Try being on the wrong end of a government department screwing up your tax records because they mistyped one little NI number and fluked another valid one (yours) instead one day. Trust me, that'll leave you hundreds of quid out of pocket, for several months, and take you dozens of hours trying to sort things out.
Try being on the wrong end of a government department messing up your health records, because their system doesn't understand that you're the same person who applied for the same thing a year ago, and won't give you the same result this time.
Both of these happened to me, at times in my life when I was particularly vulnerable to them, and that was two separate databases where the damage caused by screwing up my identity was minimal. When this stuff breaks -- and it will do, frequently, if only through innocent human error as happened to me in those previous cases -- then people's whole lives are going to be screwed for months. And that's on top of the usual objections about unbounded cost, civil liberties, inaccuracy of the information leading to false positives (have you actually checked the stats on how reliable some of the biometric technology is? They're scary) and all the rest of it.
You could have at least put *spoilers* in your subject.
Nah, if we wanted to spoil it, we'd tell you what happens to him after he died... The oh-so-noble sacrifice itself was pretty much predictable from the Matrix-esque slow-mo sequence with the actually-quite-good rock soundtrack... (Also the fact that the film was widely billed as killing off quite a few established characters, and heralding the arrival of a new generation.)
I never bother sending CVs to places in Word format. If I'm job-hunting, electronic versions go in well-presented HTML/PDF formats, but I'm probably printing and sending my CV with a proper covering letter to anyone I care about anyway. If a business says something stupid like "Submit CV in Word format" on their recruitment page, I usually don't bother reading any further, because the working environment and staff attitudes that simple request betrays are not things I care to be associated with.
As we are a consultancy, we need good communicators as well as techies and raising the company profile may be an added bonus.
You could try identifying good people in on-line discussion forums, Usenet groups, etc. There you can immediately gauge not only a person's technical knowledge, but their ability to convey it in writing.
How you then approach them is a different question, of course. For example, I do post to various technical Usenet groups, and I've always assumed that's where the headhunters found me one day. Personally, I was mildly flattered, and I did sent them a polite reply declining their offer (since I had no interest in moving to where the job was based). However, I can imagine that others might not be so charitable about unsolicited e-mails these days.
You could always try leaking the name of your company later in this story. You're not short of geeks who know their stuff around here, so all you have to do is get rid of the 95% who can't right too safe they're lifes, and your problem's solved.:o)
You're still missing my point. You fundamentally assume that all developers are aware of portability issues, standardisation issues, the technical details of exactly what is and what isn't in ISO C++, the nature of Microsoft's.Net platform and the C++/CLI language, and so on.
Take a look at any C++ newsgroup, preferably one of the unmoderated ones with a lot of newbies asking for help. Observe their level of understanding (or otherwise) of exactly how even standard C++ works. They frequently don't "get" concepts like undefined behaviour, compiler extensions, and standard vs. non-standard libraries. A huge number of the problems posted on such groups come directly from making that sort of mistake; some groups have dozens of examples every week. Some people will even aggressively defend their misconceptions, telling other (correct) posters that they don't know what they're talking about because "it works on my compiler". This has been happening with GCC extensions for years, and it's already happening with Microsoft extensions as well.
So yes, I'm completely convinced that there are huge numbers of new and inexperienced programmers out there who really won't appreciate the significance of tying themselves into Microsoft's platform. Moreover, it is naive to pretend that Microsoft doesn't know this very well. Their whole marketing strategy, which the BSI guys are rightly challenging, seems to be based on creating this ambiguity in people's minds. I've mentioned the "Pure C++" column and random blog post misterminology elsewhere in this thread. There are simpler things too, like highlighting C++/CLI reserved words even when you're editing native C++ code in the IDE, as if they were a part of standard C++, and including C++/CLI and.Net material prominently in help pages even when nothing implying this platform is selected in the filters.
