Could you give me a good two or three examples of countries where the regulation of the supply of food causes starvation? Not countries like North Korea where starvation causes regulation of the supply of food.
First off, the burden of proof is for you to give the examples. You're the one that wants to place these impositions and restrictions on what people would normally pay and trade - it almost sounds disengenuious, but for the sake of the facts.....
.... We cannot find exceptions to this rule, no matter where we look: the recent famines of Ethiopia, Somalia, or other dictatorial regimes; famines in the Soviet Union in the 1930s; China's 1958-61 famine with the failure of the Great Leap Forward; or earlier still, the famines in Ireland or India under alien rule. China, although it was in many ways doing much better economically than India, still managed (unlike India) to have a famine, indeed the largest recorded famine in world history: Nearly 30 million people died in the famine of 1958-61, while faulty governmental policies remained uncorrected for three full years....
-- Sen, A., Journal of Democracy, 1999. Nobel laureate economist Amartya Sen.
And what were those "faulty governmental policies", they were price controlls, rationing, and government controlling the land market.
Anyway, I think I understand free markets pretty well. We found this out in California when the power started going out. We found out the meaning of "whatever the market will bear". But just because companies found they could charge more for electricty and people would still buy it doesn't mean it benefited society as a whole. Nor did it help those (thankfully few) whose health was adversely affected by loss of power.
Do you understand markets? Do you live in CA? I do, and they did NOT deregulate electricity. They deregulated wholesale electricity, but not retail electricity. When the price went up, all the retailers were forced to sell at a loss, and all the wholesalers started to divert electricity away from the state by hook or crook. It is only when all the retailers were on the brink of collapse and the whole system started to collase that the state decided to let the price loose causing a freakin nasty correction. It was state regulation that caused the imbalance to begin with, once again, it's disengenuious to now say now we need the state to fix it.
And I know I surely wouldn't want the same market speculators affecting the price of water who are affecting the price of gas and other petroleum products.
While demand from China, and Katrina caused oil and gas to go up, what has really caused it to go up is http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h6/Current/. So lets see, they drastically increase the amount of dollars in circulation, and now people are shocked when those same dollars have less purchasing power, and they think speculators are screwing them? Yeah right. I don't want the same participants affecting the water supply, who are affecting the oil price.
PS. Starting next year, they will stop publishing the M3 money supply statistics. It's because they, and the US has more debt than can ever be paid off anymore, and we all know what they gotta do. (hint: print money) I wonder how many fools are going to blame it on "speculators" as the price of their gas goes to $30/gallon, which it will, and when their utilities jump to $3500 per month, which they will. I would love to feel pity for all those poor people who are predestined to get screwed, but unfortunately, instead of blaming it on themselves for trusting the government (via the fed) to manipulate the dollar - they will almost certainly blame it on people like me (who are prepared for it) with accusations of "speculation" and greed.
You clearly don't understand a free market. The same could be said about food too. We all need food, nobody can survive without it. Funny thing is, that those countries that controll and regulate the supply of food - have, without exception, more starvation than those that don't.
Let the market decide the price of water, and then let anyone use as much as they choose to pay for accordingly. I mean, shouldn't it be telling us something when the government has to regulate our tiolets in the name of good causes?
What bothers me is the folks who cannot accept that the answer is somewhere in between, it has to be a total disaster scenario or complete denial.
OK, heres the truth. Like most truth, people probably can't handle it, but what the heck.
Humans have an effect on the environment, but it's not that big of a deal, but some interests have seized on this and truned it into an emotional knee-jerk excuse to microregulate every industry on the planent. So now all these industries, are saying get lost, everything's perfect. And the people on the otherside who are trying to controll these industries are saying everything's gonna be dead next year, soaked in a big toxic stew.
If you took away 95% of the freebie funding, and 95% of the BS regulations out of the picture - you'd be amazed at how honest people would suddenly become. Untill then, there isn't a chance in hell - so get used to it.
Shhh, shut up. We can't have you intefering with unlimited government funding of any kind of kneejerk fear-mongering by presenting facts. Think of all the poor uneducated researchers who would be out of a job.
Besides, how would car companies force used cars out of the marketplace once people started questioning environmental regulations. Just think of all the poor corporate cronies who would be out of work.
And the fact that DOW Chemichal legally forced freeon out of the marketplace the day it's patent ran out, and replaced it with another one of it's patented products (with the same chemichal base)... Think of poor DOW, they would loose that monopoly and all that cash. THINK OF THE CHILDREN DAMMIT YOU!
And Besides, without creating all those regulations that make the barriers to entry insanely high in the energy sector - people would actually compete off of price and service. Oh, just the thought, it's hideious.
I'm sorry, but we just can't allow facts to intefere with our cozy monopolies and massive government freebies for knee-jerk liberals^H^H^H^H^H^H researchers. Moderators, please mod him down to -10, revoke his account, reverse lookup his IP, trace down his internet service, and have the police do an unconstitutional "drug raid" on his home. Please have them kill him and make some trumped up excuse.
XenSource is the company, Xen is a modified linux kernel pair that allows multiple opperating systems to run on the same physical hardware. It is different that other virtualisation because it uses a kernel hack rather than complete emulation of the foriegn host to create this environemnt. Because of that, it has a very small overhead - typically under 4%.
