I recently priced shipping two 40 foot containers from China to LA and the prices were surprisingly low -- much lower than I had figured. Also you have to realize that most of these companies that produce low quality goods do so at low prices BECAUSE they're lower quality. The last time I did a wholesale price check on some consumer goods (cheap DVD players actually) I was shocked to see that the wholesale price just dropped below US$20 shipped. This means the manufacturer is still making SOME money there.
I have faith that the prices of goods will generally fall, even with a dollar that is quickly losing value in Asia. Remember that a significant cost for many electronics manufacturers is legal -- filing patents, enforcing patents, finding ways around patents. This is definitely not good for consumers.
I'm not here to convince anyone to become an anarcho-capitalist -- I just want "our" side involved in the usual two-sided debate (two parties arguing on what to control and how much to control it).
I believe your fear of too much wealth going to fewer hands is "fixed" by anarcho-capitalism. The biggest problem with wealth today is that it is stolen in ways that MOST people don't realize. For example, 99.9% of consumer goods inflation has been caused by the Federal Reserve creating new currency -- this devalues everyone's currency. The tax rates are adjusted by the government created CPI which is a false inflation index. Real inflation is much higher and will continue to rise -- this means that every year your 3% raise isn't enough to compensate for the 8% inflation rate likely happening lately.
Another wealth grabber is the Fed's policy of giving the banks the new money first, allowing them to profit from it before the prices go up. The Fed policy of setting interest rates and giving banks easy money with only a 10% reserve means that banks loan money out to people who shouldn't deserve the loan -- causing higher home prices and car prices and other large consumer goods. When they default, the bank takes over the property and then can rent it back to the people who overpaid for the property. The housing bubble was created specifically to transfer wealth from the lower and middle class to the cartel elite (bankers, brokers, etc). The dotcom bubble was no different -- transfering wealth from the same people to the cartel elite (anyone governed by the SEC).
I truly believe that wealth would be better protected on a hard money standard. I don't believe in a government enforced standard (ie a gold standard or a silver standard) but a market created one instead. I personally live on a hard money standard (all my money is either paid to me in gold or silver, or immediately converted to gold or silver for storing my wealth safely). I don't partake in credit or loans or government-enabled programs anymore, because I know it is a wealth transfer mechanism.
In the long run, all political structures are bad. This is why I prefer anarcho-capitalism: in an anarcho-capitalist NATION, individual cities and villages are free to enact whatever legislation and legal systems they want -- to better their community in the way they see fit. It also allows people like me to withdraw from those systems if we don't see benefits of them. We'd also see better trade mechanisms for enhancing our own opportunities, as well as a more balanced power-of-State since we wouldn't all be shoehorned into the same Nation structure that we are now. In today's Jacobin system, we have a huge federal government with no hope of secession if we don't like it. In a truely federalist republic, we'd at least see States being able to withdraw from bad national policymaking.
Cool. You have a few websites. GoDaddy.com must be proud.
They should be, the get enough of my money as well as most of my customers who need a company that actually answers the phone. They're not geeky enough for most slashdotters, but 2 out of 3 problems I've had with hosting were my own damn fault for trying to do it myself.
Without the governmental reforms, there would be no information revolution. You should have paid attention in high shool instead of running BBS's.
That's typical socialist claptrap and it's been disproven time and again. The governmental reforms came AFTER industries had already been making steps to entice the next generation of workers who were familiar with industrial machines. Paying attention to high school means becoming fodder for the politicians, as far as I can tell. It also means working a junk 40 hour a week job for a terrible income, hoping that your 401K will be enough, but it won't, so you pass on your retirement costs to the next generation to pay. No thanks.
How about this model - no CD's for the public, only the radio industries get CD's. Public domain my ass. Bands perform music for cash, booze, and babes - and I am not sure if you know anything about two out of the three.
I have very little cash but I own all my homes clear, as well as my cars, and I travel without "charging it." My wife is hot, and as for booze, and on the rare occasion when I do partake, it is always quality product. Considering that I own a production company and we're building a studio, I think I know more about what rock stars want than you -- and I think you're way off.
I could go on and debate your bullshit point by point, but I do not have time for a clown like you. Have fun in fantasy land, just don't complain when your buzz wears off and reality hits you in the face.
I'm living reality right now -- earning a living without government force to back me up, and creating a strong name for myself by backing up my work with open knowledge of my successes and losses so others can take my ideas and compete with me -- making me a better resource for those willing to pay my rates. In the long run, the best thing for me is MORE competition, not less. From the attitude you have, I can see that you won't be one of those competitors, but it was a nice debate nonetheless.
And if companies choose to abuse their customer's trust by making private dealings public, then it's clear that legislation is needed.
I don't see that as the case at all. There is no right to privacy if you openly put information out there. My father told me at a young age to never put anything in writing that I didn't want others to know and use against me. That is true with all my private information.
I don't bank. I don't have credit cards. I don't trade stocks. I am living 100% on a gold hard money standard. I don't worry about my privacy because I have nothing to hide, and I don't care what someone does with my information because there is nothing for them to take. If you give someone information, YOU should be responsible for making sure that they will contract to not disclose it. That is freedom. Putting government in the loop means you hope they'll do things the way you want them to, but historically that never happens: they do things the way their funds suppliers want them to. Against all your wishes and hopes and dreams.
You're probably correct, there. I'm fairly certain that he meant "in the near future" but I can't recall (bad memory).
The big issue was that the barrier to entry is higher because of patents and copyrights. It seems crazy to me that we have laws protecting the idea someone comes up with, but the originator can't find a way to bring the product to market properly. In the long run, consumers do suffer, and one person (or corporation) has favoritism because they may have been the first one to write the idea on paper and file it with a government office in the right way, with the right amount of money spent and lawyers pushing for it.
It is all counter-innovation as far as I can tell, but I believe it will take years before others see the problems with patents and how you just can't fix the system.
See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. You're not making money from the books so much as you are from public speaking engagements, print newsletters, and customers for your related business.
Exactly! In a competitive marketplace, two things generally occur: prices move towards zero, and quality moves upwards. I found the secret to book selling: give it away and then build up your reputation as a desired speaker or consultant.
There are plenty of writers out there who don't want to do ANY of that. I know one published novelist who's so afraid of public speaking she bit through her lip worrying about an in-class presentation. Print newsletters and other businesses are also not things a novelist would necessarily want to spend time on.
If a plumber is afraid of people, would he plumb? It is wrong to think that your friend should be protected by a law because she can't compete. Should be subsidize horse-shoers and gas-lamp-lighters, too, because their markets changed? Writing books, making music, painting drawings -- they're all being replaced by new emerging markets for people to take advantage of. If your friend isn't ready to face the reality of the new information market, she'll lose out even with the law protecting her creations.
"IP" (the scare quotes are for your benefit) is a similar case, IMO - there's a literally infinite supply available of any IP, thanks to digital media, but the supplier (i.e., the creator) restricts the flow of those copies in order to maintain a profit margin.
Which is why I am against intellectual property in the first place -- when something can be easily duplicated by millions of other people, the cost of that "property" falls toward zero. When the cost of a good or service falls toward zero, the people making that good or service better find a new way to sell their labor. Those who hold on to old-style market protections (such as copyright) will find themselves left behind. It would be like the old LP-record manufacturer who decided to only make records when the tape, the CD and the MP3 came out. They'd be lost in the past with almost no customer base (except those few who still want LPs like me, heh). There is no need to protect those who are unwilling to innovate and compete.
While some people have good intentions, many people are evil at heart.
Many people? I seriously doubt this. Most people are egotistical, which is good because it allows them to maximize their benefit to themselves, which means putting them in a competitive position that in the long run means each of us is doing what we're best at.
Look at the industrial revolution.
