Despite all the advances in in technology and manufacturing, old musical gear still reigns supreme in many areas. A vintage Neumann U47 mic (like the Beatles used) fetches a tidy sum and sounds better than most anything made these days. They don't make the exact replacement vacuum tube for it anymore, but there are close substitutes.
And speaking of tubes - the rich nonlinear sound of a tube amplifier hasn't yet been replaced by a more modern equivalent, especially for electric guitar. I think one of the articles mentioned vacuum tubes.
Piano, horns, guitar - most all acoustic instruments have nice sounding synthesized sampled versions that can be had at a fraction of the cost. These can be played from your computer or a keyboard. Yet the physical instruments, as expensive and potentially out of tune as they are, will probably always be preferred because of their human interface. Similarly, drum machines, which do not show up late or steal your girlfriend, are not replacing human drummers playing acoustic drums, except in 80's music and certain "techo" genres.
The downsides to eliminating copyrights are vastly exagerated by the middlemen who want to convince you that they are the driving force behind great art.
Without copyrights, the marketplace probably will change. With that I agree. But in other respects, I totally disagree with your reasoning.
$200 million movies might get made, if enough box office reciepts could be anticipated. This should be the case if it is a movie that is best experienced on the big screen (as opposed to a computer monitor). If profits in that neighborhood can't be had, then maybe studios shouldn't put that much money into them. Or devise ways to do things cheaper.
People will spend years writing books if they are doing it for artistic expression - even if it means having a day job. If the book is being writting mostly from a profit motive, then it is probably best that it not be written at all. You'd be surprised how many books were written before copyright was invented.
You really miss the point of art if you think that all professional creative effort would be pointless without copyrights. Many of my friends, like all current superstars have done in their past, engage in artistic endeavors as hobbies while working a day job. And I'm not talking fast food - do you think artists are idiot savants, completely unskilled in other areas? They do it because they derive tremendous satisfaction from that. And if millions of people wanted to download their art, and in the process make them famous, I'm sure they'd be tickled. Anyone who decides to creates art mainly for profit should be free to try, but not at the expense of the public's freedoms. These "art for the sake of profit" artists should not compel our country to devise a special subsidy/welfare program just for them. Who honestly thinks that art needs that kind of protection? Great art has always thrived with or without it. And fame has its rewards. With the "government subsidies of copyright" in place, however, a lot of crap gets manufactured that has little artistic merit. There should be a barrier to entry for art. It should be something you're passionate enough about making that you will do it regardless of profit motives. That barrier to entry is a good thing, as it filters out a whole lot of crap.
If all of the money that consumers spent on the copyright middlemen wasn't spent that way, we'd have lots of copyright middlemen out of work. But it wouldn't even come close to tens of millions. Would the copyright middleman industry become pointless? Yes. But it already is. All of the money that the public is paying over and over again on copyrighted culture that should have been in the public domain already if constitutional terms were in place - all of that money could be spent on other things instead, thereby raising each consumer's standard of living and injecting money into more worthwhile industries (than the copyright middleman). Popular movies with great cinematography would still make money at the box office. And popular musicians would still fill large venues for $20-$50/person even if there were no copyrights. Ever heard of the Grateful Dead?
And yet band after band after band after artist signs with labels.
More artists are starting to realize that they don't need the labels. Recording, production and distribution are now all quite affordable to individuals. The artists that continue to sign suffer from the "elephant restrained by a shoe-string tied to a stake in the ground" syndrome, whatever you call that. There are so many stories of how the labels screw artists out there. Artists will eventually wake up. They don't need the labels anymore. Understandably, that causes a bit of anxiety for the labels.
are there some that do just some funky new thing?
Perhaps you've heard of Gillian Welch? She's one of the most highly acclaimed artists out there in recent times. And she wants nothing to do with the big labels - she started her own. There are other examples like this that show the way.
Re:Like the last 100 instances, the school was rig
on
Sean In The Middle
·
· Score: 2
In this case, it does not appear that there was any premeditated wish to kill anybody. The kid simply responded in a relatively natural and understandable way to the bully's taunting comment "One of these days, he's going to bring a gun to school and shoot us". There's a big difference between his sarcastic response to their ribbing and actually compiling a list of people to kill, etc.
