BTW - my use of the word producer means artist and publisher. Together these (possibly 1 in the same) product the work and make it available to consumers.
"Publishers are trying to ensure a revenue stream through draconian technological means."
Interesting - your use of the word draconian. DRM is bad because it "draconian"! Great argument!
Removing emotional word we get "publishers are trying to ensure a revenue stream through technological means". This seems to be fairly standard way to make money. And clearly its far superior to using the government to ensure a revenue stream.
"There are no articles in the constitution to protect revenues." Agreed.
"Copyright law in the constitution does not apply to publishers trying to protect their revenues"
Agreed. I think the copyright has served it's purpose and now technology can enable producer (artist) to protect their work without lawyers.
Think of 7 or 30 day crippleware. This is essentially a form of DRM. Small shops publish their software with only limited fear of people who like it not paying for it.
"As for the people, the music is supposed to be heard by the people. " Really? I think the purpose of a work of art is determine by the artists and anyone he assigns rights to.
"It's publishers who make artists sign away their rights"
How exactly to they MAKE artists sign away their rights? Would this be anything like a few high tech guys getting VC funding and assigning their rights away to those that fund the startup? If an artist doesn't like the publisher's terms - they can negotiate a better deal, go else where, or publish themselves. Clearly the artist choose to give their rights away.
"Copyright law has been twisted somehow by the commercial entities into a protection of their interests from the people. This is a direct violation of the constitution's intent. "
What from the constitution hasn't been twisted?
My goal is to get rid of DMCA and all copyright. Laws are always made so that one group can gain - usually at the expense of another.
DRM is the act of a producer to make reproduction of their creation difficult. I don't see a problem with this any more than by putting a lock on my front door. In essence DRM a way of enforcing a contract to control the use of their product. Are "consumers" entitled to a digital creation on their own terms? If a consumer doesn't like the terms of transaction - then I suggest they have the choice of not buying it.
I also applaud DRM as it is a first step of moving away from government copyrights. Copyrights were an early tool to restrict reproduction of content. DRM is technological way to active the same end - one that doesn't require the courts to enforce.
Now the proper objection is to the DMCA - which among other things makes reversing engineering of encryption illegal. The fact that someone encrypts a message in no way should restrict my freedom to attempt to decrypt it. If they want to maintain their message private - then they need to create better encryption and/or find ways to restrict who receives the message - not use government to protect it.
Clearly the combination of DRM and DMCA is evil - but the evilness comes from DMCA not DRM.
Personally I'm offended by stupidity propagated on the Internet. I'd like to see a new top level domain.stupid for these domains. Google would be so much easier to use then.
"In other news, today I successfully opened a can of Diet Coke -- which highlights the retarding effect regulation has on quenching thirst. Man, if I'd waited for the government to open that can for me, I'd still be thirsty now!"
Yet for many - they expect government to be that first line of defense against the "undesirable" and refuse to help themselves. Of course after so many years of public "education" this shouldn't be a surprise.
However - your blanket criticism of democracy... If you mean - unrestricted democracy or "pure democracy" - then I agree with you. However a constitutional republic (with a strictly limited government power) and democratically representatives - isn't as oppressive and warlike. Are you familiar with RJ Rummel?
Anyway - until people are ready (rational and reliability independent) for anarcho-capitalism - we need something to take us there. Of course "taking us there" means less government every year ie imagine a world where every year there was 5% less government (compounded annually)..... Every 44 years the government would be 10% of its current size.
Yes - according to precedent I've read - Kelo was decided correctly. From my point of view the Institute for Justice lawyers weren't should have also challenged the three incorrectly decided decisions the Kelo loss was based on. I've heard that they were repeatedly asked - if this is what they wanted to do - but that they declined.
The real question we need to ask ourselves, is if you read the US Constitution as it is written and extended how would Kelo be decided. I'm no Constitutional scholar, but it would seem to be that the phase "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." would require the public to be able to use the seized area (ie a park, road, etc) or at least be for some government function that is "necessary". I have trouble accepting that an increase in government taxes or that taking private property from one to give to another private group was what most of the framers had in mind. To me this sounds like what a king would do to gain approval from a noble.
