Since this is slashdot, I know your post will probably be modded to +5.
Let me just say: is it possible that traditional energy companies don't just *adore* nuclear power (or ANYTHING that cuts into their profits)? Sure. Absolutely.
But there is no organized conspiracy by ANYONE in the industry to foster a fear of nuclear power. There didn't need to be. The anti-nuclear activists and some (not all) of the environmentalist movement have done that all by themselves.
So you're saying, then, that it's better for our nation as a whole to have waste stored in unmonitored, insecure, and in some cases failing, storage containers and sites at over 150 locations randomly scattered around the country, indefinitely, than in one place that is at least quasi-permanent?
And why do I have to live within visual distance of a nuclear power plant to (correctly) say that it's a very compelling answer to our power problems? Possibly because nuclear power has been so vilified by some people that others are irrationally deathly afraid of it?
Your argument is extremely poor, because:
1.) It's based on "non in my backyard", and,
2.) You make a fallacious argument that living closer to a power plant somehow makes one more able to comment about nuclear power.
The fact is, the city where I live doesn't have a nuclear power plant. Frankly, I wish it did.
Good job using nothing more than scare tactics to frame your argument. Why, exactly, would it be bad to live close to one of the 104 operating nuclear plants in the United States?
Because of irrational fear and nothing more?
Or perhaps we should eliminate nuclear power altogether! I'm sure that would help us down the road to solving our energy problems!
Funny how it is, generally speaking, the same group of people who berate the US for our dependence on mideast oil, while at the same time vehemently protesting any movement down any path that might actually allow us to realistically release ourselves from some of that dependence, e.g., new nuclear plants. But no: must... be... scared... of... anything..."nuclear" (including things like Cassini...)
Face it: from a standpoint of physics, wind, water, and solar, and the mechanisms for extracted energy from them, are NOT ENOUGH to sustain any semblance of the current lifestyles, right or wrong, without drastic and dramatic changes that would have far-reaching economic and social implications. We need to REPLACE the power sources we aim to wean ourselves from. And nuclear is the answer. Yes, there can be conservation. Yes, there can be debate. Yes, there can be compact fluorescents and LEDs. But those will only affect so much. Our energy requirements, as well as those of the rest of the world, are growing, and we should be leading the fucking way on the front of nuclear power, INCLUDING fusion, building new plants, and making a lot of investments in this area.
And we're simply not doing that. Fuck it: people say Social Security is the "third rail" of American politics? Energy policy is the power plant that electrifies it.
Perhaps China's communist regime has an advantage after all: they can actually do things that will be GOOD for their country, like building nuclear power plants without endless ranting and raving from protesters, and storing waste safely in places like Yucca Mountain (because having waste at ~150 temporary, insecure facilities is certainly better than having it at one site, imperfect as it may be).
These are all questions you can answer yourself. You know damned well that we pay for services, i.e., things that have no physical object associated with them. You also know damned well that he was referring to things like music having a physical manifestation, such as a CD. I'm agreeing with that point. But is a music performance a "physical manifestation"? You're not buying anything that you physically leave with. Paying for a service doesn't have a physical manifestation.
I was agreeing with HIS premise about physical manifestations with retail value when related to wealth. Clearly that is true. It is ALSO true that we pay for things that have NO physical manifestation, such as services or performances. Now if you want to get into semantics, and say "well, the service has to be performed by someone; that's the physical manifestation" or "the musical performance, the artists, the instruments, and the venue are the physical manifestation" then you're just arguing semantics to be an asshole. The point is we pay for things were we don't get a *physical object in return* all the time. Things that have *retail value*. How is this a surprise?
If you say that you're specifically talking about an "idea", not a "service", this is ALL an issue of semantics. But you know EXACTLY what I was talking about in both instances (not to mention that they were different contexts, since the person who I was replying to was continually trying to twist the argument in unrelated directions); you're just choosing to be an ass, which is fine and not surprising in the least.
Just so there is no doubt about what I am saying:
I did not contradict myself.
I said we pay for things that have no "physical manifestation", that is, for which we get no object in return that is ours to keep, all the time.
I also said that sure, in the specific argument of the person I was responding to, there needs to be a physical manifestation FOR THE SPECIFIC THINGS HE WAS TALKING ABOUT, but not always, and not in a general sense.
No conflict. But nice try.
Of course, none of this changes the fundamental truth that wealth is not a zero sum proposition, total wealth can grow, and that the concept of "wealth", overall and not viewed in extremely narrow or specific categories or market segments, is not finite (except in absurd terms that consider the limits of physical matter on the earth or in the universe; and yes, I am aware that there is a finite amount of "gold" on the earth: we're not talking about "gold", we're talking about the societal construct of "wealth", which has been proven to not be "finite", in those terms, and most definitely not zero sum, time and again).
How is wealth measured exactly? Are you saying there is an infinite amount of silver and gold? Or an infinite amount of paper? How about oil, coal, cattle, fish, automobiles, wood, paper, plastic, land? Plays, novels, music, art, are wonderful stuff, and as long as people are alive, they will have value --- but only inasmuch as they have a physical presence in the form of a book or a cd, or are performed live.
In the end, there are two types of material -- inorganic (metals) and organic (living stuff). Both of these are in finite supply. You are the one who really doesn't know what you are talking about
in DIRECT response to this quote of mine:
Now I know you really don't know what you're talking about. This is not a zero sum game, and wealth is most definitely not finite.
The implication is that you disagree with the content of that statement.
If your issue wasn't with zero sum, and rather with the "finite" statement, ok, fine. But is it not a little absurd to say, essentially, that because there are limited physical resources to, say, produce compact discs or to support the processes to manufacture them, that therefore, "wealth" associated with this is finite? Sure, it's "finite", at some level - sometimes, in narrow areas, we even bump into resource limitations. But, as I read your response, the only purpose of refuting that statement is to also refute the concept that wealth is not zero sum. Now you appear to be saying that's not what you meant.
An idea without a physical manifestation has no retail value.
I wasn't even talking about that, so I have no idea where that came from. Sure, yes, there needs to be a physical manifestation. So what? That's irrelevant to what I was talking about.
