While there is much wrong with the patent system (to say nothing of IP in general), not all inventors are looking for improvements to their inventions, but rather would like to feed, clothe, etc. their families and enjoy a reasonably comfortable lifstyle.
This is a fallacy. First off both the PC boom of the 80's, the internet boom of the 90's, and now the linux boom of 2000's have been fueled on no uncertain terms by rampant copying. Second, the nature of patents almost guarantees that they almost never help the small inventor, but rather get caught up in large multinational corporations or legal firms who extract license fees - long behold, that's exactly what's happened and now all of a sudden people act supprised offended?
Communism and Open Source do sound similar (in their principles). The parent (was probably a troll) but only because they knew that everyone would see them saying "sounds like something bad to me" instead of "sounds like communism to me." Communism isn't necessarily bad. I was thinking in the shower (before I saw this article) that communism is a set-up where everyone benefits by the greater good of the community. This works by making sure everyone can benefit from the efforts of individuals. Sounds like Open Source doesn't it?Communism and Open Source do sound similar (in their principles). The parent (was probably a troll) but only because they knew that everyone would see them saying "sounds like something bad to me" instead of "sounds like communism to me." Communism isn't necessarily bad. I was thinking in the shower (before I saw this article) that communism is a set-up where everyone benefits by the greater good of the community. This works by making sure everyone can benefit from the efforts of individuals. Sounds like Open Source doesn't it?
Marxisim is about controll, open source is about freedom. When the government controlls all information - things like open source don't even matter.
With Marxisim the declaration is that the government should controll all information
With copyrights, it's a question only a select group of individuals should controll information
With say the GPL, the declration is that noone should controll the information.
Only the last one gives true freedom from controll.
Also, The simple fact is, that I have the resources to make a given product, and people are willing to pay me, and I want to do this with my life - then no group of "enlightened" individuals, no matter how "enlightened" should have a right to tell me anything otherwise. Nice enlightened violence and coersion is still violence and coercion.
The simple truth is that patents really are a lie about free market economics. They treat it like it's a physical property, but it's not. If millions of people use my car it deprives me use of it in a serious way, but if millions of people use the same invention - then just the opposite happens. The inventor is not only able to keep and use his original invention however he wants, but also now has huge forces contributing to it's improvement.
If the government gave someone a monopoly on making cars, because they didn't have an incentive to make cars when other people can make them too - most of us would see that as crap. Market share isn't an inherent property right. If the government gave someone a monopoly on growing oranges, on the premise that they wouldn't have an incentive to grow oranges if other people could too - most people would see that as crap too. But for some reason, that logic breaks down when it comes to invention.
Finally, looking back on history to paraphrase "look at the great wealth and prosperity of the plantation system, the grand architecture, the vast and rich land, the free markets... they paid for those slaves God blessed, surely that alone shows slavery is good, and the negros have been saved from their barbaric condition"....
I wish I could say that patents are causing less harm, but when they recently lokcked out 10's of millions of Africans dying of AIDS from getting generics because "they had no incentive", because patents are "a property right", becasue "the wealth of the pharmasutical industry in the US is proof that patents work"... etc. - it really causes one to think.
I'm sure shareholders and execs will pocket some, but the reality is that most companies still half to compete with other companies, so more often than not those savings get passed on.
Also if companies send a million jobs overseas then the economy has to absorb the loss of purchasing power for 1 million workers, which it can off course, but it negates some of those gains you are talking about.
Which it will, of course, because it just saved a million workers worth of money on products and services.
The economey left to it's own devices is more stable. Think of economic regulations like choking off a volcano, sure that would calm things down and tame the lava flow for awhile, but God help you when the back pressure builds up. In fact, now our economey is in a state of transition - new pressures are building up in the volcano, the last thing in the world you want to do is react to it by being more constrictive.
