We probably wouldn't be in the information age yet without IP protection. Throw out Patents, Trademarks, and Copyright and you enter a very slow moving generic world. The implementation of the current system is too restrictive, but you don't have to scrap it completely.
WTF, eathernet, email, www, html/http, PCI, even the plug sockets are not proprietary technology incase you haven't noticed. And if you want to seperately discuss trademarks (which are mostly ok to me), and patents, then fine, but please don't lump them all together like that.
IP protections were never meant to ensure profits, it was to encourage development by offering a chance at profit. Realizing that creating an idea is not free, but the distribution is; IP protections were created so you can get a chance at getting a return on your investment of time, money, and effort.
We know the theory thank you, but heres the reality. Copyrights only financially benefit a few creators (eg madonna) and do very little else for 90% of other creators out there. But this is disingenuious, it assumes a right to controll how people copy to begin with for the allegid sake of "encouraging development". Well the old USSR, encouraged taking away peoples money away for the sake of "social fairness" too, there as here, it is truely arrogant and condesending.
.... On the risk taking side, it allows movie studios to invest $100 million dollars on a movie...
GNU/Linux has well over $100 mln worth of development behind it and that was made possible because in an environment where people's ability to copy freely isn't restricted, they are free to collaberate where they never would have been able to otherwise. IMHO, the attitude that nothing would ever get done without a large federally backed corporate monopoly on copying is also arrogant and condosending.
Personnally, I look at it from the view point of what gives me the write to use something that someone else has created. I don't expect anything to be free (well, except for air), and I don't expect to profit or benefit from someone else's work without paying for it in some way. Whether that work is in terms of physical labour, or ideas, or thought. If someone decides to give something to me for free, then great, I'm happy. If they choose to charge me for it then who am I to say whether that is fair or not? They made it, if I don't want it I don't pay for it.
No creation is an island. 99% of all the information and creation we make has built on other information that was given to us and shared with us freely with no royality. Now for someone to add to that and say they deserved a monopoly that locks out the rest of us is simply bullshit.
They are people who need to put food on the table and keep their kids in school and a roof over their heads. All of those other things are not free, and I don't consider their need to provide for their families "greed".
If it's not about greed, then have them charge by the hour for their SERVICES and not have a federally backed monopoly on copying thank you.
As such, copyright allows them to profit from their creation and investment of resources for a limited time; something that in all likelyhood would not have occurred had not those protections been in place.
WTF. pratically the entire renissance happened without copyrights. What are you talking about? Ever hear of Linux?
We are a free market, and you can vote with your dollars. Should you decide a song, a movie, or a piece of software not to be worth those dollars then don't buy it. If enough people don't pay the asking price, then they will, in all likelyhood, adjust it.
No it won't, if you haven't figured out that copyrights create distribution monopolies by now, then you likely never will. Free markets are about freedoms, not about phony markets based off of fradulent property defnintions. Put the freedoms in place and the markets will follow. Ever look at the market cap of Red Hat lately?
But don't steal the results of their work just because you don't like the price. You are not magically entitled to it, and such theft is tacit admission that it DOES HAVE VALUE and that you do BENEFIT from its possession.
Otherwise you wouldn't spend YOUR time and effort aquiring it...
If it deos have value then you deserve a thankyou, or to charge by the hour for your services, or charge for entry to a live concert even, but not a federally backed monopoly on copying. I'm am not magically enitled to something if I don't like the price, but I am entitled to copy and distribute information at my disposal because that is not magic - information has completely different characteristics then physical property or services.
What you are saying is that you half to controll with federally backed copy monopolies because you can't deal with the real world and figure out a more rational way to make a profit. Well sorry, the plantation masters had that argument too, and they even called the freeing of slaves theft. If you're so creative, then figure out how to make a profit without screwing the rest of us.
Copyright is trivially easy to justify: People who create valuable information are performing a service for the rest of us. They deserve compensation for this service. Copyright encourages people with the talent to create these things to do so, whereas otherwise they'd need to spend most of their time doing other things to make money.
No, try charging by the hour, try charging your fans for a concert. The notion that you need a federally backed copy monopoly is simply wrong.
Without copyright, 99% of the art, music, software, video games, etc. that we have today wouldn't exist....
OK, I won't mention open source since that is such a sore point for you, but that is still way off. Nearly the entire renissance happened without copyright.
If I write some software, why should you have the right to distribute it without paying me?
Because my distributing does not deprive you anything reguarding what you do with your original work. It might deprive you a monopoly on distribution, but that is not a right for you anymore than it is a right for standard oil co.
If it weren't for me creating it, you wouldn't have it in the first place.
Then you deserve a thankyou, not a federally backed monopoly.
If you don't like the restrictions I put on it, then pretend I don't exist and find some other software to distribute. Or create your own.
That argument is terrible, it's like arguing "if you don't like slavery then don't own slaves"
What's that? Creating your own is too hard? Well, there you go, then. I deserve compensation for assisting you.
