"So, there's a libertarian view on taxing ownership."
By your own arguements, copyrights that don't generate revenue have no inherent value, so, therefore, should be taxed at a rate of $0. That, is, the tax on copyrighted material should be based on it's worth, which is related to the revenue it generates. So effectively you're arguing for an income tax based on copyrighted material.
"Oh, and please keep in mind: most libertarians are big believers in contract, and many of us believe that the gov't changing the copyright contract away from the public's favor is seriously uncool."
Libertarians don't believe the govt. has the right to make and break contracts, only protect and enforce the rights of individuals. So the issue isn't whether or not a previous copyright contract has been violated, but whether copyright law reflects an individual's rights. Contracts are between free individuals, not between individuals and govt agencies (who don't negotiate, but use force to enforce law).
"Why is it that people have to pay land taxes but they don't have to pay copyright taxes? If you own land you are required to pay a tax on it because the state spends a heck of a lot of public resources on protecting that land for you. The same goes for copyright (especially now that copyright violation has become a criminal act in some countries) so why don't the copyright holders have to pay a tax?"
That will do wonders for the GPL. Imagine paying taxes to write programs that you're not making money from because you'd rather use GPL than public domain.
" Why is it that people have to pay land taxes but they don't have to pay copyright taxes?"
People pay taxes on land to support community infrastructure, such as schools, police force, fire dept, etc, which serve the land holder. Copyright holders pay tax on profit derived from copyrighted works, to support govt. activities, since govts. need to leech off of productive activity to fund thenselves. A basic right shouldn't be taxed, however, just for the sake of it. How would you like it if you had to pay a tax to gain free speech?
"Maybe he meant it is not fair to the vast majority of copyright holders--and, more improtantly, copiers--who are not monopolistic multi-national industrial corporations."
So that's what they're calling Paul McCartney and Michael Jackson these days.
"There will never be such a thing as a 100% secure browser. It's all about which one is "more" secure..."
How do you define "more secure"? How do you even know how many holes are in IE vs Firefox. You don't. The best you can say is neither is secure. Saying one is more secure than the other is irrational.
from an article on cnet:
"However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said."
"There is no need to dispute video/audio recorders as devices. Experts can agree on their function and how they work is clearly documented everywhere."
The software used to run an off-the-shelf digital video recorder is not "clearly documented everywhere" in most cases. Why is this any different from the breathalizer? If I submit evidence recorded of someone vandalizing my car, for instance, with a digital video recorder, is the defendant going to get the casde thrown out because the manufacturer refuses to release the code?
Using a bad analogy: I would expect to be busted for offering drugs for sale, even if nobody bought them."
When a person is busted for selling drugs, even if he never sold any drugs to anyone before, he is guilty if he offers them to an undercover cop.
With file sharing, it's more passive, since you're not actually offering the files, they are just there for the taking. So you need to prove, in this case, that someone is taking.
" This seems to me like a victory for common sense."
No, common sense says that if you are sharing a popular song on a popular p2p network, people are downloading it, and you are guilty. The law isn't based on common sense, however, but on the idea that you are innocent until proven guilty, so therefore, the RIAA needs to prove someone actually downloaded a copyrighted song you are sharing.
"Here's the clue for you pompous gassbags who are slowsly strangling europes economy: liberalize your economy. Stop taxing the shit out of your domestic corporations, and you won't have to subsidize them on the back end."
How will the govt. impose their will on corporations if they did things that way? The way it is now, the govt. gets to decide what projects corporations should be working on? How can Europe keep marching down the road toward socialism if the govt. gives up their powers to control corporations?
to like some big companies,/. has steered me back to the path of hating them all. After all, if a big company is supporting something, especially an American company, it must be to the detriment of society (except Google)
Richard Stallman didn't write code thinking he'd change the world. He wrote code because he didn't like dealing with companies who wouldn't let him see their code to so he could fix bugs etc. People do things for selfish reasons. That fact that RMS changed the world doesn't mean that that was his intent from the beginning. His intent was to fix what he saw as a problem. Same thing with Linus. He didn't set out to change the world. He just wanted a unix operating system that ran on his pc.
" A STATE monopoly on socially sensible matters (healthcare, public transport in some areas, etc) can be good, especially to keep costs down, since a state owned company only has to try to break even."
It can be good, unless your a doctor. Then your stuck with whatever the govt. decides your worth paying.
"and btw: which one has a medical/healthcare assistance average status only slightly better than developing counties? Non-monopolistic USA or EU countries? Dont't be silly..."
Making doctors govt slaves isn't my idea of a good solution to the problem, comrade.
"There's nothing wrong with bundling, but everything wrong with using your domination of the OS market to attempt to secure a monopoly in content distribution, encryption, tool chains, etc."
You mean like refusing to license fairplay to competitors to lock iPod customers into iTunes for online music.