If a company sends 1000 people offshore, saves an average of $30K/person - then that's a total savings of 30 million dollars. Market forces and competition, though, ensure that this kind of money most likely goes into the consumer's pocket as prices go down. So 30 Million divided by a population of 250 million is about 12 cents for every person. Make it 10 cents to account for inefficiencies.
If companies send a million, $100 for every person - if they send 120 million (the approx labor force), it's about $12000 savings for every person in every family.
Right now, they're trying to justify patents in the EU because of the great economic prosperity in the US. Unfortunately, it's not the first time those in the US has used this kind of argument...
To paraphrase "look at the great wealth and prosperity of the plantation system, the grand architecture, the vast and rich land, the free markets... they paid for those slaves God blessed, surely that alone shows slavery is good, and the negros have been saved from their barbaric condition"....
I wish I could say that patents are causing less harm, but when they recently lokcked out 10's of millions of Africans dying of AIDS from getting generics because "they had no incentive", because patents are "a property right", becasue "the wealth of the pharmasutical industry in the US is proof that patents work"... etc. - it really causes me to think twice.
The people who know understand that the USA works because of freedom that exists inspite of patents, not becaus of them.
One thing I've learnt over the years is that just because a company talks about open standards doesn't mean that there is.
If I can build my own fab and start producing exact copies of IBM's design and sell them without even seeking permission, then I'll believe it. (same with the sparc) Until then, it's all talk.
a) boot 2 linux cd b) dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/hda (sda, whatever) c) do it a few times if it makes you feel better, but the first pass is likely more than enough
FYI - you are now beginning to get a tase of the new Microsoft Linux strategy.
That is - patent the daylights out of everything, hopeing to catch, snag, and delay Linux somewhere along the way. (Well you didn't actually expect them to innovate did you?)
I agree, every time I see "WIPO", I cringe, because I know they are going to do something just plain evil. Either take away a trademark that a person has a right to, or enforce overbearing copyrights, patnets, or try to microregulate the internet.
Somebody just plain needs to shut them down and that's all there is too it. I'd really like to know who'se funding them. Perhaps a two pronged atack, go after the people funding them on the one hand, promote new technologies that make copyright enforcement impossible on the other.
Just like the old USSR looked strong, but was weak when push came to shove, I think the same is true with the WIPO. I doubt they ever innovate, only sit on their ass and restrict those who do. I'm sure we can outmanuver them.
Alot means the things you can controll, keeping them out of bad circumstances and making them educated about when and where they can be in vulnerable positions, teaching them how find and hang arround nice people and to love freedom and liberty (corrupt and unfree places, lead to corrupt and harmfull choices). And just watching them without hovering.
Some things you can never stop, but you can't stop them from happening to you either. Maybe oneday you'll just be walking into a store and someone takes a baseball bat to your head? The fact is, as long as people have free choice, they will have the ability to cause harm to you or your loved ones. The question is do we deal with it by taking away peoples choices, or do we deal with it punishing people who make bad choices. The answer is the later. Sure someone can make bad choices, but so can we make good choices. At least with the later, we have the choice.
The most fusterating thing to me is that everyone in the industry, who knew, knew that Sun either had to open source Java (and solaris to a lesser extent) or effectively get killed.
Unfortunately, ESR knew this too and so publically demanded that Sun open source Java just so he could take the credit for it. While it was a shrewd move on his part, I also think it was rather untrue to peoples nature and cold.
IMHO, he has always been taking credit for the success of GNU/Linux and open source on the grounds that his corporate lobying brought the movement into the "main stream", when in reality market forces were going to propel it to the top anyhow. If anyone deserves credit, it is RMS who understood from the beginning that freedom is important, and an end in itself - the rest is juat a matter of people using it to improve their lives.
Boy, if they would have, it would have stopped alot of the anticompetitive business practices that's happened in the 25 years since, they could have locked out execl before it even happened.
Actually, Rome fell with barbarians at the gate, and it was a slow ugly political decay till then. I think M$ will fall more like the plantation system. Linux is going to come up on them like a sunami that will bust their butts harder than they busted IBM's butt. Once linux takes over they'll realise it's too late - and freak. It will make SCO look like a tea party. Sure M$ will likely still be arround, but so are cotton farms.
