Yes, i believe in labor theory of value, I just didn't use the jargon. That is not to say subjective value theory is wrong, but subjective value theory doesn't work on intellectual property.
Yea, no. Look, it's perfectly reasonable to claim that the current iteration of IP/copyright/patent law is fucked, namely because it is. But that is by no means a blanket condemnation of the tools themselves; in fact, to claim the tools are the problem is to show an abject lack of critical thinking ability, as any child could tell you it's not the hammer which ultimately drives the nail, but the man holding the hammer. Yes, the system is oft abused by powerful groups, but that doesn't mean the system itself in inoperable - there are also instances, such as that brought forth by TFA, in which IP/copyright/patent law actually does work to protect the artist/inventor from whom the product originated.
What IP/copyright/patent law actually does is protect the artist/inventor, at the expense of both the consumers, producers and competition, and that is whats inherently unethical about it. Any laws that exist should be applied universally (Immanuel Kant), tractor manufacturers should be alllowed to license and charge royalties on food production, production workers should be able to license and charge royalties as well.
Funny, I don't recall making that statement... *re-reads previous post* Nope, nothing even close to the assumption you've made here. In fact, you're the only one who has broached the idea of wanting something for nothing... perhaps you yourself are unaware of your actual agenda? One has to wonder why a person would be so adamantly opposed to the mere concept of IP, especially when discussing a rare instance in which IP law actually works out in the best interest of the creating artist...
What's your angle here? If you're not attempting to posit the idea that you should have access to other people's creative works without payment, then what are you trying to say?
Yes. I am saying that the person who created the work should be paid according to their labor or skill, and the results of their labor should be available for free because it increases the utility of their work. It also disincetivizes them from working, because they are able to live comfortably without doing so, and deprives others of the fruits of their labor. A good example of this: college textbooks.
There are entire industries that are dunked into the toilet, many of the employees of whom live in tiny huts/dorms with hardly more than the clothes on their backs, why should your industry benefit at the expense of all others?
Because your from the bourgeois class, which is able to force the balance of power your way, and thus keep out the competition?
Perhaps he should not rely on a model which is contingent on the number of cd's sold, like for instance doing performances for the general public... you know "work".
Good for him, he is getting hundred of thousands of dollars for a very minimal amount of work! Bad for everyone else, that are expected to pay $25 + his royalties for a harry potter DVD.
Why? His unique contribution helped bring in a good deal of money, so much so that they enter into agreements that basically equate to profit sharing. Your approach would just mean the big nasty corp gets all the dollars.
Not really, because they would not get to make any money off the content! A better model would be a set of 501c3's that are highly regulated and donated to. People can send money to these 'creative' charities if they want to, who then have an obligation to spend the money on creative endeavors, and of course a world where personal income is capped at some reasonable level.
This really is a different topic from patents and, as such, a separate discussion. I would like to point out, though, that it's implied that the people you're accusing of sitting fat and lazy off your work did that work before you got to it. You're being encouraged to either license their work or try another approach. That means rewarding the inventor who sunk the time into it (like you do for a living) or developing the technology even further by trying other approaches. That actually is how the patent system is supposed to work and I'm willing to bet that's helping the company you work for out. Getting back on topic, if your complaint about their patent is that it's overly broad, then we're back to the problem not being with the system, but how its enforced. That is a legitimate complaint, but it takes a different approach to get something done about it.
That's supposing that A) they actually did any work whatsoever, or its non trivial work "one click", "round corner tablet device" B) they are willing to license the work at all, instead of suing me to an oblivion. C) that people should be rewarded from ideas, instead of the labor time they spent in implementing ideas.
I generally believe that if his work was important enough to be made, than he should have been paid for the amount of work performed, not based on how much it benefited society.
Do you think a tractor company should get "license" and charge royalties (however the amount) on the the food the tractor produces?
Or it could be based on a nuanced study of capital flows to IP thugs, and the lack of investment in other human resources (people), which in turn harms the ROI on other human labor (farming, manufacturing). Thereby reinforcing a class system in which people are unable to escape.
Hardly as subjective as your subjective analysis of "he probably just wants free stuff".
The composer should have been paid for the of work he performed, as the function of the investment it takes to perform the work and value, not for how useful the work ended up being. He may be hired to work again if it was a good performance, otherwise you tax and unempower other people and musicians, so you get to be fat and lazy off of their hard wor.
Likewise I have a hard time developing devices without running afoul of someone's patent, even though what I did was developed in a clean room process, so they can sit fat and lazy off of my hard work. The problem with finding funding for the work is another social problem, but perhaps that means that we should reward people like farmers and factory workers, more than we reward the creative class who don't have it so bad anyhow.
Clearly you missed the MOST important part of living in oregon, Are you a raw food gluten free vegan bicyclist, or are you a carbon neutral organic polyculture pot farmer?
