I'm not here to talk about alternatives. The first step is realizing that there is a problem.
However, here is a possible solution (as in, an alternate solution that people came up with). Whether it would work or not remains to be seen.
Except for the fact that it's a direct infringment against their Constitutionally-granted rights.
Mentioning that is completely pointless, as that is a 'right' that many are arguing against.
you aren't only affecting the original creator
As I mentioned, you aren't affecting the creator. They've lost nothing that they already had (and again, that 'right' is what we argue against).
The infringer also didn't have a product to consume before either.
Yes, and they've taken nothing to get it.
a creator invests time and money into a product that is legally under his/her control
That's not the fault of the copyright infringer (who didn't even interact with the artist or take anything from them).
Who are you to say what value they can place upon that?
I didn't say anything about that. I said that we shouldn't force people to conform to artificial scarcity laws and instead admit that there is a problem and actually work on finding an alternate solution.
You don't have to say it, it's a logical inference implicit in your entire argument. Can you not see that?
No, I can't. There time may indeed be worth something, but that doesn't mean that we should criminalize people who don't even interact with the artist (or harm them).
Now who's making assumptions? The original argument was regarding printed sheet music and photocopying, not downloading songs on the internet.
Both are forms of copyright infringement, correct? I was speaking of copyright infringement in general. I never assumed anything about you.
I've never heard an argument against copyright that didn't ultimately boil down to "I just want shit for free."
I'll also generalize and say that I've never heard an argument against copyright infringement that didn't ultimately boil down to "loss of potential future gain can be equated to harm." This is especially foolish because that would mean that you're 'harming' someone merely by not giving them everything you own (of course, they never had it in the first place, so no harm was done, but that was just an example).
I think that artificial scarcity is a perfectly acceptable way for someone to make a return on their investment because you are buying the time it took to make the end product.
I'd say it would benefit society more to drop poor capitalistic practices in general. Use things that are in unlimited supply or in great abundance properly and efficiently.
Violating the social contract hurts the creator
How does it hurt the creator when they've lost nothing? The actions of the copyright infringer hasn't incurred any additional time, resources, or monetary costs upon the artist. Initial costs are not the fault of the infringer.
So if artists deserve money, where should it come from?
Apparently I didn't make it clear enough that I (but that's not to say that there's not alternate solutions other than mine) actually argue against the use of currency in general. Also, no matter how much you oppose any alternate solutions I or others propose, that was not my original point. My original point was to demonstrate that people should not be criminalized for committing victimless crimes.
Why should we not criminalize people who break the law and hurt all of society in doing so?
now go after the third-party site for copyright infringement for continuing to post my copyrighted post after I revoked their permission to use it
Could you? Don't you have to agree to their terms of service before you post (or at the very least, it's available on their website)? I'm pretty sure that, unless they state otherwise, you can't just agree to the terms and then later change your mind. I'm not sure on that, though.
A type of speech that has never been ruled to be protected by the 1st amendment?
Ruled by whom? The first amendment, or by a random judge who doesn't know the meaning of interpretation (it doesn't mean "change the meaning of"). I see nothing that says that defamation isn't protected speech in the first amendment. It isn't true free speech if you limit certain forms of speech.
The power comes from having a people who do not re elect fucktards.
It doesn't do too much good if once elected, they are free to do as they please. There's essentially almost no way to stop them (aside from people actually throwing them out). I believe that mere votes aren't going to rid us of this blatant corruption.
The corrupt politician may be gone next time around, but another will likely take his place (possibly even acting in his stead).
Do you really think that most people have the time to follow in detail every piece of legislation that is run through local, state, and federal government agencies?
No, and I never claimed that they did. I was specifically speaking of punishing the government once their corruption has been revealed (and to a large extent, it already has been).
The real problem isn't that people are lazy or ignorant
Ignorant? I have to say so. There should be no reason why the very same people who make up this corrupt government keep getting elected. I believe that this is a sign of deep-rooted ignorance.
The government needs to be much more open for a non-professional (politician or lobbyist) to participate.
they won't have any place to get their music from because no one would be publishing music anymore.
