Art should be free as in freedom, because exposure to art is good for a society.
Whether or not art should be free as in beer has to do with a) how much of a barrier charging for it is (does your society suffer from such inequality of distribution of wealth, viz. the United States of America, that charging for it would prevent many people from accessing it?) and b) how much money needs to go to your artists in order to keep them producing? If you aren't completely utilitarian, you may also want to consider c) how much is fair compensation for an individual artist's labour?
In theory, to keep art free as in freedom, you want it as cheap and unrestricted as possible.
The larger point is that the value of fair use is a multiplier on the value of copyrighted material and that's what makes the analysis so hard. By this study's numbers, each dollar of copyrighted material generates another $2 or $3. So anything that leads to another $1 of paid copyright material should add even more fair use value.
I think you're absolutely on point here. Reasonable intellectual property protections encourage creation; reasonable fair use rights exponentially increase the value of that creation. What this study suggests is that by over-estimating the value of ip protections and ignoring the value of fair use rights we are, in the long run, hampering total productivity. The question isn't whether fair use is better than copyright, but where the optimal balance lies, and that's something that will need to take into account many ethical, political and economical consequences.
The development of pre-existing knowledge contributes $4.5 trillion to the US economy. This really shouldn't be that surprising. How many great ideas are completely new? It seems reasonable that many great ideas are actually refinements of other people's prior work.
The ecological damage of a fallout-free fusion bomb is still incredibly high, though. These sort of things would kick so much dust into the atmosphere that using more than a couple would carry just as much risk of 'nuclear winter.'
In fact, it'd be even worse without the fallout, because we'd have the freezing cold and total collapse but no awesome mutants or psychic powers.
Knowing that the barrier to copy is so low, perhaps you should have designed your product in such a way that you could offer added value over time to legitimate customers through updates, support, or some sort of syndicated content?
I know that this sounds cold, but if your aim is to create something useful, all you need to do is create something useful, and if that's your aim you should be satisfied. If your aim is make money, however, you need to employ at least a little business sense. Throwing code out into the wild when you know full well that there is little incentive for people to reward your effortts is not good business sense. I'm not saying don't create; I'm saying that if your intention is to make money by creating, you need to create in such a way that you will make money.
If they haven't got a recording contract, were they really going to make much selling their music in the first place?
There are reasons that your brother's band isn't making money, but peer-to-peer is not going to rank particularly high on the list if you really investigate. Concert attendance fluctuates from city to city, year to year, and has a lot to do with local culture, the quality of local promoters, the specific situations surrounding music venues, etc. CD sales were never cash cows for independent bands, even before Napster; when you add up the price of engineering the record in the first place and pressing the discs, you won't see high profits even if you sell out a whole run.
I'm speaking not as a random Slashdot commentator here, but an arts journalist fairly embedded with my region's musicians and local labels. Making money as an independent band is hard, so significantly hard that peer-to-peer really doesn't have much of an impact. Your brother should be pleased that people are at least enjoying his work.
Smarter teens likely are not having less sex because they're smarter.
It's more likely that the prevailing anti-intellectualism in young Western society means that the smartest are ostracized, reducing their access to partners. Or conversely, perhaps those who have low access to partners have nothing else to do with their time than study, and so tend to get higher grades. Or perhaps more intelligent teens, for whatever reason, are less prone to own up to sleeping around a lot while answering surveys.
Your analogy does not hold. That whole 'open letter' is about the Internet. You can't use the Internet to create child pornography, only to distribute it.
Creating child pornography still requires a child and a camera in the same physical location, something that conventional law enforcement still has some ability to prevent, and that's not even getting into the fact that those two things are not at all on the same ethical level.
I agree that many addictive drugs, like cocaine and crystal meth, have the potential for widespread harm. But whose life was ever ruined by cannabis, or even LSD?
No one has ever or will ever die from an overdose of marijuana. The "War on Integers" may be stupid, but it isn't currently subjecting tens of thousands of innocent Americans to unjust imprisonment, disenfranchisement, and the risk of violent rape and death. I don't want to sound too harsh, here, but the "War on Integers" is an avoidable nuisance. The "War on Drugs" is horrifically ruining the lives of many of your fellow citizens, radtea.
If you leave your WAP open right out of the box, you are broadcasting the SSID of your network all around. That is not akin to leaving the door of your house open-it's akin to leaving a bucket of water on the sidewalk with a sign that says 'Water.'
No, you aren't personally inviting people to drink from your internet bucket, but it's there, it has a sign on it, and it's open. If your intention was not to share, don't you think you're sending a bit of a mixed message?
If I leave my door wide open the neighbours are welcome to drop in and say hello. I do, in fact, leave my wireless access point open for people in my neighbourhood to use. I like the people in my neighbourhood.
