It's odd... the Slashdot readership seems to be changing. This site has always been pro free software and open standards, and anti proprietary software and closed standards. That's the ethical stance to take, and there's no more necessity to present the other side of the story than there would be to present "the other side of the story" than the mainstream media would do when reporting on the arrest of a homicidal maniac.
I think there are (at least) two schools of thought regarding ethics. One says that arguments about ethics merely rationalize our biologically (or otherwise) pre-determined gut feelings. A civilization which rests on this assumption about the relationship between reason and ethics is one in which action is valued more highly than words. Such societies will shoot first and ask questions later, so to speak.
The second type of view is one which holds that the justification for and consequences of ethical stances need to be clearly thought out. I think liberal democracies have traditionally tended towards the latter view of the ethical debate. In democracies, we (ideally) solve public problems by public debate rather than by civil war.
When you say something like "X is THE ethical (morally right) stance" you are saying, in effect, that such a position needs no argument in its defence. That is an approach that I'm sure won't be welcome in a forum like this which places great emphasis on vigorous debate over ethical issues. The very idea that there ought NOT to be differing viewpoints is frightening to many people. The analogy of the homicidal maniac differs from the MS vs. Linux debate in an important way. The unwillingness to listen to ethical debate and reason is the very definition of insanity, at least in legal terms. So the homicidal maniac story doesn't have another side PRECISELY BECAUSE the killer didn't have any justification for his actions. If he did, there certainly would be another side to his story.
What story is so antithetical to civil society that it should NOT be told? Denial of the Holocaust? Racist diatribes? How does it help the cause of Jews to silence critics like Ernst Zundel? It's not OK to hate people just because of their skin colour or religion, but it's also not OK to prevent people from speaking because their words might offend someone. Inciting violence or conspiring to do injury to someone is a criminal offense, so we already have laws that can protect citizens against physical threats. We don't need to limit speech any more than that.
This seems off topic, I know, and many people have said these things better than I. Still, the importance of free speech cannot be overstated. It only damages the cause of Free Software to limit debate about alternatives.
That being said, I'm a Linux user and advocate and I too disapprove of some of the things that MS has done. But to prevent alternatives from being discussed would be to steal a page from Microsoft's own playbook.
Monsanto rep: I'm sorry but your child is the intellectual property of Monsanto. We're serving you with a bailiff's seizure notice. If you cooperate we'll get you a better licensing deal for your next crop, uhh I mean child.
Mother: But you can't -- that's my baby!!
Monsanto rep: Sorry ma'am, but our company is just protecting it's property. Monsanto has invested a lot of our shareholder's money in research and development. You can't just steal someone else's ideas like that.
Mother: How much do you want me to pay? I've already paid you for the genes, haven't I?
Monsanto rep: It's not a question of money anymore. You've broken the law and we intend to prosecute. You should have paid when you used your husband's sperm for the second time.
Mother: But my husband's sperm belongs to him!
Monsanto rep: You should really read the fine print in your fertility agreement. Your husband received genetic material that belongs to Monsanto. We have "reach through" rights which means we own your offspring. We can terminate the agreement at any time at our discretion and the terms can change without notice. Do you have a lawyer?
Mother: No.
Monsanto rep: You'll be needing one.
Mother: But I can't afford it! I'm flat broke after paying for the fertility genes!!
Monsanto rep: That's not our problem, ma'am. I'll be taking the child now... [Kevlar(tm) vested ATF agents burst in pointing M16's at the cowering mother. Monsanto rep grabs baby.]
Mother: [screams] No!!!! My baby! Give me back my baby!! [mother is led away in handcuffs by the heavily armed ATF agents]
Voice over: Monsanto -- making a better tomorrow for our children by protecting patents today.
here is this old idea that life on Earth may have been seeded from somewhere else.
It's an interesting idea, but even if it were true, we'd still be asking the same question -- how did life evolve in the first place? Knowing WHERE life originated would be great, but that still wouldn't tell us HOW life began.
Let me ask you what advantage there'd be in changing the light bulb standard every few years so it didn't get old; next year all bulbs to have a lefthand thread, the year after a bayonet socket, the year after to be 60V instead of 120, the next year to have a metric base...
How else could we achieve adequate economic growth rates? This was the singular genius of the modern corporation: To realize that one can reap the benefits of technological change without the unecessary cost of adding value.
