Re:ahem... COPYRIGHTS are NOT PROPERTY RIGHTS !!!
on
Reclaiming the Commons
·
· Score: 1
In a free market, a producer--any producer, of anything--has total control over what he produces, and no one else has any claim on what the producer produces without his consent. Generally, this comes through the form of a sale or a gift, although there are plenty of other methods involved as well. Copyrights are simply a means of ensuring, through a system of legal penalties, that the producer of certain types of works is able to enjoy his rights to what he produces and to prevent anyone from using what he has produced without his consent.
Another example is Microsoft demanding computer manufacturers give up some of their property (in the form of currency) for every machine they sell and give it to Microsoft, regardless of whether it has Linux or Windows loaded.
This is the only thing I take exception too. If Microsoft has a contract with a computer manufacturer to allow them to preload Windows on some or all of the computers they sell, Microsoft (as well as the computer manufacturer) has every right to include whatever terms it wishes in the contract (provided those terms don't infringe on the rights of an individual not party to the contract) because either side is free to refuse to agree to the contract. If one of those terms include requiring a fee for EVERY computer the manufacturer builds, regardless of whether or not it has Windows on it, then so be it. The manufacturer agreed to it.
If Microsoft was going around demanding that computer manufacturers who have no agreement with Microsoft pay them a fee, then that would be a different question entirely, and Microsoft would indeed be wrong.--but I don't believe that's the case.
Re:How capitalism can indeed serve social interest
on
Reclaiming the Commons
·
· Score: 1
Capitalism is a socioeconomic system in which ALL individual rights are protected. Thus, under capitalism, killing of an individual without the individual's consent would definitely NOT be permissible.
Well, considering that in about 5 billion or so years the sun is expected to enlarge exponentially and swallow most of the the planets (including our own) in the process, I don't think that'll be a problem. Unless, of course, we've colonized other planets then. But then, how will we count years--we will still define it as an Earth year (in which case there won't be as big of an adjustment, but it'd be out of sync with what really happens) or use however long it takes for that planet to complete one orbit around its star?
Also, don't forget that you have to take into account that the Gregorian Calendar will need an adjustment (similar to the 10 days that were missing due to a calendar adjustment about 250 or so years ago) sometime after the year 4000.
Re:How to take care of the situation you describe
on
Copyright as Cudgel
·
· Score: 1
It does take away from your ability to directly support a candidate, and of course it also forces you to support candidates that you abhor.
That alone is why such a law should never be passed. The ends do not justify the means.
Re:How to take care of the situation you describe
on
Copyright as Cudgel
·
· Score: 1
So what do you do if, for whatever reason, 75% of the population suddenly decide to become thieves? But they're still allowed to vote, so obviously they're going to vote for politicians who oppose laws against theft.
Water--people and businesses realize they need water to operate and live. Businesses also realize that their customers need water in order to live. A business, thus, has every reason to ensure that clean, affordable water is provided. Similarly, neighborhood associations and other voluntary organizations of individuals would be able to take care of maintaining water lines in their neighborhoods.
The same is true for roads--businesses realize they need roads to operate, so they would have every reason to maintain decent roads (available at no cost to the public) so that both customers and the goods the business sells can arrive at the location quickly and safely. And again, people need roads to get to work and businesses, so there is every reason for a neighborhood association to maintain roads within their area.
How to take care of the situation you describe
on
Copyright as Cudgel
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
It's quite simple--remove government-imposed controls, artificial costs, subsidies, and regulations on businesses. When government is no longer allowed to regulate or subsidize business, businesses will realize it's no longer possible or necessary to buy politicians in order to obtain special favors or exemptions from proposed legislation.
Everytime a story like this gets posted on/., this gets said. I'll be the first to say it this time: Providing Internet access does not fall within the proper scope or role of any level of government.
They lose--you're using something without paying for it. Besides, NO ONE has a right to a future (or anything else, including a living) at another's expense. Need is not a valid claim.
It doesn't matter what the effects of a certain action (or lack of action) are (or are not). Right is right, wrong is wrong. Stealing is wrong. The OP is aware of this, and made the moral choice.
