I think copyrights are very evil. The party line says that they're "intellectual property" and incentivize people to create usefull works. While deep respect of property rights leads to powerfull incentives, coerced incenives does not necissairly lead to respect of rights. Normal property exists to allocate limited resources, not to limit resources that have no natural limit otherwise, like information, for the sake of greed.
IMHO, copyrights have ruined our culture and replaced it with hollywood, they've distroted the market so that a rapper who attemtpts to sing about killing cops is considered more valuable than nobel pize scientist. They're directly used to create massive anti-trust behavior in the software industry without shame, and are directly responsible for publishers ruining the student text book industry and leaving it a discoherent scrambled expensive mess. And while there are thousands of artists and writers that the cpoyright system hasn't helped a bit, the 1% that actually make anything from copyrights are touted upon high as proof that the copyright system works. Thankfully, artists are starting to catch on and give out their stuff freely to get gigs for live performances and concerts, and authors are doing the same - to use their books as a lead into consulting and lecturing.
If I created artificial scarcities in food so I can jack up the price and make more money from 3rd world countries, most people would see that for the pure evil that it is, but if I do that with information - then oh my God, it's a right! The fact is that there are enough limits to human ability and resources without having to impose artificial ones for the sake of greed.
IMHO, just as the commoditisation of labor during the industrial revolution predestined the death of the plantation system and all it's false "property rights", the commodotisation of information brought about by the information age predestines the death of the copyright system and it's phony property standard as well.
IMHO, the same forces that caused them to be such jerks about the GIF patent are the same one that caused them to miss the boat with Linux. What many businesses don't understand is that there is far more money out their to be made with IT related services than IT related licensing. To be successfull in the information age, you need to treat the free wheeling free copying nature of the internet like a benefit, not a competitive threat.
Unfortunately there are still all to many businesses who think that the way that they're supposed to make money is by selling information they create like a boxed product and choking off how it's used. Since their business model is incompatable with the Linux business model, there will likely be far more attcks on Linux, and especially freedom in software and information distribution, down the pike.
IMHO, copyrights can not survive the information age.
To me the question isn't how easy is it to get an SSN, but rather how easy is it go get rid of an SSN wiout getting clobbered by the system. After all, if can't be abused if it isn't valid.
I personally, would love nothing more than to dump my SSN. First, what am I gonna get out of it? social security! Ha what a laugh, anybody under 50 will probably witness a UFO sighting first. Second, I consider myself a honest and transparent person, but really, it's none of the states business where I invest my money, do my banking, and earn my income. These people are supposed to be public servants, they should be the ones inconvenienced by a lack of tracking mechanisims, not me.
Hell even the name is a lie, "social security". Well excuse me but forcing people and employers to pay into a retirement scheme is not socialbe, it is a racket, and for most peope that's a felony in all 50 states. It's also not "sceirity", does anyone really believe anymore that it will provide security in your elder years? I'm serious, is there anybody??? At all???
In any ohter context this would be called censorship. And this is a classic example of how copyrights are used to justify and impose it. This is not the first time, nor the last.
In fact the whole copyright debate is about nothing but lies. They call it protecting children, when it's really censorship. They call illegal copying piracy, when that actually means boarding a ship and murdering people. They call copying "stealing", even though noone has lost anything. They call a government imposed restriction on copying "protection" for artists, when it really is a monopoly for the media industry. And they call it "intellectual property", even though any real free market property right with natural limits in supply and demand would put it to shame. The straight outright lies are so in our face, it is shocking that people could be so stupid.
In all fairness, I can take measures to educate my duaghter myself if the school system tries to teach her something stupid, but how would I protect her from a government that censors things?
On one side there are stupid people reguarding intelligent design, on the other there are stupid people reguarding copyrights. I feel overwhelmed. The cynical reality is that the media industry and christian industry are probably duking it out over some third party revenue issues.
Re:Defiance is a changing the system too
on
Modding and the Law
·
· Score: 1
You're making the assumption that bringing a new HIV drug to market costs close to the same as putting out a new Linux distro. That assumption is off by several orders of magnitude. Is there money to be made? Definately. Is there billions of dollars to be made? I doubt it....
HIV is about patents not copyrights as I was talking about, but still - innovation in HIV is unaturally made 1000's of times more costly because the patnet system suverely punishes companies that encourage their reasearchers to share and collaberate with other researchers, as this may cause a competitor to get a leg up to grap a key patnet and lock everyone else out. It also creates an environment where generic, low cost, and alternative cures are not only discouraged, but openly attacked as they can not be fenced off with patnets.
And the renaissance also happened without cheap printing, televisions, cd playeres, cd burners, and pirated software and movies being sold on streetcorners. Times change.
The supposed justification for patnets and copyrights existing to begin with was to encourage the dimmamation of inventions, knowledge, and the arts. The fact that things are easy to copy is an argument for getting rid of them as barbaric relics, not for clinging on to them for dear life. Times do change, in case you haven't noticed - the copyright system is under siege and dying. The more people help it along, the sooner it dies and the better off everyone is.
Re:Defiance is a changing the system too
on
Modding and the Law
·
· Score: 1
"setaling" is defined by what one looses, not by what another gains. The creator still has their original copy. Yeah, they don't have 100% market monopoly anymore, but neither does Ford, so what? Are you going to now argue that it was theft when GM came along, it's bullshit morality is what it is.
Re:Defiance is a changing the system too
on
Modding and the Law
·
· Score: 1
The first is that it provides ammunition that Congress can use to pass more draconian laws and also to justify the access control provisions of the DMCA.
