Well...there's more at stake here than the issue of author's getting enough money back from used book sales. Capitalism as we know it, at least in theory, operates on supply and demand principles, correct? Books are printed, books are sold, and the supply increases...but just because something is sold doesn't mean the supply gets lessened by a single unit, right?
Any open market system that is based on these simple rules is going to, somehow or another, distribute money to individuals beyond the original inventor/author/whathaveyou. The only way to keep money going back to the original creative mind is to institute strict policies that go against straight up supply and demand thoughts...
It'd be nice if everyone reaped the profits that they deserved, but when you're out to make a profit in the economical system used in this country, you have to accept the way things work. Trying to limit the ways other people use the supply that you've helped provide is just whining, in my opinion anyway.
This is not to say I like or support the idea of starving authors, but it's a choice made by the authors themselves. I don't know what can be done about that.....maybe the solution lies in eliminating things like agents/publisher fees/etc. I dunno.
Of course, once the inhabitants of SimEarth began to enjoy the benefits of nanotechnology, they all moved into bubble-cities--flying bubble cities--and flew off the planet. Nanotech is, apparently, a double-edged sword.
If something/someone is providing a "free" service, why would they need to ask for anything in return? This service is, apparently, only free in the cash-money sense of the word. Free would mean free access...no forms, no data-collection, no username, etc.
So, I agree that NYTimes is not "the" big brother (how dare you apply a definite article to Big Brother!!! The Ministry of Love is going to kill you), but the fact that a free service here requires some information collection seems to follow a Big Brother mentality, doesn't it?
Christ, I keep telling myself that I'll only post to/. from work.....it's saturday for goodness sake!
Reading said article requires me telling the New York Times Magazine about my 'interests' and other personal data (including household income?!?!).. Considering the relationship of this post to the Big Brother(esque) mentality, the irony becomes to thick for me to handle--thus reducing me to a pile of incoherent literary rubble on the floor.
Is the public library morally liable for supplying free access to information that Max can use to satisfy his psychopathic obsession?
Of course not! The library is not responsible because those were chemistry books. No library I know of stocks intrustion manuals about building weapons, inciting riots, etc etc etc. If they did, we could posit that they had these books so that people would read them and subsequently act them out....right?
There's a difference here in the matter of original intent of the poster. If the poster is posting information to be used as research/genuine and non-harmful information, that's one thing. If the poster is posting information in hopes that someone will take that information and use it in a harmful way, that's another.
Consider the implications of your analogy and chemistry textbooks being in the public library to which Max has free and unfettered access.
Now we consider this statement and see that my analogy doesn't say anything about public libraries because public libraries (at least so I imagine) don't have malicious intent on their minds. As far as the people posting virus source code on the web go....I could honestly say I could imagine their intent being either good, neutral, or morally wrong.
I think there's a real difference there...as to what that difference is and what it actually implies, I'm not so sure.
But you say "Now, if you are *suggesting* or trying to coerce Max, then that's a different matter" and believe such a statement does contain some moral relevance of some sort, then we've opened up a whole other can of worms. Your admission on this point (even if it's only slight it means there's still a chance of this case) means that we have to take into consideration the intent of the posters of the source code, correct?
If even one person goes onto one of these sites and posts some hip new coding for a virus in very real hopes that someone (it doesn't matter who in particular....I think we could all admit that there are people who scan these sites, and the JR Cookbook, for ways to be malicious) will use that code in a negligent way, then something gets comprimised.
Does it matter what the original 'speaker's' intentions are at all? Do the supplies of the code have to have honest intentions, or does that not matter at all?
I'm not so sure either way. I think the idea of "Freedom of Speech" is completely stupid because it directly implies complete freedom......and such a thing doesn't exist. The whole freedom of speech precept does nothing except start arguements as to what it means and how far it can be carried.....when if it was actually 'freedom', there would/could be no argument on the matter (and child pornography would be legal)..
Ok, I just mentioned this in another discussion thread, but briefly present again (in slightly differnt form) to flush out this topic:
Max just gets out of jail. He had been incarcerated for 20 years cause he went crazy in a shopping mall and incinerated a propane tank, burning a whole lotta people. Even though Max has been released, I know that he's still crazy ol' Max.