There are supposed to be thunderstorms today and tomorrow, but i don't seem to think of "really violent storms" here, its usually quite mild in comparison to other places.
That means that society should try to lift up the least affluent members of society as much as possible. Sometimes a degree of wealth inequality may do this, but only when the ROI is higher and then redistributed.
3. Wealth inequality causes less efficient economies
How so?
(Asking seriously, not snarkily.)
For several reasons: 1. The law of diminishing returns occurs, say for example the ROI on college education VS a traditional investment vehicle. 2. The utility per opportunity cost is lower, for example a Lamborghini vs several entry level sedans. 3. The total factor productivity of labor time falls, because what good is a bunch of factories, when nobody even knows how to read the instructions. 4. It increases levels of crime, stress, health problems, lack of trust, social malaise. 5. The amount of time performing work decreases, for example its hard to find time for school or work, when your sick or dumpster diving. 6. It increases the amount of non productive consumption, poor people spend money on things they need, wealthy on things they want.
maybe RMS is a socialist! After having extensively studied economics, I have come to the same conclusions that he has, based on the this reasoning.
1. Social justice is maximizing the minimum gain 2. Information has the most utility when its free 3. Wealth inequality causes less efficient economies 4. Media is a form of non productive consumption.
I think you need to go back to economics school. If the all property were nationalized, sure the income tax would decrease, but that doesn't mean that GDP has stopped or decreased. In fact I assume that if the government were tax the money people used for consumer spending, and instead invest the money into capital infrastructure, that it would increase our productivity, employment, and after tax income vs CPI.
I guess this is my confusion over the increasing reliance on advertising, and the decreasing educational programming and replacement with reality television over the years. so once I heard that they were going to change from the board of governors to the trust model with executive leadership I assumed it was changing into a private model just as margaret thatcher would have loved.
that is bullshit. a person named william randolph hearst might have agreed with you, but then again he was manipulating the news for his own personal gain long before you were even born
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, i believe in labor theory of value, I just didn't use the jargon. That is not to say subjective value theory is wrong, but subjective value theory doesn't work on intellectual property.
Yea, no. Look, it's perfectly reasonable to claim that the current iteration of IP/copyright/patent law is fucked, namely because it is. But that is by no means a blanket condemnation of the tools themselves; in fact, to claim the tools are the problem is to show an abject lack of critical thinking ability, as any child could tell you it's not the hammer which ultimately drives the nail, but the man holding the hammer. Yes, the system is oft abused by powerful groups, but that doesn't mean the system itself in inoperable - there are also instances, such as that brought forth by TFA, in which IP/copyright/patent law actually does work to protect the artist/inventor from whom the product originated.
What IP/copyright/patent law actually does is protect the artist/inventor, at the expense of both the consumers, producers and competition, and that is whats inherently unethical about it. Any laws that exist should be applied universally (Immanuel Kant), tractor manufacturers should be alllowed to license and charge royalties on food production, production workers should be able to license and charge royalties as well.
Funny, I don't recall making that statement... *re-reads previous post* Nope, nothing even close to the assumption you've made here. In fact, you're the only one who has broached the idea of wanting something for nothing... perhaps you yourself are unaware of your actual agenda? One has to wonder why a person would be so adamantly opposed to the mere concept of IP, especially when discussing a rare instance in which IP law actually works out in the best interest of the creating artist...
What's your angle here? If you're not attempting to posit the idea that you should have access to other people's creative works without payment, then what are you trying to say?
Yes. I am saying that the person who created the work should be paid according to their labor or skill, and the results of their labor should be available for free because it increases the utility of their work. It also disincetivizes them from working, because they are able to live comfortably without doing so, and deprives others of the fruits of their labor. A good example of this: college textbooks.
There are entire industries that are dunked into the toilet, many of the employees of whom live in tiny huts/dorms with hardly more than the clothes on their backs, why should your industry benefit at the expense of all others?
Because your from the bourgeois class, which is able to force the balance of power your way, and thus keep out the competition?
Perhaps he should not rely on a model which is contingent on the number of cd's sold, like for instance doing performances for the general public... you know "work".
Good for him, he is getting hundred of thousands of dollars for a very minimal amount of work!
Bad for everyone else, that are expected to pay $25 + his royalties for a harry potter DVD.
Why? His unique contribution helped bring in a good deal of money, so much so that they enter into agreements that basically equate to profit sharing. Your approach would just mean the big nasty corp gets all the dollars.
Not really, because they would not get to make any money off the content! A better model would be a set of 501c3's that are highly regulated and donated to. People can send money to these 'creative' charities if they want to, who then have an obligation to spend the money on creative endeavors, and of course a world where personal income is capped at some reasonable level.