"Antitrust laws exist for several reasons. Mostly it is because a capitalist model fails to work as soon as someone becomes a monopoly. When they do, they can get money without giving customers what they want, have motivation to not only not innovate, but to hold back innovation, and basically just suck money, while doing nothing."
Yeah that's exactly the situation with standard oil.
"What would be fair is if microsoft just let the vendor decide which OS they want to ship for which proportion of their PCs. Microsoft is pointing a gun at the PC vendors heads and telling them what to sell."
No, Microsoft is offereing them terms in a free market. It has nothing to do with physical coercion. Either party is free to walk away from the table.
"Microsoft is a bully to everyone it deals with, and it's time that the bully is dealt with by those who have the power to do it."
Now these people you speak of have real guns, and are using them to deprive MS executives of real liberties. Who is the real bully?
"And we want to put all our songs into a player -- an iPod or whatever. This method seems to support neither -- though it's not really that clear about "discs" vs. tracks in the article, which is a pretty basic point to be vague about here. Still:
Among the biggest headaches: Secure burning means that iPod users do not have any means of transferring tracks to their device,
To use it with your player, you need to go with the MS DRM. Doink. Try again please. "
Here's the full quote: "Among the biggest headaches: Secure burning means that iPod users do not have any means of transferring tracks to their device, because Apple Computer has yet to license its FairPlay DRM for use on copy-protected discs."
So we have muni wireless. What happens? The govt. subcontracts the job out to someone like Verizon, who now has a monopoly on wireless in your area. And wireless is a technology that allows for competition among multiple telcom companies. Great idea, idiots. Lets create an artificial monopoly just so I don't have to pay for wireless access (oh wait I do through taxes).
" How many want to bet that it will be back in the next session? The persistence of corporate greed should never be underestimated."
The real greed I see is a bunch of/.er who live in their parents basement who want free wireless access since it really will be free for them as they pay no taxes.
Slashdot Mirror
" According to the Center for American Progress, most corporations (60%) don't even pay income tax. [Source
Try again?"
Nice red herring.
"So, there's a libertarian view on taxing ownership."
By your own arguements, copyrights that don't generate revenue have no inherent value, so, therefore, should be taxed at a rate of $0. That, is, the tax on copyrighted material should be based on it's worth, which is related to the revenue it generates. So effectively you're arguing for an income tax based on copyrighted material.
"Oh, and please keep in mind: most libertarians are big believers in contract, and many of us believe that the gov't changing the copyright contract away from the public's favor is seriously uncool."
Libertarians don't believe the govt. has the right to make and break contracts, only protect and enforce the rights of individuals. So the issue isn't whether or not a previous copyright contract has been violated, but whether copyright law reflects an individual's rights. Contracts are between free individuals, not between individuals and govt agencies (who don't negotiate, but use force to enforce law).
"Why is it that people have to pay land taxes but they don't have to pay copyright taxes? If you own land you are required to pay a tax on it because the state spends a heck of a lot of public resources on protecting that land for you. The same goes for copyright (especially now that copyright violation has become a criminal act in some countries) so why don't the copyright holders have to pay a tax?"
That will do wonders for the GPL. Imagine paying taxes to write programs that you're not making money from because you'd rather use GPL than public domain.
" Why is it that people have to pay land taxes but they don't have to pay copyright taxes?"
People pay taxes on land to support community infrastructure, such as schools, police force, fire dept, etc, which serve the land holder. Copyright holders pay tax on profit derived from copyrighted works, to support govt. activities, since govts. need to leech off of productive activity to fund thenselves. A basic right shouldn't be taxed, however, just for the sake of it. How would you like it if you had to pay a tax to gain free speech?
"Maybe he meant it is not fair to the vast majority of copyright holders--and, more improtantly, copiers--who are not monopolistic multi-national industrial corporations."
So that's what they're calling Paul McCartney and Michael Jackson these days.
"There will never be such a thing as a 100% secure browser. It's all about which one is "more" secure..."
How do you define "more secure"? How do you even know how many holes are in IE vs Firefox. You don't. The best you can say is neither is secure. Saying one is more secure than the other is irrational.
" Now that Apple has announced that it is moved to Intel, who is going to buy a G5 now? I am sure as hell not."
I think the real question is, who will buy Mac PowerPC software when it will be obsolete, i.e. run slowly, when they upgrade to an Intel-based Mac?
" Or can I homebrew an OSX box?"
from an article on cnet:
"However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said."
"There is no need to dispute video/audio recorders as devices. Experts can agree on their function and how they work is clearly documented everywhere."
The software used to run an off-the-shelf digital video recorder is not "clearly documented everywhere" in most cases. Why is this any different from the breathalizer? If I submit evidence recorded of someone vandalizing my car, for instance, with a digital video recorder, is the defendant going to get the casde thrown out because the manufacturer refuses to release the code?