You're working under the premise that they are not already doing everything they can anyhow.
The second is that it materially undermines any real attempt to build an alternative, open content distribution system. FOr example, I might not be sympathetic to Microsoft for all that "lost revenue" from illegally copied software, but the fact is that each illegal copy of Windows is a missed opportunity for Linux. Same with music. Unless one is actively building a competing and more Free system, one harms the public by illegally copying music. This harm is in the form of reinforcing the existing unjust structure.
That "lost revenue" that Microsoft otherwise would have gotten can and will be used against free software, alternatives. If Microsoft and Linux both competed off of merits, I am confident that Linux will eventually win, but Microsoft will not play fair as they never have. In the end, you minus well be paying cash for lawyers to sue and harass you. Giving them cash gives them more controll than using media they created without payment, and that's what it's about: controll.
Re:Defiance is a changing the system too
on
Modding and the Law
·
· Score: 1
The thing you have to remember is slippery slopes work both ways. Is sharing a song with your friend really that wrong? Nah, not in the big scheme of things. Is screwing with the system enough that medical innovation (not to mention the publishing of books, movies, tv, etc) practically ends, because the company that can copy the idea and make it the cheapest wins? Hell yes.
By your logic, the OS market should be going dead in R&D because anybody can copy Linux - funny, just the opposite is happening. Don't forget that nearly the entire renissance happened without copyrights.
Re:Defiance is a changing the system too
on
Modding and the Law
·
· Score: 1
The right to copy information at your disposal is a right. The GPL uses copyright against itself - go freakin read it.
Here's my take. Copyrights combined with government funding distort the intellectual enviroment so that those who love science for the sake of the sience and the persuit of knowledge are punished, while those who are paper pushers for R&D grants and getting published in journals are rewarded.
To take it on faith that knowledge and sience would never be persued or never be rewarding enough without them is ignorance.
Re:Defiance is a changing the system too
on
Modding and the Law
·
· Score: 1
I trust that you never do anything creative in your life. Certainly not an expect any sort of compensation or reimbursment for it.
For you information I am a writer, a programmer, an artist, and a miscican. But, I'm not supprised. This is typical of the pro-copyright crowd who can't argue the facts, so instead decide to attack the source.
You, the consumer, do not have the right to make that decision for them.
I'm not making a decision for anyone. Nobody forces you to do creative things, nobody forces you to reveal it to the world. You had no right to impose a government monopoly that took away my liberty to copy things freely to begin with. Who's imposing on who?
Defiance is a changing the system too
on
Modding and the Law
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Sometimes the right way to change things, isn't by going thru the system at all. For example, illegal copying. Inspite of all the brow beating and guilt trip morality, there is nothing wrong at all with sharing music with other people. They not only have a right to copy, but they also don't deserve punishment for it either, even if it's the law, and even if they know it. IMHO, the internet and rampant copying have done more good for society in the last 10 years than all the information in the last 100 years combined. Starving artists? Bull, most people have a far better chance making a name for themselves by sharing their creations freely.
Mixing free and closed software is like mixing oil and water. For example, you can copy share, do business with, and distribute Linux all you want. Stick a proprietary piece of software or media on the same CD, and now you are dead in the water.
Free markets are about freedom. When people have it, they tend to use it to create wealth and prosperity where none ever existed before. Closed software is not about freedom, copy it and you can be sued or go to jail. Some people call that an "intellecutal property" right, but just because someone calls something a property right doesn't mean that it is.
True property rights don't derive from incentive, they derive from just allocation of things that have limited supply and demand. Just property rights lead to strong incentives, but coerced incentives do not lead to just property rights.
The problem with Microsoft is that they don't understand free markets. Yeah, go ahead and mod me flame, it's pretty much guaranteed anytime someone knocks Microsoft nowdays. I got karma to burn.
At this point their whole wealth and prosperity is based off of copyright controlls - it's no more a true free market than the plantation system was in the 1850's. They may talk free markets and property rights, they may have lots of money, but when it comes to exploiting information technology to make a profit - they haven't got a clue. That's why it took them so long to get the internet, and even longer to get it with google search, and why they completely missed Linux until it nearly kicked them out of the server space, and why their database offerings are pretty much non-contenders, any why msn never really went nowhere, and p2p - they still don't get it, blogging - they pratically don't even want to deal with it, and why they still think think computers are just an extension of the entertainment industry.
In case they didn't notice, Google didn't need a special government enforced monopoly on copying to make a killing in the search space, neither did ebay on auctions, and MS could have outdone craigs list - but didn't, and Microsoft could have outdone bittorrent - but didn't, could have even outdone Apple - but didn't. etc etc.... Google still seems to get it, and MS still seems not to.
My Apologies to India, Mexico, China, etc...
on
The H-1B Swindle
·
· Score: 1
The truth is that when people from foriegn countries come here, they use freedoms and opportunities that they don't have elsewhere to create wealth and opportunities that never existed before. They don't just sit on their ass and leach... they invest, they open businesses, they hire or lead to new hiring, they produce, they consume, and just add value to our overall society as immigrants have for over 500 years in the Americas.
While our standard of freedom has declined over the last few decades, it is still orders of magnatude greater than most of the real world. But lets make no mistake: our economic freedoms have declined because of our own taxes, regulations, debt, and most especially bad monitary policy. To blame any wealth or pay squeese (other than perhaps short term ones) on on foriegners coming here and using the increased freedom here to create success is totally unfair and niaeve.
