but it is flawed anyway, since it assumes that the values of Americans apply to everyone in the world, which is simply not true.
The number of people going to great, even illegal lengths to move into places like the US and Canada vastly outweighs the number of people trying to move out. Do you think this is a coincidence?
I personally think that both competition and cooperation are needed.
I personally feel that this is more or less what we have now. Why are so many people so eager to radically change it?
This is not what the article says at all. You can't patent naturally-occuring organisms like neem trees. What the article says is that a company managed to appropriate patent rights to certain artifacts which are produced, second-hand from the neem tree, when the actual innovators were native Indians. Which is more an argument against the stealing of ideas than against the concept of ownership of ideas.
Of course, the article presents the issue in a very one-sided manner and in a very vague sort of way. It is quite possible, from the wording of the article, that the investing corporations did in fact innovate procedures or materials that did not previously exist. Regardless, I doubt that anyone who has been making neem-based toothpaste for generations has been suddenly excluded from making neem-based toothpaste, I suspect the Indians are angry because other people are making money off of neem-based toothpaste and they want a piece. I wouldn't know, because the essay makes no pretense towards being objective.
On the contrary, it is very much in the best interests of the international, capitalist economy that 3rd Worlders have a disposable income.
They'll get their crumbs after we get our Nike's.
You make it sound as if, every week, God sent a giant pie down to the surface of the Earth with the intention that everyone share equally in the pie, and the first world greedily consumed 95% of it and then left some crumbs over for the 3rd World. This is not the case.
Of course you will, people will work out that what you do is important for society has a whole, and therefore you will be supported in your work. Whether this is a money income or not does make any difference
This is called "communism." You are not just arguing for IP reform, you are arguing for a fundamental reform of our entire economic system at a basic level.
Yes, it's well known that Mozart flipped burgers for a living. And no one ever heard his music, more's the pity. Likewise that Homer guy, and Bill Shakespeare swept streets and never got around to writing those plays he was always talking about.
Both Shakespeare and Mozart created their art primarily because they knew they were going to get paid. Are you suggesting that we go back to the patron system?
(*) Intellectual "property" is to property as fool's gold is to gold
Try explaining this to Otis, your new cell-mate for the next 5 years. Regardless of whether you think IP should exist or not, the consequences for violating its mandates are very, very real. IP is no more illusory than the notion of "human rights."
That's OK, you'd just be wrong. Copyright law makes no mention of the "perfection" of copying The point I was addressing had nothing to do with the quality of the copies, but with the "copy-ability" of the copies, you're bringing up a whole different issue that isn't really related to my point. But in deference to the argument you bring up, the quality of the copying has been one of the motivating factors for the RIAA to now enforce their copyrights. Regardless of whether the legalese mentions it or not, it is a very real factor in the issue.
For one thing, most of the larger entities involved in a film--the stars, the director, etc. DO share in the profit/failure of the film. For another thing, shares in films are often publically sold on the stock exchange, so anyone can buy into a piece of the pie. For another thing, if the guy holding the boom mike didn't pony up $10 million of his own money to risk on the making of this film, why should he get as much of the take as the producer who is risking financial ruin? The system works fine and fair the way it is, why fix it?
RIAA isn't really trying to stomp out the transmission of bootlegs, live recordings, and non-copyrighted material--stuff that doesn't affect their pocketbook. But I would guess that upwards of 75% of the people who use Napster use it primarily to pirate copyrighted material. That's what they're pissed about.
An interesting idea to point out. But the brain-media comparison breaks down pretty quick under scrutiny. For one thing, you are implying that current IP law would allow me to sue for the contents of another person's mind, something that never has (nor ever will) happen. For another thing, you can't mass-distribute perfect copies of that one Metallica song that you listened to yesterday just because you remember it in your head. For another thing, you can't even play back that one Metallica song for me. Sloppy comparison.
It bothers me that people are confusing the world-changing nature of digital copying. It is not that digital copies are somehow new and fundamentally different from older methods of copying. Good point, but I think I can counter. Digital copying IS fundamentally different. 1) The quality of the copy, which you rightly attribute to being a matter of degree, is not irrelevant. When I have a somewhat-less-than-perfect copy of the music there is still an incentive for me to buy my own copy of the music. But if I have a perfect digital copy, there is no reason for me to recompensate the people who spent time and money to produce the music, ever. And I don't. 2) Digital music don't really degenerate with repeated copying--a 5th generation copy sounds as good as the 1st one. 3) Digital music is piratable on a MASS scale. We aren't talking about you making a scratchy tape recording of the new Duran Duran album for your buddy. We're talking about you making several thousands of perfect copies of the new Duran Duran album for any jerk with an Internet connection to copy.
