A Google search for: "I openly ask others to reprint my writings, and even stick their own names on it if they want" brings up this article. Guess whose comment shows up first?
The FCC is one of the reasons we're in this mess in the first place. Sacking McDowell and all the other bureaucrats would be a good first step towards a genuinely neutral internet.
Well, I'm not sure how important outside help is to the equation. For example, the French didn't assist the American revolutionaries until it was clear that they had a decent shot of winning already. Outside powers don't tend to take altruistic risks, after all.
You might be interested in John Robb's "Global Guerrillas" blog. Robb theorizes that with the Iraq war and other conflicts, we're seeing a new generation of warfare, in which small, loosely networked groups are increasingly able to fight effectively against traditional state forces.
Sure, but I'm not saying "just start fighting". If we get to the point of Rex 84/Garden Plot/etc going into effect, there's going to be widespread unrest, and thus a decent amount of support for a rebellion. The rebels will need a decent strategy, but they're not automatically hopelessly doomed to defeat.
Fat suburbanite with a 9mm is not stopping a mechanized division. Ever. 1 million fat guys wont either. The idea that some basic firearms will over-throw a tyranic government is a historical fantasy
I used to agree with you. Then I read an interesting analysis of how modern fighting armaments such as tanks and fighter planes are COMPLETELY dependent upon the supply chain that provides them fuel and maintenence. In a conventional war, with a delineated battle-front, the military can protect these supply chains by keeping them behind the battle front.
However, in a situation where the military is forced to police a distributed country (Iraq anybody?), these supply chains are exposed. The oponents of some future tyranical government could attempt to even-out the battlefield by knocking out these supply chains. Then it becomes a battle of men with rifles, which the U.S. population has many of. Not to mention that not every soldier would be willing to kill citizens of their own country.
I'm certainly not interested in this happening, but I wouldn't dismiss the capability of armed citizens to fight a tyranical government as "fantasy".
"When men hire themselves out to shoot other men to order, asking nothing about the justice of their cause, I don't care if they are shot themselves." --Herbert Spencer
Capitalism, outside of Randian fantasy worlds, has always been marked by government coercion on behalf of the owners of large amounts of capital (hence the name).
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for genuinely free markets, but capitalism is a different beast entirely.
The onus to provide supporting evidence lies with the party making the positive claim. I'm making a negative claim.
If you care to present evidence to support "information is property", I'll gladly refute that evidence. Otherwise, save your posturing for someone who cares.
What exactly is it with so many technical people being anarchists? The general public has no desire for anarchy. "What exactly is it with so many technical people opposing theft, murder, and slavery? The general public has no desire to oppose these things."
Fixed that for you.
If those who value a land with no government are really serious about what they say why not move to such a country? No such place exists. Areas not claimed by "legitimate" governments are claimed by groups that act as governments. A government is just a mafia with flags, and conversely, a mafia is just a government without flags.
Even if such an unclaimed territory existed, what good would running away to it do? The governments of the world would carry on killing and exploiting just the same. Anarchists seek to expose these brutal organizations for what they really are, and to attack the double-standards that allows them to operate in the first place.
Afghanistan for example is always looking for bright people to help build its economy and infrastructure. Seriously? Afghanistan has (at least) two governments. How is that an improvement?
There are plenty of anarchists (including anarcho-"capitalists") who have used natural rights to justify anarchy. Lysander Spooner and Murray Rothbard are two major ones.
Of course, imaginary property doesn't make sense from a natural rights perspective, either.
I do not believe that Slashdot is the correct forum for this debate, so I will end this here. Alright. I'm still going to respond, though. Let me know if you care to continue elsewhere.
I see no evidence of non-profit infringement "steadily" killing anything "P2P File-Sharing Ruins Physical Piracy Business"
Software copyrights and patents I have never made a case against, to bring up FOSS is without merit. As a FOSS programmer who also makes his living in IT, I believe copyright and patents need to be drastically cut on software, if not removed altogether. I'm just trying to cover all bases, here. If we don't need copyright for artistic works, and we don't need it for software, then what do we need it for?
I believe I have cited an example that proves that copyright, patent, and trademark are needed because this is happening in China: This is an argument for patents, not copyrights. I want to put the copyright argument to bed first. As for trademarks, I don't see them as totally invalid insofar as they are a prohibition against fraud.
The thing to keep in mind is that when people enjoy an artistic work, they generally want to support the artist who created it, in order to ensure that said artist continues to create things. People who engage in infringement, by and large, still continue to buy artistic works. This is why there's been no drop in sales to correspond with the increase in infringement.
For-profit infringement isn't a problem either. In fact, non-profit infringement has steadily been killing it. The people selling bootleg CDs and DVDs can't compete with the file sharers on price or ease of access, and they don't provide any of the benefits of supporting the artist directly. If the bootleggers try to trick customers by pretending to be endorsed by the artist, they can be sued for fraud.
In the case of copyrights on software, we have an even better counterexample in the form of open-source software. Plenty of resources are contributed towards OSS development by major for-profit corporations. These companies are able to take advantage of OSS without contributing, and yet they contribute anyway.
I think this presents a pretty strong case against the necessity of copyright. If you don't care to dispute it, I'll move on to patents (if you're still interested).
