The people behind Carolina Journal are the John Locke Foundation, not exactly an unbiased source.
Agreed one hundred percent! The only unbiased source, by definition, is the Daily Kos. When are people going to learn that they have to automatically reject the propaganda from all other sources. Well, Daily Kos can approve other sources as being unbiased, so people don't have to reject approved sources. Also, Daily Kos can revoke their approval, so you really need to check Daily Kos, well, daily to see whether something is propaganda or not.
Because it currently costs the federal government 2.4 cents to make a penny and 11.2 cents for every nickel.
I have absolutely no sympathy for the government in this regard. At one point the US was on the gold standard. (That was after it got off the wampum standard and the tobacco standard.) At that time the $20 gold coin cost $20 to make, by definition. (Actually, just a little bit more because of seigniorage.) The dollar was defined as a certain weight of a certain purity of gold. The coin was merely the government's guarantee of the weight and purity. However, the government decided to finance part of its spending through inflation. Since you can't do that while on a gold standard (other than through new gold discoveries or processes) they had to do away with it.
The government likes inflation because 1) they get to spend it first, 2) they get to pay their debts with worth-less money, and 3) tax bracket creep allowed them to increase tax rates without voting for them. (This last one has since been eliminated by indexing tax brackets to inflation, but it was a major component for many years.) First they inflated the money supply, and the gold in the gold coins became worth more than the face value, and the gold coins had to go. They continued inflating and the silver in the dollar, half-dollar, quarter, and dimes became worth more than their face values, so the government had to find something worth less to make them out of. Now they have continued until the nickel and penny are worth more than their face values.
I, for one, think it's time for the government to stop financing their spending through inflation.
I conveniently glossed over the name of the pirate's ship, and what the artist had for breakfast. I didn't, however, gloss over the Pirate Bay connection, because it wasn't part of the post that you claimed had no sense in it.
You completely forgot the part where the work is up on the Pirate Bay, and people do download it,
Like Edward Teach in my story, Pirate Bay works to provide the service that they provide. Or provided. They then make an offer to people who wish to download it. I'm not sure what that offer consisted of--perhaps being exposed to their screed, or having advertising along the edges of their web site. I'm not quite so familiar with Pirate Bay as you seem to be. I do know that the government closed their site down at least once, making all of their hard work for naught. That's exactly analogous to the actions of Judge Reinhold in my story.
they feel entitled to the artist's work FOR FREE.
You must be a riot at birthday parties. Do you rant and rave at the guest of honor when he doesn't send a cashier's check to the inventors of his presents? Gosh! It's like those birthday boys deserve the inventors' work FOR FREE.
Seriously, your entire premise is retarded. You're saying that since the pirate asshole put effort into copying the work, he deserves to keep and sell his copies?
You're mistaken. In fact, if you'll look back at what I wrote to you you'll find where I said, "But then, this whole thing has never been about what people deserve." You're not able to keep very things in your mind at one time, are you? It's as though when you read one thing it makes you forget a different thing you've read.
no, that's not how it works.
I know that's not how it works. I've read quite a bit about the laws that govern how things work. I've also read quite a lot about why those laws were enacted, and what the results of those laws have been. I've also read some on how things would be different if there were different laws in place or if there were no intellectual property laws at all. It's all very invigorating. In fact, I recommend it to you. Expose yourself to new thoughts and ideas. It might surprise you.
Your post still doesn't make any sense, because you start from an absolutely absurd premise
Just because you're deaf, it doesn't mean that there is no sound.
And your smug "are you still with me" parts just serve to make you look like an asshole.
You brought it on yourself. You could have said that you didn't understand. You could have asked me to expand on my remarks. You could have given your opinion on where I was making mistakes. Instead, you said, "Absolutely nothing in your post makes a lick of sense." Now, since I knew that there was at least some sense in what I had written, I knew that the failure had to lie with you. I saw two possibilities. Either you were telling the truth, in which case you had some mental failure. Or you were lying. I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Your country (assuming you're American) was founded by people who were either atheists or had very non-standard (for the time, and even by today's standard) religious views. Certainly not "Religious people" of the kind you imply.
Of the 55 delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, 49 were Protestants, and three were Roman Catholics (C. Carroll, D. Carroll, and Fitzsimons). Among the Protestant delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 28 were Church of England (or Episcopalian, after the American Revolutionary War was won), eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutherans, two were Dutch Reformed, and two were Methodists.
A few prominent Founding Fathers were anti-clerical Christians, such as Thomas Jefferson (who created the so-called "Jefferson Bible") and Benjamin Franklin. A few others (most notably Thomas Paine) were deists, or at least held beliefs very similar to those of deists. Source: Here
What? Absolutely nothing in your post makes a lick of sense.
I'll type slowly...suppose that Rembrandt is an artist. And suppose Rembrandt films a movie called, Rembrandt's Great Movie. And suppose Rembrandt puts Rembrandt's Great Movie on a CD. And suppose Rembrandt offers to sell the CD with Rembrandt's Great Movie for thirty-five doubloons. Are you with me so far? Artist...movie...sell...got it? If not, go back and re-read it, because, really, there is sense in what I've written.
Don't get too caught up in the details. It doesn't have to be Rembrandt. It could be some other filmmaker, maybe Spielberg or Coppola or Wood. Just some artist. Also, it doesn't have to be Rembrandt's Great Movie. It could be Fifty First Dates or Better Living With Chemistry or Rogue Nuns on Wheels. It's just some movie. Also, it doesn't have to be a CD. It could be a DVD, or one of those flip books you used to be able to get back in second grade, or one of those machines in the old, old arcades where you looked in the periscope and cranked the handle on the side. Or a laser disk. It could be a laser disk. Or thirty-five millimeter film. Or eight. Also it doesn't have to be doubloons. It could be some other currency like lira or rubles or yen, or even some non-currency exchange like trading it for a hogshead of chickpeas. Those are all details, and the salient points can get lost in them. Salient--that just means the important stuff. The important stuff is, artist...movie...sell. Are you still with me?