Change for the sake of change is the essence of liberal democracy. We've got to keep busy or we'll suddenly realize how pointless it all is.
I totally agree -- every post that is ON TOPIC is just a lame play for Karma. I urge all/.ers to abandon any relevant discussions immediately and begin posting arbitrary, nonsensical flotsam.
Only then will we win the battle against Evil Karma Whoring.
Also it would be very nice if everyone made sure that they use plenty of numerals to spice up their spelling.
Wrong, you can call Bill Clinton a woman because he is a public figure and furthermore an elected official, it has nothing to do with reason... Sorry..
It could be argued that the teachers are public figures in this case. They are certainly public enough to be held to a higher moral standard than other people. Teachers are entrusted with a public duty when they teach. Shouldn't they then be subject to the same kind of criticism as Clinton?
Please remember that the vast majority of the world's population aren't covered by the American Constitution.
I'm a Canadian, so it doesn't even apply to me. However, there is nothing exclusively American about the meaning associated with the constitutional use of the word 'speech'. It is used to convey a similar idea in the Canadian Bill of Rights. The english word 'speech' has acquired its meaning partly because of its historical use in the American Constitution and other such (not exclusively American) documents. So the mere fact that a word was used in an American document doesn't make that meaning exclusive to the USA.
The USA certainly isn't the entire world. I didn't mean that at all. But in the English language, wherever it is used, the word 'speech' can mean both printed and spoken word, depending upon the context, of course.
It's a tough call, because obviously his intent was to harm
I think the intent makes all the difference. If the site was intended to be laughably hyperbolic, the harm would be harder to prove because no reasonable person would actually believe the content.
Didn't Larry Flynt avoid defamation charges by pointing out that no one would actually believe that Jerry Falwell had sex with his mother in an outhouse.
IAMNOTALAWYER (I Am Moderated "Not On Topic" And Laugh At What You Expect Really) but I doubt whether jokes about people could be considered defamatory. Even though the Flynt vs Falwell case hinged partly on the fact that Falwell was a public figure, the private citizens in this case are involved in matters of public concern, namely the public school system. This decision by the supreme court might have some applicability here.
But the printed word is considered speech in the context of the First Amendment. In that sense, both libel and slander occur in everyday speech, the distinction being that libel occurs in print and slander occurs in the spoken word.
This is a world in which an electron can be in two places at once, in which an atomic nucleus can be spinning clockwise and counterclockwise at the same time. It is a bizarre world in which matter itself dissolves into a ghostly blur of possibilities as soon as you try to look at it.
I'm not a physics student, but I seem to remember that the possibilities only matter when you're NOT looking at the system. Does anyone else know whether this is mistaken or not?
Anyways... yeah... the general public is totally ignorant with regards to computers.
I'm sure part of that ignorance is the result of computer geeks like you who treat end-users with disdain and impatience. You have worked your butt off to create these wonderful, intuitive interfaces, probably consuming more person-hours than it took to build the pyramids, using all the most modern technology, and you're damn proud of it. It took you so long to achieve, and you had to give up so much to achieve it that by golly, you'd better get some damn respect from someone for all that work and hell, if they won't give you respect then you'll put on airs and lord over them to make yourself feel better about having sacrificed so much to make gains that appear utterly unremarkable to the end-user.
You're not going to help people learn by alienating them.
Uh, you need to go look up the definition of IQ. It cannot be increased by "trying harder" or "developing their skills".
Yes, I suppose a perfectly measured, ideal IQ measurement would be hard to change by sheer effort. However, none of the IQ tests administered could be perfect. Aside from that purely apriori objection, I think even if your claim is true, it's still worth hiring minorities even though they are less fully qualified because society is more stable when more of us have a stake in playing the game. If you don't do something to include visible minorities (and sometimes that means working actively to promote visible minority candidates) then you'll eventually have social chaos.
Not that the desire to avoid social chaos is the only incentive for affirmative action. I just think that it's better to have people involved regardless of their talent. At least you're giving them a chance to learn. I think it's very strange to consider hiring people for their IQ. I don't think it's a good idea to hire stupid people, of course, but IQ doesn't have much to do with professional success or competence.