The first lecture is quiet clear. If don't believe you're upto the task of finding 10 bugs, then that might be a good time to drop or instead audit the class.
So many people think that the "producers" (DJB here) need to be fair - fair by their (the student's) standards. The producer offers what they have - you accept their offer and/or negotiate. Once you buy, complaining (in the absence of fraud) is only evidence of your ignorance in negotiation or of what you "purchased".
Although admittedly, the course seem so interesting, in the absence of the auditing option, it might be worth taking just for the experience - even if you don't expect to pass!
"As VoIP takes off as a replacement for the traditional copper-wire network, local and state governments are going to lose more and more funding for important services like 911 and Universal Service."
You know, if you want the service provided, then either provide it yourself, or cough up the money and send the government a bonus "tax check". I idea of forcing someone to pay for something they don't want or use makes so little since to me.
Ohh - I hope I never implied any kind of legal protection for corporations (ie a group). I belive there is only the individual and the contractional relations formed with other individuals.
On the idea that true democracy = true freedom, I think you're overlooking something important. I assume that by true democracy you mean that majority will of all the people should be the law. This suggests that either ethics and law have no connection, or that ethics is also determined by majority will. This idea also has another name, "mob rule".
For example what if the majority will is to imprison people based some religion creed or skin color. Is this what you mean by true freedom?
This is not to suggest that I don't belive in democracy - as I do - so long as strict limits on the power of government and of the majority are in place.
Are you implying that children only work and die in corporations? That when they work and die on a farm, its ok, or that it doesn't happen?
I'd suggest that children are sent to work because its necessary for survival. [Not because the parents want extra luxury items or that they are lazy.] They are sent to a corporation (instead of a farm) as their work product is of greater value to the family (and thus themselves).
The important debate here is how is it that rights and responsibility change over a human's lifetime (ie from conception to rotting corps). To answer this, one needs to answer, from what attributes of a organism do these rights come.
"Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. Under capitalism the state is separated from economics (production and trade), just like the state is separated from religion. Capitalism is the system of of laissez faire. It is the system of political freedom."
I wonder if this "new economic system" they discuss, is really just the flourishing of a system where individuals can voluntary interact without or force or significant outside interference.
Of course the unit of exchange in a market need not be gold, fait money or even a tangible item, it could anything that has inherent value to the people trading - so long it has some attributes of divisibility, longevity, and immutability.
I think a reading of the works of (probable socialist) Richard Dawkins might be illuminating on the topic.
Although he argues that the fundamental unit of selfishness is the gene and not the organism (or species). In many cases, our minds have overpowered our genes, and therefor, for humans, it might be that memes are the fundamental unit of selfishness. Susan Blackmore is another good source on the topic.
I find their writings to be mutually supportive of each another.
We have nothing close to capitalism. If anything, the US has fully adopted the socialist party platform of the early 1900s. Or present system is a mix of capitalism and statism.
What is Capitalism? "Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights."
The temperature of the microwave background radiation is 3K. This means that unless something is shielding an object (or large gas mass) it will be irradiated (heated) to this temperature. And because of the nature of blackbody radiation - the thing doing the shielding would need to be colder than 3K - else it would be a source of 'hot' radiation itself.
And then how do you take a picture of something that is only 1K? This object would emit less radiation than the 3K background - thus it would be a dark spot. It could reflect light - but not all the light is reflected (or is it due to some cool QM effect that I don't know about)? Anyway the absorbed light from other stars would most likely over years - heat the gas mass to a temperature between the 3K background and temperature of the star surface (5000K). Probably something in the neighborhood of 4K.
Conclusion - unless there is some sort of active cooling, nothing can cool down to less than temperature of the background radiation (3K). Is this an early April fools joke - or state schools worthless?
I just recalled stories on Slashdot - and elsewhere - calling for a halt to the Worldcom merger due to is potential to be a monopoly.
I quote from Wired: 10:45 a.m. Jan. 6, 1998 PST
"By eliminating each other as a major competitor and by creating one dominant Internet backbone provider, the merged entity would have the market power to exercise unilateral or concerted action to control the price of and potentially restrict access to the Internet."
