"There is no flaw in the system, it just has be adjusted to cope with the current conditions."
Is that the new, less-offensive way to say "Grab your ankles, we're raising your taxes again."?
The system is not only flawed, it's fundamentally broken. There inevitably is a point where those who take from the system far exceed those who put into it. It's a vicious cycle.
As the number of those who take from the system grows, the more that those who put into it have to pay into the system. The more they have to pay, the fewer who can afford to do so. They join the ranks of those who take from the system, and those remaining have to pay more, and so the cycle continues.
It's only a matter of time before socialist economies start collapsing under their own weight. I just hope the U.S. goverment changes it's out-of-control social program spending before that happens.
For a preview of what's to come, take a look at California!
"and who is going to pay for 240 years of retirement?"
Why you and I are, of course! Isn't that what our socialist governments have convinced us should be done?
Social security in teh U.S. has proven that working people cannot support 25 years of retirement, let alone 240, but that isn't stopping our governments from confiscating more and more of our wealth for the sake of sweet Grandmas everywhere. Once the money is spread too thin, we can all be impoverished together! Doesn't that sound nice?
Maybe living forever isn't such a good idea! Socialism isn't any better.
"Sharing is good, but it must be voluntary sharing and never forced."
Then what do you say to the not-so-few who believe that selling software commercially is immoral, and that "information wants to be free!"?
These people believe that software should always be developed and distributed for the collective good of the community, and anyone who charges for software is greedy.
I'm not suggesting that everyone in the OSS community is like this, but many of the most vocal members are.
Re:As /. has clearly shown
on
The "Techie" Vote?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
For the most part, I agree with you. Your analogy with the healthcare industry is right on the mark. I'll admit I never thought of it that way, and I have a new perspective on OSS that I didn't have before.
However, there are a lot of people out there who aren't content with just creating quality software to freely distribute. That part I am very much in favor of, because it gives people inexpensive alternatives to commercial software.
But there are those who, IMHO, take that sentiment too far. They believe that commercial software is inherantly evil because it isn't Free (beer and speech); that it should be available for everyone to copy/modify as much as they wish, and that it is immoral for developers to expect to be financially compensated for their effots.
That's where I make the communism connection. Now don't get me wrong; I don't particularly love Microsoft, and certainly believe software could stand to be more affordable, but I will never believe that a person or company should not be paid for their work if they ask for it.
I love the volunteerism that OSS has generated, but I think it goes too far when the OSS community chastises those who want to be paid.
"For every person espousing (for example) a completely public government health care system, there's another person arguing (for example) that we ought to end income taxes and all entitlement programs."
The difference, I'd say, is that the former are usually moderated up as Insightful, and the latter are moderated down as Flamebait.
That suggests (to me, anyway) that one side of the political spectrum is clearly in the majority, at least on Slashdot.
Re:As /. has clearly shown
on
The "Techie" Vote?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Most insightful; hope you get a +5 out of that one.
One other point I wanted to bring out is that the "geek" voting block is largely young men between the ages of 18 and (wild guess) 30. Historically, this has been a rather weak age group when it comes to voting, and that's why politicians generally pay less attention to them and their issues versus seniors.
And as much as that may be changing, and younger people are taking more interest in politics, politicians may still shy away from them because of the nature of the activist IT movement.
Be honest folks. As well-intentioned as many of our views are, a lot of them reek of communism. Now I'm not saying that's necessarily the case (though for a sizeable portion, I would say it is) but some of the extremist ideas that are frequently explored on sites such as Slashdot are based on ideas that got people tossed into jail during McCarthyism.
And a lot of people who vote still remember that. Although many of our politicians seem to be leaning leftwards towards socialism, I don't think many of them want to yet be associated with some of the ideals expressed by the IT community.
Take it as it is. If you disagree, explain your side of the story.
"Her company's technology may be dragging the entertainment industry, kicking and screaming, into a future of file swapping, but the entertainment industry would rather drag Nikki Hemming and her company into court."
I love how TechTV is portraying Kazaa as the noble progressive, leading us all into the GLORIOUS FUTURE OF FILE-SHARING, while Rosen and Co. are stodgy, grumpy old dinosaurs seeking to deprive humanity of life-saving technology.