I personally would rather have a world full of happy, healthy, peaceful village idiots than a space program. Try to widen your viewpoint. Not every problem can be solved by technology and a high IQ. Some problems can only be solved by sacrifice, courage, character, compassion or some other quality which has nothing to do with IQ and can't be mimicked by a Turing machine.
Hey, cool off! Losing a few NASA missions is a high price but the outcome is that the IQ's of half the population rise because their parents and teachers will expect more from them. They will try harder. They will have more to hope for. I think in the long run this will make for more successful NASA missions.
There is no reason to continue maintaining the Old Boys Club. If you want to keep women, jews and non-whites in their place, just join the KKK.
Really you'd be shooting yourself in the foot by trying to stop affirmative action. Eventually the IQ gaps that you are talking about will narrow, and that's when the payoff comes. All the pain that you're experiencing now will seem worth it because you'll have more than twice the problem-solving power that you have now. Giving people the chance to develop their skills for the future is every bit as important as pioneering the exploration of space.
ehh... how could you show that "physics is invariant between reference frames"? This couldn't possibly be an empirical claim. In order to prove it, you would have to know what reality is like as it is in itself, apart from its representation in theories or perception. But you don't know what reality is like apart from its representation in theory or perception. Do you mean that only the theory stays the same between reference frames? That claim is probably true but it also seems trivial.
How do you propose that the blacksmith, the stagecoach driver, the lamplighter, the town crier, or the milkman will pay for their food?
You:
They do work that is paid for.
You missed my point, I think. How many stage coach drivers are getting paid in Cambridge? Not too many I dare say. The point is that as technology and society change, so do employment opportunities. Perhaps the plight of the corporate sponsored mega-star is the same as that of the blacksmith. Technology and market forces have conspired to render all of them obsolete. Sure, people will still use a blacksmith for nostalgia and to preserve the historical practice, but no one considers it a viable career choice.
The demand for good live music is already very large as is evidenced that all the concerts and gigs I have been to this year have been sold out, and all but one in the last 6 months have been in Cambridge where I study. Sounds like there is already high demand for regional performances to me.
Are you saying that the market, or the concert venue infrastructure cannot support more live concerts? That would be as difficult to prove as my claim that regional music would flourish if intellectual property laws were abolished. So let's say the jury's still out on that one.
Stop talking bollocks and realise that musicians have a right to charge people for their skills just as programmers do, and that recordings allow many people to enjoy music that they would otherwise not get the chance to hear because they live in different contries to the artist.
To "charge people for [e.g. musical] skills" is entirely consistent with the abolishment of intellectual property laws. As I said, live performances would be even more lucrative than they are today. The market economics would probably increase the supply if the demand (and the price) were to increase dramatically. Many artists who would otherwise not be able to play before large crowds would have that opportunity.
Charging for skills is very different than being granted property rights in the works generated with those skills. If I work in an auto factory, I may be very skilled, but I have no residual property rights in the fruits of my labour. That is, I don't have the right to dictate the terms of the sale or resale of the object I created. I am paid for my time. The same could be the case with a musician. Like lawyers, they could charge a very high hourly fee. The market would determine whether that was an appropriate fee or not.
Regarding the second point, about recordings making music more accessible, this is true to a certain extent. But I would argue against this on at least two fronts. First, there is nothing inherently better about recorded music, even if the recordings are of great performers. Recorded music is like canned meat -- it's edible, but not as tasty as the real thing. Secondly, part of the technological change that is a threat to corporate power is the replacement of "hard media" with virtual, digitized media. The distribution of digital information over networks is less costly and more flexible than the distribution system now used by record store chains. Ultimately, this should mean that music can be enjoyed by even more people than it is now. International distribution of digital data should pose many fewer barriers than distribution of hard media. Look to DVD's for an example of barriers to distributon. DVD's have locale codes burned into them to prevent non-WIPO treaty nations from viewing copy protected material. This is another case where I'd say that at the very least both sides are arguable.
if all information was free, then people would stop producing CDs as they could get no remuneration and concert ticket prices would skyrocket as the market demand to hear the otherwise unaccessible top bands forced them up (basic supply/demand economics)
If megacorporations stopped producing CD's, that would suit me just fine. And what's more, it would probably be a welcome change for all but the tiniest minority of musicians. Selling CD's is no longer necessary to promote music. Even if you really wanted to sell CD's, you could, but you just couldn't earn as much from them as you could from a live performance.
