2. I've provided example of at least two methods that can be used to make money from original artistic content that depend on a market, but do no depend on a copyright. I've provided links to works written by people who research the topic as part of their profession to support my argument. Yet if I don't agree with you (who by all appearances has no special knowledge of the subject, and is not acquainted with writings of those who do) I'm stupid or dishonest. Either you really do believe that and are stupidly arguing someone you believe to be liar or moron (doesn't say great things about you), or you are saying whatever you think will divert attention away from your want of counter-arguments. (still doesn't say great things about you)
3. Theft involves 1.taking a thing 2. without permission, and 3. with the intent to deprive the owner of it. Copying is definitely not theft, never has been, never will be except by metaphor. Copyright is not the same as paying artists, paying artists is not the same as having copyright. (see my previous post for the long argument.)
4. Market-value is a meaningless term outside a framework of people willing to pay for something. When someone puts fair in front of it, it always almost means that they presume their values should be substituted over those of others. While a private performance may cost that much, a public performance where cost is split between many people is something I do on occasion under ordinary circumstance. If you think I'm a piece of shit for looking at some of the band's songs on unofficial video to decide weather it's worth going or not, then to be honest I don't care.
5. As per previous argument that you have not addressed or can not address (due to lack of background), capitalism requires a market of capital goods. General ideas have no marginal utility and are not limited, thus they are not properly economic goods, much less capital goods.
6. Now look, I understand the only semblance of an argument that you've made here. If you get something of some personal value from another person, then it's nice/good to reciprocate in some manner. I even agree with this judgement. However that's not what copyright is about per se. In addition even if that was what copyright was per se, there's still a lot more nuance to it. There are the utilitarian questions that must be answered in the positive before copyright can be justified. Do creators end up with more money under copyright than without? Is the distribution of money among artists more even than it would be without? Do you actually end up with more creative content for all your trouble? If yes to these benefits, how much is it going to cost consumers to pay the monopoly rents? How much less art and culture will people be exposed to as a result of these rents? Are there any other hidden cost, like needed to build more courtrooms as a result? Then there is the question of justice. Is it really proper to introduce the force of government to make people be nice to artists? Even when considered that general ideas are non-rivalrous, that there is no tangible damage or loss when you copy them, and that it doesn't not disturb the social harmony or division of labor, when a general idea is not monopolized.
ARM has more registers than x86, but I don't think that's all that's going on. Even with JIT the instruction sets are different enough that it may be hard trying to pipeline the instruction set properly. Also,throwing more cores at it isn't necessarily going to help because you have to syncronize everything, which can have a high overhead especially when trying to do something as complex as emulating an architecture.
Anything more that 5-7 years, and anything that prevents non-commercial verbatim copying is intolerable. (95% of creators extract 95% or more of potential rents within that time frame anyways) Only huge and already successful creators benifit from more time that that.
The government granting a monopoly is the very essence of modern copyright. This is certainly not a red hearing, and certainly not trolling. It's a simple statement of the principles and nature of a thing. I am not trolling, just because I've exposes a contradiction in you thinking. Nay, you have bought into an equivocation (I'll get to that later)
If I copy a thing, the person still has the thing for which they worked. If you make a bike and I copy the design, you can still pedal up and down the street all you want. Also a capitalist system guarantees absolutely no return for one's labor. You can pour 80 hours a week into a startup for a year, and still see it fail miserably, leaving you in so much debt that you have no choice but to declare bankruptcy. In fact the idea that labor is valuable per se, is an idea more closely related with Modern and Historical Marxism that with modern market systems.
An economic system is market or socialist depending on one thing primarily. That is whether there is trade in capital goods or not. Capital good being primarily to land, natural resources and other real estate, and secondarily to machines and tools that are useful in creating other products.Intellectual templates or general ideas are not capital good, and are not even properly economic goods, because the production is never limited by them.. If you make coffee, you could run out of fuel to roast the beans, the beans themselves, or the water or the fuel to brew the coffee with, but what you will never run out of is your recipe for brewing or roasting. You need only one and it does not diminish with use. What this means or implies is that the use of intellectual templates has no marginal value. This means a market is not needed and is not possible to rationally allocate these things. There can of course be services to improve these things, but monopolies on intellectual templates is in no way necessary for a market system.
