Have you checked out Amendment 6 recently... "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed"
How would you not see a jury for this? Civil cases don't have a jury requirement, but for criminal matters (anything that sends you to jail) you have a constitutional right to trial by jury.
Most juries are stacked, of course, but the way they do that is by fillin the jury with "law and order" type people who don't like criminals - the kind of poeple who's kids are busy trading files. Any good lawyer (and these test cases would of course manage good defense attornies - likely pro bono) would be able to make the case to the jury that if these people go down then their kids are next.
Its actually much harder to win at a criminal trial - a higher standard of proof and a jury to mitigate the quirks of an individual judge. Look at OJ - won the criminal, lost the civil case...
Canada, as you say, is full of hydropower and green politics. Many Northeastern and Western states with large bodies of water and more spread out populations (at least in the West) have quite higher percentages. For purposes of this article, it would be better to compare to California alone, which is where the rules about the cars are being developed.
California, which is the source of the rules that are mandating the electric car pullout, has 10% renewable power and will be at 20% by 2017 mandated by law. That does not include Hydropower, which would make it much higher. (I can't find "clean energy" numbers, only "renewable energy" numbers - if anyone has the clean ones I would be interested in knowing).
So if those electric cars were kept on the market I would guess they would be getting at least a third of their electricity from clean energy sources...
(Short version: Pop Stars in China have stopped making albums, because they can't make any money actually selling music. Pirates just rip them off. Now they only make singles, and most of those are jingles for corporate sponsors (ie Microsoft). Of course, there is a huge difference between open piracy - a result of no IP protection - and going after music traders - a result of too much IP protection. But a balance is best... having pop starts be even bigger corporate drones than they already are is not going to be pretty...).
Setting aside the technical problems, this system won't prevent anything... The first time the "boss" wants his presentation and realizes he accidentally expired it he will stop using it. Even if its corporate policy, he can ignore that because its a minor thing and he's the boss. Likely, he doesn't understand encryption or data security anyway.
Employees who see their boss ignoring a non-essential rule are going to start ignoring it, too. Especially since they don't understand encryption or data security.
Most people can't remember their passwords - I used to work at a tech company and the whole place only had three passwords - even for critical systems. Within a few weeks most senior employees are going to know their boss's override and be able to look at or print any document they want.
A Contradiction:
DRM = Controls and Stops Free Flow of Info
Well Run and Profitable Bussinesses = Free Flow of Ideas and Information
Anyone interested in a high level of data security is already using PGP/GPG, anyone interested in a low level of data security (enough to stop casual snoopers) is already using the password system thats already in Microsoft Office. Everyone else just doesn't care, and as everyone knows caring IS the first requirement for data security (and everything else in life...)
I agree that a stable robust and widely used Freenet is what the RIAA fears most (other than a worldwide boycott of their products), and they won't do anything to encourage it.
True with everything you have said about Nexis, but as to Lexis...
Why isn't Uncle Sam indexing the case files and entering them all to be searchable over the internet?
1) Federal Government, especially our current one, is not in the habit of competing with established private enterprise. They do publish the cases in books, after all, and for them that is enough.
2) Most cases in this country are tried at the state level, so it would be a matter of all the states working together on a database. The states, of course, do not work together on anything...
"more laws" are rarely the solution to a legal problem.
Precisely because it was a "legal problem" - an error in the law due to unforseen circumstances, it had to be a legal solution that required more laws. It is true that laws cannot, say, fix a social problem (such as when society pretty much as a whole decides it likes copying CDs despite the illegal nature of the activity), but the law is singularly good at fixing legal problems - in fact the public or judiciary is pretty much unable to fix legal problems (for instance, here in CA an Oakland man who was deputized by the city to grow medical marijuana - legal in CA but not under federal law - was found guilty in federal court. Many of the jurists had voted for to legalize medical marijuana, and were apalled to find out they'd convicted him. In the courtroom, though, no mention was made of WHY he was growing the marijuana, or who had ordered him to - in this case the city. Courtrooms and juries are sometimes easier to manipulate than legislatures).