This is twice now that you have talked about something completely unrelated to the subject at hand. I was trying to explain why I believed that taking something that the owner wishes you to pay for without permission, and without paying for it, is inappropriate. You twisted that around to talk about demanding payment for opening the door for old ladies, or Newton demanding payment for calculus. I never said anything of the sort. The fact is that someone COULD choose to demand payment for opening doors. What business is it of yours to stop them? What business is it of yours to steal that service? You didn't physically deprive the owner of anything... What's that? You didn't *agree* to pay the music owners anything, so therefore you don't have to? Ahh, I see.
But since it's clear from reading some of your posts that seem to disagree with most of the concepts of capitalism, corporatism, ownership, property, and everything associated with them and are essentially an out-and-out socialist, we'll likely not agree on any of these topics.
Are you telling me that you must pay royalties to ASCAP to play music (in this case, most US-copyrighted works from the US labels) that you have purchased in your own home during a party or gathering on private property? I apologize if I misspoke on fair use, specifically, and will stipulate to your correction. But still, are you telling me that playing CDs you own in your own house while anyone else other than yourself is in earshot is technically illegal or infringing? Because that's the insinuation of your post.
"Wealth" is NOT a zero sum game. If you think that any gains by someone who is wealthy equals a one-to-one decrease somewhere else, you are sadly, sadly, sadly mistaken. Yes, there are a finite amount of physical objects on earth. A finite amount of atoms in the universe. What's your point? You've demonstrated the height of utter, laughable ignorance if you believe for a second that wealth is zero sum, or that in order for the wealthy to become wealthier, they have to directly take from somewhere else (e.g., the "poor"). Perhaps you haven't grasped the concepts of growing economies that have been clearly demonstrated ad nauseum the world over. If you want to be disagreeable, sure, "wealth" can always be tied back in some way, shape, or form, to a physical object - or can it? Today, we consider information and intangibles a commodity. We even pay for them. (Well, at least some of us do.) How is that possible?! Buying an idea? Paying for services? In-sane! Take a macroeconomics course or something and stop lapping up the shit that your socialist friends are spewing from every orifice.
What are you trying to acomplish by this type of reasoning? If I understand it is is along the lines of: 1) he is deprived of something 2) that is similar to stealing 3) Since some acts of copying is depriving someone of something, any act of copying is too and hence copying is identicval to theft and therefore illegal???
You completely and utterly missed my point. Whether it is legal or not is beside the point. (But copyright infringement is "illegal", so yes, it's illegal.) The point is that it's *wrong*. I realize that it's subjective, but I'm trying to describe why I believe taking something that doesn't belong to you, even if you think it's ok because it's a duplicate, or ok because you didn't take it from the owner, but rather someone who was "sharing" it, or ok because you wouldn't have bought it anyway, or ok because you DID end up buying it, or ok because you don't think the owner was "deprived" of anything, or ok because you think copyright is a tool for corporate profits, etc., etc., etc., that it's still morally WRONG, and just because things CAN be easily copied - things that someone invested in some cases LOTS of time and money in - doesn't mean they SHOULD be copied.
Get it?
I'm not imposing my will on you, I'm not trying to draw some convoluted chain of logic to say it's "illegal", I'm saying that whether or not it is legally "theft", by that very word, I think it indeed is THEFT, legally or no, and it most certainly is a violation of copyright, even you don't concede that it's "stealing". What we're all doing here is dancing around the issue that downloaders who have thought about this enough to justify it to themselves:
You don't like the law or think it's unfair, and you've painted this evil picture of the music industry, that may in fact be true. But instead of working to change the law(s) and/or the system, as the case may be (I realize there are some people here outside the US that believe it is perfectly legal, moral, and ethical for them to copy music that originates from US labels without paying for it), you've decided to just ignore it, or paint it as "activism" or "civil disobedience". Sorry, I simply don't buy it. That's all I'm saying. Take it or leave it.
Similarily, however, you cannot assume that NO downloader will decide he likes the music enough to purchase a copy. Some people do exactly that. So I think you're making a big stretch to call it deprivation. You sound a lot like the BSA quoting how much money is lost to piracy every year.
On the contrary: I have not used the RIAA and BSA techniques of assigning some ridiculous dollar value to each and every download. I simply said exactly what I said, which is that you can't reasonably say that there is zero deprivation. Whether or not someone would PURCHASE music because of a download is irrelevant: let's say, for the sake of argument, a music label would sell TWICE as much as it does now if only it allowed free, unlimited downloading of all of its content for people to "sample". The point is that it doesn't matter! It's not "okay" because you're still buying stuff, or because you have an anecdote about how downloading something made you buy something you wouldn't have otherwise bought. It's not your fucking decision to make! IT'S NOT YOUR CONTENT, AND IT DOESN'T BELONG TO YOU! If they want to sell it for $1 million/CD and don't sell any, THAT'S THEIR CHOICE, NOT YOURS! Jesus, what about this do you people not understand??
To tread up the slippery slope aways, how would you feel about the guy who throws a large house party and plays CDs he owns for everyone to hear? He's probably breaking the letter of the law. Is he immoral too?
No, he's not, because he's not breaking the law. 1.) This actually IS what we call "fair use", which the downloading crowd is trying to bastardize to consider every person on earth a "friend" that they're "sharing" with, and 2.) it's not a public performance, and is therefore not covered by ASCAP requirements. But nice try. What that person is doing is perfectly within the letter and spirit of the law. Because he's, you know, not trying to be a complete ass.
Think I'm trolling if you want (because of the number of times I've posted? WTF? Also, look at my posting history...) but I'm most definitely serious, and not trolling. I could really care less if you respond if you truly think that a position you disagree with on this topic amounts to "trolling".
I never said EVERYTHING demands "payment". I never said you shouldn't hold the door open for an old lady. I never said people shouldn't create or invent lest they're paid. In fact, I, or you, could do all of those things and ask for nothing in return.
But some things in our society DO demand payment, and, frankly, it is the business of the owners to decide. Some content owners of music, for example, have asked for payment in return. There are legal guidelines which govern this arrangement. If you take something that belongs to them - that they own the rights for - and do not pay for it, because you've made a bunch of tired rationalizations about how it's "ok", that is stealing from them. It is not up to you to decide that they shouldn't be charging for it, or it's "ok" because your narrow minded justification tells you you're not "depriving" them of anything.