As a white American programmer/sysadmin from a midwestern USA family, I am truely embarassed that my cluture is being so mean to the foriegners. In all truth, we should be begging for them to be here and thanking them profusely for hanging their hat in the USA and and choosing us as a place to create future wealth and opportunity. In all truth, we should pratically be kissing their feet in thatkfullness that they are willing to be productive in the USA for only a fraction of the cost that it would normally take. In stead we hate their guts and ignorantly slander that "they are stealing our jobs" like an ignorant mob on a whitch hunt.
All I can say is that if you are from a foriegn country seeing this, I beg in humiliation, please forgive us. Too many people just don't know what the hell they are talking about. Please, in behalf of my country, I really beg your forgiveness - I am at a loss for words, I cna't even begin to offer a justification.
I sincerely hope that the foriegners we have treated soo poorly are more forgiving, understanding, and tolerant than we are. If not, it will be a bad omen as in the next few years over a billion people will be comming online to the global economy. God help us.
The core CPI is arround 2% this year, the real CPI was closer to 4% this year so far, and true inflation is higher than that. IMHO, the core is a fraud, it is about "how can we screw the people out of their money without having it spill over and screw up manufacturing", the CPI is also a fraud, it is about "how can we screw the people and manufacturing out of money without them noticing and adjusting".
Not that I disagree with your post, but can you cite sources for this?
I get much of my stuff from http://mwhodges.home.att.net/ you may need to recalculate it
for being percapita though.
The numbers I've seen are closer to 40K.
sounds like just the federal percapita.
I would guess that a disproportionate amount of that number is in morgages. Shouldn't morgage debt count separatley, as an investment, being secured by a tangible property which can be resold and which usually accrues value (unless there are too many speculators)?
I would be vary wary of that, real-estate lost 90% of it's value during the great depression, and to tell you the truth - we are more overleveraged now then we were then. IMHO, going into debt for a home today is not only not a secure investment, it is very dangerous.
The difference between that and credit card (or federal) debt is pretty significant. ....
Isn't a lot of that debt also to ourselves? I owe rent to the owner, my roommate owes rent to me, her company owes her salary to her, etc. A more realistic example would be a car company who owes money to it's creditors, but who also is owed money by the people who buy cars from it. Isn't that debt being counted twice?
Unfortunately most debt is foriegn owned nowdays, Japan alone has some 650bln of us bonds. The problem with debt isn't who it's owned to, it's that it pre-obligates money that would otherwise be spent in more productive ways. Plus, long "chains" of debtors are as strong as the weakest link, if someone in the middle defaults - everyone else still owes and must make it up somewhere or default too. That's why over debted societies usually have a cascading collapse.
I'm not convinced that zero debt is the overall goal. All investments are debt to someone.
I think debt for things other than investments that increase productivity are a bad idea. Also from what I understand, 90% of society are debtors and 10% creditors.
If I invest 1,000 dollars in a local company so that they can re-tool their factory, that's 1,000 dollars in debt that basically guarantees a return to society much larger than the expense.
There is a difference between investing and loaning, with a loan money is owed no matter how good or poorly it does. With investment in things like stock, that is not the case.
Corporate debt is how the buying power of money is shifted from institutions that have it, to upstarts that need it. Sure, Sony may go a half-billion dollars in debt to create a new fab plant for the Cell chip that powers the Playstation 3, but they'll make it back.
I agree, that is good debt. Millions of people re-financing their home and spending the extra on consumption is not.
If not all debts are necessarily bad, we have to figure what kinds are bad and what kinds aren't. Student Loans are as annoying as hell, but the benefit to society (and a single worker's earning potential) greatly outweighs the cost of being in debt. Credit card debts are always bad, and are basically the work of the devil. Sometimes you need to go into a little debt to buy a used car to get to work on time... That's much better than not working. But buying a 25k new SUV is a bad investment.
Sometimes credit card debt can be better because it's not secured. Anyhow, on no uncertain terms the US is overleveraged in debt, and the fed has loaned out way way way too much money. Even the fed said that the economy is super efficient because of new technology, but what they didn't say is that efficient economies make fluctuations to excessive monitary policies more extreme, not less extreme. The global economy is teetering on the edge of a cliff, I would peronally and strongly recommend having some precious metals on hand. Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks this as gold is at an 18 year high now ( http://www.kitco.com/)
FYI, the CPI doesn't really include things like food and the price of gas. Also if your car has a new type of computer that raises the price 10%, that's also not counted in inflation because its value has gone up 10%. There are all sorts of hedonic adjustments for technology. Not to menaion that your housing is calculated in a way that is WAY underpriced.
In sum if your pay, your bank account, or any of your investments make under 6% you are getting screwed and will eventually be nickled and dimed to death.
Also, I hate to tell you this but it will not get better. Between federal, state, corporate, housing, and credit cards, there is over 400K of debt for every worker in the USA and that doesn't even include things like public education that must be funded anyhow. They can not pay it back without a default, or printing up money and screwing you over.
Unfortunately, now our creditors from other countries arround the world are starting to catch on - if they do, credit will dry up and they will panic out of the dollar as the world's defacto currency causing the US dollar to collapse and cease to exist as a currency. Watch out, it seems in the markets that all freakin hell is about to break loose!
From what I understand, RMS, who created the GPL tried that, but what happened is that someone took the code he put in the public domain, modified it and enhanced it some, re-copyrighted it and locked RMS out from using it.
