"They are no better than other humans. Everbody who died would want their family taken care of - its not the job of society"
I'm late to the game on this one, but I had to make sure there was a sane comment somewhere. I found it. Thanks.
"Are you suggesting the child and widow should be on welfare or be a working single-parent, when their spouse had more than enough money to support them if only they weren't screwed over by a copyright expiring at the artist's death?"
So, if I die without insurance, am I being screwed over by my employers refusal to continue paying my salary to my non-working wife?
I'm not sure what mental illness has brought us to the point of propping up art with huge legal barriers, but it's got to stop.
"Part two is STOP VIOLATING COPYRIGHT by downloading the tracks."
That's ok as long as part four includes eliminating copyright law. The notion that 1's and 0's arranged in a certain way on certain media have intrinsic value is silly. Copyright causes the problems, not the violations of copyright. If we take away the expectation that a weekend in the studio means a life of private jets and bling out the ears, maybe "crap" will disappear.
You are exactly right. Why is it that someone can expect to live forever in the lap of luxury because they produced a piece of "art" a decade ago? This is sick. I, too, would love to license six months worth of work and get paid for the continued use of it forever, but in the real world, you need to do work to get paid...so current work yields current pay.
If someone does a concert this week, they should get paid for the performance of their blessed "art" (presuming people are willing to pay for it). However, the weekend in the studio a year ago isn't worth much right now (except in the world of RIAA extortion).
Want me to give you a dollar today - do someting today!
Love the parent post. I can just imagine ancient man developing fire or the wheel in todays IP environment. You'd have the Fire Industry Association of the Ancients (FIAA) decrying fire piracy as cavement illegally allowed other cavemen to come and light sticks off of their fires. Could you imagine how much "lost revenue" to fire pirates there would have been?
Nope, it wouldn't have made sense then, and it doesn't make sense now.
OK, I'll probably get modded down because freedom isn't a very cool topic these days, but unless you're equating welfare and charity, I honestly can't fathom what about the idea is good. I know that forcibly extracting money from other people for your own benefit is a "progressive" idea, so maybe I'm stuck in a by-gone age of reading the constitution and not really wanting to be like Europe or Canada. If I took money at gunpoint (even if I really needed it), I'd go to jail for theft. If I can vote for a politician to do it for me, it becomes a "good concept". Oh well. Maybe I'll catch up with the forward thinkers one day.
Haven't RTFA yet, but couldn't "private" simply mean non-commercial. Even if I share a set of 1's and 0's with a million people, if I haven't charged them, why wouldn't that be private?
Parent is exactly right. The ISP's can't be responsible for only part of their traffic (ie ensuring speedy Google delivery). If they go down this path, ALL traffic is their responsibility. It's nuts that they would even get close to this issue. Part of me wants them to succeed just for the sick legal (read: civil litigation) ramifications to kick in.
We're more advanced now. We have, for example, Underwriters Labs that tests electronic devices and determines whether they will burn your house to the ground. If something isn't UL listed, guess what, it's uninsurable.
Same principle could easily apply to drugs. Private funds to test and insurance companies rely on test outcomes to determine whether they will insure certain drugs (or in the case of life insurance, patients using certain drugs).
That's the second post ended with an ad hominem. I suppose you learned that debate tactic in public school (oooh, my own ad hominem...I feel so naughty). I read your entire post.
If the musicians are not going to separate themselves from the RIAA, why is it my responsibility to treat them as the aggressor and the victim? They're the "only game in town". Fine then they're the only game in town for the consumers as well...meaning the musicians aren't this angelic other force - it's their product that is being distributed this way...through the mechanism of, whether we admit it or not, their own choosing.
Either you're confused or just an asshole.
Whatever. I'm sorry that we can't all get rich "doing what we love". Boohoo. We should definitely throw all 12-year-old iPod owners in jail for the poor musicians. You win. Nobody should listen to me anyway. I'm just an asshole.
Who's claiming ethical purity? I want to make as much money as possible. It's reality, not any claim of superiority, that elicits my response. People can copy ones and zeroes across a wire at almost no cost, and if I'm in the business of producing ones and zeroes, then it's time to get creative.