And even if we were to accept that mere labor demands compensation, most musicians and writers using the traditional publishing models don't see a dime for their published works. Unless you are already successful and popular, you have to agree to forward publishing costs. That means you don't see a cent of royalties until they exceed to often inflated publishing costs. They usually make their money by doing things that cannot easily be copied, such a custom work, personal appearances, or live performances. And even worse that that is that you have to sign over copyright to do so, meaning that authors cannot even use extensive quotes of their previous works without permission of the publishers.
The equivocation you've made is between copyright (government grant of a monopoly) and creators getting paid. These are in fact two separate and often unrelated things. There are many ways the creators can get paid and make a living without copyright, several of the methods are explained in the two sources I listed earlier. And besides that there are methods that are hard to copy such a custom or commissioned work, or providing work in a content that is hard to reproduce such as a theater or performance hall. When I say that copyright should be abolished, I am not saying that creators should never get paid, or that your a sucker for paying for a copy of anything. Nay, more often then not, I pay for media, because I know exactly what I'm getting, and also because I value the creative content and want to send a concrete signal and reciprocation of that value. I especially love indie games because they don't just recycle genre methods and feels but really try to create their own. I am also quite partial to creative commons and DRM-free works, because this shows a respect of the creators to their fans, instead of the message of disdain and distrust that is created when you are willing to get the government to forcibly intervene on your behalf against your fans.
Frit is a ceramic composition that has been fused in a special fusing oven, quenched to form a glass, and granulated. Frits form an important part of the batches used in compounding enamels and ceramic glazes; the purpose of this pre-fusion is to render any soluble and/or toxic components insoluble by causing them to combine with silica and other added oxides.[1] However not all glass that is fused, and quenched in water is frit, as this method of cooling down very hot glass is widely used in glass manufacture."
I did not ignore computer games, I gave you two models in which you could make money from them without copyright that I will now repeat. Charge a very high price for the first few copies, so that those who wanted to copy and sell at a low price would have to bid against each other to be the first in the market. Or don't release until you've presold enough to cover costs. Another method I've not yet mentioned, but in use today is to release only on consoles or other devices protected by signing keys from copying.
As far as the biochemistry goes, that sea dwelling microbe has quite a bit of resemblance to us. Ours is of course more complex. but the building blocks and construction methods are exactly the same. The mechanics of copyright are still almost exactly the same. If you publish without permission, you're in deep $hit. There are many cases where companies try to use copyright law to stamp out speech critical of them. There are also many cases of excellent work, doomed to limbo land because the publisher
And Shakespeare? And France which had one of the most vital publishing industries when the didn't have copyright? And some English authors who made more money in the US where they did not receive protection of copyright, than they did in England?
The thing to look at when considering the price of the copyright bargain is not the absolute cost of copying, but the comparative cost. If the cost of one copy in a one hundred, one thousand, ten thousand, or one million piece is significantly less than a one-off copy, then there is room for an argument saying that granting monopolies to encourage this sort of mass production will lead to more works distributed. But where the cost of a one-off copy is the same or almost the same at the cost of one copy in a million copy run, there argument makes far less sense. In this respect the modern world is far more akin to the ancient one, than of the recent past.
The arguments are available from the sources I mentioned and much more cogent than my summaries of them.
There is a solution, switch plants over to the thorium cycle. There are far fewer and less toxic wastes produced.
As for disposal, the fuel should either be re-processed or fritered (diluted, encased in glass, and then burried)
Because adding more regulations to what is already one of the most regulated industries in this country doesn't give them any additional control. They already have "authority" to take over in the case of nuclear accidents as well, so what really to they have to gain by making a big deal of this. No new plants are seriously being considered so traditional energy companies aren't concerned with trying to prevent competition.