After that, RMS went to a lawyer and had the GPL written up to make sure noone could re-copyright something he wrote and use it like that ever again.
The GPL is like fighting fire with fire. If copyrights didn't exist, there would be no need for the GPL to exist either. But since they do, the GPL is a tool in the anti-copyright arsenel.
How can one find these 150 year old arguements? A true comparison might turn out to be a powerful tool.
It's hard to find many of them, but I've done a lot of reading about that era for just this purpose.... the most paralels happen with copyright, because the patnet system hasn't really been competely commoditized yet. (watch out for the replication age)
Then: During the early 1800's it appears that many people believed that the entire meaning and purpose of the industrial revolution was use inventions like the cotton gyn to make their slaves 1000 more productive and thus free them up to expand their plantations for huge profits. Now: Today there are many people who believe that the entire meaning and purpose of the information age is to leverage inventions like the internet to impose their copyright holdings to the far ends of the earth for unlimited growth and profit.
Then: arround 1850, there was a speculative stock market crash, as people invented in all sorts of models for how to make money with indiustrial technology. Now: In 2001, there was lots of crazy speculation on new information technology and a following crash.
Then:People called slaves a property right, even though they were clearly nothing like regular property. Now:People call copyrights a property right, even though they are clearly nothing like regular property.
Then: In the early 1800's there was an agreement called the "missouri compromise" that basicly held off the factories in the north from the plantations in the south from having al all out fight about the slave issue. Now: Today, there was the DMCA which was sorta of a detant between hollywood and the tech indsutries.
Then: The south eventually tried to fence themselves off from the rest of the world by breaking from the union. Now: The media industries are trying to fence themselves off using DRM.
Then: It became illegal to teach a person of color how to read. Now: Copyright violations can be punished worse than rape.
Then: Slavery used to be short term indnetured servitude that wasn't inherited, but was extended to last forever. Now: Copyrights have effectively been extended to last forever.
There are some important differences though:
Then: there was a well defined north and south Now: there is no defined territories, just a tech industry and a content industry.
Then: Physical controll of slaves requires physical violence Now: Information can't be controlled physically, but it can be controlled with brow beating, threats, lies, suits, etc.... [warning: when the patent problem comes of age as "replication" technology gets more advanced, that IS a physical implementation and likewise imposing them WILL eventually require physical violence - and notice that some of the consequences of patents are far more physical, like millions of Africans dying because attempts to make generic AIDS drugs were attacked]
Then: The government of the north was on the correct side. Now: Government seems to be more accountable to the media than to freedoms - it is a tough call.
With all due respect, we have had over 200 years to tweek, implement, and fine tune the patent system. This is not an implementation problem, it is a fundamentals problem. Patents are going to hell just at they are being brought to their logical conclusion. It is not morally or fundamentally ok to controll how people use invnetions and discoveries. Perhaps I have a good sounding reason to controll peoples free speech too, so what.
That really isn't a fair point though. Patents were supposed to be incentives 200 years ago, we have had a nearly infinite amount of time to take them to their logical conclusion and teek them to make them work - and all we have gotten is bullshit, and people calling them "intellectual property" while society gets riped to pieces with litigation. Even if they were an incentive, did it ever occur to you that you have no moral right to restrict how other people use discoveries and inventions? Perhaps that moral foundation doesn't matter to you, but that is precicely why patents have caused all the problems they have today.
qt1:ideas and innovations have become the most important resource, replacing land, energy and raw materials. As much as three-quarters of the value of publicly traded companies in America comes from intangible assets
qt2:maybe this has less to do with the fact that IP has become more numerous or "important", and more to do with the fact that recent extensions to both the breadth and lenght of copyright has produced an inordinate amount which actually surpresses the production of more tangible goods
Actually, this scares the hell out of me. It reminds me of quotes like "the great wealth of America is founded on her plantations, where the ownership of slave properties has propelled her to ever higher levels of wealth" When are people ever going to learn that just because someone cries bloody muder about incentive and property rights, doesn't mean that it's at all true. That speculative industrial stock market crash that happened in the 1850's just a few years prior to all hell breaking loose is sure starting to feel familiar.
Not necessarily. Imagine that you and a competitor manufacture widgets. You create a process that radically improves the efficiency of manufacturing widgets. Free market: you can keep it for yourself and reap the rewards of your efficiency relative to your opponent. As long as they don't figure it out, you win. Alternatively, you can patent the improvement. It exposes the idea to your opponent, and if the cost savings for implementing your patented process is greater than the cost of paying you for it, your opponent implements it, and you still make more money. Perhaps your opponent improves it further, and reduces the cost of making widgets yet again. In the end, all the widgets get made more efficiently, and competition can bring the price down.
That is a nice theory, but in reality there is plenty of incentive for each company to improve efficiency without a patent. So really why impose them? Also, 90% of inventions are incramental, built off of prior abilities and public knowledge - so now patents toss up another road block to the competitor who can't use the same discovery that they would have found out anyhow because the first company won't license it. Cuasing the competition in the space to die, and monopoly interests to begin.
Property rights are about allocating control over limited resources, not about creating artifical limits for the sake of controll. There are always nice sounding theories about why it's ok to impose restrictions on other people for the sake of this good or that good, but that is not good for free markets. Free markets are about freedom, not markets. When people have freedoms, then they tend to use them to create wealth and opportunity where none existed before. No matter how you slice it, things like patnets restrict freedom by imposing or allowing limits on how people can use inventions and discoveries that they already know about.