In this case, there is no evidence that the kid was fantasizing about shooting his tormentors. It was one of the bullies who brought up the "geek shoots up the school" meme.
But it was the bullies who brought up the "gun talk" in this case, probably in a calculated way. I'm sure they are having a good laugh about it amongst themselves right now.
We have to remember that everyone has the potential to be victim or villain. Everyone has a breaking point at which they can no longer tolerate being the victim. At that point, they will stoop to the level of the aggressors (or possibly stoop even lower) and become villains themselves.
Above all, we need to keep in mind cause and effect. We need to nip the bulleying in the bud before it gets to the point that it consumes the victims every thought to the detriment of education, sanity, and public safety.
There's *NOTHING* good in the world which can be attributed to religion, which could/would not have happened without it. But there are many bad things which nobody would have been driven to do without power-mad popes and other religious figures forcing them to do.
You're really naive if you believe that those people who murdered and committed other atrocities with religious justifications would have been kind and gentle human beings if only it weren't for religion. They would simply find another justification for being murderers or assholes. People have been wronging eachother long before there were bibles. We wouldn't be an inch closer to utopia if all religions disappeared.
Which Bible did you read that didn't say "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", and that "there is no higher rule than this", or "thou shall not kill"?
All of the problems you mistakenly attribute to religion are, in fact, problems with human nature. Not a few evil leaders. Not a few extremists. Not religion. All of those putative "causes" could mysteriously vanish and we would still have the same atrocities committed using different justifications. Capiche?
The point is that religion is a tool for manipulation of masses, whether it was the intention of its creators from the beginnig I just don't know
Actually, the point is that computers are a tool for manipulation of the masses, as are televisions, credit cards, governments, novels, and fortune cookies. Whether it was the intention of the creators of these things from the beginning I just don't know.
And as for the Christians, they have gone so far as to sanction rape, murder, war, and even genocide.
Oh really? I have a news flash for you: these same dirty deeds have also been sanctioned by various Males, Atheists, Barbarians, Persons between 5'11" and 6'4", certain Indian tribes, people wearing trenchcoats, and even some persons living in Africa - in short, the one thing in common is that we have a pattern of people with various attributes and affiliations committing atrocities. So where does the problem lie? Human fucking nature, that's where.
and people holding similar beliefs today are held in very low esteem in enlightened circles. Just because Larry Wall made a useful and popular language doesn't mean that everything he thinks, believes, does or stands for is the same. It all has to be evaluated on the merits.
You are essentially making the same point as the author you are refuting: people should be judged on their individual acts, and so should the practitioners of various religions.
I agree, look at some of the truely great, recent accomplishments of religion
Give credit where credit is due: people do stupid and violent things without the help of religion. Just because people are violent and stupid, that doesn't mean the all religions are bad. Do you think the people in your examples are actually following the central religious ( and very libertarian ) tenet "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"?
By your logic, you could list some accomplishments of Linux as:
Actually, you can say all medicine is bogus, but you will be proven wrong
You can say that all medicines are harmful, and you would be right. They all have side effects and can cause harm, especially if used incorrectly. Same goes for the application of religions.
Nah, they don't all rely upon snake oil salesmen. And when you boil things down, a lot of them have the central tenet "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Nothing quacky about that. Makes perfect sense to me that the world would be a much better place if people followed that basic instruction. That instruction is pretty much the gist of Christianity, and the ancient texts quote Jesus as saying so.
Scientology, on the other hand, is not a religion, but rather a business based upon IP. Religions are open source. This distinction doesn't hinge upon whether any of the claims made are true or not - it's just a useful way to distinguish a religion (whose putative purpose is the betterment of mankind) and a business whose own founder joked about inventing his "religion" so that he could make money from it. You can make a distinction between the motives & intent of L. Ron Hubbard vs Jesus/Mohommad/Budda et al.
The more religious stuff is studied, the more religions fall back behind the argument that God is deliberately hiding from any scientific testing. Kind of a funny god if you ask me.
Is that so? Then I bet you'd find it interesting that the more we study the physical universe, the stranger and more inexplicable it gets! At our current level of understanding, the universe is intrinsically probabilistic! Kind of a funny universe, if you ask me. And it's also nice to know that we have so much power over the universe that any time we observe experiments (such as the two slit experiment), we can force the universe to hide what it was doing and switch from wave behavior to particle behavior.
