I would also like to point out that what the FSF is asking is pittance compaired to the cost of rolling your own opperating system. Some companies have spent over a billion dollars and still cant get it right.
You don't see the FSF throwing arround billion dollar law suits, and milking companies dry. In fact, I would like to know of one company on this planet whose financials have been impacted by FSF lawsuits. Funny, I've seen no companies step up to the plate.
This technology has been progressing for several years, and was bound to happen eventually, but with the patent system the oil companies can and will but it out and lock it up for the next 20 years, in addition to new innovations that this technology might spawn.
Copyright by definition is a government granted monopoly on the right to copy somthing. But, the right to controll what people copy is not a right inherent or otherwise any more than the right to grow trees in your yard or pee in your car. Perhaps I don't have some kind of incentive without these "rights" either, but that is irrelavent.
Copyrights do not "protect" you against anything. No matter what I copy, you are free to do whatever the heck you want with your copy. You are not coerced, not imposed on. You might loose market share, but so what - that is not a right either. Perhaps ford has no incentive to make cars unless they can lock out the japs... tough. Just because a bunch of lords think somethings a right, and call it a right does not make it so.
Re:The Rich: not to burst bubbles either ...
on
Tech Rich Get Richer
·
· Score: 1
In essence, what you're saying is that it's ok for her to be raped because he over there was murdered... she should just shut up and be thankfull... Besides, she got some pleasure back out of it, right? Maybe it will make her a stronger pseron, right? He did it for her, right?
Well, the problem here is that you're forgetting that there is another government mandated monopoly going on here - copyrights! It is an artificial monopoly in every sense of the word. After all, the digital information here has no natural limits in supply and demand.
Infact, copyrights started out when kings granted publishers monopolies on publishing specific works in return for not publishing bad things about the monarchy. To call Linux a monopoly in this context is blazing hypocracy at best.
Is this a troll? Monopoly? Microsoft is free to make a Linux distro if they want to, all the source is out there. they are free to distribute it, noones stopping them. So are you. In my world monopoly means somthing where competitors are locked out.
In the case of US capitalism, each dollar is owned by someone, the simple act of wealth creation dictates in and of itself that the source be from another individual or group capable of ownership.
Thats just another way of saying it's a zero sum game, it is not. Dollars are a way of keeping track of wealth, not wealth in themselves. Look at how oil companies, by using more efficient extraction techniques, created billions of dollars worth of oil that never existed before. Wealth creation is not about dollars, but about resources. As far as I'm concerned, someone wouldn't half to pay me a penny if I could barter my skills for a confortable living. If I grew oranges, and my neighbor grew appels, and we each shared half and half, we are both better off and didn't spend a penny to do it. Make it so the government doesn't force dollarize the transation and take up to 50 percent of the worth in the process and youd be amazed what happens.
but when you have large groups capable of ownership, the capacity is there for them to hoard scarce resources (scarce as in limited), thus removing them from the total amount of recources available to the populace.
As a person hoards resources, it drives up the price making it harder and harder to hoard more. In addition, a few years ago someone tried to corner the silver market - their plan was thwarted and they were financially ruined - first because, silver isn't a need and when forced to people could do without, second because as the price went up more and more people decided to sell their silver jewlery driving the prive back down. What you're saying just doesn't jive with what really happens.
Cry all you might that corporations will not exploit that, but look back into history, it happens all the time.
I have looked back in history, the railroad barrons would have been impossible without the handsome government payouts, and regulations that protected them from new entrants. The oil and steel barrons - similar. Not to mention false govt imposed property rights like patents and copyrights, that are not free market and get misused all the time.
Limit governments ability to take, and to be in places that they don't belong, and you will automatically limit the corporate worlds ability to garner special interests and powers to their advantage. It's that simple.
While secrecy in some areas clearly helps, IMHO - the real thing that won the cold war was the fact that intel (and many other US industries and products) could doubble it's chip speed every 18 months. The russians just couldn't compete against that kind of growth, that kind of economics even though the processes and technology wern't government secrets.
