" Why can't Apple offer both DRM and DRM-free music on the iTunes Music Store? There are plenty of artists on the site that are independent from the RIAA."
This is a good idea. While they are at it, they should sell those songs worldwide as well.
Which means the DRM was pretty much worthless in the first place and if the players did not know that, what does that say about them?
At least nothing of a technical nature.
Anyone care to comment on the legal issues of doing this? If the law is preventing them, wouldn't a simple license have done just as good? Oh wait, can you put licenses on things like books and songs that you sell?
I am not directly affected by this as I am in a country they will not do business with in the first place. Not even give us the free songs that supposedly come with the ipods we buy while visiting the US.
"Juries werent a great idea anyway: If you put twelve people in a room, a lot of them will just agree out of groupthink. It would be better to separate the 12 into smaller groups (say, 3 of 4) and declare a mistrial if they don't come up with the same verdict."
This is an interesting thought. You want a mistrial, or would it be better that any or all innocent means innocent and it takes all guilty to bring in guilty?
[I'm just saying, everyone bitches that they embrace an "obsolete business model." So they test the waters with a new one, and people just crack it.]
Exactly how has the business model been cracked. I am not an itunes customer... They will not seel to people in my country. (Which results in people from my country being ripped off - buy an ipod in the US, comes with a number of free songs. Bring it home, can't get the songs becuase you are not in the US. In my view, this is a rip off. You bought the songs in the US, you just want to take them home.) However, as I understand it, you have always been able to turn your purchased songs into wavs and burn to cd. This means the DRM has, in fact, been broken from the start. Right?
So, how has the business model been broken. I know the DRM has just been broken, but the business model?
Seems to me, people who are buying from itunes are doing so becuase they want to buy and be legal. After all, they could be out finding the same tunes without buying. Why would they stop buying just becuase they can now buy without the DRM if they choose?
These are honets questions I am putting to you buy the way. I am open to the possibility to having overlooked a key point.
Yes, but if it wasn't unreasonable in this way, would it not be unreasonable? We would just have a long chain of interconnected people who could pass the binaries around and who would not have rights to the source.
If you have this great need to make GPL binaries but not source available to these people, set up a corporation for the job, bring everyone under the umbrella and go for it. It may cause you other issues, but there you go.
"What does this mean? The GPL applies to the original code, but it can only apply to the new code if the deriving author says so."
OK, and if he distributes the code, can the original author imply that the total work is GPLed as he has issued no other license under which the work could be lawfully distributed? (Seperately, especially in the case of an interpreted program?) Or would the first author have to sue for copyright violation and proceed from there?
"None of which helps Daimanou with his question: What should I do?"
This question can't actually be answered until what Daimanou want's to accomplish is determined.
For instance. If he wants to maintian his ownership to the code he wrote before taking this job, this will depend on if a subsequent verbal agreement can superseed or modify a prior written agreement and, if so, whether that verbal agreement can be proved.
Right?
If the answer to both of those questions is yes, then he should be able to keep ownership the code he wrote before taking the job. If the answer to either is no and especially if the answer to the first is no, he is unlikely to keep ownership of his code.
"About a year and a half ago, I brought in some source code that I had worked on prior to working here; after receiving verbal OKs that the code would remain mine.
My code was derived from code I got from IBM's Developer Works website and also ActiveState's website; all of which was released under the GPL. I made a lot of additions to the software of my own, but the parts from the above sources were integral pieces and without them, my code wouldn't work."
We can break this down into seperate areas. First though, some clarification...
"My code was derived from code I got from IBM's Developer Works website and also ActiveState's website; all of which was released under the GPL."
Are you saying that you developed some code starting from a GPL code base owned by others and subsequesntly distributed the new code under the GPL. Then later, you got a job. Then later you brought that code into work? (With the written agreement on getting the job and the verbal agreement before bringing the code in to work.)
There are two issues (at least):
1. Who owns the code?
2. What impact does the fact that it was developed from a GPL base owned by others have?
1 would depend on if a subsequent verbal agreement superseeds a prior written agreement if the verbal agreement can be proved and if so, on if the verbal agreement can be proved.
2 works like this, since the new was developed from a GPL code base owned by others, if this code is to be distributed as opposed to used in house, it must be distributed under the GPL unless a seperate agreement is reached with the owners of the original code base or all of that code is removed and replaced.
"Good point. Tho what if said invisible-copyright-holder disagrees with the concept, or with what his taxes are being used for? Also, he's been effectively taxed without representation."
