Excuse me, but I renember the hyperinflation of the 80's and then there's great depression of the 1930's (17-20 years after the fed started) - and most recently the dot.com crash. All were directly related to the FED, FED policy, and centralized money - say, wasn't the fed created on the justification that it could stop these things?
It would have collapsed a long time ago if not for one thing: that no matter how you make a profit, the US government requires you to convert it to a dollar value and pay taxes on it. That creates an artifical demand for dollars that props up the fed, even if it is useless.
Also, I find it disingenuious that some would attribute the "average" prosperity of the last 70 years to the FED. Free Americans are solely responsible for that prosperity, and noone else.
The title says it all. The EURO too while were at it. IMHO, government has no business being in the money business other than punishing people who act fradulently, and holding dishonest people accountable. I'm not saying we should have a gold standard, but something whose value can't be manipulated by government policy. (Yeah, I know the FED technically isn't part of the US govt - but give me a break)
Considerable space is expended on qualitative discussions of Linux vs. Windows and open source vs. proprietary software. Nothing new is presented here, and this article will say no more about this material, except when it contradicts other more substantive material.
I hate to say this, but that is probably the real point of the study. They are fishing for any sucker who still thinks Microsoft is a great free market force, and not the result of government granted monopolies. Who doesn't understand that true free market societies are about taking advantage of things like the Internet. Where unlimited and uninhibited copying is a major competitive advantage if you work with Linux, but a major threat if you call "intellectual property" your crown jewels (like Microsoft does). Too bad they don't feel the same way about their customers...
One thing I always hated, was the College book scams. Every year they'd make slightly different versions of books containing knowledge over 200 years old, and every year students would be required to buy books that were so expensive, they could have been coppied at a copy shop for less than 1/10th the price. I for one would love to see copyrights go away on books.
It would seem to me that a big-bang that comes out of nowhere would be the ultimate violaion of the conservation of energy principle? If not, then what the heck could have been going on before the big-bang?
Well I see your point. But I honestly think that the law is on the loosing side this time. The rules of politics and political systems exist because it is better to fight wars of words than with bloodshed, but to copy does not require coercion at all. The rules are not the same. We are so used to thinking that any lasting change has to be acknowledged by government - we never consider that we can force it without their acknowledgement, and eventually they will have to give up.
I think I have the right to copy, and the technology to do it forever, with whoever as well with everyone else without fear forever. Our deomcracy will keep them from going to far and becoming a police state, but our technology will make copyrights eternally unenforcable and effectively useless.
There are some things that are seriously misunderstood here. First off, the US constitution does not grant rights. People have rights, and they tend to organize in the form of government to secure those rights, and the US constitution tends to do a better job than most at securing rights, but with copyrights they simply got it backwards ( well , considering the times, they couldn't have possibly understood) Anyhow, my right to copy has nothing to do with wether it's legal or not. It exists and is inherent, and independent of the government. (ever wonder why the constitution says the freedom of speech shall not be adbridged - rather than "you are granted free speech") Well the same is true with copying and my exercising to persue it.
Second, I find the "let the artists choose" argument really offensive. I cringe when people say that, because it seems like they just don't get what's really happening. It amounts to the same kind of logic as "if you don't like slavery, don't own slaves". It pays absolutely no attention to whose being violated, and why, but rather who suffers when they no longer have the power to coercively impose their will. For similar reasons I find the compromise attitude offensive. If the king thinks he has the right to choose your speech, and you think you have the right to choose your speech - perhaps you can compromise and let him proof-read your speech. NOT!
Finally, one last offensive thing I sensed is a need to appease the "majority" of Americans. I really don't care about the mob, or looking extreme. Hell freedom of religion and speech, and democracy was considered radical and extreme. Instead lets worry about being right. Something that is not dictated by what the majority think, but by simple facts - like - we have property laws to deal with the fact that not everyone can have something at the same time rather to appease peoples sense of they think they deserve.