Since most everyone on Slashdot is afraid of Monopolies - realize - that without government to enforce the monopoly the fears of control of price didn't actually materialize. In part this is due to the ability of new players to enter the market (unless entering isn't profitable) and the competition from the development of alternative technologies. Monopolies only become dangerous when barriers to entry are erected by law.
I guess Worldcom belied its own hype "doubling in 100 days" - and now they're dying!
As a (mostly pleased) Mandrake user since purchasing MDK 6.0, I was considering joining their club - but then I realized something:
Mandrake is a public company - it issues stock which is traded on a stock market. Mandrake can always raise cash by issuing and selling new stock. Of course this will cause the price of its stock to fall and also dilute shares of its major holders - ie its CEO, president, etc.
It is standard practice for companies to issue new stock to raise cash. That in fact is the purpose of the stock market! Short term investors don't like dilution - but if the company is run well then dilution when used to purchase an increase 'production' is a great signal.
Now Mandrake's club does offer some services - however from my point of view - they're not worth $60 per year. Their asking for what amounts to charity when they could dilute their stock is asking for me to be an altruist. Thats insulting.
If their club was changed so as to result in my legal investment in the company - say though issuance of $5 of stock each month - I'd do that. However - this issuance of stock again you likely required dilution.
So I'll just be waiting for MDK 8.2 final and its successor to come out. If they want to charge for the download, or only sell me a CD, then I'll glad to pay.
I had a similar experience with Mediaone. At the time of my installation they only supported Win95 and no not support networks. Like you or your friend who dealt with Bell Atlantic - I to argued with them and got no where.
After consulting a sysadm who has a network and home and mediaone, I was told to just let them think what they want. When the techs comeout to your site, you can probably get what you want if you don't argue with them. Remember, the techs think that management sticks also. However their job is at stake.
They arrived to find my system on a LAN and not running Win95. We talked a while and then I proceeded to do all the setup up myself. I moved the network cable to my transceiver to the cable modem (hence no LAN!) and after switching to their DHCP server I was on-line. Soon they went away.
As soon as the door closed, I rewired the network, only to find that all the additional IPs I needed were already taken. Since I had to have a LAN - I thought - maybe I can put 2 network cards in the stupid machine.
My neighborhood Cantonese computer store sold me a NE2000 card for $2 to $7 - don't recall. But it was a steal.
I installed the 2nd card, using 10.0.0.x for my LAN card and within a few minutes was up and running. Later I installed ip-masqurading and now all my internal machines have net access without any special config.
Since that time, all has been well with my setups. The only problems have been with their DHCP server. Sometimes it randomly changes my IP address - while I'm using it. After this your assigned IP is no longer matches your host name (I waited a week once). After numerous calls to tech support - I've given up and just started using a static IP. Its been months without any problems. I guess if I get messages about another machine using my IP address I'll consult the DHCP server and get a new IP.
I guess in summary -
* Don't argue or try and reason with corporate idiots. Subconsciously they already know they are idiots - but all day they have to act like they know what they're doing - else their wives will leave them and not see their kids anymore. If its a woman - she knows she'll lose her job and then be dependant on a man.
* When the techs arrive talk with them. Let them know you are fully knowledgeable, but let them think they know a little more than you. Be friendly and get to know all about the system. You'll need this info later!
* When they leave - set the system up like you want.
* When they say a system isn't support - they only mean - we don't know anything about it. IF you do - your one your own. Some cooperates think this means - do it and your off the network.
Slashdot Mirror
BTW - my use of the word producer means artist and publisher. Together these (possibly 1 in the same) product the work and make it available to consumers.
"Publishers are trying to ensure a revenue stream through draconian technological means."
Interesting - your use of the word draconian. DRM is bad because it "draconian"! Great argument!
Removing emotional word we get "publishers are trying to ensure a revenue stream through technological means". This seems to be fairly standard way to make money. And clearly its far superior to using the government to ensure a revenue stream.
"There are no articles in the constitution to protect revenues."
Agreed.
"Copyright law in the constitution does not apply to publishers trying to protect their revenues"
Agreed. I think the copyright has served it's purpose and now technology can enable producer (artist) to protect their work without lawyers.