Some musicians, as owners of their content, have chosen to give it away for free. Bravo! It is their right to decide. NOT yours.
Good job trying to frame my argument as one of a corporate shill, when in reality it was a fundamental property and rule of law argument, not to mention one of ethics.
There is deprivation here. It is the deprivation of a potential sale. It's not concrete; it's more abstract, I'll grant you that. But, simply, you can't reasonably assume that NO downloaded copy wouldn't have otherwise been purchased, and additionally, please see:
I have no moral qualms with this arrangement whatsover. I know it's illegal, but not, in my book, immoral.
I can't really get past this...so you're saying that because it has been obtained once somewhere along the line legally, that any "sharing" from then on is absolutely justified, no matter how many times removed, and no matter how widely it is "shared"? How can you make that logical jump? That if any sharing is ok, it ALL is ok? That if "fair use" allows for sharing a couple copies of something with family and friends, suddenly the entire world is your family and friends, and "copies" could equal two or two million? Sorry, I don't buy it. And furthermore, this is precisely why the legal system is so fucked up and law so complex: because people can't fucking apply common sense to something, and will take a mile if given an inch. That's NOT was fair use means, and it's no wonder content owners are all but trying to do away with fair use for good.
This is simply about control. Control of the product by the seller or buyer after a sale.
Here's something we agree on. Yes, this is what it's about.
But wait a minute. That's what DRM is about. We're not talking about DRM. We're talking about people downloading music that doesn't belong to them. Nothing about DRM.
We're only here because people found out they could get something for nothing - and a lot of somethings at that - very easily, with no repercussions and none of the guilt or danger of actually stealing a physical object from someone. And with all the delicious rationalizations (the owner still "has" it, therefore it's ok) to boot.
Now let's completely forget about DRM. Because DRM and you downloading music are two utterly and completely different issues. In fact, since this part of the argument has nothing to do with DRM, lets imagine that there is no such thing and all music is DRM-free. Now, you're telling me that unlimited global sharing without payment of any and all music is perfectly moral and ethical? If so, then we are simply in fundamental philosophical disagreement.
The summary mentioned iTunes. I mentioned it once, the context that no one is forcing you to use it. Where did I mention Apple or Macs?
Oh, what's that? I didn't? Ok, fuck off then.
But you managed to mention it 7 times in your post. Hmm. AND take time out of your day to call a post "Apple fanboyism" that has nothing to do with Apple. Wow, the smart one you are!
You're depriving the painter of the possibility of his work (or even duplicates of it) having been purchased by taking it upon yourself to create/obtain duplicates that the creator has not been paid for, either for yourself, or others.
You're stealing from him, plain and simple. "Legally" stealing? Perhaps not. But that's a semantic debate. Saying it's "copyright infringement" and not "stealing" makes you feel like you're not the two-bit thief that you clearly are. And anyone who makes that argument is clearly feeling guilty.
Of course, you've got some tired rationalization for that, as well, I'm sure.
Let's take this argument out to absurdity. Which I feel is appropriate, since you already have.
Whether or not I have a copy of the painting or song does not affect the artist/singer unless I could afford to buy it, in which case I would have done so. It only affects me. So I don't think it's wrong of me to copy it.
How do you figure that it only affects you? Where is your incentive to better your financial situation and make more money, so you can afford the things you want - which you claim you would buy if you had the money? Inherent in that is educating yourself, making yourself a better and more productive member of society, a semblance of ambition, and incentive to do more. If everything could be gotten for free, then where's your incentive to do anything? And then, the logical follow-on question is: where is ANYONE'S incentive to do anything?
Luckily, there are still honest people in the world. That's apparently the difference: some people feel obligated to pay for the work and effort of others within the bounds of the laws that society has collectively set up; others feel that it's okay to take from others with no compensation, and manufacture arguments designed to rationalize it, rather than thinking, "Hm, wouldn't it be nice to {improve my lot in life | work more hours | work toward a better job | make myself more desirable in the marketplace | etc.} so that I can reward myself with the things I want?"
I don't recall being asked for my input. Who set up these bounds again? It wasn't society.
Wha? In this crazy society we live in (assuming you're in the US), we have something called representative democracy and another wacky concept known strangely s rule of law. As nutty as it sounds, the constituent elements that make up our society collectively decide on laws that govern our interaction with one another. Not everyone may agree with the fundamentals of every possible law, but we still collectively decide as a society to obey them, so we can actually live in some semblance of civility.In-sane!
There is a finite amount of wealth to go around.
Now I know you really don't know what you're talking about. This is not a zero sum game, and wealth is most definitely not finite. If you want to talk about people who are worth "100 times" as much as someone else, you're not talking about that tired old "one percent" the liberals always trumpet about. You're talking about the top 0.1% or 0.01%, depending on who you're comparing to. Why are you concerned with the fabulously wealthy? On top of that, that isn't what this discussion is about at all. If you don't believe that you can (or even want to) better yourself, you'd probably be perfect in socialism: the endless struggle for the lowest common denominator!
Nice Robin Hood argument though: the classic "because they have more, it's ok to steal from them". Nice. It's good to see plainly where you're coming from, though. Thanks.
1 a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully b : to take away by force or unjust means c : to take surreptitiously or without permission d : to appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share
Copyright infringement is copyright infringement. More broadly, and correctly, in my personal opinion, it is also stealing. Just like embezzlement is embezzlement. But in a more generic sense, it's also "stealing". I'm not talking statutes here. I'm talking ethics and morals. And by my understanding of the English language and the meanings of words, copyright infringement is a form of "stealing".
It amazes me how people always want pre-existing laws and legal principles to apply to the internet, or technology, or information if it is in their own favor or somehow benefits them, and then go out of their way to make crazy rationalizations about how downloading things that don't belong to you and that you didn't pay for isn't "stealing", it's "copyright infringement" simply because it's been duplicated, with complete ignorance of the ease that one work can be distributed globally in literally hours with virtually no work by any interim party, and no considerations for the owner's rights, not to mention what a horribly pathetic and downright destructive ethic that is encouraged by taking things without permission simply because YOU think they're too expensive or YOU don't agree with how business X has done Y or Z; and since copyright = bad or favors the corrupt and powerful, you personally find it invalid, and therefore, it's "okay" to infringe against copyrights owned by big, evil, blood-sucking, money-grubbing corporations.