They have Xen kernels in the package list for FC4, and I used them without much difficulty. I thought it was rather nice, I set the virtual machines to auto start upon bootup of the parent kernel. Another nice feature is that virtual machines can be transfered "on the fly" while still running, between different physical hardware on the same subnet.
Liberty is secured, not given; freedom is not a gift, but obtained through personal sacrifice of many.
Actually, I agree with this, but not when it comes to rights. For example, I think the people in Cuba have the right to free speech and free religion even though that freedom and liberty has never been secured and is typically not respeccted. I think to secure it will take sacrifice and risk, but that doesn't mean that because they never took that risk that they don't deserve to have their rights respected. I also think people, I, have a duty to stand up for the rights of people who can't stand up for their own rights. I wish I could free them all, if I wasn't so finite and imperfect myself.
Sure you are. Let's say Madonna goes to a radio station and says, "I want $2.00 every time you play my song." Now I come along and say to the same station, "I'll sell you exactly the same song, but for $1.00." I've just undercut the artist by $1.00/copy, yet I haven't done a lick of work other than copying Madonna's CD. Don't you see a problem with this?
But I'm not. Let's say Madonna goes to a radio station and says, "I want $2.00 every time you eat my Pumpkin pie." Now I come along and say to the same station, "I'll sell you exactly the same Pumpkin pie, but for $1.00." I've just undercut the artist by $1.00/copy, yet I haven't done a lick of work other than copying Madonna's Pie. I don't see a problem with this.
Now sure, if I said it was my own recipie and it wasn't, I'd be violating her and a fraud. And sure, if I broke into her house in the middle of the night and spied on the recipie, I'd be violating her privacy rights. And sure, if the station had a signed agreement with her, they'd be breaking their contract. But copying is not violating.
Maybe it's a Pie, maybe it's a song, maybe it's a car (Ford Vs GM), maybe it's something else that someone else worked their fingers to the bone to do. There is nothing that is inherent in copying or immitating that is violating, or controlling. In fact, it's normal healthy competition in a free market, and sujests that it is in Madonna's best interest and societies best interest to persue revenue based on service and reputation and not off of contrlling content distribution.
The truth is that the copyright system incentivizes a media system that promotes hype over substance. Terrorists exploit that hype to gain dominance and attention in a way they wouldn't be able to otherwise. By themselves, terrorists have no possibility of military dominance, but with the copyright system - they at least have the chance of political dominance.
So in truth, the copyright industry reeks with blazing hypocracy and I wouldn't be supprised if some were doing this simply to hide their own dark role in the matter.
If someone were to come along at the last minute, lock me in a back room, and perform the concert on my behalf then that would be wrong. Yet that's exactly what happens if someone takes my source code and starts selling my work.
If someone did that, it would be fraud and violence. For example, just because I copy a madonna song doesn't mean that I'm claiming in the slightest to be her, or the author of her song, or restricting what she does with her copy in the slightest.
It is not exactly what happens when someone copies the source code you created, that would be more like setting up a concert next door and playing the same songs, but not claiming to be the author. I would say the original creator would still have the winning value proposition though. wouldn't you?
Does freedom exist because of our government?
Agreed, rights exist inspite of government, not because of it. That's why when people use the government to choke off the natural supply vs demand of information for the sake of "incentive" (or whatever the good cuase is) - that things go bad. Property rights exist inspite of government too, they are a way for individuals to allocate limited resources among themselves without violating peoples rights or choking off peoples freedoms.
PS: You think you got it bad in Seattle, I live in San Diego. The welfare mentality down here is awfull.
Contrary to popular belief, politicians and large businesses are not leaders but followers. If we force change, then sooner or later they will come arround.
Unfortunately, in the next few years, at least, things will get a lot worse and I mean A LOT. As in ALL FREAKIN HELL.
Copyrights are not the only information people are trying to controll. There is a thing called money that stores information about value and relative transaction costs. Right now, the government and central banks are trying to controll it via monitary policy. IMHO the consequences will be ugly. Don't be supprised if gold is re-monatized and explodes to $3000 per ounce or more. The price action of precious metals since the dot.com crash is screaming the message loud and clear http://www.kitco.com/LFgif/au1825nyb.gif I'm really worried about a huge economic collapse.
So how would you provide an incentive to an individual to do any work that couldn't be protected?
I think you have things backwards here. Just protection of property, freedom, and other rights lead to powerfull incentives, but coercion of incentive does not lead to justice or freedom. Properties don't exist for the sake of incentive, they exist to allocate limited resources - and that acts as a powerfull incentive.
In some ways, isn't what you're advocating just another form of socialism?
First, I call it Marxisim because there's nothing social about it. Second, Marxists manipulated supply and demand of markets for the sake of some allegid social utopia. Even though information doesn't have natural limits in supply, people try to create artifical limits on supply for the sake of "incentive".
After all, what you're saying in effect is that my efforts belong to all people.
Information doesn't have natural limits in supply, but services that create them do. If your efforts lead to a live concert before 50K people at $50 a pop, then who'se to complain? If your publishing efforts lead to you becomming a recognized expert in the field who can charge $500 per hour, then who'se to complain? Yeah, all people may have access to that information - all people have acceess to the alphabet too - that is not to your demise.