I know all of the "blah blah outdated business model blah blah" arguments, and even agree with some of them, but TechTV didn't lend itself much credibility (IMHO) with their one-sided opening remarks.
I am now grabbing my ankles, waiting for moderators to get ahold of this.
"You can't just lock someone up, and THEN go looking for evidence of a crime; you have to FIRST find the evidence, THEN arrest them and THEN charge them with a crime."
Not to pick nits here, but police do NOT need hard evidence to arrest someone. They only need probable cause or a warrant.
Once the suspect is arrested, however, he/she must be charged with a crime within 24 hours (as you correctly stated).
THEN investigators build the state's case against the defendant by collecting evidence. No such evidence is required, however, for the initial request.
For the record, I'm a little dubious about the use of the "material witness" statute to detain people without charging them (if that is indeed what actually happened; a lot of people here like to jump to inaccurate conclusions), but I honestly believe he is in fact guilty. People who believe that his confession was most likely coerced are simply grasping at straws.
"In fact, the "owner", in collusion with the state, is denying you the physical freedom to copy information you have."
The RIAA has repeatedly stated that making mp3 files from music CDs you already own is perfectly legal. It's the people who don't own the CDs that the RIAA is going after.
"I'm not going to pay for it a third time to get it on CD and a fourth time to get it on an MP3 player."
Then you can continue to listen to it on your vinyl records or cassette tapes. The music isn't the only thing you are paying for when you buy a CD. You get a much better-quality sound (though vinyl enthusiasts may argue that one), and a smaller, more convenient format.
And there's nothing illegal about taking music from a CD you own and converting it to mp3.
So because it doesn't meet the technical definition of "theft", that means it's OK to do it?
Personally, I don't think "infringement" correctly identifies the act either, and perhaps a new legal term needs to be written into law to concretely define it.
Clearly the industry is losing music sales to file-sharing (among several other factors), and yes, they could benefit from updating their business model, but no amount of rationalizing will change the fact that downloading music you haven't paid for is wrong.
"eliminating the hobbyist and enthusiast DJs (these are people doing it for love not profit and so should be encouraged)."
I don't play video games for profit, so using your logic, does that mean I should be entitled to free games? Should I, in fact, be encouraged to copy games and not buy them?
Instead of filling this thread with all of the various excuses people use to justify their theft, let me just list all of them here for your reading convenience:
1. Because no loss of physical property = no theft.
2. Because copyright infringement isn't a big deal.
3. Because artists are getting screwed by the RIAA.
4. Because overall quality of music is down.
5. Because I wouldn't have bought the CD anyway.
6. Because information wants to be free!
"We've had over 200 submissions, and some of them are pretty cool, but I don't think there yet is a Lock for the winner"...they all suck? Is that how we are to interpret that?
Don't yell at/moderate me, I'm not the one who said it!
"Thankfully, we live in capitalist countries, where when the government makes money they give it to the people."
You say that as if the purpose of government is to make money for it's citizens. Not only has that ideology, when put into practice, failed repeatedly, but a truly free society has a government that simply allows its citizens to create their own success.
"The Constitution only guarantees the American people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself." -Benjamin Franklin
Of course history has repeatedly demonstrated that communism is doomed to fail because it is a system run by human beings, who inherantly strive to attain "property". In fact, I'd say that any governmental/economic system that functions opposite of human nature is doomed to fail.
Your ideal communist utopia and reality are indeed very different.
That's why profit isn't measured only in cash/dollar amounts.
"I do not have any more money than I had before."
True enough, but you also now have a software package worth roughly $580 on the retail market.
"The author does not have less money than he/she had before."
They have roughly $580 less than what they would have had, had you obtained the software legally. Affordability (or lack thereof) is irrelevant.
"I'd argue that if someone prevents me from accessing useful non-personal knowledge or information, he/she is stealing that information from me by preventing my access to it, whether for profit purposes or any other purposes.
So you'd argue then that the entire software/home-movie/music industry is immoral, if not downright illegal because you can't get the information they produce for free? That's about as much of a stretch as I've ever read on this site, and that's saying a lot!