But even in a DRMless world, there are going to be some "fat cats", as it were. Even if the labels are toppled, in a manner of speaking, there will still be some groups that are the "best" to be associated with - for exposure and money. The people who have the best connections, the biggest website, the hottest PR folks (anything that penetrates the mainstream will have amazing PR). And all over again, it repeats: it won't be an even playing field, and never will be. And once the groups that give the best centralized exposure (which translates into money) - the ones who rise to the top, competitively, which means they'll have some folks with good business sense - get big enough, they might be looking for ways to stop people from stealing their shit too.
I'm not sure property without locks and keys - and penalties for breaking them - can even survive (at above some very basic level, and certainly not as a market leader) in a free market system, and it may in fact be fundamentally incompatible.
At a very basic level, I guess you could say this is "capitalism" vs "socialism" - again, not using either of those terms pejoratively - and the the disparity between those positions is dramatic. Perhaps grassroots efforts can at least shed light on the truth of content protection and DRM: it can ALWAYS be broken by pirates, and it ALWAYS hurts honest customers.
Why? He won't have any music that anyone actually wants: do you think he's just going to take major-label music and throw it up on his site with no DRM and no contractual agreements?
I can't wait to download normal music that normal people actually want from the five major US record labels!
*Cough*
Anyone can do music without DRM.
Can they do music people want?
Spare me the arguments about how "it's not really what people want" because it's force-fed by Clear Channel, the labels, and a corrupt industry, and people just *think* they want it. Believe it or not, some artists on major labels have talent. Some don't. *Gasp!* Some completely unknown, independent artists may have talent, but might never have that talent shaped as well as it could be in the hands of professionals - and by "professionals", I don't mean music industry shills, I mean people who have done this for ages. Perhaps there are some bands out there who have the musical talent, business prowess, and personal presence to pull it off themselves. And maybe you think Open Source and "music/information wants to be free" socialistic type ideas - not using that in the pejorative sense - is the way to go. Fine. But the fact of the matter is that the MAJOR labels will demand DRM, unless one of them rolls (very unlikely), or a new paradigm takes over. Sure, maybe a DRMless music store will be part of that new paradigm. But at least realize that the vast majority of people won't give a shit about the vast majority of music on a DRMless service.
Do any of us like or want DRM? Hell no. But some of us realize that it's an extremely imperfect solution to a partly perceived, partly real problem. And, right or wrong, it's frankly their content to protect and do with as they see fit, as recognized under our system of laws as set forth by our elected officials, regardless of whose pockets you think they're in. If you are the ultimate cynic, and think everything is shot as it is, then you'll likely not understand any of this at all, or the fundamental desire of people to protect and secure their property or things they have invested in, no matter how unbalanced YOU might think it seems. But no one is forcing you to buy or listen to major label music. No one is forcing to you buy an iPod or use iTunes. Perhaps some of you put your money where your mouth is, but most of you are hypocrites. And the worst among you are those who think you can steal things who don't belong to you. And yes, it is stealing. An apt excerpt:
[...] different types of stealing are covered by different laws because they differ in the details. Theft through breaking and entering: burglary. Theft from one's employer: embezzlement. Theft by committing fraud through the mail: the aptly named mail fraud. Theft by the unlawful copying of somebody else's property: copyright infringement.
And the "deprivation" argument is pure shit, so don't even go there.
I wish them luck. I really do. I'd love to have no DRM on all of my video, television, movies, music, and be able to use things I *bought* any way I see fit on any device at any time. No broadcast flag, no forced no-commercial-skip, no DRM.
This is a fuck of a lot more complicated than buying a $32,000 Google search appliance or knocking off some simple code.
There are documents that encompass all manner of materials from almost endless sources, printed and electronic, indexed and archived in disparate ways. Yes, yes, we KNOW how easy it is to write code to search something that is well structured from a predictable data source. You're telling me that it's just "that easy" for the US Department of Justice? And no, it's not a matter of "WELL, SOMEONE SHOULD GET ON IT, THEN!!" They are on it. And there are countless people, some perhaps dead weight, but many skilled, whose job it is to make the information amassed by the agency usable - *in addition* to responding to FOIA requests. At least read a post from someone who works in this capacity. Additionally, due to the nature of government projects and purchasing, they're probably using 10+ year old technology on some of these projects. So don't think the era of Google. Think the era of Gopher.
Surely the FBI has heard of full-text indexing?
For each and every one of it's documents? Nope, not on your life.
The agency is simply saying that it and its staff should not be sanctioned, or perhaps even held criminally responsible, when it performs a good-faith search with the resources it has and fails to uncover a pertinent document (that is perhaps discovered later). If you want to think they're trying to cover up, go ahead. I think (correctly) that the agency is mostly honest people who probably started working for the Bureau because they wanted to help people and do what's right, and they're doing the best with what they've got.
You should, oh, I don't know, talk to one of them sometime and see for yourself. Or maybe offer some of your skills. If you can easily index all of their documents, I'm sure they'd pay almost anything you asked.
I don't remember being asked if I wanted to pay extra for obtaining my information.
That's such an ignorant, arrogant statement, that I have nothing to say other than: shut the fuck up.
Apparently you WERE "asked": you, as in the royal you, elected people who constructed an agency that, as a matter of course, charges fees to recover information. Are you actually stupid (or deluded) enough to think that it and all associated services from all agencies should be free and everyone and anyone should be able to request any and all information they want about any subject in limitless volumes for nothing?
Slashdot Mirror
Since this is slashdot, I know your post will probably be modded to +5.
Let me just say: is it possible that traditional energy companies don't just *adore* nuclear power (or ANYTHING that cuts into their profits)? Sure. Absolutely.
But there is no organized conspiracy by ANYONE in the industry to foster a fear of nuclear power. There didn't need to be. The anti-nuclear activists and some (not all) of the environmentalist movement have done that all by themselves.
And Yucca Mountain will have its budget cut in half under Bush's new budget proposal.