I'm no arbitrary MS-basher -- go ahead and check my previous posts, and you'll find sometimes I support them and others I don't -- but in this case, I think they have a blatant strategy for trying to abuse the system, and it's quite right that those responsible for maintaining that system call them on it. If they had tried this with any well-known language with a major commercial backer, they would have been sued into oblivion by now, probably with a court order not only preventing standardisation under their derivative name but also preventing them from even marketing their own product with it.
You're missing the point. The fact that standard C++ code can be compiled with the Microsoft compiler isn't contested. The problem is that Microsoft is presenting its version as if it were C++. That means anyone coming to C++/CLI and writing code in the style advocated by Microsoft will not be producing code that can be compiled by any other C++ compiler, though they might not understand this. That is disingenuous, and will damage those who are misled by locking them into the Microsoft platform.
The same argument could have been advanced against the name C++ itself: "The issue here is that the use of the C name is a big marketing issue. But to apply the C name in any variant to a language that is not C is fundamentally misleading and dishonest."
You're comparing apples to oranges.
Stroustrup didn't go around "casually" referring to C++ as C using a multi-million-dollar PR machine. On the contrary, he has written extensively about the relationship between C++ and C as the newer language has evolved, and has always been clear about the significance of having similar syntaxes and where the differences start.
Microsoft, on the other hand, frequently do refer to C++/CLI simply as C++. They even have a column on their MSDN web site called Pure C++; would you like to guess whether the C++ in question is the ISO standard variety or the C++/CLI one? That one's a real shame, and I'd have expected better from a distinguished C++ expert like Stan Lippman.
Ironically, I expect to spend a fairly large sum on a snazzy new HD TV this weekend. Sony make one of the boxes that easily made my shortlist on quality grounds, and I could order it on-line in thirty seconds, but I ruled them out on principle because of their corporate ethics. Instead, I will be buying from a reputable brand that makes good quality equipment that does exactly what it says on the tin.
They are using Halo 2 to make more users switch to Vista (and to upgrade hardware).
Wanna bet?
Halo was a decent enough FPS, but nothing spectacular. It looks like Halo 2 is the same. I'd consider buying it if it were available for my system, but I'm not going to spend my time and money upgrading my hardware and risking a whole new OS just to play one game.
If Microsoft restrict their games pointlessly to running on Vista, that just means their competitors in the gaming markets have a free run over everyone still using XP or earlier. I'll bet there are a lot more people like me than there are mad keen types who will buy the latest and greatest graphics card and upgrading their whole system just for one title that's worth a few hours of gameplay.
I seem to provide this quotation quite frequently these days. It was said by Lord Hoffman, sitting as a British Law Lord, in their ruling on the UK detention-without-trial fiasco a few months back:
"The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws like these."
And, unlike the rest of us, the Law Lords sitting in that case presumably did have access to any classified information they required. It's very convenient that the government can always tell us how its draconian policies are protecting us from imminent doom (but they can't tell us how for security reasons). That argument is rather less powerful when its critics include people on the inside who would be well aware of the full facts.
nom it is not a 'fundamental' right. It is a privilage granted by congress, which is a representation of the people.
All legal rights are like that, including physical property rights, free speech, due process, etc.
The natural default is that might is right. The only "natural rights" you truly have are those you are prepared to die defending; anything else can be taken from you with sufficient force.
With time and evolving society, we have discovered that making agreements among the population to respect other kinds of right is useful. Moreover, when we act together like this, we have overwhelming force with which to defend those rights against the few who would not honour them; we call this a legal system.
I always find it ironic when people starting talking about how IP rights are artificial, government-granted monopolies, and then say that because of this we shouldn't give them the same respect that we give physical property rights.
Yes, I think Google currently has way too much power, and is getting away with things it shouldn't.
During the last round of Google/BMW fun, I suggested a less favourable way to view that kind of web site. I think the web is in serious danger of going down the same path as books and media, where big name middleman sites (search engines, portal sites, archives, etc.) pretend to be doing the public a favour, while actually gathering disproportionate amounts of influence in exchange for services that may not be as valuable as many people currently think they are.
Google pitched BMW out an air lock, it's fortunate for BMW that they were let back in from the cold.