I'll assume you are.
Now, let's assume that Edward Teach is a pirate. I realize this makes two people, and it may start to get difficult to keep everyone distinct in your mind, but please bear with me because I'm about to make an important point. A salient one, even. It may help you if I told you that there was a real artist named Rembrandt. And, there was a real pirate named Edward Teach. In fact, you can go look them up on Wikipedia. Maybe you could print out the pictures you find there and put them nearby to help you keep everyone straight.
Now, suppose Edward Teach (that's the pirate guy) pays Rembrandt (that's the artist guy) thirty-five doubloons for the movie. And suppose that Rembrandt (artist again) gives the movie to Ed (pirate) in exchange for the money.
I realize that things have gotten really complex, but maybe it will help if I take this opportunity to summarize our story thus far. It goes like this. Artist makes movie. Pirate gives money to artist. Artist gives movie to pirate.
We're already half-way through our story, and you're doing marvelously. What I want you to do now is to look through the story. I apologize for its length, but it's important. And salient. What you're looking for is the pirate saying, "I deserve access to your hard work FOR FREE!" You're not going to find it. The reason you're not going to find it is not because you do a poor job of looking for stuff. I apologize for all the negatives. Let me look for a way to rephrase that--you won't find it even if you're a really, really good searcher. The reason you won't find it is because it's not there. In fact, if you're half-way good at searching for stuff you'll find where the pirate guy paid the artist guy thirty-five doubloons for access to the movie. Honest, it's actually in the story. It might help you if you got a yellow highlighter, and highlighted the place where I wrote about it. Print it off first, because you don't want to be writing on your computer screen with the yellow highlighter.
Okay, that's all of the first half of the story. Now I'll start the second part of the story. Edward Teach (the pirate guy) pays thousands of francs (okay, so this is an old story) for a copying studio in France. He buys lots of blank CDs or flip books, and hires lots of French women to copy Rembrandt's Great Movie onto them. The he pays lots of money to the French women for their hourly wages. Then he move
You've essentially said, "I deserve access to your hard work FOR FREE!"
As I understand it, people who violate copyright often purchase a copy from a licensed dealer. In that sense they have already paid an agreed-upon price for the privilege of access. By contrast, when courts force copyright violators to destroy possibly millions of copies that they have made, the copyright owner is saying that the copyright violators don't deserve access to their own hard (copying) work. But then, this whole thing has never been about what people deserve.
The underlying logic, that taking one instance of an object and another instance of an object and combining them together yields two instances of that object, is a fact.
It's your opinion that "1 + 1 = 2," once having been written down, has as its underlying logic that taking one instance of an object and another instance of an object and combining them yields two instances of that object. It was Peano's opinion that "1 + 1 = 2" meant that if you took the unique natural number that was not the successor of any natural number and found the successor of that number then you would find something that was also a natural number. Which rather was Pieroxy's original point.
No, but one of the valid measurements of the truth of a theory is how long people have tried and failed to prove it wrong. Theories that remain unchanged since ancient times are incredibly rare - and the few there are, are about as close to "truth" as any human knowledge will ever be.
That's an example of the fallacy known as argumentum ad antiquitatem, the idea that something is true or reliable because it's been around a long time.
Clearly you know nothing of "philosophy". I studied PHILOSOPHY - that did include ancient greek philosophy but also most other historical philosophers and major centers of it - I even studied African philosophy and all that was just - background. My speciality within the field of philosophy was logic - so while history is very valuable in the study of philosophy - it's by no means the entirety or even the focus of philosophy - and least of all in logic.
I think you're missing my point. What you're claiming is that you're something of an authority, and you got to be that way by studying other authorities. Furthermore, you're asking me to accept your claims based on that. Now one of two things must be true--either appeal to authority is sometimes acceptable, or appeal to authority is never acceptable. If appeal to authority is sometimes acceptable then I'm right, since that's the only thing I've been claiming all along--appeal to authority is sometimes acceptable. If appeal to authority is never acceptable then we must reject this argument of yours because it's an appeal to authority, and that's never acceptable.
Then fuck quotes and do some actual research and make up your mind based on empirical data. What empirical data exists ? They are called history books. If you see a recurring pattern that supports this theory that's strong evidence for it. If not - then there isn't. Then you know how it's always been - that's half the problem. The other half is: "does it always have to be like that?" - and on that one, since there isn't any real way to prove it, the question is up to you. That somebody like Jefferson seemed to believe "yes" is NOT evidence (that's where the appeal to authority comes in).
I think you've lost track of our discussion. As an initial matter, I claimed that appeal to authority isn't always a fallacy. Your response was that appeal to authority is always a fallacy, and that one needed to study the evidence to get a degree in philosophy. My point is that one doesn't need a degree in philosophy in order to make an argument. Now, if that's true, then it doesn't follow (from those premisses) that one needs to study the evidence in order to make an argument. In fact I'll go one step further, if one has agreed-upon premisses and means of inference then one can construct an argument without a degree in philosophy.
I said empirical, not physical.
Let me quote you. You said, "Classes literally consist of telling you what physical [sic] evidence exists - and exams of writing your own theories about what that evidence might mean."
As it happens the field of logic is the underlying field of mathematics and it obeys mathematical rules.
So, you're trying to convince me that mathematics depends on logic, and logic depends upon mathematics. That would mean that, together, they commit the fallacy of circulus in probando.
Every single established fallacy can be mathematially PROVEN.
I disagree. I think the formal fallacies can probably be proven mathematically. I think none of the informal fallacies can.
They are as certain and reliable as 2+2 = 4... in fact - they are part of the REASON why 2+2 = 4.
It's funny you should mention 2 + 2 = 4, since that's neither certain nor reliable. For example, let's ask the question whether 2 exists. Wouldn't you agree that the statement 2 + 2 = 4 is meaningless if 2 doesn't exist? So, does it? I recall that Bertrand Russell was writing a monograph intending to prove that 1 exists. He had re
The appeal to authority has been held as a fallacy and proven to be one since ancient Greek times.