I think you hit the nail on the head here. They want to create artificial limits on supply and demand of information and discoveries while there is actually plenty of natural limits in supply and demand of things like oil, metals, and natural resources. I'm sorry, but property rights aren't about artificial scarcity for the sake of incentive, but about allocating scarce resources effectively and justly which in itself leads to incentives.
Slashdot Mirror
I think copyrights are very evil. The party line says that they're "intellectual property" and incentivize people to create usefull works. While deep respect of property rights leads to powerfull incentives, coerced incenives does not necissairly lead to respect of rights. Normal property exists to allocate limited resources, not to limit resources that have no natural limit otherwise, like information, for the sake of greed.
IMHO, copyrights have ruined our culture and replaced it with hollywood, they've distroted the market so that a rapper who attemtpts to sing about killing cops is considered more valuable than nobel pize scientist. They're directly used to create massive anti-trust behavior in the software industry without shame, and are directly responsible for publishers ruining the student text book industry and leaving it a discoherent scrambled expensive mess. And while there are thousands of artists and writers that the cpoyright system hasn't helped a bit, the 1% that actually make anything from copyrights are touted upon high as proof that the copyright system works. Thankfully, artists are starting to catch on and give out their stuff freely to get gigs for live performances and concerts, and authors are doing the same - to use their books as a lead into consulting and lecturing.
If I created artificial scarcities in food so I can jack up the price and make more money from 3rd world countries, most people would see that for the pure evil that it is, but if I do that with information - then oh my God, it's a right! The fact is that there are enough limits to human ability and resources without having to impose artificial ones for the sake of greed.
IMHO, just as the commoditisation of labor during the industrial revolution predestined the death of the plantation system and all it's false "property rights", the commodotisation of information brought about by the information age predestines the death of the copyright system and it's phony property standard as well.
IMHO, the same forces that caused them to be such jerks about the GIF patent are the same one that caused them to miss the boat with Linux. What many businesses don't understand is that there is far more money out their to be made with IT related services than IT related licensing. To be successfull in the information age, you need to treat the free wheeling free copying nature of the internet like a benefit, not a competitive threat.
Unfortunately there are still all to many businesses who think that the way that they're supposed to make money is by selling information they create like a boxed product and choking off how it's used. Since their business model is incompatable with the Linux business model, there will likely be far more attcks on Linux, and especially freedom in software and information distribution, down the pike.
IMHO, copyrights can not survive the information age.
To me the question isn't how easy is it to get an SSN, but rather how easy is it go get rid of an SSN wiout getting clobbered by the system. After all, if can't be abused if it isn't valid.
I personally, would love nothing more than to dump my SSN. First, what am I gonna get out of it? social security! Ha what a laugh, anybody under 50 will probably witness a UFO sighting first. Second, I consider myself a honest and transparent person, but really, it's none of the states business where I invest my money, do my banking, and earn my income. These people are supposed to be public servants, they should be the ones inconvenienced by a lack of tracking mechanisims, not me.
Hell even the name is a lie, "social security". Well excuse me but forcing people and employers to pay into a retirement scheme is not socialbe, it is a racket, and for most peope that's a felony in all 50 states. It's also not "sceirity", does anyone really believe anymore that it will provide security in your elder years? I'm serious, is there anybody??? At all???
In any ohter context this would be called censorship. And this is a classic example of how copyrights are used to justify and impose it. This is not the first time, nor the last.
In fact the whole copyright debate is about nothing but lies. They call it protecting children, when it's really censorship. They call illegal copying piracy, when that actually means boarding a ship and murdering people. They call copying "stealing", even though noone has lost anything. They call a government imposed restriction on copying "protection" for artists, when it really is a monopoly for the media industry. And they call it "intellectual property", even though any real free market property right with natural limits in supply and demand would put it to shame. The straight outright lies are so in our face, it is shocking that people could be so stupid.
In all fairness, I can take measures to educate my duaghter myself if the school system tries to teach her something stupid, but how would I protect her from a government that censors things?
On one side there are stupid people reguarding intelligent design, on the other there are stupid people reguarding copyrights. I feel overwhelmed. The cynical reality is that the media industry and christian industry are probably duking it out over some third party revenue issues.
You're making the assumption that bringing a new HIV drug to market costs close to the same as putting out a new Linux distro. That assumption is off by several orders of magnitude. Is there money to be made? Definately. Is there billions of dollars to be made? I doubt it. ...
HIV is about patents not copyrights as I was talking about, but still - innovation in HIV is unaturally made 1000's of times more costly because the patnet system suverely punishes companies that encourage their reasearchers to share and collaberate with other researchers, as this may cause a competitor to get a leg up to grap a key patnet and lock everyone else out. It also creates an environment where generic, low cost, and alternative cures are not only discouraged, but openly attacked as they can not be fenced off with patnets.
And the renaissance also happened without cheap printing, televisions, cd playeres, cd burners, and pirated software and movies being sold on streetcorners. Times change.
The supposed justification for patnets and copyrights existing to begin with was to encourage the dimmamation of inventions, knowledge, and the arts. The fact that things are easy to copy is an argument for getting rid of them as barbaric relics, not for clinging on to them for dear life. Times do change, in case you haven't noticed - the copyright system is under siege and dying. The more people help it along, the sooner it dies and the better off everyone is.
"setaling" is defined by what one looses, not by what another gains. The creator still has their original copy. Yeah, they don't have 100% market monopoly anymore, but neither does Ford, so what? Are you going to now argue that it was theft when GM came along, it's bullshit morality is what it is.