I can see a flourishing trade in "Custom-made" recordings which are not mass-marketed, but recorded individually, each recording representing a unique "session". This kind of market would cater to those who would rather own Jimi Hendrix's guitar than one of his recordings.
I am entirely unconcerned with the fate of big-name music acts, and I submit that if the transnational polycorporate cannons suddenly fell silent, no one else would notice either. "Big-name" acts were invented to rationalize the production and distribution of mass-market music. The only really big name star is "inspiration" and the "muse". And last I heard, no one had a monopoly on those "resources".
Why are artists so important that they should be granted residual property rights in their work, while extremely skilled auto workers must make do with measly hourly wage?
You:
3 words for you: supply and demand.
I had to read between the line a bit (there is only one line, after all). I think what you are saying is this: whoever has a product or skill that is in great demand should be granted the broadest rights and should receive greater government protection of their property. Conversely, those whose products or skills are less in demand ought to have less government protection and fewer rights. In other words, you are proposing that we allocate rights on the basis of an individual's expected future earnings.
The greatest music and art has always been sponsored. Today it's usually corporations, in the past it was royalty, the rich and the church.
Well, then, you've just admitted that copyright was never necessary anyways, since there was always someone willing to pay. Neither royalty nor the church had the reach that modern media conglomerates have today, and the institutions of the ancien regime had a sense of being part of a higher purpose, which modern corporations do not share.
Western civilization has given up trying to find anything noble in life since that implies inequality or heirarchy. Liberal democracy trades nobility for hucksterism and kitsch. This means that the majority of stuff that gets produced is literally "farce" or stuffing. Noise meant to fill up dead bandwidth. Haven't you ever watched a sporting event and said to yourself "I wish those commentators would just shut up so I can watch the game". How much does that enhance your experience? What the corporations add is filler. Human beings provide all the real content. If there weren't professional sports "properties" with all the associated TV revenue, merchandising, endorsements, cross-promotions and whatnot, the value of those "properties" wouldn't be anything close to what it is today. The scale of professional sports would be back where it was 80 or 100 years ago. A gentleman's league. I'm not trying to turn back the clock, either. I only contend that we would be perfectly well off if we were left to organize our own venues, events, performances, art galleries. Sports and music will always attract the greatest athletes and musicians. As long as there is a league to play in, Wayne Gretzky will be playing hockey and Michael Jordan will be playing basketball. I may not get to see them play, but I never really saw Michael Jordan play and yet stories about his talent still inspire me.
I don't think philanthropy will up and die, either, if intellectual property rights were eliminated. Activites would would become more regional and would take place on a much smaller scale, but that doesn't imply poor quality. Unless of course you define poor quality as anything that isn't world-class. World-class is great, but someone has to start somewhere, and a community is a great place to start.
I can't believe how willing people are to support the corporate agenda heart and soul, and turn their backs on their neighborhoods and their friends. That's who's being destroyed by this cultural black hole. I prefer a little back-water provinciality to the "world-class" nonsense that buzzword-happy advertising executives dreamed up.
World-class art and music have ALWAYS been developed WITHOUT sponsorship. What sponsorship adds is more RESTRICTIONS on who can hear and see great art. I can only see Mozart play piano if I'm a member of the European nobility. The same thing is true today. Every cultural activity is aimed at the very rich. The rest of us are left to watch reruns on television. I would just as soon see local-class athletes, artists, and musicians as I would world-class ones.
There is no doubt that the truly great at anything are few and far between. That's true by definition. What irks me about your view is that you say only corporations or royalty or the church have the resources to develop talent which is just plain false.
I can live without world-class art, music, and sports if it means knowing that my community is free to celebrate life in its own way; that my neighborhood is a healthy and safe place for my children (i.e. they don't get beaten up and relieved of their sports-insignia emblazoned clothing); that friends can gather and discuss matters of importance to their community.
If this is mindless idealism, then I'm very, very proud to be a mindless idealist.
Thanks for the correction. I should have looked at the act before I opened my mouth.
But do you notice that the bulleted items are connected by OR's? It would still be a fairly wide net to be casting, don't you think? It certainly is a much broader prohibition than the Universal v. Sony decision.
If you do believe that, do you really want to see the end of people creating music, or really any work of art?
