I thought surely the "very insightful" and "rejoice" lines would make it plenty clear to even the most mindless, control-freak, let's-legislate-morality-into-the-U.S.-Code drones (my personal version of morality being the preferred choice to incorporate, of course).
Hey, and how come your post scores TWO just for saying my ONE-scored post was funny?!? Ya Bastid!
Karma is EVERYTHING to me! Maybe you're right about these G.D. slash-dorks, after all....;^)
To infringe the copyright, one would have to make a copy of the sculpture.
I hate to be the one to bring this up, but, that's not quite the case.
It's not just making copies, or else you'd be free to get the thesaurus out and change most of the words to last year's best-seller, or color the fish different in Finding Nemo and make a mint by "stealing" those creator's "content".
Copyright law, despite the name, also covers ALL "derivative works", which the lawyers for this artist would no doubt argue that photos are. Which is why we need to change the law; the lawyers are just doing as they're trained to do -- use whatever loopholes and over-reaching clauses they can find in the law to try to attack things.
The combination of three parts of this law:
1) effectively perpetual copyright terms, 2) all derivative works are copies, 3) pretty much EVERY copyright infringement is commercial, because receiving ANYTHING in return for a copy is considered "financial recompense",
are creating a NEED for a thought-police-state, because these things combine to create a state of "squatter's rights" in the land-grab for ideas. Try making a movie (or writing a book or a song or a poem, for that matter) about a fish going on a journey to find his son within the next 100 years (and much longer, if the cartel continues to bend Congress over and have its way with it... ) or so to see what I mean...
If it's possible to own pretty much any form of any expression of something as ephemeral as an idea, in perpetuity, which is the sort of system we are currently moving towards, then the cartel is actually RIGHT, we will need DRM, harsh punishments, and the Government to become taxpayer-supported IP cops to keep the "pirating" down to a reasonable level. OTOH, we could decide to try to honor the 1st Amendment and the SPIRIT of copyright law by instead doing the things that ACTUALLY "Promote the Progress", but Americans these days, it seems apparent, are more interested in profit and control that freedom of expression and liberty.
sn't that like saying, "We can't stop murder so we might as well legalize it."
Why, yes it is actually.
Setting up laws to keep people from doing something they choose to do of their own volition, because some other people find it morally objectionable and believe that their morality should be applied to everyone else, is, in fact, EXACTLY like outlawing people from doing things that infringe other's rights to continue living and breathing, like rape and murder.
You are very insightful.
It did cause widespread addiction, fool.
Also a good point, because, as we all know, it was the lack of laws that caused the widespread addiction, as evidenced by the fact that, now that we have these wonderful laws, "widespread addiction" is finally a thing of the past.
notice the artists getting ripped off are never mentioned in those equations
sure they are. i post all the time complaining about how the riaa refuses to pay artists the money they deserve, and uses their illegally-gotten and abused monopoly power to strong arm artists into unfair record contracts, followed up by their tried-and-true, proven method of routinely "forgetting" to pay even the pittance they racketeered the artists into agreeing to.
that is, in fact, one of the things that I believe DOES justify infringing the copyrights held by the riaa; the fact that all the hollering the riaa does about "the artists" is done to support a system that has historically, systematically, and categorically used to "legally" rip artists off year-after-year without fail.
i'm with you man; i post about this all the time, what the heck are you talking about when you say "never mentioned"?
The southern Civil Rights movement wasn't about "gee, we don't agree with certain lawd so we're just going to do our own thing despite them", it ran much, much deeper than that.
It wasn't about disobeying unjust laws? Uhhh, I'm confused about your position here.
Just because the debate the copyfighters are arguing isn't as IMPORTANT as the Civil Rights Movement, doesn't automatically mean all analogies are null and void, as though invoking a similar concept in the 60s is somehow blasphemous.
Most people? Outside of the general software or entertainment realm most people
try reading the whole sentence you quoted next time:
"if they knew the extent of their draconian provisions"
I wasn't saying most people ARE up in arms, obviously, they're not. If you'd read, I said MOST PEOPLE *would* disagree, IF they knew about them... which, you're right, they don't -- but that doesn't mean the government should ALWAYS be trying to railroad laws down the throat of the public that they KNOW most people don't agree with, just because they can.... and, yes, I know most people in Government would disagree, but that won't keep me from bitching about it.
I ask again, where do you get the idea that anyone is saying anything about **AA IN THIS STORY?
*big show of sighing*
Your comment appeared to be about the general reaction of all "slashdorks" to IP laws -- my point was this story is not about an IP law. Saying "it was the grandparents fault" -- doesn't make your comment any less stupid as relates to the issue at hand....
Oh, I see the plan -- we cleverly let them escape from Afghanistan into Pakistan, so that we could attack... IRAQ!
Which is the home state of the TERR-WRISTS!!! AND, they have MUCHO DUBYA-EM-DEEs and yellow banana cake Uranuses!!! Plus, their previous leader, that we righteously ousted, was a devout Muslim, who mandated that EVERYONE in his country be RELIJUSS extremisses, required women to wear veils at all times, denied them edjumakation, and was one of the IRANIAN mullets, like that SHAWL guy!!!!!
Yeah, we kick A**!! AMERICA, FSCK YAYUH!!!!!
Oh... wait, what's that you say?
====================
Please... ignore me -- don't let the facts get in the way of you feeling SO GOOD about that little tingle in your teeny little weener because of all the macho butt-whooping we're doing... to a country that never attacked us, never had anything to do with an attack on us, and had no military to speak of.
And thus the anti-Slashdork justifies his statement: "All statements are justified, so long as I can make fun of somebody and use a cool (and CLEVER!) derogatory word, like Slashdork!"
Seriously, how do you get that anyone is saying anything about **AA in this story?
The **AA presumably collected and paid the IP holders' royalties for this (Or else ol' Stan would have nothing to sue FOR). If that particular rights-holder reneges on a contract deal it has with one of its artists, how can rooting for the artist in that scenario really be seen to be "sticking it" to **AA?
Isn't this more of a "big company trying to screw a little guy out of the bennies they promised him" story, than anything about the rights / wrongs of copyright law?
... some guys distributing movies and software on the internet...
But what if those guys are using P2P to distribute copyrighted documents critical of the current government, where the copyright laws are being used prevent dissemination of that information in "popular" media?
THEN does the banning of P2P use for distributing copyrighted works become an important abrogation of "basic human civil rights"?
Or are we to send you, the ultimate authority on what should morally be allowed to be expressed freely between persons, each time we place a file that SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE might have a problem with its dissemination, in order to determine if it's "important" enough for us to engage in our Free Speech rights?
I'm not saying these guys didn't get what they deserved... I DO think the law should be changed to exclude non-commercial copying from legal liability, but that's only my opinion... in the meantime, those who are within their legal rights to prevent the use of the "property" they've purchased the rights to are just doing what they can to get more money from the "pirates", without having to give any to the ACTUAL CREATORS, as has always been their aim, and that's to be expected. You play, you pay, after all.
But it sounds like you're saying, P2P is evil and can't be said to be related to Free Speech or civil rights, because its MOSTLY used for what YOU'VE decided are "unjust" purposes... and that's just simply not right.
If we applied that standard to everything else in the world, a lotta stuff we rely on would have to be made illegal... like corporations, laws (ironic, huh?), and money. Does that fact that handguns are used successfully more often for murder than home defense mean they should be illegal, in your view? How about survival knives? What about cars? They're used more often to VIOLATE the speed limit than obey it... the point is it really is "completely retarded" to decide whether something related to the free activities of a "free" people should be allowed, based on some idiotic and meaningless "balancing" of what "good" and what "bad" is done with that thing AT THE CURRENT MOMENT.
If I've misunderstood and therefore misstated your position, and your comments were directed at the ACTIVITIES of these two individuals... then, my apologies.
If that's the case, I still think your comments are off-base, but on the more general grounds that the parent wasn't making a point about THESE TWO GUYS, but, rather, about the general moral case for violating unjust laws (which most people would believe copyright laws are, if they knew the extent of their draconian provisions).