Bottom line - courts will strike down laws if they are too outside the norm (unconstitional), but to fix bad laws that are still constitutional the legislature has to pass new laws. The DMCA, if it is ever reformed or repealed, will have that happen because the legislature passes a law reforming or repealing it. There is no other way to fix a bad law (such as ISPs being held liable for copyright infringement for what goes over their network).
My original question was: was the public consulted when the law was being drafted, to the same degree that industry representatives were called in to help? If not, why not?
The "public good" is actually supposed to be represented by the people they elect to Congress, and the final law had to be approved by them. Also, consumer protection organizations likely were aware of the law and weighed in. However, since this particular compromise was between ISPs and Copyright holders, they could not add anything to the compromise. In neogitation, you have to have something the other party wants, and want something the other party has (in this case, ISPs wanted their liablity waived and copyright holders wanted ISPs to not be an accessory to copyright infringement) - what did the public have that would have influenced either party, and what would the public offer in return?
Its all well and good to say "the public should have been there" and certainly everyone who cares to should have a say before the passage of an actual law, but for a negotiation I'm still unclear what representatives of the public would have added - other than crowding up the room and lengthening the process. Specifics, please.
Spam - If I buy a.com address, I can set up multiple e-mail accounts - one for public use that spammers hit, and one for personal friends, etc. With.name, you have a publicly registered address thats in your own personal name and you only have that one. For me, at least, it was an issue. However, a MUCH bigger issue is the fact that I can get a.com domain on sale for $6, and a.name domain costs around $24 (actually, I just checked and its down to $20 - still excessive).
I have never noticed any advertising for any domain. I have several domains and I certainly didn't rely on any advertising.People who buy domains are corporations or geeks and I don't think either of those are likely to rely on advertising.
Seriously, if this were just a legal dispute between two industries, we already have a mechanism for a dealing with that: a court system, and respect for legal precedent. New laws are rarely the solution to a problem, and typically the direct result of some serious wheel-greasin'.
Legal disputes between entire industries are almost always resolved through the legislature, not the courts. Courts cannot make or change laws - they only enforce them. If a new technology develops that requires changes to the legal system the legislature is the only solution possible.
Legal precedent in this case would have outlawed the entire internet, including this web-site (imagine if Slashdot had to get a copyright waiver from everyone who not only posted here but everyone who read this page or downloaded it - all of that are making "copies".
Later interpretations of this law by courts are definitely affecting the public, but the original idea did not require extra parties. What would they have contributed? Would they have successfully convinced copyright holders that ISPs not take down copyrighted material on their servers? Would they have magically predicted the rise of P2P file sharing and put in extra safeguards ? Would they have advocated that the the proper solution was to bankrupt ISPs ans shut down the commerical internet? I'm not seeing the point...
On an off-topic note, I find humorous your apparent disdain for the legislature because it responds to corporate interests instead of the public, while at the same time advocating handing over those same problems to a judiciary that is even less democratic. Perhaps if America were a complete dictatorship this would satisfy you?
Recently in Oakland a man who was deputized by the city to grow medical marijauana for sick people (legal under CA law, illegal under federal law) was convicted in federal court by a jury. Over half the jury had voted for legalization of medical marijuana and after the trial the jury went on the news to publicly apologize to the man convicted. So how did this jury of his peers find him guilty?
The judge in the case never let them know he was growing the marijuana for sick people, or of his relationship with the city and state, or anything that might make them think they should let him off. They just didn't know (until they got off the jury and could read the news for themselves).
If you get the right judge and prosecutor, your jury will never equate you with the harmless people who copy music. They are already pre-disposed to thinking you are a big-time pirate just by the fact that you were arrested for it and they were not. Also, people who sit on juries are old and many fewer of them have a lot of internet experience. Its not as if there is going to be a Hollywood movie of the week to celebrate your cause - Hollywood doesn't like copyright infringers, remember?
Why would you need ten respresentatives of the public to work out a compromise in a legal dispute between ISPs and Copyright holders?