I'm sort of sick of this part of the debate. The industrial revolution changed EVERYTHING that humankind was able to do for thousands of years -- literally every generation before it was relatively status quo. The industrial revolution fixed most of its problems on its own, and many laws to "enforce" change came after the fact.
Children working in factories instead of attending school, people working in factories with deplorable and hazardous working conditions, employers paying people below living wages, employers hiring illegal aliens (still happening today).
Children worked in factories because it allowed their households to reap income it never would have had. Public education has done nothing to make the family better, in fact I believe things are worse because of public education. The children who worked in factories did so because they were able to adapt better than the adults who were unable to take advantage of new technologies. Sure, it is sad that some children were abused and were put into safety hazards, but that is how the manufacturing industry got its start. I've been to Asia on numerous occasions and seen "child laborers" who earn more than the previous 10 generations did. This lets their children have an opportunity that they themselves did not. Do I agree with childhood labor? In some cases, yes, in other cases, no, but it is up to the families to decide. Don't quote socialist tracts if you have no firsthand experience with the benefits of working at a younger age -- you don't live in a impoverished society.
Sorry that you do not want to pay for music. Tough shit. Who finances bands? Why do you think bands are now charging in excess of $50 to $75 for concerts? They have to because the do not make any money off CD sales.
Good, that's where they should make their money -- entertainment. $50 is cheap if you factor in the true inflation of consumer goods (nearly 100% in 5 years in many cases). I own a small music production company (soon to be at http://www.nocopyrightstudios.com/ ) where we give bands money to make music in exchange for a portion of their music to be released in the accredited public domain. Most bands happily release their music this way in exchange for thousands of dollars of free production, and they turn that free music into marketing tools to bring people to their shows. The dozens of big bands that try to survive the old way will be replaced with thousands of smaller bands who will be happy with $1000 per show rather than $100,000.
How would you like it if someone showed up at your house brandishing automatic riffles and told you to get lost or get a 30 round clip fired into your body? What if they justified their actions all in the name of the pursuit of profits?
Aggression against physical property including one's body is the only place I accept the counter-use of force against another person. The music you put on CD and sell is not the product you're selling, you're selling the physical CD. If someone else can use their labor to copy that CD and sell it cheaper than you, then don't make the CD in the first place. In 5 years most musicians will not only understand this perspective, they will agree with it. The idea of profit is not a greedy one -- profit just means that you're swapping your time today for a store of time to be redeemed tomorrow at greater value to you. If you earn US$5 for 1 hour work, you can use that store of time (US$5 worth of time) to possibly save you tens or hundreds of hours in the future (say, buying a US$5 hamburger that would
It isn't my advice, in fact I openly say I am against it for myself. The reason I posted about it is because of the numerous e-mails I receive every day regarding it -- and people seem too lazy to go out and search for real advice on the topic.
In the years I've been in business, everyone who has worked for me has had the opportunity to start their own business. This is because I push my employees to go off on their own (and have even financed many of their startups). I've had my share of success and failure, so I felt it was a good topic to write about, given that some of my bigger failures are very public knowledge, and many of my successes have been kept too close to my chest -- something I realized is counter-productive in raising my billable rate.
The more I share, the more I am worth, the more people can rely on some unique perspectives of an anarcho-capitalist entrepreneur.
You bring up some good points that I'll have to ponder and write about at my anarcho-capitalist blog (see original parent post of mine in this thread). I do believe there are certain abuses that people do that would be considered trespass, but I have not pondered these specific situations enough to make an educated debateable answer.
Thanks for the answer and the insight, it is always back to the drawing board for us anarcho-capitalists:)
I wish I had taken pictures. Since I saw the product, I've been working to find out how one can make a cheap PVR and I do believe that it is quite possible, especially considering the large number of useless harddrives out there that no one wants. I've seen 10 gig hard drives available at wholesale for $4.99 in lots of 50,000. These are new, too. Electronics is dirt cheap, so are DVD mechanisms. I have no idea what the cost of these items would be in China, but I just returned from Asia a few weeks ago and I was shocked to see how cheap many wholesale items were (clothes, cell phone parts, etc). Heck, I saw 10,000 count USB cables for ridiculously low prices and of good build quality, and I laugh at the US$29.99 exact-same cable in the US.
Nonetheless, it will happen, we just won't see it because of our regulations. Another reason why the US can't compete on the world level -- we protect those who don't need protecting, at great cost to the average consumer.
They want to PROGRAM, not talk to customers all day.
That's why a programmer in a vacuum is useless. All manufacturing laborers (ie, programmers) need additional people to bring their manufacturer product to market. Would a guy who spot welds auto parts be fine by himself?
If you're charging for service, you've actually got a big financial incentive NOT to make your product straightforward and bug-free; the only reason you're even MAKING a product, from a business standpoint, is so that you have something to fix.
This is only true when you have government-granted monopoly powers of various kinds. People who write bad code don't necessarily last long without government favoritism. Those who write good code will find customers to help them implement new features -- no customer has unique needs that can't be marketed to all their competition. In the long run, it is this growth of customer base through positive past references that builds profit competitively.
But is a novelist supposed to give away his books for free (or for the price of distribution)? If so, how is he supposed to make a living? Are we back to the old model of artists finding wealthy patrons and writing sycophantic dedications to them in front of every book?
I published two books (one self, one through a publisher) that I always gave out freely. The books allowed me to do public speaking engagements for a fee, as well as drove people to my print newsletters that I charged for. Also, I was able to charge for autographed versions of the book if people so desired (some did). In the long run, I made more money on a 5000-run book than most authors make on a 50,000-run book published by the publisher's cartels. In fact, there are many authors of 100,000-sale books who never earn their advance. I publish my blogs for free, and since I started in November my billable rate has only gone up due to the customer base that has appeared around it. Why should I charge for what is basically marketing? One of my blogs has afforded me 3 international trips to talk to people who financed the trips -- again, why should I charge for marketing?
The Mises Institute offers almost all their e-books for free, even though you can buy them at Amazon.com. Go to Amazon and look up any of their books. For example, What has Government done to our money is available at Amazon (ranked #8971 yesterday), but you can download it for free at the publisher. Why do people buy it?
But I don't buy the argument that it's a universalizable business model.
Of course it isn't. Some products that are very hard to reverse engineer and get working in a niche market are likely not going to get copied. If I make a program that helps gay chinese midgets track their daily intake of chitin, will you pirate it? Probably not. But the 50 people out there that want the product will buy it. On the other hand, if you make a product that could have 10 million customers, why should you have a monopoly on it? 10 million customers means there is room for all to play competitively by making the best product they can at the best price possible. You balance support with pricing, your competition will also, and both can profit.
Your positions sounds like someone who has never had an innovative idea that you tried to market AND as someone who wants to use other people's ideas freely.
The opposite is true. For the past 10 years or so I've positioned myself in the Chicago consulting market as the guy who gives away ideas -- many of them. I find that I'd rather have others put the ideas into action so that I can profit from the final product. Google my name (Adam Dada) and you'll find a few magazines I've been quoted in, usually promoting my old main skill: pushing corporations to try new things and regard all competition as healthy.
Some of my businesses have failed, mostly because of irresponsibility. Why should Tivo patent their ideas when I couldn't in most of my businesses? When I opened retail stores, should I have a "protection" over others from copying my store layout and products at a cheaper price? When a plumber enters a market, should his new found technique to fix a leak faster and cheaper be limited only to him? I believe in letting people use their labor as they see fit -- even if it means they're selling themselves too cheaply.
If you have ever gone to big companies with a big innovation that you need them to fund or license, then you would know that patents are vital to your protection. Secrecy only travels so far. How do you market a concept without sharing it?