Now this is a bit tongue in cheek, but I think I make a point.
Also consider that Science proves absolutely nothing. We build models and that help us make more accurate predictions. But a difference in a measurement of one part in a zillion can invalidate the model in favor of a new model, complete with drastically different philosophical implications.
Furthermore, you can't even prove your own existence, much less anything else. The very best you can do is "I think, therefore I am". But that is good enough for most. But get this: to the best of our knowledge, any boundaries between you and the rest of the matter and energy in the universe are somewhat arbitrary, and you can think of the universe as a collective whole. Heck, people even write wave functions for the whole universe (which you are a part of). So when you say "I think, therefore I am", the universe itself can also lay claim to this same self awareness with the same validity that you do, since you are just a wrinkle in its fabric. So substitue "God" for "universe" and you have no more contradiction inherent in God's existence and awareness than in that of your existence/awareness or the laws of the universe itself. Now I'm not saying that this is necessarily true, but it is just as plausible as your own existence.
Seems to me that this power is contingent upon "promoting the progress of science and useful arts". It's not at all clear that the UCITA will result in progress in the sciences and useful arts.
Re:Programming an alarm clock...
on
The Hacker Ethic
·
· Score: 2
It takes 30 seconds to "program" an alarm clock... wind, set, switch on, done. How long would it take to program the computer in your example?
7 seconds! ( I type slowly )
crontab -e
0 6 * * */usr/local/bin/mpg123 song.mp3
Editing it to change times should take even less time
Since both democracy and capitalism depend so much on informed decisions, I guess explains why powerful entities are so good at dealing with the media. Luckily the Internet, and sites like this, can be a way to eliminate that problem (I assume the CPRM committee was directly influenced by the media discussion, maybe even Andre's interview here). .
The importance of that statement cannot be understated. People are getting informed and a little organized. Hopefully groups like the EFF and such can become a more powerful voice of reason. But it's up to us.
For goods and services such as health care, education, law enforcement, rail transportation, road networks etc., socialism is the best system.
Not so fast there with those conclusions, pardner! Socialist systems have no competition to spur them to improve. If the socialist service sucks, and no private alternative is available, then you are up a creek. I work in healthcare along side plenty of ex Canadian docs and nurses with all types of horror stories of how long people would have to wait for an operation to end their pain. And in many cases, the care simply would not be provided and the canadian citizen has to fly down to the states and get pay to get the care they need. It is illegal for Canadian docs to even offer alternative services to those of the socialist system. This is unlike the British system where there are private health care alternatives for those who aren't content to wait a long time to get service. It's all about options - options are a good thing from a consumer standpoint.
I would like to see private education companies compete for the business of running local schools (they would win contracts and use public buildings). Outcomes could be measured and contracts would be renewed on a merit basis. If the education company gets a good rep, then they'll get more contracts. In the current public school system, there is little pressure for schools to compete and improve.
I agree with you on law enforcement.
As far as IP relates to either Socialism or Capitalism, I think that IP is an inherently anticompetitive construct. I would like to see companies compete purely on the basis of timely delivery of quality products and services at the best possible price. IP adds artificial constraints to competition and in that sense is anticapitalist IMHO. Allowing ideas and patterns to become "capital" stifles the competition that is essential to capitalism.
Last time I checked, Canada is capitalist. You can buy stuff and sell stuff, and you can set the prices for what you are buying and selling (more or less).
Unless you are a health care provider....In that case it is illegal to try to sell your services outside of the govt run socialist system.
Pharmaceuticals is the one area where I think a limited form of IP might still be useful, since the R&D and FDA approval process is so long. If we are to have IP, then I think it would only make sense to protect the IP for a period of time in proportion to the time it takes to develop and test a product of that genre. So software and lots of computer tech stuff would expire very quickly, where drugs would have a little more time to recoup the huge development costs.
I think that the implied "one to many" relationship is not valid. Only explicit contracts should be respected. The "implicit" social contract whereby people are supposed to sacrifice their freedoms for a (increasingly less) limited period of time so that new ideas can be brought to light - that contract is flawed. Society gets the short end of that stick. Plenty of great ideas and works were created and shared long before there was a social contract for IP. The intelletual process is not going to stop simply because the relatively recent invention of "intellectual property" is repealed.