Re:Don't atack the DMCA, attack the root
on
DMCA Abuse Widespread
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
But if you write or create something, then you, as the creator, have the right to determine how you want your work to be used.
That's not true. People create things all the time that are used in way's they didn't intend to. Did the creator of TNT desire it to be used in killing millions? Did the creator of the phone intend for it to be used in stalking? Creators rights are not controll rights.
Now, Does the creator have a right not to share this creation with the world if they don't want to, sure - it's called a privacy right. Do they have the right to two way binding agreements with people about how a creation is used, sure - it's called a contract right. Do they have recognition rights, sure - if I claimed I wrote somthing I didn't then that would be fraud. But I know of no right of creation. Besides, there is a creator bigger than you that gave information one set of characteristics, and physical property antoher - so in all fairness, who'se violating who'se terms now.
...I wholeheartedly disagree. They are tools, nothing more.
That's outrageous. It's like saying slavery is a "tool" and nothing more. Bullshit, it's a form of unjust controll and nothing more. The same with copyrights, the right to controll how people use information at their disposal is not a tool or a right.
The real root of the problem isn't the system, it's human nature. At the core, humans are selfish greedy creatures. If you don't believe me, visit a Christmas sale at a big department store sometime. People are using copyrights for selfish ends.
If that is so, then you don't know what it means to be human. It is human nature to make our best interest to look out and work for the best interest of others, but sometimes that doesn't happen because we are finite, or we use our free choice to deny that nature. Copyrights reward people who harm society, a reward that is no longer bearable or tenable in the information age.
Ironically, when you force people to let others use their works however they like, you are placing a restriction on the person who created the work, which is really just another form of control
What are you talking about. I'm forcing noone to make a creation, I'm forcing noone to let me use their creation, rather they are spewing it everywhere and then when I make use of a copy they try to controll me and extract royalities. As far as I'm concerned, they can have their creation, in fact they already do - they have their original copy, and they haven't let me do anything with it.
Please be careful when using the term "libertarian" to categorize yourself.
My understanding of libertarian is that individuals have certain rights that are not created, but simply exist... like perhaps a law of physics. In that context, individuals organize in the form of government to secure those rights, and a government that does that and nothing else is a libertarian government. But unfortunately, the centralized nature of government makes it prone to corruption and the nature of democracy makes it prone to people voting themselves freebies coerced at everyone elses expense, like the copyright system. So libertarians should fight those kind of corruptions whenever and however possible.
I'm not so sure that copyrights for software are a bad idea because it keeps you from stealing my "bridge", but certainly patents on software generally are because they prevent you from building a bridge of your own.
IMHO stealing isn't defined by what another gains, but by what another has coerced or defrauded from them. Since you still have your original copy, and since a monopoly on distribution isn't a right (even if it can be claimed to be an incentive). To me that makes a compelling case that copyrights are very deceptive, if not plan outright moral sewage.
I could easially see many writers being able reap benefits from being recognized as an expert in their field, but that's not the point..... Perhaps people were ruined when the plantation system died too, but it would be disingenuious to cry about their concerns and ignore the countless millions of others who suffered because of the mere existence of that system.
The same is true with the copyright system today, they are information controlls that have manipulated and microregulated millions of people in a harmfull and evil ways. They have stolen away American culture and given it to hollywood, they have created a media culture of hype over substance... perhaps one that even encourages terrorists, they have led to millions of college students being gouged for text book info that is over 200 years old in many cases, and have turned the software industry from a service industry to a controll industry. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
I think that the death of copyrights will benefit writers more than it will hurt them, I hope it will benefit writers more than it will hurt them, but in the end that is irrelavent and of the least concern.
But will it? I've heard this argument before, but it always seems to jump straight to the happy conclusion.
To me the happy conclusion is not a conclusion that gives this artist or that writer a cozy life, to me the happy conclusion is the one that maximizes liberties for society - the silent mass of victims having copy controlls imposed on them that everyone seems to know of, but so few seem to care about. While I think creators will be better off, perhaps some wont. It's not fair to pull the arguemnt in the direction "but can you guarantee a happy ending for everyone?" I can't, sorry. Just a just one.
... and the costs of patent lawsuits go against the little guy whether he's defending his own patent or being harrassed by others, not because the underlying principle is flawed.
But it is flawed. The "it's property" arguemnt is bogus, the "it's an incentive" argument is a lie, the "it's protection" argument is a scam, the "it benefits industry" argument is ignorant, the "it helps artists" argument is a fraud, the "it promotes beneficial creation" argument is bull.
There's no logical foundation, there's no freedom and liberty foundation, there's no love of humanity foundation. What else is there other than "society owes people a personal ass wipe?"... well they don't.
You don't get it. When you assert the right to controll how other people use information at their disposal, than these kinds of problems are predestined to grow out of controll (like they have today).
It's like freedom of speech, once people start trying to controll what people can talk about a little bit - it always grows out of controll till there is no free speech. Which BTW there is no technology that can distinguish between copyright content and free speech content.
... they are vital to protecting the right of an artist. A copyright makes sure an artist is given credit for his or her work and it allows the artist to control how his or her work can be used....
Copyrights do not give credit for works, and they are not protection - they are monopolies. And monopolies do not help little guys, they help big bullies. Just because I copy Madonna, doesn't mean I'm denying that she wrote that song (which ironcally, was probably plaguerised).