As I mentioned above, I'm sure you can find other ways to bill me for your services. This isn't about who created or is deserving of compensation, but about overbearing controll of information in the information age. It amazes me that you are creative enough to do all these wonderfull things, but not enough to figure out how to make it worth while without a federally backed monopoly.
I am open to the idea that a better system that copyright might exist. However, simply repealing copyright without creating any sort of replacement law would be about the stupidest thing any capitalist nation could do right now.
FYI, free markets are about freedoms not about markets. Like the freedom to copy things at ones disposal, vs controlling it because it artifically ratchets up demand in a way that's more pleasing to some.
Just" people??? You are a piece of work, aren't you. A noble champion and defender of the right to steal and copy that which you're incapable of creating yourself.
Yeah funny how that works, 99% of every piece of knowledge we use to create was given to us to use freely without royality. Only a hyporcite would want to add to that, fecne it off, and now say everyone owes him.
Yeah, I think this is a symptom of a deeper problem. Too many people see systems as an end inthemselves rather than as a means. When a system no longer works, most peoples first reaction is to work harder to make it work. They start to believe that the problem isn't the system, but that they are not trying hard enough?
The hell? Your post contains absolutely no argument or supporting points for your position that copyright is unjust.
The hell with you! YOUR the one on the side that wishes to impose massive restrictions on what people copy. The burden of proof is on YOU. If you have a problem with those assertions, then prove that copyrights are just. (good luck, you'll need it)
Copyright is not a monopoly. You are absolutely free to create your own competing products.
Although when I'm feeling idealistic I like to declare that all copyright laws should be thrown out, I'm willing to take the pragmatic approach.
I think the problem here is that the "pragmatic" approach here has already been tried 200 years ago, and it failed miserably just as society hit the information age. And that makes allot of sense. You can't go telling people that they have this "moral right" to restrict what people copy, and then expect them not to try and secure this "right" by using every resource they can to push it to the extremes.
With regular physical property, you have natural limiting factors that limit those extremes, with copyrights you don't because they are not a natural law creation. Copyrights are simply people coercing limits on things that have no natural limit for the sake of greed and monopoly.
If someone said "lets limit food to the 3rd world more than it already is because we want to get more profit" most people would see this as the pure evil that it is. But when they do the same thing with the worlds information, then oh my God - it's a RIGHT!?
Seriously, this whole question is very biased. It's like asking, what would you ask for to make slavery law just? Well Duh. How about GET RID OF IT!
Copyright monopolies are unjust by their very nature. Why in the hell should we make it anything more than a term of 0 just for the sake of appeasing the common masses who are more interested in appearing to fit in than swallowing simple honest facts. Yeah, extreme, I know, so was democracy, free speech, free religion, and a round world. Societies of the future will look at us like ignorant fools for trying to cling to a poor belief system that just doesn't work, just like the way we do today toward the poor fools who clinged to dear life for hope of the slave states getting along with the free states.
Intellectual property rights exist to encourage investment and innovation, and patent rights are stated and granted in the constitution.....
You should really read up on constitutional law, there is a reason why the bill of rights is worded "the congress shall pass no law... " instead of saying "the government grants people the right... "
And patent? you didn't mention copyright? But you still proved my point, what the hell kind of right says "for a limited time" or has an expiration date and it's certinly not a "property" right.
encourage investment and innovation... is definitely not fair in my book
Thank you, those are feelings, not rights, even if some are backed up by poorly thought out laws that just people should defy.
Since you're so fond of examples, check out the U.S.S.R. The economic end result is a great example of what happens when workers have no investment in the system and no incentive to create.
Yeah, the USSR is a great example of what happens when you tell people that they have bullshit "rights" to controll other people
for the sake of "security", "fairness" or
should I say "incentive" now.
The words 'copy' and 'work' are two different words with two different meanings.....
Yeah, but that original statement wasn't a statement about the nature of work, it was a statement about appropiate bountries. That's why the word copy fit in so nicely. Get it.
Copyrights are a way to insure that I am paid for the service of creating the content.
That's bullshit, thats like saying slavery is a way to insure that people are provided for in return for picking the cotton fields. Why don't you add in how freed slaves are being stolen from the plantation while you're at it. It's not about theft, it's about out of bounds controll. Get it.
And one more thing, play as many semantics games with the word "theft" as you wish. The bottom line is you are trying to apply the same moral values to the removal of physical property as with copying information. And I quote "This has nothing to do with the subject at hand. The one situation has NOTHING to do with the other. This is another example of a favorite but invalid, technique used to support your arguments"...
Well the fact is, everyone goes screaming that getting rid of copyrights is wrong because the poor artist has no way of recompensating his efforts without them, so then I point out a way like concerts, and then they declare that am using logical falicies because I'm shifting the argument away from proving that copyrights are wrong. Well excuse me, you are on the side that wishes to impose massive restrictions on what people can copy. The burden of proof is on you, prove that it's right, prove that there is no other reasonable way to compensate productive creativity. I'm sorry all the shit that's going on with the *AA is really hurting your proof, but that's you're problem not mine.