Um no, you can't prove a negative. To prove there is AGW, you need to put the data on the table and allow it to be peer-reviews. Niether the raw data or the source code of the computer models used have been revealed. This is suspect at best. There are also 7 different computer models relied upon to feed data into each other. Guesses based on guesses, without revealing the actual assumptions (in both cod and inputs) of the data used. What we do know is that there are natural variations in temperatures matched to cycles in the pacific ocean, and matched to solar cycles, both of which peaked recently. When you look at satellite data, as opposed to ground stations (which can err based on position and weight given them, and and err bassed on heat sources nearby) the hottest year on record is 1998
Also specific predictions relied upon early in the theories lifetime were demonstrated to be false. The original theories predicted and increase in the column of warm air over the equator. Weather satellites to date have found no such increase.There were predictions in 2000that there would be 50 million climate refugees by 2010 from certain countries. In fact there was in increase in these countries populations instead of a mass exodus. They were then quietly revised for the 2020 mark.
The increase in energy capture by the increased CO2 is very small, less than 1% of total energy, but on it's own nothing to be worried about, as that's less than the level of natural variation. The thing to prove to show AGW is some sort of feedback mechanism in a system (climate) that we have really only begun to understand.
Secondly, there are many of us who rely on producing content protected by copyright in order to put food in our mouths and pay the rent. Take the example of computer games, these take many man hours to produce initially from many different people but can be infinitely copied once they are a finished product. Without the concept of copyright you could buy a computer game, then sell it on as many times as you wanted without sharing any of the vast profits you made with the people who produced the product originally. Since you did not have the overheads of actually producing the game in the first place you could sell it far cheaper than the original authors and so more people would buy it from you than them. This would obviously not be any fairer than the current system.
Firstly, copyright originated as a system of censorship. If your book didn't have a copyright mark, you weren't allowed to publish it. Such marks were only granted to government friendly or neutral works.
Which just means the first few copies could be priced very highly or the game is not released unless a certain number of people pre-order it. It's not like there is just one possible way of doing things. You've made a false dichotomy, the way creative content is sold and supported now in the mainstream or no way. There are other methods that do not require an intellectual monopoly. By having free adaptation and modification, one can argue that a lack of copyright will lead to more creative content being available. The works of Shakespeare and the greatest classical composers were created without the protection of copyright. Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas wrote without copyright.
Check out Against Intellectual Monopoly by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine or Against Intellectual Property by Stephan N Kinsella for some very cogent free-market arguments against copyright.
Also the reason why in this case AVM is acting dishonorably is because it is simultaneiously trying to seek the protection of copyright law, while trying to avoid liabilities thereto.
Why is it not ethical to disobey a licence you consider unethical? What if I told you now that by reading beyond this line of this post you're agreeing to send me $10,000? Voluntary; full disclosure; informed consent. Stop reading now if you disagree.
First you've given no consideration.
Secondly there is no law that makes it illegal for me to read what you post on a public forum without your consent.
The laws say you must receive permission from the copyright holder before copying, or distributing copyrighted works.The GPL provides condition under which such permission is given. Nothing requires you to accept the licence, but if you do distribute it, your acceptance is assumed, because not to assume it would be to assume that you had committed an unlawful act.
If you want to consider that fund as reall, then you also have to add a couple trillion dollars to the current national debt figures. The fund is just an accounting fiction, money owed by one department of the U.S. government to another.
Food corn is generally just hybrid corn coming out of the same breeding populations as corn for feed. At the late stages it's shown to food companies like lays chips for approval. Corn that is approved generally has a thicker seed coat, and more hard starch, making the kernel have a round crown when mature rather than flat or dented. In other words is shows more traits of flint than dent. (Most modern hybrid corn comes from inbred lines originally isolated in flint or dent corn populations) Such traits make it more resistant to insect and fungal damage. Feed corn has a then thiner seed coat more soft starch, and the crown is flat or dented upon maturity. These traits make is easier for cows and pigs to digest fully.
Slashdot Mirror
That's true, and there's nothing stopping the Chinese from leveraging open source.