Just coming up with an idea is not enough to bring it to market. Bringing an idea to market requires many people to implement all sorts of labors to finalize a product. If you can't do it cheaper and faster than the next guy, your idea is likely not ready to be brought to market. Look at all the ridiculous patents on every cell phone that comes out -- every one has a new patent pending. Yet all cell phones are basically alike, so these patents only seem to prevent new people from entering the market.
I've gone to very big companies (again, some can be found through googling me) with ideas, and many of them continue to hire my company to introduce something new to a given market, especially large but stagnant ones. You'd be amazed at how many CEOs will listen to a great idea even if it means their competition will quickly copy it. You'd also be amazed at how many MBAs hate new ideas with new competition -- I believe this is part of the problem. Business school graduates believe in the textbook, entrepreneurs believe in hard work and strong customer service. In the end, having a product means nothing if the customer can not use it to save them money or time over the price they paid.
Then, when you have your big idea, come crying to someone else about Microsoft stealing it without paying you.
Actually, I used run an idea website that has had numerous inventions "stolen" from it and I'm more than happy about it because I can profit from the creations. I must e-mail Google twice a month with a new idea for them to use (not that they have even listened necessarily), and I work hard to get my ideas out without attributing my name to them. I just want emerging markets to take advantage of, leave the coding and technology developing to those who have the desire to bring ideas to fruition. An idea is worthless without all the other parts: marketing, manufacturing, support, production, warehousing, analysis, customer sales, etc. Every piece of the puzzle is more important than the idea itself.
I'm not necessarily saying that big media corporations should be in control of the product you purchase. For example, I've optimized my home broadband connection enough that I can download torrents of movies and TV shows almost as fast as realtime (when there are enough seeders which is usually true when something is new). In the long run, I believe that torrent v2.0 will facilitate grabbing things of interest (sort of like a Tivo thumbs up via RSS/XML) so that you can watch it when you want to. Right now, that means storing data locally, but in the long run (as bandwidth goes up) I believe we'll see more real-time torrent-type schemes out there.
I just tried a 12mbps connection to the home (I live in a tiny 2000 populace town 1 hour from Chicago and Milwaukee) and I was amazed at the bandwidth. The provider said they could double it in a year at the price of 4mbps cable. In a few years, I doubt we'll being using hard drives as much as we are today if bandwidth is readibly available.
You're right about the need for a simple box to time-shift recordings digitally. Yet Tivo is a huge barrier to entry for many low-budget manufacturers. A very close friend of mine is a "famous" importer of Chinese and Taiwanese goods, and he's shown me (in his home), a cheap-brand DVD player with an integrated DVR. The thing worked wonders, and I believe he said the cost would be under $39 to the consumer if it could get through all the patents it violated. I believe it would be even cheaper if the import tariffs were less, too.
With that, think of all the money consumers would save over the coercion-enhanced Tivo and other DVRs. The money you save not padding their pockets means more money you can spend on other things you want -- meaning more jobs created rather than profits enhanced artificially by government force.
Not to mention the fact that all of the opensource software JBoss distributes requires it as well. Without copyright law you are left with public domain. The GPL requires the copyright law to restrict companies from modifying and selling GPL based products.
I understand this, but I don't think copyright necessarily does much to create JBoss's market. It seems to be almost anecdotal as there are enough ways to obfuscate open sourced code so that others don't know you've borrowed it from another project. In the long run, I seriously don't see the GPL being necessary as more and more people find ways to make money on "public domain" information.
Just give it time and open competition, and the GPL will be replaced with public domain products as more people find themselves able to compete by providing an even more competitive product at an even more competitive price.
I had the first Tivo of anyone I knew -- the day I first heard about it I picked one up. It was a great device for its time, but the recent Tivos I've experienced have no shown much improvement. It is my belief that patents stifle innovation, and they allow the patents holders to stick with the status quo longer than open competition would allow. There can be innovation without patents (PDF warning).
For Tivo to say that their livelihood is in a delicate position because of this patent is ridiculous. If they had protected this patent and EchoStar was never able to compete, all it would mean is that Tivo would have left their prices higher than the market would expect, and they'd still not do much to innovate and invent.
In order to bring a product to market, one must look at all sorts of requirements. Marketing, fast competition, consumer need, consumer affordability, and longevity. Not every product will succeed, and many will fail. The great part about failure is that, on a whole, consumers win out in the long run as other people innovate on top of the failure and release a product or service that is financially viable. Nowhere in the system is a patent system necessary, because there will always be people who want to make a product at a lower cost, even at no cost. Look at MythTV for proof, there, as well as any open source success story.
How many times must it be said that patents don't foster creation, they disrupt it. A monopoly is a monopoly, and the worst examples of monopoly are those that exist solely by using the force of government to back them up. In fact, I truly believe that no monopoly can exist without the myriad of government favoritistic laws and regulations that prevent the open competition that is created when restrictions are removed.
Think not of Tivo, think of the consumer that wins out in the end. This is all that matters in a market -- you should not enter a market without having an understanding of what it takes to survive, succeed and surpass your competition. If you think you can win by removing competition from the picture, you're ignoring the basic ideals of freedom that we're supposed to hold so close to our hearts.
I truly believe it is time for Tivo to close up shop. In the next 10 years, the DVR/PVR idea will be gone -- integrated into every bit of electronics we use, up to even cell phones. As bandwidth increases and costs decrease, the need to use a DVR/PVR will be reduced to those who just want to have the data in their home. Tivo (and EchoStar) will find themselves useless fast enough if they think this is a growing market.
What parts do you disagree with? I don't necessarily mean let's open the floodgates of debate, but it helps me to get a grasp of the ideas out there. E-mail is fine, too, if you'd rather:)
I can't stand this ideal that "making money" or "getting rich" is wrong somehow.
Of course it isn't. Money is nothing but your time stored to redeem in the future. When people talk about "greedy people" they're just mad that someone found a way to sell their time to someone else for more time-saved in the future. Money is very basic, it is when we involve regulations and manipulations in the system that things fall apart.
Sure you can blast JBoss for not being entirely his invention but you can't deny the visibility he's brought to it.
I don't think you can blast someone for taking a relatively unknown market and making it wider known. Again, this is the problem we have with the patent-cartelism that exists in many software markets (and other markets). Someone with a good idea can't go out and promote it "for free" even if they wanted to, let alone for money. Competition drives the creation of better products -- it isn't patents that foster invention.
The JBoss story is one that is close to my heart -- it epitomizes much of what I believe in when it comes to my hardcore beliefs. I am a true capitalist (anarcho-capitalist) at heart, and I believe that earning money requires constant work in the field you're in. I don't believe in copyrights and patents either, which are a government mandate to pay residual income on products you've already bought. For me, the software industry is a huge mess of patents, copyrights, trademarks and proprietary code. We pay for a mess of code, and we get what we pay for.
The idea that you can make a basic product and give it away free in order to support your ongoing labor is an idea I've grasped all my life. I started my first BBS in 87 (13 years old) and used it to build my IT consulting business. I started a 3D video production house that had the same premise: build the models for free and then work on an hourly basis to help the client utilize the models. Today I converted my print newsletters to various blogs that I post for free, which has increased my hourly rate more than enough to compensate for the time I write them.
I look at all the various cartelized industries: music, movies, software, etc. They base their future incomes on protecting the uniqueness of their software through bad laws (such as copyright and patent) rather than the free market procedure of open competition. Bands can learn from JBoss -- give your digital music away free in order to support your fan base in person. Make your money by continuing to meet your customers' needs in person, and use the previous portfolio of work to show that you're worth hiring.
Fleury may not have come to his business plan from the same political viewpoint, but I thank him openly for creating the firestorm he has. The big companies have spent years or even decades forming the law around them in order to dissuade competition from entering their markets. By taking advantage of "incumbent-protecting" patent and copyright laws, they made the barrier to entry even harder. Now they have to compete, and they have to do so in a unique manner.