Right back at you, as you're thinking that you're entitled to something... when you're not.
Yeah I do think I'm entitled to something, I think I'm entitled to free speech too, perhaps you feel violated when people exercise that right too, but that is your problem too, not mine.
That is not an "inherent right" and that is not a right granted by the constitution and that is not a right granted by law. Three strikes.
Back at you harder, rights are not granted by the constitution, or law, only acknowledged by them form time to time. Rights exist by the nature of existence - eg. property rights exist because of the nature that not everybody can posess something at the same time. Not so with information. Bzzt. Game over.
Some questions you might ask yourself to help your understanding of your own example: * what is the cost to produce one tabloid newspaper? * how many units can the tabloid press expect to sell? * what is the cost to produce a hardbound, 4-color, 600-page textbook? * how many units can the texbook publisher expect to sell? * How does the existence of copyright laws directly influence the above business equation?
I don't think you understand, the example of the tabloid is just to contrast. Collecting all the information in the book is a rather large barier to entry, so there is little competition, lots of incentive to change things needlessly, and contributors are segragated rather than collaberated so the price gets driven up. Without the copyright system, the barriers to entry for collection would be gone, as well as the hinderences to collaberation, and the book would be about as cheap as any other thing that used the same amount of paper and ink. Competition would be focused on the cost of distribution and materials rather than on content, so market forces would drive the cost down. (all you need to do is look at the cost of the "classics" compaired to the "new releases" to see these forces in action)
Once upon a time, Dell had their own SVR4 UNIX Distro. Perhaps Mr Dell has a passion for OS's.
I wouldn't be supprised if this was more to do with Microsoft, to send them a message that they don't have the world over a barrel, than it is a passion of OS's. As computers get cheaper, every machine sold with Windows on it is going to be cutting into an increasing amount of profit margin, and just as the industry is getting cheaper - Microsoft is getting more expensive, perhaps this is more like the corporate way of saying f**k U, without putting anything on "Dell" - the company.
Well one symptom might be the cost of books at colleges - notice how they are very expensive, where the tabloids are dirt cheap, even though much of the information (esp in math) has existed for 100s of years - I claim this isn't natural. Notice only a very small part of our media is informative, and much of that is only on stations like PBS - without copyrights there is reason to believe that all media would be more like that and less like "alley mc biel". Notice how how the movie industry is centered arround romance and action packed thrillers and tear jerkres and almost nothing educational, and the hollywood culture that is very "out of touch" you could say. This is also a sympton of a copy controll culture.
Also, notice the huge salaries for big sprots, while educators get pittance in compaire - even though the value to society is arguably reversed, once again, some of this is caused by the copy controll culture that puts that which gets the most attention over that which has the most value.
It's not that it's wrong for people to make big money, or for peronal entertainment to be made and valued, it's just that a copy controll culture puts the hype over the substance to the point of extremes because pay is directly proportional to the % of the mob that shows interest rather than the actual value that it offers society.
In sum, copyrights may encourage "creation", but that doesn't necissairly mean beneficial creation.
I think it's worth mentioning here that the copyright system punishes and rewards in such a way that that promotes hype over substance. I think it's unfair to "blame society", while at the same time holding this system of punishment and reward in place. In a copyright society, it is always the information that turns the most heads that gets the most money, where in a non copyright world the information that has the most value is rewarded the most.
Of cource I know people would say, well Linux Journal is copyrighted too, to which I would respond - most people who are subscribing would do so as a sign of support for the authors and not because they are the cheaper that the competitors. Besides, I don't know of anything in that publication that couldn't be gotten online anyhow, but people still support it.
I don't half to have "special treatment" or to "convince a judge" - that's half the problem, you're thinking about what the rules *were* and I'm thinking about the way things *are*. You're thinking of ethics in terms of what you want granted to you or what you feel, I'm thinking of ethics in terms of what rights individuals inherently have like freedom of speech, the right to copy things... even if everybody hates it and it doesn't make a goddam bit of money for them. Maybe society and the law think gravity pulls upward too, I don't care... I don't half to care, they are wrong and you'd be a dumbass if you bet your life on it.
Perhaps you can explain, using small words so you can understand them, how your stealing... (excuse me) copying a program it took me a year to write is doing ME a service.
If you're creative enough to write a usefull program that everybody wants, then I'm sure you can also figure out how to reward yourself without microregulating what every person on the planet coppies. Seems like allot of other people have, so if you can't cope without a personal monopoly then tough shit, but it's still NOT theft!
That's what the information age is about, learn to deal with it or be A LOOSER!
Sorry, but in effect you stole the results of my efforts, my time, and my money without offering me due compensation.
Hypocite, you're stealing by getting free services from me! and hiding behind the government as an excuse. If you believe that you have a right to controll information that you created, then you are free to try and do so... non disclosure agreements... digital encryption... but seriously that's not tenable because of the real world... so instead now you want society to bear those costs and controll everybody for you by imposing copyrights.