Well, he needs to manage his copyrights better to prevent this happening. Note that by not being careful to provide a working contact, he is preventing the public from using his work. If he ever surfaces, the copyleft could be removed and he could be in his old position except for derivatives made while the work was copylefted.
Also note, I have never said that the fees collected for him should be divied up, only the profits gained as a result of investing these fees. If he ever turns up, he gets all the fees. If he never shows up and the copyrights expire, try and find his next of kin, etc. to distribute to, or wait a seven years and divy up then?
"Also, he's been effectively taxed without representation."
As to no taxation without representation, I like the sound of it, but the fact is, taxation without representation happens all the time pretty much everywhere I know about. Do you know any places where taxes are levied solely on those able to vote? It is not like that in my country and certainly not like that in the U.S.A. where iirc, the phrase is famous.
"but it's not really fair to go abroad for a couple years and return to find a freeway where your house used to be."
No, it is not fair, but in my country, others can take your land to which you have good and registered title if you do not watch the papers. (I am fairly sure it works this way here. IANAL.)
If they can take your land if you do not tend it properly, why not your copyrights. As a matter of fact, if I understand things here correctly, the situation with real property is worse than what I am putting up for consideration.
"Yep, that's where I was going, and thanks for bringing up that Scene 2 point (great, now there's MORE worms in the can!!) -- to wit, exactly WHO *does* have the right to demand that Company B's new source be released?? Is it Individual A as the "previous generation coder", the FSF as originator of the GPL license, maybe someone else whose code Indiv.A built upon in the first place? or any random 3rd party, whether they have a vested interest in Company B's sources or not??"
I am pretty sure it is not the FSF. Also, A can certainly do it if the facts come to his attention. The people who got the binaries from B or company C have rights to the code as per the GPL, but I don't know whether they have standing to bring a suit. Since company B is bound by the GPL to deliver it to either of them who asks, they very well may have standing to sue. NOTE: IANAL!
Would a lawyer care to chime in?
"But I think it would be a VERY bad precedent for random 3rd parties to become the "enforcers" (GPL vigilantes, if you will). That would really be no different from the RIAA going around suing filesharers, and thereby representing themselves as the "agents" of the infringed artists -- with whom the RIAA *itself* has no contract."
I would not like to actually comment on the parallels between third parties who have rights to the code under the GPL and the RIAA, but, off the top, I don't really see the situation as being the same.
" Okay, let me get this straight.. you just don't believe we can do harm, because earth has survived ice ages and meteors.."
Just a clarification. I don't think I expressed my beliefs on the issue at hand. I just stated that I thought there might be some to and from based on differing definitions which might not be helpful.
That's a feather in my cap... ~;-) and I am winking...
"Okay, fair enough... except that I don't agree that "half to fund artists making copyleft works." -- I'm not convinced that art which can't pay for its own keep should be funded by the gov't"
Not exactly being funded by the government, but by the copyright holder that has dropped out of sight. Right?
Notice, I have not stated any method of determining who should receive this funding or in what amounts. That would be another discussion. Perhaps, instead, it could be used to buy the copyrights to older works and copyleft them. Perhaps fund after school education in the area that the copyright represents. (Think of the children!) Just don't let the government keep it all.
"I'm sorry I'm simply not convinced that we are even capable at this point of doing that much damage. Considering the vast catastrophes that have struck this planet, most long before we our are most distant bipedal ancestors we even around, this sort of arrogant doomsaying is of little interest."
We can get into a definitions game here.
Are we talking damage to the planet as a whole, or daamage to our current way of life and to individual humans?
"-- Individual A makes program, GPLs it. -- Company B uses it to build a new program, and fails to comply with GPL by not releasing source for said new program. -- Company C, who also uses A's code (but is NOT A's employer, so has no founding interest), takes Company B to court to force Company B to cough up their added sources.
My point of disagreement was that even tho Company B is in the wrong (whether intentionally or accidentally), it isn't Company C's place to play enforcer."
Ok, now I may understand you. All the details are not here so I will fill in some. Correct where I get wrong.
scene 1 -- Company B distributes the new program built on A's program in binary form and does not supply source to those they supply the binary.
Company C as an "any third party" can demand sources from B and B will be in violation if they do not supply. I am not sure as to the nature of the suit they can bring though. They do have the rights to the code under the GPL but they do not hold the copyrights.
scene 2 -- Company B distributes the new program built on A's program in binary form and does supply source to those they supply the binary.
Company C cannot demand the source from anybody. As a matter of fact, neither can A. Right?