I'm with you. It's amazing the kind of abuse people will lay on you for pointing out simple facts about property and information. (even from open source gurus) Us people who understand that patents and copyrights suck need to team up and make some publicity.
BTW, type in "against copyrights" in any internet search engine and you will likely see my bitter protest against copyrights right up there. (I also rewrote it and put it in a journal under slashdot user ~myprotest) But I've been searching for more effective ways.....
The simple fact is that patnets have no place in the future of commerce and business. In fact, even today they are rarely good for anything but defensive purposes against useless litigation and cross licensing. Just like the PC era exploded specifically because nobody could patent interfaces, the next generation of technology is going to take the same route.
I'll explain it to you. If I make something, it's mine, to do with as I please. If I choose to sell/give it to you, it is now yours, to do with as you please. A slave is something stolen, so human-rights aside, it's not yours.
And if a copy freely comes my way, then it's mine. I can do what I want with my copy, and you can do what you want with your copy.
...Comparing copyrights to slavery? RIAA attorneys certainly never mutilated, tortured or murdered anyone. And popular as it may be, intellectu...
BZZT, I never said copyrights were like slavery, I said they are both false property rights, and that false property rights are a threat.
Sorry, but I don't understand either. What does ownership imply? The next sentence
There's your problem, even if you believe in copyrights, at least accept that property rights are not subjective, but something that exists outside the whims of government, the mob, or popular opinion.
...Copyright is bad, but maybe information has to be controlled... and yet, maybe it should be made free? Says who - you?...
The point is that you can't have copyrights without evnetually forcing the system to controll all information, speech, and expression.
The point is that just because the establishment calls something a property right does not mean that it is.
And, BTW I never said copyrights were similar to slavery, I said they were both false property rights and and false property rights are a threat. Now, some of the justifications sounded alot alike....
eg...
I have no incentive to create without copyrights.... I have no incentive to grow cotton without slaves...
I imported that slave, so I own it... I created that work, so I own it...
Slavery contributes to the great wealth of the states.... Copyrights cause the great wealth in the IT industry...
Slavery is capitalisim... Copyrights are capitalisim....
If you don't like slavery, you don't half to own slaves... If you don't like copyrights, you don't half to buy microsoft....
slavery's not about controll - its about property... copyrights are not about controll, they're about property...
Any false property right is a danger to societies security. Just look at how slavery led to the civil war. Today many are betting trillions of dollars on a false premise, that works of knowledge can or should be owned without any understanding of what that implies. Because information is becomming so easy to copy, change, and manipulate - the "middle" gound is quickly evaporating, either all information will half to be controlled or none of it.
I don't think it would be so bad if it was ubiquitous. I guess my real point is that - any good solution will be a technology based, and not a political based. I liked my proposal because it puts the AI burdon on the spammer and not the receiver.
I really think the best way to manage spam is to have it so that those who want to email you that are not already on your list half to take a 30-60 second truing test. It could be from a site of your choice that issues a signed id string if the test is completed successfully. If someone wants to talk to you, then that's not that much of a nussance, but for a spammer sending out 10million emails/day it would be a disaster.
Actually, what really matters in CA is taxes, even with prop 13 - they are still some of the worst in the nation. Not to mention, zoneing and building regulations that have driven up the cost of an average home into outer space.
The problem is, no matter who wins this election, people were dumb enough to vote for Davis to begin with. I myself am looking real hard for another state about now.
It sorta seems ironic that the government is promiting internet usage, because IMHO the the most overwhelming beneficial purpose is to bypass obsolete and bad government.
Be it unethical copyright imposition, overbearing controlls on finances and money, censorship, or myrad of other obselete rules from anything to gambling to free anonymous speech. It seems to me that the internet is the best bet to bypass restrictions imposed by poor governinment the world over.