1. I'm not for theft and murder on the high seas.
2. I've provided example of at least two methods that can be used to make money from original artistic content that depend on a market, but do no depend on a copyright. I've provided links to works written by people who research the topic as part of their profession to support my argument. Yet if I don't agree with you (who by all appearances has no special knowledge of the subject, and is not acquainted with writings of those who do) I'm stupid or dishonest. Either you really do believe that and are stupidly arguing someone you believe to be liar or moron (doesn't say great things about you), or you are saying whatever you think will divert attention away from your want of counter-arguments. (still doesn't say great things about you)
3. Theft involves 1.taking a thing 2. without permission, and 3. with the intent to deprive the owner of it. Copying is definitely not theft, never has been, never will be except by metaphor. Copyright is not the same as paying artists, paying artists is not the same as having copyright. (see my previous post for the long argument.)
4. Market-value is a meaningless term outside a framework of people willing to pay for something. When someone puts fair in front of it, it always almost means that they presume their values should be substituted over those of others. While a private performance may cost that much, a public performance where cost is split between many people is something I do on occasion under ordinary circumstance. If you think I'm a piece of shit for looking at some of the band's songs on unofficial video to decide weather it's worth going or not, then to be honest I don't care.
5. As per previous argument that you have not addressed or can not address (due to lack of background), capitalism requires a market of capital goods. General ideas have no marginal utility and are not limited, thus they are not properly economic goods, much less capital goods.
6. Now look, I understand the only semblance of an argument that you've made here. If you get something of some personal value from another person, then it's nice/good to reciprocate in some manner. I even agree with this judgement. However that's not what copyright is about per se. In addition even if that was what copyright was per se, there's still a lot more nuance to it. There are the utilitarian questions that must be answered in the positive before copyright can be justified. Do creators end up with more money under copyright than without? Is the distribution of money among artists more even than it would be without? Do you actually end up with more creative content for all your trouble? If yes to these benefits, how much is it going to cost consumers to pay the monopoly rents? How much less art and culture will people be exposed to as a result of these rents? Are there any other hidden cost, like needed to build more courtrooms as a result? Then there is the question of justice. Is it really proper to introduce the force of government to make people be nice to artists? Even when considered that general ideas are non-rivalrous, that there is no tangible damage or loss when you copy them, and that it doesn't not disturb the social harmony or division of labor, when a general idea is not monopolized.
ARM has more registers than x86, but I don't think that's all that's going on. Even with JIT the instruction sets are different enough that it may be hard trying to pipeline the instruction set properly. Also,throwing more cores at it isn't necessarily going to help because you have to syncronize everything, which can have a high overhead especially when trying to do something as complex as emulating an architecture.
In the medieval warm period, Greenland may have well been fairly green.
Because there's even more vast quantities of the common stuff.
Not really, if the filter even blocks one thing that isn't child porn, that you have and excuse to access.
Again you've made an equivocation. Creators can and do get paid without copyright.
Anything more that 5-7 years, and anything that prevents non-commercial verbatim copying is intolerable. (95% of creators extract 95% or more of potential rents within that time frame anyways) Only huge and already successful creators benifit from more time that that.
The government granting a monopoly is the very essence of modern copyright. This is certainly not a red hearing, and certainly not trolling. It's a simple statement of the principles and nature of a thing. I am not trolling, just because I've exposes a contradiction in you thinking. Nay, you have bought into an equivocation (I'll get to that later)
If I copy a thing, the person still has the thing for which they worked. If you make a bike and I copy the design, you can still pedal up and down the street all you want. Also a capitalist system guarantees absolutely no return for one's labor. You can pour 80 hours a week into a startup for a year, and still see it fail miserably, leaving you in so much debt that you have no choice but to declare bankruptcy. In fact the idea that labor is valuable per se, is an idea more closely related with Modern and Historical Marxism that with modern market systems.
An economic system is market or socialist depending on one thing primarily. That is whether there is trade in capital goods or not. Capital good being primarily to land, natural resources and other real estate, and secondarily to machines and tools that are useful in creating other products.Intellectual templates or general ideas are not capital good, and are not even properly economic goods, because the production is never limited by them.. If you make coffee, you could run out of fuel to roast the beans, the beans themselves, or the water or the fuel to brew the coffee with, but what you will never run out of is your recipe for brewing or roasting. You need only one and it does not diminish with use. What this means or implies is that the use of intellectual templates has no marginal value. This means a market is not needed and is not possible to rationally allocate these things. There can of course be services to improve these things, but monopolies on intellectual templates is in no way necessary for a market system.