Back in the 90s, since technically everything sent over the internet is a copy, and thus technically the ISPs were in pretty much infininte copyright violation, copyright holders could have legally bankrupted every ISP in America. Since Congress didn't want this to happen, they put the two groups in a room and told them to work out a compromise. I think it makes perfect sense to get two sides in a dispute to come together and compromise, rather than impose a solution from outside or through huge nasty lawsuits. When the two sides compromised, congress then wrote up the compromise into law.
Unfortunately, that law was attached to other laws that were poorly written and includes a bunch of other stuff that were extremely harmful to consumers. However, the part dealing with the ISPs not wanting to get sued by copyright holders didn't really involve the public and didn't really hurt them.
Don't be so quick to label something as "evil" - a lot of times you wind up throwing out the baby with the bathwater...
".biz" and ".info" are only doing well because large companies that have trademarks to protect will always go out and register any rights they have in their name. Most of these web-sites are not used, but are just registered to keep other people from using them. None of these companies want to be like Nissan Motors (which lost out out to the small but scrappy Nissan Computers in their legal dispute).
.name is a true indicator of consumer demand for domain names, although its a flawed model because these domains cost four times what a ".com" domain goes for, and are plagued by spam and other problems.
Unless there is a restriction that no one company can own ".com", ".org", ".biz" and ".info" domains all with the same name then this sort of TLD expansion is just a tax imposed on business by trademark attornies and domain name registrars.
I have had the same problem, and this is at some pretty tech-oriented sites that you would think would be knowledgeable about these sorts of things. I have no idea what poeple with international TLDs do....
In California, which is the state this subject was started about, you can get overtime even as a full time salaried employee. To my understanding, the determining factor for overtime or not is whether its a professional or management role. Management is determined by how independent you are and how many people are under you, and professionals are generally doctors, lawyers, and such - not programmers
In my experience, many lower level programmers and others (sys admins, even marketing people, etc) work overtime without compensation they are owed. They are either ignorant of the law, or they feel that if they "put in their time" without complaining they will move up the ladder faster.
I have also felt that a lot of people don't ask for overtime because they have heard that it doesn't apply to professionals and they think they are professionals - as a matter of pride, perhaps? Surely a programmers job is just as important as an accountant or lawyer, if not a doctor. However, "professional" in this case doesn't refer to "young urban professionals" or anyone educated with a full time job - it refers to specific jobs that are licensed by the state (thus limiting the number of people who can work in that profession, and theoretically protecting it somewhat from the standard supply and demand job market curve).
Some of what I have just recited to you is rumor, so don't quote me. Personally I have never collected overtime, because my company had a strict 40 hour a week policy - and now I am not working!
Yes, except that right now Powells will likely charge me shipping and Amazon will not. This may seem like a temporary thing, but I'm sure Amazon has plenty of other tricks up its sleeve to "sweeten the deal". I only shop at Amazon if I can't find it anyplace else or it will save me money, and I'm sure this is true of a lot of people...
Obviously people are not so fluid, or you would have moved around enough to realize that the difference between states is night and day.
Can you imagine the federal government coming into Oregon or Alaska and telling them they need to have a sales tax because California does. Or telling California it can't have its sales tax? California has a high sales tax because it refuses to raise property taxes (with the rapid increase in housing prices a high property tax would force many elderly poeple into homelessness). Each state has their own solution
Or to take an example closer to the heart of most people on slashdot - smut. Right now indecency is a local community standard. So just how would the federal government establish a national standard for indecency that made people in both California and Alabama happy? Likely, you just couldn't, and thats why we have separate states...
California sales tax is for California residents only. If you busy something from a California company and ship it out of state they will not generally charge you sales tax (unless its a large purchase and you take it right back into California, like a car, then they might "get you").
What this means is that California residents who previously bought items tax free from Amazon, a Washington company, will now be taxed. So unfortunately it affects ME...
they don't adjust their spending budget like a normal person or business would
Governments are NOT "normal people" and they are NOT "businesses". The purpose of busineses are to make money, and the purpose of government is to fulfill the will of the people, and the will of the people is to take care of them in a time of crisis, whether it be war or recession.