Why not use an FPGA instead? You could have the same design flexibility with a lot less wire wrapping.
"...but I don't see what Intel has in 2006 that IBM can't match, or AMD, or whoever."
price? (IBM anyway)
" If I point to a streetcorner and tell you that there are drug dealers there, I have not committed a crime."
I think you are actually guilty of a crime for helping people find drug dealers.
"This is very odd.
Using a bad analogy: I would expect to be busted for offering drugs for sale, even if nobody bought them."
When a person is busted for selling drugs, even if he never sold any drugs to anyone before, he is guilty if he offers them to an undercover cop.
With file sharing, it's more passive, since you're not actually offering the files, they are just there for the taking. So you need to prove, in this case, that someone is taking.
" This seems to me like a victory for common sense."
No, common sense says that if you are sharing a popular song on a popular p2p network, people are downloading it, and you are guilty. The law isn't based on common sense, however, but on the idea that you are innocent until proven guilty, so therefore, the RIAA needs to prove someone actually downloaded a copyrighted song you are sharing.
"Here's the clue for you pompous gassbags who are slowsly strangling europes economy: liberalize your economy. Stop taxing the shit out of your domestic corporations, and you won't have to subsidize them on the back end."
How will the govt. impose their will on corporations if they did things that way? The way it is now, the govt. gets to decide what projects corporations should be working on? How can Europe keep marching down the road toward socialism if the govt. gives up their powers to control corporations?
to like some big companies, /. has steered me back to the path of hating them all. After all, if a big company is supporting something, especially an American company, it must be to the detriment of society (except Google)
"Richard Stallman might disagree with you."
Richard Stallman didn't write code thinking he'd change the world. He wrote code because he didn't like dealing with companies who wouldn't let him see their code to so he could fix bugs etc. People do things for selfish reasons. That fact that RMS changed the world doesn't mean that that was his intent from the beginning. His intent was to fix what he saw as a problem. Same thing with Linus. He didn't set out to change the world. He just wanted a unix operating system that ran on his pc.
" A STATE monopoly on socially sensible matters (healthcare, public transport in some areas, etc) can be good, especially to keep costs down, since a state owned company only has to try to break even."
It can be good, unless your a doctor. Then your stuck with whatever the govt. decides your worth paying.
"and btw: which one has a medical/healthcare assistance average status only slightly better than developing counties? Non-monopolistic USA or EU countries? Dont't be silly..."
Making doctors govt slaves isn't my idea of a good solution to the problem, comrade.
"There's nothing wrong with bundling, but everything wrong with using your domination of the OS market to attempt to secure a monopoly in content distribution, encryption, tool chains, etc."
You mean like refusing to license fairplay to competitors to lock iPod customers into iTunes for online music.
"Antitrust laws exist for several reasons. Mostly it is because a capitalist model fails to work as soon as someone becomes a monopoly. When they do, they can get money without giving customers what they want, have motivation to not only not innovate, but to hold back innovation, and basically just suck money, while doing nothing."
Yeah that's exactly the situation with standard oil.
"What would be fair is if microsoft just let the vendor decide which OS they want to ship for which proportion of their PCs. Microsoft is pointing a gun at the PC vendors heads and telling them what to sell."
No, Microsoft is offereing them terms in a free market. It has nothing to do with physical coercion. Either party is free to walk away from the table.
"Microsoft is a bully to everyone it deals with, and it's time that the bully is dealt with by those who have the power to do it."
Now these people you speak of have real guns, and are using them to deprive MS executives of real liberties. Who is the real bully?
"And we want to put all our songs into a player -- an iPod or whatever. This method seems to support neither -- though it's not really that clear about "discs" vs. tracks in the article, which is a pretty basic point to be vague about here. Still:
Among the biggest headaches: Secure burning means that iPod users do not have any means of transferring tracks to their device,
To use it with your player, you need to go with the MS DRM. Doink. Try again please. "
Here's the full quote:
"Among the biggest headaches: Secure burning means that iPod users do not have any means of transferring tracks to their device, because Apple Computer has yet to license its FairPlay DRM for use on copy-protected discs."
"here is no value-added from their distribution and it's no longer required. Their business model has gone the way of the milkman and the icehouse."
If that's all you think a music label does, then you're too clueless to be posting about the music business.
So we have muni wireless. What happens? The govt. subcontracts the job out to someone like Verizon, who now has a monopoly on wireless in your area. And wireless is a technology that allows for competition among multiple telcom companies. Great idea, idiots. Lets create an artificial monopoly just so I don't have to pay for wireless access (oh wait I do through taxes).
" How many want to bet that it will be back in the next session? The persistence of corporate greed should never be underestimated."
/.er who live in their parents basement who want free wireless access since it really will be free for them as they pay no taxes.
The real greed I see is a bunch of