Using this argument then a contract for slavery should be legal, since it dosn't involve any third parties.
Exactly...if an individual decides to work for no pay and brutal treatment, that's his prerogative. Although it technically wouldn't be slavery, since he's not being forced to work against his will.
Anyway a contract of the form "All passengers in Ford cars must be Ford drivers" is likely to involve third parties...
How so?
The only people Sony is involved with are those they directly sell to.
So Sony plays no part and has no stake in the sale whatsoever?
When you buy a house you deal with the owner your not obliged to find out who built it
You are if the builder chose to add such a clause in the sale agreement and also require that it be in all future sale agreements for the house.
Which may or may not mean anything. i.e. you can't violate a contract which is void...
Any place where it IS void has seriously fucked up laws. There is no valid reason to void a contract that all parties involved willingly agreed to.
And before you say anything, let me point out that if two individuals make an agreement to murder a third party, the contract MUST be invalid because one of the parties involved (the murderer) did not make any agreement.
This differs from the analogy in a few ways. 1) The party isn't well described
Huh?
2) Sony isn't even a party to the sale.
Sony most certainly IS a party to the sale? Who do you think made it? The store is simply a middleman. Is Sony not getting part of the money you pay?
It is the moral right of the producer to dictate the terms under which his product is offered. You don't like the terms, you don't use the product. Simple as that.
"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech"
That means exactly what it says--Congress is not allowed to place restrictions on what ideas or views may be expressed. This does not mean that private entities are not allowed to restrict what may be said or expressed on their own private property--in fact, they MUST be allowed to do so because if they are not, then their property rights are being infringed upon. All the First Amendment guarantees is that you are allowed to express yourself without fear of punishment. It doesn't guarantee you a medium for expressing yourself other than your OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY. Your rights do not trump the rights of others, including rights of property.
Slashdot Mirror
In a free market, a producer--any producer, of anything--has total control over what he produces, and no one else has any claim on what the producer produces without his consent. Generally, this comes through the form of a sale or a gift, although there are plenty of other methods involved as well. Copyrights are simply a means of ensuring, through a system of legal penalties, that the producer of certain types of works is able to enjoy his rights to what he produces and to prevent anyone from using what he has produced without his consent.
Another example is Microsoft demanding computer manufacturers give up some of their property (in the form of currency) for every machine they sell and give it to Microsoft, regardless of whether it has Linux or Windows loaded.
This is the only thing I take exception too. If Microsoft has a contract with a computer manufacturer to allow them to preload Windows on some or all of the computers they sell, Microsoft (as well as the computer manufacturer) has every right to include whatever terms it wishes in the contract (provided those terms don't infringe on the rights of an individual not party to the contract) because either side is free to refuse to agree to the contract. If one of those terms include requiring a fee for EVERY computer the manufacturer builds, regardless of whether or not it has Windows on it, then so be it. The manufacturer agreed to it.
If Microsoft was going around demanding that computer manufacturers who have no agreement with Microsoft pay them a fee, then that would be a different question entirely, and Microsoft would indeed be wrong.--but I don't believe that's the case.
Why the hell do you care?
Capitalism is a socioeconomic system in which ALL individual rights are protected. Thus, under capitalism, killing of an individual without the individual's consent would definitely NOT be permissible.
Fucking leftist moron...
It was sometime during the reign of Pope Gregory IX (I think--it may have been another Gregory), which means it was between 1227 and 1241
Well, considering that in about 5 billion or so years the sun is expected to enlarge exponentially and swallow most of the the planets (including our own) in the process, I don't think that'll be a problem. Unless, of course, we've colonized other planets then. But then, how will we count years--we will still define it as an Earth year (in which case there won't be as big of an adjustment, but it'd be out of sync with what really happens) or use however long it takes for that planet to complete one orbit around its star?
Also, don't forget that you have to take into account that the Gregorian Calendar will need an adjustment (similar to the 10 days that were missing due to a calendar adjustment about 250 or so years ago) sometime after the year 4000.