The first is that it provides ammunition that Congress can use to pass more draconian laws and also to justify the access control provisions of the DMCA.
You're working under the premise that they are not already doing everything they can anyhow.
The second is that it materially undermines any real attempt to build an alternative, open content distribution system. FOr example, I might not be sympathetic to Microsoft for all that "lost revenue" from illegally copied software, but the fact is that each illegal copy of Windows is a missed opportunity for Linux. Same with music. Unless one is actively building a competing and more Free system, one harms the public by illegally copying music. This harm is in the form of reinforcing the existing unjust structure.
That "lost revenue" that Microsoft otherwise would have gotten can and will be used against free software, alternatives. If Microsoft and Linux both competed off of merits, I am confident that Linux will eventually win, but Microsoft will not play fair as they never have. In the end, you minus well be paying cash for lawyers to sue and harass you. Giving them cash gives them more controll than using media they created without payment, and that's what it's about: controll.
The thing you have to remember is slippery slopes work both ways. Is sharing a song with your friend really that wrong? Nah, not in the big scheme of things. Is screwing with the system enough that medical innovation (not to mention the publishing of books, movies, tv, etc) practically ends, because the company that can copy the idea and make it the cheapest wins? Hell yes.
By your logic, the OS market should be going dead in R&D because anybody can copy Linux - funny, just the opposite is happening. Don't forget that nearly the entire renissance happened without copyrights.
The right to copy information at your disposal is a right. The GPL uses copyright against itself - go freakin read it.
Here's my take. Copyrights combined with government funding distort the intellectual enviroment so that those who love science for the sake of the sience and the persuit of knowledge are punished, while those who are paper pushers for R&D grants and getting published in journals are rewarded.
To take it on faith that knowledge and sience would never be persued or never be rewarding enough without them is ignorance.
I trust that you never do anything creative in your life. Certainly not an expect any sort of compensation or reimbursment for it.
For you information I am a writer, a programmer, an artist, and a miscican. But, I'm not supprised. This is typical of the pro-copyright crowd who can't argue the facts, so instead decide to attack the source.
You, the consumer, do not have the right to make that decision for them.
I'm not making a decision for anyone. Nobody forces you to do creative things, nobody forces you to reveal it to the world. You had no right to impose a government monopoly that took away my liberty to copy things freely to begin with. Who's imposing on who?
Sometimes the right way to change things, isn't by going thru the system at all. For example, illegal copying. Inspite of all the brow beating and guilt trip morality, there is nothing wrong at all with sharing music with other people. They not only have a right to copy, but they also don't deserve punishment for it either, even if it's the law, and even if they know it. IMHO, the internet and rampant copying have done more good for society in the last 10 years than all the information in the last 100 years combined. Starving artists? Bull, most people have a far better chance making a name for themselves by sharing their creations freely.
Mixing free and closed software is like mixing oil and water. For example, you can copy share, do business with, and distribute Linux all you want. Stick a proprietary piece of software or media on the same CD, and now you are dead in the water.
Free markets are about freedom. When people have it, they tend to use it to create wealth and prosperity where none ever existed before. Closed software is not about freedom, copy it and you can be sued or go to jail. Some people call that an "intellecutal property" right, but just because someone calls something a property right doesn't mean that it is.
True property rights don't derive from incentive, they derive from just allocation of things that have limited supply and demand. Just property rights lead to strong incentives, but coerced incentives do not lead to just property rights.
The problem with Microsoft is that they don't understand free markets. Yeah, go ahead and mod me flame, it's pretty much guaranteed anytime someone knocks Microsoft nowdays. I got karma to burn.
.... Google still seems to get it, and MS still seems not to.
At this point their whole wealth and prosperity is based off of copyright controlls - it's no more a true free market than the plantation system was in the 1850's. They may talk free markets and property rights, they may have lots of money, but when it comes to exploiting information technology to make a profit - they haven't got a clue. That's why it took them so long to get the internet, and even longer to get it with google search, and why they completely missed Linux until it nearly kicked them out of the server space, and why their database offerings are pretty much non-contenders, any why msn never really went nowhere, and p2p - they still don't get it, blogging - they pratically don't even want to deal with it, and why they still think think computers are just an extension of the entertainment industry.
In case they didn't notice, Google didn't need a special government enforced monopoly on copying to make a killing in the search space, neither did ebay on auctions, and MS could have outdone craigs list - but didn't, and Microsoft could have outdone bittorrent - but didn't, could have even outdone Apple - but didn't. etc etc
The truth is that when people from foriegn countries come here, they use freedoms and opportunities that they don't have elsewhere to create wealth and opportunities that never existed before. They don't just sit on their ass and leach ... they invest, they open businesses, they hire or lead to new hiring, they produce, they consume, and just add value to our overall society as immigrants have for over 500 years in the Americas.
While our standard of freedom has declined over the last few decades, it is still orders of magnatude greater than most of the real world. But lets make no mistake: our economic freedoms have declined because of our own taxes, regulations, debt, and most especially bad monitary policy. To blame any wealth or pay squeese (other than perhaps short term ones) on on foriegners coming here and using the increased freedom here to create success is totally unfair and niaeve.
As a white American programmer/sysadmin from a midwestern USA family, I am truely embarassed that my cluture is being so mean to the foriegners. In all truth, we should be begging for them to be here and thanking them profusely for hanging their hat in the USA and and choosing us as a place to create future wealth and opportunity. In all truth, we should pratically be kissing their feet in thatkfullness that they are willing to be productive in the USA for only a fraction of the cost that it would normally take. In stead we hate their guts and ignorantly slander that "they are stealing our jobs" like an ignorant mob on a whitch hunt.