If one person came up with some ideas or patterns to solve a particular problem for which they were paid the going rate, it doesn't seem right to prevent other people from using those ideas or patterns as part of a solution to other problems. If every solution to a problem can become "intellectual property", then innovation is stifled by cumbersome patent searches, petty litigation, and taxing licensing fees - basically what we have now. All of this machinery may be a way for some people to extract more money out of others, but it is mainly just friction. Better to forget the headache of "intellectual property" and create ideas and patterns as "works for hire" or as a form of self expression or hobby. Smart people will still make plenty of money from those who need their services. And those smart people will be even more effective since they will be free to draw upon any ideas or patterns that have come before and not have to waste time researching patent databases, etc.
It's all about adjusting your business models. Business models which hinge upon IP (artificial enforced scarcity & curbing freedom of people to do as they want with ideas and patterns) - those business models are not necessary in a modern society and they fly in the face of intellectual freedom. They are distastefull in their arrogance and disregard for liberty, and simply not necessary.
We can do just fine without IP and eliminate all of this so and so suing such and such BS that is just a waste of our time and money. It's time for a more enlightened existence where intellectual freedoms and liberty take priority over corporate interests. But I realize I'm going to have to live in this "real world" instead.
Instead of thinking of IP as property think of it as labor Yes, intellectual pursuits that result in ideas and patterns do require labor.
When you take someone's IP without their permission you are instituting a form of slavery.
This is ludicrous. Nobody is forced to create patterns or ideas. Hence the comparison with slavery (forced work) doesn't hold. If somebody hires you to write some code to help solve one of their problems, they will pay you for your labor. If the code happens to fall into other hands and ends up helping others solve their problems too, that doesn't change the fact that you got paid to solve the first person's problem. Fact is, we don't need IP laws for intellectual workers to get paid. They will get paid any time somebody has a hard problem and needs a smart person to solve it. There is a never ending supply of these problems that people will pay to have solved, irregardless of how the code in your solution is later used.
Helping people solve their specific problems using your smarts => Good Business model
Extorting money through artificially imposed scarcity of patterns and ideas (via IP laws) => Bad Business Model & Unenlightened Businessman IMHO
Slashdot Mirror
Despite all the advances in in technology and manufacturing, old musical gear still reigns supreme in many areas. A vintage Neumann U47 mic (like the Beatles used) fetches a tidy sum and sounds better than most anything made these days. They don't make the exact replacement vacuum tube for it anymore, but there are close substitutes.
And speaking of tubes - the rich nonlinear sound of a tube amplifier hasn't yet been replaced by a more modern equivalent, especially for electric guitar. I think one of the articles mentioned vacuum tubes.
Piano, horns, guitar - most all acoustic instruments have nice sounding synthesized sampled versions that can be had at a fraction of the cost. These can be played from your computer or a keyboard. Yet the physical instruments, as expensive and potentially out of tune as they are, will probably always be preferred because of their human interface. Similarly, drum machines, which do not show up late or steal your girlfriend, are not replacing human drummers playing acoustic drums, except in 80's music and certain "techo" genres.
The downsides to eliminating copyrights are vastly exagerated by the middlemen who want to convince you that they are the driving force behind great art.
Without copyrights, the marketplace probably will change. With that I agree. But in other respects, I totally disagree with your reasoning.
$200 million movies might get made, if enough box office reciepts could be anticipated. This should be the case if it is a movie that is best experienced on the big screen (as opposed to a computer monitor). If profits in that neighborhood can't be had, then maybe studios shouldn't put that much money into them. Or devise ways to do things cheaper.
People will spend years writing books if they are doing it for artistic expression - even if it means having a day job. If the book is being writting mostly from a profit motive, then it is probably best that it not be written at all. You'd be surprised how many books were written before copyright was invented.