No, that's one trillion :)
It does take away from your ability to directly support a candidate, and of course it also forces you to support candidates that you abhor.
That alone is why such a law should never be passed. The ends do not justify the means.
So what do you do if, for whatever reason, 75% of the population suddenly decide to become thieves? But they're still allowed to vote, so obviously they're going to vote for politicians who oppose laws against theft.
Actually yeah, I do.
Water--people and businesses realize they need water to operate and live. Businesses also realize that their customers need water in order to live. A business, thus, has every reason to ensure that clean, affordable water is provided. Similarly, neighborhood associations and other voluntary organizations of individuals would be able to take care of maintaining water lines in their neighborhoods.
The same is true for roads--businesses realize they need roads to operate, so they would have every reason to maintain decent roads (available at no cost to the public) so that both customers and the goods the business sells can arrive at the location quickly and safely. And again, people need roads to get to work and businesses, so there is every reason for a neighborhood association to maintain roads within their area.
It's quite simple--remove government-imposed controls, artificial costs, subsidies, and regulations on businesses. When government is no longer allowed to regulate or subsidize business, businesses will realize it's no longer possible or necessary to buy politicians in order to obtain special favors or exemptions from proposed legislation.
You complain when corporations provide it,
I do? Could've fooled me...
Everytime a story like this gets posted on /., this gets said. I'll be the first to say it this time:
Providing Internet access does not fall within the proper scope or role of any level of government.
I don't know if that's true or not (and it really doesn't matter), but you can opt out--simply choose not to attend that institution.
I care more about my own livelihood and my family's that someone else's profit problems.
Too bad. NO ONE has a right to a living at someone else's expense, including you and your family.
They lose--you're using something without paying for it. Besides, NO ONE has a right to a future (or anything else, including a living) at another's expense. Need is not a valid claim.
It doesn't matter what the effects of a certain action (or lack of action) are (or are not). Right is right, wrong is wrong. Stealing is wrong. The OP is aware of this, and made the moral choice.
Using this argument then a contract for slavery should be legal, since it dosn't involve any third parties.
Exactly...if an individual decides to work for no pay and brutal treatment, that's his prerogative. Although it technically wouldn't be slavery, since he's not being forced to work against his will.
Anyway a contract of the form "All passengers in Ford cars must be Ford drivers" is likely to involve third parties...
How so?
The only people Sony is involved with are those they directly sell to.
So Sony plays no part and has no stake in the sale whatsoever?
When you buy a house you deal with the owner your not obliged to find out who built it
You are if the builder chose to add such a clause in the sale agreement and also require that it be in all future sale agreements for the house.
Which may or may not mean anything. i.e. you can't violate a contract which is void...
Any place where it IS void has seriously fucked up laws. There is no valid reason to void a contract that all parties involved willingly agreed to.
And before you say anything, let me point out that if two individuals make an agreement to murder a third party, the contract MUST be invalid because one of the parties involved (the murderer) did not make any agreement.
This differs from the analogy in a few ways. 1) The party isn't well described
Huh?
2) Sony isn't even a party to the sale.
Sony most certainly IS a party to the sale? Who do you think made it? The store is simply a middleman. Is Sony not getting part of the money you pay?
It is the moral right of the producer to dictate the terms under which his product is offered. You don't like the terms, you don't use the product. Simple as that.
And so this is quite obviously a problem with government, isn't it?
"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech"
That means exactly what it says--Congress is not allowed to place restrictions on what ideas or views may be expressed. This does not mean that private entities are not allowed to restrict what may be said or expressed on their own private property--in fact, they MUST be allowed to do so because if they are not, then their property rights are being infringed upon. All the First Amendment guarantees is that you are allowed to express yourself without fear of punishment. It doesn't guarantee you a medium for expressing yourself other than your OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY. Your rights do not trump the rights of others, including rights of property.
most broadband providers have a govt sanctioned monopoly.
Ok, then, so obviously the problem lies with the government, not the broadband providers.
What's so wrong with someone doing something he wants to do? It's his own money--he has the right to dispose of it as he pleases.
Socialist jerk...