The only "VALUE" your loosing is the "VALUE" to "CONTROLL" people once the cat's out of the bag. Maybe your loosing "VALUE" when I free your slaves from the plantation too - Maybe I'm "stealing" them from you, because I won't let you controll them anymore. Maybe the train companies loose "value" because airplanes were invented. Once again, you might FEEL someone took value from you, but since you have no right to controll people that way to begin with, it is your problem and not mine, and it is certainly NOT THEFT !!!!!
The only theft going on here is you're stealing my time and resources and the rest of societies to feed and support your controll freak attitude. AND I WONN'T STEAL THEIR MUSIC, SOFTWARE, BOOKS, or GAMES, I'll copy them, cause it's NOT THEFT!!!!, no matter how many rationalisations you use to justify your controll freak attitude.
... and down a little further (as if you didn't notice) on the same page you'll see this one:
theft
n : the act of taking something FROM someone unlawfully;
... Theft is not defined by what another gains, but by what you loose posession of, not to mention that it's common sense. You still have the original copy, and I didn't trick or force you to give me any services either, maybe you feel I did, but that is your problem and not mine, and it is certainly NOT THEFT!!!!
You absolutely do count, as does your opinion, but only when it comes to YOUR work. Trash it, give it away, transmit it to the universe. Just don't tell me YOU can decide what I can or can not do with MY work.
Thank you, that is exactly what I was trying to say... just substitute the word "copy" for the word "work".
Who are you to decide what attitude is proper for me? If it takes all my time to create quality work, do you expect me to give that up so I can pay for a place to live and food to eat? If you believe in equal value transactions why should you trade your stellar quality work that took a decade to perfect for something I dashed off on a napkin last happy hour?
YEAH! I totally agree, the parent post to mine was the one going off assuming that I didn't know crap about the perspective of an artist? WTF
How about this deal - I'll do my best to provide something you like - you give me some money so I won't starve while I make it.
I like that deal, "paying for a service" truely is so much better than "imposing copyright monopoly".
The cost of making a copy is NOT the cost of creating the content.
Allright now... are you some kind of hidden genius that is just trying teach me how to make my points better? Once again, BINGO! That is just too insightfull! That's why business should be concentrating their resources on creating content that makes their services more valuable that can be shared freely, and not on content that gets the most hype whose distribution is controlled (and why hollywood sucks and why copyrights suck even more).
Following your logic - doctors, lawyers, and journalists shouldn't be paid either. After all they've already been educated, it doesn't cost a doctor anything to use a stethoscope. Maybe cabdrivers only deserve gas money - the automobile's just equipment - like instruments and recording equipment. In your world musicians don't deserve to be compensated for buying their equipment, why should anyone else?
THANK YOU AGAIN, I don't pay those people because they have what they already got, I pay them because they have skills and experience I need or want to experience. PLEASE! I BEG anyone to show me one goddam musician who will turn away 5000 people paying $50 bucks a head to see him perform live in concert because they won't respect "his copyrights".
... (rant)... you are stealing from me!
That's funny, you still have your original copy, I haven't touched it. Now what was stolen again??? Once again, stealing is defined by what is no longer in your posession, not what is gained by someone else.
Quit your bitching and create something excellent. Then see how you like someone telling you your time and effort mean nothing because it's so incredibly easy to copy your work.
I DID. Go back in my history and re-read my essay "A Bitter Protest Against Copyrights". That was at least four years worth of study, and work - and had been in the making since 1998. I didn't hear a thank you, but I'm sure you're gratefull... otherwise you wouldn't be comming back for more.:)
And one more thing, I paid a shit load of money to get an RHCE (red hat certified engineer) - and I get paid a very decent salary to use technology that anyone can copy freely. Funny thing is, nobody is telling me that my effort "means nothing". In fact, I'm more in demand, and have gotten paid more than MCSE's at EVERY place I've worked!
And one more more thing. BILLY... JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TRUTH IS IN EVERY SITUATION DOEN'T MEAN THAT THE TRUTH IS RANDOM OR INCOHERENT OR A FEELING. IT'S MEASURABLE APPROACHABLE AND LEARNABLE... AND EVEN BETTER PEOPLE ARE MADE TO DIFFERENTIATE TRUTH BY DESIGN FROM T
If I spend MY time, MY money, and MY talent creating something of value and then I offer it for sale you are NOT entitled to it just because you want it and it's easy to steal..... If I CHOOSE to give it away you're welcome to it.
You're RIGHT!! You are entitled to do to your original copy everything and anything you want to. But psst.... COPYING IS NOT STEALING.... Infcat, if you stole my geo metro I think I would be very violated... but if you want to copy it then hell... have 10... in fact there are 10 million out there... I am not violated.... it's BULLSHIT MORALITY! Get it. You already CHOOSE to spew it all over the planet... and now you want to controll how people use information at their disposal... well too bad, that is your problem, not mine, sorry you got your feelings hurt, but it's NOT STEALING!!!!!
Slashdot Mirror
We probably wouldn't be in the information age yet without IP protection. Throw out Patents, Trademarks, and Copyright and you enter a very slow moving generic world. The implementation of the current system is too restrictive, but you don't have to scrap it completely.