The "Thomas Jefferson was good and true and noble and we should use his words to justify our actions even if they break the law" sentiment also tends to fall down when you consider that Mr. "freedom of ideas" Jefferson held a black woman captive against her will and was banging her in the same house in which his wife lived.
This makes good sense. Also, we need to discard all of Einstein's contributions to theoretical physics, because, when he created them, it was in a country that was ABOUT to become Nazi Germany. The social mores of the time in which a person's contributions are made should ALWAYS take precedence over the content of their message (IYHO).
Should we disregard the fact that this awful person whom you despise so much (apparently) influenced most of the ideas that have made our Republic work so well -- should we throw out everything he had a hand in because he was banging the slave? Have you ever considered the people who were the forefathers of the copyright expansionists were doing (largely) the same sorts of things? Does that mean we should throw out copyright law, in its entirety, 'cause the people who thought it up were so gosh-darn "bad"?
And I don't "use his words to justify" breaking the law -- I use them to point out that people a lot smarter than either you or I saw the inanity of trying to contain, restrict, and productize the dissemination of ideas. Despite what you might say about the law's INTENT, that IS what modern copyright is being used to accomplish. We're all in favor of artists getting paid for their work, if it is, in fact, desired by the public -- it's just that the current "wisdom" of doing that by restricting all forms of copying is stupid, inefficient, impossible to enforce without neutering technological progress, and, most importantly, does a piss-poor job of ACTUALLY compensating said artists. instead, what it ACTUALLY does is:
* Make soulless publisher/weasels filthy rich, who then,
* Repress and take advantage of said "good and true and noble" artists, by
* Lobbying Congress, and
* Convincing certain people (I won't mention names) that:
* Ideas SHOULD BE property, and
* That copying expressions of ideas is "stealing", in order to
* Use the people's absolute ideas about control of our own property to get said "certain persons" to:
* Support the maintenance and expansion of the laws that allow them to maintain their iron-fisted chokehold on the means of distribution of artistic works.
I further would use his words to point out that copyright law, as it was created, was viewed as a necessary EVIL -- it's purpose was to get more stuff created, NOT to create new forms of property and ensure artists get paid for creating stuff (as the parent implied its purpose is). My argument would be that, since copyright law is NOT intended to create or convey property ownership, and IS considered an "evil", and, further, that we now have new, different, and (IMO) better ways to go about compensating artists using technology and systems that didn't exist at the time of the creation of U.S. copyright law... well... we should use them, instead of clinging to some antiquated notion about ownership of ideas being crucial to the survival of our economy, since publishers will be hurt by changing it.
And, as far as justification goes, I can justify breaking a crappy laws like that on my own, without any help from Jefferson whatsoever. If a law is stupid, costly, unfair, and doesn't even accomplish what is supposed to FOR someone, while simultaneously causing injury to the public at large, and its enforcement causes more harm than its breaking, I happily break it of my own volition -- I assume, based on your unquestioning support of copyright, since it is hte law of the land, that you've never jay-walked? (And that you actually are a big supporter of Jefferson's slave-banging actions, since such actions were, in fact, in corcordance with the law of the land at the time of their commission... )
A good friend of mine -- who happens to know something about the whys and wherefores of the creation of IP law in America, which has served as the popular model for the world's IP law -- would beg to differ with you:
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it."
- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Isaac McPherson, Monticello, August 13, 1813
What do you think he means with all that "forces itself into the possession of every one" stuff?
"I can't seem to nail down what your issues are either."
Well, then here it is simply: You seem to be simultaneously saying that Sun would never have open-sourced Solaris without Linux, yet their move somehow has nothing to do with Linux, or, rather, more accurately, that it CAN NOT possibly be viewed as a "reaction to Linux".
This position, to me, discounts things like the whole LAMP (Apache on Linux) phenomenon. We know a big part of Sun's go-go profitability in the 90's was due to buildup in web infrastructure, an area where Linux is now eating Sun's lunch.
Also, I think you are still missing my point about the best technical solution not always being the winner. Or that the decision that makes the most "business sense" not being the one that is always chosen. It seems that you feel that IT managers (for large institutions, anyway) always have, and will always, choose based on cold, hard analysis of performance-per-dollar computing expenditures. I've seen too many obvious contradictions of that position to believe that.
The base issue of what we are aruging, it seems to me, is the question, "Does Sun see Linux as a competitive threat?"
If so, then it would be difficult (for me, at least, you may not agree) to view something like the open-sourcing of Solaris as anything BUT a competitive, reactionary move.
If not, then it's all just posturing and marketing and makes no difference in Sun's "real-world" strategy, anyway.
If you in any way agree that this is at least part of the issue, then answer me this -- if Sun sees no threat from Linux, and couldn't care less about how it's "hot-topic-of-the-day" status might affect Sun's future business, then what explains the passionate and hateful nature of every press release from the company that involves either Linux, or, more especially, Red Hat?
If they know that their kernel is so much better, and are convinced that IT managers will ALWAYS see it this way, and NEVER even CONSIDER switching to Linux, since it is, by your definition, no REAL competition to Solaris, why are they wasting their time on this war of meaningless words and not instead focusing on working to make it so that they are NOT "poorly situated to make a profit when trying to go to some other computing enterprise."?
"If Sun doesn't grow, it dies."
I sure wish I could get people to stop repeating this particular bit of "philosophy" as if it were writ large in the gospel. I don't blame you for unquestioningly believing it -- it's so prevalent in our culture it's nearly impossible to escape it. Below is a bit of counter-point philosophy for you. It differs from the one you proffered in that it has the advantage of making logical sense:
"Show me someone who thinks something can successfully grow infinitely within the confines of a finite universe, and I'll show you a madman. Or an economist."
"...that does not mean Sun can adopt Linux's tactics to prevail."
Never said it did. I think Sun is screwed in any case. However, that's beside the point of whether they "opened" Solaris as a reaction to Linux or not. They don't know, or won't admit, that they're screwed, and will continue to act, at least publicly, as if they are not, until the whole fancy charade goes up in smoke.
This is part of the real problem Sun faces, and relates to your "Sun must grow" comment from earlier. This sort of thinking on Sun's part is one of the things that is killing them, in fact. Sun could easily do a little maneuvering and take a place as a profitable provider of "rock solid", integrated computing systems for high-end *niche* markets, which they could probably successfully defend from Linux's encroachment. But this would require them to drop the logically fallacious "grow or die" ideals that our culture foists upon them (and, indeed, ALL of us).
They have to wake up and realize they simply CAN'T compete with a free operating system that is plenty good for more and more of what
the possibility the financial industry may switch to Linux is not PROOF (in itself) that Solaris "opened up" the kernel as a reaction to Linux.
No, not proof. Evidence, but not proof.
Thanks for your comments, and I hope that you don't consider me being probably the only person reading them on such an old post as the writing being a "wasted effort"....;^)
That said, I think you provide a very well-informed and well-argued justification for your position regarding whether Linux SHOULD replace Sun in the enterprise market (or, more accurately, why it SHOULDN'T).
A couple statements you make seem a bit contradictory to me, like these two:
But I believe Sun would *not* have "open-sourced" Solaris if linux *never* existed.
and
... Sun did not "open-source" its code AS A RESPONSE to linux threatening its market...
It seems strange to me that you would find the open sourcing of Solaris to be a reaction to Linux, yet not see it as a defensive move -- in light of your comment that Linux does not (really, CAN NOT) threaten Solaris at the high end, it sort of makes a certain kind of sense.
The thing that I think you are discounting is the whole "network effect" part of this -- ie, the willingness of most people to jump on whatever they see as the latest bandwagon cruising by them. (Never mind if they already own a semi-trailer -- if everybody else is on THAT wagon, that's where they want to be...)