"IP and copyright are fundamentally unethical laws in an age in where there are no natural restrictions to the flow or creation of information"
So because the Internet allows software and digital reproductions of movies and music to be copied en-masse, that those creating these works should no longer be allowed to make a living from them?
"...and the vast majority of "violators" are not doing so for profit or for gain."
Amazon.com: Price for Adobe Photoshop - $579.99. I decide I don't want to pay that much for Photoshop, so I go and download it using Kazaa. I have the software now, but it didn't cost me anything. I have just made a profit of $579.99.
So don't tell me that "violators" aren't in it for profit!
Slashdot Mirror
Is that the new, less-offensive way to say "Grab your ankles, we're raising your taxes again."?
The system is not only flawed, it's fundamentally broken. There inevitably is a point where those who take from the system far exceed those who put into it. It's a vicious cycle.
As the number of those who take from the system grows, the more that those who put into it have to pay into the system. The more they have to pay, the fewer who can afford to do so. They join the ranks of those who take from the system, and those remaining have to pay more, and so the cycle continues.
It's only a matter of time before socialist economies start collapsing under their own weight. I just hope the U.S. goverment changes it's out-of-control social program spending before that happens.
For a preview of what's to come, take a look at California!
Why you and I are, of course! Isn't that what our socialist governments have convinced us should be done?
Social security in teh U.S. has proven that working people cannot support 25 years of retirement, let alone 240, but that isn't stopping our governments from confiscating more and more of our wealth for the sake of sweet Grandmas everywhere. Once the money is spread too thin, we can all be impoverished together! Doesn't that sound nice?
Maybe living forever isn't such a good idea! Socialism isn't any better.
Then what do you say to the not-so-few who believe that selling software commercially is immoral, and that "information wants to be free!"?
These people believe that software should always be developed and distributed for the collective good of the community, and anyone who charges for software is greedy.
I'm not suggesting that everyone in the OSS community is like this, but many of the most vocal members are.
However, there are a lot of people out there who aren't content with just creating quality software to freely distribute. That part I am very much in favor of, because it gives people inexpensive alternatives to commercial software.
But there are those who, IMHO, take that sentiment too far. They believe that commercial software is inherantly evil because it isn't Free (beer and speech); that it should be available for everyone to copy/modify as much as they wish, and that it is immoral for developers to expect to be financially compensated for their effots.
That's where I make the communism connection. Now don't get me wrong; I don't particularly love Microsoft, and certainly believe software could stand to be more affordable, but I will never believe that a person or company should not be paid for their work if they ask for it.
I love the volunteerism that OSS has generated, but I think it goes too far when the OSS community chastises those who want to be paid.
The difference, I'd say, is that the former are usually moderated up as Insightful, and the latter are moderated down as Flamebait.
That suggests (to me, anyway) that one side of the political spectrum is clearly in the majority, at least on Slashdot.
One other point I wanted to bring out is that the "geek" voting block is largely young men between the ages of 18 and (wild guess) 30. Historically, this has been a rather weak age group when it comes to voting, and that's why politicians generally pay less attention to them and their issues versus seniors.
And as much as that may be changing, and younger people are taking more interest in politics, politicians may still shy away from them because of the nature of the activist IT movement.
Be honest folks. As well-intentioned as many of our views are, a lot of them reek of communism. Now I'm not saying that's necessarily the case (though for a sizeable portion, I would say it is) but some of the extremist ideas that are frequently explored on sites such as Slashdot are based on ideas that got people tossed into jail during McCarthyism.
And a lot of people who vote still remember that. Although many of our politicians seem to be leaning leftwards towards socialism, I don't think many of them want to yet be associated with some of the ideals expressed by the IT community.
Take it as it is. If you disagree, explain your side of the story.
I love how TechTV is portraying Kazaa as the noble progressive, leading us all into the GLORIOUS FUTURE OF FILE-SHARING, while Rosen and Co. are stodgy, grumpy old dinosaurs seeking to deprive humanity of life-saving technology.
I know all of the "blah blah outdated business model blah blah" arguments, and even agree with some of them, but TechTV didn't lend itself much credibility (IMHO) with their one-sided opening remarks.