... The job of the responsible citizen is to keep an eye on the system and watch for abuses, correcting the abuses when spotted....
Agreed, but copyrights by their very nature are abusive. They are the root, and the consequences are obvious even to you. It doesn't take much genius to follow the branches of the vine back to the root.
I think you got it wrong. For example, for service people, the information age will find the artist a larger audience for live concert than ever before. The writer a larger audience for soliciting personalised services than ever before. The big media will be replaced wit custom media.
I also wanted to address a point you made:
In contrast, in today's industrialised economy, almost everything is cheap, nasty, mass-produced rubbish (or at least nasty and mass-produced). It's hard to find a skilled craftsman even if you want one and are prepared to pay for his services.
IMHO, one of the reasons for this is that every producer must create designs and parts from scratch - rather than violate someones patents and use designs that are already out there and improve upon them. (Even though patents are different than copyrights, the same concept still appiles) With that restriction lifted, I think there would be strong incentive to compete off of quality, and to standardize parts - so the consumer wouldn't be screwed.
Also, IMHO, in 30 years or so our society will come into the replication age, and the patent system will be chalenged for the same reason the copyright system is being challanged today. Sadly, even though you can't controll information with physical violence, you can try and controll how people use inventions with physical violence. It will be extremely ugly.
For those of you who are not familiar, the book deals w/ the ideas of capitalism vs. socialism, and specifically the stealling of intellectual property for the "greater good" of the "state"....which basically meant for the benefit of politicians and their friends....
FYI, copyrights are the anti-christ of free markets. I speciffically hate copyrights, because I am very libertarian and love free markets. As I said earlier http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=169258&cid=141 07894 If the government choked off the natural supply and demand of food and called shares of that monopoly a property - most people would see how it is harmfull to markets.
I know what Ann Ryand said, but this is one of the few areas I where think she is wrong, and the fact that there an even greater rgaing debate about copyrights among libertarians to this day should say something. Free markets are not about markets and incentive, they are about freedom and how people who have it use it to create wealth and opportunity where non existed before. Copyrights restrict liberties, by creating distorted properties and by controlling information in a big way.
Straight Talk About Copyrights
on
The Demise of IP?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The theory that we've all been taught is that copyrights are "intellectual property" rights that protect creators, and give them an incentive to make creative works that provide personal and public benefit. The truth is that property rights exist to allocate finite resources, not to artificially choke supply for the sake of incentive. Rather than protection, or a free market property, copyrights are more like a regulation that micromanages how people can use information. In practice, they are dangerous to rely on and lock out more opportunity then they promote.
History has shown that just protection of property rights leads to strong incentives, but coercion of incentive does not necessarily lead to just property rights. Simply because an institution calls something a property right, doesn't mean that it is. If, for example, an industry used the government to artificially restrict the natural supply of food and called shares of that monopoly a "property right", it would be very easy to see how the artificial distortion of markets would not only cause opportunity loss, but harm to society. Copyrights are a way for some industries to use government to artificially restrict the natural supply of information and force the market to center around information control rather than service value. That causes opportunity loss, harm to society, and a burden of enforcement that is too heavy to bear in the information age.
Normally copyright concerns would not be so eminent as they have been effectively used for hundreds of years without failure. However, things are different this time and faith in the copyright system is rather dangerous. Just as the industrial revolution forced the commoditisation of the labor market and the ugly death of the plantation system. The information age is forcing the commoditisation of information and the ugly death of the copyright system. It is not a coincidence that the speculative stock market crash around 1857, regarding industrial technology is very similar to the speculative stock market crash in 2001 regarding information technology. It is not a coincidence that the slavery issue created a raging debate about artificial "property rights" as copyrights have today. It is not a coincidence the disproportional prosperity of the plantation system then and the disproportional prosperity of the copyright industries today (That is, unless one thinks hollywood is underpaid). Things like the harsh punishments for merely teaching a person of color to read, vs copyright crimes having punishments worse than rape today. These are all symptoms of drastically changing markets and entrenched dying industries trying to prevent change. As for those industries that thought that the entire purpose and meaning of the industrial revolution was to leverage inventions like the cotton-gin to expand their plantations for unlimited growth and profit - they were deadly wrong in spite of all the money and intellect behind them. Those industries today whom believe that the entire purpose and meaning of the information age is to leverage inventions like the Internet to expand the influence of copyright controls for vast growth and profit, well?
Well, over the next several years, the copyright system will not only be changed, it will become effectively dead. All industries that center on them will change or die a protracted death, and all institutions that rely on a proprietary information infrastructure will be stuck in the mud as they suffer numerous opportunity costs. The information age is doing for information services what the industrial revolution did for production. However, the copyright system doesn't center around the supply and demand of service, but an artificial supply restrictions on information that services bring about. Over the coming years as information becomes commoditized and service value becomes more important than th
Perhaps the various copyright enforcement agencies would do better if they changed themselves into education agencies.
They would never do that, because educated people would learn that just as the industrial revolution forced the commoditisation of the labor force and the ugly death of the slavery system, the information age is forcing the commoditisation of information and the ugly death of the copyright system... and would realise those arguments about "property" rights are completely bogus.