Sounds like you should be happy about that, then...
Not in my backyard and all that.
So you're saying, then, that it's better for our nation as a whole to have waste stored in unmonitored, insecure, and in some cases failing, storage containers and sites at over 150 locations randomly scattered around the country, indefinitely, than in one place that is at least quasi-permanent?
And why do I have to live within visual distance of a nuclear power plant to (correctly) say that it's a very compelling answer to our power problems? Possibly because nuclear power has been so vilified by some people that others are irrationally deathly afraid of it?
Your argument is extremely poor, because:
1.) It's based on "non in my backyard", and,
2.) You make a fallacious argument that living closer to a power plant somehow makes one more able to comment about nuclear power.
The fact is, the city where I live doesn't have a nuclear power plant. Frankly, I wish it did.
Good job using nothing more than scare tactics to frame your argument. Why, exactly, would it be bad to live close to one of the 104 operating nuclear plants in the United States?
Because of irrational fear and nothing more?
Or perhaps we should eliminate nuclear power altogether! I'm sure that would help us down the road to solving our energy problems!
Funny how it is, generally speaking, the same group of people who berate the US for our dependence on mideast oil, while at the same time vehemently protesting any movement down any path that might actually allow us to realistically release ourselves from some of that dependence, e.g., new nuclear plants. But no: must ... be ... scared ... of ... anything ..."nuclear" (including things like Cassini...)
Face it: from a standpoint of physics, wind, water, and solar, and the mechanisms for extracted energy from them, are NOT ENOUGH to sustain any semblance of the current lifestyles, right or wrong, without drastic and dramatic changes that would have far-reaching economic and social implications. We need to REPLACE the power sources we aim to wean ourselves from. And nuclear is the answer. Yes, there can be conservation. Yes, there can be debate. Yes, there can be compact fluorescents and LEDs. But those will only affect so much. Our energy requirements, as well as those of the rest of the world, are growing, and we should be leading the fucking way on the front of nuclear power, INCLUDING fusion, building new plants, and making a lot of investments in this area.
And we're simply not doing that. Fuck it: people say Social Security is the "third rail" of American politics? Energy policy is the power plant that electrifies it.
Perhaps China's communist regime has an advantage after all: they can actually do things that will be GOOD for their country, like building nuclear power plants without endless ranting and raving from protesters, and storing waste safely in places like Yucca Mountain (because having waste at ~150 temporary, insecure facilities is certainly better than having it at one site, imperfect as it may be).
Christ.
These are all questions you can answer yourself. You know damned well that we pay for services, i.e., things that have no physical object associated with them. You also know damned well that he was referring to things like music having a physical manifestation, such as a CD. I'm agreeing with that point. But is a music performance a "physical manifestation"? You're not buying anything that you physically leave with. Paying for a service doesn't have a physical manifestation.
I was agreeing with HIS premise about physical manifestations with retail value when related to wealth. Clearly that is true. It is ALSO true that we pay for things that have NO physical manifestation, such as services or performances. Now if you want to get into semantics, and say "well, the service has to be performed by someone; that's the physical manifestation" or "the musical performance, the artists, the instruments, and the venue are the physical manifestation" then you're just arguing semantics to be an asshole. The point is we pay for things were we don't get a *physical object in return* all the time. Things that have *retail value*. How is this a surprise?
If you say that you're specifically talking about an "idea", not a "service", this is ALL an issue of semantics. But you know EXACTLY what I was talking about in both instances (not to mention that they were different contexts, since the person who I was replying to was continually trying to twist the argument in unrelated directions); you're just choosing to be an ass, which is fine and not surprising in the least.
Just so there is no doubt about what I am saying:
I did not contradict myself.
I said we pay for things that have no "physical manifestation", that is, for which we get no object in return that is ours to keep, all the time.
I also said that sure, in the specific argument of the person I was responding to, there needs to be a physical manifestation FOR THE SPECIFIC THINGS HE WAS TALKING ABOUT, but not always, and not in a general sense.
No conflict. But nice try.
Of course, none of this changes the fundamental truth that wealth is not a zero sum proposition, total wealth can grow, and that the concept of "wealth", overall and not viewed in extremely narrow or specific categories or market segments, is not finite (except in absurd terms that consider the limits of physical matter on the earth or in the universe; and yes, I am aware that there is a finite amount of "gold" on the earth: we're not talking about "gold", we're talking about the societal construct of "wealth", which has been proven to not be "finite", in those terms, and most definitely not zero sum, time and again).
I should correct
during a party or gathering on private property
to read
during a party or gathering in a private residence
as that was the intent of my statement.
Wow.
1.) Not trolling.
2.) You were the one who said:
How is wealth measured exactly? Are you saying there is an infinite amount of silver and gold? Or an infinite amount of paper? How about oil, coal, cattle, fish, automobiles, wood, paper, plastic, land? Plays, novels, music, art, are wonderful stuff, and as long as people are alive, they will have value --- but only inasmuch as they have a physical presence in the form of a book or a cd, or are performed live.
In the end, there are two types of material -- inorganic (metals) and organic (living stuff). Both of these are in finite supply. You are the one who really doesn't know what you are talking about
in DIRECT response to this quote of mine:
Now I know you really don't know what you're talking about. This is not a zero sum game, and wealth is most definitely not finite.
The implication is that you disagree with the content of that statement.
If your issue wasn't with zero sum, and rather with the "finite" statement, ok, fine. But is it not a little absurd to say, essentially, that because there are limited physical resources to, say, produce compact discs or to support the processes to manufacture them, that therefore, "wealth" associated with this is finite? Sure, it's "finite", at some level - sometimes, in narrow areas, we even bump into resource limitations. But, as I read your response, the only purpose of refuting that statement is to also refute the concept that wealth is not zero sum. Now you appear to be saying that's not what you meant.
An idea without a physical manifestation has no retail value.
I wasn't even talking about that, so I have no idea where that came from. Sure, yes, there needs to be a physical manifestation. So what? That's irrelevant to what I was talking about.