Democrats are generally not under the delusion that government was a business. Bush thought he could run government like a business, and now he is talking about the largest deficits this country has ever seen. Why? Because its a crisis and if he doesn't respond he will be voted out of office. Any local government that cuts social services just when people need those social services the most will soon be replaced...
Yes, I realize I just responded to a troll, but that whole government=business thing really annoys me.
So, to stay on topic, no, I don't think that an internet tax is going to solve the budget shortfall among local governments. But they are desperate. Here in San Francisco/Silicon Valley they are talking about raising sales tax to above 9 cents as well, which is just crazy.
That is the thing about an idea. I can share it with you and it still retains its original value to me or maybe even gains more if you combine it with another idea.
Actually, copyright - properly executed - has nothing to do with ideas. It only protects the expression of those ideas.
To your main point, though, I do agree that there's too much emotion in this issue. My point in making the point about intellectual property being property is reform the property laws, but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. There are a lot of artists who DO rely on intellectual property laws to make a return on their works. And I'm not talking about musicians, because I'm well aware of how they generally get swindled, but not all IP is like that. There are many fictions writers, journalists, painters, photographers and programmers for whom the current IP scheme is working pretty well (or who would be fine with a 14 year copyright term, as Larry Lessig has proposed), but who would be put out of business by the complete renunication of intellectual property as an idea.
What are you going to tell the author of a popular (or not so popular) novel - distribute your book as publicity and then throw a concert to make money? Professional writers can't exactly do that. They need to retain property rights in their work.
So the property is not the work, but the (government enforced) privilege to control access to that work.
You could just as easily say that the property is not the land but the (government enforced) privelege to control access to the land. All property rights are derived from the government, which is why back in cheery old England the King controlled all property fuedally, and here the people and corporate lobbyists, through our democratically elected and yet somehow somewhat corrupt government, decide what is property...
You are right on, in my opinion, about the distinction between selling a license and selling the IP property itself. However, I don't see any point in de-emphasizing the property aspects of IP. If you are in favor of reforming the specific rules regarding IP or abolishing it as a form of property altogether, your starting point must be its current status, which is as a form of property, which people own, and license (the IP equivelant of rental or bar-fees), and the public has fair use rights in (the IP equivelant of a land easement).
Ah, I see... thanks for the info. I will take your word for it...
However, there is one thing I do know for sure, and that is an Italian can NOT walk to Britain... unless he's picked up some tricks from Jesus...
-Corey
You're an intellectual property philanthropist... and of course you can do with your property what you like - even give it away. That's what some free software is like (the free as in beer type, I mean).
I particulaly enjoyed your comment, "owning "intellectual property" is like owning the wind". Weren't there some Native Americans around at one point who insisted nobody could own land?
Property is anything society decides to enforce as property, and gives the attributes of property. You may be right that someday we will abandon intellectual property, and I might even think thats a great idea. But to say there's no such thing as intellectual property now or that it can't exist, well, that's just wishful thinking.
Slashdot Mirror
How would you not see a jury for this? Civil cases don't have a jury requirement, but for criminal matters (anything that sends you to jail) you have a constitutional right to trial by jury.
Most juries are stacked, of course, but the way they do that is by fillin the jury with "law and order" type people who don't like criminals - the kind of poeple who's kids are busy trading files. Any good lawyer (and these test cases would of course manage good defense attornies - likely pro bono) would be able to make the case to the jury that if these people go down then their kids are next.
Its actually much harder to win at a criminal trial - a higher standard of proof and a jury to mitigate the quirks of an individual judge. Look at OJ - won the criminal, lost the civil case...
Canada, as you say, is full of hydropower and green politics. Many Northeastern and Western states with large bodies of water and more spread out populations (at least in the West) have quite higher percentages. For purposes of this article, it would be better to compare to California alone, which is where the rules about the cars are being developed.
California, which is the source of the rules that are mandating the electric car pullout, has 10% renewable power and will be at 20% by 2017 mandated by law. That does not include Hydropower, which would make it much higher. (I can't find "clean energy" numbers, only "renewable energy" numbers - if anyone has the clean ones I would be interested in knowing).