An educated peoson would realise that the copyright system is directly responsible for Hollywood stealing away American culture. They would realise that it has made it so that software companies strive to controll us rather than serve us. They would realise how the copyright system is directly responsible for students being exploited by publishers on a massive scale. They would realise that the copyright system doesn't help but the tiniest fraction of creators, and that copyrights are antifree market - and lock out more opportunities than they promote.
Slashdot Mirror
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=169371&cid=141 20725
Could you give me a good two or three examples of countries where the regulation of the supply of food causes starvation? Not countries like North Korea where starvation causes regulation of the supply of food.
First off, the burden of proof is for you to give the examples. You're the one that wants to place these impositions and restrictions on what people would normally pay and trade - it almost sounds disengenuious, but for the sake of the facts.....
And what were those "faulty governmental policies", they were price controlls, rationing, and government controlling the land market.
Anyway, I think I understand free markets pretty well. We found this out in California when the power started going out. We found out the meaning of "whatever the market will bear". But just because companies found they could charge more for electricty and people would still buy it doesn't mean it benefited society as a whole. Nor did it help those (thankfully few) whose health was adversely affected by loss of power.
Do you understand markets? Do you live in CA? I do, and they did NOT deregulate electricity. They deregulated wholesale electricity, but not retail electricity. When the price went up, all the retailers were forced to sell at a loss, and all the wholesalers started to divert electricity away from the state by hook or crook. It is only when all the retailers were on the brink of collapse and the whole system started to collase that the state decided to let the price loose causing a freakin nasty correction. It was state regulation that caused the imbalance to begin with, once again, it's disengenuious to now say now we need the state to fix it.
And I know I surely wouldn't want the same market speculators affecting the price of water who are affecting the price of gas and other petroleum products.
While demand from China, and Katrina caused oil and gas to go up, what has really caused it to go up is http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h6/Current/ . So lets see, they drastically increase the amount of dollars in circulation, and now people are shocked when those same dollars have less purchasing power, and they think speculators are screwing them? Yeah right. I don't want the same participants affecting the water supply, who are affecting the oil price.
PS. Starting next year, they will stop publishing the M3 money supply statistics. It's because they, and the US has more debt than can ever be paid off anymore, and we all know what they gotta do. (hint: print money) I wonder how many fools are going to blame it on "speculators" as the price of their gas goes to $30/gallon, which it will, and when their utilities jump to $3500 per month, which they will. I would love to feel pity for all those poor people who are predestined to get screwed, but unfortunately, instead of blaming it on themselves for trusting the government (via the fed) to manipulate the dollar - they will almost certainly blame it on people like me (who are prepared for it) with accusations of "speculation" and greed.
Plese see, http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=169371&cid=141 19637
You clearly don't understand a free market. The same could be said about food too. We all need food, nobody can survive without it. Funny thing is, that those countries that controll and regulate the supply of food - have, without exception, more starvation than those that don't.
Let the market decide the price of water, and then let anyone use as much as they choose to pay for accordingly. I mean, shouldn't it be telling us something when the government has to regulate our tiolets in the name of good causes?
What bothers me is the folks who cannot accept that the answer is somewhere in between, it has to be a total disaster scenario or complete denial.
OK, heres the truth. Like most truth, people probably can't handle it, but what the heck.
Humans have an effect on the environment, but it's not that big of a deal, but some interests have seized on this and truned it into an emotional knee-jerk excuse to microregulate every industry on the planent. So now all these industries, are saying get lost, everything's perfect. And the people on the otherside who are trying to controll these industries are saying everything's gonna be dead next year, soaked in a big toxic stew.
If you took away 95% of the freebie funding, and 95% of the BS regulations out of the picture - you'd be amazed at how honest people would suddenly become. Untill then, there isn't a chance in hell - so get used to it.
Shhh, shut up. We can't have you intefering with unlimited government funding of any kind of kneejerk fear-mongering by presenting facts. Think of all the poor uneducated researchers who would be out of a job.
... Think of poor DOW, they would loose that monopoly and all that cash. THINK OF THE CHILDREN DAMMIT YOU!
Besides, how would car companies force used cars out of the marketplace once people started questioning environmental regulations. Just think of all the poor corporate cronies who would be out of work.
And the fact that DOW Chemichal legally forced freeon out of the marketplace the day it's patent ran out, and replaced it with another one of it's patented products (with the same chemichal base)
And Besides, without creating all those regulations that make the barriers to entry insanely high in the energy sector - people would actually compete off of price and service. Oh, just the thought, it's hideious.
I'm sorry, but we just can't allow facts to intefere with our cozy monopolies and massive government freebies for knee-jerk liberals^H^H^H^H^H^H researchers. Moderators, please mod him down to -10, revoke his account, reverse lookup his IP, trace down his internet service, and have the police do an unconstitutional "drug raid" on his home. Please have them kill him and make some trumped up excuse.
Thank you.
XenSource is the company, Xen is a modified linux kernel pair that allows multiple opperating systems to run on the same physical hardware. It is different that other virtualisation because it uses a kernel hack rather than complete emulation of the foriegn host to create this environemnt. Because of that, it has a very small overhead - typically under 4%.
They have Xen kernels in the package list for FC4, and I used them without much difficulty. I thought it was rather nice, I set the virtual machines to auto start upon bootup of the parent kernel. Another nice feature is that virtual machines can be transfered "on the fly" while still running, between different physical hardware on the same subnet.