This is twice now that you have talked about something completely unrelated to the subject at hand. I was trying to explain why I believed that taking something that the owner wishes you to pay for without permission, and without paying for it, is inappropriate. You twisted that around to talk about demanding payment for opening the door for old ladies, or Newton demanding payment for calculus. I never said anything of the sort. The fact is that someone COULD choose to demand payment for opening doors. What business is it of yours to stop them? What business is it of yours to steal that service? You didn't physically deprive the owner of anything... What's that? You didn't *agree* to pay the music owners anything, so therefore you don't have to? Ahh, I see.
But since it's clear from reading some of your posts that seem to disagree with most of the concepts of capitalism, corporatism, ownership, property, and everything associated with them and are essentially an out-and-out socialist, we'll likely not agree on any of these topics.
I'm not being sarcastic when I ask this:
Are you telling me that you must pay royalties to ASCAP to play music (in this case, most US-copyrighted works from the US labels) that you have purchased in your own home during a party or gathering on private property? I apologize if I misspoke on fair use, specifically, and will stipulate to your correction. But still, are you telling me that playing CDs you own in your own house while anyone else other than yourself is in earshot is technically illegal or infringing? Because that's the insinuation of your post.
"Wealth" is NOT a zero sum game. If you think that any gains by someone who is wealthy equals a one-to-one decrease somewhere else, you are sadly, sadly, sadly mistaken. Yes, there are a finite amount of physical objects on earth. A finite amount of atoms in the universe. What's your point? You've demonstrated the height of utter, laughable ignorance if you believe for a second that wealth is zero sum, or that in order for the wealthy to become wealthier, they have to directly take from somewhere else (e.g., the "poor"). Perhaps you haven't grasped the concepts of growing economies that have been clearly demonstrated ad nauseum the world over. If you want to be disagreeable, sure, "wealth" can always be tied back in some way, shape, or form, to a physical object - or can it? Today, we consider information and intangibles a commodity. We even pay for them. (Well, at least some of us do.) How is that possible?! Buying an idea? Paying for services? In-sane! Take a macroeconomics course or something and stop lapping up the shit that your socialist friends are spewing from every orifice.
What are you trying to acomplish by this type of reasoning? If I understand it is is along the lines of: 1) he is deprived of something 2) that is similar to stealing 3) Since some acts of copying is depriving someone of something, any act of copying is too and hence copying is identicval to theft and therefore illegal???
You completely and utterly missed my point. Whether it is legal or not is beside the point. (But copyright infringement is "illegal", so yes, it's illegal.) The point is that it's *wrong*. I realize that it's subjective, but I'm trying to describe why I believe taking something that doesn't belong to you, even if you think it's ok because it's a duplicate, or ok because you didn't take it from the owner, but rather someone who was "sharing" it, or ok because you wouldn't have bought it anyway, or ok because you DID end up buying it, or ok because you don't think the owner was "deprived" of anything, or ok because you think copyright is a tool for corporate profits, etc., etc., etc., that it's still morally WRONG, and just because things CAN be easily copied - things that someone invested in some cases LOTS of time and money in - doesn't mean they SHOULD be copied.
Get it?
I'm not imposing my will on you, I'm not trying to draw some convoluted chain of logic to say it's "illegal", I'm saying that whether or not it is legally "theft", by that very word, I think it indeed is THEFT, legally or no, and it most certainly is a violation of copyright, even you don't concede that it's "stealing". What we're all doing here is dancing around the issue that downloaders who have thought about this enough to justify it to themselves:
You don't like the law or think it's unfair, and you've painted this evil picture of the music industry, that may in fact be true. But instead of working to change the law(s) and/or the system, as the case may be (I realize there are some people here outside the US that believe it is perfectly legal, moral, and ethical for them to copy music that originates from US labels without paying for it), you've decided to just ignore it, or paint it as "activism" or "civil disobedience". Sorry, I simply don't buy it. That's all I'm saying. Take it or leave it.
Similarily, however, you cannot assume that NO downloader will decide he likes the music enough to purchase a copy. Some people do exactly that. So I think you're making a big stretch to call it deprivation. You sound a lot like the BSA quoting how much money is lost to piracy every year.
On the contrary: I have not used the RIAA and BSA techniques of assigning some ridiculous dollar value to each and every download. I simply said exactly what I said, which is that you can't reasonably say that there is zero deprivation. Whether or not someone would PURCHASE music because of a download is irrelevant: let's say, for the sake of argument, a music label would sell TWICE as much as it does now if only it allowed free, unlimited downloading of all of its content for people to "sample". The point is that it doesn't matter! It's not "okay" because you're still buying stuff, or because you have an anecdote about how downloading something made you buy something you wouldn't have otherwise bought. It's not your fucking decision to make! IT'S NOT YOUR CONTENT, AND IT DOESN'T BELONG TO YOU! If they want to sell it for $1 million/CD and don't sell any, THAT'S THEIR CHOICE, NOT YOURS! Jesus, what about this do you people not understand??
To tread up the slippery slope aways, how would you feel about the guy who throws a large house party and plays CDs he owns for everyone to hear? He's probably breaking the letter of the law. Is he immoral too?
No, he's not, because he's not breaking the law. 1.) This actually IS what we call "fair use", which the downloading crowd is trying to bastardize to consider every person on earth a "friend" that they're "sharing" with, and 2.) it's not a public performance, and is therefore not covered by ASCAP requirements. But nice try. What that person is doing is perfectly within the letter and spirit of the law. Because he's, you know, not trying to be a complete ass.
Think I'm trolling if you want (because of the number of times I've posted? WTF? Also, look at my posting history...) but I'm most definitely serious, and not trolling. I could really care less if you respond if you truly think that a position you disagree with on this topic amounts to "trolling".
Nice try, but your analogies are all wrong.
I never said EVERYTHING demands "payment". I never said you shouldn't hold the door open for an old lady. I never said people shouldn't create or invent lest they're paid. In fact, I, or you, could do all of those things and ask for nothing in return.
But some things in our society DO demand payment, and, frankly, it is the business of the owners to decide. Some content owners of music, for example, have asked for payment in return. There are legal guidelines which govern this arrangement. If you take something that belongs to them - that they own the rights for - and do not pay for it, because you've made a bunch of tired rationalizations about how it's "ok", that is stealing from them. It is not up to you to decide that they shouldn't be charging for it, or it's "ok" because your narrow minded justification tells you you're not "depriving" them of anything.