SGI talked for years about the overall cost savings that could be afforded by using their high-end renderfarms, and they were largely right, but what was ROTK rendered on? There are a hundred other examples -- if people based their decisions ONLY on rational "bang-for-the-buck" money / technical considerations, would Windows have been more popular than BeOS? Would ANYONE have ever sold something as ridiculous as a pet rock or cabbage patch kid? (I realize enterprise IT purchasers are far different from these markets, even the SGI, high-end workstation market, but that doesn't mean they're not HUMAN. Nobody wants to be on, or buy from, the losing team.)
I think Sun sees Linux not as a threat to them technically, which we can both agree on, but I do feel this open-sourcing is a marketing maneuver, specifically designed to attempt to negate what people perceive as one of the advantages of Linux (even if the VAST majority never even look at the source).
And there is also the plain fact that, as you say, "Sun is in big trouble", and one of the advantages of open source and Linux is not necessarily being stranded if your vendor goes belly up. I'm not saying that the high-end clients of Sun would ever AVAIL themselves of that advantage even after Sun dies, but marketing is ALWAYS about perception, not reality.
You still seem to be clinging to the idea that, if this open-sourcing is about Sun reacting to the Linux "threat", then that MUST mean that Sun has decided it MUST make Solaris just like Linux, like when you say:
Linux, circa 2004, is just not a threat to Solaris's niche market (yet). Sun is not morphing itself to be like Linux, because it would lose.
I don't think this follows at all, or even relates to the original question -- just because Sun makes a marketing move designed to give people the IMPRESSION that Linux enjoys no advantage of OPENNESS over Solaris, that doesn't mean they really have to believe that they must "morphing" Solaris into Linux. But it also doesn't mean that the marketing move was never inspired by, or a reaction to, Linux in the first place.
You make some great points, but we seem to be arguing about two different issues.
You make some good points about why Solaris is a technically better kernel, but these don't address the original point, which was, "is Sun open-sourcing Solaris as a means of competing with (or, more accurately, preventing the competition with) Linux in the financial enterprise market?". Do you really believe that, because Linux is "not as efficient with threaded applications", and "not as reliable as Solaris for transactional processing", NO ONE in the financial industry is EVER going to consider switching from Solaris to Linux, and therefore the opening of Solaris cannot POSSIBLY be seen as a reaction to Linux? That companies like Google and WETA Digital AREN'T using Linux clusters to accomplish MASSIVE parallelism, and that, since they AREN'T actually accomplishing this, the IT people in the enterprise financial space can't POSSIBLY be noticing this activity and becoming interested in Linux?
You're still confusing "competing with Linux in one market" with "making Solaris exactly like Linux for every market", and I still can't think of any simpler way to say those words so that you can more easily grasp their meaning.
If you write back, try not to waste time trying to convince me that "Solaris is better than Linux." That's never been the point. Instead, try to justify your apparent belief that Sun would EVER have even CONSIDERED open-sourcing Solaris in the absence of Linux...
It will keep them more closely tied to their big-ticket customers
If this is true, and also, as you posted earlier, that "big financial institutions (or software houses that cater to them) have access to the kernel source so they can add value to the kernel", then wasn't their ability to do that with Linux, and NOT Solaris before now, one of the possible reasons for them to switch to Linux?
You seem to be confusing us saying "compete with Linux in one of Sun's key markets", which Solaris IS NOW doing, with "become exactly like Linux for EVERY market", which Solaris is oviously NEVER going to do.
Unlike a lot of mindless supporters of the war who I sometimes really believe just like kicking the shit our of people from different countries, you've thought through the issues, don't have blinders on as regards WMDs and what Bush REALLY believed, and have generally come to a supportable position in favor of continuing our current policies in Iraq.
Of course, I still think you're wrong and disagree with what you think is the correct course of action, but I would like to hear your response to the following:
Despite your comment about evil, violent people, I'd imagine, thoughtful as you are on other issues, and bad as the tactics employed by terrorists are, that you realize OBL doesn't get up in the morning, and, in a movie-villain-esque manner twist up his mustachio and wonder what evil he can perpetrate on the world. He, like us, thinks he is employing the tactics he must employ to make what he believes is "right" transpire in the world.
Given that the terrorists, and the vast majority of Middle Easterners that sympathize with their cause, believe they are "right" and we are "wrong", and that the real evil being perpetrated in the Middle East is the U.S. foreign policy of military interventionism concerning what they see as their own private affairs, how can we "convert" them to a U.S.-approved form of democratic government, when we are using the methods they hate us for in the first place to accomplish such (ie, military interventionism)?
Surely you don't believe the hatred they feel towards us will just evaporate into moonbeams and morning dew the day after we "allow" them to elect their own government? And, if it IS their hatred of our policies that is the seed that allows the tree of terrorism to grow, how can employing more of that same policy ever cause the hatred to be diminished?
(Please understand, this question is NOT facetious -- I know several intelligent (apparently more so than the people leading this crusade -- or, at least, more intelligent than they can allow themselves to appear and still remain popular in the polls) who believe much as you do regarding our NEED to convert at least some portion of the MidEast to "our way" of thinking -- but I can never get a very well-thought-out answer to this question: "How can we convert a people to "our" side by using MORE of the tactics that put them on the "other" side in the first place?")
But the government there was supporting individuals that would like to "end" America.
If that's the standard for launching war, you better be prepared to be accepting of coffins draped with American flags for a LOOOOONG time.... really, after a few more wars much like the current one, what country to you expect that statement NOT to apply to?
No one likes war.
True, but you can get people to (almost) unilaterally support those wars that seem necessary, or at least useful for something other than promoting the business interests of the Presidential administration in power at the time.
Wars that waste billions fighting against a made-up threat, created in the minds of people who knew the threat to be false, against countries that have never threatened the attacking country, and pose no threat to said country -- well, these tend to be even LESS well-liked. As you may have noticed.
*sigh* -- Ok, let me try to educate you a little further.
starting out your debate by instantly trying to imply the stupidity of your opponent is obviously a result of your finely tuned superior intellect.
ummm, where did i imply your stupidity, or that you were my opponent, for that matter? Is there some thing that has made you feel so badly about yourself that makes you automatically assume others think the worst of you? If so, I can empathize, and suggest what was (for me, anyway) a very helpful therapist. I made a comment that the US school system is a brainwashing mechanism, which you defensively took as a slam against your own intelligence (hint: stupidity and ignorance are not the same thing; look it up if you don't believe me)
Second, I use capitals in my OP to indicate the use of a proper noun, as I intended. You might want to read something written by someone other than yourself if you're not familiar with the concept. As for the other gaffes, well, that's just laziness.
Third, I like to think that, on the off chance that I do say / write something intelligent, it's my words and ideas that another will be impressed by, not my punctilious use of punctuation (good word, huh, Mr. GramMmeR-NaSi!)
My point is, who defines if something has zero marginal cost?
umm, I did. In my original post, if you bothered to read on after your mouth started frothing.
Let us take a digital file, such as an mp3. What you are saying, is that after it is developed, it has zero marginal cost to redistribute it over the net.
YES! Now you're getting it, old chap!
That may be well and fine, but does that mean the person who buys the first copy should pay 50,000, and everyone else should then be able to copy it for free?
ugh, here we go again -- you just couldn't resist, could you? No, zero marginal cost does not in any way the first guy should pay 50Gs for it. In case you need a refresher from my original post again (you can look back at it again, if you want), the term "marginal cost" doesn't even refer to the original copy at all. It means the additional copies cost zero (or effectively zero) to produce.
The details of how the first copy get made or how much the original creator gets paid to make that first copy are, quite frankly, uninteresting to me. As humans, we have always been awash in such "original copies" of creative works. In fact, I'd daresay we'd be hard pressed to get RID OF THEM without wiping out the species. The idea that we will have some sort of a dearth of culture if the Governator can't make 20 mil per movie is either ignorant or stupid (depending on how much history one has studied).
Are you telling me that you believe it doesn't cost anything to create a file?