In the 80's it was the PC boom, in the 90's it was the internet boom, now it's the GNU/Linux boom and at current growth rates it's shaping up to be bigger than the other two combined. Even with a market cap of half a trillion, M$ doesn't have a snowballs chance - the US economy alone puts out well over 20 times that in a single year. When puch comes to shove, they will get their ass kicked!
... All one has to do is study the history of socialism (known as communism to some) for the motives and actions of the left become crystal clear.....
I like to call it marxisim, because there is nothing community orientated or sociable about it. (sort like social security, it's not being 'social' when you force someone to participate in a lousy investment scheme, and ponzi schemes are not 'security')
I do resent the attitude though where the "white american christian middle class heterosexual male" is the most evil hidious beast on the earth. "It's all right to discriminate against them", "it's understandable when people hate them", "it's all right to call them names and racist lables", and so on...
About the ACLU, it's not just that they're standing up for people I disagree with it's that they insist that they have the right to do it at my expense.
Like the crucifix on stage, if they want to do that at a private showing, not funded with my tax money - I really would have no problem with it (other than i think its bad taste, but to each his own). Or if they wanted to cut off arts funding to all participants to prevent discriminary judgements, I wouldn't have a problem with that either.
I renember one sepcific incident in utah, where the aclu has never made a peep about the LDS church being forced to shutdown all their schools and use public schools. But they screemed all hell when the parents in the public schools didn't want them funding 'gay' groups. The funny thing was, that when it came to parents pulling thousands out of the public school system and the public schools loosing the per student funding - then all of a sudden all the school administrators got religion.
The article and subjet really had me going untill I read this....
.... Never has the ACLU needed your financial support more. Clearly, it is the only thing standing between us and our fascist government.....
Well, I'm sorry but if I actually believed that any money I give would go to fight this and not all the other causes and parties who I know the ACLU supports that I'm sure to disagree with (especially in an election year) - then I would have opened up my checkbook in 5 seconds flat. One example that comes to mind... is the right to urinate on a crusifix on stage at the taxpayers expense - if anyone renembers that.
If you're really concerned about liberty, then you'd be far better off giving to the libertarian party or the EFF. But, as things are the way they are now, I would be very cautious that this here isn't a ploy to get people to fund all their other causes if not "left" party electorates.
For all those who scream the death of copyrights means thousands of little artists getting screwed - I think this article says it all. When you have a copyright system, the information that gets the most attention has the most value, and the information that provides the best service is marginalized, long behold, if that isn't exactly what happened here.
Copyrights have nothing to do with free market property rights, but are rather like government regulations about what people can do with information. But the GPL, has found a 'loophole' in these restrictions - and is far more accountable to free market forces. People who have closed software are going to continue to pay huge opportunity costs as the market takes off again.
I just want to put my 2 cents in that the only way we are ever going to get these people off our back is to get rid of copyright monopiolies alltogether, the more we foolishly cling to hope against hope that there is some type of middle ground - the more the attacks on our freedom will be neverending. In an essay I wrote a year ago called 'a bitter progest against copyrights' (see google) I pointed out that copyrights are like a vine that will never stop growing to choke off our freedoms until we cut it off at the root. Well, it still holds more true today than it ever has.
Heres an essay I wrote against patents, I think it addresses your concers quite thouroughly....
Bitter Protest Against Patents
There seems to be this attitude that the suffering of slaves prior to 1850 was something that only happened back then. That it has nothing to do with now, that we are more civilized, more modern, more mature, and more sophisticated. With it comes the arrogance that what happened then, means nothing now, that what happened there has no value here, that the great torment and suffering back then can safely be ignored now as we blow off history and all the values that go with it in terms of understanding, freedom, markets, property, technology, and the post-industrial era.