You really miss the point of art if you think that all professional creative effort would be pointless without copyrights. Many of my friends, like all current superstars have done in their past, engage in artistic endeavors as hobbies while working a day job. And I'm not talking fast food - do you think artists are idiot savants, completely unskilled in other areas? They do it because they derive tremendous satisfaction from that. And if millions of people wanted to download their art, and in the process make them famous, I'm sure they'd be tickled. Anyone who decides to creates art mainly for profit should be free to try, but not at the expense of the public's freedoms. These "art for the sake of profit" artists should not compel our country to devise a special subsidy/welfare program just for them. Who honestly thinks that art needs that kind of protection? Great art has always thrived with or without it. And fame has its rewards. With the "government subsidies of copyright" in place, however, a lot of crap gets manufactured that has little artistic merit. There should be a barrier to entry for art. It should be something you're passionate enough about making that you will do it regardless of profit motives. That barrier to entry is a good thing, as it filters out a whole lot of crap.
If all of the money that consumers spent on the copyright middlemen wasn't spent that way, we'd have lots of copyright middlemen out of work. But it wouldn't even come close to tens of millions. Would the copyright middleman industry become pointless? Yes. But it already is. All of the money that the public is paying over and over again on copyrighted culture that should have been in the public domain already if constitutional terms were in place - all of that money could be spent on other things instead, thereby raising each consumer's standard of living and injecting money into more worthwhile industries (than the copyright middleman). Popular movies with great cinematography would still make money at the box office. And popular musicians would still fill large venues for $20-$50/person even if there were no copyrights. Ever heard of the Grateful Dead?
And yet band after band after band after artist signs with labels.
More artists are starting to realize that they don't need the labels. Recording, production and distribution are now all quite affordable to individuals. The artists that continue to sign suffer from the "elephant restrained by a shoe-string tied to a stake in the ground" syndrome, whatever you call that. There are so many stories of how the labels screw artists out there. Artists will eventually wake up. They don't need the labels anymore. Understandably, that causes a bit of anxiety for the labels.
are there some that do just some funky new thing?
Perhaps you've heard of Gillian Welch? She's one of the most highly acclaimed artists out there in recent times. And she wants nothing to do with the big labels - she started her own. There are other examples like this that show the way.
In this case, it does not appear that there was any premeditated wish to kill anybody. The kid simply responded in a relatively natural and understandable way to the bully's taunting comment "One of these days, he's going to bring a gun to school and shoot us". There's a big difference between his sarcastic response to their ribbing and actually compiling a list of people to kill, etc.
In this case, there is no evidence that the kid was fantasizing about shooting his tormentors. It was one of the bullies who brought up the "geek shoots up the school" meme.
But it was the bullies who brought up the "gun talk" in this case, probably in a calculated way. I'm sure they are having a good laugh about it amongst themselves right now.
We have to remember that everyone has the potential to be victim or villain. Everyone has a breaking point at which they can no longer tolerate being the victim. At that point, they will stoop to the level of the aggressors (or possibly stoop even lower) and become villains themselves.
Above all, we need to keep in mind cause and effect. We need to nip the bulleying in the bud before it gets to the point that it consumes the victims every thought to the detriment of education, sanity, and public safety.
It actually preceeds Jesus by many centuries.
True enough. But so do peace, love, and all things good. Sometimes we need to be reminded though.
There's *NOTHING* good in the world which can be attributed to religion, which could/would not have happened without it. But there are many bad things which nobody would have been driven to do without power-mad popes and other religious figures forcing them to do.
You're really naive if you believe that those people who murdered and committed other atrocities with religious justifications would have been kind and gentle human beings if only it weren't for religion. They would simply find another justification for being murderers or assholes. People have been wronging eachother long before there were bibles. We wouldn't be an inch closer to utopia if all religions disappeared.
Which this or that,...
Which Bible did you read that didn't say "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", and that "there is no higher rule than this", or "thou shall not kill"?
All of the problems you mistakenly attribute to religion are, in fact, problems with human nature. Not a few evil leaders. Not a few extremists. Not religion. All of those putative "causes" could mysteriously vanish and we would still have the same atrocities committed using different justifications. Capiche?
The point is that religion is a tool for manipulation of masses, whether it was the intention of its creators from the beginnig I just don't know
Actually, the point is that computers are a tool for manipulation of the masses, as are televisions, credit cards, governments, novels, and fortune cookies. Whether it was the intention of the creators of these things from the beginning I just don't know.