A better conundrum is, why do some (I said *some*) pro-choicers insist that an innocent unborn human has no rights whatsoever, but that even the most vile drug-dealing, rapist, murderer should never be executed?
Because an unborn human is not a human, it's (up until the very late stages of pregnancy, at least) a non-sentient mass of growing cells. People have rights, cells don't.
My web browser allowed me to download this utility which allowed me to circumvent this encryption. Is it in violation of the DMCA?
My operating system allowed me to operate this web browser which allowed me to download this utility which allowed me to circumvent this encryption. Is it in violation of the DMCA?
My computer allowed me to run my operating system which allowed me to download this utility which allowed me to circumvent this encryption. Is it in violation of the DMCA?
My university's computer store sold me the computer which allowed me to run my operating system which allowed me to download this utility which allowed me to circumvent this encryption. Is it in violation of the DMCA?
My government runs the university which runs the computer store which sold me the computer which allowed me to run my operating system which allowed me to download this utility which allowed me to circumvent this encryption. Is it in violation of the DMCA?
My fellow citizens elected the government which runs the university which runs the computer store which sold me the computer which allowed me to run my operating system which allowed me to download this utility which allowed me to circumvent this encryption. Are they in violation of the DMCA?
Some MPAA members are citizens who elected the government which runs the university which runs the computer store which sold me the computer which allowed me to run my operating system which allowed me to download this utility which allowed me to circumvent this encryption. Are they in violation of the DMCA?
Some MPAA members worship a deity who allegedly convinced them to elect the government which runs the university which runs the computer store which sold me the computer which allowed me to run my operating system which allowed me to download this utility which allowed me to circumvent this encryption. Is He in violation of the DMCA?
The studies that suggested measles-mumps-rubella vaccination caused autism were widely discredited.
Seriously? 'Considering the track records of previous vaccines?' Does the word polio mean anything to you? The track records of previous vaccines suggest that they've saved millions of lives, Cynical Jim.
If global warming was reduced by 10%, the increase in climate stability would pay off. Easily. Unstable weather patterns cause a huge, huge amount of economic damage, so much so that pollution-reduction plans will pay off for a long time before hitting any sort of diminishing returns.
Slashdot Mirror
Art should be free as in freedom, because exposure to art is good for a society.
Whether or not art should be free as in beer has to do with a) how much of a barrier charging for it is (does your society suffer from such inequality of distribution of wealth, viz. the United States of America, that charging for it would prevent many people from accessing it?) and b) how much money needs to go to your artists in order to keep them producing? If you aren't completely utilitarian, you may also want to consider c) how much is fair compensation for an individual artist's labour?
In theory, to keep art free as in freedom, you want it as cheap and unrestricted as possible.
The development of pre-existing knowledge contributes $4.5 trillion to the US economy. This really shouldn't be that surprising. How many great ideas are completely new? It seems reasonable that many great ideas are actually refinements of other people's prior work.
The ecological damage of a fallout-free fusion bomb is still incredibly high, though. These sort of things would kick so much dust into the atmosphere that using more than a couple would carry just as much risk of 'nuclear winter.'
In fact, it'd be even worse without the fallout, because we'd have the freezing cold and total collapse but no awesome mutants or psychic powers.
This is quite possibly the finest trolling I have seen on Slashdot in years.
An American president will be blinded by a laser-flashlight before the decade ends. Easily. You know it's going to happen.
Knowing that the barrier to copy is so low, perhaps you should have designed your product in such a way that you could offer added value over time to legitimate customers through updates, support, or some sort of syndicated content?
I know that this sounds cold, but if your aim is to create something useful, all you need to do is create something useful, and if that's your aim you should be satisfied. If your aim is make money, however, you need to employ at least a little business sense. Throwing code out into the wild when you know full well that there is little incentive for people to reward your effortts is not good business sense. I'm not saying don't create; I'm saying that if your intention is to make money by creating, you need to create in such a way that you will make money.
If they haven't got a recording contract, were they really going to make much selling their music in the first place?
There are reasons that your brother's band isn't making money, but peer-to-peer is not going to rank particularly high on the list if you really investigate. Concert attendance fluctuates from city to city, year to year, and has a lot to do with local culture, the quality of local promoters, the specific situations surrounding music venues, etc. CD sales were never cash cows for independent bands, even before Napster; when you add up the price of engineering the record in the first place and pressing the discs, you won't see high profits even if you sell out a whole run.
I'm speaking not as a random Slashdot commentator here, but an arts journalist fairly embedded with my region's musicians and local labels. Making money as an independent band is hard, so significantly hard that peer-to-peer really doesn't have much of an impact. Your brother should be pleased that people are at least enjoying his work.
Smarter teens likely are not having less sex because they're smarter.