Well, that depends. If you're talking about the first copy, then no (see above if you're confused now). If you're talking about additional copies of a file then, yes, the cost is effectively zero.
Even OSS software has a cost, such as man hours to produce, etc. The fact that the creator chooses to donate that time freely does not mean it is without cost.
Nor does it mean that it does have a cost. What does it cost me to use OSS software, if I never contribute? Will you argue that Linus only wants me to use Linux if I write code? Moreover, what if I am in an industry such that every hour I spend working on the kernel improves it to the extent that I make back twice my hourly wage in increased revenue from increased productivity enabled by my software changes? Will you now argue that my labor has a negative cost, and that I should be charged for the privilege of performing such labor?
==========
Despite what you may think, the point of all this razzing, gesticulating, and (sometimes) far out hypothesizing is not to rile you up or try to get you to write an angry response, but rather to get you to THINK outside the simple ways in which you have been taught.
I can see you were educated by the brainwashing machine we call the U.S. Public School System.
He didn't say "zero cost", he said "zero MARGINAL cost" -- I would amend to say "effectively-zero marginal cost".
The marginal cost of something is the cost for additional units of that thing -- if that thing is a digital file, the marginal cost is very nearly (effectively) zero (ie, the only cost is the tiny additional bit of electricity used for a few additional packets across the network). Obviously, this isn't the case with CDs or DVDs (or nearly any other physical product).
The idea that everything has a cost is recent, short-sighted, close-minded, and simplistic. Cost is a human notion, and things can only "cost" something if we choose to agree that they do.
What is the cost of air / breathing? How about the cost of incorporating public domain material in a new work? Would you agree these are both valuable things which are not "charged" for in the traditional sense? Why should digital distribution of ideas (by which I specifically DO NOT mean the creation of those ideas), which has the same "costs" as these things, be any different?
You keep harping on how downloads interfering with your revenue stream looks the same to an artist / creator as "stealing", but you then commit the same offense against the people you wish to convince to give you money for something as ephemeral as an *idea*, by neglecting to think about how DRM (and it's related enforcement) looks to *them*.
Tell me, Mr. Pro-DRM Guy, while we're describing "differences", how is DRM and associated DMCA-type legislation any different from the establishment of an Orwellian division of thought-crimes? Was Sklyarov not arrested for what amounts to a thought-crime (giving a speech at a conference)? Has the DMCA not been used for a variety of speech-surpressing purposes?
Which is more important, protecting the profits of a relatively insignificant industry (in terms of GDP), at the expense of a much larger industry, or protecting the principle of Free Speech for *all* of the citizens of our Republic, upon which our nation is founded?
What about the (larger) number of technologists who will inevitably suffer because of the introduction of a draconian DRM regime? Should we ignore their cries in the interest of protecting that which is "right" for artist / creators of IP, based on incredibly naive notion that all "property" ownership is identical and should be treated as an inviolable right?
What about the rights of those people who live near the airport, and who have the right under traditional notions of property to restrict the use of airspace above their land? Should we dismantle the airline industry in the interest of preserving the property "rights" of those people, regardless of the overall damage to the public's notion of mobility?
While we're at it, should we not also get rid of cable TV, radio, records, player pianos, phones, and all the rest, so that the populace is *incapable* of violating our sacred notions of intellectual "property"? If we are going to say that digital technology should be modified, restrained, and curtailed in the interest of protection of the inviolate idea of copy-"rights", why should these technologies be any different? Do they not all decrease the ability of the "right"-ful owner of ideas to control their use and dissemination?
Governments are NOT in the business of legislating "good" and "evil" for their constituents, anymore than they are legislating "right" and "wrong", because what is "right" for one group is "evil" for another, and so on and so forth. All that matters for effective government (and avoiding revolution) is determining the greatest good for the greatest number.
Unfortunately, you are in a minority that is trying to force something "good" for you onto the majority that it is "wrong" for. Therefore, don't be surprised when your forays into DRM-ing away the rights of that "other" majority is met with negativity, open hostility, boycott campaigns, and, when DRM is actually made to be _effective_, far worse responses.
But hey, if it can keep those in the copyright cartel from having to actually *adapt* to new technology the way everyone else has throughout the history of the world, isn't that worth fomenting a few, small attempts at revolution and the creation of a general attitude of contempt among the citizenry for the activities of government?
Glad to hear you have not and never will use a VCR or view a VHS video tape, as the same industry you are defending decided those things were "wrong" many years ago and still feel they are "wrong", despite the billions these technologies make for them. After all, shouldn't the creators be the ones to exercise ultimate control over their own creation, and, you, as a person who does "right", abide by their wishes?
Following the law?
Correct. You win the prize for discovering that it is always "right" to follow the law, and always "wrong" to disobey it. Seig Heil!
Even if you feel the industry makes plenty of money and won't miss your $8 admission it is still wrong to pirate movies.
Actually, it's "right" for you not to pirate movies, but it's "wrong" for me not to. I admit my actions in pirating are illegal, but they are most definitely the "right" response to the unchecked attempt by the copyright cartel to expand their control of the public and create an Orwellian division of thought-crime enforcement.
Are you starting to get some idea of how this "right" and "wrong" stuff works? Do you need more hints? (Hint 1: Some people think there may be some amount of relativism invested in those two terms. Mostly "crazy" people.)
Piracy is not a form of civil disobedience.
To this, I can only say: "Yes. It is." As is boycotting. As is anything else I choose to engage in that is:
a) civil (hint 2: in this context, this word means "non-violent".) b) disobedient (hint 3: in this context, this word basically means "against the wishes of the prevailing regime / power brokers / totalitarian state, etc. Aren't these vocabulary lessons *fun*?!?)
On the other hand, maybe you're right and it is a good idea to let those in power decide exactly how, when, and where those who disagree with the status quo should be allowed to express our displeasure. That way, the voices of the masses will be heard much more effectively, and change will come about much more quickly, because those in power will use their greater resources to their fullest extent in order to encourage effective dissemination of the voices of dissent!
Bravo for your incisive thinking, dipsh!t. You should be back on solid food soon.
Is that it assumes inviolate, undefilable, exclusive, monopoly rights to copies of creative work as a god-given right, to be protected by the Constitution like that Life, Liberty, and So Forth Jazz.
It's not.
The purpose of allowing the evil that intellectual property monopolies create regarding the rights of the media "consumer" is to stimulate creators to benefit the public by creating more works. It specifically IS NOT to pad the pockets of publishers and provide them with ultimate control so that they can make the same amount of money no matter how bad the lazy crap they turn out is.
While you are right that preventing copyright infringement is the law of the land, the people pushing for MORE control and rights (at the cost of the rights of the public) are saying they need such rights SPECIFICALLY because they are being harmed financially. If they are not, in fact, being harmed financially, and are (as some studies suggest) actually being HELPED because the freedom that widespread copyright infringement engenders tends to grow the overall market, then the appropriate response to the "problem" of copyright infringement becomes much different.
As for the argument of "What's the possible amount?" -- it is totally specious, as it is always impossible to say X has Y effect on Z, unless you can examine Z in the absence of X. Which is impossible, unless you have a spare Earth lying around with a different set of digital technologies created on it.
Considering the current state of the economy, and that MOST industries (especially those related to entertainment and leisure) are suffering a difficult time, I think we're pretty safe to assume that a movie business that has just had one of it's best months EVER is not being hurt that badly. But maybe that's just me. Maybe they really would have made $10 billion if we could just get rid of the Internet -- and wouldn't it be worth it to get rid of the Internet if it would just make a few more dollars for some corporate media CEO's who are already rich?
ALL GOVERNMENT LAWS, POLICIES, AND PROCEDURES ARE GOOD FOR SOME AND BAD FOR OTHERS. There is no set of inviolable "rights" concerning intellectual property that must be "protected" at all costs; there are only tradeoffs and the process of trying to create a system that creates the greatest good for the greatest number.