So if those electric cars were kept on the market I would guess they would be getting at least a third of their electricity from clean energy sources...
Zero IP Protection = Bad
Music Industry's Future Foretold in China?
Pop stars learn to live with pirates
(Short version: Pop Stars in China have stopped making albums, because they can't make any money actually selling music. Pirates just rip them off. Now they only make singles, and most of those are jingles for corporate sponsors (ie Microsoft). Of course, there is a huge difference between open piracy - a result of no IP protection - and going after music traders - a result of too much IP protection. But a balance is best... having pop starts be even bigger corporate drones than they already are is not going to be pretty...).
Employees who see their boss ignoring a non-essential rule are going to start ignoring it, too. Especially since they don't understand encryption or data security.
Most people can't remember their passwords - I used to work at a tech company and the whole place only had three passwords - even for critical systems. Within a few weeks most senior employees are going to know their boss's override and be able to look at or print any document they want.
A Contradiction:
DRM = Controls and Stops Free Flow of Info
Well Run and Profitable Bussinesses = Free Flow of Ideas and Information
Anyone interested in a high level of data security is already using PGP/GPG, anyone interested in a low level of data security (enough to stop casual snoopers) is already using the password system thats already in Microsoft Office. Everyone else just doesn't care, and as everyone knows caring IS the first requirement for data security (and everything else in life...)
Wired Article
Download
I agree that a stable robust and widely used Freenet is what the RIAA fears most (other than a worldwide boycott of their products), and they won't do anything to encourage it.
1) Federal Government, especially our current one, is not in the habit of competing with established private enterprise. They do publish the cases in books, after all, and for them that is enough.
2) Most cases in this country are tried at the state level, so it would be a matter of all the states working together on a database. The states, of course, do not work together on anything...
Precisely because it was a "legal problem" - an error in the law due to unforseen circumstances, it had to be a legal solution that required more laws. It is true that laws cannot, say, fix a social problem (such as when society pretty much as a whole decides it likes copying CDs despite the illegal nature of the activity), but the law is singularly good at fixing legal problems - in fact the public or judiciary is pretty much unable to fix legal problems (for instance, here in CA an Oakland man who was deputized by the city to grow medical marijuana - legal in CA but not under federal law - was found guilty in federal court. Many of the jurists had voted for to legalize medical marijuana, and were apalled to find out they'd convicted him. In the courtroom, though, no mention was made of WHY he was growing the marijuana, or who had ordered him to - in this case the city. Courtrooms and juries are sometimes easier to manipulate than legislatures).
Bottom line - courts will strike down laws if they are too outside the norm (unconstitional), but to fix bad laws that are still constitutional the legislature has to pass new laws. The DMCA, if it is ever reformed or repealed, will have that happen because the legislature passes a law reforming or repealing it. There is no other way to fix a bad law (such as ISPs being held liable for copyright infringement for what goes over their network).
My original question was: was the public consulted when the law was being drafted, to the same degree that industry representatives were called in to help? If not, why not?
The "public good" is actually supposed to be represented by the people they elect to Congress, and the final law had to be approved by them. Also, consumer protection organizations likely were aware of the law and weighed in. However, since this particular compromise was between ISPs and Copyright holders, they could not add anything to the compromise. In neogitation, you have to have something the other party wants, and want something the other party has (in this case, ISPs wanted their liablity waived and copyright holders wanted ISPs to not be an accessory to copyright infringement) - what did the public have that would have influenced either party, and what would the public offer in return?
Its all well and good to say "the public should have been there" and certainly everyone who cares to should have a say before the passage of an actual law, but for a negotiation I'm still unclear what representatives of the public would have added - other than crowding up the room and lengthening the process. Specifics, please.
Spam - If I buy a .com address, I can set up multiple e-mail accounts - one for public use that spammers hit, and one for personal friends, etc. With .name, you have a publicly registered address thats in your own personal name and you only have that one. For me, at least, it was an issue. However, a MUCH bigger issue is the fact that I can get a .com domain on sale for $6, and a .name domain costs around $24 (actually, I just checked and its down to $20 - still excessive).