I don't think it's so one-sided. Anyone in Germany who wants to buy a BMW is going to find BMW's web site with the second URL they enter, even if Google was the first. OTOH, if Google was the first, and trying to search for a major name brand resulted in a whole load of spin-off pages and not showing the home page for the brand in question, then Google's index loses credibility.
Personally, I think Google has been losing pretty badly on this front recently. I've been searching for some particular audio-visual equipment, and putting the name of the brand or the part number of the equipment into Google yields several pages of all-the-same, all-as-useless-as-each-other price comparison web sites, and the occasional blog pretending to be a review, but rarely if ever the page for the equipment in question on the brand's own web site. If a search engine can't take me right there, I might as well guess the brand's home page and navigate through their own site to find what I'm looking for. Consequently, I have effectively given up using Google for these searches now. Not giving the people what they want really does have repercussions...
Actually, there hasn't been a lot of "leading edge research" in IT at all, and what has been there has mostly come out of universities.
Nice try. Given that I work in an office full of highly educated people developing new mathematical algorithms for a commercial product, I hope you won't mind if I don't believe you.
If you want more generic examples, look at something universal like programming languages. The majority of the successful ones are developed outside of academia, and funded by industry bodies.
As I was saying, the technologies that those sites are based on has been largely developed with public funding.
Actually, that's not what you said. What you did say was:
Almost everything you use on the Internet was funded that way, directly or indirectly.
Now, given that we're talking about works here, what is the more relevant example: your narrow view where only a tiny number of well-established infrastructure programs count, or my wider view where all the new content I see every day counts?
Yes, that is the primary purpose of government: to fund public goods. And arts and scientific research are textbook examples of public goods.
Remember that when your taxes go up 10% to pay for a million pop clone wannabes and trashy novellists who can't write for ****.
Trying to privatize them is a relatively recent phenomenon and has been largely (and predictably) a failure.
Ah, so you don't believe in artificial scarcity through copyright, but you want to do away with any sort of free market and trust the government to run everything? Now that is a bizarre position to take...
What you choose to read into my posts is up to you, but please don't ask me to defend something I never wrote.
If you reread the post to which I was originally replying, you'll find that the terms there have the same problem:
Human beings have produced great art, science, and engineering for millennia in the absence of copyright protection. The assertion that copyrights and patents have any social or economic merit at all is at best unproven.
Where are the controls in this argument? There might be some significant differences like, I don't know, the fact that copying is now almost free and almost instantaneous.
I was simply presenting an opposing viewpoint at a similar level of rigour. Neither post was a strict, logically proven argument, nor could either have been so: as you point out yourself, we can never be 100% sure of the difference made by IP laws without a control group. However, while correlation does not imply causation, it's the best indicator we've got in the absence of anything that does. So, while the original poster was correct in that the benefits are indeed "at best unproven" in a strict, logical sense, it's equally unproven that we could develop as many works of comparable quality without the IP framework, and what evidence we do have is heavily against it.
Uh, could you perhaps look up the meaning of the words "causation" and "conclusion" before criticising? I stated no conclusion, and was merely noting a strong correlation as part of a wider argument.
Being the first on the market is HUGE and the only incentive you should need.
Only if you have both the great idea and the infrastructure to take advantage of it immediately. If you have only the former, patents are how you get the latter while still getting due credit for your contribution.
And as someone who creates new inventions and writes a lot, I can tell you personally: patents and copyrights do not reward me for my work in any way.
There are only two possibilities to explain this: either your work has little or no value to anyone (in which case why should you be rewarded for doing it, either by private means or through any sort of public funding?) or your work is valuable (in which case your legal/distribution/support people aren't very good).
As for patronage, it still exists and it is far more generous than it has ever been. It's called public research funding. And it works.
Of course it does. That's why so many PhD places in scientific fields are funded by industrial grants, and indeed why so much leading edge research in, say, IT, comes out of the R&D labs of major corporations rather than universities.
Almost everything you use on the Internet was funded that way, directly or indirectly.