So, the ancient Greeks were authorities on the subject of fallacies? And you wish me to accept their claims on that basis?
I know it because I studied philosophy.
So, you're something of an authority on the subject of ancient Greeks? And you wish me to accept your claims on that basis?...if you want a degree in a subject you are expected to do independent RESEARCH...
Perhaps so, but what if I'm not seeking a degree in the subject? What if I just want to know whether the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants?
Classes literally consist of telling you what physical evidence exists - and exams of writing your own theories about what that evidence might mean.
So what physical evidence exists that call-to-authority is always a fallacy, and how does the physical evidence relate to its meaning?
Now relying on an expert is NOT an appeal to authority fallacy.
So, relying on Thomas Jefferson is also not an appeal to authority fallacy.
We didn't just BELIEVE Christiaan Barnard when he said heart transplants could save lives (long before any other organ transplants were possible). He had to present empirical evidence that what he was proposing could work in theory before he was allowed to attempt one on a real person
So what empirical evidence is there that the heptatonic scale is a musical scale with seven pitches per octave?
Furthermore, how did you, personally, discover that call-to-authority is a fallacy? I ask you not to do any additional research on this question. What I'm asking is what happened to you in your personal past. At some point you claim to have learned that call-to-authority is a fallacy, and you accepted that as a fact. What happened that day to convince you?
I'm very well aware of the deflationary pressure that a gold standard brings,
Gold standards don't necessarily bring deflationary pressures. In 1848-1855 it brought inflationary pressures to the United States after the discovery of gold in Sutter's Mill, California, and then again after 1887 when John Steward MacArthur of Scotland discovered the cyanide process for gold.
and it's deflationary impact on the overall economy
"Deflation" is a term applied to the money supply, and , more recently, to the general level of prices. The term used to describe an economy that is receding is recession or, if it's major, depression.
Recession cannot be the effect of an advance in the expansion of the economy (our original topic) together with static levels of gold while on a gold standard. That's by definition. If you have an expansion in the economy then you don't have a recession of the economy.
That's EXACTLY the reason why the Gold standard was abandoned: with it, you'd never be able to expand the economy through more productivity.
That's not correct. The gold standard was abandoned because the government was a net debtor. With a fiat currency they were able to inflate it at will and pay off their debts with worth-less money. Plus, they got to spend the newly created money first.
The size of the economy would be shackled by how much gold is in circulation.
That's not correct. In general, prices would fall (the price of gold would rise in terms of the amount of goods and services it could buy) and more could then be bought with the same mass of gold.
And THAT my friends is another example of a fallacy. In this case the false dichotomy. The poster is attempting to imply that to reject the fallacy of call-to-authority one must reject anything learned from another person, implying that all knowledge is either brand new or a call to authority.
Actually, not to put too fine a point on it, no. I did not say, infer, nor imply that rejecting call-to-authority meant one must reject anything learned from another person. What I implied was that you had learned that call-to-authority was a fallacy from someone, and, thus, you were committing the same fallacy you accused AmiMoJo of committing.
Now, obviously, I could be mistaken about that. It's entirely possible that you've spent the last fifteen years constructing and conducting double blind experiments intended to falsify the claim that calls-to-authority are a good way to draw conclusions about the universe. I would be surprised to learn that at this late date, however, as you spent a hundred and fifty words telling all about the different possible sources of knowledge, but without ever saying how you knew that call-to-authority was a fallacy. One reason I say that is that call-to-authority is not a fallacy. If it were then we wouldn't go to a medical doctor when we wanted treatment for symptoms, the Office of Management and Budget when we want to know the effects of the President's new economic plan, nor to Carl Sagan when we want to know how many stars are in the galaxy. The actual fallacy that you're alluding to is called "appeal to inexpert authority" by Robert Paul Churchill in his book Logic: An Introduction. If you'll refer to pages 470 and 471 of the second edition of that book you'll find four rules that yield a valid appeal to expert authority. They are 1. The individual must be known as an authority on the subject under consideration. An expert in one field is not necessarily knowledgeable about another field. 2. There should be a limited amount of disagreement among experts in the field. The greater the degree of controversy among more-or-less equally qualified experts, the less reliable the judgement of any particular expert. 3. The expert should present, as far as possible, the evidence on which the judgement is based. In other words, the expert should present his or her reasons for a judgement, and argument, rather than merely expressing an opinion. 4. If the subject is in a new field about which there is little accepted knowledge, the expert consulted should have a reputation for having made successful predictions or accurate appraisals in the past.
So, if we return to the original question that killfixx, luther349, dbet, letherial, artor3, and AmiMoJo were discussing we would find ourselves asking whether Thomas Jefferson were an expert regarding government, revolution, liberty, and violence. If he were, then no fallacy was committed.
Once again, we must suffer through another pro-piracy story.
Well, no. I don't believe we do. In fact, we don't even have to come here. We could frequent some pro-**AA site and enjoy all the anti-privacy stories we could possibly want. Well, I suppose if we were paid by the MPAA or the RIAA to shill for them then we would have to come here and suffer, but I don't know anyone like that. Do you?
On Slashdot, piracy is awesome and copyright is evil, yet GPL theft is a terrible thing.
I could ask you to go ahead and state your ideas fully; however,... You seem to be saying that those two beliefs are inconsistent with each other--that there's no way one could be opposed to copyright and yet in favor of the GPL. Here's the way I see it (and please be aware that I haven't been nominated to speak for everyone here)...some people believe that the free expression of ideas leads to better conditions for the greater number of people. Of those, some have decided to work within the system to advance free expression. There are other people who work outside the system to restrict free expression. When that happens, some of the people who earlier decided to work inside the system to advance free expression use the system to stop those who are restricting free expression. See, what seems to be happening is that you're viewing things with blinders on. The blinders might be called legality or rule following or authoritarianism. Whatever they are called, others don't wear those particular blinders. And, in fact, those others aren't necessarily some kind of clones of each other. It's entirely possible that one group of people who are in favor of free expression become vocal whenever copying is discussed, and an entirely different group (with possibly some cross-overs) become vocal when enforcement of the GPL is discussed. Slashdot is monolithic in some ways. For example, I might venture to say that everyone here has used a computer at some point in their lives. In other ways we aren't quite so monolithic. For example, I have recently heard a rumor that three or four of the visitors here are not male. I have even heard that there is at least on person here who is in favor of the MPAA or the RIAA.