Some musicians, as owners of their content, have chosen to give it away for free. Bravo! It is their right to decide. NOT yours.
Good job trying to frame my argument as one of a corporate shill, when in reality it was a fundamental property and rule of law argument, not to mention one of ethics.
There is deprivation here. It is the deprivation of a potential sale. It's not concrete; it's more abstract, I'll grant you that. But, simply, you can't reasonably assume that NO downloaded copy wouldn't have otherwise been purchased, and additionally, please see:
5 57917
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=138159&cid=11
it's a freaking digital copy, no on has been deprived of anything!
5 57917
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=138159&cid=11
I have no moral qualms with this arrangement whatsover. I know it's illegal, but not, in my book, immoral.
I can't really get past this...so you're saying that because it has been obtained once somewhere along the line legally, that any "sharing" from then on is absolutely justified, no matter how many times removed, and no matter how widely it is "shared"? How can you make that logical jump? That if any sharing is ok, it ALL is ok? That if "fair use" allows for sharing a couple copies of something with family and friends, suddenly the entire world is your family and friends, and "copies" could equal two or two million? Sorry, I don't buy it. And furthermore, this is precisely why the legal system is so fucked up and law so complex: because people can't fucking apply common sense to something, and will take a mile if given an inch. That's NOT was fair use means, and it's no wonder content owners are all but trying to do away with fair use for good.
This is simply about control. Control of the product by the seller or buyer after a sale.
Here's something we agree on. Yes, this is what it's about.
But wait a minute. That's what DRM is about. We're not talking about DRM. We're talking about people downloading music that doesn't belong to them. Nothing about DRM.
We're only here because people found out they could get something for nothing - and a lot of somethings at that - very easily, with no repercussions and none of the guilt or danger of actually stealing a physical object from someone. And with all the delicious rationalizations (the owner still "has" it, therefore it's ok) to boot.
Now let's completely forget about DRM. Because DRM and you downloading music are two utterly and completely different issues. In fact, since this part of the argument has nothing to do with DRM, lets imagine that there is no such thing and all music is DRM-free. Now, you're telling me that unlimited global sharing without payment of any and all music is perfectly moral and ethical? If so, then we are simply in fundamental philosophical disagreement.
iTunes and Music Store Feedback
The summary mentioned iTunes. I mentioned it once, the context that no one is forcing you to use it. Where did I mention Apple or Macs?
Oh, what's that? I didn't? Ok, fuck off then.
But you managed to mention it 7 times in your post. Hmm. AND take time out of your day to call a post "Apple fanboyism" that has nothing to do with Apple. Wow, the smart one you are!
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=137646&cid=115 13960
5 15134
5 16848
You're depriving the painter of the possibility of his work (or even duplicates of it) having been purchased by taking it upon yourself to create/obtain duplicates that the creator has not been paid for, either for yourself, or others.
You're stealing from him, plain and simple. "Legally" stealing? Perhaps not. But that's a semantic debate. Saying it's "copyright infringement" and not "stealing" makes you feel like you're not the two-bit thief that you clearly are. And anyone who makes that argument is clearly feeling guilty.
Of course, you've got some tired rationalization for that, as well, I'm sure.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=137646&cid=11
Let's take this argument out to absurdity. Which I feel is appropriate, since you already have.
Whether or not I have a copy of the painting or song does not affect the artist/singer unless I could afford to buy it, in which case I would have done so. It only affects me. So I don't think it's wrong of me to copy it.
How do you figure that it only affects you? Where is your incentive to better your financial situation and make more money, so you can afford the things you want - which you claim you would buy if you had the money? Inherent in that is educating yourself, making yourself a better and more productive member of society, a semblance of ambition, and incentive to do more. If everything could be gotten for free, then where's your incentive to do anything? And then, the logical follow-on question is: where is ANYONE'S incentive to do anything?
Luckily, there are still honest people in the world. That's apparently the difference: some people feel obligated to pay for the work and effort of others within the bounds of the laws that society has collectively set up; others feel that it's okay to take from others with no compensation, and manufacture arguments designed to rationalize it, rather than thinking, "Hm, wouldn't it be nice to {improve my lot in life | work more hours | work toward a better job | make myself more desirable in the marketplace | etc.} so that I can reward myself with the things I want?"
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=137646&cid=11
I don't recall being asked for my input. Who set up these bounds again? It wasn't society.
Wha? In this crazy society we live in (assuming you're in the US), we have something called representative democracy and another wacky concept known strangely s rule of law. As nutty as it sounds, the constituent elements that make up our society collectively decide on laws that govern our interaction with one another. Not everyone may agree with the fundamentals of every possible law, but we still collectively decide as a society to obey them, so we can actually live in some semblance of civility.In-sane!
There is a finite amount of wealth to go around.
Now I know you really don't know what you're talking about. This is not a zero sum game, and wealth is most definitely not finite. If you want to talk about people who are worth "100 times" as much as someone else, you're not talking about that tired old "one percent" the liberals always trumpet about. You're talking about the top 0.1% or 0.01%, depending on who you're comparing to. Why are you concerned with the fabulously wealthy? On top of that, that isn't what this discussion is about at all. If you don't believe that you can (or even want to) better yourself, you'd probably be perfect in socialism: the endless struggle for the lowest common denominator!
Nice Robin Hood argument though: the classic "because they have more, it's ok to steal from them". Nice. It's good to see plainly where you're coming from, though. Thanks.
steal:
1 a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully b : to take away by force or unjust means c : to take surreptitiously or without permission d : to appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share
Copyright infringement is copyright infringement. More broadly, and correctly, in my personal opinion, it is also stealing. Just like embezzlement is embezzlement. But in a more generic sense, it's also "stealing". I'm not talking statutes here. I'm talking ethics and morals. And by my understanding of the English language and the meanings of words, copyright infringement is a form of "stealing".
