I understand where you're coming from, but I simply don't share your faith in humanity.
If he had faith in humanity, I doubt he'd need a gun to feel safe. There is something to be said for the argument that it would deter a lot of violent confrontations if it was likely the person you were itching to harm or any onlooker was packing a concealed piece. How this would balance with hot-headed morons pulling their guns without thinking is up for speculation.
I believe you've missed the point. This isn't about whether or not it should be legal to violate copyrights. This is about enforcement. The laws saying it is illegal to steal intellectual property are already in place. They have been for a long time. This legislation is about forcing limitations on technology to make copying harder on the assumption that it will be used illegally. This goes against the assumption of innocence, first and foremost. Second, it sets the dangerous precedence that is it alright to limit freedom if it will prevent crimes. So modern technology makes breaking copyright laws easier? So what. Cars make it easier to commit crimes than it was a century ago because they provide faster getaways. Should this mean that Congress should mandate the implanting of tracking devices in all cars, under the assumption that they will be used in the commission of crimes? Of course not. Not in this country, anyway. Such thinking is purely facist and, if it were in reference to anything but the poorly comprehended world of multimedia and computer technology, the politicians wouldn't even consider it.
I think there is flawed thinking at work here. Every industry that produces something is subject to theft. There are laws against it but no other industry demands that legal steps be taken to make it impossible. This is akin to grocery stores (who take heavy losses to shrinkage) lobbying for tracking devices in all food packages so that they can monitor their locations at all times, in order to deter theft. Congress would find such a suggestion ludicrous, and well they should. The media and computer industries are welcome to pursue their own means to deter theft, but it is not a government matter.
You contradict your own logic on the soda front. You say that it is okay to take the soda because there is no reasonable way to prevent the vendor suffering the loss, then go on to present a scenario which does just that which you explicitly state is reasonable. Thus, your rationalization for stealing dissolves.
Also, I don't see how the loss is by the vendor's 'own mistake'. The only way I can see mechanical failure being a fault of the owner is if they don't keep up proper maintenance. Otherwise, it is an accident of chance for which they shouldn't have to suffer further injury of theft. If the lock on the machine broke, do you imagine that it is the moral thing to do to raid the machine for free soda? I doubt it. Yet that is the logical extension of your argument.
I believe you are incorrect in your interpretation. Your quote of Marshall doesn't invalidate the 10th Amendment, what it does is clarify that Congress is allowed to elaborate on their Constitutional authority without violating it. However, the amendment still serves to deny Congress the authority to surpass their Constitutional mandate. This is a fine line. What it amounts to is that, unless Congress can make an argument that a new power is derivative of their duties, according to the Constitution, it is a violation of the 10th Amendment.
The Terminator has morphed into Dagwood Bumstead, but good for him: at least somebody is worrying about how the gene map will be used.
Oh, yeah. Knee-jerk rejection of new technology is really responsible contemplation of its impact. Right, whatever. I get so tired of these alarmist films that demonize whatever they technology they are depicting through gross exaggeration, doomsday scenarios, and distortion. The Net, Gattaca, and hundreds of mindless horrors movies casting technology and science in the role of humanity's ultimate enemy. It doesn't impress me. There is a difference between thoughtful, provocative treatment of technology's philosophical questions (like Blade Runner) and the latest parable about evil scientists recklessly endangering the future of the world.
All in all, I think it was a valiant effort. The effects could have been a bit better, though I thought that the costuming was interesting. I have to agree, though, that they would have been served well by extending it another episode or two in order to develop the characters more and slow down the pace of the plot. Many of the pivotal moments seemed very rushed and plot points were introduced too quickly to really get a good sense of why they were significant or what they meant. The pace really hurt several key elements like the betrayel of Yueh, which lacked any emotional 'punch' for me since the character had so little screen time and little to no interaction with the main characters. I barely knew which one was supposed to be Yueh. While there is much maligning of Lynch's version, I think this is something he did much better.
Did anyone else notice that CNN completely ignored Harry Browne in their live coverage last night? Even though he did almost as well as Buchanan, they didn't list him with the state presidential election results. However, they did list the Natural Law candidate John Hagelin, who got less than a quarter of the votes Browne did. Further, on their web site, they didn't list the total popular votes Browne got, but did list Buchanan. Given that Harry was on the ballot in 49 states and placed fifth, I find this highly suspect. I can't fathom why they'd ignore him, yet report diligently on a minor third party contender like Hagelin. Any thoughts?
First off, the 'rich and elite' web is an actual myth of the net. I've been on it for nine years now, from when I was a poor college student, to an underemployed dishwasher, to a professional sysadmin. Similarly, the people I've met online run the full gamut from living off Ramen so that they can afford their internet access, to highly successful professionals, tending more towards the low end of that spectrum than the high. The influx of 'rich and powerful' folks is recent, it isn't the rule, and costs are dropping, not leveling out.
Second, disproving the claim that virtual communities are a myth is simple. I'm part of a virtual community. Several actually. Most of my friends are on the net, most of my business work is done on the net, I even bought my new car and met my soon to be wife on the net. I find more emotional support, relaxation, and community interaction online than I ever did in the 'real world'.