The only respectable pirates are the ones who freely admit that they do it because they want shit for free. Slashdot, however, invents convoluted moral platitudes to justify it.
I have a favor to ask of you. Would you please be a little more careful in your use of language? I'm personally of the belief that civil conversation is much to be admired as it leads to better understanding and communication. In particular, I'm asking that you not use the word "piracy" when referring to propagating information. Piracy happens when one group of people kill or ransom another group, take their rum or their sugar, and sink their ships. Copyright violation happens when one person duplicates a movie or a song or some other authored work when doing so is unauthorized. If you find that absolutely impossible to do then would you allow me the same liberty? You can call unauthorized copying piracy and I'll call copyright restrictions sodomy. I'm in favor of piracy (just as example. I'm not saying I'm actually in favor of piracy.) and you're in favor of sodomy. You like hearing stories about when some people sodomize other people, and you especially like it when the other person doesn't want to be sodomized. You like people to earn money sodomizing others. You like it when that's the only way the sodomites earn their living, because you want people to do a lot more sodomizing. Does that make it a little clearer? Shall we refrain from using loaded words and expressions? Or shall we not, motherfucker?
You are stealing from artists who created content.
Well, you see there? We aren't. What I mean to say is that people who make unauthorized copies aren't stealing from artists. Let me give you an example from my own life. I'm an engineer. Thirty years ago I designed
I do believe copyright is necessary, but should only be about 15 years tops (no renew option).
Why is that? Seriously. Do you believe that authors and inventors would no longer create writings and discoveries if there were no copyright? I imagine that ancient Rome's monopolies on copyright were quite below par, but I doubt there would be many people claiming that there was no art in ancient Rome.
Or, look at it another way. The beneficiaries of writings and discoveries are the people who read the writings and use the discoveries. (That's interpreted loosely: obviously, one doesn't read a painting.) The copyright monopoly is part of the price we pay in order to do that. In the same way that I want to pay as little as possible when I buy a gallon of gasoline, I want to pay as little as possible when I read a writing. We shouldn't be looking at the most length for copyright monopolies, we should be looking at the least. In fact, I've seen reference to studies purporting to claim that two years is plenty long enough for a copyright in contemporary times.
I really think that the reason things have gotten so turned around is that our legislators and artists have conspired against us. By that, I mean that copyright owners have given large amounts of money to legislators who promote strengthening of copyright, and the legislators have in turn passed copyright laws that give much more profit to copyright owners who are then able to give large amounts of money to legislators. In fact, I've read that the original copyrights were for that very purpose. Monarchs granted letters of patent to their supporters.
I would like to see copyrights reduced to two years. I would also like a return to the previous requirement that a copyright notice appear on the writing. In fact, I would like to see a requirement that current contact information appear so that it would always be possible for people who want to copy to negotiate a license. If the contact information goes dead, then so does the copyright.
I would also like to see patent reduced to two years. I would also like it to be limited to things that can't be reverse engineered. Patent declarations tell us how to make something, and is part of the payment an inventor makes to receive a monopoly. If it's obvious how to make something then the payment is worthless.
I would also like to see trade secret eliminated entirely. Why are we paying the monopolists if we can't ever get the benefit?
I would also like to see trademark weakened considerably. However, I'm not sure how to do that. Maybe allow each company only a single trademark? And it has to refer to the company name somehow? The reason I'm suggesting this is that it's supposed to give consumers confidence that the quality of the product is sufficiently high, and that it's not being counterfeited by a lower-quality producer.
Finally, I would like to see free unicorns and rainbows. Frankly, I think I'll see the latter before I see the former, so long as the conspiracy of monopoly continues.
I'm not...really certain what you're trying to say here. By any chance did you mean execrable?
~Loyal
The difference between the almost right word & the right word is really a large matter--it's the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning. Mark Twain
This is wrong. Slavery is cheap labor that you don't care about (you wouldn't give a shit about the quality of life of slaves when you determined your country's average quality of life of), and that doesn't cost the public much (don't need to factor those bodies in when building roads, hospitals, courts, schools, etc., etc.).
This is not wrong. Economics has been called The Dismal Science. A lot of people think it's called that because of all the boring numbers and supply and widgets and demand and aggregate statistics. In fact nothing could be further from the truth. Economics was named The Dismal Science by Thomas Carlyle who was in favor of slavery. He got really frustrated by economists who kept publishing papers showing that slavery was economically inefficient. Carlyle wrote an article called Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question in which he advocated slavery as a means of regulating the labor market.
Now, in theory, the Supreme Court could give this the obvious constitutional smackdown it deserves, but this court doesn't seem all that inclined to do so.
I'm thinking that the reason may have to do with standing. You have to have standing to sue. In other words, you have to have been harmed by the law. Then the case has to make it up through the various inferior courts. In the present instance that would mean that you would have to be detained without access to due process. Then you would have to proceed through due process. Since it's impossible to have both then the Supreme Court doesn't "see" it.
Slashdot Mirror
**Attributed to Yogi B and others.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is. - Jan L.A. van de Snepscheut
You can probably see why it's so difficult to get the attribution right.
~Loyal
The people behind Carolina Journal are the John Locke Foundation, not exactly an unbiased source.
Agreed one hundred percent! The only unbiased source, by definition, is the Daily Kos. When are people going to learn that they have to automatically reject the propaganda from all other sources. Well, Daily Kos can approve other sources as being unbiased, so people don't have to reject approved sources. Also, Daily Kos can revoke their approval, so you really need to check Daily Kos, well, daily to see whether something is propaganda or not.
~Loyal
Because it currently costs the federal government 2.4 cents to make a penny and 11.2 cents for every nickel.