That copyrights are not a right, and aren't as great as they're cracked up to be, and infact they're outright immoral. That they riun peoples lives who are most often creative people and artists (look at the crap in hollywood culture), and they stagnate the entire economey except for the infinitesimal few (whoopie, I can get a 100$ copyright monopoly, but loose out on over a trillion $ worth of info that's out there - thanks)
Finally, as our society enters into the information age - there can be no middle ground. Information is so easy to copy and manipulate that you'll either half to controll all of it - or copyrights become unenforcable and minus well not exist. The big media industries know that and so should the EFF and the rest of us.
Oh and one more thing, I wish they would promote more civil disobedience, or defiance. When they always insist on working thru the system, they are just making us like cows going to the slaughter. Our strengths are technology, and we should use that in defiance - not be ashamed of it.
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were going to answer with "whaaa, I don't have an incentive..." I should have said.... and yeah it was illegal for Rosa Parks to sit at the front of the bus too! So what.
I'm glad you mentioned that. You explain! you're the ones who support massive restrictions on what people can copy, and only justify it with shoddy excuses. And before you answer.... yeah and I don't have an incentive to grow potatos unless I can rip up your yard and plant some too.
It is different this time. I am not trying to make a statement of protest to convince the popular mob that copyrights are immoral. Instead, it is to secure a way of life. Hell, I don't care what the mob thinks, if they are too stupid to figure out that copyrights are bullshit, then let them suffer the natural consequences of being left behind in the information age. But for those of us who know better, the right to secure our rights is a right.
Thanks for your reply. It just got me thinking - I had said similar things 5 years ago and nearly got flamed out of existence. Through some sort of twisted logic, I was even accused of justifying murder. After all, if you don't believe in copyrights - then you don't care about anybody - right? Funny how times have changed. Funny how the RIAA and SCO did more to promote this notion than I could have ever.
The simple fact is that as long as people tell them that they have some kind of right to restrict what others copy, this is going to linger on. It should really encourage us more than ever to use p2p technologies like Freenet - eventually we can put them out of business.
That's why the solution to the copyright problem, IMHO, isn't going to be in congress or even the courts, but only in defiance. I think there's the real possibility that using technologies like Freenet will make it forever impossible for the government to impose copyright controlls, and that should be out tool.
Yeah I know that some people don't want to be that radical, but why don't we just face it - the vine will not stop growing to choke off our freedoms until we cut it off at the root. Besides, freedom of speech is radical, democracy is radical, instead of worrying about being radical - we would be much better off to worry about being right.
...There are only so many who know how to paint. There are only so many who know how to sculpt. There are only so many who know how to fly....
I am so glad you mentioned that, because that is exactly how mozart got paid before there were copyrights, and how people like Einstein got paid even though he didn't collect a royality everythime someone uses E=mc^2. Copyrights destroy that relationship of value, and put that relationship of value on the attention the information gets rather than the skill of the people who create it. Which is the thing that is truely limited.
Wow, I guess you must have missed that gigantic backlash against the dehumanizing qualities of industrialization, and the tendency to "wage slavery". Do the words Luddite, and Marxism mean anything to you?
Yeah, in a Marxist society - if you don't like your job, you get sent to siberia. Here, if I don't like my job - I can leave to find better opportunities of my choosing. What are you saying, that people would be better off on the plantation? WTF.
Look, if my factory can become %20 more efficient and productive by putting in invention X - then I am going to put in invention X wether people can copy it or not. In fact, I will probably rush to get it in first to get a first mover advantage, rather than patnet it and sit on it to lock out the competition.
That doesn't make any sense. How did slavery control labor? Slavery was the aspect of labor that NEEDED to be controlled; and comparing that to copyright laws...yea.
Explain how slavery doesn't controll peoples labor. And please reread what I said. I don't recall saying that slavery had anything to do with copyrights.
Copyrights over created works will never go away. That would suck total ass if you were an artist, you created great music, and you got jack shit for doing it. And there is no way in hell, atleast with the way we do things now, that we will be able to legally copy phyiscal products for free. We would have to change the way our whole economy works.