Lastly, as someone already pointed out, there is nothing about communities that require them to be based in the material. That's just an arbitrary definition imposed by the author in order to add
legitimacy to his own argument. Such tactics do not befit reasoned, rational arguments. However, given the dismissive tone Katz implies, I find it doubtful that the author was interested in truth or objectivity. Like most soapboxers, he likely had his mind made up long before he ever started looking for 'evidence' to support his view. Rants and rationalizations disguised as rationality don't impress me.
In this respect, Open Source takes advantage of the same forces that capitalism does in order to produce and innovate. In capitalism, the selfish pursuit of individual desires and needs results in a system with high efficiency at producing these things and exchanging them between those who would benefit by the trade. On the other hand, planned economies suffer from having to guess what the market desires and are in a position where they aren't free to innovate or try new things because they effect too many people. Also, they suffer from inefficiency due to the required bureaucracy and administrative structure.
Similarly, the difficulty with commercial software is based on bureaucratic inefficiency, poor incentives to make radical changes to software, and the need to try and gauge the needs and desires of a large audience. Open Source, on the other hand, is driven by numerous individuals coding for their own selfish needs and tends to produce much more innovative software, more quickly and efficiently. Also, the same complaints are levelled at capitalism and Open Source: they are strict meritocracies where the incompetant suffer and humanitarian concerns (like feeding the hungry and getting computer illiterates online) can fall by the wayside.
I'm sorry, but the GPL in and of itself is not Libertarian. IMHO, no license can be considered libertarian, because it is in its very nature restrictive. The GPL maybe restrictive for a very good reason, but it is restrictive none the less.
I hate to break it to you, but one of the cornerstones of libertarianism is contracts. Libertarianism is against restrictions posed by government agencies and others who threaten violence to force compliance. Any sort of consentual agreement, on the other hand, is quite decidely libertarian.
To comment on the rest of the thread, Open Source is not particularly libertarian. There are quite a few really socialist open source advocates. Nor is commercial software un-libertarian. How one could even claim this, given the libertarian bias towards economic competition and elevation of property rights above all over considerations, is absolutely beyond me.
Eric Christian Berg
It never ceases to amaze me that people equate the ability to deceive medical insurance companies about their state of health as some sort of privacy issue. A good analogy would be complaining that it is a violation of your right to privacy to allow someone who wants to buy a car off of you to see it and have it inspected first. Insurance companies are a business and they are perfectly within their rights to ask for appropriate information prior to entering into an agreement to pay your medical expenses.
Eric Christian Berg
You are misunderstanding what it is precisely that conservatives (and libertarians, I might add) are generally complaining about. It isn't the expansion of civil liberties but the creation of 'positive rights'. That is, rights that entitle a person to the product of another person's labor. They are talking about things like the 'right to health care' and the 'right to food' which require that somebody else foot the bill. These are in contrast to 'negative rights' which merely put restrictions on the actions of people, like the rights to life and liberty, which merely seek to prevent people from killing or imprisoning each other and don't entitle people to anyone else's stuff.
Eric Christian Berg
Oh, please. By what logic does someone have the right to the product of another person's labor without compensation? This is right up there with the 'right to health care' and the 'right to cable TV'. Further, though you may not agree with some artists' decision not to allow people to trade their music for free, it is their decision to make, not yours. To use your disagreement as an excuse to steal from them is pure rationalization. If I don't like the price an auto dealer is selling a car at, I am not allowed to steal the car and mail him what I think it is worth. Eric Christian Berg
There is no coercion in a free exchange of goods. The musician provides the music, you provide the money. There is no coercion involved. It is like saying that you should be able to choose whether or not to pay the grocer for the apple you just ate, because if you were forced to hold up your end of the economic transaction, it would be 'coercive'. It doesn't fly.
Insightful? Hardly. Musicians have as much of a right for compensation of what they produce as anyone else. What, pray tell, denies a musician the same rights a plumber has, or a carpenter, or an insurance salesman? Spare us the 'we do it for the art' bullshit. People have to eat. If the choice is between producing music for a bunch of self-centered pirates who don't care enough about the hours you spent writing or recording a song, or getting a 'real' job and putting food on the table, most people will choose the later. Even if they don't want to.
Further, the assertion that the people who will be forced out of the music industry will be those pursuing money is assinine. Did you even read the article before spouting off? The people who won't be able to afford producing music will be the small, interesting bands. The huge commercial superstars with their bland pop product will be the ones who stick around.
As is usual with Katz articles, I'm not even sure where to begin. His slander of the United States is the first offensive matter, but that appears to have been drilled into the ground, so I'll move on to the second issue to spring to mind. This one appears to be a common theme in his articles of late: knee-jerk doomsaying of new technology.