I have absolutely no sympathy for the government in this regard. At one point the US was on the gold standard. (That was after it got off the wampum standard and the tobacco standard.) At that time the $20 gold coin cost $20 to make, by definition. (Actually, just a little bit more because of seigniorage.) The dollar was defined as a certain weight of a certain purity of gold. The coin was merely the government's guarantee of the weight and purity. However, the government decided to finance part of its spending through inflation. Since you can't do that while on a gold standard (other than through new gold discoveries or processes) they had to do away with it.
The government likes inflation because 1) they get to spend it first, 2) they get to pay their debts with worth-less money, and 3) tax bracket creep allowed them to increase tax rates without voting for them. (This last one has since been eliminated by indexing tax brackets to inflation, but it was a major component for many years.) First they inflated the money supply, and the gold in the gold coins became worth more than the face value, and the gold coins had to go. They continued inflating and the silver in the dollar, half-dollar, quarter, and dimes became worth more than their face values, so the government had to find something worth less to make them out of. Now they have continued until the nickel and penny are worth more than their face values.
I, for one, think it's time for the government to stop financing their spending through inflation.
~Loyal
The Muslims are barely salient to the crusades?
~Loyal
Because you conveniently glossed over that part,
I conveniently glossed over the name of the pirate's ship, and what the artist had for breakfast. I didn't, however, gloss over the Pirate Bay connection, because it wasn't part of the post that you claimed had no sense in it.
You completely forgot the part where the work is up on the Pirate Bay, and people do download it,
Like Edward Teach in my story, Pirate Bay works to provide the service that they provide. Or provided. They then make an offer to people who wish to download it. I'm not sure what that offer consisted of--perhaps being exposed to their screed, or having advertising along the edges of their web site. I'm not quite so familiar with Pirate Bay as you seem to be. I do know that the government closed their site down at least once, making all of their hard work for naught. That's exactly analogous to the actions of Judge Reinhold in my story.
they feel entitled to the artist's work FOR FREE.
You must be a riot at birthday parties. Do you rant and rave at the guest of honor when he doesn't send a cashier's check to the inventors of his presents? Gosh! It's like those birthday boys deserve the inventors' work FOR FREE.
Seriously, your entire premise is retarded. You're saying that since the pirate asshole put effort into copying the work, he deserves to keep and sell his copies?
You're mistaken. In fact, if you'll look back at what I wrote to you you'll find where I said, "But then, this whole thing has never been about what people deserve." You're not able to keep very things in your mind at one time, are you? It's as though when you read one thing it makes you forget a different thing you've read.
no, that's not how it works.
I know that's not how it works. I've read quite a bit about the laws that govern how things work. I've also read quite a lot about why those laws were enacted, and what the results of those laws have been. I've also read some on how things would be different if there were different laws in place or if there were no intellectual property laws at all. It's all very invigorating. In fact, I recommend it to you. Expose yourself to new thoughts and ideas. It might surprise you.
Your post still doesn't make any sense, because you start from an absolutely absurd premise
Just because you're deaf, it doesn't mean that there is no sound.
And your smug "are you still with me" parts just serve to make you look like an asshole.
You brought it on yourself. You could have said that you didn't understand. You could have asked me to expand on my remarks. You could have given your opinion on where I was making mistakes. Instead, you said, "Absolutely nothing in your post makes a lick of sense." Now, since I knew that there was at least some sense in what I had written, I knew that the failure had to lie with you. I saw two possibilities. Either you were telling the truth, in which case you had some mental failure. Or you were lying. I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt.
~Loyal
Your country (assuming you're American) was founded by people who were either atheists or had very non-standard (for the time, and even by today's standard) religious views. Certainly not "Religious people" of the kind you imply.
Of the 55 delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, 49 were Protestants, and three were Roman Catholics (C. Carroll, D. Carroll, and Fitzsimons). Among the Protestant delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 28 were Church of England (or Episcopalian, after the American Revolutionary War was won), eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutherans, two were Dutch Reformed, and two were Methodists.
A few prominent Founding Fathers were anti-clerical Christians, such as Thomas Jefferson (who created the so-called "Jefferson Bible") and Benjamin Franklin. A few others (most notably Thomas Paine) were deists, or at least held beliefs very similar to those of deists. Source: Here
~Loyal
What? Absolutely nothing in your post makes a lick of sense.
I'll type slowly...suppose that Rembrandt is an artist. And suppose Rembrandt films a movie called, Rembrandt's Great Movie. And suppose Rembrandt puts Rembrandt's Great Movie on a CD. And suppose Rembrandt offers to sell the CD with Rembrandt's Great Movie for thirty-five doubloons. Are you with me so far? Artist...movie...sell...got it? If not, go back and re-read it, because, really, there is sense in what I've written.
Don't get too caught up in the details. It doesn't have to be Rembrandt. It could be some other filmmaker, maybe Spielberg or Coppola or Wood. Just some artist. Also, it doesn't have to be Rembrandt's Great Movie. It could be Fifty First Dates or Better Living With Chemistry or Rogue Nuns on Wheels. It's just some movie. Also, it doesn't have to be a CD. It could be a DVD, or one of those flip books you used to be able to get back in second grade, or one of those machines in the old, old arcades where you looked in the periscope and cranked the handle on the side. Or a laser disk. It could be a laser disk. Or thirty-five millimeter film. Or eight. Also it doesn't have to be doubloons. It could be some other currency like lira or rubles or yen, or even some non-currency exchange like trading it for a hogshead of chickpeas. Those are all details, and the salient points can get lost in them. Salient--that just means the important stuff. The important stuff is, artist...movie...sell. Are you still with me?
I'll assume you are.
Now, let's assume that Edward Teach is a pirate. I realize this makes two people, and it may start to get difficult to keep everyone distinct in your mind, but please bear with me because I'm about to make an important point. A salient one, even. It may help you if I told you that there was a real artist named Rembrandt. And, there was a real pirate named Edward Teach. In fact, you can go look them up on Wikipedia. Maybe you could print out the pictures you find there and put them nearby to help you keep everyone straight.