Yes, and that is only because of how our current capitalistic society works. If it is required of artists to demand money from people for goods that are in an infinite supply (and punish those that don't conform with artificial scarcity), then, through no fault of the artists, that is a flaw in our capitalistic society.
When someone violates someone else's copyright (such as downloading a song, for example), there are very few cases in which the person who owns said copyright is actually affected in the least. They never had the copyright infringer's money to begin with, so you can't claim that was stolen. They didn't lose the money, either, because as I said, they never had it. They remain completely the same as they were before. The only thing they 'lose' is an opportunity to have more money, but since they never had the object in the first place (and in almost all cases, they had no idea they even had such an opportunity to begin with), they haven't lost anything. Not time or resources (except the time and resources to build the initial product, but not only are those costs only incurred once, but it is not the fault of the copyright infringer).
It's interesting that you think that other people's time and investment isn't worth anything since the final product can be reproduced so easily.
The time and investment costs are only incurred once. However, I never said anything about their time being worthless, so that was a nice assumption (and this isn't the only assumption you made, either).
Either you fail to grasp the concept of what the actual product is (the music that took time to create and distribute, not the paper it's printed on), or you just don't care because you're a greedy bastard that thinks laws are bad because you just want shit for free. Which is it?
Nice assumptions and false dilemmas. I don't even listen to music, so I wouldn't download it or infringe upon copyright for it to begin with.
There is also more than two possible reasons I could have for making such an argument. I believe that artificial scarcity (and relying on scarcity to profit) harms society as a whole. I believe that we should not criminalize people who do not harm or even interact with the supposed 'victims' (for reasons stated above). That's not to say that I believe that artists don't deserve money. I believe that if someone likes a product (and they have the money to pay for it), they should, whilst in this capitalistic society, buy it.
Now, do I believe that we should just remove copyright laws and claim that the problem is fixed? No. That would just shift the suffering to the artists instead of the people we are currently criminalizing. I do suggest, however, that either society finds a business model that works so that we don't need to criminalize people who do no harm to others, or that we rid ourselves of our capitalistic practices.
I was speaking more of the power to convince them to represent the people than anything else. Sure, not voting them in again helps, but once they're in, they have little obligation to listen to the people unless it is absolutely necessary. They can just put on a little show, and those with naive minds will likely believe that they are doing a good job.
The fact that you believe that you are powerless just shows how much they have trained your brain to think the way they want it to.
You misunderstand. I don't believe that the people are powerless, but many people actually do believe that they are powerless.
Yeah, that would be bad. That's why we utilize artificial scarcity to take care of that problem. That way, when someone commits a crime of which there are no actual victims (or the supposed victims remain the exact same as they did before), we can say that they deprived someone of potential future gain by not adhering to our artificial scarcity laws, and they can subsequently be punished. It's a good thing that society runs on scarcity, forced or otherwise, right?
The economy is, without a single doubt, the most important thing in existence. If something helps the economy, it's instantly good. If something hurts the economy, it's instantly bad. I have the economy to worry about! I don't have time to be worrying about silly things such as my freedom.
But, what about all of those unnamed leaks that should have stayed secret? I think the much better solution would be for the government to tell the people when it has been naughty.
The fact that congress suck so badly at its job is the fault of the people who elect congress.
Yes, because after they're already elected, the people have so much power over them, right? Well, that's not to say that you aren't right about fighting, though. Even if most people were lazy (and they are), the government is still mostly at fault for its own corrupt actions.
So, since the only justification for copyright in the first place is its benefit to society
I wouldn't say that artificial scarcity is a benefit to society. I think society would benefit far more from attempting to change itself so that criminalizing people for victimless crimes just so someone can make a profit is no longer needed.
Why is it that you don't wish to protect the children? I bet you're a child molester! If you truly cared about them, then you'd know that children can't differentiate between fiction and reality (such as video games, movies, or pornography) and that they are just a picture/video/game away from becoming murderers and/or rapists! Seeing a nude person could cause them to be scarred for life. That's precisely why everything must be censored or be made extremely difficult to obtain.