Surely anyone who claimed that there is no "incentive" go grow cotton without slaves on the plantation would be considered a barbaric. But if someone claims that there is no "incentive" to create intellectual and knowledge works without patents, then society calls them enlightened. If someone had said that the great wealth of America rested on slavery as a property right and the plantation system, they were a foolish idiot. But if someone says that the great wealth of societies in the post industrial era rests on "Intellectual Property", then they are called wise. Anyone who says that slavery was about property rights and not control, is a liar. However, if they say that patents are not about control, but "Intellectual Property" then they are considered trustworthy. How about - if you don't like slavery - don't own slaves, and if you don't like patents no one forces you to buy those creations. How about - if you don't believe in slavery, you must be an anarchist, if you don't believe in patents you must be some kind of a communist. How about - you are a thief if you free slaves from the plantation, you are a thief when you copy "Intellectual Property".
So why are we spoon-feed these poor logical explanations over and over again? Because, like the assassin who befriends and mis-places his victims heart medications, rather than pull out a rifle and pop a bullet in the head. Like the rapist who drugs his victim, rather than attack her overtly and violently where all the scars, blood, and bruises can be detected.Patents are the pinnacle of quiet violence, they seem so innocent, they seem so sincere, and it is so hard to see any direct evil. After all, what could be less harmless then providing an incentive to inventors, right? But do they really promote invention - or just lock out and tie up inventions and discoveries that were likely to happen anyhow? Do they really help inventors, or do they hinder collaboration and sharing in a way that would put a police state to shame?
Perhaps the old lady has none to blame when her patented medication is too expensive to afford anymore. Who can the workers blame when the patented technology they bet their career on becomes useless as society migrates to less controlling technologies. Who can a child in Africa blame when they are dying of AIDS, and there are no generics to treat it! Who do we blame when researchers seeking a cure for cancer encounter massive obstacles to sharing individual research for fear that their peers will get one up on them, get a key patent, and lock them out! What do you do when a company buys up a patent on a safety device, but then decides not to use it nor let their competitors use it, other than watch people die who might not have otherwise. And all to often people just assume that every manufacturer having incompatible parts and appliances with every other manufacturer is a natural part of a free market, but is it? And does that really help our environment?
As people die because patents are either too costly and alternatives too sparse, and the needy go without, not because of genuine shortage, but because artificial human made restrictions. Perhaps we should ask what will our role be in the pages of history as society enters into the post industrial era? Will it be like the lost souls who tho
First off, I hope you understand that patents have nothing to do with free market property rights and everything to do with private government backed monopolies - so in the case of "can't stand the competition", I think US businesses should take a serious look in the mirror first before looking at China.
Second, imposing patnets is suicidal for any western economy. We're going to find this out the hard way beacsue if we impose patents on a million items overseas, then that means that we're giving overseas countries the right to impose a billion patents on us - because we are outnumbered in the world bigtime.
Finally, one of the few protectins China has from becomming a facist dictatorship like germany did in 1940 is their open culture of copying and sharing knowledge without trying to assign ownership controlls to it. When we destroy this culture by insisting that they impose copyrights and patents, we are destroying a balance in China that keeps a fragile situation in check. The consequences could be genocidal for them, and suicidal for us.
What we sould really do is get rid of copyright and patnet monopolies, and especially quit trying to impose them overseas. So just how many people are we willing to kill in the name of copyrights and patents?
You know, one day at work (in a data center of a global fortune 500 company in the bay area) someone just showed up one day with a delivery of a half million dollar IBM mainframe. It was our new email server. Too bad they didn't ask me, because I would have told them that all their email could be handled by a few PC's with ease, but they didn't. The decision was made by top level managment and I (and 90% of the IT department) was totally in the dark until it just showed up at the door! (How much you want to bet somebody was getting kickbacks or eyeing a cozy job at IBM)
Anyhow, after that I would believe anything. How much you want to bet all 20 of those email servers are high end sun sparc stations?