At least with prohibition, you could have some sembalence of an argument that drinking is harmfull for you, and has some unpleasant social consequences. Sharing music is anything but harm inflicting, and has very pleasant consequences both socially and artistically. At the very worst you could argue that it would bankrupt the music industry, but at this point I'm not too sure that's a bad thing.
Re:The Rich: not to burst bubbles either ...
on
Tech Rich Get Richer
·
· Score: 1
I'm sorry, but you're missing the forest for the trees. The simple fact is that there are more regulations on the books than any single individual could possibly read in their lifetimes. Anyone who thinks there is no negative worthwile effects here is delusionsl.
And between the property, sales, state, federal, and other misc taxes fines and fees - not to mention taxes taken out before we see them. When it comes to being screwed, they are doing their job THAT well.
Do you really think you're getting your moneys worth from those Social Security taxes you pay, do you really think (at least in CA) that those property and sales taxes you pay are giving your kids a worth while education. Why does gettho high cost more per student than half the private high schools in the state? I call bullshit.
Re:The Rich: not to burst bubbles either ...
on
Tech Rich Get Richer
·
· Score: 1
What you are describing is not natural law...
If someone has to spend a million dollars to comply with food regulations before opening a restruant chain. That is pittnace for companies like McDonnalds - but enough to put mom & pop cafe out of business.
If someone has to hire 12 lawyers, and 12 accountants to deal with new changes in the tax laws - that is peanuts for IBM, but a major deal breaker for the College-friends tech business.
Try buying some hotdogs in the store, cooking them up, and selling them on a street corner. I guarantee you that you will be in jail and fined $20,000 by the end of the day.
Multiply little forces like that among a million industries, in a million sectors - and it creates a huge problem that is not caused because the government doesn't "take enough" from the rich.
Sorry, that is not natural law. I am restricted from competition, and from doing something not by natural forces or scarcity, but by artificall, unecissary, and intrusive laws taxes and regulations.
If you want some of those laws, then fine, but please don't come whining that you are being oppressed by the rich as they end up getting richer and you end up eating dirt.
but to my experience, and knowledge of history, generally when things are good they are the best for the rich and when they are bad they are worst for the poor.
To my experience, that is true only in places that have high taxes, and overrestrictive regulations - otherwise natural forces tend to destribute the wealth.
It is an effect that I like to call the Moses effect - I call it that because of the 9th commandment "do not cover thy neighbors goods" - that wasn't written for the sake of rich people. It was most likely a reflection of the truth that if a rich person can't get out from under the thumb of the system, than a poor person has a snowballs chance in hell. Freedom for the poor means nothing if the rich can't have it too.
I see that happen all the time here in california, where they put in all these taxes and regulations to keep the "evil" wealthy class at bay. But then those "wealthy" pass the costs to their distributors, they pass the cost to suppliers, they pass the costs to workers and retail outlets. So when all the crap goes arround - who gets left holding the bag. You got it, the people who are least able to stand up for themselves and divert their expenses into other areas, the people least able to hire lawyers and professionsl advisors, the people least able to hire financial planners - the poor.
Then they go off wandering - why hasn't the system done enough for them? Go figure.
I honestly think that the RIAA is out of controll and that copyrights are immoral, but either way these arguments are irrelavent. Right or wrong, good or bad - copyrights are effectively unenforcable on the internet. It is not a matter of if, but when the people backing them will simply run out of steam.
They can make rules, laws, declarations, assertions, and in IMHO people can ask for the rest of time if people should respect copyrights, but when all is said and done - people can copy whatever they want, and they can more or less do it without any fear of retribution inspite of the occasional highly publisized wich hunt. Even now with all the lawsuits, and trading from publicly viewable IP addresses, the chances are still one in millions of being nailed. You're more likely to get ran over by a bus.
Sure, if the gov randomly raids 10 million homes per year, and pops a bullet in the head of anyone who posesses unauthorized copyrighted materials on site without trial - then perhaps the copyright regime will be extended a few years longer, but lets get real - copyrights are really dead, and the RIAA, Microsoft, and even the government simply haven't faced that reality yet.