And even if we were to accept that mere labor demands compensation, most musicians and writers using the traditional publishing models don't see a dime for their published works. Unless you are already successful and popular, you have to agree to forward publishing costs. That means you don't see a cent of royalties until they exceed to often inflated publishing costs. They usually make their money by doing things that cannot easily be copied, such a custom work, personal appearances, or live performances. And even worse that that is that you have to sign over copyright to do so, meaning that authors cannot even use extensive quotes of their previous works without permission of the publishers.
The equivocation you've made is between copyright (government grant of a monopoly) and creators getting paid. These are in fact two separate and often unrelated things. There are many ways the creators can get paid and make a living without copyright, several of the methods are explained in the two sources I listed earlier. And besides that there are methods that are hard to copy such a custom or commissioned work, or providing work in a content that is hard to reproduce such as a theater or performance hall. When I say that copyright should be abolished, I am not saying that creators should never get paid, or that your a sucker for paying for a copy of anything. Nay, more often then not, I pay for media, because I know exactly what I'm getting, and also because I value the creative content and want to send a concrete signal and reciprocation of that value. I especially love indie games because they don't just recycle genre methods and feels but really try to create their own. I am also quite partial to creative commons and DRM-free works, because this shows a respect of the creators to their fans, instead of the message of disdain and distrust that is created when you are willing to get the government to forcibly intervene on your behalf against your fans.
Frit is a ceramic composition that has been fused in a special fusing oven, quenched to form a glass, and granulated. Frits form an important part of the batches used in compounding enamels and ceramic glazes; the purpose of this pre-fusion is to render any soluble and/or toxic components insoluble by causing them to combine with silica and other added oxides.[1] However not all glass that is fused, and quenched in water is frit, as this method of cooling down very hot glass is widely used in glass manufacture."
I did not ignore computer games, I gave you two models in which you could make money from them without copyright that I will now repeat. Charge a very high price for the first few copies, so that those who wanted to copy and sell at a low price would have to bid against each other to be the first in the market. Or don't release until you've presold enough to cover costs. Another method I've not yet mentioned, but in use today is to release only on consoles or other devices protected by signing keys from copying.
As far as the biochemistry goes, that sea dwelling microbe has quite a bit of resemblance to us. Ours is of course more complex. but the building blocks and construction methods are exactly the same. The mechanics of copyright are still almost exactly the same. If you publish without permission, you're in deep $hit. There are many cases where companies try to use copyright law to stamp out speech critical of them. There are also many cases of excellent work, doomed to limbo land because the publisher
And Shakespeare? And France which had one of the most vital publishing industries when the didn't have copyright? And some English authors who made more money in the US where they did not receive protection of copyright, than they did in England?
The thing to look at when considering the price of the copyright bargain is not the absolute cost of copying, but the comparative cost. If the cost of one copy in a one hundred, one thousand, ten thousand, or one million piece is significantly less than a one-off copy, then there is room for an argument saying that granting monopolies to encourage this sort of mass production will lead to more works distributed. But where the cost of a one-off copy is the same or almost the same at the cost of one copy in a million copy run, there argument makes far less sense. In this respect the modern world is far more akin to the ancient one, than of the recent past.
The arguments are available from the sources I mentioned and much more cogent than my summaries of them.
There is a solution, switch plants over to the thorium cycle. There are far fewer and less toxic wastes produced. As for disposal, the fuel should either be re-processed or fritered (diluted, encased in glass, and then burried)
Because adding more regulations to what is already one of the most regulated industries in this country doesn't give them any additional control. They already have "authority" to take over in the case of nuclear accidents as well, so what really to they have to gain by making a big deal of this. No new plants are seriously being considered so traditional energy companies aren't concerned with trying to prevent competition.
Directed activity. They 1. Advertised in and 2. Sold things to people in Missouri.