Of course it was. That's why most of the useful and/or entertaining web sites I visit carry ads and/or offer subscription options. The only major web site I visit frequently that isn't funded this way is the BBC News site, and I effectively pay for that through my TV licence money, too.
Remember, there is no such thing as public money. There is only money the government takes from its population through taxes, and redistributes as it sees fit with or without the population's support. Doing this on the scale necessary to support every artist in the country would be entirely impractical.
So, economically successful nations have strong patent and copyright laws, but they have them because economically successful nations also have powerful industry lobbies that use patents and copyrights to exclude competition. And you only need to look at the UK to see what the long term consequences of that are.
I live in a UK city where small, innovative IT companies are a major part of the local economy, employing a significant proportion of the local population, including me. Many depend on copyright protection to get a fair reward for their work, rather than seeing it gobbled up by the big boys; between my friends' experiences and my own, I've now seen that protection used in practice in several cases that might otherwise have sunk the development company. I'm afraid you're not really trying your argument on the right person.
Despite your opinion, something that Jack Valenti and co. do understand and RMS apparently doesn't is how to make a worthwhile amount of money from knowledge works. Ironically, you have demonstrated the difference between their realistic approach and your wishful thinking quite clearly with your own example. Two efforts to do pretty much what you describe, one for Firefly and one for Enterprise, have recently failed to get anywhere near the scale of popular support they would require to achieve their goals. And both had relatively high-profile on-line campaigns among the geek community, and even TV coverage when the series were running in at least one case. If that can't achieve even one success, it's hard to see how your model can support the entire industry.
Human beings have produced great art, science, and engineering for millennia in the absence of copyright protection.
Sure they have.
And yet, we have developed more knowledge of science and engineering in the past few years than in the few centuries before them. Somehow, despite most people working within the framework of copyright, or advances in technology and communications still allow ideas to be shared and progress to be made. More people's art reaches more people in the audience today than at any time in human history, and the cost of the art is a few $CURRENCY_UNITS to the common man, and not a significant investment to commission a work by someone in the upper classes. Those nations that have strong copyright and patent laws have developed far beyond those that make at most a token effort, while the latter commonly derive a significant part of their economic value from a black market in trading the former's work, rather than creating work of a similar calibre on their own.
Really, this whole "IP doesn't do any good" idea is tired. Give it up already. Anyone who wasn't completely brainwashed by Slashbot groupthink and the preachings of delusional evangelists like RMS could see that IP has brought many benefits in recent years. Sure, the system isn't perfect. Sure, it's widely abused (by both sides) in certain areas. But on balance, it's still a huge net plus, and no-one (including RMS) has yet produced even a plausible alternative worth trying. Get back to us when you've got an idea that can pay the rent for everyone who currently develops useful or entertaining works, not just a tiny number of people who are in a highly visible vanguard working on highly visible projects with a wide market and with little competition in the consultancy/training/customisation market.
Slashdot Mirror
Try being on the wrong end of a government department screwing up your tax records because they mistyped one little NI number and fluked another valid one (yours) instead one day. Trust me, that'll leave you hundreds of quid out of pocket, for several months, and take you dozens of hours trying to sort things out.
Try being on the wrong end of a government department messing up your health records, because their system doesn't understand that you're the same person who applied for the same thing a year ago, and won't give you the same result this time.
Both of these happened to me, at times in my life when I was particularly vulnerable to them, and that was two separate databases where the damage caused by screwing up my identity was minimal. When this stuff breaks -- and it will do, frequently, if only through innocent human error as happened to me in those previous cases -- then people's whole lives are going to be screwed for months. And that's on top of the usual objections about unbounded cost, civil liberties, inaccuracy of the information leading to false positives (have you actually checked the stats on how reliable some of the biometric technology is? They're scary) and all the rest of it.
Nah, if we wanted to spoil it, we'd tell you what happens to him after he died... The oh-so-noble sacrifice itself was pretty much predictable from the Matrix-esque slow-mo sequence with the actually-quite-good rock soundtrack... (Also the fact that the film was widely billed as killing off quite a few established characters, and heralding the arrival of a new generation.)
