The free market would price non-rival works at near-zero. Not having any incentives to invent or create art is a pretty big inefficiency. How would your free market fix that?
In the hierarchical world-view, it is not about how much you have. It is about how much more you have relative to everyone else. In a hierarchical world view, there is no such thing as 'win-win' because that keeps the relative positions unchanged, and that is a loss. All their are, are winners and losers. The game is played in order to force the losers into admitting they are losers, and acknowledging the winners. It is not played to accumulate wealth, that is just a means to an end.
If I say, 'this is my home, no one may live here but me' without law or society, I can still fairly easily protect that one home from you unless you bring overwhelming force. I do not need to protect my home from everyone in the world. Some dude in China is not going to march over here and take it.
If I say, 'This is my song, no one may sing it but me,' without law or society, I would need to coerce every single person who could potentially hear my song into not singing it. I would need to march over to China and make sure that dude doesn't sing it.
Rival property: I must only prevent local people from physically taking it from me. Non-rival property: I must coerce everyone in the entire world into not copying it. "Taking it from me" is not the same thing as "Copying it." One specific piece of real property is not the same thing as potentially infinite copies of intellectual property.
Please tell me you understand that vast, vast difference?
The difference between rival and non rival property is that I only have to protect the one piece of rival property, whereas I would have to protect every single piece of non-rival property of mine out there, because it can be copied.
Without the law, you would have to shoot everyone who sings your song. Your argument is so dumb, I feel stupider just from rebutting it.
So, only live productions should be protected? Why would inventors or artists release their works at all if they only had milliseconds to profit? That isn't promoting anything. Before we go all the way to millisecond terms, let's try going back to the original terms outlined by our forefathers in the constitution.
You don't understand the difference between rival and non-rival goods, do you? How can you share your invention and protect it from everyone, everywhere around the globe, who will copy it? Please try to think these things through before wasting my time with silly arguments that simply don't work. I only have to protect one house or piece of land. I have to protect every copy of my art or invention from everyone who ever sees it.
I'm not going to explain economics 101 to you just so we can have an intelligent debate. Patents are not the physical thing being patented. Copyright is not a book. Selling a book is different than selling the copyright on that book.
It's easier for you to steal my car than bootleg my albums? WTF? Why would it even be a problem bootlegging my albums? Will, I don't know, THE GOVERNMENT come and do something about it? You aren't even trying to be rational now. You are just throwing words around, hoping I'll get bored or frustrated and wander off, aren't you?
It is not 'merely' the constitutionalist viewpoint, it is the supreme law of the land, sorry. If you want to change the constitution, you are welcome to try.
To be more clear, the legitimacy of governance derives from the agreement of the people being governed. Without that agreement, there is only tyranny, not governance. "Less decisions by the masses" means more tyranny and less freedom, why would the masses agree to that?
Are you claiming the Federal Reserve is lying about basic economic statistics? That's actually a far more serious charge than saying they failed as regulators.
I'm not going to paw through anything. If you've ever read anything on Fox News, you know that the troglodytes over there are yucking it up over Obama right now. Almost everyone is completely intellectually dishonest and will go way out of their way to justify anything that bolsters their world view. Certainty is a feeling that drives logic to come up with rationalizations, it is not an end result of logical processes. For most people. And politics is dick waving, nothing more. Republicans just had their dicks cut off, metaphorically, because they lost so fucking badly on the health care reform issue. And they are mad, mad, mad at being emasculated, so they have to puff up their chests right now and pretend to be tough.
Meanwhile, we Democrats are big dick PLAYERS right now. Big dicks, swinging low, the chicks are all over us because we're so powerful and masculine.
We're not that far from chimps, none of us. *Sigh*
Read the US constitution if you'd like to understand why the time frame must be reasonable. We get to define what reasonable means in this case, through legislation. But it must, theoretically, be a limited time. Patents are still limited to a reasonable time, IMHO, but copyright terms are ridiculous and counter to the stated purpose of encouraging the arts.
If the market were to decide on a fair price for intellectual, non-rival works, without government granted and enforced monopoly, that price would be near zero.
Oh. But nobody laughed it off when Palin was hacked. The guy who did it is more than likely going to jail. I don't get it. What are these anonymous cowards complaining about, and why are they getting modded insightful?
Wrong. The only reason patents and copyright exist is government intervention. Without that, I could sell someone else's work as my own. We wrote the law, without which, there would be no such thing as copyright or patents. Without a law, real and personal property would still exist as such.
