... that until I read the summary, I actually wasn't sure if the headline meant the Obama administration was on the side of the journalist, or was on the side of arresting journalists who record cops...
What copyright does is ENFORCE the idea of artificial scarcity,
Incorrect. Books produced without copyright ARE STILL SCARCE. They still cost something to make, and they still have intrinsic value, even if the printer doesn't pay the author. Copyright in pre-digital media is helpful BECAUSE books exist in a market that has scarcity, because you can't produce books at lower cost than someone who doesn't have to pay the author to produce the work.
The problem with copyright on the Internet is that digital copies are NOT scarce. They have zero intrinsic value, and cannot be made to behave as if they do without breaking all the computers on the Internet. An exclusive right to sell digital copies is like an exclusive right to sell body hairs to Bigfoot.
Inexpensive, interconnected computing is at least a big a deal as the Gutenberg press, but it's hard for people to see history being made this close up.
Copyright still has value enforcing authorship. You just can't build a business model around making copies anymore.
There are some fine and excellent methods for encouraging people to create things that don't require copyright. They are in use right now. You should consider reading about them on the Internet.
Why buy a new copy for $10 when I can buy an identical copy for $3?
More importantly, why SELL a new copy for $10 when an identical copy is worth $0.00?!?!
It's more apparent now than ever that granting exclusive right to sell a product that has no value is a rapidly obsolescing business model. "Publisher advances money to author, author produces work, publisher produces copies of work and tries to sell them to recoup costs" DOES NOT WORK when the value of any individual copy of the work approaches zero.
"Audience advances money to author, author produces work, audience produces copies of work" is the way of the future, people should start getting used to it.
Because no matter how low the cost, the number of people who will not pay for the product by using torrents will far exceed the number of people who will pay for the product simply because they can.
On the other hand, the number of people who WILL pay is quite a bit larger than the number who would pay for your out-of-print product that's not available electronically, which is zero.
I'm glad that people are starting to wise up that counting the people who do pay is always, always wiser than counting the people who don't; for so long, so very many copyright holders have been no smarter than that Aesop dog that dropped his bone in the lake.
The next time they do this, the ACLU should just freely publish the FOIA response with all the redacted bits filled in with whatever they like. Make it as incriminating as possible.
If the FBI files some sort of libel suit, the ACLU can say "Gee, that's what the documents we recieved said. Do you have some sort of evidence to the contrary you'd like to enter into record?"
It would get some fine media attention, if nothing else.
You couldn't see a communist if one was taped to your fucking face.
Go read the Constitution again and try not to skip any this time. While reading, try and keep in mind what "ownership of the means of production" means for a digital product.
Orangutans are the only great ape that walks like that, though, and they're primarily brachiators. Chimps and gorillas walk on the second knuckle rather than the first.
I'm a veteran. Anyone with an interest, and my SSN can easily verify that. I don't know how much more info such an interested party can get, but he can easily verify that I am an honorably discharged veteran.
Convicts? Ditto. In fact, all you need is to be arrested these days, and that arrest record follows you forever, unless you can convince a judge to have it expunged.
Most especially, sex offenders. Get run in for pissing on some shrubbery, you're automatically a sex offender, and you've got to register with whatever county you live in, forevermore.
Mentally incompetent people? Spend a weekend at the local looney bin, get turned loose because you don't have insurance to pay for treatment, and there is no record. You can walk straight from the nuthouse to the gun shop, and fill out the paperwork to get a gun.
One of these things is not like the others One of these things doesn't belong Can you guess which thing doesn't involve due process By the time I finish my song?
In recent years Baltimore City [wikipedia.org] tried that approach.
...except, of course, they didn't try any such approach. People in Baltimore are still getting into gunfights over drug-selling disputes in exactly the same way that corner-store owners aren't getting into gunfights over grocery-selling disputes.
Focusing on violence is great and all, and I'm glad to see it had a positive effect, but the root problem remains: a fucking huge high-demand market, that will never, EVER go away, in which there is no legal way to settle disputes.
The purpose of leaving a fence out of your yard is not to facilitate escape from the Police.
The purpose of pooling tools with your neighbors is not to facilitate murder.
The purpose of using zip car is not to facilitate traffice violations.
The purpose of using TOR is to anonymize data.
...which we all now know you believe is inherently a crime.
Thank you for being so candid, Mr. Buddha. We will duly take your opinion into consideration when in the future you choose to comment on internet privacy issues.
Slashdot Mirror
... that until I read the summary, I actually wasn't sure if the headline meant the Obama administration was on the side of the journalist, or was on the side of arresting journalists who record cops...
This is insightful?
Yes.
What copyright does is ENFORCE the idea of artificial scarcity,
Incorrect. Books produced without copyright ARE STILL SCARCE. They still cost something to make, and they still have intrinsic value, even if the printer doesn't pay the author. Copyright in pre-digital media is helpful BECAUSE books exist in a market that has scarcity, because you can't produce books at lower cost than someone who doesn't have to pay the author to produce the work.
The problem with copyright on the Internet is that digital copies are NOT scarce. They have zero intrinsic value, and cannot be made to behave as if they do without breaking all the computers on the Internet. An exclusive right to sell digital copies is like an exclusive right to sell body hairs to Bigfoot.
Inexpensive, interconnected computing is at least a big a deal as the Gutenberg press, but it's hard for people to see history being made this close up.
Copyright still has value enforcing authorship. You just can't build a business model around making copies anymore.
There are some fine and excellent methods for encouraging people to create things that don't require copyright. They are in use right now. You should consider reading about them on the Internet.
Why buy a new copy for $10 when I can buy an identical copy for $3?