It's a shame you can't mod posts (-1, Ironic)... :o)
I never bother sending CVs to places in Word format. If I'm job-hunting, electronic versions go in well-presented HTML/PDF formats, but I'm probably printing and sending my CV with a proper covering letter to anyone I care about anyway. If a business says something stupid like "Submit CV in Word format" on their recruitment page, I usually don't bother reading any further, because the working environment and staff attitudes that simple request betrays are not things I care to be associated with.
You could try identifying good people in on-line discussion forums, Usenet groups, etc. There you can immediately gauge not only a person's technical knowledge, but their ability to convey it in writing.
How you then approach them is a different question, of course. For example, I do post to various technical Usenet groups, and I've always assumed that's where the headhunters found me one day. Personally, I was mildly flattered, and I did sent them a polite reply declining their offer (since I had no interest in moving to where the job was based). However, I can imagine that others might not be so charitable about unsolicited e-mails these days.
You could always try leaking the name of your company later in this story. You're not short of geeks who know their stuff around here, so all you have to do is get rid of the 95% who can't right too safe they're lifes, and your problem's solved. :o)
You're still missing my point. You fundamentally assume that all developers are aware of portability issues, standardisation issues, the technical details of exactly what is and what isn't in ISO C++, the nature of Microsoft's .Net platform and the C++/CLI language, and so on.
Take a look at any C++ newsgroup, preferably one of the unmoderated ones with a lot of newbies asking for help. Observe their level of understanding (or otherwise) of exactly how even standard C++ works. They frequently don't "get" concepts like undefined behaviour, compiler extensions, and standard vs. non-standard libraries. A huge number of the problems posted on such groups come directly from making that sort of mistake; some groups have dozens of examples every week. Some people will even aggressively defend their misconceptions, telling other (correct) posters that they don't know what they're talking about because "it works on my compiler". This has been happening with GCC extensions for years, and it's already happening with Microsoft extensions as well.
So yes, I'm completely convinced that there are huge numbers of new and inexperienced programmers out there who really won't appreciate the significance of tying themselves into Microsoft's platform. Moreover, it is naive to pretend that Microsoft doesn't know this very well. Their whole marketing strategy, which the BSI guys are rightly challenging, seems to be based on creating this ambiguity in people's minds. I've mentioned the "Pure C++" column and random blog post misterminology elsewhere in this thread. There are simpler things too, like highlighting C++/CLI reserved words even when you're editing native C++ code in the IDE, as if they were a part of standard C++, and including C++/CLI and .Net material prominently in help pages even when nothing implying this platform is selected in the filters.
I'm no arbitrary MS-basher -- go ahead and check my previous posts, and you'll find sometimes I support them and others I don't -- but in this case, I think they have a blatant strategy for trying to abuse the system, and it's quite right that those responsible for maintaining that system call them on it. If they had tried this with any well-known language with a major commercial backer, they would have been sued into oblivion by now, probably with a court order not only preventing standardisation under their derivative name but also preventing them from even marketing their own product with it.
You're missing the point. The fact that standard C++ code can be compiled with the Microsoft compiler isn't contested. The problem is that Microsoft is presenting its version as if it were C++. That means anyone coming to C++/CLI and writing code in the style advocated by Microsoft will not be producing code that can be compiled by any other C++ compiler, though they might not understand this. That is disingenuous, and will damage those who are misled by locking them into the Microsoft platform.
You're comparing apples to oranges.
Stroustrup didn't go around "casually" referring to C++ as C using a multi-million-dollar PR machine. On the contrary, he has written extensively about the relationship between C++ and C as the newer language has evolved, and has always been clear about the significance of having similar syntaxes and where the differences start.
Microsoft, on the other hand, frequently do refer to C++/CLI simply as C++. They even have a column on their MSDN web site called Pure C++; would you like to guess whether the C++ in question is the ISO standard variety or the C++/CLI one? That one's a real shame, and I'd have expected better from a distinguished C++ expert like Stan Lippman.