Has anyone here actually been involved in the production of a motion picture before? It is not a genre that will ever be conducive to the "individual artist selling a song/book directly over the Internet" paradigm. Think
Titanic
sucked? It would have sucked even worse if it had been shot in James Cameron's back yard. Which is pretty much what you guys are rooting for by being against the big studio model....
How would you like it if those big pharmaceuticals you are so fond of turn around and sue the bejazus out of you for all those incredibly trivial ideas you forgot to document?
Seeing as how this is not, by and large, what is happening in the real world, I am going to call scarecrow on this argument.
...in the sense that it would get you a decent grade in a freshman-level Intro to Philosophy course. Virtually every sentence contains either an over-generalization, an over-simplification, a straw-man-pummel-o-rama, or a plain-old fiction. The writer suggests alternative solutions in the same work that he attempts to argue for the existence of a problem in the first place. It just offends my sensibilities to the point where I don't care if the author even has a valid point or not--he's obviously made up his mind before he thought or researched the issue.
That is precisely why this is such a poor argument--associating IP with the exploitation of the 3rd World? Pretty big logical leap. Copyright infringement hurts ordinary, everyday, little people just trying to get by as much as it hurts big businesses. Do you seriously think actors, directors, and artists can make a living without relying on royalties and residuals? Absolutely, positively no way. So much for the "Robin Hood" theory of IP.
No law I've ever heard of exists for prosecuting a person for "holding" an idea in their head, nor speaking about it to others, nor using that idea as inspiration to come up with a "new" idea. Digital-quality duplicates of engineered studio masters is not an "idea" existing in someone's head. It is a tangible substance which must exist on a piece of physical media.
Actually, no, I'd say they are two completely different things. We are talking about exact digital duplicates of copyrighted music, not the temporary borrowing of a piece of physical media.
First off, it is fact that the Nazis officialy regarded themselves as a Christian nation. It is illogical to conclude that religion is always a bad thing because of this association, just as it's a bit stupid to assume that all atheists are immoral Communists.
You guys are having a totally pointless flame war. Haven't either of you grown up enough to know never to get in a religious debate?
"Oppenheimer spent much of the rest of his life, along with other Atomic Scientists, trying to put them back in the bag. This gained him little to nothing, exclusion from the labs he created, and government reactions like Harry Truman's "never let that bastard in my office again."
"once created, these technologies will be USED."
Poor choice for an example, since no one has used a nuclear weapon (outside of testing them) since WWII ended over half a century ago. Maybe we can be trusted with these technologies after all....
No computer of any sort will ever be able to predict exactly what events are going to occur in a human life, how those events will be percieved, and how they will affect the physical structure of the brain. This somehow relates to what you were saying....somehow....don't ask me how....
So all we need is a massively parallel, molecular-level processor? I'm going out on a limb here and guessing that it's just a matter of time, really.
Alternatively, we could rip some codons out of some of Stephen Hawking's DNA and grow some wierd genetically engineered brain in a pan on the desk and hook electrodes up to it.
And what is the input into your ears and eyes, if not "random" data? Yes, our sensory processing mechanisms are engineered to process and react to external stimuli -- but many of those stimuli are essentially random.
Uhm, no, I wouldn't describe most of our sensory input as random, though it is certainly noisy. But there're small and large patterns of order to be found everywhere around me in nature, both temporal and visual. A lot of the brain's perceptual work involves identifying, extracting, and concentrating on patterns amidst noise. Is there some way a hardware-driven random number generator could help you "clean up" noisy images? If no, then why would we need random number generators in our brain in order to be conscious?
The subject says it all. Pennrose misquotes and misunderstands Godel's Theorem in the first few chapters, and makes it the basis for all of the retarded bunk quantum-mechanics ramblings that appear later in the book. Read it if you want, but don't be suckered into thinking anyone takes his argument seriously.
It never ceases to amaze me the lengths that radical materialists go to trying to prove things that cannot be proven.
Only an intellectually dishonest person would claim that there is no dependance between the physical and mental. The various criteria that would cause you to reject that notion would also require you to reject all other physical knowledge, starting with all scientific theories. A little too radical for my blood, sorry.
First off, we know very little about the brain
Actually, we know quite a bit about the brain. For instance, we know that there is no reason at this time to believe that wierd quantum-level physics are in any way the source of its computational abilities.