WTF, eathernet, email, www, html/http, PCI, even the plug sockets are not proprietary technology incase you haven't noticed. And if you want to seperately discuss trademarks (which are mostly ok to me), and patents, then fine, but please don't lump them all together like that.
IP protections were never meant to ensure profits, it was to encourage development by offering a chance at profit. Realizing that creating an idea is not free, but the distribution is; IP protections were created so you can get a chance at getting a return on your investment of time, money, and effort.
We know the theory thank you, but heres the reality. Copyrights only financially benefit a few creators (eg madonna) and do very little else for 90% of other creators out there. But this is disingenuious, it assumes a right to controll how people copy to begin with for the allegid sake of "encouraging development". Well the old USSR, encouraged taking away peoples money away for the sake of "social fairness" too, there as here, it is truely arrogant and condesending.
GNU/Linux has well over $100 mln worth of development behind it and that was made possible because in an environment where people's ability to copy freely isn't restricted, they are free to collaberate where they never would have been able to otherwise. IMHO, the attitude that nothing would ever get done without a large federally backed corporate monopoly on copying is also arrogant and condosending.
Personnally, I look at it from the view point of what gives me the write to use something that someone else has created. I don't expect anything to be free (well, except for air), and I don't expect to profit or benefit from someone else's work without paying for it in some way. Whether that work is in terms of physical labour, or ideas, or thought. If someone decides to give something to me for free, then great, I'm happy. If they choose to charge me for it then who am I to say whether that is fair or not? They made it, if I don't want it I don't pay for it.
No creation is an island. 99% of all the information and creation we make has built on other information that was given to us and shared with us freely with no royality. Now for someone to add to that and say they deserved a monopoly that locks out the rest of us is simply bullshit.
They are people who need to put food on the table and keep their kids in school and a roof over their heads. All of those other things are not free, and I don't consider their need to provide for their families "greed".
If it's not about greed, then have them charge by the hour for their SERVICES and not have a federally backed monopoly on copying thank you.
As such, copyright allows them to profit from their creation and investment of resources for a limited time; something that in all likelyhood would not have occurred had not those protections been in place.
WTF. pratically the entire renissance happened without copyrights. What are you talking about? Ever hear of Linux?
We are a free market, and you can vote with your dollars. Should you decide a song, a movie, or a piece of software not to be worth those dollars then don't buy it. If enough people don't pay the asking price, then they will, in all likelyhood, adjust it.
No it won't, if you haven't figured out that copyrights create distribution monopolies by now, then you likely never will. Free markets are about freedoms, not about phony markets based off of fradulent property defnintions. Put the freedoms in place and the markets will follow. Ever look at the market cap of Red Hat lately?
But don't steal the results of their work just because you don't like the price. You are not magically entitled to it, and such theft is tacit admission that it DOES HAVE VALUE and that you do BENEFIT from its possession.
Otherwise you wouldn't spend YOUR time and effort aquiring it...
If it deos have value then you deserve a thankyou, or to charge by the hour for your services, or charge for entry to a live concert even, but not a federally backed monopoly on copying. I'm am not magically enitled to something if I don't like the price, but I am entitled to copy and distribute information at my disposal because that is not magic - information has completely different characteristics then physical property or services. What you are saying is that you half to controll with federally backed copy monopolies because you can't deal with the real world and figure out a more rational way to make a profit. Well sorry, the plantation masters had that argument too, and they even called the freeing of slaves theft. If you're so creative, then figure out how to make a profit without screwing the rest of us.
Copyright is trivially easy to justify: People who create valuable information are performing a service for the rest of us. They deserve compensation for this service. Copyright encourages people with the talent to create these things to do so, whereas otherwise they'd need to spend most of their time doing other things to make money.
No, try charging by the hour, try charging your fans for a concert. The notion that you need a federally backed copy monopoly is simply wrong.
Without copyright, 99% of the art, music, software, video games, etc. that we have today wouldn't exist....
OK, I won't mention open source since that is such a sore point for you, but that is still way off. Nearly the entire renissance happened without copyright.
If I write some software, why should you have the right to distribute it without paying me?
Because my distributing does not deprive you anything reguarding what you do with your original work. It might deprive you a monopoly on distribution, but that is not a right for you anymore than it is a right for standard oil co.
If it weren't for me creating it, you wouldn't have it in the first place.
Then you deserve a thankyou, not a federally backed monopoly.
If you don't like the restrictions I put on it, then pretend I don't exist and find some other software to distribute. Or create your own.
That argument is terrible, it's like arguing "if you don't like slavery then don't own slaves"
What's that? Creating your own is too hard? Well, there you go, then. I deserve compensation for assisting you.
As I mentioned above, I'm sure you can find other ways to bill me for your services. This isn't about who created or is deserving of compensation, but about overbearing controll of information in the information age. It amazes me that you are creative enough to do all these wonderfull things, but not enough to figure out how to make it worth while without a federally backed monopoly.