Knowing this, and also wanting to be destructive/upsetting to the powers that be, I supply Max with a precise recipe of how to build a highly destructive bomb out of simple household materials/applicances. Max takes said instructions, compiles an explosive device, takes it back to (ironically) the same shopping mall, and this time levels the whole facility.
Now, am I at fault, in any way, for supplying Max with detailed instructions on how to build a serious bomb? After all, he had to build the thing, right? I'm not sure..
When I was a kid in eigth grade, me and my friends loved the coveted (and quite lengthy) WP document entitled "The Jolly Roger's Cookbook." Contained within were any number of ways to make household bombs, dangerous things, cause panic, etc etc etc.
Now, by freedom of speech, this 'cookbook' is warranted (at least I think it is/was)...but aren't we directly supplying others with a way to be immediately malicious? Isn't there something morally wrong about that?
Likewise, isn't there something wrong about a terriorist group in Iraq supplying people in a foreign country with information about how to build bombs and use them effectively? Or how to take control of a plane and crash into a well-known target? Is the planning of such actions immoral, or simply suggestive (viz: "If you, theoretically, wanted to quickly kill a lot of people, you could take these actions...." Is this kind of suggestion still fine? Perhaps it's just a 'source code' of a different sort?)
By her logic, if you teach a person to use a gun, and that person takes that knowledge and shoots and kills someone, then you should go to prison for murder.
No, that's wrong. If you teach someone to shoot a gun, and then they go and kill someone, it's true that you shouldn't be held responsible for that person's actions.
Her point is something different. If you give a loaded handgun to someone and they run out the door and shoot someone, you're an accessory...right? There's a difference between supplying someone with knowledge versus supplying them with a weapon.
So, if we teach someone how to program and they use that programming knowledge to write virus code, that's not our fault. However, if we give someone the code for a virus program and they simply release into the mainstream, I don't think many people would argue that we played a role in that destruction.
Well..this issue raises some interesting, and very classic, ethical issues.
Freedom of speech is protected, and rightly should be, but there are limitations to that freedom and even --gasp-- responsibilities. Writing codes for viruses, or supplying them to the public, isn't bad in itself--it's the usage of them were the ethical complications come in. Thus, one could claim that simply posting the code for viruses is fine...the people to be blamed are the ones using that code for negligent purposes.
The same could be true for yelling 'FIRE' in a crowded theatre, right? If a avalanche of trouble ensues, the fault must lie in those people who push over old ladies to get out of the theatre first, right? I mean, the person who yells fire may have played a role in facilitating all the chaos, but the actual causers of the injury are those running around..
Of course, these two scenarios are completely different (being the virus/yelling fire), but raise similar points. Freedom of speech doesn't make you free from responsiblity of your chosen speech...whether that's yelling 'Fire' or writing/supplying codes for viruses..
there's a point at which freedom of speech ends, being where it starts to limit the liberties of other people. for example, you cannot yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre and claim 'freedom of speech' in your defense. the reason? doing so brings more harm than good.
likewise, you cannot say certain things to instigate others into a fight of sorts...doing so also brings about more harm and is considered "fighting words", or something like that.
so yeah, we got freedom of speech...but it IS limited at some points. we have a right to be outrageously offense, to a point. remember that.
there's a point at which freedom of speech ends, being where it starts to limit the liberties of other people. for example, you cannot yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre and claim 'freedom of speech' in your defense. the reason? doing so brings more harm than good.
likewise, you cannot say certain things to instigate others into a fight of sorts...doing so also brings about more harm and is considered "fighting words", or something like that.
so yeah, we got freedom of speech...but it IS limited at some points. we have a right to be outrageously offense, to a point. remember that.
I know this is an old thread, so no one will probably even read this. I don't care.
Your argument boils down to age-old complaints about humanity from hypocritical and cranky people feeling as if it's their job to inform everybody of what really matters.
Yeah, there's a war going on. Yeah, people are dying. Yeah, there's been terrorist activity, etc etc etc. Just because it's got more attention now doesn't mean this stuff is monumental.
Everyone knows about what's going on. Just because someone is hyped about a video game console, or a great new movie, doesn't mean that they're, by default, ranking the importance of said items over global conflict/problems.
You'll be HARD-PRESSED to find someone that will outrightly say that the Xbox, PS2, or GameCube actually matters more than these issues.