For a man who claims to be in touch to modern culture and the cutting edge attitude of the net, Katz seems more in tune with the reactionaries who are constantly screaming about the potential and usually imaginary dangers of any new thing which comes into the spotlight. For all his dire predictions throughout this article, he brings not a single compelling or realistic concern to light. Hint here, Katz, you can throw around the Frankenstein metaphor all you like, but just saying the name of the good doctor every few sentances doesn't, in itself, validate your argument.
For example, your 'perfect baby' scenario and its reference to the laughable movie 'Gattaca' both ignore a number of complexities of the issue, preferring to simplify it to the point of utter inapplicability. First off, these things do not happen all at once. There is no 'BOOM! We have the genome, we now understand how every genetic malfunction works. Pregnant women, please form a single file line for genetic screening'. Were this the case, Katz might have a point. It isn't. He doesn't. This is going to advance slowly, with the key to each disease coming after years of painful research, with plenty of time for the integration of tests and treatments into the already existing pre-natal care package. As screening progresses, hopefully these conditions will be eliminated or lessened to the point where they are no longer applicable, and quicker, easier, less intrusive tests will make it so that there is no continuous medical examination as Katz depicts. This is the history of medicine to date. It is easy to see how Katz' concerns could just as easily apply to the era when immunization was first discovered and it is easy to see how untrue they turned out to be.
The problem with people like Katz is that they detract from the actual issues that should be of concern. Real ethical issues are complicated. By overly simplifying them, such people as he only breed prejudice, knee-jerk reactions, and hysteria. Meanwhile, anyone trying to address the actual concerns is drowned out in a miasma of outrage and self-righteousness. As much as Katz complains about the arrogance and lack of good judgement which Americans have, he and those like him are the primary cause of as much of it as does exist.
The difference between Ayn Rand is this: this forum is open to debate, therefore this is not a doctrinal belief system like objectivism...
This is incorrect. A large portion of people who call themselves Objectivists, including many of Rand's groupies, espouse a doctrinal belief system. However, this bears little relation to the actual philosophy. It is easy to miss this, since Rand's own behavior was wildly inconsistant with the philosophical system she wrote about, but nonetheless, any reading of the actual philosophical texts of Objectivism quickly dispute the claim that it is dogmatic in any sense.
Rather, the central premise of Objectivist metaphysics is that truth is absolute given a specific context. This is reflected in the heavy reliance on individual judgement and conscious decision making that is stressed repeatedly throughout both the fiction and non-fiction. Nowhere in Objectivist morality is there a list of 'thou shalt' and 'thou shalt nots'. Rather, there is a set of general principles which are applied to any given particular situation to determine the correct moral response. Individual judgementes may vary but the thinking is that rational human beings, if honest with themselves and the facts, will come to the same conclusion.
Unfortunately, this has been very poorly misinterpreted and many self-proclaimed Objectivists attempt to make an intellectual short cut by taking specific examples and particular situations from the books Rand wrote and using them as a set of absolute moral laws. On top of this, taking after Rand's own dismissive and belligerent attitude, they have a poor tendency to throw around buzzwords as a means to discredit (mostly to their own minds) dissenting opinions. None of this is helped by the fact that her intellectual 'heir' is one of the worst perpetrators of both sorts of behavior.
It is worthwhile to read the material in question and judge it on its own merit rather than relying on experiences or anecdotes of practitioners. Particularly with such a young philosophy. I believe it was Nietzsche who said that you can never judge an ideology by its first generation of adherents.
I have noticed that every time the rights of the artists get brought up in this discussion, there is a flurry of rationalizations based on the cost of CDs, whether or not the person would have bought the album anyway, how much the band is making, etc. This isn't surprising, since these are the sorts of inconsequential things people tend to focus on when they are rationalizing an action which they know is wrong. They pick out details in an attempt to justify themselves, both to others and in their own mind, so that they can leisurely continue to do whatever they are doing without a guilty conscience.
However, what people seem to be missing is the principle of it all. The question of how much money is lost or not lost isn't relevant. Right and wrong are not decided on pragmatic grounds such as these. No, the question is simply: what are the rights of the artists and have they been ignored?
There are few people who would argue that the artists don't have any right to their own music, but they tend to start waffling when this fact is inconvenient for them. The fact is, however, that they have as much right to the product of their labor as anybody else. How reproducable this product is isn't really an issue. It is simply a matter of respect to honor an artists' wishes concerning his or her work. If I want to lock my car in my garage and never drive it, this doesn't give someone else the right to steal it just because they disagree with how I've chosen to use or not use my property. Similarly, just because you don't agree with an artists' choices on how his or her music is distributed doesn't give you the right to steal it, either. To do so is an act of ultimate disrespect to the artist and I would venture to guess that this, more than money issues, is what is getting under the skin of these performers. The question of whether or not these rights have been violated is simple: they have been. Quite clearly. If they choose to sell a CD to you with the understanding that only you will use it, you are ignoring their rights completely by ripping it and uploading it for anyone to have access to. You can justify it any way you want but no neo-anarchstic whining about property laws is going to change that you have disrespected the artists' wishes. They have given you this product, this music, which they worked hard on and you have stolen it for a bunch of people you don't even know.