Your only way out of this mess is to reduce consciousness to a bunch of features that don't require the thing we all "think of" as consciouness.
The most popular (and correct, IMHO) objection to your argument is that the way we intuitively "think of" consciousness is just plain wrong. Just as our intuitions about colors or solid objects allows us to deal with these entities without accurately describing their true physical nature, the words we use to describe our folk psychological notions of consciousness, while functional, are inaccurate and incorrect in regards to what is physically occuring.
You haven't explained why I think I exist, why I perceive.
Yes, I have. That's like saying an account of the stimulation of C-fibers in the nerves of your big toe and your brain's response to this stimulation doesn't explain the pain you feel in your foot.
but is really cheating as far as the topic of discussion is concerned.
Like I just said, you are the one who is cheating if you require the materialist to present a model that adheres to your misguided and illusory subjective experience of "consciousness."
A rational being must accept either that everything is conscious, and we simply exhibit certain forms of it and name those
things "intelligence"
Your first error here is a failure to see that "consciousness" is a multivariated quality, not some boolean true-false condition. I am more conscious than a coma patient. My dog is more conscious than a protozoa. A protozoa is more conscious than a rock. So in a sense I will readily admit that a lot of things DO possess consciousness to at least an infinitesimal degree.
Slashdot Mirror
The number of people going to great, even illegal lengths to move into places like the US and Canada vastly outweighs the number of people trying to move out. Do you think this is a coincidence?
I personally think that both competition and cooperation are needed.
I personally feel that this is more or less what we have now. Why are so many people so eager to radically change it?
I can make as much money delivering pizzas as I can performing open heart surgery?
Of course, the article presents the issue in a very one-sided manner and in a very vague sort of way. It is quite possible, from the wording of the article, that the investing corporations did in fact innovate procedures or materials that did not previously exist. Regardless, I doubt that anyone who has been making neem-based toothpaste for generations has been suddenly excluded from making neem-based toothpaste, I suspect the Indians are angry because other people are making money off of neem-based toothpaste and they want a piece. I wouldn't know, because the essay makes no pretense towards being objective.
They'll get their crumbs after we get our Nike's.
You make it sound as if, every week, God sent a giant pie down to the surface of the Earth with the intention that everyone share equally in the pie, and the first world greedily consumed 95% of it and then left some crumbs over for the 3rd World. This is not the case.
This is called "communism." You are not just arguing for IP reform, you are arguing for a fundamental reform of our entire economic system at a basic level.
Both Shakespeare and Mozart created their art primarily because they knew they were going to get paid. Are you suggesting that we go back to the patron system?
(*) Intellectual "property" is to property as fool's gold is to gold
Try explaining this to Otis, your new cell-mate for the next 5 years. Regardless of whether you think IP should exist or not, the consequences for violating its mandates are very, very real. IP is no more illusory than the notion of "human rights."
That's OK, you'd just be wrong. Copyright law makes no mention of the "perfection" of copying The point I was addressing had nothing to do with the quality of the copies, but with the "copy-ability" of the copies, you're bringing up a whole different issue that isn't really related to my point. But in deference to the argument you bring up, the quality of the copying has been one of the motivating factors for the RIAA to now enforce their copyrights. Regardless of whether the legalese mentions it or not, it is a very real factor in the issue.
No, he couldn't sue you for quoting him. His statements are not copyrighted, and can't be because they were uttered (or typed) in a public forum.
For one thing, most of the larger entities involved in a film--the stars, the director, etc. DO share in the profit/failure of the film. For another thing, shares in films are often publically sold on the stock exchange, so anyone can buy into a piece of the pie. For another thing, if the guy holding the boom mike didn't pony up $10 million of his own money to risk on the making of this film, why should he get as much of the take as the producer who is risking financial ruin? The system works fine and fair the way it is, why fix it?
RIAA isn't really trying to stomp out the transmission of bootlegs, live recordings, and non-copyrighted material--stuff that doesn't affect their pocketbook. But I would guess that upwards of 75% of the people who use Napster use it primarily to pirate copyrighted material. That's what they're pissed about.
It bothers me that people are confusing the world-changing nature of digital copying. It is not that digital copies are somehow new and fundamentally different from older methods of copying. Good point, but I think I can counter. Digital copying IS fundamentally different. 1) The quality of the copy, which you rightly attribute to being a matter of degree, is not irrelevant. When I have a somewhat-less-than-perfect copy of the music there is still an incentive for me to buy my own copy of the music. But if I have a perfect digital copy, there is no reason for me to recompensate the people who spent time and money to produce the music, ever. And I don't. 2) Digital music don't really degenerate with repeated copying--a 5th generation copy sounds as good as the 1st one. 3) Digital music is piratable on a MASS scale. We aren't talking about you making a scratchy tape recording of the new Duran Duran album for your buddy. We're talking about you making several thousands of perfect copies of the new Duran Duran album for any jerk with an Internet connection to copy.