It WILL change how our economey works, in fact that is what's driving the push away from copyrights now. If a person looses controll over a $1000 worth of IP, but in return has access to a 10 trillion worth of IP - then that is a net gain. In addition, society no longer has to bear the cost of enforcement, which is quickly approaching infinity as p2p technology takes off.
PS: Your comment about artists is off the mark. For every one that makes it "big", there are litterally thousands that copyrights have squished like bugs.
It is not "socialable" or socialist to coerce people into careers and to give up resources in the name of sharing, I prefer call it Marxist.
It is not capitalistic, but monopolistic, to controll resources (like information and invention) that are made a limited resource by the force of government and not by natural physical scarsity.
Both Marxisim and federally backed monopolistic behavior are very bad. But free-will sharing, planning, and use of resources according to real natural limits without handing over central authority to "enlightened" people is good.
In each case, only individual liberty can be an end in itself.
I don't think email by invitation is a MS only idea, and there are ways to implement it for guest/anon/and unregistered people by using a turing test for one time email access. (this would not eliminate spam, but taking a 20 second turing test to send an unsolicited email would make it much less pratical to send 10 million emails/day)
You must be a public school teacher. So typical to obsess about the form while ignoring the blazing facts in front of your face. If that is so, then how come the private school teachers in the poor areas of Chicago are kicking your butt with half the pay.
The student demographic in public and private schools is very different. Broken families and poverty are not problems that public schools create, but they have to deal with them far more than private schools do.
The hell public schools don't create social problems, but you are right in that smart parents who give a shit avoid public schools like the plague. A very different demographic indeed, but one of choice and not situation.
Slashdot Mirror
The terrorist wannabes are attacking people in a country known to harbor terrorists.
Perhaps the MPAA/RIAA are just jealous.
Excuse me, but I renember the hyperinflation of the 80's and then there's great depression of the 1930's (17-20 years after the fed started) - and most recently the dot.com crash. All were directly related to the FED, FED policy, and centralized money - say, wasn't the fed created on the justification that it could stop these things?
It would have collapsed a long time ago if not for one thing: that no matter how you make a profit, the US government requires you to convert it to a dollar value and pay taxes on it. That creates an artifical demand for dollars that props up the fed, even if it is useless.
Also, I find it disingenuious that some would attribute the "average" prosperity of the last 70 years to the FED. Free Americans are solely responsible for that prosperity, and noone else.
The title says it all. The EURO too while were at it. IMHO, government has no business being in the money business other than punishing people who act fradulently, and holding dishonest people accountable. I'm not saying we should have a gold standard, but something whose value can't be manipulated by government policy. (Yeah, I know the FED technically isn't part of the US govt - but give me a break)
Considerable space is expended on qualitative discussions of Linux vs. Windows and open source vs. proprietary software. Nothing new is presented here, and this article will say no more about this material, except when it contradicts other more substantive material.
I hate to say this, but that is probably the real point of the study. They are fishing for any sucker who still thinks Microsoft is a great free market force, and not the result of government granted monopolies. Who doesn't understand that true free market societies are about taking advantage of things like the Internet. Where unlimited and uninhibited copying is a major competitive advantage if you work with Linux, but a major threat if you call "intellectual property" your crown jewels (like Microsoft does). Too bad they don't feel the same way about their customers...
One thing I always hated, was the College book scams. Every year they'd make slightly different versions of books containing knowledge over 200 years old, and every year students would be required to buy books that were so expensive, they could have been coppied at a copy shop for less than 1/10th the price. I for one would love to see copyrights go away on books.
It would seem to me that a big-bang that comes out of nowhere would be the ultimate violaion of the conservation of energy principle? If not, then what the heck could have been going on before the big-bang?
protest against copyrights
Well I see your point. But I honestly think that the law is on the loosing side this time. The rules of politics and political systems exist because it is better to fight wars of words than with bloodshed, but to copy does not require coercion at all. The rules are not the same. We are so used to thinking that any lasting change has to be acknowledged by government - we never consider that we can force it without their acknowledgement, and eventually they will have to give up.