This is alarmist nonsense. So what if we return to cavepainting or banging on hollow logs. I don't really have as much fun listening to recorded music as I do PLAYING it. I for one actually do not care if commercial "art" forever passes from existence. It will be none too soon. I'm not being elitist either, pretending to be above popular culture. The problem is that popular culture belongs to corporations, not people. Corporations created it because it was easier to sell than high culture or regional culture or street culture. Corporations control it and they profit from it. To me there isn't much human in that kind of art.
Copying is just copying. You only see it as harm because you feel morally entitled to the artificial enclosure you play in. You are so used to buying your culture that you have forgotten how to make it. Go and sing a song with your friends. You'll be delighted by the results.
Slashdot Mirror
If I had a mod point,
I'd give him one for being such mensch,
If I were a wealthy man!
Thanks for the fine post.
I think there are (at least) two schools of thought regarding ethics. One says that arguments about ethics merely rationalize our biologically (or otherwise) pre-determined gut feelings. A civilization which rests on this assumption about the relationship between reason and ethics is one in which action is valued more highly than words. Such societies will shoot first and ask questions later, so to speak.
The second type of view is one which holds that the justification for and consequences of ethical stances need to be clearly thought out. I think liberal democracies have traditionally tended towards the latter view of the ethical debate. In democracies, we (ideally) solve public problems by public debate rather than by civil war.
When you say something like "X is THE ethical (morally right) stance" you are saying, in effect, that such a position needs no argument in its defence. That is an approach that I'm sure won't be welcome in a forum like this which places great emphasis on vigorous debate over ethical issues. The very idea that there ought NOT to be differing viewpoints is frightening to many people. The analogy of the homicidal maniac differs from the MS vs. Linux debate in an important way. The unwillingness to listen to ethical debate and reason is the very definition of insanity, at least in legal terms. So the homicidal maniac story doesn't have another side PRECISELY BECAUSE the killer didn't have any justification for his actions. If he did, there certainly would be another side to his story.
What story is so antithetical to civil society that it should NOT be told? Denial of the Holocaust? Racist diatribes? How does it help the cause of Jews to silence critics like Ernst Zundel? It's not OK to hate people just because of their skin colour or religion, but it's also not OK to prevent people from speaking because their words might offend someone. Inciting violence or conspiring to do injury to someone is a criminal offense, so we already have laws that can protect citizens against physical threats. We don't need to limit speech any more than that.
This seems off topic, I know, and many people have said these things better than I. Still, the importance of free speech cannot be overstated. It only damages the cause of Free Software to limit debate about alternatives.
That being said, I'm a Linux user and advocate and I too disapprove of some of the things that MS has done. But to prevent alternatives from being discussed would be to steal a page from Microsoft's own playbook.
No because everyone would confuse it with BitchSlap, which is the other really popular feature on /.
Mother: But you can't -- that's my baby!!
Monsanto rep: Sorry ma'am, but our company is just protecting it's property. Monsanto has invested a lot of our shareholder's money in research and development. You can't just steal someone else's ideas like that.
Mother: How much do you want me to pay? I've already paid you for the genes, haven't I?
Monsanto rep: It's not a question of money anymore. You've broken the law and we intend to prosecute. You should have paid when you used your husband's sperm for the second time.
Mother: But my husband's sperm belongs to him!
Monsanto rep: You should really read the fine print in your fertility agreement. Your husband received genetic material that belongs to Monsanto. We have "reach through" rights which means we own your offspring. We can terminate the agreement at any time at our discretion and the terms can change without notice. Do you have a lawyer?
Mother: No.
Monsanto rep: You'll be needing one.
Mother: But I can't afford it! I'm flat broke after paying for the fertility genes!!
Monsanto rep: That's not our problem, ma'am. I'll be taking the child now... [Kevlar(tm) vested ATF agents burst in pointing M16's at the cowering mother. Monsanto rep grabs baby.]
Mother: [screams] No!!!! My baby! Give me back my baby!! [mother is led away in handcuffs by the heavily armed ATF agents]
Voice over: Monsanto -- making a better tomorrow for our children by protecting patents today.
It's an interesting idea, but even if it were true, we'd still be asking the same question -- how did life evolve in the first place? Knowing WHERE life originated would be great, but that still wouldn't tell us HOW life began.