I am open to the idea that a better system that copyright might exist. However, simply repealing copyright without creating any sort of replacement law would be about the stupidest thing any capitalist nation could do right now.
FYI, free markets are about freedoms not about markets. Like the freedom to copy things at ones disposal, vs controlling it because it artifically ratchets up demand in a way that's more pleasing to some.
Just" people??? You are a piece of work, aren't you. A noble champion and defender of the right to steal and copy that which you're incapable of creating yourself.
Yeah funny how that works, 99% of every piece of knowledge we use to create was given to us to use freely without royality. Only a hyporcite would want to add to that, fecne it off, and now say everyone owes him.
Yeah, I think this is a symptom of a deeper problem. Too many people see systems as an end inthemselves rather than as a means. When a system no longer works, most peoples first reaction is to work harder to make it work. They start to believe that the problem isn't the system, but that they are not trying hard enough?
The hell? Your post contains absolutely no argument or supporting points for your position that copyright is unjust.
The hell with you! YOUR the one on the side that wishes to impose massive restrictions on what people copy. The burden of proof is on YOU. If you have a problem with those assertions, then prove that copyrights are just. (good luck, you'll need it)
Copyright is not a monopoly. You are absolutely free to create your own competing products.
Translation, it's a distribution monopoly.
Although when I'm feeling idealistic I like to declare that all copyright laws should be thrown out, I'm willing to take the pragmatic approach.
I think the problem here is that the "pragmatic" approach here has already been tried 200 years ago, and it failed miserably just as society hit the information age. And that makes allot of sense. You can't go telling people that they have this "moral right" to restrict what people copy, and then expect them not to try and secure this "right" by using every resource they can to push it to the extremes.
With regular physical property, you have natural limiting factors that limit those extremes, with copyrights you don't because they are not a natural law creation. Copyrights are simply people coercing limits on things that have no natural limit for the sake of greed and monopoly.
If someone said "lets limit food to the 3rd world more than it already is because we want to get more profit" most people would see this as the pure evil that it is. But when they do the same thing with the worlds information, then oh my God - it's a RIGHT!?
Well all things considered, you are actually pretty moderated =12354088
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=147420&ci
Seriously, this whole question is very biased. It's like asking, what would you ask for to make slavery law just? Well Duh. How about GET RID OF IT!
Copyright monopolies are unjust by their very nature. Why in the hell should we make it anything more than a term of 0 just for the sake of appeasing the common masses who are more interested in appearing to fit in than swallowing simple honest facts. Yeah, extreme, I know, so was democracy, free speech, free religion, and a round world. Societies of the future will look at us like ignorant fools for trying to cling to a poor belief system that just doesn't work, just like the way we do today toward the poor fools who clinged to dear life for hope of the slave states getting along with the free states.
Intellectual property rights exist to encourage investment and innovation, and patent rights are stated and granted in the constitution.....
You should really read up on constitutional law, there is a reason why the bill of rights is worded "the congress shall pass no law ... " instead of saying "the government grants people the right ... "
And patent? you didn't mention copyright? But you still proved my point, what the hell kind of right says "for a limited time" or has an expiration date and it's certinly not a "property" right.
encourage investment and innovation ... is definitely not fair in my book
Thank you, those are feelings, not rights, even if some are backed up by poorly thought out laws that just people should defy.
Since you're so fond of examples, check out the U.S.S.R. The economic end result is a great example of what happens when workers have no investment in the system and no incentive to create.
Yeah, the USSR is a great example of what happens when you tell people that they have bullshit "rights" to controll other people for the sake of "security", "fairness" or should I say "incentive" now.
The words 'copy' and 'work' are two different words with two different meanings. ....
Yeah, but that original statement wasn't a statement about the nature of work, it was a statement about appropiate bountries. That's why the word copy fit in so nicely. Get it.
Copyrights are a way to insure that I am paid for the service of creating the content.
That's bullshit, thats like saying slavery is a way to insure that people are provided for in return for picking the cotton fields. Why don't you add in how freed slaves are being stolen from the plantation while you're at it. It's not about theft, it's about out of bounds controll. Get it.
And one more thing, play as many semantics games with the word "theft" as you wish. The bottom line is you are trying to apply the same moral values to the removal of physical property as with copying information. And I quote "This has nothing to do with the subject at hand. The one situation has NOTHING to do with the other. This is another example of a favorite but invalid, technique used to support your arguments" ...
Well the fact is, everyone goes screaming that getting rid of copyrights is wrong because the poor artist has no way of recompensating his efforts without them, so then I point out a way like concerts, and then they declare that am using logical falicies because I'm shifting the argument away from proving that copyrights are wrong. Well excuse me, you are on the side that wishes to impose massive restrictions on what people can copy. The burden of proof is on you, prove that it's right, prove that there is no other reasonable way to compensate productive creativity. I'm sorry all the shit that's going on with the *AA is really hurting your proof, but that's you're problem not mine.
Right back at you, as you're thinking that you're entitled to something... when you're not.
Yeah I do think I'm entitled to something, I think I'm entitled to free speech too, perhaps you feel violated when people exercise that right too, but that is your problem too, not mine.
