- without gov't intervention no monopoly can exist
How so? It's logically impossible?
- what does that even mean?
Businesses far more risky than others could easily end up as monopolies.
- nobody wants to share their pie with somebody else, who may or may not succeed being a competitor.
It's easily possible if it would help maximize their profits. They know that if they do something that will attract customers (but still increase costs), the others will probably follow (if they have good business sense and do not want to lose customers). It would be a pointless thing to do if your intention was to maximize profits.
Businesses know that it's better to have as much market penetration as possible
I doubt that. Otherwise, why would there ever have been companies that cooperated with one another? They don't even have to explicitly agree to do it. They just keep what they have in place and continue "harming" consumers.
It's possible for monopolies to exist without government intervention. Perhaps the business in question is a risky endeavor that no one but a select few wish to take up. Perhaps very few people have the money to provide competition towards an already established business. Perhaps the majority help create a monopoly themselves by not shopping elsewhere enough (for whatever reason, and this would doom the minority).
And without regulation, how would anyone stop companies that cooperate with one another (which could happen if they would receive more money by doing so)?
if people don't like it, they should stop their governments from creating them [mises.org], which is what government's real role in economy is - creating and maintaining monopolies, because that's where the real money for governments are.
Sometimes monopolies can happen because of government intervention. But not always. And there can be monopolies and businesses that cooperate with one another (in order to maximize their profit) without any regulation at all, as far as I know (though it would depend on the circumstances).
I would rather not have government involved in anything that has to do with business, including medical business.
No regulation at all, then?
I like my costs low, my drugs cheap, my doctors competing with each other based on price and efficiency, maybe I am the only one, in which case it's a non-starter here.
And I'm sure many people don't like monopolies or businesses cooperating with one another in order to gain more profit.
I, on the other hand, see little difference between you and the terrorists who blow up planes trying to impose their values upon us.
The average person imposes their values upon other people all the time. Laws against murder, violence, etc. They're really just saying, "I don't like this particular behavior. Therefore, I think that it should be banned."
Interesting. I wonder how you can speak for everyone in the present as well as everyone in the future and be 100% correct. Such an amazing ability must be useful.
Health issues make everyone afraid
Can you prove this?
Because when you're gravely ill, you're facing death, and that's scary, either because you don't know what's on the other side, or because you don't like being weak, or relying on others, or some other reason.
I doubt that everyone is afraid. I'm sure that there's people who simply don't care.
Problem is, most (as in almost everyone) can not choose to be influenced or not be influenced.
I'm pretty sure almost everyone can. Your body doesn't move on its own. So, as I said, it is ultimately your decision.
There are so many mental processes that we are not in control of that governs our perception and actions that we just can not.
Using that same argument, there's probably no way to tell either way.
Also, not everyone is a rational person
What is a "rational person" in this context?
Would it be an acceptable risk to suffer to know that there are 3000 persons in this country that would be easily influenced by a public speech suggesting that someone should be killed?
I think so, personally. I doubt many people agree.
If someone chooses to be influenced by it, yes. What they do is up to them. If someone is so easily influenced that they do whatever someone else tells them to, then I think that's just unfortunate (for them and anyone they happen to hurt). But I think it's ultimately their fault.
If we think that the answer to that question is yes then the natural question to follow up is: Are we allowed to put another person (or her/his possessions) in danger?
"Are we allowed to put another person in danger indirectly?" That would be a better question, in my opinion.
That takes a lot of effort, as far as I'm aware, and I would hardly consider it easy (which was the part of his post that I responded to). He merely mentioned someone not being able to "stand" the president.
It's a crime to knowingly put fear into another person by threatening them.
So you can say whatever you please... except when what you say frightens someone? I couldn't care less about someone's intentions if all they did was speak.
This is the problem with constitutionally guaranteed free speech
Define "problem." I'm perfectly fine with inciting violence and racial hatred. The only time I want something to be stopped is when something actually happens.
But he was using material he knew was illegal in order to bring visitors.
Your point was (I believe) that he was directly making money off of copyrighted material. He's making money off of advertisements. I don't see this as any worse than any other website making money off of advertisements. I couldn't care less about his visitors' intentions.
In this case an embedded video player. Sure it's a fairly simple piece of software since it's just an embedded video player but I don't see how the complexity makes substantial difference.