It amazes me how people always want pre-existing laws and legal principles to apply to the internet, or technology, or information if it is in their own favor or somehow benefits them, and then go out of their way to make crazy rationalizations about how downloading things that don't belong to you and that you didn't pay for isn't "stealing", it's "copyright infringement" simply because it's been duplicated, with complete ignorance of the ease that one work can be distributed globally in literally hours with virtually no work by any interim party, and no considerations for the owner's rights, not to mention what a horribly pathetic and downright destructive ethic that is encouraged by taking things without permission simply because YOU think they're too expensive or YOU don't agree with how business X has done Y or Z; and since copyright = bad or favors the corrupt and powerful, you personally find it invalid, and therefore, it's "okay" to infringe against copyrights owned by big, evil, blood-sucking, money-grubbing corporations.
Do I have that about right?
I gotta say I agree with you, too.
But even in a DRMless world, there are going to be some "fat cats", as it were. Even if the labels are toppled, in a manner of speaking, there will still be some groups that are the "best" to be associated with - for exposure and money. The people who have the best connections, the biggest website, the hottest PR folks (anything that penetrates the mainstream will have amazing PR). And all over again, it repeats: it won't be an even playing field, and never will be. And once the groups that give the best centralized exposure (which translates into money) - the ones who rise to the top, competitively, which means they'll have some folks with good business sense - get big enough, they might be looking for ways to stop people from stealing their shit too.
I'm not sure property without locks and keys - and penalties for breaking them - can even survive (at above some very basic level, and certainly not as a market leader) in a free market system, and it may in fact be fundamentally incompatible.
At a very basic level, I guess you could say this is "capitalism" vs "socialism" - again, not using either of those terms pejoratively - and the the disparity between those positions is dramatic. Perhaps grassroots efforts can at least shed light on the truth of content protection and DRM: it can ALWAYS be broken by pirates, and it ALWAYS hurts honest customers.
And that is a perfectly acceptable position.
And one that is at least logically consistent with your beliefs and ideals.
Why? He won't have any music that anyone actually wants: do you think he's just going to take major-label music and throw it up on his site with no DRM and no contractual agreements?
I can't wait to download normal music that normal people actually want from the five major US record labels!
*Cough*
Anyone can do music without DRM.
Can they do music people want?
Spare me the arguments about how "it's not really what people want" because it's force-fed by Clear Channel, the labels, and a corrupt industry, and people just *think* they want it. Believe it or not, some artists on major labels have talent. Some don't. *Gasp!* Some completely unknown, independent artists may have talent, but might never have that talent shaped as well as it could be in the hands of professionals - and by "professionals", I don't mean music industry shills, I mean people who have done this for ages. Perhaps there are some bands out there who have the musical talent, business prowess, and personal presence to pull it off themselves. And maybe you think Open Source and "music/information wants to be free" socialistic type ideas - not using that in the pejorative sense - is the way to go. Fine. But the fact of the matter is that the MAJOR labels will demand DRM, unless one of them rolls (very unlikely), or a new paradigm takes over. Sure, maybe a DRMless music store will be part of that new paradigm. But at least realize that the vast majority of people won't give a shit about the vast majority of music on a DRMless service.
Do any of us like or want DRM? Hell no. But some of us realize that it's an extremely imperfect solution to a partly perceived, partly real problem. And, right or wrong, it's frankly their content to protect and do with as they see fit, as recognized under our system of laws as set forth by our elected officials, regardless of whose pockets you think they're in. If you are the ultimate cynic, and think everything is shot as it is, then you'll likely not understand any of this at all, or the fundamental desire of people to protect and secure their property or things they have invested in, no matter how unbalanced YOU might think it seems. But no one is forcing you to buy or listen to major label music. No one is forcing to you buy an iPod or use iTunes. Perhaps some of you put your money where your mouth is, but most of you are hypocrites. And the worst among you are those who think you can steal things who don't belong to you. And yes, it is stealing. An apt excerpt:
[...] different types of stealing are covered by different laws because they differ in the details. Theft through breaking and entering: burglary. Theft from one's employer: embezzlement. Theft by committing fraud through the mail: the aptly named mail fraud. Theft by the unlawful copying of somebody else's property: copyright infringement.
And the "deprivation" argument is pure shit, so don't even go there.
I wish them luck. I really do. I'd love to have no DRM on all of my video, television, movies, music, and be able to use things I *bought* any way I see fit on any device at any time. No broadcast flag, no forced no-commercial-skip, no DRM.
But I'm also practical.
That, and not a, you know, moron.
Christ, people.
This is a fuck of a lot more complicated than buying a $32,000 Google search appliance or knocking off some simple code.
There are documents that encompass all manner of materials from almost endless sources, printed and electronic, indexed and archived in disparate ways. Yes, yes, we KNOW how easy it is to write code to search something that is well structured from a predictable data source. You're telling me that it's just "that easy" for the US Department of Justice? And no, it's not a matter of "WELL, SOMEONE SHOULD GET ON IT, THEN!!" They are on it. And there are countless people, some perhaps dead weight, but many skilled, whose job it is to make the information amassed by the agency usable - *in addition* to responding to FOIA requests. At least read a post from someone who works in this capacity. Additionally, due to the nature of government projects and purchasing, they're probably using 10+ year old technology on some of these projects. So don't think the era of Google. Think the era of Gopher.
Surely the FBI has heard of full-text indexing?
For each and every one of it's documents? Nope, not on your life.
The agency is simply saying that it and its staff should not be sanctioned, or perhaps even held criminally responsible, when it performs a good-faith search with the resources it has and fails to uncover a pertinent document (that is perhaps discovered later). If you want to think they're trying to cover up, go ahead. I think (correctly) that the agency is mostly honest people who probably started working for the Bureau because they wanted to help people and do what's right, and they're doing the best with what they've got.
You should, oh, I don't know, talk to one of them sometime and see for yourself. Or maybe offer some of your skills. If you can easily index all of their documents, I'm sure they'd pay almost anything you asked.
I don't remember being asked if I wanted to pay extra for obtaining my information.
That's such an ignorant, arrogant statement, that I have nothing to say other than: shut the fuck up.
Apparently you WERE "asked": you, as in the royal you, elected people who constructed an agency that, as a matter of course, charges fees to recover information. Are you actually stupid (or deluded) enough to think that it and all associated services from all agencies should be free and everyone and anyone should be able to request any and all information they want about any subject in limitless volumes for nothing?
If so, just please fuck off and die. Thanks.