When people say you can't fight big corporations, it is only because these corporations have taken the law that is supposed to protect our rights and instead made it into a preferential treatment law. Now that others understand the basis of income -- ongoing consistent work and support of your customers -- the playing field might be truly leveled so that others can come in and bring the costs down even more while increasing the quality of products and services we all use and need. That will be true, at least, if government keeps their hands off of open source and other market creations that open the door to more healthy competition. Just want until we have a bigger anti-competition board created at the federal level.
it addresses abuses of individual customers (a.k.a. "consumers" or "cattle") by the industry when the market has failed.
I don't believe the market has failed in terms of privacy -- it is the mountain of previous regulations that have given preferential treatment to companies with ties to government. As an entrepreneur myself, I know how bad it is to get into many markets -- it is not competition that scares people off, it is excessive regulations.
Most of the acronyms you listed have their basis in previous regulations that failed, or previous favoritism ("cronyism") that created a maze that prevented competition from entering the market that you say failed. I have no hope in new laws fixing any problems at all, they'll just make things worse so the door is opened for more laws in the future.
The US Congress has no mandate in the Constitution offering them any power over consumer privacy or information. The Interstate Commerce Clause was written to give the Federal government power to regulate the states to prevent them from taxing, tariffing or embarging interstate commerce: it was not meant to regulate commerce in any other way.
This is an unnecessary law. If you make a contract to trade with a party, put in the agreement that you want your information to be private and you want them to notify you of any breach of that agreement. If the company won't do business with you, don't buy from them -- if you want a cheap price, you might be willing to forgo this contract feature.
All my customers have in my contract agreement a stipulation that we both will notify the other in the event of identity or security breach. I don't buy anything from anyone without making sure I am protected -- and basic tort and contract law protects me in this case.
Of course this law has nothing to do with protecting consumers but with increasing Congress' control over individuals and businesses and offering a new layer of deterrence for the average person to go into business. We could replace much of the FTC with more realistic tort regulations rather than creating new laws where none are needed.
In my answer, the lawyers would win in the short run but standard contract agreements would put them on the bankburner. In Congress' solution, the lawyers win all around.
And we (at least I) appreciate your input. I have friends in the IP law business and they're regular lurkers. Most of the offline debates I've had with them from time to time affect my opinions here as well. I'm glad to see a healthy debate over it -- as I've often discovered, it is often times those who are within a given business that give me the best debate.
Most people on slashdot make no money from copyright, but seem to want to keep it "as-is" or mostly "as-is" due to some dream of becoming a super-rock-star or (insert mega income art type here). Unfortunately, few of them have any knowledge of the ins-and-outs of the business.
In my mind, I think copyright (and IP) has put way too much power in the hands of those who know how to manipulate the system -- usually the law. When the law is so powerful that only the powerful can use it, there is a problem. I truly believe we have numerous distribution cartels/content cartels that are on the verge of losing control of their media. In the long run, I believe it is a losing battle for the cartels, but one which I am happy to keep pushing for.
I'm an anarcho-capitalist, I love the freedom to use my labor to gain more free time for myself later ("money") but I don't like to encumbered by, or taken advantage of, laws that prevent others from trying their hand at creating something.
All my works -- ALL of them -- are freely copyable. I openly allow anyone to take anything I've written, slap their name on it, and market it themselves. The same is true of anything I produce beyond the written word, and I've seen a few of my creations copied by others. In the long run, though, it has lead to more people finding me even though I had no direct reference in the copied text.
It makes it hard to provide them with tech support; they can't quite explain what their problem is, and the person helping them has a harder time telling them how to fix their problem and giving advice so that it doesn't happen again.
Which just means that the uneducated consumers would have to pay more for support -- the way the market is supposed to work anyway.
No, I'd stop buying things labeled 'Coke' because I would no longer have any idea of what I'd be buying.
I highly doubt it -- retailers build their profits by buying consistent products from consistent manufacturers and are always looking for better products to sell. If they bought any of the knock-off Cokes, their customers would leave completely.
If I were to write a book, and there was no copyright, I could expect that of all the money that could possibly be made from the book, I might get 1% of that (the number is arbitrary). If there were a copyright, but no derivative right, I could expect maybe 10%. And if there were a copyright with a derivative right, I could expect maybe 25%.
You've never shopped a book to be published. I'm shopping 2 right now and will end up selling it myself because I make more money. The publisher's association has cartel control of distribution until Amazon came along, and they still have massive power made from previous moneys they made off the control. Most authors don't make 1% or even 0.5% of their book sales. When I printed my 2000 copies of my first book (self published) I sold about 40% of them and gave away 60% of them and did very well. I'm thinking of making 20,000 copies of the next one because its even better -- but I'll give the e-book version away free. Mises.org has free e-books of almost all their books that you can buy on Amazon, but people keeping buying them. Odd, isn't it?
Okay, so you'd be in favor of allowing kidnapping if no one got hurt, or in causing intentional emotional distress (e.g. non-physically torturing someone into a mental breakdown), and so on.
Kidnapping is violating someone's property -- their person. Intentional emotional distress doesn't happen without voluntary cooperation of both parties. If you come on my land and I cause you distress, you leave. If I come on your land and cause you distress, you tell me to leave. If I don't leave, I'm trespassing. If you don't leave, you're accepting my distress.
But you wouldn't know which store is Target, either. Or visit some other place, you couldn't rely on the names at all to help you identify anything, you could go into Target and find a grocery store or a bar or a brothel. You wouldn't know which "Coke" they are selling until you try it, you could not carry over any previous experience with any product. All that just for some idea that "names should belong to noone".
So? You go to a store and you return because the service is good, the price is right and the product is consistent. It doesn't matter if it has a name, there are Targets I won't go to in my area because they're subpar to others in the same area.
Concrete example: Take CDs. Data on a CD can take months or years and thousands or millions of dollars to produce but the actual medium only costs pennies these days
Which is why you need to sell more than the data on the CD. Sell the support, sell the add-on hardware, sell the live performance, sell the training, sell the installation, sell a follow-up newsletter. The time you spend making that CD is your labor -- don't put in your labor until you know how you can market the product in a world of competition and "piracy."
A market for data simply cannot exist without some restriction on just going out and copying it.
Untrue. I make a very good income by giving all my data away for free and billing for my personal time (on the phone, in face-to-face consultations and in public speaking engagements). Nothing restricts others from doing it but they are LAZY because of the government force of copyright. They want to work once and make money forever rather than working a little bit at a time to build a regular customer base and then continue making money by working. Bands that make a one-hit wonder might spend 5 hours in the studio on that song, but they have a right to millions due to the monopoly distribution cartels who own the copyright system.
Lights replaced gaslamps -- what happened to the lamplighters?
Tires replaced horseshoes -- what happened to the anvil makers?
The Internet is quickly making the Encyclopedia irrelevant, should we protect the encyclopedia makers?
The highway system made trains irrelevant, should we safe them with government power?
In the grand scheme of things, as technology improves, it replaces old ways of doing business. Now that you don't need a huge studio to make music, you also don't need huge budgets. What is wrong with a band making an album to give out freely -- charge for signatures or value added options -- and make their money using their real labor in live shows? What is wrong with a theater group making a movie DVD of their performance to give away freely -- to drive people to see their shows? What is wrong with a book author writing freely online (as I do) in order to charge more for their public engagements (as I do)?
Supply and demand wins out -- now that media is near infinite in supply, the price drops toward zero. Find new ways to make money, don't stick to the old ones.