Couldn't the same be said of links, then?
It means he's actively taking part in the infringing activities.
No, it doesn't. If you give someone a gun, and then they use it to rob a bank, the fact that you gave them a gun does not mean that you actively participated in the robbery (even if you knew that they were going to). Now, that would probably be illegal to do (I assume), but you still didn't actively participate in the robbery. What they do with the tools is ultimately up to them.
But they were hosted on another server, correct? Not that different (aside from the fact that you can view the videos without leaving his website).
profiting from this act.
He charged people to access the videos, or he made money through advertisements? If it's the latter, then I would hardly say he was making money directly because of the copyrighted material. He was making money because people visited his website (their intentions are irrelevant to me).
He was taking people there and providing the tools.
He didn't provide them with anything other than links (or embedded videos). What tools? Why does providing tools even matter (in your opinion)?
I think it's rather pointless to restrict the sales of certain types of video games and other entertainment to certain people. Unless someone can show that this "inappropriate" content causes real world violence or somehow is harmful (which, to my knowledge, there has been no direct evidence to support such a conclusion), I couldn't care less if some kid walks into a store and buys a violent video game (even if they did it without the permission of their parents).
Hold on there, copyright monopoly is anticapitalist
You receive money for a product that you make (provided that people buy it). It's an idea that is probably enforced because we live in a society where currency is used as the form of exchange.
Slashdot Mirror
- without gov't intervention no monopoly can exist
How so? It's logically impossible?
- what does that even mean?
Businesses far more risky than others could easily end up as monopolies.
- nobody wants to share their pie with somebody else, who may or may not succeed being a competitor.
It's easily possible if it would help maximize their profits. They know that if they do something that will attract customers (but still increase costs), the others will probably follow (if they have good business sense and do not want to lose customers). It would be a pointless thing to do if your intention was to maximize profits.
Businesses know that it's better to have as much market penetration as possible
I doubt that. Otherwise, why would there ever have been companies that cooperated with one another? They don't even have to explicitly agree to do it. They just keep what they have in place and continue "harming" consumers.
Forget that. The 'conomy is far more important! That isn't just my opinion, either. That is a universal fact.
It's possible for monopolies to exist without government intervention. Perhaps the business in question is a risky endeavor that no one but a select few wish to take up. Perhaps very few people have the money to provide competition towards an already established business. Perhaps the majority help create a monopoly themselves by not shopping elsewhere enough (for whatever reason, and this would doom the minority).
And without regulation, how would anyone stop companies that cooperate with one another (which could happen if they would receive more money by doing so)?
if people don't like it, they should stop their governments from creating them [mises.org], which is what government's real role in economy is - creating and maintaining monopolies, because that's where the real money for governments are.
Sometimes monopolies can happen because of government intervention. But not always. And there can be monopolies and businesses that cooperate with one another (in order to maximize their profit) without any regulation at all, as far as I know (though it would depend on the circumstances).
I would rather not have government involved in anything that has to do with business, including medical business.
No regulation at all, then?
I like my costs low, my drugs cheap, my doctors competing with each other based on price and efficiency, maybe I am the only one, in which case it's a non-starter here.
And I'm sure many people don't like monopolies or businesses cooperating with one another in order to gain more profit.
left wingers
Anyone who disagrees must be a left winger.
I, on the other hand, see little difference between you and the terrorists who blow up planes trying to impose their values upon us.
The average person imposes their values upon other people all the time. Laws against murder, violence, etc. They're really just saying, "I don't like this particular behavior. Therefore, I think that it should be banned."
Because fear makes EVERYONE stupid.
Interesting. I wonder how you can speak for everyone in the present as well as everyone in the future and be 100% correct. Such an amazing ability must be useful.
Health issues make everyone afraid
Can you prove this?
Because when you're gravely ill, you're facing death, and that's scary, either because you don't know what's on the other side, or because you don't like being weak, or relying on others, or some other reason.
I doubt that everyone is afraid. I'm sure that there's people who simply don't care.
Problem is, most (as in almost everyone) can not choose to be influenced or not be influenced.
I'm pretty sure almost everyone can. Your body doesn't move on its own. So, as I said, it is ultimately your decision.