More importantly, why SELL a new copy for $10 when an identical copy is worth $0.00?!?!
It's more apparent now than ever that granting exclusive right to sell a product that has no value is a rapidly obsolescing business model. "Publisher advances money to author, author produces work, publisher produces copies of work and tries to sell them to recoup costs" DOES NOT WORK when the value of any individual copy of the work approaches zero.
"Audience advances money to author, author produces work, audience produces copies of work" is the way of the future, people should start getting used to it.
A single IP can be used by many people at the same time. Some of them can even be out of sight of each other. This doesn't hold true for guns.
That's not quite as true as it sounds...
"For years the city did ballistic testing on all guns that passed through their control and on all bullets recovered, however, they never did much with those records. On September 20 of 2000, the new commander of the ballistics unit reported on a statistical comparisons made possible by new computer technology. What they found, he said, indicates that the common fear about a new influx of guns flooding streets is deeply misguided. What their data base revealed was that a limited number of guns were fueling a large number of violent crimes. In an 18 month period one gun had zig zagged across the city getting involved in at least a dozen crimes until finally being recovered in an abandoned U-Haul. "
I seriously cannot tell if you're joking or if that's the actual plot of a Law & Order episode.
Yes. They're fucking rapists.
[citation needed - price, 1 million euros]
The only thing I've noticed to be actually true is that there really are a lot of good looking Russian women. something in the water over there?
Natural selection.
Because no matter how low the cost, the number of people who will not pay for the product by using torrents will far exceed the number of people who will pay for the product simply because they can.
On the other hand, the number of people who WILL pay is quite a bit larger than the number who would pay for your out-of-print product that's not available electronically, which is zero.
I'm glad that people are starting to wise up that counting the people who do pay is always, always wiser than counting the people who don't; for so long, so very many copyright holders have been no smarter than that Aesop dog that dropped his bone in the lake.
The next time they do this, the ACLU should just freely publish the FOIA response with all the redacted bits filled in with whatever they like. Make it as incriminating as possible.
If the FBI files some sort of libel suit, the ACLU can say "Gee, that's what the documents we recieved said. Do you have some sort of evidence to the contrary you'd like to enter into record?"
It would get some fine media attention, if nothing else.
I don't think the BFRO has tried this yet...
When the cost of anything is increased demand decreases, that's very elementary.
Ah, I see, that's why pot has so little demand nowadays. Glad you could clear that up for us.
You don't mess with the price of a cultures drugs, it'd be like doubling the price of coffee in the states.
Starbucks seemed to get away with it without too much protest.
A communist I see.
You couldn't see a communist if one was taped to your fucking face.
Go read the Constitution again and try not to skip any this time. While reading, try and keep in mind what "ownership of the means of production" means for a digital product.
The folks who work at banks can lose their jobs and face criminal prosecution
[citation needed]
Obviously not, since your post mentioned that atrocity and this one doesn't.
According to the rules of grammar, it does, technically.
which legalisation will lead to an inevitable increase in.
Bullshit.
Portugal.
You lose.
Go away.
"Your body needs a certain amount of calories for basic functions and this is around 2000 calories."
That's a measure of caloric intake, not output. And it's an average, not an extreme low end.
Orangutans are the only great ape that walks like that, though, and they're primarily brachiators. Chimps and gorillas walk on the second knuckle rather than the first.
I'm a veteran. Anyone with an interest, and my SSN can easily verify that. I don't know how much more info such an interested party can get, but he can easily verify that I am an honorably discharged veteran.
Convicts? Ditto. In fact, all you need is to be arrested these days, and that arrest record follows you forever, unless you can convince a judge to have it expunged.
Most especially, sex offenders. Get run in for pissing on some shrubbery, you're automatically a sex offender, and you've got to register with whatever county you live in, forevermore.
Mentally incompetent people? Spend a weekend at the local looney bin, get turned loose because you don't have insurance to pay for treatment, and there is no record. You can walk straight from the nuthouse to the gun shop, and fill out the paperwork to get a gun.
One of these things is not like the others
One of these things doesn't belong
Can you guess which thing doesn't involve due process
By the time I finish my song?
Dooo doo doo dooo doo doo doolooloo......
I'm totally sure that students with fireworks would never dream of regularly pranking whatever school had this setup...
Jaguar Land Rover, British but Indian owned, are exporting very well.
Does its engine make a sound like: "WHOOOOOSH"?
In recent years Baltimore City [wikipedia.org] tried that approach.
...except, of course, they didn't try any such approach. People in Baltimore are still getting into gunfights over drug-selling disputes in exactly the same way that corner-store owners aren't getting into gunfights over grocery-selling disputes.
Focusing on violence is great and all, and I'm glad to see it had a positive effect, but the root problem remains: a fucking huge high-demand market, that will never, EVER go away, in which there is no legal way to settle disputes.
Does the difference in taste and a minor improvement in nutrition outweigh the serious illnesses you can get from it?
Shouldn't that be up to the people consuming it? It's not like CFC bulbs or leaded gasoline where it hurts people that aren't consuming it on purpose.
These hypothetical situations are irrelevent.
The purpose of leaving a fence out of your yard is not to facilitate escape from the Police.
The purpose of pooling tools with your neighbors is not to facilitate murder.
The purpose of using zip car is not to facilitate traffice violations.
The purpose of using TOR is to anonymize data.
...which we all now know you believe is inherently a crime.
Thank you for being so candid, Mr. Buddha. We will duly take your opinion into consideration when in the future you choose to comment on internet privacy issues.
It's not like communism magically changes everyone's hearts to love and selflessness.
What? Of course it does! Using the exact same mechanism by which Libertarianism turns everyone into fully-informed rational actors!