I have never noticed any advertising for any domain. I have several domains and I certainly didn't rely on any advertising.People who buy domains are corporations or geeks and I don't think either of those are likely to rely on advertising.
The right hand doth not know what the left hand does...
Legal disputes between entire industries are almost always resolved through the legislature, not the courts. Courts cannot make or change laws - they only enforce them. If a new technology develops that requires changes to the legal system the legislature is the only solution possible.
Legal precedent in this case would have outlawed the entire internet, including this web-site (imagine if Slashdot had to get a copyright waiver from everyone who not only posted here but everyone who read this page or downloaded it - all of that are making "copies".
Later interpretations of this law by courts are definitely affecting the public, but the original idea did not require extra parties. What would they have contributed? Would they have successfully convinced copyright holders that ISPs not take down copyrighted material on their servers? Would they have magically predicted the rise of P2P file sharing and put in extra safeguards ? Would they have advocated that the the proper solution was to bankrupt ISPs ans shut down the commerical internet? I'm not seeing the point...
On an off-topic note, I find humorous your apparent disdain for the legislature because it responds to corporate interests instead of the public, while at the same time advocating handing over those same problems to a judiciary that is even less democratic. Perhaps if America were a complete dictatorship this would satisfy you?
The judge in the case never let them know he was growing the marijuana for sick people, or of his relationship with the city and state, or anything that might make them think they should let him off. They just didn't know (until they got off the jury and could read the news for themselves).
If you get the right judge and prosecutor, your jury will never equate you with the harmless people who copy music. They are already pre-disposed to thinking you are a big-time pirate just by the fact that you were arrested for it and they were not. Also, people who sit on juries are old and many fewer of them have a lot of internet experience. Its not as if there is going to be a Hollywood movie of the week to celebrate your cause - Hollywood doesn't like copyright infringers, remember?
Back in the 90s, since technically everything sent over the internet is a copy, and thus technically the ISPs were in pretty much infininte copyright violation, copyright holders could have legally bankrupted every ISP in America. Since Congress didn't want this to happen, they put the two groups in a room and told them to work out a compromise. I think it makes perfect sense to get two sides in a dispute to come together and compromise, rather than impose a solution from outside or through huge nasty lawsuits. When the two sides compromised, congress then wrote up the compromise into law.
Unfortunately, that law was attached to other laws that were poorly written and includes a bunch of other stuff that were extremely harmful to consumers. However, the part dealing with the ISPs not wanting to get sued by copyright holders didn't really involve the public and didn't really hurt them.
Don't be so quick to label something as "evil" - a lot of times you wind up throwing out the baby with the bathwater...
Unless there is a restriction that no one company can own ".com", ".org", ".biz" and ".info" domains all with the same name then this sort of TLD expansion is just a tax imposed on business by trademark attornies and domain name registrars.
I have had the same problem, and this is at some pretty tech-oriented sites that you would think would be knowledgeable about these sorts of things. I have no idea what poeple with international TLDs do....
In my experience, many lower level programmers and others (sys admins, even marketing people, etc) work overtime without compensation they are owed. They are either ignorant of the law, or they feel that if they "put in their time" without complaining they will move up the ladder faster.
I have also felt that a lot of people don't ask for overtime because they have heard that it doesn't apply to professionals and they think they are professionals - as a matter of pride, perhaps? Surely a programmers job is just as important as an accountant or lawyer, if not a doctor. However, "professional" in this case doesn't refer to "young urban professionals" or anyone educated with a full time job - it refers to specific jobs that are licensed by the state (thus limiting the number of people who can work in that profession, and theoretically protecting it somewhat from the standard supply and demand job market curve).
Some of what I have just recited to you is rumor, so don't quote me. Personally I have never collected overtime, because my company had a strict 40 hour a week policy - and now I am not working!
Yes, except that right now Powells will likely charge me shipping and Amazon will not. This may seem like a temporary thing, but I'm sure Amazon has plenty of other tricks up its sleeve to "sweeten the deal". I only shop at Amazon if I can't find it anyplace else or it will save me money, and I'm sure this is true of a lot of people...