And as for the Christians, they have gone so far as to sanction rape, murder, war, and even genocide.
Oh really? I have a news flash for you: these same dirty deeds have also been sanctioned by various Males, Atheists, Barbarians, Persons between 5'11" and 6'4", certain Indian tribes, people wearing trenchcoats, and even some persons living in Africa - in short, the one thing in common is that we have a pattern of people with various attributes and affiliations committing atrocities. So where does the problem lie? Human fucking nature, that's where.
and people holding similar beliefs today are held in very low esteem in enlightened circles. Just because Larry Wall made a useful and popular language doesn't mean that everything he thinks, believes, does or stands for is the same. It all has to be evaluated on the merits.
You are essentially making the same point as the author you are refuting: people should be judged on their individual acts, and so should the practitioners of various religions.
Beatiful analysis Mr. typical_geek.
Give credit where credit is due: people do stupid and violent things without the help of religion. Just because people are violent and stupid, that doesn't mean the all religions are bad. Do you think the people in your examples are actually following the central religious ( and very libertarian ) tenet "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"?
By your logic, you could list some accomplishments of Linux as:
Sheesh...
Actually, you can say all medicine is bogus, but you will be proven wrong
You can say that all medicines are harmful, and you would be right. They all have side effects and can cause harm, especially if used incorrectly. Same goes for the application of religions.
Nah, they don't all rely upon snake oil salesmen. And when you boil things down, a lot of them have the central tenet "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Nothing quacky about that. Makes perfect sense to me that the world would be a much better place if people followed that basic instruction. That instruction is pretty much the gist of Christianity, and the ancient texts quote Jesus as saying so.
Scientology, on the other hand, is not a religion, but rather a business based upon IP. Religions are open source. This distinction doesn't hinge upon whether any of the claims made are true or not - it's just a useful way to distinguish a religion (whose putative purpose is the betterment of mankind) and a business whose own founder joked about inventing his "religion" so that he could make money from it. You can make a distinction between the motives & intent of L. Ron Hubbard vs Jesus/Mohommad/Budda et al.
The more religious stuff is studied, the more religions fall back behind the argument that God is deliberately hiding from any scientific testing. Kind of a funny god if you ask me.
Is that so? Then I bet you'd find it interesting that the more we study the physical universe, the stranger and more inexplicable it gets! At our current level of understanding, the universe is intrinsically probabilistic! Kind of a funny universe, if you ask me. And it's also nice to know that we have so much power over the universe that any time we observe experiments (such as the two slit experiment), we can force the universe to hide what it was doing and switch from wave behavior to particle behavior.
Now this is a bit tongue in cheek, but I think I make a point.
Also consider that Science proves absolutely nothing. We build models and that help us make more accurate predictions. But a difference in a measurement of one part in a zillion can invalidate the model in favor of a new model, complete with drastically different philosophical implications.
Furthermore, you can't even prove your own existence, much less anything else. The very best you can do is "I think, therefore I am". But that is good enough for most. But get this: to the best of our knowledge, any boundaries between you and the rest of the matter and energy in the universe are somewhat arbitrary, and you can think of the universe as a collective whole. Heck, people even write wave functions for the whole universe (which you are a part of). So when you say "I think, therefore I am", the universe itself can also lay claim to this same self awareness with the same validity that you do, since you are just a wrinkle in its fabric. So substitue "God" for "universe" and you have no more contradiction inherent in God's existence and awareness than in that of your existence/awareness or the laws of the universe itself. Now I'm not saying that this is necessarily true, but it is just as plausible as your own existence.
Seems to me that this power is contingent upon "promoting the progress of science and useful arts". It's not at all clear that the UCITA will result in progress in the sciences and useful arts.
It takes 30 seconds to "program" an alarm clock... wind, set, switch on, done. How long would it take to program the computer in your example?
/usr/local/bin/mpg123 song.mp3
7 seconds! ( I type slowly )
crontab -e
0 6 * * *
Editing it to change times should take even less time
Since both democracy and capitalism depend so much on informed decisions, I guess explains why powerful entities are so good at dealing with the media. Luckily the Internet, and sites like this, can be a way to eliminate that problem (I assume the CPRM committee was directly influenced by the media discussion, maybe even Andre's interview here). .