It's more likely that the prevailing anti-intellectualism in young Western society means that the smartest are ostracized, reducing their access to partners. Or conversely, perhaps those who have low access to partners have nothing else to do with their time than study, and so tend to get higher grades. Or perhaps more intelligent teens, for whatever reason, are less prone to own up to sleeping around a lot while answering surveys.
I think that the laws are unfair is exactly his point, mattgreen.
The students may not be surprised that they're getting sued, but it's still unjust. The law is wrong.
Me: "The condom broke."
My friend from down the street: "The pill didn't work."
You: "No abortions..."?
Your analogy does not hold. That whole 'open letter' is about the Internet. You can't use the Internet to create child pornography, only to distribute it.
Creating child pornography still requires a child and a camera in the same physical location, something that conventional law enforcement still has some ability to prevent, and that's not even getting into the fact that those two things are not at all on the same ethical level.
I agree that many addictive drugs, like cocaine and crystal meth, have the potential for widespread harm. But whose life was ever ruined by cannabis, or even LSD?
No one has ever or will ever die from an overdose of marijuana. The "War on Integers" may be stupid, but it isn't currently subjecting tens of thousands of innocent Americans to unjust imprisonment, disenfranchisement, and the risk of violent rape and death. I don't want to sound too harsh, here, but the "War on Integers" is an avoidable nuisance. The "War on Drugs" is horrifically ruining the lives of many of your fellow citizens, radtea.
If you leave your WAP open right out of the box, you are broadcasting the SSID of your network all around. That is not akin to leaving the door of your house open-it's akin to leaving a bucket of water on the sidewalk with a sign that says 'Water.'
No, you aren't personally inviting people to drink from your internet bucket, but it's there, it has a sign on it, and it's open. If your intention was not to share, don't you think you're sending a bit of a mixed message?
If I leave my door wide open the neighbours are welcome to drop in and say hello. I do, in fact, leave my wireless access point open for people in my neighbourhood to use. I like the people in my neighbourhood.
If you leave your access point open, you are inviting people to use it. If you don't want people to use your access point, put a password on it.
Open source is the anarchic ideal. People contribute of their free will, with no coercion, to help themselves and others.
The free market ideal would involve some exchange of goods or services, which is not really related to FOSS development.
A better conundrum is, why do some (I said *some*) pro-choicers insist that an innocent unborn human has no rights whatsoever, but that even the most vile drug-dealing, rapist, murderer should never be executed?
Because an unborn human is not a human, it's (up until the very late stages of pregnancy, at least) a non-sentient mass of growing cells. People have rights, cells don't.
Step 1: Pot
Step 2: Kettle
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Layton!
My web browser allowed me to download this utility which allowed me to circumvent this encryption. Is it in violation of the DMCA?
My operating system allowed me to operate this web browser which allowed me to download this utility which allowed me to circumvent this encryption. Is it in violation of the DMCA?
My computer allowed me to run my operating system which allowed me to download this utility which allowed me to circumvent this encryption. Is it in violation of the DMCA?
My university's computer store sold me the computer which allowed me to run my operating system which allowed me to download this utility which allowed me to circumvent this encryption. Is it in violation of the DMCA?
My government runs the university which runs the computer store which sold me the computer which allowed me to run my operating system which allowed me to download this utility which allowed me to circumvent this encryption. Is it in violation of the DMCA?
My fellow citizens elected the government which runs the university which runs the computer store which sold me the computer which allowed me to run my operating system which allowed me to download this utility which allowed me to circumvent this encryption. Are they in violation of the DMCA?
Some MPAA members are citizens who elected the government which runs the university which runs the computer store which sold me the computer which allowed me to run my operating system which allowed me to download this utility which allowed me to circumvent this encryption. Are they in violation of the DMCA?
Some MPAA members worship a deity who allegedly convinced them to elect the government which runs the university which runs the computer store which sold me the computer which allowed me to run my operating system which allowed me to download this utility which allowed me to circumvent this encryption. Is He in violation of the DMCA?
etc., etc.
The studies that suggested measles-mumps-rubella vaccination caused autism were widely discredited.
Seriously? 'Considering the track records of previous vaccines?' Does the word polio mean anything to you? The track records of previous vaccines suggest that they've saved millions of lives, Cynical Jim.
The pap doesn't cure HPV. It just detects it.
How is $400 mil a huge expense? That's a dollar a person. Doesn't your government spend more than that blowing up Iraqis every week?
With this Black Tyrano, I can finally exterminate those pesky apes!
If global warming was reduced by 10%, the increase in climate stability would pay off. Easily. Unstable weather patterns cause a huge, huge amount of economic damage, so much so that pollution-reduction plans will pay off for a long time before hitting any sort of diminishing returns.
Starbucks already has the money, once the gift card's been bought. Why not at least blow it all on Jones sodas, or pastries?