So, rationalizations aside, I would like to know why Katz believes that the petty criminality of a bunch of kids should be protected, and the rights of hard-working artists should not?
Privacy is a sticky issue. First off, despite what Katz may like to believe, privacy isn't meant to protect people from reprecussions for breaking the law. It is to protect people from invasion into their social lives. The world does not need to know who I am sleeping with or what I like to read unless I chose to share that. Also, there are often social reprecussions which attach to particular behavior which I may want to avoid.
However, the situation becomes muddied when people are unhappy with the laws. Many people use privacy as a shield to protect themselves from persecution under laws which they feel are unfair. Thus, advocates of marijuana use privacy laws to keep the police from searching their homes or tapping their phone. This is another example. People who dislike copyright laws hide behind the issue of privacy on the Internet in order to break them with impunity.
However, one should never lose sight of the fact that this isn't what privacy laws are supposed to do. Katz asserts throughout the entire article that the right to privacy of the Napster users is more important than the rights of the artists to protect their work. This is simply untrue. Privacy isn't even an issue here. A crime was committed, whether you like the law or not, and in the course of criminal investigations, privacy isn't really a valid issue.
Well, that's not entirely true. It is an issue if you have something to hide.
Actually my 'cynical response' more goes like - "they better make the first episode a blockbuster or they'll never get the funding to finish the other 2"
They are filming all three concurrently, so this really isn't a concern. Last reports I heard, they were already filming Helm's Deep scenes, which take place halfway through the second novel.
I just love to watch people rationalize. Poster after poster makes claims about the state of the recording industry, where the profits are coming from and how much money is made off of this or that aspect, and what everyone's cut is. None of them, of course, work in the recording industry or have done a real study of it. No, such activity might provide facts which dispute their opinion on the matter and we can't have that.
One poster in particular was precious. In response to one artist's comment on her finances, his response was 'bullshit, that can't be true'. Why not? Because it contradicts what you decided was true and what supports your position? He isn't the only one. Everyone is having a grand old time discarding the information that doesn't agree with them using lame excuses about it being recording industry propoganda or just a few rich, successful artists whining.
I used to wonder why there was evil in the world. I don't anymore. You don't have to have evil people. You don't have to have psychos and mad dictators and supervillians. All you need are a bunch of ignorant people willing to rationalize. Once truth is discarded, anything is possible.
I get a little irked by all these people complaining because they can't make money any more. Here's a hint: if you don't need to practice medicine; it you don't enjoy it so much that you'd do it for free, I don't want to have you treat me. It's "doctors" that are only in it for the money that gives us crappy service.
I realize that it costs money to practice medicine. Get a job! It's not that expensive...
Get the picture, yet? Just because a tailor produces something tangible and a musician produces something intangible does not invalidate that the two are asking for payment for the same thing: time and effort. Tailors don't just charge the price of the material, after all. Or do you think they should? Hell, I guess they shouldn't be a tailor if they don't love it.
God, I hate people with no grasp of economics or the meaning of money.
Why exactly does it take money to make music? I would say just the opposite. This is one of the main differences between physical and virtual objects, physical objects require raw material and equipment to produce, while virtual objects do not, they only require time.
Not to be cliche, but time is money. Everyone who works is being paid for their time and effort. People tend to brush this off, though, because it is intangible. That's why intellectual property is such a sticky issue. Normally fairly ethical people can rationalize stealing something like a song or a program when they wouldn't think of stealing a car or a wallet, because the product and the cost behind it are both ephemeral.
The other main difference is that physical objects are expensive to replicate, while virtual objects are not, which is the base of this whole issue.
Indeed. When a person labors for an hour to make a lamp and you steal it, it is very obvious the cost: the materials and one hour of the person's time and effort. When someone labors for an hour to write a song and you steal it, the costs are much harder to quantify. There are no materials to the song itself and they can still sing it, so what harm have you really done? Similarly, once you've heard the song, it is in your head. Are you stealing it if you hum it while you are working?
However, I think it is faulty to look at it purely as a matter of harm (and harm is done), but one of recognition. That was part of the point of the article, that nobody in this debate is giving the artists any recognition. They aren't interested in their opinions, they aren't even asking them permission out of courtesy.
Paying for a piece of intellectual property is recognition of the time and effort put into it. If you don't recognize this, you are stealing, regardless of how cheap the cost of transfer is or how infinitely replicable the product is, because you are not recognizing the status and attendant rights of the creator.
This promises to be the second time they've gotten the age of the main character wrong in casting. Paul was a teenager, and small for his size. Although I imagine that the actor in the pictures could just be the older Paul that's been in the desert for years, I somehow doubt it.
Also, I'm curious to see if they weaken Jessica's character like they did in the film. She is a very strong female character as written, but the movie tended to downplay that considerably and make her primarily a victim of fate and her own emotions rather than the self-controlled Bene Gesserit witch she was.
Slashdot Mirror
I understand where you're coming from, but I simply don't share your faith in humanity.