Slashdot Mirror
I would also like to point out that what the FSF is asking is pittance compaired to the cost of rolling your own opperating system. Some companies have spent over a billion dollars and still cant get it right.
You don't see the FSF throwing arround billion dollar law suits, and milking companies dry. In fact, I would like to know of one company on this planet whose financials have been impacted by FSF lawsuits. Funny, I've seen no companies step up to the plate.
This technology has been progressing for several years, and was bound to happen eventually, but with the patent system the oil companies can and will but it out and lock it up for the next 20 years, in addition to new innovations that this technology might spawn.
Copyright by definition is a government granted monopoly on the right to copy somthing. But, the right to controll what people copy is not a right inherent or otherwise any more than the right to grow trees in your yard or pee in your car. Perhaps I don't have some kind of incentive without these "rights" either, but that is irrelavent.
... tough. Just because a bunch of lords think somethings a right, and call it a right does not make it so.
Copyrights do not "protect" you against anything. No matter what I copy, you are free to do whatever the heck you want with your copy. You are not coerced, not imposed on. You might loose market share, but so what - that is not a right either. Perhaps ford has no incentive to make cars unless they can lock out the japs
In essence, what you're saying is that it's ok for her to be raped because he over there was murdered ... she should just shut up and be thankfull ... Besides, she got some pleasure back out of it, right? Maybe it will make her a stronger pseron, right? He did it for her, right?
Well, the problem here is that you're forgetting that there is another government mandated monopoly going on here - copyrights! It is an artificial monopoly in every sense of the word. After all, the digital information here has no natural limits in supply and demand.
Infact, copyrights started out when kings granted publishers monopolies on publishing specific works in return for not publishing bad things about the monarchy. To call Linux a monopoly in this context is blazing hypocracy at best.
Is this a troll? Monopoly? Microsoft is free to make a Linux distro if they want to, all the source is out there. they are free to distribute it, noones stopping them. So are you. In my world monopoly means somthing where competitors are locked out.
In the case of US capitalism, each dollar is owned by someone, the simple act of wealth creation dictates in and of itself that the source be from another individual or group capable of ownership.
Thats just another way of saying it's a zero sum game, it is not. Dollars are a way of keeping track of wealth, not wealth in themselves. Look at how oil companies, by using more efficient extraction techniques, created billions of dollars worth of oil that never existed before. Wealth creation is not about dollars, but about resources. As far as I'm concerned, someone wouldn't half to pay me a penny if I could barter my skills for a confortable living. If I grew oranges, and my neighbor grew appels, and we each shared half and half, we are both better off and didn't spend a penny to do it. Make it so the government doesn't force dollarize the transation and take up to 50 percent of the worth in the process and youd be amazed what happens.
but when you have large groups capable of ownership, the capacity is there for them to hoard scarce resources (scarce as in limited), thus removing them from the total amount of recources available to the populace.
As a person hoards resources, it drives up the price making it harder and harder to hoard more. In addition, a few years ago someone tried to corner the silver market - their plan was thwarted and they were financially ruined - first because, silver isn't a need and when forced to people could do without, second because as the price went up more and more people decided to sell their silver jewlery driving the prive back down. What you're saying just doesn't jive with what really happens.
Cry all you might that corporations will not exploit that, but look back into history, it happens all the time.
I have looked back in history, the railroad barrons would have been impossible without the handsome government payouts, and regulations that protected them from new entrants. The oil and steel barrons - similar. Not to mention false govt imposed property rights like patents and copyrights, that are not free market and get misused all the time.
Limit governments ability to take, and to be in places that they don't belong, and you will automatically limit the corporate worlds ability to garner special interests and powers to their advantage. It's that simple.