Slashdot Mirror
I recently priced shipping two 40 foot containers from China to LA and the prices were surprisingly low -- much lower than I had figured. Also you have to realize that most of these companies that produce low quality goods do so at low prices BECAUSE they're lower quality. The last time I did a wholesale price check on some consumer goods (cheap DVD players actually) I was shocked to see that the wholesale price just dropped below US$20 shipped. This means the manufacturer is still making SOME money there.
I have faith that the prices of goods will generally fall, even with a dollar that is quickly losing value in Asia. Remember that a significant cost for many electronics manufacturers is legal -- filing patents, enforcing patents, finding ways around patents. This is definitely not good for consumers.
Poor Scarface. He didn't realize those cockroaches he was going to bury were colluding together against him.
Words of wisdom, I guess.
I'm not here to convince anyone to become an anarcho-capitalist -- I just want "our" side involved in the usual two-sided debate (two parties arguing on what to control and how much to control it).
I believe your fear of too much wealth going to fewer hands is "fixed" by anarcho-capitalism. The biggest problem with wealth today is that it is stolen in ways that MOST people don't realize. For example, 99.9% of consumer goods inflation has been caused by the Federal Reserve creating new currency -- this devalues everyone's currency. The tax rates are adjusted by the government created CPI which is a false inflation index. Real inflation is much higher and will continue to rise -- this means that every year your 3% raise isn't enough to compensate for the 8% inflation rate likely happening lately.
Another wealth grabber is the Fed's policy of giving the banks the new money first, allowing them to profit from it before the prices go up. The Fed policy of setting interest rates and giving banks easy money with only a 10% reserve means that banks loan money out to people who shouldn't deserve the loan -- causing higher home prices and car prices and other large consumer goods. When they default, the bank takes over the property and then can rent it back to the people who overpaid for the property. The housing bubble was created specifically to transfer wealth from the lower and middle class to the cartel elite (bankers, brokers, etc). The dotcom bubble was no different -- transfering wealth from the same people to the cartel elite (anyone governed by the SEC).
I truly believe that wealth would be better protected on a hard money standard. I don't believe in a government enforced standard (ie a gold standard or a silver standard) but a market created one instead. I personally live on a hard money standard (all my money is either paid to me in gold or silver, or immediately converted to gold or silver for storing my wealth safely). I don't partake in credit or loans or government-enabled programs anymore, because I know it is a wealth transfer mechanism.
In the long run, all political structures are bad. This is why I prefer anarcho-capitalism: in an anarcho-capitalist NATION, individual cities and villages are free to enact whatever legislation and legal systems they want -- to better their community in the way they see fit. It also allows people like me to withdraw from those systems if we don't see benefits of them. We'd also see better trade mechanisms for enhancing our own opportunities, as well as a more balanced power-of-State since we wouldn't all be shoehorned into the same Nation structure that we are now. In today's Jacobin system, we have a huge federal government with no hope of secession if we don't like it. In a truely federalist republic, we'd at least see States being able to withdraw from bad national policymaking.
Cool. You have a few websites. GoDaddy.com must be proud.
They should be, the get enough of my money as well as most of my customers who need a company that actually answers the phone. They're not geeky enough for most slashdotters, but 2 out of 3 problems I've had with hosting were my own damn fault for trying to do it myself.
Without the governmental reforms, there would be no information revolution. You should have paid attention in high shool instead of running BBS's.
That's typical socialist claptrap and it's been disproven time and again. The governmental reforms came AFTER industries had already been making steps to entice the next generation of workers who were familiar with industrial machines. Paying attention to high school means becoming fodder for the politicians, as far as I can tell. It also means working a junk 40 hour a week job for a terrible income, hoping that your 401K will be enough, but it won't, so you pass on your retirement costs to the next generation to pay. No thanks.
How about this model - no CD's for the public, only the radio industries get CD's. Public domain my ass. Bands perform music for cash, booze, and babes - and I am not sure if you know anything about two out of the three.
I have very little cash but I own all my homes clear, as well as my cars, and I travel without "charging it." My wife is hot, and as for booze, and on the rare occasion when I do partake, it is always quality product. Considering that I own a production company and we're building a studio, I think I know more about what rock stars want than you -- and I think you're way off.
I could go on and debate your bullshit point by point, but I do not have time for a clown like you. Have fun in fantasy land, just don't complain when your buzz wears off and reality hits you in the face.
I'm living reality right now -- earning a living without government force to back me up, and creating a strong name for myself by backing up my work with open knowledge of my successes and losses so others can take my ideas and compete with me -- making me a better resource for those willing to pay my rates. In the long run, the best thing for me is MORE competition, not less. From the attitude you have, I can see that you won't be one of those competitors, but it was a nice debate nonetheless.
And if companies choose to abuse their customer's trust by making private dealings public, then it's clear that legislation is needed.
I don't see that as the case at all. There is no right to privacy if you openly put information out there. My father told me at a young age to never put anything in writing that I didn't want others to know and use against me. That is true with all my private information.
I don't bank. I don't have credit cards. I don't trade stocks. I am living 100% on a gold hard money standard. I don't worry about my privacy because I have nothing to hide, and I don't care what someone does with my information because there is nothing for them to take. If you give someone information, YOU should be responsible for making sure that they will contract to not disclose it. That is freedom. Putting government in the loop means you hope they'll do things the way you want them to, but historically that never happens: they do things the way their funds suppliers want them to. Against all your wishes and hopes and dreams.
You're probably correct, there. I'm fairly certain that he meant "in the near future" but I can't recall (bad memory).
The big issue was that the barrier to entry is higher because of patents and copyrights. It seems crazy to me that we have laws protecting the idea someone comes up with, but the originator can't find a way to bring the product to market properly. In the long run, consumers do suffer, and one person (or corporation) has favoritism because they may have been the first one to write the idea on paper and file it with a government office in the right way, with the right amount of money spent and lawyers pushing for it.
It is all counter-innovation as far as I can tell, but I believe it will take years before others see the problems with patents and how you just can't fix the system.
See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. You're not making money from the books so much as you are from public speaking engagements, print newsletters, and customers for your related business.
Exactly! In a competitive marketplace, two things generally occur: prices move towards zero, and quality moves upwards. I found the secret to book selling: give it away and then build up your reputation as a desired speaker or consultant.
There are plenty of writers out there who don't want to do ANY of that. I know one published novelist who's so afraid of public speaking she bit through her lip worrying about an in-class presentation. Print newsletters and other businesses are also not things a novelist would necessarily want to spend time on.
If a plumber is afraid of people, would he plumb? It is wrong to think that your friend should be protected by a law because she can't compete. Should be subsidize horse-shoers and gas-lamp-lighters, too, because their markets changed? Writing books, making music, painting drawings -- they're all being replaced by new emerging markets for people to take advantage of. If your friend isn't ready to face the reality of the new information market, she'll lose out even with the law protecting her creations.
"IP" (the scare quotes are for your benefit) is a similar case, IMO - there's a literally infinite supply available of any IP, thanks to digital media, but the supplier (i.e., the creator) restricts the flow of those copies in order to maintain a profit margin.
Which is why I am against intellectual property in the first place -- when something can be easily duplicated by millions of other people, the cost of that "property" falls toward zero. When the cost of a good or service falls toward zero, the people making that good or service better find a new way to sell their labor. Those who hold on to old-style market protections (such as copyright) will find themselves left behind. It would be like the old LP-record manufacturer who decided to only make records when the tape, the CD and the MP3 came out. They'd be lost in the past with almost no customer base (except those few who still want LPs like me, heh). There is no need to protect those who are unwilling to innovate and compete.
While some people have good intentions, many people are evil at heart.
Many people? I seriously doubt this. Most people are egotistical, which is good because it allows them to maximize their benefit to themselves, which means putting them in a competitive position that in the long run means each of us is doing what we're best at.