You'll be even harder-pressed to find someone that seriously doesn't take any pleasure in life because, hey, there are more important things going on that deserve our attention.
Crap, I think a lot of the things going on globally are terrible, but I still love GTA3 like a demi-god.
I hope no one ever catches you enjoying a cup of coffee, or a night out, or anything else. There are more dire things to consider for you to be happy.
On top of that, how would the internet determine who is viewing pages in the first place? I do almost all of my web browsing at work (it's a temp-job...don't tell my supervisor). I view 100s of pages every day in my 9-5 shift.
Who gets charged? Me? Would every internet user have to create a general 'web log-on?' My company? I guess that would be a way of making sure temps, and other employees, don't whittle away company time on the now 'free' internet.
There's a lot of implications to consider in this, even beyond the obvious policy abuse that would be used from who knows how many sites.
no...that's NOT how it works. of course the terrorists aren't going to give away super-tell-tale and blantant clues the moment before strike. the new bills passed will allow government to hopefully intercept communications well before the act of terrorism.
the sept 11th stuff took lots of planning (so they all say)...during that period of planning, i'm sure there were a whole lot of phone calls, meetings, emails, whatever...the new bills hope to pre-emptively catch those, not the last minute IMs on AOL.
although i wonder if, during those last final minutes before the last hurrah, the terrorists would use AOL custom smileys?
Terrorist A: Bomb in place...anthrax delievered. We are a go for operation rotten rodent:)
Terrorist B: lol!:P
you know..i always default to google too for my searching. i used to always hit up hotbot for searches because of their exstensive advanced search options, but even that now has subsumed to the banner mayham and 'shopping' links.
i never thought about why i liked google so much, but i think it begins and ends here..with the absense of blatant front-page consummerism.
i've often wondered about the success of advertising links attached to things like search engines....just how many people are taken in by them?
good points...but government regulation? i don't know if self-instated ratings will necessarily open the door for big government to rear its ugly head.
it's true that the movie industry's rating system is self-imposed. every theatre, or big movie-house company, elects to use and adopt the accepted rating system. there's nothing government regulated about it (trust me...they explained all of this to me when i worked as a projectionist for AMC). the reason that kids can't get into NC-17 movies is because that's a policy of the particular movie industry.
there's no real reason (beyond public outcry or boycotting) that a movie house cannot open up and choose to ignore the rating systems and let 5 year olds into porno flicks; it's just by-and-large accepted that it's the way things are.
and it's working! no government yet...but movies and films aren't looked at with the same 'potential eye of evil' as the internet. i wonder...
hmmmm...i found myself oogling at this thread. i just bought a PS2 and, the other day, saw a little step-by-step comparison of the xbox, ps2, and gamecube on happypuppy.com (http://www.happypuppy.com/features/editorials/xbo xfaq-ed-1b.html). it seemed that ps2 was behind the others in all regards.
it's reassuring to know that there's more to consoles than raw muscle.
Slashdot Mirror
As for as slashdot goes, I'd probably go here. What a cute penguin!
Any open market system that is based on these simple rules is going to, somehow or another, distribute money to individuals beyond the original inventor/author/whathaveyou. The only way to keep money going back to the original creative mind is to institute strict policies that go against straight up supply and demand thoughts...
It'd be nice if everyone reaped the profits that they deserved, but when you're out to make a profit in the economical system used in this country, you have to accept the way things work. Trying to limit the ways other people use the supply that you've helped provide is just whining, in my opinion anyway.
This is not to say I like or support the idea of starving authors, but it's a choice made by the authors themselves. I don't know what can be done about that.....maybe the solution lies in eliminating things like agents/publisher fees/etc. I dunno.
Of course, once the inhabitants of SimEarth began to enjoy the benefits of nanotechnology, they all moved into bubble-cities--flying bubble cities--and flew off the planet. Nanotech is, apparently, a double-edged sword.
So, I agree that NYTimes is not "the" big brother (how dare you apply a definite article to Big Brother!!! The Ministry of Love is going to kill you), but the fact that a free service here requires some information collection seems to follow a Big Brother mentality, doesn't it?
Christ, I keep telling myself that I'll only post to /. from work.....it's saturday for goodness sake!
Reading said article requires me telling the New York Times Magazine about my 'interests' and other personal data (including household income?!?!).. Considering the relationship of this post to the Big Brother(esque) mentality, the irony becomes to thick for me to handle--thus reducing me to a pile of incoherent literary rubble on the floor.