Slashdot Mirror
While there is much wrong with the patent system (to say nothing of IP in general), not all inventors are looking for improvements to their inventions, but rather would like to feed, clothe, etc. their families and enjoy a reasonably comfortable lifstyle.
This is a fallacy. First off both the PC boom of the 80's, the internet boom of the 90's, and now the linux boom of 2000's have been fueled on no uncertain terms by rampant copying. Second, the nature of patents almost guarantees that they almost never help the small inventor, but rather get caught up in large multinational corporations or legal firms who extract license fees - long behold, that's exactly what's happened and now all of a sudden people act supprised offended?
Communism and Open Source do sound similar (in their principles). The parent (was probably a troll) but only because they knew that everyone would see them saying "sounds like something bad to me" instead of "sounds like communism to me." Communism isn't necessarily bad. I was thinking in the shower (before I saw this article) that communism is a set-up where everyone benefits by the greater good of the community. This works by making sure everyone can benefit from the efforts of individuals. Sounds like Open Source doesn't it?Communism and Open Source do sound similar (in their principles). The parent (was probably a troll) but only because they knew that everyone would see them saying "sounds like something bad to me" instead of "sounds like communism to me." Communism isn't necessarily bad. I was thinking in the shower (before I saw this article) that communism is a set-up where everyone benefits by the greater good of the community. This works by making sure everyone can benefit from the efforts of individuals. Sounds like Open Source doesn't it?
Marxisim is about controll, open source is about freedom. When the government controlls all information - things like open source don't even matter.
With Marxisim the declaration is that the government should controll all information
With copyrights, it's a question only a select group of individuals should controll information
With say the GPL, the declration is that noone should controll the information.
Only the last one gives true freedom from controll.
Also, The simple fact is, that I have the resources to make a given product, and people are willing to pay me, and I want to do this with my life - then no group of "enlightened" individuals, no matter how "enlightened" should have a right to tell me anything otherwise. Nice enlightened violence and coersion is still violence and coercion.
The simple truth is that patents really are a lie about free market economics. They treat it like it's a physical property, but it's not. If millions of people use my car it deprives me use of it in a serious way, but if millions of people use the same invention - then just the opposite happens. The inventor is not only able to keep and use his original invention however he wants, but also now has huge forces contributing to it's improvement.
... they paid for those slaves God blessed, surely that alone shows slavery is good, and the negros have been saved from their barbaric condition" ....
... etc. - it really causes one to think.
If the government gave someone a monopoly on making cars, because they didn't have an incentive to make cars when other people can make them too - most of us would see that as crap. Market share isn't an inherent property right. If the government gave someone a monopoly on growing oranges, on the premise that they wouldn't have an incentive to grow oranges if other people could too - most people would see that as crap too. But for some reason, that logic breaks down when it comes to invention.
Finally, looking back on history to paraphrase "look at the great wealth and prosperity of the plantation system, the grand architecture, the vast and rich land, the free markets
I wish I could say that patents are causing less harm, but when they recently lokcked out 10's of millions of Africans dying of AIDS from getting generics because "they had no incentive", because patents are "a property right", becasue "the wealth of the pharmasutical industry in the US is proof that patents work"
I'm sure shareholders and execs will pocket some, but the reality is that most companies still half to compete with other companies, so more often than not those savings get passed on.
Also if companies send a million jobs overseas then the economy has to absorb the loss of purchasing power for 1 million workers, which it can off course, but it negates some of those gains you are talking about.
Which it will, of course, because it just saved a million workers worth of money on products and services.
The economey left to it's own devices is more stable. Think of economic regulations like choking off a volcano, sure that would calm things down and tame the lava flow for awhile, but God help you when the back pressure builds up. In fact, now our economey is in a state of transition - new pressures are building up in the volcano, the last thing in the world you want to do is react to it by being more constrictive.
If a company sends 1000 people offshore, saves an average of $30K/person - then that's a total savings of 30 million dollars. Market forces and competition, though, ensure that this kind of money most likely goes into the consumer's pocket as prices go down. So 30 Million divided by a population of 250 million is about 12 cents for every person. Make it 10 cents to account for inefficiencies.