As a voter, I get to vote for representatives who will define copyright and patents as I think they should be defined. Read the constitution and tell me why we even have patents and copyright? To advance the arts and sciences. Not to profit inventors and artists, that's just a side effect.
Gah, I meant far LESS government intervention to protect real property than intellectual 'property.' Stupid brain, stupid fingers, why must you betray me?
Bullshit. I can protect my own tangible property. If I sell it, I don't have it anymore. If I sell my patent or copyrighted work, I still have it, but you also have it, and can sell it.
It takes FAR more government intervention to protect real property than it does intellectual 'property.' And far more intervention to protect real property than it does to protect personal property. Not all forms of property are the same, or require the same amount of government protection.
Not sure I understand your middle paragraph. You say, "that the concept of intellectual property is more appropriate than the concept of temporary monopolies granted for the advancement of science and the useful arts." But that is what intellectual property is: temporary monopoly granted for the advancement of the arts and sciences.
Governance derives from the masses. If you can use philosophy to convince the masses that a certain idea is good governance, great. if not, tough luck.
There's a middle ground between 'every idea or work of art is free' and 'we've patented inspirating oxygenated air through an orifice, now pay up.' And no, it is NOT how capitalism works, it is how government granted monopolies work, that's about as far from real capitalism as you can get. As intellectual property is imaginary, made up by people using legislation, not the free market, for OUR benefit, not the inventor's, WE get to decide what's acceptable and what's not.
You don't live in the UK, do you? Obviously, something has happened to the stuffy Brits. The UK just had to cut down a bunch of trees because people were 'dogging,' or having public sex there. There is evidently an epidemic of sexy times in the North Atlantic Archipelago. When did 'stiff upper lip' turn into 'stiff willy saluting passing motorists?' and more importantly, can you teach us American how to be a little less puritanical?
Slashdot Mirror
The free market would price non-rival works at near-zero. Not having any incentives to invent or create art is a pretty big inefficiency. How would your free market fix that?
In the hierarchical world-view, it is not about how much you have. It is about how much more you have relative to everyone else. In a hierarchical world view, there is no such thing as 'win-win' because that keeps the relative positions unchanged, and that is a loss. All their are, are winners and losers. The game is played in order to force the losers into admitting they are losers, and acknowledging the winners. It is not played to accumulate wealth, that is just a means to an end.
The free market doesn't give a crap what you do, it's a market, not a government. The free market doesn't make rules, people do.
You do realize that we aren't discussing fraud here, right? That is, you know, already covered under a completely different and unrelated law.
What in the hell are you even trying to say here?
If I say, 'this is my home, no one may live here but me' without law or society, I can still fairly easily protect that one home from you unless you bring overwhelming force. I do not need to protect my home from everyone in the world. Some dude in China is not going to march over here and take it.
If I say, 'This is my song, no one may sing it but me,' without law or society, I would need to coerce every single person who could potentially hear my song into not singing it. I would need to march over to China and make sure that dude doesn't sing it.
Rival property: I must only prevent local people from physically taking it from me. Non-rival property: I must coerce everyone in the entire world into not copying it. "Taking it from me" is not the same thing as "Copying it." One specific piece of real property is not the same thing as potentially infinite copies of intellectual property.
Please tell me you understand that vast, vast difference?
The difference between rival and non rival property is that I only have to protect the one piece of rival property, whereas I would have to protect every single piece of non-rival property of mine out there, because it can be copied.
Without the law, you would have to shoot everyone who sings your song. Your argument is so dumb, I feel stupider just from rebutting it.
So, only live productions should be protected? Why would inventors or artists release their works at all if they only had milliseconds to profit? That isn't promoting anything. Before we go all the way to millisecond terms, let's try going back to the original terms outlined by our forefathers in the constitution.
You don't understand the difference between rival and non-rival goods, do you? How can you share your invention and protect it from everyone, everywhere around the globe, who will copy it? Please try to think these things through before wasting my time with silly arguments that simply don't work. I only have to protect one house or piece of land. I have to protect every copy of my art or invention from everyone who ever sees it.
I'm not going to explain economics 101 to you just so we can have an intelligent debate. Patents are not the physical thing being patented. Copyright is not a book. Selling a book is different than selling the copyright on that book.
It's easier for you to steal my car than bootleg my albums? WTF? Why would it even be a problem bootlegging my albums? Will, I don't know, THE GOVERNMENT come and do something about it? You aren't even trying to be rational now. You are just throwing words around, hoping I'll get bored or frustrated and wander off, aren't you?