If you do commit it to memory, make sure to spell 'riden' correctly.
How else could we achieve adequate economic growth rates? This was the singular genius of the modern corporation: To realize that one can reap the benefits of technological change without the unecessary cost of adding value.
Change for the sake of change is the essence of liberal democracy. We've got to keep busy or we'll suddenly realize how pointless it all is.
Excuse me, I must take my medication now...
Only then will we win the battle against Evil Karma Whoring.
Also it would be very nice if everyone made sure that they use plenty of numerals to spice up their spelling.
It could be argued that the teachers are public figures in this case. They are certainly public enough to be held to a higher moral standard than other people. Teachers are entrusted with a public duty when they teach. Shouldn't they then be subject to the same kind of criticism as Clinton?
See the following case for some interesting comparisons:
Falwell v. Flynt (485 U.S. 46 1988)
I'm a Canadian, so it doesn't even apply to me. However, there is nothing exclusively American about the meaning associated with the constitutional use of the word 'speech'. It is used to convey a similar idea in the Canadian Bill of Rights. The english word 'speech' has acquired its meaning partly because of its historical use in the American Constitution and other such (not exclusively American) documents. So the mere fact that a word was used in an American document doesn't make that meaning exclusive to the USA.
The USA certainly isn't the entire world. I didn't mean that at all. But in the English language, wherever it is used, the word 'speech' can mean both printed and spoken word, depending upon the context, of course.
It's a tough call, because obviously his intent was to harm
I think the intent makes all the difference. If the site was intended to be laughably hyperbolic, the harm would be harder to prove because no reasonable person would actually believe the content.
Didn't Larry Flynt avoid defamation charges by pointing out that no one would actually believe that Jerry Falwell had sex with his mother in an outhouse.
IAMNOTALAWYER (I Am Moderated "Not On Topic" And Laugh At What You Expect Really) but I doubt whether jokes about people could be considered defamatory. Even though the Flynt vs Falwell case hinged partly on the fact that Falwell was a public figure, the private citizens in this case are involved in matters of public concern, namely the public school system. This decision by the supreme court might have some applicability here.
But the printed word is considered speech in the context of the First Amendment. In that sense, both libel and slander occur in everyday speech, the distinction being that libel occurs in print and slander occurs in the spoken word.
I'm not a physics student, but I seem to remember that the possibilities only matter when you're NOT looking at the system. Does anyone else know whether this is mistaken or not?
I wonder how much of this will be stifled and slowed down by specious litigation.
I'm sure part of that ignorance is the result of computer geeks like you who treat end-users with disdain and impatience. You have worked your butt off to create these wonderful, intuitive interfaces, probably consuming more person-hours than it took to build the pyramids, using all the most modern technology, and you're damn proud of it. It took you so long to achieve, and you had to give up so much to achieve it that by golly, you'd better get some damn respect from someone for all that work and hell, if they won't give you respect then you'll put on airs and lord over them to make yourself feel better about having sacrificed so much to make gains that appear utterly unremarkable to the end-user.
You're not going to help people learn by alienating them.
Yes, I suppose a perfectly measured, ideal IQ measurement would be hard to change by sheer effort. However, none of the IQ tests administered could be perfect. Aside from that purely apriori objection, I think even if your claim is true, it's still worth hiring minorities even though they are less fully qualified because society is more stable when more of us have a stake in playing the game. If you don't do something to include visible minorities (and sometimes that means working actively to promote visible minority candidates) then you'll eventually have social chaos.
Not that the desire to avoid social chaos is the only incentive for affirmative action. I just think that it's better to have people involved regardless of their talent. At least you're giving them a chance to learn. I think it's very strange to consider hiring people for their IQ. I don't think it's a good idea to hire stupid people, of course, but IQ doesn't have much to do with professional success or competence.
I personally would rather have a world full of happy, healthy, peaceful village idiots than a space program. Try to widen your viewpoint. Not every problem can be solved by technology and a high IQ. Some problems can only be solved by sacrifice, courage, character, compassion or some other quality which has nothing to do with IQ and can't be mimicked by a Turing machine.
There is no reason to continue maintaining the Old Boys Club. If you want to keep women, jews and non-whites in their place, just join the KKK.