Now, suppose Edward Teach (that's the pirate guy) pays Rembrandt (that's the artist guy) thirty-five doubloons for the movie. And suppose that Rembrandt (artist again) gives the movie to Ed (pirate) in exchange for the money.
I realize that things have gotten really complex, but maybe it will help if I take this opportunity to summarize our story thus far. It goes like this. Artist makes movie. Pirate gives money to artist. Artist gives movie to pirate.
We're already half-way through our story, and you're doing marvelously. What I want you to do now is to look through the story. I apologize for its length, but it's important. And salient. What you're looking for is the pirate saying, "I deserve access to your hard work FOR FREE!" You're not going to find it. The reason you're not going to find it is not because you do a poor job of looking for stuff. I apologize for all the negatives. Let me look for a way to rephrase that--you won't find it even if you're a really, really good searcher. The reason you won't find it is because it's not there. In fact, if you're half-way good at searching for stuff you'll find where the pirate guy paid the artist guy thirty-five doubloons for access to the movie. Honest, it's actually in the story. It might help you if you got a yellow highlighter, and highlighted the place where I wrote about it. Print it off first, because you don't want to be writing on your computer screen with the yellow highlighter.
Okay, that's all of the first half of the story. Now I'll start the second part of the story. Edward Teach (the pirate guy) pays thousands of francs (okay, so this is an old story) for a copying studio in France. He buys lots of blank CDs or flip books, and hires lots of French women to copy Rembrandt's Great Movie onto them. The he pays lots of money to the French women for their hourly wages. Then he move
You've essentially said, "I deserve access to your hard work FOR FREE!"
As I understand it, people who violate copyright often purchase a copy from a licensed dealer. In that sense they have already paid an agreed-upon price for the privilege of access. By contrast, when courts force copyright violators to destroy possibly millions of copies that they have made, the copyright owner is saying that the copyright violators don't deserve access to their own hard (copying) work. But then, this whole thing has never been about what people deserve.
~Loyal
The underlying logic, that taking one instance of an object and another instance of an object and combining them together yields two instances of that object, is a fact.
It's your opinion that "1 + 1 = 2," once having been written down, has as its underlying logic that taking one instance of an object and another instance of an object and combining them yields two instances of that object. It was Peano's opinion that "1 + 1 = 2" meant that if you took the unique natural number that was not the successor of any natural number and found the successor of that number then you would find something that was also a natural number. Which rather was Pieroxy's original point.
~Loyal
1+1=2 That's a fact, not an opinion, even though it's written down.
Actually, "1 + 1 = 2" is not a fact. It's an assumption.
~Loyal
No, but one of the valid measurements of the truth of a theory is how long people have tried and failed to prove it wrong. Theories that remain unchanged since ancient times are incredibly rare - and the few there are, are about as close to "truth" as any human knowledge will ever be.
That's an example of the fallacy known as argumentum ad antiquitatem, the idea that something is true or reliable because it's been around a long time.
Clearly you know nothing of "philosophy". I studied PHILOSOPHY - that did include ancient greek philosophy but also most other historical philosophers and major centers of it - I even studied African philosophy and all that was just - background. My speciality within the field of philosophy was logic - so while history is very valuable in the study of philosophy - it's by no means the entirety or even the focus of philosophy - and least of all in logic.
I think you're missing my point. What you're claiming is that you're something of an authority, and you got to be that way by studying other authorities. Furthermore, you're asking me to accept your claims based on that. Now one of two things must be true--either appeal to authority is sometimes acceptable, or appeal to authority is never acceptable. If appeal to authority is sometimes acceptable then I'm right, since that's the only thing I've been claiming all along--appeal to authority is sometimes acceptable. If appeal to authority is never acceptable then we must reject this argument of yours because it's an appeal to authority, and that's never acceptable.
Then fuck quotes and do some actual research and make up your mind based on empirical data. What empirical data exists ? They are called history books. If you see a recurring pattern that supports this theory that's strong evidence for it. If not - then there isn't. Then you know how it's always been - that's half the problem. The other half is: "does it always have to be like that?" - and on that one, since there isn't any real way to prove it, the question is up to you. That somebody like Jefferson seemed to believe "yes" is NOT evidence (that's where the appeal to authority comes in).
I think you've lost track of our discussion. As an initial matter, I claimed that appeal to authority isn't always a fallacy. Your response was that appeal to authority is always a fallacy, and that one needed to study the evidence to get a degree in philosophy. My point is that one doesn't need a degree in philosophy in order to make an argument. Now, if that's true, then it doesn't follow (from those premisses) that one needs to study the evidence in order to make an argument. In fact I'll go one step further, if one has agreed-upon premisses and means of inference then one can construct an argument without a degree in philosophy.
I said empirical, not physical.
Let me quote you. You said, "Classes literally consist of telling you what physical [sic] evidence exists - and exams of writing your own theories about what that evidence might mean."
As it happens the field of logic is the underlying field of mathematics and it obeys mathematical rules.
So, you're trying to convince me that mathematics depends on logic, and logic depends upon mathematics. That would mean that, together, they commit the fallacy of circulus in probando.
Every single established fallacy can be mathematially PROVEN.
I disagree. I think the formal fallacies can probably be proven mathematically. I think none of the informal fallacies can.
They are as certain and reliable as 2+2 = 4... in fact - they are part of the REASON why 2+2 = 4.
It's funny you should mention 2 + 2 = 4, since that's neither certain nor reliable. For example, let's ask the question whether 2 exists. Wouldn't you agree that the statement 2 + 2 = 4 is meaningless if 2 doesn't exist? So, does it? I recall that Bertrand Russell was writing a monograph intending to prove that 1 exists. He had re
The appeal to authority has been held as a fallacy and proven to be one since ancient Greek times.
So, the ancient Greeks were authorities on the subject of fallacies? And you wish me to accept their claims on that basis?
I know it because I studied philosophy.
