Therein lies a major problem in this debate. The two sides are coming to it with fundamentally different assumptions and persisting in "I know you are, but what am I" arguments.
1. [Software and music files] aren't 'products.' They are information.
Bunk. A digital music file stored on physical media is "information" in the sense that it is a representation of a performance past. Yet an MP3 of an symphony orchestra performing an original composition is no more "information" than is fine piece of furniture simply because it can be distributed digitally. Both are fruits of an artisan's labor.
2. They can be infinitly reproduced with no cost. Our entire system of economics revolves around scarcity. Something that can be made an infinite number of times isn't scarce, is it? Something not scarce has no monetary value.
I agree that this is economic reality, yes. The ease with which digital music files can be reproduced is the reason that they are not scare, the reason they can be obtained at no cost. It is notjustification for doing so.
Are you advocating an economy in which the only way to make money would be by performing manual labor or selling a physical good?
So that's more acceptable in your mind, b/c they have to pay too?
Absolutely not. I was pointing out that someone who profits by co-opting a digital work has done even less to deserve that profit.
plague3106: Making duplicates of something is not the same as removing an object from someone's possesion. This 'I could have made X money if it wasn't pirated' doesn't fly. Are you certain that everyone that pirated the game would have purchased it if they couldn't pirate it?
MaineCoon: [W]e're talking about profiteering. If you write a program to sell, and I make a copy and start selling it, taking all the profit for none of the work and not sharing a cent with you, do you consider legal?
plague3106: Isn't that what people can do with GPLed software already?
As far as I'm concerned this "it doesn't count as theft if it's not physical property" argument doesn't fly. What makes products distributed as digital data (as software or music files) different from any other? Why should the author of a product easily reproduced receive reduced protection? As MaineCoon implies, profiting from the wholesale copying and selling of someone else's product is simply unethical.
At least someone who wants to sell rip-offs of a physical good has to invest (however minimally) in some engineering and manufacturing capital.
Further, the example given is not what is done with GPLed software. Anyone who releases software under the GPL has given up some of the rights afforded by copyright law. If I have reserved all rights to my software, you cannot treat it as you would had I released it under the GPL.
It isn't in their collective interets to use new technologies to reduce costs (as often happens in other sectors) as this lowers the barriers for others to enter the marketplace.
Actually, it's in their interest to reduce their costs if they can keep prices the same.
Can the record industry be considered an oligopoly? I'm not sure, but it seems likely.
This is how our economy is supposed to work. If you think it's overpriced, don't buy it. If you buy it, you're sending a signal to the retailer and the record label that the CD is worth $18.
The problem is that the DMCA screwed things up from the word go . . . Use copyright law as it was intended.
In the case of music, the DCMA hasn't "screwed things up." The intent of copyright law has always been to prevent activity such as the file sharing that many on this forum seem to see as some kind of inalienable right.
"Tomorrows meeting we will go over the action items that are complete, make sure it was what we had envisioned, and give status of the actions that are in process. We will aslo assign someone to do the test coverage collection for the top-level functional and environmental testing."
Can you find all the errors? I count at least six.
There was a court case (the infamous "State Street Bank" case). However, I believe the final decision in this case, STATE STREET BANK & TRUST CO. v. SIGNATURE FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., was decided by a Federal appeals court.
The question the pro-patent crowd needs to answer is why is copyright insufficient?
I think the argument is that a patent protects the concept (i.e., the algorithm or "flow chart"), whereas copyright only protects the implementation. Somebody could avoid copyright infringement by recreating the same algorithm in a different programming language.
Slashdot Mirror
The correct statistic:
In the US, the annual divorce rate is 1/2 the annual wedding rate.
Very interesting. I don't suppose you have a source for this?
As far as Im concerned it does.
Therein lies a major problem in this debate. The two sides are coming to it with fundamentally different assumptions and persisting in "I know you are, but what am I" arguments.
1. [Software and music files] aren't 'products.' They are information.
Bunk. A digital music file stored on physical media is "information" in the sense that it is a representation of a performance past. Yet an MP3 of an symphony orchestra performing an original composition is no more "information" than is fine piece of furniture simply because it can be distributed digitally. Both are fruits of an artisan's labor.
2. They can be infinitly reproduced with no cost. Our entire system of economics revolves around scarcity. Something that can be made an infinite number of times isn't scarce, is it? Something not scarce has no monetary value.