My father would try and rationalize with me but i was just a disruptive kid and I ALWAYS took dad seriously when he came at me for a spanking.
Sorry, but there's plenty of people who could be classified as 'disruptive.' Just because they don't conform to your opinion doesn't mean that they deserve to be physically assaulted. My parents hit me when I was a child, and for a time, all it caused me to do was become violent (towards them and others). I didn't take them seriously. I became angry.
If someone can't be 'rationalized' with, then you should wait until they clear their head. I'm not about to advocate that you should hit someone merely because you don't like what they are saying or doing, regardless of their age.
I agree with the rest of your post, but this actually makes sense. Employing physical violence against someone because you didn't like what they said or did should not be condoned. Children aren't somehow less than people, and they deserve to hear a rational explanation. I wouldn't go up and hit someone merely because they didn't change their belief system for me and insisted upon being 'stubborn.' It's just poor parenting.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see what religion has to do with how civilization works. If you base its working around religion, then you've likely already failed. I just don't see how society would crumble without religion.
So what you're saying is that everyone who is capable of doing something is obligated to do so?
Considering he is supposedly able to do it without any risk, yes. If you donate your any of your possessions, you lose them. God, however, can apparently do anything.
don't put yourself into position where you can be accused.
Good plan. Too bad it shouldn't happen in the first place, though.
Also, what does marriage have to do with this? It's just a title. You could have summed it up as, "get to know someone," and it would have made more sense.
He doesn't need an alternate solution to see that the proposed solution is a poor one. It would help, sure, but just because he doesn't, that doesn't mean his criticism is invalid.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps so, but what is the alternative?
I'm not here to talk about alternatives. The first step is realizing that there is a problem.
However, here is a possible solution (as in, an alternate solution that people came up with). Whether it would work or not remains to be seen.
Except for the fact that it's a direct infringment against their Constitutionally-granted rights.
Mentioning that is completely pointless, as that is a 'right' that many are arguing against.
you aren't only affecting the original creator
As I mentioned, you aren't affecting the creator. They've lost nothing that they already had (and again, that 'right' is what we argue against).
The infringer also didn't have a product to consume before either.
Yes, and they've taken nothing to get it.
a creator invests time and money into a product that is legally under his/her control
That's not the fault of the copyright infringer (who didn't even interact with the artist or take anything from them).
Who are you to say what value they can place upon that?
I didn't say anything about that. I said that we shouldn't force people to conform to artificial scarcity laws and instead admit that there is a problem and actually work on finding an alternate solution.
You don't have to say it, it's a logical inference implicit in your entire argument. Can you not see that?
No, I can't. There time may indeed be worth something, but that doesn't mean that we should criminalize people who don't even interact with the artist (or harm them).
Now who's making assumptions? The original argument was regarding printed sheet music and photocopying, not downloading songs on the internet.
Both are forms of copyright infringement, correct? I was speaking of copyright infringement in general. I never assumed anything about you.
I've never heard an argument against copyright that didn't ultimately boil down to "I just want shit for free."
I'll also generalize and say that I've never heard an argument against copyright infringement that didn't ultimately boil down to "loss of potential future gain can be equated to harm." This is especially foolish because that would mean that you're 'harming' someone merely by not giving them everything you own (of course, they never had it in the first place, so no harm was done, but that was just an example).
I think that artificial scarcity is a perfectly acceptable way for someone to make a return on their investment because you are buying the time it took to make the end product.
I'd say it would benefit society more to drop poor capitalistic practices in general. Use things that are in unlimited supply or in great abundance properly and efficiently.
Violating the social contract hurts the creator
How does it hurt the creator when they've lost nothing? The actions of the copyright infringer hasn't incurred any additional time, resources, or monetary costs upon the artist. Initial costs are not the fault of the infringer.
So if artists deserve money, where should it come from?
Apparently I didn't make it clear enough that I (but that's not to say that there's not alternate solutions other than mine) actually argue against the use of currency in general. Also, no matter how much you oppose any alternate solutions I or others propose, that was not my original point. My original point was to demonstrate that people should not be criminalized for committing victimless crimes.
