading old stuff), but some of it is the critics' willful ignorance to the concerns and questions expressed. A lot of people would say that Maxwell's equations are needlessly complicated and incomprehensible, and they would be wrong. The social and ethical aspects of technology are very real, and we shouldn't ignore them just because we don't have closed form solutions.
The FSF does more than encourage. It acts as a clearinghouse for copyrights, which they have accrued quite a few. That is, it's not a pure advocacy group - they have intentionally acquired quite a bit of capital as well.
By re-organize I meant to include things like splitting the FSF into an "advocacy" part (free speech), and "capital" part, and then absorbing the capital. Or more directly, just nationalizing the copyrights (this has been done before).
Clearly this is a difference, if the copyrights holder is in a country which recognizes his copyright, versus one which doesn't.
Perhaps ideally there wouldn't be, but there is a difference. To see why, read the FSF's page on "why someone should assign their copyright to FSF". It's the same principle.
I'll take your combination of mockery and agreement, as high praise.
Like with most unbelievably large figures, there is "fudging" going on.
In NYC (hardly known for its lax regulations...) an on-premises liquor license (=full bar) costs a staggering $4,352 for two years. $2K/year is nothing.
The problem is that the # of licenses is capped which means that the aftermarket in trade is very steep. Up to $200K. But this is a one-time charge, and it doesn't go to the government. It could be worse - they could be non-transferable.
Anyway, it was harder to start a brewery in the 60s (not to mention the 20s), so it's not like we're on a one-way trip toward less freedom here...
I don't understand. I certainly do not conflate "IP" with other forms of property. Further, your explanation is contrary to your claim. Our harmonized copyright laws are compatible with (or even require) the notions of 1) rightsholder; 2) transference of rights. This is all that is needed. The US will be stuck with the source forked at whatever point things went south, and development can continue elsewhere with a patched version of the GPL which takes care of this problem. It goes without saying that FSF will go somewhere with a strong copyright law, but more sympathy to its goals. This means the EU.
Of course, there will be a black market demand in the US for the software (as there already is for illegal softwares such as deCSS implementations and VLC); and also the US will inevitably bellow about breaking the treaty or commence some other kind of pissing match. These are the details that make life interesting, and don't a priori negate the strategic value of international copyright transfer. On the bright side, the world will finally, to a man, learn about free software...
Figures. What do you call a principled lawyer? Unemployed.
OK, to be fair it wasn't exactly my point at first; I just changed my point a little while replying and hoped you wouldn't notice. ;-)
Hopefully this won't come to pass. I just have this horrific twisted image of the US deciding to coast along as a two-penny tyrant, on its increasingly-empty "brand" of technological innovation and militarism.
I understand that there are big business forces at work and this is nothing new. My point is that our economic instability (due at root, to lack of manufacturing and savings) might cause the general public opinion to swing strongly toward supporting something like this, without an understanding of the issues at hand.
To be fair, I don't think it's "evil". It may have overall positive effects for social equality and overall safety. I may even benefit from it personally since my education and training is, overall, more suited for an "establishment" position than an independently-innovative one. (Although I'd be somewhat pissed if, for my nation's well-being I had to get a linux license, or buy windows.)
I'm just saying it's a premature optimization which, like any economic policy, will have a large number of supporters who perhaps don't see the entire picture, and don't feel like listening to alternative viewpoints.
I'd like to find a middle-ground, but when the middle-ground is shelter from a storm you need to look to the horizon first. (or something like that; I'm not very good with metaphors)
Please explain what is unconstitutional about nationalization? Also please note distinct lack of change, in re: torture policy, U SAP AT RIOT Act, telecom immunity, &c.
We'll see.
Very good call.
Though, I suspect that FSF would take a page from the corporate playbook and re-incorporate in a friendlier country, transfer the FSF copyrights there, leaving a powerless shell-subsidiary in the US.
Five of their lawyers are now placed in high-level positions within the Department of Justice?