If he had faith in humanity, I doubt he'd need a gun to feel safe. There is something to be said for the argument that it would deter a lot of violent confrontations if it was likely the person you were itching to harm or any onlooker was packing a concealed piece. How this would balance with hot-headed morons pulling their guns without thinking is up for speculation.
Eric Christian Berg
I believe you've missed the point. This isn't about whether or not it should be legal to violate copyrights. This is about enforcement. The laws saying it is illegal to steal intellectual property are already in place. They have been for a long time. This legislation is about forcing limitations on technology to make copying harder on the assumption that it will be used illegally. This goes against the assumption of innocence, first and foremost. Second, it sets the dangerous precedence that is it alright to limit freedom if it will prevent crimes. So modern technology makes breaking copyright laws easier? So what. Cars make it easier to commit crimes than it was a century ago because they provide faster getaways. Should this mean that Congress should mandate the implanting of tracking devices in all cars, under the assumption that they will be used in the commission of crimes? Of course not. Not in this country, anyway. Such thinking is purely facist and, if it were in reference to anything but the poorly comprehended world of multimedia and computer technology, the politicians wouldn't even consider it.
Eric Christian Berg
I think there is flawed thinking at work here. Every industry that produces something is subject to theft. There are laws against it but no other industry demands that legal steps be taken to make it impossible. This is akin to grocery stores (who take heavy losses to shrinkage) lobbying for tracking devices in all food packages so that they can monitor their locations at all times, in order to deter theft. Congress would find such a suggestion ludicrous, and well they should. The media and computer industries are welcome to pursue their own means to deter theft, but it is not a government matter.
Eric Christian Berg
You contradict your own logic on the soda front. You say that it is okay to take the soda because there is no reasonable way to prevent the vendor suffering the loss, then go on to present a scenario which does just that which you explicitly state is reasonable. Thus, your rationalization for stealing dissolves.
Also, I don't see how the loss is by the vendor's 'own mistake'. The only way I can see mechanical failure being a fault of the owner is if they don't keep up proper maintenance. Otherwise, it is an accident of chance for which they shouldn't have to suffer further injury of theft. If the lock on the machine broke, do you imagine that it is the moral thing to do to raid the machine for free soda? I doubt it. Yet that is the logical extension of your argument.
I believe you are incorrect in your interpretation. Your quote of Marshall doesn't invalidate the 10th Amendment, what it does is clarify that Congress is allowed to elaborate on their Constitutional authority without violating it. However, the amendment still serves to deny Congress the authority to surpass their Constitutional mandate. This is a fine line. What it amounts to is that, unless Congress can make an argument that a new power is derivative of their duties, according to the Constitution, it is a violation of the 10th Amendment.
Eric Christian Berg
Oh, yeah. Knee-jerk rejection of new technology is really responsible contemplation of its impact. Right, whatever. I get so tired of these alarmist films that demonize whatever they technology they are depicting through gross exaggeration, doomsday scenarios, and distortion. The Net, Gattaca, and hundreds of mindless horrors movies casting technology and science in the role of humanity's ultimate enemy. It doesn't impress me. There is a difference between thoughtful, provocative treatment of technology's philosophical questions (like Blade Runner) and the latest parable about evil scientists recklessly endangering the future of the world.
Eric Christian Berg
All in all, I think it was a valiant effort. The effects could have been a bit better, though I thought that the costuming was interesting. I have to agree, though, that they would have been served well by extending it another episode or two in order to develop the characters more and slow down the pace of the plot. Many of the pivotal moments seemed very rushed and plot points were introduced too quickly to really get a good sense of why they were significant or what they meant. The pace really hurt several key elements like the betrayel of Yueh, which lacked any emotional 'punch' for me since the character had so little screen time and little to no interaction with the main characters. I barely knew which one was supposed to be Yueh. While there is much maligning of Lynch's version, I think this is something he did much better.
Eric Christian Berg
Did anyone else notice that CNN completely ignored Harry Browne in their live coverage last night? Even though he did almost as well as Buchanan, they didn't list him with the state presidential election results. However, they did list the Natural Law candidate John Hagelin, who got less than a quarter of the votes Browne did. Further, on their web site, they didn't list the total popular votes Browne got, but did list Buchanan. Given that Harry was on the ballot in 49 states and placed fifth, I find this highly suspect. I can't fathom why they'd ignore him, yet report diligently on a minor third party contender like Hagelin. Any thoughts?
Eric Christian Berg
First off, the 'rich and elite' web is an actual myth of the net. I've been on it for nine years now, from when I was a poor college student, to an underemployed dishwasher, to a professional sysadmin. Similarly, the people I've met online run the full gamut from living off Ramen so that they can afford their internet access, to highly successful professionals, tending more towards the low end of that spectrum than the high. The influx of 'rich and powerful' folks is recent, it isn't the rule, and costs are dropping, not leveling out.
Second, disproving the claim that virtual communities are a myth is simple. I'm part of a virtual community. Several actually. Most of my friends are on the net, most of my business work is done on the net, I even bought my new car and met my soon to be wife on the net. I find more emotional support, relaxation, and community interaction online than I ever did in the 'real world'.