That is not an "inherent right" and that is not a right granted by the constitution and that is not a right granted by law. Three strikes.
Back at you harder, rights are not granted by the constitution, or law, only acknowledged by them form time to time. Rights exist by the nature of existence - eg. property rights exist because of the nature that not everybody can posess something at the same time. Not so with information. Bzzt. Game over.
Some questions you might ask yourself to help your understanding of your own example:
* what is the cost to produce one tabloid newspaper?
* how many units can the tabloid press expect to sell?
* what is the cost to produce a hardbound, 4-color, 600-page textbook?
* how many units can the texbook publisher expect to sell?
* How does the existence of copyright laws directly influence the above business equation?
I don't think you understand, the example of the tabloid is just to contrast. Collecting all the information in the book is a rather large barier to entry, so there is little competition, lots of incentive to change things needlessly, and contributors are segragated rather than collaberated so the price gets driven up. Without the copyright system, the barriers to entry for collection would be gone, as well as the hinderences to collaberation, and the book would be about as cheap as any other thing that used the same amount of paper and ink. Competition would be focused on the cost of distribution and materials rather than on content, so market forces would drive the cost down. (all you need to do is look at the cost of the "classics" compaired to the "new releases" to see these forces in action)
The assertion was "the copyright system punishes and rewards in such a way that that promotes hype over substance."
The examples were, cost of tabloids, types of media produced by hollywood and tv, overpaid sports.
I don't understand what you're looking for, it's not a thesis, but I made my point.
I did in the post here....
4 79685
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=148847&cid=12
Once upon a time, Dell had their own SVR4 UNIX Distro. Perhaps Mr Dell has a passion for OS's.
I wouldn't be supprised if this was more to do with Microsoft, to send them a message that they don't have the world over a barrel, than it is a passion of OS's. As computers get cheaper, every machine sold with Windows on it is going to be cutting into an increasing amount of profit margin, and just as the industry is getting cheaper - Microsoft is getting more expensive, perhaps this is more like the corporate way of saying f**k U, without putting anything on "Dell" - the company.
Well one symptom might be the cost of books at colleges - notice how they are very expensive, where the tabloids are dirt cheap, even though much of the information (esp in math) has existed for 100s of years - I claim this isn't natural. Notice only a very small part of our media is informative, and much of that is only on stations like PBS - without copyrights there is reason to believe that all media would be more like that and less like "alley mc biel". Notice how how the movie industry is centered arround romance and action packed thrillers and tear jerkres and almost nothing educational, and the hollywood culture that is very "out of touch" you could say. This is also a sympton of a copy controll culture. Also, notice the huge salaries for big sprots, while educators get pittance in compaire - even though the value to society is arguably reversed, once again, some of this is caused by the copy controll culture that puts that which gets the most attention over that which has the most value.
It's not that it's wrong for people to make big money, or for peronal entertainment to be made and valued, it's just that a copy controll culture puts the hype over the substance to the point of extremes because pay is directly proportional to the % of the mob that shows interest rather than the actual value that it offers society.
In sum, copyrights may encourage "creation", but that doesn't necissairly mean beneficial creation.
I think it's worth mentioning here that the copyright system punishes and rewards in such a way that that promotes hype over substance. I think it's unfair to "blame society", while at the same time holding this system of punishment and reward in place. In a copyright society, it is always the information that turns the most heads that gets the most money, where in a non copyright world the information that has the most value is rewarded the most.
Of cource I know people would say, well Linux Journal is copyrighted too, to which I would respond - most people who are subscribing would do so as a sign of support for the authors and not because they are the cheaper that the competitors. Besides, I don't know of anything in that publication that couldn't be gotten online anyhow, but people still support it.
I don't half to have "special treatment" or to "convince a judge" - that's half the problem, you're thinking about what the rules *were* and I'm thinking about the way things *are*. You're thinking of ethics in terms of what you want granted to you or what you feel, I'm thinking of ethics in terms of what rights individuals inherently have like freedom of speech, the right to copy things ... even if everybody hates it and it doesn't make a goddam bit of money for them. Maybe society and the law think gravity pulls upward too, I don't care ... I don't half to care, they are wrong and you'd be a dumbass if you bet your life on it.
Perhaps you can explain, using small words so you can understand them, how your stealing... (excuse me) copying a program it took me a year to write is doing ME a service.
If you're creative enough to write a usefull program that everybody wants, then I'm sure you can also figure out how to reward yourself without microregulating what every person on the planet coppies. Seems like allot of other people have, so if you can't cope without a personal monopoly then tough shit, but it's still NOT theft!
That's what the information age is about, learn to deal with it or be A LOOSER!
Sorry, but in effect you stole the results of my efforts, my time, and my money without offering me due compensation.
Hypocite, you're stealing by getting free services from me! and hiding behind the government as an excuse. If you believe that you have a right to controll information that you created, then you are free to try and do so ... non disclosure agreements ... digital encryption ... but seriously that's not tenable because of the real world ... so instead now you want society to bear those costs and controll everybody for you by imposing copyrights.