The grandparent post's author was a Communist.
FYI, I am libertarian. There is quite a difference. Perhaps you should read this http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=169258&cid=141 07894 It is anything but communist.
Liberty is secured, not given; freedom is not a gift, but obtained through personal sacrifice of many.
Actually, I agree with this, but not when it comes to rights. For example, I think the people in Cuba have the right to free speech and free religion even though that freedom and liberty has never been secured and is typically not respeccted. I think to secure it will take sacrifice and risk, but that doesn't mean that because they never took that risk that they don't deserve to have their rights respected. I also think people, I, have a duty to stand up for the rights of people who can't stand up for their own rights. I wish I could free them all, if I wasn't so finite and imperfect myself.
Sure you are. Let's say Madonna goes to a radio station and says, "I want $2.00 every time you play my song." Now I come along and say to the same station, "I'll sell you exactly the same song, but for $1.00." I've just undercut the artist by $1.00/copy, yet I haven't done a lick of work other than copying Madonna's CD. Don't you see a problem with this?
But I'm not. Let's say Madonna goes to a radio station and says, "I want $2.00 every time you eat my Pumpkin pie." Now I come along and say to the same station, "I'll sell you exactly the same Pumpkin pie, but for $1.00." I've just undercut the artist by $1.00/copy, yet I haven't done a lick of work other than copying Madonna's Pie. I don't see a problem with this.
Now sure, if I said it was my own recipie and it wasn't, I'd be violating her and a fraud. And sure, if I broke into her house in the middle of the night and spied on the recipie, I'd be violating her privacy rights. And sure, if the station had a signed agreement with her, they'd be breaking their contract. But copying is not violating.
Maybe it's a Pie, maybe it's a song, maybe it's a car (Ford Vs GM), maybe it's something else that someone else worked their fingers to the bone to do. There is nothing that is inherent in copying or immitating that is violating, or controlling. In fact, it's normal healthy competition in a free market, and sujests that it is in Madonna's best interest and societies best interest to persue revenue based on service and reputation and not off of contrlling content distribution.
The truth is that the copyright system incentivizes a media system that promotes hype over substance. Terrorists exploit that hype to gain dominance and attention in a way they wouldn't be able to otherwise. By themselves, terrorists have no possibility of military dominance, but with the copyright system - they at least have the chance of political dominance.
So in truth, the copyright industry reeks with blazing hypocracy and I wouldn't be supprised if some were doing this simply to hide their own dark role in the matter.
If someone were to come along at the last minute, lock me in a back room, and perform the concert on my behalf then that would be wrong. Yet that's exactly what happens if someone takes my source code and starts selling my work.
If someone did that, it would be fraud and violence. For example, just because I copy a madonna song doesn't mean that I'm claiming in the slightest to be her, or the author of her song, or restricting what she does with her copy in the slightest.
It is not exactly what happens when someone copies the source code you created, that would be more like setting up a concert next door and playing the same songs, but not claiming to be the author. I would say the original creator would still have the winning value proposition though. wouldn't you?
Does freedom exist because of our government?
Agreed, rights exist inspite of government, not because of it. That's why when people use the government to choke off the natural supply vs demand of information for the sake of "incentive" (or whatever the good cuase is) - that things go bad. Property rights exist inspite of government too, they are a way for individuals to allocate limited resources among themselves without violating peoples rights or choking off peoples freedoms.
PS: You think you got it bad in Seattle, I live in San Diego. The welfare mentality down here is awfull.
Contrary to popular belief, politicians and large businesses are not leaders but followers. If we force change, then sooner or later they will come arround.
Unfortunately, in the next few years, at least, things will get a lot worse and I mean A LOT. As in ALL FREAKIN HELL.
Copyrights are not the only information people are trying to controll. There is a thing called money that stores information about value and relative transaction costs. Right now, the government and central banks are trying to controll it via monitary policy. IMHO the consequences will be ugly. Don't be supprised if gold is re-monatized and explodes to $3000 per ounce or more. The price action of precious metals since the dot.com crash is screaming the message loud and clear http://www.kitco.com/LFgif/au1825nyb.gif I'm really worried about a huge economic collapse.
So how would you provide an incentive to an individual to do any work that couldn't be protected?
I think you have things backwards here. Just protection of property, freedom, and other rights lead to powerfull incentives, but coercion of incentive does not lead to justice or freedom. Properties don't exist for the sake of incentive, they exist to allocate limited resources - and that acts as a powerfull incentive.
In some ways, isn't what you're advocating just another form of socialism?
First, I call it Marxisim because there's nothing social about it. Second, Marxists manipulated supply and demand of markets for the sake of some allegid social utopia. Even though information doesn't have natural limits in supply, people try to create artifical limits on supply for the sake of "incentive".
After all, what you're saying in effect is that my efforts belong to all people.
Information doesn't have natural limits in supply, but services that create them do. If your efforts lead to a live concert before 50K people at $50 a pop, then who'se to complain? If your publishing efforts lead to you becomming a recognized expert in the field who can charge $500 per hour, then who'se to complain? Yeah, all people may have access to that information - all people have acceess to the alphabet too - that is not to your demise.
But if you write or create something, then you, as the creator, have the right to determine how you want your work to be used.