Look at the industrial revolution.
I'm sort of sick of this part of the debate. The industrial revolution changed EVERYTHING that humankind was able to do for thousands of years -- literally every generation before it was relatively status quo. The industrial revolution fixed most of its problems on its own, and many laws to "enforce" change came after the fact.
Children working in factories instead of attending school, people working in factories with deplorable and hazardous working conditions, employers paying people below living wages, employers hiring illegal aliens (still happening today).
Children worked in factories because it allowed their households to reap income it never would have had. Public education has done nothing to make the family better, in fact I believe things are worse because of public education. The children who worked in factories did so because they were able to adapt better than the adults who were unable to take advantage of new technologies. Sure, it is sad that some children were abused and were put into safety hazards, but that is how the manufacturing industry got its start. I've been to Asia on numerous occasions and seen "child laborers" who earn more than the previous 10 generations did. This lets their children have an opportunity that they themselves did not. Do I agree with childhood labor? In some cases, yes, in other cases, no, but it is up to the families to decide. Don't quote socialist tracts if you have no firsthand experience with the benefits of working at a younger age -- you don't live in a impoverished society.
Sorry that you do not want to pay for music. Tough shit. Who finances bands? Why do you think bands are now charging in excess of $50 to $75 for concerts? They have to because the do not make any money off CD sales.
Good, that's where they should make their money -- entertainment. $50 is cheap if you factor in the true inflation of consumer goods (nearly 100% in 5 years in many cases). I own a small music production company (soon to be at http://www.nocopyrightstudios.com/ ) where we give bands money to make music in exchange for a portion of their music to be released in the accredited public domain. Most bands happily release their music this way in exchange for thousands of dollars of free production, and they turn that free music into marketing tools to bring people to their shows. The dozens of big bands that try to survive the old way will be replaced with thousands of smaller bands who will be happy with $1000 per show rather than $100,000.
How would you like it if someone showed up at your house brandishing automatic riffles and told you to get lost or get a 30 round clip fired into your body? What if they justified their actions all in the name of the pursuit of profits?
Aggression against physical property including one's body is the only place I accept the counter-use of force against another person. The music you put on CD and sell is not the product you're selling, you're selling the physical CD. If someone else can use their labor to copy that CD and sell it cheaper than you, then don't make the CD in the first place. In 5 years most musicians will not only understand this perspective, they will agree with it. The idea of profit is not a greedy one -- profit just means that you're swapping your time today for a store of time to be redeemed tomorrow at greater value to you. If you earn US$5 for 1 hour work, you can use that store of time (US$5 worth of time) to possibly save you tens or hundreds of hours in the future (say, buying a US$5 hamburger that would
It isn't my advice, in fact I openly say I am against it for myself. The reason I posted about it is because of the numerous e-mails I receive every day regarding it -- and people seem too lazy to go out and search for real advice on the topic.
In the years I've been in business, everyone who has worked for me has had the opportunity to start their own business. This is because I push my employees to go off on their own (and have even financed many of their startups). I've had my share of success and failure, so I felt it was a good topic to write about, given that some of my bigger failures are very public knowledge, and many of my successes have been kept too close to my chest -- something I realized is counter-productive in raising my billable rate.
The more I share, the more I am worth, the more people can rely on some unique perspectives of an anarcho-capitalist entrepreneur.
You bring up some good points that I'll have to ponder and write about at my anarcho-capitalist blog (see original parent post of mine in this thread). I do believe there are certain abuses that people do that would be considered trespass, but I have not pondered these specific situations enough to make an educated debateable answer.
:)
Thanks for the answer and the insight, it is always back to the drawing board for us anarcho-capitalists
I wish I had taken pictures. Since I saw the product, I've been working to find out how one can make a cheap PVR and I do believe that it is quite possible, especially considering the large number of useless harddrives out there that no one wants. I've seen 10 gig hard drives available at wholesale for $4.99 in lots of 50,000. These are new, too. Electronics is dirt cheap, so are DVD mechanisms. I have no idea what the cost of these items would be in China, but I just returned from Asia a few weeks ago and I was shocked to see how cheap many wholesale items were (clothes, cell phone parts, etc). Heck, I saw 10,000 count USB cables for ridiculously low prices and of good build quality, and I laugh at the US$29.99 exact-same cable in the US.
Nonetheless, it will happen, we just won't see it because of our regulations. Another reason why the US can't compete on the world level -- we protect those who don't need protecting, at great cost to the average consumer.
They want to PROGRAM, not talk to customers all day.
That's why a programmer in a vacuum is useless. All manufacturing laborers (ie, programmers) need additional people to bring their manufacturer product to market. Would a guy who spot welds auto parts be fine by himself?
If you're charging for service, you've actually got a big financial incentive NOT to make your product straightforward and bug-free; the only reason you're even MAKING a product, from a business standpoint, is so that you have something to fix.
This is only true when you have government-granted monopoly powers of various kinds. People who write bad code don't necessarily last long without government favoritism. Those who write good code will find customers to help them implement new features -- no customer has unique needs that can't be marketed to all their competition. In the long run, it is this growth of customer base through positive past references that builds profit competitively.
But is a novelist supposed to give away his books for free (or for the price of distribution)? If so, how is he supposed to make a living? Are we back to the old model of artists finding wealthy patrons and writing sycophantic dedications to them in front of every book?
I published two books (one self, one through a publisher) that I always gave out freely. The books allowed me to do public speaking engagements for a fee, as well as drove people to my print newsletters that I charged for. Also, I was able to charge for autographed versions of the book if people so desired (some did). In the long run, I made more money on a 5000-run book than most authors make on a 50,000-run book published by the publisher's cartels. In fact, there are many authors of 100,000-sale books who never earn their advance. I publish my blogs for free, and since I started in November my billable rate has only gone up due to the customer base that has appeared around it. Why should I charge for what is basically marketing? One of my blogs has afforded me 3 international trips to talk to people who financed the trips -- again, why should I charge for marketing?
The Mises Institute offers almost all their e-books for free, even though you can buy them at Amazon.com. Go to Amazon and look up any of their books. For example, What has Government done to our money is available at Amazon (ranked #8971 yesterday), but you can download it for free at the publisher. Why do people buy it?
But I don't buy the argument that it's a universalizable business model.
Of course it isn't. Some products that are very hard to reverse engineer and get working in a niche market are likely not going to get copied. If I make a program that helps gay chinese midgets track their daily intake of chitin, will you pirate it? Probably not. But the 50 people out there that want the product will buy it. On the other hand, if you make a product that could have 10 million customers, why should you have a monopoly on it? 10 million customers means there is room for all to play competitively by making the best product they can at the best price possible. You balance support with pricing, your competition will also, and both can profit.
Your positions sounds like someone who has never had an innovative idea that you tried to market AND as someone who wants to use other people's ideas freely.
The opposite is true. For the past 10 years or so I've positioned myself in the Chicago consulting market as the guy who gives away ideas -- many of them. I find that I'd rather have others put the ideas into action so that I can profit from the final product. Google my name (Adam Dada) and you'll find a few magazines I've been quoted in, usually promoting my old main skill: pushing corporations to try new things and regard all competition as healthy.
Some of my businesses have failed, mostly because of irresponsibility. Why should Tivo patent their ideas when I couldn't in most of my businesses? When I opened retail stores, should I have a "protection" over others from copying my store layout and products at a cheaper price? When a plumber enters a market, should his new found technique to fix a leak faster and cheaper be limited only to him? I believe in letting people use their labor as they see fit -- even if it means they're selling themselves too cheaply.
If you have ever gone to big companies with a big innovation that you need them to fund or license, then you would know that patents are vital to your protection. Secrecy only travels so far. How do you market a concept without sharing it?