Why should we not criminalize people who break the law and hurt all of society in doing so?
You don't hurt society by breaking
How can you claim to support free speech whilst also censoring speech because it is false?
now go after the third-party site for copyright infringement for continuing to post my copyrighted post after I revoked their permission to use it
Could you? Don't you have to agree to their terms of service before you post (or at the very least, it's available on their website)? I'm pretty sure that, unless they state otherwise, you can't just agree to the terms and then later change your mind. I'm not sure on that, though.
A type of speech that has never been ruled to be protected by the 1st amendment?
Ruled by whom? The first amendment, or by a random judge who doesn't know the meaning of interpretation (it doesn't mean "change the meaning of"). I see nothing that says that defamation isn't protected speech in the first amendment. It isn't true free speech if you limit certain forms of speech.
Exactly. That is why I believe that The people should be far more involved in government, and not be limited to mere votes.
The power comes from having a people who do not re elect fucktards.
It doesn't do too much good if once elected, they are free to do as they please. There's essentially almost no way to stop them (aside from people actually throwing them out). I believe that mere votes aren't going to rid us of this blatant corruption.
The corrupt politician may be gone next time around, but another will likely take his place (possibly even acting in his stead).
Do you really think that most people have the time to follow in detail every piece of legislation that is run through local, state, and federal government agencies?
No, and I never claimed that they did. I was specifically speaking of punishing the government once their corruption has been revealed (and to a large extent, it already has been).
The real problem isn't that people are lazy or ignorant
Ignorant? I have to say so. There should be no reason why the very same people who make up this corrupt government keep getting elected. I believe that this is a sign of deep-rooted ignorance.
The government needs to be much more open for a non-professional (politician or lobbyist) to participate.
I agree with this, though.
they won't have any place to get their music from because no one would be publishing music anymore.
Yes, and that is only because of how our current capitalistic society works. If it is required of artists to demand money from people for goods that are in an infinite supply (and punish those that don't conform with artificial scarcity), then, through no fault of the artists, that is a flaw in our capitalistic society.
When someone violates someone else's copyright (such as downloading a song, for example), there are very few cases in which the person who owns said copyright is actually affected in the least. They never had the copyright infringer's money to begin with, so you can't claim that was stolen. They didn't lose the money, either, because as I said, they never had it. They remain completely the same as they were before. The only thing they 'lose' is an opportunity to have more money, but since they never had the object in the first place (and in almost all cases, they had no idea they even had such an opportunity to begin with), they haven't lost anything. Not time or resources (except the time and resources to build the initial product, but not only are those costs only incurred once, but it is not the fault of the copyright infringer).
It's interesting that you think that other people's time and investment isn't worth anything since the final product can be reproduced so easily.
The time and investment costs are only incurred once. However, I never said anything about their time being worthless, so that was a nice assumption (and this isn't the only assumption you made, either).
Either you fail to grasp the concept of what the actual product is (the music that took time to create and distribute, not the paper it's printed on), or you just don't care because you're a greedy bastard that thinks laws are bad because you just want shit for free. Which is it?
Nice assumptions and false dilemmas. I don't even listen to music, so I wouldn't download it or infringe upon copyright for it to begin with.
There is also more than two possible reasons I could have for making such an argument. I believe that artificial scarcity (and relying on scarcity to profit) harms society as a whole. I believe that we should not criminalize people who do not harm or even interact with the supposed 'victims' (for reasons stated above). That's not to say that I believe that artists don't deserve money. I believe that if someone likes a product (and they have the money to pay for it), they should, whilst in this capitalistic society, buy it.
Now, do I believe that we should just remove copyright laws and claim that the problem is fixed? No. That would just shift the suffering to the artists instead of the people we are currently criminalizing. I do suggest, however, that either society finds a business model that works so that we don't need to criminalize people who do no harm to others, or that we rid ourselves of our capitalistic practices.
We do have power.