"For instance, when Microsoft charges for Windows, the amount of effort gone into making it is only about 10% of the value."
Microsoft is dealing in copyrighted "goods." They have a government granted monopoly on the "goods" they sell. By definition, this is not a free market.
" Profit is selling something greater than what it is worth (ie. what it cost to do).
Therefore, as there must be a buyer and seller, there is one earning more than it cost to make (making a profit) and one making a loss (paying more than it cost to make)."
The world does not work like this as we are not all equally skilled in all areas.
Therefore the correct profit calculation for me is not that I paid you more or less than it cost you to make, but if I paid you more or less than what it would have cost me to make.
This is one area where the potential for profit arises.
"Oh, and let me add.. fair trade, does not involve profit."
Again, I think you are defining profit in your own way for your own convience.
In my example, we could both get more done in less time and have some free time left over which we would not have had if we had each done all of our own work. Since, you would expect a little free time to rest might be considered valuable, we could consider it our profit. Alternately, we could do something else productive with our free time and what we produce with that time could be considered our profit.
I don't think you can necessarily use a definition from physics for this sort of thinking. By the definition of work, there are a good amount of high paying jobs where very little work is done.
"No, that is not profit.. that's EFFICIENCY (less loss). Or cooperation. If working with animals takes less energy than it does working with pants, or vice versa, then how is the trade fair? If nobody makes a profit!" etc.
If you want to define profit in some special way to suit your argument, go ahead. I am quite happy with a penny saved is a penny earned. I like to increase my profits by doing the same or more with less or by doing more with the same.
In my example, perhaps I would have had to tend my animals and hire someone to help me tend my plants and it would have taken all of my time and some of my store of wealth to get this done. By thinking a bit and working something out, I can spend all of my time or perhaps a little less and none of my store of wealth and still get the same results. In my book, that savings equals a profit for me. You can keep your books however you want.
"Haven't you had physics in class? Money, goods, food, consumption, can all be expressed in energy. Within an enclosed system, you can't make something out of nothing."
Well, then, all we have to do is calculate the amount of energy that sunlight supplies each year, and according to your definition, that is the amount of profit possible on earth each year. Anything in excess of this amount is a draw down on previous years profits that have been banked.
However, since e=mcc (can't do the squared) we can release a whole lot of energy that is stored here as mass. Not that I think that is necessarily a good idea.
Please note, I am not having an argument about the wrongheadedness of claiming plunder and the use of non-renewable resources (or just non-renewed resources) as profit. That is bad accounting in my view.
Please note, I am not from the U.S.A. and I do see problems with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer and the middle being squeezed out of existence.
I also see that a lot of what we do is a double edged sword and we put things into place in ill advised ways. A simple example is that, in my country, we have invited a lot of right foreigners in to buy land, build homes, and take up at least part time residence. This has a least some of the promised benefits, but it has some drawbacks that not only were not discussed or considered beforehand, but that we resist discussing even while suffering with them.
I would like to find people to discuss the idea that free markets may be necessary but that they are not sufficient.
Free markets may be good (but so far as I can see, there are none anywhere to be found) but greed is not good even though free markets can work to direct the greedy to at least do something of possible benefit to society.
I don't know that other plans have better records in this reguard as no matter what system you try, you still have humans as the players in the game of life.
Slashdot Mirror
"It's not my Queensryche cd I'm worried about, it's my Heart CD."
And we all know... You've gotta have heart. I understand you need miles of the stuff.
all the best,
drew
" Why can't Apple offer both DRM and DRM-free music on the iTunes Music Store? There are plenty of artists on the site that are independent from the RIAA."
This is a good idea. While they are at it, they should sell those songs worldwide as well.
all the best,
drew
Nothing...
? collection=opensource_audio&collectionid=drgoingno where
Which means the DRM was pretty much worthless in the first place and if the players did not know that, what does that say about them?
At least nothing of a technical nature.
Anyone care to comment on the legal issues of doing this? If the law is preventing them, wouldn't a simple license have done just as good? Oh wait, can you put licenses on things like books and songs that you sell?
I am not directly affected by this as I am in a country they will not do business with in the first place. Not even give us the free songs that supposedly come with the ipods we buy while visiting the US.
all the best,
drew
http://www.archive.org/audio/audio-details-db.php
"Juries werent a great idea anyway: If you put twelve people in a room, a lot of them will just agree out of groupthink. It would be better to separate the 12 into smaller groups (say, 3 of 4) and declare a mistrial if they don't come up with the same verdict."