The only "VALUE" your loosing is the "VALUE" to "CONTROLL" people once the cat's out of the bag. Maybe your loosing "VALUE" when I free your slaves from the plantation too - Maybe I'm "stealing" them from you, because I won't let you controll them anymore. Maybe the train companies loose "value" because airplanes were invented. Once again, you might FEEL someone took value from you, but since you have no right to controll people that way to begin with, it is your problem and not mine, and it is certainly NOT THEFT !!!!!
The only theft going on here is you're stealing my time and resources and the rest of societies to feed and support your controll freak attitude. AND I WONN'T STEAL THEIR MUSIC, SOFTWARE, BOOKS, or GAMES, I'll copy them, cause it's NOT THEFT!!!!, no matter how many rationalisations you use to justify your controll freak attitude.
... and down a little further (as if you didn't notice) on the same page you'll see this one:
... Theft is not defined by what another gains, but by what you loose posession of, not to mention that it's common sense. You still have the original copy, and I didn't trick or force you to give me any services either, maybe you feel I did, but that is your problem and not mine, and it is certainly NOT THEFT!!!!
theft
n : the act of taking something FROM someone unlawfully;
You absolutely do count, as does your opinion, but only when it comes to YOUR work. Trash it, give it away, transmit it to the universe. Just don't tell me YOU can decide what I can or can not do with MY work.
Thank you, that is exactly what I was trying to say ... just substitute the word "copy" for the word "work".
Who are you to decide what attitude is proper for me? If it takes all my time to create quality work, do you expect me to give that up so I can pay for a place to live and food to eat? If you believe in equal value transactions why should you trade your stellar quality work that took a decade to perfect for something I dashed off on a napkin last happy hour?
YEAH! I totally agree, the parent post to mine was the one going off assuming that I didn't know crap about the perspective of an artist? WTF
How about this deal - I'll do my best to provide something you like - you give me some money so I won't starve while I make it.
I like that deal, "paying for a service" truely is so much better than "imposing copyright monopoly".
The cost of making a copy is NOT the cost of creating the content.
Allright now ... are you some kind of hidden genius that is just trying teach me how to make my points better? Once again, BINGO! That is just too insightfull! That's why business should be concentrating their resources on creating content that makes their services more valuable that can be shared freely, and not on content that gets the most hype whose distribution is controlled (and why hollywood sucks and why copyrights suck even more).
Following your logic - doctors, lawyers, and journalists shouldn't be paid either. After all they've already been educated, it doesn't cost a doctor anything to use a stethoscope. Maybe cabdrivers only deserve gas money - the automobile's just equipment - like instruments and recording equipment. In your world musicians don't deserve to be compensated for buying their equipment, why should anyone else?
THANK YOU AGAIN, I don't pay those people because they have what they already got, I pay them because they have skills and experience I need or want to experience. PLEASE! I BEG anyone to show me one goddam musician who will turn away 5000 people paying $50 bucks a head to see him perform live in concert because they won't respect "his copyrights".
That's funny, you still have your original copy, I haven't touched it. Now what was stolen again??? Once again, stealing is defined by what is no longer in your posession, not what is gained by someone else.
Quit your bitching and create something excellent. Then see how you like someone telling you your time and effort mean nothing because it's so incredibly easy to copy your work.
I DID. Go back in my history and re-read my essay "A Bitter Protest Against Copyrights". That was at least four years worth of study, and work - and had been in the making since 1998. I didn't hear a thank you, but I'm sure you're gratefull ... otherwise you wouldn't be comming back for more. :)
And one more thing, I paid a shit load of money to get an RHCE (red hat certified engineer) - and I get paid a very decent salary to use technology that anyone can copy freely. Funny thing is, nobody is telling me that my effort "means nothing". In fact, I'm more in demand, and have gotten paid more than MCSE's at EVERY place I've worked!
And one more more thing. BILLY ... JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TRUTH IS IN EVERY SITUATION DOEN'T MEAN THAT THE TRUTH IS RANDOM OR INCOHERENT OR A FEELING. IT'S MEASURABLE APPROACHABLE AND LEARNABLE ... AND EVEN BETTER PEOPLE ARE MADE TO DIFFERENTIATE TRUTH BY DESIGN FROM T
If I spend MY time, MY money, and MY talent creating something of value and then I offer it for sale you are NOT entitled to it just because you want it and it's easy to steal. .... If I CHOOSE to give it away you're welcome to it.
You're RIGHT!! You are entitled to do to your original copy everything and anything you want to. But psst .... COPYING IS NOT STEALING .... Infcat, if you stole my geo metro I think I would be very violated ... but if you want to copy it then hell ... have 10 ... in fact there are 10 million out there ... I am not violated .... it's BULLSHIT MORALITY! Get it. You already CHOOSE to spew it all over the planet ... and now you want to controll how people use information at their disposal ... well too bad, that is your problem, not mine, sorry you got your feelings hurt, but it's NOT STEALING!!!!!