Lastly, as someone already pointed out, there is nothing about communities that require them to be based in the material. That's just an arbitrary definition imposed by the author in order to add legitimacy to his own argument. Such tactics do not befit reasoned, rational arguments. However, given the dismissive tone Katz implies, I find it doubtful that the author was interested in truth or objectivity. Like most soapboxers, he likely had his mind made up long before he ever started looking for 'evidence' to support his view. Rants and rationalizations disguised as rationality don't impress me.
Eric Christian Berg
In this respect, Open Source takes advantage of the same forces that capitalism does in order to produce and innovate. In capitalism, the selfish pursuit of individual desires and needs results in a system with high efficiency at producing these things and exchanging them between those who would benefit by the trade. On the other hand, planned economies suffer from having to guess what the market desires and are in a position where they aren't free to innovate or try new things because they effect too many people. Also, they suffer from inefficiency due to the required bureaucracy and administrative structure.
Similarly, the difficulty with commercial software is based on bureaucratic inefficiency, poor incentives to make radical changes to software, and the need to try and gauge the needs and desires of a large audience. Open Source, on the other hand, is driven by numerous individuals coding for their own selfish needs and tends to produce much more innovative software, more quickly and efficiently. Also, the same complaints are levelled at capitalism and Open Source: they are strict meritocracies where the incompetant suffer and humanitarian concerns (like feeding the hungry and getting computer illiterates online) can fall by the wayside.
And who said Open Source was communistics? :)
Eric Christian Berg
I'm sorry, but the GPL in and of itself is not Libertarian. IMHO, no license can be considered libertarian, because it is in its very nature restrictive. The GPL maybe restrictive for a very good reason, but it is restrictive none the less. I hate to break it to you, but one of the cornerstones of libertarianism is contracts. Libertarianism is against restrictions posed by government agencies and others who threaten violence to force compliance. Any sort of consentual agreement, on the other hand, is quite decidely libertarian. To comment on the rest of the thread, Open Source is not particularly libertarian. There are quite a few really socialist open source advocates. Nor is commercial software un-libertarian. How one could even claim this, given the libertarian bias towards economic competition and elevation of property rights above all over considerations, is absolutely beyond me. Eric Christian Berg
It never ceases to amaze me that people equate the ability to deceive medical insurance companies about their state of health as some sort of privacy issue. A good analogy would be complaining that it is a violation of your right to privacy to allow someone who wants to buy a car off of you to see it and have it inspected first. Insurance companies are a business and they are perfectly within their rights to ask for appropriate information prior to entering into an agreement to pay your medical expenses. Eric Christian Berg
You are misunderstanding what it is precisely that conservatives (and libertarians, I might add) are generally complaining about. It isn't the expansion of civil liberties but the creation of 'positive rights'. That is, rights that entitle a person to the product of another person's labor. They are talking about things like the 'right to health care' and the 'right to food' which require that somebody else foot the bill. These are in contrast to 'negative rights' which merely put restrictions on the actions of people, like the rights to life and liberty, which merely seek to prevent people from killing or imprisoning each other and don't entitle people to anyone else's stuff. Eric Christian Berg
Oh, please. By what logic does someone have the right to the product of another person's labor without compensation? This is right up there with the 'right to health care' and the 'right to cable TV'. Further, though you may not agree with some artists' decision not to allow people to trade their music for free, it is their decision to make, not yours. To use your disagreement as an excuse to steal from them is pure rationalization. If I don't like the price an auto dealer is selling a car at, I am not allowed to steal the car and mail him what I think it is worth. Eric Christian Berg
There is no coercion in a free exchange of goods. The musician provides the music, you provide the money. There is no coercion involved. It is like saying that you should be able to choose whether or not to pay the grocer for the apple you just ate, because if you were forced to hold up your end of the economic transaction, it would be 'coercive'. It doesn't fly.
Eric Christian Berg
Insightful? Hardly. Musicians have as much of a right for compensation of what they produce as anyone else. What, pray tell, denies a musician the same rights a plumber has, or a carpenter, or an insurance salesman? Spare us the 'we do it for the art' bullshit. People have to eat. If the choice is between producing music for a bunch of self-centered pirates who don't care enough about the hours you spent writing or recording a song, or getting a 'real' job and putting food on the table, most people will choose the later. Even if they don't want to.
Further, the assertion that the people who will be forced out of the music industry will be those pursuing money is assinine. Did you even read the article before spouting off? The people who won't be able to afford producing music will be the small, interesting bands. The huge commercial superstars with their bland pop product will be the ones who stick around.
Eric Christian Berg
As is usual with Katz articles, I'm not even sure where to begin. His slander of the United States is the first offensive matter, but that appears to have been drilled into the ground, so I'll move on to the second issue to spring to mind. This one appears to be a common theme in his articles of late: knee-jerk doomsaying of new technology.