Ironically, I expect to spend a fairly large sum on a snazzy new HD TV this weekend. Sony make one of the boxes that easily made my shortlist on quality grounds, and I could order it on-line in thirty seconds, but I ruled them out on principle because of their corporate ethics. Instead, I will be buying from a reputable brand that makes good quality equipment that does exactly what it says on the tin.
Wanna bet?
Halo was a decent enough FPS, but nothing spectacular. It looks like Halo 2 is the same. I'd consider buying it if it were available for my system, but I'm not going to spend my time and money upgrading my hardware and risking a whole new OS just to play one game.
If Microsoft restrict their games pointlessly to running on Vista, that just means their competitors in the gaming markets have a free run over everyone still using XP or earlier. I'll bet there are a lot more people like me than there are mad keen types who will buy the latest and greatest graphics card and upgrading their whole system just for one title that's worth a few hours of gameplay.
I seem to provide this quotation quite frequently these days. It was said by Lord Hoffman, sitting as a British Law Lord, in their ruling on the UK detention-without-trial fiasco a few months back:
And, unlike the rest of us, the Law Lords sitting in that case presumably did have access to any classified information they required. It's very convenient that the government can always tell us how its draconian policies are protecting us from imminent doom (but they can't tell us how for security reasons). That argument is rather less powerful when its critics include people on the inside who would be well aware of the full facts.
I hate to be the one to tell you this, but you're not really anonymous when you post as an AC here...
All legal rights are like that, including physical property rights, free speech, due process, etc.
The natural default is that might is right. The only "natural rights" you truly have are those you are prepared to die defending; anything else can be taken from you with sufficient force.
With time and evolving society, we have discovered that making agreements among the population to respect other kinds of right is useful. Moreover, when we act together like this, we have overwhelming force with which to defend those rights against the few who would not honour them; we call this a legal system.
I always find it ironic when people starting talking about how IP rights are artificial, government-granted monopolies, and then say that because of this we shouldn't give them the same respect that we give physical property rights.
OK, I'll play. Can you name any country where the duplication of a complete work in this manner is clearly legal?
Yes, I think Google currently has way too much power, and is getting away with things it shouldn't.
During the last round of Google/BMW fun, I suggested a less favourable way to view that kind of web site. I think the web is in serious danger of going down the same path as books and media, where big name middleman sites (search engines, portal sites, archives, etc.) pretend to be doing the public a favour, while actually gathering disproportionate amounts of influence in exchange for services that may not be as valuable as many people currently think they are.
I don't think it's so one-sided. Anyone in Germany who wants to buy a BMW is going to find BMW's web site with the second URL they enter, even if Google was the first. OTOH, if Google was the first, and trying to search for a major name brand resulted in a whole load of spin-off pages and not showing the home page for the brand in question, then Google's index loses credibility.
Personally, I think Google has been losing pretty badly on this front recently. I've been searching for some particular audio-visual equipment, and putting the name of the brand or the part number of the equipment into Google yields several pages of all-the-same, all-as-useless-as-each-other price comparison web sites, and the occasional blog pretending to be a review, but rarely if ever the page for the equipment in question on the brand's own web site. If a search engine can't take me right there, I might as well guess the brand's home page and navigate through their own site to find what I'm looking for. Consequently, I have effectively given up using Google for these searches now. Not giving the people what they want really does have repercussions...
Nice try. Given that I work in an office full of highly educated people developing new mathematical algorithms for a commercial product, I hope you won't mind if I don't believe you.
If you want more generic examples, look at something universal like programming languages. The majority of the successful ones are developed outside of academia, and funded by industry bodies.
Actually, that's not what you said. What you did say was:
Now, given that we're talking about works here, what is the more relevant example: your narrow view where only a tiny number of well-established infrastructure programs count, or my wider view where all the new content I see every day counts?
Remember that when your taxes go up 10% to pay for a million pop clone wannabes and trashy novellists who can't write for ****.
Ah, so you don't believe in artificial scarcity through copyright, but you want to do away with any sort of free market and trust the government to run everything? Now that is a bizarre position to take...
What you choose to read into my posts is up to you, but please don't ask me to defend something I never wrote.