So, you're something of an authority on the subject of ancient Greeks? And you wish me to accept your claims on that basis? ...if you want a degree in a subject you are expected to do independent RESEARCH...
Perhaps so, but what if I'm not seeking a degree in the subject? What if I just want to know whether the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants?
Classes literally consist of telling you what physical evidence exists - and exams of writing your own theories about what that evidence might mean.
So what physical evidence exists that call-to-authority is always a fallacy, and how does the physical evidence relate to its meaning?
Now relying on an expert is NOT an appeal to authority fallacy.
So, relying on Thomas Jefferson is also not an appeal to authority fallacy.
We didn't just BELIEVE Christiaan Barnard when he said heart transplants could save lives (long before any other organ transplants were possible). He had to present empirical evidence that what he was proposing could work in theory before he was allowed to attempt one on a real person
So what empirical evidence is there that the heptatonic scale is a musical scale with seven pitches per octave?
Furthermore, how did you, personally, discover that call-to-authority is a fallacy? I ask you not to do any additional research on this question. What I'm asking is what happened to you in your personal past. At some point you claim to have learned that call-to-authority is a fallacy, and you accepted that as a fact. What happened that day to convince you?
~Loyal
I'm very well aware of the deflationary pressure that a gold standard brings,
Gold standards don't necessarily bring deflationary pressures. In 1848-1855 it brought inflationary pressures to the United States after the discovery of gold in Sutter's Mill, California, and then again after 1887 when John Steward MacArthur of Scotland discovered the cyanide process for gold.
and it's deflationary impact on the overall economy
"Deflation" is a term applied to the money supply, and , more recently, to the general level of prices. The term used to describe an economy that is receding is recession or, if it's major, depression.
Recession cannot be the effect of an advance in the expansion of the economy (our original topic) together with static levels of gold while on a gold standard. That's by definition. If you have an expansion in the economy then you don't have a recession of the economy.
~Loyal
That's EXACTLY the reason why the Gold standard was abandoned: with it, you'd never be able to expand the economy through more productivity.
That's not correct. The gold standard was abandoned because the government was a net debtor. With a fiat currency they were able to inflate it at will and pay off their debts with worth-less money. Plus, they got to spend the newly created money first.
The size of the economy would be shackled by how much gold is in circulation.
That's not correct. In general, prices would fall (the price of gold would rise in terms of the amount of goods and services it could buy) and more could then be bought with the same mass of gold.
~Loyal
And THAT my friends is another example of a fallacy. In this case the false dichotomy. The poster is attempting to imply that to reject the fallacy of call-to-authority one must reject anything learned from another person, implying that all knowledge is either brand new or a call to authority.
Actually, not to put too fine a point on it, no. I did not say, infer, nor imply that rejecting call-to-authority meant one must reject anything learned from another person. What I implied was that you had learned that call-to-authority was a fallacy from someone, and, thus, you were committing the same fallacy you accused AmiMoJo of committing.
Now, obviously, I could be mistaken about that. It's entirely possible that you've spent the last fifteen years constructing and conducting double blind experiments intended to falsify the claim that calls-to-authority are a good way to draw conclusions about the universe. I would be surprised to learn that at this late date, however, as you spent a hundred and fifty words telling all about the different possible sources of knowledge, but without ever saying how you knew that call-to-authority was a fallacy. One reason I say that is that call-to-authority is not a fallacy. If it were then we wouldn't go to a medical doctor when we wanted treatment for symptoms, the Office of Management and Budget when we want to know the effects of the President's new economic plan, nor to Carl Sagan when we want to know how many stars are in the galaxy. The actual fallacy that you're alluding to is called "appeal to inexpert authority" by Robert Paul Churchill in his book Logic: An Introduction. If you'll refer to pages 470 and 471 of the second edition of that book you'll find four rules that yield a valid appeal to expert authority. They are 1. The individual must be known as an authority on the subject under consideration. An expert in one field is not necessarily knowledgeable about another field. 2. There should be a limited amount of disagreement among experts in the field. The greater the degree of controversy among more-or-less equally qualified experts, the less reliable the judgement of any particular expert. 3. The expert should present, as far as possible, the evidence on which the judgement is based. In other words, the expert should present his or her reasons for a judgement, and argument, rather than merely expressing an opinion. 4. If the subject is in a new field about which there is little accepted knowledge, the expert consulted should have a reputation for having made successful predictions or accurate appraisals in the past.
So, if we return to the original question that killfixx, luther349, dbet, letherial, artor3, and AmiMoJo were discussing we would find ourselves asking whether Thomas Jefferson were an expert regarding government, revolution, liberty, and violence. If he were, then no fallacy was committed.
~Loyal
Once again, we must suffer through another pro-piracy story.
Well, no. I don't believe we do. In fact, we don't even have to come here. We could frequent some pro-**AA site and enjoy all the anti-privacy stories we could possibly want. Well, I suppose if we were paid by the MPAA or the RIAA to shill for them then we would have to come here and suffer, but I don't know anyone like that. Do you?
On Slashdot, piracy is awesome and copyright is evil, yet GPL theft is a terrible thing.
I could ask you to go ahead and state your ideas fully; however,... You seem to be saying that those two beliefs are inconsistent with each other--that there's no way one could be opposed to copyright and yet in favor of the GPL. Here's the way I see it (and please be aware that I haven't been nominated to speak for everyone here)...some people believe that the free expression of ideas leads to better conditions for the greater number of people. Of those, some have decided to work within the system to advance free expression. There are other people who work outside the system to restrict free expression. When that happens, some of the people who earlier decided to work inside the system to advance free expression use the system to stop those who are restricting free expression. See, what seems to be happening is that you're viewing things with blinders on. The blinders might be called legality or rule following or authoritarianism. Whatever they are called, others don't wear those particular blinders. And, in fact, those others aren't necessarily some kind of clones of each other. It's entirely possible that one group of people who are in favor of free expression become vocal whenever copying is discussed, and an entirely different group (with possibly some cross-overs) become vocal when enforcement of the GPL is discussed. Slashdot is monolithic in some ways. For example, I might venture to say that everyone here has used a computer at some point in their lives. In other ways we aren't quite so monolithic. For example, I have recently heard a rumor that three or four of the visitors here are not male. I have even heard that there is at least on person here who is in favor of the MPAA or the RIAA.