The importance of that statement cannot be understated. People are getting informed and a little organized. Hopefully groups like the EFF and such can become a more powerful voice of reason. But it's up to us.
Not so fast there with those conclusions, pardner! Socialist systems have no competition to spur them to improve. If the socialist service sucks, and no private alternative is available, then you are up a creek. I work in healthcare along side plenty of ex Canadian docs and nurses with all types of horror stories of how long people would have to wait for an operation to end their pain. And in many cases, the care simply would not be provided and the canadian citizen has to fly down to the states and get pay to get the care they need. It is illegal for Canadian docs to even offer alternative services to those of the socialist system. This is unlike the British system where there are private health care alternatives for those who aren't content to wait a long time to get service. It's all about options - options are a good thing from a consumer standpoint.
I would like to see private education companies compete for the business of running local schools (they would win contracts and use public buildings). Outcomes could be measured and contracts would be renewed on a merit basis. If the education company gets a good rep, then they'll get more contracts. In the current public school system, there is little pressure for schools to compete and improve.
I agree with you on law enforcement.
As far as IP relates to either Socialism or Capitalism, I think that IP is an inherently anticompetitive construct. I would like to see companies compete purely on the basis of timely delivery of quality products and services at the best possible price. IP adds artificial constraints to competition and in that sense is anticapitalist IMHO. Allowing ideas and patterns to become "capital" stifles the competition that is essential to capitalism.
Unless you are a health care provider....In that case it is illegal to try to sell your services outside of the govt run socialist system.
Pharmaceuticals is the one area where I think a limited form of IP might still be useful, since the R&D and FDA approval process is so long. If we are to have IP, then I think it would only make sense to protect the IP for a period of time in proportion to the time it takes to develop and test a product of that genre. So software and lots of computer tech stuff would expire very quickly, where drugs would have a little more time to recoup the huge development costs.
I think that the implied "one to many" relationship is not valid. Only explicit contracts should be respected. The "implicit" social contract whereby people are supposed to sacrifice their freedoms for a (increasingly less) limited period of time so that new ideas can be brought to light - that contract is flawed. Society gets the short end of that stick. Plenty of great ideas and works were created and shared long before there was a social contract for IP. The intelletual process is not going to stop simply because the relatively recent invention of "intellectual property" is repealed.
If one person came up with some ideas or patterns to solve a particular problem for which they were paid the going rate, it doesn't seem right to prevent other people from using those ideas or patterns as part of a solution to other problems. If every solution to a problem can become "intellectual property", then innovation is stifled by cumbersome patent searches, petty litigation, and taxing licensing fees - basically what we have now. All of this machinery may be a way for some people to extract more money out of others, but it is mainly just friction. Better to forget the headache of "intellectual property" and create ideas and patterns as "works for hire" or as a form of self expression or hobby. Smart people will still make plenty of money from those who need their services. And those smart people will be even more effective since they will be free to draw upon any ideas or patterns that have come before and not have to waste time researching patent databases, etc.
It's all about adjusting your business models. Business models which hinge upon IP (artificial enforced scarcity & curbing freedom of people to do as they want with ideas and patterns) - those business models are not necessary in a modern society and they fly in the face of intellectual freedom. They are distastefull in their arrogance and disregard for liberty, and simply not necessary.
We can do just fine without IP and eliminate all of this so and so suing such and such BS that is just a waste of our time and money. It's time for a more enlightened existence where intellectual freedoms and liberty take priority over corporate interests. But I realize I'm going to have to live in this "real world" instead.
Yes, intellectual pursuits that result in ideas and patterns do require labor.
When you take someone's IP without their permission you are instituting a form of slavery.
This is ludicrous. Nobody is forced to create patterns or ideas. Hence the comparison with slavery (forced work) doesn't hold. If somebody hires you to write some code to help solve one of their problems, they will pay you for your labor. If the code happens to fall into other hands and ends up helping others solve their problems too, that doesn't change the fact that you got paid to solve the first person's problem. Fact is, we don't need IP laws for intellectual workers to get paid. They will get paid any time somebody has a hard problem and needs a smart person to solve it. There is a never ending supply of these problems that people will pay to have solved, irregardless of how the code in your solution is later used.