Think of 7 or 30 day crippleware. This is essentially a form of DRM. Small shops publish their software with only limited fear of people who like it not paying for it.
"As for the people, the music is supposed to be heard by the people. "
Really? I think the purpose of a work of art is determine by the artists and anyone he assigns rights to.
"It's publishers who make artists sign away their rights"
How exactly to they MAKE artists sign away their rights? Would this be anything like a few high tech guys getting VC funding and assigning their rights away to those that fund the startup? If an artist doesn't like the publisher's terms - they can negotiate a better deal, go else where, or publish themselves. Clearly the artist choose to give their rights away.
"Copyright law has been twisted somehow by the commercial entities into a protection of their interests from the people. This is a direct violation of the constitution's intent. "
What from the constitution hasn't been twisted?
My goal is to get rid of DMCA and all copyright. Laws are always made so that one group can gain - usually at the expense of another.
If I ask them too - thats fine.
DRM is the act of a producer to make reproduction of their creation difficult. I don't see a problem with this any more than by putting a lock on my front door. In essence DRM a way of enforcing a contract to control the use of their product. Are "consumers" entitled to a digital creation on their own terms? If a consumer doesn't like the terms of transaction - then I suggest they have the choice of not buying it.
I also applaud DRM as it is a first step of moving away from government copyrights. Copyrights were an early tool to restrict reproduction of content. DRM is technological way to active the same end - one that doesn't require the courts to enforce.
Now the proper objection is to the DMCA - which among other things makes reversing engineering of encryption illegal. The fact that someone encrypts a message in no way should restrict my freedom to attempt to decrypt it. If they want to maintain their message private - then they need to create better encryption and/or find ways to restrict who receives the message - not use government to protect it.
Clearly the combination of DRM and DMCA is evil - but the evilness comes from DMCA not DRM.
I generally find myself in disagreement with replies to my comments - but not this time!
I think the operative word in your post is "force".
Personally I'm offended by stupidity propagated on the Internet. I'd like to see a new top level domain .stupid for these domains. Google would be so much easier to use then.
"In other news, today I successfully opened a can of Diet Coke -- which highlights the retarding effect regulation has on quenching thirst. Man, if I'd waited for the government to open that can for me, I'd still be thirsty now!"
Yet for many - they expect government to be that first line of defense against the "undesirable" and refuse to help themselves. Of course after so many years of public "education" this shouldn't be a surprise.
Excellent post. Thanks!
However - your blanket criticism of democracy... If you mean - unrestricted democracy or "pure democracy" - then I agree with you. However a constitutional republic (with a strictly limited government power) and democratically representatives - isn't as oppressive and warlike. Are you familiar with RJ Rummel?
Anyway - until people are ready (rational and reliability independent) for anarcho-capitalism - we need something to take us there. Of course "taking us there" means less government every year ie imagine a world where every year there was 5% less government (compounded annually)..... Every 44 years the government would be 10% of its current size.
Yes - according to precedent I've read - Kelo was decided correctly. From my point of view the Institute for Justice lawyers weren't should have also challenged the three incorrectly decided decisions the Kelo loss was based on. I've heard that they were repeatedly asked - if this is what they wanted to do - but that they declined.
m endment05/14.html
The real question we need to ask ourselves, is if you read the US Constitution as it is written and extended how would Kelo be decided. I'm no Constitutional scholar, but it would seem to be that the phase "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." would require the public to be able to use the seized area (ie a park, road, etc) or at least be for some government function that is "necessary". I have trouble accepting that an increase in government taxes or that taking private property from one to give to another private group was what most of the framers had in mind. To me this sounds like what a king would do to gain approval from a noble.
A FindLaw discussion on eminent domain:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/a
And Castle Coalition : http://www.castlecoalition.org/
Agreed.
The first lecture is quiet clear. If don't believe you're upto the task of finding 10 bugs, then that might be a good time to drop or instead audit the class.
So many people think that the "producers" (DJB here) need to be fair - fair by their (the student's) standards. The producer offers what they have - you accept their offer and/or negotiate. Once you buy, complaining (in the absence of fraud) is only evidence of your ignorance in negotiation or of what you "purchased".