-twitch twitch-
Of course not! The library is not responsible because those were chemistry books. No library I know of stocks intrustion manuals about building weapons, inciting riots, etc etc etc. If they did, we could posit that they had these books so that people would read them and subsequently act them out....right?
There's a difference here in the matter of original intent of the poster. If the poster is posting information to be used as research/genuine and non-harmful information, that's one thing. If the poster is posting information in hopes that someone will take that information and use it in a harmful way, that's another.
Consider the implications of your analogy and chemistry textbooks being in the public library to which Max has free and unfettered access.
Now we consider this statement and see that my analogy doesn't say anything about public libraries because public libraries (at least so I imagine) don't have malicious intent on their minds. As far as the people posting virus source code on the web go....I could honestly say I could imagine their intent being either good, neutral, or morally wrong.
I think there's a real difference there...as to what that difference is and what it actually implies, I'm not so sure.
But you say "Now, if you are *suggesting* or trying to coerce Max, then that's a different matter" and believe such a statement does contain some moral relevance of some sort, then we've opened up a whole other can of worms. Your admission on this point (even if it's only slight it means there's still a chance of this case) means that we have to take into consideration the intent of the posters of the source code, correct?
If even one person goes onto one of these sites and posts some hip new coding for a virus in very real hopes that someone (it doesn't matter who in particular....I think we could all admit that there are people who scan these sites, and the JR Cookbook, for ways to be malicious) will use that code in a negligent way, then something gets comprimised.
Does it matter what the original 'speaker's' intentions are at all? Do the supplies of the code have to have honest intentions, or does that not matter at all?
I'm not so sure either way. I think the idea of "Freedom of Speech" is completely stupid because it directly implies complete freedom......and such a thing doesn't exist. The whole freedom of speech precept does nothing except start arguements as to what it means and how far it can be carried.....when if it was actually 'freedom', there would/could be no argument on the matter (and child pornography would be legal)..
Hmmmm..
Max just gets out of jail. He had been incarcerated for 20 years cause he went crazy in a shopping mall and incinerated a propane tank, burning a whole lotta people. Even though Max has been released, I know that he's still crazy ol' Max.
Knowing this, and also wanting to be destructive/upsetting to the powers that be, I supply Max with a precise recipe of how to build a highly destructive bomb out of simple household materials/applicances. Max takes said instructions, compiles an explosive device, takes it back to (ironically) the same shopping mall, and this time levels the whole facility.
Now, am I at fault, in any way, for supplying Max with detailed instructions on how to build a serious bomb? After all, he had to build the thing, right? I'm not sure..
When I was a kid in eigth grade, me and my friends loved the coveted (and quite lengthy) WP document entitled "The Jolly Roger's Cookbook." Contained within were any number of ways to make household bombs, dangerous things, cause panic, etc etc etc.
Now, by freedom of speech, this 'cookbook' is warranted (at least I think it is/was)...but aren't we directly supplying others with a way to be immediately malicious? Isn't there something morally wrong about that?
Likewise, isn't there something wrong about a terriorist group in Iraq supplying people in a foreign country with information about how to build bombs and use them effectively? Or how to take control of a plane and crash into a well-known target? Is the planning of such actions immoral, or simply suggestive (viz: "If you, theoretically, wanted to quickly kill a lot of people, you could take these actions...." Is this kind of suggestion still fine? Perhaps it's just a 'source code' of a different sort?)
No, that's wrong. If you teach someone to shoot a gun, and then they go and kill someone, it's true that you shouldn't be held responsible for that person's actions.
Her point is something different. If you give a loaded handgun to someone and they run out the door and shoot someone, you're an accessory...right? There's a difference between supplying someone with knowledge versus supplying them with a weapon.
So, if we teach someone how to program and they use that programming knowledge to write virus code, that's not our fault. However, if we give someone the code for a virus program and they simply release into the mainstream, I don't think many people would argue that we played a role in that destruction.
Freedom of speech is protected, and rightly should be, but there are limitations to that freedom and even --gasp-- responsibilities. Writing codes for viruses, or supplying them to the public, isn't bad in itself--it's the usage of them were the ethical complications come in. Thus, one could claim that simply posting the code for viruses is fine...the people to be blamed are the ones using that code for negligent purposes.