Sorry, I didn't meant to demonstrate a lack of pity for the poor victims of the RIAA. Physical duress invalidates a contract, so maybe they should all just walk away from the RIAA. What? There was no physical duress? Then shut up.
What, exactly, do you mean by "protect"? Do you mean "ensure that nobody obtains a copy of this content without paying me"? The best way to protect content in this sense is to generate new content. For a musician, this may look like going on tour and actually performing for money versus expecting to retire in luxury after spending a Saturday in the studio.
HIPAA (note, two A's) allows for data to be transmitted between "covered entities" for treatment, payment, or operations purposes. There are restrictions (like the "minimum necessary" clause), but overall it's fairly broad.
Ahhh...I knew it sounded too good to be true. I'm a fan of the way the private care works, for sure. Thanks for the reply!
BTW, the small fixed amount you pay would probably be called a deductible here.
I simply meant that private Health Insurance Providers pay for services with money (premiums) paid by their customers while Medicare/Medicaid pay for services with money confiscated from taxpayers.
Please clarrify "The third-party payment system is a joke, and it has turned on-demand healthcare into an entitlement for which the proverbial "they" always pay.".
Happy to. Let's say you go to the hospital and consume services. If the hospital issues you a bill for said services, you then have a clue how much those services cost, and you go about finding ways to pay for them (out-of-pocket, insurance, etc). However, if you consume services and the bill goes to some third party, now you're a bit out of the loop. In this scenario it "feels" like the services were "free". Rather than being personally responsible for the services consumed, you would now be in a position to think that "they" had paid (whoever "they" are).
Make sense?
Very few tax dollars go to hospitals for general funding (one exception I know of is the emergency room).
Not a flame, but I'd like to just point out that Medicare/Medicaid dollars are just as much tax dollars as direct funding.
You've piqued my interest. Does this mean that you're on the hook for services you consume at the hospital until such time as you receive reimbursement from the insurer? That's excellent. The third-party payment system is a joke, and it has turned on-demand healthcare into an entitlement for which the proverbial "they" always pay. If you're saying what I think you're saying, I like that a lot better.
I'm personally for empowering the state legislatures to take care of this. I don't believe there is a one-size-fits-all strategy, and I think state's should take back control of their electoral processes. I'd be more than willing to have my state rep picking electors. Hell, I've actually met my state rep. The only pres. candidate I've met was Harry Browne (libertarian 2000).
I'll skip the customary introductory ad hominem, and simply cite McPherson v. Blacker which the US Supreme Court partially based it's ruling on in the election of 2000.
Regarding presidential electors, the McPherson ruling states "[t]he Constitution does not provide that the appointment of electors shall be by popular vote... and leaves it to the legislature exclusively to define the method of effecting the object."
McPherson even explicitly cites, as an acceptable method of selecting electors, the sole participation of the state legislature without a popular vote at all.
Read your consitution...there is NO right to vote. The method for selecting state electors is left completely in the hands of the state legislators. I don't know how the Ohio state legislature has set up the rules, but if they say the paper has to be polka-dotted, then guess what...it does. There are amendments that prevent disenfranchisement based on race and sex, but there is NO right to vote for president (Hell, US Senators weren't popularly elected until the 17th amendment).
I have not RTFA, so take this for what it's worth. It pisses me off that the federal government has anything at all to say about scientific advancement. Usually, we're not even arguing about advancing science, we're arguing about having access to Other People's Money (OPM) to spend on our research. Granted the occasional government ban on this or that specific area of research is something to debate, but being able to steal (by proxy) somebody's money to further your research isn't something I care to hear any candidate talk much about.
Well, all I can really do is pull the lever for Badnarik.
You have just insulted every first generation wealthy person in the country (the majority of millionaires are first generation).
Liberals who condescend to hard working people like this make my stomach turn.
Mod this up. People believe that libertarians are like republicans in that both love big business. Brandybuck hits it on the head. Libertarians believe in real personal responsibility, not in state protection for businesses.
Slashdot Mirror
Pilot In Command?