While secrecy in some areas clearly helps, IMHO - the real thing that won the cold war was the fact that intel (and many other US industries and products) could doubble it's chip speed every 18 months. The russians just couldn't compete against that kind of growth, that kind of economics even though the processes and technology wern't government secrets.
This is even more so with terrorisim.
I'm with you. It's amazing the kind of abuse people will lay on you for pointing out simple facts about property and information. (even from open source gurus) Us people who understand that patents and copyrights suck need to team up and make some publicity.
BTW, type in "against copyrights" in any internet search engine and you will likely see my bitter protest against copyrights right up there. (I also rewrote it and put it in a journal under slashdot user ~myprotest) But I've been searching for more effective ways.....
The simple fact is that patnets have no place in the future of commerce and business. In fact, even today they are rarely good for anything but defensive purposes against useless litigation and cross licensing. Just like the PC era exploded specifically because nobody could patent interfaces, the next generation of technology is going to take the same route.
I'll explain it to you. If I make something, it's mine, to do with as I please. If I choose to sell/give it to you, it is now yours, to do with as you please. A slave is something stolen, so human-rights aside, it's not yours.
And if a copy freely comes my way, then it's mine. I can do what I want with my copy, and you can do what you want with your copy.
BZZT, I never said copyrights were like slavery, I said they are both false property rights, and that false property rights are a threat.
Sorry, but I don't understand either. What does ownership imply? The next sentence
There's your problem, even if you believe in copyrights, at least accept that property rights are not subjective, but something that exists outside the whims of government, the mob, or popular opinion.
The point is that you can't have copyrights without evnetually forcing the system to controll all information, speech, and expression.
The point is that just because the establishment calls something a property right does not mean that it is.
....
... ...
....
And, BTW I never said copyrights were similar to slavery, I said they were both false property rights and and false property rights are a threat. Now, some of the justifications sounded alot alike
eg...
I have no incentive to create without copyrights....
I have no incentive to grow cotton without slaves...
I imported that slave, so I own it
I created that work, so I own it
Slavery contributes to the great wealth of the states
Copyrights cause the great wealth in the IT industry...
Slavery is capitalisim...
Copyrights are capitalisim....
If you don't like slavery, you don't half to own slaves...
If you don't like copyrights, you don't half to buy microsoft....
slavery's not about controll - its about property...
copyrights are not about controll, they're about property...
well you get the gist.
Any false property right is a danger to societies security. Just look at how slavery led to the civil war. Today many are betting trillions of dollars on a false premise, that works of knowledge can or should be owned without any understanding of what that implies. Because information is becomming so easy to copy, change, and manipulate - the "middle" gound is quickly evaporating, either all information will half to be controlled or none of it.
People destin themselves by choice, socities are destined by circumstances.
I don't think it would be so bad if it was ubiquitous. I guess my real point is that - any good solution will be a technology based, and not a political based. I liked my proposal because it puts the AI burdon on the spammer and not the receiver.
I really think the best way to manage spam is to have it so that those who want to email you that are not already on your list half to take a 30-60 second truing test. It could be from a site of your choice that issues a signed id string if the test is completed successfully. If someone wants to talk to you, then that's not that much of a nussance, but for a spammer sending out 10million emails/day it would be a disaster.
Actually, what really matters in CA is taxes, even with prop 13 - they are still some of the worst in the nation. Not to mention, zoneing and building regulations that have driven up the cost of an average home into outer space.
The problem is, no matter who wins this election, people were dumb enough to vote for Davis to begin with. I myself am looking real hard for another state about now.
cmon, we all know what this really is.
what ever happened to the philosophy that the government that governs least, is the government that governs best.
It sorta seems ironic that the government is promiting internet usage, because IMHO the the most overwhelming beneficial purpose is to bypass obsolete and bad government.
Be it unethical copyright imposition, overbearing controlls on finances and money, censorship, or myrad of other obselete rules from anything to gambling to free anonymous speech. It seems to me that the internet is the best bet to bypass restrictions imposed by poor governinment the world over.