The only respectable pirates are the ones who freely admit that they do it because they want shit for free. Slashdot, however, invents convoluted moral platitudes to justify it.
I have a favor to ask of you. Would you please be a little more careful in your use of language? I'm personally of the belief that civil conversation is much to be admired as it leads to better understanding and communication. In particular, I'm asking that you not use the word "piracy" when referring to propagating information. Piracy happens when one group of people kill or ransom another group, take their rum or their sugar, and sink their ships. Copyright violation happens when one person duplicates a movie or a song or some other authored work when doing so is unauthorized. If you find that absolutely impossible to do then would you allow me the same liberty? You can call unauthorized copying piracy and I'll call copyright restrictions sodomy. I'm in favor of piracy (just as example. I'm not saying I'm actually in favor of piracy.) and you're in favor of sodomy. You like hearing stories about when some people sodomize other people, and you especially like it when the other person doesn't want to be sodomized. You like people to earn money sodomizing others. You like it when that's the only way the sodomites earn their living, because you want people to do a lot more sodomizing. Does that make it a little clearer? Shall we refrain from using loaded words and expressions? Or shall we not, motherfucker?
You are stealing from artists who created content.
Well, you see there? We aren't. What I mean to say is that people who make unauthorized copies aren't stealing from artists. Let me give you an example from my own life. I'm an engineer. Thirty years ago I designed
Which is a call to authority, that is to say, a fallacy.
Did someone tell you that?
~Loyal
That order was for an earlier case in 2010 where that judge did squash the subpoena.
The judge squashed the subpoena? Is that like pinching it really small? Or is that more like throwing vegetables at it?
~Loyal
the Fifth Amendment is not implicated by requiring production of the unencrypted contents' of the defendant's computer.
That's why my password is "I agree to indemnify Loyal Opposition and hold him blameless."
~Loyal
I do believe copyright is necessary, but should only be about 15 years tops (no renew option).
Why is that? Seriously. Do you believe that authors and inventors would no longer create writings and discoveries if there were no copyright? I imagine that ancient Rome's monopolies on copyright were quite below par, but I doubt there would be many people claiming that there was no art in ancient Rome.
Or, look at it another way. The beneficiaries of writings and discoveries are the people who read the writings and use the discoveries. (That's interpreted loosely: obviously, one doesn't read a painting.) The copyright monopoly is part of the price we pay in order to do that. In the same way that I want to pay as little as possible when I buy a gallon of gasoline, I want to pay as little as possible when I read a writing. We shouldn't be looking at the most length for copyright monopolies, we should be looking at the least. In fact, I've seen reference to studies purporting to claim that two years is plenty long enough for a copyright in contemporary times.
I really think that the reason things have gotten so turned around is that our legislators and artists have conspired against us. By that, I mean that copyright owners have given large amounts of money to legislators who promote strengthening of copyright, and the legislators have in turn passed copyright laws that give much more profit to copyright owners who are then able to give large amounts of money to legislators. In fact, I've read that the original copyrights were for that very purpose. Monarchs granted letters of patent to their supporters.
I would like to see copyrights reduced to two years. I would also like a return to the previous requirement that a copyright notice appear on the writing. In fact, I would like to see a requirement that current contact information appear so that it would always be possible for people who want to copy to negotiate a license. If the contact information goes dead, then so does the copyright.
I would also like to see patent reduced to two years. I would also like it to be limited to things that can't be reverse engineered. Patent declarations tell us how to make something, and is part of the payment an inventor makes to receive a monopoly. If it's obvious how to make something then the payment is worthless.
I would also like to see trade secret eliminated entirely. Why are we paying the monopolists if we can't ever get the benefit?
I would also like to see trademark weakened considerably. However, I'm not sure how to do that. Maybe allow each company only a single trademark? And it has to refer to the company name somehow? The reason I'm suggesting this is that it's supposed to give consumers confidence that the quality of the product is sufficiently high, and that it's not being counterfeited by a lower-quality producer.
Finally, I would like to see free unicorns and rainbows. Frankly, I think I'll see the latter before I see the former, so long as the conspiracy of monopoly continues.
~Loyal
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" -The Sagan Standard
"I get to decide which claims are extraordinary and which claims aren't." -The Opposition Standard
~Loyal
Except that the trilogy really is excretable.
I'm not...really certain what you're trying to say here. By any chance did you mean execrable?
~Loyal
The difference between the almost right word & the right word is really a large matter--it's the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning. Mark Twain
This is wrong.
Slavery is cheap labor that you don't care about (you wouldn't give a shit about the quality of life of slaves when you determined your country's average quality of life of), and that doesn't cost the public much (don't need to factor those bodies in when building roads, hospitals, courts, schools, etc., etc.).
This is not wrong. Economics has been called The Dismal Science. A lot of people think it's called that because of all the boring numbers and supply and widgets and demand and aggregate statistics. In fact nothing could be further from the truth. Economics was named The Dismal Science by Thomas Carlyle who was in favor of slavery. He got really frustrated by economists who kept publishing papers showing that slavery was economically inefficient. Carlyle wrote an article called Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question in which he advocated slavery as a means of regulating the labor market.
~Loyal
Now, in theory, the Supreme Court could give this the obvious constitutional smackdown it deserves, but this court doesn't seem all that inclined to do so.
I'm thinking that the reason may have to do with standing. You have to have standing to sue. In other words, you have to have been harmed by the law. Then the case has to make it up through the various inferior courts. In the present instance that would mean that you would have to be detained without access to due process. Then you would have to proceed through due process. Since it's impossible to have both then the Supreme Court doesn't "see" it.
~Loyal
My understanding, as a outsider, is that the US president can't block a bill forever.
Well, that depends. The US president can block a bill forever, provided both houses of congress are unable to muster the two-thirds override vote.
~Loyal