"They are no better than other humans. Everbody who died would want their family taken care of - its not the job of society"
I'm late to the game on this one, but I had to make sure there was a sane comment somewhere. I found it. Thanks.
"Are you suggesting the child and widow should be on welfare or be a working single-parent, when their spouse had more than enough money to support them if only they weren't screwed over by a copyright expiring at the artist's death?"
So, if I die without insurance, am I being screwed over by my employers refusal to continue paying my salary to my non-working wife?
I'm not sure what mental illness has brought us to the point of propping up art with huge legal barriers, but it's got to stop.
"Part two is STOP VIOLATING COPYRIGHT by downloading the tracks."
That's ok as long as part four includes eliminating copyright law. The notion that 1's and 0's arranged in a certain way on certain media have intrinsic value is silly. Copyright causes the problems, not the violations of copyright. If we take away the expectation that a weekend in the studio means a life of private jets and bling out the ears, maybe "crap" will disappear.
When art becomes a business, the art suffers.
You are exactly right. Why is it that someone can expect to live forever in the lap of luxury because they produced a piece of "art" a decade ago? This is sick. I, too, would love to license six months worth of work and get paid for the continued use of it forever, but in the real world, you need to do work to get paid...so current work yields current pay.
If someone does a concert this week, they should get paid for the performance of their blessed "art" (presuming people are willing to pay for it). However, the weekend in the studio a year ago isn't worth much right now (except in the world of RIAA extortion).
Want me to give you a dollar today - do someting today!
Love the parent post. I can just imagine ancient man developing fire or the wheel in todays IP environment. You'd have the Fire Industry Association of the Ancients (FIAA) decrying fire piracy as cavement illegally allowed other cavemen to come and light sticks off of their fires. Could you imagine how much "lost revenue" to fire pirates there would have been?
Nope, it wouldn't have made sense then, and it doesn't make sense now.
OK, I'll probably get modded down because freedom isn't a very cool topic these days, but unless you're equating welfare and charity, I honestly can't fathom what about the idea is good. I know that forcibly extracting money from other people for your own benefit is a "progressive" idea, so maybe I'm stuck in a by-gone age of reading the constitution and not really wanting to be like Europe or Canada. If I took money at gunpoint (even if I really needed it), I'd go to jail for theft. If I can vote for a politician to do it for me, it becomes a "good concept". Oh well. Maybe I'll catch up with the forward thinkers one day.
Haven't RTFA yet, but couldn't "private" simply mean non-commercial. Even if I share a set of 1's and 0's with a million people, if I haven't charged them, why wouldn't that be private?
Parent is exactly right. The ISP's can't be responsible for only part of their traffic (ie ensuring speedy Google delivery). If they go down this path, ALL traffic is their responsibility. It's nuts that they would even get close to this issue. Part of me wants them to succeed just for the sick legal (read: civil litigation) ramifications to kick in.
We're more advanced now. We have, for example, Underwriters Labs that tests electronic devices and determines whether they will burn your house to the ground. If something isn't UL listed, guess what, it's uninsurable.
Same principle could easily apply to drugs. Private funds to test and insurance companies rely on test outcomes to determine whether they will insure certain drugs (or in the case of life insurance, patients using certain drugs).
That's the second post ended with an ad hominem. I suppose you learned that debate tactic in public school (oooh, my own ad hominem...I feel so naughty). I read your entire post. If the musicians are not going to separate themselves from the RIAA, why is it my responsibility to treat them as the aggressor and the victim? They're the "only game in town". Fine then they're the only game in town for the consumers as well...meaning the musicians aren't this angelic other force - it's their product that is being distributed this way...through the mechanism of, whether we admit it or not, their own choosing.
Either you're confused or just an asshole. Whatever. I'm sorry that we can't all get rich "doing what we love". Boohoo. We should definitely throw all 12-year-old iPod owners in jail for the poor musicians. You win. Nobody should listen to me anyway. I'm just an asshole.
Who's claiming ethical purity? I want to make as much money as possible. It's reality, not any claim of superiority, that elicits my response. People can copy ones and zeroes across a wire at almost no cost, and if I'm in the business of producing ones and zeroes, then it's time to get creative.