That's not true. People create things all the time that are used in way's they didn't intend to. Did the creator of TNT desire it to be used in killing millions? Did the creator of the phone intend for it to be used in stalking? Creators rights are not controll rights.
Now, Does the creator have a right not to share this creation with the world if they don't want to, sure - it's called a privacy right. Do they have the right to two way binding agreements with people about how a creation is used, sure - it's called a contract right. Do they have recognition rights, sure - if I claimed I wrote somthing I didn't then that would be fraud. But I know of no right of creation. Besides, there is a creator bigger than you that gave information one set of characteristics, and physical property antoher - so in all fairness, who'se violating who'se terms now.
That's outrageous. It's like saying slavery is a "tool" and nothing more. Bullshit, it's a form of unjust controll and nothing more. The same with copyrights, the right to controll how people use information at their disposal is not a tool or a right.
The real root of the problem isn't the system, it's human nature. At the core, humans are selfish greedy creatures. If you don't believe me, visit a Christmas sale at a big department store sometime. People are using copyrights for selfish ends.
If that is so, then you don't know what it means to be human. It is human nature to make our best interest to look out and work for the best interest of others, but sometimes that doesn't happen because we are finite, or we use our free choice to deny that nature. Copyrights reward people who harm society, a reward that is no longer bearable or tenable in the information age.
Ironically, when you force people to let others use their works however they like, you are placing a restriction on the person who created the work, which is really just another form of control
What are you talking about. I'm forcing noone to make a creation, I'm forcing noone to let me use their creation, rather they are spewing it everywhere and then when I make use of a copy they try to controll me and extract royalities. As far as I'm concerned, they can have their creation, in fact they already do - they have their original copy, and they haven't let me do anything with it.
Please be careful when using the term "libertarian" to categorize yourself.
My understanding of libertarian is that individuals have certain rights that are not created, but simply exist ... like perhaps a law of physics. In that context, individuals organize in the form of government to secure those rights, and a government that does that and nothing else is a libertarian government. But unfortunately, the centralized nature of government makes it prone to corruption and the nature of democracy makes it prone to people voting themselves freebies coerced at everyone elses expense, like the copyright system. So libertarians should fight those kind of corruptions whenever and however possible.
I'm not so sure that copyrights for software are a bad idea because it keeps you from stealing my "bridge", but certainly patents on software generally are because they prevent you from building a bridge of your own.
IMHO stealing isn't defined by what another gains, but by what another has coerced or defrauded from them. Since you still have your original copy, and since a monopoly on distribution isn't a right (even if it can be claimed to be an incentive). To me that makes a compelling case that copyrights are very deceptive, if not plan outright moral sewage.
I could easially see many writers being able reap benefits from being recognized as an expert in their field, but that's not the point. .... Perhaps people were ruined when the plantation system died too, but it would be disingenuious to cry about their concerns and ignore the countless millions of others who suffered because of the mere existence of that system.
... perhaps one that even encourages terrorists, they have led to millions of college students being gouged for text book info that is over 200 years old in many cases, and have turned the software industry from a service industry to a controll industry. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
The same is true with the copyright system today, they are information controlls that have manipulated and microregulated millions of people in a harmfull and evil ways. They have stolen away American culture and given it to hollywood, they have created a media culture of hype over substance
I think that the death of copyrights will benefit writers more than it will hurt them, I hope it will benefit writers more than it will hurt them, but in the end that is irrelavent and of the least concern.
But will it? I've heard this argument before, but it always seems to jump straight to the happy conclusion.
To me the happy conclusion is not a conclusion that gives this artist or that writer a cozy life, to me the happy conclusion is the one that maximizes liberties for society - the silent mass of victims having copy controlls imposed on them that everyone seems to know of, but so few seem to care about. While I think creators will be better off, perhaps some wont. It's not fair to pull the arguemnt in the direction "but can you guarantee a happy ending for everyone?" I can't, sorry. Just a just one.
But it is flawed. The "it's property" arguemnt is bogus, the "it's an incentive" argument is a lie, the "it's protection" argument is a scam, the "it benefits industry" argument is ignorant, the "it helps artists" argument is a fraud, the "it promotes beneficial creation" argument is bull.
There's no logical foundation, there's no freedom and liberty foundation, there's no love of humanity foundation. What else is there other than "society owes people a personal ass wipe?" ... well they don't.
You don't get it. When you assert the right to controll how other people use information at their disposal, than these kinds of problems are predestined to grow out of controll (like they have today).
It's like freedom of speech, once people start trying to controll what people can talk about a little bit - it always grows out of controll till there is no free speech. Which BTW there is no technology that can distinguish between copyright content and free speech content.
Copyrights do not give credit for works, and they are not protection - they are monopolies. And monopolies do not help little guys, they help big bullies. Just because I copy Madonna, doesn't mean I'm denying that she wrote that song (which ironcally, was probably plaguerised).
Agreed, but copyrights by their very nature are abusive. They are the root, and the consequences are obvious even to you. It doesn't take much genius to follow the branches of the vine back to the root.
I think you got it wrong. For example, for service people, the information age will find the artist a larger audience for live concert than ever before. The writer a larger audience for soliciting personalised services than ever before. The big media will be replaced wit custom media.
I also wanted to address a point you made:
In contrast, in today's industrialised economy, almost everything is cheap, nasty, mass-produced rubbish (or at least nasty and mass-produced). It's hard to find a skilled craftsman even if you want one and are prepared to pay for his services.