Just coming up with an idea is not enough to bring it to market. Bringing an idea to market requires many people to implement all sorts of labors to finalize a product. If you can't do it cheaper and faster than the next guy, your idea is likely not ready to be brought to market. Look at all the ridiculous patents on every cell phone that comes out -- every one has a new patent pending. Yet all cell phones are basically alike, so these patents only seem to prevent new people from entering the market.
I've gone to very big companies (again, some can be found through googling me) with ideas, and many of them continue to hire my company to introduce something new to a given market, especially large but stagnant ones. You'd be amazed at how many CEOs will listen to a great idea even if it means their competition will quickly copy it. You'd also be amazed at how many MBAs hate new ideas with new competition -- I believe this is part of the problem. Business school graduates believe in the textbook, entrepreneurs believe in hard work and strong customer service. In the end, having a product means nothing if the customer can not use it to save them money or time over the price they paid.
Then, when you have your big idea, come crying to someone else about Microsoft stealing it without paying you.
Actually, I used run an idea website that has had numerous inventions "stolen" from it and I'm more than happy about it because I can profit from the creations. I must e-mail Google twice a month with a new idea for them to use (not that they have even listened necessarily), and I work hard to get my ideas out without attributing my name to them. I just want emerging markets to take advantage of, leave the coding and technology developing to those who have the desire to bring ideas to fruition. An idea is worthless without all the other parts: marketing, manufacturing, support, production, warehousing, analysis, customer sales, etc. Every piece of the puzzle is more important than the idea itself.
I'm not necessarily saying that big media corporations should be in control of the product you purchase. For example, I've optimized my home broadband connection enough that I can download torrents of movies and TV shows almost as fast as realtime (when there are enough seeders which is usually true when something is new). In the long run, I believe that torrent v2.0 will facilitate grabbing things of interest (sort of like a Tivo thumbs up via RSS/XML) so that you can watch it when you want to. Right now, that means storing data locally, but in the long run (as bandwidth goes up) I believe we'll see more real-time torrent-type schemes out there.
I just tried a 12mbps connection to the home (I live in a tiny 2000 populace town 1 hour from Chicago and Milwaukee) and I was amazed at the bandwidth. The provider said they could double it in a year at the price of 4mbps cable. In a few years, I doubt we'll being using hard drives as much as we are today if bandwidth is readibly available.
You're right about the need for a simple box to time-shift recordings digitally. Yet Tivo is a huge barrier to entry for many low-budget manufacturers. A very close friend of mine is a "famous" importer of Chinese and Taiwanese goods, and he's shown me (in his home), a cheap-brand DVD player with an integrated DVR. The thing worked wonders, and I believe he said the cost would be under $39 to the consumer if it could get through all the patents it violated. I believe it would be even cheaper if the import tariffs were less, too.
With that, think of all the money consumers would save over the coercion-enhanced Tivo and other DVRs. The money you save not padding their pockets means more money you can spend on other things you want -- meaning more jobs created rather than profits enhanced artificially by government force.
Not to mention the fact that all of the opensource software JBoss distributes requires it as well. Without copyright law you are left with public domain. The GPL requires the copyright law to restrict companies from modifying and selling GPL based products.
I understand this, but I don't think copyright necessarily does much to create JBoss's market. It seems to be almost anecdotal as there are enough ways to obfuscate open sourced code so that others don't know you've borrowed it from another project. In the long run, I seriously don't see the GPL being necessary as more and more people find ways to make money on "public domain" information.
Just give it time and open competition, and the GPL will be replaced with public domain products as more people find themselves able to compete by providing an even more competitive product at an even more competitive price.
I had the first Tivo of anyone I knew -- the day I first heard about it I picked one up. It was a great device for its time, but the recent Tivos I've experienced have no shown much improvement. It is my belief that patents stifle innovation, and they allow the patents holders to stick with the status quo longer than open competition would allow. There can be innovation without patents (PDF warning).
For Tivo to say that their livelihood is in a delicate position because of this patent is ridiculous. If they had protected this patent and EchoStar was never able to compete, all it would mean is that Tivo would have left their prices higher than the market would expect, and they'd still not do much to innovate and invent.
In order to bring a product to market, one must look at all sorts of requirements. Marketing, fast competition, consumer need, consumer affordability, and longevity. Not every product will succeed, and many will fail. The great part about failure is that, on a whole, consumers win out in the long run as other people innovate on top of the failure and release a product or service that is financially viable. Nowhere in the system is a patent system necessary, because there will always be people who want to make a product at a lower cost, even at no cost. Look at MythTV for proof, there, as well as any open source success story.
How many times must it be said that patents don't foster creation, they disrupt it. A monopoly is a monopoly, and the worst examples of monopoly are those that exist solely by using the force of government to back them up. In fact, I truly believe that no monopoly can exist without the myriad of government favoritistic laws and regulations that prevent the open competition that is created when restrictions are removed.
Think not of Tivo, think of the consumer that wins out in the end. This is all that matters in a market -- you should not enter a market without having an understanding of what it takes to survive, succeed and surpass your competition. If you think you can win by removing competition from the picture, you're ignoring the basic ideals of freedom that we're supposed to hold so close to our hearts.
I truly believe it is time for Tivo to close up shop. In the next 10 years, the DVR/PVR idea will be gone -- integrated into every bit of electronics we use, up to even cell phones. As bandwidth increases and costs decrease, the need to use a DVR/PVR will be reduced to those who just want to have the data in their home. Tivo (and EchoStar) will find themselves useless fast enough if they think this is a growing market.
I agree for the most part.
:)
What parts do you disagree with? I don't necessarily mean let's open the floodgates of debate, but it helps me to get a grasp of the ideas out there. E-mail is fine, too, if you'd rather
I can't stand this ideal that "making money" or "getting rich" is wrong somehow.
Of course it isn't. Money is nothing but your time stored to redeem in the future. When people talk about "greedy people" they're just mad that someone found a way to sell their time to someone else for more time-saved in the future. Money is very basic, it is when we involve regulations and manipulations in the system that things fall apart.
Sure you can blast JBoss for not being entirely his invention but you can't deny the visibility he's brought to it.
I don't think you can blast someone for taking a relatively unknown market and making it wider known. Again, this is the problem we have with the patent-cartelism that exists in many software markets (and other markets). Someone with a good idea can't go out and promote it "for free" even if they wanted to, let alone for money. Competition drives the creation of better products -- it isn't patents that foster invention.
The JBoss story is one that is close to my heart -- it epitomizes much of what I believe in when it comes to my hardcore beliefs. I am a true capitalist (anarcho-capitalist) at heart, and I believe that earning money requires constant work in the field you're in. I don't believe in copyrights and patents either, which are a government mandate to pay residual income on products you've already bought. For me, the software industry is a huge mess of patents, copyrights, trademarks and proprietary code. We pay for a mess of code, and we get what we pay for.
The idea that you can make a basic product and give it away free in order to support your ongoing labor is an idea I've grasped all my life. I started my first BBS in 87 (13 years old) and used it to build my IT consulting business. I started a 3D video production house that had the same premise: build the models for free and then work on an hourly basis to help the client utilize the models. Today I converted my print newsletters to various blogs that I post for free, which has increased my hourly rate more than enough to compensate for the time I write them.
I look at all the various cartelized industries: music, movies, software, etc. They base their future incomes on protecting the uniqueness of their software through bad laws (such as copyright and patent) rather than the free market procedure of open competition. Bands can learn from JBoss -- give your digital music away free in order to support your fan base in person. Make your money by continuing to meet your customers' needs in person, and use the previous portfolio of work to show that you're worth hiring.