There are so many mental processes that we are not in control of that governs our perception and actions that we just can not.
Using that same argument, there's probably no way to tell either way.
Also, not everyone is a rational person
What is a "rational person" in this context?
Would it be an acceptable risk to suffer to know that there are 3000 persons in this country that would be easily influenced by a public speech suggesting that someone should be killed?
I think so, personally. I doubt many people agree.
Can speech influence behaviour?
If someone chooses to be influenced by it, yes. What they do is up to them. If someone is so easily influenced that they do whatever someone else tells them to, then I think that's just unfortunate (for them and anyone they happen to hurt). But I think it's ultimately their fault.
If we think that the answer to that question is yes then the natural question to follow up is: Are we allowed to put another person (or her/his possessions) in danger?
"Are we allowed to put another person in danger indirectly?" That would be a better question, in my opinion.
Then convince them otherwise.
That takes a lot of effort, as far as I'm aware, and I would hardly consider it easy (which was the part of his post that I responded to). He merely mentioned someone not being able to "stand" the president.
My point is that this is precisely the kind of speech that your constitution shouldn't protect.
Why?
Nor is it necessary to protect free speech in a constitution when you have a society that values it
It's necessary when someone tries to censor certain speech. And that is easily possible.
it leads to the unfortunate scenario where people don't seem to give due consideration to what they're actually saying, before they say it.
I wouldn't call that "unfortunate."
It's a crime to knowingly put fear into another person by threatening them.
So you can say whatever you please... except when what you say frightens someone? I couldn't care less about someone's intentions if all they did was speak.
This is the problem with constitutionally guaranteed free speech
Define "problem." I'm perfectly fine with inciting violence and racial hatred. The only time I want something to be stopped is when something actually happens.
Then I want the right to allow me to scream FIRE in a theater.
And I hope that you will be able to without suffering repercussions from the government or its workers.
In both cases, it incites a negative situation.
That depends on how you define "negative."
Sure about that?
Well, it was speech. So, I think so...
Unless they can prove something happened, I couldn't care less.
and it's a lot easier
Not if the majority is against you.
But he was using material he knew was illegal in order to bring visitors.
Your point was (I believe) that he was directly making money off of copyrighted material. He's making money off of advertisements. I don't see this as any worse than any other website making money off of advertisements. I couldn't care less about his visitors' intentions.
In this case an embedded video player. Sure it's a fairly simple piece of software since it's just an embedded video player but I don't see how the complexity makes substantial difference.
Couldn't the same be said of links, then?
It means he's actively taking part in the infringing activities.
No, it doesn't. If you give someone a gun, and then they use it to rob a bank, the fact that you gave them a gun does not mean that you actively participated in the robbery (even if you knew that they were going to). Now, that would probably be illegal to do (I assume), but you still didn't actively participate in the robbery. What they do with the tools is ultimately up to them.
It wasn't just links! It was embedded video!
But they were hosted on another server, correct? Not that different (aside from the fact that you can view the videos without leaving his website).
profiting from this act.
He charged people to access the videos, or he made money through advertisements? If it's the latter, then I would hardly say he was making money directly because of the copyrighted material. He was making money because people visited his website (their intentions are irrelevant to me).
He was taking people there and providing the tools.
He didn't provide them with anything other than links (or embedded videos). What tools? Why does providing tools even matter (in your opinion)?
There is no 'them' in government, it is us.
No. It's the majority.
And then leaving it up to them to decide what to do with the bolt cutters. But he didn't sell them anything, anyway. He just told them where to go.
I think it's rather pointless to restrict the sales of certain types of video games and other entertainment to certain people. Unless someone can show that this "inappropriate" content causes real world violence or somehow is harmful (which, to my knowledge, there has been no direct evidence to support such a conclusion), I couldn't care less if some kid walks into a store and buys a violent video game (even if they did it without the permission of their parents).
Right. If you change your opinion at any point in time, that means that you were previously wrong!
Hold on there, copyright monopoly is anticapitalist
You receive money for a product that you make (provided that people buy it). It's an idea that is probably enforced because we live in a society where currency is used as the form of exchange.
it would make little difference in the long term if they ceased to be made.
Again, that would depend on who you ask. I'm willing to bet that quite a few people wouldn't like to see these go.