The sooner you realize this, the sooner you will stop looking stupid to intelligent people.
for saying this. You hear that crap about "artists would NEVER create things without copyrights" regurgitated by idiots so often that you start to think that you are the ONLY ONE in the universe who knows that the statement is complete and total bullshit. Nice to know at least ONE other person has TRIED, at least, to remove the blinders of popular culture.
Slashdot Mirror
Ya think?!?
.... ;^)
I thought surely the "very insightful" and "rejoice" lines would make it plenty clear to even the most mindless, control-freak, let's-legislate-morality-into-the-U.S.-Code drones (my personal version of morality being the preferred choice to incorporate, of course).
Hey, and how come your post scores TWO just for saying my ONE-scored post was funny?!? Ya Bastid!
Karma is EVERYTHING to me! Maybe you're right about these G.D. slash-dorks, after all
To infringe the copyright, one would have to make a copy of the sculpture.
... ) or so to see what I mean ...
I hate to be the one to bring this up, but, that's not quite the case.
It's not just making copies, or else you'd be free to get the thesaurus out and change most of the words to last year's best-seller, or color the fish different in Finding Nemo and make a mint by "stealing" those creator's "content".
Copyright law, despite the name, also covers ALL "derivative works", which the lawyers for this artist would no doubt argue that photos are. Which is why we need to change the law; the lawyers are just doing as they're trained to do -- use whatever loopholes and over-reaching clauses they can find in the law to try to attack things.
The combination of three parts of this law:
1) effectively perpetual copyright terms,
2) all derivative works are copies,
3) pretty much EVERY copyright infringement is commercial, because receiving ANYTHING in return for a copy is considered "financial recompense",
are creating a NEED for a thought-police-state, because these things combine to create a state of "squatter's rights" in the land-grab for ideas. Try making a movie (or writing a book or a song or a poem, for that matter) about a fish going on a journey to find his son within the next 100 years (and much longer, if the cartel continues to bend Congress over and have its way with it
If it's possible to own pretty much any form of any expression of something as ephemeral as an idea, in perpetuity, which is the sort of system we are currently moving towards, then the cartel is actually RIGHT, we will need DRM, harsh punishments, and the Government to become taxpayer-supported IP cops to keep the "pirating" down to a reasonable level. OTOH, we could decide to try to honor the 1st Amendment and the SPIRIT of copyright law by instead doing the things that ACTUALLY "Promote the Progress", but Americans these days, it seems apparent, are more interested in profit and control that freedom of expression and liberty.
sn't that like saying, "We can't stop murder so we might as well legalize it."
Why, yes it is actually.
Setting up laws to keep people from doing something they choose to do of their own volition, because some other people find it morally objectionable and believe that their morality should be applied to everyone else, is, in fact, EXACTLY like outlawing people from doing things that infringe other's rights to continue living and breathing, like rape and murder.
You are very insightful.
It did cause widespread addiction, fool.
Also a good point, because, as we all know, it was the lack of laws that caused the widespread addiction, as evidenced by the fact that, now that we have these wonderful laws, "widespread addiction" is finally a thing of the past.
Rejoice!
notice the artists getting ripped off are never mentioned in those equations
sure they are. i post all the time complaining about how the riaa refuses to pay artists the money they deserve, and uses their illegally-gotten and abused monopoly power to strong arm artists into unfair record contracts, followed up by their tried-and-true, proven method of routinely "forgetting" to pay even the pittance they racketeered the artists into agreeing to.
that is, in fact, one of the things that I believe DOES justify infringing the copyrights held by the riaa; the fact that all the hollering the riaa does about "the artists" is done to support a system that has historically, systematically, and categorically used to "legally" rip artists off year-after-year without fail.
i'm with you man; i post about this all the time, what the heck are you talking about when you say "never mentioned"?
The southern Civil Rights movement wasn't about "gee, we don't agree with certain lawd so we're just going to do our own thing despite them", it ran much, much deeper than that.
... which, you're right, they don't -- but that doesn't mean the government should ALWAYS be trying to railroad laws down the throat of the public that they KNOW most people don't agree with, just because they can .... and, yes, I know most people in Government would disagree, but that won't keep me from bitching about it.
It wasn't about disobeying unjust laws? Uhhh, I'm confused about your position here.
Just because the debate the copyfighters are arguing isn't as IMPORTANT as the Civil Rights Movement, doesn't automatically mean all analogies are null and void, as though invoking a similar concept in the 60s is somehow blasphemous.
Most people? Outside of the general software or entertainment realm most people
try reading the whole sentence you quoted next time:
"if they knew the extent of their draconian provisions"
I wasn't saying most people ARE up in arms, obviously, they're not. If you'd read, I said MOST PEOPLE *would* disagree, IF they knew about them
I ask again, where do you get the idea that anyone is saying anything about **AA IN THIS STORY?
*big show of sighing*
Your comment appeared to be about the general reaction of all "slashdorks" to IP laws -- my point was this story is not about an IP law. Saying "it was the grandparents fault" -- doesn't make your comment any less stupid as relates to the issue at hand....
so I am glad we are fighting these radicals
... IRAQ!
... wait, what's that you say?
... ignore me -- don't let the facts get in the way of you feeling SO GOOD about that little tingle in your teeny little weener because of all the macho butt-whooping we're doing ... to a country that never attacked us, never had anything to do with an attack on us, and had no military to speak of.
uhhhh, where are we fighting them, pray tell?
Oh, I see the plan -- we cleverly let them escape from Afghanistan into Pakistan, so that we could attack
Which is the home state of the TERR-WRISTS!!! AND, they have MUCHO DUBYA-EM-DEEs and yellow banana cake Uranuses!!! Plus, their previous leader, that we righteously ousted, was a devout Muslim, who mandated that EVERYONE in his country be RELIJUSS extremisses, required women to wear veils at all times, denied them edjumakation, and was one of the IRANIAN mullets, like that SHAWL guy!!!!!
Yeah, we kick A**!!
AMERICA, FSCK YAYUH!!!!!
Oh
====================
Please
And thus the anti-Slashdork justifies his statement: "All statements are justified, so long as I can make fun of somebody and use a cool (and CLEVER!) derogatory word, like Slashdork!"
...
Seriously, how do you get that anyone is saying anything about **AA in this story?
The **AA presumably collected and paid the IP holders' royalties for this (Or else ol' Stan would have nothing to sue FOR). If that particular rights-holder reneges on a contract deal it has with one of its artists, how can rooting for the artist in that scenario really be seen to be "sticking it" to **AA?
Isn't this more of a "big company trying to screw a little guy out of the bennies they promised him" story, than anything about the rights / wrongs of copyright law?
Just a thought
But what if those guys are using P2P to distribute copyrighted documents critical of the current government, where the copyright laws are being used prevent dissemination of that information in "popular" media?
THEN does the banning of P2P use for distributing copyrighted works become an important abrogation of "basic human civil rights"?
Or are we to send you, the ultimate authority on what should morally be allowed to be expressed freely between persons, each time we place a file that SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE might have a problem with its dissemination, in order to determine if it's "important" enough for us to engage in our Free Speech rights?
I'm not saying these guys didn't get what they deserved
But it sounds like you're saying, P2P is evil and can't be said to be related to Free Speech or civil rights, because its MOSTLY used for what YOU'VE decided are "unjust" purposes
If we applied that standard to everything else in the world, a lotta stuff we rely on would have to be made illegal
If I've misunderstood and therefore misstated your position, and your comments were directed at the ACTIVITIES of these two individuals
If that's the case, I still think your comments are off-base, but on the more general grounds that the parent wasn't making a point about THESE TWO GUYS, but, rather, about the general moral case for violating unjust laws (which most people would believe copyright laws are, if they knew the extent of their draconian provisions).
The "Thomas Jefferson was good and true and noble and we should use his words to justify our actions even if they break the law" sentiment also tends to fall down when you consider that Mr. "freedom of ideas" Jefferson held a black woman captive against her will and was banging her in the same house in which his wife lived.