I think I have the right to copy, and the technology to do it forever, with whoever as well with everyone else without fear forever. Our deomcracy will keep them from going to far and becoming a police state, but our technology will make copyrights eternally unenforcable and effectively useless.
There are some things that are seriously misunderstood here. First off, the US constitution does not grant rights. People have rights, and they tend to organize in the form of government to secure those rights, and the US constitution tends to do a better job than most at securing rights, but with copyrights they simply got it backwards ( well , considering the times, they couldn't have possibly understood) Anyhow, my right to copy has nothing to do with wether it's legal or not. It exists and is inherent, and independent of the government. (ever wonder why the constitution says the freedom of speech shall not be adbridged - rather than "you are granted free speech") Well the same is true with copying and my exercising to persue it.
Second, I find the "let the artists choose" argument really offensive. I cringe when people say that, because it seems like they just don't get what's really happening. It amounts to the same kind of logic as "if you don't like slavery, don't own slaves". It pays absolutely no attention to whose being violated, and why, but rather who suffers when they no longer have the power to coercively impose their will. For similar reasons I find the compromise attitude offensive. If the king thinks he has the right to choose your speech, and you think you have the right to choose your speech - perhaps you can compromise and let him proof-read your speech. NOT!
Finally, one last offensive thing I sensed is a need to appease the "majority" of Americans. I really don't care about the mob, or looking extreme. Hell freedom of religion and speech, and democracy was considered radical and extreme. Instead lets worry about being right. Something that is not dictated by what the majority think, but by simple facts - like - we have property laws to deal with the fact that not everyone can have something at the same time rather to appease peoples sense of they think they deserve.
That copyrights are not a right, and aren't as great as they're cracked up to be, and infact they're outright immoral. That they riun peoples lives who are most often creative people and artists (look at the crap in hollywood culture), and they stagnate the entire economey except for the infinitesimal few (whoopie, I can get a 100$ copyright monopoly, but loose out on over a trillion $ worth of info that's out there - thanks)
Finally, as our society enters into the information age - there can be no middle ground. Information is so easy to copy and manipulate that you'll either half to controll all of it - or copyrights become unenforcable and minus well not exist. The big media industries know that and so should the EFF and the rest of us.
Oh and one more thing, I wish they would promote more civil disobedience, or defiance. When they always insist on working thru the system, they are just making us like cows going to the slaughter. Our strengths are technology, and we should use that in defiance - not be ashamed of it.
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were going to answer with "whaaa, I don't have an incentive ..." I should have said .... and yeah it was illegal for Rosa Parks to sit at the front of the bus too!
So what.
I'm glad you mentioned that. You explain! you're the ones who support massive restrictions on what people can copy, and only justify it with shoddy excuses. And before you answer .... yeah and I don't have an incentive to grow potatos unless I can rip up your yard and plant some too.
It is different this time. I am not trying to make a statement of protest to convince the popular mob that copyrights are immoral. Instead, it is to secure a way of life. Hell, I don't care what the mob thinks, if they are too stupid to figure out that copyrights are bullshit, then let them suffer the natural consequences of being left behind in the information age. But for those of us who know better, the right to secure our rights is a right.
Thanks for your reply. It just got me thinking - I had said similar things 5 years ago and nearly got flamed out of existence. Through some sort of twisted logic, I was even accused of justifying murder. After all, if you don't believe in copyrights - then you don't care about anybody - right? Funny how times have changed. Funny how the RIAA and SCO did more to promote this notion than I could have ever.
The simple fact is that as long as people tell them that they have some kind of right to restrict what others copy, this is going to linger on. It should really encourage us more than ever to use p2p technologies like Freenet - eventually we can put them out of business.