? collection=opensource_audio&collectionid=dragirl
This is an interesting thought. You want a mistrial, or would it be better that any or all innocent means innocent and it takes all guilty to bring in guilty?
all the best,
drew
http://www.archive.org/audio/audio-details-db.php
[I'm just saying, everyone bitches that they embrace an "obsolete business model." So they test the waters with a new one, and people just crack it.]
Exactly how has the business model been cracked. I am not an itunes customer... They will not seel to people in my country. (Which results in people from my country being ripped off - buy an ipod in the US, comes with a number of free songs. Bring it home, can't get the songs becuase you are not in the US. In my view, this is a rip off. You bought the songs in the US, you just want to take them home.) However, as I understand it, you have always been able to turn your purchased songs into wavs and burn to cd. This means the DRM has, in fact, been broken from the start. Right?
So, how has the business model been broken. I know the DRM has just been broken, but the business model?
Seems to me, people who are buying from itunes are doing so becuase they want to buy and be legal. After all, they could be out finding the same tunes without buying. Why would they stop buying just becuase they can now buy without the DRM if they choose?
These are honets questions I am putting to you buy the way. I am open to the possibility to having overlooked a key point.
all the best,
drew
Yes, but if it wasn't unreasonable in this way, would it not be unreasonable? We would just have a long chain of interconnected people who could pass the binaries around and who would not have rights to the source.
If you have this great need to make GPL binaries but not source available to these people, set up a corporation for the job, bring everyone under the umbrella and go for it. It may cause you other issues, but there you go.
all the best,
drew
"If companies are only using GPL-licensed software internally, they only need to distribute the source code to their employees."
Is he sure about that? First time I have heard this as a requirement.
all the best,
drew
http://zbcw.sourceforge.net/
"Why would a 7 foot tall Wookie wanna be on a planet with little 2 foot tall Ewoks?"
Oh, I don't know. He wants to be a dominant center?
"It's just an extension of the childhood game where you write a word on a piece of paper, fold it over, and pass it along, purple monkey dishwasher."
I always preferred the "write a sentence, fold it over, pass it along" version.
all the best,
drew
"What does this mean? The GPL applies to the original code, but it can only apply to the new code if the deriving author says so."
h t_Term_Reform/Default
OK, and if he distributes the code, can the original author imply that the total work is GPLed as he has issued no other license under which the work could be lawfully distributed? (Seperately, especially in the case of an interpreted program?) Or would the first author have to sue for copyright violation and proceed from there?
http://www.infoanarchy.org/wiki/index.php/Copyrig
all the best,
drew
"- These characters were randomly selected."
So where do you keep all the monkeys?
all the best,
drew
"None of which helps Daimanou with his question: What should I do?"
This question can't actually be answered until what Daimanou want's to accomplish is determined.
For instance. If he wants to maintian his ownership to the code he wrote before taking this job, this will depend on if a subsequent verbal agreement can superseed or modify a prior written agreement and, if so, whether that verbal agreement can be proved.
Right?
If the answer to both of those questions is yes, then he should be able to keep ownership the code he wrote before taking the job. If the answer to either is no and especially if the answer to the first is no, he is unlikely to keep ownership of his code.
Right?
http://www.gutenberg.org/
all the best,
drew
"About a year and a half ago, I brought in some source code that I had worked on prior to working here; after receiving verbal OKs that the code would remain mine.
My code was derived from code I got from IBM's Developer Works website and also ActiveState's website; all of which was released under the GPL. I made a lot of additions to the software of my own, but the parts from the above sources were integral pieces and without them, my code wouldn't work."
We can break this down into seperate areas. First though, some clarification...
"My code was derived from code I got from IBM's Developer Works website and also ActiveState's website; all of which was released under the GPL."
Are you saying that you developed some code starting from a GPL code base owned by others and subsequesntly distributed the new code under the GPL. Then later, you got a job. Then later you brought that code into work? (With the written agreement on getting the job and the verbal agreement before bringing the code in to work.)
There are two issues (at least):
1. Who owns the code?
2. What impact does the fact that it was developed from a GPL base owned by others have?
1 would depend on if a subsequent verbal agreement superseeds a prior written agreement if the verbal agreement can be proved and if so, on if the verbal agreement can be proved.
2 works like this, since the new was developed from a GPL code base owned by others, if this code is to be distributed as opposed to used in house, it must be distributed under the GPL unless a seperate agreement is reached with the owners of the original code base or all of that code is removed and replaced.