I was speaking more of the power to convince them to represent the people than anything else. Sure, not voting them in again helps, but once they're in, they have little obligation to listen to the people unless it is absolutely necessary. They can just put on a little show, and those with naive minds will likely believe that they are doing a good job.
The fact that you believe that you are powerless just shows how much they have trained your brain to think the way they want it to.
You misunderstand. I don't believe that the people are powerless, but many people actually do believe that they are powerless.
Yeah, that would be bad. That's why we utilize artificial scarcity to take care of that problem. That way, when someone commits a crime of which there are no actual victims (or the supposed victims remain the exact same as they did before), we can say that they deprived someone of potential future gain by not adhering to our artificial scarcity laws, and they can subsequently be punished. It's a good thing that society runs on scarcity, forced or otherwise, right?
the economy
The economy is, without a single doubt, the most important thing in existence. If something helps the economy, it's instantly good. If something hurts the economy, it's instantly bad. I have the economy to worry about! I don't have time to be worrying about silly things such as my freedom.
But, what about all of those unnamed leaks that should have stayed secret? I think the much better solution would be for the government to tell the people when it has been naughty.
Releasing shit that needed to stay secret is not reporting.
Such as? I'd rather take my chances than continue on as we are now.
The fact that congress suck so badly at its job is the fault of the people who elect congress.
Yes, because after they're already elected, the people have so much power over them, right? Well, that's not to say that you aren't right about fighting, though. Even if most people were lazy (and they are), the government is still mostly at fault for its own corrupt actions.
So, since the only justification for copyright in the first place is its benefit to society
I wouldn't say that artificial scarcity is a benefit to society. I think society would benefit far more from attempting to change itself so that criminalizing people for victimless crimes just so someone can make a profit is no longer needed.
Oh... alright. I was just stating that I don't believe that violence is the solution.
Why is it that you don't wish to protect the children? I bet you're a child molester! If you truly cared about them, then you'd know that children can't differentiate between fiction and reality (such as video games, movies, or pornography) and that they are just a picture/video/game away from becoming murderers and/or rapists! Seeing a nude person could cause them to be scarred for life. That's precisely why everything must be censored or be made extremely difficult to obtain.
My father would try and rationalize with me but i was just a disruptive kid and I ALWAYS took dad seriously when he came at me for a spanking.
Sorry, but there's plenty of people who could be classified as 'disruptive.' Just because they don't conform to your opinion doesn't mean that they deserve to be physically assaulted. My parents hit me when I was a child, and for a time, all it caused me to do was become violent (towards them and others). I didn't take them seriously. I became angry.
If someone can't be 'rationalized' with, then you should wait until they clear their head. I'm not about to advocate that you should hit someone merely because you don't like what they are saying or doing, regardless of their age.
spankings are considered child abuse
I agree with the rest of your post, but this actually makes sense. Employing physical violence against someone because you didn't like what they said or did should not be condoned. Children aren't somehow less than people, and they deserve to hear a rational explanation. I wouldn't go up and hit someone merely because they didn't change their belief system for me and insisted upon being 'stubborn.' It's just poor parenting.
Try building a civilization without religion.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see what religion has to do with how civilization works. If you base its working around religion, then you've likely already failed. I just don't see how society would crumble without religion.
Very few examples of good Atheist role models
Perhaps that's because there's less atheists.
When you are a child you do not have the thinking skills to reject fantastical ideas.
That depends on the person, however.
So what you're saying is that everyone who is capable of doing something is obligated to do so?
Considering he is supposedly able to do it without any risk, yes. If you donate your any of your possessions, you lose them. God, however, can apparently do anything.
Ah, so instead of them, it's "professionals" who may just as easily suffer from lack of good judgement, or perhaps even be bribed.
don't put yourself into position where you can be accused.
Good plan. Too bad it shouldn't happen in the first place, though.
Also, what does marriage have to do with this? It's just a title. You could have summed it up as, "get to know someone," and it would have made more sense.
So what's your solution to the problem?
He doesn't need an alternate solution to see that the proposed solution is a poor one. It would help, sure, but just because he doesn't, that doesn't mean his criticism is invalid.