If you reread the post to which I was originally replying, you'll find that the terms there have the same problem:
Where are the controls in this argument? There might be some significant differences like, I don't know, the fact that copying is now almost free and almost instantaneous.
I was simply presenting an opposing viewpoint at a similar level of rigour. Neither post was a strict, logically proven argument, nor could either have been so: as you point out yourself, we can never be 100% sure of the difference made by IP laws without a control group. However, while correlation does not imply causation, it's the best indicator we've got in the absence of anything that does. So, while the original poster was correct in that the benefits are indeed "at best unproven" in a strict, logical sense, it's equally unproven that we could develop as many works of comparable quality without the IP framework, and what evidence we do have is heavily against it.
Uh, could you perhaps look up the meaning of the words "causation" and "conclusion" before criticising? I stated no conclusion, and was merely noting a strong correlation as part of a wider argument.
Only if you have both the great idea and the infrastructure to take advantage of it immediately. If you have only the former, patents are how you get the latter while still getting due credit for your contribution.
There are only two possibilities to explain this: either your work has little or no value to anyone (in which case why should you be rewarded for doing it, either by private means or through any sort of public funding?) or your work is valuable (in which case your legal/distribution/support people aren't very good).
Of course it does. That's why so many PhD places in scientific fields are funded by industrial grants, and indeed why so much leading edge research in, say, IT, comes out of the R&D labs of major corporations rather than universities.
Of course it was. That's why most of the useful and/or entertaining web sites I visit carry ads and/or offer subscription options. The only major web site I visit frequently that isn't funded this way is the BBC News site, and I effectively pay for that through my TV licence money, too.
Remember, there is no such thing as public money. There is only money the government takes from its population through taxes, and redistributes as it sees fit with or without the population's support. Doing this on the scale necessary to support every artist in the country would be entirely impractical.
I live in a UK city where small, innovative IT companies are a major part of the local economy, employing a significant proportion of the local population, including me. Many depend on copyright protection to get a fair reward for their work, rather than seeing it gobbled up by the big boys; between my friends' experiences and my own, I've now seen that protection used in practice in several cases that might otherwise have sunk the development company. I'm afraid you're not really trying your argument on the right person.
Despite your opinion, something that Jack Valenti and co. do understand and RMS apparently doesn't is how to make a worthwhile amount of money from knowledge works. Ironically, you have demonstrated the difference between their realistic approach and your wishful thinking quite clearly with your own example. Two efforts to do pretty much what you describe, one for Firefly and one for Enterprise, have recently failed to get anywhere near the scale of popular support they would require to achieve their goals. And both had relatively high-profile on-line campaigns among the geek community, and even TV coverage when the series were running in at least one case. If that can't achieve even one success, it's hard to see how your model can support the entire industry.
Sure they have.
And yet, we have developed more knowledge of science and engineering in the past few years than in the few centuries before them. Somehow, despite most people working within the framework of copyright, or advances in technology and communications still allow ideas to be shared and progress to be made. More people's art reaches more people in the audience today than at any time in human history, and the cost of the art is a few $CURRENCY_UNITS to the common man, and not a significant investment to commission a work by someone in the upper classes. Those nations that have strong copyright and patent laws have developed far beyond those that make at most a token effort, while the latter commonly derive a significant part of their economic value from a black market in trading the former's work, rather than creating work of a similar calibre on their own.
Really, this whole "IP doesn't do any good" idea is tired. Give it up already. Anyone who wasn't completely brainwashed by Slashbot groupthink and the preachings of delusional evangelists like RMS could see that IP has brought many benefits in recent years. Sure, the system isn't perfect. Sure, it's widely abused (by both sides) in certain areas. But on balance, it's still a huge net plus, and no-one (including RMS) has yet produced even a plausible alternative worth trying. Get back to us when you've got an idea that can pay the rent for everyone who currently develops useful or entertaining works, not just a tiny number of people who are in a highly visible vanguard working on highly visible projects with a wide market and with little competition in the consultancy/training/customisation market.
Apparently you are mistaken.