Right?
http://www.advogato.org/person/zotz/
all the best,
drew
"Sounds like communism to me. Get him!"
More like division of labour don't you know? isn't that one of the key underpinings of capitalism?
http://www.advogato.org/person/zotz/
all the best,
drew
"I also happen to think that nature can make it far worse. A nice asteroid strike, or possibly some super-vulcanism."
So, would it be wise to get some self sustaining colonies going off planet as soon as possible?
all the best,
drew
"Good point. Tho what if said invisible-copyright-holder disagrees with the concept, or with what his taxes are being used for? Also, he's been effectively taxed without representation."
Well, he needs to manage his copyrights better to prevent this happening. Note that by not being careful to provide a working contact, he is preventing the public from using his work. If he ever surfaces, the copyleft could be removed and he could be in his old position except for derivatives made while the work was copylefted.
Also note, I have never said that the fees collected for him should be divied up, only the profits gained as a result of investing these fees. If he ever turns up, he gets all the fees. If he never shows up and the copyrights expire, try and find his next of kin, etc. to distribute to, or wait a seven years and divy up then?
"Also, he's been effectively taxed without representation."
As to no taxation without representation, I like the sound of it, but the fact is, taxation without representation happens all the time pretty much everywhere I know about. Do you know any places where taxes are levied solely on those able to vote? It is not like that in my country and certainly not like that in the U.S.A. where iirc, the phrase is famous.
"but it's not really fair to go abroad for a couple years and return to find a freeway where your house used to be."
No, it is not fair, but in my country, others can take your land to which you have good and registered title if you do not watch the papers. (I am fairly sure it works this way here. IANAL.)
If they can take your land if you do not tend it properly, why not your copyrights. As a matter of fact, if I understand things here correctly, the situation with real property is worse than what I am putting up for consideration.
all the best,
drew
"Yep, that's where I was going, and thanks for bringing up that Scene 2 point (great, now there's MORE worms in the can!!) -- to wit, exactly WHO *does* have the right to demand that Company B's new source be released?? Is it Individual A as the "previous generation coder", the FSF as originator of the GPL license, maybe someone else whose code Indiv.A built upon in the first place? or any random 3rd party, whether they have a vested interest in Company B's sources or not??"
I am pretty sure it is not the FSF. Also, A can certainly do it if the facts come to his attention. The people who got the binaries from B or company C have rights to the code as per the GPL, but I don't know whether they have standing to bring a suit. Since company B is bound by the GPL to deliver it to either of them who asks, they very well may have standing to sue. NOTE: IANAL!
Would a lawyer care to chime in?
"But I think it would be a VERY bad precedent for random 3rd parties to become the "enforcers" (GPL vigilantes, if you will). That would really be no different from the RIAA going around suing filesharers, and thereby representing themselves as the "agents" of the infringed artists -- with whom the RIAA *itself* has no contract."
I would not like to actually comment on the parallels between third parties who have rights to the code under the GPL and the RIAA, but, off the top, I don't really see the situation as being the same.
all the best,
drew
" Okay, let me get this straight.. you just don't believe we can do harm, because earth has survived ice ages and meteors.."
Just a clarification. I don't think I expressed my beliefs on the issue at hand. I just stated that I thought there might be some to and from based on differing definitions which might not be helpful.
all the best,
drew
"[eyeing smiley] Your hair is on fire!!"
That's a feather in my cap... ~;-) and I am winking...
"Okay, fair enough... except that I don't agree that "half to fund artists making copyleft works." -- I'm not convinced that art which can't pay for its own keep should be funded by the gov't"
Not exactly being funded by the government, but by the copyright holder that has dropped out of sight. Right?
Notice, I have not stated any method of determining who should receive this funding or in what amounts. That would be another discussion. Perhaps, instead, it could be used to buy the copyrights to older works and copyleft them. Perhaps fund after school education in the area that the copyright represents. (Think of the children!) Just don't let the government keep it all.
http://zotz.openphoto.net/
all the best,
drew
"I'm sorry I'm simply not convinced that we are even capable at this point of doing that much damage. Considering the vast catastrophes that have struck this planet, most long before we our are most distant bipedal ancestors we even around, this sort of arrogant doomsaying is of little interest."
We can get into a definitions game here.
Are we talking damage to the planet as a whole, or daamage to our current way of life and to individual humans?
all the best,
drew
"-- Individual A makes program, GPLs it.
-- Company B uses it to build a new program, and fails to comply with GPL by not releasing source for said new program.