Obviously people are not so fluid, or you would have moved around enough to realize that the difference between states is night and day.
Can you imagine the federal government coming into Oregon or Alaska and telling them they need to have a sales tax because California does. Or telling California it can't have its sales tax? California has a high sales tax because it refuses to raise property taxes (with the rapid increase in housing prices a high property tax would force many elderly poeple into homelessness). Each state has their own solution
Or to take an example closer to the heart of most people on slashdot - smut. Right now indecency is a local community standard. So just how would the federal government establish a national standard for indecency that made people in both California and Alabama happy? Likely, you just couldn't, and thats why we have separate states...
California sales tax is for California residents only. If you busy something from a California company and ship it out of state they will not generally charge you sales tax (unless its a large purchase and you take it right back into California, like a car, then they might "get you").
What this means is that California residents who previously bought items tax free from Amazon, a Washington company, will now be taxed. So unfortunately it affects ME...
Governments are NOT "normal people" and they are NOT "businesses". The purpose of busineses are to make money, and the purpose of government is to fulfill the will of the people, and the will of the people is to take care of them in a time of crisis, whether it be war or recession.
Democrats are generally not under the delusion that government was a business. Bush thought he could run government like a business, and now he is talking about the largest deficits this country has ever seen. Why? Because its a crisis and if he doesn't respond he will be voted out of office. Any local government that cuts social services just when people need those social services the most will soon be replaced...
Yes, I realize I just responded to a troll, but that whole government=business thing really annoys me.
So, to stay on topic, no, I don't think that an internet tax is going to solve the budget shortfall among local governments. But they are desperate. Here in San Francisco/Silicon Valley they are talking about raising sales tax to above 9 cents as well, which is just crazy.
Maybe a few small bribes would suffice. I don't know. Personally, I always fly. It seems safer...
Yes, that's true, for enough money I suppose he could. Then again, for enough money they could probably figure out a way for him to walk on water...
*sigh*
Actually, copyright - properly executed - has nothing to do with ideas. It only protects the expression of those ideas.
To your main point, though, I do agree that there's too much emotion in this issue. My point in making the point about intellectual property being property is reform the property laws, but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. There are a lot of artists who DO rely on intellectual property laws to make a return on their works. And I'm not talking about musicians, because I'm well aware of how they generally get swindled, but not all IP is like that. There are many fictions writers, journalists, painters, photographers and programmers for whom the current IP scheme is working pretty well (or who would be fine with a 14 year copyright term, as Larry Lessig has proposed), but who would be put out of business by the complete renunication of intellectual property as an idea.
What are you going to tell the author of a popular (or not so popular) novel - distribute your book as publicity and then throw a concert to make money? Professional writers can't exactly do that. They need to retain property rights in their work.
You could just as easily say that the property is not the land but the (government enforced) privelege to control access to the land. All property rights are derived from the government, which is why back in cheery old England the King controlled all property fuedally, and here the people and corporate lobbyists, through our democratically elected and yet somehow somewhat corrupt government, decide what is property...
You are right on, in my opinion, about the distinction between selling a license and selling the IP property itself. However, I don't see any point in de-emphasizing the property aspects of IP. If you are in favor of reforming the specific rules regarding IP or abolishing it as a form of property altogether, your starting point must be its current status, which is as a form of property, which people own, and license (the IP equivelant of rental or bar-fees), and the public has fair use rights in (the IP equivelant of a land easement).
Ah, I see... thanks for the info. I will take your word for it... However, there is one thing I do know for sure, and that is an Italian can NOT walk to Britain... unless he's picked up some tricks from Jesus... -Corey
You're an intellectual property philanthropist... and of course you can do with your property what you like - even give it away. That's what some free software is like (the free as in beer type, I mean). I particulaly enjoyed your comment, "owning "intellectual property" is like owning the wind". Weren't there some Native Americans around at one point who insisted nobody could own land? Property is anything society decides to enforce as property, and gives the attributes of property. You may be right that someday we will abandon intellectual property, and I might even think thats a great idea. But to say there's no such thing as intellectual property now or that it can't exist, well, that's just wishful thinking.