This really is a different topic from patents and, as such, a separate discussion. I would like to point out, though, that it's implied that the people you're accusing of sitting fat and lazy off your work did that work before you got to it. You're being encouraged to either license their work or try another approach. That means rewarding the inventor who sunk the time into it (like you do for a living) or developing the technology even further by trying other approaches. That actually is how the patent system is supposed to work and I'm willing to bet that's helping the company you work for out. Getting back on topic, if your complaint about their patent is that it's overly broad, then we're back to the problem not being with the system, but how its enforced. That is a legitimate complaint, but it takes a different approach to get something done about it.
That's supposing that
A) they actually did any work whatsoever, or its non trivial work "one click", "round corner tablet device"
B) they are willing to license the work at all, instead of suing me to an oblivion.
C) that people should be rewarded from ideas, instead of the labor time they spent in implementing ideas.
I generally believe that if his work was important enough to be made, than he should have been paid for the amount of work performed, not based on how much it benefited society.
Do you think a tractor company should get "license" and charge royalties (however the amount) on the the food the tractor produces?
Or it could be based on a nuanced study of capital flows to IP thugs, and the lack of investment in other human resources (people), which in turn harms the ROI on other human labor (farming, manufacturing). Thereby reinforcing a class system in which people are unable to escape.
Hardly as subjective as your subjective analysis of "he probably just wants free stuff".
The composer should have been paid for the of work he performed, as the function of the investment it takes to perform the work and value, not for how useful the work ended up being. He may be hired to work again if it was a good performance, otherwise you tax and unempower other people and musicians, so you get to be fat and lazy off of their hard wor.
Likewise I have a hard time developing devices without running afoul of someone's patent, even though what I did was developed in a clean room process, so they can sit fat and lazy off of my hard work. The problem with finding funding for the work is another social problem, but perhaps that means that we should reward people like farmers and factory workers, more than we reward the creative class who don't have it so bad anyhow.
Which is a secondary function of all forms of governance, corporate and civil.
Your welcome, but they were not originally my ideas, i copied them from others. ;-)
We all stand on the shoulders of giants
For the record i would also like to say that both intellectual property law and current forms of governance are out dated.
Perhaps its time that we realize that intellectual property is not in the best interests of society
Clearly you missed the MOST important part of living in oregon, Are you a raw food gluten free vegan bicyclist, or are you a carbon neutral organic polyculture pot farmer?
Man protests TSA with nudity
There are supposed to be thunderstorms today and tomorrow, but i don't seem to think of "really violent storms" here, its usually quite mild in comparison to other places.
My home state, filled with some of the most "interesting" people you might imagine, for better or worse.
Also home of the OSDL and OSCON, the largest naked bike ride, and gorgeous natural beauty.
1. Social justice is maximizing the minimum gain
What does this mean?
That means that society should try to lift up the least affluent members of society as much as possible. Sometimes a degree of wealth inequality may do this, but only when the ROI is higher and then redistributed.
3. Wealth inequality causes less efficient economies
How so?
(Asking seriously, not snarkily.)
For several reasons:
1. The law of diminishing returns occurs, say for example the ROI on college education VS a traditional investment vehicle.
2. The utility per opportunity cost is lower, for example a Lamborghini vs several entry level sedans.
3. The total factor productivity of labor time falls, because what good is a bunch of factories, when nobody even knows how to read the instructions.
4. It increases levels of crime, stress, health problems, lack of trust, social malaise.
5. The amount of time performing work decreases, for example its hard to find time for school or work, when your sick or dumpster diving.
6. It increases the amount of non productive consumption, poor people spend money on things they need, wealthy on things they want.
maybe RMS is a socialist! After having extensively studied economics, I have come to the same conclusions that he has, based on the this reasoning.
1. Social justice is maximizing the minimum gain
2. Information has the most utility when its free
3. Wealth inequality causes less efficient economies
4. Media is a form of non productive consumption.
a reason to have sharks with friggin laser beams on their head.
I think you need to go back to economics school. If the all property were nationalized, sure the income tax would decrease, but that doesn't mean that GDP has stopped or decreased. In fact I assume that if the government were tax the money people used for consumer spending, and instead invest the money into capital infrastructure, that it would increase our productivity, employment, and after tax income vs CPI.
you should be able to run tamriel rebuilt on the open morrowind. http://tamriel-rebuilt.org/?p=faq§ion=0
news at 11pm
I guess this is my confusion over the increasing reliance on advertising, and the decreasing educational programming and replacement with reality television over the years. so once I heard that they were going to change from the board of governors to the trust model with executive leadership I assumed it was changing into a private model just as margaret thatcher would have loved.
that is bullshit. a person named william randolph hearst might have agreed with you, but then again he was manipulating the news for his own personal gain long before you were even born