-- Company C, who also uses A's code (but is NOT A's employer, so has no founding interest), takes Company B to court to force Company B to cough up their added sources.
My point of disagreement was that even tho Company B is in the wrong (whether intentionally or accidentally), it isn't Company C's place to play enforcer."
Ok, now I may understand you. All the details are not here so I will fill in some. Correct where I get wrong.
scene 1 -- Company B distributes the new program built on A's program in binary form and does not supply source to those they supply the binary.
Company C as an "any third party" can demand sources from B and B will be in violation if they do not supply. I am not sure as to the nature of the suit they can bring though. They do have the rights to the code under the GPL but they do not hold the copyrights.
scene 2 -- Company B distributes the new program built on A's program in binary form and does supply source to those they supply the binary.
Company C cannot demand the source from anybody. As a matter of fact, neither can A. Right?
all the best,
drew
"For instance, when Microsoft charges for Windows, the amount of effort gone into making it is only about 10% of the value."
p yright_Term_Reform/Default
Microsoft is dealing in copyrighted "goods." They have a government granted monopoly on the "goods" they sell. By definition, this is not a free market.
all the best,
drew
http://www.infoanarchy.org/wiki/index.php/Talk:Co
" Profit is selling something greater than what it is worth (ie. what it cost to do).
h t_Term_Reform
Therefore, as there must be a buyer and seller, there is one earning more than it cost to make (making a profit) and one making a loss (paying more than it cost to make)."
The world does not work like this as we are not all equally skilled in all areas.
Therefore the correct profit calculation for me is not that I paid you more or less than it cost you to make, but if I paid you more or less than what it would have cost me to make.
This is one area where the potential for profit arises.
http://www.infoanarchy.org/wiki/index.php/Copyrig
all the best,
drew
"Oh, and let me add.. fair trade, does not involve profit."
Again, I think you are defining profit in your own way for your own convience.
In my example, we could both get more done in less time and have some free time left over which we would not have had if we had each done all of our own work. Since, you would expect a little free time to rest might be considered valuable, we could consider it our profit. Alternately, we could do something else productive with our free time and what we produce with that time could be considered our profit.
I don't think you can necessarily use a definition from physics for this sort of thinking. By the definition of work, there are a good amount of high paying jobs where very little work is done.
all the best,
drew
http://www.nanowrimo.org/userinfo.php?uid=47354
"No, that is not profit.. that's EFFICIENCY (less loss). Or cooperation. If working with animals takes less energy than it does working with pants, or vice versa, then how is the trade fair? If nobody makes a profit!" etc.
A %22drew%20Roberts%22
If you want to define profit in some special way to suit your argument, go ahead. I am quite happy with a penny saved is a penny earned. I like to increase my profits by doing the same or more with less or by doing more with the same.
In my example, perhaps I would have had to tend my animals and hire someone to help me tend my plants and it would have taken all of my time and some of my store of wealth to get this done. By thinking a bit and working something out, I can spend all of my time or perhaps a little less and none of my store of wealth and still get the same results. In my book, that savings equals a profit for me. You can keep your books however you want.
"Haven't you had physics in class? Money, goods, food, consumption, can all be expressed in energy. Within an enclosed system, you can't make something out of nothing."
Well, then, all we have to do is calculate the amount of energy that sunlight supplies each year, and according to your definition, that is the amount of profit possible on earth each year. Anything in excess of this amount is a draw down on previous years profits that have been banked.
However, since e=mcc (can't do the squared) we can release a whole lot of energy that is stored here as mass. Not that I think that is necessarily a good idea.
Please note, I am not having an argument about the wrongheadedness of claiming plunder and the use of non-renewable resources (or just non-renewed resources) as profit. That is bad accounting in my view.
Please note, I am not from the U.S.A. and I do see problems with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer and the middle being squeezed out of existence.
I also see that a lot of what we do is a double edged sword and we put things into place in ill advised ways. A simple example is that, in my country, we have invited a lot of right foreigners in to buy land, build homes, and take up at least part time residence. This has a least some of the promised benefits, but it has some drawbacks that not only were not discussed or considered beforehand, but that we resist discussing even while suffering with them.
I would like to find people to discuss the idea that free markets may be necessary but that they are not sufficient.
Free markets may be good (but so far as I can see, there are none anywhere to be found) but greed is not good even though free markets can work to direct the greedy to at least do something of possible benefit to society.
I don't know that other plans have better records in this reguard as no matter what system you try, you still have humans as the players in the game of life.
all the best,
drew
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3