Really you'd be shooting yourself in the foot by trying to stop affirmative action. Eventually the IQ gaps that you are talking about will narrow, and that's when the payoff comes. All the pain that you're experiencing now will seem worth it because you'll have more than twice the problem-solving power that you have now. Giving people the chance to develop their skills for the future is every bit as important as pioneering the exploration of space.
This is your brain.
This is your brain on drugs.
This is your war.
This is your war on drugs.
ehh... how could you show that "physics is invariant between reference frames"? This couldn't possibly be an empirical claim. In order to prove it, you would have to know what reality is like as it is in itself, apart from its representation in theories or perception. But you don't know what reality is like apart from its representation in theory or perception. Do you mean that only the theory stays the same between reference frames? That claim is probably true but it also seems trivial.
Me:
How do you propose that the blacksmith, the stagecoach driver, the lamplighter, the town crier, or the milkman will pay for their food?
You:
They do work that is paid for.
You missed my point, I think. How many stage coach drivers are getting paid in Cambridge? Not too many I dare say. The point is that as technology and society change, so do employment opportunities. Perhaps the plight of the corporate sponsored mega-star is the same as that of the blacksmith. Technology and market forces have conspired to render all of them obsolete. Sure, people will still use a blacksmith for nostalgia and to preserve the historical practice, but no one considers it a viable career choice.
The demand for good live music is already very large as is evidenced that all the concerts and gigs I have been to this year have been sold out, and all but one in the last 6 months have been in Cambridge where I study. Sounds like there is already high demand for regional performances to me.
Are you saying that the market, or the concert venue infrastructure cannot support more live concerts? That would be as difficult to prove as my claim that regional music would flourish if intellectual property laws were abolished. So let's say the jury's still out on that one.
Stop talking bollocks and realise that musicians have a right to charge people for their skills just as programmers do, and that recordings allow many people to enjoy music that they would otherwise not get the chance to hear because they live in different contries to the artist.
To "charge people for [e.g. musical] skills" is entirely consistent with the abolishment of intellectual property laws. As I said, live performances would be even more lucrative than they are today. The market economics would probably increase the supply if the demand (and the price) were to increase dramatically. Many artists who would otherwise not be able to play before large crowds would have that opportunity.
Charging for skills is very different than being granted property rights in the works generated with those skills. If I work in an auto factory, I may be very skilled, but I have no residual property rights in the fruits of my labour. That is, I don't have the right to dictate the terms of the sale or resale of the object I created. I am paid for my time. The same could be the case with a musician. Like lawyers, they could charge a very high hourly fee. The market would determine whether that was an appropriate fee or not.
Regarding the second point, about recordings making music more accessible, this is true to a certain extent. But I would argue against this on at least two fronts. First, there is nothing inherently better about recorded music, even if the recordings are of great performers. Recorded music is like canned meat -- it's edible, but not as tasty as the real thing. Secondly, part of the technological change that is a threat to corporate power is the replacement of "hard media" with virtual, digitized media. The distribution of digital information over networks is less costly and more flexible than the distribution system now used by record store chains. Ultimately, this should mean that music can be enjoyed by even more people than it is now. International distribution of digital data should pose many fewer barriers than distribution of hard media. Look to DVD's for an example of barriers to distributon. DVD's have locale codes burned into them to prevent non-WIPO treaty nations from viewing copy protected material. This is another case where I'd say that at the very least both sides are arguable.
if all information was free, then people would stop producing CDs as they could get no remuneration and concert ticket prices would skyrocket as the market demand to hear the otherwise unaccessible top bands forced them up (basic supply/demand economics)
If megacorporations stopped producing CD's, that would suit me just fine. And what's more, it would probably be a welcome change for all but the tiniest minority of musicians. Selling CD's is no longer necessary to promote music. Even if you really wanted to sell CD's, you could, but you just couldn't earn as much from them as you could from a live performance.
I can see a flourishing trade in "Custom-made" recordings which are not mass-marketed, but recorded individually, each recording representing a unique "session". This kind of market would cater to those who would rather own Jimi Hendrix's guitar than one of his recordings.
I am entirely unconcerned with the fate of big-name music acts, and I submit that if the transnational polycorporate cannons suddenly fell silent, no one else would notice either. "Big-name" acts were invented to rationalize the production and distribution of mass-market music. The only really big name star is "inspiration" and the "muse". And last I heard, no one had a monopoly on those "resources".