If companies send a million, $100 for every person - if they send 120 million (the approx labor force), it's about $12000 savings for every person in every family.
just a thought.
Right now, they're trying to justify patents in the EU because of the great economic prosperity in the US. Unfortunately, it's not the first time those in the US has used this kind of argument...
To paraphrase "look at the great wealth and prosperity of the plantation system, the grand architecture, the vast and rich land, the free markets ... they paid for those slaves God blessed, surely that alone shows slavery is good, and the negros have been saved from their barbaric condition" ....
I wish I could say that patents are causing less harm, but when they recently lokcked out 10's of millions of Africans dying of AIDS from getting generics because "they had no incentive", because patents are "a property right", becasue "the wealth of the pharmasutical industry in the US is proof that patents work" ... etc. - it really causes me to think twice.
The people who know understand that the USA works because of freedom that exists inspite of patents, not becaus of them.
One thing I've learnt over the years is that just because a company talks about open standards doesn't mean that there is.
If I can build my own fab and start producing exact copies of IBM's design and sell them without even seeking permission, then I'll believe it. (same with the sparc) Until then, it's all talk.
a) boot 2 linux cd
b) dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/hda (sda, whatever)
c) do it a few times if it makes you feel better, but the first pass is likely more than enough
FYI - you are now beginning to get a tase of the new Microsoft Linux strategy.
That is - patent the daylights out of everything, hopeing to catch, snag, and delay Linux somewhere along the way. (Well you didn't actually expect them to innovate did you?)
The next frontier in liberty - Project Libertopia
I agree, every time I see "WIPO", I cringe, because I know they are going to do something just plain evil. Either take away a trademark that a person has a right to, or enforce overbearing copyrights, patnets, or try to microregulate the internet.
Somebody just plain needs to shut them down and that's all there is too it. I'd really like to know who'se funding them. Perhaps a two pronged atack, go after the people funding them on the one hand, promote new technologies that make copyright enforcement impossible on the other.
Just like the old USSR looked strong, but was weak when push came to shove, I think the same is true with the WIPO. I doubt they ever innovate, only sit on their ass and restrict those who do. I'm sure we can outmanuver them.
Next frontier liberty - Project Libertopia
Alot means the things you can controll, keeping them out of bad circumstances and making them educated about when and where they can be in vulnerable positions, teaching them how find and hang arround nice people and to love freedom and liberty (corrupt and unfree places, lead to corrupt and harmfull choices). And just watching them without hovering.
Some things you can never stop, but you can't stop them from happening to you either. Maybe oneday you'll just be walking into a store and someone takes a baseball bat to your head? The fact is, as long as people have free choice, they will have the ability to cause harm to you or your loved ones. The question is do we deal with it by taking away peoples choices, or do we deal with it punishing people who make bad choices. The answer is the later. Sure someone can make bad choices, but so can we make good choices. At least with the later, we have the choice.
I can do alot to protect my daughter from perverts, but how do I protect her from people trying to micro-regulate the internet?
The most fusterating thing to me is that everyone in the industry, who knew, knew that Sun either had to open source Java (and solaris to a lesser extent) or effectively get killed.
Unfortunately, ESR knew this too and so publically demanded that Sun open source Java just so he could take the credit for it. While it was a shrewd move on his part, I also think it was rather untrue to peoples nature and cold.
IMHO, he has always been taking credit for the success of GNU/Linux and open source on the grounds that his corporate lobying brought the movement into the "main stream", when in reality market forces were going to propel it to the top anyhow. If anyone deserves credit, it is RMS who understood from the beginning that freedom is important, and an end in itself - the rest is juat a matter of people using it to improve their lives.
Boy, if they would have, it would have stopped alot of the anticompetitive business practices that's happened in the 25 years since, they could have locked out execl before it even happened.