At least with prohibition, you could have some sembalence of an argument that drinking is harmfull for you, and has some unpleasant social consequences. Sharing music is anything but harm inflicting, and has very pleasant consequences both socially and artistically. At the very worst you could argue that it would bankrupt the music industry, but at this point I'm not too sure that's a bad thing.
I'm sorry, but you're missing the forest for the trees. The simple fact is that there are more regulations on the books than any single individual could possibly read in their lifetimes. Anyone who thinks there is no negative worthwile effects here is delusionsl.
And between the property, sales, state, federal, and other misc taxes fines and fees - not to mention taxes taken out before we see them. When it comes to being screwed, they are doing their job THAT well.
Do you really think you're getting your moneys worth from those Social Security taxes you pay, do you really think (at least in CA) that those property and sales taxes you pay are giving your kids a worth while education. Why does gettho high cost more per student than half the private high schools in the state? I call bullshit.
What you are describing is not natural law...
If someone has to spend a million dollars to comply with food regulations before opening a restruant chain. That is pittnace for companies like McDonnalds - but enough to put mom & pop cafe out of business.
If someone has to hire 12 lawyers, and 12 accountants to deal with new changes in the tax laws - that is peanuts for IBM, but a major deal breaker for the College-friends tech business.
Try buying some hotdogs in the store, cooking them up, and selling them on a street corner. I guarantee you that you will be in jail and fined $20,000 by the end of the day.
Multiply little forces like that among a million industries, in a million sectors - and it creates a huge problem that is not caused because the government doesn't "take enough" from the rich.
Sorry, that is not natural law. I am restricted from competition, and from doing something not by natural forces or scarcity, but by artificall, unecissary, and intrusive laws taxes and regulations.
If you want some of those laws, then fine, but please don't come whining that you are being oppressed by the rich as they end up getting richer and you end up eating dirt.
but to my experience, and knowledge of history, generally when things are good they are the best for the rich and when they are bad they are worst for the poor.
To my experience, that is true only in places that have high taxes, and overrestrictive regulations - otherwise natural forces tend to destribute the wealth.
It is an effect that I like to call the Moses effect - I call it that because of the 9th commandment "do not cover thy neighbors goods" - that wasn't written for the sake of rich people. It was most likely a reflection of the truth that if a rich person can't get out from under the thumb of the system, than a poor person has a snowballs chance in hell. Freedom for the poor means nothing if the rich can't have it too.
I see that happen all the time here in california, where they put in all these taxes and regulations to keep the "evil" wealthy class at bay. But then those "wealthy" pass the costs to their distributors, they pass the cost to suppliers, they pass the costs to workers and retail outlets. So when all the crap goes arround - who gets left holding the bag. You got it, the people who are least able to stand up for themselves and divert their expenses into other areas, the people least able to hire lawyers and professionsl advisors, the people least able to hire financial planners - the poor.
Then they go off wandering - why hasn't the system done enough for them? Go figure.
I honestly think that the RIAA is out of controll and that copyrights are immoral, but either way these arguments are irrelavent. Right or wrong, good or bad - copyrights are effectively unenforcable on the internet. It is not a matter of if, but when the people backing them will simply run out of steam.
They can make rules, laws, declarations, assertions, and in IMHO people can ask for the rest of time if people should respect copyrights, but when all is said and done - people can copy whatever they want, and they can more or less do it without any fear of retribution inspite of the occasional highly publisized wich hunt. Even now with all the lawsuits, and trading from publicly viewable IP addresses, the chances are still one in millions of being nailed. You're more likely to get ran over by a bus.
Sure, if the gov randomly raids 10 million homes per year, and pops a bullet in the head of anyone who posesses unauthorized copyrighted materials on site without trial - then perhaps the copyright regime will be extended a few years longer, but lets get real - copyrights are really dead, and the RIAA, Microsoft, and even the government simply haven't faced that reality yet.