It is not 'merely' the constitutionalist viewpoint, it is the supreme law of the land, sorry. If you want to change the constitution, you are welcome to try.
To be more clear, the legitimacy of governance derives from the agreement of the people being governed. Without that agreement, there is only tyranny, not governance. "Less decisions by the masses" means more tyranny and less freedom, why would the masses agree to that?
Those are export numbers. The original post was claiming we are number one in total, not exported, manufacturing.
Are you claiming the Federal Reserve is lying about basic economic statistics? That's actually a far more serious charge than saying they failed as regulators.
I know The Register isn't everyone's cup of tea, but must you call it 'the funny papers?'
Are you telling me that TSA security officers are forbidden to spank the monkey?
But I'm not looking for gay hookups, damn it. I'm looking for hetero couples doing it in bushes and I can't find any.
I'm not going to paw through anything. If you've ever read anything on Fox News, you know that the troglodytes over there are yucking it up over Obama right now. Almost everyone is completely intellectually dishonest and will go way out of their way to justify anything that bolsters their world view. Certainty is a feeling that drives logic to come up with rationalizations, it is not an end result of logical processes. For most people. And politics is dick waving, nothing more. Republicans just had their dicks cut off, metaphorically, because they lost so fucking badly on the health care reform issue. And they are mad, mad, mad at being emasculated, so they have to puff up their chests right now and pretend to be tough.
Meanwhile, we Democrats are big dick PLAYERS right now. Big dicks, swinging low, the chicks are all over us because we're so powerful and masculine.
We're not that far from chimps, none of us. *Sigh*
Your argument is not compelling. Mindcontrolled's argument is. Because they aren't even remotely the same argument..
Read the US constitution if you'd like to understand why the time frame must be reasonable. We get to define what reasonable means in this case, through legislation. But it must, theoretically, be a limited time. Patents are still limited to a reasonable time, IMHO, but copyright terms are ridiculous and counter to the stated purpose of encouraging the arts.
If the market were to decide on a fair price for intellectual, non-rival works, without government granted and enforced monopoly, that price would be near zero.
Oh. But nobody laughed it off when Palin was hacked. The guy who did it is more than likely going to jail. I don't get it. What are these anonymous cowards complaining about, and why are they getting modded insightful?
Wrong. The only reason patents and copyright exist is government intervention. Without that, I could sell someone else's work as my own. We wrote the law, without which, there would be no such thing as copyright or patents. Without a law, real and personal property would still exist as such.
As a voter, I get to vote for representatives who will define copyright and patents as I think they should be defined. Read the constitution and tell me why we even have patents and copyright? To advance the arts and sciences. Not to profit inventors and artists, that's just a side effect.
Gah, I meant far LESS government intervention to protect real property than intellectual 'property.' Stupid brain, stupid fingers, why must you betray me?
Bullshit. I can protect my own tangible property. If I sell it, I don't have it anymore. If I sell my patent or copyrighted work, I still have it, but you also have it, and can sell it.
It takes FAR more government intervention to protect real property than it does intellectual 'property.' And far more intervention to protect real property than it does to protect personal property. Not all forms of property are the same, or require the same amount of government protection.
Not sure I understand your middle paragraph. You say, "that the concept of intellectual property is more appropriate than the concept of temporary monopolies granted for the advancement of science and the useful arts." But that is what intellectual property is: temporary monopoly granted for the advancement of the arts and sciences.
Governance derives from the masses. If you can use philosophy to convince the masses that a certain idea is good governance, great. if not, tough luck.
Whoah. Wait a minute. Are you claiming Benny Hill is not educational? It's intended audience is twelve year old boys. It was sure educational for me!
There's a middle ground between 'every idea or work of art is free' and 'we've patented inspirating oxygenated air through an orifice, now pay up.' And no, it is NOT how capitalism works, it is how government granted monopolies work, that's about as far from real capitalism as you can get. As intellectual property is imaginary, made up by people using legislation, not the free market, for OUR benefit, not the inventor's, WE get to decide what's acceptable and what's not.
No, it's saying that if you haven't heard of them, you are acceptable. "You will do, Pig, you will do."
Who is 'they?'
You don't live in the UK, do you? Obviously, something has happened to the stuffy Brits. The UK just had to cut down a bunch of trees because people were 'dogging,' or having public sex there. There is evidently an epidemic of sexy times in the North Atlantic Archipelago. When did 'stiff upper lip' turn into 'stiff willy saluting passing motorists?' and more importantly, can you teach us American how to be a little less puritanical?