IMHO, one of the reasons for this is that every producer must create designs and parts from scratch - rather than violate someones patents and use designs that are already out there and improve upon them. (Even though patents are different than copyrights, the same concept still appiles) With that restriction lifted, I think there would be strong incentive to compete off of quality, and to standardize parts - so the consumer wouldn't be screwed.
Also, IMHO, in 30 years or so our society will come into the replication age, and the patent system will be chalenged for the same reason the copyright system is being challanged today. Sadly, even though you can't controll information with physical violence, you can try and controll how people use inventions with physical violence. It will be extremely ugly.
The strongest argument in favor of copyright protection is the GPL.
Ever hear of fight fire with fire? I doubt RMS who created the GPL would agree.
Without copyright, there are no licenses, which is almost the same as using the BSD license
With the BSD license, I can fork of my own proprietary license and sue people who copy it - that is anything but like a copyright free world.
For those of you who are not familiar, the book deals w/ the ideas of capitalism vs. socialism, and specifically the stealling of intellectual property for the "greater good" of the "state"....which basically meant for the benefit of politicians and their friends....
1 07894 If the government choked off the natural supply and demand of food and called shares of that monopoly a property - most people would see how it is harmfull to markets.
FYI, copyrights are the anti-christ of free markets. I speciffically hate copyrights, because I am very libertarian and love free markets. As I said earlier http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=169258&cid=14
I know what Ann Ryand said, but this is one of the few areas I where think she is wrong, and the fact that there an even greater rgaing debate about copyrights among libertarians to this day should say something. Free markets are not about markets and incentive, they are about freedom and how people who have it use it to create wealth and opportunity where non existed before. Copyrights restrict liberties, by creating distorted properties and by controlling information in a big way.
The theory that we've all been taught is that copyrights are "intellectual
property" rights that protect creators, and give them an incentive to make
creative works that provide personal and public benefit. The truth is that
property rights exist to allocate finite resources, not to artificially
choke supply for the sake of incentive. Rather than protection, or a free
market property, copyrights are more like a regulation that micromanages how
people can use information. In practice, they are dangerous to rely on and
lock out more opportunity then they promote.
History has shown that just protection of property rights leads to strong
incentives, but coercion of incentive does not necessarily lead to just
property rights. Simply because an institution calls something a property
right, doesn't mean that it is. If, for example, an industry used the
government to artificially restrict the natural supply of food and called
shares of that monopoly a "property right", it would be very easy to see
how the artificial distortion of markets would not only cause opportunity
loss, but harm to society. Copyrights are a way for some industries to
use government to artificially restrict the natural supply of information
and force the market to center around information control rather than
service value. That causes opportunity loss, harm to society, and a burden
of enforcement that is too heavy to bear in the information age.
Normally copyright concerns would not be so eminent as they have been
effectively used for hundreds of years without failure. However, things are
different this time and faith in the copyright system is rather dangerous.
Just as the industrial revolution forced the commoditisation of the labor
market and the ugly death of the plantation system. The information age is
forcing the commoditisation of information and the ugly death of the
copyright system. It is not a coincidence that the speculative stock market
crash around 1857, regarding industrial technology is very similar to the
speculative stock market crash in 2001 regarding information technology. It
is not a coincidence that the slavery issue created a raging debate about
artificial "property rights" as copyrights have today. It is not a
coincidence the disproportional prosperity of the plantation system then and
the disproportional prosperity of the copyright industries today (That is,
unless one thinks hollywood is underpaid). Things like the harsh
punishments for merely teaching a person of color to read, vs copyright
crimes having punishments worse than rape today. These are all symptoms of
drastically changing markets and entrenched dying industries trying to
prevent change. As for those industries that thought that the entire purpose
and meaning of the industrial revolution was to leverage inventions like the
cotton-gin to expand their plantations for unlimited growth and profit - they
were deadly wrong in spite of all the money and intellect behind them. Those
industries today whom believe that the entire purpose and meaning of the
information age is to leverage inventions like the Internet to expand the
influence of copyright controls for vast growth and profit, well?
Well, over the next several years, the copyright system will not only be
changed, it will become effectively dead. All industries that center on
them will change or die a protracted death, and all institutions that rely
on a proprietary information infrastructure will be stuck in the mud as
they suffer numerous opportunity costs. The information age is doing for
information services what the industrial revolution did for production.
However, the copyright system doesn't center around the supply and demand
of service, but an artificial supply restrictions on information that
services bring about. Over the coming years as information becomes
commoditized and service value becomes more important than th
Perhaps the various copyright enforcement agencies would do better if they changed themselves into education agencies.
They would never do that, because educated people would learn that just as the industrial revolution forced the commoditisation of the labor force and the ugly death of the slavery system, the information age is forcing the commoditisation of information and the ugly death of the copyright system ... and would realise those arguments about "property" rights are completely bogus.
An educated peoson would realise that the copyright system is directly responsible for Hollywood stealing away American culture. They would realise that it has made it so that software companies strive to controll us rather than serve us. They would realise how the copyright system is directly responsible for students being exploited by publishers on a massive scale. They would realise that the copyright system doesn't help but the tiniest fraction of creators, and that copyrights are antifree market - and lock out more opportunities than they promote.