Me:
Why are artists so important that they should be granted residual property rights in their work, while extremely skilled auto workers must make do with measly hourly wage?
You:
3 words for you: supply and demand.
I had to read between the line a bit (there is only one line, after all). I think what you are saying is this: whoever has a product or skill that is in great demand should be granted the broadest rights and should receive greater government protection of their property. Conversely, those whose products or skills are less in demand ought to have less government protection and fewer rights. In other words, you are proposing that we allocate rights on the basis of an individual's expected future earnings.
Is this really what you meant to say?
That's a really interesting example. How did you find out about all that?
Well, then, you've just admitted that copyright was never necessary anyways, since there was always someone willing to pay. Neither royalty nor the church had the reach that modern media conglomerates have today, and the institutions of the ancien regime had a sense of being part of a higher purpose, which modern corporations do not share.
Western civilization has given up trying to find anything noble in life since that implies inequality or heirarchy. Liberal democracy trades nobility for hucksterism and kitsch. This means that the majority of stuff that gets produced is literally "farce" or stuffing. Noise meant to fill up dead bandwidth. Haven't you ever watched a sporting event and said to yourself "I wish those commentators would just shut up so I can watch the game". How much does that enhance your experience? What the corporations add is filler. Human beings provide all the real content. If there weren't professional sports "properties" with all the associated TV revenue, merchandising, endorsements, cross-promotions and whatnot, the value of those "properties" wouldn't be anything close to what it is today. The scale of professional sports would be back where it was 80 or 100 years ago. A gentleman's league. I'm not trying to turn back the clock, either. I only contend that we would be perfectly well off if we were left to organize our own venues, events, performances, art galleries. Sports and music will always attract the greatest athletes and musicians. As long as there is a league to play in, Wayne Gretzky will be playing hockey and Michael Jordan will be playing basketball. I may not get to see them play, but I never really saw Michael Jordan play and yet stories about his talent still inspire me.
I don't think philanthropy will up and die, either, if intellectual property rights were eliminated. Activites would would become more regional and would take place on a much smaller scale, but that doesn't imply poor quality. Unless of course you define poor quality as anything that isn't world-class. World-class is great, but someone has to start somewhere, and a community is a great place to start.
I can't believe how willing people are to support the corporate agenda heart and soul, and turn their backs on their neighborhoods and their friends. That's who's being destroyed by this cultural black hole. I prefer a little back-water provinciality to the "world-class" nonsense that buzzword-happy advertising executives dreamed up.
World-class art and music have ALWAYS been developed WITHOUT sponsorship. What sponsorship adds is more RESTRICTIONS on who can hear and see great art. I can only see Mozart play piano if I'm a member of the European nobility. The same thing is true today. Every cultural activity is aimed at the very rich. The rest of us are left to watch reruns on television. I would just as soon see local-class athletes, artists, and musicians as I would world-class ones.
There is no doubt that the truly great at anything are few and far between. That's true by definition. What irks me about your view is that you say only corporations or royalty or the church have the resources to develop talent which is just plain false.
I can live without world-class art, music, and sports if it means knowing that my community is free to celebrate life in its own way; that my neighborhood is a healthy and safe place for my children (i.e. they don't get beaten up and relieved of their sports-insignia emblazoned clothing); that friends can gather and discuss matters of importance to their community.
If this is mindless idealism, then I'm very, very proud to be a mindless idealist.
But do you notice that the bulleted items are connected by OR's? It would still be a fairly wide net to be casting, don't you think? It certainly is a much broader prohibition than the Universal v. Sony decision.
If you do believe that, do you really want to see the end of people creating music, or really any work of art?
This is alarmist nonsense. So what if we return to cavepainting or banging on hollow logs. I don't really have as much fun listening to recorded music as I do PLAYING it. I for one actually do not care if commercial "art" forever passes from existence. It will be none too soon. I'm not being elitist either, pretending to be above popular culture. The problem is that popular culture belongs to corporations, not people. Corporations created it because it was easier to sell than high culture or regional culture or street culture. Corporations control it and they profit from it. To me there isn't much human in that kind of art.
Copying is just copying. You only see it as harm because you feel morally entitled to the artificial enclosure you play in. You are so used to buying your culture that you have forgotten how to make it. Go and sing a song with your friends. You'll be delighted by the results.