No copyright means that no one will ever be able to make money from their intellectual property because there will never be any intellectual property. Thus, you destroy 1) books 2) scientific invention (no patents) 3) music 4) trade secrets or products. R&D no longer exists (it makes you no money) and companies as we know them would fall apart. We don't even really need to consider live performances. Even with the massive increase in music copyright infringement, the business model of selling CDs (and individual tracks) seems to be doing just fine. So what gives? How much infringement does it take to collapse the music industry, or to have any negative effect at all?
Also, what do you make of the sales of Radiohead's "pay what you want" album? If your argument was correct in the case of music, shouldn't they have made little or no money from it?
Slashdot Mirror
Oh man, I'd be so rusty it would just be embarrassing.
Are any of the other old folks still around?
Hey Fear. I figured I'd find someone I recognized in this thread. ;-)
-"Error"
Windows is shareware now?
That's odd, I have plenty of things on my bill that I didn't order, some of them deeply disturbing.
A Google search for: "I openly ask others to reprint my writings, and even stick their own names on it if they want" brings up this article. Guess whose comment shows up first?
I bet they show you advertisements for Hushmail.
holes in (walls or computers)
not:
(holes in walls) or computers
The FCC is one of the reasons we're in this mess in the first place. Sacking McDowell and all the other bureaucrats would be a good first step towards a genuinely neutral internet.
Whoops, I should have made that link go here. Good list of starter posts.
Well, I'm not sure how important outside help is to the equation. For example, the French didn't assist the American revolutionaries until it was clear that they had a decent shot of winning already. Outside powers don't tend to take altruistic risks, after all.
You might be interested in John Robb's "Global Guerrillas" blog. Robb theorizes that with the Iraq war and other conflicts, we're seeing a new generation of warfare, in which small, loosely networked groups are increasingly able to fight effectively against traditional state forces.
Sure, but I'm not saying "just start fighting". If we get to the point of Rex 84/Garden Plot/etc going into effect, there's going to be widespread unrest, and thus a decent amount of support for a rebellion. The rebels will need a decent strategy, but they're not automatically hopelessly doomed to defeat.
That's not an "artillery, cruise missiles, and attack helicopters" situation, then. Rounding up dissidents is still a "men with rifles" situation.
From a discussion elsewhere:
Buy guns, then stop paying taxes.
"When men hire themselves out to shoot other men to order, asking nothing about the justice of their cause, I don't care if they are shot themselves."
--Herbert Spencer
Capitalism, outside of Randian fantasy worlds, has always been marked by government coercion on behalf of the owners of large amounts of capital (hence the name).
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for genuinely free markets, but capitalism is a different beast entirely.
The onus to provide supporting evidence lies with the party making the positive claim. I'm making a negative claim.
If you care to present evidence to support "information is property", I'll gladly refute that evidence. Otherwise, save your posturing for someone who cares.
Fixed that for you. If those who value a land with no government are really serious about what they say why not move to such a country? No such place exists. Areas not claimed by "legitimate" governments are claimed by groups that act as governments. A government is just a mafia with flags, and conversely, a mafia is just a government without flags.
Even if such an unclaimed territory existed, what good would running away to it do? The governments of the world would carry on killing and exploiting just the same. Anarchists seek to expose these brutal organizations for what they really are, and to attack the double-standards that allows them to operate in the first place. Afghanistan for example is always looking for bright people to help build its economy and infrastructure. Seriously? Afghanistan has (at least) two governments. How is that an improvement?
Sounds like a good idea. "abolishcopyright.com" is available too, if you want to grab it.
n/t
There are plenty of anarchists (including anarcho-"capitalists") who have used natural rights to justify anarchy. Lysander Spooner and Murray Rothbard are two major ones.
Of course, imaginary property doesn't make sense from a natural rights perspective, either.
The thing to keep in mind is that when people enjoy an artistic work, they generally want to support the artist who created it, in order to ensure that said artist continues to create things. People who engage in infringement, by and large, still continue to buy artistic works. This is why there's been no drop in sales to correspond with the increase in infringement.
For-profit infringement isn't a problem either. In fact, non-profit infringement has steadily been killing it. The people selling bootleg CDs and DVDs can't compete with the file sharers on price or ease of access, and they don't provide any of the benefits of supporting the artist directly. If the bootleggers try to trick customers by pretending to be endorsed by the artist, they can be sued for fraud.
In the case of copyrights on software, we have an even better counterexample in the form of open-source software. Plenty of resources are contributed towards OSS development by major for-profit corporations. These companies are able to take advantage of OSS without contributing, and yet they contribute anyway.
I think this presents a pretty strong case against the necessity of copyright. If you don't care to dispute it, I'll move on to patents (if you're still interested).
Didn't try very hard, did you?
1) books
2) scientific invention (no patents)
3) music
4) trade secrets or products. R&D no longer exists (it makes you no money) and companies as we know them would fall apart. We don't even really need to consider live performances. Even with the massive increase in music copyright infringement, the business model of selling CDs (and individual tracks) seems to be doing just fine. So what gives? How much infringement does it take to collapse the music industry, or to have any negative effect at all?
Also, what do you make of the sales of Radiohead's "pay what you want" album? If your argument was correct in the case of music, shouldn't they have made little or no money from it?