For a man who claims to be in touch to modern culture and the cutting edge attitude of the net, Katz seems more in tune with the reactionaries who are constantly screaming about the potential and usually imaginary dangers of any new thing which comes into the spotlight. For all his dire predictions throughout this article, he brings not a single compelling or realistic concern to light. Hint here, Katz, you can throw around the Frankenstein metaphor all you like, but just saying the name of the good doctor every few sentances doesn't, in itself, validate your argument.
For example, your 'perfect baby' scenario and its reference to the laughable movie 'Gattaca' both ignore a number of complexities of the issue, preferring to simplify it to the point of utter inapplicability. First off, these things do not happen all at once. There is no 'BOOM! We have the genome, we now understand how every genetic malfunction works. Pregnant women, please form a single file line for genetic screening'. Were this the case, Katz might have a point. It isn't. He doesn't. This is going to advance slowly, with the key to each disease coming after years of painful research, with plenty of time for the integration of tests and treatments into the already existing pre-natal care package. As screening progresses, hopefully these conditions will be eliminated or lessened to the point where they are no longer applicable, and quicker, easier, less intrusive tests will make it so that there is no continuous medical examination as Katz depicts. This is the history of medicine to date. It is easy to see how Katz' concerns could just as easily apply to the era when immunization was first discovered and it is easy to see how untrue they turned out to be.
The problem with people like Katz is that they detract from the actual issues that should be of concern. Real ethical issues are complicated. By overly simplifying them, such people as he only breed prejudice, knee-jerk reactions, and hysteria. Meanwhile, anyone trying to address the actual concerns is drowned out in a miasma of outrage and self-righteousness. As much as Katz complains about the arrogance and lack of good judgement which Americans have, he and those like him are the primary cause of as much of it as does exist.
Eric Christian Berg
The difference between Ayn Rand is this: this forum is open to debate, therefore this is not a doctrinal belief system like objectivism...
This is incorrect. A large portion of people who call themselves Objectivists, including many of Rand's groupies, espouse a doctrinal belief system. However, this bears little relation to the actual philosophy. It is easy to miss this, since Rand's own behavior was wildly inconsistant with the philosophical system she wrote about, but nonetheless, any reading of the actual philosophical texts of Objectivism quickly dispute the claim that it is dogmatic in any sense.
Rather, the central premise of Objectivist metaphysics is that truth is absolute given a specific context. This is reflected in the heavy reliance on individual judgement and conscious decision making that is stressed repeatedly throughout both the fiction and non-fiction. Nowhere in Objectivist morality is there a list of 'thou shalt' and 'thou shalt nots'. Rather, there is a set of general principles which are applied to any given particular situation to determine the correct moral response. Individual judgementes may vary but the thinking is that rational human beings, if honest with themselves and the facts, will come to the same conclusion.
Unfortunately, this has been very poorly misinterpreted and many self-proclaimed Objectivists attempt to make an intellectual short cut by taking specific examples and particular situations from the books Rand wrote and using them as a set of absolute moral laws. On top of this, taking after Rand's own dismissive and belligerent attitude, they have a poor tendency to throw around buzzwords as a means to discredit (mostly to their own minds) dissenting opinions. None of this is helped by the fact that her intellectual 'heir' is one of the worst perpetrators of both sorts of behavior.
It is worthwhile to read the material in question and judge it on its own merit rather than relying on experiences or anecdotes of practitioners. Particularly with such a young philosophy. I believe it was Nietzsche who said that you can never judge an ideology by its first generation of adherents.
Eric Christian Berg
I have noticed that every time the rights of the artists get brought up in this discussion, there is a flurry of rationalizations based on the cost of CDs, whether or not the person would have bought the album anyway, how much the band is making, etc. This isn't surprising, since these are the sorts of inconsequential things people tend to focus on when they are rationalizing an action which they know is wrong. They pick out details in an attempt to justify themselves, both to others and in their own mind, so that they can leisurely continue to do whatever they are doing without a guilty conscience.
However, what people seem to be missing is the principle of it all. The question of how much money is lost or not lost isn't relevant. Right and wrong are not decided on pragmatic grounds such as these. No, the question is simply: what are the rights of the artists and have they been ignored?
There are few people who would argue that the artists don't have any right to their own music, but they tend to start waffling when this fact is inconvenient for them. The fact is, however, that they have as much right to the product of their labor as anybody else. How reproducable this product is isn't really an issue. It is simply a matter of respect to honor an artists' wishes concerning his or her work. If I want to lock my car in my garage and never drive it, this doesn't give someone else the right to steal it just because they disagree with how I've chosen to use or not use my property. Similarly, just because you don't agree with an artists' choices on how his or her music is distributed doesn't give you the right to steal it, either. To do so is an act of ultimate disrespect to the artist and I would venture to guess that this, more than money issues, is what is getting under the skin of these performers.
The question of whether or not these rights have been violated is simple: they have been. Quite clearly. If they choose to sell a CD to you with the understanding that only you will use it, you are ignoring their rights completely by ripping it and uploading it for anyone to have access to. You can justify it any way you want but no neo-anarchstic whining about property laws is going to change that you have disrespected the artists' wishes. They have given you this product, this music, which they worked hard on and you have stolen it for a bunch of people you don't even know.