- Titanic
sucked? It would have sucked even worse if it had been shot in James Cameron's back yard. Which is pretty much what you guys are rooting for by being against the big studio model....Seeing as how this is not, by and large, what is happening in the real world, I am going to call scarecrow on this argument.
...in the sense that it would get you a decent grade in a freshman-level Intro to Philosophy course. Virtually every sentence contains either an over-generalization, an over-simplification, a straw-man-pummel-o-rama, or a plain-old fiction. The writer suggests alternative solutions in the same work that he attempts to argue for the existence of a problem in the first place. It just offends my sensibilities to the point where I don't care if the author even has a valid point or not--he's obviously made up his mind before he thought or researched the issue.
No law I've ever heard of exists for prosecuting a person for "holding" an idea in their head, nor speaking about it to others, nor using that idea as inspiration to come up with a "new" idea. Digital-quality duplicates of engineered studio masters is not an "idea" existing in someone's head. It is a tangible substance which must exist on a piece of physical media.
Actually, no, I'd say they are two completely different things. We are talking about exact digital duplicates of copyrighted music, not the temporary borrowing of a piece of physical media.
You guys are having a totally pointless flame war. Haven't either of you grown up enough to know never to get in a religious debate?
What does this have to do with liberalism????
"once created, these technologies will be USED."
Poor choice for an example, since no one has used a nuclear weapon (outside of testing them) since WWII ended over half a century ago. Maybe we can be trusted with these technologies after all....
No computer of any sort will ever be able to predict exactly what events are going to occur in a human life, how those events will be percieved, and how they will affect the physical structure of the brain. This somehow relates to what you were saying....somehow....don't ask me how....
If so, shouldn't he be getting a little credit here?
Alternatively, we could rip some codons out of some of Stephen Hawking's DNA and grow some wierd genetically engineered brain in a pan on the desk and hook electrodes up to it.
Uhm, no, I wouldn't describe most of our sensory input as random, though it is certainly noisy. But there're small and large patterns of order to be found everywhere around me in nature, both temporal and visual. A lot of the brain's perceptual work involves identifying, extracting, and concentrating on patterns amidst noise. Is there some way a hardware-driven random number generator could help you "clean up" noisy images? If no, then why would we need random number generators in our brain in order to be conscious?
The subject says it all. Pennrose misquotes and misunderstands Godel's Theorem in the first few chapters, and makes it the basis for all of the retarded bunk quantum-mechanics ramblings that appear later in the book. Read it if you want, but don't be suckered into thinking anyone takes his argument seriously.
Only an intellectually dishonest person would claim that there is no dependance between the physical and mental. The various criteria that would cause you to reject that notion would also require you to reject all other physical knowledge, starting with all scientific theories. A little too radical for my blood, sorry.
First off, we know very little about the brain
Actually, we know quite a bit about the brain. For instance, we know that there is no reason at this time to believe that wierd quantum-level physics are in any way the source of its computational abilities.
Your only way out of this mess is to reduce consciousness to a bunch of features that don't require the thing we all "think of" as consciouness.
The most popular (and correct, IMHO) objection to your argument is that the way we intuitively "think of" consciousness is just plain wrong. Just as our intuitions about colors or solid objects allows us to deal with these entities without accurately describing their true physical nature, the words we use to describe our folk psychological notions of consciousness, while functional, are inaccurate and incorrect in regards to what is physically occuring.
You haven't explained why I think I exist, why I perceive.
Yes, I have. That's like saying an account of the stimulation of C-fibers in the nerves of your big toe and your brain's response to this stimulation doesn't explain the pain you feel in your foot.
but is really cheating as far as the topic of discussion is concerned.
Like I just said, you are the one who is cheating if you require the materialist to present a model that adheres to your misguided and illusory subjective experience of "consciousness."
A rational being must accept either that everything is conscious, and we simply exhibit certain forms of it and name those things "intelligence"
Your first error here is a failure to see that "consciousness" is a multivariated quality, not some boolean true-false condition. I am more conscious than a coma patient. My dog is more conscious than a protozoa. A protozoa is more conscious than a rock. So in a sense I will readily admit that a lot of things DO possess consciousness to at least an infinitesimal degree.