Sorry, I didn't meant to demonstrate a lack of pity for the poor victims of the RIAA. Physical duress invalidates a contract, so maybe they should all just walk away from the RIAA. What? There was no physical duress? Then shut up.
What, exactly, do you mean by "protect"? Do you mean "ensure that nobody obtains a copy of this content without paying me"? The best way to protect content in this sense is to generate new content. For a musician, this may look like going on tour and actually performing for money versus expecting to retire in luxury after spending a Saturday in the studio.
HIPAA (note, two A's) allows for data to be transmitted between "covered entities" for treatment, payment, or operations purposes. There are restrictions (like the "minimum necessary" clause), but overall it's fairly broad.
Ahhh...I knew it sounded too good to be true. I'm a fan of the way the private care works, for sure. Thanks for the reply! BTW, the small fixed amount you pay would probably be called a deductible here.
I simply meant that private Health Insurance Providers pay for services with money (premiums) paid by their customers while Medicare/Medicaid pay for services with money confiscated from taxpayers.
Please clarrify "The third-party payment system is a joke, and it has turned on-demand healthcare into an entitlement for which the proverbial "they" always pay.". Happy to. Let's say you go to the hospital and consume services. If the hospital issues you a bill for said services, you then have a clue how much those services cost, and you go about finding ways to pay for them (out-of-pocket, insurance, etc). However, if you consume services and the bill goes to some third party, now you're a bit out of the loop. In this scenario it "feels" like the services were "free". Rather than being personally responsible for the services consumed, you would now be in a position to think that "they" had paid (whoever "they" are). Make sense?
Very few tax dollars go to hospitals for general funding (one exception I know of is the emergency room). Not a flame, but I'd like to just point out that Medicare/Medicaid dollars are just as much tax dollars as direct funding.
You've piqued my interest. Does this mean that you're on the hook for services you consume at the hospital until such time as you receive reimbursement from the insurer? That's excellent. The third-party payment system is a joke, and it has turned on-demand healthcare into an entitlement for which the proverbial "they" always pay. If you're saying what I think you're saying, I like that a lot better.
I'm personally for empowering the state legislatures to take care of this. I don't believe there is a one-size-fits-all strategy, and I think state's should take back control of their electoral processes. I'd be more than willing to have my state rep picking electors. Hell, I've actually met my state rep. The only pres. candidate I've met was Harry Browne (libertarian 2000).
I'll skip the customary introductory ad hominem, and simply cite McPherson v. Blacker which the US Supreme Court partially based it's ruling on in the election of 2000.
... and leaves it to the legislature exclusively to define the method of effecting the object."
Regarding presidential electors, the McPherson ruling states "[t]he Constitution does not provide that the appointment of electors shall be by popular vote
McPherson even explicitly cites, as an acceptable method of selecting electors, the sole participation of the state legislature without a popular vote at all.
Hope that clarifies.
Read your consitution...there is NO right to vote. The method for selecting state electors is left completely in the hands of the state legislators. I don't know how the Ohio state legislature has set up the rules, but if they say the paper has to be polka-dotted, then guess what...it does. There are amendments that prevent disenfranchisement based on race and sex, but there is NO right to vote for president (Hell, US Senators weren't popularly elected until the 17th amendment).
I have not RTFA, so take this for what it's worth. It pisses me off that the federal government has anything at all to say about scientific advancement. Usually, we're not even arguing about advancing science, we're arguing about having access to Other People's Money (OPM) to spend on our research. Granted the occasional government ban on this or that specific area of research is something to debate, but being able to steal (by proxy) somebody's money to further your research isn't something I care to hear any candidate talk much about.
Well, all I can really do is pull the lever for Badnarik.
You have just insulted every first generation wealthy person in the country (the majority of millionaires are first generation). Liberals who condescend to hard working people like this make my stomach turn.
Mod this up. People believe that libertarians are like republicans in that both love big business. Brandybuck hits it on the head. Libertarians believe in real personal responsibility, not in state protection for businesses.