That's why the solution to the copyright problem, IMHO, isn't going to be in congress or even the courts, but only in defiance. I think there's the real possibility that using technologies like Freenet will make it forever impossible for the government to impose copyright controlls, and that should be out tool.
Yeah I know that some people don't want to be that radical, but why don't we just face it - the vine will not stop growing to choke off our freedoms until we cut it off at the root. Besides, freedom of speech is radical, democracy is radical, instead of worrying about being radical - we would be much better off to worry about being right.
I am so glad you mentioned that, because that is exactly how mozart got paid before there were copyrights, and how people like Einstein got paid even though he didn't collect a royality everythime someone uses E=mc^2. Copyrights destroy that relationship of value, and put that relationship of value on the attention the information gets rather than the skill of the people who create it. Which is the thing that is truely limited.
Wow, I guess you must have missed that gigantic backlash against the dehumanizing qualities of industrialization, and the tendency to "wage slavery". Do the words Luddite, and Marxism mean anything to you?
Yeah, in a Marxist society - if you don't like your job, you get sent to siberia. Here, if I don't like my job - I can leave to find better opportunities of my choosing. What are you saying, that people would be better off on the plantation? WTF.
Look, if my factory can become %20 more efficient and productive by putting in invention X - then I am going to put in invention X wether people can copy it or not. In fact, I will probably rush to get it in first to get a first mover advantage, rather than patnet it and sit on it to lock out the competition.
That doesn't make any sense. How did slavery control labor? Slavery was the aspect of labor that NEEDED to be controlled; and comparing that to copyright laws...yea.
Explain how slavery doesn't controll peoples labor. And please reread what I said. I don't recall saying that slavery had anything to do with copyrights.
Copyrights over created works will never go away. That would suck total ass if you were an artist, you created great music, and you got jack shit for doing it. And there is no way in hell, atleast with the way we do things now, that we will be able to legally copy phyiscal products for free. We would have to change the way our whole economy works.
It WILL change how our economey works, in fact that is what's driving the push away from copyrights now. If a person looses controll over a $1000 worth of IP, but in return has access to a 10 trillion worth of IP - then that is a net gain. In addition, society no longer has to bear the cost of enforcement, which is quickly approaching infinity as p2p technology takes off.
PS: Your comment about artists is off the mark. For every one that makes it "big", there are litterally thousands that copyrights have squished like bugs.
Why would people bother to grow cotton without slaves? (get it)
It is not "socialable" or socialist to coerce people into careers and to give up resources in the name of sharing, I prefer call it Marxist.
It is not capitalistic, but monopolistic, to controll resources (like information and invention) that are made a limited resource by the force of government and not by natural physical scarsity.
Both Marxisim and federally backed monopolistic behavior are very bad. But free-will sharing, planning, and use of resources according to real natural limits without handing over central authority to "enlightened" people is good.
In each case, only individual liberty can be an end in itself.
Hope that clairifies things...
As our society moved into the industrial revolution ... it meant unrealistic controlls over labor (slavery) had to go.
As society is moving into the information age means unrealistic controlls over information (copyrights, and untangable patented things) half to go.
And as our society moves into the "replicator" age. It means unrealistic controlls over invention and creation (patents) will half to go.
IMHO.
I don't think email by invitation is a MS only idea, and there are ways to implement it for guest/anon/and unregistered people by using a turing test for one time email access. (this would not eliminate spam, but taking a 20 second turing test to send an unsolicited email would make it much less pratical to send 10 million emails/day)
You must be a public school teacher. So typical to obsess about the form while ignoring the blazing facts in front of your face. If that is so, then how come the private school teachers in the poor areas of Chicago are kicking your butt with half the pay.
The student demographic in public and private schools is very different. Broken families and poverty are not problems that public schools create, but they have to deal with them far more than private schools do.
The hell public schools don't create social problems, but you are right in that smart parents who give a shit avoid public schools like the plague. A very different demographic indeed, but one of choice and not situation.