I dunno. It could be something else, or just a coincidence, but this does seem to be the simplest explanation among those them...
Speaking abstractly, it's not a bad national strategy in a way. We're fucked economically, and have no manufacturing base to speak of. There's not much we can do except enforce "intellectual property" overseas. The downside is the implicit effect that this will have on domestic freedom and true innovation. I suspect we (as knowledge workers) will be learning some hard lessons in the next few years. I would not be surprised if the FSF and EFF (among others) are forcibly nationalized and destroyed/reorganized within four years.
Dr. Manhattan.
3D movies.
Big blue cock.
Someone make the obvious joke for me, please?
Maybe support shouldn't depend on the birth lottery of having a successful $relative.
(And preemptive "bullshit" to the argument that aptitude is genetic. In that case, let's set up a dole based on aptitude tests and be done with it.)
The problem with that is that there are only so many dog pictures. Once one group of spammers classifies most of them by hand, they can sell/trade that database and get a near-perfect success rate.
The "solution" is to deform the dog pictures so that they look different each time, but then...
I have met Republicans who knew absolutely nothing about what Republicanism was supposed to mean. And I can say the same thing about Libertarians, Democrats, and Anarchists.
Which makes me wonder whether it's really worth spending even a minute on abstract political issues...
Grover Norquist.
Yeah, US republicans are always very eager to prove that government doesn't work, by breaking it.
Ah, but if historical trends are an indicator, there is hope springing for the anti-patent side. From wikipedia:
"The 1890 depression resulted in an unfavorable view of patents. The depression was marked by a strained economy in which patents were perceived as a method of promoting monopolies. This negative attitude towards patents led to the inception of the Sherman Antitrust Act. During the depression, many opposed patents, and this is depicted in the tendency of courts to invalidate patents. The conclusion of the depression also ended the negative attitudes towards patents; however, the Patent Law underwent oppostion again in the Great Depression. This skepticism towards patents again returned after World War II in another period of economic depression."
But today the world, not just the internet, runs in internet years!
The 17 years-thing comes from an age preceding internal combustion (for transportation) or even the electric telegraph, let alone mass production, and you can forget about getting 10000 units shipped out of Shenzhen within a day of scp'ing over a design. Back then, it'd take maybe a year or two to work out how to produce the darned thing in quantity; a few years before anyone outside a few miles radius even heard about your invention; and at the end of 17 years you were likely still finding new customers from all the way over there, four states away...
If the patent period were to have shrunk in proportion with the accelerated rate of discovery; manufacture; advertising; &c., complaints would be mostly academic since patents would last for, oh I don't know, two years on the outside? I've made up all of my figures which is unfortunate and this deserves a proper study (if you know of one, please link me to it). Still, you'd be daft to think a 17-year monopoly back then was as much of a government interference as 17 years today. I mean, 17 years ago we didn't even have consumer video cards. MP3s, which are now to the internet what water is to organic life, are still "novel". Entire generations of technology put into the hands of a lucky few, not (necessarily) by merit but by state intervention.
But of course, complain about a state-granted seventeen-year monopoly and you get called a communist. Go figure.
You have it backwards. Breaching the contract is (probably) illegal, though it doesn't fall in the category of a crime. It's (probably) a civil violation nonetheless.
Thanks anyway, u illiterate fuckwit. Die in a fire.
Now that it's a D, Fox News has gone from shrill apologetics; pandering; and establishment fear-mongering, to shrill criticism.
All in all, it's a small improvement. My theory was that Fox News would become a democrat yellow-journalism channel; I like it more this way and hope it lasts. As things stand now, it seems that the R's (at least the popular R machine/media) work better in opposition, than in control.
Thank you for putting things back in perspective.
It's funny that a knee-jerk reaction to that today, is to call it systemized corruption. Politicians representing their constituents? But what about the global imperative?
You got a ~$500000 bonus?
Or, do you work for Verizon?