All I can say is that if you are from a foriegn country seeing this, I beg in humiliation, please forgive us. Too many people just don't know what the hell they are talking about. Please, in behalf of my country, I really beg your forgiveness - I am at a loss for words, I cna't even begin to offer a justification.
I sincerely hope that the foriegners we have treated soo poorly are more forgiving, understanding, and tolerant than we are. If not, it will be a bad omen as in the next few years over a billion people will be comming online to the global economy. God help us.
The core CPI is arround 2% this year, the real CPI was closer to 4% this year so far, and true inflation is higher than that. IMHO, the core is a fraud, it is about "how can we screw the people out of their money without having it spill over and screw up manufacturing", the CPI is also a fraud, it is about "how can we screw the people and manufacturing out of money without them noticing and adjusting".
Not that I disagree with your post, but can you cite sources for this?
....
I get much of my stuff from http://mwhodges.home.att.net/ you may need to recalculate it for being percapita though.
The numbers I've seen are closer to 40K.
sounds like just the federal percapita.
I would guess that a disproportionate amount of that number is in morgages. Shouldn't morgage debt count separatley, as an investment, being secured by a tangible property which can be resold and which usually accrues value (unless there are too many speculators)?
I would be vary wary of that, real-estate lost 90% of it's value during the great depression, and to tell you the truth - we are more overleveraged now then we were then. IMHO, going into debt for a home today is not only not a secure investment, it is very dangerous.
The difference between that and credit card (or federal) debt is pretty significant.
Isn't a lot of that debt also to ourselves? I owe rent to the owner, my roommate owes rent to me, her company owes her salary to her, etc. A more realistic example would be a car company who owes money to it's creditors, but who also is owed money by the people who buy cars from it. Isn't that debt being counted twice?
Unfortunately most debt is foriegn owned nowdays, Japan alone has some 650bln of us bonds. The problem with debt isn't who it's owned to, it's that it pre-obligates money that would otherwise be spent in more productive ways. Plus, long "chains" of debtors are as strong as the weakest link, if someone in the middle defaults - everyone else still owes and must make it up somewhere or default too. That's why over debted societies usually have a cascading collapse.
I'm not convinced that zero debt is the overall goal. All investments are debt to someone.
I think debt for things other than investments that increase productivity are a bad idea. Also from what I understand, 90% of society are debtors and 10% creditors.
If I invest 1,000 dollars in a local company so that they can re-tool their factory, that's 1,000 dollars in debt that basically guarantees a return to society much larger than the expense.
There is a difference between investing and loaning, with a loan money is owed no matter how good or poorly it does. With investment in things like stock, that is not the case.
Corporate debt is how the buying power of money is shifted from institutions that have it, to upstarts that need it. Sure, Sony may go a half-billion dollars in debt to create a new fab plant for the Cell chip that powers the Playstation 3, but they'll make it back.
I agree, that is good debt. Millions of people re-financing their home and spending the extra on consumption is not.
If not all debts are necessarily bad, we have to figure what kinds are bad and what kinds aren't. Student Loans are as annoying as hell, but the benefit to society (and a single worker's earning potential) greatly outweighs the cost of being in debt. Credit card debts are always bad, and are basically the work of the devil. Sometimes you need to go into a little debt to buy a used car to get to work on time... That's much better than not working. But buying a 25k new SUV is a bad investment.
Sometimes credit card debt can be better because it's not secured. Anyhow, on no uncertain terms the US is overleveraged in debt, and the fed has loaned out way way way too much money. Even the fed said that the economy is super efficient because of new technology, but what they didn't say is that efficient economies make fluctuations to excessive monitary policies more extreme, not less extreme. The global economy is teetering on the edge of a cliff, I would peronally and strongly recommend having some precious metals on hand. Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks this as gold is at an 18 year high now ( http://www.kitco.com/)
FYI, the CPI doesn't really include things like food and the price of gas. Also if your car has a new type of computer that raises the price 10%, that's also not counted in inflation because its value has gone up 10%. There are all sorts of hedonic adjustments for technology. Not to menaion that your housing is calculated in a way that is WAY underpriced.
In sum if your pay, your bank account, or any of your investments make under 6% you are getting screwed and will eventually be nickled and dimed to death.
Also, I hate to tell you this but it will not get better. Between federal, state, corporate, housing, and credit cards, there is over 400K of debt for every worker in the USA and that doesn't even include things like public education that must be funded anyhow. They can not pay it back without a default, or printing up money and screwing you over.
Unfortunately, now our creditors from other countries arround the world are starting to catch on - if they do, credit will dry up and they will panic out of the dollar as the world's defacto currency causing the US dollar to collapse and cease to exist as a currency. Watch out, it seems in the markets that all freakin hell is about to break loose!
From what I understand, RMS, who created the GPL tried that, but what happened is that someone took the code he put in the public domain, modified it and enhanced it some, re-copyrighted it and locked RMS out from using it.
After that, RMS went to a lawyer and had the GPL written up to make sure noone could re-copyright something he wrote and use it like that ever again.
The GPL is like fighting fire with fire. If copyrights didn't exist, there would be
no need for the GPL to exist either. But since they do, the GPL is a tool in the anti-copyright arsenel.
How can one find these 150 year old arguements? A true comparison might turn out to be a powerful tool.