Um no, you can't prove a negative. To prove there is AGW, you need to put the data on the table and allow it to be peer-reviews. Niether the raw data or the source code of the computer models used have been revealed. This is suspect at best. There are also 7 different computer models relied upon to feed data into each other. Guesses based on guesses, without revealing the actual assumptions (in both cod and inputs) of the data used. What we do know is that there are natural variations in temperatures matched to cycles in the pacific ocean, and matched to solar cycles, both of which peaked recently. When you look at satellite data, as opposed to ground stations (which can err based on position and weight given them, and and err bassed on heat sources nearby) the hottest year on record is 1998
Also specific predictions relied upon early in the theories lifetime were demonstrated to be false. The original theories predicted and increase in the column of warm air over the equator. Weather satellites to date have found no such increase.There were predictions in 2000that there would be 50 million climate refugees by 2010 from certain countries. In fact there was in increase in these countries populations instead of a mass exodus. They were then quietly revised for the 2020 mark.
The increase in energy capture by the increased CO2 is very small, less than 1% of total energy, but on it's own nothing to be worried about, as that's less than the level of natural variation. The thing to prove to show AGW is some sort of feedback mechanism in a system (climate) that we have really only begun to understand.
If you want to advocate socialism, by all means do so, but don't attempt to subvert capitalism by half truths, lies, and general misinformation/p>
So capitalism requires the government to grant monopolies to bushinesses? That's all a copyright is, is a monopoly granted by the government.
Secondly, there are many of us who rely on producing content protected by copyright in order to put food in our mouths and pay the rent. Take the example of computer games, these take many man hours to produce initially from many different people but can be infinitely copied once they are a finished product. Without the concept of copyright you could buy a computer game, then sell it on as many times as you wanted without sharing any of the vast profits you made with the people who produced the product originally. Since you did not have the overheads of actually producing the game in the first place you could sell it far cheaper than the original authors and so more people would buy it from you than them. This would obviously not be any fairer than the current system.
Firstly, copyright originated as a system of censorship. If your book didn't have a copyright mark, you weren't allowed to publish it. Such marks were only granted to government friendly or neutral works.
Which just means the first few copies could be priced very highly or the game is not released unless a certain number of people pre-order it. It's not like there is just one possible way of doing things. You've made a false dichotomy, the way creative content is sold and supported now in the mainstream or no way. There are other methods that do not require an intellectual monopoly. By having free adaptation and modification, one can argue that a lack of copyright will lead to more creative content being available. The works of Shakespeare and the greatest classical composers were created without the protection of copyright. Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas wrote without copyright.
Check out Against Intellectual Monopoly by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine or Against Intellectual Property by Stephan N Kinsella for some very cogent free-market arguments against copyright.
Anyways give the boxes to some of the charities that do provide support and training, or how have works out a cushy deal with Microsoft.
. 'If we considered them living beings...
What are they dead already?
Also the reason why in this case AVM is acting dishonorably is because it is simultaneiously trying to seek the protection of copyright law, while trying to avoid liabilities thereto.
Why is it not ethical to disobey a licence you consider unethical? What if I told you now that by reading beyond this line of this post you're agreeing to send me $10,000? Voluntary; full disclosure; informed consent. Stop reading now if you disagree.
First you've given no consideration. Secondly there is no law that makes it illegal for me to read what you post on a public forum without your consent. The laws say you must receive permission from the copyright holder before copying, or distributing copyrighted works.The GPL provides condition under which such permission is given. Nothing requires you to accept the licence, but if you do distribute it, your acceptance is assumed, because not to assume it would be to assume that you had committed an unlawful act.
If you want to consider that fund as reall, then you also have to add a couple trillion dollars to the current national debt figures. The fund is just an accounting fiction, money owed by one department of the U.S. government to another.
What's a little bit of risk compared to mass starvation?
Food corn is generally just hybrid corn coming out of the same breeding populations as corn for feed. At the late stages it's shown to food companies like lays chips for approval. Corn that is approved generally has a thicker seed coat, and more hard starch, making the kernel have a round crown when mature rather than flat or dented. In other words is shows more traits of flint than dent. (Most modern hybrid corn comes from inbred lines originally isolated in flint or dent corn populations) Such traits make it more resistant to insect and fungal damage. Feed corn has a then thiner seed coat more soft starch, and the crown is flat or dented upon maturity. These traits make is easier for cows and pigs to digest fully.
Methane digesters and composting of the solids.