Although admittedly, the course seem so interesting, in the absence of the auditing option, it might be worth taking just for the experience - even if you don't expect to pass!
"As VoIP takes off as a replacement for the traditional copper-wire network, local and state governments are going to lose more and more funding for important services like 911 and Universal Service."
You know, if you want the service provided, then either provide it yourself, or cough up the money and send the government a bonus "tax check". I idea of forcing someone to pay for something they don't want or use makes so little since to me.
Yeah yeah, I know, this thinking is so passe....
Badnarik for President - I too will vote for him.
p le sdebate.wmv?MSWMExt=.asf
I'm not sure if Kerry is the lesser.... Do you want socialism or Fascism? Badnarik makes my choice easy.
BTW - you know about the Badnarik - Cobb debate?
http://63.223.15.84/freemarketnews/09-30-04-peo
A really cool - interesting idea. But the estimated cost to build it is $700M and it supplies 200K households. I believe that's about $3500 per home.
Although this doesn't seem unusual as in Boston, ~$13B was spent rebuilding a road for less than 1M users...
If the cost could be reduced, it might really make a difference....
I was a bit vague, should have be more clean by saying : I find the writings of Rand, Dawkins, and Blackmore mutually supportive of each another.
Ohh - I hope I never implied any kind of legal protection for corporations (ie a group). I belive there is only the individual and the contractional relations formed with other individuals.
On the idea that true democracy = true freedom, I think you're overlooking something important. I assume that by true democracy you mean that majority will of all the people should be the law. This suggests that either ethics and law have no connection, or that ethics is also determined by majority will. This idea also has another name, "mob rule".
For example what if the majority will is to imprison people based some religion creed or skin color. Is this what you mean by true freedom?
This is not to suggest that I don't belive in democracy - as I do - so long as strict limits on the power of government and of the majority are in place.
Ahh - flame bate!
Are you implying that children only work and die in corporations? That when they work and die on a farm, its ok, or that it doesn't happen?
I'd suggest that children are sent to work because its necessary for survival. [Not because the parents want extra luxury items or that they are lazy.] They are sent to a corporation (instead of a farm) as their work product is of greater value to the family (and thus themselves).
The important debate here is how is it that rights and responsibility change over a human's lifetime (ie from conception to rotting corps). To answer this, one needs to answer, from what attributes of a organism do these rights come.
Exactly.
"Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. Under capitalism the state is separated from economics (production and trade), just like the state is separated from religion. Capitalism is the system of of laissez faire. It is the system of political freedom."
- http://capitalism.org/index.htm
Maybe the problem is government interference in the voluntary relationships of individuals corporations?
Thanks for writing this.
I wonder if this "new economic system" they discuss, is really just the flourishing of a system where individuals can voluntary interact without or force or significant outside interference.
Of course the unit of exchange in a market need not be gold, fait money or even a tangible item, it could anything that has inherent value to the people trading - so long it has some attributes of divisibility, longevity, and immutability.
I think a reading of the works of (probable socialist) Richard Dawkins might be illuminating on the topic.
Although he argues that the fundamental unit of selfishness is the gene and not the organism (or species). In many cases, our minds have overpowered our genes, and therefor, for humans, it might be that memes are the fundamental unit of selfishness. Susan Blackmore is another good source on the topic.
I find their writings to be mutually supportive of each another.
We have nothing close to capitalism. If anything, the US has fully adopted the socialist party platform of the early 1900s. Or present system is a mix of capitalism and statism.
What is Capitalism?
"Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights."
http://www.capitalism.org/
Yeah - yeah - thermo - my weakest...
reading my 2nd weakest - I should have read the next story!
Did I miss something in my science class?
The temperature of the microwave background radiation is 3K. This means that unless something is shielding an object (or large gas mass) it will be irradiated (heated) to this temperature. And because of the nature of blackbody radiation - the thing doing the shielding would need to be colder than 3K - else it would be a source of 'hot' radiation itself.
And then how do you take a picture of something that is only 1K? This object would emit less radiation than the 3K background - thus it would be a dark spot. It could reflect light - but not all the light is reflected (or is it due to some cool QM effect that I don't know about)? Anyway the absorbed light from other stars would most likely over years - heat the gas mass to a temperature between the 3K background and temperature of the star surface (5000K). Probably something in the neighborhood of 4K.