... well ... we should use them, instead of clinging to some antiquated notion about ownership of ideas being crucial to the survival of our economy, since publishers will be hurt by changing it.
... )
This makes good sense. Also, we need to discard all of Einstein's contributions to theoretical physics, because, when he created them, it was in a country that was ABOUT to become Nazi Germany. The social mores of the time in which a person's contributions are made should ALWAYS take precedence over the content of their message (IYHO).
Should we disregard the fact that this awful person whom you despise so much (apparently) influenced most of the ideas that have made our Republic work so well -- should we throw out everything he had a hand in because he was banging the slave? Have you ever considered the people who were the forefathers of the copyright expansionists were doing (largely) the same sorts of things? Does that mean we should throw out copyright law, in its entirety, 'cause the people who thought it up were so gosh-darn "bad"?
And I don't "use his words to justify" breaking the law -- I use them to point out that people a lot smarter than either you or I saw the inanity of trying to contain, restrict, and productize the dissemination of ideas. Despite what you might say about the law's INTENT, that IS what modern copyright is being used to accomplish. We're all in favor of artists getting paid for their work, if it is, in fact, desired by the public -- it's just that the current "wisdom" of doing that by restricting all forms of copying is stupid, inefficient, impossible to enforce without neutering technological progress, and, most importantly, does a piss-poor job of ACTUALLY compensating said artists. instead, what it ACTUALLY does is:
* Make soulless publisher/weasels filthy rich, who then,
* Repress and take advantage of said "good and true and noble" artists, by
* Lobbying Congress, and
* Convincing certain people (I won't mention names) that:
* Ideas SHOULD BE property, and
* That copying expressions of ideas is "stealing", in order to
* Use the people's absolute ideas about control of our own property to get said "certain persons" to:
* Support the maintenance and expansion of the laws that allow them to maintain their iron-fisted chokehold on the means of distribution of artistic works.
I further would use his words to point out that copyright law, as it was created, was viewed as a necessary EVIL -- it's purpose was to get more stuff created, NOT to create new forms of property and ensure artists get paid for creating stuff (as the parent implied its purpose is). My argument would be that, since copyright law is NOT intended to create or convey property ownership, and IS considered an "evil", and, further, that we now have new, different, and (IMO) better ways to go about compensating artists using technology and systems that didn't exist at the time of the creation of U.S. copyright law
And, as far as justification goes, I can justify breaking a crappy laws like that on my own, without any help from Jefferson whatsoever. If a law is stupid, costly, unfair, and doesn't even accomplish what is supposed to FOR someone, while simultaneously causing injury to the public at large, and its enforcement causes more harm than its breaking, I happily break it of my own volition -- I assume, based on your unquestioning support of copyright, since it is hte law of the land, that you've never jay-walked? (And that you actually are a big supporter of Jefferson's slave-banging actions, since such actions were, in fact, in corcordance with the law of the land at the time of their commission
What do you think he means with all that "forces itself into the possession of every one" stuff?
Hmmmm, I wonder
"I can't seem to nail down what your issues are either."
Well, then here it is simply: You seem to be simultaneously saying that Sun would never have open-sourced Solaris without Linux, yet their move somehow has nothing to do with Linux, or, rather, more accurately, that it CAN NOT possibly be viewed as a "reaction to Linux".
This position, to me, discounts things like the whole LAMP (Apache on Linux) phenomenon. We know a big part of Sun's go-go profitability in the 90's was due to buildup in web infrastructure, an area where Linux is now eating Sun's lunch.
Also, I think you are still missing my point about the best technical solution not always being the winner. Or that the decision that makes the most "business sense" not being the one that is always chosen. It seems that you feel that IT managers (for large institutions, anyway) always have, and will always, choose based on cold, hard analysis of performance-per-dollar computing expenditures. I've seen too many obvious contradictions of that position to believe that.
The base issue of what we are aruging, it seems to me, is the question, "Does Sun see Linux as a competitive threat?"
If so, then it would be difficult (for me, at least, you may not agree) to view something like the open-sourcing of Solaris as anything BUT a competitive, reactionary move.
If not, then it's all just posturing and marketing and makes no difference in Sun's "real-world" strategy, anyway.
If you in any way agree that this is at least part of the issue, then answer me this -- if Sun sees no threat from Linux, and couldn't care less about how it's "hot-topic-of-the-day" status might affect Sun's future business, then what explains the passionate and hateful nature of every press release from the company that involves either Linux, or, more especially, Red Hat?
If they know that their kernel is so much better, and are convinced that IT managers will ALWAYS see it this way, and NEVER even CONSIDER switching to Linux, since it is, by your definition, no REAL competition to Solaris, why are they wasting their time on this war of meaningless words and not instead focusing on working to make it so that they are NOT "poorly situated to make a profit when trying to go to some other computing enterprise."?
"If Sun doesn't grow, it dies."
I sure wish I could get people to stop repeating this particular bit of "philosophy" as if it were writ large in the gospel. I don't blame you for unquestioningly believing it -- it's so prevalent in our culture it's nearly impossible to escape it. Below is a bit of counter-point philosophy for you. It differs from the one you proffered in that it has the advantage of making logical sense:
"Show me someone who thinks something can successfully grow infinitely within the confines of a finite universe, and I'll show you a madman. Or an economist."
"...that does not mean Sun can adopt Linux's tactics to prevail."
Never said it did. I think Sun is screwed in any case. However, that's beside the point of whether they "opened" Solaris as a reaction to Linux or not. They don't know, or won't admit, that they're screwed, and will continue to act, at least publicly, as if they are not, until the whole fancy charade goes up in smoke.
This is part of the real problem Sun faces, and relates to your "Sun must grow" comment from earlier. This sort of thinking on Sun's part is one of the things that is killing them, in fact. Sun could easily do a little maneuvering and take a place as a profitable provider of "rock solid", integrated computing systems for high-end *niche* markets, which they could probably successfully defend from Linux's encroachment. But this would require them to drop the logically fallacious "grow or die" ideals that our culture foists upon them (and, indeed, ALL of us).
They have to wake up and realize they simply CAN'T compete with a free operating system that is plenty good for more and more of what
the possibility the financial industry may switch to Linux is not PROOF (in itself) that Solaris "opened up" the kernel as a reaction to Linux.
.... ;^)
... Sun did not "open-source" its code AS A RESPONSE to linux threatening its market...
No, not proof. Evidence, but not proof.
Thanks for your comments, and I hope that you don't consider me being probably the only person reading them on such an old post as the writing being a "wasted effort"
That said, I think you provide a very well-informed and well-argued justification for your position regarding whether Linux SHOULD replace Sun in the enterprise market (or, more accurately, why it SHOULDN'T).
A couple statements you make seem a bit contradictory to me, like these two:
But I believe Sun would *not* have "open-sourced" Solaris if linux *never* existed.
and
It seems strange to me that you would find the open sourcing of Solaris to be a reaction to Linux, yet not see it as a defensive move -- in light of your comment that Linux does not (really, CAN NOT) threaten Solaris at the high end, it sort of makes a certain kind of sense.
The thing that I think you are discounting is the whole "network effect" part of this -- ie, the willingness of most people to jump on whatever they see as the latest bandwagon cruising by them. (Never mind if they already own a semi-trailer -- if everybody else is on THAT wagon, that's where they want to be...)
SGI talked for years about the overall cost savings that could be afforded by using their high-end renderfarms, and they were largely right, but what was ROTK rendered on? There are a hundred other examples -- if people based their decisions ONLY on rational "bang-for-the-buck" money / technical considerations, would Windows have been more popular than BeOS? Would ANYONE have ever sold something as ridiculous as a pet rock or cabbage patch kid? (I realize enterprise IT purchasers are far different from these markets, even the SGI, high-end workstation market, but that doesn't mean they're not HUMAN. Nobody wants to be on, or buy from, the losing team.)
I think Sun sees Linux not as a threat to them technically, which we can both agree on, but I do feel this open-sourcing is a marketing maneuver, specifically designed to attempt to negate what people perceive as one of the advantages of Linux (even if the VAST majority never even look at the source).