I am now grabbing my ankles, waiting for moderators to get ahold of this.
Not to pick nits here, but police do NOT need hard evidence to arrest someone. They only need probable cause or a warrant.
Once the suspect is arrested, however, he/she must be charged with a crime within 24 hours (as you correctly stated).
THEN investigators build the state's case against the defendant by collecting evidence. No such evidence is required, however, for the initial request.
For the record, I'm a little dubious about the use of the "material witness" statute to detain people without charging them (if that is indeed what actually happened; a lot of people here like to jump to inaccurate conclusions), but I honestly believe he is in fact guilty. People who believe that his confession was most likely coerced are simply grasping at straws.
Am I the only one who thought of "Device Girls" as those unenlightened females who prefer various mechanical devices over us virile geeks?
The RIAA has repeatedly stated that making mp3 files from music CDs you already own is perfectly legal. It's the people who don't own the CDs that the RIAA is going after.
Then you can continue to listen to it on your vinyl records or cassette tapes. The music isn't the only thing you are paying for when you buy a CD. You get a much better-quality sound (though vinyl enthusiasts may argue that one), and a smaller, more convenient format.
And there's nothing illegal about taking music from a CD you own and converting it to mp3.
Personally, I don't think "infringement" correctly identifies the act either, and perhaps a new legal term needs to be written into law to concretely define it.
Clearly the industry is losing music sales to file-sharing (among several other factors), and yes, they could benefit from updating their business model, but no amount of rationalizing will change the fact that downloading music you haven't paid for is wrong.
I don't play video games for profit, so using your logic, does that mean I should be entitled to free games? Should I, in fact, be encouraged to copy games and not buy them?
1. Because no loss of physical property = no theft.
2. Because copyright infringement isn't a big deal.
3. Because artists are getting screwed by the RIAA.
4. Because overall quality of music is down.
5. Because I wouldn't have bought the CD anyway.
6. Because information wants to be free!
Back: T-shirts Wear YOU!!
"We've had over 200 submissions, and some of them are pretty cool, but I don't think there yet is a Lock for the winner" ...they all suck? Is that how we are to interpret that?
Don't yell at/moderate me, I'm not the one who said it!
I bet he was wearing a yellow suit, and you KNOW there was a "Type-R" sticker somewhere!
You say that as if the purpose of government is to make money for it's citizens. Not only has that ideology, when put into practice, failed repeatedly, but a truly free society has a government that simply allows its citizens to create their own success.
"The Constitution only guarantees the American people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself." -Benjamin Franklin
I guess you've never heard of prohibition.
Your ideal communist utopia and reality are indeed very different.
That's why profit isn't measured only in cash/dollar amounts.
"I do not have any more money than I had before."
True enough, but you also now have a software package worth roughly $580 on the retail market.
"The author does not have less money than he/she had before."
They have roughly $580 less than what they would have had, had you obtained the software legally. Affordability (or lack thereof) is irrelevant.
"I'd argue that if someone prevents me from accessing useful non-personal knowledge or information, he/she is stealing that information from me by preventing my access to it, whether for profit purposes or any other purposes.
So you'd argue then that the entire software/home-movie/music industry is immoral, if not downright illegal because you can't get the information they produce for free? That's about as much of a stretch as I've ever read on this site, and that's saying a lot!
4) Do they know the (in)famous "goatse.cx lawyers"?
So because the Internet allows software and digital reproductions of movies and music to be copied en-masse, that those creating these works should no longer be allowed to make a living from them?
"...and the vast majority of "violators" are not doing so for profit or for gain."
Amazon.com: Price for Adobe Photoshop - $579.99. I decide I don't want to pay that much for Photoshop, so I go and download it using Kazaa. I have the software now, but it didn't cost me anything. I have just made a profit of $579.99.
So don't tell me that "violators" aren't in it for profit!
That's exactly what I'm talking about; they're doing those things instead of listening to the professor.
Wouldn't that be the sort of thing you'd do outside of class?
And that's a good thing? Don't students have a hard enough time paying attention to lectures? I was a student once; I know!