Actually, Rome fell with barbarians at the gate, and it was a slow ugly political decay till then. I think M$ will fall more like the plantation system. Linux is going to come up on them like a sunami that will bust their butts harder than they busted IBM's butt. Once linux takes over they'll realise it's too late - and freak. It will make SCO look like a tea party. Sure M$ will likely still be arround, but so are cotton farms.
In the 80's it was the PC boom, in the 90's it was the internet boom, now it's the GNU/Linux boom and at current growth rates it's shaping up to be bigger than the other two combined. Even with a market cap of half a trillion, M$ doesn't have a snowballs chance - the US economy alone puts out well over 20 times that in a single year. When puch comes to shove, they will get their ass kicked!
I like to call it marxisim, because there is nothing community orientated or sociable about it. (sort like social security, it's not being 'social' when you force someone to participate in a lousy investment scheme, and ponzi schemes are not 'security')
I do resent the attitude though where the "white american christian middle class heterosexual male" is the most evil hidious beast on the earth. "It's all right to discriminate against them", "it's understandable when people hate them", "it's all right to call them names and racist lables", and so on...
About the ACLU, it's not just that they're standing up for people I disagree with it's that they insist that they have the right to do it at my expense.
Like the crucifix on stage, if they want to do that at a private showing, not funded with my tax money - I really would have no problem with it (other than i think its bad taste, but to each his own). Or if they wanted to cut off arts funding to all participants to prevent discriminary judgements, I wouldn't have a problem with that either.
I renember one sepcific incident in utah, where the aclu has never made a peep about the LDS church being forced to shutdown all their schools and use public schools. But they screemed all hell when the parents in the public schools didn't want them funding 'gay' groups. The funny thing was, that when it came to parents pulling thousands out of the public school system and the public schools loosing the per student funding - then all of a sudden all the school administrators got religion.
The article and subjet really had me going untill I read this ....
Well, I'm sorry but if I actually believed that any money I give would go to fight this and not all the other causes and parties who I know the ACLU supports that I'm sure to disagree with (especially in an election year) - then I would have opened up my checkbook in 5 seconds flat. One example that comes to mind ... is the right to urinate on a crusifix on stage at the taxpayers expense - if anyone renembers that.
If you're really concerned about liberty, then you'd be far better off giving to the libertarian party or the EFF. But, as things are the way they are now, I would be very cautious that this here isn't a ploy to get people to fund all their other causes if not "left" party electorates.
For all those who scream the death of copyrights means thousands of little artists getting screwed - I think this article says it all. When you have a copyright system, the information that gets the most attention has the most value, and the information that provides the best service is marginalized, long behold, if that isn't exactly what happened here.
Copyrights have nothing to do with free market property rights, but are rather like government regulations about what people can do with information. But the GPL, has found a 'loophole' in these restrictions - and is far more accountable to free market forces. People who have closed software are going to continue to pay huge opportunity costs as the market takes off again.
I just want to put my 2 cents in that the only way we are ever going to get these people off our back is to get rid of copyright monopiolies alltogether, the more we foolishly cling to hope against hope that there is some type of middle ground - the more the attacks on our freedom will be neverending. In an essay I wrote a year ago called 'a bitter progest against copyrights' (see google) I pointed out that copyrights are like a vine that will never stop growing to choke off our freedoms until we cut it off at the root. Well, it still holds more true today than it ever has.
Heres an essay I wrote against patents, I think it addresses your concers quite thouroughly....
Bitter Protest Against Patents
There seems to be this attitude that the suffering of slaves prior to 1850 was something that only happened back then. That it has nothing to do with now, that we are more civilized, more modern, more mature, and more sophisticated. With it comes the arrogance that what happened then, means nothing now, that what happened there has no value here, that the great torment and suffering back then can safely be ignored now as we blow off history and all the values that go with it in terms of understanding, freedom, markets, property, technology, and the post-industrial era.