I agree that this is economic reality, yes. The ease with which digital music files can be reproduced is the reason that they are not scare, the reason they can be obtained at no cost. It is not justification for doing so.
Are you advocating an economy in which the only way to make money would be by performing manual labor or selling a physical good?
So that's more acceptable in your mind, b/c they have to pay too?
Absolutely not. I was pointing out that someone who profits by co-opting a digital work has done even less to deserve that profit.
plague3106: Making duplicates of something is not the same as removing an object from someone's possesion. This 'I could have made X money if it wasn't pirated' doesn't fly. Are you certain that everyone that pirated the game would have purchased it if they couldn't pirate it?
MaineCoon: [W]e're talking about profiteering. If you write a program to sell, and I make a copy and start selling it, taking all the profit for none of the work and not sharing a cent with you, do you consider legal?
plague3106: Isn't that what people can do with GPLed software already?
As far as I'm concerned this "it doesn't count as theft if it's not physical property" argument doesn't fly. What makes products distributed as digital data (as software or music files) different from any other? Why should the author of a product easily reproduced receive reduced protection? As MaineCoon implies, profiting from the wholesale copying and selling of someone else's product is simply unethical.
At least someone who wants to sell rip-offs of a physical good has to invest (however minimally) in some engineering and manufacturing capital.
Further, the example given is not what is done with GPLed software. Anyone who releases software under the GPL has given up some of the rights afforded by copyright law. If I have reserved all rights to my software, you cannot treat it as you would had I released it under the GPL.
RTFA, which begins, "China has 'got to start putting people in jail.'"
Ahh...slashdot morals at their finest.
Actually, it's in their interest to reduce their costs if they can keep prices the same.
Can the record industry be considered an oligopoly? I'm not sure, but it seems likely.
Then don't.
This is how our economy is supposed to work. If you think it's overpriced, don't buy it. If you buy it, you're sending a signal to the retailer and the record label that the CD is worth $18.
In the case of music, the DCMA hasn't "screwed things up." The intent of copyright law has always been to prevent activity such as the file sharing that many on this forum seem to see as some kind of inalienable right.
</i>
And in Soviet Russia, 18 ft. robot exoskeletons wear you.
No, it's the sound of Zambonis exploding.
I remember using Mosaic when I was in school!
</old man voice>
Yahoo: ******** 401k.com: ******** Online banking: ********* amazon: *****
Speaking as a big coffee fan and former Minnesotan who has patronized both Starbucks and Caribou, I can attest to that.
In fact, after patronizing them (definition 3), I now often patronize them (definition 2).
There is better coffee to be had!
Hey, that's mine, too!
"Tomorrows meeting we will go over the action items that are complete, make sure it was what we had envisioned, and give status of the actions that are in process.
We will aslo assign someone to do the test coverage collection for the top-level functional and environmental testing."
Can you find all the errors? I count at least six.
I am, on the other hand, the king of email:
I keep the "Automatically check mail messages for misspellings before sending" box checked in Lotus Notes.
One day last week I sent a 263-word email with a Flesch Reading Ease score of 54.2 and a Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of 9.0.
Later that day, I sent one with 522 words and scores of 41 and 10.5, respectively!
While I realize the weaknesses in these statistics, my point is: you have to read well to appreciate my emails!
None of this stuff like my mom sends, "WHEN ARE YOU COMINGG FOR CHRISTMAS."
When I was in sixth grade, my teachers all got together and decided to ban me from writing cursive (D'Nealian, to be exact). I've never looked back.
(Of course, I just turned 30.)
I was thinking that this might be worth the $9.99 to someone if :
(A) They make LOTS of outgoing calls during peak times (to numbers outside their mobile network), AND
(B) They could switch to a fewer-minute plan that is more than $9.99 cheaper.
Unless, of course, it was purchased without a prescription.
Right you are: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/11/17/nintendo_s igns_ibm_for_nextgen
Hey . . . you watched Frontline last night, didn't you?
There was a court case (the infamous "State Street Bank" case). However, I believe the final decision in this case, STATE STREET BANK & TRUST CO. v. SIGNATURE FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., was decided by a Federal appeals court.
I think the argument is that a patent protects the concept (i.e., the algorithm or "flow chart"), whereas copyright only protects the implementation. Somebody could avoid copyright infringement by recreating the same algorithm in a different programming language.