Conclusion - unless there is some sort of active cooling, nothing can cool down to less than temperature of the background radiation (3K). Is this an early April fools joke - or state schools worthless?
I just recalled stories on Slashdot - and elsewhere - calling for a halt to the Worldcom merger due to is potential to be a monopoly.
I quote from Wired: 10:45 a.m. Jan. 6, 1998 PST
"By eliminating each other as a major competitor and by creating one dominant Internet backbone provider, the merged entity would have the market power to exercise unilateral or concerted action to control the price of and potentially restrict access to the Internet."
Since most everyone on Slashdot is afraid of Monopolies - realize - that without government to enforce the monopoly the fears of control of price didn't actually materialize. In part this is due to the ability of new players to enter the market (unless entering isn't profitable) and the competition from the development of alternative technologies. Monopolies only become dangerous when barriers to entry are erected by law.
I guess Worldcom belied its own hype "doubling in 100 days" - and now they're dying!
As a (mostly pleased) Mandrake user since purchasing MDK 6.0, I was considering joining their club - but then I realized something:
Mandrake is a public company - it issues stock which is traded on a stock market. Mandrake can always raise cash by issuing and selling new stock. Of course this will cause the price of its stock to fall and also dilute shares of its major holders - ie its CEO, president, etc.
It is standard practice for companies to issue new stock to raise cash. That in fact is the purpose of the stock market! Short term investors don't like dilution - but if the company is run well then dilution when used to purchase an increase 'production' is a great signal.
Now Mandrake's club does offer some services - however from my point of view - they're not worth $60 per year. Their asking for what amounts to charity when they could dilute their stock is asking for me to be an altruist. Thats insulting.
If their club was changed so as to result in my legal investment in the company - say though issuance of $5 of stock each month - I'd do that. However - this issuance of stock again you likely required dilution.
So I'll just be waiting for MDK 8.2 final and its successor to come out. If they want to charge for the download, or only sell me a CD, then I'll glad to pay.
I had a similar experience with Mediaone. At the time of my installation they only supported Win95 and no not support networks. Like you or your friend who dealt with Bell Atlantic - I to argued with them and got no where.
After consulting a sysadm who has a network and home and mediaone, I was told to just let them think what they want. When the techs comeout to your site, you can probably get what you want if you don't argue with them. Remember, the techs think that management sticks also. However their job is at stake.
They arrived to find my system on a LAN and not running Win95. We talked a while and then I proceeded to do all the setup up myself. I moved the network cable to my transceiver to the cable modem (hence no LAN!) and after switching to their DHCP server I was on-line. Soon they went away.
As soon as the door closed, I rewired the network, only to find that all the additional IPs I needed were already taken. Since I had to have a LAN - I thought - maybe I can put 2 network cards in the stupid machine.
My neighborhood Cantonese computer store sold me a NE2000 card for $2 to $7 - don't recall. But it was a steal.
I installed the 2nd card, using 10.0.0.x for my LAN card and within a few minutes was up and running. Later I installed ip-masqurading and now all my internal machines have net access without any special config.
Since that time, all has been well with my setups. The only problems have been with their DHCP server. Sometimes it randomly changes my IP address - while I'm using it. After this your assigned IP is no longer matches your host name (I waited a week once). After numerous calls to tech support - I've given up and just started using a static IP. Its been months without any problems. I guess if I get messages about another machine using my IP address I'll consult the DHCP server and get a new IP.
I guess in summary -
* Don't argue or try and reason with corporate idiots. Subconsciously they already know they are idiots - but all day they have to act like they know what they're doing - else their wives will leave them and not see their kids anymore. If its a woman - she knows she'll lose her job and then be dependant on a man.
* When the techs arrive talk with them. Let them know you are fully knowledgeable, but let them think they know a little more than you. Be friendly and get to know all about the system. You'll need this info later!
* When they leave - set the system up like you want.
* When they say a system isn't support - they only mean - we don't know anything about it. IF you do - your one your own. Some cooperates think this means - do it and your off the network.