So, rationalizations aside, I would like to know why Katz believes that the petty criminality of a bunch of kids should be protected, and the rights of hard-working artists should not?
Eric Christian Berg
Privacy is a sticky issue. First off, despite what Katz may like to believe, privacy isn't meant to protect people from reprecussions for breaking the law. It is to protect people from invasion into their social lives. The world does not need to know who I am sleeping with or what I like to read unless I chose to share that. Also, there are often social reprecussions which attach to particular behavior which I may want to avoid.
However, the situation becomes muddied when people are unhappy with the laws. Many people use privacy as a shield to protect themselves from persecution under laws which they feel are unfair. Thus, advocates of marijuana use privacy laws to keep the police from searching their homes or tapping their phone. This is another example. People who dislike copyright laws hide behind the issue of privacy on the Internet in order to break them with impunity.
However, one should never lose sight of the fact that this isn't what privacy laws are supposed to do. Katz asserts throughout the entire article that the right to privacy of the Napster users is more important than the rights of the artists to protect their work. This is simply untrue. Privacy isn't even an issue here. A crime was committed, whether you like the law or not, and in the course of criminal investigations, privacy isn't really a valid issue.
Well, that's not entirely true. It is an issue if you have something to hide.
Eric Christian Berg.
Actually my 'cynical response' more goes like - "they better make the first episode a blockbuster or they'll never get the funding to finish the other 2"
They are filming all three concurrently, so this
really isn't a concern. Last reports I heard, they were already filming Helm's Deep scenes, which take place halfway through the second novel.
Eric Berg
I just love to watch people rationalize. Poster after poster makes claims about the state of the recording industry, where the profits are coming from and how much money is made off of this or that aspect, and what everyone's cut is. None of them, of course, work in the recording industry or have done a real study of it. No, such activity might provide facts which dispute their opinion on the matter and we can't have that.
One poster in particular was precious. In response to one artist's comment on her finances, his response was 'bullshit, that can't be true'. Why not? Because it contradicts what you decided was true and what supports your position? He isn't the only one. Everyone is having a grand old time discarding the information that doesn't agree with them using lame excuses about it being recording industry propoganda or just a few rich, successful artists whining.
I used to wonder why there was evil in the world. I don't anymore. You don't have to have evil people. You don't have to have psychos and mad dictators and supervillians. All you need are a bunch of ignorant people willing to rationalize.
Once truth is discarded, anything is possible.
Eric Christian Berg
I get a little irked by all these people complaining because they can't make money any more. Here's a hint: if you don't need to practice medicine; it you don't enjoy it so much that you'd do it for free, I don't want to have you treat me. It's "doctors" that are only in it for the money that gives us crappy service.
I realize that it costs money to practice medicine. Get a job! It's not that expensive...
Get the picture, yet? Just because a tailor produces something tangible and a musician produces something intangible does not invalidate that the two are asking for payment for the same thing: time and effort. Tailors don't just charge the price of the material, after all. Or do you think they should? Hell, I guess they shouldn't be a tailor if they don't love it.
God, I hate people with no grasp of economics or the meaning of money.
Why exactly does it take money to make music? I would say just the opposite. This is one of the main differences between physical and virtual objects, physical objects require raw material and equipment to produce, while virtual objects do not, they only require time.
Not to be cliche, but time is money. Everyone who works is being paid for their time and effort. People tend to brush this off, though, because it is intangible. That's why intellectual property is such a sticky issue. Normally fairly ethical people can rationalize stealing something like a song or a program when they wouldn't think of stealing a car or a wallet, because the product and the cost behind it are both ephemeral.
The other main difference is that physical objects are expensive to replicate, while virtual objects are not, which is the base of this whole issue.
Indeed. When a person labors for an hour to make a lamp and you steal it, it is very obvious the cost: the materials and one hour of the person's time and effort. When someone labors for an hour to write a song and you steal it, the costs are much harder to quantify. There are no materials to the song itself and they can still sing it, so what harm have you really done? Similarly, once you've heard the song, it is in your head. Are you stealing it if you hum it while you are working?
However, I think it is faulty to look at it purely as a matter of harm (and harm is done), but one of recognition. That was part of the point of the article, that nobody in this debate is giving the artists any recognition. They aren't interested in their opinions, they aren't even asking them permission out of courtesy.
Paying for a piece of intellectual property is recognition of the time and effort put into it. If you don't recognize this, you are stealing, regardless of how cheap the cost of transfer is or how infinitely replicable the product is, because you are not recognizing the status and attendant rights of the creator.
Eric Christian Berg
This promises to be the second time they've gotten the age of the main character wrong in casting. Paul was a teenager, and small for his size. Although I imagine that the actor in the pictures could just be the older Paul that's been in the desert for years, I somehow doubt it.
Also, I'm curious to see if they weaken Jessica's character like they did in the film. She is a very strong female character as written, but the movie tended to downplay that considerably and make her primarily a victim of fate and her own emotions rather than the self-controlled Bene Gesserit witch she was.