The same could be true for yelling 'FIRE' in a crowded theatre, right? If a avalanche of trouble ensues, the fault must lie in those people who push over old ladies to get out of the theatre first, right? I mean, the person who yells fire may have played a role in facilitating all the chaos, but the actual causers of the injury are those running around..
Of course, these two scenarios are completely different (being the virus/yelling fire), but raise similar points. Freedom of speech doesn't make you free from responsiblity of your chosen speech...whether that's yelling 'Fire' or writing/supplying codes for viruses..
there's a point at which freedom of speech ends, being where it starts to limit the liberties of other people. for example, you cannot yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre and claim 'freedom of speech' in your defense. the reason? doing so brings more harm than good.
likewise, you cannot say certain things to instigate others into a fight of sorts...doing so also brings about more harm and is considered "fighting words", or something like that.
so yeah, we got freedom of speech...but it IS limited at some points. we have a right to be outrageously offense, to a point. remember that.
there's a point at which freedom of speech ends, being where it starts to limit the liberties of other people. for example, you cannot yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre and claim 'freedom of speech' in your defense. the reason? doing so brings more harm than good.
likewise, you cannot say certain things to instigate others into a fight of sorts...doing so also brings about more harm and is considered "fighting words", or something like that.
so yeah, we got freedom of speech...but it IS limited at some points. we have a right to be outrageously offense, to a point. remember that.
I know this is an old thread, so no one will probably even read this. I don't care.
Your argument boils down to age-old complaints about humanity from hypocritical and cranky people feeling as if it's their job to inform everybody of what really matters.
Yeah, there's a war going on. Yeah, people are dying. Yeah, there's been terrorist activity, etc etc etc. Just because it's got more attention now doesn't mean this stuff is monumental.
Everyone knows about what's going on. Just because someone is hyped about a video game console, or a great new movie, doesn't mean that they're, by default, ranking the importance of said items over global conflict/problems.
You'll be HARD-PRESSED to find someone that will outrightly say that the Xbox, PS2, or GameCube actually matters more than these issues.
You'll be even harder-pressed to find someone that seriously doesn't take any pleasure in life because, hey, there are more important things going on that deserve our attention.
Crap, I think a lot of the things going on globally are terrible, but I still love GTA3 like a demi-god.
I hope no one ever catches you enjoying a cup of coffee, or a night out, or anything else. There are more dire things to consider for you to be happy.
Feel free to sulk. Just leave me out of it.
Who gets charged? Me? Would every internet user have to create a general 'web log-on?' My company? I guess that would be a way of making sure temps, and other employees, don't whittle away company time on the now 'free' internet.
There's a lot of implications to consider in this, even beyond the obvious policy abuse that would be used from who knows how many sites.
the sept 11th stuff took lots of planning (so they all say)...during that period of planning, i'm sure there were a whole lot of phone calls, meetings, emails, whatever...the new bills hope to pre-emptively catch those, not the last minute IMs on AOL.
although i wonder if, during those last final minutes before the last hurrah, the terrorists would use AOL custom smileys?
Terrorist A: Bomb in place...anthrax delievered. We are a go for operation rotten rodent :) :P
Terrorist B: lol!
you know..i always default to google too for my searching. i used to always hit up hotbot for searches because of their exstensive advanced search options, but even that now has subsumed to the banner mayham and 'shopping' links.
i never thought about why i liked google so much, but i think it begins and ends here..with the absense of blatant front-page consummerism.
i've often wondered about the success of advertising links attached to things like search engines....just how many people are taken in by them?
curious indeed..
it's true that the movie industry's rating system is self-imposed. every theatre, or big movie-house company, elects to use and adopt the accepted rating system. there's nothing government regulated about it (trust me...they explained all of this to me when i worked as a projectionist for AMC). the reason that kids can't get into NC-17 movies is because that's a policy of the particular movie industry.
there's no real reason (beyond public outcry or boycotting) that a movie house cannot open up and choose to ignore the rating systems and let 5 year olds into porno flicks; it's just by-and-large accepted that it's the way things are.
and it's working! no government yet...but movies and films aren't looked at with the same 'potential eye of evil' as the internet. i wonder...
it's reassuring to know that there's more to consoles than raw muscle.