And there is also the plain fact that, as you say, "Sun is in big trouble", and one of the advantages of open source and Linux is not necessarily being stranded if your vendor goes belly up. I'm not saying that the high-end clients of Sun would ever AVAIL themselves of that advantage even after Sun dies, but marketing is ALWAYS about perception, not reality.
You still seem to be clinging to the idea that, if this open-sourcing is about Sun reacting to the Linux "threat", then that MUST mean that Sun has decided it MUST make Solaris just like Linux, like when you say:
Linux, circa 2004, is just not a threat to Solaris's niche market (yet). Sun is not morphing itself to be like Linux, because it would lose.
I don't think this follows at all, or even relates to the original question -- just because Sun makes a marketing move designed to give people the IMPRESSION that Linux enjoys no advantage of OPENNESS over Solaris, that doesn't mean they really have to believe that they must "morphing" Solaris into Linux. But it also doesn't mean that the marketing move was never inspired by, or a reaction to, Linux in the first place.
You make some great points, but we seem to be arguing about two different issues.
You make some good points about why Solaris is a technically better kernel, but these don't address the original point, which was, "is Sun open-sourcing Solaris as a means of competing with (or, more accurately, preventing the competition with) Linux in the financial enterprise market?". Do you really believe that, because Linux is "not as efficient with threaded applications", and "not as reliable as Solaris for transactional processing", NO ONE in the financial industry is EVER going to consider switching from Solaris to Linux, and therefore the opening of Solaris cannot POSSIBLY be seen as a reaction to Linux? That companies like Google and WETA Digital AREN'T using Linux clusters to accomplish MASSIVE parallelism, and that, since they AREN'T actually accomplishing this, the IT people in the enterprise financial space can't POSSIBLY be noticing this activity and becoming interested in Linux?
...
You're still confusing "competing with Linux in one market" with "making Solaris exactly like Linux for every market", and I still can't think of any simpler way to say those words so that you can more easily grasp their meaning.
If you write back, try not to waste time trying to convince me that "Solaris is better than Linux." That's never been the point. Instead, try to justify your apparent belief that Sun would EVER have even CONSIDERED open-sourcing Solaris in the absence of Linux
It will keep them more closely tied to their big-ticket customers
If this is true, and also, as you posted earlier, that "big financial institutions (or software houses that cater to them) have access to the kernel source so they can add value to the kernel", then wasn't their ability to do that with Linux, and NOT Solaris before now, one of the possible reasons for them to switch to Linux?
You seem to be confusing us saying "compete with Linux in one of Sun's key markets", which Solaris IS NOW doing, with "become exactly like Linux for EVERY market", which Solaris is oviously NEVER going to do.
Unlike a lot of mindless supporters of the war who I sometimes really believe just like kicking the shit our of people from different countries, you've thought through the issues, don't have blinders on as regards WMDs and what Bush REALLY believed, and have generally come to a supportable position in favor of continuing our current policies in Iraq.
Of course, I still think you're wrong and disagree with what you think is the correct course of action, but I would like to hear your response to the following:
Despite your comment about evil, violent people, I'd imagine, thoughtful as you are on other issues, and bad as the tactics employed by terrorists are, that you realize OBL doesn't get up in the morning, and, in a movie-villain-esque manner twist up his mustachio and wonder what evil he can perpetrate on the world. He, like us, thinks he is employing the tactics he must employ to make what he believes is "right" transpire in the world.
Given that the terrorists, and the vast majority of Middle Easterners that sympathize with their cause, believe they are "right" and we are "wrong", and that the real evil being perpetrated in the Middle East is the U.S. foreign policy of military interventionism concerning what they see as their own private affairs, how can we "convert" them to a U.S.-approved form of democratic government, when we are using the methods they hate us for in the first place to accomplish such (ie, military interventionism)?
Surely you don't believe the hatred they feel towards us will just evaporate into moonbeams and morning dew the day after we "allow" them to elect their own government? And, if it IS their hatred of our policies that is the seed that allows the tree of terrorism to grow, how can employing more of that same policy ever cause the hatred to be diminished?
(Please understand, this question is NOT facetious -- I know several intelligent (apparently more so than the people leading this crusade -- or, at least, more intelligent than they can allow themselves to appear and still remain popular in the polls) who believe much as you do regarding our NEED to convert at least some portion of the MidEast to "our way" of thinking -- but I can never get a very well-thought-out answer to this question: "How can we convert a people to "our" side by using MORE of the tactics that put them on the "other" side in the first place?")
But the government there was supporting individuals that would like to "end" America.
.... really, after a few more wars much like the current one, what country to you expect that statement NOT to apply to?
If that's the standard for launching war, you better be prepared to be accepting of coffins draped with American flags for a LOOOOONG time
No one likes war.
True, but you can get people to (almost) unilaterally support those wars that seem necessary, or at least useful for something other than promoting the business interests of the Presidential administration in power at the time.
Wars that waste billions fighting against a made-up threat, created in the minds of people who knew the threat to be false, against countries that have never threatened the attacking country, and pose no threat to said country -- well, these tend to be even LESS well-liked. As you may have noticed.
*sigh* -- Ok, let me try to educate you a little further.
starting out your debate by instantly trying to imply the stupidity of your opponent is obviously a result of your finely tuned superior intellect.
ummm, where did i imply your stupidity, or that you were my opponent, for that matter? Is there some thing that has made you feel so badly about yourself that makes you automatically assume others think the worst of you? If so, I can empathize, and suggest what was (for me, anyway) a very helpful therapist. I made a comment that the US school system is a brainwashing mechanism, which you defensively took as a slam against your own intelligence (hint: stupidity and ignorance are not the same thing; look it up if you don't believe me)
Second, I use capitals in my OP to indicate the use of a proper noun, as I intended. You might want to read something written by someone other than yourself if you're not familiar with the concept. As for the other gaffes, well, that's just laziness.
Third, I like to think that, on the off chance that I do say / write something intelligent, it's my words and ideas that another will be impressed by, not my punctilious use of punctuation (good word, huh, Mr. GramMmeR-NaSi!)
My point is, who defines if something has zero marginal cost?
umm, I did. In my original post, if you bothered to read on after your mouth started frothing.
Let us take a digital file, such as an mp3. What you are saying, is that after it is developed, it has zero marginal cost to redistribute it over the net.
YES! Now you're getting it, old chap!
That may be well and fine, but does that mean the person who buys the first copy should pay 50,000, and everyone else should then be able to copy it for free?
ugh, here we go again -- you just couldn't resist, could you? No, zero marginal cost does not in any way the first guy should pay 50Gs for it. In case you need a refresher from my original post again (you can look back at it again, if you want), the term "marginal cost" doesn't even refer to the original copy at all. It means the additional copies cost zero (or effectively zero) to produce.
The details of how the first copy get made or how much the original creator gets paid to make that first copy are, quite frankly, uninteresting to me. As humans, we have always been awash in such "original copies" of creative works. In fact, I'd daresay we'd be hard pressed to get RID OF THEM without wiping out the species. The idea that we will have some sort of a dearth of culture if the Governator can't make 20 mil per movie is either ignorant or stupid (depending on how much history one has studied).
Are you telling me that you believe it doesn't cost anything to create a file?
Well, that depends. If you're talking about the first copy, then no (see above if you're confused now). If you're talking about additional copies of a file then, yes, the cost is effectively zero.
Even OSS software has a cost, such as man hours to produce, etc. The fact that the creator chooses to donate that time freely does not mean it is without cost.
Nor does it mean that it does have a cost. What does it cost me to use OSS software, if I never contribute? Will you argue that Linus only wants me to use Linux if I write code? Moreover, what if I am in an industry such that every hour I spend working on the kernel improves it to the extent that I make back twice my hourly wage in increased revenue from increased productivity enabled by my software changes? Will you now argue that my labor has a negative cost, and that I should be charged for the privilege of performing such labor?