.... [warning: when the patent problem comes of age as "replication" technology gets more advanced, that IS a physical implementation and likewise imposing them WILL eventually require physical violence - and notice that some of the consequences of patents are far more physical, like millions of Africans dying because attempts to make generic AIDS drugs were attacked]
It's hard to find many of them, but I've done a lot of reading about that era for just this purpose.... the most paralels happen with copyright, because the patnet system hasn't really been competely commoditized yet. (watch out for the replication age)
Then: During the early 1800's it appears that many people believed that the entire meaning and purpose of the industrial revolution was use inventions like the cotton gyn to make their slaves 1000 more productive and thus free them up to expand their plantations for huge profits.
Now: Today there are many people who believe that the entire meaning and purpose of the information age is to leverage inventions like the internet to impose their copyright holdings to the far ends of the earth for unlimited growth and profit.
Then: arround 1850, there was a speculative stock market crash, as people invented in all sorts of models for how to make money with indiustrial technology.
Now: In 2001, there was lots of crazy speculation on new information technology and a following crash.
Then:People called slaves a property right, even though they were clearly nothing like regular property.
Now:People call copyrights a property right, even though they are clearly nothing like
regular property.
Then: In the early 1800's there was an agreement called the "missouri compromise" that basicly held off the factories in the north from the plantations in the south from having al all out fight about the slave issue.
Now: Today, there was the DMCA which was sorta of a detant between hollywood and the tech indsutries.
Then: The south eventually tried to fence themselves off from the rest of the world by breaking from the union.
Now: The media industries are trying to fence themselves off using DRM.
Then: It became illegal to teach a person of color how to read.
Now: Copyright violations can be punished worse than rape.
Then: Slavery used to be short term indnetured servitude that wasn't inherited, but was extended to last forever.
Now: Copyrights have effectively been extended to last forever.
There are some important differences though:
Then: there was a well defined north and south
Now: there is no defined territories, just a tech industry and a content industry.
Then: Physical controll of slaves requires physical violence
Now: Information can't be controlled physically, but it can be controlled with brow beating, threats, lies, suits, etc
Then: The government of the north was on the correct side.
Now: Government seems to be more accountable to the media than to freedoms - it is a tough call.
With all due respect, we have had over 200 years to tweek, implement, and fine tune the patent system. This is not an implementation problem, it is a fundamentals problem. Patents are going to hell just at they are being brought to their logical conclusion. It is not morally or fundamentally ok to controll how people use invnetions and discoveries. Perhaps I have a good sounding reason to controll peoples free speech too, so what.
Patents are supposed to be incentives.
That really isn't a fair point though. Patents were supposed to be incentives 200 years ago, we have had a nearly infinite amount of time to take them to their logical conclusion and teek them to make them work - and all we have gotten is bullshit, and people calling them "intellectual property" while society gets riped to pieces with litigation. Even if they were an incentive, did it ever occur to you that you have no moral right to restrict how other people use discoveries and inventions? Perhaps that moral foundation doesn't matter to you, but that is precicely why patents have caused all the problems they have today.
qt1:ideas and innovations have become the most important resource, replacing land, energy and raw materials. As much as three-quarters of the value of publicly traded companies in America comes from intangible assets
qt2:maybe this has less to do with the fact that IP has become more numerous or "important", and more to do with the fact that recent extensions to both the breadth and lenght of copyright has produced an inordinate amount which actually surpresses the production of more tangible goods
Actually, this scares the hell out of me. It reminds me of quotes like "the great wealth of America is founded on her plantations, where the ownership of slave properties has propelled her to ever higher levels of wealth" When are people ever going to learn that just because someone cries bloody muder about incentive and property rights, doesn't mean that it's at all true. That speculative industrial stock market crash that happened in the 1850's just a few years prior to all hell breaking loose is sure starting to feel familiar.
Not necessarily. Imagine that you and a competitor manufacture widgets. You create a process that radically improves the efficiency of manufacturing widgets. Free market: you can keep it for yourself and reap the rewards of your efficiency relative to your opponent. As long as they don't figure it out, you win. Alternatively, you can patent the improvement. It exposes the idea to your opponent, and if the cost savings for implementing your patented process is greater than the cost of paying you for it, your opponent implements it, and you still make more money. Perhaps your opponent improves it further, and reduces the cost of making widgets yet again. In the end, all the widgets get made more efficiently, and competition can bring the price down.
That is a nice theory, but in reality there is plenty of incentive for each company to improve efficiency without a patent. So really why impose them? Also, 90% of inventions are incramental, built off of prior abilities and public knowledge - so now patents toss up another road block to the competitor who can't use the same discovery that they would have found out anyhow because the first company won't license it. Cuasing the competition in the space to die, and monopoly interests to begin.
Property rights are about allocating control over limited resources, not about creating artifical limits for the sake of controll. There are always nice sounding theories about why it's ok to impose restrictions on other people for the sake of this good or that good, but that is not good for free markets. Free markets are about freedom, not markets. When people have freedoms, then they tend to use them to create wealth and opportunity where none existed before. No matter how you slice it, things like patnets restrict freedom by imposing or allowing limits on how people can use inventions and discoveries that they already know about.
I think you hit the nail on the head here. They want to create artificial limits on supply and demand of information and discoveries while there is actually plenty of natural limits in supply and demand of things like oil, metals, and natural resources. I'm sorry, but property rights aren't about artificial scarcity for the sake of incentive, but about allocating scarce resources effectively and justly which in itself leads to incentives.