Surely anyone who claimed that there is no "incentive" go grow cotton without slaves on the plantation would be considered a barbaric. But if someone claims that there is no "incentive" to create intellectual and knowledge works without patents, then society calls them enlightened. If someone had said that the great wealth of America rested on slavery as a property right and the plantation system, they were a foolish idiot. But if someone says that the great wealth of societies in the post industrial era rests on "Intellectual Property", then they are called wise. Anyone who says that slavery was about property rights and not control, is a liar. However, if they say that patents are not about control, but "Intellectual Property" then they are considered trustworthy. How about - if you don't like slavery - don't own slaves, and if you don't like patents no one forces you to buy those creations. How about - if you don't believe in slavery, you must be an anarchist, if you don't believe in patents you must be some kind of a communist. How about - you are a thief if you free slaves from the plantation, you are a thief when you copy "Intellectual Property".
So why are we spoon-feed these poor logical explanations over and over again? Because, like the assassin who befriends and mis-places his victims heart medications, rather than pull out a rifle and pop a bullet in the head. Like the rapist who drugs his victim, rather than attack her overtly and violently where all the scars, blood, and bruises can be detected.Patents are the pinnacle of quiet violence, they seem so innocent, they seem so sincere, and it is so hard to see any direct evil. After all, what could be less harmless then providing an incentive to inventors, right? But do they really promote invention - or just lock out and tie up inventions and discoveries that were likely to happen anyhow? Do they really help inventors, or do they hinder collaboration and sharing in a way that would put a police state to shame?
Perhaps the old lady has none to blame when her patented medication is too expensive to afford anymore. Who can the workers blame when the patented technology they bet their career on becomes useless as society migrates to less controlling technologies. Who can a child in Africa blame when they are dying of AIDS, and there are no generics to treat it! Who do we blame when researchers seeking a cure for cancer encounter massive obstacles to sharing individual research for fear that their peers will get one up on them, get a key patent, and lock them out! What do you do when a company buys up a patent on a safety device, but then decides not to use it nor let their competitors use it, other than watch people die who might not have otherwise. And all to often people just assume that every manufacturer having incompatible parts and appliances with every other manufacturer is a natural part of a free market, but is it? And does that really help our environment?
As people die because patents are either too costly and alternatives too sparse, and the needy go without, not because of genuine shortage, but because artificial human made restrictions. Perhaps we should ask what will our role be in the pages of history as society enters into the post industrial era? Will it be like the lost souls who tho
First off, I hope you understand that patents have nothing to do with free market property rights and everything to do with private government backed monopolies - so in the case of "can't stand the competition", I think US businesses should take a serious look in the mirror first before looking at China.
Second, imposing patnets is suicidal for any western economy. We're going to find this out the hard way beacsue if we impose patents on a million items overseas, then that means that we're giving overseas countries the right to impose a billion patents on us - because we are outnumbered in the world bigtime.
Finally, one of the few protectins China has from becomming a facist dictatorship like germany did in 1940 is their open culture of copying and sharing knowledge without trying to assign ownership controlls to it. When we destroy this culture by insisting that they impose copyrights and patents, we are destroying a balance in China that keeps a fragile situation in check. The consequences could be genocidal for them, and suicidal for us.
What we sould really do is get rid of copyright and patnet monopolies, and especially quit trying to impose them overseas. So just how many people are we willing to kill in the name of copyrights and patents?
Funny thing is, even with the supposed "disparity" the adjusted percapita US income is still 10K higher.
You know, one day at work (in a data center of a global fortune 500 company in the bay area) someone just showed up one day with a delivery of a half million dollar IBM mainframe. It was our new email server. Too bad they didn't ask me, because I would have told them that all their email could be handled by a few PC's with ease, but they didn't. The decision was made by top level managment and I (and 90% of the IT department) was totally in the dark until it just showed up at the door! (How much you want to bet somebody was getting kickbacks or eyeing a cozy job at IBM)
Anyhow, after that I would believe anything. How much you want to bet all 20 of those email servers are high end sun sparc stations?