==========
Despite what you may think, the point of all this razzing, gesticulating, and (sometimes) far out hypothesizing is not to rile you up or try to get you to write an angry response, but rather to get you to THINK outside the simple ways in which you have been taught.
"Deciding if something is wrong or right should not depend on how it effects the economy"
haha haha haha haha haha haha haha haha haha haha
haha haha haha haha haha haha haha haha haha haha
haha haha haha haha haha haha haha haha haha haha
haha haha haha haha haha haha haha haha haha haha
You're funny.
I can see you were educated by the brainwashing machine we call the U.S. Public School System.
He didn't say "zero cost", he said "zero MARGINAL cost" -- I would amend to say "effectively-zero marginal cost".
The marginal cost of something is the cost for additional units of that thing -- if that thing is a digital file, the marginal cost is very nearly (effectively) zero (ie, the only cost is the tiny additional bit of electricity used for a few additional packets across the network). Obviously, this isn't the case with CDs or DVDs (or nearly any other physical product).
The idea that everything has a cost is recent, short-sighted, close-minded, and simplistic. Cost is a human notion, and things can only "cost" something if we choose to agree that they do.
What is the cost of air / breathing? How about the cost of incorporating public domain material in a new work? Would you agree these are both valuable things which are not "charged" for in the traditional sense? Why should digital distribution of ideas (by which I specifically DO NOT mean the creation of those ideas), which has the same "costs" as these things, be any different?
You keep harping on how downloads interfering with your revenue stream looks the same to an artist / creator as "stealing", but you then commit the same offense against the people you wish to convince to give you money for something as ephemeral as an *idea*, by neglecting to think about how DRM (and it's related enforcement) looks to *them*.
Tell me, Mr. Pro-DRM Guy, while we're describing "differences", how is DRM and associated DMCA-type legislation any different from the establishment of an Orwellian division of thought-crimes? Was Sklyarov not arrested for what amounts to a thought-crime (giving a speech at a conference)? Has the DMCA not been used for a variety of speech-surpressing purposes?
Which is more important, protecting the profits of a relatively insignificant industry (in terms of GDP), at the expense of a much larger industry, or protecting the principle of Free Speech for *all* of the citizens of our Republic, upon which our nation is founded?
What about the (larger) number of technologists who will inevitably suffer because of the introduction of a draconian DRM regime? Should we ignore their cries in the interest of protecting that which is "right" for artist / creators of IP, based on incredibly naive notion that all "property" ownership is identical and should be treated as an inviolable right?
What about the rights of those people who live near the airport, and who have the right under traditional notions of property to restrict the use of airspace above their land? Should we dismantle the airline industry in the interest of preserving the property "rights" of those people, regardless of the overall damage to the public's notion of mobility?
While we're at it, should we not also get rid of cable TV, radio, records, player pianos, phones, and all the rest, so that the populace is *incapable* of violating our sacred notions of intellectual "property"? If we are going to say that digital technology should be modified, restrained, and curtailed in the interest of protection of the inviolate idea of copy-"rights", why should these technologies be any different? Do they not all decrease the ability of the "right"-ful owner of ideas to control their use and dissemination?
Governments are NOT in the business of legislating "good" and "evil" for their constituents, anymore than they are legislating "right" and "wrong", because what is "right" for one group is "evil" for another, and so on and so forth. All that matters for effective government (and avoiding revolution) is determining the greatest good for the greatest number.
Unfortunately, you are in a minority that is trying to force something "good" for you onto the majority that it is "wrong" for. Therefore, don't be surprised when your forays into DRM-ing away the rights of that "other" majority is met with negativity, open hostility, boycott campaigns, and, when DRM is actually made to be _effective_, far worse responses.
But hey, if it can keep those in the copyright cartel from having to actually *adapt* to new technology the way everyone else has throughout the history of the world, isn't that worth fomenting a few, small attempts at revolution and the creation of a general attitude of contempt among the citizenry for the activities of government?
What happened to right and wrong?
Glad to hear you have not and never will use a VCR or view a VHS video tape, as the same industry you are defending decided those things were "wrong" many years ago and still feel they are "wrong", despite the billions these technologies make for them. After all, shouldn't the creators be the ones to exercise ultimate control over their own creation, and, you, as a person who does "right", abide by their wishes?
Following the law?
Correct. You win the prize for discovering that it is always "right" to follow the law, and always "wrong" to disobey it. Seig Heil!
Even if you feel the industry makes plenty of money and won't miss your $8 admission it is still wrong to pirate movies.
Actually, it's "right" for you not to pirate movies, but it's "wrong" for me not to. I admit my actions in pirating are illegal, but they are most definitely the "right" response to the unchecked attempt by the copyright cartel to expand their control of the public and create an Orwellian division of thought-crime enforcement.
Are you starting to get some idea of how this "right" and "wrong" stuff works? Do you need more hints? (Hint 1: Some people think there may be some amount of relativism invested in those two terms. Mostly "crazy" people.)
Piracy is not a form of civil disobedience.
To this, I can only say: "Yes. It is." As is boycotting. As is anything else I choose to engage in that is:
a) civil (hint 2: in this context, this word means "non-violent".)
b) disobedient (hint 3: in this context, this word basically means "against the wishes of the prevailing regime / power brokers / totalitarian state, etc. Aren't these vocabulary lessons *fun*?!?)
On the other hand, maybe you're right and it is a good idea to let those in power decide exactly how, when, and where those who disagree with the status quo should be allowed to express our displeasure. That way, the voices of the masses will be heard much more effectively, and change will come about much more quickly, because those in power will use their greater resources to their fullest extent in order to encourage effective dissemination of the voices of dissent!
Bravo for your incisive thinking, dipsh!t. You should be back on solid food soon.
Is that it assumes inviolate, undefilable, exclusive, monopoly rights to copies of creative work as a god-given right, to be protected by the Constitution like that Life, Liberty, and So Forth Jazz.
It's not.
The purpose of allowing the evil that intellectual property monopolies create regarding the rights of the media "consumer" is to stimulate creators to benefit the public by creating more works. It specifically IS NOT to pad the pockets of publishers and provide them with ultimate control so that they can make the same amount of money no matter how bad the lazy crap they turn out is.
While you are right that preventing copyright infringement is the law of the land, the people pushing for MORE control and rights (at the cost of the rights of the public) are saying they need such rights SPECIFICALLY because they are being harmed financially. If they are not, in fact, being harmed financially, and are (as some studies suggest) actually being HELPED because the freedom that widespread copyright infringement engenders tends to grow the overall market, then the appropriate response to the "problem" of copyright infringement becomes much different.
As for the argument of "What's the possible amount?" -- it is totally specious, as it is always impossible to say X has Y effect on Z, unless you can examine Z in the absence of X. Which is impossible, unless you have a spare Earth lying around with a different set of digital technologies created on it.
Considering the current state of the economy, and that MOST industries (especially those related to entertainment and leisure) are suffering a difficult time, I think we're pretty safe to assume that a movie business that has just had one of it's best months EVER is not being hurt that badly. But maybe that's just me. Maybe they really would have made $10 billion if we could just get rid of the Internet -- and wouldn't it be worth it to get rid of the Internet if it would just make a few more dollars for some corporate media CEO's who are already rich?
ALL GOVERNMENT LAWS, POLICIES, AND PROCEDURES ARE GOOD FOR SOME AND BAD FOR OTHERS. There is no set of inviolable "rights" concerning intellectual property that must be "protected" at all costs; there are only tradeoffs and the process of trying to create a system that creates the greatest good for the greatest number.
The sooner you realize this, the sooner you will stop looking stupid to intelligent people.
the difference being ..... ?
for saying this. You hear that crap about "artists would NEVER create things without copyrights" regurgitated by idiots so often that you start to think that you are the ONLY ONE in the universe who knows that the statement is complete and total bullshit. Nice to know at least ONE other person has TRIED, at least, to remove the blinders of popular culture.