Fleury may not have come to his business plan from the same political viewpoint, but I thank him openly for creating the firestorm he has. The big companies have spent years or even decades forming the law around them in order to dissuade competition from entering their markets. By taking advantage of "incumbent-protecting" patent and copyright laws, they made the barrier to entry even harder. Now they have to compete, and they have to do so in a unique manner.
When people say you can't fight big corporations, it is only because these corporations have taken the law that is supposed to protect our rights and instead made it into a preferential treatment law. Now that others understand the basis of income -- ongoing consistent work and support of your customers -- the playing field might be truly leveled so that others can come in and bring the costs down even more while increasing the quality of products and services we all use and need. That will be true, at least, if government keeps their hands off of open source and other market creations that open the door to more healthy competition. Just want until we have a bigger anti-competition board created at the federal level.
it addresses abuses of individual customers (a.k.a. "consumers" or "cattle") by the industry when the market has failed.
I don't believe the market has failed in terms of privacy -- it is the mountain of previous regulations that have given preferential treatment to companies with ties to government. As an entrepreneur myself, I know how bad it is to get into many markets -- it is not competition that scares people off, it is excessive regulations.
Most of the acronyms you listed have their basis in previous regulations that failed, or previous favoritism ("cronyism") that created a maze that prevented competition from entering the market that you say failed. I have no hope in new laws fixing any problems at all, they'll just make things worse so the door is opened for more laws in the future.
The US Congress has no mandate in the Constitution offering them any power over consumer privacy or information. The Interstate Commerce Clause was written to give the Federal government power to regulate the states to prevent them from taxing, tariffing or embarging interstate commerce: it was not meant to regulate commerce in any other way.
This is an unnecessary law. If you make a contract to trade with a party, put in the agreement that you want your information to be private and you want them to notify you of any breach of that agreement. If the company won't do business with you, don't buy from them -- if you want a cheap price, you might be willing to forgo this contract feature.
All my customers have in my contract agreement a stipulation that we both will notify the other in the event of identity or security breach. I don't buy anything from anyone without making sure I am protected -- and basic tort and contract law protects me in this case.
Of course this law has nothing to do with protecting consumers but with increasing Congress' control over individuals and businesses and offering a new layer of deterrence for the average person to go into business. We could replace much of the FTC with more realistic tort regulations rather than creating new laws where none are needed.
In my answer, the lawyers would win in the short run but standard contract agreements would put them on the bankburner. In Congress' solution, the lawyers win all around.
And we (at least I) appreciate your input. I have friends in the IP law business and they're regular lurkers. Most of the offline debates I've had with them from time to time affect my opinions here as well. I'm glad to see a healthy debate over it -- as I've often discovered, it is often times those who are within a given business that give me the best debate.
Most people on slashdot make no money from copyright, but seem to want to keep it "as-is" or mostly "as-is" due to some dream of becoming a super-rock-star or (insert mega income art type here). Unfortunately, few of them have any knowledge of the ins-and-outs of the business.
In my mind, I think copyright (and IP) has put way too much power in the hands of those who know how to manipulate the system -- usually the law. When the law is so powerful that only the powerful can use it, there is a problem. I truly believe we have numerous distribution cartels/content cartels that are on the verge of losing control of their media. In the long run, I believe it is a losing battle for the cartels, but one which I am happy to keep pushing for.
I'm an anarcho-capitalist, I love the freedom to use my labor to gain more free time for myself later ("money") but I don't like to encumbered by, or taken advantage of, laws that prevent others from trying their hand at creating something.
All my works -- ALL of them -- are freely copyable. I openly allow anyone to take anything I've written, slap their name on it, and market it themselves. The same is true of anything I produce beyond the written word, and I've seen a few of my creations copied by others. In the long run, though, it has lead to more people finding me even though I had no direct reference in the copied text.
It makes it hard to provide them with tech support; they can't quite explain what their problem is, and the person helping them has a harder time telling them how to fix their problem and giving advice so that it doesn't happen again.
Which just means that the uneducated consumers would have to pay more for support -- the way the market is supposed to work anyway.
No, I'd stop buying things labeled 'Coke' because I would no longer have any idea of what I'd be buying.
I highly doubt it -- retailers build their profits by buying consistent products from consistent manufacturers and are always looking for better products to sell. If they bought any of the knock-off Cokes, their customers would leave completely.
If I were to write a book, and there was no copyright, I could expect that of all the money that could possibly be made from the book, I might get 1% of that (the number is arbitrary). If there were a copyright, but no derivative right, I could expect maybe 10%. And if there were a copyright with a derivative right, I could expect maybe 25%.
You've never shopped a book to be published. I'm shopping 2 right now and will end up selling it myself because I make more money. The publisher's association has cartel control of distribution until Amazon came along, and they still have massive power made from previous moneys they made off the control. Most authors don't make 1% or even 0.5% of their book sales. When I printed my 2000 copies of my first book (self published) I sold about 40% of them and gave away 60% of them and did very well. I'm thinking of making 20,000 copies of the next one because its even better -- but I'll give the e-book version away free. Mises.org has free e-books of almost all their books that you can buy on Amazon, but people keeping buying them. Odd, isn't it?
Okay, so you'd be in favor of allowing kidnapping if no one got hurt, or in causing intentional emotional distress (e.g. non-physically torturing someone into a mental breakdown), and so on.
Kidnapping is violating someone's property -- their person. Intentional emotional distress doesn't happen without voluntary cooperation of both parties. If you come on my land and I cause you distress, you leave. If I come on your land and cause you distress, you tell me to leave. If I don't leave, I'm trespassing. If you don't leave, you're accepting my distress.
But you wouldn't know which store is Target, either. Or visit some other place, you couldn't rely on the names at all to help you identify anything, you could go into Target and find a grocery store or a bar or a brothel. You wouldn't know which "Coke" they are selling until you try it, you could not carry over any previous experience with any product. All that just for some idea that "names should belong to noone".
So? You go to a store and you return because the service is good, the price is right and the product is consistent. It doesn't matter if it has a name, there are Targets I won't go to in my area because they're subpar to others in the same area.
Concrete example: Take CDs. Data on a CD can take months or years and thousands or millions of dollars to produce but the actual medium only costs pennies these days
Which is why you need to sell more than the data on the CD. Sell the support, sell the add-on hardware, sell the live performance, sell the training, sell the installation, sell a follow-up newsletter. The time you spend making that CD is your labor -- don't put in your labor until you know how you can market the product in a world of competition and "piracy."
A market for data simply cannot exist without some restriction on just going out and copying it.
Untrue. I make a very good income by giving all my data away for free and billing for my personal time (on the phone, in face-to-face consultations and in public speaking engagements). Nothing restricts others from doing it but they are LAZY because of the government force of copyright. They want to work once and make money forever rather than working a little bit at a time to build a regular customer base and then continue making money by working. Bands that make a one-hit wonder might spend 5 hours in the studio on that song, but they have a right to millions due to the monopoly distribution cartels who own the copyright system.
Lights replaced gaslamps -- what happened to the lamplighters?
Tires replaced horseshoes -- what happened to the anvil makers?
The Internet is quickly making the Encyclopedia irrelevant, should we protect the encyclopedia makers?
The highway system made trains irrelevant, should we safe them with government power?
In the grand scheme of things, as technology improves, it replaces old ways of doing business. Now that you don't need a huge studio to make music, you also don't need huge budgets. What is wrong with a band making an album to give out freely -- charge for signatures or value added options -- and make their money using their real labor in live shows? What is wrong with a theater group making a movie DVD of their performance to give away freely -- to drive people to see their shows? What is wrong with a book author writing freely online (as I do) in order to charge more for their public engagements (as I do)?
Supply and demand wins out -- now that media is near infinite in supply, the price drops toward zero. Find new ways to make money, don't stick to the old ones.